World's Most Powerful Rocket Ready In 2012, SpaceX Says 251
Velcroman1 writes "Elon Musk, the millionaire founder of private space company Space Exploration Technologies Corp (SpaceX for short) said the long-planned Falcon Heavy vehicle would be ready for lift off at the end of 2012. The rocket, which he called the most powerful in the world, would be capable of taking men to the International Space Station, dropping vehicles and astronauts on the moon — and maybe even cruising to Mars and back."
Leave it Fox.. (Score:3, Interesting)
What an amazingly inaccurate summary. The rocket will be left to fall back into the ocean/atmosphere, while it has enough cargo capacity (2X that of the space shuttle to LEO) to launch something that could, conceivably, go to Mars and back.
Personally, I'm expecting Bigelow to be the first customer.
Necron69
Re:Leave it Fox.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Leave it Fox.. (Score:4, Funny)
Last Sentence: ""First launch from our Cape Canaveral launch complex is planned for late 2013 or 2014,” Musk said."
Apparently their reporters have a very short attention span.
Re:Leave it Fox.. (Score:4, Informative)
That is the first launch from Canaveral.
The first launch will be from Vandenburg, which he stated would likely be in early 2013.
Re:Leave it Fox.. (Score:5, Informative)
He stated that the rocket will be ready i.e. ready to launch by the end of 2012.
But the actual launch would probably be in 2013 depending on final regulatory hurdles plus any final technical issues encountered with the pad integration.
Re: (Score:2)
I always assume the launch of a new rocket will be delayed by a year and a day. 2012-Q4 stated == 2014-Q1 actual. That was pretty close for the Falcon 2 (2008-Q4 v 2010-Q2), and looks like it will be close for the Taurus 2 (2011-Q2 v (currently) 2012-Q1). Of course, government projects are another ball of wax, Ares I was what, 4 years behind schedule?
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree, SpaceX has had significant delays with the Falcon 9.
I would say they will be in good shape if they lift off anytime in 2013 with this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently you didn't read the article.
The rocket will be ready by late 2012 from Vandenberg (which is California), Canaveral (which is Florida) launches by late 2013.
Re: (Score:3)
Rocket may be ready well in advance of available launch schedule dates/permits/etc..., - ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leave it Fox.. (Score:4, Funny)
Always better to have the rocket ready *before* the first launch rather than after.
Re: (Score:2)
Will it be "most powerful" by time of launch? (Score:2)
Anyway, such payloads aren't even strictly necessary for Mars sample return - not with our automatic rendezvous & docking capability (which we've done in the 60s, making the Shuttle obsolete before it seriously made its way to drawing boards)
At least those new launchers take an approach of very high modularity & semi mass-production - seem
"maybe" cruising to mars? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"maybe" cruising to mars? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe part of his team is using metric, and another part is using imperial?
Re:"maybe" cruising to mars? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can one not know whether his/her rocket is capable of making it to Mars? Are we talking superpositions here or what?
No, we're talking about reality. In reality, unlike in theory, it takes a lot more to get a rocket to Mars than engineering and sufficient power and fuel. It takes massive funding, political will, and the sustained support of both for several years. There's no engineering equation you can use to calculate if you'll make it to Mars -- the equation will only tell you whether you can do the easy part...
Re:"maybe" cruising to mars? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, we're talking about reality. In reality, unlike in theory, it takes a lot more to get a rocket to Mars than engineering and sufficient power and fuel. It takes massive funding, political will, and the sustained support of both for several years. There's no engineering equation you can use to calculate if you'll make it to Mars -- the equation will only tell you whether you can do the easy part...
Actually, SpaceX's first demo launch of the Falcon Heavy in 2013 doesn't have a customer and they're self-funding it, so if they want to they can send it to pretty much anywhere in the inner solar system that they want. Heck, Elon Musk could even get part of his team to assemble his old Mars Oasis [spaceref.com] greenhouse project and try to land it on Mars if he wanted. Since it's self-funded, it's purely an engineering problem (perhaps with some PR thrown in for good measure).
Re: (Score:3)
> Oh yes, if he can fund a test launch, he can surely fund a trip to mars to set up a greenhouse. That makes total sense.
If he wants to, pretty much, yeah. The work SpaceX has already been doing with heat shields, solar power, and propulsive landing potentially makes it even more feasible now than it was back when Musk would have had to start from scratch. The biggest barrier he faced back in 2001 was the cost of launch. Here's a more recent (2009) recollection of Musk's about the Mars Oasis project:
http [ieee.org]
Re: (Score:3)
No, we're talking about reality. In reality, unlike in theory,
Right there you just lost many a slashdot reader. I'll say no more else their heads may explode.
Re:"maybe" cruising to mars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it depends on the engineering of what goes on top of it. The Falcon Heavy wouldn't actually go to Mars, it just has the heft to potentially launch a vehicle that could go there and back again in one shot.
However, since no such vehicles exist or are far enough along in planning to have really believable numbers for mass and capabilities, its hard to say for sure.
Add in that uncertainties in practical engineering for the launch vehicles certainly exist and its a very reasonable statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can think your rocket is capable, but you can't know until you arrive.
Re: (Score:2)
But smaller then the Saturn V from the 1960s (Score:5, Interesting)
Call me when we have something that can out lift the Saturn V. Yes I know they say this will cheaper but still I expected us to be much farther along than we are.
Re:But smaller then the Saturn V from the 1960s (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad someone else noticed this. The Saturn V had a payload capacity of 260,000 pounds and peak thrust of at least 7,500,000 pounds. They may be saying that this is the biggest thrust and payload among operational rockets, but I'd still like to see the ratio of (thrust/payload)/cost. That is where I'd really like to see improvement.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm glad someone else noticed this. The Saturn V had a payload capacity of 260,000 pounds and peak thrust of at least 7,500,000 pounds. They may be saying that this is the biggest thrust and payload among operational rockets, but I'd still like to see the ratio of (thrust/payload)/cost. That is where I'd really like to see improvement.
Estimated to be around $1,000/ton to orbit. Nothing comes close at this point to that figure, and it's all down-hill from there once it's reached. The Saturn V was/is a beautiful machine - but it was rather inefficient.
Re:But smaller then the Saturn V from the 1960s (Score:5, Informative)
$1000/lb not $1000/ton.
But yes this is MUCH cheaper than the Saturn V, Shuttle, or anything else really.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that seemed off by a few orders of magnitude. lol. $1,000 a ton would be pretty good for shipping freight on a truck.
Re: (Score:3)
Choose your shipping method:
[ ] Ground
[ ] Air
[X] Semiballistic
When you need it halfway around the world in less than an hour, choose SpaceX Freight!
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be interesting to hear the number of launches they need to make a profit at that price. I'm assuming the price is based on an average price, which in turn is calculated by assuming the fixed costs of development can be spread over some minimum number of launches.
If the number of paying launches were, say, *1*, I doubt very much they'd be able to make money at that price.
Re: (Score:3)
It'd be interesting to hear the number of launches they need to make a profit at that price. I'm assuming the price is based on an average price, which in turn is calculated by assuming the fixed costs of development can be spread over some minimum number of launches.
If the number of paying launches were, say, *1*, I doubt very much they'd be able to make money at that price.
If I recall correctly, the break-even number stated during the press conference was 4 Falcon Heavies (and presumably 4 Falcon 9's) a y
Re:But smaller then the Saturn V from the 1960s (Score:4, Interesting)
The Saturn V was produced in small numbers and using 1960s cost was no option development. Using modern production methods the cost should be much lower if they produced it today. Frankly the only parts I would keep from the old Saturn program would be the F-1A which they never flew and the J-2 which we just developed new versions of. Use LiAL for the tanks and user modern electronics and it could cost a lot less.
The Falcon 9 Heavy is really cool. It is the hype that is rubbing me the wrong way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can use standard inflation rates for high tech equipment. Consider how much you could accomplish with $1000 of computer time in 1969 with what $1000 of computer time will get you today.
Re:But smaller then the Saturn V from the 1960s (Score:4, Informative)
The basic physics of rocket engines hasn't changed much at all, and can't given the limitations of the chemical fuels they use.
That's not a lot of improvement in 40 years. Sure, there are some materials improvements and better, lighter avionics, but that doesn't buy you the massive improvement you see in other high tech areas
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not assuming anything. I was just saying you can't assume that the Saturn V would cost 6x today what it cost in 1969. In fact, one of the main points of the article is that we should now be able to get stuff into orbit for about $1,000 / lb. I don't have Saturn V number, but I bet it was more than $170 / lb in 1969. So, while the physics haven't changed, the economics certainly have. I'm guessing a respectable chunk of that decline is related to advances in hardware and software.
Re: (Score:2)
True but the cost of the Saturn V was spread over very few launches and they where produced at a very low rate. With modern manufacturing methods like 3D CAD systems, modern materials like LiAl, and modern electronics there are some savings to be had. You are correct that it will be no where near what we have seen in microprocessors but even there are savings that could be had. The other thing is I didn't say we should build Saturn Vs just that this wasn't bigger than the Saturn. Now parts of the Saturn lik
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even Amazon does, nowadays. What do you think a virtual server is?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you get to claim a record until your rocket gets off the pad and delivers payload to orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to be nice to them. I'd really like to see them be able to lift the same payload for less cost per pound (in inflation adjusted dollars) then what was possible with Saturn, with hopefully the same failure rate. I want them to make significant improvements and even exceed what Saturn did. I REALLY want their business to succeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? We're much better at orbital assembly now so we don't need the giant, all-the-eggs-in-one-basket rocket anymore. Cheap is MUCH more impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, yes, which is why the Falcon Heavy is more impressive than a Saturn V even though it can lift less.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need something bigger than a Saturn V? Who's to say, smaller vehicles with on-orbit refueling aren't a better approach?
We're at a point now where we really are making real progress. We're moving past the command-and-control approach to exploration taken in Apollo (and proven to fail without extremely high funding levels by the post-Apollo era) and getting to a place where we can do interesting things with sustainable budgets.
The great thing about this concept is that it is not a one-off design.
Re: (Score:2)
There would be significant overhead for that low a flight right.
Musk stated in the announcement that to meet the $1000/lb figure it would have to launch at least 4 times per year.
Re: (Score:2)
GP is still right about saving overhead that's shared with the F9, as opposed to building something like the Ares V that you have to support in it's entirety. You've hit on my pet peeve about SpaceX, though, which is that they quote things based on what they are capable of, not what there's a market for.
Re: (Score:2)
If the price listed on the SpaceX website ($125M) is accurate, "we" are making progress, if by "we" you mean the people who actually work on this stuff rather than posting on Slashdot. Saturn V launches cost in the hundreds of millions each, in 1970 dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
If the price listed on the SpaceX website ($125M) is accurate, "we" are making progress, if by "we" you mean the people who actually work on this stuff rather than posting on Slashdot. Saturn V launches cost in the hundreds of millions each, in 1970 dollars.
Someone above calculated the Saturn V launch costs, adjusted for inflation, is roughly $1.1 billion per launch. Even if the $125M per launch number is off by a factor of two, that means they can still launch four rockets for everyone one Saturn V. That provides for what, a 4x-8x improvement in efficiency? So yes, that's a big step forward, even if it takes multiple rockets to achieve what previously could be done with a single Saturn V launch.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1969 we expected Pan Am to be flying passengers to the moon. In 1975 they where talking about O'Neil colonies at L5 with 10,000 people living in them and also at that time they where talking about 100 shuttle launches a year...
Sorry but we are so far behind what was expected when I was a child that it is just depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Dreamers and sci-fi authors are just that, fiction.
Re:But smaller then the Saturn V from the 1960s (Score:4, Insightful)
Call me when we have something that can out lift the Saturn V. Yes I know they say this will cheaper but still I expected us to be much farther along than we are.
Why? The Space Shuttle sucked the oxygen out of the room for large rocket development and Griffin, the previous NASA administrator, followed up with an incompetent, underfunded attempt. As I see it, 53 metric tons to LEO at SpaceX prices is a far better deal than making some ludicrously expensive Saturn V class rocket.
Keep in mind also that SpaceX's designs scale quite nicely to Saturn V class level. I'd rather give them the chance to prove themselves with smaller rockets first than get pouty because SpaceX doesn't meet somebody's overblown expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need to aim that high. They're gunning for the Delta IV Heavy, which is said to manage a payload of roughly 13,500 lbs into GSO.
They want to reach more than twice of that. Let's assume 30,000 lbs.
That would still place them well below the 44,000 lbs the over 20 years old Energiya could handle (even if you don't update the blueprints)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree but the the hype they are using ticks me off. If they had just said that they where going to launch their largest rocket ever or even the Falcon 9 Heavy. I am more anti hype then anti Space X. I actually think this is really very cool but I want my nuclear powered Orion class shuttle with Pan Am markings! It is 2011 and I have been lied too.
Re: (Score:2)
That'll probably be never - and that's a good thing. Big heavy payloads costs in the billions-to-tens-of-billions range, which means that they are hard to get funded, which means we end up spending more billions keeping the heavy lifter on standby for the once-in-a-blue-moon heavy payload. Smaller rockets are cheaper to design, build, and operate* - and since they'll fly more often those costs and their fixed [annual] costs can be amortized ove
Re: (Score:2)
How about the Soviet Energia? It launched Polyus and Buran.
35,000 kN at lift-off versus 34,000 kN for a Saturn V. 100 tonnes to LEO.
His designs are in NASA archives at Marshall SFC (Score:5, Informative)
Urban legends aside, NASA did not throw the plans for the Saturn V [wikipedia.org] away.
Falcon Heavy is cool, but it's still a factor of two away from the LEO capacity of a Saturn V.
Re: (Score:3)
It actually makes it somewhat easier to get to the moon though, since 2 launches of the Falcon Heavy (what you need to get enough mass for a moon landing) are going to be cheaper than one Saturn V.
You could launch the capsule with one launch and the EDS/lander with a second one, then rendezvous in orbit.
So did NASA start that "myth"? (Score:2)
Urban legends aside, NASA did not throw the plans for the Saturn V away.
Then they just SAID they couldn't find them any more when private space industry startups tried to get them when NASA was designing the shuttle and Congress was wondering why they couldn't continue to do launches with the proven technology rather than having to fund all this new stuff, including new big engines?
(I heard that "urban myth" from one of the players in private launches at the time.)
Please enlighten us with the details, if yo
Re: (Score:2)
Then they just SAID they couldn't find them any more when private space industry startups tried to get them when NASA was designing the shuttle and Congress was wondering why they couldn't continue to do launches with the proven technology rather than having to fund all this new stuff, including new big engines?
I'm sure the Ford corporation still has the plans for the Model T, which doesn't mean it would be better to continue using that proven technology.
The Saturn V was simply too big for commercial launches. The not so big launchers today launch two commercial satellites at a time. Having a bigger launcher would mean bigger logistics problems: how do you coordinate the construction of several satellites so that all of them are ready to launch at the same time?
If there existed a need for a bigger launcher than th
Re: (Score:2)
which doesn't mean it would be better to continue using that proven technology.
Exactly. And that ignores the fact that material science and electronics have come a long, long way since the 1960s. What can be created to provide the same functionality can now be built for a fraction of the size of weight of what was required during the 1960s. The reason satellites are not getting much, much smaller and lighter is because they are being packed full of ever increasing functionality, including more fuel and more orbital time.
The simple fact is, unless we are going back to the moon or plan
Re: (Score:2)
Urban legends aside, NASA did not throw the plans for the Saturn V [CC] away.
Revisions to urban legends aside, most of the expertise to easily leverage the Saturn V designs have long since left NASA and/or died. And what those plans fail to account for, Saturn V was designed in such a way where it was common for revisions to be made on the actual product and designs were changed later. As a result, its acknowledged, a modern Saturn V is very likely to differ from the original Saturn Vs which previously flew. Specifically because modern fixes to the elements which are unknowingly bro
Re:His designs are in NASA archives at Marshall SF (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. My father worked on every Saturn (guidance and control, especially the LVDC on the IU) except SA-1 (and then Shuttle, X-33, and now Ares). He retired from civil service a few years ago and now works part-time for a contractor, but if Congress/Obama can't get a budget passed and Dad goes home for a while due to a shutdown, he might not go back. There aren't many others left around from that era.
Even if you had the knowledge and the people, you wouldn't build another Saturn V anyway. You couldn't rebuild the same computers, so you'd update the computers and programs, at which point you might as well upgrade the engines, which leads to changes in the structure (since you have to build new dies and jigs anyway), etc. The test a few weeks ago at Marshall showed that the consensus for structural strength (that even SpaceX and such have used) was off by about a factor of 2 (the rocket structure was about twice as strong, and thus as heavy, as it needed to be).
Even the second run of Saturn V vehicles (if they had been built) would have been different, with upgraded engines (the J-2X was developed during the Apollo program, and then pulled out for Ares I), similar to the changes the Space Shuttle underwent during its 30 year run.
Re: (Score:2)
True, their supply of captured German scientists ran out. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress passed a bill last year that says NASA must build a new rocket titled the Space Launch System with a payload evolvable to 130 tons (Saturn V class), so this statement is not correct.
Re:But smaller then the Saturn V from the 1960s (Score:4, Informative)
And then they promptly refused to fund it.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that remind me of... (Score:2)
the Soviet N1? [wikimedia.org]
Details from press conference (Score:5, Informative)
The Fox article is a little sparse on info, so for the curious, there was some pretty good liveblogging (live-foruming?) of the press conference here [nasaspaceflight.com]. You can see official details (and a neat video) on SpaceX's site here [spacex.com].
Looking through the forum and the website, here's a summary of all the most interesting stuff:
paying development costs internally, strong commercial + gov customer interest
As an aside, it'll be quite fascinating to see what impact this has on the heavy-lift debate currently going on in Congress. For those unfamiliar with it, Congress is currently trying to pressure NASA to spend several billion dollars of its funding over several years into building a 70mt rocket from shuttle-legacy components/infrastructure. It's now looking like SpaceX will build a rocket with nearly the same capability using its own funding, which will be ready to launch several years before the Congress-mandated rocket. Hmm.
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, it'll be quite fascinating to see what impact this has on the heavy-lift debate currently going on in Congress. For those unfamiliar with it, Congress is currently trying to pressure NASA to spend several billion dollars of its funding over several years into building a 70mt rocket from shuttle-legacy components/infrastructure. It's now looking like SpaceX will build a rocket with nearly the same capability using its own funding, which will be ready to launch several years before the Congress-mandated rocket. Hmm.
That project is about jobs in some congress-critters district.
If this is seen as a threat to those jobs then the congress-critter will probably change the criteria just enough so that this is not suitable.
Hopefully the fact that it is privately funded will prevent having this project interfered with as one method of making it unsuitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully the fact that it is privately funded will prevent having this project interfered with as one method of making it unsuitable.
Well, there are those mysterious "unpublished standards"...
Unpublished Standard #1: Components must be built by companies that contribute to politicians on the committee to decide the standards.
Re:Details from press conference (Score:5, Insightful)
Unpublished Standard #1: Components must be built by companies that contribute to politicians on the committee to decide the standards.
Unpublished Standard #1: Components must be built by ATK.
Congress doesn't really care about 'shuttle derived technologies' and costs are a straw man. But ATK in particular, who makes the shuttle SRBs, holds some pretty strong sway over certain congress-critters. That's why the Ares 1 first stage was just a scaled up shuttle SRB even though SRBs are a pretty dumb idea for a human-carrying rocket and completely idiotic as the sole first stage, as they can't be effectively throttled or shut off after being lit.
Re: (Score:2)
meets published NASA human rating standards, not sure yet about "unpublished" standards
Because there are known knowns and there are known unknowns... :^D
Re: (Score:2)
meets published NASA human rating standards, not sure yet about "unpublished" standards
That's when the weight of the paperwork associated with the rocket matches the weight of the fully fueled rocket itself.
In all seriousness though, the concept of "man rating" a rocket is a bit of a red herring. There's no real difference between a rocket used to launch humans vs one used to launch other payloads to orbit. Humans just happen to be a bit of a squishy, wet payload. The only real caveat is that we tend to limit the g-forces for human spaceflight to 3 to 4gs, while equiment launches can handl
Re: (Score:2)
After reading a little more, apparently the numbers they announced today assume that the second stage uses their existing kerosene-based "Merlin Vacuum" engine, and not the high-energy hydrogen-based "Raptor" engine/stage [wikipedia.org] they have under development. Combining the Falcon Heavy with the Raptor could potentially push the payload into the 70+mt range that Congress wants for the super-heavy rocket they want NASA to build.
A game changer, if they can get it to work. (Score:4, Informative)
The interesting thing from a development perspective is that this means a good portion of the testing is already done since the Merlin engines have been successfully flown on four flights (two Falcon I and two Falcon 9). They already claim that they are the top manufacturer of rocket engines by number (though I don't know if they are by total thrust). They also have some success firing Merlin engines in clusters and on the successful Falcon 9 flights. They'll probably have to make a more sophisticated avionics and control system, plumbing/pumping to supply the much larger engine cluster, and the vehicle frame, but I suspect that they won't have to do much more than that. My guess is that the 27 engine cluster and its plumbing will be fairly tricky as will the control system (which has to be able to handle several engine outs), but the rest won't be.
Now compare it to the Shuttle derived Space Launch System (SLS) that Congress wants NASA to research. For one or two years of funding of the SLS (and incidentally, about the same amount of funding just to maintain the current Shuttles!), SpaceX probably can develop the SpaceX Heavy. It doesn't have quite the capability that the SLS would have (at least on paper!), payload is a bit over 50 metric tons to LEO (low Earth orbit) while even a minimal SLS design is required to be able to carry 70 metric tons (at least as NASA read the Congressional directive) to LEO) Yesterday, there was gnashing of teeth because the last Space Shuttle was coming up with a possible end to the US's space program in the works. Now we have a rocket that not only would be vastly cheaper, but capable of carrying far more payload than the Shuttle. This may be our chance to get our space program back on track from when it derailed in the 70s.
Re: (Score:2)
There's another important reason their odds are much better. They do extensive test firings of all the engines. With those soviet
Re: (Score:2)
For those whom aren't familiar with crossfeed, the outer-tanks keep the main tank topped off during flight, so that at liftoff you get thrust from all engines, but when seperation time comes, the stage seperates, but your main core is still full of fuel. It's almost like launching a Falcon 9 from halfway outside yo
Re: (Score:3)
The Shuttle Cross Feeds. The engines are on the Orbiter and the fuel is in the External Tank. It's not exactly the same because you aren't switching the engines from two different tanks which is what will have to happen on the Falcon 9 Heavy. It's the switch that may be tricky.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's reasonable to compare the difficulty controlling clusters of independent rockets using Soviet tech from the 1960s with modern materials science and computerized engineering.
They're spending a metric assload of their own money. That's likely to produce a much more reasonable assessment of capabilities and failure modes than centralized planning in the framework of a mega-bureaucracy. We'll see how it goes, until proven otherwise I expect some pretty impressive advances.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been planning the 3 core configuration for a while, and their already flying the 1 core design, so I don't think the complexity of multiple engines will be a problem. The news today is 1) the upgraded engines and 2) the propellant crossfeed, which combine to double their projected capability. They've hinted at a Merlin 2 (F1 class) that could replace all 9 Merlin 1s on the Falcon 9, and provide a Saturn V class Falcon X with a cluster of 5, but there is no realistic timeframe for it yet, whereas F
Re: (Score:2)
A single US company is blowing by everyone. As Musk said, if he can get the flight rates he wants for the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy, then
Re: (Score:2)
"it still remains that a private US business has gone from an initial investment of $100M in 2002 to proposing building a rocket with a considerable fraction of which is already flight proven and twice as much payload as anything else flying today. That's pretty good for less than ten years!"
$100M is hardly nothing.
It's a magnificent achievement, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
$100M is hardly nothing.
It's less than one thousandth what they spent on Apollo, adjusted for inflation. When you're developing rockets in the world of NASA and its prime contractors, $100 million is nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to clarify, SpaceX has spent around $800M so far, not $100M.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is working on other engines. The Merlin 2 would be capable of around 1.7 million pounds of thrust (the Saturn V F-1 was capable of 1.5 million pounds of thrust), reducing the number of engines used per vehicle, especially for the Falcon 9 Heavy and the Falcon X/XX series of SHLLVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just a minor nitpick. The Saturn V S-II second stage did not use an F-1. It used 5 J-2s. The S-IVB third stage used a single J-2. The F-1 was only for the first stage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Saturn V had five F-1 on the first stage, five J-2 on the second, and one J-2 on the third.
That being said - using smaller, existing, engines is a way to cut development costs and to bring the booster to market early. (I.E. pretty much standard corporate behavior,
And it can lie on its side, too (Score:3)
I'm impressed that the Falcon-9 rocket can lie on its side, supported at only two points. Many large US rockets don't have enough strength in torsion for that, and must be assembled vertically.
This reduces cost. The thing can be built in a factory bay of reasonable size, then barged and/or trucked to the launch site. There's no need to do final assembly near the launch pad.
This is a good sign. One of the big problems with US rocketry has been that fanatical weight reduction resulted in overly fragile vehicles. This thing looks tougher.
Not the world's most powerful rocket (Score:2)
Re:New To Space Vehicles (Score:4, Informative)
What you're looking for is not a capability of the Falcon Heavy, but their Dragon spacecraft which launches on the Falcon 9. They recovered it from orbit in December, so I'll let them show it to you: Specs [spacex.com], Mission update [spacex.com]. Short version is that it's your basic capsule design with water landing, they're hoping to have the next version be a rocket landing on ground, using the abort motors.
Re: (Score:2)
That historian doesn't know his history, then. The "space pen" was independently developed by a private firm and was later sold to NASA at around what you'd pay picking up one at an office supply store. The Russians did reportedly use pencils for a while, but found that graphite dust caused potential electrical problems, and switched to the space pen.
Re:Vaguely remember... (Score:5, Informative)
There's pretty much nothing true in that statement besides the claim that "the Russians just used pencils" - NASA did too, until after Fisher developed the space pen [wikipedia.org] (without government funding) and asked NASA to try it. In fact, after NASA adopted the space pen, so did the Russians.
And there's problems with using pencils in space - wood pencils are flammable, and the graphite in mechanical pencils can snap off more easily and damage vulnerable equipment (it's conducive, after all) or the astronauts themselves, if they accidentally inhale it.
Re: (Score:2)
The space pen thing is an urban legend, but the launch tower comparison is real:
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100607 [spacex.com]
The NASA COTS program has demonstrated the power of what can be accomplished when you combine private sector responsiveness and ingenuity with the guidance, support and insight of the US government. For less than the cost of the Ares I mobile service tower, SpaceX has developed all the flight hardware for the Falcon 9 orbital rocket, Dragon spacecraft, as well as three launch sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Got any suggestions?
And please, lets keep it reasonable for expected technology development in a 20 year range and consider the obvious feasability constraints. That is, a method that:
- doesn't require 100s of Gs (Space guns)
- Is only barely theoretically possible with idealized materials (Space elevator)
As someone who works in the industry I'd be happy to get rid of them if you have a reasonable suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
Like that Julian Assange fellow...
Re: (Score:3)