Falcon Heavy to be officially launched?

On 04/05/2011 08:33 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:42:23 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:


Atlas V can't carry the heaviest DoD/NRO payloads, since the Heavy was
never completed past CDR. I don't think DoD/NRO will be comfortable
without a backup vehicle for *all* payload classes, so they will have an
interesting choice between Delta (more expensive, but exists) versus
Atlas (cheaper but need to develop the Heavy).

They don't have one now, either. Atlas V-Heavy would be the backup to
Falcon Heavy just as it is now for Delta IV-Heavy.

True, but DoD is clearly happier having a proven rocket with no backup
than an unproven rocket with no backup.

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

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

Am 06.04.2011 19:29, schrieb Jeff Findley:
In t,
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

read that already before posting here .. 8-)

btw - did you catch that little tidbit about fuel crossfeed form
boosters to core stage - i believe that one is new ..

and encyclopedia astronautica has some empty / full weight information
for the stages of falcon 1 .. but not for 9

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.

yes .. that mass ratio also caught my eye ..

servus

markus

Jeff

JF Mezei writes:

markus baur wrote:

btw - did you catch that little tidbit about fuel crossfeed form
boosters to core stage - i believe that one is new ..

Pardon my ignorance, what is the advantage of this ?

Is it just a question of shifting tank weight from the core to the
strap-ons so that once you shed the boosters, you end up with lighter
vehicle since the main tank is smaller ?

Rather the other way around, I think. If you have boosters that are
identical to the core and all fire from the launch on, all you get is a
way to lift a larger/heavier second stage (since the core and the
boosters will burn out at the same time). But if you can crossfeed
propellants from the boosters to the core you can separate the empty
boosters earlier and then still have a full (or nearly full) core stage
to continue on. This is like launching an Falcon 9 from already above
the atmosphere and from a launch pad travelling with a few km/s.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On 04/06/2011 01:26 PM, markus baur wrote:
Am 06.04.2011 19:29, schrieb Jeff Findley:
In t,
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

read that already before posting here .. 8-)

And so you just decided to post the question here, huh?

You do realize that's kinda like wanting to have sex with Denise
Richards, going to http://www.deniserichards.com/, looking for a "Have
Sex With Denise Richards" link, and, failing to find one, decide to post
on alt.fan.denise-richards asking for advice on how to have sex with
Denise Richards?

You do realize that, don't you?

The space fanboi crowd is going to have a harder time adjusting to the
Commercial Spaceflight Era than most of them realize. Data NASA used to
release for free is considered quite proprietary by commercial space
companies.

On 6/04/2011 5:36 AM, 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.

Jeff

That update explains why they're calling it the Falcon Heavy, rather
than the Falcon 9 Heavy - it's completely different!

Imagine what can be done with 53 tonnes!

....And, with five first stages, it's something like 80 tonnes LEO -
wowwwwwww.... (mind going haywire...).

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 5/04/2011 1:47 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6HQ9RtVCE


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


This is good, this is GOOD! I didn't know it was going to be a real
HEAVY! This is good! :-)

I'm having a brain erection right now!