Regular readers know I am a big fan of SpaceX, the private company that successfully launched a rocket into orbit earlier this year. That was their Falcon 1, a small rocket that can carry a decent payload into orbit. Their next-gen rocket, the Falcon 9, is where the big payoff is; it can launch 12 tons to low-Earth orbit, or well over 4 tons to a geostationary transfer orbit (a highly elliptical path where on-board thrusters on the payload can circularize the orbit).
I just got word that the first Falcon 9 will be fully assembled at Cape Canaveral by the end of the year! Here is a shot of the first stage being lifted off the truck and prepped for "vertical integration".
 |
Very cool. They don’t say when they’ll be ready for launch, but I suspect we don’t have to wait very long. A few months? We’ll see. Until then, stay up to date at the SpaceX site!
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
According to the SpaceX website they will be launching the Dragon capsule sometime in 2009 too. That is really cool as well. Great series of pictures on the update page that culminate with the picture above too.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
If they can get the Dragon capsule up and going, then I won’t feel so bad if President Obama scales back on the Constellation program.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Yea, I really hope the commercial space companies like SpaceX really, shall I say, take off. So much potential.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Yarr. I too hope that SpaceX achieves its goals, and more. There are 3 planned test flights of Dragon in 2009/10 IIRC, with a goal of meeting NASA requirements for safety and reliability. The Falcon 9 Heavy isn’t scheduled for a while though: 2011 I believe. That configuration will be able to loft a crapload of payload into a Geo-Transfer orbit, and should have the capacity to launch (fairly lightweight) interplanetary cargo as well.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
According to Wikpedia, the Falcon 9 can launch 5 tonnes into GTO and 10 tonnes into LEO, while the Falcon 9 Heavy can launch 12 tonnes into GTO and 27.5 tonnes into LEO.
Wow:).
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
How does a 9 ton payload stack up with NASA lauches size wise? What I mean is, compared to using the shuttle or existing NASA rockets, is that a significantly large payload?
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Roulette;, the Falcon 9 can haul 12 tons. The Shuttle can haul about 22 tons to low-Earth orbit… but it costs a billion dollars per launch. For the same price, you could launch 30 Falcon 9s, or more than 350 tons.
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Roulette: The Shuttle can ferry nearly 25 tonnes to LEO, and nearly 4 tonnes to GTO. More than the Falcon 9 Standard, but less than the Falcon 9 Heavy.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Also, of the operational or currently planned rockets, only the Ares V will have more capacity than the Falcon 9 Heavy (albeit a LOT more capacity… like 6 times more). Several launchers in the past have far out-lifted the Heavy, including the Saturn V. Here’s a good page on Wikipedia that compares the various heavy launchers:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Great! The only thing that I don’t like about this is that they’re not starting off with green technology (I think? correct me if I’m wrong). I imagine it won’t be easy switching from rocket fuel to some kind of alternative energy, would it? If private companies were to make space travel more commonplace, I fear that it may just be another huge obstacle to cutting back on CO2 emissions.
Then again, maybe I’m being overly optimistic about space travel, and overly pessimistic about technology/innovation and political will in regards to alternative fuels. It WOULD be nice if they used alternative energy sources from the start though…
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Well, liquid hydrogen and oxygen can be made with any kind of power; same for powdered metals. (The Shuttle’s solid rocket boosters use aluminum.) Are any commonly used rocket fuels carbon-based? Does anybody still use kerosene or anything like that?
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
“Does anybody still use kerosene or anything like that?”
Well Falcon uses kerosene. As does the Russian Soyuz.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
@ Jane
All of SpaceX’s first stage boosters use kerosene as the fuel, liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. Well, technically their fuel is known as RP-1, which is really just a specific and very pure form of kerosene.
I read that SpaceX has been considering development of a purely cryogenic (liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen) second stage for the F9 heavy. SpaceX said the development costs of such a second stage would be around 1 billion dollars. That’s more than than it is believed SpaceX has spent so far on all its other work.
Its no wonder SpaceX went with kerosene instead of a purely cryogenic system.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Oops, meant to add: Other American rockets which use kerosene (RP-1) include the Delta II and Atlas V. The only major “green” launch system might be the Delta IV base model, which uses O2+H2 with no solid boosters.
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 am
Oh, please, let us develop a space elevator during my lifetime.
My greatest wish is to see humanity – American, EU, Chinese, who cares?, becoming a truly spacefaring species.
A working space elevator, assuming banks of solar cells on the ground power the thing, would make lifting the components and the fuel of a true interplanetary spacecraft into far-Earth orbit (geosynchronous) relatively cheap and easy.
We may want to use expensive Soyuz craft to reliably launch our precious humans to the same orbits, but we can afford to use the much riskier space elevator to place the other components in geosynch orbit, to be assembled by the humans launched by Soyuz once everything else is in place.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:29 am
“Vertical integration”? I guess they did not want to use the term “rocket erection”.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 am
What’s that mysterious looking blue box in the lower left corner. It couldn’t be ….
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 am
The Falcon 9 payload to LEO will not be 12 tons, it will be around 10 tons and that’s only when the Merlin 1c engine is uprated starting next year. GTO payload should be around 3.5 tons.
The first few F9s will have a lower payload capacity due to the lower thrust of 95,000 lb at sea level/engine compared to the 125,000 lb or so of the uprated Merlin powering Falcon 9 Block 2.
I’m hoping the first launch indeed happens in the next six months, but that seems overoptimistic to me. This first vehicle is not actually going to fly as it consists of several components that aren’t flight items, but qualification units (same thing, but are meant for testing). For example, the 2nd stage engine is missing the nozzle extension which would be hidden inside the interstage.
This will mostly be a photo-op, but it’ll be nice to see what the actual vehicle looks like, opposed to computer renderings.
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 am
Egad! A private company is pulling this off? Awesome.
“Musk said “Long-term plans call for development of a heavy lift product and even a super-heavy, if there is customer demand. We expect that each size increase would result in a meaningful decrease in cost per pound to orbit. For example, dollar cost per pound to orbit dropped from $4,000 to $1,300 ($8,800/kg to $2,900/kg) between Falcon 1 and Falcon 5. Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound ($1,100/kg) or less is very achievable.”
Normally I would read a quote like that with a grain of salt. But he’s pulling it off so far!
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:35 am
Would it be juvenile to say, “Suck on that you bureaucratic pencilnecks!”
Okay, so I’m juvenile!
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 am
@Blizno
And the world of battle mechs is just around the corner…muwahahahaha!
December 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 am
So if this is the Falcon 9 …
How long till the Millennium Falcon?
1000 years?
Or just nine-hundred-and-ninety-one?
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:24 am
@Bein’Silly, actually the number designations have to do with how many rocket nozzles it has. I suppose the configuration you may be contemplating would require 1000 nozzles.
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 am
SpaceX has really made progress. Careful of irrational exuberance, though. The erector doesn’t become operational until January, and the first stage will probably need some engines at the bottom before it is ‘fully assembled.’
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
The Shuttle can haul about 22 tons to low-Earth orbit… but it costs a billion dollars per launch.
Actually, closer to `1.3 billion when the cost of the program is divided by the number of flights.
The immediate resources per launch is actually closer to $61 million per flight.
The second number is the one more important and most often overlooked. The birds themselves have been paid for for many years now.
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
I have been watching the live streams of every single one of their launches (ahem or attempts). Very good work by them so far. Their launch manifest says that there will be a Falcon9 launch in Q4 2008, but that cant be since they wont be done integrating the stages until mid January. I also read somewhere else that their launch was delayed, but I cant remember a definite date. Anyone got one?
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 am
Falcon Nine? any relation to Falcon Seven- or Phil Ken Sebben? Ha Ha!
December 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Elmar_M: Note the fine print below the launch manifest which says “target dates are for hardware arrival at the launch site”.
The actual maiden launch is slated for Q2 2009. As I said above, I believe that may not be entirely realistic and that delays are probable.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Q2 2009, hu? Seems awefully early to erect the thing on the launchpad now if it is not supposed to fly for another 4 months, or longer…
Why the delay?
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I worked with spaceX on their first all up mission rehearsal static firing, and even got to talk to Elon for a while. You joke about the “melenium Falcon”. The “Falcon” name and name of the fictional spaceship is no coincidence, however.
Also, even back then, there was talk of the “BFE”, which stands for “Really Big Engine”
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
The integration and pathfinding activities take a *long* time as I hear. You have to check everything at the pad, plumbing, electrical connections, etc. Then do dress rehearsals, fueling and defueling, etc. It all takess a lot of time and probably lots of checklists and documentation.
First they plan to perform a static fire (which will be the culmination of these pathfinding activities) and then they will more or less be confident in proceeding with an actual launch.