Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)  (Read 275110 times)

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #240 on: 11/10/2014 04:32 pm »
I can see a future (say, 15 years from now) where a fully reusable BFR is able to apply lessons learned from F9 so well that it is actually cheaper per flight than F9 with an expendable upper stage. In that scenario, I would expect a sort of F9 2.0 eventually (another 5+ years later) that would be even cheaper and be fully reusable.

Or maybe people will switch to heavier satellites. If launch price is low enough, it will make sense to optimize the satellite by cost instead of by mass. Stuff like less efficient but cheaper solar panels, for example. If mass is not an issue, why not just put more solar panels? Why not use steel as a structural element? Put a bigger fuel tank to ensure de-orbiting. Et cetera...

This is backwards IMO. Satellite costs are dominated by Integration, testing, & engineering costs. Component costs are far down the list. So lots of little satellites and common buses would do more to reduce costs than more mass available. Cf Iridium, Orbcomm.

Online MP99

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #241 on: 11/10/2014 04:41 pm »


thanks for pointing it out.

I meant the system with expendable upper stage. I used the term fully reusable to distinguish it from partial reusable, where just the 2 booster-cores land, and the central core is expendable.

maybe a reusable upper stage would work for falcon heavy, as (as far as I know) the reusable upper stage would be to heavy for a normal F9, FH could be strong enough to do so. and if such a completely reusable FH delivers as much mass as a normal F9R, then it's just an economic question... which system is cheaper.

I think we need better terminology for the various classes of reuse (boosters / core / boosters + core / combinations with upperstage / combinations with RTLS / combinations with sea landing). Something like FH-NRRE (no crossfeed, boosters RTLS, core RTLS, US expended) or FH-CRFE (crossfeed, boosters RTLS, core FTSL [barge landing], US expended)

U/s recovery - agreed. I'm holding my breath that Jon Goff's work on Magnetoshell Aero Capture will bring down the mass penalty of recovery.

Cheers, Martin

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #242 on: 11/10/2014 05:10 pm »
I can see a future (say, 15 years from now) where a fully reusable BFR is able to apply lessons learned from F9 so well that it is actually cheaper per flight than F9 with an expendable upper stage. In that scenario, I would expect a sort of F9 2.0 eventually (another 5+ years later) that would be even cheaper and be fully reusable.

Or maybe people will switch to heavier satellites. If launch price is low enough, it will make sense to optimize the satellite by cost instead of by mass. Stuff like less efficient but cheaper solar panels, for example. If mass is not an issue, why not just put more solar panels? Why not use steel as a structural element? Put a bigger fuel tank to ensure de-orbiting. Et cetera...

This is backwards IMO. Satellite costs are dominated by Integration, testing, & engineering costs. Component costs are far down the list. So lots of little satellites and common buses would do more to reduce costs than more mass available. Cf Iridium, Orbcomm.
The argument is that using greater margins in structure, power, thermal areas plus modular (as opposed to integrated) interfaces may make testing and development plus integration requirements a lot easier and faster. If you can throw in a factor of safety of 4, you don't need to track down the third digit of certainty in your design, the logic goes. Aerospace engineering becomes more like building houses, where generous margins and factors of safety allow you to truncate analysis earlier without reducing safety.
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 wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #243 on: 11/10/2014 05:31 pm »
Not reusable, then.

Are you saying the Merlin 1D Vac not reuseable?  The engine itself should be, the stage around it would have to be made reuseable.  If a reuseable FH US is developed then it exists and is sitting there ready for use.

Regarding the magical engine configuration requiring a center engine and deep throttling, it seems to me that Super Dracos placed at the intertank or top of stage would do a lovely job of setting a stage on the ground.  Retroburns could be managed with 2 outboard engines.

It's convenient that the size of the Merlin 1 has worked with the ability to land with the main engine.  But I don't think we should all get stuck on the idea of all re-useable rockets needing to work that way in the future.  Especially with cryogenic fueled upper stages.  Those are going to need store-able propellants.

Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Razvan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • United States
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #244 on: 11/14/2014 10:23 pm »
Falcon Heavy is going to carry the ViaSat2
ViaSat-2 Launch Contract Goes to SpaceX as Arianespace Sits out Competition (Space News)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11172
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8801
  • Likes Given: 7820
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #246 on: 11/19/2014 11:00 pm »
U.S. Air Force 'pretty optimistic' about SpaceX certification

Quote
A top U.S. Air Force official on Wednesday said she is "pretty optimistic" that privately held Space Exploration Technologies will eventually be certified to launch U.S. military satellites into orbit but declined comment on the timing of such an action.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-air-force-pretty-optimistic-spacex-certification-184329209.html
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #247 on: 11/20/2014 12:10 am »
Has there already been speculation about which island SpaceX might choose to aim booster cores at, in the event RTLS isn't possible?

Anybody looking at Dogleg or the other real estate ventures to see if they've bought some island?   :)

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #248 on: 11/20/2014 12:57 am »
If they do the same for heavy flights from the Cape (land at a distance for flights with too little deltaV for RTLS), maybe they can buy the island next to Branson's little Caribbean getaway (Necker Island).  That way, Elon can say to Branson like he said to Bezos "you should get into the space business, it's a lot of fun."

Actually, Necker Island looks pretty close to Puerto Rico, so perhaps SpaceX has already looked at a nearby piece of land.

Offline nimbostratus

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Mainland, China
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #249 on: 11/20/2014 02:38 am »
Has there already been speculation about which island SpaceX might choose to aim booster cores at, in the event RTLS isn't possible?

Anybody looking at Dogleg or the other real estate ventures to see if they've bought some island?   :)

How about Falcon Heavy taking off at Boca Chica and recovering the core in Florida, while the 2 boosters to RTLS?
« Last Edit: 11/20/2014 02:40 am by nimbostratus »
Wonders in the desert

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #250 on: 11/20/2014 11:09 am »
Has there already been speculation about which island SpaceX might choose to aim booster cores at, in the event RTLS isn't possible?

Anybody looking at Dogleg or the other real estate ventures to see if they've bought some island?   :)

How about Falcon Heavy taking off at Boca Chica and recovering the core in Florida, while the 2 boosters to RTLS?

Elon has talked about this scenario, and stated the distance is too far.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Online MP99

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #251 on: 11/20/2014 11:23 am »


Has there already been speculation about which island SpaceX might choose to aim booster cores at, in the event RTLS isn't possible?

Anybody looking at Dogleg or the other real estate ventures to see if they've bought some island?   :)

How about Falcon Heavy taking off at Boca Chica and recovering the core in Florida, while the 2 boosters to RTLS?

Elon has talked about this scenario, and stated the distance is too far.

No, he said the core would overshoot Florida, which seems to imply it could land there with a much smaller braking / boostback burn than RTLS.

Cheers, Martin

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #252 on: 11/20/2014 05:08 pm »
Has there already been speculation about which island SpaceX might choose to aim booster cores at, in the event RTLS isn't possible?

There was a specific west coast island mentioned in L2 but  other options are being considered.
« Last Edit: 11/20/2014 05:12 pm by cscott »

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #253 on: 11/20/2014 07:09 pm »

How about Falcon Heavy taking off at Boca Chica and recovering the core in Florida, while the 2 boosters to RTLS?

Elon has talked about this scenario, and stated the distance is too far.

No, he said the core would overshoot Florida, which seems to imply it could land there with a much smaller braking / boostback burn than RTLS.

Cheers, Martin
[/quote]

I think there is considerable confusion about this. The west coast of Florida, near south tip would seem to be about right according to some calculations done (can't remember by who) and overshooting Florida would apply to the expendable version.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #254 on: 11/20/2014 10:40 pm »
Please remember that since the boosters have more propellent load, if the core throttles after MaxQ then boosters and cores would deplete at about the same time.

Online MP99

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #255 on: 11/20/2014 10:41 pm »
JP Burke (yatpay):
@elonmusk Is it possible to launch from Texas and land in Florida?
http://twitter.com/yatpay/status/330394578442133504


Elon Musk (elonmusk):
@yatpay Side boosters fall short & center core goes too far + Florida is heavily populated. Landing permission tricky :)
http://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/330395232564826112

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11172
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8801
  • Likes Given: 7820
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #256 on: 11/27/2014 12:16 am »
SpaceX may upset firm's monopoly in launching Air Force satellites

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-satellites-20141126-story.html#page=1

Quote
Etrepreneur Elon Musk and his upstart company SpaceX are on the verge of upsetting a cozy and pricey military deal that for years has given two aerospace giants the exclusive right to launch the Air Force's most crucial satellites into orbit.

Quote
Air Force officials are in the final stages of a years-long, detailed review of the rocket company's launches and operations. A decision on whether to certify SpaceX for the launches, they said, is expected next month.

Photo Cred: Ron Lin / SpaceX
« Last Edit: 11/27/2014 12:17 am by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #257 on: 11/30/2014 04:55 am »
Wow. LA Times article from today could have been written five years ago. Kind of silly to still refer to SpaceX as upstart.

* let me rephrase -- headline and subhead could be from five years ago
« Last Edit: 11/30/2014 04:56 am by cuddihy »

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #258 on: 12/02/2014 03:09 am »
Try not to lick the screen when you see this, but we've released one of the renderings out of L2 - by Nathan Koga - showing SLS on 39B and Falcon Heavy on 39A:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36205.0
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline b ramsey

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 2)
« Reply #259 on: 12/02/2014 03:59 am »
Very nice realistic looking rendering, but very much a fantasy, and you know which vehicle I am referring too.       

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1