SpaceX Updates (Thread 7)

By DocM
in Science News & Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted (edited)

That would be a success then. Correct me, but if F9FT is able to continue with one engine out, if fluctuations on one are okay, they may be able to do a software lock out on one engine's system and/or sensors and relaunch...?

 

:D

Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

It appears the generic engine numbering online is wrong..hopefully a newer one comes out...

 

example...This would be Wrong then....

 

http://imgur.com/wJcD9JC

 

Maybe they start in the center and number it as engine one now...? It is being debated online now...I assume we'll find out shortly.

 

:)

Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Overall, if the data is acceptable, then this is outstanding. A first stage landed, had a test fire and we have this. In the future, worst case scenario, change a few engines and away you go, which is still a win.

 

:)

Rising Star

flyingskippy

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DocM said:
 
 
 
 
 

 

Now someone has reported no fluctuation, which would kinda go with debris. I give up .

Doc, Who is your source on the no fluctuations? 

 

Even if there was,  Tom Mueller knows those engines like the back of his hand and will get to the bottom of it. 

 

Either way, it is still a success and that much closer to a reused booster launch. 

 

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A divert to this new mini-Raptor the USAF is paying SpaceX for.

 

Back in 2014 some NSF engineers, one a grey beard former  Russian LV designer, ran a what if: 

 

What if SpaceX used a mini-Raptor to replace their Merlins? Methane has a lower bulk energy density so usually you make the tanks larger to get to 1:1, probably 5 meters, but what if you didn't? 

 

Falcon 9-M and Falcon Heavy-M

 

It turns out that the Raptors big Isp gains, and a greatly increased S2 performance, take over - especially for Falcon Heavy-M.

 

F9-M: 25 tonnes to LEO, 9.8 to GTO, 5.8 to Mars


FH-M: 78 tonnes to LEO, 33.4 to GTO, 21.5 to Mars

 

YIKES, and rather precient given recent events. 

 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35533.msg1249705#msg1249705

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Dragon 1 gets a pressurized cargo upmass increase via an interior redesign. They'll also start reusing Dragon 1's.

Dragon 2 Cargo will propulsive land on NASA's option. Mainly for 3-6 hour return of biological and other sensitive samples & experiments.

Edited by DocM
Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

This is an article from the Globe and Mail..business oriented and generally, in my opinion, usually not overly tech savvy. This article displayed understanding.

 

Rocket reusability launches new economy

 

Quote

A new economy was launched last month when SpaceX used a Falcon 9 rocket to deliver 11 communication satellites to orbit, then landed the rocket’s first stage – all 41 metres of it, upright and undamaged – back at Cape Canaveral, Fla. SpaceX will seek to replicate that remarkable feat on Sunday when another Falcon 9 launches a single, larger satellite for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

Getting to space used to involve building the equivalent of a Boeing 787 and discarding it after a single three-minute flight. Now, SpaceX can use its launch vehicles many times over.

 

SpaceX already offers the world’s least expensive launches, with a per-kilogram price of $4,654 (U.S.) for cargo launched on a Falcon 9. It is also taking bookings on its next rocket model, the Falcon Heavy, at $1,698 per kilogram, with service to begin in May. These prices positioned SpaceX as the market leader even without rocket reusability.

 

According to SpaceX’s founder, the visionary Elon Musk, reusability could now take these already low prices much lower, since fuel represents less than 1 per cent of the current cost of a launch. Launching one kilogram into orbit might soon cost less than airmail between continents.

 

Reusability will deliver huge profits to SpaceX on the 60-plus launches it has under contract, with a total value of more than $7-billion. Most of these contracts are with private companies, but they include a $1.6-billion contract with NASA to deliver supplies to the International Space Station.

 

SpaceX will dominate the launch market until other companies develop equivalent reusable rockets, which could take a decade or more. Its dominance will extend to launches of U.S. military satellites, which the company received approval to bid on last May. This large and lucrative arena had previously been monopolized by a 50/50 partnership of Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

 

Facing exponential growth in demand, SpaceX is building a spaceport on the Texas coast that will be capable of supporting several launches and landings a day.

 

Privately owned by Mr. Musk and several venture-capital funds, SpaceX was valued last year at $12-billion. Its value may have doubled as a result of last month’s landing, and will climb again if another is achieved this weekend.

 

Rocket reusability opens many other opportunities. SpaceX is already planning its own network of 4,000 satellites in low Earth orbit to provide worldwide high-speed, high-bandwidth Internet. Consumers will benefit, but the infrastructure of land-based communications providers could be rendered obsolete.

 

Rocket reusability will drive down the cost of all satellite-based services, including imagery for farming, forestry, security, disaster relief and search and rescue.

 

Mr. Musk, who founded PayPal and electric car maker Tesla, has even grander plans. He believes rocket reusability opens the door to the colonization of Mars and a new era of trade if high-value minerals are discovered there.

 

However, the most immediate consequences will be felt by national space agencies in Russia, China and Europe. SpaceX is delivering on the 2005 decision to open U.S. space launches to commercial competition. This is good news for U.S. taxpayers, who have been paying the Lockheed Martin/Boeing monopoly at least $225-million a launch. But it is problematic for other countries, where satellite launches are provided by heavily subsidized state-owned companies that competed for private contracts to spread costs.

 

 “Competitors are stepping on our toes,” Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin complained last month. “Look at what billionaire Musk is doing with his projects.”

 

But it is too late to stop reusable rockets – and the new economy they have launched.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/rocket-reusability-launches-new-economy/article28226300/

 

:)

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Heads up:  the static fire video above may have been doctored to make the burn seem longer. If you look at the audio waveform there are pops where it looks like a previous launches audio was pasted in without ramping its overlay channel from 0 intensity up. 

  • BetaguyGZT and Draggendrop
  • Like 2
Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Doc, here are a few more images to go with your upper post....39A

 

courtesy of...

http://spaceksc.blogspot.ca/2016/01/hide-and-seek.html

 

160118_f92_zpsejtazwn1.jpg

 

 

 

160118_f91_zps5tme7um6.jpg

 

 

160118_f93_zpsm83y2lsa.jpg

 

 

We will have to send some snow down there....

:)

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This McGregor FB spy report is interesting 

 

In McGregor just experienced an approx. 2 min 45 second burn with lots of deep throttling.  Some increasing high freq. Whistle for about 5 sec midway thru   burn.  If it had been a solid motor I would say it had some instability  midway thru the burn.  I don't have perfect pitch but Id guess the whistle was about 1-2k hz.

  • BetaguyGZT and PaulRocket
  • Like 2
Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Pure guesses

 

First impression: SuperDraco extended burn test. It can throttle to 20%, and pulse very rapidly; 0-100% throttle in 100 milliseconds.

 

With 2 in a pod (aka Quad) pulsing you get some interesting harmonics. If firing all 8 in a DragonFly test even more so.

 

Second impression:  more throttleable turbopumps test. M1DVac can already throttle pretty low, much lower than M1D, but more is better.  Maybe a Raptor pumps test.

Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

With a fan base ever increasing for newspace, it appears we get niches as well, which can reveal goodies...

 

such as...

 

1) Barge stalking

2) Noise documentation from various locales

3) Interstate highway photo scoops

4) Newsprint "slip ups"

5) Twitter "hawks"

6) SpaceX staff facial expression analysis during launches

7) Bad press analyzers.....I'm bad for this, as I hate intentional poor write-ups

 

have I missed any?

 

Don't get me wrong, this detective work does reveal "goodies', but it does make one laugh once in a while...

 

:D

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Me too. 

 

Had a thought about why USAF wants the SpaceX Raptor and ULA ACES high energy stages.

 

This may be related to suspicious behaviour by three  Russian satellites, including one in geosynchronous orbit which has approached two Intelsat satellites - parking between them. Intelsat is very concerned, as they should be. 

 

The USAF may want higher energy stages from both ULA and SpaceX to put their resources further out. This could be to mitigate evesdropping, jamming or ASAT  attack, at least for the short to medium term.

 

http://spacenews.com/russian-satellite-maneuvers-silence-worry-intelsat/

 

 

Quote

The maneuvers of the Luch satellite have led to several classified meetings within the Defense Department, a source told SpaceNews.

 

The satellites movements were observed months after the Air Force said it was watching two other Russian military satellites, each with maneuvering capabilities that are consistent with, but not necessarily indicative of, an on-orbit antisatellite weapon.

 

  • Draggendrop and BetaguyGZT
  • Like 2
Grand Master

bguy_1986

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DocM said:

Me too. 

 

Had a thought about why USAF wants the SpaceX Raptor and ULA ACES high energy stages.

 

This may be related to suspicious behaviour by three  Russian satellites, including one in geosynchronous orbit which has approached two Intelsat satellites - parking between them. Intelsat is very concerned, as they should be. 

 

The USAF may want higher energy stages from both ULA and SpaceX to put their resources further out. This could be to mitigate evesdropping, jamming or ASAT  attack, at least for the short to medium term.

 

http://spacenews.com/russian-satellite-maneuvers-silence-worry-intelsat/

 

 

 

It's sad how far behind technology wise we have gotten...  Now we have to play catch-up and it's obvious.  Hopefully it doesn't bite us in the behind.

 

The worlds getting a little crazy and ballsy, but that's a subject for another thread...

Grand Master

Draggendrop Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Yes, varying dispersal altitudes would enable conclusive "evidence" of ability or intent of future issues. When one has a clutter of stuff all in one area, it presents an easy "take-out". Strategic placement would help to partially mitigate this. Payload packages may require additional "assemblies" for proximity detection, image capture...and worst case, defensive capabilities.

  • DocM and BetaguyGZT
  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing