Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon X, Falcon X Heavy, Falcon XX General Discussion Thread  (Read 131024 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17256
  • Liked: 7111
  • Likes Given: 3061
This thread should reference the original presentation on the Falcon X and Falcon XX which can be found here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22395.msg623684#msg623684

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
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.
There's a bunch of dimensions and it's different in most of them from what we can tell.

-Significantly less thrust.
-SC rather than GG, CH4 rather than RP1 -> significantly better ISP.
-I would be surprised if the T/W didn't improve too.

Under the circumstances it seems dicey to call it F-1 class in any respect. It's just really different in a bunch of ways. I think the more directly comparable engines would be Russian, probably more like NK-33 or RD-191, maybe some of the upsized AeroJet NK-33 derivatives.

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6333
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4204
  • Likes Given: 2
Couldn't they claim F1 performance by clustering 3-4 Raptor thrust chambers @650 klbf each with a common pump?
DM

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436

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.

Well, this is wikipedia, so take it with a grian of salt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine)

So, perhaps Raptor is a family of rocket engines?

So, what do we know and what can we reasonably assume?

1)  SpaceX has put a lot of time and effort into F9 and FH.  I don't think any new LV will overlap that capability, nor will those families go away any time soon. 

2)  We know that the F9 family is really too small to make an efficient BFR for going to Mars.  Not that it can't be done, but that if Elon is going to design a new family, it'll probably start above FH.

3)  We know that other staged combustion hydrocarbon engines have had good luck with multi-chamber desings.  RD-190/180/170, and it sounds like Aerojet is creating a two-chamber AJ-500 and calling it the AJ-1E6.  So I think it's reasonable to think a Raptor "engine family" might be a mult-chamber design.  Since 650klbs has been thrown around, I assume that would be for maybe a 2 chamber version, with a single chamber basic version putting put 325klbs.  A vacuum version of that would make a pretty good upper stage for a medium-heavy LV.  The two chamber version at 650klbs, would be a good size for a tri-core heavy maybe?
Or it could be scaled down, so a 1-single chamber version would be 162klbs, two chambers being 325klbs, and a a four chamber version being 650klbs.
But I don't know how useful it would be in this scenario.  Maybe an EDS for Mars or something?

4)  We probably can assume there will only be one "next-gen" LV from SpaceX any time soon, so FX/FXX/MCT will all be rolled into this.

So, maybe the single Next Gen LV is a 6-7m core.  Each core has five of the 650klbs engines on it, for 3.2mlbs of thrust.  That's a bit less than FH, but since this will be a more mass-efficient single core LV, with better ISP in staged combustion and methane in both the booster and upper stage.  So it should actually beat FH in LEO and BLEO performance.  (probably pretty substantially better in BLEO performance).

So let's call it maybe 60mt to LEO?
A tri-core heavy is then in the 180mt range.  A pretty capable LV for going to Mars.  A stretched upper stage with a single 650Klb Raptor engine utilizes that lift better than the standard upper stage would.
If this core diameter is kept to about 6.5m wide, then the tri-core version should be able to fit out the VAB doors and launch from pad 39A.  And since it does sound like SpaceX is considering using 39A, I would expect to see the core limited to about that if they do indeed go that route at some point.
 
And the single core LV would have pretty good BLEO performane for GTO or escape payloads that otherwise might want D4H, or maybe something even a little better than that.  While FH is a really good LEO LV, it's not that great for BLEO payloads.  Maybe this single stick LV could plug into that area?  So there -could- be some commercial case for a single stick version of this LV.  Maybe even to replace FH eventually, and then SpaceX would focus F9 on being super low cost and reusable for the commercial market?  Which, if things go according to plan for them, and they can keep costs down without having any major setbacks, they could literally own the domestic and international commercial market.  ULA is mainly focused on government launches (which they'll own for some time, although SpaceX might cut into that some after 2015, depending on how the next few years go for them), and Araine 5 is expensive.  Antares for now will be underperfroming for that EELV-medium range, although they might be going after that Delta II class range (of course, a F9R would be going after that too...).
I don't think the Russians or Chinese could beat SpaceX by enough cost to make up for the issues of dealing with those governments as a launch provider.

Anyway, just my speculation.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31

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.

Well, this is wikipedia, so take it with a grian of salt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine)

So, perhaps Raptor is a family of rocket engines?

So, what do we know and what can we reasonably assume?

1)  SpaceX has put a lot of time and effort into F9 and FH.  I don't think any new LV will overlap that capability, nor will those families go away any time soon. 

2)  We know that the F9 family is really too small to make an efficient BFR for going to Mars.  Not that it can't be done, but that if Elon is going to design a new family, it'll probably start above FH.

3)  We know that other staged combustion hydrocarbon engines have had good luck with multi-chamber desings.  RD-190/180/170, and it sounds like Aerojet is creating a two-chamber AJ-500 and calling it the AJ-1E6.  So I think it's reasonable to think a Raptor "engine family" might be a mult-chamber design.  Since 650klbs has been thrown around, I assume that would be for maybe a 2 chamber version, with a single chamber basic version putting put 325klbs.  A vacuum version of that would make a pretty good upper stage for a medium-heavy LV.  The two chamber version at 650klbs, would be a good size for a tri-core heavy maybe?
Or it could be scaled down, so a 1-single chamber version would be 162klbs, two chambers being 325klbs, and a a four chamber version being 650klbs.
But I don't know how useful it would be in this scenario.  Maybe an EDS for Mars or something?

4)  We probably can assume there will only be one "next-gen" LV from SpaceX any time soon, so FX/FXX/MCT will all be rolled into this.

So, maybe the single Next Gen LV is a 6-7m core.  Each core has five of the 650klbs engines on it, for 3.2mlbs of thrust.  That's a bit less than FH, but since this will be a more mass-efficient single core LV, with better ISP in staged combustion and methane in both the booster and upper stage.  So it should actually beat FH in LEO and BLEO performance.  (probably pretty substantially better in BLEO performance).

So let's call it maybe 60mt to LEO?
A tri-core heavy is then in the 180mt range.  A pretty capable LV for going to Mars.  A stretched upper stage with a single 650Klb Raptor engine utilizes that lift better than the standard upper stage would.
If this core diameter is kept to about 6.5m wide, then the tri-core version should be able to fit out the VAB doors and launch from pad 39A.  And since it does sound like SpaceX is considering using 39A, I would expect to see the core limited to about that if they do indeed go that route at some point.
 
And the single core LV would have pretty good BLEO performane for GTO or escape payloads that otherwise might want D4H, or maybe something even a little better than that.  While FH is a really good LEO LV, it's not that great for BLEO payloads.  Maybe this single stick LV could plug into that area?  So there -could- be some commercial case for a single stick version of this LV.  Maybe even to replace FH eventually, and then SpaceX would focus F9 on being super low cost and reusable for the commercial market?  Which, if things go according to plan for them, and they can keep costs down without having any major setbacks, they could literally own the domestic and international commercial market.  ULA is mainly focused on government launches (which they'll own for some time, although SpaceX might cut into that some after 2015, depending on how the next few years go for them), and Araine 5 is expensive.  Antares for now will be underperfroming for that EELV-medium range, although they might be going after that Delta II class range (of course, a F9R would be going after that too...).
I don't think the Russians or Chinese could beat SpaceX by enough cost to make up for the issues of dealing with those governments as a launch provider.

Anyway, just my speculation.

We need to keep in mind they are looking to greatly reduce the cost per kg to orbit.

Their next launcher past F9 v1.1 and FH will most likely be a two stage RLV.

Assume the 1st stage engines are at 650,000lb thrust each and it uses nine of them with CH4/LOX as propellant. Given that, would the 1st stage be some were around 7-9 meters wide ( methane take up more volume per kg than RP-1 )?

Offline padrat

  • Payload Packer and Dragon tamer...
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Where Dragons roam....
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 12
As of right now I can pretty much guarantee that if we get 39A we will not be rolling out from the VAB. Keep costs down....
If the neighbors think you're the rebel of the neighborhood, embrace it and be the rebel. It keeps them wondering what you'll do next...

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
As of right now I can pretty much guarantee that if we get 39A we will not be rolling out from the VAB. Keep costs down....

Maybe a HIF built closer to the pad? I've still got this mental impression of LC-39 with both pads surrounded by 'stars' of tracks leading from various HIFs and VIFs for different launcher types.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
As of right now I can pretty much guarantee that if we get 39A we will not be rolling out from the VAB. Keep costs down....
Maybe a HIF built closer to the pad?

That would seem a reasonable assumption in the circumstances. More dubious about multiple users for 39A, though.
Douglas Clark

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Just a post on the general topic of the thread:

I personally think that Falcon-X would probably be the most flexible option for SpaceX to pursue (assuming they choose to go into the HLV business).  It would allow a single-stick launcher for the large GSO/BEO Probe market and a multi-core option for heavier lift for BEO human missions.

That said, Elon has made it very clear that Mars is the goal.  With this in mind, Falcon-XX (which is an SLS-class launcher) is a more logical goal for them to pursue.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline padrat

  • Payload Packer and Dragon tamer...
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Where Dragons roam....
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 12
As of right now I can pretty much guarantee that if we get 39A we will not be rolling out from the VAB. Keep costs down....

Maybe a HIF built closer to the pad? I've still got this mental impression of LC-39 with both pads surrounded by 'stars' of tracks leading from various HIFs and VIFs for different launcher types.
Most likely. Prob just inside the perimeter or where the support building now stands. Could possibly even stack in place. Just ideas that I'd heard, nothing concrete....
If the neighbors think you're the rebel of the neighborhood, embrace it and be the rebel. It keeps them wondering what you'll do next...

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302
We need to keep in mind they are looking to greatly reduce the cost per kg to orbit.

Their next launcher past F9 v1.1 and FH will most likely be a two stage RLV.

Assume the 1st stage engines are at 650,000lb thrust each and it uses nine of them with CH4/LOX as propellant. Given that, would the 1st stage be some were around 7-9 meters wide ( methane take up more volume per kg than RP-1 )?

It's true they need to reduce the cost per kg, but the good news is SC methalox engines make lifting huge payloads to orbit easier.  They also allow you a lot of additional margin for reusability compared to GG kerolox engines.  Don't believe me?  Here's what happens when you mix Spacex-style LV design (common bulkheads, Al-Li alloy construction, friction stir welding) with Russian SC methalox engines on a 608.7 mt LV:



This is a conceptual all-methalox 2-stage rocket that was optimized by Dmitry Vorontsov, a Russian LV designer formerly with RSC Energia.  It's a smaller than any Falcon X/MCT is going to be I presume, but gives us a good guideline to possible Falcon X performance.  I was totally floored by the projected performance originally, especially after learning he used Vostnochny as the assumed launch location.  But it's not as absurd of performance as it first appears.  A 2400 mt  Energia with an inline PLF and expendable boosters is even more efficient, as it's able to out-lift a 3038 mt Saturn V to LEO (126 mt vs 118 mt) from Baikonur.  This is how the Russians have been able to project 125 mt to LEO for the Yenisei-5 for instance: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/yenisei5.html.

Here's the page on both engines used: http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=8&cat=11&prod=59 (warning--it's in Russian)

To get that level of performance, Dmitry had to use a unique feature on the RD-0162 booster engine.  It has excess turbine power, which allows it to push thrust to 135% of nominal thrust.  That sends the TWR (Thrust-to-Weight Ratio) from 97 to an astounding 131.  However, if you don't do that and use five 9/10th scale RD-0162 engines, another version of this LV massing 630 mt lifts 31.2 mt from Vostnochny.  So you can see, performance will take a hit, but it's still has outstanding efficiency. 

Here's a little extrapolating from this to a Falcon X with nine 295 tf Raptor engines on the SI and one up top: 
295*9=2655 tf of thrust/1.2502 (Payload-less Falcon 9 TWR at liftoff)= 2123.66 mt*.0475=100.87 mt to LEO

I dialed this back to be safe, but it appears that a nine Raptor engine Falcon X massing around 2120 mt could lift about 100 mt to LEO.  That level of efficiency should prove handy for Elon if Spacex means to build this HLV family on the relative cheap.  It's no wonder the idea of a mega-sized Merlin died out when Elon could simply use a more efficient smaller engine.  The projected performance for a 9-engine Falcon X also suggests that Elon will be using fewer than 9 Raptors on a booster core.  Flightglobal after all reported that payload to LEO was targeted at 150-200 mt, not 300 mt+. 
« Last Edit: 05/23/2013 04:27 pm by Hyperion5 »

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 598
  • Likes Given: 2058
...I'm not entirely sure you could pay SpaceX enough money to use the VAB.

Puh-lease. If NASA offered SpaceX $1 billion/year extra to use the VAB for its NASA launches it would surely say "yes sir". Slightly more realistically, if using VAB would help make canceling SLS in favor of NASA buying launch services politically feasible it would probably be worth it for SpaceX to do so.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25222
  • Likes Given: 12114
There's enough money in the world, I grant, but not enough money in NASA's budget.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Seems like a waste of the VAB. If their are no other customers for the VAB, could you demand a good price as opposed to building your own.


Agreed. It'd a great facility for processing such large LV's.  Would be a real shame if SpaceX were to go this route for a next-gen HLV to not use this big VIB rigth down the crawlerway.  However, I can see the minefied that could come from using the VAB.
Perhaps if SpaceX were to serious look at aquiring 39A, and then negotiate the use of a high bay in the VAB, as well as a CT when needed, on THEIR terms as they'd specified according to their needs both operationally and financially...maybe something could be worked out.
The trump card would be SpaceX's willingness to just build their own HIV or VIF right out at the pad.
I know NASA really wants KSC to be used as a Spaceport, and I think part of that visual would be the VAB used more than just occasionally for SLS.  So they migth be willing to make a deal for SpaceX that historically they'd have never considered.
"This high bay in the VAB will be -ours-, we will operate here as we would in our own dedicated integration building.  Our decisions or operations will not be impeded by NASA in any way.  A CT will be made available to us when we need it provided there's not a conflict with a previously scheduled rollout or rollback."
Basically, lease the high bay and a chunk of the VAB, and they will operate there as they see fit.  That'd be a bitter pill for NASA to swallow I'm sure...but they just might to gain the visual of another HLV rolling out of the VAB and the whole complex being more fully utilized.
You might be surprised...

Now, what could happen, is some sort of hypbrid setup.  The booster(s) and upper stage are stacked in the VAB using all of their cranes and platforms already there that were designed to do just that.  Then the stack, less the payload, is rolled out to the pad on a new, SpaceX-built Mobile launcher.  Once at the pad, there can be a LC-37 style mobile service structure that would roll over the ML and stack, and integrate the payload and payload fairing in a clean room that's done like ULA does. 
In this way, the VAB just does the "dumb" brute lifting.  The large stages can be barged into KSC and transported into the VAB as per the existing infrastructure.  The delicate work with their payloads and spacecraft could then be done in their own VIF, away from any interference by NASA.  And they aren't constrained by NASA as to when they launch as they would otherwise be, because the stack can be rolled out to the pad whenever, and once there, what happens to it then is completely under the control of SpaceX.  (Well, and the range office, etc).  Yet the MSS doesn't need the same type of heavy lifting devices and cranes that it would need to try to stack the stages there.  Just large enough to hoist the paylaods and PLF sections up to the clean room for integration.

Assuming the stages are pretty good size, and pretty heavy (not nearly as heavy as the SRB's obviously, but still heavy) if SpaceX were to plan to stack at that pad, they'd have to address a host of issues (I think) like how do you get a long, 7m-ish, stage to KSC?  and from KSC out to the pad?  Use the CT and some type of carrier platform to run it out there?  THen it needs stood up with some device to do that (which would probably be built onto the carrier platform).
Then a big upper stage needs hoisted up on top of that.  ULA does all of that for Delta IV, but this would be larger than Delta IV.  And LC-37 is really build from scratch for Delta IV.  It uses concrete ramps and those multi-wheeled tranports (I forget what they are called), and the D4 cores are rolled up the pad and then raised up in the MST. 
How do you do that at 39A?  It has the crawler pebble ped from KSC out to 39A, and i don't think NASA's going to want to pave that or otherwise screw with it.  So I don't think you can really do it like 37 does it.
I'd think any cores are going to have to come into the turn basin and be unloaded at KSC, and then have to get out to the pad.  I'm not sure if you could put some sort of dock at the old Saturn V MSS parking spot, and then pave the crawler way from the split there out to 39A and get rid of the pebbles?

So unless that could be done, I think SpaceX would have to use the turn basin and CT's and crawlerways to some degree.  The VAB is already set up to take large stages horizontally from the turn basin, and stack them vertically on a mobile launcher, and then have the CT carry it out to the pads. 
So it seems like doing at least that much of it in the VAB would actually make a lot of sense and shouldn't open the door for too much NASA interference.  THat much should be pretty straight forward.  Then roll out to the pad, and roll a MST over it to do everything else.  Depending on the design of the MST, SpaceX might actually use a similar set up for launching F9 and FH, although they'd probably use a different Mobile launcher.  MAybe a modified STS MLP.  It would give them vertical integration capabilities for USAF/DoD payloads for launches from the Cape, and Launches of Astroanuts to the ISS from KSC if SpaceX were to get the commercial crew contract.

Although it might be better to add that capability to LC-40 then to try to integrate dual LV purpose into a single MST.

 


Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
We need to keep in mind they are looking to greatly reduce the cost per kg to orbit.

Their next launcher past F9 v1.1 and FH will most likely be a two stage RLV.

Assume the 1st stage engines are at 650,000lb thrust each and it uses nine of them with CH4/LOX as propellant. Given that, would the 1st stage be some were around 7-9 meters wide ( methane take up more volume per kg than RP-1 )?

It's true they need to reduce the cost per kg, but the good news is SC methalox engines make lifting huge payloads to orbit easier.  They also allow you a lot of additional margin for reusability compared to GG kerolox engines.  Don't believe me?  Here's what happens when you mix Spacex-style LV design (common bulkheads, Al-Li alloy construction, friction stir welding) with Russian SC methalox engines on a 608.7 mt LV:



This is a conceptual all-methalox 2-stage rocket that was optimized by Dmitry Vorontsov, a Russian LV designer formerly with RSC Energia.  It's a smaller than any Falcon X/MCT is going to be I presume, but gives us a good guideline to possible Falcon X performance.  I was totally floored by the projected performance originally, especially after learning he used Vostnochny as the assumed launch location.  But it's not as absurd of performance as it first appears.  A 2400 mt  Energia with an inline PLF and expendable boosters is even more efficient, as it's able to out-lift a 3038 mt Saturn V to LEO (126 mt vs 118 mt) from Baikonur.  This is how the Russians have been able to project 125 mt to LEO for the Yenisei-5 for instance: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/yenisei5.html.

Here's the page on both engines used: http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=8&cat=11&prod=59 (warning--it's in Russian)

To get that level of performance, Dmitry had to use a unique feature on the RD-0162 booster engine.  It has excess turbine power, which allows it to push thrust to 135% of nominal thrust.  That sends the TWR (Thrust-to-Weight Ratio) from 97 to an astounding 131.  However, if you don't do that and use five 9/10th scale RD-0162 engines, another version of this LV massing 630 mt lifts 31.2 mt from Vostnochny.  So you can see, performance will take a hit, but it's still has outstanding efficiency. 

Here's a little extrapolating from this to a Falcon X with nine 295 tf Raptor engines on the SI and one up top: 
295*9=2655 tf of thrust/1.2502 (Payload-less Falcon 9 TWR at liftoff)= 2123.66 mt*.0475=100.87 mt to LEO

I dialed this back to be safe, but it appears that a nine Raptor engine Falcon X massing around 2120 mt could lift about 100 mt to LEO.  That level of efficiency should prove handy for Elon if Spacex means to build this HLV family on the relative cheap.  It's no wonder the idea of a mega-sized Merlin died out when Elon could simply use a more efficient smaller engine.  The projected performance for a 9-engine Falcon X also suggests that Elon will be using fewer than 9 Raptors on a booster core.  Flightglobal after all reported that payload to LEO was targeted at 150-200 mt, not 300 mt+. 

100mt to LEO would be good for a 1st stage with ( 9 ) Raptor engines.

What would it bring to 130x130nmi 28 degree orbit from LC-39A pad?

What was the diameter of the stages?

I assume you were not reusing the stages ( no fly back ).

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 436
Another couple of interesting questions.

If Falcon X/XX/MCT is a modular CCB vehicle, with a tri-core heavy version, and each core is say 7-8m wide, then where do you put a MST at the pad?  It'd have to be on the same level as the pad.  I guess It'd go on the north side of the pad where the STS FSS and RSS are?  Maybe they build the padform out farther in that direction?

If done that way, a tri-core design would be less constrained by the width of the flame trench.  Sort of at 90 degress to how STS sat on the bad and SLS will.  Then a MST rolls out from the north side like the MST does to D4H at LC-37.
Could such a tri-core LV be stacked in that orientation in the VAB and sort of roll out sideways all the way to the pad, so a MST on the north side could roll over it?

The problem I think with a VIF built say right at the split in the crawlerways, and the crawlerway to 39A paved, is how is the incline handled?  the CT can do it, but can one of those wheeled transports keep a vertical LV level up the incline?
If the stack was integrated horizontally instead, I guess it could be rulled up the incline unlevel, and the erected at the pad like F9, FH, Soyuz, N-1, or Energia, but were any of those rolled up any incline?  Or were they all rolled level from the HIF to the pad?  I assumed they were all level.

otherwise, the stack would either need to be stacked in the VAB and transported via CT to the pad for payload integration, or the cores would have to be rolled up one at a time like a D4H and erected and stacked right at the pad like Delta IV, I guess.

Or else how migth this be done?
« Last Edit: 05/23/2013 08:09 pm by Lobo »

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6
... Slightly more realistically, if using VAB would help make canceling SLS in favor of NASA buying launch services politically feasible it would probably be worth it for SpaceX to do so.

I can't see why it would make SLS cancellation more politically viable.  This can't be a deal breaker can it?
« Last Edit: 05/23/2013 08:27 pm by Celebrimbor »

Offline padrat

  • Payload Packer and Dragon tamer...
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Where Dragons roam....
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 12
Ok, a few issues with using the VAB...

1. So far, Spacex seems pretty adament against bringing the crawler and all of it's associated costs in maintenance, personnel, etc. into the picture. Plus, I highly doubt you are going to see any kind of lengthy rollout as it's simply not needed.
2. Even if Spacex had it's own leased high bay to do with as it pleases, it will have to share resources with everyone else that uses the VAB. Such as access control, traffic controls, commodities like GN2/GHe and their supply systems, and cranes/heavy equipment. Things like that are usually handled on the KSC side by contractors and union shops. Whereas Spacex usually handles those items in house as much as possible. And given the way that those shops/contractors feel about SpaceX and their labor regs, well, I can see a battle constantly occurring when they have to "share their toys" Not to mention the headaches that can come with having to get certified by NASA/KSC to use their equipment. And don't even get me started on what things will be like when they start putting SRBs in the VAB again.
3. The cores/stages really aren't that heavy. Having a crane at the pad large enough to lift the type of payloads that a FH would be needed for will probably have no problem stacking the rocket itself. Plus, there are many other ways to get rockets out to the pad besides using the turn basin.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a big Falcon being stacked and rolling down the crawlerway. But realistically I know it will probably not happen. At least for a long while. But also, there are still many things to be ironed out before we even get 39A. And this is simply my thoughts after having worked for them for a little while and after talking with the engineers and such, so please don't take it as official. and please don't let what I've said spin off into a debate about pluses and minuses of organized labor. Thanks.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2013 12:49 am by padrat »
If the neighbors think you're the rebel of the neighborhood, embrace it and be the rebel. It keeps them wondering what you'll do next...

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Ok, a few issues with using the VAB...

1. So far, Spacex seems pretty adament against bringing the crawler and all of it's associated costs in maintenance, personnel, etc. into the picture. Plus, I highly doubt you are going to see any kind of lengthy rollout as it's simply not needed.
2. Even if Spacex had it's own leased high bay to do with as it pleases, it will have to share resources with everyone else that uses the VAB. Such as access control, traffic controls, commodities like GN2/GHe and their supply systems, and cranes/heavy equipment. Things like that are usually handled on the KSC side by contractors and union shops. Whereas Spacex usually handles those items in house as much as possible. And given the way that those shops/contractors feel about SpaceX and their labor regs, well, I can see a battle constantly occurring when they have to "share their toys" Not to mention the headaches that can come with having to get certified by NASA/KSC to use their equipment. And don't even get me started on what things will be like when they start putting SRBs in the VAB again.
3. The cores/stages really aren't that heavy. Having a crane at the pad large enough to lift the type of payloads eathat a FH would be needed for will probably have no problem stacking the rocket itself. Plus, there are many other ways to get rockets out to the pad besides using the turn basin.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a big Falcon being stacked and rolling down the crawlerway. But realistically I know it will probably not happen. At least for a long while. But also, there are still many things to be ironed out before we even get 39A. And this is simply my thoughts after having worked for them for a little while and after talking with the engineers and such, so please don't take it as official. and please don't let what I've said spin off into a debate about pluses and minuses of organized labor. Thanks.

Thanks for your personal insight.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Liked: 1373
  • Likes Given: 302

100mt to LEO would be good for a 1st stage with ( 9 ) Raptor engines.

What would it bring to 130x130nmi 28 degree orbit from LC-39A pad?

What was the diameter of the stages?

I assume you were not reusing the stages ( no fly back ).

You assume correctly.  There is no fly-back in this simulation. 

For the 608.7 mt version, diameter was ~6.56 meters, while for the less efficient version massing 630 mt, the diameter was 6.6 meters.  I know it sounds like a really large diameter.  That was my first reaction as well.  Dmitry however explained that when you get rockets this heavy, it's best to optimize your stage mass much more than your drag.  If you want to see this principle at its max, I suggest you check out the attached picture.  It's a 510-513 mt LV with a methalox SI (powered by five RD-0162 engines) and a hydrolox SII.  He lists the ideal diameter for that almost Falcon 9-mass rocket at 7.5 meters.  Lest you think it's suffering for all that width, the projected payload to orbit is an astounding 40 mt.  A 480 mt Falcon 9 v1.1 can in contrast only lift around ~16.6 mt going all out. 

I'm not rocket engineer or LV designer, but I can reasonably guess that a jump of 1-2 mt to LEO would be possible on an LV that size.  It won't make a huge difference, but launching from Cape Canaveral definitely will help make things easier.  If any actual rocket engineers would like to give us a more exact comparison, I'm all ears. 

« Last Edit: 05/24/2013 04:55 am by Hyperion5 »

Tags:
 

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