Falcon 1, The World's Lowest Cost Rocket to Orbit |
Falcon 1, The World's Lowest Cost Rocket to Orbit |
Nov 19 2005, 06:28 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but here goes:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18353 http://www.spacex.com/ Looking forward to launch videos... -------------------- |
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Dec 7 2005, 10:22 PM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
From the December 8, 2005, issue of Nature:
Internet star shoots for a rocket revolution Tony Reichhardt Nature 438, 736-737 (2005) doi:10.1038/438736a Full Text Excerpt: "For the past 20 years, most start-up rocket companies have followed the same sad trajectory. They produce an artist's concept of an innovative vehicle while promising to cut launch costs by a factor of ten. Scrounge for money, mostly without success. Badmouth NASA and established rocket manufacturers such as Boeing. Fail, usually before reaching the launch pad. And disappear. "The names may be different — AMROC, Conestoga, Rotary Rocket, Beal Aerospace — but the stories are essentially the same. And their combined impact on the economics of spaceflight has been zero. It still costs tens of millions of dollars to place even a modest satellite in orbit. "Enter Elon Musk, the latest comer with long-shot dreams of revolutionizing the launch business..." |
|
|
Dec 9 2005, 06:17 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 87 Joined: 19-June 05 Member No.: 415 |
From the SpaceX website Updates page:
Posted December 7, 2005: The new launch date is approximately December 20, depending on when the Missile Defense Agency testing is complete. As soon as we have a firm time, it will be posted on the SpaceX website. Liquid Oxygen Regarding liquid oxygen (LOX) supplies, we expect to have enough on hand this time to fill the rocket four or five times over. This should account for almost any issue with a particular storage tank as well as an extended hold on the pad. There is an engineering term known as a s*load. I have asked that we have at least two s*loads on hand in case one s*load is not enough. We chartered a C-17 to fly two of our empty high quality LOX containers to Hawaii, sourced another high quality LOX container on Hawaii and put all three on the barge to Kwajalein. In addition, our LOX plant on Kwajalein has been repaired and is producing LOX on island again. Some might be wondering why we were so dumb as to run out of LOX on a remote tropical island on the last launch attempt. Believe me, we tried hard to avoid it, but several issues conspired to create the problem: * The additional month of Merlin testing resulted in additional LOX boil-off on island. Even though it is stored in vacuum jacketed containers, LOX at -300F degrees does not like being on a tropical island at 85F. * The SpaceX LOX plant on island broke down a few weeks prior to launch, which meant we could not top up. * We ordered replacement LOX from Hawaii, but the container quality was poor, so only 20% of what we ordered actually arrived. * Ground winds were unusually high on launch day, which amplifies the boil-off rate significantly, since the Falcon's first stage LOX tank is uninsulated. * All of the above would not have mattered if our final storage tank did not have a small, manual vent valve incorrectly in the open position. Somewhat agonizingly, we were only a few percent away from being full. We just needed a little sip from the last tank. * After a while, we were able to close the vent and fill the vehicle's LOX tanks. However, we use LOX to chill our onboard helium and the absence of ground LOX to do so resulted in the helium heating up and venting back to storage. In the end, we did not have enough LOX to stay filled on the rocket and chill & pressurize the helium. Engine Computer The engine computer reboot anomaly was definitively traced to a ground power problem. Importantly, this would have had no effect on flight, since we switch to vehicle power before the autosequence begins. The reason it cropped up at Kwajalein was that the higher load on the longer umbilical (three times longer than in prior tests) coupled with high temperatures in Kwajalein resulted in increased resistance in the ground umbilical. This was just enough to lower the voltage below minimums and cause an engine computer reset when drawing maximum power. The same max power test was repeated on internal vehicle batteries with no problem at all. This problem has been solved by slightly increasing voltage on the ground umbilical. --Elon- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 02:30 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |