Quote from: Zed_Noir on 09/05/2011 12:19 pmCome to think of it. We don't really need the Dragon capsule for a Mars or Luna flyby mission.All it require is a modified Dragon trunk. Put an optical array inside the trunk. Increase the internal battery capacity. Add same secondary sensors.Replace the Dragon with a hypergolic engine array and spherical propellant tanks inside a payload fairing.So the spacecraft stack would be upside down compare to most spacecrafts.Wonder if such a demonstrator be put together on a small budget and compact development team in time for the inaugural FH laubch.It isn't that simple. The avionics are in the dragon.hypergolic engine arrays and spherical propellant tanks are just laying around to be used.The fairing and trunk would interfere with each other since they attach to the second stage at the same interface
Come to think of it. We don't really need the Dragon capsule for a Mars or Luna flyby mission.All it require is a modified Dragon trunk. Put an optical array inside the trunk. Increase the internal battery capacity. Add same secondary sensors.Replace the Dragon with a hypergolic engine array and spherical propellant tanks inside a payload fairing.So the spacecraft stack would be upside down compare to most spacecrafts.Wonder if such a demonstrator be put together on a small budget and compact development team in time for the inaugural FH laubch.
Off topic, but I've got to ask the question: which ULA rockets have exploded? Perhaps you could post a link to support this assertion?
DOD is not going to allow their stuff to fly on something that is not proven successful, which is why a failure of FH early in the lifecycle would hurt SpaceX.
Quote from: spacetraveler on 09/05/2011 09:20 amDOD is not going to allow their stuff to fly on something that is not proven successful, which is why a failure of FH early in the lifecycle would hurt SpaceX.DOD knows that rockets fail, just like everyone else in the business does. The first Delta IV heavy flight failed. Fortunately for the DOD, they knew rockets tend to fail so they required a test flight before trusting their billion dollar payloads to it.The "ULA 100% success rate gold standard" thing is nonsense. The only reason ULA haven't had a full failure yet is they haven't flown very many missions.Rockets fail, and new rockets fail more frequently. If the F9 inaugural flight fails, that will certainly be a setback for SpaceX, but it won't be a big surprise, and shouldn't be a fatal blow by itself.The fact that new rockets tend to fail does suggest no one (SpaceX or a third party) will put a really high value payload on the first F9H flight.
I was thinking of the Delta II and Delta III missions which exploded,
The launch site is VAFB where almost all flights go into polar orbit. since you don't get a boost from the Earth's rotation, it might be enough to prevent a FH from launching a Dragon to Mars or even the Moon.
Didn't SpaceX do an extra unannounced part of the first launch of the Falcon 9? I nderstand that thy restarted the upper stage engines and put the upper stage somewhere about a third of the way to GEO.
I would go for a GTO like insertion of a mass simulator. If they feel very confident, they could do a dogleg or plane change with the second stage, just to show the capabilities to potential clients. If they are really serious, and want to do any kind of extra demonstration, I would put a dual satellite dispenser (but not tell anybody about it),and try to do a dual manifested payload simulation. With that they would have demonstrated almost everything needed for competing with Ariane 5 and Proton (save East Coast launch pad).
Of course, any lunar launch will have limited launch windows from VAFB, (twice monthly from polar orbit), unless they planned on spending a lot of propellant on such a stunt.
In the absence of a customer, I like this thought. But what if they had a dragon inside the PLF as the second payload?
You are doing the stacking thing again.
Spacex has never mentioned dual payload.
Anyways, if it is to simulate a GTO payload, there is no mass left for another.
Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2011 01:30 pmYou are doing the stacking thing again. Yes. But couldn't a dumb mass-simulator just sit on a platform above a dragon within the PLF? Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2011 01:30 pmSpacex has never mentioned dual payload. I am certain Shotwell was talking about it around the time they first announced F9H (back when they were talking about 30000kg or so to LEO).Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2011 01:30 pmAnyways, if it is to simulate a GTO payload, there is no mass left for another.Even if they do cross-feeding? Plus dragon has some delta-V as well. Would tihs really be impossible?
I thought they where launching Jim in a Dragon around the bark side of mars for the first Heavy launch A simple "platform" would obstruct his view...
Jim cannot leave Earth, if he did, the NSF forums would become overrun by naive dreamers and overoptimistic people with can-do attitudes.