SeJoWa wrote:Wiederling, so the tank liner was used as mandrel for the CFRP [logical, but still...]? Is there anything available online going into details?
KarelXWB wrote:Yet another interesting article on the Falcon Heavy:
iamlucky13 wrote:The main thing different about the Falcon Heavy is there has yet to be a commercial satellite that will max out its payload capacity, which they claim will be 54 tonnes to LEO and 22 tonnes to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit. That's twice the Ariane V or Delta IV Heavy, two of the highest capacity launch vehicles currently on the market. More payload margin means more missions will be able to retain sufficient first stage fuel to return to the Cape.
There's some potential to dual manifest heavier satellites, but even then, I'm pretty sure they'll run out of fairing volume before they reach the payload capacity of the Heavy.
Ultimately, the availability of the Heavy may lead to larger satellites, especially for geostationary orbits. When that happens, they will presumably want more barges, but the satellites will take longer to design and build than the barges will.
iamlucky13 wrote:Ultimately, the availability of the Heavy may lead to larger satellites, especially for geostationary orbits. When that happens, they will presumably want more barges, but the satellites will take longer to design and build than the barges will.
iamlucky13 wrote:Landing pads are cheap compared to rocket stages. Barges are definitely more expensive, but could still pay for themselves pretty quickly if more are needed.
The main thing different about the Falcon Heavy is there has yet to be a commercial satellite that will max out its payload capacity, which they claim will be 54 tonnes to LEO and 22 tonnes to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit. That's twice the Ariane V or Delta IV Heavy, two of the highest capacity launch vehicles currently on the market. More payload margin means more missions will be able to retain sufficient first stage fuel to return to the Cape.
Francoflier wrote:Thanks. It does make sense, although I'll echo other posters here in wondering why they aimed that big if there isn't a market yet.
As Wlederling said, Ariane V struggles to find enough payloads to fill a launch schedule as it needs to find 2 satellites of the right size every time. And it's only half the size.
Not that I mind... Big rockets are cool.
Francoflier wrote:Thanks. It does make sense, although I'll echo other posters here in wondering why they aimed that big if there isn't a market yet.
WIederling wrote:iamlucky13 wrote:Ultimately, the availability of the Heavy may lead to larger satellites, especially for geostationary orbits. When that happens, they will presumably want more barges, but the satellites will take longer to design and build than the barges will.
I don't think that will happen.
The trend is towards lighter sats ( at least for GEO applications.) enabled by tech progress.
Reason why Ariane V always lifts two ore more in one go except for the ISS resupply missions.
WIederling wrote:I don't think that the Ariane business struggles.
mxaxai wrote:Couldn't they simply enlarge the fairing? Assuming you have plenty of payload mass to spare to compensate for the higher drag, I assume you could fit either larger or more satellites. That could be especially useful for communication satellite networks like Iridium, Inmarsat or the envisioned OneWeb.
Going much further, why not use a Falcon Heavy for large lunar or martian rovers or even crewed vehicles? ~ 22 tonnes would be much more than any past autonomous vehicle has ever fielded, already accounting for some fuel to reach the final destination.
And Boeing is not alone; its “commercial crew” competitor SpaceX also faces similar technical hurdles with the Dragon V2 spacecraft and the Falcon 9 rocket that will launch it into space.
Boeing has set a “no earlier than” date of August 2018 for its first crewed test flight, and SpaceX has targeted May 2018. But those dates seem optimistic. Ars spoke to a handful of sources familiar with the commercial crew program this week, and all expressed pessimism about the public timelines the companies have for reaching the launch pad. According to this unofficial analysis, even a single crewed test flight in 2018 by either company now appears unlikely, as teams from both Boeing and SpaceX continue to work through significant technical issues.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets apparently have a serious issue that could delay the company's manned missions. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Government Accountability Office investigated both Boeing and SpaceX -- the corporations that won NASA's space taxi contracts -- and found that Falcon 9's turbine blades suffer from persistent cracks. GAO's preliminary report says these turboblades' tendency to crack is a "major threat to rocket safety," since they pump fuel into Falcon 9's rocket engines.
parapente wrote:Aint re flown one yet and I haven't seen one in the manifest.
parapente wrote:The shuttle never proved to be that reusable
so I guess the jury is out on Falcon9's.
I have wondered whether there is some merit in the 2 joining forces.NASA is building a FO rocket but with no missions.Why not use it to lift big 'bits' of rocket into space that can be assembled in orbit for a Mars mission? NASA has huge experience (space station) in this field.
KarelXWB wrote:GAO's preliminary report says these turboblades' tendency to crack is a "major threat to rocket safety," since they pump fuel into Falcon 9's rocket engines.
parapente wrote:Question.We all know that The Mars missions window is every 2 years.NASA is sending a small lander at the next window (2018) with both NASA and ESA going for rovers in 2020.
Spasex 'were' going for the 2018 window for a Red Dragon landing attempt.But I have heard nothing lately and of course the launch vehicle- Falcon Heavy - has been repeatedly delayed.
Does anyone know whether there are still plans for Spasex for 2018 or have they moved it all to 2020?
iamlucky13 wrote:parapente wrote:The shuttle never proved to be that reusable
It most certainly was. We would have paid several times the cost to build new shuttles each launch as we did refurbishing them, expensive as that was. The shuttle was a massively complex system, however.
iamlucky13 wrote:parapente wrote:Question.We all know that The Mars missions window is every 2 years.NASA is sending a small lander at the next window (2018) with both NASA and ESA going for rovers in 2020.
Spasex 'were' going for the 2018 window for a Red Dragon landing attempt.But I have heard nothing lately and of course the launch vehicle- Falcon Heavy - has been repeatedly delayed.
Does anyone know whether there are still plans for Spasex for 2018 or have they moved it all to 2020?
The latest rumor I've heard is that the schedules at SpaceX and NASA still have 2018 listed, but that's expected to be officially changed soon. I'm unclear if that's because of Falcon Heavy or Red Dragon progress, but I was under the impression it's both.
aviationaware wrote:2) if so, how will that be done? There is only one drone ship in the Atlantic. The demo video shows both boosters + the main stage landing on land, but if I am informed correctly that is only possible in very specific conditions (both with regards to payload and externalities like winds)?
aviationaware wrote:iamlucky13 wrote:parapente wrote:The shuttle never proved to be that reusable
It most certainly was. We would have paid several times the cost to build new shuttles each launch as we did refurbishing them, expensive as that was. The shuttle was a massively complex system, however.
The Shuttle was prone to ailments and a total fiscal failure, the 1.5 billion that each launch cost on average over the lifetime of the program could have been spent far more efficiently even with expendable vehicles.
On another note:
1) Does anyone know if SpaceX will try to land the boosters on the first Falcon Heavy flight and
2) if so, how will that be done? There is only one drone ship in the Atlantic. The demo video shows both boosters + the main stage landing on land, but if I am informed correctly that is only possible in very specific conditions (both with regards to payload and externalities like winds)?
WIederling wrote:"Also, as far as I can think offhand, the only launch systems I'd describe as not "prone to ailments" have been Atlas V and Ariane V."
Soyuz.
moo wrote:WIederling wrote:"Also, as far as I can think offhand, the only launch systems I'd describe as not "prone to ailments" have been Atlas V and Ariane V."
Soyuz.
Thats had some failures recently and its been discovered that sub-contractors have been using incorrect and untested grades of materials for the second stages.
WIederling wrote:moo wrote:WIederling wrote:"Also, as far as I can think offhand, the only launch systems I'd describe as not "prone to ailments" have been Atlas V and Ariane V."
Soyuz.
Thats had some failures recently and its been discovered that sub-contractors have been using incorrect and untested grades of materials for the second stages.
still it does not fit your "prone to" criterium. Long running project with excellent overall reliability.
( What I found interesting was that failures only hit the unmanned launches. enemy action?)
JetBuddy wrote:WIederling wrote:moo wrote:
Thats had some failures recently and its been discovered that sub-contractors have been using incorrect and untested grades of materials for the second stages.
still it does not fit your "prone to" criterium. Long running project with excellent overall reliability.
( What I found interesting was that failures only hit the unmanned launches. enemy action?)
I've read somewhere that SpaceX was looking into sabotage for the static test failture a while back, but the conclusion seemed to be something else. Industrial sabotage wouldn't be surprising at all, these contracts are extremely valuable, and I believe the major players see SpaceX as a great threat. But maybe you weren't refering to SpaceX.
Regarding the Soyuz 2nd stage materials issue, was that a problem for the ESA version launched from French Guiana as well?
aviationaware wrote:Still absolutely incredible every time I see it... I hope their first flight(s) with refurbished first stages due soon work out fine and, most importantly, that they manage to do what NASA never did with the Shuttle, which is getting the refurbishment effort down to a minimum. I guess that's the real key to substantial cost savings.
moo wrote:aviationaware wrote:Still absolutely incredible every time I see it... I hope their first flight(s) with refurbished first stages due soon work out fine and, most importantly, that they manage to do what NASA never did with the Shuttle, which is getting the refurbishment effort down to a minimum. I guess that's the real key to substantial cost savings.
Unfortunately it doesnt look like its going to be as substantial as Musk and SpaceX first thought - there are is a lot of talk coming out of SpaceX about just how much damage the rockets are taking on the landing, and Musk recently revised the re-use down to just two or three for each first stage. It looks like there is a lot more refurb to do with each stage they recover, and they arent proving to be as reusable as first thought. This might be something fixed in later iterations, but right now its not panning out as planned.
moo wrote:aviationaware wrote:Still absolutely incredible every time I see it... I hope their first flight(s) with refurbished first stages due soon work out fine and, most importantly, that they manage to do what NASA never did with the Shuttle, which is getting the refurbishment effort down to a minimum. I guess that's the real key to substantial cost savings.
Unfortunately it doesnt look like its going to be as substantial as Musk and SpaceX first thought - there are is a lot of talk coming out of SpaceX about just how much damage the rockets are taking on the landing, and Musk recently revised the re-use down to just two or three for each first stage. It looks like there is a lot more refurb to do with each stage they recover, and they arent proving to be as reusable as first thought. This might be something fixed in later iterations, but right now its not panning out as planned.