Posted on 12/09/2005 3:03:11 PM PST by tricky_k_1972
PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, December 8, 2005
Source: SpaceX
The new launch date is approximately December 20, depending on when the Missile Defense Agency testing is complete. As soon as we have a firm time, it will be posted here.
On November 26, 2005, the fist SpaceX launch attempt was scrubbed. As SpaceX CEO Elon Musk stated during a pre-launch press conference, the likelihood of an all new rocket launching from an all new launch pad on its first attempt is low. The reason for the delay was an auxiliary liquid oxygen (LOX) fill tank had a manual vent valve incorrectly set to vent. The time it took to correct the problem resulted in significant LOX boiloff and loss of helium, and it was the latter that caused the launch abort. LOX is used to chill the helium bottles, so we lose helium if there is no LOX to cool the bottles. Although we were eventually able to refill the vehicle LOX tanks, the rate at which we could add helium was slower than the rate at which LOX was boiling away. There was no way to close the gap, so the launch had to be called off. In addition, we experienced an anomaly with the main engine computer that required further investigation.
Liquid Oxygen
Regarding liquid oxygen (LOX) supplies, we expect to have enough on hand this time to fill the rocket four or five times over. This should account for almost any issue with a particular storage tank as well as an extended hold on the pad. We chartered a C-17 to fly two of our empty high quality LOX containers to Hawaii, sourced another high quality LOX container on Hawaii and put all three on the barge to Kwajalein. In addition, our LOX plant on Kwajalein has been repaired and is producing LOX on island again.
Many have asked how we could run out of LOX on a remote tropical island on the last launch attempt. The team tried hard to avoid it, but several issues conspired to create the problem:
Engine Computer
The engine computer reboot anomaly was definitively traced to a ground power problem. Importantly, this would have had no effect on flight, since we switch to vehicle power before the autosequence begins. The reason it cropped up at Kwajalein was that the higher load on the longer umbilical (three times longer than in prior tests) coupled with high temperatures in Kwajalein resulted in increased resistance in the ground umbilical. This was just enough to lower the voltage below minimums and cause an engine computer reset when drawing maximum power. The same max power test was repeated on internal vehicle batteries with no problem at all.
This problem has been solved by slightly increasing voltage on the ground umbilical.
SpaceX Launch Overview
On launch day, the Falcon 1 countdown to launch is expected to reach T-Zero. At that point, the hold-down clamps will release and the Falcon 1 rocket will begin its journey to orbit, accelerating to 17,000 mph (twenty-five times the speed of sound) in less than ten minutes.
Designed from the ground up by SpaceX, Falcon 1 is a two stage rocket powered by liquid oxygen and purified, rocket grade kerosene. The Falcon 1 launch will make history for several reasons:
The maiden flight will take place from the Kwajalein Atoll of the Marshall Islands. The customer for this mission is DARPA and the Air Force and the payload will be FalconSat-2, part of the Air Force Academy's satellite program that will measure space plasma phenomena, which can adversely affect space-based communications, including GPS and other civil and military communications. The target orbit is 400 km X 500 km (just above the International Space Station) at an inclination of 39 degrees.
On November 26, 2005, the fist SpaceX launch attempt was scrubbed. As SpaceX CEO Elon Musk stated during a pre-launch press conference, the likelihood of an all new rocket launching from an all new launch pad on its first attempt is low.
The reason for the delay was an auxiliary liquid oxygen (LOX) fill tank had a manual vent valve incorrectly set to vent. The time it took to correct the problem resulted in significant LOX boiloff and loss of helium, and it was the latter that caused the launch abort. LOX is used to chill the helium bottles, so we lose helium if there is no LOX to cool the bottles. Although we were eventually able to refill the vehicle LOX tanks, the rate at which we could add helium was slower than the rate at which LOX was boiling away. There was no way to close the gap, so the launch had to be called off. In addition, we experienced an anomaly with the main engine computer that requires further investigation and was arguably reason in and of itself to postpone launch. Viewing for Media on Launch Day
The live feed of this historic launch will be available to the media at SpaceX Headquarters in El Segundo, CA – five minutes south of Los Angeles International Airport. Media check-in will begin at 12:00 p.m. PST on launch day. The launch window is 1 – 5 p.m. (PST). Food and beverages will be made available.
To attend the launch viewing event, media must contact SpaceX at 310-414-6555 ext 283 or news@spacex.com. Please provide full name, affiliation, citizenship and date of birth.
Media not able to attend may listen and ask questions through a moderated telephone conference line. The toll free conference dial-in number is (866) 209-6438. The international access dial-in number is (865) 297-1127. Please contact SpaceX for the participant code to join the media viewing event.
Still photos and videos of the launch will be made available to the public on www.spacex.com within a couple of hours of the launch.
I was reading through this article and the thought struck me: Who in the world manufactures purified rocket grade kerosene?
I can see the cocktail party conversation already:
"What do you do for a living?"
"Well, I manufacture and distribute rocket grade kerosene."
"Cool."
What's the significance of hydrocarbons? Is it greater efficiency?
Got me, maybe some others will stop by and answer that one.
Yeah, Kerosene is a lot easier to handle than liquid hydrogen. It's also a lot denser and requires smaller fuel tanks.
What is up with this?
From what I remember, the engines are recovered and reusable, other than that I am unsure what else is.
The specific impulse is lower, theoretically you get more from lox-hydrogen combustion, but Kerosene's density virtually makes up for it's lower specific impulse. Also the practical aspects of easier handling and smaller fuel tanks make it an overall better fuel than liquid hydrogen.
"What's the significance of hydrocarbons?"
Of the two primary fuels of choice for liquid rockets, the Falcon uses kerosene (hydrocarbon) rather that hydrogen (non-hydrocarbon).
First stages usually use high-density (low volume) propellants to reduce the amount of volume exposed to atmospheric drag.
The Apollo-Saturn V first stage used kerosene-liquid oxygen rather than the liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen used on the upper stages because hydrogen is highly energetic per kilogram, but not per cubic metre.
The Space Shuttle uses high-thrust, high-density SRBs for its lift-off with the liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen engines used partly for lift-off but primarily for orbital insertion.
From the Wiki (rocket fuel):
dense propellant launch vehicles have a higher takeoff mass, but this does not mean a proportionately high cost; on the contrary, the vehicle may well end up cheaper. Liquid hydrogen is quite an expensive fuel to produce and store, and causes many practical difficulties with design and manufacture of the vehicle.
Because of the higher overall weight, a dense-fuelled launch vehicle necessarily requires higher takeoff thrust, but it carries this thrust capability all the way to orbit. This, in combination with the better thrust/weight ratios, means that dense-fuelled vehicles reach orbit earlier, thereby minimizing losses due to gravity drag. Thus, the effective delta-v requirement for these vehicles are reduced.
However, liquid hydrogen does give clear advantages when the overall mass needs to be minimised; for example the Saturn V vehicle used it on the upper stages; this reduced weight meant that the dense-fuelled first stage could be made proportionately smaller, saving quite a bit of money.
I believe the 6.7 million pays for the launch, rocket and everything. Musk has maintained that the 6.7 million covers everything and returns a profit. From what I understand, the range costs are the biggest cost of a rocket, transporting it to the launch site, getting all of the neccessary permits etc. are the largest component of the cost, the construction of the rocket itself is only a fraction of the range costs. The fuel costs don't even rate a mention in the overall cost.
The second largest contributor to costs are insurance costs, I don't know what Musk is doing with his rockets in regards to that. He may be self insuring instead of relying on conventional insurance carriers, this would save a lot on insurance costs.
So if that's the case, then there should plenty of room for further reductions in cost as time goes on, as there begins to be more of a streamlined infrastructure for this sort of thing, is that a fair assessment?
I sure hope so, these things are more related to regulation rather than technology, but if Musk can change the mindset with more reliable rockets, then the sluggish government can relent on the regulations and costs will fall to where they really should be.
His rockets will create a revolution in terms of cost, I just hope he can have a few successful launches and the sluggish, expensive markets that the big aerospace companies have profited from since the space age began will be replaced by these new alt-space companies competing to drive costs down.
"What is most of the money used up on in a launch"
Deployment costs, recovery of initial engineering and misc. costs and hopefully some profit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
