Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-15 21:57:34

The Falcon-V sounds like it is probobly powerful enough for a two-man capsule a little bigger then Gemini with a pressurized docking collar (maybe more of a Mini Soyuz), but i've got doubts if you could fit three people and still have docking capability for a Bigelow HAB or ISS Soyuz port.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-15 22:54:30

Maybe a cluster of three Falcon V first stages, topped of by a Falcon V second stage, could launch Rutan's Tier Two or another Bigelow Prize contender. The same philosophy works for the EELV's, so I don't see why it wouldn't work here.

Euler · 2004-10-16 01:35:58

Maybe a cluster of three Falcon V first stages, topped of by a Falcon V second stage, could launch Rutan's Tier Two or another Bigelow Prize contender. The same philosophy works for the EELV's, so I don't see why it wouldn't work here.

That would give you 15 first stage engines. It would almost certainly be cheaper and safer to develop and use some bigger engines instead.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-16 01:42:16

Admittedly, the staging ratio would not be optimal for the vehicle. I'm just tossing out ideas here, because I like Elon Musk's philosophy and I think it fits in with what Burt Rutan and Robert Bigelow are trying to accomplish. Unfortunately, it looks like Rutan has his own plans, and Bigelow's written a very hefty requirement that may not be met by 2010.

Still, the thought of Burt Rutan and Elon Musk racing to build an orbital spacecraft... sounds very exciting, and all of us will be the winners.

clark · 2004-10-16 07:05:36

15 first stage engines might not be bad if he can recover most of them...

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-16 08:50:49

15 is way too many from a safety standpoint; liquid fueled engines can fail gently enough that they can just be shut down, but they could also fail "catastrophicly" and explode... taking the rocket with it. Its a small risk, but multiply that by 15 on every flight and you are just begging for trouble. Its even a question if having redundant engines is worth the multiplied risk... it is theoreticly possible to launch the CEV, which is about the size of what you need for orbital tourism, on a suped-up Delta-IV with only two engines total between first and second stage. (RS-68R and RL-60 cryogenics)

Ad Astra · 2004-10-16 14:03:00

Right now I think the best design for orbital space tourism would be a Falcon V with hybrid rocket boosters (HRBs.) Since Burt Rutan has good ties with SpaceDev, they could probably make a pair of good hybrids to up-rate the Falcon V for whatever mission Rutan might want to perform. The only difficulty would be getting SpaceX to modify the Falcon V launch pad to accomodate the new boosters.

BWhite · 2004-10-16 14:34:25

Right now I think the best design for orbital space tourism would be a Falcon V with hybrid rocket boosters (HRBs.) Since Burt Rutan has good ties with SpaceDev, they could probably make a pair of good hybrids to up-rate the Falcon V for whatever mission Rutan might want to perform. The only difficulty would be getting SpaceX to modify the Falcon V launch pad to accomodate the new boosters.

Rather hard to argue with this. :;):

Maybe mount a hybrid upper stage on top of a Falcon V first stage?

Rutan et. al. still need to develop a re-entry system since SpaceShipOne obviously cannot handle re-entry velocities.

Anyway, take a Falcon V first stage augmented with 2 (or 3) of Rutan's hybrid engines ($14 million? - how expensive is a SpaceShipOne engine?) then add an upper stage and a five seat SpaceShipTwo and you can deliver 4 passengers plus a pilot to LEO for less than $25 million excluding R&D.

(Edit: How expensive would it be to mass produce Rutan's rubber/NO2 engines? Could a cluster of two or three make a decent 2nd stage?)

= = =

Except there is nowhere in LEO to dock.

Back to that space hotel.

Since selling the name rights is lucrative (FedEx contracted to pay $200 million to name Redskins stadium) all we need is Hilton, Hyatt or Marriott to pony up $200 million to add the first space hotel to its list of properties and we are good to go.

How to they get their money back? By pursuing the business of the business traveller, one of the most lucrative target market niches.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-16 15:05:33

Robert Bigelow made his fortune through the hotel industry (I want to say he owns Budget Inn.) His space hotel would probably bear the name of his hotel chain.

Rxke · 2004-10-16 15:20:27

But Bigelow has repeatedly said he does *not* want to build spacehotels, he's looking for space errr science, r&D people etc...

Well, probably a good idea to 'force' Branson types to buy his hardware?

Euler · 2004-10-16 16:42:08

Maybe mount a hybrid upper stage on top of a Falcon V first stage? ...Could a cluster of two or three make a decent 2nd stage?

The problem with hybrid engines is their low isp. Spaceshipone's hybrid engine has an estimated isp of 250s(the actual numbers have not been released). That would be pretty low even for a first stage, so it is not a reasonable option for a second stage.

BWhite · 2004-10-16 20:28:52

Robert Bigelow made his fortune through the hotel industry (I want to say he owns Budget Inn.) His space hotel would probably bear the name of his hotel chain.

On one hand, yes. On the other, if Hilton offered Bigelow $250 million. . .

Maybe ego makes way for cash.

BWhite · 2004-10-16 20:32:57

Maybe mount a hybrid upper stage on top of a Falcon V first stage? ...Could a cluster of two or three make a decent 2nd stage?
The problem with hybrid engines is their low isp. Spaceshipone's hybrid engine has an estimated isp of 250s(the actual numbers have not been released). That would be pretty low even for a first stage, so it is not a reasonable option for a second stage.

Okay, maybe you are right about the upper stage.

But for strap-on boosters for the 1st stage perhaps the price and size is about right even if not ideal from an ISP or engineering point of view.

Besides, Rutan's rubber rockets would be recoverable as a stage 1 strap-on, no? Build SpaceShipOne with a tiny parachute system instead of a crew cabin, no wings and attach it to a Falcon V.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-16 21:58:45

I don't think that SS1's rather dinky little rocket would have enough thrust to even budge the Falcon-V, those little Hybrid rockets are pretty puny any which way. The rocket would need to be signifigantly larger to make any payload improvement. The Isp is also like 100 seconds less then conventional Aluminum+Perchlorate solid or Hydrocarbon/LOX engines. It would have to be a brand new engine for sure... Using the SS1 body as a booster recovery system would be alot of trouble and add signifigant dry weight to those boosters too, not a good thing. If they are recoverable, it'll definatly be just parachutes and straight back down.

You've also added two more engines, which if either one of them fail the mission must abort since the vehicle can't reach orbit without them, and they have to seperate reliably too. Ultimatly the problem is the Falcon-V is too small to launch tourists, its hardly a Delta-II/R-7 competitor.

For the design of an orbital tourist vehicle, maybe Burt will look to the X-38 design that his company built aerodynamic testbeds for.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-16 23:27:48

When I suggested HRM's, I was thinking of something like the two shuttle SRB's, where they contribute a great deal to the total impulse for the vehicle. A Delta-like cluster of many smaller motors is doable, but it multiplies the (small) chance of failure that the motors have.

Burt Rutan is thinking about using his basic SpaceShipOne design for Tier Two, rather than the X-38. The big difference is that SSO is ballistic for most of its re-entry while the X-38 generates lift all the way down. Of course, Rutan may change his plans, but the inherent problem of the lifting body is its poor handling at low speeds. Even the parafoil on the X-38 was not enough to save the vehicle from fairly high landing speeds.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-17 09:14:16

The Tier Two vehicle is still going to be a suborbital vehicle, which can probobly break the 60mi barrier if Burt uses somthing bigger then White Knight as a carrier plane. Anyway, the SS1 design even if scaled up cannot survive reentry from orbital velocities: the little drag wings would rip right off and the ablative paint wouldn't be enough to keep thing from burning up Columbia style... Mach 25, not Mach 3.

The X-38 on the other hand IS intended for orbital velocity return, and Burt's company helped NASA build the aerodynamic test beds and autopilots. It is the simplest manned orbital vehicle project actually undertaken since Mercury, and weighs about 7.5-8.0MT with deorbit motor, give or take for booster adapter & escape engines. Its the logical place to start for a commertial orbital tourist vehicle.

The trouble with these Hybrid engines isn't going away because of the nature of how they separate fuel from oxidizer inherintly limits performance so their specific impulse is pretty low and it is difficult to reach high thrusts. I don't like the idea of boosters at all on the Falcon-V first stage to try and boost its payload for manned vehicles because it reduces redundancy; if any of the boosters fail, the rocket can't reach orbit and must use the dangerous abort option. It partially eliminates the Falcon-V's impressive redundancy that it relies on to avoid needing bigger engines.

I still maintain that the Falcon-V is too small for anything but a commertial Gemini no matter what you do to it, a CEV/OSP class vehicle demands a larger rocket with larger primary engines, preferably with a cryogenic upper stage and not the heavy kerosene ones.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-17 23:05:47

The Tier Two vehicle is still going to be a suborbital vehicle, which can probobly break the 60mi barrier if Burt uses somthing bigger then White Knight as a carrier plane. Anyway, the SS1 design even if scaled up cannot survive reentry from orbital velocities: the little drag wings would rip right off and the ablative paint wouldn't be enough to keep thing from burning up Columbia style... Mach 25, not Mach 3.

In the Discovery channel SS1 special, Burt states that Tier II is an orbital craft and Tier III is flights beyond earth orbit. He also shows a sketch of an SS1-type vehicle on top of a rocket. Apparently the Virgin Galactic VSS Enterprise is still part of Tier I.

As to Tier II, I don't know if Burt could scale up SS1, although the TPS would certainly change to something more robust to survive re-entry. Wing size shouldn't be an issue, as the shuttle's big wings are intended for high cross range (a feature never used, btw) and for a lifting re-entry. SS1 is more like Max Faget's stub-winged DC-3 shuttle, where the craft would re-enter ballistically and use its tiny wings for subsonic approach and landing.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-18 10:38:09

I don't know if the Disco Chan has that straight, I though that the "Tier Two" series was going to be the "family model" of SS1 intended for suborbital tourist flights following a similar method as SS1.

The TPS system would have to be redone from the ground up for orbital entry, but my concern is that the shape of the wings is not suitable for reentry from these extreme velocities... the Shuttle wings are large, but they are delta-shaped and don't have fin structures tailing off of them. The SS1's wings are shaped in such a fasion for use in the low supersonic range, I have doubts they can withstand hypersonic flight as in the DC-3 "Giant X-15" shape.

clark · 2004-10-19 07:33:25

It would appear some others figure Falcon V capable of launching what is termed as a "Alternative Crew Transfer" vehicle in conjunction with VSE architecture.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/65852main_tSpac … tSpace.pdf

refer to page 7.

This would make sense, since you could have a staging area to transfer crew back and forth to Earth, and at the staging area you could transfer to Moon-LEO areas (or Mars missions).

We can go back and forth on this guys, but Elon was an advisor to the group who made this presentation, so it appears that they have manned orbital launches in mind for the Falcon V. They consider it possible, and they want to do it with Falcon V, so they have some idea that it can be done.

Maybe they can't launch CEV, but it looks like they can launch something to get people up there.

Told ya GCN. Now eat your hat.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-19 09:01:34

Ummmm dude, they've got all sorts of crazy ideas on that PDF... the Lockheed Shuttle-II, some kind of X-34 on 747, and other stuff. Nor is this even a NASA report, the "working group" on the first page... SpaceX, Scaled, Kistler, and others, absent are Lockheed, Boeing, and the other companies who have actually built real working space vehicles. None of them, not Elon, not Burt, not the folks at Kistler have ever built a single working orbital launch vehicle. Ever... This is not a "report," its a gloss brochure for AltSpace.

Stupid ideas like having no minimum crew size, extensive orbital assembly, and how the public wouldn't be "interested" in seeing an "invisible" HLLV rocket thats 30-40 stories tall and even exceeds the Saturn-V's power... And no clear business model at all for what these folk intend to DO up there.

clark · 2004-10-19 09:09:59

Patience my worthy advesary, patience. :laugh:

My point being was simply that Elon Musk was an advisor working with one of the groups who is taking the whole VSE rather seriously. They want more NASA funds, and they have offered an idea. Now, you're entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it will turn out to be, but some rather serious folks are considering the Falcon V as being capable of launching humans into orbit. They wouldn't refer to it unless they were considering it possible, and if they didn't think they could do it.

Perhaps your assessment differs, but the guy in charge of SpaceX, Elon, has stated that he wants to build man orbital capability with his rockets. They refrence the Falcon V as a possibility. It is with this in mind we should consider the Falcon V. Yes, they haven't launched anything (SpaceX) but that is about to change come early 2005 with the Falcon 1, and a lot of other people have considered it more than possible by putting their money where their faith is.

The Falcon V is a bigger version of the Falcon 1, not a redesign. Think of Falcon 1 as a minurature test version of Falcon V.

The main point though is that Bigelow and his ilk want to do something in space, but need a way to get people up there. People like Musk are working on it, and I truly believe they will do it. Strike that, I know they will.

Falcon V is not being designed to launch CEV- it is being designed to launch something entirely different. A simple and cheap way to get people up into space.

Want to bet?

Ad Astra · 2004-10-19 10:15:18

I don't think you can make a much simpler or cheaper spacecraft than the CEV. I mean, a capsule is the bare-bones spacecraft designed to take a given number of people to space. The only way to go any smaller is to cut your crew size. CEV will hold 5-7 astronauts, while Falcon V's capsule may only hold 2-3.

If VSE follows a highly modular exploration strategy, it may make sense to use two Falcon V capsules in place of a single CEV launch. However, check out this report from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/65847main_orbital.pdf]Orbital Sciences. Their message is that using the Lagrange points is a waste of time, and that in-space assembly should be minimized through use of a "Magnum" rocket.

clark · 2004-10-19 10:48:07

I don't think you can make a much simpler or cheaper spacecraft than the CEV. I mean, a capsule is the bare-bones spacecraft designed to take a given number of people to space. The only way to go any smaller is to cut your crew size. CEV will hold 5-7 astronauts, while Falcon V's capsule may only hold 2-3.

CEV is not just a human capsule- it's a family of modules. The human cargo is just one variation of the module.

Now, having the option to trade out people instead of a full compliment allows for different possibilities on mission developments.

We'll see how many people they can hold in a Falcon V, but the point still remains that they are considering launching people on it.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-19 11:02:16

Also in the variation of cargo it is the most precious and has alot more variables with regards to mission weight for duration that must be calculated in to the design.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-19 13:14:06

CEV is not just a human capsule- it's a family of modules. The human cargo is just one variation of the module.
Now, having the option to trade out people instead of a full compliment allows for different possibilities on mission developments.
We'll see how many people they can hold in a Falcon V, but the point still remains that they are considering launching people on it.

Ahhh but Clark, the human componet of the proposed CEV is such a SMALL fraction of the vehicle weight, simply taking people out of it will only save you a few hundred kilos, not the several thousand you would need to put CEV on Falcon-V. The only way Falcon-V will fly people is to build an entirely different and smaller craft, holding not more then 2, perhaps three people. I think that four would be too many, and the six of an ISS crew (w/ Zarya-II installed) is impossible.

I really don't think that Falcon-I is a mini Falcon-V... going from a two-engine truck-launched vehicle to a 6-7 engine pad launched vehicle is a whole different entity. I think that Elon (or the Kistler folk who's vehicle is used extensively in the brochure) has lost it if he thinks he can fit 4+ people on his rocket, right up there with his (in jest? who knows)proposal to replace US ICBMs with his rockets. And launching two half-CEVs on a pair of Falcon-V's... now you need a pair of $30M launches for a man-rated Falcon-V with improved upper, and build/prepare two capsules instead of one. Flying a "Delta-IV-B" Medium EELV+ ought to cost around $100M, so how much money are you really saving at the expense of increased risk and mission complexity?

I remind, who has experience building reliable rockets? Atlas rockets have a fantastic history over hundreds of flights, the Delta rockets are among the best in the world after hundreds of flights, and so on... Elon though? *Crickets...*

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-10-15 21:57:34

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#27 2004-10-15 22:54:30

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#28 2004-10-16 01:35:58

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#29 2004-10-16 01:42:16

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#30 2004-10-16 07:05:36

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#31 2004-10-16 08:50:49

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#32 2004-10-16 14:03:00

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#33 2004-10-16 14:34:25

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#34 2004-10-16 15:05:33

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#35 2004-10-16 15:20:27

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#36 2004-10-16 16:42:08

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#37 2004-10-16 20:28:52

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#38 2004-10-16 20:32:57

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#39 2004-10-16 21:58:45

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#40 2004-10-16 23:27:48

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#41 2004-10-17 09:14:16

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#42 2004-10-17 23:05:47

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#43 2004-10-18 10:38:09

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#44 2004-10-19 07:33:25

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#45 2004-10-19 09:01:34

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#46 2004-10-19 09:09:59

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#47 2004-10-19 10:15:18

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#48 2004-10-19 10:48:07

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#49 2004-10-19 11:02:16

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#50 2004-10-19 13:14:06

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

Board footer