View Single Post
Old October 27 2012, 12:34 AM   #271
Rear Admiral
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Strictly speaking, since the Russians have stopped using the R-7s as ICBMs, that pretty much makes the Soyuz family the Russian equivalent of America's EELVs.
That's more Angara these days. Zenit would have replaced R-7 and Proton both. It may yet do so.

MCT's overseas competition:
Shades of Glushko's RLA

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
You may also recall that Von Braun did the exact same thing when he worked for Hitler. His designs for what eventually became the Saturn-V dated back to the original V-2 rocket program.
Don't forget that Medaris got the Saturn IB test stand built. He had to fudge in that "it wasn't really needed for Redstone (replaced by pershing) but in house capability is a good thing. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but in this week's Av Week and Space Oct 22, 2012, page 8), we see a plea for the services own Research Development Test and Evaluation facilities as being superior in knowing their own branch's respective needs. "The highly risk averse, profit centered industry cannot match this capability."

In the other op-ed below this which lauds space privatization as a model to fix F-35, even there the writer affirms that stealthy aircraft make poor carpet bombers. Each branch of the service had to make do with F-35. In house specialty is a must. To wit:

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
I don't see SLS surviving the downselect process, or really, even being part of it in any meaningful way.
Now that's where you are wrong. If I were Musk, I would let the current wave of SLS-enabling contracts go on, see advances made in wider tanks, friction stir, and Dynetics attempt to make larger engines. Then I would learn from them for my MCT program so avoid duplication of effort. Musk learned from early rocket programs, so had a head start. SLS will play a part in general rocket-building so Musk won't have to. This actually means his MCT becomes more likely.

Speaking of the MCT project, that has started a great deal of speculation:

Now I don't know if these figures are accurate, but they open up modularity even greater than RLA:

A 4 MCT Falcon X on the other hand would enable far bigger fairings and a much larger Heavy variant. Big enough in fact it has room for error setting 50 mt down on the martian surface. I've assumed Falcon Heavy-like LEO:Mars ratios for payloads. Methane may however allow even bigger Mars payloads due to higher Isp.

Falcon X Heavy-229.14 mt to LEO (56 mt to Mars likely)
Falcon X Heavy with cross-feed-270 mt to LEO (56 mt+ likely)
Falcon X Ultra Heavy-382 mt to LEO (93 mt to Mars likely)
Falcon X Ultra Heavy with cross-feed-450 mt to LEO (93 mt+ likely)

You see you wouldn't need a single-stick core with 300 mt of launch capacity. A 4-MCT Falcon X would be much more commercially viable and you could simply use modularity to scale the payloads from 67-450 mt as needed.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Even the space shuttle never flew the military missions it was explicitly designed for; what makes you think the Air Force is going to pull a 70 ton payload out of their asses just because an HLV happens to exist somewhere?
Again, it is shroud diameter that limits certain missions. Space based radar was a real desire. Over at, their EELV hack Jim lied about Space based Radar, and I caught him on it:

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
SpaceX has a REASON to develop the the Falcon Heavy
Just remember, the Marines pushed for SUSTAIN but until Falcon Heavy, they really didn't have enough payload to have something fly out and extract troops. Which is why Dream Chaser might be scaled up to go atop Falcon heavy to where it may even have self-ferry capability:

In terms of space debris, this was actually the worst actor:

Now in terms of depots, I think even the H-2 upper stage, which is to be used right away mind you, had a problem with boil-off as per Av Week. This is due to Japans higher latitude launching point. I'll have to get back to you on that.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
The technology to make those kinds of platforms feasible is still in its infancy and maturing very VERY slowly, and this at a time when the types of adversaries that would make such a system useful have either vanished or were never in conflict with us in the first place.
Now we are talking about more limited space based systems.

Not Good

BTW If you wait until you get your house in order to go to space, you never will. By never I don't mean going to space, but getting your house in order. Sadly, no ICBMs, no weathersats.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote