Author Topic: SCRUB: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 19 (Read 178723 times)

R&R · « **Reply #100 on:** 01/03/2007 02:55 pm »

Quote

NASA_Twix_JSC - 3/1/2007 10:29 PM

Quote
zappafrank - 25/12/2006 1:00 AM

I really have issues with Musk. Very little info, but lots of promises.

And damned litttle to show for all the work.

Elon is not at fault, his PAO is. As with the interviews on here, he's got lots of info to give. Whoever he's got in his PAO dept. Simply doesn't want to make the effort, that's all.

SpaceX is not NASA, they have no huge PR department. Elon does most of the talking and excels at spin about the Falcon. His PAO was doing a great job of providing information and even tours to the media prior to their first launch. The silence since then is most likely being directed by Musk. He wants to change the industry but seems to think that no longer includes open and timely communication.

I would like Elon to stop making big boasts about Falcon capabilities and concentrate on what they are doing to get ready for the next launch and the development of the F9. I don't care if they are hitting hurdles because that's normal with development of a new system. Knowing what they are dealing with is great for those of us who may have experience with similar situations and makes for much more friendly and productive discussion in these forums.

They should add something to their web site like Boeing had for their Delta IV Heavy which was a dedicated page with progress being described in print, pictures and video plus a list of pending milestones and target dates.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #101 on:** 01/04/2007 01:05 am »

Such open-ness is not the case in most industry. It's okay for a public agency like NASA, or government project like EELV, but when you're competing against other companies for contracts the last thing you want to do is cause angst and heartburn among your customers by dragging their nose through every bump in the path of development.

MySDCUserID · « **Reply #102 on:** 01/04/2007 01:11 am »

Does anybody know the current status of SpaceX's future facilities at CCAFS? I have been hearing that they were looking at LC36. To what extent would the current launch towers need to be reconfigured? Obviously the vehicle interfaces are different, but are we talking razing the existing towers and building new ones?

Jim · « **Reply #103 on:** 01/04/2007 01:29 am »

Spacex doesn't use towers by design

MySDCUserID · « **Reply #104 on:** 01/04/2007 01:36 am »

Who would be responsible for the cost of razing any existing towers? Or is that determined on an individual basis by leasing agreements with the government?

Jim · « **Reply #105 on:** 01/04/2007 01:44 am »

Quote

MySDCUserID - 3/1/2007 9:19 PM

Who would be responsible for the cost of razing any existing towers? Or is that determined on an individual basis by leasing agreements with the government?

the user of the site

braddock · « **Reply #106 on:** 01/04/2007 03:00 am »

Quote

R&R - 3/1/2007 10:38 AM

Quote
NASA_Twix_JSC - 3/1/2007 10:29 PM

Elon is not at fault, his PAO is. As with the interviews on here, he's got lots of info to give. Whoever he's got in his PAO dept. Simply doesn't want to make the effort, that's all.

SpaceX is not NASA, they have no huge PR department. Elon does most of the talking and excels at spin about the Falcon. His PAO was doing a great job of providing information and even tours to the media prior to their first launch. The silence since then is most likely being directed by Musk. He wants to change the industry but seems to think that no longer includes open and timely communication.

Actually, I think part of what you observe is that the PAO you speak of left in the late spring. As of a few months ago, Dianne has not been replaced and SpaceX has thus not had a PR person for around seven months (I haven't had any direct contact with them for a few months so things could have changed).

Thus the relative silence on at least the PR and Media fronts.

R&R · « **Reply #107 on:** 01/05/2007 12:02 am »

Quote

braddock - 4/1/2007 8:43 PM

Quote
R&R - 3/1/2007 10:38 AM

Quote
NASA_Twix_JSC - 3/1/2007 10:29 PM

Elon is not at fault, his PAO is. As with the interviews on here, he's got lots of info to give. Whoever he's got in his PAO dept. Simply doesn't want to make the effort, that's all.

SpaceX is not NASA, they have no huge PR department. Elon does most of the talking and excels at spin about the Falcon. His PAO was doing a great job of providing information and even tours to the media prior to their first launch. The silence since then is most likely being directed by Musk. He wants to change the industry but seems to think that no longer includes open and timely communication.

Actually, I think part of what you observe is that the PAO you speak of left in the late spring. As of a few months ago, Dianne has not been replaced and SpaceX has thus not had a PR person for around seven months (I haven't had any direct contact with them for a few months so things could have changed).

Thus the relative silence on at least the PR and Media fronts.

Thanks I did not know that, I will give them some slack. Although that PBS interview doesn't help. I hope Dianne left for good reasons not bad blood, she was a good spokesperson from what I read.

Comga · « **Reply #108 on:** 01/09/2007 04:00 am »

Totally separate question concerning the second Falcon 1 launch:

There is a great photo on page 18 of the January 1 Aviation Week of the December 16 launch of the Minotaur from Wallops Island. The rocket is only halfway to clearing the gantry when the image was taken. In the light of the solid fuel first stage you can see some mass of fabric peeling off the first stage with some attached wires and ribbons. This brings to mind the foam insulation panels Velcroed to the first Falcon 1, which we saw flapping in the breeze for much of the first flight.

Does anyone know why the solid fuel Minotaur has these blankets? What exactly are they? How are they shed? And more importantly for this discussion, has anyone heard if SpaceX is going to use the same insulation as the first flight or if they are going to change it? While SpaceX has some clever new technology, this looks like a possibly proven solution to the LOX boil-off problem.

Jim · « **Reply #109 on:** 01/09/2007 10:56 am »

The Minotaur use the 1st and 2nd solid stages of the Minuteman ICBM. While on alert in their silos, the Minuteman were kept at certain temperatures (solids are sensitive to temp) that allowed the motors to provide consistance performance and guarantee that the vehicle will achieve it's mission.

Doubt this can be adapted for spacex

1. These blankets have conditioned (warm) air blowing thru them
2. The materials are probably incompatable with cryogenics/environment
3. Why would a Spacex competitor provide info on this?

aero313 · « **Reply #110 on:** 01/09/2007 01:57 pm »

Quote

Jim - 9/1/2007 6:39 AM

The Minotaur use the 1st and 2nd solid stages of the Minuteman ICBM. While on alert in their silos, the Minuteman were kept at certain temperatures (solids are sensitive to temp) that allowed the motors to provide consistance performance and guarantee that the vehicle will achieve it's mission.

Jim has it mostly correct, and yes, solid propellant performance is sensitive to temperature, but the problem with Minotaur isn't performance so much as thermal stresses in the solid propellant grain causing either cracks or delamination between the grain and the case insulation. Either is a bad thing and can lead to sudden traumatic disassembly of the vehicle. Since the Minuteman motors were to be stored inside temperature controlled silos, the motor design was able to be limited to certain propellant bulk temperatures at ignition. The ignition event results in tremendous strains on the propellant grain as the motor rapidly comes up to operating pressure.

This is not true of all solid propellants, by the way. Tactical missiles that hang under aircraft wings at high altitude are designed for the cold soak environment. The Pegasus motors had a similar design requirement.

spacedreams · « **Reply #111 on:** 01/09/2007 09:09 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 9/1/2007 6:40 AM sudden traumatic disassembly of the vehicle.

This is the best rocket failure term I have ever seen. Very clever!

bbliss · « **Reply #112 on:** 01/10/2007 01:19 am »

Speaking of the second Falcon 1 launch attemt -- does anyone know the "word on the street" about how things are on Kwajalein/Omelek these days, how the improved avionics sensor/software suites/hold-down conditions and inert gas vented compartments are shaking out, or how the LOX generation plants are doing? Any word on a static fire test or launch attempt date?

It seems very quiet, considering how close we seem to be to launch number two, and how much information was floated just before launch attempt number one. I understand that they're incredibly busy (and thin on PR staff), and I'm not aiming for proprietary information here, I was just curious how things were going. Hopefully all is well.

Comga · « **Reply #113 on:** 01/10/2007 02:53 am »

Thanks for the info, Jim.

Blowing warm air through a sleeve would definitely not be useful to SpaceX, and the idea of blowing cold air is equally useless.

However, I was thinking about the apparently rapid shedding, perhaps controlled by lanyards or other ground anchoring. It seems a lot more effective than SpaceX's last minute addition of the foam panels. I doubt that Orbital would give the design to SpaceX (even if both *say* that they are not competitors), but it would seem to be something that could be imitated. Having a foam panel hanging on and flapping in the wind for a vertical mile can't be good.

CentEur · « **Reply #114 on:** 01/10/2007 07:16 am »

Quote

spacedreams - 9/1/2007 10:52 PM

Quote
aero313 - 9/1/2007 6:40 AM sudden traumatic disassembly of the vehicle.

This is the best rocket failure term I have ever seen. Very clever!

How about Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly?

aero313 · « **Reply #115 on:** 01/10/2007 02:17 pm »

Quote

Comga - 9/1/2007 10:36 PM
Having a foam panel hanging on and flapping in the wind for a vertical mile can't be good.

The use of foam panels that get blown away or jettisoned at launch is very common in the suborbital world. Most of those vehicles are cobbled together from surplus solid rocket motors and the insulation helps with thermal control while the vehicle sits on the pad in places like Kwaj or PMR. The foam usually gets blown away at launch and there isn't much in the way of a jettison system required. Of course, solids tend to have a much higher thrust-to-weight at liftoff and so the foam never hangs on very long.

Spirit · « **Reply #116 on:** 01/10/2007 03:56 pm »

Sorry for the off-topic, but how exactly is 'Kwajalein' pronounced?

Jim · « **Reply #117 on:** 01/10/2007 05:16 pm »

kwa ja lin

imcub · « **Reply #118 on:** 01/10/2007 05:17 pm »

Quote

Spirit - 10/1/2007 8:39 AM

Sorry for the off-topic, but how exactly is 'Kwajalein' pronounced?

I've always heard it as Kwa-ja-leen ... but I'm not a local Kwajaleinien ... they might have a different take on it.

rnc · « **Reply #119 on:** 01/15/2007 09:36 pm »

At this point (halfway through January) there is lots of silence. SpaceflightNow still lists the next Falcon launch bracketed between a 18th Jan Progress 24P attempt and Jan 24th SeaLaunch NSS 8.

As the due date is racing towards us (:-) has anyone here asked SpaceX how things are going?