Author Topic: Merlin or Raptor-powered spaceplanes  (Read 42376 times)

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Merlin or Raptor-powered spaceplanes
« on: 11/14/2012 07:15 pm »
http://www.slashgear.com/elon-musk-is-planning-a-supersonic-electric-powered-hovering-jet-04245866/

A little while back Musk started expressing an interest in doing a vertical take-off, vertical landing, all-electric supersonic jet.  The first thought that struck me was, "what are you doing only going supersonic?"  Let's face it, the Concorde died out for a reason.  The added speed in the end was not enough compensation for the much higher cost per seat.  But you know what would be less complicated than Musk's all-electric Concorde concept and be a lot more feasible? 

Something like XCOR Aerospace's Lynx would be much easier to design.  A rocket-powered, suborbital spaceplane could also get you almost anywhere on earth in under 3 hours and skip the troubling drag of atmosphere for much of the flight. 

Obviously the Lynx is only feasible as a tourist vehicle given its seating and rocket power.  SpaceShipTwo, made by Virgin Galactic, is a step in the right direction in terms of seating (2 crew, 6 passengers) but requires a carrier plane to compensate for is hybrid rockets and 8-man seating.  SS2's thrust (60,000 pounds-force (270,000 N)) is also inadequate anyways for the kinds of speeds and distances required. 

But you know what engine has been tested to 20 consecutive flights and would have the thrust for something like this?  The 147,000 lbf Merlin 1D.  You could use just one for a 10-15 seat spaceplane and more as needed if the demand for a bigger spaceplane was there.  Given Spacex is supposed to only do orbital craft, perhaps they'd simply supply the engine to someone like Virgin Galactic and save Virgin the hassles of developing yet another new engine. 

So I have to ask--crazy idea or totally feasible? If you were in Elon's shoes, would you rather build a Merlin-powered spaceplane than the all-electric Concorde?  To me it's a no-brainer. 

Edit--

I've decided that is Spacex is going forward with Raptor, we might as well add it to the conversation.  A staged combustion methane engine with high Isp sounds very promising for possibly developing an SSTO or something close to it.  At least it sounds that way, but hey, have fun speculating one way or another. 
« Last Edit: 12/22/2012 06:23 am by Hyperion5 »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #1 on: 11/14/2012 08:34 pm »
Going half-way around the globe is not much different than getting into orbit.  (From an energy and velocity point of view)

So you're not looking for an airplane.  You're looking for what you already have - a first stage that returns to base, and a capsule+US that lands propulsively at the destination airport.

It is an expensive way to travel, but putting wings and landing gear on it is not going to make it cheaper.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #2 on: 11/14/2012 09:01 pm »
Going half-way around the globe is not much different than getting into orbit.  (From an energy and velocity point of view)

So you're not looking for an airplane.  You're looking for what you already have - a first stage that returns to base, and a capsule+US that lands propulsively at the destination airport.

It is an expensive way to travel, but putting wings and landing gear on it is not going to make it cheaper.

I've checked and there basically are very few cities that are literally each other's antipodes.  An antipode is basically where you'd come out of the earth if you had tunneled straight though the core and out the other side.  For instance, the antipode of Chicago is just off the southwestern coast of Australia near the city of Perth.  I think this is because most of the earth's landmass is in the northern hemisphere.  But thanks to that geographical quirk, I think you wouldn't need to fly half-way around the world.  That definitely helps the design. 

The best flights would probably be those over significant distances that take up a lot of time but would be shorter than halfway across the earth. 

Which of these flights makes the most sense from an energy and velocity perspective for a spaceplane?  Bear in mind the longer the flight the more people would pay a premium for faster speed. 
Sydney-Los Angeles
New York-Moscow
Tokyo-Seattle
New York-Sao Paolo

Any routes you'd actually recommend for something like this? 

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #3 on: 11/14/2012 09:26 pm »
Merlin 1D would be overpowered for anything but a huge spaceplane.
« Last Edit: 11/14/2012 09:27 pm by Jason1701 »

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #4 on: 11/14/2012 10:12 pm »
Merlin 1D would be overpowered for anything but a huge spaceplane.

"Huge" eh?  I suppose you could call it that, but you might need it to be pretty large by spaceplane standards to be commercially successful.  I doubt that you would want it to only be able to transport 8 people.  15-20 passengers and minimal carry-on luggage sounds like a better target.  Take a look at the size of SpaceShipTwo down below. 

147,000 lbf of thrust is less than 3X that of SpaceShipTwo, and unlike that rocket this approach would see it taking off unassisted.  Size would therefore probably be somewhat less than all but the smallest 737s.  It can't be too much larger than SpaceShipTwo with just one Merlin anyways, as that design requires an aircraft lift and a good 60 seconds of blasting a 60,000lbf hybrid rocket engine to get SpaceShipTwo up to maximum altitude and speed.  Obviously SpaceShipTwo is not geared towards long distance travel, but if you used something more efficient and with more power, like the Merlin 1D, it might work wonderfully for the planned successor to SpaceShipTwo: the point-to-point suborbital spaceplane, SpaceShipThree. 

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/02/spaceshipthree-revealed.html



« Last Edit: 11/15/2012 05:11 am by Hyperion5 »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #5 on: 11/14/2012 10:13 pm »
Going half-way around the globe is not much different than getting into orbit.  (From an energy and velocity point of view)

So you're not looking for an airplane.  You're looking for what you already have - a first stage that returns to base, and a capsule+US that lands propulsively at the destination airport.

It is an expensive way to travel, but putting wings and landing gear on it is not going to make it cheaper.

I've checked and there basically are very few cities that are literally each other's antipodes.  An antipode is basically where you'd come out of the earth if you had tunneled straight though the core and out the other side.  For instance, the antipode of Chicago is just off the southwestern coast of Australia near the city of Perth.  I think this is because most of the earth's landmass is in the northern hemisphere.  But thanks to that geographical quirk, I think you wouldn't need to fly half-way around the world.  That definitely helps the design. 

The best flights would probably be those over significant distances that take up a lot of time but would be shorter than halfway across the earth. 

Which of these flights makes the most sense from an energy and velocity perspective for a spaceplane?  Bear in mind the longer the flight the more people would pay a premium for faster speed. 
Sydney-Los Angeles
New York-Moscow
Tokyo-Seattle
New York-Sao Paolo

Any routes you'd actually recommend for something like this? 

I was talking figuratively.  "half way around the world" can be substituted with "intercontinental", like the "I" in ICBM.

If you want ballistic transport, you're not looking for an airplane - that was what I was trying to say.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #6 on: 11/14/2012 10:58 pm »

I was talking figuratively.  "half way around the world" can be substituted with "intercontinental", like the "I" in ICBM.

If you want ballistic transport, you're not looking for an airplane - that was what I was trying to say.

meekGee, there is one shortcoming to your approach, namely that it requires a dedicated launch pad.  Now I doubt your launch pad would have problems if this thing were strictly used for space tourism.  What I doubt is you could make a go of it if the vehicle was intended as a people-mover.  Let's face it, what are the chances of getting a launch pad installed within shouting distance of the New York City suburbs, let alone the city itself?  You need to be able to launch this thing from an airport in some fashion to make it viable. 

So let's say I'm Virgin Galactic and you're the rocket scientist.  I've told you the launch pad method is not happening if we're going ahead with our planned SpaceShipThree that can do New York-London in an hour.  This is because our high-falutin' class of customers who want this kind of speed and novelty also want to be able to fly into a regular airport near their destination. 

I've thought of a few methods that might work in this scenario.   

Contact Stratolaunch, tell them to build another couple of mega lifters, and let those babies lift the spaceplane to the required altitude.  Then you let go of the spaceplane, burn it to the required height and speed, and glide back down into a London or NYC-area airport.  Of course I can see the pitfalls of this already given the Stratolaunch carrier aircraft's huge size.  Try finding someplace to land, house and maintain a carrier aircraft with a 385 ft wingspan in a regular airport.   

You could always cut the passenger count down to SpaceShipTwo levels, but I think you'll want at least 10 passengers to make a go of it.  Still, even that would require a carrier aircraft considerably bigger than White Knight Two.  How much bigger?  I'm not entirely sure. 

But let's say Virgin told you, "We want this vehicle to take off and land at an airport under its own power".   

The solution came to me after reading up on SSTO vehicles.  You build something like the Skylon spaceplane.

So how would this thing work?  Here's how they picture the Skylon working: "The vehicle design is for a hydrogen-powered aircraft that would take off from a conventional runway, and accelerate to Mach 5.4 at 26 kilometres (16 mi) altitude using atmospheric air before switching the engines to use the internal liquid oxygen (LOX) supply to take it to orbit.[4] It would then release its payload, which can weigh up to 15 tonnes, and re-enter the atmosphere. The vehicle is to be unpiloted, but certified for carrying people, and the payload would be carried in a standardised payload container or passenger compartment." 

Now given we're aiming for a suborbital craft, I'd say we can cut back.  Ditch the dangerous hydrogen and stay with RP-1/LOX and however many Merlins you need.  Cut the size requirements by ditching the orbital capabilities or all but the tiniest payload to it.  Use the lessened amount of space required by RP-1 to have a decent passenger compartment, preferably in the front of the vehicle. 




« Last Edit: 11/15/2012 05:09 am by Hyperion5 »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #7 on: 11/15/2012 12:18 am »
In principle, yes, an air-launched ballistic transport is equivalent to what I was saying - it's still a first stage and a ballistic vehicle, only launched differently.

I am not sure though that the pad is such an issue (costs less than the rocket, no?) and air-launching the rocket is not very safe when you're carrying humans.  It also adds another component which has cost (the carrier), complexity, maintenance.... 

Anyway - that's a separate argument though.   My main point was that the intercontinental object shouldn't (IMO!) be an airplane, since the wings are not helping any.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Kharkov

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
  • Even Entropy Isn't What It Used To Be
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #8 on: 11/15/2012 01:01 am »
So...

Lifted to altitude by a mothership, which took off from, say... JFK or LAX, detatch & head off for... London Heathrow or somewhere in the Gulf.

You're talking about an unpowered, gliding descent, aren't you?

Coming down into quiet airports... no major problem there but the stated intention was to reduce travel time. No way could this vehicle glide into places like London Heathrow or some other major hub airport. You'd have to bump everything else to a holding circle or something while this comes down, surely?

And a rocket-powered plane taking off from JFK or LAX? I don't see it happening.
Even Entropy Isn't What It Used To Be

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #9 on: 11/15/2012 01:33 am »
I suspect it will be a 2-stage affair.  The first stage core, speculated about on the MCT thread, will double as an electric supersonic jet launcher (think hundreds of people per launch).

Intercontinental semi-ballistic travel. 

Vertical launch, vertical landing. 

After separation, 1st-stage goes back to take-off point for refuelling, and the passenger bit ballistically re-enters atmosphere over ocean, staying very very high within it, and hypersonic, until it approaches land.  Then it loses velocity and altitude, coming in for a touchdown, likely under rocket power.  Ticket price = eventually less than $10k.  The airline business is something like $700billion per year.  Even a fraction of that dwarfs the revenue potential from would-be colonists.  This dual-use MCT booster becomes more economically justifiable in this way. 

Just my guess.

I went into a lot more detail on the above in one of these threads around here... 

As has been pointed out on other threads, only long distances make sense at hypersonic speeds since a lot of the overall travel time with flying short flights is just standing around in airport lines waiting to be groped or irradiated. 
« Last Edit: 11/15/2012 01:34 am by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #10 on: 11/15/2012 02:03 am »
My main point was that the intercontinental object shouldn't (IMO!) be an airplane, since the wings are not helping any.

True, they're dead weight except at the beginning and end... kind of like rocket engines.

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #11 on: 11/15/2012 04:30 am »
I suspect it will be a 2-stage affair.  The first stage core, speculated about on the MCT thread, will double as an electric supersonic jet launcher (think hundreds of people per launch).

Intercontinental semi-ballistic travel. 
Vertical launch, vertical landing. 

Well VTVL is one possibility.  It might not be the most feasible approach if you were trying to launch Brad Pitt, Angelina and the rest of their huge family from New York City to London or Paris.  :)  Something gives me the feeling having a huge MCT stage firing off a pad anywhere near millions of people would not go down well for noise and safety reasons. 

It just occurred to me there's something more feasible than the overkill of the Skylon approach to HTHL.  You mentioned two stages being needed for a VTVL approach.  Well I actually might go with a three-stage approach for a Lynx-like spaceplane now that you mention it. 

Here's how you could feasibly do it.  You add in a pair of jet engines with retractable engine covers that are built into the vehicle's body.  You also add on at least one pair of solid rocket boosters to the rear.  You can then avoid setting off every car alarm and breaking every noise pollution standard when you take off.  At a reasonable altitude a few minutes into flight (say 20,000 feet), you shut down the jet engines, put their covers back up, and light up the Merlin main engine along with the SRBs. 

Then, when the SRBs are burned out, jettison the dead weight and keep going on the Merlin (like a 1.5 stage rocket).  When you reach atmosphere again coming down and are below Mach 4, you can switch the jet engines back on to maintain some speed and make a powered landing at your destination airport.  If you absolutely wanted you could even make the SRBs reusable, though I'd bet it would be cheaper just to ditch them in the ocean. 

As has been pointed out on other threads, only long distances make sense at hypersonic speeds since a lot of the overall travel time with flying short flights is just standing around in airport lines waiting to be groped or irradiated. 

If I could favorite the "waiting to be groped or irradiated" remark, I would. :) 

Virgin Galactic says the next spaceplane after SpaceShipTwo is going to be for hypersonic, point-to-point travel.  To make that a bit easier to do I'd convert the Merlin 1D booster engine over to ethylene, sub-cool it and the LOX, and enjoy a cleaner-burning, higher-performance, more reusable rocket. 

So...

Lifted to altitude by a mothership, which took off from, say... JFK or LAX, detatch & head off for... London Heathrow or somewhere in the Gulf.

You're talking about an unpowered, gliding descent, aren't you?

I was initially but like any idea this one is evolving.  :)  I've evolved the design to be closer to how the Space Shuttle was originally envisioned--with jet engines for powered atmospheric flight.  Oh, and don't forget the SRBs!

Coming down into quiet airports... no major problem there but the stated intention was to reduce travel time. No way could this vehicle glide into places like London Heathrow or some other major hub airport. You'd have to bump everything else to a holding circle or something while this comes down, surely?

Well given that approach's issues you could always go with the new approach I mentioned.  If you add jet engines for the initial ascent and expendable SRBs to sides for added performance of 1.5 stage rocket, you could definitely up the range and velocity you needed for intercontinental travel.  To keep your speed up and travel time down you use the jet engines as a sustainer stage as you're coming back down. 

I get it meekGee--the shape isn't ideal for a rocket, but if this thing takes off and lands on its own power (unless you're carrying it on a carrier aircraft), then it'll need some lift.  VTVL certainly has some advantages, but can you launch such a vehicle anywhere near the downtown core of New York City?  I don't think you could.  Cities like New York, Paris, Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi, London and Tokyo are going to be some of your ideal markets.  Try as I might, I can't imagine residents allowing a rocket pad anywhere near them.  NIMByism against it would be horrendous. 

And a rocket-powered plane taking off from JFK or LAX? I don't see it happening.

You can imagine the bumper sticker on it if such a spaceplane did take off on rocket power at JFK: "We don't just break noise ordinances, we flame-broil them!"  Well jet engines would add some weight and additional complexity, but I think would be needed at major airports.  One thing's for sure, a Merlin-powered spaceplane burning ethylene would allow far more passengers for tourist flights than the smaller SpaceShipTwo could.  It'd also give you a significantly longer period than 5 minutes of weightlessness. :) 

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #12 on: 11/15/2012 07:44 am »
I think faster air travel is inevitable.

It comes down to atmospheric vs suborbital I guess.

Using the atmosphere for reaction mass is better but there are aeroheating issues that need to be solved.

Is the technology development to make the shapes and materials that can travel through the air at hypersonic speeds without disintegrating cheaper than just building a suborbital spaceplane out of current technologies?

I'm not thinking about small 20 man things either. I don't think there's a business case there. You still need to compete against the planes which means you need to compete on scale.

I'm thinking 707 or DC-8 style with 100 passengers + cargo.

Do you go all rocket propulsion like a Lynx?

That might work. I'd say people would feel safer with normal jet engines too but that might not be possible to lug them all the way out of the atmosphere as dead weight.

I guess that's where crossover tech like the Skylon SABRE engine comes in.

It's ok to add weight if you can get everything back down to the ground and reuse it but you might need small armies for servicing and quality checks. These armies already exist though, they're called aircraft mechanics  :P

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #13 on: 11/15/2012 07:06 pm »
I think faster air travel is inevitable.

It comes down to atmospheric vs suborbital I guess.

Using the atmosphere for reaction mass is better but there are aeroheating issues that need to be solved.

Is the technology development to make the shapes and materials that can travel through the air at hypersonic speeds without disintegrating cheaper than just building a suborbital spaceplane out of current technologies?



Scramjet technology is a very new thing and isn't completely flight-proven.  Every time the Pentagon does a test they get a bit farther and faster, but inevitably either the jet disintegrates due to aero-heating or they lose control and it has to be self-destructed.  Are they further along than 10 years ago?  Without doubt. 

Could you start building a rocket-powered spaceplane that could go even faster and further sooner?  I've no doubt of that.  Rockets at least are something engineers are familiar with, unlike the more exotic technology needed for scramjets.  They also are launching out of the atmosphere, meaning that the aero-heating issue is not nearly as big a problem.  Kind of makes me wonder why the Pentagon hasn't looked more into the possibilities of a spaceplane global bomber. 

I'm not thinking about small 20 man things either. I don't think there's a business case there. You still need to compete against the planes which means you need to compete on scale.

I'm thinking 707 or DC-8 style with 100 passengers + cargo.

You're going to need a fair number of Merlins for that! :)  I'd guess you'd need to reincarnate the Falcon 5 as a spaceplane to handle those kinds of payloads.  My only issue with this approach is with energy.  A rocket is always going to be less energy-efficient flying point-to-point around the world than any airplane.  Because of this and other technical difficulties present only in spaceplanes (replacing tiles/heat shield), the price per ticket is always going to be fairly high (I'd guess $10,000 minimum).  Are you quite sure the demand will be there for that many seats?  Remember, your flight costs will be about 95% of full capacity costs even when the aircraft is only two-thirds full. 

Do you go all rocket propulsion like a Lynx?

Only if you don't plan on lifting off from a major airport.  :) 

That might work. I'd say people would feel safer with normal jet engines too but that might not be possible to lug them all the way out of the atmosphere as dead weight.

I guess that's where crossover tech like the Skylon SABRE engine comes in.

It's ok to add weight if you can get everything back down to the ground and reuse it but you might need small armies for servicing and quality checks. These armies already exist though, they're called aircraft mechanics  :P

It's going to be very interesting to see just what the final ticket cost SpaceShipTwo can make money at when it regularly launches.  I'm hoping XCOR Aerospace's cheaper but smaller Lynx pushes prices down. 

Offline starsilk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Denver
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #14 on: 11/15/2012 07:51 pm »
Kind of makes me wonder why the Pentagon hasn't looked more into the possibilities of a spaceplane global bomber. 

there are treaties against militarizing 'space'. have to tread carefully.

also, anything on a sub-orbital ballistic trajectory tends to look like an ICBM, which could provoke a very unfortunate response... hence the need for something that is (a) very very fast and (b) clearly not an ICBM.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #15 on: 11/15/2012 07:56 pm »
  Kind of makes me wonder why the Pentagon hasn't looked more into the possibilities of a spaceplane global bomber. 
 

Because it is not needed.  It has no advantages over current systems.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #16 on: 11/15/2012 07:58 pm »
  Kind of makes me wonder why the Pentagon hasn't looked more into the possibilities of a spaceplane global bomber. 
 

Because it is not needed.  It has no advantages over current systems.

They call it a scramjet. It's a bust so far.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #17 on: 11/16/2012 07:46 am »
Why is it a bad idea to fire rockets at an airport?

There's already clearance given to large jets for wake turbulence.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #18 on: 11/16/2012 09:18 am »
I think faster air travel is inevitable.

Maybe, but the fact that the speed of subsonic airliners has hardly changed in almost fifty years and that supersonic passenger flight has been abandoned gives pause for thought.

I think a rocket-only aircraft flying from a commercial airport close to a population centre is a complete non starter because of noise. Take off would require a much quieter form of propulsion, like current turbofans or some kind of dual mode engine.

I think the idea of launching ballistic rocket powered vehicles (especially multistage ones) from commercial airports is  incredibly noisy, dangerous and completely crazy. It's also OT.

Quote
I guess that's where crossover tech like the Skylon SABRE engine comes in.

Possibly. See RE's LAPCAT study. http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html
Douglas Clark

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
Re: The Merlin-powered spaceplane
« Reply #19 on: 11/17/2012 09:59 pm »
Why is it a bad idea to fire rockets at an airport?

There's already clearance given to large jets for wake turbulence.

You'd have no problem getting permission for something like that at Cape Canaveral, but populated areas and major airports won't want their runways singed or their noise ordinances disregarded.  Tom Mueller once said a 95,000 lbf Merlin 1C could burn a hole straight through concrete.  Of course he was talking about a static test fire burning through concrete over a multi-minute burn.  A few seconds during takeoff in contrast ought to not be too much of a problem. 

Tags:
 

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