Random speculation: Falcon 9 v2

Following on from yesterdays landing failure, a few thoughts on how the data gathered from these flights could be put to use and what features the next version should have.

First of all, it should be designed for increased ruggedness and for reusability from the start (natch). This should mean an aim for aircraft like performance and an eventual aim of 'gas and go' operations. These vehicles should undergo an incremental test programme to determine reliability before putting on second stages and payloads. The staging and mass ratio between first and second should be optimised for reusability, if they find that the GTO missions put too much stress on the vehicles or don't have the margins for landing then keep flying them as expendables and only reuse for low orbit missions.

Second, I think should be a wider, shorter vehicle. Maybe around 6 metres wide first stage (compared to the current ones 3.8m) This is to increase stability on landing and to allow a larger fairing to be used. I would also attach the fairing directly to the first stage and put the second stage and payload (for unmanned launches) inside, a la Antares and Delta heavy. This way the fairing can be recovered with the first stage (I'm imaging it opening to deploy at separation a bit like the rocket in Thunderball). Another advantage is that larger, Raptor powered upper stages could be used on the heavy version. These could then lead to a reusable upper stage (one idea I have is a conical stage that incorporates a Dragon capsule for manned missions)

Finally, the 6m tanking can the used for the next generation raptor powered first stages, which could be built in various lengths and with different numbers of engines to replace F9 and heavy prior to MCT launchers coming online.

Of course, it is most likley the announcement in September will render these points all moot. Or I could have been prophetic....

Another bit of XS-1 speculation

Further to my previous thoughts on applications of DARPA's XS-1, I noticed Boeing's proposal:

(c) Boeing

looks ab bit like their proposals from the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) from around 2000:

(image from here)

This makes me wonder if once operational the design could be 'stacked' into a bimese vehicle to give a bigger payload? Alternatively an enlarged version (XS-2?) could be used as threbasis of a TSTO, with an uprated XS-1 as the upper stage. Other options for an upper stage could be derived from the X-37 or Dreamchaser designs. 

Random thoughts on Tourist suborbital RLV's

After the news last week that Xcor's Lynx is not quite dead, the only serious Space tourism projects left now are Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic's (and I have serious doubt about the latter ever flying passengers, but that's another story). Could anyone else get in the game if the market shows there is demand?

First idea I had was for a quick and simple SpaceX Falcon 9 derived vehicle. Once reusability of the first stage and Crew Dragon are proved, why not put a Dragon on a F9 first stage and use for a RTLS (return to launch site) flight? It could be made lighter and simpler by removing the heat shield, docking adaptor, trunk and interstage. It might even be worth removing some engines as the thrust required would be a lot lower (maybe reviving the Falcon 5 name?), and cutting the stage down. (though it may be easier to build from scratch if you'd do this).

Sadly this is unlikely to ever happen unless someone was to ask SpaceX to build it for them, given Musk's focus on Mars.

The other idea I had was after reading this piece of Northrop's XS-1 bid. Their team includes Virgin, who presumably are building the upper stage (based on Launcher 1?) If they get the contract, I'd guess that Virgin would order some for commercial use launching payloads bigger than L1 can do). If the system proves robust enough, and SS2's performance proves a disappointment, how about putting a crew compartment on the back to carry passengers on suborbital flights? They could even use the SS2 cabin and fuselage as the basis to reduce cost and development time (I'd expect it to remain attached to the XS-1 throughout the flight unless there was an emergency, for which I'd give it a LAS and parachutes). If the keep the whole fuselage design they could enlarge the cabin to give more seats. Overall this would have the advantage over SS2 of higher flight rates, quicker turnaround times, lower costs and more passengers being flown higher (longer time weightless/better views).

Even if this doesn't happen, I hope NG get XS-1, build something that actually flies and can be scaled up.

Orbital ATK launch plans

A few days late in commenting on these, but Orbital ATK has had 2 stories this week, first on Antares returning to flight in July, second on a future LV based on the shuttle's SRB and Blue Origin upper stage.

Personally I'd have though a liquid upper stage for Antares would be a better bet, the core is comparable in size and thrust to a Atlas V but the overall payload is much lower due to solid upper stages. Of course this would probably be ineligible for USAF launches due to the Russian engines, but it could be cost effective for NASA and commercial launches (maybe could even put CST-100 or Dreamchaser in orbit?)

End of the Sea Harrier

India has decommissioned its Sea Harrier FRS 51's. End of an era. Random though from this article- it also mentions that IMS Viraat (formerly HMS Hermes) will be decommissioned this year. Would be nice to bring her home and preserve her as a museum, esp since it seems unlikely Illustrious will be saved from scrap. After HMS Plymouth went there are no Falklands veterans left, so having Hermes back would also rectify that situation.