Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)  (Read 622023 times)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8261
  • Liked: 7009
  • Likes Given: 2989
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #400 on: 01/30/2018 07:48 pm »
>
 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!?

There is no price at all listed on that page, so they are not advertising the expended performance at reusable price. You are making that inference from the presence of legs and fins. Most LSPs advertise performance but don't list a price at all.

As to the picture of the legs, customers are buying a service, not a vehicle. SpaceX could advertise a picture of the Millennium Falcon and customers wouldn't care as long as it gets their birds to the right orbit.

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5383
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #401 on: 01/30/2018 09:48 pm »
>
 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!?
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.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1220
    • Rotating Space Station
  • Liked: 453
  • Likes Given: 3172
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #402 on: 01/30/2018 09:56 pm »
>
 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!?
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.

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.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://rotatingspacestation.com

Offline MaxTeranous

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #403 on: 01/30/2018 10:43 pm »
I’d suggest that anyone acquiring launch services from Spacex wouldn’t be using their website to price up the launch, so it’s not really relevant.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40455
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 26480
  • Likes Given: 12507
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #404 on: 01/30/2018 10:58 pm »
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.
Based on what spacecraft mass?

I often see the claim of "SLS is fast, everything else slow" without an actual mass figure.

From what I can gather from old presentations, the fast-transit trajectory is c3 = 82 km^2/s^2 with 4200kg mass (and the slow trajectory requires less mass since the Saturn orbit injection burn is smaller).

Falcon Heavy with a couple solid kick stages could do it in the same time. Vulcan Heavy could as well, particularly with distributed lift (in which case "Heavy" is unnecessary).

And given that SLS keeps slipping, it's quite likely a couple gravity assists with an Atlas V or Delta IV could get it there faster than SLS in actuality.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline AC in NC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2516
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 3685
  • Likes Given: 1996
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #405 on: 01/31/2018 02:22 am »
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.

Good Lord!!!  ::)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2242
  • Likes Given: 3882
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #406 on: 01/31/2018 02:38 am »
The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:

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?
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40455
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 26480
  • Likes Given: 12507
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #407 on: 01/31/2018 02:42 am »
The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:

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 actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5361
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2242
  • Likes Given: 3882
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #408 on: 01/31/2018 02:47 am »
2x 63 ton launches could equal Sortie lunar missions! :)

6 or 7x 63 ton launches could equal 2x person Martian Sortie missions... ;)  (chemical propulsion)
« Last Edit: 01/31/2018 08:06 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40455
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 26480
  • Likes Given: 12507
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #409 on: 01/31/2018 03:02 am »
Interestingly, based on the idea that you can get roughly 22% more payload to TLI than TMI, Falcon Heavy gets about 90% the payload to translunar that N-1 could've. You probably could design a two person lunar surface sortie architecture that could single-launch on an expendable Falcon Heavy, particularly if you add cross feed back in.

But that wouldn't be cheap. For the same development price, you could almost fund BFR, so might as well do that.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3513
  • Likes Given: 4436
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #410 on: 01/31/2018 03:07 am »
The 63 ton payload to LEO figure - I wonder how this would breakdown?:

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 actual payload is 63 tons to LEO.

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.
We very much need orbiter missions to Neptune and Uranus.  The cruise will be long, so we best get started.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9275
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4499
  • Likes Given: 1133
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #411 on: 01/31/2018 03:19 am »
Interestingly, based on the idea that you can get roughly 22% more payload to TLI than TMI

So, abouts:

20,496 kg to TLI.
14,176  kg to LLO.
7,800 kg to the surface*

Minus boiloff losses.

* this includes any mass required to permit the seconds stage to land... at least legs.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #412 on: 01/31/2018 06:44 am »
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.

As I understand it, the second stage can handle that load already.
Fundamentally remember the second stage is around 10m^2, and with one atmosphere internal pressure, it has one hundred tons or so of force on it.
The pressure is a lot higher than that.

The volume of the fairing is very close to 150m^3, counting all of the permitted payload volume, meaning a density of 0.44kg/l.

Pretty much any large tank of liquid will work, for most of them, with a hemispherical cylindrical tank and not something complex shaped.
Satellites tend to be not this dense.

If you want a truly massive kick stage for some outer planets mission, a fifty ton liquid stage with a five ton payload could end up going quite fast indeed.

Or one launch for a kick stage of this class, with another for a moon lander and return vehicle.
« Last Edit: 01/31/2018 06:45 am by speedevil »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6362
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4235
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #413 on: 01/31/2018 09:02 am »
I believe the limiting factors are the payload adapters load capacity and fairing size, with 63t being easily conveyed shorthand for the amount of deltaV it can deliver.
« Last Edit: 01/31/2018 09:03 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3791
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2694
  • Likes Given: 2334
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #414 on: 02/01/2018 09:33 pm »
(Skimmed, but haven't read every post, so usual apologies.)


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?
« Last Edit: 02/01/2018 09:33 pm by Paul451 »

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1212
  • Liked: 760
  • Likes Given: 1004
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #415 on: 02/01/2018 09:43 pm »
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 ;)

« Last Edit: 02/01/2018 09:43 pm by hkultala »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13506
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11904
  • Likes Given: 11211
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #416 on: 02/01/2018 09:46 pm »
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?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3513
  • Likes Given: 4436
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #417 on: 02/01/2018 09:49 pm »
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?

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.
We very much need orbiter missions to Neptune and Uranus.  The cruise will be long, so we best get started.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13506
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11904
  • Likes Given: 11211
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #418 on: 02/01/2018 10:07 pm »
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... but see next post.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2018 10:27 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #419 on: 02/01/2018 10:20 pm »
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'm pretty sure there's a quote from GS somewhere here where she confirms FH will be Block V only (excluding the first one).

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0
OSZAR »