NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Early Days Archive Section => Topic started by: pberrett on 06/04/2010 09:25 am

Title: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: pberrett on 06/04/2010 09:25 am

Hi all

Question for the engineers heere.

Would lit be possible to arrange 9x9 rockets in a 9x9 formation to form the base of a super heavy Falcon?

That would make 81 Merlin rockets in total.

How much could such a rocket lift to GTO and how would this compare with the Saturn V?

cheers Peter

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: neilh on 06/04/2010 09:28 am
Heating problems? Also, I'm not sure how SpaceX would erect something like this at the pad.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Garrett on 06/04/2010 10:22 am
You mean engines, not rockets, i.e. 81 Merlin 1C engines.
Falcon 9 = rocket. You want to know if a Falcon 81 is possible.

The proposed Falcon 9 heavy is basically a 9x3 configuration, i.e. a Falcon 27. I presume you could just keep adding boosters. Maybe at least two more, making a cross configuration. So that would make 45 Merlin engines. It sounds way too crazy, but I ain't no rocket engineer.

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: grakenverb on 06/04/2010 10:38 am
Sounds like a logistical nightmare.   How would they erect such a configuration?  Not worth the effort.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: pberrett on 06/04/2010 11:21 am
3x3 grid of 3x3 = 9x9 grid

Lots of redundancy should an engine fail.

cheers Peter
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: soldeed on 06/04/2010 11:32 am
In the event you are not actually joking, There is no possibility of assembling, erecting, or launching such a monstrosity.  You would have better luck recreating the Saturn V.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Garrett on 06/04/2010 11:46 am
3x3 grid of 3x3 = 9x9 grid

Lots of redundancy should an engine fail.

cheers Peter

I think 3x3 = 9 is already considered a LOT of redundancy.
You are talking about a MEGA LOT of redundancy. You are also presuming that more redundancy is always positive, but these things are always about balance: there is always a negative side.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 06/04/2010 11:49 am
What's this behemoth supposed to do? Push the Earth off it's axis :P
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: douglas100 on 06/04/2010 12:23 pm
It makes the N 1 seem simple and straightforward, doesn't it?  :)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/04/2010 01:01 pm
3x3 grid of 3x3 = 9x9 grid

Lots of redundancy should an engine fail.

Complexity and costs would out weigh the redundancy.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: pberrett on 06/04/2010 01:33 pm
Please humor me with this. How much could it lift to GTO (assuming it didn't blow up)?

Assume the second stage is proportionately large.

Regards Peter

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kkattula on 06/04/2010 01:38 pm
9 time 4.5 = 40 tonnes?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/04/2010 05:46 pm
9 time 4.5 = 40 tonnes?

Minus some because of the thrust loss due to plume interference from so many engines.  Heck the central core might have to air light to actually contribute anything except heat and vibration.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kkattula on 06/04/2010 06:04 pm
Maybe with a single Merlin-2 under each core it could be the new OTRAG!
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/04/2010 08:45 pm
81 Merlin-1 engines wouldn't be cost effective.

If SpaceX were to consider a true Heavy Lift Vehicle (>100 tons to LEO), then I believe they would use 5-9 Merlin-2 engines.  The Merlin-2 engine is supposed to be like a Saturn-V engine.

But then, you have to remember that SpaceX is a commercial company.  How many commercial customers require 100 ton payloads?

That's why Obama's plan lays out a commercial launcher for crew and another unmanned Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV) using the current cost-plus procurement method.  The details of the HLV are supposed to be finished by 2015.  NASA will be building this rocket, but it's possible they may buy Merlin-2 engines from Space-X using cost-plus procurement.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mlorrey on 06/04/2010 09:36 pm
Keep in mind the Soyuz has 20 engines on its first stage. The N-1 had 30 NK-15 engines, which were each about 170,000 lbs thrust (Merlin is about 100k lbs thrust). So what you are proposing would be somewhere about 50% more powerful than the first stage of the N-1, but that booster had five stages.

@Ben:
It would actually gain thrust and Isp from combining plumes like that.

I doubt a 9x9 would be possible, but a five core booster, akin to the Soyuz, would IMHO be possible, however it would require a whole new launch pad as the US has never launched vehicles arranged like that before, at most we've done side by side, 3 across cores.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: hop on 06/05/2010 04:21 am
Keep in mind the Soyuz has 20 engines on its first stage.
20 chambers (or 32 counting the verniers), but only 5 engines.

I wonder if SpaceX has considered the multi-chamber family approach, ala RD-170.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sanman on 06/05/2010 04:36 am
I'd read that NASA or DARPA had recommended US development of its own version of RD-170. If such an engine could be developed and then SpaceX and other private launchers allowed to manufacture it under license, then perhaps this could enable more ambitious mission configurations and more economical servicing for orbital missions.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Sparky on 06/05/2010 04:43 am
It might be possible to erect by setting up a standard F9H on the pad, and adding the other strap-on stages via a crane or the like.

Still, my question is how are you going to drop the other booster stages? When disposable boosters are jettisoned, they are usually separated by explosive bolts holding them to the core, and tend to move perpendicularly away from the surface to which they were attached (If viewed from above). But with a 3x3 block of F9 boosters, there are going to be boosters attached to boosters that are going to have to be jettisoned simultaneously, which gets into all sorts of interesting problems...
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: josh_simonson on 06/05/2010 04:55 am
Who says they have to jettison simultaneously?  Delta 2 sheds up to 9 boosters.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Sparky on 06/05/2010 05:19 am
Who says they have to jettison simultaneously?  Delta 2 sheds up to 9 boosters.

But they're all attached to the core. This super heavy variant would involve boosters tied to boosters that would have to come off at 45o to their mounts.

Or else I suppose the boosters could be joined in 2 sets of 3, to peel off the sides and to leave what is essentially an air-starting F9H behind, if you can picture what I mean.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: pberrett on 06/05/2010 08:00 am
Why not just have all 81 engines as the first stage thus avoiding the need to jettison?

cheers Peter
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/05/2010 09:51 am
I'd read that NASA or DARPA had recommended US development of its own version of RD-170. If such an engine could be developed and then SpaceX and other private launchers allowed to manufacture it under license, then perhaps this could enable more ambitious mission configurations and more economical servicing for orbital missions.

If such an engine were developed, it would be manufactured by the the company that develops it.  NASA or DARPA do not engine development inhouse, they have contractors to do it. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ehb on 06/05/2010 02:31 pm
"Musk says he's in initial discussions with NASA on development of "super heavy lift" vehicle." - Jeff Foust

[SpaceX is] In talks with NASA for a Super HLV. Notes the Shuttle pads belong to a Super HLV or vehicles like Shuttle, as opposed to a F9.

Anyone care to speculate on what this rocket look like?

My novice thoughts:

It seems like it would be a huge jump from what they are currently doing. Elon could get to build his BFE.  Is that Merlin-2? 

Do you think they would propose a similar solution to F9, i.e. build a large core stage (maybe in the 40-70 MT range?) and then get to 100mt+ in a similar manner to F9H?

I'm thinking the 2nd stage would be Hydro/LOX, e.g. a large Raptor stage.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: spacenut on 06/05/2010 02:55 pm
The Soyuz only has 5 engines, not 20.  Each engine has 4 nozzles. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/05/2010 03:10 pm
Anyone care to speculate on what this rocket look like?

Sure, it would be a Falcon 9 with 5 engines in the middle, with two 9-engine Falcon 9s as strapons, each of those would have three Falcon 1Es strapped to them, and each Falcon 1E would have 2 GEM 60s strapped to it.   ;)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ehb on 06/05/2010 03:22 pm
Sure, it would be a Falcon 9 with 5 engines in the middle, with two 9-engine Falcon 9s as strapons, each of those would have three Falcon 1Es strapped to them, and each Falcon 1E would have 2 GEM 60s strapped to it.   ;)

Funny :)  and appropriate, since this thread did start out with an overly complicated rocket, but the reality is that SpaceX IS in discussions with NASA for Super HLV.

I guess what I was really asking is it better (possible?) to 'scale up' F9/F9H architecture (with a larger core based upon Merlin 2) or simply build a large enough single core?  I'm assuming Super HLV is 100mt+. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/05/2010 03:28 pm
Sure, it would be a Falcon 9 with 5 engines in the middle, with two 9-engine Falcon 9s as strapons, each of those would have three Falcon 1Es strapped to them, and each Falcon 1E would have 2 GEM 60s strapped to it.   ;)

Funny :)
I guess what I was really asking is it better (possible?) to 'scale up' F9/F9H architecture (with a larger core based upon Merlin 2) or simply build a large enough single core?  I'm assuming Super HLV is 100mt+. 


I guess no one knows, but I can't imagine it would use anything but Merlin 2 or whatever the F1-class engine would be called.  As to whether it would look like F9 for F9H, I really have no idea.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Orbiter on 06/05/2010 03:41 pm
There's no way they'll ever get off the ground with 27, let alone 81 engines on the 1st stage. I suspect they'd just go with a much larger version of the Merlin Engine, comparable with the J-2 or SSME.

Orbiter
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: SpacexULA on 06/05/2010 04:00 pm
Funny :)
I guess what I was really asking is it better (possible?) to 'scale up' F9/F9H architecture (with a larger core based upon Merlin 2) or simply build a large enough single core?  I'm assuming Super HLV is 100mt+. 

How will SpaceX economically transport a greater that 12 foot diameter core state to Mcgreger Tx for testing?

With proper wavers SpaceX can transport almost any length vehicle along the Eisenhower interstate system, but they are limited to 12 foot diameter.

How about a Falcon 9 upgrade extending it to the Ares 1 length (The test flight proved that "The Stick" is not an aerodynamic and load disaster).

A 94 Meter tall Falcon using 9 Merlin 1C & 1 Merlin Vac would take Falcon 9 1/2 the way to the load capacity of a Falcon 9 Heavy, and only require handling hardware changes, no true development costs.  That monster with 1 or 3 Merlin 2 and a Raptor 2nd stage would truly be a scary sight.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/05/2010 04:36 pm
Funny :)
I guess what I was really asking is it better (possible?) to 'scale up' F9/F9H architecture (with a larger core based upon Merlin 2) or simply build a large enough single core?  I'm assuming Super HLV is 100mt+. 

How will SpaceX economically transport a greater that 12 foot diameter core state to Mcgreger Tx for testing?

With proper wavers SpaceX can transport almost any length vehicle along the Eisenhower interstate system, but they are limited to 12 foot diameter.

How about a Falcon 9 upgrade extending it to the Ares 1 length (The test flight proved that "The Stick" is not an aerodynamic and load disaster).

A 94 Meter tall Falcon using 9 Merlin 1C & 1 Merlin Vac would take Falcon 9 1/2 the way to the load capacity of a Falcon 9 Heavy, and only require handling hardware changes, no true development costs.  That monster with 1 or 3 Merlin 2 and a Raptor 2nd stage would truly be a scary sight.
Making a rocket much, much taller while not also making it wider will increase bending loads greatly.

They would have to transport the rocket by ship (like they plan for Falcon 9 to Kwaj, if that ever happens) or by Air (like I think they do for Falcon 1 to Kwaj, though they wouldn't be able to do much more than about 7 meters in diameter... still pretty big).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/05/2010 04:45 pm
FWIW, I think that a five-core configuration is more realistic evolution option than the nine-core proposed in the first post of this thread.  That is simply because it is easier to jettision the outboards from a five- or even seven-core configuration.

I also suspect that any SpaceX proposal for the NASA HLV will not be Falcon heritage.  I would expect a 5m and dual Merlin-2 core and a multi-Raptor upper stage.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Spacenuts on 06/05/2010 05:14 pm
(Non-engineer here)  Why would the configuration change for the vehicle as it scales up?  I would have thought that the staging risks, engine out capability etc., would all remain the same. 

As for transport, given the price per launch, wouldn't it be possible at some point to call up ol' Burt and say "Can you build me an external carry monster capable of the weight and size of an empty core minus the engines and such?"
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/05/2010 05:22 pm
(Non-engineer here)  Why would the configuration change for the vehicle as it scales up?  I would have thought that the staging risks, engine out capability etc., would all remain the same. 
Quote
As for transport, given the price per launch, wouldn't it be possible at some point to call up ol' Burt and say "Can you build me an external carry monster capable of the weight and size of an empty core minus the engines and such?"
That's what they do for many rockets (though it's not Burt designing it). Hiring such guppy airplanes aren't cheap like flat-bed trucks are.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/05/2010 05:31 pm
Funny :)
I guess what I was really asking is it better (possible?) to 'scale up' F9/F9H architecture (with a larger core based upon Merlin 2) or simply build a large enough single core?  I'm assuming Super HLV is 100mt+. 

How will SpaceX economically transport a greater that 12 foot diameter core state to Mcgreger Tx for testing?

With proper wavers SpaceX can transport almost any length vehicle along the Eisenhower interstate system, but they are limited to 12 foot diameter.

I'm near certain the size limit is larger than that since I just had something just shy of 14 feet in diameter transported over the road from Houston to Denver.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: SpacexULA on 06/05/2010 05:36 pm
I'm near certain the size limit is larger than that since I just had something just shy of 14 feet in diameter transported over the road from Houston to Denver.

14 foot is the maximum that can go under all Eisenhower interstate bridges.  You would need 1 foot of ground clearance, and 1 foot of top clearance, especially considring the length of the load.

I am only proposing that IF SpaceX decides to evolve Falcon 9 into something larger, likely the cheapest upgrade is tank stretches to the maximum bending loads would allow for, then a Larger Merlin for the 1st stage, then a LOX second stage.  Best to do the cheapest upgrades first so they get the most bang for their dollar.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Sparky on 06/05/2010 05:39 pm
"Musk says he's in initial discussions with NASA on development of "super heavy lift" vehicle." - Jeff Foust

[SpaceX is] In talks with NASA for a Super HLV. Notes the Shuttle pads belong to a Super HLV or vehicles like Shuttle, as opposed to a F9.

Anyone care to speculate on what this rocket look like?

My novice thoughts:

It seems like it would be a huge jump from what they are currently doing. Elon could get to build his BFE.  Is that Merlin-2? 

Do you think they would propose a similar solution to F9, i.e. build a large core stage (maybe in the 40-70 MT range?) and then get to 100mt+ in a similar manner to F9H?

I'm thinking the 2nd stage would be Hydro/LOX, e.g. a large Raptor stage.


If I didn't know better, I'd say it sounds like Musk is trying to make available a commercial version of the Constellation architecture, with Falcon 9 & Dragon in place of AresI and Orion, and this Super Heavy in place of AresV. (A metaphor for Altair will probably present itself shortly)

If that were the case, it would seem that SpaceX is farther ahead than NASA is, and for a much lower cost.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/05/2010 06:23 pm


If I didn't know better, I'd say it sounds like Musk is trying to make available a commercial version of the Constellation architecture, with Falcon 9 & Dragon in place of AresI and Orion, and this Super Heavy in place of AresV. (A metaphor for Altair will probably present itself shortly)

If that were the case, it would seem that SpaceX is farther ahead than NASA is, and for a much lower cost.

It is nothing of the sort.  Spacex is just commenting on the heavy lift BAA, like everyone else.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21701.0

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/05/2010 06:26 pm
"Musk says he's in initial discussions with NASA on development of "super heavy lift" vehicle." - Jeff Foust

[SpaceX is] In talks with NASA for a Super HLV. Notes the Shuttle pads belong to a Super HLV or vehicles like Shuttle, as opposed to a F9.

Anyone care to speculate on what this rocket look like?


It doesn't exist.
Spacex is just commenting on the heavy lift BAA, like everyone else.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21701.0
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: cheesybagel on 06/05/2010 06:40 pm
Quote
There's no way they'll ever get off the ground with 27, let alone 81 engines on the 1st stage. I suspect they'd just go with a much larger version of the Merlin Engine, comparable with the J-2 or SSME.

IMO some people took the wrong lessons out of N-1. The N-1 first stage was never bench tested. Neither were stage hold down tests done. Many of the issues in the launches were due to poor testing and quality control. Today we have automated manufacturing and quality control tools which means manufacturing errors are way lower than in a Soviet Union which was still using hand labor techniques and Mark I Eyeball inspection devices of yesteryear. Also the N-1 rocket had low redundancy. Please note that clustering does not automatically imply redundancy or fail over. That must be built into the system separately. I believe we could today "easily" make a launcher with some 32 rocket engines in the first stage. Getting over that means the laws of statistics start to rear their ugly head. You could make a larger clustered system but it would need to have really simple parts with benign failure modes like OTRAG. Not a complex engine like Merlin.

This is IMO one lesson that should be retained by anyone wanting to do a VTVL. You can use lots of simple engines to power your first stage and your rocket won't blow up if you do it properly.

Still I doubt SpaceX will pursue this line of development much further. They seem to have canned Falcon 9 Heavy in favor of something using an F1 class engine at the request of the Government. 81 rocket engine first stages are too complex to be considered.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Idol Revolver on 06/05/2010 06:52 pm
then a LOX second stage.
SpaceX already use liquid oxygen in their second stage. I assume you are referring to using it with liquid hydrogen, not the kerosene they currently use.

and a multi-Raptor upper stage.
The upper stage is called Raptor. The LOX/LH2 engine powering it is unnamed; perhaps because it is even less along in the design process than the Raptor.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/05/2010 06:58 pm
and a multi-Raptor upper stage.
The upper stage is called Raptor. The LOX/LH2 engine powering it is unnamed; perhaps because it is even less along in the design process than the Raptor.

Yes, I know.  I just use the name 'Raptor' as a shorthand for the hydrolox engine, as I suspect just about everyone else does.  In my head, I call the hydrolox engine the Harrier, but no-one would know what that means... ;D
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: neilh on 06/05/2010 07:23 pm
"Musk says he's in initial discussions with NASA on development of "super heavy lift" vehicle." - Jeff Foust

[SpaceX is] In talks with NASA for a Super HLV. Notes the Shuttle pads belong to a Super HLV or vehicles like Shuttle, as opposed to a F9.

Anyone care to speculate on what this rocket look like?


It doesn't exist.
Spacex is just commenting on the heavy lift BAA, like everyone else.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21701.0


Yup, that's most likely what Musk was talking about. Of course, it certainly seems like SpaceX is probably the company best suited to building the large kerosene engine that HLV BAA calls for, not to mention the least expensive. A large kerosene engine is also something SpaceX already had on its roadmap.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Idol Revolver on 06/05/2010 07:34 pm
and a multi-Raptor upper stage.
The upper stage is called Raptor. The LOX/LH2 engine powering it is unnamed; perhaps because it is even less along in the design process than the Raptor.

Yes, I know.  I just use the name 'Raptor' as a shorthand for the hydrolox engine, as I suspect just about everyone else does.  In my head, I call the hydrolox engine the Harrier, but no-one would know what that means... ;D
I do! (another Brit here) Although I didn't know it was a bird as well.
Back on topic:
Extra configurations would just add cost and complexity. Just crank out as many Falcon 9s as possible (medium and heavy) and do dual-launch with the heavies if need be. Much cheaper (economies of scale are your friend).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: neilh on 06/05/2010 07:49 pm

Hi all

Question for the engineers heere.

Would lit be possible to arrange 9x9 rockets in a 9x9 formation to form the base of a super heavy Falcon?

That would make 81 Merlin rockets in total.

How much could such a rocket lift to GTO and how would this compare with the Saturn V?

cheers Peter

I'm sure this is totally crazy, but I wonder if instead of a 9x9, perhaps a 15x3 (five Falcon 9 fuselages all in a row) would be feasible. I guess it would have simpler heating issues than the 9x9, and it could be lifted to vertical in a fashion similar to the F9H. Probably impossible/impractical, but it's certainly a fun image.

(15x3 "Falcon 9H-5" and 21x3 "Falcon 9H-7" photoshopsGIMPs attached for the LOLs)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Chris611 on 06/05/2010 08:06 pm
Why stop there? :o
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Chris611 on 06/05/2010 08:09 pm
Oops, they forgot to add one to the right! But I'm sure the tvs can handle that.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Martin.cz on 06/05/2010 08:12 pm
What about a ring with 8+ Falcons and two or more seccond staged ones ?  ;D

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jirka Dlouhy on 06/05/2010 08:47 pm
Oops, they forgot to add one to the right! But I'm sure the tvs can handle that.

It's a joke?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ehb on 06/05/2010 08:49 pm
And the thread degenerates back to fantasy land.  :(
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: SpacexULA on 06/05/2010 08:51 pm
And the thread degenerates back to fantasy land.  :(

It was firmly in fantasy land from the beginning. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ehb on 06/05/2010 09:05 pm
And the thread degenerates back to fantasy land.  :(

It was firmly in fantasy land from the beginning. 

Yes, at the beginning and at the end.  But there was a section where I posted quotes about SpaceX being in discussion with NASA about Super HLV (in agreement with the title of this thread) that opened an avenue for reasonable speculation from the more informed here, which I was truly interested in.  (maybe a bit of fantasy land, but more firmly rooted in reality than F81 etc).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kch on 06/05/2010 09:07 pm
Why stop there? :o

Beautiful plumage!  :)

What about a ring with 8+ Falcons and two or more seccond staged ones ?  ;D


Could do the old "twin-launch" bit (you'd need quite a length of tree bark, though):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHFXG3r_0B8

;)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: neilh on 06/05/2010 09:17 pm
And the thread degenerates back to fantasy land.  :(

It was firmly in fantasy land from the beginning. 

Yes, at the beginning and at the end.  But there was a section where I posted quotes about SpaceX being in discussion with NASA about Super HLV (in agreement with the title of this thread) that opened an avenue for reasonable speculation from the more informed here, which I was truly interested in.  (maybe a bit of fantasy land, but more firmly rooted in reality than F81 etc).


Sorry about that. I actually am kind of curious if a 15x3 Falcon 9H (5 fuselages in a row) would be at all feasible though, and if not, what the show-stoppers are.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/05/2010 09:22 pm
I'm near certain the size limit is larger than that since I just had something just shy of 14 feet in diameter transported over the road from Houston to Denver.

14 foot is the maximum that can go under all Eisenhower interstate bridges.

Perhaps, but that's not a big deal.  They just pick a route around the bridges.

I had something 15'6" in diameter shipped from the North shore of Hawaii to just outside of Boulder Colorado.  For small numbers, it's doable.

Still, that's not a lot bigger than where they are now.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sanman on 06/05/2010 10:08 pm
Meh, why not just come up with a 3rd engine - call it Merlin3 - for extra heavy launch configurations? Design it for the same thrust as RD-180, and then just use that with Merlin2 to loft 30 tons to orbit.

The thing is here that SpaceX is just a launch provider, and they're not going to field their own astronauts - are they? So they're pretty much hostage to whatever NASA wants to do in orbit.

So the thing is - will NASA be willing to design around SpaceX's capabilities?

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: SpacexULA on 06/05/2010 10:14 pm
The thing is here that SpaceX is just a launch provider, and they're not going to field their own astronauts - are they? So they're pretty much hostage to whatever NASA wants to do in orbit.

So the thing is - will NASA be willing to design around SpaceX's capabilities?

They have stated in the past that at least 1 person on the Dragon Capsules will be a SpaceX employee, but also that Dragon doesn't need a pilot.  So likely SpaceX will have something akin to their own Astronaut corp, but they would be closer to Jim and Padrat than Buzz and Armstrong.

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ehb on 06/05/2010 10:22 pm

Yes, at the beginning and at the end.  ...


Sorry about that. I actually am kind of curious if a 15x3 Falcon 9H (5 fuselages in a row) would be at all feasible though, and if not, what the show-stoppers are.

I'm sure with sufficient engineering, it could be made to fly, and might ballpark 4.5x5 mt to LEO, minus losses, but no one would likely do it due to the complexities involved.  New configurations are not trivial, these are not lego blocks that can snap together ($$$).  Once the rocket configuration is established, infrastructure needs to be built (more $$$). The first F9 launch was aborted because of one parameter with one engine igniter (if I recall correctly).  How many things do you think can go wrong when you have 45 engines?  They will have a difficult enough time getting F9H to work.  You may see a Merlin 2 based core before a F9H is ever launched.  Who is your customer?  No bucks, no buck rodgers (tm).  NASA is your only likely customer for this size of a vehicle & I seriously doubt they would put any cargo, forget thinking about people, on this monstrosity.  1st engineering principle: K.I.S.S.

Jim,  as usual, summed it up nicely tersely, which I think should still apply to your 'simplified' design:

Complexity and costs would out weigh the redundancy.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: neilh on 06/05/2010 10:39 pm

Yes, at the beginning and at the end.  ...


Sorry about that. I actually am kind of curious if a 15x3 Falcon 9H (5 fuselages in a row) would be at all feasible though, and if not, what the show-stoppers are.

I'm sure with sufficient engineering, it could be made to fly, and might ballpark 4.5x5 mt to LEO, minus losses, but no one would likely do it due to the complexities involved.  New configurations are not trivial, these are not lego blocks that can snap together ($$$).  Once the rocket configuration is established, infrastructure needs to be built (more $$$). The first F9 launch was aborted because of one parameter with one engine igniter (if I recall correctly).  How many things do you think can go wrong when you have 45 engines?  They will have a difficult enough time getting F9H to work.  You may see a Merlin 2 based core before a F9H is ever launched.  Who is your customer?  No bucks, no buck rodgers (tm).  NASA is your only likely customer for this size of a vehicle & I seriously doubt they would put any cargo, forget thinking about people, on this monstrosity.  1st engineering principle: K.I.S.S.

Jim,  as usual, summed it up nicely tersely, which I think should still apply to your 'simplified' design:

Complexity and costs would out weigh the redundancy.

As I mentioned with my initial comment, I actually think the concept is pretty impractical (just not as impractical as the original poster's concept).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: butters on 06/05/2010 11:14 pm
I'm almost positive that the maximum possible extent of any SpaceX involvement in any super-heavy lifter for NASA would be as an engine supplier. 

It would be SpaceX developing and manufacturing a 1-2Mlbf kerolox engine (Merlin 2 if you will) for use on a first stage manufactured by Boeing or Lockheed Martin, either on behalf of ULA or MSFC depending on politics.

Logistically speaking, a 5m+ diameter stage would be delivered to the Cape by barge, either from Michoud or Decatur.  The engines can come from Hawthorne via McGregor with no major difficulty in the supply chain.

I've always wondered why nobody manufactures rockets in Florida (the Aerojet saga notwithstanding), but at times like that I remind myself that professional politics and wrestling are the sports of egomaniacs slathered in man-tan.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ChuckC on 06/05/2010 11:33 pm
81 Merlin-1 engines wouldn't be cost effective.

If SpaceX were to consider a true Heavy Lift Vehicle (>100 tons to LEO), then I believe they would use 5-9 Merlin-2 engines.  The Merlin-2 engine is supposed to be like a Saturn-V engine.

But then, you have to remember that SpaceX is a commercial company.  How many commercial customers require 100 ton payloads?

Non with out a >100 ton LV, but show you can provide crew service to the Moon and I bet you more than NASA will be interested. But you need to show that you can it safely and at a reasonable price.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: friendly3 on 06/06/2010 12:07 am
Seriously, if there will be a Falcon 9 Super Heavy, four boosters is the maximum and they will have this configuration (payload to LEO: 50 to 60 tons?):
(http://)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: gospacex on 06/06/2010 12:25 am
Can additional F9 first stages be added *laterally* to F9H? Assuming there is only one stage design, each stage has attachment points at both "sides", thus F9H's boosters already have attachment points for more boosters at their other side...
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: friendly3 on 06/06/2010 01:24 am
Can additional F9 first stages be added *laterally* to F9H? Assuming there is only one stage design, each stage has attachment points at both "sides", thus F9H's boosters already have attachment points for more boosters at their other side...
That will never happen...
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/06/2010 03:09 am
Two main questions:

1) Why would SpaceX want to build a Falcon Super Heavy? What's the business case?  How many commercial payloads exceed Falcon9 Heavy with 27 engines?  If NASA would be the only Falcon Super Heavy customer, how would that work?

2) Assuming SpaceX is interested in building a Falcon Super Heavy, why would they use a small engine like Merlin1?  They already have initial designs for a new engine that's 10 times bigger.

Note that SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell talked about some of this back in April:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 43:00 into the program). 

It sounds more like NASA would design the big new rocket, and then pay companies to design and build the various parts of the rocket.  SpaceX would like to provide the big engines using a cost-plus type procurement model.

As a side note, Shotwell also predicted back in April that they would launch in June.  That bit starts around 7:05 into the program.

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: docmordrid on 06/06/2010 04:18 am
1) the main customer would be NASA for most any SHLV, both for interplanetary and large science missions.  The astronomy crowd was salivating over the prospect of Ares V.

2) SpaceX almost certainly would use the RS-84 tech they licensed from Boeing/Rocketdyne to build the Merlin 2, or whatever label they would put on the F-1 class engine they had on their roadmap.  RS-84 being a reusable kerosene/LOX engine - right up their alley.

RS-84 PDF: http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/dataresources/RS-84RocketEngineOverview.pdf (http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/dataresources/RS-84RocketEngineOverview.pdf)

3) all these multiple common core concepts are interesting, but once you're up to 4 or so the acceleration becomes an issue in payload design, and is certainly a non-starter for man rating and perhaps for the structural integrity of the cores and connecting structures.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: gospacex on 06/06/2010 04:54 am
3) all these multiple common core concepts are interesting, but once you're up to 4 or so the acceleration becomes an issue in payload design, and is certainly a non-starter for man rating and perhaps for the structural integrity of the cores and connecting structures.

Why acceleration is a problem? Heavier upper stage and/or reduced number of engines on core stage(s) can keep acceleration close to what is experienced during a ride on a regular F9H.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: neilh on 06/06/2010 05:08 am
I think this entire thread just wants to turn the Falcon 9 into some sort of super-heavy variant of the OTRAG modular vehicle. ;)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: gospacex on 06/06/2010 05:23 am
I think this entire thread just wants to turn the Falcon 9 into some sort of super-heavy variant of the OTRAG modular vehicle. ;)

Not really. With BFR aka Merlin-2, it may have only 5 engines on 1st stages - less than F9.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: TyMoore on 06/06/2010 05:32 am
Though I am not an engineer, I can see that the lateral bending moments would be severe for anything more than 4+1 cores. The amount of structural weight and complexity needed to hold the thing together means that the operational reality is that the vehicles quickly evolve away from a 'common core' philosophy. Ergo, it would be futile...

Much better to clean sheet a new vehicle with the requisite payload capacity...
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: docmordrid on 06/06/2010 05:45 am
Bingo.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Damon Hill on 06/06/2010 06:55 am
The RS-84 is a high pressure, oxidizer-rich, staged combustion engine--quite a challenge to develop.  I assume Barber-Nichols will do the turbopump work as they do on the existing Merlin.

http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket_engine_turbopumps/

Wonder if a pintle-type injector will work here, or should they just scale up the existing Merlin 1 to keep development and production costs under some control?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars_J on 06/06/2010 08:07 am
Wonder if a pintle-type injector will work here, or should they just scale up the existing Merlin 1 to keep development and production costs under some control?

The Merlin 1 already uses pintle type injection.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 06/06/2010 08:35 am
This is what I would do, given what I know of SpaceX its culture and capabilities.

New 3000kN (675,000 lbf) engine. Smaller than the BFR, so not too much of a leap. Have a vacuum variant for upper stages.

Use it in a 5 engine 33 tonne to LEO 1st stage, with a diameter of 6.5m. This would be slightly shorter than the current F9 1st stage. 5 engines should allow engine out capability.  Use a 8m x 20m fairing for those payloads that require one, a larger fairing might be possible but is probably not required.

Option to use 9 engines on the 1st stage for about 60 tonne to LEO. This should be doable with a new thrust structure and extra tank segments, but no other major changes over the 5 engine variant.

Use 3 core versions of these for 80 and 150 tonne to LEO capability.

For upper stages there are two options: LOX/Kero and LOX/H2

The first would use the vacuum variant on the upper stage, again at 6.5m. An alternative would be to use 3 Merlin-1-VAC on the upper stage (which should just fit) to give 2nd stage engine-out capability.

Probably a better option would be a new ACES-like hydrolox upper stage that could also be the EDS, perhaps after refuelling at a propellant depot. The new Raptor engine might be suitable, otherwise there are several upper stage engines to choose from.

Manufacture the tanks and interstage in Florida to avoid transportation difficulties. Perform 1st and 2nd stage integration in Florida and perform stage testing there as well.

Use horizontal integration and an erector (is this feasible with the larger payload sizes?).

I tend to the view that with fuel depots 30 tonne should be enough for most payloads with occasional payloads in the 75 tonne range. If fuel depots do not work then the 9 engine variants would provide all the heavy lift required.

A single engine core would also sit neatly between F1 and F9 in payload capacity, but it may not make economic sense for SpaceX to develop.

The new 5 engine stage would be cheaper than F9H as long as the engines cost under $5M each, which I think is achievable. The whole aim should be low development manufacturing cost and not performance for these engines. I think scaling up the basic design of the Merlin-1c would be feasible, though obviously the details of the design would different so its not just a case of making everything 5 times bigger.

With a stretched version of the upper stage a tanker configuration can be used to supply the fuel depot.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/07/2010 04:36 pm
This is what I would do, given what I know of SpaceX its culture and capabilities.

New 3000kN (675,000 lbf) engine. Smaller than the BFR, so not too much of a leap. Have a vacuum variant for upper stages.

Use it in a 5 engine 33 tonne to LEO 1st stage, with a diameter of 6.5m. This would be slightly shorter than the current F9 1st stage. 5 engines should allow engine out capability.  Use a 8m x 20m fairing for those payloads that require one, a larger fairing might be possible but is probably not required.

Option to use 9 engines on the 1st stage for about 60 tonne to LEO. This should be doable with a new thrust structure and extra tank segments, but no other major changes over the 5 engine variant.

Use 3 core versions of these for 80 and 150 tonne to LEO capability.

For upper stages there are two options: LOX/Kero and LOX/H2

The first would use the vacuum variant on the upper stage, again at 6.5m. An alternative would be to use 3 Merlin-1-VAC on the upper stage (which should just fit) to give 2nd stage engine-out capability.

Probably a better option would be a new ACES-like hydrolox upper stage that could also be the EDS, perhaps after refuelling at a propellant depot. The new Raptor engine might be suitable, otherwise there are several upper stage engines to choose from.

Manufacture the tanks and interstage in Florida to avoid transportation difficulties. Perform 1st and 2nd stage integration in Florida and perform stage testing there as well.

Use horizontal integration and an erector (is this feasible with the larger payload sizes?).

I tend to the view that with fuel depots 30 tonne should be enough for most payloads with occasional payloads in the 75 tonne range. If fuel depots do not work then the 9 engine variants would provide all the heavy lift required.

A single engine core would also sit neatly between F1 and F9 in payload capacity, but it may not make economic sense for SpaceX to develop.

The new 5 engine stage would be cheaper than F9H as long as the engines cost under $5M each, which I think is achievable. The whole aim should be low development manufacturing cost and not performance for these engines. I think scaling up the basic design of the Merlin-1c would be feasible, though obviously the details of the design would different so its not just a case of making everything 5 times bigger.

With a stretched version of the upper stage a tanker configuration can be used to supply the fuel depot.

I read that the target for the Merlin 2 would be around 1 Million lbf/4,000kN.  However,  3,000kN (675,000 lbf) would work depending on NASA's requirement.  If NASA could live with smaller, then fine.

A smaller engine, be it a Merlin 2 or an upgraded Merlin 1C (1E?), could still be cost effective for them to do commercial or military LEO launches, besides NASA payloads.  The "right size" for their new engine would be one where they could cost effectively scale it up or down for both LEO and BEO.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/07/2010 05:00 pm
Another rocket engine to use as a frame of reference besides the RS-84 for a Merlin 2 or upgraded Merlin 1C, would be the Russian derived RD-180.  It is about the right size 860,000 lbf (though also a 2 chamber design) to be scaled up or down by adding or decreasing engines for LEO or BEO, though the main thing "wrong" with it is that its Russian built and not American.  It is important to keep an eye on the RD-180, as it would be SpaceX's/Merlin 2's competition in its use by ULA in their Atlas V and possibly their HLV.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ugordan on 06/07/2010 05:12 pm
Question: is there a valid tradeoff to be made between

1) developing a complex and more expensive, high-efficieny engine to cut down on 1st stage tankage size and propellant mass

and

2) developing a lower-performing, cheaper engine that needs larger tanks and propellant loads for the same performance (and thus possibly also higher thrust)?

The current considerations seem to be leaning toward option 1), how much would engine production cost really vary between these two options and how much would that really affect the overall cost of the vehicle. By that I mean also things like more difficult handling due to larger tanks, etc.

I guess it boils down to: does having a high performance engine really minimize total stage cost and vehicle operational cost?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/08/2010 12:53 pm
On June 4th 2010, Elon Musk stated:
"We're actually in discussions with NASA on a potential Super Heavy Lift Vehicle development.  This would be sort of a joint public/private partnership in that development, and I think based on initial discussions, NASA seems reasonably exited by the idea, and we're hopeful that it proceeds to fruition."

This quote is part of the telephone press conference immediately following the first Falcon 9 launch:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/2010/06/06/spacex-falcon-9-flight-1-post-flight-press-conference/
(starting around 40:30 into the podcast).

We know that SpaceX has initial designs for a Merlin2 engine (a.k.a. BFE).  SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell talked about this back in April:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 43:00 into the program).

So it appears this is not a Falcon derived vehicle, but rather a completely new launcher (a.k.a. BFR).

This thread is intended to speculate on what that new launcher may look like, based on these and any other hints SpaceX has provided.

In addition, since a 100 ton class launcher would have few commercial customers, I'm wondering what a "joint public/private partnership in that development" would look like from the financial side as well.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/08/2010 01:01 pm
By the way, here's the snippet from the interview where Elon talks about the SHLV:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2010 01:07 pm
There is a thread on this already

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21867.0
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/08/2010 01:09 pm
There is a thread on this already

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21867.0
That thread is for a Falcon derived SHLV using many Merlin1 engines.  This thread is for the BFE derived (non-Falcon) SHLV.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: strangequark on 06/08/2010 01:18 pm
Well, tossing in my two cents, I would think the design would be modular, to allow SpaceX to use the rocket for more conventional missions. So, a development would start with a single stick rocket, powered by a 1 mlbf kerolox engine, hydrolox upper stage. Performance of 20-30 mT to LEO. The first stage could be augmented by up to four outriggers (cross pattern) to create the HLV. Upper stage could be stretched accordingly as well.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/08/2010 01:24 pm
Performance of 20-30 mT to LEO. The first stage could be augmented by up to four outriggers (cross pattern) to create the HLV.
When Elon says "Super Heavy Lift" and talks about using the Shuttle launch pad, I'm assuming he means a 100 ton class vehicle.

Disscussion of using launch complex 39 for planetary missions starts around 39:40 into the interview:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/2010/06/06/spacex-falcon-9-flight-1-post-flight-press-conference/
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2010 01:32 pm
This is what Spacex is responding to wrt heavy lift

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21701.0
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: strangequark on 06/08/2010 01:32 pm
Performance of 20-30 mT to LEO. The first stage could be augmented by up to four outriggers (cross pattern) to create the HLV.
When Elon says "Super Heavy Lift" and talks about using the Shuttle launch pad, I'm assuming he means a 100 ton class vehicle.

I agree, perhaps I wasn't clear. Single stick first stage gives 20-30 mT. Add outriggers to get into the HLV range (say, 70-100 mT). That way, you aren't making a rocket that can only be used by NASA on huge missions.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/08/2010 01:45 pm
Single stick first stage gives 20-30 mT. Add outriggers to get into the HLV range (say, 70-100 mT). That way, you aren't making a rocket that can only be used by NASA on huge missions.
Ah, got it, sorry.

What kind of outriggers?  Given that its a public/private partnership, would shuttle SRBs be a possibility?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: strangequark on 06/08/2010 01:56 pm
Single stick first stage gives 20-30 mT. Add outriggers to get into the HLV range (say, 70-100 mT). That way, you aren't making a rocket that can only be used by NASA on huge missions.
Ah, got it, sorry.

What kind of outriggers?  Given that its a public/private partnership, would shuttle SRBs be a possibility?

Same as core. So, single stick is one F-1 class engine. Add four outriggers, and you have kind of a piecemeal Saturn V first stage. This is completely unoriginal, by the way. Similar schemes have been proposed for the Atlas V by ULA. I like it, because it means the launcher (in single-stick form) can get payloads other than NASA BEO. Mind you, the business case is probably tenuous for another 20-30 mT launcher, but it's a heck of a lot more tenuous for a 100 mT launcher.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Downix on 06/08/2010 02:04 pm
Single stick first stage gives 20-30 mT. Add outriggers to get into the HLV range (say, 70-100 mT). That way, you aren't making a rocket that can only be used by NASA on huge missions.
Ah, got it, sorry.

What kind of outriggers?  Given that its a public/private partnership, would shuttle SRBs be a possibility?

Same as core. So, single stick is one F-1 class engine. Add four outriggers, and you have kind of a piecemeal Saturn V first stage. This is completely unoriginal, by the way. Similar schemes have been proposed for the Atlas V by ULA. I like it, because it means the launcher (in single-stick form) can get payloads other than NASA BEO. Mind you, the business case is probably tenuous for another 20-30 mT launcher, but it's a heck of a lot more tenuous for a 100 mT launcher.
Makes me often times think that the Vulkan/Energia approach was a pretty smart one.  Your outlyers are rockets on their own, your core is a rocket on its own, but you can mix/match to get the particular arrangement you need for a job.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sanman on 06/08/2010 02:54 pm
Makes me often times think that the Vulkan/Energia approach was a pretty smart one.  Your outlyers are rockets on their own, your core is a rocket on its own, but you can mix/match to get the particular arrangement you need for a job.

That sounds like Angara. Isn't even China veering in that direction for future rockets?

Btw, what is BFE?  (I'm thinking "Big F..antastic Engine")  :)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: jml on 06/08/2010 03:04 pm
Makes me often times think that the Vulkan/Energia approach was a pretty smart one.  Your outlyers are rockets on their own, your core is a rocket on its own, but you can mix/match to get the particular arrangement you need for a job.

That sounds like Angara. Isn't even China veering in that direction for future rockets?

Btw, what is BFE?  (I'm thinking "Big F..antastic Engine")  :)

Good choice for that middle word. Fantastically PG rated. :)
(Or you could say a "Big Falcon Engine" for a "Big Falcon Rocket")
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sdsds on 06/08/2010 03:15 pm
For Merlin-1 SpaceX ended up with a 1 engine variant, a 9 engine variant, and (nominally) a 27 engine variant.  I would bet for Merlin-2 they go with a "1, 4, 12" progression, staying with the "cluster-up, then go triple-body" approach.

The difference is that for Merlin-2 they will actually build and fly the 12 engine variant.  They'll conduct one or two 12-engine launches a year for that one "special" customer that can afford super-heavy lift (NASA), somewhat mimicking what Delta IV does for its "special" customer.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ChefPat on 06/08/2010 03:27 pm
The Bigelow BA-330 weighs in at 55k to 60k range. In one of their interviews they said they have plans to build much larger ones if they can get the lift.
If somebody can make a profit in Space, there will be the need for Heavy Lift.
The only other reason to develop Heavy Lift will be Colonization.
Personally I think a Colony will be founded before a successful commercial enterprise is established off planet.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Namechange User on 06/08/2010 03:31 pm
Mind you, the business case is probably tenuous for another 20-30 mT launcher, but it's a heck of a lot more tenuous for a 100 mT launcher.

Which is exactly why "commercial" HLV or public/private partnership with respect to an HLV will probably not work. 

If there is one, it will be NASA owned and developed.  Doesn't mean there are not ways to get creative but people should not confuse the two or assume and try to crucify because of it. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/08/2010 03:35 pm
I think that they will likely come up with something very similar in performance and appearance to the Atlas-V Phase 2.  Multi-core combinations, twin core 1Mlbf+ engines and multi-engine long-life upper stage/EDS.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/08/2010 04:11 pm
For Merlin-1 SpaceX ended up with a 1 engine variant, a 9 engine variant, and (nominally) a 27 engine variant.  I would bet for Merlin-2 they go with a "1, 4, 12" progression, staying with the "cluster-up, then go triple-body" approach.

I would put my money on a 1, 3, 9 progression with three engines per large vehicle core.  That still leaves some engine out capability but keeps the overall engine count down.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Tnarg on 06/08/2010 04:49 pm
A single engine LV does make a lot of sence.  I guess it would look a lot like falcon9 with the same 2ed stage design (i.e. 1 merlin1 vacuum engine) I know it's more work than just swapping the 9 small engines for 1 large one but it does give them a good starting point to test the new engine.

Where is gose from there I dont know multi cores could work (3 cores, falcon9H style, or 5 cores) and would keep transport simple.  But I agree a 3 to 5 engine per core seems likey.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sdsds on 06/08/2010 05:31 pm
I guess it would look a lot like falcon9 with the same 2ed stage design (i.e. 1 merlin1 vacuum engine) I know it's more work than just swapping the 9 small engines for 1 large one but it does give them a good starting point to test the new engine.

I think this is a key point:  SpaceX can use the existing Falcon 9 upper stage -- possibly with some propellant offloading -- as the initial upper stage for a "Super-Falcon 1" vehicle where the first stage is powered by a single Merlin-2.

I claim this observation feeds into the decision regarding the progression of variants (i.e. 1,4,12 vs. 1,3,9).  If the maxed-out super heavy lift vehicle is going to need to get 4,200 t of lift-off thrust out of 12 engines, that implies each engine generates 350 t of thrust.  This is reasonably close to the 400 t thrust of the Falcon 9 first stage, and quite close to 7/9ths of the 400 t thrust, which is what Falcon 9  actually needs for liftoff.

Of course this analysis depends on the 4,200 value.  I'm taking that from http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21817.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/08/2010 06:29 pm
Mind you, the business case is probably tenuous for another 20-30 mT launcher, but it's a heck of a lot more tenuous for a 100 mT launcher.

Which is exactly why "commercial" HLV or public/private partnership with respect to an HLV will probably not work. 

If there is one, it will be NASA owned and developed.  Doesn't mean there are not ways to get creative but people should not confuse the two or assume and try to crucify because of it. 

SpaceX has said a 30 ton LEO / 18 ton GTO class launcher would be excellent for the commercial market, as it would allow them to dual manifest payloads and reduce the cost per pound.

But many have speculated the current Falcon9 Heavy design with 27 engines may not be the best way to do that, specifically from a cost-per-pound to orbit point of view.

If SpaceX had the opportunity to work with NASA in a public/private partnership that develops a much better solution for 30 tons to LEO, and provides options to scale up to 70-100 tons LEO using strap-on boosters, then I think SpaceX would certainly consider it.

From NASA's point of view, they want to develop a 100 ton class SHLV with the lowest NRE costs.  NASA already has the Shuttle SRBs, and it may be a nice move politically to keep them, preserving jobs and all.  If NASA can share the cost of developing the main rocket with SpaceX investment dollars aimed at satisfying commercial customers, and then use existing strap-on SRBs to get up to 100 tons, that may be the option with the least NRE costs.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: telomerase99 on 06/08/2010 11:01 pm
The real question is whether or not the SpaceX version of ULA's liquid plan will be cheaper. The bright side is that NASA could fund both SpaceX and ULA and probably still have some money left over versus Ares where all of the money would have been going to one architecture and that one architecture would still need additional funds to be delivered on time.

If the LAS for SpaceX has gone from a cost of $300 million to $1 billion I wonder how much SpaceX would charge to create a heavy lift family.

Hopefully not more than 3 billion through 2015?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Cinder on 06/09/2010 01:34 am
If the LAS for SpaceX has gone from a cost of $300 million to $1 billion
Forgive me for what's probably a stupid question, but where was this 1B$ cost reported?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: M_Puckett on 06/09/2010 01:48 am
The Wall Street Journal but 1bn is twice what Elon spent developing all engines, both Falcons and the Dragon as Rand Simberg has noted.

That number simply does not pass the smell test and is highly suspect.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: telomerase99 on 06/09/2010 02:18 am
Its highly suspect but I think that Musk is asking for more now becuase he would like to use that money to add features to the launch escape system, ie make it reusable and make it capable of providing landing capability to dragon so that dragon does not have to be recovered at sea.

If the other guys are coming out and saying that it will cost a few billion for them to do commercial crew, why should space x settle for 1/10 of the price? If they do it for a third of the price they can get a lot more out of the system.

I hope that they use some of the money for fly back 1st stage that Elon mentioned a while back that would cost around a billion dollars.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/09/2010 12:46 pm

If the other guys are coming out and saying that it will cost a few billion for them to do commercial crew, why should space x settle for 1/10 of the price? If they do it for a third of the price they can get a lot more out of the system.


You mean, he is finally learning not to leave money on the table? Good for him.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/09/2010 02:28 pm
The real question is whether or not the SpaceX version of ULA's liquid plan will be cheaper. The bright side is that NASA could fund both SpaceX and ULA and probably still have some money left over versus Ares where all of the money would have been going to one architecture and that one architecture would still need additional funds to be delivered on time.

If the LAS for SpaceX has gone from a cost of $300 million to $1 billion I wonder how much SpaceX would charge to create a heavy lift family.

Hopefully not more than 3 billion through 2015?

If NASA does a COTS-like program for HLV, then they can choose a viable solution or even a combination of solutions from SpaceX, ULA, and possibly other vendor.

HLV is very doable as a private/commercialized solution.  HLV is very much NOT doable as a NASA and special interest groups Ares1/AresV/Direct/SDHLV MONSTER.

For NASA to have the money they need and with all the budget cuts and axing, they need to drop continual Space Shuttle missions, drop Ares I, drop weird morphing Ares V/IV/Direct HLV concepts, and drop the Shuttle Derived HLV mania from within certain groups in NASA and congress. 

Obviously, that will be hard to do, but it looks like Obama/Bolden want to do exactly that. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/09/2010 02:49 pm
Mind you, the business case is probably tenuous for another 20-30 mT launcher, but it's a heck of a lot more tenuous for a 100 mT launcher.

Which is exactly why "commercial" HLV or public/private partnership with respect to an HLV will probably not work. 

If there is one, it will be NASA owned and developed.  Doesn't mean there are not ways to get creative but people should not confuse the two or assume and try to crucify because of it. 

SpaceX has said a 30 ton LEO / 18 ton GTO class launcher would be excellent for the commercial market, as it would allow them to dual manifest payloads and reduce the cost per pound.

But many have speculated the current Falcon9 Heavy design with 27 engines may not be the best way to do that, specifically from a cost-per-pound to orbit point of view.

If SpaceX had the opportunity to work with NASA in a public/private partnership that develops a much better solution for 30 tons to LEO, and provides options to scale up to 70-100 tons LEO using strap-on boosters, then I think SpaceX would certainly consider it.

From NASA's point of view, they want to develop a 100 ton class SHLV with the lowest NRE costs.  NASA already has the Shuttle SRBs, and it may be a nice move politically to keep them, preserving jobs and all.  If NASA can share the cost of developing the main rocket with SpaceX investment dollars aimed at satisfying commercial customers, and then use existing strap-on SRBs to get up to 100 tons, that may be the option with the least NRE costs.


If SpaceX develops a Merlin 2, then they don't need the Shuttle SRBs.  SpaceX would use the Merlin 2 engines for boosters as well.

ULA, might could use the SRBs, if they have a problem getting or producing enough RD-180s.  We would have to see their final solution.  However it does look like their SHLV would use multiple RD-180s.  I think if they could help it, they rather go with multiple RD-180s.

Both SpaceX and ULA could use their Kerolox rocket engines to make money doing LEO lifts and upscaling them for BEO NASA missions.

The Shuttle SRBs lend themselves to various Shuttle Derived HLVs.  This looks like it will come as an attempt to save the Constellation program by morphing the Direct/Ares IV/V concepts.  Sadly, this does have a slight chance of working, but I think it will be a nasty budget and delay catastrophe to the tax payers.

Worse, the taxpayer would mostly be putting up the bill for SDHLV, the way we were/are with the Space Shuttle.  Lots of tax money flowing down the drain, with limited commercial development for BEO flights and colonization of the Moon and Mars.

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/09/2010 03:24 pm

HLV is very doable as a private/commercialized solution.  HLV is very much NOT doable as a NASA and special interest groups Ares1/AresV/Direct/SDHLV MONSTER.


Wrong.  the flight rate of an HLV does not support a private/commercialized solution.  There are not enough payloads in the world to support it.  The only way an HLV will exist is if a gov't funds it.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Downix on 06/09/2010 03:33 pm

HLV is very doable as a private/commercialized solution.  HLV is very much NOT doable as a NASA and special interest groups Ares1/AresV/Direct/SDHLV MONSTER.


Wrong.  the flight rate of an HLV does not support a private/commercialized solution.  There are not enough payloads in the world to support it.  The only way an HLV will exist is if a gov't funds it.
Would it exist if it were designed using the "lego" method, where the cores are useful as standalone, but can function in a group as well?  (like a Delta IV Super-heavy with 4 CBC boosters?)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/09/2010 04:43 pm
the flight rate of an HLV does not support a private/commercialized solution.  There are not enough payloads in the world to support it.  The only way an HLV will exist is if a gov't funds it.

For the scope of this particular discussion, it might be good to define the terms HLV and SHLV.

HLV = ~30 tons to LEO / ~18 tons to GTO
SHLV = ~100 tons to LEO

SpaceX has said a HLV would be perfect for the commercial satellite market, as it would allow them to dual manifest GTO payloads and reduce cost per pound.

For a SHLV, I would agree that there are few, if any, commercial applications at this time.

One possibility to satisfy both the HLV and SHLV requirements might involve the following:
1) SpaceX builds a new HLV without any strap-on boosters using Merlin2 engines.
2) Some kind of strap-on boosters are used to convert the HLV to a SHLV.

Since this type of architecture addresses both commercial and government markets, I think a public/private partnership may work well for this.  It could be a win-win.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/10/2010 04:06 am

For the scope of this particular discussion, it might be good to define the terms HLV and SHLV.

HLV = ~30 tons to LEO / ~18 tons to GTO
SHLV = ~100 tons to LEO

30 tons is a little low for a HLV, that is more the top end of Medium lift.

MLV = ~30 metric tons (mT) to LEO / ~18 mT to GTO
HLV = ~50 mT to LEO / ~? mT to GTO
SHLV = ~100 mT to LEO
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/10/2010 12:51 pm
30 tons is a little low for a HLV, that is more the top end of Medium lift.

MLV = ~30 metric tons (mT) to LEO / ~18 mT to GTO
HLV = ~50 mT to LEO / ~? mT to GTO
SHLV = ~100 mT to LEO


OK, let's go with that definition.

SpaceX has said a MLV (~18 mT to GTO) would be great for dual manifesting commercial satellites, but a HLV or SHLV would be for government payloads. 

Let's say SpaceX and NASA work in a public/private partnership to build a single stick MLV using Merlin2, and then scale that up to HLV & SHLV using some kind of strap-ons.  How would that work?

I've always been skeptical of the currently defined Falcon9 Heavy.  Not that it wouldn't work, just that 27 engines doesn't seem like the most efficient design (lowest cost per pound to orbit).  The only thing F9H is good at is minimizing SpaceX development costs, by leveraging the existing F9 first stage. 

Let's say Merlin2 is around 10 times the thrust of a Merlin1.  Instead of 27 Merlin1 engines, you would only need 3 Merlin2s.  If all 3 were clustered together in a single first stage, that seems like a much more efficient way to get ~18 mT to GTO, yes?  And then if you add some type of strap-on boosters to that, you could have a modular MLV/HLV/SHLV vehicle.

So if NASA came in and offered to pay for some portion of the development costs for a new modular MLV/HLV/SHLV vehicle, I think SpaceX would be interested in chipping in some private capitol as well, especially after their IPO.  From NASA's point of view, it would be cheaper than paying for the whole development using cost-plus procurement.  It could be a win-win.  Perhaps this is what Elon is talking about here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3
 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2010 01:03 pm

Let's say SpaceX and NASA work in a public/private partnership to build a single stick MLV using Merlin2, and then scale that up to HLV & SHLV using some kind of strap-ons.  How would that work?


It wouldn't work. NASA has no need for it and it duplicates existing capabilities.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2010 01:05 pm

So if NASA came in and offered to pay for some portion of the development costs for a new modular MLV/HLV/SHLV vehicle,
 

NASA isn't going to.  It doesn't need an MLV, the EELV's exist.  If NASA wants an HLV (100 ton), it is going to compete it.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2010 01:07 pm

For the scope of this particular discussion, it might be good to define the terms HLV and SHLV.

HLV = ~30 tons to LEO / ~18 tons to GTO
SHLV = ~100 tons to LEO

30 tons is a little low for a HLV, that is more the top end of Medium lift.

MLV = ~30 metric tons (mT) to LEO / ~18 mT to GTO
HLV = ~50 mT to LEO / ~? mT to GTO
SHLV = ~100 mT to LEO


HLV is 100 mT (Saturn V class)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: 2552 on 06/10/2010 01:56 pm
Single stick first stage gives 20-30 mT. Add outriggers to get into the HLV range (say, 70-100 mT). That way, you aren't making a rocket that can only be used by NASA on huge missions.
Ah, got it, sorry.

What kind of outriggers?  Given that its a public/private partnership, would shuttle SRBs be a possibility?

Same as core. So, single stick is one F-1 class engine. Add four outriggers, and you have kind of a piecemeal Saturn V first stage. This is completely unoriginal, by the way. Similar schemes have been proposed for the Atlas V by ULA. I like it, because it means the launcher (in single-stick form) can get payloads other than NASA BEO. Mind you, the business case is probably tenuous for another 20-30 mT launcher, but it's a heck of a lot more tenuous for a 100 mT launcher.

Atlas V Phase 2 would scale down to 9 tons to LEO in single stick mode, covering everything Atlas V currently launches, and up to 75 tons in 3 core mode. If SpaceX does this, it should probably scale down to the current Falcon 9 payload to LEO, and up to 75 or 100 tons.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Garrett on 06/10/2010 02:09 pm

For the scope of this particular discussion, it might be good to define the terms HLV and SHLV.

HLV = ~30 tons to LEO / ~18 tons to GTO
SHLV = ~100 tons to LEO

30 tons is a little low for a HLV, that is more the top end of Medium lift.

MLV = ~30 metric tons (mT) to LEO / ~18 mT to GTO
HLV = ~50 mT to LEO / ~? mT to GTO
SHLV = ~100 mT to LEO


HLV is 100 mT (Saturn V class)
I like the Wikipedia definition of a HLV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle):
"A Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, or HLLV, is a launch vehicle capable of lifting more mass into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) than Medium Lift Launch Vehicles"

From the Wiki list of medium lift launch systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_medium_lift_launch_systems), that would include all LVs that can lift more that 20 metric tonnes to LEO.

Just came across this nugget on Wikipedia: Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems)
"launch systems capable of more than 50,000 kg to LEO, the minimum threshold for Super Heavy Lift Vehicles defined in the Augustine report"

So, is it gonna be Wikipedia and the Augustine Commission report that will have to change, or will Jim have to work on changing his definition of a HLV? *Cue thunder and lightning*
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: SpacexULA on 06/10/2010 02:15 pm
HLV is 100 mT (Saturn V class)
I like the Wikipedia definition of a HLV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle):
"A Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, or HLLV, is a launch vehicle capable of lifting more mass into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) than Medium Lift Launch Vehicles"

From the Wiki list of medium lift launch systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_medium_lift_launch_systems), that would include all LVs that can lift more that 20 metric tonnes to LEO.

Just came across this nugget on Wikipedia: Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems)
"launch systems capable of more than 50,000 kg to LEO, the minimum threshold for Super Heavy Lift Vehicles defined in the Augustine report"

So, is it gonna be Wikipedia and the Augustine Commission report that will have to change, or will Jim have to work on changing his definition of a HLV? *Cue thunder and lightning*

I personally love it when people argue against Aerospace professionals about technical definitions with Wikipedia sources, especially when it's Jim.  :)  After the political aerspace news that's came out post Falcon 9, I have needed a grin.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Garrett on 06/10/2010 02:41 pm
I personally love it when people argue against Aerospace professionals about technical definitions with Wikipedia sources, especially when it's Jim.  :)  After the political aerspace news that's came out post Falcon 9, I have needed a grin.
I hesitated before attempting my argument using Wikipedia, but sometimes using Wikipedia is justified. Here, I was just trying to get everybody on the same page. If Jim is right, then he is right only within the aerospace industry (or maybe just NASA?) and not outside it. When Congress or the media talk about a HLV or SHLV, they will likely be using the Wikipedia/Augustine Report definitions. This just needs to be taken into account, that's all.
Besides, I really prefer those Wiki definitions  :P

Subconsciously I don't expect to win the argument. Jim will probably hit back with something that will make me shy away from the forum for a couple of hours
But one can always hope :D
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/10/2010 02:56 pm
Actually, I helped come up with some of the weight defintions on Wikipedia (at least for the heavy-lift class) a couple of years ago.  Don't use them as an industry standard.  It was an attempt by the editors to come up logical separation points to compare vehicles of similiar lift capability.

At the time, I believe the defintions were setup as follows:
0-2T -> light
2-20T -> medium
20T+ -> heavy

There was no super-heavy then.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 06/10/2010 03:01 pm
LOL, discredited by the assistant author of the Wikipedia article himself.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/10/2010 03:05 pm
Single stick first stage gives 20-30 mT. Add outriggers to get into the HLV range (say, 70-100 mT). That way, you aren't making a rocket that can only be used by NASA on huge missions.
Ah, got it, sorry.

What kind of outriggers?  Given that its a public/private partnership, would shuttle SRBs be a possibility?

Same as core. So, single stick is one F-1 class engine. Add four outriggers, and you have kind of a piecemeal Saturn V first stage. This is completely unoriginal, by the way. Similar schemes have been proposed for the Atlas V by ULA. I like it, because it means the launcher (in single-stick form) can get payloads other than NASA BEO. Mind you, the business case is probably tenuous for another 20-30 mT launcher, but it's a heck of a lot more tenuous for a 100 mT launcher.

Atlas V Phase 2 would scale down to 9 tons to LEO in single stick mode, covering everything Atlas V currently launches, and up to 75 tons in 3 core mode. If SpaceX does this, it should probably scale down to the current Falcon 9 payload to LEO, and up to 75 or 100 tons.

Correct.

The key is in having the correct size rocket engine (~ 750,000 lbf to + 1 Million lbf), which by adding them together, can go from profitable LEO lifter to HLV and BEO.

To do this, NASA has to work with the private/commercial sector.  NASA building and owning the rocket, like business as usual, will lead to more Ares I and Space Shuttle type taxpayer waste holes and catastrophe.

There is a strong argument that NASA owning and building the HLV (aka SDHLV or Ares V) will lead to nothing but flag planting, "hurray we did it", then we leave and not come back for 50 years.  Preceded by a lot of money wasting, that is, if they even got the funding for HLV.

By working in cooperation with the private/commercial sector, NASA hands over and allows a business to flourish.  It is the business end, that will allow human colonization and sustainability BEO.

NASA getting the HLV through a private/commercial partnership, helps create a sustainable LEO business with the rocket engine they will use for BEO.  This also helps the taxpayer, as the cost of the HLV is offset by the private/commercial sector.  It is also much easier to do, budget wise or to make justifications for it, when the will to do BEO is there.
 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2010 03:14 pm

 This also helps the taxpayer, as the cost of the HLV is offset by the private/commercial sector.  It is also much easier to do, budget wise or to make justifications for it, when the will to do BEO is there.
 

Show me private/commercial needs for an HLV.  Build it and they will come is not enough justification even with NASA buying a few.

Show your sources.

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2010 03:16 pm
Actually, I helped come up with some of the weight defintions on Wikipedia (at least for the heavy-lift class) a couple of years ago.  Don't use them as an industry standard.  It was an attempt by the editors to come up logical separation points to compare vehicles of similiar lift capability.

At the time, I believe the defintions were setup as follows:
0-2T -> light
2-20T -> medium
20T+ -> heavy

There was no super-heavy then.

That was the EELV vehicle designations and not generic launch vehicles.

A Delta IV Heavy is not an HLV
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Garrett on 06/10/2010 03:33 pm
Actually, I helped come up with some of the weight defintions on Wikipedia (at least for the heavy-lift class) a couple of years ago.  Don't use them as an industry standard.  It was an attempt by the editors to come up logical separation points to compare vehicles of similiar lift capability.

At the time, I believe the defintions were setup as follows:
0-2T -> light
2-20T -> medium
20T+ -> heavy

There was no super-heavy then.

That was the EELV vehicle designations and not generic launch vehicles.

A Delta IV Heavy is not an HLV
Very confusing for us amateurs :-\ (or maybe just me!)

So, for the sake of making sure we're all talking about the same thing, could somebody please point out the industry definitions of the different LV classes?
And why did the Augustine commission define a SHLV as being a LV capable of at least 50 mT to LEO?

Cheers
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/10/2010 03:42 pm

 This also helps the taxpayer, as the cost of the HLV is offset by the private/commercial sector.  It is also much easier to do, budget wise or to make justifications for it, when the will to do BEO is there.
 

show me private/commercial needs for an HLV.  Build it and they will come is not enough justification even with NASA buying a few.

Show your sources.



That includes your pushing of propellant depots...  The point of a propellant depot is to store fuel to go somewhere.  Without an objective, it will not happen.  You will store fuel on a propellant depot for what?  What I'm talking about is the rocket engine, which can do dual purpose for LEO and BEO.  I'm talking economic and cheap lift capability.  This doesn't require a clear BEO objective. 

To get the parts of the propellant depot up there, requires LEO lifts.  Who is going to do LEO lifts economically?  Again, that will be the private/commercial sector.

The F9 and similar class LEO lifters with small rocket engines can upgrade to RD-180/RS-68 size engines.  Engines of this size and thrust, can be used for a HLV BEO lifter.  Why would you upgrade your rocket engine?  Because of the economic trend of rocket engines providing more thrust per weight and cost.  Why build a 27 engine F9H, when you could do it with 4 or 5 Merlin 2s?

All the major players, from NASA to ULA to SpaceX have HLV and SHLV plans.

If NASA wants to offset the cost of their proposed BEO HLV aka Ares V/IV, the way to do it is through private industry and have them build and own the HLV.  Otherwise, the taxpayer foots the bill for the HLV, like they were footing the bill for Ares I and the Space Shuttle, and got tired of it.

In a climate of budget deficits and budget cuts, the better option for HLV is through private industry, who can absorb or offset the cost of the rocket engine through LEO lifts
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2010 03:48 pm

All the major players, from NASA to ULA to SpaceX have HLV and SHLV plans.


Because NASA would fund them per the standard cost plus contracting method.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Namechange User on 06/10/2010 03:54 pm
In a climate of budget deficits and budget cuts, the better option for HLV is through private industry, who can absorb or offset the cost of the rocket engine through LEO lifts

Come on. 

Why do people not understand economics and assume "commercial" is some sort of financial slush fund and cushion where there is an unlimited supply and these companies will just build whatever?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2010 03:57 pm
I'm talking economic and cheap lift capability. 

That excludes HLV's, they are neither.   There is no customer other than NASA and it is at too low of flight rate.  It would be no different than the shuttle.

To get economic and cheap lift capability, the flight rates need to increase and since most of what NASA needs for exploration is propellant, depots are the way to go.  It employs the underutilized US launch vehicle fleet.  The same launch vehicles support the "smaller" commercial missions can support the 'larger" NASA exploration missions.   No need for a development program like Ares V or any other large vehicle.   The existing ones can be used or some of the derivatives, which are not big ticket items.

If there is an HLV, it will be contracted cost plus and also there will be no commercial use.

 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/10/2010 04:16 pm
NASA isn't going to.  It doesn't need an MLV, the EELV's exist. 

NASA doesn't need the MLV, but SpaceX does, and their current path to get there is less than perfect in my opinion.

If NASA wants an HLV (100 ton), it is going to compete it.

One way to compete this is using a public/private partnership.  This way, NASA doesn't have to pay for the full development of the HLV using cost-plus procurement.

In other words, if SpaceX develops a MLV/HLV modular architecture using a combination of NASA funding and private funding from their IPO, this may cost NASA less than the traditional cost-plus method.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/10/2010 04:20 pm
I really don't have time for dealing with childish nonsense, so the next time I see people acting like fools on here, they won't get a second chance. Be civil, there's absolutely no need to start a response off with "you're talking crap" and there isn't any need to respond over three posts to the same point.

Edited, merged with the other heavy thread (there was no need for a new one) and carry on.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/10/2010 04:23 pm

One way to compete this is using a public/private partnership.  This way, NASA doesn't have to pay for the full development of the HLV using cost-plus procurement.

In other words, if SpaceX develops a MLV/HLV modular architecture using a combination of NASA funding and private funding from their IPO, this may cost NASA less than the traditional cost-plus method.

It's still a zero sum game, if you look at it closer. The only customer for a 100mt (or even 40mt) HLV is NASA. That being said, any money a private company were to invest in an HLV development would only be used for that development because the company believes business from the only future customer will be lucrative. That means, NASA would just shift costs from development to operations.

I am not saying this is a bad idea (I actually think this is a very good idea, because it also keeps government involvement at a lower level and thus keeps costs down - and cost-plus is really the worst way to contract), but the argument that part of the HLV development would be private money that NASA doesn't have to pay for is wrong. That private money is basically a loan to NASA that NASA will have to pay back once the HLV is flying and NASA has to pay for launches.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/10/2010 04:28 pm
And why did the Augustine commission define a SHLV as being a LV capable of at least 50 mT to LEO?
Let's not get too hung up on the definitions.

The main concept is the potential viability of a modular launch vehicle that can scale from ~30 to ~100 mT to LEO.  This would be very applicable to commercial satellites on the low end, and satisfy government planetary missions on the high end.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/10/2010 04:30 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wymbcXc54c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wymbcXc54c)

Listen to the man of the hour, Elon Musk, who in this interview is also talking about his relationship with NASA.

He does NOT need NASA.  They help, but are NOT his sole source of income for his rocket business.  Furthermore, why he is in the business, is to also see the progress of human exploration, not just profits. 

However, he is just one man.  He is doing his part, because of his passion for human development, but he is only a part of a larger piece.  NASA doesn't need SpaceX, because there are other companies...

Yes, NASA's objective is important, but that is because NASA objective can also represent human exploration beyond BEO and that is bigger then simply a rocket engine company.  A "rocket company" would only be part of larger human enterprise. 

Only in the case where a business was established, like a colony on the Moon, could they take more initiative in lifting whoever and whatever.  Like a small town can become a city.  By the way, governments have long helped in exploration (like finding America) and helped develop industries which they have handed over to businesses.

NASA would be helping to offset the cost of a dual purpose capable LEO and BEO lifter.  It is a symbiotic style relationship.  NASA helps the private/commercial sector and they help NASA.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ugordan on 06/10/2010 04:34 pm
He does NOT need NASA.

If you really paid attention, Musk stated himself that without NASA and other organizations/people that supported them, SpaceX wouldn't be where they are right now.

Seriously, with "friends" like you, SpaceX doesn't need enemies.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/10/2010 04:35 pm
The main concept is the potential viability of a modular launch vehicle that can scale from ~30 to ~100 mT to LEO.  This would be very applicable to commercial satellites on the low end, and satisfy government planetary missions on the high end.

A 30mt to LEO vehicle or about 12-14mt (or more) to GTO is already to large for commercial satellites. It's even too large for dual missions (which have proven to be a complicated beast).

Scaling is an issue in this range. We just need to look at the EELV Growth plans. Up to about 40-50mt everything works out fine, you can use existing tooling, existing stages and engines, existing pads, existing infrastructure etc. and really just need to change the upper stage or add solids etc. Beyond that things change. That's when the whole thing gets really nasty and expensive, because suddenly you need new infrastructure, new production facilities, a new design, new core diameters etc.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/10/2010 04:38 pm
He does NOT need NASA.

If you really paid attention, Musk stated himself that without NASA and other organizations/people that supported them, SpaceX wouldn't be where they are right now.

Seriously, with "friends" like you, SpaceX doesn't need enemies.

Musk basically said his company could survive without NASA. 

I didn't say NASA didn't benefit SpaceX.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/10/2010 04:41 pm
He does NOT need NASA.

If you really paid attention, Musk stated himself that without NASA and other organizations/people that supported them, SpaceX wouldn't be where they are right now.


Correct, 75% of the funding SpaceX received in the last 8 years came from the government. 60% of the 2 billion in contract value for future launches SpaceX is talking about are from NASA and likely this percentage will increase if SpaceX is successful.

I am not saying SpaceX may not be still a viable company without the government (it might be possible), but they would certainly look different without taxpayer money and would be at a different stage in their development right now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Super Heavy Lift
Post by: Dave G on 06/10/2010 04:47 pm
The only customer for a 100mt (or even 40mt) HLV is NASA.

This is the crux of the issue.

30 mT LEO corresponds to ~18 mT GTO, and dual manifesting commercial satellites on that type of launcher would dramatically reduce the cost per pound.  SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell talked about this back in April:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 33:15 into the program).

So a modular launcher that scales from ~30 to ~100 mT to LEO may be perfect for both commercial satellites and NASA planetary missions.

But that would not be a Falcon based vehicle, so I'm not sure why we got merged in with the Falcon thread.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/10/2010 04:58 pm
I am not saying SpaceX may not be still a viable company without the government (it might be possible), but they would certainly look different without taxpayer money and would be at a different stage in their development right now.
Elon answers this question directly here:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/2010/06/06/spacex-falcon-9-flight-1-post-flight-press-conference/

SpaceX would definitely be viable without NASA.  Half their current launch manifest comes from outside NASA.  But Elon admits they would not have come as far as fast without NASA as a customer.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2010 05:05 pm

SpaceX would definitely be viable without NASA.  Half their current launch manifest comes from outside NASA.  But Elon admits they would not have come as far as fast without NASA as a customer.

More like a 1/2 (8/15) and not all those are real missions, just reservations.  And some need a Vandenberg launch pad that has yet to be developed.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/10/2010 05:09 pm
I am not saying SpaceX may not be still a viable company without the government (it might be possible), but they would certainly look different without taxpayer money and would be at a different stage in their development right now.
Elon answers this question directly here:
http://www.spacevidcast.com/2010/06/06/spacex-falcon-9-flight-1-post-flight-press-conference/

SpaceX would definitely be viable without NASA.  Half their current launch manifest comes from outside NASA.  But Elon admits they would not have come as far as fast without NASA as a customer.

Contract value is more important than number of launches. The contract value from government sources is currently above 60% (and as Jim said, several of the private customers just contracted for a reservation, not a definite launch) and it is likely to go up.

I said, SpaceX would have the potential to be viable without taxpayer funding. But let's just look at how other companies faired without taxpayer funding - SeaLaunch is in Chapter 11 right now and their labor costs for manufacturing Зени́т are VERY low compared to SpaceX' labor costs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Super Heavy Lift
Post by: upjin on 06/10/2010 05:17 pm
The only customer for a 100mt (or even 40mt) HLV is NASA.

This is the crux of the issue.

30 mT LEO corresponds to ~18 mT GTO, and dual manifesting commercial satellites on that type of launcher would dramatically reduce the cost per pound.  SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell talked about this back in April:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 33:15 into the program).

So a modular launcher that scales from ~30 to ~100 mT to LEO may be perfect for both commercial satellites and NASA planetary missions.

But that would not be a Falcon based vehicle, so I'm not sure why we got merged in with the Falcon thread.

Correct.

Well if they developed and used the Merlin 2 engine, they might still call the rocket the Falcon.  Maybe the Super Falcon 5 (5 for the number of Merlin 2 engines).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: neilh on 06/10/2010 07:10 pm
Is upjin the secret reincarnation of publiusr or something? ;)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/10/2010 07:21 pm
Is upjin the secret reincarnation of publiusr or something? ;)

bingo
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Namechange User on 06/10/2010 07:43 pm

More like a 1/2 (8/15) and not all those are real missions, just reservations.  And some need a Vandenberg launch pad that has yet to be developed.

But according to Space X, they developed *three* launch sites, the Falcon 9 and Dragon for less than 500 million. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ugordan on 06/10/2010 07:45 pm
They probably mean the F1 Vandenberg site before they uh... changed their mind to Kwaj.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Nate_Trost on 06/10/2010 08:19 pm
They did do a static fire at SLC 3W, don't know if that site was flight ready, but they did have some GSE finished...
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2010 08:29 pm
HLV is very much NOT doable as a NASA and special interest groups Ares1/AresV/ Direct /SDHLV MONSTER.

Excuse me - but aren't folks on here talking about boosting ~60-70mT to LEO and calling that heavy lift? I take extreme exception to your use of the term MONSTER and applying it to DIRECT because that is *exactly* what DIRECT's Jupiter-130 was targeted for. It's target IMLEO is 70mT.

So it's ok for Elon to cobble together a 27-engine cluster frack and that's a sweet HLV, but if a Jupiter comes along and does the same thing with only 5 engines (2xSRB and 3xSSME), then that's a MONSTER? Please!! Get your facts straight before you post. A little "due diligence" would be appreciated by the other posters here.

I've no desire to go off topic but neither will I stand silently by while people without knowledge just spout off "stuff" like that. This could be a good thread, but only if people talk about what they *know*, and not what thev'e heard 2nd and 3rd hand from other people that are equally clue-less.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Namechange User on 06/10/2010 08:33 pm
Chuck,

On the internet and with arm-chair experts, everything is easily doable, simple, cheap and will change the universe as we know it as long it is what that person supports and "wants".

Everything else is a failure, pork, monstrosity, etc. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/10/2010 08:35 pm
So it's ok for Elon to cobble together a 27-engine cluster frack and that's a sweet HLV...

This part is a good start for an on topic discussion of what people should really be focusing on when talking about a SpaceX HLV. They will NOT design, develop and build a 27 first stage engine rocket. This is just not going to happen. All the speculation about clustering Falcon 9 first stages as is, is somewhat moot. They will require more powerful engines for an HLV, if they ever get to develop an HLV. IMHO, Falcon 9H will not materialize as described on their website.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sdsds on 06/10/2010 08:37 pm
I've no desire to go off topic but neither will I stand silently by while people without knowledge just spout off "stuff" like that.

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

Quote
This could be a good thread, but only if people talk about what they *know*, and not what thev'e heard 2nd and 3rd hand from other people that are equally clue-less.

Speculation is fun, but what makes engineers and journalists see eye to eye is that in both pursuits it is considered perfectly OK to ask someone, "How do you support that assertion?"  The journalist is often satisfied by a quote from an expert; the engineer often wants to see the calculations.  Either way, though, if the person making the statement can't back it up the statement (at best) simply gets ignored.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2010 08:47 pm

For the scope of this particular discussion, it might be good to define the terms HLV and SHLV.

HLV = ~30 tons to LEO / ~18 tons to GTO
SHLV = ~100 tons to LEO

30 tons is a little low for a HLV, that is more the top end of Medium lift.

MLV = ~30 metric tons (mT) to LEO / ~18 mT to GTO
HLV = ~50 mT to LEO / ~? mT to GTO
SHLV = ~100 mT to LEO


HLV is 100 mT (Saturn V class)
I like the Wikipedia definition of a HLV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle):
"A Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, or HLLV, is a launch vehicle capable of lifting more mass into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) than Medium Lift Launch Vehicles"

From the Wiki list of medium lift launch systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_medium_lift_launch_systems), that would include all LVs that can lift more that 20 metric tonnes to LEO.

Just came across this nugget on Wikipedia: Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems)
"launch systems capable of more than 50,000 kg to LEO, the minimum threshold for Super Heavy Lift Vehicles defined in the Augustine report"

So, is it gonna be Wikipedia and the Augustine Commission report that will have to change, or will Jim have to work on changing his definition of a HLV? *Cue thunder and lightning*

Wikipedia has no credibility unless it is backed up by actual reputable sources.
Nobody has any idea who writes the stuff on wiki - it could be your 8-year old child for all we know.

For the record Jim is right.
For the past 60 years Heavy lift has been defined as at least 100mT.
That was the definition used by the entire Von Braun team and all the engineers associated with him and them from the days at MSFC where they designed the Saturn's. Note that they did *NOT* consider even the Saturn-1B to be heavy lift - not even close. It was capable of "only" 21mT to LEO.

The guys at Marshall routinely spoke of HLV as "in excess of 100mT" back in the day. They also considered anything under 20mT as "Light". I never heard them actually define "Medium" (although I did hear them use the term), but knowing them I would guess they would be happy with the figure of 50-60mT to LEO as being the middle of the road of medium lift. That would fit with what I knew of them. But *nobody* considered anything under 100mT as "Heavy Lift" - nobody.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Namechange User on 06/10/2010 08:53 pm
This just in....

Large is now defined as greater than medium.

Small is now appearantly less than medium.

We now retrun you to your regular programing. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2010 08:56 pm
This just in....

Large is now defined as greater than medium.

Small is now appearantly less than medium.

We now retrun you to your regular programing. 


:)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/10/2010 09:01 pm
So it's ok for Elon to cobble together a 27-engine cluster frack and that's a sweet HLV,...

28.   ;)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sdsds on 06/10/2010 09:06 pm
There's an excellent photo at http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20090922_movetexas.jpg showing the Falcon 9 engines and thrust structure being moved by truck through the intersection of Rocket Road and Crenshaw Avenue in Hawthorne.  Because the Falcon 9 is 12 feet in diameter SpaceX can do that.

The eventual Falcon super-heavy core is going to be larger, and thus won't be easily transportable by road.  Surprisingly the diameter limit for rail transportation isn't that much larger:  Shuttle SRBs traveled by rail, but they are "only" 12.17 feet in diameter.

Has SpaceX given any clues about a surface transportation plan for their super-heavy core?  Could they seriously consider doing tank manufacturing, vehicle assembly and testing in Florida, close by their launch complex?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/10/2010 09:15 pm
You can take stuff bigger than 12 feet in diameter over land.  This one is a little under 4.5 meters.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Garrett on 06/10/2010 09:35 pm
Wikipedia has no credibility unless it is backed up by actual reputable sources.
Nobody has any idea who writes the stuff on wiki - it could be your 8-year old child for all we know.

For the record Jim is right.
For the past 60 years Heavy lift has been defined as at least 100mT.
That was the definition used by the entire Von Braun team and all the engineers associated with him and them from the days at MSFC where they designed the Saturn's. Note that they did *NOT* consider even the Saturn-1B to be heavy lift - not even close. It was capable of "only" 21mT to LEO.

The guys at Marshall routinely spoke of HLV as "in excess of 100mT" back in the day. They also considered anything under 20mT as "Light". I never heard them actually define "Medium" (although I did hear them use the term), but knowing them I would guess they would be happy with the figure of 50-60mT to LEO as being the middle of the road of medium lift. That would fit with what I knew of them. But *nobody* considered anything under 100mT as "Heavy Lift" - nobody.
Thank you for setting the record straight and for the history lesson.

In my defense (and hoping that I don't dig myself into a bigger hole), all my post said was that:
 - I liked the Wikipedia definition (regardless of what is used by the industry)
 - The Augustine Report apparently defines SHLV as  > 50,000 kg to LEO (but I haven't looked up the page in the report yet  :-[)
This thread is entitled "Falcon Super Heavy", so I would have presumed that the aforementioned report's definition of SHLV would carry some weight? I'll stop digging now!

I will take note that within the aerospace industry HLV is > 100 mT to LEO

Cheers
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/10/2010 09:50 pm
Only on NSF will one's definition of what "Heavy-lift" means get you ostracized. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :P
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton on 06/10/2010 10:13 pm
Only on NSF will one's definition of what "Heavy-lift" means get you ostracized. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :P

No inquisition here! Just offering how the terms were actually used by those who invented them.
There was confusion here so I thought I'd offer up what I know.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Sen on 06/10/2010 10:19 pm
Has SpaceX given any clues about a surface transportation plan for their super-heavy core?  Could they seriously consider doing tank manufacturing, vehicle assembly and testing in Florida, close by their launch complex?

     From what he has said recently, It would be built at a new factory in Florida. Which, if stage recovery ever becomes feasable, is where the plan is to do the stage refurbishing.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Aeroman on 06/10/2010 10:24 pm
I believe that this is a tower for a wind turbine (I work on wind turbines).

Aeroman

You can take stuff bigger than 12 feet in diameter over land.  This one is a little under 4.5 meters.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/11/2010 02:47 am
I believe that this is a tower for a wind turbine (I work on wind turbines).

Aeroman

Well, close.  It's 1/3 of a tower for a wind turbine!   ;)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: beancounter on 06/11/2010 03:33 am
There's an excellent photo at http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20090922_movetexas.jpg showing the Falcon 9 engines and thrust structure being moved by truck through the intersection of Rocket Road and Crenshaw Avenue in Hawthorne.  Because the Falcon 9 is 12 feet in diameter SpaceX can do that.

The eventual Falcon super-heavy core is going to be larger, and thus won't be easily transportable by road.  Surprisingly the diameter limit for rail transportation isn't that much larger:  Shuttle SRBs traveled by rail, but they are "only" 12.17 feet in diameter.

Has SpaceX given any clues about a surface transportation plan for their super-heavy core?  Could they seriously consider doing tank manufacturing, vehicle assembly and testing in Florida, close by their launch complex?

What's this 'super-heavy core'.  I haven't heard or read anything about this.  Source please.  I take it you're not referring to F9H which has the same core as the existing F9.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 04:03 am
HLV is very much NOT doable as a NASA and special interest groups Ares1/AresV/ Direct /SDHLV MONSTER.

Excuse me - but aren't folks on here talking about boosting ~60-70mT to LEO and calling that heavy lift? I take extreme exception to your use of the term MONSTER and applying it to DIRECT because that is *exactly* what DIRECT's Jupiter-130 was targeted for. It's target IMLEO is 70mT.

So it's ok for Elon to cobble together a 27-engine cluster frack and that's a sweet HLV, but if a Jupiter comes along and does the same thing with only 5 engines (2xSRB and 3xSSME), then that's a MONSTER? Please!! Get your facts straight before you post. A little "due diligence" would be appreciated by the other posters here.

I've no desire to go off topic but neither will I stand silently by while people without knowledge just spout off "stuff" like that. This could be a good thread, but only if people talk about what they *know*, and not what thev'e heard 2nd and 3rd hand from other people that are equally clue-less.


But do you know the great thing about Elon's 27 engine cluster frack (if he built it or the Merlin 2 engine)?

Elon's SpaceX is a private company that offsets the cost of their rocket with commercial lifts to LEO from other customers besides NASA.

By the way, since his company is profit based, his 27 engine better work if he wants to stay in business.  In fact, if they built it, it would be a good chance it would work.

Whenever NASA needs his specific service, they call him and he provides it. If he can't deliver, they call another company.

That also means the financial risk and cost to the American taxpayer is substantially less.

NASA can say "Forget you Elon, we are not using your 27 engine rocket.", and that would be fine.  Elon can say, "Forget you too NASA.", and if he can find other customers, then he would be fine too.

If Elon's SpaceX 27 engine cluster frack goes out of business, fine, because we can have other private/commercial companies compete, see if they can do a better job, and accomplish the required mission.

However, a NASA/government owned non-mission performing monstrosity like Ares 1 has wasted billions of American taxpayer dollars.  Alternative? Americans suck up the loss, then move to the next monstrosity?

I'm pointing out that there are obviously better ways and alternate solutions to do things.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: butters on 06/11/2010 04:26 am
Has SpaceX given any clues about a surface transportation plan for their super-heavy core?  Could they seriously consider doing tank manufacturing, vehicle assembly and testing in Florida, close by their launch complex?

     From what he has said recently, It would be built at a new factory in Florida. Which, if stage recovery ever becomes feasable, is where the plan is to do the stage refurbishing.

I've been wondering why SpaceX didn't locate their tanks/structures manufacturing facility in Florida from the beginning, since they always planned on launching their large vehicles from the Cape.  The engines can be manufactured in California without major supply chain difficulty, but if you're going to build a rocket business from the ground up, why not produce the big stuff in Florida?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars_J on 06/11/2010 04:36 am
Has SpaceX given any clues about a surface transportation plan for their super-heavy core?  Could they seriously consider doing tank manufacturing, vehicle assembly and testing in Florida, close by their launch complex?

     From what he has said recently, It would be built at a new factory in Florida. Which, if stage recovery ever becomes feasable, is where the plan is to do the stage refurbishing.

I've been wondering why SpaceX didn't locate their tanks/structures manufacturing facility in Florida from the beginning, since they always planned on launching their large vehicles from the Cape.  The engines can be manufactured in California without major supply chain difficulty, but if you're going to build a rocket business from the ground up, why not produce the big stuff in Florida?

SpaceX's initial launch pads were in Californa and in the Pacific. Putting facilities in Florida would make little sense for a startup trying to maximize return on investment. The F9 wasn't even conceived of at that time.

Now the situation is different, however, with the majority of their (projected) income coming from Florida launches. Therefore it would make sense for them to expand their operations/facilities in Florida.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/11/2010 05:00 am
By the way, since his company is profit based, his 27 engine better work if he wants to stay in business.  In fact, if they built it, it would be a good chance it would work.

I think F9H would probably work as well, but I don't think its the most efficient design from a cost-per-pound to orbit point of view.  Also, the Falcon9 architecture simply can't scale up to 100 tons to LEO, which is essentially what Obama's plan is calling for.

So that leaves 2 options:

1) For the 100 tons to LEO vehicle, NASA forgets about using commercial, and uses the traditional cost-plus procurement method.  In other words, NASA pays for the entire development of the vehicle, plus NASA pays some profit to the company that develops it.

2) NASA works in a public/private partnership with SpaceX to develop a modular launcher that can scale from around 30 to 100 tons to LEO.  In other words, NASA only pays for part of the development of the vehicle, and the other part of the development is payed by private investors, possibly from SpaceX's IPO.

SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell talked about how important a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO launcher would be, as this would allow them to dual manifest commercial payloads to reduce the cost per pound.
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 33:15 into the program).

Option #2 provides SpaceX with a much more cost effective solution for 30 tons LEO / 18 tons GTO, and would allow SpaceX to entertain the possibility of larger commercial payloads (e.g. Bigelow).  So this could have a real commercial business case.

Option #2 could also be the least cost to NASA, since the development would be shared with private investment.

Perhaps this is what Elon is talking about here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/11/2010 05:07 am
Has SpaceX given any clues about a surface transportation plan for their super-heavy core?  Could they seriously consider doing tank manufacturing, vehicle assembly and testing in Florida, close by their launch complex?

     From what he has said recently, It would be built at a new factory in Florida. Which, if stage recovery ever becomes feasible, is where the plan is to do the stage refurbishing.

Right.  These would be the issues for a SpaceX 100 ton to LEO  launcher. 

As another alternative, they may be able to transport the larger core from California to Florida over water.  But then they may need another big test stand in Florida.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jorge on 06/11/2010 05:13 am
This just in....

Large is now defined as greater than medium.

Small is now appearantly less than medium.

We now retrun you to your regular programing. 

I thought it went vente-grande-tall-short.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/11/2010 05:40 am
Only on NSF will one's definition of what "Heavy-lift" means get you ostracized. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :P

No inquisition here! Just offering how the terms were actually used by those who invented them.
There was confusion here so I thought I'd offer up what I know.

Arianespace and ESA both usually refer to Ariane 5 ECA as a "heavy lift launcher", so it's not totally off world to call launch vehicles above 20mt to LEO HLVs. It doesn't seem that there is a universal industry standard that defines it.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sdsds on 06/11/2010 05:59 am
What's this 'super-heavy core'.  I haven't heard or read anything about this.  Source please.  I take it you're not referring to F9H which has the same core as the existing F9.

Oops -- please accept my apology if this speculation appeared as statement of fact!  You are correct that the F9 core would be used for an F9H, but that is not a "Falcon Super Heavy".  In truth, there is no such thing as a "Falcon Super Heavy," even though that is the subject line for this discussion thread!  Since the vehicle doesn't exist, it's core doesn't either.

Having clarified that it does not exist, my asking what diameter it would be or how would it get to the launch site is asking people to look into their crystal balls and predict what might happen in the future.  This isn't as frivolous as it might appear, though.  The crystal balls of those who have past involvement in similar projects can be amazingly clearer than my own, and I benefit greatly when they share their insights!
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars_J on 06/11/2010 06:12 am
*IF*, I say again, *IF* SpaceX were tasked to develop a 100mt launcher, it seems like the most cost-effective way would be to develop a Merlin 2 engine in the F1 class, which would lift a F9+ class (20-30mt) payload in a single-core configuration.

Then to get a HLV, cluster 5 of those common cores together "Angara-style", and you have a 100mt capable launcher. You have the flexibility of 1, 3, 5, or perhaps even 7 cores depending on the payload.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mlorrey on 06/11/2010 06:40 am
What's this 'super-heavy core'.  I haven't heard or read anything about this.  Source please.  I take it you're not referring to F9H which has the same core as the existing F9.

Oops -- please accept my apology if this speculation appeared as statement of fact!  You are correct that the F9 core would be used for an F9H, but that is not a "Falcon Super Heavy".  In truth, there is no such thing as a "Falcon Super Heavy," even though that is the subject line for this discussion thread!  Since the vehicle doesn't exist, it's core doesn't either.

Having clarified that it does not exist, my asking what diameter it would be or how would it get to the launch site is asking people to look into their crystal balls and predict what might happen in the future.  This isn't as frivolous as it might appear, though.  The crystal balls of those who have past involvement in similar projects can be amazingly clearer than my own, and I benefit greatly when they share their insights!

Well, Elon has talked about a "BFR" which is politely defined as "Big Falcon Rocket" to a family audience, with Saturn V level performance and Merlin scaled up to F-1 level performance.

At this point, its a Chicken And Egg Launcher, as the excuse for not building it is that there are no payloads, but the excuse for not building payloads that size is that there are no launchers that big.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: AdamH on 06/11/2010 07:27 am
2) NASA works in a public/private partnership with SpaceX to develop a modular launcher that can scale from around 30 to 100 tons to LEO.  In other words, NASA only pays for part of the development of the vehicle, and the other part of the development is payed by private investors, possibly from SpaceX's IPO.
I agree that this is definately in the works. I know that SpaceX currently has a team working on the beginnings of the Merlin 2 engine. They are likely just waiting on additional funds to come through from current contracts in order to afford the extensive development costs. A NASA partnership will definately help. This is Elon's goal, he wants to get to Mars and will direct the company in that direction as soon as it is financially survivable. In this case as long as the company has the revenue to fund such development I am betting it will happen by his direction. I doubt in this case the chicken and egg problem will pose a hurdle. For more insight into these plans, look over this old article:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 06/11/2010 11:26 am
Is a F-1 class engine really the best jump from the Merlin 1C?  Scaling by a factor of 10 has got to be expensive to engineer and test.  Yes, one engine could power the entire existing Falcon 9 but is that such a good idea?  One of the big selling points of the Falcon 9 is its engine out capability which would be completely lost with the new monster engine.

Instead of scaling by a factor of 10, why not more along the lines of a factor of 3 to 4?  This would drop you down to three engines on the existing Falcon 9 class vehicle which could potentially still have an egnine out capability for at least part of the flight.  Also, a Falcon 9-Heavy class vehicle with this engine would only require nine engines which SpaceX has shown they can fly.

As a side note, by my count SpaceX has now flown 15 Merlin engines (5 x Falon 1, 9 Falcon 9-stage1, 1 Falcon 9-stage2) without a RUD event.  Just a few more Falcon 9 flights and the Merlin should qualify as a very reliable engine which should lessen some fears about putting too many of them on a single bird.

Last note, regarding the Wikipedia articles, the editors of those articles are always open to expert input and better sources for what weights denote which classes would certainly lead to restructuring the "list of" articles into more appropriate groupings.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 11:40 am
By the way, since his company is profit based, his 27 engines better work if he wants to stay in business.  In fact, if they built it, it would be a good chance it would work.

I think F9H would probably work as well, but I don't think its the most efficient design from a cost-per-pound to orbit point of view.  Also, the Falcon9 architecture simply can't scale up to 100 tons to LEO, which is essentially what Obama's plan is calling for.

So that leaves 2 options:

1) For the 100 tons to LEO vehicle, NASA forgets about using commercial, and uses the traditional cost-plus procurement method.  In other words, NASA pays for the entire development of the vehicle, plus NASA pays some profit to the company that develops it.

2) NASA works in a public/private partnership with SpaceX to develop a modular launcher that can scale from around 30 to 100 tons to LEO.  In other words, NASA only pays for part of the development of the vehicle, and the other part of the development is payed by private investors, possibly from SpaceX's IPO.

SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell talked about how important a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO launcher would be, as this would allow them to dual manifest commercial payloads to reduce the cost per pound.
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 33:15 into the program).

Option #2 provides SpaceX with a much more cost effective solution for 30 tons LEO / 18 tons GTO, and would allow SpaceX to entertain the possibility of larger commercial payloads (e.g. Bigelow).  So this could have a real commercial business case.

Option #2 could also be the least cost to NASA, since the development would be shared with private investment.

Perhaps this is what Elon is talking about here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3

Good post.

1 or 2 would work, as long as we get sustainable HLV, HSF, and BEO out of it.  If NASA wants HLV, then they are going to have to be smart about it and play ball with Obama's commercial/private sector vision and the reality of the present budget deficits.

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 11:50 am
What's this 'super-heavy core'.  I haven't heard or read anything about this.  Source please.  I take it you're not referring to F9H which has the same core as the existing F9.

Oops -- please accept my apology if this speculation appeared as statement of fact!  You are correct that the F9 core would be used for an F9H, but that is not a "Falcon Super Heavy".  In truth, there is no such thing as a "Falcon Super Heavy," even though that is the subject line for this discussion thread!  Since the vehicle doesn't exist, it's core doesn't either.

Having clarified that it does not exist, my asking what diameter it would be or how would it get to the launch site is asking people to look into their crystal balls and predict what might happen in the future.  This isn't as frivolous as it might appear, though.  The crystal balls of those who have past involvement in similar projects can be amazingly clearer than my own, and I benefit greatly when they share their insights!

Well, Elon has talked about a "BFR" which is politely defined as "Big Falcon Rocket" to a family audience, with Saturn V level performance and Merlin scaled up to F-1 level performance.

At this point, its a Chicken And Egg Launcher, as the excuse for not building it is that there are no payloads, but the excuse for not building payloads that size is that there are no launchers that big.

I also agree with this point.

If we are serious about commercializing LEO and BEO, we will need to be able to lift large payloads off this planet.  To perform the mission of Constellation, we need a Ares IV/V type rocket, however one that doesn't hit the taxpayer/budget so hard and allows for commercial/private business growth into space.

If we have a clear HLV capability through an up-scalable architecture, people are sure to find/create heavy payloads to put on it.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: MP99 on 06/11/2010 12:08 pm
I think F9H would probably work as well, but I don't think its the most efficient design from a cost-per-pound to orbit point of view.  Also, the Falcon9 architecture simply can't scale up to 100 tons to LEO, which is essentially what Obama's plan is calling for.

<snip>

SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell talked about how important a 30 mT LEO / 18 mT GTO launcher would be, as this would allow them to dual manifest commercial payloads to reduce the cost per pound.
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 33:15 into the program).

The planned F9H may allow SpaceX to dip their toe into the 20mT+ market, with a Merlin 2-based vehicle to consolidate that later, and allowing yet bigger Falcons.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Eerie on 06/11/2010 12:08 pm
Why is Merlin-2 at all necessary? Can`t SpaceX just use 9 Merlins cluster as a unit? It is already proven, and with engine out capability it could be even safer than a single large engine.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 12:10 pm
Is a F-1 class engine really the best jump from the Merlin 1C?  Scaling by a factor of 10 has got to be expensive to engineer and test.  Yes, one engine could power the entire existing Falcon 9 but is that such a good idea?  One of the big selling points of the Falcon 9 is its engine out capability which would be completely lost with the new monster engine.

Instead of scaling by a factor of 10, why not more along the lines of a factor of 3 to 4?  This would drop you down to three engines on the existing Falcon 9 class vehicle which could potentially still have an egnine out capability for at least part of the flight.  Also, a Falcon 9-Heavy class vehicle with this engine would only require nine engines which SpaceX has shown they can fly.

As a side note, by my count SpaceX has now flown 15 Merlin engines (5 x Falon 1, 9 Falcon 9-stage1, 1 Falcon 9-stage2) without a RUD event.  Just a few more Falcon 9 flights and the Merlin should qualify as a very reliable engine which should lessen some fears about putting too many of them on a single bird.

Last note, regarding the Wikipedia articles, the editors of those articles are always open to expert input and better sources for what weights denote which classes would certainly lead to restructuring the "list of" articles into more appropriate groupings.

You make an interesting point.  The F9 (with the 9 rocket engines) is around 1 Million lbf.  A ~750,000 lbf rocket might work.  The point is that the size/thrust of the rocket would need to lend itself to upscalabilty to HLV.

The F9 and Merlin 1C is about maxed out in the F9 Heavy configuration (27 engine) and 35,000kg.  That is not HLV.  You don't really have growth there, unless you develop the Merlin 2.

SpaceX still launches single Merlin 1Cs, as the Falcon 1 and has several contracts.  They have not abandoned the single rocket configuration by no means.

A single Merlin 2, should give you the capacity of the Falcon 9.  Instead of dealing with issues with a Falcon 9 Heavy and 27 engines, they could go Super Falcon 3 (with 3 Merlin 2 engines).  The proposed Merlin 2 could upscale to HLV payloads, as Super Falcon 6/8/9/12 configurations. 

The Merlin 2 could also meet NASA's HLV requirements and replace the Ares IV/V concept.  As a private/commercial company, if anybody could make the Merlin 2 profitable for LEO lifts and find other (NON-NASA) HLV payload customers, it would be SpaceX.

The 2 types of engines, Merlin 1C and the Merlin 2, would allow SpaceX to lift about any size payload a customer has.  They can very easily build rockets to the customer specs, but rockets with very similar architectures, using boosters with the same engines, and lower costs.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: MP99 on 06/11/2010 12:15 pm
Has SpaceX given any clues about a surface transportation plan for their super-heavy core?  Could they seriously consider doing tank manufacturing, vehicle assembly and testing in Florida, close by their launch complex?

     From what he has said recently, It would be built at a new factory in Florida. Which, if stage recovery ever becomes feasable, is where the plan is to do the stage refurbishing.

I've been wondering why SpaceX didn't locate their tanks/structures manufacturing facility in Florida from the beginning, since they always planned on launching their large vehicles from the Cape.  The engines can be manufactured in California without major supply chain difficulty, but if you're going to build a rocket business from the ground up, why not produce the big stuff in Florida?

How about at Michoud?

Would that become available in a post-Shuttle, post-Ares world? They certainly have transportation for stages up to 8.4m.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/11/2010 01:11 pm
Why is Merlin-2 at all necessary? Can`t SpaceX just use 9 Merlins cluster as a unit? It is already proven, and with engine out capability it could be even safer than a single large engine.
When Elon uses the term "Super-Heavy" (snippet here):
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3
That essentially means something bigger than Merlin1.

Obama's plan calls for a ~100 ton to LEO launcher.  Falcon9 Heavy, with 27 engines, is already stretching things.  Fewer larger engines would be much more efficient for heavier payloads.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/11/2010 01:20 pm
Obama's plan calls for a ~100 ton to LEO launcher. 

Where? FY2011 doesn't call for any specified HLV at all. Actually it emphasizes quite often that the decision on which HLV to develop hinges on the future BEO architecture that needs to be defined first.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 01:25 pm

If we have a clear HLV capability through an up-scalable architecture, people are sure to find/create heavy payloads to put on it.

Wrong.  There is no money for payloads that size, NASA or commercial.  Outside of lunar exploration, there is no money or requirements.

Show me the following non lunar requirements

GSO payloads greater than 15Klb, actually, show a commercial payload greater than 8klb
LEO payload requirements greater than 30klbs
BEO payloads greater than 10Klb
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 02:11 pm

If we have a clear HLV capability through an up-scalable architecture, people are sure to find/create heavy payloads to put on it.

Wrong.  There is no money for payloads that size, NASA or commercial.  Outside of lunar exploration, there is no money or requirements.

Show me the following non lunar requirements

GSO payloads greater than 15Klb, actually, show a commercial payload greater than 8klb
LEO payload requirements greater than 30klbs
BEO payloads greater than 10Klb


Wrong.  The future is not defined by how you want it to be

Irregardless of the "requirement", SpaceX and the private/commercial sector will be able to pay for or offset the expense of HLV. 

Upscalable HLV capability can meet a variation of payload requirements, in the present and into the future..

Requirements are relative when you are talking speculation, risk, market development, etc...  Those who understand markets and business, understand that "with great risk, comes great reward".

Show me the requirement for propellant depots?

Show me the requirement for going BEO?

Show me the requirement for landing on the Moon, Mars, or NEO?

Show me the requirement for human space flight?

Show me the requirement for even having NASA?

HLV is part of a new developing frontier, like the exploration of the New World by ships and sailors.  It requires vision, risk, and hope. Some people, some companies, and some governments will answer the call.

By the way, what was the requirement for large ships for exploring the New World?  Luckily somebody did and now there is even an United States of America. 

Oh, and we seem to be doing quite a lot of business and different kinds of businesses since Christoper Columbus discovered America in 1492.   Who would have guessed it? We have come a long way, baby.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 02:31 pm
1.  Wrong.  The future is not defined by how you want it to be.

2.  Requirements are relative when you are talking speculation, risk, market development, etc...

3.  Show me the requirement for propellant depots?

4.  Show me the requirement for going BEO?

5.  Show me the requirement for landing on the Moon, Mars, or NEO?

6.  Show me the requirement for human space flight?

7.  Show me the requirement for even having NASA?

8.  HLV is part of a new developing frontier, like the exploration of the New World by ships and sailors.

9.  It requires vision, risk, and hope. Some people, some companies, and some governments will answer the call.

10.  By the way, what was the requirement for large ships for exploring the New World?  Luckily somebody did and now there is even an United States of America.


1.  Again you are wrong.  Build it and they will come is not applicable.  There is no business case

2.  There is no killer app for space and hence no market for speculation, risk, market development, etc...

3.  A market for propellant depots will occur before a market for HLV and there is more of a business case for depots

4.  Exactly, since there is no requirement for BEO, there is no requirement for HLV.  But if there is a requirement for BEO, it does not equate to a requirement for HLV

5.  See number #4

6.  Space tourist.  Virgin Atlantic has sold advance tickets. 

7.  There is a law and hence a requirement

8.   Wrong.  HLV is an tool, it is not the frontier

9.  That has nothing to do with an HLV

10.  they weren't big ships, they were small ships.

An HLV is not a requirement for exploration.  Period.  That is a fact.  The new world was not found by the Great Eastern or supertankers.  It was found by Viking boats and small ships.  The US west was not explored by trains and river boats, it was canoes, horses and wagons. 

Cheap access to space is the requirement and that is mutually exclusive with an HLV.

All uses of big methods of transportation are for exploitation and not exploration.

This is so typical of HLV supporters.  Not only they do not understand that the vehicle is too expensive to develop and to operate but there is no money to fund payloads to fly on them.

HLV supports have a big rocket fixation and nothing else matters,  there is no logic to them.

The max capabilities of existing launch vehicles has yet to be used and yet they want a bigger rocket.   They don't understand that there is no money for the bigger payloads.

They don't understand that NASA and US don't have the money to blow on an HLV and if they did, there would none to left over to build the payloads.

Use of existing launch vehicles and building infrastructure is the way to go.   More flights, reduces costs and builds the case for RLV's


Spacex is not part of this discussion, there hasn't been a paradigm shift yet.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: cuddihy on 06/11/2010 02:32 pm

~trollery~


Jim asked for specific examples of existing requirements.

You answered with 9 non-sequitors that did not address the question.

On another note, I would like to make a rather frivolous long-range prediction on a notional SpaceX SHLV, assuming NASA funded development:

-if the larger core multi-body discussed is ever built, it would not be called the "Falcon" anything, but rather the "Eagle;"  Eagle 1, Eagle-3, Eagle 5 etc.

Now I figure I have about 7-8 years before this prediction can be tested if ever.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 02:44 pm
1.  Wrong.  The future is not defined by how you want it to be.

2.  Requirements are relative when you are talking speculation, risk, market development, etc...

3.  Show me the requirement for propellant depots?

4.  Show me the requirement for going BEO?

5.  Show me the requirement for landing on the Moon, Mars, or NEO?

6.  Show me the requirement for human space flight?

7.  Show me the requirement for even having NASA?

8.  HLV is part of a new developing frontier, like the exploration of the New World by ships and sailors.

9.  It requires vision, risk, and hope. Some people, some companies, and some governments will answer the call.

10.  By the way, what was the requirement for large ships for exploring the New World?  Luckily somebody did and now there is even an United States of America.


1.  Again you are wrong.  Build it and they will come is not applicable.  There is no business case

2.  There is no killer app for space and hence no market for speculation, risk, market development, etc...

3.  A market for propellant depots will occur before a market for HLV and there is more of a business case for depots

4.  Exactly, since there is no requirement for BEO, there is no requirement for HLV.  But if there is a requirement for BEO, it does not equate to a requirement for HLV

5.  See number #4

6.  Space tourist.  Virgin Atlantic has sold advance tickets. 

7.  There is a law and hence a requirement

8.   Wrong.  HLV is an tool, it is not the frontier

9.  That has nothing to do with an HLV

10.  they weren't big ships, they were small ships.

An HLV is not a requirement for exploration.  Period.  That is a fact.  The new world was not found by the Great Eastern or supertankers.  It was found by Viking boats and small ships.  The US west was not explored by trains and river boats, it was canoes, horses and wagons. 

Cheap access to space is the requirement and that is mutually exclusive with an HLV.

All uses of big methods of transportation are for exploitation and not exploration.



You didn't actually answer with any requirements in the 1-10.  For example-

Quote
3.  A market for propellant depots will occur before a market for HLV and there is more of a business case for depots

You showed me no requirement.  Just your speculation and want of propellant depots.

With no BEO objectives, there is no need whatsoever for propellant depots.

Up-scalable HLV to meet variating payload demands is doable, logical, and the need relative to the customer.


10.  Columbus ships were big relative to a small boat.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Longhorn John on 06/11/2010 02:51 pm
You'll find Jim has automatic proof seen as he touches launch vehicles on a usual work day. Do you Upjin? No offense, just you're acting like you do.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 03:01 pm
You'll find Jim has automatic proof seen as he touches launch vehicles on a usual work day. Do you Upjin? No offense, just you're acting like you do.

So then giving us the "automatic proof" and requirement for propellant depots should be even easier.

Speaking of which, I must have missed seeing certain people at the head of the "World BEO Requirement and Review Board".  That is where they predict the future and mandate what technology all other governments, companies, and even Internet posters are allowed to advocate.  I didn't receive the memo on propellant depots being the only technology allowed by their special decree.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/11/2010 03:14 pm
You'll find Jim has automatic proof seen as he touches launch vehicles on a usual work day. Do you Upjin? No offense, just you're acting like you do.

So then giving us the "automatic proof" and requirement for propellant depots should be even easier.

Speaking of which, I must have missed seeing certain people at the head of the "World BEO Requirement and Review Board".  That is where they predict the future and mandate what technology all other governments, companies, and even Internet posters are allowed to advocate.  I didn't receive the memo on propellant depots being the only technology allowed by their special decree.

Calm it down. People want to talk about F9 Heavy in this thread, not read a courtroom cross examination on prop depots.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 03:33 pm

Up-scalable HLV to meet variating payload demands is doable, logical, and the need relative to the customer.

Show your proof. Show your credentials to back this up.

There is no customer so your point is meaningless

There is no logic in your arguments.

Propellant depots are not contingent on BEO missions.  They have other uses.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 03:43 pm
Addressing the specific issue brought up about HLV "requirements", it is not a matter of "requirement", but "approach".  "Requirement" is arguably a debate straw man. 

The solution to BEO, is relative to the approach you believe is appropriate and are willing to fund, as there is no requirement for BEO, NEO, Moon, Mars, etc...

Furthermore, future payload requirements can't be accurately predicted.  It is folly to dare say there will never ever not be a requirement for more than 30,000kg.  You can NOT say that once a capability exists for lifting higher payloads, that it will never ever be used.  Using 2010 "eyes" on 2020 or further events, is very unpredictable.

The up-scalable HLV concept, is an approach on how to use the same rocket engine and architecture to do BEO, yet in a sustainable and profitable way, by also doing LEO lifts.

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 04:03 pm

1.Furthermore, future payload requirements can't be accurately predicted.  It is folly to dare say there will never ever not be a requirement for more than 30,000kg.  You can NOT say that once a capability exists for lifting higher payloads, that it will never ever be used.  Using 2010 "eyes" on 2020 or further events, is very unpredictable.

2.  The up-scalable HLV concept, is an approach on how to use the same rocket engine and architecture to do BEO, yet in a sustainable and profitable way, by also doing LEO lifts.


1.   Wrong.  It is very easy to determine within ten years.  The requirements for 2000 were not much different than 2010 and 2020 won't be much different than 2010 except for hundreds of tourist flights.  Yes, I can say that having a capability does not mean it will be used.
As far as large payloads that is true.  The US is not using the max capabilities of existing launch vehicles. 

Until there is a killer app for space,  there isn't going to be large spacecraft for many years.  The US gov't does not have money to fund large payloads.   A payload on an HLV will cost billions. 

2.  You have no proven scalability and profitability .  So the approach is not a given.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Idol Revolver on 06/11/2010 04:08 pm
 :o You must be new here. Nobody talks like that to Jim. He will always win, because he works with rockets everyday. He is a rocket scientist, and you are discussing rocket science. He will shoot you down in flames.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 04:11 pm

The propellant depot concept is an approach on how to use the existing rocket engines, launch vehicles and architectures to do BEO, while  increasing sustainability  and profitability of  LEO lifts seamlessly.

Propellant Depots guarantee the last line, the HLV can not guarantee anything.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/11/2010 04:18 pm
:o You must be new here. Nobody talks like that to Jim. He will always win, because he works with rockets everyday. He is a rocket scientist, and you are discussing rocket science. He will shoot you down in flames.

Although Jim seems to enjoy playing Whack-a-Droll/Troll.. and does so with flair and gusto. ;)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: rumble on 06/11/2010 04:24 pm
Upjin,

Please assume for a moment that Jim is right.  Listen to what he is saying instead of trying to formulate yet another statement for Jim to shoot down.  This potentially interesting thread is getting VERY tedious from this ongoing argument.

I read and comprehended your point in your first post or two.  However, you are not going to win this argument with Jim, and you absolutely aren't going to convince someone with decades of real-life experience that they don't know what they're talking about, so please give it a rest.

When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole you wish to get yourself out of, the first step is to stop digging.

You may have valid points in the future, but with each new post, you make me less likely to spend time reading them.

Although I really DO get a kick out of reading Jim's replies to stuff like this.

--All just my opinion--
Matt

Edit:  slight reword
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 04:26 pm

1.Furthermore, future payload requirements can't be accurately predicted.  It is folly to dare say there will never ever not be a requirement for more than 30,000kg.  You can NOT say that once a capability exists for lifting higher payloads, that it will never ever be used.  Using 2010 "eyes" on 2020 or further events, is very unpredictable.

2.  The up-scalable HLV concept, is an approach on how to use the same rocket engine and architecture to do BEO, yet in a sustainable and profitable way, by also doing LEO lifts.


1.   Wrong.  It is very easy to determine within ten years.  The requirements for 2000 were not much different than 2010 and 2020 won't be much different than 2010 except for hundreds of tourist flights.  Yes, I can say that having a capability does not mean it will be used.
As far as large payloads that is true.  The US is not using the max capabilities of existing launch vehicles. 

Until there is a killer app for space,  there isn't going to be large spacecraft for many years.  The US gov't does not have money to fund large payloads.   A payload on an HLV will cost billions. 

2.  You have no proven scalability and profitability .  So the approach is not a given.

1. Wrong.  In the market, you have forces where cheaper lift per kg creates more business.  Reduction of cost can help spur business growth.  Like Iridium, which went bankrupt years ago and has come back, is negotiating satellite contracts with SpaceX.  Competition for contracts, has other companies reduce their price.

Lift capability and capacity, is another element that attracts innovation and business plans to make use of it.  You attempting to say what all companies on planet Earth will do in the future, is a joke. 


2. Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 is a very easy to see approach in up-scalability and profitability through lower cost lift per kg and using the same rocket engine.  Think about it.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 04:40 pm
Quote from: upjin link=topic=21867.msg604812#msg604812

1. Wrong.  In the market, you have forces where cheaper lift per kg creates more business.  Reduction of cost can help spur business growth.  Like Iridium, which went bankrupt years ago and has come back, is negotiating satellite contracts with SpaceX.  Competition for contracts, has other companies reduce their price.

Lift capability and capacity, is another element that attracts innovation and business plans to make use of it.  You attempting to say what all companies on planet Earth will do in the future, is a joke. 

2. Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 is a very easy to see approach in up-scalability and profitability through lower cost lift per kg and using the same rocket engine.  Think about it.

There are no market forces for heavy lift.  There is no market for heavy lift other than US gov't supported BEO

HLV is only cheaper per pound of  bulk mass but not actual spacecraft.  It is not cheaper use an HLV to launch 4 GSO comsats or one large comsat.

Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 is a bad example of scalability.  It was only to be  Falcon 1 -5.  Falcon 9 has too small (too many) first stage engines and too large of second stage engine.

Also, Falcon 9 has yet to prove that it is a cost effective launch vehicle.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: rumble on 06/11/2010 04:49 pm
Iridium is putting infrastructure in place to facilitate a direct-to-consumer product.  Something regular individuals can afford to provide enough revenue to justify the crazy expense of orbiting something.

The $200,000 price tag for a single seat on a Virgin Galactic flight says that we're nowhere close to the price point for access to space where market forces like you talk about will take effect.  It's prohibitively expensive for most people to afford even for a short suborbital flight.

So what is the application (killer app) that will drive consumer dollars to the HLV market?

Access to space is still crazy expensive.  It won't always be that way, but a SpaceX-built HLV in the next few years won't be the tipping point.

Jim's point that applies here is until the price gets WAAAAY cheaper, the only customer for HLV will be government.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 04:53 pm
This point you can't argue or discredit.  Market forces determine lift capability.  Proof, all the incremental upgrades and block changes to the world's launch vehicle fleets from Atlas, Delta, Titan to Ariane.  They grew to meet market place demand. 

There is no market demand for heavy versions of existing launch vehicles much less an HLV.

Delta IV Heavy, Atlas 541, 551 and HLV and Ariane V (single spacecraft)  have yet to be used.  It is not because they are too expensive, launch vehicles costs are a small portion of the total mission costs.   It is the spacecraft for this vehicles would cost more than the market supports.  There are no 10Klb GSO comsats
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/11/2010 04:54 pm
People want to talk about F9 Heavy in this thread,...

No.

When Elon talks about a possible "Super Heavy" lift vehicle using pad 39, this has nothing to do with F9 Heavy.

That's why I started the separate thread.

Here's the snippet from Elon's interview:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 04:59 pm

Lift capability and capacity, is another element that attracts innovation and business plans to make use of it.  You attempting to say what all companies on planet Earth will do in the future, is a joke. 


Your point is a joke and is totally wrong.  Lift capability and capacity are derived requirements.  Market forces determine spacecraft requirements which then drive launch vehicle requirement.   Hence "Build it and they will come" is not applicable to launch vehicles no matter how much you wish for it.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/11/2010 05:03 pm
There is no market demand for heavy versions of existing launch vehicles much less an HLV.

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 here:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 33:15 into the program).

I guess its accurate to say you disagree with her assessment, otherwise we'll just keep saying the same things over and over.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 05:19 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 here:


The comsats have yet to break the 7 mT barrier
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 05:37 pm

Lift capability and capacity, is another element that attracts innovation and business plans to make use of it.  You attempting to say what all companies on planet Earth will do in the future, is a joke. 


Your point is a joke and is totally wrong.  Lift capability and capacity are derived requirements.  Market forces determine spacecraft requirements which then drive launch vehicle requirement.   Hence "Build it and they will come" is not applicable to launch vehicles no matter how much you wish for it.

You are making me laugh again.

Lets see, so the LEO business and our lift capability and capacity from 1950 is the same as today.  According to you, things never change.

Our use of space, need of space, and our space lifting capability from 1950 will never ever change.

Ah OK...  How do people like their 1950 Black and White Analog TV that they must be watching in 2010?
.....

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kraisee on 06/11/2010 05:56 pm
Many of us have locked horns with Jim at some point in the past.

Those of us who are still around to tell the tale are the ones who have learned there is specific sound reasoning & deep experience behind almost everything he says.

His record of being right is the envy of most people on the board.   I would suggest it is somewhere in the 3-sigma region! :)

You don't have to agree with everything Jim says.   I've got a couple of points I don't agree with him on.   But you need to bring credibility and reasoned arguments or he WILL make you look like an amateur, irrelevant of whether you are or not.

But right now this thread is just turning into a total waste of bandwidth, and is completely off topic.   I personally hope the mods clean it up soon and if you two want to continue your arguing, please take it to private messages so that the rest of us don't have to put up with it any more.

Ta,

Ross.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sdsds on 06/11/2010 06:07 pm
The US is not using the max capabilities of existing launch vehicles. 

Until there is a killer app for space, there isn't going to be large spacecraft for many years.  The US gov't does not have money to fund large payloads.   A payload on an HLV will cost billions. 

The US government payload that would max out a Delta-IV Heavy is a crewed spacecraft designed to take four astronauts on a medium-duration mission to a destination beyond low-Earth orbit.  There was budget for this payload; NASA simply declined to fly it on DIVH.

In a multi-launch architecture it is also important to focus on the maximum capability of a given launch system, rather than the capability of the system's vehicles.  For example, ULA is not capable of launching two DIVH vehicles to the same orbit within the loiter time of existing hydrolox stages.  Yet it is exactly that kind of capability which would enable BLEO exploration.

Absent that dual-launch DIVH capability, a Falcon Super Heavy that could get just 2x DIVH mass to LEO would be "enabling" if not exactly "game changing."  I personally hope SpaceX targets that payload range, rather than reproducing the capability of Saturn V.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 06:08 pm

Lets see, so the LEO business and our lift capability and capacity from 1950 is the same as today.  According to you, things never change.

Our use of space, need of space, and our space lifting capability from 1950 will never ever change.

Ah OK...  How do people like their 1950 Black and White Analog TV that they must be watching in 2010?
.....


I guess you can't read because I never said that.   I said the spacecraft determines the launch vehicle lift requirements and it is incremental.   I look at the changes in the launch vehicles over the years. The performance has been incremental increase to meet spacecraft requirements. In the last 30 years,there hasn't been a new launch vehicle that wasn't designed to existing requirements.  "Build it and they will come" is not viable when there are no requirements.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 06:11 pm

In a multi-launch architecture its also important to focus on the maximum capability of a given launch system, rather than the capability of the system's vehicles.  For example, ULA is not capable of launching two DIVH vehicles to the same orbit within the loiter time of existing hydrolox stages.  Yet it is exactly that kind of capability which would enable BLEO exploration.

Absent that dual-launch DIVH capability,

Atlas could be the other vehicle and hence dual DIVH is not required
But,  also adding more pads are easier than adding another vehicle family
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 06:53 pm
There is no market demand for heavy versions of existing launch vehicles much less an HLV.

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 here:
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 33:15 into the program).

I guess its accurate to say you disagree with her assessment, otherwise we'll just keep saying the same things over and over.

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.

That there will be a Falcon 9 Heavy and it is considered cost effective by SpaceX, irregardless of what certain detractors have to say, presents a clear argument for the Merlin 2.

The Merlin 2 engine becomes an issue of cost reduction in comparison to 27 engines.  Why use 27 engines when you can use 3 or 5 engines to do the same work?

The Merlin 2 engine will allow upscalibility to HLV and this is a service that can be sold to NASA, other commercial entities, and even other governments.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 07:54 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 08:40 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.

Ariane 5 dual launching of satellites shows that it is a viable capability.  No matter the detractors, the viability of the capability is there and will be continually attempted.

The specifics and reasons behind Arianespace and ESA decisions with Ariane 6, have nothing to do with SpaceX, in terms of economics.  That ESA and Arianespace would fail, doesn't necessarily reflect on other companies or the economics involved.

Shotwell and Musk are going to make decisions that are viable for their company and what they believe and know are effective cost reductions.

Dual Satellite launches and the Falcon 9 Heavy are clearly on their agenda, regardless of your opinion, and you presently (or in the future) don't make decisions for SpaceX or all companies through out the world.

Dual Satellite launching, done correctly, can reduce per lift kg cost and utilize higher lift capacity.  This type of economic trend will keep happening, as it did in the other industries like Airline, Shipping, Trucking, etc...
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 08:50 pm

Ariane 5 dual launching of satellites shows that it is a viable capability.  No matter the detractors, the viability of the capability is there and will be continually attempted.

The specifics and reasons behind ESA decisions with Ariane 6, have nothing to do with SpaceX, in terms of economics.  That ESA would fail, doesn't necessarily reflect on other companies or the economics involved.


a.  ESA did not fail
b.  market forces determined that dual manifesting is not economical.
c.  Spacex will be shown to be wrong
d.  spacecraft requirements are partially responsible for the demise of dual manifesting.  More and more spacecraft are becoming incapable with others.


Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 08:54 pm
Dual Satellite launching, done correctly, can reduce per lift kg cost and utilize higher lift capacity.  This type of economic trend will keep happening, as it did in the other industries like Airline, Shipping, Trucking, etc...

Shows basic lack of understanding of spacecraft.  They are not bulk cargo.  They are specialty cargo.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/11/2010 09:03 pm
regardless of your opinion,

You have yet to support any of your opinions, with data, experience or knowledge.   Typical of nuspace pumpers.  Old space bad, nuspace good and there is no other way.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/11/2010 09:07 pm

Ariane 5 dual launching of satellites shows that it is a viable capability.  No matter the detractors, the viability of the capability is there and will be continually attempted.

The specifics and reasons behind ESA decisions with Ariane 6, have nothing to do with SpaceX, in terms of economics.  That ESA would fail, doesn't necessarily reflect on other companies or the economics involved.


a.  ESA did not fail
b.  market forces determined that dual manifesting is not economical.
c.  Spacex will be shown to be wrong
d.  spacecraft requirements are partially responsible for the demise of dual manifesting.  More and more spacecraft are becoming incapable with others.




Quote
c.  SpaceX will be shown to be wrong

Your opinion is not fact or a definite outcome of the future.  Obviously we will see if SpaceX or you are right in the future.  I'm betting on SpaceX though.

As SpaceX and other rocket companies force competition on price, dual manifesting will be a viable option in order to compete.

Ariane 5 is not dead either, they still have the rocket.  They can be doing, what SpaceX has with Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, and this is have a wide range of lift capacity for different size payloads.  There is nothing wrong with having a small, medium, and large truck for the various needs of your market.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: agman25 on 06/11/2010 09:09 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?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars_J on 06/11/2010 09:11 pm
Hermes. But then Hermes got too heavy/expensive and was cancelled. (Shades of Ares-I/Orion)?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin 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.

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim 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
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin 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.

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Spacenuts 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?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: A_M_Swallow 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Tnarg 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
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: jimvela 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...
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mlorrey 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: telomerase99 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: MikeAtkinson 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: M_Puckett 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.”

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton 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.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Tnarg 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
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Idol Revolver on 06/12/2010 07:23 pm
*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
There are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/12/2010 07:32 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.
Why don't we just talk exactly about what we mean, then, instead of using subjective and qualitative terms? For instance, we can talk about payload to LEO (or TLI or escape). Is it really the case that what determines a "big enough" launch vehicle is going to occur exactly on the 100mt line? Why no 70 tons or 130 tons to LEO?

(Of course, why not 30 or 40 tons to LEO...)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: sdsds on 06/12/2010 07:35 pm
The Delta II family included heavy variants, as does the Delta IV family and (prospectively) the Falcon 9 family.  Just because they are the heavies in their families doesn't make them heavies in the global context.  Said differently, just because they are "heavy launch vehicles" doesn't make them "heavy lift vehicles."

It's always relative, and it should always be the case that "heavy" refers to one of the vehicles with the greatest payload to orbit.  Saturn V was heavy lift.  In that context, a vehicle that doesn't provide anywhere close to that capability isn't heavy lift.

The imagined Falcon Super Heavy would be the super-heavy vehicle within the Falcon family.  It's yet to be seen whether it will even be a heavy vehicle within the global context.

The progression of vehicles MikeAtkinson imagines is a good one, based on a 2000kN engine with potential to be enhanced to 3000kN.  I hope SpaceX reviews the "five engines needed for engine out capability" requirement, though.  There's no good way to tightly pack five circular engine nozzles under a circular core tank.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/12/2010 07:36 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.
Why don't we just talk exactly about what we mean, then, instead of using subjective and qualitative terms? For instance, we can talk about payload to LEO (or TLI or escape). Is it really the case that what determines a "big enough" launch vehicle is going to occur exactly on the 100mt line? Why no 70 tons or 130 tons to LEO?

(Of course, why not 30 or 40 tons to LEO...)

The question then becomes, what does SpaceX mean with a "Falcon Super Heavy" if not Falcon 9H?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/12/2010 09:10 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.
Why don't we just talk exactly about what we mean?
FWIW, the definintions in my head are:

Light: to 10t IMLEO
Medium: 10t to 25t IMLEO/10t TOI
Medium-Heavy: 25t to 50t IMELO/up to 20t TOI
Heavy: 50t to 100t IMLEO/up to 45t TOI
Super-heavy: 100t to 150t IMLEO/50t+ TOI
Ultra-heavy: up to 200t IMLEO
We Don't Need No Steenkeen Budget: up to 1kt IMLEO

I suspect that, if propellent transfer is proven as a technology, any IMLEO above about 100t will become obsolete as it would be simpler to launch the vehicle dry and fill its propellent tanks from pre-emplaced resources.  Unless I've got my sums very wrong, an Orion, LSAM and dry EDS should be in the 80t to 100t range.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton on 06/12/2010 09:13 pm
Why don't we just talk exactly about what we mean, then, instead of using subjective and qualitative terms? For instance, we can talk about payload to LEO (or TLI or escape). Is it really the case that what determines a "big enough" launch vehicle is going to occur exactly on the 100mt line? Why no 70 tons or 130 tons to LEO?

(Of course, why not 30 or 40 tons to LEO...)

I thought that's what I did. I quoted the Von Braun Team as defining a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle as being capable of sending at least 100mT to orbit. So the next question becomes: what did they mean by "orbit"?

The only launch vehicle that anyone on the planet has ever flown that everyone agrees was a heavy lift launch vehicle was the Saturn-V. Well the Saturn-V would put 119mT into a 190km circular orbit at 28 degrees inclination. So I would suppose that using Dr. Von Braun's definition (the only one imo that has demonstrated credibility), that Heavy Lift would put in excess of 100mT into a 190km circular orbit at 28 degrees inclination. As far as I can tell that would be the only universally agreed launch vehicle to be classified as "heavy lift".

Does it matter? Only to the extent that we need to be talking to each other using the same terms. That, and some reasoned thinking. For example, I firmly believe that it's pushing the boundaries of credibility to be talking about a launch vehicle that can only put ~30mT into orbit as heavy lift. That just does not pass the smell test. Personally, I would not have difficulty with a vehicle capable of ~70mT to LEO being classed as heavy lift, but that's just an opinion.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/12/2010 09:27 pm
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 says they are talking with NASA about some type of public/private partnership.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3

That would be very different than a traditional contractor arrangement.  SpaceX would presumably pay for some part of the vehicle development, and then use that vehicle for both NASA and commercial customers.

Given that there are no commercial customers for 100 mT, I'm assuming SpaceX has some type of modular vehicle in mind, something that can scale from high-end commercial (~18 tons GTO with 2 payloads) to true heavy lift (~100 tons LEO).  Otherwise, why would SpaceX be interested in a public/private partnership?   

If there were no commercial angle, SpaceX would be much better off using a traditional contractor role.  But since SpaceX is talking with NASA about a partnership, and not a contractor arrangement, I'm assuming there's some type of commercial angle.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ugordan on 06/12/2010 09:31 pm
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 says they are talking with NASA about some type of public/private partnership.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/SpaceX_SHLV.mp3

It is what Jim says it is. All the players are "in discussions with NASA" as all the players likely provided their inputs to that RFI. Nothing more to it, nothing less. You are reading too much into Musk's statement.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/12/2010 09:41 pm

Does it matter?
In order to avoid the debate of what "heavy" means, I suggest we use ballpark mT to LEO to clarify things.

Since Elon mentioned "super heavy" in the same context as Pad 39, it's obvious this is something much bigger than 30mT.  He's most likely talking about something around 100 mT to LEO here.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: butters on 06/12/2010 10:31 pm
The significance of the super-heavy RFI is that SpaceX is beginning to emerge as a major American manufacturer of liquid rocket engines, joining a small club with Rocketdyne and Aerojet.  If the U.S. government is shopping for a kerolox booster engine, it no longer makes sense to ignore SpaceX.

As for the "heaviness" classifications of launch vehicles, I think it's important to speak in terms of mission capabilities rather than raw mass.

The significance of a launch vehicle in the 70-120mT IMLEO range is the capability of a Constellation-class lunar mission in two launches or, at the high end of the range, a smaller Apollo-class lunar mission in one launch.

This class of launch vehicles is for lifting propellant in a minimum number of launches.  We're not considering any dry payloads approaching 70mT.  We're not going to launch such rockets without a high fraction of propellant on top.

My intention is not to derail this thread with another debate over the merits of this architecture.  My intention is to distinguish between launch vehicles that are appropriate for the largest dry payloads of the near future and another breed of launch vehicle that is exclusively useful for very wet HSF payloads.

The only payload that muddies this distinction is the Shuttle orbiter, which is on its way out, partly due to its size.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Downix on 06/13/2010 12:10 am
*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
There are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.
You just demonstrated that you know nothing about computers.  The IEEE consortium definition you refer to here has a clear exception for base-2 elements, such as computers. 

To a base-2 system, a Megabyte is 1024 kilobytes, which itself is 1024 bytes.  Any other definition breaks the computer model.  Computers don't think in base-ten, they think in base-2, on/off, that's it.  To have them count as we do, you will only add inefficiencies into the design, hurting your performance.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mikegi on 06/13/2010 03:06 am
*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
There are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.
You just demonstrated that you know nothing about computers.  The IEEE consortium definition you refer to here has a clear exception for base-2 elements, such as computers. 

To a base-2 system, a Megabyte is 1048 kilobytes, which itself is 1048 bytes.  Any other definition breaks the computer model.  Computers don't think in base-ten, they think in base-2, on/off, that's it.  To have them count as we do, you will only add inefficiencies into the design, hurting your performance.
No, there's a new "standard" that tries to define a megabyte in SI units, 1000*1000 bytes. It renames 1024*1024 to "mebibyte".

However, I'm an old dog and will go to my grave calling 1024*1024 a megabyte.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Downix on 06/13/2010 03:39 am
*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
There are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.
You just demonstrated that you know nothing about computers.  The IEEE consortium definition you refer to here has a clear exception for base-2 elements, such as computers. 

To a base-2 system, a Megabyte is 1048 kilobytes, which itself is 1048 bytes.  Any other definition breaks the computer model.  Computers don't think in base-ten, they think in base-2, on/off, that's it.  To have them count as we do, you will only add inefficiencies into the design, hurting your performance.
No, there's a new "standard" that tries to define a megabyte in SI units, 1000*1000 bytes. It renames 1024*1024 to "mebibyte".

However, I'm an old dog and will go to my grave calling 1024*1024 a megabyte.

They can try calling it whatever it is, a computer won't care, it must function in base 2.  It will not understand, nor care, for 1000x1000 as megabytes, it does not compute, nor function, within the silicon world of ones or zeros.

1024x1024 is all they understand.  All they can understand.  We cannot "standardize" around this, any more than we can standardize anti-gravity or the laws of inertia.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mikegi on 06/13/2010 05:12 am
They can try calling it whatever it is, a computer won't care, it must function in base 2.  It will not understand, nor care, for 1000x1000 as megabytes, it does not compute, nor function, within the silicon world of ones or zeros.

1024x1024 is all they understand.  All they can understand.  We cannot "standardize" around this, any more than we can standardize anti-gravity or the laws of inertia.
You do realize that giving a name to a quantity of bytes is independent of any hardware implementation, correct? NIST decided to standardize on referring to 1,000,000 bytes as a "megabyte" and referring to 1,048,576 bytes as a "mebibyte". See:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

I'd have thought all this was an April Fools joke but apparently it's real.

Of course, this doesn't mean that computers are supposed to switch BCD addressing in hardware or anything else.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kraisee on 06/13/2010 06:01 am
Sounds to me as though someone like Elon needs to come up with a new word for the world to use.

Byte, Kilobyte, Megabyte etc have been used consistently in computing for a lot longer than the public realizes. Those terms should remain consistent with binary 2^x counting methods -- which is what they were created for in the first place.

But for public consumption, for those that find it too difficult to handle the 24 extra bytes in a kilobyte, why not invent a brand new term specifically to differentiate the decimal counting version?   A cool sounding ultra-modern name in the style of "Google" and "Renkoo" would be a perfect fit for such a techie requirement aimed at consumers and non-binary folk.

My suggestion would be to call it a "Holz" (Kiloholz, Megaholz etc), after Dr. Werner Buchholz -- the guy who originally termed the phrase "Byte".

I wish "they" would stop messing with well understood conventions like this.

Ross.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars_J on 06/13/2010 07:09 am
Sounds to me as though someone like Elon needs to come up with a new word for the world to use.

Byte, Kilobyte, Megabyte etc have been used consistently in computing for a lot longer than the public realizes. Those terms should remain consistent with binary 2^x counting methods -- which is what they were created for in the first place.

But for public consumption, for those that find it too difficult to handle the 24 extra bytes in a kilobyte, why not invent a brand new term specifically to differentiate the decimal counting version?   A cool sounding ultra-modern name in the style of "Google" and "Renkoo" would be a perfect fit for such a techie requirement aimed at consumers and non-binary folk.

Call me stupid , but such term already exist: thousand, million, billion, etc...  ;D  ;D  ;D

1000000 bytes is just a million bytes. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/13/2010 07:22 am
Back to Falcon Super Heavy.

How about this road for SpaceX?
 - Develop a 1.5MN kerolox engine (3 times as powerful as the current Merlin 1C). Should be doable, let's call them Merlin 2.
 - Phase out Falcon 9 by flying a new "Falcon 5", basically Falcon 9 but with 5 of the new Merlin 2 engines. That should put the rocket firmly in the 15-20mt to LEO range
 - then go for a "Falcon 5 Heavy", basically their plan to use two first stages as liquid strap-ons. They would only have 15 first stage engines to worry about (still a lot, but less than the 27 they plan for F9H right now) and would probably be in the 40-50mt+ range with that vehicle, satisfying NASA's need for an HLV.

First step would be the development of the 1.5MN kerolox engine, an engine only slightly above 1/3rd of the thrust of an RD-180 and "only" about 3 times as powerful as Merlin 1C. Would be a perfect candidate for a NASA sponsored first stage kerolox engine suitable for the use in a future HLV.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/13/2010 08:12 am
Back to Falcon Super Heavy.

How about this road for SpaceX?
 - Develop a 1.5MN kerolox engine (3 times as powerful as the current Merlin 1C). Should be doable, let's call them Merlin 2.
 - Phase out Falcon 9 by flying a new "Falcon 5", basically Falcon 9 but with 5 of the new Merlin 2 engines. That should put the rocket firmly in the 15-20mt to LEO range
 - then go for a "Falcon 5 Heavy", basically their plan to use two first stages as liquid strap-ons. They would only have 15 first stage engines to worry about (still a lot, but less than the 27 they plan for F9H right now) and would probably be in the 40-50mt+ range with that vehicle, satisfying NASA's need for an HLV.

First step would be the development of the 1.5MN kerolox engine, an engine only slightly above 1/3rd of the thrust of an RD-180 and "only" about 3 times as powerful as Merlin 1C. Would be a perfect candidate for a NASA sponsored first stage kerolox engine suitable for the use in a future HLV.

A 1.5Mlbf engine might arguably be too big.  The 9 Merlin 1Cs in the Falcon 9 put out roughly 1Mlbf.  Too big of a rocket engine looks like it would not be economically viable or profitable.  Would they have enough customers for such big lifts to sustain it?

That is the problem with "pure HLV".  You can only do huge lifts and can't down-scale your rocket to do smaller payload lifts.  It then burns a huge hole in the pockets, and especially if it is tax payers paying for each lift like Ares V.  And Ares V, if it had ever saw the light of day, would have done some serious cash draining to tax payers.  This is why the private/commercial sector partnership is so much more attractive. 

However, if SpaceX were committed to the Falcon 9 Heavy and keeping the Falcon 9 with the present Merlin 1C, it might be viable.  They might conclude that they can get enough customers and money to sustain them both.  That is also the great thing about private companies, they look at profitability and sustainability, versus pork and politics (aka Ares I). 

SpaceX might want to have clear categories of payload weights from the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Heavy, and HLV.  2 huge 1.5Mlbf engines would equal a Falcon 9 Heavy.  Obviously, dual launching very heavy satellites would have to be one of its main bread and butter payloads for a Falcon 9 Heavy.

A 750,000 lbf to 1Mlbf engine, can be a replacement rocket engine for the Falcon 9, then by adding more rocket engines keep "upscaling" to Falcon 9 Heavy and HLV.  A lower thrust output rocket engine would also be easier for them to create.  1.5Mlbf is a monster of a rocket engine, that is sure to come with all kinds of related issues.  That might be aiming too high.

The advantage of the smaller Merlin 2, is it can do smaller payloads, so it is easier to find customers for it, but it can still be upscaled for HLV.  3 Merlin 2 engines will give you the Falcon 9 Heavy. 

If SpaceX is committed to the Falcon 9 Heavy, it might just be easier and more economical for them to do 1Mlbf vs 1.5Mlbf, but that is up for them to decide what is sustainable and profitable in the market. 

The RD-180 is a worthy contender in all this, but is Russian made.  Anyway, a general HLV solicitation of the major players, would allow NASA to pick the best options.  Or go with the top 2 options.

Interestingly, NASA might work this out as a kind of more direct private/public deal.  That is they just make some kind of direct partnership with SpaceX and ULA for upscalable HLV.  However we get, would be fine.  We could have a BEO rocket and would not necessarily have to rely on NASA and Congress mucking about to get to the Moon or Mars.  The private sector may figure out a way to get us there too, once they have the means.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/13/2010 08:18 am
A 1.5Mlbf engine might arguably be too big.  The 9 Merlin 1Cs in the Falcon 9 put out roughly 1Mlbf.  Too big of a rocket engine looks like it would not be economically viable or profitable.  Would they have enough customers for such big lifts to sustain it?

Merlin 1C is at 600kN in vacuum already. I didn't say 1.5Mlbf, I said 1.5MN (=1500kN).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/13/2010 08:46 am
A 1.5Mlbf engine might arguably be too big.  The 9 Merlin 1Cs in the Falcon 9 put out roughly 1Mlbf.  Too big of a rocket engine looks like it would not be economically viable or profitable.  Would they have enough customers for such big lifts to sustain it?

Merlin 1C is at 600kN in vacuum already. I didn't say 1.5Mlbf, I said 1.5MN (=1500kN).

Oppsss. My apologizes.  Will put on my reading glasses next time.  :)

1.5MN is on the light side though.  It would seem to compete with the Merlin 1C as a direct replacement and still require a lot of engines to get to HLV.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/13/2010 08:56 am
A 1.5Mlbf engine might arguably be too big.  The 9 Merlin 1Cs in the Falcon 9 put out roughly 1Mlbf.  Too big of a rocket engine looks like it would not be economically viable or profitable.  Would they have enough customers for such big lifts to sustain it?

Merlin 1C is at 600kN in vacuum already. I didn't say 1.5Mlbf, I said 1.5MN (=1500kN).

Oppsss. My apologizes.  Will put on my reading glasses next time.  :)

1.5MN is on the light side though.  It would seem to compete with the Merlin 1C as a direct replacement and still require a lot of engines to get to HLV.

Saturn V has a first stage thrust of 34MN. But the F-1 had a lower specific impulse compare to the Merlin engines SpaceX designed and builds.

A "Falcon 5 Heavy" utilising a core Falcon 5 stage with 5 Merlin 2s totalling 7.5MN with liquid boosters (2 Falcon 5 first stages) with another 15MN would constitute about the heavy launch vehicle that the Augustine Committee was thinking about when it talked about a "commercial 70mt+ kerolox HLV".
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Tnarg on 06/13/2010 10:46 am
I'm not a rocket scient so forgive the basic questions but as I understand it:
basicly a rocket is a balcance between the amount of fuel and the power of the engens the reson why spaceX can just make a longer rocket with more fuel is it would make the rocket to heavy for the engens and the larnch would take longer and you use up more fuel fighting gravity.  It might give them a small gain in mass to LEO but you get diminishing returns.  If the merlin 2 lets them put more powerfull engens under a falcon 9 body they can have a quicker larnch and so are not fight gravity as long as so can lift more the down side would be the G force would be too high.

So as I see it what they gain from merlin 2. Is the ablity to make taller rockers without so much diminishing returns and being able to make the same sort of rockets using less engens.  (both of wich could be good things)

Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Idol Revolver on 06/13/2010 11:46 am
I'm not a rocket scient so forgive the basic questions but as I understand it:
basicly a rocket is a balcance between the amount of fuel and the power of the engens the reson why spaceX can just make a longer rocket with more fuel is it would make the rocket to heavy for the engens and the larnch would take longer and you use up more fuel fighting gravity.  It might give them a small gain in mass to LEO but you get diminishing returns.  If the merlin 2 lets them put more powerfull engens under a falcon 9 body they can have a quicker larnch and so are not fight gravity as long as so can lift more the down side would be the G force would be too high.

So as I see it what they gain from merlin 2. Is the ablity to make taller rockers without so much diminishing returns and being able to make the same sort of rockets using less engens.  (both of wich could be good things)

Or am I missing something?


For a certain size of rocket, you need a certain amount of thrust. There are two ways to increase the thrust:
a) Use more engines. This is cheaper (no need to develop new engines), but becomes dangerous as you approach 30 engines or so, as the chance increases that one engine may fail catastrophically, destroying the entire rocket.
b) Use bigger engines. This is more expensive (development costs), but safer, as less engines are used than in a), reducing the chance of catastrophic failure.
So yes. You have got it.

Sounds to me as though someone like Elon needs to come up with a new word for the world to use.

Byte, Kilobyte, Megabyte etc have been used consistently in computing for a lot longer than the public realizes. Those terms should remain consistent with binary 2^x counting methods -- which is what they were created for in the first place.

But for public consumption, for those that find it too difficult to handle the 24 extra bytes in a kilobyte, why not invent a brand new term specifically to differentiate the decimal counting version?   A cool sounding ultra-modern name in the style of "Google" and "Renkoo" would be a perfect fit for such a techie requirement aimed at consumers and non-binary folk.

My suggestion would be to call it a "Holz" (Kiloholz, Megaholz etc), after Dr. Werner Buchholz -- the guy who originally termed the phrase "Byte".

I wish "they" would stop messing with well understood conventions like this.

Ross.

Why redefine everything else with the prefix kilo, mega, etc, instead of fixing the one that does not fix the pattern? (kilo, mega etc have been used to mean powers of ten for far longer than computers have been around).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Downix on 06/13/2010 02:13 pm
Sounds to me as though someone like Elon needs to come up with a new word for the world to use.

Byte, Kilobyte, Megabyte etc have been used consistently in computing for a lot longer than the public realizes. Those terms should remain consistent with binary 2^x counting methods -- which is what they were created for in the first place.

But for public consumption, for those that find it too difficult to handle the 24 extra bytes in a kilobyte, why not invent a brand new term specifically to differentiate the decimal counting version?   A cool sounding ultra-modern name in the style of "Google" and "Renkoo" would be a perfect fit for such a techie requirement aimed at consumers and non-binary folk.

My suggestion would be to call it a "Holz" (Kiloholz, Megaholz etc), after Dr. Werner Buchholz -- the guy who originally termed the phrase "Byte".

I wish "they" would stop messing with well understood conventions like this.

Ross.

Why redefine everything else with the prefix kilo, mega, etc, instead of fixing the one that does not fix the pattern? (kilo, mega etc have been used to mean powers of ten for far longer than computers have been around).
Because a simple math error between the person who is using one version of numbers and another can mean billions of dollars lost, lives lost, etc.

50 years of computers cannot be changed.  A simple math input error can have a plane engine shut off mid-flight, a spacecraft entering the atmosphere at the wrong angle, a pacemaker turning off.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Idol Revolver on 06/13/2010 02:47 pm
On the other hand, if someone says "1 mebibyte" then there is no confusion, they must mean 2^20 bytes. However, if someone says "1 megabyte", they could mean 10^6 bytes or 2^20 bytes. If the term mebibyte becomes used everywhere (to mean 2^20 bytes), then the term  megabyte becomes less confusing, since the chances are it means 10^6 bytes, as if 2^20 where meant, they would have said mebibyte.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Downix on 06/13/2010 03:01 pm
On the other hand, if someone says "1 mebibyte" then there is no confusion, they must mean 2^20 bytes. However, if someone says "1 megabyte", they could mean 10^6 bytes or 2^20 bytes. If the term mebibyte becomes used everywhere (to mean 2^20 bytes), then the term  megabyte becomes less confusing, since the chances are it means 10^6 bytes, as if 2^20 where meant, they would have said mebibyte.
And for those 50 years of computer code which had no idea what a mebibyte is?

Note, I work for one of the largest computer manufacturers in the world, and this is the first time I've ever heard of the term.  It sounds like total garbage to me. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Idol Revolver on 06/13/2010 03:10 pm
And for those 50 years of computer code which had no idea what a mebibyte is?
The numbers actually entered into computers are in hexadecimal, and I doubt anyone uses the term "megabyte" in code. The numbers would be typed out in full.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton on 06/13/2010 03:17 pm
Getting pretty far off topic guys.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/13/2010 03:25 pm
One would have to wonder whether it would be a better idea to strech the core or utilize cross feeding on the Boosters/core than start again with a more powerful booster, and cross feeding would technically count as a "game changing technology" with the new plan.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Downix on 06/13/2010 03:28 pm
One would have to wonder whether it would be a better idea to strech the core or utilize cross feeding on the Boosters/core than start again with a more powerful booster, and cross feeding would technically count as a "game changing technology" with the new plan.
In my calcs on the all-liquid SD-HLV, I found that cross-feeding can give a big boost.  I know the Delta IV is aiming for that, is SpaceX with the Falcon?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/13/2010 03:30 pm


Cheap access to space is the requirement and that is mutually exclusive with an HLV.

Jim what is the point in lowering LV costs when the spacecraft cost is so much more?  Isn't it time to focus on making the payloads cheaper?
One would have to wonder whether it would be a better idea to strech the core or utilize cross feeding on the Boosters/core than start again with a more powerful booster, and cross feeding would technically count as a "game changing technology" with the new plan.
In my calcs on the all-liquid SD-HLV, I found that cross-feeding can give a big boost.  I know the Delta IV is aiming for that, is SpaceX with the Falcon?

Have not heard anything from SpaceX on Cross-feed, but it would be a logical step, especially if it relaxes requirements for a heavier engine/booster.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/13/2010 03:31 pm
One would have to wonder whether it would be a better idea to strech the core or utilize cross feeding on the Boosters/core than start again with a more powerful booster, and cross feeding would technically count as a "game changing technology" with the new plan.

Agreed.

On this theme, has anyone thought of how much bigger Raptor would be relative to the 'vanilla' F9US? LH2 is much lower density than RP1, after all, so I would assume that the main propellent tanks would need to be longer, even if it were 5m diameter (the same as the large PLF option).

That aside, I still think that the most logical F-9S would be a five-core version, using the same basic technology as the F-9H.  It would also be less costly than cross-tanking as that would require pressurised mating points for propellent feed (cryogenic for the LOX feeds) as well as other modifications to the core.

If we accept that SpaceX's overall philosophy is KISS, then I suspect a larger number of cores would probably be mroe likely than the re-engineering of the F-9 core.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 06/13/2010 08:11 pm
Back to Falcon Super Heavy.

How about this road for SpaceX?
 - Develop a 1.5MN kerolox engine (3 times as powerful as the current Merlin 1C). Should be doable, let's call them Merlin 2.
 - Phase out Falcon 9 by flying a new "Falcon 5", basically Falcon 9 but with 5 of the new Merlin 2 engines. That should put the rocket firmly in the 15-20mt to LEO range

Such a rocket would be almost twice as tall as the F9. Would it be too tall, and hence require going to a bigger diameter?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: neilh on 06/13/2010 08:56 pm
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit

Agreed.

On this theme, has anyone thought of how much bigger Raptor would be relative to the 'vanilla' F9US? LH2 is much lower density than RP1, after all, so I would assume that the main propellent tanks would need to be longer, even if it were 5m diameter (the same as the large PLF option).

That aside, I still think that the most logical F-9S would be a five-core version, using the same basic technology as the F-9H.  It would also be less costly than cross-tanking as that would require pressurised mating points for propellent feed (cryogenic for the LOX feeds) as well as other modifications to the core.

If we accept that SpaceX's overall philosophy is KISS, then I suspect a larger number of cores would probably be mroe likely than the re-engineering of the F-9 core.

What's the length of a current F9US? Would one expect the dimensions to be very different from the Centaur US used on the Atlas V (3m diameter, 12.68m long)?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/14/2010 03:26 am
A "Falcon 5 Heavy" utilising a core Falcon 5 stage with 5 Merlin 2s totalling 7.5MN with liquid boosters (2 Falcon 5 first stages) with another 15MN would constitute about the heavy launch vehicle that the Augustine Committee was thinking about when it talked about a "commercial 70mt+ kerolox HLV".

I agree that a Merlin2 based rocket would be more effective, but it probably wouldn't be called "Falcon", as that name seems to be tied to Merlin1 (i.e. Falcon-1 has 1 Merlin1 engine, Falcon-9 has 9 Merlin1 engines).

I'm sure SpaceX can come up with a good name for their Merlin2 series.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: joboggi on 06/16/2010 08:03 am
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1

The BFR is supposed to lift 100 MT to leo.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/16/2010 08:10 am
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1

The BFR is supposed to lift 100 MT to leo.

That article was from 5 years ago. Just to put the relevance of the article for today into perspective, here is a quote from it "Musk said he that while he would like to slow down the rate of growth the company has experienced since its inception over three years ago, he envisions that SpaceX could grow as large as 400-500 people, but no larger." SpaceX is going to exceed 1000 employees this year.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton on 06/16/2010 12:24 pm


Cheap access to space is the requirement and that is mutually exclusive with an HLV.

Jim what is the point in lowering LV costs when the spacecraft cost is so much more?  Isn't it time to focus on making the payloads cheaper?

Precisely. THE most expensive part of any launch or mission is the spacecraft *not* the launch vehicle. And the paradox is that it is the complexity of the spacecraft that drives the spacecraft cost up. However, that complexity is usually driven by the need to lower the mass or the stowed diameter of the spacecraft to match the capability of the launch vehicle and/or its payload shroud. More often than not if the spacecraft is built in the most cost effective manner it will either mass more than the launch vehicle lift capacity or be larger than the launch vehicle's PLF. Solution? Forget about keeping the spacecraft costs down using simplicity and go for exotic materials that weigh less and/or build in complex folding/unfolding mechanisms to accommodate the limited shroud diameter of the launch vehicle.

Now not all payloads are like that. Some are simple enough that they can be reasonably designed from the start to economically fit the existing medium lift LV capabilities. But a significant number of them, if the design and construction of the spacecraft were to be driven by the cost of the spacecraft and not the capability of the launch vehicle, would be unable to be launched by any LV we currently have.

Many people have decried the fact that there are no payloads for the HLV. That's hogwash. There are LOTS of them. The availability of the HLV will free the spacecraft designers from the extreme mass and fairing restrictions they have been laboring under for so many years. The availability of a HLV would allow for much less complex spacecrafts to be built from less expensive materials at much less cost.

Focusing on launch cost as the mantra to less expensive access to space is a strawman. It is not the cost of flying the launch vehicle that makes access to space so expensive. It's the lack of sufficient lift or shroud capacity *choices* to match what the spacecraft designers would like to do with their spacecraft that drives that cost up by making the spacecraft themselves excessively expensive. They do not have sufficient ability to design and build what they would like to - economically.

The cost of access to space must be looked at from a *system* perspective, and not be so closely focused on this, that or the other system component. We need BOTH medium and heavy lift so that the spacecraft designers can make economic choices in their designs rather than shoehorning a spacecraft requirement into a LV capability that is not optimal.

Sometimes a medium lift, 4-5m diameter shroud is fine. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes either more lift or a larger shroud is needed if the spacecraft is going to be economical to design and build. The point is that the mission planners and the spacecraft designers need to have a larger range of choices to select from so that they can focus on the economics of the design or the mission, rather than being so narrowly focused on the LV capacity alone.

THAT is what will bring down the cost of access to space, and bring down the overall cost of missions; human or robotic; the ability to pick and choose from among launch vehicles of varying capabilities without the necessity to compromise the design of the spacecraft to fit the LV.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2010 12:33 pm

Many people have decried the fact that there are no payloads for the HLV. That's hogwash. There are LOTS of them. The availability of the HLV will free the spacecraft designers from the extreme mass and fairing restrictions they have been laboring under for so many years. The availability of a HLV would allow for much less complex spacecrafts to be built from less expensive materials at much less cost.

Focusing on launch cost as the mantra to less expensive access to space is a strawman. It is not the cost of flying the launch vehicle that makes access to space so expensive. It's the lack of sufficient lift or shroud capacity *choices* to match what the spacecraft designers would like to do with their spacecraft that drives that cost up by making the spacecraft themselves excessively expensive. They do not have sufficient ability to design and build what they would like to - economically.

The cost of access to space must be looked at from a *system* perspective, and not be so closely focused on this, that or the other system component. We need BOTH medium and heavy lift so that the spacecraft designers can make economic choices in their designs rather than shoehorning a spacecraft requirement into a LV capability that is not optimal.


There are no payloads, because the cost is too high.
More hogwash is that bigger launch vehicles mean cheaper spacecraft.   They aren't laboring for so many years. That paradigm has never existed.
Large fairings have been available for years and spacecraft designers still choose smaller ones.  Where are all the Atlas 501, 511, 521 missions?

The larger launch vehicles Delta IV heavy and Atlas 541/551 are not utilized except for certain DOD large spacecraft and NASA high C3 spacecraft.



Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/16/2010 12:35 pm


Cheap access to space is the requirement and that is mutually exclusive with an HLV.

Jim what is the point in lowering LV costs when the spacecraft cost is so much more?  Isn't it time to focus on making the payloads cheaper?

Precisely. THE most expensive part of any launch or mission is the spacecraft *not* the launch vehicle. And the paradox is that it is the complexity of the spacecraft that drives the spacecraft cost up. However, that complexity is usually driven by the need to lower the mass or the stowed diameter of the spacecraft to match the capability of the launch vehicle and/or its payload shroud. More often than not if the spacecraft is built in the most cost effective manner it will either mass more than the launch vehicle lift capacity or be larger than the launch vehicle's PLF. Solution? Forget about keeping the spacecraft costs down using simplicity and go for exotic materials that weigh less and/or build in complex folding/unfolding mechanisms to accommodate the limited shroud diameter of the launch vehicle.

Now not all payloads are like that. Some are simple enough that they can be reasonably designed from the start to economically fit the existing medium lift LV capabilities. But a significant number of them, if the design and construction of the spacecraft were to be driven by the cost of the spacecraft and not the capability of the launch vehicle, would be unable to be launched by any LV we currently have.

Many people have decried the fact that there are no payloads for the HLV. That's hogwash. There are LOTS of them. The availability of the HLV will free the spacecraft designers from the extreme mass and fairing restrictions they have been laboring under for so many years. The availability of a HLV would allow for much less complex spacecrafts to be built from less expensive materials at much less cost.

Focusing on launch cost as the mantra to less expensive access to space is a strawman. It is not the cost of flying the launch vehicle that makes access to space so expensive. It's the lack of sufficient lift or shroud capacity *choices* to match what the spacecraft designers would like to do with their spacecraft that drives that cost up by making the spacecraft themselves excessively expensive. They do not have sufficient ability to design and build what they would like to - economically.

The cost of access to space must be looked at from a *system* perspective, and not be so closely focused on this, that or the other system component. We need BOTH medium and heavy lift so that the spacecraft designers can make economic choices in their designs rather than shoehorning a spacecraft requirement into a LV capability that is not optimal.

Sometimes a medium lift, 4-5m diameter shroud is fine. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes either more lift or a larger shroud is needed if the spacecraft is going to be economical to design and build. The point is that the mission planners and the spacecraft designers need to have a larger range of choices to select from so that they can focus on the economics of the design or the mission, rather than being so narrowly focused on the LV capacity alone.

THAT is what will bring down the cost of access to space, and bring down the overall cost of missions; human or robotic; the ability to pick and choose from among launch vehicles of varying capabilities without the necessity to compromise the design of the spacecraft to fit the LV.


Totally agree with his point. The contents of what is being lifted to LEO, is being constrained by the LV.  A larger LV, allows for bigger and heavier payload from the very beginning of its design.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/16/2010 12:40 pm
Existing spacecraft don't need cheaper launchers, though their owners would happily use them. Large scale manned spaceflight however (both commercial and government-funded) would need much cheaper launchers than we have today. In addition, expendable spacecraft are too expensive for large scale operations. With reusable spacecraft, launch prices become the main obstacle. Now, not everybody may care about that ("joy rides for millionaires", "joy rides for government employees"), but that's another matter. If you want to see large scale manned spaceflight, then HLVs are an obstacle. Interestingly, Musk seems to hold a different opinion.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2010 12:44 pm

Totally agree with his point. The contents of what is being lifted to LEO, is being constrained by the LV.  A larger LV, allows for bigger and heavier payload from the very beginning of its design.

You don't understand his point.  He is not of the same opinion as you.   He is advocating 'fluffier" payloads and not heavier.

And again, we are not using the max capability of our existing launch vehicles and so why do we need HLV's.

Excluding any manned exploration missions, the US has no requirements for an HLV.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton on 06/16/2010 01:06 pm
The number one reason we have not already launched a Mars Sample Return mission is the constantly climbing cost, driven by the complexity of the spacecraft, which is in turn driven by the mass requirements of the spacecraft. We do not have a LV capable of lifting it. Fluffier would help but does not overcome the lack of appropriate lift capacity. When it finally launches it will likely need to be two launches with automated assembly in orbit before departure. That kind of thing drives a *lot* of unnecessary expense into the design, construction and complexity of the spacecraft; all of which costs a lot of extra money. When it finally launches it will cost 3-5 times its original budget.

A HLV, such as a Jupiter-130 or an Atlas Phase-3, would have enabled the original design to fly years ago for much less money.

We need more *choices* in LV's available to the mission and spacecraft designers.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: upjin on 06/16/2010 01:11 pm
The number one reason we have not already launched a Mars Sample Return mission is the constantly climbing cost, driven by the complexity of the spacecraft, which is in turn driven by the mass requirements of the spacecraft. We do not have a LV capable of lifting it. Fluffier would help but does not overcome the lack of appropriate lift capacity. When it finally launches it will likely need to be two launches with automated assembly in orbit before departure. That kind of thing drives a *lot* of unnecessary expense into the design, construction and complexity of the spacecraft; all of which costs a lot of extra money. When it finally launches it will cost 3-5 times its original budget.

A HLV, such as a Jupiter-130 or an Atlas Phase-3, would have enabled the original design to fly years ago for much less money.

We need more *choices* in LV's available to the mission and spacecraft designers.

I totally agree.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: clongton on 06/16/2010 01:29 pm
Please bare in mind that I do *NOT* advocate replacing EELV-class launch vehicles with HLV's of any flavor. I advocate adding the HLV to the stable. Look at it this way. For every 18-wheel tractor-trailor you see on the road, you will see tens of dozens of pickup trucks. Right now we are trying to move everything into space with pickup trucks. We should have the tractor-trailer made available to better manage the overall needs. We need to fly both.

The HLV will never fly as often as the EELV, nor should it. But until we have it available, mission costs will *NOT* come down.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/16/2010 01:34 pm
An HLV will *not* reduce mission costs. It will only add to fixed costs.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2010 01:49 pm
The number one reason we have not already launched a Mars Sample Return mission is the constantly climbing cost, driven by the complexity of the spacecraft, which is in turn driven by the mass requirements of the spacecraft. We do not have a LV capable of lifting it. Fluffier would help but does not overcome the lack of appropriate lift capacity. When it finally launches it will likely need to be two launches with automated assembly in orbit before departure. That kind of thing drives a *lot* of unnecessary expense into the design, construction and complexity of the spacecraft; all of which costs a lot of extra money. When it finally launches it will cost 3-5 times its original budget.

A HLV, such as a Jupiter-130 or an Atlas Phase-3, would have enabled the original design to fly years ago for much less money.

We need more *choices* in LV's available to the mission and spacecraft designers.

I totally agree.

your agreement adds nothing, since there is nothing to back it up.

There is a glut of LV's and LV capabilities.
Again, we aren't using the existing fleet to it max capabilities.  Counter that.

MSR is not justification for an HLV.  Whether it is multiple spacecraft launched multiple vehicles with ARAD or a Battlestar spacecraft on an HLV, either scenario is unaffordable.  The total mission costs are huge, (HLV development costs must be included).

The only way MSR is going to be affordable is if it uses ISRU and maybe an electric propulsion system.

There is no need for an HLV in the unmanned program.  The missions are too expensive.

upjin, list all the legitimate unmanned missions that need an HLV.  Just a hint any spacecraft costing more than 2 billion is not legitimate.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Rabidpanda on 06/17/2010 04:42 am
Precisely. THE most expensive part of any launch or mission is the spacecraft *not* the launch vehicle. And the paradox is that it is the complexity of the spacecraft that drives the spacecraft cost up. However, that complexity is usually driven by the need to lower the mass or the stowed diameter of the spacecraft to match the capability of the launch vehicle and/or its payload shroud. More often than not if the spacecraft is built in the most cost effective manner it will either mass more than the launch vehicle lift capacity or be larger than the launch vehicle's PLF. Solution? Forget about keeping the spacecraft costs down using simplicity and go for exotic materials that weigh less and/or build in complex folding/unfolding mechanisms to accommodate the limited shroud diameter of the launch vehicle.

Now not all payloads are like that. Some are simple enough that they can be reasonably designed from the start to economically fit the existing medium lift LV capabilities. But a significant number of them, if the design and construction of the spacecraft were to be driven by the cost of the spacecraft and not the capability of the launch vehicle, would be unable to be launched by any LV we currently have.

Many people have decried the fact that there are no payloads for the HLV. That's hogwash. There are LOTS of them. The availability of the HLV will free the spacecraft designers from the extreme mass and fairing restrictions they have been laboring under for so many years. The availability of a HLV would allow for much less complex spacecrafts to be built from less expensive materials at much less cost.

Focusing on launch cost as the mantra to less expensive access to space is a strawman. It is not the cost of flying the launch vehicle that makes access to space so expensive. It's the lack of sufficient lift or shroud capacity *choices* to match what the spacecraft designers would like to do with their spacecraft that drives that cost up by making the spacecraft themselves excessively expensive. They do not have sufficient ability to design and build what they would like to - economically.

The cost of access to space must be looked at from a *system* perspective, and not be so closely focused on this, that or the other system component. We need BOTH medium and heavy lift so that the spacecraft designers can make economic choices in their designs rather than shoehorning a spacecraft requirement into a LV capability that is not optimal.

Sometimes a medium lift, 4-5m diameter shroud is fine. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes either more lift or a larger shroud is needed if the spacecraft is going to be economical to design and build. The point is that the mission planners and the spacecraft designers need to have a larger range of choices to select from so that they can focus on the economics of the design or the mission, rather than being so narrowly focused on the LV capacity alone.

THAT is what will bring down the cost of access to space, and bring down the overall cost of missions; human or robotic; the ability to pick and choose from among launch vehicles of varying capabilities without the necessity to compromise the design of the spacecraft to fit the LV.


I disagree.  There is plenty of evidence that smaller spacecraft are cheaper to build and operate, take Soyuz for example.  I am of the opinion that a minimalist design philosophy significantly lowers costs.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: quasar on 06/17/2010 07:43 am

There is no need for an HLV in the unmanned program.  The missions are too expensive.

upjin, list all the legitimate unmanned missions that need an HLV.  Just a hint any spacecraft costing more than 2 billion is not legitimate.

How about a small Pluto orbiter (a la improved New Horizons)? A relatively simple s/c (for a outer planet mission), which needs plenty of deltaV
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/17/2010 07:52 am
That can be done with propellant transfer or EOR with an EDS too.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mlorrey on 06/17/2010 10:40 am

I disagree.  There is plenty of evidence that smaller spacecraft are cheaper to build and operate, take Soyuz for example.  I am of the opinion that a minimalist design philosophy significantly lowers costs.

Having standard launchers that enjoy long production runs, and likewise spacecraft with similar records, as both the Soyuz launcher and spacecraft have enjoyed DOES allow for one to achieve a certain level of cost savings that is associated partly with a wide amount of amortization of R&D capital over many vehicles, but also that parts and vehicles are so standard that the people are able to become very efficient at processing them quickly, and a lot of time is spent at improving this streamlining over time.

However, there is a limit to the cost efficiencies that can be attained in this manner simply because you cannot lift more than x amount of payload. If you were to be able to immediately scale the entire vehicle, infrastructure, tooling, etc up significantly, with an equal scaling in performance, you would gain additional cost savings simply because you'd be able to put more payload into space while maintaining something similar to the original operating costs.

These similar operating costs would only be maintained IF you were able to maintain the same flight rate as with the smaller original launcher. This means you need to get launch customers willing and needing to put larger payloads into space, in a technological arena that has significant pressures to develop smaller technology with each generation. This would require you get customers who arent subject to such pressure, such as people needing to put industrial equipment into space for mining, refining, and manufacturing.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/17/2010 11:51 am
There is a glut of LV's and LV capabilities.
Again, we aren't using the existing fleet to it max capabilities.  Counter that.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Back in the early 1950s, IBM said there was only a need for maybe 10 computers.  Then Univac came along with a better product, and suddenly the market grew.  When IBM realized their mistake, they hired an army of computer engineers and went on to become the dominant computer supplier, until Intel/Microsoft took over.

For launch vehicles, the market is small beacuse the price is high.  If someone can figure out how to lower the price, the market will quickly expand.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/17/2010 12:39 pm

For launch vehicles, the market is small beacuse the price is high.  If someone can figure out how to lower the price, the market will quickly expand.

Current vehicles aren't going to lower the prices enough to make the above true.  Only RLV's can.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Bill White on 06/17/2010 12:46 pm
There is a glut of LV's and LV capabilities.
Again, we aren't using the existing fleet to it max capabilities.  Counter that.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Back in the early 1950s, IBM said there was only a need for maybe 10 computers.  Then Univac came along with a better product, and suddenly the market grew.  When IBM realized their mistake, they hired an army of computer engineers and went on to become the dominant computer supplier, until Intel/Microsoft took over.

For launch vehicles, the market is small beacuse the price is high.  If someone can figure out how to lower the price, the market will quickly expand.

Can you articulate what markets you foresee?

I do not necessarily disagree with your point (perhaps amended to RLVs as noted by Jim) however I am curious regarding the markets you foresee emerging.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/17/2010 12:47 pm
Only RLV's can.

Some say mass produced expendables could also reduce launch prices by an order of magnitude. Do you disagree with that?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/17/2010 02:02 pm
You would need either mass produced payloads, or reusable payloads that fly often first.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mmeijeri on 06/17/2010 02:09 pm
Sure, people or propellant. But I was wondering about the technical feasibility. Can you reduce launch costs by an order of magnitude with minimum cost design and mass production assuming enough demand?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mlorrey on 06/17/2010 02:41 pm

For launch vehicles, the market is small beacuse the price is high.  If someone can figure out how to lower the price, the market will quickly expand.

Current vehicles aren't going to lower the prices enough to make the above true.  Only RLV's can.

Are you sure? Seems to be a good amount of growth in nontraditional launch customers recently. SpaceX's quoted retail price comes out at $1600/lb on a full payload, which is significantly below anybody else, not even Soyuz or the Chinese can match that unless they start cutting prices.

F9: $35 million / 22,000 lbs+ = ~$1600/lb

This rate isn't too far from the magical curve in the market elasticity chart.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/17/2010 03:10 pm

For launch vehicles, the market is small beacuse the price is high.  If someone can figure out how to lower the price, the market will quickly expand.

Current vehicles aren't going to lower the prices enough to make the above true.  Only RLV's can.

Are you sure? Seems to be a good amount of growth in nontraditional launch customers recently. SpaceX's quoted retail price comes out at $1600/lb on a full payload, which is significantly below anybody else, not even Soyuz or the Chinese can match that unless they start cutting prices.

F9: $35 million / 22,000 lbs+ = ~$1600/lb

This rate isn't too far from the magical curve in the market elasticity chart.

F9 is in the 50- 70 million range.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mlorrey on 06/17/2010 04:49 pm

For launch vehicles, the market is small beacuse the price is high.  If someone can figure out how to lower the price, the market will quickly expand.

Current vehicles aren't going to lower the prices enough to make the above true.  Only RLV's can.

Are you sure? Seems to be a good amount of growth in nontraditional launch customers recently. SpaceX's quoted retail price comes out at $1600/lb on a full payload, which is significantly below anybody else, not even Soyuz or the Chinese can match that unless they start cutting prices.

F9: $35 million / 22,000 lbs+ = ~$1600/lb

This rate isn't too far from the magical curve in the market elasticity chart.

F9 is in the 50- 70 million range.

For capsule missions, yes, but the base price on F9 to LEO with the 5 meter fairing was $35 million.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/17/2010 04:57 pm

For capsule missions, yes, but the base price on F9 to LEO with the 5 meter fairing was $35 million.

That price is OBE years ago.  Spacex prices have been increasing like predicted.
Look at the website http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php  $56 million
Look at the new contract $492 million for 7 to 9 launches - 70 to 55 million.

 Soon Spacex prices will the zone of the industry norms as they find out that is cost more to operate than to develop.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/17/2010 07:34 pm
That price is OBE years ago.  Spacex prices have been increasing like predicted.
Look at the website http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php  $56 million
Look at the new contract $492 million for 7 to 9 launches - 70 to 55 million.

 Soon Spacex prices will the zone of the industry norms as they find out that is cost more to operate than to develop.
If so, then they will have failed thier mission objective.  SpaceX was founded on the premise of reducing launch costs.

I'm wondering if the recent price increases have to do with operating from the cape.  How much operational cost could be saved using a floating launch?  Since this is an HLV thread, I'm thinking of something like the old Sea Dragon design.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/17/2010 07:45 pm
Can you articulate what markets you foresee?

I do not necessarily disagree with your point (perhaps amended to RLVs as noted by Jim) however I am curious regarding the markets you foresee emerging.
I can guess, but I'd probably be wrong.  That's the nature of an emerging market.

If SpaceX succeeds in reducing the cost to orbit, then the market will change, and there will be new types of customers.  If SpaceX ends up costing as much as everyone else, then the market will stay the same.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: neilh on 06/17/2010 08:19 pm
You would need either mass produced payloads, or reusable payloads that fly often first.

SpaceX (and others) seem to be pursuing (or already have) contracts for the following mass-produced payloads:

* space station supplies
* the Iridium constellation
* the ORBCOMM constellation
* people

Eventually fuel for propellant depots might be joining this category as well.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kraisee on 06/17/2010 09:02 pm
Falcon-9 is definitely lower price than any of the other US launchers in the same performance class.   I agree with Jim, that even the prices you see today will probably grow a bit more as they learn the additional requirements involved in Payload Operations, but I see Falcon-9 ultimately costing about half the price of an equivalent Atlas-V or Delta-IV.

That is certainly a worthwhile "evolutionary" improvement, but it should not be mistaken for being a "revolutionary" one.   Halving the current $8,000-10,000 per kg to LEO costs is very welcome, but it still means that only companies with very seriously deep pockets can even consider launching things to orbit.

The list of those companies who can now afford to do work in this sector, but who couldn't afford to before, may have grown just a little, but the overall "market" will not experience drastic changes at this adjusted price point.

There is a market assessment report out there (IIRC conducted by State Department?), which indicates that the price point where the market is expected to really grow, is when the cost of launch drops to around $600 per kg to LEO -- and Falcon-9 is not going to reach that range.

Ross.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/17/2010 11:53 pm
Falcon-9 is definitely lower price than any of the other US launchers in the same performance class.   I agree with Jim, that even the prices you see today will probably grow a bit more as they learn the additional requirements involved in Payload Operations, but I see Falcon-9 ultimately costing about half the price of an equivalent Atlas-V or Delta-IV.

That is certainly a worthwhile "evolutionary" improvement, but it should not be mistaken for being a "revolutionary" one.   Halving the current $8,000-10,000 per kg to LEO costs is very welcome, but it still means that only companies with very seriously deep pockets can even consider launching things to orbit.

Agreed.  Half price is nice, but not a game changer. 

SpaceX has a long-term goal of reducing the cost by an order of magnitude.  Their current costs assume no reusability.  If they can figure out how to reuse the F9 first stage, and maybe use some mass production techniques, that may get them another 2X.

In order to get an order of magnitude less on cost-per pound, they'll probably need Merlin2, cheaper operations costs (e.g. an automated floating ocean launch), a larger single core rocket, a good way to share multiple payloads on the same launch, and some larger commercial payloads.  I'm thinking of something like the Sea Dragon only not so huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/18/2010 01:30 am

Agreed.  Half price is nice, but not a game changer. 
Oh, but they are now cheaper than ISRO and Great Wall. That itself is a game changer.
Quote
In order to get an order of magnitude less on cost-per pound, they'll probably need Merlin2, cheaper operations costs (e.g. an automated floating ocean launch), a larger single core rocket, a good way to share multiple payloads on the same launch, and some larger commercial payloads.  I'm thinking of something like the Sea Dragon only not so huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)

Why?

Will merlin-2 save the millions it will cost to develop?
Can they get leaner. Jim keeps telling us the need more people, not less.
Since when do ships cost less to maintain?
A single larger core should be cheaper than three common cores only if thats all they fly. Though it sounds like they need it  for the com GEO market. I will give you that.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2010 01:36 am
Falcon-9 is definitely lower price than any of the other US launchers in the same performance class.   I agree with Jim, that even the prices you see today will probably grow a bit more as they learn the additional requirements involved in Payload Operations, but I see Falcon-9 ultimately costing about half the price of an equivalent Atlas-V or Delta-IV.


It is currently way past 1/2 in between 2/3 and 3/4.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: beancounter on 06/18/2010 02:18 am
Why do people keep saying that SpaceX costs will increase toward so called 'normal' launch prices? 

The facts speak for themselves in that they've just inked a launch contract using approximately current costs plus a bit for inflation.  In addition, increasing flight rates will assist them in continuing to streamline their production activities as they move from an R&D base to an operational base.  Even if they are taking on more people, that's required as to up their production levels. 

So can't see where the logic is for increasing costs (other than normal inflationary factors).

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2010 02:33 am
1.  Why do people keep saying that SpaceX costs will increase toward so called 'normal' launch prices? 

2.  The facts speak for themselves in that they've just inked a launch contract using approximately current costs plus a bit for inflation.  In addition, increasing flight rates will assist them in continuing to streamline their production activities as they move from an R&D base to an operational base.  Even if they are taking on more people, that's required as to up their production levels. 

So can't see where the logic is for increasing costs (other than normal inflationary factors).


1.  because it will.  They have yet to be in "routine" operations.

2.  Which is based on projected costs and not actual data.

It isn't production where the costs are, it is correcting all the issues between flights.  It is discovering a problem during production of a part and realizing all the previous made parts have the same problem.  It is discovering that parts were "qualified" on an  improperly setup test rig.
Also, when the newest wears of people don't want to work 60 work weeks, vacations, Dr appointments, personal business will increase.  Also, all the processes have to be documented so new people can do the same tasks.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: SpacexULA on 06/18/2010 02:47 am
1.  because it will.  They have yet to be in "routine" operations.

2.  Which is based on projected costs and not actual data.

It isn't production where the costs are, it is correcting all the issues between flights.  It is discovering a problem during production of a part and realizing all the previous made parts have the same problem.  It is discovering that parts were "qualified" on an  improperly setup test rig.
Also, when the newest wears of people don't want to work 60 work weeks, vacations, Dr appointments, personal business will increase.  Also, all the processes have to be documented so new people can do the same tasks.

Why are these forces so much stronger in the Rocket field than in any other industry I have ever read about?

All startups suffer quality loss/cost creep when they go from tight core team to larger production team, but I have never seen an industry that could justify a 100%-400% increase in prices (which is what SpaceX would have to do to match ULA prices).

I really think the jump form $35 Million to the graduated:
LEO (s/c<80% capacity to the customer orbit)   $49.5M
LEO (s/c>80% capacity to the customer orbit)   $56M
price point had more to do with underestimation of the costs of production for Falcon 9 than any type of major cost creep.  The 49/56 number has been steady with inflation since it was announced 2 years ago (It started at 44-49, which is a 4.5% increase a year).

If they can keep their cost creep to 4.5% a year, that's not significantly more than inflation.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: pippin on 06/18/2010 02:56 am
I'm not convinced that there is no savings potential in SpaceX' approach. They DID design for cost instead of performance and they've brought forward quite a few ideas in that respect. Not only technology wise but also on processes.

I believe for them a lot will now depend on getting launch rates up and keeping commonality between whatever models they are going to fly long term. This will also help them with all the nit grit stuff that has to be investigated, changed etc.

Of course others will learn from them as well over the long term but this will take time and significant investment. Take Ariane, for example. They've known for many, many years now that their current design is not an optimum one for the market they are in, they try to mitigate through dual launches but it's a hack.
But changing things and reacting to this isn't something they can do in a few years. In the short term they will still profit a lot from their track record and maybe even more from their customer service (which may offset much more than just a bit of the cost) but that will of course also be challenged.
Ok, SpaceX might not be the immediate threat because the payload of the F9 is insuffiecient but they might develop growth options, after all they seem to be picking up some pace.

And what I DO see is that for the first time in how many, 30?, years there IS now a serious contender from the US in the commercial launch market again.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2010 03:09 am

All startups suffer quality loss/cost creep when they go from tight core team to larger production team, but I have never seen an industry that could justify a 100%-400% increase in prices (which is what SpaceX would have to do to match ULA prices).


ULA price are not what you think.  The NASA launch service mission costs include additional services  for payload processing, launch vehicle integration, and tracking, data and telemetry support.

Spacex also charges a gov't customer more due to the extra data it requests. (commercial customers buy insurance at 10-15% of the spacecraft cost)

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 06/18/2010 03:41 am
Will merlin-2 save the millions it will cost to develop?

I'm assuming F9 will stay as is to keep engine-out reliability and the 12-foot diameter which is easy to transport.

For heavier payloads, 27 engines seems high.  A larger single core with five Merlin2 engines could still provide engine out reliability for less operational cost, provided there are enough customers to justify the development.

In April, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell talked about the market for this.  ~30 mT LEO corresponds to ~18 mT GTO.  Combining 2 commercial GTO satellites (~7 mT each) on that type of launcher would dramatically reduce the cost per pound. 
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1348
(starting around 33:15 into the program).

If SpaceX scrapped the current F9H and built a single core ~30 mT LEO launcher instead, then they could add some strap-on boosters to get much higher, perhaps up to 100 mT.  In other words, a modular launcher that could scale from upper end commercial to true HLV class for beyond earth orbit.  In this case, NASA could share the cost of developing the Merlin2, as it would probably be cheaper than NASA paying someone else for the full development using a cost-plus contract.

Since when do ships cost less to maintain?

A floating ocean launch would be hundreds of miles away from anything, so safety issues may get easier.  For example, would they even need an explosive FTS?  From what I've heard, other rockets that launch from remote locations simply turn off the engines for flight termination.  Also, a floating ocean launch location can be chosen to optimize the intended orbit.  And you wouldn't have to build and maintain steel and concrete structures, water deluge, etc.  All that would be replaced with a flotation and ballast system.

I'm probably missing something here, but it seems like this could save a lot of operational cost.

A single larger core should be cheaper than three common cores only if thats all they fly. Though it sounds like they need it  for the com GEO market. I will give you that.

Let's say SpaceX keeps the current Falcon9 for lighter cargo and/or crew.  In addition to that, they build a larger modular unmanned launcher that can scale from 30 mT to 100 mT LEO, depending on how many strap-on boosters they use. 

For human planetary missions, the unmanned HLV would launch the spacecraft that goes beyond earth orbit.  The F9/Dragon would then launch the crew to rendezvous with that larger spacecraft.

For commercial, smaller configurations of the modular HLV rocket would be used to launch multiple GTO satellites at once, and perhaps a few new heavy commercial payloads (e.g. Bigelow).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mlorrey on 06/18/2010 05:16 am

For capsule missions, yes, but the base price on F9 to LEO with the 5 meter fairing was $35 million.

That price is OBE years ago.  Spacex prices have been increasing like predicted.
Look at the website http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php  $56 million
Look at the new contract $492 million for 7 to 9 launches - 70 to 55 million.

 Soon Spacex prices will the zone of the industry norms as they find out that is cost more to operate than to develop.

Jim is misquoting. The new price is $49.5 million at the page he cited, for basic launch to LEO.

Given the stuff they've had to deal with on the FTS I'd buy that part of the increased cost is due to the interface with government bureaucracies, but also that they haven't yet demonstrated reusability of any part of their vehicles.

If there is indeed such significant cost creep do to everything else BESIDES the cost of building and launching the rocket, then SpaceX has failed because all the overhead bullcrap is really what needs to be eliminated, and was supposed to be eliminated by the space launch regs passed in recent years.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ugordan on 06/18/2010 09:48 am
Jim is misquoting. The new price is $49.5 million at the page he cited, for basic launch to LEO.

Which is the same page you would have been well-advised to look at before coming up with that $35 million figure.

Quote
Given the stuff they've had to deal with on the FTS I'd buy that part of the increased cost is due to the interface with government bureaucracies, but also that they haven't yet demonstrated reusability of any part of their vehicles.

It has nothing to do with interfacing. Their pricing also assumes no reusability and never has. In fact, it would have been a really dumb move on their part to assume otherwise.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: rklaehn on 06/18/2010 10:03 am
I think the whole discussion about prices is pointless unless somebody has some inside info about their actual costs.

Why the hell should spacex charge less than 50 million USD per launch when they can win huge, internationally competed contracts such as the iridium NEXT contract with their current prices?

Even for the manned spacecraft, as long as they are in the same ballpark as the soyuz per passenger they have no reason whatsoever to go lower.

Of course in the long term if mr. musk wants to realize his vision he will have to go lower, but in the short and medium term just being cheaper than the competition is good enough.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: simonth on 06/18/2010 11:04 am
Why the hell should spacex charge less than 50 million USD per launch when they can win huge, internationally competed contracts such as the iridium NEXT contract with their current prices?

There is no reason. SpaceX will bid "at market" discounted for a risk factor because they yet have to prove reliability.

At 50 million per F9 they still make money, but their margins won't be high if their vehicle ends up to be less than 95% reliable and the benefits of their planed first stage reuse won't work as planned.

If they end up with a reliable vehicle, I fully expect that their launch prices will go up a lot quicker than competitors over the next few years as the discount for risk decreases.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: rklaehn on 06/18/2010 01:57 pm
If they end up less than 95% reliable they can forget about ever launching humans, and they would probably lose CRS as well. So it is safe to assume that they are targeting >99% reliability. We will see if they can make it, but I am optimistic.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2010 02:26 pm

Given the stuff they've had to deal with on the FTS I'd buy that part of the increased cost is due to the interface with government bureaucracies, but also that they haven't yet demonstrated reusability of any part of their vehicles.


There is a biased opinion

A.  The FTS was all Spacex's fault.  They made a bad assumption and tried flying without an FTS.  Hence their work on an FTS got a late start.

B.  The cost increases go way back.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2010 02:27 pm

For capsule missions, yes, but the base price on F9 to LEO with the 5 meter fairing was $35 million.

That price is OBE years ago.  Spacex prices have been increasing like predicted.
Look at the website http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php  $56 million
Look at the new contract $492 million for 7 to 9 launches - 70 to 55 million.

 Soon Spacex prices will the zone of the industry norms as they find out that is cost more to operate than to develop.

Jim is misquoting. The new price is $49.5 million at the page he cited, for basic launch to LEO.

you are misquoting, a dedicated flight is $56 million.
  The 49.5 is for a missions where Spacex can add secondaries.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jim on 06/18/2010 02:30 pm
then SpaceX has failed because all the overhead bullcrap is really what needs to be eliminated, and was supposed to be eliminated by the space launch regs passed in recent years.

There is no bullcrap except your bias.  It is internal costs. You view of the world is so skewed from what is real. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/18/2010 03:12 pm
If they end up less than 95% reliable they can forget about ever launching humans, and they would probably lose CRS as well. So it is safe to assume that they are targeting >99% reliability. We will see if they can make it, but I am optimistic.

Why?

The ICBM derived Atlas never achieve 95% and we flew people on it.
Was Titan at 95% when we flew people on it?

Until they get a fair number of flights under there belt, any failure that results in loss of payload will have a very negative impact on SpaceX. And I am not talking HSF.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/18/2010 03:23 pm
I believe SpaceX can have prices lower than ULA for LEO launches (and maybe eventually GEO launches, though they have a ways to go to prove themselves, there), more competitive with foreign launchers. They won't decrease prices DRAMATICALLY until they get REALLY good at reusing the first stage. And even then, I doubt it will happen unless they provide other services to make it worth their while.

They almost also have to be a spacecraft company if they want to be able to have ~$1000/kg be sustainable, otherwise they'd be losing money. Other services could include their Dragon spacecraft, and maybe some sort of propellant tanker service. Just a thought. But getting to the "elastic" part of the supply/demand curve will mean folks like SpaceX lose money unless they also supply other services.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Diagoras on 06/18/2010 07:15 pm
Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/18/2010 07:43 pm
Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.
It basically says that launch providers lose money if they decrease their costs until they get the cost to about $1000/kg, at which point the market becomes elastic (i.e. more and more people will buy services as prices further decline) and they can increase their revenue by further decreasing their costs. But until you lower the cost to below that point, launch providers are just shooting themselves in the foot by lowering their costs. And even then, it doesn't make a lot of financial sense to do so unless they are also providing other services.

The paper where the graph resides is right here:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/designing_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_future_space_markets.shtml
Which was also somewhat based on this NASA study:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/

It assumes that if launch prices get low enough, new markets will be created.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: HMXHMX on 06/18/2010 09:56 pm
Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.

Versions of this graph have been around for thirty years or more.  My interpretation has always been that it demonstrates why existing providers have no incentive to lower their price per pound by developing reusable vehicles, because if they do – unless they go all the way to highly operable vehicles that have a very small cost per pound, and assuming the market grows as theory suggests – they will cannibalize their existing revenues.  Thus only a new entrant can engage in the creative destruction of the old market, and the new entrant can never raise enough market capital to do so, thus no progress can be expected in developing low-cost reusables, even if the technology is available.  The new entrant must be funded by angel risk capital to have any chance of success.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: cuddihy on 06/18/2010 10:09 pm
Quote from: Diagoras link=topic=21867.msg608389#

. . . .
Thus only a new entrant can engage in the creative destruction of the old market, and the new entrant can never raise enough market capital to do so, thus no progress can be expected in developing low-cost reusables, even if the technology is available.  The new entrant must be funded by angel risk capital to have any chance of success.

that and the cost of full RLV to orbit development shows every liklihood of being a significant fraction perhaps more than100% of all existing spaceflight industry market capitalization. Which is why an imaginative and pretty fearless entrepeneur like Musk nevertheless decided to start with ELV.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: HMXHMX on 06/18/2010 10:16 pm
Quote from: Diagoras link=topic=21867.msg608389#

. . . .
Thus only a new entrant can engage in the creative destruction of the old market, and the new entrant can never raise enough market capital to do so, thus no progress can be expected in developing low-cost reusables, even if the technology is available.  The new entrant must be funded by angel risk capital to have any chance of success.

that and the cost of full RLV to orbit development shows every liklihood of being a significant fraction perhaps more than100% of all existing spaceflight industry market capitalization. Which is why an imaginative and pretty fearless entrepeneur like Musk nevertheless decided to start with ELV.

I'd be willing to debate the cost-to-develop issue, but this is not the forum for that.  (Suffice to say that it is not a law of nature that a reusable need cost more than an expendable when flight testing is taken into account, but we have very little recent data to go on.  We'd have to go back to the rocket plane era and that wouldn't be a fair comparison, likely.)

I'd add to my previous post that "angel risk capital" could also obviously include government money.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: cuddihy on 06/18/2010 10:42 pm

I'd be willing to debate the cost-to-develop issue, but this is not the forum for that.  (Suffice to say that it is not a law of nature that a reusable need cost more than an expendable when flight testing is taken into account, but we have very little recent data to go on.  We'd have to go back to the rocket plane era and that wouldn't be a fair comparison, likely.)

I'd add to my previous post that "angel risk capital" could also obviously include government money.

well you'd certainly have more cred than me to argue the point. In the words of Edna Mode though, "and yet, here we are..."
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: HMXHMX on 06/19/2010 02:42 am

I'd be willing to debate the cost-to-develop issue, but this is not the forum for that.  (Suffice to say that it is not a law of nature that a reusable need cost more than an expendable when flight testing is taken into account, but we have very little recent data to go on.  We'd have to go back to the rocket plane era and that wouldn't be a fair comparison, likely.)

I'd add to my previous post that "angel risk capital" could also obviously include government money.

well you'd certainly have more cred than me to argue the point. In the words of Edna Mode though, "and yet, here we are..."

Ah, my favorite scene from a brilliant movie.

But to quote Mr. Incredible:  "I'm retired..."

At least, I think I am.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: mlorrey on 06/20/2010 08:30 pm
Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.

Versions of this graph have been around for thirty years or more.  My interpretation has always been that it demonstrates why existing providers have no incentive to lower their price per pound by developing reusable vehicles, because if they do – unless they go all the way to highly operable vehicles that have a very small cost per pound, and assuming the market grows as theory suggests – they will cannibalize their existing revenues.  Thus only a new entrant can engage in the creative destruction of the old market, and the new entrant can never raise enough market capital to do so, thus no progress can be expected in developing low-cost reusables, even if the technology is available.  The new entrant must be funded by angel risk capital to have any chance of success.

It also explains why many launch companies diversify into spacecraft manufacture. You make all your profit on the spacecraft and offer the launch at cost or with a small profit, if you can get away with it. Some competitors might file anti-trust complaints over such pricing schemes.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Diagoras on 06/21/2010 05:57 am
Robotbeat, could you explain in simple terms what that graph is saying? Not only is it pretty intimidating (elastic market box, giant arrows) but I'm terrible with graphs.
It basically says that launch providers lose money if they decrease their costs until they get the cost to about $1000/kg, at which point the market becomes elastic (i.e. more and more people will buy services as prices further decline) and they can increase their revenue by further decreasing their costs. But until you lower the cost to below that point, launch providers are just shooting themselves in the foot by lowering their costs. And even then, it doesn't make a lot of financial sense to do so unless they are also providing other services.

The paper where the graph resides is right here:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/designing_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_future_space_markets.shtml
Which was also somewhat based on this NASA study:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/

It assumes that if launch prices get low enough, new markets will be created.

Thanks for the answer. You too, HMXHMX.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Tnarg on 08/01/2010 12:13 pm
A single engine LV does make a lot of sence.  I guess it would look a lot like falcon9 with the same 2ed stage design (i.e. 1 merlin1 vacuum engine) I know it's more work than just swapping the 9 small engines for 1 large one but it does give them a good starting point to test the new engine.

Where is gose from there I dont know multi cores could work (3 cores, falcon9H style, or 5 cores) and would keep transport simple.  But I agree a 3 to 5 engine per core seems likey.

so close :-)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22395.0
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: finwe on 09/17/2010 09:19 pm
If i went to Elon Musk and asked for 5 SHLV what would the price tag be. Let's assume a Merlin 2 engine based second stage engine.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: ChefPat on 09/17/2010 09:56 pm
If i went to Elon Musk and asked for 5 SHLV what would the price tag be. Let's assume a Merlin 2 engine based second stage engine.
How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin? ???
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/17/2010 10:02 pm
If i went to Elon Musk and asked for 5 SHLV what would the price tag be. Let's assume a Merlin 2 engine based second stage engine.
How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin? ???
Well more can dance on the head of a Falcon 9 Heavy. So by that measure it is worth it ;)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Nathan on 09/17/2010 10:17 pm

Given the stuff they've had to deal with on the FTS I'd buy that part of the increased cost is due to the interface with government bureaucracies, but also that they haven't yet demonstrated reusability of any part of their vehicles.


There is a biased opinion

A.  The FTS was all Spacex's fault.  They made a bad assumption and tried flying without an FTS.  Hence their work on an FTS got a late start.

B.  The cost increases go way back.

I think that SpaceX was somewhat justified in their assumption not to use FTS, despite the fact that it should have been discussed fully with  the range prior to making that decision.
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.
If SpaceX used Falcon 9 tech as a basis of a rocketplane designed to carry people - would they still be required to fly an FTS?

I think SpaceX were thinking they could usher in this world but didn't consider the fact that their rocket in it's present form is actually no different than all of the others launching from the range!

Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2010 10:29 pm
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.

How do you get a reusable rocket plane to be reliable enough not to need a LAS (and by implication an FTS)?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jorge on 09/18/2010 03:16 am
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.

How do you get a reusable rocket plane to be reliable enough not to need a LAS (and by implication an FTS)?

cheers, Martin

Incremental testing, and lots of it. A true reusable rocketplane would have a short enough turnaround time that such testing would be feasible.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Jorge on 09/18/2010 03:20 am

Given the stuff they've had to deal with on the FTS I'd buy that part of the increased cost is due to the interface with government bureaucracies, but also that they haven't yet demonstrated reusability of any part of their vehicles.


There is a biased opinion

A.  The FTS was all Spacex's fault.  They made a bad assumption and tried flying without an FTS.  Hence their work on an FTS got a late start.

B.  The cost increases go way back.

I think that SpaceX was somewhat justified in their assumption not to use FTS, despite the fact that it should have been discussed fully with  the range prior to making that decision.
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.
If SpaceX used Falcon 9 tech as a basis of a rocketplane designed to carry people - would they still be required to fly an FTS?

I think SpaceX were thinking they could usher in this world but didn't consider the fact that their rocket in it's present form is actually no different than all of the others launching from the range!



If that was their reasoning, then they are a lot more hubristic than I thought (and just to be clear, I don't think that *was* their reasoning). Just because a future reusable derivative of their design might be reliable enough to fly without FTS is no reason to believe that the initial tests of the expendable version would be. And especially no reason to believe that range safety could be talked into that.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars_J on 09/18/2010 03:54 am
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.

How do you get a reusable rocket plane to be reliable enough not to need a LAS (and by implication an FTS)?

cheers, Martin

How do yo get a regular airliner safe enough so they don't require every passenger to have a parachute? Lots of testing and flight experience.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: MP99 on 09/18/2010 07:16 am
Reason I say this is simply looking forward to a time where we have reusable rocket planes carrying people to and from orbit on a daily basis - they are not going to carry FTS systems.

How do you get a reusable rocket plane to be reliable enough not to need a LAS (and by implication an FTS)?

cheers, Martin

How do yo get a regular airliner safe enough so they don't require every passenger to have a parachute? Lots of testing and flight experience.

I'd guess there have been billions of air passengers over the history of commercial flight.

When there have been a similar number of passengers launched to space, I'd expect the safety record to be similarly good. Which just goes to mean, the two situations are completely incomparable in their maturity.



Apparently, the first commercial (but government subsidised) air passenger service started in 1914, made 172 flights, had several crashes (and a passenger lost seven teeth), but no fatalities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg-Tampa_Airboat_Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg-Tampa_Airboat_Line)
http://www.historynet.com/st-petersburgtampa-airboat-line-worlds-first-scheduled-airline-using-winged-aircraft.htm (http://www.historynet.com/st-petersburgtampa-airboat-line-worlds-first-scheduled-airline-using-winged-aircraft.htm)
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQLoN67ag82O9iwg5Lu0yrp_LYkqUIBDLiGCFe_85FNHuxxGyc&t=1&usg=__F9UppH-oODu25fxkn5tGmdPe8aY=)

So, we're somewhere ahead of that in terms of maturity.

But I believe the quoted LOV figures for EELV are still worse than 1:100, so still quite a way to go, too.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 09/18/2010 07:40 pm
I'm confused.  Why are we discussing FTS and passengers on this thread? 

My understanding is that a Super Heavy lift vehicle would be much more effective if it were unmanned, and then have a smaller manned launcher (e.g. F9/Dragon) rendezvous with the Super Heavy payload in LEO. 

This way, you only pay for man-rating margins on the smaller launcher.  In other words, my understanding is that an unmanned SHLV would carry significantly more mass to orbit.

Wasn't Ares V supposed to be unmanned for this reason?

Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: go4mars on 09/21/2010 01:11 pm
I'm confused.  Why are we discussing FTS and passengers on this thread? 

My understanding is that a Super Heavy lift vehicle would be much more effective if it were unmanned, and then have a smaller manned launcher (e.g. F9/Dragon) rendezvous with the Super Heavy payload in LEO. 

This way, you only pay for man-rating margins on the smaller launcher.  In other words, my understanding is that an unmanned SHLV would carry significantly more mass to orbit.

Wasn't Ares V supposed to be unmanned for this reason?

Am I missing something?

I suspect that these upcoming larger rockets will also be man-rated.  For 3 reasons. 
1)  Increased reliability by definition. 
2)  Better margins = better odds of reusability.
3)  Now you can launch lot's of people at once if you want to (cheaper per seat to orbit).  Regardless of # of people, at least it provides the human option. 

SoaceX has talked time and again about reliability, safety, and the goals of  reusability and human expansion into space.  I think man-rating their bigger rockets would support these goals/criteria. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: RocketmanUS on 03/25/2013 06:40 pm
9 cores each with one engine ( Merlin 2 ), except the center core with more than one Merlin 1D. No US.

For BLEO an EDS would be part of the payload.

The four corners separate first.
Then two others.
And finally the last two booster separate.
The core with one to three Merlin 1D's to orbit.

Could this even launch safely. There are concepts out there to combine multiple common cores together for a launch vehicle and shed the cores off to orbit.

Vertical assemble on pad with mobile assembly building.

Most likely a bad idea and would most likely be better to just go with a two stage like modern Sat INT-21 but all RP-1/LOX that could use the shuttle VAB and launch pad.

Something like the FXX concept.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27275.0
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: dcporter on 03/25/2013 08:16 pm
The nine-core idea has been tackled previously; IIRC, Jim replied quickly with

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/31135319.jpg

after which it died. Things may have changed in the mean time of course.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 01/10/2016 10:48 am
So, 5 years later (in this thread), in the light of working RTLS (at least it worked once) and spaceX telling that 30 flights are doable with a merlin 1D, I see some sort of optimization problem for spaceX: every launch would mean using and losing one second stage + 1 merlin 1D vac (in perfectly new condition).

30 flights à 13t LEO = 39 engines, 507mt, on average, that's 13mt per engine.


They can optimize with a FHR, which is suspected to have a LEO-capacity in the range of 25-35mt. But they still lose 1 second stage and one engine for every 27 engines in the first stage. At 30 possible flights for those 27 engines, that means 57 produced engines (and some spare parts) for 30 FHR flights.

30 flights à 25t LEO = 57 engines, 750mt, on average, that's 13.1mt per engine. (not much of a difference)
30 flights à 35t LEO = 57 engines, 1050mt, on average, that's 18.4mt per engine. (5mt more per engine)

So what happens if the engines get an overhaul after every 5, 10 or 15 flights, and are suddenly capable of performing 40, 60 or even 100 flights in a row? They'd need to optimize by using more booster stages. Even if 2 extra cores just add 10 mt LEO capacity (I suspect it is more, but the faster booster stages need to decelerate more too). 75 engines for 30 flights, 85 engines for 40 flights, 105 for 60 flights and 145 for 100 flights. (I'm calculating with the FHR best case of 35mt LEO and add 10mt. If it is more, the calculation would become even better).

30 flights à 45t LEO = 75 engines, 1350mt, on average, that's 18mt per engine.
40 flights à 45t LEO = 85 engines, 1800mt, on average, that's 21.2mt per engine.
60 flights à 45t LEO = 105 engines, 2700mt, on average, that's 25.7mt per engine.
100 flights à 45t LEO = 145 engines, 4500mt, on average, that's 31.0mt per engine. (corrected a calculation).

And that with a single payload with 45mt weight.

As a comparison, a FH in expendable mode is expected to launch up to 53mt, with 28 engines.

1 flights à 53t LEO = 28 engines, 53mt, on average, that's 1.28mt per engine.


So, I'm not calculating the extra effort of maintaining those engines, just their production.

And maybe it's possible to make that rocket (in a 5 core version, haven't calculated higher versions, as I don't know what a potential 7 or 9 core FSHR could possibly lift) more efficient by stretching the second stage, even on the expense of the first stage central core (shortening it or even leaving it away, and just using the strap on boosters as first stage).

Any ideas about it? I think that there is some point where they have to look at this topic, when reusable flight is routine.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dante80 on 01/10/2016 11:40 am
The business case for a re-usable 3 stick rocket against an expendable one stick (FHR vs F9E) is already much tougher to make than before F9 became a true EELV (as opposed to a Delta II replacement). Adding two additional cores to the equation would not help a lot I think. There is simply not a market for such a vehicle. At least...yet.

Moreover, this is not easy technically to do. Think of the added complexity, as well as the changes needed to the pads, the erectors, the integration facilities, the landing zones, etc etc. This is not an Angara 5 equivalent which was designed from scratch to that configuration as part of the common core architecture it has.

The best way to actually improve the re-usable/recoverable fraction of the vehicle vs the expendable, would be to work on stage two recovery. This could be feasible for the Falcon Heavy (which has the extra performance to off-set the very big payload penalties), but SpaceX decided to not go for it.

They will try full re-usability for their Mars architecture, if it materializes.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 01/10/2016 02:22 pm
Yes, I know, as soon as they have any sort of second stage recovery, they can get below 1 engine per flight, raising the capacity to LEO to several 100 mt per engine. But as long as they don't have any second stage recovery, there is that optimization-problem.

And yes, I know that a 5-booster version of the FHR would require a new launch pad, and a new erector and ultimately provides new challenges. In this thread it was also discussed to use a 9 booster system, imagine 9 boosters flying back to launchsite or different barges on the sea. It would get crowded in the sky over cape canaveral.

SpaceX would furthermore need a nice amount of launch pads, because if they can squeeze 100 launches out of a bunch of boosters, they need a fairly tight timeframe to do the launches (one week between two launches with one rocket is the maximum). So if they maintain their current production of 1 first stage and raise the production rate of the second stage to something that matches 100 launches (5 first stage booster require 100 second stages, is 15 weeks, is 105 days, they need approx. one second stage per day, thus enough pads to maintain one launch per day).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/10/2016 06:43 pm
My version of a FH supper heavy is start with a FHFT add crossfeed and then a Raptor 5m diameter US of same length (ISP 385) of about same weight as the M1DVAC-FT US, which yields if the 1st stage are driven to depletion and US close to depletion:

LEO - ~83mt
TLI - ~30.4mt
TMI- ~23mt

No need to get fancy for a significant amount of extra performance for those really big missions that might occur in next 10 years.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: rst on 01/10/2016 10:18 pm
Yes, I know, as soon as they have any sort of second stage recovery, they can get below 1 engine per flight, raising the capacity to LEO to several 100 mt per engine. But as long as they don't have any second stage recovery, there is that optimization-problem.

I'm not so sure.  They would have a problem of optimizing total mass to orbit if they were just trying to fill orbital fuel depots or something, which allowed them to divide that mass up as they saw fit.  But the payloads they actually have come in discrete sizes, and don't like to travel together (the double payloads of Ariane 5 are more of a bug than a feature, commercially).  So a Falcon Superheavy would only really help them optimize profit per launch if there were payloads sized for it, of which there are few.  (Possibly some of the more extravagantly sized Bigelow modules?)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/10/2016 11:20 pm
The business case for a re-usable 3 stick rocket against an expendable one stick (FHR vs F9E) is already much tougher to make than before F9 became a true EELV (as opposed to a Delta II replacement)....

Moreover, this is not easy technically to do. Think of the added complexity, as well as the changes needed to the pads, the erectors, the integration facilities, the landing zones, etc etc. .....

The best way to actually improve the re-usable/recoverable fraction of the vehicle vs the expendable, would be to work on stage two recovery.....

Good points against a Super Heavy.

Yes, the evolution of the F9 into it's current class is making the business case for the FH more and more difficult I think.   The speculated capability to deliver near 6 tons to GTO is creeping into the sweet spot for revenue generation.  SpaceX should probably be trying to figure out how to be more competitive in the remaining payloads coming up for bid in this class, ( 5-7 ton) while still optimizing re-use options.    SpaceX does not seem to be in too big a rush or concerned about the schedule lag, as they don't really have ay payloads to launch.

While the re-usability is important long term, the current configuration still delivers less than stellar results when all 3 cores are RTLS or barge landed.   The penalties are pretty big.  The really impressive LEO or beyond numbers are achieved only when the center core gets expended, or when all cores are expended.  Currently the FH was stated to get 6.4 tons to GTO when all cores are returned.   That is an awful lot of complex rocket sitting on the pad for the slight improvement over a single stick F9 expendable.

I think an interesting option would be to consider smaller boosters than that would enhance the margin of the center core, pushing it solidly into +6ton to GTO capacity, while giving the core more margin for barge landing.  Smaller boosters vs. the current FH configuration would also give S2 more weight margin, which might make the difference for reusability happening sooner, vs. waiting for a more advanced S2 engine to enable re-use.

The idea of a Super Heavy doesn't make any sense for anything that is going to be launched anytime in the next decade or more, and it pretty much a non starter to think of adding more engines and width to an already complex beast.  Anything "Super Heavy" from SpaceX will be based on the Raptor engine/BFR plans.

It's possibly into off topic territory , but here's my concept for smaller boosters for a "F9 Medium Heavy" that would push well past 6 tons to GTO and give more margin for barge return.  I'll argue that what make a rocket a "Super Heavy" is what is actually possible to build and fly.  This design might be more "Super" than some of the concepts that started this thread in 2010 with +50 engines in the configuration!

2 boosters, powered by 4 Merlin 1D FT engines, reducing engine count vs. current FH by 10.   Mass of each booster is around 85,000 kg, and burns out in 95 seconds.   The vehicle is past MaxQ when they jettison.   These smaller booster should also be able to be re-used.  I envision that they completely consume all their fuel, and maneuver with grid fins after separation for a parachute deployment and mid-air snag by land based helicopters.   Empty booster weight should be able to be kept under 9000 kg to make this possible.  No drone ships or hoverslam for the boosters, but depending on payload, the core still do as it currently does, just more margin.

Here's a quick and dirty photo edit of the concept.  I basically shrunk the existing side cores by 54% for a representative look at the size.   Side booster are now around 30 meters tall, 2 meter core.

The "Falcon Medium Heavy"
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars-J on 01/11/2016 12:13 am
Why are people so enamored with helicopter capture?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/11/2016 01:47 am
Why are people so enamored with helicopter capture?

Which people?   Maybe we can ask some of them.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/11/2016 01:59 am
The business case for a re-usable 3 stick rocket against an expendable one stick (FHR vs F9E) is already much tougher to make than before F9 became a true EELV (as opposed to a Delta II replacement)....

Moreover, this is not easy technically to do. Think of the added complexity, as well as the changes needed to the pads, the erectors, the integration facilities, the landing zones, etc etc. .....

The best way to actually improve the re-usable/recoverable fraction of the vehicle vs the expendable, would be to work on stage two recovery.....

Good points against a Super Heavy.

Yes, the evolution of the F9 into it's current class is making the business case for the FH more and more difficult I think.   The speculated capability to deliver near 6 tons to GTO is creeping into the sweet spot for revenue generation.  SpaceX should probably be trying to figure out how to be more competitive in the remaining payloads coming up for bid in this class, ( 5-7 ton) while still optimizing re-use options.    SpaceX does not seem to be in too big a rush or concerned about the schedule lag, as they don't really have ay payloads to launch.

While the re-usability is important long term, the current configuration still delivers less than stellar results when all 3 cores are RTLS or barge landed.   The penalties are pretty big.  The really impressive LEO or beyond numbers are achieved only when the center core gets expended, or when all cores are expended.  Currently the FH was stated to get 6.4 tons to GTO when all cores are returned.   That is an awful lot of complex rocket sitting on the pad for the slight improvement over a single stick F9 expendable.

I think an interesting option would be to consider smaller boosters than that would enhance the margin of the center core, pushing it solidly into +6ton to GTO capacity, while giving the core more margin for barge landing.  Smaller boosters vs. the current FH configuration would also give S2 more weight margin, which might make the difference for reusability happening sooner, vs. waiting for a more advanced S2 engine to enable re-use.

The idea of a Super Heavy doesn't make any sense for anything that is going to be launched anytime in the next decade or more, and it pretty much a non starter to think of adding more engines and width to an already complex beast.  Anything "Super Heavy" from SpaceX will be based on the Raptor engine/BFR plans.

It's possibly into off topic territory , but here's my concept for smaller boosters for a "F9 Medium Heavy" that would push well past 6 tons to GTO and give more margin for barge return.  I'll argue that what make a rocket a "Super Heavy" is what is actually possible to build and fly.  This design might be more "Super" than some of the concepts that started this thread in 2010 with +50 engines in the configuration!

2 boosters, powered by 4 Merlin 1D FT engines, reducing engine count vs. current FH by 10.   Mass of each booster is around 85,000 kg, and burns out in 95 seconds.   The vehicle is past MaxQ when they jettison.   These smaller booster should also be able to be re-used.  I envision that they completely consume all their fuel, and maneuver with grid fins after separation for a parachute deployment and mid-air snag by land based helicopters.   Empty booster weight should be able to be kept under 9000 kg to make this possible.  No drone ships or hoverslam for the boosters, but depending on payload, the core still do as it currently does, just more margin.

Here's a quick and dirty photo edit of the concept.  I basically shrunk the existing side cores by 54% for a representative look at the size.   Side booster are now around 30 meters tall, 2 meter core.

The "Falcon Medium Heavy"
The use of smaller boosters does not make economic sense when reuse is considered. The small cost savings in manufacture is not reflected in much of any savings in refurbishment such that a full size set of boosters is almost the same cost as that of the smaller booster ones. Further decreasing the economies of scale on each of the booster sizes may also in total increase the costs such that no savings whatsoever would be had.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: AncientU on 01/11/2016 02:08 am
My version of a FH supper heavy is start with a FHFT add crossfeed and then a Raptor 5m diameter US of same length (ISP 385) of about same weight as the M1DVAC-FT US, which yields if the 1st stage are driven to depletion and US close to depletion:

LEO - ~83mt
TLI - ~30.4mt
TMI- ~23mt

No need to get fancy for a significant amount of extra performance for those really big missions that might occur in next 10 years.

This is the way to go... truly optimizes the existing cores and fixes the weakness of under-powered, low ISP second stage.  This is exactly what I expect to see when propellant shipments begin -- the second stage will be a reusable Methlox tanker in its first incarnation.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Prettz on 01/11/2016 02:50 am
The "Falcon Medium Heavy"
How does this save large amounts of money per launch? Most of the costs of a launch of this are in the engines and the manufacture of the first stage cores. Making them different to manufacture from the center core doesn't save any money. The goal of anything new should be to significantly reduce the cost of getting things into space.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dante80 on 01/11/2016 02:57 am
This is similar to the old F9S5 concept. A Falcon 9 first stage with 2 Falcon 5 boosters.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/11/2016 03:24 am
The use of smaller boosters does not make economic sense when reuse is considered. The small cost savings in manufacture is not reflected in much of any savings in refurbishment such that a full size set of boosters is almost the same cost as that of the smaller booster ones. Further decreasing the economies of scale on each of the booster sizes may also in total increase the costs such that no savings whatsoever would be had.

I agree with some of that criticism.  Specifically the economics of starting a new production line for a smaller core size.  SpaceX ( Gwen S.) has been particular on this consideration of how she wants to run operations. (i.e 2 configurations only )   I think it would take the Air Force continuously selecting ULA's rockets over FH for heavy payloads to GEO to reconsider the FH at this point.   

Beyond the AF payloads, what else is out there to get onto the FH manifest?   That is where I disagree with your criticism that a small core does not make economic sense.  In the FH configuration, the center core is the same configuration as the single stick F9 yes?   The side boosters are an unique configuration ( left/right ) to match up to a core.   So with the evolved capability of the F9 FT, their does not appear to be much need for the FH & big boosters.  So where is the economics in that going? 

I think the economic benefits of the smaller & re-usable booster are multiple:
1.  All of the performance of the smaller boosters goes into the pushing the center core.   An additional point of the edited photo is to think about how much of the performance of the 9 engine F9 cores goes into accelerating it's own mass, and mass of fuel needed for the RTLS. A much smaller booster can deliver the same benefit if it's not paying the RTLS penalties.

2.  Re-use is not abandoned, it is simplified.  Separating around 95s into flight, they will be within 10-20km of the launch site, and will probably not leave the atmosphere at apogee. It's a more benign return to the ground vs. RTLS.  This favors low cost by enabling re-use.

3.  Reliability has it's own economy.  FH may prove otherwise, but 27 engines is a lot of potential for things to be delayed or go wrong.  Delayed launches will cost SpaceX lost payloads to competition.  There is nothing economic about maintaining a core production line without a market paying for it.

4.  The small booster are candidates to be used on launches that would otherwise be launched on a single stick F9-E or F9R to expand the payload to greater than 6 tons to GTO with more margin for returning the core.  Their are more of these launches on the current manifest, or potential new payload wins, than their are payloads for FH.  Basically they have backwards utility into the F9 single stick configurations.   If they can be proven re-usable, they will be much less expensive than full F9 side cores.

I think I may see the "gap" for the F9 family is in the "Medium Heavy + re-use" paradigm,  because the FH seems to offer not much benefit unless it is operated in partial or wholly expendable mode. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/11/2016 03:45 am
This is similar to the old F9S5 concept. A Falcon 9 first stage with 2 Falcon 5 boosters.

I did not know of that.   Any threads on it?  I'd like to check that out.

I picked 4 engines, a 2m core, and 95 second burn time for the following primary reasons

1.  I did want to preserve re-use, and growing the booster to 5 Merlin 1D FT engines would add enough extra dry mass that an air recovery would likely not be possible with plausible mass ratios.  A S-64 Skycrane was my baseline helo.

2.  95 seconds was chosen to get through MaxQ,  expend the fuel quickly and get all the performance benefits per the rocket equation, and stay within the atmosphere and vicinity of the launch site for preserving re-use options.

3.  I wanted to keep the booster length within reasonable fineness ratios, & use the existing attachment points on the exiting core.  Adding the 5th engine to a 2m core surpassed the "fineness" portion of that requirement.   Growing the core in diameter was considered, but the 4 engine x 2 booster give performance in kN*s comparable, ( on paper it's better) to the 4 AJ-60's that are used on ATLAS V.   Performance wise, think of an F9 FT with 4 x AJ-60's

4.  I really think FH is cludgy, has too many engines, and it's market has become suspect.  I'm more interested in making the existing F9 single stick into something that can be more dominant in the GTO +6 ton missions with re-use.   That will make money that can feed more innovation.


Falcon Heavy in re-usable mode is akin to the cancelled Boeing Sonic Cruiser.   Beautiful to look at , but not worth the effort to push mach .98 vs. mach .82 of a typical jetliner.   Boeing eventually made the smarter play with the 787.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars-J on 01/11/2016 05:05 am
Why are people so enamored with helicopter capture?

Which people?   Maybe we can ask some of them.

Why don't you start, then? You did propose a helicopter recovery of scaled down F9 boosters in the post above mine. Do you think it is worth the effort when SpaceX already has larger boosters than can land themselves? Here's what you wrote... "I envision that they completely consume all their fuel, and maneuver with grid fins after separation for a parachute deployment and mid-air snag by land based helicopters. "
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: hkultala on 01/11/2016 05:52 am
[offtopic]

4.  I really think FH is cludgy, has too many engines, and it's market has become suspect.

Why do you think it has too many engines?
What's so bad about having many engines?

And before you say "reliability", think it first. Have you done any reliability analysis?
Think about the engine-out capability.

Quote
I'm more interested in making the existing F9 single stick into something that can be more dominant in the GTO +6 ton missions with re-use.   That will make money that can feed more innovation.

There is no economical way to considerably increase F9 capasity much more. All the ways to increase it's payload much more would considerably increase the cost also.
(there is just no space for more propellant; It's already very tall, and making it wider would break the road transportability. Tanks are already very light, mass fraction is already very good. Engines already have best T/W for all operational liquid engines no big upgrade coming and even if one came, it would only help gravity losses by a little without extra propellant. Practically the only way to increase the payload considerably would be increasing isp of the engines considerably, which means designing whole new staged combustion engines(expensive development). Not coming for kerosine. And switching to methane does not help with F9 tank size limitations, and it would anyway be totally new rocket, not improved F9.

[/offtopic]
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/11/2016 06:09 am
Why are people so enamored with helicopter capture?

Which people?   Maybe we can ask some of them.

Why don't you start, then? You did propose a helicopter recovery of scaled down F9 boosters in the post above mine. Do you think it is worth the effort when SpaceX already has larger boosters than can land themselves? Here's what you wrote... "I envision that they completely consume all their fuel, and maneuver with grid fins after separation for a parachute deployment and mid-air snag by land based helicopters. "

Well, I'm not really enamored with them, so I didn't see myself qualified to respond to your challenge.  Any valid points in suggesting a smaller booster used to completion hardly rest on the utility of helo's being the key determining criteria of the ideas validity.   If this idea is a bad idea, the use of helo's is the least of its problems and least valid of arguments against it.

Having said all that...I'll take a stab answering you in good faith.

I am enamored with re-use, and see helo's as one viable path if the empty booster is light enough for existing commercial services to provide. 

Simply parachuting them into the ocean as was SpaceX first plan with the F9 might be viable for a smaller, less fragile booster.  But why do that if you can avoid it?   Gas n' go is best if it can be pulled off.  Once SpaceX failed with parachutes and move to propulsive, logic says bring it down on dry land, and they are where they are today by following that logic.

Propulsive landing for the small booster is out of the question, as the engines aren't sized right for it.  Definitely not going to develop a special low thrust engine to do a propulsive landing just for this booster.

What's left?   Maybe make it a flyback booster with wings and landing gear?   Probably is possible, I thought about it, but way way more complex in flight regime, controls, stronger structure etc.  Mass fractions would suffer, and defeat the point of the whole effort.

So my though was to deploy grid fins to manage the CP post separation and guide it to an overwater LZ for a helo to pick it from the sky.  I choose that vs. the salt water exposure and refurb cycle that would incur.

It's just a choice.   There are others. 

Finally, you had one other question:  "Do you think it is worth the effort when SpaceX already has larger boosters than can land themselves? "

No, I don't see that it is worth it in any case except for launching very large payloads with the center core being expended, or all three cores expended.   Those payloads are few and far between, and will stay that way for some time before any market elasticity can develop. 

The existing F9 FT is nicely creeping up on covering the vast bulk of payloads, F9 FT shouldn't need another 800,000 kg's of fuel, 40,000 kg of metal and 18 additional Merlin 1D's to get a marginal 1-2 tons to GTO. 
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: kch on 01/11/2016 06:28 am
This is similar to the old F9S5 concept. A Falcon 9 first stage with 2 Falcon 5 boosters.

I did not know of that.   Any threads on it?  I'd like to check that out.

Here's a page with some information on the Falcon 5 and F9S5:

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html)

(don't miss the vehicle configuration charts toward the bottom of the page)  :)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/11/2016 06:45 am
[offtopic]

4.  I really think FH is cludgy, has too many engines, and it's market has become suspect.

Q:Why do you think it has too many engines? 
A: For starters, SpaceX is unapologetic of using what they have, even if not ideal.  What they have is Merlin.   It's a great engine, and as Donald Rumsfeld Duck once said, "you go to space with the engines you have, not the engines you want"

Q: What's so bad about having many engines? 
A1:More points of failure
A2: What is good about having more engines?

Q: And before you say "reliability", think it first. Have you done any reliability analysis? 
A: Have you?   How many 9's reliable are the Merlins?   Tell me, I'd like to know.  Do you like raising that number to the 27th power when you will be putting billion dollar payloads on a FH?

Q: Think about the engine-out capability. 
A: I don't care about the engine out capability of the FH boosters because I don't see that the boosters do much good in delivering a vehicle with unique capability  F9 FT is creeping up on 5.5 or 6 tons to GTO with barge landing re-use in it's margins.  So we add 2 F9 S1 cores and we get that up to 6.4 tons?  But hey, we can have an engine or two go out and still make that meager improvement, so it's now worth it?
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/11/2016 07:10 am
This is similar to the old F9S5 concept. A Falcon 9 first stage with 2 Falcon 5 boosters.

I did not know of that.   Any threads on it?  I'd like to check that out.

Here's a page with some information on the Falcon 5 and F9S5:

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html)

(don't miss the vehicle configuration charts toward the bottom of the page)  :)

Thanks for digging that out of it's hiding for me.  I read the F5 paragraph, then skipped to the bottom as suggested.

Notable quote:
"Falcon 9S5 would use two Falcon 5 strap-on boosters.  Falcon 9S9 would use two Falcon 9 strap-on boosters.  No longer a Delta II class launch vehicle, Falcon 9 entered the EELV payload category."

I don't think that the idea of smaller, fast burnout liquid boosters is similar to the Falcon 9S5.  That plan still looks like SpaceX using a vehicle intended as a stand-alone launcher to second as a booster.  According to the charts, S1 had a burn time of 265 seconds, meaning re-use with F5 as a launcher or booster would push it pretty far downrange, and pretty high.   Same core diameter as F9, but less engines because it was shorter and lighter than the full F9.

My biggest point is to give the F9 FT the biggest & quickest kick possible that extends it's payload past 6 tons to GTO, and widen re-use margins for barge landing the core, and keep the boosters close to the launchpad, as a propulsive return would not be possible.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 01/11/2016 08:24 am
They can optimize with a FHR, which is suspected to have a LEO-capacity in the range of 25-35mt. But they still lose 1 second stage and one engine for every 27 engines in the first stage.
That payload mass seems a bit high for a Falcon Heavy with all 3 cores RTLS.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 01/11/2016 09:00 am
F9 FT is creeping up on 5.5 or 6 tons to GTO with barge landing re-use in it's margins.  So we add 2 F9 S1 cores and we get that up to 6.4 tons?
In the end analysis, I suspect a Falcon Heavy with all 3 cores RTLS may end up being cheaper than an F9 with the first stage landing on a barge downrange.

Maintaining 2 landing barges for the relatively few flights that need them will end up being quite expensive.  Then there's the added logistics and expense of shipping the stage back to the launch site. 

Remember, reusability is all about saving money.  Once all the reuse options are proven, the trade-offs between each will end up being an accounting exercise.  Right now, landing barges are required until RTLS is proven reliable and safe, but once RTLS becomes the mainstay, the added expense of maintaining landing barges (port fees, ship maintenance, heavy equipment leases, etc.) for the few flights that need it - the cost justification may not add up.

My guess: In 5-10 years, SpaceX won't use landing barges anymore.  For the very few flights that can't use some type of RTLS configuration, it will end up being cheaper to just expend the stage.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: hkultala on 01/11/2016 02:49 pm
[offtopic]

4.  I really think FH is cludgy, has too many engines, and it's market has become suspect.

Q:Why do you think it has too many engines? 
A: For starters, SpaceX is unapologetic of using what they have, even if not ideal.  What they have is Merlin.   It's a great engine, and as Donald Rumsfeld Duck once said, "you go to space with the engines you have, not the engines you want"

Quote
Q: What's so bad about having many engines? 
A1:More points of failure

.. and more redundancy to survive failures.

Quote
Quote
Q: And before you say "reliability", think it first. Have you done any reliability analysis? 
A: Have you?   How many 9's reliable are the Merlins?   Tell me, I'd like to know.  Do you like raising that number to the 27th power when you will be putting billion dollar payloads on a FH?

There is no "raising that number to the 27th power". Multiple of those engines can fail and the rocket can still fulfill it's mission.
CRS-1 already showed how it can survive RUD of an engine. And current version of Falcon 9 and Falcon heavy has better T/W ratio than v1.0 had so the perfromance loss from failed engine will be much smaller.

Quote
Quote
Q: Think about the engine-out capability. 
A: I don't care about the engine out capability of the FH boosters because I don't see that the boosters do much good in delivering a vehicle with unique capability

You complain about reliability and then you ignore engine-out capability. How ignorant can that be?

Quote
  F9 FT is creeping up on 5.5 or 6 tons to GTO with barge landing re-use in it's margins.  So we add 2 F9 S1 cores and we get that up to 6.4 tons?  But hey, we can have an engine or two go out and still make that meager improvement, so it's now worth it?[/i]

Where are you getting these 5.5 or 6 ton numbers? SpaceX has never advertised capasity more than 4850 kg GTO for any Falcon 9 variant. This is the payload for v1.1 expendable or v1.2 with S1 barge landing.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: dror on 01/11/2016 02:57 pm

...
Currently the FH was stated to get 6.4 tons to GTO when all cores are returned.
...

AFAIK That's not true. Where was it 'stated'?
That is possibly based on a misinterpretation of the stated prices in their site.
Lately Musk stated that FH boosters will RTLS and the core will ASDS in most cases, so why not assume that the ~21 ton to GTO, stated in their site, refers to that?
5.5 ton single core and 6.4 ton triple core makes no sense.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/11/2016 07:07 pm

...
Currently the FH was stated to get 6.4 tons to GTO when all cores are returned.
...

AFAIK That's not true. Where was it 'stated'?
That is possibly based on a misinterpretation of the stated prices in their site.
Lately Musk stated that FH boosters will RTLS and the core will ASDS in most cases, so why not assume that the ~21 ton to GTO, stated in their site, refers to that?
5.5 ton single core and 6.4 ton triple core makes no sense.
This source gives the max F9v1.1 to GTO-1800 performance as 5.7mt but that is also without any margins S1 and S2 to depletion. With SES-9 still requireing a barge landing to maintain margins this means that payload increase from v1.1 to FT  for GTO is not the full 33% and even when expended and not recovered it would still not be much more. http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx (http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx)

The 21mt for FH refers to a v1.1 with crossfeed all cores expended performance with cores to depletion and possibly even the S2 to depletion. So doing RTLS of all cores for v1.1 with a GTO of 6.4 does make sense. The point of that being that with FT that 6.4 increases but the exact increase in unknown only the max possible of 8.5mt, so the new number for FT will be somewhere in between 6.4 and 8.5.

In other words the FHFT doing RTLS of all cores may be able to take the largest GEO sats currently being built. To use more expensive methods to get the same performance will not make economic sense. It is only when this is not enough that the other more expensive options come into play and the real max capability of FHFT is needed.

Edit added:
The cost of a FHFT all core RTLS vs a F9FT RTLS is that it looks at the moment that the FHFT would be $10M per flight more than the F9FT RTLS. But a F9FT expendable would be $10-20M more than the FHFT all core RTLS. So once RTLS and resuse starts there will be no more F9 expendables, even F9 ASDS, only F9 RTLS. ASDS usage would be for payload performance beyond the FHFT RTLS capability.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/11/2016 07:34 pm
F9 FT is creeping up on 5.5 or 6 tons to GTO with barge landing re-use in it's margins.  So we add 2 F9 S1 cores and we get that up to 6.4 tons?
In the end analysis, I suspect a Falcon Heavy with all 3 cores RTLS may end up being cheaper than an F9 with the first stage landing on a barge downrange.

Maintaining 2 landing barges for the relatively few flights that need them will end up being quite expensive.  Then there's the added logistics and expense of shipping the stage back to the launch site. 

Remember, reusability is all about saving money.  Once all the reuse options are proven, the trade-offs between each will end up being an accounting exercise.  Right now, landing barges are required until RTLS is proven reliable and safe, but once RTLS becomes the mainstay, the added expense of maintaining landing barges (port fees, ship maintenance, heavy equipment leases, etc.) for the few flights that need it - the cost justification may not add up.

My guess: In 5-10 years, SpaceX won't use landing barges anymore.  For the very few flights that can't use some type of RTLS configuration, it will end up being cheaper to just expend the stage.

And extending that thought, we know cores have a finite life. So a core at the end of it's life could be expended. Call it an F9FF (final flight). So also no need for the drones.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/11/2016 10:17 pm
F9 FT is creeping up on 5.5 or 6 tons to GTO with barge landing re-use in it's margins.  So we add 2 F9 S1 cores and we get that up to 6.4 tons?
In the end analysis, I suspect a Falcon Heavy with all 3 cores RTLS may end up being cheaper than an F9 with the first stage landing on a barge downrange.

Maintaining 2 landing barges for the relatively few flights that need them will end up being quite expensive.  Then there's the added logistics and expense of shipping the stage back to the launch site. 

Remember, reusability is all about saving money.  Once all the reuse options are proven, the trade-offs between each will end up being an accounting exercise.  Right now, landing barges are required until RTLS is proven reliable and safe, but once RTLS becomes the mainstay, the added expense of maintaining landing barges (port fees, ship maintenance, heavy equipment leases, etc.) for the few flights that need it - the cost justification may not add up.

My guess: In 5-10 years, SpaceX won't use landing barges anymore.  For the very few flights that can't use some type of RTLS configuration, it will end up being cheaper to just expend the stage.

And extending that thought, we know cores have a finite life. So a core at the end of it's life could be expended. Call it an F9FF (final flight). So also no need for the drones.
Doing the same with FHFT would yield a capability of:
Up to 59mt to LEO
Up to 25mt to GTO-1800
Up to 20mt to TLI
Up to 15mt to TMI

The real trick is that since it is its last flight only a small surcharge over that of the full RTLS price would be charged just to manage the flight schedule such that the flight would be the FF of the set. Possibly even such candidates would be placed in storage awaiting a customer for an expendable flight and the surcharge would cover the storage costs.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: tleski on 01/12/2016 02:54 am
F9 FT is creeping up on 5.5 or 6 tons to GTO with barge landing re-use in it's margins.  So we add 2 F9 S1 cores and we get that up to 6.4 tons?
In the end analysis, I suspect a Falcon Heavy with all 3 cores RTLS may end up being cheaper than an F9 with the first stage landing on a barge downrange.

Maintaining 2 landing barges for the relatively few flights that need them will end up being quite expensive.  Then there's the added logistics and expense of shipping the stage back to the launch site. 

Remember, reusability is all about saving money.  Once all the reuse options are proven, the trade-offs between each will end up being an accounting exercise.  Right now, landing barges are required until RTLS is proven reliable and safe, but once RTLS becomes the mainstay, the added expense of maintaining landing barges (port fees, ship maintenance, heavy equipment leases, etc.) for the few flights that need it - the cost justification may not add up.

My guess: In 5-10 years, SpaceX won't use landing barges anymore.  For the very few flights that can't use some type of RTLS configuration, it will end up being cheaper to just expend the stage.

And extending that thought, we know cores have a finite life. So a core at the end of it's life could be expended. Call it an F9FF (final flight). So also no need for the drones.

I hope that when the reusability becomes routine it will be illegal to dump a used rocket into the ocean. We don't do it with used cars or airplanes, why would we do it with rockets?  ???
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: thebluemarble on 01/12/2016 03:34 am
I hope that when the reusability becomes routine it will be illegal to dump a used rocket into the ocean. We don't do it with used cars or airplanes, why would we do it with rockets?  ???
Actually, sometimes we do, and it serves a noble purpose.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/26/world/subway-cars-coral-reef/
Though I bet that used rocket stages would not be useful for that particular purpose ;)
Sorry, this should go to a new 'What should be done with used rocket stages' thread :P
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 01/12/2016 07:56 am
I think Falcon Heavy crossfeed can be done without pumps and without input pressure transients at the engines.  That should make it simple and safe enough to implement.  I think it can also be done with the center stage at full throttle for its entire flight except for the bit around maxQ and perhaps a little bit at the end to avoid G limits.  Full throttle operation during booster operation should reduce gravity losses and improve performance.

Full throttle crossfeed would improve Falcon Heavy Reusable GTO performance a lot... enough to switch a bunch of cargoes from FH to FHR.

Here is the idea: the boosters are segmented into FOUR tanks, rather than two, and are taller than the central core.  From bottom to top, the booster has the following:
Kerosene (for booster)   90,499 kg   112.2 m^3   @+  0.0 m^3
LOX (for booster)       231,550 kg   203.1 m^3   @+112.2 m^3
Kerosene (for core)      40,168 kg    49.8 m^3   @+315.3 m^3
LOX (for core)          102,831 kg    90.2 m^3   @+365.1 m^3

From bottom to top, the core has the following:
Kerosene                105,630 kg   131.1 m^3   @+  0.0 m^3
LOX                     270,415 kg   237.2 m^3   @+131.1 m^3


The crucial point is that the bottom of the tank holding LOX for transfer to the core (@+365.1) is about the same height the top of the core's LOX tank (@368.3).  Including a bit of empty space between tanks, it might actually be a bit higher.  The bottom of the transfer kero tank (@+315.3) is higher than the core's kero tank (@+131.1).  So that means if there is a pipe connecting the two, acceleration will drain the fluid in the booster transfer tank into the core tank.

If that pipe is at the top of the core's tank, then when the booster is ready to separate, the pipe will be empty of fluid and full of pressurant (all of which came from the booster's pressurant bottles).  Four valves in the core close (one each for LOX and kero from each booster), the booster separates, and the core is nearly completely full of fuel.  Better still, the boosters separate at a lower altitude and require less propellant to return to launch point.

Because the fluid enters the top of the tank, rather than the bottom, so the entire bottom assembly of the booster and core is unchanged.  There are no fluid transients down there associated with separation after crossfeed.  I came up with this scheme after being unable to figure out how to do it with crossfeed pipes at the bottom of the stage, since those end up near separation with the fluids going up a pressure gradient from the bottom of the nearly-empty booster tanks to the bottom of the nearly-full core tanks.  It seems like it needed a pump and that was going to cause fluid hammer and potentially fluid temperature changes and all sorts of other nastyness.

Unfortunately all my numbers predate the subcooled propellant and Full Thrust engines.  But the idea should apply just fine no matter what the scale.  I've lost access to my simulator, so I can't come up with a performance estimate, but I'd think it would be pretty close to perfect crossfeed.  The downside is the extra mass of the two additional tank bulkheads.  It should substantially increase the performance margin of the FHR over the F9 expendable.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 01/12/2016 08:01 am
Ugh.  Sorry, it appears I've already posted this once.  Apologies.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: guckyfan on 01/12/2016 09:15 am
The idea sounds valid to me. However the stages would be very different from standard Falcon 9 stages. Producing them would be significantly more expensive. SpaceX has chosen a path with very little modifications, the cheaper path.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: IainMcClatchie on 01/12/2016 11:14 am
The changes would be a lot less than the changes from v1.1 to Full Thrust.  Note that the changes are all around the interstage, and don't touch the engines of any of the stages.  That's pretty simple.

It's a lot of performance for four bulkheads, four valves, and some plumbing.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: RanulfC on 01/12/2016 02:02 pm
From the conversation I'm getting that "Full Thrust" is a variant of the current F9 V1.1? Can someone link the post showing the differences?

Thanks

Randy
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: rocx on 01/12/2016 02:31 pm
This page gives quite a nice overview: http://spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html

And even shorter: more thrust from the Merlin 1D's and Merlin 1DVac, colder propellants to increase density, and a slightly longer upper stage.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: dlapine on 01/12/2016 02:55 pm
The changes would be a lot less than the changes from v1.1 to Full Thrust.  Note that the changes are all around the interstage, and don't touch the engines of any of the stages.  That's pretty simple.

It's a lot of performance for four bulkheads, four valves, and some plumbing.

Um, could you include the projected performance increases for this change?  That might help in determining if a different booster config might be worth it.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dante80 on 01/12/2016 03:27 pm
This page gives quite a nice overview: http://spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html (http://spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html)

And even shorter: more thrust from the Merlin 1D's and Merlin 1DVac, colder propellants to increase density, and a slightly longer upper stage.

And a longer interstage, and different grid fin integration, and different cold thruster placement, and a bigger MVac nozzle, and an upgraded hydraulic separation system, and new struts, and a white thing inside the LOX tank, and maybe upgraded legs, and the list goes on and on. We really don't know how many first launch items were on the ORB-2 mission...XD
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: abaddon on 01/12/2016 03:48 pm
New struts apply to 1.1 too, so I would not call that an F9FT specific modification (although it they did first fly on an F9FT).
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dave G on 01/12/2016 04:47 pm
This page gives quite a nice overview: http://spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html (http://spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9ft.html)

And even shorter: more thrust from the Merlin 1D's and Merlin 1DVac, colder propellants to increase density, and a slightly longer upper stage.

And a longer interstage, and different grid fin integration, and different cold thruster placement, and a bigger MVac nozzle, and an upgraded hydraulic separation system, and new struts, and a white thing inside the LOX tank, and maybe upgraded legs, and the list goes on and on. We really don't know how many first launch items were on the ORB-2 mission...XD

Exactly. 

As I said before, I suspect Musk wanted to call it F9 v1.2, but that would scare customers, so instead SpaceX just mentions the upgraded capabilities in passing.

Moving forward, I suspect this will be SpaceX's modus operandi.  They will keep tweaking the design, optimizing for reliability and cost.  This is typical for commercial companies, but somewhat new for the space industry.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars-J on 01/12/2016 06:06 pm
Moving forward, I suspect this will be SpaceX's modus operandi.  They will keep tweaking the design, optimizing for reliability and cost.  This is typical for commercial companies, but somewhat new for the space industry.

Not really that different. ULA does the same thing... Their rockets keep evolving, but they may be more incremental about it. (one change per rocket instead of a bunch at a time)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Kabloona on 01/12/2016 09:45 pm
Quote
And a longer interstage, and different grid fin integration, and different cold thruster placement, and a bigger MVac nozzle, and an upgraded hydraulic separation system, and new struts, and a white thing inside the LOX tank, and maybe upgraded legs, and the list goes on and on...

And a center pusher stage separation system to accommodate the bigger MVac nozzle.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Dante80 on 01/12/2016 10:33 pm
Yeah, that was the  upgraded hydraulic separation system part...the added (fourth) pusher is rumored to attach inside the nozzle. :)
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Stan-1967 on 01/13/2016 01:50 am
The changes would be a lot less than the changes from v1.1 to Full Thrust.  Note that the changes are all around the interstage, and don't touch the engines of any of the stages.  That's pretty simple.

It's a lot of performance for four bulkheads, four valves, and some plumbing.

I like the gravity drain idea, as well as just plumbing the center core to pull prop from the side cores up until just before side booster shut off and separation, where valves would then shift to it's own center core tanks. It in effect makes the FH a 3 stage rocket.   

FH FT would still top out around 59,000 kg's to LEO in either mode.   I think that could be tweaked a little more by making some "special" engine configurations on the outer cores that add an additional 8 engines ( 4 per side core).  That pushes performance past 60,000 kg's but you are basically trading up plumbing complexity and mass of more engines against reducing gravity losses.   

FH FT is sitting pretty nice as configured to maximize the design for Heavy lift to LEO.  All the variations of RLTS, and barge landings give flexibility that may end up being more payload specific vs. being a market shaping capability.  It is going to take time to let it sort out.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars-J on 01/13/2016 04:49 am
From the conversation I'm getting that "Full Thrust" is a variant of the current F9 V1.1? Can someone link the post showing the differences?

Thanks

Randy

From SpaceX:
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: AncientU on 01/14/2016 02:14 am
My version of a FH supper heavy is start with a FHFT add crossfeed and then a Raptor 5m diameter US of same length (ISP 385) of about same weight as the M1DVAC-FT US, which yields if the 1st stage are driven to depletion and US close to depletion:

LEO - ~83mt
TLI - ~30.4mt
TMI- ~23mt

No need to get fancy for a significant amount of extra performance for those really big missions that might occur in next 10 years.

This is the way to go... truly optimizes the existing cores and fixes the weakness of under-powered, low ISP second stage.  This is exactly what I expect to see when propellant shipments begin -- the second stage will be a reusable Methlox tanker in its first incarnation.

Looks like USAF just bought the engine... expect a debut in two years.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: Lars-J on 01/14/2016 02:18 am
Looks like USAF just bought the engine... expect a debut in two years.

Bought is a strong work. Co-funding is a better choice. And there is no guarantee that it would be used in any non-SpaceX vehicle - USAF just want to have the option.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/14/2016 03:26 am
Looks like USAF just bought the engine... expect a debut in two years.

Bought is a strong work. Co-funding is a better choice. And there is no guarantee that it would be used in any non-SpaceX vehicle - USAF just want to have the option.
Well it looks like the configuration has a higher likelihood than even I thought it had. Even without crossfeed and use with all booster RTLS the payload capabilities will still be significant. Use as an all up expendable gives this vehicle the capability to do the same basic capability that the SLS block 1 does. It launch Orion around the Moon. If the engine is tested in late 2017 a flight stage could exist as early as 2019.
Title: Re: Falcon Super Heavy
Post by: AncientU on 01/14/2016 11:25 am
Looks like USAF just bought the engine... expect a debut in two years.

Bought is a strong work. Co-funding is a better choice. And there is no guarantee that it would be used in any non-SpaceX vehicle - USAF just want to have the option.
Well it looks like the configuration has a higher likelihood than even I thought it had. Even without crossfeed and use with all booster RTLS the payload capabilities will still be significant. Use as an all up expendable gives this vehicle the capability to do the same basic capability that the SLS block 1 does. It launch Orion around the Moon. If the engine is tested in late 2017 a flight stage could exist as early as 2019.

My guess would be that the Raptors for BFR were too far along for SpaceX to entangle with USG funding, but the later version (smaller like this one) were bumped up in likelihood since the USG was giving away money.

Nice render here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39310.msg1474680#msg1474680

Second from left is one variant. Also expect tanker and fuel depot second stages, unless depot will ride in fairing as shown.