Slashdot Log In
Paypal Founder's Merlin Rocket Engine Fires Up
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Jan 18, 2005 07:33 PM
from the no-milquetoast-nasa-puttering dept.
from the no-milquetoast-nasa-puttering dept.
Baldrson writes "Wired News reports that after 2 years of development, Space Exploration Technology Corp ('SpaceEx') successfully test-fired their new LOX/Kerosene Merlin rocket engine for the 160 seconds required for orbit. SpaceEx was founded by Elon Musk from the proceeds of the 2002 sale of his prior start-up, Paypal, to Ebay. According to Musk, 5 Merlins bundled with the first stage of SpaceEx's powerful Falcon V booster will launch 5 people to orbit by 2010, thereby winning America's Space Prize which was endowed by Robert Bigelow."
Related Stories
[+]
SpaceX Gets Operational License For Cape Canaveral 133 comments
FiggyOO writes "For those of you who witnessed the launch of SpaceX's Falcon 1 rocket, launch 3, you will be glad to hear that SpaceX has received a license to launch from space complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on the Florida coast. This Launch complex is just south of launch pads 39A and 39B which have been used to launch the space shuttles, and will continue in that role for a few more years. This launch complex will enable SpaceX to launch the much-anticipated Falcon 9 rocket, which will eventually carry the Dragon capsule. In doing so, SpaceX hopes to fill the void between the end of the shuttle program and the coming of the Constellation. They have already begun moving into the launch complex, including moving a 125,000 gallon liquid oxygen tank on the back of a semi." We've been following Elon Musk's SpaceX for years.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
and hey, if it doesn't work... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is great news. Now, if only they can get their valve radios to work, they'll be in business.
Conventional but exciting (Score:3, Insightful)
SpaceEx (Score:3, Funny)
Getting up is only the first part (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Getting up is only the first part (Score:4, Insightful)
For each of those requirements you scrap, you save a boatload of money. If you equip your capsules (no need for big wings like the shuttle) with one use heatshields, you might incur a weight penalty, but you can use 40 year old Apollo or Soyuz technology. If you can squeeze an extra half a percent of efficiency from your engines or start with more boost then you think you'd need, you can chuck the light weight requirement.
Commercial space flight will be different from government in a few important ways. I suspect that being able to design your craft without congressional 'input' will help. A lot of the things that make the shuttle complicated and expensive to run are leftover from 1970s requirements that it serve everyone, from civilian NASA to the NRO (spy sats) to the Air Force (dropping bombs on USSR using once around orbits and landing back at Vandenburg).
Parent
Re:Getting up is only the first part (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. High on the list is economics... And tossing your heatshield after each flight is not economical at all.When we have a spacecraft designed with Congressional input, we'll have a data point to compare to. As it is, all Congress contributed was a budget cap... Which pretty much everyone has to live with inside and outside the Beltway.Umm... No. It's complicated and expensive because Congress declined to produced Saturn's for cargo delivery and then declined to fund a space station in paralell with the Shuttle. This forced the Shuttle to become a cargo craft (as opposed to the passenger craft it originally was) and then forced it to have a far higher degree of self-sufficiency to support free-flight missions. It's also complicated and expensive because in many ways it's a first generation system. It's also complicated because it operates in a series of harsh enviroments. It's also expensive because NASA kept trading R&D costs for operational costs - rather than admitting the thing could not be done and that a massive redesign and delay was in order.
The Shuttle was never *required* to 'serve everyone', that was a NASA creation in order to build political support for the craft. The only real impact of that was the wing (for high cross-range) and to some extent the tiles. (A tile system was already baselined long before the design was mutated from a short duration passenger taxi into the ungainly thing it became.)
Parent
Re:Getting up is only the first part (Score:4, Informative)
That depends upon what your heatshield is made of. If it's made from the same tiles that make up the space shuttle, it would be expensive. If it's made from carbon phenolic, or a similar material, it would most likely cost less to replace it every time than to boost a more durable material into orbit. That's not to mention the fact that a tile system or similar would still have to be inspectedand partially replaced after every flight, reducing any gains in cost.
Remember that for every pound you put in orbit, you just spent thousands of dollars. Those thousands of dollars could provide for a lot of work making a heat shield on the ground.
Parent
Re:Getting up is only the first part (Score:5, Interesting)
From the link:
The Chinese had developed another novel but usable "low tech" solution. They glued up wooden blocks, appropriately contoured, with the end grain facing the reentry air stream. The wooden heat shield would char and ablate during reentry, just like the caulk material on the Apollo capsules. The fact that you could build a serviceable heat shield for reentry from space out of wood certainly showed that the basic problem was not insurmountably difficult, so Tom had always regarded this too as a rather straight-forward challenge.
Parent
Re:Getting up is only the first part (Score:3, Informative)
No, he's saying that "reusable" is one of the requirements, and if you scrap that one then you can build it for less. And lighter, too.
The Space Shuttle tiles aren't lighter than a good ablative heatshield would be. The shuttles have about 18.5 metric tons of tiles and thermal blankets and leading edge RCC panels, out of a total gross weight of 104 metric tons (18%).
Apollo, which w
Uh oh (Score:5, Interesting)
Now here's one person who hasn't left the proceeds of his sale into his PayPal account. I mean, imagine that, buying rocket and space stuff like that, they'd have frozen his account immediately, for no reason, without any explanation besides "what goes on looks strange".
Well done Elon! (and when you have time, please tell your former employees to f*)(*&@$ing give me back my $150 in my account they locked up about, oh, 5 years ago...)
Rolls Royce? (Score:2)
StarTux
Financed by PayPal? (Score:5, Funny)
DOD Sat launch? (Score:2, Interesting)
In March, once the final checkouts are completed -- akin, said Musk, to software beta testing -- Falcon I will lift a Department of Defense satellite called TacSat-1 into orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
Do commercial entities normally do DoD satellite launches? That doesn't seem right to me.
A company doing this?? (Score:2, Insightful)
NOT PayPal founder (Score:2, Interesting)
It just occured to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It just occured to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the wake of the dot-com days, we have a odd situation where we have a large number of very rich individuals who are also quite clueful and interested in technology. Many of them read lots of sci-fi books when they were kids, and are hoping to make a mark on the future by funding space endeavours.
"SpaceShipTwo" won't get off ground (Score:2, Insightful)
Fires up? (Score:2)
Like eventually...
*ahem*
(NB, 'rimshot'!='rimjob')
Why SpaceX is a big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now, launch costs are the biggest barrier to having lots of cool things (orbital hotels, factories, lunar bases, etc.) zipping around in space. According to this interview [hobbyspace.com], Musk was previously planning on self-funding a mission to put an experimental greenhouse on Mars, but decided to start SpaceX when he realized that the overall mission cost would be dominated by the launch price.
SpaceX's Falcon I [wikipedia.org] is designed to compete with the Pegasus rocket [astronautix.com], which currently dominates the "low-cost" launch market. The Pegasus costs around $20 million to launch 375kg into space. The Falcon I will cost $6 million to launch 670kg into space. Stated differently, the Pegasus costs around $53,000 per kg, while the Falcon I will cost around $9000 per kg.
Things change even more with SpaceX's larger Falcon V [wikipedia.org] rocket, scheduled for a launch this November. This will compete directly with the Delta IV Medium [astronautix.com], which costs $90 million to lift 8600kg to LEO. The Falcon V will cost $12 million to lift 6020kg to LEO. That's around $10000 per kg for the Delta IV Medium and around $2000 per kg for the Falcon V.
One of SpaceX's goals is to reuse as much in terms of engines, components, and software as they build larger and larger rocket. As they benefit from economies of scale and build larger rockets, the costs will only drop.
Interview with Elon Musk about SpaceX (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a quote:
HS: Private rocket development by startup companies in the post-Apollo era includes projects such as Truax's Volksrocket in the late 70s, Conestoga I and AMROC in the 80s, Beal Aerospace and several other ELV and RLV companies in the 1990s. They all came up short of space and many see their history as nothing but a tale of woe and failure. To me, though, they each appear to build on what was learned before them and to provide significant advancements in the technical and strategic knowledge needed to develop a rocket business from scratch.
It looks like SpaceX will be the startup company that finally makes it to orbit. When you studied prior efforts, what were some of the lessons [you] learned on what to do and, perhaps most importantly, what not to do?
Musk: Well, I have tried to learn as much as possible from prior attempts. If nothing else, we are committed to failing in a new way
The ones I'm familiar with failed on one or more of the following:
1. Lacked a critical mass of technical skill.
2. Insufficient capital to reach the finish line, particularly if an unexpected setback occurred.
3. Success was reliant on a series of technology breakthroughs that did not happen.
The above modes can obviously cross-feed one another.
HS: John Carmack has said something to the effect that the gap between what could be done versus what is being done is bigger in aerospace than in any other industry. Gary Hudson said that he was "amazed by how much easier the job of getting to orbit is today than even a few years go"..."Software, avionics and manufacturing technology have all improved measurably" and drastically reduced the number of people needed to design a launcher.
Now that you've gone through the rocket vehicle design phase and are well into construction, does your experience support their views or has the Falcon development perhaps been more difficult than you initially expected?
Musk: Well, hard and easy are somewhat nebulous terms. I think I have high standards and would classify getting Falcon to orbit as quite difficult. Overall though, I think we have had quite a smooth development so far, which is a credit to the hard work of the SpaceX engineering team.
The design tools, such as solid modeling and finite element analysis software are substantially more powerful than ten years ago, so that's a clear advantage. Obviously, most electronics have improved a lot too, except gyroscopes and flight termination systems.
The 'insightful' moderator missed 'troll' (Score:2)
Re:The 'insightful' moderator missed 'troll' (Score:2, Interesting)
I bet you feel all warm and fuzzy when you've lost (or spent poorly) hard earned money, when you see the mogul who received a chunk of it, having fun while you struggle with Windows Security, Ebay's Enigmatic Policies or PayPal's Inattention to Customers. I loved it when someone w
Re:The 'insightful' moderator missed 'troll' (Score:2)
2. Sometimes people lie.
3. I've done almost 100 transactions through paypal knowing #1 and #2, and I've been lucky enough not to get hit. If I want absolute security, I'll pay through the nose for an escrow service. If I want convenience for small purchases, I'll use PayPal.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but.. c'mon.
Re:Big rockets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Case in point, space shuttle.
The big thing to remember is that the Falcon boosters should be signifigantly cheaper than the current crop of launchers and at least partially reusable. So, even though it's not revolutionary, there's much jumpstarting of the launch biz with what he's got.
The problem is that most of the time, you don't need a revolution, just a little evolution.
Parent
Re:Big rockets? (Score:4, Informative)
Um, on launch the space shuttle is pretty much a big rocket. That's what the big fuel tank and boosters are for. Rocketing it into space.
The Shuttle's innovation was in the landing stage and the reuse of the rocket boosters and shuttle vehicle itself. This also allowed for large payloads such as science labs that could be carried in the vehicle and returned to Earth. In the case of Apollo or Soyuz style vehicles, only the small crew compartment is returned.
Parent
Re:Big rockets? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Russians got it right with their shuttle - instead of a big main engine on the shuttle, have much more payload space in the orbiter, and launch the thing with a big-ass conventional rocket. Shame the Russians couldn't afford to run their shuttle.
Parent
Re:Big rockets? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok so that's related to economics BUT you can't really judge a launch vehicle's performance and call it "right" if it never really got a chance to do its job.
Parent
Re:Big rockets? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Big rockets? (Score:3, Insightful)
A F-16 has a jet intake under the cockpit. Thus, it's awfully easy for it to suck up any debris on the ground while taxing or taking off. Therefore, debris control is important. They need to scout the airport every morning. Our jets need a whole mobile maintenence facility to keep them flying.
A Mig-29? It's got a screen that deploys in front of the engines and auxiliary upward-f
Re:Big rockets? (Score:2)
catch 22 (Score:2)
One key point you missed (Score:2)
Re:Low Environmental Impact unless it goes splat (Score:3, Informative)
What if you used simple physics instead... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Big rockets? (Score:4, Insightful)
$1.5 billion is a lot of money when you're looking at buying groceries, but it's peanuts compared to the cost of developing a whole new technology (carbon nanotube, for example which might be needed for space elevators), then testing and building the new technology (literally) from the ground up.
In regards to the 'some new technology that nobody's invented yet' comment, I'd rather take one rocket now versus a hundred ephemeral fairy dust ideas of things that may or may not happen in the future. This isn't the only money that will ever be spent on private aerospace. If new technologies become promising and affordable to develop, then other companies will do that in the future.
These guys may succeed, they may fail. That's a great thing about America, you can take risks with commensurate payback. If every company needed the public to vote on whether to let them do their thing, we'd be where the USSR is. Oh yeah, they don't exist anymore.
Parent
Rockets are cheapest. (Score:2)
Todays current regular human launch vehicle, the Soyuz, costs around $30m and that is a fully developed and very well tested system.
In terms of rocket development, with a new design, you could expect to spend your first 1bn USD on getting to the 'Manned rated' stage.
As for orbital tethers or 'space elevators' we're talking a whole different order of magnitude for cost. 1.5bn USD in this case would probably pay for about half of the
Re:Big rockets? (Score:2)
The R&D to develop something like a space elevator is HUGE. What happens if you just can't make it work? It might sound simple enough on paper, but the engineering challenges are extreme.
Re:Big rockets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rockets are cheap.
Space elevator? Start thinking about building a space elevator when someone has built a carbon nanotube footbridge.
Something not yet invented? The probability of discovering a new physics is not directly proportional to the number of dollars spent.
So - we're back to rockets. Which are cheap.
NASA's rockets are expensive, because NASA doesn't care where the money comes from. (And NASA's funders in Congress don't care whether NASA's rockets even fly, so long as every district gets its piece of the pork pie.)
If you're Boeing or Lockmart, that's fine -- shuttling rich tourists to orbit and back will barely net you pocket change. So you build big expensive vehicles and you sell 'em to people who don't give a rat's ass about the cost of their ride, because they're using other people's money.
Thanks to Rutan, Bezos, and Musk, there's the possibility of a new market niche for those of us who prefer to use our own money.
Parent
Re:Big rockets? (Score:2)
Thankfully the promise of dilithium crystals to power a new generation of warp drives is just right around the corner.
That and transporter technology will finally free us from "big rockets."
Re:Big rockets? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously though, the reason rockets are expensive is because they aren't launched very much- mass production would slash the cost. But because the cost is high, production is low, and so nobody can afford to go, so the cost stays high.
If that sounds utopian, consider that the fuel to put somebody into orbit is only about as much as to send someone on a round the world trip by jet
Re:Big rockets? (Score:3, Informative)
I find their arguments convincing. It's an incremental step
Re:Big rockets? (Score:5, Informative)
There is no way that SpaceX would be profitable selling rockets for $6 and $12 million each if he spent $1.5 billion developing them. That's part of the reason why normal space launch rockets cost $40 to $250 million (or more...).
Parent
Re:Just another dot com trillionaire (Score:5, Funny)
Because owning a B2 bomber is your childhood fantasy?
Frankly, mine involves bras and suspenders and don't cost remotely as much.
Parent
Re:Just another dot com trillionaire (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously, mine is superior.
Re:WWW -- Space (Score:5, Informative)
And, if all of those that entered into early aviation, using the money they made in other industries (see, for example, Howard Hughes), thought the way you do, we'd be way behind and probably would have lost WWII.
Parent
Re:WWW -- Space (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd also be curious to know if his interest in space predated his dotcom activities. One early microcomputer pioneer is reputed to have motivated his employees with claims that if his company was successful, they'd intest in space development. He even invested in a couple of rocket companies-and then retreated
Re:WWW -- Space (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait. I think I see why you don't have the type of money those guys have.
Parent
Re:160 Seconds? (Score:3, Informative)
Second, even on a single stage rocket, an average acceleration of 5g is almost acceptable; witness certain NASA studies [nasa.gov] (about halfway down the page) which concluded that 5g for two minutes is sustainable for most all humans.