I wonder what a couple of Falcon 1 strap on boosters with 1D FT Merlins would add to performance?
Quote from: pb2000 on 07/08/2017 09:34 pmI wonder what a couple of Falcon 1 strap on boosters with 1D FT Merlins would add to performance?Channeling You-know-who: Rockets are not LEGO pieces.As to the OP, solids are not the SpaceX way. They won't even use pyro devices or small solids where they would be very helpful, like separating the boosters from the core of Heavy.
Two recent incidents piqued my interest along that line, for instance the recent launch of the Intelsat 35e which was not recoverable due to performance needs. If SpaceX could use a couple of small SRB's for enhanced performance
Quote from: Comga on 07/08/2017 10:08 pmQuote from: pb2000 on 07/08/2017 09:34 pmI wonder what a couple of Falcon 1 strap on boosters with 1D FT Merlins would add to performance?Channeling You-know-who: Rockets are not Lego pieces.I will add at this point that this is not specifically a response to Comga, more a request to justify _why_ any particular lego rocket is a bad idea.
Quote from: pb2000 on 07/08/2017 09:34 pmI wonder what a couple of Falcon 1 strap on boosters with 1D FT Merlins would add to performance?Channeling You-know-who: Rockets are not Lego pieces.
You mean KSP has been lying to me all this time? ;)Ah well, it's an easy trap to fall into, even Elon seemed surprised/frustrated at how difficult FH turned out to be.
That being said, wasn't Atlas V originally not designed for SRBs?
As Falcon was being developed, I thought a set of small side boosters might be a way forward to gain the payload capacity for launches like the latest Intelsat launch. But unless they change their mind and want to compete in the smallsat launcher arena, I think the simpler solution is the idea of launching two cores as one booster unit. Had they chosen this path INSTEAD of a full Falcon Heavy, it would be flying by now, due to far less mods being required. No specialized center core stage or separation systems required. All that would have been needed is a new TEL and interstage to connect to a heavier second stage. All the engineering would be in that interstage to distribute a total weight that is LESS than two boosters can already handle. This booster might well have flown as a "Falcon 16", likely easily RTLS even for big GEOSats. Then, the path forward ( if larger payloads actually materiralize) would be a Falcon 4 Core. Would require strengthening the center two cores as they did with the center core for Falcon heavy now, but there is no rush. Also, there might be the possibility of an EXTERNAL structure such as narrow, pressurized tanks to augment the center cores. The dual core center could then support a dual tank upperstage. Big enough to at least consider building a reusable, full sized raptor powered version. Also a large payload fairing could be supported in the form of an 8.5 x 5.5 meter elliptical shape.
Quote from: pb2000 on 07/08/2017 11:51 pmYou mean KSP has been lying to me all this time? Ah well, it's an easy trap to fall into, even Elon seemed surprised/frustrated at how difficult FH turned out to be.Exactly. Even the people who designed the thing underestimated how much work it would be to strap three of them together.Quote from: pb2000 on 07/08/2017 11:51 pmThat being said, wasn't Atlas V originally not designed for SRBs?The third Atlas V launch, on July 17, 2003, had two SRBs. That was less than a year after the first Atlas V launch. So I find it hard to believe Atlas V wasn't designed for SRBs from the start. The Atlas V first stage actually has all the structural attachment points for solids and even to do a Falcon Heavy/Delta IV Heavy style triple-first-stage launch, even on launches with no solids at all.
You mean KSP has been lying to me all this time? Ah well, it's an easy trap to fall into, even Elon seemed surprised/frustrated at how difficult FH turned out to be.
Quote from: cppetrie on 07/09/2017 12:28 amI feel compelled in Lar's absence thus far in this thread to point out that it is LEGO, not Lego or lego. More specifically it is LEGO pieces or systems, etc. LEGO is an adjective. But I digress. You do digress, and the single worst thing about this forum is that even the mods encourage getting off topic, when it's their hobby horse. Can we just drop it?
I feel compelled in Lar's absence thus far in this thread to point out that it is LEGO, not Lego or lego. More specifically it is LEGO pieces or systems, etc. LEGO is an adjective. But I digress.
SRBs are most certainly never going to happen on F9, nor will separable LRBs. Fixed LRBs almost certainly won't either, but it's interesting purely as speculation.