This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Falcon 9 Block 5 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Falcon 9 on May 2023. The result of the discussion was don't merge. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
What will be the successor of Falcon 9? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.230.52 ( talk) 21:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose that this page be merged into the corresponding section in the Falcon 9 article. As a version of the Falcon 9 rocket it seems more appropriate to have a slightly larger section within the original article instead of an entirely separate article just for Block 5, especially considering that there aren't huge differences between Block 5 and previous versions (as far as we are aware) and that it is seen as an improvement on Falcon 9 (and not a separate rocket) both by SpaceX and by external observers. As far as I know, there isn't really a precedent for having separate articles for variants of other rockets, eg. Atlas V and its many configurations, so it would be odd to start one for Falcon 9 Block 5. It wouldn't take much work to expand the Block 5 section of the Falcon 9 article since much of the information is already there and there is already a comparison table for the other versions of the Falcon 9 rocket. TROPtastic ( talk) 06:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we have unanimous approval. Merged. — JFG talk 03:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 04:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5 → Falcon 9 Block 5 – As far as the Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Full Thrust articles and its sources are concerned, Block 5 is the fifth major version of the Falcon 9 overall, and is the third revision of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust / Falcon 9 v1.2 / Falcon 9 Block 3. The name "Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5" implies that it is the fifth version of Falcon 9 Full Thrust and not Falcon 9. In addition, there is no common name argument to be made for the status quo's case whatsoever. I have been unable to find any reliable third party source that describes this variant as "Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5" or any similar term. Meanwhile, NASASpaceFlight.com [1], The Verge [2], Yahoo! News [3], and CNBC [4] all use "Falcon 9 Block 5", while Space.com [5], and Florida Today [6] have used "Block 5 Falcon 9", and Ars Technica [7] has used "Block 5 variant of its Falcon 9". On Google, an exact phrase search, which is made by book-ending a phrase with quotation marks ("), returns only around 900 results for "Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5" [8], but around 143 thousand results for "Falcon 9 Block 5" [9]. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 23:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Further discussion moved to
Talk:Falcon 9#Falcon 9 family lineage —
JFG
talk 07:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
|
The chart on the side states that the payload capacity to GTO in recoverable mode is 5500 kg, but the booster was recovered after both the Telstar 18V and 19V launches, and they both weighed over 7000 kg. I don't know what the correct payload capacities are, even SpaceX's own website does not say, but the ones listed here are erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.188.113.221 ( talk) 01:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The current count in the infobox states 13 launches. After the latest Falcon Heavy launch this month, would that be 16 -since one FH consists of three F9s ? Or perhaps we should specify these are single F9 launches? Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Falcon 9 has a payload capacity of 22800 kg.22800 kg is larger than 20000kg which means that it should be a heavy-lift launch vehicle instead of a medium-lift launch vehicle. — Asdfugil ( talk) 08:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to put a note that says something along the lines of 'While the Falcon 9 Block 5 has a stated maximum payload capacity above 20,000 Kg, which would classify it as a heavy launch booster, it has yet to attempt such a feat.' AmigaClone ( talk) 07:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Were any of the block 5 changes to the 2nd stage ? Could article confirm if/that "Block 5" applies to 2nd stage too? - Rod57 ( talk) 10:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The Falcon 9 User’s Guide is a planning document for potential and current Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) customers. This document is not intended for detailed design use. Data for detailed design purposes will be exchanged directly between a SpaceX Mission Manager and the Payload Provider. This User's Guide highlights the Falcon 9 Block 2 launch vehicle and launch service. The Block 2 launch vehicle offers improved mass‐to‐orbit performance when compared to the Falcon 9 Block 1. Specific differences between Block 1 and Block 2 will be identified, when appropriate. Performance and environment information is based upon Falcon 9 requirements and analyses but is not yet validated by flight data. In an era when most technology‐based products follow a path of ever‐increasing capability and reliability while simultaneously reducing costs, today’s launch vehicles are little changed from those of 40 years ago. SpaceX is changing this paradigm with a family of launch vehicles that will ultimately reduce the cost and increase the reliability of the access to space. Coupled with the newly emerging market for private and commercial space transport, this new model will re-ignite humanity's efforts to explore and develop space. SpaceX was founded on the philosophy that simplicity, reliability, and low cost are closely coupled. We approach all elements of launch services with a focus on simplicity to both increase reliability and lower cost. The SpaceX corporate structure is flat and business processes are lean, resulting in both fast decision-making and delivery. SpaceX products are designed to require low infrastructure facilities (production and launch) with low maintenance overhead, while vehicle design teams are co‐located with production and quality assurance staff to tighten the critical feedback loop. The result is highly producible and low-cost designs with quality embedded. To better understand how SpaceX can achieve low cost without sacrificing reliability, please see the Frequently Asked Questions at www.spacex.com. Established in 2002 by Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal and the Zip2 Corporation, SpaceX has already developed a light lift launch vehicle, the Falcon 1, nearly completed the development of the Falcon 9, and developed state-of-the-art testing and launch locations. In addition, NASA has selected the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft for the International Space Station (ISS) Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) contract award. The contract is for a guaranteed minimum of 20,000 kg to be carried to the International Space Station. The firm contracted value is $1.6 billion and NASA may elect to order additional missions for a cumulative total contract value of up to $3.1 billion. SpaceX is on sound financial footing as we move towards volume commercial launches. Their design and manufacturing facilities are conveniently located near the Los Angeles International airport. This location allows the company to leverage the deep and rich aerospace talent pool in Southern California. The SpaceX state‐of‐the‐art propulsion and structural test facilities are located in Central Texas. Drawing upon a rich history of prior launch vehicle and engine programs, SpaceX is privately developing the Falcon family of rockets from the ground up, including main and upper‐stage engines, the cryogenic tank structure, avionics, guidance & control software, and ground support equipment. With the Falcon 1, Falcon 1e, Falcon 9, and Falcon 9 Heavy launch vehicles, SpaceX can offer a full spectrum of light, medium, and heavy lift launch capabilities to our customers. We can deliver spacecraft to any inclination and altitude, from low Earth orbit (LEO) to geosynchronous orbit (GEO) to planetary missions. The Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy are the only US launch vehicles with true engine‐out reliability. They are also designed such that all stages are reusable, making them the world's first fully reusable launch vehicles. The Dragon crew and cargo capsule, in conjunction with our Falcon 9, have been selected by NASA to provide efficient and reliable transport of cargo and potentially crew to the International Space Station (ISS) and other LEO destinations. To facilitate and streamline communication, each customer works with a single SpaceX contact, a Mission Manager. The Mission Manager works closely with the customer, SpaceX technical execution staff, and all associated licensing agencies to achieve a successful mission. Specifically, the SpaceX Mission Manager is responsible for coordinating mission integration analysis and documentation deliverables, planning integration meetings and reports, and coordinating all integration and test activities associated with the mission. The Mission Manager will also facilitate customer insight during the launch campaign. Though the launch operations team is ultimately responsible for customer hardware and associated Ground Support Equipment (GSE), the Mission Manager will coordinate all launch site activities to ensure customer satisfaction during this critical phase. The vast majority of launch vehicle failures in the past two decades can be attributed to three causes: engine, avionics, and stage separation failures. An analysis by Aerospace Corporation1 showed that 91% of known failures can be attributed to those subsystems. With this in mind, Falcon 9 launch vehicles are designed for high reliability starting at the architectural level and incorporate the flight‐proven design and features of the Falcon 1 launch vehicle. Some of the significant contributors to reliability include • Robust design margins Falcon 9 is designed to carry humans into space aboard the SpaceX Dragon capsule. This goal drives the initial design of Falcon 9 through the incorporation of increased factors of safety (1.4 versus the traditional 1.25 for uncrewed flight). Payload customers using the Falcon 9 can take advantage of this increased design robustness. The first and second stages are also designed to be recovered and reused, and therefore, must have significantly higher margins than an expendable stage. This also provides a unique opportunity to examine recovered hardware and assess design and material selection to continually improve Falcon 9. • Propulsion and separation event design The heart of Falcon 9 propulsion is the Merlin 1C liquid propellant rocket engine. The Merlin engine features a robust, reliable turbopump design incorporating a single shaft for both the liquid oxygen and fuel pumps, and a gas generator cycle versus the more complex staged combustion. The regeneratively‐cooled thrust chamber uses a milled copper alloy liner chamber that provides large margins on heat flux. In addition, the pintle injector was selected for its inherent combustion stability. As a part of our launch operations, we hold the first stage after ignition and monitor the engine before release to watch engine trends. If an off‐nominal condition exists, an autonomous abort is conducted. This helps prevent an engine performance issue from causing a failure in flight. Falcon 9 makes use of ten Merlin 1C engines on each vehicle (nine in the first stage, one in the second stage) resulting in high-volume engine production, which results in much higher quality through process control. Flying ten engines on each mission also builds substantial heritage quickly. Importantly, by employing nine first-stage engines, SpaceX debuts the world’s first Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)‐class launch vehicle with engine‐out capability through much of first-stage flight. With the qualification and first flight units in build and several domestic and international purchased flights currently manifested, Falcon 9 is an ideal workhorse for payload customers. SpaceX has also minimized the number of stages (2) to minimize separation events. The separation system between the first and second stages does not incorporate electro-explosive devices, instead relying upon a pneumatic release and separation system that allows for acceptance testing of the actual flight hardware. This is not possible with a traditional explosive‐based separation system. • Failure mode minimization SpaceX minimized the number of failure modes by minimizing the number of separate subsystems. The first stage thrust vector control (TVC) system makes use of pressurized. rocket-grade kerosene (RP‐1). The engine pulls from the high-pressure RP‐1 side of the pump to power the TVC. This eliminates the separate hydraulic system. In addition, it eliminates the failure mode associated with running out of pressurized fluid. Also, the avionics and guidance/navigation/control systems are designed with single fault tolerance, supporting the ability of Falcon 9 to be human-rated. • Rigorous testing In addition to SpaceX’s unique design decisions, Falcon 9 will undergo an exhaustive series of tests from the component to the vehicle system level. This includes component level qualification and workmanship testing, structures load and proof testing, flight system and propulsion subsystem level testing, full first and second stage testing up to full system testing, including stage static firings at the test and launches sites (as appropriate). In addition to testing environmental extremes (plus margin), all hardware is tested to account for off‐nominal conditions. For example, both stage and fairing separation tests require testing for off‐nominal cases concerning geometrical misalignment, anomalous pyro timing, and sequencing. A major contributor to a reliable system is its operations. To support robust launch operations, the SpaceX launch countdown is fully automated with thousands of checks made before vehicle release. After first-stage ignition, the vehicle is not released until the first-stage engines are confirmed to be operating normally. A safe shutdown is executed, should any off-nominal conditions be detected. Falcon 9 benefits from the design and operations concepts established for and proven with the successful Falcon 1 program. Pricing includes range, standard payload integration, and third-party liability insurance. Please see Section 5.4 for a description of the standard services. Non‐standard services are also available. If non-standard services are required, please identify these in the Payload Questionnaire found in Section 8 of this Guide. 2001:8F8:1737:F509:498D:9CF6:E3F7:9F8C ( talk) 14:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Vehicle Overview -2.1. Falcon 9 Launch Vehicles Falcon 9 Launch Vehicles are designed to provide breakthrough advances in reliability, cost, and time to launch. The primary design driver is, and will remain, reliability. SpaceX recognizes that nothing is more important than getting a customer’s payload safely to its intended destination. The initial flights of the Falcon 9, currently planned in 2009 and 2010, use the Falcon 9 Block 1. Beginning in late 2010/early 2011, SpaceX will begin launching the Falcon 9 Block 2. Block 2 features increased engine thrust, decreased launch vehicle dry mass, and increased propellant load ‐ combined with lessons learned from the flights of the Falcon 9 Block 1. This results in increased mass‐to‐orbit performance for the Falcon 9 Block 2 when compared with Block 1 performance. This performance is shown in the Falcon 9 performance tables presented later in this document. 2.1.1. Structure and Propulsion Like Falcon 1, Falcon 9 is a two‐stage, liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket grade kerosene (RP‐1) powered launch vehicle. It uses the same Merlin engines, structural architecture (with a wider diameter), and launch control system. The Falcon 9 propellant tank walls and domes are made from an aluminum lithium alloy. SpaceX uses an all friction stir welded tank, the highest strength and most reliable welding technique available. Like Falcon 1, the Falcon 9 interstage, which connects the upper and lower stages, is a carbon fiber aluminum core composite structure. The separation system is a larger version of the pneumatic pushers used on Falcon 1. Nine SpaceX Merlin engines power the Falcon 9 first stage with 125,000 lbf sea level thrust per engine, for a total thrust on liftoff of just over 1.1 million lbf. After engine start, Falcon 9 is held down until all vehicle systems are verified as functioning normally before release for liftoff. The second stage tank of Falcon 9 is simply a shorter version of the first stage tank and uses most of the same tooling, material and manufacturing techniques. This results in significant cost savings in vehicle production. A single Merlin engine powers the Falcon 9 upper stage with an expansion ratio of 117:1 and a nominal burn time of 345 seconds. For added reliability of restart, the engine has dual redundant pyrophoric igniters (TEA‐TEB). The Falcon 9 fairing is 17 ft (5.2 m) in diameter. 2.1.2. Avionics, Guidance/Navigation/Control, Flight Termination Systems Falcon 9 vehicle avionics features a single‐fault tolerant architecture and has been designed with a view towards human‐rating requirements in order to allow future qualification for Falcon 9 User’s Guide SCM 2008‐010 Rev. 1 Copyright ‐‐ SpaceX 2009 9 crewed launch capability. Avionics include rugged flight computers, GPS receivers, inertial measurement units, SpaceX‐designed and manufactured controllers for vehicle control (propulsion, valve, pressurization, separation, and payload interfaces), and a C‐Band transponder for Range Safety tracking. Falcon 9 transmits telemetry from both the first and second stages, even after separation of the stages. S‐band transmitters are used to transmit telemetry and video to the ground. The guidance and navigation algorithms for Falcon 9 launch vehicles have been heavily influenced by the algorithms used on other launch vehicles, including Falcon 1. The guidance system takes into account the loss of an engine during first stage burn and adjusts the targeted trajectory accordingly. This mix of explicit and perturbation guidance schemes was selected in order to generate a smooth, computationally simple trajectory while maintaining orbital insertion accuracies. The Falcon 9 launch vehicle is equipped with a standard flight termination system. This system includes two redundant strings of command receiver and encoder, batteries, safe and arm devices, and ordnance in the event of an anomaly in flight. 2001:8F8:1737:F509:498D:9CF6:E3F7:9F8C ( talk) 14:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
"The upgrades afforded the second stage with the endurance needed to inject the payloads directly into geosynchronous or high energy orbit where the second stage needs hours after launch" this can't be right. How 'bout
"The upgrades endowed the second stage with the endurance needed to inject the payloads directly into geosynchronous or high energy orbit where the second stage needs to be able to reignite hours after launch" ?
(Errors: afforded or endowed with; needs what?). Good? RudolfoMD ( talk) 05:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Falcon 9 Block 5 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Falcon 9 on May 2023. The result of the discussion was don't merge. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
What will be the successor of Falcon 9? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.230.52 ( talk) 21:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose that this page be merged into the corresponding section in the Falcon 9 article. As a version of the Falcon 9 rocket it seems more appropriate to have a slightly larger section within the original article instead of an entirely separate article just for Block 5, especially considering that there aren't huge differences between Block 5 and previous versions (as far as we are aware) and that it is seen as an improvement on Falcon 9 (and not a separate rocket) both by SpaceX and by external observers. As far as I know, there isn't really a precedent for having separate articles for variants of other rockets, eg. Atlas V and its many configurations, so it would be odd to start one for Falcon 9 Block 5. It wouldn't take much work to expand the Block 5 section of the Falcon 9 article since much of the information is already there and there is already a comparison table for the other versions of the Falcon 9 rocket. TROPtastic ( talk) 06:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we have unanimous approval. Merged. — JFG talk 03:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 04:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5 → Falcon 9 Block 5 – As far as the Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Full Thrust articles and its sources are concerned, Block 5 is the fifth major version of the Falcon 9 overall, and is the third revision of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust / Falcon 9 v1.2 / Falcon 9 Block 3. The name "Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5" implies that it is the fifth version of Falcon 9 Full Thrust and not Falcon 9. In addition, there is no common name argument to be made for the status quo's case whatsoever. I have been unable to find any reliable third party source that describes this variant as "Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5" or any similar term. Meanwhile, NASASpaceFlight.com [1], The Verge [2], Yahoo! News [3], and CNBC [4] all use "Falcon 9 Block 5", while Space.com [5], and Florida Today [6] have used "Block 5 Falcon 9", and Ars Technica [7] has used "Block 5 variant of its Falcon 9". On Google, an exact phrase search, which is made by book-ending a phrase with quotation marks ("), returns only around 900 results for "Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5" [8], but around 143 thousand results for "Falcon 9 Block 5" [9]. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 23:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Further discussion moved to
Talk:Falcon 9#Falcon 9 family lineage —
JFG
talk 07:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
|
The chart on the side states that the payload capacity to GTO in recoverable mode is 5500 kg, but the booster was recovered after both the Telstar 18V and 19V launches, and they both weighed over 7000 kg. I don't know what the correct payload capacities are, even SpaceX's own website does not say, but the ones listed here are erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.188.113.221 ( talk) 01:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The current count in the infobox states 13 launches. After the latest Falcon Heavy launch this month, would that be 16 -since one FH consists of three F9s ? Or perhaps we should specify these are single F9 launches? Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Falcon 9 has a payload capacity of 22800 kg.22800 kg is larger than 20000kg which means that it should be a heavy-lift launch vehicle instead of a medium-lift launch vehicle. — Asdfugil ( talk) 08:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to put a note that says something along the lines of 'While the Falcon 9 Block 5 has a stated maximum payload capacity above 20,000 Kg, which would classify it as a heavy launch booster, it has yet to attempt such a feat.' AmigaClone ( talk) 07:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Were any of the block 5 changes to the 2nd stage ? Could article confirm if/that "Block 5" applies to 2nd stage too? - Rod57 ( talk) 10:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The Falcon 9 User’s Guide is a planning document for potential and current Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) customers. This document is not intended for detailed design use. Data for detailed design purposes will be exchanged directly between a SpaceX Mission Manager and the Payload Provider. This User's Guide highlights the Falcon 9 Block 2 launch vehicle and launch service. The Block 2 launch vehicle offers improved mass‐to‐orbit performance when compared to the Falcon 9 Block 1. Specific differences between Block 1 and Block 2 will be identified, when appropriate. Performance and environment information is based upon Falcon 9 requirements and analyses but is not yet validated by flight data. In an era when most technology‐based products follow a path of ever‐increasing capability and reliability while simultaneously reducing costs, today’s launch vehicles are little changed from those of 40 years ago. SpaceX is changing this paradigm with a family of launch vehicles that will ultimately reduce the cost and increase the reliability of the access to space. Coupled with the newly emerging market for private and commercial space transport, this new model will re-ignite humanity's efforts to explore and develop space. SpaceX was founded on the philosophy that simplicity, reliability, and low cost are closely coupled. We approach all elements of launch services with a focus on simplicity to both increase reliability and lower cost. The SpaceX corporate structure is flat and business processes are lean, resulting in both fast decision-making and delivery. SpaceX products are designed to require low infrastructure facilities (production and launch) with low maintenance overhead, while vehicle design teams are co‐located with production and quality assurance staff to tighten the critical feedback loop. The result is highly producible and low-cost designs with quality embedded. To better understand how SpaceX can achieve low cost without sacrificing reliability, please see the Frequently Asked Questions at www.spacex.com. Established in 2002 by Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal and the Zip2 Corporation, SpaceX has already developed a light lift launch vehicle, the Falcon 1, nearly completed the development of the Falcon 9, and developed state-of-the-art testing and launch locations. In addition, NASA has selected the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft for the International Space Station (ISS) Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) contract award. The contract is for a guaranteed minimum of 20,000 kg to be carried to the International Space Station. The firm contracted value is $1.6 billion and NASA may elect to order additional missions for a cumulative total contract value of up to $3.1 billion. SpaceX is on sound financial footing as we move towards volume commercial launches. Their design and manufacturing facilities are conveniently located near the Los Angeles International airport. This location allows the company to leverage the deep and rich aerospace talent pool in Southern California. The SpaceX state‐of‐the‐art propulsion and structural test facilities are located in Central Texas. Drawing upon a rich history of prior launch vehicle and engine programs, SpaceX is privately developing the Falcon family of rockets from the ground up, including main and upper‐stage engines, the cryogenic tank structure, avionics, guidance & control software, and ground support equipment. With the Falcon 1, Falcon 1e, Falcon 9, and Falcon 9 Heavy launch vehicles, SpaceX can offer a full spectrum of light, medium, and heavy lift launch capabilities to our customers. We can deliver spacecraft to any inclination and altitude, from low Earth orbit (LEO) to geosynchronous orbit (GEO) to planetary missions. The Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy are the only US launch vehicles with true engine‐out reliability. They are also designed such that all stages are reusable, making them the world's first fully reusable launch vehicles. The Dragon crew and cargo capsule, in conjunction with our Falcon 9, have been selected by NASA to provide efficient and reliable transport of cargo and potentially crew to the International Space Station (ISS) and other LEO destinations. To facilitate and streamline communication, each customer works with a single SpaceX contact, a Mission Manager. The Mission Manager works closely with the customer, SpaceX technical execution staff, and all associated licensing agencies to achieve a successful mission. Specifically, the SpaceX Mission Manager is responsible for coordinating mission integration analysis and documentation deliverables, planning integration meetings and reports, and coordinating all integration and test activities associated with the mission. The Mission Manager will also facilitate customer insight during the launch campaign. Though the launch operations team is ultimately responsible for customer hardware and associated Ground Support Equipment (GSE), the Mission Manager will coordinate all launch site activities to ensure customer satisfaction during this critical phase. The vast majority of launch vehicle failures in the past two decades can be attributed to three causes: engine, avionics, and stage separation failures. An analysis by Aerospace Corporation1 showed that 91% of known failures can be attributed to those subsystems. With this in mind, Falcon 9 launch vehicles are designed for high reliability starting at the architectural level and incorporate the flight‐proven design and features of the Falcon 1 launch vehicle. Some of the significant contributors to reliability include • Robust design margins Falcon 9 is designed to carry humans into space aboard the SpaceX Dragon capsule. This goal drives the initial design of Falcon 9 through the incorporation of increased factors of safety (1.4 versus the traditional 1.25 for uncrewed flight). Payload customers using the Falcon 9 can take advantage of this increased design robustness. The first and second stages are also designed to be recovered and reused, and therefore, must have significantly higher margins than an expendable stage. This also provides a unique opportunity to examine recovered hardware and assess design and material selection to continually improve Falcon 9. • Propulsion and separation event design The heart of Falcon 9 propulsion is the Merlin 1C liquid propellant rocket engine. The Merlin engine features a robust, reliable turbopump design incorporating a single shaft for both the liquid oxygen and fuel pumps, and a gas generator cycle versus the more complex staged combustion. The regeneratively‐cooled thrust chamber uses a milled copper alloy liner chamber that provides large margins on heat flux. In addition, the pintle injector was selected for its inherent combustion stability. As a part of our launch operations, we hold the first stage after ignition and monitor the engine before release to watch engine trends. If an off‐nominal condition exists, an autonomous abort is conducted. This helps prevent an engine performance issue from causing a failure in flight. Falcon 9 makes use of ten Merlin 1C engines on each vehicle (nine in the first stage, one in the second stage) resulting in high-volume engine production, which results in much higher quality through process control. Flying ten engines on each mission also builds substantial heritage quickly. Importantly, by employing nine first-stage engines, SpaceX debuts the world’s first Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)‐class launch vehicle with engine‐out capability through much of first-stage flight. With the qualification and first flight units in build and several domestic and international purchased flights currently manifested, Falcon 9 is an ideal workhorse for payload customers. SpaceX has also minimized the number of stages (2) to minimize separation events. The separation system between the first and second stages does not incorporate electro-explosive devices, instead relying upon a pneumatic release and separation system that allows for acceptance testing of the actual flight hardware. This is not possible with a traditional explosive‐based separation system. • Failure mode minimization SpaceX minimized the number of failure modes by minimizing the number of separate subsystems. The first stage thrust vector control (TVC) system makes use of pressurized. rocket-grade kerosene (RP‐1). The engine pulls from the high-pressure RP‐1 side of the pump to power the TVC. This eliminates the separate hydraulic system. In addition, it eliminates the failure mode associated with running out of pressurized fluid. Also, the avionics and guidance/navigation/control systems are designed with single fault tolerance, supporting the ability of Falcon 9 to be human-rated. • Rigorous testing In addition to SpaceX’s unique design decisions, Falcon 9 will undergo an exhaustive series of tests from the component to the vehicle system level. This includes component level qualification and workmanship testing, structures load and proof testing, flight system and propulsion subsystem level testing, full first and second stage testing up to full system testing, including stage static firings at the test and launches sites (as appropriate). In addition to testing environmental extremes (plus margin), all hardware is tested to account for off‐nominal conditions. For example, both stage and fairing separation tests require testing for off‐nominal cases concerning geometrical misalignment, anomalous pyro timing, and sequencing. A major contributor to a reliable system is its operations. To support robust launch operations, the SpaceX launch countdown is fully automated with thousands of checks made before vehicle release. After first-stage ignition, the vehicle is not released until the first-stage engines are confirmed to be operating normally. A safe shutdown is executed, should any off-nominal conditions be detected. Falcon 9 benefits from the design and operations concepts established for and proven with the successful Falcon 1 program. Pricing includes range, standard payload integration, and third-party liability insurance. Please see Section 5.4 for a description of the standard services. Non‐standard services are also available. If non-standard services are required, please identify these in the Payload Questionnaire found in Section 8 of this Guide. 2001:8F8:1737:F509:498D:9CF6:E3F7:9F8C ( talk) 14:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Vehicle Overview -2.1. Falcon 9 Launch Vehicles Falcon 9 Launch Vehicles are designed to provide breakthrough advances in reliability, cost, and time to launch. The primary design driver is, and will remain, reliability. SpaceX recognizes that nothing is more important than getting a customer’s payload safely to its intended destination. The initial flights of the Falcon 9, currently planned in 2009 and 2010, use the Falcon 9 Block 1. Beginning in late 2010/early 2011, SpaceX will begin launching the Falcon 9 Block 2. Block 2 features increased engine thrust, decreased launch vehicle dry mass, and increased propellant load ‐ combined with lessons learned from the flights of the Falcon 9 Block 1. This results in increased mass‐to‐orbit performance for the Falcon 9 Block 2 when compared with Block 1 performance. This performance is shown in the Falcon 9 performance tables presented later in this document. 2.1.1. Structure and Propulsion Like Falcon 1, Falcon 9 is a two‐stage, liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket grade kerosene (RP‐1) powered launch vehicle. It uses the same Merlin engines, structural architecture (with a wider diameter), and launch control system. The Falcon 9 propellant tank walls and domes are made from an aluminum lithium alloy. SpaceX uses an all friction stir welded tank, the highest strength and most reliable welding technique available. Like Falcon 1, the Falcon 9 interstage, which connects the upper and lower stages, is a carbon fiber aluminum core composite structure. The separation system is a larger version of the pneumatic pushers used on Falcon 1. Nine SpaceX Merlin engines power the Falcon 9 first stage with 125,000 lbf sea level thrust per engine, for a total thrust on liftoff of just over 1.1 million lbf. After engine start, Falcon 9 is held down until all vehicle systems are verified as functioning normally before release for liftoff. The second stage tank of Falcon 9 is simply a shorter version of the first stage tank and uses most of the same tooling, material and manufacturing techniques. This results in significant cost savings in vehicle production. A single Merlin engine powers the Falcon 9 upper stage with an expansion ratio of 117:1 and a nominal burn time of 345 seconds. For added reliability of restart, the engine has dual redundant pyrophoric igniters (TEA‐TEB). The Falcon 9 fairing is 17 ft (5.2 m) in diameter. 2.1.2. Avionics, Guidance/Navigation/Control, Flight Termination Systems Falcon 9 vehicle avionics features a single‐fault tolerant architecture and has been designed with a view towards human‐rating requirements in order to allow future qualification for Falcon 9 User’s Guide SCM 2008‐010 Rev. 1 Copyright ‐‐ SpaceX 2009 9 crewed launch capability. Avionics include rugged flight computers, GPS receivers, inertial measurement units, SpaceX‐designed and manufactured controllers for vehicle control (propulsion, valve, pressurization, separation, and payload interfaces), and a C‐Band transponder for Range Safety tracking. Falcon 9 transmits telemetry from both the first and second stages, even after separation of the stages. S‐band transmitters are used to transmit telemetry and video to the ground. The guidance and navigation algorithms for Falcon 9 launch vehicles have been heavily influenced by the algorithms used on other launch vehicles, including Falcon 1. The guidance system takes into account the loss of an engine during first stage burn and adjusts the targeted trajectory accordingly. This mix of explicit and perturbation guidance schemes was selected in order to generate a smooth, computationally simple trajectory while maintaining orbital insertion accuracies. The Falcon 9 launch vehicle is equipped with a standard flight termination system. This system includes two redundant strings of command receiver and encoder, batteries, safe and arm devices, and ordnance in the event of an anomaly in flight. 2001:8F8:1737:F509:498D:9CF6:E3F7:9F8C ( talk) 14:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
"The upgrades afforded the second stage with the endurance needed to inject the payloads directly into geosynchronous or high energy orbit where the second stage needs hours after launch" this can't be right. How 'bout
"The upgrades endowed the second stage with the endurance needed to inject the payloads directly into geosynchronous or high energy orbit where the second stage needs to be able to reignite hours after launch" ?
(Errors: afforded or endowed with; needs what?). Good? RudolfoMD ( talk) 05:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)