A way to Launch the FULL version of the Europa Clipper on a Falcon Heavy, using a direct trajectory!

[fredinno]

Guys, I figured out a way we can launch a solar powered Europa Clipper on Falcon Heavy, with Cubesats, and 10% payload margin! (aka the full SLS version).

I call it the "Falcon Heavy Minotaur." It's a Falcon 9 V1.1 Heavy Expendable, with 4 solid upper stages: 2 SR-120s (Minotaur V 3rd stage) stacked on top of each other, and 2 STAR-48s stacked on top of each other, on the SR-120s. Stacking of SRBs has been done before with STAR motors (but always with smaller STAR motors on top or a larger one, to my knowledge), and done with CASTOR motors, which are larger than SR-120s. They may need modifications to allow for this, however.

I couldn't find stats for Falcon 9 V1.1 Full Thrust Heavy Expendable, but it might mean that the extra SR-120 may not be required, saving on development costs.

This system could also be used for other deep space missions, such as a Uranus Orbiter (assuming a Jupiter flyby), but will it really be worth it to develop the stacked motor assembly for a few missions?

NOTE: THE IMAGE ABOVE ONLY IS SHOWN ON THE DESKTOP SITE!!!

Edited November 16, 2015 by fredinno

[fredinno]

Guys, please reply. This is place is very empty.

[Findthepin1]

Interesting

[Kryten]

I'm pretty sure the very existence of this thread is giving the poor ....... at NASA who's in charge of nuclear payload certification night terrors.

[Bill Phil]

How would we mount the motors? Studies need to be done, what about the fairing? More needs to be done.

What is the estimated mass of Europa Clipper anyways?

[fredinno]

[quote name='Bill Phil']How would we mount the motors? Studies need to be done, what about the fairing? More needs to be done.

What is the estimated mass of Europa Clipper anyways?[/QUOTE]
The mass estimated was put there by me. It was found out by using the estimated mass for the RTG version, (3.3T), removing RTG mass, adding solar panels, Cubesats, meaning a 3.7T probe. Adding a 10 percent payload margin, gives the probe a total of 4.1T mass. I had estimates on an image on the first post. For some reason, It's not showing up on my tablet. I'll look into it.

The motors (at least the STARs) would just be placed on top of each other, like is done with the STARs on Minotaur V, and has been done on probes like Mariner 4 (the Mars Flyby one)

The SR-120s might require more modifications to be stacked on each other, though, which is why I would get rid of the 2nd SR-120, if I had the Full Thrust Falcon Heavy Stats. I considered using a Minotaur V 2nd stage instead of the extra SR-120 and STAR-48, but I was worried that it would need modifcations to run in Hard Vaccum.

[B]Additionally, my estimates were actually incredibly conservative, as there was a 200 m/s extra Delta-v on top of the 10 percent margin.
[/B] Edited November 16, 2015 by fredinno

[Bill Phil]

[quote name='fredinno']The mass estimated was put there by me. It was found out by using the estimated mass for the RTG version, (3.3T), removing RTG mass, adding solar panels, Cubesats, meaning a 3.7T probe. Adding a 10 percent payload margin, gives the probe a total of 4.1T mass. I had estimates on an image on the first post. For some reason, It's not showing up on my tablet. I'll look into it.[/QUOTE]

So what would the total Delta V requirement for this mission be? You can use the Dv equation to find the needed full mass of the stage for a given Dv burn and a given empty mass and payload. It helps, but it hinges on estimates.

[fredinno]

[quote name='Kryten']I'm pretty sure the very existence of this thread is giving the poor ....... at NASA who's in charge of nuclear payload certification night terrors.[/QUOTE]
Should I send it in a letter to NASA? :wink:
On a serious note, though, this would make SLS uneeded for any outer planet cargo missions- missions beyond Jupiter will probably use a Jupiter flyby, and I doubt they will exceed 4130 kg mass. Unless we are talking about a Uranus Orbiter with Solar Panels, then the mass will easily ballon beyond Falcon Heavy-Minotaur.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Bill Phil']So what would the total Delta V requirement for this mission be? You can use the Dv equation to find the needed full mass of the stage for a given Dv burn and a given empty mass and payload. It helps, but it hinges on estimates.[/QUOTE]
Delta-V to Jupiter Transfer is 15.7 m/s. My mission has an extra 200m/s to spare.

[Bill Phil]

Are we using crossfeed on the heavy in this configuration?

[fredinno]

[quote name='Bill Phil']Are we using crossfeed on the heavy in this configuration?[/QUOTE]

No crossfeed. The Falcon Heavy is a true monster. You would think SpaceX would make a smaller rocket- I don't really think there's payloads for it, even if it is the 3-core reusable version (on V1.1, 29T to LEO. Imagine how big it must be for the Full Thrust version!) Also, the picture showing my calculations only work in the desktop version of the site.

[Bill Phil]

[quote name='fredinno']No crossfeed. The Falcon Heavy is a true monster. You would think SpaceX would make a smaller rocket- I don't really think there's payloads for it, even if it is the 3-core reusable version (on V1.1, 29T to LEO. Imagine how big it must be for the Full Thrust version!) Also, the picture showing my calculations only work in the desktop version of the site.[/QUOTE]

What picture?

Anyhow, what's the F9 V1.1 H Jupiter direct transfer payload?

[fredinno]

[quote name='Bill Phil']What picture?

Anyhow, what's the F9 V1.1 H Jupiter direct transfer payload?[/QUOTE]

I don't know about the regular Falcon Heavy's payload. It's not listed anywhere. I could use Delta-V calculations, but that would take a while.
The picture is only able to be seen on the desktop version of this forum.

[Bill Phil]

[quote name='fredinno']I don't know about the regular Falcon Heavy's payload. It's not listed anywhere. I could use Delta-V calculations, but that would take a while.
The picture is only able to be seen on the desktop version of this forum.[/QUOTE]
I am on the desktop version...

[Kryten]

Even without the RTG's, you're extremely unlikely to get a configuration like this certified for flagship-class payloads.

[fredinno]

[quote name='Kryten']Even without the RTG's, you're extremely unlikely to get a configuration like this certified for flagship-class payloads.[/QUOTE]
Why???

[Kryten]

[quote name='fredinno']Why???[/QUOTE]
It's six and a half stage vehicle with 32 motors, it's going to be inherently difficult to bring to the kind of confidence needed for these payloads.

[Streetwind]

RE: Falcon Heavy payload

FH was rated for 53 metric tons to LEO. This was flying expendable, and [I]with[/I] crossfeed.

However, crossfeed was pretty much axed, as far as I know. It too greatly increases the complexity of a long-delayed vehicle. Perhaps it'll be an option down the road, but as it is the FH will already be over 3 years late if the [I]current[/I] projected launch date holds (which is still over half a year away). This means the highest possibly payload achievable has dropped below 53 mT. How much? [URL="http://i.imgur.com/MX7wtFq.png"][U]Probably to around 45 mT.[/U][/URL] (This is an unofficial fan analysis, not official SpaceX info.)

Meanwhile, there's the new "full thrust" / "v1.2" development, with higher TWR off the pad, densified fuels, elongated upper stage and all that jazz. It's currently unclear how much exactly the Falcon Heavy will benefit from that. The center stack will be a full thrust stack, but the side boosters are potentially not going to be upgraded. At least that was rumored last year when info about the full thrust configuration became public for the first time. It's perfectly possible that it was wrong, and it's also perfectly possible that it was right... or even that it was right but it has changed since then. Nobody outside of SpaceX knows.

Still, the full thrust upgrade increases the payload of the FH in some way or another. How much? We don't know. But depending on the various variables and how much of the vehicle will be "full-thrustified", it might be able to compensate for the lack of crossfeed. That might also explain why SpaceX continues to advertise with >50 mT payload capacities.



All in all, if you want to be conservative, project 50 mT to LEO. However, your plan is not going to work regardless of payload, because I find it hard to believe that you could fit what is essentially another entire rocket [I]plus[/I] the Europa Clipper into the Falcon Heavy's payload fairing. The entire thing is just 13 meters long, meaning you probably only have around 10 meters internal space at most. The Europa Clipper alone is likely going to end up consuming 4-5 meters by itself.

And no, you cannot just stack extra stages below the fairing, or use a different fairing. That woud change the shape of the rocket, and therefore its payload to orbit. Also, you would need to make structural changes to the upper stage, which would devour millions in development money and change all the numbers [I]again[/I]. Finally, it would require recalculating the launch trajectory and aerodynamics - a lengthy process that, again, takes millions of dollars in funding. That's why they want to put DreamChaser into a payload fairing, you know - because recalculating aerodynamics is a massive pain in the rear that you want to avoid at all costs. Ultimately it would be cheaper to launch on a different rocket than to modify a single FH in this way. Edited November 16, 2015 by Streetwind

[fredinno]

[quote name='Bill Phil']I am on the desktop version...[/QUOTE]

Use this link then... [URL]http://imgbox.com/q6Dqu63F[/URL]

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Kryten']It's six and a half stage vehicle with 32 motors, it's going to be inherently difficult to bring to the kind of confidence needed for these payloads.[/QUOTE]

I still don"t get it...

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Streetwind']RE: Falcon Heavy payload

FH was rated for 53 metric tons to LEO. This was flying expendable, and [I]with[/I] crossfeed.

However, crossfeed was pretty much axed, as far as I know. It too greatly increases the complexity of a long-delayed vehicle. Perhaps it'll be an option down the road, but as it is the FH will already be over 3 years late if the [I]current[/I] projected launch date holds (which is still over half a year away). This means the highest possibly payload achievable has dropped below 53 mT. How much? [URL="http://i.imgur.com/MX7wtFq.png"][U]Probably to around 45 mT.[/U][/URL] (This is an unofficial fan analysis, not official SpaceX info.)

Meanwhile, there's the new "full thrust" / "v1.2" development, with higher TWR off the pad, densified fuels, elongated upper stage and all that jazz. It's currently unclear how much exactly the Falcon Heavy will benefit from that. The center stack will be a full thrust stack, but the side boosters are potentially not going to be upgraded. At least that was rumored last year when info about the full thrust configuration became public for the first time. It's perfectly possible that it was wrong, and it's also perfectly possible that it was right... or even that it was right but it has changed since then. Nobody outside of SpaceX knows.

Still, the full thrust upgrade increases the payload of the FH in some way or another. How much? We don't know. But depending on the various variables and how much of the vehicle will be "full-thrustified", it might be able to compensate for the lack of crossfeed. That might also explain why SpaceX continues to advertise with >50 mT payload capacities.



All in all, if you want to be conservative, project 50 mT to LEO. However, your plan is not going to work regardless of payload, because I find it hard to believe that you could fit what is essentially another entire rocket [I]plus[/I] the Europa Clipper into the Falcon Heavy's payload fairing. The entire thing is just 13 meters long, meaning you probably only have around 10 meters internal space at most. The Europa Clipper alone is likely going to end up consuming 4-5 meters by itself.

And no, you cannot just stack extra stages below the fairing, or use a different fairing. That woud change the shape of the rocket, and therefore its payload to orbit. Also, you would need to make structural changes to the upper stage, which would devour millions in development money and change all the numbers [I]again[/I]. Finally, it would require recalculating the launch trajectory and aerodynamics - a lengthy process that, again, takes millions of dollars in funding. That's why they want to put DreamChaser into a payload fairing, you know - because recalculating aerodynamics is a massive pain in the rear that you want to avoid at all costs. Ultimately it would be cheaper to launch on a different rocket than to modify a single FH in this way.[/QUOTE]

I got my data from here... there is 0 mention of cross-feed. [url]http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html[/url]

They would use the full thrust stack for everything, including Falcon Heavy, and retiring Falcon V1.1. [url]http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/10/spacex-orbcomm-2-mission-falcon-9s-rtf/[/url]
"SpaceX is also working to find a schedule placement for the Jason-3 mission, which will involve the final launch of the Falcon 9v1.1 variant"
[B]
The Minotaur upper stages CAN fit in the payload fairing- They are only 2.33 meters wide. However, if there is the 2nd SR-120, though the rocket and payload would fit, the structural additions in the fairing only allow for a total of 2.74m for Europa Clipper. Removing the 2nd SR-120 (if only I could get Full Thrust Falcon Stats[/B][B]) would leave the Europa Clipper with 5.07m of height space- enough for Europa Clipper.[/B]
However, the Antenna of the Clipper might make it impossible to fit....:( Edited November 16, 2015 by fredinno

[Kryten]

[quote name='fredinno']I still don"t get it...[/QUOTE]
Increased complexity means both enhanced chance of failure and more failure modes for you to have to analyse.