Author Topic: SpaceX Building Reusable Crew Capsule (Read 14072 times)

Hotol · « **on:** 03/06/2006 11:53 am »

http://space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_060306.html

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #1 on:** 03/06/2006 11:59 am »

I'll allow that story to stand as it's got quotes, but looking at the timelines last night, this was Keith's story from what I can tell.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1095

Captain Scarlet · « **Reply #2 on:** 03/06/2006 12:14 pm »

Don't they need to get their Falcon I off the ground first. Not sure about the reasoning for them releasing this? Stock price a bit low?

UK Shuttle Clan · « **Reply #3 on:** 03/06/2006 12:33 pm »

Compare this to the Blackstar and you have to laugh.

Jim · « **Reply #4 on:** 03/06/2006 12:50 pm »

Quote

Captain Scarlet - 6/3/2006 7:14 AMDon't they need to get their Falcon I off the ground first. Not sure about the reasoning for them releasing this? Stock price a bit low?

They are a private company. The COTS procurement proposals were due 3/3/2006. They could be a proposer and figured that the info would come out anyways.

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/cots/

Jim · « **Reply #5 on:** 03/06/2006 12:51 pm »

Quote

nacnud - 6/3/2006 7:48 AMI like this design, interesting use of the CBM for berthing as well, first I've seen that definatly uses this for crew exchange vehicels. Can anyone work out what the rear section of the craft is supposed to be, the hollow cylinder attached to the recoverable SM? I think it is an unpressureised cargo section.

No, they just didn't want to show all of the details.

Dogsbd · « **Reply #6 on:** 03/06/2006 03:53 pm »

Quote

UK Shuttle Clan - 6/3/2006 8:33 AM

Compare this to the Blackstar and you have to laugh.

Not in the least, each (if Blackstar is even real) serves a unique purpose.

hyper_snyper · « **Reply #7 on:** 03/06/2006 08:35 pm »

Quote

UK Shuttle Clan - 6/3/2006 8:33 AMCompare this to the Blackstar and you have to laugh.

Compare the budgets while your at it. US Gov Black Budget vs. what Elon has in his bank account. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

Also, it looks like the CXV.

simonbp · « **Reply #8 on:** 03/06/2006 09:57 pm »

Nice to see that there actually might be something coming out of COTS, rather than the typical silly proposals that never get built...

Simon

rsp1202 · « **Reply #9 on:** 03/06/2006 10:44 pm »

Yeah, this proposal might actually have some legs. If they can just launch their launcher . . .

Bruhn · « **Reply #10 on:** 03/07/2006 01:21 am »

Elon reminds me alot of Howard Hughes. He puts his money where his mouth is.

rsp1202 · « **Reply #11 on:** 03/07/2006 02:07 am »

Up to seven crew in a capsule smaller than Apollo; that's when you find out who your real friends are. And this is a nose-first re-entry capsule (the reason for the hinged nosecone covering the docking port)?

Avron · « **Reply #12 on:** 03/07/2006 03:13 am »

Quote

Bruhn - 6/3/2006 9:21 PM

Elon reminds me alot of Howard Hughes. He puts his money where his mouth is.

Sure does... and yes, his bank balance is quite impressive, note bad for an African.

nacnud · « **Reply #13 on:** 03/07/2006 09:25 am »

I don't think it enters nose first, more likley base first.

stargazer777 · « **Reply #14 on:** 03/08/2006 11:13 am »

The Howard Hughes comparison is telling. Hughes, in addition to his wealth, actually flew his aircraft. In fact, he was quite a remarkable flyer. Now I don't expect "Elon" to become an astronaut, but I do expect that before he and his company start talking about launching manned vehicles into orbit, they will actually accomplish something -- like get a rocket off the ground. Right now, from all appearances, more than anything he has a very good publicity agent. If alt.space is ever going to be anything more than Power Point presentations and artists conceptions, a solid base of tangible achievements needs to come before giving them any credibility in terms manned space objectives. Scaled Composites understands this, and they have proven there is substance behind their plans. What was it Mao said -- the Chinese couldn't even put a potato in orbit? Lets see Space X put some spuds in orbit before we go any further with their "plans."

Jamie Young · « **Reply #15 on:** 03/08/2006 05:27 pm »

Quote

Captain Scarlet - 6/3/2006 7:14 AM

Don't they need to get their Falcon I off the ground first. Not sure about the reasoning for them releasing this? Stock price a bit low?

Kinda thought that too. Falcon 1, then maybe in 5 years Falcon 9, how long till this?

Jim · « **Reply #16 on:** 03/08/2006 05:42 pm »

Quote

Jamie Young - 8/3/2006 12:27 PM
Quote
Captain Scarlet - 6/3/2006 7:14 AMDon't they need to get their Falcon I off the ground first. Not sure about the reasoning for them releasing this? Stock price a bit low?
Kinda thought that too. Falcon 1, then maybe in 5 years Falcon 9, how long till this?

Soon, it is an entry for the COTS competition

nacnud · « **Reply #17 on:** 03/08/2006 06:09 pm »

The falcon 9 is slated for launch Q2 2007.

Crispy · « **Reply #18 on:** 03/08/2006 06:36 pm »

Quote

nacnud - 8/3/2006 7:09 PM

The falcon 9 is slated for launch Q2 2007.

I truly will believe that when I see it. Didn't Falcon 1 originally have a launch date of Q1 2005? And they're going to have a bunch of new problems with 9, especially if they have to launch from Kwajelian. You can't fit a Falcon 9 stage in a cargo plane like they did with the Falcon 1 2nd stage - not to mention the much greater quantities of fuel needed. Just handling a rocket that big brings a whole raft of new problems. The falcon 1 is small enough that a tank segement, say, can be shifted by two people and a dolly; whereas the falcon 9 will need cranes and whatnot.

I wish them the best of luck and I really want them to succeed, but I'll bet the family silver on a 1st Falcon 9 launch much later than Q2 2007.

publiusr · « **Reply #19 on:** 03/08/2006 06:46 pm »

Quote

Dogsbd - 6/3/2006 10:53 AM

Quote
UK Shuttle Clan - 6/3/2006 8:33 AM

Compare this to the Blackstar and you have to laugh.

Not in the least, each (if Blackstar is even real) serves a unique purpose.

Well said. I think more of Musk's craft than Blackstar myself. A pure, dedicated rocket is hard to beat.

Musk's Dragon has a bit more bite to it than the t/Space vehicle which might wind up underpowered..

IIRC Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 are to be similar with more engine placements on Falcon 9, which is to be Titan II-EELV strength.

Musk might even have his own MOL--if he just gets Falcon I off. My guess is that he was waiting for a win against the primes before making this statement, so it wouldn't sound as lame--and for some of the lawsuit money to go into LV development.

stargazer777 · « **Reply #20 on:** 03/08/2006 07:44 pm »

Elon and Space X were laughed out of court with his "law suit." Turns out you actually need to have accomplished something before you can claim to have been damaged by the Boeing LM military launcher integration. Who knew? But what about Elon's plans for a mission to Jupiter?

Jim · « **Reply #21 on:** 03/08/2006 08:31 pm »

Quote

publiusr - 8/3/2006 1:46 PM
Quote
Dogsbd - 6/3/2006 10:53 AM
Quote
UK Shuttle Clan - 6/3/2006 8:33 AMCompare this to the Blackstar and you have to laugh.
Not in the least, each (if Blackstar is even real) serves a unique purpose.
Well said. I think more of Musk's craft than Blackstar myself. A pure, dedicated rocket is hard to beat.Musk's Dragon has a bit more bite to it than the t/Space vehicle which might wind up underpowered..IIRC Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 are to be similar with more engine placements on Falcon 9, which is to be Titan II-EELV strength.Musk might even have his own MOL--if he just gets Falcon I off. My guess is that he was waiting for a win against the primes before making this statement, so it wouldn't sound as lame--and for some of the lawsuit money to go into LV development.

He wasn't asking for money. Just trying to prevent ULV.

braddock · « **Reply #22 on:** 03/08/2006 08:59 pm »

Quote

stargazer777 - 8/3/2006 3:44 PM

Elon and Space X were laughed out of court with his "law suit." Turns out you actually need to have accomplished something before you can claim to have been damaged by the Boeing LM military launcher integration. Who knew? But what about Elon's plans for a mission to Jupiter?

SpaceX won a big victory last fall with their legal tactics. The Air Force formally backed off of their EELV contract language that was going to lock SpaceX out of the market until 2011.

So I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss their lawsuit as just so much litigious hubris or gold digging. They know what they are doing, and I dare say they even know they are unlikely to win. But I don't see any ULA approval forthcoming yet either, six months later, and that buys them precious time.

stargazer777 · « **Reply #23 on:** 03/08/2006 09:42 pm »

They aren't unlikely to win -- they lost. Whether the Boeing Lockheed venture is approved by DOD or simply abandoned is another issue. The fact that SpaceX is gaining credit and public attention on a whole range of supposed space projects despite having zero actual accomplishments is simply stunning.

Avron · « **Reply #24 on:** 03/09/2006 03:23 am »

Quote

stargazer777 - 8/3/2006 5:42 PM

They aren't unlikely to win -- they lost. Whether the Boeing Lockheed venture is approved by DOD or simply abandoned is another issue. The fact that SpaceX is gaining credit and public attention on a whole range of supposed space projects despite having zero actual accomplishments is simply stunning.

Its because they are trying and its not costing you, me or any other tax payer a cent. Nor does it have any negitive impact on the science community and has the potential to open up space like we expected. If he gets moving, its will be his success and his team, but it will also be a new oppertunity for new high tech jobs in the west, instead of shipping that all out to the east .. To me its good news all around... I wish him and Spacex all the best...

Dogsbd · « **Reply #25 on:** 03/10/2006 01:29 pm »

Quote

stargazer777 - 8/3/2006 3:44 PM

Elon and Space X were laughed out of court with his "law suit." Turns out you actually need to have accomplished something before you can claim to have been damaged by the Boeing LM military launcher integration. Who knew? But what about Elon's plans for a mission to Jupiter?

I wouldn't be so quick to bad mouth Musk, Arianespace just failed it's third attempt to get a rocket off the ground and they have tons of exsperince at doing so. I would say Falcon is coming along just fine for a new comer to the business. They've accomplished a lot already, and the best is yet to come I believe.

Avron · « **Reply #26 on:** 03/13/2006 12:41 am »

EH.. should we not be hearing something from SpaceX viv.. March 20th attempt??

meiza · « **Reply #27 on:** 04/14/2006 08:58 pm »

I was just browsing the Apollo picture archive, and found a good photo fitting to cheer up the SpaceX guys and their fans: Even the big boys started small.
That one has a Redstone and a Jupiter missile in front of a Saturn I. From 1961. What a leap in capability - and it worked.

aero313 · « **Reply #28 on:** 04/18/2006 03:09 pm »

Quote

Avron - 8/3/2006 11:23 PM

Quote
stargazer777 - 8/3/2006 5:42 PM

They aren't unlikely to win -- they lost. Whether the Boeing Lockheed venture is approved by DOD or simply abandoned is another issue. The fact that SpaceX is gaining credit and public attention on a whole range of supposed space projects despite having zero actual accomplishments is simply stunning.

Its because they are trying and its not costing you, me or any other tax payer a cent.

Actually, the failed launch cost the taxpayers $8M for the mission, $800K for the satellite, and some unknown amount for the range costs. Not to mention the cost of flying the gov't customer team back and forth to Kwaj for each of the aborted launch attempts.

For those who have forgotten, this particular launch was paid for by DARPA under the FALCON Phase IIA contract that was awarded to SpaceX. Their statement of work required them to modify their ground ops for responsive launch and to demonstrate that they could launch what was intended to be their second mission in half the time as their then-planned first mission. I'd say they failed on all counts.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #29 on:** 04/19/2006 09:42 pm »

That depends on how well insured the launch was. Also the satelite itself was planned to be scrapped when it lost it's original ride to space.

DARPA got a large amount of useful information from the multiple test firings that spacex ran. After all they did everything involved in launching short of allowing the rocket to leave the pad. Perhaps this was part of the reason for so many test firings. They did upgrade their pad hardware to speed up launches by avoiding wind delays too, which is important for rapid response launches.

aero313 · « **Reply #30 on:** 04/20/2006 02:52 am »

Quote

josh_simonson - 19/4/2006 5:42 PM

That depends on how well insured the launch was.

The Gov't doesn't buy insurance.

Quote

Also the satelite itself was planned to be scrapped when it lost it's original ride to space.

Doubtful. Usually projects like this sit on the shelf until a launch opportunity shows up. On the other hand, the real mission of the satellite was the teaching experience it provided to the cadets, so I'll give you that one.

Quote

DARPA got a large amount of useful information from the multiple test firings that spacex ran.

I guess four decades of data on launching LOX/kerosene vehicles wasn't enought?

Quote

After all they did everything involved in launching short of allowing the rocket to leave the pad. Perhaps this was part of the reason for so many test firings.

One could argue that without a successful orbital insertion, nothing was proven. Now, I'm in no way implying that the following applies to SpaceX, but one could easily cut corners and "demonstrate" a responsive launch readiness capability, but that's meaningless if the process stops short of launch. If the launch is unsuccessful, particularly if the failure was due to a prelaunch error, I'd argue that nothing was proven.

Quote

They did upgrade their pad hardware to speed up launches by avoiding wind delays too, which is important for rapid response launches.

Wow, the same pad modification that was done for Vanguard in 1958 - and pretty much every other launcher with the same aft end configuration since then. A better question is why SpaceX couldn't figure out that they needed this in the first place.

Again, let's not loose sight of the original DARPA contract requirements. The DARPA FALCON program (which originally stood for Force Application with Launch from CONus and was only coincidentally the same name as the SpaceX rocket) has a requirement for vehicle readiness within 24 hours of callup and once at readiness state, launch within 24 hours of authorization. This launch demonstrated neither.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #31 on:** 04/20/2006 10:21 pm »

Experiments don't have to go flawlessly to produce useful information. That launch only cost you personally 2c, 6mil/300mil americans, so if you're feeling bad about that 2c you can probably break even by keeping an eye out for pennies in the parking lot on your way to the car this afternoon.

R&R · « **Reply #32 on:** 04/20/2006 11:46 pm »

Does anyone really buy the whole launch within 48 hours from call up? You'd need to have many versions of flight software to cover a multitude of orbits and a spacecraft that could handle large orbit changes by itself if the orbit from the available software was not quite what was needed. Plus you would have to put a lot of trust in not getting any pre launch testing that might show a problem and as such be willing to lose that spacecraft because of that. Oh yeah and the launch company would need to have at least one rocket sitting around at the launch site. A site like Kwaj would never do since it would take way more than 48 hours to get the spacecraft there. My bet is that any launcher would need at best 2 weeks to get a launch off if it already had all the things I mentioned above.

Jim · « **Reply #33 on:** 04/21/2006 12:07 am »

Quote

R&R - 20/4/2006 7:46 PMDoes anyone really buy the whole launch within 48 hours from call up? You'd need to have many versions of flight software to cover a multitude of orbits and a spacecraft that could handle large orbit changes by itself if the orbit from the available software was not quite what was needed. Plus you would have to put a lot of trust in not getting any pre launch testing that might show a problem and as such be willing to lose that spacecraft because of that. Oh yeah and the launch company would need to have at least one rocket sitting around at the launch site. A site like Kwaj would never do since it would take way more than 48 hours to get the spacecraft there. My bet is that any launcher would need at best 2 weeks to get a launch off if it already had all the things I mentioned above.

It is have everything on the shelve and call up in 48 hours for one predetermined spacecraft.

braddock · « **Reply #34 on:** 04/21/2006 12:20 am »

Quote

R&R - 20/4/2006 7:46 PM
My bet is that any launcher would need at best 2 weeks to get a launch off if it already had all the things I mentioned above.

From the (very interesting) Nuclear Anti-Sat Program 437 document posted in this thread, it sounds like we had exactly this capability based on the RP1/LOX Thor rocket in active duty on a remote pacific island for over a decade. Sub-orbital of course, but capable of intercepting a satellite with 6 to 12 hours of preparation, and a five second launch window.

Certain people on this site are extremely fond of saying that the Falcon-1 is nothing but an updated Thor rocket. Sure seems possible to me to maintain a 48 hour turn-around. The orbital mechanics are just a software problem. A spare Falcon-1 is $6 million, which is only three cruise missiles worth of DoD cash, plus salary for <20 person launch crew on stand-by.

TacSat-1 is essentially a proof-of-concept of an on-demand reconnaisance satellite under direct control of tactical field commanders...I think the idea is that they could use it like a UAV, joystick in hand, with no NRO/NGA to meddle in the tasking.

Jim · « **Reply #35 on:** 04/21/2006 01:22 am »

Quote

braddock - 20/4/2006 8:20 PM I think the idea is that they could use it like a UAV, joystick in hand, with no NRO/NGA to meddle in the tasking.

There is still some naivety in this. because unless the target is under the first pass, then Sir Issac Newton has the joystick. I know they know this but.....