SCRUB: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 19

[BarryKirk]

I beleive you.  Just out of curisity, where was that date posted?

[edkyle99]

BarryKirk wrote:

"I beleive you. Just out of curisity, where was that date posted?"

http://msdb.honeywell-tsi.com/launches.asp

 - Ed Kyle

[jimvela]

edkyle99 - 6/2/2007  1:42 PM
The Falcon 1 launch date is now listed as no earlier than March 9, 2007.
 - Ed Kyle

SpaceX just sent out an email update noting the date above.

The message did not have any restrictions on redistribution, so here it is verbatim:

February 7, 2007
DemoFlight 2 Launch Update

We have recently been informed by the Kwajalein Army Range that they do not have sufficient resources to support our launch in mid to late Feb. Several range personnel critical to the launch safety process will be unavailable in that timeframe. The earliest launch window available from the Range now opens March 9.

Additional Falcon 1 Flights in 2007

After the upcoming demonstration flight, Falcon 1 is scheduled to launch a satellite for the US Navy Research Laboratory (funded by the Office of Force Transformation) in late summer and then a satellite for the Malaysian Space Agency late in the year. We are also building an additional Falcon 1 vehicle in the event that some promising customer discussions culminate in a fourth Falcon 1 launch this year.

---Elon

[reubenb]

They might not be able to get a rocket off the ground yet, but it looks like their web developers have been busy.  The new site looks pretty cool.

Edit: Looks like they don't have the Falcon 5 listed anymore either.

[Comga]

reubenb - 7/2/2007  6:43 PM
Edit: Looks like they don't have the Falcon 5 listed anymore either.

The Falcon 5 has been off the planning board for a while.  They now plan to offer dual payload launches on the Falcon 9.

This was slightly disturbing in an of itself.  After touting five engines as the "magic number", promising that the users manual was to be released in a month or two (in 2005), and shortly after they posted a photo of Musk shaking hands with a guy from NASA, they dropped the "5" hatched the even bigger Falcon-9.  

I agree that the web site is now pretty slick and modernized.  Three or four years is an eternity in web pages, even if it is insufficient to build an entirely new rocket. And I really like the Dragon simulation.

They seem to have slimmed down their offerings too.  While the have dropped the references to the Falcon 5, they still have both diameter fairings for the "9".  They have also taken off the configurations with five engine strap-ons, leaving them a total of six configs if you include the Dragon on a regular Falcon-9.  

And they still do keep their update subscribers informed a bit earlier than the rest of the world.  It is a nice touch.

You have to hand it to Musk again for starting to construct ANOTHER (#4!) Falcon 1 for an as-yet not concluded sale.  

And their manifest is certainly "dynamic".  They claim to have less than 16 months until the launch of the first Falcon-9, but now the launch site is undecided.  There are no "9" launches listed as definitely going out of Kwaj.  Space Dev moves up the list, as does SpaceX's return to Vandenberg.  Bigelow drops back considerably.

Personally, I am more interested in the Falcon 1 than the future plans.  It is something SpaceX can definitely accomplish.  First things first.  Walk before you run.  And remember what the Pointed Man said in the movie "The Point": "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."   Here is hoping they point one Falcon 1 at one orbit and get one launch under their belt.

[braddock]

Comga - 7/2/2007  11:19 PM
You have to hand it to Musk again for starting to construct ANOTHER (#4!) Falcon 1 for an as-yet not concluded sale.  

I think it may be closer to #5, since they had to completely replace the first stage late year after the "tank sucking" incident.

It would be more reassuring to see some Falcon 9 thrust structure or Merlin 1C testing, which is due soon.

[meiza]

Imo they should do fully integrated full duration first stage hold down firings in that new big ef test stand of theirs. With gimballing and all. Kwajalein is such a pain to operate and the confidence in the first stage isn't exactly high. Their hardware isn't supposed to be huge or expensive so it could do a lot of good with relatively little cost. Another failure will certainly be very dear for them.

[edkyle99]

reubenb - 7/2/2007  7:43 PM

They might not be able to get a rocket off the ground yet, but it looks like their web developers have been busy.  The new site looks pretty cool.

Edit: Looks like they don't have the Falcon 5 listed anymore either.

Of interest to me was the data shown for the Merlin engine.  SpaceX now lists it at 101,900 lbs of thrust (sea level), a substantial increase from the 77,000 lbs of thrust previously listed.  The image adjacent also appears to show a regenerative thrust chamber version, which could be the Merlin 1C mentioned by Elon Musk in the past.  

The site mentions that the higher-thrust (and other vehicle) data "reflects the updated Falcon 1 vehicle available in 2009 and beyond".

 - Ed Kyle

[bad_astra]

Good luck to them, and I'm glad they have alternate launching locations besides Kwaj for the future.

[Danderman]

The animation at: http://spacex.com/Dragon_ISS_Rendezvous.mpg is interesting, but for some reason it shows 2 PMAs hanging off Node 3. With a 3rd PMA at Node 2 and the permanent PMA between Node 1 and the FGB, that makes 4 PMAs, whereas AFAIK only 3 exist. So where does the extra PMA come from?

[Jim]

Artist license.  But they aren't PMA's.  They are smaller.  Probably LIDS adapters

[edkyle99]

Also of interest is the fact that the listed Falcon 1 launch mass is now 38.56 tonnes, a substantial increase from the previous 27.2 tonnes.  This data has to be for Merlin 1C, since neither the current Merlin nor the previously discussed Merlin 1B produce enough thrust to lift 38.56 tonnes off the ground.  

This data wouldn't apply to existing Falcon 1 vehicles, but only to those launch in 2009 or later.  An increase of more than 11 tonnes implies that the Falcon 1 would have to be stretched substantially to accommodate more propellant, but the SpaceX information shows no such growth in height.  Both old and new Falcon 1 vehicle heights are/were given as 21.3 meters.  The Falcon 1 first stage currently carries only 21 or so tonnes of propellant, so one has to wonder where the extra 11 tonnes will go!

An 11+ tonne increase in gross liftoff weight also implies that payload capacity to LEO will increase beyond the current 570 kg (from a 28 deg inclination launch site) to something approaching, and perhaps exceeding, 650 kg.  That would match or beat Minotaur 1 and Russia's Start-1,  

 - Ed Kyle

[Comga]

edkyle99 - 10/2/2007  12:56 PM

.... An increase of more than 11 tonnes implies that the Falcon 1 would have to be stretched substantially to accommodate more propellant, but the SpaceX information shows no such growth in height.  Both old and new Falcon 1 vehicle heights are/were given as 21.3 meters. ..... - Ed Kyle

This is a good example of the troubling technical churn at SpaceX.  First the Falcon-1 Heavy disappears in favor of the Falcon-5. (IIRC WAY back) Then the Falcon 5 is superseded by the Falcon-9 and eventually disappears.  Then they decide to "retire" the Merlin-1 engine before they have had a single successful flight, jumping over the Merlin 1B with increased thrust to go to the Merlin-1C with the regenerative cooling.  They win COTS, but start out man-rating it to become the "Dragon" with seats for seven.  Now they have essentially announced the retirement of the Falcon-1 after 2009, even though it has yet to get to orbit, and despite the apparent market acceptance with the potential fourth sale in 2007.  

Does this inspire confidence in anyone?  What is to be gained by talking about ending the Falcon-1 line and starting what seems to be another new rocket, with new tankage and a new engine? Who can plan to use any of their vehicles if the planning is so unstable?  

With all these changes, even if they do succeed in March, and we all sincerely hope they do, they will have almost none of the components needed for their future plans.

Building a rocket is a really tough challenge.  I just wish they would limit the number of tough challenges that they are facing simultaneously.

[Skyrocket]

Comga - 10/2/2007  10:51 PM

Now they have essentially announced the retirement of the Falcon-1 after 2009, even though it has yet to get to orbit, and despite the apparent market acceptance with the potential fourth sale in 2007.  

No, this is a misunderstanding. They announced an upgrade of the Falcon-1 with new engine (and probably stretched body). No word of ending the Falcon-1 line ("All performance data reflects the updated Falcon 1 vehicle available in 2009 and beyond.")

[braddock]

Skyrocket - 10/2/2007  5:05 PM
No, this is a misunderstanding. They announced an upgrade of the Falcon-1 with new engine (and probably stretched body).

This also isn't new.  We had confirmation from them last spring that the regen Merlin 1 engine would eventually be used on the Falcon 1, and that the 1B would never fly but was only a stepping stone to the 1C.

[Avron]

So is March 9th the launch date? or are we expecting some more slippage?

[edkyle99]

Avron - 11/2/2007  9:47 AM

So is March 9th the launch date? or are we expecting some more slippage?

The schedule says "no earlier than" March 9.  March 9 must be the start of a period that the range will be available for SpaceX.  

I don't know about you, but based on past SpaceX campaigns I would be absolutely astonished if a Falcon launch occurred on March 9!  

 - Ed Kyle

[Comga]

Skyrocket - 10/2/2007  3:05 PM

Comga - 10/2/2007  10:51 PM

Now they have essentially announced the retirement of the Falcon-1 after 2009, .....  

No, this is a misunderstanding. They announced an upgrade of the Falcon-1 with new engine (and probably stretched body). No word of ending the Falcon-1 line ("All performance data reflects the updated Falcon 1 vehicle available in 2009 and beyond.")

Pardon me.  If you replace the engine and the tankage, probably the launch equipment and transportation hardware, and increase the mass and payload by around a third, how is it the same rocket?  Where does "upgrading" end and superseding begin?  

I suppose that once they get the Merlin 1-C into production, they won't want to keep two lines open.   However, that could mean that they have to get rid of or heavily modify a lot of hardware, none of which has yet produced a successful rocket.  This is more proof of the adage "Better is the enemy of good enough."

[Jim]

They aren't increasing the tankage

[edkyle99]

Jim - 11/2/2007  4:32 PM

They aren't increasing the tankage

If not, then what else could account for the listed increase in the post-2008 Falcon 1 launch mass from the current 27.2 tonnes to 38.56 tonnes?  

 - Ed Kyle