Imagery update for 26 May at LZ-1, either dirt spreadingor concrete pouringhas begun (hard to tell with the lighting)
Edit:probably dirt spreading, based on the mound that appeared to the right of the clearing
Taken from Planet Beta imagery program:
https://www.planet.com/explorer/
Also, what happened to the sea turtles nesting period? This forum was convinced a few month ago that at the current time, no construction would be possible because of the nesting turtles. What happened?
Also, what happened to the sea turtles nesting period? This forum was convinced a few month ago that at the current time, no construction would be possible because of the nesting turtles. What happened?In Texas the beaches are patrolled and the public calls in nesting turtles, with the eggs being recovered as soon as they're laid, and the young ones released in a safe spot. They did that before the spaceport.
I was thinking the other day, perhaps it makes sense now to remove some engines (3-4) from the center core?
Falcon Heavy already has a crazy T/W and with a rumored 10% thrust increase with B5 upgrades, it will be even more crazy. It already has a >1 T/W with just the outer cores firing...
Removing 3-4 engines would allow:
-Deeper throttling of the center core after liftoff, transferring more of the lower altitude impulse outer stages, allowing them to stage earlier, also reducing the RTLS fuel requirement
-Leaving more fuel for the center core after separation, both for more impulse, and more fuel for a boostback burn
-Reduce center core landing fuel requirement because of a non-trivial decrease (>3000kg?) in stage empty weight giving it a higher theoretical maximum staging velocity
-Reduce cost of center core
I think a Falcon Heavy with 5-6 engine center core might lose a little theoretical expendable performance, but could perhaps gain a good amount of re-usable performance...
I was thinking the other day, perhaps it makes sense now to remove some engines (3-4) from the center core?
Falcon Heavy already has a crazy T/W and with a rumored 10% thrust increase with B5 upgrades, it will be even more crazy. It already has a >1 T/W with just the outer cores firing...
Removing 3-4 engines would allow:
-Deeper throttling of the center core after liftoff, transferring more of the lower altitude impulse outer stages, allowing them to stage earlier, also reducing the RTLS fuel requirement
-Leaving more fuel for the center core after separation, both for more impulse, and more fuel for a boostback burn
-Reduce center core landing fuel requirement because of a non-trivial decrease (>3000kg?) in stage empty weight giving it a higher theoretical maximum staging velocity
-Reduce cost of center core
I think a Falcon Heavy with 5-6 engine center core might lose a little theoretical expendable performance, but could perhaps gain a good amount of re-usable performance...
Hypothetically, a "Hexiweb" varient of the center core, with 2 vac bells offset outward and between the normal octoweb engine placement, replacing a total of 4 sea level nozzles. (leaving 5 sealevel nozzles each)
It would of course be a pain to develop, and the bell extending beyond the tank cross section will probably tear it apart.
I'm not sure simply removing engines has enough benifits over leaving engines off to be worthwhile either.
Falcon Heavy already has a crazy T/W and with a rumored 10% thrust increase with B5 upgrades, it will be even more crazy. It already has a >1 T/W with just the outer cores firing...
Falcon Heavy already has a crazy T/W and with a rumored 10% thrust increase with B5 upgrades, it will be even more crazy. It already has a >1 T/W with just the outer cores firing...
Does FH really have thrust/weight >1 without the center core firing? If so, given that SpaceX must be getting pretty comfortable with in-flight engine restarts after all those landings, is it possible we could see FH launch with some/all of the center core engines unstarted, and air-light them? What could that do to performance?
Given that the entire center core is a different design to the standard F9, presumably they could fit all 9 engines with re/air start kits if it was useful. Part of the rationale for beefing up the center core so much structurally might actually be so that they can launch with some of the center core engines not running. Think of it as an extreme form of throttling down the center core so that there is more propellant left in it at booster sep. Of course, it probably makes the center core recovery harder.
Would the real rocket scientists (engineers) please now step in with facts :) (EDIT: This is said in reference to my wild speculations, not docmordrid's perfectly reasonable comments about the current air-start-ability of the F9 engine set. I re-read it and wanted to make sure it was clear that it's not aimed at anyone but myself)
Thanks, hadn't seen it. Off to have a read....
There's already an entire thread to discuss this idea, no need to bring it up in here again.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42185
.@elonmusk says "Building on the Model X on the [Tesla] Model S platform was a mistake" - Does the same error carry on to Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy?https://twitter.com/sahershodhan/status/872347614280372224 (https://twitter.com/sahershodhan/status/872347614280372224)
Almost. Falcon Heavy was way harder to develop than it seemed at first.https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/872349052016394243 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/872349052016394243)
I was thinking the other day, perhaps it makes sense now to remove some engines (3-4) from the center core?
Falcon Heavy already has a crazy T/W and with a rumored 10% thrust increase with B5 upgrades, it will be even more crazy. It already has a >1 T/W with just the outer cores firing...
Removing 3-4 engines would allow:
-Deeper throttling of the center core after liftoff, transferring more of the lower altitude impulse outer stages, allowing them to stage earlier, also reducing the RTLS fuel requirement
-Leaving more fuel for the center core after separation, both for more impulse, and more fuel for a boostback burn
-Reduce center core landing fuel requirement because of a non-trivial decrease (>3000kg?) in stage empty weight giving it a higher theoretical maximum staging velocity
-Reduce cost of center core
I think a Falcon Heavy with 5-6 engine center core might lose a little theoretical expendable performance, but could perhaps gain a good amount of re-usable performance...
All Falcon Heavy cores should be at the Cape in two to three months, so launch should happen a month after that
I was thinking the other day, perhaps it makes sense now to remove some engines (3-4) from the center core?
Falcon Heavy already has a crazy T/W and with a rumored 10% thrust increase with B5 upgrades, it will be even more crazy. It already has a >1 T/W with just the outer cores firing...
Removing 3-4 engines would allow:
-Deeper throttling of the center core after liftoff, transferring more of the lower altitude impulse outer stages, allowing them to stage earlier, also reducing the RTLS fuel requirement
-Leaving more fuel for the center core after separation, both for more impulse, and more fuel for a boostback burnMaking center core fly further away until it has expendedn it's fuel and reacher the staging altitude, INCREASING fuel needed for boostback burn.
-Reduce center core landing fuel requirement because of a non-trivial decrease (>3000kg?) in stage empty weight giving it a higher theoretical maximum staging velocity
-Reduce cost of center core
I think a Falcon Heavy with 5-6 engine center core might lose a little theoretical expendable performance, but could perhaps gain a good amount of re-usable performance...
At liftoff T/W of 1.5 means that only 66% of all thrust is lost to gravity losses and 33% is doing reasonable work at liftoff moment, not 80% wasted and 20% work like traditional liquid-fueled rockets. Still huge gravity losses, better T/W still helps considerably.
It's the other way around, previously rockets have had really lousy T/W's because the engines have been the most expensive part of the rocket.
At liftoff T/W of 1.5 means that only 66% of all thrust is lost to gravity losses and 33% is doing reasonable work at liftoff moment, not 80% wasted and 20% work like traditional liquid-fueled rockets. Still huge gravity losses, better T/W still helps considerably.
It's the other way around, previously rockets have had really lousy T/W's because the engines have been the most expensive part of the rocket.
For a given amount of thrust on a long-burning stage, payload to orbit is maximized by having nearly the maximum amount of fuel which gives a low TWR. Fuel only becomes a liability when the tankage to hold it slows the rocket more at the end of flight than the fuel accelerates it at the beginning. For a weight-optimized liquid rocket like Saturn V that happens around TWR of 1.1 or so.
Not necessarily in this case. The propellant is best burned in vacuum or near-vacuum, where ISP is highest. Carrying as much of that propellant as possible up to booster staging maximizes payload.At liftoff T/W of 1.5 means that only 66% of all thrust is lost to gravity losses and 33% is doing reasonable work at liftoff moment, not 80% wasted and 20% work like traditional liquid-fueled rockets. Still huge gravity losses, better T/W still helps considerably.
It's the other way around, previously rockets have had really lousy T/W's because the engines have been the most expensive part of the rocket.
For a given amount of thrust on a long-burning stage, payload to orbit is maximized by having nearly the maximum amount of fuel which gives a low TWR. Fuel only becomes a liability when the tankage to hold it slows the rocket more at the end of flight than the fuel accelerates it at the beginning. For a weight-optimized liquid rocket like Saturn V that happens around TWR of 1.1 or so.
Yes, but here we were NOT talking about GIVEN AMOUNT OF THRUST.
For for given fixed amount of fuel, the payload to orbit is maximized by having maximum thrust that the structure can stand, to minimize gravity losses.
Not necessarily in this case. The propellant is best burned in vacuum or near-vacuum, where ISP is highest. Carrying as much of that propellant as possible up to booster staging maximizes payload.How does the desire for engine-out capability factor into this? Would the center core ever need to make up for the loss of an engine in a side booster?
I'm suspecting that SpaceX is planning to do this. It would be easier to do if the core had less than nine engines. Maybe only five or six. The rocket really only needs three on the core at liftoff, but it needs five or so at staging for T/W>1.
- Ed Kyle
Also, what happened to the sea turtles nesting period? This forum was convinced a few month ago that at the current time, no construction would be possible because of the nesting turtles. What happened?
I think turtles are in Texas. In Florida the restriction was around bird nesting season in the surrounding scrub. Either the work started before nesting season, or the season ended I guess.
Paul
So according to reddit user /u/aftersteveo all cores are now at the Cape, with B1025 still waiting to be transported to MgGregor for testing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ewgm7/rspacex_discusses_june_2017_33/dj2fcc6/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ewgm7/rspacex_discusses_june_2017_33/dj2fcc6/)
So according to reddit user /u/aftersteveo all cores are now at the Cape, with B1025 still waiting to be transported to MgGregor for testing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ewgm7/rspacex_discusses_june_2017_33/dj2fcc6/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ewgm7/rspacex_discusses_june_2017_33/dj2fcc6/)
It seems extremely unlikely that they would convert the two boosters in too different places. Why build that capability twice? Also, in the recent factory fly through posted by Elon, there is a reused booster in the factory. That reused booster is most likely the second FH booster.
The Thaicom booster is the side booster we have already seen test fired at McGregor. I was not aware of any flown boosters in Hawthorne, but unless that video is months old one is there. I'd guess that is CRS-9 and we just missed it moving.
Footage is old - several months at least. Flown core is 1023 back when it was being refurbed for a Falcon Heavy side core. That's why the octaweb is missing.
but unless that video is months old one is there.
So according to reddit user /u/aftersteveo all cores are now at the Cape, with B1025 still waiting to be transported to MgGregor for testing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ewgm7/rspacex_discusses_june_2017_33/dj2fcc6/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6ewgm7/rspacex_discusses_june_2017_33/dj2fcc6/)
FH 101 question. We got good closeup video of the Vandenberg strongback during the Iridium launch on Sunday. This strongback looks like its structurally built to support FH. I hadn't seen anything about launching FHs from Vandenberg. Have I missed something?The original intent (2012) was to launch the first Falcon Heavy from Vandenburg. That was back when they thought it would be easy to fasten three Falcon first stages side by side. Since then much has changed.
FH 101 question. We got good closeup video of the Vandenberg strongback during the Iridium launch on Sunday. This strongback looks like its structurally built to support FH. I hadn't seen anything about launching FHs from Vandenberg. Have I missed something?
A related question - Is the plan to still build an onshore west coast LZ?
Is the plan to still build an onshore west coast LZ?It has been built for a while now. It's just a little way downhill from the launching pad. It would seem somebody has been throwing up regulatory hurdles against SpaceX actually using that landing pad.
Why does it "seem like" regulatory hurdles? Any evidence or just the go-to explanation? This is how rumors start.Is the plan to still build an onshore west coast LZ?It has been built for a while now. It's just a little way downhill from the launching pad. It would seem somebody has been throwing up regulatory hurdles against SpaceX actually using that landing pad.
--Ninja'd, partially.
Why does it "seem like" regulatory hurdles? Any evidence or just the go-to explanation? This is how rumors start.It's just me watching what is said and what is not, and drawing perhaps incorrect conclusions. I don't recall there was any ruling about whether the sonic booms related to RTLS would adversely affect the shore life (seals in particular). SpaceX made some noise about possibly bringing the Jason-3 first stage back RTLS, but that was not approved for whatever reason (possibly because to that point, only one landing had been successful). As it turned out, it was a good thing it landed on the ASDS. If it had tipped over on the Vandenberg landing pad there would probably have been bad press. Never mind that it would very likely have landed right on target, just as every landing has since they added grid fins.
..... back when they thought it would be easy to fasten three Falcon first stages side by side. Since then much has changed.
It is looking like SpaceX will have about a month of downtown between the upcoming Intelsat launch and CRS-12. Is it possible that some of the FH upgrades could be completed during that time?
..... back when they thought it would be easy to fasten three Falcon first stages side by side. Since then much has changed.
Exactly why I came over here, after the grid fin discussion in the Iridium thread, and wondering how tightly the cores could be secured with those [and the legs] inbetween. So a look at http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy says and shows bars are connecting the cores only at the top of each first stage and at the bottom near the legs. The Falcon 9 has been flown without that extra stabilization at the top and bottom of the first stage, so the vibration loads have been much more evenly distributed. Now it appears the vibration loads will be much more concentrated somewhere near the middle. Would that be a routine engineering calculation, or something they may be risking?
Structural analysis is pretty routine by rocket science standards. Back in the 1960s, NASA saw a bunch of companies each developing their own analysis software, and supported the development of NASTRAN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastran), which has been used and enhanced for more than a half century.Now it appears the vibration loads will be much more concentrated somewhere near the middle. Would that be a routine engineering calculation, or something they may be risking?
It's going to make me nervous there won't be a connecting rod across the middle. I'm guessing that might have been a subject of debate earlier in the development process.
Structural analysis is pretty routine by rocket science standards. Back in the 1960s, NASA saw a bunch of companies each developing their own analysis software, and supported the development of NASTRAN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastran), which has been used and enhanced for more than a half century.Now it appears the vibration loads will be much more concentrated somewhere near the middle. Would that be a routine engineering calculation, or something they may be risking?
It's going to make me nervous there won't be a connecting rod across the middle. I'm guessing that might have been a subject of debate earlier in the development process.
Unlike combustion analysis or computational aerodynamics, analysis of modes of vibration is a pretty mature field. Of course you can still make mistakes, but of all the reasons the FH might fail, lack of connecting rods in the middle of stack is pretty low on the list.
Structural analysis is pretty routine by rocket science standards. Back in the 1960s, NASA saw a bunch of companies each developing their own analysis software, and supported the development of NASTRAN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastran), which has been used and enhanced for more than a half century.Now it appears the vibration loads will be much more concentrated somewhere near the middle. Would that be a routine engineering calculation, or something they may be risking?
It's going to make me nervous there won't be a connecting rod across the middle. I'm guessing that might have been a subject of debate earlier in the development process.
Unlike combustion analysis or computational aerodynamics, analysis of modes of vibration is a pretty mature field. Of course you can still make mistakes, but of all the reasons the FH might fail, lack of connecting rods in the middle of stack is pretty low on the list.
As far as I'm aware, pretty much no boosters for any operational launcher from any nation have ever had more than two connection points. Further, in each case, the load is generally carried by one of the two (either top or bottom), not both.
In short, two connection points is fine. If you can't adequately secure the boosters to the core with two cross-members, then you don't have any business trying to design multi-core rockets.
Random question: Is it known what will happen to 1027 (the FH Core STA)? Will it be scrapped or be converted to a normal FH core?
Random question: Is it known what will happen to 1027 (the FH Core STA)? Will it be scrapped or be converted to a normal FH core?
Excuse my ignorance, but what are you talking about. What is STA?
This is why Elon hates acronyms.Random question: Is it known what will happen to 1027 (the FH Core STA)? Will it be scrapped or be converted to a normal FH core?
Excuse my ignorance, but what are you talking about. What is STA?
Structural Test Article.
This is why Elon hates acronyms.Random question: Is it known what will happen to 1027 (the FH Core STA)? Will it be scrapped or be converted to a normal FH core?
Excuse my ignorance, but what are you talking about. What is STA?
Structural Test Article.
Random question: Is it known what will happen to 1027 (the FH Core STA)? Will it be scrapped or be converted to a normal FH core?
I was really intrigued a few years back when SpaceX was describing what the FH would have in the way of "gee-wiz" technology, like for instance the "cross-core propellant feed". I gather that this will not be on the FH that flies later this year. Has this been dropped for good, or will it be a later upgrade?
I was really intrigued a few years back when SpaceX was describing what the FH would have in the way of "gee-wiz" technology, like for instance the "cross-core propellant feed". I gather that this will not be on the FH that flies later this year. Has this been dropped for good, or will it be a later upgrade?
I don't think there's a left and a right; aren't the boosters are the same part rotated around the long axis of the core (rotational symmetry rather than mirrored symmetry)?
Either way, crossfeed is gone for good.
This is why Elon hates acronyms.Random question: Is it known what will happen to 1027 (the FH Core STA)? Will it be scrapped or be converted to a normal FH core?
Excuse my ignorance, but what are you talking about. What is STA?
Structural Test Article.
There have been references to an FH booster core STA being constructed as well - but there hasn't been a gap in the core serial numbers that it would fit into: does / did it exist?Since they're converting previously flown F9's into FH boosters, it would make sense if they simply converted a booster into an STA. Why not test something similar to what you're going to fly? And they have Block 3 cores to spare...
Random question: Is it known what will happen to 1027 (the FH Core STA)? Will it be scrapped or be converted to a normal FH core?
Apparently last seen at McGregor in October.
Similarly random questions:
There have been references to an FH booster core STA being constructed as well - but there hasn't been a gap in the core serial numbers that it would fit into: does / did it exist?
Unless it didn’t get a serial number, it doesn’t exist as a standalone STA. My theory is that they used 1023 as soon as they got its new FH side booster octaweb installed, then they shipped it back to Hawthorne for completion after testing.
It’s been 44 years since the mighty Saturn V last thundered skyward from a launch pad at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The towering rocket, generating enough power to lift 269,000 pounds into orbit, had been the workhorse of the Apollo moon missions.
Later this year, SpaceX plans to launch its most powerful rocket yet from the same pad. The long-awaited Falcon Heavy is key to the Hawthorne company’s plans to ramp up its defense business, send tourists around the moon and launch its first uncrewed mission to Mars.
But unlike the Saturn V, the Falcon Heavy will have plenty of competition.
Complete text of Elon's comments on Falcon Heavy:
First of all I should say that Falcon Heavy requires the simultaneous ignition of 27 orbital class engines. There's a lot that could go wrong there. And I encourage people to come down to the Cape and see the first Falcon Heavy mission. It's guaranteed to be exciting. But it's one of those things that's really difficult to test on the ground. We can fire the engines on the ground and try to simulate the dynamics of having 27 orbital booster engines and the airflow as it goes transonic. It's going to see heavy transonic buffeting. It's behavior at Max Q, there's a lot of risks associated with Falcon Heavy. Real good chance that that first vehicle doesn't make it to orbit. So I want to make sure to set expectations accordingly. I hope it makes it far enough away from the pad that it's not going to cause damage. I would consider that a win, honestly. And yeah. Major pucker factor is the only way to describe it. I think Falcon Heavy is going to be a great vehicle. There's just a lot that's impossible to test on the ground. And we'll do our best. And it ended up being way harder to do Falcon Heavy than we thought. Because at first it sounds really easy to just stick to first stages on as strap-on side boosters. But then everything changes. The loads change, the air dynamics totally change. You triple the vibration and acoustics. So you break the qualification levels and so much of the hardware. The amount of load you’re putting through that center core is crazy because you have two super powerful boosters also shoving that center core. So we had to redesign the whole center-core airframe on the Falcon 9 because it’s going to take so much load. And then you’ve got the separation systems... and, yeah, it just ended up being way way more difficult than we originally thought. We were pretty naive about that. But the next thing is that we're going to fully optimize it. It has about 2.5 times the payload capacity of the Falcon 9. We’re well over 100,000 lb to LEO payload capability. And then it has enough thrust performance to put us in a loop with Dragon 2 around the moon. And Dragon itself, the heat shield is designed with a huge amount of margin. So it has enough margin to handle a lunar reentry. But no question, whoever is on the first flight, brave.
A new generation of giant rockets is about to blast off
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-heavy-lift-rockets-20170716-htmlstory.html
“There is a part of the commercial market that requires Falcon Heavy,” said Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX. “It’s there, and it’s going to be consistent, but it’s much smaller than we thought.”
...
Shotwell said the company is currently working to see if it can bring the side boosters back to land, which would require overhauling its landing zone at Cape Canaveral. SpaceX may also need to build more droneships if the company chooses to land the side boosters at sea, she said.
Thought I remember reading somewhere that there's a possibility of Falcon Heavy going through more than one static fire on 39A before the actual launch count. Am I making that up, so can someone point me to where I ready that?I think this is what you are thinking of:
There will be a combined booster static fire. Maybe a few.
Thought I remember reading somewhere that there's a possibility of Falcon Heavy going through more than one static fire on 39A before the actual launch count. Am I making that up, so can someone point me to where I ready that?I think this is what you are thinking of:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/867667009839931393QuoteThere will be a combined booster static fire. Maybe a few.
They're setting expectations for FH to be really low, I understood it to be a difficult task but they've clearly run into more issues than expected.Yeah, I'm surprised how heavily Elon is caveating the first launch.
They're setting expectations for FH to be really low, I understood it to be a difficult task but they've clearly run into more issues than expected.Yeah, I'm surprised how heavily Elon is caveating the first launch.
And I'm even more surprised how severely SpaceX underestimated FH challenges per the Chris Gebhardt quote. Or perhaps, how much Elon underestimated things? I'd be shocked if many of the engineers didn't know how complicated things were going to get. I know that former Boeing/ULA engineers worked on Delta IV Heavy went on to SpaceX, so at the very least those people knew what was coming ...
But if you think about it, they do have to have some confidence that it'd work to some extent right? I mean, it wouldn't be good if it went boom since 39A is sort off vital to commercial crew. Would they seriously risk that?
But if you think about it, they do have to have some confidence that it'd work to some extent right? I mean, it wouldn't be good if it went boom since 39A is sort off vital to commercial crew. Would they seriously risk that?
But if you think about it, they do have to have some confidence that it'd work to some extent right? I mean, it wouldn't be good if it went boom since 39A is sort off vital to commercial crew. Would they seriously risk that?
Have you ever heard of the concept of "managing expectations"? This is what Elon does. He routinely low-balls the chances of success whenever something new is tried for the first time. (and even after that too)
FH won't launch until SpaceX is very confident it will hold together enough to clear 39A and beyond.
People entering into a complex challenge always underestimate its complexity. Kinda like Trump saying "Who knew how complex healthcare was?" Well, the experts know. But most people don't realize just how deep the rabbit hole goes for any given field. See the Dunning-Kruger Effect for more details.
He really does believe it.
People entering into a complex challenge always underestimate its complexity. Kinda like Trump saying "Who knew how complex healthcare was?" Well, the experts know. But most people don't realize just how deep the rabbit hole goes for any given field. See the Dunning-Kruger Effect for more details.
thanks, while I was all too aware of the phenomena and its corollary I never knew there was a name for it. Perhaps I have given Elon too much credit regarding his genius -- I always thought Elon knew he was making ridiculous schedule claims as a way of drumming up hype and pushing his workforce, but perhaps he really does believe the dates he puts out. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle...
So can anyone share a little bit about the development of Delta IV Heavy?
Fair enough, than we have both come to more or less the same conclusion that they expect the launch to be successful at least to some extent. I was just a little concerned about them gambling 39A, but I'm sure they'll make an informed decision.But if you think about it, they do have to have some confidence that it'd work to some extent right? I mean, it wouldn't be good if it went boom since 39A is sort off vital to commercial crew. Would they seriously risk that?
Have you ever heard of the concept of "managing expectations"? This is what Elon does. He routinely low-balls the chances of success whenever something new is tried for the first time. (and even after that too)
FH won't launch until SpaceX is very confident it will hold together enough to clear 39A and beyond.
But if you think about it, they do have to have some confidence that it'd work to some extent right? I mean, it wouldn't be good if it went boom since 39A is sort off vital to commercial crew. Would they seriously risk that?
Have you ever heard of the concept of "managing expectations"? This is what Elon does. He routinely low-balls the chances of success whenever something new is tried for the first time. (and even after that too)
FH won't launch until SpaceX is very confident it will hold together enough to clear 39A and beyond.
Fair enough, than we have both have come to more or less the same conclusion that they expect the launch to be successful at least to some extent. I was just a little concerned about them gambling 39A, but I'm sure they'll make an informed decision.But if you think about it, they do have to have some confidence that it'd work to some extent right? I mean, it wouldn't be good if it went boom since 39A is sort off vital to commercial crew. Would they seriously risk that?
Have you ever heard of the concept of "managing expectations"? This is what Elon does. He routinely low-balls the chances of success whenever something new is tried for the first time. (and even after that too)
FH won't launch until SpaceX is very confident it will hold together enough to clear 39A and beyond.
Thinking about it some more, the pad is likely not the most uncertain part of the flight (except it will just not launch if not all 27 engines start equally.) The most uncertain part is likely somewhat later in flight when significant aero forces start to come into play.
So can anyone share a little bit about the development of Delta IV Heavy?
One thing we know about Delta IV is that it has, IIRC, four different versions of core: single-stick medium core, heavy core, left booster core and right booster core. That makes it more expensive than it ought to be. The plan was for just three cores, with the heavy core flying as the medium core, but performance shortfalls meant that the medium core had to be lightened, making it a separate variant. It sounds like the Falcon family has at most three cores, because the left and right heavy boosters are identical.
So can anyone share a little bit about the development of Delta IV Heavy?
One thing we know about Delta IV is that it has, IIRC, four different versions of core: single-stick medium core, heavy core, left booster core and right booster core. That makes it more expensive than it ought to be. The plan was for just three cores, with the heavy core flying as the medium core, but performance shortfalls meant that the medium core had to be lightened, making it a separate variant. It sounds like the Falcon family has at most three cores, because the left and right heavy boosters are identical.
tbh I doubt they would be gambling the pad since it's the same one that their commercial crew relies on and certainly I'd expect the FAA to not grant a licence to anything with as much doubt as he is expressing. I think he's just playing to the crowd to whip up a bit of excitement.
So can anyone share a little bit about the development of Delta IV Heavy?
One thing we know about Delta IV is that it has, IIRC, four different versions of core: single-stick medium core, heavy core, left booster core and right booster core. That makes it more expensive than it ought to be. The plan was for just three cores, with the heavy core flying as the medium core, but performance shortfalls meant that the medium core had to be lightened, making it a separate variant. It sounds like the Falcon family has at most three cores, because the left and right heavy boosters are identical.
Eventually, the Falcon family will consist of only two booster types: Falcon Heavy center cores and Falcon Heavy side boosters that double as regular Falcon 9s.
These upcoming Block upgrades are putting a lot of work into increasing the commonality between F9 and FH, including things like the bolted octaweb.
It has often been said that the N-1's problems lay not in the sheer number of engines but in the lack of ground testing of the full engine cluster.
It has often been said that the N-1's problems lay not in the sheer number of engines but in the lack of ground testing of the full engine cluster.
That and FOD. All four launches were a failure and it is know for certain that two of them were FOD related. Soviet Quality Control was practically nonexistent in their rocket manufacturing processes.
With the continuous improvement in thrust and efficiency of the Merlin engines, and given the opportunity to examine landed FH cores to see where the actual stress points are, its conceivable that a future FH iteration could be made of three near identical boosters, the only difference being the reconfigurable mounts. Side boosters and single stick F9s would be heavier but that could be offset by the enhanced engines and the structural robustness might translate into longer service lives.If reuse pans out as well as they hope it does, I don't really see how this makes sense. It'd be better to focus on the second stage, either optimizing for production cost or getting them back, since that's what they will be making in job lots. First stages will only be put out occasionally so having two types shouldn't be that big of a deal. Given the projected low flight rate, SpaceX might only make a handful of FH cores during its entire run.
This may be particularly attractive if BFR/ITS - mini is delayed in development.
It seems to me, there are stresses, the outside cores have to put all their lift capability to the center core. Center core has to take more stress, like 3 times as much. Then after liftoff, the outer cores go full thrust while the center core throttles down. Then there is the separation event. Soyuz basically just falls out by gravity, and maybe a thruster to get the side boosters out of the way of the center. No so with FH. Then the side boosters have to come back and land without getting in each others way. What they are doing is not easy.
Seems to me if they are far enough along with BFR and ITS or BFS, they should put all their effort into those and get them going in a few years. They will put FH out of business.
Even if FH will no longer be needed, the knowledge how to do Heavy can be very useful in the future. BFR-H, anyone?
Particularly good bet for block 5 cores. Just don't see much need to make many more than 5-10 heavy cores.Even if FH will no longer be needed, the knowledge how to do Heavy can be very useful in the future. BFR-H, anyone?
Not me.
I think EM will prefer to go with oversized single stick boosters. Way less operations and steps needed. Likely easier to design and build too.
The lesson of FH maybe to avoid more than a single body.
The lessons of FH design and analysis and sharpening those skills may help the BFR.
I agree with abaddon above, that the number of FH's ever built could be quite low. 1-2, maybe 3 missions a year with reuseable cores for the next 5-10 years until a new gen vehicle is ready.
I could see the amount of FH ever built being in the 5-10 range.
A clustered vehicle is always an interim approach.
So can anyone share a little bit about the development of Delta IV Heavy?
One thing we know about Delta IV is that it has, IIRC, four different versions of core: single-stick medium core, heavy core, left booster core and right booster core. That makes it more expensive than it ought to be. The plan was for just three cores, with the heavy core flying as the medium core, but performance shortfalls meant that the medium core had to be lightened, making it a separate variant. It sounds like the Falcon family has at most three cores, because the left and right heavy boosters are identical.
A clustered vehicle is always an interim approach.
The Soyuz and Proton launchers were surely more than interim approaches?
The advantage of the triple booster is largely to lower the cost of an interim payload size growth in the market.
The disadvantage is that it can amplify costs, as it does for DIVH.
So can anyone share a little bit about the development of Delta IV Heavy?
One thing we know about Delta IV is that it has, IIRC, four different versions of core: single-stick medium core, heavy core, left booster core and right booster core. That makes it more expensive than it ought to be. The plan was for just three cores, with the heavy core flying as the medium core, but performance shortfalls meant that the medium core had to be lightened, making it a separate variant. It sounds like the Falcon family has at most three cores, because the left and right heavy boosters are identical.
For Delta IV Heavy, even Left and Right booster are not the same?
Atlas V Heavy had other issues. Similar to F9H as a paper rocket, both used singular designed cores. You're overselling here.The disadvantage is that it can amplify costs, as it does for DIVH.
not true. Atlas V Heavy would not have had the same issues.
DIVH issues stem from under performance of the basic core and hence the 5 to 6 core versions needed to meet EELV requirements.
Atlas V Heavy had other issues. Similar to F9H as a paper rocket, both used singular designed cores. You're overselling here.
Hundreds of other issues make both clustered EELV's fiscally infeasible and "doomed".
Atlas V Heavy had other issues. Similar to F9H as a paper rocket, both used singular designed cores. You're overselling here.
Not true at all. Atlas V Heavy has no "issues", just needed time. The core as it can handle 0-5 SRBs. Heavy loads would be less.
Don't drag ITS into it.
Hundreds of other issues make both clustered EELV's fiscally infeasible and "doomed".
Wrong again. If designed right, it is cheaper than two different vehicles (F9 and mini ITS)
Atlas V Heavy had other issues. Similar to F9H as a paper rocket, both used singular designed cores. You're overselling here.
Not true at all. Atlas V Heavy has no "issues", just needed time. The core as it can handle 0-5 SRBs. Heavy loads would be less.
Rebuild of VIF - barely enough room for SRBs/GSE. Rebuild of launch table. lssues with MLP. Upscaleing props loading.
Atlas V skipped heavy bc LM did minimal bid /work bc didn't know if it (EELV) would ever pay back investment, which was smart.
So we had to redesign the whole center-core airframe on the Falcon 9 because it’s going to take so much load.
QuoteSo we had to redesign the whole center-core airframe on the Falcon 9 because it’s going to take so much load.
Excuse me, if I may, clustered or not, I believe Jim or someone else once confirmed the walls of the LOX & RP-1 tanks and the walls of the rocket are one & the same, so what is the airframe? Is this the first this particular upgrade has been made public, or has it been discussed previously?
Excuse me, if I may, clustered or not, I believe Jim or someone else once confirmed the walls of the LOX & RP-1 tanks and the walls of the rocket are one & the same, so what is the airframe? Is this the first this particular upgrade has been made public, or has it been discussed previously?
QuoteSo we had to redesign the whole center-core airframe on the Falcon 9 because it’s going to take so much load.
The “airframe” of a Falcon consists of the octaweb, aft skirt, tank walls, and interstage. We know for a fact that the octaweb, aft skirt, and interstage are more structurally reinforced than a normal F9/FH side booster, but I’m not sure if the FH center core will have thicker tank walls.
Over-generalization. See N1
Excuse me, if I may, clustered or not, I believe Jim or someone else once confirmed the walls of the LOX & RP-1 tanks and the walls of the rocket are one & the same, so what is the airframe? Is this the first this particular upgrade has been made public, or has it been discussed previously?
All rockets are made that way since the V-2
Over-generalization. See N1
Excuse me, if I may, clustered or not, I believe Jim or someone else once confirmed the walls of the LOX & RP-1 tanks and the walls of the rocket are one & the same, so what is the airframe? Is this the first this particular upgrade has been made public, or has it been discussed previously?
All rockets are made that way since the V-2
;)
Over-generalization. See N1
Excuse me, if I may, clustered or not, I believe Jim or someone else once confirmed the walls of the LOX & RP-1 tanks and the walls of the rocket are one & the same, so what is the airframe? Is this the first this particular upgrade has been made public, or has it been discussed previously?
All rockets are made that way since the V-2
;)
N-1 just used over sized interstages ;-)
Atlas V Heavy had other issues. Similar to F9H as a paper rocket, both used singular designed cores. You're overselling here.
Not true at all. Atlas V Heavy has no "issues", just needed time. The core as it can handle 0-5 SRBs. Heavy loads would be less.
Rebuild of VIF - barely enough room for SRBs/GSE. Rebuild of launch table. lssues with MLP. Upscaleing props loading.
Atlas V skipped heavy bc LM did minimal bid /work bc didn't know if it (EELV) would ever pay back investment, which was smart.
Wrong, LM did more than minimal work. The CCB was structurally designed for it. The VIF as is can support it. It was designed from the beginning for the Heavy. The platform cutouts for side boosters exist. The MLP required no rebuild. It was designed from the beginning for the Heavy. The openings for the side boosters is what the current SRBs are mounted over. The MLP just needed to be outfitted for the side boosters (holddowns, LOX TSMs, and avionics umbilical).
Soyuz is clustered, Proton is not.
And Soyuz does not use identical 'cores', the center one is very different.
There was no reason/customer for Atlas V Heavy (likewise FH) since DIVH got there first.
So should FH be a fantastic success, it would likely accelerate the need for a non-clustered LV, as we see with Vulcan.
A clustered vehicle is always an interim approach.
And once you exceed certain SHLV sizes, it's far easier to just make the larger vehicle to avoid clusters.
Soyuz is clustered, Proton is not.
I'm pretty sure the Proton first stage consists of a cluster of tanks, 6 fuel tanks surrounding a larger oxidizer tank.
QuoteAnd Soyuz does not use identical 'cores', the center one is very different.
And why is that a disqualification for being considered clustered?
By that definition the Saturn I was clustered as well.
No, it is a first stage that has final assembly at the launch site. Nothing separates.
There was no reason/customer for Atlas V Heavy (likewise FH) since DIVH got there first.
Boeing broke the law at some stage in its competition with LM, and I think it was in connection with the heavy variant. Boeing was punished by losing some launches.
So should FH be a fantastic success, it would likely accelerate the need for a non-clustered LV, as we see with Vulcan.
A clustered vehicle is always an interim approach.
And once you exceed certain SHLV sizes, it's far easier to just make the larger vehicle to avoid clusters.
Once it is suspected that there may be a genuine market for payloads that require a heavy, it is wise to verify the existence and viability of that market before you develop a single core LV to service that market. The best way to do that is interim development of the launch capability by a triple core version of an existing LV, which is what DIVH attempted and what FH will be attempting. DIVH failed to verify the viability of the market because it was already the single most expensive LV on the market and triple-coring it eliminated, for purely cost reasons, all possible payloads except for the heaviest DoD birds.
FH on the other hand, would be a relatively inexpensive heavy LV and may actually be able to verify that viability because entities other than the DoD could actually afford to fly on it.
It remains to be seen whether or not that market will prove to be viable. If it does not then FH will continue to be a low flight rate vehicle.One has to give the market time to adapt. "Loss leader".
If it does, then that will provide the economic justification for the mini BFR that Elon spoke about recently. That LV would likely be the replacement for the FH.
Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on Ariane 5, Proton, Atlas and DIV Medium, not to mention HIIA and Chinese launchersAll of them suffer the same issue.
I suppose not, although the original point was more about a design where the core and boosters are the identical (or virtually identical) design - like Delta IV-H, Angara A5, and FH. It sounds so easy to do, but there seems to be more gotchas than those providers anticipated. (which caused cost increases or other issues) We'll see if FH can buck that trend or not.
Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton
Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton
No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.
Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton
No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.
In expendable mode, yes. But FH would be needed for reuse.
If F9 had a metholox expendable second stage, It could launch loftier payloads without FH.
Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton
No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.
I had a whole list of LVs in my post.Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton
No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.
Maybe its me, but do you think that SpaceX is designing capability against a 50+ year old launcher that Russia is trying to replace? F9 and FH is targeted at meeting current and future launcher needs at the most affordable means, and which can generate the greatest profit.
"What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"
Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.
"What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"
Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.
Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?
"What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"
Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.
Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?
They are one Demo launch away from having the world's largest launcher by a factor of two -- and it will be born reusable (for about 90% of the vehicle cost). Not time for the faint of heart.
If Demo goes south and Demo2 follows, and ITSy is making good progress, they may rethink this vehicle.
"What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"
Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.
Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?
They are one Demo launch away from having the world's largest launcher by a factor of two -- and it will be born reusable (for about 90% of the vehicle cost). Not time for the faint of heart.
If Demo goes south and Demo2 follows, and ITSy is making good progress, they may rethink this vehicle.
I raised the decreasing justification for the FH a couple of months ago, even before ITSy was announced. In my mind the FH is going to have a very short lifespan. And with Dragon no longer going to Mars, it really seems that in hindsight it was a lot of money wasted on a concept that has been replaced by a better one before the first even saw its maiden flight.
I think the moment ITSy flies, FH is retired. Now the question just is, how long will it take to get to ITSy's first flight?
I fully agree with you that FH is likely to have a very short lifespan and be retired as soon as ITSy is ready. If FH maiden launch fails then I think it will be retired immediately with heavier payloads launched on expendable F9 Block 5's until ITSy is ready. FH is a dead end kludge and it will be rapidly become obsolete."What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"
Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.
Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?
They are one Demo launch away from having the world's largest launcher by a factor of two -- and it will be born reusable (for about 90% of the vehicle cost). Not time for the faint of heart.
If Demo goes south and Demo2 follows, and ITSy is making good progress, they may rethink this vehicle.
I raised the decreasing justification for the FH a couple of months ago, even before ITSy was announced. In my mind the FH is going to have a very short lifespan. And with Dragon no longer going to Mars, it really seems that in hindsight it was a lot of money wasted on a concept that has been replaced by a better one before the first even saw its maiden flight.
I think the moment ITSy flies, FH is retired. Now the question just is, how long will it take to get to ITSy's first flight?
Dead end kluge might be a bit harsh... what if ITSy didn't or doesn't ever exist?
Dead end kluge might be a bit harsh... what if ITSy didn't or doesn't ever exist?SpaceX should have skipped FH altogether and gone straight with ITSy. All the money burned on FH dev. should have been put towards accelerating ITSy dev. and getting ITSy launching ASAP.
Dead end kluge might be a bit harsh... what if ITSy didn't or doesn't ever exist?SpaceX should have skipped FH altogether and gone straight with ITSy. All the money burned on FH dev. should have been put towards accelerating ITSy dev. and getting ITSy launching ASAP.
Dead end kluge might be a bit harsh... what if ITSy didn't or doesn't ever exist?SpaceX should have skipped FH altogether and gone straight with ITSy. All the money burned on FH dev. should have been put towards accelerating ITSy dev. and getting ITSy launching ASAP.
Even with all the unexpected complexity I suspect FH will be significantly less expensive to develop than ITSy. I doubt a team the size of the FH team could have ITSy ready in the same time frame as FH.Dead end kluge might be a bit harsh... what if ITSy didn't or doesn't ever exist?SpaceX should have skipped FH altogether and gone straight with ITSy. All the money burned on FH dev. should have been put towards accelerating ITSy dev. and getting ITSy launching ASAP.
Dead end kluge might be a bit harsh... what if ITSy didn't or doesn't ever exist?SpaceX should have skipped FH altogether and gone straight with ITSy. All the money burned on FH dev. should have been put towards accelerating ITSy dev. and getting ITSy launching ASAP.
...
SpaceX can't afford ITS development on its own. Until they find another partner willing to spend tens of billions of dollars, I wouldn't hold your breath.
...
...
SpaceX can't afford ITS development on its own. Until they find another partner willing to spend tens of billions of dollars, I wouldn't hold your breath.
...
Not everyone requires tens of billions of dollars to build a launch vehicle. Recall the study that showed it would have taken $4B to build F9 using NASA's approach, but it actually took $390k (1/10th the estimate)? Tens of billions becomes a few billion... and the builders have so much relevant experience and applicable technology now. $1-2B seems reasonable; tens of billions sounds like wishful thinking (a.k.a., denial).
Remember that ITS is a much more complex system than F9. It's not even just a launch vehicle. Musk estimated that developing reusability for Falcon 9 cost them about $1b. SX has gotten over $3b in total from the commercial crew program. ITS needs a crew vehicle an order of magnitude larger than Dragon 2 and a reusable launch vehicle an order of magnitude larger than F9....
SpaceX can't afford ITS development on its own. Until they find another partner willing to spend tens of billions of dollars, I wouldn't hold your breath.
...
Not everyone requires tens of billions of dollars to build a launch vehicle. Recall the study that showed it would have taken $4B to build F9 using NASA's approach, but it actually took $390k (1/10th the estimate)? Tens of billions becomes a few billion... and the builders have so much relevant experience and applicable technology now. $1-2B seems reasonable; tens of billions sounds like wishful thinking (a.k.a., denial).
Remember that ITS is a much more complex system than F9. It's not even just a launch vehicle. Musk estimated that developing reusability for Falcon 9 cost them about $1b. SX has gotten over $3b in total from the commercial crew program. ITS needs a crew vehicle an order of magnitude larger than Dragon 2 and a reusable launch vehicle an order of magnitude larger than F9....
SpaceX can't afford ITS development on its own. Until they find another partner willing to spend tens of billions of dollars, I wouldn't hold your breath.
...
Not everyone requires tens of billions of dollars to build a launch vehicle. Recall the study that showed it would have taken $4B to build F9 using NASA's approach, but it actually took $390k (1/10th the estimate)? Tens of billions becomes a few billion... and the builders have so much relevant experience and applicable technology now. $1-2B seems reasonable; tens of billions sounds like wishful thinking (a.k.a., denial).
...
SpaceX can't afford ITS development on its own. Until they find another partner willing to spend tens of billions of dollars, I wouldn't hold your breath.
...
Not everyone requires tens of billions of dollars to build a launch vehicle. Recall the study that showed it would have taken $4B to build F9 using NASA's approach, but it actually took $390k (1/10th the estimate)? Tens of billions becomes a few billion... and the builders have so much relevant experience and applicable technology now. $1-2B seems reasonable; tens of billions sounds like wishful thinking (a.k.a., denial).
The last sentence is wishful thinking and willful suspension of disbelieve. F9 development costs are much more because development hasn't finished. Also, "$1-2B seems reasonable" is seriously delusional.
Would it be reasonable to build the mini-its first stage, a second stage that has the cargo/tanker function include a Dragon 2 inside the cargo stage for astronauts if needed?
Dead end kluge might be a bit harsh... what if ITSy didn't or doesn't ever exist?
Yes, FH is needed as an insurance policy in case ITSy takes longer than hoped for to develop. But it remains a bridging vehicle, which will have little justification for its existence once the Raptor based vehicle becomes operational.
Think about it this way: as soon as FH flies successfully, they'll be able to sell to that market segment. They can pack their manifest for several years' full. If they get ITSy flying in 2020, that's 3 years of flights."What do we think the odds are that, doing it all over again, SpaceX would not attempt a tri-core launch vehicle?"
Very low. Shotwell is poo-pooing the market size too. At one time it probably looked safer to build upon F9 technology than to redesign completely. Probably would have to me too.
Then given SpaceX's penchant to switch direction when an approach no longer makes sense - why haven't they just given up on the heavy?
They are one Demo launch away from having the world's largest launcher by a factor of two -- and it will be born reusable (for about 90% of the vehicle cost). Not time for the faint of heart.
If Demo goes south and Demo2 follows, and ITSy is making good progress, they may rethink this vehicle.
I raised the decreasing justification for the FH a couple of months ago, even before ITSy was announced. In my mind the FH is going to have a very short lifespan. And with Dragon no longer going to Mars, it really seems that in hindsight it was a lot of money wasted on a concept that has been replaced by a better one before the first even saw its maiden flight.
I think the moment ITSy flies, FH is retired. Now the question just is, how long will it take to get to ITSy's first flight?
...
SpaceX can't afford ITS development on its own. Until they find another partner willing to spend tens of billions of dollars, I wouldn't hold your breath.
...
Not everyone requires tens of billions of dollars to build a launch vehicle. Recall the study that showed it would have taken $4B to build F9 using NASA's approach, but it actually took $390k (1/10th the estimate)? Tens of billions becomes a few billion... and the builders have so much relevant experience and applicable technology now. $1-2B seems reasonable; tens of billions sounds like wishful thinking (a.k.a., denial).
The last sentence is wishful thinking and willful suspension of disbelieve. F9 development costs are much more because development hasn't finished. Also, "$1-2B seems reasonable" is seriously delusional.
F9 development is also 15 years on now, if you count F1 - which the $390M figure does. Or 11 years, if you go with the ~$300M spent only on getting F9 flying. The vast majority of the money spend on developing F9 was spent after getting it flying and while it was earning revenue and booking orders.
SpaceX will likely try to get a minimalist ITS flying as quickly as possible, to earn revenue with it, and iterate towards a more capable vehicle. That is their MO. They might eventually dump $15 billion into it, but that of itself doesn't mean it couldn't fly (in minimalist form) for less than $3 billion.
... first order of business is to prove them wrong ...
... first order of business is to prove them wrong ...
You can't prove anything to a fool.
Not everyone requires tens of billions of dollars to build a launch vehicle. Recall the study that showed it would have taken $4B to build F9 using NASA's approach, but it actually took $390m (1/10th the estimate)? Tens of billions becomes a few billion... and the builders have so much relevant experience and applicable technology now.
$1-2B seems reasonable; tens of billions sounds like wishful thinking (a.k.a., denial).
Well, but let’s not forget that SpaceX also needs FH to fly a whole class of payloads that is well in existence and currently flies on /...skip.../, Proton
No, for competing with Proton SpaceX does not need FH. Last F9 launch lofted a payload with the mass equal to the maximum Proton payload.
Maybe its me, but do you think that SpaceX is designing capability against a 50+ year old launcher that Russia is trying to replace?
elonmuskFalcon Heavy maiden launch this Novemberhttps://www.instagram.com/p/BXEkGKlgJDK/
QuoteelonmuskFalcon Heavy maiden launch this Novemberhttps://www.instagram.com/p/BXEkGKlgJDK/
I know that the center core will throttle down its engines to increase payload, but on future versions could they shut off a significant number of the engines (like 4) and throttle the rest, then restart them shortly before booster separation to gain more payload or save more fuel to reduce heating during reentry? I know this would require modifying those additional engines to be restartable. Even in the event the engines fail to restart, the core should still be able to limp into orbit by burning landing fuel to counter gravity losses from lower thrust with only five engines.It's been discussed before and it's generally considered too risky for what it's worth. It would greatly complicate engine out scenarios and would make the booster sep process more complicated.
I suppose that with cross-feed, you could in principle throttle down the boosters so that they accelerated themselves and exerted little or no axial force on the core. But then the boosters become essentially just weightless propellant tanks, and I'm sure that would quite substantially reduce LEO payload capability.It would probably make rtls of the side boosters challenging, given how much later they would stage.
I don't remember where I saw this, but someone mentioned a idea that if SpaceX did implement cross-feed on FH, then they may not need to strengthen the center core so much. Basically if they have cross-feed, then the side boosters do not need to lift the center core (like Delta IV heavy), instead they would just be providing propellant to the center core engines. All three cores will be flying in formation without significant force between them, and the side boosters would be like giant flying fuel tanks. Would this work?
If one or more engines fails to restart, the centre core would have a performance shortfall which would risk the mission.I know that the center core will throttle down its engines to increase payload, but on future versions could they shut off a significant number of the engines (like 4) and throttle the rest, then restart them shortly before booster separation to gain more payload or save more fuel to reduce heating during reentry? I know this would require modifying those additional engines to be restartable. Even in the event the engines fail to restart, the core should still be able to limp into orbit by burning landing fuel to counter gravity losses from lower thrust with only five engines.It's been discussed before and it's generally considered too risky for what it's worth. It would greatly complicate engine out scenarios and would make the booster sep process more complicated.
I saw this image on Space X's website http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
(http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/fhgraphic_updated_20170404.jpg)
Question: it shows FH as being able to put 63,800 kg to LEO, that boggles my mind compared to the ones next to it, (STS, Delta IV, Proton, etc). Is this just Elon being Elon, a future variant, or are they for real?
TIA
I saw this image on Space X's website http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
(http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/fhgraphic_updated_20170404.jpg)
Question: it shows FH as being able to put 63,800 kg to LEO, that boggles my mind compared to the ones next to it, (STS, Delta IV, Proton, etc). Is this just Elon being Elon, a future variant, or are they for real?
TIA
I saw this image on Space X's website http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
(http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/fhgraphic_updated_20170404.jpg)
Question: it shows FH as being able to put 63,800 kg to LEO, that boggles my mind compared to the ones next to it, (STS, Delta IV, Proton, etc). Is this just Elon being Elon, a future variant, or are they for real?
TIA
I saw this image on Space X's website http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
(http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/fhgraphic_updated_20170404.jpg)
Question: it shows FH as being able to put 63,800 kg to LEO, that boggles my mind compared to the ones next to it, (STS, Delta IV, Proton, etc). Is this just Elon being Elon, a future variant, or are they for real?
TIA
That comparison has existed for five years or more. Only the FH numbers have been (repeatedly) updated; the other vehicles are as they were 5-6 years ago AFAIK.
FH will now be born with reusable boosters which accounts for about 90% of the vehicle cost -- the payload will be somewhere around 40,000kg (40 metric tonnes) in the reusable mode. The 63t number is expendable which is fair for comparison purposes, since all the others are expendable (only) except Shuttle. (SpaceX has also repeatedly sandbagged the numbers on this page -- Elon being Elon.)
A heavier variant of Delta IV Heavy is now available lifting around 28t. The Shuttle, Titan, and Ariane ES are retired or never built (ES version), Delta Heavy/Atlas V and Ariane 5 are being replaced by lower cost versions Vulcan/Vulcan ACES and Ariane 6 respectively in the early 2020s, Proton M possibly by Angara, and Japan and China have follow-on vehicles, too.
Basically, though, the comparison is for real.
I saw this image on Space X's website http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
(http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/fhgraphic_updated_20170404.jpg)
Question: it shows FH as being able to put 63,800 kg to LEO, that boggles my mind compared to the ones next to it, (STS, Delta IV, Proton, etc). Is this just Elon being Elon, a future variant, or are they for real?
TIA
That comparison has existed for five years or more. Only the FH numbers have been (repeatedly) updated; the other vehicles are as they were 5-6 years ago AFAIK.
FH will now be born with reusable boosters which accounts for about 90% of the vehicle cost -- the payload will be somewhere around 40,000kg (40 metric tonnes) in the reusable mode. The 63t number is expendable which is fair for comparison purposes, since all the others are expendable (only) except Shuttle. (SpaceX has also repeatedly sandbagged the numbers on this page -- Elon being Elon.)
A heavier variant of Delta IV Heavy is now available lifting around 28t. The Shuttle, Titan, and Ariane ES are retired or never built (ES version), Delta Heavy/Atlas V and Ariane 5 are being replaced by lower cost versions Vulcan/Vulcan ACES and Ariane 6 respectively in the early 2020s, Proton M possibly by Angara, and Japan and China have follow-on vehicles, too.
Basically, though, the comparison is for real.
Yep.
And this comparison is only for LEO.
For higher orbits, the difference between DIVH and FH would be much smaller, as FH is a LEO-optimized launcher, but DIVH is BLEO-optimized launcher whose LEO-capasity is badly limited by the thrust of the single RL-10 of the upper stage.
Any news/updates on FAA license approval for Falcon Heavy? Either vehicle license approval or an approval for a launch date? Just wondering if that is complete or still underway, as it could impact the feasibility of November debut date.
Any news/updates on FAA license approval for Falcon Heavy? Either vehicle license approval or an approval for a launch date? Just wondering if that is complete or still underway, as it could impact the feasibility of November debut date.
We usually don't see FAA licenses until very close to launch date (they don't have a license posted yet for the Aug. 24 launch of Formosat 5).
Can FH actually lift over 50 tons to LEO? I've heard the second stage isn't strong enough to support 50 tons. If, not, are the upgrades to the second stage going to improve strength and lift capability?
Can FH actually lift over 50 tons to LEO? I've heard the second stage isn't strong enough to support 50 tons. If, not, are the upgrades to the second stage going to improve strength and lift capability?
Any news/updates on FAA license approval for Falcon Heavy? Either vehicle license approval or an approval for a launch date? Just wondering if that is complete or still underway, as it could impact the feasibility of November debut date.
Any news/updates on FAA license approval for Falcon Heavy? Either vehicle license approval or an approval for a launch date? Just wondering if that is complete or still underway, as it could impact the feasibility of November debut date.
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80036
Posted on the SpaceX subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6xgbfc/falcon_heavy_demo_flight_fcc_sta_application/
First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/
Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.
First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/
Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.
From what I hear it is the TEL and all it's associated details. Much like was the case with LC-39A. Also hearing about troubleshooting on replacement cryo systems but it's not quite clear if that was recent. One thing I was told was very clear though: having a relatively trouble-free activation of LC-40 has priority over getting LC-39A ready for FH. And that is not surprising at all.First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/
Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.
We all learned to not take time estimates by SpaceX seriously. Thanks for your insight! Also, do you have any indication what takes the longest on LC40?
From what I hear it is the TEL and all it's associated details. Much like was the case with LC-39A. Also hearing about troubleshooting on replacement cryo systems but it's not quite clear if that was recent. One thing I was told was very clear though: having a relatively trouble-free activation of LC-40 has priority over getting LC-39A ready for FH. And that is not surprising at all.First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/
Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.
We all learned to not take time estimates by SpaceX seriously. Thanks for your insight! Also, do you have any indication what takes the longest on LC40?
That would make it 5 years since the first date SX announced it would be launched.First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/
Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.
Then it will be Q2 2018, then Q3 & so on. Maybe overly sarcastic but when people like complaining about SLS delays then that kind of attitude cuts both ways with other launchers.
Emphasis mine.From what I hear it is the TEL and all it's associated details. Much like was the case with LC-39A. Also hearing about troubleshooting on replacement cryo systems but it's not quite clear if that was recent. One thing I was told was very clear though: having a relatively trouble-free activation of LC-40 has priority over getting LC-39A ready for FH. And that is not surprising at all.First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/
Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.
We all learned to not take time estimates by SpaceX seriously. Thanks for your insight! Also, do you have any indication what takes the longest on LC40?
Therefore why are you giving an estimate of early Q1 2018 above, when in fact there is no guarantee it will even make that?
That would make it 5 years since the first date SX announced it would be launched.First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/
Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.
Then it will be Q2 2018, then Q3 & so on. Maybe overly sarcastic but when people like complaining about SLS delays then that kind of attitude cuts both ways with other launchers.
However I think people are much more forgiving of SX's delays because they, as a company, did not exist the last time the US built an LV this size, or did it in this way, whereas Boeing and NASA both retained extensive archives of the Saturn V days.
They are also trying to make most of it recoverable and reusable on a regular basis, whereas all NASA will end up with is a big, fully expendable rocket. I think SLS lost a lot of credibility when (having spent years and had a lot of money given to them already) both candidates announced they were going to use RS25's for the 2nd stage, then announced that high altitude ignition was impossible to do.
It beggars belief 2 experienced companies would base their plans on operating a key piece of equipment so far outside its known operating envelope and not check it until so far into the design process. :(
Likewise when Shuttle was designed it was Von Braun's instinct that SRB's were a bad move for crewed spaceflight but there were analyses that suggested they were all manageable, despite the fact that all attempts to find a way to shut them down in flight without destroying the stack had failed.
Challenger demonstrated segmented SRBs were a bad idea (and in fact US SRBs share nothing with the propellant mix used in the ICBM fleet, so "preservation of capability" is nonsense, as discussed in earlier threads. Apparently the SRB mix "slumps" too much during long term vertical storage IE in a submarine launch tube).
These may explain why people are more forgiving of SX. It will be interesting to see wheather the FH does fly before the SLS and how much below the SLS IOC it is with each of the Merlin upgrades. My guess is not much, and all of its engines will be capable of shut down at any point in flight.
That would make it 5 years since the first date SX announced it would be launched.First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/
Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.
Then it will be Q2 2018, then Q3 & so on. Maybe overly sarcastic but when people like complaining about SLS delays then that kind of attitude cuts both ways with other launchers.
However I think people are much more forgiving of SX's delays because they, as a company, did not exist the last time the US built an LV this size, or did it in this way, whereas Boeing and NASA both retained extensive archives of the Saturn V days.
They are also trying to make most of it recoverable and reusable on a regular basis, whereas all NASA will end up with is a big, fully expendable rocket. I think SLS lost a lot of credibility when (having spent years and had a lot of money given to them already) both candidates announced they were going to use RS25's for the 2nd stage, then announced that high altitude ignition was impossible to do.
It beggars belief 2 experienced companies would base their plans on operating a key piece of equipment so far outside its known operating envelope and not check it until so far into the design process. :(
Likewise when Shuttle was designed it was Von Braun's instinct that SRB's were a bad move for crewed spaceflight but there were analyses that suggested they were all manageable, despite the fact that all attempts to find a way to shut them down in flight without destroying the stack had failed.
Challenger demonstrated segmented SRBs were a bad idea (and in fact US SRBs share nothing with the propellant mix used in the ICBM fleet, so "preservation of capability" is nonsense, as discussed in earlier threads. Apparently the SRB mix "slumps" too much during long term vertical storage IE in a submarine launch tube).
These may explain why people are more forgiving of SX. It will be interesting to see wheather the FH does fly before the SLS and how much below the SLS IOC it is with each of the Merlin upgrades. My guess is not much, and all of its engines will be capable of shut down at any point in flight.
Personally I think they are as bad as each other. But sometimes it seems when looking at commentary about the delays, and I am not talking particularly about this forum here, that some cut SX more slack because they are a private company and SLS are seen as a government initiative. Just speaking for myself I don't see that as a fair or accurate metric of comparison.
SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money. SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket. That is why I give SpaceX slack. Any government project is expensive, and more so than private. Private is more efficiently operated.
SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money. SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket. That is why I give SpaceX slack. Any government project is expensive, and more so than private. Private is more efficiently operated.
It helps that SpaceX is actually flying a launch vehicle (Falcon 9 block whatever) that they've upgraded to the point that it's about on par with the earlier Falcon 9 Heavy plan, have already flown the FH's boosters, and are already working on a better, bigger rocket.
FH will fly. In 6 months, it'll be in the rear view mirror.
SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money. SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket. That is why I give SpaceX slack. Any government project is expensive, and more so than private. Private is more efficiently operated.
Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.
It may have bean discussed previously, (if so I was sleeping in class, apologies) but is there any thought or possibly need or market for heavy out of Vandenberg?
SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money. SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket. That is why I give SpaceX slack. Any government project is expensive, and more so than private. Private is more efficiently operated.
Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.
Thanks for the detailed answerIt may have bean discussed previously, (if so I was sleeping in class, apologies) but is there any thought or possibly need or market for heavy out of Vandenberg?
Probably not for at least a few years. The Air Force/NROL has already purchased heavy vehicles from ULA for their launches through 2023, and those get ordered at least five years ahead of time. If SpaceX goes ahead with their internet constellation the initial deployment (first few years) could be from KSC/CCAFS, and they may not even use FH for that. Depending on the development timelines for their next vehicle, and what vehicles they choose to get certified for government launches, there is some possibility FH never flies from the west coast. (There is definitely a chance of getting a government FH launch in the mid-2020's, but we won't know for at least a couple years.)
SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money. SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket. That is why I give SpaceX slack. Any government project is expensive, and more so than private. Private is more efficiently operated.
Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.
Not automatic, perhaps, but in this particular case, certainly. SpaceX is spending their own money on this project, not mine, so I really have no reason to whine about how long it takes them.
But they have taken government money to help progress to where they are, haven't they.
SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money. SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket. That is why I give SpaceX slack. Any government project is expensive, and more so than private. Private is more efficiently operated.
Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.
Not automatic, perhaps, but in this particular case, certainly. SpaceX is spending their own money on this project, not mine, so I really have no reason to whine about how long it takes them.
But they have taken government money to help progress to where they are, haven't they.
SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money. SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket. That is why I give SpaceX slack. Any government project is expensive, and more so than private. Private is more efficiently operated.
Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.
Not automatic, perhaps, but in this particular case, certainly. SpaceX is spending their own money on this project, not mine, so I really have no reason to whine about how long it takes them.
But they have taken government money to help progress to where they are, haven't they.
SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money. SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket. That is why I give SpaceX slack. Any government project is expensive, and more so than private. Private is more efficiently operated.
SpaceX is now "within two months." 6 months is my estimate.It helps that SpaceX is actually flying a launch vehicle (Falcon 9 block whatever) that they've upgraded to the point that it's about on par with the earlier Falcon 9 Heavy plan, have already flown the FH's boosters, and are already working on a better, bigger rocket.
FH will fly. In 6 months, it'll be in the rear view mirror.
With the greatest of respect, sir... FH has been "within the next six months", off and on, for five years, now.
A private company without government hands out, has to be nature more effective. Because they will die to be in red number for a long time and they have to provide real value for customers or lose them. Whenever company success is decided by a person/institution not involved directly in consuming the product, feed back in price is distorted and pressure on an efficiency of provider is relax.SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money. SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket. That is why I give SpaceX slack. Any government project is expensive, and more so than private. Private is more efficiently operated.
Thinking that private is automatically more efficient is a common fallacy. I can even say that from my own work history.
In this case we don't have to think about it.
A simple comparison of the money currently being spent on FH development versus that being spent on SLS over the same period of time would be reasonable and objective. First flight dates and cost per flight/payload to orbit (mass and volume) would be reasonable metrics.
Or we could just look at it from a taxpayers perspective- I'm paying for a $3B/yr effort to develop a general purpose heavy lift vehicle for government use. And those commercial guys over there are working on their HL GP vehicle using their own money. If they can produce in the same timeframe that is cheaper to use, more readily available and I didn't have to contribute any funds to develop it, yea!
Why would I complain that they didn't deliver it sooner?
There might have been prepayments for the STP-2 mission, though I don't think the details of that contract were released.
There might have been prepayments for the STP-2 mission, though I don't think the details of that contract were released.
And STP-2 should be a lesson to anyone thinking people will be on Mars in their lifetimes. Years of delays in getting critical enabling technologies like DSAC and GPIM flight tested, nobody gets fired or loses their shirt.
Clearly they have the stages tested and on site, and have applied/received launch/landing license.
Consider FH another means to apply booster reuse, just more of them at once.
No surprise that 40 is taking time to rebuild/refit.
What threatens past that is unresolved issues with getting to static fire that might delay months. Like constantly messing with TE/launch mount/other due to issues.
The vehicle strategy seems more than good enough.
They'll be within two months once a launch is scheduled for LC40. They'll be within a month once they have the vehicle erect and stop fiddling with TE/launch mount.
...In other words, we don't know exactly where the 39A FH modification work stands at present...
We do actually. The only big ticket items left at 39A for FH are the six outer holddown clamps and the four outer tail service masts.
That’s by no means saying those will be “easy” to install and test, but there aren’t any large modifications to be done outside work on the top of the reaction frame.
With a lot more all electric satellites coming out, could the FH get in on the market for those? The transfer time for these satellites being four or more months. If the upper stage had the loiter time, could the extra launch cost of a direct to GEO insertion be offset by satellite earnings and lifetime extension? It could also allow for heavier communications payloads.
There is info in L2.
Also as far as I remember there was no indication from SpaceX that they're looking to improve S2 loiter time or perform direct injections, just a lot of fan rumors.
Also as far as I remember there was no indication from SpaceX that they're looking to improve S2 loiter time or perform direct injections, just a lot of fan rumors.
...but it has not yet demonstrated more than half an hour orbital lifetime.Didn't they do an extended loiter experiment after one of the launches earlier this summer? Can't recall which, maybe the NROL mission? IIRC it was a 12 or 24 hour loiter.
Also as far as I remember there was no indication from SpaceX that they're looking to improve S2 loiter time or perform direct injections...
...but it has not yet demonstrated more than half an hour orbital lifetime.
Following the launch of the NROL-76 spacecraft on Monday – which also included a successful Second Stage extended coast test...
... The NROL-76 mission also provided additional data points on the performance and utilization of the Second Stage, per future mission objectives. The test – which occurred after spacecraft separation – involved a “super long” coast phase demo, according to L2 information.
SpaceX has already demonstrated multi hour upper stage endurance, and plans to offer direct insertion for DoD missions.
I don't see any reason to expect commercial customers to go with direct insertion though.
SpaceX has already demonstrated multi hour upper stage endurance, and plans to offer direct insertion for DoD missions.
I don't see any reason to expect commercial customers to go with direct insertion though.
Direct insertion seems very useful for satellites with electric propulsion. This could eliminate or shorten the time to the final GEO slot.
SpaceX has already demonstrated multi hour upper stage endurance, and plans to offer direct insertion for DoD missions.
I don't see any reason to expect commercial customers to go with direct insertion though.
Direct insertion seems very useful for satellites with electric propulsion. This could eliminate or shorten the time to the final GEO slot.
While we're getting pretty off topic, it's worth remembering that electric propulsion was really only adopted for satellites in Earth orbit because of its efficiency. Better ISP means less reaction mass is needed, and those weight savings translate into larger revenue-generating payloads for an electric sat with the same mass as a chemical sat. The trade-off is the time it takes ion propulsion to bring a satellite to its operational orbit.
FH is probably only an economical option for satellite operators as a reusable vehicle, which allows for 8 metric tons to GTO. There are very few current commercial payloads that are that heavy, so it's far more probable that satellite operators modify future sats to incorporate far more revenue-generating payload per launch.
Even still, FH could crush Ariane 5 ECA in a competition for $/kg to GTO as an expendable vehicle, even if it only used half of its 22,500 kg GTO capability and adopted Arianespace's ride share strategy. In fact, I suspect the margin left over from launching 2x5000kg geosats would allow SpaceX to either attempt recovery of the side boosters, or place both of those satellites directly into GEO.
FH is probably only an economical option for satellite operators as a reusable vehicle, which allows for 8 metric tons to GTO. There are very few current commercial payloads that are that heavy, so it's far more probable that satellite operators modify future sats to incorporate far more revenue-generating payload per launch.
SpaceX has already demonstrated multi hour upper stage endurance, and plans to offer direct insertion for DoD missions.
I don't see any reason to expect commercial customers to go with direct insertion though.
Direct insertion seems very useful for satellites with electric propulsion. This could eliminate or shorten the time to the final GEO slot.
While we're getting pretty off topic, it's worth remembering that electric propulsion was really only adopted for satellites in Earth orbit because of its efficiency. Better ISP means less reaction mass is needed, and those weight savings translate into larger revenue-generating payloads for an electric sat with the same mass as a chemical sat. The trade-off is the time it takes ion propulsion to bring a satellite to its operational orbit.
FH is probably only an economical option for satellite operators as a reusable vehicle, which allows for 8 metric tons to GTO. There are very few current commercial payloads that are that heavy, so it's far more probable that satellite operators modify future sats to incorporate far more revenue-generating payload per launch.
Even still, FH could crush Ariane 5 ECA in a competition for $/kg to GTO as an expendable vehicle, even if it only used half of its 22,500 kg GTO capability and adopted Arianespace's ride share strategy. In fact, I suspect the margin left over from launching 2x5000kg geosats would allow SpaceX to either attempt recovery of the side boosters, or place both of those satellites directly into GEO.
All-electric geosats are a manifestation of the fact that more payload on orbit (or the same payload on a smaller cheaper rocket) is often better than quicker time to orbit. Extending the paradigm to Falcon Heavy logically leads to 10 tonne or larger all-electric sats, not direct insertion of smaller sats.
This is a complex multivariable optimization problem, and we don't have enough information to solve it definitively. But the evidence I see does not indicate direct insertion.
Isn't it about time to move this discussion to the Missions section and create an updates thread. I anticipate there being some updates in the next couple of weeks on the timing.
Does FH still have a future after the BFR announcement? Or will it just launch once?
Does FH still have a future after the BFR announcement? Or will it just launch once?
Customers are going to be rather cross if they're kicked back another five years by their launch provider for a rocket that only exists on paper.
If you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?
*Arguably realistic?
If you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?
*Arguably realistic?
5 launches on manifest, 2 of the demo missions. One of the customer missions so late that it could launch without delay on BFR (assuming the BFR time table holds [big assumption, I know]). So, FH development for just 2 or 3 revenue flights?
I don't agree. Faced with the prospect of an NSS-certified FH going away SpaceX will simply have BFR certified for NSS launches. IMO FH won't be kept around, for NSS launches only, after the stockpile of F9's and FH's runs out. SpaceX is not ULA.If you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?
*Arguably realistic?
5 launches on manifest, 2 of the demo missions. One of the customer missions so late that it could launch without delay on BFR (assuming the BFR time table holds [big assumption, I know]). So, FH development for just 2 or 3 revenue flights?
If the Air Force certifies FH, it will be able to carry the heavy payloads for which DoD/NRO currently uses Delta IV Heavy. That's only about one a launch per year, but with Delta IV Heavy being more expensive than FH and becoming more so as Delta IV Medium is phased out, I'll bet DoD/NRO will be keen to keep FH around, even if that means giving SpaceX an upkeep contract along the lines of the much-criticized ELC.
I don't agree. Faced with the prospect of an NSS-certified FH going away SpaceX will simply have BFR certified for NSS launches. IMO FH won't be kept around, for NSS launches only, after the stockpile of F9's and FH's runs out. SpaceX is not ULA.If you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?
*Arguably realistic?
5 launches on manifest, 2 of the demo missions. One of the customer missions so late that it could launch without delay on BFR (assuming the BFR time table holds [big assumption, I know]). So, FH development for just 2 or 3 revenue flights?
If the Air Force certifies FH, it will be able to carry the heavy payloads for which DoD/NRO currently uses Delta IV Heavy. That's only about one a launch per year, but with Delta IV Heavy being more expensive than FH and becoming more so as Delta IV Medium is phased out, I'll bet DoD/NRO will be keen to keep FH around, even if that means giving SpaceX an upkeep contract along the lines of the much-criticized ELC.
If the Air Force certifies FH, it will be able to carry the heavy payloads for which DoD/NRO currently uses Delta IV Heavy. That's only about one a launch per year, but with Delta IV Heavy being more expensive than FH and becoming more so as Delta IV Medium is phased out, I'll bet DoD/NRO will be keen to keep FH around, even if that means giving SpaceX an upkeep contract along the lines of the much-criticized ELC.
If you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?
If the Air Force certifies FH, it will be able to carry the heavy payloads for which DoD/NRO currently uses Delta IV Heavy. That's only about one a launch per year, but with Delta IV Heavy being more expensive than FH and becoming more so as Delta IV Medium is phased out, I'll bet DoD/NRO will be keen to keep FH around, even if that means giving SpaceX an upkeep contract along the lines of the much-criticized ELC.
For the heavy DOD payloads, they would need a new fairing design and a new payload adapter, or a new payload adapter and vertical integration. The current system is limited to 11 mT or so and horizontal integration. People forget that F9 is more limited by the integration method than by the rocket throwing capability. For things that are heavier than the 11mT they HAVE to redesign the fairing. For things that require VI, the HAVE to redo the integration process. Given the announcement of canceling F9 within the next years, sounds like a waste of money TBH.
FH is for high energy orbits with medium mass payloads. This is actually good for ULA because it gives them a leg to stand on.
Yeah, but it's going to be a while before BFR is ready, isn't it? Time enough for more thant 2 or 3 revenue flights, methinks.
Yeah, but it's going to be a while before BFR is ready, isn't it? Time enough for more thant 2 or 3 revenue flights, methinks.
We KNOW what's holding up falcon heavy now. It's not the rocket being hard, they already solved that one.If you take an optimistic view on BFR's first flight (2019) and a pessimistic* view on on FH (2018), that gives FH a couple of years useful service doesn't it?
History of FH announced first launch, and several years past that date, provides little confidence or logic that BFR won't end up with the same molasses scheduling. (And yes, I really did type molasses, not an auto-correct).
It just amazes me how many people faithfully believe any long term schedule that Elon Musk says (than again some still clinging to FH launching in November 2017 because Elon said so 2 months ago). When many of those people have been around long enough to know the history that it almost never turns out to be correct (for whatever reasons they do this and definitely should know better). Boy who cried Wolf syndrome, too many times.
SpaceX does a lot of great stuff. Predicting long term timeframes is definitely not one of them.
(F9 booster refurb likely is ALREADY cheaper than 1/3 of the cost of a new booster).
In the current situation FH will only be needed for heavy weight / medium weight, high energy missions. On the other hand when second stage reuse has been implemented, FH will maybe be needed for nearly all missions due to the second stage additional mass penalty. Since the whole system will be reusable in that case, the extra cost due to needing the FH will be much less. Additionally, being able to reuse the second stage on nearly every mission will give them a lot of orbital reentry data that is possibly relevant to BFR.
There will be no second stage reuse for falcon 9 family. It's much more clear now than it has ever been.
The fact that SpaceX haven't yet flown the same core 3x doesn't mean it can't be done safely.(F9 booster refurb likely is ALREADY cheaper than 1/3 of the cost of a new booster).
Only if you don’t consider depreciation.
Current F9 cores can only be reused once so overall even with zero additional work they would be at least at half the price of a new stage.
SpaceX have said that they can reuse the current core only once. No pages full of speculation needed.The fact that SpaceX haven't yet flown the same core 3x doesn't mean it can't be done safely.(F9 booster refurb likely is ALREADY cheaper than 1/3 of the cost of a new booster).
Only if you don’t consider depreciation.
Current F9 cores can only be reused once so overall even with zero additional work they would be at least at half the price of a new stage.
There was a rumor in Reddit about FH inaugurating from SLC-40 rather than 39A. But considering the size of 40s HIF, it won't be realistic I thought.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/73h3ky/unconfirmed_rumor_regarding_slc40/
There was a rumor in Reddit about FH inaugurating from SLC-40 rather than 39A. But considering the size of 40s HIF, it won't be realistic I thought.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/73h3ky/unconfirmed_rumor_regarding_slc40/
That is nonsense.
SpaceX have said that they can reuse the current core only once. No pages full of speculation needed.
They will do multiple reflys only with Block 5 cores.
Not that this makes any difference for the cost structure we are talking about here.SpaceX have said that they can reuse the current core only once. No pages full of speculation needed.
They will do multiple reflys only with Block 5 cores.
Have they? I am pretty sure they only have said at best that they won't, not that they can't.
Source for claim that payloads over 11t require a new fairing? A new PAF is considerably simpler than a fairing.
How about a BFS scale model as a FH demo dummy payload.
It would be expensive as it would need to be able to do a controlled reentry, but can anyone see SpaceX doing this rather than just relying on simulations and S2 reuse attempts?
The Falcon Heavy is still planned to launch in late December right?
The Falcon Heavy is still planned to launch in late December right?
As of right now, yes.
But it could slip into next January.
The Falcon Heavy is still planned to launch in late December right?
As of right now, yes.
But it could slip into next January.
I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.Falcon Heavy was already a huge challenge in terms of structure and acoustic environment for SpaceX, I think they don't want to have even more of that. Especially given that they want to focus on BFR once all Falcon-related development is finished.
I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.
Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?
I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.
I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.
Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?
has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.Works great in Kerbal Space Program!
I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.
I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.
Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?
I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.
I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.
Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?
I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.
I just had a thought and I'm not sure if it has been discussed or even raised before.
I have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.
Is such a configuration even feasible, and if so, what kind of capabilities would this open up for Falcon Heavy?
Don't forget the 5th lox tank in the centerI have no idea if it is possible, but has anyone ever calculated what Falcon Heavy would be capable of lfiting to orbit and beyond if it had not just two side boosters next to the core stage, but say 4 or even 6 side boosters attached on all sides of the core, similar to how some of the Russian rockets have a whole bunch of boosters surrounding some of their heavy lift rocket cores.
I wrote a post stating that none of those proposals have flown but the Angara A5 has actually launched once in 2014 and it has 4 boosters identical to the core. But other rockets which seem to be based on "clustering" are not actually built like that:
* The Soyuz has 4 boosters but they are much smaller than the core stage.
* The Proton has a central oxidizer tank and 6 fuel tanks each with their own engine. This operates as a single stage.
* The Saturn IB had 8 tanks but they were 4 LOX and 4 RP1.
This has been discussed and dismissed a dozen times despite a plethora of facts, none of which I need to restate.
We need a kind but succinct statement to let people know that their question has been previously asked and answered and suggesting that they look for those posts. Reading back through any of a those active and abandoned threads will provide hours of reading on this topic.
(Removed ULA info.....) Falcon 9 can't meet all of those requirements. Its first stage will have to be expended, or a more expensive Falcon Heavy will have to perform the missions, and I'm not certain that recoverable Heavy can reach the highest payload requirements. So, even SpaceX will have to expend rockets for many of the most-difficult missions, if it wins the work.
- Ed Kyle
This has been discussed and dismissed a dozen times despite a plethora of facts, none of which I need to restate.
We need a kind but succinct statement to let people know that their question has been previously asked and answered and suggesting that they look for those posts. Reading back through any of a those active and abandoned threads will provide hours of reading on this topic.
An index of topics that people could be pointed to is a good thing to put into the header of a thread, and then people can be pointed at it. A volunteer would be great if someone wanted to take it on.
* The Saturn IB had 8 tanks but they were 4 LOX and 4 RP1.Five LOX tanks. The outer 8 tanks were 70” Redstone based tanks. But there was also a center 105” Jupiter-based tank filled with LOX.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether FH will be able to hold its own to some degree against New Glenn should BFR take longer than expected to arrive. Or will New Glenn instantly make the Falcon family obsolete?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether FH will be able to hold its own to some degree against New Glenn should BFR take longer than expected to arrive. Or will New Glenn instantly make the Falcon family obsolete?
To a certain degree what the capabilities are for Falcon Heavy and New Glenn don't matter. What matters is what the marketplace wants.
For instance, does the marketplace want 43mT to LEO? Or 30mT to LEO? Certainly not today.
So at least in the commercial marketplace Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be competing with other launch providers around the world, and that means that the price to do a specific job is likely to be an important factor. Reliability too to a certain degree, since New Glenn does have to prove itself, but SpaceX was able to build up a large backlog of launches without proving themselves ahead of time, and I think Blue Origin should be able to follow in their footsteps.
From that perspective the answer to your question depends on how much Blue Origin charges for New Glenn. But be aware that it is normal for companies to use "introductory pricing" for new products and services, so the initial customers may not be paying "full price" - and Blue Origin could do that for years in order to establish themselves in the marketplace. Certainly Jeff Bezos has the financial wherewithal to do that (and a history of doing it with other businesses).
Bottom line is that I don't fear for SpaceX when New Glenn becomes operational. I would instead fear for the other launch providers that New Glenn will displace.
Iridium and OneWeb are both good cases of the market wanting heavy LEO lift.
I'm not sure they are good cases for FH, but NG's larger fairing is optimal for launching a lot of constellation sats at once.
The market is also asking for 7-8 tonnes to GTO at the lowest possible price, which both FH and NG are in a good position to fill with reuse. 8 tonnes to GTO with reuse is equivalent about 40 tonnes to LEO expendable, well beyond the capabilities of all current launchers even if they were designed for reuse.
Iridium and OneWeb are both good cases of the market wanting heavy LEO lift.I'm not sure how you can justify that statement with the examples given, since Iridium is using Falcon 9, and OneWeb has already contracted for a number of launcher types, such as Arianespace Soyuz, Virgin Galactic, and potentially Ariane 6.
Iridium has about 72 tonnes of satellite+dispenser mass to launch to LEO as soon as possible.No they don’t. They have to pace the launches per their ability to commission them and decommission the first gen.)
(Snip)
AIUI they are doing that faster than SpaceX can provide vehicles, but obviously I don't know if launching 25 at once would work with their systems.Iridium has about 72 tonnes of satellite+dispenser mass to launch to LEO as soon as possible.No they don’t. They have to pace the launches per their ability to commission them and decommission the first gen.)
(Snip)
And the timing, capabilities, and cost of NG are wild guesses
Iridium has about 72 tonnes of satellite+dispenser mass to launch to LEO as soon as possible. If New Glenn was available and offered better $/sat launch value (which it could likely do even at $150M to $200M per launch), then Iridium would likely have gone with it, IMO.
Or booked both F9 and NG, perhaps.
NG is well positioned for constellation launches thanks to fairing volume, although at disadvantage because it won't fly at all for a couple years, and has no heritage.
FH will have a significant advantage in short term availability and flight heritage (thanks to F9).
...Arianespace and ULA now "get this".
...
The market that it was originally conceived to serve(GTO from Boca Chica, for instance) -- same market that NGLV (now Vulcan) and Ariane 6 were envisioning 3-5 years ago -- is disappearing. Reusability is making inexpensive launch available at a launch rate that the commercial space industry has never previously experienced. Tech advancement is making integrated constellations vastly more capable than most anything currently flying, and calling for lots of inexpensive launches of heavy LEO payloads. Commodity launches.Yes things went differently. Mostly though the definitions/response are different. Including the term commodity launch.
New Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.True. Also, they will gradually add experience/capability to increasingly broaden mission reach. When I said gradatim, I mean it in all ways, all areas. As we've already seen.
Ariane 6 and Vulcan have a triple disadvantage in that they are not pointed at the right market, nor are they being built for high cadence, nor are they 'cheap' launch.True.
Your comment that ULA and ArianeSpace get this is not obvious*, and I suspect it isn't even accurate.Their customers tell them. Every time.
* Tory Bruno himself argued against the concept of commodity launches a few months ago.Because that's what the parents say. (They don't like the idea of commodity sats in particular.)
New Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.
QuoteNew Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.
What about the New Glen design makes it not suitable for a high launch cadence? I’ve been assuming it could easily match SpaceX in launch cadence.
Many things.QuoteNew Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.
What about the New Glen design makes it not suitable for a high launch cadence? I’ve been assuming it could easily match SpaceX in launch cadence.
If NG's first stage is supposedly reusable 100 times, does that imply that they only build one or two and can launch repeatedly at a high cadence thereafter?NG intends better long term economics, like BFS/BFR, over F9/FH. So you don't have to build as many.
Or is there an inherent limitation in BO's "gradatim" approach that prevents then from upping the cadence too quickly?Gradatim is Latin for "gradual". How can you move "gradual quickly"?
QuoteNew Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.
What about the New Glen design makes it not suitable for a high launch cadence? I’ve been assuming it could easily match SpaceX in launch cadence.
QuoteNew Glenn has the advantages that it is pointed at the new market and will be affordable if not 'cheap', but has a distinct disadvantage that it isn't being built for high launch cadence.
What about the New Glen design makes it not suitable for a high launch cadence? I’ve been assuming it could easily match SpaceX in launch cadence.
NG is not designed for RTLS recovery.
BFR will make other rockets obsolete, and this will include FH and NG.
If SpaceX executes even close to plan, NG will be too little too late.
New Glenn is rated to place 45 tons in LEO with first stage fully recovered. That compares to perhaps 30 tons or so to LEO for FH (at a guess), if all three cores are recovered. So at first glance, New Glenn seems to outperform FH significantly on this front.
The FH will light it's engines gradually.
Gradatim is Latin for "gradual". How can you move "gradual quickly"?
45 t is with booster recovery, Blue has not given any numbers for expendable flights. The large, high thrust upper stage helps a lot.New Glenn is rated to place 45 tons in LEO with first stage fully recovered. That compares to perhaps 30 tons or so to LEO for FH (at a guess), if all three cores are recovered. So at first glance, New Glenn seems to outperform FH significantly on this front.
Are you sure? I think the 45t of NG are expendable either.
Just compare their first stage thrust, 22.8MN for FH, 17.1MN for NG.
NG second stage is about 3x than FH, however.
But the 3 core FH architecture should be more efficient, given the two lateral booster can be dropped leaving the center core still burning.
So I suppose the 45t of NG can be compared to the 63.8t of FH and both are expendable.
Or am I missing something?
New Glenn is rated to place 45 tons in LEO with first stage fully recovered. That compares to perhaps 30 tons or so to LEO for FH (at a guess), if all three cores are recovered. So at first glance, New Glenn seems to outperform FH significantly on this front.
Are you sure? I think the 45t of NG are expendable either.
Just compare their first stage thrust, 22.8MN for FH, 17.1MN for NG.
NG second stage is about 3x than FH, however.
But the 3 core FH architecture should be more efficient, given the two lateral booster can be dropped leaving the center core still burning.
So I suppose the 45t of NG can be compared to the 63.8t of FH and both are expendable.
Or am I missing something?
Be careful in reading the market - even the market (as defined by mission SC builds) doesn't even know sometimes.
Case in point is how things changed to accept booster reuse. Once a few did it, things started to "rewrite" themselves rather fast.
(Arianespace and ULA now "get this". Part of why things are the way they are now.)
My read is that SX has caught enough attention that the market is "warping" around them, where other providers "pick off" missions on a case by case basis. For the moment, this is "good enough" to keep all busy. This moment can be timed entirely by SX's manifest "dwell time".
The impact of a successful FH demo flight likely will be to relieve the "top end" payloads of having few options, but they'll be no rush to fly. It will put more schedule pressure on NG's program, and both A5/A6 programs will face margin pressure.
What else could Musk do to pressure the industry? Perhaps those lunar "free return" missions might make things uncomfortable for other LV. Or offering inaugural flights of 20+ ton GTO SC? Anything that allows for a 1-3 FH flight rate per year would choke all comers.
And after a good annual success rate, all other HLV might find themselves in a difficult spot justifying pricing, having to fall back on mission success rate and flight history for another year or so before that goes away too.
As to a successful FH against a impending NG, should FH flight rate be to the 3-4 per year, it would allow Falcon to dominate across the board and set a tough act for NG to follow - because Falcon flight rate would always stay ahead of NG. Suggest that everything about BO would then become "gradatim".
Falcon would simply dominate because it wouldn't be "gradatim" in flight rate. NG would likely be "second choice" because you had to wait for it.
Those two soaking up global launch services would put the rest on short rations. (ULA's Centaur V decision makes sense in this context, as tight mission capability focus makes the "non generic" launch their forte. It's the "back filling" of manifest through cherry picking that becomes the hard part for them.) Expect that China/India slow down, and Russia has increasing LOM's. The rest become "the quick and the dead". Don't know where Europe will end up as I doubt Ariane N can handle the economics due to stubborn denial.
Don't ever expect BO to be anything but "gradatim". Don't ever expect ULA to compete on "kg/$ to LEO".
...
...
Everyone likes reading posts of anonymous users on the Internet, but I would be more interested in an official statement. So is there a statement from BO about the expendable payload mass to LEO?
And Merry Christmas to everyone :)
Falcon 9 is currently the world's leader in payload mass fraction at 4.15% which is a ratio as you are calculating of 24.09. FH is expected to top that because it uses same tech but has extra staging. Any assumption that New Glenn will exceed that pair of PMFs is completely unfounded. Your assumption of '22' would place it at 4.45%.
Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year, Spacex will become only company that can launch either payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.
I can't wait for launch.
Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation? :)
Do you really believe that SpaceX would turn down a contract because the payload doesn't fit in the existing fairing? If they had such a contract, they would build a larger fairing, count on it. Such a payload would probably be in the order of $150M for launch and fairing worth about $5M.Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year, Spacex will become only company that can launch either payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.
I can't wait for launch.
Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation? :)
Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year, Spacex will become only company that can launch either payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.
I can't wait for launch.
Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation? :)
Do you really believe that SpaceX would turn down a contract because the payload doesn't fit in the existing fairing? If they had such a contract, they would build a larger fairing, count on it. Such a payload would probably be in the order of $150M for launch and fairing worth about $5M.Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year, Spacex will become only company that can launch either payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.
I can't wait for launch.
Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation? :)
Do you really believe that SpaceX would turn down a contract because the payload doesn't fit in the existing fairing? If they had such a contract, they would build a larger fairing, count on it. Such a payload would probably be in the order of $150M for launch and fairing worth about $5M.Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year, Spacex will become only company that can launch either payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.
I can't wait for launch.
Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation? :)
Do you really believe that SpaceX would turn down a contract because the payload doesn't fit in the existing fairing? If they had such a contract, they would build a larger fairing, count on it. Such a payload would probably be in the order of $150M for launch and fairing worth about $5M.Falcon Heavy, bay my opinion, has very important role for Spacex, offering payload capabilities that cover everything on existing market (partially expandable if needed) and keep pressure on competitors. It will fly for long time, waiting for BFR, the first ever real spaceship, to become reliable and cheaper then Heavy. Hopefully, by the end of the next year, Spacex will become only company that can launch either payload, crew, satellites and probes to most demanding orbits.It does not cover everything. The fairing size is not large enough for some payloads.
I can't wait for launch.
Can you imagine interfering exhaust from 27 engines, on high altitude before side boosters separation? :)
If I'm not mistaken, Bigelow has chosen Vulcan over Falcon because of the fairing size:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43992.msg1738605#msg1738605
"The B330 would launch to Low Earth Orbit on a Vulcan 562 configuration rocket, the only commercial launch vehicle in development today with sufficient performance and a large enough payload fairing to carry the habitat. "
Let me expand above FH capabilities discussion, now for future launch market, i.e. launching Bigelow B330.
F9/FH fairing fits industrial standard minimal useful internal diameter of 4720mm (15’). To fit B330, with length of 13.7m existing fairing has to be extended for about 5m at cylindrical part. With mass of about 20 Tons and distance from PLA flange to its center of gravity of about 7m, B330 can’t fit any existing PLA even close. FH Block5 could easily launch B330 to LEO 1000x1000 km. So, to launch B330, Spacex has to rebuild existing autoclave by length, manufacture additional cylindrical mold to extend existing one and upgrade vacuum system, to be able to produce extended and strengthened fairing. Additionally, new PLA must be designed and probably upper stage should be reinforced.
The one primary user of a larger faring for use on FH is Starlink. Currently the volume of the faring is maxed out but weight is less than the max that an F9 can throw. Double the volume and you can double the number of Starlink sats that can be deployed in one launch. 1/2 orbital ring on F9 ~up to 32 sats vs a complete orbital ring with FH ~ up to 64 sats.
Let me expand above FH capabilities discussion, now for future launch market, i.e. launching Bigelow B330.
F9/FH fairing fits industrial standard minimal useful internal diameter of 4720mm (15’). To fit B330, with length of 13.7m existing fairing has to be extended for about 5m at cylindrical part. With mass of about 20 Tons and distance from PLA flange to its center of gravity of about 7m, B330 can’t fit any existing PLA even close. FH Block5 could easily launch B330 to LEO 1000x1000 km. So, to launch B330, Spacex has to rebuild existing autoclave by length, manufacture additional cylindrical mold to extend existing one and upgrade vacuum system, to be able to produce extended and strengthened fairing. Additionally, new PLA must be designed and probably upper stage should be reinforced.
This does rather presume total investment in the B330 hardware and/or design costs are considerably larger than F9 fairing re-engineering - how much is built hardware, and how much is waiting on someone committing to actually funding it before getting something that requires more than a USB stick as a fairing.
In principle, tooling being developed for BFR might have a role in developing a large fairing, and recovery operations for the existing fairings could greatly reduce cost if you only need to make one for a launch campaign.
I predict we won’t see a larger fairing until we see fairing recovery and reuse be successful. They won’t develop a ~$10 million pallet of cash until they figure out how to get the current $6 million pallet back in useable form.Especially true for Starlink. A single design faring not requiring to be a generic design to handle multiple payloads. At 10 to 20 launches per year for Starlink a $5M savings average per launch is $50-$100M savings per year. Starlink is the primary driver for faring reuse.
I don't think they currently could be able to launch 32 or more sats even with a larger fairing due to PAF limit of about 11 tonnes. I assume they would have to strengthen the second stage first.The PAF is not a limiting factor. They can build a stronger one and in fact this 11mt one dates back to F9-1.0. They had 2 models a light (for <3.5mt GTO payloads) and heavy (for <10.8mt LEO payloads). Since then they have added a design for a 22mt PAF but have not needed to use it yet. The limit is the structural strength of the US attachment ring that the PAF and the Faring attach to not the PAF.
The one primary user of a larger faring for use on FH is Starlink. Currently the volume of the faring is maxed out but weight is less than the max that an F9 can throw. Double the volume and you can double the number of Starlink sats that can be deployed in one launch. 1/2 orbital ring on F9 ~up to 32 sats vs a complete orbital ring with FH ~ up to 64 sats.
>
I have failed to find a nice mass or volume number for the satellites.
>
I've failed to find any source saying the volume for the satellite is between 3m^3 and 6m^3, and not (say) 1m^3.
>
>
I have failed to find a nice mass or volume number for the satellites.
>
I've failed to find any source saying the volume for the satellite is between 3m^3 and 6m^3, and not (say) 1m^3.
>
Here ya go....
>
I have failed to find a nice mass or volume number for the satellites.
>
I've failed to find any source saying the volume for the satellite is between 3m^3 and 6m^3, and not (say) 1m^3.
>
Here ya go....
I have problems with this. This gives the satellite body dimensions as 4*1.8*1.2m - 8.6m^3, so a completely naive view might be that ~6 satellites might fit inside the fairing.
However, Iridium-next satellite dimensions are from one source given as 3.1 m x 2.4 m x 1.5 m - 11.1m^3, and that launched ten.
Iridium weighs over twice as much.
4*1.8*1.2 is also notably rather larger than a refrigerator (annoyingly, I can find lots of people repeating this claim, but can't find a source at the 2015 announcement, other transcripts of what Elon has said, or ...)
If we take 4*1.8*1.2 as gospel, and not unfolded, this is also for example consistent with a pie-wedge shape 4m high, 1.8m wide, with the segments being 1.2m along the outside diameter. this allows fitting 22 into the existing fairing.
If the 'size of a refrigerator' is to be believed, then 1.8*1.2*1.2 would about work, with around 40 fitting, assuming rectangular boxes.
Either of these would also be about consistent with Iridium satellite density, not way under it.
One topic of recurring speculation is what payloads would need the lift capability of the heavy. Which leads me to a possibly dumb question since I know nothing about satellite architecture. Would it be reasonable for some government agency with a name ending in "A" to take a standard - if there is such a thing - recon sat and add tankage for lots more propellant for station keeping and manuvering? Or are all the systems so interrelated that it would be better to start from scratch building a big honking payload like that? With all the lead time that implies.
The dimensions give a size slightly larger than that of an Iridium sat and therefore only at best 10 will fit in the F9 faring. But that is also 8X that of a refrigerator in size. A refrigerator is more like 2mX.9mX.6m.
At 10 the payload weight is only ~5mt and with a longer faring at most with a faring lengthened by 4+m of a count of 15 sats and a payload mass of 7.5mt. Which still is a F9 payload size and not that of a FH.
And we are wandering OT for this thread.
The Starlink sat discussion should go to this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44288.new#new (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44288.new#new)
The dimensions give a size slightly larger than that of an Iridium sat and therefore only at best 10 will fit in the F9 faring. But that is also 8X that of a refrigerator in size. A refrigerator is more like 2mX.9mX.6m.
At 10 the payload weight is only ~5mt and with a longer faring at most with a faring lengthened by 4+m of a count of 15 sats and a payload mass of 7.5mt. Which still is a F9 payload size and not that of a FH.
And we are wandering OT for this thread.
The Starlink sat discussion should go to this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44288.new#new (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44288.new#new)
There are perhaps better ways of packing the satellites and deployment structure than used by Iridium. Perhaps by trading satellite mass with deployment structure mass.
For FH, I suspect that they are waiting for the USAF to foot the bill for a longer fairing.
not happening
For FH, I suspect that they are waiting for the USAF to foot the bill for a longer fairing.
not happening
For FH, I suspect that they are waiting for the USAF to foot the bill for a longer fairing.
If The Air Force wants to launch something that needs a longer fairing they will put out a RFQ for it.
If SpaceX wants to bid on it their bid will need to take into account everything they need to do.
The Air Force will then decide which of the several bidders gets the launch contract based on RFQ requirements, including but not limited to cost..
The AF will allow for reasonable development to be included but they will *not* "pay for" the fairing development.
That's on SpaceX's dime alone.
The last thing SpaceX needs is to do one-off projects, even if funded, for the USG.
They have StarLink on their mind, and BFR, and everything else is really not that interesting to them.
If they need a bigger fairing for StarLink, they'll make one - but they'll make it like they want to, not like the AF wants to.
Remember that they want to build an entire BFArchitecture on their own dime - that's a lot more than some extended fairing.
Why would they?The last thing SpaceX needs is to do one-off projects, even if funded, for the USG.
They have StarLink on their mind, and BFR, and everything else is really not that interesting to them.
If they need a bigger fairing for StarLink, they'll make one - but they'll make it like they want to, not like the AF wants to.
Remember that they want to build an entire BFArchitecture on their own dime - that's a lot more than some extended fairing.
I am quite confident with my opinion that SpaceX intends to to be able to do all DoD missions with the Falcon family. That would include vertical integration and a larger fairing. A 2 year timeframe from contract to launch will enable them to design the capabilities after contract award.
Edit: fixed quote
I am quite confident with my opinion that SpaceX intends to to be able to do all DoD missions with the Falcon family. That would include vertical integration and a larger fairing. A 2 year timeframe from contract to launch will enable them to design the capabilities after contract award.Why would they?
They're intent on retiring F9, and moving on the what is literally a new space age.
Plus they want to operate StarLink, which is much more lucrative than an AF contract.
The AF will come along when they're good and ready. Until then they can fly EELVs.
Also, why antagonize ULAs support base? The "win" they are aiming for is so large that there's no need for ULA to "lose".
It'd be a distraction and a wasted effort.
I am quite confident with my opinion that SpaceX intends to to be able to do all DoD missions with the Falcon family. That would include vertical integration and a larger fairing. A 2 year timeframe from contract to launch will enable them to design the capabilities after contract award.Why would they?
They're intent on retiring F9, and moving on the what is literally a new space age.
Plus they want to operate StarLink, which is much more lucrative than an AF contract.
The AF will come along when they're good and ready. Until then they can fly EELVs.
Also, why antagonize ULAs support base? The "win" they are aiming for is so large that there's no need for ULA to "lose".
It'd be a distraction and a wasted effort.
It is quite clear that SpaceX will not get any NASA support for BFR but possibly from the Airforce. No point in antagonizing the Airforce by not following up on their commitement to fly all military payloads. FH makes little sense now that RedDragon is gone except for that.
I didn't say "don't fly AF payloads". I said "don't develop specialty hardware for that".
Guys, SpaceX will decide by themselves what they will and won't do without input from any of us.Indeed they will....
We're just privileged to be able to watch how all this plays out [nearly] first hand (thanks NSF).
The vehicle for this flight should be all new Block 5 cores.The only FH B5 cores ever made?? B5 cores should be good for more flights than there are FH missions on the manifest...
The vehicle for this flight should be all new Block 5 cores.The only FH B5 cores ever made?? B5 cores should be good for more flights than there are FH missions on the manifest...
The vehicle for this flight should be all new Block 5 cores.The only FH B5 cores ever made?? B5 cores should be good for more flights than there are FH missions on the manifest...
The vehicle for this flight should be all new Block 5 cores.The only FH B5 cores ever made?? B5 cores should be good for more flights than there are FH missions on the manifest...
I'd guess at first they'll have 1-2 trios of B5 FH cores, exchanging them out every flight. If FH begins to get really popular, I could see another few sets be made.
And following that, are all Block 5 standard F9 cores already compatible with Falcon Heavy as a side booster? Thinking the new octaweb for Block 5 has everything needed as standard now and any other changes to the booster are in the interstage/nose-cone area and can be done during the campaign through to launch.
It is my understanding that the B4 and B5 octawebs have all of the FH systems and attachment points manufactured from the get go and yes it is now only recessed slots for brackets, bolt holes and plug holes for for electrical and data to the separation and strut stowage systems.And following that, are all Block 5 standard F9 cores already compatible with Falcon Heavy as a side booster? Thinking the new octaweb for Block 5 has everything needed as standard now and any other changes to the booster are in the interstage/nose-cone area and can be done during the campaign through to launch.
The octaweb would still need to be modified but apparently that can be done with bolts instead of welds now.
So the falcon heavy has been pushed back to late January said by Elon musk so when’s the static fire? This week?
So the falcon heavy has been pushed back to late January said by Elon musk so when’s the static fire? This week?
Yes, this week. Possibly Wednesday...SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
But they'll fire up when they are good and ready. 27 engines. This is not going to be your usual firing.
Let them get on the pad and ready to prop load. Then we'll know. Dates on this one have been moving around. If I get a good "going for it now" note, it'll be posted here (well the update thread) :)
And I want to see SWARMS of people taking their Facebook live and such to various viewing spots to stream this big girl firing up to the masses. So that makes it doubly important that the SECOND we get a good "going for it" date/time, it'll be posted HERE (well, the update thread ;)) and tweeted out and sent to all reaches of the planet via Pony Express, smoke signals and carrier pigeons. ;D
So the falcon heavy has been pushed back to late January said by Elon musk so when’s the static fire? This week?
Yes, this week. Possibly Wednesday...SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
But they'll fire up when they are good and ready. 27 engines. This is not going to be your usual firing.
Let them get on the pad and ready to prop load. Then we'll know. Dates on this one have been moving around. If I get a good "going for it now" note, it'll be posted here (well the update thread) :)
And I want to see SWARMS of people taking their Facebook live and such to various viewing spots to stream this big girl firing up to the masses. So that makes it doubly important that the SECOND we get a good "going for it" date/time, it'll be posted HERE (well, the update thread ;)) and tweeted out and sent to all reaches of the planet via Pony Express, smoke signals and carrier pigeons. ;D
I heard the Heavy is back on the pad again. But no confirmation if it’s a static fire so we wait.
Are they targeting tomorrow then? Don't see a reason they will leave it there unless they are gonna do another WDR first.
Are they targeting tomorrow then? Don't see a reason they will leave it there unless they are gonna do another WDR first.
Are they targeting tomorrow then? Don't see a reason they will leave it there unless they are gonna do another WDR first.
Did they do a WDR before? Thought it was just fit checks?
So the falcon heavy has been pushed back to late January said by Elon musk so when’s the static fire? This week?
Yes, this week. Possibly Wednesday...SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
But they'll fire up when they are good and ready. 27 engines. This is not going to be your usual firing.
Let them get on the pad and ready to prop load. Then we'll know. Dates on this one have been moving around. If I get a good "going for it now" note, it'll be posted here (well the update thread) :)
And I want to see SWARMS of people taking their Facebook live and such to various viewing spots to stream this big girl firing up to the masses. So that makes it doubly important that the SECOND we get a good "going for it" date/time, it'll be posted HERE (well, the update thread ;)) and tweeted out and sent to all reaches of the planet via Pony Express, smoke signals and carrier pigeons. ;D
I heard the Heavy is back on the pad again. But no confirmation if it’s a static fire so we wait.
Yes, the update thread shows they are heading back to the pad and this is for the Static Fire test.
Why the Falcon Heavy should be America's next Moon rocket
Choosing the right architecture
There are a number of possible architectures that could use the Falcon Heavy as part of a lunar development program. The architecture described here is just one but it envisions using hardware which could reasonably be available within the term(s) of the current presidency. The various possible architectures should be explored prior to this administration publicly selecting an architecture that may be much less cost effective and also potentially slower.
Vulcan, New Glenn, Blue Moon, and the Big “Falcon” Rocket (BFR) could and should compete for contracts within a “Lunar COTS” public private partnership (PPP).
Lunar COTS needs to be on the scale of the current public private programs (that is, about five percent of NASA’s budget). Small commercial launches in support of the “real” program (i.e. SLS-Orion-DSG) is not the model that has proven so successful. To be sustainable, we need to use PPPs to help private companies eventually establish a commercial transportation to the Moon for both cargo and crew.
Here's a Lunar program proposal based on FH:QuoteWhy the Falcon Heavy should be America's next Moon rocket...
Such price tags could transform mission planning for NASA and other space agencies, Stern says. "You're talking about savings of hundreds of millions of dollars, which is sufficient to create whole new missions just from the savings." Of course, were NASA to save on launches, Congress could take that money and use it elsewhere, says Henry Hertzfeld, who studies space policy at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He adds that the launch fees that government agencies pay tend to be negotiated in long-term contracts, based on payload needs, and don't necessarily align with prices published on a company website.
If you're wondering what that pad looks like from the NASA causeway, here's a private video I took of STS-135.
Maybe it helps settle some minds about where to see FH launch. The causeway doesn't suck. There might be better spots but it's not exactly terrible :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_jsVEMd0D8
Please ignore the background commentary. I didn't feel like going through the whole thing to remove anything bad or annoying, since I'm just posting this for the L2 crew, not the whole world.
Thanks!
KC
Edit: the "autofix" went awry on this thing. Never let a computer tell you how art should look. It's reverting...
I was on the Causeway when they scrubbed STS-134. Are they selling tickets for the Causeway for FH?
Physical size isnt everything....That is comparing expendable to reusable paylod capability, so not really a good comparison.
Straight from BO and SpaceX (accuracy not guaranteed)
FH
LEO 63,800kg
GTO 26,700kg
NG (2-stage)
LEO 45,000kg
GTO 13,000kg
Not that inaccurate, as New Glenn does not do a boostback or entry burn and lands considerably further downrange, so it's reuse penalty is lower. Also, New Glenn's recovery hardware appears to be permanently mounted and structurally integrated (not bolt-on like FH) so it likely does not have the option of flying of flying expendable without it like FH does. This would reduce the expendable payload. NG's theoretical expendable payload is likely only ~10% more than recovered, so ~50 tonnes vs 63.8 tonnes.
It's entirely reasonable to say that FH is quite a bit bigger.
From SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6Physical size isnt everything....That is comparing expendable to reusable paylod capability, so not really a good comparison.
Straight from BO and SpaceX (accuracy not guaranteed)
FH
LEO 63,800kg
GTO 26,700kg
NG (2-stage)
LEO 45,000kg
GTO 13,000kg
Not that inaccurate, as New Glenn does not do a boostback or entry burn and lands considerably further downrange, so it's reuse penalty is lower. Also, New Glenn's recovery hardware appears to be permanently mounted and structurally integrated (not bolt-on like FH) so it likely does not have the option of flying of flying expendable without it like FH does. This would reduce the expendable payload. NG's theoretical expendable payload is likely only ~10% more than recovered, so ~50 tonnes vs 63.8 tonnes.
It's entirely reasonable to say that FH is quite a bit bigger.
AIUI the SpaceX payloads are advertised with recovered boosters. Elon believes in pushing the boundaries both ways, that is improving thrust of Merlin 1D series as much as possible AND increasing reliability. Keep in mind that Elon told his engineers to design the Merlin 1C and 1D for 40 flights right from the start, this is not an afterthought. Bezos has taken a very conservative approach and decided to accept lower performance to gain reliability. The listed payloads on Blue's site are probably conservative and I wouldn't be surprised to see significant increases in the future as Blue gains confidence with their design.
Edit: Blue doesn't list the performance of their 3-stage design. SpaceX listing would be with Block 5 boosters and second stage.
SpaceX specifies that the "performance represents max capability on fully expended vehicle", so 63.8 tonnes is full expendable.
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
The listed prices are for lower payloads, which likely do factor in recovery (but not reuse).
I agree that Blue's numbers are likely conservative, but probably not by enough to close the gap with FH. I do think they can beat FH on price though, only having a single core and 7 engines to build and operate.
>
I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that.
>
Further to that article I posted about I really can imagine Europa Clipper ending up being launched on Falcon Heavy rather than the SLS. If it wasn’t for the large political factor in the matter it would be the more logical option from a cost basis.
Further to that article I posted about I really can imagine Europa Clipper ending up being launched on Falcon Heavy rather than the SLS. If it wasn’t for the large political factor in the matter it would be the more logical option from a cost basis.
no, there are other choices than those two.
This is just like auto manufacturers who show a picture of the deluxe version (fancy wheels etc.) but advertise the stripped down basic price. They put an asterisk on the price and print a disclaimer on the same page stating that the picture is the deluxe and usually show the "as pictured" price. SpaceX shows the rocket with legs then lists performance without and I am supposed to realize that at the top of the page in small dark print that there is a link about pricing (not payload) and only there do I get information about the payload disclaimer!?>
I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that.
>
"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"
SpaceX is listing the max payloads on their website, nothing wrong with that.This is just like auto manufacturers who show a picture of the deluxe version (fancy wheels etc.) but advertise the stripped down basic price. They put an asterisk on the price and print a disclaimer on the same page stating that the picture is the deluxe and usually show the "as pictured" price. SpaceX shows the rocket with legs then lists performance without and I am supposed to realize that at the top of the page in small dark print that there is a link about pricing (not payload) and only there do I get information about the payload disclaimer!?>
I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that.
>
"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"
This is just like auto manufacturers who show a picture of the deluxe version (fancy wheels etc.) but advertise the stripped down basic price. They put an asterisk on the price and print a disclaimer on the same page stating that the picture is the deluxe and usually show the "as pictured" price. SpaceX shows the rocket with legs then lists performance without and I am supposed to realize that at the top of the page in small dark print that there is a link about pricing (not payload) and only there do I get information about the payload disclaimer!?>
I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that.
>
"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"
It clearly says the price for 5.5 and 8.0 mT to GTO. Throwing the rocket away will cost you more. Not a single human on the planet with the intention and resources to order a mission would be confused by this.This is just like auto manufacturers who show a picture of the deluxe version (fancy wheels etc.) but advertise the stripped down basic price. They put an asterisk on the price and print a disclaimer on the same page stating that the picture is the deluxe and usually show the "as pictured" price. SpaceX shows the rocket with legs then lists performance without and I am supposed to realize that at the top of the page in small dark print that there is a link about pricing (not payload) and only there do I get information about the payload disclaimer!?>
I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that.
>
"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"
It clearly says the price for 5.5 and 8.0 mT to GTO. Throwing the rocket away will cost you more. Not a single human on the planet with the intention and resources to order a mission would be confused by this.This is just like auto manufacturers who show a picture of the deluxe version (fancy wheels etc.) but advertise the stripped down basic price. They put an asterisk on the price and print a disclaimer on the same page stating that the picture is the deluxe and usually show the "as pictured" price. SpaceX shows the rocket with legs then lists performance without and I am supposed to realize that at the top of the page in small dark print that there is a link about pricing (not payload) and only there do I get information about the payload disclaimer!?>
I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that.
>
"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"
Based on what spacecraft mass?Further to that article I posted about I really can imagine Europa Clipper ending up being launched on Falcon Heavy rather than the SLS. If it wasn’t for the large political factor in the matter it would be the more logical option from a cost basis.
no, there are other choices than those two.
But at the cost of duration getting there, which can have a knock on costs if it means things like gravitational assist(s) around Venus which in turn mean additions to Clipper.
I don't know how this became an issue of price. I was complaining that the rocket shown has legs which implies recovery, but the Performance (payload) of 63,900kg to LEO (as example) is for the expendable version. They do not explain that on the primary Falcon Heavy page but if you click on prices, there is where the explanation is. Not obvious that you should follow the prices link to find that the payload is for expendable launch.
The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:The actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.
1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.
2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?
3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?
Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?
The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:The actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.
1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.
2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?
3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?
Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?
Interestingly, based on the idea that you can get roughly 22% more payload to TLI than TMI
Incredible payload number, that's the fully expendable number I believe.
I'd love to see what that payload would actually look like, if it would fit inside the fairing and what they would have to do to the second stage to handle that load.
There's supposed to be two more FH launches this year (STP-2 and Arabsat 6A). Have there been any sightings of the core stages for, say, the STP-2 launch?
I thought the consensus speculation was that this core stage was one and done and new B5 core stage is to be built for the next two launches?There's supposed to be two more FH launches this year (STP-2 and Arabsat 6A). Have there been any sightings of the core stages for, say, the STP-2 launch?
If everything goes according to the plan, we may have seen them already quite many times without understanding it ;)
I thought the consensus speculation was that this core stage was one and done and new B5 core stage is to be built for the next two launches?There's supposed to be two more FH launches this year (STP-2 and Arabsat 6A). Have there been any sightings of the core stages for, say, the STP-2 launch?
If everything goes according to the plan, we may have seen them already quite many times without understanding it ;)
Consensus speculation, was my take, not actually known... but see next post.I thought the consensus speculation was that this core stage was one and done and new B5 core stage is to be built for the next two launches?
Is that known or an assumption that has spread?
If its similar to a F9 Block 3, then why not use it a second time? They've spent a ton on the FH, I can see wanting to milk a second flight out of the existing hardware.
Consensus speculation, was my take, not actually known.I thought the consensus speculation was that this core stage was one and done and new B5 core stage is to be built for the next two launches?
Is that known or an assumption that has spread?
If its similar to a F9 Block 3, then why not use it a second time? They've spent a ton on the FH, I can see wanting to milk a second flight out of the existing hardware.
I'm pretty sure there's a quote from GS somewhere here where she confirms FH will be Block V only (excluding the first one).
Yes. Gwynne has said in the past that all future FH vehicles would be made up of all Block 5 cores.
Shotwell said the Block 5 Falcon 9 should be able to refly “10 or more times” with limited refurbishment. The Falcon Heavy will also use Block 5 cores, she said, with the exception of the first mission.
The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:The actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.
1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.
2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?
3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?
Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?
The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:The actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.
1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.
2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?
3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?
Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?
Who jumps first and pays for an adapter that can mount that necessarily very dense 63 tons to the upper stage and fitting in the fairing? Or even the largest fairing that can fit?
And who would bother when by the time the work is done, it's time to redesign for the BFR capacity?
The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:The actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.
1: 16-20 ton actual payload object.
2: Mass of second stage - 5-7 tons?
3: Leftover propellant mass - 40-43 tons?
Or could the payload mass sitting atop the second stage actually be >60 tons?
Who jumps first and pays for an adapter that can mount that necessarily very dense 63 tons to the upper stage and fitting in the fairing? Or even the largest fairing that can fit?
And who would bother when by the time the work is done, it's time to redesign for the BFR capacity?
I think you just said that the Block 5 FH will be the final version of the FH.
I think FH will have a good life though, as I don't believe EM's BFR schedule.
I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/forget-the-falcon-heavys-payload-and-focus-on-where-the-rocket-will-go/) He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.
I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?
I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/forget-the-falcon-heavys-payload-and-focus-on-where-the-rocket-will-go/) He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.
I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?
I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/forget-the-falcon-heavys-payload-and-focus-on-where-the-rocket-will-go/) He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.
I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?
I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/forget-the-falcon-heavys-payload-and-focus-on-where-the-rocket-will-go/) He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.
I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?
There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961
Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.
In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.
Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.
There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961
Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.
In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.
Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.
There was quote from Gwen Shotwell awhile back that said they were sandbagging the numbers. The Demo is block3/block4 diffidently not block 5. also 92% thrust. more than enough to turn all their expendable F9 to FH recoverable launches.
I read Eric Berger's recent article on the Falcon Heavy launch. (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/forget-the-falcon-heavys-payload-and-focus-on-where-the-rocket-will-go/) He makes the argument that FH's main influence could be on NASA science missions, if NASA goes the route of smaller cheaper robotic probes for exploring the solar system. The second part of the argument is that F9 is already powerful enough now for most commercial GTO satellite launches and the DoD payloads that would use FH are few and far between.
I think Eric Berger's analysis is right. But I'm not sure the NASA science payloads will materialize. What do you all think? Will FH fly more than twice a year?
I think its also possible that after a few meager but overall successful years, the FH will generate its own new market niche, by leading to the development of heavier geostationary comsats and milsats. It won't be alone in this market for long though (-> New Glenn), and BFR might one day take over.
I don't think FH is a dead end - it's a bridge towards the future.
There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961
Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.
In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.
Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.
There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961
Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.
In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.
Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.
There's a tweetstorm brewing, and clouds of debate rumbling.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10156268612306318/
https://twitter.com/doug_ellison/status/959604957283368961
Some really interesting numbers get compared in the tweets.
In light of that debate I'd like to ask if anyone has citations for the latest pricing figures for Falcon Heavy nonreusable and Delta 4 Heavy.
Most importantly, how out of date (if at all) are the performance figures provided by https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/ for Falcon Heavy at least one participant of the debate claimed (without elaborating) the isp numbers being wrong.
The NASA LSP website numbers appear to be from the F9 v1.1-derived Heavy, and appear to only be present for high energy trajectories. Take those numbers with a large grain of salt, they are well out of date.
Or can we do better, something we can use to convince the misguided scientist putting his faith in government statisticians?
Or can we do better, something we can use to convince the misguided scientist putting his faith in government statisticians?
Who and what government statisticians?
I don't think Doug Ellison is capable of talking about anything SpaceX related objectively. He's quick to pull the trigger whenever he finds the opportunity to criticize SpaceX, sometime sacrificing in-depth research of what he's saying when something confirms his already negative opinion of the company.
That's especially true when talking about Falcon performance figures: I remember him trying to pass the narrative that SpaceX has greatly increased the price of Falcon 9, failing to account for inflation and for the fact that, even with recovery, today's Falcon 9 has a payload capacity greater than 2010 F9 expendable. I politely told him and his answer was to quickly block me on Twitter.
Also if something is unclear and he has to make an estimate, he always assumes the worst for SpaceX, never giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Definitely not a reasonable guy when it comes to SpaceX.
UMSF?
Never mind, I found a way to read the discussion.Yep.
Do I get it right? Falcon Heavy doesn't have an efficient upper stage and that's why the rocket is inferior to other expendable rockets when it comes to interplanetary missions?
Never mind, I found a way to read the discussion.Yep.
Do I get it right? Falcon Heavy doesn't have an efficient upper stage and that's why the rocket is inferior to other expendable rockets when it comes to interplanetary missions?
Never mind, I found a way to read the discussion.Yep.
Do I get it right? Falcon Heavy doesn't have an efficient upper stage and that's why the rocket is inferior to other expendable rockets when it comes to interplanetary missions?
But that disadvantage makes FH inferior to Delta 4 Heavy only beyond Mars. Plus it can be at least partly remedied by giving the payload an additional kickstage, taking advantage of the higher payload capacity to lower energetic trajectories. Despite the upper stage FH is still an incredibly powerful launch vehicle even for high energy trajectories.
Not even /partially/ mitigated: ENTIRELY mitigated.Never mind, I found a way to read the discussion.Yep.
Do I get it right? Falcon Heavy doesn't have an efficient upper stage and that's why the rocket is inferior to other expendable rockets when it comes to interplanetary missions?
But that disadvantage makes FH inferior to Delta 4 Heavy only beyond Mars. Plus it can be at least partly remedied by giving the payload an additional kickstage, taking advantage of the higher payload capacity to lower energetic trajectories. Despite the upper stage FH is still an incredibly powerful launch vehicle even for high energy trajectories.
That's exactly what I wanted to ask. If Falcon Heavy is all about putting 60ish tons in LEO, what would prevent adding a cryo upper stage?Simply stretching the upper stage of FH would basically null out any performance difference. And adding a kick stage on top of *that* would allow FH to launch Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter like SLS.
That's exactly what I wanted to ask. If Falcon Heavy is all about putting 60ish tons in LEO, what would prevent adding a cryo upper stage?1. Development costs
Doug was being disingenuous. You would not launch a large payload to such high energy trajectories on any EELV or Falcon without a kick stage. Atlas V with kick stage is cheaper & higher performance than D4H without one (which is partly why New Horizons did just that), and FH plus kick stage beats them both.
3. taking up a large portion of the fairing volume and having to figure out how to fuel it in the fairings if it would be in the fairings
Simply stretching the upper stage of FH would basically null out any performance difference. And adding a kick stage on top of *that* would allow FH to launch Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter like SLS.
3. taking up a large portion of the fairing volume and having to figure out how to fuel it in the fairings if it would be in the fairings
I've always wondered about this. (slightly OT, apologies) What is the reason for Atlas V's fairing encapsulating (much of) Centaur?
He was looking basically exclusively at high energy missions, higher energy than the typical deep space missions which use multiple gravity assists.Doug was being disingenuous. You would not launch a large payload to such high energy trajectories on any EELV or Falcon without a kick stage. Atlas V with kick stage is cheaper & higher performance than D4H without one (which is partly why New Horizons did just that), and FH plus kick stage beats them both.
Not true. Only high speed missions like PNH and PSP need kick stages. Mars, Jupiter and Saturn missions don't and that is where FH falls short.
As for lunar trajectories, can FH send a Dragon 2 directly to the Moon?FH has a listed payload capability to Mars of 16.8 tons, Dragon 2 is quite a bit lighter than that and going to the Moon requires some less delta-V than going to Mars, so that won't be a problem.
As for lunar trajectories, can FH send a Dragon 2 directly to the Moon?
It's a valid criticism, as far as it goes. Requests for candy notwithstanding.Never mind, I found a way to read the discussion.Yep.
Do I get it right? Falcon Heavy doesn't have an efficient upper stage and that's why the rocket is inferior to other expendable rockets when it comes to interplanetary missions?
As for lunar trajectories, can FH send a Dragon 2 directly to the Moon?
Simply stretching the upper stage of FH would basically null out any performance difference. And adding a kick stage on top of *that* would allow FH to launch Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter like SLS.
There is no kick stage for Europa Clipper on FH. "Kick" stages are solid motors which have high thrust. Solid motors and Falcon are none starters.
There is no stretching of the upperstage. there is no more F9 development.
Europa Clipper on FH would use gravity assists.
Doug was being disingenuous. You would not launch a large payload to such high energy trajectories on any EELV or Falcon without a kick stage. Atlas V with kick stage is cheaper & higher performance than D4H without one (which is partly why New Horizons did just that), and FH plus kick stage beats them both.
Not true. Only high speed missions like PNH and PSP need kick stages. Mars, Jupiter and Saturn missions don't and that is where FH falls short.
Exactly.Doug was being disingenuous. You would not launch a large payload to such high energy trajectories on any EELV or Falcon without a kick stage. Atlas V with kick stage is cheaper & higher performance than D4H without one (which is partly why New Horizons did just that), and FH plus kick stage beats them both.
Not true. Only high speed missions like PNH and PSP need kick stages. Mars, Jupiter and Saturn missions don't and that is where FH falls short.
People here seem to forgetting that the main business for FH will be GTO/GEO missions.
All this nonsense of putting a high-energy upper stage on FH, for one-off NASA missions to the outer solar system, is exactly that: nonsense.
How does it fall short? FH can send more mass direct to Jupiter than DIVH can, and for far less money.Doug was being disingenuous. You would not launch a large payload to such high energy trajectories on any EELV or Falcon without a kick stage. Atlas V with kick stage is cheaper & higher performance than D4H without one (which is partly why New Horizons did just that), and FH plus kick stage beats them both.
Not true. Only high speed missions like PNH and PSP need kick stages. Mars, Jupiter and Saturn missions don't and that is where FH falls short.
FH could deliver propellant to fill the Vulcan upper stages for BEO operations in the early 2020s. ULA was one time discussing $3M/tonne... 50tonnes ($150M) would make a great weekly payload.
Simply stretching the upper stage of FH would basically null out any performance difference. And adding a kick stage on top of *that* would allow FH to launch Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter like SLS.
There is no kick stage for Europa Clipper on FH. "Kick" stages are solid motors which have high thrust. Solid motors and Falcon are none starters.
As for lunar trajectories, can FH send a Dragon 2 directly to the Moon?
And before anyone asks, can also land on the moon using convenient lithobraking maneuvers.
;D
Simply stretching the upper stage of FH would basically null out any performance difference. And adding a kick stage on top of *that* would allow FH to launch Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter like SLS.
There is no kick stage for Europa Clipper on FH. "Kick" stages are solid motors which have high thrust. Solid motors and Falcon are none starters.
What does this mean? SpaceX doesn't like solids, but I think they're open to use solid kick stages from someone else, didn't they submit a bid for Solar Probe Plus using 3rd party solid kick stage?
"Lithobraking"
We need to add that new term to the NSF online space terminology dictionary.
Where is that thing these days anyhow?
Does a static fire subject the vehicle to more stress while it is at full thrust and being held down than if it were allowed to launch?Since the holdowns don't release until all the engines are going full thrust, you're going to have that stress at that point for a second even when it launches.
Musk: if we wanted to, we could add t[w]o more side boosters, make it Falcon Super Heavy.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/960629934388588544
QuoteMusk: if we wanted to, we could add t[w]o more side boosters, make it Falcon Super Heavy.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/960629934388588544
I assume someone's already computed the lift capacity of this in the depths of the thread, can anyone point to it?
QuoteMusk: if we wanted to, we could add t[w]o more side boosters, make it Falcon Super Heavy.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/960629934388588544
I assume someone's already computed the lift capacity of this in the depths of the thread, can anyone point to it?
I BOTE about 76 tonnes to LEO, 25 tonnes to TLI. Not a Super improvement. Raptor upper stage would be a lot easier and more effective.
If they could make a dual payload adaptor, FHs payload drastically increases when the center stage is expended, to like 20 tonnes to GTO. Falcon Heavy is also is capable of direct geo insertion. So with center core expended you could probably do Ariane 5 sized dual payloads direct to GEO. Charge $140 million per flight and you're cheaper than an A5 and probably make a cool $100 million in profit per flight!
Thinking about it, there could be a major market for Falcon heavy, and it would be this:
If they could make a dual payload adaptor, FHs payload drastically increases when the center stage is expended, to like 20 tonnes to GTO. Falcon Heavy is also is capable of direct geo insertion. So with center core expended you could probably do Ariane 5 sized dual payloads direct to GEO. Charge $140 million per flight and you're cheaper than an A5 and probably make a cool $100 million in profit per flight!
Hi Everyone! So yeah really excited about today incredibly proud of the SpaceX team, they've done an incredible job of creating the most advanced rocket in the world and biggest rocket in the world.
I'm still trying to absorb everything that happened because it seems surreal to me.
I had this image of just a giant explosion on the pad with you know a wheel bouncing down the road and like the Tesla logo landing somewhere with a thud. But fortunately that's not what happened, the mission seems tho have gone really as well as one could have hoped with the exception of the center core.
I was at the two side boosters, if you guys are here you sold them land that was epic, I think that's probably the most exciting thing I've ever seen literally ever. The center core obviously didn't land on the droneship, we're looking at the issue but we think it diddn't have enough TEA/TEB to relight all three engines.
The center one lit I believe, the outer two did not and that was not enough to slow the stage down. Apparently it hit the water at 300 miles an hour and took out two of the engines on the droneship. So if we got the footage like that sounds like some pretty fun footage, so if if the cameras didn't get blown up as well then we'll put that out for the blooper reel.
We weren't gonna reuse that Center core anyway or the two side boosters, we'll figure out some place to put them but as they're not block five or version five, we weren't planning on reusing any of the cores. The upper stage seems to have worked perfectly so far, the two burns were executed correctly, and now we'll see if the upper stage avionics survive quite an arduous trip through the Van Allen belts.
Normally the stage will pass quickly through the Van Allen belts but here it's essentially dwelling there for several hours, and then it's going to do a restart, deplete is propellant and go to trans-mars injection.
The propellant levels all look good after the second burn of the upper stage we were only 0.3 Sigma away from predictions, so it has plenty of propellant to complete the trans-mars injection, assuming that the fuel doesn't freeze or the oxygen doesn't boil off and the electronics don't get fried.
We'll find out in a few hours if that that burn is successful.
I went out to the landing zone and took a look at the side boosters, they look in really good condition so they're they're both refliable, although as I said they're combination of version 3 and version 4 so we're only gonna be reflying version 5 at this point. That launches shortly and that that'll be our mainstay, we will stick to version 5 for the falcon architecture we don't expect to have any version 6.
David Kerley form ABC News Elon spectacular what did you learn, what did Falcon Heavy teach you?
I guess it taught me that crazy things can come true, because I didn't really think this would work, and when I see the rocket liftoff, I
see like a thousand things that might not work and it's amazing when they they do. Seeing the two boosters land synchronized, really just like the simulation, it makes you think that it could be quite a scalable approach you know, with those just coming in, landing, taking off, landing, doing many flights per day.
It gives me a lot of faith for our next architecture the interplanetary spaceship. We have different names for it but BFR is code name. It gives me confidence that BFR is really quite workable.
I was actually looking at the side boosters - I'm like 'they're pretty big you know 16 stories tall, 60 foot leg span but we really need to be way bigger than that so I think it's given me a lot of confidence that we can make the BFR design work.
I think we can really do this a lot.
You know and keep advancing the technology to achieve full and rapid reusability which will have a profound effect on the future.
One of the interesting things about Falcon Heavy versus Falcon 9 is that Falcon heavy has the same level of expendability as Falcon nine, sixty million dollars falcon 9, Heavies 90, even though it's got three times as much capability, because in both cases the only thing that's expended is the upper stage.
We're going to start recovering the fairings, we're gonna recover boosters and so the cost difference between a Falcon Heavy and a Falcon 9 is minor.
Marcia Done, Associated Press What was going through your mind and how how amazed for you to see your Roadster up there with Starman, just cruising along with the blue planet and how long will we be getting live views do you think from the car?
Well I think it looks so ridiculous and impossible, you can tell it's real because it looks so fake.
Honestly we'd have way better CGI if it was fake.
You know the colors all look like kind of weird in space as there's no atmospheric occlusion, it's like everything was too crisp.
We didn't really test any of those materials for you know - space hardness or whatever, so it just has the same seats that anormal car has - it's a strictly a normal car in space - I kind of like the absurdity of that.
If you look closely on the dashboard there's a tiny roadster with a tiny spaceman, because hot wheels made a Hot Wheels roadster and a friend a friend of mine suggested "hey why not put that Hot Wheels roadster with a tiny spaceman on the you know the car - like that'd be cool surprise"
Silly fun things are important. Normally for a new rocket they've launched things like a block of concrete or something like that, I
mean that's so boring and I think the imagery of it is something that's gonna get people excited around the world.
It's still tripping me out, you know tripping balls here.
Brendan Burn (?)
Congratulations Elon on great launch today where do you see the Falcon Heavy fitting into this launch industry, is this something that is going to be for more national security or do you see this for interplanetary missions, what's the future of Falcon Heavy?
Falcon Heavy opens up a new class of payload. It can launch more than twice as much payload as any other rocket in the world, so it's kind of up to customers what they might want to launch. It can launch things direct to Pluto and beyond with no need for a gravity assist or anything. Launch giant satellites, it can do anything you want. You could send people back to the moon with a bunch of Falcon Heavy and an orbital refilling. Two or three falcon heavies would equal the payload of a Saturn Five.
But I wouldn't recommend doing that because I think that BFR architecture is the way to go, but I think it's gonna open up a sense of possibility, I think it's going to encourage other companies and countries to say 'hey if SpaceX which is a commercial company can do this with internal funds then then they could do it too.
So I think it's an encourage other countries and companies to raise their sights and say 'hey, we can do bigger and better', which is great. We want a new space race.
Races are exciting!
Darryl Mail (?) Fox
Can you talk us through your thought process as you were watching the launch, you said you were incredibly concerned about it and you just wanted it to clear the pad?
I think this is true of anyone who's involved closely in the design of something, you know all the ways it can fail and and there's a mental checklist scrolling through your mind of all the things that can break.
I mean. there's thousands of things that can go wrong and everything has to go right.
Once the rocket lifts off there's nothing, there's no opportunity to do a recall or upload a software fix or anything like that, it has to be a hundred percent - at least for the ascent phase. I've seen rockets blow up so many different ways, so you know it's a big relief when it it actually works.
I bet whoever launched something like a 747 or or dc-3 or something like that, I bet the chief engineer was like 'I can't believe that things like flying'.
Irene Klotz from Aviation Week
Congratulations. Can you talk to us a little bit about what needs to happen to certify Falcon Heavy for national security missions. Gow far along you are in the process and how many flights you might need to do and also if you're able to say anything about how much SpaceX's investment was to get to the rocket to this point thanks.
It depends on which national security mission that we need to get. How many flights depends on which mission but we have a number of commercial customers for Falcon Heavy and so I it's not gonna be in any way an impediment to acceptance of national security missions. We'll be doing several heavy missions flights per year so, say there's a big national security satellite that's due for launch in three or four years and we're probably have like a dozen or more launches done by then.
I don't think launch number will be an inhibitor for national security stuff. And yeah so I think we've got the STP mission that's coming up which is another test mission that will go on falcon heavy block 5 and then we'll be launching block 5 single stick in a couple months so I think it's hopefully smooth sailing for qualification for national security missions.
Falcon heavy costs
Our investment to date probably a lot more than I'd like to admit. We tried to cancel the Falcon Heavy program three times at SpaceX because it's like 'man this is way harder than we thought'. The initial idea was just I thought you know you stick on two first stages of side boosters how hard can it be? It's like way hard.
We have to redesign the center core completely. We redesigned the grid fins, because well it's a long story but you've got a nose cone on the end of at the end of the booster instead of a cylinder, you lose control authority because if you if you've got a cylinder you can kind of bounce the air off of the rocket and you get like a 30% more increased control authority than if you've got a cylindrical section instead of a Ogive section at the end of the booster so we have to redesign the grid fins. Redesigning the control system.
Vastly redesigned the thrust structure at the base to take way more load - that center boosters got to deal with over a million pounds of load coming in combined from the site boosters so it ends up being heavier so that the center core basically complete redesign, and even the side boosters has a pretty large number of parts that change. Then the launch site itself needs to change a lot.
I'm guessing our total investment is over half a billion. Probably more.
I'd like to take some questions from the phone I
think the first one up is
Dan Fergana from BuzzFeed news
Could you talk a little bit about the decision to have the two side boosters come down at the same time is that just the way it falls out from the physics or was that a actual decision you made?
We did offset them slightly but really they they pretty much just come down that way. We want them to offset slightly just so that the radars didn't interfere and we actually wanted no communication between the two stages, they're both going to a point in absolute space and we're just worried that the radar reflection of one would be seen by the radar receiver the other. But no, that's just kind of how it happened. It's actually meant to happen just like that.
Keith cowling at NASA watch first of all congratulations you've launched a rather unconventional payload into space, one that's generated a lot of buzz and there's a lot of people some of them citizen scientists some of them they're just newbies when it comes to tracking things and states are going to try and track the the Tesla and understand what's happening to it - you know like that movie dude where's my car - Other than the live web cam today what does SpaceX going to do to interact with this community of Tesla trackers once the car leaves orbit? Do you have a plan are you just gonna kind of wait and see what bubbles up in the internet and react to it?
We don't have a plan. No plan, the battery's gonna last about 12 hours from launch roughly and after that it's just gonna be out there in deep space for maybe millions and millions of years who knows. Maybe discovered by future alien race thinking what the heck what what were these guys doing did they worship this car? Why do they have a little car in the car? That'll really confuse the. I'm not sure what's gonna happen but I think you know it's kind of a fun thing and sure hope that next burn works by the way. We'll know in a few hours.
Chris Davenport from the Washington Post so now that you're focusing more on the BFR, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the timeline. I know you said it's coming along faster, and then what that means for your plans for Mars and the moon
Well I don't want to get too off-topic but you know I think we might, if we get lucky, be able to do short hop flights with the spaceship part of BFR maybe next year.
Bill Harwood from CBS Two really quick ones you mentioned the the drone ship a couple of thrusters got hit, did the thing land on the ship or near?
Take the information that I have with a grain of salt, it may be incorrect. The information I received was that we hit the water at about 300 miles an hour and about a hundred metres away from the ship. Which was enough to take out two thrusters and shower the deck with shrapnel.
You mentioned the burn coming up can you give us any sense of how long a burn are we talking about and when you hope to have some confirmation and be able to tell us that it did or didn't work I don't have the number off hand, I was just looking at the profound residual Sigma which is like the key number. It's it's a decent decently long burn. Maybe a minute or so and yeah that'll be in few hours hopefully. I actually don't have the latest information because I've just been out at the landing zone and haven't been back to launch control since going to the landing zones. I don't have the latest information on the status of the upper stage.
Tom Costello for NBC News Congratulations again! I
want to follow up on Chris's question because Chris asked you what's your timeline potentially to go to the Moon or Mars and you said, did you say as soon as next year, can you quantify that but then I tie my real question I'm just doing Chris's work.
By hopper tests I mean kind-of-like the grasshopper program for falcon 9, where we just had the rocket take take off and land in Texas at our Texas test site so we'd either do that at our South Texas launch site, near Brownsville or or do ship-to-ship. We're not sure yet whether ship-to-ship or Brownsville, but most likely it's gonna happen in our Brownsville location because got a lot of land with nobody around and so if it blows up, it's cool.
By hopper test I mean it'll go up several miles then come down. The ship is capable of single stage to orbit if you fully load the tanks. So we'll do flights of increasing complexity. We really want to test the heatshield material so, like you know fly out turn around accelerate back real hard and come in hot to test the heat shield, because we want to have a highly reusable heat shield that's capable of absorbing heat from interplanetary entry velocities. So it's really tricky.
The potential to go to the moon or mars what's your timeline, any idea?
So a lot of uncertainties on this program but it is going to be our focus, now that we're almost done with with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, we're gonna level off at block 5 or version 5, so there won't be anymore major versions of Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy. Dragon is also going to level off at dragon version 2. There might be point releases like 5.1 or Dragon 2.1 or something like that but most of our engineering resources will be dedicated to BFR and and so I think that that will make things go quite quickly.
The ship part is by far the hardest because that's going to come in from super-orbital velocities. Mars transfer velocities these are way harder than coming in from low-earth orbit. There's some of the heating things that scale to the eighth power. I diddn't think there's anything that scales to eight power but turns out on reentry certain elements of reentry heating scale to the 8th so just testing that ship out is the real tricky part.
The booster I think we understand reasonable boosters. Reusable spaceships that can land propulsively that's that's harder, so we're starting with the hard part first.
I think it's conceivable that we do our first full-up orbital test flight in 3-4 years including the booster. inaudible question on moon/mars
We'd go to low earth orbit first but it would be capable of going to the moon very shortly thereafter it's designed to do that.
Martin Avenue reddit's r/space
I'd like to congratulate it you as well as so many people have done just now. I'd like to know about Starman spacesuit is it a production model, is it instrumented and/or pressurized and what's holding his what's holding him up?
Well there's a mannequin inside, so it's just basically stuffed, but yeah that is the actual production design so the real one looks like just like that that in fact that's one of the qualification articles so that's that's real that's the real deal yeah.
I figure if you're gonna go on a dangerous trip you want to look good. It took us three years to design, it was real hard, it's easier making spacesuit that looks good or doesn't work or that works but doesn't look good it's really difficult to make a space suit that looks good and works. You have to make it a multi-part process and it was surprisingly difficult.
I take motion from Business Insider um thank you so much for doing this by the way and I
want to go back to VFR for a second since you were talking about that, and also Starman which is such an inspirational thing that's happening. Have you thought given any thought to what you might do with BFR in that way what is the what is the payload and any thoughts of that?
No, no ideas, sugestions are welcome!
I mean it's a beast so you know the BFR 9 meter diameter or 30 feet roughly. You can put a lot in 30 feet, hundred twenty meters long. Although you know I bet it doesn't look that big after a while.
timber notes from ports
Hi Elon thanks again for doing this. Two questions for you one just about faring recovery, just curious how the SpaceX is coming with that, and Jeff Bezos just responded to your tweet congratulating you on your launch today. You just mentioned a minute ago that we need a new space race I'm just curious if you see yourself in a race with blue origin.
What's the first part of the the question again?
Checking in on fairing recovery.
Fairing recovery
I'm pretty sure we'll have fairing recovery in the next six months.
It turns out that you pop the parachute on the fairing and you've got this giant awkward thing that tends to interfere with the air flow on the on the parachute and and mess it up.
Gets all twisty and and was low priority too. We have fairing version two which is the really important one that we want to recover, so even if we recovered fairing version one, we wouldn't be re-flying it in the future. Fairing two and recovery that's very important, and my guess is - next six months we figure out recovery.
We've got a special boat to catch the fairing, like a catcher's mitt. It's like a giant catchers mitt in boat form.
It's gonna run around and catch the fairing.
Kinda fun.
I think you might be able to do the same thing with dragon so if NASA wants us to, we could try to catch dragon.
Made for the fairing, but it would work for dragon too.
James Dean from Florida today Speaking of those dragons could you give us a status on Commercial Crew and and you know when we might realistically see that astronaut just get into low-earth orbit much less the Moon or Mars
We're making great progress on crew dragon or dragon version 2 - mission assurance is always number one priority but then the the priority used to be falcon 9 block five and then a month ago I said absolute priority is crew Dragon. We're pretty much done with falcon 9 block five, almost done with Falcon Heavy, a few tweaks that could occur with falcon heavy block five but they're minor. And so it's all hands on deck for crew dragon and we're aspiring to send crew to orbit at the end of this year.
I think the hardware will be ready.
Chris Gephardt How quickly can the pad be reconfigured between heavy and Falcon 9 since you need that pad for both?
It's no problem, it can go back and forth this is its designed that way.
And for the block five version of the Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy are the does the Falcon having need a dedicated core built for it?
It does. Tthe center core needs to be dedicated, the center core is a special build, the side boosters we can reuse existing Falcon 9s but we need to just replace the interstage with a with a nose cone and and use the upgraded titanium grid-fins, which are sweet.
Those worked out real well I'm really happy about those in fact I'm glad we got the side boosters back because they had the titanium grid-fins, and the center core diddn't. So if I have to pick, I would have picked the side boosters. I just picked the center core to explode. That would be like the least bad. The grid-fins are super expensive and and awesome but their production rate is slow. We want them back. The most important thing to recover where those gridfins.
Is there anything inside the spacesuit testing like its ability to function>
Nope, I know it definitely works so you can just like jump in a vacuum chamber with it and be fine.
Simply stretching the upper stage of FH would basically null out any performance difference. And adding a kick stage on top of *that* would allow FH to launch Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter like SLS.
There is no kick stage for Europa Clipper on FH. "Kick" stages are solid motors which have high thrust. Solid motors and Falcon are none starters.
There is no stretching of the upperstage. there is no more F9 development.
Europa Clipper on FH would use gravity assists.
Why are we even discussing this? Europa Clipper is mandated by law to fly on SLS. End of story.
Based on the final orbit, this launch could have lifted roughly 7500 kg to GTO-1800 with 3-core recovery and a large center core boost-back. Block 5 improvements will allow it to do that with 3-core RTLS, or more payload, IMO.
...I noted that the view of Starman in the Tesla car reminded me of the early 1960's animated cartoons of " The Jetsons" ! ...
Based on the final orbit, this launch could have lifted roughly 7500 kg to GTO-1800 with 3-core recovery and a large center core boost-back. Block 5 improvements will allow it to do that with 3-core RTLS, or more payload, IMO.
Based on the final orbit, this launch could have lifted roughly 7500 kg to GTO-1800 with 3-core recovery and a large center core boost-back. Block 5 improvements will allow it to do that with 3-core RTLS, or more payload, IMO.
What would you estimate the mass it could have lifted to a direct GSO injection, the process (if not the trajectory) for which was tested? And for ASDS center core recovery, how much to GSO for an FH made up of Block 5's?
Less than 5000 kg, in either case, I would imagine...
Matching payloads was difficult for Ariane because they always need a big and a smaller payload. With the capacity of FH SpaceX could probably match any two payloads almost freely. The obstacle is the fairing size. Also Elon Musk has said he does not want two customer payloads depend on each other.
Matching payloads was difficult for Ariane because they always need a big and a smaller payload. With the capacity of FH SpaceX could probably match any two payloads almost freely. The obstacle is the fairing size. Also Elon Musk has said he does not want two customer payloads depend on each other.
One more issue to think about: You're unlikely to be injecting two GEO payloads to the same orbit, so fit that into the delta-V calcs, required number of 2nd stage burns, time that your payloads spend without their arrays deployed, etc etc. Seems like it gets messy really quickly, in addition to the other factors previously mentioned.
Finally, the appeal is even more dubious once you factor in that the market is seeing a noticeable price drop with FH even *without* ride-sharing to GEO.
--Noel
Matching payloads was difficult for Ariane because they always need a big and a smaller payload. With the capacity of FH SpaceX could probably match any two payloads almost freely. The obstacle is the fairing size. Also Elon Musk has said he does not want two customer payloads depend on each other.
One more issue to think about: You're unlikely to be injecting two GEO payloads to the same orbit, so fit that into the delta-V calcs, required number of 2nd stage burns, time that your payloads spend without their arrays deployed, etc etc. Seems like it gets messy really quickly, in addition to the other factors previously mentioned.
Finally, the appeal is even more dubious once you factor in that the market is seeing a noticeable price drop with FH even *without* ride-sharing to GEO.
--Noel
In GTO satellites will drift quite fast to their orbital position.
GEO satellites are all in the same orbit. You don't need a 2nd stage to change positions.Matching payloads was difficult for Ariane because they always need a big and a smaller payload. With the capacity of FH SpaceX could probably match any two payloads almost freely. The obstacle is the fairing size. Also Elon Musk has said he does not want two customer payloads depend on each other.
One more issue to think about: You're unlikely to be injecting two GEO payloads to the same orbit, so fit that into the delta-V calcs, required number of 2nd stage burns, time that your payloads spend without their arrays deployed, etc etc. Seems like it gets messy really quickly, in addition to the other factors previously mentioned.
Finally, the appeal is even more dubious once you factor in that the market is seeing a noticeable price drop with FH even *without* ride-sharing to GEO.
--Noel
As for lunar trajectories, can FH send a Dragon 2 directly to the Moon?
And before anyone asks, can also land on the moon using convenient lithobraking maneuvers.
;D
"Lithobraking"
We need to add that new term to the NSF online space terminology dictionary.
Where is that thing these days anyhow?
“If that (BFR development) ends up taking longer than expected, then we will return to the idea of sending a Crew Dragon on a Falcon Heavy around the moon, and potentially do other things with crew on Falcon Heavy,” Musk was quoted as saying by Space News.
Quote“If that (BFR development) ends up taking longer than expected, then we will return to the idea of sending a Crew Dragon on a Falcon Heavy around the moon, and potentially do other things with crew on Falcon Heavy,” Musk was quoted as saying by Space News.
Well, at least Musk knows how to manage expectations. But are there a suitable repertoire of cutting-edge missions for FH to keep pushing the envelope, if BFR gets bogged down in development hell?
"Lithobraking"
We need to add that new term to the NSF online space terminology dictionary.
Where is that thing these days anyhow?
Did you mean this thread?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39450
Based on what Elon says at about 1:30 point in this video interview and then puff piece.
(Interview was pre-launch... one on one type at 39A pad site... and good questions I thought)
Do you think SpaceX throttles the boosters a lot in the last say 20 seconds to limit transfer loads at no more then the 1/2 million pounds each value Elon mentioned in answering the question?
OR... was he just simplifying the answer in layman's terms?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7LJIuB2CHE
I guess the root question I am asking for comment and speculation on is...
What do you think the thrust verses time map looks like from launch thru to MECO from the boosters and the core?
???
On add
We know from what was said at the 15:20+ point in this version 2.0 SpaceX launch video...
Boosters throttling late in their burn is required for loads as per the 15:54 start of statement made... ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c?t=15m20s
elonmusk: @doug_ellison @dsfpspacefl1ght The performance numbers in this database are not accurate. In process of being fixed. Even if they were, a fully expendable Falcon Heavy, which far exceeds the performance of a Delta IV Heavy, is $150M, compared to over $400M for Delta IV Heavy.
elonmusk: @doug_ellison @dsfpspacefl1ght Both exhaust velocity (Isp) and mass ratio drive the rocket equation. Also thrust/mass matters a lot for Oberth effect. Delta upper stage Isp is good, but mass ratio and thrust are not.
The work to make Dragon round-the-moon ready have to take place regardless of launch vehicle.
The work to make Dragon round-the-moon ready have to take place regardless of launch vehicle.
No. If the mission is done with BFR then Dragon wouldn't be involved at all.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963095860060934144
"Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected."
How much longer and wider would a larger fairing be? IF, there was/is a need? And or how much of a stretch could FH upper stage take, again if needed? This makes sense if they needed to compete with SLS.Center cores are custom and can’t be converted from single stick versions. Side boosters and single stick are convertible with small amount of work. Per Elon post launch conference.
Also, as seldom as FH will probably fly in the near future, would they consider using F9 stages that have launched 5 or 10 times and expend them as a center core?
Maybe this is not the place, but what if they only installed 5 or 7 engines on the center core running full thrust and expended it? I'm thinking without 2 or 4 engines, legs, and grid fins, could this increase payload?
Just wondering what the absolute maximum payload to various orbits with minimum modifications?
How much longer and wider would a larger fairing be? IF, there was/is a need?
Just sitting here looking at the pictures up above and looking over specs widely available online [1]...
(and I am rounding down for simple math here, and using expend all $150m price)
Current configuration... 63 metric tons to LEO at ~100+ tons S2 prop
33% prop cap stretch... 33 metric tons more S2 prop (133) and 30 metric ton payload to LEO
50% prop cap stretch... 50 metric tons more S2 prop (150) and 13 metric ton payload to LEO
All three have a place depending on where the payload is going and how much it weighs... ???
On edit...
Heck there is a possible 60% stretch... 3 metric tons to LEO and 60 metric tons of prop to take it somewhere else..
But that's a ~7.5 meter stretch... will it fly ok?... :-\
(later edit... with special short fairing, I bet it would fly fine... IMHO)
[1] one of several references... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust#Vehicle_specifications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust#Vehicle_specifications)
I am now quite confused. Why is your payload decreasing as the 2nd stage increases in size? Are you suggesting that the stretched second stage eats into the space normally encapsulated by the fairing? My assumption was that as the 2nd stage stretches the rocket's overall length simply increases, without encroaching into any fairing space.
Surely the payload should increase as the 2nd stage propellant mass grows? What am I missing?
I am now quite confused. Why is your payload decreasing as the 2nd stage increases in size? Are you suggesting that the stretched second stage eats into the space normally encapsulated by the fairing? My assumption was that as the 2nd stage stretches the rocket's overall length simply increases, without encroaching into any fairing space.
Surely the payload should increase as the 2nd stage propellant mass grows? What am I missing?
The assumption seems to be that the desired end-state is total S2 mass in LEO, with the S2+payload remaining at a constant mass.
This seems unlikely, and is missing the column for extra fuel delivered to S2 that might make this somewhat interesting, and also that you can launch more to LEO if you have more fuel, as S1 velocity is only weakly affected by S2 mass.
That means a centre core costs only $5M to make. $95M for 0.9*26.7 = 24.03 t is $3,953/kg, which is the cheapest option.
No Legs, no Iconel Heat shield.. No Grid fins..
All of which would not only save cost but also reduce mass on core, which is much bigger benefit than on the boosters. Also, what's the cost of deep ocean drone ship recovery for what would be a very very toasty core? You have to wonder how many times they figured they could re-use the core to start with.. if only a few times.. then maybe the new numbers make sense.
...once Falcon Heavy flies in its fully reusable configuration – essentially lowering its price to just $62 million dollars or the price of a regular, brand new Falcon 9.
I see. What would be the point of increasing S2 size if it reduces your payload capacity?None, because in real life the assumptions above are not true.
Just sitting here looking at the pictures up above and looking over specs widely available online [1]...
(and I am rounding down for simple math here, and using expend all $150m price)
Current configuration... 63 metric tons to LEO at ~100+ tons S2 prop
33% prop cap stretch... 33 metric tons more S2 prop (133) and 30 metric ton payload to LEO
50% prop cap stretch... 50 metric tons more S2 prop (150) and 13 metric ton payload to LEO
All three have a place depending on where the payload is going and how much it weighs... ???
On edit...
Heck there is a possible 60% stretch... 3 metric tons to LEO and 60 metric tons of prop to take it somewhere else..
But that's a ~7.5 meter stretch... will it fly ok?... :-\
(later edit... with special short fairing, I bet it would fly fine... IMHO)
[1] one of several references... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust#Vehicle_specifications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust#Vehicle_specifications)
I am now quite confused. Why is your payload decreasing as the 2nd stage increases in size? Are you suggesting that the stretched second stage eats into the space normally encapsulated by the fairing? My assumption was that as the 2nd stage stretches the rocket's overall length simply increases, without encroaching into any fairing space.
Surely the payload should increase as the 2nd stage propellant mass grows? What am I missing?
My intent and way to read that is 30 metric tons payload to LEO with 33 metric tons of prop still left to take it onward...
OR 50 left on 13 payload... to take it way far away if need be...
I was thinking GEO or beyond in a broad sense... parking orbit and how much left in the gas tank...
And no... the rocket was getting longer... S2 tank stretch of the sidewalls...
The 60% stretch could chuck a 3 metric ton probe to beyond Pluto with a lot of speed...
I hope this clarifies things a bit... ;)
How much longer and wider would a larger fairing be? IF, there was/is a need?
It may be that the X-37B was a tighter fit than they wanted, so making Fairing 2 a few inches greater in diameter might give them the clearance they want.
The implication from Elon's tweet was - I think - that the increase in size was not massive.
How much longer and wider would a larger fairing be? IF, there was/is a need?
It may be that the X-37B was a tighter fit than they wanted, so making Fairing 2 a few inches greater in diameter might give them the clearance they want.
The implication from Elon's tweet was - I think - that the increase in size was not massive.
How much longer and wider would a larger fairing be? IF, there was/is a need?
It may be that the X-37B was a tighter fit than they wanted, so making Fairing 2 a few inches greater in diameter might give them the clearance they want.
The implication from Elon's tweet was - I think - that the increase in size was not massive.
I am guessing the need might have to do with optimizing the use of FH for delivery of Starlink satellites. Other threads have suggested the existing fairing is volume limited for delivering the maximum number of satellites per FH launch.
The above postings were me thinking out loud what sort of stretch was within doable range...
SpaceX says FH (w/ normal S2) will put 63 metric tons to LEO (all expended), price $150m per EM... ok great...
And yes... I do agree that stretching S2 will improve that 63 number...
My questions are more...
...what sort of % stretch would suit all FH operations better?
The above postings were me thinking out loud what sort of stretch was within doable range...
SpaceX says FH (w/ normal S2) will put 63 metric tons to LEO (all expended), price $150m per EM... ok great...
And yes... I do agree that stretching S2 will improve that 63 number...
My questions are more...
...what sort of % stretch would suit all FH operations better?
I think that can only be answered if you know what gap SpaceX is trying to fill. You indicated as much in your response. I think it is doubtful they need to increase LEO capacity, as there is no indication of any payloads approaching the current limit. However GTO, lunar & other high energy orbits could benefit from a stretched S2.
As to reducing engine count on the core, probably a bad idea. It will limit GLOW & lead to heavy gravity losses at the beginning of the launch. A heavier S2 will make this worse. The stretch of S2 is enabled by the high T/W of the three cores lifting the entire stack.
S2 would never be under-filled regardless of size.
Fuel's cheap and it allows for making up any underperformance of either stage.S2 would never be under-filled regardless of size.
Is this strictly true?
At some point, doesn't the low T/W of the second stage mean that with a very heavy payload+stack it will impact the atmosphere, whereas with a lighter fuel load, it might make it to LEO?
This long a stage would be fully filled only for light payloads.
Or, similarly if the fully fuelled stack caused load limits to be exceeded on the core.
I have not done the numbers to see if either of these are plausible limits.
Fuel's cheap and it allows for making up any underperformance of either stage.S2 would never be under-filled regardless of size.
Is this strictly true?
At some point, doesn't the low T/W of the second stage mean that with a very heavy payload+stack it will impact the atmosphere, whereas with a lighter fuel load, it might make it to LEO?
This long a stage would be fully filled only for light payloads.
Or, similarly if the fully fuelled stack caused load limits to be exceeded on the core.
I have not done the numbers to see if either of these are plausible limits.
Fuel's cheap and it allows for making up any underperformance of either stage.S2 would never be under-filled regardless of size.
Is this strictly true?
At some point, doesn't the low T/W of the second stage mean that with a very heavy payload+stack it will impact the atmosphere, whereas with a lighter fuel load, it might make it to LEO?
This long a stage would be fully filled only for light payloads.
Or, similarly if the fully fuelled stack caused load limits to be exceeded on the core.
I have not done the numbers to see if either of these are plausible limits.
Fuel being cheap doesn't help much if your stage has reentered due to lack of T/W.
Moving this discussion on FH pricing here since it has nothing to do with the demo flight:That means a centre core costs only $5M to make. $95M for 0.9*26.7 = 24.03 t is $3,953/kg, which is the cheapest option.
No Legs, no Iconel Heat shield.. No Grid fins..
All of which would not only save cost but also reduce mass on core, which is much bigger benefit than on the boosters. Also, what's the cost of deep ocean drone ship recovery for what would be a very very toasty core? You have to wonder how many times they figured they could re-use the core to start with.. if only a few times.. then maybe the new numbers make sense.
This isn't the right take away.
From Elon's twitter post (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963094533830426624) if a center core expendable is $95M which is slightly more than an expendable F9 then that means an expendable F9 is about the $90M. That makes perfect sense, since an expendable F9 is roughly the same capacity as the posted price for a recoverable FH. Same capacity - same price. That means throwing away a F9 adds about $30M to its price.
So if an expendable F9 is $90M how is it only $5M more to fly reusable side boosters on an expendable core? That doesn't make sense to current pricing for full recovery FH @ $90M. Then why does a fully expenable FH cost $150M.
Keep in mind posted prices to date have only been for recoverable Falcons on their first flight. The price point has stayed relatively static, with more and more being recoverable as performance increases. So its logical that a fully expendable F9 costs more now that it is more capable.
But with Block V enabling rapid reuse it should be expected that all Falcons are reused unless a customer pays more to insist on first flight OR expendable.
This quote from the recent NSF article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/02/falcon-heavy-success-paves-space-beyond-earth) provides insight as to what the reuse price will be:Quote...once Falcon Heavy flies in its fully reusable configuration – essentially lowering its price to just $62 million dollars or the price of a regular, brand new Falcon 9.
Ok $62M for a 3 core + fairing reused and recoverable payload. Now take that $30M adder to throw away a Falcon core and you end up pretty well at $95M for center core expendable. Throw the two side cores away: $150M.
The key thing here isn't to focus on today's pricing, consider it a temporary price point while SpaceX wasn't sure if they could recover cores or refly at a low cost. A rough estimate for reusing block V Falcon 9 is probably $42-45M if similar discounts are applied.
The first part is math, the second two parts are my estimations. Elon's numbers line up exactly with what I've assumed publicly so far. I think it is pretty hard to believe they are on the edge of bankruptcy at this point, though some still seem to.
A lot seems to be unpublic.Conventional thinking is that was a liquidity round. Chance for some employees to shuffle their portfolios and to establish pricing. 100M is way too small to be a useful funding round for an organization the size of SpaceX
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/spacex-raises-100-million-in-funding-round.html
Adding fuel gives you diminishing payload returns - Tyrrany of the rocket equation.
Seems no one here is sure where that point of diminishing returns is for a S2 stretch.
* Would need to change the TEL. Have a pause in launches to change it and if F9 does not change it's upper stage makes FH need different TEL (different launch pad) than F9
The reasons for NOT increasing it are different:
* For F9, the optimal upper stage size is smaller, either go "too big" for F9 or have two separate upper sizes(costly and problematic)
* Would need to change the TEL. Have a pause in launches to change it and if F9 does not change it's upper stage makes FH need different TEL (different launch pad) than F9
* Would be slightly more expensive. More aluminium tankage.
* Simply not needed. Why waste money developing something that is not needed
Adding fuel gives you diminishing payload returns - Tyrrany of the rocket equation.
Wrong.
Exactly the opposite of "tyranny of the rocket equation".
It's Tyranny of gravity losses for most rockets.
It there was no gravity losses, increasing propellant (and tankage required to carry it) would give superlinear increase in payload.
But FH has the best T/W of any liquid-fueled rocket so gravity losses are less an issue so there is lots of improvement available by increasing the amount propellant.QuoteSeems no one here is sure where that point of diminishing returns is for a S2 stretch.
Everybody who knows anything seems to understand that for FH it's much bigger than the current S2 size.
The reasons for NOT increasing it are different:
* For F9, the optimal upper stage size is smaller, either go "too big" for F9 or have two separate upper sizes(costly and problematic)
* Would need to change the TEL. Have a pause in launches to change it and if F9 does not change it's upper stage makes FH need different TEL (different launch pad) than F9
* Would be slightly more expensive. More aluminium tankage.
* Simply not needed. Why waste money developing something that is not needed
Adding fuel to the 2nd stage does not provide infinite benefits.
Adding fuel to the 2nd stage does not provide infinite benefits.
Because hkultala was saying it did? Or anyone?
Emphasis mine.
There is literally 4 bolts and some wires and a duct and the top of the TEL tower comes off...
Changing that part out between launches for different configurations is not an issue IMHO... ;)
On edit...
I would even opine a totally different top will be installed when Falcon Crew get's stood up there later this year...
The first part is math, the second two parts are my estimations. Elon's numbers line up exactly with what I've assumed publicly so far. I think it is pretty hard to believe they are on the edge of bankruptcy at this point, though some still seem to.
A lot seems to be unpublic.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/spacex-raises-100-million-in-funding-round.html
It seems unlikely they'd be selling shares if they have large piles of cash around.
It seems clear they've not been spending money on pads (other than for FH/...).
Similarly, not (as of last Nov at least) large amounts of production tooling for BFR.
I do wonder if there is an inconspicuous warehouse somewhere with a few thousand refrigerator sized boxes that one day will turn up on a suddenly packed launch schedule, once PAZ has launched and revealed any last-minute changes needed and B5 is bedded in.
Adding fuel gives you diminishing payload returns - Tyrrany of the rocket equation.
Wrong.
Exactly the opposite of "tyranny of the rocket equation".
It's Tyranny of gravity losses for most rockets.
It there was no gravity losses, increasing propellant (and tankage required to carry it) would give superlinear increase in payload.
But FH has the best T/W of any liquid-fueled rocket so gravity losses are less an issue so there is lots of improvement available by increasing the amount propellant.QuoteSeems no one here is sure where that point of diminishing returns is for a S2 stretch.
Everybody who knows anything seems to understand that for FH it's much bigger than the current S2 size.
The reasons for NOT increasing it are different:
* For F9, the optimal upper stage size is smaller, either go "too big" for F9 or have two separate upper sizes(costly and problematic)
* Would need to change the TEL. Have a pause in launches to change it and if F9 does not change it's upper stage makes FH need different TEL (different launch pad) than F9
* Would be slightly more expensive. More aluminium tankage.
* Simply not needed. Why waste money developing something that is not needed
The "tyranny of the rocket equation" absolutely does apply here. Adding fuel to the 2nd stage does not provide infinite benefits.
I can't seem to find that the full payload weight of the Tesla and mounting stand (for a better word) that the FH launched. Basically I am wondering what the total weight. SpaceX says FH can do 16,800 kg (37,000 lb) to trans-Mars injection. A Tesla alone obviously doesn't eight 37,000 pounds.A fully-recoverable FH can only do about 3.17 tonnes to TMI. That 16.8-tonne figure is with all three cores expended.
I can't seem to find that the full payload weight of the Tesla and mounting stand (for a better word) that the FH launched. Basically I am wondering what the total weight. SpaceX says FH can do 16,800 kg (37,000 lb) to trans-Mars injection. A Tesla alone obviously doesn't eight 37,000 pounds.A fully-recoverable FH can only do about 3.17 tonnes to TMI. That 16.8-tonne figure is with all three cores expended.
I can't seem to find that the full payload weight of the Tesla and mounting stand (for a better word) that the FH launched. Basically I am wondering what the total weight. SpaceX says FH can do 16,800 kg (37,000 lb) to trans-Mars injection. A Tesla alone obviously doesn't eight 37,000 pounds.A fully-recoverable FH can only do about 3.17 tonnes to TMI. That 16.8-tonne figure is with all three cores expended.
I can't seem to find that the full payload weight of the Tesla and mounting stand (for a better word) that the FH launched. Basically I am wondering what the total weight. SpaceX says FH can do 16,800 kg (37,000 lb) to trans-Mars injection. A Tesla alone obviously doesn't eight 37,000 pounds.A fully-recoverable FH can only do about 3.17 tonnes to TMI. That 16.8-tonne figure is with all three cores expended.
I can't seem to find that the full payload weight of the Tesla and mounting stand (for a better word) that the FH launched. Basically I am wondering what the total weight. SpaceX says FH can do 16,800 kg (37,000 lb) to trans-Mars injection. A Tesla alone obviously doesn't eight 37,000 pounds.A fully-recoverable FH can only do about 3.17 tonnes to TMI. That 16.8-tonne figure is with all three cores expended.
It should be noted that their trajectory was nowhere near optimal. You wouldn't usually do a GTO-capability demonstration before launching to Mars and then fire above the company headquarters to show off. So you have Oberth effect losses and on top of that a happy mix of booster blocks that I'm sure will not perform as well a 3x Block V when they have figured out minimal fuel to land.
Great discussion but nobody answered the question I asked.
What was the ACTUAL payload weight of the FH demo?
google says a Tesla model S weights 4,469 to 4,941 lbs. FH can lift more than that but besides the mounting hardware was there other ballast in the payload??
Great discussion but nobody answered the question I asked.The Tesla payload may have weighed less than a standard Tesla Roadster. The front disc brakes were removed, for example.
What was the ACTUAL payload weight of the FH demo?
google says a Tesla model S weights 4,469 to 4,941 lbs. FH can lift more than that but besides the mounting hardware was there other ballast in the payload??
Or more - payload fitting and attach structure, ...Great discussion but nobody answered the question I asked.The Tesla payload may have weighed less than a standard Tesla Roadster. The front disc brakes were removed, for example.
What was the ACTUAL payload weight of the FH demo?
google says a Tesla model S weights 4,469 to 4,941 lbs. FH can lift more than that but besides the mounting hardware was there other ballast in the payload??
Great discussion but nobody answered the question I asked.
What was the ACTUAL payload weight of the FH demo?
google says a Tesla model S weights 4,469 to 4,941 lbs. FH can lift more than that but besides the mounting hardware was there other ballast in the payload??
I can't seem to find that the full payload weight of the Tesla and mounting stand (for a better word) that the FH launched. Basically I am wondering what the total weight. SpaceX says FH can do 16,800 kg (37,000 lb) to trans-Mars injection. A Tesla alone obviously doesn't eight 37,000 pounds.
[My guess] Total mass of everything forward of the PAF interface: 1500kg
[My guess] Total mass of everything forward of the PAF interface: 1500kg
I can't find a source saying the burn was to depletion.
Is there one?
This should probably go in the Falcon Heavy thread, but there is no doubt that Falcon Heavy can lift the required mass to all the EELV reference orbits, and send 3500 kg to Pluto with a Jupiter assist.
The upper stage is undersized for booster reuse, but is fine if the boosters are expended (even just the center core). I_sp is only one third of the rocket equation... The other two thirds are initial mass and mass fraction, and the Falcon upper stage is by far the best at both of those.
Hey everyone.
I have a question!
In a fair number of discussions I've had lately there is talk of Falcon Heavy's weak upper stage.
I understand that the 2nd stage is not as efficient and has a lower ISP compared to other rockets (i.e. Ariane 5, Atlas V), however, there seems to be significant doubt that the Falcon Heavy can even do what SpaceX claims it can. (3500 kg to Pluto; hit all EELV reference orbits)
Are these concerns legitimate or are they just not really accounting for all of the factors?
• Falcon Heavy: 20t to GTO & 13t to TMI (website: 26.7t & 16.8t)
o All center core Merlins were flight-proven
o 22,000kN @ SL
o 1410t @ liftoff: 370t RP-1, 910t LOX (all the above numbers were vaguely qualified)
o Learned that it’s extremely hard to lift the T/E (“several million pounds of steel”) up the relatively steep hill between the HIF and launch mount
o “When we do the three engine landing burns, there are certain attachments between the engines,” which is what caused the recovery failure
o Roadster will orbit between the planets “until we go out and bring it back for a museum,” laughter
o “[Crossfeed] may be introduced a bit later on”
Will the Block 5 version come closer to the web site numbers?
Side boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M. (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963094533830426624)
SLS Manifest Options:
The decision to keep SLS in its Block 1 configuration and launching off ML-1 deep into the 2020s now leaves NASA with some decision points.
At one stage, NASA was expecting to use the Block 1 with DCSS configuration just once, on the EM-1 mission. Now it is expected it will return to the previous plan of mirroring EM-1 (uncrewed Orion) and EM-2 (crewed Orion) on matching missions and rocket configurations. However, due to Orion readiness, it is unlikely both missions will close the previous multi-year gap by any notable margin.
What is becoming an option for bridging that gap between flights is using SLS to launch the flagship Europa Clipper mission in 2022. Originally, Europa Clipper was to use a Block 1B SLS to allow the EUS to be flight-proven before launching a crewed mission. NASA then decided that a crew could launch on the first Block 1B on a non-flight proven EUS.
Now, with Block 1B many years away, NASA is looking at launching the Europa Clipper mission on a Block 1 SLS, a flight sometimes referred to as SM-1 (Science Mission -1) on documentation. Other documentation confusingly calls it EM-2, likely in some cheeky way of satisfying politically-driven schedules for SLS to fly “EM-2” by a certain date.
Inquiries are taking place into the loss of mission performance per Europa Clipper flying on the Block 1 versus Block 1B SLS. A major selling point of flying the Europa mission on an SLS Block 1B was using the EUS to shave many years off the transit time compared to “currently” available rocket options at the time the mission’s launch vehicle was first discussed.
Block 1 performance capability for Europa Clipper may push the launch vehicle discussion into an uncomfortable debate, where SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could force NASA’s hand based on the gulf of vehicle costs. A brand-new Falcon Heavy for a high priority science mission would cost just over $100 million, whereas the latest estimates for SLS put the per-mission cost anywhere between $500 million (from NASA in 2013) to a range between $1.5 – $2.5 billion (conservative industry estimates in December 2017).
Quote from Chris' latest SLS article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/nasas-dual-ml-plan-extra-sls-block-1-missions/) today (bolding mine).Quote from: Chris BergenBlock 1 performance capability for Europa Clipper may push the launch vehicle discussion into an uncomfortable debate, where SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could force NASA’s hand based on the gulf of vehicle costs. A brand-new Falcon Heavy for a high priority science mission would cost just over $100 million, whereas the latest estimates for SLS put the per-mission cost anywhere between $500 million (from NASA in 2013) to a range between $1.5 – $2.5 billion (conservative industry estimates in December 2017).
Quite a difference in LV cost. With continued SLS delays and such a lower cost for FH, SpaceX's chances for launching Europa Clipper on FH just got better. Who knows, she could even go up on BFR.
Quote from Chris' latest SLS article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/nasas-dual-ml-plan-extra-sls-block-1-missions/) today (bolding mine).Quote from: Chris BergenBlock 1 performance capability for Europa Clipper may push the launch vehicle discussion into an uncomfortable debate, where SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could force NASA’s hand based on the gulf of vehicle costs. A brand-new Falcon Heavy for a high priority science mission would cost just over $100 million, whereas the latest estimates for SLS put the per-mission cost anywhere between $500 million (from NASA in 2013) to a range between $1.5 – $2.5 billion (conservative industry estimates in December 2017).
Quite a difference in LV cost. With continued SLS delays and such a lower cost for FH, SpaceX's chances for launching Europa Clipper on FH just got better. Who knows, she could even go up on BFR.
The thing is, NASA could very likely fund the development of a cryogenic Raptor upper stage for Falcon and still get the Clipper to Europa faster and several times cheaper than SLS w/ ICPS.
Hans' NEAF 2018 talk had some quasi-updated specs and details for Falcon Heavy, and they of course contradict what's on SpaceX's website :DQuote• Falcon Heavy: 20t to GTO & 13t to TMI (website: 26.7t & 16.8t)
...(snip)
o “[Crossfeed] may be introduced a bit later on”
Hans' NEAF 2018 talk had some quasi-updated specs and details for Falcon Heavy, and they of course contradict what's on SpaceX's website :DQuote• Falcon Heavy: 20t to GTO & 13t to TMI (website: 26.7t & 16.8t)
...(snip)
o “[Crossfeed] may be introduced a bit later on”
That's a bit significant. Any elaboration on that?
Quote from Chris' latest SLS article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/nasas-dual-ml-plan-extra-sls-block-1-missions/) today (bolding mine).Quote from: Chris BergenBlock 1 performance capability for Europa Clipper may push the launch vehicle discussion into an uncomfortable debate, where SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could force NASA’s hand based on the gulf of vehicle costs. A brand-new Falcon Heavy for a high priority science mission would cost just over $100 million, whereas the latest estimates for SLS put the per-mission cost anywhere between $500 million (from NASA in 2013) to a range between $1.5 – $2.5 billion (conservative industry estimates in December 2017).
Quite a difference in LV cost. With continued SLS delays and such a lower cost for FH, SpaceX's chances for launching Europa Clipper on FH just got better. Who knows, she could even go up on BFR.
The thing is, NASA could very likely fund the development of a cryogenic Raptor upper stage for Falcon and still get the Clipper to Europa faster and several times cheaper than SLS w/ ICPS.
What ever happened to the Raptor upper stage concept? I know the Air Force paid for some of its development, but I haven't heard anything about it since 2015 or 2016.
Are they just waiting on BFR, or maybe stock FH is already enough?
Quote from Chris' latest SLS article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/nasas-dual-ml-plan-extra-sls-block-1-missions/) today (bolding mine).Quote from: Chris BergenBlock 1 performance capability for Europa Clipper may push the launch vehicle discussion into an uncomfortable debate, where SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could force NASA’s hand based on the gulf of vehicle costs. A brand-new Falcon Heavy for a high priority science mission would cost just over $100 million, whereas the latest estimates for SLS put the per-mission cost anywhere between $500 million (from NASA in 2013) to a range between $1.5 – $2.5 billion (conservative industry estimates in December 2017).
Quite a difference in LV cost. With continued SLS delays and such a lower cost for FH, SpaceX's chances for launching Europa Clipper on FH just got better. Who knows, she could even go up on BFR.
The thing is, NASA could very likely fund the development of a cryogenic Raptor upper stage for Falcon and still get the Clipper to Europa faster and several times cheaper than SLS w/ ICPS.
What ever happened to the Raptor upper stage concept? I know the Air Force paid for some of its development, but I haven't heard anything about it since 2015 or 2016.
Are they just waiting on BFR, or maybe stock FH is already enough?
Stock FH is very likely not capable of competing 1:1 with DIVH/Atlas 551 thanks to Centaur. Direct GEO insertion and interplanetary stuff is where FH still falls short as a result of upper stage inefficiency.
As for the Rapter US, I haven't heard anything. The most recent RFP (the one for entire new EELVs) basically only discussed the USAF's Raptor funding as an effort to development propulsion systems, not a replacement upper stage. Perhaps SpaceX's proposal will be a RUS for Block 5 F9 and FH, if they don't push for BFR.
As for the Rapter US, I haven't heard anything. The most recent RFP (the one for entire new EELVs) basically only discussed the USAF's Raptor funding as an effort to development propulsion systems, not a replacement upper stage. Perhaps SpaceX's proposal will be a RUS for Block 5 F9 and FH, if they don't push for BFR.
I think a RUS could also be used with Cargo BFR as a third stage, similar to the Shuttle-Centaur concept.
The BFS is a Raptor upper stage!
Raptor might be a bit high thrust.The BFS is a Raptor upper stage!
But not a third stage. A third stage would make a fine addition for probes to the outer solar system avoiding expending a BFS for that purpose.
Raptor might be a bit high thrust.
Even if it can throttle to 60 tons, that's quite a high G at the end of a burn with a total 150 ton payload mass into LEO.
Quite a difference in LV cost. With continued SLS delays and such a lower cost for FH, SpaceX's chances for launching Europa Clipper on FH just got better. Who knows, she could even go up on BFR.
The thing is, NASA could very likely fund the development of a cryogenic Raptor upper stage for Falcon 9/Heavy and still get Clipper to Europa faster and several times cheaper than SLS w/ ICPS.
...
Stock FH is very likely not capable of competing 1:1 with DIVH/Atlas 551 thanks to Centaur. Direct GEO insertion and interplanetary stuff is where FH still falls short as a result of upper stage inefficiency.
As for the Rapter US, I haven't heard anything. The most recent RFP (the one for entire new EELVs) basically only discussed the USAF's Raptor funding as an effort to development propulsion systems, not a replacement upper stage. Perhaps SpaceX's proposal will be a RUS for Block 5 F9 and FH, if they don't push for BFR.
Three years to human rate ICPS and make Orion suitable for astronauts!?
Where does that information come from?It's possible to interpret the prolonged delay of EUS as evidence that perhaps the software issues are predominantly related to EUS, and that the software for the rest of SLS is more mature because "heritage hardware."
EUS is still being designed. Any software issues are more likely due to elements that are being built now.
For those interested, Block I payload to Europa is only 2.9 t, compared to 8.1 t for Block IB. I estimate FH expendable payload for Europa (for 6,783 m/s delta-V from LEO) to be 6.5 t!
Steven: do you happen to know how much Vulcan/Centaur V with 6x solid boosters could throw at Jupiter?
I modified the Falcon Heavy program and made a few guestimates of the Vulcan second stage. From the drawing, I got a propellant mass of 56.2 t and a dry mass of 5.0 t. Extrapolating using RL10C-1 engines, 34.9 t LEO payload and 7.1 t GEO payload, I got only a 964 kg payload to Europa! Need to either use a solid third stage, flyby's or refuelling the second stage to get better performance.
Attached is the program I used to calculate performance.
Note that the first version I posted overestimated the Vulcan second stage propellant and dry mass, giving only a 105 kg payload mass to Europa.
Will the Block 5 version come closer to the web site numbers?
My assumption is that Hans' 20t and 13t figures are for missions that expend the center core, per Musk's recent tweets on the subject. It's a long shot from "~10%," but Musk issss known for his optimism... ;DQuoteSide boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M. (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963094533830426624)
Quote from Chris' latest SLS article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/nasas-dual-ml-plan-extra-sls-block-1-missions/) today (bolding mine).Quote from: Chris BergenBlock 1 performance capability for Europa Clipper may push the launch vehicle discussion into an uncomfortable debate, where SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could force NASA’s hand based on the gulf of vehicle costs. A brand-new Falcon Heavy for a high priority science mission would cost just over $100 million, whereas the latest estimates for SLS put the per-mission cost anywhere between $500 million (from NASA in 2013) to a range between $1.5 – $2.5 billion (conservative industry estimates in December 2017).
Quite a difference in LV cost. With continued SLS delays and such a lower cost for FH, SpaceX's chances for launching Europa Clipper on FH just got better. Who knows, she could even go up on BFR.
The thing is, NASA could very likely fund the development of a cryogenic Raptor upper stage for Falcon 9/Heavy and still get Clipper to Europa faster and several times cheaper than SLS w/ ICPS.
Stock FH is very likely not capable of competing 1:1 with DIVH/Atlas 551 thanks to Centaur. Direct GEO insertion and interplanetary stuff is where FH still falls short as a result of upper stage inefficiency.For direct to GEO insertion, FH makes up for upper stage inefficiency by brute force. Per the comments above, FH with barge landings for the sides and expended center core can put 20t into GTO. Now to get to GEO needs 1800 m/s, which is a mass ratio of about 0.639. So after the GEO insertion burn, the stack will mass about 12.75t. Subtract 5t for the second stage to get 7.75t direct to GEO.
Quote from Chris' latest SLS article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/nasas-dual-ml-plan-extra-sls-block-1-missions/) today (bolding mine).Quote from: Chris BergenBlock 1 performance capability for Europa Clipper may push the launch vehicle discussion into an uncomfortable debate, where SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could force NASA’s hand based on the gulf of vehicle costs. A brand-new Falcon Heavy for a high priority science mission would cost just over $100 million, whereas the latest estimates for SLS put the per-mission cost anywhere between $500 million (from NASA in 2013) to a range between $1.5 – $2.5 billion (conservative industry estimates in December 2017).
Quite a difference in LV cost. With continued SLS delays and such a lower cost for FH, SpaceX's chances for launching Europa Clipper on FH just got better. Who knows, she could even go up on BFR.
The thing is, NASA could very likely fund the development of a cryogenic Raptor upper stage for Falcon 9/Heavy and still get Clipper to Europa faster and several times cheaper than SLS w/ ICPS.
No, just stop.
[Jim]
Stop daydreaming.
[/Jim]
Since Europa Clipper isn't designed yet, it could still be configured to launch on 2 FHs in 2 parts: probe and propulsion.
It won't be, but i just wanted to point out how poor a solution SLS is for the cost.
Since Europa Clipper isn't designed yet, it could still be configured to launch on 2 FHs in 2 parts: probe and propulsion.
It won't be, but i just wanted to point out how poor a solution SLS is for the cost.
No, that does't work. And it is "designed"
not sure what you mean by "work". If two FHs can't lift an assembled probe with enough dV to get to the mission orbit, then use three, or four.
not sure what you mean by "work". If two FHs can't lift an assembled probe with enough dV to get to the mission orbit, then use three, or four.
Even more unworkable. The point of FH is not to get it to LEO but to escape velocity.
And more expensive spacecraft.
If the second stage is somewhat lighter, at 4.7t, as has been speculated, then the injected mass could well be 6.1t, the same as SLS (See This europa clipper presentation (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jul2013/presentations/Clipper_Summary.pdf), page 31.), and exactly what Europa Clipper is designed for, so no spacecraft changes.
Sure, that's a completely expendable FH. But it's still much cheaper than SLS, and much more capable than ATLAS.
Scott Manley: I’m also curious as to whether SpaceX would consider stretching Stage 2 if there was a market that made sense.
Elon Musk:
Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.
not sure what you mean by "work". If two FHs can't lift an assembled probe with enough dV to get to the mission orbit, then use three, or four.
Even more unworkable. The point of FH is not to get it to LEO but to escape velocity.
And more expensive spacecraft.
Jim - Isn't the Europa Clipper a Class A payload since it is a flagship project? Which would mean either SLS or a category 3 certified LV?
not sure what you mean by "work". If two FHs can't lift an assembled probe with enough dV to get to the mission orbit, then use three, or four.
Even more unworkable. The point of FH is not to get it to LEO but to escape velocity.
And more expensive spacecraft.
Jim - Isn't the Europa Clipper a Class A payload since it is a flagship project? Which would mean either SLS or a category 3 certified LV?
That is correct. And FH is still a long way from Category 3 certification.
Generally, scientific spacecraft, such as Europa Clipper, are appointed to launch vehicles early in their design process. Which is exactly where Europa Clipper is today. The available performance from the launch vehicle is an integrated part of both the mission- and spacecraft design.
Therefore, it is important that the final choice of launch vehicle (SLS block 1 vs SLS block 1B) is made as soon as possible.
I do wonder whether craft like the BFS will change this decision making process. Once you have 'huge' lifters with a massive chomper door like the proposed BFS, will it be necessary any longer to make the choice of LV so early?
I do wonder whether craft like the BFS will change this decision making process. Once you have 'huge' lifters with a massive chomper door like the proposed BFS, will it be necessary any longer to make the choice of LV so early?
Flagship mission hardware is designed very early in the process to take maximum advantage of a specific Launch Vehicle. Change the LV and you have to go back to the beginning and start again. That's not going to happen with Europa Clipper. SLS has already been designated as the LV and that is extremely unlikely to change. The only real decision yet to be made is whether the SLS LV will be Block 1 or 1B.
not sure what you mean by "work". If two FHs can't lift an assembled probe with enough dV to get to the mission orbit, then use three, or four.
Even more unworkable. The point of FH is not to get it to LEO but to escape velocity.
And more expensive spacecraft.
Jim - Isn't the Europa Clipper a Class A payload since it is a flagship project? Which would mean either SLS or a category 3 certified LV?
That is correct. And FH is still a long way from Category 3 certification.
Generally, scientific spacecraft, such as Europa Clipper, are appointed to launch vehicles early in their design process. Which is exactly where Europa Clipper is today. The available performance from the launch vehicle is an integrated part of both the mission- and spacecraft design.
Therefore, it is important that the final choice of launch vehicle (SLS block 1 vs SLS block 1B) is made as soon as possible.
I do wonder whether craft like the BFS will change this decision making process. Once you have 'huge' lifters with a massive chomper door like the proposed BFS, will it be necessary any longer to make the choice of LV so early?
I agree that the EC LV is highly unlikely to change from SLS, but that is largely due to political and less due to technical reasons.
not sure what you mean by "work". If two FHs can't lift an assembled probe with enough dV to get to the mission orbit, then use three, or four.
Even more unworkable. The point of FH is not to get it to LEO but to escape velocity.
And more expensive spacecraft.
Jim - Isn't the Europa Clipper a Class A payload since it is a flagship project? Which would mean either SLS or a category 3 certified LV?
That is correct. And FH is still a long way from Category 3 certification.
Generally, scientific spacecraft, such as Europa Clipper, are appointed to launch vehicles early in their design process. Which is exactly where Europa Clipper is today. The available performance from the launch vehicle is an integrated part of both the mission- and spacecraft design.
Therefore, it is important that the final choice of launch vehicle (SLS block 1 vs SLS block 1B) is made as soon as possible.
And SLS, which hasn't flown yet, gets a pass.
Don't count your chickens...
So, why do you hate the idea of Clipper flying on SLS?
What is the earliest FH could be certified for Air Force and NASA missions?Probably a lot quicker than it took for F9. Although FH will surely have to fly in its Block 5 configuration several times before that happens.
What is the earliest FH could be certified for Air Force and NASA missions?STP-2 and ArabSat will be flights 2 and 3. Those are scheduled for late this year.
But to get back on topic, has anyone heard info about where the side boosters from the inaugural launch will be kept? My vote is for the US Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville.
What is the earliest FH could be certified for Air Force and NASA missions?
NASA has not yet selected a launch vehicle for the mission, but the baseline remains the Space Launch System, which allows the spacecraft to travel from Earth directly to Jupiter. Pappalardo said the mission is continuing to study the use of Delta 4 Heavy and Falcon Heavy as alternatives, but those would require the use of gravity assists that increase the mission’s flight time. The use of the Atlas 5 has been “closed off,” he said.
To do otherwise seems suicidal to me, to pin the hopes of thousands of researchers, decades of work, and a multi-billion dollar project on a rocket that has not yet flown. Yet it may be true - sillier things have happened.
This 2016 article (http://spacenews.com/europa-mission-planning-for-possible-budget-cuts-in-2017/) claimed that Europa Clipper was hedging its bets, and keeping the design compatible with DIVH, FH, and SLS.QuoteNASA has not yet selected a launch vehicle for the mission, but the baseline remains the Space Launch System, which allows the spacecraft to travel from Earth directly to Jupiter. Pappalardo said the mission is continuing to study the use of Delta 4 Heavy and Falcon Heavy as alternatives, but those would require the use of gravity assists that increase the mission’s flight time. The use of the Atlas 5 has been “closed off,” he said.
To do otherwise seems suicidal to me, to pin the hopes of thousands of researchers, decades of work, and a multi-billion dollar project on a rocket that has not yet flown. Yet it may be true - sillier things have happened. So is the design really such that it cannot (physically, not paperwork-ly) be launched on any rocket that already exists and has been flown at least once?
Note: since then, it looks like FH Block 5 improvements might be able to do direct, or with a Mars gravity assist, which would not require re-design for greater insolation. If I was Clipper management (which I'm surely not) I'd ask SpaceX for a more recent estimate.
It is not clear whether NASA specifically asked SpaceX about the Falcon Heavy and Europa, as Goldstein said figures for all the commercial rockets were provided by a competitor to SpaceX, United Launch Alliance.
This 2016 article (http://spacenews.com/europa-mission-planning-for-possible-budget-cuts-in-2017/) claimed that Europa Clipper was hedging its bets, and keeping the design compatible with DIVH, FH, and SLS.
On that note, Eric Berger says thatQuoteIt is not clear whether NASA specifically asked SpaceX about the Falcon Heavy and Europa, as Goldstein said figures for all the commercial rockets were provided by a competitor to SpaceX, United Launch Alliance.
On that note, Eric Berger says thatQuoteIt is not clear whether NASA specifically asked SpaceX about the Falcon Heavy and Europa, as Goldstein said figures for all the commercial rockets were provided by a competitor to SpaceX, United Launch Alliance.
They are working with LSP
On that note, Eric Berger says thatQuoteIt is not clear whether NASA specifically asked SpaceX about the Falcon Heavy and Europa, as Goldstein said figures for all the commercial rockets were provided by a competitor to SpaceX, United Launch Alliance.
They are working with LSP
"They" being SpaceX or the Clipper team?
On that note, Eric Berger says thatQuoteIt is not clear whether NASA specifically asked SpaceX about the Falcon Heavy and Europa, as Goldstein said figures for all the commercial rockets were provided by a competitor to SpaceX, United Launch Alliance.
They are working with LSP
"They" being SpaceX or the Clipper team?
EC
Hmm, is Falcon Heavy available through LSP yet? Thought it still needed certification.
To do otherwise seems suicidal to me, to pin the hopes of thousands of researchers, decades of work, and a multi-billion dollar project on a rocket that has not yet flown. Yet it may be true - sillier things have happened.
See Viking and Titan IIIE
I do wonder whether craft like the BFS will change this decision making process. Once you have 'huge' lifters with a massive chomper door like the proposed BFS, will it be necessary any longer to make the choice of LV so early?
Flagship mission hardware is designed very early in the process to take maximum advantage of a specific Launch Vehicle. Change the LV and you have to go back to the beginning and start again. That's not going to happen with Europa Clipper. SLS has already been designated as the LV and that is extremely unlikely to change. The only real decision yet to be made is whether the SLS LV will be Block 1 or 1B.
The fact that SLS Block 1 and Block 1B have very different capabilities belies your point...
On that note, Eric Berger says thatQuoteIt is not clear whether NASA specifically asked SpaceX about the Falcon Heavy and Europa, as Goldstein said figures for all the commercial rockets were provided by a competitor to SpaceX, United Launch Alliance.
They are working with LSP
"They" being SpaceX or the Clipper team?
EC
I do wonder whether craft like the BFS will change this decision making process. Once you have 'huge' lifters with a massive chomper door like the proposed BFS, will it be necessary any longer to make the choice of LV so early?
Flagship mission hardware is designed very early in the process to take maximum advantage of a specific Launch Vehicle. Change the LV and you have to go back to the beginning and start again. That's not going to happen with Europa Clipper. SLS has already been designated as the LV and that is extremely unlikely to change. The only real decision yet to be made is whether the SLS LV will be Block 1 or 1B.
The fact that SLS Block 1 and Block 1B have very different capabilities belies your point...
In this specific case, not really. The difference is in the upper stage and the decision of Block 1 or 1B is driven by whether or not the NET date of 2022 can or should be pushed out until after the Mobile Launcher, designed for the EUS, is operational. If it flies with the iCPS it can stay on the Block 1 and use the NET of 2022. If it flies on the Block 1B it has to wait until the new Mobile launcher is ready. Congress has already mandated in law that SLS will be the LV for Europa Clipper, so the only decision left is 1 or 1B and the resulting NET launch date.
But the core of my statement was (because this is a SpaceX Falcon Heavy thread) between SLS and Falcon Heavy. If SLS is used in either Block it is a direct shot at Jupiter and Clipper can carry its full complement of science instrumentation and can spend the necessary time at Europa surveying landing spots for the expected follow-on mission of a Europa lander. If the Falcon Heavy is used then Clipper will need to swing through the solar system grabbing gravity assists before it can head to Jupiter. That dramatically increases the cruise time and the need for thermal protection, which reduces the mass available for science instruments. It also decreases the amount of time that clipper will be able to spend surveying the moon looking for likely landing places for the expected follow-on mission of a Europa lander.
These are the kinds of trade-offs that need to be considered when choosing a LV and why it is good management to select a LV as soon as possible and not a good idea to switch horses in the middle of the race without a really good reason. Changing LV after the design is set causes all kinds of problems.
Well, that's the difference. You presume FH cannot match SLS Block 1 capabilities. I posit that with Block 5 FH probably can, and Lou Scheffer's and Dr. Pietrobon's calculations agree. As far as I can tell neither LSP nor JPL have the numbers from SpaceX for Block 5 FH to do this comparison themselves.
Well, that's the difference. You presume FH cannot match SLS Block 1 capabilities. I posit that with Block 5 FH probably can, and Lou Scheffer's and Dr. Pietrobon's calculations agree. As far as I can tell neither LSP nor JPL have the numbers from SpaceX for Block 5 FH to do this comparison themselves.
See here for a good discussion
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/if-were-really-going-to-europa-nasa-needs-to-pick-a-rocket-soon/?comments=1&post=35164983
These are the kinds of trade-offs that need to be considered when choosing a LV and why it is good management to select a LV as soon as possible and not a good idea to switch horses in the middle of the race without a really good reason. Changing LV after the design is set causes all kinds of problems.
Well, that's the difference. You presume FH cannot match SLS Block 1 capabilities. I posit that with Block 5 FH probably can, and Lou Scheffer's and Dr. Pietrobon's calculations agree. As far as I can tell neither LSP nor JPL have the numbers from SpaceX for Block 5 FH to do this comparison themselves.
See here for a good discussion
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/if-were-really-going-to-europa-nasa-needs-to-pick-a-rocket-soon/?comments=1&post=35164983
I quoted that article above. That's the basis for my assertion that JPL doesn't have the FH Block 5 data to compare to SLS Block 1. Well, that plus Musk saying that LSP didn't have it either before the FH demo. The LSP website still shows pre-Block 5 data.
I quoted that article above. That's the basis for my assertion that JPL doesn't have the FH Block 5 data to compare to SLS Block 1. Well, that plus Musk saying that LSP didn't have it either before the FH demo. The LSP website still shows pre-Block 5 data.Well, that's the difference. You presume FH cannot match SLS Block 1 capabilities. I posit that with Block 5 FH probably can, and Lou Scheffer's and Dr. Pietrobon's calculations agree. As far as I can tell neither LSP nor JPL have the numbers from SpaceX for Block 5 FH to do this comparison themselves.
See here for a good discussion
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/if-were-really-going-to-europa-nasa-needs-to-pick-a-rocket-soon/?comments=1&post=35164983
as Goldstein said figures for all the commercial rockets were provided by a competitor to SpaceX, United Launch Alliance.
The FH alone might do the job for Europa Clipper. From the Space FH page (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy) it can put 63.8t into LEO. Add in the second stage mass of 5t and that's a stack mass of 68.8t. From LEO, a direct Jupiter path takes 6300 m/s. That means a mass ratio of exp(6300/348/9.8 ) or 6.342, at the known ISP of 348. So the ending stack mass is about 10.8t. Subtract the 5t of the second stage to get a direct-to-Jupiter payload of 5.8t. If the second stage is somewhat lighter, at 4.7t, as has been speculated, then the injected mass could well be 6.1t, the same as SLS (See This europa clipper presentation (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jul2013/presentations/Clipper_Summary.pdf), page 31.), and exactly what Europa Clipper is designed for, so no spacecraft changes.
Sure, that's a completely expendable FH. But it's still much cheaper than SLS, and much more capable than ATLAS.
The second caveat is that FH might work with a Mars gravity assist. Mars is pretty light, as planets go, and does not help much. But for asteroids, it can help by 20-30% in mass, which might be enough. See Mars gravity assist to improve missions towards main-belt asteroids (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002iaf..confE..38C). Now you might have to wait a bit longer (Mars should be in the right spot every 2 years, as opposed to once a year for Jupiter direct), but no thermal re-design would be needed (since no Venus flyby), and the flight time should remain short (close to the direct time) since the deflection at Mars is small.
Oops, I take that back. It looks like Falcon Heavy is just a tad short of direct injection. The difference is the actual delta-V being 100-200 m/s higher than I estimated, which makes a big difference at big delta-V. I used the generic delta-v from Wikipedia, at 6300 m/s. But NASA's trajectory browser (https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php) says 6420-6540 m/s, for real trajectories in the 2020s. That makes a big difference.Not quoting the tweet I've mentioned from Elon about the second stage being the easiest one to stretch.
Assuming it can put 63,800 kg into LEO, that's at least 68,000 kg on orbit. Assuming ISP=348, then the burnout mass is determined by the delta V, then subtract the second stage (here estimated at 4.7t) So for various delta-V
<snip>
6800 m/s 9260 kg 4536 kg
So if Europa Clipper is indeed 6001 kg, FH is just short for all early 2020 trajectories.
There are two caveats to this conclusion, though. One is that the same calculation gives very different number for Pluto than the SpaceX web site. Wikipedia says 8200 m/s for Pluto. That gives a burnout mass of 6143 kg, and hence a payload of only 1400 kg or so. But the SpaceX site says 3500 kg, so something is odd.
Has any thought been given to putting a solid-fueled kick stage on top of Falcon Heavy (as with what the Parker Solar Probe is doing?) If FH by itself comes close, could adding a kick stage be enough to get EC direct to Jupiter?
Alternatively, what about just giving the probe itself a large dV capability (similar to GEO comsats that must insert themselves from GTO?)
Oops, I take that back. It looks like Falcon Heavy is just a tad short of direct injection. The difference is the actual delta-V being 100-200 m/s higher than I estimated, which makes a big difference at big delta-V. I used the generic delta-v from Wikipedia, at 6300 m/s. But NASA's trajectory browser (https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php) says 6420-6540 m/s, for real trajectories in the 2020s. That makes a big difference.Not quoting the tweet I've mentioned from Elon about the second stage being the easiest one to stretch.
Assuming it can put 63,800 kg into LEO, that's at least 68,000 kg on orbit. Assuming ISP=348, then the burnout mass is determined by the delta V, then subtract the second stage (here estimated at 4.7t) So for various delta-V
<snip>
6800 m/s 9260 kg 4536 kg
So if Europa Clipper is indeed 6001 kg, FH is just short for all early 2020 trajectories.
There are two caveats to this conclusion, though. One is that the same calculation gives very different number for Pluto than the SpaceX web site. Wikipedia says 8200 m/s for Pluto. That gives a burnout mass of 6143 kg, and hence a payload of only 1400 kg or so. But the SpaceX site says 3500 kg, so something is odd.
Naively, it seems a 50% or so stretch on the second stage, while having perhaps 300m/s impact on the first stage should easily make up the difference and a little more, enabling 6 tons to the full velocity.
And really, is it worth the hassle of integrating a smallish kick stage and doing additional analysis on thermal, loads, vibrationm, etc. on the spacecraft instead of just using a Juno-like trajectory - injecting into a heliocentric orbit with around a 2 year period and using one Earth flyby for the final injection. That should be doable by both D-IVH and FH and all the more if SLS ends up being delayed by the same amount of time over when the EC is actually ready to fly.I don't think this particular trajectory makes sense. It requires a deep space maneuver of about 800 m/s, which is leveraged to gain about 3000 m/s through the flyby. But in the Europa Clipper - FH case, it's already within 800 m/s of what they need. So if EC could do the Juno path, it could also simply add 800 m/s to the launch speed and get direct to Jupiter.
And really, is it worth the hassle of integrating a smallish kick stage and doing additional analysis on thermal, loads, vibrationm, etc. on the spacecraft instead of just using a Juno-like trajectory - injecting into a heliocentric orbit with around a 2 year period and using one Earth flyby for the final injection. That should be doable by both D-IVH and FH and all the more if SLS ends up being delayed by the same amount of time over when the EC is actually ready to fly.I don't think this particular trajectory makes sense. It requires a deep space maneuver of about 800 m/s, which is leveraged to gain about 3000 m/s through the flyby. But in the Europa Clipper - FH case, it's already within 800 m/s of what they need. So if EC could do the Juno path, it could also simply add 800 m/s to the launch speed and get direct to Jupiter.
And really, is it worth the hassle of integrating a smallish kick stage and doing additional analysis on thermal, loads, vibrationm, etc. on the spacecraft instead of just using a Juno-like trajectory - injecting into a heliocentric orbit with around a 2 year period and using one Earth flyby for the final injection. That should be doable by both D-IVH and FH and all the more if SLS ends up being delayed by the same amount of time over when the EC is actually ready to fly.
STAR-48 is too small
STAR-48 is too smallTo back up this statement:
The FH alone might do the job for Europa Clipper. From the Space FH page (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy) it can put 63.8t into LEO. Add in the second stage mass of 5t and that's a stack mass of 68.8t. From LEO, a direct Jupiter path takes 6300 m/s. That means a mass ratio of exp(6300/348/9.8 ) or 6.342, at the known ISP of 348. So the ending stack mass is about 10.8t. Subtract the 5t of the second stage to get a direct-to-Jupiter payload of 5.8t. If the second stage is somewhat lighter, at 4.7t, as has been speculated, then the injected mass could well be 6.1t, the same as SLS (See This europa clipper presentation (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jul2013/presentations/Clipper_Summary.pdf), page 31.), and exactly what Europa Clipper is designed for, so no spacecraft changes.
Sure, that's a completely expendable FH. But it's still much cheaper than SLS, and much more capable than ATLAS.
Oops, I take that back. It looks like Falcon Heavy is just a tad short of direct injection. The difference is the actual delta-V being 100-200 m/s higher than I estimated, which makes a big difference at big delta-V. I used the generic delta-v from Wikipedia, at 6300 m/s. But NASA's trajectory browser (https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php) says 6420-6540 m/s, for real trajectories in the 2020s. That makes a big difference.
Assuming it can put 63,800 kg into LEO, that's at least 68,000 kg on orbit. Assuming ISP=348, then the burnout mass is determined by the delta V, then subtract the second stage (here estimated at 4.7t) So for various delta-V
delta-V burnout payload
---------- ---------- ---------
6300 m/s 10723 kg 6023 kg
6400 m/s 10413 kg 5713 kg
6500 m/s 10112 kg 5412 kg
6600 m/s 9820 kg 5120 kg
6700 m/s 9536 kg 4836 kg
6800 m/s 9260 kg 4536 kg
So if Europa Clipper is indeed 6001 kg, FH is just short for all early 2020 trajectories.
There are two caveats to this conclusion, though. One is that the same calculation gives very different number for Pluto than the SpaceX web site. Wikipedia says 8200 m/s for Pluto. That gives a burnout mass of 6143 kg, and hence a payload of only 1400 kg or so. But the SpaceX site says 3500 kg, so something is odd.
The second caveat is that FH might work with a Mars gravity assist. Mars is pretty light, as planets go, and does not help much. But for asteroids, it can help by 20-30% in mass, which might be enough. See Mars gravity assist to improve missions towards main-belt asteroids (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002iaf..confE..38C). Now you might have to wait a bit longer (Mars should be in the right spot every 2 years, as opposed to once a year for Jupiter direct), but no thermal re-design would be needed (since no Venus flyby), and the flight time should remain short (close to the direct time) since the deflection at Mars is small.
STAR-48 is too smallTo back up this statement:
Star 48B (http://www.astronautix.com/s/star48bl.html) masses about 2000kg, and supplies 591,000 kg(force)seconds. So if we add this to a 6000 kg probe, the starting mass will be 8000 kg and the ending about 6000 kg. With an ISP of 292, this gives a delta-V of 292*9.8*ln(8/6) = 823 m/s.
But the extra mass takes performance from the second stage, which now ends at 13t, instead of 11t. The loss is 348*9.8*ln(13/11) = 570 m/s.
So the net gain is only 823-570 = 253 m/s. That's not enough to erase the shortfall at all launch opportunities, though it would help for some, since the FH is pretty close already.
Star-48 is to small and intended for small high energy payloads. Castor-30, Star-75 and Star-92 series are more suited for this roll as a replacement to legacy kick motors that are no longer availableSTAR-48 is too smallTo back up this statement:
Star 48B (http://www.astronautix.com/s/star48bl.html) masses about 2000kg, and supplies 591,000 kg(force)seconds. So if we add this to a 6000 kg probe, the starting mass will be 8000 kg and the ending about 6000 kg. With an ISP of 292, this gives a delta-V of 292*9.8*ln(8/6) = 823 m/s.
But the extra mass takes performance from the second stage, which now ends at 13t, instead of 11t. The loss is 348*9.8*ln(13/11) = 570 m/s.
So the net gain is only 823-570 = 253 m/s. That's not enough to erase the shortfall at all launch opportunities, though it would help for some, since the FH is pretty close already.
Star 48GXV never completed development and is not available at this time.STAR-48 is too smallTo back up this statement:
Star 48B (http://www.astronautix.com/s/star48bl.html) masses about 2000kg, and supplies 591,000 kg(force)seconds. So if we add this to a 6000 kg probe, the starting mass will be 8000 kg and the ending about 6000 kg. With an ISP of 292, this gives a delta-V of 292*9.8*ln(8/6) = 823 m/s.
But the extra mass takes performance from the second stage, which now ends at 13t, instead of 11t. The loss is 348*9.8*ln(13/11) = 570 m/s.
So the net gain is only 823-570 = 253 m/s. That's not enough to erase the shortfall at all launch opportunities, though it would help for some, since the FH is pretty close already.
What about Star 48GXV tested for the Parker Solar Probe mission as the upper stage on a Atlas V 551 vehicle but was cancelled in favor of DIVH
cited Wiki via Orbital ATK
STAR-48 is too smallTo back up this statement:
Star 48B (http://www.astronautix.com/s/star48bl.html) masses about 2000kg, and supplies 591,000 kg(force)seconds. So if we add this to a 6000 kg probe, the starting mass will be 8000 kg and the ending about 6000 kg. With an ISP of 292, this gives a delta-V of 292*9.8*ln(8/6) = 823 m/s.
But the extra mass takes performance from the second stage, which now ends at 13t, instead of 11t. The loss is 348*9.8*ln(13/11) = 570 m/s.
So the net gain is only 823-570 = 253 m/s. That's not enough to erase the shortfall at all launch opportunities, though it would help for some, since the FH is pretty close already.
What about Star 48GXV tested for the Parker Solar Probe mission as the upper stage on a Atlas V 551 vehicle but was cancelled in favor of DIVH
cited Wiki via Orbital ATK
STAR-48 is too smallTo back up this statement:
Star 48B (http://www.astronautix.com/s/star48bl.html) masses about 2000kg, and supplies 591,000 kg(force)seconds. So if we add this to a 6000 kg probe, the starting mass will be 8000 kg and the ending about 6000 kg. With an ISP of 292, this gives a delta-V of 292*9.8*ln(8/6) = 823 m/s.
But the extra mass takes performance from the second stage, which now ends at 13t, instead of 11t. The loss is 348*9.8*ln(13/11) = 570 m/s.
So the net gain is only 823-570 = 253 m/s. That's not enough to erase the shortfall at all launch opportunities, though it would help for some, since the FH is pretty close already.
Also, 6000kg spacecraft is too large to be supported by a STAR-48.
Also, Falcon facilities are not sited for large motors.
Hans' NEAF 2018 talk....Quote“[Crossfeed] may be introduced a bit later on”
Falcon Heavy having been de-emphasized by SpaceX, I'm surprised there is still talk of cross-feed, which I would think is a pretty big project.
If I recall about wasn't there some concern from the German team about putting Helios-A on the second flight of the Titan IIIE? I thought the first Titan IIIE launch failed or had an issue.
Here:Hans' NEAF 2018 talk....Quote“[Crossfeed] may be introduced a bit later on”
What's NEAF? Would you have a link for the talk?
Falcon Heavy having been de-emphasized by SpaceX, I'm surprised there is still talk of cross-feed, which I would think is a pretty big project.
If SpaceX used the crossfeed method, the only way to recover the side cores would be to land them on two drone ships ("Of Course I Still Love You" and "A Shortfall of Gravitas") while expending the center core.
Although the company throws away some money by expending the center core, at least they're bringing back the side cores to either use them again for another Falcon Heavy flight or turn them into Falcon 9 first stages.
If SpaceX used the crossfeed method, the only way to recover the side cores would be to land them on two drone ships ("Of Course I Still Love You" and "A Shortfall of Gravitas") while expending the center core.
2) won't work because rocket will never leave the launch pad.With the latest engine thrust numbers, there might be T:W of 1.02 or so, even counting the heavier core and the attachment stuff.
Something like the current profile but shutdown the center core part way up and then restart center after staging. Alternatively deep throttling could do much of this without stopping and restarting.(1) Without some changes to the Octoweb, only three of the engines can be started (or restarted) during flight.
EDIT: we do know that the throttling of the first FH was VERY conservative. They only ran the engines at 90% thrust? How deep can a M1D throttle? 30% ?
Probably a LOT of room for improvement.
Something like the current profile but shutdown the center core part way up and then restart center after staging. Alternatively deep throttling could do much of this without stopping and restarting.
EDIT: we do know that the throttling of the first FH was VERY conservative. They only ran the engines at 90% thrust? How deep can a M1D throttle? 30% ?
Probably a LOT of room for improvement.
Something like the current profile but shutdown the center core part way up and then restart center after staging. Alternatively deep throttling could do much of this without stopping and restarting.(1) Without some changes to the Octoweb, only three of the engines can be started (or restarted) during flight.
EDIT: we do know that the throttling of the first FH was VERY conservative. They only ran the engines at 90% thrust? How deep can a M1D throttle? 30% ?
Probably a LOT of room for improvement.
(2) It is not clear (to me, at least) whether the Merlins can be throttled down from 100% to 60% (40% down), or from 100% to 40% (60% down).
I'm curious about staging strategies but simply don't know enough to fully figure various options out. Irrespective of the economics, business strategy, or likelihood of implementation, what sort of impact on payload and reachable orbits would the following setups result in?
1) shortening the center core and elongating the 2nd stage by the same amount for more prop in the US.
2) launch using side cores, igniting center core at booster sep. Is this even possible? I presume this would make the core expendable also?
3) crossfeed vs the current throttling of the core. Does this result in the same performance as scenario 2?
Lastly, can anyone point me to a good resource that compares various parallel vs serial staging strategies? I would have thought this would be easy information to come across but maybe I'm just struggling with right search terms.
3) Crossfeed is MUCH better. it empties and ditches the side boosters sooner while having the most thrust available and a full core stage at staging. The only way to improve on crossfeed would be to stretch the upper stage.
Something like the current profile but shutdown the center core part way up and then restart center after staging. Alternatively deep throttling could do much of this without stopping and restarting.(1) Without some changes to the Octoweb, only three of the engines can be started (or restarted) during flight.
EDIT: we do know that the throttling of the first FH was VERY conservative. They only ran the engines at 90% thrust? How deep can a M1D throttle? 30% ?
Probably a LOT of room for improvement.
(2) It is not clear (to me, at least) whether the Merlins can be throttled down from 100% to 60% (40% down), or from 100% to 40% (60% down).
Apparently Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter is marginal currently on FH. I wonder if crossfeed would improve those margins enough to make it worth the investment?
Of course that assumes that there is any way that SpaceX could get the contract to launch Europa Clipper, which seems impossible for political reasons.
We could really dial it up to as much performance as anyone could ever want. If we wanted to we could actually add two more side boosters and make it Falcon Super Heavy
>
Or you can go full Kerbal.QuoteWe could really dial it up to as much performance as anyone could ever want. If we wanted to we could actually add two more side boosters and make it Falcon Super Heavy
I love crossfeed, I wish they were developing it, it'd be the coolest feature of any flying rocket.On the other hand, think about it from the other direction. If it WAS needed, SpaceX would've needed to spend more precious time and money just to get FH flying.
But it's not needed, sadly.
Apparently Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter is marginal currently on FH. I wonder if crossfeed would improve those margins enough to make it worth the investment?
Of course that assumes that there is any way that SpaceX could get the contract to launch Europa Clipper, whichseemsis impossible for political reasons.
Apparently Europa Clipper direct to Jupiter is marginal currently on FH. I wonder if crossfeed would improve those margins enough to make it worth the investment?
Of course that assumes that there is any way that SpaceX could get the contract to launch Europa Clipper, which seems impossible for political reasons.
It also assumes that developing crossfeed is not more expensive than stretching the second stage.
Elon: We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change (https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963095860060934144).
The capacity of FH is reportedly marginal and unclear on the direct jupiter injection for EC.
Hardware mods are one way of fixing it - changing the spec and going from 'won't quite make it' to 'will just make it' are quite plausible.
As is a five ton kick stage.
Or you can go full Kerbal.QuoteWe could really dial it up to as much performance as anyone could ever want. If we wanted to we could actually add two more side boosters and make it Falcon Super Heavy
I'm curious about staging strategies but simply don't know enough to fully figure various options out. Irrespective of the economics, business strategy, or likelihood of implementation, what sort of impact on payload and reachable orbits would the following setups result in?
1) shortening the center core and elongating the 2nd stage by the same amount for more prop in the US.
2) launch using side cores, igniting center core at booster sep. Is this even possible? I presume this would make the core expendable also?
3) crossfeed vs the current throttling of the core. Does this result in the same performance as scenario 2?
Lastly, can anyone point me to a good resource that compares various parallel vs serial staging strategies? I would have thought this would be easy information to come across but maybe I'm just struggling with right search terms.
1) doesn't help much unless also combined with crossfeed
2) gravity losses probably cause this to be worse than the current launch profile with the center core throttling down early.
3) Crossfeed is MUCH better. it empties and ditches the side boosters sooner while having the most thrust available and a full core stage at staging. The only way to improve on crossfeed would be to stretch the upper stage.
I'm curious about staging strategies but simply don't know enough to fully figure various options out. Irrespective of the economics, business strategy, or likelihood of implementation, what sort of impact on payload and reachable orbits would the following setups result in?
1) shortening the center core and elongating the 2nd stage by the same amount for more prop in the US.
2) launch using side cores, igniting center core at booster sep. Is this even possible? I presume this would make the core expendable also?
3) crossfeed vs the current throttling of the core. Does this result in the same performance as scenario 2?
Lastly, can anyone point me to a good resource that compares various parallel vs serial staging strategies? I would have thought this would be easy information to come across but maybe I'm just struggling with right search terms.
1) doesn't help much unless also combined with crossfeed
2) gravity losses probably cause this to be worse than the current launch profile with the center core throttling down early.
3) Crossfeed is MUCH better. it empties and ditches the side boosters sooner while having the most thrust available and a full core stage at staging. The only way to improve on crossfeed would be to stretch the upper stage.
After KSP taught me rocket science, crossfeed & asparagus staging seemed like a make-or-break thing - why would you ever operate a three-core rocket without it? But it turns out, in reality the weight of the engines and tankage is proportionately much lower IRL than in KSP, and this provides a corresponding dramatic decrease in the benefits you get out of crossfeed and out of additional stages.
Why did you even bother to bring the Off-Topic subject of Europa Clipper into this discussion? See your own last line (bolded).
AIR FORCE
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $130,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract, for launch services to deliver the Air Force Space Command-52 satellite to its intended orbit. This launch service contract will include launch vehicle production and mission, as well as integration, launch operations and spaceflight worthiness activities. Work will be performed in Hawthorne, California; Kennedy Space Center, Florida; and McGregor, Texas, and is expected to be completed by September 2020. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition, and two proposals were received. Fiscal 2018 space procurement funds in the amount of $130,000,000 will be obligated at the time of award. The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, is the contracting activity (FA8811-18-C-0003). (Awarded June 20, 2018)
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1009912347362844672?s=19
@jeff_foust
SpaceX has won a $130M contract from the US Air Force to launch the AFSPC-52 mission on a Falcon Heavy: https://t.co/UC6wV436GWQuoteAIR FORCE
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $130,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract, for launch services to deliver the Air Force Space Command-52 satellite to its intended orbit. This launch service contract will include launch vehicle production and mission, as well as integration, launch operations and spaceflight worthiness activities. Work will be performed in Hawthorne, California; Kennedy Space Center, Florida; and McGregor, Texas, and is expected to be completed by September 2020. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition, and two proposals were received. Fiscal 2018 space procurement funds in the amount of $130,000,000 will be obligated at the time of award. The Contracting Division, Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, is the contracting activity (FA8811-18-C-0003). (Awarded June 20, 2018)
Well that didn't take long, the FH isn't even certified yet. I bet the $130M price was very competitive. I wonder if the mission requirements required ULA to bid a DIVH or a Atlas-V with multiple SRB's?
Have to admit to some surprise that the Telstar 19 going up tonight is 7000 kg and larger than FH’s Arabsat 6.
The FH seems to have less and less market, currently. Which is a shame.
I've seen a few six hour 2nd stage coasts and firings now. Is the Falcon considered able to do direct GSO?Have to admit to some surprise that the Telstar 19 going up tonight is 7000 kg and larger than FH’s Arabsat 6.
The FH seems to have less and less market, currently. Which is a shame.
FH could give it a much better orbit for a not much higher price.
I've seen a few six hour 2nd stage coasts and firings now. Is the Falcon considered able to do direct GSO?Have to admit to some surprise that the Telstar 19 going up tonight is 7000 kg and larger than FH’s Arabsat 6.
The FH seems to have less and less market, currently. Which is a shame.
FH could give it a much better orbit for a not much higher price.
Have to admit to some surprise that the Telstar 19 going up tonight is 7000 kg and larger than FH’s Arabsat 6.
The FH seems to have less and less market, currently. Which is a shame.
FH could give it a much better orbit for a not much higher price.
I've seen a few six hour 2nd stage coasts and firings now. Is the Falcon considered able to do direct GSO?Have to admit to some surprise that the Telstar 19 going up tonight is 7000 kg and larger than FH’s Arabsat 6.
The FH seems to have less and less market, currently. Which is a shame.
FH could give it a much better orbit for a not much higher price.
F9 can't with any reasonable payload, but FH likely could. Or it could at least provide a supersync insertion and more inclination reduction. F9 is probably going to sub-sync with a 7 tonne sat.
I've seen a few six hour 2nd stage coasts and firings now. Is the Falcon considered able to do direct GSO?Zeroth order analysis, if you have 55 tons to LEO, and a 5 ton second stage, with a ISP of 347s, going from 25N, you need around 2454+1761m/s to get from 200km to GEO.
I'm assuming that's a typo.FH is specified as 60 tons to LEO.
I'm assuming that's a typo.FH is specified as 60 tons to LEO.
Nominal stage mass would be around 175 tons.
To get 100 tons to LEO would need a stage mass of around 300 tons, or a more or less doubling of S2s length.
Call it two and a half times.
This would give an initial acceleration of 3m/s^2, and a burn of six minutes or so.
I don't think this naively quite hits the atmosphere, but it will need the trajectory steepened so it won't.
Stretching S2 has been called 'the easiest thing' - but this is quite a stretch indeed.
A great idea, then you just need to launch another FH, meet at 5km/s ballistically, ...
Alternatively, the current FH can launch 100 tonnes to earth orbit for a large class of earth orbits that intersect the earth's surface not far downrange from the launch site.
I'm assuming that's a typo.FH is specified as 60 tons to LEO.
Nominal stage mass would be around 175 tons.
To get 100 tons to LEO would need a stage mass of around 300 tons, or a more or less doubling of S2s length.
Call it two and a half times.
This would give an initial acceleration of 3m/s^2, and a burn of six minutes or so.
I don't think this naively quite hits the atmosphere, but it will need the trajectory steepened so it won't.
Stretching S2 has been called 'the easiest thing' - but this is quite a stretch indeed.
Alternatively, the current FH can launch 100 tonnes to earth orbit for a large class of earth orbits that intersect the earth's surface not far downrange from the launch site.
Quote from: Michael Baylor @nextspaceflightThere have been some rumors that any Block 5 can be used as a Falcon Heavy center core? Is this true?
Replying to @nextspaceflight
Side boosters, yes, but too much load through center core
The first payload considering Falcon Heavy for launch services is the Japanese Space Agency’s (JAXA) HTV-X, and upgraded version of a spacecraft the country developed to assist in resupplying the International Space Station (ISS). HTV-X is primarily being designed with an ISS-resupply role still at the forefront, but Russianspaceweb recently reported that JAXA is seriously considering the development of a variant of the robotic spacecraft dedicated to resupplying the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOPG)
That impressive performance would also be needed for another LOPG payload, this time for ESA’s 5-6 ton European System Providing Refueling Infrastructure and Telecommunications (ESPRIT) lunar station module. That component is unlikely to reach launch readiness before 2024, but ESA is already considering Falcon Heavy (over its own Ariane 6 rocket) in order to save some of the module’s propellant. Weighing 6 metric tons at most, Falcon Heavy could most likely launch ESPRIT while still recovering all three of its booster stages.
I don't see how Falcon Heavy would save propellant on the module compared to a Ariane 64. Either can easily send 6 t to TLI, and Falcon Heavy can do it with side boosters RTLS and core ASDS landings like the FH demo. But neither would be able to maneuver usefully after TLI to save any additional propellant - DHRO insertion will be done by the module with either launcher.
If ESA and JAXA was like the USAF or NASA they wouldn't be allowed to even consider launching payloads on Falcon Heavy. (Just so you realize how stupid US legislation is.)
That feels like a more elegant use of the dV to me, rather than expending it in circularising the orbit for a direct insertion of the payload into GEO, which would leave S2 either in a graveyard orbit, which isn't brilliant from a long-term stewardship perspective, or with a lot of work remaining if they desired it to be deorbited.Direct deorbit from GEO needs some 1500m/s.
Is that how others envisage FH will be used, vis-a-vis GEO payloads? Or do you think we will start to see many direct GEO insertions? Or alternatively do you expect to see more and more of the dV difference between LEO and GEO being offloaded to the payload over time, as per recent launches, with FH simply delivering lots of fuel-laden payloads to LEO, for them to make their own way from there?
Is that how others envisage FH will be used, vis-a-vis GEO payloads? Or do you think we will start to see many direct GEO insertions? Or alternatively do you expect to see more and more of the dV difference between LEO and GEO being offloaded to the payload over time, as per recent launches, with FH simply delivering lots of fuel-laden payloads to LEO, for them to make their own way from there?
I have wondered about this also. It seems satellite manufacturers have designed based on the capability/track record/cost of available launchers. For whatever reasons, they are saying "thanks, but we will get from LEO to GEO ourselves". Falcon Heavy changes the design parameters to allow the design of satellites which are more robust/redundant with more fuel for station keeping, and so have a longer service life.
If I am right, we should start seeing larger satellites with more fuel, but being launched by FH direct to GEO. I am not sure the satellite operators gain anything from launch to supersynchronous orbit. If the launch vehicle is capable and the risk/cost is similar, they would want the launcher to put the satellite exactly where it can start making money as soon as possible. I think that is how FH will capture that market, getting a GEO satellite direct to its operating orbit immediately without the satellite expending time and fuel to get there itself. And allowing the satellite manufacturers to build more robustly for a longer service life.
That depends.I'm assuming that's a typo.FH is specified as 60 tons to LEO.
Nominal stage mass would be around 175 tons.
To get 100 tons to LEO would need a stage mass of around 300 tons, or a more or less doubling of S2s length.
Call it two and a half times.
This would give an initial acceleration of 3m/s^2, and a burn of six minutes or so.
I don't think this naively quite hits the atmosphere, but it will need the trajectory steepened so it won't.
Stretching S2 has been called 'the easiest thing' - but this is quite a stretch indeed.
That depends.I'm assuming that's a typo.FH is specified as 60 tons to LEO.
Nominal stage mass would be around 175 tons.
To get 100 tons to LEO would need a stage mass of around 300 tons, or a more or less doubling of S2s length.
Call it two and a half times.
This would give an initial acceleration of 3m/s^2, and a burn of six minutes or so.
I don't think this naively quite hits the atmosphere, but it will need the trajectory steepened so it won't.
Stretching S2 has been called 'the easiest thing' - but this is quite a stretch indeed.
Keep in mind FH as tested early in the year was a block four vehicle, including the upper stage.
Block five FH has substantially stretched second stage and the MVAC engine fires at a higher setting providing more thrust.
I am not sure whether or not the tested FH used a block five upper stage but off the top of my head I would say that no it did not.
100 MT would still be a surprise and is probably a typo or mis-speech but it might not be impossible. I am not sure if anyone to date really knows where block 5 FH is supposed to come in for performance, particularly in fully expendable mode.
That depends.I'm assuming that's a typo.FH is specified as 60 tons to LEO.
Nominal stage mass would be around 175 tons.
To get 100 tons to LEO would need a stage mass of around 300 tons, or a more or less doubling of S2s length.
Call it two and a half times.
This would give an initial acceleration of 3m/s^2, and a burn of six minutes or so.
I don't think this naively quite hits the atmosphere, but it will need the trajectory steepened so it won't.
Stretching S2 has been called 'the easiest thing' - but this is quite a stretch indeed.
Keep in mind FH as tested early in the year was a block four vehicle, including the upper stage.
Block five FH has substantially stretched second stage and the MVAC engine fires at a higher setting providing more thrust.
I am not sure whether or not the tested FH used a block five upper stage but off the top of my head I would say that no it did not.
100 MT would still be a surprise and is probably a typo or mis-speech but it might not be impossible.
I am not sure if anyone to date really knows where block 5 FH is supposed to come in for performance, particularly in fully expendable mode.
SpaceX has offered two performance levels for the Falcon Heavy on NLS-II. The first level includes booster performance holdbacks to allow for first stage recovery. The second level provides higher performance by utilizing the full vehicle capability, foregoing recovery of the first stage. Both performance levels are included on this site for planning purposesAny thought on whether "first stage" means the core or core and boosters?
I dont reconize the Km^2/sec^2 unit type.
What is it's relationship to DV (m/s) and Acceleration? (m/s^2)
I dont reconize the Km^2/sec^2 unit type.
What is it's relationship to DV (m/s) and Acceleration? (m/s^2)
Just for completion. FH-R.On twitter - of reusability and payload Elon (https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963094533830426624) said
[Re: Expended core, recovered boosters. If we assume the partially expendable sits between the other two, with the same curve (same US Isp), then it should roughly match the throw of DIVH out to 20km²/s² and just slips down to near AV(551) somewhere around 60km²/s². For BEO, it may be the most cost and mass effective option.]
Side boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M.
Just for completion. FH-R.
On twitter - of reusability and payload Elon (https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963094533830426624) saidQuote from:Side boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M.
Just for completion. FH-R.
From these curves, FH could have launched New Horizons and/or the Parker Solar Probe, but would have required the expended configurations to do either one. (PSP had a mass of about 2700 kg at separation at a C3 of 60 km^2/sec^2. New Horizons had a somewhat lower C3 and mass.)
On twitter - of reusability and payload Elon (https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963094533830426624) saidQuote from:Side boosters landing on droneships & center expended is only ~10% performance penalty vs fully expended. Cost is only slightly higher than an expended F9, so around $95M.
I assume that is meant to be "higher than a fully reusable".
Just for completion. FH-R.
From these curves, FH could have launched New Horizons and/or the Parker Solar Probe, but would have required the expended configurations to do either one. (PSP had a mass of about 2700 kg at separation at a C3 of 60 km^2/sec^2. New Horizons had a somewhat lower C3 and mass.)
Expended core, but likely recovered side boosters. At least for New Horizons.
Falcon Heavy would need to do the same. I was counting the kick stage as part of the payload.Just for completion. FH-R.
From these curves, FH could have launched New Horizons and/or the Parker Solar Probe, but would have required the expended configurations to do either one. (PSP had a mass of about 2700 kg at separation at a C3 of 60 km^2/sec^2. New Horizons had a somewhat lower C3 and mass.)
Expended core, but likely recovered side boosters. At least for New Horizons.
And PSP wasn't an off the shelf D4H - it used the Star-48BV kick stage.
For all intents and purposes, it is a stock Delta IV Heavy. The third stage is just a payload.
For all intents and purposes, it is a stock Delta IV Heavy. The third stage is just a payload.
So in theory a Falcon Heavy with a large hypergolic or solid kick stage, would the kick stage be counted as part of the payload?
For all intents and purposes, it is a stock Delta IV Heavy. The third stage is just a payload.
So in theory a Falcon Heavy with a large hypergolic or solid kick stage, would the kick stage be counted as part of the payload?
yes, its just FAlcon and Falcon heavy need a high energy upper stageNo, you completely missed the point. Falcon Heavy does not need a high energy upper stage, it is competitive with Delta IV Heavy to high-energy trajectories as is. AV551, FH, and DIVH all need an additional kick stage (e.g. Star48 family) to serve any of these payloads such as New Horizons or Parker Solar Probe.
Just for completion. FH-R.
From these curves, FH could have launched New Horizons and/or the Parker Solar Probe, but would have required the expended configurations to do either one. (PSP had a mass of about 2700 kg at separation at a C3 of 60 km^2/sec^2. New Horizons had a somewhat lower C3 and mass.)
Seems to me... ???
>
SpaceX likely does not want to get directly into high energy C3 launches, as they are few and far between.
>
For sending probes and other payloads out into the system... There will still likely be a need for upper kick stages, even with BFS... ;)
>
Seems to me... ???
...a known satellite maker (like say SSL) could clean up in the planetary probe marketplace (such as it is) by designing a high capacity Hypergolic (not cryo) '3rd stage' that uses a SpaceX's dragon trunk perimeter mount to attach to a FH S2 (for lighter weight and efficient load transfer) and this new S3 "stage" is topped with a smaller Ruag fairing (as probes tend to be smaller anyway)...
SpaceX gets contracted to launch ~50 tonnes to LEO with Boosters to ASDS's and Core expended...
S2 saves enough prop to deorbit also... SpaceX gets $95mil plus for the trouble and expenses...
SSL has literally tonnes of prop margin to play with... to push the paying customers probe out to it's destination...
Bottom line is SpaceX likely does not want to get directly into high energy C3 launches, as they are few and far between.
But if someone like SSL wanted to finish the job and make FH the 'go to, lowest cost to way out there' C3 king...
Then yeah... ;)
Agree this makes no sense. If it was really important to do this, use an existing upper stage that already does what you need. Two obvious choices are Fregat and Centaur.Seems to me... ???not workable. How does the third stage and fairing interface with Spacex GSE?
...a known satellite maker (like say SSL) could clean up in the planetary probe marketplace (such as it is) by designing a high capacity Hypergolic (not cryo) '3rd stage'
Why bother with any Dragon related? where is the data to support the claim "for lighter weight and efficient load transfer?
Who is going to pay for all the analysis of this drastically different configuration? Who is going to qualified it for users?
What expertise does SSL or other satellite maker have on making upperstages, launch vehicle guidance systems and flight planning?
This makes no sense.
Seems to me... ???
...a known satellite maker (like say SSL) could clean up in the planetary probe marketplace (such as it is) by designing a high capacity Hypergolic (not cryo) '3rd stage'
Destination GEO Mars Jupiter Saturn
Delta-V m/s 5000 4600 7500 9250
(manoever) m/s 1000 100 500 500
Payload kg 8626 8781 7695 7082
Propellant kg 2074 1919 3005 3618
Burn time months 5.06 4.68 7.34 8.83
Power there kW 150 65 5.5 1.9
Isp equiv sec 1211 1150 1522 1685
I think both hypergols and hydrolox for anything exoatmospheric have been obsoleted by ion engines at this point.
Seems to me they could make a standardized ion drive "3rd stage", intended to be mounted to a Falcon and delivered to 400 km LEO. This would be something like a satellite bus, standardized to boost from LEO to GEO. If I scale up from the XIPS-25 drive and the Juno solar panels, I get this:
You seem to be assuming continuous thrusting, is this the case?I did assume continuous thrusting and did not account for the penalty (it's a simple spreadsheet). The burn times are significantly smaller than the total transfer time. Quite a bit of the time, in all cases, is just getting out of Earth's gravity well. I suspect the burn time can't get much larger than 1.5 years, because even if you start with a Venus flyby, you can't stay in the inner solar system while burning much longer than that.
If so, there is a large penalty for this - are you taking it into account?
(Plus, the obvious fact you can't continuously thrust till you're out of earths shadow)
Wholly reusable launchers with propellant transfer in orbit can compete with this, to a large degree, though I agree it's an interesting concept.
Reusable + transfer can get awesomely huge payloads, but it seems to me they will always have higher cost of launch. I fully agree that there are missions for which bigger payloads or timeliness are much more important than cost/kg of launch.
But, for instance, cargo to Mars would benefit from an ion drive third stage. And cargo is most of what's going there.
Note that Xenon costs $1000/kg or so, and the global market is a few tens of tons.
Clearly, there are alternatives to Xenon, but at least for 'small' delta-v of 4-8km/s or so, ion engines are not an obviously clear win against cheap propellant in orbit.
[OK, now that we have the performance curve, who can calculate the exact Falcon9/FH Upper stage dry mass from these numbers? ;)Here we go. There is an analysis in L2, but it neglects several factors. First, the second stage has to get to LEO, so the on-orbit mass will depend on the payload. Second, the payload mass will affect the first stage, at least somewhat. A quick guess shows this effect is 10-20 m/s per 1000 kg of payload, so it cannot be ignored.
[OK, now that we have the performance curve, who can calculate the exact Falcon9/FH Upper stage dry mass from these numbers? ;)Here we go. There is an analysis in L2, but it neglects several factors. First, the second stage has to get to LEO, so the on-orbit mass will depend on the payload. Second, the payload mass will affect the first stage, at least somewhat. A quick guess shows this effect is 10-20 m/s per 1000 kg of payload, so it cannot be ignored.
Since the second stage has to get both to LEO, and do LEO to escape, there is no need to consider LEO at all. So you can just back calculate the speed at orbital altitude that corresponds to a given C3. Then the first stage and second stage combined must offer that. This simplifies the calculation.
Next, performance of the first stage is hard to estimate. So I just represent it as the speed with 0 payload on top of the second stage, plus a simple linear derating - so many less m/s for each additional kg of payload.
For raw data I went to the NASA LSP web site, and typed in C3 from 0 to 100 by 10, and recorded the FH payload for each C3.
Finally, I put this in a spreadsheet where you enter the apogee of the injection burn (166 km for the NASA numbers), the first stage contribution and penalty, then the second stage starting and ending mass. From this it calculates the total delta-V compared to the NASA delta-V. Then you minimize the differences, helped by the Excel solve function.
This simple model fits the data ASTONISHINGLY well. For each payload mass, it predicts the final velocity with less than 1.5 m/s of error, out of about 12,000 m/s. That's about one part in 10,000.
So what do we get? The first stage (side + core) must provide about 5252 m/s. This includes Earth rotation, but is still way above any recoverable speed, as expected. The first stage + side boosters provide about 16 m/s less per extra tonne of payload.
The second stage starts at 109 tonnes + payload, and ends at 5537 kg + payload. The 5537 kg includes the dry mass, the residuals, and the payload adapter. Both of these are consistent with earlier estimates. Musk talked about the first stage lifting 125 tonnes, which could be 109 (stage) + 12 (payload) + 4 (fairing). Also, the stage has about 100 tonnes of fuel, so 1% residuals would be 1 tonne, so the dry mass would be about 4.5t. So all is consistent.
In terms of sensitivities, you can go down to 100t start, 5451 kg end, and still get a quite good fit (3 m/s error). Likewise you can go up to 116t start, 5598 kg end, with a similar error. I don't think you can go outside these values and still be consistent with Musk's 125t total for the second stage + payload. So 5450-5600 kg at end of burn seems like the plausible range.
Keep in mind that the dry mass calculated from LSP numbers will include residuals to allow the some performance reserve to meet LSP margins. SpaceX's published figures are probably for a burn to depletion. I think that better explains the ~1,000 kg difference between this method and other methods for backing out the mass of the upper stage.
The second stage starts at 109 tonnes + payload, and ends at 5537 kg + payload. The 5537 kg includes the dry mass, the residuals, and the payload adapter. Both of these are consistent with earlier estimates. Musk talked about the first stage lifting 125 tonnes, which could be 109 (stage) + 12 (payload) + 4 (fairing). Also, the stage has about 100 tonnes of fuel, so 1% residuals would be 1 tonne, so the dry mass would be about 4.5t. So all is consistent.
Keep in mind that the dry mass calculated from LSP numbers will include residuals to allow the some performance reserve to meet LSP margins. SpaceX's published figures are probably for a burn to depletion. I think that better explains the ~1,000 kg difference between this method and other methods for backing out the mass of the upper stage.
Isn't that 1,000 kg difference what Lou was referring to in the para quoted below, ie the difference between his calculations for dry (4.5t) and dry + residuals (5.5t) ?
Or are you saying other methods get 3.5t dry?
I put this in a spreadsheet where you enter the apogee of the injection burn (166 km for the NASA numbers)
Also, the stage has about 100 tonnes of fuel, so 1% residuals would be 1 tonne, so the dry mass would be about 4.5t.
No, if you change one parameter you need to re-optimize all the others. Try:I put this in a spreadsheet where you enter the apogee of the injection burn (166 km for the NASA numbers)
From the NASA launch vehicle performance comments: 160 km (86 nmi) park orbit perigee altitude. This increases your average error to 4.33m/s.
This argument confuses two very different statistical concepts. 99.7% is the percentage of the trials that are within the bounds, but does not say what those bounds are. This depends on the variation of the rocket from trial to trial. Say we had a rocket that was quite variable performance, say a standard deviation of 3% in ISP. Then we would need to reserve 9% of the fuel (3 sigma) to make sure would could complete the mission 99.7% of the time, and an average mission would have 9% of the fuel left.Also, the stage has about 100 tonnes of fuel, so 1% residuals would be 1 tonne, so the dry mass would be about 4.5t.
From the comments: 3-sigma guidance reserves. 3σ is 99.7%, so the NASA estimate of ullage is roughly your suggested 100 tonnes x 0.003 = 0.3mT. Plugging 4.5 + 0.3 = 4.8mT into your spreadsheet further increases your average error to -250.34m/s.
For raw data I went to the NASA LSP web site, and typed in C3 from 0 to 100 by 10, and recorded the FH payload for each C3.
They were fixed, but the LSP numbers are still on the conservative side. They are contracted numbers, not what FH can likely actually do. And it certainly doesn't include any stretching, which would help a lot, has been discussed, and wouldn't be that hard. (Of course, other relatively easy upgrades to other ELVs also aren't included, so this isn't any kind of bias, I'm just pointing out that it might be tough to reverse engineer FH this way.)For raw data I went to the NASA LSP web site, and typed in C3 from 0 to 100 by 10, and recorded the FH payload for each C3.
I love this analysis but I thought I read somewhere that it was asserted that the LSP numbers were off?
Edit: Apparently they were fixed. See this post
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42637.msg1852550
They were fixed, but the LSP numbers are still on the conservative side. They are contracted numbers, not what FH can likely actually do.
They were fixed, but the LSP numbers are still on the conservative side.
They are contracted numbers, not what FH can likely actually do.
That would help to explain the low mass to LEO figures for FH, but by way of comparison, here is a spreadsheet for Delta IV Heavy. Parker Solar Probe was 2,849kg to C3=59km²/s², just below the LSP 3000kg payload to C3=60. So sandbagged perhaps, but not by much.
[...] by way of comparison, here is a spreadsheet for Delta IV Heavy. Parker Solar Probe was 2,849kg to C3=59km²/s², just below the LSP 3000kg payload to C3=60. So sandbagged perhaps, but not by much.
They were fixed, but the LSP numbers are still on the conservative side.
Sorry if the answer is obvious...
It seems the boosters for Falcon Heavy are slightly different from those for Falcon 9.
Does that mean that Falcon Heavy will need its own dedicated Block 5 boosters?
With Falcon Heavy having a fairly low flight rate, would that mean SpaceX will build just three (and maybe a spare) Block 5 boosters?
Or are the block 5s planned to be interchangable?
Sorry if the answer is obvious...
It seems the boosters for Falcon Heavy are slightly different from those for Falcon 9.
Does that mean that Falcon Heavy will need its own dedicated Block 5 boosters?
With Falcon Heavy having a fairly low flight rate, would that mean SpaceX will build just three (and maybe a spare) Block 5 boosters?
Or are the block 5s planned to be interchangable?
The flights with all new boosters are of course the reason to build new boosters.
Only the center core has to be specially built for FH, the sides can be reused from F9 boosters and viceversa, Elon says they just need to change the interstage for a nosecone and add the mounting hardware. The first Falcon Heavy already did something like this, the sides were reused from old F9 boosters. However it is worth noting that, although it's something possible to do, it doesn't mean every FH flight will reuse the sides, there is an Air Force mission, STP-2, that will fly early next year and that will use all new boosters.
Or F9, FH pricing stays the same and BFR is cheaper.
Around 2022, if BFR is flying, SpaceX might be selling F9 and FH flights at real knock down prices.
Around 2022, if BFR is flying, SpaceX might be selling F9 and FH flights at real knock down prices.
Around 2022, if BFR is flying, SpaceX might be selling F9 and FH flights at real knock down prices.
That one point I don't agree with. They may not want to force the change to BFR but they also don't want to delay it. They have no reason to make Falcon cheap once they have the capacity to do things with BFR.
If BFS is late and NG is on time, having a large fleet of already paid-for rockets will be the only way to compete with BOs infinite supply of operating funds.S2 reuse could be an enormously powerful iron in the fire if it can be gotten working in that case.
I think it allows them to take it slowly (heh in SpaceX rates...) and get BFS right.If BFS is late and NG is on time, having a large fleet of already paid-for rockets will be the only way to compete with BOs infinite supply of operating funds.S2 reuse could be an enormously powerful iron in the fire if it can be gotten working in that case.
The $6M/launch number mentioned by Elon in passing as '2-3 years out' for wholly reusable F9 is basically identical to BFS launch cost, and for a large fraction of launches, that would be quite adequate.
For the remainder, on-orbit refueling would be a major capacity booster, or payload swapping from a launched-with-heavy payload to a launched empty stage.
If everything breaks right, the impact of BFS being delayed might be quite small. (barring Mars)
Until, at least, payloads grow a lot.
If everything breaks right, the impact of BFS being delayed might be quite small. (barring Mars)BFS fail would of course also impact lunar tourism in more than a dragon round the moon sense.
If BFS is late and NG is on time, having a large fleet of already paid-for rockets will be the only way to compete with BOs infinite supply of operating funds.S2 reuse could be an enormously powerful iron in the fire if it can be gotten working in that case.
The $6M/launch number mentioned by Elon in passing as '2-3 years out' for wholly reusable F9 is basically identical to BFS launch cost, and for a large fraction of launches, that would be quite adequate.
For the remainder, on-orbit refueling would be a major capacity booster, or payload swapping from a launched-with-heavy payload to a launched empty stage.
If everything breaks right, the impact of BFS being delayed might be quite small. (barring Mars)
Until, at least, payloads grow a lot.
If BFS is late and NG is on time, having a large fleet of already paid-for rockets will be the only way to compete with BOs infinite supply of operating funds.S2 reuse could be an enormously powerful iron in the fire if it can be gotten working in that case.
The $6M/launch number mentioned by Elon in passing as '2-3 years out' for wholly reusable F9 is basically identical to BFS launch cost, and for a large fraction of launches, that would be quite adequate.
For the remainder, on-orbit refueling would be a major capacity booster, or payload swapping from a launched-with-heavy payload to a launched empty stage.
If everything breaks right, the impact of BFS being delayed might be quite small. (barring Mars)
Until, at least, payloads grow a lot.
I dont know (I have my doubts) that Musk can get F9 down to 6 million a launch but even if he could do that, why would he do that without someone or something else driving him to lower cost?
Cheap sell off of out of date stock fulfills all those 4 criteria.
One never lowers price of a product unless 1) the product "cost" allow it (OK say it does) 2) the operational cost of the total business which depends on it can still be covered, 3) it repays your R&D coffers and 4) it repays your total investments or investors?
b: Use them, at a price people are prepared to pay (=, approx, BFR launch rates)If customers are not pressing to launch on FH, this may make no sense, as it assumes that the cost to spacex to launch them does not exceed the cost to launch the payload on BFR.
Cheap sell off of out of date stock fulfills all those 4 criteria.
One never lowers price of a product unless 1) the product "cost" allow it (OK say it does) 2) the operational cost of the total business which depends on it can still be covered, 3) it repays your R&D coffers and 4) it repays your total investments or investors?
My earlier point was that, if BFR is flying, and SpaceX has a few dozen F9 cores lying around, would SpaceX:
a: Scrap the cores, or donate them to museums and high schools
b: Use them, at a price people are prepared to pay (=, approx, BFR launch rates)
Cheap sell off of out of date stock fulfills all those 4 criteria.
One never lowers price of a product unless 1) the product "cost" allow it (OK say it does) 2) the operational cost of the total business which depends on it can still be covered, 3) it repays your R&D coffers and 4) it repays your total investments or investors?
My earlier point was that, if BFR is flying, and SpaceX has a few dozen F9 cores lying around, would SpaceX:
a: Scrap the cores, or donate them to museums and high schools
b: Use them, at a price people are prepared to pay (=, approx, BFR launch rates)
I suspect that the instant 1) they cannot be sold due to a lowerprice product, that 2) hopefully has a price below what the old product is...the old product goes away :) I dont expect that for at least 10 years
Cheap sell off of out of date stock fulfills all those 4 criteria.
My earlier point was that, if BFR is flying, and SpaceX has a few dozen F9 cores lying around, would SpaceX:
a: Scrap the cores, or donate them to museums and high schools
b: Use them, at a price people are prepared to pay (=, approx, BFR launch rates)
Cheap sell off of out of date stock fulfills all those 4 criteria.
One never lowers price of a product unless 1) the product "cost" allow it (OK say it does) 2) the operational cost of the total business which depends on it can still be covered, 3) it repays your R&D coffers and 4) it repays your total investments or investors?
My earlier point was that, if BFR is flying, and SpaceX has a few dozen F9 cores lying around, would SpaceX:
a: Scrap the cores, or donate them to museums and high schools
b: Use them, at a price people are prepared to pay (=, approx, BFR launch rates)
With Starlink still several years away from being a revenue generator, as opposed to an additional massive cost itself, their only options for funding the Mars project are either a) seeking outside investors, or b) maximising profit from their current operations (ie money they can reinvest after paying wages and the costs of actually building the rockets and launching the payloads that are their lifeblood).
:
Remember that they have imminently got to (internally) cover the cost (still significant even with S1 re-use) of a huge number of dedicated Starlink launches (including the cost of the satellites themselves) before that constellation can start to generate enough revenue to a) first cover the ongoing costs of further building out the constellation, and then b) contribute meaningfully to the Mars project funding.
However with the INTERNAL cost to SpaceX of constructing each BFR/BFS vehicle forecast by them to be several hundred million dollars apiece (and might never get below $100m even after years of experience and production efficiencies found), they are going to have to adopt a business model whereby they internally cover most of that upfront cost of construction of each vehicle, and then charge a bit of it to each customer that flies on the vehicle over the course of it's usable lifetime (it will be rated for a maximum number of flights based on their engineering analysis, much like the fatigue life of an airplane).
...because the cost to construct each vehicle will (at least initially) make it more expensive than any other vehicle on the market...Depending on timing, I'd venture that an expendable BFS may be cheaper than a Delta IV Heavy
... If using up a F9 flight costs you less, then ...Given that there is talk of F9/H reentry tests, not a reusable S2, if an F9 or FH flight costs less than a BFS flight due to the amortization then BFR/BFS has failed to meet a large portion of its goals.
With Starlink still several years away from being a revenue generator, as opposed to an additional massive cost itself, their only options for funding the Mars project are either a) seeking outside investors, or b) maximising profit from their current operations (ie money they can reinvest after paying wages and the costs of actually building the rockets and launching the payloads that are their lifeblood).
:
Remember that they have imminently got to (internally) cover the cost (still significant even with S1 re-use) of a huge number of dedicated Starlink launches (including the cost of the satellites themselves) before that constellation can start to generate enough revenue to a) first cover the ongoing costs of further building out the constellation, and then b) contribute meaningfully to the Mars project funding.
I'm not by any means an expert on this, but my understanding is that Starlink can and should pay for launches, at a market or near-market rate, to the launch business. And they can do that from loaned money which doesn't have to come from the rest of SpaceX.
Consider Starlink as a separate company (or a separately accounted division if you will). Then Starlink will have a business plan that shows them increasing the value of the company/division at the cost of the building and launching the satellites. That is a perfectly good use of startup debt that they would fully expect to service from operating revenue once they have a sufficient constellation, but in the mean time the value of Starlink owning satellites in orbit is sufficient to make the debt attractive to lenders.
...because the cost to construct each vehicle will (at least initially) make it more expensive than any other vehicle on the market...Depending on timing, I'd venture that an expendable BFS may be cheaper than a Delta IV HeavyQuote... If using up a F9 flight costs you less, then ...Given that there is talk of F9/H reentry tests, not a reusable S2, if an F9 or FH flight costs less than a BFS flight due to the amortization then BFR/BFS has failed to meet a large portion of its goals.
Given that there is talk of F9/H reentry tests, not a reusable S2, if an F9 or FH flight costs less than a BFS flight due to the amortization then BFR/BFS has failed to meet a large portion of its goals.Paraphrasing:
I think in 2-3 years, we could be able to launch a fully reusable F9 for $6MI think this was at the falcon heavy post-launch conference.
...because the cost to construct each vehicle will (at least initially) make it more expensive than any other vehicle on the market...Depending on timing, I'd venture that an expendable BFS may be cheaper than a Delta IV HeavyQuote... If using up a F9 flight costs you less, then ...Given that there is talk of F9/H reentry tests, not a reusable S2, if an F9 or FH flight costs less than a BFS flight due to the amortization then BFR/BFS has failed to meet a large portion of its goals.
Perhaps most intriguing of all Koenigsmann’s comments was an almost unprovoked segue into the US government’s involvement in Falcon Heavy development. According to the SpaceX executive, the company was actually approached by “the government”, with the unknown agency or agencies stating – in Hans’ words – that they wanted to be a part of the rocket’s development. According to Hans, SpaceX responded in an extremely unorthodox fashion: “we said, ‘Nope! We just wanna build it, you can buy it when it’s ready and we’ll charge you for the service.'” He noted in the next sentence that funding was the primary lever on the table:
“It’s a great position to do this, you gotta find the money, you gotta know people that have money and are willing to invest in your company, and [SpaceX has] been lucky enough to know some of those people.”
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-executive-nobody-paid-us-to-make-falcon-heavy/ (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-executive-nobody-paid-us-to-make-falcon-heavy/)
Seems that SpaceX refused government funding for FH, quite surprising:QuotePerhaps most intriguing of all Koenigsmann’s comments was an almost unprovoked segue into the US government’s involvement in Falcon Heavy development. According to the SpaceX executive, the company was actually approached by “the government”, with the unknown agency or agencies stating – in Hans’ words – that they wanted to be a part of the rocket’s development. According to Hans, SpaceX responded in an extremely unorthodox fashion: “we said, ‘Nope! We just wanna build it, you can buy it when it’s ready and we’ll charge you for the service.'” He noted in the next sentence that funding was the primary lever on the table:
“It’s a great position to do this, you gotta find the money, you gotta know people that have money and are willing to invest in your company, and [SpaceX has] been lucky enough to know some of those people.”
IIRC that this was an option being taken up and turned into a firm booking.
They lost an earlier Viasat launch to Ariane due to delays
IIRC that this was an option being taken up and turned into a firm booking.
They lost an earlier Viasat launch to Ariane due to delays
Still a FH flight. It's nice to see it getting some traction.
The next couple of years with more (re)flights of FH and F9 it will be interesting to see if others opt for the increased FH capability or if operators select larger birds.
I've been following the space industry my whole life and this is the first time we have such a market disruption. It's all very exciting. (Edit: Maybe I'll see my moonbase yet)
Elon Musk’s big Falcon Heavy rocket might find a market after all
By Tim Fernholz1 hour ago
QuoteElon Musk’s big Falcon Heavy rocket might find a market after all
By Tim Fernholz1 hour ago
https://qz.com/1439557/spacex-is-building-a-market-for-falcon-heavy/
Graphic from article attached
QuoteElon Musk’s big Falcon Heavy rocket might find a market after all
By Tim Fernholz1 hour ago
https://qz.com/1439557/spacex-is-building-a-market-for-falcon-heavy/
Graphic from article attached
It seems no one spent any real time trying to calculate the GEO numbers for F9 and FH so they could be put into that graphic... ??? ::)
QuoteElon Musk’s big Falcon Heavy rocket might find a market after all
By Tim Fernholz1 hour ago
https://qz.com/1439557/spacex-is-building-a-market-for-falcon-heavy/
Graphic from article attached
It seems no one spent any real time trying to calculate the GEO numbers for F9 and FH so they could be put into that graphic... ??? ::)
F9/H have yet to perform a direct insertion, although with S2 coast time proven with the FH demo, it should certainly be possible.
Seems to me... ???
...a known satellite maker (like say SSL) could clean up in the planetary probe marketplace (such as it is) by designing a high capacity Hypergolic (not cryo) '3rd stage' that uses a SpaceX's dragon trunk perimeter mount to attach to a FH S2 (for lighter weight and efficient load transfer) and this new S3 "stage" is topped with a smaller Ruag fairing (as probes tend to be smaller anyway)...
SpaceX gets contracted to launch ~50 tonnes to LEO with Boosters to ASDS's and Core expended...
S2 saves enough prop to deorbit also... SpaceX gets $95mil plus for the trouble and expenses...
SSL has literally tonnes of prop margin to play with... to push the paying customers probe out to it's destination...
Bottom line is SpaceX likely does not want to get directly into high energy C3 launches, as they are few and far between.
But if someone like SSL wanted to finish the job and make FH the 'go to, lowest cost to way out there' C3 king...
Then yeah... ;)
Seems to me... ???
...a known satellite maker (like say SSL) could clean up in the planetary probe marketplace (such as it is) by designing a high capacity Hypergolic (not cryo) '3rd stage' that uses a SpaceX's dragon trunk perimeter mount to attach to a FH S2 (for lighter weight and efficient load transfer) and this new S3 "stage" is topped with a smaller Ruag fairing (as probes tend to be smaller anyway)...
SpaceX gets contracted to launch ~50 tonnes to LEO with Boosters to ASDS's and Core expended...
S2 saves enough prop to deorbit also... SpaceX gets $95mil plus for the trouble and expenses...
SSL has literally tonnes of prop margin to play with... to push the paying customers probe out to it's destination...
Bottom line is SpaceX likely does not want to get directly into high energy C3 launches, as they are few and far between.
But if someone like SSL wanted to finish the job and make FH the 'go to, lowest cost to way out there' C3 king...
Then yeah... ;)
QuoteElon Musk’s big Falcon Heavy rocket might find a market after all
By Tim Fernholz1 hour ago
https://qz.com/1439557/spacex-is-building-a-market-for-falcon-heavy/
Graphic from article attached
It seems no one spent any real time trying to calculate the GEO numbers for F9 and FH so they could be put into that graphic... ??? ::)
For the FH, from the graph it can put 26t into GTO. If the empty mass is 5t (maybe it needs to be stronger) then the stack mass in GTO is 31t. Using the mass ratio of 1.7, at the end of the burn stack masses 18t. Subtract the 5t empty mass to get a 13t payload.
If you vent the tanks (as was apparently done for the demo mission)
QuoteElon Musk’s big Falcon Heavy rocket might find a market after all
By Tim Fernholz1 hour ago
https://qz.com/1439557/spacex-is-building-a-market-for-falcon-heavy/
Graphic from article attached
It seems no one spent any real time trying to calculate the GEO numbers for F9 and FH so they could be put into that graphic... ??? ::)
F9/H have yet to perform a direct insertion, although with S2 coast time proven with the FH demo, it should certainly be possible.
Has Vulcan done it too? No, right?
F9/H have yet to perform a direct insertion, although with S2 coast time proven with the FH demo, it should certainly be possible.
Has Vulcan done it too? No, right?
Vulcan-Centaur hasn't, but [FIRST STAGE OF CHOICE] + Centaur has many times, and that's not nothing.
(Just playing Devil's advocate here; I'm well aware SpaceX has done a number of S2 long-coast experiments and tests in the last couple years).
Let's not go too far down the Vulcan Centaur road...Well thats a nice change, SpaceX thread being taken over by discussion of competitors LV.
SpaceX wouldn't propose this with two launches would they?
SpaceX wouldn't propose this with two launches would they?
Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.
Last night SpaceX Falcon team won the British Interplanetary Society’s Sir Arthur Clarke International Achievement Award for the FH launch:
I feel two launches proposal would be way too tenuous, two consecutive FH launches from 39A in a short interval is already hard enough, then you need to ask Orion to do all the rendezvous and docking stuff, it just stretches the believability too thin. Unless SpaceX is just doing this to make a point, I assume they would structure the proposal to at least have some chance of being seriously considered.
Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.
The orbits from CC is prograde orbits. From VAFB is retrograde orbits. The two are not compatible.
I feel two launches proposal would be way too tenuous, two consecutive FH launches from 39A in a short interval is already hard enough, then you need to ask Orion to do all the rendezvous and docking stuff, it just stretches the believability too thin. Unless SpaceX is just doing this to make a point, I assume they would structure the proposal to at least have some chance of being seriously considered.
Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.
At some point in the future wouldn't SLC-4 be modified to support FH? Since DOD Polar Orbit launches for SpaceX will be from Vandenberg.
You would loose some performance, but couldn't you launch a FH from East/West coasts and they could rendezvous in Earth Orbit? It has been previously mentioned on this board that you can get to the ISS from Vandenberg, you take about a 20% performance hit by launching out of Vandenberg. Could you choose a orbital destination that could work for a FH rendezvous in LEO from 39A and SLC-4.
This eliminates the issue with back to back launches out of 39A. It also allows a fairly rapid launch of two FH's. You launch first launch out of 39A and then wait one or two orbits and then launch out of SLC-4.
Last night SpaceX Falcon team won the British Interplanetary Society’s Sir Arthur Clarke International Achievement Award for the FH launch:
Has SpaceX ever won the Collier Trophy? And if not... Why not? (Rhetorical of course)
The 2018 Nominees are: (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=53675)Maybe 2019? for Dragon 2 taking crew to ISS. Although they didn't even get nominated for it in 2012 (https://naa.aero/userfiles/files/documents/Press%20Releases/Collier%202012%20Nominees%20and%20Selection%20Committee%20PR.pdf), for Dragon's first trip to the ISS.
* Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (AGCAS)
* Bell V-280 Valor
* Boeing T-X
* Draken International Contracted Close Air Support & Adversary Air Services in Support of Combat Readiness Training
* Embraer E190-E2
* F-35 Integrated Test Force
* General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Integration of Large UAS into Civil and International Airspace
* NASA/JPL Mars Cube One (MarCO) Project Team
* Perlan Project
* Responsive Environmental Assessment Commercially Hosted (REACH) Project
* Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two Program
The orbits from CC is prograde orbits. From VAFB is retrograde orbits. The two are not compatible.
I feel two launches proposal would be way too tenuous, two consecutive FH launches from 39A in a short interval is already hard enough, then you need to ask Orion to do all the rendezvous and docking stuff, it just stretches the believability too thin. Unless SpaceX is just doing this to make a point, I assume they would structure the proposal to at least have some chance of being seriously considered.
Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.
At some point in the future wouldn't SLC-4 be modified to support FH? Since DOD Polar Orbit launches for SpaceX will be from Vandenberg.
You would loose some performance, but couldn't you launch a FH from East/West coasts and they could rendezvous in Earth Orbit? It has been previously mentioned on this board that you can get to the ISS from Vandenberg, you take about a 20% performance hit by launching out of Vandenberg. Could you choose a orbital destination that could work for a FH rendezvous in LEO from 39A and SLC-4.
This eliminates the issue with back to back launches out of 39A. It also allows a fairly rapid launch of two FH's. You launch first launch out of 39A and then wait one or two orbits and then launch out of SLC-4.
The orbits from CC is prograde orbits. From VAFB is retrograde orbits. The two are not compatible.
I feel two launches proposal would be way too tenuous, two consecutive FH launches from 39A in a short interval is already hard enough, then you need to ask Orion to do all the rendezvous and docking stuff, it just stretches the believability too thin. Unless SpaceX is just doing this to make a point, I assume they would structure the proposal to at least have some chance of being seriously considered.
Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.
At some point in the future wouldn't SLC-4 be modified to support FH? Since DOD Polar Orbit launches for SpaceX will be from Vandenberg.
You would loose some performance, but couldn't you launch a FH from East/West coasts and they could rendezvous in Earth Orbit? It has been previously mentioned on this board that you can get to the ISS from Vandenberg, you take about a 20% performance hit by launching out of Vandenberg. Could you choose a orbital destination that could work for a FH rendezvous in LEO from 39A and SLC-4.
This eliminates the issue with back to back launches out of 39A. It also allows a fairly rapid launch of two FH's. You launch first launch out of 39A and then wait one or two orbits and then launch out of SLC-4.
VAFB launches to less than 90 degrees are prograde. Inclinations from the Cape max at about 57 and VAFB can get down to about 70. They get even closer if you fly a dogleg ascent. The performance penalty to meet in the middle at ~65 degrees wouldn't be too bad.
Last night SpaceX Falcon team won the British Interplanetary Society’s Sir Arthur Clarke International Achievement Award for the FH launch:
Has SpaceX ever won the Collier Trophy? And if not... Why not? (Rhetorical of course)
No, and they're not getting it for 2018 either, despite Falcon Heavy.QuoteThe 2018 Nominees are: (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=53675)Maybe 2019? for Dragon 2 taking crew to ISS. Although they didn't even get nominated for it in 2012 (https://naa.aero/userfiles/files/documents/Press%20Releases/Collier%202012%20Nominees%20and%20Selection%20Committee%20PR.pdf), for Dragon's first trip to the ISS.
* Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (AGCAS)
* Bell V-280 Valor
* Boeing T-X
* Draken International Contracted Close Air Support & Adversary Air Services in Support of Combat Readiness Training
* Embraer E190-E2
* F-35 Integrated Test Force
* General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Integration of Large UAS into Civil and International Airspace
* NASA/JPL Mars Cube One (MarCO) Project Team
* Perlan Project
* Responsive Environmental Assessment Commercially Hosted (REACH) Project
* Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two Program
However, perhaps RS might buy off on one launch for FH and one for D4H, if SLS is promised to remain fully funded.
With the political realities concerning a certain senator from Alabama controling the budget process, it appears unlikely SpaceX would be awarded any piece of EM-1, IMHO. However, perhaps RS might buy off on one launch for FH and one for D4H, if SLS is promised to remain fully funded.
>
Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?
That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.
OTOH, is there a fundamental reason why SLC-40 can't be converted to be FH-capable with reasonable effort?
Celestar
Could FH be vertically integrated in the VAB and use the same crawler for 39B? I know hold down clamps would have to be modified.
So what is the reason that such a launch is not possible...?Could FH be vertically integrated in the VAB and use the same crawler for 39B? I know hold down clamps would have to be modified.
And then what?
So what is the reason that such a launch is not possible...?Could FH be vertically integrated in the VAB and use the same crawler for 39B? I know hold down clamps would have to be modified.
And then what?
With the political realities concerning a certain senator from Alabama controling the budget process, it appears unlikely SpaceX would be awarded any piece of EM-1, IMHO. However, perhaps RS might buy off on one launch for FH and one for D4H, if SLS is promised to remain fully funded.There are serious structural issues with mixing the verticaly integrated Orion with the horizontaly integrated FH.
There are advantages to using both from a logistics and political standpoint. Probably, chief among these is the ability to launch nearly simultaneously from the Florida coast. The ULA rocket can simply carry a 2nd second stage as its payload and the SpaceX craft the Orion and service module. The question about docking seems fairly straightforward from this layman's perspective: why not use the now proven IDA?
As stated upthread, SpaceX appears capable of providing a FH with 15 months notice. It is unclear whether a Delta Heavy can be built within that time frame. ULA may be the long pole for the scenrio to play out, but it still may be the only way to get this done considering politics, engineering and orbital mechanics.
Any pad(s) within reachSo what is the reason that such a launch is not possible...?Could FH be vertically integrated in the VAB and use the same crawler for 39B? I know hold down clamps would have to be modified.
And then what?
From which pad?
From which pad?Any pad(s) within reach
So LC-39A no chanceFrom which pad?Any pad(s) within reach
LC-39A - you would have to run the SpaceX HIF into the ground before reaching the flame trench with the MLP.
LC-39B - where is the RP-1 infrastructure, let alone subcooling equipment, relevant data links from the pad to the LCC?
Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated. That is why I mentioned the VAB. Otherwise, if it can be horizontally integrated could it go on FH with a stretched upper stage for a one launch shot?I think the last few posts have more or less ruled out FH for Orion in the short term as I believe Orion has to be vertically integrated. The only way I could see them doing that would be to erect FH at LC-39A then plop Orion on top by use of a huge crane. I suppose it might work but it doesn't have the appearance of something NASA would approve of to me.
Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated. That is why I mentioned the VAB. Otherwise, if it can be horizontally integrated could it go on FH with a stretched upper stage for a one launch shot?I think the last few posts have more or less ruled out FH for Orion in the short term as I believe Orion has to be vertically integrated. The only way I could see them doing that would be to erect FH at LC-39A then plop Orion on top by use of a huge crane. I suppose it might work but it doesn't have the appearance of something NASA would approve of to me.
Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches). Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?
Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated. That is why I mentioned the VAB. Otherwise, if it can be horizontally integrated could it go on FH with a stretched upper stage for a one launch shot?I think the last few posts have more or less ruled out FH for Orion in the short term as I believe Orion has to be vertically integrated. The only way I could see them doing that would be to erect FH at LC-39A then plop Orion on top by use of a huge crane. I suppose it might work but it doesn't have the appearance of something NASA would approve of to me.
I wouldn't rule that possibility out entirely unless NASA or SpaceX issues a definitive statement on it. According to Eric Berger, SpaceX submitted an unsolicited proposal to NASA to launch Orion on FH.
Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated. That is why I mentioned the VAB. Otherwise, if it can be horizontally integrated could it go on FH with a stretched upper stage for a one launch shot?I think the last few posts have more or less ruled out FH for Orion in the short term as I believe Orion has to be vertically integrated. The only way I could see them doing that would be to erect FH at LC-39A then plop Orion on top by use of a huge crane. I suppose it might work but it doesn't have the appearance of something NASA would approve of to me.
I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A. We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere. Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.
Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches). Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?
I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A. We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere. Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.
Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches). Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?
SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast.
Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?
I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A. We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere. Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.
Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches). Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?
SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast.
Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?
I guess I was speaking in context of a dual FH mission from separate pads so I didnt really include SLC-4 in my thoughts. Unless Ive just missed something here and somehow a launch from there would be compatible orbitwise with a 39A launch?
Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?It would be a perfect use of the Florida launch sites. Heck, throw in an Atlas V and Falcon 9 and you could ripple off 80 to 100+ tonnes to LEO (depending on reuse amount) from the four active pads in a few days time.
That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.
Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.
I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A. We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere. Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.
Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches). Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?
SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast.
Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?
I guess I was speaking in context of a dual FH mission from separate pads so I didnt really include SLC-4 in my thoughts. Unless Ive just missed something here and somehow a launch from there would be compatible orbitwise with a 39A launch?
A launch to 51 degrees is possible from both Vandy and the Cape. But such an inclined orbit is suboptimal for lunar missions.
A launch to 51 degrees is possible from both Vandy and the Cape. But such an inclined orbit is suboptimal for lunar missions.
Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.
What is the issue with vertical integration? Is it that the vertical spacecraft is fully fueled before integration?
If so, just how difficult would it be to fuel the spacecraft at the pad? Not a piece of cake, I know, but are there any genuine showstoppers?
... but are there any genuine showstoppers?
Yes - a 'salvo' launch. I've been advocating it for years.Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?It would be a perfect use of the Florida launch sites. Heck, throw in an Atlas V and Falcon 9 and you could ripple off 80 to 100+ tonnes to LEO (depending on reuse amount) from the four active pads in a few days time.
That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.
- Ed Kyle
Yes - a 'salvo' launch. I've been advocating it for years.Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?It would be a perfect use of the Florida launch sites. Heck, throw in an Atlas V and Falcon 9 and you could ripple off 80 to 100+ tonnes to LEO (depending on reuse amount) from the four active pads in a few days time.
That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.
- Ed Kyle
There is one big show stopper. That is the T/E (Transporter Erector). It is not FH compatible and they had to design a new one after dimensions of the eventual FH changed. SpaceX would need to build a new T/E at SLC-4E. Since it moves they could build it out of the way and keep SLC-4E in service for other profit making rides then just drive up the new one when it is ready. If it's ready several launches before the Orion mission ones they could proof out the T/E and make sure it's working fine. The old T/E could even have regular F9's on it. This would remove the delay of changing the mounting locks when going from F9 to FH at Vandy. Just switch T/Es! In other word park one and use the other.I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A. We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere. Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.
Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches). Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?
SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast.
Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?
If we use the most optimistic numbers (i.e. 28.5deg and lowest reference orbit, i.e. 200km) for each of the launchers:Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?It would be a perfect use of the Florida launch sites. Heck, throw in an Atlas V and Falcon 9 and you could ripple off 80 to 100+ tonnes to LEO (depending on reuse amount) from the four active pads in a few days time.
That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.
- Ed Kyle
SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast.There is one big show stopper. That is the T/E (Transporter Erector). It is not FH compatible and they had to design a new one after dimensions of the eventual FH changed.
Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?
What's the chance they could actually squeeze both side boosters onto the same pad without a collision? If they could do it with less than 30% chance of a collision it would make it worthwhile (on average) to make the attempt. Not that I think they will, I'm sure there would be a safety hoo-ha.There is one big show stopper. That is the T/E (Transporter Erector). It is not FH compatible and they had to design a new one after dimensions of the eventual FH changed. SpaceX would need to build a new T/E at SLC-4E. Since it moves they could build it out of the way and keep SLC-4E in service for other profit making rides then just drive up the new one when it is ready. If it's ready several launches before the Orion mission ones they could proof out the T/E and make sure it's working fine. The old T/E could even have regular F9's on it. This would remove the delay of changing the mounting locks when going from F9 to FH at Vandy. Just switch T/Es! In other word park one and use the other.I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A. We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere. Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.
Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches). Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?
SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast.
Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?
Physical landing problem.
1) Only 1 landing pad currently
2) Massive negotiation with California and CA EPA over seals being bothered by landing and limited landing permitted. So this is not likely addressable and one side booster would be lost with every FH launch. Other solution would be two landing barges in different parts of the ocean. One for center core, one for a side core with the remaining side core using up one of the limited yearly landing permits. If a National Security Launch is on the pad at another Vandy site that would still cause use of the landing pad at Vandy to be denied to SpaceX. The only way to save all 3 cores at Vandy would be 3 landing barges or a complete change of attitude by California EPA types and National Security Launch types. So easiest use of FH at Vandy would be to plan on the launch being fully expendable.
Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.
What is the issue with vertical integration? Is it that the vertical spacecraft is fully fueled before integration?
If so, just how difficult would it be to fuel the spacecraft at the pad? Not a piece of cake, I know, but are there any genuine showstoppers?
Nothing is a showstopper if Congress is willing to throw several billion dollars at the problems.
I provided the answer but it got deleted... sorry... :(Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.
What is the issue with vertical integration? Is it that the vertical spacecraft is fully fueled before integration?
If so, just how difficult would it be to fuel the spacecraft at the pad? Not a piece of cake, I know, but are there any genuine showstoppers?
Nothing is a showstopper if Congress is willing to throw several billion dollars at the problems.
If they are throwing billions at a new solution, why not just put those billions into SLS and stick with the existing plan? I'm not the biggest SLS fan but it's designed and on it's way.
Changing horses now for a 'quick' solution isn't the kind of thing that works well with rockets.
I provided the answer but it got deleted... sorry... :(
Do I recall correctly that someone posted estimates of the characteristics of Falcon Heavy's upper stage based on Falcon Heavy's payload capability as reported by the NASA Launch Services Program's launch-vehicle performance website? If so, could someone please point me toward it?Yes, I did this. Here is an analysis that fits the LSP data almost perfectly (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43025.msg1853437#msg1853437), giving very plausible numbers for the second stage.
SpaceX claims Falcon Heavy will put 53 tonnes into LEO...
How are you all getting Falcon Heavy performance numbers from LSP?53 tonnes is an ancient number from before they even started on it, including crossfeed. With Merlin improvements and stretches, even with no crossfeed, it's 63.8 tonnes now.
Are we talking about the Performance Query (https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx) page?
SpaceX claims Falcon Heavy will put 53 tonnes into LEO, but I can't get LSP to emit performance numbers for FH at all. Is the issue that SpaceX doesn't have a sufficiently robust payload adapter?
LSP doesn't seem to have an option of GEO or GEO-xx00 m/s orbits. It does have an option for escape trajectories, and that's the only orbit for which I can get FH payload projections.
Is there some magic inclination (apparently not 28.5 degrees) that gets LSP to tell me what FH can do to LEO?
How are you all getting Falcon Heavy performance numbers from LSP?53 tonnes is an ancient number from before they even started on it, including crossfeed. With Merlin improvements and stretches, even with no crossfeed, it's 63.8 tonnes now.
Are we talking about the Performance Query (https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx) page?
SpaceX claims Falcon Heavy will put 53 tonnes into LEO, but I can't get LSP to emit performance numbers for FH at all. Is the issue that SpaceX doesn't have a sufficiently robust payload adapter?
LSP doesn't seem to have an option of GEO or GEO-xx00 m/s orbits. It does have an option for escape trajectories, and that's the only orbit for which I can get FH payload projections.
Is there some magic inclination (apparently not 28.5 degrees) that gets LSP to tell me what FH can do to LEO?
Does anyone have any idea how much additional LEO payload might reasonably be achieved by stretching the FH upper stage?
Does anyone have any idea how much additional LEO payload might reasonably be achieved by stretching the FH upper stage?
A larger upper stage (either Raptor or MVac) mainly helps with recovery and to LEO. To LEO, I would ballpark 5-10% improvement from a mild (~25%) stretch. Adding crossfeed would get another 10-15% improvement on top of that. Best case with a large Raptor upper stage and crossfeed, FH could be pushing 90 t to LEO, or about 60 t with 3x ASDS recovery.
But it is unlikely to ever be able to send a fully fueled Orion all the way to TLI, if that's why you're wondering. To high energy orbits, the added dry mass of the larger upper stage mostly cancels what you gained in LEO payload.
LSP doesn't seem to have an option of GEO or GEO-xx00 m/s orbits. It does have an option for escape trajectories, and that's the only orbit for which I can get FH payload projections.
Before Falcon Heavy can launch its first NSSL mission, it has to get through the complete nonrecurring design validation, which will include two more launches, Kendall said. “Arabsat and STP-2 are going to serve as two final milestones to complete the certification plan,” he said. The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center and Aerospace “still have some work remaining for the complete design certification.”
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1111805464797302784I'm surprised he still cares.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1111805464797302784I'm surprised he still cares.
Technologically, he switched tracks to SS/SH a long time ago, choosing to already mark the end of life of the F9 family.
SS/SH has no competition at all.
He should move on from ULA comparisons, it's just bad vibes over something that doesn't matter.
I get that.https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1111805464797302784I'm surprised he still cares.
Technologically, he switched tracks to SS/SH a long time ago, choosing to already mark the end of life of the F9 family.
SS/SH has no competition at all.
He should move on from ULA comparisons, it's just bad vibes over something that doesn't matter.
It's obvious why he cares, SpaceX will bid for the USAF contracts with F9 and FH and they may win 60% of the 25 missions that will be distributed between the two chosen launch providers. That's 15 missions and with an average of $100m each one (which is unlikely, there will probably be some that could go as high as $200m and the lowest price could be just $90m), that means $1.5b which would be helpful for SS/SH and Starlink. Defending the F9/FH systems against ULA's lies is not a waste of time imo.
I wouldn't dismiss the Falcon family so soon. Plans change to accommodate changing conditions all the time. I know Musk is promoting Starship, as he should, but I believe there will continue to be a market for Falcon and Dragon for some time to come. Especially now that they are both reusable I'd be willing to bet that he'll keep an assembly/refurb line going, even if it's slow paced, just to support that market , which will continue to grow. He's not going to cede that market to someone else, especially since it will continue to generate much needed cash for the Starship HSF program. Colonizing Mars is going to be really expensive and the Falcon-9 and Falcon-H have a long term role to play in contributing to that funding need.
Remember, Elon signed a 20-year lease for Launch Complex 39A and there has been a *LOT* of SpaceX money sunk into it. He'll be wanting to make a really good ROI from that.
Starship will fly, but its OML is not well suited to satellite delivery, which are designed to ride at and be inserted from the top. I know there are designs out there like Chomper, but that's a long way off imo. He's got too much else on his plate at the moment. Falcon will be the SpaceX satellite delivery system of record for some time to come.
If there is one thing we know about Elon? That he doesn't subscribe to the sunk cost fallacy.
I wouldn't dismiss the Falcon family so soon. Plans change to accommodate changing conditions all the time. I know Musk is promoting Starship, as he should, but I believe there will continue to be a market for Falcon and Dragon for some time to come. Especially now that they are both reusable I'd be willing to bet that he'll keep an assembly/refurb line going, even if it's slow paced, just to support that market , which will continue to grow. He's not going to cede that market to someone else, especially since it will continue to generate much needed cash for the Starship HSF program. Colonizing Mars is going to be really expensive and the Falcon-9 and Falcon-H have a long term role to play in contributing to that funding need.
Remember, Elon signed a 20-year lease for Launch Complex 39A and there has been a *LOT* of SpaceX money sunk into it. He'll be wanting to make a really good ROI from that.
Starship will fly, but its OML is not well suited to satellite delivery, which are designed to ride at and be inserted from the top. I know there are designs out there like Chomper, but that's a long way off imo. He's got too much else on his plate at the moment. Falcon will be the SpaceX satellite delivery system of record for some time to come.
FWIW Musk was very explicit about the planbIf there is one thing we know about Elon? That he doesn't subscribe to the sunk cost fallacy.
It depends entirely on whether or not he is making or losing money while getting the ROI.
If he is then he subscribes - until he's not. Then he doesn't.
He know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
My guess is less than 5. Remember the whole entirety of F9 life is 10 years so far, and SpaceX today is able to move a lot faster than it could 10-15 years ago.I wouldn't dismiss the Falcon family so soon. Plans change to accommodate changing conditions all the time. I know Musk is promoting Starship, as he should, but I believe there will continue to be a market for Falcon and Dragon for some time to come. Especially now that they are both reusable I'd be willing to bet that he'll keep an assembly/refurb line going, even if it's slow paced, just to support that market , which will continue to grow. He's not going to cede that market to someone else, especially since it will continue to generate much needed cash for the Starship HSF program. Colonizing Mars is going to be really expensive and the Falcon-9 and Falcon-H have a long term role to play in contributing to that funding need.
Remember, Elon signed a 20-year lease for Launch Complex 39A and there has been a *LOT* of SpaceX money sunk into it. He'll be wanting to make a really good ROI from that.
Starship will fly, but its OML is not well suited to satellite delivery, which are designed to ride at and be inserted from the top. I know there are designs out there like Chomper, but that's a long way off imo. He's got too much else on his plate at the moment. Falcon will be the SpaceX satellite delivery system of record for some time to come.
Falcon will be around until Starship is cheaper to operate and more reliable and Falcon's customers move onto it. That might take 5, 10 or 20 years, but it will happen.
Stop making new F9 S1s1, stock up on F9 S2s, turn fully to SS/SH, and complete the switch before F9 fleet reaches end of life.
My guess is less than 5.
Stop making new F9 S1s1, stock up on F9 S2s, turn fully to SS/SH, and complete the switch before F9 fleet reaches end of life.
Yes - That's the plan. But like I said above "Plans change to accommodate changing conditions all the time".
I expect to see an emerging market that F9 & FH will fill long before SS is ready for commercial markets.
Curious - what market are you thinking of, and what time frame?
Remember that even under the current plan, the F9 fleet will launch Starlink v1, so hundreds of launches.
What or who can add a significant amount to that?
My guess is less than 5.
Too soon. Falcon speed of deployment does not apply. The early starships are slated for Mars, not commerce, and their shakedown flights will last months, not minutes.
Curious - what market are you thinking of, and what time frame?
Remember that even under the current plan, the F9 fleet will launch Starlink v1, so hundreds of launches.
What or who can add a significant amount to that?
DoD, NASA (ISS will be replaced and need building and then servicing), Commercial stations leased to universities, NGOs and nations wanting a space program.
You're forgetting that for every SS that goes to Mars, there's SH capacity left on earth, plus a bunch of tankers...My guess is less than 5.
Too soon. Falcon speed of deployment does not apply. The early starships are slated for Mars, not commerce, and their shakedown flights will last months, not minutes.
I agree with that conclusion, but not the reasoning. If anything, SpaceX is developing Starship faster than Falcon, and for every flight to Mars or the Moon (recall that dearmoon is the only paying customer on the manifest so far) they need lots of refueling flights in rapid succession. Shakedown won't be a problem.
But Falcon is a reliable architecture with risk-averse customers like DoD and NASA. They are only now starting to launch of Falcon Heavy, and are both inherently slow and very cautious about adopting new vehicles. SpaceX isn't going to have as easy a time shutting down F9 and FH as they did Falcon 1.
Finally, I put this in a spreadsheet where you enter the apogee of the injection burn (166 km for the NASA numbers)....
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1111805464797302784I'm wondering what he means by direct GEO requiring a fully expended falcon heavy? Just to outperform Delta Heavy? Or for any payload direct to GEO? Just core expended should get them a pretty decent payload to GEO...
I think he meant for payloads exceeding DIV and A5 max capacity to GEO it needs to go expendable.https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1111805464797302784I'm wondering what he means by direct GEO requiring a fully expended falcon heavy? Just to outperform Delta Heavy? Or for any payload direct to GEO? Just core expended should get them a pretty decent payload to GEO...
I'm wondering what he means by direct GEO requiring a fully expended falcon heavy? Just to outperform Delta Heavy? Or for any payload direct to GEO? Just core expended should get them a pretty decent payload to GEO...
Direct to GEO means the rocket does all the work to put the satellite into orbit.Meaning that apart from providing the boost to lift the apogee to 35786km (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit), the second stage must then stay alive for some six hours plus in order to ignite again, raise the perigee to the same altitude, release the satellite in its orbit, and then ignite twice more to raise its own orbit to the "graveyard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_orbit)" area.
Direct to GEO means the rocket does all the work to put the satellite into orbit.Meaning that apart from providing the boost to lift the apogee to 35786km (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit), the second stage must then stay alive for some six hours plus in order to ignite again, raise the perigee to the same altitude, release the satellite in its orbit, and then ignite twice more to raise its own orbit to the "graveyard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_orbit)" area.
Or, if it has enough fuel left, escape to a solar orbit.
All of which explains some of the long duration experiments they did with the first Falcon Heavy launch, and on some other launches since.
Does this put (possibly weak) constraints on lifetime of the stage?On the minimum lifetime, certainly. Only SpaceX (and NASA, and the DOD) know for sure, but at this point I'd say the stage can last at least to the perigee raising maneuver. How much longer I cannot say. The maneuver to raise the orbit to the graveyard region, done by the book, would require the stage to stay alive at least another twelve hours. There may be some shortcuts, more costly in fuel, to get that done quicker.
Is there enough data to guess at what the maximum boiloff might be in this situation for 6 hours, and to extrapolate for 80 hours?I have no idea myself. But I would think it more complicated than just boil-off of the LOX. You almost must consider the possible cooling/thickening/freezing of the RP-1, the formation of crystals blocking critical valves, the battery life for the controls and so on. Oh, and ullage thrusters must continue to function too. There are many things that go into how long the stage will survive in a functional state.
Does this put (possibly weak) constraints on lifetime of the stage?On the minimum lifetime, certainly. Only SpaceX (and NASA, and the DOD) know for sure, but at this point I'd say the stage can last at least to the perigee raising maneuver. How much longer I cannot say. The maneuver to raise the orbit to the graveyard region, done by the book, would require the stage to stay alive at least another twelve hours. There may be some shortcuts, more costly in fuel, to get that done quicker.
A reasonable question. I thought I saw a document stating that the high energy LSP predictions used a 90 nmi (166.7 km) parking orbit, but I can't find it by searching now. It is the value used in the Atlas 5 user's guide, though, so maybe I assumed the value for Atlas was used by everyone.Finally, I put this in a spreadsheet where you enter the apogee of the injection burn (166 km for the NASA numbers)....
Nice work. How do you know the injection altitude is 166 km?
>
How do you come up with 185 km = 100 miles? Is there something I am missing in the unit conversion? I get 115 miles. Is using nautical miles standard for orbit calculations?
LouScheffer: can you explain something above? (I won't quote in interests of brevity)Yes, the Falcon 9 user's guide states:
How do you come up with 185 km = 100 miles? Is there something I am missing in the unit conversion? I get 115 miles. Is using nautical miles standard for orbit calculations?
A perigee altitude of 185 km (100 nmi) is baselined for GTO
A park orbit perigee altitude of 167 km (90 nmi) is assumed for the reference cases.
Last night Musk tweeted Falcon Heavy Block 5 thrust numbers; about 2550t, 25MN, or 5,621,788 lbf.Key question then what does this translate to in terms of payload? Is there a linear relationship between payload and thrust or more complex than that (suspect the later)?
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Max thrust of 2550 tons will be almost 10% higher than Falcon Heavy demo mission last year
1:16 PM - Apr 5, 2019
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1114215249517981702
Last night Musk tweeted Falcon Heavy Block 5 thrust numbers; about 2550t, 25MN, or 5,621,788 lbf.Key question then what does this translate to in terms of payload? Is there a linear relationship between payload and thrust or more complex than that (suspect the later)?
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Max thrust of 2550 tons will be almost 10% higher than Falcon Heavy demo mission last year
1:16 PM - Apr 5, 2019
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1114215249517981702
Slightly confused that you said 10% less thrust in your workings?Last night Musk tweeted Falcon Heavy Block 5 thrust numbers; about 2550t, 25MN, or 5,621,788 lbf.Key question then what does this translate to in terms of payload? Is there a linear relationship between payload and thrust or more complex than that (suspect the later)?
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Max thrust of 2550 tons will be almost 10% higher than Falcon Heavy demo mission last year
1:16 PM - Apr 5, 2019
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1114215249517981702
As you suspect, the latter.
Naively, the FH stack will weigh 1450 tons or so.
If it got off the pad at 2550 tons, it would be doing 17.5m/s upwards of which 10 is gravity losses, leaving 7.5m/s of real upwards acceleration.
At 2300 tons, this reduces to only 16m/s, or 6ms upwards.
So, 10% less thrust means 6, not 7.5m/s, or 20% less upwards acceleration.
The next gross approximation you could make is that a F9 first stage burns for 180 seconds or so, and during that time it's fighting gravity.
If you burn the fuel in 160, not 180 seconds, the stage is exposed to gravity for 20 seconds less, or 200m/s extra delta-v.
In reality, computing the exact gain is nasty.
It will probably not come off the pad at maximum throttle, and will only throttle up once it's cleared the tower, and then will throttle back down at some point near mach 1 (30 seconds into flight) to keep aerodynamic loads down.
Then throttle back up.
The exact profile of the throttle settings as well as trajectory matters. In reality, if you're thrusting partially sideways, as the first stage is most of its flight, not all of the 10m/s gravitational acceleration is a loss.
And, of course, it's a FH, not a F9, which adds additional complexities.
But, 'considerably less than 200m/s' is a safe bet to what it adds..
Quote from: SpeedEvilBut, 'considerably less than 200m/s' is a safe bet to what it adds..Quote from: Slarty1080Slightly confused that you said 10% less thrust in your workings?
Those are US tons, not metric tons. Converted to MN it gives a total of 22.686MN (~5.1m lbf) which is similar to the numbers on the website. If you go by it as being metric tons, then it would have a total thrust of 25.056MN (~5.633m lbf) and that would mean each M1D+ engine produces about 928kN (~208.6k lbf) of thrust each one of them. If you compare numbers it is clear that he was refering to US tons and not metric tons.
Those are US tons, not metric tons. Converted to MN it gives a total of 22.686MN (~5.1m lbf) which is similar to the numbers on the website. If you go by it as being metric tons, then it would have a total thrust of 25.056MN (~5.633m lbf) and that would mean each M1D+ engine produces about 928kN (~208.6k lbf) of thrust each one of them. If you compare numbers it is clear that he was refering to US tons and not metric tons.
Each Merlin does produce 914 kN in vacuum, according to the SpaceX website. So it's not at all clear that he was using short tons. It makes just as much sense to be vacuum metric tons.
Last night Musk tweeted Falcon Heavy Block 5 thrust numbers; about 2550t, 25MN, or 5,621,788 lbf.Key question then what does this translate to in terms of payload? Is there a linear relationship between payload and thrust or more complex than that (suspect the later)?
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Max thrust of 2550 tons will be almost 10% higher than Falcon Heavy demo mission last year
1:16 PM - Apr 5, 2019
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1114215249517981702
As you suspect, the latter.
Naively, the FH stack will weigh 1450 tons or so.
If it got off the pad at 2550 tons, it would be doing 17.5m/s upwards of which 10 is gravity losses, leaving 7.5m/s of real upwards acceleration.
At 2300 tons, this reduces to only 16m/s, or 6ms upwards.
So, 10% less thrust means 6, not 7.5m/s, or 20% less upwards acceleration.
The next gross approximation you could make is that a F9 first stage burns for 180 seconds or so, and during that time it's fighting gravity.
If you burn the fuel in 160, not 180 seconds, the stage is exposed to gravity for 20 seconds less, or 200m/s extra delta-v.
In reality, computing the exact gain is nasty.
It will probably not come off the pad at maximum throttle, and will only throttle up once it's cleared the tower, and then will throttle back down at some point near mach 1 (30 seconds into flight) to keep aerodynamic loads down.
Then throttle back up.
The exact profile of the throttle settings as well as trajectory matters. In reality, if you're thrusting partially sideways, as the first stage is most of its flight, not all of the 10m/s gravitational acceleration is a loss.
And, of course, it's a FH, not a F9, which adds additional complexities.
But, 'considerably less than 200m/s' is a safe bet to what it adds..
Last night Musk tweeted Falcon Heavy Block 5 thrust numbers; about 2550t, 25MN, or 5,621,788 lbf.Key question then what does this translate to in terms of payload? Is there a linear relationship between payload and thrust or more complex than that (suspect the later)?
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Max thrust of 2550 tons will be almost 10% higher than Falcon Heavy demo mission last year
1:16 PM - Apr 5, 2019
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1114215249517981702
As you suspect, the latter.
Naively, the FH stack will weigh 1450 tons or so.
If it got off the pad at 2550 tons, it would be doing 17.5m/s upwards of which 10 is gravity losses, leaving 7.5m/s of real upwards acceleration.
At 2300 tons, this reduces to only 16m/s, or 6ms upwards.
So, 10% less thrust means 6, not 7.5m/s, or 20% less upwards acceleration.
The next gross approximation you could make is that a F9 first stage burns for 180 seconds or so, and during that time it's fighting gravity.
If you burn the fuel in 160, not 180 seconds, the stage is exposed to gravity for 20 seconds less, or 200m/s extra delta-v.
In reality, computing the exact gain is nasty.
It will probably not come off the pad at maximum throttle, and will only throttle up once it's cleared the tower, and then will throttle back down at some point near mach 1 (30 seconds into flight) to keep aerodynamic loads down.
Then throttle back up.
The exact profile of the throttle settings as well as trajectory matters. In reality, if you're thrusting partially sideways, as the first stage is most of its flight, not all of the 10m/s gravitational acceleration is a loss.
And, of course, it's a FH, not a F9, which adds additional complexities.
But, 'considerably less than 200m/s' is a safe bet to what it adds..
OK so the 10% thrust gain does not provide much more orbital capability due to the limitations of the engine configuration and thrust profile. So what good is it other than bragging rights for Musk? Entering amateur Kerbal calculation mode, (interested in feedback on my musings as a learning opportunity not as a practical proposition!):
10% more thrust could lift 10% more mass (all other things being equal, which they are not but bear with me) but it would not because:
1) It would burn through the fuel quicker and run out earlier and there is no room for extra fuel
2) Stretching the upper stage (to take the full mass difference) would not work because
a. The core stage would not be able to take the extra mass of the upper stage
b. The rocket would become too long and would be unstable to lateral forces etc
c. It would make the second stage too heavy for the single merlin vac engine and there is only room for one merlin vac engine.
Assuming all that could be sorted out and multiple merlin sl engines could be used in the second stage, the extra thrust might be useful, but at that point I have gone too far into Kerbal/lego territory and it’s a new rocket.
Those are US tons, not metric tons. Converted to MN it gives a total of 22.686MN (~5.1m lbf) which is similar to the numbers on the website. If you go by it as being metric tons, then it would have a total thrust of 25.056MN (~5.633m lbf) and that would mean each M1D+ engine produces about 928kN (~208.6k lbf) of thrust each one of them. If you compare numbers it is clear that he was refering to US tons and not metric tons.
Each Merlin does produce 914 kN in vacuum, according to the SpaceX website. So it's not at all clear that he was using short tons. It makes just as much sense to be vacuum metric tons.
So how did the Merlin get the extra 14kN that there are until 928kN which would be what Elon said?
I'd guess this is because aircraft use nautical miles, presumably because ships use nautical miles. It would be helpful if everyone would switch to metric....
Not to nitpick, but 10% more is 9% less (to one decimal point) :)
c. It would make the second stage too heavy for the single merlin vac engine and there is only room for one merlin vac engine.
"I'll never forget being at Marshall with the leadership team the day that SpaceX announced the Heavy," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator from 2009 to 2013. She recalls NASA officials telling her: "Lori, you have got to tell your friend Elon he can't do that. He's in our lane. You made us get out of low-Earth orbit, so we've given him that lane, but this is our lane. We build the big rockets."
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/nasa-s-17-billion-moon-rocket-may-be-doomed-it-ncna991061Quote"I'll never forget being at Marshall with the leadership team the day that SpaceX announced the Heavy," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator from 2009 to 2013. She recalls NASA officials telling her: "Lori, you have got to tell your friend Elon he can't do that. He's in our lane. You made us get out of low-Earth orbit, so we've given him that lane, but this is our lane. We build the big rockets."
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/nasa-s-17-billion-moon-rocket-may-be-doomed-it-ncna991061Quote"I'll never forget being at Marshall with the leadership team the day that SpaceX announced the Heavy," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator from 2009 to 2013. She recalls NASA officials telling her: "Lori, you have got to tell your friend Elon he can't do that. He's in our lane. You made us get out of low-Earth orbit, so we've given him that lane, but this is our lane. We build the big rockets."
I can just imagine Elon's reaction, but since this is a family-friendly website I can't speculate on the wording.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/nasa-s-17-billion-moon-rocket-may-be-doomed-it-ncna991061Quote"I'll never forget being at Marshall with the leadership team the day that SpaceX announced the Heavy," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator from 2009 to 2013. She recalls NASA officials telling her: "Lori, you have got to tell your friend Elon he can't do that. He's in our lane. You made us get out of low-Earth orbit, so we've given him that lane, but this is our lane. We build the big rockets."
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/nasa-s-17-billion-moon-rocket-may-be-doomed-it-ncna991061Quote"I'll never forget being at Marshall with the leadership team the day that SpaceX announced the Heavy," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator from 2009 to 2013. She recalls NASA officials telling her: "Lori, you have got to tell your friend Elon he can't do that. He's in our lane. You made us get out of low-Earth orbit, so we've given him that lane, but this is our lane. We build the big rockets."
He may have just said....."hold my beer!"....and Jeff may have said it as well....
Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Stretching S2 on current is much more bang for buck. S2 really the limiting factor.
Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Stretching S2 on current is much more bang for buck. S2 really the limiting factor.
More boosters helps a lot more than a bigger upper stage, but would require serious changes to the center core and especially to the ground infrastructure.
A larger upper stage would mainly help when recovering the boosters. For expendable max payload, especially to very high energies, it doesn't help so much. A 3rd or kick stage is probably better value for the money there.
Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?Elon has mentioned such a plan was a backup if BFR didn't work out. This was before Starship/Superheavy got so much momentum.
Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
I'd guess this is because aircraft use nautical miles, presumably because ships use nautical miles. It would be helpful if everyone would switch to metric....
Can't remember offhand where statute miles come from, but clue in the name, probably a tradition codified into law at some point, most likely for surveying (i.e. where does Lord X's property end and Baron Y's property begin).
But nautical miles are a particular subdivision of the earth's circumference, and map square latitudes are based on them, which simplifies navigation for ships and planes--and missile trajectories. (The squares shrink in longitude as you approach the poles though; hope I'm not getting mixed up here, but I probably am...)
Likewise, the Atlas 5 manual says:QuoteA park orbit perigee altitude of 167 km (90 nmi) is assumed for the reference cases.
Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Stretching S2 on current is much more bang for buck. S2 really the limiting factor.
More boosters helps a lot more than a bigger upper stage, but would require serious changes to the center core and especially to the ground infrastructure.
A larger upper stage would mainly help when recovering the boosters. For expendable max payload, especially to very high energies, it doesn't help so much. A 3rd or kick stage is probably better value for the money there.
Why not _really_ stretch the S2 and shorten the core stage (which is custom anyway, not a standard F9). Have the standard F9 boosters burn out at the same time as the short core.
I get that (and I was pretty much joking - side boosters taller than core? Not impossible, but it would look wrong and therefore probably is).Why not _really_ stretch the S2 and shorten the core stage (which is custom anyway, not a standard F9). Have the standard F9 boosters burn out at the same time as the short core.
That's the opposite of what you actually want to do with this "2.5-stage" launch architecture. You want the boosters to provide as much as possible of initial lift and the center core throttling down as soon as possible (it's a tradeoff to a certain extent vs gravity losses) so that by the time the boosters separate, the center core still has as much fuel as possible left and it has only *its* dry mass to push further along.
If you burn out all three cores at the same time, you've wasted energy accelerating the dead weight of the side boosters to the same burnout speed as the core. You're no longer getting effectively a 3-stage vehicle, but a 2-stage vehicle with an oversized first stage and a correspondingly undersized 2nd stage. Yes, you'll still be going faster at MECO than a single-stick, but the delta-V gain will not be as impressive as the staggered staging approach.
Stretching the S2 makes much more sense in the context of maximizing FH throw weight because the higher velocity at MVac ignition means it would not suffer as heavily in gravity losses as it would on a single-stick F9 where it starts off much slower.
Why not _really_ stretch the S2 and shorten the core stage (which is custom anyway, not a standard F9). Have the standard F9 boosters burn out at the same time as the short core.
That's the opposite of what you actually want to do with this "2.5-stage" launch architecture. You want the boosters to provide as much as possible of initial lift and the center core throttling down as soon as possible (it's a tradeoff to a certain extent vs gravity losses) so that by the time the boosters separate, the center core still has as much fuel as possible left and it has only *its* dry mass to push further along.
If you burn out all three cores at the same time, you've wasted energy accelerating the dead weight of the side boosters to the same burnout speed as the core. You're no longer getting effectively a 3-stage vehicle, but a 2-stage vehicle with an oversized first stage and a correspondingly undersized 2nd stage. Yes, you'll still be going faster at MECO than a single-stick, but the delta-V gain will not be as impressive as the staggered staging approach.
Stretching the S2 makes much more sense in the context of maximizing FH throw weight because the higher velocity at MVac ignition means it would not suffer as heavily in gravity losses as it would on a single-stick F9 where it starts off much slower.
So would a stretched centre core actually be better? Yes, probably it would. However, it's challenging logistically - I suspect Stage 1 is as long as is feasible to transport by road. The longer it gets, the greater the radius of the arc needed to take corners, so the wider the roads to be: at some point there is no route available to get from the factory to McGregor or the launch site that is wide enough/with high enough radius corners. It can't be transported in bits since the entire wall of the stage is a single welded unit, it's not two separate tanks.
The available space at the factory also constrains the maximum length. You can't build a stage that's longer than the longest dimension of the building, and you might have to completely reorganize the space to make a larger core-assembly area.
I think that's why discussion has focused on stretching the second stage. It's not ideal but it's relatively easy to do without disrupting the whole operation. As I understand it, first and second stages are assembled on the same line - so a new stage length somewhere between the current S1 and S2 could be accommodated.
Speculating:
If SpaceX do go for a third stage, rather than stretch S2, the easiest thing to produce and handle would be yet another kerolox stage with an MVac engine. No new propellants or designs required, although some insulation work would still be necessary to extend the stage's lifetime a bit more. The main reason for staging, after all, is to drop the mass of the empty tanks: switching to a higher-Isp engine is a bonus. Adding a second second stage is probably too much fuel and mass, but otherwise it's just a shortened S2.
There may well be limits to the degree of throttling possible (so some throttling might still be needed on the side boosters) but the point remains.Could they deep throttle by turning off some of the center engines?
I hadn't thought of that! Yes if some engines were shut down and others throttled it should be possible to use the core stage for the entirety of the throttling requirement for the whole stack for the entirety of the flight.There may well be limits to the degree of throttling possible (so some throttling might still be needed on the side boosters) but the point remains.Could they deep throttle by turning off some of the center engines?
Because only 3 of the engines are restartable and the center core already ran out of TEA/TEB last time.I hadn't thought of that! Yes if some engines were shut down and others throttled it should be possible to use the core stage for the entirety of the throttling requirement for the whole stack for the entirety of the flight.There may well be limits to the degree of throttling possible (so some throttling might still be needed on the side boosters) but the point remains.Could they deep throttle by turning off some of the center engines?
So do they do this already? If not what is the flaw in this argument?
There may well be limits to the degree of throttling possible (so some throttling might still be needed on the side boosters) but the point remains.Could they deep throttle by turning off some of the center engines?
Three engines should be enough. That would cut thrust by a third on the centre stage and throttling down the other 6 engines would reduce thrust even further. Even if that wasn’t enough the propellant saving in the central stage should still be significant and any further throttling could be achieved by using the side boosters.Because only 3 of the engines are restartable and the center core already ran out of TEA/TEB last time.I hadn't thought of that! Yes if some engines were shut down and others throttled it should be possible to use the core stage for the entirety of the throttling requirement for the whole stack for the entirety of the flight.There may well be limits to the degree of throttling possible (so some throttling might still be needed on the side boosters) but the point remains.Could they deep throttle by turning off some of the center engines?
So do they do this already? If not what is the flaw in this argument?
Thankyou. So the answer is - that's what they already do except there's enough throttlability in the core booster engines to meet the throttle needs of the entire stack so there is no need to turn any engines off.There may well be limits to the degree of throttling possible (so some throttling might still be needed on the side boosters) but the point remains.Could they deep throttle by turning off some of the center engines?
I was asking the same question some time back and it was really nice to get a response from a real rocket engineer (can't remember name) who explained how surprisingly little is gained by turning engines off vs deep throttling. Basically all engines are needed for lift off and shortly after the core engines are throttled to save fuel while outer ones remain on full. This gives maximum fuel in core at side booster separation.
Thankyou. So the answer is - that's what they already do except there's enough throttlability in the core booster engines to meet the throttle needs of the entire stack so there is no need to turn any engines off.With 10% more thrust per engine, if they only throttle the core engines they'd need to reduce throttle by an extra 27% to get the same total thrust. So one question is if the throttle has enough range to hit the thrust target without taking extra steps.
So if they are already doing this (over throtting the core engines and not throtting the side engines) presumably they will just throttle down further if they have an extra 10% thrust available?
Has anyone noticed the different engine heat shield configuration on one of the boosters?
Because only 3 of the engines are restartable and the center core already ran out of TEA/TEB last time.I hadn't thought of that! Yes if some engines were shut down and others throttled it should be possible to use the core stage for the entirety of the throttling requirement for the whole stack for the entirety of the flight.There may well be limits to the degree of throttling possible (so some throttling might still be needed on the side boosters) but the point remains.Could they deep throttle by turning off some of the center engines?
So do they do this already? If not what is the flaw in this argument?
Because only 3 of the engines are restartable and the center core already ran out of TEA/TEB last time.I hadn't thought of that! Yes if some engines were shut down and others throttled it should be possible to use the core stage for the entirety of the throttling requirement for the whole stack for the entirety of the flight.There may well be limits to the degree of throttling possible (so some throttling might still be needed on the side boosters) but the point remains.Could they deep throttle by turning off some of the center engines?
So do they do this already? If not what is the flaw in this argument?
Also, turning off engines deliberately and then having to relight them again on ascent introduces an element of risk to the primary mission.
Has anyone noticed the different engine heat shield configuration on one of the boosters?It looks the same to me. I say it is just the lighting is slightly different.
Has anyone noticed the different engine heat shield configuration on one of the boosters?It looks the same to me. I say it is just the lighting is slightly different.
In the past they put the number of the core under the leg arch. Given the number of good pictures we've seen with the FH has anyone seen any core identification?
UPDATE ONLY THREAD.
>
NET April 11, 2019 at 18:36 EDT (22:36 UTC) on Falcon Heavy to GTO from LC-39A. Side boosters 1052.1 and 1053.1 with center booster 1055.1. Side boosters are expected to land back at LZ-1, center booster is expected to land on ASDS.
>
In the past they put the number of the core under the leg arch. Given the number of good pictures we've seen with the FH has anyone seen any core identification?
1 44186U 19021A 19102.02912470 -.00000769 00000-0 00000+0 0 9996
2 44186 22.9623 12.6558 8697825 179.4741 18.6070 0.74408419 03
327 km Perigee
89815 km Apogee
22.96 degrees inclination
Using https://gtocalc.github.io/, the delta-v to GTO is about 1,508 m/s.
Performance prediction for Arabsat 6: If the figures for Mars throw weight are correct, or even close, then FH recoverable can stage at a much higher speed than even F9 expendable, at least 500 m/s more if they press all the performance buttons. Let's assume the mass is the same as Intelsat at 6700 kg. Then the question is how conservative/aggressive SpaceX wants to be.
The first FH mission staged at the same speed as Intelsat expendable. So they could clearly do this again. The result would be a similar orbit, since the second stage is unchanged: Add 2550 m/s from LEO, to get 43K x 28.85o, 1729 m/s to go.
More aggressive: they add +150 m/s to staging, to get 56K x 25o, 1640 m/s to go.
Still more aggressive: add +300 to staging, to get 78K x 24.5o, 1550 m/s to go.
Almost pull the stops out: add +450 to staging, to get 90K x 21.82o, 1497 m/s to go. Clearly reaching diminishing returns here.
My guess is that SpaceX will be more aggressive, but not too much. Perhaps +225 m/s at staging (2860 m/s), final orbit of 62K x 24o, 1600 m/s to go.
Actually, that's backwards. The stretched stage helps more for high energy payloads than LEO payloads.Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Stretching S2 on current is much more bang for buck. S2 really the limiting factor.
More boosters helps a lot more than a bigger upper stage, but would require serious changes to the center core and especially to the ground infrastructure.
A larger upper stage would mainly help when recovering the boosters. For expendable max payload, especially to very high energies, it doesn't help so much. A 3rd or kick stage is probably better value for the money there.
Actually, that's backwards. The stretched stage helps more for high energy payloads than LEO payloads.Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Stretching S2 on current is much more bang for buck. S2 really the limiting factor.
More boosters helps a lot more than a bigger upper stage, but would require serious changes to the center core and especially to the ground infrastructure.
A larger upper stage would mainly help when recovering the boosters. For expendable max payload, especially to very high energies, it doesn't help so much. A 3rd or kick stage is probably better value for the money there.
As I understood it, the FH uses an upper stage which was oversized for F9 (in order to stage earlier for RTLS) but is undersized for FH using FT and block 5 merlins. The upperstage is too light, making the center core reserve extra fuel for the entry burn, cutting into total lift capability. With more fuel in the upperstage, the center core is moving slower, which means it can use more fuel on pushing and less on slowing. (a fraction of the speed lost by the heavier stage, but the extra fuel also improves the upper stage's mass ratio, improving DV to make up for the core's loss.)Actually, that's backwards. The stretched stage helps more for high energy payloads than LEO payloads.Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Stretching S2 on current is much more bang for buck. S2 really the limiting factor.
More boosters helps a lot more than a bigger upper stage, but would require serious changes to the center core and especially to the ground infrastructure.
A larger upper stage would mainly help when recovering the boosters. For expendable max payload, especially to very high energies, it doesn't help so much. A 3rd or kick stage is probably better value for the money there.
Do you have a model that suggest that? Because the Silverbird model suggests otherwise. Like all models, it makes a lot of simplifying assumptions, but I don't think this effect is going to change much with a different model. Stretching the stage adds dry mass, and dry mass hurts more the further you throw it.
Using the assumptions below, and adding 500 kg dry mass and 30,000 kg prop to the upper stage, it shows 3% more payload to LEO, 2.2% more to TLI, and 1.6% more to TMI for the stretched stage compared to the standard stage. The returns of stretching the stage are small for a full expendable, and they get smaller as the final energy increases.
As I understood it, the FH uses an upper stage which was oversized for F9 (in order to stage earlier for RTLS) but is undersized for FH using FT and block 5 merlins. The upperstage is too light, making the center core reserve extra fuel for the entry burn, cutting into total lift capability. With more fuel in the upperstage, the center core is moving slower, which means it can use more fuel on pushing and less on slowing. (a fraction of the speed lost by the heavier stage, but the extra fuel also improves the upper stage's mass ratio, improving DV to make up for the core's loss.)Actually, that's backwards. The stretched stage helps more for high energy payloads than LEO payloads.Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Stretching S2 on current is much more bang for buck. S2 really the limiting factor.
More boosters helps a lot more than a bigger upper stage, but would require serious changes to the center core and especially to the ground infrastructure.
A larger upper stage would mainly help when recovering the boosters. For expendable max payload, especially to very high energies, it doesn't help so much. A 3rd or kick stage is probably better value for the money there.
Do you have a model that suggest that? Because the Silverbird model suggests otherwise. Like all models, it makes a lot of simplifying assumptions, but I don't think this effect is going to change much with a different model. Stretching the stage adds dry mass, and dry mass hurts more the further you throw it.
Using the assumptions below, and adding 500 kg dry mass and 30,000 kg prop to the upper stage, it shows 3% more payload to LEO, 2.2% more to TLI, and 1.6% more to TMI for the stretched stage compared to the standard stage. The returns of stretching the stage are small for a full expendable, and they get smaller as the final energy increases.
That seems backward. For a given engine+payload, extending the fuel tank improves the mass ratio (adding a small amount of tank-perimiter material, and all the fuel that fits in the cross section added), improving DV. it only becomes an issue when you start cutting into the booster's lift capability, but FH is much better endowed there than F9.As I understood it, the FH uses an upper stage which was oversized for F9 (in order to stage earlier for RTLS) but is undersized for FH using FT and block 5 merlins. The upperstage is too light, making the center core reserve extra fuel for the entry burn, cutting into total lift capability. With more fuel in the upperstage, the center core is moving slower, which means it can use more fuel on pushing and less on slowing. (a fraction of the speed lost by the heavier stage, but the extra fuel also improves the upper stage's mass ratio, improving DV to make up for the core's loss.)Actually, that's backwards. The stretched stage helps more for high energy payloads than LEO payloads.Has anyone looked at a 36 engine or 45 engine 4 or 5 core Falcon Superheavy?
Stretching S2 on current is much more bang for buck. S2 really the limiting factor.
More boosters helps a lot more than a bigger upper stage, but would require serious changes to the center core and especially to the ground infrastructure.
A larger upper stage would mainly help when recovering the boosters. For expendable max payload, especially to very high energies, it doesn't help so much. A 3rd or kick stage is probably better value for the money there.
Do you have a model that suggest that? Because the Silverbird model suggests otherwise. Like all models, it makes a lot of simplifying assumptions, but I don't think this effect is going to change much with a different model. Stretching the stage adds dry mass, and dry mass hurts more the further you throw it.
Using the assumptions below, and adding 500 kg dry mass and 30,000 kg prop to the upper stage, it shows 3% more payload to LEO, 2.2% more to TLI, and 1.6% more to TMI for the stretched stage compared to the standard stage. The returns of stretching the stage are small for a full expendable, and they get smaller as the final energy increases.
Yes, it helps increase payload. But the increase is smaller (as a percentage of payload) for higher energies due to the higher final dry mass of the stage.
Of course, until Starship arrives, any size increase to the upper stage just increases the cost of the part of the rocket that gets expended.
Heavy investment in improving upper stage performance is probably to be avoided until said stage can be recovered - which will never be the case for the Falcon family, now that bouncy castle has been abandoned.
Better to save it for Starship.
They ended up flying a fairly aggressive flight profile given that it's the first flight of B5 FH. Velocity at staging was 2980 m/s, 345 m/s faster than the test flight.
So has anyone calculated how much performance improvement FH expendable can get by adding a shortened S2 as 3rd stage, as woods170 suggested in the other thread?
I gave it a try on http://silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html (http://silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html), by using a 3rd stage half as big as 2nd stage (the numbers actually doesn't seem sensitive to the exact size), the increase is not that big, TLI payload only increased by 3 tons or so.
I know rockets aren't legos. However, what if NASA wanted to put a Delta IV heavy upper stage on a FH instead of the existing stage? What kind of payload would that be to LEO? to TLI? Say a stretched Delta IV heavy upper stage with say two or four RL-10 engines.Probably not very much. iCPS is really weak compared to the Falcon second stage. Falcon S2 has a propellant mass of 107500kg, while iCPS only 27220kg. 4 RL10's have a thrust of less than half of the single Merlin Vacuum.
I know rockets aren't legos. However, what if NASA wanted to put a Delta IV heavy upper stage on a FH instead of the existing stage? What kind of payload would that be to LEO? to TLI? Say a stretched Delta IV heavy upper stage with say two or four RL-10 engines.Probably not very much. iCPS is really weak compared to the Falcon second stage. Falcon S2 has a propellant mass of 107500kg, while iCPS only 27220kg. 4 RL10's have a thrust of less than half of the single Merlin Vacuum.
If you want a high-energy uppers-stage on Falcon Heavy, a new Raptor Methalox upper stage or even the proposed Ares I upper stage with J2X (1.3kN thrust with 135100 kg prop load) might be more appropriate.
That seems backward. For a given engine+payload, extending the fuel tank improves the mass ratio (adding a small amount of tank-perimiter material, and all the fuel that fits in the cross section added), improving DV. it only becomes an issue when you start cutting into the booster's lift capability, but FH is much better endowed there than F9.
I really think that's with iCPS on top of the Falcon Second stage, not instead of the Falcon Second stage.I know rockets aren't legos. However, what if NASA wanted to put a Delta IV heavy upper stage on a FH instead of the existing stage? What kind of payload would that be to LEO? to TLI? Say a stretched Delta IV heavy upper stage with say two or four RL-10 engines.Probably not very much. iCPS is really weak compared to the Falcon second stage. Falcon S2 has a propellant mass of 107500kg, while iCPS only 27220kg. 4 RL10's have a thrust of less than half of the single Merlin Vacuum.
If you want a high-energy uppers-stage on Falcon Heavy, a new Raptor Methalox upper stage or even the proposed Ares I upper stage with J2X (1.3kN thrust with 135100 kg prop load) might be more appropriate.
It actually gets about 25% more payload to TLI. This is significant, since it is the difference between being able to launch Orion direct to TLI, and not being able to do this.
Even though SpaceX only wants to reuse the side boosters for STP-2, given that the center core had a slim chance of landing safely, why would they not reuse the center core once it comes back to port?
So has anyone calculated how much performance improvement FH expendable can get by adding a shortened S2 as 3rd stage, as woods170 suggested in the other thread?
I gave it a try on http://silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html (http://silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html), by using a 3rd stage half as big as 2nd stage (the numbers actually doesn't seem sensitive to the exact size), the increase is not that big, TLI payload only increased by 3 tons or so.
Not surprising as you're carrying two Mvac worth of mass and tank domes/bulkheads uphill instead of one..
Also adds way more $$$ throwing away 2 Mvac instead of 1.. Just don't see how that case ever closes.
Betting much better bang for buck stretching S2, as adding a meter or two to the tank walls takes very little cost/added mass.
Using the assumptions below, and adding 500 kg dry mass and 30,000 kg prop to the upper stage, it shows 3% more payload to LEO, 2.2% more to TLI, and 1.6% more to TMI for the stretched stage compared to the standard stage. The returns of stretching the stage are small for a full expendable, and they get smaller as the final energy increases.
So has anyone calculated how much performance improvement FH expendable can get by adding a shortened S2 as 3rd stage, as woods170 suggested in the other thread?
I gave it a try on http://silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html (http://silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html), by using a 3rd stage half as big as 2nd stage (the numbers actually doesn't seem sensitive to the exact size), the increase is not that big, TLI payload only increased by 3 tons or so.
Not surprising as you're carrying two Mvac worth of mass and tank domes/bulkheads uphill instead of one..
Also adds way more $$$ throwing away 2 Mvac instead of 1.. Just don't see how that case ever closes.
Betting much better bang for buck stretching S2, as adding a meter or two to the tank walls takes very little cost/added mass.
But silverbirdastronautics calculator is not showing this, it shows stretching S2 produces very little performance improvement, as envy887 mentioned in the post aboveUsing the assumptions below, and adding 500 kg dry mass and 30,000 kg prop to the upper stage, it shows 3% more payload to LEO, 2.2% more to TLI, and 1.6% more to TMI for the stretched stage compared to the standard stage. The returns of stretching the stage are small for a full expendable, and they get smaller as the final energy increases.
At least according to silverbirdastronautics calculator, a 3rd stage is definitely a better option performance wise. Of course there's the chance that silverbirdastronautics is not accurate, that's why I'm wondering if anybody else has done similar calculation.
The 3rd stage option is interesting since this is supposed to be a real proposal from SpaceX for launching Orion, as mentioned by woods170 here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47760.msg1931665#msg1931665).
I can't replicate your results in the silverbird calculator. The 3000 kg 2nd stage gives more payload than a 4000 kg and 3000 kg 2nd and 3rd stage with the same fuel mass. Can you post a screenshot with the numbers you put in and the results?So has anyone calculated how much performance improvement FH expendable can get by adding a shortened S2 as 3rd stage, as woods170 suggested in the other thread?
I gave it a try on http://silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html (http://silverbirdastronautics.com/LVperform.html), by using a 3rd stage half as big as 2nd stage (the numbers actually doesn't seem sensitive to the exact size), the increase is not that big, TLI payload only increased by 3 tons or so.
Not surprising as you're carrying two Mvac worth of mass and tank domes/bulkheads uphill instead of one..
Also adds way more $$$ throwing away 2 Mvac instead of 1.. Just don't see how that case ever closes.
Betting much better bang for buck stretching S2, as adding a meter or two to the tank walls takes very little cost/added mass.
But silverbirdastronautics calculator is not showing this, it shows stretching S2 produces very little performance improvement, as envy887 mentioned in the post aboveUsing the assumptions below, and adding 500 kg dry mass and 30,000 kg prop to the upper stage, it shows 3% more payload to LEO, 2.2% more to TLI, and 1.6% more to TMI for the stretched stage compared to the standard stage. The returns of stretching the stage are small for a full expendable, and they get smaller as the final energy increases.
At least according to silverbirdastronautics calculator, a 3rd stage is definitely a better option performance wise. Of course there's the chance that silverbirdastronautics is not accurate, that's why I'm wondering if anybody else has done similar calculation.
The 3rd stage option is interesting since this is supposed to be a real proposal from SpaceX for launching Orion, as mentioned by woods170 here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47760.msg1931665#msg1931665).
I can't mentally make the case close and think there's something wrong with their calculations.
Even when I use the same mass for S2 at 3000kg(instead of 4000kg) as I would for an additional S3(~3000kg) + existing S2 then use same amount of prop in stretched 3000kg S2 as I would in the combined S2+S3 case, somehow I get quite a bit lower performance to TMI for the stretched 2 stage version..
For this case I put 40,000kg of prop in S3.
Payload to TMI(C3=8.1)
S2(4000kg + 111,000kg fuel) = 3688 kg (Baseline)
S2(3000kg + 151,000kg fuel) = 5099 kg
S2(4000kg + 111,000kg fuel)+S3(3000kg + 40,000kg fuel) = 7408 kg
Doesn't pass the "sniff" test.
Note:
This was for F9 not FH.. but doesn't matter here.. Could do same for FH.. But calculation at site needs to be fixed first. Is there another calculator to try this? There are others on here that have their own tools who can verify this.
I can't replicate your results in the silverbird calculator. The 3000 kg 2nd stage gives more payload than a 4000 kg and 3000 kg 2nd and 3rd stage with the same fuel mass. Can you post a screenshot with the numbers you put in and the results?
At least according to silverbirdastronautics calculator, a 3rd stage is definitely a better option performance wise. Of course there's the chance that silverbirdastronautics is not accurate, that's why I'm wondering if anybody else has done similar calculation.
The 3rd stage option is interesting since this is supposed to be a real proposal from SpaceX for launching Orion, as mentioned by woods170 here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47760.msg1931665#msg1931665).
I can't mentally make the case close and think there's something wrong with their calculations.
Even when I use the same mass for S2 at 3000kg(instead of 4000kg) as I would for an additional S3(~3000kg) + existing S2 then use same amount of prop in stretched 3000kg S2 as I would in the combined S2+S3 case, somehow I get quite a bit lower performance to TMI for the stretched 2 stage version..
For this case I put 40,000kg of prop in S3.
Payload to TMI(C3=8.1)
S2(4000kg + 111,000kg fuel) = 3688 kg (Baseline)
S2(3000kg + 151,000kg fuel) = 5099 kg
S2(4000kg + 111,000kg fuel)+S3(3000kg + 40,000kg fuel) = 7408 kg
Doesn't pass the "sniff" test.
Note:
This was for F9 not FH.. but doesn't matter here.. Could do same for FH.. But calculation at site needs to be fixed first. Is there another calculator to try this? There are others on here that have their own tools who can verify this.
Shouldn't an MVac based 3rd stage have an ISP of 348, not 384?I can't replicate your results in the silverbird calculator. The 3000 kg 2nd stage gives more payload than a 4000 kg and 3000 kg 2nd and 3rd stage with the same fuel mass. Can you post a screenshot with the numbers you put in and the results?
At least according to silverbirdastronautics calculator, a 3rd stage is definitely a better option performance wise. Of course there's the chance that silverbirdastronautics is not accurate, that's why I'm wondering if anybody else has done similar calculation.
The 3rd stage option is interesting since this is supposed to be a real proposal from SpaceX for launching Orion, as mentioned by woods170 here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47760.msg1931665#msg1931665).
I can't mentally make the case close and think there's something wrong with their calculations.
Even when I use the same mass for S2 at 3000kg(instead of 4000kg) as I would for an additional S3(~3000kg) + existing S2 then use same amount of prop in stretched 3000kg S2 as I would in the combined S2+S3 case, somehow I get quite a bit lower performance to TMI for the stretched 2 stage version..
For this case I put 40,000kg of prop in S3.
Payload to TMI(C3=8.1)
S2(4000kg + 111,000kg fuel) = 3688 kg (Baseline)
S2(3000kg + 151,000kg fuel) = 5099 kg
S2(4000kg + 111,000kg fuel)+S3(3000kg + 40,000kg fuel) = 7408 kg
Doesn't pass the "sniff" test.
Note:
This was for F9 not FH.. but doesn't matter here.. Could do same for FH.. But calculation at site needs to be fixed first. Is there another calculator to try this? There are others on here that have their own tools who can verify this.
Here's what I ran.. Feel free to try, or show me what I did wrong here.
Edit Actual 2 stage(3000kg/151,000kg prop) is even lower ~5100kg payload when I put 1st stage ISP back to an avg of 300
I've written to John Schilling to see what he can make of it, if he chooses to look into it.
Shouldn't an MVac based 3rd stage have an ISP of 348, not 384?I can't replicate your results in the silverbird calculator. The 3000 kg 2nd stage gives more payload than a 4000 kg and 3000 kg 2nd and 3rd stage with the same fuel mass. Can you post a screenshot with the numbers you put in and the results?
At least according to silverbirdastronautics calculator, a 3rd stage is definitely a better option performance wise. Of course there's the chance that silverbirdastronautics is not accurate, that's why I'm wondering if anybody else has done similar calculation.
The 3rd stage option is interesting since this is supposed to be a real proposal from SpaceX for launching Orion, as mentioned by woods170 here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47760.msg1931665#msg1931665).
I can't mentally make the case close and think there's something wrong with their calculations.
Even when I use the same mass for S2 at 3000kg(instead of 4000kg) as I would for an additional S3(~3000kg) + existing S2 then use same amount of prop in stretched 3000kg S2 as I would in the combined S2+S3 case, somehow I get quite a bit lower performance to TMI for the stretched 2 stage version..
For this case I put 40,000kg of prop in S3.
Payload to TMI(C3=8.1)
S2(4000kg + 111,000kg fuel) = 3688 kg (Baseline)
S2(3000kg + 151,000kg fuel) = 5099 kg
S2(4000kg + 111,000kg fuel)+S3(3000kg + 40,000kg fuel) = 7408 kg
Doesn't pass the "sniff" test.
Note:
This was for F9 not FH.. but doesn't matter here.. Could do same for FH.. But calculation at site needs to be fixed first. Is there another calculator to try this? There are others on here that have their own tools who can verify this.
Here's what I ran.. Feel free to try, or show me what I did wrong here.
Edit Actual 2 stage(3000kg/151,000kg prop) is even lower ~5100kg payload when I put 1st stage ISP back to an avg of 300
I've written to John Schilling to see what he can make of it, if he chooses to look into it.
SpaceX has put an exclusive page on their website just for this mission with descriptions of the payloads and a launch animation
www.spacex.com/stp-2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWymne93DFY
Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.
QuoteFalcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.
Maybe they are changing their mind on certifying Falcon Heavy to carry humans?
QuoteFalcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.
Maybe they are changing their mind on certifying Falcon Heavy to carry humans?
Certified by whom? They only need NASA certification if they're carrying out a NASA mission or (perhaps) NASA astronauts. Not to say that isn't what they're thinking of; for the Lunar Gateway perhaps?
General FAA commercial spaceflight regulations do come into play, however, including those directed toward human crew and passengers. Those regulations are rather ambiguous and subject to a great degree of further interpretation and development as befits an industry segment that’s not yet well established.Wouldn't it be an FAA form notifying the arstronauts that FH is not approved for human spaceflight by NASA, that the nasa employees have to sign before peforming human spaceflight?
But the point is that the FAA would still have to issue a launch license, and for a mission carrying human beings, the process will be a somewhat more than simple paperwork.
General FAA commercial spaceflight regulations do come into play, however, including those directed toward human crew and passengers. Those regulations are rather ambiguous and subject to a great degree of further interpretation and development as befits an industry segment that’s not yet well established.Wouldn't it be an FAA form notifying the arstronauts that FH is not approved for human spaceflight by NASA, that the nasa employees have to sign before peforming human spaceflight?
But the point is that the FAA would still have to issue a launch license, and for a mission carrying human beings, the process will be a somewhat more than simple paperwork.
General FAA commercial spaceflight regulations do come into play, however, including those directed toward human crew and passengers. Those regulations are rather ambiguous and subject to a great degree of further interpretation and development as befits an industry segment that’s not yet well established.
But the point is that the FAA would still have to issue a launch license, and for a mission carrying human beings, the process will be a somewhat more than simple paperwork.
All boosters have COPV's on their RP-1 tanks, I don't know why that's a surprise.
All boosters have COPV's on their RP-1 tanks, I don't know why that's a surprise.
I presume you mean "all Falcon boosters", and not all boosters in general?
I can't recall seeing this publicly stated or depicted by SpaceX, and I haven't seen any other public pictures of the inside of a completed RP-1 tank (at least that can be positively identified as a RP-1 tank).
Sadly they won't be able to reuse the center core now as it has been lost at sea:Even though SpaceX only wants to reuse the side boosters for STP-2, given that the center core had a slim chance of landing safely, why would they not reuse the center core once it comes back to port?
I don't think SpaceX has ever said they would not reuse the ArabSat center core. They just can't contractually use it on STP-2, as they are only allowed to reuse the side boosters through a contract change.
I fully expect they'll reuse the center core for some other mission unless the stress was beyond limits.
Sadly they won't be able to reuse the center core now as it has been lost at sea:Even though SpaceX only wants to reuse the side boosters for STP-2, given that the center core had a slim chance of landing safely, why would they not reuse the center core once it comes back to port?
I don't think SpaceX has ever said they would not reuse the ArabSat center core. They just can't contractually use it on STP-2, as they are only allowed to reuse the side boosters through a contract change.
I fully expect they'll reuse the center core for some other mission unless the stress was beyond limits.
https://www.space.com/spacex-loses-falcon-heavy-core-booster-at-sea.html (https://www.space.com/spacex-loses-falcon-heavy-core-booster-at-sea.html)
:'(
Octograber was not configured for the center core - but should be for the next mission.
Sadly they won't be able to reuse the center core now as it has been lost at sea:Even though SpaceX only wants to reuse the side boosters for STP-2, given that the center core had a slim chance of landing safely, why would they not reuse the center core once it comes back to port?
I don't think SpaceX has ever said they would not reuse the ArabSat center core. They just can't contractually use it on STP-2, as they are only allowed to reuse the side boosters through a contract change.
I fully expect they'll reuse the center core for some other mission unless the stress was beyond limits.
https://www.space.com/spacex-loses-falcon-heavy-core-booster-at-sea.html (https://www.space.com/spacex-loses-falcon-heavy-core-booster-at-sea.html)
:'(
Octograber was not configured for the center core - but should be for the next mission.
What that means is that Falcon Heavy has been certified “for certain orbits,” said Thompson. “It’s not certified for all of our most stressing national security space orbits,” he said. “We continue to work with SpaceX to mature their design and I think that’s going well.”
...
A spokesman for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center said the Falcon Heavy is certified for two Phase 1A reference orbits.
The two reference orbits are for the missions that Falcon Heavy was awarded by the Air Force under Phase 1A of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program
Isn't that essentially an almost full second stage ?About 80% percent full.
Why can't they just launch a 2nd stage with only docking equipment attached. Then launch a Lunar Stack of a capsule, service module, and a lunar lander. The 2nd stage would dock with them and shoot them to the moon.
Why can't they just launch a 2nd stage with only docking equipment attached. Then launch a Lunar Stack of a capsule, service module, and a lunar lander. The 2nd stage would dock with them and shoot them to the moon.This was exactly the use case we were considering. Although I would presume we'd launch the lunar stack first, since it has storables, and then launch the "naked" Falcon Heavy to a matching orbit. The lunar stack would complete the rendezvous and docking while the FHUS merely held position with cold-gas thrusters. Saturn V threw 44 tonnes onto TLI; by my math, a naked Falcon Heavy upper stage could throw upwards of 47 tonnes.
Yeah. The only way I can make "3.5 tonnes direct to Pluto" work is if core booster burnout occurs at 1000-1100 under LEO.Isn't that essentially an almost full second stage ?About 80% percent full.
A deep space Dragon capsule with Superdracos added for more maneuverability. Then for a lunar lander add a stripped Dragon capsule with no heat shield and Superdracos for landing and return to orbit. Both of these would be launched by a Falcon Heavy. The almost fully fueled upper stage of a Falcon Heavy would dock at the rear of the stack and launch them to the moon like Saturn V upper stage. If it takes 3 launches to get the whole stack, maybe two Falcon 9's could launch the Dracon capsule and the lander. Join, then dock with the upper stage, and you have a lunar program for less than half the cost of an SLS>Cons: would only allow for flags and footprints unless you pre-landed surface assets. Would be better to have a standard delivery module (using either SuperDracos or meth-gox thrusters) and use that both for delivering surface assets and as the descent module.
I was looking at edge-case performance of Falcon Heavy and did some math specifically around the quoted Pluto delivery....
Came up with a whopping 81+ tonnes of propellant residuals if launched without payload to use as a space tug. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49349.msg2012588#msg2012588)
Really blew my mind. I keep checking my math to see if I missed something.
A deep space Dragon capsule with Superdracos added for more maneuverability. Then for a lunar lander add a stripped Dragon capsule with no heat shield and Superdracos for landing and return to orbit. Both of these would be launched by a Falcon Heavy. The almost fully fueled upper stage of a Falcon Heavy would dock at the rear of the stack and launch them to the moon like Saturn V upper stage. If it takes 3 launches to get the whole stack, maybe two Falcon 9's could launch the Dracon capsule and the lander. Join, then dock with the upper stage, and you have a lunar program for less than half the cost of an SLS>Cons: would only allow for flags and footprints unless you pre-landed surface assets. Would be better to have a standard delivery module (using either SuperDracos or meth-gox thrusters) and use that both for delivering surface assets and as the descent module.
Deep space Dragon 2 doesn't need more SuperDracos; it needs more propellant. And you can't put more propellant in the trunk without running prop lines into the capsule, which hoses the current design. Better to put an independent propulsion unit in the trunk. Trouble is engines. SuperDraco is too large and too thrusty; Dracos are not thrusty enough. You could use something like a Rutherford if you could find a way to solve kerolox boil-off.
Cons: would only allow for flags and footprints unless you pre-landed surface assets. Would be better to have a standard delivery module (using either SuperDracos or meth-gox thrusters) and use that both for delivering surface assets and as the descent module.
I'd be very careful when using the Pluto number, this has been discussed several times in the past, it doesn't fit the rest of the performance and it's not clear what kind of trajectory it is using:Yeah, I've seen those threads. I agree it's uncertain, but I'm taking it at face value. Starting from the max payload and reasoning backward doesn't capture the savings of having a lighter mass payload during the end of the core booster burn.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41019.msg1665304#msg1665304
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43025.msg1814633#msg1814633
Couldn't SS deliver a big enough SuperDraco propulsion unit in one shot?Well, yes. But using SS to deliver components to LOP-G is a little like using a semi to deliver a new keyboard when you need to replace your whole computer.
Well, yes. But using SS to deliver components to LOP-G is a little like using a semi to deliver a new keyboard when you need to replace your whole computer.
Flying SS expendable obviates cost savings. But presumably SS can certainly take a full ACES or Centaur V into LEO and drop it off there, to use as a kick stage to send large payloads BLEO.Well, yes. But using SS to deliver components to LOP-G is a little like using a semi to deliver a new keyboard when you need to replace your whole computer.
"A single Starship will expend about $900,00 worth of fuel and oxygen for pressurization to send “at least 100 tons, probably 150 tons to orbit,” Musk said. SpaceX’s cost to operate Starship will be around $2 million per flight, which is “much less than even a tiny rocket,” he added."
https://spacenews.com/elon-musk-space-pitch-day/
Edit: From this statement, I wouldn't be surprised if sending and expendable SS to LEO would be cheaper than any scheme involving doing the same with FH.
Flying SS expendable obviates cost savings. But presumably SS can certainly take a full ACES or Centaur V into LEO and drop it off there, to use as a kick stage to send large payloads BLEO.Well, yes. But using SS to deliver components to LOP-G is a little like using a semi to deliver a new keyboard when you need to replace your whole computer.
"A single Starship will expend about $900,00 worth of fuel and oxygen for pressurization to send “at least 100 tons, probably 150 tons to orbit,” Musk said. SpaceX’s cost to operate Starship will be around $2 million per flight, which is “much less than even a tiny rocket,” he added."
https://spacenews.com/elon-musk-space-pitch-day/
Edit: From this statement, I wouldn't be surprised if sending and expendable SS to LEO would be cheaper than any scheme involving doing the same with FH.
Cons: would only allow for flags and footprints unless you pre-landed surface assets. Would be better to have a standard delivery module (using either SuperDracos or meth-gox thrusters) and use that both for delivering surface assets and as the descent module.
this is what I dont grasp about the current "program". What NASA wants is a program which can, like Apollo send people to different spots to "explore" (which robots can probably do better but...)...so what I dont understand is why they dont put the "meat" in a surface "habitat" that is sustainable for XX days and then have a smaller go and come lander that simply brings the crew and returns them and the rocks...
2.1.1.2. Falcon Heavy
The Falcon Heavy has a mass of approximately 3.1 million pounds and an overall length of 229 feet.
Falcon Heavy has the ability to lift up 64 tons (141,000 pounds) into low Earth orbit. Merlin engines are
used on both stages of the Falcon Heavy. The propellants are the same as the Falcon 9 (LOX and RP-1).
The Falcon Heavy contains 1,898,000 pounds of LOX and 807,000 pounds of RP-1 in the first stage, and
168,000 pounds of LOX and 64,950 pounds of RP-1 in the second stage. The center and two side
boosters are essentially the same design as the Falcon 9 first stage booster. The Falcon Heavy produces
a total of 5.13 million pounds of thrust at liftoff.
From the new FAA EIS (attached):
2.1.1.4. Vertical Integration
SpaceX plans to develop vertical integration capabilities at LC-39A to support commercial launches, NASA launches, and USAF’s National Security Space Launch program. An MST would be constructed on the existing LC-39A pad to support this capability. The MST would consist of a steel trussed tower, a base, and a rail bridge (Figure 2-4). Four transport wheel assemblies located at the corners of the tower would be constructed and used to move the tower 130 feet from an integration to a launch position (Figure 2-5). The tower would have 11 floors and would be approximately 284 feet tall.
Figures 2.5 & 2.6
During tower construction, equipment and build materials would be staged east of the pad deck in the laydown area. Mobile cranes on the east and west of the tower site would be used to construct and assemble the tower. Construction dumpsters would be placed around the area and all materials would be disposed of according to federal and state regulations. Minimal demolition would occur on top of the MST area to allow access to the top of the existing concrete and install new shear walls and foundations. Figure 2-6 shows a general site overview for the proposed staging and laydown operations.
Figure 2.9
If SpaceX isn't one of the NSSL winners, I wonder if they stop taking new commercial Falcon Heavy orders and discontinue it after flying out the current manifest.
The hard work is done. They have the design and all the knowledge, tooling and procedures required to build and operate the FH. And it's tested. It's not like they need to keep in inventory of FH cores around just in case somebody wants a launch in a month or two. Though that is one of the things that the SpaceForce really wants: high availability.If SpaceX isn't one of the NSSL winners, I wonder if they stop taking new commercial Falcon Heavy orders and discontinue it after flying out the current manifest.
I think it would be foolish to stop selling FH until SS/SH are operating and certified/approved for DOD flights. No one knows how long this development will take.
They could always write contracts with options for clients to transfer to the new vehicle. If they want.
Combining all four missions, the total payload mass should be about 3,734 kilograms, which is well within the gap between the Mars and Pluto capabilities (between 16,800 and 3,500 kilograms).
Pardon me for not immediately believing your assessment.Combining all four missions, the total payload mass should be about 3,734 kilograms, which is well within the gap between the Mars and Pluto capabilities (between 16,800 and 3,500 kilograms).
Pluto capability number listed on SpaceX site is utter nonsense. Unless by "capability" you mean several planetary flybys, Jupiter included. Mars "capability" is highly suspect as well.
Pardon me for not immediately believing your assessment.Combining all four missions, the total payload mass should be about 3,734 kilograms, which is well within the gap between the Mars and Pluto capabilities (between 16,800 and 3,500 kilograms).
Pluto capability number listed on SpaceX site is utter nonsense. Unless by "capability" you mean several planetary flybys, Jupiter included. Mars "capability" is highly suspect as well.
When you make such a strong statement you would be well advised to back up your claim with hard figures.
Pardon me for not immediately believing your assessment.Combining all four missions, the total payload mass should be about 3,734 kilograms, which is well within the gap between the Mars and Pluto capabilities (between 16,800 and 3,500 kilograms).
Pluto capability number listed on SpaceX site is utter nonsense. Unless by "capability" you mean several planetary flybys, Jupiter included. Mars "capability" is highly suspect as well.
When you make such a strong statement you would be well advised to back up your claim with hard figures.
Direct injection to Pluto requires a C3 in excess of 150 (km/s)^2 and that's for a 13 year flight. If you want to cut that down to 9 years, the C3 goes to an excess of 200. Look at the attached NASA LSP performance curve vs. required C3.
If you extrapolate that to 150 and above you will see where the payload mass ends up. Now, you can personally believe that the LSP number is so heavily sandbagged that the payload at 150 C3 is actually not below zero but is, in fact, 3500 kg, but then you could work up back the curve and ask how come a FH could then not throw Europa Clipper directly to Jupiter (if not without a kick stage then certainly with a Star 48) instead of needing an Earth gravity assist trajectory.
There's also that whole exercise from the previous year of seeing if it could launch Orion + and underfueled SM around the Moon and the constraints there worked out to be around 15.5-16 metric tonnes which is consistent with the LSP figure for C3 of around 0. So we have a data point on low C3, we have implicit data for not being able to launch 6000 kg directly to over 80 (km/s)^2 C3 and we have implicit data that the curve is consistent with FH+Star 48 just barely being able to launch Clipper to a L+3 year Earth flyby trajectory. And yet we're supposed to believe that the performance curve does something magical and actually goes back up to 3500 kg at a minimum of 150 C3?
FH is a powerful vehicle as current launchers stand, but it is not magic and the Pluto number does not make any physical sense. There is only so much a kerolox upperstage can do and the lower Isp over hydrolox is not doing it any favors when it comes to really high C3 - which is why Delta IV is included in the graph for reference.
Please note: SpaceX doesn't mention what trajectory FH uses to inject 3,500 kg to Pluto. As such, it is probably incorrect for you to assume that SpaceX meant direct injection to Pluto. Nor did SpaceX mention the transit time. So your examples of transit times of 13 years and 9 years are probably not appropriate either.
Now, I challenge you to prove that 3,500 kg to Pluto is absolutely impossible. Personally I think you won't be able to prove that.
it's a ridiculus idea, but what's the C3 for a low energy transfer to the innermost portion of pluto's orbit?
The window will almost never be open, but technically it's an apples to apples comparison.
Please note: SpaceX doesn't mention what trajectory FH uses to inject 3,500 kg to Pluto. As such, it is probably incorrect for you to assume that SpaceX meant direct injection to Pluto. Nor did SpaceX mention the transit time. So your examples of transit times of 13 years and 9 years are probably not appropriate either.That's pretty much what I said in my original post, that such a number can only work if several planetary flybys are executed, Jupiter being a guarantee. As such, the figure is useless for any kind of performance consideration as you can massage even an Atlas V to reach a number like that once you start assuming elaborate and prolonged flyby trajectories and not a direct flight.
Please note: SpaceX doesn't mention what trajectory FH uses to inject 3,500 kg to Pluto. As such, it is probably incorrect for you to assume that SpaceX meant direct injection to Pluto. Nor did SpaceX mention the transit time. So your examples of transit times of 13 years and 9 years are probably not appropriate either.That's pretty much what I said in my original post, that such a number can only work if several planetary flybys are executed, Jupiter being a guarantee. As such, the figure is useless for any kind of performance consideration as you can massage even an Atlas V to reach a number like that once you start assuming elaborate and prolonged flyby trajectories and not a direct flight.
Do you see how you are allowing only two alternatives: Direct flight -- or -- "several" "elaborate and prolonged" flybys which are "useless for consideration". No pragmatic middle-ground.
It is that kind of false dichotomy, those kind of artificial constraints, that leads to bad choices like SLS, or the continual blocking of depot-centric proposals.
There is only so much a kerolox upperstage can do and the lower Isp over hydrolox is not doing it any favors when it comes to really high C3 - which is why Delta IV is included in the graph for reference.
There's also that whole exercise from the previous year of seeing if it could launch Orion + and underfueled SM around the Moon and the constraints there worked out to be around 15.5-16 metric tonnes which is consistent with the LSP figure for C3 of around 0. So we have a data point on low C3, we have implicit data for not being able to launch 6000 kg directly to over 80 (km/s)^2 C3 and we have implicit data that the curve is consistent with FH+Star 48 just barely being able to launch Clipper to a L+3 year Earth flyby trajectory. And yet we're supposed to believe that the performance curve does something magical and actually goes back up to 3500 kg at a minimum of 150 C3?
I'm surprised no one has posted in this FH thread about Dragon XL yet.
It seems like consensus is reusable side boosters and expendable center core, correct?
It's been sometime since I've seen numbers for the following.
However, could side booster recover by ASDS do enough to let the center core do ASDS down range as well?
I'm surprised no one has posted in this FH thread about Dragon XL yet.
It seems like consensus is reusable side boosters and expendable center core, correct?
It's been sometime since I've seen numbers for the following.
However, could side booster recover by ASDS do enough to let the center core do ASDS down range as well?
According to the NASA Launch Services Program (https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx), assuming a c3=-0.5, FH expendable does 6.7 tonnes, while fully expendable it does 15.1 tonnes. I would assume that Dragon XL should mass somewhere between 10 to 20 tonnes. So I would tend to assume an expendable. But, may be if it can do 13 tonnes with booster recovery, they might be able to achieve that. May be.
The figures on that page are still pretty pessimistic.I'm surprised no one has posted in this FH thread about Dragon XL yet.
It seems like consensus is reusable side boosters and expendable center core, correct?
It's been sometime since I've seen numbers for the following.
However, could side booster recover by ASDS do enough to let the center core do ASDS down range as well?
According to the NASA Launch Services Program (https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx), assuming a c3=-0.5, FH expendable does 6.7 tonnes, while fully expendable it does 15.1 tonnes. I would assume that Dragon XL should mass somewhere between 10 to 20 tonnes. So I would tend to assume an expendable. But, may be if it can do 13 tonnes with booster recovery, they might be able to achieve that. May be.
The figures on that page are still pretty pessimistic.I'm surprised no one has posted in this FH thread about Dragon XL yet.
It seems like consensus is reusable side boosters and expendable center core, correct?
It's been sometime since I've seen numbers for the following.
However, could side booster recover by ASDS do enough to let the center core do ASDS down range as well?
According to the NASA Launch Services Program (https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx), assuming a c3=-0.5, FH expendable does 6.7 tonnes, while fully expendable it does 15.1 tonnes. I would assume that Dragon XL should mass somewhere between 10 to 20 tonnes. So I would tend to assume an expendable. But, may be if it can do 13 tonnes with booster recovery, they might be able to achieve that. May be.
The figures on that page are still pretty pessimistic.I'm surprised no one has posted in this FH thread about Dragon XL yet.
It seems like consensus is reusable side boosters and expendable center core, correct?
It's been sometime since I've seen numbers for the following.
However, could side booster recover by ASDS do enough to let the center core do ASDS down range as well?
According to the NASA Launch Services Program (https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx), assuming a c3=-0.5, FH expendable does 6.7 tonnes, while fully expendable it does 15.1 tonnes. I would assume that Dragon XL should mass somewhere between 10 to 20 tonnes. So I would tend to assume an expendable. But, may be if it can do 13 tonnes with booster recovery, they might be able to achieve that. May be.
That is putting it mildly. According to two of my SpaceX sources the LSP figures for FH are flat out incorrect.
For example: NASA LSP claims that Falcon Heavy, in fully expendable mode can throw only 12 metric tons to Mars. SpaceX claims that, in fully expendable mode, FH can throw nearly 17 metric tons to Mars. That is a massive 5 metric ton difference.
Given that SpaceX are the ones that actually build and operate FH I am inclined to believe the SpaceX figures over those of NASA.
The recent Dragon XL contract validates the decision to build Falcon Heavy: without it SpaceX would have been unable to compete for any contracts related to the Gateway.But ... all the contracts related to Gateway are possible because of Falcon Heavy previous existence, too.
I'd say modifications of that nature aren't really needed. They could alter the throttling profile of the FH a bit more; perhaps operate at a lower throttle setting for a few seconds longer to preserve more propellant when expending the Corestage. Theoretically; the thing FH needs more than anything is an upgraded upper stage. Widening it to 5.2 meters to match the Payload Fairing would give a fairly big bump in available propellants. The next step would be to uprate the Merlin 1D vacuum engine with either more thrust or improve the nozzle for even more Isp. I'm not sure increasing the thrust would be all that feasible, really.
What if the expendable core had fewer Merlins, say 5 with larger nozzles optimized for high altitude (not quite MVac)? Down side is lower take off thrust. Up side is higher ISP at altitude and better mass fraction and less waste. Would there be a net benefit?I'd say modifications of that nature aren't really needed. They could alter the throttling profile of the FH a bit more; perhaps operate at a lower throttle setting for a few seconds longer to preserve more propellant when expending the Corestage.
What if the expendable core had fewer Merlins, say 5 with larger nozzles optimized for high altitude (not quite MVac)? Down side is lower take off thrust. Up side is higher ISP at altitude and better mass fraction and less waste. Would there be a net benefit?I'd say modifications of that nature aren't really needed. They could alter the throttling profile of the FH a bit more; perhaps operate at a lower throttle setting for a few seconds longer to preserve more propellant when expending the Corestage.
My point is to minimize everything on the expended core. Obviously they'll delete legs and fins, re-entry shields, engine re-start hardware, etc. With only 5 Merlins they could lighten the thrust structure. They could bring the booster attach struts back on the boosters, not leave them on the core. Maybe the 5 Merlins would not need throttling, so more hardware saved there.
Sure, it's all hand-waving, but it would be interesting to see estimated performance numbers with such mods.
I’d be curious whether there’d be any benefit in a flight profile that exploits the 3-engine restart capability by (for example) shutting them down in parallel with a usual throttle down (IIRC, to 40%?) in the other six engines, and then some combination of restarting the three and/or shutting down the six after booster separation.What if the expendable core had fewer Merlins, say 5 with larger nozzles optimized for high altitude (not quite MVac)? Down side is lower take off thrust. Up side is higher ISP at altitude and better mass fraction and less waste. Would there be a net benefit?I'd say modifications of that nature aren't really needed. They could alter the throttling profile of the FH a bit more; perhaps operate at a lower throttle setting for a few seconds longer to preserve more propellant when expending the Corestage.
My point is to minimize everything on the expended core. Obviously they'll delete legs and fins, re-entry shields, engine re-start hardware, etc. With only 5 Merlins they could lighten the thrust structure. They could bring the booster attach struts back on the boosters, not leave them on the core. Maybe the 5 Merlins would not need throttling, so more hardware saved there.
Sure, it's all hand-waving, but it would be interesting to see estimated performance numbers with such mods.
I’d be curious whether there’d be any benefit in a flight profile that exploits the 3-engine restart capability by (for example) shutting them down in parallel with a usual throttle down (IIRC, to 40%?) in the other six engines, and then some combination of restarting the three and/or shutting down the six after booster separation.
Engine throttling or shut down during ascent can only compromise performance. It's done when necessary such as when passing through max Q or when limiting G load. That's part of the reason for fewer engines in the core. Also with 5 engines the spacing is wider and the nozzle extensions can be larger for peak performance between booster sep and staging.
The missing Orion might be NROL-69 going up on a Falcon in Q3 2023.
I don't think so. SpaceX is only getting $160M for two launches, so these are likely to be Falcon 9, which is not powerful enough for Orion. Historically, SpaceX has charged over $300M for Falcon Heavy launches to the government ($316M for USAF and $332M for HALO).
With the Europa Clipper contract we now have a new public price point for a Falcon Heavy launch: $178M.
People have expressed surprise that this is much less that the >$300M charged for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 but it is entirely consistent with SpaceX charging more for the extended fairing and vertical integration. That extended fairing and the vertical integration facilities do not exist yet and the development and build cost is being passed on to those specific missions that require them.
We will see if other missions that require the longer fairing and/or VI get charged more.
Careful with that price point. It is the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch. Government launches, because of all the additional oversight required, cost more. That has been known for a while now. In addition, this will probably be a totally expended Falcon Heavy.With the Europa Clipper contract we now have a new public price point for a Falcon Heavy launch: $178M.
People have expressed surprise that this is much less that the >$300M charged for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 but it is entirely consistent with SpaceX charging more for the extended fairing and vertical integration. That extended fairing and the vertical integration facilities do not exist yet and the development and build cost is being passed on to those specific missions that require them.
We will see if other missions that require the longer fairing and/or VI get charged more.
I think it is applicable to note that this is the price for a *fully expended* launch.
Presumably the price is less if SpaceX plans to get their boosters back.
Careful with that price point. It is the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch. Government launches, because of all the additional oversight required, cost more. That has been known for a while now. In addition, this will probably be a totally expended Falcon Heavy.
6. For missions requiring additional boost engines additional $’s. Eg. a Star 48 engine as will be needed for this mission.Careful with that price point. It is the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch. Government launches, because of all the additional oversight required, cost more. That has been known for a while now. In addition, this will probably be a totally expended Falcon Heavy.
Believe that is understood. Simple first-order estimate:
1. Take the ~$300M for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 and subtract NRE (non-recurring engineering) for VI and extended fairing. NRE $ unknown.
2. For missions which require VI add incremental $. Additional $ unknown.
3. For missions which require extended fairing, add incremental $. Additional $ unknown.
4. For missions which require additional DoD/NASA mission assurance, add incremental $. Additional mission assurance $ unknown; will be mission-dependent.
5. Add FH reusable or expended $ for total $.
Would love to see some firm numbers on the above, but so far we appear to have only speculation. And no, it is not "the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch" unless you can fill in some of the blanks with credible sources.
edit: p.s. Putting the data points into a set of linear equations might help suss out more details. I'll leave that for others; I' to lazy (and busy) to do it at the moment.
6. For missions requiring additional boost engines additional $’s. Eg. a Star 48 …….
6. For missions requiring additional boost engines additional $’s. Eg. a Star 48 engine >>>>as will be needed for this mission.<<<<<
Not always provided by the launch vehicle
6. For missions requiring additional boost engines additional $’s. Eg. a Star 48 engine >>>>as will be needed for this mission.<<<<<
Not always provided by the launch vehicle
When did a star48 kick motor get added to Europa Clipper?? (Emphasis added above)
Yeah, it may include integration of a kick stage.Careful with that price point. It is the price point for a Falcon Heavy governmental launch. Government launches, because of all the additional oversight required, cost more. That has been known for a while now. In addition, this will probably be a totally expended Falcon Heavy.With the Europa Clipper contract we now have a new public price point for a Falcon Heavy launch: $178M.
People have expressed surprise that this is much less that the >$300M charged for PPE+HALO and USSF-64 but it is entirely consistent with SpaceX charging more for the extended fairing and vertical integration. That extended fairing and the vertical integration facilities do not exist yet and the development and build cost is being passed on to those specific missions that require them.
We will see if other missions that require the longer fairing and/or VI get charged more.
I think it is applicable to note that this is the price for a *fully expended* launch.
Presumably the price is less if SpaceX plans to get their boosters back.
. Basically Falcon Heavy can accomplish the mission using a Star 48 in place of a Venus flyby gravity assist.
. Basically Falcon Heavy can accomplish the mission using a Star 48 in place of a Venus flyby gravity assist.
There isn’t one. This is doing a Mars gravity assist
With the Europa Clipper contract we now have a new public price point for a Falcon Heavy launch: $178M.
the major takeaway is that SpaceX is not changing their launch prices for every contract.
My understanding is that EC will be following a JUNO-like trajectory. Juno went out to the orbit of Mars (or so), made a relatively small deep space maneuver (730 m/s) which set up a subsequent Earth flyby that provided the needed boost. The advantage of doing it this way is that the spacecraft never gets much closer to the sun than Earth orbit (unlike a Venus gravity assist). This makes the thermal problems much easier.. Basically Falcon Heavy can accomplish the mission using a Star 48 in place of a Venus flyby gravity assist.There isn’t one. This is doing a Mars gravity assist
A Star-48 does not help much with Clipper, as Clipper is massive (6000 kg) compared to the Star 48 fuel (about 2000 kg). So even a fully expended Falcon Heavy + Star-48 is not enough to send Clipper to Europa directly.
There are other Star motor models.A Star-48 does not help much with Clipper, as Clipper is massive (6000 kg) compared to the Star 48 fuel (about 2000 kg). So even a fully expended Falcon Heavy + Star-48 is not enough to send Clipper to Europa directly.
Would a hypothetically scaled up Star-48 with more fuel be enough for a direct trajectory? Or would you run into the capacity limits of the Falcon Heavy?
There are other Star motor models.A Star-48 does not help much with Clipper, as Clipper is massive (6000 kg) compared to the Star 48 fuel (about 2000 kg). So even a fully expended Falcon Heavy + Star-48 is not enough to send Clipper to Europa directly.Would a hypothetically scaled up Star-48 with more fuel be enough for a direct trajectory? Or would you run into the capacity limits of the Falcon Heavy?
Any that have more than 2.4 tonnes of propellant, the upper limit of Star 48?
Any that have more than 2.4 tonnes of propellant, the upper limit of Star 48?Yes; see: https://www.northropgrumman.com/wp-content/uploads/NG-Propulsion-Products-Catalog.pdf
Did I need to qualify "In production"?You will need to take that up with NG as some are produced to order. In any case plenty of Star-48 (or Star-XX) variants that have >2.4t of propellant, which is what you asked.
To simplify the calculation, lets assume we need C3=80, Clipper = 6000 kg, and use hypothetical boosters that are multiples of the Star-48 (Full mass = 2141kg, empty mass 131 kg, ISP=292). Delta-V is the dV imparted by the kick stage. Mass is what the booster needs to lift, and C3 is the energy it needs to impart. FH capacity is the mass that FH can lift to that C3, according to the NASA LSP site. Ratio is the ratio what is needed to what FH can provide (so >1 means infeasible):A Star-48 does not help much with Clipper, as Clipper is massive (6000 kg) compared to the Star 48 fuel (about 2000 kg). So even a fully expended Falcon Heavy + Star-48 is not enough to send Clipper to Europa directly.
Would a hypothetically scaled up Star-48 with more fuel be enough for a direct trajectory? Or would you run into the capacity limits of the Falcon Heavy?
Did I need to qualify "In production"?
Did I need to qualify "In production"?
Apparently I did. Okay, trying again:
Are there any larger variants of the Star motor that were manufactured in the current century, are flight rated and not unflown research projects, and thus could reasonably be considered to be "available" to NASA for the EC mission without them having to fund NG to restart a development program that was shut down a generation ago?
Would SX ever put a rocket motor that they did not manufacture on one of their vehicles?It would just be part of the payload, and yes.
Would a Castor 30XL upper for Antares with Orion be able to fit in in Falcon Fairing and work?Did I need to qualify "In production"?
Apparently I did. Okay, trying again:
Are there any larger variants of the Star motor that were manufactured in the current century, are flight rated and not unflown research projects, and thus could reasonably be considered to be "available" to NASA for the EC mission without them having to fund NG to restart a development program that was shut down a generation ago?
Pegasus motors (Orion 50s) were looked at.
They may have been looked at, but ORION motors can be discarded as a possibility for direct-to-Jupiter pretty easily. From the catalog, ORION 50S XLT (high performance, air start) masses 16221 kg at start, and 1121 kg at burnout. Assuming an isp of 294 (IUS like) that's a delta V with a 6000 kg payload of 3279 m/s. So for a final C3 of 80, you need the booster to give a C3 of -2.4 to a 22.2 ton payload. But FH can only boost 16 tonnes to this C3 (LSP plot only goes to C3 = -1.7, but that's a very minor extrapolation). So it's not even close.Are there any larger variants of the Star motor that were manufactured in the current century, are flight rated and not unflown research projects, and thus could reasonably be considered to be "available" to NASA for the EC mission without them having to fund NG to restart a development program that was shut down a generation ago?Pegasus motors (Orion 50s) were looked at.
They may have been looked at, but ORION motors can be discarded as a possibility for direct-to-Jupiter pretty easily. From the catalog, ORION 50S XLT (high performance, air start) masses 16221 kg at start, and 1121 kg at burnout. Assuming an isp of 294 (IUS like) that's a delta V with a 6000 kg payload of 3279 m/s. So for a final C3 of 80, you need the booster to give a C3 of -2.4 to a 22.2 ton payload. But FH can only boost 16 tonnes to this C3 (LSP plot only goes to C3 = -1.7, but that's a very minor extrapolation). So it's not even close.Are there any larger variants of the Star motor that were manufactured in the current century, are flight rated and not unflown research projects, and thus could reasonably be considered to be "available" to NASA for the EC mission without them having to fund NG to restart a development program that was shut down a generation ago?Pegasus motors (Orion 50s) were looked at.
Would a Castor 30XL upper for Antares with Orion be able to fit in in Falcon Fairing and work?Whether or not it fits, it still falls slightly short of enough performance. Taking the specs from the web site, 30XL mass is 26407 kg, empty mass is 1392 kg, and ISP is 294.4. This gives a 6000 kg payload 4264 m/s. So to get a direct-to-Jupiter C3 of 80, it would need to start with a C3 of -22.9 for a mass of 32.4 tonnes.
They may have been looked at, but ORION motors can be discarded as a possibility for direct-to-Jupiter pretty easily.
What launcher/trajectory was looked at using an Orion 50? Orion 50 + Europa Clipper combined mass 22.2t . Atlas V can't even put this into LEO, and more than LEO is needed (LEO + Orion 50 won't even get to Earth escape). The EMEJ trajectory they chose requires C3 = 42. Subtract the Orion 50, and you get that you need to put 22.2t to a C3 of -31 (equivalent to a 12000 km apogee). But according the LSP web site, VC6 can only put 17.8t to this apogee. So unless LSP is very conservative, this won't work.It never was for direct-to-Jupiter. There was only one option for that.Pegasus motors (Orion 50s) were looked at.They may have been looked at, but ORION motors can be discarded as a possibility for direct-to-Jupiter pretty easily. [...]
I wondered that as I’ve seen a few people state that this mission will be flying with a stretched S2.They may have been looked at, but ORION motors can be discarded as a possibility for direct-to-Jupiter pretty easily. From the catalog, ORION 50S XLT (high performance, air start) masses 16221 kg at start, and 1121 kg at burnout. Assuming an isp of 294 (IUS like) that's a delta V with a 6000 kg payload of 3279 m/s. So for a final C3 of 80, you need the booster to give a C3 of -2.4 to a 22.2 ton payload. But FH can only boost 16 tonnes to this C3 (LSP plot only goes to C3 = -1.7, but that's a very minor extrapolation). So it's not even close.Are there any larger variants of the Star motor that were manufactured in the current century, are flight rated and not unflown research projects, and thus could reasonably be considered to be "available" to NASA for the EC mission without them having to fund NG to restart a development program that was shut down a generation ago?Pegasus motors (Orion 50s) were looked at.
You also need a new(heavier) payload adapter for over 10,000 Kg.
Elon has said many times the easiest way to boost FH performance is to stretch the S2. He said they hadn't done it due to no previous missions needing it. Is this the one?
Can you close the gap doing this? How much of a stretch would it require?
For non-expendable FH and F9 this would also have a positive "knock-on" performance effect reducing S1 burnout velocity/apogee reducing residual prop required.
I wondered that as I’ve seen a few people state that this mission will be flying with a stretched S2.They may have been looked at, but ORION motors can be discarded as a possibility for direct-to-Jupiter pretty easily. From the catalog, ORION 50S XLT (high performance, air start) masses 16221 kg at start, and 1121 kg at burnout. Assuming an isp of 294 (IUS like) that's a delta V with a 6000 kg payload of 3279 m/s. So for a final C3 of 80, you need the booster to give a C3 of -2.4 to a 22.2 ton payload. But FH can only boost 16 tonnes to this C3 (LSP plot only goes to C3 = -1.7, but that's a very minor extrapolation). So it's not even close.Are there any larger variants of the Star motor that were manufactured in the current century, are flight rated and not unflown research projects, and thus could reasonably be considered to be "available" to NASA for the EC mission without them having to fund NG to restart a development program that was shut down a generation ago?Pegasus motors (Orion 50s) were looked at.
You also need a new(heavier) payload adapter for over 10,000 Kg.
Elon has said many times the easiest way to boost FH performance is to stretch the S2. He said they hadn't done it due to no previous missions needing it. Is this the one?
Can you close the gap doing this? How much of a stretch would it require?
For non-expendable FH and F9 this would also have a positive "knock-on" performance effect reducing S1 burnout velocity/apogee reducing residual prop required.
A stretched S2 would be a new launch vehicle configuration.Still lot lower risk than adding SRM kick stage which is another point of failure.
Was going to point out solids staging as a possibility, too. Glad they were thorough.
They may have been looked at, but ORION motors can be discarded as a possibility for direct-to-Jupiter pretty easily.
It never was for direct-to-Jupiter. There was only one option for that.
And staged solids was looked at.
Details of the FH extended fairing.
https://twitter.com/spacex360/status/1429380060373524486?s=19
Are there any non-military payloads that would require that one?
Are there any non-military payloads that would require that one?
The launch of PPE+HALO (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53069.0) (the two first parts of Lunar Gateway) needs the extended fairing. It was ordered back in February, and launch is tentatively planned for 2024.
Are there any non-military payloads that would require that one?
The launch of PPE+HALO (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53069.0) (the two first parts of Lunar Gateway) needs the extended fairing. It was ordered back in February, and launch is tentatively planned for 2024.
Do we know where the extended fairing is produced? Is it in Hawthorn or did they contract it out?
Are there any non-military payloads that would require that one?
The launch of PPE+HALO (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53069.0) (the two first parts of Lunar Gateway) needs the extended fairing. It was ordered back in February, and launch is tentatively planned for 2024.
Do we know where the extended fairing is produced? Is it in Hawthorn or did they contract it out?
There was news about SpaceX simply buying the fairing from RUAG who also make them for ULA and others, but I don't have any confirmed source for what they actually went for.
>
ULA claimed IP rights.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/cpyq97/comment/ewul0ow/
ULA claimed IP rights.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/cpyq97/comment/ewul0ow/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/cpyq97/comment/ewul0ow/)
ULA claimed IP rights to the fairing they had RUAG develop for them. Other companies can still get RUAG to design and build a fairing.
did they contract it out?
did they contract it out?
They didn't
How are the seam separation features different?
...snip...
There are three give-aways that the long fairing will be produced by SpaceX in-house:
- shape of the fairing at the bottom is identical to that of the standard fairing (same tooling)
- Curvature ratio of the top section of the fairing is identical to that of the standard fairing (same tooling)
- The "dents" in the payload envelope in the curved section are the same (both size and location) for standard and long fairings. Those "dents" house the pneumatic separation pushers. So, same design feature for standard and long fairings.
The only major difference between both fairings is how the seam between the fairing halves is separated. Pneumatic mechanical latches on standard fairing. Bolted frangible seam on long fairing. Those are direct indications for NO recovery and NO reuse of long fairings. Which in turn tells us that SpaceX expects the long fairings to be rarely used and thus those fairings will be expendable.
The long fairing will likely be used on just a handful of specific NSS missions and one-off missions such as the PPE-HALO launch. Thus, not worth the effort to recover them intact and reuse them.
EDIT: Jim just confirmed that the long fairing is indeed a SpaceX in-house product. See post immediately below.
I've read somewhere that Starlink is volume limited, not mass limited, so this might be able to help there also.
[
I fail to see how a major reliability feature would be abandoned.
How are the seam separation features different?
Source? I didn't see any different features in the User's Guide.
As I recall, the mechanical latches were a big SpaceX differentiator , as frangible bolts can't be tested.
I fail to see how a major reliability feature would be abandoned.
...
The two halves of the standard fairing are fastened by mechanical latches along the fairing vertical seam. To deploy the fairing, a high-pressure helium circuit releases the latches, and four pneumatic pushers facilitate positive-force deployment of the two halves. The use of all-pneumatic separation systems provides a benign shock environment, allows acceptance and preflight testing of the actual separation system hardware, and minimizes debris created during separation.
The two halves of the extended fairing are fastened by a bolted frangible seam joint. To deploy the fairing, redundant detonators initiate a detonation cord contained inside an expanding tube assembly. The detonation causes the expanding tube to expand outwards and break the structural seam between the two fairings in a controlled and contained manner. Four pneumatic pushers facilitate positive-force deployment of the two halves. The use of a nonbolted clamshell interface between the payload fairing and the rest of the vehicle provides significant shock attenuation of the separation event, maintaining environments for the payload well within nominal payload requirements.
[
I fail to see how a major reliability feature would be abandoned.
Mass. The standard fairing and its latches is very heavy compared to other equivalents.
Also, other than the Taurus fairing issues, what other fairings had reliability uses?
People are laboring under this false idea that starship will replace falcon 9 in a couple years - which totally ignores spaceX saying on multiple occasions that this is not true.
Falcon 9 will fly for as long as customers want it...
Almost correct.
It is in fact not up to the customers.
SpaceX fully intends to switch over to Starship, as soon as committed obligations allow it.
Outyear look: Falcon 9 will fly until roughly 2030, because NASA has committed SpaceX to flying Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon until 2030. But with Starship operational by then, even for crewed launches, the retirement of ISS drops the sole remaining prime customer for F9 by then. Only FH will soldier on a few more years, after ISS retirement, because of running DoD and NASA commitments.
But by 2035 FH will absolutely be gone as well. Rationale behind this: The coming situation where FH is the only heavy lifter, available to NASA and DoD, will be short-lived, due to the arrival of Starship, the Heavy variant of Vulcan and New Glenn. A little further out there will be the heavy variant of Neutron as well. Lots of options becoming available to NASA and DoD in the next 5 years.
The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?People are laboring under this false idea that starship will replace falcon 9 in a couple years - which totally ignores spaceX saying on multiple occasions that this is not true.
Falcon 9 will fly for as long as customers want it...
Almost correct.
It is in fact not up to the customers.
SpaceX fully intends to switch over to Starship, as soon as committed obligations allow it.
Outyear look: Falcon 9 will fly until roughly 2030, because NASA has committed SpaceX to flying Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon until 2030. But with Starship operational by then, even for crewed launches, the retirement of ISS drops the sole remaining prime customer for F9 by then. Only FH will soldier on a few more years, after ISS retirement, because of running DoD and NASA commitments.
But by 2035 FH will absolutely be gone as well. Rationale behind this: The coming situation where FH is the only heavy lifter, available to NASA and DoD, will be short-lived, due to the arrival of Starship, the Heavy variant of Vulcan and New Glenn. A little further out there will be the heavy variant of Neutron as well. Lots of options becoming available to NASA and DoD in the next 5 years.
FH flies to 2035 without F9? Yikes...
I sure hope they can replace FH with Starship much earlier than this. Flying FH without F9, at a much lower flight rate is not only a waste of SpaceX's resources, it'll also have significant negative impact on its reliability.
If FH is only operating to satisfy the government, then SpaceX should spin it off into a separate company. This makes the accounting easier and avoids awkward negotiations when the government tries to exert pressure on the Starship vendor to force them to sustain the FH.
The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?
If FH is only operating to satisfy the government, then SpaceX should spin it off into a separate company. This makes the accounting easier and avoids awkward negotiations when the government tries to exert pressure on the Starship vendor to force them to sustain the FH.
The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?
If the government is the sole F9/FH customer, the launch rate will be very low and SpaceX will need to charge a lot of money to make a reasonable profit. This is likely to be several times as much as a Starship launch. If SpaceX does not spin the F9/FH business out, the government (and specifically NSSL) can pressure SpaceX to change the pricing to lower the price for F9/FH in return for raising the price for Starship, in the name of "redundancy". This would artificially extend the life of F9/FH. Also by spinning off F9/FH, The separate companies can fulfill both halves of the NSSL "two companies" goal.
If the U.S. Government prefers to use the Falcon Heavy longer than SpaceX was planning, I'm sure SpaceX would be open to a solution both can live with.
If the government is the sole F9/FH customer, the launch rate will be very low and SpaceX will need to charge a lot of money to make a reasonable profit. This is likely to be several times as much as a Starship launch. If SpaceX does not spin the F9/FH business out, the government (and specifically NSSL) can pressure SpaceX to change the pricing to lower the price for F9/FH in return for raising the price for Starship, in the name of "redundancy". This would artificially extend the life of F9/FH. Also by spinning off F9/FH, The separate companies can fulfill both halves of the NSSL "two companies" goal.
If the government is the sole F9/FH customer, the launch rate will be very low and SpaceX will need to charge a lot of money to make a reasonable profit. This is likely to be several times as much as a Starship launch. If SpaceX does not spin the F9/FH business out, the government (and specifically NSSL) can pressure SpaceX to change the pricing to lower the price for F9/FH in return for raising the price for Starship, in the name of "redundancy". This would artificially extend the life of F9/FH. Also by spinning off F9/FH, The separate companies can fulfill both halves of the NSSL "two companies" goal.
VulcanDude, where's your engines?
In addition to launching Starlinks, I suspect another reason to get Starship going is because FH is a labor intensive platform that they'd rather not have to maintain any long than they have to.
None of the US providers (exclusive of Taurus) in the last 40 years. ADTA doesn’t count nor does PSLV or NaroAstra?
If FH is only operating to satisfy the government, then SpaceX should spin it off into a separate company. This makes the accounting easier and avoids awkward negotiations when the government tries to exert pressure on the Starship vendor to force them to sustain the FH.
The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?
No, it doesn't make the accounting easier, and I don't know why you think negotiations with SpaceX would be "awkward".
SpaceX is a private company, and they can decide if they want to pursue a market or not. If SpaceX did not want to provide launch services, and the U.S. Government needed them to, then political options would be available.
But this whole line of questioning requires the belief that SpaceX would want to ignore the U.S. Government marketspace, and from what we have seen they want to actually increase the services they provide to the U.S. Government.
If the U.S. Government prefers to use the Falcon Heavy longer than SpaceX was planning, I'm sure SpaceX would be open to a solution both can live with.
The government likes redundant suppliers. Could one company offering two different launchers fill that requirement since FH and Starship won't have much in common?
Emphasis mine.People are laboring under this false idea that starship will replace falcon 9 in a couple years - which totally ignores spaceX saying on multiple occasions that this is not true.
Falcon 9 will fly for as long as customers want it...
Almost correct.
It is in fact not up to the customers.
SpaceX fully intends to switch over to Starship, as soon as committed obligations allow it.
Outyear look: Falcon 9 will fly until roughly 2030, because NASA has committed SpaceX to flying Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon until 2030. But with Starship operational by then, even for crewed launches, the retirement of ISS drops the sole remaining prime customer for F9 by then. Only FH will soldier on a few more years, after ISS retirement, because of running DoD and NASA commitments.
But by 2035 FH will absolutely be gone as well. Rationale behind this: The coming situation where FH is the only heavy lifter, available to NASA and DoD, will be short-lived, due to the arrival of Starship, the Heavy variant of Vulcan and New Glenn. A little further out there will be the heavy variant of Neutron as well. Lots of options becoming available to NASA and DoD in the next 5 years.
FH flies to 2035 without F9? Yikes...
I sure hope they can replace FH with Starship much earlier than this. Flying FH without F9, at a much lower flight rate is not only a waste of SpaceX's resources, it'll also have significant negative impact on its reliability.
QuoteVulcanDude, where's your engines?
Posters will stop using that meme when a pair of flight capable engines is installed on the Vulcan. :-*QuoteVulcanDude, where's your engines?
That is getting really stale. Yes, the BE-4 is very late, but they are clearly finally on their way. As evidenced by the images released by Tory on some bird site recently.
I agree, BE-4 schedule slips are getting really stale. Since BO clearly will be delivering reliable engines in series production "real soon now", we will no longer be annoyed by this meme "real soon now" and this is a self-correcting problem.QuoteVulcanDude, where's your engines?
That is getting really stale. Yes, the BE-4 is very late, but they are clearly finally on their way. As evidenced by the images released by Tory on some bird site recently.
FH flight schedule suffers from a common problem that is related to heavy single sat payloads. And that is the complexity and size of those payloads creates a significant amount of schedule un-reliability for the sat readiness to fly. FH is ready to do multiple flights this year but will likely be a small part of the originally scheduled flights for which SpaceX has built hardware needed to support those flights.There are a total of three remaining DIVH and they are all committed, so DIVH does not constitute a backup for FH: that is, if FH were to be grounded today, none of its payloads could fly on DIVH.
As to availability to Super Heavy lifters +50t max payload capability. There will eventually be BO's NG hopefully. This should be in use prior to the last flight of DIVH. The NG flying at the 30t Heavy amount would fulfill the second launcher capability if the DOD really needs one at the 2024 timeframe.
My guess is that SpaceX will build a vertical integration bay with adjacent payload processing bay to load the payload onto a Starship with an overhead crane. Then the Starship gets placed on a SPMT unit with the overhead crane before rolling to the launch pad. Since the chopsticks on the Mechanizilla can lift an empty super heavy, it should have no problems lifting the Starship with a payload onto the Super Heavy.<snip><snip>
As to availability to Super Heavy lifters +50t max payload capability. There will eventually be BO's NG hopefully. This should be in use prior to the last flight of DIVH. The NG flying at the 30t Heavy amount would fulfill the second launcher capability if the DOD really needs one at the 2024 timeframe.
NSSL usually requires at least two successful non-DoD flights before new launcher is accepted, so I do not think NG can serve as the backup in 2024. At the current rate Starship is a more likely candidate from a schedule perspective, except that we don't know how SpaceX intends to support launching a heavy payload that requires vertical integration in a traditional fairing on Starship.
Posters will stop using that meme when a pair of flight capable engines is installed on the Vulcan. :-*QuoteVulcanDude, where's your engines?
That is getting really stale. Yes, the BE-4 is very late, but they are clearly finally on their way. As evidenced by the images released by Tory on some bird site recently.
None of the US providers (exclusive of Taurus) in the last 40 years. ADTA doesn’t count nor does PSLV or Naro
It has already reached a certain cadence.Posters will stop using that meme when a pair of flight capable engines is installed on the Vulcan. :-*QuoteVulcanDude, where's your engines?
That is getting really stale. Yes, the BE-4 is very late, but they are clearly finally on their way. As evidenced by the images released by Tory on some bird site recently.
Some posters might continue to use that meme until Vulcan reaches a certain launch cadence.
Astra had an issue with fairing separation less than four months after your post. Granted, that is a startup company that has seen several failed launch attempts for different reasons, including the first time a tower was cleared horizontally in a launch attempt.
My guess is that SpaceX will build a vertical integration bay with adjacent payload processing bay to load the payload onto a Starship with an overhead crane. Then the Starship gets placed on a SPMT unit with the overhead crane before rolling to the launch pad. Since the chopsticks on the Mechanizilla can lift an empty super heavy, it should have no problems lifting the Starship with a payload onto the Super Heavy.<snip><snip>
As to availability to Super Heavy lifters +50t max payload capability. There will eventually be BO's NG hopefully. This should be in use prior to the last flight of DIVH. The NG flying at the 30t Heavy amount would fulfill the second launcher capability if the DOD really needs one at the 2024 timeframe.
NSSL usually requires at least two successful non-DoD flights before new launcher is accepted, so I do not think NG can serve as the backup in 2024. At the current rate Starship is a more likely candidate from a schedule perspective, except that we don't know how SpaceX intends to support launching a heavy payload that requires vertical integration in a traditional fairing on Starship.
The question is whether will SpaceX uses a chomper hatch or piano bay doors with probably a slide out deployment tilt table with theNRO/DoDspecial delivery Starship.
Very unlikely that SpaceX will employed the traditional 2 PLF halves with an expendable Starship variant. Unless the payload is extremely tall. In which case the vertical integration bay need to have a way to encapsulated the payload in the traditional manner.
You are probably referring to the vertical payload integration gantry tower at the old LC-39A pad for the Falcon Heavy and possibly the Falcon 9.My guess is that SpaceX will build a vertical integration bay with adjacent payload processing bay to load the payload onto a Starship with an overhead crane. Then the Starship gets placed on a SPMT unit with the overhead crane before rolling to the launch pad. Since the chopsticks on the Mechanizilla can lift an empty super heavy, it should have no problems lifting the Starship with a payload onto the Super Heavy.<snip><snip>
As to availability to Super Heavy lifters +50t max payload capability. There will eventually be BO's NG hopefully. This should be in use prior to the last flight of DIVH. The NG flying at the 30t Heavy amount would fulfill the second launcher capability if the DOD really needs one at the 2024 timeframe.
NSSL usually requires at least two successful non-DoD flights before new launcher is accepted, so I do not think NG can serve as the backup in 2024. At the current rate Starship is a more likely candidate from a schedule perspective, except that we don't know how SpaceX intends to support launching a heavy payload that requires vertical integration in a traditional fairing on Starship.
The question is whether will SpaceX uses a chomper hatch or piano bay doors with probably a slide out deployment tilt table with theNRO/DoDspecial delivery Starship.
Very unlikely that SpaceX will employed the traditional 2 PLF halves with an expendable Starship variant. Unless the payload is extremely tall. In which case the vertical integration bay need to have a way to encapsulated the payload in the traditional manner.
Didn’t SpaceX plan on building a Vertical Integration Facility of their own? You know, the one stationed on Pad 39A that’ll retract backward before launch?
As of July 2022, Vulcan has a historical launch cadence of 0/year. The popularity of that meme would diminish after ULA managed to launch 3 Vulcans in a year, and likely be gone if ULA could reach 10 Vulcan launches in a year.It has already reached a certain cadence.Posters will stop using that meme when a pair of flight capable engines is installed on the Vulcan. :-*QuoteVulcanDude, where's your engines?
That is getting really stale. Yes, the BE-4 is very late, but they are clearly finally on their way. As evidenced by the images released by Tory on some bird site recently.
Some posters might continue to use that meme until Vulcan reaches a certain launch cadence.
You realize it might never launch more times than SpaceX launches in a single year with F9?
And depending on how things shape up with Starship, possibly a lot less? (Not even counting NG here)
You know, there’s another cliché out there that says something along the lines of getting sidetracked. What was that again?"Don't get sidetracked"
You know, there’s another cliché out there that says something along the lines of getting sidetracked. What was that again?"Don't get sidetracked"
It's getting a bit ridiculous...
Yep. as far as I know, there has never been a mission that was delayed due to the Falcon Heavy since the FH first became operational in 2018. Since then, there have been numerous FH launches that have been delayed due to payload delays. Only two operational payloads were ready, and both were launched successfully.It's getting a bit ridiculous...
The major issue with the lack of Falcon Heavy launches (after the first test one) seem to be related to payload issues.
Part of the issue with lack of payloads is the small detail that a Falcon 9 Block 5 can send about twice the payload into LEO as the original Falcon 9 V1.0, so some of the payloads initially planned for a Falcon Heavy have ended up being launched on a single stick Falcon 9.
Delta IV Heavy didn’t have an immediate backup, either. They had Atlas V Heavy, which they claimed would be ready 30 months after ordering. Vulcan can essentially do the same trick.FH flight schedule suffers from a common problem that is related to heavy single sat payloads. And that is the complexity and size of those payloads creates a significant amount of schedule un-reliability for the sat readiness to fly. FH is ready to do multiple flights this year but will likely be a small part of the originally scheduled flights for which SpaceX has built hardware needed to support those flights.There are a total of three remaining DIVH and they are all committed, so DIVH does not constitute a backup for FH: that is, if FH were to be grounded today, none of its payloads could fly on DIVH.
As to availability to Super Heavy lifters +50t max payload capability. There will eventually be BO's NG hopefully. This should be in use prior to the last flight of DIVH. The NG flying at the 30t Heavy amount would fulfill the second launcher capability if the DOD really needs one at the 2024 timeframe.
NSSL usually requires at least two successful non-DoD flights before new launcher is accepted, so I do not think NG can serve as the backup in 2024. At the current rate Starship is a more likely candidate from a schedule perspective, except that we don't know how SpaceX intends to support launching a heavy payload that requires vertical integration in a traditional fairing on Starship.
I will restrain my enthusiasm until one of the alternatives actually flies. The three I know of are Starship, Vulcan, and NG. Although I assume a design can be developed, It is unclear how Starship can accommodate NSSL payloads. Vulcan and NG both depend on the same new engine, and that engine's production rate is apparently limited.
So FH already has about as much of a backup as Delta IV Heavy did. More if you count there are like 3 or 4 new rockets (of at least Delta IV Heavy capability to LEO) ready to fly to orbit in the next 30 months, not just 1, and they’re being built or are built now already, not just a hypothetical configuration.
I will restrain my enthusiasm until one of the alternatives actually flies. The three I know of are Starship, Vulcan, and NG. Although I assume a design can be developed, It is unclear how Starship can accommodate NSSL payloads. Vulcan and NG both depend on the same new engine, and that engine's production rate is apparently limited.
So FH already has about as much of a backup as Delta IV Heavy did. More if you count there are like 3 or 4 new rockets (of at least Delta IV Heavy capability to LEO) ready to fly to orbit in the next 30 months, not just 1, and they’re being built or are built now already, not just a hypothetical configuration.
Even if all three might fly in the next 30 months, or even get NSSL-qualified in that time, FH still constitutes a single point of failure without a backup for the next 30 months.
AIUI, NASA LSP certifies particular launch vehicle configurations in three risk categories. The requirements for category 1 look pretty easy to meet. Has FH been certified as category 2? Category 3?
AIUI, NASA LSP certifies particular launch vehicle configurations in three risk categories. The requirements for category 1 look pretty easy to meet. Has FH been certified as category 2? Category 3?
Elon Musk’s SpaceX has won certification from the Pentagon’s Space Force to use recyclable boosters on its Falcon Heavy rocket to launch top-secret spy satellites, according to the service.
<snip>
The certification for SpaceX -- which was issued in June but not previously disclosed -- allows the recyclable first-stage side boosters to be used in sensitive national security launches requiring power performance beyond that of the company’s original Falcon 9. The Space Force found that the “recovery, refurbishment, and launch of SpaceX boosters utilizes well-established processes,” the service said in a statement.
Are NASA Category 3 vehicles used for nuke payloads?
What would be the most logical reason as to why there were Falcon Heavy payload readiness delays?
Is it that the Space Force (i.e. USSF-44 and USSF-52) doesn't feel confident about going on Falcon Heavy, or could it be some sort of undisclosed manufacturing defect?
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1563760585363185664QuoteSqueezing extra performance out of Falcon 9 – almost at 17 metric tons to an actual useful orbit with booster & fairing reusable!
In May, the LSP Electromagnetic Compatibility team traveled to the Neil Armstrong Test Facility at @NASAGlenn to support the Shielding Effectiveness Testing of SpaceX’s long fairing. The results will be used to ensure NASA payloads are safe from outside radio frequency sources.
You can consider this the start of NASA's Falcon Heavy era. The launch of the Psyche asteroid mission this week is the opening act among five launches the space agency has directly reserved on SpaceX's heavy-lift rocket over the next few years.
These Falcon Heavy flights will cut across NASA's portfolio of robotic space missions, dispatching probes deep into the Solar System, deploying a flagship-class astronomical observatory, sending up a weather satellite, and launching the keystone to NASA's Gateway mini-space station around the Moon.
Great article on the future of FH, particularly for NASA's needs in this coming decade.The article states that NASA will have no heavy-lift alternative to FH until it certifies Vulcan or New Glenn. It fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first. At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/nasas-falcon-heavy-era-begins-this-week-with-launch-of-asteroid-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/nasas-falcon-heavy-era-begins-this-week-with-launch-of-asteroid-mission/)QuoteYou can consider this the start of NASA's Falcon Heavy era. The launch of the Psyche asteroid mission this week is the opening act among five launches the space agency has directly reserved on SpaceX's heavy-lift rocket over the next few years.
These Falcon Heavy flights will cut across NASA's portfolio of robotic space missions, dispatching probes deep into the Solar System, deploying a flagship-class astronomical observatory, sending up a weather satellite, and launching the keystone to NASA's Gateway mini-space station around the Moon.
<snip>However both the Vulcan and New Glenn will be more expensive with less launch availability than the Falcon Heavy along with a bit less performance.
The article states that NASA will have no heavy-lift alternative to FH until it certifies Vulcan or New Glenn. It fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first. At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.
The article [...] fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first. At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.
<snip>However both the Vulcan and New Glenn will be more expensive with less launch availability than the Falcon Heavy along with a bit less performance.
The article states that NASA will have no heavy-lift alternative to FH until it certifies Vulcan or New Glenn. It fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first. At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.
...
Until orbital refuelling is normalised, Starship won't have a lot of BEO throw.I did not say the author is wrong to consider Starship as a separate case. I don't really know. I said that the author did not explain himself.
...
Without orbital refueling. A conventional 3-stage launcher consisting of an expendable Super Heavy, an expendable Starship and a slightly modified Falcon upper stage with the standard Falcon payload fairing should generated quite a bit BEO throw. The only thing need developed is the interstage adapter for the Falcon upper stage on top of the Starship. Even more BEO throw if the Falcon upper stage is replace by a Centaur V stage.The article [...] fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first. At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.
Until orbital refuelling is normalised, Starship won't have a lot of BEO throw. You'd need a new kick-stage for the probe/etc that can be carried in the payload bay (along with all the GSE that goes with it.) But developing refuelling is SpaceX's priority, so if NASA wants to use SS for BEO launches in the interim (and assuming Congress won't fund a separate dev program), the cost to develop the kick-stage needs to be funded by whichever program launches first. It's a catch-22 that has prevented a lot of tech from being developed that would be useful in multiple programs, but can't be justified by a single program.
A conventional 3-stage launcher consisting of an expendable Super Heavy, an expendable Starship and a slightly modified Falcon upper stage with the standard Falcon payload fairing should generated quite a bit BEO throw. The only thing need developed is the interstage adapter for the Falcon upper stage on top of the Starship.
a slightly modified Falcon upper stage [...] should generated quite a bit BEO throw. The only thing need developed is the interstage adapter [...] Even more BEO throw if the Falcon upper stage is replace by a Centaur V stage.
Before anyone object about using the ULA Centaur V on a SpaceX launcher. It like the Falcon upper stage, a part of the payload stack along with the space probe.
Great article on the future of FH, particularly for NASA's needs in this coming decade.The article states that NASA will have no heavy-lift alternative to FH until it certifies Vulcan or New Glenn. It fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first. At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/nasas-falcon-heavy-era-begins-this-week-with-launch-of-asteroid-mission/ (https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/nasas-falcon-heavy-era-begins-this-week-with-launch-of-asteroid-mission/)QuoteYou can consider this the start of NASA's Falcon Heavy era. The launch of the Psyche asteroid mission this week is the opening act among five launches the space agency has directly reserved on SpaceX's heavy-lift rocket over the next few years.
These Falcon Heavy flights will cut across NASA's portfolio of robotic space missions, dispatching probes deep into the Solar System, deploying a flagship-class astronomical observatory, sending up a weather satellite, and launching the keystone to NASA's Gateway mini-space station around the Moon.
At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.It will indeed be a long time before NASA certifies Starship, at least the way NASA currently operates.
Certifying is one thing, but actually using it is another. For Artemis, the Starship HLS is the payload. For generic FH replacement, they need a generli Cargo Starship, presumably with the reusable one with some strange payload pay and payload deployment system. NASA's payloads will need to somehow fit into this scheme. Until this can happen, FH might continue to fly. You will need to consult your own crystal ball to determine when this will happen. I think is will be "fairly fast", but SpaceX will apparently focus on HLS (plus tanker and Depot) and Starlink deployment Starship before they can dedicate many launches to Cargo Starship.At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.It will indeed be a long time before NASA certifies Starship, at least the way NASA currently operates.
NASA has to certify Starship as a payload launcher for HLS (as well a certifying it as a man-rated lander) before Artemis can put people on the moon.
Certifying it as a crew launch vehicle might take much, much longer, but I can't see how certification for NASA payloads can take longer than is required for Artemis.
[Edit: Off-topic, but that seems inherent to the thread.]
At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.It will indeed be a long time before NASA certifies Starship, at least the way NASA currently operates.
NASA has to certify Starship as a payload launcher for HLS (as well a certifying it as a man-rated lander) before Artemis can put people on the moon.
Certifying it as a crew launch vehicle might take much, much longer, but I can't see how certification for NASA payloads can take longer than is required for Artemis.
[Edit: Off-topic, but that seems inherent to the thread.]
I'm seeking confirmation or refutation of the claim that FH (with a mission specific payload adapter) can put 18 t of separated mass into an orbit like 300 x 66,000 km altitude. Is that reasonable? Unreasonable?26.7t to GTO, so presumably you could get there with 18t payload and ~8t fuel left.
Any news of the Heavy core for GOES-U?
Falcon Heavy center core B1087 is now vertical at its test stand at SpaceX's McGregor Development Facility in Texas. Here it will undergo qualification testing ahead of its support of the launch of NASA's GOES-U satellite no earlier than late April.
nsf.live/mcgregor
Can somebody please explain to me why FH isn't, by default, NASA human rated at this point?
Can somebody please explain to me why FH isn't, by default, NASA human rated at this point?
Can somebody please explain to me why FH isn't, by default, NASA human rated at this point?
NASA only "human rates", or certifies, for their own sake, for the missions they plan to do. They are not going to spend time, effort and money on certifying vehicle combinations or mission profiles that they have no plans for using.
I may be seeing things but I believe this on the side of the second picture is a Falcon long fairing. It's a bit pixelated due to the distance but one can see it has a Falcon Heavy logo on it and maybe what appears to be a US flag as well. First time we see the long fairing!
Is the long fairing compatible with Falcon 9 as well, or only with Falcon Heavy?Quote from: @Alexphysics13 tweetI may be seeing things but I believe this on the side of the second picture is a Falcon long fairing. It's a bit pixelated due to the distance but one can see it has a Falcon Heavy logo on it and maybe what appears to be a US flag as well. First time we see the long fairing!
For anyone who needs help visualizing how big this thing's meant to be, I believe @KenKirtland17 made this.
Is the long fairing compatible with Falcon 9 as well, or only with Falcon Heavy?
A Falcon Heavy extended fairing is on the move!
Watch live on SCL:
nsf.live/spacecoast
@NASASpaceflight
I love seeing the extended FH fairing. It’s been a while coming.
I have been day dreaming about a FH test flight for this fairing.
I don’t know the performance numbers but it would be epic to see a FH flight, using Starlinks as a payload.
And, here’s the fun part, size the payload so that all 3 cores can RTLS. I know that would reduce payload but how amazing would that be to watch.
Edit: The reasons do to such FH Starlink launches are
1) FH launches are so cool
2) The only part of the system to be expected is the US and more Starlinks to orbit could be achieved per US using FH.
But mostly #1
I love seeing the extended FH fairing. It’s been a while coming.
I have been day dreaming about a FH test flight for this fairing.
I don’t know the performance numbers but it would be epic to see a FH flight, using Starlinks as a payload.
And, here’s the fun part, size the payload so that all 3 cores can RTLS. I know that would reduce payload but how amazing would that be to watch.
Edit: The reasons do to such FH Starlink launches are
1) FH launches are so cool
2) The only part of the system to be expected is the US and more Starlinks to orbit could be achieved per US using FH.
But mostly #1
Center core RTLS is a big performance penalty though. If you're already willing to use an ASDS for single stick launches, regularly landing a center core on an ASDS isn't a big deal operationally. They just haven't had many chances to try though, as it's technically more difficult due to higher speeds cooking the core stage, and most FH launches exceed ASDS center core landing payload mass limits. I think SpaceX would have to offer a substantial price reduction for a center core recovered mission to tempt customers enough to reduce their payload mass to fit it though, as FH customers tend to want the extreme end of the payload mass or deltaV range. The operational advantages of singe core RTLS means Starlinks aren't going to ride FH regularly though. I could see a one off though, to qualify FH for west coast launches at SLC-6, which again tempts SpaceX to make it a center core ASDS mission.
Why not launch some V3 full size vertically for on-orbit testing before loading up a Starship full of them. 3 or 4?They need a lot of Starship test flights, and will go to orbit as early as flight 8 (i.e., the next flight). May as well use it to launch a few Starlink V3 since they are up there anyway. to launch on an F9 or FH, they would need to pay for that flight and create the proper payload bus, all of which is expensive and takes time.
Understand that they would need to "pay" for such a flight.. But, given the figures we have seen in terms of performance ie a magnitude increase. Then 3 V3's would exceed the performance of a full stack of V2 minis. 3 V3's with a mass of 2000kg ea. would likely provide a RTLS option (even with the extended faring). Not to mention place them in a higher inclination orbit (53 degrees to be in range of Redmond/Bay Area for testng) than limited 28 or 33 degrees from Starbase. The fact that they would get a test of the Extended faring would be a plus.In your opinion, how long would it take SpaceX to do the FH mission? Design the payload carrier, fabricate the carrier, fabricate the extended fairing. How expensive is an FH mission? Include the downtime for LC-39A reconfiguration.
ASTRONOMERS MISTOOK ELON’S ROADSTER FOR AN ASTEROID.. NO, FOR REAL!
Astronomers hilariously mistook Elon’s Roadster for an asteroid this month.
Seven years after its Falcon Heavy launch, the car drifted past Mars into the asteroid belt, only to swing back 150,000 miles from Earth.
Imagine spending billions on a space probe, to find… the beauty of an
@tesla
floating.
Always double-check your ‘asteroids.’
The Roadster?
Still orbiting the galaxy.
Source: Fox (https://www.foxnews.com/science/newly-discovered-asteroid-turns-tesla-roadster-launched-space)
On Jan. 2, the Minor Planet Center at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, announced the discovery of an unusual asteroid, designated 2018 CN41. First identified and submitted by a citizen scientist, the object’s orbit was notable: It came less than 150,000 miles (240,000 km) from Earth, closer than the orbit of the Moon. That qualified it as a near-Earth object (NEO) — one worth monitoring for its potential to someday slam into Earth.
But less than 17 hours later, the Minor Planet Center (MPC) issued an editorial notice: It was deleting 2018 CN41 from its records because, it turned out, the object was not an asteroid.
It was a car.
https://twitter.com/edwards345/status/1920258572254130206QuoteB1091 is in fact a Falcon Heavy center core that will fly in a single stick configuration a handful of times before being reconfigured and flying as a Falcon Heavy. This way we get some use out of it while the Heavy customer finishes up the payload while also reducing risk as it will be flight proven.
Wonder what the performance of Falcon Heavy is with all three cores RTLS? Maybe just marginally about droneship F9? Maybe 25-30 tons IMLEO? Wonder about all-RTLS, too, with the two side cores sharing a droneship (hey, landings are precise, now!).The landings have indeed been quite precise since the first launch with grid fins. But landing two boosters with only a hundred feet separation is bound to present other problems. The only real way to test ahead of time would be to have a pair of FH boosters land really close together at either LZ-1 or LZ-2. You would probably have to keep them well apart until they've slowed down below the speed of sound.
Wonder what the performance of Falcon Heavy is with all three cores RTLS? Maybe just marginally about droneship F9? Maybe 25-30 tons IMLEO? Wonder about all-RTLS, too, with the two side cores sharing a droneship (hey, landings are precise, now!).