I was under the impression that the Michoud vertical tooling could assemble components up to ten meters in diameter; is this not correct?
I think it's fixed at 8.4 meters, but that should be wide enough for anything we'll need.
Quote from: M129K on 12/14/2013 08:49 amI think it's fixed at 8.4 meters, but that should be wide enough for anything we'll need.The ability to go smaller could actually be helpful in the event the tooling eventually might possibly be used to build a tri-core heavy (of something else) that would just fit through the VAB doors. I believe a tri-core of 8.4m each is too wide for the doorway.
It's been a while since I've been on this forum, and I've done a cursory search for this subject without success. This thread SEEMS to be the appropriate for this subject, so here goes! What about using 3 or more boosters on an SLS/HLV? You could configure the boosters for a lower thrust, longer duration burn, as well as throttling back the main engines until booster burn out. The SLS Block II payload of 130mt is nice, but I would like to see a SHLV in the future for much more ambitious projects.
Quote from: TomH on 12/14/2013 05:30 pmQuote from: M129K on 12/14/2013 08:49 amI think it's fixed at 8.4 meters, but that should be wide enough for anything we'll need.The ability to go smaller could actually be helpful in the event the tooling eventually might possibly be used to build a tri-core heavy (of something else) that would just fit through the VAB doors. I believe a tri-core of 8.4m each is too wide for the doorway.Going with a penta-core Atlas Phase 2 seems like a much easier solution in that case though. The maximum a tri-core can do is about 6.6 meters, as the VAB doors can support 20 meters max (derived from 8.4m core+2 5.8 meter boosters maximum).
Quote from: davamanra on 01/07/2014 03:02 pmIt's been a while since I've been on this forum, and I've done a cursory search for this subject without success. This thread SEEMS to be the appropriate for this subject, so here goes! What about using 3 or more boosters on an SLS/HLV? You could configure the boosters for a lower thrust, longer duration burn, as well as throttling back the main engines until booster burn out. The SLS Block II payload of 130mt is nice, but I would like to see a SHLV in the future for much more ambitious projects.The following thread that I started discussed this concept. For numerous reasons, the short answer is no.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27563.msg840654#msg840654
So what I have been pondering is this. Since DIV is supposedly capable of penta-core and septa-core configurations, could this be done with F9 v.1.1? I could even see eliminating the cross feed, putting 9 vacuum Merlins on the center core and don't even start it until you jetison the outer cores.
Quote from: TomH on 01/07/2014 10:02 pmSo what I have been pondering is this. Since DIV is supposedly capable of penta-core and septa-core configurations, could this be done with F9 v.1.1? I could even see eliminating the cross feed, putting 9 vacuum Merlins on the center core and don't even start it until you jetison the outer cores.Good luck fitting 9 vacuum Merlins on the core... You would need a core with 8m+ diameter for that.
O.K. so let me modify "vacuum Merlins" and just say "air started Merlins."
Note that TomH referred to penta-core and hepta-core configurations. With a T/W of 1.3, a 5-core version would (very slowly) get off the pad with the center core un-lit at launch; a 7-core would be pretty sprightly climbing out.
Lobo, for the past couple of days I had been thinking about a new thread re. something I've been pondering, but these last few posts here provide a good segue for the idea.F9 v.1.1 just had a flawless countdown and launch. SpaceX is getting really good and FH is going to offer 2x the payload of DIVH @ 1/3 the price. That is a mind boggling 6x the cost efficiency for 53 mt to LEO. Musk may well come to dominate the market and his efficiencies of scale with all those cores and numerous engines, well...we've dreampt for so long of a line that is forever humming with production efficiency.So what I have been pondering is this. Since DIV is supposedly capable of penta-core and septa-core configurations, could this be done with F9 v.1.1? I could even see eliminating the cross feed, putting 9 vacuum Merlins on the center core and don't even start it until you jetison the outer cores. The inner core becomes a powerful second stage, and the current US is the third stage. I know that's a lot of Merlins burning at 1 time, but heck, with the efficiency and proficiency Falcon is starting to demonstrate, I'm starting to think such an LV could outperform SLS at a much lower price. All the components already exist and are flying. It's just a matter of whether this (admittedly complicated) Lego rocketry could actually work.Some of the challenges are engine cluster configurations-would the cores need to be offset a little? What does that do to aerodynamics. 54 Merlin 1st stage, 9 Merlin 2nd stage, 1 Merlin 3rd stage (EDS?) seems a reasonable thrust profile. To take advantage of the LV, cargo shroud would need to be wider than a core and/or longer than currently in use. Too wide of a shroud brings aerodynamic complexities, especially with 7-core cluster below it. So I admit to great complexities, but if they said DIV could do it, it makes me think that perhaps it is at least worth some studies.
And I think my post here about a tri-core "Atlas 6" would actually probably be better than AJAX, the more I think about it. I like AJAX a lot, dont' get me wrong. But AJAX needs a new core developed, which would fly at a relatively low rate. Likely more than SLS. But still, it's a new core just as Direct would be, and SLS is.And Jupiter, AJAX, or SLS all need a new upper stage. Even if AJAX uses ACES-71...NASA would have to pay ULA to develop ACES as they don't seem to be building it on their own.