I have it on good word that SpaceX successfully tested the engine that powers their rocket, the Falcon 1. They fire the engine with the rocket essentially strapped down so it doesn’t launch. This is called a static test or static firing, and it went very smoothly. Unfortunately, no video is available (the image above is from an old test).
SpaceX is a start-up private space launch company helmed by Elon Musk– one of the cofounders of PayPal. Last year, almost to the very day, they attempted to launch the first Falcon 1 rocket, but the rocket was lost. A corroded nut allowed a fuel leak which doomed the rocket.
However, extensive testing should avoid that and other problems. We can hope! The actual launch of the Falcon 1 rocket is planned to be soon, but no date has yet been released. It’ll probably be next week sometime.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Cool photo. Any idea what’s going on with that smaller flame below the big one?
March 15th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
That’s probably to burn any leaked gases. The Shuttle has a similar system to make sure any bad gas gets burned off.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I’m used to be very optimistic about the future of space flight in my lifetime. While I applaud the people working on this, I think I might just miss the opportunity to pay a modest price to reach space. Think about it, the O-ring debacle, falling foam, and a corroded nut. I’m no engineer, but I predict that widespread commercial space flight will not occur until these things do not lead to catastrophic failures. Ahh, just ignore me, I’m just jealous that I’m not involved.
March 16th, 2007 at 1:05 am
That smaller flame is actually a water jet that’s dousing the concrete. The light from the plume is being reflected in it.
March 16th, 2007 at 2:41 am
“The Shuttle has a similar system to make sure any bad gas gets burned off.”
Some days I need one of those. Damned digestive tract.
“That smaller flame is actually a water jet that’s dousing the concrete. The light from the plume is being reflected in it.”
That makes sense. The hose appears to run off away from the engine, which is consistent with that idea.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:52 am
SpaceX also announced new design details of their Dragon capsule this week. It is supposed to have two configurations – cargo and crewed – and is to be launched on their Falcon 9 rocket.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Good to hear they are still at it, I wish them good luck
March 16th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Are you sure the small jet is water deluge? Where is the exhaust from the gas generator? That’s what I thought it was at first glance.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:19 am
If you click on the second “engine firing” image at eh link below, it looks more like a water deluge.
http://www.spacex.com/photo_gallery.php
March 16th, 2007 at 7:50 am
Yep, the concrete needs the protection from the heat, provided by the water flood, or it spalls (explodes) as the water in the concrete turns to steam.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:47 am
After SpaceX has done all they need to make their rockets reliable, they’ll likely end up with a Saturn 5.
After 40 years of building rockets, MArtin MArietta, Rockwell, etc still have failures.
The point of this diatribe is that the new kids on the block are trying to do cheap space access with old technology( and I’m not referring to new materials tech.) Rockets are old tech. You’re not going to get around the limitations of rockets by going to cheap construction techniques. Rusted bolts are the least of your problems. The ONLY way to access space more cost effectively is to go to a totally new technology, such as mag launchers, ground based laser launchers or space elevators.
,,,or maybe something really way out and not yet dreamed of,,,come on new kids, break the paradigm,,,I’m waiting…
Gary 7
March 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Ah, it does indeed look like a water dousing system. Thanks for the tip Adrasteia.
And hey, the Shuttle uses a water deluge as well… but to help muffle the sound from the engines. So I was still close, but for the utterly wrong reason.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Gary, don’t be so sure. The advantage of old tehcnology is that it is well understood (at least in basic terms), while with totally new technology you still have to figure out what will in the future be the most basic principles that every child will know.
Most of the most modern technology we have nowadays has its roots in inventions made 50 or 100 years ago.
Also, you shoudl not underestimate the effect of modern electronics on space-flight. The Blackbird stablished a speed record in 1969, but modern planes are loaded with electronics that allow them to funciton better than their predecessors for less money, and modern cars with electronically controlled engines get milaeges that put older cars to shame.
Who knows? At the least we may be able to get to the point where a launches still fail but don’t cost 100 million dollars when they do.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Gary: Consider that while the early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Yep, I too will miss the “cheap ticket to space” – should it ever happen. My age isn’t the only factor; given the current state of the economy and the tendency of our form of capitalism/government to make billionaires waay faster than mere “cattle car” fare payers, I doubt that many others will be able to afford that tourist space ride as well.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
As long as we’re capitalising space research by shooting pop stars into space, I’m all for it. I don’t really see the risk as being all that substantial.
March 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Thats is water being sprayed on the ground with 2 1inch fire hoses to keep the cement from cracking turing testing.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Now wait a sec. Spacexjim, with a name like that you gotta give more. You work for SpaceX?
March 16th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
The Bad Astronomer Says: “That’s probably to burn any leaked gases. The Shuttle has a similar system to make sure any bad gas gets burned off.”
BAd gas! BAd! No star for you!
Ahem.
The system for the shuttle to burn of any ambient hydrogen that might be floating around is not another rocket motor, it’s all those “sparklers” you see in the closeup of the main engines at ME start.
XRayDog Says: “Are you sure the small jet is water deluge? Where is the exhaust from the gas generator? That’s what I thought it was at first glance.”
The exhaust from the pump turbines isn’t always (if ever) a luminescent jet. It also doesn’t appear to have any connections to the engine (i.e. propellant pump inlets and outlets), just some hoses.
I believe that what we’re seeing is a cooling spray to protect the test area from the exhaust heat that’s being illuminated by the exhaust plume. The big NASA and Air Force test sites either hung the test engines way up in the air, or pointed them out over a canyon.
The water deluge under the shuttle is not for cooling, but to absorb the acoustic energy that would otherwise be reflected off of the pad and shake pieces off of the vehicle stack. This is another Hermann Oberth idea that von Braun incorporated into the Saturn V design. If you watch “Die Frau im Mond” you’ll see that the Frede is actually submerged over halfway into a pool at engine start!
- Jack
March 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Jack, I said a “similar” system. I should have been specific, but I was just making a passing comment.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Gary,
Other methods of space launch would be nice…. but they really aren’t feasible and many of them probably never will be – for manned flight at least. A rocket gets a good long time to accelerate to orbital velocity and can therefore do so at G loads that won’t turn a human into jelly. A railgun or magnetic launch system would not have that option. You might be able to get a launcher 3 or 4 miles in length – maybe. Acceleration from a standstill to orbital velocity (assuming an orbit alt. of 300km – similar to the Shuttle) in 4 miles would impart a load of about ~580g over about .6 seconds(so sayeth the back o’the napkin). 580G does VERY bad things to the internal organs and skeletal system of humans. In order to have a railgun type launch system that wouldn’t reduce a human to goo and actually allow them to survive the trip (say a 9g load) it would have to be somewhere around 380Km long….
So, not too terribly feasable – and this doesn’t even take into account atmospheric drag and friction heating- which would be a real problem when you accelerate a vehilce to 7.7KM/sec at ground level. I suspect you’d have to go quite a bit faster than 7.7KM per sec to achieve a 300KM orbit due to that drag. I suggest you not roll the window for Fido to stick his head out…