Author Topic: SCRUB: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 19 (Read 178701 times)

aero313 · « **Reply #80 on:** 12/07/2006 10:46 pm »

Quote

Jim - 7/12/2006 6:14 PM

Airlaunch is not so much a launch vehicle but a delivery vehicle

Not true. The vehicle is designed to launch satellites. There are two missions, responsive launch of small satellites and launch of the "hypersonic test vehicle" (thereby avoiding the now politically incorrect term of "common aero vehicle"). The conventional ballistic missile mission is unlikely to happen anytime soon, especially with the new congressional makeup. That just leaves the responsive space launch mission.

AFRL/VS is finally working on responsive satellites, which is good since we've HAD responsive launch since the first Atlas ICBM went operational. Will AirLaunch (capital L, no space) be funded for the next phase? Don't know. The difference, however, is that AirLaunch is a) developing a system that actually has innovative features capable of reducing cost and b) isn't spouting off in the press unless there's been a real accomplishment.

Jim · « **Reply #81 on:** 12/07/2006 11:15 pm »

It is not really designed to launch spacecraft. They haven't even thought of payload accomodations. The real benefit DARPA is getting out of it is the aircraft extraction methodology. The vehicle is so so. The "system' hasn't really been worked out. Just various parts, just enough to keep the money coming

jongoff · « **Reply #82 on:** 12/08/2006 12:09 am »

Quote

AFRL/VS is finally working on responsive satellites, which is good since we've HAD responsive launch since the first Atlas ICBM went operational. Will AirLaunch (capital L, no space) be funded for the next phase? Don't know. The difference, however, is that AirLaunch is a) developing a system that actually has innovative features capable of reducing cost and b) isn't spouting off in the press unless there's been a real accomplishment.

For me there's the added benefit of c) their test stand is 1000ft from our test stand in Mojave, so we occasionally get to have an up-close view of a 24klbf LOX/Propane engine....

But yeah, it is interesting what Gary and company are trying to do. I really hope he's able to pull it off. I don't envy the situation he's in. As he was saying the other day when we bumped into him on the road back from the testing area, he's kind of betting the company every time he pressurizes that upper stage tank they're working on testing. It's an interesting approach though, so here's to hoping.

~Jon

CentEur · « **Reply #83 on:** 12/08/2006 09:42 am »

Quote

aero313 - 7/12/2006 7:25 PM

SpaceX has managed to recreate the Thor and Scaled the X-15. Neither system has yet demonstrated the ability to match the performance and reliability of the originals at any price.

Despite your suggestion Scaled never intended to recreate X-15, no wonder their product does not match X-15 performance. BTW It doesn't match Honda Civic's reliability either, another reason to mock Scaled.

lmike · « **Reply #84 on:** 12/08/2006 09:57 am »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35582-2004Jun11?language=printer

Quite a few references to the X-15. As an inspiration. And a "yard-stick". ("the SS1 is lighter and more stable on re-entry, "etc...)

CentEur · « **Reply #85 on:** 12/08/2006 10:21 am »

Quote

lmike - 8/12/2006 11:40 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35582-2004Jun11?language=printer

Quite a few references to the X-15. As an inspiration. And a "yard-stick". ("the SS1 is lighter and more stable on re-entry, "etc...)

Here's a list of differences between SS1 and X-15 program goals: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/204/1 . No wonder that in the end (according to your source) "(...) past the surface similarities, SpaceShipOne has little in common with its ancestor." It's because "draws inspiration from" is very far from "is intended to recreate".

aero313 · « **Reply #86 on:** 12/08/2006 02:48 pm »

Quote

Jim - 7/12/2006 6:58 PM

It is not really designed to launch spacecraft. They haven't even thought of payload accomodations. The real benefit DARPA is getting out of it is the aircraft extraction methodology. The vehicle is so so. The "system' hasn't really been worked out. Just various parts, just enough to keep the money coming

Given that a draft satellite Payload User's Guide and Payload ICD have been provided to the gov't, and the system provides all the normal payload accommodations features for satellite mechanical and electrical interfaces (not to mention some innovative features for responsiveness beyond just launch vehicle processing), I'd say you've been misinformed. By the way, the internal carriage of the vehicle in the C-17 (instead of under the L-1011), coupled with the low-pressure engines, provides payload environments even more benign than those of Pegasus.

As for the "system" not being worked out, I think you've again been misinformed. Yes, the focus of the program has been the extraction system and propulsion development, because those are the new development items and DARPA and AirLaunch wanted to retire those risks early. Also, since these have been the concrete accomplishments with pretty pictures, these have been the tasks that AirLaunch has publicized. The development team has, however, also been working on everything else, including avionics, software, payload fairing, ground and flight ops, and GSE/ASE. There was a four-day design review for the gov't last month covering all this. I guess we'll have to see if DARPA and the AF agree that sufficient progress has been made to continue development.

Jim · « **Reply #87 on:** 12/08/2006 03:03 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 8/12/2006 10:31 AM

Quote
Jim - 7/12/2006 6:58 PM

It is not really designed to launch spacecraft. They haven't even thought of payload accomodations. The real benefit DARPA is getting out of it is the aircraft extraction methodology. The vehicle is so so. The "system' hasn't really been worked out. Just various parts, just enough to keep the money coming

Given that a draft satellite Payload User's Guide and Payload ICD have been provided to the gov't, and the system provides all the normal payload accommodations features for satellite mechanical and electrical interfaces (not to mention some innovative features for responsiveness beyond just launch vehicle processing), I'd say you've been misinformed. By the way, the internal carriage of the vehicle in the C-17 (instead of under the L-1011), coupled with the low-pressure engines, provides payload environments even more benign than those of Pegasus.

As for the "system" not being worked out, I think you've again been misinformed. Yes, the focus of the program has been the extraction system and propulsion development, because those are the new development items and DARPA and AirLaunch wanted to retire those risks early. Also, since these have been the concrete accomplishments with pretty pictures, these have been the tasks that AirLaunch has publicized. The development team has, however, also been working on everything else, including avionics, software, payload fairing, ground and flight ops, and GSE/ASE. There was a four-day design review for the gov't last month covering all this. I guess we'll have to see if DARPA and the AF agree that sufficient progress has been made to continue development.

My comments are based on a review in Aug

JIS · « **Reply #88 on:** 12/08/2006 03:38 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 8/12/2006 3:31 PM

By the way, the internal carriage of the vehicle in the C-17 (instead of under the L-1011), coupled with the low-pressure engines, provides payload environments even more benign than those of Pegasus.

What about risk asociated with LOX carried inside the aircraft? Is AF happy to risk C-17?

aero313 · « **Reply #89 on:** 12/08/2006 03:56 pm »

Quote

JIS - 8/12/2006 11:21 AM

Quote
aero313 - 8/12/2006 3:31 PM

By the way, the internal carriage of the vehicle in the C-17 (instead of under the L-1011), coupled with the low-pressure engines, provides payload environments even more benign than those of Pegasus.

What about risk asociated with LOX carried inside the aircraft? Is AF happy to risk C-17?

Exactly what risks? Keep in mind that this is a cargo aircraft that operates in the atmosphere and has a ventilation system that changes out the air in the cargo bay continuously. This isn't a sealed Apollo 1 capsule with 100% oxygen in it. Yes, there's the issue of LOX leaking on grease or combustables under the cargo deck, but drip pans are an accepted method of dealing with this.

AirLaunch has a formal safety process with participation by both the C-17 community and the launch range community. Their assessment of system safety will be a big part of the go/nogo decision by DARPA. The system is two fault tolerant to catastrophic hazards. By the way, the C-17 and other aircraft have LOX on board currently for breathing as well as for medevac cargoes. There are even cryogenic vents built into the aircraft specifically for LOX in the cargo bay.

aero313 · « **Reply #90 on:** 12/08/2006 04:05 pm »

Quote

Jim - 8/12/2006 10:46 AM
My comments are based on a review in Aug

Were you at the meeting? The first draft of the Payload User's Guide as well as a report on the designs and analyses for satellite payload accommodations was submitted to DARPA, AF, and NASA in July 2005 (yes, a year and a half ago). That info has been updated as work has progressed on the system and was absolutely presented during the review in August 2006. There was also a separate briefing to the KSC folks that covered this info. AirLaunch also presented a paper at SmallSat this year covering the payload accommodations. SCC06-IX-4. Feel free to read it.

Jim · « **Reply #91 on:** 12/08/2006 04:08 pm »

I see the extraction system living on, independent of the rocket. Solids would be that way to go

aero313 · « **Reply #92 on:** 12/08/2006 06:15 pm »

Quote

Jim - 8/12/2006 11:51 AM

I see the extraction system living on, independent of the rocket. Solids would be that way to go

For a responsive weapon system, I don't disagree with you. There's a reason why the US doesn't have any liquid propellant strategic or tactical missiles...

just-nick · « **Reply #93 on:** 12/08/2006 08:21 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 8/12/2006 10:58 AM

Quote
Jim - 8/12/2006 11:51 AM

I see the extraction system living on, independent of the rocket. Solids would be that way to go

For a responsive weapon system, I don't disagree with you. There's a reason why the US doesn't have any liquid propellant strategic or tactical missiles...

Since a fairly lively AirLaunch discussion took off here I've started a thread for it.

So now we can debate SpaceX here and AirLaunch there...

--Nick

braddock · « **Reply #94 on:** 12/09/2006 03:51 pm »

Minor Update from SpaceX: http://spacex.com/updates.php

Posted December 8, 2006
Minor Update

All Falcon 1 parts have been shipped to the launch site to prepare for next flight. Our current schedule calls for a static fire in mid January and first flight countdown in late January. Given the many upgrades to Falcon 1, there may be many countdowns before launch occurs.

BarryKirk · « **Reply #95 on:** 12/09/2006 09:41 pm »

It sure would be nice if they could provide a few more details.

zappafrank · « **Reply #96 on:** 12/25/2006 06:17 am »

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

And damned litttle to show for all the work.

braddock · « **Reply #97 on:** 12/25/2006 01:25 pm »

Quote

zappafrank - 25/12/2006 2:00 AM
I really have issues with Musk. Very little info, but lots of promises.
And damned litttle to show for all the work.

I think that is a little unfair, in all honesty. Whatever his and his company's faults, I'm not sure that too little public information is among them. It surely has been about the most public rocket development program. By comparison, look at how little Blue Origin, Lockheed, or even tax-funded NASA release during program development.

When I interviewed Elon this summer, I had the full impression that he was willing to talk about any aspect of the program - and he did for almost an hour. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/cat.asp?cid=18

As for little to show -- considering how fast NASA spends $100 million, I think a fully new rocket engine, one and a half fully new vehicles, and a launch attempt are a pretty good showing. If they succeed in the next few months in a launch, no one would be able to say they have "little to show". If anything, they should be criticized for trying to do too much.

I don't know how much of a chance the company as a whole has to meet its ambitious goals and prove a success, and they certainly have proven capable of some obnoxious spin, but I certainly don't feel uninformed.

NASA_Twix_JSC · « **Reply #98 on:** 01/03/2007 04:46 am »

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.

meiza · « **Reply #99 on:** 01/03/2007 12:51 pm »

RS-68 development, which was considered extremely innovatively low-cost and also an unambitious "dumbed down" derivative of SSME, cost about 500 million to develop. Big hydrogen engine, yeah, but still...

Let's see what Musk and his company can do.

I don't know how much money NASA put into Fastrack (however it's spelt) before cancellation...