Roadmap for SpaceX Heavy Lift Vehicles

[dwightlooi]

<p><strong>THIS CONCEPT IS<u> PURE FICTION</u></strong></p><p>&nbsp;<br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/8/2d37e412-9a75-4793-88f1-1e1e2e2a4e24.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p><p>Link to Full Resolution version... </p>

 

[Crossover_Maniac]

I'd comment on it except the image is so small and grainy, it's hard to read.&nbsp; Could you get a larger one from somewhere? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Feel the Hope-nosis </div>

 

[docm]

<p>Where'd you get it?&nbsp;</p><p>Let's assume for a minute this is a real SpaceX document. Just for fun.</p><p>The first entry is on the pad at LC-40, the Falcon 9, so it isn't "pure" fiction.</p><p>The second entry is the Falcon 9 Heavy, which if course depends on the F9 working</p><p>The others use an engine called "Griffon", the specs of which match the one Musk talked about 2-3&nbsp; years ago for an F-1 class engine.&nbsp; These "Eagle's" follow their existing design philosophy of using multiple generic cores.</p><p>An Ares V compatable fairing on the Eagle Heavy makes sense given Musk's offer to NASA to do lunar&nbsp;cargo launches.</p><p>Let's label it&nbsp;'plausible', but ohly if the F9 series&nbsp;works and "Griffon" becomes real.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dwightlooi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd comment on it except the image is so small and grainy, it's hard to read.&nbsp; Could you get a larger one from somewhere? <br /> Posted by Crossover_Maniac</DIV></p><p><strong>Click here for the </strong>pdf </p>

 

[mr_mark]

uhhh.....This is not fiction????!!!! You must be confused. The first Falcon 9 is already at the pad. Falcon heavy lift is already in the development stage. No this is not science fiction. Go look at the SpaceX website and you will see pics of the new Falcon 9 rocket on the pad at the cape. First launch in about 5 months.

 

[windnwar]

<p>The biggest issue would be the research would have to be underway to build the new engine right now. I don't think that is happening yet, as Elon has basically stated that they'd need a customer and a contract to build the heavy lift vehicle and engine first before just pressing ahead and building it. The engine would cost much much more, and then your back where you are with the current EELV's in that you have no engine out capability, something I'm not sure he wants to go back to. The large engine would cost considerably more in time and money to construct I'd bet versus the effort they expend in building the Merlins right now. </p><p>Eventually they'll have a Merlin 2, but it's going to be awhile yet i'd be willing to bet. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font size="2">The PDF won't work for me. Can you just re post the URL? This pic gives the Falcon IX LEO capability at more that 5 tons less than their website shows. The Heavy is rated at 4.5 tons less. I am real curious where you got this.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[windnwar]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The PDF won't work for me. Can you just re post the URL? This pic gives the Falcon IX LEO capability at more that 5 tons less than their website shows. The Heavy is rated at 4.5 tons less. I am real curious where you got this. <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV><br /><br />there is a link right under the pic to a full res gif image that you can see it. I couldn't get the pdf to work either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>there is a link right under the pic to a full res gif image that you can see it. I couldn't get the pdf to work either. <br />Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p><font size="2">I got a good look at the pic, I wanna know where it came from.</font><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[docm]

Me too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>Amazing. What if this was the plan-B for the new NASA rockets all the time? You know, funding falls short for NASA, so SpaceX steps in?</p><p>*We* may be going to the Moon after all. One way or the other. Regardless of NASA or other agencies.</p>

 

[windnwar]

<p>I right clicked the pdf and saved it to my desktop, it opened then, however there is no author info, comments, signatures etc for it. I swear though the damn thing looks familar, I'm sure I've seen it or something very similar somewhere else, I just can't figure out where that somewhere is. The gif has no info either on it. Anyone want to email a copy to SpaceX and see what they say about it?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

Elon is aiming for the Moon. This may be his mad crazy plan to get there before anybody else.

 

[dwightlooi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I right clicked the pdf and saved it to my desktop, it opened then, however there is no author info, comments, signatures etc for it. I swear though the damn thing looks familar, I'm sure I've seen it or something very similar somewhere else, I just can't figure out where that somewhere is. The gif has no info either on it. Anyone want to email a copy to SpaceX and see what they say about it?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p>(1) The very first thing I said about this chart is that it is <u><strong>pure fiction</strong></u>. You should believe me! </p><p>(2) This work of <u><strong>fan fiction</strong></u> depicts a logical and plausible progression of SpaceX's heavy lift launch system. It is LOGICAL to want to replace nine Merlins with one larger engine because regardless of that engine's higher cost, its parts count will ensure that it is cheaper to build than nine small engines. The whole "engine out" capability marketing talk is just that... marketing talk. The reason SpaceX uses nine Merlins is simple. The quickest way to become a credible player is to reach orbit with something -- anything. And a single engine, two stage Falcon 1 is the simplest practical way to do it. Once they have done that, the most capitally frugal and schedule expedient way to put an Atlas V class payload into orbit is to use whatthey have got. And, what they have got happens to be the flight proven Merlin so they use it even if it takes nine of them.</p><p>(3) Why Griffon? Well, that is rooted in ancient history. You see, SpaceX named their two current engines Krestel and Merlin respectively. Both are names adopted by Rolls-Royce for their high performance V-12 aircraft piston engines in the pre-war years and during WWII. The Krestel is the smallest at 21 liters and was even used by the earliest Messerschmitt BF-109 development aircarfts before it went to the Daimler-Benz DB601. The 26 liter Merlin arrived later and eventually powered such illustrious aircrafts as the Spitfire and the Mustang. So what's next? By late WWII the Spitfire Mk.XIV got a boost in power in form of the 36 liter 2,400hp Rolls-Royce Griffon. If it is more than co-incidence that SpaceX named their engines Krestel and Merlin, then logically the next name in that sequence is the Griffon! </p><p>(4) The stated Falcon 9 LEO launch mass assumes a typical 500~600km orbit at 50~60 degrees (eg. ISS orbit), with sufficient upper stage reserve for circularization. 8.7 tons is about right given that the capacity to this altitude and attitude is 9.2 tons w/o circularization reserves. The Falcon 9 will lift less to a polar orbit and more to a near equatorial orbit. It will also lift more if you only want to get to minimum 185km LEO altitude. This is true of every rocket in the world. Actual payload capacity really depends on the mission! As a matter of fact, this is all academic at this point because the Falcon 9's current payload adapter and handling system limits practical payloads to 6.8 tons (excluding the fairing) regardless of the vehicle's kinematics.</p>

 

[danhezee]

I remember seeing a chart similiar to that years ago. &nbsp;It had the falcon 1, falcon 5, falcon 9, and the falcon 9 heavy lined up in much the same way as this image. &nbsp;I think whoever created this took the idea from that chart. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Elon is aiming for the Moon. This may be his mad crazy plan to get there before anybody else. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>No he is not. He is on record as wanting to build infrastructure to settle Mars. The moon is just incidental.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[nimbus]

<p>"Ares Lite"</p><p>"Ares Flex"&nbsp;</p><p>"Ares H"</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mr_mark]

Now that is pure fiction (ares launchers) I find it funny that they attack Spacex as being far fetched when it is Spacex's vehicle which is sitting on the pad at the cape. The ares is no where to be found.

 

[docm]

Well....Ares I-X is at least a hangar queen, but then it has as much in common with a&nbsp;'real' Ares I as a Ford and Chevy that share the same type of windshield wiper blade <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

I posted those links because, as far as I can tell, Dwightlooi's the author to all of them. I dont see any denial of this in any of the four threads. It would be a good idea to present them as such so as to keep everyone focused on them rather than on e.g. how ridiculous an idea of his they are. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[windnwar]

I know why this kind of looks familar, go to ULA's website and look at the pdf for both the Delta IV and the Atlas V and you'll see a similar growth outline for future upgrades to the EELV's. Its a very similar setup with similar payloads though Atlas numbers show substantially higher then Delta's, though it is difficult to tell since they list completely different LEO altitudes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[dwightlooi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know why this kind of looks familar, go to ULA's website and look at the pdf for both the Delta IV and the Atlas V and you'll see a similar growth outline for future upgrades to the EELV's. Its a very similar setup with similar payloads though Atlas numbers show substantially higher then Delta's, though it is difficult to tell since they list completely different LEO altitudes. <br /> Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p>The Atlas V is a more powerful booster than the Delta IV. The Atlas V is norminally a 12.5ton to LEO vehicle, whereas the Delta IV is norminally an 8.6 ton vehicle (w/o strap-on solids in both cases). This is despite the fact that the Delta IV is the larger rocket physically; 5m diameter vs 3.8 m at about the same length, equating to about twice the fuel volume. This is because, for all its specific impulse advantages, liquid Hydrogen is horrible from a density standpoint. Despite being twice as volumenous, the Delta IV is only 250 tons at lift off whereas the Atlas V is 335 tons. This is also the reason why LH2/LOX propulsion is not traditionally used in the 1st stage of liquid fueled rockets. Its horrible density makes for a big, heavy and draggy airframe, and LH2/LOX engines produce less thrust for their size meaning the engines themselves have to weigh more to produce the thrust needed to get the rocket off the ground. The traditional arrangement is for a hydrocarbon 1st stage with a hydrogen upper stage, or if you don't care about the last few notches in performance an easier to work with and probably more reliable all hydrocarbon rocket like those which the Russians and now SpaceX champions. </p><p>The current US/Western-European trend is to use large solids at lift off with a co-burning hydrogen core stage. This arrangement, used by the Ariane 5, the Shuttle and the future ARES V alike, is pretty efficient but can be potentially less safe than a strictly vertical stacking. The ARES I uses a solid and a hydrogen upper stage in a serial stacking. </p>

 

[marko_doda]

<p>If you don't take into acount the numbers presented, the launch vehicles shown on the picture would probably be developed by spaceX when they start to get customers. </p><p>However one thing that bugs me (also present on the official falcon 9 heavy page) is how will they use an standard falcon 9 upper stage with 3 times bigger payload.</p><p> Will they use the leftover fuel in the three stages (about 7 tons) and use it to boost the rocket to greater speeds so that the 2 stage can make an orbital insertion (this will burn more fuel, since the whole rocket will need to be speeded up, but cheaper to design since there is no change in the second stage), or they will make a new stage ?</p>

 

[rubicondsrv]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you don't take into acount the numbers presented, the launch vehicles shown on the picture would probably be developed by spaceX when they start to get customers. However one thing that bugs me (also present on the official falcon 9 heavy page) is how will they use an standard falcon 9 upper stage with 3 times bigger payload. Will they use the leftover fuel in the three stages (about 7 tons) and use it to boost the rocket to greater speeds so that the 2 stage can make an orbital insertion (this will burn more fuel, since the whole rocket will need to be speeded up, but cheaper to design since there is no change in the second stage), or they will make a new stage ? <br />Posted by marko_doda</DIV><br /><br />burn the strap-on's at full power & core at reduced power seperate strap-on's at depletion and throttle up the core.</p><p>boosters such as DIVh & falcon9h are essentialy 2.5 stage rockets with the strapons as the .5 stage</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Re:

THIS CONCEPT IS PURE FICTION 
Link to Full Resolution version...

I don't remember where I read it, but recently Musk mentioned that development of a liquid hydrogen upper-stage engine is part of the Falcon development path. Such an engine, probably based upon a modified Merlin, is a more logical next step than a new 1,000,000 lbf class engine.

If SpaceX takes the proposed Falcon 9 heavy, and gives it a new 5m (or more) diameter upper-stage with a hydrogen fueled Merlin engine, then payloads to the moon or Mars considerably in excess of the Delta IVH are possible. At that point Musk might start sending things to Mars rather than waiting for even more powerful Falcons to fly.