Reasons:- Prove that Dragon can return to the Earth from interplanetary space as they have claimed- Prove that Dragon can operate for two years as they have claimed- Get some cool video + hi res photos from Mars vicinity- Do something that has not been done before
A lunar flyby would be a lot easier and would be enough of a PR stunt without adding much risk.
Quote from: Patchouli on 09/04/2011 10:58 pmA lunar flyby would be a lot easier and would be enough of a PR stunt without adding much risk.I tend to agree with you on this,and would like to see them send version with all needed life support equipment on board to prove they could do it with humans. Seems like that would be excellent sales pitch for BEO
But would they have a spare Dragon for when the launch date rolls around?
Vandenberg will most likely not have a Dragon processing facility, at least for a while.
ULA hasn't had a 100% success rate. They've had several rockets explode and several that resulted in incorrect final orbits. However I do think that a failure at this point hurts SpaceX a lot more than it does ULA given their longer track record of near universal success.
Quote from: spacetraveler on 09/05/2011 03:58 amULA hasn't had a 100% success rate. They've had several rockets explode and several that resulted in incorrect final orbits. However I do think that a failure at this point hurts SpaceX a lot more than it does ULA given their longer track record of near universal success.I don't understand this. COTS is a milestone-based test program. That's the nature of the beast. If a flight goes wrong for some reason, then they determine the cause, fix it, and progress onto the next one. NASA won't allow CRS to get underway until they are sure SpaceX has a reliable system. Same goes for Orbital.
ULA hasn't had a 100% success rate. They've had several rockets explode and several that resulted in incorrect final orbits.
Come to think of it. We don't really need the Dragon capsule for a Mars or Luna flyby mission.All it require is a modified Dragon trunk. Put an optical array inside the trunk. Increase the internal battery capacity. Add same secondary sensors.Replace the Dragon with a hypergolic engine array and spherical propellant tanks inside a payload fairing.So the spacecraft stack would be upside down compare to most spacecrafts.Wonder if such a demonstrator be put together on a small budget and compact development team in time for the inaugural FH laubch.
I would go for a GTO like insertion of a mass simulator. If they feel very confident, they could do a dogleg or plane change with the second stage, just to show the capabilities to potential clients. If they are really serious, and want to do any kind of extra demonstration, I would put a dual satellite dispenser (but not tell anybody about it),and try to do a dual manifested payload simulation. With that they would have demonstrated almost everything needed for competing with Ariane 5 and Proton (save East Coast launch pad).
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 09/05/2011 12:19 pmCome to think of it. We don't really need the Dragon capsule for a Mars or Luna flyby mission.All it require is a modified Dragon trunk. Put an optical array inside the trunk. Increase the internal battery capacity. Add same secondary sensors.Replace the Dragon with a hypergolic engine array and spherical propellant tanks inside a payload fairing.So the spacecraft stack would be upside down compare to most spacecrafts.Wonder if such a demonstrator be put together on a small budget and compact development team in time for the inaugural FH laubch.It isn't that simple. The avionics are in the dragon.hypergolic engine arrays and spherical propellant tanks are just laying around to be used.The fairing and trunk would interfere with each other since they attach to the second stage at the same interface
Off topic, but I've got to ask the question: which ULA rockets have exploded? Perhaps you could post a link to support this assertion?
DOD is not going to allow their stuff to fly on something that is not proven successful, which is why a failure of FH early in the lifecycle would hurt SpaceX.
Quote from: spacetraveler on 09/05/2011 09:20 amDOD is not going to allow their stuff to fly on something that is not proven successful, which is why a failure of FH early in the lifecycle would hurt SpaceX.DOD knows that rockets fail, just like everyone else in the business does. The first Delta IV heavy flight failed. Fortunately for the DOD, they knew rockets tend to fail so they required a test flight before trusting their billion dollar payloads to it.The "ULA 100% success rate gold standard" thing is nonsense. The only reason ULA haven't had a full failure yet is they haven't flown very many missions.Rockets fail, and new rockets fail more frequently. If the F9 inaugural flight fails, that will certainly be a setback for SpaceX, but it won't be a big surprise, and shouldn't be a fatal blow by itself.The fact that new rockets tend to fail does suggest no one (SpaceX or a third party) will put a really high value payload on the first F9H flight.
I was thinking of the Delta II and Delta III missions which exploded,
The launch site is VAFB where almost all flights go into polar orbit. since you don't get a boost from the Earth's rotation, it might be enough to prevent a FH from launching a Dragon to Mars or even the Moon.
Didn't SpaceX do an extra unannounced part of the first launch of the Falcon 9? I nderstand that thy restarted the upper stage engines and put the upper stage somewhere about a third of the way to GEO.
Of course, any lunar launch will have limited launch windows from VAFB, (twice monthly from polar orbit), unless they planned on spending a lot of propellant on such a stunt.
In the absence of a customer, I like this thought. But what if they had a dragon inside the PLF as the second payload?
You are doing the stacking thing again.
Spacex has never mentioned dual payload.
Anyways, if it is to simulate a GTO payload, there is no mass left for another.
Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2011 01:30 pmYou are doing the stacking thing again. Yes. But couldn't a dumb mass-simulator just sit on a platform above a dragon within the PLF? Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2011 01:30 pmSpacex has never mentioned dual payload. I am certain Shotwell was talking about it around the time they first announced F9H (back when they were talking about 30000kg or so to LEO).Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2011 01:30 pmAnyways, if it is to simulate a GTO payload, there is no mass left for another.Even if they do cross-feeding? Plus dragon has some delta-V as well. Would tihs really be impossible?
I thought they where launching Jim in a Dragon around the bark side of mars for the first Heavy launch A simple "platform" would obstruct his view...
Jim cannot leave Earth, if he did, the NSF forums would become overrun by naive dreamers and overoptimistic people with can-do attitudes.
Quote from: mlorrey on 09/07/2011 08:50 amJim cannot leave Earth, if he did, the NSF forums would become overrun by naive dreamers and overoptimistic people with can-do attitudes.And what have you done lately that involves actual hardware getting into space?I just point out that modifying launch vehicles is not the same as car mods/conversions.
For the first FH launch it is adding risk and complexity for the payload to be anything other than an oversized Sputnik that returns TV pictures.If SpaceX use a high orbit they will have to add a means of de-orbiting the satellite.
The fact is that FH's real use is going to be either fuel depots in orbit or sending large loads BEO.
{snip}The fact is that FH's real use is going to be either fuel depots in orbit or sending large loads BEO.
Quote from: grr on 09/07/2011 07:01 pm{snip}The fact is that FH's real use is going to be either fuel depots in orbit or sending large loads BEO.If SpaceX wants to start off the fuel depots they could launch a tank containing about 45 mT of propellant, a docking port, the same docking aids used by the ISS and station keeping thrusters. Sun shields etc. can wait for a later version.They would have to use a fuel that neither freezes nor boils in LEO.
Has Jim ever agreed with anything Swallow has said?
Quote from: Jason1701 on 09/07/2011 11:11 pmHas Jim ever agreed with anything Swallow has said?I've been watching for just that. Though, TBH, if God and jim disagreed, I feel God would have some serious explaining to do.{snip}
Quote from: Diagoras on 09/08/2011 12:34 amQuote from: Jason1701 on 09/07/2011 11:11 pmHas Jim ever agreed with anything Swallow has said?I've been watching for just that. Though, TBH, if God and jim disagreed, I feel God would have some serious explaining to do.{snip}On the demo flight it would be nice for the fuel to be used but is not necessary. SpaceX just needs to prove that they can lift the mass.For a demo of the launch vehicle the dummy payload needs the absolute minimum that can go wrong. The limits on the propellant come from our current technology, zero boil-off technology has not reached TRL 9. That rules out hydrogen.
The real question will should be: What will the dummy mass weight? What will the final orbit be?Will they go for a max capacity mass, or a fraction of the max mass? LEO? HEO? Transfer Orbit?An argument can be made for going for max mass. If the vehicle under performs, the dummy sat will not make the desired orbit ( and depending on the orbit, may not even make orbit). From a PR stand point it is safer to go with a smaller mass. My WAG, since this is Vandenberg, a large, but not max mass to a short lived LEO Polar orbit.
Something like drop the mass simulator off in one orbit then reignite the upper stage a few more times after some loiter periods.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/08/2011 12:44 pmOn the demo flight it would be nice for the fuel to be used but is not necessary. SpaceX just needs to prove that they can lift the mass.For a demo of the launch vehicle the dummy payload needs the absolute minimum that can go wrong. The limits on the propellant come from our current technology, zero boil-off technology has not reached TRL 9. That rules out hydrogen.It rules out anything but a dummy mass. Jeesh
On the demo flight it would be nice for the fuel to be used but is not necessary. SpaceX just needs to prove that they can lift the mass.For a demo of the launch vehicle the dummy payload needs the absolute minimum that can go wrong. The limits on the propellant come from our current technology, zero boil-off technology has not reached TRL 9. That rules out hydrogen.
A dummy mass would probably get the rocket men fired for gross professional incompetence. Without the ability to manoeuvre the payload is immediate space debris. Parts of 53 ton space objects re-entering LEO can impact the Earth at unplanned locations.
Jim, the payload on the first Falcon 9 (Dragon test article) was a bit more complicated/instrumented than the Boeing's dummy masses. It's thus not unreasonable to expect the test payload to be more complicated than giant lumps of inert metal.
They won't fit on a single FH. Maybe you could do it on the inaugural launch of the FXXXX Heavy, with tight margins.
The heat pulse will be short lived, can you imagine CO2 emissions, it may just trigger a Venus style runaway greenhouse!
My point was that they can be and it is not that big of deal and precedence had been set. Nobody would be fire and there would be no incompetence.
Falcon 1 never had a dummy payload; the closest was Demosat on the second flight
Delta IV Heavy was the only recent rocket that I'm aware of that flew first with a dummy payload (and good thing too, considering it failed to reach orbit).