Falcon Heavy LEO capacity increased to 64 tons

>Falcon Heavy LEO capacity increased to 64 tons
sleep tight NASA

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Act
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>implying that if the shithead conservatives hadn't completely cut the funding of the NASA program we wouldn't already have permanent colonies on mars and beyond.

that money wasn't going towards launch vehicle technology. it was going towards climate change research and other white mans welfare boondoggles completely unrelated to space travel.

NASA has become a "catch-all" agency and has severely strayed from its original mission statement.

>NASA might be able to put up a 70 ton payload for $2 billion once every couple years
>SpaceX will be putting up 70 ton payloads for $90 million every month

if they had kept the funding at the levels that got us a man on the moon (adjusted for inflation) we would have had a mars colony ten years ago.

the literally gutted NASA and let its intellectual braintrust get scattered to the wind because of stupid conservatives pandering to stupid ignorant religious morons.

That's such a fucking non-sequitor. What does religion have to do with NASA's failures?

Buzz Aldrin received Communion on the moon.

anti-science Christian conservatives are a pestilence that have crippled the space program for generations.

>we can only have a space program if we privatize it and run it for profit by private corporations t.conservative asshole

...

Sure are a lot of hot buzzwords being thrown around in here. People just stopped giving a shit as a whole. You can scream at nixon all you want, it was going to happen regardless.

How can NASA sleep tight? This could allow some exciting new payloads! NASA and SpaceX aren't enemies.

ULA on the other hand is probably sweating bullets

Reality feels fake. We are given tools that don't explain simple things. This is sunlight shining off a bike reflector through my back door and onto the garage. The reflected light made a rainbow. I carry around a magnafying glass cause I'm weird like that. Here is the weird part. You can only see the image if you have a magnifying glass. The sunlight on the garage just looks like a rainbow until you use optics.

I will let the picture try to explain.

Light caries information, but how?

Still can't launch faster than 1 per month
Can't use more than 1 pad at a time

FH won't be launching this year
Dnno why SpaceX is so slow

>colonies on mars

JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES

Who would have guessed that shithead conservatives are the reason nasa failed to develop a reuseable space shuttle.

>believing anything NASA says.

never give NASA the money to do that then be shocked they never do.

>never give NASA the money to do that
NASA received about $200 billion for the Space Shuttle and it still sucked though? In fact adjusted for inflation the Space Shuttle program cost twice as much as the Apollo program

NOAA should be doing atmospheric research.

NASA should be making sick airplanes and spaceships.

>NOAA should be doing atmospheric research.
>
>NASA should be making sick satellites, probes, and telescopes and doing extensive mission planning.
>
>Private companies should be making sick spaceships.
ftfy

NASA's effectiveness at designing and manufacturing spacecraft is severely impacted by ignorant farts in congress. Only if that issue is fixed should NASA return to the spacecraft business. For now, their efforts are better spent on the payloads and missions that go on the rockets, not the rockets themselves.

>SpaceX
>slow

kek

>New Glenn reusable capacity matches Falcon Heavy expendable capacity right out of the gate
sleep tight SpaceX

>New Glenn doesn't exist yet
Sleep tight Blue Origin

Musk had to build a minimum cost launch vehicle asap
To make money to fund the company

The 70 tons to LEO stat is for an expendable launch my dude. We're not at the point yet where it's industry standard to give reusable operations payload stats. NG reusable mode will have comparable stats as reusable Falcon Heavy, due to a more efficient propulsion system but no boosters to stage away.

Also, count down to SpaceX unveiling a new launch vehicle to fit between Falcon 9 and the ITS, using 9 Raptors on the first stage and full reusability of all hardware, ending up more capable and cheaper than NG.

The best way to make sure your company is going to keep existing is to start making money immediately and base your designs around what is going to have the potential to make the most money from the lessons you learn.

Imagine a startup coal mining company trying to build a Bagger-288 without ever putting a shovel in the ground.

i hope blue origin fails since their engines use hydrogen and methane as fuels.

>The 70 tons to LEO stat is for an expendable launch my dude.
nope
NG uses almost negligible fuel for recovery and will never be flown in expendable configuration

Got any math to back that up?

So then why does every up-to-date source I can find lists the NG as being capable of lifting up to 45 tons to LEO? 70 tons was never an official number, it was an estimate. The 45 tons number will probably change too as NG is developed, but it's a more up to date number than 70 tons, and from BO themselves.

Oh, and
>NG uses almost negligible fuel for recovery
With that loooooong ass landing burn? Guess again.

>and will never be flown in expendable configuration
This I believe, but as I already said, that previously stated number is a simple 'this is how much shit this thing can orbit at once, maximum' and doesn't reflect performance after taking reusability and other factors into account. That's why Falcon 9 lists its max payload as over 22 tons, but it can actually only lift 10 currently, since that's what its payload attachment fitting can handle. Not saying they can't develop a stronger one, just that with so few >10 ton payloads, they don't need to. Of course, the mass they can orbit while still being able to recover the booster is even lower, at just over 5 tons.

Don't think you can make any statements like that before anything has flown, especially when they intend to do very slow landings

None of the rockets in this thread have flown, or are you posting from the future?

3-stage variant, my dude

>With that loooooong ass landing burn? Guess again.
far more efficient to use one burn at the very end than three burns with the spacex approach

>NASA has become a "catch-all" agency and has severely strayed from its original mission statement.

Maybe you should read the original mission statement?

Here's some help, literally the first mission statement of NASA is the following

>The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space

ATMOSPHERE and SPACE, meaning the study of the Earth's atmosphere, which is central in studying climate change. NASA was never intended to just launch space vehicles, it's always been a scientific research body first.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Act

>responds to obvious bait/derail post
>pretends to be intelligent

>far more efficient to use one burn at the very end than three burns with the spacex approach

Got a source for that or are you making conjecture?

BO's approach precludes rapid reusability, because the booster lands so far down range that they'll need at least a few days to sail back, the who knows how long to check the rocket. More time at sea means more salty sea spray and more corrosion. Bad for rockets.

SpaceX is doing boost back burns because they want to eventually be able to get down to as low as a 24 hour turnaround. With Falcon Heavy they'll also be able to have payloads that would require Falcon 9 to land down range instead fly on Heavy with 3 core RTLS landing. The ultimate goal of SpaceX is to get rid of barge landings and down range landings of any kind, which probably won't be realized with the Falcon family, but it going to happen with the ITS.

>3-stage variant

Booster stage can only get so much off of the pad, you know. Unless you think the three stage variant is going to use all three stages just to reach orbit.

Literally no one reputable is still saying New Glenn will be launching 70 ton payloads, that number has gone out the window.

>Got a source for that or are you making conjecture?
They are using one burn for landing. This is common knowledge.

>BO's approach precludes rapid reusability
yawn
landing on a boat in general precludes rapid reusability

rapid reusability is also pointless unless you're refueling something on orbit

Literally no one reputable is still saying New Glenn will be launching 70 ton payloads
kek

>They are using one burn for landing. This is common knowledge.

I wasn't asking about the single burn you dumbass, I'm asking it it's been shown to be significantly more efficient.

>landing on a boat in general precludes rapid reusability

Yeah, and BO has no option without the use of boost-back burns to avoid boat landings. Which is a problem SpaceX does not share. Which is my point.

>rapid reusability is also pointless unless you're refueling something on orbit
Unless you plan on building a massive LEO satellite constellation using cheap satellites manufactured in-house which require frequent replacement in order to provide low latency high speed satellite internet to customers across the globe which in turn sets yourself up for a massive revenue stream.
Which is something SpaceX has actively been working towards.

>implying Zubrin factored in losses due to reusability launch profiles and hardware

You can either have your cake or eat it. Either NG will be able to launch 70 ton payloads or it will never launch in expendable mode.

Why are people talking about BO as an even-strength competitor to SpaceX when they haven't actually launched anything of significance?

>estimate

into the trash it goes

>moving the goalposts this hard

Because BO shills confuse appreciation for SpaceX's current accomplishments as mindless fanboyism and therefore apply that fanboyism to their own team's future plans

And then people make things like pic related and it all devolves into shit flinging

>reputable source
>an estimate made by a guy outside of the company more than 6 months ago
>vs a direct statement from BO weeks ago

hmmm

There is no direct statement of 3-stage NG capacity, m8

Don't ask for a source and then act like a butthurt faggot when you get one.

This discussion is resolved.

see
>70 tons was never an official number, it was an estimate.

Remember when I said this?
I do.

You said "no one reputable;" or do you honestly think you're smarter than Robert Zubrin?

Why cant we just get along?

I don't see a source, I see a guy scribbling on a napkin.

My point during this """"discussion"""" has been that the 70 ton figure given for New Glenn is for a hypothetical expendable launch, and that with reusability factored in that number drops to 45 tons, which is the fucking given stated number for maximum payload on New Glenn, from BO themselves. The optional third stage increases payload mass onto GTO, TLI and Earth Escape trajectories. It won't increase LEO payload.

Your point, as best I can tell, is that NG will somehow be able to place 70 tons into LEO in reusable mode, which is impossible. The math doesn't work.

Being smart is irrelevant.

Zubrin didn't factor in payload losses due to reusability, plain and simple. That doesn't make anybody smarter than anybody else, it's just a fact.

It is a fact that Zubrin made that estimate without looking at detailed information from BO about NG, he looked at the same animation and presentation as everyone else.

It is ALSO a fact that BO has released statements saying New Glenn will, at MAXIMUM, be able to place 45 tons into LEO in reusable mode. I trust that the actual engineers currently working on the rocket know more about the rocket than Zubrin did six months ago.

conflict is more interesting

plus SpaceX and BO are both rivals in an industry that isn't easy to survive in, no matter how anyone spins it the conflict is there and will continue to be there.

You're actually trying to equate a two and a three stage vehicle, in capability, flight path & trajectory.

You are certifiably retarded.

>trying to dodge the point I'm making this hard

stop being a slippery nigger and accept that BO themselves say New Glenn will NEVER EVER fly a payload over 45 tons.

You yourself admitted that the 6 tone figure for FH is bogus and will never happen.

All you're doing at this point is criticizing BO for being honest while at the same time praising SpaceX for posting disingenuous numbers on their site.

>adjusted for inflation
brainlet

>You yourself admitted that the 6 tone figure for FH is bogus and will never happen.

What are you talking about? 6 ton figure? You mean 63? I said something along the lines of 'that won't happen until a customer with a big enough payload to justify a new PAF design gets in line for a launch'. SpaceX is willing to launch their payloads on expendable flights. Whether or not FH can launch 63 tons in reusable mode doesn't matter, because we know it can fly in expendable mode, and we know in expendable mode it can (or is targeted to be able to, whatever).

I'm not criticizing BO for anything. I'm criticizing YOU for being wrong and spreading misinformation. NG will be able to launch 45 tons in reusable mode and that's great. It WOULD be able to launch 70 tons in EXPENDABLE mode, but you correctly pointed out that BO says NG will never fly expendable, therefore it will never fly a 70 ton payload. I'm not saying never flying expendable is a bad thing, either. It works for SpaceX but maybe it won't work for BO so they aren't doing it.

I already ended the discussion, you're talking to yourself now, but maybe that's your thing, because you're autistic? I don't know and quite frankly I don't care. Maybe you'll get the point eventually in a few years time, for autistic people it takes time I understand to get the point and bear in mind you're one of the lucky ones, some autists never actually get the point, which may be your case, I hope not, because I really want from you to get the point, but I doubt you will, because your autism is severe by the looks of it.

>ITS will put 300t in LEO in reusable and 550t in expendable version
Sleep tight BO

>'''''ended''''' the discussion
>keeps replying

k

Just because you arbitrarily decided to not keep talking about this but then keep talking about it and then deny what I'm pointing out as facts about BO's official statements on the performance of New Glenn by simply not addressing it and resorting to ad homonim doesn't mean you're correct or in any way not btfo.

If you'd rather go off and have a little cry somewhere I won't stop you. Maybe go find another BO shill and you two can jerk each other off.

>meanwhile ULA is continuing to look the other way and develop Vulcan

it's almost kinda sad

those fucks

Has better CGI too

Who the hell directed the New Glenn video? That bizarre green screen effect at the beginning, the out of place smoke/steam effect on the pad, the too-shaky cam, the lack of lingering shots that let you actually see what's happening half the time, that god awful music.

"Just fuck it all up, senpai" -Bezos at some point

As a BO-shill, please dont involve me or my penis
>inb4 "short, stubby and not much of a (pay )load

One major disaster involving loss of human life and private space exploration will be gutted by the public outrage.

You mean like how passenger jets never took off because the first series ever built just kept spontaneously exploding mid-air during passenger flights?

>public outrage

Why? People will "boo who" but not be raging.

>ITS will fly any time before 2035, if ever
said no sane person ever

>the government should spend hundreds of billions every year on the hobby of nerds.

passenger jets were accessible to most normal people within ten years of first flying

60 years later an no normal person has ever been to space (especially since they blew up the last one to try)

>if they had kept the funding at the levels that got us a man on the moon (adjusted for inflation) we would have had a mars colony ten years ago.
>the literally gutted NASA
The Apollo Program ran from 1961 to 1972, inclusive. The average budget over those 12 years was about $26 billion in inflation-adjusted (2014) dollars. The lowest it ever dipped afterward in a single year was about $14.5 billion, and lately it has been hanging around $18-$19 billion.

That's not "literally gutted". NASA has consistently had oodles of money to work with ever since the Apollo era.

And what you have to remember about the Apollo era is that NASA went into it without having ever put a man in orbit, and NASA was working with a 1960s technology base. They should have gotten much *more* efficient with experience and better technology.

It has never been about the amount of money budgeted for NASA. It was always about mismanagement.

ITS spacecraft stage by it self is a single stage to orbit vehicle.

>NASA and SpaceX aren't enemies.
MSFC (the branch of NASA that does SLS/Orion) has no reason to exist if commercial options exist to do its job at lower costs and on shorter schedules. SpaceX is now claiming that Falcon Heavy can lift essentially the same payloads as the SLS core+boosters. Stick a 5-meter LOX/H2 Earth-departure stage on top of that (much easier and cheaper than continuing the SLS program), and do two-launch or three-launch missions (as was the plan for Constellation), and it'll meet SLS's long-term goal of surpassing Saturn V's capacity, except it'll do it in the near term and at much lower cost.

Furthermore, the people who were responsible for the shuttle, who cancelled it and threw up their hands and went back to expendable rockets, are seriously discredited when a different group comes along and makes reusability work and be cost-effective.

>landing on a boat in general precludes rapid reusability
SpaceX plans to turn their drone ship into a mini-spaceport that can partially refuel the landed stages so they can immediately fly back to land on a much gentler trajectory. That would mean no additional delay.

>rapid reusability is also pointless
It means schedule freedom and no refurbishment costs for several flights in a row.

>ITS spacecraft stage by it self is a single stage to orbit vehicle.
Not the base model. They have to leave off the reusability stuff and replace the vacuum Raptors with sea-level ones.

I suspect they'll use this capability to launch an ITS Spaceship as a LEO station, and visit it by Dragon, using it for research and as a space tourism destination.

That would be more useful volume than ISS in a single launch, for a claimed unit price of $200 million. (probably $2-3 billion to get to that point in the ITS program)

I was under the impression that the idea of flying the booster back to land from the drone ship wasn't being seriously considered, and that instead payloads that would require Falcon 9 to land on the drone ship would instead be flown with Falcon Heavy, which could still perform RTLS landings.

Only the very biggest, highest altitude payloads would require Falcon Heavy's center core to land on the drone ship, and no payload today is heavy enough that the boosters would need to land on drone ships. Eventually there may be payloads that big but until then SpaceX will be able to perform the majority of their launches without needing the drone ship, and thus avoiding those shipping delays.

>passenger jets were accessible to most normal people within ten years of first flying
>60 years later
Early spaceflight is more comparable to early aviation, which started in 1783 with the first untethered hot air balloon passenger flight.

Passenger jets were the product of a century and a half of accelerating progress in manned flight, and nearly half a century of heavier-than-air flight. Jets were an evolutionary development from propeller craft, which had already solved the basic problems of reliability, safety, and economy.

The Wright Flyer in this analogy is the Falcon-9-Dragon with its flyback booster and propulsive-landing capsule, not the expendable Vostok or Atlas-Mercury, which are more analogous to early balloon flights. For spaceflight, we're in 1902, not 1960.

>no normal person has ever been to space
Space Adventures put rich people in orbit for about $20 million each, using spare seats on Soyuz headed to the ISS.

Falcon Heavy isn't very good for flyback recovery, because it's using the same small upper stage as Falcon 9. That means it gains its increased payload by accelerating the center stage to higher speed and altitude before releasing the upper stage.

It'll be farther downrange and going faster away from the launchpad when they have the option of flying back. It would take a huge hit to performance to do so.

I'd believe that they want to do flyback with Falcon Heavy just to avoid having to do a droneship landing, if they put a much more massive upper stage on it.

>rapid reusability is also pointless

What are launch windows?

They can handle a massive hit of FH's performance if they only need to get 6 to 10 tons into orbit. I didn't say they'd never fly FH in a way what requires a drone ship landing, I said they could use FH to fly missions that would require Falcon 9 to do drone ship landing if FH can do RTLS landing with the same payload.

Since the center core throttles down during flight and separates from the boosters with significant fuel remaining, it can continue pushing the second stage for just the few hundred meters per second it needs in order to get itself into the correct orbit. It would then stage away and still have enough fuel to boost back to the launch site.

Of course the maximum payload mass FH could accomplish this with wouldn't be very large, but that doesn't matter, because most payloads would be smaller than that maximum mass anyway. For the few payloads bigger than that, they'll just do downrange landing of the center core, and for the REALLY big payloads they may have to do downrange landings of the side boosters too. The flight and recovery profile is selected to fit the payload mass being launched.

>Of course the maximum payload mass FH could accomplish this with wouldn't be very large, but that doesn't matter, because most payloads would be smaller than that maximum mass anyway.
It's using three cores to do a one-core job. While that might be economical to avoid expending a core, I doubt very much it would be just to avoid a downrange landing.

>for the REALLY big payloads they may have to do downrange landings of the side boosters too
I don't think they'll ever do this. Rather, they'll expend the center core, and the next step after that is expending the side boosters as well. No intermediate of landing side boosters downrange.

Side boosters are the best candidates for flyback landings. They'll burn out earlier, at lower speeds than single boosters, so they'll be easier to turn around.

Why would they be expending boosters they don't have to?
Those barges are cheap compared to expended boosters.

Yes they might expend some obsolete rockets that they don't want to hold onto anymore, but it's not going to be a regular thing to waste hardware.

>Not training at 1g
>not being thicc

The gain from landing boosters downrange is small, and it would mean they need to build, staff, and maintain three drone ships per launch site, and they're planning to have at least three sites.

The drone ships aren't cheap either to build or maintain, and cores are cheaper than you probably believe.

>it's not going to be a regular thing to waste hardware.
It's not going to be a regular thing to launch more than Falcon Heavy can handle with a downrange landing of the center core.

>The drone ships aren't cheap either to build or maintain, and cores are cheaper than you probably believe.

Operating the drone ship for a week to land these boosters is always far cheaper than building & testing a brand new 25 million dollar booster.
The gain from landing downrange is pretty large, its always the last bits of fuel that make the biggest difference.

A bit premature to talk about what the FH will launch before its flown, I suspect that they regularly will need every last bit of payload, especially for deep space missions.

Downrange landings for the Falcon 9 will remain the norm, so they will need lots of these drone ships to maintain a steady launch pace.

I really wonder, what's the point of space travel beyond putting satellites into orbit

>The gain from landing downrange is pretty large, its always the last bits of fuel that make the biggest difference.
Sure, for the single-stick version, not so much for the side boosters of the Heavy.

The side boosters are still pushing a lot of mass when they separate, no matter how depleted they get, so that last extra push against a heavy center core plus upper stage plus payload doesn't matter so much.

Even if they burn to depletion, they're going to be at a lower altitude, moving slower than a single-stick booster at separation. So they don't need to reserve as much propellant to turn around and go home.

Then they can work on better payloads. You know in space cryogenic propellant storage systems, nuclear propulsion, shit like that. Good riddance to SLS.

wut is this

>wut is this

Why, that's a sidebooster being tested for the upcoming Falcon Heavy launch 'around late summer'!

I really wonder, what's the point of maritime travel beyond transporting goods over long distances

is that sarcasm I detect

There is literally no economically sound reason to leave the atmosphere of earth. It is not nor will it ever be worth it.

>t. quaker

we can pollute the fuck out of space and it doesn't matter.

thats a pretty good reason.

Leave my planet. Preferably through death.