SpaceX Merlin 3 an F-1 class?

[docm]

Merlin 3 an F-1 class beast??<br /><br />If so then it'll put a whole new face on heavy lifting in the next decade.<br /><br />From the latest SpaceX update post;<br /><br />http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=updates&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/updates_01_05.php<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> <br /> /><br />The next major engine development for SpaceX is the Merlin 2, where we will aim for a significant increase in thrust and chamber pressure. <b>Merlin 2 will serve as an exact scale version of the F-1 class (>1,500,000 lb thrust) engine we intend to start developing in a few years. Target performance numbers will be released in the spring.</b><br /> /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

If they make it work, I'll be amongst the cheerleaders. I wish them well. <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>

 

[rocketman5000]

I too will be cheering. I liked this line<br /><br />"After a lot of difficult development work, several component redesigns and the occasional RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly)"

 

[gunsandrockets]

I know the SpaceX long term goal is 100 ton payload class launcher, but there is a big gap between that goal and the Falcon IX.<br /><br />I have read that if the Falcon IX in it's multi-core stage heavy configuration were given an upper stage using LOX/LH2 propellant the payload to orbit would achieve 50 tons. Such an upper stage seems like a much more practical next term goal for SpaceX than an F-1 class Merlin engine. Such an upper stage would greatly improve the payload of even the single core Falcon IX booster and improve the single core booster's commercial applications.<br /><br />I really wonder if a 100 ton launcher is needed for the Elon Musk dream of manned space travel. Would the extra cost of development be worth it to move from a 50 ton class launcher to a 100 ton class launcher? I think a 50 ton launcher is more than enough and development beyond that should be focused on advanced concepts such as Solar Thermal Propulsion or orbital refuelling if Elon Musk want the best bang for his buck.

 

[j05h]

<i>> <br />I really wonder if a 100 ton launcher is needed for the Elon Musk dream of manned space travel. Would the extra cost of development be worth it to move from a 50 ton class launcher to a 100 ton class launcher? I think a 50 ton launcher is more than enough and development beyond that should be focused on advanced concepts such as Solar Thermal Propulsion or orbital refuelling if Elon Musk want the best bang for his buck.</i><br /><br />SpaceX isn't going to operate the fuel depot. They fly rockets. Lockheed is going to develop the fuel depot. SpaceX is going to make a ton of money keeping Lockheed's depot full. 100 tons of propellant for sale for marginal cost over 50 tons (from the rocket operator's perspective) is golden opportunity. I'm guessing they'll move to a standard core with a single F1 class ultra-reliable engine, then common-core stage them. <br /><br />SpaceX has positioned itself as the provider that can bring spaceflight to the next level. They have always been explicit about tackling the "first mile" issue, which means they are going to primarily be a launch operator. I can see them getting into advanced upper stages, but not building habitats (or SPS dev, or whatever). If you've followed anything about the Lockheed fuel depot, you know that it is going to require a lot of flights, and SpaceX is going to be able to out-perform Atlas for that profile, if the Falcons work. <br /><br />I agree about doing space development starting from what's currently available. What can you fit in a 20 ton Proton launch? What can you fly on Atlas? That is where the Bigelow-Lockheed capsule is interesting, and their modular lunar architecture. What can you do with commercially available upper stages like Blok DM and STAR? Can you safely do humans-to-the-moon with the same hardware we currently fly for GEO sats?<br /><br />One last question: if you could refuel it onorbit, would it make sense to use one of these engines on a huge transfer stage? That leads to Elon' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"SpaceX isn't going to operate the fuel depot. They fly rockets. Lockheed is going to develop the fuel depot. SpaceX is going to make a ton of money keeping Lockheed's depot full. 100 tons of propellant for sale for marginal cost over 50 tons (from the rocket operator's perspective) is golden opportunity."<br /><br />Lockheed has no expectation of ever flying an orbital refuelling depot. Selenian Boondocks has done a great job on following up on Lockheed's thinking, and since there is no money to be made Lockheed isn't going to fly a depot. The original Lockheed refuelling scheme was in the context of Lockheed's proposal to NASA on the best way to get to the moon, and as we all know NASA choose a different path.<br /><br />Musk has made it clear that 'flying rockets' is only a means to a goal, the Manned exploitation of space. Remember the SpaceX Dragon manned space capsule? Manned spaceflight was the context in which Musk brought up the 100 ton launcher, not in the context of commerical cargo. I doubt there is any commercial application for a 100 ton launcher, the only real reason for a launcher of that size is to place enough propellant into orbit in a single launch which is adequate for a manned mission to the moon or one of the planets while using existing rocket engines.<br /><br />But if more effective means of propulsion such as solar electric or solar thermal rockets are used, you don't need to place humongous amounts of propellant into orbit. Bang for the buck. It's cheaper to develop a small but more efficient rocket than to develop a giant rocket booster and to build all the giant launch infrastructure that a giant rocket booster needs.<br /><br /><br />

 

[rocketman5000]

I think the F-1 class engine would be for the BFR Which Elon has eluded to in a press conference or two.

 

[subzero788]

"From the latest SpaceX update post"<br /><br />http://www.spacex.com/index.html?section=updates&content=http%3A//www.spacex.com/updates_01_05.php<br /><br />I think you'll be glad to hear that update is over 2 years old! Which means the Merlin 2 is a little closer than you might have thought <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[MeteorWayne]

Or a little further away, if there's no update in 2 years <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>