Will if fly, /sci/?

*will It fly

fuck

It better fly. I don't want to have to endure another year of them repairing another blown up launch site. If it wants to blow up, let it do it when it's already flying.

I just wonder just how interchangeable the Falcon 9 booster and Falcon heavy boosters are.

From an economic perspective it makes sense only needing to manufacture one type of booster rather than 2. It drives cost down.

But Musk said they required a bunch of extra hardware.

20 tons to leo and 3.5m fairing.
What a turd.

>>9082211
while im certain that replying to you will invoke autistic shitposting from both Musketeers and BTFO'ers alike,

>In April 2017, the projected LEO payload for Falcon Heavy was raised from 54,400 kilograms (119,900 lb) to 63,800 kilograms (140,700 lb). The maximum payload is achieved when the rocket flies a fully expendable launch profile, not recovering any of the three first-stage boosters.

>>9082232
>purchasing an expendable
aint nobody gonna do that

>>9082246
the future must suck for ULA then..

>>9082246
Well if you need 50 tonnes into orbit it's nothing you can do about.
I don't see him strapping 5(five) boosters together.

>>9082256
>I don't see him strapping 5(five) boosters together.
I kinda wanna see that

>>9082232
>Ariane 5, $165M+, only 20 tonnes to LEO
>Atlas V, $150M+, only 18 tonnes to LEO
How can they even compete?

>>9082260
>Moar boosters!

File: jeb_mrse3jfVjC1qjvqwho1_500.jpg (66KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x500px

>>9082256
>>9082264
Just add more struts

>>9082232
F-H loses more payload due to reuse than the F-9

>>9082384
ok?

>>9082437
The upper stage can't structurally handle more than like 15 tons

This fantasy of the F-H launching heavy payloads to LEO will remain a fantasy.

>>9082478
Ok, Bruno

>>9082210
>I just wonder just how interchangeable the Falcon 9 booster and Falcon heavy boosters are.
The Falcon Heavy side boosters are the same as the Falcon 9 lower stage. In fact, for the first FH flight, they're reusing at least one landed F9 stage for a side booster (I can't recall whether it's both, or just one).

The Falcon Heavy core stage is different. It is structurally more robust.

File: 1501722690073.jpg (143KB, 500x653px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 500x653px

>>9082478

Musk said it probably won't in the latest interview.

>>9082882
Oh, bullshit.

He's saying there's a lot that can go wrong and a significant possibility of failure, not that it's more likely to fail than to work.

It's expectation management. If you brag that you're highly confident that it'll work, you come out looking like an idiot if there are any problems. If you talk about how hard it is and how many things can go wrong, it looks like a bigger achievement when you do succeed, and if your opponents jump on it and spend the intervening months waving the comments around as proof that you don't know what you're doing, they end up being discredited and humiliated.

Because they're not flying a customer payload or desperately seeking investments to keep their head above water, they don't need people to believe Falcon Heavy will work on the first try. They do want Falcon Heavy's first flight to get a lot of attention (raising the possibility that it will fail makes it more interesting and gets the opposition to promote your event), and it's nice to have some reputation insurance in case it does fail.

Whenever you don't need to do otherwise to close a sale, underpromise and overdeliver.

>>9082527
>>9082881
Falcon Heavy upper is the same as the F9 upper
It exists for putting larger payloads to GTO.

>>9082968
>intelligence
>on /sci/
Never thought I'd see the day

If it doesn't I'm going to fucking off myself before Bezos laughs at me

>>9082246
When the boosters have reached the end of their lifespan you might as well expend them that way on their last flight instead of landing and then scrapping them. Satellites are getting smaller and smaller, the market for Falcon Heavy launches will be pretty limited.

File: o9QuELZDHH4OOEI56Welr4O_Ie_MDKnJ5Qh_BDHAFrA.jpg (127KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 768x768px

>/sci/ actually thinks that this is real

>>9084245
It isn't yet.

MCT =/= Falcon Heavy

>>9084245

that is 12m version, 9m diameter is the new target

>>9084245
At that scale it seems doable

File: Z0HIsbX.jpg (113KB, 1080x1054px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1080x1054px

so what will fly on the first flight?

i think it will

>>9084588
According to Elon, something "not very expensive" due to the chances of it going up in flames. Think i've heard talk about some cube-sats and maybe a boilerplate Dragon

>>9082684
Is the FH core stage reusable?

>>9084245
That mars promo was the gayest thing I've seen in a while.

>>9084726
nah i heard its something "spectacular"

>>9082368
no we need to improve fuel piping so that we can use extreme asparagus staging

>>9084765
>"spectacular"
Musk is going up on his own first launch? Wow!

>>9084283
>we need a fuckmassive rocket to do anything of note on mars
>lets make it smaller so it's useless

>>9084757
Everything is supposed to be able to land again apart from the upper stage, but its also dependent on the flight mode

File: 1314947771481.jpg (37KB, 549x309px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 549x309px

>>9084851

9m is plenty enough for initial Mars colonization, we dont need 12m for that

dont forget that ITS is not just an ordinary rocket, but a second generation fully reusable design

it should be easily capable of flying very often and putting many thousands of tons into orbit per year

File: spaceship 9mb_Scene 4.jpg_thumb.jpg (29KB, 600x352px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x352px

lets face it that mars bs is dead. we get that ISS 2 on the moon lets be happy with it

File: CN3MhZvUEAEXtRM.jpg orig.jpg (1MB, 4267x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4267x2400px

These digits confirm that Falcon Heavy will explode on its first flight, taking 39A with it.

>>9084283
>9m diameter is the new target
Is there a source for this, or are you just guessing?

>>9085363
Like anything with tesla or space x, if you have to ask, elon tweeted it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/888813713800785923

>>9085369
Hmm... with a 9m vehicle, they can probably also build Raptor at the scale of the current test unit. That would save some development money and time.

I've been expecting that they'd come out with a 5m mini-spaceship to use as a reusable Falcon Heavy upper stage, to get to full reuse ASAP and to prototype and gain practical experience with their ITS technology on a smaller scale, then make a 9-Raptor booster very close to the ITS spaceship design to replace the Falcon Heavy booster, before finally building the full ITS.

If they go with the smaller Raptor, they might need more than 9 to replace the FH booster trio, but they could still follow this basic incremental development plan.

Since they've already demonstrated the subscale Raptor, and have been building and testing larger composite propellant tanks, the 5m mini-spaceship could pop out at any time with a "Surprise! We're done!" They've talked about maybe flying a reusable upper stage on the first Falcon Heavy launch. It wouldn't shock me if it were Raptor powered, though in the balance of probability, I think they'll stick with the F9 upper stage for it.

>>9085434
>they can probably also build Raptor at the scale of the current test unit
Why would they do that? The subscale unit is only there to test the FFSC process. It's not up to scale, isp, chamber pressure, twr, or anything else for the official engine. You'd also need 52 of them to power ITSy first stage

>>9085344
one can only dream

>>9085499
>It's not up to scale
Obviously.

>isp, chamber pressure, twr, or anything else for the official engine.
I think you're just assuming this.

The chamber pressure has to be the same, or it's not a very good test of the FFSC pumps. That should make the Isp the same, for the same nozzle ratio.

TWR would probably be somewhat different, but not necessarily worse, and certainly not necessarily a lot worse. There seems to be an optimum size of rocket engine for thrust-to-weight. It's been analysed repeatedly, and they keep coming to the conclusion that the most efficient large launch vehicle would have many small engines.

There's also the advantage that the subscale Raptor is similar in size to Merlin, which means less changes in the factory.

>You'd also need 52 of them to power ITSy first stage
Not if it's one third the mass of the original ITS concept. Simply scaling ITS down 25% to 9m diameter makes it 42% of the mass, and shortening it another 20% makes it one third the mass of the original concept.

My understanding of the subscale Raptor is that it's one third the thrust of the concept Raptor. They also might improve the performance without scaling it up, as they did with Merlin over the years, and get it up to that 42% so the additional height reduction isn't necessary.

>>9082199
Looks like they designed it in KSP

>>9085597
>The chamber pressure has to be the same
no it doesn't
merlin's chamber pressure was constantly updrated

>TWR would probably be somewhat different, but not necessarily worse
the 3MN version was literally picked for its optimized twr
stop being retarded

>There's also the advantage that the subscale Raptor is similar in size to Merlin, which means less changes in the factory.
the full size is less than double the size of merlin
it's not like engine size is the limiting factor for their factory compared to stages

>Not if it's one third the mass of the original ITS concept
based upon the max thrust allowable at 39A, it's 52 engines

The only reason you want them to use the shitty subscale engine is because you think it will speed up the process. Just accept that you'll never go to Mars already.

>>9085597
>Simply scaling ITS down 25% to 9m diameter makes it 42% of the mass, and shortening it another 20% makes it one third the mass of the original concept.
Interesting thing: this makes look the same size as Falcon Heavy when you look at it from the wide side. Same height, same thickness.

>>9085644
>the 3MN version was literally picked for its optimized twr
So you're saying that if the subscale version was optimal for twr, they would have gone with a 126-engine booster and a 27-engine upper stage?

I think rather that that's as far as they could have scaled it up without a serious loss of twr, because they wanted to build a fuckhuge rocket, but they didn't want an insane number of engines.

>based upon the max thrust allowable at 39A, it's 52 engines
Why do you think the max thrust allowable at 39A is relevant? They're talking about scaling it down to 9m, to fit it in the factory.

>The only reason you want them to use the shitty subscale engine is because you think it will speed up the process.
It's not about wanting them to do it, it's about trying to guess what they'll do. Are you arguing for what you want, rather than what you think makes sense for them?

I think it'll speed up the process, save money, and that it makes more sense for the design of the upper stage. With nine engines, they can land on just one, and it doesn't have to throttle down too far, like F9. If it's three engines, now they need landing thrusters, or deeper throttling. They have to change less from their concept if they scale the engines down to fit.

>>9085693
>So you're saying that if the subscale version was optimal for twr, they would have gone with a 126-engine booster and a 27-engine upper stage?
The fuck are you on about m8?

>Why do you think the max thrust allowable at 39A is relevant? They're talking about scaling it down to 9m, to fit it in the factory.
Because then they don't need to build a whole new pad for it, dumbass.

>it's about trying to guess what they'll do
it's only a reasonable "guess" when you ignore all of the facts

>With nine engines, they can land on just one
they were always going to land the upper stage with three engines

>>9085709
>>So you're saying that if the subscale version was optimal for twr, they would have gone with a 126-engine booster and a 27-engine upper stage?
>The fuck are you on about m8?
The original concept is for a 42-engine booster and 9-engine upper stage. If smaller engines got better TWR, do you think they'd just add more engines, no matter how many it ended up being? Or do you think at some point, they'd sacrifice a bit of TWR to keep the number of engines within reason?

If they used the subscale Raptor on the full-size ITS, they'd need 126 engines on the booster. The full-scale Raptor might be the largest engine they figure they could make with near-optimal TWR, not the size of engine with optimal TWR.

>>Why do you think the max thrust allowable at 39A is relevant? They're talking about scaling it down to 9m, to fit it in the factory.
>Because then they don't need to build a whole new pad for it, dumbass.
I obviously meant, "Why do you think they need to scale it up to the maximum?"

>>With nine engines, they can land on just one
>they were always going to land the upper stage with three engines
No, they were always going to have three engines (gimballing, sea-level nozzle, near the center) that could be used to land the upper stage. It doesn't make sense that they'd use all three at touchdown when they're, for instance, landing an empty tanker, or landing in the reduced gravity of Mars.

File: 1500974679227.jpg (105KB, 1375x749px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1375x749px

lel just 6 months away^^

Could a 9m ITS land on Mars and return to Earth without using ISRU with a larger propellant tank and smaller cargo/person load? For initial flights without ISRU prep or in places without it.

>>9086985
They can get a few more km/s delta-v out of the same propellant tank by filling it at L2 before departure rather than departing directly from LEO.

If that's not enough, they can do the same trick with a tanker or two. They can send them very close together and refill en route to Mars, they can aerobrake both to Mars orbit and refill before landing, they can aerobrake a tanker to orbit and refill after the passenger ship launches from the Mars surface, or they can land both on Mars and work out some way of refuelling there.

Another trick would be to include a small rocket with one of the surface cargo shipments, and launch another passenger ship loaded with return supplies to wait in Mars orbit. Then they can use the small rocket to get to the return ship.

There are certainly ways to do it without ISRU.

File: Aloe-vera-3.jpg (25KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x332px

>>9087200
the thought that they can just take off from mars after tanking is pretty laughable. every rocket launcfh here on earth involves so many people good weather and so many other things. there is non of that stuff on mars... the more i learn about it the more unrealistic it gets

>>9087222
>every rocket launcfh here on earth involves so many people good weather and so many other things. there is non of that stuff on mars...
Yeah, the weather's not a factor on Mars. They might like to avoid dust storms, but otherwise, there's no lightning or clouds and the air's too thin for the wind to matter.

The gravity's lower, the delta-V to orbit is about half. So they only need one stage. There's a lot less to go wrong. The stage is designed to store its propellant indefinitely, so there's no rush to fill the tanks or time limit once they're full.

They have to give up some mission assurance things, like the equipment for holddown firings and rapidly emptying the tanks and "safing" the vehicle so people can inspect it and take it down to fix it. But those are just backups.

A lot of the complexity at the launchpad is to support the payloads. Those are mostly very costly, unique satellites, with delicate systems and toxic propellants. They test them up until the last moment, and often fill their tanks on the pad (and purge them on the pad if they need to be taken down and looked at), so it's safe for people to work on them right up until they load them to be launched.

>the more i learn about it the more unrealistic it gets
Sure, guy. And the return from the moon landing was a hoax. Plus obviously there's no such thing as an upper stage or booster flyback, without a big facility and a crew to baby the rocket up to the second they turn on the engines.

>>9085799
>do you think they'd just add more engines, no matter how many it ended up being? Or do you think at some point, they'd sacrifice a bit of TWR to keep the number of engines within reason?
42 engines is not "within reason"

>>9086985
they would need to land several tanker ships nearby or something

>>9087874
Falcon Heavy has 27 engines at liftoff. Soyuz has 28 nozzles.

42 is a modest increment from what they're doing with Falcon Heavy.

>>9087934
and it's not like the engines are untested. They've already been fired in a full duration burn before they get installed

>>9087934
>falcon heavy is proven

>>9087955
>individual testing eliminates pogo oscillations and startup torque issues

>>9087977
I said "within reason" not "proven".

>>individual testing eliminates pogo oscillations and startup torque issues
They'll be testing them together as well.

Look, these are things that came up in the 1960s, when they were rushing ambitious designs forward in the first decade of spaceflight. They didn't have good computer physics simulations, and were still unaware of failure modes that became obvious with experience.

>>9082256
>not using a core and 7 boosters for full honeycomb
>not asparagus staging a monstrosity

>>9088050
>>9082256
>I don't see him strapping 5(five) boosters together.

Everyone forgets this glorious duct-taped motherfucker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_IB
>Eight Redstone tanks (four holding fuel and four holding LOX) were clustered around a Jupiter rocket LOX tank.
All the LEO testing for the Apollo program was done with this thing, cobbled together from liquid-fuel ballistic missile tanks.

I've actually considered that a cluster-of-seven-F9-bodies modular design might be a reasonable way for SpaceX to build a big 2-stage rocket (no side-boosters with separation hardware, just bolted solidly together). It would allow them to transport the modules by highway for a relatively simple assembly at the pad (like FH), and continue using their established factory processes and equipment.

With their full-size proposed Raptor, this would mean 21 engines, less than the 27 they'll use for Falcon Heavy. The reusable upper stage could have 3 Raptors and maybe 1-4 subscale Raptors or a set of pressure-fed thrusters for landing.

I don't think they'll do it, but I believe this would be a reasonable direction to take the design.

>>9087200
But that doesn't make any sense, if there is no ISRU, then there is no reason to go to Mars in the first place

I'm not sure why some people think mining ice is a risky proposition either

>>9088100
Changing engines & fuels is not some simple task, and if they are doing that, why stick with the Falcon design instead of upgrading?

>>9088235
because people have to go there and set it up in person, and if it fails then they are going to die there

>>9088251
If it fails there is no mars anything...
If they can't dig ice out of the ground, and use it
If they can't use the atmosphere
Then there can never be a colonization of mars, or the moon, or venus, or anywhere.

The first people being sent would obviously be intending to live there for years.

>>9088259
and that disproves my point how?

>>9088273
Why would they spend billions on some odd scheme to prevent them from using the resources of Mars?

>>9088235
>if there is no ISRU, then there is no reason to go to Mars in the first place
Consider that practical, economical ISRU might require a human workforce on Mars. It's likely to be a speculative venture, with an uncertain schedule and significant possibility of failure.

Do you think people will want to go with no way to get home unless and until they've built a substantial industrial base on Mars? No testing the water? No escape plan? Just do or die?

Realistically, the first manned Mars mission is going to be an exploratory mission, paid for by government or donations, not a colonization mission. They'll probably test out some processes important for colonization, but they'll also bring the first men on Mars home as soon as reasonably possible to prove that it's not a one-way suicide mission.

>>9088296
The entire point of colonization is a one way trip to settle lands
it's the fucking definition

there are more than enough people willing to go balls to the wall, and we've done more than enough tests to make sure the equipment will work

>>9088248
>>It would allow them to transport the modules by highway for a relatively simple assembly at the pad (like FH), and continue using their established factory processes and equipment.
>Changing engines & fuels is not some simple task, and if they are doing that, why stick with the Falcon design instead of upgrading?
Aside from the fact that I just told you why, and that I said I don't think they'll do it, it's not "sticking with the Falcon design", it's just reusing what they have that's good and can work.

Using a Falcon 9 body cluster is much easier than developing a composite body unlike anything anyone has ever used. A monolithic 12m (or even 9m) body would be a big manufacturing and transportation challenge. It would take additional time and money, and due to lack of commonality, it would be awkward for production in parallel with F9/H, since they'd need to have separate factory space for both at once.

However, I do think they're going to go with the composite body. They've already started working on it, for one thing. It should be lighter, and also more suitable than a cluster for the "spaceship" upper stage, which needs heat shielding and control surfaces for re-entry.

>>9088311
the first people to go won't be suicidal maniacs

the government won't let anyone besides professionals go on the first mission, not when they're footing the bill

>>9088317
>willing to do one's purpose as a colonist means they're suicidal and unprofessional
no wonder you're unemployed
if you sign up to create the first interplanetary colony, you should be ready for hardship, and ready to persevere through it, not run away at the first sign of problems and waste literal billions of dollars and years of effort

>>9088296
>Do you think people will want to go with no way to get home
They will either succeed or they will die(or just require a rescure mission after we discover that no off world colonization will ever be possible)

This isn't some government run PR mission. People take risks like that every day, its perfectly acceptable to risk these initial settlers.

>>9088326
so now you're admitting it's risky

File: spindo.gif (47KB, 250x194px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 250x194px

>>9088330
Never said it was not risky, fuccboi
I said that when you go to colonize, you go to plant your ass down and build a future in a new land, no matter what force tries to remove you

>>9088316
You were talking about changing it to Raptors which is not at all the same as just bolting together several Falcon 9's. Easy road transportation is nice, but transporting by helicopter or sea is also very doable.

Still they would be limited by their upper stage, Kerbal ain't reality.

>>9088339
>You were talking about changing it to Raptors which is not at all the same as just bolting together several Falcon 9's.
Obviously. I'm talking about how to build ITS, so it's a comparison to the difficulties of developing the giant rocket with the new composite body.

>Easy road transportation is nice, but transporting by helicopter or sea is also very doable.
Road transportation isn't the only benefit, though it is a significant one. You're not going to transport an ITS booster by helicopter. It'll have to go by sea, which means they need a factory with access to the sea (which their current factory doesn't have), which might mean not being able to put the factory where the best workers are willing to live. Plus it's slow and expensive, especially when you've got launch facilities on both coasts.

The rest of my case for it, which you don't seem to have read, was more important than the transportation issue.

>Still they would be limited by their upper stage
I referred specifically to it needing a new upper stage.

>>9088502
not him, but they could build ITS using aluminum rather than composites

File: 1452679235476.png (86KB, 510x546px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 510x546px

>>9088502
considering it's a rocket, couldn't you just fly it to the launch site under it's own power?

File: Screenshot - 8_6_2017 , 12_37_55 AM 002.png (168KB, 712x558px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 712x558px

>>9088502
>You're not going to transport an ITS booster by helicopter.
You could

>which means they need a factory with access to the sea (which their current factory doesn't have)
Except it does

>where the best workers are willing to live.
Their current factory is in a shithole where noone lives.

>Obviously. I'm talking about how to build ITS, so it's a comparison to the difficulties of developing the giant rocket with the new composite body.

By that logic they should stick with the Merlin because its a proven tech.

>>9088572
>>You're not going to transport an ITS booster by helicopter.
>You could
Do the math. It's too heavy. There's no helicopter that big. (and no, they're not going to design a custom world's biggest helicopter just for this)

>>which means they need a factory with access to the sea (which their current factory doesn't have)
>Except it does
No, they're in the middle of a city. If they want to get anything to the ocean from there, it needs to be road-transportable.

>Their current factory is in a shithole where noone lives.
It's in the L.A. metropolitan area, you stupid shit. It's in one of the world's great cities.

>By that logic
You plainly have no ability to recognize what my logic is, let alone have anything intelligent to say in response to it.

File: 1489103364401.jpg (9KB, 275x275px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 275x275px

>>9088596
>LA
>great
it's a massive shithole filled with humanity's rejects
wouldn't call that anything approaching great

>>9088602
>humanity's rejects
Like the people who work at SpaceX?

File: DGZuCEmXoAEbOwp.jpg (153KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 900x1200px

>>9088625
LA is so shit they are literally building a second version underground starting with transportation