Falcon 1 to Pad

Craig Covault AW&ST story at:

"http://www.aviationow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/09274wna.xml"

says that the first SpaceX Falcon 1 is expected to move
to its Vandenberg pad by the end of next week. A static
firing is planned first. If the first flight doesn't
happen by late November, it will have to slip to 2005 due
to range upgrades. After that, Falcon 1 has only two more
outstanding launch contracts (Falcon 5 has one).

- Ed Kyle

wrote in message roups.com...
Craig Covault AW&ST story at:

"http://www.aviationow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/09274wna.xml"

says that the first SpaceX Falcon 1 is expected to move
to its Vandenberg pad by the end of next week. A static
firing is planned first. If the first flight doesn't
happen by late November, it will have to slip to 2005 due
to range upgrades. After that, Falcon 1 has only two more
outstanding launch contracts (Falcon 5 has one).


And now, according to an update at:
"http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm", the Falcon I
launch has slipped to Late Jan.-Early Feb. 2005 at the
earliest.

It will be the first launch from SLC-3W since the last
Atlas E flew in 1995. Before Atlas, the pad hosted
Thorad Agena launches.

- Ed Kyle

ed kyle wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
Craig Covault AW&ST story at:

"http://www.aviationow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/09274wna.xml"
says that the first SpaceX Falcon 1 is expected to move
to its Vandenberg pad by the end of next week.

And now, according to an update at:
"http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm", the Falcon I
launch has slipped to Late Jan.-Early Feb. 2005 ...

October 5 Press release at spacex.com says:

"Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) has transferred
the Falcon I flight vehicle to its launch complex at Vandenberg Air
Force Base."

- Ed Kyle

On 2004-10-08, wrote:

October 5 Press release at spacex.com says:

"Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) has transferred
the Falcon I flight vehicle to its launch complex at Vandenberg Air
Force Base."

Which is only about a month later than they were hoping for in the
June/July update, which isn't all that bad really.


Iain.

Iain Young wrote in message ...
On 2004-10-08, wrote:

October 5 Press release at spacex.com says:

"Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) has transferred
the Falcon I flight vehicle to its launch complex at Vandenberg Air
Force Base."

Which is only about a month later than they were hoping for in the
June/July update, which isn't all that bad really.

Closer to schedule than a number of other well known,
well-funded rockets.

Here is a link to a newsphoto of Falcon I at Vandenberg,
apparently at SLC-3W.

"http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-06-2004/0002267551&EDATE="

- Ed Kyle

wrote in message roups.com...
Craig Covault AW&ST story at:

"http://www.aviationow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/09274wna.xml"

says that the first SpaceX Falcon 1 is expected to move
to its Vandenberg pad by the end of next week. A static
firing is planned first. If the first flight doesn't
happen by late November, it will have to slip to 2005 due
to range upgrades. After that, Falcon 1 has only two more
outstanding launch contracts (Falcon 5 has one).

There is something I have wondered for a while... Glancing at old
photos of Beal rocket engine tests, the nozzle looks eerily familiar
to the one SpaceX uses in their first-stage engine Merlin. I know the
first stage in Falcon 1 has a pump engine while Beal's rockets were
exclusively pressure-fed (although the second stage in Falcon 1 is
also pressure-fed) and the fuels aren't the same, but the feeling's
still there.
Then add the fact that SpaceX uses Beal's former testing facility
in Texas to test Merlin. So, err, are some of the same people
involved, or am I just seeing things that really aren't there?

And now SpaceX has an online report with several photos of the erected
Falcon I on the pad. See the August/September update at:
http://www.spacex.com
It also provides an interesting Falcon V update.


- Ed Kyle

(quasarstrider) wrote in message . com...

There is something I have wondered for a while... Glancing at old
photos of Beal rocket engine tests, the nozzle looks eerily familiar
to the one SpaceX uses in their first-stage engine Merlin. I know the
first stage in Falcon 1 has a pump engine while Beal's rockets were
exclusively pressure-fed (although the second stage in Falcon 1 is
also pressure-fed) and the fuels aren't the same, but the feeling's
still there.
Then add the fact that SpaceX uses Beal's former testing facility
in Texas to test Merlin. So, err, are some of the same people
involved, or am I just seeing things that really aren't there?

I don't know if Musk got some of Beal's former employees.
I have noticed that Merlin shared a lot of features with the
NASA Fastrac engine that was developed during the late '90s
at MSFC (and had nothing to do with Beal).

See "http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/fastrac.html"

I haven't read about any NASA/SpaceX license agreements,
but I do recall that at least one subcontractor (Barber-
Nichols as I recall) built a turbopump used in both engines.

SpaceX seems to be borrowing good ideas from the past.
Inspiration for the Falcon I launch pad equipment, for
example, came from photos of the early Thor mobile
equipment.

- Ed Kyle

(quasarstrider) wrote in message . com...

There is something I have wondered for a while... Glancing at old
photos of Beal rocket engine tests, the nozzle looks eerily familiar
to the one SpaceX uses in their first-stage engine Merlin. I know the
first stage in Falcon 1 has a pump engine while Beal's rockets were
exclusively pressure-fed (although the second stage in Falcon 1 is
also pressure-fed) and the fuels aren't the same, but the feeling's
still there.
Then add the fact that SpaceX uses Beal's former testing facility
in Texas to test Merlin. So, err, are some of the same people
involved, or am I just seeing things that really aren't there?

Some additional thoughts on this. I think Musk and Beal must
have been influenced by the Big Dumb Rocket ideas reviewed,
for example, at:

"http://www.optipoint.com/far/far8.htm"

Both the SpaceX Merlin and Kestrel engines use the pintle
injector design pioneered for the simple, reliable lunar
module engines. TRW scaled the idea up during a late 1960's
in-house study that showed cheap, really powerful versions
of such engines were possible. Kestrel, especially, seems
to be based on LM engine ideas. Maybe some retired TRW,
STL, Aerojet, or Bell people are working for Musk?

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in
om:

(quasarstrider) wrote in message
. com...

There is something I have wondered for a while... Glancing at old
photos of Beal rocket engine tests, the nozzle looks eerily familiar
to the one SpaceX uses in their first-stage engine Merlin. I know the
first stage in Falcon 1 has a pump engine while Beal's rockets were
exclusively pressure-fed (although the second stage in Falcon 1 is
also pressure-fed) and the fuels aren't the same, but the feeling's
still there.
Then add the fact that SpaceX uses Beal's former testing facility
in Texas to test Merlin. So, err, are some of the same people
involved, or am I just seeing things that really aren't there?

Some additional thoughts on this. I think Musk and Beal must
have been influenced by the Big Dumb Rocket ideas reviewed,
for example, at:

"http://www.optipoint.com/far/far8.htm"

Both the SpaceX Merlin and Kestrel engines use the pintle
injector design pioneered for the simple, reliable lunar
module engines. TRW scaled the idea up during a late 1960's
in-house study that showed cheap, really powerful versions
of such engines were possible. Kestrel, especially, seems
to be based on LM engine ideas. Maybe some retired TRW,
STL, Aerojet, or Bell people are working for Musk?

TRW went a lot further than studies: they demonstrated a 650,000
lb/thrust cyrogenic engine a few years ago based on the pintle
injector and an ablative combustion chamber and nozzle.
Honeywell built the foil bearing (fluid bearing?) turbopumps for them.
Who wants the .pdf file describing the TR106? TRW's space division
has been sold and I can't find it on Northrop-Grumman's Web
site.

The pintle design seem to be working for SpaceX and I'm a little
surprised it hasn't caught on in general use, but I'm sure people are
paying attention to what's been going on.

--Damon