Slashdot Log In
SpaceX Conducts Full Thrust Firing of Falcon 9
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Aug 02, 2008 01:57 AM
from the ahead-of-schedule dept.
from the ahead-of-schedule dept.
Toren Altair sends us this excerpt:
"Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) conducted the first nine engine firing of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle at its Texas Test Facility outside McGregor on July 31st. A second firing on August 1st completed a major NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) milestone almost two months early. At full power, the nine engines consumed 3,200 lbs of fuel and liquid oxygen per second, and generated almost 850,000 pounds of force — four times the maximum thrust of a 747 aircraft. This marks the first firing of a Falcon 9 first stage with its full complement of nine Merlin 1C engines. Once a near term Merlin 1C fuel pump upgrade is complete, the sea level thrust will increase to 950,000 lbf, making Falcon 9 the most powerful single core vehicle in the United States. The Falcon 9 will launch SpaceX's spaceship Dragon with up to 7 humans from 2009 on."
We discussed SpaceX when it won the NASA competition to provide low cost commercial transport to the ISS, and also when it launched an earlier design. Basic specs for Falcon 9 are available, as well as a more technical paper (PDF).
Related Stories
[+]
SpaceX, Rocketplane Kistler Win NASA Competition 72 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Two emerging space companies have won a NASA competition to provide low cost commercial transport to the International Space Station. SpaceX, founded by Elon Musk, is developing its two-stage reusable Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft, but it is making changes after the loss of Falcon 1 during its maiden launch. Rocketplane Kistler's K-1 is a two-stage reusable launch vehicle that has been in development for over a decade. Both companies represent a departure from business as usual at NASA. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the largest companies in the aerospace industry and win most NASA contracts."
[+]
SpaceX's Falcon Launches... Sort Of 164 comments
JHarrison writes "Spaceflight Now is running a story on the SpaceX Falcon 1 launch yesterday. Those of you watching the stream will have no doubt noticed the telemetry failure at 04:50, and turns out that was more than them turning the webcast off.. "A year after its maiden flight met a disastrous end, the SpaceX booster lifted off at 9:10 p.m. EDT (0110 GMT Wednesday) from a remote launch pad on Omelek Island, part of a U.S. Army base at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Controllers lost contact with the Falcon during the burn of the second stage that would have placed the rocket into orbit around Earth. "We did encounter, late in the second stage burn, a roll-control anomaly," Elon Musk, founder and chief executive officer of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., said in a post-launch call with reporters. Live video from cameras mounted aboard the rocket's second stage showed increasing oscillations about five minutes after liftoff, just before the public webcast was cut off. The rolling prevented the necessary speed to achieve a safe orbit, instead sending the stage on a suborbital trajectory back into the atmosphere.""
[+]
Third Falcon 1 Launch May Be This Afternoon 76 comments
ElonVonBraun writes "The web is abuzz with rumors that SpaceX will attempt its third rocket launch today. In the past two days, they have also done successful tests of their bigger, stronger rockets. When the launch does happen, sometime during this five-day window, there will be a webcast. Betting odds are that they will do it around 4PM PST."
[+]
SpaceX's Fourth Launch Attempt RSN 71 comments
jcgam69 writes "SpaceX's Falcon 1 is on the pad in the South Pacific Kwajalein Atoll ready for its fourth launch attempt, according to a blog post over the weekend from SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. The countdown is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 23, between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. PDT, though the launch window will extend through Thursday if need be."
[+]
On Fourth Launch Attempt, SpaceX Falcon 1 Reaches Orbit 518 comments
xp65 writes with the just-announced success of Elon Musk's SpaceX's long efforts to reach orbit with a privately-developed launching craft: "T+0:08:21 Falcon 1 reached orbital velocity, 5200 m/s Nominal Second stage cut off (SECO) — Falcon 1 has made history as the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit!"
dbullard adds "This was a completely new vehicle — it's not using any previously developed hardware. All developed from scratch. No government supplied hardware, Russian engines, or old ICBM motors. My hat's off to the employees of Space X — all 550 of them. (Note — no 'cast of thousands,' just 550).
They've got video of the entire launch."
[+]
SpaceX Successfully Tests Nine-Engine Cluster 182 comments
the_other_chewey writes "At their test facility in Texas, SpaceX, the privately funded space-flight company, have successfully tested their nine-engine cluster which is planned to provide the heavy lifting capability for their Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy rockets.
The firing lasted three minutes (a full 'mission duty cycle,' i.e. a simulated launch) under full power, delivering 3.8MN (or 855,000 lbs.) of thrust. SpaceX have made a video of the test available. The Waco Tribune has a short report about it, with comments by locals."
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.
So...only a year to go? (Score:2)
The Falcon 9 will launch SpaceX's spaceship Dragon with up to 7 humans from 2009 on.
I bet it won't.
Launching human beings into orbit is hard to do. For a start you need to demonstrate that your launch vehicle is reliable enough to be considered man rated. Then you need to develop your lander and validate that.
They may get there eventually but I doubt they can do it in one year.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya.. that's just a straight up lie. If a Falcon 9 launches in 2009 at all, it will be carrying nothing but ballast or, at the best, some commercial payload.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that they said "up to" seven humans. An unmanned launch of Dragon in 2009 would qualify.
Oh, and you can develop/qualify your lander at the same time you qualify your launcher; they don't have to be done serially.
Re:So...only a year to go? (Score:5, Informative)
Well no, because seven really is the upper limit. They just don't specify the lower limit.
And you don't need to use the operational launcher to test the lander, you can use something else. It's not like the Apollo program used a Saturn V (or even Saturn IB) to develop the Apollo capsule. For some of the drop tests they didn't use a rocket at all.
Parent
Re:So...only a year to go? (Score:5, Interesting)
In any case, thorough testing of the launch vehicle is absolutely necessary if for no other reason than to know the weight limit for the manned payload. But the design of the launch vehicle is robust (it can withstand various failures without scrubbing). Also, they'll be using these same engines (the Merlin 1C) in smaller launch vehicles, so they'll have plenty of reliability information.
To top it off, they're running a couple months early. As far as I see, they shouldn't have too many difficulties for a 2009 launch. *
* - God willing and the creek don't rise. **
** - Er, that is, God willing and the funding don't dry up.
-fsh PS - Although I don't have personal experience in the aerospace industry, I'm doing research at an observatory right now. Not that that means anything, I just like telling people that I'm working at an observatory right now!
Parent
Re:So...only a year to go? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah but NASA are fantastic engineers. Their interface design and validation are orders of magnitude ahead of anybody else.
NASA didn't design the LEM, Northrop Grumman did. Spacecraft are designed by aerospace companies (like Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, Rockwell, and now SpaceX), and then NASA picks the design they like best. The best engineers are typically at the private companies because the pay is better than at government run NASA.
Consider the first shuttle flight. [...] And it worked first time. They were hot at the time, coming off the experience of Apollo.
Well, the first space shuttle, the Enterprise, never went to space. It's easy to have a successful first flight when you have the resources to build a full size scale model to 'test' with. And they weren't coming hot off Apollo; the space shuttle was about a decade later.
The most complex and unlikely machine (pretty much) ever built.
They made it needlessly complex. This is why they have had, and continue to have, so many problems. The designers promised several launches each month and a payload cost in $50-$100 per pound range.
The scientific community at the time said much the same things about the shuttle design that they currently say about the ISS; that it's too much money for too little return. Some even go so far as to suggest these overly-complex plans, pushed on the unsupportive science community are essentially aerospace company welfare.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And they weren't coming hot off Apollo; the space shuttle was about a decade later.
Actually they were coming hot off the Apollo. Nixon gave the go-ahead for the shuttle project while still being in office. It's just that by the time the first shuttle was finally launched into space, after many setbacks and delays partly due to the needless complexity (mandated by the military who wanted greater glide capability), Apollo started to become a distant memory.
I've been there. =) (Score:5, Interesting)
It was really exciting to see real rocket work going on in person. The "mission control" room was such a nerd fantasy. There was a big swath of giant flat screen monitors, each glowing with thin, phosphorescent lines of data. The glut of wires, tubes, ratings, warning signs, and big pieces of scary looking equipment made it a fantastic afternoon overall.
I wish Elon Musk all the luck in the world, and I hope someday I can afford to drive around in a Tesla Motors car.
Oh, and the test site is located at an old weapons test site. There are all these weird looking bunkers peppering the surrounding countryside. It felt like a scene from a Marvel comic or something. Unfortunately nothing went wrong and I failed to develop super powers due to radiation exposure.
I fully realize this comment contributed almost nothing to the discussion of the article, except to brag that I've been there and to share my excitement over all the loud, large, and complicated stuff they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and the test site is located at an old weapons test site. There are all these weird looking bunkers peppering the surrounding countryside. It felt like a scene from a Marvel comic or something. Unfortunately nothing went wrong and I failed to develop super powers due to radiation exposure.
Brings to mind the novel Rocketship Galileo [wikipedia.org] by Robert Heinlein. Maybe Elon is actually going to the moon to battle Nazis.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Duh (Score:2)
WHAT "single engine competitors"?? No U.S. to-orbit vehicle of which I am aware has EVER been "single-engine"!
Kind of like saying, "Our plane flies better than any other wingless vehicle!"
Re:Duh (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Quote: "Much like a commercial airliner, our multi-engine design has the potential to provide significantly higher reliability than single engine competitors."
WHAT "single engine competitors"?? No U.S. to-orbit vehicle of which I am aware has EVER been "single-engine"!
How about space ship two, if you only count the first 50km of the launch?
Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
They're talking about single point of failure. The space shuttle, for example, has a single point of failure: if either of the two engines fails, the whole thing fails. The result is that the overall reliability is the square of the reliability of the two engines. 99% reliable becomes 98.1% reliable. If it were the other way around, it would be the square root: 99.99% means it fails one in every thousand launches, as opposed to one in every fifty.
So what he's saying is, they can afford to have engines become nonfunctional (obviously not explosively so.) So even if each engine is only 80% reliable, if it only takes four to get to orbit, they can use nine, and get 99.9% reliability. If each engine is 99% reliable, you're talking way better than six sigma.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One problem the aerospike has suffered from has been common to all single-stage-to-orbit engines: a nozzle of one shape may give optimum thrust at rest, at sea-level pressure, but be relatively inefficient at high velocity in the upper atmosphere. Optimize for one situation and you lose efficiency at the other. I know of an innovation or two that just might help the aerospike overcome this limitation,
And let's not forget... (Score:2)
hehehe (Score:3, Insightful)
Fantastic! (Score:2)
Those guys are getting busy. There's this and a Falcon 1 launch any day now. I'm all giddy with excitement.
SpaceX newletter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is awesome news. But why did I sign up for the newletter if they always release their stuff to spaceref or spacedaily first? Just saying...
They have a mailing list? Haven't they heard of RSS?
Re:Screw Ares (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Mod parent up (Score:5, Interesting)
America NEEDS spacex (and Orbital Transport as well). So does the rest of the ISS team.
Parent
Re:hehehe (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent