the year she should debutWe are in 2015 already, Chris. Or was that 2014? No wait, I guess the first announced launch date for Falcon Heavy was 2013: http://spacelaunchreport.com/falconH.html.
the year she should debutWe are in 2015 already, Chris. Or was that 2014? No wait, I guess the first announced launch date for Falcon Heavy was 2013: http://spacelaunchreport.com/falconH.html (http://spacelaunchreport.com/falconH.html).
Anyway, what use is 53 metric tons of payload capacity to LEO? It's not even enough to lift an M1 Abrams, which weighs 54 tons! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams)
Anyway, what use is 53 metric tons of payload capacity to LEO?
There is one minor problem with that (the less than 20 tons part): with the exception of the original Russian modules (Zarya & Svezda), none of the other ISS modules have had propulsion of their own. Without the Space Shuttle, any new modules will require a tug or their own propulsion in order to rendezvous with the ISS. The hardware and fuel required costs weight.Anyway, what use is 53 metric tons of payload capacity to LEO?
The average mass of most of the ISS modules was <20 tons. I'd say that 53 tons is quite useful.
How close to the cross-fed enabled 53mt payload to LEO is the non-cross-fed fully expended full thrust falcon heavy? I'm guessing it's fairly close...According to Ed Kyle's site (http://spacelaunchreport.com/falconH.html) it will be 45 tons to LEO from Cape Canaveral. That's not even one T-90 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90).
What does a Bigelow 330 module weigh? If FH can get these to LEO, 2-4 of these would be as large as ISS at a lot less expensive cost than ISS was. Army tanks won't be used in space. Way too heavy. Can't fire the cannon as the opposite reaction would take one out of it's intended orbit.
The LEO standard is not really ISS elevation anyway. It's not really that useful a metric.
[...]A Hab would really have to be tested in EML1/2 space. LEO is very different from deep space. For example, you have 45min of hotness and 45min of coldness. In deep space you have a hot side and a cold side, permanently. So the thermal environment is completely different. You have to worry about MMOD and free oxygen in LEO which are not an issue in deep space. You have a lot less radiation, which you actually want to prove the hab design. You need completely different comm system. And a long list of requirements.
Specifically disruptive to Human BEO exploration plans. Scimemi, the ISS director for NASA, says he wants to build the HAB Congress just directed NASA to study and have a prototype ready for 2018. Why would we do that, when for a fraction of the cost, we could send up a prototype BA330 on a FH? (that's a rhetorical question)
[...]
I have difficulty understanding the need for a habitat to be launched directly into a lunar or Mars trajectory. Earth orbit rendezvous (as originally proposed by von Braun) for refueling or mating a departure stage could be used at lower cost. Wasn't that even the original plan for Constellation? As to the habitat diameter, the FH could be equipped with a wider fairing should that be needed, or an inflatable habitat could be used.
Close attention to sustainable overall cost is essential if we are going to maintain a foothold on Mars, rather than just leaving a few footsteps, which on Mars, with its blowing dust, will not last long.
This may seem obvious to some, but I don't think it actually can launch 53 tons to LEO.. it's just a reference orbit. That said, the best number I've seen for the fairing mass is 1,750 kg, so if you really want to squeeze a maximum payload to LEO number out of the Falcon Heavy you could probably imagine a payload that doesn't need to go inside the fairing (like some mega-Dragon). Also, this is all old numbers with cross-feed. Maybe this year SpaceX will release a press kit and we'll actually find out what the real vehicle on the pad can do.
How close to the cross-fed enabled 53mt payload to LEO is the non-cross-fed fully expended full thrust falcon heavy? I'm guessing it's fairly close...
The item not discussed is that your options is based on FHv1.1 performance and not the additional 33% that is a possible increase provided by a FHFT. If you straight X 33% the performance values you getHow close to the cross-fed enabled 53mt payload to LEO is the non-cross-fed fully expended full thrust falcon heavy? I'm guessing it's fairly close...
This may have changed, but last I heard there were 3 flavors of Falcon Heavy:
1) Fully expendable, cross-fed: 21mt GTO, 53mt LEO
2) Reusable boosters RTLS, expendable center core, cross-fed: 14mt GTO
3) All 3 first stages RTLS, not cross-fed: 7mt GTO
Of these, I believe 3) will be most important, as it covers virtually all current comsats with a fully reusable set of first stages that RTLS. If refurbishing the stages is relatively easy, as SpaceX suggests, then this configuration should end up being less expensive than an expendable Falcon 9.
How close to the cross-fed enabled 53mt payload to LEO is the non-cross-fed fully expended full thrust falcon heavy? I'm guessing it's fairly close...
This may have changed, but last I heard there were 3 flavors of Falcon Heavy:
1) Fully expendable, cross-fed: 21mt GTO, 53mt LEO
2) Reusable boosters RTLS, expendable center core, cross-fed: 14mt GTO
3) All 3 first stages RTLS, not cross-fed: 7mt GTO
Of these, I believe 3) will be most important, as it covers virtually all current comsats with a fully reusable set of first stages that RTLS. If refurbishing the stages is relatively easy, as SpaceX suggests, then this configuration should end up being less expensive than an expendable Falcon 9.
The item not discussed is that your options is based on FHv1.1 performance and not the additional 33% that is a possible increase provided by a FHFT.
And even if the original numbers were for the reduced-thrust version of M1D, your 33% scaling factor is way too high for the payload increase for that 15% engine thrustupgrade.
And even if the original numbers were for the reduced-thrust version of M1D, your 33% scaling factor is way too high for the payload increase for that 15% engine thrustupgrade.
Much of the performance increase is in the upper stage enlargement and the larger M-vac nozzle.
Larger M-vac nozzle? where is this information from?
And upper stage enlargement helps payload to higher orbits more than payload to LEO. 30% increase in GTO payload may mean 24% increase in LEO payload.
And, if spaceX knew they were going to expand the second stage again before FH, I think the effect of this is already calculated in the original FH capasity numbers.
Has SpaceX said anything about engine out capability with reuse?
The item not discussed is that your options is based on FHv1.1 performance and not the additional 33% that is a possible increase provided by a FHFT.
Even though they released the 53t number many years ago, they already knew then what their M1D will finally be capable of.
Although an engine out may not leave enough fuel for RTLS I don't think it is a certainty. If the engine out occurs late during first stage flight then it may leave enough fuel to still make it back. Beyond that, I don't think there is fine grained enough monitoring of the fuel level to decide if there is enough to make it so the computer will likely just try to land and if fuel runs out during one of the three burns then the rocket drops either just off shore or on the landing pad. Even with a hard landing I bet SpaceX would love to get back a failed engine to figure out what went wrong with it.
FH will be manrated like F9There are a lot of don't knows!
FH's first version will be based on F9v1.1FT but will upgraded in the future.
Probably they will use more composites to save weight, introduce crossfeed and first stage engines that do not dump the exhaust from the turbopumps. (like the merlin 1D vac from s2)
[...]A Hab would really have to be tested in EML1/2 space. LEO is very different from deep space. For example, you have 45min of hotness and 45min of coldness. In deep space you have a hot side and a cold side, permanently. So the thermal environment is completely different. You have to worry about MMOD and free oxygen in LEO which are not an issue in deep space. You have a lot less radiation, which you actually want to prove the hab design. You need completely different comm system. And a long list of requirements.
Specifically disruptive to Human BEO exploration plans. Scimemi, the ISS director for NASA, says he wants to build the HAB Congress just directed NASA to study and have a prototype ready for 2018. Why would we do that, when for a fraction of the cost, we could send up a prototype BA330 on a FH? (that's a rhetorical question)
[...]
Why I'm saying this? Because for such an Hab, unless you are also including a SEP tug (which has no budget), you are going to worry about the C3=-1km˛/s˛ performance. How much could the Falcon Heavy do? If it can, in fact, do 13 to TMI, then it should be able to do between 17 and 20 tonnes to TLI. The problem is, SLS can do something like 45tonnes with EUS and well more than 25 tonnes with the ICPS. So the prototype would have to have less than half the mass of the final hab if it were to fit into a FH.
And I didn't get into the fact that SLS will have an 8.4m fairing (7.5m internal) vs the 5.2m (4.7 internal) of the FH. I rather see FH as an opportunity to send something commercial to LEO very cheaply or a Cygnus derived module to TLI, rather than the full Hab.
You also didn't get into the fact that the FH will be ready in six months and the SLS with 8.4m fairing and EUS will be lucky to be ready in six years(and $20B). And conveniently didn't get into the fact that only one system will be affordable to operate.Actually, you started talking about using FH for the Hab prototype. The Hab will fly with SLS/EUS, this is the current plan and thus it will be sized accordingly.
You also didn't get into the fact that the FH will be ready in six months and the SLS with 8.4m fairing and EUS will be lucky to be ready in six years(and $20B). And conveniently didn't get into the fact that only one system will be affordable to operate.Actually, you started talking about using FH for the Hab prototype. The Hab will fly with SLS/EUS, this is the current plan and thus it will be sized accordingly.
And regarding affordability, it's not what you believe to be but what US Congress is actually willing to pay. And in the 2016 budget, US Congress actually decided that NASA is not spending enough on SLS. Also, they added quite a few millions to start up the EUS effort. So the definitive Hab will fly on SLS/EUS and will be more than six years. The issue is the prototype and how representative it will be.
I stated that it would be perfect for a Cygnus based hab or, may be, a lightened BA330 sent to TLI. Who knows what they meant by a prototype by 2018. That's not even clear if it would be orbital.
Happy newyear everybody and i wish you a good 2016.
Who knows how weight an upgraded FH can sent to TLI in 2018 ? ;)
I have a question;
A spacestation like the BA330 that is designed to withstand the rigors of space for years cannot survive the three first minutes of launch ? I mean considering the shape and size is it not possibele to adapt the design a bit so that the fairing might not be needed thus saving a lot of weight ?
I do not know if the size increase of S2 was optimized for F9 or FH. Perhaps they made a compromise but i have the feeling that it was for F9. Maybe later they could incease it again for FH but i remember that Elon some time ago said that he was afraid of bending.
Is it out of the realm of possibility for the center core of the falcon heavy to RTLS by completing an orbit?Yes
Is it out of the realm of possibility for the center core of the falcon heavy to RTLS by completing an orbit?Yes
Is it out of the realm of possibility for the center core of the falcon heavy to RTLS by completing an orbit?Yes
I set myself up for that answer. I'm looking to understand why not. How much faster would it have to be traveling?
I think it would be in orbit pretty much by definition. It is following some ellipse that did not intersect the earth except possibly to skim at this one point.Is it out of the realm of possibility for the center core of the falcon heavy to RTLS by completing an orbit?Yes
I set myself up for that answer. I'm looking to understand why not. How much faster would it have to be traveling?
Is it out of the realm of possibility for the center core of the falcon heavy to RTLS by completing an orbit?Certainly the FH center core could be made to reach orbit. Those boosters basically are nearly light enough to fly to orbit as a single stage (perhaps with 0 payload), were it not for the sea-level nozzle optimization. With the center of three cores optimized for high altitude and perhaps fewer engines, a reasonable payload capacity would result.
Either way, I have a few observations you might find interesting:
Ground costs are extremely important. It is a very significant part of the costs. In my second scenario, more than half of the Reuse Index goes to ground costs. If we want orders of magnitude in savings, this will need to be practically 0. Spaceports will really need to operate like airports to even have a shot.
The next biggest chunk is rebuilding the second stage, or in general : Fru. Trading off Cru to increase Fru is worthwhile as long as Cru * ( 1 - Fru ) decreases (if refurbishment costs remain the same, i.e. Crf goes down proportionally so that Crf * Cru stays the same). The initial cost of the rocket is divided by n, so as more launches happen this goes to zero. If we can make a fully reusable rocket at 10x the cost that can fly hundreds of times, it is totally worth it. This is pretty much the idea behind SSTO spaceplanes.
Refurbishment costs should be low, but aren't the dealbreaker as long as they don't exceed 25% of the total rocket price (so closer to 35% of the first stage price). Spending several million on refurbishing per launch is totally doable. Using Cru = 1.2, Fru = 0.7, Crf = 0.25 and Cground = 0.2 (more realistic value from ULA tweets), you still get a 20% drop in costs after 10 flights. This would be a failure according to SpaceX, but still a significant and worthwhile competitive advantage.
The F factor from ULA barely makes a difference. It increases the costs by 0.03-0.04 index points even at 20 launches. This is because the reduced production volume only counts for the first stage, not the entire rocket! At 20 launches you may pay almost 60% more to build the first stage, but that obviously only means a 3% increase per launch. I've actually found a mistake in my formula here: I apply this factor to the entire cost of the reusable rocket, while I should only apply it to the fraction that is reused. The first term should be (F * Fru * Cru + ( 1 - Fru ) * Cru ). This would reduce the impact even more. This term can pretty much be ignored unless the rate exponent goes down significantly.
These observations may be more useful than what I originally wrote. It shows a part of the business model behind the Falcon Heavy: If they can achieve second stage reusability with it and cut production costs enough to make it worthwhile (second bullet point above), they have the winning formula. We can also see why Elon isn't exactly worried about refurbishing costs: Even at 25% there is a strong business case to be made. Building the Merlins from scratch to be reusable without significant maintenance is the killer breakthrough here. Everything hinges on that. I'm very interested to see the static fire because that will pretty much be the deciding factor according to my analysis. If they end up needing STS levels of disassembly, refurbishment, testing and reassembly... That's pretty much lights out for reusability then. Maybe the Raptor engines can save the day but it would still suck.
There's a very interesting post on r*ddit called "Recalculating the ULA reusability analysis in context of SpaceX" that goes into quite a lot of detail on the various costs of reusable rockets. One of the responses by the original poster was of particular interest:100% agreed. I personally think we'll be seeing a lot of FHs flights for exactly this reason, and mission specific reusable second stages (LEO satellite deployers, tankers, etc)QuoteEither way, I have a few observations you might find interesting:
Ground costs are extremely important. It is a very significant part of the costs. In my second scenario, more than half of the Reuse Index goes to ground costs. If we want orders of magnitude in savings, this will need to be practically 0. Spaceports will really need to operate like airports to even have a shot.
The next biggest chunk is rebuilding the second stage, or in general : Fru. Trading off Cru to increase Fru is worthwhile as long as Cru * ( 1 - Fru ) decreases (if refurbishment costs remain the same, i.e. Crf goes down proportionally so that Crf * Cru stays the same). The initial cost of the rocket is divided by n, so as more launches happen this goes to zero. If we can make a fully reusable rocket at 10x the cost that can fly hundreds of times, it is totally worth it. This is pretty much the idea behind SSTO spaceplanes.
Refurbishment costs should be low, but aren't the dealbreaker as long as they don't exceed 25% of the total rocket price (so closer to 35% of the first stage price). Spending several million on refurbishing per launch is totally doable. Using Cru = 1.2, Fru = 0.7, Crf = 0.25 and Cground = 0.2 (more realistic value from ULA tweets), you still get a 20% drop in costs after 10 flights. This would be a failure according to SpaceX, but still a significant and worthwhile competitive advantage.
The F factor from ULA barely makes a difference. It increases the costs by 0.03-0.04 index points even at 20 launches. This is because the reduced production volume only counts for the first stage, not the entire rocket! At 20 launches you may pay almost 60% more to build the first stage, but that obviously only means a 3% increase per launch. I've actually found a mistake in my formula here: I apply this factor to the entire cost of the reusable rocket, while I should only apply it to the fraction that is reused. The first term should be (F * Fru * Cru + ( 1 - Fru ) * Cru ). This would reduce the impact even more. This term can pretty much be ignored unless the rate exponent goes down significantly.
These observations may be more useful than what I originally wrote. It shows a part of the business model behind the Falcon Heavy: If they can achieve second stage reusability with it and cut production costs enough to make it worthwhile (second bullet point above), they have the winning formula. We can also see why Elon isn't exactly worried about refurbishing costs: Even at 25% there is a strong business case to be made. Building the Merlins from scratch to be reusable without significant maintenance is the killer breakthrough here. Everything hinges on that. I'm very interested to see the static fire because that will pretty much be the deciding factor according to my analysis. If they end up needing STS levels of disassembly, refurbishment, testing and reassembly... That's pretty much lights out for reusability then. Maybe the Raptor engines can save the day but it would still suck.
So maybe the primary motive behind the FH was not that it could put massive payloads into LEO in expendable mode (since as many people have pointed out, these payloads are few and far between), but that it could put a future reusable second stage with its increased weight, plus an F9-sized payload, into LEO and still RTLS. If the first stage core and booster plus the second stage and payload fairing are all reusable at a reasonable maintenance cost, then the cost per kg to orbit can drop like a stone. F9 alone would not have the capacity to do this, you need the FH.
Of course SpaceX's plans may have changed since the decision to develop FH.
Yes.There's a very interesting post on r*ddit called "Recalculating the ULA reusability analysis in context of SpaceX" that goes into quite a lot of detail on the various costs of reusable rockets. One of the responses by the original poster was of particular interest:100% agreed. I personally think we'll be seeing a lot of FHs flights for exactly this reason, and mission specific reusable second stages (LEO satellite deployers, tankers, etc)QuoteEither way, I have a few observations you might find interesting:
Ground costs are extremely important. It is a very significant part of the costs. In my second scenario, more than half of the Reuse Index goes to ground costs. If we want orders of magnitude in savings, this will need to be practically 0. Spaceports will really need to operate like airports to even have a shot.
The next biggest chunk is rebuilding the second stage, or in general : Fru. Trading off Cru to increase Fru is worthwhile as long as Cru * ( 1 - Fru ) decreases (if refurbishment costs remain the same, i.e. Crf goes down proportionally so that Crf * Cru stays the same). The initial cost of the rocket is divided by n, so as more launches happen this goes to zero. If we can make a fully reusable rocket at 10x the cost that can fly hundreds of times, it is totally worth it. This is pretty much the idea behind SSTO spaceplanes.
Refurbishment costs should be low, but aren't the dealbreaker as long as they don't exceed 25% of the total rocket price (so closer to 35% of the first stage price). Spending several million on refurbishing per launch is totally doable. Using Cru = 1.2, Fru = 0.7, Crf = 0.25 and Cground = 0.2 (more realistic value from ULA tweets), you still get a 20% drop in costs after 10 flights. This would be a failure according to SpaceX, but still a significant and worthwhile competitive advantage.
The F factor from ULA barely makes a difference. It increases the costs by 0.03-0.04 index points even at 20 launches. This is because the reduced production volume only counts for the first stage, not the entire rocket! At 20 launches you may pay almost 60% more to build the first stage, but that obviously only means a 3% increase per launch. I've actually found a mistake in my formula here: I apply this factor to the entire cost of the reusable rocket, while I should only apply it to the fraction that is reused. The first term should be (F * Fru * Cru + ( 1 - Fru ) * Cru ). This would reduce the impact even more. This term can pretty much be ignored unless the rate exponent goes down significantly.
These observations may be more useful than what I originally wrote. It shows a part of the business model behind the Falcon Heavy: If they can achieve second stage reusability with it and cut production costs enough to make it worthwhile (second bullet point above), they have the winning formula. We can also see why Elon isn't exactly worried about refurbishing costs: Even at 25% there is a strong business case to be made. Building the Merlins from scratch to be reusable without significant maintenance is the killer breakthrough here. Everything hinges on that. I'm very interested to see the static fire because that will pretty much be the deciding factor according to my analysis. If they end up needing STS levels of disassembly, refurbishment, testing and reassembly... That's pretty much lights out for reusability then. Maybe the Raptor engines can save the day but it would still suck.
So maybe the primary motive behind the FH was not that it could put massive payloads into LEO in expendable mode (since as many people have pointed out, these payloads are few and far between), but that it could put a future reusable second stage with its increased weight, plus an F9-sized payload, into LEO and still RTLS. If the first stage core and booster plus the second stage and payload fairing are all reusable at a reasonable maintenance cost, then the cost per kg to orbit can drop like a stone. F9 alone would not have the capacity to do this, you need the FH.
Of course SpaceX's plans may have changed since the decision to develop FH.
That would be a second FH launch inside 2016. That's...eh..very optimistic of him... :P
Optimistic? Really? Why? He clearly has much better visibility of SpaceX future schedule, since he is buying into it.
LightSail and Prox-1 will launch to a circular, 720-kilometer orbit aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy. Liftoff is currently scheduled for Sept. 15, 2016.http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2015/20151026-lightsail-ppod-fit-check.html (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2015/20151026-lightsail-ppod-fit-check.html)
Optimistic? Really? Why? He clearly has much better visibility of SpaceX future schedule, since he is buying into it.
Here is my take on it.
Company CEOs tend to not make an announcement like that, unless they either feel fairly confident that they will not bite their tongue soon-ish, or if there is a hidden agenda behind (like investor/internal company goodwill, putting pressure to the contractor or the competition etc etc).
FH flying 2+ times inside 2016 seems too good to be true. I was thinking that even getting it to fly inside 2016 would be considered an accomplishment (given the need for SX to launch quickly with F9 due to CRS-7 downtime, as well as the need to finish work on LC-39A)
Moreover, they would need to also provide an additional landing spot for one of the demo boosters. I know that they have LZ-1 and one barge ready, not really know what the status on the second east coast barge is though.
At the same time, I always thought that the STP-2 mission would come after the Demo flight. For example, take a look at this.QuoteLightSail and Prox-1 will launch to a circular, 720-kilometer orbit aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy. Liftoff is currently scheduled for Sept. 15, 2016.http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2015/20151026-lightsail-ppod-fit-check.html (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2015/20151026-lightsail-ppod-fit-check.html)
So this could presumably make ViaSat-2 the third "planned" mission inside 2016.
I just can't see it happening.
If the first F9H launch goes well, what's to stop them fairly quickly doing another one? They have the manufacturing capability AIUI. The first two F9 flights were within 6 months of each other, the next 5 are within 3 months. It's not like they are still very slow at launching stuff (fingers crossed)
Remember that one of the first Dragon demos was going to attempt a TMI at the end.
NASA thinks there will be 2 demo flights of Falcon Heavy in 2016 - see this chart from Spaceport News Magazine:
Of course SpaceX's plans may have changed since the decision to develop FH.
The Falcon Heavy essentially consists of the Falcon 9 with two modified boost stages attached as strap on boosters. That would be quite an exciting aerial ballet with the two side boosters dropping off and doing a symmetric pirouette back to the launch site. We'd need to have another landing spot for the two boosters and then a third one for the center core. Although I think most of the Falcon Heavy missions will see the center core land on a ship most likely. It's really going ridiculously fast. The transfer energy of Falcon Heavy will more than double that of Falcon 9. The maximum transfer energy is approaching a terajoule.
Does anyone have an estimate for direct GEO insertion payload capability with center core barging?
Does anyone have an estimate for direct GEO insertion payload capability with center core barging?
According to this page (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/falcon-9-heavy.htm):
FH (non-crossfeed, expendable) LEO 45 tonnes, GTO 18.95 tonnes, GEO 9.375 tonnes
FH (non-crossfeed, reusable) LEO 32.45 tonnes, GTO 13.65 tonnes, GEO 6.75 tonnes
FH (crossfeed, expendable) 53 tonnes, GTO 22.34 tonnes, GEO 11.04 tonnes
FH (crossfeed, reusable) 38.25 tonnes, GTO 16.1 tonnes, 7.95 tonnes
These appear to assume v1.1 cores, not FT. Even with the old figures, though, that's enough for a reusable FH to be able to put a substantial comsat directly into GEO. Goodby, competition!
Some more estimated numbers, from here (Estimates from Feb 2015).
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falconH.html (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falconH.html)
Or am I wrong to assume that this is a capability commercial customers would take advantage of for an extra, say, $5-10m?Why would SpaceX charge more? As long as the S1 is recoverable, of course. Just makes their overall package even more attractive for prospective clients. They haven't shown a propensity to nickle-and-dime their customers to date, so I don't really see that happening.
It seems like demonstrating direct GEO insertion (which Shotwell has stated they can do) could really take their launch market disruption to a new level. Or am I wrong to assume that this is a capability commercial customers would take advantage of for an extra, say, $5-10m?
I don't know if they would like that offer. I don't think though it would be advisable to do. Direct GEO means the upper stage is one more piece of debris up there that cannot deorbit. Upper stages for GTO deorbit.
Just to give you a piece of information about performance. On the NASA NLS II website using the performance query and entering 28.5 degree inclination and 285km circular orbit the output for the F9v1.1 payload value is 16,320kg.
GTO-1800 5,755kg
So if SpaceX sandbagged the listed performance on F9v1.1 shown on their website then how much sandbagging did they do for the FHv1.1 performance they show on their website?
This also means that the max for an F9FT would be:
~LEO(285 circular) 21,705kg
~GTO(-1800) 7,654kg
If this is correct then the FHFT max values for expendable are:
without crossfeed, expendable --- 59,850kg
with crossfeed, expendable --- 70,490kg
Can someone say oops for the SLS program!
On that you may be correct. But when was the foreseeable future greater than the next 3 years for SpaceX.Just to give you a piece of information about performance. On the NASA NLS II website using the performance query and entering 28.5 degree inclination and 285km circular orbit the output for the F9v1.1 payload value is 16,320kg.
GTO-1800 5,755kg
So if SpaceX sandbagged the listed performance on F9v1.1 shown on their website then how much sandbagging did they do for the FHv1.1 performance they show on their website?
This also means that the max for an F9FT would be:
~LEO(285 circular) 21,705kg
~GTO(-1800) 7,654kg
If this is correct then the FHFT max values for expendable are:
without crossfeed, expendable --- 59,850kg
with crossfeed, expendable --- 70,490kg
Can someone say oops for the SLS program!
While your point is well taken, SpX has noted that crossfeed is off the table for the foreseeable future (and perhaps forever). If that has changed, please point to where (its hard to keep up with all of the threads and comments!).
SpaceX may retire Falcon Heavy before doing cross-feed. A large single-core vehicle like BFR may be more operationally efficient and could be fully reusable while getting a lot more payload.BFR/BFS/MCT still looks to be 10 years out. That is 3 upgrade cycles for SpaceX. If they determine that they need it for their own plans then it will be done. But other than possibly SLS being canceled with Orion being manifested on FH I don't see crossfeed happening either.
...[citation needed]SpaceX may retire Falcon Heavy before doing cross-feed. A large single-core vehicle like BFR may be more operationally efficient and could be fully reusable while getting a lot more payload.BFR/BFS/MCT still looks to be 10 years out....
Just to give you a piece of information about performance. On the NASA NLS II website using the performance query and entering 28.5 degree inclination and 285km circular orbit the output for the F9v1.1 payload value is 16,320kg.
GTO-1800 5,755kg
So if SpaceX sandbagged the listed performance on F9v1.1 shown on their website then how much sandbagging did they do for the FHv1.1 performance they show on their website?
...[citation needed]SpaceX may retire Falcon Heavy before doing cross-feed. A large single-core vehicle like BFR may be more operationally efficient and could be fully reusable while getting a lot more payload.BFR/BFS/MCT still looks to be 10 years out....
The value comes from the algorithm supplied by SpaceX to NASA for performance based on orbit parameters as part of the NLS II contract. It is for the F9v1.1 and not the FT.Just to give you a piece of information about performance. On the NASA NLS II website using the performance query and entering 28.5 degree inclination and 285km circular orbit the output for the F9v1.1 payload value is 16,320kg.
GTO-1800 5,755kg
So if SpaceX sandbagged the listed performance on F9v1.1 shown on their website then how much sandbagging did they do for the FHv1.1 performance they show on their website?
I think what is listed is just projected FT upgrade's performance, we know real v1.1's GTO performance from past launches, and it's no where near 5755kg...
...[citation needed]SpaceX may retire Falcon Heavy before doing cross-feed. A large single-core vehicle like BFR may be more operationally efficient and could be fully reusable while getting a lot more payload.BFR/BFS/MCT still looks to be 10 years out....
So the value generated by the NASA website is probably very close to the max actual capability of the v1.1. within just a couple of kg. But this is without any margins for engine out or for anything else. S1 to depletion and S2 to depletion.
I hope you are right. I would love to see them produce the Raptor in 3 years and the BFR/MCT 3 years after that in 2022....[citation needed]SpaceX may retire Falcon Heavy before doing cross-feed. A large single-core vehicle like BFR may be more operationally efficient and could be fully reusable while getting a lot more payload.BFR/BFS/MCT still looks to be 10 years out....
Typical aerospace project time. Of course, SpaceX isn't typical.
The value comes from the algorithm supplied by SpaceX to NASA for performance based on orbit parameters as part of the NLS II contract. It is for the F9v1.1 and not the FT.Just to give you a piece of information about performance. On the NASA NLS II website using the performance query and entering 28.5 degree inclination and 285km circular orbit the output for the F9v1.1 payload value is 16,320kg.
GTO-1800 5,755kg
So if SpaceX sandbagged the listed performance on F9v1.1 shown on their website then how much sandbagging did they do for the FHv1.1 performance they show on their website?
I think what is listed is just projected FT upgrade's performance, we know real v1.1's GTO performance from past launches, and it's no where near 5755kg...
SpaceX may retire Falcon Heavy before doing cross-feed. A large single-core vehicle like BFR may be more operationally efficient and could be fully reusable while getting a lot more payload.The fact is FHE (with side sticks RTLS and center booster expended) has more performance than pretty much any within earth orbit mission ordered worldwide and likely future missions.
I've been noodling on Musk's comment about FH in the post-landing teleconference ( source (http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/postlanding-teleconference-with-elon-musk-2015-12-22)):QuoteThe Falcon Heavy essentially consists of the Falcon 9 with two modified boost stages attached as strap on boosters. That would be quite an exciting aerial ballet with the two side boosters dropping off and doing a symmetric pirouette back to the launch site. We'd need to have another landing spot for the two boosters and then a third one for the center core. Although I think most of the Falcon Heavy missions will see the center core land on a ship most likely. It's really going ridiculously fast. The transfer energy of Falcon Heavy will more than double that of Falcon 9. The maximum transfer energy is approaching a terajoule.
Since, as I understand it, FH should be able to RTLS with pretty much all comsats, I can interpret this in three ways:
1. He expects comsat launches to account for less than 50% of FH launches, and the rest will be either really big or going to Mars.
2. He expects F9 barging to be cheaper than FH RTLS, so very few comsats will need FH (contrary to current manifest).
3. He's planning to deliver comsats to higher energy orbits, maybe even offering direct GEO insertion at a price that makes sense for customers besides the US government.
I find the third possibility most interesting, since it gives them an even stronger advantage than price alone vs. the competition. Plus, it's a nice market segmentation tool, which can help them remain profitable while lowering baseline prices to grow the market.
My point is that I see no citation that BFR is 10 years out. Musk suggested around 2020. If SpaceX is planning for BFR to be so close, they may steer whatever development resources that cross feed would take toward accelerating BFR instead, just like they seem to have done with the reusable upper stage. (This logic holds even if BFR eventually takes longer, because we're talking about SpaceX's plans & resource allocation decisions.)I hope you are right. I would love to see them produce the Raptor in 3 years and the BFR/MCT 3 years after that in 2022....[citation needed]SpaceX may retire Falcon Heavy before doing cross-feed. A large single-core vehicle like BFR may be more operationally efficient and could be fully reusable while getting a lot more payload.BFR/BFS/MCT still looks to be 10 years out....
Typical aerospace project time. Of course, SpaceX isn't typical.
Yeah, that's my point.SpaceX may retire Falcon Heavy before doing cross-feed. A large single-core vehicle like BFR may be more operationally efficient and could be fully reusable while getting a lot more payload.The fact is FHE (with side sticks RTLS and center booster expended) has more performance than pretty much any within earth orbit mission ordered worldwide and likely future missions.
And the number of missions that would require the center booster to be expended is tiny.
So this whole debate is ignoring the obvious extremely low likelyhood that SpaceX will actually need to iterate on FH cross feed.
Having an Eagle Lite type rocket will do everything FH can do, with both stages RTLS.
Considering the way SpaceX does things in an incremental manner, we probably would not see crossfeed for at least 3 years and possibly as much as 6 years. SpaceX improvement cycle is currently averaging 2.5 years. The next item in improvement is reuse full scale (almost al flights reuse the boosters) such that prices drop by >30% over the current and possibly as much as 50%. If reuse eventually reduces the F9 price by $25M to $35M then the FH price over its expendable price whatever that is would reduce by $75M Or to put it more easily to only $10M more than the F9R price or $45M. This is what I see as their next improvement. Not so much a technological one but a revolutionary economic one. By the end of this year we may actually see the SpaceX pricing for reusable flights become the baseline with a delta extra charge to schedule for the first use or for use of the vehicle's full expendable capability.Yeah, that's my point.SpaceX may retire Falcon Heavy before doing cross-feed. A large single-core vehicle like BFR may be more operationally efficient and could be fully reusable while getting a lot more payload.The fact is FHE (with side sticks RTLS and center booster expended) has more performance than pretty much any within earth orbit mission ordered worldwide and likely future missions.
And the number of missions that would require the center booster to be expended is tiny.
So this whole debate is ignoring the obvious extremely low likelyhood that SpaceX will actually need to iterate on FH cross feed.
Having an Eagle Lite type rocket will do everything FH can do, with both stages RTLS.
My point is that I see no citation that BFR is 10 years out. Musk suggested around 2020. If SpaceX is planning for BFR to be so close, they may steer whatever development resources that cross feed would take toward accelerating BFR instead, just like they seem to have done with the reusable upper stage. (This logic holds even if BFR eventually takes longer, because we're talking about SpaceX's plans & resource allocation decisions.)
What if SpaceX wants to just recover a bunch of Falcon 9 cores, and then they have all these "free" cores to do with as they please? They could use them themselves for Mars exploratory/technology proving missions at relatively low cost, largely funded by their commercial business.
Is it still possible that spacex could wait until they are ready to refly two used F9RFT first stages as side boosters before doing the Falcon heavy demo?
A) It's not clear that FH can handle a fairing 2.3 times its core...For larger objects, it may be possible to design a fairing that doesn't have circular cross section, looking down from the top. This has been done before. In fact, both the current and future Dragon capsules don't have circular cross sections.
I believe we've already seen the FH side boosters in the factory. So they had to decide a while ago not to wait until landings were successful. (A good decision, in my book.)
If they want to fly the FH by the end of the first half of the year the first FH cores should be about ready to leave Hawthorne for McGregor.
I think many of us gloss over how much work the FH is than the F9. There are similarities to be sure but the side boosters are longer, the core has to be structurally different to support the loads of the side boosters.
I think that if April is to realistic those cores need to be making their way to McGregor very soon.
What we don't know:
1- FHFT performance (all RTLS, booster's RTLS and center ASDS, booster's ASDS and center expended, all expended)
2- FHFT prices
3- 1st stage average refurbishment costs
4- 1st stage total incremental costs for a new booster (manufacturing, testing, shipping, and other misc before arrival at pad)
5- M1D+ engine life (average number of full duration burns without a rebuild+ average number of starts without a rebuild)
6- turnaround time (average time of total of refurbishment time and processing time [launch to launch])
7- stage life before rebuild or discard (number of allowable flights at about same reliability level)
Please add data or corrections where appropriate.
Of all the possible hypothetical future mods, I think a stretched upper stage is near the top of the list.
What we don't know:
1- FHFT performance (all RTLS, booster's RTLS and center ASDS, booster's ASDS and center expended, all expended)
2- FHFT prices
3- 1st stage average refurbishment costs
4- 1st stage total incremental costs for a new booster (manufacturing, testing, shipping, and other misc before arrival at pad)
5- M1D+ engine life (average number of full duration burns without a rebuild+ average number of starts without a rebuild)
6- turnaround time (average time of total of refurbishment time and processing time [launch to launch])
7- stage life before rebuild or discard (number of allowable flights at about same reliability level)
Please add data or corrections where appropriate.
8- Maximum atmospheric interface velocity of an F9 core which is survivable. Because they only have one type of upper stage, this number will determine the upper limit of the Falcon Heavy performance for standard payloads.
I imagine missions which expend the center core will be far more costly.
By going to 5m diameter for the US you can double the tank volume and only increase the tank weight by 50%. This not only increases the total propellant but also increases the effective PF far more than just the doubling of the stage scale. This increased size stage (no taller than the existing one) would greatly increase the high energy orbit payloads size.Of all the possible hypothetical future mods, I think a stretched upper stage is near the top of the list.
What we don't know:
1- FHFT performance (all RTLS, booster's RTLS and center ASDS, booster's ASDS and center expended, all expended)
2- FHFT prices
3- 1st stage average refurbishment costs
4- 1st stage total incremental costs for a new booster (manufacturing, testing, shipping, and other misc before arrival at pad)
5- M1D+ engine life (average number of full duration burns without a rebuild+ average number of starts without a rebuild)
6- turnaround time (average time of total of refurbishment time and processing time [launch to launch])
7- stage life before rebuild or discard (number of allowable flights at about same reliability level)
Please add data or corrections where appropriate.
8- Maximum atmospheric interface velocity of an F9 core which is survivable. Because they only have one type of upper stage, this number will determine the upper limit of the Falcon Heavy performance for standard payloads.
I imagine missions which expend the center core will be far more costly.
Make sense to enlarge it if you're enlarging the first stage by 3:1 (effectively even more), and it also makes recovery easier.
Yup.By going to 5m diameter for the US you can double the tank volume and only increase the tank weight by 50%. This not only increases the total propellant but also increases the effective PF far more than just the doubling of the stage scale. This increased size stage (no taller than the existing one) would greatly increase the high energy orbit payloads size.Of all the possible hypothetical future mods, I think a stretched upper stage is near the top of the list.
What we don't know:
1- FHFT performance (all RTLS, booster's RTLS and center ASDS, booster's ASDS and center expended, all expended)
2- FHFT prices
3- 1st stage average refurbishment costs
4- 1st stage total incremental costs for a new booster (manufacturing, testing, shipping, and other misc before arrival at pad)
5- M1D+ engine life (average number of full duration burns without a rebuild+ average number of starts without a rebuild)
6- turnaround time (average time of total of refurbishment time and processing time [launch to launch])
7- stage life before rebuild or discard (number of allowable flights at about same reliability level)
Please add data or corrections where appropriate.
8- Maximum atmospheric interface velocity of an F9 core which is survivable. Because they only have one type of upper stage, this number will determine the upper limit of the Falcon Heavy performance for standard payloads.
I imagine missions which expend the center core will be far more costly.
Make sense to enlarge it if you're enlarging the first stage by 3:1 (effectively even more), and it also makes recovery easier.
By going to 5m diameter for the US you can double the tank volume and only increase the tank weight by 50%. This not only increases the total propellant but also increases the effective PF far more than just the doubling of the stage scale. This increased size stage (no taller than the existing one) would greatly increase the high energy orbit payloads size.
Since it is a new year, let me repeat my prediction of several years ago, concerning FH:
There never will be a 50 ton version of this launcher. At some point in the development of the FH, SpaceX will also develop larger engines and a new generation core stage, making FH obsolete. As such, FH will indeed fly some years down the road, but without the elaborate cross plumbed engines, resulting in FH basically flying as a 27 engine Delta IV Heavy.
I would imagine soon after an initial launch of FH, SpaceX will already be focused on the follow-on, and FH will rarely fly.
Since it is a new year, let me repeat my prediction of several years ago, concerning FH:The nice thing about predictions is that they come with a 50 percent chance of becoming reality. On the other hand, the nice thing about predictions is that they come with a 50 percent chance of not becoming reality.
There never will be a 50 ton version of this launcher. At some point in the development of the FH, SpaceX will also develop larger engines and a new generation core stage, making FH obsolete. As such, FH will indeed fly some years down the road, but without the elaborate cross plumbed engines, resulting in FH basically flying as a 27 engine Delta IV Heavy.
I would imagine soon after an initial launch of FH, SpaceX will already be focused on the follow-on, and FH will rarely fly.
The nice thing about predictions is that they come with a 50 percent chance of becoming reality.
I think he was sarcastic.QuoteThe nice thing about predictions is that they come with a 50 percent chance of becoming reality.
I predict that my next throw of a die will not yield a 6... Are you ready to pick up that bet at 1:1? :)
I think he was sarcastic.QuoteThe nice thing about predictions is that they come with a 50 percent chance of becoming reality.
I predict that my next throw of a die will not yield a 6... Are you ready to pick up that bet at 1:1? :)
That's a fact.I think he was sarcastic.QuoteThe nice thing about predictions is that they come with a 50 percent chance of becoming reality.
I predict that my next throw of a die will not yield a 6... Are you ready to pick up that bet at 1:1? :)
Of all the possible hypothetical future mods, I think a stretched upper stage is near the top of the list.By going to 5m diameter for the US you can double the tank volume and only increase the tank weight by 50%. This not only increases the total propellant but also increases the effective PF far more than just the doubling of the stage scale. This increased size stage (no taller than the existing one) would greatly increase the high energy orbit payloads size.
Make sense to enlarge it if you're enlarging the first stage by 3:1 (effectively even more), and it also makes recovery easier.
I have to shake my head at people that believe that the BFR will exist any time soon. How long has it taken SpaceX to get the FH ready for maybe debuting this year?
F9FT eating into the FH's margins is definitely a thing and a more reasonable reason to think the FH will play a less important role in SpaceX's fleet. But it won't be replaced for quite some time.
I have to shake my head at people that believe that the BFR will exist any time soon. How long has it taken SpaceX to get the FH ready for maybe debuting this year?
F9FT eating into the FH's margins is definitely a thing and a more reasonable reason to think the FH will play a less important role in SpaceX's fleet. But it won't be replaced for quite some time.
I have to shake my head at people that believe that the BFR will exist any time soon. How long has it taken SpaceX to get the FH ready for maybe debuting this year?
F9FT eating into the FH's margins is definitely a thing and a more reasonable reason to think the FH will play a less important role in SpaceX's fleet. But it won't be replaced for quite some time.
I think it's important to realize that the length of time it took to get FH to flight is not comparable to BFR. Here's why:
FH is completely dependant on the performance and reusability evolution of F9. It didn't pay to launch FH until the design of the F9 was more or less finalized. SpaceX's original announcement was premature as they kept finding ways to improve the single stick.
I think you can compare the BFR to the original F9 development.
BFR is an end for SpaceX. It's the essential element to achieve the goal of the company. They will prioritize its development.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
I think it's important to realize that the length of time it took to get FH to flight is not comparable to BFR. Here's why:
FH is completely dependant on the performance and reusability evolution of F9. It didn't pay to launch FH until the design of the F9 was more or less finalized. SpaceX's original announcement was premature as they kept finding ways to improve the single stick.
I think you can compare the BFR to the original F9 development.
BFR is an end for SpaceX. It's the essential element to achieve the goal of the company. They will prioritize its development.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
FH life is indeed tied to the arrival of BFR/MCT.I think it's important to realize that the length of time it took to get FH to flight is not comparable to BFR. Here's why:
FH is completely dependant on the performance and reusability evolution of F9. It didn't pay to launch FH until the design of the F9 was more or less finalized. SpaceX's original announcement was premature as they kept finding ways to improve the single stick.
I think you can compare the BFR to the original F9 development.
BFR is an end for SpaceX. It's the essential element to achieve the goal of the company. They will prioritize its development.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
I believe we are in full agreement. I would formulate it a bit different though.
Up to now there was no urgent need for FH. Building a 1.1 FH would take away cores for single launches. Instead they developed FT and first stage landing. Now they have that they ramp up core production and build FH. Building a 1.1 FH would mean they now have to develop a significantly different FH. The need now is for the DOD, for their own Mars ambitions, sending Red Dragon. And for launching even the heaviest commercial payloads in reusable mode.
Edit: Which means the reasons for delaying FH don't apply for BFR/MCT. I too expect to see it in a 5 year timeframe.
Seems like a very tall order. If in 5-6 years SpaceX has done all that, established a new BFR launch site, and launched a BFR, I will be astonished.
...Up to now there was no urgent need for FH. Building a 1.1 FH would take away cores for single launches. Instead they developed FT and first stage landing. Now they have that they ramp up core production and build FH. Building a 1.1 FH would mean they now have to develop a significantly different FH. The need now is for the DOD, for their own Mars ambitions, sending Red Dragon. And for launching even the heaviest commercial payloads in reusable mode.
Edit: Which means the reasons for delaying FH don't apply for BFR/MCT. I too expect to see it in a 5 year timeframe.
Regarding Raptor, I can see it spending far more time on the test stand and being developed and tested exhaustively. When Raptor and the vehicle it powers first flies we'll see a more mature product than the Merlin 1.
They might not launch BFR from land, but on a large offshore platform.Why did SpaceX choose South Texas for their new commercial launch site? Puerto Rico is much closer to the equator, and they wouldn't need to worry about flying over Florida or Cuba (i.e. no need for dogleg flight profile). The answer: It's more expensive to ship things to Puerto Rico.
I know this is a FH discussion thread, but FH can send payloads to Mars. Depending on how SLS pans out, NASA might use FH with a hydrolox upper stage for deep space probes or Mars work, and that would depend on Vulcan's time table. If SLS becomes too expensive, NASA can build, design, and with in space assembly...Earth orbit "assembly" conjures up a lot of negative connotations. Most people think of assembly as something that would take months or years in earth orbit, making it very costly.
It could even be in international waters thus avoiding all the red tape from the Feds.
It could even be in international waters thus avoiding all the red tape from the Feds.
I don't know, can you legally launch American crewed spacecraft from international waters? American ever-so-faintly-ICBM-like projectiles from international waters? American LVs?
What was the legislature Sea Launch operated under and would that apply here? If I was on capitol hill I can imagining myself bustling to get it to launch from US waters, for whatever reason I may have, politically or practically motivated. It'd be like launching Saturn 5 from international waters.
It could even be in international waters thus avoiding all the red tape from the Feds.
I don't know, can you legally launch American crewed spacecraft from international waters? American ever-so-faintly-ICBM-like projectiles from international waters? American LVs?
What was the legislature Sea Launch operated under and would that apply here? If I was on capitol hill I can imagining myself bustling to get it to launch from US waters, for whatever reason I may have, politically or practically motivated. It'd be like launching Saturn 5 from international waters.
There is no prohibition in place, but there is also no exemption from any regulation or law for a US-person-owned firm conducting launch operations at sea (see for example, SeaLaunch, which had to obtain FAA-AST launch licenses).
It could even be in international waters thus avoiding all the red tape from the Feds.
I don't know, can you legally launch American crewed spacecraft from international waters? American ever-so-faintly-ICBM-like projectiles from international waters? American LVs?
What was the legislature Sea Launch operated under and would that apply here? If I was on capitol hill I can imagining myself bustling to get it to launch from US waters, for whatever reason I may have, politically or practically motivated. It'd be like launching Saturn 5 from international waters.
There is no prohibition in place, but there is also no exemption from any regulation or law for a US-person-owned firm conducting launch operations at sea (see for example, SeaLaunch, which had to obtain FAA-AST launch licenses).
Not even from the need for an EIS?
Nope, we don't know that. Neither does SpaceX. And we know SpaceX is looking beyond continental US.They might not launch BFR from land, but on a large offshore platform.Why did SpaceX choose South Texas for their new commercial launch site? Puerto Rico is much closer to the equator, and they wouldn't need to worry about flying over Florida or Cuba (i.e. no need for dogleg flight profile). The answer: It's more expensive to ship things to Puerto Rico.
Same for BFR. They will launch BFR from a land-based site within the continental U.S. to minimize costs.
.,..
They might not launch BFR from land, but on a large offshore platform.Why did SpaceX choose South Texas for their new commercial launch site? Puerto Rico is much closer to the equator, and they wouldn't need to worry about flying over Florida or Cuba (i.e. no need for dogleg flight profile). The answer: It's more expensive to ship things to Puerto Rico.
Given the pressure on the launch schedule, the performance of f9FT,the possibility of a raptorish upper stage implied by the recent contract award, the expressed view that a single stick BFR is better than one with side boosters, slower progress on stage return, BO's progress with methane etc. Is it possible that the heavy will be cancelled and all effort put into raptor variants for both f9 improvement and BFR acceleration.
I doubt that elon musk is likely to fall victim to the fallacy of the sunk cost.
Given the pressure on the launch schedule, the performance of f9FT,the possibility of a raptorish upper stage implied by the recent contract award, the expressed view that a single stick BFR is better than one with side boosters, slower progress on stage return, BO's progress with methane etc. Is it possible that the heavy will be cancelled and all effort put into raptor variants for both f9 improvement and BFR acceleration.
I doubt that elon musk is likely to fall victim to the fallacy of the sunk cost.
I think Falcon Heavy will eventually go the way of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 v1.1. But not for many years.Given the pressure on the launch schedule, the performance of f9FT,the possibility of a raptorish upper stage implied by the recent contract award, the expressed view that a single stick BFR is better than one with side boosters, slower progress on stage return, BO's progress with methane etc. Is it possible that the heavy will be cancelled and all effort put into raptor variants for both f9 improvement and BFR acceleration.
I doubt that elon musk is likely to fall victim to the fallacy of the sunk cost.
SpaceX needs Falcon Heavy to serve many of their customers. The customers wouldn't like waiting for Raptor and SpaceX's bank account wouldn't appreciate the delay either. I would only expect to see Falcon Heavy canceled if a critical flaw is discovered in its design.
I still say due to the sound problems associated with a 15 m wide 15 million lb thrust rocket, over water is better. The Gulf of Mexico is very shallow. I've bottom fished beyond the sight of land offshore. An oil platform with crane coupled with a barge bringing out the BFR would make it easy over water. The Boca Chica site will probably still be used to land the BFR as well as F9 and FH boosters. Either way the BFR cannot be shipped by any other means than barge to a launch site due to shear size. Unless the factory itself is onshore, with a ramp to carry it out to a launch platform, like the bridges going to Key West. The Key West bridge originally carried a railroad train, which is probably heavier than an unfueled BFR.
Sea Dragon was supposed to launch a 20-25m rocket directly off the ocean to give 500 tons to LEO.
I do think that Boca Chica is only another FH/F9 launch site. SpaceX with hundreds of internet satelites they plan to launch, is expecting a lot of F9/FH launches, thus needing the extra launch sites.
Just a reminder, FH will be the world's largest operational launcher for the next 5-10 years, and the world's lowest price for a kg to orbit. Ever. Flaws or no, it won't be easily brushed aside.
Just a reminder, FH will be the world's largest operational launcher for the next 5-10 years, and the world's lowest price for a kg to orbit. Ever. Flaws or no, it won't be easily brushed aside.
made me chuckle. I like the un-appified Jim better though.Just a reminder, FH will be the world's largest operational launcher for the next 5-10 years, and the world's lowest price for a kg to orbit. Ever. Flaws or no, it won't be easily brushed aside.
It's great to see such positive comments and I really appreciate your enthusiasm, but I would have to note that it may be overly ambitious to have such enthusiasm over a rocket that is yet to fly.
Edited by the PoliteJim2000 app
Just a reminder, FH will be the world's largest operational launcher for the next 5-10 years, and the world's lowest price for a kg to orbit. Ever. Flaws or no, it won't be easily brushed aside.
It's great to see such positive comments and I really appreciate your enthusiasm, but I would have to note that it may be overly ambitious to have such enthusiasm over a rocket that is yet to fly.
Edited by the PoliteJim2000 app
I think, a very important part will be bumping the recovery rate over 66%, otherwise it is pointless to switch from a F9 in expendable mode to a FH in fully reusable mode (without the upper stage). Just because at a recovery rate of 66%, one stage is quite likely to be lost, maybe even two, whereas a F9 expendable is lost, by definition (Musk currently expects a landing-successrate of 70%, but who knows, what it is in reality).
But a good Mars program could start with FH with a good Raptor upper stage.
When F9 Heavy was first scheduled for flight in 2013, it was baselined using the Merlin 1-C and a much smaller S1 core & propellant load. As the Merlin has evolved to much higher performance and the core stretched to take advantage of that, I think is arguable to consider that the size of the side cores should be getting smaller, not larger. It begs the question, what is the end purpose of building a rocket? To make something spectacular on paper, or something that will actaully fly often? All that extra mass, engine count, and costly downrange deltaV maneuvering of FH could be reduced with smaller side boosters that stage earlier, & can be re-used.
Falcon Heavy as currently configured has pushed it's payload capacity beyond most anything that is scheduled to be launched, or likely to ever be launched, so what then is going to make it a "success"? At best, it splits the competition for heavy DoD launches against Delta IV, that alone may make it a commercial success. The other valid mission is to give extra margin to start re-use testing on stage 2.
When F9 Heavy was first scheduled for flight in 2013, it was baselined using the Merlin 1-C and a much smaller S1 core & propellant load. As the Merlin has evolved to much higher performance and the core stretched to take advantage of that, I think is arguable to consider that the size of the side cores should be getting smaller, not larger. It begs the question, what is the end purpose of building a rocket? To make something spectacular on paper, or something that will actaully fly often? All that extra mass, engine count, and costly downrange deltaV maneuvering of FH could be reduced with smaller side boosters that stage earlier, & can be re-used.
Are you completly forgetting the economic benefit of building cores that are the same size? And that the side cores are basically F9 cores? The point is to get something that is cost effective.Falcon Heavy as currently configured has pushed it's payload capacity beyond most anything that is scheduled to be launched, or likely to ever be launched, so what then is going to make it a "success"? At best, it splits the competition for heavy DoD launches against Delta IV, that alone may make it a commercial success. The other valid mission is to give extra margin to start re-use testing on stage 2.
No, the extra margin is to allow first stage (and booster) reuse. If the the extra performance allows all three cores to RTLS - and refurbishment is cost effective - than that is a big win for SpaceX.
Stop thinking in the "optimize for performance" mindset. You won't understand SpaceX that way... They are optimizing for cost. One size core, one size upper stage, one size fairing. What else is there to understand?
(And should they start using a Raptor based upper stage, the other benefits will remain, thus reducing booster size would be counter-productive)
But a good Mars program could start with FH with a good Raptor upper stage.
You are more right than you know.
When F9 Heavy was first scheduled for flight in 2013, it was baselined using the Merlin 1-C and a much smaller S1 core & propellant load. As the Merlin has evolved to much higher performance and the core stretched to take advantage of that, I think is arguable to consider that the size of the side cores should be getting smaller, not larger. It begs the question, what is the end purpose of building a rocket? To make something spectacular on paper, or something that will actaully fly often? All that extra mass, engine count, and costly downrange deltaV maneuvering of FH could be reduced with smaller side boosters that stage earlier, & can be re-used.
Are you completly forgetting the economic benefit of building cores that are the same size? And that the side cores are basically F9 cores? The point is to get something that is cost effective.Falcon Heavy as currently configured has pushed it's payload capacity beyond most anything that is scheduled to be launched, or likely to ever be launched, so what then is going to make it a "success"? At best, it splits the competition for heavy DoD launches against Delta IV, that alone may make it a commercial success. The other valid mission is to give extra margin to start re-use testing on stage 2.
No, the extra margin is to allow first stage (and booster) reuse. If the the extra performance allows all three cores to RTLS - and refurbishment is cost effective - than that is a big win for SpaceX.
Stop thinking in the "optimize for performance" mindset. You won't understand SpaceX that way... They are optimizing for cost. One size core, one size upper stage, one size fairing. What else is there to understand?
(And should they start using a Raptor based upper stage, the other benefits will remain, thus reducing booster size would be counter-productive)
I get what you are saying.
I see it put forward as a near unquestioned "given" everywhere. I am not disagreeing just to play some devils advocate game. I think that the benefits of maintaining a common core size work out great IF the flight rate is high for the configuration. I don't see that possibility until the market completely changes, and that point of elasticity is found that dramatically increases the number of heavy payloads to be launched. If I am wrong on that, smaller side boosters in comparison to high flight rate F9 core boosters lose.
I guess I would really need to know what the incremental cost to the 3.7 meter core production line is to maintain capability for the center core of FH to weigh against a smaller line for side boosters. An interesting data point might be the cost of an F1 vs. F9 v1.0. A smaller LRB might cost 1/4 to 1/3 of a F9 side core. A smaller new booster would be like a F9 side core with 3-4 uses already amortized into it's cost at the outset.
The performance loss for a quicker burning small booster, staging earlier, is also not as great as you would think. So much of the FH side core performance is lost to the expensive energy requirement for RLTS that stages when the rocket is very high, and very far downrange. It's generally non controversial & accepted that low efficiency is is high cost, and F9 side cores that RTLS are low efficiency from the standpoint of delivering maximum energy to the center core.
Smaller boosters aren't necessarily incompatible with the concept of enabling RTLS re-use for the booster itself, or the center core. This is especially true for GTO launches that are just out of the reach of RTLS for F9 FT. Smaller boosters could push a F9 FT past that important threshold for 6-7ton payloads to GTO with RLTS. (guessing payloads greater than 5.5t, SES-9 will inform us better) This would smash Ariane 6 & Vulcan in competition for heavier payloads without resorting to a full FH configuration.
Stop thinking in the "optimize for performance" mindset. You won't understand SpaceX that way... They are optimizing for cost. One size core, one size upper stage, one size fairing. What else is there to understand?
(And should they start using a Raptor based upper stage, the other benefits will remain, thus reducing booster size would be counter-productive)
I get what you are saying. I see it put forward as a near unquestioned "given" everywhere. I am not disagreeing just to play some devils advocate game. I think that the benefits of maintaining a common core size work out great IF the flight rate is high for the configuration.
I guess I would really need to know what the incremental cost to the 3.7 meter core production line is to maintain capability for the center core of FH to weigh against a smaller line for side boosters. An interesting data point might be the cost of an F1 vs. F9 v1.0. A smaller LRB might cost 1/4 to 1/3 of a F9 side core. A smaller new booster would be like a F9 side core with 3-4 uses already amortized into it's cost at the outset.
By the way, since you are eager to see Raptor implemented on S2 configurations, you are now violating your espoused principals of simplicity. I've added some "ones" to your list: The "one core, one stage 2, one fairing, one engine, one fuel" principal on three counts ( fuel, one S2, multiple engine types) How deep is the commitment to just one of each?
I respect the philosophy of optimizing for cost, not performance. I would add that optimizing for profitability is also not incompatible for optimizing cost.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, a 5.2 meter second stage can go via air.More like a Super Guppy, since Dreamlifter is used exclusively for 787 parts and would have a reeeeeallly hard time landing and taking off from the Hawthorne Municipal Airport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter
Matthew
Related to Falcon Heavy testing - The video that was leaked (and subsequently pulled)
No, I'm not sure you are getting it, you have it completely backwards. With a lower flight rate, it is even *worse* to have alternate configurations. The lower your flight rate is, the MORE critical it is to have a common configuration.
I guess I would really need to know what the incremental cost to the 3.7 meter core production line is to maintain capability for the center core of FH to weigh against a smaller line for side boosters. An interesting data point might be the cost of an F1 vs. F9 v1.0. A smaller LRB might cost 1/4 to 1/3 of a F9 side core. A smaller new booster would be like a F9 side core with 3-4 uses already amortized into it's cost at the outset.
What? I thought you were arguing for a shorter/stubbier F9 core, not an F1 sized core? And that last sentence... I'm having trouble parsing what you mean. SpaceX want reusability. F1 sized boosters won't be reusable without a very different approach. But if you agree that a reused F9 side core could be had for the same price - offering more performance - why in the world would you choose to not use it!?!? Propellant is DIRT CHEAP, only 1-3% of launch costs.
By the way, since you are eager to see Raptor implemented on S2 configurations, you are now violating your espoused principals of simplicity. I've added some "ones" to your list: The "one core, one stage 2, one fairing, one engine, one fuel" principal on three counts ( fuel, one S2, multiple engine types) How deep is the commitment to just one of each?
Who says I'm eager? I think you have misread me. I'm still skeptical of this hypothetical Raptor upper stage - all information so far hinting that direction is from the DoD/USAF. But if that is done, it would have to be a for a very good reason to offset the issue of stage diameter and/or fuel difference.
Just a reminder, FH will be the world's largest operational launcher for the next 5-10 years, and the world's lowest price for a kg to orbit. Ever. Flaws or no, it won't be easily brushed aside.
It's great to see such positive comments and I really appreciate your enthusiasm, but I would have to note that it may be overly ambitious to have such enthusiasm over a rocket that is yet to fly.
Edited by the PoliteJim2000 app
I suggest you send Jim a PM.Just a reminder, FH will be the world's largest operational launcher for the next 5-10 years, and the world's lowest price for a kg to orbit. Ever. Flaws or no, it won't be easily brushed aside.
It's great to see such positive comments and I really appreciate your enthusiasm, but I would have to note that it may be overly ambitious to have such enthusiasm over a rocket that is yet to fly.
Edited by the PoliteJim2000 app
Nice app, but where can I get the unedited original of the post? :D
Related to Falcon Heavy testing - The video that was leaked (and subsequently pulled)That video can been viewed here:
I would add that propellant is only 1-3% of launch cost when weighed against a new vehicle. Depending on how quickly a booster is depreciated over the first few flights, the cost of fuel starts to become much more significant. A smaller booster will be cheaper in this metric.
What? I thought you were arguing for a shorter/stubbier F9 core, not an F1 sized core? And that last sentence... I'm having trouble parsing what you mean. SpaceX want reusability. F1 sized boosters won't be reusable without a very different approach. But if you agree that a reused F9 side core could be had for the same price - offering more performance - why in the world would you choose to not use it!?!? Propellant is DIRT CHEAP, only 1-3% of launch costs.
Sorry if that was not clear. I like the performance of a smaller core with 4 M1-D's on 2m core compared to a stubby 3.7m core with 9 M1-D's. It would have around 1/4 the mass of a F9 side core, and 4/9 the thrust. As you noted, re-use schemes will be very different.
The point remains that the extra performance of the FH configuration does not seem to have customers lining up. The primary customer ( DoD) seems to be willing to pay for full expendable.
More like a Super Guppy, since Dreamlifter is used exclusively for 787 parts and would have a reeeeeallly hard time landing and taking off from the Hawthorne Municipal Airport.
The assumption by many (myself included) was that this test stand was built specifically to allow to test all three cores of an FH next to each other, but after looking at the pictures, that does not appear to be how this is built. Unless they plan on rebuilding that mount area significantly.So, they built the new below-ground test stand solely for the purpose of reducing noise? And I guess you don't need a crane to lift it up onto the above-ground test stand. But that seems like a lot of expense for minimal gain. Maybe there's a limit to the amount of noise complaints the locals are willing to tolerate.
So perhaps they will simply test each FH core individually, and do some hot fire test together on the pad - and trust their other testing and analysis to verify stress loads. (not without precedent, I don't believe 3 Delta IV cores were tested together until they were at the pad)
As has been pointed out elsewhere, a 5.2 meter second stage can go via air.More like a Super Guppy, since Dreamlifter is used exclusively for 787 parts and would have a reeeeeallly hard time landing and taking off from the Hawthorne Municipal Airport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter
Matthew
Super Guppy can transport up to 7.62m in diameter, up to 36 meters long (but I think it tapers down).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Spacelines_Super_Guppy
Still operated by NASA.
SpaceX is headquartered basically right in the Hawthorne Municipal Airport. On a dry runway with a low fuel load and not too big of a payload, it should be feasible to land and take off from the 1510m runway using a Super Guppy. It'd be annoying to do this often, so that would mean the stage should be reusable and return to launch site or to a barge (not transported often using a Super Guppy).
Dreamlifter can only hold a 104 foot 787-9 center section. A 787-10 section at something like 120 feet won't fit and they have to make that plane in Charleston, where the center sections are assembled. I'm not sure if the smaller diameter F9 1st stage might mean a longer one of those would go in. 787 fuselages are about 5.9m.
More like a Super Guppy, since Dreamlifter is used exclusively for 787 parts and would have a reeeeeallly hard time landing and taking off from the Hawthorne Municipal Airport.
One of my best friends is a Dreamlifter pilot. I can confirm that all the cargo he flies right now are 787 wing and fuselage components. I will ask him if anyone has contacted his organization about other outsize payloads and see if he can give me any performance data regarding payload weight versus field length at standard conditions.
No, I'm not sure you are getting it, you have it completely backwards. With a lower flight rate, it is even *worse* to have alternate configurations. The lower your flight rate is, the MORE critical it is to have a common configuration.
I guess I really don't get it. Following your above logic to it's conclusion, a rocket with a flight rate of zero will absolutely be REQUIRED to have a common configuration. I was thinking that maybe as that flight rate tends to zero, the rocket builder may want to consider if the market wants a different configuration.
I was thinking that a rocket with a higher flight rate, even if it is possibly more expensive, will make more money that one that doesn't fly.
Sorry if that was not clear. I like the performance of a smaller core with 4 M1-D's on 2m core compared to a stubby 3.7m core with 9 M1-D's. It would have around 1/4 the mass of a F9 side core, and 4/9 the thrust. As you noted, re-use schemes will be very different.
The point remains that the extra performance of the FH configuration does not seem to have customers lining up. The primary customer ( DoD) seems to be willing to pay for full expendable.
Depending on how quickly a booster is depreciated over the first few flights, the cost of fuel starts to become much more significant. A smaller booster will be cheaper in this metric.
Related to Falcon Heavy testing - The video that was leaked (and subsequently pulled)That video can been viewed here:
This is a 2-minute video. The original video was about 32 minutes, if I recall correctly. WAY more footage of many more tests than are shown in the 2-minute version.
Well, presumably the new test stand also has the supercooling GSE, and this move frees up the tripod for (say) Raptor work. Building a new test stand probably also prevented a long disruption in the v1.1 test cycle while they were working on the v1.2 GSE, I guess?
The tri-core tests would not have fit on the tripodThe point we are discussing is that it appears that they won't fit on the in-ground test stand either.
The tri-core tests would not have fit on the tripodThe point we are discussing is that it appears that they won't fit on the in-ground test stand either.
Agreed that it makes sense that the above-ground test stand will be doing a lot of S2 testing.
The tri-core tests would not have fit on the tripodThe point we are discussing is that it appears that they won't fit on the in-ground test stand either.
Agreed that it makes sense that the above-ground test stand will be doing a lot of S2 testing.
A modified 747-8F might handle a 1st stage without needing the Dreamlifter fuselage, and just the swinging tail, but it would be at least a $400 million investment.
Related to Falcon Heavy testing - The video that was leaked (and subsequently pulled)That video can been viewed here:
This is a 2-minute video. The original video was about 32 minutes, if I recall correctly. WAY more footage of many more tests than are shown in the 2-minute version.
Nope, you are thinking of the wrong video.
What? I thought you were arguing for a shorter/stubbier F9 core, not an F1 sized core? And that last sentence... I'm having trouble parsing what you mean. SpaceX want reusability. F1 sized boosters won't be reusable without a very different approach. But if you agree that a reused F9 side core could be had for the same price - offering more performance - why in the world would you choose to not use it!?!? Propellant is DIRT CHEAP, only 1-3% of launch costs.
Sorry if that was not clear. I like the performance of a smaller core with 4 M1-D's on 2m core compared to a stubby 3.7m core with 9 M1-D's. It would have around 1/4 the mass of a F9 side core, and 4/9 the thrust. As you noted, re-use schemes will be very different.
Reuse scheme is non-existent for the boosters, and harder for the core. You would end up throwing away more hardware.
Actually the only real disadvantage of the smaller boosters is that the landing hardware consumes a higher percentage of the dry weight. Also the smaller diameter tanks are also heavier for the volume they hold so a significant lower PF. In a reusable system this jsut means that the manufacturing costs are just slightly higher on a kg of payload basis than for larger payloads with the larger boosters. Almost such that there is little price difference between the small booster FH price and a large booster FH price.What? I thought you were arguing for a shorter/stubbier F9 core, not an F1 sized core? And that last sentence... I'm having trouble parsing what you mean. SpaceX want reusability. F1 sized boosters won't be reusable without a very different approach. But if you agree that a reused F9 side core could be had for the same price - offering more performance - why in the world would you choose to not use it!?!? Propellant is DIRT CHEAP, only 1-3% of launch costs.
Sorry if that was not clear. I like the performance of a smaller core with 4 M1-D's on 2m core compared to a stubby 3.7m core with 9 M1-D's. It would have around 1/4 the mass of a F9 side core, and 4/9 the thrust. As you noted, re-use schemes will be very different.
Reuse scheme is non-existent for the boosters, and harder for the core. You would end up throwing away more hardware.
1. Your previous post on fuel being .3% vs. 3% of vehicle cost is correct per quotes from E. Musk. I went with what Lars posted earlier. What impact or change does this have on any of the arguments?
2. You say "Reuse scheme is non-existent for the boosters, and harder for the core. You would end up throwing away more hardware."
You have absolutely no way of knowing the reuse capability of either case, booster or core, unless you define mass of the payload. Why do you think returning a small booster that separates lower and slower than the F9 side cores is a.) impossible, b.) harder than RTLS or DPL? Illogical.
As far as returning the core, again, what is the mass of the payload? In the case of both RTLS and DPL returns, in comparison to FH configuration, the core with smaller boosters will be closer to the launch site, lower in altitude, and similar velocity when it is ready to stage ( because the "boost" is imparted earlier in the flight) This condition favors RTLS and is probably neutral for DPL.
It is completely premature to say more hardware will be thrown away.
No, I'm not sure you are getting it, you have it completely backwards. With a lower flight rate, it is even *worse* to have alternate configurations. The lower your flight rate is, the MORE critical it is to have a common configuration.
I guess I really don't get it. Following your above logic to it's conclusion, a rocket with a flight rate of zero will absolutely be REQUIRED to have a common configuration. I was thinking that maybe as that flight rate tends to zero, the rocket builder may want to consider if the market wants a different configuration.
Obviously a rocket with a flight rate of one (or zero) will have a common configuration. As should your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on. Or do you think it is cost effective to design and build a completely custom rocket for every payload? Flight rate is *essential*. And you can't afford to dick around with custom configurations until you have a certain flight rate. THEN you can introduce variations. Presuming that you want to be cost effective. (historically this has not been a concern for most space programs)I was thinking that a rocket with a higher flight rate, even if it is possibly more expensive, will make more money that one that doesn't fly.
Obviously. But you seem to to be approaching the whole idea backwards, but getting a high flight rate by initially custom building rockets, and THEN when you have a higher flight rate you standardize. ::) This makes no economical sense at all, but that hasn't stopped some space agencies from trying it. Which is a major reason why space flight is so expensive. You have the right goal in mind (flight rate), but you are trying to get there the wrong way.
What? I thought you were arguing for a shorter/stubbier F9 core, not an F1 sized core? And that last sentence... I'm having trouble parsing what you mean. SpaceX want reusability. F1 sized boosters won't be reusable without a very different approach. But if you agree that a reused F9 side core could be had for the same price - offering more performance - why in the world would you choose to not use it!?!? Propellant is DIRT CHEAP, only 1-3% of launch costs.
Sorry if that was not clear. I like the performance of a smaller core with 4 M1-D's on 2m core compared to a stubby 3.7m core with 9 M1-D's. It would have around 1/4 the mass of a F9 side core, and 4/9 the thrust. As you noted, re-use schemes will be very different.
Reuse scheme is non-existent for the boosters, and harder for the core. You would end up throwing away more hardware.
1. Your previous post on fuel being .3% vs. 3% of vehicle cost is correct per quotes from E. Musk. I went with what Lars posted earlier. What impact or change does this have on any of the arguments?
2. You say "Reuse scheme is non-existent for the boosters, and harder for the core. You would end up throwing away more hardware."
You have absolutely no way of knowing the reuse capability of either case, booster or core, unless you define mass of the payload. Why do you think returning a small booster that separates lower and slower than the F9 side cores is a.) impossible, b.) harder than RTLS or DPL? Illogical.
As far as returning the core, again, what is the mass of the payload? In the case of both RTLS and DPL returns, in comparison to FH configuration, the core with smaller boosters will be closer to the launch site, lower in altitude, and similar velocity when it is ready to stage ( because the "boost" is imparted earlier in the flight) This condition favors RTLS and is probably neutral for DPL.
2. You affirm that flight rate is essential, yet FH has a very very low ( zero, currently) flight rate. Is FH immune from this paradigm because it comes off the same assembly line? I may partially agree with this conflicting assessment, I'm not trying to set some logic trap to blather about, I'm just interested in how you see the "essential" qualifier of high flight rate doesn't apply to FH? What about operations? Ground support equipment, integration, staffing, training, pad proficiency etc.
3. Even though I have not proposed custom configurations, your point about me getting the "whole idea backwards, but getting a high flight rate by initially custom building rockets, and THEN when you have a higher flight rate you standardize. This makes no economical sense at all..." raised some thoughts for me. In light of that backwards thinking scheme, how do you assess the evolution of the SpaceX paper F5 rocket to the F9 v1.0, to V1.1, and now F9 FT? Was it backwards?
Actually the only real disadvantage of the smaller boosters is that the landing hardware consumes a higher percentage of the dry weight. Also the smaller diameter tanks are also heavier for the volume they hold so a significant lower PF. In a reusable system this just means that the manufacturing costs are just slightly higher on a kg of payload basis than for larger payloads with the larger boosters. Almost such that there is little price difference between the small booster FH price and a large booster FH price.
Is center core propulsive landing the only possible method? That is a pretty bold statement.
Because 4-engine boosters cannot land like a 9-engine booster lands. There is no center engine, and the T/W ratio is way too high.Quote
As far as returning the core, again, what is the mass of the payload? In the case of both RTLS and DPL returns, in comparison to FH configuration, the core with smaller boosters will be closer to the launch site, lower in altitude, and similar velocity when it is ready to stage ( because the "boost" is imparted earlier in the flight) This condition favors RTLS and is probably neutral for DPL.
Wrong.
1) For the acceleration, what matters is the total T/W ratio of the vehicle, not the T/W of the booster.
Simple example: Rocket A has 250 tonne first stage and 50 tonne second stage. First stage has thrust of 400 tonnes, second stage 40 tonnes. The T/W at liftoff is 1.333.
Now lets make a rocket with smaller first stage. First stage mass is dropped to 150 tonnes while engine thrust is dropped to 250 tonnes.
First stage T/W has increased from 1.6 to 1.666, but the actual T/W of the whole vehicle has decreased from 1.333 to 1.25.
....This is in contrast to what you seem to advocate - that they should have operated multiple versions at the same time to fit customer demand. F4 (your small booster), F5, F9v1.0, and F9 FT. (unless I misunderstand)
Is center core propulsive landing the only possible method? That is a pretty bold statement.
Because 4-engine boosters cannot land like a 9-engine booster lands. There is no center engine, and the T/W ratio is way too high.Quote
As far as returning the core, again, what is the mass of the payload? In the case of both RTLS and DPL returns, in comparison to FH configuration, the core with smaller boosters will be closer to the launch site, lower in altitude, and similar velocity when it is ready to stage ( because the "boost" is imparted earlier in the flight) This condition favors RTLS and is probably neutral for DPL.
Wrong.
1) For the acceleration, what matters is the total T/W ratio of the vehicle, not the T/W of the booster.
Simple example: Rocket A has 250 tonne first stage and 50 tonne second stage. First stage has thrust of 400 tonnes, second stage 40 tonnes. The T/W at liftoff is 1.333.
Now lets make a rocket with smaller first stage. First stage mass is dropped to 150 tonnes while engine thrust is dropped to 250 tonnes.
First stage T/W has increased from 1.6 to 1.666, but the actual T/W of the whole vehicle has decreased from 1.333 to 1.25.
You chose an example that is opposite of what is being discussed. Try these numbers which match closely to a FH and a FH/Small Booster configuration as I proposed.
SpaceX Standard FH configuration
FH center core mass: 600t
FH side core mass: 415t
Thrust of all 3 cores: 2082t ( 694t each booster)
T/W =1.45
Proposed small booster configuration:
Same FH center core: 600t
Small side core booster: 110t each
Small booster thrust: 308t ( 4 M1-D's each)
T/W = 1.60
Does this affect your assessment of staging impact on RLTS or DPL?
My thinking for a small F1 class booster wast that it would cost around $10M. The F1 in 2015 dollars is suggested by Wiki to be around $7M, so adding 3 more M1-D's for a 4 engine booster comes in around $10M. A F9 core stage is estimated to cost $40M, so this follows the per kg rule you said, but the smaller booster is much cheaper.
You do not think about the cost and complexity of having a separate production line for those quite rarely used different-sized cores.
3.7m Falcon 9 cores are mass-produced at production line which exists. There exists no production line for 2-meter cores, and building and maintaining such production line is expensive.
You chose an example that is opposite of what is being discussed. Try these numbers which match closely to a FH and a FH/Small Booster configuration as I proposed.
SpaceX Standard FH configuration
FH center core mass: 600t
FH side core mass: 415t
Thrust of all 3 cores: 2082t ( 694t each booster)
T/W =1.45
Proposed small booster configuration:
Same FH center core: 600t
Small side core booster: 110t each
Small booster thrust: 308t ( 4 M1-D's each)
T/W = 1.60
Does this affect your assessment of staging impact on RLTS or DPL?
No:
1) fill the tanks of the normal side boosters only partially and you get the initial T/W of exactly same as your proposal, can burn the boosters longer having higher T/W later in the flight, can do the the RTLS and landing like F9 does. And no need to keep two separate production lines.
There is absolutely NOTHING that your proposed configuration can do that ordinary FH cannot do for cheaper.
Is there any new info about date of 1st FH launch?
thx
You do not think about the cost and complexity of having a separate production line for those quite rarely used different-sized cores.
3.7m Falcon 9 cores are mass-produced at production line which exists. There exists no production line for 2-meter cores, and building and maintaining such production line is expensive.
You chose an example that is opposite of what is being discussed. Try these numbers which match closely to a FH and a FH/Small Booster configuration as I proposed.
SpaceX Standard FH configuration
FH center core mass: 600t
FH side core mass: 415t
Thrust of all 3 cores: 2082t ( 694t each booster)
T/W =1.45
Proposed small booster configuration:
Same FH center core: 600t
Small side core booster: 110t each
Small booster thrust: 308t ( 4 M1-D's each)
T/W = 1.60
Does this affect your assessment of staging impact on RLTS or DPL?
No:
1) fill the tanks of the normal side boosters only partially and you get the initial T/W of exactly same as your proposal, can burn the boosters longer having higher T/W later in the flight, can do the the RTLS and landing like F9 does. And no need to keep two separate production lines.
There is absolutely NOTHING that your proposed configuration can do that ordinary FH cannot do for cheaper.
Maybe we have a language barrier, I don't know, it could be something else. But are you suggesting that by only partially filling the FH side core tanks, you will match the T/W ratio of my proposed smaller boosters, AND then burn the regular FH side boosters longer with higher T/W later in the flight? Is that before or after they run out of gas?
I guess if partially filling the FH sidecore tanks is such a great idea to get initial improvement in T/W, maybe you can just put in just enough to clear the TEL with even better T/W, and then throttle down, or even shut off some engines until later in the burn...before you run out of gas.
You know what else is expensive? Losing launch contracts to put +6t sattellites into GTO. It is a fact FH has a very low demand. The contracts thrown SpaceX's way from Immarsat are more than likely to be for wringing price concessions from Ariane as they are a vote of confidence in FH. Capturing that business will generate a sufficient flight rate to justify a different core size, if needed. My choice of 2m is not set in stone, or ideological. It was picked to suit other constraints. If I said, hey, lets build a 10 meter tall by 3.7m core booster with 4 engines, would you be more inclined to like it?
You do not think about the cost and complexity of having a separate production line for those quite rarely used different-sized cores.
3.7m Falcon 9 cores are mass-produced at production line which exists. There exists no production line for 2-meter cores, and building and maintaining such production line is expensive.
I thought a lot about the complexity. My entire point is driven by the revenue considerations, not the "production lines are expensive" fact you keep repeating. You know what else is expensive? Losing launch contracts to put +6t sattellites into GTO. It is a fact FH has a very low demand.
My choice of 2m is not set in stone, or ideological. It was picked to suit other constraints. If I said, hey, lets build a 10 meter tall by 3.7m core booster with 4 engines, would you be more inclined to like it?
Is there any new info about date of 1st FH launch?
thx
It is still slated for April 2016.
Is there any new info about date of 1st FH launch?
thx
It is still slated for April 2016.
Any information on what the payload will be for the first flight?
I would love to see them send a Dragon on a free return around the moon (with wheel of cheese), but I suspect it will just be a mass simulator.
Is there any new info about date of 1st FH launch?
thx
It is still slated for April 2016.
Is there any new info about date of 1st FH launch?
thx
It is still slated for April 2016.
Any information on what the payload will be for the first flight?
I would love to see them send a Dragon on a free return around the moon (with wheel of cheese), but I suspect it will just be a mass simulator.
Think whatever payload they send up in the first Falcon Heavy will be inside a fairing. Since most early Falcon Heavy flights will be GEO sats. They have to make sure that the fairing works on the Falcon Heavy before carrying up a paying customer.
Is there any new info about date of 1st FH launch?
thx
It is still slated for April 2016.
Any information on what the payload will be for the first flight?
I would love to see them send a Dragon on a free return around the moon (with wheel of cheese), but I suspect it will just be a mass simulator.
Think whatever payload they send up in the first Falcon Heavy will be inside a fairing. Since most early Falcon Heavy flights will be GEO sats. They have to make sure that the fairing works on the Falcon Heavy before carrying up a paying customer.
So I heard they were not going to do crossfeed between the boosters on the first launch. So when will they do crossfeed and how much does it gain them.
Is there any new info about date of 1st FH launch?
thx
It is still slated for April 2016.
Any information on what the payload will be for the first flight?
I would love to see them send a Dragon on a free return around the moon (with wheel of cheese), but I suspect it will just be a mass simulator.
Any information on what the payload will be for the first flight?
I would love to see them send a Dragon on a free return around the moon (with wheel of cheese), but I suspect it will just be a mass simulator.
We have a 363 post thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29768.msg946418#msg946418) on that subject. No one has posted any information there in two and a half years.
So I heard they were not going to do crossfeed between the boosters on the first launch. So when will they do crossfeed and how much does it gain them.
Im pretty sure they gave up on doing cross feed completely.
So I heard they were not going to do crossfeed between the boosters on the first launch. So when will they do crossfeed and how much does it gain them.
Im pretty sure they gave up on doing cross feed completely.
I recall the official line being 'not developing it currently' busy with other things.
Crossfeed came up during the less potent F9V1.0 version.
The F9v1.1 FT has performance that doesn't require Crossfeed.
Although I find the idea super sexy and very appealing, why do it if there aren't any payloads that need the performance and it's not in the long term plan for future vehicles.
So I heard they were not going to do crossfeed between the boosters on the first launch. So when will they do crossfeed and how much does it gain them.
Im pretty sure they gave up on doing cross feed completely.
I recall the official line being 'not developing it currently' busy with other things.
Crossfeed came up during the less potent F9V1.0 version.
No. v1.1 "partial thrust", not v1.0.
For V1.0 version, there were only conceptual talk about "falcon 9 heavy", but nothing officially announced, and no talk about crossfeed.
When Falcon heavy was officially published, it was based on v1.1 version, and crossfeed was announced.QuoteThe F9v1.1 FT has performance that doesn't require Crossfeed.
Although I find the idea super sexy and very appealing, why do it if there aren't any payloads that need the performance and it's not in the long term plan for future vehicles.
yep. Crossfeed is non-trivial to implement and makes things more expensive, and makes recovery of core stage harder. No point of doing it if there are no payloads that require it.
So I heard they were not going to do crossfeed between the boosters on the first launch. So when will they do crossfeed and how much does it gain them.
Im pretty sure they gave up on doing cross feed completely.
I recall the official line being 'not developing it currently' busy with other things.
Crossfeed came up during the less potent F9V1.0 version.
No. v1.1 "partial thrust", not v1.0.
For V1.0 version, there were only conceptual talk about "falcon 9 heavy", but nothing officially announced, and no talk about crossfeed.
When Falcon heavy was officially published, it was based on v1.1 version, and crossfeed was announced.QuoteThe F9v1.1 FT has performance that doesn't require Crossfeed.
Although I find the idea super sexy and very appealing, why do it if there aren't any payloads that need the performance and it's not in the long term plan for future vehicles.
yep. Crossfeed is non-trivial to implement and makes things more expensive, and makes recovery of core stage harder. No point of doing it if there are no payloads that require it.
But in the long run. Like when they go interplanetary. Any extra performance without major manufacturing changes is very good.
Yes it is non trivial. But it is just extra tubes and connections and not different tanks or engines.
Yes it is non trivial. But it is just extra tubes and connections and not different tanks or engines.
For fun I was looking at just how high a performance gain could an FH be extended. . .
...
In all I do not think the FH as we see it now is the end point of the FH's performance.
Raptor 5.2m USFor fun I was looking at just how high a performance gain could an FH be extended. . .
So can I ask you a couple of questions about your assumptions for this:
Falcon booster core propellant mass (I don't know what that is under FT)
Your 5.2 meter diam US dry mass and propellant mass
lastly, but most important to understand your performance comparisons, what is your centre core boost regime without cross feed? how much centre core propellant is left at side booster seperation? When I model this I generally presume that 4 or 5 engines get shut down, then the remaining ones throttle down to 70% all in steps as the side boosters and centre core's propellant load drops. In my modelling in full expendable mode I still have 50% prop load on the centre core without cross feed
I think the expendable dry mass for a Raptor US is too high by several tons. More like 6-7 tons expendable, 10-13 tons reusable (some of that is landing propellant mass).The current US dry weight is ~6.5mt. The tank surface area growth for the Raptor is 45% and the engine weight growth is ~2.5X. So a 9mt Raptor expendable weight is a good estimate. But one of the most telling items is that the current FT US has a PF of ~95.8% but the Raptor would have a PF of 96.0%. That measly .2% means a lot when it comes to payload performance especially when there is also such a large ISP increase.
Citation, please. From my best guess, that's probably 2 tons too high.I think the expendable dry mass for a Raptor US is too high by several tons. More like 6-7 tons expendable, 10-13 tons reusable (some of that is landing propellant mass).The current US dry weight is ~6.5mt...
I think the expendable dry mass for a Raptor US is too high by several tons. More like 6-7 tons expendable, 10-13 tons reusable (some of that is landing propellant mass).Yes when I was doing the models on the delta V and propelant reserves I enev evaluated a Raptor going all the way to GSO and then returning. The astonishing item was that it could put into GSO what the current FH can put into GSO but it could also return! That got me thinking about just how big of payload an all up expendable FH with Raptor could put into LEO. But the only disadvantage of the FH doing such huge payloads is the faring diameter and volume. It is just not big enough for even the 53mt payload that have been discussed except for propellant tanker duty.
Unfortunately there are not any reliable source for the weight other than Wiki which uses the 6.5. If it is indeed too high then the payload weight increases and for the reuse of US case increase even more significantly. But I would rather be a little pessimistic than too wildly optimistic in estimating.Citation, please. From my best guess, that's probably 2 tons too high.I think the expendable dry mass for a Raptor US is too high by several tons. More like 6-7 tons expendable, 10-13 tons reusable (some of that is landing propellant mass).The current US dry weight is ~6.5mt...
I think the expendable dry mass for a Raptor US is too high by several tons. More like 6-7 tons expendable, 10-13 tons reusable (some of that is landing propellant mass).Yes when I was doing the models on the delta V and propelant reserves I enev evaluated a Raptor going all the way to GSO and then returning. The astonishing item was that it could put into GSO what the current FH can put into GSO but it could also return! That got me thinking about just how big of payload an all up expendable FH with Raptor could put into LEO. But the only disadvantage of the FH doing such huge payloads is the faring diameter and volume. It is just not big enough for even the 53mt payload that have been discussed except for propellant tanker duty.
A BTW the 220mt prop load and 13mt dry weight (landing kit) Raptor US if fully refueled in LEO would have without any payload 10.7 km/s delta V. This is enough to go and land on the Moon and almost return to LEO. ;D
Would this possible FH Raptor based 2nd stage be usable or worthwhile on an FT first stage?
Would this possible FH Raptor based 2nd stage be usable or worthwhile on an FT first stage?
USAF wants it to be developed for both F9 and FH
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/642983
Actually it simply says developing an engine for the upper stage of an F9 or FH, what was linked to had no words about actually developing the upper stage just the engine.And the document itself was only in support of a relatively small grant to help in the development of said engine. If the contract had been to make a whole new upper stage, the value of the contract would have had to be much larger.
This upper stage is the vehicle that could be configured for a tanker, cargo carrier, or mini-MCT (1/5th scale or so). If anyone is interested in exploration near term, this is the ticket. We don't have to wait decades.
"Falcon Heavy will launch towards the end of the year, possibly late summer" - according to Elon, when answering questions at the Hyperloop design competition (it was a streamed event, so no video yet).Why is that? They could pick a slower route to Mars... And Falcon Heavy should have performance to spare to use a non-optimal late-window launch slot.
So it seems like Mars is definetly out as a "secret/surprise" target for the Demo mission. Well, there is still the Moon, there is still hope... :)
"Falcon Heavy will launch towards the end of the year, possibly late summer" - according to Elon, when answering questions at the Hyperloop design competition (it was a streamed event, so no video yet).Why is that? They could pick a slower route to Mars... And Falcon Heavy should have performance to spare to use a non-optimal late-window launch slot.
So it seems like Mars is definetly out as a "secret/surprise" target for the Demo mission. Well, there is still the Moon, there is still hope... :)
A deep space flight of an unmanned Dragon 2, perhaps landing on the Moon or perhaps returning back to Earth from a loop around the Moon, would also be useful in expanding Dragon 2's reentry envelope and also proving it they can land effectively on other celestial bodies (a difficult feat itself and good precursor to Mars). We shall see.
My question and concern is with a proposed Raptor upper stage using metholox. Someone has already figured a 5.2m diameter stage the same length as the existing kerolox upper stage to really improve performance, second stage recovery, or both. 5.2 meter means it would have to be made at a new factory near river or ocean going barge transport, or near the launch pad. River transportation in America is thousands of miles, the best in the world, so this new wider upper stage can be made almost anywhere.
Unfortunately there are not any reliable source for the weight other than Wiki which uses the 6.5. If it is indeed too high then the payload weight increases and for the reuse of US case increase even more significantly. But I would rather be a little pessimistic than too wildly optimistic in estimating.Citation, please. From my best guess, that's probably 2 tons too high.I think the expendable dry mass for a Raptor US is too high by several tons. More like 6-7 tons expendable, 10-13 tons reusable (some of that is landing propellant mass).The current US dry weight is ~6.5mt...
My question and concern is with a proposed Raptor upper stage using metholox. Someone has already figured a 5.2m diameter stage the same length as the existing kerolox upper stage to really improve performance, second stage recovery, or both. 5.2 meter means it would have to be made at a new factory near river or ocean going barge transport, or near the launch pad. River transportation in America is thousands of miles, the best in the world, so this new wider upper stage can be made almost anywhere.
Why do you think that a 5.2m diameter stage needs to be barged or flown? In Texas you can go up to 5.75m high, 6.0 meters wide and 38 meters long* without even having a human review the routing. You just use the automated routing software online. Big stuff like wind tower segments, tanks and refinery parts get moved around pretty frequently on Texas roads.
http://www.txdmv.gov/oversize-weight-permits/route-inspections
Sure, that doesn't give you a lot of ground clearance - but you can go bigger/higher with loads, you just need to get a human to review them. When I went through McGregor a few weeks ago (nothing on the test stands) - there wasn't any obvious impediment to large diameter loads on the roads. You would need pilot vehicles.
Build a 5.2m Raptor based upper somewhere in Texas, drive it to McGregor, drive it to Boca Chica.
Putting a Raptor based upper on a FH in a few years seems like a great way to start getting flight time on Raptor without having to build a whole new rocket. Yes, it adds some complexity, but not as much as building a whole separate Raptor-based first stage and second stage. The additional potential payload is nice too.
*Okay, the rules are actually in feet, but we were using meters.
Good point about road transport in Texas. Build, test, and launch all Raptor US from Texas and there's no problem.
Build and test in Texas, then ship via barge on the Intercoastal Waterway to Florida if needed there.
Elon's talk at the Hyperloop Pod Competition Award Ceremony is on youtube.
Good point about road transport in Texas. Build, test, and launch all Raptor US from Texas and there's no problem.
Build and test in Texas, then ship via barge on the Intercoastal Waterway to Florida if needed there.
Good points. But the starting point of this discussion as I understand, was at least initially those stages would be built in Hawthorne, where the engineering is and where the expertise in building carbon composite components is. As those stages are expected to be reusable, transport cost would not be too important. They could get the qualification stage "somehow" to McGregor for qualification testing and do static fires of operational stages at the launch site. An airport is right adjacent to the factory and if they prefer to ship it a harbour is near too. For that distance a helicopter could lift it. It should not be too hard to build a second stage test frame for the launch pad.
Once there is a BFR factory established, production could move there.
LightSail is scheduled to be delivered to Georgia Tech for integration into the Prox-1 spacecraft later that month. The duo are manifested for a SpaceX Falcon Heavy flight in September 2016, pending launch vehicle readiness.
Elon Musk made a surprise appearance at the SpaceX Hyperloop competition yesterday and during his talk said that FH is NET "end of the year / late summer".
Credit to /u/zucal for link to a recording of the live stream. Apparently Elon stated this at :58, but I couldn't scroll through the video
http://m.ustream.tv/channel/uAPmkVhqjrx
Now THAT was funny! LOL!Elon Musk made a surprise appearance at the SpaceX Hyperloop competition yesterday and during his talk said that FH is NET "end of the year / late summer".
Credit to /u/zucal for link to a recording of the live stream. Apparently Elon stated this at :58, but I couldn't scroll through the video
http://m.ustream.tv/channel/uAPmkVhqjrx
(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/peanuts/images/a/a0/1107charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100523172400) ?
Shotwell: Falcon Heavy recovery plans drives all sorts of requirements at the range; with 3 booster cores returning.That will be such a site to see. :)
Hah - Per Gwynne Shotwell, Falcon 9 Heavy will look at cross fed a year or two after first flight, unclear if 60 tonnes to orbit is something that customers need yet.
60t likely to be for current FH full thrust version, v1.1 was 53t.Hah - Per Gwynne Shotwell, Falcon 9 Heavy will look at cross fed a year or two after first flight, unclear if 60 tonnes to orbit is something that customers need yet.
Is that what they're saying FT disposable with cross feed will get, or what FT disposable with cross feed and Raptor US will get?
Someone figured with expendable FH FT cores 81 tons. Don't know if that is with or without cross feed. That is a lot of payload.
Someone figured with expendable FH FT cores 81 tons. Don't know if that is with or without cross feed. That is a lot of payload.
Could 60t be with all three FT cores being recovered, as indicated by Jeff Foust's tweet, and a Raptor expendable US?
Shotwell: Falcon Heavy recovery plans drives all sorts of requirements at the range; with 3 booster cores returning.
Implying that if they use cross-feed and expend the center core, then it is definitely in SLS territory, but at a FAR lower cost.
Could 60t be with all three FT cores being recovered, as indicated by Jeff Foust's tweet, and a Raptor expendable US?
Someone figured with expendable FH FT cores 81 tons. Don't know if that is with or without cross feed. That is a lot of payload.
It seems the comment was 60 mt with crossfeed and all cores expended. Not sure how much a Raptor US would add.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 2m2 minutes ago
Shotwell: we’ll post updated Falcon Heavy performance numbers later this week/early next week.
Could 60t be with all three FT cores being recovered, as indicated by Jeff Foust's tweet, and a Raptor expendable US?
It seems the comment was 60 mt with crossfeed and all cores expended. Not sure how much a Raptor US would add.
I know this isn't the space policy section, but I hope two things happen.
1) They post what fully expendable w/ X-feed and Raptor US will do and what it will cost.
Why would the Air-Force want a new upper stage engine, if they didn't want an upper stage on some rocket? Currently there are only two active upper stage engines, the RL-10 and the vacuum Merlin. RL-10's are expensive and limited in power. Merlin has power but is low on ISP. So the Air-Force wants a new upper engine, more powerful than the RL-10 but higher ISP than Merlin. So a new upper stage can be used on Falcon Heavy or even sold to ULA for an upper stage for Vulcan. Make's sense since Vulcan is to be metholox. Raptor is to be metholox. Making the tankage 5.2m for a new upper stage is the easy part, building the vacuum Raptor is the hard part. SpaceX doesn't mind taking the Air-Force's money to help. More might come in the next few years to finish it.
Check out my link above for the "numbers". I know they are not from SpaceX and the SpaceX website is way behind in their numbers.
It seems the comment was 60 mt with crossfeed and all cores expended. Not sure how much a Raptor US would add.Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 2m2 minutes ago
Shotwell: we’ll post updated Falcon Heavy performance numbers later this week/early next week.
I know this isn't the space policy section, but I hope two things happen.
1) They post what fully expendable w/ X-feed and Raptor US will do and what it will cost.
2) That comes up in presidential debates re. NASA and HSF.
It would be nice for the candidates to do some thinking about and some debating around the deep space HSF program. It would be engaging to hear them debate whether NASA should be freed from SLS and allowed to work with SX through space act agreements towards some achievable and affordable goals.
Since replies here take the thread OT, I have started a new thread in the Space Policy section to discuss this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39508.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39508.0)
Does anyone have a copy of the video of Shotwell making statements about falcon 9/heavy at the ISDC in DC?Here's a link to Shotwell's talk:
SpaceX also plans this year to conduct the first test flight of the Falcon Heavy rocket, a larger variant of the Falcon 9 that has two additional boosters strapped to its sides. Like the Falcon 9, the Falcon Heavy is also meant to be reusable at some point. However, its recovery will be much more complicated, since it will require landing three boosters instead of just one. Shotwell said SpaceX will post updated performance numbers for the Falcon Heavy within the next few weeks.
Why would the Air-Force want a new upper stage engine, if they didn't want an upper stage on some rocket? Currently there are only two active upper stage engines, the RL-10 and the vacuum Merlin. RL-10's are expensive and limited in power. Merlin has power but is low on ISP. So the Air-Force wants a new upper engine, more powerful than the RL-10 but higher ISP than Merlin. So a new upper stage can be used on Falcon Heavy or even sold to ULA for an upper stage for Vulcan. Make's sense since Vulcan is to be metholox. Raptor is to be metholox. Making the tankage 5.2m for a new upper stage is the easy part, building the vacuum Raptor is the hard part. SpaceX doesn't mind taking the Air-Force's money to help. More might come in the next few years to finish it.
Asked directly about updated Falcon Heavy numbers. "we'll post updated figures later this week or early next week". No crossfeed at the beginning, but still on the table for later.Does anyone have a copy of the video of Shotwell making statements about falcon 9/heavy at the ISDC in DC?Here's a link to Shotwell's talk:
She's on at 2:43:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT7_iySwP8
This is something that is important yet rarely gets mentioned when talking about how much mass Falcon Heavy can lift. We are familiar with the concept of the cargo on Dragon being volume rather than mass limited. From the Oct 2015 user guide I worked out that the Falcon fairing has about 700 cubic meters of space. To lift a full 53mt of payload the density of the payload mass to fairing volume would have to be greater than 75 kg per cubic meter. For a payload of 60mt it would have to be greater than 85 kg per cubic meter and for 80mt 114 kg per cubic meter. John Shannon mentioned when he was presenting tot he Augustine Committee that most payloads have the density of balsa wood. The problem is that balsa wood varies greatly in density between 64 to 160 kg per cubic meter. Still it does kinda give a nebulous frame of reference for when the Falcon Heavy might become limited by volume. They could also make a bigger fairing but they really want to keep commonality between the two Falcon variants. Also this is for LEO only. Payloads riding to higher energy trajectories will be lighter and should have plenty of room.Could 60t be with all three FT cores being recovered, as indicated by Jeff Foust's tweet, and a Raptor expendable US?
It seems the comment was 60 mt with crossfeed and all cores expended. Not sure how much a Raptor US would add.
How wide can the payload be? If a FH can deliver a maximum of 60 or even 80 or more tons to LEO, then the possible shape will become more and more important. >60t, yet no more than 5m wide? That would be interesting for large quantities of cargo, either fuel or packaged goods like food and equipment.
This is something that is important yet rarely gets mentioned when talking about how much mass Falcon Heavy can lift. We are familiar with the concept of the cargo on Dragon being volume rather than mass limited. From the Oct 2015 user guide I worked out that the Falcon fairing has about 700 cubic meters of space. To lift a full 53mt of payload the density of the payload mass to fairing volume would have to be greater than 75 kg per cubic meter. For a payload of 60mt it would have to be greater than 85 kg per cubic meter and for 80mt 114 kg per cubic meter. John Shannon mentioned when he was presenting tot he Augustine Committee that most payloads have the density of balsa wood. The problem is that balsa wood varies greatly in density between 64 to 160 kg per cubic meter. Still it does kinda give a nebulous frame of reference for when the Falcon Heavy might become limited by volume. They could also make a bigger fairing but they really want to keep commonality between the two Falcon variants. Also this is for LEO only. Payloads riding to higher energy trajectories will be lighter and should have plenty of room.Could 60t be with all three FT cores being recovered, as indicated by Jeff Foust's tweet, and a Raptor expendable US?
It seems the comment was 60 mt with crossfeed and all cores expended. Not sure how much a Raptor US would add.
How wide can the payload be? If a FH can deliver a maximum of 60 or even 80 or more tons to LEO, then the possible shape will become more and more important. >60t, yet no more than 5m wide? That would be interesting for large quantities of cargo, either fuel or packaged goods like food and equipment.
I guess people are thinking that if you have a large tonnage size, things like fuel for depots, structures for habitats, and such could be built or loaded in LEO for deep space travel or large space stations. Then you are limited by volume.
There is only 26 days until the 1st of March. 1 March would be a good point for a schedule of a major info release about FH (FT). This is just over 3 weeks from now. It would also be several days after hopefully SES-9 has successfully launched.I think it is really important to differentiate how much performance improvement you get with putting the centre core on an ASDS and how little penalty there is if you are expending the centre core but RTLSing the side boosters.
Not only will it be hard waiting on the SES-9 launch but on the FH info release. Hopefully they give 4 sets of info:
1) RTLS all 3 cores LEO
2) RTLS all 3 cores GTO
3) Expendable all 3 cores LEO
4) Expendable all 3 cores GTO
These four give the corners of the performance box defined by LEO vs GTO and RTLS 3 core vs expendable 3 core.
And if we are lucky they will also accompany the performance info with some new pricing info.
It will be informative to find out how far off our estimates have been as to what they consider the normal (with margins) payload capabilities are.
If they give every thing we would like to have then there would be a table withThere is only 26 days until the 1st of March. 1 March would be a good point for a schedule of a major info release about FH (FT). This is just over 3 weeks from now. It would also be several days after hopefully SES-9 has successfully launched.I think it is really important to differentiate how much performance improvement you get with putting the centre core on an ASDS and how little penalty there is if you are expending the centre core but RTLSing the side boosters.
Not only will it be hard waiting on the SES-9 launch but on the FH info release. Hopefully they give 4 sets of info:
1) RTLS all 3 cores LEO
2) RTLS all 3 cores GTO
3) Expendable all 3 cores LEO
4) Expendable all 3 cores GTO
These four give the corners of the performance box defined by LEO vs GTO and RTLS 3 core vs expendable 3 core.
And if we are lucky they will also accompany the performance info with some new pricing info.
It will be informative to find out how far off our estimates have been as to what they consider the normal (with margins) payload capabilities are.
If they give every thing we would like to have then there would be a table withThere is only 26 days until the 1st of March. 1 March would be a good point for a schedule of a major info release about FH (FT). This is just over 3 weeks from now. It would also be several days after hopefully SES-9 has successfully launched.I think it is really important to differentiate how much performance improvement you get with putting the centre core on an ASDS and how little penalty there is if you are expending the centre core but RTLSing the side boosters.
Not only will it be hard waiting on the SES-9 launch but on the FH info release. Hopefully they give 4 sets of info:
1) RTLS all 3 cores LEO
2) RTLS all 3 cores GTO
3) Expendable all 3 cores LEO
4) Expendable all 3 cores GTO
These four give the corners of the performance box defined by LEO vs GTO and RTLS 3 core vs expendable 3 core.
And if we are lucky they will also accompany the performance info with some new pricing info.
It will be informative to find out how far off our estimates have been as to what they consider the normal (with margins) payload capabilities are.
LEO, GTO, TLI, TMI, C3 across the top and
RTLS 3 core,
RTLS boosters ASDS center,
RTLS boosters center expended,
ASDS boosters center expended and
all expended
down the side. Not only payload size but pricing as well and I will jump for joy because mission straw-mans for Lunar or Mars can be costed accurately instead of the estimates based on other estimates.
Not sure what you mean?
The current 5.2m fairing is approximately 200m3.
Even filled with liquid methane only, it would mass 85tonnes; with Lox, 228tonnes.
Wouldn't the best plan for building structures in space.. be to send raw material and use a 3d printer? Then existing fairing would be more than adequate. Correct?
If they give every thing we would like to have then there would be a table withThere is only 26 days until the 1st of March. 1 March would be a good point for a schedule of a major info release about FH (FT). This is just over 3 weeks from now. It would also be several days after hopefully SES-9 has successfully launched.I think it is really important to differentiate how much performance improvement you get with putting the centre core on an ASDS and how little penalty there is if you are expending the centre core but RTLSing the side boosters.
Not only will it be hard waiting on the SES-9 launch but on the FH info release. Hopefully they give 4 sets of info:
1) RTLS all 3 cores LEO
2) RTLS all 3 cores GTO
3) Expendable all 3 cores LEO
4) Expendable all 3 cores GTO
These four give the corners of the performance box defined by LEO vs GTO and RTLS 3 core vs expendable 3 core.
And if we are lucky they will also accompany the performance info with some new pricing info.
It will be informative to find out how far off our estimates have been as to what they consider the normal (with margins) payload capabilities are.
LEO, GTO, TLI, TMI, C3 across the top and
RTLS 3 core,
RTLS boosters ASDS center,
RTLS boosters center expended,
ASDS boosters center expended and
all expended
down the side. Not only payload size but pricing as well and I will jump for joy because mission straw-mans for Lunar or Mars can be costed accurately instead of the estimates based on other estimates.
Dream on. :) They've never released that kind of performance detail for anything, what makes you think try will now?
Look I would be happy with the ISP and important mass elements for the new cores and upper stage as well as ISP and thrust data for the FT engines as long as they either describe the throttling profile of the centre stage and give at least performance of all expendable, centre core expendable side core RTLS, centre core ASDS side core RTLS and all RTLS.Dream on. :) They've never released that kind of performance detail for anything, what makes you think try will now?
So I guess you're saying you don't expect them to just release the source code for their calculations? :(
I'd be happy if they just updated the numbers here:
http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov
...to include F9FT, Heavy, and most of the reuse/expendable variants like they show all the different Atlas V variants.
I'd also like if they updated it for Atlas V dual Centaur and the latest Delta IV Heavy variant.
Not sure what you mean?
The current 5.2m fairing is approximately 200m3.
Even filled with liquid methane only, it would mass 85tonnes; with Lox, 228tonnes.
.. and filled with steel it'd be 1600 tons. i.e., if you were building steel structures in space, using FH to launch the raw materials would give you 7.5 m3 of material per launch. That giant fairing would be mostly empty, suggesting you'd be wise to form it into less dense beams and girders or whatever.
I guess people are thinking that if you have a large tonnage size, things like fuel for depots, structures for habitats, and such could be built or loaded in LEO for deep space travel or large space stations. Then you are limited by volume.
Also, where the heck would you TEST such a huge fairing? As it is, 5m fairings barely fit at Plum Brook, which has the largest vacuum chamber in the world.
Look I would be happy with the ISP and important mass elements for the new cores and upper stage as well as ISP and thrust data for the FT engines as long as they either describe the throttling profile of the centre stage and give at least performance of all expendable, centre core expendable side core RTLS, centre core ASDS side core RTLS and all RTLS.Dream on. :) They've never released that kind of performance detail for anything, what makes you think try will now?
So I guess you're saying you don't expect them to just release the source code for their calculations? :(
Look I would be happy with the ISP and important mass elements for the new cores and upper stage as well as ISP and thrust data for the FT engines as long as they either describe the throttling profile of the centre stage and give at least performance of all expendable, centre core expendable side core RTLS, centre core ASDS side core RTLS and all RTLS.Dream on. :) They've never released that kind of performance detail for anything, what makes you think try will now?
So I guess you're saying you don't expect them to just release the source code for their calculations? :(
Do you want them to release a cure for cancer while they are at it?... ::) No one in the business releases that level of detail.
Yes, and the URL was NASA.gov. Thought that'd be sufficient for individuals capable of independent thought.The NASA site reflects the vehicle configurations and contractual performance offered by the contractors for the NLS-II IDIQ contract. Contractors can only propose new offerings once a year during the on-ramp period (nominally each August). Don't expect the numbers or configurations on the NASA site to change until after the next on-ramp/evaluation period.
The best numbers we ever got for 1.1 came from there, came from NASA. I hope it is updated with full thrust and Falcon Heavy numbers.
Yes, and the URL was NASA.gov. Thought that'd be sufficient.
The best numbers we ever got for 1.1 came from there, came from NASA. I hope it is updated with full thrust and Falcon Heavy numbers.
Yes, you must actually calculate performance to a reference orbit of your choosing. That's better than Wikipedia (obviously), SpaceX (doesn't provide full orbit parameters and reserves some undefined amount of performance for reuse, according to Shotwell), and spaceflight101 (which isn't a primary source).Yes, and the URL was NASA.gov. Thought that'd be sufficient.
The best numbers we ever got for 1.1 came from there, came from NASA. I hope it is updated with full thrust and Falcon Heavy numbers.
I got the numbers from spaceflight 101, the SpaceX web site and wikipedia - can you give me a more specific link on that site at NASA because I couldn't find data from there, just a web form for calculating performance (which is aspx and if I go view source I don't see the numbers it makes its calculations from)
That's a good point, however:Yes, and the URL was NASA.gov. Thought that'd be sufficient for individuals capable of independent thought.The NASA site reflects the vehicle configurations and contractual performance offered by the contractors for the NLS-II IDIQ contract. Contractors can only propose new offerings once a year during the on-ramp period (nominally each August). Don't expect the numbers or configurations on the NASA site to change until after the next on-ramp/evaluation period.
The best numbers we ever got for 1.1 came from there, came from NASA. I hope it is updated with full thrust and Falcon Heavy numbers.
Yes, you must actually calculate performance to a reference orbit of your choosing. That's better than Wikipedia (obviously), SpaceX (doesn't provide full orbit parameters and reserves some undefined amount of performance for reuse, according to Shotwell), and spaceflight101 (which isn't a primary source).
And because it gives you performance numbers to many different orbits, you can use it to calibrate your model much better than just giving a couple reference orbits (especially when it's "GTO" without specifying 1500 or 1800m/s-to-go)
SpaceX uses one of two PAFs on the launch vehicle, based on payload mass. The light PAF can accommodate payloads weighing up to 3,453 kg (7,612 lb), while the heavy PAF can accommodate up to 10,886 kg (24,000 lb).
I found something in the newest F9 user's guide (dated Oct 21st 2015) that perplexed me a bit, especially in regards to Falcon heavy:The only thing heavier than 10t is Dragon for Falcon 9. Everything else is much lighter. Not many heavy payloads need to launch to LEO.QuoteSpaceX uses one of two PAFs on the launch vehicle, based on payload mass. The light PAF can accommodate payloads weighing up to 3,453 kg (7,612 lb), while the heavy PAF can accommodate up to 10,886 kg (24,000 lb).
Would this imply that for payloads greater than 10,886 kg a new PAF would be required? Seems odd that they can't even max out the single stick with these 2 PAFs, let alone the FH LEO numbers.
I found something in the newest F9 user's guide (dated Oct 21st 2015) that perplexed me a bit, especially in regards to Falcon heavy:The only thing heavier than 10t is Dragon for Falcon 9. Everything else is much lighter. Not many heavy payloads need to launch to LEO.QuoteSpaceX uses one of two PAFs on the launch vehicle, based on payload mass. The light PAF can accommodate payloads weighing up to 3,453 kg (7,612 lb), while the heavy PAF can accommodate up to 10,886 kg (24,000 lb).
Would this imply that for payloads greater than 10,886 kg a new PAF would be required? Seems odd that they can't even max out the single stick with these 2 PAFs, let alone the FH LEO numbers.
This is the Falcon 9 user's guide, not the Heavy's.
The values given by the orbit query is based on no margins (including no legs). No margins means no engine out either. The 1350 LEO and GTO values for v1.1 given by SpaceX included engine out margins + maybe a little more as well as attached legs and other recovery hardware margins. The two values gives the percentages or delta V/energy values for the stage deltas for no margins vs ASDS recovery for the v1.1. Now for FT we do not have any values.Yes, you must actually calculate performance to a reference orbit of your choosing. That's better than Wikipedia (obviously), SpaceX (doesn't provide full orbit parameters and reserves some undefined amount of performance for reuse, according to Shotwell), and spaceflight101 (which isn't a primary source).
And because it gives you performance numbers to many different orbits, you can use it to calibrate your model much better than just giving a couple reference orbits (especially when it's "GTO" without specifying 1500 or 1800m/s-to-go)
But it does not give me the information I need to calculate anything. How can I use the calculation on this page to check my model of calculations if I don't know the masses they are assuming? Is the reference model in their calculations one with legs?
Back when the first TMI numbers went up on the SpaceX website I could use that with the data on SII engine performance and SII masses (wikipedia, spaceflight 101 and also the SpaceX website) to backwards calculate the speed the FH lofted the 2nd stage to in fully expendable mode. That gave me one point of sanity check for my model of FH operation. This doesn't really give me any without knowing the numbers they used.
Or sure, but you can use it to back out realistic values for all those things and to test your model. If you know lift-off mass, Isp, thrust, and payload to multiple orbits, you could actually back out dry masses, especially for a simple vehicle.The values given by the orbit query is based on no margins (including no legs). No margins means no engine out either. The 1350 LEO and GTO values for v1.1 given by SpaceX included engine out margins + maybe a little more as well as attached legs and other recovery hardware margins. The two values gives the percentages or delta V/energy values for the stage deltas for no margins vs ASDS recovery for the v1.1. Now for FT we do not have any values.Yes, you must actually calculate performance to a reference orbit of your choosing. That's better than Wikipedia (obviously), SpaceX (doesn't provide full orbit parameters and reserves some undefined amount of performance for reuse, according to Shotwell), and spaceflight101 (which isn't a primary source).
And because it gives you performance numbers to many different orbits, you can use it to calibrate your model much better than just giving a couple reference orbits (especially when it's "GTO" without specifying 1500 or 1800m/s-to-go)
But it does not give me the information I need to calculate anything. How can I use the calculation on this page to check my model of calculations if I don't know the masses they are assuming? Is the reference model in their calculations one with legs?
Back when the first TMI numbers went up on the SpaceX website I could use that with the data on SII engine performance and SII masses (wikipedia, spaceflight 101 and also the SpaceX website) to backwards calculate the speed the FH lofted the 2nd stage to in fully expendable mode. That gave me one point of sanity check for my model of FH operation. This doesn't really give me any without knowing the numbers they used.
Plus I do not think the numbers in the NASA query model will give you any answers since they are most likely a polynomial algorithm that given certain inputs returns an output. They may have no relationship to masses of stages or engine thrusts ISPs or anything else just a complex curve equation.
Algebra gives us that given two solutions with two equations you can solve for 1 unknown. With three solutions you can solve for 2 unknowns ... Pick orbits that give you solvable for unknowns equations and you can back out all the data to the same level of accuracy that the solutions are given (looks to be 3 significant digits, maybe 4). You can do the back out analysis with a simple Basic program that iterates the unknown values until it matches up with the given solutions.Or sure, but you can use it to back out realistic values for all those things and to test your model. If you know lift-off mass, Isp, thrust, and payload to multiple orbits, you could actually back out dry masses, especially for a simple vehicle.The values given by the orbit query is based on no margins (including no legs). No margins means no engine out either. The 1350 LEO and GTO values for v1.1 given by SpaceX included engine out margins + maybe a little more as well as attached legs and other recovery hardware margins. The two values gives the percentages or delta V/energy values for the stage deltas for no margins vs ASDS recovery for the v1.1. Now for FT we do not have any values.Yes, you must actually calculate performance to a reference orbit of your choosing. That's better than Wikipedia (obviously), SpaceX (doesn't provide full orbit parameters and reserves some undefined amount of performance for reuse, according to Shotwell), and spaceflight101 (which isn't a primary source).
And because it gives you performance numbers to many different orbits, you can use it to calibrate your model much better than just giving a couple reference orbits (especially when it's "GTO" without specifying 1500 or 1800m/s-to-go)
But it does not give me the information I need to calculate anything. How can I use the calculation on this page to check my model of calculations if I don't know the masses they are assuming? Is the reference model in their calculations one with legs?
Back when the first TMI numbers went up on the SpaceX website I could use that with the data on SII engine performance and SII masses (wikipedia, spaceflight 101 and also the SpaceX website) to backwards calculate the speed the FH lofted the 2nd stage to in fully expendable mode. That gave me one point of sanity check for my model of FH operation. This doesn't really give me any without knowing the numbers they used.
Plus I do not think the numbers in the NASA query model will give you any answers since they are most likely a polynomial algorithm that given certain inputs returns an output. They may have no relationship to masses of stages or engine thrusts ISPs or anything else just a complex curve equation.
Algebra gives us that given two solutions with two equations you can solve for 1 unknown. With three solutions you can solve for 2 unknowns ... Pick orbits that give you solvable for unknowns equations and you can back out all the data to the same level of accuracy that the solutions are given (looks to be 3 significant digits, maybe 4). You can do the back out analysis with a simple Basic program that iterates the unknown values until it matches up with the given solutions.One unknown can be solved per simultaneous equation.
Thank you, I got carried away with the plethora of unknowns.Algebra gives us that given two solutions with two equations you can solve for 1 unknown. With three solutions you can solve for 2 unknowns ... Pick orbits that give you solvable for unknowns equations and you can back out all the data to the same level of accuracy that the solutions are given (looks to be 3 significant digits, maybe 4). You can do the back out analysis with a simple Basic program that iterates the unknown values until it matches up with the given solutions.One unknown can be solved per simultaneous equation.
Agreed, more data is more better :)One unknown can be solved per simultaneous equation.Thank you, I got carried away with the plethora of unknowns.
Having the extra equation/answer helps in unknown value solution validation. [snip]
One thing to keep in mind with all this discussion of larger payload fairings is road transport. I doubt anything over the current size is going to be able to fit on the road in halves. Will quarter slices get you back to small enough? That adds more complexity. Of course, there has been no mention of any actual payloads out there requiring larger than what is available now so much of this discussion is just burning pixels for fun.
Also, where the heck would you TEST such a huge fairing? As it is, 5m fairings barely fit at Plum Brook, which has the largest vacuum chamber in the world.
Isn't the vacuum chamber 100' in diameter and taller than that? The acoustic facility is smaller...
Also, you have to actually test separation dynamics, and then you have to carefully slow down the fairing so it doesn't bang into your expensive thermal vacuum chamber.
Look at the tests they do with 5m fairings. There's not exactly a ton of extra room.
Also, you have to actually test separation dynamics, and then you have to carefully slow down the fairing so it doesn't bang into your expensive thermal vacuum chamber.
Look at the tests they do with 5m fairings. There's not exactly a ton of extra room.
Indeed.Also, you have to actually test separation dynamics, and then you have to carefully slow down the fairing so it doesn't bang into your expensive thermal vacuum chamber.
Look at the tests they do with 5m fairings. There's not exactly a ton of extra room.
They have done bigger shrouds in the past (Skylab shroud seen in Plum Brook below)
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001462.html
Looks like they've lost the Viasat-2 launch due to the FH delays It has been redirected to Arianespace
What about building a fairing test rig on a reused first stage, and trying out the new fairing on a suborbital flight?
In addition, you would also need to expend a brand-new second stage. We're starting to talk about a very expensive test by this point.What about building a fairing test rig on a reused first stage, and trying out the new fairing on a suborbital flight?
Only if the test can replicate the same conditions as the regular flight
In addition, you would also need to expend a brand-new second stage. We're starting to talk about a very expensive test by this point.
What about building a fairing test rig on a reused first stage, and trying out the new fairing on a suborbital flight?
Only if the test can replicate the same conditions as the regular flight
That is likely the main issue. To be comparable to a thermovac chamber, the stage would have to provide a similar altitude profile to the actual launch. I don't know exactly how much delta-v would be necessary for that and if it's feasible for a reusable stage. Acceleration doesn't necessarily need to be simulated too closely though, since vacuum chambers don't simulate that at all.
That is likely the main issue. To be comparable to a thermovac chamber, the stage would have to provide a similar altitude profile to the actual launch. I don't know exactly how much delta-v would be necessary for that and if it's feasible for a reusable stage. Acceleration doesn't necessarily need to be simulated too closely though, since vacuum chambers don't simulate that at all.
Yes, vacuum chambers do sim gravity. They will put springs on the fairing.
Good stuff--thanks Jim. Do the springs dynamically actuate to provide more and less load to mimic the loads experienced during an ascent profile, or just go with max expected at any point?
Yeah it is, otherwise they'd be stuck with high prices forever. Without a rational willingness to try new rockets on the part of the customers, the price will never come down. It's perfectly sane to book early on a new rocket an then change if the rocket is delayed more than you are willing to tolerate. Both actions are perfectly sane and rational.
ViaSat's Dankberg: ViaSat-2 should generate $40-$50M rev per month - 10x that of a conventional sat, so launch schedule is crucial for us. - source (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/697324482483060738)
That is likely the main issue. To be comparable to a thermovac chamber, the stage would have to provide a similar altitude profile to the actual launch. I don't know exactly how much delta-v would be necessary for that and if it's feasible for a reusable stage. Acceleration doesn't necessarily need to be simulated too closely though, since vacuum chambers don't simulate that at all.
Yes, vacuum chambers do sim gravity. They will put springs on the fairing.
...which is exactly why I said that BOTH actions (including the decision to switch to a non-delayed rocket) are rational.Yeah it is, otherwise they'd be stuck with high prices forever. Without a rational willingness to try new rockets on the part of the customers, the price will never come down. It's perfectly sane to book early on a new rocket an then change if the rocket is delayed more than you are willing to tolerate. Both actions are perfectly sane and rational.
Delays cost money.Quote from: Peter B. de SeldingViaSat's Dankberg: ViaSat-2 should generate $40-$50M rev per month - 10x that of a conventional sat, so launch schedule is crucial for us. - source (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/697324482483060738)
I'm getting anxious now. Gwynne Shotwell said we'd get a performance update on Falcon Heavy early this week... It's hard to be patient!
Way overblown. Not a long-term problem at all, just a (possible) delay on this flight.I'm getting anxious now. Gwynne Shotwell said we'd get a performance update on Falcon Heavy early this week... It's hard to be patient!
I'm assuming Shotwell's plans for the week went out the window with the CRS-8 incident at McGregor. I wouldn't count on hearing anything about Falcon Heavy until that is resolved.
I'd be surprised if the entire company organically reassess timelines for minor problems. There shouldn't be a correlation between this and FH performance figures - since Shotwell already has the figures, there's nothing to be delayed. She'll release the info at her discretion - I'd say her personal workload would be more impactful.
I'm getting anxious now. Gwynne Shotwell said we'd get a performance update on Falcon Heavy early this week... It's hard to be patient!
Over-promising and under-delivering has just cost Falcon Heavy a mission:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/
And Arianespace just lucked out in filling a hole in their manifest.
>
ViaSat is maintaining its Falcon Heavy launch contract, which will now be used to launch one of the ViaSat-3 satellites around 2020, and has booked a reservation for a future Falcon Heavy, also for ViaSat-3, which is not yet a contract.
>
Any satellite that was planned to fly with SpaceX but instead ends up flying with the competition is a mission lost to SpaceX. Regardless of any shuffling, retaining of contracts, etc. etc.Over-promising and under-delivering has just cost Falcon Heavy a mission:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/)
And Arianespace just lucked out in filling a hole in their manifest.
Didn't cost Spacex a mission. ViaSat is using the Falcon Heavy for the ViaSat-3 platform in 2019.
source:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html)
Ariane 5 is generally more expensive than SpaceX’s Falcon, but Baldridge said Evry, France-based Arianespace met the company partway to secure the business.
Over-promising and under-delivering has just cost Falcon Heavy a mission:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/
And Arianespace just lucked out in filling a hole in their manifest.
Didn't cost Spacex a mission. ViaSat is using the Falcon Heavy for the ViaSat-3 platform in 2019.
source:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html)
They would have won both.Over-promising and under-delivering has just cost Falcon Heavy a mission:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/
And Arianespace just lucked out in filling a hole in their manifest.
Didn't cost Spacex a mission. ViaSat is using the Falcon Heavy for the ViaSat-3 platform in 2019.
source:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html)
Are you assuming SpaceX wouldn't have won a contract for either of the ViaSat3 payloads after a successful ViaSat2 launch? That's the only way you can say they didn't lose a mission.
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that for a satellite that generates $50M/month in profit, they never had any intention of flying on the cheaper rocket. i.e., they were just trying to get a better price from Arianespace.
"Technically" it's not a paper rocket if metal has been bent.
"Technically" it's not a paper rocket if metal has been bent.
Have we seen any bent metal yet for the heavy?
"Technically" it's not a paper rocket if metal has been bent.
Have we seen any bent metal yet for the heavy?
A Falcon Heavy is made up of three Falcon 9 1st stage cores and one Falcon 9 2nd stage and fairing. Except for the attachment hardware and Falcon Heavy specific software, everything else for a Falcon Heavy has already been flight tested.
Yes, it was on display during the Orbcomm 2 broadcast."Technically" it's not a paper rocket if metal has been bent.
Have we seen any bent metal yet for the heavy?
I fully believe they could fly Atlas V Heavy in the timeframe they say they can, if needed and someone pays for it."Technically" it's not a paper rocket if metal has been bent.
Have we seen any bent metal yet for the heavy?
A Falcon Heavy is made up of three Falcon 9 1st stage cores and one Falcon 9 2nd stage and fairing. Except for the attachment hardware and Falcon Heavy specific software, everything else for a Falcon Heavy has already been flight tested.
So Atlas 5 Heavy isn't a paper rocket either then? And the Angara 7?
So what do you call a rocket that has been delayed for years and years before getting off the pad for the first time? Seems like that'd be a useful word to describe a lot of rockets.Well /technically/ it's not a paper rocket. I mean, if we're going to throw around words like "technically." Delayed rocket. Forever never rocket. Elon's trinicorn. Musk's Mist.
Yes, it was on display during the Orbcomm 2 broadcast."Technically" it's not a paper rocket if metal has been bent.
Have we seen any bent metal yet for the heavy?
So Atlas 5 Heavy isn't a paper rocket either then? And the Angara 7?
My guess is if FH first launch slips again, look for SpaceX to cancel the vehicle in late 2016.
(Blurry) screenshot here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38149.msg1465044.msg#1465044Yes, it was on display during the Orbcomm 2 broadcast."Technically" it's not a paper rocket if metal has been bent.
Have we seen any bent metal yet for the heavy?
I just rewatched it and I'm not sure I saw it this time either. Do you have a time before launch it was shown at?
My guess is that there's a little unnecessary drama going on in this thread.
While I'm sure there's been technical issues with the Falcon Heavy, that's not what has delayed it. They're waiting for the politics with the military launches to become predictable. Why? Because that's what Falcon Heavy is for.
I suggest you refrain from presenting personal opinion as fact.They would have won both.Over-promising and under-delivering has just cost Falcon Heavy a mission:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/
And Arianespace just lucked out in filling a hole in their manifest.
Didn't cost Spacex a mission. ViaSat is using the Falcon Heavy for the ViaSat-3 platform in 2019.
source:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html)
Are you assuming SpaceX wouldn't have won a contract for either of the ViaSat3 payloads after a successful ViaSat2 launch? That's the only way you can say they didn't lose a mission.
Point taken.I suggest you refrain from presenting personal opinion as fact.They would have won both.Over-promising and under-delivering has just cost Falcon Heavy a mission:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/
And Arianespace just lucked out in filling a hole in their manifest.
Didn't cost Spacex a mission. ViaSat is using the Falcon Heavy for the ViaSat-3 platform in 2019.
source:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/viasat-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-year-2016-results-300217686.html)
Are you assuming SpaceX wouldn't have won a contract for either of the ViaSat3 payloads after a successful ViaSat2 launch? That's the only way you can say they didn't lose a mission.
Seems to me the issue is the iterative design process that SpaceX is so fond of, and even relies on at this point.
It is a double edged sword. On the one hand it is very easy for engineers to re-design, and constantly upgrade and optimize components and the entire vehicle and then go out onto the production floor and make the changes in real time. This is a big part of why SpaceX has been so successful to this point.
There don't seem to be any great technical challenges, nor have there been, to building and flying Falcon Heavy as a vehicle, it would rely on concepts that have already been proven. The only issue seems to be over optimization and constantly trading getting the vehicle online for this.
My two cents here.
Seems to me the issue is the iterative design process that SpaceX is so fond of, and even relies on at this point.
It is a double edged sword. On the one hand it is very easy for engineers to re-design, and constantly upgrade and optimize components and the entire vehicle and then go out onto the production floor and make the changes in real time. This is a big part of why SpaceX has been so successful to this point.
On the other hand, if your upcoming MLV/HLV relies on three first stages that are based around the design of another vehicle, and you continuously change the design of that vehicle, this in turn means you must continuously change, delay, re-model, re-test, so forth, the vehicle that is dependent on those cores. I think this is the crux of the problem. Falcon 9 has been changed so many times in the last 6 years it's not hard to see why Falcon Heavy has constantly been delayed year after year. I think the other problem is over-optimization. SpaceX seems to not want to fly Falcon Heavy until they have the "best possible optimized" version of Falcon 9 they can get. This is a paradox because you can never perfectly optimize, and you will end up constantly changing things and delaying yourself if you try to over optimize. Which in turn delays Falcon Heavy by at least an exponent every single time because "no wait, we need to optimize F9 more first wait another 6 months", ect.
There don't seem to be any great technical challenges, nor have there been, to building and flying Falcon Heavy as a vehicle, it would rely on concepts that have already been proven. The only issue seems to be over optimization and constantly trading getting the vehicle online for this.
My two cents here.
The loss of this payload for FH is interesting in a very bad way for SpaceX.
SpaceX has been clear from the start that FH development was a lower priority than F9 work. As such they have been quite consistent in delaying it whenever there was more-important F9 work to do (F9 1.1, F9 FT, RTF, recovery, etc). I don't know why that's so hard for folks to understand. Prioritizing the money-generating business is how SpaceX sticks around, and is sound management process.Indeed it is. Too bad that some folks keep referring to the "2013" date originally issued by Elon. The time-dilutation factor on major SpaceX programs has consistenly been 4 years for the past decade. So, FH will eventually fly, and that first flight will be next year.
The alternative would be to blow a huge amount of money and manufacturing resources on a dedicated FH team... and then where do you put your best engineers? On FH, neglecting F9? Or on F9, jeopardizing FH? SpaceX believes it already has hired the best folks, and it has asked them to work on FH as a second-tier project behind F9.
That seems entirely straight-foreward and reasonable to me.
The loss of this payload for FH is interesting in a very bad way for SpaceX.
I'd actually argue that in the long term it is much worse for Ariane Space -- they risk becoming compliant instead of pushing the development of their new launcher.
And whatever one can criticize about SpaceX, compliancy isn't the problem for them.
SpaceX has been clear from the start that FH development was a lower priority than F9 work. As such they have been quite consistent in delaying it whenever there was more-important F9 work to do (F9 1.1, F9 FT, RTF, recovery, etc). I don't know why that's so hard for folks to understand. Prioritizing the money-generating business is how SpaceX sticks around, and is sound management process.
The alternative would be to blow a huge amount of money and manufacturing resources on a dedicated FH team... and then where do you put your best engineers? On FH, neglecting F9? Or on F9, jeopardizing FH? SpaceX believes it already has hired the best folks, and it has asked them to work on FH as a second-tier project behind F9.
That seems entirely straight-foreward and reasonable to me.
Falcon heavy isn't particularly competitive with ariane 5 for single 7 tonne payloads unless it uses dual manifest OR reuse.Well, the Euro-USD has sort of made Ariane 5 a lot more competitive. If I'm not mistaken, a whole Ariane 5 costs about USD 200M. But the lower berth uses only 35% of the payload mass. And it has to compete with Falcon 9 (and technically Sea Launch, Proton-M, Atlas V, H-IIA). So they can't really charge more than 65M to 70M. That means that the top berth should be around 130M to 135M. I would say that SpaceX can price the FH quite lower than that. And they have to until they prove FH reliability.
Without reuse it's an over capable rocket.
Makes sense for them to have waited.
I'm getting anxious now. Gwynne Shotwell said we'd get a performance update on Falcon Heavy early this week... It's hard to be patient!
While I disagree they could have done it "long ago" (I don't think they had adequate amounts of flight proven hardware earlier), I do agree that he may be risk averse as far as wasting the cores. Landing all three would be very difficult, and that's if the vehicle stages properly and actually works.Seems to me the issue is the iterative design process that SpaceX is so fond of, and even relies on at this point.
It is a double edged sword. On the one hand it is very easy for engineers to re-design, and constantly upgrade and optimize components and the entire vehicle and then go out onto the production floor and make the changes in real time. This is a big part of why SpaceX has been so successful to this point.
There don't seem to be any great technical challenges, nor have there been, to building and flying Falcon Heavy as a vehicle, it would rely on concepts that have already been proven. The only issue seems to be over optimization and constantly trading getting the vehicle online for this.
My two cents here.
SaceX could have launched a heavy long ago. I suspect Musk is extremely reluctant to fly one before he is nearly certain he won't be throwing away three cores.
Matthew
Falcon heavy isn't particularly competitive with ariane 5 for single 7 tonne payloads unless it uses dual manifest OR reuse.Or without BEO payloads.
Without reuse it's an over capable rocket.
Makes sense for them to have waited.
I sometimes think they are waiting on routine successful landings of F9, then either use used cores on the FH to begin with or have the ability to land all three cores. They only have one landing pad at the cape. Would they need at least one more plus the ocean landing? Are they going to put a used core in the center and scrap it and save the two outer ones on the first few launches?
I sometimes think they are waiting on routine successful landings of F9, then either use used cores on the FH to begin with or have the ability to land all three cores. They only have one landing pad at the cape. Would they need at least one more plus the ocean landing? Are they going to put a used core in the center and scrap it and save the two outer ones on the first few launches?
There is one landing area. I believe, however, it has five separate landing pads on it.
Are they going to put a used core in the center and scrap it and save the two outer ones on the first few launches?AIUI, the center core is not a standard F9-S1 because it has the extra attachments for the side boosters and a stronger S2 attachment, so they would not be able to have a used S1 as the center core. They may be waiting to have 2 flown side boosters so they don't have to fly new S1s on the test flight.
I sometimes think they are waiting on routine successful landings of F9, then either use used cores on the FH to begin with or have the ability to land all three cores. They only have one landing pad at the cape. Would they need at least one more plus the ocean landing? Are they going to put a used core in the center and scrap it and save the two outer ones on the first few launches?
There is one landing area. I believe, however, it has five separate landing pads on it.
If the two side cores were landing at the same time, or within seconds of each other, could that possibly cause an issue if these landing areas are in close proximity to each other? How far apart do these things need to be for safe clearance zone of the wake that each produces?
Given the high landing precision they have shown, they could probably land 50m away from each other without a problem. The greater concern might be mid-air collision, so they need to guarantee that the trajectories to the pad don't cross.I would think it best to aim each booster so that the atmospheric entry interfaces are a mile or two apart, and then use the grid fins to converge on the precise landing spots. By making sure that the northern booster reenters on the north, and the southern on the south, you should be able to avoid collisions.
The loss of this payload for FH is interesting in a very bad way for SpaceX.
I'd actually argue that in the long term it is much worse for Ariane Space -- they risk becoming compliant instead of pushing the development of their new launcher.
And whatever one can criticize about SpaceX, compliancy isn't the problem for them.
I assume you meant complacent and complacency not compliant and compliancy.
SpaceX has been clear from the start that FH development was a lower priority than F9 work. As such they have been quite consistent in delaying it whenever there was more-important F9 work to do (F9 1.1, F9 FT, RTF, recovery, etc). I don't know why that's so hard for folks to understand. Prioritizing the money-generating business is how SpaceX sticks around, and is sound management process.
The alternative would be to blow a huge amount of money and manufacturing resources on a dedicated FH team... and then where do you put your best engineers? On FH, neglecting F9? Or on F9, jeopardizing FH? SpaceX believes it already has hired the best folks, and it has asked them to work on FH as a second-tier project behind F9.
That seems entirely straight-foreward and reasonable to me.
Is it a valid corallary then that low priority projects would potentially be cancellled as other more interesting & profitable pieces of business come along? CRS-2 , Dragonfly,upper stage raptor, etc.? I think SpaceX will analyze and act on these motives like any other company.
Given the high landing precision they have shown, they could probably land 50m away from each other without a problem. The greater concern might be mid-air collision, so they need to guarantee that the trajectories to the pad don't cross.Fragmentation distance is another thing to worry about. The CRS-6 landing video ends before all the fragments splash down but shows splashes in the water on the right side maybe 1.5 to 2 times the width of the barge from the touchdown point, and larger chunks flying left.
While I'm sure there's been technical issues with the Falcon Heavy, that's not what has delayed it. They're waiting for the politics with the military launches to become predictable. Why? Because that's what Falcon Heavy is for.Theyre not waiting on politics. That's absurd. No reason to wait. Launch now and you have a much bigger bargaining chip.
Theyre not waiting on politics. That's absurd. No reason to wait. Launch now and you have a much bigger bargaining chip.
And they already have that. Not flying will delay certification further, and the sunk cost they've already put into it will accumulate.Theyre not waiting on politics. That's absurd. No reason to wait. Launch now and you have a much bigger bargaining chip.
You'll have an uncertified vehicle with a giant sunk cost.
And they have multiple commercial customers signed up for it, and they lost one extra bird (slipped from Viasat2 to 3, could've been both) due to delay.
And they have multiple commercial customers signed up for it, and they lost one extra bird (slipped from Viasat2 to 3, could've been both) due to delay.
It's not worth doing it for the commercial customers alone.
And, as somebody else already said: The earlier they fly, the earlier they get the air force certification.
And, as somebody else already said: The earlier they fly, the earlier they get the air force certification.
No.. the earlier they fly, the earlier they produce the wrong vehicle to get air force certification, get shuffled from office to office, sue, get forced into arbitration, hire the services of three more senators and generally just shovel money into the fire.
If SpaceX are on a path that will lead them to a Raptor 2nd stage mid term and to BFR long term, then FH may be neither urgent nor importent.
Not in this case. Instead of "low priority" think of "low urgency". I hate to fall back on my old Steven Covey, but classifying goals as to urgency and importance independently helps you schedule your work better. Concentrate first on that which is urgent and important, next on which is important but not urgent, last on what is urgent but not important, and if it's neither urgent nor important, just drop it. Falcon heavy has always been important, but its been less urgent than getting F9 fully operational.
I think by slightly difference in timing of braking burn, they could separate stages horizontally and avoid collision by landing in slightly different time.I think separation in order 10-20 second will be good enough.Given the high landing precision they have shown, they could probably land 50m away from each other without a problem. The greater concern might be mid-air collision, so they need to guarantee that the trajectories to the pad don't cross.I would think it best to aim each booster so that the atmospheric entry interfaces are a mile or two apart, and then use the grid fins to converge on the precise landing spots. By making sure that the northern booster reenters on the north, and the southern on the south, you should be able to avoid collisions.
Upper level winds may complicate matters, though.
I think by slightly difference in timing of braking burn, they could separate stages horizontally and avoid collision by landing in slightly different time.I think separation in order 10-20 second will be good enough.
If they get the methane Raptor second stage, this greatly increases the payloads F9 FT can deliver and it will cut into FH's potential launches also. On the other hand, with a Raptor upper stage on the FH, it will greatly increase it's capabilities and maybe open doors to payloads that SLS would have launched.
Personal opinion: Once FH is up and running, it's possible that there will be more satellites built that can only be launched on the FH
This is true, and will give ULA motivation to make Vulcan Heavy (as soon in a ULA graphic) a more real capability.Personal opinion: Once FH is up and running, it's possible that there will be more satellites built that can only be launched on the FH
Not really, because the satellite operators don't want to be tied to one vehicle.
Personal opinion: Once FH is up and running, it's possible that there will be more satellites built that can only be launched on the FH
Not really, because the satellite operators don't want to be tied to one vehicle.
Great, terminology aside, the fact remains that you should treat all rockets that haven't flown with some scepticism.
Falcon heavy isn't particularly competitive with ariane 5 for single 7 tonne payloads unless it uses dual manifest OR reuse.
Without reuse it's an over capable rocket.
Makes sense for them to have waited.
I will agree that they waited for reusability, but for different reasons.
At the end of the EELV design process, both Lockheed and Boeing decided to add SRB capabilities for more payload flexibility without resorting to tri-core heavies in response to the commercial market's demands. SpaceX does not have that flexibility, so a Heavy must compete with single core LV's for heavier (not the heaviest though) payloads. Without reuse, the Falcon Heavy could be too expensive for payloads slightly too heavy for Falcon 9.
At the end of the EELV design process, both Lockheed and Boeing decided to add SRB capabilities for more payload flexibility without resorting to tri-core heavies in response to the commercial market's demands. SpaceX does not have that flexibility, so a Heavy must compete with single core LV's for heavier (not the heaviest though) payloads. Without reuse, the Falcon Heavy could be too expensive for payloads slightly too heavy for Falcon 9.
Musk doesn't need to win every launch order in order to achieve a large backlog of launch orders. No doubt there is an "80/20 rule" that applies here, and SpaceX is better off just focusing on the broad middle part of the market.
Plus, if they perfect reusability, they will be changing the market. And that changed market will focus on the abilities SpaceX offers for reusability and lower launch costs, so SpaceX won't have to worry about odd sized payloads - they want quantity.
My $0.02
It is sobering to think that 2 little SRB's using 60,000kg of propellant would give the needed performance that is being provided by the two FH side cores with some 870,000 kg propellant.
In regards to LM & Boeing adding SRB's to their EELV designs, F9-FT needs the equivalent impulse of around 2 GEM-60's to deliver 6.5-7.0 ton comsats to GTO. Add a 3rd or 4th SRB and there would be margins for recovery of the core. It is sobering to think that 2 little SRB's using 60,000kg of propellant would give the needed performance that is being provided by the two FH side cores with some 870,000 kg propellant. That seems a steep price in complexity to get the marginal improvement for the larger comsats. It makes sense for multiple payload or very large payloads, but is very questionable for launching the 6.5-7.0 ton payloads, even with reuse.
To be very clear, I was not suggesting that SpaceX use SRB's. I brought it up as illustrative of the inefficiency & overkill of the FH configuration for the single launch to GTO, large comsat ( 6.5-7.0 ton range). As a skeptic of FH, I'm at least trying to suggest alternate paths.... I think FH is a very interesting & troubled vehicle, very worth of discussion pro & con.
Falcon Heavy gets like 20 tons toLEOGTO expendable. A couple of SRBs doesn't do that.
This is like saying you don't need a semi to move, as you can get all your stuff in 1 U-Haul truck plus two pickup trucks, even though the pickup trucks have to be thrown away after one use. Even if the semi has excess capacity and uses more fuel, it is still far more economical to burn more fuel and not throw away any of the hardware.
I would agree that expending one liquid core and a few small solids is cheaper than expending three liquid cores. Once the liquids are recoverable and reusable, however, the choice is between the cost of extra liquid prop or the cost of disposable solids (which do come with some cons). IMHO, just burning more prop seems to have the advantage. Then there is the fact that the reusable tri-core can do that job as well as much more. You have one infrastructure for all possible payloads. Add solids and you have to introduce other complexities.
You talk like integrating, testing, handling, launching, recovering and inspecting three cores came at the same cost as doing it for only one. Which it doesn't . It's about more than just fuel, no matter what Elon tweets.In regards to LM & Boeing adding SRB's to their EELV designs, F9-FT needs the equivalent impulse of around 2 GEM-60's to deliver 6.5-7.0 ton comsats to GTO. Add a 3rd or 4th SRB and there would be margins for recovery of the core. It is sobering to think that 2 little SRB's using 60,000kg of propellant would give the needed performance that is being provided by the two FH side cores with some 870,000 kg propellant. That seems a steep price in complexity to get the marginal improvement for the larger comsats. It makes sense for multiple payload or very large payloads, but is very questionable for launching the 6.5-7.0 ton payloads, even with reuse.To be very clear, I was not suggesting that SpaceX use SRB's. I brought it up as illustrative of the inefficiency & overkill of the FH configuration for the single launch to GTO, large comsat ( 6.5-7.0 ton range). As a skeptic of FH, I'm at least trying to suggest alternate paths.... I think FH is a very interesting & troubled vehicle, very worth of discussion pro & con.
This is like saying you don't need a semi to move, as you can get all your stuff in 1 U-Haul truck plus two pickup trucks, even though the pickup trucks have to be thrown away after one use. Even if the semi has excess capacity and uses more fuel, it is still far more economical to burn more fuel and not throw away any of the hardware.
I would agree that expending one liquid core and a few small solids is cheaper than expending three liquid cores. Once the liquids are recoverable and reusable, however, the choice is between the cost of extra liquid prop or the cost of disposable solids (which do come with some cons). IMHO, just burning more prop seems to have the advantage. Then there is the fact that the reusable tri-core can do that job as well as much more. You have one infrastructure for all possible payloads. Add solids and you have to introduce other complexities.
You talk like integrating, testing, handling, launching, recovering and inspecting three cores came at the same cost as doing it for only one. Which it doesn't . It's about more than just fuel, no matter what Elon tweets.
We're talking about a big paradigm shift here... assuming things work out the way they think they can.
Considering how high performance the SES9 mission is, it seems quite reasonable that 6.5+ ton satellites would have all cores recovered, and probably all return to launch site even.Falcon Heavy gets like 20 tons toLEOGTO expendable. A couple of SRBs doesn't do that.
That is true, but using FH in expendable mode for +6.5 ton comsats is what I was suggesting as overkill. What can FH do to GTO when all cores are RTLS? Or when the center core is DPL? The reuse scenarios are the subject that is accurate to weigh alternate FH options against.
The SES-9 mission is interesting to the FH discussion, as it will inform a pretty good estimate of the max payload of F9-FT to GTO. What then is the best solution to cover the gap between F9-FT to the lager and lucrative GTO payloads? FH is the current SpaceX solution to that market. It does not appear to be doing well.
That seems a steep price in complexity to get the marginal improvement for the larger comsats. It makes sense for multiple payload or very large payloads, but is very questionable for launching the 6.5-7.0 ton payloads, even with reuse.
As skeptical as I am FH, I do wish it success in changing the demand side of the launch market. I do question how long that will take. If it happens quickly, FH may have a future. If it takes upwards of a decade, I don't see how it makes any sense not to scrap FH and adapt another design.
Evolving F9-FT to be adaptable to smaller boosters is the quickest path...
Let's wait and see how it turns out.
I don't see "no inspections".
Also a Heavy will always need an ASDS and land landings to get all cores back, then there is the question on what the long-term success rate of recoveries will look like (for example you can't always expect to have reasonable weather for ASDS landings).
A lot of ifs to fill the time until they have a Raptor upper stage.
Three words: "Mars precursor missions", as in before BFR. For these SpaceX R&D is the customer, unless NASA decides to tag along for a cheap secondary payload ride.
Three words: "Mars precursor missions", as in before BFR. For these SpaceX R&D is the customer, unless NASA decides to tag along for a cheap secondary payload ride.
What price do you imagine SpaceX Operations would charge to SpaceX R&D for a FH-based Mars precursor mission? It would have to cover at least the cost of an expended upper stage (used for Earth departure), the payload integration, and the launch operations. Anything else?
SpaceX has been clear from the start that FH development was a lower priority than F9 work. As such they have been quite consistent in delaying it whenever there was more-important F9 work to do (F9 1.1, F9 FT, RTF, recovery, etc)In some cynical, game-theoretic way, it might be good for SpaceX to delay the FH. As long as the FH is not certified, their main competitor is forced to keep making Delta-IV Heavies. These are expensive, keep a lot of engineers tied up, and create bad publicity with high prices to the government.
SpaceX has been clear from the start that FH development was a lower priority than F9 work. As such they have been quite consistent in delaying it whenever there was more-important F9 work to do (F9 1.1, F9 FT, RTF, recovery, etc)In some cynical, game-theoretic way, it might be good for SpaceX to delay the FH. As long as the FH is not certified, their main competitor is forced to keep making Delta-IV Heavies. These are expensive, keep a lot of engineers tied up, and create bad publicity with high prices to the government.
Conversely, once the FH is certified, ULA can drop the Delta-IV entirely, close several pads, lower prices, and assign more engineers to the newer projects such as Vulcan and ACES. ULA is probably rooting for SpaceX to certify the F9, so they can streamline their own operations.
So in some "bad for me but worse for you" way, it might pay SpaceX to keep delaying the FH.
@ AncientU
I don't know where you got the Airbus/Safran presentation, marked confidential BTW!, but it's very interesting, Thanks!
First passover suggests the easiest market for SpaceX to grow share is in the small sat market competing against VEGA and Dnepr with used F9-FT cores. I'll be busy translating French to English for a while now.
I still doubt if the Falcon Heavy will be structurally strong enough to cope with 50+mT payload on top of the second stage. written differently, I think the structure of a Falcon Heavy capable of launching 50+mT would be inefficiently heavy because the stage diameter is to small.
But first SpaceX has to show it can launch the payloads according to their manifest, and that they are reliable with they were not until now.
A client doesn't like experiments on the flight of his >200mln satellite.
A larger diameter first stage with a volume that would eliminate LOx near it's freezing point, might be lighter than the current stage.
The currently advertised capability for Falcon Heavy is 53mT to LEO. Are you thinking that everyone involved with the design of the Falcon family has not considered how a 53mT mass interacts with the Falcon Heavy?I think SpaceX calculated the performance of the FH with preliminary calculation methods. I think the capability to Mars (13,2mT, the same payload as Falcon 9FT) is achievable with the F9 upper stage. The core stage (that is structurally different than the boosters and the F9FT first stage), can most likely handle the GTO loads (21,2mT). Most likely the core for LEO performance is different than the GTO and escape core, and it is a lot heavier.
Think of this from a different point of view - no one needs a single mass that is 53mT in LEO, so SpaceX is not in a competition to see who can lift the largest amount of mass. So if anything it's likely that 53mT is deemed as a safe load for Falcon Heavy. And the promised new capacity numbers may show that.
But for me I think SpaceX knows what they are doing, and understand what is possible for Falcon Heavy from an engineering standpoint.
The currently advertised capability for Falcon Heavy is 53mT to LEO. Are you thinking that everyone involved with the design of the Falcon family has not considered how a 53mT mass interacts with the Falcon Heavy?I think SpaceX calculated the performance of the FH with preliminary calculation methods. I think the capability to Mars (13,2mT, the same payload as Falcon 9FT) is achievable with the F9 upper stage. The core stage (that is structurally different than the boosters and the F9FT first stage), can most likely handle the GTO loads (21,2mT). Most likely the core for LEO performance is different than the GTO and escape core, and it is a lot heavier.
Think of this from a different point of view - no one needs a single mass that is 53mT in LEO, so SpaceX is not in a competition to see who can lift the largest amount of mass. So if anything it's likely that 53mT is deemed as a safe load for Falcon Heavy. And the promised new capacity numbers may show that.
But for me I think SpaceX knows what they are doing, and understand what is possible for Falcon Heavy from an engineering standpoint.
I also think that SpaceX has a lot more on it's drawing board than we think. How did the Raptor Upper-stage development came out of the blue. Because SpaceX already knew, or the engineers discovered during the detailed design of falcon heavy, that it was more efficient to increase the upper-stage diameter to the diameter of the payload fairing for the GTO FH.
For the LEO capability they will most likely develop a larger payload fairing and the same large diameter upper-stage. The core stage will most likely be heavier and have the same diameter. (or they assume that the LEO performance is a fuel tank; the upper-stage.)
For the LEO capability they're probably going to start thinking about it whenever the first such payload appears on the horizon which will probably give them plenty of time because such a payload would take a few years to develop and build, too.
Considering that Centaur, a 3m stage with a minimum wall thickness of 0.010", can launch nearly 19000kg payload into orbit using only pressure stabilization with ~50psig, I think SpaceX can support it just fine with their tank pressure being the same and -not- completely pressure stabilized.It can't. It needs the external 5m fairing to get through max Q with such a payload.
Centaur [...] can launch nearly 19000kg payload into orbit using only pressure stabilizationIt can't. It needs the external 5m fairing to get through max Q with such a payload.
This is exactly such a case.
Considering how high performance the SES9 mission is, it seems quite reasonable that 6.5+ ton satellites would have all cores recovered, and probably all return to launch site even.Falcon Heavy gets like 20 tons toLEOGTO expendable. A couple of SRBs doesn't do that.
That is true, but using FH in expendable mode for +6.5 ton comsats is what I was suggesting as overkill. What can FH do to GTO when all cores are RTLS? Or when the center core is DPL? The reuse scenarios are the subject that is accurate to weigh alternate FH options against.
The SES-9 mission is interesting to the FH discussion, as it will inform a pretty good estimate of the max payload of F9-FT to GTO. What then is the best solution to cover the gap between F9-FT to the lager and lucrative GTO payloads? FH is the current SpaceX solution to that market. It does not appear to be doing well.
With Raptor, Falcon Heavy may be able to put the biggest commsats through GTO while being FULLY reused.
Considering that Centaur, a 3m stage with a minimum wall thickness of 0.010", can launch nearly 19000kg payload into orbit using only pressure stabilization with ~50psig, I think SpaceX can support it just fine with their tank pressure being the same and -not- completely pressure stabilized.
Trivia about stainless steel balloon tanks.Considering that Centaur, a 3m stage with a minimum wall thickness of 0.010", can launch nearly 19000kg payload into orbit using only pressure stabilization with ~50psig, I think SpaceX can support it just fine with their tank pressure being the same and -not- completely pressure stabilized.
0.010" ? I just mic'd two sheets of printer paper, they are almost as thick. I had read of the stainless on the Centaur stage being thin, but that is amazing. Crappy auto bodies are at least twice that thick.
Matthew
Edit: did a little bit of googling, original tanks in the 60's indeed .010", later tanks .014 and .016, wow.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see how this hangs together. Consider a 1 meter piece of the tank. 100 psi is 689,000 N/m^2. The tank is 4.9 meters in diameter, so the total force pushing two halves apart is 3.38 MN. Each side has to resist half of this, or 1.69 MN. 0.017 inches is 0.4318 mm, so the total cross sectional area is 0.0004318 meters. Thus the required tensile strength is 1.69 MN/0.0004318 m = 3.91e9 N/m^2, or 567,000 PSI.
Trivia about stainless steel balloon tanks.
Atlas E/F was .017 at the top and increased thickness to .032 at the bottom and held 300Klb of LOX and RP-1.
Stainless steel balloon tanks have very high structural margins. Higher than >2:1. Much higher than the average aluminum alloy tanks.
Atlas E/F used 100psi flight pressure.
4) diameter is less than 5m. 3m for Atlas and typical Centaur.3.048 meters (120 inches) diameter to be exact.
4) diameter is less than 5m. 3m for Atlas and typical Centaur.This reduces the stress to 2.43 GPascal, or 352 KPSI
1) cold-working increases strength beyond 220ksi.The combination of these might get up to 325 KPSI, according to "EVALUATION OF SPECIAL 3O1-TYPE STAINLESS STEEL FOR lMPROVED LOW-TEMPERATURE NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF CRYOFORMED PRESSURE VESSELS" at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015958.pdf, or similarly
2) reduced temperatures increases tensile strength
3) ullage pressure is lower than 100psiThis is my guess. Maybe 100 psi is the pressure at the bottom of the tank, but the top of the tank is only half that. This matches the thickness variation.
It's a combination of those things, and I wasn't guessing. 100psi is higher than the ullage pressure in either tank, but the liquid oxygen tank has higher ullage pressure than the kerosene tank, which is compensated somewhat by the lower temperature of the liquid oxygen.4) diameter is less than 5m. 3m for Atlas and typical Centaur.This reduces the stress to 2.43 GPascal, or 352 KPSIQuote1) cold-working increases strength beyond 220ksi.The combination of these might get up to 325 KPSI, according to "EVALUATION OF SPECIAL 3O1-TYPE STAINLESS STEEL FOR lMPROVED LOW-TEMPERATURE NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF CRYOFORMED PRESSURE VESSELS" at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015958.pdf, or similarly
2) reduced temperatures increases tensile strength
http://www.tokkin.com/materials/stainless_steel/spring
However, the low temperature does not help for the kerosene tank, and for the oxygen tank it would depend on the temperature of the ullage gas. And LOX is not cold enough to get enough strength.
Even with both temperature and cold working, you only get a safety factor of 1 or thereabouts.Quote3) ullage pressure is lower than 100psiThis is my guess. Maybe 100 psi is the pressure at the bottom of the tank, but the top of the tank is only half that. This matches the thickness variation.
And if they also go to a 5.2m Raptor first stage, maybe FH could send those 6.5+ tons satellites all the way to GSO and recover all stages.
Pressure variation is about 0.5 psi for foot of hight. That is for water at 1 g. For fuel at much higher accelerations it would be more.But it doesn't get much higher accelerations until most of the fuel is drained, which reduces the height. So the effect is basically canceled out after initial lift-off! :)
John
4) diameter is less than 5m. 3m for Atlas and typical Centaur.This reduces the stress to 2.43 GPascal, or 352 KPSIQuote1) cold-working increases strength beyond 220ksi.The combination of these might get up to 325 KPSI, according to "EVALUATION OF SPECIAL 3O1-TYPE STAINLESS STEEL FOR lMPROVED LOW-TEMPERATURE NOTCH TOUGHNESS OF CRYOFORMED PRESSURE VESSELS" at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015958.pdf, or similarly
2) reduced temperatures increases tensile strength
http://www.tokkin.com/materials/stainless_steel/spring
However, the low temperature does not help for the kerosene tank, and for the oxygen tank it would depend on the temperature of the ullage gas. And LOX is not cold enough to get enough strength.
Even with both temperature and cold working, you only get a safety factor of 1 or thereabouts.Quote3) ullage pressure is lower than 100psiThis is my guess. Maybe 100 psi is the pressure at the bottom of the tank, but the top of the tank is only half that. This matches the thickness variation.
Let's inject some real data into this, shall we?Two interesting things from this:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740009453.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740009453.pdf)
Page 63 of this pdf has an actual calculation of allowable pressure for each section of an Atlas F. It's at elevated temperature because the study was looking at using an expended booster to do re-entry heating studies for the shuttle. But for each section of the tank we have the skin thickness, the assumption for temperature, and what Convair thought was the allowable ultimate hoop stress.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19790019063 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19790019063)I too think this is stress along the tank, not hoop stress. (For a balloon tank filled with gas the stress along the tank is half the hoop stress. If the tank is partially filled the axial stress is determined by the ullage pressure only.) They explicitly say that the max stress in flight is 78 ksi. but if that was hoop stress it would imply a max tank pressure of 41.6 psi for a wall thickness of 0.032 and a 120 inch diameter tank. But they pressurized to 68 psi (which gives 127 ksi hoop stress for a 120 inch tank).
An unfortunate Atlas was found to have corrosion and got cut up and studied. On page 83 of the pdf we see that the strength at room temp for uncorroded specimens was 226-229 ksi or 1560-1580 MPa. Also the figure on that page says that the design required strength is 184 ksi, and "max stress" is 78 ksi. I'm not sure which direction that stress goes but it seems like they cut the test pieces across the seam welds and tested in that direction, not around the circumference. But even in it's corroded condition the tank was filled with RP-1 and pressurized to 68 psi, and leaked but did not fail.
None of this seems to be remotely about Falcon Heavy. Are they putting a Centaur on a Falcon? I don't think so.
"Next week" has come and gone and we have no FH data. Any further word on a data dump?
Here's another one:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19790019063 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19790019063)
An unfortunate Atlas was found to have corrosion and got cut up and studied. On page 83 of the pdf we see that the strength at room temp for uncorroded specimens was 226-229 ksi or 1560-1580 MPa. Also the figure on that page says that the design required strength is 184 ksi, and "max stress" is 78 ksi. I'm not sure which direction that stress goes but it seems like they cut the test pieces across the seam welds and tested in that direction, not around the circumference. But even in it's corroded condition the tank was filled with RP-1 and pressurized to 68 psi, and leaked but did not fail.
Now that F9 has racked up yet another successful launch is there any word on when the February promised release of specs on the Falcon Heavy, etc. will be released? Why the delay after a short schedule for release?
Over-promising and under-delivering has just cost Falcon Heavy a mission:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/)
And Arianespace just lucked out in filling a hole in their manifest.
According to the article, this is a "Plan B," not a straight up cancellation. They are booking an option on Proton. If FH launches, then the Plan B Proton will be used for a different ILS satellite. If FH has further delays, then Inmarsat can launch the first satellite on Proton instead. Sounds like a good plan for Inmarsat, and I don't think it's bad news for SpaceX any more than delaying is already bad.Over-promising and under-delivering has just cost Falcon Heavy a mission:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/15/viasat-trades-in-falcon-heavy-launch-for-ariane-5/)
And Arianespace just lucked out in filling a hole in their manifest.
And the same thing has just cost Falcon Heavy a second mission:
http://spacenews.com/inmarsat-worried-about-spacex-falcon-heavy-delays-books-reservation-for-ils-proton-launch/ (http://spacenews.com/inmarsat-worried-about-spacex-falcon-heavy-delays-books-reservation-for-ils-proton-launch/)
This time the beneficiary is ILS.
There weren't many payloads booked on FH to begin with, and now two of them are gone.
SpaceX need to get FH launching ASAP otherwise all their customers for it will walk off to other launch vehicle providers.
If FH ends up with no paying customers then SpaceX might as well cancel it and replace it with a Raptor powered LV.
With no barge landing successful yet we don't know how competitive FH will be.
SpaceX is currently throwing resources into a lot of things in parallel, since they now have to complete Raptor somewhat soonish FH might not be a top priority,
an ordinary Falcon with a Raptor upper stage might turn out to be the more profitable launcher for comsats.
Also lets not forget that F9 is now already able to launch all but the heaviest comsats so there's less urgency to get FH ready.
...since they now have to complete Raptor somewhat soonish FH might not be a top priority, an ordinary Falcon with a Raptor upper stage might turn out to be the more profitable launcher for comsats.Interesting theory, but false. FH is most certainly a top priority. They won't be done with Raptor on the test stand until 2018, and delays could easily happen to that. And an engine is not a stage. A Raptor-optimized stage would likely be larger in diameter, possibly even reusable-capable. That means new tooling at a minimum but possibly a HUGE development cycle if it's reusable.
...
What hardware would be unique to Falcon Heavy, including propellant cross-feed? Will the first few Heavies even have cross-feed, or is that reserved for highest performance missions?Correct. They're not bothering with cross-feed right now. Also, thrust increases for Merlin 1D and propellant densification means they can get about the same performance without it. Shotwell hinted that if someone needed a 60 ton payload, then they would do it.
--Damon
Only until you remember that the point of SpaceX *isn't* to launch heavy comsats -- it's to get to Mars.Yea, that thing. Sorry, I don't buy the hype. That may be their vision, it's not what they are doing and what pays for the breakfast cereals.
And there are a limited number of Mars launch windows to get exploration done before MCT flies. I really don't think they want to miss the 2018 window.Don't think they've got a few hundred million to waste on such a stunt by 2018. So far most of their short-term experiments were actually financed by NASA or other customers and I don't see that happen for a Mars mission.
Who says they'd waste hundreds of millions of dollars?
What hardware would be unique to Falcon Heavy, including propellant cross-feed? Will the first few Heavies even have cross-feed, or is that reserved for highest performance missions?Correct. They're not bothering with cross-feed right now. Also, thrust increases for Merlin 1D and propellant densification means they can get about the same performance without it. Shotwell hinted that if someone needed a 60 ton payload, then they would do it.
--Damon
If Elon wants to go to Mars someone has to pay the bill and that someone is governments and comsat customers.
There's about one government payload that needs FH and they are not yet bidding for that one so FH is currently exclusively a comsat launcher. And in that heavy segment they are not that much cheaper than Ariane as they are on the smaller birds,
Need to close a business case for that one.
If Elon wants to go to Mars someone has to pay the bill and that someone is governments and comsat customers.
There's about one government payload that needs FH and they are not yet bidding for that one so FH is currently exclusively a comsat launcher. And in that heavy segment they are not that much cheaper than Ariane as they are on the smaller birds,
Need to close a business case for that one.
Besides Mars there is the DOD market. Gwynne Shotwell has promised in a Congress Hearing that Falcon Heavy will be ready and certified by 2018. And even if Mars is their primary driver, Elon Musk really, really wants to have the ability to fly the full range of DOD payloads, if only to take the argument from ULA that he can't.
Besides Mars there is the DOD market. Gwynne Shotwell has promised in a Congress Hearing that Falcon Heavy will be ready and certified by 2018. And even if Mars is their primary driver, Elon Musk really, really wants to have the ability to fly the full range of DOD payloads, if only to take the argument from ULA that he can't.
Sure, I said that.
But still, even if they are able to compete and win flights of that DIVH payload we're still talking 202x for an actual flight and 2017/18 for an FH demo flight. Not really urgent all of that is...
Uh huh....A single engine per core FH?! Raptor?Look closer. What appears to be engines at first are simply the model's mounting posts. Around them you can see the normal Merlins.
Reused Falcon Heavy flying a reused Dragon with a payload that they might be able to get NASA to pay for, and perhaps even qualifying some upgrade to Falcon Heavy (in which case they would have to pay for the launch anyway or at least offer a ridiculously steep discount)... And what makes you think they would start working on it /now/? If SpaceX is interested in 2018, they'd ALREADY have been working on this.Who says they'd waste hundreds of millions of dollars?
Well, "waste" is of course a question of perspective but to do meaningful research 2018 is too short a timing and an FH flight plus a payload to Mars plus mission control plus comms towards Mars will certainly cost a few hundred million $$$
I'm pretty sure they must be somewhat short on development resources (that's always your bottleneck in growth scenarios since you can't scale it at will) so they will have to prioritize and FH, Raptor, crew Dragon, the sat activities... a lot going on.
Reused Falcon Heavy flying a reused Dragon with a payload that they might be able to get NASA to pay forReused FH should be worth as much as a new one.
And what makes you think they would start working on it /now/? If SpaceX is interested in 2018, they'd ALREADY have been working on this.I have written that. It's the whole point of my argument: I think they are working on so many things in parallel that they have to prioritize and you can clearly see that FH is taking the hit in this, schedule wise. Now, of course you could prioritize a Mars payload at the expense of getting FH ready even later but the sense behind this would be what again?
SpaceX still has two DragonLab missions on the book (which I've been told they haven't given up on, yet), and they were planning to basically self-fund those. It'd make more sense to send one of them to Mars instead.But cost much more money. New power supply, new electronics, new comms. And what communication network do they use back on earth to talk to that Dragon? DSN? Or do they build their own dishes? Another new development effort for high-power laser comm?
In spite of their early openness, SpaceX has several secret projects which they haven't publicized. They may have been working towards a 2018 mission for years.
And the electronics have sufficient redundancy to work in the somewhat higher (but, let's be clear, NOT drastically higher) radiation environment of deep spaceDo you know that? Source? Or is this speculation?
You will see Falcon Heavy soon, I will bet you money.How soon? What does "see" mean? Fly or just see? How much money? I don't believe we're going to see it fly in '16, I would not bet against it flying in '17.
Yes. Deep space is only about 2x the radiation of ISS, and Dragon has had few problems there. We have characterized the deep space radiation environment quite well, and Dragon is already capable of 2 year flights in LEO. Thermal control wouldn't be a challenge as Dragon already has the capability to actively moderate its thermal capability. Additionally, Dragon would not be shielded by the Earth half the time being in total darkness, so in some ways the thermal environment would be more benign (less hot and less cold!) for a trip to Mars than in LEO.And the electronics have sufficient redundancy to work in the somewhat higher (but, let's be clear, NOT drastically higher) radiation environment of deep spaceDo you know that? Source? Or is this speculation?
It will also have to actually work independently for much longer than in LEO and in a colder environment.
...
Spacex is not NASA, they are working actually do something on Mars in near future. But they focus now on reusability. When it is nailed done and lot spare first stages will be around, they will start test their hardware on Moon and every 2 years on Mars.Reused Falcon Heavy flying a reused Dragon with a payload that they might be able to get NASA to pay forReused FH should be worth as much as a new one.
Reused Drageon: sure, or a used Ford Explorer or a bag of stones, doesn't matter if you want to throw dead weight towards Mars. Because that's what a "reused Dragon" would be once you leave LEO. No means of communication, electronics which probably won't survive the trip, too little power supply to work at Mars, no means of navigation...
And where's NASA's budget position for the payload, where is the payload (these things take time to develop) and then which payload do you want to fly on a dead spacecraft?
No, SpaceX is not going to Mars in '18.QuoteAnd what makes you think they would start working on it /now/? If SpaceX is interested in 2018, they'd ALREADY have been working on this.I have written that. It's the whole point of my argument: I think they are working on so many things in parallel that they have to prioritize and you can clearly see that FH is taking the hit in this, schedule wise. Now, of course you could prioritize a Mars payload at the expense of getting FH ready even later but the sense behind this would be what again?QuoteSpaceX still has two DragonLab missions on the book (which I've been told they haven't given up on, yet), and they were planning to basically self-fund those. It'd make more sense to send one of them to Mars instead.But cost much more money. New power supply, new electronics, new comms. And what communication network do they use back on earth to talk to that Dragon? DSN? Or do they build their own dishes? Another new development effort for high-power laser comm?
How do you navigate? Dragon uses GPS, last time I looked there was no GPS on the way to Mars.
I mean... LEO is sooooooo simple. All that infrastructure you use on earth still works there. Nothing of that will work on your way to Mars, you essentially start from scratch.QuoteIn spite of their early openness, SpaceX has several secret projects which they haven't publicized. They may have been working towards a 2018 mission for years.
Sure. And with their usual delay factor of 2.54 that would then mean then that they're going to launch some times in the early 30s....
Additionally, Dragon would not be shielded by the Earth half the time being in total darkness, so in some ways the thermal environment would be more benign (less hot and less cold!) for a trip to Mars than in LEO.The earth still emits IR on the dark side which is quite significant an effect in LEO.
Spacex is not NASA, they are working actually do something on Mars in near future. But they focus now on reusability. When it is nailed done and lot spare first stages will be around, they will start test their hardware on Moon and every 2 years on Mars.Yes, of course NASA is just a bunch of stupid people who do all this stuff they do for no reason.
Their experience on power landing stages and Dragons give them heads up for some serious business and test on Moon and Mars and opportunity to start build supply pile on Mars.
It tooks them 12 years to perfect their launch system. I think it will take them less time to perfect their Mars launch systems.
I think 2024-2028 is reasonable time for their Mars landing.
But Falcon 9H could start to do initial test in 1-2 years on Moon or Mars. Think about modify falcon 9 second stage with legs could start to test landing on Moon pretty soon.
Reused Falcon Heavy flying a reused Dragon with a payload that they might be able to get NASA to pay forReused FH should be worth as much as a new one.
Reused Drageon: sure, or a used Ford Explorer or a bag of stones, doesn't matter if you want to throw dead weight towards Mars. Because that's what a "reused Dragon" would be once you leave LEO. No means of communication, electronics which probably won't survive the trip, too little power supply to work at Mars, no means of navigation...
And where's NASA's budget position for the payload, where is the payload (these things take time to develop) and then which payload do you want to fly on a dead spacecraft?
No, SpaceX is not going to Mars in '18.QuoteAnd what makes you think they would start working on it /now/? If SpaceX is interested in 2018, they'd ALREADY have been working on this.I have written that. It's the whole point of my argument: I think they are working on so many things in parallel that they have to prioritize and you can clearly see that FH is taking the hit in this, schedule wise. Now, of course you could prioritize a Mars payload at the expense of getting FH ready even later but the sense behind this would be what again?QuoteSpaceX still has two DragonLab missions on the book (which I've been told they haven't given up on, yet), and they were planning to basically self-fund those. It'd make more sense to send one of them to Mars instead.But cost much more money. New power supply, new electronics, new comms. And what communication network do they use back on earth to talk to that Dragon? DSN? Or do they build their own dishes? Another new development effort for high-power laser comm?
How do you navigate? Dragon uses GPS, last time I looked there was no GPS on the way to Mars.
I mean... LEO is sooooooo simple. All that infrastructure you use on earth still works there. Nothing of that will work on your way to Mars, you essentially start from scratch.QuoteIn spite of their early openness, SpaceX has several secret projects which they haven't publicized. They may have been working towards a 2018 mission for years.
Sure. And with their usual delay factor of 2.54 that would then mean then that they're going to launch some times in the early 30s....
I simply want YOU to mark your opinion to market quantitatively.80:20 for FH not successfully launching in 2016.
I see Falcon Heavy as using a used Falcon 9 core stage if they need to expend the core, and land the outer cores back at the launch site.
SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy now expected to launch in November.
Would you even take 2:1 odds against it flying in 2016? I think it has at least a 50:50 chance of flying this year, so I would definitely take the other side of that bet.Currently it is slated to november 2016, according to SpaceX. It is their codeword for "middle of 2017".
Currently it is slated to november 2016, according to SpaceX. It is their codeword for "middle of 2017".
And the electronics have sufficient redundancy to work in the somewhat higher (but, let's be clear, NOT drastically higher) radiation environment of deep spaceDo you know that? Source? Or is this speculation?
It will also have to actually work independently for much longer than in LEO and in a colder environment.
NASA and SpaceX figured out Dragon had "Sufficient lifetime & resources for Mars transfer trajectory" back in 2011.
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/RedDragon/karcz-red_dragon-nac-2011-10-29-1.pdf
NASA and SpaceX figured out Dragon had "Sufficient lifetime & resources for Mars transfer trajectory" back in 2011.
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/RedDragon/karcz-red_dragon-nac-2011-10-29-1.pdf
Dragon had only flown one mission at the time. So not a really a given or valid source.
Dragon had only flown one mission at the time. So not a really a given or valid source. And the "NASA" people in the study are not the agency experts nor even the agency regulars for spacecraft development.And yet, this might be sufficient for SpaceX to think they could try it, whether it works or not.
NASA is figuring out that Orion and SLS have sufficient capabilities for future missions and they haven't flown once.
What is a given or valid source?
What is a given or valid source?
a NASA group that has designed and flown many spacecraft. ARC is not that.
I simply want YOU to mark your opinion to market quantitatively.80:20 for FH not successfully launching in 2016.
NASA and SpaceX figured out Dragon had "Sufficient lifetime & resources for Mars transfer trajectory" back in 2011.
http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/RedDragon/karcz-red_dragon-nac-2011-10-29-1.pdf
Dragon had only flown one mission at the time. So not a really a given or valid source. And the "NASA" people in the study are not the agency experts nor even the agency regulars for spacecraft development.
So we're going on five years and not one valid source that I can find has disputed JPL's, ARC's, or SpaceX's findings. In fact there's been even more research saying it will work. You've been giving the same argument since 2011. Seems like you should be able to give some solid info by now to prove them wrong.
SpaceX has already said they plan to send Dragons to Mars with Falcon Heavy. Why would they launch a payload that's not capable of getting to its destination and waste a FH? Sure arguing about the time table seems logical, but doubting the capability of the payload, at least on this thread, doesn't.
Again, nobody has any incentive to lie in PR.So what? They stated date of first FH launch multiple times. Each time it was replaced with new date. I do not see any reason to believe they will actually launch in nov 2016. I will believe that we start to get closer when their slips will be less than elapsed time. So far every 6 months it slips by 6 months.
I simply want YOU to mark your opinion to market quantitatively.80:20 for FH not successfully launching in 2016.
Pippin, I was happy to let your concern trolling[1] just roll on by, but then you had to go and use the adjective LEGO in a sentence incorrectly. ("rockets all of a sudden become LEGOs ") Those are fighting words...
I'll take the other side of that bet, PM me with what currency you want to use. Ten dollars of LEGO elements against 40, perhaps? A six pack against a case? Or admit that it's idle talk and you're not willing to put up....
1 - that's how it reads to me anyway...
Any thoughts on what the side booster separation mechanism is going to be on the FH? With SpaceX's fondness for pneumatic systems over explosive ones I was curious what folks thought. I can't imagine it would be anything other than explosive, but I don't think SpaceX has a ton of experience in that front.
I hope this isn't the wrong thread for this, Instagram post may show Falcon Heavy nose cone! Sloppy paint?Composite Interstage is likely yes as there are more behind it and the interstage in some graphics in the last year show it a bit longer for FH than F9.
Enjoy, Matthew
Edit, What is the large straight barrel next to it? Composite interstage? Seems too long.
Source?
So much in this picture. I think the fairing section in the foreground is above a robot on a track, perhaps for installing the insulation panels?
Could be the perspective and/or a wide angle lens. Maybe my old eyes. ISTR we've heard rumors of a longer fairing for Bigelow habs, but ISTM some military birds may need one too. Any input Jim?
So much in this picture. I think the fairing section in the foreground is above a robot on a track, perhaps for installing the insulation panels?
How about just for trimming the edges. Insulation is installed at the launch site.
Nobody has any proof that they're deliberately flat-out delaying. More likely that they keep iterating upgrades which cause them to change FH's design slightly, but the pressure is on now. It will fly this year.
Nobody has any proof that they're deliberately flat-out delaying. More likely that they keep iterating upgrades which cause them to change FH's design slightly, but the pressure is on now. It will fly this year.
IMHO, 2016 is the critical year for Falcon Heavy for SpaceX. ED: They essentially need to get a complete set of flight hardware out the door by 31 Dec 2016.
Article in the Register citing Gwynn Shotwell saying the FH launch will be in November.So from that article would a core cost about $20M?
There is also some interesting information on reuse costs.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/11/spacex_first_falcon_heavy_liftoff/
Not that simple.Article in the Register citing Gwynn Shotwell saying the FH launch will be in November.So from that article would a core cost about $20M?
There is also some interesting information on reuse costs.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/11/spacex_first_falcon_heavy_liftoff/
I don't think they would be cutting into their profit on a first reuse flight.Not that simple.Article in the Register citing Gwynn Shotwell saying the FH launch will be in November.So from that article would a core cost about $20M?
There is also some interesting information on reuse costs.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/11/spacex_first_falcon_heavy_liftoff/
The equation goes something like this:I don't think they would be cutting into their profit on a first reuse flight.Not that simple.Article in the Register citing Gwynn Shotwell saying the FH launch will be in November.So from that article would a core cost about $20M?
There is also some interesting information on reuse costs.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/11/spacex_first_falcon_heavy_liftoff/
What is your estimate for a core stage?
What do you estimate from the info on the article for reuse cost?
Except maybe they keep profit constant (not relative, i.e. 20%), or even increase profit in order to "pay back" all that money they spent getting the bugs out of reusability. I mean, how many parachutes, legs, and fins did they dump into the ocean trying to get all this to work? They can use that extra money to pay for their next reusability project, which is the upper stage, which will be a lot harder.
If you cut manufacturing costs 20% and then reduce your price 20% you just lowered your profit for no reason.
That's not saying much. EVERY YEAR is a critical year for SpaceX.
That's not saying much. EVERY YEAR is a critical year for SpaceX.
Well, maybe I was prone to some hyperbole; but this year is critical to their long term plans.
If they want to break into the lucrative heavy commercial GEO market as well as the mega-lucrative DOD market to fund their future mars ambitions (MCT, Raptor, etc); FH needs to come out sometime this year (*) to:
...[snip]...
(* -- Rollout, not actual launch. The actual launch can slip into early winter 2017, due to unforeseen difficulties without ill effects).
Either way, the end result is likely to be that FH will rarely, if ever fly. Maybe I'm being overly skeptical, but when your customers don't care about your product that is delayed some 3 years, what does it really mean?
It is primarily a tacit recognition of the low priority FH has not only by SpaceX, but also to potential customers.
Maybe I'm being overly skeptical, but when your customers don't care about your product that is delayed some 3 years, what does it really mean?
Either way, the end result is likely to be that FH will rarely, if ever fly. Maybe I'm being overly skeptical, but when your customers don't care about your product that is delayed some 3 years, what does it really mean?
Delta Heavy averages less than 1 launch per year.
There are not many payloads that even need the Delta Heavy lift capacity.
Here's a quote being attributed to Gwen Shotwell at Jeff Foust's site regarding FH:
http://thespacereview.com/article/2943/1 (http://thespacereview.com/article/2943/1)
“The Falcon Heavy is delayed, but we haven’t disappointed any customers yet on that,”
I don't seem much positive in this statement. It is primarily a tacit recognition of the low priority FH has not only by SpaceX, but also to potential customers. The fact that they communicate to the SpaceX president that FH delays are of no concern to them implies that they don't plan on buying the rocket, or that any contracts are sufficiently far enough into the future that current delays don't matter.
Either way, the end result is likely to be that FH will rarely, if ever fly. Maybe I'm being overly skeptical, but when your customers don't care about your product that is delayed some 3 years, what does it really mean?
Falcon 9 Full Thrust can launch ~60-75% of the payload of the original Falcon 9 S9 Heavy and double the original Falcon 9 when first announced. That means that most of the payloads that would've required a Heavy now can be launched on Falcon 9, and if you sacrifice a few months to boosting using SEP, even more satellites fit on Falcon 9.
However, it's false to conclude Falcon Heavy will never fly or only do so rarely.
The delay to Falcon Heavy is kind of good, since it allows the performance and reliability of Merlin and the stages to be improved to the point that now we can expect fairly good reliability in spite of all those engines and stages.
Falcon 9 Full Thrust can launch ~60-75% of the payload of the original Falcon 9 S9 Heavy and double the original Falcon 9 when first announced. That means that most of the payloads that would've required a Heavy now can be launched on Falcon 9, and if you sacrifice a few months to boosting using SEP, even more satellites fit on Falcon 9.
However, it's false to conclude Falcon Heavy will never fly or only do so rarely.
The delay to Falcon Heavy is kind of good, since it allows the performance and reliability of Merlin and the stages to be improved to the point that now we can expect fairly good reliability in spite of all those engines and stages.
Coupled to that, it means the heavy in full thrust iteration will be a considerably more formidable rocket than it's original incarnation as well. Sure, it's not a superheavy LV, but it's an intermediary between SLS/BFR/Saturn/Energia range and every other payload range out there, and a considerably less expensive alternative to any of the listed heavy LVs.
I thought super-heavy was defined as greater than 50 tonnes to LEO (assuming expendable). Some calculations show FH at greater than 70 tonnes to LEO, expendable. It is still a heavy when three cores are recovered if heavy is defined as 20-50 tonnes. (F9 FT is also a heavy lift vehicle by this definition.)
Falcon 9 Full Thrust can launch ~60-75% of the payload of the original Falcon 9 S9 Heavy and double the original Falcon 9 when first announced. That means that most of the payloads that would've required a Heavy now can be launched on Falcon 9, and if you sacrifice a few months to boosting using SEP, even more satellites fit on Falcon 9.
However, it's false to conclude Falcon Heavy will never fly or only do so rarely.
The delay to Falcon Heavy is kind of good, since it allows the performance and reliability of Merlin and the stages to be improved to the point that now we can expect fairly good reliability in spite of all those engines and stages.
Coupled to that, it means the heavy in full thrust iteration will be a considerably more formidable rocket than it's original incarnation as well. Sure, it's not a superheavy LV, but it's an intermediary between SLS/BFR/Saturn/Energia range and every other payload range out there, and a considerably less expensive alternative to any of the listed heavy LVs.
I thought super-heavy was defined as greater than 50 tonnes to LEO (assuming expendable). Some calculations show FH at greater than 70 tonnes to LEO, expendable.
It is still a heavy when three cores are recovered if heavy is defined as 20-50 tonnes. (F9 FT is also a heavy lift vehicle by this definition.)
No it's not, it cannot lift 20 tonnes to LEO.
QuoteNo it's not, it cannot lift 20 tonnes to LEO.
You really dont think a 3 core recovery FH wont be able to lift 20 mt to LEO?
Spacex's web site gives 10,692 pounds to Geo, recently did 11,596 pounds with a landing attempt. Same page gives 28,991 pounds to LEO.
A few things in here are false. No one has said crossfeed WON'T happen, just that it has been delayed and densification and full thrust make it unnecessary to achieve the necessary performance. Shotwell said it'd be needed if you need like a 60 ton payload. It is most definitely still on the table.Falcon 9 Full Thrust can launch ~60-75% of the payload of the original Falcon 9 S9 Heavy and double the original Falcon 9 when first announced. That means that most of the payloads that would've required a Heavy now can be launched on Falcon 9, and if you sacrifice a few months to boosting using SEP, even more satellites fit on Falcon 9.
However, it's false to conclude Falcon Heavy will never fly or only do so rarely.
The delay to Falcon Heavy is kind of good, since it allows the performance and reliability of Merlin and the stages to be improved to the point that now we can expect fairly good reliability in spite of all those engines and stages.
Coupled to that, it means the heavy in full thrust iteration will be a considerably more formidable rocket than it's original incarnation as well. Sure, it's not a superheavy LV, but it's an intermediary between SLS/BFR/Saturn/Energia range and every other payload range out there, and a considerably less expensive alternative to any of the listed heavy LVs.
I thought super-heavy was defined as greater than 50 tonnes to LEO (assuming expendable). Some calculations show FH at greater than 70 tonnes to LEO, expendable.
These calculations were based on broken assumptions and/or version of FH that will not materialize(cross-feed)
It may, in full thrust mode to low inclination and altitude. With Raptor upper stage it almost certainly can. Heck, if fully expendable with Raptor upper stage, it probably can do the 25 tons that the original Falcon 9 S9 Heavy was slated for.QuoteIt is still a heavy when three cores are recovered if heavy is defined as 20-50 tonnes. (F9 FT is also a heavy lift vehicle by this definition.)
No it's not, it cannot lift 20 tonnes to LEO.
And the original definition of Heavy was much more than 20 tonnes, the definition has changed (when the EELV's came?)Proton, Titan IV H, etc were also considered heavy. Maybe even Saturn IB. Saturn V is super heavy.
Wooosh!Spacex's web site gives 10,692 pounds to Geo, recently did 11,596 pounds with a landing attempt. Same page gives 28,991 pounds to LEO.
Right. Which is substantially less than 20 metric tons.
(I presume you are referring to F9FT, not FH - you didn't specify.
NASA Tech Briefs: Autonomous Flight Termination System
We all know that autonomous flight termination systems are coming. This link gives some information (though mostly informationless information). I couldn't find a more reasonable place in NSF to post this. Putting it here because the article states "AFTS is necessary to support vehicles that have multiple flyback boosters." I sat back a while and thought through how many vehicles I was aware of that have multiply flyback boosters and came to the conclusion to post here.
http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/8-ntb/tech-briefs/machinery-and-automation/24084-ksc-13978
NASA Tech Briefs: Autonomous Flight Termination System
We all know that autonomous flight termination systems are coming. This link gives some information (though mostly informationless information). I couldn't find a more reasonable place in NSF to post this. Putting it here because the article states "AFTS is necessary to support vehicles that have multiple flyback boosters." I sat back a while and thought through how many vehicles I was aware of that have multiply flyback boosters and came to the conclusion to post here.
http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/8-ntb/tech-briefs/machinery-and-automation/24084-ksc-13978
In-flight abort test appears to be currently planned around March 2017. See slide 6:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf
According to P. De Selding (Spacenews):
ViaSat, Ex-Im Bank reduce $524.9M ViaSat-2 loan to $386.7M, reflecting Launch shift from SpaceX (US) to Arianespace (France/Europe).
Does that mean that a Falcon Heavy launch cost ~138 M$ on the commercial market for xL payloads like Viasat 2 ? It would mean that Falcon Heavy is super expensive compared to Proton and to a lesser degree Ariane 5 in upper position ! Difficult to imagine more than 1 Falcon Heavy commercial launch pre year with such pricing ....
Any speculation on the black and white striped nosecone-looking object in the back left of SpaceX's most recent Instagram picture https://www.instagram.com/p/BDgfxVeF8TW/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/BDgfxVeF8TW/)? Falcon Heavy, maybe?This has been discussed earlier in this thread. Please look back for answer
Trying to understand how this integrated, interdependent yet autonomous reusable system is programmed:
Does the center core monitor and control both boosters up until booster separation where each booster is then autonomous for RTLS?
According to P. De Selding (Spacenews):
ViaSat, Ex-Im Bank reduce $524.9M ViaSat-2 loan to $386.7M, reflecting Launch shift from SpaceX (US) to Arianespace (France/Europe).
Does that mean that a Falcon Heavy launch cost ~138 M$ on the commercial market for xL payloads like Viasat 2 ? It would mean that Falcon Heavy is super expensive compared to Proton and to a lesser degree Ariane 5 in upper position ! Difficult to imagine more than 1 Falcon Heavy commercial launch pre year with such pricing ....
The American export-import bank only provides loans to buy/sell from US companies. It is an instrument of trade policy, helps American businesses abroad.
According to P. De Selding (Spacenews):
ViaSat, Ex-Im Bank reduce $524.9M ViaSat-2 loan to $386.7M, reflecting Launch shift from SpaceX (US) to Arianespace (France/Europe).
Does that mean that a Falcon Heavy launch cost ~138 M$ on the commercial market for xL payloads like Viasat 2 ? It would mean that Falcon Heavy is super expensive compared to Proton and to a lesser degree Ariane 5 in upper position ! Difficult to imagine more than 1 Falcon Heavy commercial launch pre year with such pricing ....
Keep in mind that the advertised Falcon 9 GTO payload is not a direct comparison to the Ariane 6 GTO payload, since Ariane 6 specifies GEO -1,500 m/s ish versus Falcon 9's GEO - 1,800 m/s ish. Subtract a tonne or so from Falcon 9 payload to directly compare. There's even a chance that Airbus Safran is talking about the advertised Falcon Heavy GTO payload, which is 6.4 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
From Arian 6 updates thread to this one -Keep in mind that the advertised Falcon 9 GTO payload is not a direct comparison to the Ariane 6 GTO payload, since Ariane 6 specifies GEO -1,500 m/s ish versus Falcon 9's GEO - 1,800 m/s ish. Subtract a tonne or so from Falcon 9 payload to directly compare. There's even a chance that Airbus Safran is talking about the advertised Falcon Heavy GTO payload, which is 6.4 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
This claim again ...
I have never seen this advertised.
Spacex's site clearly states 21,200 kg to GTO.
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
The old old site had this number as a price point but never as a performance goal.
So please state your source, Ed, or stop spreading that number...
Yes it is. And then again it isn't. See below. What to believe....From Arian 6 updates thread to this one -Keep in mind that the advertised Falcon 9 GTO payload is not a direct comparison to the Ariane 6 GTO payload, since Ariane 6 specifies GEO -1,500 m/s ish versus Falcon 9's GEO - 1,800 m/s ish. Subtract a tonne or so from Falcon 9 payload to directly compare. There's even a chance that Airbus Safran is talking about the advertised Falcon Heavy GTO payload, which is 6.4 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
This claim again ...
I have never seen this advertised.
Spacex's site clearly states 21,200 kg to GTO.
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
The old old site had this number as a price point but never as a performance goal.
So please state your source, Ed, or stop spreading that number...
Its right here:
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities (http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities)
One is reusable performance and price, other (21t) is expendable capacity.Now that's just another unsupported repeated claim.
One is reusable performance and price, other (21t) is expendable capacity.Now that's just another unsupported repeated claim.
It doesn't say that, it only says that the price for a certain load (6.4ton) is 90m$ and that total performance is again 21200kg, doesn't it?
One is reusable performance and price, other (21t) is expendable capacity.Now that's just another unsupported repeated claim.
It doesn't say that, it only says that the price for a certain load (6.4ton) is 90m$ and that total performance is again 21200kg, doesn't it?
The easiest interpretation is that for payloads heavier than 6.4 tons, contact the company for a custom price.
The easiest interpretation is that for payloads heavier than 6.4 tons, contact the company for a custom price.
I think too much is being made of these numbers. Almost certainly each company that currently has a FH contract got a custom price. Shotwell also said about a month ago that the publicly released FH performance numbers were going to be updated (which hasn't happened yet). This whole discussion will change once we get new numbers.
Keep in mind that the advertised Falcon 9 GTO payload is not a direct comparison to the Ariane 6 GTO payload, since Ariane 6 specifies GEO -1,500 m/s ish versus Falcon 9's GEO - 1,800 m/s ish. Subtract a tonne or so from Falcon 9 payload to directly compare. There's even a chance that Airbus Safran is talking about the advertised Falcon Heavy GTO payload, which is 6.4 tonnes.
- Ed Kyle
The easiest interpretation is that for payloads heavier than 6.4 tons, contact the company for a custom price.
I think too much is being made of these numbers. Almost certainly each company that currently has a FH contract got a custom price. Shotwell also said about a month ago that the publicly released FH performance numbers were going to be updated (which hasn't happened yet). This whole discussion will change once we get new numbers.
We also know that the ViaSat-2 Ex-Im loan changed by $138m when they left SpaceX and went to Ariane 5. Which suggests what a dedicated FH launch plus insurance might cost. At least at the time that contract was signed.
Launch plus insurance *plus payload processing, shipping, initial orbital checkout, etc*. The ExIm loan covers all parts of the total launch cost which are paid to American companies. Switching the satellite from SpaceX might mean that DHL gets shipping contracts instead of FedEx, prelaunch checkout and fueling in Europe instead of the Cape, fuel purchase and hazmat disposal done there, that a ground station in Europe does initial checkout instead of one in the US, that employees stay in European hotels instead of American ones, eat at European restaurants, use European contractors for incidentals, etc. And we don't know how much of that loan is margin, "loan approval for up to $XYZ", instead of actual known fixed costs. For all we know, the approved loan amount could have included a provision for discounted relaunch in case of failure. I think the number is only useful as a "SpaceX costs are known to be less than $X" number without further insight and a detailed cost breakdown.The easiest interpretation is that for payloads heavier than 6.4 tons, contact the company for a custom price.
I think too much is being made of these numbers. Almost certainly each company that currently has a FH contract got a custom price. Shotwell also said about a month ago that the publicly released FH performance numbers were going to be updated (which hasn't happened yet). This whole discussion will change once we get new numbers.
We also know that the ViaSat-2 Ex-Im loan changed by $138m when they left SpaceX and went to Ariane 5. Which suggests what a dedicated FH launch plus insurance might cost. At least at the time that contract was signed.
They also need to list expendable and recovery mode payloads. They also should list pricing for used rockets, expendable rockets, and recoverable rockets. It would give customers wider variety of choices, payloads, and costs.
I've been thinking about the returns of the FH cores to LZ-1 and or the ADSD.The FH core will have a much higher (horizontal) velocity than the F9 first stage. As such, RTLS will not be a viable option for most launches (besides, perhaps, the demonstration launches) due to the very high performance penalty associated with it. Rather, I would expect the boosters to land at LZ-1 and the central core to land on an ASDS.
Assuming all 3 cores are recovered, do we have estimates for how much longer the core stage will burn compared to the sides and how much later it would be for a LZ-1 and ASDS landing?
With the core throttling back it's hard to see the solo core burn time being more than 20-25 seconds.
Edit: And the core landing at LZ-1 maybe 1:00 or so later than the sides.
I've been thinking about the returns of the FH cores to LZ-1 and or the ADSD.The FH core will have a much higher (horizontal) velocity than the F9 first stage. As such, RTLS will not be a viable option for most launches (besides, perhaps, the demonstration launches) due to the very high performance penalty associated with it. Rather, I would expect the boosters to land at LZ-1 and the central core to land on an ASDS.
Assuming all 3 cores are recovered, do we have estimates for how much longer the core stage will burn compared to the sides and how much later it would be for a LZ-1 and ASDS landing?
With the core throttling back it's hard to see the solo core burn time being more than 20-25 seconds.
Edit: And the core landing at LZ-1 maybe 1:00 or so later than the sides.
I've been thinking about the returns of the FH cores to LZ-1 and or the ADSD.
Assuming all 3 cores are recovered, do we have estimates for how much longer the core stage will burn compared to the sides and how much later it would be for a LZ-1 and ASDS landing?
With the core throttling back it's hard to see the solo core burn time being more than 20-25 seconds.
Edit: And the core landing at LZ-1 maybe 1:00 or so later than the sides.
The FH core will have a much higher (horizontal) velocity than the F9 first stage. As such, RTLS will not be a viable option for most launches (besides, perhaps, the demonstration launches) due to the very high performance penalty associated with it. Rather, I would expect the boosters to land at LZ-1 and the central core to land on an ASDS.That assumption is made frequently. But I am not sure it is actually correct. I suspect that the majority of launches to GTO is just beyond the capability of Falcon 9. So even with only a small range of payload weight for 3 core RTLS it is quite possible that most payloads will fall into that range.
The FH core will have a much higher (horizontal) velocity than the F9 first stage. As such, RTLS will not be a viable option for most launches (besides, perhaps, the demonstration launches) due to the very high performance penalty associated with it. Rather, I would expect the boosters to land at LZ-1 and the central core to land on an ASDS.That assumption is made frequently. But I am not sure it is actually correct. I suspect that the majority of launches to GTO is just beyond the capability of Falcon 9. So even with only a small range of payload weight for 3 core RTLS it is quite possible that most payloads will fall into that range.
Q: My question deals with the next booster, the Falcon Heavy. How much of this successful landing can be applied or scaled up that heavy rocket and does it boost your confidence for that booster too?
A: The Falcon Heavy essentially consists of the Falcon 9 with two modified boost stages attached as strap on boosters. That would be quite an exciting aerial ballet with the two side boosters dropping off and doing a symmetric pirouette back to the launch site. We'd need to have another landing spot for the two boosters and then a third one for the center core. Although I think most of the Falcon Heavy missions will see the center core land on a ship most likely. It's really going ridiculously fast. The transfer energy of Falcon Heavy will more than double that of Falcon 9. The maximum transfer energy is approaching a terajoule.
The FH core will have a much higher (horizontal) velocity than the F9 first stage. As such, RTLS will not be a viable option for most launches (besides, perhaps, the demonstration launches) due to the very high performance penalty associated with it. Rather, I would expect the boosters to land at LZ-1 and the central core to land on an ASDS.That assumption is made frequently. But I am not sure it is actually correct. I suspect that the majority of launches to GTO is just beyond the capability of Falcon 9. So even with only a small range of payload weight for 3 core RTLS it is quite possible that most payloads will fall into that range.
Given the performance margin on the FH, I wouldn't be surprised if 3 core RTLS becomes increasing common as the launch vehicle and boostback/reentry/landing sequence becomes more optimized. Elon did just say that in the long run they're hoping to move from 50% ASDS for the F9 to just 33/25%.
The source for the central core ASDS landing being most common is a quote by Elon during the ORBCOMM-2 post-landing teleconference:Quote from: Elon MuskQ: My question deals with the next booster, the Falcon Heavy. How much of this successful landing can be applied or scaled up that heavy rocket and does it boost your confidence for that booster too?
A: The Falcon Heavy essentially consists of the Falcon 9 with two modified boost stages attached as strap on boosters. That would be quite an exciting aerial ballet with the two side boosters dropping off and doing a symmetric pirouette back to the launch site. We'd need to have another landing spot for the two boosters and then a third one for the center core. Although I think most of the Falcon Heavy missions will see the center core land on a ship most likely. It's really going ridiculously fast. The transfer energy of Falcon Heavy will more than double that of Falcon 9. The maximum transfer energy is approaching a terajoule.
Also, don't forget Mars missions. SpaceX has lots and lots of plans. FH to Mars will need performance, and so expect barge landings there.
Certainly agreed on no-barge for side cores.Also, don't forget Mars missions. SpaceX has lots and lots of plans. FH to Mars will need performance, and so expect barge landings there.
I certainly hope you are right. But I expect that the best we can hope for is booster RTLS and an expendable central core to get a Red Dragon to Mars.
BTW in my personal list of options for FH Booster landing on barge is not included. Boosters will RTLS and Central may do barge landing. I just cannot see 3 barges out there to catch 3 cores.
Shotwell, as she did last month, says SpaceX plans to fly about 18 times this year, including Falcon Heavy introduction.
Quote from: Jeff FoustShotwell, as she did last month, says SpaceX plans to fly about 18 times this year, including Falcon Heavy introduction.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/720730436180160512
Quote from: Jeff FoustShotwell, as she did last month, says SpaceX plans to fly about 18 times this year, including Falcon Heavy introduction.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/720730436180160512
Love the optimism, but yeah. Still gonna take the "under" on this one. I'm still guessing about 12 if nothing seriously Bad™ happens along the way. Hope to be proven wrong.
Certainly agreed on no-barge for side cores.
I guess we'll know soon enough as it's always taken a few months to turn a Marmac *barge* into an Autonomous Spaceport Drone *Ship*.
I guess we'll know soon enough as it's always taken a few months to turn a Marmac *barge* into an Autonomous Spaceport Drone *Ship*.
They won't be needed until next year at the earliest, and really not until they have a mission that needs the extra dV. They have 4 FH missions on the manifest after the demo, INMARSAT, INTELSAT, STP-2 and VIASAT. I'm not aware than any of those would not allow RTLS for the side cores.
A Falcon Heavy upper stage:
* payload 53,000 kg
* empty mass 3,900 kg
* propellant mass 92,670 kg
* exhaust velocity 3335 m/s
* delta-V 5366 m/s
* orbital velocity 7672 m/s
These numbers don't make sense to me, because they make it look like the upper stage can start at something like 3000 m/s. The system as a whole has too much delta-V and it seems like it ought to put a lot more payload into orbit. Anyway, at 3000 m/s separation it is just possible to get the core to the Florida Keys.
I also recall they only had permission to land a single core at the cape. Of course, this could change, but I think their brace of ASDS is going to have to turn into a small fleet.All they need is an FAA licence to land and a go from the range. The landing is part of the launch licence see: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/media/20151201_FAA_FONSI_for_F9_RTLS_at_LC-1.pdf
GadgetMind is referring to the Environmental Impact Statement that explicitly stated only landing one stage at a time. Presumably they will need to amend this.I also recall they only had permission to land a single core at the cape. Of course, this could change, but I think their brace of ASDS is going to have to turn into a small fleet.All they need is an FAA licence to land and a go from the range. The landing is part of the launch licence see: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/media/20151201_FAA_FONSI_for_F9_RTLS_at_LC-1.pdf
I also recall they only had permission to land a single core at the cape. Of course, this could change, but I think their brace of ASDS is going to have to turn into a small fleet.
I also recall they only had permission to land a single core at the cape. Of course, this could change, but I think their brace of ASDS is going to have to turn into a small fleet.
LZ-1 has five pads, with the intention of being able to bring back all three cores of an FH in certain scenarios, and still having two more in reserve. I imagine the original landing permit was for one core because it was a first attempt and only one core was flying
I also recall they only had permission to land a single core at the cape. Of course, this could change, but I think their brace of ASDS is going to have to turn into a small fleet.
LZ-1 has five pads, with the intention of being able to bring back all three cores of an FH in certain scenarios, and still having two more in reserve. I imagine the original landing permit was for one core because it was a first attempt and only one core was flying
First the FT version of the upper stage is slightly different than the numbers above, with a dry weight above 5t and a prop load around 115t.
That means the core stage can coast all the way to the keys... but only when the orbit points it in exactly the right direction. Yep, I'm thinking ASDS for the core all the time.
Lars, why are all launches out of Texas going to be over the same ground track?
That means the core stage can coast all the way to the keys... but only when the orbit points it in exactly the right direction. Yep, I'm thinking ASDS for the core all the time.
And that is the only direction that they will launch out of Texas - the ground track will always take it close to the keys. It would only need a fairly small burn to aim the stage to the keys.
Lars, why are all launches out of Texas going to be over the same ground track?
Because everything else involves passing over land. You have to aim between the Yucatan Peninsula and Cuba, or Cuba and Florida. The second option gives a lower orbital inclination.
Assume that Elon has directed his team to optimize the company for maximizing reuse with the shortest turnaround time they can manage. Vehicle preference is in the following order regardless of whether it leaves payload capacity unutilized or whether the FH is more expensive in general, you are optimizing for RTLS & getting the returned vehicle refitted for another flight ASAP:
NET DATE VEHICLE (CORE NUMBER) 1S Landing ORBIT PAYLOAD (& CO-PAYLOAD)
04/28/16 Falcon 9 (1) ASDS GTO JCSAT-14 (Replacing JCSAT-2A)
05/10/16 Falcon 9 (2 - New/1st) ASDS GTO Eutelsat 117 West B & Asia Broadcast
05/24/16 Falcon 9 (1 - 2nd) ASDS GTO Thaicom 8
06/10/16 Falcon 9 (2 - 2nd) ASDS GTO AMOS-6
06/24/16 Falcon 9 (1 - 3rd) LEO (Polar) Iridium NEXT (Flight 1)
07/10/16 Falcon 9 (2 - 3rd) SSO (720km) Formosat-5 & Sherpa SSO*
07/24/16 Falcon 9 (1 - 4th) RTLS LEO (ISS) Dragon (CRS 9)
08/10/16 Falcon 9 (2 - 4th) ASDS GTO SES-10
08/24/16 Falcon 9 (1 - 5th) ASDS GTO JCSat-16
09/10/16 Falcon 9 (2 - 5th) LEO (Polar) Iridium NEXT (Flight 2)
----> I'll retire 1 and 2 after 5 flights for teardown and much learning)
09/24/16 Falcon Heavy (3-1st, 4-1st, 5-1st) Falcon Heavy Demo Flight
10/10/16 Falcon 9 (3 - 2nd) CREW Dragon (NASA DEMO 1)
10/24/16 Falcon 9 (4 - 2nd) LEO (ISS) Dragon (CRS 10)
11/10/16 Falcon 9 (5 - 2nd) ASDS GTO SES-11/Echostar 105
11/24/17 Falcon 9 (3 - 3rd) LEO (ISS) Dragon (CRS 11)
12/10/17 Falcon 9 (4 - 3rd) SES-16/GovSat
12/24/17 Falcon 9 (5 - 3rd) SES-14
01/10/17 Falcon 9 (3 - 4th) ASDS GTO Es’hail 2
01/24/17 Falcon 9 (4 - 4th) SSO SAOCOM 1A
02/10/17 Falcon 9 (5 - 4th) LEO (Polar) Iridium (Flight 3)
02/24/17 Falcon 9 (3 - 5th) ASDS GTO EuropaSat / HellasSat 3
----> retire 3
03/10/17 Falcon Heavy (6-1st, 4-5th, 5-5th) GTO Inmarsate-5 F4
----> retire 4 and 5
03/24/17 Falcon Heavy (6-2nd, 7-1st, 8-1st) Arabsat (Arabsat 6A)
04/10/17 Falcon 9 (6 - 3rd) Bigelow Aerospace
04/24/17 Falcon 9 (7 - 2nd) Bulgaria Sat
05/10/17 Falcon 9 (8 - 2nd) (1)CONAE (Argentina)
05/24/17 Falcon 9 (6 - 4th) (2)CONAE (Argentina)
Assume that Elon has directed his team to optimize the company for maximizing reuse with the shortest turnaround time they can manage.
I've been following this thread and a few pages back I saw a bunch of discussion around the flight rate of the FH. The gist of it was that the F9 can cover a lot of the existing market demand if you stretch its abilities and consequently that would cannibalize the possible set of payloads for the FH, resulting in a low flight rate. That got me wondering, what would things look like if you started with a different premise, not how can you stretch the F9 to cover as much of the manifest as possible, but rather what if you optimized for the heaviest possible RTLS/reuse across both vehicles.
I am wondering if I can find any takers to work through the following thought exercise. Here are the assumptions:
Assume that Elon has directed his team to optimize the company for maximizing reuse with the shortest turnaround time they can manage. Vehicle preference is in the following order regardless of whether it leaves payload capacity unutilized or whether the FH is more expensive in general, you are optimizing for RTLS & getting the returned vehicle refitted for another flight ASAP:
F9 RTLS
FH 3 core RTLS
F9 ASDS
FH 2 core RTLS, 1 core ASDS
FH 3 core ASDS
FH 2 core ASDS, 1 expendable
FH 3 core expendable
Assume that the market is mostly indifferent to the price difference between the options and that your manifest is fixed at the following regardless of the cost to the customers: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40049.msg1520510#msg1520510
Assume that the profit margin on any of the above vehicles is acceptable so long as you are maximizing RTLS and rapid reuse.
Finally, assume that there are no technology changes and the rockets remain basically as we understand them to be as of our best information to date. No raptor upper stages or theoretical performance improvements we might speculate on.
The question is, if you optimize for rapid reuse alone, how does this change how much the FH flies and how would the payloads listed get distributed across the vehicle list above?
Any takers on doing the thought exercise?
Assumption: You can strap any three cores together and call it a Falcon Heavy
( bold emphasis in the above quote is mine )Assume that Elon has directed his team to optimize the company for maximizing reuse with the shortest turnaround time they can manage.
SpaceX should optimize profit.
With current market situation, they can gobble up even entire world's launch market by launching about once a week. This does not require absolutely "shortest turnaround time".
Sure, FH RTLS may well end up to be shorter turnaround time than F9 ASDS.
But it uses three cores, increasing chances of losing a core to a landing mishap, and increasing wear of the cores. And more costly: FH does not need only more fuel; it also needs more work.
FH 3 Core RTLS LEO payload: 25t GTO payload: 7t
FH 2 Core RTLS 1 Core ASDS LEO payload: 30t GTO Payload 10t
FH 3 Core ASDS LEO payload 35t GTO Payload 11t
FH 2 Core RTLS 1 Core ExpendableLEO payload 42t GTO Payload 15t
FH 2 Core ASDS 1 Core Expendable LEO payload 45t GTO payload 17t
FH 3 Core Expendable LEO 55t GTO Payload GTO payload 20t
I have a hunch Space X ultimately will not bother with Propellant Crossfeed for Falcon Heavy; by the time the thing is well into operations, Elon will probably be into expending effort on developing the BFRs. Good uprating results for FH could come from a 'mere' upper stage upgrade.
I have a hunch Space X ultimately will not bother with Propellant Crossfeed for Falcon Heavy; by the time the thing is well into operations, Elon will probably be into expending effort on developing the BFRs. Good uprating results for FH could come from a 'mere' upper stage upgrade.
That is a bit of a bold assumption, considering Elon specifically talked about how putting together small gains made huge differences in rocket performance. Having a true asparagus staging solution vs. the throttled-back center stage puts some big numbers on the board, well worth it if it can be done. SpaceX has demonstrated they're willing to work out the technical problems for these gains, and if they get it to work, I very much doubt they'd go back. Even if they don't need it for the payload, it's just that much more fuel to work on landing options for the boosters.
FH 3 Core RTLS LEO payload: 25t GTO payload: 7t
FH 2 Core RTLS 1 Core ASDS LEO payload: 30t GTO Payload 10t
FH 3 Core ASDS LEO payload 35t GTO Payload 11t
FH 2 Core RTLS 1 Core ExpendableLEO payload 42t GTO Payload 15t
FH 2 Core ASDS 1 Core Expendable LEO payload 45t GTO payload 17t
FH 3 Core Expendable LEO 55t GTO Payload GTO payload 20t
Thank you for this table. I've been looking for something like this for a while.
I find it counterintuitive that RTLS, which requires so much more delta-V from the boosters than ASDS (you have 3500 m/s vs 1500 m/s), has such a small payload hit. I suppose it is explained by the incredibly large ratio between delta-V gained by the booster to delta-V lost to the payload by earlier separation.
Would you be willing to expand your table to show all these options with crossfeed vs not? It wasn't clear to me how to use your spreadsheet to get these answers.
The existing very marginal manifest for FH, as well as lack of candidate payloads for FH show it to be diminutive to SpaceX's overall current & future cash flow. If it remains diminutive after FH's first few flights & fails to win launch contracts away from Ariane & Atlas in the +6.5t to GTO category, it would imply that the market doesn't much care for the FH configuration for existing candidate payloads. The large LEO payload capacity of FH seems to be for a completely speculative market yet to materialize.
What then for SpaceX? Sure it cost's them very little to maintain a configuration that is rarely launched, but it also gains them nothing.
It's not that it isn't a good idea, just that the BFR development may well overtake it, and mean F9H crossfeed is unnecessary.It amazes me that people think that the same SpaceX that is struggling to get the FH to the launchpad can somehow magically snap their fingers and conjure up the BFR, a whole new rocket with new engines that is bigger than anything anybody has ever launched before. With new bigger infrastructure, new bigger environmental hurdles...
Who says they're struggling? I think that's not a quantifiable assertion. They've possibly just not prioritized it until F9FT can reliably land.It's not that it isn't a good idea, just that the BFR development may well overtake it, and mean F9H crossfeed is unnecessary.It amazes me that people think that the same SpaceX that is struggling to get the FH to the launchpad can somehow magically snap their fingers and conjure up the BFR, a whole new rocket with new engines that is bigger than anything anybody has ever launched before. With new bigger infrastructure, new bigger environmental hurdles...
Yeah, crossfeed sounds really tough compared to that.
It's not that it isn't a good idea, just that the BFR development may well overtake it, and mean F9H crossfeed is unnecessary.It amazes me that people think that the same SpaceX that is struggling to get the FH to the launchpad can somehow magically snap their fingers and conjure up the BFR, a whole new rocket with new engines that is bigger than anything anybody has ever launched before. With new bigger infrastructure, new bigger environmental hurdles...
Yeah, crossfeed sounds really tough compared to that.
I have a hunch Space X ultimately will not bother with Propellant Crossfeed for Falcon Heavy; by the time the thing is well into operations, Elon will probably be into expending effort on developing the BFRs. Good uprating results for FH could come from a 'mere' upper stage upgrade.
That is a bit of a bold assumption, considering Elon specifically talked about how putting together small gains made huge differences in rocket performance. ...
I think we're all learning the ASDS recovery is less reliable...
...and much more intensive.
For the sake of argument. If you add a Raptor US [210mt prop, 375 vac ISP, 10mt dry weight] then here is the ball park LEO capabilities for the different recovery options that would result for FH: (Note the Raptor US also delivers for each case >10% more DV to account for the lower DV supplied by the 1st stages)
3 RTLS - 42
2 RTLS center ASDS - 50
3 ASDS - 59
2 RTLS center Expended - 70
2 ASDS center Expended - 75
3 Expended - 90
So why spend time developing the crossfeed further when there maybe an easier answer for more performance that also is in the direction of tech for the BFR\MCT.
It's not that it isn't a good idea, just that the BFR development may well overtake it, and mean F9H crossfeed is unnecessary.It amazes me that people think that the same SpaceX that is struggling to get the FH to the launchpad can somehow magically snap their fingers and conjure up the BFR, a whole new rocket with new engines that is bigger than anything anybody has ever launched before. With new bigger infrastructure, new bigger environmental hurdles...
Yeah, crossfeed sounds really tough compared to that.
I think cross feed is an exciting idea and I could see it being developed for one key benefit. Allowing the central core do RTLS vs ASDS.
The fuel requirements and burn times for a central core RTLS will be significant and I think we're all learning the ASDS recovery is less reliable and much more intensive.
It comes down to what is more likely a Raptor US or a FH 1st stage crossfeed configuration?It's not that it isn't a good idea, just that the BFR development may well overtake it, and mean F9H crossfeed is unnecessary.It amazes me that people think that the same SpaceX that is struggling to get the FH to the launchpad can somehow magically snap their fingers and conjure up the BFR, a whole new rocket with new engines that is bigger than anything anybody has ever launched before. With new bigger infrastructure, new bigger environmental hurdles...
Yeah, crossfeed sounds really tough compared to that.
I think cross feed is an exciting idea and I could see it being developed for one key benefit. Allowing the central core do RTLS vs ASDS.
The fuel requirements and burn times for a central core RTLS will be significant and I think we're all learning the ASDS recovery is less reliable and much more intensive.
Wannamoon, doesn't crossfeed make it less likely to do RTLS (vs ASDS), rather than more likely? If I understand crossfeed correctly, they will be powering 6 of the central core's Merlins from the outer tanks during the initial boost phase, which empties the side cores earlier, but leaves nearly a full central core at time of side core separation. Thus the central core is able to burn longer, and staging with S2 is done at a higher velocity, and further downrange - both of which make RTLS harder, not easier.
So why spend time developing the crossfeed further when there maybe an easier answer for more performance that also is in the direction of tech for the BFR\MCT.How is developing an entirely new upper stage with a new fuel and a new engine easier than cross-feed? I honestly don't get this assessment. It's like cross-feed is the most impossible thing ever conceived of by man.
Crossfeed increases the complexity of the booster staging and the three cores plumbing making them no longer common to the F9. Plus there would also be two defineting plumbing version the boosters and center core.I don't think that is necessarily true (lack of commonality). And the boosters and center core are already different, so that doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
I think we're all learning the ASDS recovery is less reliable...
I know SpaceX says they expect to lose a third of ASDS recoveries, but I think that's just sandbagging.
It isn't that ASDS recoveries are unreliable, it's that F9 *itself* has been unreliable.
What it comes down to is that there have been four ASDS failures and one success. However, the failures have been flaws with the rocket and having nothing to do with ASDS bargings themselves.
Running out of hydraulic fluid has been addressed, and with each additional flight they get more statistical data about how much fluid is actually required. A sticky valve shouldn't happen again as SpaceX will know to test for them. A leg failing to lock will be mitigated via a design change or via preventing ice buildup in the critical areas.
Only SES-9 fell under the "everything was fine with the rocket and it still failed" category, except that even then, the rocket was going flat out with every margin carved to the bone and beyond. Lesson learned: 5.3t plus ASDS recovery is beyond F9 v1.2's means, so either F9 gets improved a few more percent until 5.3t is within capability, or SpaceX sells FH 3-RTLS rides to 5.3t sats and above.
The successful landings -- including Jason's ultimate failure, as it did touch down successfully -- have so far shown that when the rocket doesn't suffer some sort of mechanical failure and has sufficient margin, F9 lands on the barge just fine.
If they add sea state at the ASDS to the standard launch contract's list of acceptable launch conditions so the client won't complain if a launch is scrubbed due to 10m swells, and choose the vehicle and recovery options as necessary to ensure sufficient margin for recovery, then ASDS bargings should become as routine as LZ-1 landings....and much more intensive.
Though granted said routine will remain more intensive than LZ-1 landings. ;-)
The proof will be in whether SpaceX prefers to sell F9 ASDS flights or FH 3-RTLS flights for 5t+ sats in the future. I suspect the risk during an ASDS will be minimal and that refurbishing, prepping and fueling a single core while factoring in the additional risk of an ASDS recovery will still be less expensive than the refurb/refuel/prep of a 3-core Falcon Heavy launch campaign, with the inherent risk of more engines and separation events to roll the dice on during flight, even if all three end up landing at LZ-1.
If I'm wrong, then F9 would mostly be used in RTLS mode, and there'll be a lot more FH flights.
The existing very marginal manifest for FH,
as well as lack of candidate payloads for FH show it to be diminutive to SpaceX's overall current & future cash flow. If it remains diminutive after FH's first few flights & fails to win launch contracts away from Ariane & Atlas in the +6.5t to GTO category,
[....]
They are no longer common anyway.It comes down to what is more likely a Raptor US or a FH 1st stage crossfeed configuration?It's not that it isn't a good idea, just that the BFR development may well overtake it, and mean F9H crossfeed is unnecessary.It amazes me that people think that the same SpaceX that is struggling to get the FH to the launchpad can somehow magically snap their fingers and conjure up the BFR, a whole new rocket with new engines that is bigger than anything anybody has ever launched before. With new bigger infrastructure, new bigger environmental hurdles...
Yeah, crossfeed sounds really tough compared to that.
I think cross feed is an exciting idea and I could see it being developed for one key benefit. Allowing the central core do RTLS vs ASDS.
The fuel requirements and burn times for a central core RTLS will be significant and I think we're all learning the ASDS recovery is less reliable and much more intensive.
Wannamoon, doesn't crossfeed make it less likely to do RTLS (vs ASDS), rather than more likely? If I understand crossfeed correctly, they will be powering 6 of the central core's Merlins from the outer tanks during the initial boost phase, which empties the side cores earlier, but leaves nearly a full central core at time of side core separation. Thus the central core is able to burn longer, and staging with S2 is done at a higher velocity, and further downrange - both of which make RTLS harder, not easier.
Crossfeed increases the complexity of the booster staging and the three cores plumbing making them no longer common to the F9. Plus there would also be two defineting plumbing version the boosters and center core.
An Raptor Vac based US requires a Raptor Vac engine which is currently under development with a prototype (test article) to be completed sometime in late 2017. A US design using the Raptor is not a difficult task. But the capability to manufacture a 5m tank may prove the most challenging and biggest hurdle for a Raptor US. Also the FH pad would require additional plumbing for the liquid methane. Such a large US sized for use on the FH would not be suitable for the F9. ...This isn't true. The only reason it could be true is if the stage was under-thrust to serve as a second stage, which is unlikely since it will be Raptor-powered (and Raptor will likely be much more thrust than is strictly needed). A large upper stage would mean a lower staging velocity for the first stage, which is a good thing. At worse, you might cause the first stage to have lower thrust than you'd really like for lift-off, but you could address that by at very least not fully loading the first stage, though the Merlins doubtless have plenty of thrust and could handle a slight tweak to improve thrust even further.
It's not that it isn't a good idea, just that the BFR development may well overtake it, and mean F9H crossfeed is unnecessary.It amazes me that people think that the same SpaceX that is struggling to get the FH to the launchpad can somehow magically snap their fingers and conjure up the BFR, a whole new rocket with new engines that is bigger than anything anybody has ever launched before. With new bigger infrastructure, new bigger environmental hurdles...
Yeah, crossfeed sounds really tough compared to that.
It amazes me that people don't read posts accurately.That's pretty hilarious, because you clearly misread my post. I don't believe there is any chance of what you wrote happening. (With the exception that if crossfeed never happens, BFR would clearly "overtake" it if and when it happens).
How wide would a Raptor upper stage be for Falcon 9 or FH? Would about 5 meters be a good guess to match their largest payload fairing?
Methane is not that big a problem. Natural gas can be piped in then liquefied. The same type equipment, valves, etc, are in the same category as LOX, since they are about the same temperature, unlike liquid hydrogen. I hope they can get a Raptor upper stage developed soon after the Raptor upper stage engine in 2017. This will be another milestone for SpaceX, before BFR and MCT.Methane and natural gas aren't the same thing. Even if the engines could tolerate some ethane, I'd assume the ratio would have to be constant, which doesn't always happen with public gas supplies. Natural gas can also have some propane, butane and pentane in the mix.
Methane is not that big a problem. Natural gas can be piped in then liquefied. The same type equipment, valves, etc, are in the same category as LOX, since they are about the same temperature, unlike liquid hydrogen. I hope they can get a Raptor upper stage developed soon after the Raptor upper stage engine in 2017. This will be another milestone for SpaceX, before BFR and MCT.Methane and natural gas aren't the same thing. Even if the engines could tolerate some ethane, I'd assume the ratio would have to be constant, which doesn't always happen with public gas supplies. Natural gas can also have some propane, butane and pentane in the mix.
So why spend time developing the crossfeed further when there maybe an easier answer for more performance that also is in the direction of tech for the BFR\MCT.How is developing an entirely new upper stage with a new fuel and a new engine easier than cross-feed? I honestly don't get this assessment. It's like cross-feed is the most impossible thing ever conceived of by man.
I can agree it is "in the direction of BFR"... sort of... in the sense that the fuel and engine are presumably the same. However the upper stage itself would still be new.
What am I missing?
It amazes me that people don't read posts accurately.That's pretty hilarious, because you clearly misread my post. I don't believe there is any chance of what you wrote happening. (With the exception that if crossfeed never happens, BFR would clearly "overtake" it if and when it happens).
No I didn't misread your post. If you read my post, I never said it was going to happen either, just that there is chance that it might before crossfeed is needed.There. Is. No. Chance. Zero percent. Nada. Not going to happen. That is what I am saying. I am saying that "may" happen is wrong. I did not misread what you wrote, I disagree with it.
I suspect crossfeed will never happen though, as the F9HFT won't need it for current generation payloads, and they will get droneship landing sorted out.Well, that is certainly possible. We need to see FH even fly before crossfeed is a consideration. There may never be a payload that needs crossfeed. I am not convinced it will ever happen either. But if it does happen (if there is a need), it will happen before BFR, no doubt about it.
I think also when you liquefy it, the other gases will evaporate or be so diluted that it really wouldn't matter.
I think also when you liquefy it, the other gases will evaporate or be so diluted that it really wouldn't matter.
Regarding crossfeed. How about "top-feed"? Mount a LOX tank on top of one side booster of FH, and a RP-1 tank on top of the another. Pipe them to the corresponding tanks of the core booster. Pump these propellants into core booster during 1st stage flight.
Hydrostatic pressure during 1st stage flight should be helping a lot with pumping.
Side boosters need no modifications if they are the same as stock F9 1st stage. They are already designed to carry some weight on top.
I was thinking nitrogen and CO2 might not liquefy at methane temps. Also, ethane will burn, so only about 2% will not burn. It isn't perfect 100%, but trying to get out the 2% might not be cost effective. I worked in the natural gas pipeline industry for 39 years. At "city gate" stations is where they put in the odorant which is about 1%. Straight pipeline gas is not odorized. I'm sure there is a main pipeline going down the east Florida coast that can be tapped for natural gas. We also liquefied it and stored it in summer for release in winter. Most of the natural gas infrastructure is in place, so obtaining it and storing it isn't that big a problem. We stored it in giant "thermos" tanks that had an inside storage tank and 3' away was the outside wall. A vacuum was pulled between the two to keep the gas liquid and maintained. We also had equipment to re-liquefy boil-off.
I was thinking nitrogen and CO2 might not liquefy at methane temps. Also, ethane will burn, so only about 2% will not burn. It isn't perfect 100%, but trying to get out the 2% might not be cost effective. I worked in the natural gas pipeline industry for 39 years. At "city gate" stations is where they put in the odorant which is about 1%. Straight pipeline gas is not odorized. I'm sure there is a main pipeline going down the east Florida coast that can be tapped for natural gas. We also liquefied it and stored it in summer for release in winter. Most of the natural gas infrastructure is in place, so obtaining it and storing it isn't that big a problem. We stored it in giant "thermos" tanks that had an inside storage tank and 3' away was the outside wall. A vacuum was pulled between the two to keep the gas liquid and maintained. We also had equipment to re-liquefy boil-off.
So I have redone the table and made a graphic of it so that it can retain formatting. Scenarios with all the cores returned have no shading, centre core expendables are yellow, all core expendables are red.
CO2 is normally heavy, methane is about 0.6 specific gravity. Does it still float frozen?
In a large tank of LNG, to get pure methane, they should be able to just pump from the middle of the tank. We had LNG tanks that were about 100-150' in diameter and about 75-100' tall. Very little if any water should be in the natural gas. Water and ethane can be drained off the pipeline with drip traps before making liquid. There are large drip traps and strainers usually at every city gate station. even small amounts of water or liquid ethane can cause problems in natural gas equipment sometimes, so drips are installed. Water can put out pilot lights. There may be very small amounts of butane and propane also, they also are strained out using drip traps. Seems like CO2 would be the only major problem, and as you said nitrogen could easily be vented at the top of a large tank. Also if the LNG sits in the large storage tank for a while, the CO2 if it floats would either go to the top, and if not, the bottom. Thus pumping it off the middle when fueling the rockets.
But SpaceX may want to make Raptor not so picky about exactly what it's running on as ISRU methane is likely to have contaminants of various sorts too.
Like everyone said, with a metholox Raptor based upper stage, cross-feed might not be needed for a long time, UNLESS SLS is cancelled like someone said and NASA helps fund the cost of cross-feed and pays SpaceX for an expendable 90 ton launch if and when 90 tons will be needed. 40, maybe 50 tons with a fully re-useable FH Raptor based upper stage can get a lot of things into orbit. That is twice the existing single rocket capabilities. We just need to get FH launched, hopefully late this year.If SLS did get cancelled, then I think there would be a reason to consider a 'Falcon Four Core'. Two reasons: It would allow the volume for either a two merlin second stage or a single engine methane powered version. Also it would allow a larger (likely elliptical) payload fairing. Looks like 27 x 18 would be possible. The middle 'dual core' would launch and land as one unit, so launch operations would not be doubled in complexity.
That's not to say you wouldn't want to use the best performing mixture when launching from Earth, because why not? You have the industrial base to get the mixture just the way you want it.... just that you should be able to run, somewhat degraded, on less precise mixtures when launching from Mars. As discussed in many threads before, it's actually not such a hard problem given the much lower gravity losses and lower launch weight since you're returning partly unladen.But SpaceX may want to make Raptor not so picky about exactly what it's running on as ISRU methane is likely to have contaminants of various sorts too.
Good point.
Um, you do realize that with the sentence I bolded, you two are in violent agreement? That's what /I/ find fake-hilarious.It amazes me that people don't read posts accurately.That's pretty hilarious, because you clearly misread my post. I don't believe there is any chance of what you wrote happening. (With the exception that if crossfeed never happens, BFR would clearly "overtake" it if and when it happens).
Regarding crossfeed. How about "top-feed"? Mount a LOX tank on top of one side booster of FH, and a RP-1 tank on top of the another. Pipe them to the corresponding tanks of the core booster. Pump these propellants into core booster during 1st stage flight.
Hydrostatic pressure during 1st stage flight should be helping a lot with pumping.
Side boosters need no modifications if they are the same as stock F9 1st stage. They are already designed to carry some weight on top.
Different densities, and the engines use the two liquids at different rates, so one side would be heavier than the other.
I don't think that would be a fixable problem.
Regarding crossfeed. How about "top-feed"? Mount a LOX tank on top of one side booster of FH, and a RP-1 tank on top of the another. Pipe them to the corresponding tanks of the core booster. Pump these propellants into core booster during 1st stage flight.
Hydrostatic pressure during 1st stage flight should be helping a lot with pumping.
Side boosters need no modifications if they are the same as stock F9 1st stage. They are already designed to carry some weight on top.
1. FH does not require precisely matched masses of the side boosters, the system must be able to tolerate some imbalance even now.
2. Let's say we have 40 ton "top-feed" LOX tank and 20 ton RP-1 one. For ~450 ton side boosters, the difference in weight of 20 tons is less than 5% difference in thrust, whereas losing one Merlin-1 would be a 11% difference.
I am far from being able to do a detailed assessment which of these three variants is better. :/
Adding more prop for the center 1st stage is counter reuse. Make the US bigger. Go to a dual M1DVac and 5.2m diameter tank with 2x the prop in the US would result in a tremendous improvement and also decreases the recovery reuse problems for the 3 cores. Basically a 30-50% payload gain.
Adding more prop for the center 1st stage is counter reuse. Make the US bigger. Go to a dual M1DVac and 5.2m diameter tank with 2x the prop in the US would result in a tremendous improvement and also decreases the recovery reuse problems for the 3 cores. Basically a 30-50% payload gain.
Few months ago now. At the time she said new numbers in a few days, which is really weird.Agreed. So are these numbers not being released because they aren't sure? That would seem...odd at this stage in development. Or is there a political reason for not extolling its true capabilities. Or have they not been able to squeeze the kinds of performance out yet while still integrating reuse. Perhaps the data they are getting back from various return profiles are allowing them to dial in those additional %1 -%2 efficiencies that Elon mentioned.
Adding more prop for the center 1st stage is counter reuse. Make the US bigger. Go to a dual M1DVac and 5.2m diameter tank with 2x the prop in the US would result in a tremendous improvement and also decreases the recovery reuse problems for the 3 cores. Basically a 30-50% payload gain.
Agree with the bigger S2 and letting all three cores burn as much as possible before jettison for I presume RTLS? You are essentially bypassing the conundrum of all this crossfeed, topfeed, DPL vs. RTLS trade off by putting the boost energy of all three cores into the larger S2. Each core is pretty much equal in terms of is propellant mass it can dedicate to re-use maneuvers.
Will you also then need shorter/lighter S1 cores to accommodate the increase in S2 mass? Basically I'm curious how/when you would want to size the three boosters for engine cutoff & staging, which affects the re-use landing choices and payload capabilities.
I'm curious if we have actual performance numbers yet? I know we've made any number of very informed assumptions but has SpaceX officially listed it's LEO & GEO performance numbers yet? Gwynne mentioned this was coming weeks ago but I haven't noticed any official listings. Did I miss that? (looking for official SpaceX numbers here)
Adding more prop for the center 1st stage is counter reuse. Make the US bigger. Go to a dual M1DVac and 5.2m diameter tank with 2x the prop in the US would result in a tremendous improvement and also decreases the recovery reuse problems for the 3 cores. Basically a 30-50% payload gain.
Adding more prop for the center 1st stage is counter reuse. Make the US bigger. Go to a dual M1DVac and 5.2m diameter tank with 2x the prop in the US would result in a tremendous improvement and also decreases the recovery reuse problems for the 3 cores. Basically a 30-50% payload gain.
Agree with the bigger S2 and letting all three cores burn as much as possible before jettison for I presume RTLS? You are essentially bypassing the conundrum of all this crossfeed, topfeed, DPL vs. RTLS trade off by putting the boost energy of all three cores into the larger S2. Each core is pretty much equal in terms of is propellant mass it can dedicate to re-use maneuvers.
Will you also then need shorter/lighter S1 cores to accommodate the increase in S2 mass? Basically I'm curious how/when you would want to size the three boosters for engine cutoff & staging, which affects the re-use landing choices and payload capabilities.
Falcon Heavy has a plenty of excess of thrust at liftoff, because the boosters are designed to each lift a 120t+ of upper stage/prop load/payload. Even with 220t of upper stage and prop, plus 90t of payload, Falcon Heavy would still have a better T/W at liftoff than Falcon 9 does... so why re-engineer the S1s?
Regarding crossfeed. How about "top-feed"? Mount a LOX tank on top of one side booster of FH, and a RP-1 tank on top of the another. Pipe them to the corresponding tanks of the core booster. Pump these propellants into core booster during 1st stage flight.
Hydrostatic pressure during 1st stage flight should be helping a lot with pumping.
Side boosters need no modifications if they are the same as stock F9 1st stage. They are already designed to carry some weight on top.
....Doubt it. More likely throttle-down of opposite-side Merlins.
2. 5% is a big difference. If one merlin is lost, then the other booster will shutdown a merlin
....Doubt it. More likely throttle-down of opposite-side Merlins.
2. 5% is a big difference. If one merlin is lost, then the other booster will shutdown a merlin
You are incorrect. All F9 engines throttle down near the end of the stage-one burn (though they would not throttle-down so much if an engine were lost), so all Merlin engines are capable of significant throttling (remember that v1.0 shut down 2 engines early to achieve the same effect). You misunderstood the (L2?) source, who was referring to the highly responsive throttling of the center engine.....Doubt it. More likely throttle-down of opposite-side Merlins.
2. 5% is a big difference. If one merlin is lost, then the other booster will shutdown a merlin
Perhaps, but as told by some SpaceX employees, not all engines have the same throttling valve hardware installed. So unless they are designated as landing engines, they may not be able to throttle as precisely - or at all.
That's not to say you wouldn't want to use the best performing mixture when launching from Earth, because why not? You have the industrial base to get the mixture just the way you want it.... just that you should be able to run, somewhat degraded, on less precise mixtures when launching from Mars. As discussed in many threads before, it's actually not such a hard problem given the much lower gravity losses and lower launch weight since you're returning partly unladen.But SpaceX may want to make Raptor not so picky about exactly what it's running on as ISRU methane is likely to have contaminants of various sorts too.
Good point.
I don't think the Raptor will burn 100% methane. I know liquid propane will dissolve an interesting amount of hydrogen. I'm pretty sure liquid methane will too. The bump in ISP is easy to get without a big change in vapor pressure at a given temperature, so they'll take it.
If anything, they might actually saturate the methane with hydrogen, as it self-pressurizes better than straight methane. In flight, they just inject a little hot propellant back into the tank for pressurization. The methane condenses out, the hydrogen bubbles to the top and provides pressurization, and they save the weight of an insulated pipe to the top of the fuel tank.
Hydrogen at 100 Kelvin is half the weight of methane at 400 Kelvin. That alone saves 120+ kg in a F9-equivalent first stage fuel ullage space near burnout, something like 0.5% of empty weight.
ISTM that many payloads will be well within the capabilities of FH.
It's possible they may spend the extra for pure methane on payloads with little margin, but slap cheaper fuel in there for payloads that are just a little beyond F9.
Sounds like the sort of cost optimisation they might move to once recovery and reuse have become routine.
Cheers, Martin
A little self control. Back to closer to the present. What is the future for FH in the next 2-3 years?Two points: you're making the implicit assumption they haven't already started on the Raptor upper stage, that they're starting flat-footed right now. If they plan to build a Raptor upper stage, then they probably have already started. The stage could be ready by 2018, by the time Raptor is finished with development. Second, I cannot imagine SpaceX investing so much in a new upper stage unless it is reusable, and likely Raptor-based. Dual-Merlin upper stage would reduce Isp, too. I also distrust the notion that Merlin 1DVac is under-thrust for a Falcon Heavy upper stage. It's already higher thrust than any upper stage I'm familiar with.
A Raptor based US would be about 4 years out (2020) but a M1DVac dual engine 5.2m US could be done in as little as 2 years from now (2018).
...
Yes the problem is that we have little insight into which way SpaceX will go in the next 3 years. The only indications is the Raptor contract and the BFR/MCT statements. So yes I think if they make a larger stage it would likely be a Raptor stage. But that also requires pad mods. And there has been no hint of any pad mod work (more visible than stage design work) starting. A MIDVac 5.2m stage would require little if any pad mods. The basic item is that regardless of engine when you double the prop amount in the US on FH you also nearly double the payload amount. A MIDVac 5.2m (230mt prop) stage could achieve a max full expendable of 90mt to LEO. FH has a lot of room for payload growth.A little self control. Back to closer to the present. What is the future for FH in the next 2-3 years?Two points: you're making the implicit assumption they haven't already started on the Raptor upper stage, that they're starting flat-footed right now. If they plan to build a Raptor upper stage, then they probably have already started. The stage could be ready by 2018, by the time Raptor is finished with development. Second, I cannot imagine SpaceX investing so much in a new upper stage unless it is reusable, and likely Raptor-based. Dual-Merlin upper stage would reduce Isp, too. I also distrust the notion that Merlin 1DVac is under-thrust for a Falcon Heavy upper stage. It's already higher thrust than any upper stage I'm familiar with.
A Raptor based US would be about 4 years out (2020) but a M1DVac dual engine 5.2m US could be done in as little as 2 years from now (2018).
...
Additionally, there is no hint anywhere of a dual-Merlin upper, but the Air Force contract explicitly states that Raptor is for a Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy upper stage.
So I have redone the table and made a graphic of it so that it can retain formatting. Scenarios with all the cores returned have no shading, centre core expendables are yellow, all core expendables are red.
Just wondering, are there any things we might look for on the pad 39A rework in the coming months that would definatively indicate that SpaceX was indeed planning ahead for a 5.2m Raptor US?A separate tank farm from the other two.
Just wondering, are there any things we might look for on the pad 39A rework in the coming months that would definatively indicate that SpaceX was indeed planning ahead for a 5.2m Raptor US?A separate tank farm from the other two.
Yes but it is probably to early for that. Question for me is, is there space between the core and the TE to allow for a stage to go there? Everything else can be added without major modifications that would affect launches.
Silly example - new rocket factories adjacent to waterways don't go up overnight.
If they start to whip out pad mods for a Raptor US before 2019, I'll for 6 months, include a "I was wrong about Raptor US!!!" at the bottom of every post I make thereafter.
Yes but it is probably to early for that. Question for me is, is there space between the core and the TE to allow for a stage to go there? Everything else can be added without major modifications that would affect launches.
I would imagine that they would build a new transporter/erector for stages that have Raptor/methane upper stages since there would need to be different fuel lines and connections for methane upper stages versus the current RP-1 upper stages. At that time they could also have a new design that accommodates a larger diameter upper stage (assuming they create a larger diameter upper stage).
In flight, they just inject a little hot propellant back into the tank for pressurization. The methane condenses out, the hydrogen bubbles to the top and provides pressurization, and they save the weight of an insulated pipe to the top of the fuel tank.
Saturate with hydrogen? Maybe. Hot propellant backfeed into the tank? I'm dubious. I think the autogenous pressurization will be done a different way. Injecting hot combustion product gases seems dangerous.
I guarantee you my fellow NSFers that the only thing you will see for the next couple of years going on at their pads is the Falcon as currently configured launching everything it can get its claws on...
I guarantee you my fellow NSFers that the only thing you will see for the next couple of years going on at their pads is the Falcon as currently configured launching everything it can get its claws on...
I agree, specifically because between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, as currently configured, they can take care of the vast majority of payloads they need to stay busy. SpaceX would only make a upper stage change to capture new business that, for whatever reason, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy can't satisfy at their current prices and capabilities today - and I'm not sure such a significant customer demand for such exists.
It wouldn't really be a test of the heavy if you fire them sequentially. Test like you fly, fly like you test is the mantraI'm in general agreement with the sentiment, but can you be more specific? What precisely would be different? Can't be stresses on the stages and transfer of forces because they are held down. That information has to come from McGregor. All engines would be tested and all ground support equipment. I'm just asking whether a hypothetical two minute interval between firings would make a difference? Upside would be if the first one fails or there is a GSE problem (like a stuck valve, say) you don't need to fire the other two (or one) until the issue is resolved. Possibly allowing up to a day in between? The readiness review could be done in stages, relieving the surge in staff needed if all three were done simultaneously.
weepingdragon, they have already said they could launch 53 tons into LEO with Falcon Heavy based on the 1.1 configuration. The Falcon 9 vs 1.2 alone can launch about 20 tons to LEO. Someone has figured on another thread that F9 could do about 28 tons alone with a 5.2 methane upper stage.Per astronautixs.com there is almost 2 feet in between the falcon heavy core and each booster. Maybe an external support frame could be placed in that position to help support the payload. Or maybe even long thin pressurized tanks that would hopefully provide the propellants to compensate for their own weight.
I'm not a rocket scientist, so maybe someone could let us know if the structure of the first stage of FH could handle not only the fuel load but a 90 ton payload that was figured. I would like to know also.
Adding more prop for the center 1st stage is counter reuse. Make the US bigger.
I don't think the Raptor will burn 100% methane. I know liquid propane will dissolve an interesting amount of hydrogen. I'm pretty sure liquid methane will too. The bump in ISP is easy to get without a big change in vapor pressure at a given temperature, so they'll take it.
I don't think the Raptor will burn 100% methane. I know liquid propane will dissolve an interesting amount of hydrogen. I'm pretty sure liquid methane will too. The bump in ISP is easy to get without a big change in vapor pressure at a given temperature, so they'll take it.
How would this work with the use of the Raptor on Mars? Perhaps the Raptor is designed to work with either methane or hydrogen-infused methane; there are slightly different Raptors on the BFR and BFS; or it is envisaged that hydrogen-infused methane can be produced on Mars? The last would require a source of hydrogen on Mars, because otherwise the effective additional propellant that the carbon in methane supplies outweighs the greater ISP of hydrogen.
I guarantee you my fellow NSFers that the only thing you will see for the next couple of years going on at their pads is the Falcon as currently configured launching everything it can get its claws on...
I agree, specifically because between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, as currently configured, they can take care of the vast majority of payloads they need to stay busy. SpaceX would only make a upper stage change to capture new business that, for whatever reason, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy can't satisfy at their current prices and capabilities today - and I'm not sure such a significant customer demand for such exists.
This has been discussed previously, but to save you and me from searching: the solubility of hydrogen in subcooled methane is on the order of 5e-4 mole fraction (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680020605.pdf) which is an entirely uninteresting amount :)
Fluorine cannot be considered [as a pressurant gas] because it is far too reactive.
The experiment was continued by gently swirling the LNG by hand.
OK we are a little more than six months from the demo flight. I don't believe the payload has been revealed yet. I simply can not believe that the demo flight would just carry a mass simulator. It is too much of an investment and opportunity for just throwing some mass.
A year or two ago there were rumors as to a BEO mission for the demo flight. I would have hoped that details of the first flight would have been shared by SpaceX when revealing the updated performance numbers for the FH which is now over due.
Does anyone know when the payload will be announced and know what it is? If not, anyone care to speculate as to the payload and mission?
It might be a Dragon. The US and fairing are the same as on F9. There's not really a need to test those items; it's the core and booster concept that they need to demonstrate. A used Dragon would make a good reusable 'mass simulator' if they don't have a payload.
Has anyone ever noted the capabilities on the SpaceX website for the falcon heavy? It says 6.4 Mt at the price but 21200 kg at the performance column (while it says the same in both columns for falcon 9).
I am wondering if this is the payload penalty that comes with 3 core recovery. Could this just be a mistake, or a relic from the expendable time period? At one time they had a price of 135 M $ for a Falcon Heavy on that page.
Edit: Feel free to remove if already discussed
I can't help but wonder if Bigalow might be willing to risk volunteering a "boiler plate" load for the initial Heavy flight. He risks losing hardware but might get his first module up for cheap, or maybe free.Didn't he just say that falcon's fairing isn't big enough?
Passion aside, we'll only see traction here when they can keep the tempo of F9 launch ops up. If you have erratic scheduling of one booster, three has got to be a lot harder to corral.
And there's been no tests, no fit checks, we've yet to see a hotfire on 39A. Not to mention all the in between "tweaks" following landing success/failures.
The reason you don't see FH is likely that too much in the way of sideshows are distracting from what you need to bring that off. Especially you want it to become boringly regular on F9 launches before you try that trick next.
The key is that they could now serve all existing customers with FULLY reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. A Raptor stage would almost certainly be designed to be reusable (something which is harder than first stage reuse and will likely require several tries before they succeed, just like with first stage recovery... and better try and fail at recovery at the Falcon 9 upper stage scale than at the BFS scale! And better get started on it right away, otherwise they won't have enough "lessons learned" to effectively design BFS).I guarantee you my fellow NSFers that the only thing you will see for the next couple of years going on at their pads is the Falcon as currently configured launching everything it can get its claws on...
I agree, specifically because between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, as currently configured, they can take care of the vast majority of payloads they need to stay busy. SpaceX would only make a upper stage change to capture new business that, for whatever reason, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy can't satisfy at their current prices and capabilities today - and I'm not sure such a significant customer demand for such exists.
SpaceX's schedule is not getting any less aggressive. In addition to solving all of Falcon Heavy's hiccups, they have to finish Raptor and start sending robotic equipment to Mars as well as proving all the big technologies needed for MCT. They can't merely spend the next 2 years flying out their current manifest.
SpaceX's schedule is not getting any less aggressive. In addition to solving all of Falcon Heavy's hiccups, they have to finish Raptor and start sending robotic equipment to Mars as well as proving all the big technologies needed for MCT. They can't merely spend the next 2 years flying out their current manifest.
They can't "merely" but they do need to up the launch rate so some subset of the company needs to be working on just that. Promising to increase the rate only works for a while, after a while you have to actually increase it... (and they ARE on an improvement curve but that's a big manifest to fly out.)
SpaceX would only make a upper stage change to capture new business that, for whatever reason, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy can't satisfy at their current prices and capabilities today - and I'm not sure such a significant customer demand for such exists.
Further, they need to increase revenue by delivering the manifest to orbit.
Regarding the Mars fantasies, those aren't even getting off center until there is a big juicy flow of profits. They can't stay being a startup burning money forever.
The FH will book big revenue and profits and help make this possible.
I'll just caution about falling into the cult of personality. Yes, Elon is the driving force---but he's smart enough to surround himself with other brilliant folk who share his goals.
At the present point in time, the USAF has provided a way for Musk to get supplemental government funding for his Mars engine, and he's smart enough to start working on it sooner rather than later by making it a part of Falcon now, so that it's ready to be part of MCT a few more years down the road....when I'm fairly certain the USAF contract is due to Gwynne. Would Elon chase these contracts without her? Who knows---but a decent amount of the stuff attributed to "Musk" in Tom's post is not Elon's doing at all. Write "SpaceX", not "Musk", unless you are sure it is the man himself doing it.
They can't "merely" but they do need to up the launch rate so some subset of the company needs to be working on just that. Promising to increase the rate only works for a while, after a while you have to actually increase it... (and they ARE on an improvement curve but that's a big manifest to fly out.)Further, they need to increase revenue by delivering the manifest to orbit.
Regarding the Mars fantasies, those aren't even getting off center until there is a big juicy flow of profits. They can't stay being a startup burning money forever.
I don't think FH will be bypassed, Dorkmo, it seems too close to fruition for that. However I too noted that heavy sigh he let out when he started talking about FH. He didn't sound at all confident about it.
I don't think FH will be bypassed, Dorkmo, it seems too close to fruition for that. However I too noted that heavy sigh he let out when he started talking about FH. He didn't sound at all confident about it.
A Falcon 9 v1.2 with a metholox Raptor upper stage expendable can get about 28 tons to orbit, and about 20 tons for RTLS. This may make the lower throw weight heavies obsolete. Even sending an 8 ton payload to LEO, with say an 8-10 ton SEP propulsion system attached, that can get the 8 ton payload to GSO, there would be no need for Falcon heavy except for deep space payloads.
Depends on what they throw their money into.
A Falcon 9 v1.2 with a metholox Raptor upper stage expendable can get about 28 tons to orbit, and about 20 tons for RTLS. This may make the lower throw weight heavies obsolete. Even sending an 8 ton payload to LEO, with say an 8-10 ton SEP propulsion system attached, that can get the 8 ton payload to GSO, there would be no need for Falcon heavy except for deep space payloads.
Depends on what they throw their money into.
The answer re. FH is here:Vindication! :)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40165.0
So much for focusing mainly on F9 launch manifest.
Just noticed on SpaceX's Facebook page... Image of FH doing its thing, a Red Dragon on Mars and talk of Dragons (plural!) headed Mars-wards as early as 2018. Even with MuskTime that's something special!See
The answer re. FH is here:Vindication! :)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40165.0
So much for focusing mainly on F9 launch manifest.
FH was the best solution to give SpaceX heavy lift in 2011. It's no longer the most efficient one if they believe they have the capability to skip straight to a raptor architecture
sometimes reality is just a bit more boring and straight-forward. FH needs to do one thing and one thing only. Have a successful test flight where it places an appropriate (Faring enshrouded) payload, dummy or otherwise into the appropriate orbit.
Regarding the Mars fantasies, those aren't even getting off center until there is a big juicy flow of profits.
The question is, is this contract for work on a Raptor for use on an US one of those pieces of evidence that is about to hit us in the face?
I'm joining the party late, had a busy day.IF this render is indeed accurate, I can better understand, along with everything else we talk about why this beast has not come out from its lair yet.
There's more detail on FH in that rendering:
- The different legs on the center core
- The grid fins being located higher
- more?
The grin fin location seems to interact with that cross beam. Can't tell it it's driven by it - it could also be evidence of some change in the side core length.
The leg clearance... Why? Is it because the center core is heavier? Is it the hotter reentry? The cross-structure at the bottom? Sea-worthy landing gear vs. Land-worthy landing gear?
Are we discussing them elsewhere?
That post of mine was specifically in reference to them using a Dragon for their "first" test flight this fall. This Red Dragon will not be on their first test flight.FH was the best solution to give SpaceX heavy lift in 2011. It's no longer the most efficient one if they believe they have the capability to skip straight to a raptor architecturesometimes reality is just a bit more boring and straight-forward. FH needs to do one thing and one thing only. Have a successful test flight where it places an appropriate (Faring enshrouded) payload, dummy or otherwise into the appropriate orbit.The question is, is this contract for work on a Raptor for use on an US one of those pieces of evidence that is about to hit us in the face?
As the song goes........."Oh...what....a dif-frence..a.day..makes!!"
I....don't like to see folks writing stuff like:At the present point in time, the USAF has provided a way for Musk to get supplemental government funding for his Mars engine, and he's smart enough to start working on it sooner rather than later by making it a part of Falcon now, so that it's ready to be part of MCT a few more years down the road....when I'm fairly certain the USAF contract is due to Gwynne. Would Elon chase these contracts without her? Who knows---but a decent amount of the stuff attributed to "Musk" in Tom's post is not Elon's doing at all.
Musk..inspires.... there's a reason he's called the real life Tony Stark, after all.. He inspires his cadre of brilliant associates who design the things, sell the launches, deliver operational excellence, etc. But he *also* inspires those check writing billionaires. There is a good chance (at least 10%) that perfect storm of reality bending he's created will last until the Mars liners are flying regularly. Maybe not, but it's the way I'm betting.
Lar (and other recent posts here) touch on something that seems obvious to me: Elon is both different but then again not different from many of us who post here......I want to see him succeed. At any point along the way it may fracture and fall apart, but as long as it doesn't he is making progress in a way no one else can.
to quote Tennyson:
Come, my friends,
’Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
It is not Musk forcing us to do this, it is those romantic enough to see that Musk is the practical embodiment of what needs to be done to allow it that would force ourselves to go along.
<snip>To quote Sheridan, from a note left by Sinclair, quoting Tennyson:
So, to quote Tennyson:
Come, my friends,
’Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
<snip>
A Falcon 9 v1.2 with a metholox Raptor upper stage expendable can get about 28 tons to orbit, and about 20 tons for RTLS. This may make the lower throw weight heavies obsolete. Even sending an 8 ton payload to LEO, with say an 8-10 ton SEP propulsion system attached, that can get the 8 ton payload to GSO, there would be no need for Falcon heavy except for deep space payloads.
Depends on what they throw their money into.
As the song goes........."Oh...what....a dif-frence..a.day..makes!!"
As the song goes........."Oh...what....a dif-frence..a.day..makes!!"
Yup! Nothing like finding your attempt to measure your extreme optimism into realism actually turned out as deludedly pessimistic. Within several hours of posting. ;D
On the topic of the rendering...Ok, but the flip argument:
This is not a technical model. If you look closely, the details are cobbled together from assets. The center legs are identical to the original F9R-Dev1 legs. Does this mean that they have discovered something and are going back to old versions? Probably not. Take a look at the nosecone in the model, and take a really good look at the physical nosecones we have seen on the factory floor. The real ones have a straight barrel section before the curve to accommodate the grid fins and thrusters. Take a look at the grid fins themselves on this model. They still have the old aeroshells which have since been ditched.
The pojnt is, I don't think we can glean any new info from this model. Its simply PR material.
Ok, but the flip argument:
What would posses a graphics artist to use different legs for just the middle core?
Or to both raise and shift sideways (with a twist) the grid fins?
This is a bit like the F9.1 picture of (what was it?) 2-3 years ago, where people were speculating that the new engine arrangement was just inaccuracies by a graphics designer....
Oh, or the covered up FSS and L/E
None of this explains why the GA made more work for themselves instead of simple patterning 3 in a row...Ok, but the flip argument:
What would posses a graphics artist to use different legs for just the middle core?
Or to both raise and shift sideways (with a twist) the grid fins?
This is a bit like the F9.1 picture of (what was it?) 2-3 years ago, where people were speculating that the new engine arrangement was just inaccuracies by a graphics designer....
Oh, or the covered up FSS and L/E
Having made graphics for corporate clients, two main factors come into play
1. Unfamiliarity with technical details
2. Staff turnover
Given SpaceX's employment practices, I'd suspect the latter.
Also, go back and look through SpaceX's flickr page. Old renderings with wrong legs on a single stick as well... It's just lazy mixing of assets, nothing more, evidenced by the repourposed grasshopper model as a lightning tower...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/21048044876/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/20886182720/in/photostream/
Falcon Heavy has been built; finishing touches are being put on. Wait a couple months, you'll see tests.
None of this explains why the GA made more work for themselves instead of simple patterning 3 in a row...
And what "employment practices"? Are on the "SpaceX is a sweatshop" thing?
The engine arraignment pic wasn't a PR photo, it was from some customer document
If they had shown three identical cores, for example, I'd say yes - lazy graphics designer, copy paste, etc.The engine arraignment pic wasn't a PR photo, it was from some customer document
And it was pretty obvious it wasn't a rendering made for PR purposes like this, but more of a schematic of the vehicle. I'd put the accuracy of details in this rendering in the same category as the black legs and the SpaceX decal size.
That post of mine was specifically in reference to them using a Dragon for their "first" test flight this fall. This Red Dragon will not be on their first test flight.FH was the best solution to give SpaceX heavy lift in 2011. It's no longer the most efficient one if they believe they have the capability to skip straight to a raptor architecturesometimes reality is just a bit more boring and straight-forward. FH needs to do one thing and one thing only. Have a successful test flight where it places an appropriate (Faring enshrouded) payload, dummy or otherwise into the appropriate orbit.The question is, is this contract for work on a Raptor for use on an US one of those pieces of evidence that is about to hit us in the face?
As the song goes........."Oh...what....a dif-frence..a.day..makes!!"
That post of mine was specifically in reference to them using a Dragon for their "first" test flight this fall. This Red Dragon will not be on their first test flight.FH was the best solution to give SpaceX heavy lift in 2011. It's no longer the most efficient one if they believe they have the capability to skip straight to a raptor architecturesometimes reality is just a bit more boring and straight-forward. FH needs to do one thing and one thing only. Have a successful test flight where it places an appropriate (Faring enshrouded) payload, dummy or otherwise into the appropriate orbit.The question is, is this contract for work on a Raptor for use on an US one of those pieces of evidence that is about to hit us in the face?
As the song goes........."Oh...what....a dif-frence..a.day..makes!!"
I would say this announcement makes it much more likely that the test flight will be throwing a Dragon around the moon. testing BEO Dragon, deep space comms, hot re-entry.
by the time the FH first flies, they'll have a little over a year before the real deal.
According to the Falcon9 User Guide, the payload adapter can only hold 10885 kg (Section 3.3). Dragon 2 plus fuel plus payload plus trunk plus trunk equipment in the trunk should be heavier.
The user guide states that for heavier payloads, the communication with SpaceX is required, which should not be a problem in this case. What I want to say, its not that simple even if Dragon would fit inside.
They would not need a lot of payload and they would not need to have it fully fuelled. They don't have to do orbit change, only course corrections, assuming it is in a free return trajectory.
Edit: I am not thinking of a Red Dragon. I am thinking of a possible cargo Dragon for a moon flyby on the maiden voyage of Falcon Heavy and using a payload fairing additionally just to make it a valid qualification flight for DOD certification, not because it might be needed.
I'm still voting for putting a school bus in lunar orbit. With a wheel of cheese in it.
In all seriousness, they don't have flight ready Dragon 2s yet and putting a CRS-1 Dragon around the moon wouldn't prove much. Would be great to land a Dragon 2 on the moon, that would prove a point, but they don't have one. They need the fairing for USAF cert anyway. That is a real business requirement. I'm sure they'll have some real satellites aboard, but they'll be riding on a giant concrete block.
I'm still voting for putting a school bus in lunar orbit. With a wheel of cheese in it.
In all seriousness, they don't have flight ready Dragon 2s yet and putting a CRS-1 Dragon around the moon wouldn't prove much. Would be great to land a Dragon 2 on the moon, that would prove a point, but they don't have one. They need the fairing for USAF cert anyway. That is a real business requirement. I'm sure they'll have some real satellites aboard, but they'll be riding on a giant concrete block.
It would test the TPS of the Dragon. It would generate press if they did loft a Dragonv1 in a lunar free return trajectory.
That post of mine was specifically in reference to them using a Dragon for their "first" test flight this fall. This Red Dragon will not be on their first test flight.FH was the best solution to give SpaceX heavy lift in 2011. It's no longer the most efficient one if they believe they have the capability to skip straight to a raptor architecturesometimes reality is just a bit more boring and straight-forward. FH needs to do one thing and one thing only. Have a successful test flight where it places an appropriate (Faring enshrouded) payload, dummy or otherwise into the appropriate orbit.The question is, is this contract for work on a Raptor for use on an US one of those pieces of evidence that is about to hit us in the face?
As the song goes........."Oh...what....a dif-frence..a.day..makes!!"
I would say this announcement makes it much more likely that the test flight will be throwing a Dragon around the moon. testing BEO Dragon, deep space comms, hot re-entry.
by the time the FH first flies, they'll have a little over a year before the real deal.
That post of mine was specifically in reference to them using a Dragon for their "first" test flight this fall. This Red Dragon will not be on their first test flight.FH was the best solution to give SpaceX heavy lift in 2011. It's no longer the most efficient one if they believe they have the capability to skip straight to a raptor architecturesometimes reality is just a bit more boring and straight-forward. FH needs to do one thing and one thing only. Have a successful test flight where it places an appropriate (Faring enshrouded) payload, dummy or otherwise into the appropriate orbit.The question is, is this contract for work on a Raptor for use on an US one of those pieces of evidence that is about to hit us in the face?
As the song goes........."Oh...what....a dif-frence..a.day..makes!!"
I would say this announcement makes it much more likely that the test flight will be throwing a Dragon around the moon. testing BEO Dragon, deep space comms, hot re-entry.
by the time the FH first flies, they'll have a little over a year before the real deal.
Why use a Dragon when they have a perfectly good Dragon V2 they can kit for the moon or Mars....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Pm8ZY0XJI
That post of mine was specifically in reference to them using a Dragon for their "first" test flight this fall. This Red Dragon will not be on their first test flight.FH was the best solution to give SpaceX heavy lift in 2011. It's no longer the most efficient one if they believe they have the capability to skip straight to a raptor architecturesometimes reality is just a bit more boring and straight-forward. FH needs to do one thing and one thing only. Have a successful test flight where it places an appropriate (Faring enshrouded) payload, dummy or otherwise into the appropriate orbit.The question is, is this contract for work on a Raptor for use on an US one of those pieces of evidence that is about to hit us in the face?
As the song goes........."Oh...what....a dif-frence..a.day..makes!!"
I would say this announcement makes it much more likely that the test flight will be throwing a Dragon around the moon. testing BEO Dragon, deep space comms, hot re-entry.
by the time the FH first flies, they'll have a little over a year before the real deal.
Why use a Dragon when they have a perfectly good Dragon V2 they can kit for the moon or Mars....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Pm8ZY0XJI
That is not even close to a flight article. It is a dragon 1 with part rearranged to include the SD thrusters. The windows are reflective metal.
Why use a Dragon when they have a perfectly good Dragon V2 they can kit for the moon or Mars....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Pm8ZY0XJI
That is not even close to a flight article. It is a dragon 1 with parts rearranged to include the SD thrusters. The windows are reflective metal.
SpaceX calls it a Dragon 2, please indicate how you claim to state otherwise?
It is an engineering test article built up from a Dragon 1 pressure vessel. it isthe samelike the ones they used for drop and abort testing testing earlier in the regime. It is no more a flight article than Enterprise was. If they want a full up D2 that is flight worthy they'd have to build one, and the design isn't even fully complete yet.
*EDIT: It does seem that which vehicle this is has not been confirmed. (well, there's this: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36967.msg1438350#msg1438350). It is clear though that the windows are metallic just as they were on the abort test vehicle (http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/05/04/5-things-know-about-spacexs-pad-abort-test), so that indicates that this is not a finished Dragon 2. Plus there is the rub of the design not yet being done.
That post of mine was specifically in reference to them using a Dragon for their "first" test flight this fall. This Red Dragon will not be on their first test flight.FH was the best solution to give SpaceX heavy lift in 2011. It's no longer the most efficient one if they believe they have the capability to skip straight to a raptor architecturesometimes reality is just a bit more boring and straight-forward. FH needs to do one thing and one thing only. Have a successful test flight where it places an appropriate (Faring enshrouded) payload, dummy or otherwise into the appropriate orbit.The question is, is this contract for work on a Raptor for use on an US one of those pieces of evidence that is about to hit us in the face?
As the song goes........."Oh...what....a dif-frence..a.day..makes!!"
I would say this announcement makes it much more likely that the test flight will be throwing a Dragon around the moon. testing BEO Dragon, deep space comms, hot re-entry.
by the time the FH first flies, they'll have a little over a year before the real deal.
Why use a Dragon when they have a perfectly good Dragon V2 they can kit for the moon or Mars....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Pm8ZY0XJI
That is not even close to a flight article. It is a dragon 1 with part rearranged to include the SD thrusters. The windows are reflective metal.
SpaceX calls it a Dragon 2, please indicate how you claim to state otherwise?
It is an engineering test article built up from a Dragon 1 pressure vessel. it is the same one they used for drop testing testing earlier in the regime (and the abort test?). It is no more a flight article then enterprise was. If they want a full up D2 that is flight worthy they'd have to build one, and the design isn't even fully complete yet.
they just publicly set themselves a hard deadline, can't miss that one unless you're happy with waiting two years.
the clock is running. tick tock.
it seems highly unlikely to me that SpaceX would be dumb enough to throw a collection of untested hardware at Mars. they have a big habit of using other missions to do tests of their 'background projects'. FH test launch is currently a large write-off cost, particularly since they can't seem to find anyone willing to put their expensive satellite on it.
build a Dragon 2, or use the test article. they're testing pica-x (if the test article doesn't have 'Dragon 2' pica, change it). they're testing BEO comms, radiation protection, solar panels, long distance command and control. none of those need it to be a 'perfect' dragon 2, particularly when Red Dragon is clearly going to be a 'modified' version in various ways - all the BEO stuff will be new for starters. so what does it matter if it's installed in a modified dragon, or a brand new dragon 2?
more important is whether they need to demonstrate with the fairing or not, and if they do, whether they can fit a dragon inside the fairing.
oh, we should probably add the rumors of a larger fairing to that recipe...
It is no more a flight article thean Eenterprise was
I'm still voting for putting a school bus in lunar orbit.
https://youtu.be/kVtI_j-QUq8I'm still voting for putting a school bus in lunar orbit.
Imagine the STEM inspiration!
Danny S. Parker @dannysparker 6h6 hours ago
@elonmusk For 1st launch of Falcon Hvy will there be effort to simultaneously land all 3 booster stages? #FalconHeavy
Elon MuskVerified account
@elonmusk
@dannysparker yes
The SpaceX FH web page has been updated with new performance values:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
13,600 kg to Mars
22,200 kg to GTO
54,400 kg to LEO
Just missing the Moon value. Should be somewhere between the Mars and GTO and higher than the earlier 18,000 kg value for 1.1 since these are > than those for Mars and GTO.
The SpaceX FH web page has been updated with new performance values:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
13,600 kg to Mars
22,200 kg to GTO
54,400 kg to LEO
Just missing the Moon value. Should be somewhere between the Mars and GTO and higher than the earlier 18,000 kg value for 1.1 since these are > than those for Mars and GTO.
I'm still voting for putting a school bus in lunar orbit. With a wheel of cheese in it.
The SpaceX FH web page has been updated with new performance values:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
13,600 kg to Mars
22,200 kg to GTO
54,400 kg to LEO
Just missing the Moon value. Should be somewhere between the Mars and GTO and higher than the earlier 18,000 kg value for 1.1 since these are > than those for Mars and GTO.
2,900 kg to Pluto
Looks like SpaceX is now soliciting for beyond-Mars missions as well...
2,900 kg to Pluto
Looks like SpaceX is now soliciting for beyond-Mars missions as well...
That's really big with no gravity assists.
Disagree, the quoted website sayshttp://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
54,400 kg to LEO
[buff fingernails against lapel]And presumably without cross feed ... http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.msg1521480#msg1521480 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.msg1521480#msg1521480) [/buff fingernails against lapel]
For missions involving exceptionally heavy payloads—greater than 45,000 kilograms or 100,000 pounds—Falcon Heavy offers a unique cross-feed propellant system.And 54,400 is more than 45,000. I therefore suppose that the other maxima also are with crossfeed. Furthermore Gwynne Shotwell has said that crossfeed is not yet developed, but may be if there is demand for it, so the numbers on this page are quite theoretical.
The SpaceX FH web page has been updated with new performance values:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
13,600 kg to Mars
22,200 kg to GTO
54,400 kg to LEO
Just missing the Moon value. Should be somewhere between the Mars and GTO and higher than the earlier 18,000 kg value for 1.1 since these are > than those for Mars and GTO.
The SpaceX FH web page has been updated with new performance values:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
13,600 kg to Mars
22,200 kg to GTO
54,400 kg to LEO
Just missing the Moon value. Should be somewhere between the Mars and GTO and higher than the earlier 18,000 kg value for 1.1 since these are > than those for Mars and GTO.
There's something else interesting about that page. Maybe it's been there for a while and discussed previously; if so I apologize for not finding it. As expected, the text under "FIRST STAGE" tells us "27 Merlin engines, generate 20,418 kilonewtons (4.59 million pounds) of thrust at liftoff" which fits in with the known Merlin 1D thrust as well as the "about 1.5 million pounds" generally thrown around for the current Falcon 9 at liftoff.
Then comes the interesting (or incorrect) part. Right after that some stats are given:
CORES
3
ENGINES
27
THRUST AT SEA LEVEL
22,819kN 5,130,000 lbf
THRUST IN VACUUM
24,897kN 5,548,500 lbf
Some quick division yields 190,000 lbf per engine at sea level and 205,500 in vacuum (not far short of Mvac 1D). Could this be right? It doesn't seem like a typo as both figures yield nice, round numbers per engine. Yet it's also quite a bit more than the current known thrust level (and that promised for Falcon Heavy just a few lines up.)
Thoughts? Are they planning (yet) another bump to 1D performance? Is this a website designer who had a few drinks at lunch? Either way, seems kind of interesting.
Some quick division yields 190,000 lbf per engine at sea level and 205,500 in vacuum (not far short of Mvac 1D). Could this be right? It doesn't seem like a typo as both figures yield nice, round numbers per engine. Yet it's also quite a bit more than the current known thrust level (and that promised for Falcon Heavy just a few lines up.)
Thoughts? Are they planning (yet) another bump to 1D performance? Is this a website designer who had a few drinks at lunch? Either way, seems kind of interesting.
as I posted here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39180.280
Based on updated F9 1st stage Thrust at sea level and Thrust In Vacuum:
Merlin 1D+ thrust at sea level: 190 000lbf
Merlin 1D+ thrust in vacuum: 205 500lbf
So, if engines weight didnt change (1,030 lb), its trust-to-weight ratio is now 199.5 :o 8)
All performance numbers published in this update are quite shocking - I didnt think they can increase Merlin 1D+ performance that much.
Why would you even assume that the engine mass didn't change? Improvements rarely come for free.
How can the Falcon 9 numbers keep increasing (by more than 100% at this point) but FH numbers have stayed the same since 2011?
Why would you even assume that the engine mass didn't change? Improvements rarely come for free.
IIRC, engine weight didnt change (or very little) between Merlin 1C and 1D
How can the Falcon 9 numbers keep increasing (by more than 100% at this point) but FH numbers have stayed the same since 2011?
The SpaceX FH web page has been updated with new performance values:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
13,600 kg to Mars
22,200 kg to GTO
54,400 kg to LEO
Just missing the Moon value. Should be somewhere between the Mars and GTO and higher than the earlier 18,000 kg value for 1.1 since these are > than those for Mars and GTO.
2,900 kg to Pluto
Looks like SpaceX is now soliciting for beyond-Mars missions as well...
How can the Falcon 9 numbers keep increasing (by more than 100% at this point) but FH numbers have stayed the same since 2011?Probably because FH not flown yet. They consistently sand bagged the F9, I imagine they'll do the same with the FH. I also think they may be reluctant to expend the FH cores.
The pricing/capabilities page also lists F9 as 28,800kg to LEO.13,150kg; 28,991lb.
This is inconsistent with FH at 54,400... so, one number is wrong or they are comparing apples to oranges.
My guess is the 54 tonnes is disposable with cross-feed. I want to know what she will do with Raptor-US.
And the tables are copied from old graphics without being updated.
Probably because FH not flown yet. They consistently sand bagged the F9, I imagine they'll do the same with the FH. I also think they may be reluctant to expend the FH cores.
My guess is the 54 tonnes is disposable with cross-feed. I want to know what she will do with Raptor-US.
And the tables are copied from old graphics without being updated.
That would be my guess as well. It makes the most sense given the information we have.Probably because FH not flown yet. They consistently sand bagged the F9, I imagine they'll do the same with the FH. I also think they may be reluctant to expend the FH cores.
Is there any evidence that SpaceX intentionally mislead people about the F9 performance numbers? Why would they do that? There is no reason to do so.
Is there any evidence that SpaceX intentionally mislead people about the F9 performance numbers? Why would they do that? There is no reason to do so.
Some important tweets:Quote@elonmusk wrote: Just posted latest max payload capabilities of Falcon 9 and Heavy https://t.co/Z45Y5V7G91Quote@mattyteare Basically current, but higher throttle setting. Good performance of recent launches allows us to reduce 3 sigma reserve margin. http://twitter.com/statuses/726559284306173952Quote@elonmusk Max performance numbers are for expendable launches. Subtract 30% to 40% for reusable booster payload. http://twitter.com/statuses/726559990480150528Quote@lukealization No physical changes to the engine. This thrust increase is based on delta qual tests. It is just tougher than we thought. http://twitter.com/statuses/726560848177561600Quote@lukealization No cross feed. It would help performance, but is not needed for these numbers. http://twitter.com/statuses/726561442636263425
So WITH cross-feed, FH would probably beat SLS Block I in payload to LEO?
How can the Falcon 9 numbers keep increasing (by more than 100% at this point) but FH numbers have stayed the same since 2011?Probably because FH not flown yet. They consistently sand bagged the F9, I imagine they'll do the same with the FH. I also think they may be reluctant to expend the FH cores.
So WITH cross-feed, FH would probably beat SLS Block I in payload to LEO?
Good Lord....eye watering for no crossfeed.
Crossfeed was to add 20-30% performance increase or for this incantation would result in a 65-70mt performance.So WITH cross-feed, FH would probably beat SLS Block I in payload to LEO?
No idea. But imagine what it's going to do with raptor upper stage.
Payloads that size wouldn't just pop up in a few months.
Crossfeed was to add 20-30% performance increase or for this incantation would result in a 65-70mt performance.So WITH cross-feed, FH would probably beat SLS Block I in payload to LEO?
No idea. But imagine what it's going to do with raptor upper stage.
...I don't see it as misleading. I see it as conservative, allowing initial missions to be well within the capabilities. Raise the numbers as you get confidence based on flight experience. But that was a total shot in the dark with regard to FH numbers. I'm probably wrong, but did not intend to imply any sort of misinformation campaign.Probably because FH not flown yet. They consistently sand bagged the F9, I imagine they'll do the same with the FH. I also think they may be reluctant to expend the FH cores.
Is there any evidence that SpaceX intentionally mislead people about the F9 performance numbers? Why would they do that? There is no reason to do so.
So WITH cross-feed, FH would probably beat SLS Block I in payload to LEO?
Maybe SLS is sandbagged.
I'm a little lost. Falcon 9 at 5.5T GTO and Falcon Heavy at 6.4T GTO doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Even if the F9 was expendable and FH was 3 cores RTLS, almost half again the cost and three times as much vehicle for a 16% increase in payload doesn't seem like a great selling point. There's way too much missing out of those figures.I believe not all the values have been changed on the pages. The 6.4T value is a small print value under the price value. Both may change in the near future.
I'm a little lost. Falcon 9 at 5.5T GTO and Falcon Heavy at 6.4T GTO doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Even if the F9 was expendable and FH was 3 cores RTLS, almost half again the cost and three times as much vehicle for a 16% increase in payload doesn't seem like a great selling point. There's way too much missing out of those figures.I believe not all the values have been changed on the pages. The 6.4T value is a small print value under the price value. Both may change in the near future.
I'm a little lost. Falcon 9 at 5.5T GTO and Falcon Heavy at 6.4T GTO doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Even if the F9 was expendable and FH was 3 cores RTLS, almost half again the cost and three times as much vehicle for a 16% increase in payload doesn't seem like a great selling point. There's way too much missing out of those figures.Now updated to 8mt for FH
The implication is that these are both the figures if you have a trajectory that allows booster recovery, along with some margin. For Falcon 9, probably a barging. For Falcon Heavy, probably RTLS landing for all the cores, given how much lower it is than the 22 tons GTO for expendable.I'm a little lost. Falcon 9 at 5.5T GTO and Falcon Heavy at 6.4T GTO doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Even if the F9 was expendable and FH was 3 cores RTLS, almost half again the cost and three times as much vehicle for a 16% increase in payload doesn't seem like a great selling point. There's way too much missing out of those figures.Now updated to 8mt for FH
Now if we could just get clarification on 5.5 mT/8.0 mT vs (8300 kg/22200 kg).I'm a little lost. Falcon 9 at 5.5T GTO and Falcon Heavy at 6.4T GTO doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Even if the F9 was expendable and FH was 3 cores RTLS, almost half again the cost and three times as much vehicle for a 16% increase in payload doesn't seem like a great selling point. There's way too much missing out of those figures.Now updated to 8mt for FH
So WITH cross-feed, FH would probably beat SLS Block I in payload to LEO?
Maybe SLS is sandbagged.
It might be -- we'll know soon enough. :)
Regarding people not believing these numbers:
Falcon 9/H upper stage is supposed to have an full:empty mass ratio of 107:4 (the 4 tons dry is estimated, that's aggressive but it could be even less). Isp is 348s for Merlin 1D Vac (impressive).
https://www.google.com/?#q=348*9.80665*ln(107/4) (https://www.google.com/?#q=348*9.80665*ln(107/4)) = 11.2km/s
vs the D4H upper stage, which has much worse Isp:
https://www.google.com/?#q=462*9.80665*ln((30710)/(3490) (https://www.google.com/?#q=462*9.80665*ln((30710)/(3490)) = 9.85km/s.
(in both cases, that's for no payload, just the stage)
And realize that the SpaceX upper stage will have a much higher thrust/weight ratio over the length of the burn, so lower gravity losses (and/or a better Oberth effect).
Isp isn't everything.
So if FH gets 22,200kg to GTO, and 13,600kg to Mars, does anyone have a semi approximate number for Trans-Lunar injection?
Disagree, the quoted website sayshttp://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy)
54,400 kg to LEO
[buff fingernails against lapel]And presumably without cross feed ... http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.msg1521480#msg1521480 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.msg1521480#msg1521480) [/buff fingernails against lapel]QuoteFor missions involving exceptionally heavy payloads—greater than 45,000 kilograms or 100,000 pounds—Falcon Heavy offers a unique cross-feed propellant system.And 54,400 is more than 45,000. I therefore suppose that the other maxima also are with crossfeed. Furthermore Gwynne Shotwell has said that crossfeed is not yet developed, but may be if there is demand for it, so the numbers on this page are quite theoretical.
Luke @lukealization 4 minutes ago
@elonmusk Does FH expendable performance include crossfeed? Crossfeed is generally off the table correct? Rather difficult to implement...
Elon Musk @elonmusk 37 seconds ago
@lukealization No cross feed. It would help performance, but is not needed for these numbers.
With these new numbers for Heavy, a few questions come to mind.
<snip>
* And last but not least, a fully expendable FH with maximum payload would cost around...? Much less than Delta 4H I guess? :)
With these new numbers for Heavy, a few questions come to mind.
<snip>
* And last but not least, a fully expendable FH with maximum payload would cost around...? Much less than Delta 4H I guess? :)
The webpage formerly showed $135M for FH... since other bottom line prices remained stable with the latest increases in payload, probably can use that number as an estimate. Webpage also advertises FH as one third the DH price, so around $400M. ULA is saying DH is heading for $1B with retirement of DIVM in near future; I cannot locate the reference, but innumerable statements to the effect that Delta is not cost competitive with Falcon.
So yes, much less.
convince science projects to build multiple copies of their payload and all of a sudden two copies and two launches if the first one doesn't work is still way less than DIVH... that cuts into assurance claims as motivators, ULA needs Vulcan to stay competitive. Right now, they're OK since FH hasn't launched but they can't count on that staying that way for long.
With these new numbers for Heavy, a few questions come to mind.
<snip>
* And last but not least, a fully expendable FH with maximum payload would cost around...? Much less than Delta 4H I guess? :)
The webpage formerly showed $135M for FH... since other bottom line prices remained stable with the latest increases in payload, probably can use that number as an estimate. Webpage also advertises FH as one third the DH price, so around $400M. ULA is saying DH is heading for $1B with retirement of DIVM in near future; I cannot locate the reference, but innumerable statements to the effect that Delta is not cost competitive with Falcon.
So yes, much less.
$1,000,000,000 per DIVH launch?
Oh my 😳
How do you even make a rocket that expensive?
How do you even make a rocket that expensive?
How do you even make a rocket that expensive?I've half a mind that it wouldn't really be that expensive, and this is posturing from ULA... you could have flown the Shuttle twice for that expense.
How do you even make a rocket that expensive?I've half a mind that it wouldn't really be that expensive, and this is posturing from ULA... you could have flown the Shuttle twice for that expense.
With these new numbers for Heavy, a few questions come to mind.
<snip>
* And last but not least, a fully expendable FH with maximum payload would cost around...? Much less than Delta 4H I guess? :)
The webpage formerly showed $135M for FH... since other bottom line prices remained stable with the latest increases in payload, probably can use that number as an estimate. Webpage also advertises FH as one third the DH price, so around $400M. ULA is saying DH is heading for $1B with retirement of DIVM in near future; I cannot locate the reference, but innumerable statements to the effect that Delta is not cost competitive with Falcon.
So yes, much less.
$1,000,000,000 per DIVH launch?
Oh my 😳
If true, that might explain why they're retiring DIVM.
The shuttle flew four times a year. The Delta IV heavy flies once every two years. The marginal cost of flying a D4H is likely not even close to 1B, but the cost of maintaining the entire Delta infrastructure for launches this infrequent certainly could add up to that.When you consider the enormous size of the Shuttle infrastructure and workforce, I still don't think it adds up. I certainly can't back that up with data, of course, so I will leave it at that.
Slightly OT but no more so than the Delta IV:
If the Falcon Heavy demo involved boosting a dragon on a lunar free return orbit, could useful course corrections be done without super Dracos? Are there any published figures for the ordinary Dracos' abilities? SpaceX seem happy to publish their launchers' abilities.
Superdracos are not useful for anything but abort and landing. Isp is too low and thrust is too high plus you have those big cosine losses. Just use the regular Dracos, they're quite efficient.
Why does this come up so often?
Slightly OT but no more so than the Delta IV:
If the Falcon Heavy demo involved boosting a dragon on a lunar free return orbit, could useful course corrections be done without super Dracos? Are there any published figures for the ordinary Dracos' abilities? SpaceX seem happy to publish their launchers' abilities.
Edit: the wiki article says 18 thrusters of 400 Newtons but nothing about how much stored propellant/seconds of operation.
Edit 2: wiki says the Apollo service module had an oversized 91KN engine. It also talks about hypergolic propellant being stored in two 40cm diameter tanks. I make that roughly 35 litres each. Which doesn't sound like much.
An online log of Apollo 11 talks of a 3 second course correction burn.
Slightly OT but no more so than the Delta IV:
If the Falcon Heavy demo involved boosting a dragon on a lunar free return orbit, could useful course corrections be done without super Dracos? Are there any published figures for the ordinary Dracos' abilities? SpaceX seem happy to publish their launchers' abilities.
Edit: the wiki article says 18 thrusters of 400 Newtons but nothing about how much stored propellant/seconds of operation.
Edit 2: wiki says the Apollo service module had an oversized 91KN engine. It also talks about hypergolic propellant being stored in two 40cm diameter tanks. I make that roughly 35 litres each. Which doesn't sound like much.
An online log of Apollo 11 talks of a 3 second course correction burn.
“There have been a number of customers interested in flying on that (mission),” Shotwell said in an interview with Spaceflight Now. “We’re trying to balance, does it make sense for this to just be our mission, so we own it completely?”
She said SpaceX will make the first Falcon Heavy launch “useful” by proving its capabilities to future customers, such as heaving a hefty payload to geostationary transfer orbit, the targeted drop-off orbit for communications satellites heading for stations 22,300 miles (nearly 36,000 kilometers) over the equator.
“Regardless of whether we fly a customer or a purely demonstration mission, we’ll make that mission useful, whether it’s to demonstrate something for a GTO (geostationary transfer orbit) capability for our commercial customers, or whether it’s to demonstrate some requirement for national security space,” Shotwell said.
Also, could they use previously flown Falcon 9's to assemble a Falcon Heavy demo flight? This would save money since these cores were already paid for? Just refurbishment and refueling costs.
Draco and SuperDraco use the same type of fuel, and I think but I'm not certain they draw from the same propellant tanks. So the best thruster to use in deep space would be the one with higher Isp (SuperDraco has 235s, don't know how much Draco has), and lower thrust for more precision.
Also, could they use previously flown Falcon 9's to assemble a Falcon Heavy demo flight? This would save money since these cores were already paid for? Just refurbishment and refueling costs.
There are some small tweaks between a F9 core and a FH side booster, but a F9 could be adapted to a side booster. The core on the other hand has some significant differences because it needs to handle additional forces on either side and increased loads on top from the heavier payload. It likely will not be worth it to convert an F9 core to a FH center booster.
Could the Super Dracos on Dragon II be used to slow down before hitting earths atmosphere on a free return from the moon thus not needing a heavier heat shield and just use parachutes and land in the ocean?
I know there are what 8 Super Draco's on a Dragon II spacecraft. What if they only fired 4 to slow down from 25,000 mph coming from the moon to 17,000 mph normal orbital velocity to get into say an orbit, then fired them to come in at the normal orbital speed. There wouldn't be enough fuel for landing with Dracos but with parachutes like Apollo. If they are going to carry the SD's for LEM purposes and never needed. That stored fuel could be used to slow down at least to orbital speed before coming home.
I know there are what 8 Super Draco's on a Dragon II spacecraft. What if they only fired 4 to slow down from 25,000 mph coming from the moon to 17,000 mph normal orbital velocity to get into say an orbit, then fired them to come in at the normal orbital speed.
I know there are what 8 Super Draco's on a Dragon II spacecraft. What if they only fired 4 to slow down from 25,000 mph coming from the moon to 17,000 mph normal orbital velocity to get into say an orbit, then fired them to come in at the normal orbital speed. There wouldn't be enough fuel for landing with Dracos but with parachutes like Apollo. If they are going to carry the SD's for LEM purposes and never needed. That stored fuel could be used to slow down at least to orbital speed before coming home.
I know there are what 8 Super Draco's on a Dragon II spacecraft. What if they only fired 4 to slow down from 25,000 mph coming from the moon to 17,000 mph normal orbital velocity to get into say an orbit, then fired them to come in at the normal orbital speed. There wouldn't be enough fuel for landing with Dracos but with parachutes like Apollo. If they are going to carry the SD's for LEM purposes and never needed. That stored fuel could be used to slow down at least to orbital speed before coming home.There isn't enough fuel in the Dragon to slow down that much. It's far simpler and takes up much less weight just to thicken the heat shield enough to handle the higher re-entry velocity.
I know there are what 8 Super Draco's on a Dragon II spacecraft. What if they only fired 4 to slow down from 25,000 mph coming from the moon to 17,000 mph normal orbital velocity to get into say an orbit, then fired them to come in at the normal orbital speed. There wouldn't be enough fuel for landing with Dracos but with parachutes like Apollo. If they are going to carry the SD's for LEM purposes and never needed. That stored fuel could be used to slow down at least to orbital speed before coming home.
Here's an article from SpaceFlight Now regarding possibility of a commercial payload during the first demonstration flight:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/)
Here's an article from SpaceFlight Now regarding possibility of a commercial payload during the first demonstration flight:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/)
Shotwell said one of the booster cores destined to fly on the first Falcon Heavy launch is already under construction at SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California.
Here's an article from SpaceFlight Now regarding possibility of a commercial payload during the first demonstration flight:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/)
Here's an article from SpaceFlight Now regarding possibility of a commercial payload during the first demonstration flight:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/)
Here is another interesting bit of news from that article.QuoteShotwell said one of the booster cores destined to fly on the first Falcon Heavy launch is already under construction at SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California.
The launch preparations in Florida will culminate with a hold-down firing of all 27 first stage engines, the first time SpaceX will analyze how the engines operate in unison, according to Shotwell.
People were discussing this. The current guess is: they will test single sticks one after another in McGregor but the final integration and static fire of FH will happen in Florida. One of the reasons: no sign of triple core hold-down hardware at McGregor.
People were discussing this. The current guess is: they will test single sticks one after another in McGregor but the final integration and static fire of FH will happen in Florida. One of the reasons: no sign of triple core hold-down hardware at McGregor.
People were discussing this. The current guess is: they will test single sticks one after another in McGregor but the final integration and static fire of FH will happen in Florida. One of the reasons: no sign of triple core hold-down hardware at McGregor.
Spacex Kremlinology question: does this imply anything long term about how FH fits (or doesn't) into the current ecosystem of Hawthorne-build, Mcgregor-test, FL/Vandy-launch?
I imagine that this must have been suggested and discussed before, but my google-fu is not strong enough to find any mention of it, so:
Seeing as FH has a launch T:W of about 1.6:1, would it not be advantageous to lose some engines off the centre core? If you dropped to e.g. five engines you may gain more performance through reduced mass than you lose in higher gravity losses. Then there is the saving of the cost of four engines, offset against the production issues of having 'different' cores (surely it is cheaper to build a core with five engines than nine though?).
As i say I assume this has been discussed before but I would be interested in seeing the outcome of that.
People were discussing this. The current guess is: they will test single sticks one after another in McGregor but the final integration and static fire of FH will happen in Florida. One of the reasons: no sign of triple core hold-down hardware at McGregor.
Spacex Kremlinology question: does this imply anything long term about how FH fits (or doesn't) into the current ecosystem of Hawthorne-build, Mcgregor-test, FL/Vandy-launch?
I imagine that this must have been suggested and discussed before, but my google-fu is not strong enough to find any mention of it, so:
Seeing as FH has a launch T:W of about 1.6:1, would it not be advantageous to lose some engines off the centre core? If you dropped to e.g. five engines you may gain more performance through reduced mass than you lose in higher gravity losses. Then there is the saving of the cost of four engines, offset against the production issues of having 'different' cores (surely it is cheaper to build a core with five engines than nine though?).
As i say I assume this has been discussed before but I would be interested in seeing the outcome of that.
Yes but with a T:W of 1.6 FH isn't exactly clawing its way off the pad. Isn't Antares at something like 1.1?
I was hoping that somebody with a bit more knowledge and time than me had run the numbers on it as it is obviusly a tradeoff.
Off the top of my head, would need individual weight of the Merlin engines, empty core weight, weight of fuel, an isp profile for the engines, drag coefficients for the individual boosters as well as the core and payload, structural integrity limits...I'd love an excuse to dust off my dynamics texts but I think we're too soft on a lot of these numbers to build a real meaningful answer. That isn't to say I couldn't plug in numbers, but small deviations in the above could generate radically different answers on whether or not an idea is feasible. You'd get an answer, but it would probably be meaningless.
Having 2500 less kg on the central core is not going to give you more than a 30m/s advantage on the central core in expendable mode, with the lightest payload and it drops a bit from there.
I ignore drag and structural limits, and in this problem solving instance I think it is irrelevant because you are reducing thrust and speed through the air
I ignore drag and structural limits, and in this problem solving instance I think it is irrelevant because you are reducing thrust and speed through the air
True enough, was thinking more along the lines of a complete simulation. My only caveat would be the possibility of the falcon throttling down around max-q due to structural limits, which would favor the reduced-engine profile slightly. If it never throttles down, I would agree with you 100%.
Having 2500 less kg on the central core is not going to give you more than a 30m/s advantage on the central core in expendable mode, with the lightest payload and it drops a bit from there.
Is there a central thread somewhere for known figures on vehicle masses? I seem to have self nerd-sniped.
edit: thank you, now just need S2 weight. Might be crawling through wikipedia for a bit.
Actually on my FH spreadsheet (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34077.msg1500227#msg1500227) (see the other posts that one links to) I presume it throttles down 24 seconds in (actually not throttling down, but shutting down 2 of the 9 centre core engines to start fuel conservation, it is well below maxQ speeds at that point. Oh and for the record I don't presume the gravity turn starts until 26 seconds in.
Honestly I need to play with the assumptions for the initial boost phase given the latest thrust numbers, but I haven't yet.
We were told that the partially built test stand had been abandoned, for now.
Also, that the reason to not test a triple core at McGregor is that it would have to be disassembled for transportation then reassembled and retested at the launch site.
Yay, numbers! Thank you. I noticed you used the SL Isp down the line, is there any good way to refine that? I'm thinking linearization against atmospheric density but I don't know the specifics on how atmosphere/pressure/(velocity?) affect Isp.
Well, note that they're already doing all the inspection/test/validation/refurb work for the recovered cores at the Cape. So they must have already built up their test stand/equipment/engineer infrastructure at the Cape. Testing/validating FH would presumably build on those resources.People were discussing this. The current guess is: they will test single sticks one after another in McGregor but the final integration and static fire of FH will happen in Florida. One of the reasons: no sign of triple core hold-down hardware at McGregor.
Spacex Kremlinology question: does this imply anything long term about how FH fits (or doesn't) into the current ecosystem of Hawthorne-build, Mcgregor-test, FL/Vandy-launch?
There is speculation that MCT might be built/tested/flown all at the Cape.
I'm not endorsing that theory, just reporting it. As the rest of my post argues, you don't need to believe in MCT at the Cape in order to expect continuing migration of test/validation/refurb work from McGregor to the Cape.There is speculation that MCT might be built/tested/flown all at the Cape.
There is no way SpaceX would do that unless the range is ready to support daily flights.
Well, note that they're already doing all the inspection/test/validation/refurb work for the recovered cores at the Cape. So they must have already built up their test stand/equipment/engineer infrastructure at the Cape.
People were discussing this. The current guess is: they will test single sticks one after another in McGregor but the final integration and static fire of FH will happen in Florida. One of the reasons: no sign of triple core hold-down hardware at McGregor.
People were discussing this. The current guess is: they will test single sticks one after another in McGregor but the final integration and static fire of FH will happen in Florida. One of the reasons: no sign of triple core hold-down hardware at McGregor.
They may only static fire one or two FH at the Cape. Static fire at the Cape for F9 is going to go away
For how long did other expendable launch vehicles do static fires before they moved to the wet dress rehearsal that ULA does now? Is the fact that SpaceX has continued to do firings instead WDR this long out of the ordinary?
They may only static fire one or two FH at the Cape. Static fire at the Cape for F9 is going to go awayEven with a reused core?
They may only static fire one or two FH at the Cape. Static fire at the Cape for F9 is going to go awayEven with a reused core?
don't know about that.They may only static fire one or two FH at the Cape. Static fire at the Cape for F9 is going to go awayEven with a reused core?
Eliminating the stop in McGregor would be a huge schedule improvement.The testing in McGregor still seems to be more extensive (longer burn time) than a static fire, although there have been some recent reports from residents that the full S1 burns of earlier testing stopped a while ago. With more pads scheduled to come on-line soon it does seem like McGregor would become more and more of a bottleneck, and especially wasteful for Vandenberg flights.
Eliminating the stop in McGregor would be a huge schedule improvement.
Maybe they drop that step first and keep the static fire in Florida. Reducing the number of stops, handling and shipping time.
Eliminating the stop in McGregor would be a huge schedule improvement.The testing in McGregor still seems to be more extensive (longer burn time) than a static fire, although there have been some recent reports from residents that the full S1 burns of earlier testing stopped a while ago. With more pads scheduled to come on-line soon it does seem like McGregor would become more and more of a bottleneck, and especially wasteful for Vandenberg flights.
Acceptance test firing of engines at McGregor is a crucial QA step, not "wasteful." Any bottleneck at McGregor would have to be solved by additional test stand capacity or some other means.
Acceptance test firing of engines at McGregor is a crucial QA step, not "wasteful." Any bottleneck at McGregor would have to be solved by additional test stand capacity or some other means.As it stands, engines are shipped to McGregor, acceptance tested, shipped back to Hawthorne, integrated into an F9 1st stage, which is shipped to McGregor, the whole stage is tested, then shipped to launch site.
Here's an article from SpaceFlight Now regarding possibility of a commercial payload during the first demonstration flight:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/)
SpaceX’s updated pricing and performance chart shows a Falcon Heavy rocket lofting up to 8 metric tons to geostationary transfer orbit sells for $90 million. The performance figure assumes SpaceX recovers the boosters, but the price does not factor in reuse.
Arianespace intends to sell the most powerful variant of the next-generation Ariane 6 rocket — the Ariane 64 with four solid rocket boosters — for 90 million euros, or about $103 million, a price to be typically split between two customers per mission once the new launcher enters service in 2020.
More from that article:QuoteSpaceX’s updated pricing and performance chart shows a Falcon Heavy rocket lofting up to 8 metric tons to geostationary transfer orbit sells for $90 million. The performance figure assumes SpaceX recovers the boosters, but the price does not factor in reuse.
If so, than 90$m is for an expendable FH with 22ton to GTO too ?
More from that article:
SpaceX’s updated pricing and performance chart shows a Falcon Heavy rocket lofting up to 8 metric tons to geostationary transfer orbit sells for $90 million. The performance figure assumes SpaceX recovers the boosters, but the price does not factor in reuse.
If so, than 90$m is for an expendable FH with 22ton to GTO too ?
More from that article:
SpaceX’s updated pricing and performance chart shows a Falcon Heavy rocket lofting up to 8 metric tons to geostationary transfer orbit sells for $90 million. The performance figure assumes SpaceX recovers the boosters, but the price does not factor in reuse.
If so, than 90$m is for an expendable FH with 22ton to GTO too ?
I read the reuse as the $90 million is for three new boosters, 1 new second stage, and two new fairing halves.
Further there might be an option to re-use some or all of the above components, but no pricing for that is available.
And... They are for 90 mil they are only selling the 8 tons to GTO performance. Extra performance costs extra $$$
I would think more prices than just that. Just for new cores you could have
Probably $90M is for 3 cores RTLS
Little more for central core ASDS
More again center core expendable
Then finally full expendable for top tier pricing.
Then used rocket pricing for all of the above modes.
In 2013 pricing when F9 was $56.5M for 4.85mT-GTO FH was $77.1M for up to 6.4mT-GTO. Above that (full expendable) price was $135M.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140316212646/http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
Some reasons to use the stages first as Falcon 9, then as FH:What are the odds SpaceX will take two of those stages as the side boosters for the first Falcon Heavy ?If a used booster is less valuable than a new one, it would make more sense to use them for FH cores, since they're less likely to be recovered.
Or perhaps make the next few F9 boosters in a way they could be reused as FH side boosters ?
Or am I just dreaming...
...Building the first FH 2/3 with used hardware makes it cheaper to put together the first launch, cheaper price for the first customer...
What are the odds SpaceX will take two of those stages as the side boosters for the first Falcon Heavy ?
Or perhaps make the next few F9 boosters in a way they could be reused as FH side boosters ?
Or am I just dreaming...
Plans change...What are the odds SpaceX will take two of those stages as the side boosters for the first Falcon Heavy ?
Or perhaps make the next few F9 boosters in a way they could be reused as FH side boosters ?
Or am I just dreaming...
The odds are zero because Gwynne Shotwell has told SFN they are building 3 new cores for the first FH. The first one is under construction and she expects the other two to be built by sometime this summer, ready for testing in the fall.
With FT modifications capacity is 54.4t without crossfeed. Hypothetically, if crossfeed is added and we use simple math the result is slightly below 65t (maybe somebody can provide a better estimate) - quite close to SLS Block I (but that's irrelevant, because it will fly only once, right? All subsequent SLS-es will be IB or II, if I understand correctly).
Plans change...What are the odds SpaceX will take two of those stages as the side boosters for the first Falcon Heavy ?
Or perhaps make the next few F9 boosters in a way they could be reused as FH side boosters ?
Or am I just dreaming...
The odds are zero because Gwynne Shotwell has told SFN they are building 3 new cores for the first FH. The first one is under construction and she expects the other two to be built by sometime this summer, ready for testing in the fall.
For Falcon 9 Heavy demo... TLI free return, but carry along a Lunar X Prize lander in trunk to eject when flying past. Free ride and big serving of crow for those not willing to push the envelope and think outside the boxSpaceX isn't a charity. I have to believe they'd prefer cold hard cash to a stunt.
Makes me wonder, is part of the FH Demo delay caused by a payload that isn't ready yet?I doubt it, though it certainly removes a good deal of pressure from the debut.
With FT modifications capacity is 54.4t without crossfeed. Hypothetically, if crossfeed is added and we use simple math the result is slightly below 65t (maybe somebody can provide a better estimate) - quite close to SLS Block I (but that's irrelevant, because it will fly only once, right? All subsequent SLS-es will be IB or II, if I understand correctly).
About 64 t
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?Intriguing idea. A way to create a much bigger 2nd stage without a lot of new development. But it appears that the new Raptor powered 2nd stage is the chosen path forward.
Just thinking if you did need more payload.. This might still be easier than cross feed.
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?Intriguing idea. A way to create a much bigger 2nd stage without a lot of new development. But it appears that the new Raptor powered 2nd stage is the chosen path forward.
Just thinking if you did need more payload.. This might still be easier than cross feed.
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?Intriguing idea. A way to create a much bigger 2nd stage without a lot of new development. But it appears that the new Raptor powered 2nd stage is the chosen path forward.
Just thinking if you did need more payload.. This might still be easier than cross feed.
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?Intriguing idea. A way to create a much bigger 2nd stage without a lot of new development. But it appears that the new Raptor powered 2nd stage is the chosen path forward.
Just thinking if you did need more payload.. This might still be easier than cross feed.
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?
Just thinking if you did need more payload.. This might still be easier than cross feed.
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?
Just thinking if you did need more payload.. This might still be easier than cross feed.
Not really easier and actually more complex. Will even make pad ops more complex.
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?Intriguing idea. A way to create a much bigger 2nd stage without a lot of new development. But it appears that the new Raptor powered 2nd stage is the chosen path forward.
Just thinking if you did need more payload.. This might still be easier than cross feed.
Adding more tanks with Merlin vac engines would take some significant structural modification to the interstages because booster separation is sideways where core S1/S2 separation is axial so the Mvac bell clears the interstage. If the booster interstage have engine bells inside them they can separate sideways.
There's several to approach this:
- separate sideways but split the interstage like a fairing and keep the inside half of the side interstages tied to the core booster
- keep the core and boosters linked and separate all three axially simultaneously
- make the side S2's into drop tanks (or fixed tanks) with no engines so there's no bell clearance worries at all
What about as opposed to complexity and cost of switching to a Raptor based S2? Could you match that performance?
With FT modifications capacity is 54.4t without crossfeed. Hypothetically, if crossfeed is added and we use simple math the result is slightly below 65t (maybe somebody can provide a better estimate) - quite close to SLS Block I (but that's irrelevant, because it will fly only once, right? All subsequent SLS-es will be IB or II, if I understand correctly).
About 64 t
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?
Just thinking if you did need more payload.. This might still be easier than cross feed.
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?
Just thinking if you did need more payload.. This might still be easier than cross feed.
Not really easier and actually more complex. Will even make pad ops more complex.
Understood, It was a question.
What about as opposed to complexity and cost of switching to a Raptor based S2? Could you match that performance?
Makes me wonder, is part of the FH Demo delay caused by a payload that isn't ready yet?
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?
Would there be any benefit to going to three full stick F9 where you link both S1 and S2? Stage all 3 S1 at the same time then burn the outer two S2 to depletion then use the center core as S3 for the payload?
Rocket stages are not like LEGO elements!!! :)
Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en
Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en
Looks like a LEGO
Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en
I love the "No SpaceX Deliveries" sign in the foreground. :p
I wanted to ask about the central core - is there any chance that it could ever be made into a flyback booster? I know that sounds heterogenous, but I thought it might help the thing land back on land on a runway, rather than on the barge, or being discarded entirely.
Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en
Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:Are they taking it for a walk?
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en
Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en
a good view of what i assume is a hole for the grid fin mounts
There are no interstage on the FH Boosters though so they will surely be on the nose cone.Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en
a good view of what i assume is a hole for the grid fin mounts
I'd guess it's a man way for access. Gridfins will be in the interstate.
Would there be an interstage on side booster?
Ah - so we don't know yet how the nose cones travel, but apparently the grid find take the interstate.Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en
a good view of what i assume is a hole for the grid fin mounts
I'd guess it's a man way for access. Gridfins will be in the interstate.
Ah - so we don't know yet how the nose cones travel, but apparently the grid find take the interstate.Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en
a good view of what i assume is a hole for the grid fin mounts
I'd guess it's a man way for access. Gridfins will be in the interstate.
And more importantly, once the thing has landed, how does SpaceX plan to hoist it absent room to mount the "beanie cap?" Will SpaceX instead use some kind of 3- or 4-point shackle harness dangling from the crane to grab hard points built into the structure somewhere?
Booster Nose cone spotted outside the factory:
https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en (https://www.instagram.com/mc_design91/?hl=en)
a good view of what i assume is a hole for the grid fin mounts
I'd guess it's a man way for access. Gridfins will be in the interstate.
Where do they wind tunnel or thermal load test things this size?
Two questions and possible logical consequence...
1. How much do y'all think the side booster nosecones weigh/mass?
2. How much extra fuel/performance does it cost to land the mass of the side booster, including the nosecone, vs. landing just the side booster with no nosecone?
Possible logical consequence -- the side booster nosecones may be jettisoned and recovered in the sea, giving a small performance increase to the FH system as a whole.
One question -- in this kind of situation, is there a way of separating the nosecones from the boosters whole, without needing to split them like fairings split? I'd think these may be more recoverable if you didn't have to split them in two.
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket is set for its maiden launch this November. [...]
The payload for the maiden voyage is uncertain so far. According to Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s President and CEO, a number of companies have expressed interest in being on the first flight. Shotwell has also said that it might make more sense for SpaceX to completely own their first flight, without the pressure to keep a client happy. But a satellite payload for the first launch hasn’t been ruled out.
Two questions and possible logical consequence...
1. How much do y'all think the side booster nosecones weigh/mass?
2. How much extra fuel/performance does it cost to land the mass of the side booster, including the nosecone, vs. landing just the side booster with no nosecone?
Possible logical consequence -- the side booster nosecones may be jettisoned and recovered in the sea, giving a small performance increase to the FH system as a whole.
One question -- in this kind of situation, is there a way of separating the nosecones from the boosters whole, without needing to split them like fairings split? I'd think these may be more recoverable if you didn't have to split them in two.
Two questions and possible logical consequence...
1. How much do y'all think the side booster nosecones weigh/mass?
2. How much extra fuel/performance does it cost to land the mass of the side booster, including the nosecone, vs. landing just the side booster with no nosecone?
Possible logical consequence -- the side booster nosecones may be jettisoned and recovered in the sea, giving a small performance increase to the FH system as a whole.
One question -- in this kind of situation, is there a way of separating the nosecones from the boosters whole, without needing to split them like fairings split? I'd think these may be more recoverable if you didn't have to split them in two.
Doh, stupid autocorrect
And more importantly, once the thing has landed, how does SpaceX plan to hoist it absent room to mount the "beanie cap?" Will SpaceX instead use some kind of 3- or 4-point shackle harness dangling from the crane to grab hard points built into the structure somewhere?
Just have a hoist point in the nose of the nose cone?
Would require plenty of strength in the nose cone - possibly permanently fit the shackle harness within the nose cone, so it can be attached during recovery operations.
Cheers, Martin
Two questions and possible logical consequence...
1. How much do y'all think the side booster nosecones weigh/mass?
2. How much extra fuel/performance does it cost to land the mass of the side booster, including the nosecone, vs. landing just the side booster with no nosecone?
Possible logical consequence -- the side booster nosecones may be jettisoned and recovered in the sea, giving a small performance increase to the FH system as a whole.
One question -- in this kind of situation, is there a way of separating the nosecones from the boosters whole, without needing to split them like fairings split? I'd think these may be more recoverable if you didn't have to split them in two.
1. Unlikely to be significantly different than the interstage of the core.
2. Why... Why... Why would you make it so much more complex for a minuscule benefit!? You need to add extra separation hardware and recovery hardware for the nose cone - when it *already* has an easy way to get down intact, staying attached to the core. And if there is ANY rocket on the near market that has plenty of performance margin for all likely payloads, it is FH.
"Possible logical consequence" - No, nothing logical about it.
...
2. How much extra fuel/performance does it cost to land the mass of the side booster, including the nosecone, vs. landing just the side booster with no nosecone?
...
You should also keep in mind that the FH boosters will stage *earlier* that the FH core - and earlier that the F9 1st stage even
You should also keep in mind that the FH boosters will stage *earlier* that the FH core - and earlier that the F9 1st stage even
Earlier than an F9 S1? If the FH boosters and F9 S1 have the same engines and same prop load, then won't they burn out (well, separate) at the same time, assuming the engine were operated at the same thrust levels? And that being booster stages, both the FH boosters and F9 S1 would operate at max thrust?
The FH boosters should only stage earlier than F9 S1 if they run out of ascent propellant before F9 S1. I can only see that if a) they reserve more prop for recovery and thus run out of ascent prop earlier; b) run at a higher thrust setting and thus consume their ascent prop faster; or c) have less ascent prop in general, by e.g. having smaller tanks (wrong as I believe the boosters and F9 S1 are essentially identical) or donating some of their prop to the central core (wrong as crossfeed isn't being implemented as yet).
You should also keep in mind that the FH boosters will stage *earlier* that the FH core - and earlier that the F9 1st stage even
Earlier than an F9 S1? If the FH boosters and F9 S1 have the same engines and same prop load, then won't they burn out (well, separate) at the same time, assuming the engine were operated at the same thrust levels? And that being booster stages, both the FH boosters and F9 S1 would operate at max thrust?
Earlier than an F9 S1? If the FH boosters and F9 S1 have the same engines and same prop load, then won't they burn out (well, separate) at the same time, assuming the engine were operated at the same thrust levels?
My thought here is that later Falcon Heavies will likely use a reused F9 stage one as the core stage, a
My thought here is that later Falcon Heavies will likely use a reused F9 stage one as the core stage, a
The center core will be different than standard/booster cores.
My thought here is that later Falcon Heavies will likely use a reused F9 stage one as the core stage, a
The center core will be different than standard/booster cores.
In fact from this tweet it sounds like even the boosters aren't stock F9 stages, though close. Not sure if they can switch from a F9 single-stick stage to a booster stage later in life. I'll have to chew on the implications of that, but it is interesting.
~Jon
My thought here is that later Falcon Heavies will likely use a reused F9 stage one as the core stage, a
The center core will be different than standard/booster cores.
Jim's right--Elon said as much on Twitter today:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/732329443776024576
In fact from this tweet it sounds like even the boosters aren't stock F9 stages, though close. Not sure if they can switch from a F9 single-stick stage to a booster stage later in life. I'll have to chew on the implications of that, but it is interesting.
~Jon
My thought here is that later Falcon Heavies will likely use a reused F9 stage one as the core stage, a
The center core will be different than standard/booster cores.
Jim's right--Elon said as much on Twitter today:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/732329443776024576
In fact from this tweet it sounds like even the boosters aren't stock F9 stages, though close. Not sure if they can switch from a F9 single-stick stage to a booster stage later in life. I'll have to chew on the implications of that, but it is interesting.
~Jon
The engines, tankage, thrust structures and other equipment are made in the same factory by the same people, by the same designers - the difference is academic only and in that sense; hardly worth arguing about! Discussing, yes - but not arguing...
The engines, tankage, thrust structures and other equipment are made in the same factory by the same people, by the same designers - the difference is academic only and in that sense; hardly worth arguing about! Discussing, yes - but not arguing...
I don't know if it would make much sense to convert a F9 to a FH booster.
I do wonder though why it would not be possible (sensible?) to use a FH booster as a stand alone launch vehicle, eliminating the need for building F9 cores in the future. Cost or something else?
I don't know if it would make much sense to convert a F9 to a FH booster.
I would imagine it could be impossible if the thickness or design of the tank material is different.
My thought here is that later Falcon Heavies will likely use a reused F9 stage one as the core stage, a
The center core will be different than standard/booster cores.
Jim's right--Elon said as much on Twitter today:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/732329443776024576
In fact from this tweet it sounds like even the boosters aren't stock F9 stages, though close. Not sure if they can switch from a F9 single-stick stage to a booster stage later in life. I'll have to chew on the implications of that, but it is interesting.
~Jon
The side boosters are longer than the center core excluding interstage. The center core needs to be reinforced reletive to a stock F9 core to bear greater loading.
No, that's old info. The FH core and boosters are now the same length.
What distinguishes an FH booster from an F9 core is relatively minor, it involves changes at the base and top for attaching to the core (the octaweb is slightly different I believe). And a nose cone instead of an interstage, obviously.
So the take away is that for production-flow in the factory, FH Boosters and F9 cores are close enough thats its basically the same work flow with just a few minor modifications which gives them the production efficiency benefit.
But the final product isnt interchangeable so they will remain stuck with their planned purpose.
The FH core has significant differences to reinforce the core and therefore will have a substantially different work flow even though its the same factory and lots of similar parts.
To use an unnecessary Tesla analogy. The F9 core and FH boosters are like Model S with and without air suspension / tech package. The FH core is a Model X.
I don't think Tesla analogies work at all for describing the differences between Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy cores, and Falcon Heavy boosters. Let's just stick with describing SpaceX realities.
So the take away is that for production-flow in the factory, FH Boosters and F9 cores are close enough thats its basically the same work flow with just a few minor modifications which gives them the production efficiency benefit.
My background is in manufacturing operations, and that is my understanding.QuoteBut the final product isnt interchangeable so they will remain stuck with their planned purpose.I think that is putting it a little harshly. Each design is optimized for their intended use, with the benefit of still being able to be built on the same production line.
......Let's just stick with describing SpaceX realities.
I think the point of FH is to be able to do things like the upcoming Red Dragon missions on a reasonable budget. It's definitely had an impact on the bottom line beyond the R&D of the FH in the sense that they needed to rebuild the TELs and make modifications to the pads. But I don't see a cheaper way for them to get to the capability FH gives them.So the take away is that for production-flow in the factory, FH Boosters and F9 cores are close enough thats its basically the same work flow with just a few minor modifications which gives them the production efficiency benefit.
My background is in manufacturing operations, and that is my understanding.QuoteBut the final product isnt interchangeable so they will remain stuck with their planned purpose.I think that is putting it a little harshly. Each design is optimized for their intended use, with the benefit of still being able to be built on the same production line.
......Let's just stick with describing SpaceX realities.
This exchange nicely encapsulates part of the conundrum that I think FH gives to SpaceX. If you generally accept efficiency as the ratio of what you get out of a system divided by the input to the system, FH appears to headed at best towards an indeterminate equation.
A more honest SpaceX/FH reality is that it looks like mathematical manipulation to posit the low to zero cost & efficiency of maintaining capability to make a FH core on the common F9 assembly line as the proper metric to move the "input" of the FH system to zero $$, and thereby minimize & justify the poor efficiency of the system. By forcing the denominator ( input ) towards zero, FH always looks like an acceptable product. Even if it never fly's more than a few times, you can always point to how little effort/input is required to keep it around.
At the root of this problem, it's not capturing the entire picture to use the efficiency of the assembly line as a metric for the efficiency of SpaceX as a business. It's like ignoring the SGA line item of your P&L. FH as it is configured, is not winning significant contracts ( output $$) for generating revenue. In the absence of that "output", the emphasis on minimized input distorts the inefficiency drag that FH has on the SpaceX business.
In the absence of that "output", the emphasis on minimized input distorts the inefficiency drag that FH has on the SpaceX business.
It's like ignoring the SGA line item of your P&L. FH as it is configured, is not winning significant contracts ( output $$) for generating revenue. In the absence of that "output", the emphasis on minimized input distorts the inefficiency drag that FH has on the SpaceX business.
Even if it never fly's more than a few timesIf it never flies more than a few times, it is a failure, period. And I think SpaceX would say the same.
FH as it is configured, is not winning significant contractsYou don't say, a rocket that has never flown hasn't won significant contracts? Who woulda thunk?
It's like ignoring the SGA line item of your P&L. FH as it is configured, is not winning significant contracts ( output $$) for generating revenue. In the absence of that "output", the emphasis on minimized input distorts the inefficiency drag that FH has on the SpaceX business.
Ok, had to look up those acronyms. Not sure it's a good analogy for FH. FH has actually won contracts with an unproven configuration, without flying and despite sliding schedule right by a year every year or so... I think everyone wants to see this thing actually on the pad before committing funding & orbital slots / frequencies that require occupancy to keep.
Even before seeing a successful launch, Viasat's schedule experience is a caution to ComSat investors. F9 and Dragon have successfully answered the question of whether SpaceX has the technical chops to pull off FH... Nothing has given confidence in schedule however just yet.
I think FH delays are SpaceX polishing up landings, and final design changes on F9 FT. Once they get them settled, FH will come on line with little if any problems.
And a nose cone instead of an interstage, obviously.
And a nose cone instead of an interstage, obviously.
Minor quibble, but that's a nose cone on top of the interstage, yes? The interstage has the RCS thrusters and grid fins. Can't get rid of that and still land. And I doubt there's much value in redesigning the interstage for the boosters just to shrink it a bit. Wouldn't want to change fin/thruster placement if I was them.
So just design a nose cone that snaps onto the existing mating points and call it.
Do we know for certain, that the tank walls will be strengthened on the FH core? Or is it in the thrust structure and possible upper tank dome + interstage to provide more stiffness?
Falcon Heavy side boosters can use most of the same airframe as Falcon 9, but center core needs to be buffed up a lot for transfer loads.
Even if it never fly's more than a few timesIf it never flies more than a few times, it is a failure, period. And I think SpaceX would say the same.QuoteFH as it is configured, is not winning significant contractsYou don't say, a rocket that has never flown hasn't won significant contracts? Who woulda thunk?
Vulcan and Ariane 6 might as well pack it up and go home -- they haven't won any contracts at all!
I keep hearing that SpaceX's goal is not to make money.
I keep hearing that SpaceX's goal is not to make money.
More correctly in my view: they are not next quarter focused, and money, while important to be made, is fuel for their ambition rather than the end goal.I keep hearing that SpaceX's goal is not to make money.
From whom are you hearing that?
No, why would you ever do that? Are you *trying* to waste mass? The interstage is designed to carry ~100 tons above it - a nose cone can be made much lighter. The rcs thrusters and grid fins only take up a minor portion of the trunk, and can be incorporated into the base of a nose cone. Or have a very short cylindrical section that contains it under the nose cone. But you might as well put it all into one piece.
4. Can SpaceX say what contracts or commitments they think justify FH? I haven't seen much in that regards. From the outside cheap seats that I, and most here sit in, it's a case of "build it and they will come".
Likely this means it drives most providers out of the significant part of the commercial business for more than a decade. And to reenter it, minimum $20B investment. "But launch is an insignificant part of the SC business ..."20B? SpaceX has no way spent that much on development yet.... Is that saying that SpaceX got lucky multiple times, that they are much more efficient at development, or something else?
4. Can SpaceX say what contracts or commitments they think justify FH? I haven't seen much in that regards. From the outside cheap seats that I, and most here sit in, it's a case of "build it and they will come".
My point about contracts won/lost is more to the expectation of FH having any type of positive impact on the SpaceX business, or the overall heavy payload class business for the immediate future. ( around 5 years, even as long as 10).
I keep hearing that SpaceX's goal is not to make money. That fine, if you believe that.
When it was E.Musk alone, his determination got them through the F1 failures. However I think they now have it as a top goal to stay financially viable & profitable as part of their duty to their customers, as well as private investors.
No, why would you ever do that? Are you *trying* to waste mass? The interstage is designed to carry ~100 tons above it - a nose cone can be made much lighter. The rcs thrusters and grid fins only take up a minor portion of the trunk, and can be incorporated into the base of a nose cone. Or have a very short cylindrical section that contains it under the nose cone. But you might as well put it all into one piece.
http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/spacex-x-wing-1.jpg
The above link shows a close-up of the interstage. The RCS pod is high up, almost at the top. And SpaceX is using the interstage as the location of the clamp-on ring for horizontal processing. Would you move the RCS pod? (If so, why isn't it down there already?), and is there a reason why they're not supporting the stage below the grid fins?
If they don't want to move the RCS pods down, then is thinning the structure, having two separate designs, really worth the effort if it's still the same length? If they can move the RCS, then sure, an all new design makes sense, but it's still engineering effort.
In summary, I don't see any need to redesign for the initial flights. Not until they get to a point where they need more performance.
SpaceX won't be standing still, either. An aspiring competitor starting down this path will need to aim to be competitive with the future SpaceX, not the current one.Likely this means it drives most providers out of the significant part of the commercial business for more than a decade. And to reenter it, minimum $20B investment. "But launch is an insignificant part of the SC business ..."20B? SpaceX has no way spent that much on development yet.... Is that saying that SpaceX got lucky multiple times, that they are much more efficient at development, or something else?
Likely this means it drives most providers out of the significant part of the commercial business for more than a decade. And to reenter it, minimum $20B investment. "But launch is an insignificant part of the SC business ..."20B? SpaceX has no way spent that much on development yet.... Is that saying that SpaceX got lucky multiple times, that they are much more efficient at development, or something else?
SpaceX won't be standing still, either. An aspiring competitor starting down this path will need to aim to be competitive with the future SpaceX, not the current one.Likely this means it drives most providers out of the significant part of the commercial business for more than a decade. And to reenter it, minimum $20B investment. "But launch is an insignificant part of the SC business ..."20B? SpaceX has no way spent that much on development yet.... Is that saying that SpaceX got lucky multiple times, that they are much more efficient at development, or something else?
The other providers are simply waiting for SX to hit a brick wall, and then things go back to as before.
Leapfrogging SpaceX's models will be hard to do. Old Space will have to change an awful lot of their business model.
The other providers are simply waiting for SX to hit a brick wall, and then things go back to as before.
Agree on most of what you say, but at least Ariane has explicitly said they would just follow SpaceX -- e.g., the infamous "they aren't supermen, so whatever they can do, we can do. We would then have to follow" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ-7nNw-04Q?t=3m27s) from Singapore Satellite 2013.
I see the same problems as you do with this approach. Development takes so long in the space business that SpaceX could steal a 10-year march unless Ariane is careful.
Leapfrogging SpaceX's models will be hard to do. Old Space will have to change an awful lot of their business model.
I would argue this is what Bezos snd Blue Origin appear to be trying.
Leapfrogging SpaceX's models will be hard to do. Old Space will have to change an awful lot of their business model.
I would argue this is what Bezos snd Blue Origin appear to be trying.
Except Blue Origin isn't leapfrogging SpaceX or anyone else. They have some very impressive engineering accomplishments, but right now all they have demonstrated is a reusable first stage for a suborbital rocket. They haven't, AFAIK, released many details on the orbital system that will come after New Shepherd, but it will probably be a 2-stage-to-orbit vehicle, and it is hard to see why, for reasons of economy and the satellite market, it would have a payload significantly larger or smaller than Falcon 9, Atlas V, Delta 4M, etc. Maybe Bezos will have a 3 core heavy version, maybe not. Last I'd heard, more details were supposed to be forthcoming sometime this year.
SpaceX hasn't re-used a first stage yet, but it's hard to see any reason why they shouldn't be able to do that sometime this year. Blue origin might be right behind them in the re-usability game, but it is hard to imagine them getting leapfrogged by anyone anytime soon.
And the whole analogy was in relation to trying to catch up with SpaceX or leapfrog them. I am saying they are so far ahead that leapfrogging them is sheer fantasy, unless someone discovers some new laws of physics.
Leapfrogging SpaceX's models will be hard to do. Old Space will have to change an awful lot of their business model.
I would argue this is what Bezos snd Blue Origin appear to be trying.
Except Blue Origin isn't leapfrogging SpaceX or anyone else. They have some very impressive engineering accomplishments, but right now all they have demonstrated is a reusable first stage for a suborbital rocket. They haven't, AFAIK, released many details on the orbital system that will come after New Shepherd, but it will probably be a 2-stage-to-orbit vehicle, and it is hard to see why, for reasons of economy and the satellite market, it would have a payload significantly larger or smaller than Falcon 9, Atlas V, Delta 4M, etc. Maybe Bezos will have a 3 core heavy version, maybe not. Last I'd heard, more details were supposed to be forthcoming sometime this year.
SpaceX hasn't re-used a first stage yet, but it's hard to see any reason why they shouldn't be able to do that sometime this year. Blue origin might be right behind them in the re-usability game, but it is hard to imagine them getting leapfrogged by anyone anytime soon.
And the whole analogy was in relation to trying to catch up with SpaceX or leapfrog them. I am saying they are so far ahead that leapfrogging them is sheer fantasy, unless someone discovers some new laws of physics.
And that kind of thinking is hubris.
SpaceX does not have a monopoly on smart people, money or knowledge. It MAY have an advantage in highly-driven and focused leadership, but that is subject to change at a moment's notice. And for that matter, a couple Bad Days in a short period may cause the money to dry up.
And before anyone starts talking hypersonic retro propulsion and pinpoint landing (or "impact" ;) ) guidance, anyone who follows Cold War nuclear history should have strong reasons to suspect that DOD and its contractors figured this stuff out decades ago for other purposes. It's only due to ITAR and related secrecy/compartmentalization rules that the tech hasn't been shared with the civil space side of the businesses. That could change in a relative eyeblink as well, if certain federal rule making or congressional interests decided it should.
So, I'm short: SpaceX better stay hungry for the foreseeable future. Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans.
Musk ... has some prizewinning jerks IMHO that slow him down but he doesn't seem to notice ATM.
It's like ignoring the SGA line item of your P&L. FH as it is configured, is not winning significant contracts ( output $$) for generating revenue. In the absence of that "output", the emphasis on minimized input distorts the inefficiency drag that FH has on the SpaceX business.
Ok, had to look up those acronyms. Not sure it's a good analogy for FH. FH has actually won contracts with an unproven configuration, without flying and despite sliding schedule right by a year every year or so... I think everyone wants to see this thing actually on the pad before committing funding & orbital slots / frequencies that require occupancy to keep.
Even before seeing a successful launch, Viasat's schedule experience is a caution to ComSat investors. F9 and Dragon have successfully answered the question of whether SpaceX has the technical chops to pull off FH... Nothing has given confidence in schedule however just yet.
I'd be surprised if the market wasn't apprehensive about a booster with 27 engines.
Once it flys, successfully, a few times that will change.
Edit: Not trusting a SpaceX development schedule is just rational.
Simplistic approach would be to build a copy, make it work, and do it quicker than SX because you know "what not to do". So lets say you do that. It will still take you time, funds, and effort, and none of that will be "risk free". So likely you'll accomplish the same thing, in the same time, for the same funds.I strongly disagree with the with this. It's always easier to design something if you have a working example to copy. How big do those grid fins need to be? Do what SpaceX did. Sub-cool the LOX, and to what temperature? Yes, do what SpaceX did. How big of a barge do you need? Do what SpaceX did.... You should get every major decision right the first time, and can order all your major equipment early, knowing that your approach can be made to work.
However no new physics is needed for a total game changer something like the hypersonic jet/rocket Sabre as a SSTO, which although a long shot is within the realm of physics and still unknown if it is achievable or just outside the realm of practical 1st half 21st century engineering technology.EM drive is extremely questionable - though there are interesting external power options that look somewhat plausible.
Simplistic approach would be to build a copy, make it work, and do it quicker than SX because you know "what not to do". So lets say you do that. It will still take you time, funds, and effort, and none of that will be "risk free". So likely you'll accomplish the same thing, in the same time, for the same funds.I strongly disagree with the with this. It's always easier to design something if you have a working example to copy. How big do those grid fins need to be? Do what SpaceX did. Sub-cool the LOX, and to what temperature? Yes, do what SpaceX did. How big of a barge do you need? Do what SpaceX did.... You should get every major decision right the first time, and can order all your major equipment early, knowing that your approach can be made to work.
This would be especially true if the design team has the support of any cyber-theft capability (as in Russia or China), in which case they would doubtless have the actual blueprints and CAD files, and not just external observations. Even without this, the public observations are pretty detailed - high res photos of the landed boosters, videos of the insides of the LOX tanks, etc.
So I think that if the designers can swallow their pride, and just do what SpaceX did, a design team could do it in half the time for half the cost. If, on the other hand, if they try to improve the performance, or even just think their approach is better, then you're probably talking at least as long and at least as expensive. Pioneering is hard work.
Simplistic approach would be to build a copy, make it work, and do it quicker than SX because you know "what not to do". So lets say you do that. It will still take you time, funds, and effort, and none of that will be "risk free". So likely you'll accomplish the same thing, in the same time, for the same funds.I strongly disagree with the with this. It's always easier to design something if you have a working example to copy. How big do those grid fins need to be? Do what SpaceX did. Sub-cool the LOX, and to what temperature? Yes, do what SpaceX did. How big of a barge do you need? Do what SpaceX did.... You should get every major decision right the first time, and can order all your major equipment early, knowing that your approach can be made to work.
This would be especially true if the design team has the support of any cyber-theft capability (as in Russia or China), in which case they would doubtless have the actual blueprints and CAD files, and not just external observations. Even without this, the public observations are pretty detailed - high res photos of the landed boosters, videos of the insides of the LOX tanks, etc.
So I think that if the designers can swallow their pride, and just do what SpaceX did, a design team could do it in half the time for half the cost. If, on the other hand, if they try to improve the performance, or even just think their approach is better, then you're probably talking at least as long and at least as expensive. Pioneering is hard work.
However if they followed this approach they would always be a generation behind the leader, and maybe their costs could be lower, but they would have to change a lot about how they did things to take advantage of the hardware cost benefit to still end up with an end user price that was competitive. All the while still being a generation of vehicle behind in both pricing (if you presume that SpaceX will continue to evolve to lower pricing) and capability.
we see how long a single core takes following landing to be handled/processed. Now three might arrive, all at once. Not to mention an intervening recovery from a single core from other pad. Wouldn't that tie up a single stage handling team for about a month? Rate limit?
DURT
More descriptive than the well-known "dirt," "durt" specifically describes the smegma and other assorted debris that accumulates underneath a rug in a home or dorm.
Quote from: Urban DictionaryDURT
More descriptive than the well-known "dirt," "durt" specifically describes the smegma and other assorted debris that accumulates underneath a rug in a home or dorm.
we see how long a single core takes following landing to be handled/processed. Now three might arrive, all at once. Not to mention an intervening recovery from a single core from other pad. Wouldn't that tie up a single stage handling team for about a month? Rate limit?
I think what they are focusing on right now is how to expedite that very thing. In another thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40312.60
there is discussion of charring around the engine bases and severe damage to grid fins. The photos of the grid fins are astounding. (Scroll through p 4 of that thread.) They discuss thermal paint, insulation, simply making grid fins quickly detachable, disposable, and replaceable, etc. I think the topic of quick turn around and design tweaks will be a particular focus in coming months. Will it set FH back some more or slow the second FH flight? I don't know. But in my mind, better to resolve these things sooner than later and be able to reuse these cores as many times as possible and to do so as quickly as possible.
Arguably the "can Blue leapfrog SpaceX" stuff is off topic for this thread. But ok...It may be marginally on topic but any sufficiently funded, sufficiently well run, and sufficiently committed company has the possibility of "leapfrogging" SpaceX.
The HD stuff? That show's been cancelled. Reruns are broadcast in a channel you guys can't get... (We call it DURT)
http://www.spacex.com/falcon94. Can SpaceX say what contracts or commitments they think justify FH? I haven't seen much in that regards. From the outside cheap seats that I, and most here sit in, it's a case of "build it and they will come".
SpaceX can't even try to fly a GTO payload over 8t without Heavy. If there's a business case for Atlas, Ariane, or DIVH, there is for Heavy also... especially when you consider that Heavy can fly nearly 15t to GTO while only expending an upper stage.
Since the F9 mission patches have 9 stars would the FH mission patches have 27?
My bad assumption. In reviewing all the patches and not just the last one, each patch uses the stars to fill the blank space so it is more of a random number. Thanks for correction of assumption.Since the F9 mission patches have 9 stars would the FH mission patches have 27?
The F9 mission patches demonstrably do not all have 9 stars.
My bad assumption. In reviewing all the patches and not just the last one, each patch uses the stars to fill the blank space so it is more of a random number. Thanks for correction of assumption.Since the F9 mission patches have 9 stars would the FH mission patches have 27?
The F9 mission patches demonstrably do not all have 9 stars.
I believe they add a star for each mission, or something along those lines.
Our guy at the Space Tech Expo says the SpaceX person there is saying they are still hopeful to debut Falcon Heavy this year (NET December). We'll write up direct quotes that come back.
Before people start reaching for their handkerchiefs, poo-pooing left and right and reaching for the Elon time meme, this delay was fairly likely. I'm not surprised that it's scheduled for December considering the vast number of other considerations they've had to work through this year.
Falcon heavy is reuse dependent. They likely want to relaunch and get landing a little more settled before launching FH. Remember Elon's message that they want to try to recover cores on their first flight?
Falcon heavy is reuse dependent. They likely want to relaunch and get landing a little more settled before launching FH. Remember Elon's message that they want to try to recover cores on their first flight?
With the recent acknowledged performance of the F9 22,000kg to LEO, 8,300kg to GTO is there less of a need for the FH? These performance numbers overlap all but the highest performance numbers for the Atlas-V. Which gives the F9 a fairly wide range of payloads it can accommodate because if necessary the legs can be removed from the F9 and it can operate in fully expendable mode for maximum performance. The F9 with it's performance of 22,000kg to LEO now meets the definition of a HLLV.
No, because F9 does not fly in the expended mode. it takes CTO approval for any such mission.
IIRC, the First FH launch has been about six or so months away.... for the last year and a half, if not longer. Late May 2016 -> December 2016, over 6 months.....
Not intended as a bash, but not ignoring the facts that for example , IIRC, in Spring of 2015.... the first FH flight was due for Fall 2015.
Of course given all the progress with the pad and HIF, they are closer at least regarding GSE. Would be nice to see one of those returned F9 cores do a test firing on 39A, which would also show how close they are with the pad facilities. Thing is though, that's something Musk said was going to happen shortly after the ORBCOMM-2 booster landed (as in, such a test firing at 39A would happen soon. But it was quietly trucked over to LC-40 for a low-profile test firing instead).
They'll finally be making progress on FH launches if say 3 months from now, the projected launch has not slipped again. Instead of slipping say another 3 months. When they are down to 2 months before a projected launch, I'll start to get more excited and start dusting away the grains of salt. :)
- George Gassaway
With the recent acknowledged performance of the F9 22,000kg to LEO, 8,300kg to GTO is there less of a need for the FH? These performance numbers overlap all but the highest performance numbers for the Atlas-V. Which gives the F9 a fairly wide range of payloads it can accommodate because if necessary the legs can be removed from the F9 and it can operate in fully expendable mode for maximum performance. The F9 with it's performance of 22,000kg to LEO now meets the definition of a HLLV.
No, because F9 does not fly in the expended mode. it takes CTO approval for any such mission.While that makes sense, that's the first I've heard of it.
Will be interesting to see if this changes if the GTO boosters consistently end up returning almost-FUBAR'd."almost-FUBAR'd" is a gross overstatement. And clearly the CTO is more interested in making changes to the LV to improve its recovery and reuse characteristics, rather than throwing in the towel and just launching a high percentage of future F9 missions fully expendable.
With the recent acknowledged performance of the F9 22,000kg to LEO, 8,300kg to GTO is there less of a need for the FH? These performance numbers overlap all but the highest performance numbers for the Atlas-V. Which gives the F9 a fairly wide range of payloads it can accommodate because if necessary the legs can be removed from the F9 and it can operate in fully expendable mode for maximum performance. The F9 with it's performance of 22,000kg to LEO now meets the definition of a HLLV.
No, because F9 does not fly in the expended mode. it takes CTO approval for any such mission.
"almost-FUBAR'd" is a gross overstatement.
And clearly the CTO is more interested in making changes to the LV to improve its recovery and reuse characteristics, rather than throwing in the towel and just launching a high percentage of future F9 missions fully expendable.
With the recent acknowledged performance of the F9 22,000kg to LEO, 8,300kg to GTO is there less of a need for the FH? These performance numbers overlap all but the highest performance numbers for the Atlas-V. Which gives the F9 a fairly wide range of payloads it can accommodate because if necessary the legs can be removed from the F9 and it can operate in fully expendable mode for maximum performance. The F9 with it's performance of 22,000kg to LEO now meets the definition of a HLLV.
No, because F9 does not fly in the expended mode. it takes CTO approval for any such mission.
But the F9 could fly in expendable mode if a mission required it?
Once FH is operating, what is that mission?
"almost-FUBAR'd" is a gross overstatement.
Perhaps, but I felt someone ought to curb the (almost rampant) optimism here to the effect of "the stage is fine, dude". Why should Jim have all the fun?And clearly the CTO is more interested in making changes to the LV to improve its recovery and reuse characteristics, rather than throwing in the towel and just launching a high percentage of future F9 missions fully expendable.
They tried recovering v1.0s with parachutes. Didn't work out, so they gave up on it. What says that the GTO profiles near the recovery limit will result in recovered boosters that can be cost-efficiently refurbished? For all we know, they could end up being like Shuttle SRBs.
With the recent acknowledged performance of the F9 22,000kg to LEO, 8,300kg to GTO is there less of a need for the FH? These performance numbers overlap all but the highest performance numbers for the Atlas-V. Which gives the F9 a fairly wide range of payloads it can accommodate because if necessary the legs can be removed from the F9 and it can operate in fully expendable mode for maximum performance. The F9 with it's performance of 22,000kg to LEO now meets the definition of a HLLV.
No, because F9 does not fly in the expended mode. it takes CTO approval for any such mission.
But the F9 could fly in expendable mode if a mission required it?
Question is: IF VAB flights get RTLS approval from USAF/EPA, will JRTI be moved back to Port Canaveral for CCAFS/KSC & Falcon Heavy demo for landing more than one core at sea/RTLS. ... " FH Timeline isn't retreating, it's just advancing in reverse" #Snarkasm >:( :o :P :'( :-XFalcon heavy is reuse dependent. They likely want to relaunch and get landing a little more settled before launching FH. Remember Elon's message that they want to try to recover cores on their first flight?
They need to build additional pads. We have heard they cannot even begin building them before July because of some birds nesting season.
For all we know, they could end up being like Shuttle SRBs.If you want to talk science fiction, I think there's probably a better forum for that.
"almost-FUBAR'd" is a gross overstatement.
Perhaps, but I felt someone ought to curb the (almost rampant) optimism here to the effect of "the stage is fine, dude". Why should Jim have all the fun?And clearly the CTO is more interested in making changes to the LV to improve its recovery and reuse characteristics, rather than throwing in the towel and just launching a high percentage of future F9 missions fully expendable.
They tried recovering v1.0s with parachutes. Didn't work out, so they gave up on it. What says that the GTO profiles near the recovery limit will result in recovered boosters that can be cost-efficiently refurbished? For all we know, they could end up being like Shuttle SRBs.
Will the center booster stage of the FH be even under greater stress during a attempted recovery than the current F9 recovery for GTO missions?
Once FH is operating, what is that mission?
USAF solicits proposal in the next 12-months for a Communication satellite to be launched in 2019, requirements are 7~ tons to GTO. Does SpaceX not bid because the FH is not EELV certified yet our does SpaceX bid the F9 in expendable mode? With the F9v1.1 those performance numbers were beyond the capability of the LV. Now with the F9 those performance numbers are not beyond the capability of the F9 LV.
Can we also assume that the center booster core of a FH can be recovered with a great degree of certainty and be re-used? If the answer is no or maybe for missions that the expendable envelop of the F9 overlap with the recoverable envelop of the FH it might make sense to just bid the F9 in expendable mode. You don't have the expense of dealing with 3 booster cores for launch (just one) and don't have to deal with the expenses of trying to recovery 3 cores and re-use them.
One note: If the customer does not specify single (new) core for this payload -- expendable implied -- would SpaceX even bid an F9 after the FH was certified?
That's my understanding, and why "hot" landings like JCSAT were important to try. The FH center stage will have longer downrange distance and delta-V, even with my primitive understanding of orbital mechanics.
"almost-FUBAR'd" is a gross overstatement.
Perhaps, but I felt someone ought to curb the (almost rampant) optimism here to the effect of "the stage is fine, dude". Why should Jim have all the fun?And clearly the CTO is more interested in making changes to the LV to improve its recovery and reuse characteristics, rather than throwing in the towel and just launching a high percentage of future F9 missions fully expendable.
They tried recovering v1.0s with parachutes. Didn't work out, so they gave up on it. What says that the GTO profiles near the recovery limit will result in recovered boosters that can be cost-efficiently refurbished? For all we know, they could end up being like Shuttle SRBs.
One note: If the customer does not specify single (new) core for this payload -- expendable implied -- would SpaceX even bid an F9 after the FH was certified?
Do we know if reusing a FH will be cheaper than flying an expendable F9?
I don't think we know enough yet.
Plus the risks of more engines, separation events and recovery of 3 cores are also factors to consider. If they lose the FH central core attempting a ASDS landing that alone will be more than an F9.
That's my understanding, and why "hot" landings like JCSAT were important to try. The FH center stage will have longer downrange distance and delta-V, even with my primitive understanding of orbital mechanics.
It will likely also have substantially more propellant available for the reentry burn, so I don't know that it's a given that the landing will actually be as hot as JCSAT (for most payloads, at least).
39A didn't look ready for FH as of last week, since the old RSS still looks darn intact. Hope to get another view/pic tomorrow.
Eh? While I don't agree that such an outcome[1] is likely, it's not out of the realm of possibility... I think it's far more likely that they will get reuse marginal costs all in (ASDS, recovery ops, replacement parts, rewashing, etc) to 10% or less of stage costs. But that's just me.For all we know, they could end up being like Shuttle SRBs.If you want to talk science fiction, I think there's probably a better forum for that.
That's my understanding, and why "hot" landings like JCSAT were important to try. The FH center stage will have longer downrange distance and delta-V, even with my primitive understanding of orbital mechanics.
It will likely also have substantially more propellant available for the reentry burn, so I don't know that it's a given that the landing will actually be as hot as JCSAT (for most payloads, at least).
That's my understanding, and why "hot" landings like JCSAT were important to try. The FH center stage will have longer downrange distance and delta-V, even with my primitive understanding of orbital mechanics.
It will likely also have substantially more propellant available for the reentry burn, so I don't know that it's a given that the landing will actually be as hot as JCSAT (for most payloads, at least).
You're likely right. Jim schooled me indirectly in a related thread on how the FH core would throttle back to conserve fuel and let the sides do the bulk of the lifting to make the center core work more like a second stage. That still puts the stack loooooong downrange, so it may have quite a bit of fuel in reserve, depending on the mission, but that core has to find an ASDS might be closer to Africa than it is the Floridian shore. But I don't know the ASDS range limits, really. That's going to be quite the boostback.
You're likely right. Jim schooled me indirectly in a related thread on how the FH core would throttle back to conserve fuel and let the sides do the bulk of the lifting to make the center core work more like a second stage. That still puts the stack loooooong downrange, so it may have quite a bit of fuel in reserve, depending on the mission, but that core has to find an ASDS might be closer to Africa than it is the Floridian shore. But I don't know the ASDS range limits, really. That's going to be quite the boostback.
"almost-FUBAR'd" is a gross overstatement.
Perhaps, but I felt someone ought to curb the (almost rampant) optimism here to the effect of "the stage is fine, dude". Why should Jim have all the fun?And clearly the CTO is more interested in making changes to the LV to improve its recovery and reuse characteristics, rather than throwing in the towel and just launching a high percentage of future F9 missions fully expendable.
They tried recovering v1.0s with parachutes. Didn't work out, so they gave up on it. What says that the GTO profiles near the recovery limit will result in recovered boosters that can be cost-efficiently refurbished? For all we know, they could end up being like Shuttle SRBs.
There is something wrong though in making statements that are contradicted by current knowledge (i.e. Musk's statements)
There is something wrong though in making statements that are contradicted by current knowledge (i.e. Musk's statements)
Exactly what part of my post is contradicted by "current knowledge"? I talked about cost-efficient refurbishment. Throw enough money and time into a booster and of course you'll be able to make it fly again. Of course the JCSAT-14 booster could be made to fly again, for goodness sake it managed to land itself in one piece. Doesn't mean it's going to be more worth refurbishing it if it's sufficiently damaged than just cranking out a new stage. The jury is still very much out on this so pessimism is just as fair game as optimism is. YMMV.
There is something wrong though in making statements that are contradicted by current knowledge (i.e. Musk's statements)
Exactly what part of my post is contradicted by "current knowledge"? I talked about cost-efficient refurbishment. Throw enough money and time into a booster and of course you'll be able to make it fly again. Of course the JCSAT-14 booster could be made to fly again, for goodness sake it managed to land itself in one piece. Doesn't mean it's going to be more worth refurbishing it if it's sufficiently damaged than just cranking out a new stage. The jury is still very much out on this so pessimism is just as fair game as optimism is. YMMV.
Another data point is GS advertising 30% price reduction on a re-flown stage. If refurbishment is not cost efficient, how is the price dropping by approximately the cost of a new first stage? Of course it is acceptable to discount her word, too, and wait until the market starts buying at that price point.
It took others on this forum a very long time to stop saying that SpaceX prices would rise to match the going market rate... haven't heard much of that sour note lately, have you?
There is something wrong though in making statements that are contradicted by current knowledge (i.e. Musk's statements)
Exactly what part of my post is contradicted by "current knowledge"? I talked about cost-efficient refurbishment. Throw enough money and time into a booster and of course you'll be able to make it fly again. Of course the JCSAT-14 booster could be made to fly again, for goodness sake it managed to land itself in one piece. Doesn't mean it's going to be more worth refurbishing it if it's sufficiently damaged than just cranking out a new stage. The jury is still very much out on this so pessimism is just as fair game as optimism is. YMMV.
Another data point is GS advertising 30% price reduction on a re-flown stage. If refurbishment is not cost efficient, how is the price dropping by approximately the cost of a new first stage? Of course it is acceptable to discount her word, too, and wait until the market starts buying at that price point.
It took others on this forum a very long time to stop saying that SpaceX prices would rise to match the going market rate... haven't heard much of that sour note lately, have you?
There is something wrong though in making statements that are contradicted by current knowledge (i.e. Musk's statements)
Exactly what part of my post is contradicted by "current knowledge"? I talked about cost-efficient refurbishment. Throw enough money and time into a booster and of course you'll be able to make it fly again. Of course the JCSAT-14 booster could be made to fly again, for goodness sake it managed to land itself in one piece. Doesn't mean it's going to be more worth refurbishing it if it's sufficiently damaged than just cranking out a new stage. The jury is still very much out on this so pessimism is just as fair game as optimism is. YMMV.
So Shotwell doesn't know what she's talking about...
So Shotwell doesn't know what she's talking about...
I'm saying as a company they don't have enough data to be precise.
They are distributing the market, by that very nature they don't know where it settles out.
Considering that those who actually build and recover the stages, and get the first-hand looks at the components, tend towards the optimistic side, has a bit more of an impression on me than a random pessimist with no particular insight.
heading for the $5-10M range down the road.That quote was prior to SpaceX abandoning second-stage reuse on F9. Even then it would also require fairing recovery (which is far from a reality right now) and reuse (who knows). We can, I think, consider that quote obsolete.
Considering that those who actually build and recover the stages, and get the first-hand looks at the components, tend towards the optimistic side, has a bit more of an impression on me than a random pessimist with no particular insight.
Considering that those who actually build and recover the stages, and get the first-hand looks at the components, tend towards the optimistic side, has a bit more of an impression on me than a random pessimist with no particular insight.
By all means feel free to believe what you want, heaven forbid I changed anyone's mind here. I was just clarifying my point and responding to supposedly statements that have no basis in reality. Optimists obviously aren't allowed to be questioned here, lest you want to immediately be accused of calling a CEO and COO outright liars. Fine, this "random pessimist" is done with this discussion. Enjoy your unicorns.
Considering that those who actually build and recover the stages, and get the first-hand looks at the components, tend towards the optimistic side, has a bit more of an impression on me than a random pessimist with no particular insight.
Are these optimistic folks the same people that said the FH would fly in 2013?
I think many of us aren't being pessimistic but reasonable. This is very hard stuff they are doing and they are making good progress. What looks bad is stated schedules and goals that have no basis in reality.
AIUI, the F9H schedule has always been 'approximate', (as with most boosters from any company IIRC), since that all it needs to be. TBH, you cannot compare the F9H schedule with the reuse project. Completely different beasts. Schedule slip on F9H doesn't look 'bad' to me. Just standard operating procedure for complex engineering.
You are clearly seeing things as you wish to see them.
Enjoy.
The center core travel distance was expressed as a quarter of the way to Africa.If you're implying that FH's launched from Boca Chica will recover center cores at KSC, maybe take a look at launch trajectory ground path estimates and overflight rules before you latch onto that idea too strongly.
I think it is better expressed as about the distance from Boca Chica to the Kennedy Space Center.
Will be interesting to see if this [desire not to use expendable mode] changes if the GTO boosters consistently end up returning almost-FUBAR'd.It is possible (and seems likely to me) that the line between almost-FUBAR and perfectly OK might be very thin. Suppose, for example, that there was a fire in the engine compartment. Not something designed for, so at the very least all engines will need to be removed, inspected and re-qualified, the octoweb might be suspect, all wiring will need to be checked and probably replaced, and so on. Basically all but FUBAR. This, to my mind, matches both the observations and Elon's comments (Yes, it COULD be re-used. No, it's better to use it as max-damage test piece).
...
A single stick Raptor powered vehicle that can replace the FH would be a great product and likely much cheaper to operate.
A 5.2m booster is only simpler after you've designed, built, tested, reconfigured ground systems, determined transportation mechanisms, etc. The F9/FH more than cover all near future launch requirements at a very reasonable price and performance. What part is broken that needs fixed?
AIUI, the F9H schedule has always been 'approximate', (as with most boosters from any company IIRC), since that all it needs to be. TBH, you cannot compare the F9H schedule with the reuse project. Completely different beasts. Schedule slip on F9H doesn't look 'bad' to me. Just standard operating procedure for complex engineering.
You are clearly seeing things as you wish to see them.
Enjoy.
A 5.2m booster is only simpler after you've designed, built, tested, reconfigured ground systems, determined transportation mechanisms, etc. The F9/FH more than cover all near future launch requirements at a very reasonable price and performance. What part is broken that needs fixed?
AIUI, the F9H schedule has always been 'approximate', (as with most boosters from any company IIRC), since that all it needs to be. TBH, you cannot compare the F9H schedule with the reuse project. Completely different beasts. Schedule slip on F9H doesn't look 'bad' to me. Just standard operating procedure for complex engineering.
You are clearly seeing things as you wish to see them.
Enjoy.
We/you should care - for a variety of reasons. I want them to do it right, yes - but if they don't get going soonish, some of the goodwill and hype they've built up will start to erode confidence in their ability to deliver a really big launcher. And it hasn't been 'Falcon 9 Heavy' for quite awhile now.
Stranger things happen. Maybe Space Geeks are relatively patient, but Joe Public isn't - and they bore easily. Now; you may think that doesn't matter but I'm betting it does. We'll see. F.H. will be flying soon-ish.
We/you should care - for a variety of reasons. I want them to do it right, yes - but if they don't get going soonish, some of the goodwill and hype they've built up will start to erode confidence in their ability to deliver a really big launcher. And it hasn't been 'Falcon 9 Heavy' for quite awhile now.
Stranger things happen. Maybe Space Geeks are relatively patient, but Joe Public isn't - and they bore easily. Now; you may think that doesn't matter but I'm betting it does. We'll see. F.H. will be flying soon-ish.
What has Joe Public got to do with it?
We are not important, Joe Public isn't important, but the people who want to use FH, they are important. And perhaps, the only important ones. And they are the people who understand what is going on. They don't get bored.
SpaceX does not rely on public opinion.
Flight paths out of Boca Chica will thread the needle between the Florida Keys and Bahamas to the north and Cuba to the south, then adjust if needed to the required inclination. There is no other way to launch without overflight of populated areas, and it will be quite some time before SpaceX gets regulatory approval to do that.
The lowest-energy landing for the first stage will lie along the trajectory from Boca Chica to south of the Keys, whether it be in the Gulf, the Atlantic, or diverted to a Key.
SpaceX does not rely on public opinion.
SpaceX does not rely on public opinion.
I think I disagree with that. Musk is a showman and his companies deliver PR spectacles. Also, as this article points out, there is a growing buzz and interest in launches.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/innovation/elon-musks-spacex-livestream-is-his-most-surprising-success-20160526-gp4zm4.html
It may not be outpacing the K*************s but it matters.
Stranger things happen. Maybe Space Geeks are relatively patient, but Joe Public isn't - and they bore easily. Now; you may think that doesn't matter but I'm betting it does. We'll see. F.H. will be flying soon-ish.
What has Joe Public got to do with it?
We are not important, Joe Public isn't important, but the people who want to use FH, they are important. And perhaps, the only important ones. And they are the people who understand what is going on. They don't get bored.
SpaceX does not rely on public opinion.
Look; I'm not looking for an argument, really?! How about we lighten up some and move on... But even if I accept your fatalism/negativity - and I partly do - they have a very large fan base on social media and their main event launches stream to very large numbers over the net. Nothing more, nothing less! And some of those people have/are going to buy Teslas etc. It's important if you take it in context. (anyone wanna help me out here? No..?) That's about all the explainin' I can manage now at 1:30am (my time) over and out... ;)
Stranger things happen. Maybe Space Geeks are relatively patient, but Joe Public isn't - and they bore easily. Now; you may think that doesn't matter but I'm betting it does. We'll see. F.H. will be flying soon-ish.
What has Joe Public got to do with it?
We are not important, Joe Public isn't important, but the people who want to use FH, they are important. And perhaps, the only important ones. And they are the people who understand what is going on. They don't get bored.
SpaceX does not rely on public opinion.
Look; I'm not looking for an argument, really?! How about we lighten up some and move on... But even if I accept your fatalism/negativity - and I partly do - they have a very large fan base on social media and their main event launches stream to very large numbers over the net. Nothing more, nothing less! And some of those people have/are going to buy Teslas etc. It's important if you take it in context. (anyone wanna help me out here? No..?) That's about all the explainin' I can manage now at 1:30am (my time) over and out... ;)
You need goodwill to attract top talent. Without top talent, you can't have a SpaceX.
Ergo, SpaceX can't slow down and remain SpaceX.
Although I believe they could benefit from a stretched-again second stage, I suspect that the next step is second stage reuse... and higher energy payloads like inter-planetary. That could be better accomplished with a methlox stage and (mini-)Raptor. Before 'improving' the FH, fly it a bit and see if essentials need to change, especially involving the three core configuration.
When need begins to exist for the full payload capability (direct insertion of USAF payloads, propellant deliveries, inter-planetary flights, etc.), the methlox second stage (probably 5-ish meters) will enter the scene -- IMO around 2018.
Doubling the weight of the upper stage without increasing thrust of the core stage wouldn't necessarily change the structure of the first stage that much because the peak acceleration would be much lower. They could also throttle-down the core stage to reduce loads, at least for the first flights.Although I believe they could benefit from a stretched-again second stage, I suspect that the next step is second stage reuse... and higher energy payloads like inter-planetary. That could be better accomplished with a methlox stage and (mini-)Raptor. Before 'improving' the FH, fly it a bit and see if essentials need to change, especially involving the three core configuration.
When need begins to exist for the full payload capability (direct insertion of USAF payloads, propellant deliveries, inter-planetary flights, etc.), the methlox second stage (probably 5-ish meters) will enter the scene -- IMO around 2018.
Not sure that the FH needs improved performance at this time. The only benefit they really out of the better second stage is improving recovery profile of the center core.
A minor stretch of the current second stage would mean having 2 versions of a stage and that goes against SpaceX behavior, up to now anyway.
A Raptor upper stage, although exciting in theory, with a 4.8 meter diameter engine nozzle that is going to be some amazing interstage. Plus doubling the weight of the stage you'll end up with a structurally revised S1 anyway.
FH will need extra performance, a different upper stage, and core booster changes anyway, in order to begin testing upper stage recovery for MCT. The MCT upper stage is going to be very expensive to test like F9 first stages... throwing them away won't be appealing.Why does FH need a new upper stage to test something related to MCT?
Why does FH need a new upper stage to test something related to MCT?
Or you can put a payload on FH to test this.Why does FH need a new upper stage to test something related to MCT?
BFR/MCT will use the Raptor methane engine. MCT also will do return from orbit. A new raptor based upper stage for FalconHeavy will help testing both in an operational environment at much lower cost than building MCT.
BFR/MCT will use the Raptor methane engine. MCT also will do return from orbit. A new raptor based upper stage for FalconHeavy will help testing both in an operational environment at much lower cost than building MCT.Or you can put a payload on FH to test this.
They could. But doing a reusable upper stage is so much modus operandi by SpaceX.A new stage and new engine and new interstage, plus new TEL and ground equipment for methane, all limited in use to some small minority of FH launches? I think you've got that backwards.
Small minority of launches?? If it happens, it'd eventually be used for all FH launches, and probably all F9 launches as well (the air force document says the Raptor upper stage would be used for both FH and F9).They could. But doing a reusable upper stage is so much modus operandi by SpaceX.A new stage and new engine and new interstage, plus new TEL and ground equipment for methane, all limited in use to some small minority of FH launches? I think you've got that backwards.
Small minority of launches?? If it happens, it'd eventually be used for all FH launches, and probably all F9 launches as well (the air force document says the Raptor upper stage would be used for both FH and F9).I guess I misunderstood, then. If they outright replace the second stage for all Falcon launches that would be more believable. I'd still be shocked if they did. A different diameter stage is the opposite from how they've done things thus far.
Or perhaps you think they'll just make the jump to BFR all in one go. That's far-fetched to me. Not impossible, but unlikely. They need a "Falcon 1" for Raptor.No they definitely wouldn't do it all in one go. I would more imagine a Grasshopper for Raptor and BFR.
I don't believe they will ever land the two boosters on ASDSs, but all will be RTLS.
No expendable side boosters either.
RTLS of the center core is possible, but the performance penalty is so much that this will be relegated to intermediate loads just too large for F9.
So I believe most center cores will land on ASDS.
If returning all 3 cores to landing site is done, cross-feed would be impractical, so if they do build cross-feed versions then I believe these center cores will all land on the ASDS.
They could. But doing a reusable upper stage is so much modus operandi by SpaceX.A new stage and new engine and new interstage, plus new TEL and ground equipment for methane, all limited in use to some small minority of FH launches? I think you've got that backwards.
Small minority of launches?? If it happens, it'd eventually be used for all FH launches, and probably all F9 launches as well (the air force document says the Raptor upper stage would be used for both FH and F9).I guess I misunderstood, then. If they outright replace the second stage for all Falcon launches that would be more believable. I'd still be shocked if they did. A different diameter stage is the opposite from how they've done things thus far.
I don't believe they will ever land the two boosters on ASDSs, but all will be RTLS.
Probably. Per Nadrek's and others' calculations, side cores to ASDS provides little in the way of additional performance.No expendable side boosters either.
It would certainly be an expensive FH flight, but expending the sides gets you around +30% (from 8t to 11t) to Mars. I'd say probably a 'final flight' type mission for cores on the verge of retirement, but then I can't help but think that you'd not want to risk that large a Mars mission on cores you want to retire.
<snip>
In the same way that they've waited for the F9 technology to be proven/stable before flying FH on their own dime, BFR/MCT will use FH to prepare the ground for it's arrival. Raptor, in-space refueling, Mars EDL with large payloads, Earth EDL, etc. will all be proven before BFR uses them.
Both 8 and 11 tonnes are too small by an order of magnitude for SpaceX plans.
In-space refueling is required to enter the big time Mars game.
Both 8 and 11 tonnes are too small by an order of magnitude for SpaceX plans.
In-space refueling is required to enter the big time Mars game.
Well, of course. Baby steps first, though -- assuming Red Dragon counts as "baby". ;-)
Think they'll try refueling a Merlin second stage? They may have a Raptor upper stage available come the 2020 window, so they might skip developing Merlin-based refueling hardware.
I don't think Kerlox fits well into refueling technology... it pretty much is a dead end. Refueling and depots are best when high energy departures are involved. Fuels are thus limited to hydrogen, methane, oxygen in their liquid forms, of course -- there may be others, but these seem to be leading candidates.While I agree with you regarding Kerolox, I really wonder just how difficult it will be to retain liquid oxygen, hydrogen or methane for long periods of time, even or especially in orbit. Long periods, in this case, means more than a couple of days, and in fact probably months.
I don't think Kerlox fits well into refueling technology... it pretty much is a dead end. Refueling and depots are best when high energy departures are involved. Fuels are thus limited to hydrogen, methane, oxygen in their liquid forms, of course -- there may be others, but these seem to be leading candidates.While I agree with you regarding Kerolox, I really wonder just how difficult it will be to retain liquid oxygen, hydrogen or methane for long periods of time, even or especially in orbit. Long periods, in this case, means more than a couple of days, and in fact probably months.
I'm quite aware that you can't treat rockets like Lego, but would it be possible to add two more Falcon 9 cores to the Falcon Heavy to provide for some extra payload without having to make any massive modifetions to the core stage?
I'm quite aware that you can't treat rockets like Lego, but would it be possible to add two more Falcon 9 cores to the Falcon Heavy to provide for some extra payload without having to make any massive modifetions to the core stage?
How is it going to be assembled with the current infrastructure?
I'm quite aware that you can't treat rockets like Lego, but would it be possible to add two more Falcon 9 cores to the Falcon Heavy to provide for some extra payload without having to make any massive modifetions to the core stage?
I'm thinking that one of the most reliable Omens and Portents that the first FH launch is actually going to happen within a few months will be the construction of a second RTLS landing pad at CCAFS, either adjacent to the existing LC-1 (within the same rented footprint), or at a different location elsewhere on the Cape (perhaps another old, decommissioned pad complex).Scrub Jay nesting season ends June 30. Expect to see your "omen and portent" shortly afterward.
I don't believe SpaceX is ever going to bring JRtI back to Florida, and I also don't believe they will launch any FH without the intention of recovering at least the booster cores, if not all three cores.
So, the landing resource math says that, for each FH launch, in order to recover three cores, you need either three ASDSes, two ASDSes and one RTLS landing pad, or (far most likely) one ASDS and two RTLS landing pads.
Ergo, we'll either need to see at least one more ASDS built and deployed, or another RTLS landing pad built, prior to the first FH launch. And as I say, the sign I'd be looking for would be the construction of that second landing pad...
I'm quite aware that you can't treat rockets like Lego, but would it be possible to add two more Falcon 9 cores to the Falcon Heavy to provide for some extra payload without having to make any massive modifetions to the core stage?
I'm quite aware that you can't treat rockets like Lego, but would it be possible to add two more Falcon 9 cores to the Falcon Heavy to provide for some extra payload without having to make any massive modifetions to the core stage?
I would say 'No'. It would require enough changes to the center core to make such a project violate the SX 'KISS' style. And it would require massive changes to the pad like flame trench, GSE, TEL, ect.
It can be horizontally integrated. Just look up how Energia Buran was integrated. It would require a new TEL design, and I'm not sure it would fit the LC-40 flame trench. And it would need a new center core. That could launch with as little as 3 engines. But then the question is why if they rather develop the MCT.I'm quite aware that you can't treat rockets like Lego, but would it be possible to add two more Falcon 9 cores to the Falcon Heavy to provide for some extra payload without having to make any massive modifetions to the core stage?
How is it going to be assembled with the current infrastructure?
If I read Jim right, he's noting that the Falcon is horizontally assembled. To try to add a third or more cores means a wholly different way of assembly that SpaceX doesn't do without leasing space in the VAB. Won't happen.
I don't want to even think of the engineering logistics needed to manage more than the 27 engines on a normal FH.
It can be horizontally integrated. Just look up how Energia Buran was integrated. It would require a new TEL design, and I'm not sure it would fit the LC-40 flame trench. And it would need a new center core. That could launch with as little as 3 engines. But then the question is why if they rather develop the MCT.Having five cores with the current design would be problematic, above and beyond all the reasons already given. You really do want liftoff with every engine in play, as that is when your gravity losses are highest. But after that it comes down to just how much you can throttle down the engines you want to conserve fuel for later. I don't think you would want to actually shut them down entirely. And if they are throttled to the minimum (40-50%% or so), they are still consuming half as much fuel as normally.
Oh! And I guess it would really complicate the lower interfaces and hold downs. But with a lot of extra work and cost it could be done horizontally. Probably not cost effective, though.
In addition to all this, the boost stage of the Falcon Heavy is already rather overpowered, and adding 2 more boosters would make it absurdly overpowered, relative to the current upper stage.
Elon wants to travel in comfort.Lots of Gs ain't my idea of comfort...
That's interesting. So the best way to increase the payload of the Falcon Heavy is a bigger upper stage. If such a need existed, I would guess space X would choose to stretch the second stage, and add two more vaccum Merlins to the stage. Easier than integating a second fuel type into the launch infrastructure to allow for the use of the Raptor engine.No need to add an engine, the Merlin has plenty of thrust for a larger upper stage, especially if that stage is only used with the FH so it will be further along than the current F9 upper stage is at ignition.
That's interesting. So the best way to increase the payload of the Falcon Heavy is a bigger upper stage. If such a need existed, I would guess space X would choose to stretch the second stage, and add two more vaccum Merlins to the stage. Easier than integating a second fuel type into the launch infrastructure to allow for the use of the Raptor engine.No need to add an engine, the Merlin has plenty of thrust for a larger upper stage, especially if that stage is only used with the FH so it will be further along than the current F9 upper stage is at ignition.
The reason to go Raptor is to get improved ISP and more balanced fuel/oxidizer temperatures (which may make long life easier without adding extra mass).
To re-iterate that point.
(http://i.imgur.com/FRszulq.png)
MVac pushes 95 tonnes. By the time the fuel runs out, the engine has to throttle below 40% so as to not kill the payload with high g-forces.
The usual T/W of a second stage is usually between 1 and 1/2. So they could increase a bit the US fuel mass without requiring an increased thrust US.
What I have just realized, is that since SpaceX is designing for reusability, the first stage separates at a lower velocity and thus, the US should have a great T/W because they will be fighting gravity a lot more than a Centaur, for comparing to something.
Falcon Heavy draws upon Falcon 9’s proven design, which minimizes stage separation events and maximizes reliability. The second-stage Merlin engine, identical to its counterpart on Falcon 9, delivers the rocket’s payload to orbit after the main engines cut off and the first-stage cores separate. The engine can be restarted multiple times to place payloads into a variety of orbits including low Earth, geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) and geosynchronous orbit (GSO).
Just imagine the Raptor-Vac (on top of a F9 or FH).
Has it been noticed that the SpaceX website now shows direct GEO insertion as a capability of Falcon Heavy?
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavyQuoteFalcon Heavy draws upon Falcon 9’s proven design, which minimizes stage separation events and maximizes reliability. The second-stage Merlin engine, identical to its counterpart on Falcon 9, delivers the rocket’s payload to orbit after the main engines cut off and the first-stage cores separate. The engine can be restarted multiple times to place payloads into a variety of orbits including low Earth, geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) and geosynchronous orbit (GSO).
Bold mine.
Just imagine the Raptor-Vac (on top of a F9 or FH).
I don't know that the Raptor Vac will be enormously bigger (at least any version of it flying on Falcon) since there are diminishing returns. A 40% bigger bell can handle 2x the thrust with the same expansion ratio.
Just imagine the Raptor-Vac (on top of a F9 or FH).
I don't know that the Raptor Vac will be enormously bigger (at least any version of it flying on Falcon) since there are diminishing returns. A 40% bigger bell can handle 2x the thrust with the same expansion ratio.
The number that was discussed for the nozzle was 4.8 meter diameter. The ripple affects of that is what I find interesting.
The feasible way is to have a wider upper stage and interstage. And possibly an extending nozzle like RL-10B2 and like shown in this SpaceX video at 1:13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSF81yjVbJEJust imagine the Raptor-Vac (on top of a F9 or FH).
I don't know that the Raptor Vac will be enormously bigger (at least any version of it flying on Falcon) since there are diminishing returns. A 40% bigger bell can handle 2x the thrust with the same expansion ratio.
The number that was discussed for the nozzle was 4.8 meter diameter. The ripple affects of that is what I find interesting.
I believe 4.8m was calculated using the 230 tonne sea level thrust and 380s vacuum ISP figures from the rettid AMA. Anything flying on Falcon will probably be an early version... so I'd expect a lower thrust and maybe a lower expansion ratio. I just don't see any feasible way to fly a 4.8m nozzle on Falcon.
The feasible way is to have a wider upper stage and interstage.This probably is what they will do if they go wider. But I think it will take some careful thought, since the widest part of the nozzle is at the bottom. And the bottom is where the narrowest part of the interstage would be, since that is where it starts flaring out... so there may need to be a gap of some size to get it to work.
The feasible way is to have a wider upper stage and interstage.This probably is what they will do if they go wider. But I think it will take some careful thought, since the widest part of the nozzle is at the bottom. And the bottom is where the narrowest part of the interstage would be, since that is where it starts flaring out... so there may need to be a gap of some size to get it to work.
...or have an extendible nozzle like the part that you trimmed from my post.The feasible way is to have a wider upper stage and interstage.This probably is what they will do if they go wider. But I think it will take some careful thought, since the widest part of the nozzle is at the bottom. And the bottom is where the narrowest part of the interstage would be, since that is where it starts flaring out... so there may need to be a gap of some size to get it to work.
...or have an extendible nozzle like the part that you trimmed from my post.The feasible way is to have a wider upper stage and interstage.This probably is what they will do if they go wider. But I think it will take some careful thought, since the widest part of the nozzle is at the bottom. And the bottom is where the narrowest part of the interstage would be, since that is where it starts flaring out... so there may need to be a gap of some size to get it to work.
...or have an extendible nozzle like the part that you trimmed from my post.The feasible way is to have a wider upper stage and interstage.This probably is what they will do if they go wider. But I think it will take some careful thought, since the widest part of the nozzle is at the bottom. And the bottom is where the narrowest part of the interstage would be, since that is where it starts flaring out... so there may need to be a gap of some size to get it to work.
How much ISP would Raptor lose when it has a nozzle diameter of only 4m?Does it have to make the same thrust as the 4.8m nozzle? Because ISP isn't solely dictated by nozzle size - for the same fuels it is a function of pressure ratios... and there are other ways to change pressure ratios (e.g. change mass flow and/or throat diameter) at the expense of thrust.
How much ISP would Raptor lose when it has a nozzle diameter of only 4m?Does it have to make the same thrust as the 4.8m nozzle? Because ISP isn't solely dictated by nozzle size - for the same fuels it is a function of pressure ratios... and there are other ways to change pressure ratios (e.g. change mass flow and/or throat diameter) at the expense of thrust.
Raptor with a 4 m nozzle loses about 1% of ISP compared to a 4.8 m nozzle: 376 s vs 380 s.How much ISP would Raptor lose when it has a nozzle diameter of only 4m?Does it have to make the same thrust as the 4.8m nozzle? Because ISP isn't solely dictated by nozzle size - for the same fuels it is a function of pressure ratios... and there are other ways to change pressure ratios (e.g. change mass flow and/or throat diameter) at the expense of thrust.
Obviously I don't even know enough to ask the right question. For arguments sake assume the same engine, just a smaller nozzle.
Though what we know does not rule out that a dedicated smaller version of Raptor might be built.
Raptor with a 4 m nozzle loses about 1% of ISP compared to a 4.8 m nozzle: 376 s vs 380 s.
And possibly an extending nozzle like RL-10B2.
Raptor with a 4 m nozzle loses about 1% of ISP compared to a 4.8 m nozzle: 376 s vs 380 s.How much ISP would Raptor lose when it has a nozzle diameter of only 4m?Does it have to make the same thrust as the 4.8m nozzle? Because ISP isn't solely dictated by nozzle size - for the same fuels it is a function of pressure ratios... and there are other ways to change pressure ratios (e.g. change mass flow and/or throat diameter) at the expense of thrust.
Obviously I don't even know enough to ask the right question. For arguments sake assume the same engine, just a smaller nozzle.
Though what we know does not rule out that a dedicated smaller version of Raptor might be built.
This is based on sim in RPA lite using: Methane/LOX at:
9.7 MPa chamber pressure (same as Merlin)
2.8 O/F ratio (optimum for methalox at 9.7 MPa)
165 expansion ratio for the 4.8 m nozzle (same as Merlin Vac)
115 expansion ratio for the 4 m nozzle (assuming same throat diameter as the 4.8 m nozzle)
Depends on the mission. Also, I don't think it has ever failed.And possibly an extending nozzle like RL-10B2.
I believe that on the Delta IVs an RL-10B2 nozzle extension failure results in LoM.
Raptor with a 4 m nozzle loses about 1% of ISP compared to a 4.8 m nozzle: 376 s vs 380 s.How much ISP would Raptor lose when it has a nozzle diameter of only 4m?Does it have to make the same thrust as the 4.8m nozzle? Because ISP isn't solely dictated by nozzle size - for the same fuels it is a function of pressure ratios... and there are other ways to change pressure ratios (e.g. change mass flow and/or throat diameter) at the expense of thrust.
Obviously I don't even know enough to ask the right question. For arguments sake assume the same engine, just a smaller nozzle.
Though what we know does not rule out that a dedicated smaller version of Raptor might be built.
This is based on sim in RPA lite using: Methane/LOX at:
9.7 MPa chamber pressure (same as Merlin)
2.8 O/F ratio (optimum for methalox at 9.7 MPa)
165 expansion ratio for the 4.8 m nozzle (same as Merlin Vac)
115 expansion ratio for the 4 m nozzle (assuming same throat diameter as the 4.8 m nozzle)
Nice work, but that's a lot of assumptions.
What thrust do you get?
2097 kN for the 4.0 m nozzle
2119 kN for the 4.8 m nozzle, about 1% more, which corresponds to the 1% ISP increase.
Since the thrust and ISP come out almost exactly where Musk was projecting, my assumptions probably aren't all that far off. Either chamber pressure or throat area (or both) might be little low.
Raptor with a 4 m nozzle loses about 1% of ISP compared to a 4.8 m nozzle: 376 s vs 380 s.
This is based on sim in RPA lite using: Methane/LOX at:
9.7 MPa chamber pressure (same as Merlin)
2.8 O/F ratio (optimum for methalox at 9.7 MPa)
165 expansion ratio for the 4.8 m nozzle (same as Merlin Vac)
115 expansion ratio for the 4 m nozzle (assuming same throat diameter as the 4.8 m nozzle)
*full flow
Raptor with a 4 m nozzle loses about 1% of ISP compared to a 4.8 m nozzle: 376 s vs 380 s.
This is based on sim in RPA lite using: Methane/LOX at:
9.7 MPa chamber pressure (same as Merlin)
2.8 O/F ratio (optimum for methalox at 9.7 MPa)
165 expansion ratio for the 4.8 m nozzle (same as Merlin Vac)
115 expansion ratio for the 4 m nozzle (assuming same throat diameter as the 4.8 m nozzle)
Isn't staged combustion supposed to mean higher chamber pressure than gas generator?
So nary a whisper here of the photos on other sites of the other core (engineless) outside Hawthorne with the mystery hold down fittings?
So nary a whisper here of the photos on other sites of the other core (engineless) outside Hawthorne with the mystery hold down fittings?
There has been posts including the photos. But memory fails which subject line. Will try to locate.
I believe there are two different stages in these pictures. The equipment and building around the vehicles seem different.
The top picture does not appear to be your normal F9 Octoweb.
Raptor with a 4 m nozzle loses about 1% of ISP compared to a 4.8 m nozzle: 376 s vs 380 s.
This is based on sim in RPA lite using: Methane/LOX at:
9.7 MPa chamber pressure (same as Merlin)
2.8 O/F ratio (optimum for methalox at 9.7 MPa)
165 expansion ratio for the 4.8 m nozzle (same as Merlin Vac)
115 expansion ratio for the 4 m nozzle (assuming same throat diameter as the 4.8 m nozzle)
I believe there are two different stages in these pictures. The equipment and building around the vehicles seem different.
I would concur it is the same stage in all 4 photos.
Raptor with a 4 m nozzle loses about 1% of ISP compared to a 4.8 m nozzle: 376 s vs 380 s.
This is based on sim in RPA lite using: Methane/LOX at:
9.7 MPa chamber pressure (same as Merlin)
2.8 O/F ratio (optimum for methalox at 9.7 MPa)
165 expansion ratio for the 4.8 m nozzle (same as Merlin Vac)
115 expansion ratio for the 4 m nozzle (assuming same throat diameter as the 4.8 m nozzle)
O/F ratio was supposed to be 3.8. Chamber pressure seems like the big unknown - if the M1D gas generator produces 9.7MPa, what should we expect in a FFSC Raptor?
Musk: "The critical elements of the solution are rocket reusability and low cost propellant (CH4 and O2 at an O/F ratio of ~ 3.8 ). And, of course, making the return propellant on Mars, which has a handy CO2 atmosphere and lots of H2O frozen in the soil." - http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html/4
Raptor with a 4 m nozzle loses about 1% of ISP compared to a 4.8 m nozzle: 376 s vs 380 s.
This is based on sim in RPA lite using: Methane/LOX at:
9.7 MPa chamber pressure (same as Merlin)
2.8 O/F ratio (optimum for methalox at 9.7 MPa)
165 expansion ratio for the 4.8 m nozzle (same as Merlin Vac)
115 expansion ratio for the 4 m nozzle (assuming same throat diameter as the 4.8 m nozzle)
O/F ratio was supposed to be 3.8. Chamber pressure seems like the big unknown - if the M1D gas generator produces 9.7MPa, what should we expect in a FFSC Raptor?
Musk: "The critical elements of the solution are rocket reusability and low cost propellant (CH4 and O2 at an O/F ratio of ~ 3.8 ). And, of course, making the return propellant on Mars, which has a handy CO2 atmosphere and lots of H2O frozen in the soil." - http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html/4
How are real numbers likely to come in, in relation to the figures provided by RPA Lite? Would the RPA numbers represent a theoretical maximum or perhaps a plausible best-guess at the exact values?
Same stage in all four pictures.
Noteworthy new features on the Octaweb seeming load points (compression loads)
I have circled the three new Octaweb features (red), and overlaid a simple line drawing to indicate how I assume it will connect to the FH core (blue):
I have circled the three new Octaweb features (red), and overlaid a simple line drawing to indicate how I assume it will connect to the FH core (blue):
Good explanation on the connections, thanks. However I believe this is the central core and the same connectors are on the other side not seen on this picture too. My reasoning, Gwynne Shotwell said the side boosters are the same as Falcon 9. We know with the difference of the connecting points but still basically the same. This is totally different. I don't think they have completely redone the thrust structure for all cores. Not right after Elon Musk has said the design is now mostly fixed. :)
Punch it up to the RD-180 chamber pressure - 26.7MPa
Using the listed estimates for 3.8:1 inefficiencies rather than theoretical maxima in RPA Lite:
With an expansion ratio of 59, you get 321s at sealevel and 363s in vacuum.
With an expansion ratio of 164, you get 380s in vacuum.
Sidenote: Do we have a higher chamber pressure liquid rocket engine in existence than the RD-180?
Yep. But you missed another new feature, which appears to be the main load bearing one for the octaweb. I have circled the three new Octaweb features (red), and overlaid a simple line drawing to indicate how I assume it will connect to the FH core (blue):
This one is definitely the core - the same side-booster attachment point appears on the lower side of the booster on one of the photos above, as you can see here. I'll bet they have an attach/release mechanism that links these "buffed up" core-booster fixtures to the existing Falcon 9 hold-down design to eliminate the need for any changes in the side booster octaweb design.Is it possible FH sides and core share the same web structure? In fact, this could be a new web for all boosters if the weight penalty is acceptable. Then you only have one web part number which has production flow advantages.
That's a good question, though I believe SpaceX has already said the Core booster is a separate unique design.This one is definitely the core - the same side-booster attachment point appears on the lower side of the booster on one of the photos above, as you can see here. I'll bet they have an attach/release mechanism that links these "buffed up" core-booster fixtures to the existing Falcon 9 hold-down design to eliminate the need for any changes in the side booster octaweb design.Is it possible FH sides and core share the same web structure? In fact, this could be a new web for all boosters if the weight penalty is acceptable. Then you only have one web part number which has production flow advantages.
3 Separate Octowebs. Similar for shared production but different for each role it plays. F9, FH Core, FH Booster.This one is definitely the core - the same side-booster attachment point appears on the lower side of the booster on one of the photos above, as you can see here. I'll bet they have an attach/release mechanism that links these "buffed up" core-booster fixtures to the existing Falcon 9 hold-down design to eliminate the need for any changes in the side booster octaweb design.Is it possible FH sides and core share the same web structure? In fact, this could be a new web for all boosters if the weight penalty is acceptable. Then you only have one web part number which has production flow advantages.
I have a sneaking suspicion one could join L2 to find out.
Punch it up to the RD-180 chamber pressure - 26.7MPa
Using the listed estimates for 3.8:1 inefficiencies rather than theoretical maxima in RPA Lite:
With an expansion ratio of 59, you get 321s at sealevel and 363s in vacuum.
With an expansion ratio of 164, you get 380s in vacuum.
Sidenote: Do we have a higher chamber pressure liquid rocket engine in existence than the RD-180?
That's very interesting. Do you really think they will try to run at 26.7 MPa? For comparison, the RD-191 and RD-180 run at 26.7 MPa, and the SSME ran up to 21 MPa. I think that's the highest pressure ever flown in a reusable engine. A 100% length bell nozzle gets the same performance at 25 MPa and 55:1 expansion (155:1 for the vac nozzle).
The nice thing about higher chamber pressures is the engine gets much smaller (but not lighter) for the same thrust. At 25 MPa the SL Raptor only needs a 1.88m diameter nozzle to get Musk's estimated 500klbf of thrust, and the vac version gets 591klbf with only a 3.16m dia nozzle.
To bring this entire conversation back to Falcon Heavy (we were wandering OT for a bit there), that would mean it's possible a 25 MPa Raptor Vac could fly in the current Falcon interstage. Even with the nozzle trimmed back to 70% (which would put it very nearly in the Mvac envelope), it could realistically get 265 tonnes of thrust at 377s ISP. That's a healthy upgrade over Mvac's 95 tonnes thrust and 348 ISP.
I'm interested in seeing the top area of the booster, and see if there are some obvious changes to it for supporting the upper attachments.
Punch it up to the RD-180 chamber pressure - 26.7MPaRD-191, 262.6kg/cm˛ vs 261.7kg/cm˛. RD-270 was 266.1. I know of nothing bigger than this. But some military RCS engines (like the one in MIRVs) probably have higher Pc.
Using the listed estimates for 3.8:1 inefficiencies rather than theoretical maxima in RPA Lite:
With an expansion ratio of 59, you get 321s at sealevel and 363s in vacuum.
With an expansion ratio of 164, you get 380s in vacuum.
Sidenote: Do we have a higher chamber pressure liquid rocket engine in existence than the RD-180?
3 Separate Octowebs. Similar for shared production but different for each role it plays. F9, FH Core, FH Booster.This one is definitely the core - the same side-booster attachment point appears on the lower side of the booster on one of the photos above, as you can see here. I'll bet they have an attach/release mechanism that links these "buffed up" core-booster fixtures to the existing Falcon 9 hold-down design to eliminate the need for any changes in the side booster octaweb design.Is it possible FH sides and core share the same web structure? In fact, this could be a new web for all boosters if the weight penalty is acceptable. Then you only have one web part number which has production flow advantages.
I have a sneaking suspicion one could join L2 to find out.
3 Separate Octowebs. Similar for shared production but different for each role it plays. F9, FH Core, FH Booster.This one is definitely the core - the same side-booster attachment point appears on the lower side of the booster on one of the photos above, as you can see here. I'll bet they have an attach/release mechanism that links these "buffed up" core-booster fixtures to the existing Falcon 9 hold-down design to eliminate the need for any changes in the side booster octaweb design.Is it possible FH sides and core share the same web structure? In fact, this could be a new web for all boosters if the weight penalty is acceptable. Then you only have one web part number which has production flow advantages.
I have a sneaking suspicion one could join L2 to find out.
Are you guessing that or have you found information about it somewhere?
Wild guess, is it possible that the three cores need to be mated before the engines go in? Maybe four engines on each core need to be absent to mate up the boosters, so they decided to install them all in Florida where the all up static fire will take place.
Yep. But you missed another new feature, which appears to be the main load bearing one for the octaweb. I have circled the three new Octaweb features (red), and overlaid a simple line drawing to indicate how I assume it will connect to the FH core (blue):
This one is definitely the core - the same side-booster attachment point appears on the lower side of the booster on one of the photos above, as you can see here.
I must respectfully disagree. The hold-down points on both stages outside SpaceX are very different from the hold-down points on the returned CRS booster, so I don't think either is the returned ORBCOMM S1. Also, both stages have an additional feature at 45 degrees between the hold downs. It appears to me these are identical stages--most likely the side boosters of the first FH (and it would make sense for them both to be processed for shipment at the same time).
Yeah, got to that thread right after posting here :-[
That being said, the top picture of the 4 higher up in this thread is not the same stage parked in the same place as the other 3 photos in the group. It may be the same booster in a different place or a different booster in a different place, but it is definitely a new stage of the FH design and not the ORBCOMM stage.
Yeah, got to that thread right after posting here :-[
That being said, the top picture of the 4 higher up in this thread is not the same stage parked in the same place as the other 3 photos in the group. It may be the same booster in a different place or a different booster in a different place, but it is definitely a new stage of the FH design and not the ORBCOMM stage.
For the record, the ex-SpaceX guy in the Reddit thread says he built octawebs (so he knows whereof he speaks) and that SpaceX has three different octaweb part numbers for three different octaweb configurations.
He says this in the context of stating that an F9 core cannot simply be "reassigned" to an FH, because the structural attachment points are different. So they end up with three somewhat different core/booster structural assemblies (F9, FH core, FH booster) whose differences include different octawebs.
For the record, the ex-SpaceX guy in the Reddit thread says he built octawebs (so he knows whereof he speaks) and that SpaceX has three different octaweb part numbers for three different octaweb configurations.
He says this in the context of stating that an F9 core cannot simply be "reassigned" to an FH, because the structural attachment points are different. So they end up with three somewhat different core/booster structural assemblies (F9, FH core, FH booster) whose differences include different octawebs.
While that is still likely to be true, he seems to have been an ex=SpaceX employee for 6 months or so. Given the rate that SpaceX iterate on designs, they might have changed to fewer octoweb variants.
Anything's possible, but it wouldn't make sense. F9 doesn't need booster attach points. FH core needs booster attach points on both sides. FH boosters need core attach points on one side only.
For the record, the ex-SpaceX guy in the Reddit thread says he built octawebs (so he knows whereof he speaks) and that SpaceX has three different octaweb part numbers for three different octaweb configurations.
He says this in the context of stating that an F9 core cannot simply be "reassigned" to an FH, because the structural attachment points are different. So they end up with three somewhat different core/booster structural assemblies (F9, FH core, FH booster) whose differences include different octawebs.
While that is still likely to be true, he seems to have been an ex=SpaceX employee for 6 months or so. Given the rate that SpaceX iterate on designs, they might have changed to fewer octoweb variants.
Anything's possible, but it wouldn't make basic engineering sense. F9 doesn't need booster attach points. FH core needs booster attach points on both sides. FH boosters need core attach points on one side only. Extraneous (very beefy) attach points add performance-dragging mass that you would rather save for boostback propellant margin instead of dead useless metal.
But as heavy start flying, in order to gain operational flexibility, you can stop making "regulars".
Anything's possible, but it wouldn't make basic engineering sense. F9 doesn't need booster attach points. FH core needs booster attach points on both sides. FH boosters need core attach points on one side only. Extraneous (very beefy) attach points add performance-dragging mass that you would rather save for boostback propellant margin instead of dead useless metal.
Do we think they will stagger engine ignitions like the DIVH does? Or light all 3 simultaneously?
Question about attachment points and ignition sequence:
Will SpaceX continue with their preference for nondestructive pneumatic releases for their booster separation events? I'm assuming absolutely for the upper attachment armature since that seems to be designed for retraction/re-use.
Do we think they will stagger engine ignitions like the DIVH does? Or light all 3 simultaneously?
QuoteDo we think they will stagger engine ignitions like the DIVH does? Or light all 3 simultaneously?
At least two problems with air-starting the center core: it increases the structural loads on the side boosters to have to carry the non-thrusting core off the pad, and then you need all (?) core engines to start nominally with no opportunity to abort the launch if they don't.
QuoteDo we think they will stagger engine ignitions like the DIVH does? Or light all 3 simultaneously?
At least two problems with air-starting the center core: it increases the structural loads on the side boosters to have to carry the non-thrusting core off the pad, and then you need all (?) core engines to start nominally with no opportunity to abort the launch if they don't.
Staggered ignition is not the same as air-start. We know FH won't air-start the core. (unless you count the post-staging braking and landing burns) ;)
At least two problems with air-starting the center core: it increases the structural loads on the side boosters to have to carry the non-thrusting core off the pad,
and then you need all (?) core engines to start nominally with no opportunity to abort the launch if they don't.
FH side boosters won't have an interstage, so they cannot fly as F9's.
There's no great advantage in having a specific booster be usable for multiple roles. The big advantage is using common tooling, production lines, test facilities, transport, storage, GSE, etc.
At least two problems with air-starting the center core: it increases the structural loads on the side boosters to have to carry the non-thrusting core off the pad,
FH like DIVH lifts from the base. So the core accepts the load through stiffened load paths, the only difference between a ground start and an air start for loads would be in minor degree.Quoteand then you need all (?) core engines to start nominally with no opportunity to abort the launch if they don't.
Most significant - you have to start all the engines well ahead of launch. The 28th Merlin is the only one air started.
If you have to start all of them before launch to determine if launch, they are all running to begin with.
All that is left is throttle level and props consumption management. You want to depart the pad, roll/pitch to orient to azimuth/ascent, and throttle optimally for specific mission with full depletion for the boosters and minimal depletion for the core stage, bounded by the payload's limits of acceleration.
If you had cross feed and no acceleration limits, ideally the core's engines and the boosters would all be at maximum til earliest booster separation, preserving maximum core propellant - this would be better than air start because of less gravity losses (core engines are lifting own weight + more), and the core could burn for just as long.
Air start makes sense for solids/hypers. Better choice for FH vehicle/risk trade off likely is cross feed.
You're right about the center core, but Kabloona was talking about the side cores. They will have to carry more, but the effect will only be on their thrust structure, not on their tanks.
FH side boosters won't have an interstage, so they cannot fly as F9's.
There's no great advantage in having a specific booster be usable for multiple roles. The big advantage is using common tooling, production lines, test facilities, transport, storage, GSE, etc.
That statement makes no sense in the context of reusability. It only makes sense for one-offs.
If each core is used many times, of course interchangeability helps. Or else you need to launch a heavy, but don't currently have side cores ready, so have to wait, etc.
It's why commonality is so popular in transport systems.
It's why you have the same rocket carry Dragons and payloads that use fairings... Because you don't want different types of trucks for different types of payloads - unless absolutely necessary (e.g. center core)
The only time they could replace side boosters with a F9 core is by taking a side booster out of circulation.
The only time they could replace side boosters with a F9 core is by taking a side booster out of circulation.
Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but from what we've been hearing a Falcon 9 core could not be used as a Falcon Heavy core since it lacks the strengthening upgrades and attachment points of a FH core. You could probably fly a Falcon Heavy core without boosters though (as a single stick rocket), but I'm not sure why (or if) that situation would ever arise.
It's why you have the same rocket carry Dragons and payloads that use fairings... Because you don't want different types of trucks for different types of payloads - unless absolutely necessary (e.g. center core)
The only time they could replace side boosters with a F9 core is by taking a side booster out of circulation.
Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong, but from what we've been hearing a Falcon 9 core could not be used as a Falcon Heavy core since it lacks the strengthening upgrades and attachment points of a FH core. You could probably fly a Falcon Heavy core without boosters though (as a single stick rocket), but I'm not sure why (or if) that situation would ever arise.
Would require replacing the interstage with a nose cone, at least. And it's probably structural overkill... the F9 S1 sees aero and accel loads that the FH boosters never would.
Grid fins should have been already fitted on first stage (instead of interstage).
If nose cone and interstage will be bolted on you could swap them easily.
Anyway part count reduction has ever been a “good thing to have“ for Elon.
No more.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39516.msg1509274#msg1509274
Also renderings on SpaceX site show grid fins on upper part of first stage.
I never said “inside the LOX tank“.
I said “first stage“...
No.I never said “inside the LOX tank“.
I said “first stage“...
So in a short interstage section mounted on the top of the stage. Thank you.
No.I never said “inside the LOX tank“.
I said “first stage“...
So in a short interstage section mounted on the top of the stage. Thank you.
Not mounted.
Integral part.
No more.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39516.msg1509274#msg1509274
Also renderings on SpaceX site show grid fins on upper part of first stage.
Image from SpaceX (march 2016).
Clearly visible on the aluminium barrel a manhole (circled in yellow), the holes for interstage interface/bolting (circled in green) and a new feature (circled in red, spotted by dorkmo, here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39516.msg1509250#msg1509250))
That new feature seems the attachment point of grid fins.
We will see soon...
Image from SpaceX (march 2016).
Clearly visible on the aluminium barrel a manhole or whatever it actually (circled in yellow), the holes for interstage interface/bolting (circled in green) and a new feature (circled in red, spotted by dorkmo
Is there another "manhole" located lower down on the fuel tank? That could be what we are looking at on the vertical aluminum barrel section.
Compared to the manhole/burst disk, the angle is right.
But the height is not, very different, not the same.
We will see...
But (ouch, what a nagging guy I am!) the holes drilled in the lower part of that barrel aren't visible elsewere in the stage other than in the interface between first stage and interstage. Did you see somewhere else a similar feature? Can you think at other reasons why those holes have been drilled?
That wind tunnel model is awesome :D thanks! Also, the nose cone in traffic puts a real sense of scale on this thing... it's... er... huge!
That wind tunnel model is awesome :D thanks! Also, the nose cone in traffic puts a real sense of scale on this thing... it's... er... huge!
Is the FH Fairing bigger than the one currently used in F9?I don't believe so yet, but I think they might be developing a larger one.
This one seems hugely bigger than the one on F9!
which is huge... my whole house is only 4m wide... gotta be close to being able to fit the entire first story inside the fairing
True about the width, but in the case of Centaur upper stages 7+ meters of a fairings gross length encapsulates said upper stage and isn't available for cargo. Need to discuss net length vs net length.
It may be just extra paint over masking, but it looks like it was painted by a 3rd grader. Also looks like it was brushed on, any ideas about that?
Matthew
I responded to the quote below earlier, But it's looking like that's the paintjob it'll ship with so probably no masking still on. Anyone seen the second one? I'm curious if they'll change the pattern some to distinguish the two cores from each other.It may be just extra paint over masking, but it looks like it was painted by a 3rd grader. Also looks like it was brushed on, any ideas about that?
Matthew
I responded to the quote below earlier, But it's looking like that's the paintjob it'll ship with so probably no masking still on. Anyone seen the second one? I'm curious if they'll change the pattern some to distinguish the two cores from each other.It may be just extra paint over masking, but it looks like it was painted by a 3rd grader. Also looks like it was brushed on, any ideas about that?
Matthew
What gives you the idea that A) that is flight hardware and B) if so it is the paint job it will ship with? They are months away from flight.
A quick question. From the Falcon 9 guide we know that the maximum payload that the rocket can carry is a littme more than 10 metric tons with the heavy payload adaptor.
At the same time, there has been some speculation that the way payloads are horizontally integrated (with the fairing playing a role in carrying the weight) makes attaching heavier payloads than the current max impossible, at least without major changes.
Do we have any information about whether the same technique for integration will be used in the Falcon Heavy too? This would put a hard payload limit for both vehicles a lot smaller than the theoretical performace.
Is that a limitation of the payload adapter or the lifting power of the engines?
I assume that for bigger payloads, a custom PAF could be made, but I also read somewhere here that another limitation for max load is the horizontal integration procedure itself (the amount of force that the fairing can carry over when horizontal and when moving to vertical. I'm asking whether we know anything else about this limitation.
I think it's a legit question, if the payload itself is heavier, while it is horizontal there is more bending moment at the attachment point. Presumably usually that's handled because the TEL has clamps and supports and etc while horizontal. And presumably SpaceX of course already thought of this.
I see the question as wanting to know what's likely to have changed. The stage tank wall thickness hasn't changed presumably.
Of course a heavier payload has more bending moment. The payload adapter (and the payload itself) has to support that. But - the fairing does not support the payload. Only its own (not insignificant) mass. See the image I drew up below - There is no contact between the payload and the fairing!
Look at the pics in the users' guide, there are cradles around the fairing (with the payload inside) while it is getting mated to the second stage. This means the weight of the payload is going from the adapter into the fairing. Unlike Sealaunch, where the adapter supports the fairing and the payload horizontally
I'm talking about the bending moment on the payload adapter (and thus on the rest of the stack) from the payload.I think it's a legit question, if the payload itself is heavier, while it is horizontal there is more bending moment at the attachment point. Presumably usually that's handled because the TEL has clamps and supports and etc while horizontal. And presumably SpaceX of course already thought of this.
I see the question as wanting to know what's likely to have changed. The stage tank wall thickness hasn't changed presumably.
Of course a heavier payload has more bending moment. The payload adapter (and the payload itself) has to support that. But - the fairing does not support the payload. Only its own (not insignificant) mass. See the image I drew up below - There is no contact between the payload and the fairing!
Of course a heavier payload has more bending moment. The payload adapter (and the payload itself) has to support that. But - the fairing does not support the payload. Only its own (not insignificant) mass. See the image I drew up below - There is no contact between the payload and the fairing!
Others have claimed otherwise in the past. Ex:Look at the pics in the users' guide, there are cradles around the fairing (with the payload inside) while it is getting mated to the second stage. This means the weight of the payload is going from the adapter into the fairing. Unlike Sealaunch, where the adapter supports the fairing and the payload horizontally
I've been quite curious why they do it this way and have never seen a good explanation for it or an answer to Dante80's question about the max load the fairing can support.
No, Read my words agsin
Once at the launch vehicle integration hangar, the encapsulated assembly is rotated to horizontal and mated with the launch vehicle already positioned on its transporter-erector.
BUT... that support must be for the fairing's own mass, not the payload, as there - again - is no internal connection between the fairing and payload. All payload loads transfer through the payload adapter.
Like this; red line is load path (excuse the crude art)...
Makes vertical integration so much more appealing when these headaches are considered...
Cradles are receiving part of the cantilevered load on the payload through the adapter, with the rest via the US skin.
When its been taken horizontal for mate.Quote from: F9 payload users guideOnce at the launch vehicle integration hangar, the encapsulated assembly is rotated to horizontal and mated with the launch vehicle already positioned on its transporter-erector.
QuoteMakes vertical integration so much more appealing when these headaches are considered...
Which is why SpaceX is avoiding VI like the plague? ???
It's kind of like Churchill's quote about democracy: (HI is) the worst form of government (integration) except for all the others that have been tried...
I've seen that picture before, and that support is only temporary, for the transport out to the pad. Those fairing supports are removed once the rocket has been attached to the pad. Before and after it is attached/removed, it rests completely without it before it is raised vertical.
Cradles are receiving part of the cantilevered load on the payload through the adapter, with the rest via the US skin.
When its been taken horizontal for mate.Quote from: F9 payload users guideOnce at the launch vehicle integration hangar, the encapsulated assembly is rotated to horizontal and mated with the launch vehicle already positioned on its transporter-erector.
I've seen that picture before, and that support is only temporary, for the transport out to the pad. Those fairing supports are removed once the rocket has been attached to the pad. For a short while, it rests completely without it before it is raised vertical.
Like this; red line is load path (excuse the crude art)...
edit p.s. We have seen pictures of an encapsulated payload before (vertical) and after (horizontal) mating with the LV. I have not seen a picture during mating going from vertical to horizontal, or with just the encapsulated payload horizontal, which is when the fairing would support the entire load (as shown). If a support fixture is attached to the PAF, it would reduce or eliminate load on the fairing; no idea if that is possible or what SpaceX uses.
Cradles are receiving part of the cantilevered load on the payload through the adapter, with the rest via the US skin.
When its been taken horizontal for mate.Quote from: F9 payload users guideOnce at the launch vehicle integration hangar, the encapsulated assembly is rotated to horizontal and mated with the launch vehicle already positioned on its transporter-erector.
I've seen that picture before, and that support is only temporary, for the transport out to the pad. Those fairing supports are removed once the rocket has been attached to the pad. For a short while, it rests completely without it before it is raised vertical.
You intentionally miss the point. You wanted something from your information source, the pdf. That's the closest you get that shows the support in that document. Everyone's been attempting to fill in the gap between what you and Jim were saying.
All means the same thing. I could go into how SeaLaunch handled it too, and a subtle difference Jim was alluding to. Suffice to say it allows for a lighter fairing absent the load path need. One could do the same with Falcon, but they don't because it would slow down integration for them.
I don't think you're that dense, you did get it. Why are we having this discussion other than ego salving? Why bother to answer any issue when its rendered pointless? Doesn't sound "excellent to each other" to me.
BUT... If B) it being lifted and rotated by its adapter base, then most of the load is *not* going through the fairing.
We don't know how the combined fairing/payload/adapter combination is handled as it is attached horizontally to the stack. If it is A) just sitting on its side before it is attached, then yes - all loads are being passed through the fairing. BUT...
We don't know how the combined fairing/payload/adapter combination is handled as it is attached horizontally to the stack. If it is A) just sitting on its side before it is attached, then yes - all loads are being passed through the fairing. BUT...
Yes, we do. It is A, there is no device as depicted in B.
Also note the cradle support below the fairing.
So if the fairings aren't designed/intended to take side handling loads, why are the cradles there?Used in transport, the same as with the Falcon picture in my post further above.
So if the fairings aren't designed/intended to take side handling loads, why are the cradles there?Used in transport, the same as with the Falcon picture in my post further above.
No. The SeaLaunch load path is through the payload to the adapter and to the breakover/vertication fixture. We're talking about a different issue.So if the fairings aren't designed/intended to take side handling loads, why are the cradles there?Used in transport, the same as with the Falcon picture in my post further above.
I thought someone upthread said the SeaLaunch fairing didn't take any handling load, ie different from Falcon 9.
Are you saying that's incorrect?
Cradles are to support the fairing before and during encapsulation. Once the fairing is mated, the they can be pulled away.
This appears to be the SeaLaunch handling fixture for the encapsulated payload. Looks like it attaches to the base of the adapter, but there are also cradles under the fairing, though they seem to be retracted here.
I guess they figured out a way to screw in the light bulb while holding it only by the base...
(http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lancements/2014/26052014/26052014-4.jpg)
Please note the pivot trunnion bearing. Also, look at how SX integrates its vehicles and you'll see why something like this would complicate/slow down matters. Also, think of what happens with larger fairings when you use such.
SeaLaunch's "distance" from SC encapsulation (done by Astrotech, the same as SX launched DSCOVR, BTW) to vehicle integration to launch mid Pacific involved 1,000's of miles, a cruise, and typically 1-2 months (or more).
SeaLaunch's "distance" from SC encapsulation (done by Astrotech, the same as SX launched DSCOVR, BTW) to vehicle integration to launch mid Pacific involved 1,000's of miles, a cruise, and typically 1-2 months (or more).
Astrotech doesn't do the encapsulation. They only host a site for the operation.
Where you hire/bring in those to work in doing so. Bit of the middleman too.
Where you hire/bring in those to work in doing so. Bit of the middleman too.
Either the spacecraft can hire Astrotech or it is part of the launch service cost. But either way, the spacecraft contractor processes the spacecraft and the LV contractor handles the fairing and encapsulation.
Launch of falcon heavy now pushed to 2017 :-[Can you point to the source, please?
Echo logic on spacex Reddit...seems to usually know what's going on before we do.Okay, so in other words, it's a rumor. Do you have a link to his comments? I cannot find your claim in his posts.
I don't know how true it is, but I believe I have found the comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4uhb7v/the_future_of_spacex/d5pq04bEcho logic on spacex Reddit...seems to usually know what's going on before we do.Okay, so in other words, it's a rumor. Do you have a link to his comments? I cannot find your claim in his posts.
Echo logic on spacex Reddit...seems to usually know what's going on before we do.
Not unexpected, given the last rumor has it launch during Christmas... I just hope it's not delaying one month by every month.
There are competitors to FH, both external to SpaceX and internal as well (i.e. a rocket powered by Raptor). FH can't slip forever without risking being overtaken by events....
There are competitors to FH, both external to SpaceX and internal as well (i.e. a rocket powered by Raptor). FH can't slip forever without risking being overtaken by events....
And if that the best way for them to proceed, then that's fine. They shouldn't have an F9H unless they need one, and event may mean they don't actually need one.
...they may slip the 2018 window.There are competitors to FH, both external to SpaceX and internal as well (i.e. a rocket powered by Raptor). FH can't slip forever without risking being overtaken by events....
And if that the best way for them to proceed, then that's fine. They shouldn't have an F9H unless they need one, and event may mean they don't actually need one.
They made FH necessary by announcing Red Dragon.
There are competitors to FH, both external to SpaceX and internal as well (i.e. a rocket powered by Raptor). FH can't slip forever without risking being overtaken by events....
And if that the best way for them to proceed, then that's fine. They shouldn't have an F9H unless they need one, and event may mean they don't actually need one.
They made FH necessary by announcing Red Dragon.
Are there two landing pads ready at Landing Zone 1?
Is pad 39a ready for Falcon Heavy to launch? Are there two landing pads ready at Landing Zone 1? They both have to be ready for a FH launch.
Is pad 39a ready for Falcon Heavy to launch? Are there two landing pads ready at Landing Zone 1? They both have to be ready for a FH launch.
Unless SpaceX decides that flying the FH as soon as possible is more important than recovering both outboard boosters.
There seems to be nothing so pressing for them to due anything but wait for the Landing Zone is ready for two cores on the LZ and one on the OCISLY.
There seems to be nothing so pressing for them to due anything but wait for the Landing Zone is ready for two cores on the LZ and one on the OCISLY.
Out of curiosity, are they forbidden to land two cores at LZ-1 until they have a less risky solution?
Their stated (and shown) landing precision should allow it.
I remember seeing somewhere that range tracking system needs to be upgraded to support tracking multiple inbound boosters at the same time. Totally unconfirmed rumor, but makes certain amount of sense...
In any case, a slip into 2017, still very much a rumor, is not (or should not) be a surprise to anyone.
And also as I said, only NOW have they started to get the paperwork going for LZ-2???
In any case, a slip into 2017, still very much a rumor, is not (or should not) be a surprise to anyone.
True. But..... they have been in this "6 months from now" pattern since at least April 2015. It's gotten very old and few real excuses for it. They had to know in April 2015 there was no way they could launch in 6 months, and probably not even a year later.
And also as I said, only NOW have they started to get the paperwork going for LZ-2??? So where were they expecting to land a 2nd FH booster in October 2015, when even LZ-1 itself was not quite ready? Does not sound like realistic preparations for launch , as though "6 months from now" slipping about a month every month that goes by, is better than being realistic and truthful with how soon they really expected to fly, by working to have all of the ground support (and landing support) ready 6 months from the announced time.
Instead, it looks more like a serial timeline: Getting the new horizontal assembly hangar at 39-A built first, THEN many months later work on the pad, THEN many months later start paperwork for Landing Zone 2 and 3. I mean come on, those should have been happening simultaneously, in parallel, not one after the other, if they ever truly seriously and realistically planned to launch 6 months after April 2015 (launching October 2015).
This is not typical or unavoidable "slippage". I won't say what I think it is since I don't know for sure what it is but I have a good idea. But I sure know what it has not been - not a realistic expectation to be launching 6 months later, every time they reset it to about 6 months later (or else FH would have flown long ago).
I will not be surprised if in December 2016, the first FH flight has slipped to July 2017.
I had expected for a while that the wish for Air Force launches would produce schedule pressure. But recently that seems no longer the case?
Edit: I mean the wish to be able to perform launches for the Air Force.
Spacex is playing the role of Henry Ford and Model T's (You can get it in any color you want as long as it is black)
You want VI, we have HI
You want longer fairing, we have our fairing
You want fairing doors all over the place, we have our standard door locations
You want a Triple grande non fat decaf iced latte, we have black coffee
Yeah, I had the same hopes, but it does not look like the air force is a driver for them any more. To me, it looks like they snack some DoD launches if it suits them, but not that they go too far out of their way for it. Jims post on vertical integration comes to mind.
@edit: Found it.Spacex is playing the role of Henry Ford and Model T's (You can get it in any color you want as long as it is black)
You want VI, we have HI
You want longer fairing, we have our fairing
You want fairing doors all over the place, we have our standard door locations
You want a Triple grande non fat decaf iced latte, we have black coffee
So -- it's the consensus of all the engineering types around here that SpaceX is deliberately delaying FH for their own internal reasons, and not because they are still addressing potential engineering issues?
No one thinks that strapping together a total of 27 engines, in three different thrust structures and three discrete-but-interacting flight control systems, and igniting all of them for lift-off has any potential engineering challenges that might still be looking for hard solutions?
Just wonderin'... :)
So -- it's the consensus of all the engineering types around here that SpaceX is deliberately delaying FH for their own internal reasons, and not because they are still addressing potential engineering issues?
No one thinks that strapping together a total of 27 engines, in three different thrust structures and three discrete-but-interacting flight control systems, and igniting all of them for lift-off has any potential engineering challenges that might still be looking for hard solutions?
Just wonderin'... :)
Not to mention the manpower/schedule challenge of trying to catch up on a severe F9 launch backlog...and getting crewed Dragon done, which has also been slipping, BTW...
Their workload has been increasing at a rapid rate, and increasing staffing to match in an extremely demanding work environment like that can be very difficult to manage. Often the hiring lags behind the actual headcount need. We've already heard that 80-hour work weeks are common. It wouldn't surprise me if the delays in FH and crewed Dragon are simply the result of too few people trying to do too much work.
No one thinks that strapping together a total of 27 engines, in three different thrust structures and three discrete-but-interacting flight control systems, and igniting all of them for lift-off has any potential engineering challenges that might still be looking for hard solutions?
No one thinks that strapping together a total of 27 engines, in three different thrust structures and three discrete-but-interacting flight control systems, and igniting all of them for lift-off has any potential engineering challenges that might still be looking for hard solutions?
No,
a. They haven't have any issues for 9 engine starts for awhile. Doing 27, it isn't going to change much
b. They aren't 3 different, but two exactly the same,with the other similar.
c. Flight control systems are any different. They are all slaved to the second stage until after separation, just like a single stick launch.
1. Obviously, the side boosters on each FH launch will have to be in very close agreement on their position, both via GPS and inertial, once their separate flight control systems take over upon separation.
2. Also, the side cores will need to fly avoidance maneuvers to ensure no recontact with either the remaining center
Each stage is generating sonic booms, after all -- I wouldn't think you'd want them within a kilometer of each other when they each go subsonic. A little separation, please...?
2. Not really, they will be separated by solid motors and/or gas thrusters (just like other vehicles). Just as the single core booster doesn't do anything right after separation, neither will the side boosters. Aerodynamics will take over as the booster angle away and increase the separation.
2. Not really, they will be separated by solid motors and/or gas thrusters (just like other vehicles). Just as the single core booster doesn't do anything right after separation, neither will the side boosters. Aerodynamics will take over as the booster angle away and increase the separation.
Do we have any more info on this procedure? I think that SpaceX would use a hydraulic system initially for separation, and maybe couple it with the nitrogen thrusters for adding some distance after that.
2. Not really, they will be separated by solid motors and/or gas thrusters (just like other vehicles). Just as the single core booster doesn't do anything right after separation, neither will the side boosters. Aerodynamics will take over as the booster angle away and increase the separation.
Do we have any more info on this procedure? I think that SpaceX would use a hydraulic system initially for separation, and maybe couple it with the nitrogen thrusters for adding some distance after that.
Gas thrusters/gas pistons
A large impulse is needed.
Soyuz boosters just drop away and vent some gas near the top I think; no solids involved.2. Not really, they will be separated by solid motors and/or gas thrusters (just like other vehicles). Just as the single core booster doesn't do anything right after separation, neither will the side boosters. Aerodynamics will take over as the booster angle away and increase the separation.
Do we have any more info on this procedure? I think that SpaceX would use a hydraulic system initially for separation, and maybe couple it with the nitrogen thrusters for adding some distance after that.
Gas thrusters/gas pistons
A large impulse is needed.
Have side boosters (LRB or SRB) on any large rockets ever been jettisoned with anything except explosive bolts and solid-fuel separation motors?
So -- it's the consensus of all the engineering types around here that SpaceX is deliberately delaying FH for their own internal reasons, and not because they are still addressing potential engineering issues?
No one thinks that strapping together a total of 27 engines, in three different thrust structures and three discrete-but-interacting flight control systems, and igniting all of them for lift-off has any potential engineering challenges that might still be looking for hard solutions?
Just wonderin'... :)
Not to mention the manpower/schedule challenge of trying to catch up on a severe F9 launch backlog...and getting crewed Dragon done, which has also been slipping, BTW...
Their workload has been increasing at a rapid rate, and increasing staffing to match in an extremely demanding work environment like that can be very difficult to manage. Often the hiring lags behind the actual headcount need. We've already heard that 80-hour work weeks are common. It wouldn't surprise me if the delays in FH and crewed Dragon are simply the result of too few people trying to do too much work.
Since Shuttle in the 1980's both ranges needed capability to track and have backups for three simultaneous objects which not only was radar but 3 independent telemetry streams with additional backup telemetry receiver station or stations. With the F9/FH as well as other LVs going forward with AFTS the critical of radar drops such that each object must be able to be tracked by a combination of radar or telemetry assets not both with backups. Less assets but an FH still has more range assets required than a F9 creating a launch constraint more sensitive to range assets health than for F9.I remember seeing somewhere that range tracking system needs to be upgraded to support tracking multiple inbound boosters at the same time. Totally unconfirmed rumor, but makes certain amount of sense...
Ah, that makes sense. Need someone to confirm that rumour then!
Shotwell on Falcon Heavy: “sorry we’re late” on it; harder problem to develop than we thought. #smallsat
QuoteDavid Hurst
@OrbitalDave
Shotwell: 1st Falcon Heavy mission expected Q3 of 17 #smallsat
https://twitter.com/OrbitalDave/status/763060858528215040
The guy posting from the conference on Reddit said that's the STP-2 mission in Q3 2017, which would be the second or third FH flight. Can't wait until they post a video of the talk so we don't have to rely on a bunch of possibly misleading tweets.
Is it useful to create a FH with three cores that might not be the final design (how to jettison side boosters, flight software, thermal protection, etc.) to test out the GSE? Is there a benefit to getting a WDR done without waiting for the boosters and core to be complete?SpaceX adopted mantra "Test as you fly. Fly as you test." So no. Only if the use will gain them something very significant is the only exception. The only exception that comes to mind is that the M1D FTs are not yet the M1D maxFTs. M1D max FTs are to supposed start being used sometime after Oct on F9.
I realized that, with latest improvements of M1D, FH would still have a good T/W at liftoff with a five engine center core.The lighter the core, the more overpowered the last part of the landing. They can do it, but the benefit might be marginal compared to the job of designing a different stage. it might also cost them engine out capabilty for much of the flight.
This would be 2000 kg dry mass reduction; not saying it is simple, but improving mass ratio on the center core would be a very good thing for reusability.
The lighter the core, the more overpowered the last part of the landing.Can't follow your logic, mass reduction is a good thing, and SpaceX seems perfectly capable of landing a stage with about 10% reduced mass compared to actual.
They can do it, but the benefit might be marginal compared to the job of designing a different stage.Center core already is a different stage, and about 10% reduced mass seems not marginal to me.
It might also cost them engine out capabilty for much of the flight.Losing 1/23 is not that different than losing 1/29.
Is it useful to create a FH with three cores that might not be the final design (how to jettison side boosters, flight software, thermal protection, etc.) to test out the GSE? Is there a benefit to getting a WDR done without waiting for the boosters and core to be complete?SpaceX adopted mantra "Test as you fly. Fly as you test." So no. Only if the use will gain them something very significant is the only exception. The only exception that comes to mind is that the M1D FTs are not yet the M1D maxFTs. M1D max FTs are to supposed start being used sometime after Oct on F9.
But this is not to say that they will not tweak the designs once the FH starts flying either. Its just that intentionally not flying the current design is not likely to gain them anything. A BTW on the engines is that their impact if the non maxFT ones are used is use of different constants in the software and a smaller payload but not much else.
Direct GSO insertion of large sats needs expendable performance (and 2nd stage endurance). I know they have said they are working on the endurance, but don't think they have any direct GSO payloads manifested.I think you underestimate just how powerful Falcon Heavy is even in partially reusable mode. Yes, even for high energy missions...
I suspect that SpaceX will not quote on any GSO missions until they have the Raptor/methane upper stage operational. I just can't see them committing resources for an interim solution that would only be used for a few flights.
If they expend the center core, sure. But that's not really compatible with keeping one set of Heavy-specific hardware flying multiple times.Direct GSO insertion of large sats needs expendable performance (and 2nd stage endurance). I know they have said they are working on the endurance, but don't think they have any direct GSO payloads manifested.I think you underestimate just how powerful Falcon Heavy is even in partially reusable mode. Yes, even for high energy missions...
I suspect that SpaceX will not quote on any GSO missions until they have the Raptor/methane upper stage operational. I just can't see them committing resources for an interim solution that would only be used for a few flights....this depends on whether or not SpaceX will deploy a Raptor-based upper stage for Falcon. That's not entirely certain right now.
I suspect that SpaceX will not quote on any GSO missions until they have the Raptor/methane upper stage operational. I just can't see them committing resources for an interim solution that would only be used for a few flights....this depends on whether or not SpaceX will deploy a Raptor-based upper stage for Falcon. That's not entirely certain right now.
It's a contract for a prototype engine, not a USI suspect that SpaceX will not quote on any GSO missions until they have the Raptor/methane upper stage operational. I just can't see them committing resources for an interim solution that would only be used for a few flights....this depends on whether or not SpaceX will deploy a Raptor-based upper stage for Falcon. That's not entirely certain right now.
Considering the fact that they have an Air Force Contract to do exactly that, I am not sure why they wouldn't:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/18/spacex-air-force-funding-infusion-raptor-engine/
It's a contract for a prototype engine, not a US
It is not obvious, that the business case for such a change in F9/FH closes at this time. Mind you, I am not saying they won't do it, just that the contract is not for a US. On the contrary, I have even made a WAG prediction, here or on one of the other threads, that the new US for FH will be announced 18 months after first commercial FH flight. Got laughed at by Jim.It's a contract for a prototype engine, not a US
It is a prototype for an upperstage engine:QuoteSpace Exploration Technologies, Corp. (SpaceX), Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $33,660,254 other transaction agreement for the development of the Raptor rocket propulsion system prototype for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. This agreement implements Section 1604 of the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, which requires the development of a next-generation rocket propulsion system that will transition away from the use of the Russian-supplied RD-180 engine to a domestic alternative for National Security Space launches. An other transaction agreement was used in lieu of a standard procurement contract in order to leverage on-going investment by industry in rocket propulsion systems. This other transaction agreement requires shared cost investment with SpaceX for the development of a prototype of the Raptor engine for the upper stage of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. The locations of performance are NASA Stennis Space Center, Mississippi; Hawthorne, California; and Los Angeles Air Force Base, California. The work is expected to be completed no later than Dec. 31, 2018. Air Force fiscal 2015 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $33,660,254 are being obligated at the time of award. SpaceX is contributing $67,320,506 at the time of award. The total potential government investment, including all options, is $61,392,710. The total potential investment by SpaceX, including all options, is $122,785,419. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with multiple offers received. The Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California is the contracting activity (FA8811-16-9-0001).
So you think SpaceX would design a prototype engine for Falcon 9/Heavy, and immediately shelve it? I can't see them doing that, if the engine is available and its will make money (for their Mars efforts) why would SpaceX not use it? Methane isnt that different from the operating temperatures for the low density LOX, it wont be that hard to design a tank for the engine.
http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/642983
I am not splitting anything. Integrarion, GSE and testing are all going to cost extra for a new stage.
It's a contract for a prototype engine, not a US
The engine is pretty much all of the upperstage, stop splitting hairs when it is meaningless
I am not splitting anything. Integrarion, GSE and testing are all going to cost extra for a new stage.
It's a contract for a prototype engine, not a US
The engine is pretty much all of the upperstage, stop splitting hairs when it is meaningless
I am not splitting anything. Integrarion, GSE and testing are all going to cost extra for a new stage.
It's a contract for a prototype engine, not a US
The engine is pretty much all of the upperstage, stop splitting hairs when it is meaningless
But SpaceX and the Air Force are going to spend at least $67 Million and $33.7 million respectively on an engine that will be shelved? All of the things you listed SpaceX did when they upgraded Falcon 9 for FT, yes it is extra but well less than a new engine.
I am not splitting anything. Integrarion, GSE and testing are all going to cost extra for a new stage.
It's a contract for a prototype engine, not a US
The engine is pretty much all of the upperstage, stop splitting hairs when it is meaningless
But SpaceX and the Air Force are going to spend at least $67 Million and $33.7 million respectively on an engine that will be shelved? All of the things you listed SpaceX did when they upgraded Falcon 9 for FT, yes it is extra but well less than a new engine.
I am not splitting anything. Integrarion, GSE and testing are all going to cost extra for a new stage.
It's a contract for a prototype engine, not a US
The engine is pretty much all of the upperstage, stop splitting hairs when it is meaningless
But SpaceX and the Air Force are going to spend at least $67 Million and $33.7 million respectively on an engine that will be shelved? All of the things you listed SpaceX did when they upgraded Falcon 9 for FT, yes it is extra but well less than a new engine.
Reminder, you should be posting in Thread 5 now. Chris was kind enough to not lock the old threads this time so we can still quote them.Indeed.