News SPACEX Falcon Heavy Teaser

[Capt_hensley]

People all this is very old news, I've built a mesh in 3DS already based on images posted on the web site.

The first image is the Space X Image out of the "Falcon Overview.pdf"
The second image is my feeble attempt to create a Falcon X and XX rocket. All falcon 9s were imported from Glider and Majortom sources...

F1
F1E
F9 Dragon Cargo
F9 Dragon Manned
F9 With 5.2 Meter Fairing
F9 Heavy 5.2 Meter Fairing(2 strapons)
FX Large diameter body
FX Heavy
FXX Large diameter body and then some.

The lineage above, is straight from the design department, and Elon Musk is serious about going to Mars. Do your homework. I did!

Look for the attached image in the "Space X Propulsion.pdf"
More info here

http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf
http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf
http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

 

[fsci123]

They are going to make another rocket like the delta or something... Im dead serious i have one of their documents with a similar looking rocket and a quick silouhette of the rocket on the video...

 

[PhantomCruiser]

SpaceX wouldn't exist at all without NASA offering contracts for ISS flights. Seems like their only real role right now is to be a customer for SpaceX.

Seems that Falcon 9 would not have lifted off without NASA money.

There is a skype interview from TWIS where Miles and Elon are conversing about the future manifests. It took place shortly after the media ran wild about Elon and his ex-wife and some possible money issues.

In short, Elon said that while NASA is a big SpaceX customer, they are far from the only customer, and that SpaceX would have a future even without the NASA contracts. A few weeks later IIRC there was a media release about the deal SpaceX made with Irridium.

Perhaps SpaceX wouldn't be able to move ahead as quickly without NASA's money, but the overall plan was to move forward anyway.

 

[Ark]

Perhaps SpaceX wouldn't be able to move ahead as quickly without NASA's money, but the overall plan was to move forward anyway.

The market outside of NASA is pretty limited, though. They certainly wouldn't be flying outside of LEO. What NASA could do for them is pay for heavy lift capacity for deep space missions, or eventually Mars. The private spaceflight market just isn't going to pay for that.

 

[Chupacabra]

...They certainly wouldn't be flying outside of LEO...

Well, I wouldn't say it would be impossible, they have numbers up for getting into a Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit. It wouldn't be too far off to expect them to be contracted to destinations above LEO.

 

[Zachstar]

You can't blame engineers for politics.

Sorry but I blame quite a few of them. While a group of brave engineers finally started questioning the "safe simple soon" bullcrap. Others stayed silent because of course the job issue. When they didn't speak up the program got gutted because it was too late to do any meaningful changes and the mass layoffs happening are a result. One of many

Of course one can't. I blame management and politics.

All three are responsible just management and politics much more so.

They are going to make another rocket like the delta or something... Im dead serious i have one of their documents with a similar looking rocket and a quick silouhette of the rocket on the video...

Rockets often look similar because they face the same type of forces going up. However the engines are far different.

The market outside of NASA is pretty limited, though. They certainly wouldn't be flying outside of LEO. What NASA could do for them is pay for heavy lift capacity for deep space missions, or eventually Mars. The private spaceflight market just isn't going to pay for that.

Depends what you mean by private. There is nothing keeping other nations from grouping together and using SpaceX heavy lift to orbit mars bound modules and stages. The laws only prevent sharing technology that can be used in WMD launcher production which is not spec sheets for launch forces and loading.

Well, I wouldn't say it would be impossible, they have numbers up for getting into a Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit. It wouldn't be too far off to expect them to be contracted to destinations above LEO.

They need to develop a third stage. Tho there are alot of questions that have to be answered before they can develop one needed for a variety of missions beyond LEO.

 

[anemazoso]

The market outside of NASA is pretty limited, though. They certainly wouldn't be flying outside of LEO. What NASA could do for them is pay for heavy lift capacity for deep space missions, or eventually Mars. The private spaceflight market just isn't going to pay for that.

It's not the private market that will make Elon die a gazillionaire. He is by himself bringing the commercial satalite launch market back to the US. I think NASA money has helped expedite this process by helping fund development of F9 but if they never buy a Dragon for human fights Elon will still be able to bootstrap his own Space Program along with Bigelow.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Doesn't SpaceX already have a Bigelow "station" module on it's manifest?
I think it's a bit funny that two self-made millionairs are paving the way for a dude like me to get into space (once the cost come down even more).

Yeah, found it. Sometime in 2014.

 

[Zachstar]

Doesn't SpaceX already have a Bigelow "station" module on it's manifest?
I think it's a bit funny that two self-made millionairs are paving the way for a dude like me to get into space (once the cost come down even more).

Yeah, found it. Sometime in 2014.

Hate to break it to ya but unless you have atleast 100 thousand USD ready to blow away (Minimal even for SS2 into suborbit today) You and me are not heading into Orbit anytime soon (As in a majority of a century at minimal).

You would need a craft with the ability to take off horizontally, lose nothing but fuel on the way to orbit, Be safe (No hyperbolic so RCS would need to be something far more complicated) And of course have lovely features such as.

Ability to land on smaller runways if an emergency deorbit is needed.

Ability to change from people to cargo in mere hours.

Be able to operate in rain or weather that would easily keep the shuttle on the pad.

Energy storage that is not fuel cell based or is reliant on solar panel deployment before deorbit.

Ability to loiter for hours after reentry.

Of course many more in todays regulatory environment.

Sure you can break one or more of those and still beat the cost of anything current by a huge margin but seat costs would easily rise out of range for all but the rich.


Elon might be able to let NASA fly manned missions in the future. And drop the costs but lets not get carried away.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

It might be contrary to popular opinion, but I'm not a complete and total idiot.

What Bigelow and SpaceX can do is bring the cost per pound down from the entirely impossible for me to afford, to the realm of the completely impractical for me to afford.

For instance, the kid and I were looking around for a new car for me. What I'll get is a "practical" 4 door sedan. I want (and can afford) the Mercedes SLS AMG, I just don't want to hear my wife griping about it for the next 40 years.

 

[N_Molson]

What Bigelow and SpaceX can do is bring the cost per pound down from the entirely impossible for me to afford, to the realm of the completely impractical for me to afford.

Good one. :rofl: I presume that space fanatics will bypass the "consequences" step, some people do that with gambling...

 

[Spacethingy]

I love SpaceX's website.

After reading for a few minutes, I'm searching for the "add to basket" button. :lol:

I wonder if they accept Mastercard...

 

[hribek]

Hate to break it to ya but unless you have atleast 100 thousand USD ready to blow away (Minimal even for SS2 into suborbit today) You and me are not heading into Orbit anytime soon (As in a majority of a century at minimal).

You would need a craft with the ability to take off horizontally, lose nothing but fuel on the way to orbit, Be safe (No hyperbolic so RCS would need to be something far more complicated) And of course have lovely features such as.

Ability to land on smaller runways if an emergency deorbit is needed.

Ability to change from people to cargo in mere hours.

Be able to operate in rain or weather that would easily keep the shuttle on the pad.

Energy storage that is not fuel cell based or is reliant on solar panel deployment before deorbit.

Ability to loiter for hours after reentry.

Of course many more in todays regulatory environment.

Sure you can break one or more of those and still beat the cost of anything current by a huge margin but seat costs would easily rise out of range for all but the rich.


Elon might be able to let NASA fly manned missions in the future. And drop the costs but lets not get carried away.

That and not being based in the US where ITAR restricts you in selling your product.

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

These folks might eventually put SpaceX out of work.

 

[Urwumpe]

Ability to land on smaller runways if an emergency deorbit is needed.

Completely useless feature - the next big runway is ALWAYS in the range, if you have at least minimal cross range capability. Your orbit ground track rushes at supersonic speed over Earth, that is often forgotten here.

Ability to change from people to cargo in mere hours.

That can't even be done by current airliners. It is also practically an useless feature again, since cargo and people have different demands that permit strong optimizations for the task.

Be able to operate in rain or weather that would easily keep the shuttle on the pad.

That can be easily achieved, since the shuttle was very touchy. But even a Soyuz launcher has limits.

Energy storage that is not fuel cell based or is reliant on solar panel deployment before deorbit.

That is nonsense. First of all you should never prescribe technical solutions, and that is what you are doing here by exclusion.

Next neither fuel cells, nor photovoltaics have any problems in spaceflight. Fuel cells have even strong advantages for manned spaceflight, as long as you have short missions and not a space station. I can't find any argumentation even for having a backup for fuel cells. Most fuel cells weight only a fraction of the mass that batteries would need to replace them, even if these batteries would only need to do that for a few hours.

And solar arrays ALWAYS come with batteries. With redundancy and EOL capacity, you just need to launch with charged batteries to have up to a few days of electricity even if the solar arrays fail.

Ability to loiter for hours after reentry.

Completely useless feature, no, even a feature that politicians would only demand to prevent something being build. This assumes you need to follow airline traffic patterns, which is a pretty stupid idea: Spacecraft are no aircraft. They drop like a stone and travel much faster through the air than anything that is limited to air.

What you need is just a tiny piece of software in the ATCC and some regulations for the ground and that feature, that would make your spacecraft a monstrosity without capability, would not even be missed.

Once you permit deorbit, the landing slot has to be reserved and the landing patterns of the aircraft adapted. Spacecraft arrive with seconds accuracy, you don't need to schedule them in a wait pattern for hours. Also spacecraft enter controlled airspace only minutes before landing and arrive at a much steeper angle because of physics (A good subsonic glider is a poor reentry vessel). They won't interfere with the normal landing patterns of aircraft until shortly before landing.

Of course you can always demand the most complicated and most limited feature to be implemented for the pure awesomeness. But a much simpler solution with much more focus on the task will pass its CDR decades before your "super-airliner for space" is ready.

 

[Capt_hensley]

More Source Info

http://ultimate-infusion.blogspot.com/2010/12/historic-flight.html
http://blog.jedchristiansen.com/2010/12/22/meet-the-rockets-that-will-be-bigger-than-apollo-spacex/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24179.225
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/spacex-talks-falcon-x-heavy-for-125.html
http://spacethebeyond.tumblr.com/post/928343710/spacex-unveils-plans-for-falcon-heavy-lift
http://crowlspace.com/?p=929
http://www.murc.ws/showpost.php?p=681693&postcount=5
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ne=SpaceX Unveils Ambitious Exploration Goals

 

[Zachstar]

As I said cheap. It has to be able to operate as an aircraft. Otherwise forget about you and me being able to purchase a ticket for any kind of reasonable price.

You need loiter. Maybe in Germany politicians and customers will accept a craft that has little to no ability to loiter in a pattern. Not in the US. Otherwise your big craft without my "completely useless" features would be easy as pie to make in comparason. Mainly an issue of engines and weight. Hell mise well just use 2 craft if it were that easy. SSTO is likely a "completely useless feature as well"

Also where are you going to go in orbit folks? A space station? Then do what? Float around and watch the earth? Let's be real. 45 Thousand ft or MAYBE suborbital (If the environutjobs dont shut that down with claims on it increasing global warming) Is about the best we can hope for unless there is a true need to move mass numbers of folks off planet in our lifetime. We will colonize the ocean before we decide on space.

Again SpaceX and other companies can give NASA the ability to run manned spaceflight again. Yet, we really need to understand that a space ticket for you and me is simply not going to happen in any kind of reasonable timeframe.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Why does "cheap" mean "operates as an aircraft"?

From what I can see, trying to make a spacecraft operate like an aircraft will only ADD to the cost.

The obsticals you mentioned are primarily regulatory in nature and can thus be ignored. US gov doesn't approve? Great i'm sure someone else will be interested.

 

[Urwumpe]

As I said cheap. It has to be able to operate as an aircraft. Otherwise forget about you and me being able to purchase a ticket for any kind of reasonable price.

Considering the energy that every kilogram of me would need for entering orbit, I have little expectations there. But dream on. Maybe you fit into a 10 kg box one day...at least for space burial.

You need loiter. Maybe in Germany politicians and customers will accept a craft that has little to no ability to loiter in a pattern. Not in the US. Otherwise your big craft without my "completely useless" features would be easy as pie to make in comparason. Mainly an issue of engines and weight. Hell mise well just use 2 craft if it were that easy. SSTO is likely a "completely useless feature as well"

Why do you need to? You say that so easily like it is "alternativeless" but it absolutely is not.

You already loiter well in space. Once you stop loitering by your deorbit burn, you will arrive precisely with maximal 10 seconds variation at the spaceport. if your spacecraft has a damage that requires it to return instantly to Earth, you have the same situation as aircraft have. Then you also don't loiter around, but make other aircraft loiter in a wait pattern.

And the best wait pattern for a spacecraft is in orbit.

Again SpaceX and other companies can give NASA the ability to run manned spaceflight again. Yet, we really need to understand that a space ticket for you and me is simply not going to happen in any kind of reasonable timeframe.

As said above. Thermodynamics are a law, not a option. You need at least 32 MJ energy per kilogram for entering LEO or 9 kWh. 650 kWh for an average human.

 

[zerofay32]

Price is also not ever going to be the same as air travel. If you are going to wait for space travel to cost say 200 USD a seat, you'll be waiting a long time. For me, I'm saving up my money and instead of going to Disney World for two weeks, I'll take my family on an orbital vacation. Sure, you might only get 3 or 4 days in orbit but it is also an experience that has no equivalent.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Thermodynamics are a law, not a option. You need at least 32 MJ energy per kilogram for entering LEO or 9 kWh. 650 kWh for an average human.

Thus the key to "affordable" spaceflight is to lower the cost per kWh. SpaceX is poised to do exactly that.

We may not see orbital $200 orbital flights in our life times but if SpaceX can get the price down to $100,000 a person, I suspect there will be no shortage of customers.