SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine

[Comga]

Nate_Trost - 6/11/2007  6:04 PM
Comga,
That's out of date, to the best of my knowledge the first Falcon 9 demo flight (originally supposed to be for the "US Government") comes before COTS Flight 1, but both are still publicly scheduled for Q4 '08.

You could be right.  I confused "Falcon 9 Demo Flight 1" with the "NASA COTS Demo 1", which are both listed (despite the near physical impossibility of a first and second launch in one calendar quarter.)

Our point remains, though.  SpaceX has a Dragon flight on their manifest for less than 14 months from now.  

After the first Falcon 1 failure, we didn't hear much for over a half year until mid January when they showed the second Falcon 1 on Omelek.  It would be within this past experience to not show the Falcon 1 or Dragon hardware until close to rollout.  Whether it is within their capabilities is another issue.

[Frediiiie]

1. ULA does not develop spacecraft
Sorry, said ULA to cut down a long post rather than spell out a lot of names.
Agree on another failure
But SpaceX have 3 F9's scheduled for 2008. There might be some slipage, but given the high degree of comonality between F1 & F9 this is less likely. Same engines, same flight software (except triple redundant)
They might surprise us//

[Frediiiie]

The point I'm making is that SpaceX is not just launching a rocket or two to show off
They're gearing up to be a major launch supplier
They are getting set to churn out 25 + merlin engines a year.
6 Kestrals a year & a suitable number of rocket bodies F1 & F9s
They think they can easily get their launch numbers up to 1 a month if required.
The question is is there a market for this many launches?
Elon seems to think there is.
They already have 12 bookings. 5 F1s & 7 F9s in the next 3 years.
And this is without a single successful flight
Can they do it?
Elon's got the money.
He's got the people.
Looking at the DARPA report on F1s second flight I think he's pretty well got F1 nailed
That puts them a long way towards getting F9 as well.

[kevin-rf]

There will be able to build to one launch a month if they can fly falcon 9 without failures for less than Ariane/Orbital/ILS/China/India are charging for everything including spacecraft integration.

Notice Is said "IF" ... I wish them luck.

[Analyst]

My launch schedule shows two Saturn V in 2008. Schedules are just paper. They don't even have their launch infrastructure ready. Come on guys, lets be realistic. We can dream when we sleep.

Analyst

[Jim]

Frediiiie - 7/11/2007  3:51 AM

But SpaceX have 3 F9's scheduled for 2008.

Not even one is going to make it to pad in 2008

[8900]

Jim - 7/11/2007  9:01 PM

Frediiiie - 7/11/2007  3:51 AM

But SpaceX have 3 F9's scheduled for 2008.

Not even one is going to make it to pad in 2008

Then SpaceX is going to face the same fate as RpK?
NASA will eventually  terminate their COTS funding like they do to RpK?
as the fate of RpK indicates, NASA will not tolerate missing/slipping milestones

[Analyst]

8900 - 7/11/2007  4:28 PM

as the fate of RpK indicates, NASA will not tolerate missing/slipping milestones

This is the way it should be. I find it strange some new space companies (not only SpaceX) are very critically about the government space program (NASA, government sponsored EELVs etc.) but at the very same time complain about not getting enough money from this very government (via NASA).

Analyst

[Comga]

Analyst - 7/11/2007  9:52 AM

8900 - 7/11/2007  4:28 PM
Then SpaceX is going to face the same fate as RpK?
NASA will eventually terminate their COTS funding like they do to RpK? as the fate of RpK indicates, NASA will not tolerate missing/slipping milestones

This is the way it should be. I find it strange some new space companies (not only SpaceX) are very critically about the government space program (NASA, government sponsored EELVs etc.) but at the very same time complain about not getting enough money from this very government (via NASA).
Analyst

Agreed that NASA should not tolerate significant schedule slips.  They appeared to be more than patient with RpK.

However, SpaceX is quite unlike RpK.  SpaceX has Musk's money and connections to start with.   Musk started without COTS.  He would likely go on without COTS.  RpK and its predecessors have always been scrounging.
SpaceX built its own hardware.  RpK contracted.   SpaceX is trying to get to space, and then see what they can make reuseable.  RpK made things reusable, in theory, and afterwards would try to get to space.  Night and day, with the exception that they are both long shots at best.

[mr.columbus]

Comga - 8/11/2007  1:56 AM

Analyst - 7/11/2007  9:52 AM

8900 - 7/11/2007  4:28 PM
Then SpaceX is going to face the same fate as RpK?
NASA will eventually terminate their COTS funding like they do to RpK? as the fate of RpK indicates, NASA will not tolerate missing/slipping milestones

This is the way it should be. I find it strange some new space companies (not only SpaceX) are very critically about the government space program (NASA, government sponsored EELVs etc.) but at the very same time complain about not getting enough money from this very government (via NASA).
Analyst

Agreed that NASA should not tolerate significant schedule slips.  They appeared to be more than patient with RpK.

However, SpaceX is quite unlike RpK.  SpaceX has Musk's money and connections to start with.   Musk started without COTS.  He would likely go on without COTS.  RpK and its predecessors have always been scrounging.
SpaceX built its own hardware.  RpK contracted.   SpaceX is trying to get to space, and then see what they can make reuseable.  RpK made things reusable, in theory, and afterwards would try to get to space.  Night and day, with the exception that they are both long shots at best.

That does not change the fact that if there is a further serious slip to demo flight 1, NASA should terminate the SpaceX Space Act Agreement. The problem is of course, in that case NASA would admit that its initial choice of companies for the 500 million seed money was totally flawed.

[Analyst]

mr.columbus - 8/11/2007  8:08 AM

The problem is of course, in that case NASA would admit that its initial choice of companies for the 500 million seed money was totally flawed.

Maybe because there is no easy, cheap and at the same time reliable way into orbit - unmanned and even more manned? Every NASA choice for seed money would be flawed, some space cadets don't want to accept this. Ares and Orion may be overpriced, but look at Ariane V development or EELVs. 250 million is nothing for the tasks required: You buy one GEO comsat at best (excluding launch) for this, based on a proven platform.

Analyst

[hyper_snyper]

Development is done on Merlin 1C

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20071112005019&newsLang=en

[Crispy]

Great hi-res photo of a test in that article.
Actually, spacex has the same shot, but not at this resolution.

Figures from the article:

Thrust (sea level) 95,000 lbs
Thrust (vacuum) 108,000 pounds
SI (vacuum) 304 seconds
350 lbs/second of propellant

A planned turbopump upgrade in 2009 will improve the thrust by over 20% and the thrust to weight ratio by approximately 25%

Planned production rate of 50 engines in 2008!

[G-pit]

Wow, the article says they ran nearly one engine firing per working day in August.

Also they are gearing up to "Produce more rocket engines than the rest of US production combined" in 2008.

Even if they do half that, go SpaceX! Keep up the good work.

[CFE]

Crispy - 12/11/2007  3:16 PM

Great hi-res photo of a test in that article.
Actually, spacex has the same shot, but not at this resolution.

Figures from the article:

Thrust (sea level) 95,000 lbs
Thrust (vacuum) 108,000 pounds
SI (vacuum) 304 seconds
350 lbs/second of propellant

A planned turbopump upgrade in 2009 will improve the thrust by over 20% and the thrust to weight ratio by approximately 25%

Planned production rate of 50 engines in 2008!

Merlin IC Isp is only 304 seconds?  I thought that the regen nozzle would have improved Isp over the 304 sec figure quoted for the original Merlin I.  I suspect that Merlin I never met the 304 sec goal, hence the need to develop Merlin IC.  304 sec sounds reasonable for Merlin IC, based on the numbers for the F-1.

[Comga]

Crispy - 12/11/2007  3:16 PM
A planned turbopump upgrade in 2009 will improve the thrust by over 20% and the thrust to weight ratio by approximately 25%

Merlin-1D?  Musk seems intent on maintaining the software/computer business model of continuous improvement and version release.  Third version of the engine "complete" and a fourth planned.  First version of the single engine rocket almost complete, and the second version announced.  Second (or third?) version, albeit the first release, of the multi-engine rocket announced.  It will be fascinating to see if and how he/they achieve design completion with so much evolution going on.

This is definitely not the way it has been done.

[Damon Hill]

Tweaking of a design early in a program is not uncommon; Saturn V was modified and upgraded during its (brief) lifetime, both to fix problems and improve performance.  Once a program reaches some maturity, significant changes stop unless there's a need and development money for it.  I'm not surprised to see the changes going on at SpaceX because they're still in early development and on
the steep part of the learning curve.

It does look like a Merlin 1D is in planning; what's the Merlin 2 going to be like?

[JIS]

It's a good idea to keep those development people around. It's quite likely that there will be failures in the future and it will be quite easy to move people from development to redesign.
Falcon 1 has been redesigned several times and Falcon 9, Dragon or Falcon 9 heavy will be the same.
They might want to develop LOX/LHX engine for GEO/beyond as well.

[Crispy]

When you're building so many engines, I suppose you still get economies of scale even when you're upgrading the design every 2-3 years.

[pippin]

G-pit - 13/11/2007  2:12 AM

Also they are gearing up to "Produce more rocket engines than the rest of US production combined" in 2008.

Lemme guess: They need about the "rest of US production combined" number of engines to make one F9, right?

EDIT: OKOKOK, maybe two...