Quote from: Brovane on 05/01/2016 12:16 amQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/30/2016 11:44 pmQuote from: Brovane on 04/30/2016 11:07 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 04/30/2016 11:04 pmThe 13.150kg number has been on the Falcon 9 page all day, but the Capabilities page has said 28,880kg the same time.Perhaps 13,150kg is the RTLS number, or just didn't get updated.They misplaced kg for lb. It is 28,880lb not kg.From all the previous discussion covering the v1.1 perfomance especially the available spaceX values from the performance Querry of the NASA NLS-II web site put s the v1.1 performance as 16,625 kg LEO and 5,725 kg GTO. So the FT values have to be larger. The performance improvement of FT over v1.1 is >30% from musk statements even before the flight of the first FT. From all the math I believe the values as posted are the correct maximum (no margins) expendable performance. Now add margins for either stage return or engine out and the practical will be less.Are you saying the Max LEO is 28,800kg? A 30% increase in performance over 16,625 v1.1 would be about 21,000 kg. The website specifically says 22800kg to LEO, not 28800kg.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/30/2016 11:44 pmQuote from: Brovane on 04/30/2016 11:07 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 04/30/2016 11:04 pmThe 13.150kg number has been on the Falcon 9 page all day, but the Capabilities page has said 28,880kg the same time.Perhaps 13,150kg is the RTLS number, or just didn't get updated.They misplaced kg for lb. It is 28,880lb not kg.From all the previous discussion covering the v1.1 perfomance especially the available spaceX values from the performance Querry of the NASA NLS-II web site put s the v1.1 performance as 16,625 kg LEO and 5,725 kg GTO. So the FT values have to be larger. The performance improvement of FT over v1.1 is >30% from musk statements even before the flight of the first FT. From all the math I believe the values as posted are the correct maximum (no margins) expendable performance. Now add margins for either stage return or engine out and the practical will be less.Are you saying the Max LEO is 28,800kg? A 30% increase in performance over 16,625 v1.1 would be about 21,000 kg.
Quote from: Brovane on 04/30/2016 11:07 pmQuote from: docmordrid on 04/30/2016 11:04 pmThe 13.150kg number has been on the Falcon 9 page all day, but the Capabilities page has said 28,880kg the same time.Perhaps 13,150kg is the RTLS number, or just didn't get updated.They misplaced kg for lb. It is 28,880lb not kg.From all the previous discussion covering the v1.1 perfomance especially the available spaceX values from the performance Querry of the NASA NLS-II web site put s the v1.1 performance as 16,625 kg LEO and 5,725 kg GTO. So the FT values have to be larger. The performance improvement of FT over v1.1 is >30% from musk statements even before the flight of the first FT. From all the math I believe the values as posted are the correct maximum (no margins) expendable performance. Now add margins for either stage return or engine out and the practical will be less.
Quote from: docmordrid on 04/30/2016 11:04 pmThe 13.150kg number has been on the Falcon 9 page all day, but the Capabilities page has said 28,880kg the same time.Perhaps 13,150kg is the RTLS number, or just didn't get updated.They misplaced kg for lb. It is 28,880lb not kg.
The 13.150kg number has been on the Falcon 9 page all day, but the Capabilities page has said 28,880kg the same time.Perhaps 13,150kg is the RTLS number, or just didn't get updated.
The website specifically says 22800kg to LEO, not 28800kg.
Quote from: S.Paulissen on 05/01/2016 12:21 amThe website specifically says 22800kg to LEO, not 28800kg.That's in the Falcon 9 section, we can assume that's for reuse. Check the capabilities and services page under About SpaceX for the full number, 28,800 kg.
It looks like the 22,800 value is a typo since the value in lbs under it is 28,800 in kg.
Now webpage is fixed. 22,800 kg everywhere.To be frank, SpaceX should be embarassed.
Judging by Musk's latest tweets, it is NOT mistake.
Here are the official SpaceX numbers right now. All in kilograms. Earlier was a typo. F9 LEO 22800 kg , GTO 8300kg. FH LEO 54400kg, GTO 22200kg. M1D+, SL 190,000lbf.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 05/01/2016 12:35 amNow webpage is fixed. 22,800 kg everywhere.To be frank, SpaceX should be embarassed.Webpages have been known to be incorrect... now fixed.As to embarrassed, this puts the F9 up as the most efficient rocket ever at a payload mass fraction of 4.15%. (22,800kg payload/549,054kg liftoff mass=0.0415)They should hang their collective head in shame!
As to embarrassed, this puts the F9 up as the most efficient rocket ever at a payload mass fraction of 4.15%. (22,800kg payload/549,054kg liftoff mass=0.0415)
Quote from: AncientU on 05/01/2016 01:18 amAs to embarrassed, this puts the F9 up as the most efficient rocket ever at a payload mass fraction of 4.15%. (22,800kg payload/549,054kg liftoff mass=0.0415)"But the ISP!"
"But the ISP!"