Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

SpaceX Successfully Tested Draco Thruster

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Dec 11, 2008 04:52 AM
from the to-infinity-and-beyond dept.
Space Science
dj writes "The propulsion division of SpaceX has performed another important test. After the test of the Falcon 9's first stage Merlin engines, the smallest engine of the SpaceX family, Draco, has been put to test. During the test, the thruster fired for ten minutes, paused for ten minutes, and then was restarted for an additional minute. The test was performed on a new vacuum test stand built by SpaceX, and put into operation in March 2008 at the SpaceX Test Facility outside McGregor, Texas."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: SpaceX Successfully Tested Draco Thruster by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.

SpaceX Successfully Tested Draco Thruster 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Draco Thruster (Score:3, Funny)

    by ciderVisor (1318765) on Thursday December 11 2008, @05:21AM (#26072681)
    That'd be a Nimbus 2001.
  • to see some good news coming out of the space sector.

  • Interesting SpaceX article (Score:4, Informative)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday December 11 2008, @07:28AM (#26073311) Homepage Journal

    http://www.thefabricator.com/FabStories/FabStories_Article.cfm?ID=2045 [thefabricator.com]

    Goes into significant detail of why SpaceX is really revolutionizing the launch business.

    • I read it thoroughly - and there's no support for the claim that SpaceX is revolutionizing the launch business. Their assembly method is only different in semantics from that used by the Usual Suspects.

      • Hehe, you really don't know what you're talking about.

        I love Slashdot.

        • Yeah, I do know what I'm talking about.

          • Your post doesn't indicate that you know what you're talking about. From the article:

            As an alternative, "you can do a really simple structure: a welded tank of rolled aluminum--super-simple, super-inexpensive. There is some mass inefficiency there, but your labor inputs are much lower, and overall you draw the costs down significantly."

            SpaceX has a corporate structure that, according to sources, supports collaboration and efficient decision-making. A designer with an idea can walk over to the manufacturing engineer, talk about it, and then go to the floor to see if it will work.

            Thompson added that this couldn't happen without another unorthodox strategy: in-house manufacturing. [...] So the company, mostly an assembler in 2002, since has brought 90 percent of its manufacturing, including almost all of its metal fabrication, in-house.

            Manufacturing responsibility is organized so that engineers and manufacturers can work together.

            Much of the rest of manufacturing falls under the company's machine shop, which reports to its own VP.

            Thompson came from McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing), and Ringuette came from Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power, now owned by Pratt & Whitney. Neither said they've reported to a boss quite like Elon Musk.

            "I meet with Elon regularly," Ringuette said. "He's an intense person."

            But he does promote an atmosphere of collaboration. A video tour of the engineering facility on SpaceX's Web site, for instance, shows Musk, in a polo shirt and jeans, walking through the company offices, only there are no offices--just an expanse of low-walled cubicles.

            "That's my office over there," he said, pointing to a cube area in the corner. "We try to minimize the number of offices we have. Doors limit communication. Everyone at the company, with the exception of those in HR and finance, are in cubes, including the vice presidents."

            The VPs include Thompson and Ringuette, and both said they appreciate the lack of bureaucracy.

            As Ringuette explained, "When I need to buy a new machine, I describe it to Elon, he either agrees or disagrees, and that's the end of it. It's very helpful, because it keeps me focused on finding the right tools for the job. Nothing is more complicated than it needs to be."

            The Falcon 9 will be able to haul 22,000 pounds. The market for such payloads is huge, sources said, and to meet demand SpaceX plans to launch a Falcon 9 a month.

            That's right--a rocket a month. And the company seems well on its way.

            "This year SpaceX will make more rocket engines than the rest of U.S. production combined," Musk said during the same Webcast. "Next year we'll make more rocket engines than any country in the world."

            I think I've given enough examples. The last quote is particularly important because it describes the revolutionary part of SpaceX. Nobody else will be making gear in the quantities that SpaceX is planning to make. As I see it, the key problem in any space activity is cost of reliable access to space. And the key to cheap, reliable access to space is frequent launch. SpaceX is the only organization, private or government cu

      • cheap existing launch tech

        You have a definition of cheap I have never before encountered...

          • You did not say "comparatively cheap." "Cheap" means any dork can go buy some parts and launch himself into space.

      • Seriously, idiots like you were running off you mouth screaming that SpaceX did not have a successful launch. Now that they have one, you continue to run off the mouth. SpaceX is just getting started. They have shown that they are launching at a fraction of the price of l-mart and ESA. In addition, they are competitive with Russia and China who keeps it low by fixing their money against the dollar. the company is just getting started, and yet, you (and several others here) will continue to bash them in hope

      • Hell, these idiots at SpaceX could have just fucking copied the proven and reliable and cheap existing launch tech.

        There's no existing reliable and cheap launch vehicles at this time.

  • Space shuttles, cheap orbiters, SpaceX ... all these are mere clockwork toys compared to the might of the Saturn V SI-C first stage and its five F-1 engines. Wernher von Braun out-rices you [today.com]. Real astronauts fly to the moon. They find [wikipedia.org] leftover bits decades later and think they're asteroids! You can't tell me these SpaceX girly men are going to do anything this goddamn indefatigably cool.

    "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
    That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

    • How the hell did that get "informative", "troll"?

    • Space shuttles, cheap orbiters, SpaceX ... all these are mere clockwork toys compared to the might of the Saturn V SI-C first stage and its five F-1 engines.

      Actually, SpaceX currently has under-development an engine equivalent to the Saturn's F-1 -- internally they're calling it the "BFE" (or Big "Falcon" Engine). Unlike the F-1, it'll actually be economical. They haven't made official announcements yet, but Musk has given every indication that he's working his way up to building Saturn V-class (and possibly larger) rockets.

      • IF those cars go to the moon, then you are right.

        You need Saturn V thrust to get to get a person to the moon and back in a reasonable time. It has nothing to do with obsession of size and thrust and everything to do about Physics.

        Note, no one is recommending using a Saturn V to get us to the space station. THAT would be like getting a SUV to go to the corner market.

        Oh, and American Muscle Cars sell pretty well, that's not the problem, the problem is management.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Big Hairy Ian (1155547) on Thursday December 11 2008, @06:25AM (#26072965)
      Given the current roller coaster that is diplomatic relations with Russia do you really want to be reliant on Soyuz? Also the ESA capsule although successfully tested for cargo is still vaporware as far as manned spaceflight is concerned as I believe they haven't decided if they are going to go down that road yet. With the shuttle being retired the Dragon Capsule looks like a good stopgap.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrsquid0 (1335303) on Thursday December 11 2008, @06:40AM (#26073031) Homepage

      >SpaceX seem to be doing NASA's job better than NASA these
      >days.

      Really? How many telescopes does SpaceX have in orbit? How many active probes does SpaceX have orbiting other planet, or on them for that matter? How many satellites has SpaceX put into orbit this year? SpaceX is doing some amazing stuff, but to pretend that they are ahead of NASA is just plain daft.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sleeponthemic (1253494) on Thursday December 11 2008, @07:26AM (#26073301) Homepage

        Really? How many telescopes does SpaceX have in orbit? How many active probes does SpaceX have orbiting other planet, or on them for that matter? How many satellites has SpaceX put into orbit this year? SpaceX is doing some amazing stuff, but to pretend that they are ahead of NASA is just plain daft.

        You're missing the point (which, for the record was mindlessly obvious). SpaceX, in their area of specialisation (ie propulsion/cargo delivery) are showing a whole lot more progress than NASA. All too easy to purposely misinterpret to get on your soapbox.

        • Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

          by ChrisA90278 (905188) on Thursday December 11 2008, @11:53AM (#26076627)

          To compare SpaceX and NASA is silly. NASA does not built rockets. Boing and McDonald Douglas built rockets. NASA buys those rockets from contractors. What SpaceX is hoping to do is become a contractor and sell rockets to NASA.

          This is not unique to NASA. The US Air Force does not build airplanes either and the Army does not build rifles.

          • NASA does not built rockets.

            Ares I and V are counterexamples. Keep in mind that everyone of significant size contracts out work. Even SpaceX contracts out around 10% of their work.

        • Oh, how many shuttles have they launched? How many people ahve they put on the space station?

          Don't confuse repeating what has already done with new equipment.
          SpaceX is cool, but it's not yet in the same league as NASA.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Cowmonaut (989226)

            The question isn't whether or not SpaceX progressed more rapidly than NASA did over 40 years ago (with a real federal budget). The question is whether or not SpaceX is ahead of NASA right now. NASA hasn't truly developed a new propulsion device to get the Shuttle into orbit, nor have they designed a replacement for the Shuttle. A craft, may I remind you, that has been having technical difficulties of late and caused more deaths than the original lunar capsule.

            SpaceX really is our only hope to continue ma

            • The question isn't whether or not SpaceX progressed more rapidly than NASA did over 40 years ago (with a real federal budget). The question is whether or not SpaceX is ahead of NASA right now. NASA hasn't truly developed a new propulsion device to get the Shuttle into orbit, nor have they designed a replacement for the Shuttle. A craft, may I remind you, that has been having technical difficulties of late and caused more deaths than the original lunar capsule.

              SpaceX really is our only hope to continue manned space flight in the foreseeable future ('our' meaning the US). They are definitely ahead of NASA who hasn't even gone past the theory stage as far as we know, and even that seems optimistic.

              Which is why they aren't going to develop a new rocket to get the shuttle in space, nor will they develop a similar craft. The Delta-IV Heavy and other products in the pipeline already allow similarly-sized or larger payloads, and we'll be sending astronauts up separately in Orion, which is far beyond the theory stage at this point. That, or my coworkers at a major subcontractor on the project are lying to us.

              Oh and remember, the Ares I is a expendable lifter like the Falcon 9. You can't compare it to the Draco as its not intended for manned use. NASA just flat out can't compete currently with this kind of thruster development, and they are going to have to rely on it unless Russia (who seems to have some animosity for America still and the Cold War is still fresh in both nation's eyes) gets buddy-buddy with us since the Shuttle is being retired!

              That first bit doesn't make a lick of sense, so I'll ignore it. The Falcon 9 and the Ares I are

            • A craft, may I remind you, that has been having technical difficulties of late and caused more deaths than the original lunar capsule.

              This is more than slightly misleading. We flew Apollo no more than 15 times, with a total of 45 men. The shuttle has flown rather more than 100 times, with rather more than 600 men. Yes, on shuttle disaster kills more than one Apollo disaster. But Apollo managed one disaster with only fifteen launches, shuttle took 100 launches to get to two disasters.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Muad'Dave (255648)
            I don't think NASA of 2008 is ahead of where NASA was in 1963. Sad.

              • One only needs to look at the lack of anything like Apollo in 30+ years.

                • the NASA of today is actually doing a lot of leg work for putting us on the moon for a long duration mission. Back in the 60's, we got there and back, but had we put up a base, it would have cost a fortune. Now, our costs should be less, due to the ISS. While I grant you that we have some MAJOR screw ups with the shuttle and the ISS, it has taught us what it will take to stay alive for a LONG time in space. One of the biggest issues with the ISS for me is that the did not put the centerfuge unit up there. W
          • I never made the original contention, I just read the post and interpreted it how it was obviously meant to be interpreted, rather than the way that makes it easy to poke holes in what the person is saying. Easy to perceive gross generalisation in what the original poster said - but also obvious that it wasn't the poster's point. Don't know about you, but I'd rather spend my time being constructive, than arguing semantics.

            • Easy to perceive gross generalization in what the original poster said - but also obvious that it wasn't the poster's point. Don't know about you, but I'd rather spend my time being constructive, than arguing semantics.

              You may be on the wrong site, this is slashdot.

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by soldeed (765559) on Thursday December 11 2008, @10:09AM (#26074987)
        Space X was founded in june of 2002. Just six years later, starting from a clean sheet of paper and producing most all of the rocket themselves; structures, engines, avionics, falcon 1 successfully reached orbit. The falcon 9 is being prepared to fly next year, as is the dragon seven crew/cargo spacecraft. Could NASA or any of it's contractors do the same in as short a time? Look how long the Orion spacecraft is taking. Can't beat their prices either, at around 7 million, a ride on a falcon 1 is an excellent bargain! Don't deny their props, Space X is accomplishing astounding feats for such a young company.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by celtic_hackr (579828)

          Well, to be fair to NASA, SpaceX doesn't have to deal with a gargantuan bureaucracy, Congress, and the President in order to get approval to do anything or even get money and then wait for contractors to build something. Also, it should be noted that some of the people of SpaceX come from the very contractors that NASA relies upon, and so have the hands on experience and contacts to make it work.

          It's really kind of a DUH conclusion. A small lightweight unencumbered company can out-perform a gigantic bureau

        • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by meringuoid (568297) on Thursday December 11 2008, @11:59AM (#26076735)
          Space X was founded in june of 2002. Just six years later, starting from a clean sheet of paper and producing most all of the rocket themselves; structures, engines, avionics, falcon 1 successfully reached orbit. The falcon 9 is being prepared to fly next year, as is the dragon seven crew/cargo spacecraft. Could NASA or any of it's contractors do the same in as short a time?

          NASA was founded in July 1958. John Glenn orbited the Earth in February 1962. Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon in July 1969.

        • Could they? yes they could, if it was a priority.

          I wouldn't call their feats 'astounding'. If it was 1970, sure.

        • You mean they are doing things faster now than NASA did 50 years ago? I can't imagine the fact that they have access to technology thats 50 years more advanced, most of which BECAUSE of NASA has anything to do with it.

          I'd also like to point out, NASA put a man in orbit 6 years after founding, and on the moon in 11. When you actually compare things logically, SpaceX really isn't that impressive. Considering things like video game consoles get put on export control lists because they have so much processin

        • I don't know why everyone is getting so excited about private spaceflight as if it's a new thing. Arianespace [arianespace.com] have been around since 1980 [wikipedia.org] and have pretty much cornered the market in satellite launches.

      • huh? whatever happened to Orbital [orbital.com] as a stopgap. Did they get too expensive?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by mrsquid0 (1335303)

          >Why are you comparing SpaceX, approximately 5 years old IIRC,
          >to NASA, a defunct agency so bound up in red tape thatÃ(TM)s
          >over 40 years old. If you want to compare do it apples to apples,
          >not apples to oranges. What did Nasa do in its first 5 years?

          Almost all of the Mercury programme occurred during NASA's first five years. The problem with NASA now is not that they are a "defunct agency", but that they are badly underfunded for the mandate that they have been given. Admittedly, the VSE

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by khallow (566160)

      So, then..... why are they working on this? As I understand it, their launch system is already lucrative enough as it is. Why go reinventing the wheel?

      First, neither Soyuz or ATV are a US solution. Second, neither are a commercial sector solution.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by david.given (6740)

      Choice is always good. Aside from that, SpaceX' stuff is all entirely privately funded and designed themselves, and as such doesn't have the same kind of legal snarls that using governmental technology would have: it is, if you like, a clean room reimplementation of space technology. (They are the only space company to build their launch vehicles, in their own factory, from scratch --- engines, tankage, the lot.)

      Also, the Dragon is likely to be (a) cheaper and (b) here on time, when compared to the ESA or A

    • Soyuz cannot stay in orbit very long. Six months I think, but they are working on extending it. On top of than comes of the problems of relying on an other nation, and what to do if Soyuz has problems.

      About NASA, remember that when they test a small thruster, it doesn't make the news. It seems only their failures and problems are deems newsworthy.
    • hehehehe.
      First, these thrusters are used to control the dragon.

      Although I understand the need for a small on-orbit engine such as Draco, I don't quite understand the point of the 'Dragon' craft, given that we already have Soyuz, which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a safe, reliable vehicle. The ESA are also working on a more modern capsule design that seems to mimic the capabilities of the 'Dragon' to a T.
      1. The Soyuz holds only 3.
      2. the Soyuz still has its issues as was seen recently.
      3. ES
    • SpaceX is looking to put into orbit 7 ppl for less than what Russia will take 2. I would say that is a pretty good deal.

    • So, then..... why are they working on this? As I understand it, their launch system is already lucrative enough as it is. Why go reinventing the wheel?

      The same reason Airbus and Boeing make similar aircraft. Because they want to be the one to sell it to you.

      A question for you. Why shouldn't they be working on this? Because someone else currently does? Really?

    • Interestingly enough, you can just use the rocket exhaust to keep the chamber at vacuum using a properly shaped duct. Or just use really big pumps... but this kind of thing is done quite a bit.

    • Yes, a lot of ppl have. America's spacelab WAS a saturn V. The costs of retro-fitting in space has been looked at, and at this time, it is cheaper to launch it mostly built. Look at what has happened with ISS. And as to realizing that space is a big ocean, it is. And we are at about the equivalent of early 1500. How long did it take for nations to go back to America once Columbus had been there and back. LONG TIME.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.