Author Topic: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?  (Read 12079 times)

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
  • California
  • Liked: 2122
  • Likes Given: 1211
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #140 on: 03/02/2017 08:47 PM »
At 12m they NEED to have facilities on a barge waterway or at the test/launch site, while at 6m trucking, barging, or flying (in a Super Guppy) a upper stage are all options. I didn't say they were easy, but much more so than a 12m beast. It doesn't have to be as quick as moving a F9 because they would only need 2 or 3 per year, with the stages flying back to CCAFS or Vandy after missions.

It has nothing to do with being quick. Either a road (with overpasses and powerlines) can handle a 6m diameter payload, or it can't. And I'm suggesting that trucking a 6m diameter payload from Hawthorne to McGregor and the launch sites might actually be impossible.

Offline spacenut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1736
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 150
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #141 on: 03/02/2017 09:08 PM »
I was thinking a mini ITS and a booster no larger than 12m to take advantage of the inland waterways.  No way trucking larger than 3.7m dia. is possible via road or even railroad.  On Americas vast inland waterway system 12m dia. is possible.  Any larger than 12 m diameter will either have to go by ship or be built at the launch site only.  Any return ITS or booster will have to be at the launch site only. 

On has to take into consideration existing facilities building ITS.  We do not build planes larger than 747's in America due to the size of existing airports.  Even the large Airbus or Russian transport plane only has a hand full of runways to land and refuel on.  F9/FH can take all of existing land and sea transportation.  At least with our inland waterway system, it opens up a vast area of America one can either launch or land ITS and manufacture the craft and booster if they use the limitations involved. 

Online envy887

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1555
  • Liked: 670
  • Likes Given: 370
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #142 on: 03/02/2017 10:53 PM »
At 12m they NEED to have facilities on a barge waterway or at the test/launch site, while at 6m trucking, barging, or flying (in a Super Guppy) a upper stage are all options. I didn't say they were easy, but much more so than a 12m beast. It doesn't have to be as quick as moving a F9 because they would only need 2 or 3 per year, with the stages flying back to CCAFS or Vandy after missions.

It has nothing to do with being quick. Either a road (with overpasses and powerlines) can handle a 6m diameter payload, or it can't. And I'm suggesting that trucking a 6m diameter payload from Hawthorne to McGregor and the launch sites might actually be impossible.

Yeah, I don't think trucking cross-country like F9 would work well, but a combination of trucking, shipping, and maybe flying should work with existing assets.

I'm thinking more like trucking from Hawthorne to the Marina del Rey (Endeavor and ET-94 did a similar trip), then cargo ship to one of the Texas ports, truck inland to McGregor and back, then cargo ship to Port Canaveral. Or lease a Super Guppy or Beluga from LAX to McGregor to Canaveral.

It's not impossible to move a 6 by 25 meter, 20 tonne stage and utilize SpaceX's existing sites. It's quite impossible with a 12m stage, especially the ITS booster.

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #143 on: 03/03/2017 06:21 PM »
15t to GTO would be a single launch+return, while 50t would take ~6 refueling launches and be one way (unless refueled on Mars)

Had the distinct feeling I was missing something obvious. Thanks.

Intelligent arguments on both sides. But obviously this has been hashed out inside SpaceX. So I expect they will go for the home run.

On the other hand, they could be keeping an intermediate design close to the vest for political reasons, not wanting to antagonize NASA with an SLS-killer quite yet. On the gripping hand, they just antagonized the heck out of NASA with the MoonDragon announcement.

I just don't know WHAT to think! (classic movie line)

Offline TomH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • CA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #144 on: 03/04/2017 12:18 AM »
On the other hand, they could be keeping an intermediate design close to the vest for political reasons, not wanting to antagonize NASA with an SLS-killer

I am not sure they would antagonize NASA as much as a select group of senators.

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #145 on: 03/04/2017 02:46 AM »
I am thinking ITS full size will be required to launch the full LEO and VLEO sat network that SpaceX desires.

12,000 sats... if FH could put up 100 at time that's still too many for their launch rate at all launch sites.   It's going to  take ITS

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 724
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #146 on: 03/04/2017 02:45 PM »
I am thinking ITS full size will be required to launch the full LEO and VLEO sat network that SpaceX desires.

12,000 sats... if FH could put up 100 at time that's still too many for their launch rate at all launch sites.   It's going to  take ITS

I wonder how they will deploy to different orbital planes if they launch 1000 at a time. Possibly the ITS second stage will have many burns to achieve different orbits and deploy groups of sats.

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Should ITS have a smaller prototype to ease development?
« Reply #147 on: 03/04/2017 07:02 PM »
On the other hand, they could be keeping an intermediate design close to the vest for political reasons, not wanting to antagonize NASA with an SLS-killer

I am not sure they would antagonize NASA as much as a select group of senators.

Yes. Sometimes I say "NASA" when I mean the whole federal bureaucracy/congressional vote-protecting/revolving-door-lobbying/not-invented-here complex.