Author Topic: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage  (Read 152449 times)

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #320 on: 10/04/2016 04:19 am »
Falcon 9 tankage is 3.7m in diameter.

I keep saying this on this forum, but the road transportable limit is closer to 4.2-4.5m.  I know this because I've personally managed the shipment of both 4.2m and 4.5m diameter cylinders across the country without doing anything particularly special (like closing roads or removing stop lights).

Length factors in as well, I'm sure.

60m is okay.

Offline First Mate Rummey

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #321 on: 10/05/2016 12:21 pm »
People keep bringing up the Raptor first stage on Falcon 9.  Most of the rocket scientists here have said, it can't and will not work.  Raptor uses methane.  It is far less dense than kerosene.  It would require a wider first stage to hold enough to power 3 Raptors.
Keep in mind that Raptors have over 18% more IsP than Merlins, so this could partially compensate the less denser propellant. Also 3 Raptors have a higher thrust than 9 Merlins and this can reduce gravity losses (and more if using >3 Raptors, which could possibly be accommodated since their size is not much bigger than the Merlins).

Would be nice to have some numbers about volume fuels taking these into account.  Anyone? :)

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #322 on: 10/05/2016 01:23 pm »
One SL Raptor engine gives 137N of Thrust in 20%, the SuperDraco gives 72N. So I think the idea can work, just find difficult that Spacex will use differents fuels on the first and second stages, just increases the complexities.

They already have KeroLox infrastructure at 39A and will have to add Methane infrastructure for ITS anyway.. '

So at least at 39A they will have both eventually.

Either that or Falcon gets completely converted to Raptor and they go all Methane.

As to complexity, yes, it's more so, but almost everyone else is already using different prop for S1 and S2.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2016 01:24 pm by TrueBlueWitt »

Offline garidan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Italy
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #323 on: 10/06/2016 10:31 pm »
People keep bringing up the Raptor first stage on Falcon 9.  Most of the rocket scientists here have said, it can't and will not work.  Raptor uses methane.  It is far less dense than kerosene.  It would require a wider first stage to hold enough to power 3 Raptors.
Numbers are needed, but to transition toward the methane infrastructure I think a methane falcon 9 fits well the gap. Using the same welding machine and so diameter of Falcon, but using one raptor per core, in a 3 core heavy configuration with a shorter first stage and side boosters, and taller second stage, you get the fuel space for methane, a simple and lightweight design (one central Raptor engine for each core, no octaweb, no helium) and enough power to lift more payload than Falcon 9 single core. It's best suited for a Raptor upper stage, and with 20% low throttle it could land and be reusable, all 3 cores.
With this you get to proof raptor in a "simple and cheap" configuration, on the field, at sea level and in space. You upgrade the infrastructure to methane while keeping earning money launching commercial sats. You gain methane experience.



Offline IainMcClatchie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #324 on: 10/07/2016 01:51 am »
Falcon 9 tankage is 3.7m in diameter.

I keep saying this on this forum, but the road transportable limit is closer to 4.2-4.5m.  I know this because I've personally managed the shipment of both 4.2m and 4.5m diameter cylinders across the country without doing anything particularly special (like closing roads or removing stop lights).

But how do you get a 4.5 m tank out of Hawthorne?  When I've looked it appears there are a number of difficulties very close to the SpaceX facilities.

I think the idea of SpaceX building rockets elsewhere should be met with skepticism.  Major construction elsewhere will increase their costs.  It would be good to stick with road-transportable stages.

That said, I think the huge composite LOX tank that they showed off was probably built someplace other than Hawthorne, so maybe they've already started a large-scale composite fabrication shop in Texas or Florida.

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #325 on: 10/07/2016 06:55 am »

That said, I think the huge composite LOX tank that they showed off was probably built someplace other than Hawthorne, so maybe they've already started a large-scale composite fabrication shop in Texas or Florida.

There is some rather specific info in L2 concerning this.
I really don't want to be a tease or a marketer, but these last months I've been really, REALLY happy with my decision to subscribe.
« Last Edit: 10/07/2016 07:00 am by Dante80 »

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #326 on: 10/08/2016 05:52 pm »
People keep bringing up the Raptor first stage on Falcon 9.  Most of the rocket scientists here have said, it can't and will not work.  Raptor uses methane.  It is far less dense than kerosene.  It would require a wider first stage to hold enough to power 3 Raptors.  It would not be road transportable.  It would require rebuilding the ground infrastructure to handle it.  Now a 5.2m vacuum Raptor upper stage the same length as the existing second stage might work.  It would allow the first stage to return to launch site for most launches.  It could also lift more payload to LEO.  It would also work great on a FH. 

Now, they would have to add methane handling equipment at the launch pads.  They would have to rework their strong back.  It would also have to be made near water transport or a large airport for Super Guppy type air transport. 

This is why Saturn V and Saturn IB used kerosene for first stages.  It has the most lift capability for size of any fuel short of maybe solids.  Hope this helps.

Having methane on a first stage would require a whole new rocket design.  This is why the New Glen rocket of Blue Origin will be about 7m in diameter with 5 BE-4 engines which are similar in thrust to the Raptor. 
 

Thats not how it was:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34303.msg1174626#

...
...
So in summary, a methalox Falcon 9 family built with small Raptor-like cousins can be the same size as the existing Falcon 9 family.  It will however be even more reusable, carry more to orbit, mass less, damage the pad with less thrust, and be burning an even cleaner propellant mix.  To me, this seems like it would be a worthy long-term upgrade to the Falcon 9 family.  To others I’m sure it is not, so please sound off below about the math posted above, what you think of a methalox Falcon 9, and whether you think it would be worth the change.
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #327 on: 10/09/2016 04:30 am »
Falcon 9 tankage is 3.7m in diameter.

I keep saying this on this forum, but the road transportable limit is closer to 4.2-4.5m.  I know this because I've personally managed the shipment of both 4.2m and 4.5m diameter cylinders across the country without doing anything particularly special (like closing roads or removing stop lights).

But how do you get a 4.5 m tank out of Hawthorne?  When I've looked it appears there are a number of difficulties very close to the SpaceX facilities.

I think the idea of SpaceX building rockets elsewhere should be met with skepticism.  Major construction elsewhere will increase their costs.  It would be good to stick with road-transportable stages.

That said, I think the huge composite LOX tank that they showed off was probably built someplace other than Hawthorne, so maybe they've already started a large-scale composite fabrication shop in Texas or Florida.

I suspect they may have built it at the Brownsville location.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2016 04:31 am by Patchouli »

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #328 on: 10/10/2016 07:29 am »

I suspect they may have built it at the Brownsville location.

Where in Brownsville would they have built the tank? There's not any buildings there yet that SpaceX owns which would be that size ...

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Israel
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #329 on: 10/10/2016 11:16 am »

I suspect they may have built it at the Brownsville location.

Where in Brownsville would they have built the tank? There's not any buildings there yet that SpaceX owns which would be that size ...
McGregor has LOX infratructure and a newly built hangar

Offline spacexfanatic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Algeria
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 280
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #330 on: 04/23/2020 01:09 pm »
Hi everyone,

Did the idea of a fairing built with heat resistant materials that could be used as shield proposed here?

It seems to me that is doable if the fairing after releasing the payload rotate 180° downward and unite again protecting both the engine nozzle and the body tube.

It will fall down like bombshell  and use grid fins and two parachutes for splach down the noble parts being well protected inside the shell. vertical landing or gliding may be developped latter.

The question is what would be the weight of a heatshielding capable fairing.knowing that both pair of fairing on F9 is now 1.9 ton.

« Last Edit: 04/23/2020 01:15 pm by spacexfanatic »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #331 on: 04/23/2020 02:11 pm »
A combination fairing/heat shield would probably weigh too much for F9 causing a very low mass payload, and it would have to be carried all the way to orbit.  Existing fairings eject before the payload reaches orbit.

To me, the best solution for F9/FH is a metholox 5.2m upper stage to increase payload capabilities.  It would have to be a sub scale Raptor.  The stage might have enough fuel left to slow it down and drop through the atmosphere like Starship is going to do and parachute down, and be retrieved by maybe a helicopter. 

Even an expendable metholox upper stage at 5.2m in diameter can increase F9 to about 28 tons to LEO and FH to about 70-80 tons to LEO.  Quite a boost in payload capability. 

However, SpaceX is not going to do anything to the F9/FH system as they are concentrating on Starship. 

Offline spacexfanatic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Algeria
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 280
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #332 on: 04/26/2020 12:14 pm »
A combination fairing/heat shield would probably weigh too much for F9 causing a very low mass payload, and it would have to be carried all the way to orbit.  Existing fairings eject before the payload reaches orbit.

To me, the best solution for F9/FH is a metholox 5.2m upper stage to increase payload capabilities.  It would have to be a sub scale Raptor.  The stage might have enough fuel left to slow it down and drop through the atmosphere like Starship is going to do and parachute down, and be retrieved by maybe a helicopter. 

Even an expendable metholox upper stage at 5.2m in diameter can increase F9 to about 28 tons to LEO and FH to about 70-80 tons to LEO.  Quite a boost in payload capability. 

However, SpaceX is not going to do anything to the F9/FH system as they are concentrating on Starship.

I think we are going to lose only the weight of the fairing in payload about 1.9 (actual fairing weight)  tons which is les than 9% loss for LEO, and less than 23% for GTO.

If we can build a relatively light heatshielding capable fairing it would be doable.

Offline cdebuhr

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Calgary, AB
  • Liked: 1435
  • Likes Given: 592
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #333 on: 04/26/2020 04:21 pm »
I think we are going to lose only the weight of the fairing in payload about 1.9 (actual fairing weight)  tons which is les than 9% loss for LEO, and less than 23% for GTO.

If we can build a relatively light heatshielding capable fairing it would be doable.
But that 1.9 ton fairing isn't a real heat shield.  The only reason they survive reentry as they do is because they weigh almost nothing relative to their cross-sectional area when oriented properly.  If you added the dry mass of S2, none of it survives.  So you need a heat shield, which adds weight, which directly cuts into payload.  To just suggest "make a lighter heat shield" isn't particularly useful.  The idea that they're going to make "fairing 2.0" that can also do double duty as a re-entry shield for S2 without any mass penalty is probably hopelessly optimistic. (never mind the added mass penalty of other recovery associated hardware).

But it gets worse ...

The fairing is jettisoned ASAP for good reason.  As a rule, on any launch you want to shed dead weight as soon as it is practical to do so, so that the rocket engines can use what total impulse they've got left accelerating only that stuff that is still needed.  Now you want to take the now heavier fairing-plus-heat-shield all the way to orbit.  This is going to cost you massively in terms of mass to orbit.  Much more than just the extra mass of the heatsheild, etc.  I can't tell you what the mass to orbit penalty is in detail, because first you need to figure out how much this is all going to weigh, and then you need to do the math, but its not going to be pretty.

To help illustrate the point, ask yourself this question ... Why do they drop S1 when its empty?  Now, I realize that comparing a depleted S1 to a payload fairing is a bit extreme, but in both cases the you're shedding dead weight for precisely the same reason.

Online tbellman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 964
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #334 on: 04/26/2020 05:57 pm »
But that 1.9 ton fairing isn't a real heat shield.  The only reason they survive reentry as they do is because they weigh almost nothing relative to their cross-sectional area when oriented properly.  If you added the dry mass of S2, none of it survives.  So you need a heat shield, which adds weight, which directly cuts into payload.  To just suggest "make a lighter heat shield" isn't particularly useful.  The idea that they're going to make "fairing 2.0" that can also do double duty as a re-entry shield for S2 without any mass penalty is probably hopelessly optimistic. (never mind the added mass penalty of other recovery associated hardware).

Not only that.  As you say, the fairing is jettisoned as early as possible, typically just after main engine cut-off (MECO), which means that it reenters the atmosphere at a much lower speed than the S2 will.  In the latest Starlink mission, for example, that was approximately at a speed of 8130 km/h.  Compare that to the speed at SECO (second-stage engine cut-off), 26900 km/h, more than three times as high.  Just that would subject you to much higher temperatures.

So absolutely agree, it is not as easy as spacexfanatic seems to think.  If it was, SpaceX would likely already have done so...

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #335 on: 04/26/2020 07:26 pm »
So absolutely agree, it is not as easy as spacexfanatic seems to think.  If it was, SpaceX would likely already have done so...
Pretty much the key observation about why they did a video in 2011 to do this and haven't actually done it since.

MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #336 on: 04/26/2020 09:34 pm »
People keep bringing up the Raptor first stage on Falcon 9.  Most of the rocket scientists here have said, it can't and will not work.  Raptor uses methane.  It is far less dense than kerosene.  It would require a wider first stage to hold enough to power 3 Raptors.
Keep in mind that Raptors have over 18% more IsP than Merlins, so this could partially compensate the less denser propellant.
Also 3 Raptors have a higher thrust than 9 Merlins and this can reduce gravity losses (and more if using >3 Raptors, which could possibly be accommodated since their size is not much bigger than the Merlins).


9 Merlins have sea-level thrust of about 770 tonnes, vacuum thrust of about 880 tonnes.

3 Raptors have thrust(not sure if vacuum or sea level) thrust of about 600 tonnes.

So, 9 Merlins have considerably more thrust than 3 raptors.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #337 on: 04/26/2020 10:21 pm »
But that 1.9 ton fairing isn't a real heat shield.  The only reason they survive reentry as they do is because they weigh almost nothing relative to their cross-sectional area when oriented properly.  If you added the dry mass of S2, none of it survives.  So you need a heat shield, which adds weight, which directly cuts into payload.  To just suggest "make a lighter heat shield" isn't particularly useful.  The idea that they're going to make "fairing 2.0" that can also do double duty as a re-entry shield for S2 without any mass penalty is probably hopelessly optimistic. (never mind the added mass penalty of other recovery associated hardware).

Not only that.  As you say, the fairing is jettisoned as early as possible, typically just after main engine cut-off (MECO), which means that it reenters the atmosphere at a much lower speed than the S2 will.  In the latest Starlink mission, for example, that was approximately at a speed of 8130 km/h.  Compare that to the speed at SECO (second-stage engine cut-off), 26900 km/h, more than three times as high.  Just that would subject you to much higher temperatures.

So absolutely agree, it is not as easy as spacexfanatic seems to think.  If it was, SpaceX would likely already have done so...
A 1kg object(1st stage) at 8000km/s has 2.5mj, at 2800km/s (2nd stage) has 30mj, that is why 2nd stage recovery is so much harder than 1st stage. Plus every 10kg of recovery gear added to 2nd reduces payload by 10kg, for 1st payload penalty is 1.2kg.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #338 on: 04/27/2020 06:01 am »
A 1kg object(1st stage) at 8000km/s has 2.5mj, at 2800km/s (2nd stage) has 30mj, that is why 2nd stage recovery is so much harder than 1st stage. Plus every 10kg of recovery gear added to 2nd reduces payload by 10kg, for 1st payload penalty is 1.2kg.

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php
That's before you factor in the small but significant contribution of potential energy at the orbital altitude.

Personally I'd say that shift in "exchange rate" between booster mass and recovery gear and US mass and recovery is what multiplies the difficulty.

TBH I've serious doubts that any US with a conventional aspect ratio can be recovered, even one with a Centaur grade mass ratio and raptor level thrust.  :( The payload hit is (I suspect) too great.

My instinct is you need something more volumetrically efficient and that suggests something more squat, like the Bono SSTO and DCX designs.  Obviously that would also mean a different concept of booster design as well.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2020 07:19 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline spacexfanatic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Algeria
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 280
Re: Fully reusable Falcon 9 with Raptor upper stage
« Reply #339 on: 04/27/2020 09:19 am »
I think we are going to lose only the weight of the fairing in payload about 1.9 (actual fairing weight)  tons which is les than 9% loss for LEO, and less than 23% for GTO.

If we can build a relatively light heatshielding capable fairing it would be doable.
But that 1.9 ton fairing isn't a real heat shield.  The only reason they survive reentry as they do is because they weigh almost nothing relative to their cross-sectional area when oriented properly.  If you added the dry mass of S2, none of it survives.  So you need a heat shield, which adds weight, which directly cuts into payload.  To just suggest "make a lighter heat shield" isn't particularly useful.  The idea that they're going to make "fairing 2.0" that can also do double duty as a re-entry shield for S2 without any mass penalty is probably hopelessly optimistic. (never mind the added mass penalty of other recovery associated hardware).

But it gets worse ...

The fairing is jettisoned ASAP for good reason.  As a rule, on any launch you want to shed dead weight as soon as it is practical to do so, so that the rocket engines can use what total impulse they've got left accelerating only that stuff that is still needed.  Now you want to take the now heavier fairing-plus-heat-shield all the way to orbit.  This is going to cost you massively in terms of mass to orbit.  Much more than just the extra mass of the heatsheild, etc.  I can't tell you what the mass to orbit penalty is in detail, because first you need to figure out how much this is all going to weigh, and then you need to do the math, but its not going to be pretty.

To help illustrate the point, ask yourself this question ... Why do they drop S1 when its empty?  Now, I realize that comparing a depleted S1 to a payload fairing is a bit extreme, but in both cases the you're shedding dead weight for precisely the same reason.

I just suggested the idea for hypotetic money saving, if we can find profit point between the loss in pay-load and the cost of a brand new US it could be workable.

The suggested fairing may of course be as lighter as possible, I think a lot of progress have been made in the field and still a lot has to come with the like of Orion capsule heatshield weight saving with new materials.

Engines Thrust capabilities may also be improved to cope with the extra mass.

Dual duty is the key for weight saving (money saving).
« Last Edit: 04/27/2020 10:39 am by spacexfanatic »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0