Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy : USSF-44 : KSC LC-39A: 1 Nov 2022 (13:41 UTC)  (Read 183879 times)

There will be quite delays in other launches due to this launch as:-
1) pad 39a will be busy in conversion for launch , stacking and reconversion to normal.
2) after launch all east coast marine assets, that is, Bob/Doug/2 Tugs/ASOG/JRTI will be busy

2 solutions:-
1) can spacex has rtls launches from slc-40 at that time like transporters
2) can vsfb allow high use with all starlinks of group-4 moved to vsfb at that time

they need to think otherwise 60 launches unachieved

3rd Solution, albeit harder, a third East Coast ASDS.
i found spacex will not be allowed even if spacex wants to bring ocisly back due to swot mission on east coast and we have no asds in making now.

Offline Conexion Espacial

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1810
  • Liked: 2478
  • Likes Given: 1915
¡Cross-Post!
It's about time.  Presumably USSF-44...
1593-EX-ST-2022
Falcon HeavyLooks like booster RTLS, center core expended
NET October

[zubenelgenubi: Launch operations NET October 21]
« Last Edit: 09/25/2022 09:08 pm by zubenelgenubi »
I publish information in Spanish about space and rockets.
https://twitter.com/conexionspacial

Online crandles57

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
  • Sychdyn
  • Liked: 234
  • Likes Given: 89
Perhaps it is out of date or wrong in first place but

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/1151

says
Quote
First mission to attempt a double droneship landing.

Online Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Spain
  • Liked: 4195
  • Likes Given: 856
Perhaps it is out of date or wrong in first place but

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/1151

says
Quote
First mission to attempt a double droneship landing.

Oops I forgot to change the description 🤦‍♂️

Online crandles57

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
  • Sychdyn
  • Liked: 234
  • Likes Given: 89
Curious?

If they can manage side boosters as RTLS and a soft water landing per the description "The center core is expendable with a soft water landing."

wouldn't they try to land the center core? Maybe they can't if the weight of grid fins and landing legs pushes it over the limit of safe possibility? Other reasons?

Will they tow it back, blow it up, lift out of water or ... ?

Online [email protected]

Curious?

If they can manage side boosters as RTLS and a soft water landing per the description "The center core is expendable with a soft water landing."

wouldn't they try to land the center core? Maybe they can't if the weight of grid fins and landing legs pushes it over the limit of safe possibility? Other reasons?

Will they tow it back, blow it up, lift out of water or ... ?
The reentry will be too strong to survive
My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 0
If it goes in the water, it won't have legs or gridfins.

Curious?

If they can manage side boosters as RTLS and a soft water landing per the description "The center core is expendable with a soft water landing."

wouldn't they try to land the center core? Maybe they can't if the weight of grid fins and landing legs pushes it over the limit of safe possibility? Other reasons?

Will they tow it back, blow it up, lift out of water or ... ?
The reentry will be too strong to survive
maybe we must look back and see that psyche told us of such rtls+expending

Offline Vettedrmr

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Hot Springs, AR
  • Liked: 1441
  • Likes Given: 2383
Curious?

If they can manage side boosters as RTLS and a soft water landing per the description "The center core is expendable with a soft water landing."

wouldn't they try to land the center core? Maybe they can't if the weight of grid fins and landing legs pushes it over the limit of safe possibility? Other reasons?

Will they tow it back, blow it up, lift out of water or ... ?

Since they only have two ASDS available for landing, it doesn't help if they burn the sides long enough to require them to require ASDS landings, thus saving fuel for the center's reentry/landing burns.  Plus the consideration that Alvian brought up of a really high energy reentry.
Aviation/space enthusiast, retired control system SW engineer, doesn't know anything!

Online crandles57

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
  • Sychdyn
  • Liked: 234
  • Likes Given: 89
maybe we must look back and see that psyche told us of such rtls+expending

Psyche isn't until 2023, why do FCC STA starting Oct?

Why do we think this FCC STA is for USSF-44 rather than Viasat-3?

The reentry will be too strong to survive

Perhaps you mean the "soft water landing" is still far too rapid for a landing. This raises question of why include the words soft and landing, but it seems quite plausible: What else would they say? A 'hard water rapid scheduled destruction' is not what you want to draw attention to.

Offline GWR64

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1261
  • Likes Given: 815
What else would they say? A 'hard water rapid scheduled destruction' is not what you want to draw attention to.

They wouldn't write anything, expendable doesn't have to be explained. I do not understand it either.
If the center can "land" softly on the ocean, it must be intact, needs gridfins and fuel. The legs are not needed.

Online scr00chy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • Czechia
    • ElonX.net
  • Liked: 1532
  • Likes Given: 1178
Maybe they just want to test out that the center core is able to survive reentry and land, but without risking a droneship. Then the results of this test can inform center core landing decisions on future FH launches.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3076
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2393
  • Likes Given: 926
Maybe they just want to test out that the center core is able to survive reentry and land, but without risking a droneship. Then the results of this test can inform center core landing decisions on future FH launches.
Why would SpaceX spend any money on developing a process for recovering the FH center booster? The number of flights in the remaining lifetime of the FH is low, and FH has no competition, so they can charge enough to make a nice profit. For a trifecta, the capital costs (another barge) and the variable costs are too high to justify the effort.

Online crandles57

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
  • Sychdyn
  • Liked: 234
  • Likes Given: 89
Maybe they just want to test out that the center core is able to survive reentry and land, but without risking a droneship. Then the results of this test can inform center core landing decisions on future FH launches.
Why would SpaceX spend any money on developing a process for recovering the FH center booster? The number of flights in the remaining lifetime of the FH is low, and FH has no competition, so they can charge enough to make a nice profit. For a trifecta, the capital costs (another barge) and the variable costs are too high to justify the effort.

Testing to gain data for possible future mission with 2 RTLS and center core recoverable seems plausible to me - extend the envelope of where recovery is possible. If they have the fuel to do such a test, what would it cost SpaceX? The fuel would be loaded anyway to help in case of engine out, no droneship needs to be sent, just some set up work, receiving the data a tiny bit longer and analysing it, peanuts.

Data from wrong side of max recovery speed could be useful to check models.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3076
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2393
  • Likes Given: 926
Maybe they just want to test out that the center core is able to survive reentry and land, but without risking a droneship. Then the results of this test can inform center core landing decisions on future FH launches.
Why would SpaceX spend any money on developing a process for recovering the FH center booster? The number of flights in the remaining lifetime of the FH is low, and FH has no competition, so they can charge enough to make a nice profit. For a trifecta, the capital costs (another barge) and the variable costs are too high to justify the effort.

Testing to gain data for possible future mission with 2 RTLS and center core recoverable seems plausible to me - extend the envelope of where recovery is possible. If they have the fuel to do such a test, what would it cost SpaceX? The fuel would be loaded anyway to help in case of engine out, no droneship needs to be sent, just some set up work, receiving the data a tiny bit longer and analysing it, peanuts.

Data from wrong side of max recovery speed could be useful to check models.
Such tests take time and money, and if there is never an economic justification for FH center core recovery, then that time and money is wasted.

maybe we must look back and see that psyche told us of such rtls+expending

Psyche isn't until 2023, why do FCC STA starting Oct?

Why do we think this FCC STA is for USSF-44 rather than Viasat-3?

The reentry will be too strong to survive

Perhaps you mean the "soft water landing" is still far too rapid for a landing. This raises question of why include the words soft and landing, but it seems quite plausible: What else would they say? A 'hard water rapid scheduled destruction' is not what you want to draw attention to.
psyche was said to have rtls for sides so think it started the tradition

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13457
  • UK
  • Liked: 3729
  • Likes Given: 220
Maybe they just want to test out that the center core is able to survive reentry and land, but without risking a droneship. Then the results of this test can inform center core landing decisions on future FH launches.
Why would SpaceX spend any money on developing a process for recovering the FH center booster? The number of flights in the remaining lifetime of the FH is low, and FH has no competition, so they can charge enough to make a nice profit. For a trifecta, the capital costs (another barge) and the variable costs are too high to justify the effort.

Testing to gain data for possible future mission with 2 RTLS and center core recoverable seems plausible to me - extend the envelope of where recovery is possible. If they have the fuel to do such a test, what would it cost SpaceX? The fuel would be loaded anyway to help in case of engine out, no droneship needs to be sent, just some set up work, receiving the data a tiny bit longer and analysing it, peanuts.

Data from wrong side of max recovery speed could be useful to check models.
Such tests take time and money, and if there is never an economic justification for FH center core recovery, then that time and money is wasted.
As you are not privy to Space X’s internal considerations on such matters your whole statement is supposition backed up with very little data.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3076
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2393
  • Likes Given: 926
Maybe they just want to test out that the center core is able to survive reentry and land, but without risking a droneship. Then the results of this test can inform center core landing decisions on future FH launches.
Why would SpaceX spend any money on developing a process for recovering the FH center booster? The number of flights in the remaining lifetime of the FH is low, and FH has no competition, so they can charge enough to make a nice profit. For a trifecta, the capital costs (another barge) and the variable costs are too high to justify the effort.

Testing to gain data for possible future mission with 2 RTLS and center core recoverable seems plausible to me - extend the envelope of where recovery is possible. If they have the fuel to do such a test, what would it cost SpaceX? The fuel would be loaded anyway to help in case of engine out, no droneship needs to be sent, just some set up work, receiving the data a tiny bit longer and analysing it, peanuts.

Data from wrong side of max recovery speed could be useful to check models.
Such tests take time and money, and if there is never an economic justification for FH center core recovery, then that time and money is wasted.
As you are not privy to Space X’s internal considerations on such matters your whole statement is supposition backed up with very little data.
Correct. My statement was qualititive, not quantitative, and it is based on no data whatsoever:
      The tests really do take time and money -- how much or how little, I don't know.
           (Note that crandles57 does not claim to have data either: his statement includes an "if".)
      If there is never an economic justification for FH center core recovery, then that time and money is wasted.  --Starts with "if".

So the only "data" is an analysis of the number of remaining FH flights. The number up to now has been surprisingly low (3) because users have found ways to shift to F9 instead, and there are only ten total identified new missions prior to 2026. I think Starship will have completely superseded FH by 2026, so the cost of the effort would need to be amortized over at most 10 missions.

Online Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Spain
  • Liked: 4195
  • Likes Given: 856
Not sure why all this conversation here when it's all just theories and most of the comments are barely related to the mission itself. Center core is being expended, period.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8805
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 5291
  • Likes Given: 47647
Perhaps it is out of date or wrong in first place but

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/1151

says
Quote
First mission to attempt a double droneship landing.

Oops I forgot to change the description 🤦‍♂️

Listing corrected: FH side boosters landing at LZ-1 and LZ-2.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.)
My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!"

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0