FALCON HEAVY LIFT!

BULLER

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/04/05/spacex-falcon-heavy-worlds-powerful-rocket-dramatically-cut-launch-costs/#more-22947

Falcon Heavy, the world’s most powerful rocket, represents SpaceX’s entry into the heavy lift launch vehicle category. With the ability to carry satellites or interplanetary spacecraft weighing over 53 metric tons to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Falcon Heavy can lift nearly twice the payload of the next closest vehicle, the US Space Shuttle, and more than twice the payload of the Delta IV Heavy.

Very well-timed, calculated move by Elon Musk. 53 tons is boardering on super-heavy... Should at the very least force congress to actually think about what they're doing. SpaceX can make a rocket at a fraction of the cost, literally. With the money that has been (and continues to be until a budget is passed) spent on Constallation, we'd probably have a 130ton Falcon X super heavy lift available to us right now.

BULLER

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12975872

This is big news!

Plug

Have NASA got any plans for the super heavy rocket they plan to build by 2016?

BULLER

Plug wrote: »

Have NASA got any plans for the super heavy rocket they plan to build by 2016?

The Republican-majority congress ordered NASA to build a Super-heavy lift rocket by 2016 using shuttle derived technology only.
It's strange because there's no need for Super-heavy lift until the planned asteroid missions in 2020... many people speculate the only thing the Republicans see NASA as is a jobs program.

NASA admin Charles Bolden has repeatly said it would be impossible to do this by 2016 and congress has attacked with "its the law".... strange how politians are dictating to engineers what type of rocket to build and telling them when it will be ready. Should be the other way around!
And while using shuttle derived tech is all well and good in lowering the development costs of the super-heavy lift rocket, in the long run it will make it more expensive with big launch costs.
Are solid rocket boosters really needed?
Why not use kerosine like for the first stage like SpaceX do?
Why does it need the shuttles expensive reusable SSME engines if each rocket is burnt up in the atmosphere?!

It reeks of jobs program to me and I think thats why NASA keep stalling.

In the mean time Space X have said they can produce a super-heavy lift that can be produced at a fraction of the cost. If they pull off this Falcon Heavy lift then I believe they can definately do it...

Beeker

Great to see developments in heavy lift capability. This is what's needed to provide the ability to move out of LEO.

BULLER

Yep definately. He says just 2 Falcon Heavy's could do a lunar landing mission.

Major feature of these rockets is how cheap they will be to produce. Musk wants 10 F9 and 10 FH launches every year. The AtlasV and DeltaIV rockets average cost is $200-450m a launch where as a FH will lift nearly twice as much for €80-125m. He says even if they get just 4 launches a year these prices will hold up.
The only real barrier to BEO space exploration is lowering the cost to get to LEO.
Announcement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtoADdSry6g&feature=player_embedded#at=141

clln

BULLER wrote: »

The Republican-majority congress ordered NASA to build a Super-heavy lift rocket by 2016 using shuttle derived technology only.
It's strange because there's no need for Super-heavy lift until the planned asteroid missions in 2020... many people speculate the only thing the Republicans see NASA as is a jobs program.

Hi Buller,i know you are a big fan of Musk and Space-X,and he is gradually winning me over as well.
setting the goal of 2016 is no harm as the only time goals were reached was when JFK set a goal,he got the support of Congress and publc opinion because Sputnik and Gargarin really rattled the US sense of security and pride.

now it is a 'whole new World' after the financial collapse the ordinary American could not give a hoot about space.

Musk is a real charmer,but at his core i believe is a true lover of manned Spaceflight,i scoffed at his claims to shareholders that if they were looking for a 'quick buck' they had come to the wrong place,i scoffed at the idea that he would launch a vehicle when he was sure it was ready but not a minute sooner.

the two falcon test flights i have watched so far have really impressed me.
the ability to try for a launch again within twenty minutes of an abort.
the dragon capsule's heat shield degrades by such a tiny amount during re-entry that even that could be used over and over decreasing costs.
the flexibility of the design allowing for either an unmanned re-supply mission or in future a manned dragon capsule.
the sucess he had in being the first ever private launch operator to recover a capsule after a splash-down.

He has admitted though that without help from NASA he would be nowhere near advanced as he is,and Space-X is as you know is one of the companie's that receives money from the COT's programme from the NASA budget.

because of the possible shutdown of Govt service's though the six candidates for funding from COTs is on hold despite the fact that they were supposed to find out last week were they stood.

as You alluded to his announcement of Falcon Heavy was very timely.
it is after all just an asperation at the moment,only thing that exists is diagrams and hope.

i do not wish to thread on people's dreams,but my big complaint about Space-X launchs so far is the secrecy,he has the chance to inspire a new generation of people,in a way it is like watching the Space programme starting again,let's hope he will find ways to be as open as NASA are about the ups and downs ahead of him.
lets hope he can cover it all in an exciting way like NASA TV manage to do.

lets hope this new phase will be presented in such a way that it will thrill and inspire and when all is said and done make a manned launch be really exciting,as it should be.........!:)



[/QUOTE]It reeks of jobs program to me and I think thats why NASA keep stalling.[/QUOTE]

Whats wrong with a jobs program? FDR's one pulled the US out of the great depression after all!:)

BULLER

Thanks for the reply!

I know in an ideal world I'd love them to start making super-heavy lift shuttle derived rockets immediately. My concerns stem soley on the economics of such a rocket, which will ultimately decide its fate (unfortunately).

Rather than reiterate stuff I've learned from reading literally hundreds of posts on the topic and Nasa Spaceflight Forums, I think an article published today on Space Review will summise what I mean better than I could hope to!

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1816/1

clln

BULLER wrote: »

Thanks for the reply! I think an article published today on Space Review will summise what I mean better than I could hope to!

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1816/1

Hi Buller,sorry for taking so long to reply,it has been a busy time for space nuts!:)

Somehow i don't think you need Dr Louis Friedman to make your arguments for you as you do quite a good job yourself!:)

a lot of it is 20/20 vision by hindsight and the delay is now inevitable.

in an ideal World an independant body of Scientists should have/had/ been the people who decide these things and being strictly overseen by a financial regulator to make sure the money was being spent wisely.

there was a small example on one of the BBC's weekend of coverage TV shows that showed the way politicians just mess things up.
if the solid rocked boosters had been built alongside the Orbiters there would have been no need for sections and therefore no need for the infamous O rings that scuppered Challenger.

the contracts were handed out on the basis of keeping as many States 'happy' by getting a share of the billions of $$$$$$$$$$ that were to be had.
an independent agency that was safely buffered from politicians whims would have known that.

it is just one of many 'mistakes' in retrospect as you know.

if only there had been a very safe distance between politicians and Scientists we would proably be looking at a Mars mission soon.

So here's to Musk,Space-X and the nearly two thousand employee's he now has!
i wish them Luck and hope they will bring back the drama of it all very soon!

Science should also be fun as the Epoxi mission manager said!:)

Rubecula

Not sure it fits in this thread very neatly, but I saw "The Big Bang Theory" on BBC the other day and they demonstrated a cheapo rocket that is as poweful as solid fuel and as controllable as liquid fuel.

it was powered by..............(wait for it).......Toffee. Yes genuine shove it in yer gob toffee!

They went on to say there are other possible foodstuffs that are even better. (Sadly I was cooking at the time so I missed the rest of the show.)

However I was quietly impressed. Move over NASA here comes Thorntons?

clln

Rubecula wrote: »

it was powered by..............(wait for it).......Toffee. Yes genuine shove it in yer gob toffee!

Jeepers you would say anything to get one of your posts 'Stickied' Rubucula!:D

sorry could not resist!:)

BULLER

clln wrote: »

Jeepers you would say anything to get one of your posts 'Stickied' Rubucula!:D

sorry could not resist!:)

awww no..... :P

Rubecula

clln wrote: »

Jeepers you would say anything to get one of your posts 'Stickied' Rubucula!:D

sorry could not resist!:)

You just had to didn't you? ROFL:D

clln

Been rumoured a lot,but looking more and more likely that Space-x will combine Cots 2 and 3 into one mission,there will be no stopping Musk if he can help it!:)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/05/nasa-aligning-combine-final-dragon-cots-missions/

Beeker

clln wrote: »

Been rumoured a lot,but looking more and more likely that Space-x will combine Cots 2 and 3 into one mission,there will be no stopping Musk if he can help it!:)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/05/nasa-aligning-combine-final-dragon-cots-missions/

I really am warming to SpaceX. They remind me of the early days of the space programme. The "Just get out there and do it" attitude:)

Capt'n Midnight

12 MB , 418 pages, building a rocket with 8mm steel sheet in a shipyard back in 1963 !

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880069340_1988069340.pdf

Awsome, just awsome it used gas pressure instead of turbopumps and it could put the ISS in orbit in one launch.

The concept was to achieve minimum launch costs through lower development and production costs. This meant accepting a larger booster with a lower performance propulsion system and higher stage dead weight then traditional NASA and USAF designs.

excerpt from the book "Great Mambo Chickens and the Transhuman Condition"

"I was shocked to discover the Agena cost more than the Thor," Truax said later. "The Thor was between five and ten times as big! I said to myself, We've been tilting at windmills all this time! If all rockets cost the same to make, why try to improve the payload-to-weight ratio? If you want more payload, make the rocket bigger."

The same anomaly cropped up again in the case of the two-stage Titan I launch vehicle: the upper stage was *smaller*, a miniature version of the lower stage, yet the smaller stage cost *more* to make.

It seemed irrational, but all of it made sense once you went through the costs item by item. Engineering costs, for example, were the same no matter what the size of the rocket. "You do the same engineering for the two vehicles, only for the bigger rocket you put ten to the sixth after a given quantity rather than ten to the third or whatever," Truax said.

The same was true for lab tests. "The cost of lab tests is a function of the size of your testing machine and the size of the sample you run tests on, not the size of the product."

Ditto for documentation, spec sheets, manuals, and so forth. The cost here was a function of the *number* of parts and not the *size* of the parts.
"There are absolutely no more documents associated with a big thing than a small thing, as long as you're talking about the same article."

By this time Truax had accounted for a healthy chunk of the total cost of a given launch vehicle. About the only thing that *did* vary directly with a rocket's size was the cost of the raw materials that went into making it, but raw materials constituted only *2 percent* of the total cost of a rocket. "Two percent is almost insignificant!" he said. "And even with raw materials, if you buy a ton of it you get it at at lower unit price than if you buy a pound. And this is especially true of rocket propellants."

So if all this was true, if engineering, lab tests, documentation and so forth didn't determine a launch vehicle's price tag, *what did*?
Essentially, three things: parts count, design margins, and innovation.
Other things being equal, the more parts a machine had, the more it was going to cost. The more you wanted it to approach perfection, the more expensive it would end up being. And finally, the newer and more pioneering the design, the more you'd end up paying for it.

"We came up with a set of ground rules for designing a launch vehicle,"
Truax said. "Make it big, make it simple, make it reusable. Don't push the state of the art, and don't make it any more reliable that it has to be. And *never* mix people and cargo, because the reliability requirements are worlds apart. For people you can have a very small vehicle on which you lavish all your attention; everything else is cargo, and for this all you need is a Big Dumb Booster."

Rubecula

A good and interesting read that.

BULLER

Just saw this now. 1962
Extremely cheap and comparatively simple to make: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28rocket%29

550 tons to low earth orbit with a 22meter fairing! Madness what we could do with that....especially with an expandable Bigalow module :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9kaA1jNbBc

Capt'n Midnight

BULLER wrote: »

Just saw this now. 1962
Extremely cheap and comparatively simple to make: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_%28rocket%29

Have a read
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880069340_1988069340.pdf

also it's potentially reusable

it could have launched the ISS with years of supplies in one go.

It's probably cheap enough to make orbital solar power stations worth considering, especially considering that thin-film solar panel prices are dropping all the time. And Hall effect thrust from LEO to GEO is a synch when you have that much solar power.