SpaceX announces Heavy Lift rockets

[DocM]

Merlin 2, Raptor or both?

[neoadorable]

so the news was "just" the Falcon 9 Heavy, correct?

[DocM]

Not entirely

1) Merlin.1D upgrade has much more thrust thsn expected: 140 klb vs 95 klb for 1C; it'll be cheaper with production rates of up to 700+ engines/year, exceeding the rest of the worlds rocket engine production before even reaching those levels. It also means F9's lift could go from 10.4 metric tons to 14+ metric tons.

2) cross/feed of fuel from the strap-ons to the core stage, a first, creating what amounts to a 3 stage rocket witb 2 stages. That wowed a lot of engineers.

3) F9 will get a core stretch (longer tanks) to make up for the 1D's increased fuel consumption. FH is 3 F9 cores, so this os a "family" upgrade.

4) no customers yet for FH's test flight (one may yet appear along with numerous small ssts) but that there are "plenty" of customers for subsequent flights - US Govt (NASA ' NRO), commercial sats & international. Bigelow just has to be in this mix.

5) a SpaceX IPO could happen as soon as the end of 2012

6) FH's unexpectedly high performance makes Falcon X/X Heavy redundant, so the next upgrade is likely Falcon XX, and Musk said as much when he referred to a 150-200 metric ton Super-Heavy booster. That would make the 118 metric ton Saturn V look puny.

7) more info lwill be presented at Space Access 2011, which starts today.

All of this has shaken up the space business bigtime. NASA types who were poo-poohing SpaceX have pretty much been shut down while they digest the implications.

[neoadorable]

very good news, even though the success of platforms like this delays the arrival of my beloved Valkyrie shuttle...oh well, with food comes the appetite, so once these rockets are up and running it'll be time to look at ultra-heavy single stage again.

[DocM]

More interesting info from a SpaceNews tweet: "SpaceX says its exploring a 150MT to orbit Falcon "super heavy" under a small NASA contract."

2 ways to do this -

1) quick: a 5-core first stage - a central core with 4 strap-on boosters instead of FH's 2. That would ba a sight :p

2) Falcon XX, which would require the Merlin 2 engine & more lead time.

[neoadorable]

good, they're being aggressive, i like!

[DocM]

New comparidon pix showing in order L to R - where things are going

(MT = metric ton = 2,200 lbs)

(low orbit = 300 km/200 mi @28.5? inclination)

Falcon 9 (Block I) w/cargo fairing: 10.4 MT to low orbit (current F9)

Falcon 9 (Block II - aka Stretch) w/cargo fairing: 15 MT to low orbit (to maintain stage commonality with FH & >mass of co-launched sats w/Dragon)

Falcon Heavy w/cargo fairing: 53 MT to low orbit (could go higher)

F9 Blk II/FH height: 69.2 m/227 ft

Standard cargo fairing: 5.2 x 13.9 m (custom by order)

F9 Block I used the 95k lb-ft Merlin 1C engine

F9 Block II & Falcon Heavy will use the 140k lb-ft Merlin 1D engine

Merlin 1D uses far fewer parts, a new SpaceX designed turbopump that can digest small metal debris and continue running, and it's designed to be built using mass-production techniques, many from the auto industry. LiPo batteries built by Tesla.

Merlin 1D is undergoing qualification tests in Texas now. When it goes into production more Merlin 1D's will be produced than the rest of the worlds collective rocket engine output. Max production will be nearly double that.

Image: Ed Kyle

[neoadorable]

heh heh i like the stretch denominator...reminds me of a towncar or something...thanks for posting!

[DocM]

Turns out the F9 stretch will have a 16 mT lift capability, more than enough to lift CST-100, Dream Chaser or most any other manned ship save for the bloated Orion.

Also; looks like the US military & intelligency agencies, who needs new satellites but can't stomach the ULA Delta IV Heavy's $300+ million cost, is heading SpaceX's way and it could hurt ULA's viability -

Space News....

U.S. Air Force, NASA and NRO Ink Agreement on Launching with SpaceX

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. ? The three biggest U.S. government satellite-buying agencies have concluded a memorandum of agreement to establish rules permitting startup launch-services provider Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) to launch U.S. Air Force and other national security satellites, a U.S. Air Force official said April 14.

Air Force Under Secretary Erin C. Conaton, in a speech delivered to the National Space Symposium here, said the memorandum, signed by the heads of the Air Force, NASA and the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), should be released this summer.

The agreement ?is designed to ensure a consistent position on opportunities, certification and requirements for potential new entrants to space launch,? Conaton said in her speech, which in her absence was read by Richard W. McKinney, Air Force deputy under secretary for space programs.

?We expect to release new-entrant criteria by late this summer, and we expect to allow new entrants to compete for near-term launch missions.?

>

One U.S. government official agreed that if SpaceX is now allowed to break ULA?s monopoly on U.S. government satellite launches as indicated by the memorandum of agreement, it could force ULA?s already high prices even higher as it eats into ULA?s current market.

?In the longer term we may be faced with questions about whether one of them [uLA or SpaceX] can remain viable without direct subsidies ? the same questions we faced with ULA,? this official said. ?Then what do we do? We have a policy of assured access to space, which means at least two vehicles. The demand for launches has not increased since ULA was formed, so we could be heading toward a nearly identical situation in a few years. But we are spending taxpayers? money and if we can find reliable launches that are less expensive, we are not going to ignore that.?

[DocM]

AvWeek reports China is "confounded," saying it can't match SpaceX prices with Long March....

Aviation Week....