Assuming their is a market for a wider fairing. (NROL for example)Would it be possible to put a larger fairing on F9, or is it currently at the limit of what is doable?Would a larger fairing be possible on FH or do the aerodynamics of fairing size not differ here?
They don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.
Quote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?
Quote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.
Quote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.Falcon Heavy has the same size fairing and as far as we know, SpaceX doesn't have the tooling (big enough autoclave) to make a longer one.
Quote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.Falcon Heavy has the same size fairing and as far as we know, SpaceX doesn't have the tooling (big enough autoclave) to make a longer one.That's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:22 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.Falcon Heavy has the same size fairing and as far as we know, SpaceX doesn't have the tooling (big enough autoclave) to make a longer one.That's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?There isn't much market for payloads of that size beyond the NRO. This is what saves SpaceX a lot of money - targeting 95% of the use cases and market and not chasing every single possible item to greater and greater costs...
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:22 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.Falcon Heavy has the same size fairing and as far as we know, SpaceX doesn't have the tooling (big enough autoclave) to make a longer one.That's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?Maybe they're waiting for USAF to fund it. The house version of the 2018 NDAA allows Air Force to fund fairing and vertical integration facilities needed for NSS launches: https://mainenginecutoff.com/blog/2017/06/house-markup-2018-ndaa
1 SEC. 1615. EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VE2 HICLE MODERNIZATION AND SUSTAINMENT3 OF ASSURED ACCESS TO SPACE.4 (a) DEVELOPMENT.—5 (1) EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHI6CLE.—Using funds described in paragraph (3), the7 Secretary of Defense may only obligate or expend8 funds to carry out the evolved expendable launch ve9 hicle program to—10 (A) develop a domestic rocket propulsion11 system to replace non-allied space launch en12 gines;13 (B) develop the necessary interfaces to, or14 integration of, such domestic rocket propulsion15 system with an existing or new launch vehicle;16 (C) develop capabilities necessary to enable17 commercially available space launch vehicles or18 infrastructure to meet any requirements that19 are unique to national security space missions20 to meet the assured access to space require21 ments pursuant to section 2273 of title 10,22 United States Code, with respect to only—23 (i) modifications to such vehicles re24 quired for national security space missions,25 including—1 (I) certification and compliance2 of such vehicles for use in national se3 curity space missions;4 (II) fairings necessary for the5 launch of national security space pay6 loads to orbit; and7 (III) other upgrades to meet per8 formance, reliability, and orbital re9 quirements that cannot otherwise be10 met through the use of commercially11 available launch vehicles; and12 (ii) the development of infrastructure13 unique to national security space missions,14 such as infrastructure for the use of heavy15 launch vehicles, including—16 (I) facilities and equipment for17 the vertical integration of payloads;18 (II) secure facilities for the proc19 essing of classified payloads; and20 (III) other facilities and equip21 ment, including ground systems and22 expanded capabilities, unique to na23 tional security space launches and the24 launch of national security payloads;1 (D) conduct activities to modernize and2 improve existing certified launch vehicles, or ex3 isting launch vehicles previously contracted for4 use by the Air Force, including restarting a5 dormant supply chain, and infrastructure to in6 crease the cost effectiveness of the launch sys7 tem; or8 (E) certify new, modified, or existing9 launch vehicle systems.10 (2) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in this11 section, none of the funds described in paragraph12 (3) shall be obligated or expended for the evolved ex13 pendable launch vehicle program, including the de14 velopment of new launch vehicles under such pro15 gram.
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:22 pmThat's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?There isn't much market for payloads of that size beyond the NRO. This is what saves SpaceX a lot of money - targeting 95% of the use cases and market and not chasing every single possible item to greater and greater costs...
That's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?
This is the large fairing requirement for DoD.
One thought - they actually do have another customer for the longer fairing - CommX. As they will likely be volume limited on sats per launch way before being limited by mass, the bigger fairing might be a good investment to cut down the number of launches needed to get the constellation deployed.
Quote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.Because they are not as good as big sats
If Falcon 9/Heavey are EELV cert from the payload adaptor & Fairing stand point Could RUAG provide a larger fairing for them?
Quote from: gongora on 07/01/2017 02:04 pmThis is the large fairing requirement for DoD.Does the 480 inches include the Centaur upper stage or not? The cylindrical portion of the F9/FH fairing is 264 inches long. If DoD payload is longer than that in the cylindrical portion then SpaceX needs a longer fairing.
How long is the usable satellite space in the three current launchers? All are about the same width.
Quote from: DOCinCT on 07/03/2017 03:38 pmQuote from: gongora on 07/01/2017 02:04 pmThis is the large fairing requirement for DoD.Does the 480 inches include the Centaur upper stage or not? The cylindrical portion of the F9/FH fairing is 264 inches long. If DoD payload is longer than that in the cylindrical portion then SpaceX needs a longer fairing.No upper stage in the 480 inches, see Delta IV
Quote from: Jim on 07/03/2017 04:42 pmQuote from: DOCinCT on 07/03/2017 03:38 pmQuote from: gongora on 07/01/2017 02:04 pmThis is the large fairing requirement for DoD.Does the 480 inches include the Centaur upper stage or not? The cylindrical portion of the F9/FH fairing is 264 inches long. If DoD payload is longer than that in the cylindrical portion then SpaceX needs a longer fairing.No upper stage in the 480 inches, see Delta IVThe 2nd stage on an Atlas V is within the fairing, Delta IV or Delta IV Heavy is within the interstage. Makes a difference which vehicle/fairing we are talking about.
Quote from: DOCinCT on 07/04/2017 12:35 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/03/2017 04:42 pmQuote from: DOCinCT on 07/03/2017 03:38 pmQuote from: gongora on 07/01/2017 02:04 pmThis is the large fairing requirement for DoD.Does the 480 inches include the Centaur upper stage or not? The cylindrical portion of the F9/FH fairing is 264 inches long. If DoD payload is longer than that in the cylindrical portion then SpaceX needs a longer fairing.No upper stage in the 480 inches, see Delta IVThe 2nd stage on an Atlas V is within the fairing, Delta IV or Delta IV Heavy is within the interstage. Makes a difference which vehicle/fairing we are talking about.The requirement is for the 480 inches to be available for payload. If you also include a second stage in the fairing then you make an even longer fairing. The diagram I posted was not of someone's existing fairing. It is the requirement.
Seems like they need a longer fairing.
Quote from: spacenut on 07/04/2017 11:25 pmSeems like they need a longer fairing. They have no requirement for it. It won't get them more missions
SpaceX may offer modifications to the Falcon Heavy for government missions and launch infrastructure.“Even after the Falcon Heavy is in place, they’ll still need to strengthen their entire heavy rocket to handle the bigger payloads that take a bigger fairing,” Leon says. “There’s no business case for SpaceX to do that without government investment.”
That doesn't mean Spacex will do it. Really not worth for them to pursue outlier missions
Quote from: Jim on 07/05/2017 01:25 amQuote from: spacenut on 07/04/2017 11:25 pmSeems like they need a longer fairing. They have no requirement for it. It won't get them more missionsWhat about BA330?
Quote from: dror on 07/05/2017 04:03 amQuote from: Jim on 07/05/2017 01:25 amQuote from: spacenut on 07/04/2017 11:25 pmSeems like they need a longer fairing. They have no requirement for it. It won't get them more missionsWhat about BA330?Right now there's more of a market for large NSS launches than for BA-330s. If a customer, any customer, demonstrates a good market and/or pays for development, SpaceX probably would make a larger fairing.
But then the question arises whether the ISS modules would fit inside the current fairing, which brings us back to the volume rather than mass constraint that limits the versatility of the Falcon rocket family somewhat.
The capability is the FH is for velocity and not mass to orbit. That is why it is unlikely there will be a larger fairing
A case could be made that an ISS module that doesn't require a fairing could be build. If I recall correctly, there have been studies for the usage of empty second stage fuel tanks as space habitats. Hence, in that particular application, a fairing would not be the limiting factor.
Jim, Why would SpaceX advertise the mass to orbit if the only value is in increased velocity? Why not advertise something more in keeping with the rocket's capabilities. If the increased capability means that you can get a larger weight to a specific orbit then it makes sense, just say so. But the logic remains the same, why even advertise 140,000 lb? Can the Falcon Heavy support that kind of mass? There had to be some use case in mind when the design was contemplated.I suspect this is getting a bit OT when the original topic was fairing width, not length.
There was plans for a taller fairing at some point but they seemed to have been dropped. See below:Quote from: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 11:12 amQuote from: Lars_J on 05/02/2014 05:00 amQuote from: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 03:36 amQuote from: manboy on 05/02/2014 03:27 amThe BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.The BA-330 needs a taller fairing than the one that will be used by initial version of the FH (which will be the same fairing as the F9). The upgaded FH will have a fairing that is 15' taller. But the upgraded FH will only be ready in 2017.I must have missed the news about a bigger FH fairing option. When was that revealed?The information is from the Bigelow Gate 2 report (the charts in the report are dated August 1 2013). According to the report, there is two versions of the FH: the regular version (first launch expected in 2015) and the upgraded version (the first launch of the upgraded version is expected to be in 2017). The regular version of the FH uses the same fairing as the F9. The upgraded FH uses the 15' taller fairing. I beleive this is why there is two prices for the FH on SpaceX's website: one for less than 6.4 tons to GTO and one for more than 6.4 tons to GTO.
Quote from: Lars_J on 05/02/2014 05:00 amQuote from: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 03:36 amQuote from: manboy on 05/02/2014 03:27 amThe BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.The BA-330 needs a taller fairing than the one that will be used by initial version of the FH (which will be the same fairing as the F9). The upgaded FH will have a fairing that is 15' taller. But the upgraded FH will only be ready in 2017.I must have missed the news about a bigger FH fairing option. When was that revealed?The information is from the Bigelow Gate 2 report (the charts in the report are dated August 1 2013). According to the report, there is two versions of the FH: the regular version (first launch expected in 2015) and the upgraded version (the first launch of the upgraded version is expected to be in 2017). The regular version of the FH uses the same fairing as the F9. The upgraded FH uses the 15' taller fairing. I beleive this is why there is two prices for the FH on SpaceX's website: one for less than 6.4 tons to GTO and one for more than 6.4 tons to GTO.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 03:36 amQuote from: manboy on 05/02/2014 03:27 amThe BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.The BA-330 needs a taller fairing than the one that will be used by initial version of the FH (which will be the same fairing as the F9). The upgaded FH will have a fairing that is 15' taller. But the upgraded FH will only be ready in 2017.I must have missed the news about a bigger FH fairing option. When was that revealed?
Quote from: manboy on 05/02/2014 03:27 amThe BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.The BA-330 needs a taller fairing than the one that will be used by initial version of the FH (which will be the same fairing as the F9). The upgaded FH will have a fairing that is 15' taller. But the upgraded FH will only be ready in 2017.
The BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: ValmirGP on 01/15/2018 10:40 amA case could be made that an ISS module that doesn't require a fairing could be build. If I recall correctly, there have been studies for the usage of empty second stage fuel tanks as space habitats. Hence, in that particular application, a fairing would not be the limiting factor.If you use a fairing, you can attach non-aerodynamic items to the outside of the module before launch (antennas, sensors, solar panels). Without a fairing, you'd have to install these via spacewalks after launch, which is time-consuming and expensive. You also introduce extra constraints on the shape of the module (has to be streamlined).
Quote from: Hobbes-22 on 01/15/2018 11:27 amQuote from: ValmirGP on 01/15/2018 10:40 amA case could be made that an ISS module that doesn't require a fairing could be build. If I recall correctly, there have been studies for the usage of empty second stage fuel tanks as space habitats. Hence, in that particular application, a fairing would not be the limiting factor.If you use a fairing, you can attach non-aerodynamic items to the outside of the module before launch (antennas, sensors, solar panels). Without a fairing, you'd have to install these via spacewalks after launch, which is time-consuming and expensive. You also introduce extra constraints on the shape of the module (has to be streamlined).Antennas, sensors and even hand rails could be made inside fold-able panels, just as the Dragon has the GNC (guidance, navigation & control) bay door. Solar panels and other things with specific needs could be build/launched in a different module that fits inside a regular fairing. Thus, the module could be larger than the regular fairing. There would be many flights, anyway.I am just saying that it could be done - it's a mater of engineering. If it is optimal or ideal is up to whomever projects such a thing in the future. (and beyond the scope of this thread)
Quote from: ValmirGP on 01/15/2018 02:03 pmQuote from: Hobbes-22 on 01/15/2018 11:27 amQuote from: ValmirGP on 01/15/2018 10:40 amA case could be made that an ISS module that doesn't require a fairing could be build. If I recall correctly, there have been studies for the usage of empty second stage fuel tanks as space habitats. Hence, in that particular application, a fairing would not be the limiting factor.If you use a fairing, you can attach non-aerodynamic items to the outside of the module before launch (antennas, sensors, solar panels). Without a fairing, you'd have to install these via spacewalks after launch, which is time-consuming and expensive. You also introduce extra constraints on the shape of the module (has to be streamlined).Antennas, sensors and even hand rails could be made inside fold-able panels, just as the Dragon has the GNC (guidance, navigation & control) bay door. Solar panels and other things with specific needs could be build/launched in a different module that fits inside a regular fairing. Thus, the module could be larger than the regular fairing. There would be many flights, anyway.I am just saying that it could be done - it's a mater of engineering. If it is optimal or ideal is up to whomever projects such a thing in the future. (and beyond the scope of this thread)Still a bad idea, see Skylab
assuming that the availability of a cheap super-heavy lifter doesn't create a demand that was previously not expressed.
This is why a larger fairing is not needed.
Mowry said the 7-meter fairing is the result of input from market demand and customer reactions. The original fairing was 5.4 meters, he said.
Quote from: Jim on 01/15/2018 03:46 pmThis is why a larger fairing is not needed.Blue Origin begs to differ. For New Glenn they switched to a larger fairing http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-enlarges-new-glenns-payload-fairing-preparing-to-debut-upgraded-new-shepard/ QuoteMowry said the 7-meter fairing is the result of input from market demand and customer reactions. The original fairing was 5.4 meters, he said.
Quote from: jpo234 on 01/15/2018 07:09 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/15/2018 03:46 pmThis is why a larger fairing is not needed.Blue Origin begs to differ. For New Glenn they switched to a larger fairing http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-enlarges-new-glenns-payload-fairing-preparing-to-debut-upgraded-new-shepard/ QuoteMowry said the 7-meter fairing is the result of input from market demand and customer reactions. The original fairing was 5.4 meters, he said. for FH it is not needed
That's reportedly a 9600 kg payload, 10 satellites weighing in at 860 kg each and a 1000 kg dispenser. Judging by eye, you wouldn't get another tier on top, due to the taper off the fairing. If other payloads are similar in density, you won't need to go much heavier before the volume becomes an issue.
Again, by eye, it looks like the diameter of the payload is considerably smaller than the fairing customer volume and you can go to six in a ring, as well as put three on top, for 15, not ten.
I do idly wonder if a fairing connected to all three boosters might work for really really large payloads.
Quote from: Jim on 01/15/2018 03:46 pmThis is why a larger fairing is not needed.They'll need longer fairing for EELV Category C payloads.
Quote from: Jim on 01/15/2018 08:04 pmQuote from: jpo234 on 01/15/2018 07:09 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/15/2018 03:46 pmThis is why a larger fairing is not needed.Blue Origin begs to differ. For New Glenn they switched to a larger fairing http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-enlarges-new-glenns-payload-fairing-preparing-to-debut-upgraded-new-shepard/ QuoteMowry said the 7-meter fairing is the result of input from market demand and customer reactions. The original fairing was 5.4 meters, he said. for FH it is not neededI'm really curious. FH/F9 and New Glenn will serve the same market: satellite launches to LEO and GEO.Why does Blue think they need a 7-meter fairing yet it's not needed for the Falcon family?
Quote from: JimThis is why a larger fairing is not needed.Holy cow look at the cooling system on that thing!Does anyone know why those panels have the hand-sized holes in them?
Quote from: speedevil on 01/16/2018 06:55 amI do idly wonder if a fairing connected to all three boosters might work for really really large payloads.There are three first stages, but only one second stage on top of the centre core. There would be nothing supporting the extra width.You could perhaps speculate on a wider diameter, but still cylindrical, second stage and fairing, but then you lose the commonality with Falcon 9 and the ability to transport by road. The current plan is to replace F9 and FH with the Big Falcon Rocket.
Seems like it would be easier to just build a new 7m rocket. ...
It could have appeared first as a solution to a real problem
That leaves SpaceX more than six years to develop a bigger payload fairing.However, Category C payloads are exceedingly rare. As such SpaceX might just chose NOT to bid on Category C payload missions. Given that those missions require a very substantial investment (to develop a new large fairing) in return for not-so-substantial financial benefits.
Quote from: woods170 on 01/16/2018 08:54 amThat leaves SpaceX more than six years to develop a bigger payload fairing.However, Category C payloads are exceedingly rare. As such SpaceX might just chose NOT to bid on Category C payload missions. Given that those missions require a very substantial investment (to develop a new large fairing) in return for not-so-substantial financial benefits.My understanding of the next EELV bid requirements is that providers must bid on *all* payloads and orbits. This is presumably to stop it becoming uneconomical to support the launchers that can do the heaviest payloads, spreading the cost across all requirements.This is why there's now quite a bit of pressure to get Falcon Heavy up.
Quote from: OccasionalTraveller on 01/16/2018 04:22 pmQuote from: woods170 on 01/16/2018 08:54 amThat leaves SpaceX more than six years to develop a bigger payload fairing.However, Category C payloads are exceedingly rare. As such SpaceX might just chose NOT to bid on Category C payload missions. Given that those missions require a very substantial investment (to develop a new large fairing) in return for not-so-substantial financial benefits.My understanding of the next EELV bid requirements is that providers must bid on *all* payloads and orbits. This is presumably to stop it becoming uneconomical to support the launchers that can do the heaviest payloads, spreading the cost across all requirements.This is why there's now quite a bit of pressure to get Falcon Heavy up.Incorrect. SpaceX is certified for NSS launches, yet they are not obliged to bid on all payload and orbits. In fact they have been "cherry-picking" missions so far.And guess what: ULA is not obliged to bid on all payloads and orbits either. Remember them NOT bidding on the first competitively awarded launch contract for a GPS III mission?USAF was pretty frakked-off about that but could not actually do anything about it. Simply because it was a competitively awarded launch. Under the current rules-of-the-game the certified companies are not obliged to bid on such contracts.Also: it is pretty pointless for SpaceX to bid on payloads they cannot actually launch (Category C EELV payloads).It is also pretty pointless for SpaceX to bid on orbits they cannot actually launch to (due to LV-performance shortfalls).Finally: there is no pressure to get Falcon Heavy flying. The assigned payloads are few and don't actually need FH's performance, nor is FH critical to US NSS launches.
Quote from: woods170 on 01/23/2018 08:17 amQuote from: OccasionalTraveller on 01/16/2018 04:22 pmMy understanding of the next EELV bid requirements is that providers must bid on *all* payloads and orbits. This is presumably to stop it becoming uneconomical to support the launchers that can do the heaviest payloads, spreading the cost across all requirements.This is why there's now quite a bit of pressure to get Falcon Heavy up.Incorrect. SpaceX is certified for NSS launches, yet they are not obliged to bid on all payload and orbits. In fact they have been "cherry-picking" missions so far.And guess what: ULA is not obliged to bid on all payloads and orbits either. Remember them NOT bidding on the first competitively awarded launch contract for a GPS III mission?USAF was pretty frakked-off about that but could not actually do anything about it. Simply because it was a competitively awarded launch. Under the current rules-of-the-game the certified companies are not obliged to bid on such contracts.Also: it is pretty pointless for SpaceX to bid on payloads they cannot actually launch (Category C EELV payloads).It is also pretty pointless for SpaceX to bid on orbits they cannot actually launch to (due to LV-performance shortfalls).Finally: there is no pressure to get Falcon Heavy flying. The assigned payloads are few and don't actually need FH's performance, nor is FH critical to US NSS launches.I could be wrong but I think OccasionalTraveller meant that the EELV contract RFP requires that the offeror(s) addresses all of the requirements, per the attached screenshots, and not that the offeror bid on all RFPs for other individual launches.
Quote from: OccasionalTraveller on 01/16/2018 04:22 pmMy understanding of the next EELV bid requirements is that providers must bid on *all* payloads and orbits. This is presumably to stop it becoming uneconomical to support the launchers that can do the heaviest payloads, spreading the cost across all requirements.This is why there's now quite a bit of pressure to get Falcon Heavy up.Incorrect. SpaceX is certified for NSS launches, yet they are not obliged to bid on all payload and orbits. In fact they have been "cherry-picking" missions so far.And guess what: ULA is not obliged to bid on all payloads and orbits either. Remember them NOT bidding on the first competitively awarded launch contract for a GPS III mission?USAF was pretty frakked-off about that but could not actually do anything about it. Simply because it was a competitively awarded launch. Under the current rules-of-the-game the certified companies are not obliged to bid on such contracts.Also: it is pretty pointless for SpaceX to bid on payloads they cannot actually launch (Category C EELV payloads).It is also pretty pointless for SpaceX to bid on orbits they cannot actually launch to (due to LV-performance shortfalls).Finally: there is no pressure to get Falcon Heavy flying. The assigned payloads are few and don't actually need FH's performance, nor is FH critical to US NSS launches.
My understanding of the next EELV bid requirements is that providers must bid on *all* payloads and orbits. This is presumably to stop it becoming uneconomical to support the launchers that can do the heaviest payloads, spreading the cost across all requirements.This is why there's now quite a bit of pressure to get Falcon Heavy up.
Quote from: garcianc on 01/23/2018 03:40 pmQuote from: woods170 on 01/23/2018 08:17 amQuote from: OccasionalTraveller on 01/16/2018 04:22 pmMy understanding of the next EELV bid requirements is that providers must bid on *all* payloads and orbits. This is presumably to stop it becoming uneconomical to support the launchers that can do the heaviest payloads, spreading the cost across all requirements.This is why there's now quite a bit of pressure to get Falcon Heavy up.Incorrect. SpaceX is certified for NSS launches, yet they are not obliged to bid on all payload and orbits. In fact they have been "cherry-picking" missions so far.And guess what: ULA is not obliged to bid on all payloads and orbits either. Remember them NOT bidding on the first competitively awarded launch contract for a GPS III mission?USAF was pretty frakked-off about that but could not actually do anything about it. Simply because it was a competitively awarded launch. Under the current rules-of-the-game the certified companies are not obliged to bid on such contracts.Also: it is pretty pointless for SpaceX to bid on payloads they cannot actually launch (Category C EELV payloads).It is also pretty pointless for SpaceX to bid on orbits they cannot actually launch to (due to LV-performance shortfalls).Finally: there is no pressure to get Falcon Heavy flying. The assigned payloads are few and don't actually need FH's performance, nor is FH critical to US NSS launches.I could be wrong but I think OccasionalTraveller meant that the EELV contract RFP requires that the offeror(s) addresses all of the requirements, per the attached screenshots, and not that the offeror bid on all RFPs for other individual launches.Let me put it this way.SpaceX cannot launch Category C payloads. They don't have the fairing for it, nor the performance (not as long FH is not flying).Also, Spacex cannot launch to all reference orbits given that F9 lacks the performance for some of those orbits. This will change once FH becomes operational.Yet, SpaceX is a certified EELV provider for NSS missions and has been so since 2016.What this possibly means is that:1. USAF waivered some of the EELV launch service requirements OR2. Those requirements are only valid for missions the offerer actually intends to bid on.OR3. SpaceX only had to come up with a plan to eventually meet all the requirements (even if they never actually intend to meet all the requirements).Personally, I think it is a combination of 1 and 3.Remember the hubbub about SpaceX not having VI payload integration capabilities and thus they (supposedly) could not be certified? Well, they were in fact certified but SpaceX is not actively working on facilities for vertical integration of NSS payloads.
Quote from: woods170 on 01/24/2018 11:12 amLet me put it this way.SpaceX cannot launch Category C payloads. They don't have the fairing for it, nor the performance (not as long FH is not flying).Also, Spacex cannot launch to all reference orbits given that F9 lacks the performance for some of those orbits. This will change once FH becomes operational.Yet, SpaceX is a certified EELV provider for NSS missions and has been so since 2016.What this possibly means is that:1. USAF waivered some of the EELV launch service requirements OR2. Those requirements are only valid for missions the offerer actually intends to bid on.OR3. SpaceX only had to come up with a plan to eventually meet all the requirements (even if they never actually intend to meet all the requirements).Personally, I think it is a combination of 1 and 3.Remember the hubbub about SpaceX not having VI payload integration capabilities and thus they (supposedly) could not be certified? Well, they were in fact certified but SpaceX is not actively working on facilities for vertical integration of NSS payloads.SpaceX is actively working on the 39A FSS, which is a key part of their plan to do VI.
Let me put it this way.SpaceX cannot launch Category C payloads. They don't have the fairing for it, nor the performance (not as long FH is not flying).Also, Spacex cannot launch to all reference orbits given that F9 lacks the performance for some of those orbits. This will change once FH becomes operational.Yet, SpaceX is a certified EELV provider for NSS missions and has been so since 2016.What this possibly means is that:1. USAF waivered some of the EELV launch service requirements OR2. Those requirements are only valid for missions the offerer actually intends to bid on.OR3. SpaceX only had to come up with a plan to eventually meet all the requirements (even if they never actually intend to meet all the requirements).Personally, I think it is a combination of 1 and 3.Remember the hubbub about SpaceX not having VI payload integration capabilities and thus they (supposedly) could not be certified? Well, they were in fact certified but SpaceX is not actively working on facilities for vertical integration of NSS payloads.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/24/2018 11:57 amQuote from: woods170 on 01/24/2018 11:12 amLet me put it this way.SpaceX cannot launch Category C payloads. They don't have the fairing for it, nor the performance (not as long FH is not flying).Also, Spacex cannot launch to all reference orbits given that F9 lacks the performance for some of those orbits. This will change once FH becomes operational.Yet, SpaceX is a certified EELV provider for NSS missions and has been so since 2016.What this possibly means is that:1. USAF waivered some of the EELV launch service requirements OR2. Those requirements are only valid for missions the offerer actually intends to bid on.OR3. SpaceX only had to come up with a plan to eventually meet all the requirements (even if they never actually intend to meet all the requirements).Personally, I think it is a combination of 1 and 3.Remember the hubbub about SpaceX not having VI payload integration capabilities and thus they (supposedly) could not be certified? Well, they were in fact certified but SpaceX is not actively working on facilities for vertical integration of NSS payloads.SpaceX is actively working on the 39A FSS, which is a key part of their plan to do VI.Disagree. The current work being done on the 39A FSS is for meeting certain CCP requirements. VI is a long way off.
VI is a long way off, but the work being done on the FSS now is a prerequisite for doing VI down the road. So they are working towards VI, although they don't appear to be in any hurry.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/24/2018 01:48 pmVI is a long way off, but the work being done on the FSS now is a prerequisite for doing VI down the road. So they are working towards VI, although they don't appear to be in any hurry.FSS is not necessary for VI
Quote from: Jim on 01/24/2018 01:55 pmQuote from: envy887 on 01/24/2018 01:48 pmVI is a long way off, but the work being done on the FSS now is a prerequisite for doing VI down the road. So they are working towards VI, although they don't appear to be in any hurry.FSS is not necessary for VIEither that or a dedicated tower, and I've not heard SpaceX has any interest in building one of those.
Could they just use a super-heavy-duty crane, like what was used to disassemble the FSS at 39B and the Saturn V mobile launchers?
Quote from: IanThePineapple on 01/24/2018 02:06 pmCould they just use a super-heavy-duty crane, like what was used to disassemble the FSS at 39B and the Saturn V mobile launchers?Access has to be provided too. For the fairing mate and to the spacecraft through tents on the fairing doors.
Quote from: Jim on 01/24/2018 02:25 pmQuote from: IanThePineapple on 01/24/2018 02:06 pmCould they just use a super-heavy-duty crane, like what was used to disassemble the FSS at 39B and the Saturn V mobile launchers?Access has to be provided too. For the fairing mate and to the spacecraft through tents on the fairing doors.Well, if it needs to be accessed while vertical and integrated a crane won't really do much, it seems that a CAA-like assembly might be needed.Heck, they might be able to use the actual CAA if they align a fairing door perfectly with it.
Quote from: IanThePineapple on 01/24/2018 02:47 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/24/2018 02:25 pmQuote from: IanThePineapple on 01/24/2018 02:06 pmCould they just use a super-heavy-duty crane, like what was used to disassemble the FSS at 39B and the Saturn V mobile launchers?Access has to be provided too. For the fairing mate and to the spacecraft through tents on the fairing doors.Well, if it needs to be accessed while vertical and integrated a crane won't really do much, it seems that a CAA-like assembly might be needed.Heck, they might be able to use the actual CAA if they align a fairing door perfectly with it.Fairing doors. They don't have on specific position. Also still need 360 access to the mating interface.
Quote from: Jim on 01/24/2018 02:50 pmQuote from: IanThePineapple on 01/24/2018 02:47 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/24/2018 02:25 pmQuote from: IanThePineapple on 01/24/2018 02:06 pmCould they just use a super-heavy-duty crane, like what was used to disassemble the FSS at 39B and the Saturn V mobile launchers?Access has to be provided too. For the fairing mate and to the spacecraft through tents on the fairing doors.Well, if it needs to be accessed while vertical and integrated a crane won't really do much, it seems that a CAA-like assembly might be needed.Heck, they might be able to use the actual CAA if they align a fairing door perfectly with it.Fairing doors. They don't have on specific position. Also still need 360 access to the mating interface.Maybe SX can hoist a mini clamshell gantry structure with the encapsulated payload with a crane on the FSS tower to integrated with the LV. Personnel access with CAA or crane lift personnel carrier. Commo & utility lines connected through the TLE.Yes. The idea is rube-goldberg. But could be implemented without adding some massive structure of some sort like a new rotating gantry tower.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 01/25/2018 05:51 amQuote from: Jim on 01/24/2018 02:50 pmQuote from: IanThePineapple on 01/24/2018 02:47 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/24/2018 02:25 pmQuote from: IanThePineapple on 01/24/2018 02:06 pmCould they just use a super-heavy-duty crane, like what was used to disassemble the FSS at 39B and the Saturn V mobile launchers?Access has to be provided too. For the fairing mate and to the spacecraft through tents on the fairing doors.Well, if it needs to be accessed while vertical and integrated a crane won't really do much, it seems that a CAA-like assembly might be needed.Heck, they might be able to use the actual CAA if they align a fairing door perfectly with it.Fairing doors. They don't have on specific position. Also still need 360 access to the mating interface.Maybe SX can hoist a mini clamshell gantry structure with the encapsulated payload with a crane on the FSS tower to integrated with the LV. Personnel access with CAA or crane lift personnel carrier. Commo & utility lines connected through the TLE.Yes. The idea is rube-goldberg. But could be implemented without adding some massive structure of some sort like a new rotating gantry tower. What would support the mini clamshell gantry structure? And what would provide emergency escape exits for personnel on it.The access through the doors need to have clean room airlocks.
AIUI the cleanroom would be supported by a hammerhead crane on the FSS and probably stabilized by swingarms mounted on the FSS. Crew access and emergency egress would be via swingarm(s) with end mounted cleanroom airlock(s). This seems to me to be the only way to support VI on 39A, implementing a mobile tower would be difficult with the HIF on the crawlerway.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/25/2018 04:24 pmAIUI the cleanroom would be supported by a hammerhead crane on the FSS and probably stabilized by swingarms mounted on the FSS. Crew access and emergency egress would be via swingarm(s) with end mounted cleanroom airlock(s). This seems to me to be the only way to support VI on 39A, implementing a mobile tower would be difficult with the HIF on the crawlerway.No, suspending the whole shebang with people is a no no.
And cranes almost never go wrong.
Why? People are suspended from wires all the time - lifts are everywhere and are suspended, not only your normal ones in buildings but on building sites, in mines. All over the place, and they are all incredibly safe. And cranes almost never go wrong.
I don't see why you couldn't have load bearing and stabilizing arms raise up and/or swing around to meet the craned-in clean room facility. Have them mate to the bottom of it, and put all load through them, so the crane is only involved in moving it into and out of position when nobody is in it. Once connected, it's all rigidly supported as an extension of the FSS.
OK, so there appears to be no way forward for SapceX to do vertical integration except by building a mobile service structure or mobile launcher like every other vehicle has that does vertical integration.Except SpaceX doesn't seem to think so, as Shotwell implied here:http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/shotwell-cabana-discuss-spacexs-future/Which will involve adding height to the FSS. No other details given. Is she saying something that is impossible?
Quote from: biosehnsucht on 01/27/2018 09:17 amI don't see why you couldn't have load bearing and stabilizing arms raise up and/or swing around to meet the craned-in clean room facility. Have them mate to the bottom of it, and put all load through them, so the crane is only involved in moving it into and out of position when nobody is in it. Once connected, it's all rigidly supported as an extension of the FSS.The FSS can't support a cantilevered load like that. This room would be like what was just on the RSS but a little more austere.
Josh Brost, Senior Director of SpaceX’s Government Business Development was in attendance at a civil spaceflight conference in Washington D.C. yesterday, January 18, and provided a number of interesting details about SpaceX’s upcoming activities in 2018...While Brost did not specifically provide any sort of timeline for BFR, aside from a brief statement on its readiness in “a few years,” he did describe in some detail the imminent end of serious Falcon 9 upgrades. (see tweet image below)This is arguably the most exciting tidbit provided to us by SpaceX. While it was undeniably vague and rather less than crystal-clear, it can be interpreted as something like this: once Block 5 has been introduced and begun to fly and refly both regularly and successfully, the vast majority of SpaceX’s launch vehicle development expertise will begin to focus intensely on the development and testing of BFR and BFS.
Taking a step back, putting aside the details of how this might get done, I'd like to ask:Why SpaceX would want to do this in the first place?Recent information coming from SpaceX confirms that they soon plan to stop all new development on F9/FH and concentrate on developing BFR.
SpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relationsBy Eric RalphPosted on July 10, 2019According to a report from SpaceNews, SpaceX recently approached global aerospace supplier RUAG with the intention of procuring a new, larger payload fairing for its Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets. RUAG is a prolific supplier of rocket fairings, spacecraft deployment mechanisms, and other miscellaneous subassemblies and components, and US company United Launch Alliance (ULA) has relied on RUAG for fairings and various other composites work for its Atlas V, Delta IV, and (soon) Vulcan launch vehicles. According to SpaceNews, that close relationship with ULA forced RUAG to turn SpaceX away, owing to ULA’s argument that the specific fairing technology SpaceX was pursuing is ULA’s intellectual property.
QuoteSpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relationsBy Eric RalphPosted on July 10, 2019According to a report from SpaceNews, SpaceX recently approached global aerospace supplier RUAG with the intention of procuring a new, larger payload fairing for its Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets. RUAG is a prolific supplier of rocket fairings, spacecraft deployment mechanisms, and other miscellaneous subassemblies and components, and US company United Launch Alliance (ULA) has relied on RUAG for fairings and various other composites work for its Atlas V, Delta IV, and (soon) Vulcan launch vehicles. According to SpaceNews, that close relationship with ULA forced RUAG to turn SpaceX away, owing to ULA’s argument that the specific fairing technology SpaceX was pursuing is ULA’s intellectual property.https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-fairing-upgrade-foiled-by-ula/
RUAG vice president Karl Jensen told SpaceNews the company has a “significant partnership” with ULA but is looking to work with others too. “We have an offer to SpaceX,” he said. “We don’t know if they’ll accept it.”
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/10/2019 12:27 pmhttps://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-fairing-upgrade-foiled-by-ula/This article does not seem to be accurate since a later SpaceNews article says RUAG is willing to sell fairing to SpaceX: https://spacenews.com/house-armed-services-space-launch-legislation-revised-in-11th-hour-deal/QuoteRUAG vice president Karl Jensen told SpaceNews the company has a “significant partnership” with ULA but is looking to work with others too. “We have an offer to SpaceX,” he said. “We don’t know if they’ll accept it.”
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-fairing-upgrade-foiled-by-ula/
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/10/2019 12:27 pmQuoteSpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relationsBy Eric RalphPosted on July 10, 2019According to a report from SpaceNews, SpaceX recently approached global aerospace supplier RUAG with the intention of procuring a new, larger payload fairing for its Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets. RUAG is a prolific supplier of rocket fairings, spacecraft deployment mechanisms, and other miscellaneous subassemblies and components, and US company United Launch Alliance (ULA) has relied on RUAG for fairings and various other composites work for its Atlas V, Delta IV, and (soon) Vulcan launch vehicles. According to SpaceNews, that close relationship with ULA forced RUAG to turn SpaceX away, owing to ULA’s argument that the specific fairing technology SpaceX was pursuing is ULA’s intellectual property.https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-fairing-upgrade-foiled-by-ula/This article does not seem to be accurate since a later SpaceNews article says RUAG is willing to sell fairing to SpaceX: https://spacenews.com/house-armed-services-space-launch-legislation-revised-in-11th-hour-deal/QuoteRUAG vice president Karl Jensen told SpaceNews the company has a “significant partnership” with ULA but is looking to work with others too. “We have an offer to SpaceX,” he said. “We don’t know if they’ll accept it.”
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/10/2019 12:27 pmQuoteSpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relationsBy Eric RalphPosted on July 10, 2019According to a report from SpaceNews, SpaceX recently approached global aerospace supplier RUAG with the intention of procuring a new, larger payload fairing for its Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets. RUAG is a prolific supplier of rocket fairings, spacecraft deployment mechanisms, and other miscellaneous subassemblies and components, and US company United Launch Alliance (ULA) has relied on RUAG for fairings and various other composites work for its Atlas V, Delta IV, and (soon) Vulcan launch vehicles. According to SpaceNews, that close relationship with ULA forced RUAG to turn SpaceX away, owing to ULA’s argument that the specific fairing technology SpaceX was pursuing is ULA’s intellectual property.https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-fairing-upgrade-foiled-by-ula/They don't know what they are talking about. This is actually about a longer fairing, not a wider fairing. The internal dynamic envelop required by DoD is 15ft wide and 40ft long. SpaceX stock fairing is just 22ft long. So they need a longer fairing. Which might require a bit wider walls and thus a 5.3m/5.4m outer mold diameter. But whoever wrote the article thinks the need is 5.2m v 5.4m.
Well, "whoever" wrote it both reads these forums and posts here, so you've probably got him checking his sources now...
Quote from: Mandella on 07/11/2019 06:49 pmWell, "whoever" wrote it both reads these forums and posts here, so you've probably got him checking his sources now...Unless you are Eric Ralph, I do hope he first asks and checks here. Only way to make a comment wascreating a user or using FB login, things I won't do to send corrections. And he posts no email for comments. I will keep making the clarifications here.Incidentally, I read the article yesterday. They have somehow kept rewriting it so it's quite difficult to make a comment on the validity of a work in progress piece of news.
Quote from: mainmind on 01/30/2019 02:08 amEric Ralph claims on twitter that DM-1 is now NET March, but can't link source. Don't know if this qualifies for the Updates thread, so Mod can delete as seen fit. Source is an employee familiar with the matter. (This is Eric).
Eric Ralph claims on twitter that DM-1 is now NET March, but can't link source. Don't know if this qualifies for the Updates thread, so Mod can delete as seen fit.
The SpaceX fairing is 5.2 m (17.2 ft) in outer diameter and 13.2 m (43.5 ft) high overall. Fairing structures and dynamicsresult in a payload dynamic envelope with a maximum diameter of 4.6 m (15.1 ft) and a maximum height of 11 m (36.1ft). The base of the payload dynamic envelope is defined by the standard 1575-mm interface plane at the forward endof the standard payload attach fitting (Section 5.1.1); any payload adapters required (e.g., to achieve a 937-mm or 1194-mm (36.89 in. or 47.01 in.) interface) will utilize a portion of the payload dynamic envelope. The bolded dimensions inFigure 5-1 denote the standard payload dynamic interface. The non-bolded dimensions denote potential additionalvolume as a nonstandard service.
Huh? Perhaps you had better check your sources...From the SpaceX User Guide, published January, 2019:QuoteThe SpaceX fairing is 5.2 m (17.2 ft) in outer diameter and 13.2 m (43.5 ft) high overall. Fairing structures and dynamicsresult in a payload dynamic envelope with a maximum diameter of 4.6 m (15.1 ft) and a maximum height of 11 m (36.1ft). The base of the payload dynamic envelope is defined by the standard 1575-mm interface plane at the forward endof the standard payload attach fitting (Section 5.1.1); any payload adapters required (e.g., to achieve a 937-mm or 1194-mm (36.89 in. or 47.01 in.) interface) will utilize a portion of the payload dynamic envelope. The bolded dimensions inFigure 5-1 denote the standard payload dynamic interface. The non-bolded dimensions denote potential additionalvolume as a nonstandard service.
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 07/11/2019 08:48 pmHuh? Perhaps you had better check your sources...From the SpaceX User Guide, published January, 2019:QuoteThe SpaceX fairing is 5.2 m (17.2 ft) in outer diameter and 13.2 m (43.5 ft) high overall. Fairing structures and dynamicsresult in a payload dynamic envelope with a maximum diameter of 4.6 m (15.1 ft) and a maximum height of 11 m (36.1ft). The base of the payload dynamic envelope is defined by the standard 1575-mm interface plane at the forward endof the standard payload attach fitting (Section 5.1.1); any payload adapters required (e.g., to achieve a 937-mm or 1194-mm (36.89 in. or 47.01 in.) interface) will utilize a portion of the payload dynamic envelope. The bolded dimensions inFigure 5-1 denote the standard payload dynamic interface. The non-bolded dimensions denote potential additionalvolume as a nonstandard service.Johnnyhinbos, please be a bit more careful regarding your corrections. The critical box is the cylinder with 4.6m diameter. SpaceX is quoting the height including the tapered section. The one I was talking about was before the tapered section. You should first check the fairing dynamic envelope graphic.
The internal dynamic envelop required by DoD is 15ft wide and 40ft long. SpaceX stock fairing is just 22ft long. So they need a longer fairing. Which might require a bit wider walls and thus a 5.3m/5.4m outer mold diameter. But whoever wrote the article thinks the need is 5.2m v 5.4m.
We're a bit off topic but it seems relevant. Eric (and at least 90% of other users) can be PMed via this site's PM function, find a post, click on the poster's profile and send a PM. However that will reveal your email address to the person receiving the PM, I think. Might be wrong. I found this whole thing rather confusing. See also this tweet by Tory Bruno (ULA CEO)https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1149263613489745925and some of the replies, in particular when asked "Is it true that ULA denied Ruag to work with SpaceX for their larger fairing?" the answer was No. Elsewhere in the thread Tory compliments SpaceX for their inhouse fairing work. Class act, he is.
Sorry - I thought you said the SpaceX fairing was 22 feet long. That’s what I was addressing. If you didn’t say that I apologize. (That’s why I bolded that part of the user guide)
Quick question... Ruag Space fairings are constructed of aluminum honeycomb with carbon composite reinforcement. Spacex's are 'composite' ... composite what?
for FH it is not needed
... Jim posts snipped...So if I'm reading you right they're not going to go for a larger fairing?
So if I'm reading you right they're not going to go for a larger fairing?
Quote from: OxCartMark on 07/12/2019 10:00 pmSo if I'm reading you right they're not going to go for a larger fairing?It's pretty clear SpaceX themselves have no interest in a larger fairing, I think they're perfectly happy to leave the Class 3 missions to ULA. the question is whether AirForce will force them to build one. It's not clear to me what exactly EELV2 LSP will require in this case, would SpaceX get a pass if they just present some paper plans (bought from RUAG maybe)? Or will they have to actually fund the development for real and get one built?
The way I understand it, the Air Force wants two suppliers who can handle ALL their missions. Full redundancy. So to be one of the two suppliers SpaceX needs to be able to offer the larger payload volume, vertical assembly, etc. If they want to be able to bid on any of the missions they need to be able to handle all of the missions.
I suspect that, given how they got lowest ranking on the pre competition subsidies, they will make sure they are able to perform every single mission. Then they can just bid too high on those requiring vertical integration or long fairing.
Quote from: baldusi on 07/13/2019 03:44 amI suspect that, given how they got lowest ranking on the pre competition subsidies, they will make sure they are able to perform every single mission. Then they can just bid too high on those requiring vertical integration or long fairing.Generally do not get to play that game. Prices are NTE (for a given mission type and FY) and must be committed to before you are granted entrance to the club (ability to bid on individual work orders), excluding "special" task orders or for missions which fall outside of the originally stated requirements for admission.This is the same as NASA LSP, only the USAF essentially has one broad category (unlike NASA LSP): eveything.