Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)  (Read 538644 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32636
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11494
  • Likes Given: 340
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1020 on: 05/05/2016 02:50 pm »
Also, think about this.  If you are getting good at building engines and are seeing little to no issues for individual qual firings, why not eliminate them and do it at the same time as the stage qual firings. 

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5590
  • Liked: 3400
  • Likes Given: 1658
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1021 on: 05/05/2016 03:08 pm »
They may only static fire one or two FH at the Cape.  Static fire at the Cape for F9 is going to go away
Even with a reused core?
don't know about that.

That is likely a SpaceX goal for used stages eventually, once they characterize how useful engine performance data from the previous flight is.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3149
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1289
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1022 on: 05/05/2016 03:28 pm »
Eliminating the stop in McGregor would be a huge schedule improvement. 

Maybe they drop that step first and keep the static fire in Florida.  Reducing the number of stops, handling and shipping time.
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1804
  • Liked: 1320
  • Likes Given: 1298
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1023 on: 05/05/2016 03:38 pm »
Eliminating the stop in McGregor would be a huge schedule improvement.
The testing in McGregor still seems to be more extensive (longer burn time) than a static fire, although there have been some recent reports from residents that the full S1 burns of earlier testing stopped a while ago.  With more pads scheduled to come on-line soon it does seem like McGregor would become more and more of a bottleneck, and especially wasteful for Vandenberg flights.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32636
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11494
  • Likes Given: 340
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1024 on: 05/05/2016 03:54 pm »
Eliminating the stop in McGregor would be a huge schedule improvement. 

Maybe they drop that step first and keep the static fire in Florida.  Reducing the number of stops, handling and shipping time.

No, the other way around

Online Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4344
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2583
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1025 on: 05/05/2016 05:49 pm »
Eliminating the stop in McGregor would be a huge schedule improvement.
The testing in McGregor still seems to be more extensive (longer burn time) than a static fire, although there have been some recent reports from residents that the full S1 burns of earlier testing stopped a while ago.  With more pads scheduled to come on-line soon it does seem like McGregor would become more and more of a bottleneck, and especially wasteful for Vandenberg flights.

Acceptance test firing of engines at McGregor is a crucial QA step, not "wasteful." Any bottleneck at McGregor would have to be solved by additional test stand capacity or some other means.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2016 05:50 pm by Kabloona »

Offline Mike_1179

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1026 on: 05/05/2016 07:05 pm »

Acceptance test firing of engines at McGregor is a crucial QA step, not "wasteful." Any bottleneck at McGregor would have to be solved by additional test stand capacity or some other means.

You get a lot of data out of engine firings, not just "did the thing light up" or "how much force it produced". You could conceivably track these various variable data to determine if your manufacturing process is under control. If they really have stabilized all of the variables that flow down to acceptable engine performance, what's the point?

At some point, if you keep testing and you don't get failures (and everything behaves just as it should), it means your test isn't worth it. Instead of shipping engines from CA to TX back to CA for integration then the whole thing back to TX, make engines with a validated process in CA, integrate into a stage and test fire the whole thing. Any engine problems (have to be special cause because common cause is controlled) would be found there.

I'm extrapolating out from what we do in a non-rocket engine manufacturing industry so it may not be directly applicable.

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1804
  • Liked: 1320
  • Likes Given: 1298
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1027 on: 05/05/2016 07:36 pm »
Acceptance test firing of engines at McGregor is a crucial QA step, not "wasteful." Any bottleneck at McGregor would have to be solved by additional test stand capacity or some other means.
As it stands, engines are shipped to McGregor, acceptance tested, shipped back to Hawthorne, integrated into an F9 1st stage, which is shipped to McGregor, the whole stage is tested, then shipped to launch site.

I'm talking about skipping the shipping of the 1st stage to McGregor for testing, not the engines.  I still don't know if the trades are worth it, but in any case you're talking about something different from what I was.

Offline rsdavis9

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1028 on: 05/05/2016 07:47 pm »
I think the engine test at mcgregor after integration makes the most sense. Assuming that an integrated test can be just as thorough as individual engine tests.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22572
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 354
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1029 on: 05/05/2016 07:54 pm »
So right now for the 1st stage it is:

9 Individual engine firing in TX-> Integration to stage in CA -> Stage firing in TX-> Static Firing at Pad-> Launch

Eventually you sill see

Integration to stage in CA->Static Firing in TX-> Pad WDR-> Launch

And maybe further on get rid of the WDR entirely

If you want to launch as regularly as SpaceX states it does,  you have to get to the last flow.


Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 604
  • Israel
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1030 on: 05/05/2016 08:22 pm »
Here's an article from SpaceFlight Now regarding possibility of a commercial payload during the first demonstration flight:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/03/spacex-undecided-on-payload-for-first-falcon-heavy-flight/


More from that article:
Quote
SpaceX’s updated pricing and performance chart shows a Falcon Heavy rocket lofting up to 8 metric tons to geostationary transfer orbit sells for $90 million. The performance figure assumes SpaceX recovers the boosters, but the price does not factor in reuse.

If so, than 90$m is for an expendable FH with 22ton to GTO too ?

Quote
Arianespace intends to sell the most powerful variant of the next-generation Ariane 6 rocket — the Ariane 64 with four solid rocket boosters — for 90 million euros, or about $103 million, a price to be typically split between two customers per mission once the new launcher enters service in 2020.

So Arian 6 is supposed to be a cheaper ride per sat than 2 F9s?
« Last Edit: 05/05/2016 08:24 pm by dror »
"If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. "
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Liked: 874
  • Likes Given: 444
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1031 on: 05/05/2016 08:41 pm »
More from that article:
Quote
SpaceX’s updated pricing and performance chart shows a Falcon Heavy rocket lofting up to 8 metric tons to geostationary transfer orbit sells for $90 million. The performance figure assumes SpaceX recovers the boosters, but the price does not factor in reuse.

If so, than 90$m is for an expendable FH with 22ton to GTO too ?

That statement in the article is wrong; looks like some misplaced "not".  The SpaceX capabilities page states $90M  for up to 8t to GTO; 22t to GTO fully expended.  The latter is the "performance figure" referenced in the article--fully expended, whereas the price is presumably based on some level of recovery (thus the lower 8t to GTO).

Offline Doesitfloat

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • Detroit MI
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 186
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1032 on: 05/05/2016 08:44 pm »



More from that article:

SpaceX’s updated pricing and performance chart shows a Falcon Heavy rocket lofting up to 8 metric tons to geostationary transfer orbit sells for $90 million. The performance figure assumes SpaceX recovers the boosters, but the price does not factor in reuse.


If so, than 90$m is for an expendable FH with 22ton to GTO too ?



I read the reuse as the $90 million is for three new boosters, 1 new second stage, and two new fairing halves.
Further there might be an option to re-use some or all of the above components, but no pricing for that is available.

And... They are for 90 mil they are only selling the 8 tons to GTO performance.  Extra performance costs extra $$$
« Last Edit: 05/05/2016 08:47 pm by Doesitfloat »

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 604
  • Israel
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1033 on: 05/05/2016 10:26 pm »



More from that article:

SpaceX’s updated pricing and performance chart shows a Falcon Heavy rocket lofting up to 8 metric tons to geostationary transfer orbit sells for $90 million. The performance figure assumes SpaceX recovers the boosters, but the price does not factor in reuse.


If so, than 90$m is for an expendable FH with 22ton to GTO too ?



I read the reuse as the $90 million is for three new boosters, 1 new second stage, and two new fairing halves.
Further there might be an option to re-use some or all of the above components, but no pricing for that is available.

And... They are for 90 mil they are only selling the 8 tons to GTO performance.  Extra performance costs extra $$$

So you say -
it's 90$mil for a new reusable LV
it may be less for a reused reusable LV
and will probably be more for an expendable launch, new or reused LV.

There are at least these three configurations, not only two as I thought.

Thanks !
« Last Edit: 05/05/2016 10:31 pm by dror »
"If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. "
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Offline GWH

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1034 on: 05/05/2016 10:50 pm »
I would think more prices than just that.  Just for new cores you could have
Probably $90M is for 3 cores RTLS
Little more for central core ASDS
More again center core expendable
Then finally full expendable for top tier pricing.

Then used rocket pricing for all of the above modes.

In 2013 pricing when F9 was $56.5M for 4.85mT-GTO  FH was $77.1M for up to 6.4mT-GTO.  Above that (full expendable) price was $135M.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140316212646/http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

Offline RDMM2081

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 263
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1035 on: 05/05/2016 11:38 pm »
I would think more prices than just that.  Just for new cores you could have
Probably $90M is for 3 cores RTLS
Little more for central core ASDS
More again center core expendable
Then finally full expendable for top tier pricing.

Then used rocket pricing for all of the above modes.

In 2013 pricing when F9 was $56.5M for 4.85mT-GTO  FH was $77.1M for up to 6.4mT-GTO.  Above that (full expendable) price was $135M.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140316212646/http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

I believe your scale as what the actual price list and capabilities will look like when all is said and done, but there's the inconvenient little bit about the disclaimer at the bottom of the infographic on http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities mentioning

*Performance represents max capability on fully expendable mode

But we know SpaceX has made several revisions of changes to that page in the last few days, and we all generally assume they are sandbagging the FH numbers until they launch and get some of their much loved data back in house, but I definitely see that statement on their website as being either flat out wrong or not up to date yet.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28853
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9044
  • Likes Given: 5798
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1036 on: 05/06/2016 02:26 am »
I don't think it's an accident that the FH for $90m is for 8mT, which can be covered by the Falcon 9 expendable.

Reuse is not technically on the critical path. They could launch those $90m payloads on expendable Falcon 9s. So while they do seem to plan to get the benefit of reuse for these Falcon Heavy payloads, technically that isn't required.

So yes, they can still legitimately claim that their prices don't require reuse (but if reuse doesn't work, they would need to use a Falcon Heavy without boosters... a Falcon 9).
« Last Edit: 05/06/2016 02:27 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

Online macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 2703
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1037 on: 05/06/2016 07:04 am »
What are the odds SpaceX will take two of those stages as the side boosters for the first Falcon Heavy ?
Or perhaps make the next few F9 boosters in a way they could be reused as FH side boosters ?
Or am I just dreaming...
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4037
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 13377
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1038 on: 05/06/2016 07:33 am »
What are the odds SpaceX will take two of those stages as the side boosters for the first Falcon Heavy ?
Or perhaps make the next few F9 boosters in a way they could be reused as FH side boosters ?
Or am I just dreaming...
If a used booster is less valuable than a new one, it would make more sense to use them for FH cores, since they're less likely to be recovered.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 4)
« Reply #1039 on: 05/06/2016 08:00 am »
As I understand it, the FH side boosters have high commonality with the F9 stage 1 but not with the F9 centre core. So re-use of F9 cores on FH may only apply to the boosters.
Douglas Clark

Tags: