Space X 2nd stage recovery

David Spain wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:51:25
-0400:

On 4/24/2018 4:36 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-04-24 14:21, David Spain wrote:

I am of the opinion that the existing F9 and F9H architectures will be
(crew-wise) underutilized.


Unless the space station life is extended beyond 2025, FH and Dragon2
may very well remain the workhorse for mnanned space in USA.


Well you and I have somewhat different opinions of workhorses. Ferry
flights to ISS are all well and good. But unless an expansion of ISS in
in the works a flight rate of what, about 4 flights a year is more than
sufficient?


Barring commercialization of ISS (which may or may not happen) and/or
some orbital 'hotels', neither Dragon V2 nor CST-100 have a real
future. They are both LEO systems and if there are no LEO
destinations they're toast.


What about crewed LEO trips and/or Moon flybys for touristas? For that
matter a crewed scientific flyby mission to Venus? Scouting missions to
Martian moons even?


Without a destination in LEO, I wouldn't expect a huge market for LEO
trips. Falcon Heavy/Dragon V2 could do a Moon flyby with free return,
but the bulk of that trip is going to be boring. You'll spend very
little time near the Moon and the system doesn't have the capability
to make that longer.

That means the 'work horse for manned space flight will by default
wind up being SLS/Orion, which massively sucks.

And unless there is real funding for manned space programme beyond ISS,
nobody will see much business case to invest in manned space programme
from now on, unless you go for it on your own (aka: SpaceX with BFR to
Mars).

Funding by whom? We're just about at that point. Which is my point.


Well, Blue Origin essentially has a billion dollar a year funding line
until, well, forever. SpaceX, on the other hand, needs to 'turn a
profit'.



Where the "international" thing may fall in place is if SpaceX gets
serius about mars and other countries want "in" on the project,
supplying modules for the Mars colony or any other "help" they can
provide to SpaceX.


That could happen. In fact, given the current trajectory of NASA,
probably even likely.


Just what do we mean by "the international thing"?



But unless a place like Australia could provide a huge cost and
logistics benefit to have SpaceX launch/land there, SpaceX might not be
so interested when you consider transportation logistics for modules
built in USA.


You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Australia would
hire SpaceX as a *vendor* to supply materials and technology for the
*Australian* space program. Huge benefit to not having to bootstrap it
all by yourself. You hire the best experts in the world. If not SpaceX,
then maybe Bezos' Blue Origin would oblige. Yes it's tech transfer, but
with a *buyer* whose funds (remember it has to be a *profitable*
proposal for SpaceX) could finance who knows what at SpaceX?


I don't see SpaceX going that route. They plan on making their money
on launch services. Why would they sell technology to allow a
competitor to set up?



In the case of a LEO assembly/refueling spot to later go to Mars, would
launching from 12°S (northern Australia) offer significant performance
advantage over 28°N (Canaveral)?


Some. But setting Mars aside, for the inhabitants of Oz certainly! If it
helps clarify what I'm saying let's say the deal is between Australia's
equiv. of NASA and Blue Origin. Just to keep Mars confusion off the
table....


Blue Origin is willing to do things like sell engines, etc. I don't
see SpaceX doing that. Different business models.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

David Spain wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:56:49
-0400:

On 4/24/2018 5:54 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 24 Apr 2018
16:36:20 -0400:

On 2018-04-24 14:21, David Spain wrote:

I am of the opinion that the existing F9 and F9H architectures will be
(crew-wise) underutilized.


Unless the space station life is extended beyond 2025, FH and Dragon2
may very well remain the workhorse for mnanned space in USA.


So Boeing is irrelevant in your mind?


Not to my mind. Which makes for even more infrequent flights to ISS by
SpaceX. Also doesn't require crewed F9H for any of these either.


Not to mine, either. That means each gets a couple of crew flights
per year for the next decade or so. I think Musk's latest remarks are
that he doesn't intend to 'man rate' Falcon Heavy because there is no
current mission that requires it.


And unless there is real funding for manned space programme beyond ISS,
nobody will see much business case to invest in manned space programme
from now on, unless you go for it on your own (aka: SpaceX with BFR to
Mars).


The issue here is that Bigelow seems to have jumped in bed with ULA.
If that extends to ferrying supplies and 'guests' to 'space hotels',
they might not let SpaceX vehicles dock.


Yes. That thought had crossed my mind as well. I hope not.


I would like to think that third parties might buy Bigelow modules,
which would be delivered on orbit with ULA boosters but it would then
be up to the owner to supply and crew the thing. Any sane operator
would want to keep operating costs as low as possible and that is NOT
ULA. Even Vulcan doesn't promise the sort of price point you'd need
to hit to compete with SpaceX.


Where the "international" thing may fall in place is if SpaceX gets
serius about mars and other countries want "in" on the project,
supplying modules for the Mars colony or any other "help" they can
provide to SpaceX.


Or just people who want to go to Mars. If there are enough, it would
make sense to launch from almost anywhere.


But unless a place like Australia could provide a huge cost and
logistics benefit to have SpaceX launch/land there, SpaceX might not be
so interested when you consider transportation logistics for modules
built in USA.



I addressed this elsewhere. A contract that would allow some assembly in
Australia, some would be shipped out from US. Eventually Australia might
be supplying some of their own parts.

Remember, BFR Spaceship can do point to point travel on Earth and land
anywhere there's a big enough piece of concrete.


True once that happens. But I am purposely leaving BFR (and Mars) out of
it. Trying to make a case for why someone might be interested in
existing F9(H) or Blue Origin hardware.

Getting back to F9 and Dragon V2 specifically. Propulsive landing and
landing gear were removed from Dragon V2 at NASA's behest. But if there
were another 3rd party customer that wanted that capability, it'd be a
way to get a customer to invest in and help pay for the testing needed
to make it a reality.


I'd like to see that. It wasn't just at NASA's behest. Proving it
safe and reliable was just too expensive for SpaceX to want to
undertake it when it wasn't needed.

[snipped]

I think all the inspection and such will occur at the launch site.
That makes locating the facility outside the US something of an ITAR
issue. I wouldn't expect Australia to be a problem, but you never
know...


Me either, that's why I used them as an example.



--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2018
14:05:29 -0400:

On 2018-04-25 07:27, Jeff Findley wrote:

This makes no sense to me. ISS is the reason Dragon 2 and Starliner
were both built and will be flying within a year two with crew. Not
extending ISS beyond 2025 spells uncertainty for both Dragon 2 and
Starliner.

I was refering to any new developments. Dragon and Starliner's
development costs are being paid by NASA and the flights to ISS till
2025. After that, those vehicles remain "available" if needed, but
there wouldn't be any justification to build anything new since
restarting Dragon or Starliner production would cost much less than
designing from new.


Yes and no. I've seen significant 'obsolescence programs that had to
redesign missiles because you just couldn't get the old parts anymore.


Depends if they have a destination. A Bigelow Aerospace inflatable
space station could be a possible destination.

And who pays for it? Do you have long term supply of space tourists
willing to pay $20m each?


Who pays for it? Whoever wants to. Whose ass did you pull that $20
million number out of? I think you're a little high (about 2x). And
that's using Falcon 9/Dragon.

That's BFR/BFS not Dragon 2.

WTF are you trying to say here? SpaceX isn't bloody likely to launch
from anywhere but the US.

Someone had mentioned international launches and specified Australia.
Hence my question on whether launching from northern australia would
give enough advantage to offset the logistics/costs of transportation.


I don't think there are any big differences in logistics/costs of
transportation. They're building BFR at the Port of LA. They're
going to have a long sea voyage, regardless of where they launch from.


With regards to SpaceX being a US company, what law prevents it from
launching from another country? It can form SpaceX(Australia) subsidiary
to launch from Australia if it wanted to.


It could, but then it would be transferring rocket technology to a
foreign entity. Look up 'ITAR'.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In article ,
says...

On 2018-04-26 17:14, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Without a destination in LEO, I wouldn't expect a huge market for LEO
trips. Falcon Heavy/Dragon V2 could do a Moon flyby with free return,
but the bulk of that trip is going to be boring. You'll spend very
little time near the Moon and the system doesn't have the capability
to make that longer.

That means the 'work horse for manned space flight will by default
wind up being SLS/Orion, which massively sucks.


Considering SpaceX is much better at delivering stuff on time and on
budget, wouldn't it be able to deliver a Dragon service module with the
extra oumph! to permit Moon orbit/return before the "real" service
module is delivered for Orion?

Big problem. It simply won't work. You see, neither Dragon nor Dragon
V2 has a "service module". They have a "trunk" which is little more
than a hollow tube to which the solar arrays are attached. Everything
that's in Orion's service module is *inside* Dragon and Dragon V2.
That's because SpaceX reuses everything they can. Throwing away a
couple solar arrays and an empty tube is a lot cheaper than throwing
away an entire Orion service module.

Then again, is there any market to make a sightseeing triop to the moon
without landing?

SpaceX thought so, then scuttled the plan to fly tourists around the
moon using a Falcon Heavy and a Dragon V2, so who knows. Depends on the
price. They'd be the first tourists to orbit the moon, so it's
something no one else has done except for the Apollo astronauts.

Wouldn't it have greater market potential to orbit the Earth for a week,
which gives you much better scenery? (in terms of tourist potential).

LOL, depends on who's paying and how much.

How much would Dragon V2 need to be changed to rise above Van Alen belt
and get full brunt of radiation?

Nothing if you accept the same risk the Apollo astronauts did.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 26 Apr 2018
16:31:46 -0400:

On 2018-04-26 16:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You're going to have to do that to get it from LA to the launch site
anyway. They're building these things in LA because they're too big
to move other than by ship. That means they're going down through
Suez to get to East Coast launch sites, so they're making a very long
ocean voyage anyway.


Why not Panama? The Panamanian government built Panama2 to handle the
current crop of mega container ships that used to be unseen in the Atlantic.


Sorry. I meant Panama.


Any chance BFR/BFS might get to Texas by road/rail and then by barge?


No. Both too long and too wide. Also too heavy for road transport.


Haven't see the diameter numbers, but could a "Beluga" type of aircraft
be used to ferry BRS/BFS segments across?


No. And what do you mean 'segments'? There are precisely two pieces.
One is 48m x 9m (not including wings) x 85 tonnes. The other is 58m x
9m x ???. I don't find a dry mass number for the booster, but I can't
imagine it's less than the BFR Spaceship.


Could an SCA type of carriage of BFS atop a 747/777/whatever be
feasable? (probably multiple flights each carrying a segment).


No. Again, there are only TWO 'segments'; the BFR and the BFR
Spaceship. Each of those pieces is too long and too big around for
rail, road, or air travel. BFR Spaceship is both bigger and heavier
than the Shuttle and it was carried on the biggest airplane they could
find.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

No. Both too long and too wide. Also too heavy for road transport.


Haven't see the diameter numbers, but could a "Beluga" type of aircraft
be used to ferry BRS/BFS segments across?


No. And what do you mean 'segments'? There are precisely two pieces.
One is 48m x 9m (not including wings) x 85 tonnes. The other is 58m x
9m x ???. I don't find a dry mass number for the booster, but I can't
imagine it's less than the BFR Spaceship.


Could an SCA type of carriage of BFS atop a 747/777/whatever be
feasable? (probably multiple flights each carrying a segment).


No. Again, there are only TWO 'segments'; the BFR and the BFR
Spaceship. Each of those pieces is too long and too big around for
rail, road, or air travel. BFR Spaceship is both bigger and heavier
than the Shuttle and it was carried on the biggest airplane they could
find.


Air Travel is unlikely, but possible. The Boeing Dreamlifter almost might
work.
It has a payload of 113 tonnes and an interior diameter of 8.38m. So not
quite big enough, but for a fee, I'm sure Boeing is willing to make a larger
diameter core.
I can't find a firm number for length, but the Dreamlifter itself is about
72m long and the full length of a 787 itself varies in length, but the 787-8
is 58m.
The Dreamlifter though I believe only transports the main fuselage, not the
nose and empennage, so the length might be close.
That said, given the aerodynamics, I can't see a slight lengthening being a
problem.

The An-225 has a payload of over 250 tonnes and could almost certainly mount
BFR/BFS on top.

I suspect for the first few deliveries they'll go with a cargo ship, but via
air isn't completely out of the question. I suspect the FAA won't permit
flying brand new BFRs over the Continental US until quite a few flights have
occurred.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 26 Apr 2018
18:45:41 -0400:

On 2018-04-26 17:14, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Without a destination in LEO, I wouldn't expect a huge market for LEO
trips. Falcon Heavy/Dragon V2 could do a Moon flyby with free return,
but the bulk of that trip is going to be boring. You'll spend very
little time near the Moon and the system doesn't have the capability
to make that longer.

That means the 'work horse for manned space flight will by default
wind up being SLS/Orion, which massively sucks.


Considering SpaceX is much better at delivering stuff on time and on
budget, wouldn't it be able to deliver a Dragon service module with the
extra oumph! to permit Moon orbit/return before the "real" service
module is delivered for Orion?


No. They could no doubt develop such a system, but it's not going to
be something that's going to be done quickly.

I'm sure I've gone over the reasons before, Mayfly. An Orion capsule
weighs a bit over 10 tonnes at launch. Unfortunately, I don't find a
'launch weight' for Dragon V2, so I'll extrapolate from dry mass (6.4
tonnes) and say it probably weighs within a tonne or so of Orion when
it's loaded with propellant for the Super Dracos and a crew of 7. Now,
you need to add a Service Module with a real engine, fuel, etc. Launch
mass for the Orion Service Module is around 15.5 tonnes, but 9 tonnes
of that is fuel (and it carries about twice as much fuel as it needs
for a lunar mission). Given that, call the Dragon V2 service Module
coming in around 11-12 tonnes fully fueled (with half the fuel Orion
has). That gives you a total Dragon V2 system launch mass of around
20-22 tonnes in order to do 'Orion-like' missions.

That mass is probably within the TLI capability of Falcon Heavy in
expendable mode. However, you would need to man-rate Falcon Heavy
(which SpaceX doesn't plan to do because it's so time consuming and
expensive), which would involve repeating all the testing that has
been done on the current Dragon V2 (at least).

The Orion Service Module should deliver in less than a year. I
seriously doubt SpaceX could design one from scratch in that time.


Then again, is there any market to make a sightseeing triop to the moon
without landing?


Apparently. Musk had an offer in hand that didn't even involve
staying near the Moon for any length of time.


Wouldn't it have greater market potential to orbit the Earth for a week,
which gives you much better scenery? (in terms of tourist potential).


I'd consider either to be a little out there, what with 7 people
jammed into a capsule for that amount of time.


How much would Dragon V2 need to be changed to rise above Van Alen belt
and get full brunt of radiation?


It probably wouldn't, but that's the least of the issues involved.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Jeff Findley wrote on Thu, 26 Apr 2018
20:15:20 -0400:

In article ,
says...

On 2018-04-26 17:14, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Without a destination in LEO, I wouldn't expect a huge market for LEO
trips. Falcon Heavy/Dragon V2 could do a Moon flyby with free return,
but the bulk of that trip is going to be boring. You'll spend very
little time near the Moon and the system doesn't have the capability
to make that longer.

That means the 'work horse for manned space flight will by default
wind up being SLS/Orion, which massively sucks.


Considering SpaceX is much better at delivering stuff on time and on
budget, wouldn't it be able to deliver a Dragon service module with the
extra oumph! to permit Moon orbit/return before the "real" service
module is delivered for Orion?

Big problem. It simply won't work. You see, neither Dragon nor Dragon
V2 has a "service module". They have a "trunk" which is little more
than a hollow tube to which the solar arrays are attached. Everything
that's in Orion's service module is *inside* Dragon and Dragon V2.
That's because SpaceX reuses everything they can. Throwing away a
couple solar arrays and an empty tube is a lot cheaper than throwing
away an entire Orion service module.


If they're going for lunar missions they're going to be throwing away
an entire Falcon Heavy, so throwing away a Service Module probably
isn't a big deal.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Thu,
26 Apr 2018 22:20:51 -0400:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .

No. Both too long and too wide. Also too heavy for road transport.


Haven't see the diameter numbers, but could a "Beluga" type of aircraft
be used to ferry BRS/BFS segments across?


No. And what do you mean 'segments'? There are precisely two pieces.
One is 48m x 9m (not including wings) x 85 tonnes. The other is 58m x
9m x ???. I don't find a dry mass number for the booster, but I can't
imagine it's less than the BFR Spaceship.


Could an SCA type of carriage of BFS atop a 747/777/whatever be
feasable? (probably multiple flights each carrying a segment).


No. Again, there are only TWO 'segments'; the BFR and the BFR
Spaceship. Each of those pieces is too long and too big around for
rail, road, or air travel. BFR Spaceship is both bigger and heavier
than the Shuttle and it was carried on the biggest airplane they could
find.


Air Travel is unlikely, but possible. The Boeing Dreamlifter almost might
work.
It has a payload of 113 tonnes and an interior diameter of 8.38m. So not
quite big enough, but for a fee, I'm sure Boeing is willing to make a larger
diameter core.
I can't find a firm number for length, but the Dreamlifter itself is about
72m long and the full length of a 787 itself varies in length, but the 787-8
is 58m.
The Dreamlifter though I believe only transports the main fuselage, not the
nose and empennage, so the length might be close.
That said, given the aerodynamics, I can't see a slight lengthening being a
problem.

The An-225 has a payload of over 250 tonnes and could almost certainly mount
BFR/BFS on top.

I suspect for the first few deliveries they'll go with a cargo ship, but via
air isn't completely out of the question. I suspect the FAA won't permit
flying brand new BFRs over the Continental US until quite a few flights have
occurred.


Start with the basics. How would they get it to the airport? I don't
think they plan on changing from ships, given the location of the
factory.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 27 Apr 2018
01:27:46 -0400:

On 2018-04-26 20:15, Jeff Findley wrote:

Big problem. It simply won't work. You see, neither Dragon nor Dragon
V2 has a "service module". They have a "trunk" which is little more
than a hollow tube to which the solar arrays are attached. Everything
that's in Orion's service module is *inside* Dragon and Dragon V2.


Can't you put bigger tanks (instead of cargo) in the trumk for extra
fuel and ECLSS consumables?


No.


If needed, how hard it it to make a longer trunk to accomodate move
volume needed for extra tanks?


You need a real Service Module if you want to go outside LEO.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn