Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy : STP-2 : LC-39A : NET September 2018  (Read 181692 times)

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • ~ 1 AU
    • LinkedIn
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
In order to get 16MT you would need an additional stage.  What would Falcon Heavy's TLI performance be with just it's standard upper stage? 10MT doesn't seem like a bad guess.

Mmmm... maybe I'm being too optimistic; I think Falcon Heavy can throw more than 10mt to TLI.
Clayton Birchenough
Astro. Engineer and Computational Mathematics @ ERAU

Online smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 93
In order to get 16MT you would need an additional stage. 
...

IF we assume 53 t to LEO, then 16 t to TLI is a consistent proportional estimate (w/o any additional stage).

Actually, a while ago in Wiki there was full set of performance numbers for FH:
LEO -- 53 t
GEO -- 19 t
TLI -- 16 t
TMI -- 14 t
C3=0 -- 13 t
(as I recall it)
also, as I understand, TLI and TMI numbers were calculated by wiki contributors.

However, later SpaceX changed their estimate of GEO performance for FH to 13 t, leaving LEO unchanged.
Wiki changed numbers accordingly.
This set is kind of strange, the proportion GEO/LEO is too low, but we do not know their reasons.
And the rocket is not built yet, many things can change.

Ed Kyle's site gives performance for FH here
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9v1-1.html
in the table "Vehicle Configurations"

-----------
Correction:
Should be GTO, not GEO.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2013 10:30 PM by smoliarm »

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • ~ 1 AU
    • LinkedIn
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
IF we assume 53 t to LEO, then 16 t to TLI is a consistent proportional estimate (w/o any additional stage).

Actually, a while ago in Wiki there was full set of performance numbers for FH:
LEO -- 53 t
GEO -- 19 t
TLI -- 16 t
TMI -- 14 t
C3=0 -- 13 t
(as I recall it)
also, as I understand, TLI and TMI numbers were calculated by wiki contributors.

However, later SpaceX changed their estimate of GEO performance for FH to 13 t, leaving LEO unchanged.
Wiki changed numbers accordingly.
This set is kind of strange, the proportion GEO/LEO is too low, but we do not know their reasons.
And the rocket is not built yet, many things can change.

Ed Kyle's site gives performance for FH here
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9v1-1.html
in the table "Vehicle Configurations"


C3 = 0 is less than TMI of 14 t... am I missing something? ???
Clayton Birchenough
Astro. Engineer and Computational Mathematics @ ERAU

Online smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 93
...

C3 = 0 is less than TMI of 14 t... am I missing something? ???

Well, may be you are not, may be it is my recollection :)
Now you mentioned it, perhaps it was 12 t for TMI...
or 14 t for C3=0 ...
Sorry :)

I'm not an expert in orbital calculus, although I passed my exam with A, but it was 17 years ago, and I never used these formulas since.

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 566
However, later SpaceX changed their estimate of GEO performance for FH to 13 t, leaving LEO unchanged.
Wiki changed numbers accordingly.
This set is kind of strange, the proportion GEO/LEO is too low, but we do not know their reasons.
And the rocket is not built yet, many things can change.

The upper stage on Falcon Heavy is not really optimized for GEO or GTO performance.

According to SpaceX, FH can send 12mT to GTO.  The delta V for LEO to GTO is around 2.5 km/s.  Considering that TLI delta V is slightly more than that (Apollo was 3.05-3.25 km/s) 10mt to TLI seems realistic.

Of course you're right, this rocket doesn't even exist yet and a lot could change.  Honestly, if they just used a larger upper stage they would get much better BLEO performance.  But maybe that's not necessary for any of their future plans, 12mT is plenty for commercial GEO launches.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2013 08:08 PM by Rabidpanda »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
However, later SpaceX changed their estimate of GEO performance for FH to 13 t, leaving LEO unchanged.
Wiki changed numbers accordingly.
This set is kind of strange, the proportion GEO/LEO is too low, but we do not know their reasons.
And the rocket is not built yet, many things can change.

The upper stage on Falcon Heavy is not really optimized for GEO or GTO performance.

According to SpaceX, FH can send 12mT to GTO.  The delta V for LEO to GTO is around 2.5 km/s.  Considering that TLI delta V is slightly more than that (Apollo was 3.05-3.25 km/s) 10mt to TLI seems realistic.

Of course you're right, this rocket doesn't even exist yet and a lot could change.  Honestly, if they just used a larger upper stage they would get much better BLEO performance.  But maybe that's not necessary for any of their future plans, 12mT is plenty for commercial GEO launches.

But the v1.1 and FH upper stage *IS* larger... It appears to be almost twice the tank volume of the v1.0 upper stage.

Offline Excession

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 48
They could just add another stage. A wide-body centaur placed ought to be able to put twenty or thirty tons into GTO when starting from LEO, and FH could definitely put it there...

But the v1.1 and FH upper stage *IS* larger... It appears to be almost twice the tank volume of the v1.0 upper stage.

They mean relative to the V1.1.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
We have a Falcon Heavy speculation thread guys.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • ~ 1 AU
    • LinkedIn
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
We have a Falcon Heavy speculation thread guys.

You're right. Sorry for contributing to OT conversation.

Here's an appropriate thread to discuss Falcon Heavy TLI payload:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20615.0
Clayton Birchenough
Astro. Engineer and Computational Mathematics @ ERAU

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 79
Another payload on this mission is the SSTL built OTB satellite

https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/d/dsac

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
  • Greece
  • Liked: 479
  • Likes Given: 2432
Quote
The DSAC mission will be a hosted payload onboard a Surrey Satellite Technology (SST-US) Orbital Test Bed (OTB) spacecraft, currently planned for launch into LEO (Low Earth Obit) in early 2016
looks like this has slipped to early 2016

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2917
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 1071
They could just add another stage. A wide-body centaur placed ought to be able to put twenty or thirty tons into GTO when starting from LEO, and FH could definitely put it there...

But the v1.1 and FH upper stage *IS* larger... It appears to be almost twice the tank volume of the v1.0 upper stage.

They mean relative to the V1.1.

Now that may allow the development of re-useability technology.   
SpaceX, just a few things planned for 2018: FH, Starlink Prototypes, Block 5, Dragon 2, Increased launch rate.

Offline MTom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • EU / Hungary
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 435
Quote
The DSAC mission will be a hosted payload onboard a Surrey Satellite Technology (SST-US) Orbital Test Bed (OTB) spacecraft, currently planned for launch into LEO (Low Earth Obit) in early 2016
looks like this has slipped to early 2016

Not sure it has slipped:
SpaceX launch manifest speaking always about "Year indicates vehicle arrival at launch site."
Launch Early 2016 could easy mach with an arrival in 2015 (+ STP-2 US Air Force is the last but one in the manifes for 2015).
« Last Edit: 05/29/2014 08:22 PM by MTom »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5850
  • Liked: 3668
  • Likes Given: 5111
Quote
The DSAC mission will be a hosted payload onboard a Surrey Satellite Technology (SST-US) Orbital Test Bed (OTB) spacecraft, currently planned for launch into LEO (Low Earth Obit) in early 2016
looks like this has slipped to early 2016

Not sure it has slipped:
SpaceX launch manifest speaking always about "Year indicates vehicle arrival at launch site."
Launch Early 2016 could easy mach with an arrival in 2015 (+ STP-2 US Air Force is the last but one in the manifes for 2015).
First half of 2015 per Shotwell.  Also, tanks and engines currently being built at Hawthorne.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34884.msg1209634#msg1209634
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34884.msg1209997#msg1209997
« Last Edit: 06/05/2014 11:46 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline MTom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • EU / Hungary
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 435
Quote
The DSAC mission will be a hosted payload onboard a Surrey Satellite Technology (SST-US) Orbital Test Bed (OTB) spacecraft, currently planned for launch into LEO (Low Earth Obit) in early 2016
looks like this has slipped to early 2016

Not sure it has slipped:
SpaceX launch manifest speaking always about "Year indicates vehicle arrival at launch site."
Launch Early 2016 could easy mach with an arrival in 2015 (+ STP-2 US Air Force is the last but one in the manifes for 2015).
First half of 2015 per Shotwell.  Also, tanks and engines currently being built at Hawthorne.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34884.msg1209634#msg1209634
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34884.msg1209997#msg1209997

You mean the demo flight, it's ok.

The question was if STP-2 for US Air Force slipped also or it isn't.
Can be found any information about the original planned launch date?
"Early 2016" is the actual date.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2014 09:14 PM by MTom »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5850
  • Liked: 3668
  • Likes Given: 5111
Quote
The DSAC mission will be a hosted payload onboard a Surrey Satellite Technology (SST-US) Orbital Test Bed (OTB) spacecraft, currently planned for launch into LEO (Low Earth Obit) in early 2016
looks like this has slipped to early 2016

Not sure it has slipped:
SpaceX launch manifest speaking always about "Year indicates vehicle arrival at launch site."
Launch Early 2016 could easy mach with an arrival in 2015 (+ STP-2 US Air Force is the last but one in the manifes for 2015).
First half of 2015 per Shotwell.  Also, tanks and engines currently being built at Hawthorne.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34884.msg1209634#msg1209634
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34884.msg1209997#msg1209997

You mean the demo flight, it's ok.

The question was if STP-2 for US Air Force slipped also or it isn't.
Can be found any information about the original planned launch date?
"Early 2016" is the actual date.
Sorry, missed that. You're correct.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline DaveJes1979

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Does anyone actually believe that the demo flight is going to be out of KSC?  I know that is what they are currently saying, but it doesn't seem likely that that pad will be ready in time if they are sticking with a "first half of 2015" time frame.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3312
  • Likes Given: 776
Does anyone actually believe that the demo flight is going to be out of KSC?  I know that is what they are currently saying, but it doesn't seem likely that that pad will be ready in time if they are sticking with a "first half of 2015" time frame.

I don't think there's any point doing the demo until they have this while lawsuit business sorted out, anyway.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Online Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 89
Does anyone actually believe that the demo flight is going to be out of KSC?  I know that is what they are currently saying, but it doesn't seem likely that that pad will be ready in time if they are sticking with a "first half of 2015" time frame.

I don't think there's any point doing the demo until they have this while lawsuit business sorted out, anyway.

I don't see why that would be the case. They need to demo FH if they want to attract customers for it.
I'm am curious about why they switched to KSC though, maybe they have a payload that needs to launch east.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8406
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3312
  • Likes Given: 776
I don't see why that would be the case. They need to demo FH if they want to attract customers for it.

Unless there's been a drastic change, the only customer for this behemoth is the US air force.

The commsat folks would demand a lot more than just the one demonstration flight.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Tags: