Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Ye Olde Rocket Forum (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/index.php)
-   FreeForAll (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   SpaceX F9 Engine Test (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showthread.php?t=8180)

CPMcGraw 12-03-2010 03:21 PM

SpaceX F9 Engine Test
 
Did anyone watch this morning's engine test? For that matter, did anyone get to watch the test without the broadcast breaking up horribly?

FWIW, SpaceX is announcing a Dec 7 (Tuesday) launch date for this first Dragon capsule flight. Now that the shuttle has been delayed to no-earlier-than Feb 3, I guess there's no reason to hold the Falcon down any longer.

CPMcGraw 12-03-2010 04:12 PM

SpaceX reports they aborted the static fire 1.1 seconds into the 2-second test due to excess pressure in one of the nine main engines.

A second static fire may be made tomorrow.

pantherjon 12-04-2010 07:20 AM

Plan is to do the attempt at 9AM EST..

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/status.html

CPMcGraw 12-04-2010 10:30 AM

Dang, missed it! :mad:

They had a first-attempt abort at 9:30, and recycled for a second attempt within 30 minutes.

From Spaceflight Now:

Quote:
The abort at 9:30 a.m. EST was due to low pressure in the gas generator of Engine No. 6, the same engine that triggered yesterday's abort.


The second attempt went off and appears to have been successful.

tbzep 12-04-2010 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CPMcGraw
Dang, missed it! :mad:

They had a first-attempt abort at 9:30, and recycled for a second attempt within 30 minutes.

From Spaceflight Now:



The second attempt went off and appears to have been successful.


Yep, with a burn time about the same as a D12.

Ironnerd 12-04-2010 12:56 PM

I still have mixed feelings about Falcon. I do, however, want to see it succeed. More options in launch vehicles *should* be a good thing.

There is some "smartness" in its design. A single engine type. Same tooling and materials for both stages.

Is Falcon still reusable? I read on their web site a while back that it was, but don't see it mentioned anymore.


blackshire 12-04-2010 01:44 PM

Earlier this year, I sent SpaceX copies of two editions of Dennis R. Jenkins' engineering histories of the Space Shuttle (I provided him with copies of a few of the photographs and contractor illustrations that are in the latest edition, Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System; The First 100 Missions, see: http://www.amazon.com/Space-Shuttle...s/dp/0963397451 ), which include information and illustrations on the earlier Shuttle design proposals.

I suggested to SpaceX that a suitably-sized version of the General Dynamics FR-3 reusable booster design (a cylindrical craft with a "V"-tail and cruise missile-like deployable wings, see: http://www.nss.org/resources/librar...n/chapter05.htm [a little ways down the "screen-page," in the 1969 Phase A design proposals section]) would be useful as a "glove" airframe into which a Falcon 9 first stage could fit. As with the original General Dynamics FR-3 booster design, the stowed wings would allow the boosters to be clustered in parallel around a large upper core stage as well as being used singly with a belly-mounted upper stage (General Dynamics did in fact propose this multiple-FR-3 booster configuration for a heavy-lift launch vehicle).

Another early reusable Shuttle booster design I suggested to them was the fixed-wing, catamaran booster from Martin Marietta's Spacemaster vehicle (see: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/spaaster.htm ). A version of the booster airframe sized to accommodate two Falcon 9 first stages could also be built as a "glove" structure. Like the X-37B (which landed at Vandenberg AFB yesterday!), all of these reusable winged boosters could be robotically guided back to a runway.

CPMcGraw 12-04-2010 04:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironnerd
I still have mixed feelings about Falcon. I do, however, want to see it succeed. More options in launch vehicles *should* be a good thing.

There is some "smartness" in its design. A single engine type. Same tooling and materials for both stages.

Is Falcon still reusable? I read on their web site a while back that it was, but don't see it mentioned anymore.


Technically, Falcon 1 and 9 are both recoverable, and I believe the basic design incorporates a parachute system. None of the Falcons that flew carried this package, however. The first F9 broke up before the recovery crew could reach it, and it is not clearly said anywhere if this break up occurred in the air, or upon impact.

I'm OK with Falcon 9 being another "Cluster's Last Stand". The Soyuz is either a five-engine cluster, or a twenty, depending on whether those engines are independent turbos or a unified four-chamber single-turbo setup like the RD-180 and RD-0124. Even the Sat-1B was an eight-engine cluster, which is where the above phrase came from.

What I would like to see is an American company (like SpaceX) develop independently an engine of the same style and class as those Russian engines. A single RD-170 produces the same thrust as the eight engines of the Sat-1B, and its derivative (RD-171) is used in the Zenit. They have one major feature that the older engines could not match - throttle capability down to 30%.

Ironnerd 12-05-2010 12:40 PM

AOL NEWS ARTICLE

For most of us this is all a bit obvious. We all know the ISS is a space lab with people on board, and that Columbia broke up during re-entry, and that President Obama put the skids on the Ares I (even though NASA is still building the thing, and its associated facilities).


On the subject of winged space vehicles... I give them credit for looking really cool, but every gram of wing structure (and associated control systems), a one less gram of useful payload. A lifting body is somewhat better, but there are sill flight controls and a payload bay with door actuators and heavier structure (doors = added weight). I really think that Dragon is the best solution. The "Trunk" can carry all the stuff that doesn't need air, and the capsule brings back the high-dollar stuff like people. But if, tomorrow, a company launched a Lockheed Star Clipper, (LINK ) I would cheer like crazy and hope it worked like the shuttle was supposed to.

I own the book about the Space Shuttle's history. When you look at how it became what it is, it's not surprising that it doesn't do all that was promised.

blackshire 12-05-2010 10:17 PM

I think there are places for the less efficient (in terms of payload mass delivered to orbit) winged reusable spacecraft as well as for the more efficient (but expendable) ballistic missile-derived launch vehicles. It all depends on what is more important to a given mission or space industry sector. In some cases operational flexibility and the ability to return substantial payloads are more important, while in other cases sheer payload mass or higher orbits (or escape velocities) are the driving requirements.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.