Can Falcon 9 reach exit velocity without expending the first stage?
Yes - the Falcon 9 can launch a payload beyond Earth orbit with the first-stage in a reusable mode. In reusable mode, the Falcon 9 has similar performance to an Altas V 401 which has launched several Mars rovers and planetary probes.
The Falcon 9 would have a basically useless load for TLI. The heavy version could be interesting for probes/rovers etc, but it's not real good otherwise for it. SLS and starship heavy make a lot more sense. I haven't kept up with what the Chicoms are toying with to launch, but I'm sure they have a disposable alternative in mind.
Of note, intent of the next moon mission I think is an orbiting station around the moon that is, for lack of a better word, north south, so it never goes behind the dark side/is out of communication with the earth (hidden by the moon).
I wonder what their plans are going to be for that lunar car race they're planning, I guess expend a first stage they've used a bunch already and is paid for?
Can Falcon 9 reach exit velocity without expending the first stage?
Yes - the Falcon 9 can launch a payload beyond Earth orbit with the first-stage in a reusable mode. In reusable mode, the Falcon 9 has similar performance to an Altas V 401 which has launched several Mars rovers and planetary probes.
The Falcon 9 would have a basically useless load for TLI. The heavy version could be interesting for probes/rovers etc, but it's not real good otherwise for it. SLS and starship heavy make a lot more sense. I haven't kept up with what the Chicoms are toying with to launch, but I'm sure they have a disposable alternative in mind.
Of note, intent of the next moon mission I think is an orbiting station around the moon that is, for lack of a better word, north south, so it never goes behind the dark side/is out of communication with the earth (hidden by the moon).
It's only "basically useless" if you're exclusively looking through the lens of manned spaceflight, which was not the question asked and answered.
Third-party estimates put the Falcon 9 TLI payload at 4,500 kg with drone-ship recovery of the first stage. Again, that is similar to a base Atlas V, which has been the workhorse for scientific payloads of the last 15 years.
I don't think you have a clue about how espionage works.
I have more of a clue than the current president who just allowed the largest cyber attack ever and didn't even say anything about it.
Why are you in my SpaceX thread talking about cyber attacks? Stop derailing.
Because it got attention and reactions.
Hes going to be really mad when someone points out the Soviets hadn't really been cooperating with us when their shuttle was built, and its arguably a significant improvement on ours, especially since the launch system could be used for things besides the shuttle( their are a couple of shuttle guys on here with steam blowing out their ears, one is going to tell me about the damage it had on landing..... let's talk about the severe damage sts-1 had when it's SRBs nearly blew the ass end off.....)
Soviet apologists always telling us how the commies actually did it better than us, usually relying on a claimed or theorized benefit never demonstrated in practice.
Ah, straight to insulting me because I'm now a "commie", or am defending them.
Sad truth- the russian shuttle was cheaper to refurbish, safer, the booster was far more versatile as it could be used stacked vertically , and just as capable. The American shuttle was a massive ****up, so being "better" does not take much. The energia was absolutely a better booster than anything we've produced for decades(pre the falcon and starship family), and its a shame the shuttle program got it cancelled to.
Acknowledging that the soviet/Russian space program did a lot of things before the US, and did some of them better, does not make me a soviet "apologist", it makes me a realist.
I don't think you have a clue about how espionage works.
I have more of a clue than the current president who just allowed the largest cyber attack ever and didn't even say anything about it.
Why are you in my SpaceX thread talking about cyber attacks? Stop derailing.
Because it got attention and reactions.
Hes going to be really mad when someone points out the Soviets hadn't really been cooperating with us when their shuttle was built, and its arguably a significant improvement on ours, especially since the launch system could be used for things besides the shuttle( their are a couple of shuttle guys on here with steam blowing out their ears, one is going to tell me about the damage it had on landing..... let's talk about the severe damage sts-1 had when it's SRBs nearly blew the ass end off.....)
Soviet apologists always telling us how the commies actually did it better than us, usually relying on a claimed or theorized benefit never demonstrated in practice.
Ah, straight to insulting me because I'm now a "commie", or am defending them.
Sad truth- the russian shuttle was cheaper to refurbish, safer, the booster was far more versatile as it could be used stacked vertically , and just as capable. The American shuttle was a massive ****up, so being "better" does not take much. The energia was absolutely a better booster than anything we've produced for decades(pre the falcon and starship family), and its a shame the shuttle program got it cancelled to.
Acknowledging that the soviet/Russian space program did a lot of things before the US, and did some of them better, does not make me a soviet "apologist", it makes me a realist.
All true, though their shuttle was laid out essentially after ours. I'd just note that they did kill a lot of cosmonauts with typical communist disregard for life (including gagarin's best friend) in their brazen efforts to be 'first.' But the whole energia program is still amazing. Humanity is of course fortunate that the communists 'peacefully' ran out of money.
The Soyuz and Energia designs/engineers should of course be appreciated certainly for their tremendous long term/pioneering programs, from a purely scientific/design perspective.
Proton as well; note that the Russians/Ukrainians have some interesting future prospects/directions (I think their functional divorce is unfortunate from a scientific perspective, not politics related).
Finally, note that Rocketdyne was sold for what, a couple of decades ago, would be a pittance; $4 billion.
Aside; yes, I didn't mean to denigrate the Falcon 9 (standard or heavy) capabilities, but just meant from a manned mission perspective it's not the 'right' choice for TLI. It's functionally killed a few legacy rockets with it's capabilities.
I don't think you have a clue about how espionage works.
I have more of a clue than the current president who just allowed the largest cyber attack ever and didn't even say anything about it.
Why are you in my SpaceX thread talking about cyber attacks? Stop derailing.
Because it got attention and reactions.
Hes going to be really mad when someone points out the Soviets hadn't really been cooperating with us when their shuttle was built, and its arguably a significant improvement on ours, especially since the launch system could be used for things besides the shuttle( their are a couple of shuttle guys on here with steam blowing out their ears, one is going to tell me about the damage it had on landing..... let's talk about the severe damage sts-1 had when it's SRBs nearly blew the ass end off.....)
Soviet apologists always telling us how the commies actually did it better than us, usually relying on a claimed or theorized benefit never demonstrated in practice.
Ah, straight to insulting me because I'm now a "commie", or am defending them.
Sad truth- the russian shuttle was cheaper to refurbish, safer, the booster was far more versatile as it could be used stacked vertically , and just as capable. The American shuttle was a massive ****up, so being "better" does not take much. The energia was absolutely a better booster than anything we've produced for decades(pre the falcon and starship family), and its a shame the shuttle program got it cancelled to.
Acknowledging that the soviet/Russian space program did a lot of things before the US, and did some of them better, does not make me a soviet "apologist", it makes me a realist.
Those aren't "truths" they are claims. Claims which are not supported by any actual experience. How do we know Buran was cheaper to refurbish and safer to fly when it was flown only once? We don't. How was the Energina booster more versatile than, say, Shuttle C? They put exactly the same number of pounds in orbit.
Praising the Soviet Union for its claimed - but not demonstrated - accomplishments is as old as communism itself. Here's a classic entry in the genre:
LOL, I think this is just a matter of a joke not coming across on a message board. None of us (well, other than the ignored poster/trolls) on this thread I believe are fans of the communist ideology.
It's a fun time for space fans, second perhaps to the late 60's. Even having the Chinese communists in the 'race' to do more probably is a good thing, but the best thing is that it is now economically and scientifically foreseeable/possible for capitalists to make big bets.
I don't think you have a clue about how espionage works.
I have more of a clue than the current president who just allowed the largest cyber attack ever and didn't even say anything about it.
Why are you in my SpaceX thread talking about cyber attacks? Stop derailing.
Because it got attention and reactions.
Hes going to be really mad when someone points out the Soviets hadn't really been cooperating with us when their shuttle was built, and its arguably a significant improvement on ours, especially since the launch system could be used for things besides the shuttle( their are a couple of shuttle guys on here with steam blowing out their ears, one is going to tell me about the damage it had on landing..... let's talk about the severe damage sts-1 had when it's SRBs nearly blew the ass end off.....)
Soviet apologists always telling us how the commies actually did it better than us, usually relying on a claimed or theorized benefit never demonstrated in practice.
Ah, straight to insulting me because I'm now a "commie", or am defending them.
Sad truth- the russian shuttle was cheaper to refurbish, safer, the booster was far more versatile as it could be used stacked vertically , and just as capable. The American shuttle was a massive ****up, so being "better" does not take much. The energia was absolutely a better booster than anything we've produced for decades(pre the falcon and starship family), and its a shame the shuttle program got it cancelled to.
Acknowledging that the soviet/Russian space program did a lot of things before the US, and did some of them better, does not make me a soviet "apologist", it makes me a realist.
Those aren't "truths" they are claims. Claims which are not supported by any actual experience. How do we know Buran was cheaper to refurbish and safer to fly when it was flown only once? We don't. How was the Energina booster more versatile than, say, Shuttle C? They put exactly the same number of pounds in orbit.
Praising the Soviet Union for its claimed - but not demonstrated - accomplishments is as old as communism itself. Here's a classic entry in the genre:
So take a joke, because you seemed to content to "blow steam out of people's ears." Don't dish if you can't take, yada yada.
We know because we know what it would take to refurbish buran. Just the fact it did not have the massive and extremely expensive engines to refurbish should tell you something. We also know, for a FACT,the thing was safer,, simply because liquid engines can shut down, and aborts occur, that's not a belief, or guess... I know the American shuttle/pork barrel corruption apologists can't help themselves but.
Energia is superior to shuttle c because it didn't need THE SHUTTLE to put that amount into orbit. The buran/energia may have had the same payload, the energia didn't need the stupid orbiter, it was designed to have an upper stage that weighed a fraction of the orbiter, and had far more payload potential.
The Soviets beat us to many of the firsts. We lagged behind them all the way up to Saturn 1, and we stayed behind them once the Apollo program was cancelled.
Calling people a commie has become THE shtick on this forum. It's frustrating
I'm not particularly a fan of it, but one party in the country is in bed with the CCP in many ways (ideologically, economically, monetarily, and ahem Swalwell more...), so it does happen, yes.
I apologize if I've contributed to such a trend (don't think we've directly had such issue), but it does happen. Constructive dialog benefits when name-calling isn't used, I agree. I just wish we didn't have a party of open borders/socialist supporters in office as well.
I appreciate this thread, and don't want to derail it further.
I don't think you have a clue about how espionage works.
I have more of a clue than the current president who just allowed the largest cyber attack ever and didn't even say anything about it.
Why are you in my SpaceX thread talking about cyber attacks? Stop derailing.
Because it got attention and reactions.
Hes going to be really mad when someone points out the Soviets hadn't really been cooperating with us when their shuttle was built, and its arguably a significant improvement on ours, especially since the launch system could be used for things besides the shuttle( their are a couple of shuttle guys on here with steam blowing out their ears, one is going to tell me about the damage it had on landing..... let's talk about the severe damage sts-1 had when it's SRBs nearly blew the ass end off.....)
Soviet apologists always telling us how the commies actually did it better than us, usually relying on a claimed or theorized benefit never demonstrated in practice.
Ah, straight to insulting me because I'm now a "commie", or am defending them.
Sad truth- the russian shuttle was cheaper to refurbish, safer, the booster was far more versatile as it could be used stacked vertically , and just as capable. The American shuttle was a massive ****up, so being "better" does not take much. The energia was absolutely a better booster than anything we've produced for decades(pre the falcon and starship family), and its a shame the shuttle program got it cancelled to.
Acknowledging that the soviet/Russian space program did a lot of things before the US, and did some of them better, does not make me a soviet "apologist", it makes me a realist.
Those aren't "truths" they are claims. Claims which are not supported by any actual experience. How do we know Buran was cheaper to refurbish and safer to fly when it was flown only once? We don't. How was the Energina booster more versatile than, say, Shuttle C? They put exactly the same number of pounds in orbit.
Praising the Soviet Union for its claimed - but not demonstrated - accomplishments is as old as communism itself. Here's a classic entry in the genre:
I wasn't attempting to derail your thread, im hoping the trash comment was not aimed at me.
Nortex: was simply pointing out why the immediate jump to the commies comment ranked my feathers. I've been trying to post about space and what was going on with the program on this forum for quite a while, and anytime a comment is made about the soviet program, someone always has to start that.
More on topic,, Has anyone seen a cost per KG estimate on the new Angara they launched? I have to believe we are 2 or so years from possible viable use of a starship for cargo, I cannot imagine they can be competitive at that point.
Also curious if anyone has seen further on the hints they dropped at an expendable fairing style super heavy upper stage. The idea was batted around ~year ago their might be variants that went all out as cargo upperstages that would not reenter for large diameter payloads.
SN9 rolls to the launch pad ahead of test campaign. SpaceX engineers and technicians in South Texas rolled the next Starship prototype, SN9, to the launch pad on Tuesday. This time, three Raptor engines were already attached to the vehicle, as well as a nose cone and flaps one of which was replaced after the SN9 vehicle leaned over in its high bay.
Fewer tests this time ... According to a report in NASASpaceflight.com, this vehicle is likely to undergo a more streamlined ground-test campaign than SN8, perhaps requiring only a single cryo-proof testing run with liquid nitrogen, followed by a triple-Raptor static-fire test. If those tests go well and SpaceX obtains regulatory approval, SN9 could make a test flight before the end of the year or possibly in early 2021.
SN9 rolls to the launch pad ahead of test campaign. SpaceX engineers and technicians in South Texas rolled the next Starship prototype, SN9, to the launch pad on Tuesday. This time, three Raptor engines were already attached to the vehicle, as well as a nose cone and flaps one of which was replaced after the SN9 vehicle leaned over in its high bay.
Fewer tests this time ... According to a report in NASASpaceflight.com, this vehicle is likely to undergo a more streamlined ground-test campaign than SN8, perhaps requiring only a single cryo-proof testing run with liquid nitrogen, followed by a triple-Raptor static-fire test. If those tests go well and SpaceX obtains regulatory approval, SN9 could make a test flight before the end of the year or possibly in early 2021.
SN9 rolls to the launch pad ahead of test campaign. SpaceX engineers and technicians in South Texas rolled the next Starship prototype, SN9, to the launch pad on Tuesday. This time, three Raptor engines were already attached to the vehicle, as well as a nose cone and flaps one of which was replaced after the SN9 vehicle leaned over in its high bay.
Fewer tests this time ... According to a report in NASASpaceflight.com, this vehicle is likely to undergo a more streamlined ground-test campaign than SN8, perhaps requiring only a single cryo-proof testing run with liquid nitrogen, followed by a triple-Raptor static-fire test. If those tests go well and SpaceX obtains regulatory approval, SN9 could make a test flight before the end of the year or possibly in early 2021.
They have another road closure Dec 28-30 but no FAA flight restriction. I have already promised Mrs Mathguy that we will drive down and spend a couple of days to watch SN9 if the timing is right. If they do the cryo test that's the bat signal.
They have another road closure Dec 28-30 but no FAA flight restriction. I have already promised Mrs Mathguy that we will drive down and spend a couple of days to watch SN9 if the timing is right. If they do the cryo test that's the bat signal.
Yeah I have a friend on the South Padre city council. I'm warning her the next one is gonna be like a mini spring break. We will probably drive over for the day.
I love the work style the most. Any Dev pictures from traditional NASA is always in a clean room, taking forever to build anything.
SpaceX is out there with with heavy equipment just getting **** done.
So cool to be able to see daily photos of progress because it's all just right there off the highway.
It is pretty hilarious. Also note that basically their PR team consists of Elon's twitter account.
However, it's also noteworthy that this is just, essentially, the Texas operation/Boca Chica. Their engines aren't slapped together in a garage, even if they're delivered via a forklift.
I love the work style the most. Any Dev pictures from traditional NASA is always in a clean room, taking forever to build anything.
SpaceX is out there with with heavy equipment just getting **** done.
So cool to be able to see daily photos of progress because it's all just right there off the highway.
While the engines are built in more sanitized environments, it makes sense that they're building these more in the open since they'll be landing them on the moon and on Mars where they won't have landing pads or anything like that
Getting production into more shipyard like conditions was always going to be the ultimate unicorn for production costs. Simplify the facilities you need, and you reduce infrastructure costs immensely.
I'm impressed that they've managed to keep the supply chain moving inbound that far out in the middle of nowhere. Even growing up in chemical plant/swamp oil field country..... pretty damn cool they're moving this fast.
RCS needs to have a logo somewhere on orbital #1, at least as a sponsor lol
