SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - Build-up Thread

[Comga]

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

That means that at the same time they increase the thrust they will cut the weight by almost 5%.  Neat trick if they can do it.

I do hope they go to the great extravagance of giving the uprated engine a new designation like Merlin 1D or (gasp) Merlin 2.  It is getting hard to figure out which engine is planned for a particular rocket or test.   

If SpaceX plans such a major modification of the Falcon 1 after the engine upgrade (47klb of first stage fuel to 87klb, an additional 20 ft of length) what changes are anticipated for the Falcon 9?

[jaythehokie]

That's a well-said point.  After reading the Falcon's user guide referenced in a previous post...the already planned modifications of the Falcon 1e are substantial enough.  Have they even been tested yet?  If so...how much?  Do they translate in similarity to the Falcon 9?  If a flaw in commonality appears in either, could it set back development to both??

It's nice to see that they're already thinking ahead of what they've already accomplished, but it seems to me like they need to first make sure what they HAVE ALREADY works well before making upgrades and more modifications.  Upgrading something with a flaw before finding the flaw is a recipe for disaster...

[aero313]

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...

First, that is EXACTLY the same as the situation at Orbital during the Pegasus development; Steve has hit it right on the head.  Second, how does setting up shop in one of the most expensive real estate and cost of living markets in the country provide "lower facilities deprecation costs"?  Third, I'm not sure what you think "defense contractor overhead" is, but I can assure you that BloMart doesn't pay for gourmet chefs in the company cafeteria or free wifi on company paid buses.  Fourth, if SpaceX intends to have the Gov't as a customer, it WILL have governmental management "help". 

[aero313]

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. 

Right.  Existing launch vehicles have actually put functioning satellites into orbit.

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.

Yeah, with "reportedly" being the operative term.

[edkyle99]

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. 

Right.  Existing launch vehicles have actually put functioning satellites into orbit.

It is easy to dismiss SpaceX today, so go ahead, get it out of your system.  You may only have a few more weeks to make this particular statement, for example.

 - Ed Kyle

[aero313]

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. 

Right.  Existing launch vehicles have actually put functioning satellites into orbit.

It is easy to dismiss SpaceX today, so go ahead, get it out of your system.  You may only have a few more weeks to make this particular statement, for example.

 - Ed Kyle

You are of course correct (my statement was more smart@$$ than fact) but let's be serious.  Unsubstantiated marketing BS aside, Falcon 1 breaks no new ground.  There are no substantive differences between their first stage and a Thor.  The alleged reuseability has yet to be proven (in either concept or cost effectiveness).  Pressure fed upper stages have been flying for decades.  The Titan I demonstrated the use of LOX/RP for both first and second stages in 1960.  Tell me again how the SpaceX approach is so revolutionary?

[jimvela]

You are of course correct (my statement was more smart@$$ than fact) but let's be serious.  Unsubstantiated marketing BS aside, Falcon 1 breaks no new ground.  There are no substantive differences between their first stage and a Thor. 

Not entirely true.  In fundamentals of operation, you are correct.  In application, you are not.  For example, the Falcon launch vehicle family uses modern avionics.  The production process is also benefiting from being new and modernized.  Whether or not that will actually yield any breakthroughs is what SpaceX is now challenged to put up or shut up (literally).

The alleged reuseability has yet to be proven (in either concept or cost effectiveness). 

I'm with you there, the entire reusability claim is extremely dubious to me.  Maybe (long shot, imho) they can pick off avionics boxes and engines/mounts from an intact recovery, then refurbish, retest, and reintegrate into a later launch vehicle structure.  They'd also have to pull off a number of demos of this before anyone would be willing to take the risk, imho.

Tell me again how the SpaceX approach is so revolutionary?

Nothing revolutionary in the LV.  I'd say that the SpaceX secret sauce is entrepreneurial innovation.  (e.g better processes, leaner/faster pad processing, being a high-responsiveness vendor in terms of being willing to change and accommodate).  All of which remains to be proven.

All of that said, I hope like hell they pull it off as it'd be great for folks like me whom don't build launch vehicles but make a living from the production of spacecraft to fly on them... not to mention being an enabler for all kinds of previously unfordable mission types.

[guidanceisgo]

I always hear people discuss SpaceX's modern avionics.  What is so revolutionary about them?  Do they build there own flight computers, IMU's, or use a new architecture?  Please share this insight.

[edkyle99]

  Unsubstantiated marketing BS aside, Falcon 1 breaks no new ground.  There are no substantive differences between their first stage and a Thor.  The alleged reuseability has yet to be proven (in either concept or cost effectiveness).  Pressure fed upper stages have been flying for decades.  The Titan I demonstrated the use of LOX/RP for both first and second stages in 1960.  Tell me again how the SpaceX approach is so revolutionary?

That is the point.  It isn't revolutionary.  It is evolutionary. 

Falcon 1 is nearly in the Thor class, but it has a little bit better first stage propellant mass fraction (Thor used separate tank bulkheads, Falcon uses a common bulkhead, composite interstage, etc.), a little bit better propulsion specific impulse, etc.  Unlike Thor-Able/Delta/Agena, etc., or, for some reason, any other U.S. orbital launch vehicle ever developed, Falcon 1 uses kerosene/LOX for both stages.

Falcon 9 is also evolutionary, but it is being designed to do something never done before - GTO missions using only two kerosene/LOX stages.  It is an evolutionary change, delivered by modern materials and design methods, that is not unlike the shift from four-engine to two-engine jet passenger aircraft. 

To me, the reusability idea seems to be an R&D concept more than a practical plan.  ABMA planned the same way during the early Saturn I development phase.

SpaceX may or may not get there, but it has already shown what a modern launch vehicle can look like.  The company has contributed to the state of the art in launch vehicle design.

 - Ed Kyle

[Antares]

The thought that SpaceX desires to be revolutionary in technology makes me squint.  That's not it at all.  Elon sought to minimize the cost function while providing sufficient performance to make money.  Main example: Why develop two turbopumped engines when you can develop one and then not have to deal with the hassle of purging for H2?  Well, maybe it's worth it because of the lost performance.  Scribble, scribble.  Nope, the lost performance is well worth the cost savings of another engine and H2.  BTW, in case any newbs are about to ask, you can't pump H2 with a pump designed for kerosene.

[Antares]

By 2005, one of the EELVs had pared down to less than 60 people required on launch day, both at the pad and in the control room.

How often do people move around and get burned out in Silicon Valley?  Rockets take corporate memory.  Why does the USAF need Aerospace Corporation?  Because their officers move around every 2 years.  By the time they've learned their system, it's time to punch another billet.

Read Bob Sackheim's white paper on what's needed both technically and personally for the VSE, written before ESAS.  He talks a lot about the personal sacrifices and broken families that characterized Huntsville, Brevard and Houston in the moon race.

[aero313]

From my short time here, I've discovered a few things that seem to help keep cost down at SpaceX.

1)  Most Hardware is built in-house.  This doesn't necessarly mean small components (I'm not sure how much of that is built in-house), but I've seen a lot of neat, yet minor hardware being built up that I would guess others are "above doing".  I bet if you compare what a component builder would charge for a part that goes on a race car is a fraction of what they'd charge if that same part went on a rocket...and I bet you can find some things out there that would be equally at home on a rocket as on a F1 racer.

As I've said in the past, this is good strategy IF your flight rate is high enough to carry the standing army cost.  If not, it's a big cost.  How SpaceX accounts for this cost at their current one flight a year is their business, but don't confuse financial maneuvering with real cost reduction.

2)  Personel.  When it takes fewer than 50 people to test, prep and launch a rocket.... you've gotta have less overhead than the 100+ teams that work on each EELV launcher.  Additionally there is something to be said for the "Silicon Valley" mentality that largely ignores the 9-5.

Pegasus and Taurus have only needed 25 or so people to integrate and launch from day one.  The "ignores the 9-5" mentality again is no different than my experience at Orbital.   As I also saw, at some point the 12-14 hour days take their toll (along with the family problems, divorces, etc) and this tapers off.

BTW:  The LV may not seem very revolutionary, but consider the following...
More extensive use of composites than similar LV's (that I know of)

Better check again.  Pegasus and Taurus are both almost entirely made of graphite epoxy.  The only metal primary structure on Taurus is the interstage between the Castor 120 and the Pegasus stack, and this was purely a cost/benefit trade.

First use of Pintle injectors in a LV engine (that I know of)
In less than one year, six people had designed and built a rocket from engine up.

Huh?  Do you mean a rocket ENGINE?  The more important metric is that in 30 months Pegasus went from program start to successful maiden flight - with "success" defined as functional satellite in orbit.

...so maybe not revolutionary in the fact that it teleports to orbit....... we're still working on that one by the way ..... but I'd say there are some 'uniques' buried within the "traditional launch vehicle" known as Falcon 1.

And while I'm sure you can find lots of little "never before seen" design items, the fact remains that this is not a revolutionary design that merits the massive cost savings that have been claimed.  Once again, don't confuse cost with price.  SpaceX can charge any price they want and it's good business practice to take a loss to capture market share.  Just don't confuse this with real cost reduction.

[Antares]

Atlas III was on the pad and ready to go 26 months after ATP.  They didn't go at that time due to the RL10 problem on Delta III.

[edkyle99]

.... the fact remains that this is not a revolutionary design that merits the massive cost savings that have been claimed.  ...

I agree that currently listed SpaceX prices seem unrealistic, but that doesn't mean that Falcon 1 and 9 won't end up costing less than the competition.  In most cases, they should cost less.  They weigh less unfueled for a given payload than most competitors.  They have a more straightforward propellant combination, and they use it for all stages.  They have fewer stages than most competitors, and fewer than any among GTO launchers.     

Where SpaceX could face its toughest competition for U.S. government business might be against partially outsourced launch vehicles.  Taurus 2, for example, with its Ukrainio-Russian built first stage.  Atlas 5 with its Russian engine and Ariane payload fairing.  At some point, SpaceX might have to start offshoring its production too.   

 - Ed Kyle

[jabe]

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."

Still haven't seen this update..was it up and then removed?  Anyone hear any other updates on the time? 

[robertross]

Jabe, they have it covered here...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13303.0

[wannamoonbase]

Since we are about a week away from the previously stated launch date for the third Falcon 1 attempt I am writing to ask if anyone has an update or status?

Thanks.

[Chris-A]

Nothing yet, no press releases, even both of Kimbal's blogs are silent.

[William Graham]

Launch has been delayed. It is now NET late June.

[wannamoonbase]

Thanks GW