SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[Brovane]

I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A.  We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere.  Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.

Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches).  Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?

SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast. 

Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4? 

[chrisking0997]

I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A.  We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere.  Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.

Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches).  Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?

SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast. 

Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?

I guess I was speaking in context of a dual FH mission from separate pads so I didnt really include SLC-4 in my thoughts.  Unless Ive just missed something here and somehow a launch from there would be compatible orbitwise with a 39A launch?

[lrk]

I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A.  We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere.  Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.

Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches).  Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?

SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast. 

Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?

I guess I was speaking in context of a dual FH mission from separate pads so I didnt really include SLC-4 in my thoughts.  Unless Ive just missed something here and somehow a launch from there would be compatible orbitwise with a 39A launch?

A launch to 51 degrees is possible from both Vandy and the Cape.  But such an inclined orbit is suboptimal for lunar missions. 

[darkenfast]

Off-the-wall idea here.  SpaceX buys some Rutherford Vacuum version engines from Rocket Lab.  Using F-9 second stage tooling to build an upper stage (second or third stage?) with Rutherfords that can dock with a Delta IV Heavy-launched Orion and perform TLI without straining the docking system.  Each Rutherford is 5400 lbs thrust (I think).  Probably extra batteries needed.

Solves fuel and oxidizer problems for 39A.  Solves the over-thrust problems of using Merlins.  Sets up possible other upper-stage uses for SpaceX and Rocket Lab to collaborate on.  Delta does what it has already done.  The long pole in the tent (besides docking mechanism, perhaps): integrating the Rutherfords.  Harder than the other ideas so far?

I am most definitely not a rocket scientist.  What have I got wrong?

[edkyle99]

Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?

That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.

It would be a perfect use of the Florida launch sites.  Heck, throw in an Atlas V and Falcon 9 and you could ripple off 80 to 100+ tonnes to LEO (depending on reuse amount) from the four active pads in a few days time.

 - Ed Kyle

[clongton]

Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.

What is the issue with vertical integration? Is it that the vertical spacecraft is fully fueled before integration?
If so, just how difficult would it be to fuel the spacecraft at the pad? Not a piece of cake, I know, but are there any genuine showstoppers?

[punder]

I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A.  We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere.  Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.

Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches).  Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?

SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast. 

Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?

I guess I was speaking in context of a dual FH mission from separate pads so I didnt really include SLC-4 in my thoughts.  Unless Ive just missed something here and somehow a launch from there would be compatible orbitwise with a 39A launch?

A launch to 51 degrees is possible from both Vandy and the Cape.  But such an inclined orbit is suboptimal for lunar missions.

Boca Chica?

[Proponent]

A launch to 51 degrees is possible from both Vandy and the Cape.  But such an inclined orbit is suboptimal for lunar missions.

I don't think the inclination of the departure orbit is a big deal as far as the moon goes.  By the time the spacecraft reaches the moon's SoI, its Earth-centric velocity will be down to 200 m/s or so, which is not much compared to the moon's velocity of 1 km/s.  The dog-leg losses worry me more.

[whitelancer64]

Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.

What is the issue with vertical integration? Is it that the vertical spacecraft is fully fueled before integration?
If so, just how difficult would it be to fuel the spacecraft at the pad? Not a piece of cake, I know, but are there any genuine showstoppers?

Nothing is a showstopper if Congress is willing to throw several billion dollars at the problems.

[Kansan52]

... but are there any genuine showstoppers?

Politics? NIH?

[MATTBLAK]

Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?

That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.

It would be a perfect use of the Florida launch sites.  Heck, throw in an Atlas V and Falcon 9 and you could ripple off 80 to 100+ tonnes to LEO (depending on reuse amount) from the four active pads in a few days time.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes - a 'salvo' launch. I've been advocating it for years.

[kessdawg]

Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?

That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.

It would be a perfect use of the Florida launch sites.  Heck, throw in an Atlas V and Falcon 9 and you could ripple off 80 to 100+ tonnes to LEO (depending on reuse amount) from the four active pads in a few days time.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes - a 'salvo' launch. I've been advocating it for years.

Worked for the Soviets!

[watermod]

I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A.  We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere.  Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.

Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches).  Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?

SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast. 

Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?

There is one big show stopper.   That is the T/E (Transporter Erector).   It is not FH compatible and they had to design a new one after dimensions of the eventual FH changed.   SpaceX would need to build a new T/E at SLC-4E.  Since it moves they could build it out of the way and keep SLC-4E in service for other profit making rides then just drive up the new one when it is ready.   If it's ready several launches before the Orion mission ones they could proof out the T/E and make sure it's working fine.  The old T/E could even have regular F9's on it.  This would remove the delay of changing the mounting locks when going from F9 to FH at Vandy.  Just switch T/Es!   In other word park one and use the other.

Physical landing problem.   
 1) Only 1 landing pad currently
 2) Massive negotiation with California and CA EPA over seals being bothered by landing and limited landing permitted.  So this is not likely addressable and one side booster would be lost with every FH launch.  Other solution would be two landing barges in different parts of the ocean.  One for center core, one for a side core with the remaining side core using up one of the limited yearly landing permits.  If a National Security Launch is on the pad at another Vandy site that would still cause use of the landing pad at Vandy to be denied to SpaceX.  The only way to save all 3 cores at Vandy would be 3 landing barges or a complete change of attitude by California EPA types and National Security Launch types.   So easiest use of FH at Vandy would be to plan on the launch being fully expendable.
 
                           

[Robotbeat]

Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?

That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.

It would be a perfect use of the Florida launch sites.  Heck, throw in an Atlas V and Falcon 9 and you could ripple off 80 to 100+ tonnes to LEO (depending on reuse amount) from the four active pads in a few days time.

 - Ed Kyle

If we use the most optimistic numbers (i.e. 28.5deg and lowest reference orbit, i.e. 200km) for each of the launchers:

Atlas 552 (doable now that Starliner is using dual engine centaur): 20.5t
https://web.archive.org/web/20120921011608/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/ast_developments_concepts_2010.pdf

Delta IV Heavy RS68A: 28.8t
https://web.archive.org/web/20131014123330/http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/product_cards/guides/Delta%20IV%20Users%20Guide%20June%202013.pdf

Falcon Heavy: 63.8t
https://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

Falcon 9: 22.8t
https://www.spacex.com/falcon9

...gives a total of 135.9t. Technically more than the (minimum) spec for Block 2 SLS.

...but then you got New Glenn...

[Paul451]

SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast. 
Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?

There is one big show stopper.   That is the T/E (Transporter Erector).   It is not FH compatible and they had to design a new one after dimensions of the eventual FH changed.

That's literally not what "showstopper" means.

[Slarty1080]

I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A.  We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere.  Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.

Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches).  Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?

SLC-4 was the original pad for the first FH launch until SpaceX moved it to the East Coast. 

Why do you think there is a bunch of show stoppers that prevents a FH from launching from SLC-4?

There is one big show stopper.   That is the T/E (Transporter Erector).   It is not FH compatible and they had to design a new one after dimensions of the eventual FH changed.   SpaceX would need to build a new T/E at SLC-4E.  Since it moves they could build it out of the way and keep SLC-4E in service for other profit making rides then just drive up the new one when it is ready.   If it's ready several launches before the Orion mission ones they could proof out the T/E and make sure it's working fine.  The old T/E could even have regular F9's on it.  This would remove the delay of changing the mounting locks when going from F9 to FH at Vandy.  Just switch T/Es!   In other word park one and use the other.

Physical landing problem.   
 1) Only 1 landing pad currently
 2) Massive negotiation with California and CA EPA over seals being bothered by landing and limited landing permitted.  So this is not likely addressable and one side booster would be lost with every FH launch.  Other solution would be two landing barges in different parts of the ocean.  One for center core, one for a side core with the remaining side core using up one of the limited yearly landing permits.  If a National Security Launch is on the pad at another Vandy site that would still cause use of the landing pad at Vandy to be denied to SpaceX.  The only way to save all 3 cores at Vandy would be 3 landing barges or a complete change of attitude by California EPA types and National Security Launch types.   So easiest use of FH at Vandy would be to plan on the launch being fully expendable.
 
                         

What's the chance they could actually squeeze both side boosters onto the same pad without a collision? If they could do it with less than 30% chance of a collision it would make it worthwhile (on average) to make the attempt. Not that I think they will, I'm sure there would be a safety hoo-ha.

[wannamoonbase]

Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.

What is the issue with vertical integration? Is it that the vertical spacecraft is fully fueled before integration?
If so, just how difficult would it be to fuel the spacecraft at the pad? Not a piece of cake, I know, but are there any genuine showstoppers?

Nothing is a showstopper if Congress is willing to throw several billion dollars at the problems.

If they are throwing billions at a new solution, why not just put those billions into SLS and stick with the existing plan?  I'm not the biggest SLS fan but it's designed and on it's way. 

Changing horses now for a 'quick' solution isn't the kind of thing that works well with rockets.

[Rocket Science]

Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.

What is the issue with vertical integration? Is it that the vertical spacecraft is fully fueled before integration?
If so, just how difficult would it be to fuel the spacecraft at the pad? Not a piece of cake, I know, but are there any genuine showstoppers?

Nothing is a showstopper if Congress is willing to throw several billion dollars at the problems.

If they are throwing billions at a new solution, why not just put those billions into SLS and stick with the existing plan?  I'm not the biggest SLS fan but it's designed and on it's way. 

Changing horses now for a 'quick' solution isn't the kind of thing that works well with rockets.

I provided the answer but it got deleted... sorry...

[gongora]

I provided the answer but it got deleted... sorry...

This is the FH thread.  Opinions on SLS funding belong elsewhere.  Thoughts on the space policies of the current administration belong in Space Policy.

[Proponent]

Do I recall correctly that someone posted estimates of the characteristics of Falcon Heavy's upper stage based on Falcon Heavy's payload capability as reported by the NASA Launch Services Program's launch-vehicle performance website?  If so, could someone please point me toward it?