IIRC, the cross-feed scheme would have four core engines fuelled from the portside booster and four others from the starboard booster with one core engine fuelled from the core tanks. So, a larger core tank would seem to make sense.
I agree. But again, if you include the interstage as an integral part the center core, the length of all 3 cores is pretty close. In fact, if you remove the domes, the booster cores would be shorter.
Quote from: Dave G on 03/04/2015 12:01 pmI agree. But again, if you include the interstage as an integral part the center core, the length of all 3 cores is pretty close. In fact, if you remove the domes, the booster cores would be shorter.The interstage protects the upper-stage engine. The core tank ends below it.I think it's likely that the domes of the side boosters are part of the tank structure and filled with propellant. For example the space shuttle external tank's nose was filled with LOX.
IIRC, the cross-feed scheme would have four core engines fuelled from the portside booster and four others from the starboard booster with one core engine fuelled from the core tanks.
So, a larger core tank would seem to make sense.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2015 03:15 pmSo, a larger core tank would seem to make sense. if they could get a larger core from Hawthorne to the launch site.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2015 03:15 pmIIRC, the cross-feed scheme would have four core engines fuelled from the portside booster and four others from the starboard booster with one core engine fuelled from the core tanks. I thought it was 3 for each booster and 3 for the center core, but I'm not sure. Anyone have a reference?Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2015 03:15 pmSo, a larger core tank would seem to make sense. if they could get a larger core from Hawthorne to the launch site.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/26/2015 05:46 pmMaybe all three are stretched from v1.1. From the SpaceX website:http://www.spacex.com/falcon9Height 68.4 m 224.4 fthttp://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavyHeight 68.4 m 224.4 ft
Maybe all three are stretched from v1.1.
If they can throttle the new upgraded engines, cross feed might not be necessary. Throttle down the core and throttle up the boosters. The second stage engine has/is being upgraded also, and it seems to be a much more powerful upgrade.
Quote from: Dave G on 03/04/2015 05:43 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2015 03:15 pmIIRC, the cross-feed scheme would have four core engines fuelled from the portside booster and four others from the starboard booster with one core engine fuelled from the core tanks. I thought it was 3 for each booster and 3 for the center core, but I'm not sure. Anyone have a reference?Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2015 03:15 pmSo, a larger core tank would seem to make sense. if they could get a larger core from Hawthorne to the launch site.I've seen wind generator towers transported on two-lane roads as one unit. They are typically 212 feet in length. https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.phpThe extended side booster of the Falcon Heavy doesn't look like it's much longer than 150 feet, so the length concerns posted here are simply not realistic.
Wait, is it quite true, though, that 120' is such a hard (okay, "firm") limit? I got the idea that length has a much less firm limit than height, which obviously over any distance greater than a few miles has serious issues due to bridges. I mean, once you're on the Interstate, it's not like there are that many sharp turns.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/05/2015 01:14 amWait, is it quite true, though, that 120' is such a hard (okay, "firm") limit? I got the idea that length has a much less firm limit than height, which obviously over any distance greater than a few miles has serious issues due to bridges. I mean, once you're on the Interstate, it's not like there are that many sharp turns.On-ramps and off-ramps, however, present all manner of pain-in-the-ass problems for transporting long objects.
I'm not buying it. Look up Tonopah, NV,and U.S. 95. Small town, mountainous terrain. That's where I've seen those 212' long towers being pulled. Unless there are major obstacles right outside the front gates of either Hawthorne, McGregor (which is a pretty wide open space, so not likely there) or Cape Canaveral, I doubt there will be any on the interstate route in between.
Something to remember is that there are different levels of oversized. There is oversized with a permit that can travel night and day and does not require escort vehicles. Then there is the kind that DOES require escort and can only travel certain hours. I don't know the details, but there must be a huge difference in cost and time involved.