Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 1)  (Read 791325 times)

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2317
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #40 on: 05/14/2012 09:47 pm »
Chris, considering the fixed engines would be the same as the engine that is landing, deep throttling for TVC should not be an issue. Indeed, the center gimbal may not even be used during ascent.

Single point of failure was my first thought as well.  Not needing gimbal at all for ascent is about the only way it could work as a manned vehicle.  Would SpaceX have to prove that (cargo flight with gimballing locked out) before NASA would let a crew fly?
It may have the same engines, but that is a completely new rocket with all new control dynamics to go from gimbal to TVC control.

Offline charliem

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #41 on: 05/14/2012 10:11 pm »
The nozzles look quite smaller in v1.1, less width and length.

Is that possible or just inaccuracy of the graphic?
« Last Edit: 05/14/2012 11:07 pm by charliem »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #42 on: 05/14/2012 10:31 pm »
#1- We need to move/merge this to the other thread.

#2-It's just bigger, plain and simple. It's taller, wider, and so is the fairing. The only thing that's stayed the same size are the Merlins, even if they are D's now.

Wider?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #43 on: 05/14/2012 10:33 pm »

Same diameter, same engine configuration, the core will be streched about 23 feet.  Yes, it can still fit in the hanger at Pad-40.


not the same engine config

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #44 on: 05/14/2012 10:34 pm »
  Yes, it can still fit in the hanger at Pad-40.


may impact Dragon processing in the hangar

Offline rickl

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 150
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #45 on: 05/14/2012 11:35 pm »
This is reminiscent of the efforts to decipher what was going on in the Soviet space program during the Cold War.   ;)
The Space Age is just starting to get interesting.

Offline corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #46 on: 05/14/2012 11:48 pm »
#1- We need to move/merge this to the other thread.

#2-It's just bigger, plain and simple. It's taller, wider, and so is the fairing. The only thing that's stayed the same size are the Merlins, even if they are D's now.

Wider?

No, not wider. I was wrong about that. See here (couple posts later):

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28882.msg897213#msg897213

I thought it was wider because the interstage seems shorter, assuming the Mvac nozzle is the same length, that would mean the interstage, along with the rest of the vehicle, got wider. But it's not, the interstage is just shorter, either because the nozzle is shorter or the 2nd stage has been redesigned, possibly like what is shown in the F9R video.

« Last Edit: 05/14/2012 11:48 pm by corrodedNut »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #47 on: 05/15/2012 12:05 am »
Trying to keep up with these developments...
So will this V1.1 (love the software vernacular) be the new baseline for F9H? New thrust structure, extended core, etc?
« Last Edit: 05/15/2012 12:06 am by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #48 on: 05/15/2012 12:35 am »
Trying to keep up with these developments...
So will this V1.1 (love the software vernacular) be the new baseline for F9H? New thrust structure, extended core, etc?

I think the plan all along is that Falcon 9v1.1 (or the vehicle previously known as Falcon9 block2) will be the common core for FH. Weather the thrust structure/engine placement has changed, or if it's a "true" common core, is yet to be known.

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #49 on: 05/15/2012 01:55 am »
Has a very high probability of being artistic license/error from where I'm sitting. I can't see how you could arrange 9 Merlins under the Falcon 9's first stage in any configuration without needing fairings, let alone an octagonal plan with a wide middle space for a gimballing center nozzle. The current 3x3 is a pretty tight pack and the corner engine bells still stick out a fair bit from the tank sidewalls, hence fairings.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #50 on: 05/15/2012 02:55 am »
the most logical reason to me to rearrange the thrust structure and remove the engine fairings would be to support a common core for falcon heavy.
And perhaps to fit attachment points for those big landing legs.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline modemeagle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Grand Blanc, MI
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #51 on: 05/15/2012 02:56 am »
Has a very high probability of being artistic license/error from where I'm sitting. I can't see how you could arrange 9 Merlins under the Falcon 9's first stage in any configuration without needing fairings, let alone an octagonal plan with a wide middle space for a gimballing center nozzle. The current 3x3 is a pretty tight pack and the corner engine bells still stick out a fair bit from the tank sidewalls, hence fairings.

Just a quick drawing with estimated M1D nozzles.  Spacing is very close and would probably need all to gimbal together to keep them from touching.  Center engine has plenty of space to gimbal alone without touching the outer engines.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #52 on: 05/15/2012 03:02 am »
I can't see how you could arrange 9 Merlins under the Falcon 9's first stage in any configuration without needing fairings, let alone an octagonal plan with a wide middle space for a gimballing center nozzle. The current 3x3 is a pretty tight pack and the corner engine bells still stick out a fair bit from the tank sidewalls, hence fairings.
I wondered at the same thing, and assume that if the picture is correct, that the "bells" are smaller/narrower. 

I wonder if the potential switch to a reusable staged-combustion LNG design is much of a factor w.r.t. nozzle size, base heating, etc. 


Edit:  I just noticed the above post with the packing diagram. 
« Last Edit: 05/15/2012 03:03 am by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #53 on: 05/15/2012 03:53 am »
Does that mean that if CRS2+ goes off OK, the current Falcon 9 will have fulfilled all the (non-paperwork) requirements for launching SMD missions?

Not sure what you mean by paperwork.  The requirements set by HEOMD are explicit http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=8610&s=7D
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline arnezami

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 285
  • Liked: 267
  • Likes Given: 378
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #54 on: 05/15/2012 05:15 am »
Hmmm.

The more I look at this configuration, the more I don't see 9, but 7 engines.

Or is it just me? Can they lift off with 7?


[edited. I see 7 actually]
« Last Edit: 05/15/2012 05:19 am by arnezami »

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 10995
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #55 on: 05/15/2012 05:27 am »
the problem is not with your seeing, but the fact that this is not a photo of a model, but some artists approximation of what it "might" look like, and it is bound to be slightly off; if you take into account empty spaces behind the row of engines in the front, and that one on the left at the back is offset incorrectly, you will see that there is ample space in the back for the missing 2 engines;
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline arnezami

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 285
  • Liked: 267
  • Likes Given: 378
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #56 on: 05/15/2012 05:42 am »
the problem is not with your seeing, but the fact that this is not a photo of a model, but some artists approximation of what it "might" look like, and it is bound to be slightly off; if you take into account empty spaces behind the row of engines in the front, and that one on the left at the back is offset incorrectly, you will see that there is ample space in the back for the missing 2 engines;
Yeah. I guess. And it wouldn't be called a falcon 9 anymore. ;)

Offline bocephus419

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #57 on: 05/15/2012 06:18 am »
The entire engine bay looks much shorter than Block 1. Hard to imagine they optimized everything so much down there. Then again, maybe this was all part of the original "weight reduction plan" for the Block 2.

Do we know if the parachutes are gone in Block 2?

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #58 on: 05/15/2012 07:37 am »
Same diameter, same engine configuration, the core will be streched about 23 feet.  Yes, it can still fit in the hanger at Pad-40.

That vehicle may well fit the hangar, but that's neither the one depicted in that drawing nor the one that's 69.2 meters high according to SpaceX page. The former is a 14 meter stretch to the entire vehicle (roughly 1 fairing height) while your figure is just 7 meters.

Are we perhaps talking about an interim stretch that does fit inside SLC-40 hangar, while the VAFB hangar can handle the full stretch or is the 14m stretch out of the picture altogether?

Online MP99

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #59 on: 05/15/2012 07:46 am »
The more I look at this configuration, the more I don't see 9, but 7 engines.

Yeah, looks like that to me, too.

Strongly suggests it's just artistic error, leading to lots of Kreminology.

cheers, Martin

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1