SpaceX - Tests, Launches, Developments

parapente · Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:10 am

Bringing its own fuel (to Mark).This is something I have wondered about.'One day' yes we might (might) be able to manufacture and compress fuel on Mars.But obviously not to start with.
The Lockheed plan is to have the main 'there and return' mothership in orbit and a specialised veichle to go gown and up.Spacex is not going down this route.So one must assume that when they fly to Mars they must ( what else can they do) fly one of their tanker BFR's second stage along with it.But it really is a chicken and egg thing.If you transferred 'all' the fuel then the tanker can't get back!
But this problem is so obvious they will have thought about it.I am not sure why they have not mentioned it to date as it is a glaring omission.

parapente · Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:16 am

Question-thought.The James Webb telescope.
It is ( to me) the crowning glory of mans ingenuity in space.A telescope that can literally peer back to the beginning of time.BUT
It is in a place where no repair mission can help it.Hubble needed two or three repairs.The idea that it will work flawlessly is a big ask.
For Hubble the shuttle could just (just) get there.Dangerous missions indeed.
So could either the BFR (best bet) go out there is anything goes wrong.Or perhaps the SLS with Orion capsule (but it's very small).
The investment in J Webb is enormous and so are the scientific prizes.I would have thought it's worth thinking about it particularly considering the speed of development of BFR and the lack of missions for SLS.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:50 am

I think the BFR is a total outside context problem to the original design and plan for the JWST. No one was seriously considering such a spaceship to exist anywhere but in video games during the life of the mission. Between the BFR and New Glenn the entire way of designing and building for these sorts of missions will forever change.

So sure, the BFR could probably go out on a maintenance mission if it ever enters commercial service. But at the same time you could launch a JWST replacement that is built and designed for maintenance. Remember the JWST was designed when such a mission was a total pipe dream. So everything had to be perfect.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:16 pm

Wouldn't a well written contract cover who takes the risk? If you spend more, whether the contractor or the client (or insurance company) there is less risk. Maybe a particular satellite isn't worth spending more.

Stitch · Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:03 pm

parapente wrote:
Question-thought. The James Webb telescope. It is ( to me) the crowning glory of mans ingenuity in space.A telescope that can literally peer back to the beginning of time. BUT It is in a place where no repair mission can help it.Hubble needed two or three repairs. The idea that it will work flawlessly is a big ask.

That applies to all the Flagship Program missions, not just James Webb. Viking, Voyager, Cassini, Chandra, etc. None of them could be serviced after launch. And in the case of Galileo, that almost bit us in the arse when the high-gain antenna failed to deploy. Fortunately, JPL was able to reprogram the spacecraft to use the low-gain antenna to save the mission.

QuarkFly · Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:20 pm

Business news...SpaceX to do more Air Force GPS launches...ULA Atlas does two other AF launches

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/space ... 2018-03-15

Interesting price info -- SpaceX will do the three GPS launches for $290 million fixed price...ULA will do the two launches for $351 million. ULA is gouging taxpayers? Maybe SpaceX is being discounted $$ for not matching ULA reliability?

Stitch · Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:37 pm

SpaceX has always been significantly cheaper than ULA - it's been a point of controversy between the two as well as with certain members of Congress and government spending watchdog groups.

As for reliability, while Atlas V has a 100% success rate, there were two issues with launches, one of which resulted in an NRO payload being placed in a lower than intended orbit. Falcon 9 has lost two launch vehicles, but all DoD launches have been successful (Zuma was lost due to a failure in the payload adapter, which was built by Northup-Grumman). So no reason for SpaceX to be "penalized" with a lower launch fee than what they normally charge.

Francoflier · Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:42 am

At least it's a trend in the right direction. The government is slowly increasing the share of SpaceX's contracts.

The way I see it, in a Universe in which SpaceX didn't exist, those 5 launches would have gone to ULA and cost close to $900 million, assuming ULA haven't already started to lower their prices in the face of the competition, which they probably have.

parapente · Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:44 am

Perhaps the US Military have to some extent got their hands tied -at the moment.I feel sure that they must require 2 means of getting to space for security purposes.ULA is one.If they get no work they go bust.This price is perhaps as low as they can go right now?
When (If) Mr Bezos gets up and running - and if too can offer Spacex prices (guess he will) then ULA will have to match or die.Probably only 3 years away from that position.
James Webb?Well fingers and toes all crossed!But nice to know that there will be a giant spaceship that can go out there if required.Actually the cargo version appears to be able to launch one hell of a large satellite itself -9 meters if necessary.9 meter mirror is nothing to be sniffed at.Having built one James Webb telescope they could always make a modified mark2 if it became necessary perhaps.

Nomadd · Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:14 pm

[*]

meecrob wrote:
Tugger is correct, but I have to add that much of the force absorbed by the water is acoustic vibrations. By sheer fact of no atmosphere on the Moon, and Mars having less than 0.1% of Earth's atmosphere (according to wiki, so please correct me if I am wrong), there simply aren't enough gaseous molecules in the atmosphere to transmit the vibrations from the engine to the surroundings. In space, no one can hear your engines.

Mars pressure varies a lot with the seasons, but ranges from .6% to 1% Earth's. The .1% figure you saw might have been total amount of atmosphere.

AirlineCritic · Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:21 pm

It probably makes sense to hedge your purchases to different providers, even if one is better than the rest. That way you can play the competition, and hope to have a non-monopoly situation also in the future.

meecrob · Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:15 am

Nomadd wrote:
[*]
meecrob wrote:
Tugger is correct, but I have to add that much of the force absorbed by the water is acoustic vibrations. By sheer fact of no atmosphere on the Moon, and Mars having less than 0.1% of Earth's atmosphere (according to wiki, so please correct me if I am wrong), there simply aren't enough gaseous molecules in the atmosphere to transmit the vibrations from the engine to the surroundings. In space, no one can hear your engines.

Mars pressure varies a lot with the seasons, but ranges from .6% to 1% Earth's. The .1% figure you saw might have been total amount of atmosphere.

I knew something didn't add up with that number, thanks for the correction.

MatthewDB · Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:34 am

Nomadd wrote:
[*]
meecrob wrote:
Tugger is correct, but I have to add that much of the force absorbed by the water is acoustic vibrations. By sheer fact of no atmosphere on the Moon, and Mars having less than 0.1% of Earth's atmosphere (according to wiki, so please correct me if I am wrong), there simply aren't enough gaseous molecules in the atmosphere to transmit the vibrations from the engine to the surroundings. In space, no one can hear your engines.

Mars pressure varies a lot with the seasons, but ranges from .6% to 1% Earth's. The .1% figure you saw might have been total amount of atmosphere.

Amazing the aerobraking even works with such a thin atmosphere.

WIederling · Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:39 am

MatthewDB wrote:
Amazing the aerobraking even works with such a thin atmosphere.

It would be much too thick at ground level even around Mars.

see:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 001121/pdf

Tugger · Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:26 pm

Fun little article on SpaceX and the mindset at it. I like part about replacing a $3,000,000.00 custom AC system for the fairing satellite cooling system with a $6,000.00 commercial system.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s ... story.html

Tugg

JetBuddy · Sun Mar 18, 2018 10:33 pm

Tugger wrote:
Fun little article on SpaceX and the mindset at it. I like part about replacing a $3,000,000.00 custom AC system for the fairing satellite cooling system with a $6,000.00 commercial system.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s ... story.html

Tugg

That was a good read. I knew about the SpaceX-mindset, but not to what degree they scavenged for parts and solved problems on the fly. Very cool.

Especially this quote from Musk:

"Be scrappy or die: Those were our two options. Buy scrap components, fix them up, make them work."

Could give certain people some pause for sure, especially considering they will be flying live human beings shortly.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:23 pm

I think the important bit there is 'make them work' If you have to pay top dollar to get something that works then pay it. But if a chepaer option with a bit of grunt work meets the requirements then use the cheaper option.

But no matter what the requirements do not change. Launch safely.

Tugger · Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:56 am

When you consider it, SpaceX is all about scrap reuse. The booster and fairings used to always be/become scrap with each launch but now SpaceX has worked and is working to reuse them.

Tugg

parapente · Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:23 am

Thx ,great little article,fun read.They are impressive people.

JHwk · Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:26 pm

"Be scrappy or die" isn't really that different from any other manufacturer; I have seen cooling towers bought off eBay used at a major defense contractor. Doesn't mean they are using recycled plastic bottles for the fighter jet canopies.

DarkKnight5 · Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:59 pm

JHwk wrote:
"Be scrappy or die" isn't really that different from any other manufacturer

But it IS VERY DIFFERENT from other launch providers where over-engineering (costs be damned) has been the rule for decades.

itchief · Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:06 pm

parapente wrote:
Bringing its own fuel (to Mark).This is something I have wondered about.'One day' yes we might (might) be able to manufacture and compress fuel on Mars.But obviously not to start with.
The Lockheed plan is to have the main 'there and return' mothership in orbit and a specialised veichle to go gown and up.Spacex is not going down this route.So one must assume that when they fly to Mars they must ( what else can they do) fly one of their tanker BFR's second stage along with it.But it really is a chicken and egg thing.If you transferred 'all' the fuel then the tanker can't get back!
But this problem is so obvious they will have thought about it.I am not sure why they have not mentioned it to date as it is a glaring omission.

I do not think Musk's plan is to bring fuel. This is a one way trip for the most part. He is not thinking like NASA.

Stitch · Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:10 pm

JHwk wrote:
"Be scrappy or die" isn't really that different from any other manufacturer

DarkKnight5 wrote:
But it IS VERY DIFFERENT from other launch providers where over-engineering (costs be damned) has been the rule for decades.

And the payload launch prices have been extremely high because of it.

I remember when $10,000 per pound was a "magic number goal" and now Falcon 9 is $2000-3000 per pound and BFR could be a tenth of that.

Tugger · Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:41 pm

SpaceX sure keeps busy! Looks like they intend to build the BFR in LA/Long Beach:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03 ... s-angeles/

Tugg

parapente · Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:07 pm

Good spot thx Tugg.

JetBuddy · Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:59 pm

Tugger wrote:
SpaceX sure keeps busy! Looks like they intend to build the BFR in LA/Long Beach:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03 ... s-angeles/

Tugg

Interesting. With BFR production in California, engine manifacture and testing in Texas, and launches in California and Florida - would they need to ship the rockets through the Panama Canal between sites?

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:55 pm

From memory of an older presentation Musk was suggesting SpaceX would launch and do a little hop to take the BFR from west to east coast. So at most they may need to ship up the coast.

If they're right on the amount of reusability they're going for then such a delivery method actually makes sense.

Trololzilla · Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:42 pm

Wasn't there a plan to actually produce rockets at Boca Chica too, or was that something else?

Tugger · Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:45 pm

Trololzilla wrote:
Wasn't there a plan to actually produce rockets at Boca Chica too, or was that something else?

I believe development and production will be in California. Perhaps if it becomes an actual large scale production line then they could set it up in Boca Chica but the location is not excellent for high skilled people sourcing. Not to knock the skilled labor available in Texas, just that the Brownsville region isn't where many of them choose to live.

If SpaceX actually achieves the reusability levels they are hoping for, high production levels may never be reached. (Unless their "replace airliners" actually comes to fruition!)

Tugg

JHwk · Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:19 am

Trololzilla wrote:
Wasn't there a plan to actually produce rockets at Boca Chica too, or was that something else?

They really dont have much property in Boca Chica; the launch pad and hangar with required separation take up most of the site.

Much clearer to me looking at that why the BFR could not be assembled there.

maxter · Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:02 am

What are the two satellite dishes just down the road in Brownsville for?

WIederling · Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:40 am

maxter wrote:
What are the two satellite dishes just down the road in Brownsville for?

This:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STARGATE

?????

parapente · Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:35 pm

Extract from Aviation Week.Looks like ULA are getting in bed with the devil!They want to use his engines -but he's going to pitch. Against them with the same engines and a reusable rocket -guess who wins!

Blue Origin is going for the long game, developing new tools, materials and manufacturing processes to operate fleets of suborbital and orbital rockets, in-space tugs and lunar landers capable of carrying 10,000 lb. (4,500 kg) to the surface of the Moon, about the capacity of an Apollo Lunar Excursion Module.

Toward that end, the Kent, Washington-based company, whose CEO is former Honeywell Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Bob Smith, sometimes scrambles the playbook, such as by delaying development of a BE-4 engine test stand in Florida and aiming to compete for U.S. national security space launch business, a decision that puts Blue in direct competition with one of its first industry partners, United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

DarkKnight5 · Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:13 pm

Should probably move this to the ULA thread, but it’s awfully sporting of ULA to fund engine development for a competitor...

maxter · Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:11 pm

WIederling wrote:
maxter wrote:
What are the two satellite dishes just down the road in Brownsville for?

This:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STARGATE

?????

Thanks a lot, much appreciated

Nomadd · Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:21 am

JHwk wrote:
Trololzilla wrote:
Wasn't there a plan to actually produce rockets at Boca Chica too, or was that something else?

They really dont have much property in Boca Chica; the launch pad and hangar with required separation take up most of the site.

Much clearer to me looking at that why the BFR could not be assembled there.

You need to zoom out there. That only represents the launch pad and pad area buildings. The control control center and other facilities are 1 1/2 to 2 miles down the highway.

Nomadd · Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:25 am

maxter wrote:
What are the two satellite dishes just down the road in Brownsville for?

They're mainly for tracking manned Dragons. STARGATE's relationship with them is a little fuzzy at the moment. SpaceX is the one that bought and installed them. They were used for Apollo and the Space Shuttle before NASA sold them for a dollar.

parapente · Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:39 pm

A really important 9 months coming up for Spacex.A shedload of launches in quick succession including FH's, F9's and Block5,plus (unmanned) human rated capsule to the ST.All the while building the BFR.A huge undertaking.If all the flights go well they won't be ahead of the competition they will be out of sight.But they gotta do it first!

maxter · Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:00 am

Nomadd wrote:
maxter wrote:
What are the two satellite dishes just down the road in Brownsville for?

They're mainly for tracking manned Dragons. STARGATE's relationship with them is a little fuzzy at the moment. SpaceX is the one that bought and installed them. They were used for Apollo and the Space Shuttle before NASA sold them for a dollar.

Thanks for that,I figured that it must have had something to do with the Boca Chica installation

JetBuddy · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Falcon 9 launch today at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Iridium Next 41-50 mission.

Will be streamed live here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0TW8vkCLg

SeJoWa · Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:31 pm

Launch successful, second stage separated and on its way.
Due to restrictions from NOAA, SpaceX is interrupting the live broadcast and will resume for Iridium sats placement.
Does anyone know what that is about?

See also
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/9 ... 8492683264

JetBuddy · Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:08 pm

SeJoWa wrote:
Launch successful, second stage separated and on its way.
Due to restrictions from NOAA, SpaceX is interrupting the live broadcast and will resume for Iridium sats placement.
Does anyone know what that is about?

See also
https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/9 ... 8492683264

It's tinfoil hat time. My guess is that someone has a secret space vehicle of some kind nearby that nobody is supposed to see. :scratchchin:

The Falcon 9 booster did a simulated return btw. I saw it was equipped with landing legs and gridfins. Anyone know how that went?

Stitch · Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:24 pm

SeJoWa wrote:
Due to restrictions from NOAA, SpaceX is interrupting the live broadcast and will resume for Iridium sats placement.

US Law (National and Commercial Space Programs Act) requires that remote sensing space systems (of which NOAA defines the second stage camera as being) requires a license and said licenses are issued by NOAA. At this time, SpaceX is not in possession of such a license so they are not allowed to use the second stage camera for commercial launches. The law appears to not apply to government launches, so any launch in support of NASA or other government agencies is okay to broadcast. Regardless, SpaceX is securing a license so it won't be an issue for commercial launches soon.

JetBuddy · Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:28 pm

Stitch wrote:
SeJoWa wrote:
Due to restrictions from NOAA, SpaceX is interrupting the live broadcast and will resume for Iridium sats placement.

US Law (National and Commercial Space Programs Act) requires that remote sensing space systems (of which NOAA defines the second stage camera as being) requires a license and said licenses are issued by NOAA. At this time, SpaceX is not in possession of such a license so they are not allowed to use the second stage camera for commercial launches. The law appears to not apply to government launches, so any launch in support of NASA or other government agencies is okay to broadcast. Regardless, SpaceX is securing a license so it won't be an issue for commercial launches soon.

That's interesting. Is it a law that NOAA has suddenly decided to uphold? It's not been an issue until now it seems.

Tugger · Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:44 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Stitch wrote:
SeJoWa wrote:
Due to restrictions from NOAA, SpaceX is interrupting the live broadcast and will resume for Iridium sats placement.

US Law (National and Commercial Space Programs Act) requires that remote sensing space systems (of which NOAA defines the second stage camera as being) requires a license and said licenses are issued by NOAA. At this time, SpaceX is not in possession of such a license so they are not allowed to use the second stage camera for commercial launches. The law appears to not apply to government launches, so any launch in support of NASA or other government agencies is okay to broadcast. Regardless, SpaceX is securing a license so it won't be an issue for commercial launches soon.

That's interesting. Is it a law that NOAA has suddenly decided to uphold? It's not been an issue until now it seems.

Probably came to light with the whole "Starman" Falcon Heavy event and its reception back here. May have caused them to go back and say "Hey.... were we supposed to do something there?"

Tugg

SeJoWa · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:15 pm

Stitch wrote:
SeJoWa wrote:
Due to restrictions from NOAA, SpaceX is interrupting the live broadcast and will resume for Iridium sats placement.

US Law (National and Commercial Space Programs Act) requires that remote sensing space systems (of which NOAA defines the second stage camera as being) requires a license and said licenses are issued by NOAA. ...

Well IBD. Thank you indeed for elucidating. I'm guessing SpaceX was being tactful and didn't want to point fingers.

MatthewDB · Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:23 pm

Apparently SpaceX needs permits to show video of the earth from space and doesn't have them (yet). This means launches will cut video at some point during the 2nd stage burn.

https://www.space.com/40153-spacex-laun ... tions.html

JetBuddy · Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:22 pm

Everyone ready for Falcon 9 SpaceX CRS 14 today?

Launch from Cape Canaveral at 4:30 PM EDT / 20:30 GMT.

Live coverage here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPQHG-LevZM

Stitch · Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:57 pm

CRS-14 successfully launched from the Cape and is on it's way to the ISS with capture scheduled for Wednesday.

JetBuddy · Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:29 pm

No fancy pants landing on this one either?

Are they expending the last of the Block 3 boosters that won't be upgraded? And if so, why are they launching them with landing legs and gridfins (expensive), only to do a simulated re-entry procedure? Why not land them?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net