#manifold valve texas | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

abrown455 · 2 months

Text

Flow Control Valve Selection Guide: Factors to Consider for Different Applications

Flow control valves are crucial parts of many sectors, such as manufacturing, oil and gas extraction, chemical processing, and water treatment. These valves control the fluid flow rate, guaranteeing both safety and best performance in many applications.

To assist you in making an educated choice, this article will examine the important aspects to take into account when selecting a manifold valve Texas.

Being Aware of Flow Control Valves

Actuators can be used to automate or manually operate them. Among the primary varieties of flow control valves are:

Globe Valves: renowned for their accuracy in control.

Ball Valves: These are good for on/off control and provide a rapid shut-off.

Butterfly valves: Offer an equilibrium between price, dimensions, and effectiveness.

Diaphragm Valves: For viscous or corrosive liquids.

Needs for Flow Rates

Ascertain the flow rate that your application requires. The maximum flow rate that the valve can manage should not result in an unacceptable pressure decrease or turbulence. Flow rate computations can be used to choose the size and kind of valve as per industrial valve manufacturers.

Conditions of Pressure

Examine the differential pressure (the difference between the pressure at the intake and outflow) and the operating pressure. For the valve to remain functional and intact, it must be able to bear system pressure.

Method of Actuation

Think about the intended operation of the industrial valve manufacturers:

Manual: Simple and affordable, hand-operated valves.

Electric actuators: Offer exact automation and control.

Electric actuators are dangerous in explosive settings; pneumatic actuators are appropriate.

High-force applications employ hydraulic actuators.

Accurate Control

The type of valve will depend on how precise the flow rate control has to be. The necessary flow rate must also be ascertained. The valve must manage the highest possible flow rate while avoiding undue turbulence or pressure loss. Precise flow rate estimates may be used to choose the size and type of the valve. For the valve to remain functional and intact, it must be able to bear system pressure.

The surrounding environment significantly influences the choice of valve. Dust levels, corrosion potential, humidity, and ambient temperature all affect the decision. Materials that can survive such conditions are needed for ball valve manufacturers valves used at extremely cold temperatures.

Corrosion-resistant valves from industrial valve manufacturers are required for outdoor or maritime situations, and adequate sealing is necessary for dusty conditions to avoid contamination. These are the essential factors you must understand to consider.

Application-Specific Pointers

Water Purification

Valves in water treatment facilities must manage vast amounts of water with different degrees of impurities. Durability and resistance to corrosion are essential. Butterfly valves from industrial valve manufacturers are frequently utilized because they are economical and effectively regulate flow.

Gas and Oil

In the oil and gas sector, manifold valve Texas have to endure corrosive fluids, extreme temperatures, and pressures. Ball and globe valves made of stainless steel are favored due to their durability and dependability.

Chemical Reaction

Chemical factories need valves that are capable of withstanding caustic and aggressive chemicals. Teflon-lined and diaphragm valves are frequently used to stop chemical interactions with the valve material.

Air Conditioning Systems

Valves control the air and water flow in HVAC systems. Because of their dependability and speed of operation, ball and butterfly valves are frequently utilized.

Producing

Fluids used in manufacturing processes range from lubricants to coolants. The valve of choice needs to be accurate in its management and compatible with these fluids to guarantee product quality.

Choosing the appropriate manifold valve Texas requires taking into account a number of variables, such as the fluid's properties, flow rate, pressure levels, ambient circumstances, and more.

Comprehending the particular demands of your application guarantees the best possible performance, security, and durability for your flow control system. You may select a valve that satisfies your requirements and offers dependable service in your application by carefully weighing these considerations.

Summary: We have shared all the information here if you want to know about the flow control valves Texas. So, you may give it a read! For more information, checkout Arek Solutions with the flow control valves Texas. They are the best!

#flow control valves texas #manifold valve texas #flow valve texas #flow regulator valve texas #ball valve manufacturers #industrial valve manufacturers

0 notes

wiack4 · 1 year

Text

With its snarling engine, gleaming chrome, and iconic spins, the 1933 Ford Coupe customized by Billy Gibbons of ZZ Top is one of the most famous hot rods ever built. Known as the "Eliminator", this car graced many of ZZ Top's album covers and music videos in the 1980s, captivating fans worldwide. In this article, we'll explore the history of the Eliminator, its customization details, current whereabouts, and why this hot rod remains so legendary among car enthusiasts decades later. Whether you're a ZZ Top devotee or just love modified vintage cars, the story behind this machine is fascinating. The Origins of the Eliminator ZZ Top Car In the early 1980s, ZZ Top was reaching new heights of commercial success with their blend of rock, blues, and boogie. Their 1983 album titled Eliminator went on to sell over 10 million copies. Guitarist Billy Gibbons had a vision of featuring hot rods on their album covers and videos to match the bluesy, southern-fried style of their music. Gibbons had been a car aficionado since the late 1950s and turned to George Barris - legendary car customizer to the stars - to make his idea a reality. Barris started with a 1933 Ford 3-window coupe he discovered rusting away in a Texas field. After Billy picked it, Barris and his team got to work stripping it down and turning it into a badass hot rod now forever linked to ZZ Top. ZZ Top's Billy Gibbons with his customized 1933 Ford Coupe This Ford may have started out forgotten in a field, but it was about to become one of the most famous hot rods of all time. Customization Details of the Eliminator Car Turning the rusted old Ford into the growling Eliminator machine took extensive modifications. Here are some of the key features Barris and his shop added: 350 horsepower Chevy 350 ZZ4 V8 engine Custom metal flake candy apple red paint with flames Chopped steel top lowered substantially for sleek profile Curved and chrome-plated windshield Smaller 15" wire wheels with wide tires for attitude Eliminator logo painted on rear fenders Chrome engine upgrades like valve covers and air cleaner High-rise intake manifold with 4-barrel carburetor These machine shop upgrades along with interior tweaks like a Hurst shifter, velour seats, and custom steering wheel came together to create the bad-to-the-bone style Gibbons requested. Of course, the car wouldn't be complete without those famous spinning rims. Barris installed a custom hydraulic system that allowed the rear wheels to spin freely at the flip of a switch while the car was stationary. This eye-catching feature created the legendary Eliminator spins seen in so many ZZ Top videos and concerts driven by Gibbons himself. The Eliminator in ZZ Top's Music Videos and Albums After Barris completed work on the Eliminator Ford Coupe, it gained worldwide fame through its appearances in ZZ Top's media: Featured on the album cover of Eliminator in Gibbons' hands Starred in music videos like "Legs", "Sharp Dressed Man" and "Gimme All Your Lovin'" TV appearances on MTV, Solid Gold, and The Midnight Special performing eliminator spins synchronized to the music Live concerts spinning on stage to climactic solos as a highlight prop Worldwide tours from 1983-1984 showcasing the hot rod in its ZZ Top glory Millions of viewers saw those mesmerizing Eliminator spins synced to ZZ Top tracks. The car helped rocket the band to their greatest commercial success. The Eliminator famously appeared on the ZZ Top album cover Where is the Original Eliminator Now? So where is this legendary hot rod today after being the face of so many ZZ Top projects in the 1980s? After the Eliminator fame, Gibbons kept ownership of the vehicle in its original condition rather than modifying or selling it. It remains under his care in a private collection. The iconic Ford Coupe m

akes special appearances on occasion at car shows and concerts, but is mostly kept out of the public eye now as a cherished memento. Some individuals have created replica Eliminator clones, but the original is safely preserved. In 2014, the Eliminator was shipped to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum in Cleveland to be displayed as part of a featured ZZ Top exhibit. It drew many admiring car enthusiasts during this temporary public showing. Why the ZZ Top Eliminator Remains So Legendary There are several key reasons why this souped up 1933 Ford Coupe remains ingrained in pop culture history decades later: Quintessential 80s style: The flame-adorned paint and curvy proportions captured an era. Star vehicle: Its fame was launched through ZZ Top's wildly successful Eliminator album and videos. Custom spins: The hydraulics that enabled those mesmerizing tire spins were revolutionary. Bluesy personality: The entire vibe matched ZZ Top's musical style perfectly. Worldwide exposure: Millions saw it on TV, tours, and in magazines. Billy Gibbons' vision: It represented his passion for hot rods meshed with rock and roll. From backwoods discovery to worldwide stardom, the ZZ Top Eliminator just had the perfect combination of factors to become an automotive icon. Its legend will live on thanks to its impact on car culture and music history. Frequently Asked Questions About the Eliminator What was the total cost of building the Eliminator? Estimates put the total customization cost between $80,000 - $100,000 in 1983 dollars. That's approximately $250k - $300k today! Did ZZ Top commission more hot rods from George Barris? Yes, Barris built a '34 Ford and '36 Chrysler for ZZ Top later in the 1980s following the Eliminator's success. Are those real ZZ Top beards on the Eliminator album cover? No, those are fake beards attached to the front of the car! The band's iconic beards weren't actually that long yet in 1983. Where are the wheel spinning hydraulics located? The Eliminator uses hydraulic cylinders connected to the rear axle to enable the spinning. They are mounted underneath and operated via remote control. Has the Eliminator engine been modified over the years? It's believed the original Chevy ZZ4 350 V8 remains in the car. The Eliminator has undergone no major mechanical changes. Cranking Up Hot Rod History From forgotten origins to the spotlight of 1980s rockstardom, the story of Billy Gibbons' customized 1933 Ford Coupe known as the Eliminator proves why it remains a legend in the automotive world. Its chopped steel body, thundering ZZ4 engine, and one-of-a-kind eliminator wheel spins make it a quintessential example of how hot rods fused with pop culture. So for both car aficionados and ZZ Top fans, the Eliminator will always be an iconic piece of machinery. We can thank Billy Gibbons' vision along with George Barris' custom chops for creating this hot rod that so boldly captured an era now forever preserved in music history. #Wiack

1 note · View note

wiack3 · 1 year

Text

0 notes

wiack2 · 1 year

Text

0 notes

wiack1 · 1 year

Text

0 notes

elevonofficial · 2 years

Photo

Phoenix got @holleyperformance valve covers! The engine looks cleaner without the OEM coil brackets. I like how the covers now match the intake manifold. :D (at Austin, Texas) https://www.instagram.com/p/CfIBGzPriUj/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

0 notes

us281trktrl · 3 years

Photo

We have the best diesel mechanics in South Texas for Cummins Engines at our diesel engine repair shop - Broken bolts on Cummins ISX manifold !!!

The Cummins ISX engine is an Inline diesel engine produced by Cummins for heavy duty trucks and motorcoaches, replacing the N14 in 2001 when emissions regulations passed by the EPA made the engine obsolete.

We have the best diesel mechanics in South Texas for Detroit, Cummins, CAT, Maxxforce DT, Navistar diesel engines at our truck shop in South Texas.

This commercial truck with a Cummins ISX diesel engine came in for an inspection at our diesel engine repair shop. We found a broken bolt in the last top hole in the manifold. Our diesel mechanic also replaced the EGR cooler due to a water leak. We were able to remove the broken bolt, install all new bolts, gaskets, and turbo the gasket.

We got this truck back on the road to making money all across the US.

Lists of of different types of issues in diesel engines that our diesel mechanics can fix -

-Injectors & Injector Cup Replacement

-Air Compressor Replacement

-Power Steering Pump

-Gear Box Replacement or Rebuilt

-Front Cover Replacement

-Fan belt replacement or adjustment

-Pulley replacement

-Fan Clutch replacement

-Oil Pump Replacement

-Oil Pan Replacement

-Front/Rear Motor Mounts

-Fuel System, Fuel Pump Replacement

-Water leaks Water Pump Replacement

-Head Gasket

-Front/Rear Main Seals

-Main and Rod Bearing

-Oil Cooler

-Turbo, Manifold, & exhaust gaskets

-Overhead Valve Adjustment

-Oil Leaks

-Engine Electrical Services

-Check Engine Lights

-Regen Exhaust System

-Lights

-Fuses

-Alternator

-Wiring

-Add work light

-Batteries

-Starter

-Ground Light Issues

Our advanced truck diagnostic software can diagnose issues in almost any truck brand or diesel engine type be it a Peterbilt, Kenworth, Mack, International, Scania or a Volvo.

Experience professionalism at its peak and workmanship at it’s best !!!

Call us at 956-783-8991 for all your Cummins engine issues.

Or visit us at - https://www.us281trucktrailerservices.com/services/diesel-mechanic-edinburg-texas.html

#us281truck #us281cummins #us281trucktrailerservices #truckinglife #trucklife #trailerrepairs #dieseltrucks #truckshop #truckrepair #dieselmechanics #truckrepairedinburg #truckdrivers #truckdriving #americantrucker #truckingproblems #tuckerlife #trucknation #truckdriversusa #truckerslife #enginerepair #truckenginerepair #southtexas #texastrucking #dieselengines #texasbesttrucker

0 notes

extraload977 · 3 years

Text

Space Falcon Reloaded

Space Falcon Reloaded Free

Space Falcon Reloaded Game

Space Falcon Reloaded Download

军事视频：i点评-Space Falcon Reloaded Free 航天猎鹰免费版. SpaceX is kicking off the week by launching supplies to the International Space Station (ISS). The company is scheduled to fire up a Falcon 9 rocket at 4:30 p.m. EDT to send a Dragon spacecraft full of equipment to the orbiting laboratory and astronaut residence. There is more than one way to watch the Falcon 9 lift off on Monday—both SpaceX and NASA are hosting feeds of the launch. SpaceX's megarocket, the Falcon Heavy, is poised for flight. Perched atop NASA's historic Pad 39A, the behemoth will lift off sometime during a 4-hour window that opens late tonight (June 24). So the Falcon 9 must launch at the exact scheduled second. If it misses that brief window with a satellite, Insprucker explained, the rocket can be detanked of its fuel and later reloaded with.

SpaceX Falcon

In June, 2002, dot-com multimillionaire Elon Musk established SpaceX Corporation, setting up shop in a warehouse in El Segundo, California. He staffed the tiny company with space vehicle engineering talent gleaned from nearby California aerospace companies that were, at the time, rapidly downsizing. He poured at least $100 million of his own money into the company to develop not only the Falcon 1 space launch vehicle, but the rocket engines to propel it. Musk chose initially to attempt to develop the smallest practical space launcher. At a time when other dot-com space startups were struggling with plans to develop complex reusable vehicles, SpaceX planned to build a relatively simple 21.3 meter tall, 1.7 meter diameter kerosene-fueled two-stage rocket capable of boosting about 0.6 tonnes to low earth orbit (LEO). The company focused on providing the lowest launch price possible. SpaceX developed the 40-tonne-thrust-class Merlin engine to power the Falcon 1 first stage and the 3.17 tonne thrust Kestrel engine for the second stage. Merlin was a gas generator cycle engine that used a pintle style injector, an injector design adapted from the Apollo Lunar Module engine. Some Merlin features were similar to NASA's mothballed FASTRAC engine, including use of a similar turbopump manufactured by Barber Nichols. Turbopump exhaust was used to provide roll control. Kestrel, which also used a pintle injector, was a pressure fed design. Kestrel had a radiatively cooled Niobium nozzle and an ablatively cooled chamber and throat. The first stage was a 'pressure assisted stabilized' graduated monocoque aluminum design that used a common bulkhead between its aft kerosene tank and its forward liquid oxygen tank. The stage was helium pressurized and was designed to be recovered at sea after floating down beneath a 22.9 meter ringsail parachute. SpaceX hoped to recover parts of the stage for reuse. The expendable second stage was fabricated from Aluminum. The company originally planned to use lighter Aluminum-Lithium, but it was unable to secure a stockpile of the metal. The stage was helium pressurized. Helium cold gas thrusters were used to control roll during Kestrel burns and to provide three-axis control of the stage at other times.

Falcon 1 development began quickly. The first Merlin test firing took place at the company's McGregor, Texas test lab in March, 2003, and Kestrel testing began soon after. Falcon 1 Protovehicle

Fabrication of a 'protovehicle' began in early 2003. On December 3, 2003, after a cross-country drive on its custom-built transport trailer, SpaceX unveiled the protovehicle in Washington D.C., having parked it on the street in front of the FAA building. During the ceremonies, Elon Musk announced that SpaceX planned to follow-up Falcon 1 with a more powerful 3.7 meter diameter Falcon 5 that would be powered by five Merlin engines. Falcon 1 was initially priced at about $6 million while Falcon 5, designed to haul 4.5 tonnes to LEO, listed at $12 million. During 2004, SpaceX completed its first Falcon 1 flight vehicle, which it erected at the company's SLC 3W launch pad at Vandenberg Air Force Base on October 5, 2004. The rocket was transported and erected with a trailer-based system. A second trailer contained a mobile control center. Falcon 1 was equipped with a new carbon fiber composite interstage, replacing the protovehicle's heavier aluminum interstage. Meanwhile, the company struggled with Merlin development. Cast aluminum manifolds cracked during tests, requiring replacement with heavier inconel manifolds. The engines were not quite as efficient as planned, requiring thrust to be increased to offset the lower specific impulse. The redesigned Merlin was testing by mid year. In September 2004, SpaceX won a DARPA contract that included a Falcon 1 space launch from 7-acre Omelek Island in Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The company gradually built a backlog of missions, including one to launch TacSat-1, a $15 million U.S. Navy microsatellite, and another to orbit a test payload for Bigelow Aerospace. The latter launch would use Falcon 5, a design that had been beefed up since its announcement to haul 6 tonnes to LEO when the original plan to power the Falcon 5 second stage with two Kestrels had been superceded by a plan to use a single Merlin. First Fire

Merlin development was finally completed on January 14, 2005, when the first full run qualification test was performed. Falcon 1 development was completed on March 31, 2005 with a series of structural qualification tests. Merlin was integrated with the first flight vehicle in April, 2005 and on May 27, 2005, the first 5-second hot fire test occurred at SLC 3W. Space reporters were surprised to see how quickly the 15 on-site SpaceX personnel packed up Falcon 1 and its mobile control center trailer after the hot-fire test. The rocket was back in its Los Angeles area warehouse within hours of the test. SpaceX was ready to launch TacSat-1, but the Air Force did not want the launch to occur until the final Titan 4 flew from nearby SLC 4E. Repeated delays pushed the Titan launch back until an exasperated Musk decided to fly the first launch from Kwajalein instead, on the DARPA mission with an Air Force Academy payload named Falconsat 2 . In June, 2005, SpaceX packed up the Falcon launch equipment and sent it on a ship to the islands. The first Falcon 1 vehicle followed a month later. By late 2005, SpaceX had completed two Falcon 1 launchers and was fabricating a third.

Inaugural Omelek Campaign

Space Falcon Reloaded Free

The first Falcon 1 launch attempt at Omelek on November 25, 2005 was scrubbed after a ground-supply LOX vent valve allowed the small LOX supply to boil off. A second attempt on December 19, 2005 was delayed by high winds. Then, the first stage fuel tank buckled during fuel draining when the fuel pressurization system suffered a controller failure. The damaged first stage was shipped back to Los Angeles for repair. The second flight vehicle's first stage was shipped to Omelek in its place.

On February 9, 2006, SpaceX completed a hot-fire test at the Omelek pad with the new first stage, but a second stage propellant leak was discovered during the testing process, thwarting a February launch attempt. The company shipped the second stage to Los Angeles, replacing it with the second flight vehicle's second stage. On March 18 and 23, 2006, the reconfigured vehicle performed hot-fire tests in preparation for a fourth launch attempt.

SpaceX Falcon 1 Inaugural Liftoff Failure

Elon Musk's Falcon 1 failed in its March 24, 2006 inaugural launch attempt from Omelek Island in Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, after a 22:30 GMT liftoff. The two-stage rocket rose from its pad and ascended for about 25 seconds before a fire in the area just above the engine cut into the first stage helium pneumatic system, causing an engine shut-down at T+34 seconds. A downward looking on-board camera view showed a clean, stable ascent until the shutdown. After the shutdown, the camera showed the vehicle rolling and falling toward the ocean.

Falcon 1 is equipped with an engine cut-off range safety system rather than destruct charges. As a result, when the failure occurred, the rocket fell more or less intact to impact on a reef not far from the launch site. The Falconsat 2 payload, an experimental microsat built by U.S. Air Force Academy students, crashed through the roof of a shop building on the island.

According to Elon Musk, the fire, which began just a few seconds after liftoff, appeared to have been fed by a fuel leak. In a March 31 NPR interview, company VP Gwynne Shotwell said that the leak had been caused by a 'procedural error' rather than a launch vehicle hardware failure. A fuel pipe fitting had been opened by a technician the day before the launch to provide access for other work. The presumption was that the fitting had not been properly restored after work was complete.

On July 25, 2006, SpaceX reported the findings of a DARPA “Falcon Return to Flight Board”. The investigation discovered that a kerosene fuel leak began 400 seconds before liftoff, when the propellant pre-valves were opened. The leak occurred on plumbing associated with the turbopump fuel inlet pressure transducer. When the Merlin main engine started at liftoff, the leaking fuel ignited. The precise cause of the leak was not determined, although initial reports that a pad processing error was responsible were ruled out. One possible cause that could not be ruled out was stress corrosion cracking of an “aluminum B-nut” on the transducer plumbing.

Merlin 1C

During 2006, Elon Musk announced that SpaceX had decided to begin work on a 'Merlin 1C' engine with a regeneratively cooled thrust chamber. In early February 2007, SpaceX updated its web site with revised design information for both Merlin and Falcon. The data was said to be effective for vehicles launched in 2009 or later. Merlin 1C was shown to produce 46.259 tonnes of sea-level thrust - a 32% increase over the thrust produced by Merlin 1A during the initial Falcon 1 launches.

A revised Payload User's Guide was published in May 2007. It provided details of the new Merlin 1C powered 'Falcon 1e' rocket that would be about 5.53 meters taller and 11.36 tonnes heavier than the original Falcon rocket. Falcon 1e, expected to enter service after 2009, would be able to haul 25-30% more payload than the original Falcon rocket.

Second Launch

The second Falcon 1 launch, carrying only a dummy payload for DARPA, was planned to occur during the first quarter of 2007. After being erected at Omelek and after having passed a wet dress rehearsal in mid-January, 2007, a planned late-January hot fire test had to be postponed when the vehicle's second stage engine failed a slew test during the countdown. The vehicle was moved back into its Omelek hanger for work, halting the launch campaign until at least early March.

SpaceX performed a brief, successful static test ignition of the Falcon 1 first stage Merlin engine on March 15. After a scrubbed launch attempt on March 19, 2007, Elon Musk's SpaceX Falcon 1 failed to reach orbit during its second flight on March 21, 2007. Flight control was lost about 2 minutes 10 seconds into the vehicle's second stage burn, about five minutes into the roughly 10 minute planned ascent. It was the second Falcon 1 launch failure in two attempts. Liftoff from Omelek Island, Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands occurred at 01:10 UTC. The flight achieved several milestones before the failure, including passing through 'Max-Q', a complete first stage burn, stage separation, second stage ignition, and payload fairing jettison.

On board video broadcast by SpaceX showed the second stage engine bell brushing against the side of the interstage at stage separation. The video also showed an apparent 'coning' motion developing during the last minute of controlled flight. The magnitude of the oscillating motion increased during the final seconds of downlink, just before roll control and telemetry was lost.

On March 27, Elon Musk reported that propellant sloshing had caused the oscillation. LOX sloshing had been initiated by the contact during staging, specifically by the subsequent second stage 'hard slew' required to restore its orientation after its Kestrel engine ignited. The LOX slosh frequency coupled with the thrust vector control system in a way that gradually amplified the oscillation until flight control was lost. The Kestrel engine continued to fire until the T+7.5 minute mark when roll rates increased sufficiently to cause propellant starvation. Mr. Musk also reported that the first stage had not been recovered as planned. The 'Demo 2' demonstration flight was performed for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under the auspices of the DARPA/USAF Falcon program. Payloads, totaling about 50 kg, consisted of a small dummy payload that was to have been deployed and two non-deployable NASA experiments. They included the Autonomous Flight Safety System (AFSS) and the Low Cost Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) Transmitter (LCT2), both developed by NASA. AFSS was to use LCT2 to telemeter data back to Kwajalein and to Wallops Flight Facility. AFSS and LCT2 were tests of low-cost space-based range services for communications, tracking, and on-board autonomous flight termination. The 27.526 tonne, two stage launch vehicle rose on 34.92 tonnes of liftoff thrust from its Merlin LOX/kerosene first stage engine. First stage burnout occurred 168 seconds after liftoff at an altitude of 75 km and a velocity of 2,600 meters per second. The second stage pressure-fed LOX/kerosene 3.l75 tonne thrust Kestrel engine ignited five seconds after first stage cutoff, beginning a planned burned of about 415 seconds duration intended to insert the stage into an initial 330 x 685 km x 9 deg initial orbit about 585 seconds after liftoff. As it turned out, the second stage only achieved suborbital velocity (about 5,100 meters per second), reaching a 289 km apogee before falling back into the Pacific Ocean east of the Marshalls. The launch occurred only 1 hour 5 minutes after a dramatic launch abort that stopped the main engine start sequence. The abort was caused by a slightly low chamber pressure reading caused by lower than planned kerosene fuel temperatures. SpaceX crews drained and reloaded some of the first stage fuel before restarting the count.

New Falcon Details Emerge

In April 2008, SpaceX revealed new details for the higher-thrust Merlin 1C and for Falcon 1e.

The upgraded Merlin 1C would produce 56.689 tonnes of sea-level thrust and 63.449 tonnes of thrust in vacuum, 1.5-1.6 times more than the original Merlin. With more available liftoff thrust,

With the beefed-up Merlin 1C, Falcon 1e grew substantially heavier and more capable. Falcon 1e LEO payload increased to 1 tonne, far more than the original Falcon 1, who's LEO payload had fallen to 0.42 tonnes. An interim Falcon 1, the same size as the original but powered by the initial Merlin 1C model and able to lift 0.47 tonnes to LEO, would fly before Falcon 1e appeared.

Third SpaceX Falcon 1 Launch Fails - Cause Announced (Updated 8/6/08)

The third SpaceX Falcon 1 rocket failed shortly after lifting off from Omelek Island, Kwajalein Atoll, on August 3, 2008. Liftoff of the 21.3 meter tall, 27.67 tonne, two stage rocket occurred at 03:34 UTC. According to a message from Elon Musk to NasaSpaceFlight.com, the failure occurred at staging, about 2 minutes 39 seconds after liftoff, following a nominal first stage burn. A video feed of the launch provided by SpaceX was cut off about 2 minutes 11 seconds after launch, shortly before second stage pressurization, first stage cutoff, and stage separation would have occurred.

On August 6, Musk announced that residual thrust produced by the Merlin 1C first stage engine had caused the stage to recontact the second stage immediately after stage separation. Separation was timed to take place only 1.5 seconds after Merlin 1C shutdown - a timing that had worked with the original ablatively cooled Merlin 1 engine. The pressure-fed Kestrel second stage engine had just started when it and its stage were damaged by the impact.

Lost with the Falcon 1 were the U.S. Air Force Jumpstart mission's Trailblazer satellite, NASA's Nanosail-D solar sail experiment, and NASA's PreSat experiment. Total payload mass was 170 kg. The payloads were expected to be boosted into a 685 x 330 km x 9 deg orbit.

The regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C engine flew for the first time on the flight, boosting Falcon 1 off its pad and downrange for its 2 minute 38 second burn. The engine had aborted an initial countdown attempt 34 minutes before the launch, shutting down during its start sequence when one measured parameter was detected to be out of limit. SpaceX crews recycled the count in 23 minutes.

It was the third Falcon 1 failure in three attempts. Musk said that the fourth Falcon 1 launch, which could occur within weeks, will now only carry a dummy payload. Additional time will be added between the Merlin 1C shutdown and stage separation for the launch.

The third Falcon 1 was shipped to Kwajalein in early 2008. After a delay to allow replacement of a defective Kestrel second stage engine nozzle, the rocket performed a Merlin 1C static test at Omelek on June 25, 2008. Falcon 1 Launch Succeeds on Fourth Try (Updated 10-4-08)

The fourth SpaceX Falcon 1 rocket carried a 165 kg payload mass simulator into space after a September 28 launch from Omelek Island, Kwajalein Atoll. SpaceX reported that the vehicle's second stage and dummy payload reached an initial 330 x 650 km x 9 deg orbit about 9.5 minutes after a 23:14 UTC liftoff. The company also reported that the Kestrel second stage engine subsequently performed a test of its restart capability in space. The stage was tracked by U.S. Space Command in a 621 x 643 km x 9.35 deg orbit after the Kestrel restart.

The reported initial orbit was less than the announced planned 330 x 685 km orbit. Second stage shutdown occurred about 8 seconds earlier than the time listed in the SpaceX press kit.

Space Falcon Reloaded Game

The flight took place less than two months after the third Falcon 1 suffered a staging failure. That failure happened when Merlin 1C first stage engine residual thrust caused the stage to recontact the second stage immediately after stage separation. Separation was timed to take place only 1.5 seconds after Merlin 1C shutdown - a timing that had worked with the original ablatively cooled Merlin 1 engine. For the fourth flight the separation time was extended to 5 seconds and the staging sequence was successful.

Prior to the launch, on September 20, 2008, SpaceX crews briefly ignited the Falcon 1 first stage Merlin 1C engine in a static test on the Omelek pad. After the test, crews decided to replace an unspecified second stage LOX supply component.

It was the first Falcon 1 success in four attempts. The regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C engine flew for the second time on the flight.

Falcon 1 Orbits RazakSAT for Malaysia

The fifth SpaceX Falcon 1 boosted RazakSAT, a Malaysian government earth observation imaging satellite, into orbit from Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands, on July 14, 2009. The 180 kg spacecraft was aimed toward a 685 km x 9 deg low earth orbit. Spacecraft separation was planned to occur 50-55 minutes after launch, following a brief restart of the second stage Kestrel engine to cirularize the orbit.

The 27.67 tonne, two-stage Falcon 1 lifted from Omelek Island at Kwajalien Atoll at 03:35 UTC on 35.38 tonnes of thrust from the rocket's first stage Merlin 1C engine. Following a 2 minute 40 second burn, the first stage fell away and the 3.175 tonne thrust second stage Kestrel engine ignited. Kestrel completed its first burn about 9 minutes 40 seconds after liftoff, boosting the stage and payload toward an approximate planned 330 x 685 km parking orbit. The engine reignited about 38 minutes after its first shutdown as the stack passed within tracking range of Ascension Island.

RazakSAT was designed and built by ATSB, a Malaysian satellite builder.

The launch, by the last original-size Falcon 1 on the SpaceX launch manifest, was the second consecutive Falcon 1 success. It was also the first successful Falcon 1 launch of a live satellite. Falcon 1 first flew in 2006. Two 'Falcon 1e' launches, by vehicles with stretched tanks and higher-thrust Merlin 1c engines, were projected to fly in 2010, but the effort was subsequently shelved.

Vehicle Configurations

LEO Payload (metric tons) 185 km x (1) 28.5 deg (CC) (2) 98 deg (VA) (3) 9.1 deg (KW) Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit Payload (metric tons) Orbit Inclination not Specified ConfigurationLiftoff Height (meters)Liftoff Mass (metric tons) Price (2005) $Millions Falcon 1 (Merlin 1A) 2006-20070.670 t (1) goal 0.500 t (2) goal 0.420 t (3) actual 2 stage Falcon 1 (Merlin 1A) + Falcon 1 PLF21.3 m27.2 t$6.7 m (2006) Falcon 1 (Merlin 1C) 2008-20090.470 t (3) 0.290 t (2)Falcon 1 Stg 1 (Merlin 1C) + Falcon 1e Stg 2 + Falcon 1 PLF21.3 m33.23 t$7.0 m (2007) $7.9 m (2008)Falcon 1e (Merlin 1C+) 2010 and Later1.010 t (3)2 stage Falcon 1e (Merlin 1C+) + Falcon 1e PLF27.4 m46.76 t$9.1 m (2008)Falcon 1e (Merlin 1C) 2007 ORIGINAL DESIGN SUPERCEDED 20080.723 t (3) 0.554 t (2)2 stage Falcon 1e (Merlin 1C) + Falcon 1e PLF26.83 m38.56 t$8.5 m (2007)

Vehicle Components

Falcon 1 Stage 1 (Merlin 1A Version)Falcon 1 Stage 1 (Merlin 1C Version)Falcon 1e Stage 1 (Merlin 1C+ Version) Falcon 1 Stage 2 (Merlin 1A Version)Falcon 1e Stage 2Diameter (m)1.678 m1.678 m1.678 m1.678 m 1.678 mLength (m)15 m** 15 m**22.7 m**2.7 m**2.7 m**Empty Mass (tonnes) 1.296 t1.451 t2.3 t** 0.36 t0.510 tPropellant Mass (tonnes)21.092 t27.102 t44.3 t**3.385 t 4.028 tTotal Mass (tonnes)22.388 t28.553 t46.6 t**3.745 t4.538 tEngineMerlin 1AMerlin 1CMerlin 1C+KestrelKestrel 2Engine MfgrSpaceXSpaceXSpaceXSpaceXSpace XFuelRP1RP1RP1RP1RP1OxidizerLOXLOXLOXLOXLOXThrust (SL tons)34.921 t43.084 t56.689 tThrust (Vac tons)41.72 t48.980 t63.449 t3.175 t3.175 tISP (SL sec)255 s255 s255 sISP (Vac sec)304 s304 s304 s327 s330 sBurn Time (sec)169 s169 s169 s378 s418 sNo. Engines1 (turbo exhaust roll control) 1 (turbo exhaust roll control) 1 (turbo exhaust roll control)1 (He cold gas roll control) 1 (He cold gas roll control) Comments Parachute recovery Parachute recoveryParachute recoveryPressure Fed Pressure Fed