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.
Quote from: Idiomatic on 07/08/2012 05:43 pmI 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.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 07/08/2012 06:23 pmExcept 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.Quote from: Downix on 07/08/2012 06:14 pmQuote from: Idiomatic on 07/08/2012 05:43 pmI 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.
Quote from: ArbitraryConstant on 07/08/2012 05:43 pmThe SLS doesn't exist.The probability SLS block >1 ever flying is nil.Same goes for this vehicle
The SLS doesn't exist.The probability SLS block >1 ever flying is nil.
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.
Quote from: Karloss12 on 07/08/2012 04:54 pmBut 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.
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.
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,
Quote from: Karloss12 on 07/08/2012 08:03 pmIn 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.....
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.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 07/08/2012 05:47 pmQuote from: ArbitraryConstant on 07/08/2012 05:43 pmThe SLS doesn't exist.The probability SLS block >1 ever flying is nil.Same goes for this vehicleUnder 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.Quote from: Lurker Steve on 07/08/2012 06:23 pmExcept 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.
Dropping the internal NASA program and funding a SpaceX development may just bring up another Contempt of Congress charge.
Quote from: Downix on 07/08/2012 06:52 pmAnd 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.
Quote from: ArbitraryConstant on 07/08/2012 07:51 pmQuote from: Downix on 07/08/2012 06:52 pmAnd 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.
Quote from: Downix on 07/09/2012 12:28 amQuote from: ArbitraryConstant on 07/08/2012 07:51 pmQuote from: Downix on 07/08/2012 06:52 pmAnd 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.
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.