Author Topic: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?  (Read 5281 times)

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« on: 11/09/2014 08:39 am »
The Electron thread shows there is a definite demand on smallsat launches. That got me thinking.

So assuming that the F9R first stage has a significant number of reuses without high refurbishment cost. Something in the range of 20+ launches. Then developing a small low cost upper stage using a single modified SuperDraco with vacuum nozzle and TVC or a pressure fed methane engine similar to what they will also need as a landing engine for MCT might give them a smallsat launcher with cost below that of Electron, even if they can meet their price target.

They can deliver a small second stage with a speed at least like a FH central core and have plenty of fuel left for RTLS so that upper stage would not need to produce high delta-v for orbit. It might be feasible to use airframes that have lost some of their stability so they are unsafe for standard loads but can do more launches with lower loads like smallsat launching.

I am aware that even if it is economically feasible SpaceX may not want to go in that direction for a number of reasons.


Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #1 on: 11/09/2014 08:54 am »
I wonder if the same stage could be used as a third stage to increase GTO payload.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #2 on: 11/09/2014 09:13 am »
Yet another thought. If they don't want to develop in that direction, they could sell F9R first stage launches to a provider that does the second stage. They may need to provide launch control services to that provider but leave development and getting the stage flight ready plus payload integration to the provider and place the integrated stack on their first stage.




Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #3 on: 11/09/2014 10:59 am »
I was hoping to see something like that entered to the DARPA XS-1 competition. But even if it was, it didn't win.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #4 on: 11/09/2014 03:15 pm »
I'm glad SpaceX didn't go into smallsat launch market and didn't win XS-1, there're already plenty of smallsat launcher projects from new space, SpaceX needs to focus on taking on the traditional dinosaurs.

Offline nadreck

Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #5 on: 11/11/2014 05:21 pm »
I'm glad SpaceX didn't go into smallsat launch market and didn't win XS-1, there're already plenty of smallsat launcher projects from new space, SpaceX needs to focus on taking on the traditional dinosaurs.

hmm, I think they may end up with a lot of small sat experience with the new deal with Greg Whyler. As I have posted in a few other places on this forum I think a future development for small/micro/nano sats is to have them in appropriate "coral's" where there is a tender that can collect them if they experience station keeping control loss and that provides at least the potential for later collection and return. Imagine putting up dozens of small sats on one flight with a tender meant to mind them. 

For the proposed communications constellation I suggest rather than a spare or two in each plane that can relocate itself, a tender in every plane that has a couple of spares on it that it can deploy, but that it call also collect failed units and assure that they do not end up being space junk.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #6 on: 12/10/2014 10:02 pm »
So assuming that the F9R first stage has a significant number of reuses without high refurbishment cost. Something in the range of 20+ launches. Then developing a small low cost upper stage using a single modified SuperDraco with vacuum nozzle and TVC or a pressure fed methane engine similar to what they will also need as a landing engine for MCT might give them a smallsat launcher with cost below that of Electron, even if they can meet their price target.
Well that would raise what % of the LV the 1st stage is by quite a lot to incorporate the lower cost of the 2nd stage and the lower price.
Quote
They can deliver a small second stage with a speed at least like a FH central core and have plenty of fuel left for RTLS so that upper stage would not need to produce high delta-v for orbit. It might be feasible to use airframes that have lost some of their stability so they are unsafe for standard loads but can do more launches with lower loads like smallsat launching.
Now you've into the bulk storage of hypergolics. These fuels run about $60/lb rather than the 10s of cents a lb of LOX and RP1. Super Dracos are very much a point solution to the LES problem.

Cost wise conventional bulk hypergolics are never the solution  to lowering launch costs.  :(
Quote
I am aware that even if it is economically feasible SpaceX may not want to go in that direction for a number of reasons.
From a Marketing point of view it broadens their product range while keeping the 1st stage unchanged.

But how does this get Elon to Mars cheaper/quicker/safer ? This does not seem like something that would fit into the jigsaw of parts needed to realize that vision.   :(
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 10:03 pm 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 Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #7 on: 12/11/2014 12:30 am »
Wouldn't a DragonLab with an extra-large trunk equipped with a cubesat deployer and a deep cubesat magazine, going up towards a polar/SSO be somewhat more attractive? You lose the second stage, but as SpaceX seems increasingly disinterested in second stage reusability, that doesn't matter so much. A late life DragonV1 as a Dragon Lab, and marshall together a polar orbit cubesat cluster launch along with a short duration zero-g experiment group that can't be hassled to fly on ISS. Eject cubesats like the Space Head on a Dnepr on the way up from an extended trunk, or use a deep rack in the trunk and a small arm (chance for Altus?) to fling cubesats after reaching stable orbit.

If you can get the costs near Dnepr with a yearly cluster launch schedule, a nanosat federation should be able to schedule up the slots and design the deployer. DragonLab pressurized experiments usually don't care about orbit inclination, so it makes it easier to schedule the "main" payload needed for polar orbit cubesat ridealongs. Somebody like Nanoracks heading up the launch scheduling group could make a pretty good gig out of it, especially if they are willing to be F9R/DragonV1 reuse guinea pigs.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #8 on: 12/11/2014 07:32 am »
To convert the F9R into a LEO smallsat launcher is quite simple. Without developing conventional upper stage. The F9R Dev1 (aka Grasshopper 2) with minor modification could do the job.

put a nose cap on a 3 engine core
mounted a rail launcher vertically on the side of the core
mounted a 1 or 2 stage solid motor rocket with smallsat to the rail launcher
launch the core from the pad on a launch table with partial propellant load
launch the solid rocket at apogee
recovered the core by propulsive landing near the launch site

The solid rocket will be launch like an air to air missile with ejectors from the launch rail.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #9 on: 12/11/2014 07:45 am »
Wouldn't a DragonLab with an extra-large trunk equipped with a cubesat deployer and a deep cubesat magazine, going up towards a polar/SSO be somewhat more attractive? You lose the second stage, but as SpaceX seems increasingly disinterested in second stage reusability, that doesn't matter so much. A late life DragonV1 as a Dragon Lab, and marshall together a polar orbit cubesat cluster launch along with a short duration zero-g experiment group that can't be hassled to fly on ISS. Eject cubesats like the Space Head on a Dnepr on the way up from an extended trunk, or use a deep rack in the trunk and a small arm (chance for Altus?) to fling cubesats after reaching stable orbit.

I was thinking about the range the firefly launcher serves, not cube sats. That is with a dedicated launch to an orbit chosen by the customer. Cube sats can fly in the Dragon trunk on the way to the ISS if not launched at the ISS. So a few 100kg up to maybe 1t.

A solid rocket motor may be a cheaper solution than a hypergolic.

Online MP99

Re: Falcon 9R as a smallsat launcher?
« Reply #10 on: 12/12/2014 05:50 pm »


The Electron thread shows there is a definite demand on smallsat launches. That got me thinking.

So assuming that the F9R first stage has a significant number of reuses without high refurbishment cost. Something in the range of 20+ launches. Then developing a small low cost upper stage using a single modified SuperDraco with vacuum nozzle and TVC or a pressure fed methane engine similar to what they will also need as a landing engine for MCT might give them a smallsat launcher with cost below that of Electron, even if they can meet their price target.

They can deliver a small second stage with a speed at least like a FH central core and have plenty of fuel left for RTLS so that upper stage would not need to produce high delta-v for orbit. It might be feasible to use airframes that have lost some of their stability so they are unsafe for standard loads but can do more launches with lower loads like smallsat launching.

I am aware that even if it is economically feasible SpaceX may not want to go in that direction for a number of reasons.

I think what you want is an F1US, with the simple Kestrel pressure fed engine. (They'd probably re-do it as 3D printed, but sometimes you just can't stop an engineer...)

The fact that it has successfully delivered stuff to orbit on F1 is probably the best way to keep costs down.

Cheers, Martin

Tags:
 

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