|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:21 PM |
SpaceX Announces the Falcon 9 Fully Reusable Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle | [email protected] | News | 0 | September 12th 05 05:21 PM |