Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DocM

SpaceX Updates (Thread 4): F9, FH & Dragon

458 posts in this topic

Did you know they haven't even selected the final core engine for SLS? The first 4 will fly using leftover Space Shuttle Main Engines, but they only have a few. With the SpaceX BFR looming large, VERY large, SLS may end up being cancelled after the SSME's are gone

Even if a new engine is selected NASA can only afford to launch an SLS every 2 years from 2020 to 2030, but it'll require a launch every year to maintain an effective cadence (keep crews in practice etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they really adding the triangle (White) erector thing (not sure how else to explain what I'm talking about)?  Never imagined that they would use that.  I was thinking that with the vertical integration that the government is requiring they would have needed to set it vertical in a building and then roll it out just like the shuttle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And America thought the Space Shuttle was expensive. Last I heard NASA would only be able to launch a SLS once every four to five years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they really adding the triangle (White) erector thing (not sure how else to explain what I'm talking about)?  Never imagined that they would use that.  I was thinking that with the vertical integration that the government is requiring they would have needed to set it vertical in a building and then roll it out just like the shuttle.

Nah, at best they would roll out a rocket without payload to the pad on their erector and hoist the payload onto it there. SpaceX wouldn't actually build/stack up the rocket on the pad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SLS is what happens when congressmen are worried about their constituents losing there space shuttle Era jobs and votes for re-election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, at best they would roll out a rocket without payload to the pad on their erector and hoist the payload onto it there. SpaceX wouldn't actually build/stack up the rocket on the pad.

Exactly. They prefer Russian-style horizontal integration which works fine for the vast majority of payloads, however the US Air Force requires EELV military and NRO payloads to be vertically integrated.

They'll just run the launcher out on the TEL (transporter-erector-launcher) then use a tower mounted crane to put the military/NRO payloads on top.

No idea about what they'll do with BFR and MCT, both of which will be humongous. As in...double whoa. Run its capabilities, what's known about Raptor and their statements about its configuration through Schilling's launcher calculator and you get something that makes Saturn V and SLS look small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not SpaceX VP of Propulsion Tom Mueller but....

Tom from SpaceX @SpaceXTom

Big news coming tomorrow! #SpaceX

Chief engineer at SpaceX

Could be anything from F9 being USAF certified to FH going to McGregor or Raptor.

Also,

Gwynne Shotwell at The Atlantic Tech Conference 2014 (solar electric propulsion (SEP) = ion or plasma drive)

So, we're looking at solar-electric propulsion; I think we're gonna look at some other interesting in-space propulsion technologies ...

Advantage for SEP the Mars <-> Earth is that Earth and Mars have a lot of argon, an excellent solar electric propellant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New thread day....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.