It seems so sensible, if you assume 2 stage with SSTO just a nice-to-have. I wonder if the shuttle could have been this.
That's what should be striking about SpaceX's architecture. Nothing is particularly technically questionable except the raw scale and performance.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 10/10/2016 08:21 amI wonder if the shuttle could have been this.Shuttle didn't have the materials and manufacturing technology that make insane engine performance and mass fractions possible.
I wonder if the shuttle could have been this.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 10/10/2016 08:21 amIt seems so sensible, if you assume 2 stage with SSTO just a nice-to-have. I wonder if the shuttle could have been this.Shuttle didn't have the materials and manufacturing technology that make insane engine performance and mass fractions possible. The key to ITS is the Raptor engine, composite tanks, and lightweight heatshield.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 10/09/2016 12:25 pmI didn't see mention of a shorter block 0. Were you just referring to what is being discussed on this thread?Yes, I should have been clearer on that. Neither the "block 0" terminology nor the concept come from anything SpaceX has said. It's only a thought experiment!But what if the first Ship they build doesn't have quite the performance capability they currently say the final version will have? Wouldn't it then be interesting to supplement its capabilities with a minimalist, reusable version of the Booster? That would allow them to fly fully reusable missions to Earth-orbit....Then they could develop and fly a Tanker to validate their plan for on-orbit "refilling."
I didn't see mention of a shorter block 0. Were you just referring to what is being discussed on this thread?
the Ship is first on the timeline because out of the two parts it will need the most testing
Quote from: envy887 on 10/10/2016 01:04 pmQuote from: KelvinZero on 10/10/2016 08:21 amIt seems so sensible, if you assume 2 stage with SSTO just a nice-to-have. I wonder if the shuttle could have been this.Shuttle didn't have the materials and manufacturing technology that make insane engine performance and mass fractions possible. The key to ITS is the Raptor engine, composite tanks, and lightweight heatshield.I probably shouldn't drag this to a shuttle debate, although this does sort of look like a shuttle replacement rather than a FH replacement......but my point was that the insane performance claims are not that important. For a SSTO, sure, but im talking about a conventional TSTO. The design just seems to have insane margins. I don't care about 500 tons to orbit. The shuttle only did about 30 and didn't weigh that different. You can evolve this. If you eke more performance out of the rockets later, great. If power doesn't match your requirements you can stretch the booster a bit, add some more engines. You really want more cross range? You could consider a winged version later like dreamchaser and stretch your booster again or lower your cargo. You are not trapped.To me the shuttle just looks so so complicated. So difficult. Two solids in balance with the shuttle main engine. Maximum surface area shared between solids and hydrogen tank and wings so that if anything goes wrong with one of them it is bound to hit one of the others.I know I am just an arm chair rocket scientist but a TSTO just seems so much more straightforward that it should also be cheaper to develop.. and be fully reusable. Or at least you can land it and consider reuse.
Minor aside:"Full diameter shorted ITS as FH replacement?"Can the thread creator or a suitably empowered mod change the thread name to "shortened"? It makes my eye twitch every time I see it.
21 means just dropping the outer ring of engines of ITS booster. More compatibility with it.In ITS booster there is 1 center engine, 6 other around it. And 14 on the next ring. This makes 21.
Although, by the standards of the day, everything about the Shuttle was insane, so far beyond the state of the art. A 130 tonne to LEO spaceplane? Having never developed an orbital spaceplane before? With no preliminary versions? Crewed on its first launch? On a declining budget and shrinking workforce? Ouch. That's what made it so expensive and fragile.(And why SDLV's (from Shuttle-C to SLS) were always such a dumb idea. If they'd started with Shuttle-C and then added a crew component... mmmaybe. But going the other way? No.)
On a declining budget and shrinking workforce? Ouch. That's what made it so expensive and fragile(And why SDLV's (from Shuttle-C to SLS) were always such a dumb idea. If they'd started with Shuttle-C and then added a crew component... mmmaybe. But going the other way? No.)
the military wouldn't have diluted it with insane cross range requirements,
Integrating the second stage propellant tanks and spacecraft would have the been the natural choice then and a big first stage instead of the SRBs as well as hydrocarbons instead of LH2 too.
And everybody stop talking as though ITS is a given. A reusable first stage has yet to fly. And even if it does, 1, 2 or 3 times stills doesn't prove the effort.
Quote from: Jim on 10/17/2016 06:27 pmAnd everybody stop talking as though ITS is a given. A reusable first stage has yet to fly. And even if it does, 1, 2 or 3 times stills doesn't prove the effort.New Shepard.