SpaceX fudging payload numbers

This 13,000kg payload was including reuse
The 22,800kg payload is expendable payload

Though certainly there has been increases in performance

>>8713969
>This 13,000kg payload was including reuse
>The 22,800kg payload is expendable payload
Source?

>>8713973
my ass
I think its untrue actually.

File: Capture.png (68KB, 1114x383px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1114x383px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Comparison

>>8713969
wrong

>>8713957
Staging.

The Falcon 9 Heavy is a 2.5 stages.
Falcon 9 is 2 stages.

>>8713957
Go ask your question on forum.nasaspaceflight.com actual rocket scientists will answer you.

>>8714005
Yes, that's where I got the numbers from.

Care to comment on those payload increases?

>>8713957
They where attempting reuse on 1.0 and 1.1. On the 1.0 they did a boost back burn followed by parachuting launch specks induced the extra flue used for this decreasing its performance on paper.

In 1.1 they added things like grid fins and later landing legs mid production.

Yes the numbers are all fucked up because of stuff like this. No its not some grand conspiracy.

Hopefully they start launching at a reasonable cadence soon. They have a rather large backlog and could use the extra revenue to fund ITS.

>>8713969
Yeah, at first they were just advertising capacities they were confident they could deliver and which they believed would give them enough margin for landing attempts.

If you have a look at the prices, it says F9 is limited to 5.5 tonnes to GTO, while FH is limited to only 8. They don't advertise a full menu of services with prices, if you want more than that, you have to negotiate. Expendable launches are a special service.

>>8713957
>I'm starting to think that there's no reason to believe any of these numbers until they prove them via payload launch.
These are vehicles in the real world, so of course it's more complicated than a simple single number. Maximum capacity figures are estimates based on assumptions that would take a fairly lengthy explanation.

>how does the payload for Falcon 9 increase by 73% but the payload for Falcon Heavy only increases by 9%?
Falcon Heavy payload figures were probably expendable from the start. But also: the Falcon 9 figures are based on real experience, while they have to be conservative with the Falcon Heavy numbers because they've never flown one. I wouldn't be surprised if after Falcon Heavy starts flying, the max LEO payload goes over 70 tonnes.

>>8714049
>On the 1.0 they did a boost back burn followed by parachuting launch specks induced the extra flue used for this decreasing
There was no boost-back burn on 1.0, it was parachute only, and they never got as far as deploying the parachutes because it kept breaking up on entry. I think when they realized they needed an entry burn, and it was going to be tricky, they decided they might as well just use the restartable engines to land.

Also: are you having a stroke?

>>8714122
My brain dablige or lack there of is no consernt yo you.

And they did at least have parachutes.

>>8713957

Performance increases due to reduced gravity losses can be very significant.