SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[sdsds]

AIUI, NASA LSP certifies particular launch vehicle configurations in three risk categories. The requirements for category 1 look pretty easy to meet. Has FH been certified as category 2? Category 3?

[whitelancer64]

AIUI, NASA LSP certifies particular launch vehicle configurations in three risk categories. The requirements for category 1 look pretty easy to meet. Has FH been certified as category 2? Category 3?

Falcon Heavy has been certified for the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program. Falcon Heavy has not yet been certified to NASA Category 3.

[su27k]

AIUI, NASA LSP certifies particular launch vehicle configurations in three risk categories. The requirements for category 1 look pretty easy to meet. Has FH been certified as category 2? Category 3?

Psyche is Class B payload, which requires Category 2 or 3. Given originally they planned to launch Psyche on FH in July 2022, one can assume FH is certified as Category 2 or 3 already.

[su27k]

SpaceX Cleared to Loft US Spy Satellites Using Reusable Boosters

Elon Musk’s SpaceX has won certification from the Pentagon’s Space Force to use recyclable boosters on its Falcon Heavy rocket to launch top-secret spy satellites, according to the service.

<snip>

The certification for SpaceX -- which was issued in June but not previously disclosed -- allows the recyclable first-stage side boosters to be used in sensitive national security launches requiring power performance beyond that of the company’s original Falcon 9. The Space Force found that the “recovery, refurbishment, and launch of SpaceX boosters utilizes well-established processes,” the service said in a statement.

[Hog]

Are NASA Category 3 vehicles used for nuke payloads?

[su27k]

Are NASA Category 3 vehicles used for nuke payloads?

I believe nuclear certification is a separate process (and that process was streamlined under the previous administration), I guess it probably helps if you're already Category 3.

[ZachS09]

What would be the most logical reason as to why there were Falcon Heavy payload readiness delays?

Is it that the Space Force (i.e. USSF-44 and USSF-52) doesn't feel confident about going on Falcon Heavy, or could it be some sort of undisclosed manufacturing defect?

[Jim]

What would be the most logical reason as to why there were Falcon Heavy payload readiness delays?

Is it that the Space Force (i.e. USSF-44 and USSF-52) doesn't feel confident about going on Falcon Heavy, or could it be some sort of undisclosed manufacturing defect?

Just not ready

[cpushack]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1563760585363185664

Squeezing extra performance out of Falcon 9 – almost at 17 metric tons to an actual useful orbit with booster & fairing reusable!

Makes me wonder if they aren't experimenting with ways that they can apply to Falcon Heavy too, as the Lunar Gateway elements they need to launch are apparently a bit overweight for a nominal FH payload.

[whitelancer64]

Falcon Heavy was certified for NSSL (National Security Space Launch) launches in 2019, but has not yet, to my knowledge, been certified for NASA Category 3 launches. There was a fairly big deal made of Falcon 9 being certified to Category 3 by NASA LSP (Launch Services Program) back in 2018 and I would expect similar announcements when the Falcon Heavy gets certified.

NASA requires a minimum of 3 successful launches of the common configuration of a launch vehicle, that happened for Falcon Heavy in November 2022. I am guessing they are currently undergoing Category 3 certification for the Psyche launch? Anyone have any info about that?

This is assuming that Psyche is a category 3 mission, something I haven't been able to find out one way or the other.

[GewoonLukas_]

First news about SpaceX' Extended Falcon Heavy Payload Fairing in a looooong time:

In May, the LSP Electromagnetic Compatibility team traveled to the Neil Armstrong Test Facility at @NASAGlenn to support the Shielding Effectiveness Testing of SpaceX’s long fairing. The results will be used to ensure NASA payloads are safe from outside radio frequency sources.

https://twitter.com/NASA_LSP/status/1685349784092123138

[spacenuance]

Great article on the future of FH, particularly for NASA's needs in this coming decade.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/nasas-falcon-heavy-era-begins-this-week-with-launch-of-asteroid-mission/

You can consider this the start of NASA's Falcon Heavy era. The launch of the Psyche asteroid mission this week is the opening act among five launches the space agency has directly reserved on SpaceX's heavy-lift rocket over the next few years.

These Falcon Heavy flights will cut across NASA's portfolio of robotic space missions, dispatching probes deep into the Solar System, deploying a flagship-class astronomical observatory, sending up a weather satellite, and launching the keystone to NASA's Gateway mini-space station around the Moon.

[DanClemmensen]

Great article on the future of FH, particularly for NASA's needs in this coming decade.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/nasas-falcon-heavy-era-begins-this-week-with-launch-of-asteroid-mission/

You can consider this the start of NASA's Falcon Heavy era. The launch of the Psyche asteroid mission this week is the opening act among five launches the space agency has directly reserved on SpaceX's heavy-lift rocket over the next few years.

These Falcon Heavy flights will cut across NASA's portfolio of robotic space missions, dispatching probes deep into the Solar System, deploying a flagship-class astronomical observatory, sending up a weather satellite, and launching the keystone to NASA's Gateway mini-space station around the Moon.

The article states that NASA will have no heavy-lift alternative to FH until it certifies Vulcan or New Glenn. It fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first.  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.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
The article states that NASA will have no heavy-lift alternative to FH until it certifies Vulcan or New Glenn. It fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first.  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.

However both the Vulcan and New Glenn will be more expensive with less launch availability than the Falcon Heavy along with a bit less performance.

The Starship isn't a Heavy lifter. It more like a Super Heavy lifter much more capable than the Falcon Heavy. That it will replaced along with the Falcon 9 for most launches.

The author is confusing certifying the Starship for human launches and unmanned launches, IMO. Especially when SpaceX will have a hardware rich experimental test and operational test program.

[Paul451]

The article [...] fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first.  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.

Until orbital refuelling is normalised, Starship won't have a lot of BEO throw. You'd need a new kick-stage for the probe/etc that can be carried in the payload bay (along with all the GSE that goes with it.) But developing refuelling is SpaceX's priority, so if NASA wants to use SS for BEO launches in the interim (and assuming Congress won't fund a separate dev program), the cost to develop the kick-stage needs to be funded by whichever program launches first. It's a catch-22 that has prevented a lot of tech from being developed that would be useful in multiple programs, but can't be justified by a single program.

[DanClemmensen]

<snip>
The article states that NASA will have no heavy-lift alternative to FH until it certifies Vulcan or New Glenn. It fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first.  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.

However both the Vulcan and New Glenn will be more expensive with less launch availability than the Falcon Heavy along with a bit less performance.
...

Until orbital refuelling is normalised, Starship won't have a lot of BEO throw.
...

I did not say the author is wrong to consider Starship as a separate case. I don't really know. I said that the author did not explain himself.

[Zed_Noir]

The article [...] fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first.  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.

Until orbital refuelling is normalised, Starship won't have a lot of BEO throw. You'd need a new kick-stage for the probe/etc that can be carried in the payload bay (along with all the GSE that goes with it.) But developing refuelling is SpaceX's priority, so if NASA wants to use SS for BEO launches in the interim (and assuming Congress won't fund a separate dev program), the cost to develop the kick-stage needs to be funded by whichever program launches first. It's a catch-22 that has prevented a lot of tech from being developed that would be useful in multiple programs, but can't be justified by a single program.

Without orbital refueling. A conventional 3-stage launcher consisting of an expendable Super Heavy, an expendable Starship and a slightly modified Falcon upper stage with the standard Falcon payload fairing should generated quite a bit BEO throw. The only thing need developed is the interstage adapter for the Falcon upper stage on top of the Starship. Even more BEO throw if the Falcon upper stage is replace by a Centaur V stage.

Before anyone object about using the ULA Centaur V on a SpaceX launcher. It like the Falcon upper stage, a part of the payload stack along with the space probe.

of course this 3-stage launcher is an interim launcher between an expendable Falcon Heavy with or without a kickstage and a Starship with orbital refueling capability.

[Paul451]

A conventional 3-stage launcher consisting of an expendable Super Heavy, an expendable Starship and a slightly modified Falcon upper stage with the standard Falcon payload fairing should generated quite a bit BEO throw. The only thing need developed is the interstage adapter for the Falcon upper stage on top of the Starship.

"Only".

[Brigantine]

a slightly modified Falcon upper stage [...] should generated quite a bit BEO throw. The only thing need developed is the interstage adapter [...] Even more BEO throw if the Falcon upper stage is replace by a Centaur V stage.

Before anyone object about using the ULA Centaur V on a SpaceX launcher. It like the Falcon upper stage, a part of the payload stack along with the space probe.

And GSE at the Starship launch site to support LOX / hydrogen loading... "a part of the payload stack" only works if the payload stack can be fueled before encapsulation / payload integration (e.g. hydrazine) - not cryogenics.
(perhaps just the kerosene can be filled before rollout, and LOX is at least already available, but still needs a new QD arm)

Still - A payload bay full of Fregats would do it.

with orbital refueling, you can launch empty methalox kick stages (possibly on F9/FH/Vulcan/NG) to an orbital depot/tanker. But the first "methalox kick stage" to be developed will probably be... Starship

[RedLineTrain]

Great article on the future of FH, particularly for NASA's needs in this coming decade.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/nasas-falcon-heavy-era-begins-this-week-with-launch-of-asteroid-mission/

You can consider this the start of NASA's Falcon Heavy era. The launch of the Psyche asteroid mission this week is the opening act among five launches the space agency has directly reserved on SpaceX's heavy-lift rocket over the next few years.

These Falcon Heavy flights will cut across NASA's portfolio of robotic space missions, dispatching probes deep into the Solar System, deploying a flagship-class astronomical observatory, sending up a weather satellite, and launching the keystone to NASA's Gateway mini-space station around the Moon.

The article states that NASA will have no heavy-lift alternative to FH until it certifies Vulcan or New Glenn. It fails to mention Starship in this short list even though it will probably launch to space first.  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.  I expect the Starship stack to continue to evolve for a few years, which will impede the certification process.