So, I heard on here that there was a Falcon Heavy performance upgrade and so I finally got around to looking at the SpaceX website for the full details. Something else caught my eye that I thought was weird. Delta IV Heavy LEO performance is listed as 22,560 kg which is actually beat by Proton M.http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavySo, I head over to wikipedia to check, and it lists Proton M at 23 mT which is the same as what is listed on the SpaceX website.
Does SpaceX know something we don't? Is this using a different orbital altitude as a standard for "LEO"? Still 6,230 kg is a massive difference for a slight difference in orbital specifications. SpaceX's website listed Falcon 9 performance at ~28 mT but that was revised down to ~23 mt at one point. Is this just another example of information on the SpaceX website being wrong?
Quote from: ncb1397 on 04/13/2017 05:16 pmSo, I heard on here that there was a Falcon Heavy performance upgrade and so I finally got around to looking at the SpaceX website for the full details. Something else caught my eye that I thought was weird. Delta IV Heavy LEO performance is listed as 22,560 kg which is actually beat by Proton M.http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavySo, I head over to wikipedia to check, and it lists Proton M at 23 mT which is the same as what is listed on the SpaceX website.The spacex web page you cited says (as of 16-Apr-2017) "the ability to lift into orbit over 54 metric tons".
Quote from: RonJohn63 on 04/17/2017 04:44 amQuote from: ncb1397 on 04/13/2017 05:16 pmSo, I heard on here that there was a Falcon Heavy performance upgrade and so I finally got around to looking at the SpaceX website for the full details. Something else caught my eye that I thought was weird. Delta IV Heavy LEO performance is listed as 22,560 kg which is actually beat by Proton M.http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavySo, I head over to wikipedia to check, and it lists Proton M at 23 mT which is the same as what is listed on the SpaceX website.The spacex web page you cited says (as of 16-Apr-2017) "the ability to lift into orbit over 54 metric tons".That's completely unrelated to what it says about Delta IV Heavy.
But that's an interesting point of itself; the text on the FH page hasn't been updated to match the specs listed further down. It's still technically true (63.8 tonnes is "over 54" tonnes) but annoyingly inconsistent.
I didn't mention the DIVH at all.
Instead, I was referring to your comment about the FH launching 23MT. You probably meant http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
QuoteBut that's an interesting point of itself; the text on the FH page hasn't been updated to match the specs listed further down. It's still technically true (63.8 tonnes is "over 54" tonnes) but annoyingly inconsistent.As I wrote before, it probably has to do with reusable vs. expendable first stage.
There is a comparison of various heavy lifters at the bottom of http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy and Proton M is listed at 23 tonnes. More than DIVH, which is no longer true.
So, I heard on here that there was a Falcon Heavy performance upgrade and so I finally got around to looking at the SpaceX website for the full details. Something else caught my eye that I thought was weird. Delta IV Heavy LEO performance is listed as 22,560 kg which is actually beat by Proton M.http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavySo, I head over to wikipedia to check, and it lists Proton M at 23 mT which is the same as what is listed on the SpaceX website. Wikipedia lists Delta IV Heavy at 28,790 kg which is 6,230 kg higher than what is listed on SpaceX's website. More importantly, ULAlaunch.com lists 28,370 kg:http://www.ulalaunch.com/products_deltaiv.aspxDoes SpaceX know something we don't? Is this using a different orbital altitude as a standard for "LEO"? Still 6,230 kg is a massive difference for a slight difference in orbital specifications. SpaceX's website listed Falcon 9 performance at ~28 mT but that was revised down to ~23 mt at one point. Is this just another example of information on the SpaceX website being wrong?