SpaceX looks at Saturn V class

[dmc6960]

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]

Danderman - 17/4/2007  6:07 PM

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]

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]

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

[possum]

aero313 - 17/4/2007  11:05 AM

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]

possum - 19/4/2007  10:05 PM

aero313 - 17/4/2007  11:05 AM

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]

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]

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]

savuporo - 24/4/2007  8:01 AM

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]

JIS - 24/4/2007  5:50 AM

savuporo - 24/4/2007  8:01 AM

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.