How is SpaceX doing?

The SpaceX website's August/September update says they have a Q1 2005
paid
flight, and that the Falcon I is on the launch pad at Vandenberg.

It's not clear, though, if the Falcon on the pad is the one launching
that
first paid flight, or if there is a test flight going up first?

Did they do the test firing of the flight vehicle on the pad?

Also, now that they've dumped the Kestrel engine for the upper stage of
the Falcon V, how do they settle the tanks to get the upper stage
Merlin
engine restarted?

I assume they don't have an update up on the website because they're
getting
near launch and are too busy.

Another curious note about SpaceX:

Elon mentioned at one point that they want to build
a heavy launch vehicle, and that Falcon V is not it.
He says the heavy will work by adding a stage below
the current Falcon V.

An added stage would increase the total burn time.
The burn time to any particular orbit doesn't vary
by much, so if they add a stage it must mean they're
going higher. So a heavy lifter which was a big
first stage lifting a Falcon V would be for putting
large loads into geosync or earth escape.

It would not be for lifting heavy loads to low
earth orbit -- i.e. supplying the ISS.

I think it's interesting that Elon apparently thinks
that a cheap booster for massive ISS resupply is not a
worthwhile business opportunity for SpaceX. Maybe
Falcon V can lift large enough resupply cargos. But
it can't lift things like the propulsion module, right?

On 2004-12-08, wrote:

The SpaceX website's August/September update says they have a Q1 2005
paid
flight, and that the Falcon I is on the launch pad at Vandenberg.
It's not clear, though, if the Falcon on the pad is the one launching
that
first paid flight, or if there is a test flight going up first?

It is the flight article. There is no "test flight" per see. First
Flight will carry TACSAT-1.

Last I heard, Launch was going to be NET 29th January, but I can't
remember where I read that, and cant find a reference now.

I assume they don't have an update up on the website because they're
getting
near launch and are too busy.

They post updates roughly every two months. Current update (Aug/Sep) was
posted mid October IIRC. I'm hoping that the next one will be avaliable
within the next couple of weeks,


Iain

Kistler's website has quite a bit of documentation on their recovery
system for their two stage to orbit design. They have the first stage
do a second burn *after* seperation, in order to slow the stage down
and point it back towards the launch site a bit. They also modify the
trajectory a bit so that the first stage doesn't get quite as much
downrange velocity.

I gather Kistler's second first stage burn is a consequence of trying
to recover the first stage on land, near the launch pad. From what
I've read, SpaceX appears to be trying to recover the first stage in
the ocean, quite a ways downrange. Do they end up with significantly
more heating during the first stage reentry? I haven't seen any
mention of a thermal protection system for the first stage.

I also haven't seen any mention of the development of a restart
capability for the Merlin engine, which I would imagine would be a
significant part
of modifying it to be an upper stage engine.

The final thing that struck me reviewing the two websites is that
Kistler burned through something like $500M in startup capital, never
launched, and used already-developed engines. Maybe Elon managed to
raise a lot of outside capital, because he only had $100M or so to
spend on SpaceX. Somehow they've managed to develop two different
engines and appear to be at least as far as Kistler was when it went
bankrupt (and maybe farther).
Elon must be a pretty good manager to get so much more for his buck.

wrote:

An added stage would increase the total burn time.
The burn time to any particular orbit doesn't vary
by much, so if they add a stage it must mean they're
going higher. So a heavy lifter which was a big
first stage lifting a Falcon V would be for putting
large loads into geosync or earth escape.

It would not be for lifting heavy loads to low
earth orbit -- i.e. supplying the ISS.

Not necessarily. If you only used the first stage of the Falcon V
as the second stage of the new heavy lifter you would have a
vehicle suitable for large payloads to LEO.

Jim Davis

In article . com,
wrote:


Elon must be a pretty good manager to get so much more for his buck.

Smart enough not to use NASA and aerospace business retreads in his
management team. They have perfected the art of spending infinite sums
on effort instead of results.

"iain-3" wrote:

Do they end up with significantly more heating
during the first stage reentry? I haven't seen
any mention of a thermal protection system for the
first stage.

It helps, a lot, to realize that an empty first
stage booster is huge on surface area and small on
mass. It may not need much help slowing down, being
mostly its own drogue chute.

xanthian, who once watched a Polaris first stage
fall from the sky after a test launch went awry, and
then a range safety officer gave the destruct
sequence which aborted the launch. It fell sideways,
like some big tomato juice can, neither spinning nor
wobbling, a little smoke trailing out of both ends.
It missed me on my Navy destroyer observation
platform by half a mile, easily, somewhat _after_
which the word came to take cover from falling
debris.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article .com,
wrote:
I think it's interesting that Elon apparently thinks
that a cheap booster for massive ISS resupply is not a
worthwhile business opportunity for SpaceX...

By the time you added rendezvous/docking hardware, *and* met all the ISS
"Visiting Vehicles" requirements, it wouldn't be cheap any more. Going to
the station is not just a matter of reaching the right orbit.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article . com,
wrote:
I gather Kistler's second first stage burn is a consequence of trying
to recover the first stage on land, near the launch pad. From what
I've read, SpaceX appears to be trying to recover the first stage in
the ocean, quite a ways downrange...

Bear in mind that Kistler's first stage was meant to be 100% reusable for
many flights, while SpaceX merely has a vague hope that some components of
the first stage might be reusable.

...Somehow they've managed to develop two different
engines and appear to be at least as far as Kistler was when it went
bankrupt (and maybe farther).
Elon must be a pretty good manager to get so much more for his buck.

Taking on traditional aerospace companies as major subcontractors is a
terrible mistake, which swallowed much of Kistler's money.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article , says...
In article .com,
wrote:
I think it's interesting that Elon apparently thinks
that a cheap booster for massive ISS resupply is not a
worthwhile business opportunity for SpaceX...

By the time you added rendezvous/docking hardware, *and* met all the ISS
"Visiting Vehicles" requirements, it wouldn't be cheap any more. Going to
the station is not just a matter of reaching the right orbit.

What if you don't dock? Get close and station-keep, then spacewalk, tie
a line, and haul the stuff across. Like resupplying a ship at sea. May
even be safer than a manual docking (but not an autodocking).

Marc