Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)  (Read 486917 times)

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #940 on: 05/02/2017 09:20 pm »
Or am I missing something else, like certain orbits not being attainable from Boca Chica?

Almost no orbits are attainable from Boca Chica, it's supposed to supplement the Florida pads for launching GTO comsats. A recent environmental study for the proposed nearby LNG plant revealed SpaceX can only use the northernmost launch corridor highlighted on the map.

Wow. I learned something new again. I did not know that.

Remind me what the point of Boca Chica is then? Why did they not instead choose a location that gives them more launch options?

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3104
  • Likes Given: 3853
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #941 on: 05/02/2017 09:21 pm »
Or am I missing something else, like certain orbits not being attainable from Boca Chica?

Almost no orbits are attainable from Boca Chica, it's supposed to supplement the Florida pads for launching GTO comsats. A recent environmental study for the proposed nearby LNG plant revealed SpaceX can only use the northernmost launch corridor highlighted on the map.

Wow. I learned something new again. I did not know that.

Remind me what the point of Boca Chica is then? Why did they not instead choose a location that gives them more launch options?

I was thinking the same thing.  Along the lines of 'well this explains the pace of construction at BC.'
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #942 on: 05/02/2017 09:45 pm »
Or am I missing something else, like certain orbits not being attainable from Boca Chica?

Almost no orbits are attainable from Boca Chica, it's supposed to supplement the Florida pads for launching GTO comsats. A recent environmental study for the proposed nearby LNG plant revealed SpaceX can only use the northernmost launch corridor highlighted on the map.

Wow. I learned something new again. I did not know that.

Remind me what the point of Boca Chica is then? Why did they not instead choose a location that gives them more launch options?

I was thinking the same thing.  Along the lines of 'well this explains the pace of construction at BC.'

Boca Chica is the best site for GTO/GEO and BLEO missions. Those make up a good part of the manifest.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #943 on: 05/02/2017 09:48 pm »
Or am I missing something else, like certain orbits not being attainable from Boca Chica?

Almost no orbits are attainable from Boca Chica, it's supposed to supplement the Florida pads for launching GTO comsats. A recent environmental study for the proposed nearby LNG plant revealed SpaceX can only use the northernmost launch corridor highlighted on the map.

Wow. I learned something new again. I did not know that.

Remind me what the point of Boca Chica is then? Why did they not instead choose a location that gives them more launch options?
It allows them to launch from closer to the equator for GTO missions. There isn't really a better place to launch from inside the continental US. Most of their payloads are GTO so that site works well for those. The others can go off 40 and 39A in FL. I also remember seeing something about only being able to launch a couple FH missions from Boca Chica. 3 GTO pads should give them quite a bit of operational flexibility which is the stated purpose of having all those pads. Only 39A will be equipped for crew at least initially as far as I understand it. So it is unlikely 39A will be taken offline anytime soon other than for final FH and crew prep once 40 is online in August.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #944 on: 05/02/2017 09:49 pm »
Or am I missing something else, like certain orbits not being attainable from Boca Chica?

Almost no orbits are attainable from Boca Chica, it's supposed to supplement the Florida pads for launching GTO comsats. A recent environmental study for the proposed nearby LNG plant revealed SpaceX can only use the northernmost launch corridor highlighted on the map.

Wow. I learned something new again. I did not know that.

Remind me what the point of Boca Chica is then? Why did they not instead choose a location that gives them more launch options?

I was thinking the same thing.  Along the lines of 'well this explains the pace of construction at BC.'

Boca Chica is the best site for GTO/GEO and BLEO missions. Those make up a good part of the manifest.

Well hang on. So that's pretty much everything beyond LEO? Does this include Mars colonization missions? Considering that the ITS is presumably meant to park in LEO for refueling, if Boca Chica can't do LEO launches, does that mean they can't launch the ITS?

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #945 on: 05/02/2017 09:50 pm »
Or am I missing something else, like certain orbits not being attainable from Boca Chica?

Almost no orbits are attainable from Boca Chica, it's supposed to supplement the Florida pads for launching GTO comsats. A recent environmental study for the proposed nearby LNG plant revealed SpaceX can only use the northernmost launch corridor highlighted on the map.

Wow. I learned something new again. I did not know that.

Remind me what the point of Boca Chica is then? Why did they not instead choose a location that gives them more launch options?

I was thinking the same thing.  Along the lines of 'well this explains the pace of construction at BC.'

Boca Chica is the best site for GTO/GEO and BLEO missions. Those make up a good part of the manifest.

And since SpaceX will be the only customer of their own site, there will be no other range customers to negotiate with for hot-fire and launch dates, and fewer issues (not "none") with foreign customer representatives being on-site for launch campaigns. The comsat market is a big deal for SpaceX and having their own dedicated facility for it is basically a no-brainer.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #946 on: 05/02/2017 09:54 pm »
Boca Chica is the best site for GTO/GEO and BLEO missions. Those make up a good part of the manifest.

Well hang on. So that's pretty much everything beyond LEO? Does this include Mars colonization missions? Considering that the ITS is presumably meant to park in LEO for refueling, if Boca Chica can't do LEO launches, does that mean they can't launch the ITS?

All GTO missions launch to LEO first, before the GTO burn. So yes, Boca Chica *CAN* do LEO launches, but only to a very narrow orbit inclination. But that parking/staging LEO orbit can be used to continue to the Moon or Mars. And you could also put propellant depots and space stations in that kind of orbit as well.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2017 09:58 pm by Lars-J »

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #947 on: 05/02/2017 09:54 pm »
Or am I missing something else, like certain orbits not being attainable from Boca Chica?

Almost no orbits are attainable from Boca Chica, it's supposed to supplement the Florida pads for launching GTO comsats. A recent environmental study for the proposed nearby LNG plant revealed SpaceX can only use the northernmost launch corridor highlighted on the map.

Wow. I learned something new again. I did not know that.

Remind me what the point of Boca Chica is then? Why did they not instead choose a location that gives them more launch options?
It allows them to launch from closer to the equator for GTO missions. There isn't really a better place to launch from inside the continental US. Most of their payloads are GTO so that site works well for those. The others can go off 40 and 39A in FL. I also remember seeing something about only being able to launch a couple FH missions from Boca Chica. 3 GTO pads should give them quite a bit of operational flexibility which is the stated purpose of having all those pads. Only 39A will be equipped for crew at least initially as far as I understand it. So it is unlikely 39A will be taken offline anytime soon other than for final FH and crew prep once 40 is online in August.

Well, this seems to present a problem. Consider that 39A was the intended launch facility in Elon's ITS presentation, that means at some point it will have to go offline to be revamped for the ITS. That will presumably take the better part of a year.

If Boca Chica and Vandenberg both have significant orbital constraints, that leaves only LC40 for all of their LEO launches. And if SpaceX's plans come to fruition, their launch frequency by then will be 50+ a year. So an accident on LC40, while LC39 is being revamped for ITS will leave their operations severely constrained.

That's where I thought Boca Chica was meant to serve as backup, but evidently not, based on Envy and Old Sellsword's posts above.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #948 on: 05/02/2017 09:58 pm »
Or am I missing something else, like certain orbits not being attainable from Boca Chica?

Almost no orbits are attainable from Boca Chica, it's supposed to supplement the Florida pads for launching GTO comsats. A recent environmental study for the proposed nearby LNG plant revealed SpaceX can only use the northernmost launch corridor highlighted on the map.

Wow. I learned something new again. I did not know that.

Remind me what the point of Boca Chica is then? Why did they not instead choose a location that gives them more launch options?
It allows them to launch from closer to the equator for GTO missions. There isn't really a better place to launch from inside the continental US. Most of their payloads are GTO so that site works well for those. The others can go off 40 and 39A in FL. I also remember seeing something about only being able to launch a couple FH missions from Boca Chica. 3 GTO pads should give them quite a bit of operational flexibility which is the stated purpose of having all those pads. Only 39A will be equipped for crew at least initially as far as I understand it. So it is unlikely 39A will be taken offline anytime soon other than for final FH and crew prep once 40 is online in August.

Well, this seems to present a problem. Consider that 39A was the intended launch facility in Elon's ITS presentation, that means at some point it will have to go offline to be revamped for the ITS. That will presumably take the better part of a year.

If Boca Chica and Vandenberg both have significant orbital constraints, that leaves only LC40 for all of their LEO launches. And if SpaceX's plans come to fruition, their launch frequency by then will be 50+ a year. So an accident on LC40, while LC39 is being revamped for ITS will leave their operations severely constrained.

That's where I thought Boca Chica was meant to serve as backup, but evidently not, based on Envy and Old Sellsword's posts above.
As I understand it BC's limited orbital inclinations only really affect LEO missions to the ISS and perhaps some NROL missions. It can easily handle launches to GTO and LEO parking orbits.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #949 on: 05/02/2017 09:59 pm »
Well, this seems to present a problem. Consider that 39A was the intended launch facility in Elon's ITS presentation, that means at some point it will have to go offline to be revamped for the ITS. That will presumably take the better part of a year.

If Boca Chica and Vandenberg both have significant orbital constraints, that leaves only LC40 for all of their LEO launches. And if SpaceX's plans come to fruition, their launch frequency by then will be 50+ a year. So an accident on LC40, while LC39 is being revamped for ITS will leave their operations severely constrained.

That's where I thought Boca Chica was meant to serve as backup, but evidently not, based on Envy and Old Sellsword's posts above.

Vandy can service most of the constellation launches. The real stickler is crew launches to ISS, which can only go from 39A unless they build a crew access arm at LC-40.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #950 on: 05/02/2017 10:01 pm »
Boca Chica is the best site for GTO/GEO and BLEO missions. Those make up a good part of the manifest.

Well hang on. So that's pretty much everything beyond LEO? Does this include Mars colonization missions? Considering that the ITS is presumably meant to park in LEO for refueling, if Boca Chica can't do LEO launches, does that mean they can't launch the ITS?

All GTO missions launch to LEO first ....

Well, that's stretching the definition of what's generally considered a "low-Earth orbit." If your initial post-MECO orbit is 33,500 some odd km x 185, that's not really "LEO" as it's used by most people, especially in the aerospace industry.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #951 on: 05/02/2017 10:03 pm »
Since the Comsat network will be in LEO, will the narrow Boca Chica LEO orbital corridor be sufficient to launch the entire Comsat network from?

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #952 on: 05/02/2017 10:05 pm »
Since the Comsat network will be in LEO, will the narrow Boca Chica LEO orbital corridor be sufficient to launch the entire Comsat network from?
I would expect comsat network to go from Vandy similar to Iridium since I would expect them to use polar orbits for the constellation. Just a guess though.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #953 on: 05/02/2017 10:06 pm »
Ok. Anyway, this explains why LC39A is crucial for any future Falcon Heavy launches, and would need to be revamped for any methane upper stage.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #954 on: 05/02/2017 10:06 pm »
Since the Comsat network will be in LEO, will the narrow Boca Chica LEO orbital corridor be sufficient to launch the entire Comsat network from?

Not without a huge hit to performance. Those comsats aren't going into any kind of low-inclination orbit, despite the low orbits.  "CommX" will almost certainly launch from VAFB, or on a northward trajectory from LC-40.  There's probably info in the general thread about the FCC application for the constellation.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #955 on: 05/02/2017 10:22 pm »
I expect that by the time 39A is ready to go offline to be revamped for ITS, SpaceX will have a 3rd launch pad either at the Cape. If SpaceX is really launching 50+ then I think it is worth it. Plus, by then they'll need another pad set up for crew for the 12 flights around the moon each year.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #956 on: 05/02/2017 10:32 pm »
Boca Chica is the best site for GTO/GEO and BLEO missions. Those make up a good part of the manifest.

Well hang on. So that's pretty much everything beyond LEO? Does this include Mars colonization missions? Considering that the ITS is presumably meant to park in LEO for refueling, if Boca Chica can't do LEO launches, does that mean they can't launch the ITS?

All GTO missions launch to LEO first ....

Well, that's stretching the definition of what's generally considered a "low-Earth orbit." If your initial post-MECO orbit is 33,500 some odd km x 185, that's not really "LEO" as it's used by most people, especially in the aerospace industry.

I'm not sure why you decided to (wrongly) nitpick this, since all SpaceX GTO flights launch to a LEO parking orbit before the GTO burn. (a low one, but certainly LEO!)

Yes, obviously it is *possible* to do a direct burn to GTO, but that is impractical for most launch providers who operate farther away from the equator.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2017 10:36 pm by Lars-J »

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #957 on: 05/02/2017 10:34 pm »
Plus, by then they'll need another pad set up for crew for the 12 flights around the moon each year.

So only when there is a full moon? ;D

Offline John Santos

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #958 on: 05/02/2017 10:43 pm »
Boca Chica is the best site for GTO/GEO and BLEO missions. Those make up a good part of the manifest.

Well hang on. So that's pretty much everything beyond LEO? Does this include Mars colonization missions? Considering that the ITS is presumably meant to park in LEO for refueling, if Boca Chica can't do LEO launches, does that mean they can't launch the ITS?

All GTO missions launch to LEO first ....

Well, that's stretching the definition of what's generally considered a "low-Earth orbit." If your initial post-MECO orbit is 33,500 some odd km x 185, that's not really "LEO" as it's used by most people, especially in the aerospace industry.

No.  Before entering GTO, the upper stage and payload generally coast in a 185km circular orbit for 20 minutes or so.  Only Ariane 5 (and maybe Sealaunch Zenit) does direct injection into GTO, because they launch from or near the equator.
about
If you can reach 185x185 LEO at some inclination (probably about 26 deg, the latitude of BC), you can reach any orbit of that inclination from that site.

 

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #959 on: 05/02/2017 10:47 pm »
When does not dropping all kinds of rocket parts in the ocean begin to change the launch trajectories?
Could you use autonomous FTS to reduce big chunks if a failure occurs later in boost phase and analyze away the statistical hazards down range?

Fairing recovery gets Falcon fairly close to nothing dropped in the Gulf from nominal Boca Chica launches.  Same approach could be used for launching from remote inland sites...
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1