SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...20Propulsion%2
0small.pptx



Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.


--Damon

On Jul 30, 6:54*pm, Damon Hill wrote, in
part:

Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,

And, of course, with Zubrin's plan, a Saturn V is all you need to get
to Mars. Yes, this is quite significant.

John Savard

On 7/31/2010 5:08 AM, Quadibloc wrote:

And, of course, with Zubrin's plan, a Saturn V is all you need to get
to Mars. Yes, this is quite significant.

NASA looked at Zubrin's proposal, and said the math in regards to weight
on it didn't add up:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/677/1
This doesn't surprise me, as he was a proponent of the Black Horse
orbital launch vehicle also...and the math on it was highly suspect too.
The airframe's mass fraction was overly optimistic, the specific impulse
claimed for the engine was too high, and the onboard propellant tankage
too small in relation to the overall size of the vehicle:
http://www.risacher.org/bh/analog.html

Pat

On Aug 2, 12:30*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

NASA looked at Zubrin's proposal, and said the math in regards to weight
on it didn't add up:

Interesting. I wouldn't have expected _that_ kind of mistake, so I
didn't try and re-do the math on converting hydrogen into carbon
monoxide fuel on Mars.

The flaws I noticed in "The Case for Mars" were his optimism regarding
recycling in the life-support, his cavalier attitude towards back
contamination, and his handwaving about radiation hazards. Those
weren't insuperable, simply the understandable failings of an
enthusiast. I was a little disappointed to see them, but none of those
points were fatal to the idea.

Myself, I would think that it _is_ obviously better if you can
transport *energy* to Mars for making the return journey instead of
both energy _and_ reaction mass. So even if a specific mission profile
submitted by Robert Zubrin doesn't have the numbers right, his
_technique_ is valid.

Now, maybe you would do *even better* if you just brought a nuclear
reactor with you to Mars, and used the energy from that to make fuel.
Particularly if there's lots of water on Mars in the form of
permafrost from which to electrolyze hydrogen.

Or bring solar mirrors with you.

Or equipment to make shiny iron mirrors on Mars.

But for a first trip, one doesn't want to require the astronauts to
achieve too much that is complicated to get home. While colonization
of Mars is the real goal, I don't think one can jump straight from
automated probes to colonization. People will first have to land on
Mars to study it in much greater detail, and to test out the processes
needed for colonization, before colonization can be started.

And even the first wave of colonists will need a return option.

John Savard

On Jul 30, 5:54*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi...
0small.pptx

Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.

--Damon

Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.

Matt Wiser wrote in news:865fe799-5cf0-4026-80fa-
:

On Jul 30, 5:54*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi...
0small.pptx

Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.

--Damon

Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.


I'm sure that's exactly what they're trying to do: demonstrate a clear
growth path that will be most cost-effective. Doesn't mean the most
rational plan will be the winner, alas.

First time I've seen engine flow diagrams with temps, pressures and mass
rates.

--Damon

On Jul 31, 5:59*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote in news:865fe799-5cf0-4026-80fa-
:





On Jul 30, 5:54*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi....
0small.pptx

Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.

--Damon

Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.

I'm sure that's exactly what they're trying to do: demonstrate a clear
growth path that will be most cost-effective. *Doesn't mean the most
rational plan will be the winner, alas.

First time I've seen engine flow diagrams with temps, pressures and mass
rates.

--Damon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're quite right on that. Reality will bite Space X and the other
Commercial Space providers in the ass when the House and Senate
reconcile their NASA budget bills. They need to realize that they just
don't have the votes to do what they want, and many of those on the
relevant House/Senate committees are very skeptical of Commercial
Providers, some of whom have made some extravagant promises and
haven't yet delivered. Space X was promising back in '05-'06 when COTS
got going that they'd have cargo runs to ISS by 2009. They've only
flown one test flight so far, and haven't even begun work on the crew
side. Tip O'Neil said "All politics is local." That's why all the
congresscritters who have NASA and contractor facilities which were
working on Constellation are fighting to preserve the work that's been
done so that the $9 Billion that's been spent has something tangible
to show for it. And they probably will: a full-up version of Orion,
and either Ares V light or a Direct (shuttle derived) vehicle. Not to
mention that the Commercial providers have to stop talking and start
flying, or they're in deep do-doo with Congress.

Matt Wiser writes:

You're quite right on that. Reality will bite Space X and the other
Commercial Space providers in the ass when the House and Senate
reconcile their NASA budget bills.

SpaceX seems to have quite a few customers outside NASA. Most of them,
actually.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message
...
Matt Wiser writes:

You're quite right on that. Reality will bite Space X and the other
Commercial Space providers in the ass when the House and Senate
reconcile their NASA budget bills.

SpaceX seems to have quite a few customers outside NASA. Most of them,
actually.


Jochem

--
But Space X hasn't flown people yet. They've only had one Falcon 9 test
flight. Once they start flying people on a regular basis, whether to ISS or
just plain orbital flights, they'll start to convince the skeptics (myself
included). There's a Space News article (I don't have the URL) where some
commercial advocates point this out. They were saying that the only way
they'll get Congress to support their efforts is to fly, and fly regularly.
I'd be more comfortable with an outfit like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, or ULA
than with a startup, anyway. They've been around the block with EELVs, have
capsules in advanced development (Boeing's CST, Lockheed-Martin's Orion or
Orion derivative), and get the job done for NASA and DOD launching science
and national security payloads. But they still have to show that the job can
be done.

On 1/08/2010 3:15 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Jul 30, 5:54 pm, Damon wrote:
Too much detail to go into here, follow the links:

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...M%20small.pptx

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f...ceX%20Propulsi...
0small.pptx

Discusses Raptor upper stage and engine, Merlin 2 engine, Falcon X and
Falcon XX, which is a tad larger and more powerful than the Saturn V,
and technology for manned deep space exploration.

--Damon

Aren't they thinking way, way, ahead? After all,they haven't even
gotten a cargo demonstration flight to ISS, let alone sending a crew.
Nice to see where they think they'll be in 20 years, but
otherwise....if this is an attempt to influence the House and Senate
deliberations on the FY 11 budget, they will be given a dose of
reality.

Where they'll be in 20 years? Have a look at what they've achieved in
just eight years. They've developed two launch vehicles, complete with
all the engines; all with about 1,000 people - how many did NASA need to
develop the Saturn I/1b? And how long did it take.

SpaceX will probably be launching people to ISS in three years or so;
and then they can plan on other things (Moon, Mars etc). Not bad for an
entire national effort, let alone a 'start-up' (some would say
'up-start') company.