Author Topic: Can Falcon Heavy handle a larger fairing? (Read 40682 times)

spacenut · « **on:** 04/04/2017 02:28 am »

If so how large? Seems like the existing fairing is size limited for heavy 50 ton payloads, like large Bigelow inflatable modules.

Arcas · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/04/2017 02:52 am »

The Falcon Heavy can't lift 50 tons anyways, so seems like a moot point.

cppetrie · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/04/2017 02:59 am »

Quote from: Arcas on 04/04/2017 02:52 am

The Falcon Heavy can't lift 50 tons anyways, so seems like a moot point.

In expendable mode it can do 54 tons to LEO.

spacenut · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/04/2017 03:37 am »

From what I read it was 54 tons in reusable mode to LEO. It can't lift that to GTO or GSO. That is after the upgrade to Full Thrust recently. Two outer boosters would land back at the Cape, center core would land on the drone ship. I just think they will eventually need a larger fairing if they are to launch heavy LEO payloads for someone.

MDDevice · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/04/2017 03:40 am »

How much does the fairing actually limit? I know it's too small for some Bigelow modules, but is there any other cargo that the FH wouldn't be able to carry? It seems like there's not many 50 ton payloads going to LEO but I haven't been paying much attention to proposals lately.

spacenut · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/04/2017 03:43 am »

Here is the SpaceX website:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

54 tons to LEO, 22 tons to GTO, and 13 tons to Mars. I don't think they want to use 3 boosters in expendable mode, they would want to retrieve them. Someone on another area of this website said it was about 60 tons in expendable mode or more.

Anyway, they show using the same fairing for both F9 and FH. F9 has launched large satellites that took up almost the whole volume of the existing fairing. FH can do larger. Just wanting to know if some of these rocket engineers have figured out the maximum size fairing that FH could use.

cppetrie · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/04/2017 03:55 am »

Quote from: spacenut on 04/04/2017 03:43 am

Here is the SpaceX website:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

54 tons to LEO, 22 tons to GTO, and 13 tons to Mars.

From discussions elsewhere on this site those numbers listed on the site do not include recovery and are essentially max payloads using expendable boosters. The most recent mass published for GTO with recovery is 8,300kg. That number hasn't changed since the debut of Full Thrust so it seems likely to have increased but not to 22,000kg. The prevailing thought seems to be that recovery limits GTO payload to about 13,000kg and probably ~25,000kg to LEO.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/04/2017 04:10 am »

The numbers currently on the SpaceX website are for Block 5 (which has yet to fly) in full expendable mode.

All you have to do is review launch history to sense the real, demonstrated capability of the current (apparently Block 3) Falcon 9. Its most recent launch was slightly sub-GTO (actually appears to have been a couple thousand km short of the planned apogee) with a 5.282 tonne payload and downrange first stage recovery. Its heaviest GTO payload was 5.6 tonnes in full expendable mode.

- Ed Kyle

Arcas · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/04/2017 04:43 am »

I seem to remember the Falcon Heavy being limited to a much lower payload than 50 tons due to the structural limits of the payload adapter.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/04/2017 04:49 am »

Quote from: Arcas on 04/04/2017 04:43 am

I seem to remember the Falcon Heavy being limited to a much lower payload than 50 tons due to the structural limits of the payload adapter.

That's only a limit of the bog standard adapter, not the launch vehicle. Not every payload uses that adapter. For instance: Dragon doesn't use the adapter.

It's not hard to make a different adapter.

rokan2003 · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/04/2017 05:55 am »

This reply by Musk about Falcon Heavy's payload capability:

@elonmusk Is the GTO payload still projected for 22,200 kilograms?

@jasonlamb looks like it could do 20% more with some structural upgrades to handle higher loads. But that's in fully expandable mode.

31/03/2017 20:54

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

IRobot · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/04/2017 05:59 am »

Quote from: Arcas on 04/04/2017 04:43 am

I seem to remember the Falcon Heavy being limited to a much lower payload than 50 tons due to the structural limits of the payload adapter.

Given those limitations and the recent comments of Musk, I wonder, if they could go back in time, probably they would probably just go for a wider first stage instead of 3 slimmer.

guckyfan · « **Reply #12 on:** 04/04/2017 06:05 am »

Quote from: IRobot on 04/04/2017 05:59 am

Quote from: Arcas on 04/04/2017 04:43 am
I seem to remember the Falcon Heavy being limited to a much lower payload than 50 tons due to the structural limits of the payload adapter.
Given those limitations and the recent comments of Musk, I wonder, if they could go back in time, probably they would probably just go for a wider first stage instead of 3 slimmer.

Using the Merlin/RP-1/LOX/metal tank architecture the FH still makes all kind of sense. Not so for the next generation with Raptor. But I am convinced the decision stands in hindsight.

John Alan · « **Reply #13 on:** 04/04/2017 06:13 am »

As to the original topic...
It likely could handle bigger...
BUT, I think they would farm it out and charge the customer at great expense for it...

Quote from: IRobot on 04/04/2017 05:59 am

Quote from: Arcas on 04/04/2017 04:43 am
I seem to remember the Falcon Heavy being limited to a much lower payload than 50 tons due to the structural limits of the payload adapter.
Given those limitations and the recent comments of Musk, I wonder, if they could go back in time, probably they would probably just go for a wider first stage instead of 3 slimmer.

THE number one reason why F9 is the size it is...

The cost and time needed to move it around is the lowest in the world... IMHO...

70 MPH cross country with a handful of people... Makes everyone else look silly in comparison...

Any bigger diameter... and it will add millions to the logistical expenses...

Rei · « **Reply #14 on:** 04/04/2017 08:33 am »

Quote from: MDDevice on 04/04/2017 03:40 am

How much does the fairing actually limit? I know it's too small for some Bigelow modules, but is there any other cargo that the FH wouldn't be able to carry?

Habitats... telescopes... the sort of things that you generally want a heavy launch vehicle for. I mean, the current fairing is fine for throwing big probes around the solar system and heavy satellites to GEO. And to be fair, their fairing size is basically industry standard. ~4,3-4,6m ID is very common for large launch vehicles the world over. Which is fine for most "traditional" payloads. But when you're looking to make use of heavy lift capacity, it is a bit limiting.

I've done some layouts for a Venus habitat, where most structures are fold-out and ambient pressure, but there was one enclosed, pressuretight section to act as a shelter when deployed / pressurized cargo storage during transit. Since it was smaller than the foldout areas, I had it be a lab, and since it was to double as a shelter, it had to include the toilet. Since you ideally don't want people to have to walk through the lab every time they wanted to use the toilet and you need privacy, this meant a dividing wall, an interior door, and ideally two exterior doors. Laying it out felt sort of like laying out an RV... "No, this door is going to run into that wall... what if we make these doors tiny and people have to sort of just turn around there... we have to move that wall back, they're not going to have any room to slide their chairs back over here..." etc. I mean, you can do it fine, but I'd hate to be constrained like that for long-term orbital, lunar, or Mars modules where everyone is inside them all the time. Even where you go for a horizontal layout, so that you have one long axis in the room, you still have to deal with total volume constraints.

And obviously for things like telescopes, the larger the fairing, the less convoluted James Webb-style origami you have to do.

If you engineer to a large fairing, and then the fairing or vehicle goes away, you're back to stage one. So you can engineer to a bit over 4m ID and trust that no matter what there will be something to launch it. But if you're engineering to a large fairing, you better work in close cooperation with the manufacturer and have faith in their ability to bring it to / keep it in service.

spacenut · « **Reply #15 on:** 04/04/2017 02:32 pm »

I was thinking about the Bigelow 330 module. At least a fairing large enough to get it to orbit. Or like someone said, a large telescope. Maybe even large components for a moon station. It would need a larger fairing to compete with SLS for some components.

Jim · « **Reply #16 on:** 04/04/2017 02:37 pm »

Quote from: John Alan on 04/04/2017 06:13 am

The cost and time needed to move it around is the lowest in the world... IMHO...
70 MPH cross country with a handful of people... Makes everyone else look silly in comparison...
Any bigger diameter... and it will add millions to the logistical expenses...

Unsupported statements. It would not add millions and it does not make others silly

abaddon · « **Reply #17 on:** 04/04/2017 02:45 pm »

Seriously, water transport is a little slow but it is not particularly expensive. Can we please not indulge in breathless hyperbole about everything SpaceX does?

spacenut · « **Reply #18 on:** 04/04/2017 03:56 pm »

Yes, I just want to know if the second stage as is, can handle a larger fairing. Wider and maybe a little longer for some larger future potential payloads like a 330 module. I know one of the Atlas V fairings encompasses the entire second stage. Just wondering if a 6m fairing say a little longer.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #19 on:** 04/04/2017 05:21 pm »

Quote from: spacenut on 04/04/2017 03:56 pm

Yes, I just want to know if the second stage as is, can handle a larger fairing. Wider and maybe a little longer for some larger future potential payloads like a 330 module. I know one of the Atlas V fairings encompasses the entire second stage. Just wondering if a 6m fairing say a little longer.

We can look at Titan 4 for an example of what has been done. Titan 4 carried a 200 in diameter fairing up to 1,067 inches long atop a 120 inch diameter core second stage. A 144 inch diameter Falcon 9 second stage might be expected to handle a fairing up to 240 inches (6.096 meters) diameter if the same relative diameter change were possible.

This does not answer whether the current Falcon 9 stage can structurally handle such a fairing. My guess would be that some changes would be needed, and of course the entire configuration would have to be qualified (wind tunnels, separation tests, etc.).

- Ed Kyle

envy887 · « **Reply #20 on:** 04/04/2017 05:23 pm »

What is the 330's expected diameter when stowed? I thought it was sized to launch on Atlas V 551, which would mean it's diameter should fit in SpaceX's 5.2m fairing diameter. Atlas doesn't offer a larger diameter fairing, just a longer one.

Kenp51d · « **Reply #21 on:** 04/04/2017 05:55 pm »

Quote from: envy887 on 04/04/2017 05:23 pm

What is the 330's expected diameter when stowed? I thought it was sized to launch on Atlas V 551, which would mean it's diameter should fit in SpaceX's 5.2m fairing diameter. Atlas doesn't offer a larger diameter fairing, just a longer one.

Also, what about length? Is the 330 short enough to fit?
Can the Falcon handle a longer fairing, seeing as the falcon is such a long skinny LV? My understanding is the LV's length width ratio (can't remember the term) is already near the limit. Don't know how that affects fairing length.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

dror · « **Reply #22 on:** 04/04/2017 06:36 pm »

I kind of remember reading, a long time ago, on FH page in the spacex site, that "other fairing sizes are possible, upon custommer demand" or some thing like that. To me, "other" meant bigger, but I could be wrong .
Any way, it's not there now

edkyle99 · « **Reply #23 on:** 04/04/2017 07:59 pm »

If SpaceX wants to compete for all of the EELV-Heavy class payloads, it will likely have to offer a longer Falcon Heavy fairing, at the very least - one that is comparable to the largest Delta 4 Heavy fairing.

- Ed Kyle

Asteroza · « **Reply #24 on:** 04/05/2017 03:13 am »

Considering the costs involved, would it behoove them to only design/build a larger diameter lengthened shroud that is cylindrical, or go whole hog with a long hammerhead type? Hell, would a hammerhead shroud potentially be easier to recover due to increased surface area and better shape for reentry?

Coastal Ron · « **Reply #25 on:** 04/05/2017 03:37 am »

Quote from: spacenut on 04/04/2017 03:37 am

From what I read it was 54 tons in reusable mode to LEO. It can't lift that to GTO or GSO. That is after the upgrade to Full Thrust recently. Two outer boosters would land back at the Cape, center core would land on the drone ship. I just think they will eventually need a larger fairing if they are to launch heavy LEO payloads for someone.

If you look at the SpaceX Capabilities & Pricing page for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, they state performance for Falcon Heavy:

LEO = 64.0mT *
GTO = 22.0mT *
Payload to Mars = 4.02mT *

* Performance represents max capability on fully expendable vehicle

So you would have to pay more than $90M to get the full performance ability of Falcon Heavy, but it could put 54.4mT into LEO - likely assuming the standard fairing.

Edit: Per user jpo234 I have updated the LEO numbers to reflect the latest SpaceX update.

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #26 on:** 04/05/2017 09:19 am »

Quote from: envy887 on 04/04/2017 05:23 pm

What is the 330's expected diameter when stowed? I thought it was sized to launch on Atlas V 551, which would mean it's diameter should fit in SpaceX's 5.2m fairing diameter. Atlas doesn't offer a larger diameter fairing, just a longer one.

There was a 7.2 meter fairing offered by ULA in the Atlas V user guide. Of course the customer have to fund addition integration research for such a fairing.

SpaceX will have to field a larger fairing eventually to complete with the 7 meter fairing from Blue.

guckyfan · « **Reply #27 on:** 04/05/2017 09:33 am »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 04/05/2017 09:19 am

SpaceX will have to field a larger fairing eventually to complete with the 7 meter fairing from Blue.

Or not. They may well wait until ITS or a derivate of it flies that has a lot more volume. They may have to design something like the Shuttle payload bay doors.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #28 on:** 04/05/2017 09:55 am »

I'd be surprised if SpaceX hasn't addressed at least as a paper exercise a 7-7.5m PLF that extends down to the base of the interstage and can be offered to NASA or DOD in the event there is a payload large enough. However, right now at least, at most it would be a hypothetical model. There is no commercial impetus to go even into early-stage development.

jpo234 · « **Reply #29 on:** 04/05/2017 12:35 pm »

Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/05/2017 03:37 am

If you look at the SpaceX Capabilities & Pricing page for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, they state performance for Falcon Heavy:

LEO = 54.4mT *

Payload to LEO is now 64000kg.

spacenut · « **Reply #30 on:** 04/05/2017 01:09 pm »

That payload changes a lot. I still haven't really had my question answered. Yes I know there would be additional aerodynamic pressures. But, without extensive modification could the 2nd stage handle the weight and pressure of a larger fairing? And if there are rocket engineers here who can answer the question, what size would it be?

I know 99% of payloads can fit inside the existing fairing. However, with SLS coming on line at up to 8+ meters diameter, Vulcan in a few years with a 5+ meter diameter, and New Glenn with a 7m diameter, payloads can be larger in diameter, and possibly length also. Compared to those rockets, F9/FH is a small diameter rocket and possibly only a certain diameter and length size increase. Just wondering what size?

Also, F9/FH will be around for at least the next 10 years launching. It has incredible payload capabilities for the size rocket it is. If they weren't so against solids, removing the legs and using expendible mode I was wondering also if they could get FH payloads with say 4 solids attached to a F9 like Atlas V. That is getting off topic on my own thread. Back to a possible larger fairing.

DOCinCT · « **Reply #31 on:** 04/05/2017 08:51 pm »

Fairing sizes across launcher families can be tricky. For instance, on an Atlas 5, the fairing has to be long enough to enclose the centaur 2nd stage and the payload. A fairing on Falcon9/H doesn't have to do this but is constrained by the cylindrical space available (4.6mX6.7m) as opposed to the overall length (11m) which includes the cone shape at the top.
In addition, you have to factor in the capabilities of the PAF which limits weight (10,886 kg / 24,000 lb) as opposed to volume/size.
Note: The Bigelow B330 is 13.7 m (44.9 ft) in length and fits into a 5m fairing and weighs at least 20,000 kg (43,000 lb)

smfarmer11 · « **Reply #32 on:** 04/05/2017 08:58 pm »

If youre already going to the length of having a new payload fairing designed, having a custom or heavier payload adapter wouldn't be that great of a problem.

Nomadd · « **Reply #33 on:** 04/05/2017 09:11 pm »

Falcon 9 User's guide

Pipcard · « **Reply #34 on:** 04/06/2017 12:32 am »

Quote from: Jim on 04/04/2017 02:37 pm

Quote from: John Alan on 04/04/2017 06:13 am

The cost and time needed to move it around is the lowest in the world... IMHO...
70 MPH cross country with a handful of people... Makes everyone else look silly in comparison...
Any bigger diameter... and it will add millions to the logistical expenses...

Unsupported statements. It would not add millions and it does not make others silly

Quote from: abaddon on 04/04/2017 02:45 pm

Seriously, water transport is a little slow but it is not particularly expensive. Can we please not indulge in breathless hyperbole about everything SpaceX does?

Is there any analysis of the actual costs?

Arcas · « **Reply #35 on:** 04/06/2017 12:42 am »

I doubt they would invest in new fairing technology before the new upper stage gets going.

JamesH65 · « **Reply #36 on:** 04/06/2017 11:04 am »

Quote from: Arcas on 04/06/2017 12:42 am

I doubt they would invest in new fairing technology before the new upper stage gets going.

As far as is known, there is NO new upper stage. For some reason people thing that there is, but there appears to be no evidence for it whatsoever.

spacenut · « **Reply #37 on:** 04/06/2017 12:23 pm »

The only evidence of a new upper stage is the Air Force contract to develop an upper stage Raptor engine. For what the Air Force wants, who knows. Guys have suggested a 5.2m upper stage with a Raptor upper engine, the same length of the existing upper stage. A new fairing would have to be made and could be made longer. However, this upper stage is NOT in the development stage, only the engine.

Now, the Bigelow 330 module at 13.7m long and 20 tons would not fit in the existing fairing. Weight wise, it is ok, even for a F9 expendible, but the existing fairing is only 11.4m internally. Maybe all they would need is a fairing stretch.

However, if they had a fairing large enough, with the new figures for FH expendable, a 330 module may could be launched to cis-lunar space for the station NASA is contemplating. A few of these, some solar panels, some extra docking ports, and you have a lunar station. All FH could do without SLS.

To me with FH soon to come on line, a larger fairing would be needed to competed for payloads that SLS or even New Glen could launch. Seems like the capability of the rocket is there, just the fairing is undersized for larger payloads that FH could launch.

Kaputnik · « **Reply #38 on:** 04/06/2017 12:27 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/04/2017 05:21 pm

Quote from: spacenut on 04/04/2017 03:56 pm
Yes, I just want to know if the second stage as is, can handle a larger fairing. Wider and maybe a little longer for some larger future potential payloads like a 330 module. I know one of the Atlas V fairings encompasses the entire second stage. Just wondering if a 6m fairing say a little longer.
We can look at Titan 4 for an example of what has been done. Titan 4 carried a 200 in diameter fairing up to 1,067 inches long atop a 120 inch diameter core second stage. A 144 inch diameter Falcon 9 second stage might be expected to handle a fairing up to 240 inches (6.096 meters) diameter if the same relative diameter change were possible.

This does not answer whether the current Falcon 9 stage can structurally handle such a fairing. My guess would be that some changes would be needed, and of course the entire configuration would have to be qualified (wind tunnels, separation tests, etc.).

- Ed Kyle

I would hazard a guess that F9, being already very much at the high end of fineness ratio, is more susceptible to bending loads than other vehicles. So possibly less scope for increasing the fairing size.

yg1968 · « **Reply #39 on:** 04/06/2017 12:48 pm »

There was plans for a taller fairing at some point but they seemed to have been dropped. See below:

Quote from: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 11:12 am

Quote from: Lars_J on 05/02/2014 05:00 am

Quote from: yg1968 on 05/02/2014 03:36 am
Quote from: manboy on 05/02/2014 03:27 am
The BA-330 is only 19,500 kg so it doesn't need a crossfed Falcon Heavy.

The BA-330 needs a taller fairing than the one that will be used by initial version of the FH (which will be the same fairing as the F9). The upgaded FH will have a fairing that is 15' taller. But the upgraded FH will only be ready in 2017.

I must have missed the news about a bigger FH fairing option. When was that revealed?

The information is from the Bigelow Gate 2 report (the charts in the report are dated August 1 2013). According to the report, there is two versions of the FH: the regular version (first launch expected in 2015) and the upgraded version (the first launch of the upgraded version is expected to be in 2017). The regular version of the FH uses the same fairing as the F9. The upgraded FH uses the 15' taller fairing.

I beleive this is why there is two prices for the FH on SpaceX's website: one for less than 6.4 tons to GTO and one for more than 6.4 tons to GTO.

robert_d · « **Reply #40 on:** 04/06/2017 01:13 pm »

The ability to recover the fairings may inform the decision to try to build a larger one. If they only have to build two or three to handle the rare larger volume payloads, they might be able to amortize the cost over multiple flights.

But I wonder about the current second stage. Mr. Musk just emphasized the immense effort to upgrade the central core. Wouldn't that imply that the second stage would need re-enforcing also?

And I still re-iterate that a dual core F9 medium could support a 8 x 5.5 fairing with less internal modification to the stages. Maybe not as good as a full cylinder, but given the rising power requirements of spacecraft and the increasing efficiency of solar cells, an elliptical cross section might be a reasonable solution to adding volume.

RoboGoofers · « **Reply #41 on:** 04/06/2017 03:46 pm »

If the Bigalow 330 is the only near term payload that would need a larger fairing, maybe it's Bigalow that needs to modify their module. It's not like the module is built yet, waiting for a suitable rocket.

They designed 330 for Atlas V. They can design one for FH, or ITS.

deruch · « **Reply #42 on:** 04/07/2017 02:16 am »

Quote from: RoboGoofers on 04/06/2017 03:46 pm

If the Bigalow 330 is the only near term payload that would need a larger fairing, maybe it's Bigalow that needs to modify their module. It's not like the module is built yet, waiting for a suitable rocket.

They designed 330 for Atlas V. They can design one for FH, or ITS.

A bigger, recoverable fairing for SpaceX would be a huge asset for their commsat constellation. They are going to want to launch as many satellites as they can at a time. Given the stated lifting performance of either the F9 or FH, it seems likely that they will be volume limited when it comes to deploying those satellites.

spacenut · « **Reply #43 on:** 04/07/2017 11:31 pm »

All this gets back to "Can Falcon Heavy handle a larger fairing?" It seems to be needed for the heavier LEO payloads it could launch. Or, would it be needed to launch fuel for a fuel depot? Especially lox. I know F9 is fine with the existing fairing. FH would seem to need a larger upper stage and fairing, especially for larger payloads. F9/FH is a small rocket in comparison to other rockets with lesser capabilities. I just wonder with the idea of fairing retrieval, why not go with a larger one if a redesign is in the works.

punder · « **Reply #44 on:** 04/07/2017 11:58 pm »

Quote from: RoboGoofers on 04/06/2017 03:46 pm

If the Bigalow 330 is the only near term payload that would need a larger fairing, maybe it's Bigalow that needs to modify their module. It's not like the module is built yet, waiting for a suitable rocket.

They designed 330 for Atlas V. They can design one for FH, or ITS.

This. Why the heck did Bigelow design his product right out of the launch market, except for the most expensive and restrictive option? Seems arbitrary and dumb. There, I said it: dumb. Must be the alcohol typing.

docmordrid · « **Reply #45 on:** 04/08/2017 12:46 am »

Quote from: punder on 04/07/2017 11:58 pm

Quote from: RoboGoofers on 04/06/2017 03:46 pm
If the Bigalow 330 is the only near term payload that would need a larger fairing, maybe it's Bigalow that needs to modify their module. It's not like the module is built yet, waiting for a suitable rocket.

They designed 330 for Atlas V. They can design one for FH, or ITS.

This. Why the heck did Bigelow design his product right out of the launch market, except for the most expensive and restrictive option? Seems arbitrary and dumb. There, I said it: dumb. Must be the alcohol typing.

The length of their module has changed. Their latest B330 concept images show an elongated extension not on previous BA-330 concepts.

Lars-J · « **Reply #46 on:** 04/08/2017 03:58 am »

Quote from: spacenut on 04/07/2017 11:31 pm

All this gets back to "Can Falcon Heavy handle a larger fairing?" It seems to be needed for the heavier LEO payloads it could launch. Or, would it be needed to launch fuel for a fuel depot? Especially lox. I know F9 is fine with the existing fairing. FH would seem to need a larger upper stage and fairing, especially for larger payloads. F9/FH is a small rocket in comparison to other rockets with lesser capabilities. I just wonder with the idea of fairing retrieval, why not go with a larger one if a redesign is in the works.

Propellant is so dense that a full load of propellant would take up only a small part of the fairing. A larger fairing is NOT needed for propellant.

DOCinCT · « **Reply #47 on:** 04/08/2017 04:11 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 04/08/2017 12:46 am

Quote from: punder on 04/07/2017 11:58 pm
Quote from: RoboGoofers on 04/06/2017 03:46 pm
If the Bigalow 330 is the only near term payload that would need a larger fairing, maybe it's Bigalow that needs to modify their module. It's not like the module is built yet, waiting for a suitable rocket.

They designed 330 for Atlas V. They can design one for FH, or ITS.

This. Why the heck did Bigelow design his product right out of the launch market, except for the most expensive and restrictive option? Seems arbitrary and dumb. There, I said it: dumb. Must be the alcohol typing.

The length of their module has changed. Their latest B330 concept images show an elongated extension not on previous BA-330 concepts.

I believe the "latest concept image" is from a reddit user based off of the animated 3-D wireframe currently on the Bigelow website (which is apparently under re-construction).
Update: I just came across a few images from @RobertTBigelow twitter account which does show the elongated tunnel. I noticed several images on the Bigelow account dating back to mid-2016 also showing the tunnel.
So things have evolved.

Steve G · « **Reply #48 on:** 04/08/2017 04:51 pm »

Being in the heavy haul trucking business, anything above 12'6" diameter creates some grief but not much. I've seen loads 18' in diameter and 90' long. Just that it requires a route survey, pole car, additional escorts, routes away from underpasses, taking down power lines, etc. I've done this sort of thing. If a 12' diameter load run would cost, for example, $15,000, an 18' diameter load might cost $150000. Each state is different, and often each county has its own permitting rules, but if is an established, regular route, costs could be mitigated. Other words, in relationship to the total cost of the rocket, the percentage of cost increase is in the low single digits.

However, I've also seen loads too wide to move based on where they are being built and where they are going to. I've literally seen large oilfield vessels disassembled by cutting torches to transport because the engineers never checked with the transport people. Not knowing the route, and alternative roads a larger rocket can take to pass through overpasses and choke points, I can't say if SpaceX can build wider diameter rockets at their current location. That's assuming they'd have the business case to invest $2 billion or so in a new clean sheet design, which I find unlikely. The amount of business they won't get because of current diameter restrictions wouldn't be worth cost cost of building a new rocket, unless it becomes an ego issue with Blue Origin's New Glenn wide bodied rocket.

DaveH62 · « **Reply #49 on:** 04/08/2017 11:03 pm »

If FH could support an 8 meter fairing, would SpaceX be entitled to compete for any SLS payload? I thought the law was that any private service provider should be chosen over a government rocket, if an equivalent service can be provided. I understand there must be more details involved, but if SpaceX can meet SLS payload plans, aren't they entitled or even prioritized to compete?

spacenut · « **Reply #50 on:** 04/09/2017 12:25 am »

Why couldn't a fairing be four sections instead of two? That way they can be trucked, then assembled on the rocket at the in the rocket assembly building around the payload. They can be carried on a tractor-trailer at a slight angle to not be over 12' high. That could make about a 5.5m fairing. Six peddles would make a 6m diameter fairing. However for a Bigelow module, a longer fairing may be needed, not really wider.

Anyway, SpaceX is going to have to have a larger fairing eventually to carry larger objects.

tdperk · « **Reply #51 on:** 04/09/2017 01:41 am »

Quote from: RoboGoofers on 04/06/2017 03:46 pm

If the Bigalow 330 is the only near term payload that would need a larger fairing, maybe it's Bigalow that needs to modify their module. It's not like the module is built yet, waiting for a suitable rocket.

They designed 330 for Atlas V. They can design one for FH, or ITS.

Pretty sure the ITS would do a BA1K5 to BA3K.

mvpel · « **Reply #52 on:** 04/09/2017 02:36 am »

Quote from: RoboGoofers on 04/06/2017 03:46 pm

If the Bigalow 330 is the only near term payload that would need a larger fairing, maybe it's Bigalow that needs to modify their module. It's not like the module is built yet, waiting for a suitable rocket.

They designed 330 for Atlas V. They can design one for FH, or ITS.

I had a chance to chat with Mr. Bigelow at the CRS-8 + BEAM launch a year ago today, and I can say with a high level of confidence that they most likely will not modify their module to accommodate the existing FH fairing. Since I work in DoD classified environments, I was able to recognize a few of the signs that there was something he wasn't able to disclose, and three days later I found out what it was:

Bigelow Aerospace and United Launch Alliance Join Forces to Foster a New Era of Sustainable Commercialization in Low Earth Orbit

While the Atlas V has been expensive, a cheaper ride years late is expensive too. And it looks like Bigelow made a reasonable decision in the long run, for an Atlas V launch three years from now:

United Launch Alliance cuts Atlas rocket price amid competition (April 4, 2017)

The elongated section which DocMordrid noted above is an airlock to allow for EVA and deployment of satellites - it will be the largest airlock ever flown.

spacenut · « **Reply #53 on:** 04/09/2017 01:48 pm »

That means in order to compete with the longer Atlas V fairing, SpaceX would have to make a longer fairing if it plans to get a 330 module to LEO, or with FH to an orbit of the moon. What does a 330 module weigh? 20 tons? A F9 could launch it expendable to LEO with a stretched fairing. FH could put it in moon orbit, also with a stretched fairing.

punder · « **Reply #54 on:** 04/09/2017 07:00 pm »

How much engineering is involved in stretching a fairing, then? It's basically a tube with a nosecone, stressed mainly for longitudinal loads. But it will make the vehicle longer and more "bendy" both before and after booster sep (both of them, in the case of FH). The F9 already has the highest aspect ratio on record, isn't that right?

Even so, it's highly likely imho SpaceX has already done plenty of engineering and market analysis on stretched fairings. Lots of other irons in the fire right now...

Jim · « **Reply #55 on:** 04/10/2017 02:25 pm »

Quote from: spacenut on 04/09/2017 01:48 pm

That means in order to compete with the longer Atlas V fairing, SpaceX would have to make a longer fairing if it plans to get a 330 module to LEO, or with FH to an orbit of the moon. What does a 330 module weigh? 20 tons? A F9 could launch it expendable to LEO with a stretched fairing. FH could put it in moon orbit, also with a stretched fairing.

It was on another thread that Spacex has no plans for stretched fairing.

guckyfan · « **Reply #56 on:** 04/10/2017 03:26 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 04/10/2017 02:25 pm

Quote from: spacenut on 04/09/2017 01:48 pm
That means in order to compete with the longer Atlas V fairing, SpaceX would have to make a longer fairing if it plans to get a 330 module to LEO, or with FH to an orbit of the moon. What does a 330 module weigh? 20 tons? A F9 could launch it expendable to LEO with a stretched fairing. FH could put it in moon orbit, also with a stretched fairing.

It was on another thread that Spacex has no plans for stretched fairing.

Unless there is a customer willing to pay.

Jet Black · « **Reply #57 on:** 04/10/2017 03:57 pm »

Quote from: RoboGoofers on 04/06/2017 03:46 pm

If the Bigalow 330 is the only near term payload that would need a larger fairing, maybe it's Bigalow that needs to modify their module. It's not like the module is built yet, waiting for a suitable rocket.

They designed 330 for Atlas V. They can design one for FH, or ITS.

Yep, I think this. Ultimately it will be a calculation for Bigelow - do they want to send up very large modules at significant cost, or more smaller ones at less cost.

Jim · « **Reply #58 on:** 04/10/2017 04:53 pm »

Quote from: guckyfan on 04/10/2017 03:26 pm

Quote from: Jim on 04/10/2017 02:25 pm
Quote from: spacenut on 04/09/2017 01:48 pm
That means in order to compete with the longer Atlas V fairing, SpaceX would have to make a longer fairing if it plans to get a 330 module to LEO, or with FH to an orbit of the moon. What does a 330 module weigh? 20 tons? A F9 could launch it expendable to LEO with a stretched fairing. FH could put it in moon orbit, also with a stretched fairing.

It was on another thread that Spacex has no plans for stretched fairing.

Unless there is a customer willing to pay.

There is no customer

RoboGoofers · « **Reply #59 on:** 04/10/2017 05:19 pm »

yeah just to summarize the situation so far:

SpaceX has no plans for a larger fairing.
If there were a customer willing to pay to develop a larger fairing, they might do it.
The only customer with a near term payload that'd need a larger fairing is a B330.
Bigelow has some sort of agreement with ULA to launch B330 on an Atlas.
So there's no customer that'd need a larger fairing before ITS.

I can see why this might be pretty low on the priority list for Spacex.

spacenut · « **Reply #60 on:** 04/10/2017 06:10 pm »

Well, Atlas V cannot get a 330 module to the moon vicinity. FH can. Therein lies a problem for Bigelow if NASA wants a moon station. It would have to go on SLS which is expensive.

yg1968 · « **Reply #61 on:** 04/10/2017 06:15 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 04/10/2017 02:25 pm

Quote from: spacenut on 04/09/2017 01:48 pm
That means in order to compete with the longer Atlas V fairing, SpaceX would have to make a longer fairing if it plans to get a 330 module to LEO, or with FH to an orbit of the moon. What does a 330 module weigh? 20 tons? A F9 could launch it expendable to LEO with a stretched fairing. FH could put it in moon orbit, also with a stretched fairing.

It was on another thread that Spacex has no plans for stretched fairing.

To my knowledge, the only person that discussed this issue is Bigelow himself. He said that the B330 could not use a FH for the foreseable future.

deruch · « **Reply #62 on:** 04/11/2017 02:52 am »

Quote from: Jim on 04/10/2017 04:53 pm

Quote from: guckyfan on 04/10/2017 03:26 pm
Quote from: Jim on 04/10/2017 02:25 pm
Quote from: spacenut on 04/09/2017 01:48 pm
That means in order to compete with the longer Atlas V fairing, SpaceX would have to make a longer fairing if it plans to get a 330 module to LEO, or with FH to an orbit of the moon. What does a 330 module weigh? 20 tons? A F9 could launch it expendable to LEO with a stretched fairing. FH could put it in moon orbit, also with a stretched fairing.

It was on another thread that Spacex has no plans for stretched fairing.

Unless there is a customer willing to pay.

There is no customer

SpaceX's Commstellation may be the customer.

Jim · « **Reply #63 on:** 04/11/2017 03:12 am »

Quote from: deruch on 04/11/2017 02:52 am

Quote from: Jim on 04/10/2017 04:53 pm
Quote from: guckyfan on 04/10/2017 03:26 pm
Quote from: Jim on 04/10/2017 02:25 pm
Quote from: spacenut on 04/09/2017 01:48 pm
That means in order to compete with the longer Atlas V fairing, SpaceX would have to make a longer fairing if it plans to get a 330 module to LEO, or with FH to an orbit of the moon. What does a 330 module weigh? 20 tons? A F9 could launch it expendable to LEO with a stretched fairing. FH could put it in moon orbit, also with a stretched fairing.

It was on another thread that Spacex has no plans for stretched fairing.

Unless there is a customer willing to pay.

There is no customer
SpaceX's Commstellation may be the customer.

Just stop. Spacex has said no plans.

su27k · « **Reply #64 on:** 04/11/2017 05:34 am »

Quote from: Jim on 04/11/2017 03:12 am

Quote from: deruch on 04/11/2017 02:52 am
Quote from: Jim on 04/10/2017 04:53 pm
Quote from: guckyfan on 04/10/2017 03:26 pm
Quote from: Jim on 04/10/2017 02:25 pm
Quote from: spacenut on 04/09/2017 01:48 pm
That means in order to compete with the longer Atlas V fairing, SpaceX would have to make a longer fairing if it plans to get a 330 module to LEO, or with FH to an orbit of the moon. What does a 330 module weigh? 20 tons? A F9 could launch it expendable to LEO with a stretched fairing. FH could put it in moon orbit, also with a stretched fairing.

It was on another thread that Spacex has no plans for stretched fairing.

Unless there is a customer willing to pay.

There is no customer
SpaceX's Commstellation may be the customer.

Just stop. Spacex has said no plans.

What about EELV requirement? I thought the heavy payload class requires a longer fairing.

guckyfan · « **Reply #65 on:** 04/11/2017 06:38 am »

Quote from: Jim on 04/11/2017 03:12 am

Just stop. Spacex has said no plans.

SpaceX has said no reusable upper stage. Their plans change switftly when the need arises. Be it internal needs or a customer.

RoboGoofers · « **Reply #66 on:** 04/11/2017 07:26 pm »

Quote from: su27k on 04/11/2017 05:34 am

What about EELV requirement? I thought the heavy payload class requires a longer fairing.

So is vertical integration.

I have a feeling that Elon isn't chasing those EELV launches as hard anymore. Probably was soured by the last round of bidding. plus they already have a backlog and AF is a very demanding / difficult customer. Plus there are too many political benefits from the ULA-AF contracts for ULA to lose a big share of those launches.

Aside from being a revenue source, they are a distraction from Mars. And other 'distractions' like CommX are experientially beneficial and have greater ROI.

Coastal Ron · « **Reply #67 on:** 04/11/2017 07:41 pm »

Quote from: RoboGoofers on 04/11/2017 07:26 pm

Quote from: su27k on 04/11/2017 05:34 am
What about EELV requirement? I thought the heavy payload class requires a longer fairing.

So is vertical integration.

I have a feeling that Elon isn't chasing those EELV launches as hard anymore. Probably was soured by the last round of bidding. plus they already have a backlog and AF is a very demanding / difficult customer. Plus there are too many political benefits from the ULA-AF contracts for ULA to lose a big share of those launches.

Aside from being a revenue source, they are a distraction from Mars. And other 'distractions' like CommX are experientially beneficial and have greater ROI.

As I recall Shotwell just recently mentioned that they are adding vertical integration into Pad 39A when they are making the improvements for crew.

That may not mean that they are planning for a large fairing too, but at least to go after payloads that fit within the current fairing. And larger USAF payloads may require a lot more than just larger fairings and VI, so it may be those other requirements that are the barriers, not a larger fairing per se.

baldusi · « **Reply #68 on:** 04/11/2017 08:27 pm »

If I'm not mistaken, F9 has Category 2 certification, not full Category 3 (up to class A payloads). So the birds requiring the big fairings are not their target.

abaddon · « **Reply #69 on:** 04/11/2017 09:25 pm »

Category should not be conflated with size. New Horizons was Category 3 and would have easily fit in the F9 PLF.

I haven't heard anything about F9 and Category 3 certification by LSP. Maybe they are waiting for the freezing of major changes that Block 5 will bring.

(Of course, that's NASA, not USAF, but that is where F9 is rated for Category 2 payloads).

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #70 on:** 04/12/2017 01:00 pm »

Quote from: spacenut on 04/10/2017 06:10 pm

Well, Atlas V cannot get a 330 module to the moon vicinity. FH can.

At the risk of thread derailment, couldn't Bigelow slowly raise an uncrewed module or three up to cis-Lunar space with an SEP and then use the chemical RCS/landing motors to manoeuvre into whatever is the final desired orbit?

Direct insertion is nice and it is necessary when you've got a crew aboard. However, with no crew, it's just a matter of being patient and it saves having to fork out to support your launch provider's hardware development costs.

baldusi · « **Reply #71 on:** 04/12/2017 11:46 pm »

Quote from: abaddon on 04/11/2017 09:25 pm

Category should not be conflated with size. New Horizons was Category 3 and would have easily fit in the F9 PLF.

I haven't heard anything about F9 and Category 3 certification by LSP. Maybe they are waiting for the freezing of major changes that Block 5 will bring.

(Of course, that's NASA, not USAF, but that is where F9 is rated for Category 2 payloads).

I was thinking of the inverse relationship. Anything requiring a bigger payload is going to be a Class "A" payload, thus requiring a Category 3 certification.

Arcas · « **Reply #72 on:** 04/12/2017 11:51 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/12/2017 01:00 pm

Quote from: spacenut on 04/10/2017 06:10 pm
Well, Atlas V cannot get a 330 module to the moon vicinity. FH can.

At the risk of thread derailment, couldn't Bigelow slowly raise an uncrewed module or three up to cis-Lunar space with an SEP and then use the chemical RCS/landing motors to manoeuvre into whatever is the final desired orbit?

Direct insertion is nice and it is necessary when you've got a crew aboard. However, with no crew, it's just a matter of being patient and it saves having to fork out to support your launch provider's hardware development costs.

I can't imagine how long it would take to move a 20 ton satellite from LEO to Lunar Orbit using electric propulsion. The solar panels would have to be massive.

deruch · « **Reply #73 on:** 04/15/2017 04:44 am »

Quote from: Jim on 04/11/2017 03:12 am

Quote from: deruch on 04/11/2017 02:52 am
SpaceX's Commstellation may be the customer.

Just stop. Spacex has said no plans.

Yes. SpaceX has said that they have no plans for a larger fairing. That statement came with the caveat that they would be willing to design/build one if a customer wanted one and was willing to pay for it. My point was that if SpaceX are serious about building and launching their communications constellations then they may find that they will be their own largest launch customer (by volume of launches). And depending on how their satellites turn out, they may decide that doing the work to make a larger fairing for themselves pays off in fewer launches needed to support the constellations. Or in improving their chances to recover/reuse their fairings, etc. In that case, they would be the "customer" that is paying for the new design. Obviously, there hasn't been any information that this is in the works which is why I used the word "may".