Author Topic: SpaceX looks at Saturn V class (Read 25080 times)

marsavian · « **on:** 04/16/2007 05:21 pm »

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/17/213315/spacex-looks-at-saturn-v-class.html

Verio Fryar · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/16/2007 05:45 pm »

It doesn't say that SpaceX is looking at Saturn V-class rockets. It only says that *if* they built a new engine it would be in the F-1 class.

braddock · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/16/2007 06:01 pm »

But the article DOES say that SpaceX will be using the (regen?) Merlin-1C for the next Falcon 1 launch. THAT is new.

I'm not sure on the difference between Block 1 Merlin 1C and Block 2 Merlin 1C; I haven't heard them use those terms before. Guess they have a new revision already. By my count they'll have designed, built, and tested four major engine revisions before they even reach orbit.

nacnud · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/16/2007 06:07 pm »

A F1 class engine has been mentioned by Elon for a while now. I've often wondered about this as the Falcon 9 engine clusters thrust is close(ish) to F1 performance (1 M lb for the falcon 9 cluster and 1.5 M lb for the F1). A slightly stretched F9 with a F1 class engine might make a viable vehicle asuming similar ISPs for the different engines.

Analyst · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/16/2007 07:18 pm »

Quote

SpaceX looks at Saturn V class

They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.

Analyst

Tergenev · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/16/2007 07:33 pm »

Why should we ask anyone in the business? Everyone in the business has managed to get us . . .what, exactly?

Access to space that nobody can afford.

Huge bureaucracies that keep re-designing systems that never get launched.

Nate_Trost · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/16/2007 09:08 pm »

I wonder if they had to switch to the 1C to meet their payload mass specs after all the changes.

aero313 · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/16/2007 09:11 pm »

Quote

Tergenev - 16/4/2007 3:33 PM

Why should we ask anyone in the business? Everyone in the business has managed to get us . . .what, exactly?

You're right. Current systems are only designed to maximize cost. The real world experience of all the nit-picky details that are the difference between success and failure are meaningless. By the way, it's all these little things that the inexperienced advocates seem to overlook or don't even understand.

I'm certainly not saying that NASA (or even Orbital anymore) is the model of an efficient organization - I'd be the last person to say that. Just don't be so flip to throw away experience.

meiza · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/16/2007 09:15 pm »

Uh, they've developed one engine, which is just 300-400 kN, smaller than the delta II main engine (RS-27C, about 1000 kN). I don't know, they could have another iteration in the middle?
Maybe a single engine in the Falcon 9 size, about 3000 kN?
If one F-1 is more than 15 Merlins, it's a big jump.
Rocketdyne had the 900 kN H-1 before the 7000 kN F-1. That was a big jump too.

Namechange User · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/16/2007 09:56 pm »

I applaud them if this is indeed the case. Sure it is technologically difficult. Sure there will be failures on the path to success. And yes, it will be expensive. How expensive is relative and depends on the management of the project. Why are some so quick to dismiss these folks before they even try saying they have no clue? I'd say their is direct evidence to suggest they know what they are doing. If every commercial space company had a perfect record on everything they did in front of the public would you be so quick to dismiss? Remember this is a private company and everyone who surfs these boards, I would expect has an iterest in space. If that is the case everyone should be very excited that a company out there is even considering this. If outside government funding, even better. However, I would push back hard on those that suggest everyone that works in the government structure wants to keep private industry back and do things as slong and costly as possible as some seem to suggest.

braddock · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/16/2007 10:01 pm »

Quote

Nate_Trost - 16/4/2007 5:08 PM
I wonder if they had to switch to the 1C to meet their payload mass specs after all the changes.

More likely they don't trust the ablative, and the 1C will be ready to go in time.

Remember they were having some test stand failures on the ablative nozzles back in late '05 which spurred them onto the regen route. At the time I got the impression that their confidence in the ablative was shaken.

mong' · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/16/2007 10:37 pm »

Quote

Analyst - 16/4/2007 9:18 PM

They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.

Analyst

not to mention the total lack of any kind of market for a saturn V class LV

meiza · « **Reply #12 on:** 04/16/2007 11:08 pm »

Quote

mong' - 16/4/2007 11:37 PM

Quote
Analyst - 16/4/2007 9:18 PM

They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.

Analyst

not to mention the total lack of any kind of market for a saturn V class LV

I think it mostly makes sense in the Falcon I style, one engine per stage... Remember, Zenit's RD-171 is actually over F-1 class...

« **Reply #13 on:** 04/16/2007 11:18 pm »

Quote

mong' - 16/4/2007 5:37 PM
Quote
Analyst - 16/4/2007 9:18 PM They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business. Analyst
not to mention the total lack of any kind of market for a saturn V class LV

Falcon 9 is an attempt to eat the lunch of all the major LV's. It is reasonable to assume that if they feel threatened, then active development of larger vehicles to try to upscale the market out of Space-X's reach. It is smart for Musk (and the rest) to talk big - regardless of where the business currently is.

LV providers then have a competitive problem - how much to you go out on a limb to recapture customer interest, verses how much do you put into your immediate business to make it more attractive. If Musk can deliver below your cost floor, you move the business to where he can't be credible.

Danderman · « **Reply #14 on:** 04/16/2007 11:23 pm »

For some context in the Elon saga, I would suggest reading "The Viking Story", the account of the development of the Viking rocket, where they may all the mistakes you could possibly imagine, a great learning experience. Also, "Rockets and People Vol 2" by Boris Chertok, where he goes into some of the mistakes the Russians made in developing their early rockets. I believe that the first launch attempt of the R-7 suffered pretty much the same fate as the first Falcon I attempt, after which the Russians began to purge the aft compartment with nitrogen (sound familiar?).

In other words, rockets are hard.

Namechange User · « **Reply #15 on:** 04/16/2007 11:55 pm »

Quote

mong' - 16/4/2007 5:37 PM

Quote
Analyst - 16/4/2007 9:18 PM

They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.

Analyst

not to mention the total lack of any kind of market for a saturn V class LV

Just maybe, he plans on trying to creat the market......

nacnud · « **Reply #16 on:** 04/17/2007 12:07 am »

He does, the long term goal of SpaceX is to help make humanity a space faring civilization. An F1 class engine would help in that goal.

rumble · « **Reply #17 on:** 04/17/2007 04:13 am »

Just think what sort of interest a zenit-class rocket for 1/2 zenit cost (guessing, totally) would generate...

Namechange User · « **Reply #18 on:** 04/17/2007 04:21 am »

Quote

nacnud - 16/4/2007 7:07 PM

He does, the long term goal of SpaceX is to help make humanity a space faring civilization. An F1 class engine would help in that goal.

Supposedly this is the case. That's why I just don't get all the folks on here saying how wrong this company is, how it doen't understand what it takes, etc.

PurduesUSAFguy · « **Reply #19 on:** 04/17/2007 04:21 am »

Developing a large engine that would allow them to build a single engine version of the Falcon 9 would make alot of sense, the potential HLV application aside.

Namechange User · « **Reply #20 on:** 04/17/2007 04:23 am »

Quote

PurduesUSAFguy - 16/4/2007 11:21 PM

Developing a large engine that would allow them to build a single engine version of the Falcon 9 would make alot of sense, the potential HLV application aside.

Why? From what I know of the Falc 9 part of the reliability estimates is based on it being a mult-engine vehicle.

Avron · « **Reply #21 on:** 04/17/2007 04:36 am »

Quote

OV-106 - 17/4/2007 12:21 AM

Quote
nacnud - 16/4/2007 7:07 PM

He does, the long term goal of SpaceX is to help make humanity a space faring civilization. An F1 class engine would help in that goal.

Supposedly this is the case. That's why I just don't get all the folks on here saying how wrong this company is, how it doen't understand what it takes, etc.

When he gets it right, he may end up shaking up the whole industry, and that is risky to a large number of people... I.e. don't shake the boat.

In terms of F1.. where is Tony?

jongoff · « **Reply #22 on:** 04/17/2007 06:01 am »

Quote

mong' - 16/4/2007 3:37 PM

Quote
Analyst - 16/4/2007 9:18 PM

They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.

Analyst

not to mention the total lack of any kind of market for a saturn V class LV

As much as I like SpaceX, I really hope they can get over their "BFR" fetish. Making Falcon-I and IX into rock solid reliable boosters, then gradually adding reusability would be far more worthwhile than trying to build some huge heavy lift vehicle. But we'll see. Personally, I think Elon's smart enough that he'll figure it out at some point.

~Jon

jongoff · « **Reply #23 on:** 04/17/2007 06:09 am »

OV,

Quote

From what I know of the Falc 9 part of the reliability estimates is based on it being a mult-engine vehicle.

While this is generally true, you do hit a point of diminishing returns. At some point adding extra engines increases the odds of some sort of common-mode failure that can take out the whole vehicle. My personal preference is somewhere in the 4-6 range. Enough that you can have one or two engines fail and still land the vehicle, but few enough that you don't end up with ridiculously complicated plumbing, and packaging.

As a personal note that's semi-illustrative, the original strawman design concept MSS had for our XA-1.0 suborbital vehicle was going to have 12 engines--8 single axis vernier engines , and 4 fixed main engines. The current concept has backed off to 5 engines--4 2-axis verniers (probably upscaled a tad from the size we currently have), and one central main engine (still fixed). The combination still gets us all the features we wanted (engine out, "digital" throttling to reduce the needs for deep throttling, plenty of control authority), while greatly simplifying the vehicle, and probably increasing the mission reliability substantially. Even if you can fly the whole mission with a single engine out, you're not really going to launch if one of the engines isn't working, so striking a balance between enough engines for safe redundancy, without going overboard is a must.

~Jon

pippin · « **Reply #24 on:** 04/17/2007 12:20 pm »

Quote

OV-106 - 16/4/2007 6:23 AM

Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 16/4/2007 11:21 PM

Developing a large engine that would allow them to build a single engine version of the Falcon 9 would make alot of sense, the potential HLV application aside.

Why? From what I know of the Falc 9 part of the reliability estimates is based on it being a mult-engine vehicle.

Cost.

Read carefully. The article quoted EM, stating "IF we did a new engine, it would be in the F1 class", which makes perfect sense. They do have the small one, but putting 9 of them on the Falcon 9 has to hurt them on the cost side. So a single engine Falcon 9 is a logical step, isn't it?

Or what would you suppose? 2 Half size engines? Also no redundancy! 5 engines of 2 times Merlin size? It just does not make sense.

No, stick to the facts and it's a logical step, you would do the same.

JIS · « **Reply #25 on:** 04/17/2007 12:35 pm »

Quote

pippin - 17/4/2007 1:20 PM

Quote
OV-106 - 16/4/2007 6:23 AM

Quote
PurduesUSAFguy - 16/4/2007 11:21 PM

Developing a large engine that would allow them to build a single engine version of the Falcon 9 would make alot of sense, the potential HLV application aside.

Why? From what I know of the Falc 9 part of the reliability estimates is based on it being a mult-engine vehicle.

Cost.

Read carefully. The article quoted EM, stating "IF we did a new engine, it would be in the F1 class", which makes perfect sense. They do have the small one, but putting 9 of them on the Falcon 9 has to hurt them on the cost side. So a single engine Falcon 9 is a logical step, isn't it?

Or what would you suppose? 2 Half size engines? Also no redundance! 5 engines of 2 times Merlin size? It just does not make sense.

No, stick to the facts and it's a logical step, you would do the same.

Good point. However I wouldn't say that 9 engines on Falcon 1 could hurt them financially. Mass production of many small engines could be still cheaper than producing one much bigger. I think that the reason is that they have people developing Merlin who are not required now when the development is over.
I think that Musk should either sack them or find some job for them.

aero313 · « **Reply #26 on:** 04/17/2007 12:39 pm »

Quote

OV-106 - 17/4/2007 12:23 AM

Why? From what I know of the Falc 9 part of the reliability estimates is based on it being a mult-engine vehicle.

Yup. And Falcon 1 was supposed to be the most reliable launch vehicle in the history of space launch....

pippin · « **Reply #27 on:** 04/17/2007 12:40 pm »

Quote

JIS - 16/4/2007 2:35 PM

Quote
pippin - 17/4/2007 1:20 PM

Cost.

Read carefully. The article quoted EM, stating "IF we did a new engine, it would be in the F1 class", which makes perfect sense. They do have the small one, but putting 9 of them on the Falcon 9 has to hurt them on the cost side. So a single engine Falcon 9 is a logical step, isn't it?

Or what would you suppose? 2 Half size engines? Also no redundance! 5 engines of 2 times Merlin size? It just does not make sense.

No, stick to the facts and it's a logical step, you would do the same.

Good point. However I wouldn't say that 9 engines on Falcon 1 could hurt them financially. Mass production of many small engines could be still cheaper than producing one much bigger. I think that the reason is that they have people developing Merlin who are not required now when the development is over.
I think that Musk should either sack them or find some job for them.

Also: Good point.

Does anyone out here have any hard facts about engine cost? I admit I have no clou on what you pay for a rocke engine. And what the fixed and variable costs are. Suspicion is: Most of the cost goes into development and qualification, variable cost into quality assurance. But then with 9 engines you have all these pipes and wires....

Any idea? How much is a Merlin-Size engine? And how much a, say, RD 171?

simonbp · « **Reply #28 on:** 04/17/2007 01:35 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 17/4/2007 7:39 AM

Yup. And Falcon 1 was supposed to be the most reliable launch vehicle in the history of space launch....

Sadly enough, in the history of alt.space it is, because they're the only ones so far to actually translate flashy graphics into a flown launch vehicle. Everybody else is jealous bastard with a paper rocket...

To go against the vibe here: and an F-1 class is stupid for any rocket SpaceX has designed, but they will probably develop one. A SpaceX F-1 (SF1) would be silly for a Falcon 9, considering they've already developed the Merlin-IC, and the SF1 would provide only a small amount of extra performance.

I do believe they can develop a SF1; these are the same group of engineers that developed the world's highest Isp gas generator LOX/Kerosene engine basically from scratch in three years, and then turned around and made a regen version in a single year. Given five years or so, it's not at unimaginable to think that could design a 1.5 Mlb class rocket. But why?

Because Elon wants to go to the moon. Griffin's mentioned commercial resupply of the lunar base, and I'm sure SpaceX will bid for that, but really, Musk's drive seems for real interplanetary exploration. You're not going anywhere without a lot of mass in LEO, and an SF1 is a ticket to allow SpaceX to do that. I don't think we've heard the last new vehicle/spacecraft announcement from Elon...

Simon

Namechange User · « **Reply #29 on:** 04/17/2007 01:56 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 17/4/2007 7:39 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 17/4/2007 12:23 AM

Why? From what I know of the Falc 9 part of the reliability estimates is based on it being a mult-engine vehicle.

Yup. And Falcon 1 was supposed to be the most reliable launch vehicle in the history of space launch....

This reply illustrates my point from previous points exactly. The internet is a wonderful tool for armchair quarterbacking and proclaiming to the world why everyone else is wrong. The simple facts are SpaceX built a company, the tooling, the workforce, the procedures, engineered several engines and the rocket in a very short amount of time. All with private funding. That effort deserves nothing less than admiration and applause. Did Falcon 1 have problems? Sure. Has it done well? Yes, and test flights are to be exactly that. Test flights, so you can test and fix those things that are not easily simulated or forseen when qualifying your hardware for flight.

These type threads are also an excellent example of why so many companies out there building hardware are so secretive about their plans, timelines and business models. Why subject yourself to second guess after second guess and posts like that above that simply declare offhand the Falcon 1 is a failure. Is it possible that a self-made multi-millionare in his early or so 30's just may have a little more information than all of us on what he wants to do with HIS money and HIS business. If successful, it will be for the better of this entire industry. I for one wish him all the luck I can, because unlike some or many on here, I do understand what I'm talking about and how this business does work.

stockman · « **Reply #30 on:** 04/17/2007 02:01 pm »

Well said! I agree 100%. I too get tired of all the naysayers who sound more jealous of people like Elon Musk and can do nothing but trash what his is attempting to do. I admire SpaceX for no other reason than they are will to take a risk to move forward. At least he is flying h/w and not just drawing pretty pictures of what they want to build.

Jim · « **Reply #31 on:** 04/17/2007 02:30 pm »

Quote

OV-106 - 17/4/2007 9:56 AM
I for one wish him all the luck I can, because unlike some or many on here, I do understand what I'm talking about and how this business does work.

Then you should see that there are issues and if you don't then you don't know the "business" works

Namechange User · « **Reply #32 on:** 04/17/2007 02:52 pm »

Well Jim, you and I have had our differences in the past. Of course there are issues and I believe I have made that clear and every company, every project has them. Based on posts of the past, I would expect you to know this as well. It does not mean they are doomed to failure and the company should just close the doors now. If there were none, that would be unusual and interesting topic of conversation. Not this "lets bash them BS". It does not mean they are doomed to failure.

So let me ask you what the issues are since you imply you know everything about company and every project out there. Please, enlighten me.....

aero313 · « **Reply #33 on:** 04/17/2007 04:05 pm »

Quote

OV-106 - 17/4/2007 9:56 AM

Quote
aero313 - 17/4/2007 7:39 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 17/4/2007 12:23 AM

Why? From what I know of the Falc 9 part of the reliability estimates is based on it being a mult-engine vehicle.

Yup. And Falcon 1 was supposed to be the most reliable launch vehicle in the history of space launch....

This reply illustrates my point from previous points exactly. The internet is a wonderful tool for armchair quarterbacking and proclaiming to the world why everyone else is wrong.

It's also a wonderful tool for those of us who have actually developed and launched brand new vehicles and successfully put paying satellites in orbit.

Quote

The simple facts are SpaceX built a company, the tooling, the workforce, the procedures, engineered several engines and the rocket in a very short amount of time. All with private funding.

And as I've said in the past, contrary to what the cheerleaders here and elsewhere seem to think, SpaceX is not unique in this accomplishment. Others have successfully developed launch systems with less money on a shorter schedule. This isn't bashing SpaceX, just documenting history.

As I've also said in the past, I agree that from a technical standpoint SpaceX has made a significant accomplishment. My frustration is with the inexperienced cheerleaders who are too naive to understand the hard parts of successfully executing a mission. It's these details that add significantly to cost. Every new company that wants to develop a new rocket produces unrealistic cost estimates because they don't know about (or purposely overlook) the real-world problems that can and do occur. The reason why existing launch vehicles cost what they do (at least in part) is because of the need to account for and accommodate these costs.

You (and others) seem to be quick to dismiss the experienced people on this forum. We're not bashing SpaceX. We're trying to point out reality. The Futron reliability study had so many flaws that it wasn't even funny. Other spin from SpaceX isn't helping their credibility with customers that really have money.

nacnud · « **Reply #34 on:** 04/17/2007 04:08 pm »

pippin · « **Reply #35 on:** 04/17/2007 04:13 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 16/4/2007 6:05 PM

My frustration is with the inexperienced cheerleaders who are too naive to understand the hard parts of successfully executing a mission.

Stay cool. The purpose of a cheerleader is to look good. You need them for entertainment. Boring without. Let'em have fun. You don't want a band of grave diggers at your game...

pippin · « **Reply #36 on:** 04/17/2007 04:16 pm »

And by the way... We are talking a lot about costs here... Anybody able to answer my question posted before (engine costs)? Just to get this back on a somewhat more serious track...

jcanal12 · « **Reply #37 on:** 04/17/2007 04:46 pm »

Speaking of larger engines, it might be a typo but the F9 page has the Merlin vacuum thrust at 155,400 lbf.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #38 on:** 04/17/2007 04:58 pm »

In talking about the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, SpaceX points out that the two most 'reliable' designs are a single engine rocket, like the Falcon 1, that's very simple with the minimum number of things to go wrong, and a rocket with redundant systems such as the Falcon 9 which is fault tolerant.

At some point it will become very difficult to get a Merlin 1 based rocket off the ground because one of the 27 (or more) engines will be likely to trip an alarm when it fires up, much llike happened on this last launch. History was unkind to the N-1, which also took the route of massive engine clusters.

However, Elon is probably going to wait until he see's how the Merlin 1/2Cs work together on the F9 before pitching headlong into another engine development project. If the test firing this fall shakes the stage apart, we may see a new engine development project shortly thereafter.

Danderman · « **Reply #39 on:** 04/17/2007 05:07 pm »

Quote

rumble - 16/4/2007 9:13 PM Just think what sort of interest a zenit-class rocket for 1/2 zenit cost (guessing,
totally) would generate...

The Falcon IX already costs more than a Zenit-2, so a bigger rocket would likely cost more than Zenit.

dmc6960 · « **Reply #40 on:** 04/17/2007 05:38 pm »

Quote

jcanal12 - 17/4/2007 11:46 AM

Speaking of larger engines, it might be a typo but the F9 page has the Merlin vacuum thrust at 155,400 lbf.

It still has the 102k/115k value on the Falcon 1 page, and higher up on the Falcon 9 page in the text it reads 101,900lbs as the takeoff thrust for each engine. This 155k value could be the vacuum optimised Merlin for the upper stage. Too bad it doesn't clarify better.

meiza · « **Reply #41 on:** 04/17/2007 08:18 pm »

Quote

Danderman - 17/4/2007 6:07 PM

Quote
rumble - 16/4/2007 9:13 PM Just think what sort of interest a zenit-class rocket for 1/2 zenit cost (guessing,
totally) would generate...
The Falcon IX already costs more than a Zenit-2, so a bigger rocket would likely cost more than Zenit.

The first RD-180 engines were sold for 10 million dollars to Lockheed Martin. That at least is more expensive than Falcon I.
I don't know the current price. Anyone actually willing to put in substance?

SolarPowered · « **Reply #42 on:** 04/17/2007 09:18 pm »

Elon has said that this engine will be the biggest engine around with a single combustion chamber. So, it is presumably bigger than an RS-68 and smaller than an RD-180. Or, around half of the old F-1.

bad_astra · « **Reply #43 on:** 04/17/2007 09:30 pm »

Or around the size of the one Beal Aerospace was developing.

possum · « **Reply #44 on:** 04/20/2007 02:05 am »

Quote

aero313 - 17/4/2007 11:05 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 17/4/2007 9:56 AM

The simple facts are SpaceX built a company, the tooling, the workforce, the procedures, engineered several engines and the rocket in a very short amount of time. All with private funding.

And as I've said in the past, contrary to what the cheerleaders here and elsewhere seem to think, SpaceX is not unique in this accomplishment. Others have successfully developed launch systems with less money on a shorter schedule. This isn't bashing SpaceX, just documenting history.

What SpaceX has done is unprecedented. Name one company that has started a new company from scratch and built and launched a rocket with private funds, and done it in just a few years.

Jim · « **Reply #45 on:** 04/20/2007 02:31 am »

Quote

possum - 19/4/2007 10:05 PM

Quote
aero313 - 17/4/2007 11:05 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 17/4/2007 9:56 AM

The simple facts are SpaceX built a company, the tooling, the workforce, the procedures, engineered several engines and the rocket in a very short amount of time. All with private funding.

And as I've said in the past, contrary to what the cheerleaders here and elsewhere seem to think, SpaceX is not unique in this accomplishment. Others have successfully developed launch systems with less money on a shorter schedule. This isn't bashing SpaceX, just documenting history.

What SpaceX has done is unprecedented. Name one company that has started a new company from scratch and built and launched a rocket with private funds, and done it in just a few years.

OSC

publiusr · « **Reply #46 on:** 04/23/2007 09:37 pm »

Could a multiple combustion chamber engine be simpler than RD-171? If the answer is yes, Musk might want to go in that direction. Or maybe big pressure-feds...

savuporo · « **Reply #47 on:** 04/24/2007 07:01 am »

Quote

Name one company that has started a new company from scratch and built and launched a rocket with private funds, and done it in just a few years.

http://www.orbital.com/About/Milestones/index.html

The company went from inception to first orbital launch in 8 years, but their launcher plans were reportedly conceived in 1987, so from plans to launch in 3 years.

JIS · « **Reply #48 on:** 04/24/2007 09:50 am »

Quote

savuporo - 24/4/2007 8:01 AM

Quote
Name one company that has started a new company from scratch and built and launched a rocket with private funds, and done it in just a few years.
http://www.orbital.com/About/Milestones/index.html

The company went from inception to first orbital launch in 8 years, but their launcher plans were reportedly conceived in 1987, so from plans to launch in 3 years.

Don' they buy rocket stages from ATK or decommisioned DOD stuff?

Jim · « **Reply #49 on:** 04/24/2007 11:14 am »

Quote

JIS - 24/4/2007 5:50 AM

Quote
savuporo - 24/4/2007 8:01 AM

Quote
Name one company that has started a new company from scratch and built and launched a rocket with private funds, and done it in just a few years.
http://www.orbital.com/About/Milestones/index.html

The company went from inception to first orbital launch in 8 years, but their launcher plans were reportedly conceived in 1987, so from plans to launch in 3 years.

Don' they buy rocket stages from ATK or decommisioned DOD stuff?

The Pegasus motors were a brand new design from Hercules, which ATK bought. OSC sized the motors and had Hercules make them

Minotaur, which uses Minuteman and PK hardware came much later,

aero313 · « **Reply #50 on:** 04/24/2007 03:51 pm »

OSC took exactly 30 months from Pegasus program inception to successful maiden flight. That's successful as in operational satellite delivered to intended orbit. Thirty months included development and qual of three brand new solid rocket motors (OK, the third stage reused the flexseal design from the Pershing II upper stage), a brand new avionics suite, a brand new GN&C algorithm, and a brand new launch technique. The flight computer was an existing commercial unit. The IMU was an existing Litton LR-81 from a torpedo. The Stage 2 and 3 TVC actuators were from missle programs. The Stage 1 fin actuators were adapted from existing designs. FTS components were partly existing, qualified units and partly new design. The entire program (including development of the solid rocket motors) was privately funded by OSC and Hercules. Total cost to first flight was about $50M in then-year dollars. That inflates to about $80M today.

JIS · « **Reply #51 on:** 04/24/2007 04:19 pm »

So it looks as Orbital is more successfull than SpaceX. Certainly it is a bigger company with more flights, and many operational vehicles. Let's wait and see what happens next.

aero313 · « **Reply #52 on:** 04/24/2007 05:43 pm »

Quote

JIS - 24/4/2007 12:19 PM

So it looks as Orbital is more successfull than SpaceX.

In fairness to SpaceX, Orbital has had a 20 year headstart. Just be aware that SpaceX is not alone nor even first in its accomplishments.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #53 on:** 04/24/2007 06:02 pm »

OSC subcontracted out 98% of the Pegasus by weight, while SpaceX subcontracts out more like 2%. The parts that were subcontracted were built using taxpayer funded hardware and experience. That's the difference between the two. SpaceX isn't getting free rides on a B-52 either.

Smaller solids are generally cheaper to develop than liquid fueled engines, that OSC spent as much developing the Pegasus as SpaceX did developing the Falcon 1 shows that SpaceX did succeed in reducing development costs over the multi-tiered subcontract approach.

Jim · « **Reply #54 on:** 04/24/2007 06:19 pm »

Quote

josh_simonson - 24/4/2007 2:02 PM

OSC subcontracted out 98% of the Pegasus by weight, while SpaceX subcontracts out more like 2%. The parts that were subcontracted were built using taxpayer funded hardware and experience. That's the difference between the two. SpaceX isn't getting free rides on a B-52 either.

Smaller solids are generally cheaper to develop than liquid fueled engines, that OSC spent as much developing the Pegasus as SpaceX did developing the Falcon 1 shows that SpaceX did succeed in reducing development costs over the multi-tiered subcontract approach.

Spacex is getting rides on C-5's and C-17's.

The merlin engine is base on TRW research. So it was gov't ffunded experience too

Spacex isn't done developing neither

aero313 · « **Reply #55 on:** 04/24/2007 09:14 pm »

Quote

josh_simonson - 24/4/2007 2:02 PM
OSC subcontracted out 98% of the Pegasus by weight, while SpaceX subcontracts out more like 2%.

So you're saying that SpaceX drills their own wells for the oil to get their own kerosene, produces their own LOX, and doesn't use C-5s to fly empty LOX dewars back from Kwaj? Orbital's "subcontracted" weight includes propellants that SpaceX also buys from vendors. Figure out what percentage by weight the propellants represent for SpaceX. If you want to make a comparison (however meaningless it is), try to use a common reference point (like empty weight for both).

By the way, when Pegasus was developed, Hercules and Orbital formed a joint venture, so the rocket motors weren't "subcontracted", they were developed by the JV. Better get your history straight.

In reality, that comment is like the RpK comment that K-1 is 95% complete by weight. The hard part isn't the tanks or even the composite SRM cases. As SpaceX has demonstrated, the hard part is the flight control software, the integration procedures, the range safety process, and the mission assurance provisions. None of that adds to the weight of the vehicle. Quoting numbers like that only demonstrates a lack of understanding of what's important for successful space launch.

Ultimately, WHO CARES how much is subcontracted. Isn't the goal to provide successful, affordable space access? What difference does the percent of subcontracting matter?

Quote

The parts that were subcontracted were built using taxpayer funded hardware and experience. That's the difference between the two. SpaceX isn't getting free rides on a B-52 either.

Right. There was absolutely NO government investment in design techniques, combustion properties, regen and ablative engine design, materials characterization, turbopump design and manufacture, injector design, CFD codes, NASTRAN codes, or any of the other elements that SpaceX needed to develop their vehicle. Again, this is a BS argument. The last person to develop a launcher with no government investment (direct or indirect) was Robert Goddard.

Quote

Smaller solids are generally cheaper to develop than liquid fueled engines, that OSC spent as much developing the Pegasus as SpaceX did developing the Falcon 1 shows that SpaceX did succeed in reducing development costs over the multi-tiered subcontract approach.

Based on what? Your opinion? You're reaching.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #56 on:** 04/24/2007 10:21 pm »

There's a difference between building a car from scratch and having GM deliver a frame, engine and body to be customized (as is done for ambulances and firetrucks). Thats similar to the difference between what SpaceX and OSC did. Though both approaches can yield a similar result, the cost implications are very different and the level of accomplishment is as well.

aero313 · « **Reply #57 on:** 04/24/2007 10:58 pm »

Quote

josh_simonson - 24/4/2007 6:21 PM

There's a difference between building a car from scratch and having GM deliver a frame, engine and body to be customized (as is done for ambulances and firetrucks). Thats similar to the difference between what SpaceX and OSC did.

I disagree. First, it's not an approriate analogy. A better analogy would be if the ambulance company paid GM to develop a custom frame, engine, and drivetrain. Frankly, what's the difference between hiring a TRW proplusion expert directly or hiring TRW to develop the engine. The experience is the same. Anyway, the Pegasus joint venture developed that rocket from scratch.

Quote

Though both approaches can yield a similar result, the cost implications are very different and the level of accomplishment is as well.

Right. Pegasus worked the first time and cost less to develop.

Look, this whole thread is all BS. SpaceX should be proud of what they've accomplished. They just aren't the only ones to have done what they're being idolized for.

possum · « **Reply #58 on:** 04/24/2007 11:06 pm »

I'm certainly not an expert, as demonstrated by my claim of that SpaceX is unique. I stand corrected and didn't mean to trivialize what OSC has done. It just shows my ignorance of the details of rocket history. Whether or not the hardware is derived from existing technology developed in the past by government support, the fact that these two companies (and hopefully RpK will soon start test flights), it is encouraging that companies are beginning to develop launchers with private funding unlike the past where it has been done completely under government contract. In that respect, Delta IV and Atlas V were a step in the right direction with much of the cash coming from private industry versus 100% government-supplied funds. The more the merrier. More competition, lower price. More capacity, more space development.

bad_astra · « **Reply #59 on:** 04/25/2007 01:45 am »

Right now Spacex is still in the same league as the folks that built Dolphin, Connestoga, AMROC, but well past Rotary, Rocketplane, Beale or Kelly.

When they orbit something, which might be next time, they'll be in the same league as Orbital. I think there'll be room enough for both.

savuporo · « **Reply #60 on:** 04/25/2007 09:27 am »

bytheway, reading the archives, about 5 years ago Orbital was involved in developing liquid fuel boosters for MDA target practice.
has anything space-related come out of it ?

Analyst · « **Reply #61 on:** 04/25/2007 11:37 am »

Quote

bad_astra - 25/4/2007 3:45 AM

When they orbit something, which might be next time, they'll be in the same league as Orbital. I think there'll be room enough for both.

When and only when they do it and can repeat it successfully at least once, better four or five times, they'll be in the same league as Orbital. When they do it with different vehicles, from different launch sites for many paying customers over a decade, they' be even with Orbital. Miles to go!

Analyst

Avron · « **Reply #62 on:** 04/25/2007 02:38 pm »

Quote

Analyst - 25/4/2007 7:37 AM

Quote
bad_astra - 25/4/2007 3:45 AM

When they orbit something, which might be next time, they'll be in the same league as Orbital. I think there'll be room enough for both.

When and only when they do it and can repeat it successfully at least once, better four or five times, they'll be in the same league as Orbital. When they do it with different vehicles, from different launch sites for many paying customers over a decade, they' be even with Orbital. Miles to go!

Analyst

Sounds like a no win position... or would Mass to LEO count?

« **Reply #63 on:** 04/25/2007 07:40 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 24/4/2007 4:14 PM By the way, when Pegasus was developed, Hercules and Orbital formed a joint venture, so the rocket motors weren't "subcontracted", they were developed by the JV.

BTW, OSC is an example of financial best practices in use of capital with Pegasus, as opposed to Kistler - so the use of strategic resources can allow for bringing off a very effective project. Pegasus/Taurus also wins by being a very specific end design(s) in itself. Biggest criticism of this business is the market size it claims to address - too small. But smartly used strategic resources caps your downside here too - low ongoing costs or commitment to further development.

The same isn't true for Falcon 1. Falcon 1 isn't an end-design, but the beginning of a progression. They are not comparable at this point, as the development of Falcon 9 addresses a quite larger market than OSC's product line encompasses. Comparing OSC and Space-X is even harder. At first blush, they are more compatible as potential partners than eyeball-to-eyeball competitors.

Paul Howard · « **Reply #64 on:** 04/26/2007 12:22 am »

Flight global have been pimping SpaceX for some time now. If someone at SpaceX told them that Elon had worked out a light speed engine, they'd write it.

Avron · « **Reply #65 on:** 04/26/2007 04:31 am »

Quote

Paul Howard - 25/4/2007 8:22 PM

Flight global have been pimping SpaceX for some time now. If someone at SpaceX told them that Elon had worked out a light speed engine, they'd write it.

They need to build the modern F-1 first.. then give them 6 months...

coach · « **Reply #66 on:** 04/27/2007 02:09 am »

Pure speculation here but what kind of configuration will this BFR have? Can they scale up the old Falcon 5 design with 2 five engine boosters? That makes for more liftoff thrust than the Saturn 5 if the new Merlin 3 has roughly 1/2 the thrust of the F1. Will they design their own LH2 upper stage? Will the drop off boosters be better perfomance overall than the 3 pure stages of the Saturn? This seems to be the direction that SpaceX is headed even if they don't make it quite this large. They like the liquid strap ons despite the limited success in the past from others who have tried. What a sight at liftoff, huh? Fifteen engines putting out more than 10 million pounds of thrust. Yikes!

Coach

khallow · « **Reply #67 on:** 04/29/2007 12:49 pm »

It looks straightforward to me. It'd be a poor idea to keep adding more Merlin engines past 9. Doesn't scale. My take is that they develope this new engine and replace the 9 Merlins with one of these engines on the Falcon 9. If the space economy picks up to the point where a Saturn V class rocket makes sense, then they'll be well positioned. But they don't need an HLV to use the new engine.

Even if the engine turns out to be uneconomical for a decade or two, it still seems a reasonable use of the existing design team. They have a slim chance of sneaking ahead of the current big players which could look good to potential investors. And of course, "looking" and talking about looking is cheap.

meiza, in reference to your early comment, SpaceX has also developed the Kestrel which is a 31kN thrust rocket used on their upper stage of the Falcon I. Still not much development experience, but two is more than one.

SolarPowered · « **Reply #68 on:** 05/26/2007 12:18 am »

Quote

SolarPowered - 17/4/2007 2:18 PM

Elon has said that this engine will be the biggest engine around with a single combustion chamber. So, it is presumably bigger than an RS-68 and smaller than an RD-180. Or, around half of the old F-1.

When I posted my comment that I just quoted, I was passing on the interpretation of the article in which I read about Elon's comment. It has since occurred to me that there are, of course, bigger multiple-chamber engines than the RD-180; specifically, the RD-171 is in the 1.7 million-pound-thrust range.

So I'll correct my interpretation of his remark, and speculate that he was talking about something bigger than an RDS-68, and smaller than an RD-171.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #69 on:** 05/26/2007 01:19 am »

Or perhaps between RS-68 and F-1, otherwise he'd say 'the largest single combustion chamber engine ever' rather than 'around'. RD-171 outpushes F-1 by about 15%.

SolarPowered · « **Reply #70 on:** 05/26/2007 02:21 am »

The edit button seems to have gone away for some reason. I meant, of course, "RS-68", not "RDS-68".

simonbp · « **Reply #71 on:** 05/28/2007 08:36 pm »

Quote

josh_simonson - 25/5/2007 8:19 PM

Or perhaps between RS-68 and F-1, otherwise he'd say 'the largest single combustion chamber engine ever' rather than 'around'. RD-171 outpushes F-1 by about 15%.

And a Shuttle RSRM outpushes an F-1 by 87%, but don't tell anyone, because admitting that solids might be useful is heresy around here...

Simon

jongoff · « **Reply #72 on:** 05/29/2007 12:16 am »

Simon,

Quote

And a Shuttle RSRM outpushes an F-1 by 87%, but don't tell anyone, because admitting that solids might be useful is heresy around here...

It's not so much that solids are never useful, it's just that we think that ATK/NASA are overhyping how safe and useful they are. Thrust isn't everything.

~Jon

simonbp · « **Reply #73 on:** 05/29/2007 01:23 am »

Quote

jongoff - 28/5/2007 7:16 PM

Thrust isn't everything.

And neither is Isp; one must balance the both, as Ares does with a high-thrust first stage and a high-energy upper stage.

And, strictly speaking, the Shuttle's SRB does have 200+ flights with one failure that has since been rendered impossible. By anyone's measure, that's a pretty stellar flight record...

Simon

jongoff · « **Reply #74 on:** 05/29/2007 03:29 am »

Simon,

Quote

And neither is Isp; one must balance the both, as Ares does with a high-thrust first stage and a high-energy upper stage.

I agree that Isp isn't everything. A lot depends on the application. The problem is that the first stage in this case provides so little of the overall delta-V that the upper stage ends up being an almost SSTO stage. While there are some situations where that is ok (like for some reusable designs where it allows you to return the first stage to the launch site, or to use a very low cost first stage), I think that in this case it's far from optimal. More importantly, I don't think there's a single benefit to Ares-I's approach that comes close to justifying the extra $10B to develop it and field it instead of adapting to existing launch vehicles.

Quote

And, strictly speaking, the Shuttle's SRB does have 200+ flights with one failure that has since been rendered impossible. By anyone's measure, that's a pretty stellar flight record...

AIUI, the strapon boosters for Soyuz have done fairly well too. I remembered this coming up in discussion either here or on another list, but every Soyuz flight uses 4 of these strapons. I think the total number of flights of Soyuz strapon stages is close to 4000-5000 with less than 20 failures.

I don't have precise numbers, but at least on their face they appear fairly comparable to the reliability of shuttle SRBs.

More to the point, Ares I and Ares V don't use Shuttle SRBs, they use what amounts to an entirely new stage with very little hardware that is exactly identical between the two. It could be that this will end up being just as reliable, but...that's an assumption not a proven fact.

Personally, I doubt that Ares I will fly even 100 times before it is either canceled or has managed to kill a crew.

~Jon

joh · « **Reply #75 on:** 05/29/2007 12:45 pm »

Quote

More to the point, Ares I and Ares V don't use Shuttle SRBs, they use what amounts to an entirely new stage with very little hardware that is exactly identical between the two. It could be that this will end up being just as reliable, but...that's an assumption not a proven fact.

The new SRBs will be stacked using the existing RSRM Segments. And i bet, they use the same aft segmets including TVC as they do today. What changes is the number of segments from 4 to 5, a slightly different filling and adding a RCS system in the interstage providing roll control for Ares-I.

pippin · « **Reply #76 on:** 05/29/2007 01:01 pm »

Does SpceX build Ares' now? :confused:

JIS · « **Reply #77 on:** 05/29/2007 01:02 pm »

Quote

joh - 29/5/2007 1:45 PM

Quote
More to the point, Ares I and Ares V don't use Shuttle SRBs, they use what amounts to an entirely new stage with very little hardware that is exactly identical between the two. It could be that this will end up being just as reliable, but...that's an assumption not a proven fact.

The new SRBs will be stacked using the existing RSRM Segments. And i bet, they use the same aft segmets including TVC as they do today. What changes is the number of segments from 4 to 5, a slightly different filling and adding a RCS system in the interstage providing roll control for Ares-I.

Spare your arguments. It's about belief.

aero313 · « **Reply #78 on:** 05/29/2007 04:00 pm »

Quote

joh - 29/5/2007 8:45 AM

Quote
More to the point, Ares I and Ares V don't use Shuttle SRBs, they use what amounts to an entirely new stage with very little hardware that is exactly identical between the two. It could be that this will end up being just as reliable, but...that's an assumption not a proven fact.

The new SRBs will be stacked using the existing RSRM Segments. And i bet, they use the same aft segmets including TVC as they do today. What changes is the number of segments from 4 to 5, a slightly different filling and adding a RCS system in the interstage providing roll control for Ares-I.

Anyone who thinks creating the five segment booster is really this simple is naive at best. This is a brand new SRM. The case segments may be common (well, except for that forward part that has to interface to a new upper stage), but the grain configuration is brand new, the casting tooling will be new, the thrust curve will be new, the insulation will be different, the throat will be new, etc. And this is just the rocket motor. There's just as much work necessary on other subsystems and components to turn it into a stage.

GraphGuy · « **Reply #79 on:** 05/29/2007 06:51 pm »

IF spaceX wants to create an F1 class engine, more power to them and have fun with it. Also not to diminish the effort that goes into creating an engine of that size/power, but they aren't creating the wheel for the first time and I suspect that it would take quite a bit less money and manpower than in the 60s.

I like rooting for spaceX. Hopefully they actually put something into orbit soon. At the very least they have some neat webcasts ;-)

Ultimately I think that having a single F1 engine would be better than 9 of their current engines, assuming that they can book enough launches to keep the production line going.

aero313 · « **Reply #80 on:** 05/29/2007 11:20 pm »

Quote

GraphGuy - 29/5/2007 2:51 PM
Ultimately I think that having a single F1 engine would be better than 9 of their current engines, assuming that they can book enough launches to keep the production line going.

There's a reason why EELVs have only one engine on each stage. Unfortunately the "mass production lowers costs" argument breaks down when you start to total up the integration costs for nine engines - nine times the plumbing joints to leak test, nine times the actuators to check out, nine times the igniters, etc, etc. Not to mention nine times the potential for problems that require rework (which is never counted in cost estimating).

jongoff · « **Reply #81 on:** 05/30/2007 06:02 am »

aero,

Quote

There's a reason why EELVs have only one engine on each stage. Unfortunately the "mass production lowers costs" argument breaks down when you start to total up the integration costs for nine engines - nine times the plumbing joints to leak test, nine times the actuators to check out, nine times the igniters, etc, etc. Not to mention nine times the potential for problems that require rework (which is never counted in cost estimating).

As someone working on fielding a multi-engine vehicle, I have to agree that it does add some real complications. Especially when it is a prototype vehicle with developmental engines. That said, there are some real benefits to having some engine-out capability--especially for cases like ours where we want the vehicle back afterward. And there really are some efficiencies of scale to be had with higher production rates...

That said, there's a reason why our plans for our first suborbital vehicle have changed from 8 verniers and 4 fixed mains to 4 verniers and 1 or 2 fixed mains. :-)

~Jon

privateer · « **Reply #82 on:** 05/30/2007 12:21 pm »

Quote

simonbp - 28/5/2007 8:23 PM
And, strictly speaking, the Shuttle's SRB does have 200+ flights with one failure that has since been rendered impossible. By anyone's measure, that's a pretty stellar flight record...
Simon

How would you qualify flight record of SSME?