SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - Build-up Thread

[William Graham]

According to Space Services Inc. (Celestis), launch will be at 23:00 GMT on 23 June.

[antonioe]

According to Space Services Inc. (Celestis), launch will be at 23:00 GMT on 23 June.

I take that to mean "23:00 on 23 June GMT" (the day also GMT). That would make it 11 am Tuesday June 24 Kwajalein time, 19:00 Monday June 23 EDT.

[Flometrics]

Let's face reality, SpaceX will change the space launch business in the same way that Orbital did, that is to say, not at all. Once all is said and done, they will sell launch services that are a little bit cheaper than LockMartBoeing and a little bit less reliable, so that with insurance, commercial launch prices will not change significantly.
Their rockets are not any different than the standard ones, so how can they be cheaper? There is no giant conspiracy to keep launch prices high, not with Russian, Ukrainian, European and American rockets competing against each other.

I support SpaceX and hope they succeed, but their time to be revolutionary passed a few years ago.

Steve
Flometrics

[Analyst]

Yup, right on the money. And even being successful at all with this is not a given.

Analyst

[HMXHMX]

According to Space Services Inc. (Celestis), launch will be at 23:00 GMT on 23 June.

I take that to mean "23:00 on 23 June GMT" (the day also GMT). That would make it 11 am Tuesday June 24 Kwajalein time, 19:00 Monday June 23 EDT.

SpaceX's most recent press release (dated 5 June) now says:

"The next flight of SpaceX’s smaller Falcon 1 rocket is scheduled for late June or July of 2008."

[edkyle99]

Let's face reality, SpaceX will change the space launch business in the same way that Orbital did, that is to say, not at all. Once all is said and done, they will sell launch services that are a little bit cheaper than LockMartBoeing and a little bit less reliable, so that with insurance, commercial launch prices will not change significantly.
Their rockets are not any different than the standard ones, so how can they be cheaper? ....

I agree that SpaceX prices will end up in the same general range as traditional launch vehicles,  but I don't agree that SpaceX rockets "are not any different" than existing launch vehicles. 

SpaceX is developing a two stage to GTO all-kerosene launch vehicle that will reportedly be able to match or beat the capability of the all-hydrogen Delta IV Medium and will approach the capability of the staged-combustion-cycle-boosted, hydrogen upper stage Atlas V 401. 

This is a pretty neat trick, done with relatively straightforward gas generator cycle, pintle injector engines.  No one has ever developed a two-stage kerosene GTO launcher.  (Land Launch Zenit, for example, needs three kerosene stages, all powered by high pressure staged combustion engines, but still falls short of planned Falcon 9 GTO capability.)  There would seem to be some opportunity for cost savings with this approach compared to the U.S. EELVs, which could be leveraged for profit. 

 - Ed Kyle

[meiza]

We'll see about those plans yet... At the moment LEO access for COTS is probably the priority.

[rsnellenberger]

Let's face reality, SpaceX will change the space launch business in the same way that Orbital did, that is to say, not at all. Once all is said and done, they will sell launch services that are a little bit cheaper than LockMartBoeing and a little bit less reliable, so that with insurance, commercial launch prices will not change significantly.
Their rockets are not any different than the standard ones, so how can they be cheaper?

Younger work force, not as much mega-corporation overhead and/or governmental management "help" overhead, no defense contractor overhead, lower facilities depreciation costs...

[edkyle99]

We'll see about those plans yet... At the moment LEO access for COTS is probably the priority.

Yes, but SpaceX has a contract for a GTO launch, of HYLAS for Avanti Screenmedia Group, so GTO isn't just a long term goal.

 - Ed Kyle

[wannamoonbase]

Let's face reality, SpaceX will change the space launch business in the same way that Orbital did, that is to say, not at all. Once all is said and done, they will sell launch services that are a little bit cheaper than LockMartBoeing and a little bit less reliable, so that with insurance, commercial launch prices will not change significantly.
Their rockets are not any different than the standard ones, so how can they be cheaper?

Younger work force, not as much mega-corporation overhead and/or governmental management "help" overhead, no defense contractor overhead, lower facilities depreciation costs...

Everyone has to fight the same laws of physics and certain fuels like RP1 or LH2 have their ranges of efficiency.

The oppurtunities to be revolutionary using the same fuels and fighting the same gravity well are much harder to find.

However, do wish them the best of luck and hope I am wrong.

[iamlucky13]

We'll see about those plans yet... At the moment LEO access for COTS is probably the priority.

That's the key point. Under-selling Lockheed, Boeing, Orbital, Russia, China, India, etc. is several years down the road. Right now, their main focus is that $278 million COTS contract. They can afford to have a customer cancel an $8 million F1 or even a $35 million F9 much more easily than they can afford to lose COTS. Obviously, they'll try to keep both, but if push comes to shove, resources go to COTS.

They also aren't yet booking GTO flights based on verified costs. There's still plenty of economic assumptions at play in whatever they're charging Avanti.

I'm looking forward to this launch.

[tobi453]

The updated version of the falcon1 user's guide is now available:
http://www.spacex.com/Falcon1UsersGuide.pdf

[jabe]

The updated version of the falcon1 user's guide is now available:
http://www.spacex.com/Falcon1UsersGuide.pdf

I never kept a version of the previous guide.  Any performance changes or just a more detailed guide then before?

[tobi453]

The updated version of the falcon1 user's guide is now available:
http://www.spacex.com/Falcon1UsersGuide.pdf

an interesting quote:

SpaceX headquarters are conveniently located in Hawthorne, California, a few miles inland from Los Angeles International Airport. The 500,000+ square foot design and manufacturing facility measures over half a million square feet – ranking among the largest manufacturing facilities in California. Two complete Falcon 9s will fit end to end along the short length of the building. For production, there are three Falcon 1 lines, three parallel Falcon 9 lines, nearly two dozen Merlin engine assembly stations, and Dragon capsule production areas. Current and potential customers are encouraged to arrange a tour6 when in the Los Angeles area.

[Stephan]

I had previous version (revision 6) in my bookmarks, the link is still valid if you want :
http://www.spacex.com/Falcon%201%20Payload%20Users%20Guide.pdf

Screenshots of performance charts :

revision 6 :



revision 7 :

[jabe]

I had previous version (revision 6) in my bookmarks, the link is still valid if you want

is it me or are the numbers quitedifferent in the new stats... Falcon one seems to do a little "worse" but the falcon 1-e is greatly improved.  I wonder why the significant difference.  Did they figure the falcon 1-e is now performing much better than expected?
jb

[Jim]

Why do you think there is a 1-e version?

[jabe]

Why do you think there is a 1-e version?

I meant comparing Version 7 1-e data is much better than Version 6.

Falcon 1-e data for 9.1 degree
V6
500 km = 650 kg
V7
500 km = 900 kg

Falcon 1 data for 9.1 degree
V6
500 km = 425 kg
V7
500 km = 350 kg
falcon 1 seems to now be doing worse
falcon 1-e seems to be doing ALOT better

or am I reading it wrong?
cheers
jb

[edkyle99]

Why do you think there is a 1-e version?

I meant comparing Version 7 1-e data is much better than Version 6.

Falcon 1-e data for 9.1 degree
V6
500 km = 650 kg
V7
500 km = 900 kg

Falcon 1 data for 9.1 degree
V6
500 km = 425 kg
V7
500 km = 350 kg
falcon 1 seems to now be doing worse
falcon 1-e seems to be doing ALOT better

or am I reading it wrong?
cheers
jb

The Version 7 Falcon 1e shows a substantially more powerful (higher thrust) Merlin 1C, which allows  the first stage to be stretched to carry substantially more propellant.  The Merlin 1C that will lift the next Falcon 1 apparently produces less thrust than the Falcon 1e version.  The Version 6 Falcon 1e apparently assumed the lower thrust Merlin 1C.

The same thing is going on with Falcon 9.  SpaceX is now talking about an initial  "Mark 1" Falcon 9 to be quickly superseded by a "Mark 2" version.

SpaceX seems to be learning the same lesson that Rocketdyne learned back in the 1950s.  It isn't that hard to scale up the thrust of these engines once the basic design has been established.  The payoff of higher thrust is so big that the lower-thrust engine variants quickly fall by the wayside.

 - Ed Kyle

[NUAETIUS]

From SpaceX Monster update "A planned turbo pump upgrade in 2009 will improve the thrust by over 20% and the thrust to weight ratio by approximately 25%."

Looks like Version 6 Falcon 1e assumed that the turbo pump was possible, and Version 7 Falcon 1e assumes that it is sellable.

I remember reading one time an interview where a person Asked Mr. Musk if he had any regrets, and he responded that he wished he had went straight to the regenetivly cooled Merlen, and that he had made the Falcon 1 bigger.  My question is once F1 has the upgraded turbo pump and stretched 1st stage of the 1e, is there really any more updates that would be practical for that vehicle?