SpaceX could launch Monday

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

Good luck to them.

Interesting statement he
I know it has been a year since our last launch and some people are
wondering if launch 3 will also be a year away if something goes wrong
this time. The answer is definitely no. The reason it took us a year
is that the vehicle on the pad and the ground support equipment have
hundreds of robustness upgrades -- this is really Falcon 1 version 2.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in
oups.com:


http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

Currently scheduled for 4 pm Pacific time.

Dangit, I'll be at an appointment then...

--Damon

On 18 Mar, 08:44, "Alex Terrell" wrote:
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

Good luck to them.

Interesting statement he
I know it has been a year since our last launch and some people are
wondering if launch 3 will also be a year away if something goes wrong
this time. The answer is definitely no. The reason it took us a year
is that the vehicle on the pad and the ground support equipment have
hundreds of robustness upgrades -- this is really Falcon 1 version 2.

SpaceX Falcon 1 is meant to cost about $6-7 million per launch. I
wonder how what SpaceX's fixed costs are?

The normal thing to do after a failure is to review everything and
spend years making sure everything is perfect. Given a low marginal
cost, IF SpaceX fails again, might a better strategy be to try again
next month? In fact, why not just say, we're going to launch once a
month. Lessons learnt will be fed back immediately but as long as
we're 90% confident (as opposed to 99.9% required for a shuttle
launch) we won't interrupt the schedule.

That said, fingers crossed for today's launch.

Could this be the most significant (positive*) event in space
exploration since 1969?

*Challenger was perhaps more significant, though in a negative sense.

On 19 Mar, 07:25, Damon Hill wrote:
"Alex Terrell" wrote groups.com:



http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

Currently scheduled for 4 pm Pacific time.

Dangit, I'll be at an appointment then...


I might stay up for it. Is it on web tv somewhere?

Weather forecast looks OK
http://www.qwikcast.com/cgi-bin/fore...ein%20Atoll,MH

On Mar 19, 5:42 am, "Alex Terrell" wrote:
On 18 Mar, 08:44, "Alex Terrell" wrote:



Could this be the most significant (positive*) event in space
exploration since 1969?

*Challenger was perhaps more significant, though in a negative sense.


Alex. I like your comparison.

A guess (and it is only that) is that SpaceX did the "review"
correctly. From a safety standpoint when you are doing a "first of"
vehicle and you have a failure, the thing to do is track down that
failure (obviously DAH ) and figure out what happened. Then a good
next step is to "comb" the vehicle for any similar failures and an
excellent final step is to sit back and look at the process that
enabled the failure and try and figure out how to comb those out.
Ayear is about the right time for such an analysis correction,
particularly if in the process one found some "bed bugs" that one
didnt like.

Go ELON

Robert Oler

"Alex Terrell" wrote in
ups.com:


Could this be the most significant (positive*) event in space
exploration since 1969?

I'd consider the first manned launch of their Dragon spacecraft
to be considerably more significant than Falcon 1. SpaceX has
a long way to go.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

"Alex Terrell" wrote in
ups.com:

Could this be the most significant (positive*) event in space
exploration since 1969?

I'd consider the first manned launch of their Dragon spacecraft
to be considerably more significant than Falcon 1. SpaceX has
a long way to go.

Actually, according to of the indices they are on the right track.

Won't this be (assuming success) the first ever TSTO all kerosene
powered orbital launch vehicle, and isn't the upper stage pressure fed?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Alex Terrell wrote:

I might stay up for it. Is it on web tv somewhere?

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

kT wrote in :


Won't this be (assuming success) the first ever TSTO all kerosene
powered orbital launch vehicle, and isn't the upper stage pressure
fed?


I think Zenit, or some versions of it, takes that distinction. Before
it is the venerable R-7, though that depends on how you define two
stages. Pressure fed kero/LOX may be a bit unusual, and even unique.
SpaceX gets a relatively good Isp from that engine.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

Won't this be (assuming success) the first ever TSTO all kerosene
powered orbital launch vehicle, and isn't the upper stage pressure
fed?


I think Zenit, or some versions of it, takes that distinction. Before
it is the venerable R-7, though that depends on how you define two
stages.

Not that way.

Ok, the Zenit was two stages, I didn't know that. Fair enough.

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

Wow, that's a big boy. Me wonder why no woman fly Zenit.

Payload to LEO : 13,740 kg (30,290lb)

the Zenit 2 is currently the lowest cost vehicle for achieving LEO
in terms of payload weight per launch ($1167-1667 per pound),
and one of the lowest in terms of total costs per launch ($35-$50 million).

I see a little opportunity there :

as a stand-alone rocket. Moreover Zenit was planned to take over
manned spaceship launches from Soyuz, but these plans were abandoned
after the fall of the Soviet Union.

It must be the reliability thing.

Pressure fed kero/LOX may be a bit unusual, and even unique.
SpaceX gets a relatively good Isp from that engine.

We shall see, or perhaps not.

You know, I think I'm going to have to go with the hydrogen thing.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html