Author Topic: Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread (Read 134923 times)

lmike · « **Reply #340 on:** 05/11/2006 05:55 am »

The regenerative nozzle Merlin1C makes an appearance: http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/05/so-that-is-regen-engine-on-spacexs.html

lmike · « **Reply #341 on:** 05/11/2006 10:37 am »

Interesting, SpaceX and what's left of Kistler go head to head again. They did pull the rug out of the Kistler's feet once by objecting to the NASA contract award, while having no hardware of their own at the time. (personally, I thought SpaceX was in the wrong in that dispute and just using below the belt tactics against a competitor, while Kistler had more real hardware) SpaceX argued Kistler was awarded a government contract without competitive bids, but now SpaceX is awarded government contracts without competitive bids!

Jim · « **Reply #342 on:** 05/11/2006 11:22 am »

Quote

lmike - 11/5/2006 6:37 AM Interesting, SpaceX and what's left of Kistler go head to head again. They did pull the rug out of the Kistler's feet once by objecting to the NASA contract award, while having no hardware of their own at the time. (personally, I thought SpaceX was in the wrong in that dispute and just using below the belt tactics against a competitor, while Kistler had more real hardware) SpaceX argued Kistler was awarded a government contract without competitive bids, but now SpaceX is awarded government contracts without competitive bids!

It was a $250M contract (half of what COTS will be). There was no reason for Kistler to get a sole source contract like that (it was only for data). Are you sure Kistler would have taken a $7M contract and done anything with it?

braddock · « **Reply #343 on:** 05/11/2006 12:52 pm »

That regen Merlin 1C looks really wild. Is that a fully enclosed the engine, or are we only seeing the throat?

Other great pictures last week from Michael Belfiore's tour, including the Dragon capsule.

http://michaelbelfiore.com/blog/2006/05/pictures-from-rocket-factory.html

http://www.belfioreandkagan.com/photos/spacex/06-05-03/images/dsc_0068.jpg">

Tap-Sa · « **Reply #344 on:** 05/11/2006 01:17 pm »

Quote

braddock - 11/5/2006 4:52 PM

That regen Merlin 1C looks really wild. Is that a fully enclosed the engine, or are we only seeing the throat?

The divergent/covergent sections look very conical, I suspect this is just a prototype reaction chamber/throat to work out the cooling thermodynamics/manufacturing issues. Anybody know how they plan to do the coolant passages, brazing tubes or milling?

Tap-Sa · « **Reply #345 on:** 05/11/2006 01:21 pm »

Quote

Jim - 11/5/2006 3:22 PM
There was no reason for Kistler to get a sole source contract like that (it was only for data).

Before Kistler went belly up it had the only serious vehicle that was going to be able to deliver said data, no? IIRC it involved rendezvous with ISS etc maneuvers, SpaceX didn't have spacecraft with capability to do that (and still don't).

Jim · « **Reply #346 on:** 05/11/2006 02:36 pm »

Quote

Tap-Sa - 11/5/2006 9:21 AM
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2006 3:22 PM There was no reason for Kistler to get a sole source contract like that (it was only for data).
Before Kistler went belly up it had the only serious vehicle that was going to be able to deliver said data, no? IIRC it involved rendezvous with ISS etc maneuvers, SpaceX didn't have spacecraft with capability to do that (and still don't).

It was for launch vehicle data. not ARAD data.

Spirit · « **Reply #347 on:** 05/19/2006 07:45 pm »

Any news from SpaceX recently?
When is the next flight?

dmc6960 · « **Reply #348 on:** 05/19/2006 08:04 pm »

At the International Space Development Conference at the begining of May, Elon Musk said the next flight is planned for September. I remember reading it might actually be October though, dont remember where I read that. It will be a demonstration flight carrying no expensive payload from Kwaj. Tac-Sat is planned to fly after that sometime this year yet, (if all goes well on the 2nd flight). Still not sure if that one with be out of Vandenberg or not. The Malaysia satellite launch had been pushed back to Feb '07 before the failure of the first flight. Not sure if that has been further affected or not. Too bad their website isn't updated as often like it used to be. I keep having to get my information from news reports from events Elon is at and talks about something.

Here is the article about the ISDC...
http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_isdc_musk_060504.html

mr.columbus · « **Reply #349 on:** 05/19/2006 08:04 pm »

Quote

Spirit - 19/5/2006 3:32 PM

Any news from SpaceX recently?
When is the next flight?

Musk said they plan to do the next launch in September - this time with a dummy payload. See http://www.thespacereview.com/article/622/1

Avron · « **Reply #350 on:** 05/20/2006 01:42 pm »

Amazing... well based on what has come out, it looks like a simple processing error, without failsafe design.. Jim, was right, its basically process, and the people on site to do the double checks.. OK, so lession one.. check the check port, as the check port may leak... and to make sure replace said check port with a stop valve.. that is how I read it so far.

I.r.t. STS solids, I understand the abort explosives, knock off the top portion of the SRB, thus venting the thrust out the top of the booster, but I would expect the boosters to continue to fire until all fuel is consumed, but with no forward thrust...

braddock · « **Reply #351 on:** 05/20/2006 03:10 pm »

BTW, I just received a belated response to some of the questions about the Merlin 1B and 1C from Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX.

As we had covered here ( http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4395 ), the Falcon 9 will use the 1C regenerative engine, while the 1Bs will be used only for testing. There was some question here about whether that implied that the 1C had roll control for the upper stage of the Falcon 9.

Gwynne lost my question in her inbox, but came through last week as a show of good faith. "We are probably not going to replace the 1As on the upperstage in the near term -- farther term it is likely...."

There is a SpaceX article in the editing stage with some other news right now, btw. I just posted my submitted draft to L2 and the WIP list.

braddock · « **Reply #352 on:** 05/20/2006 03:57 pm »

New article now on the front page; SpaceX antitrust case closed (for good).

mlorrey · « **Reply #353 on:** 05/20/2006 10:50 pm »

Quote

braddock - 20/5/2006 10:44 AM

New article now on the front page; SpaceX antitrust case closed (for good).

Well, only until LM/B engage in any new shenanigans against SpaceX. New evidence/new acts always justifies reopening a case.

Jim · « **Reply #354 on:** 05/21/2006 12:10 am »

Quote

mlorrey - 20/5/2006 6:37 PM

Quote
braddock - 20/5/2006 10:44 AM

New article now on the front page; SpaceX antitrust case closed (for good).

Well, only until LM/B engage in any new shenanigans against SpaceX. New evidence/new acts always justifies reopening a case.

Again, stop with the conspiracy BS. Quit with the accusations, you have no proof. There weren't any old "shenanigans.

braddock · « **Reply #355 on:** 05/21/2006 01:25 am »

Quote

Jim - 20/5/2006 7:57 PM
Quote
mlorrey - 20/5/2006 6:37 PM
Quote
braddock - 20/5/2006 10:44 AM
New article now on the front page; SpaceX antitrust case closed (for good).

Well, only until LM/B engage in any new shenanigans against SpaceX. New evidence/new acts always justifies reopening a case.

Again, stop with the conspiracy BS. Quit with the accusations, you have no proof. There weren't any old "shenanigans.

There may not have been any conspiracy against SpaceX, but there certainly were some shenanigans. Boeing isn't paying out a half billion dollar settlement, nor was penalized an additional $1 billion in launch contracts in '03, for nothing.

To my limited understanding, it sure seems that some funny maneuvering was going on in the EELV contracts last year as well. Perhaps it had more to do with LM/B trying to make money off their programs than trying to shoulder out SpaceX, but it did threaten the competitive nature of the program; not to mention the potential impact of ULA, which this lawsuit may or may not have helped delay long enough to grow cold.

Remember that SpaceX did secure formal assurances from the USAF by their earlier related action with the GAO so that they are not locked out of all EELV launches until 2011.

lmike · « **Reply #356 on:** 05/21/2006 10:11 pm »

As much as I'd love to see SpaceX succeed, I'm deathly afraid of it becoming a "darling" and an object of worship of alt.space. The whole point is competition. I'd love nothing more than to see another rocket start-up (say Kistler) or even many start-ups doing launch tests right now in an effort to woo customers (government and otherwise) away from SpaceX and beat it with better, cheaper service. And then seeing how SpaceX reacts to that. And so on. Alas... my greates fear is that we'll just get another borg cube just with a different name. Not because of some SpaceX faults, they do what they have to, to hold the bottom line, but because there don't seem to be enough start ups at the same level of development. Hopefully this will change.

Jim · « **Reply #357 on:** 05/21/2006 10:22 pm »

Quote

braddock - 20/5/2006 9:12 PM

Quote
Jim - 20/5/2006 7:57 PM
Quote
mlorrey - 20/5/2006 6:37 PM
Quote
braddock - 20/5/2006 10:44 AM
New article now on the front page; SpaceX antitrust case closed (for good).

Well, only until LM/B engage in any new shenanigans against SpaceX. New evidence/new acts always justifies reopening a case.

Again, stop with the conspiracy BS. Quit with the accusations, you have no proof. There weren't any old "shenanigans.

There may not have been any conspiracy against SpaceX, but there certainly were some shenanigans. Boeing isn't paying out a half billion dollar settlement, nor was penalized an additional $1 billion in launch contracts in '03, for nothing.

To my limited understanding, it sure seems that some funny maneuvering was going on in the EELV contracts last year as well. Perhaps it had more to do with LM/B trying to make money off their programs than trying to shoulder out SpaceX, but it did threaten the competitive nature of the program; not to mention the potential impact of ULA, which this lawsuit may or may not have helped delay long enough to grow cold.

Remember that SpaceX did secure formal assurances from the USAF by their earlier related action with the GAO so that they are not locked out of all EELV launches until 2011.

Those shenanigans were against LM.

Avron · « **Reply #358 on:** 05/21/2006 11:00 pm »

Time to buy more LMT..."shenanigans R us"... when there is Billions at stake.. there be a lot of shenanigans.. Has Boeing moved on? or are we waiting for post strike launches.. As much as I support the underdog, I don't see SpaceX in the same game as LMT/BA.. Launch they have.. next step is orbit.. Why do we have to wait until Sep... oh, yes, Gov. involvement, or is Spacex still fixing things?

rocketmantitan · « **Reply #359 on:** 05/22/2006 07:44 pm »

Quote

braddock - 20/5/2006 6:12 PM

Quote
Jim - 20/5/2006 7:57 PM
Quote
mlorrey - 20/5/2006 6:37 PM
Quote
braddock - 20/5/2006 10:44 AM
New article now on the front page; SpaceX antitrust case closed (for good).

Well, only until LM/B engage in any new shenanigans against SpaceX. New evidence/new acts always justifies reopening a case.

Again, stop with the conspiracy BS. Quit with the accusations, you have no proof. There weren't any old "shenanigans.

There may not have been any conspiracy against SpaceX, but there certainly were some shenanigans. Boeing isn't paying out a half billion dollar settlement, nor was penalized an additional $1 billion in launch contracts in '03, for nothing.

To my limited understanding, it sure seems that some funny maneuvering was going on in the EELV contracts last year as well. Perhaps it had more to do with LM/B trying to make money off their programs than trying to shoulder out SpaceX, but it did threaten the competitive nature of the program; not to mention the potential impact of ULA, which this lawsuit may or may not have helped delay long enough to grow cold.

Remember that SpaceX did secure formal assurances from the USAF by their earlier related action with the GAO so that they are not locked out of all EELV launches until 2011.

There wasn't "funny maneuvering" going on last year in the EELV contracts. Industry and the media had a difficult time understanding that the AF had changed the launch award strategy for Buy 3. The media queries in 2004-2005 were fixated on how many missions were in Buy 3, missing the key information that the AF had no intention of awarding all 20-some missions up front in a single block. The AF had been on record that the Buy 3 missions would be evaluated and awarded on a yearly basis. The AF did not plan to repeat the strategy from 1998 where the Buy 1 missions were divided between the companies years in advance of flight. (Lockheed Martin and Boeing valued a block award because of the commitment they could show their Board of Directors. But the AF had a goal of retaining two families of EELVs, and doing a block award of all 20-some missions at once did not support the restructuring of the program that was underway.)

With a goal of retaining two families of launch vehicles, the AF wanted to reevaluate the launch manifest on a yearly basis during the 2006-2010 timeframe, allowing them to divide the next year's launch awards more evenly between the companies. With new launch capability contracts planned to help retain critical skills and capabilities during rough periods of no launches, the AF planned to use this capability the taxpayer was funding by spreading launches between both companies. It doesn't do any good to pay a company to retain critical people and maintain facilities if you are not going to award a rocket production and launch to them. Repeating the Buy 1 strategy that resulted in a boom/bust launch manifest as well as strange results (the SBIRS Geo 3 satellite was awarded in Buy 1 to Boeing in 1998, but won't fly until 2010-2011, was not the AF plan.)

However, barring a qualified new entrant (ala SpaceX or someone else) that met the selection criteria for EELV awards, the likelihood was that each year would see EELV missions only going to Lockheed Martin and Boeing. SpaceX continues to argue that they will be EELV-qualified, but that is the Air Force's determination to make, not SpaceX's. And that determination took a few years when the AF evaluated the Delta IV and Atlas V designs in the late 90s. So I wouldn't hold my breath on the AF quickly 'qualifying' SpaceX's Falcon 7 or Falcon 9 - should SpaceX request it. And the fact that an anonymous Government agency has contracted for a Falcon 9 does not mean the AF/EELV program has embraced Falcon as an EELV-qualified booster.