SpaceX Successful Static Fire 122
ron_ivi writes "SpaceX's website is announced that they had a "
great static fire today" where their Falcon rocket successfully had 3 seconds of thrust. Nice pictures and video of the test; and if analysis shows all was well, they'll be launching Thursday."
Rockets and Explosives (Score:5, Interesting)
It's hard to tell distances in the picture -- there could be a mile separating the two. But having these in the foreground just struck me a little bit odd.
--Lance
Re:Rockets and Explosives (Score:3, Interesting)
Parent does not appear to be flamebait (Score:3, Interesting)
In fifty years? Try twenty. (Score:4, Interesting)
On a more practical note, with the number of competing vendors and the number of technologies in play [hobbyspace.com], it's not a question of if but of how. Will the laser drives [lightcraft...logies.com] beat the chemical boosters but lose out to the space elevator?
Unless the dimwits with the guns and bombs manage to foobar our entire world, somebody's getting systems running in the next fifteen years or so. As an old L5 member I say, it's about damn time!
-Rustin
Re:Nice, but we did that in the 1950s. (Score:4, Interesting)
With three primary differences:
1. The 9-S is intended to carry up to 23% more cargo to LEO.
2. The 9-S will be man-rated with full "engine-out" features.
3. The 9-S is intended to be somewhat reusable, thus helping keep the costs down.
These sorts of features are a BIG DEAL in the rocket industry.
About 2x the price the new guys claim, but then, the Atlas is a proven product.
Tis' true. That's why we're all holding our breath to see if Musk delivers.
But the commercial launch market has collapsed. Iridium is done, and nobody wants to launch that many sats again.
I don't know where you get this idea. There have been healthy numbers of sats going up in recent years to support all kinds of network infratructures. Here's a list of past and planned launches. [skyrocket.de] Looks pretty healthy to me.
You may be thinking of the slowdown in the market caused by the loss of the Challenger. With the Shuttle out of commission, the market suddenly realized that it had no other way to get to space. Thus the commercial launch business was forced to retool to build rockets like the Delta and Atlas. Russian rockets also became popular, especially after Boeing and Lockheed started buying them up.
In any case, Musk is aiming for manned space travel. The commercial launches are a side business to help support that goal. He wants to go to Mars.
Re:How do they make it static? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:John and Elon are doing two **different** thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for the little fact that I just pointed out that he hasn't been able to get engines with nozzles and any sort of reasonable thrust behind them not to damage/destroy themselves, which is why he's working without a nozzle in the first place.
He's a tinkerer. He isn't in a race with anyone. He's said that before. He puts 1% of Id's revenue into it (not much) and then his own personal money. This is a diversion for him.
Thank you for repeating my initial point.
Peroxide's virtue is quick turnaround time and handleability.
Quick turnaround, kind of. If you want to change designs, most of the time that's going to involve your catalyst pack. Much of the time, your catalyst pack is clogged by the HTP's stabilizers. You also need to scrub anything that's ever going to touch the HTP extremely well; it's time consuming.
Handleability, definitely not. Not only is HTP horribly corrosive, not only do you have to scrub down your tanks extremely well to prevent the tiniest big of particulate contamination, not only do its stabilizers pose problems, but it also has this nasty habit of exploding: heat increases the rate of decomposition, and the faster it decomposes, the more heat it releases. Ask the sailors on the HMS Sidon and the Kursk what they think of the stability of HTP. Oh wait..
He was able to turn around engines quickly and perform quick experiements. That level of playing around and discovering truths is not available when you move to a cryogenic/pressurized oxidizer/fuel combination.
What "truths" has he discovered that weren't discovered in the 30s through 50s that haven't already been extensively discussed? My biggest critique is with those who pretend that it's a serious rocketry project when it's just a repeat of every other mistake in the book.
(IE: they may be further ahead of the game than if they started with LOX/Ethanol.
You mean, by starting with the fuel that they're *actually* going to use? What sort of rocket program would do something as silly as that?
I wish Elon well but you have to realise they are doing the same thing Boeing and LM and Raytheon have all done before. Pintle engines are old: he's not even getting that good of performance out of them.
He's pretty much optimized the economic side of it. I like his approach of partially pressure-stabilized vehicles as well: they have enough structural strength that they can be erected without having to be filled first. It makes transport a lot easier. Yet they're built light enough that they need pressure stabilization to launch, which gets you a better mass fraction.
All of the aspects of the Falcon seem to be economically optimized. Sure, they're not advancing any tech, but at least they're not playing back in the 1930s like Armadillo.
VTVL hasn't been done yet
Major distinction: VTVL to orbit hasn't been done