Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Falcon 9" in English language version.
SpaceX is currently producing one vehicle per month, but that number is expected to increase to '18 per year in the next couple of quarters'. By the end of 2014, she says SpaceX will produce 24 launch vehicles per year.
At 5.3 tons, AMOS-6 is the largest communications satellite ever built by IAI. Scheduled for launch in early 2016 from Cape Canaveral aboard a Space-X Falcon 9 launcher, AMOS-6 will replace AMOS-2, which is nearing the end of its 16-year life.
Orbcomm requested that SpaceX carry one of their small satellites (weighing a few hundred pounds, versus Dragon at over 12,000 pounds)... The higher the orbit, the more test data [Orbcomm] can gather, so they requested that we attempt to restart and raise altitude. NASA agreed to allow that, but only on condition that there be substantial propellant reserves, since the orbit would be close to the International Space Station. It is important to appreciate that Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was tentative. They accepted that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit...
Within a year, we need to get it from where it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks... By the end of 2015, says SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
SpaceX is currently producing one vehicle per month, but that number is expected to increase to '18 per year in the next couple of quarters'. By the end of 2014, she says SpaceX will produce 24 launch vehicles per year.
At 5.3 tons, AMOS-6 is the largest communications satellite ever built by IAI. Scheduled for launch in early 2016 from Cape Canaveral aboard a Space-X Falcon 9 launcher, AMOS-6 will replace AMOS-2, which is nearing the end of its 16-year life.
The launch also marked the first flight of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust, internally known only as the "Upgraded Falcon 9"
"With Falcon I's fourth launch, the first stage got cooked, so we're going to beef up the Thermal Protection System (TPS). By flight six we think it's highly likely we'll recover the first stage, and when we get it back we'll see what survived through re-entry, and what got fried, and carry on with the process. That's just to make the first stage reusable, it'll be even harder with the second stage – that has got to have a full heatshield, it'll have to have deorbit propulsion and communication".
The aforementioned Second Stage will be tasked with a busy role during this mission, lofting the 5300 kg SES-9 spacecraft to its Geostationary Transfer Orbit.
SpaceX conducts the static fire test — that typically ends with a 3.5-second engine firing — before every launch to wring out issues with the rocket and ground systems. The exercise also helps engineers rehearse for the real launch day.
Orbcomm requested that SpaceX carry one of their small satellites (weighing a few hundred pounds, versus Dragon at over 12,000 pounds)... The higher the orbit, the more test data [Orbcomm] can gather, so they requested that we attempt to restart and raise altitude. NASA agreed to allow that, but only on condition that there be substantial propellant reserves, since the orbit would be close to the International Space Station. It is important to appreciate that Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was tentative. They accepted that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit...
The Falcon Heavy first stage center core and boosters each carry landing legs, which will land each core safely on Earth after takeoff.
"Once we have all nine engines and the stage working well as a system, we will extensively test the "engine out" capability. This includes explosive and fire testing of the barriers that separate the engines from each other and from the vehicle. ... It should be said that the failure modes we've seen to date on the test stand for the Merlin 1C are all relatively benign – the turbo pump, combustion chamber and nozzle do not rupture explosively even when subjected to extreme circumstances. We have seen the gas generator (that drives the turbo pump assembly) blow apart during a start sequence (there are no checks in place to prevent that from happening), but it is a small device, unlikely to cause major damage to its own engine, let alone the neighbouring ones. Even so, as with engine nacelles on commercial jets, the fire/explosive barriers will assume that the entire chamber blows apart in the worst possible way. The bottom close-out panels are designed to direct any force or flame downward, away from neighbouring engines and the stage itself. ... we've found that the Falcon 9's ability to withstand one or even multiple engine failures, just as commercial airliners do, and still complete its mission is a compelling selling point with customers. Apart from the Space Shuttle and Soyuz, none of the existing [2007] launch vehicles can afford to lose even a single thrust chamber without causing loss of mission".
"The government is the necessary anchor tenant for commercial cargo, but it's not sufficient to build a new economic ecosystem", says Scott Hubbard, an aeronautics researcher at Stanford University in California and former director of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.
SpaceX ... developed prices for flying those secondary payloads ... A P-POD would cost between $200,000 and $325,000 for missions to LEO, or $350,000 to $575,000 for missions to geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO). An ESPA-class satellite weighing up to 180 kilograms would cost $4–5 million for LEO missions and $7–9 million for GTO missions, he said.
Both of the rocket's stages would return to the launch site and touch down vertically, under rocket power, on landing gear after delivering a spacecraft to orbit.
The launch also marked the first flight of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust, internally known only as the "Upgraded Falcon 9"
07/22/18 Falcon 9 v1.2 F9-59 Telstar 19V 7.075 CC 40 GTO-.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)"The government is the necessary anchor tenant for commercial cargo, but it's not sufficient to build a new economic ecosystem", says Scott Hubbard, an aeronautics researcher at Stanford University in California and former director of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.
"NASA ultimately gave us about $396 million; SpaceX put in over $450 million ... [for an] EELV-class launch vehicle ... as well as a capsule".
Within a year, we need to get it from where it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks... By the end of 2015, says SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
The Falcon Heavy first stage center core and boosters each carry landing legs, which will land each core safely on Earth after takeoff.
"With Falcon I's fourth launch, the first stage got cooked, so we're going to beef up the Thermal Protection System (TPS). By flight six we think it's highly likely we'll recover the first stage, and when we get it back we'll see what survived through re-entry, and what got fried, and carry on with the process. That's just to make the first stage reusable, it'll be even harder with the second stage – that has got to have a full heatshield, it'll have to have deorbit propulsion and communication".
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)The aforementioned Second Stage will be tasked with a busy role during this mission, lofting the 5300 kg SES-9 spacecraft to its Geostationary Transfer Orbit.
SpaceX conducts the static fire test — that typically ends with a 3.5-second engine firing — before every launch to wring out issues with the rocket and ground systems. The exercise also helps engineers rehearse for the real launch day.
"Once we have all nine engines and the stage working well as a system, we will extensively test the "engine out" capability. This includes explosive and fire testing of the barriers that separate the engines from each other and from the vehicle. ... It should be said that the failure modes we've seen to date on the test stand for the Merlin 1C are all relatively benign – the turbo pump, combustion chamber and nozzle do not rupture explosively even when subjected to extreme circumstances. We have seen the gas generator (that drives the turbo pump assembly) blow apart during a start sequence (there are no checks in place to prevent that from happening), but it is a small device, unlikely to cause major damage to its own engine, let alone the neighbouring ones. Even so, as with engine nacelles on commercial jets, the fire/explosive barriers will assume that the entire chamber blows apart in the worst possible way. The bottom close-out panels are designed to direct any force or flame downward, away from neighbouring engines and the stage itself. ... we've found that the Falcon 9's ability to withstand one or even multiple engine failures, just as commercial airliners do, and still complete its mission is a compelling selling point with customers. Apart from the Space Shuttle and Soyuz, none of the existing [2007] launch vehicles can afford to lose even a single thrust chamber without causing loss of mission".
Both of the rocket's stages would return to the launch site and touch down vertically, under rocket power, on landing gear after delivering a spacecraft to orbit.
SpaceX ... developed prices for flying those secondary payloads ... A P-POD would cost between $200,000 and $325,000 for missions to LEO, or $350,000 to $575,000 for missions to geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO). An ESPA-class satellite weighing up to 180 kilograms would cost $4–5 million for LEO missions and $7–9 million for GTO missions, he said.
"NASA ultimately gave us about $396 million; SpaceX put in over $450 million ... [for an] EELV-class launch vehicle ... as well as a capsule".