Community > Forum > Bigelow's America's Space Prize > SpaceX may compete for Bigelow prize

SpaceX may compete for Bigelow prize

Posted by: Stellvia - Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:25 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 48 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
SpaceX may compete for Bigelow prize 
Author Message
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:47 pm
Posts: 7
Post    Posted on: Tue May 03, 2005 9:35 pm
I think the current delay is is due to another DoD rocket launch NOT the Falcon I and was reported on a couple of weeks ago. It may be just that they are stretching the testing out since they have more time (just speculation). The launch could even slip to the 4th quater in which case I think SpaceX will consider launching from another pad. Which I belive could be the Marshall Islands? Although I could be getting a bit mixed up about the alternative launch site. The Hobbyspace site have been reporting some of the details on this.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Wed May 04, 2005 6:29 pm
There was a small proto-Mercury capsule that was to have launched on a pre-Delta Thor launcher instead of Redstone or Atlas.

It would be rather cramped, tho'

The Air Farce hase this Ares competition--not Zubrins HLLV but a winged Delta II class booster that had its upper stages ride piggy back.

The scuttlebutt is that none of the money is to go into actual hardware--due to new Air Force restrictions. This smacks of some Druyen type blue-suits still on the Boeing payroll.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu May 05, 2005 11:07 am
Where is the relation to the topic of this thread? To which psot do yiu answer?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Fri May 06, 2005 9:49 pm
No need to be over-rigid with topics--creative thought is hampered with that. Non-goal directed research is responsible for most of the advances we have now, after all.

Hu Davis of Star Booster.com would like to have some Falcon tech for an Ares entrant BTW.

That might make for a good alliance.
Musk is certainly the most serious of the space privateers.

I just hope Boeing' bought types in the AF don't try to undermine him.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sat May 07, 2005 10:01 am
publiusr,

each thread has to be kep understandable to all readers. Each reader and especially each new reader has to enabled and to be kept enabled to easy insight into the path of debate and discussion.

This requires that each post is an answer to another post and that it is possible to detect to which post it is answering.

Especially the title has to be an information about the contents of the thread and the title always is setting the borders of the contents of posts. If something has be explained there can be another topic embedded in short but not such psosts like your previous one in this thread.

If you want to do non-goal-directed research at this board initate a new thread in a non-goal-directed section. This section is goal-directed - the goal is the America's Space Prize.

Posts with not a single relation to the title of the thread or the section are causing chaos. I recently moved a lot of topics to those sections they fitted better into than in their original section. The reason was that I had been looking for a few topics but experienced that they were undetetctable. This improved after the moves.

It is possible to split topics and this way to remove posts which have no sufficient relations to the title of the thread or to any other posts of the thread To use this possibility is a redactional measure only - to keep a thread readable.

The best section for creativity is the Technology section...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Wed May 11, 2005 9:40 pm
Missed the point again I see. The point was that over-rigid adherance was like goal directed research--where non-goal directed thinking is less rigid.

At any rate--you missed the info I had about how the Falcon good have its design in a cheap launcher.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 7:58 am
publiusr wrote:
No need to be over-rigid with topics--creative thought is hampered with that.

Creative thought is hampered by topics? What? Just start your own thread man, no need to hijack what others are discussing.

publiusr wrote:
Non-goal directed research is responsible for most of the advances we have now, after all.

Non-goal directed research is an oxymoron. Fix that (use "serendipitious") and change the word "most" to "many" and you'll be correct.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 8:50 pm
Most--many etc. I mentioned Ares because it is also a cheap booster concept--and Hu Davis of Star Booster-who worked for Apollo--and I discussed Falcon V as perhaps a good base for Ares. I wish him well.

I am just worried that Boeing my use some influence to get it hobbled. Same with Falcon proper. Thankfully John McCain uncovered the Druyen scandel. I just hope we don't see more of the same big Corporate influence working against Musk.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:01 am
SpaceX has at last posted an update on their website covering the Feb-May period.

It includes some interesting photos of their manufacturing techniques for making fuel tanks along with the statement that they have 12 Merlin engines in various stages of production that should be ready by the end of the year. I guess that means that they will be starting to fabricate Falcon V as soon as Falcon I has flown.

It seems that Falcon I will fly in August after the last Titan launch but they are still waiting for dates to be confirmed.

No news of any progress on a manned vehicle for ASP, I suppose they will wait until next year once Falcon V has flown but they reconfirm their long term goal of producing a manned vehicle and have signed an agreement with the Johnson Space Centre to share knowledge, resources and personnel with a view to resupplying the ISS.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:39 am
Hello, Andy Hill,

your guess has been a little bit assisted by an article posted under www.xprizenews.org quoting Elon Musk that he hopes to have ready Falcon V much faster once Falcon I had a successful flight. The reason for his hope was that he simply will use at Falcon V five of the engines Falcon I is using.

Since the ground tests of Falcon I have been very successful his hopes may have increased.

I will have to look for the article perhaps I think - but I currently have to look for so much articles that I fear to miss some of the searches...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:07 pm
Falcon V will have five engines--as opposed to Kistler's three. So engine out is a bit better.

I kinda wish they had focused on Falcon V first. If one of five engines burn out--the spectators won't notice it.

If your one and only Falcon I engine goes out, it will be Vanguard all over again:

"Oh what a flopnik!"


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:09 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Maastricht, The Netherlands
Post    Posted on: Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:18 am
publiusr wrote:
Falcon V will have five engines--as opposed to Kistler's three. So engine out is a bit better.

I kinda wish they had focused on Falcon V first. If one of five engines burn out--the spectators won't notice it.

If your one and only Falcon I engine goes out, it will be Vanguard all over again:

"Oh what a flopnik!"


Erm, it's simply logic. Why build a rocket with 5 engines if you can't make 1 engine to work? And again, he wants to have 0 failures, so he needs to be sure that the one-engine design should be near perfect. So if he can get a one-engine design to have almost no failures, the falcon V will be only more near to near perfect. :)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:30 pm
But you won't get to Falcon V if Falcon I blows up. With five engines you have a fudge factor--and the cost of materials is incidental. If Falcon I catos, Falcon V becomes less attractive--even though it has all kinds of engine-out.

They did have a pretty good burn on the pad--so that is something. Musk is far and away the guy to beat with regard to private spaceflight. Falcon V is in Delta II class--and a Delta II killer will really get peoples attention.

Falcon I seems easier--but a malfunction with one engine is more showy. There are more things to be worried about than simple engineering. Showmanship is one of those.

I repeat, a failure of one of one engine gets you more bad press than a failure of one of five engines.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:52 pm
Most "showy" it is to serach for and work out each error, mid´stake and so on from the beginning - regardless of how small the error or mistake - from the beginning!

This Elon Musk and SpaceX seem to be doing - and this way is the best they can beat others. They have delayed the launch from q4/2004 to Q3/2005 - because the serached for and found bugs etc. They worked with high attention it seems and with high accuracy and diligency. Their work is approaching perfection.

By a successfukl launch of the Falcon I they provide an earlier proof of their superior capabilities than by waiting longer until a Falcon V is ready.

More - they preclude each failure previous to the first launch by the Merlin engine and they are acting very very cautiously. They are close to NASA in that - but by much less manpower.

It is far better to demonstrate superior capabilities this way than by trying to impress people by impressing large vehicles.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:39 pm
Well, Falcon V is not really what I call a large launch vehicle. You can hunt hairs in new engines all you want--but mistakes still happen. I would try to improve the engine--then still have engine-out--so if an engine does go caterwhumpus, I still have four more that will probably work fine.

What is more--I test five engines at a time. When I have the bugs worked out--then I will feel comfortable enough with using only one engine--once it has flown and I am more familiar with its habits.

True--that doesn't always work either--take the N-1, for example.

Spaceship Ones engine was simple enough to where you can get away with one--it being a pressure-fed. Musk will use turbopumps and that is a whole other bunch of problems.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use