SpaceX has plans--BIG plans

On Jul 30, 8:54*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.


Curiously, on the Space.com bbs, member "Dwightlooi" earlier
suggested very similar looking proposals for what SpaceX's heavy lift
evolution might be:

Roadmap for SpaceX Heavy Lift Vehicles.
by dwightlooi » Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:06 am

http://www.space.com/common/forums/v...p?f=15&t=11793

Beyond the Falcon 9
by dwightlooi » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:59 pm
"Perhaps SpaceX can fill in for NASA's bungling super heavy lift
efforts. Perhaps what we need is not the ARES V, or even DIRECT or
JUPITER. Perhaps what we need is a 2-stage, all hydrocarbon launch
vehicle designed for economy, reliability, ruggedness and simplicity
rather than performance. Perhaps SpaceX's heavy lift road map can look
like this..."

http://www.space.com/common/forums/v...ic.php?t=19025

Affordable Heavy Lift
by dwightlooi » Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:36 pm
FICTION

http://www.space.com/common/forums/v...ic.php?t=22912


Perhaps "DwightLooi" had some inside knowledge?


Bob Clark

On Aug 5, 4:02*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/4/2010 5:18 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Aug 3, 5:15 pm, Pat *wrote:
On 8/3/2010 7:36 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

I wish them luck, but they'll have challenges. *The F-1 development
program was filled with engineering challenges, despite the fact that in
many ways it was just a scaled up version of previous LOX/kerosene
engines.

That may be the problem; Lox/kerosene engine designs don't scale up
well, as the Soviets found out with their failed RD-105 engine design;
which was based on scaling up the V-2 Lox/alcohol engine technology:http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd105.htm
A photo of it hehttp://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/...nes/RD-105.jpg
When the very long combustion chamber shows up, it's a sure sign
something isn't working right in the combustion process.
Glushko foolishly promised Stalin that it would be easy and quick to
develop, and got into real hot water when it flopped.

Pat

Did Glushko live to retell the experience? Stalin was usually
uncompromising when it came to punishment of those who failed to
deliver for him.

Yeah, Glushko lived...he was one of the few people that knew how to make
rocket engines, so was too important to have liquidated.

* Mayaschev was lucky that Stalin was dead when the M-4

Bison bomber came out: it clearly lacked the range for a round-trip
bombing mission to the U.S., and when he told Khrushchev that the
plane could hit the U.S. and land in Mexico, Nikita Sergeyich is
supposed to have roard back "What do you think Mexico is, our mother-
in-law? Even if the plane landed there, they wouldn't give it back!"
If Mayaschev had to tell Stalin the same thing, those would be the
last words he ever said.....because a 9-mm brain hemmorage would
follow shortly thereafter.

If you think about it, once WWIII broke out, there probably wouldn't be
a USSR to return to anyway; at least not the base it came from.
The same would apply to our B-52s.
Khrushchev used the M-4 Bison's short range and Tu-20 Bear's
vulnerability due to its lower speed as a rational to curtail the Soviet
strategic bomber program and save defense spending by basing the Soviet
deterrent force on a "Biad" of ICBM's and SLBM's, rather than a "triad"
like the US had.
Even then, he canceled the ICBM version of the Proton rocket, saying "I
can build the giant silos for these or socialism; but not both at once".
The ICBM version of the N-1 was really something to behold:http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n11gr2.jpg
It was based on the second and third stages of the standard N-1.
Two or three of these would theoretically be able to destroy all major
US cities with *huge yield warheads sent in on a depressed trajectory to
help avoid ABM's, or into low orbit from which they would descend onto
their targets when commanded, allowing an attack from the south to avoid
radar detection rather than going over the North Pole like conventional
ICBM's.

Pat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I imagine, though, that he spent some time in the not-too gentle hands
of Beria and his thugs.

In those days? When the U.S. had at least a 9-1 advantage in
deliverable strategic weapons and the best the Soviets could hope for
was one-way rides for their bomber force, given how ADC was structured
at the time, and SS-6, which had such a long lead time prior to
lauch....

On 8/6/2010 5:20 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:


I imagine, though, that he spent some time in the not-too gentle hands
of Beria and his thugs.

He did spend eight years in gulag, but that was earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Glushko


In those days? When the U.S. had at least a 9-1 advantage in
deliverable strategic weapons and the best the Soviets could hope for
was one-way rides for their bomber force, given how ADC was structured
at the time, and SS-6, which had such a long lead time prior to
lauch....

Now, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but ten - twenty
million dead tops...depending on the breaks.

"Bucky" Flannery - The War Room

On 7/08/2010 5:47 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/6/2010 5:20 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:


I imagine, though, that he spent some time in the not-too gentle hands
of Beria and his thugs.

He did spend eight years in gulag, but that was earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Glushko


In those days? When the U.S. had at least a 9-1 advantage in
deliverable strategic weapons and the best the Soviets could hope for
was one-way rides for their bomber force, given how ADC was structured
at the time, and SS-6, which had such a long lead time prior to
lauch....

Now, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but ten - twenty
million dead tops...depending on the breaks.

"Bucky" Flannery - The War Room


MIEN FUHRER! I CAN WALK!

Love that movie; shows the idiocy of M.A.D. and war as a whole.

On 8/7/2010 7:32 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:

MIEN FUHRER! I CAN WALK!

Love that movie; shows the idiocy of M.A.D. and war as a whole.

My favorite part is the look on Mandrake's face when General Ripper
starts explaining the fluoridation threat to him...and you can tell he
realizes he's dealing with a full-blown loon.
If Ripper was based on anyone, it was probably General Thomas Power -
Curtis LeMay's replacement as head of SAC, and a man General LeMay
thought was mentally unstable; and on the basis of "It Takes One To Know
One"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_S._Power

Pat

On Aug 7, 12:47*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/6/2010 5:20 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

I imagine, though, that he spent some time in the not-too gentle hands
of Beria and his thugs.

He did spend eight years in gulag, but that was earlier:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Glushko



In those days? When the U.S. had at least a 9-1 advantage in
deliverable strategic weapons and the best the Soviets could hope for
was one-way rides for their bomber force, given how ADC was structured
at the time, and SS-6, which had such a long lead time prior to
lauch....

Now, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but ten - twenty
million dead tops...depending on the breaks.

"Bucky" Flannery - The War Room

Incidentally, that was what SAC expected; they knew ADC wouldn't get
every bomber or maybe a SS-6 or two might get off the pad before
they're vaped. IIRC the SS-6 had to be pad-oriented to the target, so
a missile targeted on New York couldn't be retargeted on D.C. if a
fault developed in the D.C. missile.

Pat Flannery wrote in news:N-
hdakotatelephone:

On 8/7/2010 10:03 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Aug 7, 12:47 am, Pat wrote:

Incidentally, that was what SAC expected; they knew ADC wouldn't get
every bomber or maybe a SS-6 or two might get off the pad before
they're vaped. IIRC the SS-6 had to be pad-oriented to the target, so
a missile targeted on New York couldn't be retargeted on D.C. if a
fault developed in the D.C. missile.

I just found some cool R-7 stuff:
http://www.mentallandscape.com/S_R7.htm
What the hell is going on with that U-1250 engine design?
I've never seen a combustion chamber shaped like that in my entire life.

From the text, I'm guessing it was a testbed to verify the
concept of regenerative cooling. Almost as cheaply built as
possible to see if the construction method would work, as opposed
to welded tube-wall construction. The whole rig looks arbitrary
to me. And notice how long the combustion chambers are. Suggests
inefficient mixing/burning.

Wonder if they ever experimented with single pintle injectors?
Whole books could be written, and surely were, just on injector
design.

--Damon

Pat Flannery wrote:
If you think about it, once WWIII broke out, there probably wouldn't be
a USSR to return to anyway; at least not the base it came from.
The same would apply to our B-52s.

Not just from Soviet attack but also our own actions. Demolition of
the base would start when the bombers went past their fail safe
points, and our families were to leave for the beach and wait for the
Navy to pick them up.

On 8/7/2010 10:03 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Aug 7, 12:47 am, Pat wrote:

Incidentally, that was what SAC expected; they knew ADC wouldn't get
every bomber or maybe a SS-6 or two might get off the pad before
they're vaped. IIRC the SS-6 had to be pad-oriented to the target, so
a missile targeted on New York couldn't be retargeted on D.C. if a
fault developed in the D.C. missile.

I just found some cool R-7 stuff:
http://www.mentallandscape.com/S_R7.htm
What the hell is going on with that U-1250 engine design?
I've never seen a combustion chamber shaped like that in my entire life.

Pat

On 8/8/2010 12:19 AM, Damon Hill wrote:


From the text, I'm guessing it was a testbed to verify the
concept of regenerative cooling. Almost as cheaply built as
possible to see if the construction method would work, as opposed
to welded tube-wall construction. The whole rig looks arbitrary
to me. And notice how long the combustion chambers are. Suggests
inefficient mixing/burning.

Yeah, that was the same problem that afflicted the RD-105.

Wonder if they ever experimented with single pintle injectors?
Whole books could be written, and surely were, just on injector
design.

They always tended towards low cost engine mass production over superior
isp in their engine designs.
At least for their missiles.

Pat