Author Topic: Should SpaceX aim for a 330,000 lbs engine rather than am F1 class engine?  (Read 53335 times)

Offline Idiomatic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
True, but SpaceX making a Super heavy lift vehicle is probably about as likely or more likely than NASA doing so in the next 5~10 years.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
I believe he meant that it would have the same features which add to reliability as the F9. Not that it would be exactly the same. Obviously new engines and a new scale will be a bit different.

True that SLS isn't really too concerned about cost. But it would be MCH harder to sell SLS to congress if they can buy a rocket from SpaceX that costs 1/4 as much with the same capabilities. That would be a political nightmare for SLS supporters.
SpaceX is not designing a rocket with the same capabilities as SLS. They are designing one to meet the Ariane 5 or Delta IV Heavy. The FH is nowhere close to competing with SLS, especially for the mission. SpaceX has shown no desire to develop the systems needed. LEO performance is a bad metric. To GTO, SLS can throw 10* as much, and to the moon the difference is even more extreme.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
I believe he meant that it would have the same features which add to reliability as the F9. Not that it would be exactly the same. Obviously new engines and a new scale will be a bit different.

True that SLS isn't really too concerned about cost. But it would be MCH harder to sell SLS to congress if they can buy a rocket from SpaceX that costs 1/4 as much with the same capabilities. That would be a political nightmare for SLS supporters.

Except that Congress is ALREADY SOLD ON SLS. Forget the argument that a LV the size of SLS isn't needed. We certainly can't afford our government to support 2 launchers with the limited number of missions that need a LV this large.

Offline Idiomatic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Except that Congress is ALREADY SOLD ON SLS. Forget the argument that a LV the size of SLS isn't needed. We certainly can't afford our government to support 2 launchers with the limited number of missions that need a LV this large.


If it ends up on the chopping block in 5 years time. Or if they ask for additional funding that is more than the cost of a SpaceX vehicle that is near completion. Or if the cost per individual launch after both are completed is less via SpaceX. But yeah, unlikely.

I believe he meant that it would have the same features which add to reliability as the F9. Not that it would be exactly the same. Obviously new engines and a new scale will be a bit different.

True that SLS isn't really too concerned about cost. But it would be MCH harder to sell SLS to congress if they can buy a rocket from SpaceX that costs 1/4 as much with the same capabilities. That would be a political nightmare for SLS supporters.

SpaceX is not designing a rocket with the same capabilities as SLS. They are designing one to meet the Ariane 5 or Delta IV Heavy. The FH is nowhere close to competing with SLS, especially for the mission. SpaceX has shown no desire to develop the systems needed. LEO performance is a bad metric. To GTO, SLS can throw 10* as much, and to the moon the difference is even more extreme.

SpaceX likely has some papers, maybe even blueprints for a super heavy lift vehicle at this point. They've stated repeatedly that they intend to build a shl vehicle. It is only a matter of when and how they'll pay for it. Of course the FH is not competitive with the SLS. (Though, with an upgraded 2nd stage engine, it could be competitive in GTO vs the smallest SLS). I was talking about a currently non-existant super heavy, just like the SLS.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Except that Congress is ALREADY SOLD ON SLS. Forget the argument that a LV the size of SLS isn't needed. We certainly can't afford our government to support 2 launchers with the limited number of missions that need a LV this large.


If it ends up on the chopping block in 5 years time. Or if they ask for additional funding that is more than the cost of a SpaceX vehicle that is near completion. Or if the cost per individual launch after both are completed is less via SpaceX. But yeah, unlikely.

I believe he meant that it would have the same features which add to reliability as the F9. Not that it would be exactly the same. Obviously new engines and a new scale will be a bit different.

True that SLS isn't really too concerned about cost. But it would be MCH harder to sell SLS to congress if they can buy a rocket from SpaceX that costs 1/4 as much with the same capabilities. That would be a political nightmare for SLS supporters.

SpaceX is not designing a rocket with the same capabilities as SLS. They are designing one to meet the Ariane 5 or Delta IV Heavy. The FH is nowhere close to competing with SLS, especially for the mission. SpaceX has shown no desire to develop the systems needed. LEO performance is a bad metric. To GTO, SLS can throw 10* as much, and to the moon the difference is even more extreme.

SpaceX likely has some papers, maybe even blueprints for a super heavy lift vehicle at this point. They've stated repeatedly that they intend to build a shl vehicle. It is only a matter of when and how they'll pay for it. Of course the FH is not competitive with the SLS. (Though, with an upgraded 2nd stage engine, it could be competitive in GTO vs the smallest SLS). I was talking about a currently non-existant super heavy, just like the SLS.
It is less than non-existant, it is paper-only. SLS at least has physical systems we can point to, touch, and leverage. A theoretical Falcon SuperHeavy has no such things. 

And I have long argued that the creation of the Heavy was a dumb idea rather than a hydrolox upper stage engine. The money spent on Merlin 1D could have given them far more with a hydrolox Merlin (Call it the Circie) allowing them to compete for the larger GTO market. Even with the weaker Merlin-1C, a Falcon Heavy with this engine for the upper stage would out-lift the FH as it is now.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
The SLS doesn't exist.

The probability SLS block >1 ever flying is nil.
Same goes for this vehicle
Under present circumstances I would agree.

A big engine would cause me to revise that assessment up a bit, but as of now there is no such engine that we know of and no reason to strongly expect one.

Except that Congress is ALREADY SOLD ON SLS. Forget the argument that a LV the size of SLS isn't needed. We certainly can't afford our government to support 2 launchers with the limited number of missions that need a LV this large.
If a three-core version would qualify as SLS-class, I'm pretty sure a single-stick version would be able to find a day job with commercial launches.

And yes, the government is already committed to SLS. That doesn't mean it's going to fly, or that hard questions aren't going to be asked over multiple administrations as efforts to reanimate the Shuttle's corpse continue.

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
And I have long argued that the creation of the Heavy was a dumb idea rather than a hydrolox upper stage engine. The money spent on Merlin 1D could have given them far more with a hydrolox Merlin (Call it the Circie) allowing them to compete for the larger GTO market.
??? They've signed customers for GTO launches on single-stick Falcon 9 v1.1.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2012 07:54 pm by ArbitraryConstant »

Offline Karloss12

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 7

But just as Falcon 1 was a test stand that gave lessons for creating the Falcon 9, I don't see why many lessons can't be learnt from the Falcon 9 to produce a single core rocket with 9 x 330,000 lb engines to replace the Falcon Heavy.  It would have all of the reliabilty of the current F9.


No it wouldn't.  It would be a new rocket with no flight experience.

Falcon 1 to 9 is not the same as FH to this not going to exist rocket.

Sorry Jim, I mean the 9 x 330,000lb core would have the same philosophy of reliability and re-usability designed into it as the F9.  It would of course require 3 successful flights to actually be as reliable as the current F9.

In up sizing the F9 in this way most of the experience and skills and design 'methods' and 'techniques' would be re-used (of course with some improvements and mods).  Maybe half of this up sized core would use existing skills and techniques from the F9.  The remaining gaps in the design would of course require new learning and developing new design techniques.

In fives years time when the F9 and FH are flying flawlessly, the dragon capsule is conducting crewed flights and the F9 core stage has landed to be rapidly refueled and re-used for the first time, will Elon just layoff the hundreds of people that were his R&D/design employees.  (All that would be left is the Raptor to be developed.)

Elon has some dream of creating a new civilisation on Mars.

A reusable FH will lift less than 40 Tonnes after the addition of re-usability equipment.  No where near enough to get a single person to and from Mars, let alone get all the equipment and people to mars to create a community (which I think will ultimately fail).

He seems a bit more intelligent then to just go with the flow and make up new designs as he goes along.  So unless he is telling fibs or is just spreading propaganda, then he will have a longer term plan.  This is the most logical common sense scenario that I can think of that uses the experience and skills that SpaceX already has.

When F9 and FH are completely re-usable, capital will become available to develop the 9 x 330,000lb core with little or no government funding.  And it will potentially be more reliable as it has one third of the moving parts as the current FH.  It will also have the same profitable commercial viability as the FH.  It possibly wont need government money.  Even if it did, the government get cheaper launches in return.

If it proves its reliability and is 1/4 the price of the Delta IV and the designed but unflown 27 x 330,000lb heavy lifter has a price tag of 1/4 of the SLS, I think this will be equivalent to allot of political clout for Elon's political lobbyists.

So I think I’ve come up with a credible scenario where SpaceX can develop a completely commercially viable replacement (single 9 x 330,000lb core) for what is projected to be the commercially viable FH.  The lessons learnt from flying the FH and a bit of political will power could slap 2 more of these cores on either side of this single core to replace the SLS with a 27 x 330,000lb super heavy.  As a result freeing up government cash to spend on more interesting space science.

It all hinges on the F9 1st stage being re-usable to generate enough capital to develop the the 330,000lb engine and core and Elon being serious about going to Mars.

Congress is SOLD on SLS but I do remember about 5 years ago congress being SOLD on Constellation.
« Last Edit: 07/08/2012 08:05 pm by Karloss12 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428


In fives years time when the F9 and FH are flying flawlessly, the dragon capsule is conducting crewed flights and the F9 core stage has landed to be rapidly refueled and re-used for the first time,


if, if, if.....

Offline Karloss12

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 7


In fives years time when the F9 and FH are flying flawlessly, the dragon capsule is conducting crewed flights and the F9 core stage has landed to be rapidly refueled and re-used for the first time,


if, if, if.....

Yes, lots of gaps needing to be filled.

The other option is Elon connecting equipment in LEO with many FH launches.  But I don't think so.

Has anyone else got a more logical common sense scenario?

Online MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
He seems a bit more intelligent then to just go with the flow and make up new designs as he goes along.  So unless he is telling fibs or is just spreading propaganda, then he will have a longer term plan.  This is the most logical common sense scenario that I can think of that uses the experience and skills that SpaceX already has.

Musk is much too intelligent to have a plan. What he has is a goal and a roadmap. Think of it as a road trip from New York to the west coast, there are multiple routes, you might have to make a diversion and the destination may change (more specific Los Angeles, or different Texas). Where the roadmap analogy breaks down is that multiple roads may be traveled on at the same time, and by the time you are half way to the destination that has changed to one further away.

So SpaceX are probably exploring multiple paths to their stated destination (cheap Mars colonization). There are several we know about and probably a lot more we don't. Just because they are exploring a road doesn't mean they will go down it. Even if they go down it, that doesn't mean it will lead directly to their destination.

Quote
So I think I’ve come up with a credible scenario where SpaceX can develop a completely commercially viable replacement (single 9 x 330,000lb core) for what is projected to be the commercially viable FH.  The lessons learnt from flying the FH and a bit of political will power could slap 2 more of these cores on either side of this single core to replace the SLS with a 27 x 330,000lb super heavy.  As a result freeing up government cash to spend on more interesting space science.

That seems to be one road. It is fairly obvious, so SpaceX have probably explored it. Maybe they are discovered a roadblock, maybe they think other roads are better (for whatever reason), maybe they'll take it but it will turn out to be a dead end.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
The SLS doesn't exist.

The probability SLS block >1 ever flying is nil.
Same goes for this vehicle
Under present circumstances I would agree.

A big engine would cause me to revise that assessment up a bit, but as of now there is no such engine that we know of and no reason to strongly expect one.

Except that Congress is ALREADY SOLD ON SLS. Forget the argument that a LV the size of SLS isn't needed. We certainly can't afford our government to support 2 launchers with the limited number of missions that need a LV this large.
If a three-core version would qualify as SLS-class, I'm pretty sure a single-stick version would be able to find a day job with commercial launches.

And yes, the government is already committed to SLS. That doesn't mean it's going to fly, or that hard questions aren't going to be asked over multiple administrations as efforts to reanimate the Shuttle's corpse continue.

The very hard questions that will be asked of those NASA administrators, is why they are breaking the law ? Remember that the LAW says NASA is to build a HLV with an eventual capability of at least 130 tons using Shuttle and Constellation technology where practice-able. Dropping the internal NASA program and funding a SpaceX development may just bring up another Contempt of Congress charge.

SpaceX should definately look to keep their development engineers busy developing. But they should at a product that has potential for enough sales volume to at least cover the costs of development. For instance,a cluster of 4 - 330k lbs engines in a 3.3 or 5m core probably doesn't have enough thrust to compete and win against the other likely entries to the SLS advanced booster competition.

How about keeping those engineers busy by developing a better upper-stage engine ? Maybe if they cut the roots with the original Merlin, they could start with a semi-clean sheet of paper and build a LH2/LOX vacuum engine, or maybe a second stage that used multiple Merlins to enable higher energy orbits.

Offline krytek

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
A bit OT but...

There's some kind of law that requires the US government to use a commercial alternative to a government service if available (or something along those lines).

Do you believe NASA be forced to drop SLS if a comparable performance commercial SpaceX launcher is available?

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
Dropping the internal NASA program and funding a SpaceX development may just bring up another Contempt of Congress charge.
Well, that's not quite what I'm saying. I know NASA is thoroughly boxed in.

What I'm saying is that the probability of SLS flying is very low. And once it has failed of its own accord, when it is being debated once again, Falcon Heavy will very likely already be a fait accompli.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
And I have long argued that the creation of the Heavy was a dumb idea rather than a hydrolox upper stage engine. The money spent on Merlin 1D could have given them far more with a hydrolox Merlin (Call it the Circie) allowing them to compete for the larger GTO market.
??? They've signed customers for GTO launches on single-stick Falcon 9 v1.1.
For Delta II class payloads. They lack the performance for even Atlas V 401 class payloads. And their price is no better than for D2, so now that the cancellation of the older Delta has been put on hold, Falcon now has lost its edge.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
And I have long argued that the creation of the Heavy was a dumb idea rather than a hydrolox upper stage engine. The money spent on Merlin 1D could have given them far more with a hydrolox Merlin (Call it the Circie) allowing them to compete for the larger GTO market.
??? They've signed customers for GTO launches on single-stick Falcon 9 v1.1.
For Delta II class payloads. They lack the performance for even Atlas V 401 class payloads.
It's pretty damn close, and >2x Delta II to GTO.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
And I have long argued that the creation of the Heavy was a dumb idea rather than a hydrolox upper stage engine. The money spent on Merlin 1D could have given them far more with a hydrolox Merlin (Call it the Circie) allowing them to compete for the larger GTO market.
??? They've signed customers for GTO launches on single-stick Falcon 9 v1.1.
For Delta II class payloads. They lack the performance for even Atlas V 401 class payloads.
It's pretty damn close, and >2x Delta II to GTO.
Not even close. According to the Falcon 9 user guide, the Falcon 9 v2.0 gets 2.3 metric tons to the same GTO orbit Delta II gets 2.2 metric tons using the same margins. Atlas V 401 gets 4.7 metric tons under the same profile. If you use a lower apogee orbit on F9 or change the inclination you can make it look less, but that is marketing and not the truth. To the same orbit, F9 compares well against D2, but not AV.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
F9 v2.0 does not exist.

Offline vigleik

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 6
Not even close. According to the Falcon 9 user guide, the Falcon 9 v2.0 gets 2.3 metric tons to the same GTO orbit Delta II gets 2.2 metric tons using the same margins. Atlas V 401 gets 4.7 metric tons under the same profile. If you use a lower apogee orbit on F9 or change the inclination you can make it look less, but that is marketing and not the truth. To the same orbit, F9 compares well against D2, but not AV.

Falcon 9 gets 4850kg to GTO, according to their website. The Falcon 9 user guide is old, it probably has v1.0 (block2?) numbers rather than v1.1 numbers.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
And I have long argued that the creation of the Heavy was a dumb idea rather than a hydrolox upper stage engine. The money spent on Merlin 1D could have given them far more with a hydrolox Merlin (Call it the Circie) allowing them to compete for the larger GTO market. Even with the weaker Merlin-1C, a Falcon Heavy with this engine for the upper stage would out-lift the FH as it is now.
We don't know exactly how much 1d development cost, or what the cost improvement per engine is for 1d versus 1c. 

Also, you are suggesting that it is heavy instead of hydrolox instead of suggesting that it is heavy then hydrolox. 
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0