Author Topic: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH  (Read 54882 times)

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« on: 06/30/2017 08:37 pm »
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?
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline IanThePineapple

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #1 on: 06/30/2017 08:48 pm »
It could be possible on FH (or so I've heard), but as far as I/we know there's no real demand for a wider or taller fairing.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #2 on: 06/30/2017 08:51 pm »
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?

Possible? Yes. Practical? Maybe not. (assuming you mean wider fairings - longer fairings would be easier)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #3 on: 06/30/2017 09:19 pm »
They don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #4 on: 07/01/2017 12:27 pm »
They 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?



JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #5 on: 07/01/2017 01:19 pm »
They 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.
« Last Edit: 07/01/2017 01:20 pm by yokem55 »

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #6 on: 07/01/2017 01:27 pm »
The Falcon fairing, at 5m, is already pretty wide. Ariane 5 is also 5m, Atlas and Delta offer a choice of 4m or 5m, and Proton is 4m, with 5m under development. As noted above, there are NSS missions that could use a longer fairing than SpaceX currently offers.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #7 on: 07/01/2017 02:04 pm »
This is the large fairing requirement for DoD.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #8 on: 07/01/2017 02:05 pm »
They 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.

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #9 on: 07/01/2017 02:07 pm »
They 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.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #10 on: 07/01/2017 02:22 pm »
They 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?

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #11 on: 07/01/2017 02:35 pm »
They 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...

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #12 on: 07/01/2017 02:37 pm »
They 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...

But wouldn't it be worth it just for the FH especially when I imagine people like the NRO must pay top dollar to launch something like this. Unless they are just waiting for the BFS to replace it or something.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #13 on: 07/01/2017 02:50 pm »
They 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

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #14 on: 07/01/2017 02:56 pm »
They 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

Thanks. That makes sense.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #15 on: 07/01/2017 03:06 pm »
The relevant section of the document from su27k's link.  This would be just fine for SpaceX.  We'll see what actually comes out the end of the budgeting process.

Quote
1 SEC. 1615. EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VE
2 HICLE MODERNIZATION AND SUSTAINMENT
3 OF ASSURED ACCESS TO SPACE.
4 (a) DEVELOPMENT.—
5 (1) EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHI6
CLE.—Using funds described in paragraph (3), the
7 Secretary of Defense may only obligate or expend
8 funds to carry out the evolved expendable launch ve
9 hicle program to—
10 (A) develop a domestic rocket propulsion
11 system to replace non-allied space launch en
12 gines;
13 (B) develop the necessary interfaces to, or
14 integration of, such domestic rocket propulsion
15 system with an existing or new launch vehicle;
16 (C) develop capabilities necessary to enable
17 commercially available space launch vehicles or
18 infrastructure to meet any requirements that
19 are unique to national security space missions
20 to meet the assured access to space require
21 ments pursuant to section 2273 of title 10,
22 United States Code, with respect to only—
23 (i) modifications to such vehicles re
24 quired for national security space missions,
25 including—

1 (I) certification and compliance
2 of such vehicles for use in national se
3 curity space missions;
4 (II) fairings necessary for the
5 launch of national security space pay
6 loads to orbit; and
7 (III) other upgrades to meet per
8 formance, reliability, and orbital re
9 quirements that cannot otherwise be
10 met through the use of commercially
11 available launch vehicles; and
12 (ii) the development of infrastructure
13 unique to national security space missions,
14 such as infrastructure for the use of heavy
15 launch vehicles, including—
16 (I) facilities and equipment for
17 the vertical integration of payloads;
18 (II) secure facilities for the proc
19 essing of classified payloads; and
20 (III) other facilities and equip
21 ment, including ground systems and
22 expanded capabilities, unique to na
23 tional security space launches and the
24 launch of national security payloads;

1 (D) conduct activities to modernize and
2 improve existing certified launch vehicles, or ex
3 isting launch vehicles previously contracted for
4 use by the Air Force, including restarting a
5 dormant supply chain, and infrastructure to in
6 crease the cost effectiveness of the launch sys
7 tem; or
8 (E) certify new, modified, or existing
9 launch vehicle systems.
10 (2) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in this
11 section, none of the funds described in paragraph
12 (3) shall be obligated or expended for the evolved ex
13 pendable launch vehicle program, including the de
14 velopment of new launch vehicles under such pro
15 gram.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #16 on: 07/01/2017 03:47 pm »
They 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

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #17 on: 07/01/2017 06:28 pm »
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...
Yes. What he said. You can't make money by spending lots more money to chase every single possible use case. Make it to handle most of what is out there and do it cheaply and you'll win most of what is out there. Leave the edge cases to others until such time as they aren't edge cases anymore or someone else funds it or the rocket you're building for other reasons entirely can handle them by default (I think SpaceX will use this last one).

Offline OneSpeed

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Liked: 4930
  • Likes Given: 2078
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #18 on: 07/02/2017 12:24 pm »
This is the large fairing requirement for DoD.

Here is the standard Falcon fairing beside one stretched to that requirement. For the same payload mass evenly distributed, the bending moment at the PAF would increase by 50% using the large fairing.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2017 01:03 pm by OneSpeed »

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #19 on: 07/02/2017 02:11 pm »
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.

Online matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 2211
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #20 on: 07/02/2017 08:53 pm »
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.

For the nutty number of sats they are planning to put up, it would seem to be more economical to develop a reusable second stage/sat dispenser combo. The argument against this is twofold, for one they seem to be spending  a good bit of money trying to developing fairing recovery, and for two, getting the sats up there quickly may be of most importance.

Matthew

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #21 on: 07/03/2017 07:06 am »
They 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

So does that mean the NRO will either spend some money to get a bigger payload fairing on the F9/FH, wait for the Vulcan ACES or wait for the New Glenn for large NRO birds?

Maybe just adapting the current RUAG payload fairing for use on the forthcoming launch vehicles.



Offline DOCinCT

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #22 on: 07/03/2017 03:38 pm »
This 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.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 737
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #23 on: 07/03/2017 04:00 pm »
If Falcon 9/Heavey are EELV cert from the payload adaptor & Fairing stand point Could RUAG provide a larger fairing for them?

Offline Ictogan

  • Aerospace engineering student
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Germany
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #24 on: 07/03/2017 04:32 pm »
If Falcon 9/Heavey are EELV cert from the payload adaptor & Fairing stand point Could RUAG provide a larger fairing for them?
SpaceX could probably get RUAG to build a larger F9/FH fairing, but it would seem very un-SpaceX-y to buy major components of their launch vehicles from an "old space" supplier.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #25 on: 07/03/2017 04:42 pm »
This 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
« Last Edit: 07/03/2017 04:43 pm by Jim »

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5183
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2896
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #26 on: 07/03/2017 05:41 pm »
How long is the usable satellite space in the three current launchers?  All are about the same width. 

Offline Hobbes-22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Acme Engineering
    • Acme Engineering
  • Liked: 587
  • Likes Given: 486
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #27 on: 07/03/2017 07:04 pm »
If Falcon 9/Heavey are EELV cert from the payload adaptor & Fairing stand point Could RUAG provide a larger fairing for them?

They're working on a 5.4 m x 20 m fairing for Ariane 5/6.

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #28 on: 07/03/2017 07:15 pm »
How long is the usable satellite space in the three current launchers?  All are about the same width. 

Atlas V: 10680 mm in the cylindrical section, plus another 5296 mm in the converging nose section.

Ariane 5: 10039 mm in the cylindrical section, plus another 5550 mm in the converging nose section.

Falcon 9 6700 mm in the cylindrical section, plus another 4300 mm in the converging nose section.

Sources: Launcher User's Manuals

« Last Edit: 07/03/2017 07:15 pm by calapine »

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #29 on: 07/04/2017 01:14 am »
Assuming for the moment that the main constraint is simply a lack of large enough autoclave, aren't they going to need a / some really big one(s) for BFR tanks? Maybe they can dual use those to build larger fairings a few times (since by then, with luck, the fairing reusability will be figured out, and you don't need bigger ones often, so you shouldn't need more than a few reusable pairs)

Offline DOCinCT

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #30 on: 07/04/2017 12:35 pm »
This 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
The 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.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #31 on: 07/04/2017 02:39 pm »
This 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
The 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.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2017 02:40 pm by gongora »

Offline DOCinCT

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #32 on: 07/04/2017 09:53 pm »
This 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
The 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.
Ah, misread the original posting.  SpaceX fairing not long enough then.

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5183
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2896
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #33 on: 07/04/2017 11:25 pm »
Seems like they need a longer fairing. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #34 on: 07/05/2017 01:25 am »
Seems like they need a longer fairing.

They have no requirement for it.  It won't get them more missions
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 01:26 am by Jim »

Online LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6111
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #35 on: 07/05/2017 02:12 am »
Seems like they need a longer fairing.

They have no requirement for it.  It won't get them more missions
This seems to contradict with the Air Force thinks.  From an Av Week article U.S. Air Force Lines Up Space Launch Vehicle Investments, the government has a pool of money for DOD specific features that launch vendors can bid on:

Quote
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.”
Leon, in this quote, is Claire Leon, head of the  Air Force’s launch enterprise directorate.

So the Air Force thinks that with the larger fairing, SpaceX might get more missions....
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 02:15 am by LouScheffer »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #36 on: 07/05/2017 02:43 am »
That doesn't mean Spacex will do it. Really not worth for them  to pursue outlier missions
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 02:46 am by Jim »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #37 on: 07/05/2017 03:01 am »
That doesn't mean Spacex will do it. Really not worth for them  to pursue outlier missions

Well, if the government wants to be able to say it has competition in heavy lift, and the government wants to pay for it...  Probably won't happen right away but not impossible

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #38 on: 07/05/2017 04:03 am »
Seems like they need a longer fairing.

They have no requirement for it.  It won't get them more missions

What about BA330?
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5183
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2896
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #39 on: 07/05/2017 10:58 am »
If something is to replace ISS (commercial), like the BA330, Falcon Heavy could launch it with a longer fairing.  Not only that, but probably could place it at L1 if NASA goes with a moon program. 

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #40 on: 07/05/2017 01:45 pm »
Seems like they need a longer fairing.

They have no requirement for it.  It won't get them more missions

What 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.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #41 on: 07/05/2017 03:39 pm »
That doesn't mean Spacex will do it. Really not worth for them  to pursue outlier missions

Think dual-use; those outlier USAF missions may well pale compared to a larger fairings utility for bulk launching "CommX" birds.  If they can get the Air Force to partially pay for its development, that's sauce for the goose.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2017 03:40 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Online LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6111
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #42 on: 07/06/2017 03:13 pm »
That doesn't mean Spacex will do it. Really not worth for them  to pursue outlier missions
From a pure economics point of view, I agree.

However, in private industry sometimes you do stuff to help out your big customers, as long as it does not actually lose money.  It can pay dividends later to have a good relationship.

Also, such a capability would help national security.  This can be a direct motivator, or at least help perception in Congress and the administration that you support your country.

Finally, as others have pointed out, a bigger fairing could be useful for other stuff - Bigelow, constellations, etc. 

So I would not be surprised if SpaceX does this at some point, though not as a high priority.

Online RoboGoofers

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • NJ
  • Liked: 871
  • Likes Given: 980
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #43 on: 07/06/2017 04:27 pm »
Seems like they need a longer fairing.

They have no requirement for it.  It won't get them more missions

What 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.

And there's no transport to a BA330 yet. And BA330 was designed around the constraints of the Atlas fairing. He's been pretty cozy with ULA, seamingly, and probably favors Atlas since SpaceX will get the passenger/resupply flights.

That said, I would bet that BA has a module designed for a Falcon fairing, or at least the beginnings of one. They whipped together BEAM pretty quickly. They've got to do something with their time until Dragon 2 or Starliner are ready.

Offline jpfulton314

  • NSF Lurker
  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Sierra Vista, AZ, USA
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #44 on: 01/14/2018 10:46 pm »
A couple questions involving fairings and F9 Heavy. 
a)  What is the maximum payload (lbs/kg) the current fairing is capable of handling?
b)  What is the maximum length (with current design) of a lengthened fairing before structural stresses introduce too much risk?
c)  What could be done to b) to mitigate the risk?

The reason I ask (I'm a computer geek not a structural engineer) is just by appearances it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a rocket that can loft 140,000lbs when there are constraints on what the rocket can carry. 

I'm sure there are standard formulas that designers use for determining fairing lengths, including payload and the available market.  I'm sure that if SpaceX were to have a customer come forth who wanted to loft 140K to orbit on a regular basis, then the capability would come.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #45 on: 01/14/2018 10:55 pm »
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

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Liked: 2912
  • Likes Given: 508
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #46 on: 01/15/2018 09:06 am »
I was wondering how cheaply a reusable Falcon Heavy with Block 5 boosters could have launched the entire ISS into orbit. It seems to me you would only need around 15 reusable FH launches (450 tons cumulative divided by around 30 tons payload to orbit while recovering all three cores). Which, assuming 10 reuses per Block 5 booster, means only six dedicated Block 5 first stages (2 Falcon Heavies in total) and 15 expendable 2nd stages to launch the entire ISS from a mass perspective. With the 2nd Falcon Heavy still having half its useful life left after launch 15.

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.

Offline ValmirGP

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #47 on: 01/15/2018 10:40 am »
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.

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.

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #48 on: 01/15/2018 10:46 am »
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
Although I’d be curious what the reason was behind Shotwell’s recent visit to Bigelow.
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Hobbes-22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 942
  • Acme Engineering
    • Acme Engineering
  • Liked: 587
  • Likes Given: 486
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #49 on: 01/15/2018 11:27 am »
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.

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).

Offline jpfulton314

  • NSF Lurker
  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Sierra Vista, AZ, USA
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #50 on: 01/15/2018 01:28 pm »
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. 

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #51 on: 01/15/2018 01:50 pm »
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.

And isn't velocity dependent on how much mass you are pushing?  You can get a lot more velocity from identical launchers if you are launching a 500 kg spacecraft rather than a 10,000 kg vehicle, right?
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #52 on: 01/15/2018 01:57 pm »
See below:

There was plans for a taller fairing at some point but they seemed to have been dropped. See below:


The 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.

Offline ValmirGP

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #53 on: 01/15/2018 02:03 pm »
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.

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)
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 02:07 pm by ValmirGP »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #54 on: 01/15/2018 02:29 pm »
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.

Payload to leo is a common benchmark reference.

The vehicle is actually capable of launching that mass. Any payload weighing that much would be custom, including the fairings and attach fitting.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #55 on: 01/15/2018 02:42 pm »
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.

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

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #56 on: 01/15/2018 03:14 pm »
There was nothing wrong with Skylab as an idea, just the attachment of the heat shield wasn't implemented well.  As a residence and as a laboratory, I think it was a pretty darn good first try.  It certainly would have been worth using during the Shuttle program, its fate was due to shuttle delays, not its own failings.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline ValmirGP

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #57 on: 01/15/2018 03:14 pm »
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.

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

I beg to differ.

Just because Skylab experienced problems in its launch does not imply that this is always the case. The lessons learned then (and since) would improve the design of the new modules.

And just to be clear, I was not proposing using the fuel tanks as the Skylab wetlab plan did - just mentioned them because they are similar in respect that they are empty spaces with walls facing the elements during the launch. My proposal was a module build from the ground up with the concept of not needing a faring, maybe just a nose cone cover on top as the one proposed for Dragon 2.

(still beyond the scope of this thread, maybe we should move it elsewhere).

Offline OccasionalTraveller

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #58 on: 01/15/2018 03:32 pm »
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
But surely these things are related. Force = mass x acceleration, so if you have the same thrust, but a bigger mass, you'll get less acceleration, in inverse proportion. You need to get to a certain velocity for any given orbit, regardless of the mass, but if you're accelerating more slowly, you'll need to burn longer to achieve it.

I agree that it is more likely that FH will be used for getting slightly heavier payloads to GTO or even all the way to GEO, than very heavy payloads to LEO, assuming that the availability of a cheap super-heavy lifter doesn't create a demand that was previously not expressed.

Anyway, the fairing size has nothing to do with payload mass. The fairing itself is not load-bearing. The only interaction is that the payload's mass distribution must not cause it to bend so much during launch that it actually contacts the fairing and damages something - either the payload or the fairing release mechanism. SpaceX would I'm sure also be upset if any recovery hardware were damaged, but that should not lead to primary mission failure.

The Falcon 9 User's Guide lists two Payload Attach Fittings - the truncated cone that converts from S2's diameter to the standard interface plane. The light PAF is listed as supporting up to 3453 kg, while the heavy PAF handles 10886 kg. Those figures are from 2015 so could now be out of date. Both use the EELV Intermediate Payload Class ring of bolt holes of 62" diameter. There is a different, larger diameter, bolt pattern defined for EELV's Heavy Payload Class, but SpaceX do not yet (publicly) support it.

The limited height of the fairing does mean that at present, SpaceX would be limited to very dense payloads that are somehow both very heavy and very small.

Sent from my Swift 2 Plus using Tapatalk


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #59 on: 01/15/2018 03:46 pm »
This is why a larger fairing is not needed.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #60 on: 01/15/2018 04:28 pm »
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.

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

It's a fine idea.  Bad luck/execution /= bad idea.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #61 on: 01/15/2018 04:34 pm »
assuming that the availability of a cheap super-heavy lifter doesn't create a demand that was previously not expressed.

I look at that in this way.

Because the parties that might want to move over 25 tons into LEO were until very recently looking at $10k per pound as their price to pay, they have made no detailed plans which could exploit that capacity.  Because the BFR will be available in 5 to 10 years at a far lower price than the FH and for about 100 tons capacity, they will make their detailed plans (which plans will themselves not converge to a solution for 5 to 10 years) for that vehicle.

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #62 on: 01/15/2018 07:09 pm »
This 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/

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 07:11 pm by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #63 on: 01/15/2018 08:04 pm »
This 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/

Quote
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.


for FH it is not needed

Offline jpo234

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2280
  • Likes Given: 2184
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #64 on: 01/15/2018 08:25 pm »


This 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/

Quote
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.


for FH it is not needed

I'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?
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline IainMcClatchie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #65 on: 01/16/2018 05:16 am »
Quote from: Jim
This 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?

Offline OccasionalTraveller

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #66 on: 01/16/2018 06:20 am »
This is why a larger fairing is not needed.
That's the Curiosity rover, isn't it? Falcon Heavy is now not planned to go to Mars. Or at least that won't be its main role. It's a workhorse to deliver large payloads to GTO and the very few direct-to-GEO Air Force/Government missions.

How about Iridium-NEXT Flight 2:



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.

Sent from my Swift 2 Plus using Tapatalk


Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #67 on: 01/16/2018 06:43 am »
This is why a larger fairing is not needed.

They'll need longer fairing for EELV Category C payloads.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #68 on: 01/16/2018 06:55 am »
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.

Iridium may not have wanted to do this for this class of payload, even if it did work, due to consequences if something goes bad with 15 vs 10, and 15 vs 10 not making that much difference in launch cost.

I do idly wonder if a fairing connected to all three boosters might work for really really large payloads.

Offline OccasionalTraveller

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #69 on: 01/16/2018 07:57 am »


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.

Looking at the diagram in post #19 above, I think the fairing attaches to the Payload Attach Fitting roughly at the pipe that goes around the PAF just below the widest part of the cone, at the bottom. There's a little space for overhang, but not much. I think a ring of 6 would be 20% greater diameter than 5, although I'm having trouble visualising the geometry!

I would expect that if it had been possible to fit more in, they would have done so. $62m per launch is not that trivial. Bear in mind that Iridium went bust due to the cost of the launches the first time round, they're not particularly flush with cash! We're also dealing with F9's payload mass capability here, so it's possible that Iridium are mass-limited too, although there were plans for Return To Launch Site landings and perhaps a later flight with a Block 5 booster will do that.

I 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.

Sent from my Swift 2 Plus using Tapatalk


Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #70 on: 01/16/2018 08:54 am »
This is why a larger fairing is not needed.

They'll need longer fairing for EELV Category C payloads.
Which they will not be launching. That is, not for at least another six years, according to the LSA OTA RFP.
It lists ILC for Category C payloads to polar orbits as 1 October 2024.

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.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2018 09:31 am by woods170 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #71 on: 01/16/2018 11:02 am »


This 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/

Quote
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.


for FH it is not needed

I'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?

Easier to accommodate since the basic vehicle is going to be 7m. 
Anyways, it is unlikely F9/FH can fly a 7m

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #72 on: 01/16/2018 11:02 am »
Quote from: Jim
This 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?

Acoustic dampers

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #73 on: 01/16/2018 11:03 am »

I do idly wonder if a fairing connected to all three boosters might work for really really large payloads.


No

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #74 on: 01/16/2018 12:53 pm »
If Vulcan was to offer a 7m fairing along with NG, then satellite operators would have choice of 2 LVs. This is critical if satellites are going to be built specifically for 7m fairing.

LEO space stations would also benefit from larger fairing.




Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #75 on: 01/16/2018 01:29 pm »
I 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.

I was actually thinking of the rather more stupid than anyone seems to have picked up on of a fairing for deployment of multiple sats comprising a fairing mounting at the base of S2, and terminating a little over the top of S2, some 8-11m diameter.

The shorter stack length helps some with the increased aero loads.

I expect this only to happen if some customer finds some truly excellent drugs.

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #76 on: 01/16/2018 01:41 pm »
That's why, once return was proven, I inquired about the possibility of a dual core Falcon.
     Had SpaceX realized the difficulty of developing a virtually new central core and the difficulty of booster separation, this might have been an alternate development path. Launch and returned as one unit bolted together, it gives more natural support for increasing weight above. It could have appeared first as a solution to a real problem - some actual payloads still require Falcon Expendable. The first version would have a new interstage narrowing to a single core second stage, and normal fairing. Would likely work fine with two booster engines deleted - a 'Falcon 16', if you will.
    Then if they saw a market for larger weight/larger volume payloads, they could have developed the 'Falcon 18' - with a two core second stage. This would then be able to easily support a larger payload fairing of elliptical cross section something like 7.5 by 5.5 meters and likely a bit longer too. Probably issues that I haven't thought of, but had they known BFR/BFS was to be a complete replacement for the Falcon, it might have  saved a whole bunch of angst that led to today.

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #77 on: 01/16/2018 01:57 pm »
You've just created a far more complicated and expensive center core, new interstage, and no commonality whatsoever with pad interfaces, TEL, etc. between single-stick and ... well, whatever you decide to call this monstrosity.

No, just no.

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5183
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2896
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #78 on: 01/16/2018 02:34 pm »
Seems like it would be easier to just build a new 7m rocket.  It could be the Falcon 17 or such, and a 2-3 engine second stage using existing engines or just build a 7m Raptor 9 with Raptor engines for a replacement of F9 and FH.  Launch it where BFR will be launched.  Unless BFR gets built first, no need to develop anything else at this time.  BFR will be able to handle larger payloads, with say a small 3rd kick stage for proper orbits.  This with a 9m wide cargo hold.


Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #79 on: 01/16/2018 02:52 pm »
Seems like it would be easier to just build a new 7m rocket. ...
That's what SpaceX is doing, but with a new engine called Raptor. And 9 meter diameter.
« Last Edit: 01/16/2018 02:53 pm by envy887 »

Offline MP99

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #80 on: 01/16/2018 03:09 pm »
I'm not sure about that.

Once they can recover fairings, then they would need a small inventory of them, even ignoring the low flight rate.

Design and tooling costs become much more important. Build costs less so.

Maybe they'd get Ruag to do the basic layup, then complete the build internally.

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my GT-N5120 using Tapatalk


Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #81 on: 01/16/2018 03:45 pm »
Dual core Falcon is off topic for a thread about wider fairings. So don't.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #82 on: 01/16/2018 03:57 pm »
It could have appeared first as a solution to a real problem

It was never a solution and creates more problems than it solves.

Offline OccasionalTraveller

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #83 on: 01/16/2018 04:22 pm »
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.

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.

As far as the idea of extending a wider fairing to cover S2 goes, I don't think that's required. On Atlas V's 5 metre fairing, it's required because Centaur's balloon tanks can't handle the loads, though I don't know if the fairing is helping with the static loads as well as aerodynamic load. The Falcon Upper Stage is supposed to be built using a structural safety factor of 1.4 according to the Payload User's Guide.

I think we know very little about whether any changes were made to the upper stage for the Heavy. The demo mission is carrying a relatively light payload to a very energetic orbit, so should be within the existing structural limits.

Sent from my Swift 2 Plus using Tapatalk


Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #84 on: 01/23/2018 08:17 am »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 01/23/2018 08:24 am by woods170 »

Offline garcianc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • washington, dc
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #85 on: 01/23/2018 03:40 pm »
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.

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.

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.


Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #86 on: 01/23/2018 03:59 pm »
I believe the difference is between Phase 1A (going on now) where you don't have to bid everything, and Phase 2 (scheduled for 2019) where you must be able to bid for each and every payload category.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #87 on: 01/24/2018 11:12 am »
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.

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
OR
2. Those requirements are only valid for missions the offerer actually intends to bid on.
OR
3. 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.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2018 11:13 am by woods170 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #88 on: 01/24/2018 11:57 am »
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.

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
OR
2. Those requirements are only valid for missions the offerer actually intends to bid on.
OR
3. 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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #89 on: 01/24/2018 01:16 pm »
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
OR
2. Those requirements are only valid for missions the offerer actually intends to bid on.
OR
3. 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.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #90 on: 01/24/2018 01:48 pm »
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
OR
2. Those requirements are only valid for missions the offerer actually intends to bid on.
OR
3. 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #91 on: 01/24/2018 01:55 pm »

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.

FSS is not necessary for VI

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #92 on: 01/24/2018 01:57 pm »

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.

FSS is not necessary for VI

Either that or a dedicated tower, and I've not heard SpaceX has any interest in building one of those.

Offline IanThePineapple

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #93 on: 01/24/2018 02:06 pm »

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.

FSS is not necessary for VI

Either 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?

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #94 on: 01/24/2018 02:23 pm »
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
OR
2. Those requirements are only valid for missions the offerer actually intends to bid on.
OR
3. 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.

I guess the question is could SpaceX get away with #3 indefinitely? In EELV Phase 2 they'll be facing some competitions (besides ULA).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #95 on: 01/24/2018 02:25 pm »

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?

Access has to be provided too.  For the fairing mate and to the spacecraft through tents on the fairing doors.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2018 02:34 pm by Jim »

Offline IanThePineapple

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #96 on: 01/24/2018 02:47 pm »

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?

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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #97 on: 01/24/2018 02:50 pm »

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?

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.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #98 on: 01/25/2018 05:51 am »

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?

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. :)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #99 on: 01/25/2018 12:48 pm »

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?

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. 

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #100 on: 01/25/2018 02:11 pm »

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?

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. 

Indeed. And the current most viable solution for all those requirement is a mobile gantry. Which SpaceX is not really interested in constructing. Too expensive to fit in their plans as well a structure that gets in the way of future expansion plans at LC-39A.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #101 on: 01/25/2018 04:24 pm »

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?

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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #102 on: 01/25/2018 07:25 pm »

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.

No, suspending the whole shebang with people is a no no. 

The exits have to be on opposite sides
the airlocks have to be capable of accessing any door on the fairing (360 and any part on the barrel)
Some spacecraft need to put EGSE next to fairing doors, and these need power and data.

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Liked: 1739
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #103 on: 01/26/2018 02:12 pm »

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.

No, suspending the whole shebang with people is a no no. 

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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #104 on: 01/26/2018 02:19 pm »
And cranes almost never go wrong.

Yeah, right.  Tell me another fairy tale.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #105 on: 01/26/2018 02:33 pm »

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.

Not in wind on a platform around the fairing.

this is the access needed around the mating surfaces
 
« Last Edit: 01/26/2018 02:33 pm by Jim »

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #106 on: 01/27/2018 09:17 am »
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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #107 on: 01/27/2018 01:30 pm »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 01/27/2018 01:35 pm by Jim »

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #108 on: 01/27/2018 09:58 pm »
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?
« Last Edit: 01/27/2018 10:02 pm by Jcc »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #109 on: 01/27/2018 10:33 pm »
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?

that was a year ago. 

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #110 on: 01/27/2018 11:20 pm »
Maybe when it comes to SpaceX we need to think a bit out of the box.

Lets assume, integrating the payload vertically to its adapter and fairing is a very tricky, manual labour intensive high accuracy and cleanroom requiring process. That wouldn't change because that's just the requirement of the payload.

Let's further assume this has to happen vertically for some payloads cause they are built that way.

Is there anything that demands this has to happen on top of a 40 story high booster?

SpaceX horizontal payload integration doesn't work that way either. They mount the payload to the payload adapter and inside the fairing inside a payload integration facility, then cart it over to the HIF to attach it to the second stage - where it gets mounted to it most likely dangling from a crane to be hoisted above the transported erector (just like the entire rocket is)

Ergo: mounting payload to adapter inside fairing needs clean room. Everything else needs just a mobile climatization unit.

So why put the integration on top of a large cumbersome tower that might even be mobile? That looks like an over-complicated procedure of the kind SpaceX tries to get rid of.

It should be completely possible for SpaceX to design a mounting-procedure/adapter that can be operated remotely and fully automatically when the already integrated payload is first lifted above the vertical rocket and then lowered down on it.

Proof:  They already did this. Every time they lift a booster of a barge, they have a crane with a custom designed interface dangling from it that attaches itself to the interstage to then carry the entire booster around -- while being remotely operated.

Granted, a fully fueled and integrated payload is a bit more delicate, so instead of dangling freely from a mobile crane, they would probably use some sort of stabilized lift to keep the thing perfectly vertical. A lift that would  also transport whatever auxiliary units the intergrated payload needs (aka climatization, power, ...) or at least connections to those

It still is an engineering problem that can be solved, and if thinking a bit out of a box it can be solved way more elegantly than current vertically integrating EELV launch providers are doing.

This might need small changes to the vehicle, like additional adapters or at least machine readable mounting guides so the payload adapter can be mounted to the upper stage in an automated (and quick) process -- so what? That's the type of thinking SpaceX does all the time.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #111 on: 01/27/2018 11:50 pm »
Wrong. 
A.  There are electrical connections
B.  The lifting sling connection is nothing like the flight mate of the adapter to the second stage.
C. How many times do I have to state that VI includes clean acess to the interior of the fairing through various doors and accommodations for EGSE with power and data.

Offline Basto

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • Liked: 145
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #112 on: 01/28/2018 12:21 am »
All of this vertical integration stuff is very interesting however this isn’t a vertical integration thread.


Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #113 on: 01/28/2018 01:11 am »
Possibly; but while it's a closely related subject; I for one don't mind. Discussions are not strict, narrow focused word-limited haikus.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #114 on: 01/28/2018 01:52 am »
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.

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.

Then the crane would be unable to lift it, since they are the same load cases.

The LUT crane was apparently rated for 25 tons, which isn't very much.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #115 on: 01/28/2018 02:51 pm »
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.  Specifically:
Quote
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.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #116 on: 01/28/2018 04:02 pm »
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. 

One reason might be to speed up orders for BFS payloads.

If they could drag out funding for launches for a 'large F9/H fairing', for customers/investors that don't quite believe in BFS by selling an incremental capacity that nobody really doubts can be done, this could allow them to sell launches that will later convert to BFS launches, from customers that don't believe in BFS, aiding in BFS funding.

An obvious question then arises 'is this set of launches the empty set' - which is unanswerable on public information.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48175
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81684
  • Likes Given: 36943
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #117 on: 07/10/2019 12:27 pm »
Quote
SpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relations
By Eric Ralph
Posted on July 10, 2019

According 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/

Online matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 2211
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #118 on: 07/10/2019 12:39 pm »
The buggy whip manufacturer will go down with the buggy makers.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #119 on: 07/11/2019 03:22 am »
Quote
SpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relations
By Eric Ralph
Posted on July 10, 2019

According 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/

Quote
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.”

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #120 on: 07/11/2019 03:48 am »
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/

Quote
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.”

RUAG could be counter-offering something that does not violate their agreement with ULA, but is not what SpaceX initial asked for. In other words, both articles could be right.

We need more information...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #121 on: 07/11/2019 01:26 pm »
Quote
SpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relations
By Eric Ralph
Posted on July 10, 2019

According 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/

Quote
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.”

The article also claims that SpaceX needs the 5.4 meter fairing for the larger diameter (which is completely unfounded), and makes no mention of the actual fairing length issues.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #122 on: 07/11/2019 05:51 pm »
Quote
SpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relations
By Eric Ralph
Posted on July 10, 2019

According 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.

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 2592
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #123 on: 07/11/2019 06:49 pm »
Quote
SpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relations
By Eric Ralph
Posted on July 10, 2019

According 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...


Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #124 on: 07/11/2019 06:56 pm »
Well, "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.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2019 06:59 pm by baldusi »

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 2592
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #125 on: 07/11/2019 07:44 pm »
Well, "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.

Oh no, I'm not Eric, and I should have realized that you knew he read here.

BTW, I think you are able to make a post over at Teslarati as a guest -- I just have to give an email and check that I am not a robot. That feature might be region locked however, or maybe because I have posted before and my email is on record it lets me post. But in any case if you want to comment on the article there check again to see if you can just give a name and email and post without making an account.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #126 on: 07/11/2019 08:28 pm »
Well, "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.

Eric uses the handle vaporcobra here, see quote below. You can also tweet at him via the twitter link in the Teslarati articles.

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.

Source is an employee familiar with the matter.

(This is Eric).

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #127 on: 07/11/2019 08:45 pm »
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/1149263613489745925

and 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.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #128 on: 07/11/2019 08:48 pm »
Quote
SpaceX’s attempts to buy bigger Falcon fairings foiled by contractor’s ULA relations
By Eric Ralph
Posted on July 10, 2019

According 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.

Huh? Perhaps you had better check your sources...

From the SpaceX User Guide, published January, 2019:

Quote
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 dynamics
result in a payload dynamic envelope with a maximum diameter of 4.6 m (15.1 ft) and a maximum height of 11 m (36.1
ft)
. The base of the payload dynamic envelope is defined by the standard 1575-mm interface plane at the forward end
of 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 in
Figure 5-1 denote the standard payload dynamic interface. The non-bolded dimensions denote potential additional
volume as a nonstandard service.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2019 08:48 pm by Johnnyhinbos »
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #129 on: 07/11/2019 09:30 pm »
Huh? Perhaps you had better check your sources...

From the SpaceX User Guide, published January, 2019:

Quote
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 dynamics
result in a payload dynamic envelope with a maximum diameter of 4.6 m (15.1 ft) and a maximum height of 11 m (36.1
ft)
. The base of the payload dynamic envelope is defined by the standard 1575-mm interface plane at the forward end
of 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 in
Figure 5-1 denote the standard payload dynamic interface. The non-bolded dimensions denote potential additional
volume 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.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2019 09:41 pm by baldusi »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #130 on: 07/11/2019 10:07 pm »
In fact, I would suggest that you look into the Delta IV and Atlas V old user guides, the metallic Delta IV long fairing (I think it was Titan legacy), is the government baseline. It has a 480" x 180" cylindrical section plus a 169" extra length in the tapered section. Those same dimensions are respected in the Atlas V long fairing. So I'm assuming that Vulcan will have the same envelope.
Incidentally, New Glenn, has a height of 557" with a 180" width limit. But 250" at its wider section.
So I'm pretty sure that SpaceX needs a 480" x 180" section plus some 169" tapered section.

Online Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #131 on: 07/11/2019 10:20 pm »
Huh? Perhaps you had better check your sources...

From the SpaceX User Guide, published January, 2019:

Quote
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 dynamics
result in a payload dynamic envelope with a maximum diameter of 4.6 m (15.1 ft) and a maximum height of 11 m (36.1
ft)
. The base of the payload dynamic envelope is defined by the standard 1575-mm interface plane at the forward end
of 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 in
Figure 5-1 denote the standard payload dynamic interface. The non-bolded dimensions denote potential additional
volume 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.
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)
« Last Edit: 07/11/2019 10:21 pm by Johnnyhinbos »
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline programmerdan

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #132 on: 07/11/2019 10:27 pm »
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.

@Johnnyhinbos -- fwiw Baldusi did in fact posit a 22ft length fairing. Also it would appear Baldusi is correct that a slightly longer usable fairing volume is necessary, but maybe a few extra feet (4ft, ~1m or so), not twice as long.

Probably just a typo, though?

In any case it would suggest that SpaceX needs a slightly longer, and slightly wider fairing. Consistent with the idea that simply stretching the fairing would be insufficient, and probably why they have been talking with Ruag.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #133 on: 07/11/2019 10:58 pm »
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/1149263613489745925

and 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.
That's not inconsistent with ULA refusing to let RUAG sell SpaceX a fairing derived from the Atlas 5 meter design.

That doesn't stop RUAG from working with SpaceX on a large fairing not derived from Atlas.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #134 on: 07/11/2019 10:59 pm »
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)

I was referring to the internal dynamic envelope. I stated that on the previous sentence. Only part that matters of the fairing is that, because that's all that customers care about. Quoting the external dimensions is an absolute waste of time, unless you are worrying about things like transport limitations and such.
And to further press the issue, the main reason SpaceX is looking to outsource its long fairing is that they just need it to compete on the USAF contract. So they only care about meeting the requirements. Which I'm pretty sure are 180" x 480" plus a 169" long tapered section.
BTW, 180" x 480" is probably derived from the Shuttle's effective payload dynamic envelope. And the reason for ignoring the tapered section is to have something like Hubble, just optimized to look down.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2019 11:03 pm by baldusi »

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #135 on: 07/11/2019 11:13 pm »
Quick question...
Ruag Space fairings are constructed of aluminum honeycomb with carbon composite reinforcement. 
Spacex's are 'composite' ... composite what?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #136 on: 07/11/2019 11:58 pm »
Quick question...
Ruag Space fairings are constructed of aluminum honeycomb with carbon composite reinforcement. 
Spacex's are 'composite' ... composite what?

Same. Carbon fiber reinforced polymer over aluminum honeycomb.

Offline OxCartMark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Former barge watcher now into water towers
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2072
  • Likes Given: 1555
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #137 on: 07/12/2019 10:00 pm »
Seems like they need a longer fairing.

They have no requirement for it.  It won't get them more missions

That doesn't mean Spacex will do it. Really not worth for them  to pursue outlier missions

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

This is why a larger fairing is not needed.

for FH it is not needed

So if I'm reading you right they're not going to go for a larger fairing?
Actulus Ferociter!

Offline cosmicvoid

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 154
  • Seattle 'ish
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #138 on: 07/13/2019 02:21 am »
... Jim posts snipped...
So if I'm reading you right they're not going to go for a larger fairing?

I'm guessing that in the past 18 - 24 months SpaceX's plans about fairings have changed.
Infiinity or bust.

Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #139 on: 07/13/2019 03:12 am »
As I remember it SpaceX said if some one pays for the development of it they would consider it.
they need a longer fairing for some of the eelv stuff
they might use it for other payloads, I'm pretty sure Starlink-1 was mass bound
they could build it or buy it from Ruag then qualify it on F9/FH
once SS starts flying it becomes redundant
it boils down to how confident they are in the SH/SS time frame

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #140 on: 07/13/2019 03:30 am »
So 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?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #141 on: 07/13/2019 03:44 am »
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.

Online billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Houston
  • Liked: 1098
  • Likes Given: 792
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #142 on: 07/14/2019 09:35 pm »
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.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #143 on: 07/14/2019 10:09 pm »
So 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?

SpaceX would need a credible plan to produce-certify their solution in a timely manner, and would need to include the cost in their bid.  Same as everyone else who cannot demonstrate they can meet all of the requirements today--which is essentially everyone if we exclude DIV-H(?).

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.

Yes.  USAF wants two providers (at least to start with).  For redundancy-competition-whatever that means each provider would need to be capable of handling any mission.  Original EELV competition redux.  (Except back then Lockheed was given a waiver for Atlas V Heavy.)

Maybe in the future USAF will relax that requirement and not require all providers to satisfy every mission (more like NASA LSP), but USAF appears unwilling to take that step today.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #144 on: 07/14/2019 10:44 pm »
USAF wants two providers that can do all launches. But they will probably not want to pay more than necessary. If SpaceX is one of the awardees, they will probably not award those missions with vertical integration nor long fairing to them, but will make sure they keep the capability and plans. Say, have a contract and design with RUAG for the fairing and perform all the detailed design and permits for the vertical integration moving tower.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2784
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #145 on: 07/14/2019 11:14 pm »
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.

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.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #146 on: 07/15/2019 01:10 am »
How much overweight can this fairing be?
Testing a fairing is 'free' (whatever the incremental launch costs of S1 are anyway).
The nominal payload mass into LEO for FH is 60 tons ish.
An even 20 ton fairing would only drop that by ~3.

(it would of course reduce payload to 40 tons if a limiting factor is the first stage loading), but this would not affect high propellant loads to GEO/GTO)

Assuming that dynamics don't prohibit this.



Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #147 on: 07/15/2019 01:33 am »
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.

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.
They can commit to the prices now, and just make them high enough to cover the development and infrastructure needs should DIVH and Vulcan both be taken out of commission for some reason.

That would probably make the prices somewhat higher than ULA for those missions, but it would get them in the club for the other 95% of the launches.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Wider fairing on top of F9/FH
« Reply #148 on: 07/15/2019 01:43 pm »
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.

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.
If you read SpaceX's complain, it is clear that the construction of the vertical integration tower was included as a "mission specific" cost. So it will be the long fairing, I would assume. So, ULA might bid a 300M Vulcan with 6 SRB with vertical integration and fairing included, and SpaceX will have a 120M Falcon Heavy with plus 120M for a vertical integration tower plus 120M for the long fairing (which will include it being validated a couple of times on commercial launches). My numbers might be off, but the concept is the same. All those prices are set at bid time. But no mission will want to "pay" for the options themselves.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1