Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)  (Read 493028 times)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4546
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1020 on: 04/17/2019 02:26 pm »
NASA could just fund an "American mission" with investors/donors and the astronauts could take a "leave of absence" so this would be on their own personal time avoiding all the "legal government civil servant BS"...
« Last Edit: 04/17/2019 02:46 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11728
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 16537
  • Likes Given: 10810
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1021 on: 04/17/2019 08:33 pm »
General FAA commercial spaceflight regulations do come into play, however, including those directed toward human crew and passengers. Those regulations are rather ambiguous and subject to a great degree of further interpretation and development as befits an industry segment that’s not yet well established.

But the point is that the FAA would still have to issue a launch license, and for a mission carrying human beings, the process will be a somewhat more than simple paperwork.

Agreed. But FAA requirements are not nearly as intrusive as NASA's.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8078
  • Liked: 6707
  • Likes Given: 2943
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1022 on: 04/18/2019 12:38 pm »
So.... the Falcon Heavy center booster has COPV's in the RP-1 tank?

https://twitter.com/spacecoast_stve/status/1118766512079298560

Offline Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Spain
  • Liked: 5055
  • Likes Given: 902
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1023 on: 04/18/2019 01:08 pm »
All boosters have COPV's on their RP-1 tanks, I don't know why that's a surprise.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8078
  • Liked: 6707
  • Likes Given: 2943
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1024 on: 04/18/2019 01:26 pm »
All boosters have COPV's on their RP-1 tanks, I don't know why that's a surprise.

I presume you mean "all Falcon boosters", and not all boosters in general?

I can't recall seeing this publicly stated or depicted by SpaceX, and I haven't seen any other public pictures of the inside of a completed RP-1 tank (at least that can be positively identified as a RP-1 tank).

Offline Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Spain
  • Liked: 5055
  • Likes Given: 902
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1025 on: 04/18/2019 01:29 pm »
All boosters have COPV's on their RP-1 tanks, I don't know why that's a surprise.

I presume you mean "all Falcon boosters", and not all boosters in general?

I can't recall seeing this publicly stated or depicted by SpaceX, and I haven't seen any other public pictures of the inside of a completed RP-1 tank (at least that can be positively identified as a RP-1 tank).

Yes, I meant Falcon boosters, of course. There are multiple reasons why there are COPV's on the RP-1 tank...

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2619
  • UK
  • Liked: 1756
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1026 on: 04/20/2019 08:55 pm »
Even though SpaceX only wants to reuse the side boosters for STP-2, given that the center core had a slim chance of landing safely, why would they not reuse the center core once it comes back to port?

I don't think SpaceX has ever said they would not reuse the ArabSat center core.  They just can't contractually use it on STP-2, as they are only allowed to reuse the side boosters through a contract change.

I fully expect they'll reuse the center core for some other mission unless the stress was beyond limits.
Sadly they won't be able to reuse the center core now as it has been lost at sea:
https://www.space.com/spacex-loses-falcon-heavy-core-booster-at-sea.html
 :'(
Octograber was not configured for the center core - but should be for the next mission.
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline lonestriker

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Houston We've Had A Problem
  • Liked: 820
  • Likes Given: 5155
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1027 on: 04/20/2019 09:09 pm »
Even though SpaceX only wants to reuse the side boosters for STP-2, given that the center core had a slim chance of landing safely, why would they not reuse the center core once it comes back to port?

I don't think SpaceX has ever said they would not reuse the ArabSat center core.  They just can't contractually use it on STP-2, as they are only allowed to reuse the side boosters through a contract change.

I fully expect they'll reuse the center core for some other mission unless the stress was beyond limits.
Sadly they won't be able to reuse the center core now as it has been lost at sea:
https://www.space.com/spacex-loses-falcon-heavy-core-booster-at-sea.html
 :'(
Octograber was not configured for the center core - but should be for the next mission.

Funny how reality has a way of invalidating all of your predictions and assumptions  :P

I hope they got back enough to at least learn something of value for a hot, GTO reentry that they can apply to future center cores.  They'll at least know to expedite Octograbber for FH now.  As they say, if you learned something, it wasn't a total failure...

Online Herb Schaltegger

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1028 on: 04/20/2019 09:41 pm »
Even though SpaceX only wants to reuse the side boosters for STP-2, given that the center core had a slim chance of landing safely, why would they not reuse the center core once it comes back to port?

I don't think SpaceX has ever said they would not reuse the ArabSat center core.  They just can't contractually use it on STP-2, as they are only allowed to reuse the side boosters through a contract change.

I fully expect they'll reuse the center core for some other mission unless the stress was beyond limits.
Sadly they won't be able to reuse the center core now as it has been lost at sea:
https://www.space.com/spacex-loses-falcon-heavy-core-booster-at-sea.html
 :'(
Octograber was not configured for the center core - but should be for the next mission.

Um, that article is several days old. Scroll up just a few posts before your own. The remains (the RP1 tank, engines, octoweb and legs) have been in Port Canaveral for a couple days now.

No need to pose old (incomplete) news as if it was some new information.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27060
  • Liked: 5295
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1029 on: 08/01/2019 02:06 pm »
Falcon Heavy-Drag Coefficient..

Made by: Jonathan Hellberg

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x3lzi2FTutseTfd4_a7UwSMZ_ExbANuRHa0Hz1uMpy8/edit

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9626
  • US
  • Liked: 12553
  • Likes Given: 5481
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1030 on: 09/22/2019 06:48 pm »
[Space News] Air Force certified Falcon Heavy for national security launch but more work needed to meet required orbits
Quote
What that means is that Falcon Heavy has been certified “for certain orbits,” said Thompson. “It’s not certified for all of our most stressing national security space orbits,” he said. “We continue to work with SpaceX to mature their design and I think that’s going well.”
...
A spokesman for the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center said the Falcon Heavy is certified for two Phase 1A reference orbits.

The two reference orbits are for the missions that Falcon Heavy was awarded by the Air Force under Phase 1A of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1455
  • Liked: 941
  • Likes Given: 570
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1031 on: 11/07/2019 05:52 pm »
I was looking at edge-case performance of Falcon Heavy and did some math specifically around the quoted Pluto delivery....

Came up with a whopping 81+ tonnes of propellant residuals if launched without payload to use as a space tug.

Really blew my mind. I keep checking my math to see if I missed something.

Offline S.Paulissen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Boston
  • Liked: 332
  • Likes Given: 510
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1032 on: 11/08/2019 01:43 am »
Isn't that essentially an almost full second stage ?
"An expert is a person who has found out by his own painful experience all the mistakes that one can make in a very narrow field." -Niels Bohr
Poster previously known as Exclavion going by his real name now.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4934
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2465
  • Likes Given: 2632
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1033 on: 11/08/2019 01:59 am »
Why can't they just launch a 2nd stage with only docking equipment attached.  Then launch a Lunar Stack of a capsule, service module, and a lunar lander.  The 2nd stage would dock with them and shoot them to the moon. 

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2237
  • Likes Given: 3882
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1034 on: 11/08/2019 02:29 am »
Isn't that essentially an almost full second stage ?
About 80% percent full.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11728
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 16537
  • Likes Given: 10810
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1035 on: 11/08/2019 07:47 am »
Why can't they just launch a 2nd stage with only docking equipment attached.  Then launch a Lunar Stack of a capsule, service module, and a lunar lander.  The 2nd stage would dock with them and shoot them to the moon. 

What lunar lander?
And that lunar stack would be launched on what?

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2237
  • Likes Given: 3882
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1036 on: 11/08/2019 10:21 am »
Another Falcon Heavy and/or Vulcan, presumably. If SLS goes away that's what we'll be looking at.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1455
  • Liked: 941
  • Likes Given: 570
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1037 on: 11/08/2019 01:21 pm »
Why can't they just launch a 2nd stage with only docking equipment attached.  Then launch a Lunar Stack of a capsule, service module, and a lunar lander.  The 2nd stage would dock with them and shoot them to the moon.
This was exactly the use case we were considering. Although I would presume we'd launch the lunar stack first, since it has storables, and then launch the "naked" Falcon Heavy to a matching orbit. The lunar stack would complete the rendezvous and docking while the FHUS merely held position with cold-gas thrusters. Saturn V threw 44 tonnes onto TLI; by my math, a naked Falcon Heavy upper stage could throw upwards of 47 tonnes.

Of course Orion is too heavy to be the capsule in such a situation. Fitting the whole thing into a LOP-G architecture would have SLS sending crew to LOP-G on Orion independently and using distributed launch to deliver the lunar lander to LOP-G. Boeing's monolithic two-stage lander, which they propose launching on SLS, must necessarily be less than SLS's 37-tonne throw capacity. It could be launched to TLI by a naked FHUS along with a ten-tonne logistics module just for fun, or delivered directly to LOP-G with capacity to spare. No refill missions required.

Isn't that essentially an almost full second stage ?
About 80% percent full.
Yeah. The only way I can make "3.5 tonnes direct to Pluto" work is if core booster burnout occurs at 1000-1100 under LEO.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4934
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2465
  • Likes Given: 2632
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1038 on: 11/08/2019 02:18 pm »
A deep space Dragon capsule with Superdracos added for more maneuverability.  Then for a lunar lander add a stripped Dragon capsule with no heat shield and Superdracos for landing and return to orbit.  Both of these would be launched by a Falcon Heavy.  The almost fully fueled upper stage of a Falcon Heavy would dock at the rear of the stack and launch them to the moon like Saturn V upper stage.  If it takes 3 launches to get the whole stack, maybe two Falcon 9's could launch the Dracon capsule and the lander.  Join, then dock with the upper stage, and you have a lunar program for less than half the cost of an SLS> 

Offline sevenperforce

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1455
  • Liked: 941
  • Likes Given: 570
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1039 on: 11/08/2019 02:31 pm »
A deep space Dragon capsule with Superdracos added for more maneuverability.  Then for a lunar lander add a stripped Dragon capsule with no heat shield and Superdracos for landing and return to orbit.  Both of these would be launched by a Falcon Heavy.  The almost fully fueled upper stage of a Falcon Heavy would dock at the rear of the stack and launch them to the moon like Saturn V upper stage.  If it takes 3 launches to get the whole stack, maybe two Falcon 9's could launch the Dracon capsule and the lander.  Join, then dock with the upper stage, and you have a lunar program for less than half the cost of an SLS>
Cons: would only allow for flags and footprints unless you pre-landed surface assets. Would be better to have a standard delivery module (using either SuperDracos or meth-gox thrusters) and use that both for delivering surface assets and as the descent module.

Deep space Dragon 2 doesn't need more SuperDracos; it needs more propellant. And you can't put more propellant in the trunk without running prop lines into the capsule, which hoses the current design. Better to put an independent propulsion unit in the trunk. Trouble is engines. SuperDraco is too large and too thrusty; Dracos are not thrusty enough. You could use something like a Rutherford if you could find a way to solve kerolox boil-off.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0