- Joined
- 13 June 2007
- Messages
- 2,101
- Reaction score
- 2,706
It will be interesting to see the video of the miss....
Enjoy the Day! Mark
Enjoy the Day! Mark
SpaceX Falcon Heavy
- Thread starter Johnbr
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Messages
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 595
- Joined
- 13 June 2007
- Messages
- 2,101
- Reaction score
- 2,706
Cool! Mark
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
Flyaway said:
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,880
- Reaction score
- 9,007
Falcon Heavy planned launches in 2021
April the USSF-52 mission into GEO
May a ViaSat-3 launch near GEO
and maybe Inmarsat-6B later that year
in 2022
August the NASA probe Psyche (maybe with probe Janus)
and 2023
maybe launches for Lunar Gateway modules
more launches of Falcon Heavy could happen it USSF take SpaceX to launch large Spy sats
but this would let to heavy modification of LC-39A since USSF and NRO insists here on vertical payload Integration on Booster.
If SpaceX start to make those modification in 2021 or 2022, we will see regular Falcon Heavy flights for USSF & NRO
April the USSF-52 mission into GEO
May a ViaSat-3 launch near GEO
and maybe Inmarsat-6B later that year
in 2022
August the NASA probe Psyche (maybe with probe Janus)
and 2023
maybe launches for Lunar Gateway modules
more launches of Falcon Heavy could happen it USSF take SpaceX to launch large Spy sats
but this would let to heavy modification of LC-39A since USSF and NRO insists here on vertical payload Integration on Booster.
If SpaceX start to make those modification in 2021 or 2022, we will see regular Falcon Heavy flights for USSF & NRO
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,051
- Reaction score
- 12,820
SpaceX was awarded a huge chunk of money for an NRO launch in FY22, which includes funding for a vertical integration facility at 39A. We don't know if that FY22 flight is an F9 or an FH, but we do know that a VIF and an extended fairing are coming.
SpaceX explains why the U.S. Space Force is paying $316 million for a single launch
Gwynne Shotwell explained the contract pays for launch services but also covers expenses for infrastructure required for national security launches.
spacenews.com
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,880
- Reaction score
- 9,007
SpaceX was awarded a huge chunk of money for an NRO launch in FY22, which includes funding for a vertical integration facility at 39A. We don't know if that FY22 flight is an F9 or an FH, but we do know that a VIF and an extended fairing are coming.
SpaceX explains why the U.S. Space Force is paying $316 million for a single launch
Gwynne Shotwell explained the contract pays for launch services but also covers expenses for infrastructure required for national security launches.
Since the last Delta Heavy stand on launch pad and try to take off with NRO payload
They need a replacement soon ULA Vulcan is under construction, but need Test flights for qualification by USSF/NRO
Like wise Blue Origin New Glenn and what Northrop-Grumman has to build for USSF
From NRO point of view the Falcon Heavy is only reliability Launch system the US have between 2021 and 2023.
There still is another Delta IV heavy launch for the NRO on the Cape in a few years.
SpaceX was awarded a huge chunk of money for an NRO launch in FY22, which includes funding for a vertical integration facility at 39A. We don't know if that FY22 flight is an F9 or an FH, but we do know that a VIF and an extended fairing are coming.
SpaceX explains why the U.S. Space Force is paying $316 million for a single launch
Gwynne Shotwell explained the contract pays for launch services but also covers expenses for infrastructure required for national security launches.
Since the last Delta Heavy stand on launch pad and try to take off with NRO payload
They need a replacement soon ULA Vulcan is under construction, but need Test flights for qualification by USSF/NRO
Like wise Blue Origin New Glenn and what Northrop-Grumman has to build for USSF
From NRO point of view the Falcon Heavy is only reliability Launch system the US have between 2021 and 2023.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,880
- Reaction score
- 9,007
they got still one Delta IV heavy left ?
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 9,051
- Reaction score
- 12,820
NASA Awards Contract to Launch Initial Elements for Lunar Outpost - NASA
NASA has selected Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, to provide launch services for the agency’s Power and Propulsion Element
www.nasa.gov
WilliamMook
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 9 May 2021
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 40
Simon Ramo the R in TRW (the division within NG which Tom Mueller worked) was developer of the pintle fed engine which was highly throttable hence essential to the development of the LEM as noted in a talk given by Neil Armstrong at MIT in 1994 (see link below) and which made retropropulsion possible since you need far less thrust at landing than take off (and use of NG IP was the basis of a NG lawsuit against SpaceX back in the day (see link below)) was a HUGE proponent of the Big Dumb Booster Concept. A light weight pressure tank strong enough to withstand launch and flight loads that operated a pressure fed engine designed to operate at those pressure that was self pressurised with cryogenic propellants (LOX/LNG or LOX/LH2) would be cheap as soda cans in his view.
Neil Armstrong talking about throttable engines
Northop Grumman Settles Lawsuit with SpaceX over IP
Northrop Settles Rocket Dispute With SpaceX
Northrop Grumman Corp. and El Segundo-based Space Exploration Technologies Corp. have settled lawsuits they filed against each other after working
labusinessjournal.com
Simon Ramo
History of Pintle Fed Engine
BDB Overview
Ceramic Coated Stainless Steel suitable for Thermal Protection
(PDF) Ceramic Composites and Thermal Protection Systems for Reusable Re-Entry Vehicles
PDF | Next generation of reusable launch vehicles and new hypersonic space vehicle concepts are currently under development, moving from traditional... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
Ceramic Coated Stainless Steel suitable for Low Cost Rocket Engines
NOTE: Low Cost Highly Reusable Highly Reliable Rockets are a materials science problem first and foremost at this point in time. The same material that withstands aerodynamic loads of ballistic reentry also withstands high oxygen content combustion chamber conditions given rocket designers substantial performance edge.
WilliamMook
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 9 May 2021
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 40
Another contemporary Nova illustration. Look at the size of that thing!
That is the T10-RE-1 it used an aerospike nozzle with 10 F1 combustion chambers and pump sets in a ring around the base and two M1 engines in the upper stage! It was 80 feet in diameter and could lift 480,000 pounds into Low Earth Orbit.
Aerospike Engines
Advanced Engines
Advanced Engines planned for uprated Saturn and Nova boosters
Credit: © Mark Wade (extracted from Astronautix Entry)
Nova Advanced - Martin Marieta
Nova Advanced Concepts - Martin Marietta
Credit: © Mark Wade (Extracted from Astronautix MW extracted from MM report)
The one you show is the T10RE-1 and was capable of puttin gup 480,000 pounds into LEO and weighed 25,790,000 pounds at lift off. It was propelled by 10 F1 engines in the first stage and 2 M1 engines in the second stage. The vehicle was 80 feet in diameter and 410 feet tall.
There were all LOX/LH2 SSTO with air augmented aerospike engines that were based on a number of M-1 engines and pump sets. (perid Aerojet General advertisement in the public domain)
====ADDENDUM==== :
(I'm new here and post this thought experiment with some reservation. Let me know if you like it or not!)
Thought Experiment - NOVA Sized Payload using Shuttle Era Hardware and M1 with SpaceX retropropulsion
Upsizing the External Tank to something the size of the T10RE-1 by increasing the tank from 8.4 meters to 24.4 meter diameter and length accordingly obtains a tank propellant mass of 17,367 tonnes of propellant with 708 tonnes of inert weight. A total of 18,075 tonnes take off weight. To lift this at 1.5 gee requires 266 MegaNewtons. Each M1 produces 1,500,000 pounds force or 6.675 MN. That's M1 40 pumpsets and combustion chambers expanding on to an aerospike nozzle. Attaining its growth target o 8 MN means 33 pumpsets and combustion chambers would suffice. This is just a measure of specific impulse and mass flow rate. With a 5.5 to 1.0 oxidizer fuel ratio this is 2,672 tonnes of LH2 and 14,695 tonnes of LOX.
Three of these strapped together like a Falcon Heavy and using retropropulsion to recover the three, requires some propellant to recover the empty tank. An empty tank has a high surface area to volume, so slows to subsonic speeds as it descends. By putting the retropropulsive propellant off-center inside the later tanks at the common bulkhead between the two, a small amount of lift is obtained. Enough to stay in the lower density atmosphere at re-entry and slow speed and descent, so that without any thrust, but with a few fins, you can slow to 0.3 km/sec. So, you need enough propellant to bring 708 tonnes to 0 velocity at 0 altitude at 0.3 km/sec approach speed. At 4.59 km altitude you apply 13.9 MegaNewtons of force on the rocket to land it. At 4.2 km/sec exhaust speed you need
708*(exp(0.3/4.2)-1) = 52.421 t ~ 52.5 tonnes
of propellant. For each. So, there si 17,314.5 tonnes of propellant in each of the three boosters operated in this way.
So, we have the following equation to solve;
9.4 km/sec = 4.2 km/sec * ln((3*18075+p)/(3*18075+p-2*17314.5))+4.65*ln((18075+p)/(18075+p-17314.5))
p=1883.06 tonnes (4,151,400 pounds!!) payload.
Nearly 19x the size of Starship/Heavy payload and 29.4x a Falcon Heavy payload.
At $2 million per to$nne construction cost this is $1.416 billion per vehicle and $4.248 billion for the trio and with 5x fly away cost being the development cost this is $7.080 billion develoment cost. Supposing we can fly these 35,000 times with one chance of loss in 6.5 million (the likely goal of the Starship/Heavy system, which is admittedly challenging) the cost is $121,371 per launch. Likely half that cost for launch operations. The cost of hydrogen in quantity made from natural gas is $1000 per tonne and the cost of LOX is $400 per tonne so the cost of propellant is
3*(1000*2672+400*14695)=$25.65 million
Per launch.
Dividing this by the payload
25.65/1.88306 = $13.62/kg
With a nuclear thermal power source that uses a Westinghouse Sulphur Iodine cycle hydrogen oxygen costs can be cut to $100 per tonne when used efficiently with the fuel made from sea water instead of natural gas. That reduces the costs to
300*17367 = $5.21 million
and price per kg to $2.77!!
Program Cost & Ultimate Flight cycle.
12 units this size cost $17 billion and when added to the development cost $21.24 billion all told. Flying these through 35,000 flight cycles over their life cycle obtains $151,714 capital cost per flight cycle. Add this to $5.21 million per flight for propellant and $5.36 million per flight and $2.85 per kg.
Launch Rate
With four flight units and a 12 hour cycle time we have a launch every 3 hours. With 35,000 flight cycles per unit this lasts 47.91 years!! Over that period the system puts up 263.62 million tonnes. With one chance in 6.5 million loss per flight (about 3x better than airliners) there is a 6.25% chance that one booster is lost over this period.
Power Plant
Recurring cost is $15.68 billion per year. Mostly to pay for hydrogen and oxygen at $100 per tonne. $15.22 billion per year is for the 23.4 million tonnes of hydrogen and 128.8 million tons of oxygen each year. Made in a nuclear power plant that is 68% efficient and must produce 157 GW of thermal energy.
The Present Value of the Revenue Stream discounted at the S&P 500 return histogram for 20 days (6.4%) over the period attracts pension funds with this long term rate of return;
15.22*(1-1/1.064^47.91)/0.064 = $225.63 billion CAPITAL EXPENSE CAP
$1,437 per kW capital cost target for the nuclear plant. This is 1/3 or less the cost of current nuclear facilities.
An inertial confinement fusion system that uses Jetter Cycle fusion technology to detonate Lithium-6 and Deuterium pellets, that release alpha particles with 270.15 TJ/kg requires 581.6 milligrams per second. With 180 blasts per second in a dozen 'blast chambers' in a ring on a floating platform that generates AC power as well as tremendous waste heat, that produces 300 GW of power with 7 milligram pellets 2.5 mm in diameter exhausts through an enormous chamber to produce AC power by tying together the 12 chambers into 3 phase system operating at 60 Hz, and the exhaust gases heat tremendous amounts of water, which decomposes a portion and desalts the balance.
The power revenue and the fresh water revenue and the salt revenue along with the revenue from the space launch campaign, pays for the $450 billion infrastructure. The launch fleet is an afterthought compared to this.
Refill on LEO
17367/1883 = 9.22 ~ 10 flights to refill an orbiting stage.
Passenger/Cargo Ship
dV = 4.65 * ln( (17367+708+1883)/(708+1883)) = 9.49338 ~ 9.49 km/sec
Tanker Ship - the 1883 t payload is more propellant
dV = 4.65 * ln((17367+708+1883)/708) = 15.52607 ~ 15.52 km/sec
Going from LEO to the Moon's surface along a minimum energy transfer orbit landing and coming back can be done with a single Passenger/Cargo Ship. More payload may be landed on the Moon for a one way flight. Ditto for a Mars flight once every 2.15 years. By the way the 1000 day Mars flights are why the ships have to be so reliable. To get 99.5% chance of returning from a 1000 day flight with multiple rocket maneuvers and no major servicing for 1000 days requires a reliability and reusability and safety sufficient to suffer only 1 loss in 6.5 million flights. Better than airliners today. But not by much. Without weather to fight its achievable. However very challenging. Commercial launchers attain 1 loss in 16 flights. Space Shuttle achieved 1 loss in 65 flights. X-15 achieved 1 loss in 199 flights. That's what we want to achieve on a 1000 day journey to Mars and back. A fleet of 12 vehicles will have a high chance of bringing everyone home even if three are lost. Which is better odds than the 1 hour flight. (Earth to Earth ballistic travel takes no more than 42 minutes from anywhere to anywhere else).
Tankers can be used to refill far flung ships and bring them home. This gives us access to the asteroid belt and the outer planets but not Mercury or the Kuiper belt.
To support deep space operations with fleets of 12 ships each carryin 1883 tonnes and over 1000 passengers each (12,000 for the fleet) we need many many ships.
Earth to Earth Cargo Rocket
The genius of Musk is that he intends to use a single stage Starship to fly Earth to Earth with less than 100 ton payload. The Starship is capable of 7 km/sec with 100 tonnes and it takes about 7.5 km/sec to toss a payload 15,000 km in 27 minutes. What the longest range airliner flies in 16 hours. In this way SpaceX could sell 6 Starships a day and replace the 31,000 airliners with 3,600 rockets and carry 4.3 billion people now flying in airplanes to 106,000 locations each year, with those 3,600 rockets.
These super massive ships here are way too big for passenger service and are very expensive. At 170 pounds per passenger, which is what airlines carrying 1,200 tonnes in a passenger ship requires 15,562 passengers!! A cargo ship makes more sense. You could displace the fleet of 53,000 cargo ships througout the world with a cargo rocket.
Passenger/cargo variants could also be made to carry 200 to 600 passengers in modules. 45 shipping containers per flight. 507 rockets of this capacity, flying 45 shipping containers every hour ships 200 million containers per year. Less than 30% of the 775 million containers on the oceans today, but likely what people would pay $2 to $3 per kilo to get same day delivery of their cargo!!
200 million is less than 1/3 of what the fleet of 53,000 ocean going vessels produce. To ship 200 million containers require 4.44 million rocket flights of this size per year. This is 507 times bigger than the number of flights calculated above for our fleet of 12 ships.
With a 4 year life span, completing 35,000 flights, retiring them in 3 years, to fly the balance of flights in space, similar to SpaceX Earth to Earth passenger service plan, produces 169 ships per year for retirement. This is the production rate for the factory for these things far less than 6 per day projected for the Starship. But much bigger!
We also need 507 inertial confinement fusion power platforms to operate at 507 ports where ships dock today. Altogether these 507 platforms at 507 locations around the world produce power fresh water and hydrogen fuel at very competitive prices. The total power output is 8.9x the power output of the world today and given the relation between energy and money the world's economy would grow to be 8.9x what it is today. World GDP per capita would rise from $11,000 per person per year to $98,000 per person per year. About 2/3 the per capita GDP of Monaco, the world's richest nation.
List of container ports - Wikipedia
These are surrounded by shipping container drones that deliver door to door in an hour. Robots operate aboard the ship to load and unload quickly and aboard the drones. All paper work is done via internet electronically and containers are part of the internet of things with access to cameras and microphones and electronic noses and even ultrasonic scanners on a chip for continuous security.
Russia unveils SKYF heavy lift drones that can carry a 400-pound load
The Russian designed drone can carry a 400-pound (181-kg) payload and fly for up to eight hours. It has applications in areas such as aerial pesticide application and food and medicine delivery.
Passenger Drone -- combined cargo/passenger rocket is served with passenger drone to provide door to door service for hourly rocket launches. At 300 passengers per rocket (in addition to cargo) x 8766 flights per year x 506 rockets 1.33 billion one way flights or 0.665 billion round trip flights 8% of the world's 4.3 billion passengers per year.
What about Solar Power Satellites?
Well, I have a lot of ideas about that, but this is already rather long. However, cargo shipping will open up cargo transport off world along the lines I project for SpaceX. The cargo drones are easily adapted to aerial camper vans and passenger drones replace motorcars.
Power satellites will come and spell another great expansion even beyond inertial confinement fusion.
What about Orion Nuclear Pulse?
Yes, this is where I was going with the nuclear pulse propellant supply. Here, we launch 1883 tonne sections of 80 foot diameter pusher plates with fission free pellets, to propel us at high speed throughout deep space.
What about Laser Light Craft & Photonic Thrusters?
Yes, this compets effectively with nuclear pulse, but technology readiness is lower down. However I consider both Leik Myrabo and Young Bae friends, (and I had the great opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with Jordin Kare, founder of a laser power company and developer of Laser Sustained Detonation and Bob Forward, developer of the multi-stage light sail).
This technology will make constant boost ships common place throughout the solar system, at very low cost, and will take us to the stars. Yet they require very powerful lasers to operate at all, and that's the challenge. Free electron lasers powered by atomic blasts is a natural extension of nuclear pulse with fission free pellets. Lasers operating on the solar surface, as suggested by my friend Steve Nixon a few years ago, is pure genius! haha Are these part of secret space programs? They far more than speculative. Forward's ideas were derived from others 40 years ago. They were speculative then, but Young Bae's photonic thruster, and Leik Myrabo's test flights of laser light craft along with ETH students design for passenger ships based on laser light craft technology, are far in advance and not speculative at all at this stage.
If you've read this far, thank you! !
Last edited:
WilliamMook
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 9 May 2021
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 40
Thanks. I recall when SpaceX was recovering boosters for his Falcon Heavy I looked on in wonderment and recalled when I was 15 years old in Class following the moon landing dreaming of landing rockets just this way -- the same way LEM landed on the moon. I got close, spent my whole life working on this. haha. I'm very happy you liked it.
You might want to put a copy of post #253 here:
Gerald Roberts worked on AMLLV
Gerald Roberts worked on AMLLV
- Joined
- 26 September 2008
- Messages
- 1,935
- Reaction score
- 680
If you have to write a sentence like that, your communications strategy could probably include a revisit.
chimeric oncogene
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 23 May 2019
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 321
I think I'd have been satisfied with just mass producing a booster, any booster, to get a flight rate in the 50-100/year range.
How cheap were Soyuz and Atlas Agena in the old days when they were each putting up a film spysat every week? I'm surprised they weren't cheaper, given the impressive flight rates.
Or would it have been feasible to land a Saturn V or some other big booster on a 1km^2 concrete touchdown pad with Atlas motors? No need for fancy guidance or hoverslam, just stick a dozen engines on the bottom and turn them off two by two.
How cheap were Soyuz and Atlas Agena in the old days when they were each putting up a film spysat every week? I'm surprised they weren't cheaper, given the impressive flight rates.
Or would it have been feasible to land a Saturn V or some other big booster on a 1km^2 concrete touchdown pad with Atlas motors? No need for fancy guidance or hoverslam, just stick a dozen engines on the bottom and turn them off two by two.
Last edited:
I have a 1968 Bellcomm memo mentionning a cost of a $3 million for a standard Agena D, possibly as low as $1 million if produced in large numbers.
Titan boosters were also (potentially) cheap back then because back in 62-64 Martin production line and CCAFS I-T-L launch complex had been designed for grossly exagerated flight rates - up to 50 a year (sounds familiar ? same mistake done for the Shuttle a decade later ! Interestingly enough, both launch vehicles ended insanely expensive in the 90's - $500 million for Titan IV and even more for the Shuttle...)
Titan boosters were also (potentially) cheap back then because back in 62-64 Martin production line and CCAFS I-T-L launch complex had been designed for grossly exagerated flight rates - up to 50 a year (sounds familiar ? same mistake done for the Shuttle a decade later ! Interestingly enough, both launch vehicles ended insanely expensive in the 90's - $500 million for Titan IV and even more for the Shuttle...)
Something pretty amazing is
- the Air Force with Titan III in 1963
- NASA in 1972 with the Shuttle
- and the military again in the late 90's with EELVs (!)
Three times, they got their predicted launch rates completely wrong and three times they ended with a grossly oversized production line / infrastructure; and three times the end result was a $500 million+ per launch rocket: Titan IV, Shuttle, and Delta IV Heavy.
Oversimplifying things for sure, but the similitudes are striking - and quite irritating, too... between the "Shuttle hydrogen crisis" in 1990; the "great Titan IV crisis" circa 1998-99; and the more recent "last Delta IV Heavy" that was scrubbed for a month or more...
- the Air Force with Titan III in 1963
- NASA in 1972 with the Shuttle
- and the military again in the late 90's with EELVs (!)
Three times, they got their predicted launch rates completely wrong and three times they ended with a grossly oversized production line / infrastructure; and three times the end result was a $500 million+ per launch rocket: Titan IV, Shuttle, and Delta IV Heavy.
Oversimplifying things for sure, but the similitudes are striking - and quite irritating, too... between the "Shuttle hydrogen crisis" in 1990; the "great Titan IV crisis" circa 1998-99; and the more recent "last Delta IV Heavy" that was scrubbed for a month or more...
- Joined
- 26 September 2008
- Messages
- 1,935
- Reaction score
- 680
It's a valid observation and worth asking what their assumptions were in each case. I don't actually know what the 1963 assumptions were.
The shuttle traffic model was based upon wishful thinking and outright lying. I think part of the problem was that they did not account for increasing satellite lifetimes. So they assumed a 1:1 replacement rate, but when satellites started lasting a lot longer, they did not have to be replaced as soon or often. The shuttle model also assumed a huge number of Spacelab missions that would drive the launch rate up and the per-launch cost down. Except that those Spacelab missions had to be paid for by NASA, so when NASA didn't pay for them, the flight rate dropped.
The EELV rate was based upon the assumption that commercial demand for comsat launches was going to increase dramatically. It didn't, and that left the producers with tremendous over-capacity. (I've been through the ULA assembly facility in Decatur, Alabama, and it was sized for a much higher production run. The place was sleepy. I have also gone through SpaceX's facility and it was--well, the second and later times I visited--all hustle and bustle.)
chimeric oncogene
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 23 May 2019
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 321
Ah, the Teledesic and Iridium era.
Teledesic: the (failed) space venture and giga-constellation that forever disgusted Bill Gates from space matters... he could have been the 90's Elon Musk - or not (considering how irritating Windows "philosphy" can be, a Windows-like space program... no thanks - shudders.)
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
Though we may not be quite safe yet:
www.circleid.com
Bill Gates Has Not Forgotten Teledesic – Might We See Another Broadband LEO Constellation?
Teledesic was the first company to plan to offer broadband connectivity using a constellation of low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites. Craig McCaw, who had sold McCaw Cellular to AT&T, founded Teledesic in 1990 and it got a big visibility and credibility boost when Bill Gates made a small ($5...
Unfortunately for old Bill, his divorce and... zipper may led to a postpone of such plans.Though we may not be quite safe yet:
Bill Gates Has Not Forgotten Teledesic – Might We See Another Broadband LEO Constellation?
Teledesic was the first company to plan to offer broadband connectivity using a constellation of low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites. Craig McCaw, who had sold McCaw Cellular to AT&T, founded Teledesic in 1990 and it got a big visibility and credibility boost when Bill Gates made a small ($5...
I think we are presently safe...
It wouldn't be feasible. Fancy guidance would still be needed. Same goes for hover slam with non throttleable engines.
- Joined
- 26 September 2008
- Messages
- 1,935
- Reaction score
- 680
There were three or four others as well. I think there was GlobalStar and Ellipsat, and at least one more.
I don't know of any good histories about this period, but everybody seems to have forgotten about it, and everybody also seems to have forgotten the lessons of this era. In short, by the mid-1990s there was a belief that comsats were going to take off. Some people expected a big increase in demand from Asia for more GEO comsats, and then there were the "Big LEOs" and "Little LEOs" which were constellations of low Earth orbiting comsats. And because there was all this talk about launching lots and lots of comsats, there were a bunch of companies trying to enter into the launch vehicle market, and existing companies like Boeing and McDonnell Douglas and Martin Marietta (well, until a lot of the mergers happened) thought they had a leg up and could build a lot of rockets.
And then it all collapsed. Asia's economy went into a lull and so they didn't buy GEO comsats. And the LEO companies didn't find any markets. Iridium found that cellphone companies could put up towers faster that it could put up satellites, and they actually went bankrupt. And you can look up the others, some of whom burned a lot of cash. And once that happened, the predictions of launch vehicle demand tanked. Around 1997 or 1998 there were about a dozen different companies all planning to get into the launch market, and then they all folded up. There was Rocketplane and Rotary and blah blah blah.
Now today SpaceX is building Starlink and there are several other big LEO companies emerging, and one could ask if this is all really going to happen, or are they going to collapse as well? Some things are different, and some of these companies have a lot more cash to burn, so they might stick around a lot longer before they fold. But there are a lot of parallels as well.
WilliamMook
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 9 May 2021
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 40
I guess you would know all about that! haha.
Why use rockets?
At that point, why not use jet engines since they would actually mass less and be less of an issue for turn-around and refurbishment? (Yes NASA looked at it, among others including wings and boost-back, but concluded the payload penalty was sufficient they concentrated more on down-range recovery. specifically the flight rate was not going to be high enough to every need a really 'rapid' turn around. The Project Horizon flight rate was enough to justify recovery and reuse but it was vastly higher than any possible space program was going to need and that holds true today as well. More specifically the requirement for Heavy Lift is very inflexible)
Randy
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,249
aonestudio
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 11 March 2018
- Messages
- 2,866
- Reaction score
- 7,062
Doesn't need one
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,903
- Reaction score
- 3,001
Also, leaving the somewhat disorienting semantics of asking "How is this not any different than" aside, Delta IV Heavy is exactly 0% reusable.
Last edited:
I may have asked this before…but wasn’t a five core Falcon superheavy talked about?
Instead of each having a set of legs…could they be fashioned into something like Saturn I but with telescoping legs coming straight down from the gaps in between?
Allows for a wide upper fairing…
Instead of each having a set of legs…could they be fashioned into something like Saturn I but with telescoping legs coming straight down from the gaps in between?
Allows for a wide upper fairing…
Similar threads
-
RSpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.
- Started by RGClark
- Replies: 96
-
-
United Launch Alliance/Blue Origin tie-up (RD-180 engine replacement project)- Started by Grey Havoc
- Replies: 30
-
Japan launches the smallest rocket to ever carry a satellite to orbit- Started by robunos
- Replies: 9
-