Author Topic: Grasshopper/F9R-Dev1 Derived Vehicles for Manned Suborbital Flight  (Read 15213 times)

Offline Optimistic Brian

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • California
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm sure someone has asked this before, but why doesn't SpaceX develop the 9R-Dev1 vehicle into a manned commercial suborbital rocket?  They could fly out of both Mojave and Spaceport America.  The suborbital industry has been severely disappointing, so it's basically wide open.

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 422
I'm sure someone has asked this before, but why doesn't SpaceX develop the 9R-Dev1 vehicle into a manned commercial suborbital rocket?  They could fly out of both Mojave and Spaceport America.  The suborbital industry has been severely disappointing, so it's basically wide open.

I think the general assumption has been that it's not worth their time. They don't want to spend money or engineering time on something that doesn't relate to, or fund, Mars.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
I'm sure someone has asked this before, but why doesn't SpaceX develop the 9R-Dev1 vehicle into a manned commercial suborbital rocket?  They could fly out of both Mojave and Spaceport America.  The suborbital industry has been severely disappointing, so it's basically wide open.

Also: the suborbital industry has been severely disappointing.  No sense throwing good money after bad.

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 422
Also: the suborbital industry has been severely disappointing.  No sense throwing good money after bad.

(Disappointing on the supply side! The demand side, which would signify "bad money" I think, has been robust enough to keep VG in business with zero deliveries.)

Offline Optimistic Brian

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • California
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
I think the general assumption has been that it's not worth their time. They don't want to spend money or engineering time on something that doesn't relate to, or fund, Mars.

That seems myopic, if it's the case.  At very least manned suborbital spaceflight gets the Overview Effect going, and regular operations of a reusable F9 first stage would certainly contribute a much higher frequency of flights to help develop the technology for the orbital side.  And there's no inherent reason suborbital couldn't be profitable, maybe hugely so.  Getting as many people into space as possible, as soon as possible, could only help spearhead this industry.

Also: the suborbital industry has been severely disappointing.  No sense throwing good money after bad.

Dcporter's response covers that pretty well - it's the suborbital suppliers that haven't come through on their flight systems.  Demand has been persistent, not to mention frustrated.  Once such services actually exist, the manifest demand would probably expand drastically.  Also, who knows, maybe an F9 first stage with legs might be capable of doing point-to-point, taking larger crews, or going higher and longer than Virgin Galactic. 

Someone should at least be exploring this.  If not SpaceX itself, then someone outside should be talking to them about a suborbital deal.  Their Mars Shot is like a huge tree, and there should be as many branches as possible off of it to maximize the benefit of each step forward they make.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
I think that suborbital tourism with F9R is not going to work, not for a lack of demand, but because it is the first stage of an orbital launch vehicle, with cost and engineering margins set for that. It would probably not be cost effective to do suborbital flights with it.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2014 02:51 pm by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
I think that suborbital tourism with F9R is not going to work, not for a lack of demand, but because it is the first stage of an orbital launch vehicle, with cost and engineering margins set for that. It would probably not be cost effective to do suborbital flights with it.

But as a "basis" there's a lot going for it as a starting point. Specifically to service the Class-1...

Wait, quick "refresher" on terminology here:
Class-1 Suborbital= (Pretty much) Straight-up/Straight-down suborbital (above the Karmen line) flight. This is what BO as well as VG are/were planning where there is little to no lateral motion during the flight. (And yes even VG as a "lifting" vehicle trajectory has very little lateral motion compared to what it could do but at a significant cost in required capability)

Class-2 Suborbital= Short-Range Point-to-Point suborbital flight. Something similar to what was suggested at one point for VG operations such as launching at Spaceport America and landing the SS-2 at Las Vegas or Mojave. Not as much capability requirements at the Class-3 P2P service but more than would normally be capable of using a vehicle designed for the Class-1 market. (Also has added operations costs due to landing at different site than you took off from)

Class-3 Suborbital= "Real" Point-To-Point Suborbital flight where the "suborbital" flight can reqiure as much if not more performance than an actual orbital flight. Ideas such as P2P suborbital travel from California to Australia fall under this catagory for example.

Continued:
Specifically to service the Class-1 Suborbital market where the trajctory enables faster turn-around and launch rates due to using the same facility for all operations. (Within safety margins of course) Pretty much trying to "barnstorm" space (suborbital) access.

An F9SoR (Suborbital Reusable) rocket with a passenger cabin wrapped low around the propellant tanks with permanently extended "legs" could be a pretty robust and economic "Launch Vehicle" for such missions with not a lot of major modifications to the design.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Dudely

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Canada
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 92
Wow. You just said wrapping a cabin around the fuel tanks and having permanently extended legs would not require "a lot of major modifications to the design".

Are you crazy? Yes it most certainly would.

How do you plan to land without the passengers passing out from the g forces?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927

Class-1 Suborbital= (Pretty much) Straight-up/Straight-down suborbital (above the Karmen line) flight. This is what BO as well as VG are/were planning where there is little to no lateral motion during the flight. (And yes even VG as a "lifting" vehicle trajectory has very little lateral motion compared to what it could do but at a significant cost in required capability)

...SNIP...

An F9SoR (Suborbital Reusable) rocket with a passenger cabin wrapped low around the propellant tanks with permanently extended "legs" could be a pretty robust and economic "Launch Vehicle" for such missions with not a lot of major modifications to the design.

I agree with Dudely that modifying anything is likely a lot of work, but I don't think you'd even need that.

There could be a market for a F9-R that has a Dragon V2 on top that just goes suborbital - just straight up.  The F9-R lands back at the launch site, and the Dragon lands nearby.  If they can achieve their goal of "gas & go" then they might be able to fly more than once a day.

Now what is the customer value of such a ride?  I have no clue.  And as is the Virgin Galactic vehicle has better views.

But it could be done with existing hardware and some new infrastructure for fast turnaround, and for a low enough price (Virgin Galactic is now $250K) they might be able to attract enough customers.  I think this would hinge on whether SpaceX sees value in flying F9-R and Dragon frequently - for whatever reason.  Because I don't think it would be a big money maker, or at least not something SpaceX could make a lot of money at... but maybe someone could license a F9-R and Dragon V2 for doing private flights?  Who knows?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Optimistic Brian

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • California
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Right now the manned suborbital industry is looking pretty grim - which is to say, it's still nonexistent a decade after the X Prize was won, and its most prominent "provider" has become something of a joke for its profligate hype and seeming terror of flying its own fully built spaceship.  Others either seem to be going nowhere despite massive resources (Blue Origin), or else going somewhere at a measured pace due to limited resources (XCOR) that could easily evaporate at any time.  Like I said, grim.

But SpaceX already has a large, operational suborbital rocket - two, in fact: Grasshopper and F9R-Dev1.  I don't want to dismiss the challenges that would be involved in transitioning pure test rockets that have only flown to low altitudes into operational commercial rockets that fly above the atmosphere, but...why not?  It seems like common sense that fully-built, relatively well-characterized reusable rockets that are going to be repeatedly test-flown anyway, eventually to space, and that have never failed (knock on wood), could carry people.

If SpaceX isn't interested in pursuing it themselves, then how about some external entity talk to them about buying or leasing one of these rockets?  They have the core capability to provide manned suborbital flight more or less immediately, and they would have a monopoly (even if VG flies eventually, they've made it clear they're afraid of their own vehicle and won't be flying very often). 

F9R-Dev1 in particular, because it's the first stage of an orbital rocket and has a lot of fuel for down-range velocity, could go straight up and reach very high altitudes with ISS-quality views or better.  The zero-g "hang time" could be longer as well, not to mention probably carrying more people.  Also, that down-range capability makes modest point-to-point flights conceivable, although this would be a bonus rather than the main purpose I'm talking about.

I just don't get why this idea hasn't gained traction.  That rocket is vastly safer, vastly simpler, and vastly cheaper than any flown in the 1960s with humans on top of it, so why are they not just strapping some cheap air-tight aircraft cabin with an ejection system to it and sending people up into the black?  I'm sure plenty of their own employees would line up for it, meaning no need initially for FAA clearance up front beyond the same usual test paperwork and the informed consent waivers. 

And while they're regularly sending their people up, and giving us all much-needed hope for our own chances of getting to go in the medium-term, they could be evolving it into something that would pass AST muster as a commercial system.

Multi-decadal Mars plans are very exciting, but come on, we can get significant numbers of people experiencing space now.

Offline inventodoc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 573
Since it costs millions to get things in orbit, a reusable rocket is a great idea. Propellant is something like $200k, add in other costs, you may get dollars per pound to orbit much lower .  With suborbital falcon 9, you still have the rocket overhead and are still spending $200k on propellant for a trip that would cost $2k in a longer period of time on an airplane. I'm not sure paid suborbital tourism is that compelling. When it happens, I think it will be a letdown.
« Last Edit: 08/21/2014 02:23 am by inventodoc »

Offline zodiacchris

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Port Macquarie, Australia
  • Liked: 1473
  • Likes Given: 1311
Aarghh, don't say that! Suborbital will be all I can ever afford (provided my wife gives me permission to sell the house).... :-X

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
I just don't get why this idea hasn't gained traction. 

Well for starters F9R-Dev1 only reached 1000m so far at very low speed, while SS2 and Blue Origin's test vehicle has passed 10000m and went supersonic, I think we need to give suborbital companies some credit and some patience, there were times when SpaceX's future looked grim too.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48138
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81620
  • Likes Given: 36928
Well for starters F9R-Dev1 only reached 1000m so far at very low speed,

F9R first stage has flown rather higher and faster than that and landed successfully, it just hasn't yet tried to land on anything solid. We don't yet know how accurate the landings were but I think the potential is pretty clear; I don't think anyone interested in using F9R tech for manned suborbital flight would limit themselves to looking at F9R-Dev1 :)

Offline Optimistic Brian

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • California
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
With suborbital falcon 9, you still have the rocket overhead and are still spending $200k on propellant for a trip that would cost $2k in a longer period of time on an airplane.

That begs a number of questions.  Most centrally, you never need to achieve the kind of delta-v on a suborbital up-and-down hop that you do on the first stage of an orbital flight, so you don't need all the propellant - not unless you really want to get as high an altitude as possible, and want those ISS-quality views, which IMHO would totally be worth it, but not the only option.  Also, because you don't need the same speeds, you don't need the same weight of thermal protection, which means further savings and efficiencies.

I'm not sure paid suborbital tourism is that compelling. When it happens, I think it will be a letdown.

Given how mind-blowing streaming videos of the view from the SpaceShipOne were during the X-Prize flights, and still are even now, I think you badly underestimate how much it would change things for ordinary people (or at least ordinary 6-figure affluent people) to be able to see their planet curving beneath them under a black sky in weightlessness.   I want to go into space, now, and I can't even afford those 6-figure prices, but it can't start going down until lots and lots of people are paying those high initial prices.  So the sooner the economies of scale get going the better for me and everyone else who is impatient for space.
« Last Edit: 08/21/2014 08:10 am by Optimistic Brian »

Offline Chris Bergin

Funny this. There were report to mods saying "The Grasshopper thread is off topic as they are talking about crazy things like suborbital!!"

Yet here we are (right idea to start a new thread). Hmmm. Let me see if I can trim out some of the other posts from the old thread into here.

Edit: And TA DAAA! That's done.
« Last Edit: 08/21/2014 09:52 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • United States
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3200
Right now the manned suborbital industry is looking pretty grim - which is to say, it's still nonexistent a decade after the X Prize was won, and its most prominent "provider" has become something of a joke for its profligate hype and seeming terror of flying its own fully built spaceship.  Others either seem to be going nowhere despite massive resources (Blue Origin), or else going somewhere at a measured pace due to limited resources (XCOR) that could easily evaporate at any time.  Like I said, grim.

I've still got my money placed on Copenhagen Suborbitals (http://copsub.com/).  Those crazy Danes have the right idea for manned suborbital flight- extremely small rockets tailored to thrill seekers, not big expensive rockets like an F9 or SS2. The driver would have room enough for their ass in the clear-domed capsule, and perhaps they'd even [be forced to] jump out and parachute back Gagarin-style at apogee.

At a couple of million, the thrill sports set could buy these things up like rich men with their race cars.  David Brin has a nice description of such a race in "Existence."
« Last Edit: 08/21/2014 01:08 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
They're not doing that anymore.. which is a shame. It was actually unique and didn't require wider cores than it seems they're capable of doing.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
I doubt SpaceX needs the headache of dealing with thousands of customers...

But if someone wants to operate an F9S1/Dragon joyride, and SpaceX trusts them, then why not.

The economics look iffy though
« Last Edit: 08/21/2014 03:31 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
They're not doing that anymore.. which is a shame. It was actually unique and didn't require wider cores than it seems they're capable of doing.

If I remember, they first went to an Apollo style capsule after the first design, and now are looking at using a Mercury style capsule.

I'm kinda pulling for these crazy Danes!
My God!  It's full of universes!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1