LM Plan Evolves Atlas to Saturn V-Class Performance

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

drwayne

Guest
"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>
 
S

shyningnight

Guest
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.
 
S

shyningnight

Guest
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.
 
G

grooble

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

spacester

Guest
<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>
 
S

shyningnight

Guest
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.
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<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.
 
M

mattblack

Guest
>>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>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
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>
 
S

shyningnight

Guest
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 />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
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>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
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>
 
S

shyningnight

Guest
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.
 
H

henryhallam

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

shyningnight

Guest
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.
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
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 />
 
M

mattblack

Guest
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>
 
M

mattblack

Guest
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>
 
F

formulaterp

Guest
"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?
 
N

nacnud

Guest
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 />
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
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?
 
H

holmec

Guest
>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>
 
N

nacnud

Guest
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 />
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts