LM Plan Evolves Atlas to Saturn V-Class Performance

[drwayne]

"Except when you dump it into the sea !"<br /><br />Yep, I somehow don't think Henry was dealing with that aspect of the problem, merely considering the reuse considerations brought about by firing the engine.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

Yup...<br />All kinds of things are reusable until you dunk then in salt water...<br />Like boats, for example... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Paul F.

 

[spacefire]

hey I have an idea: all boosters, instead of a cylindrical shape, should have a half-cylinder shape. this way they become lifing bodies and they can be guided for recovery. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

I reiterate;<br />Screw Saturn... SeaDragon! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm<br /><br />Build it in a shipyard, rather than a billion dollar rocket factory, fuel it with Kerosene, tow it out to a sea based facility, load the LOX, and launch 500 tons to LEO.... <br /><br />Now.. granted.. no one has actually tried to build one yet...<br />But (daydreaming) THINK of the possibilities! 500 tons of station to LEO in one launch... 500 tons of interplanetary ship in one launch...500 tons of fuel/oxidizer for an interplanetary ship in one launch. .. 500 tons of Moon/Mars equipment to LEO in one launch...<br /><br />Heck, scale the idea DOWN by half and you are STILL about double of a Saturn V launch... Now put an NTR upper stage on it! <br /><br />Sorry.. I like to think BIG...<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[grooble]

Wouldn't it take a work force of like 2 million people to build it

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">If any of that outside of the Space hotel ensues it will be a major surprise. I do not think you are smoking anything, I think that you are just delusional. <br /><br />Going to the Moon and Mars will happen but not in that time frame and I doubt that Musk will be able to pay for it. </font><br /><br />Hey I got you to spring for the Space Hotels, it' s a start!<br /><br />It's a fine line between delusion and unbridled optimism, so I try to keep a bridle on to stay reasonable.<br /><br />Yeah that timetable would be a surprise even to me. But with so many people detailing the worst case, it seems fitting that someone presents the best case. IOW, I'm just doing my job. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Musk doesn't have to pay for anything but development and launch costs. SpaceX would be making big bucks every flight. The question is who his customers would be. <br /><br />Space Hotels would seem to be the killer app, but I wanted to point out that there are many additional conceivable payloads, they just need to be financed.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

Grooble;<br /><br />The way I read "the plan", it takes a shipyard... and SeaDragon is HUGE for a rocket, but it ain't a big deal compared to a bulk tanker or aircraft carrier!<br />There are plenty of shipyards that would be glad to get a contract for 20 of 'em... <br /><br />Paul F.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="orange">"I wish someone would build a flying engine model to see if they really do compensate for altitude effectively."</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"That has been done by a university. I think they made 2 flights with more to come. i do not have a link. "</font><br /><br />It was Garvey Spacecraft Corporation. Their more recent flights seem to have switched to conventional bell nozzles though. I don't really follow them closely, so can't say why.

 

[mattblack]

>>One problem using 2 RS-68 is you have no engine out capability<<<br /><br />Didn't someone once say that using the 5-segment SRBs reduced or eliminated the constraints for engine out? I think it was Dennis Jenkins in his fine Shuttle book. Also, 1x RS-68 has almost the thrust of 2x SSME.<br /><br />But all this suggests to me that an uprate of the RS-68 is is needed, perhaps the talked-about Regenerative modifications. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I guess you could go to FLOX and pick up a tiny bit more ISP, and better density - but I wouldn't want to be around it.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

FLOX?<br /><br />F being Flourine? (guessing...)<br />I think the state of Florida would have some issues with Flourine laced exhaust over their state.... maybe... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

Yep, F is Flourine<br /><br />Makes for an oxidizer that is touchy and hypergolic with pretty much anything - oh yeah, there are a few toxicity questions. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Well, not really questions really.<br /><br />rofl<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

So you're saying that Flourine isn't a perfect solution..<br />But maybe we can work with it... work out the bugs <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Paul F.

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow"><br />work out the bugs<br /></font><br /><br />Hmm, FLOX as insecticide...

 

[shyningnight]

See? <br />Just have launches go over insect-infested areas... two birds, one stone.. so to speak.<br /><br />OK.. so it's not a perfect plan... <br />It's a start! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Paul F.

 

[gunsandrockets]

I don't know why people are so put off by the large size of the Sea Dragon booster. Sure the Sea Dragon masses 18,000 tonnes, but it is built at a shipyard and handled at sea. The Saturn V at 2,000 tons was a bear to handle on land.<br /><br />And don't let the large mass fool you. A chemical tanker or a liquid natural gas tanker costs about $1,000 per tonne of cargo carried to construct. Aside from the engine components, the Sea Dragon isn't much more than a big hull with tanks. A sea ship of comparable loaded mass would cost about $18 million to build.<br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

Nice idea, the Seadragon. But if they don't want to build Saturn Vs anymore and struggle to do any new booster, what makes you think they want to build a gargantuan monster like that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Okay!! I've gone back over my reference materials, including some 'Flight' magazines and old 'Aviation & Space Technology' clippings. <br /><br />And: I'VE SEEN THE SSME ROCKET LIGHT...<br /><br />SSMEs, re-usable or no are MAN-RATED. RS-68s are NOT: would cost mucho dollaros to make them so.<br />It seems that when SSMEs were tested to destruction in the days before the new BLOCK 2 improved SSMEs, a thrust rating of 114% percent was attained with *reasonable* reliability. It seems to me that with a cheaper, disposable version of the SSME (however thats done), the less-stressed BLOCK 2 with all its improvements (throat diameter, improved turbopumps with silicon nitride bearings, less welds etc.) would better be able to stand up to uprated thrust. A sea-level thrust of 420klb should then be obtainable.<br /><br />TOTAL SEA-LEVEL TAKEOFF THRUST OF SDHLV WITH 5-SEGMENT RSRBs & UPRATED SSMEs: 8.46 million pounds.<br /><br />Okay, I'm a disposable SSME convert. Count me in!!!<br /><br />Next step: Develop a really good Upper/Earth Departure stage. Some years ago I communicated with various interested people over the remaining F-1 and J-2 engines and was informed there were approximately 13x unflown J-2 engines left in existence. However, using 4x RL-60s would give adequate Earth Departure Stage performance for a 30+plus ton payload. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[formulaterp]

"Falcon V will be flying before you know it, and it can launch payloads that do significant things at the lowest price. This will attract a high enough flight rate to fuel the optimism to build Falcon X. Elon only needs 5-6 flights a year for the first two years to pull the trigger on Falcon X "<br /><br />Does this make any sense to anyone? How can SpaceX fly 10-12 Falcon V missions over 2 years and possibly have enough money to fund a Saturn V class rocket?<br /><br />Keep in mind Musk only plans on charging $16M per flight. That's only $160-192M in total revenue. What sort of profit margin is he working with?<br /><br />Also Falcon V, per SpaceX's website is rated to loft 1920kg to GTO. Does he expect to grab a big share of the commercial market with that? For comparison's sake here are some recent numbers put up by Sea-Launch:<br /><br />Spaceway = 6080 kg<br />XM-3 = 4703 kg<br />Telstar 18 = 4640 kg<br />DIRECTV 7s = 5483 kg<br />Telstar 14 = 4694 kg<br /><br />Inmarsat I-4 = 5900 kg (to be launched)<br />Galaxy 16 = 4700 kg (to be launched)<br /><br />So Falcon V can't launch any of these, and they hardly would require a Saturn V class booster. What am I missing here?

 

[nacnud]

If they have a low cost per flight, <b>and</b> a high reliability, then insurance costs could drop very substantially. Then it might be worth making lower cost satellites.<br /><br />The falcon V has the potential to change the launch market in a subtle but very significant way.<br />

 

[henryhallam]

I suspect "Falcon X" will not turn out to be Saturn V class but more along the lines of Delta IV Heavy in terms of payload. Do we have any confirmed information about what it will be?

 

[holmec]

>A380 is more of an example of why NOT to build a big rocket at risk.<<br /><br />One thing we are overlooking here is that Airbus took years in developing 'clout' in the industry. They started with smaller planes and now they are making a really big plane. But it didn't happen over night.<br /><br />With Saturn V there was no market just a project.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I don’t think there are any hard facts on the falcon X, but that never stopped me speculating before.<br /><br />Given two things that I think are relevant,<br /><br />1) Elton has stated he wants to build an F1 class engine<br />2) The Futron design reliability report.<br /><br />So, jumping to conclusions the falcon X would look like the falcon I but with a single F1 class engine instead of the Merlin.<br /><br />It’s the next rocket that would be a BFR, (maybe).<br />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...but that never stopped me speculating before."</font><br /><br />Speculation is a good thing... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I'm thinking in terms of the Saturn IB. If Elon is really planning on a Saturn-V class booster, then he's got to be thinking about making an interim booster that is going to have significant common components with BFR. The IB shared its S-IVB upper stage with the Saturn V (used as the third stage). The <b>best-case</b> scenario for SpaceX (assuming it's possible) would be to make a booster that can be used essentially unchanged as the second <b>and</b> third stages of the BFR. Of course this begs the question of propellants. The second and third stages of the Saturn-V used LOX/LH2. If Elon going to move into LH2 -- or stick with Kerosene?<br /><br />Unfortunately -- I don't see any specs on how much mass the second and third stages of the Saturn-V could have lifted to orbit by themselves, so I don't know what mass-to-orbit such an interim booster might have. I'm sure that someone here could work the calcs from the info on astronautix.