Author Topic: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion  (Read 204042 times)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #600 on: 02/21/2018 11:13 am »
Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?

Google LXP lander as primary payload, upper stage recovery after lunar free-return orbit demonstrator as secondary payload.

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #601 on: 02/21/2018 11:45 am »
Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?

My previous answer has been on the lines of cost reduction and technical readiness.
For example, a pile of completely standard industrial robot arms with only the most basic modifications for working in vacuum, and some assembly tasks using assorted test tasks.

For example, assembling Ikea furniture, or putting together a 'large' cylinder using rivets.

Tests of inexpensive reentry - and on orbit tests - everything from LASER comms to 'best momentum wheel you can make from $100 in parts from hobbyking'.

Literally free tests of reentry of hardware from groups that would have no hope of otherwise getting funded, given a very rough screen to eliminate obviously idiotic ones, and leaving ones with a 1% or better chance of working. (and in some way capable of telemetering back their reentry status). On the basis that the group gets some award if it works, and SpaceX gets some rights to any IP.

An iphone in a coconut, for example, with a weight, and foam inside, with a satellite USB adaptor.


Kilo reentry vehicles - MIRKA2 specifically.

Basically, things needed to progress into an era when space launch falls from $1300/kg or whatever from FH, to $100/kg or below.

However, the Tesla captured the public information in ways that I am not sure the above would.





Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Liked: 1188
  • Likes Given: 2685
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #602 on: 02/21/2018 05:48 pm »
Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?
There would have been no better payload IMO.
 What the Tesla and Starman did, bringing this new age of commercial spaceflight to public awareness, is easy to underrate and was meaningful in ways that are hard to tabulate.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #603 on: 02/21/2018 08:49 pm »
Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?

USAF STP-2 and bunch of secondaries.
The best payload they could have chosen is the one they did. No way to know that the launch would be successful, and this payload minimized risk. It ALSO had the most massive upside of any payload any of us could imagine. The positive PR and buzz generated are immense.

Second guessing them now is just as boring (and wrong) as all the "they should have chosen pet project X" talk was before the launch.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline IanThePineapple

Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #604 on: 02/21/2018 08:52 pm »
Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?

USAF STP-2 and bunch of secondaries.
The best payload they could have chosen is the one they did. No way to know that the launch would be successful, and this payload minimized risk. It ALSO had the most massive upside of any payload any of us could imagine. The positive PR and buzz generated are immense.

Second guessing them now is just as boring (and wrong) as all the "they should have chosen pet project X" talk was before the launch.

And with Elon lowering expectations about the launch I don't think many people would have volunteered...

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #605 on: 02/21/2018 09:24 pm »
And with Elon lowering expectations about the launch I don't think many people would have volunteered...

People would not have volunteered their ten million dollar experiments.

I personally, and I suspect many other interested hobbyists would have found the opportunity to try things they would have had no hope of otherwise launching. And would have had little problem with SpaceX having some claim on any IP generated.
 
Ten million dollar experiments are in many ways not what is interesting, as ten million dollar experiments cost ten million dollars.

If SpaceX actually wants to not have to have any sort of space industry not in the 'hardware must cost $10000/kg' mode they pretty much are at the moment, disruptive stuff needs to start happening.
You can't do Mars on that, even if your launch to mars costs $100/kg.

(comms from orbit is an intractable problem, and the above pretty much assumes this is riding along with a Starlink sat, orbital debris is not a problem if it's all in one big evacuated tank)

I note, for example, the high altitude balloon crowd.
Payloads are often not really expected to be recovered, or at best with a large failure mode, where getting someone to mail back your SD card is a win.
http://leobodnar.com/balloons/B-64/
As one example of a custom payload series from an unfunded individual that ended up going round the earth several times.


Several 'orbits'.
And yes, that was the 64th.
« Last Edit: 02/21/2018 09:32 pm by speedevil »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #606 on: 02/21/2018 11:34 pm »
Never a big one for stunts.

The worldwide impact of FH on other space agencies didn't matter a rat's a$$ on the stunt payload, but the fact that three low cost boosters functioned as a HLV on a high C3 mission. That kicked all of them in the teeth HARD!

It meant that potentially HLV could be built off of low cost vehicles. That means they can reinforce economics, not subtract (as with DIVH or Angara or a few others). They all had a load in their pants, because now they have to go back to ministries and  governments and tell them that they had it wrong from the start that such a thing could be done.

(It didn't even matter that it was reusable boosters - that's just added salt in the above self-inflicted wound to come when the economics build even more.)

Because all of those "world experts" called it wrong.

"So Musk did this for $X billion, and you've told us it needed more than 10X billions, and we've already given you a third that, what are we getting for our money you idiots!"

Watching the Tesla for hours did help - it reminded them of NSS/military capability the entire time, while not looking remotely military at all.

Yes it also was a popular meme too, and that will have the effect of reviving the impact routinely when the general worldwide audience reminds every policymaker that they cannot ignore/avoid.

NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice. It is even under spoken as a unique American advantage, even with a grandstanding fool and his foolish ruling party, because they also have no courage either, even though they were handed a massive advantage on the global stage, because the political consequences here are ... awkward.

That is also why the means to take advantage of this event practically, even for SX, is hard to achieve.

The trivial thrill of the spectacle might be great in people's eyes. Fine. But this sustainable HLV example has massive ramifications for all LV programs worldwide, because they won't be able to justify premium development budgets. SX pulled all their shorts over their heads.

add:

For an alternate view, read Jeff Bingham's. Someone I've just lost a lot of respect for. Perhaps he needs more work in retirement. Farewell 51D Mascot, back to  the shadows again.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2018 12:10 am by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #607 on: 02/22/2018 12:05 pm »
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.

Man, people say darndest things when helped by power of hindsight... ::)
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #608 on: 02/22/2018 12:32 pm »
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.

That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it. This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO. I cant think of any payload that NASA would want in <GEO orbit with an unimportant sat. A telescope, any telescope, is already asking too much.

So unless you have inside knowledge to the contrary, I dont think politics was a decisive factor. IMO, It might have been politically convenient to not come up with a payload that fits the restrictions above, but thats about it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #609 on: 02/22/2018 03:36 pm »
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.

That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it. This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO.

...

Europa Clipper/SLS Block 1B?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline kessdawg

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 1554
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #610 on: 02/22/2018 03:39 pm »
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.

That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it. This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO.

...

Europa Clipper/SLS Block 1B?

That's congress, not NASA mandating Europa Clipper fly on SLS.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #611 on: 02/22/2018 03:40 pm »
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.

That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it.
...

Now that doesn't sound like NASA. EM-2 is the first mission of a new rocket (Block 1B), and NASA is not only putting Orion on it but putting crew in that Orion. I'm sure NASA could have found something slightly less important than a fully crewed capsule for the first FH launch.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #612 on: 02/22/2018 03:41 pm »
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.

That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it. This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO.

...

Europa Clipper/SLS Block 1B?

That's congress, not NASA mandating Europa Clipper fly on SLS.

It's NASA deciding that EUS doesn't need a test launch, whether they put crew Orion or Europa Clipper on it.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #613 on: 02/22/2018 05:05 pm »
This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO. I cant think of any payload that NASA would want in <GEO orbit with an unimportant sat. A telescope, any telescope, is already asking too much.
IRIS
CU-E3
MarCO
...more. Have had them in my hands.

Quote
So unless you have inside knowledge to the contrary, I dont think politics was a decisive factor.
Politics is the only factor. Even Boeing wasn't stupid about this.

And its intensely stupid politics. Grade-A level moronic. "We must stay away otherwise we PO by being pro-SX". Horsecrap.

When a country of America's size/leadership walks away from a world-wide accomplishment, rather than pressing the advantage for all it can get out of it, its just plain moronic. In Russia they disfavor the unfavored, habit. In China they get hung up on who gets the advantage for doing something. No excuse for American idiocy can be found.

At least you celebrate your victories, as a nation.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2018 05:43 pm by Lar »

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #614 on: 02/23/2018 11:21 am »
Whining like that is easy when doing it after successful launch.  ::)

IRIS
CU-E3
MarCO
...more. Have had them in my hands.

IRIS? "Launch Date: May 2018". Already booked somewhere else, why they would move it to FH months before it is ready?
Middle link does not work.
And MarCo wouldn't be launched on FH either way. Maybe if you read mission description, you would know why.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Online JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Liked: 1737
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #615 on: 02/23/2018 12:10 pm »
This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO. I cant think of any payload that NASA would want in <GEO orbit with an unimportant sat. A telescope, any telescope, is already asking too much.
IRIS
CU-E3
MarCO
...more. Have had them in my hands.

Quote
So unless you have inside knowledge to the contrary, I dont think politics was a decisive factor.
Politics is the only factor. Even Boeing wasn't stupid about this.

And its intensely stupid politics. Grade-A level moronic. "We must stay away otherwise we PO by being pro-SX". Horsecrap.

When a country of America's size/leadership walks away from a world-wide accomplishment, rather than pressing the advantage for all it can get out of it, its just plain moronic. In Russia they disfavor the unfavored, habit. In China they get hung up on who gets the advantage for doing something. No excuse for American idiocy can be found.

At least you celebrate your victories, as a nation.

Thought experiment.

The FH launch failed.

Now what would you be saying? The same thing? If NOT then you are using hindsight. Which is always 20/20.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #616 on: 02/23/2018 05:13 pm »
This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO. I cant think of any payload that NASA would want in <GEO orbit with an unimportant sat. A telescope, any telescope, is already asking too much.
IRIS
CU-E3
MarCO
...more. Have had them in my hands.

Quote
So unless you have inside knowledge to the contrary, I dont think politics was a decisive factor.
Politics is the only factor. Even Boeing wasn't stupid about this.

And its intensely stupid politics. Grade-A level moronic. "We must stay away otherwise we PO by being pro-SX". Horsecrap.

When a country of America's size/leadership walks away from a world-wide accomplishment, rather than pressing the advantage for all it can get out of it, its just plain moronic. In Russia they disfavor the unfavored, habit. In China they get hung up on who gets the advantage for doing something. No excuse for American idiocy can be found.

At least you celebrate your victories, as a nation.

Thought experiment.

The FH launch failed.

Now what would you be saying? The same thing? If NOT then you are using hindsight. Which is always 20/20.

They're cubesat DSN programs with multiple flight ready articles.

Nothing much lost on failed test, so just fine as if still on the ground, because you have losses in ground tests.

But, any flight data you get back secures missions that fly (as soon as May) with actual flight history.

Biggest cost in current only comes AFTER a successful launch/insertion - DSN time to "check" on each payload for short intervals/schedule.

Much better than on main mission(s).

And the more successes with DSN cubesats, the easier to justify them on ALL following high C3 missions for scientific secondary missions.

More results/history back means more funded BLEO cubesats, means demand for long lived cubesats, means higher flight rate overall.

Offline Pete

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
  • Cubicle
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #617 on: 02/25/2018 07:39 am »
Nothing much lost on failed test, so just fine as if still on the ground, because you have losses in ground tests.

Loss of secondary/lesser payloads can have devastating PR results.
Consider the SpaceX CRS-1 mission:
What should have been a thundering PR accolade (we lost an engine and the Falcon STILL delivered!!),
is instead known as "the mission that lost Orbcomm"
« Last Edit: 02/25/2018 07:41 am by Pete »

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #618 on: 02/25/2018 10:54 am »
Loss of secondary/lesser payloads can have devastating PR results.
Consider the SpaceX CRS-1 mission:
What should have been a thundering PR accolade (we lost an engine and the Falcon STILL delivered!!),
is instead known as "the mission that lost Orbcomm"

By who?

If you ask most people, you'll find they remember only the first commercial launch to ISS.
And by most, I mean >99.9% of those that remember the flight at all.
Some of the rest remember it vaguely as 'that mission where NASA rules that made no sense were slavishly followed'.

I suspect a very large majority of PIs with small sats that have been sitting on a shelf in their office for the last five years, and who have no prospect at all of launching them would much rather be able to tell of their small sat that exploded on launch of a new vehicle rather than point to the small  still on the shelf.
Never mind those with no even vague prospect of launch that have an idea they'd like to try.

Offline Greg Hullender

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 604
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #619 on: 02/25/2018 06:49 pm »
Would any of those small satellites have been able to return useful information from the asteroid belt though? Or are you thinking they'd have taken such a huge load of them that they'd all have been deposited in LEO?

Tags:
 

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