Author Topic: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread  (Read 169436 times)

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 2872
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #720 on: 09/07/2017 07:39 PM »
Today's launch is the last prior to IAC 2017.  SpaceX has had a very successful YTD.  Hopefully this will give Elon more confidence to reveal more than planned on ITSy and the overall Mars plan.  Updated schedules would be much appreciated. He still has plenty of time to update his presentation.
EM has likely already decided on the exact amount of new info. on the Mars plan to be revealed before today's launch. So please don't expect any more just because SpaceX have been so successful so far this year.

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 185
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #721 on: 09/07/2017 09:36 PM »
Don't disagree but one can hope.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28095
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7912
  • Likes Given: 5267
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #722 on: 09/07/2017 09:58 PM »
Today's launch is the last prior to IAC 2017.  SpaceX has had a very successful YTD.  Hopefully this will give Elon more confidence to reveal more than planned on ITSy and the overall Mars plan.  Updated schedules would be much appreciated. He still has plenty of time to update his presentation.
EM has likely already decided on the exact amount of new info. on the Mars plan to be revealed before today's launch. So please don't expect any more just because SpaceX have been so successful so far this year.
Doubt it. Elon does stuff at the last minute very often. Like firing Raptor the night before.

I will say the external reaction to Elon will probably be a little different. Instead of happening in the midst of a stand down after failure, it will happen after SpaceX has beat everyone else in the world for launch rate so far this year and done some actual reuses.

I bet there are pics of a flight hardware Falcon upper stage modified for recovery looking like a miniature version of an ITSy upper stage. A whole bunch of Raptor tests. Something to do with Optimus Prime. Plans for building ITSy at Hawthorne. Plans showing Boca Chica as initial launch site for ITSy and aggressive timetables for everything without "steal underpants" wag.

It will be the point where industry folk will stop giggling when BFR is brought up in conversation.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2017 10:01 PM by Robotbeat »
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

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6175
  • Liked: 3965
  • Likes Given: 5459
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #723 on: 09/07/2017 11:43 PM »
IAC is also happening during or immediately before confirmation hearings for the new NASA Admin.  It will be prime time for a while.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline BeamRider

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #724 on: 09/08/2017 10:00 PM »
If I was Spacex, looking at giant investments in the a)Transport ship, b) the first stage, c)and launch / landing infrastructure, why would I not consider a "Saturn 1" approach? In the early 60's when NASA needed heavy lift to LEO to test Apollo components, and could not afford to wait for the Saturn 5, they built the Saturn 1 by literally bundling Jupiter and Redstone rocket bodies together in a 1+8 config. Could not Spacex do the same using F9s in a 1+6? The Saturn 1 used 1+8 because the center Jupiter body was wider than the outer Redstones. The strategy would be to eliminate one of the "brand new and untried" three things mentioned in the first sentence, or at least kick that particular can a bit down the road.

Such an arrangement could also address the "what to do with the Heavy" angst... make it heavier! Falcon Jumbo anyone? It might be possible to evolve the "Jumbo" from Merlin to Raptors stepwise too. All Raptors = the "Sumo"?! Just having fun here, but doesn't the "Saturn 1" strategy bear some consideration? It would allow you work the kinks out of that land-on-the-pad thing too!

Ps. The Saturn 1 just used other rocket bodies to quickly build up a new large body... it did not use their engines too. What I am suggesting is perhaps Saturn 1 on steroids: literally taking the FH lessons and building out a 1+6 hexagon with each rocket having its own dedicated engines!

Offline BeamRider

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #725 on: 09/08/2017 10:26 PM »
And yes you would have to design and build an adapter stage for the top of the Jumbo.  Hopefully a reusable design... at least on the top side!

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 227
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #726 on: 09/08/2017 11:12 PM »
There are problems with the Saturn I approach. 

There is a lot of empty space between the tubes that could hold fuel or lox. 

There is a lot of metal in the 3.7m tubes that add weight that a single large diameter cylinder would not. 

The Saturn I was quickly cobbled together due to the need to beat the Russians to the moon and test Apollo.  SpaceX has no need to do this, they already have a capsule to fit F9 and F9 is as powerful as Saturn IB as far as payload to LEO. 

The extra weight of the tubes will take away from payload.  Also, switching to Raptor methane engines requires more fuel than kerosene.  A single 9m core can hold more fuel than a clustered group of F9 cores.  7 F9 cores probably could only supply 14 Raptor engines.  A 9m core can supply probably 19-21 engines for more power and payload mass.

The booster rocket will not be as hard to make as the ITS spacecraft which goes to orbit, then lands back on Earth.  Compared to ITS spaceship, the booster will be easy.  They already know how to land a booster.  So making a 9m core with engines and landing it will be very similar to F9. 

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2160
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #727 on: 09/09/2017 01:31 AM »
Saturn I was a kludge. It met a quick need, but all of Spacenut's points are correct. Not an optimal approach to take if you have other options.

Offline BeamRider

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #728 on: 09/09/2017 05:04 PM »
All good points. My intent was to try to find a way to eliminate one of the major investments facing Spacex, or at least remove it from the critical path, as NASA did with S1. So, any other ideas?

Ps. Yeah the wasted space between the tubes bothered me too. 25%? But with the inherent exceptional rigidity of the hexagon config (compared the FH, say) wouldn't there be an opportunity to lighten some or all of the tubes and also to eliminate some redundant parts? Of course the new adapter would take that all away...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28095
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7912
  • Likes Given: 5267
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #729 on: 09/09/2017 06:00 PM »
9m is small enough to make in Hawthorne and move a few miles around on the road then barge to the Atlantic.
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 Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #730 on: 09/09/2017 06:04 PM »
9m is small enough to make in Hawthorne and move a few miles around on the road then barge to the Atlantic.
And yet people thought "it has to be road transportable or built right next to the launch site or else it's too expensive." Looks like it didn't even matter.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2017 06:08 PM by Pipcard »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28095
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7912
  • Likes Given: 5267
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #731 on: 09/09/2017 06:18 PM »
9m is small enough to make in Hawthorne and move a few miles around on the road then barge to the Atlantic.
And yet people thought "it has to be road transportable or built right next to the launch site or else it's too expensive." Looks like it didn't even matter.
It does matter if you're building a lot of expendable ones.
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

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6175
  • Liked: 3965
  • Likes Given: 5459
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #732 on: 09/09/2017 11:07 PM »
9m is small enough to make in Hawthorne and move a few miles around on the road then barge to the Atlantic.
And yet people thought "it has to be road transportable or built right next to the launch site or else it's too expensive." Looks like it didn't even matter.

Still matters if BFR is 12-15m.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2160
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #733 on: 09/09/2017 11:10 PM »
It does matter if you're building a lot of expendable ones.

As well as anything (even reusable) that has to make a trip to McGregor and back after every flight. Something that gets transported by barge one time, but then flies repeatedly thereafter, has that transportation cost amortized over many uses. So, a different business model.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2160
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 850
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #734 on: 09/09/2017 11:20 PM »
Still matters if BFR is 12-15m.

Maybe, maybe not. Lets say all the fabricators at, oh.........I don't know........... someplace like Michoud......... suddenly lost their jobs due to a certain something being cancelled. Renting a certain facility, elevating the roof, rehiring the same fabricators, then taking a 15m monster, intended for a thousand eventual flights, and barging it one single time to a not so far away launch site.................I could see at least some possibility of that happening.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32227
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10884
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #735 on: 09/29/2017 07:43 PM »
I agree with your comment about the OMS on the shuttle - not used simultaneously, so that doesn't fit as an example of dynamic interactions.


Yes, they were.  See OMS assist

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32227
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10884
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #736 on: 09/29/2017 07:44 PM »
Are there any existing examples of such a mixture of bell types (atmospheric and vaccum) on a single thrust structure?  I'm coming up blank.

Classic Atlas stage and a half

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4125
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #737 on: 09/29/2017 11:15 PM »
Based on what's been revealed about the new 9m ITS rocket, can anyone summarize what are the key technical challenges in pulling it off? (prioritized in order of difficulty or criticality would be appreciated)

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 227
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #738 on: 09/29/2017 11:32 PM »
The booster should be just a scaled F9 with a lot of engines, grid fins, probably landing legs to begin with, and later when they master cradle landings the legs come off.  So it shouldn't take long.  Raptor is deep into being ready. 

The second stage (ITS) will be harder.  Heat shielding, cargo bay doors, docking, being able to be refueled in orbit, land on Mars or the Moon, and land on earth.  Must be light but robust to do all of this. 

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3913
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2603
  • Likes Given: 3337
Re: 9m ITS Development Updates and Discussion Thread
« Reply #739 on: 09/30/2017 12:11 AM »
* Request For Information *

During the presentation Musk said that the cargo version should be able to hold cargo almost 9m in diameter.

Did anyone hear if there was a description for how tall/long that cargo could be? Any educated guesses?

I'm working on a proposal for potential cargo/construction material to be moved to space based on different potential vehicles, such as Falcon 9/H, New Glenn, and the 9m ITS.

I'd like to maximize the volume as much as possible, though I'd probably cap the length at 10m for the cargo I have planned, but I could plan on adding additional cargo/construction material on top of that if there was room. Most of the cargo should not max out the weight, just the volume.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags: