At 12m they NEED to have facilities on a barge waterway or at the test/launch site, while at 6m trucking, barging, or flying (in a Super Guppy) a upper stage are all options. I didn't say they were easy, but much more so than a 12m beast. It doesn't have to be as quick as moving a F9 because they would only need 2 or 3 per year, with the stages flying back to CCAFS or Vandy after missions.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/02/2017 07:24 pmAt 12m they NEED to have facilities on a barge waterway or at the test/launch site, while at 6m trucking, barging, or flying (in a Super Guppy) a upper stage are all options. I didn't say they were easy, but much more so than a 12m beast. It doesn't have to be as quick as moving a F9 because they would only need 2 or 3 per year, with the stages flying back to CCAFS or Vandy after missions.It has nothing to do with being quick. Either a road (with overpasses and powerlines) can handle a 6m diameter payload, or it can't. And I'm suggesting that trucking a 6m diameter payload from Hawthorne to McGregor and the launch sites might actually be impossible.
15t to GTO would be a single launch+return, while 50t would take ~6 refueling launches and be one way (unless refueled on Mars)
On the other hand, they could be keeping an intermediate design close to the vest for political reasons, not wanting to antagonize NASA with an SLS-killer
I am thinking ITS full size will be required to launch the full LEO and VLEO sat network that SpaceX desires.12,000 sats... if FH could put up 100 at time that's still too many for their launch rate at all launch sites. It's going to take ITS
Quote from: punder on 03/03/2017 06:21 pmOn the other hand, they could be keeping an intermediate design close to the vest for political reasons, not wanting to antagonize NASA with an SLS-killerI am not sure they would antagonize NASA as much as a select group of senators.
Quote from: robert_d on 02/20/2017 01:06 pmQuote from: gin455res on 02/19/2017 07:25 pmHow about a merlin-based booster (ITS-lite) with 42 Merlins on the bottom?What risk would you be trying to retire with this? Would you build it with composite tanks? What role would it play in the 2020's?Potentially none, but if desired it could be a tank test-bed.More, the September presentation gave us all a little more freedom to really play with scale and investigate the benefits that it might offer. Elon clearly has.It could just be a way of capitalising on the Merlin fully. One large booster only needs one avionics package. Return to launch site is pretty much proven now, perhaps road transportability is less important?An upper*-stage with 4 vacuum merlins and a central sea-level merlin (potentially allowing complete reusability). Cost to orbit?Might squeeze New Glenn and SLS.[Later, fly a Raptor-based upper-stage with 2 vacuum raptors and a central sea-level raptor - what is the minimum number of engines needed to mix sea-level and vacuum engines on an upper stage and enable vertical landing; 3,4,5?]?*Perhaps this might optimise best as a 2nd stage of a 3-stage system.
Quote from: gin455res on 02/19/2017 07:25 pmHow about a merlin-based booster (ITS-lite) with 42 Merlins on the bottom?What risk would you be trying to retire with this? Would you build it with composite tanks? What role would it play in the 2020's?
How about a merlin-based booster (ITS-lite) with 42 Merlins on the bottom?
Quote from: watermod on 03/04/2017 02:46 amI am thinking ITS full size will be required to launch the full LEO and VLEO sat network that SpaceX desires.12,000 sats... if FH could put up 100 at time that's still too many for their launch rate at all launch sites. It's going to take ITSAt 3000 satellites per year, that's only 30 launches. 40 launches is often considered the bare minimum for full reuse to make economic sense. So an ITS of approximately FH-level of capability would be fine for the Constellation. More might make sense for Mars, but FH is just about right for the Constellation.
Mars architecture: "Yes, I see ISC in Adelaide as a good time to do the updated version of the Mars architecture. It's evolved quite a bit since the last talk. The key thing to figure out is how do you pay for all of that to go to Mars. It's super expensive. And I kind of think that if we downsize to Mars vehicle, make it capable of doing Earth orbit activity as well as Mars activity, then maybe we could pay for it using money for Earth orbit activities. That's one of the key elements of the new architecture. It's similar to what was at ISC; it's a little bit smaller but still big. But I think this one has a shot at being real on the economic front."
Elon Musk confirms ITS will be smaller than announced last year (but still big): http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42615.msg1703908#msg1703908(Source: ISS R&D 2017 Conference livestream )
to the question in the topic: Yes.Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 07/19/2017 05:59 pmMars architecture: "Yes, I see ISC in Adelaide as a good time to do the updated version of the Mars architecture. It's evolved quite a bit since the last talk. The key thing to figure out is how do you pay for all of that to go to Mars. It's super expensive. And I kind of think that if we downsize to Mars vehicle, make it capable of doing Earth orbit activity as well as Mars activity, then maybe we could pay for it using money for Earth orbit activities. That's one of the key elements of the new architecture. It's similar to what was at ISC; it's a little bit smaller but still big. But I think this one has a shot at being real on the economic front."