Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon X, Falcon X Heavy, Falcon XX General Discussion Thread  (Read 131031 times)

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
My original thought was that Falcon-X and XX must refer to "Raptor 9" and "Raptor Heavy," referring to upscaled Falcon9 and Falcon Heavy configurations utilizing the new Raptor engines. (Nomenclature from this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30103.msg1041121#msg1041121 )
But did I catch this right that 39A and Shiloh are indeed an interest to SpaceX for something only beyond the 10 year time frame from now?  If Raptor Heavy estimates put it above 200mt to LEO, could Falcon X and XX actually be something larger?  Good god! 

Raptor is an engine, not a stage.  It's a follow on the the Merlin Family.

MCT (term SpaceX has recently used for the vehicle we assume is the same as the older renders of a Falcon XX), is to be a Methane fueled Raptor powered wide body HLV. 

I have seen nothing beyond speculation about the MCT having a single and multiple core configuration like the Falcon Family.

No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline kiba

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Raptor is an engine, not a stage.  It's a follow on the the Merlin Family.

MCT (term SpaceX has recently used for the vehicle we assume is the same as the older renders of a Falcon XX), is to be a Methane fueled Raptor powered wide body HLV. 

I have seen nothing beyond speculation about the MCT having a single and multiple core configuration like the Falcon Family.



Is the raptor meant to replace the merlin?

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Are there any signs that SpaceX will try to compete for the SLS advanced boosters? And possibly have part of the development paid for by NASA? Or are they maybe placing their bets on an SLS cancellation and position themselves accordingly? I don't want a discussion on whether it is right or not.

Offline GalacticIntruder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
  • Pet Peeve:I hate the word Downcomer. Ban it.
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 70
Would it not make sense to start with a requirement? We assume any BFR is for Mars. I see no reason to waste money on something without a detailed Mars architecture. What would it really require and cost, initially and ongoing? The numbers thrown around are staggering. SpaceX does not have that much money, and there are no costumers for BFR. As long as Elon's fortune is tied up with his "Other" companies I can't see this happening in the next 3-5 years. Anyway, SpX really should not talk about it until they are successful in the V1.1 and FH.

We assume Elon has a detailed Mars plan, but we don't what it is. We know Elon says he needs at least 150mT for Mars and methane is his preferred fuel. We know a little about Raptor. We don't know about landing and hab modules.

I also worry about re-usability. If re-usability cuts performance by 50-80 percent of expendable, then any BFR would have to be a Super  Duper Ginormous BFR.  Let's say he would need around 400mT expendable. I don't see how you can do that practically, even with Raptor.


« Last Edit: 05/20/2013 07:46 pm by GalacticIntruder »
"And now the Sun will fade, All we are is all we made." Breaking Benjamin

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Would it not make sense to start with a requirement? We assume any BFR is for Mars. I see no reason to waste money on something without a detailed Mars architecture. What would it really require and cost, initially and ongoing? The numbers thrown around are staggering. SpaceX does not have that much money, and there are no costumers for BFR. As long as Elon's fortune is tied up with his "Other" companies I can't see this happening in the next 3-5 years. Anyway, SpX really should not talk about it until they are successful in the V1.1 and FH.

We assume Elon has a detailed Mars plan, but we don't what it is. We know Elon says he needs at least 150mT for Mars and methane is his preferred fuel. We know a little about Raptor. We don't know about landing and hab modules.

I also worry about re-usability. If re-usability cuts performance by 50-80 percent of expendable, then any BFR would have to be a Super  Duper Ginormous BFR.  Let's say he would need around 400mT expendable. I don't see how you can do that practically without F1 class performance, something Raptor is not.


The time frame they are looking at for needing this is out past 5 years.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
I also worry about re-usability. If re-usability cuts performance by 50-80 percent of expendable, then any BFR would have to be a Super  Duper Ginormous BFR.  Let's say he would need around 400mT expendable. I don't see how you can do that practically without F1 class performance, something Raptor is not.

We really don't know what he wants. Maybe he wants a launch vehicle that can lift 50t fully reusable. So a 150t disposable vehicle would be what he needs. And for rare heavy loads he uses it disposable.

Probably not a Heavy configuration because there is the problem of recovering the core but a big two stage which would also allow that enormous fairing that would help with Mars landers.


Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
We assume Elon has a detailed Mars plan, but we don't what it is. We know Elon says he needs at least 150mT for Mars and methane is his preferred fuel. We know a little about Raptor. We don't know about landing and hab modules.

What about starting with building something like an Aldrin Cycler and put off the landing/colonisation headaches to the more distant future? Start with an unmanned cycler, then extend it and add crew... Test launches of the BFR could be used to deliver consumables (e.g. Xenon gas for ion thrusters)...

without F1 class performance, something Raptor is not.

I got the impression that Raptor has F1 class performance.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2013 05:04 pm by Joel »

Offline CriX

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Lake Forest, CA
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 86

Raptor is an engine, not a stage.  It's a follow on the the Merlin Family.

Raptor is a large engine; we're in agreement.  Imagine a large new rocket made with 9 Raptors:  "Raptor 9" is a working title. 

Wrong, MCT is most likely an EDS and interplanetary spaceship.  This is based on things Musk said during his interviews in England.  (It's all here:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30103.0 )

I wonder if a 9 Raptor configuration rocket might be the Falcon X...  OR, is the Falcon X and XX even beyond the generation of these Raptor based rockets?  I guess I had hoped that we'd see new Raptor based rockets in <10 years.  Maybe the next ten years instead will be focused on FHR (Falcon Heavy Reusable)... lol, its hard to complain, if they acheived FHR over the next 10 years it would be so epic too.



Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 14
Single Stage to orbit requires unobtainable materials/fuels and even then is not optimal.
Wrong, and optimal for what?

Getting objects into LEO.  Seen very few SSTO proposals that didn't require to date unobtained efficiency to get even small payloads to LEO.

QuantumG, before you smack me around more than anything I am pointing out Elon Musk himself at one point said SSTO was not practice, so I am more talking about SpaceX than something like Skylon. :)

In short,

     Yes, SSTO IS possible with current technologies, but only if you don't expect the rocket itself to return intact.

     On the otherhand, reusable SSTO may be possible, but a great deal of technology needs tyo be developed first.  With the DC-X, DARPA was fairly certain that the eventual follow-on craft tentatively named the DC-Z or Delta Clipper, would have been capible of reusable SSTO flight with 10% of the total mass being craft structure and payload.

     With recent structural technologies, it should be possible to decrease the mass of the craft itself and increase the payload mass.

     As to the Falcon series;  the design is overall fairly simple and robust and they appear to be able to squeeze more thurst and longer periods of propulsion from the newer engine designs, so reusablilty, while keeping the same payload masses, may only be a matter of balancing the TPS and recovery gear mass with the added effective payload mass and return fuel required.  Very tight margins, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

JasonAW3
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6333
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4204
  • Likes Given: 2
OK, show of hands:

is MCT just a synonym for BFR/Falcon XX or,

is it more akin to (for lack of a better example) a KISS version of NAUTILUS-X?
DM

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
OK, show of hands:

is MCT just a synonym for BFR/Falcon XX or,

is it more akin to (for lack of a better example) a KISS version of NAUTILUS-X?

I vote for the 2nd.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline CriX

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Lake Forest, CA
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 86
I vote for the second, obviously.  Here's the relevant interview excerpt:

Go to the 4:25 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xIDoTKMqwT4#t=266s
« Last Edit: 05/20/2013 05:33 pm by CriX »

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
I vote for the second, obviously.  Here's the relevant interview excerpt:

Go to the 4:25 mark.

I don't think it's entirely clear if MCT is a spacecraft or something "attached" to a spacecraft. Maybe it's a thruster? (Mars Cycler Thruster?)

Offline CriX

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Lake Forest, CA
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 86
Imagine a large, 3-core rocket configuration using 27 Raptor Engines (Akin to Falcon Heavy).  This would lift probably >200mt.  Would this not qualify as Falcon XX?   

If you wanted this "Raptor Heavy" fully reusable, what mass to orbit penalty would it incur.  Half?  100mt to LEO and full reusability!  That would still be amazing.

I suppose if reusability is the end goal of ALL SpaceX rocket systems then you might need a 400mt class rocket to get 200mt to orbit and your rocket safely re-parked on the pad.  Perhaps that is what Falcon X and XX would be. 

Offline CriX

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Lake Forest, CA
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 86
I vote for the second, obviously.  Here's the relevant interview excerpt:

Go to the 4:25 mark.

I don't think it's entirely clear if MCT is a spacecraft or something "attached" to a spacecraft. Maybe it's a thruster? (Mars Cycler Thruster?)

True, it's only clear that it's not the name of a new rocket to be lit on Earth.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Imagine a large, 3-core rocket configuration using 27 Raptor Engines (Akin to Falcon Heavy).  This would lift probably >200mt.  Would this not qualify as Falcon XX?   

If you wanted this "Raptor Heavy" fully reusable, what mass to orbit penalty would it incur.  Half?  100mt to LEO and full reusability!  That would still be amazing.

I suppose if reusability is the end goal of ALL SpaceX rocket systems then you might need a 400mt class rocket to get 200mt to orbit and your rocket safely re-parked on the pad.  Perhaps that is what Falcon X and XX would be.

Falcon XX refers to this paper

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/SpaceX_Overview_TEM.pdf
BTW this paper was published by someone who no longer works at SpaceX and has been denied by SpaceX employees.  So take with a grain of salt

Elon Musk has repeated said he is not going to let us know what MCT really is till some time in the 2014-2015 time frame.  So assigning our desires to it can be a bit unhelpfull.  All we really know is it's a "rocket" and has something to do with Raptor.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
without F1 class performance, something Raptor is not.

I got the impression that Raptor has F1 class performance.

Hmm, depends on your definition of class! Raptor is about 650,000 lbf vs 1.5M for F1.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
At the 9 minute mark they talk about going to Mars. Musk is quite clear that SpaceX wants to build a Mars architecture in the timeframe 10 to 15 years. But it would not be SpaceX to actually fly missions. He expects someone else to do it once he can supply an affordable archictecture.


Offline sheltonjr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 37
OK, show of hands:

is MCT just a synonym for BFR/Falcon XX or,

is it more akin to (for lack of a better example) a KISS version of NAUTILUS-X?

I think #2, but to be more specific. I think it is one of the following: (Wild Speculation and hope)

1) Integrated Upper Stage with an Interplanetary Spaceship, FH configuration with two recoverable boosters with cross-feed

2) Integrated Primary Core with Interplanetary Spaceship, FH configuration with three recoverable booster with triple cross-feed.

I hoped to hear what MCT is this fall, But I believe we will not hear about it until Falcon 9 v1.1 and FH are both successful.

I watched a interview with him recently, and he stated that it would be $500K to get to Mars, with a FREE return ticket, "Since they need to get the spacecraft back anyway". The Spacecraft has to be what MCT is.

without F1 class performance, something Raptor is not.

I got the impression that Raptor has F1 class performance.

Hmm, depends on your definition of class! Raptor is about 650,000 lbf vs 1.5M for F1.

Performance is not the same as class. If three Raptors = 1.95M lbf has the about the same capability with its better ISP and similar T/W. I would say it has F1 class performance. 

5 * 1.5M = 7.5M @ ISP 263 s

9 * 0.65M = 5.85M @ ISP 380 s (May be Vacuum performance, so it may be a little high)


Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8267
Performance is not the same as class. If three Raptors = 1.95M lbf has the about the same capability with its better ISP and similar T/W. I would say it has F1 class performance. 

5 * 1.5M = 7.5M @ ISP 263 s

9 * 0.65M = 5.85M @ ISP 380 s (May be Vacuum performance, so it may be a little high)
May be you mean Saturn 5 performance?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0