SpaceX Updates (Thread 6)

[BetaguyGZT]

If only NASA would have sent out an email asking if there is any reason at all to delay the launch of Challenger.

Got to give props to SpaceX for having such a candid open floor policy. It isn't as common as it should be in the aviation/aerospace industry.

And THIS is why SpaceX and the other NewSpace companies are the right people and technologies for the future. Because they have the right attitude and working environment, all the way up to Elon Musk himself. If something is wrong, anywhere, anytime, say something immediately and it'll be checked out with no backlash upon you or your coworkers. That's how it needs to be.

 

The complacency matter? Completely understandable how that could occur. The issue with the Strut Failure is so stupid, and it should never have happened in the first place. That was a quality control problem with the supplier (probably cutting corners and not keeping an eye on metallurgical purity) and I'd be willing to bet that supplier will never do business again. It's also likely that ALL Falcon 9's are currently in the process of having those struts removed and better replacements have already been built in-house using 3D Printing techniques.

 

A sad example of the current state of affairs in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector, and how we need to "get our mojo back".

[FloatingFatMan]

In some ways, I see the accident as a good thing.  I'm really glad no one was hurt, but SpaceX needed an attention getter to stop them getting slack, and this sure did the job!

 

I don't ever want to see them losing a crew.

[flyingskippy]

If only NASA would have sent out an email asking if there is any reason at all to delay the launch of Challenger.

Got to give props to SpaceX for having such a candid open floor policy. It isn't as common as it should be in the aviation/aerospace industry.

I look back on my statement and realize it most likely wasn't available at the time. But NASA should of had an open door policy at the the time.

[FloatingFatMan]

I look back on my statement and realize it most likely wasn't available at the time. But NASA should of had an open door policy at the the time.

 

In hindsight, they DID get plenty of warnings about the O rings, but it was ignored.

 

You really can't fix stupid.

[DocM]

In hindsight, they DID get plenty of warnings about the O rings, but it was ignored.

You really can't fix stupid.

That's correct. The SRB contractors were all but begging NASA not to fly because of the cold conditions, but the NASA managers were all-in on 'shedule-schedule-schedule.'

I still say the decisionmankers should have been charged with manslaughter.

[FloatingFatMan]

Absolutely agreed.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

NextGen Space report to NASA

 

 

 

Humans could return to the Moon in the next decade, and for "approximately 90% less than the previously estimated $100 billion," according to a new study by NextGen Space.

NASA can cut the cost of establishing a human presence on the Moon by utilizing existing partnerships with commercial service providers like SpaceX and Boeing, said Charles Miller, NexGen president and the study's lead author.

 

 

By tapping those partnerships, NASA could put humans on the Moon in five to seven years and even build a permanent base 10 to 12 years after that - all without exceeding its current $4 billion budget for human spaceflight, the study said.

Plus, a successful mission to the moon could assist in sending humans to Mars, which is where NASA really has its eyes fixed.

Mining fuel from lunar poles and transporting it to lunar orbit for use by other spacecraft reduces the cost of sending humans to Mars and other locations beyond low Earth orbit.

These commercial fuel depots in lunar orbit have the potential to cut the cost of sending humans to Mars by more than $10 billion per year, according to NextGen's estimates.

"You basically expand free enterprise to the Moon," Miller said

Christopher Kraft, NASA's first flight director, said that the NexGen team did well addressing how NASA could, in theory, get to Mars by way of the Moon.

"I think [the report is] a very good one," Kraft said in an interview. "It says that [a mission to the Moon] can be done. It will take good management and good leadership on the part of both the aerospace industry and NASA."

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Could_Return_Humans_to_the_Moon_by_2021_999.html

 

If SpaceX Dragon V2 stays on schedule....they could do it in 3 years....

[BetaguyGZT]

NextGen Space report to NASA

 

lunar-apollo-15-landing-site-lander-buggy-lg.jpg

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Could_Return_Humans_to_the_Moon_by_2021_999.html

 

If SpaceX Dragon V2 stays on schedule....they could do it in 3 years....

Boom. Put that in your pipes and smoke it, OldSpace. Overcharging, overdelaying, overestimating pieces of *snip*.

 

To be fair, I see that happening more in the 5~7 and 12~15 year timeframe, and perhaps for a >$8 billion USD budget. Lunar Missions aren't cheap, but they can be done for far, far less than the Apollo days now.

 

Oh, and guess what: It could a nice testing and proof-of-concept mission set for the BFR too. Let's get all the kinks, protocols and procedures worked out for Mars (and more) by sending all the gear needed to the Lunar Colonies.... 150t at a time. If we're going to stick a nice, big middle finger in the eye of OldSpace, let's do it nice and loud -- with the equivalent of Twisted Sister's "Come On Feel The Noise" of Rockets.

[DocM]

Musk did mention a lunar MCT mission as a trial run.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

NextGen Space report to NASA

 

lunar-apollo-15-landing-site-lander-buggy-lg.jpg

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Could_Return_Humans_to_the_Moon_by_2021_999.html

 

If SpaceX Dragon V2 stays on schedule....they could do it in 3 years....

It would be awhile...But, If SpaceX wanted to do a remote flight and orbit the moon, I could see them doing it in a lot less time...they have the technology....But the big show is Mars...and I want my seat.....

[BetaguyGZT]

Something interesting I found in a rather cursory Google search for information on the BFR ..

 

http://www.spaceflight101.com/spacex-launch-vehicle-concepts.html -- Source of the article, and a mighty awesome read it is.

 

 

Apparently this nastiness is an early idea for the BFR, also called "Falcon XX".

 

 

 

Falcon XX

Falcon XX is a single core launch vehicle with a diameter of 10 meters and an estimated length of about 100 meters using six Merlin 2 engines operating at the 100% thrust setting on its first stage creating a liftoff thrust of 45,360 Kilonewtons (4,625 metric tons).

Again, the upper stage of the vehicle was not specified at the time, but a one or two-engine Raptor design would have been one likely way to go. Falcon XX would have engine-out capability for a portion of its ascent. Low Earth orbit payload capability has been estimated at 140 metric tons.
 

A heavy-version of the Falcon XX with three cores has not been presented by SpaceX, but would be an option to boost the vehicle's payload capability to more than 400mt.

BFR
BFR or Big Falcon Rocket (or Big F... Rocket) was a phrase coined around 2005 as a title for future heavy-lift SpaceX rockets including the Falcon X/XX and other potential designs.

 

Holy ... just ... the structural wizardry needed to hold that 3-Cored BEAST together would be sheer insanity. 

[DocM]

Musk ruled out a tri-core. He's talking about a VERY large single core.

The rocketeers at NSF who have been modelling BFR, based on what Musk & Co. have said about it and Raptor, put it at a height at least as high as Saturn V, 110.6 meters/363 feet, but up to 50% wider at about 12.5-15 meters vs Saturn V's 10.1 meters. The S1 engine count guesses run from 9 to 30, depending on where Raptors sea level thrust level ends up.

It's also unlikely to taper like Saturn V or Russia's N1, more parallel similar to the Falcon XX pic. Such a parallel structure could allow the payload to be over 22 meters wide (rule of thumb: payloads or fairings can be 1.5-1.8x the upper stage width.)

This makes it easy to visualize a spacecraft about 22 meters at its base and maybe 30-40 meters high.

One of Chris Bergin's articles at NSF used this image of a BFR concept, and yes it would have a blue plume.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/battle-heavyweight-rockets-sls-exploration-rival/

[BetaguyGZT]

My friends, that's gonna be an angry, nasty, rude, impolite BEAST when it launches. In all the ways that matter.

 

Can't wait to witness that kind of fury. It'll be a sight to behold.

[DocM]

You'll have to see it from about 10 miles away lest your innards tie in knots and eardrums burst from the acoustics.

[BetaguyGZT]

You'll have to see it from about 10 miles away lest your innards tie in knots and eardrums burst from the acoustics.

Yeah, I recommend earplugs or noise-cancelling headphones if attending a BFR launch.  And I highly recommend attending a BFR launch ... 

[DocM]

M1D is now 170,000 lbf S/L, 210,000 lbf VAC.  Big damned bump for Falcon 9 v1.2

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/626099566840918016

From NASA’s Phil McAlister’s presentation to NASA Adv Council, an overview of human-rated F9/Crew Dragon. http://t.co/gcQTn9N9wa

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by DocM

[Draggendrop Veteran]

I can't wait to see this puppy doing it's thing again.....September is too far away.......

[BetaguyGZT]

I can't wait to see this puppy doing it's thing again.....September is too far away.......

I know! We needs the precioussss! Hehe ...

Seriously, she's a right looker, that Dragon Mark 2. And I'm starting to show my Welsh roots. Can't help it, DocM always posts the best stuff with SpaceX material.

[BetaguyGZT]

I can't wait to see this puppy doing it's thing again.....September is too far away.......

I know! We needs the precioussss! Hehe ...

Seriously, she's a right looker, that Dragon Mark 2. And I'm starting to show my Welsh roots. Can't help it, DocM always posts the best stuff with SpaceX material.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

I know! We needs the precioussss! Hehe ...

Seriously, she's a right looker, that Dragon Mark 2. And I'm starting to show my Welsh roots. Can't help it, DocM always posts the best stuff with SpaceX material.

/s...I think he works part time for SpaceX..........DragonWorks.............

[DocM]

Did you notice the central pusher & what looks like a nozzle support cone for S2 separation in image 3? It appears the M1DVac nozzle extension, already huge, is now even larger and needs it.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

US Air Force Pushing for more ULA RD-180's

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Air Force contends United Launch Alliance needs as many as 22 RD-180 rocket engines to compete against SpaceX for dozens of national security launches that start going out for bid later this year, according to a U.S. senator.

ULA has ordered 29 RD-180 engines from Russia for its Atlas 5 rocket. Fifteen of those engines are for Air Force launches already under contract. The remaining 14 are what ULA has said it needs to import in order to compete for military launches until its next generation rocket, known as Vulcan and powered by a U.S.-made engine, is ready around 2020.

The Air Force plans to begin soliciting bids later this year for an initial batch of nine missions, all of which Air Force officials say Atlas 5 is suited to launch. A further 28 missions will be put out for bid starting in 2018, with 25 of those suited to the Atlas 5.

Specifically, the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act bars the Defense Department from entering into new contracts or modifying existing contracts for launch services with companies that rely on Russian suppliers.

Because ULA has only partially paid for the 14 engines it ordered from the RD-180’s Florida-based importer RD-Amross in anticipation of winning new Air Force business, Pentagon lawyers have said a strict interpretation of the law could limit ULA to using just five of those engines for the upcoming launch competitions.

That could eventually create a new national security launch monopoly in SpaceX, the Air Force has said.

 

ULA says it is committed to phasing out the RD-180 and switching to Vulcan, a next-generation rocket featuring a main engine being developed by Kent, Washington-based Blue Origin.

But Vulcan is not expected to make its debut before 2019 and win certification to launch military payloads until 2022. That schedule, ULA has said, assumes no technical setbacks and that ULA does not find itself a few years from now sitting on the sidelines with no Atlas 5 and a Delta 4 it admits is too expensive to give SpaceX’s Falcon 9 a run for the Air Force’s money.

 http://spacenews.com/air-force-says-ula-will-need-18-22-rd-180s-to-compete-with-spacex/

Report states that the US Air Force may have to guarantee launches?

The U.S. Air Force may need to guarantee SpaceX and United Launch Alliance a set number of national security launches if the service hopes to have to two financially viable families of rockets available in the future, according to a report completed in April.

The report, formally known as Broad Area Review 15 and led by retired Gen. Larry Welch, a former Air Force chief of staff, raises anew a persistent question about the U.S. national security launch market: Is there enough business for two companies?

The report was commissioned by Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James in January following delays to the Air Force’s certification process for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. The process, which had been expected to be completed by the end of December, dragged on until June, when Falcon 9 was cleared to carry military payloads.

 

The combination of ULA’s high prices and the introduction of the privately funded Falcon 9 has driven the Air Force to reintroduce competition to the military market. The first of those competitive missions, to launch a GPS 3 satellite, is expected to be awarded later this year.

ULA currently operates the Delta 4 rocket family alongside the workhorse Atlas 5, but plans to phase out all but the heavy variant of the Delta 4 over the next few years due to its high costs. That, coupled with a congressional ban on future military use of the Russian-built engine that powers the Atlas 5, could eventually force ULA out of the market, the report said, a concern that has been voiced by Air Force officials in recent months.

 

In what Welch describes as the most likely scenario, the report envisions a continued Delta 4 monopoly for the biggest national security payloads — there is no Atlas 5 heavy-lift variant — despite the fact that Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX is working on a Falcon Heavy rocket that is expected to make its first flight next year.

The Falcon 9 would have a monopoly for medium-class missions, the report said.

In essence, Welch appears to be warning the service not to repeat the mistake of counting on the commercial market to keep two healthy providers available to serve the government.

To that end, the report calls on the commander of Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, which buys military space systems, to prepare a contingency plan to ensure that two providers stay in the national security market “in the face of lack of a viable business case for competitive launch services.”

Meanwhile, the report also suggests that the Air Force’s mission assurance requirements for launch have become too stringent, to the point of being unreasonable.

“There was not an expectation of the 100% launch success rate for [national security] payloads over the past decade,” the report says. “Nonetheless, this has become the standard.”

The report suggests that the Air Force follow a certification standard closer to NASA’s, which requires “significantly fewer resources, accepting more flexibility in processes, relying more on provider engineering processes, and conducting less independent testing.”

http://spacenews.com/report-u-s-air-force-may-need-to-guarantee-number-of-launches/

We can see where this is going...How dare SpaceX be competitive and have a monopoly when only ULA can have this. Hopefully, as the article states, military launch guidelines will be reduced to follow NASA's example. Quite frankly, the money would be nice, but if certain groups don't get their act together, SpaceX can do without them, they have the commercial ability. The only abilities ULA has is money squandering and the pursuit of subsidies. I am really beginning to dislike ULA (and their cronies) business practices.

Cheers..... 

[BetaguyGZT]

Sooooo .... let's see if I have this straight. ULA no longer has a monopoly. The US Air Force people representing ULA are suddenly griping about SpaceX having a foreseeable monopoly sooner rather than later.

I think someone got stiffed on the bill during date night and is now crying about it.

I'm with DD on his conclusions. ULA has done nothing but squander the money that was given to them for Engine Development, and they've got nothing to show for it except a lot of out-of-work middlemen who were thrown under the bus when they couldn't maintain the charade anymore.

This is Politics, and nothing more. A "Dog and Pony Act". These people are playing the only game they know how to play, because they've already lost and are defaulting back to old tactics.

[flyingskippy]

From the assured access to space Committee hearing, you. Can clearly see that ULA wants the Gov't to foot the bill for Vulcan too. Even though one of the senators clearly stated they don't want a new rocket, just a new engine for A5

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Dragon Chute Software To Be Installed

SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk has ordered the installation of contingency abort software into all future Dragon cargo spacecraft, providing them with an option to deploy their parachutes after an off-nominal launch scenario. Such software may have allowed the CRS-7 Dragon to save herself after she was thrown free of the failing Falcon 9 during June’s ill-fated launch.

 

The Dragon spacecraft actually survived the rocket’s mishap, as the Falcon 9’s second stage began to disintegrate via an overpressure event in the Second Stage, in turn freeing the spacecraft.

“Dragon actually survived not only the Second Stage overpressure but continued to communicate until the vehicle dropped below the horizon and out of range,” Mr. Musk confirmed.

However, Dragon’s fate was already sealed as she headed for an unsurvivable high-velocity impact into the Atlantic below.

“It is somewhat tragic that it, unfortunately, hit the water quite hard and is at the bottom of the ocean.

 

 

“We are actually trying to send a remote submersible down to the region where the debris hit the water and see if we can retrieve additional elements of debris to either confirm our initial conclusions or point us in a different direction,” Mr. Musk added, speaking about the ongoing investigation into the failure, believed to have been caused by a failed strut that released a helium pressurization system bottle (Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel) that led to the overpressure event.

SpaceX had focused on Dragon’s systems from a post-first stage ascent standpoint, ensuring her ability to deal with contingency events in space and during her return. Dealing with a first stage launch failure was not a consideration until after the CRS-7 event.

“The issue is that, in this case, Dragon is inert on ascent. The software to initiate the parachute deployment was not in Dragon,” added Mr. Musk. “That is probably the saddest thing about this, is that, with just a bit of different software, Dragon would have made it.”

 

 

That software relates to Dragon being able to open and release her nose cone – which remains in place during first stage ascent – in turn allowing for the deployment of her parachutes, the latter following the procedures of the nominal End Of Mission (EOM) events or during an abort from orbit.

“With the cargo Dragon, it (off-nominal ascent software) was just not something that had been done yet. It was on the agenda, but it hadn’t been done yet,” added Mr. Musk.

“For future missions, even for the cargo version of the Dragon spacecraft, we’re now including contingency software that, if something were to go wrong with the vehicle, Dragon will always attempt to save itself.”

This software inclusion will be live from the next Dragon – CRS-8, believed to be targetting the end of this year – onwards.

 

Extra's 

Dragon 2’s maiden flight into space won’t be crewed, with current manifest showing SpaceX plans to conduct the first test mission to the ISS via an uncrewed Dragon 2 mission, designated SpX-DM1, in December, 2016 – with the 30-day mission ending with a parachute assisted landing in the Pacific ocean.

This mission will make use of its capability, carrying cargo to the Station during its test flight.

SpaceX is then scheduled to conduct the SpX-DM2 crewed flight, launching in April of 2017 on a 14-day mission.

However, Mr. Musk has pointed to a flexible outlook with the potential for up to two flights being uncrewed before astronauts finally get to launch on the Dragon 2.

Such a second uncrewed mission could also provide an extra ISS resupply run boost, in tandem with a second dress rehearsal ahead the historic arrival of a crew onboard the new Dragon spacecraft.

 http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/07/saving-spaceship-dragon-contingency-chute/

Cheers....