Falcon 9 Moves Closer To Launch

I'm confused... didn't Senator Shelby say that the Falcon 9 (along with the Atlas V and Delta IV, apparently) was nothing more than a "paper rocket"?

If you take that picture and print it out, it might qualify for a paper rocket.

"SpaceX is really going at a snail’s pace."

Ignorant or malicious? Certainly ridiculous. You decide.

> SpaceX is really going at a snail’s pace. Still, it may be the only game in town one day, which quite honestly is a little scary.

The EELVs are being shut down? When was that announced?

"Ignorant or malicious? Certainly ridiculous. You decide."

I was disappointed not to see "retarded" as an option. When was COTS awarded again? Aug 2006? They'll be at the station this year, right? Wow, what snails. What a mediocre effort.

It may still turn out they suck - let's see it fly, dock to the station, and let's see if they can really get people up there on a schedule - but let's a least hold judgement until they've had a shot at it. Right now, they're looking pretty good. So if they actually get a go ahead this year to shoot for a crewed vehicle, let's see where they're at four years from now.

but if Obama gets his way it will be all we have

You are very ignorant, you know that?

SpaceX is not the only game in town.

It sure is shiny.

It must be made from that glossy paper they use to make magazines.

"SpaceX is really going at a snail’s pace"

Time between first announcement of Falcon 9 (2004) and planned first launch (2010) 6 years.

Time between first announcement of Aries I (2005) and planned first flight (2012-2013-2014???) 7-8-9 years.

If SpaceX is going at a Snail's pace, what would you call Cx???

We'll find out soon enough if this even works to ferry supplies RELIABLY to ISS. The first launch is only 3 months away. Falcon/Dragon may be relatively 'cheap' (though still more expensive than Soyuz/Progress as far as cost/kg to ISS, that point needs to be reminded) but there are only so many lost payloads a customer can put up with. I'll feel more comfortable once, say, 4 payloads are delivered in a row to ISS. So far the odds are not in favor. I'm not wishing for this to fail but only pointing out simple statistics, so don't kill the messenger. I hope this does work but, just in case, wouldn't just yet certify the demise of Orion/Ares-1.

Personally I think at least Orion will survive thanks to Lockheed/Boeing pressure as they wait and see whether it's worth for them to continue with ULA. With Orion they might just yet be able to sustain their EELVs, without it they're headed to Chapter 11.

As for Ares, we'll see, depends on the success record of Falcon between now and 2012. Right now the commercial operators are 'excited', and rightly so, but soon enough only 1 or 2 can remain viable.

My bet is Atlas-V (Russian engines, let's not forget) gets cancelled, and Falcon-9 and Delta-IV become the only two U.S. launch vehicles in production. We could even see a Delta-V with a single Delta-IV core + two 3-4 segment SRBs (with the old grain) from ATK ... which I believe is what Ares-1 should have looked like. Oh well.

@akear

Vaporware as compared to what? Go ahead and say Ares. I'd love to watch everyone tear that apart again.

Your statements, and those of Sen Shelby, are nothing more than gratuitous assertions with little basis on fact.

"What do you call a two successful launches during a 8 year period?"

That's a really fun way to count! Lemme try.

What do you call exactly one third of a successful Ares I launch in a 52 year period?

(repeat from a previous post)

SpaceX has a long way to go before any humans will be taking a ride on Falcon 9.

Falcon 1 has failed 3 out of 5 flights. Even if you discount those failures with an optimistic 80% fix factor (i.e. design changes that mitigate the same failure in the future), the demonstrated reliability is only 0.88. That means that in the near future you can expect 1 out of 8 flights to end in failure.

The Falcon 9 first stage is an order of magnitude more complex than Falcon 1 and accounts for at least half of the overall vehicle LOM probability. That means the probability of failure is about 5 times greater than Falcon 1, which yields a mission reliability of 0.6! Therefore, you can expect about 4 of the first 10 missions to end in failure. For reference, the Shuttle has had only 1 ascent failure in nearly 130 mission (Columbia failed on reentry). I don't know about others, but I would not bet my life on the flip of a coin.

I'm not faulting SpaceX. Their success record is similar to development projects in the 50s and 60s. Over time, Falcon 9 will experience reliability growth, but that growth will depend on the amount of money spent on test development and numerous test-fail-fix cycles. The large commercial incumbents have quite an advantage over SpaceX in this arena as they are building upon decades (over 50 years) of development, corporate knowledge, and heritage practices. Recruiting a few experts and a bunch of young kids to build some impressive hardware with a boatload of NASA money is easy. Achieving high reliability takes time, money, and a conscious commitment to doing so. I don't think SpaceX will be so cheap when they realize what it takes to achieve high reliability.

@kellymcdonald78

'Time between first announcement of Falcon 9 (2004) and planned first launch (2010) 6 years.
Time between first announcement of Aries I (2005) and planned first flight (2012-2013-2014???) 7-8-9 years.
If SpaceX is going at a Snail's pace, what would you call Cx???'

In all fairness, Aries I is a vehicle with more capability than Falcon (and uses more advanced technology, too). One wouldn't expect them to have identical development times.

Not that I'm dumping on Falcon 9, I'm very interested in it, and hope it succeeds.

"In all fairness, Aries I is a vehicle with more capability than Falcon (and uses more advanced technology, too). One wouldn't expect them to have identical development times."

Interesting, considering the SRB was designed in the 1970s and Ares I was marketed from the beginning as "Safe, Simple, Soon."

Interesting also, that the cost for the Ares I-X test _alone_ surpassed the money SpaceX has spent, in totality, to date. I don't know that for a fact but feel pretty safe in saying it.

"Interesting also, that the cost for the Ares I-X test _alone_ surpassed the money SpaceX has spent"

Well, at least Ares I-X had a live 2nd stage unlike this paper rocket.

Oh, wait.

What??? EELVs are going to Chapter 11? Where did you get that idea from?

ULA (Boeing & LockMart) developed Delta 4 and Atlas 5 for the Air Force. They *do not need* NASA business to stay in business. NASA uses the Atlas 5 and eventually, the Delta 4. Atlas 5 is the best, most reliable rocket in the world.

ULA will likely benefit from the Obama plan, because their rockets have a proven track record and high reliability. They could be man rated and start flying "human cargo" a lot faster than Ares-1 would have flown.

@punder

'"In all fairness, Aries I is a vehicle with more capability than Falcon (and uses more advanced technology, too)."

Interesting, considering the SRB was designed in the 1970s'

There's more to Ares I (blast, I keep typing Aries - my mind can't wrap myself around a rocket named 'Ares' :-) than SRB segments. Like the upper stage, which is hydrogen-oxygen. Note that both stages of Falcon are kerosene-oxygen - definitely an older, less-advanced technology.

Not that I am at all dumping on the SpaceX people for going with kerosene. As an engineering decision, once you look into it in detail, and run the numbers, it may well be the right call for their particular circumstances.

For instance, the benefits of hydrogen-oxygen are bigger for upper stages (which is part of why the Saturn 5 had a kerosene-oxygen first stage, and hydrogen-oxygen upper stages). As a startup operation, I'd probably stay away from the more complex cryo needed for hydrogen-oxygen, too. And again, as a startup, the added complexity of different fuel systems (and therefore engines) on the first and second stage would also be something I'd avoid. Etc, etc, etc.

I just find it extremely ironic that people can criticize Ares for being 'old technology', and seemingly be unaware that one of the favoured alternatives is even less advanced technology. (Again, not that that choice is necessarily bad engineering...)

Here, here Noel. Ironically enough, Orbital is using 40 year old engines for the Taurus II. No seriously, mothballed NK-33s right from the Soviet moon program. That's commercial innovation.

Kerosene (RP-1) is the *best* fuel for first stages. The Russians know it, we know it. Hydrogen is too "thin" and packs much less punch, it makes the fuel tank much bigger than if it was RP-1

Space X designed and built a RP-1 engine, in-house. They developed a second stage, vacuum engine that uses RP-1 also. They probably chose it, to keep a single fuel for both stages. Hydrogen would have been a better choice but the fuel commonality probably proved the winner in a trade study.

They use nine engines in the first stage, and they claim it can tolerate a single engine shut down and accomplish the mission.

The Ares-1 abomination uses solid fuel which cannot be shut down, plus it makes for a rougher ride than liquid engines. Components must be qualified to sustain the increased shock and vibration environment.

Solid motors have a niche as booster for the early part of the flight, trying to make the entire 1st stage solid was a big mistake by Mike Griffin and his buddies at ATK.

But, the best rocket in the market is the Atlas V. John Glenn flew in an Atlas just fine. I would strap myself to an Atlas V, before any other. With time, I will likely feel the same way about Falcon 9.

@skinny

'Space X ... developed a second stage, vacuum engine'

I think it's the same engine with a different bell, no?

'solid fuel which cannot be shut down'

So, remind me again - how many liquid-fueled manned boosters have been shut down after liftoff?

'the best rocket in the market is the Atlas V. John Glenn flew in an Atlas'

The A-5 is a nice rocket, but it's not Glenn's Atlas. I'm not sure there's anything in common.

Speaking of the A-5, does anyone know why they dropped the pressurized tank structural concept? That always seemed such an elegant engineering idea, and gave them a fuel/structure mass ratio which I think was never matched...

"I think it's the same engine with a different bell, no?"

MVac has much commonality with the Merlin, but they're not totally identical engines. It's said to be a "Merlin-flavored engine".

"So, remind me again - how many liquid-fueled manned boosters have been shut down after liftoff?"

On a manned booster? Can't think of anything other than a shutdown of a single SSME on one shuttle flight. Which really doesn't belittle the point they can be shut down if necessary, on the contrary, it shows their good flight record.

"Speaking of the A-5, does anyone know why they dropped the pressurized tank structural concept?"

IIRC it was a deliberate decision as it made handling the stage easier and no common bulkhead means lower production cost I think. The RD-180 has enough performance to offset these tradeoffs.

Without some serious restructuring and consolidation they are headed to Chapter 11. They are way overpriced for the international market (75% of which belongs to Ariane, the rest to the Russians) which only leaves the U.S. government as customers. That'd be ok for them, in principle, but Space-X and Orbital are moving in fast. In my view it's not fast enough to fill in the gap in human launches, but over a decade they're definitively going to take over most of ULA's business launching satellites to Earth Orbit.

The only way out for ULA, even after restructuring, is to launch Orion for NASA and DoD payloads too large for Falcon-9.

Don't kid yourself to the contrary.

Hey Noel,

Liquid fuel engines can be commanded to shut down, while the abort system pulls the crew capsule away from the vehicle. Solids cannot do that. That's why the Shuttle's Return to Launch Site (RTLS) could not be initiated until the boosters are burned out and jettisoned. That is the crux of the problem with solids vs liquid engines.

Regarding Atlas V, it is the new and improved Atlas that John Glenn flew in... The "balloon" tank was structurally unable to hold it's own weight, which was a huge problem during ground processing. In fact, at least one booster got destroyed because it accidentally lost it's pressure... it folded and crumpled like a Coke can!

Again, I have worked with ULA (and formerly, LockMart) and they are IMHO the most capable engineering outfit in the US. They will be able to man-rate the Atlas V, no problem. A bigger question is the RD-180 Russian engine. Again, it's the best RP-1 engine there is. P&W has an agreement with the Russians to produce the engine in the US, BUT, it will be a lot more expensive than the Russian made and some question the ability to match the Russians' outstanding metallurgical prowess. They can weld Titanium better than anyone else in the world. I personally do not have a problem with Russian engines... heck we put our astronauts in *whole* Russian rockets. What's the difference?

Falcon-9 and Delta-IV become the only two U.S. launch vehicles in production.

Why would that be a problem?