Poll

What diameter do you think the Mini-ITS will have?

3.7 m (12 ft) like Falcon 9
0 (0%)
5 m (16.4 ft) like Delta IV
3 (2.8%)
8.4 m (27.6 ft) like the Shuttle ET
50 (46.3%)
10.1 m (33.0 ft) like the Saturn V
45 (41.7%)
12.2 m (40 ft) like the Falcon Heavy width
3 (2.8%)
Even bigger!
3 (2.8%)
None, it won't be built at all.
4 (3.7%)

Total Members Voted: 108

Voting closed: 08/20/2017 03:09 PM


Author Topic: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter  (Read 3688 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8023
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2766
  • Likes Given: 662
POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« on: 07/21/2017 12:47 AM »
Vote and explain your reasoning below. I know this is a contentious question, but let's try to keep chatter to a minimum.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? The slowest possible.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8023
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2766
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #1 on: 07/21/2017 12:52 AM »
I voted for 8.4 (or close enough) as I really do think SpaceX will try to make the Mini-ITS cores in Hawthorne and road transport them to a nearby port. That puts a limit on how big they can be, and the transport of the Shuttle External Tank to the Science Center is the best example of moving something that big. If they build the cores somewhere else they could do something wider, in which case I'd go for 12 m as they already have Falcon Heavy handling hardware at the launch pads. Hard to imagine anything wider than that!
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? The slowest possible.

Online Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #2 on: 07/21/2017 01:03 AM »
IMO: 9-10 meters (voted 10 meters) - which is around maximum that can be manufactured in Hawthorne and still get to port.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 01:04 AM by Rebel44 »

Offline tesla

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Germany
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #3 on: 07/21/2017 01:08 AM »
Even bigger, because that's what it takes to land 100+ people on Mars at once.  ;)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8023
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2766
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #4 on: 07/21/2017 01:15 AM »
Well, the original ITS proposal was only 12 m diameter. The spacecraft was to hammer-head to 17 m, but that's not the core diameter :)
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? The slowest possible.

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2064
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #5 on: 07/21/2017 02:02 AM »
I voted 10m because of Hawthorn maximum building height.  I would prefer a short squat 12m that could be stretched and more engines added at some point in the future with a new launch pad somewhere. 

10m same as Saturn, but with 10-12m lbs thrust to launch from the cape flame trenches.  Since it is going to be resuable booster it would probably only match Saturn V LEO capabilities or about 100+ tons, since the ITS has to land, and the booster has to land. 

They would probably have to build a huge supply of F9/FH cores before switching to the ITS booster and spacecraft.  Also get re-usability mastered before manufacturing. 

Also, won't they have to have 3 prototypes?  One for crew, one for cargo, and one for a tanker?  Or can they be made modular?  Lots of questions. 

If they go with 8.4, they could make it at Mchloud facility in Louisiana using same tooling as SLS unless SLS is steel instead of aluminum.  But, 8.4 limits the number of engines they can add and stretching it with improved engines would make 8.4 look like the F9 on steroids.  Therefore I think wider is better for future ability to stretch the core and handle the ITS.

Online IanThePineapple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • NaN
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #6 on: 07/21/2017 02:06 AM »
I'm guessing Shuttle ET width, as it will be much larger than Falcon to help gain experience with larger diameter tanks, but not so large that they would need massive infrastructure modifications.
Proud creator of Ian's Paper Model Rocket Collection:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42383.0

Online savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
  • Liked: 904
  • Likes Given: 322
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #7 on: 07/21/2017 02:06 AM »
10.1 because that will exactly equal to how many months it will take to announce something new.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 490
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #8 on: 07/21/2017 02:27 AM »
5 to 6 meters, with 7 to 9 Raptors. With the plan to use it for Earth-Moon system missions as well as Mars missions, a smaller vehicle that is reused more (especially the spaceship) makes sense to me, and could possibly replace F9/FH.

Edit: 5 to 6 meters if still using linerless carbon fiber tankage, 6 to 7 meters if aluminum-lithium.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 07:45 AM by 2552 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 675
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #9 on: 07/21/2017 02:28 AM »
9 or 10 meters and squat, stretch it and add engines later. Could eventually reach 250 tonnes reusable.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 202
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #10 on: 07/21/2017 02:33 AM »
I voted 10 meters because the item to look at for max width at Hawthorne is probably the Shuttle Orbiter rather than the External Tank.  Mini-ITS will probably be stubby -- perhaps shorter than the External Tank.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 02:35 AM by RedLineTrain »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8023
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2766
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #11 on: 07/21/2017 02:37 AM »
23.79 m (78.06 ft) diameter would be one heck of a core ;)

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? The slowest possible.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 202
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #12 on: 07/21/2017 02:45 AM »
They cut down a lot of trees to move the orbiter.  I doubt L.A. would be so understanding for a mere Mini-ITS.  So something less than the orbiter, something more than the External Tank.

Or whatever... ;)

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
  • Liked: 424
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #13 on: 07/21/2017 03:13 AM »
I voted 10m because of Hawthorn maximum building height.  I would prefer a short squat 12m that could be stretched and more engines added at some point in the future with a new launch pad somewhere.
I sort of wish I had voted 12m now. No one has voted it at this point. Short squat 12m is always the outcome that was coolest to me.

I just went 10m because I really have no information, except 10m is the value already thrown around for other projects by other companies, so I assume it can be handled without special provision for SpaceX.

One reason to argue for 12m is that they already made a 12m tank. And in my opinion SpaceX actually thinks very very carefully about things like existing markets. Elon is a showman who welcomes Fanboys painting him as Noah building a massive boat in the middle of dry land with no possible purpose, but there is no reason for him to explain to his competitors ahead of time how he intends to out compete them right now and tomorrow and all the years between here and there.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 03:26 AM by KelvinZero »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8156
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4909
  • Likes Given: 3329
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #14 on: 07/21/2017 03:35 AM »
Saturn diameter feels right to me so that's what I voted. I think it could be taken out of Hawthorne but not easily. So I expect them  not to build any, or many, there.
"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 RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 965
  • Likes Given: 740
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #15 on: 07/21/2017 05:00 AM »
I voted for 8.4 (or close enough) as I really do think SpaceX will try to make the Mini-ITS cores in Hawthorne and road transport them to a nearby port. That puts a limit on how big they can be, and the transport of the Shuttle External Tank to the Science Center is the best example of moving something that big.

I agree. It would be a hassle to move something that large from Hawthorne to the port, but since the mini-ITS will be reusable, SpaceX only needs to build a few of them.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3674
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 1236
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #16 on: 07/21/2017 05:16 AM »
I chose 8.4 meters because there's lots of precedent for transporting around stages/fuel tanks of that size. Elon could hire or buy a barge of the same class and type that used to transport the Shuttle E.T.s - though with a housing customised to protect it from the elements as it goes.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3674
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 1236
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #17 on: 07/21/2017 05:20 AM »
5 to 6 meters, with 7 to 9 Raptors. With the plan to use it for Earth-Moon system missions as well as Mars missions, a smaller vehicle that is reused more (especially the spaceship) makes sense to me, and could possibly replace F9/FH.
That size of vehicle would be a reasonable match for Zubrin's 'Mars Direct' ships. Some of the similar technologies and concepts will be used, too.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline RocketmanUS

Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #18 on: 07/21/2017 05:46 AM »
Voted 8.4 m

Figure could fit at least 18 engines. Enough power for 2nd stage reuse or mini BFS.
Good enough for crewed Mars exploration missions.
Not to big and not to small. Could launch from LC-39A or LC-39B
Mars and beyond, human exploration
The grass is always greener on the other side. When you stand on top of the hill you see both sides!

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6007
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 679
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #19 on: 07/21/2017 06:48 AM »
I voted 8.4m diameter for a few reasons:

1- My guess is that the mini-BFR/ITS is shooting for replacing Falcon Heavy, which would suggest a similar or slightly higher prop loading (Methane and Raptor is more efficient, but you don't have as many stages, which is less efficient).

2- LOX/Methane is significantly lower density than LOX/CH4, which also suggests a bigger diameter.

3- If they're trying to do Falcon Heavy payload in a single-stick design, with a LOX/Methane upper stage, they probably need to go bigger than 5m because Vulcan is LOX/Methane with a LOX/LH2 upper stage, and is still sub FH capacity. Which kind of implies either a really tall vehicle or a wider one--my gut suggests wider. Sure this isn't perfect because Raptor in theory is shooting for higher performance than BE-4, but I'm skeptical that SpaceX could get a FH class vehicle crammed into a 5 or 5.4m diameter body.

4- If you keep the stack height similar to Falcon Heavy (which is already pretty tall), tripling the propellant, and going to ~2/3 the density gets you pretty close to 8m diameter.

5- And as others have pointed out there is some precedent for 8.4m diameter tanks being shipped around in that area.

10m or bigger could also be possible, but 8.4m is already pretty big, and my super crude, I'm too lazy to do anything more sophisticated BOTEs suggest 8.4m is big enough to do the job.

That's my $.02 at 12:48am, FWIW, YMMV, etc

~Jon

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3634
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2422
  • Likes Given: 796
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #20 on: 07/21/2017 12:22 PM »
Jon has given a great set of reasons for 8.4 (I'm not qualified to comment on the BOTEs, but sounds good to me!).

I too went for 8.4 and one of the reasons was that anything bigger I felt was too close to the original 12m BFR proposal. Given the economic issues Elon has admitted with going that large, I feel the small version has to be notably smaller to change the economics. 5m feels to small to be a meaningful step-up from F9, so that leaves 8.4.

Edit: typos
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 12:23 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online blasphemer

  • Member
  • Posts: 80
  • Slovakia
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #21 on: 07/21/2017 12:27 PM »
We know 12m ITS should be able to put 300 tonnes to LEO with reuse. 7m New Glenn should launch 45 tonnes. What would be the figure for other diameters?
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 12:29 PM by blasphemer »

Offline rsdavis9

Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #22 on: 07/21/2017 12:55 PM »
10m because of pad limits discussed elsewhere.
Has anybody thought of components being manufactured at hawthorne and then airlifted to ports. Engines can be trucked. The tank(s) would probably be light enough to airlift with helicopters? Isn't there buildings at the port that are owned by aerospace companies? Boeing? LM?
bob

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 675
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #23 on: 07/21/2017 01:10 PM »
We know 12m ITS should be able to put 300 tonnes to LEO with reuse. 7m New Glenn should launch 45 tonnes. What would be the figure for other diameters?

It depends on height, propellant density, mass fraction, engine thrust, thrust density, and impulse, and many other things.

But roughly speaking, a vehicle with subcooled methalox and best in class mass fraction / engine performance should get:
3.6 m: 10 to 20 t
5.0 m: 25 to 60 t
7.0 m: 40 to 80 t
8.4 m: 50 to 150 t
10 m: 75 to 250 t
12 m: 200 to 400 t
15 m: 400 to 800 t
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 01:12 PM by envy887 »

Offline rsdavis9

Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #24 on: 07/21/2017 01:33 PM »
We know 12m ITS should be able to put 300 tonnes to LEO with reuse. 7m New Glenn should launch 45 tonnes. What would be the figure for other diameters?

It depends on height, propellant density, mass fraction, engine thrust, thrust density, and impulse, and many other things.

But roughly speaking, a vehicle with subcooled methalox and best in class mass fraction / engine performance should get:
3.6 m: 10 to 20 t
5.0 m: 25 to 60 t
7.0 m: 40 to 80 t
8.4 m: 50 to 150 t
10 m: 75 to 250 t
12 m: 200 to 400 t
15 m: 400 to 800 t

Most of the ranges are double.
Why is 8.4m and 10m   3 to 1?
bob

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 675
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #25 on: 07/21/2017 02:36 PM »
We know 12m ITS should be able to put 300 tonnes to LEO with reuse. 7m New Glenn should launch 45 tonnes. What would be the figure for other diameters?

It depends on height, propellant density, mass fraction, engine thrust, thrust density, and impulse, and many other things.

But roughly speaking, a vehicle with subcooled methalox and best in class mass fraction / engine performance should get:
3.6 m: 10 to 20 t
5.0 m: 25 to 60 t
7.0 m: 40 to 80 t
8.4 m: 50 to 150 t
10 m: 75 to 250 t
12 m: 200 to 400 t
15 m: 400 to 800 t

Most of the ranges are double.
Why is 8.4m and 10m   3 to 1?

I considered a wider range of heights for those diameters, assuming they wouldn't start with a rocket much shorter than F9. The lower bound for height increases slower with diameter than the upper bound, leading to a wider range for rockets in the middle. But height gets really unwieldy up around 150-200 m tall. 7.0 m could be more like 40-100 t, though a 100t version would be a bit skinny.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #26 on: 07/21/2017 03:01 PM »
8.4 because:

1. I've guessed this figure previously.
2. Similar size to another Methlox Super Heavy Rocket, New Glenn. SpaceX's next system needs to stay  competive with that.
3. Could be potentially manufactured at Michoud, something that has been hinted at by Musk before.
4. A rocket this size with a distributed launch architecture is more than enough to handle early Mars missions for the next decade or more. Going to 10 or even 12 metres is probably overkill until traffic to and from Mars is at gargantuan volumes.


One reason I don't share for voting 8.4 metres is manufacturing at Hawthorne. It would be very difficult and disruptive to get a stage that large to a port from their current Californian factory. The vehicle will probably undergo final assembly at a new facility close to the launch site or with easy access to a water way so that stages can be barged to the launch site with ease. I'd even go as far as guessing a new facility will be placed in one of the traditional space states to gain political support in Congress, similar to Blue Origin's decision to manufacture BE4 in Alabama.   
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 421
  • Likes Given: 232
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #27 on: 07/21/2017 06:06 PM »
8.4 m makes the most Hawthorne etc. logistics sense but I'm voting somewhat wishfully for 10m.

10m allows for an initial Nova class booster with N engines suitable for 39A today possibly upgraded with M more engines for higher thrust over its lifetime as a modified or additional launch facility has time to become available.  SpaceX got lots of growth out of the F9 template and I think that they may try to plan for an even more extensible next gen platform.

Arguing against my stubby 10m is that Elon seems to like his rockets and his women tall and willowy.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2017 06:08 PM by philw1776 »
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8156
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4909
  • Likes Given: 3329
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #28 on: 07/21/2017 06:45 PM »
Note: I added ":none" as a poll option somewhat late. (I didn't set up the poll initially) so, sorry if some folk didn't get to vote for it... but resetting all the votes seems like a bad idea.
"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 guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6246
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1547
  • Likes Given: 1325
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #29 on: 07/22/2017 06:54 AM »
Voted 10m because Elon Musk said "A little bit smaller". That seems to signal maxing out present capacity of LC-39A. It is also big enough to get some serious equipment to Mars for building a base. They can then take their time to build the big ship. That may then have 15m, the value mentioned before Elon announced the 12m ITS.

It is really hard to move that out of Hawthorne. So maybe they do prototyping there and move production elsewhere quickly. They can keep one booster and one spaceship in Hawthorne for fitchecks, when they move out production.

I also believe, they will build something in the New Glenn class as well, though more capable due to better Raptor performance and better dry mass. It could speed up starting to earn money by at least 2 years and facilitate cislunar operation and launching of the constellation.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2550
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 3054
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #30 on: 07/22/2017 07:15 AM »
 8.4, because that's what it will take to launch all the BA 2100s Bigelow is going to build, but still be small enough to avoid breaking my windows.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2017 07:17 AM by Nomadd »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Liked: 547
  • Likes Given: 752
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #31 on: 07/22/2017 05:58 PM »
Elon's hinting that they're leaning somewhere at/under the 9 meter range.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/888813713800785923

Quote from: Elon Musk
A 9m diameter vehicle fits in our existing factories ...
« Last Edit: 07/22/2017 06:17 PM by RotoSequence »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26608
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6483
  • Likes Given: 4703
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #32 on: 07/22/2017 06:36 PM »
Voted 8.4m as it's closest to 9m that Musk just tweeted. :D
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8023
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2766
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #33 on: 07/22/2017 10:39 PM »
hehe... and the whole "existing facilities" part sounds Hawthorney... could be reading too much into it.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? The slowest possible.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3745
  • Earth
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 3033
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #34 on: 07/28/2017 08:54 PM »
Even bigger.
I assume that the future version is really big. 
Easier to add length to the cylinder later than girth.
Not sure what the transportation limitations are.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1467
  • Very Ancient Caveman
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 4361
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #35 on: 07/28/2017 11:12 PM »
I figure the 9m Mini-ITS is the smallest ITS size that can be built, the next size up, the mid-size is the 12m - 100 passenger model announced last year... for the FULL size 200-300 passenger ITS i'm going with a 15-18m

"Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou
 Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline deadman719

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: POLL: Mini-ITS Diameter
« Reply #36 on: 07/31/2017 12:58 AM »
I voted 8.4 because there wasn't a 9 meter option. 8.4 meters enables use of existing manufacturing facilities to construct the vehicle.

Tags: