Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)  (Read 332281 times)

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #260 on: 03/17/2015 11:29 pm »
And there is precedence for this with the Falcon 9, where SpaceX was selling the V1.1 capability far in advance of fielding the V1.1.

Yeah, that's called lying.  Or false advertising.  The problem is they were stating it as Falcon 9 performance, not future-enhancement-version performance (v1.1).  It was widely believed that that was the performance of the original Falcon 9.
Either it's lying, or really awful systems analysis.  Maybe this has been one of the problems with certification.....

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #261 on: 03/17/2015 11:32 pm »
And there is precedence for this with the Falcon 9, where SpaceX was selling the V1.1 capability far in advance of fielding the V1.1.

Yeah, that's called lying.  Or false advertising.  The problem is they were stating it as Falcon 9 performance, not future-enhancement-version performance (v1.1).  It was widely believed that that was the performance of the original Falcon 9.
Either it's lying, or really awful systems analysis.  Maybe this has been one of the problems with certification.....

No, those numbers were always for a "Block II" F9, it was common knowledge. The Block II morphed into the v1.1. Future capabilities are frequently advertised, because the lead up from order to launch of most payloads is measured in YEARS.

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #262 on: 03/17/2015 11:37 pm »
No, those numbers were always for a "Block II" F9, it was common knowledge. The Block II morphed into the v1.1. Future capabilities are frequently advertised, because the lead up from order to launch of most payloads is measured in YEARS.
Nice try.
I have the original pamphlet they were handing out at the 1st Space Symposium they attended.  It has Falcon 9 performance numbers on it.  No mention of any Block II.  The numbers are off by 30 to 40%.
So where was the actual Falcon 9 1.0 performance ever quoted???
Wouldn't the original pictures of the Falcon Heavy reflect the longer booster(s)?  If they knew that was never going to fly they would have showed the enhanced version with longer cores and upper stage.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2015 11:41 pm by Newton_V »

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1798
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #263 on: 03/17/2015 11:54 pm »
No, those numbers were always for a "Block II" F9, it was common knowledge. The Block II morphed into the v1.1. Future capabilities are frequently advertised, because the lead up from order to launch of most payloads is measured in YEARS.
Nice try.
I have the original pamphlet they were handing out at the 1st Space Symposium they attended.  It has Falcon 9 performance numbers on it.  No mention of any Block II.  The numbers are off by 30 to 40%.
So where was the actual Falcon 9 1.0 performance ever quoted???
Wouldn't the original pictures of the Falcon Heavy reflect the longer booster(s)?  If they knew that was never going to fly they would have showed the enhanced version with longer cores and upper stage.

Did you ever sit down and try to buy Falcon 9 launch services?  No?  Then you don't know what numbers were actually disclosed during the negotiations with actual customers before contracts were signed.  Based on SpaceX  lack of flight experience early in the companies history, I have no doubt some early performance numbers were off that had been made public.  What is important is what SpaceX and the customers of it's launch services agreed to in regards to performance that was in the contract not what was printed in some pamphlet. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #264 on: 03/17/2015 11:55 pm »
No, those numbers were always for a "Block II" F9, it was common knowledge. The Block II morphed into the v1.1. Future capabilities are frequently advertised, because the lead up from order to launch of most payloads is measured in YEARS.
Nice try.
I have the original pamphlet they were handing out at the 1st Space Symposium they attended.  It has Falcon 9 performance numbers on it.  No mention of any Block II.  The numbers are off by 30 to 40%.
So where was the actual Falcon 9 1.0 performance ever quoted???
Wouldn't the original pictures of the Falcon Heavy reflect the longer booster(s)?  If they knew that was never going to fly they would have showed the enhanced version with longer cores and upper stage.

I'm not trying anything, Just stating the obvious.  :D Or do you think that you just uncover a grand conspiracy that I'm trying to hush up?   :o  The original F9 did not end up reaching the performance they targeted. So they improved it.

As for the pamphlet, it's called marketing.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2015 11:55 pm by Lars-J »

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #265 on: 03/18/2015 12:14 am »
The original F9 did not end up reaching the performance they targeted.


But that's my "issue".  Did they not reach the performance because of poor analysis?  Weight came in much heavier? 

It clearly shows a short Falcon 9, the 3x3 engine configuration, thrust and ISP for the propulsion (1C).
And then the performance numbers are for another rocket that will be flying 5 years later??   I just don't buy it. But that's my opinion.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #266 on: 03/18/2015 12:53 am »
The original F9 did not end up reaching the performance they targeted.


But that's my "issue".  Did they not reach the performance because of poor analysis?  Weight came in much heavier? 

It clearly shows a short Falcon 9, the 3x3 engine configuration, thrust and ISP for the propulsion (1C).
And then the performance numbers are for another rocket that will be flying 5 years later??   I just don't buy it. But that's my opinion.


Which is worth how much?  Are you threatening to sue SpaceX?  Are you trying to drum up popular opposition?  Are you trying to be a whistleblower?


The business relationships, and whatever agreements are reached, between SpaceX and its clients are exactly between them -- not us.  Indignation serves you no purpose.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #267 on: 03/18/2015 12:57 am »
If you watched the Air Force side of the House hearing today they were lamenting that SpaceX was not having earlier test launches of the Heavy.  They are looking at a 2 year gap because they the gov. will not start designing a payload for a heavy until after it is certified.   They doubted they could get it certified until 2019-20 which meant no launches until 2022.
ULA is playing hardball with their Delta IV Heavy saying they can't afford to launch it for less than a billion $ if they have to shut down their Atlas line waiting for a new engine.   Also they plan on shutting down the regular Delta 4medium as it can't compete against the Falcon 9.   

It's an interesting game of holding breath until somebody turns blue or calls out uncle.   Lots of talk about SpaceX being a monopoly government launcher in the gap period.   That's kind of choice as the block buy and current non-certified F-9 means SpaceX is currently not an Air Force EELV supplier just desires to be one so calling them the future monopoly looks like fear mongering.

No willingness on the Air Force side to do concurrent design of pieces.   Why can't one design the payloads without the launcher and just have an adapter standard for the launchers that will be the same for all Air Force heavy payloads?  Then you really wouldn't care if it was a Delta 4, a Falcon Heavy or anything else that built to the interface.   It just seems nuts to wait until certification to design the payload, but then I have never done large government engineering projects, just large commercial non-rocket ones with multiple risky points (some with 3 or more may the best man win alternatives for the risk points).

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #268 on: 03/18/2015 01:10 am »

Which is worth how much?  Are you threatening to sue SpaceX?  Are you trying to drum up popular opposition?  Are you trying to be a whistleblower?

The business relationships, and whatever agreements are reached, between SpaceX and its clients are exactly between them -- not us.  Indignation serves you no purpose.

Don't understand the 1st question.
No.  Sue for what?  Lying?
No.  Trying to understand why they wouldn't be honest.  If the "real" performance is kept behind closed doors, then why advertise anything?  Why have a website?  Why boast about capability in public? Why tweet?
I never claimed anything illegal.  Not sure what whistleblowing would do or even who to inform of what.

I also never claimed their agreements or contracts should be public.   I never asked for any information from SpaceX.  Everything I have is from their own advertising and their website.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 01:14 am by Newton_V »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14047
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #269 on: 03/18/2015 01:19 am »
And there is precedence for this with the Falcon 9, where SpaceX was selling the V1.1 capability far in advance of fielding the V1.1.

Yeah, that's called lying.  Or false advertising.  The problem is they were stating it as Falcon 9 performance, not future-enhancement-version performance (v1.1).  It was widely believed that that was the performance of the original Falcon 9.
Either it's lying, or really awful systems analysis.  Maybe this has been one of the problems with certification.....

Yeah, that's called "They didn't tell me".

So far, it's been clear that REAL customers were privy to the performance and upgrade information well in advance of the general public and you.  All payloads have ended up in their prescribed orbits, so I guess performance never fell short of promises.

What's giving you acid is that public information wasn't detailed enough.  First show me a launch company that lists performance and pricing in a neat little table on their public web site, then we can talk about certification.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #270 on: 03/18/2015 01:22 am »
So... SpaceX deliberately misled the public by publicizing a slightly better version of F9 v1.0 but INSTEAD giving us a rocket with nearly twice v1.0's performance. I know, I know, it's HORRIBLE, but true!
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 01:24 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #271 on: 03/18/2015 01:30 am »

All payloads have ended up in their prescribed orbits, so I guess performance never fell short of promises.

What's giving you acid is that public information wasn't detailed enough.  First show me a launch company that lists performance and pricing in a neat little table on their public web site, then we can talk about certification.

You mean like the Orbcom-OG2 payload?  Why bother upgrade to 1.1 if performance never fell short?
I don't want more detail.   Doesn't ULA have a mission planner's guide that lists performance?   I also never requested ANYTHING about pricing.  All prices are negotiable to some extent.   I really don't want to talk to you about certification.

After browsing through the forum topics, I'm starting to realize this is a SpaceX forum.  It seems like 80 to 90% of all posts are "SpaceX will/can do everything topics"  Even the launch coverage has about a 20 to 1 ratio.

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #272 on: 03/18/2015 01:34 am »
So... SpaceX deliberately misled the public by publicizing a slightly better version of F9 v1.0 but INSTEAD giving us a rocket with nearly twice v1.0's performance. I know, I know, it's HORRIBLE, but true!

If it has twice the performance, then initial estimates were off 100%.  So what was v1.0 performance capability?
I never claimed v1.1 didn't live up to it's estimates.  Just that v1.0 didn't come close. 

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14047
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #273 on: 03/18/2015 01:46 am »

All payloads have ended up in their prescribed orbits, so I guess performance never fell short of promises.

What's giving you acid is that public information wasn't detailed enough.  First show me a launch company that lists performance and pricing in a neat little table on their public web site, then we can talk about certification.

You mean like the Orbcom-OG2 payload?  Why bother upgrade to 1.1 if performance never fell short?
I don't want more detail.   Doesn't ULA have a mission planner's guide that lists performance?   I also never requested ANYTHING about pricing.  All prices are negotiable to some extent.   I really don't want to talk to you about certification.

After browsing through the forum topics, I'm starting to realize this is a SpaceX forum.  It seems like 80 to 90% of all posts are "SpaceX will/can do everything topics"  Even the launch coverage has about a 20 to 1 ratio.

It's cute, because I could see the Orbcom red herring coming even as I was typing my post...  But figured I might as well give you the benefit of the doubt.

So for kicks - what does Orbcomm have to do with anything?  That was an engine-out event, combined with HSF flight safety rules, and absolutely nothing to do with published or actual performance. 

Or is it that they also lied because they didn't write on the website that anomalies happen and the chance for success is <100%
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #274 on: 03/18/2015 01:51 am »
It's cute, because I could see the Orbcom red herring coming even as I was typing my post...  But figured I might as well give you the benefit of the doubt.

So for kicks - what does Orbcomm have to do with anything?  That was an engine-out event, combined with HSF flight safety rules, and absolutely nothing to do with published or actual performance. 

Or is it that they also lied because they didn't write on the website that anomalies happen and the chance for success is <100%

Benefit of what doubt?   I don't understand your question about what they have to do with anything.  If an engine goes out, isn't that losing performance?  (See AV-009)  You're the one who brought up perfect performance and 100% satisfaction.  Everybody has anomalies.  So does ULA.  Why are you so sensitive? 

If you're only using 50% of your capability, you can correct for a lot of performance-related anomalies.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 01:56 am by Newton_V »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #275 on: 03/18/2015 01:58 am »
So... SpaceX deliberately misled the public by publicizing a slightly better version of F9 v1.0 but INSTEAD giving us a rocket with nearly twice v1.0's performance. I know, I know, it's HORRIBLE, but true!

If it has twice the performance, then initial estimates were off 100%.  So what was v1.0 performance capability?
I never claimed v1.1 didn't live up to it's estimates.  Just that v1.0 didn't come close.
Almost all the published figures for v1.0's performance were for block II's performance. They were to do a few block I flights before transitioning to the better block II.

Apparently, they said "hell with it" and just did v1.1, which kept all the promises they made before plus a whole lot more. But just because you weren't careful enough to listen to them telling you that they were (in virtually every case) talking about block II performance (and not block I) doesn't mean that they "lied" about F9's performance.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 01:58 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Newton_V

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • United States
  • Liked: 822
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #276 on: 03/18/2015 02:00 am »
Almost all the published figures for v1.0's performance were for block II's performance. They were to do a few block I flights before transitioning to the better block II.

Apparently, they said "hell with it" and just did v1.1, which kept all the promises they made before plus a whole lot more. But just because you weren't careful enough to listen to them telling you that they were (in virtually every case) talking about block II performance (and not block I) doesn't mean that they "lied" about F9's performance.

Thanks for your answer.  So was the capability of  v1.0 ever published then?  Anywhere or anytime?

Falcon 9 first flew in June of 2010.   When did the first information about v1.1's (Block II) come into public.  Was it not until 2012?
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 02:03 am by Newton_V »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #277 on: 03/18/2015 02:02 am »
By the time they had detailed specs on their website, they had already filled those first few Falcon 9 block I flights. Anyone who asked for a flight would be given the higher performing version (except perhaps by very special request). Are you suggesting that SpaceX was "lying" just because they decided to give their customers an even more capable rocket?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #278 on: 03/18/2015 02:04 am »
Almost all the published figures for v1.0's performance were for block II's performance. They were to do a few block I flights before transitioning to the better block II.

Apparently, they said "hell with it" and just did v1.1, which kept all the promises they made before plus a whole lot more. But just because you weren't careful enough to listen to them telling you that they were (in virtually every case) talking about block II performance (and not block I) doesn't mean that they "lied" about F9's performance.

Thanks for your answer.  So was the capability of  v1.0 ever published then?  Anywhere or anytime?
Yeah, at one point you could see the performance here (just has the newer version now... although actually it might be the upgrade-to-v1.1, but regardless): http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov
NASA clearly knew what they were getting.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 02:06 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 3)
« Reply #279 on: 03/18/2015 02:06 am »
Almost all the published figures for v1.0's performance were for block II's performance. They were to do a few block I flights before transitioning to the better block II.

Apparently, they said "hell with it" and just did v1.1, which kept all the promises they made before plus a whole lot more. But just because you weren't careful enough to listen to them telling you that they were (in virtually every case) talking about block II performance (and not block I) doesn't mean that they "lied" about F9's performance.

Thanks for your answer.  So was the capability of  v1.0 ever published then?  Anywhere or anytime?

Falcon 9 first flew in June of 2010.   When did the first information about v1.1's (Block II) come into public.  Was it not until 2012?
v1.1 isn't "block II," actually.

If you look at F9 v1.0's user's guide (the latest version is 2009), it only gives figures for Block II performance, figures that were far exceeded by v1.1.

If you're confused, don't worry, you're not the only one! :)
« Last Edit: 03/18/2015 02:06 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

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