Re: Could Falcon 9 compete with the Stick?

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 15:16:58 -0500, Damon Hill
<damonunoseisuno@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>http://www.spacex.com
>
>IF it works; that's a big question. I'll be very interested in
>seeing if this busy cluster of nine engines packed closely
>together can function harmoniously. I give the first full-up
>launch less than a 50% chance of success, unless they've done more
>than one Falcon 5 flight to prove the reliability of that
>engine, in clusters. I hope they haven't forgotten the N-1.

Following them getting their Falcon 1 rocket launching successfully,
then one of the key future goals should be in doing multiple cluster
testing on the ground. You are correct that this is one of the key
points in getting the Falcon 5 and 9 working.

At the moment it is a case of one step at a time for them.

>One big question is whether the first stage can be recovered
>reasonably intact,

Well I do not think that we have seen any testing on this aspect to
date. I do not foresee a major problem in writing off their first
stage, where they can improve on this in the future.

Still, we will soon find out how well or badly this first launch goes.

>and the engines can be reliably refurbished at reasonable cost.

This is a very interesting point. I recall from one Boeing Rocketdyne
RS-<something> (84?) project all about a reusable RP-1 engine. One
main problem was how the heated fuel clogs up the engine.

As I cannot imagine them reusing such a basic engine, then I can only
imagine that they have made use of some anti-clogging technology.

Since I have not seen information on this, then what they have done
determines how long or short their engine lift-time will be.

>The Falcon 9 Heavy launch facility will not
>be as trivial as the Falcon 1's.

Obviously.

>I don't see mention of a
>cryo upper stage, assume that's been deferred since the
>existing design appears to offer adequate performance at much
>lower cost.

It seems that way. The addition of a third stage may be a future
addition, should there be need of it.

>Very ambitious, but if successful SpaceX has a decent shot
>at an ISS resupply contract.

That seems to be one of their goals. It could take up the majority of
their launch schedule. So this would indeed become a highly desired
contract.

>As a CEV launcher, Falcon 9 will have many major hurdles to clear.

The main one being a long and reliable future.

>Competing with a heavy lift SDV will require a new F-1 class
>engine. That future is very murky to me.

An interesting thought. I would even begin to wonder if this is beyond
Space-X's current ability? And should NASA get their own system up and
working, then it seems unlikely that they would want Space-X to build
their own monster.

Since there is no other real need for such a rocket, then at the
current time Space-X going this route does seem unlikely. Maybe in the
future NASA could contract them to do this directly, but this does
seem like a risky venture.

To reverse this idea, then Space-X getting their Falcon 9 S5 and S9
versions up and running, may spell the doom of NASA's heavy lift
rocket. Why spend billions doing direct moon launches when Space-X can
then put large mass into LEO cheaply? NASA can then ship this on to
the Moon, where a Earth to Moon CEV derived craft can do that.

In other words when the Falcon 9 starts to fly, then NASA will
seriously have to rethink their Moon plan. This could be a better
route for NASA, when Space-X can then slowly increase their launch
mass.

For example. For $1 billion, with a 10% contract reduction, Space-X
could put around 346,500 kg (346.5 tons) into LEO. This would be 14
launches of 25 ton(ish) segments. Sounds like a nice plan to me.

>Right now we must wait to see if this egg successfully hatches
>and grows up, let alone multiply into a 27-engine behemoth.

Out of all the rockets that come and go, then these paper rockets seem
some of the most likely to one day appear. You are correct that they
have many problems to face, but their workforce are a competent bunch.

>Got my fingers crossed that it doesn't turn into a flightless
>turkey.

Since the Falcon 1 development is almost complete, then so will
Space-X move on to start their Falcon 5 and 9 projects. There is
nothing so far, when it has been all Falcon 1 to date.

Those five other undeveloped rockets could well be made nearly as
efficiently as this Falcon 1 has been, but that is for the future
history to decide.

Cardman.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ares V: Launch Industry Game-Changer
    ... Ares V will cost on ... Their Falcon I rocket would likely be the cheapest way to ... launch a commercial comsat. ... Falcon 1 is too small for commercial comsats to LEO. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • For Star Trek Fans--Scotty Doesnt Make Orbit
    ... Falcon 1 suffers another setback ... SpaceX, a private company seeking to revolutionize the space business, ... suffered their third launch failure in three tries during a Saturday ... cut a video feed from a downward-facing on-board rocket camera. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Falcon I, TacSat launch delayed by at least 2, maybe 3 months
    ... First TacSat launch delayed till March ... The TacSat payload hasn't yet left the Naval Research Laboratory, ... engine tests of the $6 million, 70-foot Falcon I rocket. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: VTVL?
    ... The problem with a vertical launch is ... path is up out of the atmosphere with a rocket, ... This does not necessarily preclude wings. ... some of the rocket thrust with lift include lower engine ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Falcon 1 Flight 5: Orbit!
    ... they're a start-up with their own new engine and launch vehicle. ... Falcon 9 flight will be as successful. ... Falcon 9 is an all new vehicle with the upper stage engine not yet flown ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Quantcast