Recommended Posts

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/39020falcon-9-v11-appears-on-fast-track-to-qualify-for-air-force-missions

Falcon 9 v1.1 Appears on Fast Track To Qualify for Air Force Missions

WASHINGTON ? With its successful launch of the Thaicom-6 commercial telecommunications satellite Jan. 6, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) appears to have met the U.S. Air Force?s requirements to bid for national security launches and challenge the market incumbent, United Launch Alliance (ULA) of Denver.

While Hawthorne, Calif.-based SpaceX has not received formal certification to launch operational national security satellites aboard its Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket, Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, told SpaceNews Jan. 7 he has not seen anything from the vehicle?s three flights to date to prevent that from happening.

SpaceX spokeswoman Emily Shanklin said via email that the company believes the Falcon 9 v1.1 has now met the three-flight certification requirement for the Air Force?s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.

If the rocket is certified, SpaceX would become the first new competitive entrant in the EELV program, which is used to launch virtually all operational U.S. national security satellites. Today nearly all of those missions are launched aboard ULA?s Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets, and, coupled with soaring costs, has made the EELV program a lightning rod for criticism.

>

Shelton has said repeatedly he is pleased with ULA?s record, but thinks the price of launching rockets is too expensive. In a speech to students at George Washington University here Jan. 7, he praised Elon Musk, SpaceX?s chief executive.

?I don?t doubt that guy anymore, by the way,? Shelton said. ?What he says, he?s going to do.?

>

Looks like the recent successes are going to be paying off!

 

 

Falcon 9 Rocket Will Deliver JCSAT-14 Satellite to Orbit

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) was awarded a contract with SKY Perfect JSAT Corporation of Japan to launch the JCSAT-14 communications satellite to a geostationary transfer orbit on a Falcon 9 rocket in the second half of 2015.

 

http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/01/10/spacex-awarded-launch-contract-leading-asia-pacific-satellite-operator

Many launch operators are extremely worried about SpaceX. Article in French, translation not by me, but it lools close (my French is a bit rusty.)

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2014/01/08/reinventons-le-programme-ariane-pour-rivaliser-avec-les-americains_4344804_3232.html

LET'S REINVENT THE ARIANE PROGRAM TO COMPETE WITH THE AMERICANS

by: Jean-Yves Le Gall (Pr?sident du Centre national d'?tudes spatiales (CNES) (President of the National Centre for Space Studies) [President of Arianespace 2007 to April 2013]

The three perfectly successful launches of the new American launcher Falcon 9, developed and operated by SpaceX, founded in 2002 in a Californian garage, bring many questions.

Indeed, it is the first time in history that a private corporation has managed to successfully fly ? and on the first try, too - a space launcher conceived with an antipodal/totally different approach to what has been done before.

These successes call out to us especially since SpaceX has announced their intent to dominate this industry, at a time where Europe has begun, at the initiative of France, the development of future launcher Ariane 6, which aims to enter service early next decade, and so will have SpaceX launchers as competitors.

VERY ATTRACTIVE PRICING

In coming months, Europe will have to decide on the final commitment to Ariane 6, as SpaceX has demonstrated that is can occupy the land (serve the market) with commercial launches at very attractive prices.

If we compare the SpaceX launcher to its competitors, it differs in three ways. First, it is perfectly adapted to government payloads: NASA and DoD satellites are an important part of its launch manifest, and an even greater one of its revenues, as the American government is willing to pay more for its own launches than is billed to commercial clients.

Second, its reduced size and ease of implementation lead to especially low operations costs that make it formidably competitive for commercial satellite launches: the last two Falcon 9 launches have brought the USA back to this market, from which they had been absent for many years, due to the lack of competitiveness and availability of their classic launchers.

Finally, its technical definition and industrial organization has, since the beginning, been designed with the goal of minimizing development and operations costs: instead of being a cutting edge technology launcher, the Falcon 9 uses proven technology engines that were easy to develop and inexpensive to industrialize/mass produce, and there are very few sub-contractors involved in launcher construction, which reduces production costs.

THE SPACE RACE

To sum it up, where classical methods have failed ? in the past ten years, the USA has terminated development of many classic launchers, after wasting many billions of dollars on them - , the Falcon 9 may well bring the USA back as leaders of the Space Race, while today they share it with Russia and China for government launchers and Europe occupies it for commercial launches.

Not to mention that SpaceX has been working on evolved versions of its launchers that, as soon as this year, might fly in an even more powerful version that might eventually be reusable, bringing down launch prices even more ? something that the Space Shuttle was never able to do, even though it had been designed to do just that!

Such an evolution would mean heavy consequences for Europe with, on the one hand the loss of market share and on the other, the embrittlement of our autonomous access to space that depends on the commercial success of our launchers, given the relatively limited number of European government satellite launches.

These are the findings that lead to define for Ariane 6 specifications that are related to Falcon 9?s: a perfect adaptation to the launch of European government satellites, eased launch of commercial satellites, simplified design and tightened industrial organization to significantly reduce launch costs.

WE MUST REACT

It is clear that today, the USA are challenging us to compete with them by showing us the way with a system that puts into practice all those recommendations. And while, for many years, we feared competition from emerging economies with their cheap labor, competition is instead coming from the USA and their ability to innovate and to challenge themselves.

This situation bring back memories of the world of IT/computers in the early 70s, shaken by the coming of new companies that had one thing in common ? they all came out of garages in California. 40 years later, the space launcher industry, today considered a sovereign (government/national) industry, may well know the same upheaval.

Europe's space launch supremacy was hard-won/very expensive. Ariane 5 is the best launcher in the world, due to its reliability, conquering launch after launch since 2003, and it will remain the best since Europe has decided to support its operation and its adaptations to the evolving market.

As such, we must react to SpaceX?s challenge and move forth with the development of Ariane 6. The goal isn?t to make yet another Ariane launcher, but rather to reinvent Ariane development by taking the same turn that IT did in the 70s and SpaceX is taking now. This is the lesson we learn from the Californian garages.

They will take what cost reduction schemes they can until R&D can catch up, but by then SpaceX will be flying theor next generation methane fueled launchers, the next-gen Dragon and deep space MCT spacecraft.

Using methane gives very close to liquid hydrogen performance without the need for the very expensive cryogenic hardware, and it doesn't have the boil-off problems that make fuel depots and long missions tough. This leaves toxic hypergolic fuels like the hydrazine famuly, which work but are inefficient and very hard to handle.

The SpaceX Raptor methane staged combustion engine (650,000 lbf thrust sea level / ~690,000 lbf vacuum) for the Saturn V-class superheavy most are calling "Falcon X" starts component testing at NASA Stennis in Mississippi early this year. Russia's RD-0162/0164 methane engine for Soyuz V is in develipment.

All we hear about methane engines elsewhere is a small one from XCOR, and they're focussed on their spaceplane and piston liquid hydrogen pumps for a ULA upper stage.

Otherwise, from the US and other nations/major companies it's <crickets>

DocM, where'd you ever see cost-efficient LH2 rockets? for example, hypergolics have comparatively low Isp, but their compactness & capability to throttle thrust up/down highly accurate & safely make possible to drop drag + gravity losses into bottoms. i very doubt Methane's advantages over RP-1 & Hypergolics.

 

Using methane gives very close to liquid hydrogen performance without the need for the very expensive cryogenic hardware, and it doesn't have the boil-off problems that make fuel depots and long missions tough. This leaves toxic hypergolic fuels like the hydrazine famuly, which work but are inefficient and very hard to handle.

completely incorrect: 

 

Methane has a boiling point of ?161 ?C (?257.8 ?F) at a pressure of one atmosphere.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

+ oxidizer out there is LOX, so there'll be gotten Just yet another cryogenic rocket. actually, only niche i can see is to use Methane for low-power upper stages. seems it has good odds to beat Hydrogen: LH2 is worst choice to gain powerful thrust because of problems to cool engines.

Cryogenic begins at -150?C.

Liquid hydrogen:. ?252.87 ?C (?423.17 ?F)

Liquid methane: ?164 to ?160 ?C (?263 to ?256 ?F)

Liquid methane is barely cryogenic and liquid hydrogen is deeply so. Enough so that it presents storage issues liquid methane does not.

For in-space propulsion the really big deals are Specific Impulse (Isp) and storability.

Isp is a deal breaker, being similar to miles per gallon in a car, and even a few points matter a lot, Since we're talking hydrogen vs methand vs hypergolics here are their numbers,

Liquid Hydrogen+LOX: 455

Liquid Methane:+LOX: 380

MMH+NTO4: 336 (hypergolic)

(MMH: monomethyl hydrazine (toxic)

NTO4: nitrogen tetroxide (toxic)

LOX: liquid oxygen

Also, nitric acid (hypergolic, toxic)

Hydrogen is the clear Isp winner, with methane second. Both will deliver much more "mpg" than NTO4+MMH, which are also highly toxic - complicating ground operations, but with hydrogen there are storage issues.

First, liquid hydrogen is cryogenic so that takes expensive hardware and storage or it'll boil off easily. Second, it is a very tiny molecule that will infiltrate most materials it touches, degrading them over time. As a result special materials or coatings are required.

Bottom line: liquid hydrogen hardware dramatically ups costs.

Methane gives "good enough" Isp, much higher than hypergolics, and does not have near the storage issues of hydrogen.

The hypergolics low Isp is a problem, but toxicity alone is why most companies and nations are actively developing replacements for them. They greatly complicate ground opetations, and crashed hypergolic stages have killed civilians (China, mitric acid+hydrazine).

These advantages over hypergolics and hydrogen are enough that, in addition to SpaceX, Russia is now developing the RD-0162/0164 methane engines for the future Soyuz 5 launcher.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm

My understanding with methane propellent is that since the density is higher than hydrogen, it would require less storage volume in a fuel tank. A storage tank with less volume would mean a rocket with less mass.

You are truely clueless.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm

My understanding with methane propellent is that since the density is higher than hydrogen, it would require less storage volume in a fuel tank. A storage tank with less volume would mean a rocket with less mass.

That's known as bulk density and yes, methane is better than liquid hydrogen.

Methane: 801 kg/m^3

Hydrogen: 358 kg/m^3

and for SarK0Y's sake

MMH: 972 kg/m^3, but for long missions or fuel depots it'll freeze solid as a rock without heavy extra insulation heaters in the tank. Not to mention its highly toxic.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm

My understanding with methane propellent is that since the density is higher than hydrogen, it would require less storage volume in a fuel tank. A storage tank with less volume would mean a rocket with less mass.

 it'd be heavier than Hydrogen, but Methane looks better in terms of thrust because there needs less volume to cool engines. In short, at greater thrust, we could hope upon mass savings too.

DocM, it's truly fascinating comment from you :) how long do you Hope to store Methane in the spacecraft at stable state?

A lot longer than you can hydrogen, which requires active cooling and heavier insulation to prevent boil-off, then there is th problem of hydrogen infiltration damage which requires many expensive materials that methane doesn't need.

Methane would take less cooling & insulation to store long term than hydrogen.

FYI, until the recent move towards methane every proposed fuel depot design was for hydrogen, and the problems associated with hydrogen was why they weren't done.

Regarding the proposed SpaceX Brownsville, Texas spaceport.

This launch facility would initially be very similar to their Vandenberg Air Force Bade site, launching Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and F9-R, but Musk has made it clear the area would also get a new factory for building much larger rockets and Brownsville would be the launch site.

http://m.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_b64c8912-7b2e-11e3-a927-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=jqm

Delving into SpaceX Files: Cameron County property acquisitions detailed

The proposed site of a facility for Elon Musk?s Space Exploration Technologies Corp., where the world?s first privately-owned commercial rocket-launching complex would be located, consists of 87 acres in four tracts along state Highway 4 at Boca Chica Boulevard.

>

>

? PARCEL 4: SpaceX already has leased this tract of about 56.5 acres as its primary launch site, and purchased about 27 acres.

>

The goal is to initiate unmanned launches at the site by the fourth quarter of 2015, according to public records about the proposal.

>

Methane would take less cooling & insulation to store long term than hydrogen.

FYI, until the recent move towards methane every proposed fuel depot design was for hydrogen, and the problems associated with hydrogen was why they weren't done.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/testfacilities/cryo.html So far from the least valuable result.

That confirms my point. Depots using deep cryo fuels like H2 suffer the most boiloff, and this is lessened with CH4. You need less cooling and insulation, and that reduces power demands.

Also note it doesn't mention any on-orbit tests of depot tech using H2. It's been tested at a very basic level in space, mainly a used Centaur stage a few years ago, but not anything really functional That is what I meant by being "done."

That said, ULA has a depot proposal - but no funding.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!