Governments can't do jack these days. Private enterprise will create space travel again.
Space X Latest Launch
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
We are in the golden age of space exploration right now. Governments are doing it. I love Space X, but we need both.
I'd rather we leave governments out of this.
Without governments we would not have Hubble, Kepler, the Web telescope, rovers on Mars, Pluto flyby, etc. Private enterprise did not do it and had no incentive to do it. I like space exploration so I like government agencies like NASA. We also would not have Space X were it not for the government.
Last edited:
I am fully on board with that.
Bingo
http://www.universetoday.com/128395...of-spacex-falcon-booster-spacex-vp-interview/
Nice images of the booster at dock
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/falcon-9-first-stage-port-canaveral-asds-big-plans/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34077.2100
Legs
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766.540
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40002.msg1518808#msg1518808
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...-be-no-spacex-and-its-brilliant-boat-landing/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...lon-musk-spacex-is-delusional-about-mars.html
I want a Dept. of Space myself
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_US_Department_of_Space_999.html
Try to do something too small--and you can wind up with probes that get burned out quickly
http://aviationweek.com/space/smallsat-concept-could-change-game-europa
Size matters
A reason to support HLLVs (The author here is talking about LUVOIR):
Our commitment to simplicity is based on the analysis of David Beardon. Beardon has shown that there is a direct correlation between mission payload complexity and total mission cost; and, between complexity and cost and schedule growth. Also, the greatest predictor of mission success is technology maturity. The reason for these relationships is because the only way to achieve increasingly demanding performance requirements in a mass and volume constrained launch vehicle is to design increasingly complex mission payload architectures. Consider for example how JWST’s cost was driven by the complexity needed to package a 6.5 meter telescope inside a 4.5 meter fairing with a 6500 kg mass capacity.
The JWST Independent Comprehensive Review Panel found that JWST is “one of the most complex science missions carried out to date and therefore falls at the high end of the range, greater than 90%, on the complexity index. JWST is consistent with being “in family” for an LCC (life cycle cost) around $6 billion–$7 billion”. This cost versus complexity relationship is also evident in the NASA Advanced Mission Cost Model which is typically used to justify (possibly incorrectly) that mass is the dominant mission cost driver. A closer look at the model indicates that Difficulty Level may be a larger cost driver than mass.
Given the available mass and volume capacity of the SLS, some subsystems may be able to use simpler more-mature (and more massive) technologies or higher design rule margins to eliminate complexity, lower risk and lower cost. By using mature technology, projects will save money on sub-system acquisition as well as engineering labor and management overhead. Because of program overhead, a savings of $500M in component cost might reduce total program cost by $1B to $2B. And, while potential cost savings from relaxing the mass constraint is difficult to quantify, anecdotal evidence suggests that early in a mass constrained mission, it may cost $100K of design effort to eliminate 1 kg of mass; while once the design is mature, it may cost as much as $1M to eliminate 1 kg of mass.
http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/ATLAST/tech/Stahl_SPIE_2015_paper.pdf
https://www.space.com/37952-hunting-second-earth-next-generation-telescopes.html
https://www.space.com/luvoir-space-telescope-understanding-habitability.html
Competition for BFR?
Blue Origin/Bezos said they want to build LV's bigger than anything that has ever been built before. So a BE-5 could be a >F-1 thrust LOx/LCH4 engine possibly FFSC to keep the no. of 1st stage engines on their future BFR to a reasonable value. I don't think that Blue Origin wants to dev. an N-1 style vehicle and Bezos says that turbopumps and thrust chambers scale well to large sizes.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40052.msg1518723#msg1518723
I want the monsters here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22068.msg1471218#msg1471218
24 million pounds of thrust! Even CZ-9 can't match those concepts: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8447.msg1518861#msg1518861
If ULA wants to survive--they need to nix their own Vulcan concept. Musk/Bezos have the path to re-usablility well plowed.
I would urge them to go large forget re-usability--but reduce part count. Get with Dynetics and Bezos--and see if they can build Pyrios: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1
ULA would get the prestige of having F-1. The booster could compete with SRBs.
With more power--a single core could launch Orion to LEO (solid augmentation)
Shelby would support this. Lastly, A Pyrios derivative might allow for a hammerhead shroud larger than what Falcon Heavy allows.
Space X did make one mistake early on:
Unfortunately, the new company believed the oft-repeated assertion that there was a large unmet demand for small payloads and the launch services associated with them. Thus, the Falcon 1’s Merlin engine was the lowest thrust first stage engine used by a US space booster since the puny propulsion system employed by Vanguard in the 1950’s.
When the truth came out that the real market was for medium and heavy launch vehicles, the Falcon 1 was abandoned and the Falcon 9 first stage needed a remarkable 9 engines to meet the mission requirements The Falcon Heavy first stage will need an incredible 27 engines. The Merlin engine used by these boosters has been upgraded to over twice its original thrust level, but at 150,000 pounds-thrust (667,000 newtons) at sea level, it still is only producing thrust equivalent to the earliest engines used by the Thor and Atlas boosters some 58 years ago.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2799/1
Now--to his credit--a lot of engines allows fine throttling. I can't help but wonder if the somewhat windy conditions helped this most recent landing on the barge.
A good stream of wind gives surfaces something to grip--something to fight.
With calm winds--the LV may feel every little off balance fluctuations.
I wonder if winds are needed to give the LV something to bite into--rather how the rudder of Titanic actually did worse when full reverse caused cavitation. Better to have had a bigger rudder, and kept speed. Larger ships actually handle better at speed for this reason.
Perhaps rockets are no different.
Bigelow snubbed Musk:
The SpaceX falcon 9 fairing is not big enough to house the B330.
“SpaceX, they do not have the capability with the fairing size that is necessary to accommodate the B330. So that is not even a choice,” Bigelow stated.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...er-to-Launch-Commercial-Space-Habitat-in-2020
Now--wait a min. I thought Falcon heavy would have a hammerhead shroud equall to Delta IV heavy...
Some in Japan want their own RLV
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33550.msg1512403#msg1512403
With damage from quakes--this may have to wait.
Last but not least:
Coincidentally, today marks two major anniversaries in the history of space flight; the 55th anniversary of the launch of Russia’s Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space on Vostok-1 on April 12, 1961; and the 35th anniversary of the launch of shuttle Columbia on America’s first space shuttle mission (STS-1) on April 12, 1981 with John Young and Bob Crippen.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...ves-Back-in-Port-After-Historic-Upright-Landi
It also looks the Russians were first with barge landings too
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/04/11/rogozin-barge-landing-rocket-russian-invention/
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/04/landing-on-dron.html
As Doohan said: "It's Magic!"
http://www.universetoday.com/128395...of-spacex-falcon-booster-spacex-vp-interview/
Nice images of the booster at dock
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/falcon-9-first-stage-port-canaveral-asds-big-plans/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34077.2100
Legs
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766.540
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40002.msg1518808#msg1518808
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...-be-no-spacex-and-its-brilliant-boat-landing/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...lon-musk-spacex-is-delusional-about-mars.html
I want a Dept. of Space myself
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_US_Department_of_Space_999.html
Try to do something too small--and you can wind up with probes that get burned out quickly
http://aviationweek.com/space/smallsat-concept-could-change-game-europa
Size matters
A reason to support HLLVs (The author here is talking about LUVOIR):
Our commitment to simplicity is based on the analysis of David Beardon. Beardon has shown that there is a direct correlation between mission payload complexity and total mission cost; and, between complexity and cost and schedule growth. Also, the greatest predictor of mission success is technology maturity. The reason for these relationships is because the only way to achieve increasingly demanding performance requirements in a mass and volume constrained launch vehicle is to design increasingly complex mission payload architectures. Consider for example how JWST’s cost was driven by the complexity needed to package a 6.5 meter telescope inside a 4.5 meter fairing with a 6500 kg mass capacity.
The JWST Independent Comprehensive Review Panel found that JWST is “one of the most complex science missions carried out to date and therefore falls at the high end of the range, greater than 90%, on the complexity index. JWST is consistent with being “in family” for an LCC (life cycle cost) around $6 billion–$7 billion”. This cost versus complexity relationship is also evident in the NASA Advanced Mission Cost Model which is typically used to justify (possibly incorrectly) that mass is the dominant mission cost driver. A closer look at the model indicates that Difficulty Level may be a larger cost driver than mass.
Given the available mass and volume capacity of the SLS, some subsystems may be able to use simpler more-mature (and more massive) technologies or higher design rule margins to eliminate complexity, lower risk and lower cost. By using mature technology, projects will save money on sub-system acquisition as well as engineering labor and management overhead. Because of program overhead, a savings of $500M in component cost might reduce total program cost by $1B to $2B. And, while potential cost savings from relaxing the mass constraint is difficult to quantify, anecdotal evidence suggests that early in a mass constrained mission, it may cost $100K of design effort to eliminate 1 kg of mass; while once the design is mature, it may cost as much as $1M to eliminate 1 kg of mass.
http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/ATLAST/tech/Stahl_SPIE_2015_paper.pdf
https://www.space.com/37952-hunting-second-earth-next-generation-telescopes.html
https://www.space.com/luvoir-space-telescope-understanding-habitability.html
Competition for BFR?
Blue Origin/Bezos said they want to build LV's bigger than anything that has ever been built before. So a BE-5 could be a >F-1 thrust LOx/LCH4 engine possibly FFSC to keep the no. of 1st stage engines on their future BFR to a reasonable value. I don't think that Blue Origin wants to dev. an N-1 style vehicle and Bezos says that turbopumps and thrust chambers scale well to large sizes.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40052.msg1518723#msg1518723
I want the monsters here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22068.msg1471218#msg1471218
24 million pounds of thrust! Even CZ-9 can't match those concepts: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8447.msg1518861#msg1518861
If ULA wants to survive--they need to nix their own Vulcan concept. Musk/Bezos have the path to re-usablility well plowed.
I would urge them to go large forget re-usability--but reduce part count. Get with Dynetics and Bezos--and see if they can build Pyrios: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1
ULA would get the prestige of having F-1. The booster could compete with SRBs.
With more power--a single core could launch Orion to LEO (solid augmentation)
Shelby would support this. Lastly, A Pyrios derivative might allow for a hammerhead shroud larger than what Falcon Heavy allows.
Space X did make one mistake early on:
Unfortunately, the new company believed the oft-repeated assertion that there was a large unmet demand for small payloads and the launch services associated with them. Thus, the Falcon 1’s Merlin engine was the lowest thrust first stage engine used by a US space booster since the puny propulsion system employed by Vanguard in the 1950’s.
When the truth came out that the real market was for medium and heavy launch vehicles, the Falcon 1 was abandoned and the Falcon 9 first stage needed a remarkable 9 engines to meet the mission requirements The Falcon Heavy first stage will need an incredible 27 engines. The Merlin engine used by these boosters has been upgraded to over twice its original thrust level, but at 150,000 pounds-thrust (667,000 newtons) at sea level, it still is only producing thrust equivalent to the earliest engines used by the Thor and Atlas boosters some 58 years ago.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2799/1
Now--to his credit--a lot of engines allows fine throttling. I can't help but wonder if the somewhat windy conditions helped this most recent landing on the barge.
A good stream of wind gives surfaces something to grip--something to fight.
With calm winds--the LV may feel every little off balance fluctuations.
I wonder if winds are needed to give the LV something to bite into--rather how the rudder of Titanic actually did worse when full reverse caused cavitation. Better to have had a bigger rudder, and kept speed. Larger ships actually handle better at speed for this reason.
Perhaps rockets are no different.
Bigelow snubbed Musk:
The SpaceX falcon 9 fairing is not big enough to house the B330.
“SpaceX, they do not have the capability with the fairing size that is necessary to accommodate the B330. So that is not even a choice,” Bigelow stated.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...er-to-Launch-Commercial-Space-Habitat-in-2020
Now--wait a min. I thought Falcon heavy would have a hammerhead shroud equall to Delta IV heavy...
Some in Japan want their own RLV
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33550.msg1512403#msg1512403
With damage from quakes--this may have to wait.
Last but not least:
Coincidentally, today marks two major anniversaries in the history of space flight; the 55th anniversary of the launch of Russia’s Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space on Vostok-1 on April 12, 1961; and the 35th anniversary of the launch of shuttle Columbia on America’s first space shuttle mission (STS-1) on April 12, 1981 with John Young and Bob Crippen.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...ves-Back-in-Port-After-Historic-Upright-Landi
It also looks the Russians were first with barge landings too
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/04/11/rogozin-barge-landing-rocket-russian-invention/
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/04/landing-on-dron.html
As Doohan said: "It's Magic!"
Last edited:
future is bright, future is SpaceX 
Great add , elon musk has some great plans for the future I am all excited.
Great add , elon musk has some great plans for the future I am all excited. 
I found the landing to be really impressive.
I hope affordable space flights become a thing before I get too old. Sadly I'm terribly close all ready, but I'd love to experience genuine micro-gravity.
I hope affordable space flights become a thing before I get too old. Sadly I'm terribly close all ready, but I'd love to experience genuine micro-gravity.
Costs to launch could come down even more
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/3d-printing-of-rocket-parts-and.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/3d-printing-of-rocket-parts-and.html
They landed after a geostationary launch? Awesome. I really like them.
The three recovered boosters--nice pix
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38802.msg1534753#msg1534753
Falcon heavy booster nose spotted?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.msg1534115#msg1534115
Space X is having an effect.
ULA itself wants to kill the Delta rocket line in my home state of Alabama.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/05/ula-begs-congre.html
Estimates show that, through 2030, the cost of the Pentagon's launch program will hit $70 billion - one of the most expensive programs within the Defense Department.
Someone might pick that up. I would think that ULA needs to get with Dynetics and make Vulcan into Pyrious--with far wider shrouds and an ability to compete with SRBs.
Whether it hurts jobs in my state or not--I have never liked the Deltas.
They were Air Force rockets. (the ABMA Jupiter/Saturn Is were my choice)
Delta started off as Thor--stetched beyond sense to Delta III. D-IV was an awkward pad sitter. Not wide enough to store low density hydrogen as well as the shuttle ET/SLS--but large and unwieldy when compared to Atlas--that can be flown to its pad inside an Antonov--no ship needed.
Delta II was a crutch for years. I will celibrate when Delta dies.
In other news, the cupola ISS window has been struck: http://www.astrowatch.net/2016/05/space-debris-hits-window-of-space.html
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38802.msg1534753#msg1534753
Falcon heavy booster nose spotted?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.msg1534115#msg1534115
Space X is having an effect.
ULA itself wants to kill the Delta rocket line in my home state of Alabama.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/05/ula-begs-congre.html
Estimates show that, through 2030, the cost of the Pentagon's launch program will hit $70 billion - one of the most expensive programs within the Defense Department.
Someone might pick that up. I would think that ULA needs to get with Dynetics and make Vulcan into Pyrious--with far wider shrouds and an ability to compete with SRBs.
Whether it hurts jobs in my state or not--I have never liked the Deltas.
They were Air Force rockets. (the ABMA Jupiter/Saturn Is were my choice)
Delta started off as Thor--stetched beyond sense to Delta III. D-IV was an awkward pad sitter. Not wide enough to store low density hydrogen as well as the shuttle ET/SLS--but large and unwieldy when compared to Atlas--that can be flown to its pad inside an Antonov--no ship needed.
Delta II was a crutch for years. I will celibrate when Delta dies.
In other news, the cupola ISS window has been struck: http://www.astrowatch.net/2016/05/space-debris-hits-window-of-space.html
Last edited:
It looks like the latest booster sustained heavy damage and won't be reused for flight. There are cracks in the housing and also some burn through at the center engine. See pics below. At least they will be able to get some good data from all of this.
Edited to add link:
http://www.universetoday.com/128932...-booster-joins-spacex-siblings-close-gallery/
Edited to add link:
http://www.universetoday.com/128932...-booster-joins-spacex-siblings-close-gallery/
Last edited:
Can I get a link to where you got those images from? Is there an article or anything?
Sorry about that, should have posted the link. Scroll down towards the bottom for the pics.
http://www.universetoday.com/128932...-booster-joins-spacex-siblings-close-gallery/
I cannot help but wonder if some of this might have been avoided with the wider, more squat designs of Phil Bono
Take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_SASSTO
The rearmost portion of the spacecraft was a single large plug nozzle, fed by a series of 36 injectors operating at 1500 psia, producing 277,000 lbf (1,230 kN) of thrust. Since plug nozzles gain efficiency as they grow larger, the 465 sec specific impulse (compared to the J-2's 425) was not particularly aggressive. The engine also served as the primary heat shield, actively cooled by liquid hydrogen that was then dumped overboard.
Now, Glushko had problems with burn throughs of his very powerful RD-170 series engine. Yet Energiya's hydrogen engine--which ran colder, had far less problems (Glushko hated hydrolox designs, sadly)
The hydrolox RD-0120 Energiya engine was superior to SSME: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0120
The M-1 could have been very simple:
liquid hydrogen was needed for cooling only on the high-heat areas of the engine —the combustion chamber, nozzle and upper part of the skirt— reducing plumbing complexity considerably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_(rocket_engine)
Take a look at Big Onion type LVs
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=21394
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2103
http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Pocket-encyclopaedia-spaceflight-colour/dp/071373504X
To me--the best design would be not something tall and thin that has to land on a barge--but a squat but very large hydrogen burner with engines wider apart that run cooler. Big Onion would have directly landed in the water an been towed to shore.
It would likely cost more than SLS however.
Misc:
http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=186157&postcount=6
Take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_SASSTO
The rearmost portion of the spacecraft was a single large plug nozzle, fed by a series of 36 injectors operating at 1500 psia, producing 277,000 lbf (1,230 kN) of thrust. Since plug nozzles gain efficiency as they grow larger, the 465 sec specific impulse (compared to the J-2's 425) was not particularly aggressive. The engine also served as the primary heat shield, actively cooled by liquid hydrogen that was then dumped overboard.
Now, Glushko had problems with burn throughs of his very powerful RD-170 series engine. Yet Energiya's hydrogen engine--which ran colder, had far less problems (Glushko hated hydrolox designs, sadly)
The hydrolox RD-0120 Energiya engine was superior to SSME: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0120
The M-1 could have been very simple:
liquid hydrogen was needed for cooling only on the high-heat areas of the engine —the combustion chamber, nozzle and upper part of the skirt— reducing plumbing complexity considerably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_(rocket_engine)
Take a look at Big Onion type LVs
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=21394
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2103
http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Pocket-encyclopaedia-spaceflight-colour/dp/071373504X
To me--the best design would be not something tall and thin that has to land on a barge--but a squat but very large hydrogen burner with engines wider apart that run cooler. Big Onion would have directly landed in the water an been towed to shore.
It would likely cost more than SLS however.
Misc:
http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=186157&postcount=6
