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.
Falcon XX refers to this paperhttp://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/SpaceX_Overview_TEM.pdfBTW 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 saltElon 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.
Quote from: SpacexULA on 05/20/2013 05:54 pmFalcon XX refers to this paperhttp://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/SpaceX_Overview_TEM.pdfBTW 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 saltElon 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.
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....
Quote from: padrat on 05/23/2013 10:15 amAs 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?
Quote from: padrat on 05/23/2013 10:15 amAs 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.
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 )?
...I'm not entirely sure you could pay SpaceX enough money to use the VAB.
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.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 05/23/2013 01:05 amWe 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 LEOI 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+.
... 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.
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.
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 ).