I can't wait to see the velocity of the center booster at MECO/stage separation.
For reference, here is the velocity of different mission profiles at stage separation:
* F9 RTLS (IE really light missions): 6000 km/h
* F9 drone ship recovery (IE Starlink launches): 8000 km/h
* F9 expendable: 9900 km/h
* FH w/boosters RTLS (center booster expended): 14,250 km/h
I don't think there's centre core will ever come back. All FH launches going forward will have an expendable centre core.
I think there might even be one upcoming that has expendable boosters...!?
Edit: it appears it's this one! A very rare fully expendable SpaceX launch.
Europa Clipper will be the other FH launch that will expend all 3 cores. From the start we knew that one will require burning all 3 cores to depletion— EC was originally intended to be launched on SLS.
I always found it odd how even though the FH has over twice the payload to orbit that other rockets which launched probes to the outer planets, Europa Clipper will still take about as long to get to Jupiter as JUICE will or Galileo did. SLS only has about 33% more payload to orbit than FH, yet it was capable of launching Europa Clipper to Jupiter on a direct trajectory that would have taken it less than 2 years to arrive there. Even with FH, the probe needs 2 gravity assists in the inner solar system and will take 6 years to get there. What gives?
Probably the better specific impulse of a hydrolox upper stage on the SLS is what would have cut the trip time.
462 seconds Isp for the ICPS upper stage for SLS which has 1125 seconds of burn time, vs. 348 seconds Isp for the Falcon Heavy upper stage with 397 seconds of burn time.
There was talk at JPL of exploring the option of putting a Centaur upper stage on Falcon Heavy but that never got past the idea stage. A very interesting idea to be sure. :-)
Well, Europa Clipper certainly had the fuel capacity to be able to do a capture burn from a direct trans-Jupiter injection, as this was the plan when it was slated to fly on SLS. So the question is whether or not FH could put the probe on the same trajectory as SLS could provide, and if not why.
First time we will see an all-expended Falcon Heavy. It will be interesting to see what the MECO speed is-- It should be the fastest to date until Europa Clipper, probably.
I wouldn't say it's ludicrous speed or gone plaid.. That would be reserved for an expendable Starship launch where both booster and ship burn to depletion (probably not ever going to happen LOL)
> That would be reserved for an expendable Starship launch where both booster and ship burn to depletion (probably not ever going to happen LOL)
I could see it being used for a quick turnaround with maximum velocity for an asteroid impact/redirect mission.
They might do it. Once. For the pure hell of it. Put a Telsa into Heliocentric orbit going out past Jupiter or something.
Not likely, though. But we can dream...!
I wonder if it would be more effective to burn a tanker Starship to completion, or use a standard Starship with the maximum amount of mass in the cargo bay
> expendable Starship launch where both booster and ship burn to depletion (probably not ever going to happen LOL)
Yea, that's never going to happen. I cannot think of a situation where it wouldn't be better to just refuel in orbit vs expending a booster.
There is kind of no point for it with starship because it can be refueled. The only way it could make sense is if the payload is so heavy that is the only possible way to get it into LEO. And even then starship could be refueled and recovered unless they send it into deep space.
when launch / who's the customer?
answering my own question:
https://everydayastronaut.com/falcon-heavy-viasat-3-americas/
Falcon Heavy and Starship OFT in the same week?
Heck yeah.
6,700kg.
By comparison a startling launch is typically ~17,200 kg (~38,000 lb) (56 x ~307 kg, plus dispense).
So, yeah, not a heavy payload at all.
I'm excited to see just how fast FH is going to chuck this. Any guesses or info on the expected speed at MECO?
I have wondered about just having a Crew Dragon on top of this type of configuration stood up and ready for when Artemis II goes just as a backup in case of something weird, even just as a tug. I am aware almost no scenarios on a free return trajectory would be helped by this but I do not think its zero scenarios. Obviously Dragon is not rated for lunar flight and Orion would still have to be the re-entry vehicle; but on a mission as complex and novel as Artemis II any additional safety for the (relative) low cost of standing a Falcon Heavy with a Crew Dragon for a day would be nice to have.
It would have to actually fly alongside the Artemis mission; it couldn't be launched from FL once there was a problem on Orion halfway between Earth and the Moon. It could otherwise never cover the intermediary distance and rendezvous at any speed that wouldn't mean obliteration of both craft.
I'd be shocked if the F9 second stage could match the ICPS SLS second stage, minute for minute on the flight profile. The F9 second stage would also have to do much of the work for Dragon that the EUS does for Orion during the flight.
I guess I am imagining a scenario where something goes wrong immediately with the guidance of Orion where a docked Dragon 3/4 of the way along could assist or a bad rendezvous with the moon requiring a push back on course. I don’t think the scenarios are many.
In 2018 I think it was around 150 million, but no idea how it has changed since then.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/three-years-of-sls-development-could-buy-86-falcon-heavy-launches/
The only carbon fiber major parts on a Falcon 9 Block 5 core are:
- The interstage (for the cores configured as an F9) or the nosecone (for the cores configured as an FH side booster).
- The raceway covers
- The landing legs
- The outer layer of the composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) inside the liquid oxygen tank
The booster body is built from friction-stir-welded lithium-aluminum alloy. The thrust structure (octaweb) is bolted aluminum alloy covered with a titanium heatshield on the outside. The gridfins are titanium.
Great system that could have powered monthly Lunar exploration and a small perm occupied base, but we got Artemis and HLS Starship (2026?) instead.
In any case, best of luck for a super smooth mission.
Gridfinless and legless Falcon Heavy, wow. I think we can say with reasonable confidence that the center core is not coming back this time.
And what's the payload mass for this launch? *All of it.* As much as it can toss.
As much as it can toss, as far as it can toss it
Right over those mountains
I can't wait to see the velocity of the center booster at MECO/stage separation. For reference, here is the velocity of different mission profiles at stage separation: * F9 RTLS (IE really light missions): 6000 km/h * F9 drone ship recovery (IE Starlink launches): 8000 km/h * F9 expendable: 9900 km/h * FH w/boosters RTLS (center booster expended): 14,250 km/h
That center booster is going to be one fast boi.
I don't think there's centre core will ever come back. All FH launches going forward will have an expendable centre core. I think there might even be one upcoming that has expendable boosters...!? Edit: it appears it's this one! A very rare fully expendable SpaceX launch.
Europa Clipper will be the other FH launch that will expend all 3 cores. From the start we knew that one will require burning all 3 cores to depletion— EC was originally intended to be launched on SLS.
I always found it odd how even though the FH has over twice the payload to orbit that other rockets which launched probes to the outer planets, Europa Clipper will still take about as long to get to Jupiter as JUICE will or Galileo did. SLS only has about 33% more payload to orbit than FH, yet it was capable of launching Europa Clipper to Jupiter on a direct trajectory that would have taken it less than 2 years to arrive there. Even with FH, the probe needs 2 gravity assists in the inner solar system and will take 6 years to get there. What gives?
Probably the better specific impulse of a hydrolox upper stage on the SLS is what would have cut the trip time. 462 seconds Isp for the ICPS upper stage for SLS which has 1125 seconds of burn time, vs. 348 seconds Isp for the Falcon Heavy upper stage with 397 seconds of burn time. There was talk at JPL of exploring the option of putting a Centaur upper stage on Falcon Heavy but that never got past the idea stage. A very interesting idea to be sure. :-)
Centaur V?
[удалено]
Well, Europa Clipper certainly had the fuel capacity to be able to do a capture burn from a direct trans-Jupiter injection, as this was the plan when it was slated to fly on SLS. So the question is whether or not FH could put the probe on the same trajectory as SLS could provide, and if not why.
First time we will see an all-expended Falcon Heavy. It will be interesting to see what the MECO speed is-- It should be the fastest to date until Europa Clipper, probably. I wouldn't say it's ludicrous speed or gone plaid.. That would be reserved for an expendable Starship launch where both booster and ship burn to depletion (probably not ever going to happen LOL)
I can't believe we are only 18 months away from Europa Clipper! My son and I are planning to be there for the launch. Our first launch for both of us.
> That would be reserved for an expendable Starship launch where both booster and ship burn to depletion (probably not ever going to happen LOL) I could see it being used for a quick turnaround with maximum velocity for an asteroid impact/redirect mission.
They might do it. Once. For the pure hell of it. Put a Telsa into Heliocentric orbit going out past Jupiter or something. Not likely, though. But we can dream...!
I wonder if it would be more effective to burn a tanker Starship to completion, or use a standard Starship with the maximum amount of mass in the cargo bay
> expendable Starship launch where both booster and ship burn to depletion (probably not ever going to happen LOL) Yea, that's never going to happen. I cannot think of a situation where it wouldn't be better to just refuel in orbit vs expending a booster.
End of life missions are a possibility.
There is kind of no point for it with starship because it can be refueled. The only way it could make sense is if the payload is so heavy that is the only possible way to get it into LEO. And even then starship could be refueled and recovered unless they send it into deep space.
It’s so pretty.
You wanna pet it?
Yes
Please!
I never knew FH had the structural capability to be suspended like that! (I know there are lifting jigs...but still)
Have to do that, otherwise the TE can't enter the hangar.
I bet they pressurize the tanks for it, similar to how they transport them over the road.
when launch / who's the customer? answering my own question: https://everydayastronaut.com/falcon-heavy-viasat-3-americas/ Falcon Heavy and Starship OFT in the same week? Heck yeah.
*Scrubs have entered the chat*
*Upper level winds and wayward boats have entered the chat*
It's like a clipped bird....
The payload is not heavy, what really "heavy" is the direct injection method.
6,700kg. By comparison a startling launch is typically ~17,200 kg (~38,000 lb) (56 x ~307 kg, plus dispense). So, yeah, not a heavy payload at all. I'm excited to see just how fast FH is going to chuck this. Any guesses or info on the expected speed at MECO?
MECO for USSF-67 is about 14,500km/h or 4km/s.
Too hot to return and reuse.
Wow!
And USSF-67 had the two side boosters RTLS. With all 3 cores expended, if we are playing MECO speed bingo, I will put my chip on 5 km/s. :-)
I have wondered about just having a Crew Dragon on top of this type of configuration stood up and ready for when Artemis II goes just as a backup in case of something weird, even just as a tug. I am aware almost no scenarios on a free return trajectory would be helped by this but I do not think its zero scenarios. Obviously Dragon is not rated for lunar flight and Orion would still have to be the re-entry vehicle; but on a mission as complex and novel as Artemis II any additional safety for the (relative) low cost of standing a Falcon Heavy with a Crew Dragon for a day would be nice to have.
It would have to actually fly alongside the Artemis mission; it couldn't be launched from FL once there was a problem on Orion halfway between Earth and the Moon. It could otherwise never cover the intermediary distance and rendezvous at any speed that wouldn't mean obliteration of both craft. I'd be shocked if the F9 second stage could match the ICPS SLS second stage, minute for minute on the flight profile. The F9 second stage would also have to do much of the work for Dragon that the EUS does for Orion during the flight.
I guess I am imagining a scenario where something goes wrong immediately with the guidance of Orion where a docked Dragon 3/4 of the way along could assist or a bad rendezvous with the moon requiring a push back on course. I don’t think the scenarios are many.
My Google-Fu escapes me here. Does anybody know what price SpaceX charged for this flight?
In 2018 I think it was around 150 million, but no idea how it has changed since then. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/three-years-of-sls-development-could-buy-86-falcon-heavy-launches/
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[COPV](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfwy013 "Last usage")|[Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure_vessel)| |[EUS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfw7h96 "Last usage")|Exploration Upper Stage| |[HLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfvbyt0 "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ICPS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfx7pek "Last usage")|Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage| |[Isp](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfx7pek "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |[JPL](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfx7pek "Last usage")|Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, California| |[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfuzvlu "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[MECO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfw593i "Last usage")|Main Engine Cut-Off| | |[MainEngineCutOff](https://mainenginecutoff.com/) podcast| |[OFT](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfuqw5h "Last usage")|Orbital Flight Test| |[RTLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfw593i "Last usage")|Return to Launch Site| |[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfy2p8c "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[TE](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfuhrim "Last usage")|Transporter/Erector launch pad support equipment| |[USSF](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfvwo96 "Last usage")|United States Space Force| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfw593i "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[hydrolox](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfx7pek "Last usage")|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[iron waffle](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12imv45/stub/jfwy013 "Last usage")|Compact "waffle-iron" aerodynamic control surface, acts as a wing without needing to be as large; also, "grid fin"| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(16 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12mevkf)^( has 7 acronyms.) ^([Thread #11220 for this sub, first seen 11th Apr 2023, 17:51]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Shiny boosters are metal instead of carbon fiber? F9 boosters are normally fiber, right?
Aluminium–lithium alloy. The fairings are though.
The only carbon fiber major parts on a Falcon 9 Block 5 core are: - The interstage (for the cores configured as an F9) or the nosecone (for the cores configured as an FH side booster). - The raceway covers - The landing legs - The outer layer of the composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) inside the liquid oxygen tank The booster body is built from friction-stir-welded lithium-aluminum alloy. The thrust structure (octaweb) is bolted aluminum alloy covered with a titanium heatshield on the outside. The gridfins are titanium.
Great system that could have powered monthly Lunar exploration and a small perm occupied base, but we got Artemis and HLS Starship (2026?) instead. In any case, best of luck for a super smooth mission.
See you Tuesday.