Jump to content



Photo

SpaceX Updates (Thread 4): F9, FH & Dragon


457 replies to this topic

#196 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,013 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 07 March 2014 - 02:03

Good news I assume?

There are confirmed updates about the powerful new Raptor methane engine and its testing, enough to start a second thread in the series.

Confirmed new launch vehicle specifics may also be released with this, or a tad later. This is very cool stuff. 800lb gorillas are definitely knockin' on the door.


#197 flyingskippy

flyingskippy

    Neowinian

  • 98 posts
  • Joined: 31-October 13
  • Location: GA

Posted 07 March 2014 - 02:51

Have they put it on the test stand and ran it yet?

#198 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,013 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 07 March 2014 - 04:48

No. The E-3 stand at NASA Stennis is just finishing being modded to handle methane fuel. The E Complex stands are for testing components, so they are cutting/printing metal.

#199 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,013 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 21 March 2014 - 20:04

Gwynne Shotwell on The Space Show,

LC-40 to be modded to allow FH launches, 39A will also launch F9 and FH

39A not big enough for SpaceX super HLV, would build new site

Raptor question, smaller methane engine than million lb thrust one? no smaller engine, some subscale components being made for testing, focus on full Raptor

Raptor super HLV not named yet

When will cargo Dragon make powered landings? powered landing is for Dragon V2 (crew), will retrofit powered landing to cargo version

Raptor methane engine is for super HLV, but wouldn't rule out methane upper stage for F9/FH

Dragon 2 unveiling later this year

what are markets for super HLV? F9/FH is for commercial sat launches, super HLV is for transport to Mars

what rockets Raptor will be used for, and specs? Raptor is for Mars launches, not releasing specs yet.

only doing a few secondary payloads, not a lot of money in secondary market

commercial crew (not SpaceX specifically) about a year behind where it would be if fully funded, Congress may consider more funding given Crimea

with increased launch rate, will SpX prep 2 launches at 2 pads at once? likely in 2015 (referring to next VAFB launch?)

biggest near term challenges for SpX? make rockets highly producible, increase production rate, no big issues meeting that, current TAKT time 1 core a month, should be 2 a month by end of year.

when will SpX Mars missions happen? Lots of work to do, Elon says 12-13 years, will shoot for that timeframe.

not focused on Phobos or Deimos, but doesn't mean we wouldn't look at them

concern on increasing regulation? not overly concerned, but keep close eye, pretty comfortable with where regs are now

SpX has over 3000 employees, will expand and where focus? yes, will expand at more "sane" pace than in past, in all our locations

almost recovered CASSIOPE 1st stage, what changes to successfully recover? optimize reentry/landing burn, get more stability on stage, add ACS, make iterative progress, hard problem but believe will solve it.



#200 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,013 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 22 March 2014 - 21:14

A pic showing just how huge the single core Raptor based "BFR" super-heavy booster will be. Now imagine the triple-core at >34 meters wide (counting connectors, landing gear etc)....

u5aru8e2.jpg

#201 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,086 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 22 March 2014 - 22:15

... That's a big flippin' rocket!



#202 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,013 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 23 March 2014 - 00:43

Given a lowball total sea level thrust, and the higher efficiency (Isp) of methane in a FFSC engine, on the single core we're talking a much higher mass to orbit than Saturn V - which used RP-1 as fuel (rocket grade kerosene, lower Isp).

The tri-core would have a total thrust 3x that, a minimum of ~23 million lbf, plus a beast of a Raptor 2nd stage (can't say how beast-y yet), and a Raptor powered spacecraft.

That all adds up to an absolute monster of a rocket, one that'll need an advanced enough pad not to crush it on liftoff.

#203 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,013 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 25 March 2014 - 23:43

The US Air Force is paying SpaceX $4,252,654 to study integrating military payloads into Falcon 9 v1.1.

https://www.fbo.gov/...b=core&_cview=1

Contract Award Date:

March 10, 2014

Contract Award Number:

FA8811-14-C-0003

Contract Award Dollar Amount:

$4,252,654 (includes 1 option)

Contractor Awarded Name:

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation

Contractor Awarded DUNS:

120406462

Contractor Awarded Address:

1 Rocket Road Hawthorne, California 90250 United States

Synopsis:

Added: Jul 03, 2013 5:44 pm

THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION. THIS NOTICE IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

The United States Air Force (USAF), Launch Systems Directorate (LR) at the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) located in El Segundo, CA intends to issue a sole source contract award to Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX); Cage Code: 3BVL8 located in Hawthorne, CA for early integration studies of SpaceX's launch vehicle Falcon 9 v1.1 and USAF space vehicles projected to launch in 2015. The statutory authority of this action is contracting by Other than Full and Open Competition, 10 USC § 2304©(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2). The early integration studies are unique to each potential launch service provider and its own launch vehicle configuration. SpaceX, as the sole owner and manufacturer of the Falcon 9 v1.1, possesses "unique capabilities" for this requirement (studies) because the study is on SpaceX's own unique launch vehicle. SpaceX possesses its own specific knowledge and resources of the launch vehicle it manufactures. With the unique capabilities, the study of the Falcon 9 v1.1 can only be satisfied by SpaceX.
>



#204 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,013 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 03 April 2014 - 04:18

The launch abort system tests will take place on different coasts,

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust
Reisman: pad abort test will be at the Cape, but the in-flight abort test will launch from Vandenberg. #spacetechexpo

#205 ks8877

ks8877

    Neowinian

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 03 April 2014 - 17:20

Maybe SpaceX could combine in-flight abort test launch from Vandenberg with F9R landing test in New Mexico. This way company could save money.



#206 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,013 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 03 April 2014 - 17:26

The F9R Dev-1 in NM has no upper stage and only 3 instead of 9 engines. Flight abort will need all of those and the trunk to be a valid test of a real launch configuration.

Vandenberg is also is close to LA and the shipping company used for Dragon recoveries at sea.

#207 ks8877

ks8877

    Neowinian

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 03 April 2014 - 17:51

I do not know if they could fly back to landing area in New Mexico when launched from Vandenberg, but they planned F9R high altitude test and for that maybe need all 9 engines.

Also I think for in-flight abort test SpaceX will use dummy second stage, like Ares I-X second stage :-)



#208 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 19,013 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 03 April 2014 - 19:27

Only 3 engines with the F9R Dev-1. 9 engnes with no upper stage or payload would result in excessive acceleration loads.

More likely the flight abort test will use a full upper stage and propellant load to exactly match real launch conditions.

#209 ks8877

ks8877

    Neowinian

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 03 April 2014 - 20:08

Financially for SpaceX is better to complete F9R landing testing ASAP, to start reusability of first stage. Current delays with Falcon 9 v1.1 launches probably good for company.

 

The question is how soon after successful F9R Dev-1 landing they could get permission to land near KSC and/or Vandenberg (this is why I mention possibility to land in New Mexico).

 

It would be pity to discard first stage (and maybe second stage) just for in-flight abort test of Dragon.



#210 ks8877

ks8877

    Neowinian

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 13

Posted 03 April 2014 - 20:44

I do not remember any history of in-flight abort test for any spacecraft with real full size rockets... From the ground - yes. But in-flight (?)...

Did anyone spent real rocket(s) for any spacecraft in-flight abort test ?  Except "Little Joe" solid-fueled boosters testing, but those were not full size real flight rockets...