Sounds like they are building in extra capacity at the new stand for bigger things like Merlin 2.
Quote from: mrhuggy on 01/04/2012 09:26 pmSounds like they are building in extra capacity at the new stand for bigger things like Merlin 2.Wouldn't this stand be required in order to test cross-feeding in FH?
if they're going to build a test stand capable of firing Falcon Heavy at once, I see no reason they wouldn't test cross-feeding on the stand.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/05/2012 03:18 pmif they're going to build a test stand capable of firing Falcon Heavy at once, I see no reason they wouldn't test cross-feeding on the stand.Agreed. Most likely. Unless timeframe is a big factor: For example, some customer might need a cross-feeding FH demo by a certain date that is sooner than the test stand completion date. I have no idea if that's the case though.
Maybe that's what the huge underground test stand is really for.
Quote from: go4mars on 01/05/2012 01:14 pmQuote from: mrhuggy on 01/04/2012 09:26 pmQuote from: go4mars on 01/04/2012 08:28 pm500000 divided by 90 seconds. That's 5555 gallons per second. Does that sound excessive for 27 merlin 1D's? Sounds like they are building in extra capacity at the new stand for bigger things like Merlin 2.Is there a rule of thumb for gallons per second per unit thrust? no, you are not going to find indirect proof that Merlin 2 is being developed
Quote from: mrhuggy on 01/04/2012 09:26 pmQuote from: go4mars on 01/04/2012 08:28 pm500000 divided by 90 seconds. That's 5555 gallons per second. Does that sound excessive for 27 merlin 1D's? Sounds like they are building in extra capacity at the new stand for bigger things like Merlin 2.Is there a rule of thumb for gallons per second per unit thrust?
Quote from: go4mars on 01/04/2012 08:28 pm500000 divided by 90 seconds. That's 5555 gallons per second. Does that sound excessive for 27 merlin 1D's? Sounds like they are building in extra capacity at the new stand for bigger things like Merlin 2.
500000 divided by 90 seconds. That's 5555 gallons per second. Does that sound excessive for 27 merlin 1D's?
The Texas test stand is rated for 15MN... So if they actually wanted to design such an engine, they already have the test stand for it.
500000 divided by 90 seconds. That's 5555 gallons per second. Does that sound excessive for 27 merlin 1D's? Is there a rule of thumb for gallons per second per unit thrust?
Is there a rule of thumb for gallons per second per unit thrust?
Can somebody calculate the LEO lift capacity of a hypothetical Falcon XX Heavy (three 10m cores with cross feeding - with 6? Merlin2 engines each) with Merlin2 and/or Raptor upper stages?Are there any fundamental technical issues preventing such configuration?
If you copy the FH equation (3.3 times the 16tonnes of the F9b2), you'd get somewhere around 500tonnes.
to get 50 tonne chunks to Mars' surface (a stated goal)
Quote from: bulkmail on 02/08/2012 05:38 pmCan somebody calculate the LEO lift capacity of a hypothetical Falcon XX Heavy (three 10m cores with cross feeding - with 6? Merlin2 engines each) with Merlin2 and/or Raptor upper stages?Are there any fundamental technical issues preventing such configuration?If you copy the FH equation (3.3 times the 16tonnes of the F9b2), you'd get somewhere around 500tonnes.I guess that you should start thinking differently. You should start with a desired mission, then decide a vehicle that can do the mission in one or two launches.Let's say that you make it a two launches mission, where first you send the return vehicle and some exploration vehicle plus a surface habitat. On the second launch you send the crew with a space habitat, the Mars descent vehicle and the Earth return capsule.You've got to calculate some mass at Trans Mars Insertion orbit. That's what you should optimize then. LEO is not a good benchmark if you're going with straight launches, since low energy and high energy orbits require very different optimizations.
OK, so the mission I'm thinking about is Moon outpost/base and Moon cargo delivery on a big scale.
Anyway, with your 500 tonne rocket, that drops by some percent for reuse (40% for single stick apparently). Say a cross-fed version only drops by 20%. Would a 400 tonne to LEO rocket be likely to get 50 tonnes to the surface of Mars?