Falcon 9 +SRB

SpaceX shows a falcon 9 heavy consisting of three identical falcon 9
segments. Of course, this is 27 engines. Would it be more reliable
to use the falcon 9 as a core and shuttle SRB strap ons?
Next, what are the plans for the payload of this falcon 9 that is in
orbit? Do they plan to de-orbit it to test the landing?

Frogwatch writes:

SpaceX shows a falcon 9 heavy consisting of three identical falcon 9
segments. Of course, this is 27 engines. Would it be more reliable
to use the falcon 9 as a core and shuttle SRB strap ons?

I doubt SpaceX is building nearly all of the Falcon 9 inhouse just to
buy SRBs from ATK then...

Next, what are the plans for the payload of this falcon 9 that is in
orbit? Do they plan to de-orbit it to test the landing?

The payload/capsule is only a dummy, it has never separated from the
upper stage and will do exactly nothing.


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

Frogwatch wrote:
SpaceX shows a falcon 9 heavy consisting of three identical falcon 9
segments. Of course, this is 27 engines. Would it be more reliable
to use the falcon 9 as a core and shuttle SRB strap ons?

Stop. Go back. Re-read what you wrote. You mentioned shuttle SRBs. Ok.
Now remove that thought. Never have it again.

Now carry on.


Next, what are the plans for the payload of this falcon 9 that is in
orbit? Do they plan to de-orbit it to test the landing?

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Frogwatch wrote:
SpaceX shows a falcon 9 heavy consisting of three identical falcon 9
segments. Of course, this is 27 engines. Would it be more reliable
to use the falcon 9 as a core and shuttle SRB strap ons?

Sounds more like something Mythbusters would do as a follow-on to
their work on the "JATO on a car" myth work.

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Pat Flannery writes:

On 6/7/2010 9:28 AM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


Stop. Go back. Re-read what you wrote. You mentioned shuttle SRBs. Ok.
Now remove that thought. Never have it again.

Now carry on.

You have got to admit, it would sure go uphill in a hurry though. :-)

If it had to even without the center first stage, probably.


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:
Pat Flannery writes:

On 6/7/2010 9:28 AM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


Stop. Go back. Re-read what you wrote. You mentioned shuttle
SRBs. Ok. Now remove that thought. Never have it again.

Now carry on.

You have got to admit, it would sure go uphill in a hurry though. :-)

If it had to even without the center first stage, probably.


Jochem


I now have this image of a pair of SRBs racing to the sky with the 1st stage
slowly lumbering off the launch pad trying futilely to catch up.

(and now reminds me of some of the advanced Saturn V concepts that make the
Shuttle SRBs look like firecrackers.)

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Frogwatch wrote in news:c3c77446-9eb0-4585-bc00-
:

SpaceX shows a falcon 9 heavy consisting of three identical falcon 9
segments. Of course, this is 27 engines. Would it be more reliable
to use the falcon 9 as a core and shuttle SRB strap ons?

If nine engines worked well, so should 27. However, there are no announced
payloads for a Heavy at this time, nor is there a launch pad available for
it. The more likely event is that a more powerful Merlin 2 engine will be
developed to drastically reduce the number of engines required on each
core.

Next, what are the plans for the payload of this falcon 9 that is in
orbit? Do they plan to de-orbit it to test the landing?

A more fully developed and equipped Dragon spacecraft will be tested on
the next launch. This launch was foremost a test of the launch vehicle
itself.


--Damon

Brian Thorn wrote:
I think the proposal is for Falcon 9-Heavy's core to have five
engines (essentially the old Falcon 5 reborn), not the full nine.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php

"It consists of a standard Falcon 9 with two additional Falcon 9
first stages acting as liquid strap-on boosters."

Now, that does not explicitly state there will be nine engines in the
strap-ons, but "standard Falcon 9" certainly suggests it will be nine
in the core, and the image they show makes it look like there are
indeed 9 in each strap-on.

rick jones
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:57:24 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

SpaceX shows a falcon 9 heavy consisting of three identical falcon 9
segments. Of course, this is 27 engines.

I think the proposal is for Falcon 9-Heavy's core to have five engines
(essentially the old Falcon 5 reborn), not the full nine.

Brian

On 6/7/2010 9:28 AM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


Stop. Go back. Re-read what you wrote. You mentioned shuttle SRBs. Ok.
Now remove that thought. Never have it again.

Now carry on.

You have got to admit, it would sure go uphill in a hurry though. :-)

Pat