Speculation thread: intermediate-lift Raptor-derived RLV

[gospacex]

You can get up to around 4 meters of diameter onto the road; length is more an issue.

Are you sure? The US highway standards are: Vertical clearance: Minimum vertical clearance under overhead structures (including over the paved shoulders) of 16 feet (4.9 m) in rural areas and 14 feet (4.3 m) in urban areas. The F9 appears to be over 5 metres already.

They can use a different way to mount it, which sits lower. There is some ~1.5 m of space under it on the current trailer.

[jg]

Roads are not flat...  They probably can't  lower the stage much, if at all...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[rsdavis9]

I personally think spacex has maxed out road transportable size with the F9 architecture.
How about short ballistic hops to transport stages from coast to coast?

[spacenut]

Four meter diameter can do a Guppy flight from the existing factory.  Surely there is a plane that can do 5m in diameter and can take off from the airport near the factory.  Don't know the maximum length, but an upper stage is shorter and could be made wider for use as an upper stage replacement on FH.  This would improve FH performance. 

Another thing is to cluster about 7 F9 cores (like Saturn IB), with a one or two Raptor engines on each core, maybe one in the center core for landing and fuel enough remaining for landing.  This strapped together would act as a complete first stage.  It would land with the center Raptor.  This would be 13 Raptors.  This would approach Saturn V thrust.  The strapping together could be done at the Cape and still use 39a.  It would require some equipment changes at the Cape. 

Then for a second stage, use 3 second stages strapped together with one Raptor vacuum on the middle.  A large interstage would have to be assembled on top of the 7 cores to encompass the Raptor vacuum and the three core second stage.

Then a larger 5m diameter payload could be placed on top. 

I know it would be a kludge, but it would max out the existing manufacturing. 

Then a new manufacturing facility and a wider first stage with say 18 raptors  would be far more efficient.  Less capable than ITS, but probably more economically likely.   

[macpacheco]

Lets think rationally.
Most SpaceX launches today are to GTO. The 2nd most common destination is ISS. Then we have LEO constellations.
An upper stage that can travel all the way to Mars and land with massive payload capability should be able to deliver a boatload of satellites to GSO or near GEO spots.
If SpaceX ITS launch costs are 10% of a partial reuse F9, using ITS to GEO becomes a proposition no one can pass.
ITS is perfect for the ISS too, a single flight can deliver a year's worth of cargo and cycle the entire ISS crew. Perhaps with cheap large scale crew+cargo missions ISS can operate at double the current crew.
And of course, if ITS can deliver a lot of satellites to GTO directly, LEO delivery is a snap.
The sole question that remains is if the standard ITS can be used for multi satellite delivery or if a separate upper stage will have to be custom built for satellite delivery.
This would end any justification to use chemical propulsion for faster orbital raising. Same day delivery to GTO justifies waiting a month for enough payloads to be ready at the same time. In fact, SpaceX will have so much spare capacity, it will always be able to pick up last minute sign ups (as long as satellite is compatible with the ITS satellite delivery system).

There is no point in keeping merlin rockets once Raptor is fully tested, it doesn't matter if a new pad and a new rocket must be built.

SpaceX and Musk thinks big. The smaller they will think is a pure methane mini ITS. But when I say mini, I mean still much larger than FH or D4H 1/3 scale mini ITS, still an SLS class rocket payload capability even with full reuse performance hits.

Whatever the schedule SpaceX can create the proposed upper stage, with 1-2 years more, they can do the complete ITS/mini ITS platform.

Just saying.

[dror]

I think the Mini-ITS would cost less overall to develop and can be developed more quickly.  Infrastructure for one.  A Mini-ITS can use existing pad 39A or B and would cost less to modify than a whole new launch pad.  Transportation from any factory along the waterways would be easier. 

I reading so much, I don't really know which ITS version is going to be developed.  The 12m version can take advantage of the existing river and intercoastal waterways, so factory doesn't have to be at or near the launch pad.  However, a new pad and facilities would have to be developed. 

Mini-ITS to me would be about 7-8m in diameter and be able to launch 75 tons to LEO fully reusable.

(A)But then you would still need to develop a separate full size cargo version, full size crew version and full size tanker version. (B)Whereas if you went straight for a full size cargo version, it would likely be significantly less complex than the full size crew version, with less required functionality, no life support, far simpler internal design and far more cargo capability.

(C)And it would then retire the mini version, making all of that interim development work a wasted exercise.

I think not.
(A) you wouldnt NEED to develope any arbitrary size. 75 tons is more than enough for any of the suggested uses. IF there will still be a need for bigger loads, it will be so much later that a seconed generation will be designed anyway.
(B) I totaly agree that a cargo version will be easier than a crew version, that goes without saying. But that means nothing about full size vs smaller size. I think that the sheer size of ITS is its biggest hurdle.
(C) big rockets don't retire smaller ones unless they are better or cheaper at the job. 747 dont retire 737.

[rsdavis9]

I think the Mini-ITS would cost less overall to develop and can be developed more quickly.  Infrastructure for one.  A Mini-ITS can use existing pad 39A or B and would cost less to modify than a whole new launch pad.  Transportation from any factory along the waterways would be easier. 

I reading so much, I don't really know which ITS version is going to be developed.  The 12m version can take advantage of the existing river and intercoastal waterways, so factory doesn't have to be at or near the launch pad.  However, a new pad and facilities would have to be developed. 

Mini-ITS to me would be about 7-8m in diameter and be able to launch 75 tons to LEO fully reusable.

(A)But then you would still need to develop a separate full size cargo version, full size crew version and full size tanker version. (B)Whereas if you went straight for a full size cargo version, it would likely be significantly less complex than the full size crew version, with less required functionality, no life support, far simpler internal design and far more cargo capability.

(C)And it would then retire the mini version, making all of that interim development work a wasted exercise.

I think not.
(A) you wouldnt NEED to develope any arbitrary size. 75 tons is more than enough for any of the suggested uses. IF there will still be a need for bigger loads, it will be so much later that a seconed generation will be designed anyway.
(B) I totaly agree that a cargo version will be easier than a crew version, that goes without saying. But that means nothing about full size vs smaller size. I think that the sheer size of ITS is its biggest hurdle.
(C) big rockets don't retire smaller ones unless they are better or cheaper at the job. 747 dont retire 737.

But full reusable big rockets do retire not fully reusable smaller ones.(cheaper)

[Lars-J]

I think the Mini-ITS would cost less overall to develop and can be developed more quickly.  Infrastructure for one.  A Mini-ITS can use existing pad 39A or B and would cost less to modify than a whole new launch pad.  Transportation from any factory along the waterways would be easier. 

I reading so much, I don't really know which ITS version is going to be developed.  The 12m version can take advantage of the existing river and intercoastal waterways, so factory doesn't have to be at or near the launch pad.  However, a new pad and facilities would have to be developed. 

Mini-ITS to me would be about 7-8m in diameter and be able to launch 75 tons to LEO fully reusable.

(A)But then you would still need to develop a separate full size cargo version, full size crew version and full size tanker version. (B)Whereas if you went straight for a full size cargo version, it would likely be significantly less complex than the full size crew version, with less required functionality, no life support, far simpler internal design and far more cargo capability.

(C)And it would then retire the mini version, making all of that interim development work a wasted exercise.

I think not.
(A) you wouldnt NEED to develope any arbitrary size. 75 tons is more than enough for any of the suggested uses. IF there will still be a need for bigger loads, it will be so much later that a seconed generation will be designed anyway.
(B) I totaly agree that a cargo version will be easier than a crew version, that goes without saying. But that means nothing about full size vs smaller size. I think that the sheer size of ITS is its biggest hurdle.
(C) big rockets don't retire smaller ones unless they are better or cheaper at the job. 747 dont retire 737.

But full reusable big rockets do retire not fully reusable smaller ones.(cheaper)

It all depends on the cargo model. Smaller is not necessarily cheaper. It is cheaper to fly cross country on a large commercial jet than to lease/rent a small aircraft.

[dror]

I think the Mini-ITS would cost less overall to develop and can be developed more quickly.  Infrastructure for one.  A Mini-ITS can use existing pad 39A or B and would cost less to modify than a whole new launch pad.  Transportation from any factory along the waterways would be easier. 

I reading so much, I don't really know which ITS version is going to be developed.  The 12m version can take advantage of the existing river and intercoastal waterways, so factory doesn't have to be at or near the launch pad.  However, a new pad and facilities would have to be developed. 

Mini-ITS to me would be about 7-8m in diameter and be able to launch 75 tons to LEO fully reusable.

(A)But then you would still need to develop a separate full size cargo version, full size crew version and full size tanker version. (B)Whereas if you went straight for a full size cargo version, it would likely be significantly less complex than the full size crew version, with less required functionality, no life support, far simpler internal design and far more cargo capability.

(C)And it would then retire the mini version, making all of that interim development work a wasted exercise.

I think not.
(A) you wouldnt NEED to develope any arbitrary size. 75 tons is more than enough for any of the suggested uses. IF there will still be a need for bigger loads, it will be so much later that a seconed generation will be designed anyway.
(B) I totaly agree that a cargo version will be easier than a crew version, that goes without saying. But that means nothing about full size vs smaller size. I think that the sheer size of ITS is its biggest hurdle.
(C) big rockets don't retire smaller ones unless they are better or cheaper at the job. 747 dont retire 737.

But full reusable big rockets do retire not fully reusable smaller ones.(cheaper)

Thats right, but all of the sugestions within this thread were fully reusable.

[gospacex]

Roads are not flat...  They probably can't  lower the stage much, if at all...

You can have an adjustable bogie, and maximally lower the cargo only for the locations where in needs to pass under an obstacle. (Of course, nothing is free - they might be more expensive, or even non-existent and SpaceX would need to design and make them themselves).

[gospacex]

I personally think spacex has maxed out road transportable size with the F9 architecture.

We can't know that until some info leak from SpaceX.

I would like to remind you that at the time when F9 diameter was chosen, Musk was not at all sure the entire enterprise is going to work, much less he could know how wildly Tom Mueller would succeed in uprating Merlins. Musk could not clearly foresee that F9 diameter would be such a serious limiter to its further evolution, and thus had no reason to scrape the barrel for the last half a meter of stage width. He could choose a somewhat more conservative width, to have less pain with transportation.

This is a photo of first F9 launch. Note how stubby it is compared to latest version.

[macpacheco]

I think the Mini-ITS would cost less overall to develop and can be developed more quickly.  Infrastructure for one.  A Mini-ITS can use existing pad 39A or B and would cost less to modify than a whole new launch pad.  Transportation from any factory along the waterways would be easier. 

I reading so much, I don't really know which ITS version is going to be developed.  The 12m version can take advantage of the existing river and intercoastal waterways, so factory doesn't have to be at or near the launch pad.  However, a new pad and facilities would have to be developed. 

Mini-ITS to me would be about 7-8m in diameter and be able to launch 75 tons to LEO fully reusable.

(A)But then you would still need to develop a separate full size cargo version, full size crew version and full size tanker version. (B)Whereas if you went straight for a full size cargo version, it would likely be significantly less complex than the full size crew version, with less required functionality, no life support, far simpler internal design and far more cargo capability.

(C)And it would then retire the mini version, making all of that interim development work a wasted exercise.

I think not.
(A) you wouldnt NEED to develope any arbitrary size. 75 tons is more than enough for any of the suggested uses. IF there will still be a need for bigger loads, it will be so much later that a seconed generation will be designed anyway.
(B) I totaly agree that a cargo version will be easier than a crew version, that goes without saying. But that means nothing about full size vs smaller size. I think that the sheer size of ITS is its biggest hurdle.
(C) big rockets don't retire smaller ones unless they are better or cheaper at the job. 747 dont retire 737.

Raptor boosters are supposed to fly 1000x (maybe even more with major overhauls).
Merlin boosters are supposed to fly 100x before major overhauls.
737 and 747 use the exact same fuel, Jet A. M1D and Raptor don't.
Even IF M1D upper stages can be reused, there every expectation that they will require far more refurb / replacement for 100 flights.
The total gamuth of orbits used by rockets represent far lesser destinations than aircraft has routes.
Hence the two comparisons are invalid.
Most launches are to GTO. If ITS can deliver at least 6 satellites per launch directly to GTO, the use of F9/FH for GTO launches is gone.
The full blown Mars ITS can be used for CRS and CCS missions once approved by NASA, perhaps with a single launch per year to service ISS without practical payload or seats limitations.
Meanwhile, 737 and 747 are expected to fly nearly daily.
Lets be a bit more thorough in our thoughts gentleman, space isn't airline transportation. Completely different reality.
The airline scenario analogy stops with the argument that we must reuse rockets to bring down costs, everything else is different.

[M.E.T.]

I think the Mini-ITS would cost less overall to develop and can be developed more quickly.  Infrastructure for one.  A Mini-ITS can use existing pad 39A or B and would cost less to modify than a whole new launch pad.  Transportation from any factory along the waterways would be easier. 

I reading so much, I don't really know which ITS version is going to be developed.  The 12m version can take advantage of the existing river and intercoastal waterways, so factory doesn't have to be at or near the launch pad.  However, a new pad and facilities would have to be developed. 

Mini-ITS to me would be about 7-8m in diameter and be able to launch 75 tons to LEO fully reusable.

(A)But then you would still need to develop a separate full size cargo version, full size crew version and full size tanker version. (B)Whereas if you went straight for a full size cargo version, it would likely be significantly less complex than the full size crew version, with less required functionality, no life support, far simpler internal design and far more cargo capability.

(C)And it would then retire the mini version, making all of that interim development work a wasted exercise.

I think not.
(A) you wouldnt NEED to develope any arbitrary size. 75 tons is more than enough for any of the suggested uses. IF there will still be a need for bigger loads, it will be so much later that a seconed generation will be designed anyway.
(B) I totaly agree that a cargo version will be easier than a crew version, that goes without saying. But that means nothing about full size vs smaller size. I think that the sheer size of ITS is its biggest hurdle.
(C) big rockets don't retire smaller ones unless they are better or cheaper at the job. 747 dont retire 737.

Raptor boosters are supposed to fly 1000x (maybe even more with major overhauls).
Merlin boosters are supposed to fly 100x before major overhauls.
737 and 747 use the exact same fuel, Jet A. M1D and Raptor don't.
Even IF M1D upper stages can be reused, there every expectation that they will require far more refurb / replacement for 100 flights.
The total gamuth of orbits used by rockets represent far lesser destinations than aircraft has routes.
Hence the two comparisons are invalid.
Most launches are to GTO. If ITS can deliver at least 6 satellites per launch directly to GTO, the use of F9/FH for GTO launches is gone.
The full blown Mars ITS can be used for CRS and CCS missions once approved by NASA, perhaps with a single launch per year to service ISS without practical payload or seats limitations.
Meanwhile, 737 and 747 are expected to fly nearly daily.
Lets be a bit more thorough in our thoughts gentleman, space isn't airline transportation. Completely different reality.
The airline scenario analogy stops with the argument that we must reuse rockets to bring down costs, everything else is different.

Something which has been bothering me is how they would get around the lack of a launch escape system to satisfy NASA crew transportation needs. Is there an envisaged solution to this in the ITS architecture? Like a pod or something which can eject from the upper stage during a launch malfunction?

Otherwise NASA may continue to insist on Falcon usage for crew transportation to the ISS.

[macpacheco]

Something which has been bothering me is how they would get around the lack of a launch escape system to satisfy NASA crew transportation needs. Is there an envisaged solution to this in the ITS architecture? Like a pod or something which can eject from the upper stage during a launch malfunction?

Otherwise NASA may continue to insist on Falcon usage for crew transportation to the ISS.

By virtue of being fully and quick reusable launch systems, ITS can be tested to exhaustion.
The notion of a launch escape system made every sense in expendable stacks.
Once you can do over a dozen test flights on the same booster/spaceship combination (without any refurb) as a means of initial certification and perhaps 1 or 2 unmanned test flights on each brand new booster/spaceship units changes a lot of the safety calculations that mandates LAS.
There's an implicit assumption that boosters can randomly go kaboom due to hidden design issues/fabrication issues.
And lets not forget that the ITS upper stage itself might be your escape system protecting from booster problems.
Its a brave new world when all components of a launch system can be fully, rapidly and easily reused again and again and again.
I think ITS will make it viable to keep operating ISS for a long time, until its replaced with something much bigger (or a bunch of similar sized space hotels/stations).

[hkultala]

Something which has been bothering me is how they would get around the lack of a launch escape system to satisfy NASA crew transportation needs. Is there an envisaged solution to this in the ITS architecture? Like a pod or something which can eject from the upper stage during a launch malfunction?

Otherwise NASA may continue to insist on Falcon usage for crew transportation to the ISS.

By virtue of being fully and quick reusable launch systems, ITS can be tested to exhaustion.
The notion of a launch escape system made every sense in expendable stacks.
Once you can do over a dozen test flights on the same booster/spaceship combination (without any refurb) as a means of initial certification and perhaps 1 or 2 unmanned test flights on each brand new booster/spaceship units changes a lot of the safety calculations that mandates LAS.

R-7-derivates have flown about 2000 times and they still use LAS on soyuz.

There's an implicit assumption that boosters can randomly go kaboom due to hidden design issues/fabrication issues.
And lets not forget that the ITS upper stage itself might be your escape system protecting from booster problems.

No, it's too slow to start and it has too bad T/W for that. Escape rockets needs to have T/W considerably better than the rocket it is trying to escape, and they need to start IMMEDIATELY, not after few seconds.

[macpacheco]

Something which has been bothering me is how they would get around the lack of a launch escape system to satisfy NASA crew transportation needs. Is there an envisaged solution to this in the ITS architecture? Like a pod or something which can eject from the upper stage during a launch malfunction?

Otherwise NASA may continue to insist on Falcon usage for crew transportation to the ISS.

By virtue of being fully and quick reusable launch systems, ITS can be tested to exhaustion.
The notion of a launch escape system made every sense in expendable stacks.
Once you can do over a dozen test flights on the same booster/spaceship combination (without any refurb) as a means of initial certification and perhaps 1 or 2 unmanned test flights on each brand new booster/spaceship units changes a lot of the safety calculations that mandates LAS.

R-7-derivates have flown about 2000 times and they still use LAS on soyuz.

There's an implicit assumption that boosters can randomly go kaboom due to hidden design issues/fabrication issues.
And lets not forget that the ITS upper stage itself might be your escape system protecting from booster problems.

No, it's too slow to start and it has too bad T/W for that. Escape rockets needs to have T/W considerably better than the rocket it is trying to escape, and they need to start IMMEDIATELY, not after few seconds.

It would be impossible economically to do 100 test flights on soyuz+R7.
To do that with ITS the biggest issue would be having a dedicated launch pad.
I'm not saying my assumptions will hold in the eyes of NASA, but I am saying that your argument 100% ignores the massive difference in testing/certifying a system that is fully reusable (reflying dozens of times with zero refurb).
As long as ITS can refly dozens of times without refurb and does so without any failures and non destructive testing proves everything is still within margins and within predicted wear levels changes everything (in theory).
At some point the paradigm will change.
Lets keep it in perspective that there were just 135 STS missions.
If NASA is willing to pay US$ 1 billion for testing ITS, 135 test launches is in theory possible (but illogical).

[dror]

Something which has been bothering me is how they would get around the lack of a launch escape system to satisfy NASA crew transportation needs. Is there an envisaged solution to this in the ITS architecture? Like a pod or something which can eject from the upper stage during a launch malfunction?

Otherwise NASA may continue to insist on Falcon usage for crew transportation to the ISS.

By virtue of being fully and quick reusable launch systems, ITS can be tested to exhaustion.
The notion of a launch escape system made every sense in expendable stacks.
Once you can do over a dozen test flights on the same booster/spaceship combination (without any refurb) as a means of initial certification and perhaps 1 or 2 unmanned test flights on each brand new booster/spaceship units changes a lot of the safety calculations that mandates LAS.

R-7-derivates have flown about 2000 times and they still use LAS on soyuz

Each rocket have flown once. Flight proven vehicles may ease the pressure

[dror]

I think the Mini-ITS would cost less overall to develop and can be developed more quickly.  Infrastructure for one.  A Mini-ITS can use existing pad 39A or B and would cost less to modify than a whole new launch pad.  Transportation from any factory along the waterways would be easier. 

I reading so much, I don't really know which ITS version is going to be developed.  The 12m version can take advantage of the existing river and intercoastal waterways, so factory doesn't have to be at or near the launch pad.  However, a new pad and facilities would have to be developed. 

Mini-ITS to me would be about 7-8m in diameter and be able to launch 75 tons to LEO fully reusable.

(A)But then you would still need to develop a separate full size cargo version, full size crew version and full size tanker version. (B)Whereas if you went straight for a full size cargo version, it would likely be significantly less complex than the full size crew version, with less required functionality, no life support, far simpler internal design and far more cargo capability.

(C)And it would then retire the mini version, making all of that interim development work a wasted exercise.

I think not.
(A) you wouldnt NEED to develope any arbitrary size. 75 tons is more than enough for any of the suggested uses. IF there will still be a need for bigger loads, it will be so much later that a seconed generation will be designed anyway.
(B) I totaly agree that a cargo version will be easier than a crew version, that goes without saying. But that means nothing about full size vs smaller size. I think that the sheer size of ITS is its biggest hurdle.
(C) big rockets don't retire smaller ones unless they are better or cheaper at the job. 747 dont retire 737.

Raptor boosters are supposed to fly 1000x (maybe even more with major overhauls).
Merlin boosters are supposed to fly 100x before major overhauls.
737 and 747 use the exact same fuel, Jet A. M1D and Raptor don't.
Even IF M1D upper stages can be reused, there every expectation that they will require far more refurb / replacement for 100 flights.
The total gamuth of orbits used by rockets represent far lesser destinations than aircraft has routes.
Hence the two comparisons are invalid.
Most launches are to GTO. If ITS can deliver at least 6 satellites per launch directly to GTO, the use of F9/FH for GTO launches is gone.
The full blown Mars ITS can be used for CRS and CCS missions once approved by NASA, perhaps with a single launch per year to service ISS without practical payload or seats limitations.
Meanwhile, 737 and 747 are expected to fly nearly daily.
Lets be a bit more thorough in our thoughts gentleman, space isn't airline transportation. Completely different reality.
The airline scenario analogy stops with the argument that we must reuse rockets to bring down costs, everything else is different.

The discussion is about full size ITS vs intermediate size RLV. F9\FH is irrelevant

[macpacheco]

The discussion is about full size ITS vs intermediate size RLV. F9\FH is irrelevant

It is relevant if it makes the premise goal of this thread pointless, which is the point I'm making.
If the best choice is pure M1D F9/FH transitioning directly to ITS/mini ITS, then this thread is pointless.

[dror]

The discussion is about full size ITS vs intermediate size RLV. F9\FH is irrelevant

It is relevant if it makes the premise goal of this thread pointless, which is the point I'm making.
If the best choice is pure M1D F9/FH transitioning directly to ITS/mini ITS, then this thread is pointless.

It depends on your definition of mini ITS