A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 28th 15, 12:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation


SpaceX - Falcon Heavy - Flight Animation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

From the video description:
Published on Jan 27, 2015
When Falcon Heavy lifts off later this year, it will be the
most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor
of two. Thrust at liftoff is equal to approximately eighteen
747 aircraft operating simultaneously.

The one thing I doubt we'll see in the test launch is all three of the
first stage cores landing at the launch site. As far as I know, SpaceX
does not yet have permission to land a core at The Cape. I'd imagine
permission to land three (two almost simultaneously) in relatively close
proximity will take an additional level of permission beyond that.

This video is surely to show the future direction. In other words,
before ULA officially announces details of their "next generation"
launch vehicle, SpaceX is repeating what they plan to do with Falcon
Heavy. If Falcon Heavy can demonstrate fly-back and landing of three of
four Falcon Heavy first stages before ULA starts flying their "next
generation" system, the learner will truly be the new master.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #2  
Old January 28th 15, 02:38 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:10:04 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
SpaceX - Falcon Heavy - Flight Animation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

From the video description:
Published on Jan 27, 2015
When Falcon Heavy lifts off later this year, it will be the
most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor
of two. Thrust at liftoff is equal to approximately eighteen
747 aircraft operating simultaneously.

The one thing I doubt we'll see in the test launch is all three of the
first stage cores landing at the launch site. As far as I know, SpaceX
does not yet have permission to land a core at The Cape. I'd imagine
permission to land three (two almost simultaneously) in relatively close
proximity will take an additional level of permission beyond that.

This video is surely to show the future direction. In other words,
before ULA officially announces details of their "next generation"
launch vehicle, SpaceX is repeating what they plan to do with Falcon
Heavy. If Falcon Heavy can demonstrate fly-back and landing of three of
four Falcon Heavy first stages before ULA starts flying their "next
generation" system, the learner will truly be the new master.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


Awesome!
  #3  
Old January 28th 15, 02:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:10:04 AM UTC+13, Jeff Findley wrote:
SpaceX - Falcon Heavy - Flight Animation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

From the video description:
Published on Jan 27, 2015
When Falcon Heavy lifts off later this year, it will be the
most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor
of two. Thrust at liftoff is equal to approximately eighteen
747 aircraft operating simultaneously.

The one thing I doubt we'll see in the test launch is all three of the
first stage cores landing at the launch site. As far as I know, SpaceX
does not yet have permission to land a core at The Cape. I'd imagine
permission to land three (two almost simultaneously) in relatively close
proximity will take an additional level of permission beyond that.

This video is surely to show the future direction. In other words,
before ULA officially announces details of their "next generation"
launch vehicle, SpaceX is repeating what they plan to do with Falcon
Heavy. If Falcon Heavy can demonstrate fly-back and landing of three of
four Falcon Heavy first stages before ULA starts flying their "next
generation" system, the learner will truly be the new master.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer


The large number of small engines is a great way to create thrust with low mass while maintaining good performance in a compact space at relatively low cost.

Not a lot of details how thermal protection is achieved during re-entry. Thermal loads for the booster rockets aren't as great as for the orbital booster but the attitude during re-entry, if accurate must use some sort of thermal protection on the engine - or the engine itself somehow, assuming the animation accurate.

Let's assume its accurate for a second. Thermal protection must use a gas generation cycle to create a stagnation zone well ahead of the exit plane. That would be technically sweet.

The only quibble I have is the massive landing gear. Its a point of failure and very massive as well. Unless you're planning to land on an unprepared surface, it really makes no sense to haul those things around. They're landing on the X - which is no larger than an elevator shaft - so they really should have an active transporter there that catches the falling rocket at that location. The technology to do this is well-advanced, and the savings are well worth the effort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6pPwP3s7s4

I wonder what the mass break down is for the landing gear? I would wager it doubles the inert weight of the whole system. An oversized gripper that grasped the mounting brackets for the landing gear would allow dispensing with the rest of the landing gear. It would also improve aerodynamics at a critical time.

This could be tested with a sub-scale rocket system, and then tried on the larger system.

  #4  
Old January 28th 15, 06:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation

Jeff Findley wrote:
The one thing I doubt we'll see in the test launch is all three of
the first stage cores landing at the launch site. As far as I know,
SpaceX does not yet have permission to land a core at The Cape. I'd
imagine permission to land three (two almost simultaneously) in
relatively close proximity will take an additional level of
permission beyond that.


Heck, I doubt we'll see even one landing at the launch site. On the
barge at sea, sure. The luddite in me would even wonder if there
would be any first stage landing attempt on the first Falcon Heavy
launch in the first place. Particularly if the first launch intends
to demonstrate to the USAF/NRO/et al the maximum mass-to-orbit
capabilities.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy

SpaceX has indicated that the Falcon Heavy payload performance to
geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) will be reduced by addition of
the reusable technology, but would fly at much lower launch
price. With full reusability on all three booster cores, GTO
payload will be 7,000 kg (15,000 lb). If only the two outside
cores fly as reusable cores while the center core is expendable,
GTO payload would be approximately 14,000 kg (31,000 lb).[34]
"Falcon 9 will do satellites up to roughly 3.5 tonnes, with full
reusability of the boost stage, and Falcon Heavy will do
satellites up to 7 tonnes with full reusability of the all three
boost stages," [Musk] said, referring to the three Falcon 9
booster cores that will comprise the Falcon Heavy's first
stage. He also said Falcon Heavy could double its payload
performance to GTO "if, for example, we went expendable on the
center core."

If the specs in the box on the right of that page are accurate, going
fully expendable means 21,200 kg to GTO.

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #5  
Old February 3rd 15, 09:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 6:10:04 AM UTC-5, Jeff Findley wrote:
SpaceX - Falcon Heavy - Flight Animation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM

From the video description:
Published on Jan 27, 2015
When Falcon Heavy lifts off later this year, it will be the
most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor
of two. Thrust at liftoff is equal to approximately eighteen
747 aircraft operating simultaneously.

The one thing I doubt we'll see in the test launch is all three of the
first stage cores landing at the launch site. As far as I know, SpaceX
does not yet have permission to land a core at The Cape. I'd imagine
permission to land three (two almost simultaneously) in relatively close
proximity will take an additional level of permission beyond that.


For some reason I thought this video was supposed to be from Vandenberg. Maybe I didn't read the caption too carefully. But isn't the first F9H flight to be from Vandenberg?

I didn't hear as to whether the inaugural flight of the F9H would attempt booster recovery. I suppose it could, but I would think that the KISS principle would defer that attempt for later. Plus they have no landing sites on the West Coast yet AFAIK. Neither any of those islands off the coast of California SpaceX is supposedly dickering over with the US Navy nor is the "Of Course I'll Still Love You". Which is only a single ASDS. But maybe the CA island issue is resolved. It's been awhile since I checked...

Dave
  #6  
Old February 3rd 15, 10:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 8:05:46 AM UTC-5, Rick Jones wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
The one thing I doubt we'll see in the test launch is all three of
the first stage cores landing at the launch site. As far as I know,
SpaceX does not yet have permission to land a core at The Cape. I'd
imagine permission to land three (two almost simultaneously) in
relatively close proximity will take an additional level of
permission beyond that.


Heck, I doubt we'll see even one landing at the launch site. On the
barge at sea, sure. The luddite in me would even wonder if there
would be any first stage landing attempt on the first Falcon Heavy
launch in the first place. Particularly if the first launch intends
to demonstrate to the USAF/NRO/et al the maximum mass-to-orbit
capabilities.


Agreed.

If you build enough barges, err I mean "autonomous drone ships", ;-) I wonder if RTLS is that important. What's cheaper to trade off? RP-1/LOX vs payload to orbit or marine diesel-vs-time?

It's an interesting question. On the face of it, unless I've blown the gloss over math looks like prices are about a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of the rocket fuel! If Musk's figures for F9 are right. But then a tug isn't going to burn ALL 200K gallons on a single tow of only 500 miles round trip in light seas either. If it burns, let's say 40K gallons, that'd put it at $115K to tow in a F9 booster, we're already at 1/2 again the price of an F9 burn there. Hmmmm...

As I said, an interesting question....

Dave

http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxosene.htm
http://qz.com/153969/spacex-just-mad...wnright-cheap/
http://www.waterwayguide.com/fuel-pricing/fwcklo
http://www.crowley.com/ocean

  #7  
Old February 4th 15, 02:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 4:20:15 PM UTC-5, David Spain wrote:
It's an interesting question. On the face of it, unless I've blown the gloss over math, [it] looks like prices are about a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of the rocket fuel! If Musk's figures for F9 are right. But then a tug isn't going to burn ALL 200K gallons on a single tow of only 500 miles round trip in light seas either. If it burns, let's say 40K gallons, that'd put it at $115K to tow in a F9 booster, we're already at 1/2 again the price of an F9 burn there. Hmmmm...


For the size and heft of the ASDS, even with an F9 first stage aboard, I gotta believe that fuel consumption figure is on the very high side of the mark. If the ASDS is modified to cruise itself via control from the command ship, the fuel economy might be also vastly improved.

The ocean-side of this equation is very interesting...

Dave
  #8  
Old February 4th 15, 02:38 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:26:31 PM UTC-5, David Spain wrote:

The ocean-side of this equation is very interesting...

Dave


A side note on the issue:

http://www.professionalmariner.com/M...ing-challenge/

  #9  
Old February 4th 15, 05:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:26:31 PM UTC-5, David Spain wrote:

The ocean-side of this equation is very interesting...

Dave


A side note on the issue:

http://www.professionalmariner.com/M...ing-challenge/

The Falcon 9 first stage uses 39,000 US gallons of kerosene. The above
article says that tugs can have diesel fuel tanks of "up to 100,000 or
more if intended for coastwise or offshore towing".

So, perhaps Musk isn't as crazy as everyone makes him out to be when you
take into account the costs of fuel and the other costs for the tugs and
barge. With a 100,000 tank, fueling an ocean going tug isn't at all
cheap.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #10  
Old February 4th 15, 11:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default SpaceX Falcon Heavy Flight Animation

Each booster runs around $30 million. So, the Falcon Heavy runs around $100 million. Shotwell said that costs could drop to $7 million to $9 million range for reusable systems.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/01/14/shotwell/

This is not the way to market that capability imho. You need to sell SpaceX as an expendable first, and then recover and refurbish as your expense. Then hold off selling them until someone wants to pay extra for a rapid response. Then turn around and point out the market price for a reusable is higher than for an expendable.

This is what you do 'early days'.

Then later days - as you accumulate an inventory of used rockets, you offer 'loss leaders' - as part of a customer loyalty programme.

Then, even later, and this all depends on launch rates, adoption rates, and so forth, you offer to launch vehicles 'at cost' ($7 to 9 mil) for a 'piece of the action' in assets that provide significant revenue. That is telecom networks, power networks, and mining operations. That way you have revenues independent of your launch rates.

You then funnel money into your vehicle development programmes.

You then funnel money into off-world assets.

Here's what Astronautix says about the Falcon & Falcon Heavy rockets -


In September 2006 SpaceX was named as one of two winners of the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services competition. The SpaceX award was $278 million for three flight demonstrations of the Falcon 9 booster carrying the Dragon space capsule. On 23 December 2008 NASA announced that the Falcon 9 / Dragon had been selected for launch of a guaranteed minimum of 20,000 kg of payload to the International Space Station in 2010-2014. The firm contract was worth $1.6 billion, with another $1.5 billion of options.

Reliability of the Falcon 9 was assured by a hold-before-release system - the Falcon was held down and could not be released for flight until all propulsion and vehicle systems were confirmed to be operating normally. An automatic safe shut-down and unloading of propellant occurred if any off nominal conditions are detected. A Kevlar shield protects each engine from debris in the event of its neighbor failing. All Falcon designs had only two stages and only one stage separation event - the minimum practical. All stage separation bolts were all dual initiated, fully space qualified, and had a zero failure track record in prior launch vehicles. Guidance was by triple redundant flight computers and inertial navigation, with a GPS overlay for additional orbit insertion accuracy. The engines, structural materials and design principles, avionics and launch system were all to have been proven on earlier Falcon 1 flights before the first Falcon 9 was ever launched.

The Falcon 9 first and second stage tank walls and domes were made from aluminum 2219, using all friction stir welding. The interstage was made of a carbon fiber honeycomb structure. The separation system consisted of pyrotechnic release bolts and pneumatic separation pushers. Although in-flight failures are very rarely explosive, a Kevlar shield protects each engine from debris in the event of its neighbor failing.

LEO Payload: 10,450 kg (23,030 lb) to a 200 km orbit at 28.00 degrees.
Payload: 4,540 kg (10,000 lb) to a GTO, 28 deg.
Development Cost $: 378.000 million.
Launch Price $: 36.750 million in 2008 dollars in 2008 dollars.
Boost Propulsion: Lox/Kerosene.
Cruise Thrust: 66.600 kN (14,972 lbf) 6,800 kgf.
Cruise engine: Kestrel.
Initial Operational Capability: 2009.

Gross mass: 333,400 kg (735,000 lb).
Payload: 10,450 kg (23,030 lb).
Height: 55.00 m (180.00 ft).
Diameter: 3.60 m (11.80 ft).
Span: 3.60 m (11.80 ft).
Thrust: 5,560.00 kN (1,249,930 lbf).
Apogee: 200 km (120 mi).
First Launch: 2010.06.04.

The Falcon 9 Heavy consists of a standard Falcon 9 with two additional Falcon 9 first stages as liquid strap-on boosters.

The Falcon 9 first stage had been designed to support the additional loads of this configuration, with common tanking and engines across both vehicles.. Initial architectural work had begun in 2008.

LEO Payload: 28,000 kg (61,000 lb) to a 200 km orbit at 28.00 degrees.
Payload: 12,000 kg (26,000 lb) to a GTO, 28 deg.
Boost Propulsion: Lox/Kerosene.
Cruise Thrust: 66.600 kN (14,972 lbf) 6,800 kgf.
Cruise engine: Kestrel.

Gross mass: 885,000 kg (1,951,000 lb).
Payload: 28,000 kg (61,000 lb).
Height: 54.90 m (180.10 ft).
Diameter: 3.60 m (11.80 ft).
Span: 3.60 m (11.80 ft).
Thrust: 15,000.00 kN (3,372,000 lbf).
Apogee: 200 km (120 mi).
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SpaceX signs Intelsat as first Falcon 9 Heavy customer [email protected] Policy 0 May 30th 12 06:57 PM
Could Delta IV Heavy use the same technique as Falcon Heavy Alan Erskine[_3_] Space Shuttle 1 May 20th 11 07:56 AM
SpaceX: Falcon 1 Flight 4 Damon Hill[_3_] Policy 17 September 30th 08 08:02 PM
SpaceX Falcon 1 FRF!(?) Ed Kyle Policy 79 February 14th 06 10:21 PM
SpaceX Announces the Falcon 9 Fully Reusable Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle [email protected] News 0 September 12th 05 05:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.