LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 20 (Attempt 2)

[Chris Bergin]

A few things.

1) Keep it calm on here.

2) Try not to personalize, if it can be helped. Personally I find some of the comments 'unfair' - it's only a few, but personalizing it on Elon is pushing it.

3) "Interesting and sad to watch how some here are still trying to turn two failures into great successes." - first flight was a failure, and I don't see any SpaceX comment about success on that launch. Second flight - as I've mentioned before - achieved it's primary goal....and now we've been told by SpaceX, via Elon, that it was only a few solvable 'faults' away its secondary goals.

But I need to state this again, as it was only noted on the media call. A reporter asked SpaceX's Gwynne Shotwell - BEFORE the launch - "What does this flight need to achieve to be a success" - and she made it clear about simply getting into space with the vehicle, the rest would be bonuses.

Remember, this site - by way of its primary coverage - is a fully signed up member of the NASA, ULA etc. Fan club, so we're not some 'Nu Space blog site' falling over itself on that subject, but I have to say I've been impressed with SpaceX.

Anyway, bottom line, this is the forum section and all opinions are welcome. Just keep it calm.

[JonSBerndt]

JonSBerndt - 27/3/2007  6:55 AM
Just for comparison purposes, how much did the EELV program cost in developing Delta IV and Atlas V? How about Ariane V? How much of the money was public and how much was private? How many test flights were there until those vehicles were declared operational? Were those test flights successful? Were they totally clean sheet designs? Did they use new facilities and machinery to manufacture the launch vehicles?

I got this information from the AIAA web site: http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=189&ArchiveIssueID=24

EELV history

In August 1995, the U.S. government awarded $30-million contracts to four companies, with the aim of ultimately selecting one EELV builder. In December 1996, it down-selected to two, McDonnell Douglas (subsequently acquired by Boeing) and Lockheed Martin. ...

In October 1998, the government awarded $500 million each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Development costs are shared between the contractors and the government, resulting in a national, dual-use launch service. ...

The Air Force simultaneously awarded initial launch service contracts to both firms: $1.38 billion to Boeing for 19 launches and $650 million to Lockheed Martin for nine launches. ...

The first Atlas V was launched August 21, 2002. The first Delta IV was launched November 20, 2002.

Jon

[meiza]

I personally, and acknowledging my ignorance, wish SpaceX would do one more test flight (clearly stated as such) before taking paying customers. But I stress, I don't know much about their situation... I was talking about this before the first launch too. In retrospect that really was more of a sandbag test launch too, perhaps not in pr though.

[stockman]

Bottom line here guys is that this is Elons company and it is all HIS money. If he wants to go for it and start commercial operations on the next flight then its up to him. Personally I admire his guts. He is not taking public money for this and he is not hiding behind his walls and only showing us the successes. We get to see the "fly on a wall, warts and all" look as his company grows. That to me is guts. jmo

[CentEur]

Analyst - 27/3/2007  1:35 PM

If you think every new launch vehicle has to crash because this is the way it was 50 years ago, fine. But we are beyond this. Other can do better, and they did.

Do you suggest making test flights is an obsolete habit (like the EELV folks apparently thought)? I my opinion it is a sign of prudence from a startup company.

[aero313]

First, just as a reminder, I haven't worked for Orbital for nearly a decade and have no financial interest in the company.  Second, failures in the launch industry hurt everyone, so no one wants to see SpaceX fail.  Their development team has accomplished a lot and should be congratulated.  The problem I have is not even with SpaceX (well, I do have a problem with their unfounded boasts, but that's just marketing), but with those who apparently don't remember history and want to give undue credit.  The team that developed Pegasus was more innovative and more enterprenurial that the SpaceX team in my opinion.  I'd like to see them get some credit.

Just for fun, let's compare Pegasus and Falcon 1 development:

Brand new, clean sheet design?  Yes for both

Brand new engine/motor development?  Yes again (and before someone starts whining about how Pegasus took advantage of the ICBM design database, I'd argue that SpaceX did the same with their engine development, including using an established vendor to design and fab the turbopump.

Brand new avionics suite and software?  Yup. By the way, Pegasus pioneered the use of a serial data bus to connect distributed avionics along the vehicle.  Orbital also had the sense to use an existing commercial flight computer instead of developing their own.

Innovative streamlined launch operations?  Check.

Totally private investment for development?  Yes.  Contrary to popular belief, Pegasus was developed with private money.

DARPA bought first two missions?  Yes again

Concurrent large NASA-funded program?  COTS for SpaceX and Transfer Orbit Stage for Orbital

Development and growth of a brand new company?  Yes again.  Orb headcount went from around 30 at Pegasus inception to around 150-ish by first flight.

Development time to successful flight?  30 months for Pegaus, TBD for SpaceX.  On the other hand, Pegasus had a couple of flight anomalies on subsequent missions, so this could be considered a wash also.

In fact, the one major difference between the two companies is that Orbital's founders had the good sense to use other people's money...

[Danderman]

From the SpaceX web site:

"The vast majority of launch vehicle failures in the past two decades can be attributed to three causes: engine, stage separation and, to a much lesser degree, avionics failures. An analysis of launch failure history between 1980 and 1999 by Aerospace Corporation showed that 91% of known failures can be attributed to those subsystems."

Its interesting that SpaceX is three for three for these common problems. I guess there is a reason why these are common problems!

[bad_astra]

Aero, as a suggestion why don't you start a thread in the historical section about the early days of OSC and how they were able to get funding at a time when space capitol wasn't as easy to come by.  I would definitely be interested in reading about it, and that would cause less friction in this thread.  

[SimonShuttle]

Also the cool Q&A with Pegasus' designer: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3911&start=1

[NotGncDude]

I second that.

I gotta admit that SpaceX story is so cool that it's easy to dismiss comparisons with Orbital, but Aero's posts are convincing. Orbital story may not be that different. Only it's been so little publicized compare to SpaceX.

[Jim]

ianmga - 27/3/2007  11:06 AM

I second that.

I gotta admit that SpaceX story is so cool that it's easy to dismiss comparisons with Orbital, but Aero's posts are convincing. Orbital story may not be that different. Only it's been so little publicized compare to SpaceX.

Internet didn't exist to the extent that we have today, back when OSC started

[Analyst]

CentEur - 27/3/2007  4:16 PM

Analyst - 27/3/2007  1:35 PM

If you think every new launch vehicle has to crash because this is the way it was 50 years ago, fine. But we are beyond this. Other can do better, and they did.

Do you suggest making test flights is an obsolete habit (like the EELV folks apparently thought)? I my opinion it is a sign of prudence from a startup company.

You can do without them and be successful as many others (Orbital, Boeing, LM) have shown. On the other hand Ariane 501 was a failure. I think it is a little strange to set goals like "reaching space" for an orbital launch vehicle (The first stage alone could do this if there is no second stage.). The goal is to reach orbit. You can fail doing this, you can even fail more than twice. But the time to test step by step is gone. You fly the whole vehicle. Sure you can achieve some milestones like stage sep and call it a partial success. But to say this was planned as a step by step procedure to reach orbit with flight number x is simply spin.

Analyst

[clongton]

Analyst - 27/3/2007  11:27 AM

But to say this was planned as a step by step procedure to reach orbit with flight number x is simply spin.
Analyst

Spin is what you do after something bad has happened to try to make people think it was something good. In this case, the "spin" was announced before the launch, not after, so it was't spin. It was a stating of objectives for the upcoming launch.

[Jim]

OSC Q&A thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7265&posts=4&start=1

[pippin]

It wasn't spin, it was roll :-)
Sorry, couldn't resist...

Maybe somebody should open an off-topic thread like "hubris vs. prudence" (both bad habits) or "what makes for a success" or whatever...

[rpspeck]

“Is there something innovative and new about Falcon that will allow it to be more reliable and more cost-effective than other rockets?” (from earlier post)

Please note that using a Pressure Fed, liquid fueled motor (Falcon I, second stage) for launch to LEO has not been attempted in a long time.  The comments on the glowing nozzle make it clear as well that “Radiation Cooling”, used on many satellite thrusters and deep space vehicles, is equally uncommon for launch vehicles.  

These innovations, which seemed to work well, can bring simpler, less expensive and more reliable launch vehicles.  They echo the call for “Big Dumb Boosters” from decades ago.  

Related to this, I am bothered by the “Mantra” (in prior posts) that “the second stage always costs more” – than the entirely successful first stage.  It is irrelevant that historic efforts have produced very expensive second stages.  Unlimited funds CAN be spent to squeeze the ultimate performance out of relatively lightweight hardware.  But the fact that a Ferrari costs more than a heavier Chevy truck does not mean that this reverse cost ratio is guaranteed!  

It is possible that avionics makes this second stage more expensive than the more complex and much heavier first stage.  (It is impossible that the payload adaptor “must” be more expensive than the larger and stronger interstage structure)   But even if this is true, IT CAN NOT REMAIN TRUE!  The avionics which can guide Falcon I into orbit can also serve to guide a Falcon IX with similar precision.  

This “Mantra” itself is very destructive!  It locks out serious consideration of how modern technology can, and should, affect launch vehicle economics.   It is no secret that very powerful computers (without the human interface components) weigh only grams.  It is no secret the GPS, with accuracy far better than required for orbital injection, works better in LEO than it does on the ground.  It is also no secret that adequate gyros to supplement the GPS data are built into consumer camcorders and, along with accelerometers, are built into spectacularly “expendable” precision, smart weapons.  (These operate slightly FARTHER from their GPS navigational references then the launch vehicle.)

I agree that fresh thinking is necessary to recognize how such technology will open up space access and deep space exploration.  Many established Launch Providers will be stuck, line IBM in 1979, with outmoded thinking.  They “knew” that “toy computers”, like the Apple™, could never do more than introduce students to “serious computing”.  SURPRISE!  

Will space launch be different?  I know lots of arguments, on both sides.  But the reality is that users, and producers, are gambling big time on the answer.  Opinions don’t count.  In a few years the results will become visible.   Richard P. Speck,  Micro-Space, Inc.

[Jim]

rpspeck - 27/3/2007  1:47 PM

Please note that using a Pressure Fed, liquid fueled motor (Falcon I, second stage) for launch to LEO has not been attempted in a long time.  The comments on the glowing nozzle make it clear as well that “Radiation Cooling”, used on many satellite thrusters and deep space vehicles, is equally uncommon for launch vehicles.  

Wrong on 2 counts.

A pressure fed, liquid fueled upperstage with a radiation cooled nozzle for launch to LEO is used everytime a Delta II flies.

[Jim]

rpspeck - 27/3/2007  1:47 PM
Related to this, I am bothered by the “Mantra” (in prior posts) that “the second stage always costs more” – than the entirely successful first stage.  It is irrelevant that historic efforts have produced very expensive second stages.

It is what it is.  The upper stage has many of the same type of components as a booster:  engines, tanks, electrical power system, etc.
Interstage is shared.  
But the upperstage has more: Avionics, payload fairing, payload adapter, etc.  Even though weight of the components of the upperstage doesn't matter much (they are small), the weight of the structure does.  This along with the other components, increase the touch labor of the upperstage over the booster.  That is the reason for the cost.  Not the amount of the material.

[aero313]

rpspeck - 27/3/2007  1:47 PM
Please note that using a Pressure Fed, liquid fueled motor (Falcon I, second stage) for launch to LEO has not been attempted in a long time.

 

"Long time"  I guess you consider a month a long time.  The last Delta II (which also uses a pressure fed upper stage) was launched on Feb 15.

These innovations, which seemed to work well, can bring simpler, less expensive and more reliable launch vehicles.  They echo the call for “Big Dumb Boosters” from decades ago.  

Again, what innovations?  Delta II has used a pressure fed second stage forever.  Turbine exhaust for roll control flew on Vanguard.  Pump-fed LOX/RP engines flew on Thor.  The tilt-up launch pad design was used on Thor and Atlas ballistic missiles (as well as on the Titan II that launched Gemini).  The Atlas ICBMs demonstrated responive launch by erecting, fueling, and launching within 15 minutes of callup (not to be confused with a simple recycle of the count).

Related to this, I am bothered by the “Mantra” (in prior posts) that “the second stage always costs more” – than the entirely successful first stage.  It is irrelevant that historic efforts have produced very expensive second stages.  Unlimited funds CAN be spent to squeeze the ultimate performance out of relatively lightweight hardware.  But the fact that a Ferrari costs more than a heavier Chevy truck does not mean that this reverse cost ratio is guaranteed!

 

Your statement implies that you don't fully appreciate the phenomena of "staging fraction".  On a two-stage to orbit vehicle, a pound of Stage 2 weight is one less pound of payload weight - in other words, a 1:1 staging fraction.  The first stage is probably in the 8:1 range.  If your goal is to offer a launch cost of $1,000/lb (as an example), then you should be willing to spend nearly $1,000 a vehicle (on a recurring basis) to save a pound of Stage 2 weight, but only $125 to save a pound of Stage 1 weight.  This staging fraction, coupled with the fact that Stage 1 SHOULD BE primarily dumb tankage, is why Stage 2 should be more expensive.

It is possible that avionics makes this second stage more expensive than the more complex and much heavier first stage.  (It is impossible that the payload adaptor “must” be more expensive than the larger and stronger interstage structure)

Sorry, but again, this statement shows a fundamental lack of understanding.  The payload adapter goes all the way to orbit.  The interstage does not.  Also, just because the first stage is heavier doesn't necessarily make it more expensive.  Yes, the propulsion elements are larger and thus more expensive.  The advantages of staging fraction should allow one to design the lower stages with lower performance materials, making it less expensive (at least on a per pound basis).  That's also why is often isn't financially viable to recover lower stages.  It's also why lower stages tend to use lower ISP propellants (LOX/RP vs. LOX/LH2 on Saturn and solid vs. LOX/LH2 on Shuttle).  A launch vehicle just isn't as sensitive to weight on the lower stages, so cost should be a greater consideration.

But even if this is true, IT CAN NOT REMAIN TRUE!  The avionics which can guide Falcon I into orbit can also serve to guide a Falcon IX with similar precision.  

That statement IS true, for the most part.  It does make you wonder why MSFC is using an "instrument ring" on ARES I instead of an "instrument pallet", for example.

This “Mantra” itself is very destructive!  It locks out serious consideration of how modern technology can, and should, affect launch vehicle economics.   It is no secret that very powerful computers (without the human interface components) weigh only grams.  It is no secret the GPS, with accuracy far better than required for orbital injection, works better in LEO than it does on the ground.  It is also no secret that adequate gyros to supplement the GPS data are built into consumer camcorders and, along with accelerometers, are built into spectacularly “expendable” precision, smart weapons.  (These operate slightly FARTHER from their GPS navigational references then the launch vehicle.)

HUH?  GPS is harder to use when the item you're trying to control is traveling at near orbital velocities.  The consumer-grade gyros in camcorders (and even in tactical weapons) have much too high a drift rate for use in a 20 minute launch vehicle ascent if you want any kind of acceptable orbit insertion precision.  You might want to get your technical story straight.

Opinions don’t count.

That's right, which is why flight experience is what matters.  From your opinions here, it appears that you lack the experience.

[kevin-rf]

You know while doing a little google searching on pogo in pressure fed systems I came across an interesting quote that is now lost in my cache so I have to para phrase it a bit. "On a pressure fed system the cost of the pressurization system tanks and plumbing is often equal to if not greater than the cost of the rocket motor on a pressure fed system."

(OT: Anyone have any good internet articles on pressure fed pogo?)

By definition the falcon I second stage needs to operate at a higher tank pressure than the pump fed first stage and will have more complex plumbing. I am very curious what the second stage costs in relation to the first stage. Since both stages use the same flight computers and electronics is it fair to lump it into the cost of the second stage? Nasa had a payload bolted to the second stage, it still counts as a payload and not just part of the second stage. Just because the electronics are bolted to the second stage why should the cost be lumped on the second stage?

Based on Mr. Musks coment why did the second stage try to burn through the roll/slosh problem instead of giving up the ghost? A safer approach would be to shutdown the stage when control is lost instead of risking a random flight where ever it wants to go. Imagine the uproar if it had landed on Chavez's diner table... Makes you wonder again about the whole thrust terminated flight termination system. On the eastern range isn't one of the jobs for the antigua and bermuda tracking stations to make sure the rocket is flying high and fast enough to clear Africa? If not, snip snip...