SpaceX looks at Saturn V class

[marsavian]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/17/213315/spacex-looks-at-saturn-v-class.html

[Verio Fryar]

It doesn't say that SpaceX is looking at Saturn V-class rockets. It only says that *if* they built a new engine it would be in the F-1 class.

[braddock]

But the article DOES say that SpaceX will be using the (regen?) Merlin-1C for the next Falcon 1 launch.  THAT is new.

I'm not sure on the difference between Block 1 Merlin 1C and Block 2 Merlin 1C; I haven't heard them use those terms before.  Guess they have a new revision already.  By my count they'll have designed, built, and tested four major engine revisions before they even reach orbit.

[nacnud]

A F1 class engine has been mentioned by Elon for a while now. I've often wondered about this as the Falcon 9 engine clusters thrust is close(ish) to F1 performance (1 M lb for the falcon 9 cluster and 1.5 M lb for the F1). A slightly stretched F9 with a F1 class engine might make a viable vehicle asuming similar ISPs for the different engines.

[Analyst]

SpaceX looks at Saturn V class

They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.

Analyst

[Tergenev]

Why should we ask anyone in the business? Everyone in the business has managed to get us . . .what, exactly?

Access to space that nobody can afford.

Huge bureaucracies that keep re-designing systems that never get launched.

[Nate_Trost]

I wonder if they had to switch to the 1C to meet their payload mass specs after all the changes.

[aero313]

Tergenev - 16/4/2007  3:33 PM

Why should we ask anyone in the business? Everyone in the business has managed to get us . . .what, exactly?

You're right.  Current systems are only designed to maximize cost.  The real world experience of all the nit-picky details that are the difference between success and failure are meaningless.  By the way, it's all these little things that the inexperienced advocates seem to overlook or don't even understand.

I'm certainly not saying that NASA (or even Orbital anymore) is the model of an efficient organization - I'd be the last person to say that.  Just don't be so flip to throw away experience.

[meiza]

Uh, they've developed one engine, which is just 300-400 kN, smaller than the delta II main engine (RS-27C, about 1000 kN). I don't know, they could have another iteration in the middle?
Maybe a single engine in the Falcon 9 size, about 3000 kN?
If one F-1 is more than 15 Merlins, it's a big jump.
Rocketdyne had the 900 kN H-1 before the 7000 kN F-1. That was a big jump too.

[Namechange User]

I applaud them if this is indeed the case.  Sure it is technologically difficult.  Sure there will be failures on the path to success.  And yes, it will be expensive.  How expensive is relative and depends on the management of the project.  Why are some so quick to dismiss these folks before they even try saying they have no clue?  I'd say their is direct evidence to suggest they know what they are doing.  If every commercial space company had a perfect record on everything they did in front of the public would you be so quick to dismiss?  Remember this is a private company and everyone who surfs these boards, I would expect has an iterest in space.  If that is the case everyone should be very excited that a company out there is even considering this.  If outside government funding, even better.  However, I would push back hard on those that suggest everyone that works in the government structure wants to keep private industry back and do things as slong and costly as possible as some seem to suggest.

[braddock]

Nate_Trost - 16/4/2007  5:08 PM
I wonder if they had to switch to the 1C to meet their payload mass specs after all the changes.

More likely they don't trust the ablative, and the 1C will be ready to go in time.

Remember they were having some test stand failures on the ablative nozzles back in late '05 which spurred them onto the regen route.  At the time I got the impression that their confidence in the ablative was shaken.

[mong']

Analyst - 16/4/2007  9:18 PM

They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.

Analyst

not to mention the total lack of any kind of market for a saturn V class LV

[meiza]

mong' - 16/4/2007  11:37 PM

Analyst - 16/4/2007  9:18 PM

They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.

Analyst

not to mention the total lack of any kind of market for a saturn V class LV

I think it mostly makes sense in the Falcon I style, one engine per stage... Remember, Zenit's RD-171 is actually over F-1 class...

mong' - 16/4/2007  5:37 PM  

Analyst - 16/4/2007  9:18 PM  They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.  Analyst

 not to mention the total lack of any kind of market for a saturn V class LV

Falcon 9 is an attempt to eat the lunch of all the major LV's. It is reasonable to assume that if they feel threatened, then active development of larger vehicles to try to upscale the market out of Space-X's reach. It is smart for Musk (and the rest) to talk big - regardless of where the business currently is.

LV providers then have a competitive problem - how much to you go out on a limb to recapture customer interest, verses how much do you put into your immediate business to make it more attractive. If Musk can deliver below your cost floor, you move the business to where he can't be credible.

[Danderman]

For some context in the Elon saga, I would suggest reading "The Viking Story", the account of the development of the Viking rocket, where they may all the mistakes you could possibly imagine, a great learning experience. Also, "Rockets and People Vol 2" by Boris Chertok, where he goes into some of the mistakes the Russians made in developing their early rockets. I believe that the first launch attempt of the R-7 suffered pretty much the same fate as the first Falcon I attempt, after which the Russians began to purge the aft compartment with nitrogen (sound familiar?).

In other words, rockets are hard.

[Namechange User]

mong' - 16/4/2007  5:37 PM

Analyst - 16/4/2007  9:18 PM

They seem to have no idea of the magnitude of this effort. The technical problems, the schedule and the costs. Talking is cheap, to deliver is the hard part. Ask NASA, or the Russians, or anyone in the business.

Analyst

not to mention the total lack of any kind of market for a saturn V class LV

Just maybe, he plans on trying to creat the market......

[nacnud]

He does, the long term goal of SpaceX is to help make humanity a space faring civilization.  An F1 class engine would help in that goal.

[rumble]

Just think what sort of interest a zenit-class rocket for 1/2 zenit cost (guessing, totally) would generate...

[Namechange User]

nacnud - 16/4/2007  7:07 PM

He does, the long term goal of SpaceX is to help make humanity a space faring civilization.  An F1 class engine would help in that goal.

Supposedly this is the case.  That's why I just don't get all the folks on here saying how wrong this company is, how it doen't understand what it takes, etc.

[PurduesUSAFguy]

Developing a large engine that would allow them to build a single engine version of the Falcon 9 would make alot of sense, the potential HLV application aside.