Author Topic: July 28 SpaceX presentations: Merlin 2, Falcon HLVs, Raptor, methane Merlin, etc  (Read 135785 times)

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Liked: 35
  • Pasadena, CA
SpaceX removed them. Saved PDFs were posted on page 2. See link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22395.msg623684#msg623684


I don't think anybody's posted about this here yet, but via RLV News I found out about some SpaceX presentations which were given on July 27 and 28 at the Joint Propulsion Conference.

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=22430
http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/changes/

The first presentation has an absurd amount of new information here on the Merlin 2, plans for a 6m core "Falcon X" with 38mt to LEO, "Falcon X Heavy" with 125mt to LEO, and "Falcon XX" with 140mt to LEO (I shudder to think of what a Falcon XX Heavy would be like):

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/SpaceX_Overview_TEM%20small.pptx

The second presentation has info on Merlin 2, Raptor (apparently 150klbf thrust) and talks about possibility of modifying Merlin 1 to use LOX/methane for ascent/descent. Also mentions Merlin 2 could be developed and flight qualified in ~3 yrs for ~$1B, ~$50M/engine production, with 1700 klbf vacuum thrust and 322 isp. On the "near-term propulsion needs" slide it also discusses solar-electric tugs and nuclear thermal propsulsion for a Mars stage (?).

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Markusic%20-%20SpaceX%20Propulsion%20small.pptx

SpaceX removed them. Saved PDFs were posted on page 2. See link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22395.msg623684#msg623684
« Last Edit: 08/07/2010 12:57 AM by Andy USA »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline moose103

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
Ummmmm...

You have my attention.
« Last Edit: 07/30/2010 11:17 PM by moose103 »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Liked: 35
  • Pasadena, CA
Would the Falcon X's 6m core still be transportable by road? What about the Falcon XX's 10m core? Would larger cores be a straightforward scaling of their current processes, or would it involve major changes?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Liked: 35
  • Pasadena, CA
It's also interesting that they're sticking with gas generator cycle for the Merlin 2 instead of staged combustion. Slide 8 of the second presentation discusses some modeling they did which concluded that the advantage of a staged combustion engine (along the lines of the RS-84, which I think they licensed) would have a negligible advantage over gas generator due to higher engine mass.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Liked: 35
  • Pasadena, CA
Future vehicles slide attached
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Liked: 166
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
It's also interesting that they're sticking with gas generator cycle for the Merlin 2 instead of staged combustion.

Not surprised one bit about this. A simpler engine cycle plus it solves the problem of having a separate roll control system when it's used as drop in replacement for F9 first stage (look at the diagram in the 2nd post).

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Liked: 35
  • Pasadena, CA
Here's the "near-term propulsion needs" slide, mentioning HLLV propulsion, solar electric propulsion for cargo tugs, nuclear thermal propulsion for Mars stages, and LOX/methane propulsion for ascent/descent. I'd be really curious about what the speaker said along with this slide: Is this merely an outline of what NASA's future needs are, possible things that might be tested at the McGregor Rocket Development Facility, or things that SpaceX is planning on being directly involved in developing?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Online SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 44
Future vehicles slide attached

Looking at the Falcon XX I think they hired Dr. Griffin on at SpaceX
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Online SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 44
Would the Falcon X's 6m core still be transportable by road? What about the Falcon XX's 10m core? Would larger cores be a straightforward scaling of their current processes, or would it involve major changes?

Not possible in the US, but they could use this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga

7.7 meter diameter, 37.7 meters long.  So it could carry a Falcon 9 1st stage, or a Falcon X 2nd stage.  Notice the seams in the 1st stage of the Falcon X and XX?  Likely means they would be shipped in 2 parts.

Wow, would be intersting to see if they went to boeing or Airbus and requested a 10.5 meter viarant of Beluga / Supper Guppy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy to transport their Falcon XX stages.  Fun times.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2010 12:26 AM by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline moose103

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
The whole system looks like the Atlas V evolution, which isn't a surprise.  Either SpaceX copied blindly, or they ended up at the same conclusion because it is the right one...

And just the fact that their propulsion engineer brought up NERVA (which is usually left out even though it is viable) means they have their eyes on the right ball.

The greatest sin of the budget debate will be choosing a no-competition rocket.  Crushing the ambition and capabilities of such unique companies (like ULA and SpaceX) will be a real sin.  But the demand for "job creation" is stronger than just about anything else.

Online Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7081
  • Liked: 3
Would the Falcon X's 6m core still be transportable by road? What about the Falcon XX's 10m core? Would larger cores be a straightforward scaling of their current processes, or would it involve major changes?

Not possible in the US, but they could use this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga

7.7 meter diameter, 37.7 meters long.  So it could carry a Falcon 9 1st stage, or a Falcon X 2nd stage.  Notice the seams in the 1st stage of the Falcon X and XX?  Likely means they would be shipped in 2 parts.

Wow, would be intersting to see if they went to boeing or Airbus and requested a 10.5 meter viarant of Beluga / Supper Guppy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy to transport their Falcon XX stages.  Fun times.
There is also the Dreamlifter as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter
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 ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6210
  • Liked: 166
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
Check out the 2nd to 1st stage length ratio on F9 compared to this F-X. The latter looks way more like a LH2 stage which doesn't then jibe with the statement "All RP Heavy Lift"

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Liked: 35
  • Pasadena, CA
There is also the Dreamlifter as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter

Dreamlifter is less than 6 meter across ID.  To my knowledge only Airbus Beluga lifters and the Antonov_An-225 would be capable of carrying a 6 meter stage. 

Would the Beluga be able to land at Hawthorne airport (which SpaceX is directly adjacent to), or would the slightly more distant LAX be needed?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • Liked: 25
There's also barging it from Hawthorne to the Cape through the Panama Canal.

Also, anyone see how they're planning on Raptor having a 470s vacuum Isp? That's a *very* tall claim, which I'm likely to call Incorrect on unless they've got some very good numbers or hotfire tests to back it up. SSME is 453s vacuum, by comparison.

Online SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 44
Would the Beluga be able to land at Hawthorne airport (which SpaceX is directly adjacent to), or would the slightly more distant LAX be needed?

Minimum Take Off Distance -
 
938.78 metres 3,080.00 feet (landing takes less distance on these type of craft)

Hawthorne runway 1 is 6,000 feet.  No issue there.  Now finding a 4000 foot runway near McGregor is the challenge. 
« Last Edit: 07/31/2010 01:20 AM by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Tags: