Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)  (Read 179868 times)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2964
  • US
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 1455
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #380 on: 01/08/2018 05:13 PM »
Are they targeting tomorrow then? Don't see a reason they will leave it there unless they are gonna do another WDR first.

Another WDR?  They haven't done one yet on this vehicle.  Chris B. said above that they may be targeting Wednesday.

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1989
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #381 on: 01/08/2018 05:13 PM »
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?

Offline FutureMartian97

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #382 on: 01/08/2018 05:17 PM »
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?

My mistake. Thought the fit check was a WDR.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 1121
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #383 on: 01/08/2018 07:56 PM »
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.

The update thread doesn't show that last bit. If this is official/reliable, can you update the update thread?

Online deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • California
  • Liked: 1558
  • Likes Given: 2811
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #384 on: 01/08/2018 09:22 PM »
This thread is for general discussion of the vehicle.  There is an Update and a Discussion thread in the SpaceX Missions section for discussing particular activities in preparation for the Demo mission specifically.  Much better to not spread any discussion of events over multiple threads in different sections. 


UPDATES:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44376.0 

DISCUSSION: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42705.0
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5820
  • Liked: 3657
  • Likes Given: 5089
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #385 on: 01/22/2018 07:54 PM »
Here's a Lunar program proposal based on FH:

Quote
Why the Falcon Heavy should be America's next Moon rocket

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3414/1
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 629
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #386 on: 01/22/2018 08:17 PM »
Here's a Lunar program proposal based on FH:
Quote
Why the Falcon Heavy should be America's next Moon rocket
...

That is, of course, by Doug Plata, medical doctor, space activist, and regular participant of The Space Show.  While his Lunar COTS proposal is more related to FH in general than to this Demo thread, the Demo tie-in is that he has built an inflatable mock-up of his proposed lunar lander and will be bringing it from California to Florida to display it during the Demo launch.

His last appearance on The Space Show was on 2017-11-06 and his comments in the discussion section for that show include a photo of his mock-up.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8926
  • UK
  • Liked: 1515
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #387 on: 01/25/2018 07:51 PM »
With successful test fire, massive Falcon Heavy rocket is poised to boost space science

Quote
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.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/successful-test-fire-massive-falcon-heavy-rocket-poised-boost-space-science

Offline kerrycockram

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Florida, USA
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #388 on: 01/25/2018 11:26 PM »
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 :)



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...
« Last Edit: 01/25/2018 11:39 PM by kerrycockram »

Offline The_Ronin

  • Master of Servers, Big and Small
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • *nix engineer & space geek
  • Nashville, TN
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #389 on: 01/26/2018 03:40 AM »
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 :)



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?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8926
  • UK
  • Liked: 1515
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #390 on: 01/26/2018 06:23 AM »
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.

Offline kerrycockram

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Florida, USA
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #391 on: 01/26/2018 11:48 AM »
I was on the Causeway when they scrubbed STS-134.  Are they selling tickets for the Causeway for FH?

You can tell I don't do this often. I misinterpreted the "close" package as being on the causeway. It's actually near the Police museum. The video I took of STS-135 is NOT representative of that view. Thinking about just deleting it to avoid further confusion.

I apologize for the misinformation; I need to fact check a lot better before I post again.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 1404
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #392 on: 01/30/2018 05:39 PM »
From SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6

Physical size isnt everything....

Straight from BO and SpaceX (accuracy not guaranteed)

FH
LEO 63,800kg
GTO 26,700kg

NG (2-stage)
LEO 45,000kg
GTO 13,000kg
That is comparing expendable to reusable paylod capability, so not really a good comparison.

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.
« Last Edit: 01/30/2018 05:50 PM by Roy_H »
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 1121
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #393 on: 01/30/2018 06:01 PM »
From SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6

Physical size isnt everything....

Straight from BO and SpaceX (accuracy not guaranteed)

FH
LEO 63,800kg
GTO 26,700kg

NG (2-stage)
LEO 45,000kg
GTO 13,000kg
That is comparing expendable to reusable paylod capability, so not really a good comparison.

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.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 1404
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #394 on: 01/30/2018 06:15 PM »
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.

SpaceX doesn't say that on their easy to click on FH page. How did you find this capabilities page? I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that. IIRC, a year or so ago Gwynne publicly stated that their website advertises payloads with booster recovery. Thanks for the correction.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4619
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1744
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #395 on: 01/30/2018 06:32 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"
« Last Edit: 01/30/2018 06:33 PM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32003
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10629
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #396 on: 01/30/2018 06:56 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.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8926
  • UK
  • Liked: 1515
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #397 on: 01/30/2018 07:11 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.

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 1404
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #398 on: 01/30/2018 07:31 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!?
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk

Offline Ictogan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Germany
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #399 on: 01/30/2018 07:40 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!?
SpaceX is listing the max payloads on their website, nothing wrong with that.

Also your analogy does not make any sense because it is completely irrelevant to a customer if the rocket will land or not, all that matters to the customers is at what price , schedule and reliability they can get their payload to the desired orbit. Why would customer care if the rocket that they're launching on will be expended?

Tags: