Author Topic: Mars Precursor Vehicle  (Read 6323 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Liked: 929
  • Likes Given: 603
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #60 on: 06/28/2017 05:17 PM »
I'm sure that FH with reuse will be cheaper than F9 expendable within a few years.

So it has already been established that currently FH with reuse cost more than F9 expendable?

No, that has not been established. But if it is (and it might be), it won't be for long IMO.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6631
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #61 on: 06/28/2017 05:41 PM »
But they'll have this complex and hard to reuse LV that will only be needed once in awhile, and is basically an evolutionary dead end.

So if F9 and FH are so different cost wise, why wasn't the circumlunar mission a lot more? Although we've never received an exact figure, it still looks to be less than $200 million, and that includes the Dragon 2 and all the support to go with it. Seems like they would have been far enough along on the development of FH when they announced this mission, they would have a handle on what would be involved.

Well FH is almost already developed and paid for now.  And I don't know that it's really more costly to launch, I said more "complex".  Meaning, more tricky with more modes of failure than the single core...as well as more complex to recover boosters as there's more than one, but you do it with the same personnel and support, so that'd be more a fixed cost I'd think.

But like I said, they still need it for now.  There isn't anything else close to being ready for that upper payload range that F9 can't do.  They need to have an offering in that D4H range.  Scrapping it when it was already in development when they didn't have an alternative doesn't seem like it would make much sense?

And I could be completely misreading the tea leaves here.
I was just noting Elon's past comments, and considering the delays in it's development, as well as others' comments about the complexities of launching D4H, the only US all liquid tri-core that we have to compare with, makes it seem like it's quite a bit more invovled  than a single core F9.

But, how much SpaceX may or may not want to replace FH is a tangential discussion.  To get back to my original point, I don't know that they'll want to put a new big Raptor Mars upper stage on the FH booster, as discussed upthread, for some of these reasons.  And Maybe instead they build a new Raptor booster, and fly a FH upper stage on it as an interim (FH class) precursor vehicle while developing the upper stage/spacecraft for it.  Once that was developed, then that full stack would be the true Mars Precursor vehicle.
Just a wild-eyed alternative.  :)

« Last Edit: 06/28/2017 05:45 PM by Lobo »

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #62 on: 06/28/2017 05:41 PM »
I'm sure that FH with reuse will be cheaper than F9 expendable within a few years.

So it has already been established that currently FH with reuse cost more than F9 expendable?

No, that has not been established. But if it is (and it might be), it won't be for long IMO.

Makes sense. I can also see how a reused expendable F9 could also really muddy the waters too.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3152
  • California
  • Liked: 2472
  • Likes Given: 1454
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #63 on: 06/28/2017 06:16 PM »
Given how complex FH is turning out to be, I think one things is clear: SpaceX won't be doing any multi-core vehicles anytime soon.

Any vehicle that replaces FH and/or is an ITS precursor will be single-core.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Liked: 929
  • Likes Given: 603
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #64 on: 06/28/2017 06:35 PM »
Given how complex FH is turning out to be, I think one things is clear: SpaceX won't be doing any multi-core vehicles anytime soon.

Any vehicle that replaces FH and/or is an ITS precursor will be single-core.

True, but also OT here. The vehicle described by the OP is specifically "a second stage, but can also be a refuelable Mars vehicle". Not a complete FH replacement.

Offline rsdavis9

Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #65 on: 06/28/2017 08:20 PM »
But the title of the thread is "mars precursor vehicle".
Which to me means any means to implement some of BFR/BFS(to reduce development) and make it useful to the current business/mars.
So any vehicle that reduces some of the technology development for BFR/BFS and produces something useful at the same time.

If it isn't useful, i.e. make money, then it doesn't make sense as and intermediate vehicle.
The OP chose the upper stage with raptor as the obvious place to make something.
bob

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #66 on: 06/28/2017 09:18 PM »
A totally different idea for a precursor vehicle to test out the technology in a minimally invasive way.

First, it depends on the Omelek Island test site still being in relatively good shape.
If it is then they could test their small experimental version of the Raptor in a Falcon 1 or 1e form factor.
This gives a small 1 engined rocket easier to modify in a form factor they might still have manufacturing jigs for.
SpaceX could do tests and modification at a remote location with no footprint on their current infrastructure.   
They could in the process get a nice small sat launch vehicle.
This would provide confidence for the larger changes in existing form factors and for the ITS.

Just my off beat thought of the day.

Offline stcks

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #67 on: 06/28/2017 09:26 PM »
First, it depends on the Omelek Island test site still being in relatively good shape.

FWIW there is nothing left on Omelek except memories

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3152
  • California
  • Liked: 2472
  • Likes Given: 1454
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #68 on: 06/28/2017 09:32 PM »
Given how complex FH is turning out to be, I think one things is clear: SpaceX won't be doing any multi-core vehicles anytime soon.

Any vehicle that replaces FH and/or is an ITS precursor will be single-core.

True, but also OT here. The vehicle described by the OP is specifically "a second stage, but can also be a refuelable Mars vehicle". Not a complete FH replacement.

Ok, I guess I misunderstood then, it seemed like some were suggesting a Methane FH.

Online TomH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1923
  • CA
  • Liked: 632
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #69 on: 06/29/2017 12:16 AM »
What's the possibility / likelihood of 39C being constructed as a multi vehicle pad with 2 opposing TEL/HIF sets ?

39C was recently developed, but for small LVs. The original map for Complex 39 designated possible locations for 39D and 39E however.

Online su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Mars Precursor Vehicle
« Reply #70 on: 06/29/2017 03:04 AM »
What's the possibility / likelihood of 39C being constructed as a multi vehicle pad with 2 opposing TEL/HIF sets ?

39C was recently developed, but for small LVs. The original map for Complex 39 designated possible locations for 39D and 39E however.

The recent developed 39C is actually part of 39B I believe. The original planned 39C and 39D area are merged together and are now called LC-49 which can be developed into a super heavy pad, although I imagine it would be a pretty expensive operation.

Reference: https://masterplan.ksc.nasa.gov/Future-State/Future-Land-Use/Vertical-Launch

Tags: