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
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #21  
Old February 1st 18, 11:05 AM 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.
 




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 08:40 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 04:01 AM
SpaceX to static-fire Falcon 9 Friday Pat Flannery Policy 7 December 6th 10 04:01 AM
The Falcon 9 static fire is scheduled for 1 p.m. EST today Jeff Findley Policy 31 March 15th 10 03:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 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.