3x3 grid of 3x3 = 9x9 grid
Lots of redundancy should an engine fail.
cheers Peter
3x3 grid of 3x3 = 9x9 grid
Lots of redundancy should an engine fail.
9 time 4.5 = 40 tonnes?
Keep in mind the Soyuz has 20 engines on its first stage.20 chambers (or 32 counting the verniers), but only 5 engines.
Who says they have to jettison simultaneously? Delta 2 sheds up to 9 boosters.
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.
"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?
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. ;)
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+.
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+.
Making a rocket much, much taller while not also making it wider will increase bending loads greatly.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.
(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?"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.
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.
"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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
"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
I do! (another Brit here) Although I didn't know it was a bird as well.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
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
Oops, they forgot to add one to the right! But I'm sure the tvs can handle that.
And the thread degenerates back to fantasy land. :(
And the thread degenerates back to fantasy land. :(
It was firmly in fantasy land from the beginning.
Why stop there? :o
What about a ring with 8+ Falcons and two or more seccond staged ones ? ;D
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).
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.
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?
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.
Complexity and costs would out weigh the redundancy.
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.
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?
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...
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.
I think this entire thread just wants to turn the Falcon 9 into some sort of super-heavy variant of the OTRAG modular vehicle. ;)
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?
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.
There is a thread on this alreadyThat thread is for a Falcon derived SHLV using many Merlin1 engines. This thread is for the BFE derived (non-Falcon) SHLV.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21867.0
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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") :)
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.
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 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.
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.
If the LAS for SpaceX has gone from a cost of $300 million to $1 billionForgive me for what's probably a stupid question, but where was this 1B$ cost reported?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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
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
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?
So if NASA came in and offered to pay for some portion of the development costs for a new modular MLV/HLV/SHLV vehicle,
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
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.
I like the Wikipedia definition of a HLV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle):
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)
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Very confusing for us amateurs :-\ (or maybe just me!)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
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.
All the major players, from NASA to ULA to SpaceX have HLV and SHLV plans.
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
I'm talking economic and cheap lift capability.
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.
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.
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.
He does NOT need NASA.
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.
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.
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.
The only customer for a 100mt (or even 40mt) HLV is NASA.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Is upjin the secret reincarnation of publiusr or something? ;)
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.
HLV is very much NOT doable as a NASA and special interest groupsAres1/AresV/Direct /SDHLV MONSTER.
So it's ok for Elon to cobble together a 27-engine cluster frack and that's a sweet HLV...
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.
I like the Wikipedia definition of a HLV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle):
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)
"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*
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.
So it's ok for Elon to cobble together a 27-engine cluster frack and that's a sweet HLV,...
Wikipedia has no credibility unless it is backed up by actual reputable sources.Thank you for setting the record straight and for the history lesson.
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.
Only on NSF will one's definition of what "Heavy-lift" means get you ostracized. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :P
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?
You can take stuff bigger than 12 feet in diameter over land. This one is a little under 4.5 meters.
I believe that this is a tower for a wind turbine (I work on wind turbines).
Aeroman
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?
HLV is very much NOT doable as a NASA and special interest groupsAres1/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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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:
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
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 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).
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.
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?
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):
Obama's plan calls for a ~100 ton to LEO launcher.
If we have a clear HLV capability through an up-scalable architecture, people are sure to find/create heavy payloads to put on it.
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
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.
~trollery~
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.
3. A market for propellant depots will occur before a market for HLV and there is more of a business case for depots
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.
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.
Up-scalable HLV to meet variating payload demands is doable, logical, and the need relative to the customer.
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.
: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.
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.
People want to talk about F9 Heavy in this thread,...
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
.....
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,
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.
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 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.
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...
regardless of your opinion,
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.
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.
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.
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.
SpaceX and their decisions and rockets (dual satellite launching, F9 Heavy, Merlin2) could have took the majority of the market.
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?
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
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 comsats have yet to break the 7 mT barrier
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.”
*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 MBThere are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.
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?
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...)
FWIW, the definintions in my head are: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?
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...)
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.
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
In order to avoid the debate of what "heavy" means, I suggest we use ballpark mT to LEO to clarify things.
Does it matter?
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.*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 MBThere are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.
No, there's a new "standard" that tries to define a megabyte in SI units, 1000*1000 bytes. It renames 1024*1024 to "mebibyte".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.*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 MBThere are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.
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.
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.No, there's a new "standard" that tries to define a megabyte in SI units, 1000*1000 bytes. It renames 1024*1024 to "mebibyte".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.*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 MBThere are 1 million bytes in a megabyte. There are 2^10 or 1 048 576 bytes in a Mebibyte, the base 2 version.
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.
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.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:
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.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).
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?
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.
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?
Cheap access to space is the requirement and that is mutually exclusive with an HLV.
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?
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.
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
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.
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".
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/497/1
The BFR is supposed to lift 100 MT to leo.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is a glut of LV's and LV capabilities.This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Again, we aren't using the existing fleet to it max capabilities. Counter that.
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.
There is a glut of LV's and LV capabilities.This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Again, we aren't using the existing fleet to it max capabilities. Counter that.
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.
Only RLV's can.
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.
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.
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.
That price is OBE years ago. Spacex prices have been increasing like predicted.If so, then they will have failed thier mission objective. SpaceX was founded on the premise of reducing launch costs.
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.
Can you articulate what markets you foresee?I can guess, but I'd probably be wrong. That's the nature of an emerging market.
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.
You would need either mass produced payloads, or reusable payloads that fly often first.
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.
Oh, but they are now cheaper than ISRO and Great Wall. That itself is a game changer.
Agreed. Half price is nice, but not a game changer.
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)
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.
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.
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).
Will merlin-2 save the millions it will cost to develop?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.so close :-)
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.
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 ;)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? ???
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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'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?
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.
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.....
Why are people so enamored with helicopter capture?
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.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"
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.
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.
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.
This is similar to the old F9S5 concept. A Falcon 9 first stage with 2 Falcon 5 boosters.
Why are people so enamored with helicopter capture?
Which people? Maybe we can ask some of them.
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.
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. "
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.
[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 DonaldRumsfeldDuck 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?
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) :)
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.
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.
[offtopic]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 Donald4. 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?RumsfeldDuck once said, "you go to space with the engines you have, not the engines you want"QuoteQ: What's so bad about having many engines?A1:More points of failure
QuoteQ: 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?
QuoteQ: 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?[/i]
...
Currently the FH was stated to get 6.4 tons to GTO when all cores are returned.
...
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)
...
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.
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.
Doing the same with FHFT would yield a capability of: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.
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? ???Actually, sometimes we do, and it serves a noble purpose.
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
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.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.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.