Quote from: AncientU on 02/04/2016 08:35 pmNot 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: sewebster on 02/05/2016 12:11 amQuote from: Lars-J on 02/05/2016 12:03 amDream 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.
Quote from: Lars-J on 02/05/2016 12:03 amDream 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?
Dream on. They've never released that kind of performance detail for anything, what makes you think try will now?
Quote from: nadreck on 02/05/2016 12:20 amQuote from: sewebster on 02/05/2016 12:11 amQuote from: Lars-J on 02/05/2016 12:03 amDream 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.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 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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/05/2016 02:07 pmYes, 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)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/05/2016 02:07 pmYes, and the URL was NASA.gov. Thought that'd be sufficient for individuals capable of independent thought.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.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.
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: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.
Quote from: anonymousgerbil on 02/05/2016 03:31 pmI found something in the newest F9 user's guide (dated Oct 21st 2015) that perplexed me a bit, especially in regards to Falcon heavy: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.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.This is the Falcon 9 user's guide, not the Heavy's.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/05/2016 03:00 pmYes, 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.
Quote from: nadreck on 02/05/2016 03:28 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/05/2016 03:00 pmYes, 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.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.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.