Author Topic: Falcon Super Heavy  (Read 181934 times)

Offline upjin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #220 on: 06/11/2010 09:30 pm »
Quote
Arianespace's launcher family – composed of the heavy-lift Ariane 5, medium-lift Soyuz and lightweight Vega – provides performance and flexibility that enables the company to meet its motto: "any mass, to any orbit...anytime."

All three vehicles will operate side-by-side at the Spaceport in French Guiana, the world's only dedicated commercial launch site, and are supported by Arianespace's experienced teams.

Though it is a little bit outdated, the point is their intent is to have a family of launch vehicles to handle different payloads.

This is not unlike what SpaceX has and can do with the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Heavy, and/or a Super Falcon based on the Merlin 2.

Offline upjin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #221 on: 06/11/2010 09:49 pm »

You brought up a good point, that should not be ignored.

SpaceX's president appears to have every intention to go forward with the Falcon 9 Heavy.  She clearly makes the case of launching 2 big satellites at the same time and how this is cost effective and reduces cost.


Ariane 6 is going back to a single launcher this point overrides Shotwell. It clearly shows launching 2 big satellites at the same time  is not  cost effective and reduces cost.


The Ariane 6 is not due to come out until 2025 and the battle over its specifications appears to be far from over.  Ariane 6 will reflect cost and budget issues of their shareholders and management, which is not totally a payload capacity point in and of itself. 

They will also be affected by their need to compete with SpaceX and other rocket companies.  The result of this competition and their losing or gaining of market share is as yet to be decided as the Arian 6 isn't flying.  Ariane 6 could very much be a dud and SpaceX and their decisions and rockets (dual satellite launching, F9 Heavy, Merlin2) could have took the majority of the market.

The competitive environment that will be 2025 is yet to be decided and nobody can say for sure.

« Last Edit: 06/11/2010 09:54 pm by upjin »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #222 on: 06/11/2010 10:13 pm »
SpaceX and their decisions and rockets (dual satellite launching, F9 Heavy, Merlin2) could have took the majority of the market.

Now you have completely discredited yourself and you are classified as a spacex fanboi.

Spacex had yet to prove its cost model and the prices/costs of the vehicles have yet to settle.  Spacex costs are not going to be much different than ULA's

Offline upjin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #223 on: 06/11/2010 10:17 pm »


d.  spacecraft requirements are partially responsible for the demise of dual manifesting.  More and more spacecraft are becoming incapable with others.


What kind of problems?

Also do you know if Ariane 5 payload capability was driven by Hermes needs or dual manifesting was planned for from the beginning?

Actually, as certain satellites have become heavier, Ariane 5 doesn't have the capacity to dual launch them.

Part of Ariane 5's problem is its lack of scalability in being able to handle lighter or heavier payloads.  Thus the want of Ariane 6 and their other medium and light launch vehicles (Soyuz, Vega). 

This is different from the disingenuous point presented of Ariane 5 having too large a payload capacity and then they wanting a new rocket of reduced payload capacity.  Scalability reflects your rocket designs ability to handle payloads of variable weight and size.  Ariane 5 could not be scaled down or scaled up to handle different payload "weights", thus that became an issue.

SpaceX's rocket design is more scalable with the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, or Falcon 9 Heavy/possible Merlin 2.  Standardizing on a single rocket type or variation of it, Merlin, and building their rocket in house also gives SpaceX some assembly and cost advantages.  SpaceX can handle different payload sizes and weights, however not up to HLV.  Which is why a Merlin 2 engine would give them that added capability.

« Last Edit: 06/11/2010 10:23 pm by upjin »

Spacenuts

  • Guest
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #224 on: 06/11/2010 10:44 pm »
(WARNING! Non-engineer questions to follow)

What are the week points of the following strategic plan:

1. Develope a single core one/five engine vehicle that has the lift to cover most or all of the existing "large end of the specrum" market. (How big would that engine be? How big of an engine would a single core/single engine configuration be for this class of launch vehicle?)

2. Design all of your launch suporting structures to handle the obvious "heavy" version (versions?) that would be built IF the need should come along?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #225 on: 06/12/2010 12:13 am »
You've repeated this many times, but SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell stressed how important a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO launcher would be for dual commercial payloads

30 mT is medium lift.

Sometimes definitions are important.

Offline Tnarg

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #226 on: 06/12/2010 12:25 am »
OK lets start with some facts

SpaceX has talked about a 30T LV and in addtion talked about a HLV
And there is on a drawing board somewhere a Merlin 2 engen
People here are intressed in whats going to come after the falcon 9

my views:
While a 27 engen first stage is do able it dose seem above the ideal number.  I put the odds of ever seeing a falcon 9 heaviy less then 50:50 depending on develipment time of Merlin 2 and short turm demarnd for a 30T LV.  and even if we do see one I dont think there will ever be that meny of them.
more likey I think is LV base on a small number of Merlin 2s (what this thead is calling a super falcon) lifting 10T-30T that will be build in part to fill the demand spaceX sees for +10T LV and in part with there eyes on a HVL

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #227 on: 06/12/2010 02:37 am »
You've repeated this many times, but SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell stressed how important a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO launcher would be for dual commercial payloads

30 mT is medium lift.

Sometimes definitions are important.

The relavent points are:

1) SpaceX believes there is a strong market for dual manifesting commercial satellites with a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO class launcher. 

2) Elon Musk mentioned that SpaceX is in discussions with NASA for a ~100 mT class vehicle that would launch from pad 39 using some sort of public/private partnership.

If you take those 2 things together, we may be looking at a new SpaceX modular vehilce that can scale from 30 to 100 mT.  Such a vehicle could have a large single core with 3-5 Merlin2 engines to lift 30 mT, and then use some type of strap on boosters to scale to 100 mT.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2010 02:47 am by Dave G »

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #228 on: 06/12/2010 03:23 am »
The comsats have yet to break the 7 mT barrier

Yes, this makes sense. 

Two large comsats would be around 14 mT.  Add some margins for future growth, and perhaps some extra weight to deal with the dual payload, and you're right around 18 mT to GTO.

18 mT GTO corresponds to a little over 30 mT LEO.  Design a single core Merlin2 based launcher for that, and then add SRBs to get up to 100 mT LEO.

In other words, one modular architecture for both commercial medium lift and NASA heavy lift, using some type of public/private partnership.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #229 on: 06/12/2010 04:31 am »

2) Elon Musk mentioned that SpaceX is in discussions with NASA for a ~100 mT class vehicle that would launch from pad 39 using some sort of public/private partnership.


No, everybody is in discussion with NASA.  It is the HLV RFI.  Spacex is just one of many contractors.  They have no advantage here.

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #230 on: 06/12/2010 04:47 am »

2) Elon Musk mentioned that SpaceX is in discussions with NASA for a ~100 mT class vehicle that would launch from pad 39 using some sort of public/private partnership.


No, everybody is in discussion with NASA.  It is the HLV RFI.  Spacex is just one of many contractors.  They have no advantage here.

SpaceX have one advantage in that the current presidential administration seems to very much like them.

On merits, I find it hard to believe that an Atlas heritage super heavy (if one is warranted- which I personally do not believe) would not be a strong contender.

Everyone note that it is an RFI, not an RFP... it's a long way from being anything more than noise...

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2173
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #231 on: 06/12/2010 05:26 am »
You've repeated this many times, but SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell stressed how important a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO launcher would be for dual commercial payloads

30 mT is medium lift.

Sometimes definitions are important.

Shuttle has been referred to as a heavy lift launcher, which is about 30 mT payload. With comsats not exceeding 7 mT, and they are about the biggest commercial payload there is, how is 30 mT not in the HLV class? If 100mT is the definition of HLV, the number of HLV payloads in the last half century can fit on two hands.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #232 on: 06/12/2010 06:37 am »
You've repeated this many times, but SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell stressed how important a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO launcher would be for dual commercial payloads

30 mT is medium lift.

Sometimes definitions are important.

Shuttle has been referred to as a heavy lift launcher, which is about 30 mT payload. With comsats not exceeding 7 mT, and they are about the biggest commercial payload there is, how is 30 mT not in the HLV class? If 100mT is the definition of HLV, the number of HLV payloads in the last half century can fit on two hands.

The shuttle is such a massive spacecraft that even though the payload is only 30 mt in shuttle configuration as shuttle c the payload is closer to 75 mt. Too bad everybody wanted something that landed "like a plane." Can you imagine how much more stuff we could have put in orbit if the shuttle was delivering an extra 50mt with each flight? I guess hind site is 20/20. Then again, a lot of people still want something that "lands like a plane." No matter what the payload penalty.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #233 on: 06/12/2010 08:13 am »
(WARNING! Non-engineer questions to follow)

What are the week points of the following strategic plan:

1. Develope a single core one/five engine vehicle that has the lift to cover most or all of the existing "large end of the specrum" market. (How big would that engine be? How big of an engine would a single core/single engine configuration be for this class of launch vehicle?)

2. Design all of your launch suporting structures to handle the obvious "heavy" version (versions?) that would be built IF the need should come along?

I have stated elsewhere that I believe the best strategy for SpaceX is to develop a 3000kN engine and use 5 of them on a core to get about 30 tonne to LEO. Then have a 3 core version to get about 90 tonne to LEO for the occasional payloads that need it.

One development path would be to initially develop a 2000kN engine with potential to be enhanced to 3000kN or beyond, rather like the initial Merlin-1C are to be replaced by a higher thrust block II version. Slightly lowering performance requirements should make development easier and development costs are likely to be the main driver of overall costs over the next 7-10 years.

A 20 tonne to LEO (7-12 tonne to GTO depending on upper stage) should be sized appropriately to capture a large share of the commercial satellite market.

SpaceX would then have capabilities for:

2011  1T, 10T
2013  1T, 10T, 30T
2015  1T, 3T (1x2000kN), 10T, 30T
2016  1T, 3T, 10T, 20T (5x2000kN), 30T
2018  1T, 5T (1x3000kN), 10T, 20T, 30T (5 x 3000kN), 60T, 90T
2020  1T, 5T, 10T, 20T, 30T, 50T (9 x 3000kN), 60T, 90T, 150T

Naturally whether SpaceX turned those capabilities into real flying launchers would then depend on the business case.

Upper stages would seem to be a major problem with such a wide range of payload mass, especially if both LEO and GTO and reuse as a EDS are needed.

I don't believe dual manifesting is a good idea, it is hard to match up payloads especially if SpaceX and Arianespace share the suitable satellites, that is only 3-4 launches a year each. The initial advantage of flying 2 for the price of one gets swallowed up with all the inefficiencies it introduces.

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #234 on: 06/12/2010 10:17 am »
You've repeated this many times, but SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell stressed how important a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO launcher would be for dual commercial payloads

30 mT is medium lift.

Sometimes definitions are important.
20mt to LEO is defined as sufficient to be deemed "a heavy lift launch vehicle" according to Arianespace (http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2010/681.asp), ESA (http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31287), ILS (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/live-ils-proton-m-launch-echostar-xiv-satellite/), the Augustine Committee, the DoT (http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/sr_97_4q.pdf) etc.

Offline upjin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #235 on: 06/12/2010 05:42 pm »

2) Elon Musk mentioned that SpaceX is in discussions with NASA for a ~100 mT class vehicle that would launch from pad 39 using some sort of public/private partnership.


No, everybody is in discussion with NASA.  It is the HLV RFI.  Spacex is just one of many contractors.  They have no advantage here.

If ULA were to kick SpaceX's butt on a HLV solicitation, then I'm all for them being the winner.  As long as we get that up-scalable HLV.  NASA helping to subsidize it and having a BEO mission would be sweet.

On that note, that is what annoys about Obama/Bolden.  I like Obama's commercial/private sector initiative, but he needs to more clearly demonstrate his commitment to HSF and BEO.

This is why I root for Elon Musk and SpaceX.  One of the reasons why Musk started SpaceX was specifically to get a rocket to Mars.  Many people know where Musk stands.  He is committed to HSF, BEO, and getting to Mars. 

Sadly, that is more then we can say for NASA, Obama, and Bolden.  I'm sure plenty of guys at ULA want to get to Mars too, but their company (as so many other companies) seems focused on maximizing profits and not necessarily BEO.  However, Elon Musk, wants to get to Mars no matter if NASA helps him or not.  Like Christopher Columbus.  He wanted to set out to the New World, no matter who would finance him.  Didn't matter if it was Spain, Portugal, Italy, or England who would put up the cash.  If they gave him the ships and cash, then he wanted to go for it.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2010 05:54 pm by upjin »

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #236 on: 06/12/2010 06:05 pm »
You've repeated this many times, but SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell stressed how important a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO launcher would be for dual commercial payloads

30 mT is medium lift.

Sometimes definitions are important.
20mt to LEO is defined as sufficient to be deemed "a heavy lift launch vehicle" according to Arianespace (http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2010/681.asp), ESA (http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31287), ILS (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/live-ils-proton-m-launch-echostar-xiv-satellite/), the Augustine Committee, the DoT (http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/sr_97_4q.pdf) etc.

President Abraham Lincoln asked a questioner how many legs would a dog have, if we called the dog’s tail, a leg. “Five,” the questioner responds confident in his mathematical ability to do simple addition.

“No,” Lincoln says. “Calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.”


Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #237 on: 06/12/2010 06:24 pm »
President Abraham Lincoln asked a questioner how many legs would a dog have, if we called the dog’s tail, a leg. “Five,” the questioner responds confident in his mathematical ability to do simple addition.

“No,” Lincoln says. “Calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.”

I don't see the relevance.

Several hundred million people call the season after summer "autumn". Several hundred million people call that season "fall". Doesn't mean that "autumn" is incorrect.

Many organisations call a 20mt vehicle a "heavy launch vehicle", some may not. Considering that - except STS - there are no orbital launch vehicles exceeding the 20-28mt to LEO mark, it makes sense to call those vehicles "heavy launch vehicles" in contrast to Soyuz and Delta II type vehicles which are MLVs and Falcon 1 and Pegasus whic are SLVs etc.

The Augustine Committee didn't make the decision lightly to introduce the concept of a "Super Heavy Lift Vehicle" or SHLV for any launch vehicle with a capacity above 50mt to LEO. It makes a lot of sense to introduce this category in order to discuss these types of vehicles.

Back in the old days (1970s onwards) people would just say "Saturn V class". Personally I would favor that approach, as it pays respect to the engineers who developed this incredible machinery back in the days.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #238 on: 06/12/2010 06:27 pm »
When my daughter was a  teenager she used to excuse what she was doing by changing the definitions of the words to suit her. This is no different.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Tnarg

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Super Heavy
« Reply #239 on: 06/12/2010 06:52 pm »
It seems point less arguing about how heavy is heavy.  If some one want to talk about a HLV and then define it at 20mt that is fine by me.  I would not call 20 a HLV but I dont mind if others do.  I might say that I dont think 20mt is heavy when I repile about what they are talking about it but I would not make whole posts about it an ignore the point the other person was making.  The only time I care is when heavy is not define. 

EG
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3

Like in this clip he they are talking about SHLV which I chose to belive is around 100mt+ but if 20 is a HLV I guess it could be lower.  This topic seems to have more post claming that spaceX is not intressed in a SHLV or post about what people belive is a HVL then the facts that SpaceX IS talking about a SHLV.  now if people what to make a post about what they think SpaceX meens when they say SHLV I would be intressed as long as it more then a 'well I would not call X a SHLV'

Compenies dont like to use the words small or medium (at the cinema they have 2 sizes of popcorn boxes large and very large*) so I'm willing to beleave what spaceX is calling SHLV might be quite a bit smaller then what we might call a SHLV.

*other examples include that the avage horse has about 1.2 horse power and HD sellers clame there are 1,000,000 bytes in a MB

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0