SpaceX Falcon Heavy

It will be interesting to see the video of the miss....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
On April 12, somewhere on the coast of Brittany (France) some kids got a free, 8-ft swimming pool to play in ...
 

Attachments

  • Washed Ashore 03.jpg
    Washed Ashore 03.jpg
    464.5 KB · Views: 311
  • Washed Ashore 05.jpg
    Washed Ashore 05.jpg
    205.5 KB · Views: 297
  • Washed Ashore 06.jpg
    Washed Ashore 06.jpg
    440.1 KB · Views: 292
  • Washed Ashore 08.jpg
    Washed Ashore 08.jpg
    516.9 KB · Views: 285
Flyaway said:
SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy two-thirds done as side booster #2 leaves factory

First posted to a SpaceX-focused Facebook group by member Eric Schmidt, Falcon Heavy Flight 2’s second side booster (of two) was spotted eastbound in Arizona on December 3rd, partway through a journey from SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory to its McGregor, TX testing facilities.

This is the second (known) Falcon Heavy-related booster spotted in less than a month and an incontrovertible sign that the company’s second-ever Falcon Heavy launch is perhaps just a handful of months away, with both side boosters now likely to be present in Florida by January 2019 barring unforeseen developments.
 
Falcon Heavy planned launches in 2021
April the USSF-52 mission into GEO
May a ViaSat-3 launch near GEO
and maybe Inmarsat-6B later that year

in 2022
August the NASA probe Psyche (maybe with probe Janus)

and 2023
maybe launches for Lunar Gateway modules

more launches of Falcon Heavy could happen it USSF take SpaceX to launch large Spy sats
but this would let to heavy modification of LC-39A since USSF and NRO insists here on vertical payload Integration on Booster.
If SpaceX start to make those modification in 2021 or 2022, we will see regular Falcon Heavy flights for USSF & NRO
 
more launches of Falcon Heavy could happen it USSF take SpaceX to launch large Spy sats
but this would let to heavy modification of LC-39A since USSF and NRO insists here on vertical payload Integration on Booster.
If SpaceX start to make those modification in 2021 or 2022, we will see regular Falcon Heavy flights for USSF & NRO

SpaceX was awarded a huge chunk of money for an NRO launch in FY22, which includes funding for a vertical integration facility at 39A. We don't know if that FY22 flight is an F9 or an FH, but we do know that a VIF and an extended fairing are coming.

 
more launches of Falcon Heavy could happen it USSF take SpaceX to launch large Spy sats
but this would let to heavy modification of LC-39A since USSF and NRO insists here on vertical payload Integration on Booster.
If SpaceX start to make those modification in 2021 or 2022, we will see regular Falcon Heavy flights for USSF & NRO

SpaceX was awarded a huge chunk of money for an NRO launch in FY22, which includes funding for a vertical integration facility at 39A. We don't know if that FY22 flight is an F9 or an FH, but we do know that a VIF and an extended fairing are coming.


Since the last Delta Heavy stand on launch pad and try to take off with NRO payload
They need a replacement soon ULA Vulcan is under construction, but need Test flights for qualification by USSF/NRO
Like wise Blue Origin New Glenn and what Northrop-Grumman has to build for USSF
From NRO point of view the Falcon Heavy is only reliability Launch system the US have between 2021 and 2023.
 
more launches of Falcon Heavy could happen it USSF take SpaceX to launch large Spy sats
but this would let to heavy modification of LC-39A since USSF and NRO insists here on vertical payload Integration on Booster.
If SpaceX start to make those modification in 2021 or 2022, we will see regular Falcon Heavy flights for USSF & NRO

SpaceX was awarded a huge chunk of money for an NRO launch in FY22, which includes funding for a vertical integration facility at 39A. We don't know if that FY22 flight is an F9 or an FH, but we do know that a VIF and an extended fairing are coming.


Since the last Delta Heavy stand on launch pad and try to take off with NRO payload
They need a replacement soon ULA Vulcan is under construction, but need Test flights for qualification by USSF/NRO
Like wise Blue Origin New Glenn and what Northrop-Grumman has to build for USSF
From NRO point of view the Falcon Heavy is only reliability Launch system the US have between 2021 and 2023.
There still is another Delta IV heavy launch for the NRO on the Cape in a few years.
 
NASA has selected Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, to provide launch services for the agency’s Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO), the foundational elements of the Gateway. As the first long-term orbiting outpost around the Moon, the Gateway is critical to supporting sustainable astronauts missions under the agency’s Artemis program.

After integration on Earth, the PPE and HALO are targeted to launch together no earlier than May 2024 on a Falcon Heavy rocket from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The total cost to NASA is approximately $331.8 million, including the launch service and other mission-related costs.

The PPE is a 60-kilowatt class solar electric propulsion spacecraft that also will provide power, high-speed communications, attitude control, and the capability to move the Gateway to different lunar orbits, providing more access to the Moon’s surface than ever before.

The HALO is the pressurized living quarters where astronauts who visit the Gateway, often on their way to the Moon, will work. It will provide command and control and serve as the docking hub for the outpost. HALO will support science investigations, distribute power, provide communications for visiting vehicles and lunar surface expeditions, and supplement the life support systems aboard Orion, NASA’s spacecraft that will deliver Artemis astronauts to the Gateway.

 
I can't help but wonder if anybody will ever try the Big Dumb Booster concept for real.
Simon Ramo the R in TRW (the division within NG which Tom Mueller worked) was developer of the pintle fed engine which was highly throttable hence essential to the development of the LEM as noted in a talk given by Neil Armstrong at MIT in 1994 (see link below) and which made retropropulsion possible since you need far less thrust at landing than take off (and use of NG IP was the basis of a NG lawsuit against SpaceX back in the day (see link below)) was a HUGE proponent of the Big Dumb Booster Concept. A light weight pressure tank strong enough to withstand launch and flight loads that operated a pressure fed engine designed to operate at those pressure that was self pressurised with cryogenic propellants (LOX/LNG or LOX/LH2) would be cheap as soda cans in his view.

Neil Armstrong talking about throttable engines
View: https://youtu.be/e5wNvZy-ECQ?t=2794


Northop Grumman Settles Lawsuit with SpaceX over IP

Simon Ramo
View: https://youtu.be/yA6qdOT0qLY


History of Pintle Fed Engine

BDB Overview

Ceramic Coated Stainless Steel suitable for Thermal Protection

Ceramic Coated Stainless Steel suitable for Low Cost Rocket Engines

NOTE: Low Cost Highly Reusable Highly Reliable Rockets are a materials science problem first and foremost at this point in time. The same material that withstands aerodynamic loads of ballistic reentry also withstands high oxygen content combustion chamber conditions given rocket designers substantial performance edge.
 
Another contemporary Nova illustration. Look at the size of that thing!

extrapolation.jpg


That is the T10-RE-1 it used an aerospike nozzle with 10 F1 combustion chambers and pump sets in a ring around the base and two M1 engines in the upper stage! It was 80 feet in diameter and could lift 480,000 pounds into Low Earth Orbit.

Aerospike Engines
View: https://youtu.be/-0Y0FS8Z1Qk



1620669401658.png
Advanced Engines
Advanced Engines planned for uprated Saturn and Nova boosters
Credit: © Mark Wade (extracted from Astronautix Entry)

1620669636264.png
Nova Advanced - Martin Marieta
Nova Advanced Concepts - Martin Marietta
Credit: © Mark Wade (Extracted from Astronautix MW extracted from MM report)

The one you show is the T10RE-1 and was capable of puttin gup 480,000 pounds into LEO and weighed 25,790,000 pounds at lift off. It was propelled by 10 F1 engines in the first stage and 2 M1 engines in the second stage. The vehicle was 80 feet in diameter and 410 feet tall.

There were all LOX/LH2 SSTO with air augmented aerospike engines that were based on a number of M-1 engines and pump sets. (perid Aerojet General advertisement in the public domain)

1620671135640.png
====ADDENDUM==== :

(I'm new here and post this thought experiment with some reservation. Let me know if you like it or not!)


Thought Experiment - NOVA Sized Payload using Shuttle Era Hardware and M1 with SpaceX retropropulsion

Upsizing the External Tank to something the size of the T10RE-1 by increasing the tank from 8.4 meters to 24.4 meter diameter and length accordingly obtains a tank propellant mass of 17,367 tonnes of propellant with 708 tonnes of inert weight. A total of 18,075 tonnes take off weight. To lift this at 1.5 gee requires 266 MegaNewtons. Each M1 produces 1,500,000 pounds force or 6.675 MN. That's M1 40 pumpsets and combustion chambers expanding on to an aerospike nozzle. Attaining its growth target o 8 MN means 33 pumpsets and combustion chambers would suffice. This is just a measure of specific impulse and mass flow rate. With a 5.5 to 1.0 oxidizer fuel ratio this is 2,672 tonnes of LH2 and 14,695 tonnes of LOX.

Three of these strapped together like a Falcon Heavy and using retropropulsion to recover the three, requires some propellant to recover the empty tank. An empty tank has a high surface area to volume, so slows to subsonic speeds as it descends. By putting the retropropulsive propellant off-center inside the later tanks at the common bulkhead between the two, a small amount of lift is obtained. Enough to stay in the lower density atmosphere at re-entry and slow speed and descent, so that without any thrust, but with a few fins, you can slow to 0.3 km/sec. So, you need enough propellant to bring 708 tonnes to 0 velocity at 0 altitude at 0.3 km/sec approach speed. At 4.59 km altitude you apply 13.9 MegaNewtons of force on the rocket to land it. At 4.2 km/sec exhaust speed you need

708*(exp(0.3/4.2)-1) = 52.421 t ~ 52.5 tonnes

of propellant. For each. So, there si 17,314.5 tonnes of propellant in each of the three boosters operated in this way.

So, we have the following equation to solve;

9.4 km/sec = 4.2 km/sec * ln((3*18075+p)/(3*18075+p-2*17314.5))+4.65*ln((18075+p)/(18075+p-17314.5))

p=1883.06 tonnes (4,151,400 pounds!!) payload.

Nearly 19x the size of Starship/Heavy payload and 29.4x a Falcon Heavy payload.

At $2 million per to$nne construction cost this is $1.416 billion per vehicle and $4.248 billion for the trio and with 5x fly away cost being the development cost this is $7.080 billion develoment cost. Supposing we can fly these 35,000 times with one chance of loss in 6.5 million (the likely goal of the Starship/Heavy system, which is admittedly challenging) the cost is $121,371 per launch. Likely half that cost for launch operations. The cost of hydrogen in quantity made from natural gas is $1000 per tonne and the cost of LOX is $400 per tonne so the cost of propellant is

3*(1000*2672+400*14695)=$25.65 million

Per launch.

Dividing this by the payload

25.65/1.88306 = $13.62/kg

With a nuclear thermal power source that uses a Westinghouse Sulphur Iodine cycle hydrogen oxygen costs can be cut to $100 per tonne when used efficiently with the fuel made from sea water instead of natural gas. That reduces the costs to

300*17367 = $5.21 million

and price per kg to $2.77!!

Program Cost & Ultimate Flight cycle.

12 units this size cost $17 billion and when added to the development cost $21.24 billion all told. Flying these through 35,000 flight cycles over their life cycle obtains $151,714 capital cost per flight cycle. Add this to $5.21 million per flight for propellant and $5.36 million per flight and $2.85 per kg.

Launch Rate

With four flight units and a 12 hour cycle time we have a launch every 3 hours. With 35,000 flight cycles per unit this lasts 47.91 years!! Over that period the system puts up 263.62 million tonnes. With one chance in 6.5 million loss per flight (about 3x better than airliners) there is a 6.25% chance that one booster is lost over this period.

Power Plant

Recurring cost is $15.68 billion per year. Mostly to pay for hydrogen and oxygen at $100 per tonne. $15.22 billion per year is for the 23.4 million tonnes of hydrogen and 128.8 million tons of oxygen each year. Made in a nuclear power plant that is 68% efficient and must produce 157 GW of thermal energy.

The Present Value of the Revenue Stream discounted at the S&P 500 return histogram for 20 days (6.4%) over the period attracts pension funds with this long term rate of return;

15.22*(1-1/1.064^47.91)/0.064 = $225.63 billion CAPITAL EXPENSE CAP

$1,437 per kW capital cost target for the nuclear plant. This is 1/3 or less the cost of current nuclear facilities.

An inertial confinement fusion system that uses Jetter Cycle fusion technology to detonate Lithium-6 and Deuterium pellets, that release alpha particles with 270.15 TJ/kg requires 581.6 milligrams per second. With 180 blasts per second in a dozen 'blast chambers' in a ring on a floating platform that generates AC power as well as tremendous waste heat, that produces 300 GW of power with 7 milligram pellets 2.5 mm in diameter exhausts through an enormous chamber to produce AC power by tying together the 12 chambers into 3 phase system operating at 60 Hz, and the exhaust gases heat tremendous amounts of water, which decomposes a portion and desalts the balance.

The power revenue and the fresh water revenue and the salt revenue along with the revenue from the space launch campaign, pays for the $450 billion infrastructure. The launch fleet is an afterthought compared to this.

Refill on LEO

17367/1883 = 9.22 ~ 10 flights to refill an orbiting stage.

Passenger/Cargo Ship
dV = 4.65 * ln( (17367+708+1883)/(708+1883)) = 9.49338 ~ 9.49 km/sec

Tanker Ship - the 1883 t payload is more propellant
dV = 4.65 * ln((17367+708+1883)/708) = 15.52607 ~ 15.52 km/sec

Going from LEO to the Moon's surface along a minimum energy transfer orbit landing and coming back can be done with a single Passenger/Cargo Ship. More payload may be landed on the Moon for a one way flight. Ditto for a Mars flight once every 2.15 years. By the way the 1000 day Mars flights are why the ships have to be so reliable. To get 99.5% chance of returning from a 1000 day flight with multiple rocket maneuvers and no major servicing for 1000 days requires a reliability and reusability and safety sufficient to suffer only 1 loss in 6.5 million flights. Better than airliners today. But not by much. Without weather to fight its achievable. However very challenging. Commercial launchers attain 1 loss in 16 flights. Space Shuttle achieved 1 loss in 65 flights. X-15 achieved 1 loss in 199 flights. That's what we want to achieve on a 1000 day journey to Mars and back. A fleet of 12 vehicles will have a high chance of bringing everyone home even if three are lost. Which is better odds than the 1 hour flight. (Earth to Earth ballistic travel takes no more than 42 minutes from anywhere to anywhere else).

Tankers can be used to refill far flung ships and bring them home. This gives us access to the asteroid belt and the outer planets but not Mercury or the Kuiper belt.

To support deep space operations with fleets of 12 ships each carryin 1883 tonnes and over 1000 passengers each (12,000 for the fleet) we need many many ships.

Earth to Earth Cargo Rocket

The genius of Musk is that he intends to use a single stage Starship to fly Earth to Earth with less than 100 ton payload. The Starship is capable of 7 km/sec with 100 tonnes and it takes about 7.5 km/sec to toss a payload 15,000 km in 27 minutes. What the longest range airliner flies in 16 hours. In this way SpaceX could sell 6 Starships a day and replace the 31,000 airliners with 3,600 rockets and carry 4.3 billion people now flying in airplanes to 106,000 locations each year, with those 3,600 rockets.

These super massive ships here are way too big for passenger service and are very expensive. At 170 pounds per passenger, which is what airlines carrying 1,200 tonnes in a passenger ship requires 15,562 passengers!! A cargo ship makes more sense. You could displace the fleet of 53,000 cargo ships througout the world with a cargo rocket.

Passenger/cargo variants could also be made to carry 200 to 600 passengers in modules. 45 shipping containers per flight. 507 rockets of this capacity, flying 45 shipping containers every hour ships 200 million containers per year. Less than 30% of the 775 million containers on the oceans today, but likely what people would pay $2 to $3 per kilo to get same day delivery of their cargo!!

200 million is less than 1/3 of what the fleet of 53,000 ocean going vessels produce. To ship 200 million containers require 4.44 million rocket flights of this size per year. This is 507 times bigger than the number of flights calculated above for our fleet of 12 ships.

With a 4 year life span, completing 35,000 flights, retiring them in 3 years, to fly the balance of flights in space, similar to SpaceX Earth to Earth passenger service plan, produces 169 ships per year for retirement. This is the production rate for the factory for these things far less than 6 per day projected for the Starship. But much bigger!

View: https://youtu.be/Pqw9YOOOuKk


We also need 507 inertial confinement fusion power platforms to operate at 507 ports where ships dock today. Altogether these 507 platforms at 507 locations around the world produce power fresh water and hydrogen fuel at very competitive prices. The total power output is 8.9x the power output of the world today and given the relation between energy and money the world's economy would grow to be 8.9x what it is today. World GDP per capita would rise from $11,000 per person per year to $98,000 per person per year. About 2/3 the per capita GDP of Monaco, the world's richest nation.


These are surrounded by shipping container drones that deliver door to door in an hour. Robots operate aboard the ship to load and unload quickly and aboard the drones. All paper work is done via internet electronically and containers are part of the internet of things with access to cameras and microphones and electronic noses and even ultrasonic scanners on a chip for continuous security.


1620700749791.png

1620700878945.png

View: https://youtu.be/yYUuWWnfRsk


1620701863112.png

Passenger Drone -- combined cargo/passenger rocket is served with passenger drone to provide door to door service for hourly rocket launches. At 300 passengers per rocket (in addition to cargo) x 8766 flights per year x 506 rockets 1.33 billion one way flights or 0.665 billion round trip flights 8% of the world's 4.3 billion passengers per year.

What about Solar Power Satellites?

Well, I have a lot of ideas about that, but this is already rather long. However, cargo shipping will open up cargo transport off world along the lines I project for SpaceX. The cargo drones are easily adapted to aerial camper vans and passenger drones replace motorcars.

Power satellites will come and spell another great expansion even beyond inertial confinement fusion.

What about Orion Nuclear Pulse?

Yes, this is where I was going with the nuclear pulse propellant supply. Here, we launch 1883 tonne sections of 80 foot diameter pusher plates with fission free pellets, to propel us at high speed throughout deep space.

What about Laser Light Craft & Photonic Thrusters?

Yes, this compets effectively with nuclear pulse, but technology readiness is lower down. However I consider both Leik Myrabo and Young Bae friends, (and I had the great opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with Jordin Kare, founder of a laser power company and developer of Laser Sustained Detonation and Bob Forward, developer of the multi-stage light sail).


1620702463578.png

1620702491508.png

This technology will make constant boost ships common place throughout the solar system, at very low cost, and will take us to the stars. Yet they require very powerful lasers to operate at all, and that's the challenge. Free electron lasers powered by atomic blasts is a natural extension of nuclear pulse with fission free pellets. Lasers operating on the solar surface, as suggested by my friend Steve Nixon a few years ago, is pure genius! haha Are these part of secret space programs? They far more than speculative. Forward's ideas were derived from others 40 years ago. They were speculative then, but Young Bae's photonic thruster, and Leik Myrabo's test flights of laser light craft along with ETH students design for passenger ships based on laser light craft technology, are far in advance and not speculative at all at this stage.

1620702684603.png
1620702701460.png

View: https://youtu.be/GpX8McN8BoY


View: https://youtu.be/QICCrlmBjvY



If you've read this far, thank you! !
 
Last edited:
I LOVE this ! the grand scale vision and the details... well articulated. I should try to articulate my own grand vision someday.
 
I LOVE this ! the grand scale vision and the details... well articulated. I should try to articulate my own grand vision someday.

Thanks. I recall when SpaceX was recovering boosters for his Falcon Heavy I looked on in wonderment and recalled when I was 15 years old in Class following the moon landing dreaming of landing rockets just this way -- the same way LEM landed on the moon. I got close, spent my whole life working on this. haha. I'm very happy you liked it.
 
I think I'd have been satisfied with just mass producing a booster, any booster, to get a flight rate in the 50-100/year range.

How cheap were Soyuz and Atlas Agena in the old days when they were each putting up a film spysat every week? I'm surprised they weren't cheaper, given the impressive flight rates.

Or would it have been feasible to land a Saturn V or some other big booster on a 1km^2 concrete touchdown pad with Atlas motors? No need for fancy guidance or hoverslam, just stick a dozen engines on the bottom and turn them off two by two.
 
Last edited:
I have a 1968 Bellcomm memo mentionning a cost of a $3 million for a standard Agena D, possibly as low as $1 million if produced in large numbers.

Titan boosters were also (potentially) cheap back then because back in 62-64 Martin production line and CCAFS I-T-L launch complex had been designed for grossly exagerated flight rates - up to 50 a year (sounds familiar ? same mistake done for the Shuttle a decade later ! Interestingly enough, both launch vehicles ended insanely expensive in the 90's - $500 million for Titan IV and even more for the Shuttle...)
 
Something pretty amazing is
- the Air Force with Titan III in 1963
- NASA in 1972 with the Shuttle
- and the military again in the late 90's with EELVs (!)
Three times, they got their predicted launch rates completely wrong and three times they ended with a grossly oversized production line / infrastructure; and three times the end result was a $500 million+ per launch rocket: Titan IV, Shuttle, and Delta IV Heavy.
Oversimplifying things for sure, but the similitudes are striking - and quite irritating, too... between the "Shuttle hydrogen crisis" in 1990; the "great Titan IV crisis" circa 1998-99; and the more recent "last Delta IV Heavy" that was scrubbed for a month or more...
 
Something pretty amazing is
- the Air Force with Titan III in 1963
- NASA in 1972 with the Shuttle
- and the military again in the late 90's with EELVs (!)
Three times, they got their predicted launch rates completely wrong and three times they ended with a grossly oversized production line / infrastructure; and three times the end result was a $500 million+ per launch rocket: Titan IV, Shuttle, and Delta IV Heavy.

It's a valid observation and worth asking what their assumptions were in each case. I don't actually know what the 1963 assumptions were.

The shuttle traffic model was based upon wishful thinking and outright lying. I think part of the problem was that they did not account for increasing satellite lifetimes. So they assumed a 1:1 replacement rate, but when satellites started lasting a lot longer, they did not have to be replaced as soon or often. The shuttle model also assumed a huge number of Spacelab missions that would drive the launch rate up and the per-launch cost down. Except that those Spacelab missions had to be paid for by NASA, so when NASA didn't pay for them, the flight rate dropped.

The EELV rate was based upon the assumption that commercial demand for comsat launches was going to increase dramatically. It didn't, and that left the producers with tremendous over-capacity. (I've been through the ULA assembly facility in Decatur, Alabama, and it was sized for a much higher production run. The place was sleepy. I have also gone through SpaceX's facility and it was--well, the second and later times I visited--all hustle and bustle.)
 
Teledesic: the (failed) space venture and giga-constellation that forever disgusted Bill Gates from space matters... he could have been the 90's Elon Musk - or not (considering how irritating Windows "philosphy" can be, a Windows-like space program... no thanks - shudders.)
 
Though we may not be quite safe yet:
Unfortunately for old Bill, his divorce and... zipper may led to a postpone of such plans.
I think we are presently safe... :eek:
 
Or would it have been feasible to land a Saturn V or some other big booster on a 1km^2 concrete touchdown pad with Atlas motors? No need for fancy guidance or hoverslam, just stick a dozen engines on the bottom and turn them off two by two.
It wouldn't be feasible. Fancy guidance would still be needed. Same goes for hover slam with non throttleable engines.
 
commercial demand for comsat launches was going to increase dramatically
Ah, the Teledesic and Iridium era.

There were three or four others as well. I think there was GlobalStar and Ellipsat, and at least one more.

I don't know of any good histories about this period, but everybody seems to have forgotten about it, and everybody also seems to have forgotten the lessons of this era. In short, by the mid-1990s there was a belief that comsats were going to take off. Some people expected a big increase in demand from Asia for more GEO comsats, and then there were the "Big LEOs" and "Little LEOs" which were constellations of low Earth orbiting comsats. And because there was all this talk about launching lots and lots of comsats, there were a bunch of companies trying to enter into the launch vehicle market, and existing companies like Boeing and McDonnell Douglas and Martin Marietta (well, until a lot of the mergers happened) thought they had a leg up and could build a lot of rockets.

And then it all collapsed. Asia's economy went into a lull and so they didn't buy GEO comsats. And the LEO companies didn't find any markets. Iridium found that cellphone companies could put up towers faster that it could put up satellites, and they actually went bankrupt. And you can look up the others, some of whom burned a lot of cash. And once that happened, the predictions of launch vehicle demand tanked. Around 1997 or 1998 there were about a dozen different companies all planning to get into the launch market, and then they all folded up. There was Rocketplane and Rotary and blah blah blah.

Now today SpaceX is building Starlink and there are several other big LEO companies emerging, and one could ask if this is all really going to happen, or are they going to collapse as well? Some things are different, and some of these companies have a lot more cash to burn, so they might stick around a lot longer before they fold. But there are a lot of parallels as well.
 
I think I'd have been satisfied with just mass producing a booster, any booster, to get a flight rate in the 50-100/year range.

How cheap were Soyuz and Atlas Agena in the old days when they were each putting up a film spysat every week? I'm surprised they weren't cheaper, given the impressive flight rates.

Or would it have been feasible to land a Saturn V or some other big booster on a 1km^2 concrete touchdown pad with Atlas motors? No need for fancy guidance or hoverslam, just stick a dozen engines on the bottom and turn them off two by two.

Why use rockets? :) At that point, why not use jet engines since they would actually mass less and be less of an issue for turn-around and refurbishment?
(Yes NASA looked at it, among others including wings and boost-back, but concluded the payload penalty was sufficient they concentrated more on down-range recovery. specifically the flight rate was not going to be high enough to every need a really 'rapid' turn around. The Project Horizon flight rate was enough to justify recovery and reuse but it was vastly higher than any possible space program was going to need and that holds true today as well. More specifically the requirement for Heavy Lift is very inflexible)

Randy
 
TheSpaceBucket has just posted a video about the latest Falcon Heavy launch:


Last night after lightning and a few other delays, the sixth Falcon Heavy lifted off, however, there were a few differences from a typical launch. For one, the reusable rocket had no landing legs installed, and instead of three recovered boosters, all were expended during the mission. Not to mention, the upper stage featured a gray band at the top crucial to the success of the launch.
In reality, the massive primary payload and its distant orbit forced SpaceX to utilize every bit of power and launch with a fully expendable Falcon Heavy. As for the gray band, this was needed due to the mission’s long coast phase between subsequent burns. Both of which allowed Falcon Heavy to successfully deliver its primary and secondary payloads to their respective orbits.
While it’s not ideal to expend three boosters that could have been reused, mission requirements determine what ends up happening to the rocket. Here I will go more in-depth into the decision to expend the entire rocket, the importance of the gray band, what to expect in the coming weeks, and more.
 
Here's a video taking a closer look at the Falcon Heavy's design by TheSpaceBucket:


The Falcon Heavy is not only one of the most powerful rockets in the world but also one of the most unique. After a few successful initial launches, there was a multi-year period without any missions. Thankfully, recently this came to an end and now the rocket is in the middle of its busiest year ever. All this being said, the design and development of this launch vehicle were far from easy.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as strapping two extra Falcon boosters to the side of a Falcon 9. In reality, an immense amount of work and innovation went into creating this system that still isn't perfect. With the next launch scheduled just over a month away in July, SpaceX is already preparing for lift-off.
Here I will go more in-depth into the engineering behind this rocket, the work still being done to improve it, what to expect in the coming weeks, and more.
 
How is this not any different than the Delta IV Heavy design.
 
I may have asked this before…but wasn’t a five core Falcon superheavy talked about?

Instead of each having a set of legs…could they be fashioned into something like Saturn I but with telescoping legs coming straight down from the gaps in between?

Allows for a wide upper fairing…
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom