Author Topic: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5  (Read 48671 times)

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #40 on: 05/27/2011 01:12 pm »
Has anyone brought up, if SpaceX though they could get to Heavy lift by going to five or seven cores, would they have not included it in growth options they have presented in the past?

Or did I miss the powerpoint?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #41 on: 05/27/2011 01:56 pm »
I haven't seen it. But then again, that might just be because SpaceX would much rather sell Nasa a Falcon X, and Nasa (at least in the past) would scuttle any such plan due to reliability concerns.

Personally, if SpaceX can prove that 27 engines and their booster staging is reliable, then develop Merlin 2, I don't see it being a showstopper. Plus it makes a lot more financial sense, in terms of amortising the fixed costs of the common core over a much larger number of flights (commercial flights, not just HSF missions.)

Then again, it is possible that there is some unknown factor that prevents this from being a viable concept.
John

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #42 on: 05/27/2011 02:30 pm »
Don't see how they can plan on getting the listed performance with only 2 stages.
Why not? The RAC-2 team seems to think it can hit some pretty impressive numbers with 2 stages.
They also use high energy fuel. SpaceX does not.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #43 on: 05/27/2011 02:48 pm »
I haven't seen it. But then again, that might just be because SpaceX would much rather sell Nasa a Falcon X

And why would SpaceX prefer to sell them a Falcon X over this?

Would they make more money on a Falcon X because Falcon X is cheaper to develop, manufacture, and operate?

This thread implies that SpaceX missed something obvious with Falcon X, and implies that a 5/7 lego core vehicle is better than what SpaceX has planned to meet this lift class.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #44 on: 05/27/2011 02:54 pm »
I haven't seen it. But then again, that might just be because SpaceX would much rather sell Nasa a Falcon X

And why would SpaceX prefer to sell them a Falcon X over this?

Would they make more money on a Falcon X because Falcon X is cheaper to develop, manufacture, and operate?

This thread implies that SpaceX missed something obvious with Falcon X, and implies that a 5/7 lego core vehicle is better than what SpaceX has planned to meet this lift class.
It depends on the demand.  If there is a need for 4+ flights per year of 110 tonnes, the SuperHeavy makes sense.  If there is a need for 1 flight per year, it does not.  This is due to the costs associated with maintaining the manufacturing capability for such a beast.

It also depends on SpaceX's reuse.  I know they were discussing a reusable first stage at one time.  If they were able to do that, then the SuperHeavy also makes sense, as it's large manufacturing cost would be offset by being able to be reused multiple times.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #45 on: 05/27/2011 03:06 pm »
Has anyone brought up, if SpaceX though they could get to Heavy lift by going to five or seven cores, would they have not included it in growth options they have presented in the past?

Or did I miss the powerpoint?

A little old now, but...

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #46 on: 05/27/2011 03:09 pm »
I didn't read through the whole thread to see if anybody brought this up already, buuut, I don't think you can get a big enough faring on a 3.6 meter body to make 80 or 90 metric ton lift ability worth it.

I think this has been discussed in a few places. Here's one thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25103.0

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #47 on: 05/27/2011 03:15 pm »
Don't see how they can plan on getting the listed performance with only 2 stages.
Why not? The RAC-2 team seems to think it can hit some pretty impressive numbers with 2 stages.
They also use high energy fuel. SpaceX does not.

Please, let's remember that Markusic doesn't works on SpaceX anymore, so the validity of the presentation is questionable. But as I understand from his presentation, the underlying assumption of the Falcon XX was a Raptor US. There's no other way to achieve 140mT to LEO.
The Falcon X, on the other hand seems to be consistent with an all kerolox design. The width is just right for a two Merlin Vac US. And if we take the 3.3 payload multiplier to LEO of the Falcon 9 Block 3 to Falcon Heavy, then the 38mT of Falcon X is exactly 125mT of Falcon X Heavy.

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #48 on: 05/27/2011 03:59 pm »
Perhaps we could solve both of these via a 6-core variant - with the centre core being a strengthened and lengthened version of falcons current (air-lit) upper stage? I.e. a strengthened core with a Merlin Vacuum on the end of it
Well, if you take a normal core, and put a single Merlin Vac, and then strap two Falcon Heavies to the side, you'd get a center with dual US in series, and two Heavies core plus boosters on the side. It would have something like four effective stages. And the separation issue is simplified since you can join the four boosters in pairs and separate them together. You'd have 33.63N, or 3,429mT of thrust. It should weight something around 3,000mT.
Of course that the fairing has something like 125m³, so you could potentially put a lot of water, concrete or lead in LEO. But anything significantly bigger, would be a problem.

My thoughts are beginning to coalesce around this type of solution. I wonder, if a larger fairing were to be made, could it be supported by 3 of the core stages through Max Q?

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #49 on: 05/27/2011 04:09 pm »
Here are two variants that are in my mind at the moment:



The first is essentially two Falcon Heavies (*with* their upper stages) hugging a Falcon Heavy core.

The three FH upper stages would burn concurrently and together would support the large PLF.

Not sure what the best solution would be to ensure all three FH cores burn out at the same time...

Base heating may also be a problem.



The second is the same as the one discussed previously:

Essentially two Falcon Heavies *without* their upper stages, hugging what is effectively a Falcon CCB with a single air-lit Merlin Vac (which constitutes the upper stage).

The main issue here would be to allow the PLF loads to be distributed evenly through the three central CCBs through Max Q while still allowing two of these CCBs to be detached from the PLF later on in the flight...

Base heating may be less of a problem with this one, but protecting the Merlin Vac from acoustic loads / heating before it is lit later on could be tricky.

The CCB-derived upper stage might also not have enough thrust (with only one Merlin Vac) for the vehicle to be very efficient.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 04:12 pm by Michael Bloxham »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #50 on: 05/27/2011 04:16 pm »
The first one is not viable.  Just make a fat upper stage.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #51 on: 05/27/2011 04:21 pm »
It would be smarter to instead develop the Falcon-X and Raptor than all of this.  Once you have those, the Falcon-X heavy would be able to handle missions up to the weight range, while scaling down to the more common payload sizes.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #52 on: 05/27/2011 04:34 pm »
The first one is not viable.

Why not? (Presumably the upper stages could be tied together structurally without too much problem?)

Just make a fat upper stage.

But then you how do you ensure that the PLF loads are distributed through all three of the "second stage" CCBs?

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #53 on: 05/27/2011 04:44 pm »
It would be smarter to instead develop the Falcon-X and Raptor than all of this.  Once you have those, the Falcon-X heavy would be able to handle missions up to the weight range, while scaling down to the more common payload sizes.

PLF size is still limiting in this case though. Unless you can find a sensible way of distributing PLF loads through the outer CCBs through Max Q while allowing their later separation?

Y'know what? Maybe the best solution to that problem would be to simply eliminate the cross-feed and have all three CCBs burn out at the same time. Like Delta IV Heavy and also your Delta IV 7xCBC Super Heavy concept. Three Falcon 9 Upper stages would be tied together to form the upper stage - allowing a very large PLF to be supported through Max Q. Essentially just three Falcon 9's tied together. For the Super Heavy, tie 5 or 7 of them together ;)

- Mike

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #54 on: 05/27/2011 04:47 pm »
It would be smarter to instead develop the Falcon-X and Raptor than all of this.  Once you have those, the Falcon-X heavy would be able to handle missions up to the weight range, while scaling down to the more common payload sizes.

PLF size is still limiting in this case though. Unless you can find a sensible way of distributing PLF loads through the outer CCBs through Max Q while allowing their later separation?

Y'know what? Maybe the best solution to that problem would be to simply eliminate the cross-feed and have all three CCBs burn out at the same time. Like Delta IV Heavy and also your Delta IV 7xCBC Super Heavy concept. Three Falcon 9 Upper stages would be tied together to form the upper stage - allowing a very large PLF to be supported through Max Q. Essentially just three Falcon 9's tied together. For the Super Heavy, tie 5 or 7 of them together ;)

- Mike
Precisely.  Perfection is the enemy of good enough.  Cross-feed is a novel technique, and gives benefit, but also adds complexities, costs, and risks.  The elimination of it would render the design good-enough, and as a result you would have the power you need, and can dial-a-rocket.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #55 on: 05/27/2011 05:13 pm »
Just develop the 6m Raptor US, and strap the six boosters to the side. You're going to get something like an AJAX-F. There's simply no demand. Let them make the Falcon Heavy a reliable vehicle and then build the next big thing. Among other issues, you can't transport wide stages easily. I guess you can move 6m cores from their factory in LA to the Cape. But I ignore how are they going to send them to Texas.
I like more the Orbital design, where the Pad does double duty as static test pad. Or the Energiya, where the static test pad ended up doing double duty as the launch pad :P
That's what I like about the dual flat pad design (A and B). You have redundability with minimum overhead. In fact, I would put the factory also by the Cape. If you are a private company you shouldn't need to fill electoral districts. But if they didn't, there must be some other business reasons.

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #56 on: 05/27/2011 05:31 pm »
It would be smarter to instead develop the Falcon-X and Raptor than all of this.  Once you have those, the Falcon-X heavy would be able to handle missions up to the weight range, while scaling down to the more common payload sizes.

PLF size is still limiting in this case though. Unless you can find a sensible way of distributing PLF loads through the outer CCBs through Max Q while allowing their later separation?

Y'know what? Maybe the best solution to that problem would be to simply eliminate the cross-feed and have all three CCBs burn out at the same time. Like Delta IV Heavy and also your Delta IV 7xCBC Super Heavy concept. Three Falcon 9 Upper stages would be tied together to form the upper stage - allowing a very large PLF to be supported through Max Q. Essentially just three Falcon 9's tied together. For the Super Heavy, tie 5 or 7 of them together ;)

- Mike
Precisely.  Perfection is the enemy of good enough.  Cross-feed is a novel technique, and gives benefit, but also adds complexities, costs, and risks.  The elimination of it would render the design good-enough, and as a result you would have the power you need, and can dial-a-rocket.

Great. Taking things further, I wonder if this would allow you to have the PLF supported directly by all of the CCBs - with the second stage closeted within the fairing (like the Atlas 501 below)? Although can you really afford to eject the fairing at first stage sep? (Edit: But would you have to?)
« Last Edit: 05/27/2011 05:59 pm by Michael Bloxham »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #57 on: 05/27/2011 05:45 pm »
You've developed the Saturn I.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #58 on: 05/27/2011 06:52 pm »
You've developed the Saturn I.
Bingo.  The Delta SuperHeavy is also a Saturn I. I figure, if it works, why mess with it?
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Falcon Heavy 5 Vs. Saturn 5
« Reply #59 on: 05/27/2011 07:10 pm »
You've developed the Saturn I.
Bingo.  The Delta SuperHeavy is also a Saturn I. I figure, if it works, why mess with it?

Because both the Saturn I and Saturn V where not affordable.

Of course this thread is about a Saturn V class vehicle, and not about addressing the current dearth of payloads in this class.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

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