SpaceX Plans To Be Top World Rocket Maker - Polidicks

[RELEASE] [URL=http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/08/08/AW_08_08_2011_p27-354586.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Plans%20To%20Be%20Top%20World%20Rocket%20Maker]Aviation Week - California-based SpaceX is ramping up plans to become the world’s largest producer of rocket engines in less than five years, manufacturing more units per year than any other single country.[/URL] [QUOTE]Outlining SpaceX’s ambitious growth strategy, President *Gwynne Shotwell says a production increase is aimed at supporting the assembly of engines for the coming flurry of Falcon 1 and 9 launches. The company also continues to bolster its workforce, passing the 1,500-employee mark for the first time at the start of August after seeing a 50% uptick in payroll last year. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]“We have built about 60 engines so far this year, and will build another 40 by year-end,” says Shotwell. Speaking at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Joint Propulsion Conference here, Shotwell explains that the eventual “plan is to build up to 400 engines per year, that’s our target.” The expansion is built on booked revenues of $3 billion through 2017, part of which was earned by orders for 14 new Falcon 9 launches placed “within the last year,” she says. SpaceX is also “negotiating three more right now,” she adds. The launch manifest lists 40 sold flights, including 33 Falcon 9s, plus five options. Describing the planned launch of its second test Dragon spacecraft as its “top priority,” Musk says the current plan calls for the third Falcon 9 launch vehicle to place the Dragon in orbit from where it will rendezvous and berth with the ISS on Dec. 9. The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) flight is required to clear the way for the first of 12 regular cargo delivery flights ordered under the $1.6 billion Commercial Resupply Services contract NASA awarded the company in 2008. Following the COTS flight, SpaceX’s focus will shift to convincing the U.S. Air Force and National Reconnaissance Office that the Falcon 9 can provide a competitive alternative to United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V and Delta IV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles. “That’s our next big priority after ISS,” says Musk, who notes that the company recently began construction of its Falcon Heavy launch site at Vandenberg AFB, Calif. The first Falcon Heavy flight is targeted for 2013. All Falcon 9 flights up to and including the sixth will be powered by the kerosene/liquid oxygen 95,000-lb.-thrust Merlin 1C, with the Merlin 1C-Vac derivative powering the upper stage. Development of the more powerful, 140,000-lb.-thrust Merlin 1D, which will equip the Falcon 9 from the seventh flight onward, is now underway. [B]Merlin 1D Details[/B] The Merlin 1D engine is designed to produce 155,000 lb. vacuum thrust and have a chamber pressure at “the sweet spot” of roughly 1,410 psia. “We’ve also increased the nozzle expansion ratio to 16 [compared with 14.5 on the Merlin 1C],” says Mueller, who adds that the initial engine “is doing better than we hoped.” The engine is designed for an Isp (specific impulse) of 310 sec. and has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 160:1. “We took structure off the engine to make it lighter. The engine we shipped [for test] to Texas was a development engine and hopefully the production engines will be even better,” he says. The 1D design incorporates many lessons learned from the earlier Merlins and is of a simpler design with an increased fatigue life. “We’ve added the ability to throttle between 70% and 100%. Currently we have to shut off two engines during ascent, and on this we will be able to throttle them all,” he says. The development will also provide the basis for a 1D-Vac version intended for the second stage of the planned Falcon Heavy. “There are no plans to build a 1E. It’s going to be a 1D with the same turbopump.” [B]Big Falcon Engine[/B] For SpaceX’s longer-term ambitions to deliver cargo and humans to Mars, Musk says plans to develop a “super-efficient, staged-combustion engine” could be made official “later this year, or early next.” Although no further details of the engine, variously known as the Raptor or BFE (Big Falcon Engine), are being revealed, the company last year showed a concept for a 150,000-lb.-thrust liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engine with an Isp of 470 sec.[/QUOTE] [B]Merlin 2[/B] [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_%28rocket_engine%29#Conceptual_future_engines]At the AIAA Joint Propulsion conference on July 30, 2010 SpaceX McGregor rocket development facility director[/URL] Tom Markusic shared some information from the initial stages of planning for a new engine. SpaceX’s Merlin 2 LOX/rocket propellant-fueled engine, capable of a projected 7,600 kN (1,700,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level and 8,500 kN (1,920,000 lbf) in a vacuum and would provide the power for conceptual super-heavy-lift launch vehicles from SpaceX, which Markusic dubbed Falcon X and Falcon XX. Such a capability would result in an engine with more thrust than the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V. [QUOTE]Slated to be introduced on more capable variants of the Falcon 9 Heavy, the Merlin 2 “could be qualified in three years for $1 billion,” Markusic says. By mid-August, the SpaceX CEO Elon Musk clarified that while the Merlin 2 engine architecture was a key element of any effort SpaceX would make toward their objective of "super-heavy lift" launch vehicles—and that SpaceX did indeed want to "move toward super heavy lift"—the specific potential design configurations of the particular launch vehicles shown by Markusic at the propulsion conference were merely conceptual "brainstorming ideas", just a "bunch of ideas for discussion." [/QUOTE] [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_X#Future_plans_and_concept_vehicles]The Falcon XX is a conceptual spaceflight launch system that would use a new conceptual Merlin 2 rocket engine designed and manufactured by SpaceX.[/URL] Multiple variants have been conceived with payloads of up to 140,000 kg to low Earth orbit placing the Falcon XX design in the super heavy-lift range of launch system. [URL=http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/spacex-talks-falcon-x-heavy-for-125.html]Falcon XX concept reviewed here last year.[/URL] [IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TFzkVV6dCTI/AAAAAAAAInE/ERQxvhPmdoo/s1600/spacexrockets.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/TFzpBY9MGwI/AAAAAAAAInU/ceCmIOLVkdM/s1600/spacexfuture2.jpg[/IMG][/RELEASE] Source: [url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/08/spacex-plans-to-be-top-world-rocket.html[/url] Please, please don't fail.

Spasextacular. If they ran for president of the world, I'd vote for them. Twice.

Hey cool, space travel is becoming more privatized. We are now in the future.

At least there's a good side to rich people still being very rich.

I'm starting to like this more and more.

Falcon XXX here we come!

Hopefully my rocket building expertise from kerbal space program will suffice for a job application.

Can't wait till [I]"SpaceX successfully changes name to Cerberus"[/I]

Space X has been awesome every since they made the falcon 9 heavy.

Shaped like a penis, only bigger and better. Funny how space/military industry works.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;31862758]Shaped like a penis, only bigger and better. Funny how space/military industry works.[/QUOTE] well a brick shaped rocket isnt very aerodynamic

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;31862758]Shaped like a penis, only bigger and better. Funny how space/military industry works.[/QUOTE] No. They nickname male genitalia "rockets". Not the other way around. Still, I am happy private rockets are being produced. Perhaps private space flight isn't so far away after all....

Yay!

I support this. I love SpaceX.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;31861639]At least there's a good side to rich people still being very rich.[/QUOTE] We need more people like Elon Musk. A lot of the really rich people don't take risks and just sit on their money. Which is fucking pointless.

How does Space X afford this and what's their main income?

[QUOTE=Canary;31863232]How does Space X afford this and what's their main income?[/QUOTE] Selling rockets?

[QUOTE=Thund3rdome;31863314]Selling rockets?[/QUOTE] Sounds profitable.

[QUOTE=Thund3rdome;31863314]Selling rockets?[/QUOTE] Who buys them and where do the buyers get their money from?

nasa never named their shit Falcon and Dragon but they definitely made better looking ships imo space x? cheese ball [editline]21st August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Canary;31863387]Who buys them and where do the buyers get their money from?[/QUOTE] didn't you learn anything from ironman?

[QUOTE=Canary;31863387]Who buys them and where do the buyers get their money from?[/QUOTE] Companies that need something into orbit.

Company needs a satellite? SpaceX

The only thing I want before I die is to see a 0 gravity porno.

[QUOTE=Canary;31863232]How does Space X afford this and what's their main income?[/QUOTE] Elon Musk was the co-founder of PayPal and they launch satellites into orbit for companies and the military.

They sell launch capacity to satellite companies and have an arrangement to put one of Bigelow's space hotels by 2014. I like Bigelow. They have plans for a Lunar hotel and everything.

Y'know, all these multi-stage Saturn-styled rockets are cool, and seem affordable, but when do you think SpaceX'll start constructing their own reusable shuttle-styled ships like the ones NASA did? Or are there certain flaws with the concept of a shuttle craft, like it's more massive than the current manned modules? Probably design the shuttle so that it uses one of those fancy rocket sled mechanisms, although that would require a good enough mountain to avoid the cost of building a supermassive ramp... Regardless, I hope that in a few decades they construct a shipyard used to construct spaceships in L.E.O, so that we only need the shuttles to get to the Orbital Starport.

[QUOTE=ironman17;31864435]Y'know, all these multi-stage Saturn-styled rockets are cool, and seem affordable, but when do you think SpaceX'll start constructing their own reusable shuttle-styled ships like the ones NASA did? Or are there certain flaws with the concept of a shuttle craft, like it's more massive than the current manned modules? Probably design the shuttle so that it uses one of those fancy rocket sled mechanisms, although that would require a good enough mountain to avoid the cost of building a supermassive ramp... Regardless, I hope that in a few decades they construct a shipyard used to construct spaceships in L.E.O, so that we only need the shuttles to get to the Orbital Starport.[/QUOTE] Elon said reusability was "super hard".

[QUOTE=Eudoxia;31864465]Elon said reusability was "super hard".[/QUOTE] The "super-hardness" is probably due to tech and cost, both of which might improve in later years. But I ask this again; would reusable shuttles be more effective than multi-stage booster rockets? I understand the old Shuttle Program used two Solid Rocket Boosters and a whopping great external fuel tank, but a shuttle deployed by a powerful enough Rocket Sled would probably be enough to fling it into orbit, wouldn't it? Or at least far enough for it to use the main engines to send it the rest of the way, if it had a big enough onboard fuel tank, with good enough fuel and the right arrangement of main engines. But i'm no rocket scientist, i'm just wondering if it'll work or not.

[QUOTE=ironman17;31864724]The "super-hardness" is probably due to tech and cost, both of which might improve in later years. But I ask this again; would reusable shuttles be more effective than multi-stage booster rockets? I understand the old Shuttle Program used two Solid Rocket Boosters and a whopping great external fuel tank, but a shuttle deployed by a powerful enough Rocket Sled would probably be enough to fling it into orbit, wouldn't it? Or at least far enough for it to use the main engines to send it the rest of the way, if it had a big enough onboard fuel tank, with good enough fuel and the right arrangement of main engines. But i'm no rocket scientist, i'm just wondering if it'll work or not.[/QUOTE] Well, reusable would always be prefered, but there's the cost of bringing these things down safely. They are large, hollow bricks of metal that are supposed to vaporize on contact with the ocean. I don't think a single parachute is going to get it to land safely. It's probably a more complex thing than deploying large enough parachutes and handwaving the problem away, if they haven't done it already. And I doubt it's economical to add more boosters to send the boosters into orbit. It's already hard enough to propel tinned primates into orbit, it's cheap to just let the boosters fall. Specially when the cost of maintaining the shuttle, of disassembling, checking, testing, reworking and reassembling the whole thing after each flight. With that kind of constraints, it's just economics to let the thing get lost.

[QUOTE=Canary;31863387]Who buys them and where do the buyers get their money from?[/QUOTE] You don't know this modern life thingy very well, do you? They used to offer an IRL tutorial starting at the age of 6, but you must have missed this..