Author Topic: SCRUB: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 19 (Read 192744 times)

Jim · « **Reply #200 on:** 02/12/2007 01:19 am »

Quote

edkyle99 - 11/2/2007 8:59 PM

Quote
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

I stand corrected. I was looking at some wrong data

meiza · « **Reply #201 on:** 02/12/2007 12:56 pm »

How long is it from the first launch attempt of Falcon I? When was it again? The one where they had the lox problems.

braddock · « **Reply #202 on:** 02/12/2007 02:20 pm »

The private space flight article section summary actually gives a good timeline:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/cat.asp?cid=18

First specific date was Halloween, but that quickly got pushed back to Nov 25th (complete with preceeding press conference).

Nov 25th was the first real attempt. Weather delayed it, and the open LOX valve killed the attempt.

Comga · « **Reply #203 on:** 02/13/2007 03:37 am »

[/QUOTE]"I stand corrected. I was looking at some wrong data"[/QUOTE]

It is hard to be either correct or incorrect which such 'dynamic' data.

One thing we can see, which may contradict my earlier guesses, is that the "new" mass is "38.56 tonnes". That's a lot of precision for a SWAG. Perhaps they have done some design. I really hope they don't waste their scarce time on the "Falcon 1.5" (a designation I just made up). They should just fly the "Falcon 1.1" as Musk called it.

JIS · « **Reply #204 on:** 02/13/2007 11:46 am »

I think it's just a trick for the public. They will continue to fly original Falcon 1 as long as they have a stock of the original Merlin 1A engines. They said they have more than 10 of them available. With the current fly rates it can take years to expend them.
With Merlin 1C production open they can start updating the 1st stage for the first start in 2009 or many years later. I think it's not worth to do that but maybe I'm wrong. They can just throttle down Merlin 1C.

aero313 · « **Reply #205 on:** 02/13/2007 04:41 pm »

From the SpaceX website:

Quote

All performance data reflects the updated Falcon 1 vehicle available in 2009 and beyond.

And:

Quote

Pricing and Performance

SpaceX offers open and fixed pricing that is the same for all customers, including a best price guarantee. Modest discounts are available for contractually committed, multi-launch purchases.

Falcon 1 is the world’s lowest cost per flight to orbit of a production rocket.

The Falcon 1 user's guide is currently undergoing revision and will be available online shortly. We would be glad to run a customized trajectory analysis for your spacecraft at no charge, simply email us at [email protected].

A couple of observations.

First, no one with any launch vehicle experience was able to make the performance claims for the original Falcon 1 work. The general consensus was that the numbers were naively optomistic at best. The post-2009 stretch of Falcon 1 seems to bear that out. This is not unusual, by the way. Pegasus went through exactly the same problem. There was absolutely no performance margin held during development, payloads were designed to the advertised 1,000 lb capability, and when the first Pegasus flew the real world performance was closer to 600 lbs. Orbital then went to the Pegasus XL to make up the performance shortfall. Clearly SpaceX is planning on the same thing. Apparently they also didn't learn from the mistakes of others, since (as was the case with Pegasus) stretching the vehicle that much results in essentially the development of a brand new rocket. Yet more nonrecurring investment to be amortized.

Second, remember when they made a big deal of how open they were with their pricing?

Third, note that they are NOT currently providing performance numbers on their web page.

Also from their web page:

Quote

Engine Reliability

It was with this in mind that we designed Falcon 1 to have the minimum number of engines. As a result, there is only one engine per stage and only one stage separation event – the minimum pragmatically possible number.

So how exactly does Falcon 9 fit with this philosophy?

And:

Quote

Another notable point is the SpaceX hold-before-release system – a capability required by commercial airplanes, but rarely seen on launch vehicles.

Really? Can someone show me a liquid propellant launch vehicle that DOESN'T use a hold-down system? More to the point, solid propellant launchers don't use such a system because it isn't needed. If the solid lights, the rocket will fly. There's no issue with thrust buildup like there is with a liquid. These sorts of statements don't help with their credibility in my opinion.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #206 on:** 02/13/2007 05:20 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 13/2/2007 11:41 AM

Third, note that they are NOT currently providing performance numbers on their web page.

They no longer provide detailed information, but there are still some ballpark estimates in the "frequently asked questions" section.

The revised Falcon 1 user's guide has been "available soon" for about two years now. I still have a copy of the original guide that SpaceX posted back in 2005 or some-such, but I doubt that it provides much pertinent information about today's Falcon 1.

- Ed Kyle

Jim · « **Reply #207 on:** 02/13/2007 05:27 pm »

Delta II doesn't. But it can't lift off until the solids are lit anyways. But that is beside the point. They must have thought of the Titan IV as one of these too. But it is a solid vehicle from the launch mount point of view

R&R · « **Reply #208 on:** 02/14/2007 09:47 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 14/2/2007 10:41 AM

From the SpaceX website:

It was with this in mind that we designed Falcon 1 to have the minimum number of engines. As a result, there is only one engine per stage and only one stage separation event – the minimum pragmatically possible number.

One of the many ways they try to blow smoke that the Falcon is better than everybody else. This may only be true as compared to Minotar or Pegasus. Both Atlas V and Delta IV Mediums have only one stage separation event.

Quote

Another notable point is the SpaceX hold-before-release system – a capability required by commercial airplanes, but rarely seen on launch vehicles.

Another smoke and mirror tactic. Since you can't use this claim against fully solid vehicles there's only the the liquids. Both EELV's "hold down" until the engine is up and running properly. They just start the engine and do the evaluation in the final couple second before T-0. So SpaceX does the evaluation in plus time big deal, it's not a better way of doing things. Even the configurations of EELV, Delta II and I'd bet Titan don't ignite their solids until the engine checks are good.

Jim · « **Reply #209 on:** 02/14/2007 09:59 pm »

Titan with solids only lifted off on the solids. Stage 1 was air start. But true, the others don't ignite the solids until the main engine is good.

R&R · « **Reply #210 on:** 02/14/2007 10:25 pm »

Quote

Jim - 15/2/2007 3:59 PM

Titan with solids only lifted off on the solids. Stage 1 was air start. But true, the others don't ignite the solids until the main engine is good.

I didn't know that. How long in to flight was the engine started?

Jim · « **Reply #211 on:** 02/14/2007 10:32 pm »

Within 10-20 seconds of the SRM burnout

edkyle99 · « **Reply #212 on:** 03/01/2007 05:10 pm »

Quote

edkyle99 - 11/2/2007 10:27 AM

Quote
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

Sure enough, it has slipped to no earlier than March 19.

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

- Ed Kyle

Nate_Trost · « **Reply #213 on:** 03/01/2007 07:53 pm »

Given that it seems like they haven't completed a static fire test, or debugged their new countdown procedures yet, it's more likely than not that they'll burn through their March launch window...

BarryKirk · « **Reply #214 on:** 03/01/2007 09:04 pm »

How long is that window? and is March 9th the opening of the window and March 19th the expected actual launch date?

I know there seems to be a singular lack of info. It would be nice if SpaceX added a countdown clock to their website.

aero313 · « **Reply #215 on:** 03/01/2007 09:13 pm »

Quote

BarryKirk - 1/3/2007 5:04 PM
...It would be nice if SpaceX added a countdown clock to their website.

Unfortunately, it would probably just be flashing 12:00...12:00...12:00 :laugh:

(Sorry, that was too easy....)

Comga · « **Reply #216 on:** 03/03/2007 03:51 am »

Aviation Week (Feb 26, Page 18) quotes Gwynne Shotwell as saying "We certainly hope to launch prior to the 16th of March." That's only two weeks from now, with the range becoming available one week from now on the ninth.

There is a larger piece on the previous page discussing how SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler both met their milestones for COTS. It states that the payment was $18.1 million to SpaceX, as previously published. This is the list price for three Falcon 1's. With this kind of revenue difference, which one would you concentrate on?

bigdog · « **Reply #217 on:** 03/03/2007 02:48 pm »

Quote

Comga - 2/3/2007 9:51 PM

Aviation Week (Feb 26, Page 18) quotes Gwynne Shotwell as saying "We certainly hope to launch prior to the 16th of March." That's only two weeks from now, with the range becoming available one week from now on the ninth.

There is a larger piece on the previous page discussing how SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler both met their milestones for COTS. It states that the payment was $18.1 million to SpaceX, as previously published. This is the list price for three Falcon 1's. With this kind of revenue difference, which one would you concentrate on?

I don't have a subscription to AW, did the article say anything about what the problem was with the second stage actuator?

Comga · « **Reply #218 on:** 03/04/2007 10:42 pm »

Quote

bigdog - 3/3/2007 8:48 AM
I don't have a subscription to AW, did the article say anything about what the problem was with the second stage actuator?

It did not. It gave not a single detail, and no photos. For that matter, Shotwell didn't even set a date. All she said was "We certainly hope...". And we all know that "Hope is not a strategy."

Comga · « **Reply #219 on:** 03/05/2007 08:29 pm »

New update from the SpaceX website

Posted March 5, 2007

The launch window is now March 19th to 22nd (California time). During extended ground testing in late February, one of our second stage thrust vector control boards indicated a problem. Although our analysis showed substantial margin for flight, we decided nonetheless to increase the robustness of certain of the components and run a delta qualification.

The upgraded boards will be installed this week. If all goes well, Falcon 1 will do a static fire next week and then launch in the week of the 19th.

--Elon--

So much for Gwynne Shotwell's statements to Aviation Week. In the future, I will wait for Mr. Musk to post.
Where is his brother when we need him? :bleh: