SpaceX Unveils Heavy-Lift Vehicle Plan

[BenTC]

>100 mT HLV

what is mT? milli-tonnes?

[Betruger]

Metric rather than long or short. Long & short are imperial (or UK/US anyway) units. Something like 10% and 2% difference.

..
http://onlineconversion.com/weight_all.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton

[DeltaV]

Metric ton. Unless he means antimatter propulsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton

In the United Kingdom, the ton is a unit of measure which, when it ceased to be legal for trade in 1985, was defined in British legislation as being a weight or mass equal to 2,240 pounds (1,016 kg) (avoirdupois pounds).[2] In the United States and Canada,[3] however, a ton is defined to be 2,000 pounds (907 kg). To avoid confusion, the former is more specifically referred to as a "long ton" and the latter, a "short ton"; neither should be confused with the metric ton (tonne), which is 1,000 kilograms (2,205 lb).

[Betruger]

Milli tons. Quite the mass fraction.

[kunkmiester]

Are those heavies really in the nova class? Last I knew the novas were a lot bigger. In fact, here's an Astronautix page priefly discussing some of the plans:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova.htm

And that Dead Sea Scrolls quote is disturbing.

[DeltaV]

Why the asymmetrical design for the Martin Marrietta air-breathing SSTO Nova R10R-2?

[zapkitty]

Why the asymmetrical design for the Martin Marrietta air-breathing SSTO Nova R10R-2?

My favorite Nova!

It's symmetrical. Those drawings are cutaways showing how the shroud for the duct effect fits over the main body.

Without the shroud the main body is biconic with the bottom cone truncated.

With the shroud. of course, the LV looks like a cone sitting on top of a truncated cone...

In one of my posts here there was a link to a better picture... because the design looks good to me for an air-augmented reusable polywell SSTO HLV...

[KitemanSA]

Why the asymmetrical design for the Martin Marrietta air-breathing SSTO Nova R10R-2?

Air augmented side (downhil) of an augmented aeroplug combined rocket/ramjet engine? Note the different size rocket engines on either side too. Just a guess.

Boy, that'll rattle a few windows when it passes supersonic!

[zapkitty]

Why the asymmetrical design for the Martin Marrietta air-breathing SSTO Nova R10R-2?

Air augmented side (downhil) of an augmented aeroplug combined rocket/ramjet engine?

"Just" an air-augmented rocket...

viewtopic.php?p=41907#41907

Note the different size rocket engines on either side too. Just a guess.

?

That doesn't fit the description... are you sure that's not an artifact of the small scale of the image in the gif?

Boy, that'll rattle a few windows when it passes supersonic!

It'll break more a few windows just taking off if it's not launched from a dedicated facility...

[djolds1]

Are those heavies really in the nova class?

No. Neither of the Flacon HLVs is Nova class as currently envisioned. Nova envisioned an average of 450 metric tonnes to LEO. Saturn-5, Energia, Falcon X-H and Falcon XX envision or achieved 90 to 140 metric tonnes to LEO. Tho it should be possible to bootstrap F-XX to Nova range by going to a three core F-XX-H model.

Note the different size rocket engines on either side too. Just a guess.

?

That doesn't fit the description... are you sure that's not an artifact of the small scale of the image in the gif?

Not an artifact. Both images of the R10R-2 in the Nova family page show the asymmetrical shroud.

See the image "Nova - Martin Marietta Advanced Designs - September 1963."

See also:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/novr10r2.htm

And I despise SSTO. Reusability/SSTO is a unicorn that has distracted and misdirected the space program for nearly 50 years now. A rocket a day keeps the costs away.

[zapkitty]

That doesn't fit the description... are you sure that's not an artifact of the small scale of the image in the gif?

Not an artifact. Both images of the R10R-2 in the Nova family page show the asymmetrical shroud.

Please be aware that the black and white gif is just a simplification of the official MM artwork. Such drawings, all created by Mark Wade, are scattered all through his site and, among other benefits, make it easy for him to create properly scaled comparison images.

In other words it's all the same image... and as I said that image has multiple cutaways to visually explain the complex shape of the LV to government officials. The design of the ship was a symmetrical annular shroud around 30 identical CD-module type engines.

The drawing just shows the ship with part of the inlet ring gone, part of the shroud gone, and a cutaway of the rest.

And I despise SSTO. Reusability/SSTO is a unicorn that has distracted and misdirected the space program for nearly 50 years now. A rocket a day keeps the costs away.

Please be advised that you have wandered into Unicorn Central.

A fusion-powered LV (FLV) will most certainly be reusable.

The main argument there seems to be about whether the design should allow the use of onboard propellant while in atmosphere or whether to go for atmosphere solely as propellant until vacuum is reached.

For fusion LVs the SSTO concept is just the beginning and SSTA is the goal.

[GIThruster]

SSTO is only really useful if the infrastructure and costs can be kept down. Examining thousands of tiles after every flight is the kind of thing that made Shuttle so expensive.

Just curious, how do you keep costs down with a Poly SSTO? Metallic TPS. . .works just for light loading, doesn't it? So something like a Poly Venturestar?

Which immediately raises thew question of the benefits and issues of vertical vs horizontal take off and landing. Horizontal is sexier. Wings are sexier. Which is more likely to support reduced maintenance and it's infrastructure?

BTW, what is "SSTA" ?

[djolds1]

Please be aware that the black and white gif is just a simplification of the official MM artwork. Such drawings, all created by Mark Wade, are scattered all through his site and, among other benefits, make it easy for him to create properly scaled comparison images.

Facepalms.

Good point. A question for Mr. Wade or Scott Lowther of up-ship.com. Either may have original schematics.

And I despise SSTO. Reusability/SSTO is a unicorn that has distracted and misdirected the space program for nearly 50 years now. A rocket a day keeps the costs away.

Please be advised that you have wandered into Unicorn Central.

A fusion-powered LV (FLV) will most certainly be reusable.

And for the last 50 years, and continuing today, fusion power has not just been vaporware, it has been and is plasmaware. So long as we are restricted to chem or fission boosters, SSTO is a unicorn.

I religiously hope Polywell and/or Lerner's DPF and/or Tri-Alpha and/or whatever work out, but realistic assessments in the meantime point in other directions.

For fusion LVs the SSTO concept is just the beginning and SSTA is the goal.

Which assumes the availability of mass-practical (i.e. not ITER mass) fusion powered boosters. Still plasmaware.

Just curious, how do you keep costs down with a Poly SSTO? Metallic TPS. . .works just for light loading, doesn't it? So something like a Poly Venturestar?

A powered tailsitter reentry is a possibility. Exhaust plume forms a shockwave that relieves the thermal load. The reverse of the MHD Lightcraft.

BTW, what is "SSTA" ?

Single Stage To Anywhere.

[Betruger]

Skylon might make SSTO a reality, if only for the low payload range. Certainly looks to have way better odds than e.g. Polywell.

[DeltaV]

A Polywell reactor by itself doesn't weigh that much. Two big questions for Polywell SSTO, assuming p-B11 works, are 1) how much radiation shield mass is needed and 2) how much UHVDC down-conversion mass is needed. Cooling system mass is a lesser concern. SSTO might still be feasible without the down-conversion, but the radiation level needs to be low enough for crewed operation, preferably using full (not shadow) shielding to facilitate spaceport operations (gammas are the big concern). I'm assuming multi-GW power levels and dual-mode operation (airbreathing cruise- and loiter-capable aircraft to ~100K ft, transitioning to QED-ARC rocketship beyond). Fuel mass is not much of a concern. Maximizing use of atmosphere as propellant for the aircraft mode reduces the reaction mass that has to be carried. If the mass can be kept down, a blend of X-33/VentureStar with Lenticular Reentry Vehicle and metallic TPS would be nice. The large planform makes VTVL with embedded electric fans easier (GWs to spare before boost to orbit) and lowers the ballistic coefficient during reentry.