SpaceX Falcon Heavy

[78stonewobble]

Why you said so? I know they always late in their dates, but from the 3 launch expected to zero.. seems very unlikely.

Well, I am one of those naive then. I understand what are they doing, I understand why others fail.. So I maintain my position.

I had similar discussions with graphene back then in 2007, now many of the apps and uses which I commented that will rise first, some already are in sale, others are almost ready to come out.

I said that venus had a lot benefics for a manned mission and as permanent outpost, 1 year back: nasa concept mission video.

I said that the prototype of aeroscraft had a lot of sense as comercial airship transport, 1 year back: they had 20 in production many times bigger than the prototype.

I was almost alone in all those discussions too. So I will take my chances.

Again, 1 test and 2 satellites, which presumably are standard satellites, which might not really need the falcon heavy.

Yeah and someone thought radioactive toothpaste was a good idea.

[Rakaydos]

How much money would spacex save if theycput their money where their mouth is on the "40 firing cycles per overhaul"?

By which I mean, lets take that figure as a statistically significant quality control benchmark- An engine that has not fired at least 40 times has only a tiny chance of failure.

If they dont chech the engines every flight, there is a tiny chance of something going wrong.

Thats the likelyhood of the risk, now whats the magnatude?

The falcon 9 and fh carry fuel for a powered landing. If an engine fails in flight, it and its counterpart can be shut down, and the other engines burned longer. If nessisary, they can burn recovery-fuel to make up for the engines loss. Youll lose the whole otherwise recoverable booster, but the customer's payload is safe and on target.

So, the risk is low and the cost is not being able to reuse the whole 9 engine booster if 1 engine fails at the wrong time. Thoughts?

[78stonewobble]

For the nth time this thread the Falcon Heavy is not going to be a 50 ton rocket.

With reusability working it will be a <25 ton rocket which will make its payload much more similar to conventional rockets.

Yes at some point there may be a 50 ton payload that requires it to go expendable but that will take 10 years to develop. The market won't appear overnight just because the rocket is there.

Likewise having a 50 ton expendable payload rating is not a reason the rocket will fail as so many seem to think.

And partial reuseability did what, for the spaceshuttle?

I think it might have been upto 30 percent more expensive per kg. to leo than the throwaway specialized rocket it replaced.

[Frozen_Heart]

And partial reuseability did what, for the spaceshuttle?

I think it might have been upto 30 percent more expensive per kg. to leo than the throwaway specialized rocket it replaced.

The space shuttle was the biggest mess of compromise that ever existed. It was made to do everything badly and also used a lot of technology that had never been used before. Of course it wasn't going to be economical.

The Falcon rockets use only well known and tested technology and so should be very easy to maintain.

The first flight of each core is actually each engines 3rd firing. Once individually, once as the full group, and then on the flight. If they needed months of refurbishment between each firing to even work then I'm pretty sure that the Falcon rockets wouldn't be useable with the current engine testing regime.

[KerikBalm]

I think a large problem with the space shuttle - which the falcon with reusable boosters wont have.... is the ridiculously high dry weight of the orbiter.

24.4 tons of payload to LEO.... while the orbiter had an empty weight of 68.6 tons

The external tank was carried nearly all the way to orbit (and could be taken to orbit with the OMS)... another 26.5 tons of dry weight.

What was the orbiter? a glorified payload fairing and crew capsule. (sure, it also had the main engines, which were much more heavy and powerful than needed for an upper stage)

The upper stage of the falcon heavy will be much lighter.

The falcon has more staging events, and should have a much higher payload fraction.

The recoverable components also aren't being recovered from orbit, which obviously makes it a lot easier.

Heck, if you want, you could probably make a way to recover the engine of the upper stage... no sense trying to reuse the fuel tank.

That orbiter was massive!

Why the heck did they routinely haul all that mass up to orbit....

[11of10]

Well, even if they fail utterly in all that they plan to do, and go bankrupt by this time next year, humanity as a whole shall learn something, just like we learned frome the Shuttle failure. So, even in failure, there is success

[Umlüx]

but what about assembling the ISS. or hubble maintenance? the shuttle had more space for the crew and the canadarm. it surely had its moments.

[AngelLestat]

It's so boring to read pessimist replies and predictions when the world is already full of self-perpetuating doom and gloom. Either propose good alternatives or move out of the way for entrepeneurs and inventors who are interested in attempting new things.

Yeah, in 1950 to 1970 we had awesome engineers and people with vision who give us great technological leaps.

in the next 45 years, the space industry get full of people without talent or vision. Now we have the oportunity to read some of their thought here.

Meanwhile in the same time lapse, we experience huge breakthroughs in all the others technological branches.

Note: 'economic professionals'. They're generally not good engineers. If people like Nibb (or pretty much any realistic engineers) were in their team, they'll either scrap the idea outright (and come up with a new one), or make more modest estimations.

Lol, are you joking?

You need enginneers for an economic study?

Following your logic then we can call an economist to tell us if is possible to land in mars under certain DeltaV.. yeah.. I guess is all said..

About Nibb, heh, I can make a compilation of his best quotes and answers.

After that's done, then they'll reach other milestones that they plan (Falcon Heavy, Mars Colonial Transporter, Dragon V2). That's why NASA trusts them; they are able to, and have proven their capabilities enough for NASA to inject them some funds.

I accept that Nasa does not need to believe if can or cannot be done to fund this project.

Skylon, though? It's almost an all-or-nothing affair. Either the final product will work or it won't. Their technology requirements are quite tall (the precooler system alone gave them a lot of trouble already)

maybe because that is the most important part?? the key of the whole system..

and their cost estimations have no real grounding. They don't even build small-scale versions of the thing, let alone actually flying it. Almost all of the dev funds go to the engine, which while quite logical given that the fancy motor is the lifeline of the craft, almost everything else is relatively undeveloped.

First, knowing the lack of logic and economics sense from you two, I would choose always the official cost estimations. But even if ends being 5 times more, what is the issue?? Development cost always exceed the preliminary estimation.. nothing would be develope if you take always as limit the preliminaty estimation.

SpaceX builds its might by making small steps. Skylon tries to make giant leaps all at once. Which of the two do you think is more likely to succeed?

You mean as going to the moon when TV was our biggest breakthrough of that time? Is because of that kind of mindsets we were trap these last 45 years!

You are part of that problem.

Yes at some point there may be a 50 ton payload that requires it to go expendable but that will take 10 years to develop. The market won't appear overnight just because the rocket is there.

Likewise having a 50 ton expendable payload rating is not a reason the rocket will fail as so many seem to think.

?????

So you can not launch 2 or 3 sattellites at the same time? You can not provide new explorations missions which were cancelled for the lack of heavy launchers? It can not be a new type of craft now that the payload design requiments change?

Also why the falcon heavy expendable version would take MORE TIME to develope or enter in use than the reusable?

lol, they had lower prizes even if they drop all stages to the trash by a big margin against other competitors.. so why it would be a trouble?

Again, 1 test and 2 satellites, which presumably are standard satellites, which might not really need the falcon heavy.

?? why it matters if they needed or not? that is your explanation of why it would not be falcon heavy launches this year? Those clients already signed the contract.

Yeah and someone thought radioactive toothpaste was a good idea.

Not me, I have not memories of being wrong when I bet for certain technology.

How much money would spacex save if theycput their money where their mouth is on the "40 firing cycles per overhaul"?

So, the risk is low and the cost is not being able to reuse the whole 9 engine booster if 1 engine fails at the wrong time. Thoughts?

Not sure, I guess it will be much safe not only due the multiple engines, also due the materials involve, they achieve a 40% (something about structural limits) against 20% from all other launchers.

I think a large problem with the space shuttle - which the falcon with reusable boosters wont have.... is the ridiculously high dry weight of the orbiter.

Yeah, those things is when I talk about know why other launchers fail to compare with spacex.

The merlin engine provides 150 thrust/weight ratio against 40 of other common used engines.

Extra ISP, lower aerodynamic drag (thin tank structure), lightweight materials, etc.

When you compare the size of falcon heavy against similar payload launchers (not delta4 because it uses hydrogen), then you notice a big increase in performance.

[Nibb31]

but what about assembling the ISS. or hubble maintenance? the shuttle had more space for the crew and the canadarm. it surely had its moments.

The Russians assembled Mir in less than 10 launches. It took the STS 27 missions to complete the US segment of the ISS.

The STS could put 100 tons into orbit, but only 20 tons of payload because the other 80 tons had to come back. The old Saturn V could also put 100 tons into orbit, so it could have launched the entire mass of the ISS in 5 only missions.

If Hubble had been designed without the extra hardware required for manual maintenance, it would have been much cheaper and could have been replaced with 2 or 3 copies for a fraction of the cost of the manned maintenance missions.

The Shuttle was great idea that was worth trying. We learned a lot from its mistakes.

[FishInferno]

The Russians assembled Mir in less than 10 launches. It took the STS 27 missions to complete the US segment of the ISS.

The STS could put 100 tons into orbit, but only 20 tons of payload because the other 80 tons had to come back. The old Saturn V could also put 100 tons into orbit, so it could have launched the entire mass of the ISS in 5 only missions.

If Hubble had been designed without the extra hardware required for manual maintenance, it would have been much cheaper and could have been replaced with 2 or 3 copies for a fraction of the cost of the manned maintenance missions.

The Shuttle was great idea that was worth trying. We learned a lot from its mistakes.

The one advantage the shuttle has was that a crew of astronauts was right there to preform EVAs that helped with station construction. however, this could have been easily done with an unmanned rocket and then a manned rocket launched shortly after.

[Nibb31]

Yeah, in 1950 to 1970 we had awesome engineers and people with vision who give us great technological leaps.

in the next 45 years, the space industry get full of people without talent or vision. Now we have the oportunity to read some of their thought here.

Meanwhile in the same time lapse, we experience huge breakthroughs in all the others technological branches.

You have just insulted the thousands of engineers and scientists that work in the aerospace industry. Contrary to what some people here think, they are not idiots, they are not conspiring or lobbying for big aerospace companies.

Space is their bread and butter. They know what works and what doesn't. If there really was an easy way to accelerate stuff from 0 to 27000kph, they would have figured it out by now.

Lol, are you joking?

You need enginneers for an economic study?

Following your logic then we can call an economist to tell us if is possible to land in mars under certain DeltaV.. yeah.. I guess is all said..

Well, nothing exists in a vacuum. To make a project work, especially big ones, you need a whole array of skills. This includes engineering skills but also business skills and political skills, because that's the kind of world we live in, whether you like it or not. Some things might be technically possible, the engineers will push in one direction, the marketing folks will push in another direction, and you usually get the lawyers, the upper management, and the bean counters all pulling in their own directions. For a project to come together in real-world context, you need everyone to reach a common ground. You can't wave away the parameters that you don't care about.

About Nibb, heh, I can make a compilation of his best quotes and answers.

Sounds like an obsessive-compulsive behavior if you ask me, but well...

You can not provide new explorations missions which were cancelled for the lack of heavy launchers? It can not be a new type of craft now that the payload design requiments change?

There are no exploration missions that were cancelled for the lack of heavy launchers. Again, exploration missions depend on the science budgets of space agencies and universities. The bottleneck is the money, not the launcher.

[Umlüx]

The Russians assembled Mir in less than 10 launches. It took the STS 27 missions to complete the US segment of the ISS.

well.. the US segment of the ISS is slightly bigger than MIR with more modules anyway i think?

[AngelLestat]

You have just insulted the thousands of engineers and scientists that work in the aerospace industry.

Yes I did.. Thanks for the clarification.

But to be fair, is not their complete fault, they had not enoght funds or political incentives.

Contrary to what some people here think, they are not idiots, they are not conspiring or lobbying for big aerospace companies.

Of course not, they just lack of talent and vision as I said.

You may find some exceptions of course, but we are talking of the general branche.

Space is their bread and butter. They know what works and what doesn't.

Something that work in the 60th, it will keep working in the new century.

Forget about new faster and light computers, forget about new materials, forget about new manufacture techniques, forget about testing new ways of propulsion. yeah.. that is the aerospace industry right now.

They was in the edge of technology before. Now they have afraid to change a single screw from their old designs.

That is not the way to accomplish breakthrough.

Well, nothing exists in a vacuum. To make a project work, especially big ones, you need a whole array of skills. This includes engineering skills but also business skills and political skills, because that's the kind of world we live in, whether you like it or not.

What are you talking about? We are talking about an economic study! Not the feasibility of the whole project in all areas.

You take as base that the skylon works and it can carry a payload of 15Tons with certain sizes.

It does not matter if it is possible or not.. is an economic study about profits.

So you need to know all the cost involves, the skylon project already comes with some details of how all the procedures of the operation will be carry around.

You can interview some engineers to fill the gaps on the operations, but this does not mean that he has something to said about cost.

This economic team knows what markets may or not arise with these new launch cost.

They know how to manage loans, tax deductions, investments, how much to charge, etc.. Because that is what they do all the time.

What knows an engineer about that? he may said.. oh I hear that the ground operations for delta4 is about 10 millons.. But he does not know if that exclude cost derivatives of investors, or retrospective payments, or if worth compare the same value with very different ground operation, etc.

Try to find an economist in the teams who work in this last venus concept mission. is the same, in this case they study if it was possible, not how much it would cost.

Sounds like an obsessive-compulsive behavior if you ask me, but well...

Lol you are telling me? I dint remember you when I come back to the forum this last month, but since I did I receive full negative comments from you, in fact it seems that you was so focus in this task that you dint think at all the points you made. Then I remember that we discuss before in the global warming technologies thread.

It does not matter for me, I love to discuss with you.. I find that there is not point to discuss with somebody who think the same that you. This helps for learn new things and to find mistakes in our own ideas.

There are no exploration missions that were cancelled for the lack of heavy launchers. Again, exploration missions depend on the science budgets of space agencies and universities. The bottleneck is the money, not the launcher.

True, because they are cancelled in the design step.. They need to design missions taking into account what launcher they had avariable. Edited January 29, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Frozen_Heart]

IMO Angellestat is being as overly optimistic as Nibb is overly negative.

Assuming everything possible will go right and taking the stats straight from the companies mouths before the rockets have even been launched is just as bad as saying that all space advancement is over and can never improve.

[magnemoe]

There are no exploration missions that were cancelled for the lack of heavy launchers. Again, exploration missions depend on the science budgets of space agencies and universities. The bottleneck is the money, not the launcher.

As cause all missions calculates with an maximum weight. If you cant do the mission within the weight limit it will not get so far it can be canceled as its no reason to even do a budget for it.

If you increase the weight limit you get new options.