saabstory88

EDIT: I now see you've moved to open licensing, so I suppose I can just fork it. Thanks though! Sorry, to clarify, I was talking about the models/textures only, not the contents. The models you currently include only depict a Hydrolox tankage split, so that tanks with engines like the F1/F1B look really, really weird. Kerlox Tank Split Hydrolox Tank Split (the ratio your models show now)

That wouldn't help the issue. You would then have a stage with tank segments, which even worse.

Hey @Shadowmage, I love this pack! I have a question about your plans moving forward... Are you planning on including different tank ratios in future releases? Right now, the models only depict a typical propellant ratio for Hydrolox fuels, not Kerosene or Hypergolic fuel ratios, which I admit, is the only thing that has kept me from using the tanks too often. It would really be a cool thing to add, if it could fit into your future plans. it doesn't have to be pegged on the fuel type, it can be user switchable, but it would really expand the options for creating different types of vehicles.

Aha! That makes more sense. I thought that crew vehicles were not covered under ITAR. That being said, I think Boeing might have some reservations about licensing out their design. I like the Orion idea for a European crew vehicle, especially given their interest in possible future Lunar operations. Even if they just initially use it in a LEO environment, it would be no additional work to the crew vehicle itself to have to have it ready for lunar flights. They would have to find some way to get it there though. Maybe they can finally finance a Hydrolox Angara upper stage.

Edit: Does the ESA own a stake in Roscosmos or RKK Energia that makes Europeans riding on the Soyuz "Not Paying for a Ride"? So when you mentioned the CST-100 you weren't talking about paying for rides? Sorry if I mis-understood.

I don't believe ITAR comes into play when you are just paying for rides. However, if their lunar orbital station pans out, those will most likely not be commercial flights (for political not technical reasons), but any LEO work would be just as well with commercial providers.

Interesting point about an SSME based SSTO, however, for the price of a single engine, you can buy a whole Falcon 9 flight.

Tell that to the Russians and their pre-programmed automated spacecraft.

A couple other notes: The Merlin series of engines use TEA/TEB for all engine ignitions. Ullage is accomplished on the upper stage using thrusters. The Proton (K or M) is a 4 stage vehicle, which allows a lot of flexibility for it's orbital maneuvers. The Blok-D massed a little over 17,000kg, so with a satellite on top, the entire stack mass was within the Protons LEO capacity. The Briz-M does a little bit of the final LEO insertion before the GTO burn, because the stacks usually mass around 25,000kg, which is a little above even the upgraded Proton LEO capacity. The Briz-M also has a drop tank which further increases its total delta-v. The breakdown of ULA masses to GTO and GSO are available here (NOTE! Imperial Units!): http://i.imgur.com/IIrDQWZ.jpg

SpaceX does not offer GSO insertions. The relight test was for GTO, not for GSO, which is why the stage was re-lit after 20 minutes, not after 6 hours. Take a look at the actual documentation from SpaceX: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf Page 14, table 3-1. It is not an omission that GSO is not listed in these tables, it's just not a service that the Falcon family offers. Table 3-2 lists their orbital insertion accuracy, and as you can see, GSO insertion is not listed there either. I'm inclined to believe the manufacturer that they know exactly what their vehicles are designed to do. Here is some math to explain why they don't offer GSO capabilities: Initial 185km x 185km parking orbit: 7,797 m/s Insertion to GTO: 2,460 m/s Falcon 9 v1.1-FT Maximum Theoretical Delta V (No Payload): 11,125 m/s Falcon 9 v1.1-FT Boost phase staging velocity (RTLS): 1,527 m/s - Demonstrated with F9-21 (orbcomm) Residual Delta V after parking orbit, and GTO transfer burn (no payload): 2,395 m/s - So the stage itself can insert to GTO with no payload, but Residual Delta V after parking orbit, and GTO transfer burn (Minimum payload rating, per users guide, any smaller payloads need ballast to bring it up to this level): 1,189 m/s - This is not enough for GSO, which requires at minimum, 1,500 m/s more Falcon 9 v1.1-FT Boost phase staging velocity (ASDS): 2,220 m/s - 8000 km/h, quoted from Elon in post flight conference call Residual Delta V after parking orbit, and GTO transfer burn (no payload): 3,087 m/s - So the stage itself can insert to GTO with no payload, but again Residual Delta V after parking orbit, and GTO transfer burn (Minimum payload rating, any smaller payloads need ballast to bring it up to this level): 1,882 m/s - So we can hit GSO with the minimum payload assuming perfect performance, and no boil off. So while it looks promising, the other factor is that SpaceX's payloads are mostly Geostationary, not Geosynchronous, which requires a 1,800 m/s burn, not a 1,500 m/s burn. Not to mention, that most popular sat busses are much heavier, in the range of 4,000-5,500kg per sat. If we run these calculations with a 4,750kg sat, to be in the middle of that payload range of the business that SpaceX really wants, we only get a residual delta v of 587 m/s. So what of the Falcon Heavy? Doesn't it's increased lift mean we can do GSO missions with that booster? Not really. The limiting factor here is not lift, but SpaceX's dedication to re-usability. The top quoted staging velocity that they can expect recovery from has been quoted as 3,430 m/s (mach 10). So using our same average payload of 4,750kg we get a residual of 1,797 m/s. So a Falcon heavy might possibly be able to do a GSO insertion, assuming SpaceX is willing to risk making a customer specific modification to the second stage for the extended coast time, which may soil their second stage track record. If we look at something more sensible, like a 10,500kg double satellite stack to GTO on the heavy, which would put it in competition with the Ariane 5, we get a residual of 258 m/s on the Falcon Heavy. It's almost like that's exactly what it's designed to do! (Which it is...) SpaceX says the Falcon series won't do GSO missions, math says that the Falcon series won't do GSO missions. SpaceX knows they can pick up the GTO market, with a much more simple vehicle, and leave GSO market to the ULA. The kind of staging velocities which you can achieve on the Altas V are much more conducive to this, especially when paired with the Centaur, because they don't want to reuse it.

I am speaking about stages which can do full insertion to Geostationary / Geosynchronous orbits. The Centaur is capable of this. The Falcon second stage is not capable of this. The Falcon second stage is capable of Geosync/stat Transfer Orbits with a 1800 or 1500 m/s deficit. It's also not purely a matter of ∆V, it's a matter of rated coast time. SpaceX has not pursued the same lengthy coast time ratings as the Centaur. They are banking on the fact that most commercial customers will provide their own GSO insertion. They may not even wish to bid on some of the DOD/NRO complex insertions, and leave that to the ULA. They have a much better platform for GTO missions than Centaur, because of the immense savings in gravity losses from their high thrust stage, but they are not in the same league for GSO, because of their short coast time, and high ∆V fraction spent on initial ascent.

The ULA was not formed to compete for commercial business. It was formed to be able to be able to meet the requirements of the air-force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) program. As long as the United States has an Airforce which want to control space, and be able to launch whatever they want, whenever they want, they are going to ALWAYS require two contractors. ULA isn't technically sole source, because the two entities which comprise it build two very different products, so it satisfies the current requirements. Soon, SpaceX will be flying missions instead of the Delta IV M+, so you will have both the Atlas V, and the Falcon 9, so the requirements that the airforce puts forth are met. About 85-90% of all ULA launches are government contracts which fall under EELV. People in this thread are right, ULA can't compete with SpaceX in the commercial launch market, but the funny thing is, it's not because they are scared, it's that this sector has never been their bread and butter, military launches are. And SpaceX is only going to be able to scoop up EELV missions which don't require a high energy upper stage. So, my point it, that SpaceX's launch prices could be $7 million a flight, and the ULA would still exist. The only thing that can bring down the house of cards is for another launch provider, one that has a high energy upper stage, to come along and steal the second contractor seat in EELV. So like I said, when someday, Blue Origin has a viable LV (which will have a high energy upper stage), they should be able to outbid ULA, and take their place beside SpaceX. There is just no reality, where the US military is going to trust their entire space infrastructure to a single type of LV (F9 and FH count as one type of rocket).

And now, as a response to the original question at hand, SpaceX will not put ULA out of business. This is not to say that ULA will not go bust, but it will not be because SpaceX out-competed them. As long as the DOD/NRO requires multiple launch providers, and the ULA is the only other company which can provide that assurance and flexibility, they will stay in business. In the event that when Bezos/BO enters the LV market, as they plan to eventually, they go after these EELV (or future equivalent) contracts, then yes, the ULA will be out of business. At that point, it's really not SpaceX's doing...

I agree somewhat with this. I personally don't think we will ever see a person launched on a used F9-v1.1-FT. However, I firmly believe we will see a person launched on a reused Falcon 9 first stage. We may only see v1.1-FT boosters be used again a handful of times, and after a lot of inspection. This is not because re-use is not feasible, but because re-use will likely come to fruition in an F9 v1.2. It's going to be an incremental thing, which will probably look something like this: F9-21 (orbcomm): Minimal checkout, static fire at LC-39A. Ship back to factory, tear apart. F9-19 (Jason-3): Ship back to factory, tear apart. Compare load stresses between F9-v1.1 and F9-v1.1-FT. This is the kind of data which will allow them to really make improvements. F9-22 (SES): Ship to McGregor, repeated test firings. If you take a look at Goggle Earth, you'll see the nice shiny new flame trench they are building next to their old stand. While there is no official word about its purpose, it's safe to assume that they are going to want a separate stand, far away from their normal stand, especially if they plan on destructive tests. F9-23: Ship back to McGregor, integrate with second stage, test fire. Refly at a later date with customer who is willing to take the risk (like SES, as they have stated). After second landing, ship back to factory, tear down. F9-24... etc... incrementally increase the number of re-uses, tearing down the vehicle after each new re-use milestone. F9-30? 35? Implement F9-v1.2. This vehicle will be able to be rated for a set number of flights, based on hard data, and will have countless improvements in reliability. They will likely attempt to both Man-Rate this version, as well as get DOD/Airforce ratings. They should have reliable data points at this stage. I agree, they might find some sort of horrible flaw in the design of the current Falcon which means it can not be re-used. But SpaceX is not the kind of company to throw their hands up and say, "This one didn't work! It can't be done!". I mean, the current recovery system is so far removed from how they originally thought about how to get a booster back, it's crazy. In the first flights of Falcon-9 (1.0), the used parachutes! Version 1.1 only came about because they had to nail RTLS/RTDS, because the parachute method was not viable. You may remember, that they released their plans for a flyback booster after the F9 v1.0 had flown twice. Even their ascent profiles have changed significantly over the course of the operation of the vehicle, presumably, because they dissect the in flight data from their load cells, and adapt to assure the minimum possible air-frame stress. Look at the CRS-7 failure for two points. 1. Disintegration of the second stage did not mean first stage failure. It continued to fire for 10-12 seconds after the second stage disintegrated, and as the airforce confirmed, issued a destruct command. This caused first stage destruction, not the massive, unexpected flight stresses. 2. They had numerous enough instrumentation to be able to triangulate the source of the second stage RUD. The whole vehicle is littered with sensors, looking at as many aspects of loading and stress as they are able. The data set they have is already huge. To sum up, I think there is some truth to both sides of the argument. The Falcon 9-v1.1-FT may not prove to be very reusable. But they will continue to develop, and build a vehicle which meets their criteria. "I have not failed, I have just found 700 ways not to build a lightbulb reusable launch vehicle".

I'll have to do some research to check the diffs between Syntin and Super-Cooled RP-1, but I think it would kind of kill the affect to be launching an F9-FT and see Syntin in the fuel meter.

Github pull-request bump...

The F9 landing profile is intended to be at an angle until the moment of touchdown. The booster is initially on a trajectory to splashdown off-shore when the main engine relights. Then the booster steered cross-range, until the moment of touchdown. This is not a mistake, but a safety measure.

Hello! More things... some of them even in game!!!

Disassembling the First F9 v1.1 makes the most sense. They will never again fly one, which means that they will never again get to analyse the difference between a returned core which uses supercooled prop, and on that doesn't. It is way more valuable as data, than as a museum piece. Tracking the differences between the v1.1, and v1.1-FT post flight is absolutely critical. Seeing how two different vehicles perform under RTLS conditions is a gold mine.

They will likely only RTLS one core, and ASDS one core. The fate of one of the side boosters is uncertain, and may be get a just off shore barge landing, or be ditched. This is not a technical issue, but a regulatory one. AFAIK, the FAA has not yet begun review for multiple simultaneous landings, and may not do so this year. SpaceX has already been asked by the media whther they will be doing multiple landings with FH, and the response has always been some version of, "Not at first, regulators want to see things work first". NASA has inspected that specific core and upper stage, and certified it for the mission. No substitutions. Vandenburgs landing pad was actually finished before LZ-1

SES-9 will almost certainly be a ballistic downrange barge landing. Jason-3 is a pretty light payload, and may very well be an RTLS. If Spacex gets the F9-19 core back, it is uncertain what will happen to it, as it is a non-FT core.

Well they are using RP-1. I say Kerlox, not meaning straight Kerosene, but because it is a convenient name for the final propellant mixture. I don't know if they are using any additives, but if anyone here knows, it would be great to know! Does anyone know if the RP-1 chilldown has any affect on these properties?

I would very much like to get back on topic. Yes, other companies have more experience, but they don't have a landed rocket stage to talk about, and I very much want to talk about a landed rocket stage. Sure! Let's talk about Blue Origin and their reuse too! But not in the context of "who is first", it doesn't matter. How about a useful comparison, if people are going to bring up Blue Origin. How does the coking experienced in Kerolox engines effect their long term reliability? Are New Shepard propulsion modules going to be able to be reused more times than the Falcon? Their combustion tap off cycles should in theory require less long term maintanence, and are simpler. And what of the burn-off residuals upon landing of the F9? Those didn't look like they were located in the #9 engine turbo pump assembly. Was an outboard engine sick? Those are the discussion I want to have.

Maybe someone knows something about custom emmisives? That could be a viable option.

NASA isn't looking at a surface mission until 2035-2039. Despite the hype surrounding it, the Falcon Heavy really isn't designed to throw infrastructure around the solar system. It's maximum payload system weight rating is likely in the range of 25,000kg, despite the quoted performance figures. Yes, the booster can throw 58,000kg fully expendable, but I's be willing to bet money that we will never see a Falcon Heavy throw anything over the largest NRO payloads. 12,500kg dual sat GTO missions? All the time, but no super heavy NASA payloads. This is also just a hunch, but I'm pretty sure that if the Falcon Heavy is still flying in 2035, it's because Musk drops dead within the next few years. This would also be the only scenario in which SpaceX "Sells its engines". The DOD already floated using Merlins, or some related derivative (Merlin 2) to replace foreign sourced EELV engines during the Crimea crisis. SpaceX was not interested, despite development offers approaching the price tag of their whole CRS contract. Whether or not that is a good business decision, it's not the one that the current CEO will make. The Raptor is only going to see flight on SpaceX vehicles, and only ones which are bound for the red planet. If a Mars mission was eminent from NASA within the next 5, maybe 10 years, then I would agree with you completely, but when dealing with a 20-25 year timeline, the equation is different.