Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Announces Bigger Rocket
bullitB writes "SpaceX, a commercial developer of rocket systems, has announced a new Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class rocket. Dubbed the Falcon 9, the rocket will be able to launch nearly 25 metric tons into low earth orbit for a mere $78 million. It looks like they have already signed up Bigelow Aerospace for a launch in 2008."
Go die somewhere.
I thought they were supposed to launch their smaller rocket in May? The technology sounds cool (I saw the rocket in the spring actually in LA), but its been oft delayed. I wish we could just see it fly.
If I did my math right ($1500/pound), that means that even individuals could afford to put a tiny satellite in orbit. That could mean a huge increase in the amount of junk orbiting the planet. Given that NASA now has to track even quite small objects; what a nusance for them.
Perhaps an inability to get it up?
"According to the company statement, SpaceX has sold Falcon 9 to a U.S. government customer. SpaceX still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007."
If nothing else, SpaceX is having a problem keeping it up when people talk about them (it?), in a slashing manner.
... in a very boring way.
While not grabbing the headlines the way the X-Prize and specifically, Burt Rutan and later Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic did (and do), SpaceX has started to very quietly put togehter what looks like the first credible competition to the entrenched commercial space industry as it now stands.
Even though they have suffered setbacks of late and therefore, haven't launched a rocket to space yet, it looks like they've got all the technology there to do so. They've also got Pentagon contracts, which means that they've got the backing to cut through the red tape.
If SpaceX is successful, it will force Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Arienespace (and to an extent, Russian rocket mfgs) to really rethink their development and pricing strategy.
"So what, they're not manned?" I get your point. But if they can REALLY LAUNCH 25,000kg to space for $78m dollars by the end of the decade, it will mean that suddenly, we'll have a price-competitive launch industry. I'm talking companies undercutting each other price wise, speeding up development of better, bigger rockets, and actually, maybe, being innovative with rocket and satellite development. It could even spark the kind of rapid progress we saw in aviation in the 1910's.
Suddenly, there's competition in space for the first time since the US and Russia in the 1960's.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for passenger spaceflight, but SpaceX is putting together interesting technology at good prices that could spark the kind of 'rapid evolution' that the industry needs, filling an existing market with a much cheaper product. It'll be exciting to see where they go with this new design, and if they can actually pull it off in just a couple years.
Tim
It's time we started getting serious about space exploration and developing an infrastructure to expand. Earth is getting more crowded every year, and while colonization of other worlds may not be a practical answer, industrialization of, say, the Asteroid Belt may provide a lot of resources. Space-based solar power, constructed with the plentiful materials available in space, might help make life down here easier.
Capitalism isn't the answer to everything, but I'm hoping SpaceX, Scaled Composites, and the rest are right that it's the answer to getting a real space development industry going.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
25 metric tons...does this mean we are one step closer to start launching our garbage into the sun?
"a mere $78 million"
I wish I had that kind of cash lying around.
These big rockets have been Elon Musk's goal all along. That's why he didn't use air launch.
Air launching has many advantages: lower atmospheric pressure improves the efficiency of engines, reduces air drag losses, greatly reduces dynamic loads, allowing the use of lighter structures. Perhaps most importantly, air launching can be done over the ocean without expensive range fees - and range delays like SpaceX is currently experiencing.
But air launch does not easily scale to large sizes. For really large rockets you have to launch from the ground.
Elon eventually plans to build a Saturn-V class launcher for for manned missions to Mars. It may seem premature when they haven't launched Falcon 1 yet, but so far they seem to be doing the right things.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
My wife just expressed interest in a scaled down version of the Falcon 9.
I wish I could consider $78,000,000 expendable
SpaceX to Tackle Fully Resusable Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 08 September 2005
04:25 pm ET
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) announced today that it will develop a Falcon 9 booster - an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class vehicle.
A key goal of SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles intended to increase the reliability and probably reduce the cost of access to space by a factor of twenty percent.
SpaceX, headquartered in El Segundo, California, is bankrolled and run by Elon Musk, a successful entrepreneur that among past activities co-founded PayPal, a leading electronic payment system.
According to a press statement detailing company plans, the Falcon 9 would be capable of launching approximately 14,000 pounds (9,500 kilograms) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 35,000 pounds (25,000 kilograms) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity "greater than any other similar launch vehicle," the SpaceX statement said.
In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 would be priced at $27 million per flight with a 5 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 9 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, making Falcon 9 probably the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide.
First booster, yet-to-fly
SpaceX initially intended to follow its first vehicle development, Falcon 1, with the intermediate class Falcon 5 launch vehicle.
But the company now explains that, in response to customer requirements for low cost enhanced launch capability, SpaceX has accelerated development of an EELV-class vehicle. Therefore it is upgrading Falcon 5 to Falcon 9.
According to the company statement, SpaceX has sold Falcon 9 to a U.S. government customer. SpaceX still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007.
The announcement today comes at a time when the company has yet to fly its Falcon 1 booster.
The maiden launch for Falcon 1 is now scheduled for fall of this year from the SpaceX island launch complex in the Kwajalein Atoll. A second Falcon 1 mission is slated to follow a classified launch of a Titan 4 booster from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
Falconeering the future
Musk told SPACE.com that Falcon 9 is intended for three roles:
-All sizes of Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) satellites, including commercial and government customers.
-Heavy LEO satellites, which are mainly U.S. Department of Defense spacecraft.
-Resupply of the International Space Station with cargo and later crew transportation.
"The prices we are showing do not account for reusability, so I'm hopeful that we will be able to reduce costs significantly over time. Also, this is still the first generation of our propulsion technology," Musk said. The SpaceX Merlin 2 engine will benefit from a very significant thrust upgrade and also be considerably cheaper per pound of thrust than Merlin 1, he said.
"As a result, the generation of rockets based on Merlin 2 will be much cheaper per unit mass to orbit than the Falcon line, which is based on Merlin 1," Musk said.
Musk noted that the goal of SpaceX is to make Mars colonization affordable.
That means growing to super-heavy 10-plus ton lift, super-cheap and super-reliable launcher, Musk said. "Falcon 1 was the first step and Falcon 9 is the second step."
Perhaps an inability to get it up?
That's why they've signed up Bigelow Aerospace
Ask me about repetitive DNA
The website was made a few years ago by 2advanced
You probably haven't heard of them, but their portfolio is pretty impressive: AOL, Warner Brothers, Ford, Bacardi, Pittsburg Penguins, KBHome, SpaceX, and many more.
The site is definitely dated, but it's definitely a 2Advanced site.
Probably stage A - the smallest and weakest of the bunch. I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.
(For the often-clueless mods, Estes is a model rocket company. Look it up and laugh if you can. It was a joke.)
I dont think this rocket counts as big, when compared to the red-white-checked rocket in "Explorers on the Moon (The Adventures of Tintin)"
A company can start selling a package like:
What the world would have been like if this had happened when NASA promised it in the 70s... :-(
(And, yes, we have to start thinking seriously on junk in orbit.)
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Only $280,000 (roughly) to send someone (200lb) into orbit. Sweet. Now, they couldn't market this to people wanting to go into space since I doubt this covers reentry, but I imagine it could be marketed to people wanting to send other people into low-earth orbit.
I will not lower myself to using a lame-joke sig... dangit!
I will hold my breath until they have a successful Falcon I launch however.
don't forget the ton of other stuff that 200 pund person needs to survive up there. I'm personally fond breathing. But combine SpaceX with Bigelowe aerospace, that's a neat combo.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
This Project is in line with all the other ciountless Monuments of human stupidity,eG rebuilding NO below sea level.
Without really advertising it, when Musk is interviewed about a 'man-rated' version of his rocket, he merely smiles, saying it is in essence already man-rated. Engine-out safety etc.
Of course, there's no capsule designed, but I guess he doesn't (currently) see that as HIS job, he's just aiming towards cheap launchers for commercial market, and the $$$ are to be found in the satellite business, not in manned flights (yet)
But if a third party decides that, yes, lauching paying customers is a viable business-model, all that could change quickly.
20mil being the current price for spacetourists, compared to a rocket that can haul 25000kg to LEO... You can build a BIG manned capsule with that weight budget, so prices would go down markedly.
The Sunday Slashdot crowd is very mature. Not one Deuce Bigelow joke regarding the phallic shape of rockets.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Deuce Bigelow Zero-G Gigelow
If it's expendable, how does it survive long enough to breed and pass its slightly-bigger-rocket genes to the next generation?
Now that's power!
I find it highly amusing that they screwed up their units on the Falcon 9 website. They list "Thrust on liftoff: 2.85 mN (765 klbf)" What they failed to take into account is that there's a difference in metric abbreviations between Milli "m" and Mega "M". 2.85 millinewtons isn't going to lauch my cat. The reason this is amusing is because we (as engineers) are drilled from the beginning to get them accurate. Somebody should proofread it. It's also interesting that they chose to write it "klbf" instead of "kips" like is normally done.
Planetes
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promo Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitl
and I bet their other division has Duke Nukem ready to ship by then too.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I didn't see anything in the links that mentioned Bigelow...
That's, oh, one tenth of the cost of a shuttle launch these days? And can the shuttle even lift that much weight?
I just couldn't help but think launching cargo containers using Burt Rotans desent methods. With typical cargo containers trucked to a launch site, sent up, return payload with a zero deseleration speed at 60 miles ASL, then glide to a close by standard ILS airfield. This is what I'd call "Long Haul Trucking". The standard container is 20'x8.5'x8.5' and can carry 15,750kg's. To me, this is an problem worthy of a constructive solution.
their problem has been an existing launch manifest at vandenberg. there is a atlas 5 or somesuch in the way. as it has a $bn payload on top, they cannot fly. hence the relocation to the (amusingly) named ronald reagan ABM test facility of kawaljein island.
spacex have done their development right. they are using intelligent designs. they have done an awful lot of testing and simulation. they look to have a chance.
it may seem odd to actually put a commercial payload on an untested rocket, but given that nearly every launch is on virgin equipment it makes sense (discounting ariane 501, for which parts of the payload were dug out of a rainforest and displayed - some instruments were nearly reusable)
How does it ever get off the ground?
Thrust on liftoff: 2.85 mN (765 klbf)
"Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." - Roald Dahl
Horay for Bigelow, orbital jigelo!
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Butthead: "Hey Beavis..."
Beavis: "Yeah, yeah. Uh... what?"
Butthead: "I'd like to announce a bigger rocket."
Beavis: "Hehheh ehehhehee BOI-OI-OI-OING!"
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
We can't even set up substantial infrastructure in the deserts of the world (let alone under the ocean). This makes the mining of asteroids look implausible. Just because it _can_ be done doesn't mean it is practical.
This adds some fuel to something thats been banging about my head for a while, it's entirely possible I'm talking out of my arse here but it would at least be worth thinking about.
Using the specs from hubblesite.org, the falcon 9-S5 could lift a hubble sized telescope into orbit for $51, rather then sending another shuttle up to fix hubble, why not see what telescope they could build for say $100m, assuming a 5 year life rather then hubbles 20 should help cut the cost, and 15 years of technical development will make it cheaper, add in economies of scale you get when you build 5 of them and you should be able to put together something with say 80% of the capability of hubble if not more, and put 5 of them in orbit for the cost of one shuttle mission to service hubble.
Of course I could be completely wrong about what it would cost, but it would be something to think about.