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

Falcon Heavy Static Fire



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 1st 18, 12:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon Heavy Static Fire

In article ,
says...

On 2018-01-31 06:08, Jeff Findley wrote:


snip
If you want to learn more about orbital mechanics, there are lots of
websites that teach the basics. There are also simulators, so you could
see for yourself that entering earth orbit is a waste if your final goal
is earth escape.

Moving the orbit from KSC's natural inclination to that of the

Russian
launch site really, really hurt performance of the shuttle.


Wouldn't this have hurt any launch vehicle equally?


No, the space shuttle was a worst case scenario. Why? Because it put
the ET nearly in orbit. The lightest tanks used, the SLWT, weighted
58,500 pounds empty and that's not including any LOX and LH2 "residual"
propellants still in the tank. Since the ET was being used since launch
(SSME's started firing on the pad), none of that mass was dropped like a
lower stage would have been. That puts it at a disadvantage compared to
a "normal" two stage to orbit launch vehicle which drops the biggest
tanks with the first stage. Yes the shuttle did drop the SRBs, but that
was no different than other launch vehicles that drop solids, so we'll
ignore those.

But that's just the beginning of the problem. The lightest orbiter was
Atlantis which massed 151,315 lb. So, even if we ignore the ET mass,
you're still placing a 151,315 lb orbiter into orbit which does *not*
count as payload to ISS. Note that you're paying the "mass penalty" of
the higher inclination orbit on the entire orbiter mass as well as the
payload, and part of the ET's mass.

Conclusion: The space shuttle orbiter suffers a far greater mass
penalty from increased orbital inclination than a traditional two or two
and a half stage to orbit launch vehicle (e.g. Atlas, Delta, Delta
Heavy, and etc).


Cites:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshal...le_external_ta
nk.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Atlantis

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #22  
Old February 2nd 18, 12:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon Heavy Static Fire

In article ,
says...

On 2018-02-01 06:05, Jeff Findley wrote:

Conclusion: The space shuttle orbiter suffers a far greater mass
penalty from increased orbital inclination than a traditional two or two
and a half stage to orbit launch vehicle (e.g. Atlas, Delta, Delta
Heavy, and etc).


For any given delta-V, a vehicle+cargo has a total mass limit.

When you increase delta-V, total mass of vehicle needs to decrease. And
when cargo represents smaller proportion of total mass (aka: heavy
Shuttle), it takes a greater mass hit in percentage since vehicle mass
is fixed.


But if the heavy truck still ends up with more uplift capacity than the
lighter rocketsm the loss of capacity to 51 is still moot and the
smaller rockets would still require more launches.

Obviously, with Falcon Heavy, this changes the equation should the space
station be build today.


Atlas V is going to launch Boeing's commercial crew capsule to ISS.
It's no lightweight. You might want to look at Delta IV Heavy's payload
capacity to ISS orbit. It's currently the biggest operational US launch
vehicle (until Falcon Heavy flies).

The shuttle was used because that's what NASA had to work with and
because all Freedom hardware was designed to be launched by it. ISS
hardware was derived from Freedom hardware, so sticking with the shuttle
was the "easiest" way forward. Doesn't mean it was the best way
forward. After all, shuttle launches cost $1.45 billion each (total
program costs over the life of the program divided by the number of
flights).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #23  
Old February 6th 18, 01:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Falcon Heavy Static Fire

JF Mezei wrote:

Dynamic fire (aka: launch) at 13:30 Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday.

Note: Elon Musk once again tweeted it was going to Mars.

(as opposed to explaining it would go to elliptical orbit between earth
and mars orbits).


It's a tweet. How many characters is that limited to, again?


And posted a picture of a space dummy in the driver seat of the car.


Also, does anyone know why his Boring company marketed/sold flame
throwers? When the next California wild wire causing bilions in damages
will be blamed on somepone using Musk's flamethrowers for fun, it will
be bad PR for him (and possibly lawsuits).

Or is this a subtle jab at how silly it is for a country to refuse to
regulate dangerous weapons ?


Flamethrowers are legal in 49 states. I know folks around here who
use them for weed control. You can't sue a manufacturer for selling a
legal product that functions as advertised.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #24  
Old February 6th 18, 11:46 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon Heavy Static Fire

In article ,
says...

Dynamic fire (aka: launch) at 13:30 Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday.

Note: Elon Musk once again tweeted it was going to Mars.

(as opposed to explaining it would go to elliptical orbit between earth
and mars orbits).

And posted a picture of a space dummy in the driver seat of the car.


Looks like the SpaceX pressure suit for commercial crew. Could be an
early mock-up or a test article. Hard to tell, but I'm sure it's a
"throw-away" piece that's not production hardware.

NASA would have donated such a thing to the Smithsonian where it would
have been packed in a crate and stored with the dozens of other pressure
suits where no one could ever see it (my speculation here).

Also, does anyone know why his Boring company marketed/sold flame
throwers? When the next California wild wire causing bilions in damages
will be blamed on somepone using Musk's flamethrowers for fun, it will
be bad PR for him (and possibly lawsuits).


Actually they sold propane torches (like for weed burning) in a fancy
looking case with their name on it.

Or is this a subtle jab at how silly it is for a country to refuse to
regulate dangerous weapons ?


Don't lose your **** over an over priced weed burner. OMG the sky isn't
falling.

Look, it's not a flame thrower. That would be illegal in California.
It's just a large propane torch or commonly known as a weed burner, so I
don't see the problem. I can pick one up at any Harbor Freight store
across the country for literally $19.99.

https://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-91033.html

Or you can order one online from any number of places (e.g. Walmart.com)
for about the same amount of money.

Musk is just a marketing genius. $500 for a gussied up $20 tool you can
buy "anywhere"? He's making a bit of cash on this one.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #28  
Old February 8th 18, 04:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Falcon Heavy Static Fire

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

JF Mezei wrote:

Dynamic fire (aka: launch) at 13:30 Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday.

Note: Elon Musk once again tweeted it was going to Mars.

(as opposed to explaining it would go to elliptical orbit between earth
and mars orbits).


It's a tweet. How many characters is that limited to, again?


280

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

 




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
Live coverage: Falcon 9 rocket set for static fire Spaceflight Now Space Shuttle 0 December 6th 17 09:40 AM
Could Delta IV Heavy use the same technique as Falcon Heavy Alan Erskine[_3_] Space Shuttle 1 May 20th 11 07:56 AM
SpaceX to static-fire Falcon 9 Friday Pat Flannery History 11 December 6th 10 05:01 AM
SpaceX to static-fire Falcon 9 Friday Pat Flannery Policy 7 December 6th 10 05:01 AM
The Falcon 9 static fire is scheduled for 1 p.m. EST today Jeff Findley Policy 31 March 15th 10 04:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:30 PM.


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.