TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
  1. TMC is currently READ ONLY.
    Click here for more info.

SpaceX

Discussion in 'SpaceX' started by doug, Jul 7, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hockeythug

    hockeythug Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #1121 hockeythug, Oct 21, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2015
  2. Johan

    Johan Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,426
    Location:
    Drammen, Norway
  3. aronth5

    aronth5 Long Time Follower

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,664
    Location:
    Boston Suburb
    SpaceX DragonFly arrives at McGregor for testing

    Watching the progression of tests is going to be fun. Starting tethered to a crane with increasingly more ambitious test should be lots of good video over the next couple of years.
    The test series calls for a “Fully propulsive hop” test, not unlike the Grasshopper test with the eventual goal of landing on its own using the SuperDraco thrusters.
    "During one of its tests, the DragonFly will rise to approximately 7,000 ft AGL, firing its engines for approximately 12.5 seconds to achieve this height."

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/10/spacex-dragonfly-arrives-mcgregor-testing/
    Capture.PNG
     
  4. hockeythug

    hockeythug Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #1124 hockeythug, Oct 27, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2015
    Full 3 minute static fire of the RTF 1st stage happened tonight. So await SpaceX comments and most likely a Youtube video at some point in the near future if successful.
     
  5. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    SpaceX is mentioned in another book: Saturn Run by John Sanford (of the Prey series fame) and Ctien.

    I met and spoke with Ctien a few times at Baycon (a science fiction convention in the Bay Area) back in the late 80's. He is one of the people that told Larry Niven that Ringworld was unstable in the way it was described in the book. His input was used in Ringworld Engineers to show how the Ring could be stabilized.

    So far Saturn Run is pretty interesting. I'm about a third of the way through.
     
  6. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    I'll put this in the general SpaceX thread:

    Subscription Center | ChicagoBusiness.com

    Boeing kicked out of the next commercial resupply program, leaving SpaceX, Orbital, and Sierra Nevada Corp. Boeing would have used the RD-180 Russian engine and that probably got them removed. Orbital will have issues too then. That leaves SpaceX and SNC possibly.

    Also,

    There was a post on Facebook SpaceX club that showed the FH tower being brought in at Pad 39A.
     
  7. aronth5

    aronth5 Long Time Follower

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,664
    Location:
    Boston Suburb
  8. Discoducky

    Discoducky Happy owner of a P100D X and a brand new 2021 M3!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,330
    Location:
    Seattle
    Thanks for the link and I found this part interesting

    Also, it will most likely be a night launch. Would be so cool to see that!
     
  9. hockeythug

    hockeythug Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Allegedly this finally occurred yesterday.
     
  10. glhs272

    glhs272 Unnamed plug faced villian

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    909
    Location:
    Burlington, WI
    Actually I don't think the launch vehicle is the issue. The RD-180 ban on the Atlas V applies only to national security launches (pentagon). It does not effect NASA's procurement of the Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) contract. NASA has been buying Atlas V rockets unabated, such as the recent award to ULA for the TDRSS M launch in October 2017. SNC dream chaser would launch on Atlas V if they were awarded a contract as well. My suspicion is that the reasons for dropping Boeing and Lockheed Martin proposals relates to risk, capabilities, and cost with each of those vendors having different problems (i.e. Boeing = too expesive per lb delivered and Lockheed = too risky and too costly and having capabilities not asked for/not practical).
     
  11. Grendal

    Grendal SpaceX Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    5,661
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Another test fire of the SuperDracos:

    Photos of the Day: SpaceX SuperDracos Engines Complete Development Testing

    You can see they are testing thrust in each engine even though this is one pack. Awesome.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I can't imagine how Orbital could be all that much cheaper since they would use an Atlas V, just like Boeing.
     
  12. glhs272

    glhs272 Unnamed plug faced villian

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    909
    Location:
    Burlington, WI
    #1132 glhs272, Nov 11, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2015
    Orbital would be cheaper than Boeing even though using the same launch vehicle simply because the Orbital's Cygnus can carry more volume and mass than Boeing's CST-100 per flight, which means lower cost per pound.

    I would be surprised if NASA down-selected the CRS2 contract to just one supplier. I would assume they would move forward with two suppliers like they current have (SpaceX & Orbital ATK). One of those suppliers must have down mass, otherwise what is the point of the ISS. Therefore Orbital ATK could never be the sole supplier with the Cygnus vehicle. Boeing, Spacex, and SNC do have downmass, so they could theoretically be sole suppliers.

    My thoughts on each of the bids without getting into too much detail on the technical...

    Lockheed's bid: The Jupiter system. Honestly, no surprise NASA rejected it so early. Although innovative in some ways, it seems like quite a technological reach with the system. Lots to develop.

    Boeing: CST-100 Starliner. I figured this system had a solid chance. Common with the Commercial Crew initiative, so less development required. Seems like low technical risk. However, the Achilles heal with this system is probably cost. Boeing was obviously much more expensive than SpaceX on the crew side, so I am thinking the same for the cargo side as well. Considering it uses an Atlas V, it would have to be payload volume and down mass competitive with the other vehicles using Atlas such as SNC and Orbital ATK. It appears CST-100 does not have internal volume compared to both SNC and Orbital ATK so I think that is why it loses to them.

    Orbital ATK. Up mass only. Already developed, so low technical and schedule risk and lower cost. Unlikely to be a sole source provider due to no down mass. Higher volume than SpaceX so has some advantages there. Only current vehicle with multiple available launch vehicles which further lowers risk. Can launch on Atlas or Antares, so a lot of benefit on the risk side of things. Apparently Orbital ATK can make money on Cygnus even if it is flying on Atlas and not their Anteres.

    SpaceX. Dragon Cargo. Both up mass and down mass. Already developed, although SpaceX may opt to use Dragon V2 (development not complete). Falcon launch vehicle is lower cost than Atlas (not sure about Antares, but probably). Falcon not as low risk as Atlas. But basically low/medium risk and low price.

    SNC. Dream chaser. Only partially developed. Reusable, but that is only of benefit with a larger number of missions. Up mass and down mass. High technical and schedule risk to complete development. Atlas V launch vehicle, so likely costlier than SpaceX. Has slight advantage over Cygnus because of down mass capability.

    In summary, I see CRS2 going to SpaceX and Orbital ATK. SNC only has a chance if NASA has some appetite for some risk. They didn't on commercial crew but have shown some appetite for risk in cargo, so there is still a chance with them. Boeing not cost competitive against SpaceX and Jupiter not cost competitive against Orbital ATK. NASA must have down mass and SpaceX does it cheaply. NASA needs a lot of up mass too and garbage disposal, so this is a niche that Orbital fills nicely. SNC seems quite optional and more than likely will be dropped (which is a shame).

    Edit: One other thing to mention about Boeing... Perhaps NASA looks at CST-100 still being capable of cargo missions if absolutely needed. If SpaceX goes caput for some reason, they could still fly CST-100 without a crew aboard and deliver cargo to and from ISS if they really needed it. But they would just rather not make it the primary vehicle due to cost.
     
  13. AudubonB

    AudubonB One can NOT induce accuracy with precision!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,951
    Would you teach me what up mass and down mass mean? Thanks.
     
  14. ggr

    ggr Expert in Dunning-Kruger Effect!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    6,967
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Up mass is the ability to take stuff to orbit, so everyone has up mass. Down mass is the ability to return stuff safely from orbit, which turns out to be also very hard. (I think most space stuff is very hard.) Even the countries other than US, Russia, and China, who have launched satellites, have never actually returned anything from orbit. That includes Japan, India, Iran, and I believe even ESA*. SpaceX is exceptional having done it.

    * Clarification: I believe ESA (European Space Agency) have returned stuff from probes etc, but they haven't ever taken on cargo in orbit and safely returned that.
     
  15. AudubonB

    AudubonB One can NOT induce accuracy with precision!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,951
    Good to have the confirmation. That's what I figured it likely was, but that paragraph about garbage disposal and down mass regarding Orbital was throwing me. It was just in the wording
     
  16. HVM

    HVM Savolainen

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    969
    Location:
    Finland
    #1136 HVM, Nov 11, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2015
    Esa and ISRO:
    IXV_recovery.jpg care.jpg

    And don't forget these *******:
    8442656745_5cd0daff95.jpg
     
  17. glhs272

    glhs272 Unnamed plug faced villian

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    909
    Location:
    Burlington, WI
    #1137 glhs272, Nov 11, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2015
    Sorry if I wasn't clear. What ggr said. Typically vehicles that have to do both up mass AND down mass have to have thermal protection systems, which means they are heavier. They are typically in capsule shape (SpaceX & Boeing) with the exception of the unique Dream Chaser built by SNC. Therefor those capsules have less volume, when you compare it to a large cylinder like the Cygnus vehicle. In short, that means a Cygnus vehicle is always going to be able to carry a lot more stuff to orbit than either the Dragon or CST-100. But it's a one way trip with Cygnus. The whole point of the ISS is research. So if you want to bring your research back from orbit, you will have to go with one of the more space/mass limited vehicles like Dragon.

    The SNC Dream Chaser is unique. I don't really know all of the details of this proposal, so I am not sure if it can match the up mass of the Cygnus. But it can definitely bring down a lot of down mass from orbit. It also has a disposable rear pressurized module. This means not only down mass, but it can do garbage disposal too. It's a bit of an all in one vehicle, would be cool to see it come to life.

    Edit: if it wasn't clear, garbage disposal is when you use a spacecraft that can't re-enter earth's atmosphere and fill it up with a bunch of junk and then de-orbit the spacecraft. When the spacecraft begins re-entering the atmosphere it burns up due to the lack of thermal protection. A good and safe way to dispose of junk. Junk is bad to have on the space station (useless mass & takes up volume), and you don't want to just randomly "throw it out the window" because it could actually come back and hit you if you don't do it exactly correctly. So in short, controlled garbage disposal is actually quite necessary for the ISS.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I believe both of those missions were sub-orbital. But I understand your point. I think India (ISRO) wants go to orbit eventually with that vehicle, so just give them time. I am not sure if the ESA is going to pursue that IXV Spaceplane that your picture shows.
     
  18. hockeythug

    hockeythug Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,979
    Location:
    Minnesota
  19. doug

    doug Administrator / Head Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,843
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Since we have a whole SpaceX sub-forum (for well over a year now), we'd prefer people posted in threads on the particular topic being discussed rather than using this thread as a space catch-all. To encourage that, I'm closing this thread. As time permits, existing discussions in this thread will be split out into their own threads or merged with existing threads on that topic. Thanks!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.
  • Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


    SUPPORT TMC