Total Members Voted: 275
Voting closed: 01/31/2014 05:02 pm
I think that SpaceX will not launch Falcon Heavy before they are confident with booster recovery. And as they probably do not use cross feed, Booster separation and first stage separation happens very close to each other. Therefore no problems with first stage recovery.Therefore if SpaceX fails with first stage recovery, it is very possible that SpaceX does not attempt to launch Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: rockinghorse on 01/15/2014 05:22 pmI think that SpaceX will not launch Falcon Heavy before they are confident with booster recovery. And as they probably do not use cross feed, Booster separation and first stage separation happens very close to each other. Therefore no problems with first stage recovery.Therefore if SpaceX fails with first stage recovery, it is very possible that SpaceX does not attempt to launch Falcon Heavy.What in the whole wide world does FH have to do with first stage recovery?
What in the whole wide world does FH have to do with first stage recovery?
Quote from: Lars_J on 01/15/2014 06:13 pmWhat in the whole wide world does FH have to do with first stage recovery?Launching three Falcon cores as expendable is exactly the same thing as to burn a million hundred dollar bills.
That is, reusability is by far higher priority than Falcon Heavy.
Voted Static Fire. But could also see just vertical at the pad as they may have some GSE teething issues keeping them from a static fire attempt. But I think they'll miss a 2014 launch attempt by 2 months, so Feb 2015.
One quick comment... percentages should be calculated against total voters, not against the cumulative votes in all categories.
Went with launch. I think they'll get one up.
Quote from: AncientU on 01/15/2014 07:03 pmOne quick comment... percentages should be calculated against total voters, not against the cumulative votes in all categories.Yes, they should. Unfortunately, the polls software calculates multi-select polls as if they were single-choice. I've inquired into changing this, but don't hold your breath.No worries, though. When the polls close I'll assemble and post better charts & visualizations in each thread.
I think that SpaceX will not launch Falcon Heavy before they are confident with booster recovery.
SpaceX is not going to launch a FH and NOT attempt recovery. I don't think they will attempt RTLS unless they have already been successful with that in Florida just because of the added difficulty of getting licensing and finding 3 separate landing pads.
Quote from: intrepidpursuit on 01/15/2014 09:10 pmSpaceX is not going to launch a FH and NOT attempt recovery. I don't think they will attempt RTLS unless they have already been successful with that in Florida just because of the added difficulty of getting licensing and finding 3 separate landing pads. This is quite good argument, but I believe that it is possible to land a booster anywhere where the ground is solid enough. Even agricultural fields would probably do it in an emergency. And there is the whole Vandenberg Airfield near SpaceX's launch pad, so there is plenty of room where to land a booster.
Quote from: Lars_J on 01/15/2014 06:13 pmWhat in the whole wide world does FH have to do with first stage recovery?Launching three Falcon cores as expendable is exactly the same thing as to burn a million hundred dollar bills.That is, reusability is by far higher priority than Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: rockinghorse on 01/15/2014 10:16 pmQuote from: intrepidpursuit on 01/15/2014 09:10 pmSpaceX is not going to launch a FH and NOT attempt recovery. I don't think they will attempt RTLS unless they have already been successful with that in Florida just because of the added difficulty of getting licensing and finding 3 separate landing pads. This is quite good argument, but I believe that it is possible to land a booster anywhere where the ground is solid enough. Even agricultural fields would probably do it in an emergency. And there is the whole Vandenberg Airfield near SpaceX's launch pad, so there is plenty of room where to land a booster.I believe it needs a hard standing to avoid falling over once landed. The stage is *very* tall.
Launching three Falcon cores as expendable is exactly the same thing as to burn a million hundred dollar bills.That is, reusability is by far higher priority than Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: rockinghorse on 01/15/2014 06:29 pmLaunching three Falcon cores as expendable is exactly the same thing as to burn a million hundred dollar bills.That is, reusability is by far higher priority than Falcon Heavy.Elon Musk appears to be a big fan of continuous, incremental, improvement1. I would be shocked if the first FH launch supported reusability or cross fed propellent. Trying to do everything at once is a recipe for delays and epic failures. First they'll make a viable launch vehicle, then they'll make it better and better. I have no idea whether crossfeed or reusability will come first.[1] I'm a software guy, so maybe I'm projecting my preferences.
Quote from: mme on 01/16/2014 04:36 pmQuote from: rockinghorse on 01/15/2014 06:29 pmLaunching three Falcon cores as expendable is exactly the same thing as to burn a million hundred dollar bills.That is, reusability is by far higher priority than Falcon Heavy.Elon Musk appears to be a big fan of continuous, incremental, improvement1. I would be shocked if the first FH launch supported reusability or cross fed propellent. Trying to do everything at once is a recipe for delays and epic failures. First they'll make a viable launch vehicle, then they'll make it better and better. I have no idea whether crossfeed or reusability will come first.[1] I'm a software guy, so maybe I'm projecting my preferences. Do recall that they attempted to recover the first stage on the first flight of F9v1.1. I'll be surprised if they don't attempt to recover the side cores, at least.
...Do recall that they attempted to recover the first stage on the first flight of F9v1.1. I'll be surprised if they don't attempt to recover the side cores, at least.
...Seems like SpaceX is a fan of "all up" testing. I'd be amazed if they didn't try to do reusability on day one. Missing the chance to try to fly back 2 or three cores seems silly; every opportunity they have they will take advantage of.If crossfeed is ready, they'll try it; if not, they won't... What we don't know is how much work they did in the initial design for cross feed, or whether any of the customers they are talking to even care about payloads that heavy so far.
As far as return and recovery on the first FH flight (and the poll options), maybe we are using different definitions. SpaceX may well try a boost back and/or a more gentle splashdown experiment on the flight to collect data. I agree, SpaceX loves to collect real world data. What I don't see them doing is making major design decisions to accommodate functional reusability before they have data on how the FH flies. FH does not need reusability to be a viable LV.As for crossfeed, I guess it depends on whether the plan is to provide a non-crossfed variant. http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html suggests that crossfeed will only be used "for payloads exceeding 50 metric tons." If that is true, I think it makes sense to fly early missions without it.Whatever they decide, the anticipation is killing me.
...I'm not sure exactly what you're disputing in regards to booster recovery. I fully expect them to try to return the first FH boosters to the launch site and land them, even if those particular boosters will be disassembled, studied, and never reflown. ...
Elon Musk appears to be a big fan of continuous, incremental, improvement1. I would be shocked if the first FH launch supported reusability or cross fed propellent. Trying to do everything at once is a recipe for delays and epic failures. First they'll make a viable launch vehicle, then they'll make it better and better. I have no idea whether crossfeed or reusability will come first.[1] I'm a software guy, so maybe I'm projecting my preferences.
I am surprised at the low numbers for 'Attempt side core return/recovery' compared to 'Launch'.
I am surprised at the low numbers for 'Attempt side core return/recovery' compared to 'Launch'. I consider what was done with CASSIOPE as an attempt at recovery, so if you think that there is a likelihood of launching, why wouldn't SpaceX also attempt recoveries of both the side and center cores?
Quote from: AJW on 01/18/2014 05:41 pmI am surprised at the low numbers for 'Attempt side core return/recovery' compared to 'Launch'. I consider what was done with CASSIOPE as an attempt at recovery, so if you think that there is a likelihood of launching, why wouldn't SpaceX also attempt recoveries of both the side and center cores? Possibly due to, having to individually control multiple stages, on the way back down & keeping enough seperation between them. No idea, if this has even tested yet, in the simulations, that SpaceX would be running.Purely a WAG.....
Have we seen any actual hardware pieces of Falcon Heavy, yet?
Quote from: AJW on 01/18/2014 05:41 pmI am surprised at the low numbers for 'Attempt side core return/recovery' compared to 'Launch'. I consider what was done with CASSIOPE as an attempt at recovery, so if you think that there is a likelihood of launching, why wouldn't SpaceX also attempt recoveries of both the side and center cores? A successful maiden launch of FH is far more important than attempting to recover the side cores. Get the basic FH working reliably first then attempt to recover the side cores on a later FH mission. So the chance that FH side cores get recovered this year is zero.
Quote from: DJPledger on 01/18/2014 08:18 pmQuote from: AJW on 01/18/2014 05:41 pmI am surprised at the low numbers for 'Attempt side core return/recovery' compared to 'Launch'. I consider what was done with CASSIOPE as an attempt at recovery, so if you think that there is a likelihood of launching, why wouldn't SpaceX also attempt recoveries of both the side and center cores? A successful maiden launch of FH is far more important than attempting to recover the side cores. Get the basic FH working reliably first then attempt to recover the side cores on a later FH mission. So the chance that FH side cores get recovered this year is zero.SpaceX has a track record of testing systems that do not impact the primary mission. They decided to try first stage recovery on CASSIOPE even though it was the first launch of V1.1 and clearly very important. While the recovery wasn’t fully successful, I expect that the data acquired will lead to future success. In addition, while it was again not part of the primary mission, SpaceX also tested restart of the second stage and learned that their insulation was inadequate. Without that test, SES-8 might have had a very different outcome.While FH may get pushed out of 2014 due to a wide variety of issues, I believe that based on SpaceX’s history, the likelihood of their not trying some form of recovery on the first FH flight is zero.May the best prognosticator win!
In that regard I think rockinghorse's statement that an expendable FH is like burning up 100 dollar bills is an apt assessment compared to the alternative of waiting a bit.
Quote from: TripD on 01/23/2014 05:31 pmIn that regard I think rockinghorse's statement that an expendable FH is like burning up 100 dollar bills is an apt assessment compared to the alternative of waiting a bit. Nonsense. SpaceX will be charging expendable price for expendable FH. They do not lose anything. In fact, if they wait, they LOSE money that could be gained by flying payloads for paying customers with expendable FH.
Nonsense. SpaceX will be charging expendable price for expendable FH. They do not lose anything. In fact, if they wait, they LOSE money that could be gained by flying payloads for paying customers with expendable FH.
I was thinking in terms of the first couple of flights being without a 'pay'load at all.
QuoteNonsense. SpaceX will be charging expendable price for expendable FH. They do not lose anything. In fact, if they wait, they LOSE money that could be gained by flying payloads for paying customers with expendable FH.Fair enough. I was thinking in terms of the first couple of flights being without a 'pay'load at all. It would reduce the costs of those tests if they could reuse the cores.
Quote from: TripD on 01/25/2014 06:18 amQuoteNonsense. SpaceX will be charging expendable price for expendable FH. They do not lose anything. In fact, if they wait, they LOSE money that could be gained by flying payloads for paying customers with expendable FH.Fair enough. I was thinking in terms of the first couple of flights being without a 'pay'load at all. It would reduce the costs of those tests if they could reuse the cores.Conceptually, I agree, but if the first FH boosters are successfully recovered, I doubt they will be re-used, but instead disassembled and inspected.
Was wondering if some of these (if recovered) boosters could end up at the new Texas launch complex as I note that Spacex has requested in its FAA etc filings the ability to do suborbital flights, where the used sages would be used to do these flights.