If anyone's good at doing digital editing it might be interesting to see how the minimum size MCT-engined Falcon X and Falcon X Heavy would scale visually against the Saturn V.
The discussion in this thread is going nowhere.1. The fuel is going to be a "light hydrocarbon" which is cheaper than RP-1/LOX (and He as pressurizer). The most likely candidate is methane. This has already been discussed.2. The paramount design decision is going to be reusability. Or at least a design which can evolve into reusability. The large payloads stated are obviously in expendable mode. In reusable mode you have to count on losing half of that.3. The engine will most likely be used in a bid for the SLS boosters. And in the F9 replacement. And in the FH replacement. Don't get your hopes up for any ferrying colonialists to Mars. It also doesn't sound very likely that SLS will go bust and that SpaceX will fill its place for manned NASA missions.4. They don't need to be in a hurry to build anything. They are already competive with the fleet of rocket that they will soon have (F9 & FH).
I should also note the same somewhat applies to Brownsville due to logistics challenges and initial investment. It would probably be slightly cheaper then Houston, but it would still be *ridiculous* from a business perspective.
Question, could they build the move stir wielding and rocket assembly to Florida after testing each engine in Texas?
It also doesn't sound very likely that SLS will go bust ...
Large parts could be transferred from California to Texas in ships via the Panama Canal.
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 10/25/2012 08:11 pmIf anyone's good at doing digital editing it might be interesting to see how the minimum size MCT-engined Falcon X and Falcon X Heavy would scale visually against the Saturn V. Here is a quick comparison with a 4 Engine Version. Wish I could find a better Saturn V image to use.
Quote from: DaveH62 on 10/26/2012 03:18 amQuestion, could they build the move stir wielding and rocket assembly to Florida after testing each engine in Texas?Cores that large would probably require new stir welding machines. In other words, I suspect they would continue to build F9/FH cores in Hawthorne.
So you think it'll be cheaper to build all-new than use the VAB and shuttle pads?
We're all fans of reusability, but this rocket has to be commercially viable without it at the beginning.
You think ILS or Intelsat or Iridium or even Bigelow would want to risk half billion dollar amounts on a single launch?
Elon and Shotwell were mentioning 150-200 metric tons, and the minimum size considered (7 meters) hints that it'll be modular to hit that figure. Modularity...
The original TAN patent expires in <9 years, so it could also be that they just don’t plan on production until then.
I had heard that hydraulics were limited in how heavy of stuff they could push up, ...Is that possible using the horizontal approach with hydraulic lift to get it to vertical?
How hard would it be to protect such a low-lying launch complex from hurricanes' winds and storm surges?
Has spacex explicitly said the evolved heavies will all have the same core/booster diameter?
I suspect they would continue to build F9/FH cores in Hawthorne.
Quote from: Dave G on 10/26/2012 03:48 amQuote from: DaveH62 on 10/26/2012 03:18 amQuestion, could they build the move stir wielding and rocket assembly to Florida after testing each engine in Texas?Cores that large would probably require new stir welding machines. In other words, I suspect they would continue to build F9/FH cores in Hawthorne.What I'm trying to understand is if they can continue primary manufacturering in California shipping and testing individual engines in Texas and then assembling complete rockets at a launch site for final testing. Texas or Florida could work. Avoid investing in new production line for engines. New stir wielding facility won't be cheap, but fraction of a new complete production facility and keeps your main production staff under one roof with your engineers.
SpaceX hasn't explicitly said much, actually.
It's such a good match for the Shuttle stack you might as well put a regular Falcon X and the shuttle stack in a future comparison, modemeagle. Could you by chance also show the height markers along an entire side?
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 10/25/2012 08:11 pmWe're all fans of reusability, but this rocket has to be commercially viable without it at the beginning. Disagree. If it isn't reusable, I doubt the price will be compelling to any customers. I expect to see a sub-scale demonstrator first. And judging by what I've heard of the grasshopper program, so does the main man.
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 10/25/2012 08:11 pmYou think ILS or Intelsat or Iridium or even Bigelow would want to risk half billion dollar amounts on a single launch?No. I don't think it will cost half a billion dollars per launch. Lower costs opens up a lot of other doors, even if it is overpowered for most missions.
Quote from: Hyperion5 on 10/25/2012 08:11 pmElon and Shotwell were mentioning 150-200 metric tons, and the minimum size considered (7 meters) hints that it'll be modular to hit that figure. Modularity...I don`t agree with your "logic". If the eventual goal is landing 50 tonne infrastructure pieces on Mars in a single launch, then the heavy (modular/crossfeeding) version should be a hekuvalot bigger than 150-200tonnes to LEO.
Quote from: ciscosdad on 10/26/2012 02:08 amHas spacex explicitly said the evolved heavies will all have the same core/booster diameter?Not that I know of.