|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 07/30/2010 11:13 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
moose103
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 07/30/2010 11:16 PM » |
|
Ummmmm...
You have my attention.
|
|
|
|
neilh
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 07/30/2010 11:26 PM » |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
neilh
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 07/30/2010 11:32 PM » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
neilh
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 07/30/2010 11:40 PM » |
|
Future vehicles slide attached
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 07/30/2010 11:41 PM » |
|
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).
|
|
|
|
neilh
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 07/30/2010 11:51 PM » |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
SpacexULA
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 07/31/2010 12:05 AM » |
|
Future vehicles slide attached
Looking at the Falcon XX I think they hired Dr. Griffin on at SpaceX
|
|
|
|
SpacexULA
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 07/31/2010 12:23 AM » |
|
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_Beluga7.7 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.
|
|
|
|
moose103
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 07/31/2010 12:28 AM » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Downix
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 07/31/2010 12:30 AM » |
|
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
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 07/31/2010 12:45 AM » |
|
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"
|
|
|
|
neilh
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 07/31/2010 01:00 AM » |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
Malderi
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 07/31/2010 01:08 AM » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
SpacexULA
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 07/31/2010 01:13 AM » |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
