Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Businesses

SpaceX Announces Bigger Rocket 86

Posted by Zonk from the we're-gonna-need-a-bigger-boat dept.
bullitB writes "SpaceX, a commercial developer of rocket systems, has announced a new Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class rocket. Dubbed the Falcon 9, the rocket will be able to launch nearly 25 metric tons into low earth orbit for a mere $78 million. It looks like they have already signed up Bigelow Aerospace for a launch in 2008."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Announces Bigger Rocket More

SpaceX Announces Bigger Rocket

Comments Filter:

  • May? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ethank ( 443757 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:35AM (#13530268) Homepage
    I thought they were supposed to launch their smaller rocket in May? The technology sounds cool (I saw the rocket in the spring actually in LA), but its been oft delayed. I wish we could just see it fly.

    • Re:May? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:56AM (#13530336) Homepage
      Here's to hoping. I've been following them for a while, and their launch prices per kilogram are mind boggling. Of course, so have the numbers of a dozen rocket startups whose rockets eventually ended up in the scrapheap. SpaceX has made it very far, however, and I think at least the Falcon I will make it (assuming the company's books are sound).

    • Re:May? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cheesybagel ( 670288 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @05:42AM (#13530530)
      The first Falcon I was scheduled to launch September 30 from Kwajalein Atoll. Now they are saying fall this year, so uh...

      I certainly hope they have a successful launch this year, otherwise I wonder for how long they can keep bleeding money like this.

  • We're gonna need a traffic cop (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:43AM (#13530294)
    If I did my math right ($1500/pound), that means that even individuals could afford to put a tiny satellite in orbit. That could mean a huge increase in the amount of junk orbiting the planet. Given that NASA now has to track even quite small objects; what a nusance for them.

    • Re:We're gonna need a traffic cop (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @04:03AM (#13530349) Homepage
      Not that simple. You don't get your 1 lb satellite up for $1500 - you get your satellite up for $6 million. Perhaps you can partner with some other organization who is going to a similar orbit and share costs, or even a few organizations, but you're not going to have a cheap launch vehicle maneuver to 2,000 different orbits and do 2,000 satellite deployments.
    • Correction: $1500/lb of phallic testimony to the heavens

    • Wonderful! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BerntB ( 584621 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @04:52AM (#13530448)
      If I did my math right ($1500/pound), that means that even individuals could afford to put a tiny satellite in orbit.
      This means that university departments can get instruments anywhere in the solar system.

      A company can start selling a package like:

      "Send us a planet name and an orbit description, we will return a price list with delivery dates; specials if you want your home made instruments sent".

      What the world would have been like if this had happened when NASA promised it in the 70s... :-(

      (And, yes, we have to start thinking seriously on junk in orbit.)

      • Well, thats not only the future...

        My university lauchnes their first mircosat soon (ie a few weeks).
        Only a small cubesat, but still....

        • Re:Wonderful! (Score:3, Interesting)

          by BerntB ( 584621 )
          Oh, my old U already did.. years ago. :-)

          I wrote department. If most every research group can launch what they need, then it is a different situation. It is a quality change, not a quantity.

    • NASA isnt the only agency that tracks the objects, the Air Force (NORAD) does. The size they can track is about the size of a basketball anything smaller and they can't track it with radar but they know its' approximate orbit. When the average speed of impact 20,000 mph (i.e. orbital velocity or both items), even a thumbnail-sized piece of debris can make a BIG impact. http://www.oceanit.com/index.php?option=content&t a sk=view&id=339 [oceanit.com] has in intersting article about a guy who makes his living helpin
    • NASA doesn't track space junk, NORAD and US Space Command track the debris. SpaceCom has ultimate authority over launches in the US, last time I checked. They even supercede (IIRC) the FAA's AST office.

      NASA does not equal space, as Elon, Burt and Mr. Bigelow are also proving.

      Josh
  • Perhaps an inability to get it up?

    "According to the company statement, SpaceX has sold Falcon 9 to a U.S. government customer. SpaceX still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007."

    If nothing else, SpaceX is having a problem keeping it up when people talk about them (it?), in a slashing manner.
    • Perhaps an inability to get it up?

      That's why they've signed up Bigelow Aerospace

    • Re:I think SpaceX must be compensating for somethi (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cheesybagel ( 670288 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @05:55AM (#13530555)
      I guess their problem is that existing clients have satellites which are too big for their current launchers, so they cannot capture that market. Their new designs [spacex.com] at 9650kg to GTO max put them right there with the big boys, including Ariane 5 ECA and most EELVs. The 3400kg for the smallest Falcon 9 is respectable, although it could be better. I suppose they tried to make the Falcon 9 base smaller because, as announced, they intend to reuse its first stage for Falcon 5 with less engines.

      I will hold my breath until they have a successful Falcon I launch however.

      • I just couldn't help but think launching cargo containers using Burt Rotans desent methods. With typical cargo containers trucked to a launch site, sent up, return payload with a zero deseleration speed at 60 miles ASL, then glide to a close by standard ILS airfield. This is what I'd call "Long Haul Trucking". The standard container is 20'x8.5'x8.5' and can carry 15,750kg's. To me, this is an problem worthy of a constructive solution.

  • SpaceX is An Exciting Company (Score:5, Interesting)

    by THotze ( 5028 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:49AM (#13530309) Homepage
    ... in a very boring way.

    While not grabbing the headlines the way the X-Prize and specifically, Burt Rutan and later Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic did (and do), SpaceX has started to very quietly put togehter what looks like the first credible competition to the entrenched commercial space industry as it now stands.

    Even though they have suffered setbacks of late and therefore, haven't launched a rocket to space yet, it looks like they've got all the technology there to do so. They've also got Pentagon contracts, which means that they've got the backing to cut through the red tape.

    If SpaceX is successful, it will force Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Arienespace (and to an extent, Russian rocket mfgs) to really rethink their development and pricing strategy.

    "So what, they're not manned?" I get your point. But if they can REALLY LAUNCH 25,000kg to space for $78m dollars by the end of the decade, it will mean that suddenly, we'll have a price-competitive launch industry. I'm talking companies undercutting each other price wise, speeding up development of better, bigger rockets, and actually, maybe, being innovative with rocket and satellite development. It could even spark the kind of rapid progress we saw in aviation in the 1910's.

    Suddenly, there's competition in space for the first time since the US and Russia in the 1960's.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for passenger spaceflight, but SpaceX is putting together interesting technology at good prices that could spark the kind of 'rapid evolution' that the industry needs, filling an existing market with a much cheaper product. It'll be exciting to see where they go with this new design, and if they can actually pull it off in just a couple years.

    Tim
    • You could very nearly fit an apollo-style lander module in that much weight. 40,000kg or so was the gross weight for the saturn C-5. Certainly, one could do manned spaceflight on a 25,000kg budget, although probably not much fun, and of course neglecting the aspects of safety and reliability of the Falcon rockets (presumably important... :D )

    • Manned flight an option. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rxke ( 644923 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @06:57AM (#13530689) Homepage
      Without really advertising it, when Musk is interviewed about a 'man-rated' version of his rocket, he merely smiles, saying it is in essence already man-rated. Engine-out safety etc.
      Of course, there's no capsule designed, but I guess he doesn't (currently) see that as HIS job, he's just aiming towards cheap launchers for commercial market, and the $$$ are to be found in the satellite business, not in manned flights (yet)
      But if a third party decides that, yes, lauching paying customers is a viable business-model, all that could change quickly.

      20mil being the current price for spacetourists, compared to a rocket that can haul 25000kg to LEO... You can build a BIG manned capsule with that weight budget, so prices would go down markedly.
    • SpaceX is putting together interesting technology at good prices that could spark the kind of 'rapid evolution' that the industry needs
      Exactly. These guys approach the problem from the right angle:
      Build a commercially viable rocket with good payload, and more applications will follow.
      I hope they will not be delayed by bureaucracy too much. Because the Falcon 9 will make NASA look rather bad, transporting almost as much as the shuttle at a fraction of the price. I would not put it beyond politicians to try a

  • Good for them. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FlyByPC ( 841016 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:57AM (#13530337) Homepage
    It's time we started getting serious about space exploration and developing an infrastructure to expand. Earth is getting more crowded every year, and while colonization of other worlds may not be a practical answer, industrialization of, say, the Asteroid Belt may provide a lot of resources. Space-based solar power, constructed with the plentiful materials available in space, might help make life down here easier.

    Capitalism isn't the answer to everything, but I'm hoping SpaceX, Scaled Composites, and the rest are right that it's the answer to getting a real space development industry going.
    • Capitalism isn't the answer, Capitalism is the question.
      No, or Comunism is the answer.
    • [...] industrialization of, say, the Asteroid Belt may provide a lot of resources.

      We'll most likely never see the society of "belters" that Larry Niven wrote about. Why? Because it'll take something like 50-100 years to develop that society, and we'll pass through the singularity in 20-30 years, negating the importance of belt mining.

    • We can't even set up substantial infrastructure in the deserts of the world (let alone under the ocean). This makes the mining of asteroids look implausible. Just because it _can_ be done doesn't mean it is practical.
    • The asteroid belt would provide enormous amounts of resources. There are a few large asteroids that are as much as three percent iron, and if we were able to get that from just one, that would be more iron than we've mined in the history of mankind. The magnitude of what's out there is simply staggering.

      However, we don't have any crowding problem, really. People who think that spend too much time in cities. The vast amount of land that has absolutely nobody on it is staggering too. Cities are too cr

  • Garbage Disposal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RazorX90 ( 700941 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @03:57AM (#13530339)
    25 metric tons...does this mean we are one step closer to start launching our garbage into the sun?

    • Re:Garbage Disposal (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, that's a stupid thing to suggest. Firstly it isn't achieving escape velocity only orbital velocity. Secondly consider how much waste there is in sending a rocket into space, the energy, the raw materials of the rocket, and compare that to the level of resource usage when you simply dump 25 tonnes of garbage into a hole.
    • The real question, is why would you want to? You can break apart the vast majority of our garbage into metals, glass, plastics, wood, and plant/animal material. Most of this is being buried (except in cities which are too stupid for words and throw it in the ocean). The wood/plant/animal material decays producing methane which can be captured for energy production. The plastic and metals 50 years ago were difficult to recycle. Not anymore. We can dig that stuff back up and use these. Considering the high qu
    • > 25 metric tons...does this mean we are one step closer to start launching our garbage into the sun?

      No.

      1) The delta-vee needed to get to the sun is orders of magnitude higher than that needed for reaching LEO.

      2) The amount of garbage generated in order to lift 25 tonnes just into LEO far exceeds 25 tonnes. IOW, it would be a net garbage-generating operation, so why bother?
    • 25 metric tons...does this mean we are one step closer to start launching our garbage into the sun?

      Launching into the Sun is energetically wasteful; the needed delta-v is about 30 km/s, as opposed to 16 km/s or so for the Solar escape trajectory, i.e., leaving the Solar system forever. There are even less demanding and arguably better destinations, see this discussion [yarchive.net] for the list of possibilites.

      (The assumed "garbage" is concentrated, long-lived radioactive waste; the feasibility of launching other typ

  • This has been Elon Musk's goal all along (Score:5, Informative)

    by XNormal ( 8617 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @04:16AM (#13530376) Homepage
    These big rockets have been Elon Musk's goal all along. That's why he didn't use air launch.

    Air launching has many advantages: lower atmospheric pressure improves the efficiency of engines, reduces air drag losses, greatly reduces dynamic loads, allowing the use of lighter structures. Perhaps most importantly, air launching can be done over the ocean without expensive range fees - and range delays like SpaceX is currently experiencing.

    But air launch does not easily scale to large sizes. For really large rockets you have to launch from the ground.

    Elon eventually plans to build a Saturn-V class launcher for for manned missions to Mars. It may seem premature when they haven't launched Falcon 1 yet, but so far they seem to be doing the right things.
    • But air launch does not easily scale to large sizes. For really large rockets you have to launch from the ground.

      OK, I have a question. Probably a very stupid question, but in that case please tell me why.

      Why not air-launch from hydrogen/helium balloons? You can make those as big as you like cheaply can't you?

      Rich.

      • "Rockoons" (rockets launched from balloons) have been tried but only for very small rockets. None of them orbital so far.

        Balloons are pretty much at the mercy of the wind. You can't choose your launch spot for range safety and precise orbital insertion. For large rockets ground handling and launching of such huge balloons is difficult, dangerous and very sensitive to weather. Landing back after a scrubbed launch is virtually impossible.
    • Baloon-launch isn't a great idea, admittedly. Still, this isn't giving us any new technology, just a cheaper scaled-up V-2. There are lots of promising ideas for launch technology that could potentially do better. How about a catapult or rocket-sled launch of a pure kerosene-powered ramjet that would carry the rocket stage to about mach 3 to 5 and 60-120 kft ? (some oxidizer needed if the higher altitudes are used of course) We've had the tech to do that since the early '60s. It isn't nearly as complicated

  • The Wife (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11, 2005 @04:17AM (#13530378)
    My wife just expressed interest in a scaled down version of the Falcon 9.

  • Article text (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    SpaceX to Tackle Fully Resusable Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle
    By Leonard David
    Senior Space Writer
    posted: 08 September 2005
    04:25 pm ET
    Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) announced today that it will develop a Falcon 9 booster - an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class vehicle.

    A key goal of SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles intended to increase the reliability and probably reduce the cost of access to space by a factor of twenty percent.

    SpaceX, headquartered in El Segundo,
  • I dont think this rocket counts as big, when compared to the red-white-checked rocket in "Explorers on the Moon (The Adventures of Tintin) [amazon.com]"

  • hmmm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by compjinx ( 733142 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @05:25AM (#13530497)
    Only $280,000 (roughly) to send someone (200lb) into orbit. Sweet. Now, they couldn't market this to people wanting to go into space since I doubt this covers reentry, but I imagine it could be marketed to people wanting to send other people into low-earth orbit.
    • don't forget the ton of other stuff that 200 pund person needs to survive up there. I'm personally fond breathing. But combine SpaceX with Bigelowe aerospace, that's a neat combo.
    • Would be a tad more expensive; that 200lbs person needs a lot of lbs life-support, heatshield etc... Of course, if one was to design a 10 ton capsule, you still have plenty of 'spare' mass to add lifesupport and people. If you could launch 8-10 people/flight, you'd be about 9-10 mil a person, halving the current price they charge for a tourist. Still not cheap, but serious improvement.
  • The Sunday Slashdot crowd is very mature. Not one Deuce Bigelow joke regarding the phallic shape of rockets.
  • I find it highly amusing that they screwed up their units on the Falcon 9 website. They list "Thrust on liftoff: 2.85 mN (765 klbf)" What they failed to take into account is that there's a difference in metric abbreviations between Milli "m" and Mega "M". 2.85 millinewtons isn't going to lauch my cat. The reason this is amusing is because we (as engineers) are drilled from the beginning to get them accurate. Somebody should proofread it. It's also interesting that they chose to write it "klbf" instead
  • and I bet their other division has Duke Nukem ready to ship by then too.

  • 78 mil, let's see (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That's, oh, one tenth of the cost of a shuttle launch these days? And can the shuttle even lift that much weight?

  • resasons for no-show (Score:3, Informative)

    by theProf ( 146375 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @05:47PM (#13533632)
    their problem has been an existing launch manifest at vandenberg. there is a atlas 5 or somesuch in the way. as it has a $bn payload on top, they cannot fly. hence the relocation to the (amusingly) named ronald reagan ABM test facility of kawaljein island.

    spacex have done their development right. they are using intelligent designs. they have done an awful lot of testing and simulation. they look to have a chance.

    it may seem odd to actually put a commercial payload on an untested rocket, but given that nearly every launch is on virgin equipment it makes sense (discounting ariane 501, for which parts of the payload were dug out of a rainforest and displayed - some instruments were nearly reusable)

  • How does it ever get off the ground?

    Thrust on liftoff: 2.85 mN (765 klbf)

  • Yay! (Score:2)

    by kuzb ( 724081 )
    Horay for Bigelow, orbital jigelo!

  • Too easy... (Score:4, Funny)

    by writermike ( 57327 ) on Sunday September 11, 2005 @08:40PM (#13534434)
    Butthead: "Hey Beavis..."

    Beavis: "Yeah, yeah. Uh... what?"

    Butthead: "I'd like to announce a bigger rocket."

    Beavis: "Hehheh ehehhehee BOI-OI-OI-OING!"
  • This adds some fuel to something thats been banging about my head for a while, it's entirely possible I'm talking out of my arse here but it would at least be worth thinking about.

    Using the specs from hubblesite.org, the falcon 9-S5 could lift a hubble sized telescope into orbit for $51, rather then sending another shuttle up to fix hubble, why not see what telescope they could build for say $100m, assuming a 5 year life rather then hubbles 20 should help cut the cost, and 15 years of technical development

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close