Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)  (Read 332210 times)

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2892
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #520 on: 09/04/2015 06:02 am »
Interesting calculations. I keep wondering how much FH non cf with disposable central core could send to Mars. That might be something SpaceX wants to do and I would like to know if a Red Dragon can be sent to Mars expending only the central core. Red Dragon might be 10t.

From their website 13,200kg

That's the performance of a fully expendable FH. It would be a lot cheaper if TMI for a Red Dragon can be done with reusable side boosters. That was my question, if anybody can calculate the TMI performance with booster RTLS.

Edit: Just watched the latest Red Dragon video again. For a full payload of 2 ton landed on Mars the weight of Red Dragon incl. trunk would be ~11t. Very likely too much for recovering the side boosters. Maybe if the payload is reduced to 1t, the Dragon weight would be slightly below 10t. That weight might be possible with recovery of the side boosters.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2015 01:43 pm by guckyfan »

Offline SpaceXfan

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
  • Toronto
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #521 on: 09/04/2015 11:22 am »
It's going to be some production rate, with catching up post RTF and FH coming online!

Offline dorkmo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 848
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #522 on: 09/04/2015 10:00 pm »


SpaceX has updated the renderings on their F9/FH pages with the "v1.2" renderings, which are more detailed, and presumably accurate. It does seem to indicate a ~6ft stretch as well in the upper stage.

Here is the old (left) FH rendering compared to the new one (right), but it is difficult to match them exactly:

Changes:
 - stretched upper stage
 - more detail on booster attachment
 - grid fins

And a larger interstage.

Cheers, Martin

It indeed does looks a bit longer.
Also, the leg's seem shorter and the center engine alignment is different. This could be just the rendering ofcourse.

it looks to me like the previous render was displayed in parallel projection, while the new one is displayed in perspective from a long viewing distance. i think thats whats making the center engine look different.

i just thought about this again and perhaps they cut and pasted the engines from one render onto a different render. the stages are too perfectly straight to be perspective. if it was parallel at an angle the horizontal lines between stages would be curved.

Offline nadreck

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #523 on: 09/04/2015 11:01 pm »
the logic is that if you don't recover the cetral core you get more payload to GEO; in fact 50% more, so 50% payload more to GEO is well worthy 20M.

For that to be true, you need to show that recovering the center core downrange costs 33% of the payload.

I thought that was the number when considering RTLS, and even that was deemed acceptable.

You need to look at cost, since that's the ultimate driver.

If the other two cores are reused, an expendable center core becomes the most expensive component in the stack, and so you're highly motivated to reuse it too - it's much more than "one core out of three".  Luckily, they have down-range recovery capabilities, which has a lower payload penalty than RTLS, so I can't see why they'd refrain from using it.

No it costs more like 50% of the payload beyond GTO, it costs much less against the LEO payload figures.  If people have time to wait, I will put up a break down of based on the assumptions I was using to calculate from either tomorrow or sometime over the weekend.

Ok so I had a chance to work on that and put a spread sheet together (and it also answers Guckyfan's question more or less).

For a detailed explanation of the spreadsheets followed by the steps of how I used them to come up with the following scenarios see bellow, but for the tl;dr crowd who just want the results without any intermediate steps:

So if we presume that we are presuming a 200 KM LEO orbit and that GTO is a 2450m/s impulse past that then here are the following capabilities of an FH either with side boosters RTLS and centre core recovered down range:

25t to LEO with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
40t to LEO with centre core expended and side cores landing down range
8t to GTO with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
17t to GTO with centre core expended and side cores landing down range

For Guckyfan's question on TMI presuming that TMI is accomplished with an impulse of 1.3km/s more than GTO:

3t to TMI with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
9t to TMI with centre core expended and side cores landing down range


So I put together a spreadsheet with four worksheets. The first worksheet {Upper Stage} is where I started and it characterizes the performance of the upper stage with different payloads. I have done this exercise before and I did here (and throughout) use V1.1 specs not Full Thrust specs. The assumptions for dry weight propellant load ISP and thrust are: 5 metric tons, 93 metric tons, 340 seconds and 934kN respectively. There is a table there with the resulting ΔV and maximum acceleration given different payloads from 1t to 20t in 1t increments and to 55t from there in 5t increments.

The next worksheet {Boost Back Recovery performance} calculates a table of required remaining propellant for a recoverable Falcon first stage for various ΔV values mostly in 500m/s increments but with the first one being 400m/s which is what I presume the landing maneuver requires and it is calculated based on sea level Isp. All the remaining steps have the total required propellant calculated based on the difference from 400m/s to that lines speed based on the M1D 100% thrust engine at its vacuum ISP since the retropulsion maneuver is carried out around 25 to 35 km for the side cores and much higher for the centre core. I presume that the retropulsion requirement for a landing down range is to reduce the velocity to roughly 1km/s for re-entry. For RTLS I take a more liberal interpretation since it starts at a higher altitude but presume that RTLS from a core travelling about 1500m/s can be accomplished with a total ΔV of 3500m/s.

The next worksheet {Centre core performance} details the performance of the centre core after the side boosters seperate under a few different assumptions. One set of assumptions was based around landing down range and includes the 2.5t of dry weight for that plus requires about 15% fuel load to retropulse and land from the speed somewhere between 3000 and 3500m/s that I had roughed out before my final table was created as the speed it would achieve. The other set of assumptions presumed it was expendable and did not maintain any reserve of fuel and had a dry weight that did not reflect legs and other recovery oriented hardware.  Each of the two tables presented ΔV calculated for different payload weights AND with different starting propellant loads (ie how much would be left over when the side boosters dropped off) note that this presumed some sort of reduction of centre core engines firing and reducing thrust to 70% on the remaining engines up to side core separation.

The last worksheet {Booster performance} was a second by second model of the flight of the 3 booster phase to calculate remaining propellant, altitude and horizontal velocity and allow for gravity loss. Three of the columns in that table of calculations I varied based on what I thought the rate of turn would approximate to and how many centre core engines were optimal to be firing at each step along the way.

So how I use the worksheets to come up with the numbers I had above:

I decide whether the side boosters are going to be recovered down range, RTLS or thrown away and I look at the {Boost back recovery performance} and see that I probably need somewhere between 15 and 20% of my side booster propellant remaining. 

I go to {Booster performance} and I take what I expect the final payload to be and put it in cell C5 (you can go back and refine this later if you are off by any amount but note that it will only make a few meters per second difference to the performance of the boost stage).

Then I go down the table until the remaining booster propellant roughly matches what I need and check that the velocity I expected isn't much higher or lower than what I expected for the boost back maneuver (look near 153 seconds). I take the horizontal velocity from there and note it and then the % of centre core propellant remaining.

Then go to {Centre core performance} and if I plan on recovering the centre core I use the second table, if not I use the first. From the appropriate table I note the ΔV for the approximate weight I am anticipating (round up) and in the column closest to the percentage of propellant remaining. That added to the velocity that I noted in the first step is how much I have towards my mission requirements so far.

Lastly I work out what remaining velocity I need and look that up on the table on {Upper Stage} and if the weight is wildly off from what I expected I start over with the weight that I got from this exercise as the approximate for the other steps that required a guess at the final payload weight.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2015 11:05 pm by nadreck »
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #524 on: 09/04/2015 11:26 pm »
i just thought about this again and perhaps they cut and pasted the engines from one render onto a different render. the stages are too perfectly straight to be perspective. if it was parallel at an angle the horizontal lines between stages would be curved.

No look closer on the full size render. lines at the very top (where the fairing meets the upper stage) and bottom are not completely straight. It is a perspective render, but an extreme one that is almost orthogonal.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #525 on: 09/05/2015 04:49 am »

So if we presume that we are presuming a 200 KM LEO orbit and that GTO is a 2450m/s impulse past that then here are the following capabilities of an FH either with side boosters RTLS and centre core recovered down range:

25t to LEO with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
40t to LEO with centre core expended and side cores landing down range
8t to GTO with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
17t to GTO with centre core expended and side cores landing down range


So first, you're double presuming up there, and I don't know if that's legal.

Less importantly, this is not an apples to apples comparison.  You're evaluating the two center core options (expend it or recover downrange) under two different scenarios (side core RTLS and side core down-range recovery)

The question was, suppose we RTLS the side cores, what is the payload hit for recovering the center core deep downrange as opposed to expending it.

You will need to make some assumptions on the amount of slow-down necessary before re-entry, and we don't quite know what that is.

My understanding is that they were able to get by with a rather minimal braking burn on a regular F9 launch, and so I would guestimate that they need to slow down from center-core speed (which we don't quite know either) to just under single-core speed. (which we should have a better guess at)

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline nadreck

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #526 on: 09/05/2015 05:57 am »

So if we presume that we are presuming a 200 KM LEO orbit and that GTO is a 2450m/s impulse past that then here are the following capabilities of an FH either with side boosters RTLS and centre core recovered down range:

25t to LEO with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
40t to LEO with centre core expended and side cores landing down range
8t to GTO with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
17t to GTO with centre core expended and side cores landing down range


So first, you're double presuming up there, and I don't know if that's legal.

Less importantly, this is not an apples to apples comparison.  You're evaluating the two center core options (expend it or recover downrange) under two different scenarios (side core RTLS and side core down-range recovery)

The question was, suppose we RTLS the side cores, what is the payload hit for recovering the center core deep downrange as opposed to expending it.

You will need to make some assumptions on the amount of slow-down necessary before re-entry, and we don't quite know what that is.

My understanding is that they were able to get by with a rather minimal braking burn on a regular F9 launch, and so I would guestimate that they need to slow down from center-core speed (which we don't quite know either) to just under single-core speed. (which we should have a better guess at)

I assumed slowing down to 900m/s and using 400m/s of delta V to land that is all in my spread sheets, if you don't read my spreadsheets and assumptions then you are simply left with taking my conclusions with out any reasoning behind it and can't criticize it.

My first worksheet details the performance of the Falcon upper stage that is not vague or wishy washy, the data in there is quite reliable and that is how you find out what the speed the centre core has to reach to reach for a given payload to get to a given mission.

The rest of the assumptions are based on what we know about the V1.1 centre core. We do know they need to slow down, 900m/s was the number that seemed indicated by the flights where they attempted boost back or down range landing.

RTLS but expending the centre core obviously results in a value between RTLS and center core recovery down range and sidebooster recovery down range and centre core expended, my spreadsheet can easily give you that if you follow the steps to use it. I just don't know what the point is RTLS isn't of particular high value over downrange recovery and we know 3 stages can't RTLS, as well we assume from current data that there will be 2 ASDS's not 3.  So it makes sense to consider RTLS side boosters/centre core recovery as the 3R option and side booster ASDS recovery and centre core expended as the alternative higher payload.  The savings of RTLS over ASDS on the side boosters is  minimal in comparison to the cost of expending the core.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2892
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #527 on: 09/05/2015 06:05 am »
For Guckyfan's question on TMI presuming that TMI is accomplished with an impulse of 1.3km/s more than GTO:

3t to TMI with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
9t to TMI with centre core expended and side cores landing down range

Thanks a lot. Sadly this seems to indicate that Red Dragon needs a fully expended FH which is still quite reasonable for a NASA mission but expensive for a mission self funded by SpaceX.

Note: side cores downrange, is that even an option? It would need two ASDS or possibly a new landing site in Florida assuming launch from Texas.

Offline nadreck

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #528 on: 09/05/2015 06:22 am »
For Guckyfan's question on TMI presuming that TMI is accomplished with an impulse of 1.3km/s more than GTO:

3t to TMI with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
9t to TMI with centre core expended and side cores landing down range

Thanks a lot. Sadly this seems to indicate that Red Dragon needs a fully expended FH which is still quite reasonable for a NASA mission but expensive for a mission self funded by SpaceX.

Note: side cores downrange, is that even an option? It would need two ASDS or possibly a new landing site in Florida assuming launch from Texas.

Side cores won't have gone all that far, and given that there seem to be more than 2 ASDS's in the Atlanatic (at least as far as I recall from the very long winded ASDS thread) I think they could be recovered handily. Also expending the side cores would add between 400 and 500m/s which doesn't sound like much but would push the TMI number up past 11, however Full Thrust and densification might do as much, put the two together maybe you get 13. Remember I used vanilla V1.1 stats to build these tables yet after Jason-3 there will be no more vanilla V1.1.



It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2892
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #529 on: 09/05/2015 06:40 am »
That ASDS thread was really long winded. :)

For a short time it was thought there would be 3 ASDS. But we know now that Marmac 300 was decomissioned as an ASDS so there are two, one Atlantic, one Pacific. They would have to build a new one for sidebooster recovery.

I missed, that the numbers were 1.1. So payload to Mars with booster recovery is still possible. According to the Red Dragon video it would require ~11t to TMI for a full 2t payload to the surface. Which is not a bad payload fraction. It is similar to the payload fraction of Curiosity.

Offline Mangala

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Portugal
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #530 on: 09/05/2015 12:52 pm »
For Guckyfan's question on TMI presuming that TMI is accomplished with an impulse of 1.3km/s more than GTO:

3t to TMI with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
9t to TMI with centre core expended and side cores landing down range

Thanks a lot. Sadly this seems to indicate that Red Dragon needs a fully expended FH which is still quite reasonable for a NASA mission but expensive for a mission self funded by SpaceX.

Note: side cores downrange, is that even an option? It would need two ASDS or possibly a new landing site in Florida assuming launch from Texas.

Side cores won't have gone all that far, and given that there seem to be more than 2 ASDS's in the Atlanatic (at least as far as I recall from the very long winded ASDS thread) I think they could be recovered handily. Also expending the side cores would add between 400 and 500m/s which doesn't sound like much but would push the TMI number up past 11, however Full Thrust and densification might do as much, put the two together maybe you get 13. Remember I used vanilla V1.1 stats to build these tables yet after Jason-3 there will be no more vanilla V1.1.
Have you made some calculations for a payload to the moon? I'm asking this because I was thinking about something I read  a wile ago about the possibility of SpaceX launching a Dragon capsule (like CRS-5 one) for a free ride around the moon and then to retrieve it in the Pacific Ocean on the inaugural launch of the Falcon Heavy next spring.
Moderation: Feel free to change this comment for a most appropriate thread.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2015 12:53 pm by Mangala »

Offline nadreck

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #531 on: 09/05/2015 04:32 pm »


The question was, suppose we RTLS the side cores, what is the payload hit for recovering the center core deep downrange as opposed to expending it.

Using my original tables I get 15t expending the centre core and RTLSing the side cores so a 2t hit over sending the side cores out to sea for recovery. So we go from side core RTLS + centre stage ASDS at 8t to side core RTLS + centre stage disposal at 15t.

Note I am updating the spread sheet to work with cross feed scenarios as well, will post later today or tonight.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #532 on: 09/05/2015 04:57 pm »

So if we presume that we are presuming a 200 KM LEO orbit and that GTO is a 2450m/s impulse past that then here are the following capabilities of an FH either with side boosters RTLS and centre core recovered down range:

25t to LEO with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
40t to LEO with centre core expended and side cores landing down range
8t to GTO with centre core landing down range and side cores RTLS
17t to GTO with centre core expended and side cores landing down range


So first, you're double presuming up there, and I don't know if that's legal.

Less importantly, this is not an apples to apples comparison.  You're evaluating the two center core options (expend it or recover downrange) under two different scenarios (side core RTLS and side core down-range recovery)

The question was, suppose we RTLS the side cores, what is the payload hit for recovering the center core deep downrange as opposed to expending it.

You will need to make some assumptions on the amount of slow-down necessary before re-entry, and we don't quite know what that is.

My understanding is that they were able to get by with a rather minimal braking burn on a regular F9 launch, and so I would guestimate that they need to slow down from center-core speed (which we don't quite know either) to just under single-core speed. (which we should have a better guess at)

I assumed slowing down to 900m/s and using 400m/s of delta V to land that is all in my spread sheets, if you don't read my spreadsheets and assumptions then you are simply left with taking my conclusions with out any reasoning behind it and can't criticize it.


Yeah, I saw later, it takes a second to get into someone else's spreadsheet.  We can talk about these numbers later, but I was criticizing the comparison, not the spreadsheet.

You're supposed to compare expend/recover of center core under identical assumptions.

Instead, you compared:
- recover-center-core with side-core-RTLS, to
- expend-center-core with side-core-downrange

Which inflates the difference in payload to orbit (any orbit) - the "expend" version benefits from not having to RTLS the side cores.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline nadreck

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #533 on: 09/05/2015 05:31 pm »

You're supposed to compare expend/recover of center core under identical assumptions.

Instead, you compared:
- recover-center-core with side-core-RTLS, to
- expend-center-core with side-core-downrange

Which inflates the difference in payload to orbit (any orbit) - the "expend" version benefits from not having to RTLS the side cores.

I didn't have any reason to make the comparison that you were suggesting, to me it was what was the maximum payload with 3 cores recovered (which implied RTLS on the sides from discussions here saying we would never see 3 cores recovered by ASDS but might see two) against what was the maximum with 2 cores recovered and maximum for that presumes the cores go down range not RTLS.

However notice that the big hit, as I stated all along is recovering the centre core because of the massive penalty that boost back makes when the centre core is moving faster than 4km/s when it separates from the upper stage.   For the TMI number on the SpaceX web site (13,200 kg) it implies (with a V1.1 legacy upper stage) that the 2nd stage was moving at least 5.6km/s at 2nd stage ignition
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline nadreck

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #534 on: 09/06/2015 03:38 am »
So here is the updated spreadsheet.

I added a 2nd column on the tables in the {Centre core performance} worksheet for 100% remaining propellant for the cross feed case, and I added another table allowing for 20% propellant reserve for recovering the centre core in that case. I also added another worksheet for the 3 booster boost phase in the cross feed scenario.

So with the cross feed and side boosters RTLS'ing and centre core recovery down range

The payload to GTO would be 12t

with cross feed and side boosters RTLS'ing and centre core expending the payload to GTO is 20t

GTO performance with side cores recovered down range and centre core expended is 25t


TMI under those same 3 cases is, respectively, 5t, 12t and 14t


REMEMBER this is V1.1 legacy specs not the new full thrust.

ALSO note that my spreadsheet does not calculated several factors, that while some cancel others, it is still only an approximation and a better indication of relative performance rather than absolute. On the underestimating side it presumes sea level ISP for the 3 core boost phase, also when coming up with my delta V budgets for the scenarios I ignored the benefit of launching east from the cape. On the other side of the ledger I didn't allow for air resistance  and while I accounted for gravity loss in the 3 core boost phase I ignored it after that and while it is minimal after that it is not zero.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2015 03:38 am by nadreck »
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #535 on: 09/06/2015 05:07 am »
So here is the updated spreadsheet.

I added a 2nd column on the tables in the {Centre core performance} worksheet for 100% remaining propellant for the cross feed case, and I added another table allowing for 20% propellant reserve for recovering the centre core in that case. I also added another worksheet for the 3 booster boost phase in the cross feed scenario.

So with the cross feed and side boosters RTLS'ing and centre core recovery down range

The payload to GTO would be 12t

with cross feed and side boosters RTLS'ing and centre core expending the payload to GTO is 20t

GTO performance with side cores recovered down range and centre core expended is 25t


TMI under those same 3 cases is, respectively, 5t, 12t and 14t


REMEMBER this is V1.1 legacy specs not the new full thrust.

ALSO note that my spreadsheet does not calculated several factors, that while some cancel others, it is still only an approximation and a better indication of relative performance rather than absolute. On the underestimating side it presumes sea level ISP for the 3 core boost phase, also when coming up with my delta V budgets for the scenarios I ignored the benefit of launching east from the cape. On the other side of the ledger I didn't allow for air resistance  and while I accounted for gravity loss in the 3 core boost phase I ignored it after that and while it is minimal after that it is not zero.

K, thanks.  Hope to have time to dive into this tomorrow.  That's what the holiday is for, innit?
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline JoerTex

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Austin, Texas
  • Liked: 432
  • Likes Given: 482

Offline symbios

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Elon Musk fan
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 739
I'm a fan, not a fanatic...

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #538 on: 09/09/2015 05:10 pm »
Aviation Week has a new item on Falcon Heavy.  Lists launch customers.  First launch is SpaceX funded test.

http://aviationweek.com/space/spacex-introduce-falcon-heavy-early-2016-0?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150909_AW-19_329&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&utm_rid=CPEN1000000903672&utm_campaign=3734&utm_medium=email&elq2=0bc134d29fc64b68921dade1f49f5f80

Haven't read the full article, but I'm willing to bet all the info is on this web site, and probably came from here. Anybody know if there is actually anything new?
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline wxmeddler

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #539 on: 09/09/2015 05:35 pm »
I suppose this is the news?
Quote
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
ViaSat: Our ViaSat-2 sat to launch on Falcon Heavy in Q4 2016, after 1st Falcon Heavy ~ May. Plan B, an Ariane 5, would cost time & money.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/641654264918634496

Tags:
 

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