SpaceX for Real?

(ed kyle) writes:

I think the main differences here are SpaceX's use of
1) a ablatively-cooled (rather than regeneratively-cooled)
engine and 2) electronic, instead of hydraulic, controls.
These ideas were first tested during NASA's Fastrac program
(the goal of which was to develop a 60 thousand pound thrust
LOX/Kero gas-gen cycle engine that could ultimately be
manufactured for about $350,000 each. Barber-Nichols, the
company that built the Fastrac turbopump, is building the
Falcon engine turbopump. Indeed, the Falcon first stage
engine looks very much like Fastrac.

This may be the first example of NASA incubating a new
space propulsion technology that has been transferred
directly to the commercial marketplace - exactly the role
that the agency should be playing.

Wait A Second... I thought NASA never really got the
Fastrac engine to work?

--
Phil Fraering "Oh, so now Mike's the nut, Roger's the good
one, and I'm the bad guy?"

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:31:48 -0600, in a place far, far away, Phil
Fraering pgf@AUTO made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

This may be the first example of NASA incubating a new
space propulsion technology that has been transferred
directly to the commercial marketplace - exactly the role
that the agency should be playing.

Wait A Second... I thought NASA never really got the
Fastrac engine to work?

Actually, I think that the powerhead might have turned out to be
useful.

Phil Fraering pgf@AUTO wrote in message ...
(ed kyle) writes:

I think the main differences here are SpaceX's use of
1) a ablatively-cooled (rather than regeneratively-cooled)
engine and 2) electronic, instead of hydraulic, controls.
These ideas were first tested during NASA's Fastrac program

Wait A Second... I thought NASA never really got the
Fastrac engine to work?

According to the following sites (among many) it
worked and was being prepped for qualification testing.
NASA didn't deploy Fastrac because X-34 was cancelled
in March 2001. However, the engine was developed and
tested, seems to have been working, and NASA has offered
its patents for license. At the end, NASA renamed
Fastrac to "MC-1".

See

"http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/fastrac.html"
"http://www.qadas.com/qadas/nasa/nasa-hm/1105.html"
"http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/1999/99-047.html"
"http://www.barber-nichols.com/b_turbopum.htm"
"http://www.summa.com/fastracphotos.html"
"https://rockettest.ssc.nasa.gov/ssc_ptd/projects_mc1.htm"
"http://www.aerospace.nasa.gov/library/ar00/goal2.7-4.htm"
"http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/Patents/(48).html"
"http://www.la.dlr.de/en/ra/sart/publications/abstract/esa02-2001.html"

- Ed Kyle

In article ,
Explorer8939 wrote:
I don't want to jinx SpaceX, but - assuming the SpaceX vehicle
actually works - why is it that SpaceX could develop and launch so
much cheaper than NASA can?

There is no single, simple, quick answer except "*everything* is done
differently". There is no one specific reason why NASA's costs are so
high; there are a whole bunch of reasons, many of them interacting with
each other to make things still worse. To do things cheaply, you have to
get rid of them all, which in practice means starting from scratch and
being careful not to put any of them in.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

why is it that SpaceX could develop and launch so
much cheaper than NASA can? BRBR
Remember, NASA does not do launch (except the Shuttle). It buys launches from
private companies.

Two things make Space-X stand out among launch companies. First, the owner
does not need immediate payback of investors - he's the only investor, and it's
fine with him if he doesn't make payback anytime soon. (I asked him.) Second,
the company could start with a clean sheet and say. "OK, how do we design every
component with low cost as a factor?"

Hope it works.


Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

MattWriter wrote:

Two things make Space-X stand out among launch companies. First, the owner
does not need immediate payback of investors - he's the only investor, and it's
fine with him if he doesn't make payback anytime soon.

To me, Space-X is interesting in that it's combining the Big Dumb Booster
approach with pump-fed engines. Many of the other BDB companies had
tried pressure-fed engines. It will be interesting to see how
the cost-optimized turbopump approach works out.

I also admire the PR genius of taking their booster to Washington.
It's a great way to insinuate themselves into the policy making
zeitgeist.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

MattWriter wrote:

Two things make Space-X stand out among launch companies. First, the owner
does not need immediate payback of investors - he's the only investor, and it's
fine with him if he doesn't make payback anytime soon.

To me, Space-X is interesting in that it's combining the Big Dumb Booster
approach with pump-fed engines. Many of the other BDB companies had
tried pressure-fed engines. It will be interesting to see how
the cost-optimized turbopump approach works out.

I also admire the PR genius of taking their booster to Washington.
It's a great way to insinuate themselves into the policy making
zeitgeist.

Paul

I would note that Space-X is starting small by starting out building
a vehicle that puts a relatively small payload into earth orbit.
Their project ed follow-on vehicle seems to be built up by
clustering the original vehicle.

I note that the initial launch will paid for by DARPA and, if successful,
will orbit a small experimental satellite.

In some ways it is like a smaller version of Kistler. Kistler was able
to get several hundred million dollars of investment and still wasn't
able to get to the launch pad, or at least so far.

I can't complain too much about the Space-X approach featuring
cheap turbo-pumps and clustering propulsion systems because I
have recommended this path before.

Space-X still faces big odds on its initial flight. Getting something
to work right with a brand new vehicle is always tough.

Mike Walsh

Michael Walsh :

I would note that Space-X is starting small by starting out building
a vehicle that puts a relatively small payload into earth orbit.
Their project ed follow-on vehicle seems to be built up by
clustering the original vehicle.

I note that the initial launch will paid for by DARPA and, if successful,
will orbit a small experimental satellite.

In some ways it is like a smaller version of Kistler. Kistler was able
to get several hundred million dollars of investment and still wasn't
able to get to the launch pad, or at least so far.

I can't complain too much about the Space-X approach featuring
cheap turbo-pumps and clustering propulsion systems because I
have recommended this path before.

Space-X still faces big odds on its initial flight. Getting something
to work right with a brand new vehicle is always tough.

This is one main thing I thought Beal did wrong. Instead of building and
flying a small proof of concept rocket they sunk all the money into the full
size model without even having a place to lanuch it from. Beal if they
started small would be in the same position SpaceX is to but in year 2000.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:01:27 -0000, in a place far, far away, Earl
Colby Pottinger made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

This is one main thing I thought Beal did wrong. Instead of building and
flying a small proof of concept rocket they sunk all the money into the full
size model without even having a place to lanuch it from. Beal if they
started small would be in the same position SpaceX is to but in year 2000.

Yes, this is the tragedy of commercial launch. There are a number of
people who have the money to do it, and a number of people who know
what to do if they had the money, but to date, the intersection
between the two sets has been infinitesimal.

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

I would note that Space-X is starting small by starting out building
a vehicle that puts a relatively small payload into earth orbit.
Their project ed follow-on vehicle seems to be built up by
clustering the original vehicle.


This approach appears to have been supplanted by new plans,
announced by Musk at the Dec 4 rollout ceremony, to simply
mount five of the Falcon first stage engines on a larger
diameter first stage. The new "Falcon 5" is supposed to
be able to put 4.2 metric tons into LEO, which would give
SpaceX a Delta II-class rocket.

- Ed Kyle