Author Topic: Payload estimate for allowing routine re-entry  (Read 17209 times)

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Liked: 2177
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Payload estimate for allowing routine re-entry
« Reply #40 on: 05/02/2016 03:32 pm »
i made this chart a while back. i could have done a better job but yeah.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gfcyWNtavUeN6p9AeXkloTSJY4fOEa3sBOQM8jORSio/

And in 2005, the Falcon 5 was $12M and the F9 was $18M, from memory.  (I was trying to buy two F5's at the time.)

Offline airider

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • USA
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Payload estimate for allowing routine re-entry
« Reply #41 on: 05/04/2016 11:42 pm »
I think, everything is much simpler. Perhaps, 28800 kg are a mass of payload together with the second stage in a parking orbit (that is before 2nd ignition of the engine of the second stage). In this case 8300 kg into GTO quite real figure for the expendable rocket.
By the same logic should be linked 54 tons to LEO and 22 tons to GTO for FH then.

Would they really quote numbers like that? Maybe I don't understand it, but it seems like an irrelevant number to a customer...?

SpaceX will run numbers and sims specific and unique to each payload, orbit desired, and customer using a lot more and better data than any on this board or the general public will have at our disposal.

The only "truth" I've seen published so far is that SpaceX doesn't reveal any absolutes about performance and I wouldn't either since the real answer, per payload is, "it depends".

Honestly this whole discussion is really rather silly because SpaceX probably doesn't know for sure themselves (since they don't fly their spacecraft to the absolute maximums) and they want to ensure they can give the customer a reasonable probability of success, which means they back-off from trying to "push it" (which is why they've been able to incrementally "add" performance from the same engines over time as real flight performance verifies how well, or poorly things work).

Based on this, I consider any attempts at estimating success by "arm chair orbital mechanics" to be "Kentucky Windage" attempts and should be treated as such.

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Payload estimate for allowing routine re-entry
« Reply #42 on: 05/06/2016 08:34 am »
I bet you will now pay dearly if you want to exceed the 5.5mt or 8.0mt to GTO caps posted online...
In effect... they just raised prices IF you dare exceed these listed payload points...
Satellite designers just got a new weight target they must be under at all cost... 5.5mt or 8.0mt...
Oh no. Now all the satellite manufacturers will have to stop building GEO satellites heavier than 8 tons. Thanks a lot, SpaceX.

Sat masses will keep going up and SpaceX will have to keep improving their GTO performance numbers to keep up.  Ariane 5 which made it's mark with dual launches is now increasingly having to pair one runty sat at a low fair with one big one because the sizes have grown so large.  I expect BFR to be dual or triple launching 15 mt Satellites as part of it's commercial manifest as that will be the size of GEO birds by that time.

Offline SwissCheese

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Payload estimate for allowing routine re-entry
« Reply #43 on: 05/06/2016 09:38 am »
I bet you will now pay dearly if you want to exceed the 5.5mt or 8.0mt to GTO caps posted online...
In effect... they just raised prices IF you dare exceed these listed payload points...
Satellite designers just got a new weight target they must be under at all cost... 5.5mt or 8.0mt...
Oh no. Now all the satellite manufacturers will have to stop building GEO satellites heavier than 8 tons. Thanks a lot, SpaceX.

Sat masses will keep going up and SpaceX will have to keep improving their GTO performance numbers to keep up.  Ariane 5 which made it's mark with dual launches is now increasingly having to pair one runty sat at a low fair with one big one because the sizes have grown so large.  I expect BFR to be dual or triple launching 15 mt Satellites as part of it's commercial manifest as that will be the size of GEO birds by that time.

No company would want to rely on a single provider for launching its birds, so do not expect any satellite weighing more than the maximum capacity of the second provider.

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
  • Greece
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 10251
Re: Payload estimate for allowing routine re-entry
« Reply #44 on: 05/06/2016 09:39 am »
Stage separation according to webcasts (screenshots taken the moment the numbers stopped rising)
sat:           speed       altitute   time   weight     delivered orbit
SES-9:      8325km/h 64.5km 2:40m 5,271 kg    334 x 40648 km x 27.96
JCSAT-14: 8354km/h 66.3km 2:40m 4,696.2kg  189 x 35957 km x 23.70

« Last Edit: 05/06/2016 09:54 am by cartman »

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5403
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1779
  • Likes Given: 1282
Re: Payload estimate for allowing routine re-entry
« Reply #45 on: 05/06/2016 10:14 pm »
I bet you will now pay dearly if you want to exceed the 5.5mt or 8.0mt to GTO caps posted online...
In effect... they just raised prices IF you dare exceed these listed payload points...
Satellite designers just got a new weight target they must be under at all cost... 5.5mt or 8.0mt...
Oh no. Now all the satellite manufacturers will have to stop building GEO satellites heavier than 8 tons. Thanks a lot, SpaceX.

Sat masses will keep going up and SpaceX will have to keep improving their GTO performance numbers to keep up.  Ariane 5 which made it's mark with dual launches is now increasingly having to pair one runty sat at a low fair with one big one because the sizes have grown so large.  I expect BFR to be dual or triple launching 15 mt Satellites as part of it's commercial manifest as that will be the size of GEO birds by that time.

No company would want to rely on a single provider for launching its birds, so do not expect any satellite weighing more than the maximum capacity of the second provider.

Don't think there will be any satcom bigger than about 10 mT. Anything bigger will be like one of those orbital communication platforms in the Sci-Fi novels of the 1960's. Something like a Mir sized GEO platform with lots of modular transponder suites that can be replaced.

But we are getting off topic.  :-X

Tags:
 

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