.jpg) Launch of the 9th Falcon 9 v1.1 with theSpaceX CRS-5 on 10 January 2015. This rocket was equipped with landing legs and grid fins. | |
| Function | Medium-lift launch vehicle |
|---|---|
| Manufacturer | SpaceX |
| Country of origin | United States |
| Cost per launch | $56.5M (2013) – 61.2M (2015)[1] |
| Size | |
| Height | 68.4 m (224 ft) with payload fairing 63.4 m (208 ft) withDragon[2] |
| Diameter | 3.7 m (12 ft)[2] |
| Mass | 505,846 kg (1,115,200 lb)[2] |
| Stages | 2 |
| Capacity | |
| Payload toLEO (28.5°) | |
| Mass | 13,150 kg (28,990 lb)[2] 10,886 kg (24,000 lb) (PAF structural limitation)[3] |
| Payload toGTO (27°) | |
| Mass | 4,850 kg (10,690 lb)[2] |
| Associated rockets | |
| Family | Falcon 9 |
| Based on | Falcon 9 v1.0 |
| Derivative work | Falcon 9 Full Thrust |
| Comparable | |
| Launch history | |
| Status | Retired |
| Launch sites | |
| Total launches | 15 |
| Success(es) | 14 |
| Failure(s) | 1 |
| Partial failure(s) | 0 |
| Landings | 0 / 3 attempts |
| First flight | 29 September 2013[4] |
| Last flight | 17 January 2016 |
| Carries passengers or cargo | CASSIOPE,SES-8,Thaicom 6Dragon,Orbcomm OG2,AsiaSat 8,AsiaSat 6,DSCOVR,ABS-3A,Eutelsat 115 West B,TürkmenÄlem 52°E / MonacoSAT,Jason-3 |
| First stage | |
| Height | 41.2 m (135 ft) |
| Diameter | 3.7 m (12 ft) |
| Powered by | 9xMerlin 1D |
| Maximum thrust | Sea level: 5,885 kN (1,323,000 lbf)[2] Vacuum: 6,672 kN (1,500,000 lbf)[2] |
| Specific impulse | Sea level: 282 seconds[5] Vacuum: 311 seconds[5] |
| Burn time | 180 seconds[2] |
| Propellant | LOX /RP-1 |
| Second stage | |
| Height | 13.6 m (45 ft) |
| Diameter | 3.7 m (12 ft) |
| Powered by | 1xMerlin 1D Vacuum |
| Maximum thrust | 716 kN (161,000 lbf)[6] |
| Specific impulse | 340 seconds[2] |
| Burn time | 375 seconds[2] |
| Propellant | LOX / RP-1 |
Falcon 9 v1.1 was the second version ofSpaceX'sFalcon 9orbitallaunch vehicle. The rocket wasdeveloped in 2011–2013, made itsmaiden launch in September 2013,[7] and itsfinal flight in January 2016.[8] The Falcon 9 rocket was fully designed, manufactured, and operated by SpaceX. Following thesecondCommercial Resupply Services (CRS) launch, the initial versionFalcon 9 v1.0 was retired from use and replaced by the v1.1 version.
Falcon 9 v1.1 was a significant evolution from Falcon 9 v1.0, with 60 percent more thrust and weight. Its maiden flight carried out a demonstration mission with theCASSIOPE satellite on 29 September 2013, the sixth overall launch of any Falcon 9.[9]
Both stages of thetwo-stage-to-orbit vehicle usedliquid oxygen (LOX) androcket-grade kerosene (RP-1) propellants.[10] The Falcon 9 v1.1 could lift payloads of 13,150 kilograms (28,990 lb) tolow Earth orbit, and 4,850 kilograms (10,690 lb) togeostationary transfer orbit,[1] which places the Falcon 9 design in themedium-lift range of launch systems.[11]
Beginning in April 2014, theDragon capsules were propelled by Falcon 9 v1.1 to deliver cargo to the International Space Station under theCommercial Resupply Services contract with NASA.[12] This version was also intended to ferry astronauts to the ISS under a NASACommercial Crew Development contract signed in September 2014.[13] However, SpaceX ended up using the upgradedFalcon 9 Block 5 version instead for allCrew Dragon missions.
Falcon 9 v1.1 was notable for pioneering thedevelopment of reusable rockets, whereby SpaceX gradually refined technologies for first-stage boostback,atmospheric re-entry,controlled descent and eventual propulsive landing. This last goal was achieved on the first flight of the successor variantFalcon 9 Full Thrust, after several near-successes with Falcon 9 v1.1.
.jpg)
The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a two-stage,LOX/RP-1–powered launch vehicle.[10]
Theoriginal Falcon 9 flew five successful orbital launches in 2010–2013, all carrying the Dragon spacecraft or a test version of the spacecraft.[14]
The Falcon 9 v1.1 ELV was a 60 percent heavier rocket with 60 percent more thrust than the v1.0 version of the Falcon 9.[15]It includes realigned first-stage engines[16] and 60 percent longer fuel tanks, making it more susceptible tobending during flight.[15] The engines were upgraded from theMerlin 1C to the more powerfulMerlin 1D engines. These improvements increased the payload capability to LEO from 10,454 kilograms (23,047 lb)[17] to 13,150 kilograms (28,990 lb).[1] The stage separation system was redesigned and reduced the number of attachment points from twelve to three,[15] and the vehicle had upgraded avionics and software as well.[15]
The v1.1booster version arranged the engines in a structural form SpaceX calledOctaweb, with eight engines arranged in a circular pattern around a single center engine. The v1.0 used a rectangular pattern of engines. The Octaweb pattern was aimed at streamlining the manufacturing process.[18] Later v1.1 vehicles include four extensible landing legs,[19] used in thecontrolled-descent test program.[20][21]
Following the first launch of the Falcon 9 v1.1 in September 2013, which experienced a post-mission second-stage engine restart failure, the second-stage igniter propellant lines were insulated to better support in-space restart following long coast phases for orbital trajectory maneuvers.[22]Falcon 9 Flight 6 was the first launch of the Falcon 9 configured with a jettisonablepayload fairing.[14]
The Falcon 9 v1.1 uses a first stage powered by nineMerlin 1D engines.[23][24] Development testing of the v1.1 Falcon 9 first stage was completed in July 2013.[25][26]
The v1.1 first stage has a total sea-level thrust at liftoff of 5,885 kN (1,323,000 pounds-force), with the nine engines burning for a nominal 180 seconds, while stage thrust rises to 6,672 kN (1,500,000 pounds-force) as the booster climbs out of the atmosphere.[27] The nine first-stage engines are arranged in a structural form SpaceX callsOctaweb. This change from the v1.0 Falcon 9's square arrangement is aimed at streamlining the manufacturing process.[18]
As part of SpaceX's efforts todevelop a reusable launch system, selected first stages include four extensible landing legs[19] andgrid fins to control descent. Fins were first tested on the F9R Dev-1 reusable test vehicle.[28] Grid fins were implemented on the Falcon 9 v1.1 on the CRS-5 mission,[29] but ran out of hydraulic fluid before a planned landing.[30]
SpaceX ultimately intends to produce both reusableFalcon 9 andFalcon Heavy launch vehicles with fullvertical-landing capability.[20][21] Initialatmospheric testing ofprototype vehicles is being conducted on theGrasshopper experimental technology-demonstratorreusable launch vehicle (RLV), in addition to the booster controlled-descent and landing tests described above.[31]
The v1.1 first stage uses apyrophoric mixture oftriethylaluminium-triethylborane (TEA-TEB) as a first-stage ignitor, the same as was used in the v1.0 version.[32]
Like theFalcon 9 v1.0 and theSaturn series from theApollo program, the presence of multiple first-stage engines can allow for mission completion even if one of the first-stage engines fails mid-flight.[33][34]
The main propellant supply tubes from the RP-1 and liquid oxygen tanks to the nine engines on the first stage are 10 cm (4 in) in diameter.[35]
The upper stage is powered by a singleMerlin 1D engine modified for vacuum operation.[36]
The interstage, which connects the upper and lower stage for Falcon 9, is a carbon fiber aluminum core composite structure.[37] Separationcollets and a pneumatic pusher system separate the stages.[38] The Falcon 9 tank walls and domes are made fromaluminium-lithium alloy.[39] SpaceX uses an all-friction stir welded tank, a technique which minimizes manufacturing defects and reduces cost, according to a NASA spokesperson.[40] 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 saves money during vehicle production.[33]
Thefairing design was completed by SpaceX, with production of the 13 m (43 ft)-long, 5.2 m (17 ft)-diameterpayload fairing inHawthorne, California.[41]
Testing of the new fairing design was completed at NASA'sPlum Brook Station facility in spring 2013 where acoustic shock, mechanical vibration, andelectromagneticelectrostatic discharge conditions were simulated. Tests were done on a full-size test article invacuum chamber. SpaceX paid NASAUS$581,300 to lease test time in the $150M NASA simulation chamber facility.[42]
The first flight of a Falcon 9 v1.1 (CASSIOPE, September 2013) was the first launch of the Falcon 9 v1.1 as well as the Falcon 9 family configured with apayload fairing. The fairing separated without incident during the launch of CASSIOPE as well as the two subsequent GTO insertion missions.[42] In Dragon missions, the capsule protects any small satellites, negating the need for a fairing.[43]
SpaceX uses multiple redundantflight computers in afault-tolerant design. Each Merlin engine is controlled by threevoting computers, each of which has two physical processors that constantly check each other. The software runs onLinux and is written inC++.[44]
For flexibility,commercial off-the-shelf parts and system-wide "radiation-tolerant" design are used instead ofrad-hardened parts.[44]Falcon 9 v1.1 continues to utilize thetriple redundant flight computers and inertial navigation—with GPS overlay for additional orbit insertion accuracy—that were originally used in the Falcon 9 v1.0.[33]
A test of theignition system for the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage was conducted in April 2013.[45] On 1 June 2013, a ten-second firing of the Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage occurred; a full-duration, 3-minute firing was expected a few days later.[46][47]
By September 2013, SpaceX total manufacturing space had increased to nearly 1,000,000 square feet (93,000 m2) and the factory had been configured to achieve a production rate of up to 40 rocket cores per year, for both the Falcon 9 v1.1 and thetri-coreFalcon Heavy.[48] The November 2013 production rate for Falcon 9 vehicles was one per month. The company stated that this would increase to 18 per year in mid-2014, and would be 24 launch vehicles per year by the end of 2014.[22]
As launch manifest and launch rate increases in 2014–2016, SpaceX is looking to increase their launch processing by building dual-track parallel launch processes at the launch facility. As of March 2014[update], they projected that they would have this in operation sometime in 2015, and were aiming for a 2015 launch pace of about two launches per month.[49]
Thefirst launch of the substantially upgraded Falcon 9 v1.1 vehicle successfully flew on 29 September 2013.[10][50]
Themaiden Falcon 9 v1.1 launch included a number of "firsts":[4][51]
SpaceX conducted thefifteenth and final flight of the Falcon 9 v1.1 on 17 January 2016. Fourteen of those fifteen launches have successfully delivered their primary payloads to eitherLow Earth orbit orGeosynchronous Transfer Orbit.
The only failed mission of the Falcon 9 v1.1 was its 14th,SpaceX CRS-7, 28 June 2015, which was lost during its first stage operation, due to an overpressure event in the second stage oxygen tank.[53] (After CRS-7 there was one final launch of V1.1, on 17 January 2016, to launch the Jason-3 payload.)
Investigation traced the accident to the failure of a strut inside the second stage's liquid-oxygen tank. NASA concluded that the most probable cause of the strut failure was a design error: instead of using a stainless-steel eye bolt made of aerospace-grade material, SpaceX chose an industrial-grade material without adequate screening and testing and overlooked the recommended safety margin.[54]
The Falcon 9 v1.1 includes several aspects ofreusable launch vehicle technology included in its design, as of the initial v1.1 launch in September 2013 (throttleable and restartable engines on the first stage, a first-stage tank design that can structurally accommodate the future addition of landing legs, etc.). The Falcon 9 v1.1's launch occurred two years after SpaceX committed to aprivately funded development program with the goal to obtain full and rapid reusability of both stages of the launch vehicle.[55]
Design was complete on the system for "bringing the rocket back to launchpad using only thrusters" in February 2012.[56] The reusable launch system technology is being considered for both the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy, and is considered particularly well suited to the Falcon Heavy where the two outer cores separate from the rocket much earlier in the flight profile, and are therefore moving at slower velocity at stage separation.[56]
A reusable first stage is now being flight tested by SpaceX with the suborbitalGrasshopper rocket.[57] By April 2013, a low-altitude, low-speed demonstration test vehicle, Grasshopper v1.0, had made sevenVTVL test flights from late-2012 through August 2013, including a 61-second hover flight to an altitude of 250 metres (820 ft).
In March 2013, SpaceX announced that, beginning with the first flight of the stretch version of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle (Falcon 9 v1.1)—which flew in September 2013—everyfirst stage would be instrumented and equipped as a controlled descent test vehicle. SpaceX intends to dopropulsive-return over-water tests and "will continue doing such tests until they can do areturn to the launch site and a powered landing. They "expect several failures before they 'learn how to do it right.'"[20] SpaceX completed multiple water landings that were successful and they now plan to land the first stage of the flightCRS-5 on an Autonomous drone port in the ocean.[21]
Photos of the first test of the restartableignition system for the reusable Falcon 9—the Falcon 9-R— nine-engine v1.1 circular-engine configuration were released in April 2013.[45]
In March 2014, SpaceX announced that GTO payload of the future reusable Falcon 9 (F9-R), with only the booster reused, would be approximately 3,500 kg (7,700 lb).[58]
Several missions of Falcon 9 v1.1 were followed by post-missiontest flights calling for the first-stage booster to execute a flip around maneuver, a boostback burn to reduce the rocket's horizontal velocity, a re-entry burn to mitigate atmospheric damage at hypersonic speed, a controlled atmospheric descent with autonomous guidance to the target and finally a landing burn to cut vertical velocity to zero just before reaching the ocean or landing pad. SpaceX announced the test program in March 2013, and their intention to continue to conduct such tests until they can return to the launch site and perform apowered landing.[20]
The first stage ofFalcon 9 Flight 6 performed the first test of a controlled descent and propulsive landing over water on 29 September 2013.[10] Although not a complete success, the stage was able to change direction and make a controlled entry into the atmosphere.[10] During the final landing burn, the ACS thrusters could not overcome an aerodynamically induced spin, and centrifugal force deprived the landing engine of fuel leading to early engine shutdown and a hard splashdown which destroyed the first stage. Pieces of wreckage were recovered for further study.[10]
The next test, using the first stage fromSpaceX CRS-3, led to a successful soft landing in the ocean, however the booster presumably broke up in heavy seas before it could be recovered.[59]
After further ocean landing tests, the first stage of theCRS-5 launch vehicle attempted to land on a floating platform, theautonomous spaceport drone ship, in January 2015. The rocket guided itself to the ship successfully but landed too hard for survival.[60] The first stage of theCRS-6 mission managed a soft landing on the platform; however, excess lateral velocity caused it to quickly tip over and explode.[61] SpaceX CEO Elon Musk indicated that a throttle valve for the engine was stuck and did not respond quickly enough to achieve a smooth landing.[62]
Falcon 9 v1.1 was never successfully recovered or reused until its retirement. However the test program continued withFalcon 9 Full Thrust flights, which achieved both thefirst ground landing in December 2015 and thefirst ship landing in April 2016.
Falcon 9 v1.1 rockets were launched from bothLaunch Complex 40 atCape Canaveral Air Force Station andLaunch Complex 4E atVandenberg Air Force Base. The Vandenberg site was used for boththe v1.1 maiden flight on 29 September 2013[10] andits last mission on 17 January 2016.
Additional launch sites atKennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 pad A andBoca Chica, South Texas will launch the rocket's successor variantsFalcon 9 Full Thrust andFalcon Heavy.
As of October 2015[update], the Falcon 9 v1.1 commercial launchprice wasUS$61.2 million (up fromUS$56.5 million in October 2013)[1] competing for commercial launches in an increasinglycompetitive market.[63]
NASA resupply missions to the ISS—which include the provision of the space capsule payload, a newDragon cargo spacecraft for each flight—had an average price of $133 million.[64]The first twelve cargo transport flights contracted to NASA were done at one time, so no price change is reflected for the v1.1 launches as opposed to the v1.0 launches. The contract was for a specific amount of cargo carried to, and returned from, theSpace Station over a fixed number of flights.
SpaceX stated that due to mission assurance process costs, launches for the U.S. military would be priced about 50% more than commercial launches, so a Falcon 9 launch would sell for about $90 million to the US government, compared to an average cost to theUS government of nearly $400 million for current non-SpaceX launches.[65]
Falcon 9 payload services include secondary and tertiary payload connection via anESPA-ring, the sameinterstage adapter first utilized for launching secondary payloads onUS DoD missions that utilize theEvolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV)Atlas V andDelta IV. This enables secondary and even tertiary missions with minimal impact to the original mission. As of 2011[update], SpaceX announced pricing for ESPA-compatible payloads on the Falcon 9.[66]
"Falcon 9 will do satellites up to roughly 3.5 tonnes, with full reusability of the boost stage, and Falcon Heavy will do satellites up to 7 tonnes with full reusability of the all three boost stages," [Musk] said, referring to the three Falcon 9 booster cores that will comprise the Falcon Heavy's first stage. He also said Falcon Heavy could double its payload performance toGTO "if, for example, we went expendable on the center core."
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.
| Launch vehicles |
|  | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spacecraft |
| |||||||||
| Test vehicles |
| |||||||||
| Rocket engines | ||||||||||
| Lists of missions | ||||||||||
| Launch facilities |
| |||||||||
| Landing sites |
| |||||||||
| Other facilities | ||||||||||
| Support |
| |||||||||
| Contracts | ||||||||||
| R&D programs | ||||||||||
| Key people |
| |||||||||
| Related | ||||||||||
* denotes unflown vehicles or engines, and future missions or sites. † denotes failed missions, destroyed vehicles, and abandoned sites. | ||||||||||
