SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[TrevorMonty]

Let's not go too far down the Vulcan Centaur road...

Well thats a nice change, SpaceX thread being taken over by discussion of competitors LV.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Last night SpaceX Falcon team won the British Interplanetary Society’s Sir Arthur Clarke International Achievement Award for the FH launch:

https://twitter.com/aerospace_guy/status/1058113061335252992

https://twitter.com/bis_spaceflight/status/1058151414868963328

Nominations:

https://www.bis-space.com/2018/10/07/21144/the-2018-sir-arthur-clarke-awards-finalists-announced

[su27k]

Have heard that one company recently sent an unsolicited proposal to NASA to launch Orion on its rockets. Which are built in LA.

Someone tried to create a thread for this in the mission section which promptly got killed, but I think this is still worth discussing if true.

There's no question he's referring to SpaceX, and only Falcon Heavy can be used to launch Orion. Assuming they still want to do TLI and doing it using all SpaceX hardware without crazy rocket lego, could this mean they have tentative plan to upgrade FH 2nd stage? A fully expendable FH should be able to send 26t to GTO-1800, this is not that far away from TLI. I think a modest 2nd stage tank stretch (maybe ~4m, adding ~40t of propellant) should be able to send Orion to TLI, is this feasible?

[matthewkantar]

SpaceX wouldn't propose this with two launches would they?

[dglow]

SpaceX wouldn't propose this with two launches would they?

Why not? Orion+ESM can loiter in orbit for a while. Meanwhile roll the TE back to the hangar, grab the second FH which is waiting, already assembled and mated to its extra-special second stage. Roll out and launch.

[su27k]

SpaceX wouldn't propose this with two launches would they?

I feel two launches proposal would be way too tenuous, two consecutive FH launches from 39A in a short interval is already hard enough, then you need to ask Orion to do all the rendezvous and docking stuff, it just stretches the believability too thin. Unless SpaceX is just doing this to make a point, I assume they would structure the proposal to at least have some chance of being seriously considered.

Seems to me a tank stretch is much more straight forward, and Elon confirmed it's under consideration a year ago:

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/963094625375240192

"For full recovery to make sense over single stick expendable needs each booster to be reused multiple times. I’m also curious as to whether SpaceX would consider stretching Stage 2 if there was a market that made sense."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963095860060934144

"Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected."

Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.

[Rondaz]

SpaceX & ULA could compete to launch NASA’s Orion spacecraft around the Moon

By Eric Ralph  Posted on March 14, 2019

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-ula-nasa-moon-launch/

[wannamoonbase]

Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.

If they had a stretched US they'd likely fly it on everything. 

Advantages would benefit F9 performance and recovery as well.

[matthewkantar]

Using Falcon or DIV for this would take longer than proceeding with SLS. NASA would still need to generate a mountain of paper work for the contractors to scale. Nailing down docking and props transfer would take how long?

[philw1776]

If it were not for a possible human rated eventual launcher goal, the Air Force SpaceX program developing a methalox engine capable of propelling an upper stage could come into play.  I don't see this happening in time for 2020.  Stretching the kerolox stage looks more likely, but then this is a dynamic development.  The DIVH is never gonna be human rated (time + $) so NASA will keep imagining that SLS launches the crewed Orion.

[punder]

Last night SpaceX Falcon team won the British Interplanetary Society’s Sir Arthur Clarke International Achievement Award for the FH launch:

Has SpaceX ever won the Collier Trophy? And if not... Why not? (Rhetorical of course)

[Brovane]

I feel two launches proposal would be way too tenuous, two consecutive FH launches from 39A in a short interval is already hard enough, then you need to ask Orion to do all the rendezvous and docking stuff, it just stretches the believability too thin. Unless SpaceX is just doing this to make a point, I assume they would structure the proposal to at least have some chance of being seriously considered.


Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.

At some point in the future wouldn't SLC-4 be modified to support FH? Since DOD Polar Orbit launches for SpaceX will be from Vandenberg. 

You would loose some performance, but couldn't you launch a FH from East/West coasts and they could rendezvous in Earth Orbit?  It has been previously mentioned on this board that you can get to the ISS from Vandenberg, you take about a 20% performance hit by launching out of Vandenberg.  Could you choose a orbital destination that could work for a FH rendezvous in LEO from 39A and SLC-4. 

This eliminates the issue with back to back launches out of 39A.  It also allows a fairly rapid launch of two FH's. You launch first launch out of 39A and then wait one or two orbits and then launch out of SLC-4.   

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I feel two launches proposal would be way too tenuous, two consecutive FH launches from 39A in a short interval is already hard enough, then you need to ask Orion to do all the rendezvous and docking stuff, it just stretches the believability too thin. Unless SpaceX is just doing this to make a point, I assume they would structure the proposal to at least have some chance of being seriously considered.


Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.

At some point in the future wouldn't SLC-4 be modified to support FH? Since DOD Polar Orbit launches for SpaceX will be from Vandenberg. 

You would loose some performance, but couldn't you launch a FH from East/West coasts and they could rendezvous in Earth Orbit?  It has been previously mentioned on this board that you can get to the ISS from Vandenberg, you take about a 20% performance hit by launching out of Vandenberg.  Could you choose a orbital destination that could work for a FH rendezvous in LEO from 39A and SLC-4. 

This eliminates the issue with back to back launches out of 39A.  It also allows a fairly rapid launch of two FH's. You launch first launch out of 39A and then wait one or two orbits and then launch out of SLC-4.

The orbits from CC is prograde orbits. From VAFB is retrograde orbits. The two are not compatible.

[Joffan]

Last night SpaceX Falcon team won the British Interplanetary Society’s Sir Arthur Clarke International Achievement Award for the FH launch:

Has SpaceX ever won the Collier Trophy? And if not... Why not? (Rhetorical of course)

No, and they're not getting it for 2018 either, despite Falcon Heavy.

The 2018 Nominees are:
 * Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (AGCAS)
 * Bell V-280 Valor
 * Boeing T-X
 * Draken International Contracted Close Air Support & Adversary Air Services in Support of Combat Readiness Training
 * Embraer E190-E2
 * F-35 Integrated Test Force
 * General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Integration of Large UAS into Civil and International Airspace
 * NASA/JPL Mars Cube One (MarCO) Project Team
 * Perlan Project
 * Responsive Environmental Assessment Commercially Hosted (REACH) Project
 * Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two Program

Maybe 2019? for Dragon 2 taking crew to ISS. Although they didn't even get nominated for it in 2012, for Dragon's first trip to the ISS.

[envy887]

I feel two launches proposal would be way too tenuous, two consecutive FH launches from 39A in a short interval is already hard enough, then you need to ask Orion to do all the rendezvous and docking stuff, it just stretches the believability too thin. Unless SpaceX is just doing this to make a point, I assume they would structure the proposal to at least have some chance of being seriously considered.


Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.

At some point in the future wouldn't SLC-4 be modified to support FH? Since DOD Polar Orbit launches for SpaceX will be from Vandenberg. 

You would loose some performance, but couldn't you launch a FH from East/West coasts and they could rendezvous in Earth Orbit?  It has been previously mentioned on this board that you can get to the ISS from Vandenberg, you take about a 20% performance hit by launching out of Vandenberg.  Could you choose a orbital destination that could work for a FH rendezvous in LEO from 39A and SLC-4. 

This eliminates the issue with back to back launches out of 39A.  It also allows a fairly rapid launch of two FH's. You launch first launch out of 39A and then wait one or two orbits and then launch out of SLC-4.

The orbits from CC is prograde orbits. From VAFB is retrograde orbits. The two are not compatible.

VAFB launches to less than 90 degrees are prograde. Inclinations from the Cape max at about 57 and VAFB can get down to about 70. They get even closer if you fly a dogleg ascent. The performance penalty to meet in the middle at ~65 degrees wouldn't be too bad.

[lrk]

I feel two launches proposal would be way too tenuous, two consecutive FH launches from 39A in a short interval is already hard enough, then you need to ask Orion to do all the rendezvous and docking stuff, it just stretches the believability too thin. Unless SpaceX is just doing this to make a point, I assume they would structure the proposal to at least have some chance of being seriously considered.


Edit: There's also cost to consider, dual-launch FH is not going to be cheap (relatively speaking), I think a stretched 2nd stage is going to be cheaper even if you only do this once, much cheaper if you want to do this multiple times.

At some point in the future wouldn't SLC-4 be modified to support FH? Since DOD Polar Orbit launches for SpaceX will be from Vandenberg. 

You would loose some performance, but couldn't you launch a FH from East/West coasts and they could rendezvous in Earth Orbit?  It has been previously mentioned on this board that you can get to the ISS from Vandenberg, you take about a 20% performance hit by launching out of Vandenberg.  Could you choose a orbital destination that could work for a FH rendezvous in LEO from 39A and SLC-4. 

This eliminates the issue with back to back launches out of 39A.  It also allows a fairly rapid launch of two FH's. You launch first launch out of 39A and then wait one or two orbits and then launch out of SLC-4.

The orbits from CC is prograde orbits. From VAFB is retrograde orbits. The two are not compatible.

VAFB launches to less than 90 degrees are prograde. Inclinations from the Cape max at about 57 and VAFB can get down to about 70. They get even closer if you fly a dogleg ascent. The performance penalty to meet in the middle at ~65 degrees wouldn't be too bad.

Yes, I seem to recall Elon mentioning around the time of Amosplosion that they could launch Dragon to ISS from VAFB if required, although there would be performance lost due to the dogleg maneuver. 

[whitelancer64]

Last night SpaceX Falcon team won the British Interplanetary Society’s Sir Arthur Clarke International Achievement Award for the FH launch:

Has SpaceX ever won the Collier Trophy? And if not... Why not? (Rhetorical of course)

No, and they're not getting it for 2018 either, despite Falcon Heavy.

The 2018 Nominees are:
 * Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (AGCAS)
 * Bell V-280 Valor
 * Boeing T-X
 * Draken International Contracted Close Air Support & Adversary Air Services in Support of Combat Readiness Training
 * Embraer E190-E2
 * F-35 Integrated Test Force
 * General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. Integration of Large UAS into Civil and International Airspace
 * NASA/JPL Mars Cube One (MarCO) Project Team
 * Perlan Project
 * Responsive Environmental Assessment Commercially Hosted (REACH) Project
 * Virgin Galactic SpaceShip Two Program

Maybe 2019? for Dragon 2 taking crew to ISS. Although they didn't even get nominated for it in 2012, for Dragon's first trip to the ISS.

SpaceX was not nominated in 2016, because they were upstaged by Blue Origin, who did win.

As far as I can tell, SpaceX has only been nominated once, in 2008, for the 2009 Collier Trophy award, for the successful launch of the Falcon 1.

It would seem a very big oversight if SpaceX / Dragon 2 wasn't at least nominated for the 2020 award.

[Slarty1080]

It would seem there has been a shift in the political plate tectonics concerning SLS recently which may have implications for Falcon Heavy, well summed up here:

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-ula-nasa-moon-launch/?mc_cid=c36a0c4363&mc_eid=64279afff0

There are plans to halt the SLS upper stage development, move the Europa clipper mission to a commercial launcher and possibly fly Orion on a commercial flight as well. If all that happens then surely the whole SLS project is fatally undermined. It would also seem that Falcon Heavy has a number of advantages over DIVH for a crewed mission as replacement for SLS.

“the options available to NASA would be ULA’s Boeing-built Delta IV Heavy (DIVH) rocket and SpaceX’s brand new Falcon Heavy.“

“Falcon Heavy is by far the most plausible option Orion’s first uncrewed launch. NASA and SpaceX are deep into the process of human-rating Falcon 9 for imminent Crew Dragon launches with NASA astronauts aboard, meaning that NASA’s human spaceflight certification engineers are about as intimately familiar with Falcon 9 as they possibly can be.”

“Ultimately, TAC believed it would take “5.5 to 7 years” and major funding to human-rate Delta IV Heavy.”

“Meanwhile, Falcon Heavy already offers multiple-engine-out capabilities, uses the same M1D and MVac engines – as well as an entire upper stage – that are on a direct path to be human-rated later this year, and two side boosters with minimal changes from Falcon 9’s nearly human-rated booster. NASA would still need to analyze the center core variant and stage separation mechanisms, as well as Falcon Heavy as an integrated and distinct system, but the odds of needing major hardware changes would be far smaller than Delta IV Heavy.”

Leading on from that what are the chances of stretching the upper stage of Falcon Heavy to make it a direct replacement for SLS block 1 and then human rating the whole thing? There will be no crewed flight of SLS for a long time as they won’t be able to fly on the first mission which is itself already heading out into 2021 if it flies at all.

[mgeagon]

With the political realities concerning a certain senator from Alabama controling the budget process, it appears unlikely SpaceX would be awarded any piece of EM-1, IMHO. However, perhaps RS might buy off on one launch for FH and one for D4H, if SLS is promised to remain fully funded.

There are advantages to using both from a logistics and political standpoint. Probably, chief among these is the ability to launch nearly simultaneously from the Florida coast. The ULA rocket can simply carry a 2nd second stage as its payload and the SpaceX craft the Orion and service module. The question about docking seems fairly straightforward from this layman's perspective: why not use the now proven IDA?

As stated upthread, SpaceX appears capable of providing a FH with 15 months notice. It is unclear whether a Delta Heavy can be built within that time frame. ULA may be the long pole for the scenrio to play out, but it still may be the only way to get this done considering politics, engineering and orbital mechanics.

[Paul451]

However, perhaps RS might buy off on one launch for FH and one for D4H, if SLS is promised to remain fully funded.

If you are fully funding SLS, what is the commercial launch for? I can't see how you justify a "commercial" unmanned Orion launch without it being part of cancelling SLS entirely.

EM-1 is an unmanned test of SLS as well as the nearly full mission profile of Orion. Obviously an FH launch (or two or ten) doesn't test SLS, and a single FH launch won't put Orion through its full NRHO mission profile. Dual launch adds extra requirements and complexity. So you haven't "saved" anything if you are still funding SLS. Until a decision is made to kill SLS and throw resources into the changes required by an alternative architecture, a "commercial" Orion launch just adds an entire extra launch prior to a true EM-1, that serves no real purpose.

I know people hope it means insiders are thinking about an end to SLS, but until such a cancellation decision is made and signed off by Congress, a commercial Orion launch has to be justified alongside future SLS flights. And having both doesn't make sense.