Assuming their is a market for a wider fairing. (NROL for example)Would it be possible to put a larger fairing on F9, or is it currently at the limit of what is doable?Would a larger fairing be possible on FH or do the aerodynamics of fairing size not differ here?
They don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.
Quote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?
Quote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.
Quote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.Falcon Heavy has the same size fairing and as far as we know, SpaceX doesn't have the tooling (big enough autoclave) to make a longer one.
Quote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.Falcon Heavy has the same size fairing and as far as we know, SpaceX doesn't have the tooling (big enough autoclave) to make a longer one.That's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:22 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.Falcon Heavy has the same size fairing and as far as we know, SpaceX doesn't have the tooling (big enough autoclave) to make a longer one.That's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?There isn't much market for payloads of that size beyond the NRO. This is what saves SpaceX a lot of money - targeting 95% of the use cases and market and not chasing every single possible item to greater and greater costs...
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:22 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:05 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 07/01/2017 01:19 pmQuote from: Joris on 07/01/2017 12:27 pmQuote from: gongora on 06/30/2017 09:19 pmThey don't need a wider fairing for DoD/NRO heavy launches, they need a longer fairing.Atlas V and Delta IV-heavy currently have much longer fairing options than F9. Do you think SpaceX should add this option aswell? How tall can they even make the F9 that is 70m in its block 5 version?It would enable SIGINT launches, but would NRO keep those on ULA vehicles anyway with the whole emphasis on having multiple launch services available?It isn't just big sigint birds. Keyhole birds don't fit either. And I have to wonder how much the NRO is going to keep on the same path for needing those big sats when more redundancy and lower costs can be had from large constellations of smaller satellites.I'd think that only the FH could lift something like the Advance Orion what with its high mass and direct insertion into GEO so the F9 wouldn't even be offered for it.Falcon Heavy has the same size fairing and as far as we know, SpaceX doesn't have the tooling (big enough autoclave) to make a longer one.That's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?Maybe they're waiting for USAF to fund it. The house version of the 2018 NDAA allows Air Force to fund fairing and vertical integration facilities needed for NSS launches: https://mainenginecutoff.com/blog/2017/06/house-markup-2018-ndaa
1 SEC. 1615. EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VE2 HICLE MODERNIZATION AND SUSTAINMENT3 OF ASSURED ACCESS TO SPACE.4 (a) DEVELOPMENT.—5 (1) EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHI6CLE.—Using funds described in paragraph (3), the7 Secretary of Defense may only obligate or expend8 funds to carry out the evolved expendable launch ve9 hicle program to—10 (A) develop a domestic rocket propulsion11 system to replace non-allied space launch en12 gines;13 (B) develop the necessary interfaces to, or14 integration of, such domestic rocket propulsion15 system with an existing or new launch vehicle;16 (C) develop capabilities necessary to enable17 commercially available space launch vehicles or18 infrastructure to meet any requirements that19 are unique to national security space missions20 to meet the assured access to space require21 ments pursuant to section 2273 of title 10,22 United States Code, with respect to only—23 (i) modifications to such vehicles re24 quired for national security space missions,25 including—1 (I) certification and compliance2 of such vehicles for use in national se3 curity space missions;4 (II) fairings necessary for the5 launch of national security space pay6 loads to orbit; and7 (III) other upgrades to meet per8 formance, reliability, and orbital re9 quirements that cannot otherwise be10 met through the use of commercially11 available launch vehicles; and12 (ii) the development of infrastructure13 unique to national security space missions,14 such as infrastructure for the use of heavy15 launch vehicles, including—16 (I) facilities and equipment for17 the vertical integration of payloads;18 (II) secure facilities for the proc19 essing of classified payloads; and20 (III) other facilities and equip21 ment, including ground systems and22 expanded capabilities, unique to na23 tional security space launches and the24 launch of national security payloads;1 (D) conduct activities to modernize and2 improve existing certified launch vehicles, or ex3 isting launch vehicles previously contracted for4 use by the Air Force, including restarting a5 dormant supply chain, and infrastructure to in6 crease the cost effectiveness of the launch sys7 tem; or8 (E) certify new, modified, or existing9 launch vehicle systems.10 (2) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in this11 section, none of the funds described in paragraph12 (3) shall be obligated or expended for the evolved ex13 pendable launch vehicle program, including the de14 velopment of new launch vehicles under such pro15 gram.
Quote from: Star One on 07/01/2017 02:22 pmThat's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?There isn't much market for payloads of that size beyond the NRO. This is what saves SpaceX a lot of money - targeting 95% of the use cases and market and not chasing every single possible item to greater and greater costs...
That's odd why haven't they thought of making longer fairings if they want to win payloads like this?
This is the large fairing requirement for DoD.