Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)  (Read 531097 times)

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3548
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2511
  • Likes Given: 2172
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1200 on: 10/24/2023 06:53 pm »
At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.
It will indeed be a long time before NASA certifies Starship, at least the way NASA currently operates.

NASA has to certify Starship as a payload launcher for HLS (as well a certifying it as a man-rated lander) before Artemis can put people on the moon.

Certifying it as a crew launch vehicle might take much, much longer, but I can't see how certification for NASA payloads can take longer than is required for Artemis.

[Edit: Off-topic, but that seems inherent to the thread.]
« Last Edit: 10/24/2023 06:53 pm by Paul451 »

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5354
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1693
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1201 on: 10/24/2023 07:01 pm »
At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.
It will indeed be a long time before NASA certifies Starship, at least the way NASA currently operates.

NASA has to certify Starship as a payload launcher for HLS (as well a certifying it as a man-rated lander) before Artemis can put people on the moon.

Certifying it as a crew launch vehicle might take much, much longer, but I can't see how certification for NASA payloads can take longer than is required for Artemis.

[Edit: Off-topic, but that seems inherent to the thread.]
Certifying is one thing, but actually using it is another. For Artemis, the Starship HLS is the payload. For generic FH replacement, they need a generli Cargo Starship, presumably with the reusable one with some strange payload pay and payload deployment system. NASA's payloads will need to somehow fit into this scheme. Until this can happen, FH might continue to fly. You will need to consult your own crystal ball to determine when this will happen. I think is will be "fairly fast", but SpaceX will apparently focus on HLS (plus tanker and Depot) and Starlink deployment Starship before they can dedicate many launches to Cargo Starship.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2423
  • Liked: 2383
  • Likes Given: 10148
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1202 on: 10/24/2023 07:05 pm »
At the very end of the article the author opines that It will be a long time until NASA certifies Starship, but he does not explain this difference.
It will indeed be a long time before NASA certifies Starship, at least the way NASA currently operates.

NASA has to certify Starship as a payload launcher for HLS (as well a certifying it as a man-rated lander) before Artemis can put people on the moon.

Certifying it as a crew launch vehicle might take much, much longer, but I can't see how certification for NASA payloads can take longer than is required for Artemis.

[Edit: Off-topic, but that seems inherent to the thread.]

All of that might be true, but when will Artemis put people on the moon?  5 years from now?  That probably puts Starship certification well behind Vulcan certification and fits my definition of "a long time."

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7099
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1950
  • Likes Given: 1914
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1203 on: 01/01/2024 11:35 am »
I'm seeking confirmation or refutation of the claim that FH (with a mission specific payload adapter) can put 18 t of separated mass into an orbit like 300 x 66,000 km altitude. Is that reasonable? Unreasonable?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Brigantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • NZ
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1204 on: 01/01/2024 01:10 pm »
I'm seeking confirmation or refutation of the claim that FH (with a mission specific payload adapter) can put 18 t of separated mass into an orbit like 300 x 66,000 km altitude. Is that reasonable? Unreasonable?
26.7t to GTO, so presumably you could get there with 18t payload and ~8t fuel left.
It seems to be only about 300 m/s of delta V to get from there up to 66,000 km, so <3t of fuel.

I think you could get nearly 24t... though that must be for fully expendable configuration of FH.

Based on 16 ton GTO with booster RTLS expended core configuration, you would get 14 ton to 66,000 km - not sure if that 16t figure is that up to date though.

You might get 18 ton to 66,000 km if you land the boosters on drone ships.
Or to 22,000 km RTLS. (~620 m/s short of 66,000 km)
« Last Edit: 01/01/2024 01:49 pm by Brigantine »

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7304
  • Likes Given: 70493
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)
« Reply #1205 on: 01/05/2024 04:48 am »
Any news of the Heavy core for GOES-U?
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

 

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