Author Topic: NASA tech adopted by SpaceX (Read 7089 times)

whitelancer64 · « **on:** 04/26/2017 03:35 pm »

There are two major items that I know SpaceX used, the Merlin 1-A was based on the Fastrac, particularly the engine's pintle injector and ablative nozzle, and of course the most well known is PICA.

I'm sure there's an overwhelming plethora of items initially developed by NASA and which SpaceX now uses, but does anyone know of any good examples like the above?

ncb1397 · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/26/2017 03:40 pm »

VTVL(Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing):

Quote

The DC-X, short for Delta Clipper or Delta Clipper Experimental, was an unmanned prototype of a reusable single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle built by McDonnell Douglas in conjunction with the United States Department of Defense's Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) from 1991 to 1993. Starting 1994 until 1995, testing continued through funding of the US civil space agency NASA.[1] In 1996, the DC-X technology was completely transferred to NASA, which upgraded the design for improved performance to create the DC-XA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

AL-Li aerospace structures:

Quote

Al–Li alloys are primarily of interest to the aerospace industry due to the weight advantage they provide. They are currently used in a few commercial jetliner airframes, the fuel and oxidizer tanks in the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle, and the AgustaWestland EH101 helicopter.[6]
The third and final version of the US Space Shuttle's external tank was principally made of Al-Li 2195 alloy.[7] In addition, Al–Li alloys are also used in the Centaur Forward Adapter in the Atlas V rocket[8], in the Orion Spacecraft, and were to be used in the planned Ares I and Ares V rockets (part of the cancelled Constellation program).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-lithium_alloy

whitelancer64 · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/26/2017 04:12 pm »

That's very interesting, I didn't know that the Al-Li alloy was developed by NASA!

Toast · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/26/2017 06:18 pm »

Quote from: whitelancer64 on 04/26/2017 04:12 pm

That's very interesting, I didn't know that the Al-Li alloy was developed by NASA!

NASA didn't invent Aluminum-Lithium alloys (they date back almost one hundred years, well before NASA was even founded). Also, Boeing successfully sued NASA for patent violation over the use of Alloy 2195 in the shuttle's external tank.

Hobbes-22 · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/26/2017 06:40 pm »

Quote from: ncb1397 on 04/26/2017 03:40 pm

VTVL(Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing):

Quote
The DC-X, short for Delta Clipper or Delta Clipper Experimental, was an unmanned prototype of a reusable single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle built by McDonnell Douglas in conjunction with the United States Department of Defense's Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) from 1991 to 1993. Starting 1994 until 1995, testing continued through funding of the US civil space agency NASA.[1] In 1996, the DC-X technology was completely transferred to NASA, which upgraded the design for improved performance to create the DC-XA.

That seems rather general. Did SpaceX use any of the knowledge gained from DC-X? Or are you just referring to the idea of a vertical landing?

MikeAtkinson · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/26/2017 06:50 pm »

Quote from: ncb1397 on 04/26/2017 03:40 pm

VTVL(Vertical Takeoff, Vertical Landing):

Quote
The DC-X, short for Delta Clipper or Delta Clipper Experimental, was an unmanned prototype of a reusable single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle built by McDonnell Douglas in conjunction with the United States Department of Defense's Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) from 1991 to 1993. Starting 1994 until 1995, testing continued through funding of the US civil space agency NASA.[1] In 1996, the DC-X technology was completely transferred to NASA, which upgraded the design for improved performance to create the DC-XA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

But did any tech actually get transferred? - the basic idea certainly, but then the basic idea was around long before NASA.

WmThomas · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/26/2017 06:51 pm »

I think DC-X had more impact on Blue Origin than SpaceX. Didn't some key DC-X staff end up working for Bezos? And Bezos has pursued Hydrolox engine technology, which DC-X used.

SpaceX wasn't even trying for vertical landing until about 5-6 years ago. Their original recovery attempts focused on parachutes and recovery at sea.

MikeAtkinson · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/26/2017 07:03 pm »

I think the main tech transfer from NASA has been what people do not often consider tech. That is the plethora of standards, reports, guidelines and best practices.

Even when SpaceX have done their own way having that knowledge of how things have been done, what did and didn't work (and why) must have been invaluable.

Also having the ability to call upon NASA experts in every esoteric technology and science (cryogenics, tribology, etc.) must have been really useful.

MikeAtkinson · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/26/2017 07:11 pm »

Quote from: WmThomas on 04/26/2017 06:51 pm

SpaceX wasn't even trying for vertical landing until about 5-6 years ago. Their original recovery attempts focused on parachutes and recovery at sea.

Yes, but that seemed a short term solution. Musk had said even before the first recovery attempt that the goal was full and rapid reusability, and that could never be achieved with parachutes and a water landing.

Similarly the parachutes and water landing have been an intermediate solution for Dragon, with the full solution being land landing under thrusters with Dragon 2.

Jim · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/26/2017 07:18 pm »

Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 04/26/2017 07:03 pm

Also having the ability to call upon NASA experts in every esoteric technology and science (cryogenics, tribology, etc.) must have been really useful.

NASA does not provide that kind of support. There has to be contracts or agreements in place. They can't help a contractor when they are supposed to provide the service.

RedLineTrain · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/26/2017 07:37 pm »

But I do think they contribute when there is a Space Act Agreement in place, which there was for COTS.

rst · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/27/2017 07:32 pm »

Quote from: RedLineTrain on 04/26/2017 07:37 pm

But I do think they contribute when there is a Space Act Agreement in place, which there was for COTS.

Indeed. There have even been unfunded SAAs, in which the awardee got NASA technical guidance, but no NASA cash. (Blue Oirign had one of those, purusant to Commercial Crew.) It would be really strange for SpaceX to get no technical guidance with a funded one!

deruch · « **Reply #12 on:** 04/28/2017 02:27 am »

Quote from: Jim on 04/26/2017 07:18 pm

Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 04/26/2017 07:03 pm

Also having the ability to call upon NASA experts in every esoteric technology and science (cryogenics, tribology, etc.) must have been really useful.

NASA does not provide that kind of support. There has to be contracts or agreements in place. They can't help a contractor when they are supposed to provide the service.

Read the C3PO oral history interviews of Michael Horkachuck who was the NASA COTS Project Executive for SpaceX (i.e. the NASA guy assigned to work with SpaceX's COTS effort):

https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/C3PO/HorkachuckMJ/horkachuckmj.htm

Seems like he talks about giving exactly that kind of support through the COTS SAA.