Falcon Heavy Master Update Thread

[Mader Levap]

I don't think he'll be announcing a vehicle we don't know about later this year. The unveiling will be likely the Falcon Heavy...

FH was already officially unvelied over year ago. (YouTube movie from official SpaceX channel)

*Pst* That's a computer animation, not a real rocket.

And your point is...?

[Idiomatic]

A real rocket on the pad is a big deal. And could easily be the big announcement he mentioned.

Sure, this stuff is pretty 'real' to us here on this forum. To most of the planet that aren't as invested it isn't.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

SpaceX manifest has now listed the Intelsat FH for 2015 but out of Vandenberg? That's one large plane change. Is that why the GTO performance currently being talked about for the FH is so small (around 6.5mt)? Once a Texas launch site is a reality and not a EPA/FAA study will the site change? And will the GTO performance values being marketed for non-crossfeed also increase?

[ArbitraryConstant]

SpaceX manifest has now listed the Intelsat FH for 2015 but out of Vandenberg? That's one large plane change.

Wow, really?

The press release definitely says GTO, and SpaceX's manifest definitely says Vandenburg... good catch.

Is that why the GTO performance currently being talked about for the FH is so small (around 6.5mt)?

That'd go a long way towards explaining it... What would that launch even look like? Can't overfly land, so a polar orbit followed by a 90 degree plane change at apogee? Lunar flyby to help remove inclination as with PAS-22?

And will the GTO performance values being marketed for non-crossfeed also increase?

When you compare the GTO payload of F9 and FH, currently announced FH is inexplicably low compared to the claimed LEO performance.

If this is the reason, then any eastwards launch site would see a huge improvement...

[modemeagle]

SpaceX manifest has now listed the Intelsat FH for 2015 but out of Vandenberg? That's one large plane change.

Wow, really?

The press release definitely says GTO, and SpaceX's manifest definitely says Vandenburg... good catch.

Is that why the GTO performance currently being talked about for the FH is so small (around 6.5mt)?

That'd go a long way towards explaining it... What would that launch even look like? Can't overfly land, so a polar orbit followed by a 90 degree plane change at apogee? Lunar flyby to help remove inclination as with PAS-22?

And will the GTO performance values being marketed for non-crossfeed also increase?

When you compare the GTO payload of F9 and FH, currently announced FH is inexplicably low compared to the claimed LEO performance.

If this is the reason, then any eastwards launch site would see a huge improvement...

If the payload is 6 tonnes, there is ~ 5,545 m/s residual propellant in SII at a 185 km parking orbit.  The required delta v for transfer to 35,900 km is 2,461 m/s.  The circularize and plane change is 2,936 m/s for a total of 5,397 for a GSO mission.  If they just do the plane change at Apogee then they can save 1,479 m/s for margin and let the payload handle the burn to circularize the orbit hence GTO.  Using the 2nd option means the payload will have to wait until at least the 2nd Apogee for insertion to GSO.  SpaceX could also use some of the 1,479 margin to raise the Perigee.

[go4mars]

Is that why the GTO performance currently being talked about for the FH is so small (around 6.5mt)?

That'd go a long way towards explaining it... When you compare the GTO payload of F9 and FH, currently announced FH is inexplicably low compared to the claimed LEO performance...If this is the reason, then any eastwards launch site would see a huge improvement...

Another possibility is an assumption about reusing the second stage.

Though your explanation sounds more likely to me.

[tj]

VAFB launch inclination can be as low as about 54 degrees vice CCAFS for GTO of 28 degrees.
I think a bit of a dog leg is required to clear the West Coast is needed for such a low inclination.
A 54 degree initial climb out through the first burn of the second stage could still allow, I expec, a robust GTO release with possibly a super-sync apogee and a relatively low final inclination. All in all a good test of the Falcon Heavy. A tad bit of marketing a expect.

[douglas100]

The lowest inclination actually achieved from Vandenberg that I know of was 65 degrees. (Don't know if it involved dog legging.) If anyone knows of a lower achieved inclination I'd be interested to know.

[ArbitraryConstant]

Another possibility is that F9 assumes an expendable second stage, and FH assumes reuse.

Nope. That is not a possibility.

[tj]

USA-193 inclination 58 degrees
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WnQVCld62z8&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/WnQVCld62z8&rel=1</a>

satobs.org
VAFB launch inclination 56-104 degrees

[douglas100]

Thanks for that info.

[kevin-rf]

Cough Cough:

Bi-Elliptic Transfer orbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-elliptic_transfer

It has been studied for Vandenberg in past:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22751.msg784868#msg784868

If they can do this, it does sound like the have upped the life and number of firings for the Upper Stage.

[2552]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A8039e573-151a-434a-808d-bb5a8a3ad59b

Euroconsult: Five Minutes With SpaceX

AWST: When do you plan to complete work on modifications to the launch site at the Cape?

GS: The major upgrades are, well, we'll be building a heavy [lift launch vehicle] site there and we are upgrading the launch platform to accommodate the new version of the Falcon 9. So it's more tankage, probably more pumps. We're always innovating to increase our rapidity, our pace of launch as well.

It seems the plan is to build a separate Falcon Heavy launch pad at the Cape.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A8039e573-151a-434a-808d-bb5a8a3ad59b

Euroconsult: Five Minutes With SpaceX

AWST: When do you plan to complete work on modifications to the launch site at the Cape?

GS: The major upgrades are, well, we'll be building a heavy [lift launch vehicle] site there and we are upgrading the launch platform to accommodate the new version of the Falcon 9. So it's more tankage, probably more pumps. We're always innovating to increase our rapidity, our pace of launch as well.

It seems the plan is to build a separate Falcon Heavy launch pad at the Cape.

The best candidate for that would be SLC-36A/B which Space Florida already has a lease (starting 2010) on for commercial launch. It is also far enough away from all other active sites.

[RocketmanUS]

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A8039e573-151a-434a-808d-bb5a8a3ad59b

Euroconsult: Five Minutes With SpaceX

AWST: When do you plan to complete work on modifications to the launch site at the Cape?

GS: The major upgrades are, well, we'll be building a heavy [lift launch vehicle] site there and we are upgrading the launch platform to accommodate the new version of the Falcon 9. So it's more tankage, probably more pumps. We're always innovating to increase our rapidity, our pace of launch as well.

It seems the plan is to build a separate Falcon Heavy launch pad at the Cape.

The best candidate for that would be SLC-36A/B which Space Florida already has a lease (starting 2010) on for commercial launch. It is also far enough away from all other active sites.

If FH does get it's own launch pad would they make it so they could still launch a F9 from it also ( possible flight increase for F9 if there were payloads for the increased flights )?