Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SpaceX Wins Intelsat Contract  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

SpaceX has won a key contract to loft an Intelsat bird with the Falcon Heavy. Their prospects are now such that one of their critics at FlightGlobal has come around. Basically, SpaceX is now cheap enough to undercut ULA and Arianespace, and is cheap enough to give people who fly on Russian or Chinese hardware a reason to stick with a Western launcher:

Links:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...CFGFG%7Ctwitterfeed%7CFlightglobal

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hy...rce=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1614 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3609 times:

Haha nice going SpaceX!!! As soon as they go public I'm buying stock!


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3560 times:

It's interesting to see a design philosophy in SpaceX that looks to be copied from the Soviets/Russians: multiple relatively low thrust chambers on each components of Falcon 9/Falcon 9 Heavy. The R-7 has a similar conceptual design. Gives you an engine out capability (or perhaps multiple engine out), and by using lower thrust (and presumably lower chamber pressure) components, I'm thinking reduced mission risk


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3550 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2):

It's interesting to see a design philosophy in SpaceX that looks to be copied from the Soviets/Russians: multiple relatively low thrust chambers on each components of Falcon 9/Falcon 9 Heavy. The R-7 has a similar conceptual design. Gives you an engine out capability (or perhaps multiple engine out), and by using lower thrust (and presumably lower chamber pressure) components, I'm thinking reduced mission risk

Well, the Russians ran into some resonance issues on some of their boosters.

I think SpaceX's intent is to use as few distinct parts as possible. Using a larger number of smaller boosters lets them use very similar engines on both the upper and lower stages.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3513 times:

^ They do have thoughts of replacing the 9 Merlin-1 engines with a single Merlin-2. Will be interesting to see where that goes.

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3477 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 4):
^ They do have thoughts of replacing the 9 Merlin-1 engines with a single Merlin-2. Will be interesting to see where that goes.

Probably more efficient, but efficiency comes with a cost. And less redundancy.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1867 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3465 times:

Engine out is a compromise. Some missions, like the one this week need all engines for the first part of the boost, meaning that they have nine times the chance of losing the mission then. Part of the reason for the Merlin was to have a common engine with the Falcon 1 before it was put in the closet.
When the run out of M1Cs and start with the M1Ds they should have more slack on most missions.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2353 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 2):
It's interesting to see a design philosophy in SpaceX that looks to be copied from the Soviets/Russians: multiple relatively low thrust chambers on each components of Falcon 9/Falcon 9 Heavy. The R-7 has a similar conceptual design. Gives you an engine out capability (or perhaps multiple engine out), and by using lower thrust (and presumably lower chamber pressure) components, I'm thinking reduced mission risk

Only partially. The RD-107s (and derivatives), are clusters of four combustion chambers and expansion nozzles driven off one set of turbopumps. In general they can't fail independently. The reason for the somewhat odd design is difficulties with combustion instability in a larger combustion chamber (this was a major issue on the F-1). So an R-7 is really a five engine rocket, not the 20 it appears to be. Plus four of those are in the boosters, which drop off while the core stack continues.

The nine Merlin-1s on the Falcon-9 are nine truly independent engines.

The eight H-1s of the S-I and S-1B Saturn stages are probably closer.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic SpaceX Wins Intelsat Contract
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bell Wins ARH Contract posted Sat Jul 30 2005 02:24:35 by CTR
Finmeccanica Wins A Contract For 48 M-346 To EAU posted Wed Feb 25 2009 08:10:59 by 777
SpaceX & Orbital Sciences Win Nasa Cargo Contract posted Tue Dec 23 2008 15:13:02 by Tugger
CNN: Boeing Wins USAF Anti-Missile Contract posted Wed Feb 27 2008 16:32:44 by AirRyan
Boeing Wins Ares I Upper Stage Contract posted Wed Aug 29 2007 01:17:31 by Thorny
U.S. Grants SpaceX Cargo Ship Prototype Contract posted Fri Oct 13 2006 17:03:33 by AerospaceFan
EADS Wins US Helicopter Contract posted Sat Jul 1 2006 07:32:13 by BHMBAGLOCK
Oint Consortia Bid Wins Galileo Satellite Contract posted Mon Jun 27 2005 18:44:28 by Airbuzz
Usaf Cancels Contract For Super Tucanos posted Tue Feb 28 2012 14:16:29 by voar
SpaceX Goes To ISS - COTS2/3 Launch Date posted Fri Dec 9 2011 10:57:55 by ZANL188

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format