Falcon Heavy to be officially launched?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6HQ9RtVCE

Content of the email I (and, undoubtedly, many others) just got:

Something Big is Coming

Elon Musk Holding Press Conference on Tuesday, April 5th

Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Technical Officer of SpaceX, will hold a press
conference on Tuesday, April 5th at 11:20am EST to discuss SpaceX's
latest venture.

Get a sneak peak of the discussion on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6HQ9RtVCE.

The press conference will be webcast live at:
http://www.visualwebcaster.com/spacex. The press conference will also
be accessible via the home page of SpaceX.com by clicking the main
banner. If you are unable to watch live, the press conference will be
archived at http://www.visualwebcaster.com/spacex for future viewing.

If so, 32 tonnes at 2/3 the cost of Delta IV Heavy.... Bye Bye Boeing!

But one has to ask, where is the money coming from for this? In these times,
it has to be said that one is dubious about it being anything other than,
The King is dead, Long live the )new?) King?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6HQ9RtVCE

Content of the email I (and, undoubtedly, many others) just got:

Something Big is Coming

Elon Musk Holding Press Conference on Tuesday, April 5th

Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Technical Officer of SpaceX, will hold a press
conference on Tuesday, April 5th at 11:20am EST to discuss SpaceX's latest
venture.

Get a sneak peak of the discussion on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6HQ9RtVCE.

The press conference will be webcast live at:
http://www.visualwebcaster.com/spacex. The press conference will also be
accessible via the home page of SpaceX.com by clicking the main banner.
If you are unable to watch live, the press conference will be archived at
http://www.visualwebcaster.com/spacex for future viewing.

If so, 32 tonnes at 2/3 the cost of Delta IV Heavy.... Bye Bye Boeing!

On 5/04/2011 5:47 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
But one has to ask, where is the money coming from for this? In these times,
it has to be said that one is dubious about it being anything other than,
The King is dead, Long live the )new?) King?

Brian


SpaceX site says the Falcon Heavy will launch 2012/2013 from Vandenberg
- US recon sat launcher?

In article m,
says...

On 5/04/2011 5:47 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
But one has to ask, where is the money coming from for this? In these times,
it has to be said that one is dubious about it being anything other than,
The King is dead, Long live the )new?) King?

Brian


SpaceX site says the Falcon Heavy will launch 2012/2013 from Vandenberg
- US recon sat launcher?

It's going to be a big launcher, capable of launching a 53,000 kg
payload into an orbit of 28.5 degrees inclination at 200 km altitude.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

The most interesting (new) feature I see is "propellant cross-feed from
the side boosters to the center core". This has never been done on any
launch vehicle to date, so it will be very interesting to see how
easy/hard it will be for SpaceX to get this to work.

Of course, even if they can't get it to work they say, "Should cross-
feed not be required for lower mass missions, it can be easily turned
off". It would be interesting to find out just how much this would
impact Falcon Heavy's payload capacity.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:36:20 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

It's going to be a big launcher, capable of launching a 53,000 kg
payload into an orbit of 28.5 degrees inclination at 200 km altitude.

Yes, but what payloads need that capacity anytime in the next decade?
Three giant GEO satellites at the same time? Good luck scheduling
that.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

The most interesting (new) feature I see is "propellant cross-feed from
the side boosters to the center core". This has never been done on any
launch vehicle to date, so it will be very interesting to see how
easy/hard it will be for SpaceX to get this to work.

It hasn't exactly been done, but Atlas had something like it with its
"stage and a half" engines that had to have severable connections to
tankage in flight (and that was in 1959), and Saturn IB had multiple
propellant tanks that had to pump around fuel in-flight (but they were
all integrated as one unit, not hanging off the side of a core.)

It's about damned time someone implement crossfeed. Delta IV-Heavy
could do it, but it's probably too little, too late for Delta. It's
toast if Falcon Heavy even comes in 100% overbudget.

Brian

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:36:20 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

It's going to be a big launcher, capable of launching a 53,000 kg
payload into an orbit of 28.5 degrees inclination at 200 km altitude.

Yes, but what payloads need that capacity anytime in the next decade?
Three giant GEO satellites at the same time? Good luck scheduling
that.

DOD satellites. The cost savings isn't huge (what's a billion dollars
for DOD?), but it's non-trivial.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

The most interesting (new) feature I see is "propellant cross-feed from
the side boosters to the center core". This has never been done on any
launch vehicle to date, so it will be very interesting to see how
easy/hard it will be for SpaceX to get this to work.

It hasn't exactly been done, but Atlas had something like it with its
"stage and a half" engines that had to have severable connections to
tankage in flight (and that was in 1959), and Saturn IB had multiple
propellant tanks that had to pump around fuel in-flight (but they were
all integrated as one unit, not hanging off the side of a core.)

Not the same thing at all. Cross-fed propellants needs three sets of
valves for the core stage engines. One between the core engines and the
core tanks, one between the core engines and the left booster, and one
between the core engines and the right booster.

The tricky bit is the transition between having the core engines fed by
the booster tanks and having the core engines fed by the core tanks.
Pressure transients in the lines could be an issue. You *really* don't
want your turbopumps to suck gas, because if they do they overspeed and
go *boom*. That's one of the most violent failure modes of a liquid
turbopump fed rocket engine.

It's about damned time someone implement crossfeed. Delta IV-Heavy
could do it, but it's probably too little, too late for Delta. It's
toast if Falcon Heavy even comes in 100% overbudget.

It's also toast even if SpaceX can't get cross fed propellants to work,
because they've got a *lot* of extra payload margin to work with.
LOX/kerosene is a nice, dense propellant mix, leading to a very good
fuel/dry mass ratio on their boosters. It looks like their mass ratio
is a bit better than the Titan II first stage, which was one of the best
stages by this metric (also dense propellants, but they were very
toxic).

The mass ratio is so good, in fact, that one of the SpaceX boosters
ought to be SSTO capable (obviously with a tiny payload). And since it
has nine engines, you could keep G's under control by shutting down
unneeded engines in pairs. I'd be surprised if someone at SpaceX hasn't
already run such a simulation just to see what kind of payload you could
get out of a Falcon Heavy Booster SSTO...

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On 6/04/2011 8:43 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:36:20 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

It's going to be a big launcher, capable of launching a 53,000 kg
payload into an orbit of 28.5 degrees inclination at 200 km altitude.

Yes, but what payloads need that capacity anytime in the next decade?
Three giant GEO satellites at the same time? Good luck scheduling
that.

Compare the 'Big Three' U.S. launchers (Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V and
Falcon Heavy) - Atlas 401 (basic version) - $187 million (much more
expensive for the proposed heavy version); Delta IV Heavy - about $250
million. Both more expensive with less than half the payload.

Simple answer - current satellites will be launched, but much *MUCH*
bigger versions will be just around the corner - longer lives; more
powerful commsats etc.

Then there's the replacement for ISS - bigger modules with longer lives
mean less expense overall.

Then there's early Lunar ops - heard of my idea for Apollo NG? I worked
out, that to get 7 tonnes payload onto the Lunar surface, I needed an
LEO lift of 55 tonnes - I think I can save just a little on LEO, or
reduce Lunar Surface payload by less than a tonne. Easy, Peasy.

On 04/05/2011 02:36 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In pond.com,
says...

On 5/04/2011 5:47 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
But one has to ask, where is the money coming from for this? In these times,
it has to be said that one is dubious about it being anything other than,
The King is dead, Long live the )new?) King?

Brian


SpaceX site says the Falcon Heavy will launch 2012/2013 from Vandenberg
- US recon sat launcher?

It's going to be a big launcher, capable of launching a 53,000 kg
payload into an orbit of 28.5 degrees inclination at 200 km altitude.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

The most interesting (new) feature I see is "propellant cross-feed from
the side boosters to the center core". This has never been done on any
launch vehicle to date, so it will be very interesting to see how
easy/hard it will be for SpaceX to get this to work.

Of course, even if they can't get it to work they say, "Should cross-
feed not be required for lower mass missions, it can be easily turned
off". It would be interesting to find out just how much this would
impact Falcon Heavy's payload capacity.

The previously announced payload capacity (32,000 kg) assumed Merlin 1C
and no crossfeed, so I assume a launch with Merlin 1D and crossfeed
disabled would be somewhere in between. Based on the specs of the 1C vs
the 1D, I would say most of the performance increase comes from the
Merlin, not the crossfeed, so probably closer to 53 than 32.

Still big enough for the heaviest DoD/NRO payloads.

does anyone here have good data on the specifications of falcon 9?

i am looking specifically for empty mass / fuel mass for both stages ..

servus

markus

Am 05.04.2011 21:36, schrieb Jeff Findley:
In pond.com,
says...

On 5/04/2011 5:47 PM, Brian Gaff wrote:
But one has to ask, where is the money coming from for this? In these times,
it has to be said that one is dubious about it being anything other than,
The King is dead, Long live the )new?) King?

Brian


SpaceX site says the Falcon Heavy will launch 2012/2013 from Vandenberg
- US recon sat launcher?

It's going to be a big launcher, capable of launching a 53,000 kg
payload into an orbit of 28.5 degrees inclination at 200 km altitude.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

The most interesting (new) feature I see is "propellant cross-feed from
the side boosters to the center core". This has never been done on any
launch vehicle to date, so it will be very interesting to see how
easy/hard it will be for SpaceX to get this to work.

Of course, even if they can't get it to work they say, "Should cross-
feed not be required for lower mass missions, it can be easily turned
off". It would be interesting to find out just how much this would
impact Falcon Heavy's payload capacity.

Jeff

In article ,
says...

does anyone here have good data on the specifications of falcon 9?

i am looking specifically for empty mass / fuel mass for both stages ..

Since SpaceX is a private company, short of signing a nondisclosure
agreement and talking to the SpaceX engineers, the best information
you're going to find is on their website.

FALCON HEAVY OVERVIEW
http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

From above:

Anticipating potential astronaut transport needs, Falcon Heavy
is also designed to meet NASA human rating standards. Falcon
Heavy is designed to higher structural safety margins of 40%
above flight loads, rather than the 25% level of other rockets,
and triple redundant avionics. Despite being designed to higher
structural margins than other rockets, the Falcon Heavy side
booster stages have a mass ratio (full vs. empty) above 30,
better than any launcher in history. By comparison, the
Delta IV side boosters have a mass ratio of about 10.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011