-
#260
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 06 Dec, 2017 16:58
-
The STAR48 disappeared from the F9/FH user manual years ago. Just checked, no mention.
As to TMI, it's not really going to Mars, but an elliptical heliocentric orbit who's apohelion is around Mar's distance from the sun, and perihelion that's Earth's current distance at launch.
Next question to ask is the number of US burns, as well as the downrange for the core. That will tell you something about the mission profile and delta-v requirements. From the launch azimuth and staging, you'll be able to get above/below ecliptic and thus factor in the angular momentum of the earth with the successive vectors of boost, core, and US.
If the plan is to have a least stress launch for the side boosters phase, this light payload won't use the core at all at launch, and go up with enough TWR to clear the tower/facility in less than 30 seconds, then gradually increase thrust to not exceed potential torsional events from TO/uneven thrust, so max Q likely much higher than usual, and possibly staging well before it. Core would ramp just after staging, pass max Q then ramp to maximum, likely also a highly lofted trajectory unless the core burnout requires more downrange to make higher parking/direct injection.
Timing of launch and burn to depletion of US will give you an idea of where the thing is headed above/below the ecliptic.
Would not be surprised if its a direction injection to above the ecliptic with a single US burn no coast, with a highly lofted core burn - then you can track the US/payload post burnout for a few minutes w/o additional resource elsewhere.
-
#261
by
mheney
on 06 Dec, 2017 19:20
-
Please note the "non-payload" part of this thread's title ...
-
#262
by
rockets4life97
on 06 Dec, 2017 19:26
-
Do we know whether these boosters are considered block 3 or block 4? or is that not a relevant category for the first FH?
This launch is somewhat of a one-off with future FH's will be block 5. Is this expected to effect certification?
-
#263
by
ZachS09
on 06 Dec, 2017 19:28
-
Do we know whether these boosters are considered block 3 or block 4? or is that not a relevant category for the first FH?
This launch is somewhat of a one-off with future FH's will be block 5. Is this expected to effect certification?
Both boosters are Block 3 since the Block 4 boosters did not start flying until August 2017.
Their first flights were in May and July 2016.
-
#264
by
rockets4life97
on 06 Dec, 2017 19:30
-
Do we know whether these boosters are considered block 3 or block 4? or is that not a relevant category for the first FH?
This launch is somewhat of a one-off with future FH's will be block 5. Is this expected to effect certification?
Both boosters are Block 3 since the Block 4 boosters did not start flying until August 2017.
Their first flights were in May and July 2016.
Yes, my question was getting at whether when the boosters were converted they were also upgraded to block 4.
-
#265
by
ZachS09
on 06 Dec, 2017 19:36
-
Do we know whether these boosters are considered block 3 or block 4? or is that not a relevant category for the first FH?
This launch is somewhat of a one-off with future FH's will be block 5. Is this expected to effect certification?
Both boosters are Block 3 since the Block 4 boosters did not start flying until August 2017.
Their first flights were in May and July 2016.
Yes, my question was getting at whether when the boosters were converted they were also upgraded to block 4.
My opinion is that when Block 3 boosters are reused, there's no need to upgrade to Block 4.
-
#266
by
old_sellsword
on 06 Dec, 2017 20:57
-
Do we know whether these boosters are considered block 3 or block 4? or is that not a relevant category for the first FH?
This launch is somewhat of a one-off with future FH's will be block 5. Is this expected to effect certification?
Both boosters are Block 3 since the Block 4 boosters did not start flying until August 2017.
Their first flights were in May and July 2016.
No, both boosters are Block 2. The center core is Block 3.
And no, rockets4life97, they're still their original Blocks.
-
#267
by
ZachS09
on 06 Dec, 2017 20:57
-
I thought Block 2 referred to the v1.1 config.
-
#268
by
IanThePineapple
on 06 Dec, 2017 21:02
-
I thought Block 2 referred to the v1.1 config.
I thought so to, I think that's a common argument
-
#269
by
Norm38
on 06 Dec, 2017 21:10
-
So this is finally clear? Zuma moves to 40 and there’s nothing left to do at 39-A but get this on the pad?
-
#270
by
lrk
on 06 Dec, 2017 21:10
-
I thought Block 2 referred to the v1.1 config.
I thought so to, I think that's a common argument
It has since been confirmed multiple times that the 'blocks' are revisions within 'v1.2'/Full Thrust/F9 upgrade/(whatever the upgrade was that introduced subcooled LOX), but I can't actually seem to find a source at the moment. I also distinctly remember hearing somewhere that the CRS-8/SES-11 core was a Block 1 booster (also can't remember where, I think maybe on reddit?)
-
#271
by
Formica
on 06 Dec, 2017 23:57
-
So this is finally clear? Zuma moves to 40 and there’s nothing left to do at 39-A but get this on the pad?
I believe so! Exciting times, FH flow is well underway with no launches in front of it!
-
#272
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 07 Dec, 2017 00:08
-
So following CRS13 ... 39A HIF is cleared of Zuma, then booster/US integration, and we see TE tests?
-
#273
by
IanThePineapple
on 07 Dec, 2017 00:16
-
So following CRS13 ... 39A HIF is cleared of Zuma, then booster/US integration, and we see TE tests?
I wouldn't be surprised to see rollout and fit checks in about 1.5-2 weeks.
-
#274
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 07 Dec, 2017 00:44
-
So following CRS13 ... 39A HIF is cleared of Zuma, then booster/US integration, and we see TE tests?
I wouldn't be surprised to see rollout and fit checks in about 1.5-2 weeks.
True, it's most likely that the delays will likely come after that, as they master fueling/safeing/draining.
With LC40 back to normal operation (will take a 2-3 launches before that settles down), they can accept the delay of sorting out all the details of processing, sequencing, and proving the multiple cores/GSE work, and the launch conductor procedures/aborts/restarts/sequencing has no surprises. It'll likely be quite a challenge to track all 27 engine characteristics stepping through the cold flows, feed lines, cryogenic "effects", as we have chilled propellants (another first here, a clustered vehicle with them, sure to have surprises). Lots of little details to reconcile, building to ignition sequencing (outboard to inner? staggered shutdown? cavitation?).
So likely a very tedious December/January, even if we see a roll-out so soon.
-
#275
by
oiorionsbelt
on 07 Dec, 2017 01:02
-
So following CRS13 ... 39A HIF is cleared of Zuma, then booster/US integration, and we see TE tests?
I wouldn't be surprised to see rollout and fit checks in about 1.5-2 weeks.
True, it's most likely that the delays will likely come after that, as they master fueling/safeing/draining.
With LC40 back to normal operation (will take a 2-3 launches before that settles down), they can accept the delay of sorting out all the details of processing, sequencing, and proving the multiple cores/GSE work, and the launch conductor procedures/aborts/restarts/sequencing has no surprises. It'll likely be quite a challenge to track all 27 engine characteristics stepping through the cold flows, feed lines, cryogenic "effects", as we have chilled propellants (another first here, a clustered vehicle with them, sure to have surprises). Lots of little details to reconcile, building to ignition sequencing (outboard to inner? staggered shutdown? cavitation?).
So likely a very tedious December/January, even if we see a roll-out so soon.
Sounds like some BFR BFS applicable knowledge.
-
#276
by
ChrisC
on 07 Dec, 2017 13:38
-
Thank you gongora for splitting up the threads and finally giving us an updates-only thread!
-
#277
by
Proponent
on 07 Dec, 2017 14:13
-
2 km/s is not a small number for a kerolox stage, hence why I'm pretty skeptical we'll be seeing this happen.
That's true, but this stage would be lightly loaded for the TMI burn and completely unloaded after that, which should improve the delta-V noticeably.
EDIT: "loaded" -> "unloaded" (rather crucial!)
-
#278
by
Basto
on 07 Dec, 2017 14:15
-
Sorry if I missed this but has the TEL been moved back into the HIF? Last I heard it was on the pad for modifications.
-
#279
by
cscott
on 07 Dec, 2017 14:21
-
2 km/s is not a small number for a kerolox stage, hence why I'm pretty skeptical we'll be seeing this happen.
That's true, but this stage would be lightly loaded for the TMI burn and completely loaded after that, which should improve the delta-V noticeably.
I think you have that backwards, but good point. What's the mass ratio between a roadster and an FH S2?
