Jump to content

Talk:Falcon Heavy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Falcon 9 Heavy is different from Falcon Heavy

It seems that Falcon 9 Heavy was scrapped (like Falcon 5 was scrapped in the past), in favor of the higher and more capable Falcon Heavy. I think we should keep the old data/statistics for Falcon 9 Heavy in one of the articles Falcon 9 (as abandoned modification), Falcon Heavy (as abandoned predecessor design), SpaceX (as one of the abandoned designs) - or combine Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 Heavy in a single article about abandoned SpaceX designs. Alinor (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Falcon Heavy is just a rename of Falcon 9 Heavy. The two rockets are identical. It is just the performance envelope which has been adjusted as SpaceX learns more about the equipment they are building and how far they can upgrade it. Most of the performance change you are seeing is based on the upgrades to the Merlin 1 engine not any changes to the overall vehicle design. I guess and argument could be made for cross-feed making this different but I see it as more of a feature (which may not even be present on early FH vehicles) vs. a fundamental change to the rocket. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Falcon Heavy is just a renamed Falcon 9 Heavy. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
See here. Alinor (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This piece reads like it was written by SpaceX.

That's what I've read, that Falcon 5 was canceled and Falcon 9 Heavy was simply renamed Falcon Heavy. When you write, “This piece reads like it was written by SpaceX.”; by “This piece” you mean this article, correct? If so, please request some more-specific changes to make the article more neutral. Speaking of neutrality, one question I have is the stated payload capacities (in metric tons): 54.4 to LEO, 22 to GTO, 13.6 to Mars (presumably via Hohmann transfer orbit), and 2.9 to Pluto. I think these figures may be excessive, based on the previous assumption that the rocket would use cross-feed (that is, the first core stage initially would not burn its own propellant, but would take it from the side-boosters, until the side-boosters burned out). However, SpaceX decided not to attempt cross-feed, at least initially; they felt the slight performance gain was not worth the hassle.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There have been multiple (paper) versions of the Falcon Heavy that SpaceX has discussed. The first was a ~25 tonne to LEO version based on the Falcon 9 block1 powered by Merlin 1C engines (the name was retconned to "F9v1.0" later on). The next was a ~36 tonne to LEO version based on an uprated version of F9, the never-flown block2 and the Merlin 1C+. The next was a 53 tonne to LEO version based on the v1.1 cores and Merlin 1D. It would have needed crossfeed to get to 53 tonnes, and would have done ~46 or so without crossfeed. The current version is based of the F9FT ("v1.2") and the Merlin 1D+ engine. Improvements over the v1.1 version include a larger second stage as well as densified oxidizer (allowing more to fit in the same sized tank). The Merlin 1D+ is uprated, and in fact will be uprated again before the FH flies. This version is capable of 54.4 tonnes to LEO without crossfeed, and (likely) just over 60 if they were to develop crossfeed.
So those actually are the latest numbers:). — Gopher65talk 18:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

More sources on the recent Falcon Heavy announcement

Feel free to add other sources. Even if not used now, they may provide useful as historical markers when specs and dates change in the future. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Three stage vs 2 1/2 stage

I left 'three stage' in article since, because of the crossfeed mechanism, after the boosters separate the remaining core is left with a full or nearly full fuel load. This is in contrast with something like Delta IV heavy, where only a partial fuel load remains after booster separation. --Aflafla1 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason that it's a 2 and 1/2 stage rocket is that there are only 2 ignitions. All 3 cores in the first stage ignite at liftoff. A true 3 stage rocket has 3 ignition events.
If the Falcon Heavy were a 3 stage rocket it would go like this: 2 cores ignite on takeoff; cores separate from central booster; central core ignites; central core separates; upper stage ignites. — Gopher65talk 01:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed references to two stage, three stage, etc since it doesn't really matter and the situation is even more debatable (2 stage? 2.5 stage? 3 stage?) with cross feed. Anythingcouldhappen (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is this: if crossfeed is being used then all three cores can be burned at full throttle until separation. After separation, the central core will have the vast majority of its fuel still remaining, because its engines would have been fed mainly from the outer two cores prior to separation. Without crossfeed, the inner core is simply throttled back to ~70%. At separation the core is only a bit more than half full, which significantly decreases payload to orbit. Again though, this is just my understanding of how it works. Might be wrong. — Gopher65talk 21:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my understanding is that the current design for the crossfeed involves the core fueling three of its nine engines and each booster fueling three of the remaining six. That allows the core to retain ~66% of its fuel at booster sep, and more if the center three are throttled to 70%.A(Ch) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, closer to 75 or 80% since the boosters would burn fuel about 4 times faster than the core, but in that general area A(Ch) 01:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with other launch vehicles

There was a lot of detailed comparisons with other launch vehicles in the lede. I've moved that down into the body of the article, and suggested that much/all of that paragraph appears to be original research since the source does not contain the comparisons, but rather those were calculated by a Wiki-editor. The bar is higher here.

If we are going to leave this material in the article, let's see if a consensus can be reached about what criteria to use to compare launch vehicles (in development/production today, or anytime in the past 60 years; is thrust the criteria, or payload mass, or ???; etc.) and how/why we would choose particular rockets of the myriad to choose from. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well since usage for a manned launch requires higher safety factors, generally leading to some increased weight, that would be something to take into consideration. Payload mass to some particular orbit may be the main factor. Bigger thrust on first or second stage may not necessarily mean bigger payload. These launchers may be geared to accelerate faster but have lower fuel load, or be compensating for lower specific impulse.--Aflafla1 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Dearth of info from SpaceX lately

I would have thought by now we would have heard something about components of the Heavy arriving an Vanderberg. Or even that the new launch pad has been completed. Has this been pushed back to concentrate on other work? (CRS, ccDEV) --Aflafla1 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be an ongoing thing. I cannot find any recent info that pins down the initial launch date. At one time I had read "first quarter of 2014", now all I find is "2014". Is anyone able to find more specific info on this? Ffejmopp (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Energia

The article says that the FH is the most powerful rocket since the Saturn V, with no other rocket more powerful other than the S-V. What about Energia ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered that too. It's obviously being said for marketing buzz, but I'm curious as to whether anyone can find a way to justify that statement. The best I can come up with is this: that big Energia rocket only ever launched once, and on that single launch it was acting as a "booster" for the Buran class shuttle it was launching (booster is in quotes because Buran is quite different from the Columbia class shuttles of the US. US shuttles had the main engines integrated with the shuttle itself, while the Buran class didn't have main engines, but rather just got lifted up by a fairly conventional rocket).
Because Energia never launched in its stand-alone rocket configuration (it could have), you might be able to claim that the stand alone version was just a paper rocket like countless others. If you claim that the Buran-booster version of Energia was the only extant version, then including it in a list of powerful rockets would be just as incorrect as including the Columbia class shuttles - which technically had a huge launch capacity, it's just that most of that capacity was used up launching the spaceplane itself into orbit, rather than launching payload.
Anyway, that's as close as I can come to a rational explanation for excluding Energia from a list like this. Of course that isn't SpaceX's reason. Their reason for the exclusion is pure marketing BS;). — Gopher65talk 21:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary the stand-alone version of Energia booster was used its maiden launch with the Polyus space laser. The launch itself was successfully although the Polyus failed to complete its orbit insertion. --Pippo skaio (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah, well. That scraps that idea. Then I have no idea.:P — Gopher65talk 23:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded the relevant paragagraph to reflect reality. While checking the facts, noticed that the claim on the SpaceX website (http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy) has become "Only the Saturn V moon rocket, last flown in 1973, delivered more payload to orbit." Even this is only true for GTO; for LEO Energia's payload was 220,000 lb v. Falcon Heavy's planned 117,000 lb. -Arb. (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Energia would have required a third stage (in Russian staging language) to complete orbital injection, and the only two payloads it launched (Polyus and Buran) carried orbital maneuvering engines to complete the task. So the concept of "payload to orbit" becomes more complicated in this case since Energia delivered its payload into a slightly suborbital trajectory. Anythingcouldhappen (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok that... kinda makes sense. I still call marketing bull****, but at least that's almost an acceptable rational. Like how Yuri Gagarin's first crossover into space maybe shouldn't have counted because the capsule was abandoned during the final stage of reentry, and a personal parachute used to get back to the surface. I don't buy that, personally, but I can at least see how someone could try and make that argument. — Gopher65talk 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
for what it's worth (and somewhat off-topic) when Gagarin was launched, the Soviets wanted to claim a Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) record for the first man in orbit. FAI records required that the pilot land with the aircraft-- this is a rule from the aircraft world, since when the pilot bails out of the aircraft, it's a crash, and the FAI doesn't award a record if the pilot crashes the plane to accomplish it. For a spacecraft, of course, the rule didn't really make sense-- but this was the first-ever manned spaceflight record, and nobody had developed a set of specific rules for spaceflight. So the Soviets put out in their news release that Gagarin landed with the Vostok capsule, in order that the FAI would certify the flight officially "first human flight into orbit."
Nobody cares any more-- it's well accepted that Yuri Gagarin was the first person to orbit the Earth, and nobody would say he didn't just because he landed separately from the capsule. It's a historical curiosity only.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Energia could have delivered about 100 t to orbit, since the final insertion only required a delta-v of a few tens of m/s to raise the perigee from slightly suborbital to orbital. The reason it required a third stage or payload injection was to avoid putting the entire Energia core into orbit with it, which would be a big piece of useless debris, and not nearly as accurate as using a smaller orbital insertion stage. This was the same reason the Shuttle tank was ejected into a slightly suborbital trajectory, so the shuttle OMS could perform an accurate orbital insertion and the EXT would burn up over a defined safe area in the ocean. Regardless, Energia was never successful at putting anything in orbit other than Buran, and if that counts then the Space Shuttle counts too, since the total mass of the shuttle+cargo was about 120 t, and just complicates things. A(Ch) 23:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Buran was all payload (for Energia) as it didnt use its engines during launch. Shuttle main engines are used in launch so its not [all/any] payload.
Energia seems to have put Polyus in the intended orbit - Polyus then fired in the wrong direction and de-orbitted itself.
Also - most sources [now] are only claiming that FH is/will be the most powerful US launcher after Saturn V. - Rod57 (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

More recent sources

I read that too, but I'm sure I read an even more recent article that claimed that SpaceX was going to try to find enough extra first stage cores to fly by winter 2014? — Gopher65talk 18:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, rumours to the contrary, Gwynne Shotwell says that SpaceX "hopes" to launch the first Falcon Heavy in the first half of 2015. Musk had been saying that he hoped they'd do it by the end of 2014, but I'd go with Shotwell when it comes to timelines. Musk can be a touch optimistic about such things:). As far as I know this is still just speculation, but I've heard that the main reason for the delay is so that they can launch more Falcon 9s to meet existing (already behind schedule) commercial contracts. They just don't have enough spare cores laying around to waste 3 on a Falcon Heavy demo flight right now. Source: [1] — Gopher65talk 15:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"boosters" (stage 0)", as reflected in the Infobox

The article infobox has, for some time, made a distinction between "Boosters (Stage 0)" and "First stage". It is unclear that this is not merely original research as I've not found any sources that describe the launch system this way. Moreover, the information that has been included for each of those distinct sections of the infobox are generally unsourced, and they do not agree with the information contained in the main prose article section entitled "First stage". Moreover, the article body does not make this distinction.

The article needs clean up on this aspect, so I'm throwing it open on the Talk page for discussion and to see if any consensus on how to handle this might be achieved. It is an interesting launch system, and it could be that the standard infoboxes for launch vehicles just don't lend themselves for easy use with a propellant crossfeed modular rocket. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As long as its clear that the Heavy is using boosters, I don't think it really matters whether they're called stage 0 (the unofficial American term) or stage 1 (the Russian term, which would result in the core being stage 2). Since cross feed is intended to be used on some missions, the distinction is even less concrete. I'd say it really doesn't matter, its just the terminology the infobox template uses. Anythingcouldhappen (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

FH side cores are larger (longer) than the FH center core

The newly-released (late July 2013) images and specs for the Falcon Heavy seem to show that the side cores are not identical to the center core, as was supposed by the editors of this article in its first two years of life. Rather, the two side cores are longer than the center core, by approximately the length of the center core interstage (the interstage merely covers the second-stage engine and engine nozzle, and transfers mechanical load from the first stage(s) up to the second stage and payload during first stage firing). In other words, the side cores appear to actually have greater tank volume than the center core, which makes sense as the rocket is much lighter and travelling at a much higher velocity by the time the center core nine-engine cluster is providing the only thrust following separation of the two side cores.

In short, if this is correct, then the article description that the three cores are the same, and that the side cores are merely F9 first stages, is incorrect and need to be fixed. Thoughts? N2e (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard about about this. We'll have to keep an eye on this. I'd assume that the interactive diagram on SpaceX's webpage is correct, but who knows. If it's wrong it wouldn't be the first time a marketing department was out of sink with the people doing the actual work. (buuurrn) — Gopher65talk 02:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I...I...I wrote "out of sink". *hangs head in shame* — Gopher65talk 18:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there's been no indication that the boosters carry additional propellant vs Falcon 9.1 stage 1. Unless a source can be found, a website diagram isn't worth reading into. Anythingcouldhappen (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Falcon rockets are already the cheapest in the industry

The "source" for this statement is quite a dubious, mediaesque article. Cheapest in terms of what? Per launch costs? Dollar costs? Costs in the US? Per kg costs? The Falcon 9 is definitely not the cheapest rocket out there, and compared to Proton it is e.g. also not the cheapest rocket on a kg to LEO payload basis. 178.201.52.152 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Falcon 9 (60 million/launch) is about the same price as a Proton (100 million) for a LEO launch, on a per kilogram basis. Insurance is really high on Protons right now though, due to the large number of recent failures, so that skews it in favour of a F9. Falcon is probably not cheaper for a GTO launch though, due to the difference in delta-V imparted to the payload. For that the Proton-M is probably cheaper overall for the company buying a flight, due to less fuel consumption required by the end payload (com-sat or whatever). That means more fuel left over on the comsat after it achieves its proper orbit, and thus a longer lifetime. That's a big advantage for the Proton-M over most other launchers, including the non-SpaceX American GTO launcher like the Atlas V and the Delta IV Heavy.
As for the Falcon Heavy, " Cheapest in terms of what? Per launch costs? Dollar costs? Costs in the US? Per kg costs?". Yes. All of the above:P. Cheapest rocket in its class per launch (same price as a Proton for more than double the capacity). In costs to the company that manufactures it, AFAWK. In costs to the US government. In per kilogram costs, period (cheaper than any other rocket). — Gopher65talk 21:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Atlas and Delta can easily do 1500m/s GTO too, but they're so expensive it doesn't matter. Falcon can also do 1500m/s as it did for its first two GTO launches, but that reduces payload to ~3t which makes it more expensive per ton than Proton. For the 1800m/s GTO Falcon beats Proton's price though.A(Ch) 07:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"a new economically-driven Space Age could result"

Sounds like marketing. Space is already economically driven. Lowering the cost to space just creates new economic, military and research possibilities. -- GreenC 04:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it was meant in the context of producing a profit. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Spaceflight has traditionally, been politically driven.
I suspect that quote was meant as a contrast to the politically-set priorities of the space programs of the numerous nation states that did space technology development in the first five decades of human spaceflight technology. In other words, political objectives and political rationales simply tend to drive very different outcomes than do economic objectives and economic rationales by private actors. N2e (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

removal of orphan reference sn20150505

Hi. As you can see at the bottom of the page, reference sn20150505 gives an error. I checked history, someone made a contribution to the "Scheduled launches and potential payloads" section, adding a flight scheduled in 2018 with ArabSat 6A as its payload. In this information, person added < ref name = sn20150505 / > but there is no full ref definition with this name. I'm removing this orphan ref. Person who made the contribution was not logged in. Only Ip address is in the log. --Guyver (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Origins of FH tied with Falcon 9, and before 2005

It seems that the history of Falcon Heavy is tied in with Falcon 9, which itself came out of a conversation in 2003-4. An updated from 2005, "The History of Falcon 9" describes a customer wanting a payload that was too big for the Falcon 5, and the only way to handle it was a 9-engined Falcon. This also mentions strapping two additional first stages "like Delta IV Heavy" in order to place 25 tons to LEO. The intention was still to use Falcon 5, and even Falcon 1, as well as Falcon 9:

"I want to emphasize that although SpaceX development is now primarily on the Falcon 5/9, Falcon 1 is and will always remain a very important part of our business. All of us at SpaceX really believe in the small satellite market and we will never turn away from it or relegate it to a back corner. I think that once the satellite market has time to adapt to its existence, Falcon 1 may very well see the highest launch rate per year of any rocket in the world." http://www.spacex.com/news/2005/12/19/june-2005-december-2005

Davoloid (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Davoloid. You might want to attach the quote about the strapping additional first stages, so that everyone in the conversation can see the same thing.
It seems every rocket designer of a the larger rockets has concepts that might allow strapping additional cores together to get higher payload mass, at least once it was first done by some rocket designer. I.e., strap-ons are TRL9 technology. But it's a stretch to say that such a concept in the head of a designer is the start of a program. That is to say, while it is always possible to conceptually strap on more cores, its a very different thing for a specific development project to be started and funded by a corporation or other entity. Unless of course, we have a source that says the program started years earlier than Elon announced it (which was, I think, 2011).
What are you suggesting for improving the article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I only showed that quote for the article contributers here, to show that SpaceX's plan was to have a Falcon 1, 5, 9 and then this led to the logical extension of: "Going further and adding two first stages as liquid strap on boosters, like Delta IV Heavy, allowed us to place about 25 tons into LEO – more than any launch vehicle in use today." (same article)

Not quite sure how to phrase this, as it probably deserves a section on it's own, but obviously you don't want to repost the entire contents of the article. And, though this is a hugely authoritative source (Elon Musk & SpaceX blog), it's only one and I don't know if another is needed.

Let me look through the main article and see if there's something I can knock up. (if I get round to it - don't post regularly here!)Davoloid (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Falcon Heavy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Payload Capacity

It should be added that the capacity is in expendable mode (maybe referencing the reuse program) and additional stats for recover mode --213.23.77.140 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

History of schedule delays

Here is a compiled list of the delays that the (Falcon 9-based version of) Falcon Heavy has faced:

Time NET Months Source
2011-04-05 2013-01-01 21 http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-announces-launch-date-worlds-most-powerful-rocket
2012-07-17 2013-01-01 6 http://web.archive.org/web/20120717025534/http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
2012-10-04 2014-01-01 15 http://web.archive.org/web/20121004103731/http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
2013-04-30 2014-01-01 8 http://web.archive.org/web/20130430210943/http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
2013-06-22 2015-01-01 19 https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/1guye2/spacex_launch_manifest_updated_falcon_heavy_demo/
2014-04-16 2015-01-01 9 http://web.archive.org/web/20140416011226/http://www.spacex.com/missions
2014-04-18 2015-10-01 18 http://web.archive.org/web/20140418200307/http://www.spacex.com/missions
2015-07-22 2015-10-01 2 http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/01/02/spacex-manifest-completely-impossible-follow/
2015-07-23 2016-05-01 9 http://web.archive.org/web/20150802011218/http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule
2016-01-31 2016-05-01 3 http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/02/01/customers-edgy-spacex-schedule-slips-falcon-heavy-flight-delayed-again/
2016-02-04 2016-10-01 8 http://spacenews.com/spacex-seeks-to-accelerate-falcon-9-production-and-launch-rates-this-year/
2016-03-16 2016-12-01 9 http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
2016-08-09 2017-03-01 7 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/pad-changes-new-era-space-coast/
2017-03-09 2017-06-01 3 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-falcon-9-echostar-23-slc-40-return/
2017-04-12 2017-10-01 6 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/falcon-heavy-build-up-slc-40-pad-rebuild-progressing/
2017-07-28 2017-11-01 3 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/890765027032039429

Makes quite an interesting graph, too. Worth including in the article? Anxietycello (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice work! I'd say graph yes, table no. — JFG talk 04:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Awesome graph! I vote to include it (table can stay in the Talk section for future reference). One suggestion - add additional minor grid line, so that each year is split into 6 sections, each exactly two months long. Merkhet (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Kees08 has expressed interest in further updating the image, and so I thought I'd create this Sheet (much as I loathe to use Sheets) that will allow further updates/changes. Granted, it still requires saving the image then uploading to WP, but if Anxietycello gets hit by a bus the image can still be updated.
If the majority opinion is that the Sheets graph looks stupid, I'm fine deleting it. But I thought I'd offer. Primefac (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The interest stemmed from the fact I wanted to update the graph but I wanted it to be easier to update in the future. If no one has an opinion, or if this is positively received, I will go ahead and update it with the new information and upload it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster

For info this page was recently updated. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to remark the nearest launch window to Mars will be summer 2018. The Heavy Falcon launch later this month will go as far as Mars orbit (in distance) but it will pass nowhere near Mars. No Mars flyby and not a Mars mission. "A red car for a red planet" may be good marketing slogan for Tesla and SpaceX, but is extremely misleading and incorrect. That is the reason I deleted it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs info on how the boosters are attached to the core

Could mention the novel features (over the Falcon 9) eg the upper attachments (8 longerons?), and the lower attachments. Interesting that the 4 upper longerons on the core seem to fold up (like the lower ones) rather than down. Which bear the main stresses, how are they controlled and separated (hydraulics not pyrotechnics). Any strengthening to stage 2 and any interstage ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

MN?

Does this article have something against meganewtons? Thousands and thousands of kilonewtons seem redundant.

189.250.211.237 (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC) baden k.

Looks like the central booster was lost

Nothing has been officially confirmed, and rumours abound, but looking at the footage (see the screen at the far right showing the feed from Of Course I Still Love You) as the smoke clears you can see that the deck is empty. nagualdesign 00:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Recentism and for this post, WP:FORUM and WP:OR. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the WP:TALK page. People are speculating. Editors keep adding and removing information. nagualdesign 00:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, nothing at all should be added about it one way or another. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I know, but thanks for all the policy links. nagualdesign 00:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I think you can say the fate of the center core was not immediately announced, and that the video feed cutoff. It is true, and might cut down on the speculation posts since it is at least mentioned, and accurate. Kees08 (Talk) 00:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Partial Failure on the 1st Flight

During the 1st mission of the Falcon Heavy, on January 6, 2018, the middle booster failed to land on the drone ship, therefore it crashed onto it. The other 2 boosters landed successfully in their landing zones on the East Coast of Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.231.69 (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thats's not partial launch failure because the launch of the payload was fine. Failed core landings were not considered partial launch failures before so why would we do it now? Viktorrulev (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
In addition, launch success is only about the payload - if it reaches its target orbit/altitude, the entire mission is successful. Landing reusable parts is just a side-show. Merkhet (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The launch was a success, but what the IP wrote was "Partial Failure on the 1st Flight", which is factually correct. nagualdesign 13:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Right. This system/method includes launch and later, a bonus: recovery. The launch was successful beyond doubt. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Any recovery on this occasion was indeed a bonus, as it demonstrated Falcon Heavy's capability and there are no plans to reuse the first stages. In future missions recovery will be critical, since SpaceX's stated aim is to move towards a fast turnaround architecture. Compared to all previous space launch systems, every time SpaceX lands a first stage it seems like a bonus, but compared to an airline (a comparison which Musk himself has made) any loss of a first stage is a failure of sorts. I don't think the IP means to piss on anyone's parade, and any test could arguably be described as a complete success if you get the data you were after, but any future flights which are not tests where any of the first stages are lost should be considered a partial failure. nagualdesign 18:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
IP stated partial failure. Any failure means at least partial failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.14.165 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a bunch of speculation in this thread, but no sources. Discussion needs to be regarding what RS say, not what individual editors speculate. Are there reliable sources that have characterized the flight as a failure or partial failure? Absent some evidence that it's been characterized that way in RS, this discussion doesn't help improve the article. Anastrophe (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It is no speculation to differentiate launch from recovery. However, I agree with NagualDesigns that in the future for-profit missions, separate columns will be needed for launch and recovery outcomes. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's no speculation here. Everyone has stated the facts. I only butted in because the first two replies, though factual, were non-sequiturs. To summarize, the launch was a success, the test was a success, the mission was a success, but the flight was a partial failure (some of the flight hardware failed). I'm not sure why the IP posted or what change(s) to the article they were suggesting, but it does no harm to discuss these things and it may well turn out to be fruitful. You don't need to provide reliable sources to have a discussion. nagualdesign 18:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:TPG and [[WP::NOTFORUM]]. The whole thread is speculative, and doesn't address what RS say, or, in the specific, what improvement to the article is desired. What change to the article is needed currently? If that can't be articulated, the discussion is inappropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
If we were just chatting about the weather or politics you might have a point. We weren't. This discussion pertains to the article. Perhaps you're not familiar with talk pages? Or discussing things? nagualdesign 19:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
What change to the article is needed currently? Can you articulate that? I directed you to the relevant policies and guidelines regarding talk pages. I'd suggest reading them. This thread is nothing but chatting and speculation about whether the launch or flight was a failure or partial failure or success. There's yet to be a single RS pointed to that supports any of these positions, or articulating what improvement is needed to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
You want to shut down the discussion yet you're the one continuing it. You don't want off-topic comments but you're the only one making them. BatteryIncluded did actually make a suggestion, in case you missed it ("in the future for-profit missions, separate columns will be needed for launch and recovery outcomes"), and the IP has yet to return to answer your prodding. I don't recognise every editor here but BatteryIncluded and I are both in good standing, and he is a prolific editor of space-related articles, so asking us to read basic policy is moot. I suggest you remove your bonnet for a while and let the bee go upon its way. Or if you prefer links, try WP:DTS. nagualdesign 19:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I concur. Cheers! Anastrophe (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fix the Cost Per Launch

The Delta IV Heavy's cost per launch is $400M. What is the cost per launch for the Falcon Heavy? No, telling us what it costs to place a 8000kg payload in GTO isn't the cost per launch. Jim Bowery (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

SpaceX has only released the cost to put 8,000kg into GTO, which is $1,125 per pound. This cost does not take into account the reusability of portions of the Falcon Heavy. If there is newer public information, I am sure someone will add it. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
8,000 kg is max payload to GTO when all three boosters are recoverable. (vs 16,000 kg if core expended, or 26,700 kg if fully expended) I've seen estimates of $90M when all 3 boosters recoverable - maybe as reliable as the guesstimate of $400M for Delta IV heavy. - Rod57 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is everybody getting the 8,000 KG to GTO figure from? This is NOT supported in any of the references. I've taken it out of the article until somebody can provide sources. A rule of thumb for expendable launch systems is that you roughly halve the payload for GTO versus LEO. Reusability has been shown to cost 15-30% payload payload penalty, not 70%.--Winged Brick (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we update launch prices

The Launch prices section seems years out of date. The SpaceX website '/capabilities' quotes $90M for 8,000 kg to GTO (presumably partly recoverable), and a few days ago Elom Musk tweeted a full expendable FH would be $150M - Can we use that tweet as a source ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

May be it worth to leave a notion on the fact the video topped the trends of many national's YouTube video trends?
United States, Russia, Germany etc.
Here is the stream itself.
I also would like to add some information on prevailing Russian Comments phenomenon in the comment section out there.
What do you think? 🤔 davronova.a. 13:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The launch was very popular, or should I say, the Roadster live feed. But you would need to find a reliable article reporting the high number of viewers or the international reactions/appeal. I think such discussions go into a section commonly titled "In popular culture", but I am not 100% sure. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
It was reported the next day that the live streamed launch was YouTube's 2nd biggest ever at about 6.3 M viewers (after the Red Bull Stratos jump). - Rod57 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Chart

I know the chart isn't super important But I think it should be extended to be more up-to-date BananaIAm (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

By, "the chart" do you mean the 'delay' chart? This seems to put undue weight on the delays. Well, if you've been around aerospace any amount of time, you'll know that EVERY aerospace project has delays, some much more severely. Look at SLS. Having a chart leads the layman to believe that there is something special about the most capable rocket in the world having a few years of delays in its maiden flight. --Winged Brick (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I've removed it. Apart from anything else, the page is cluttered with pix William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree too that the chart is unnecessary, I was saying that if we were to have it there then it should at least be up-to-date BananaIAm (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This solution solves both problems! --Winged Brick (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, the chart was a good visual for how far out the launch was supposed to be for several years. There was a discussion above to change it to Google sheets, which did not receive any comments, but I can extend that to be complete. The chart received a lot of support then, and I recommend putting it back in. Kees08 (Talk) 16:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

To what end? You want to put it back, but the chart meant virtually nothing to the original article and doesn't really fall under development either. The timeline is more applicable to how Aerospace works. ALL projects have best-case scenario timelines and this one is no different. Further, the chart itself is confusing and tracks arbitrary data. There is nothing scientific about release dates for possible launch dates. The 'data' is just marketing and public release timelines. It's almost comically useless, especially now that it has launched. Maybe post it on a "S*** Elon Says" forum, if you want, but not here. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
To what end would be...just adding it back. Not sure what is being insinuated there? There is something scientific about launch dates, and that is why most aerospace companies do not miss them so many times, by so many years, which is what makes this significant. I could see putting it in the mission article instead, but I do not think it should be removed from Wikipedia entirely. Maybe since you are in the group that removed it, you should be pinging the people from the thread above that had a clear consensus to put it in the article? If you think a chart is too much emphasis in the article, why don't we compromise and just put the table in then? Or, we could put it in prose. Trying to scrub the article to make the vehicle look better is a little disingenuous, and I think we should keep the bad things about the rocket in the article as well as the good things. Kees08 (Talk) 17:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, the chart is still informative, especially if it's updated. A table would be unwieldy. — JFG talk 18:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I will update it too, just want to make sure we will include it somewhere before I put the effort in. Kees08 (Talk) 19:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
So..should I be doing this, or is it going to get reverted? Kees08 (Talk) 20:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my crystal ball ran out of battery. Your call. — JFG talk 20:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Super-Heavy lift or not?

This is trifle as the "super-heavy" category is an arbitrary one, however it meets all of those criteria. It has the lifting capacity and saying that it's not going to fly with that capacity is a bit odd given that SpaceX lists that configuration on their web page. You offer SpaceX enough money and they will fly it expendable. They do so with the Falcon 9, why wouldn't they do it with Heavy? Also, LEO capability with an expendable center core would probably get you into the super-heavy category. I don't understand white-washing the whole article.--Winged Brick (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Theoretical / marketing claims by SpaceX do not make this a super-heavy-lift vehicle. They also have been claiming that Falcon 9 can lift 22.8 tonnes to LEO and 8.3 tonnes to GTO, but the heaviest payload they ever flew (fully expendable) was Intelsat 35e at 6,761 kg: no small feat, but a far cry from a "heavy-lift" classification. The payload adapter (PAF) is structurally limited to 10,886 kg, per SpaceX's own user manual,[1] a larger fairing would need to be developed, and there may be quite a number of other contingencies that prevent them from flying a really heavy payload, even if you "offer SpaceX enough money". Happy to reconsider the classifications if/when Falcon 9 ever lifts an over-20-tonne payload or Falcon Heavy is tasked with a 50+ tonne mission to LEO. Not holding my breath. — JFG talk 11:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Brick: In reference to your latest revert,[2] this is called WP:SYNTH. Unless a WP:RS makes the determination that Falcon Heavy qualifies as a super-heavy launch vehicle, we as editors cannot use the claimed max payload together with the definition of super-heavy, and put those facts together to say FH is super-heavy. You've been editing for a long time, you should be familiar with policy. Please find a reputable source making this inference, or obtain consensus from other editors before re-instating the "super" qualifier. — JFG talk 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Brick: Did this fight seriously spread into Super heavy-lift launch vehicle? You really need to stop ignoring reversions, this is getting ridiculous and 'here come the haters' is no justification for reversion. By the way, please refrain from speculation about what the company would do, that's is not the point of the discussion. Now, I'm not here to express any opinion on the matter, I'm simply asking you to stop brigading. I get you might be passionate about the subject, but in no way you are the owner of the truth, so stop with that attitude, for the sake of this project. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sarilho1: With all due respect, this isn't a fight. There is a category for "Super-Heavy" that is logical (50 Tonnes) and has long been established. SpaceX has published, advertised, and is selling flights based on this capacity. They've launched once, proving that the vehicle works. They are COMFORTABLY above the limit. JFG is simply changing the wording with no justification other than, "are not". I brought a source, one of hundreds, that shows it within that range. There is no fight. There is no argument. There is a consensus. It's a super-heavy lift. I'm willing to listen to any MORE credible sources than the actual company that produced the rocket and virtually all of the world's media. If JFG is willing to bring some sort of weight to his argument, I'd love to see it. Blind doubt is all I see. I do not need to build a consensus on this, JFG need to make the case that the previous consensus needs to be changed. That requires drastically higher standard and the status quo stands till then. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Brick: You are again conflating "facts" with well-sourced information. If you have a professional source knowledgeable about spaceflight that actually places Falcon Heavy in the super-heavy launcher class, I'd be happy to consider it. Quoting any of hundreds of sources which simply reprint the rocket's theoretical maximum LEO payload is not the same thing: that is called WP:SYNTHESIS, and we can't do that on Wikipedia, no matter our personal opinions of what is right or wrong. As an aside, please avoid disparaging your fellow editors by calling them ignorant or "SpaceX haters". For the record, I have been a strong supporter of SpaceX since the early days, and I have worked a lot on a number of articles related to their feats and innovations. Whatever my personal opinion of SpaceX, or yours, that should not matter to our integrity as encyclopedia editors, and we must strive to follow the five pillars of Wikipedian policy. — JFG talk 22:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that even Elon Musk doesn't call this rocket "super heavy": he recently alluded to a potential evolution with 4 side boosters + core, which would be the "Falcon Super Heavy", capable to fly Apollo-class missions.[2] A few years ago, he had envisioned a similar "Falcon XX" rocket, which was scrapped in favor of the BFR. — JFG talk 23:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
JFG, "Integrity"? as when your integrity vanishes when you call a car a spacecraft because it has cameras? I have a smart phone in my pocket and it has 2 cameras, does it become a spacecraft too? Your edits are as good as your references, and if someone has good sources calling it a super heavy rocket, then you find other sources that support or discredit the statement. That simple. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@BatteryIncluded: The car/spacecraft debate was settled, after much editor discussion, and I respect consensus. (Some sources did call it a spacecraft, and you and I agreed that this was a stretch.) The issue at hand here is that no good sources have been provided to classify this rocket as "super-heavy". As a regular spaceflight editor, do you have any? I searched and did not find; in fact I found the opposite claim by Musk himself. — JFG talk 08:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
What "sources" do you want? This isn't Elon Musk making these claims, this is a company that he happens to own PUBLISHING capabilities and selling flights on a proven rocket. If you doubt this, you'll need to provide sources that these figures are so significantly off (by at least 20%) that the rocket should not be classified by the NASA Super-Heavy designation. As yet, you only provide your typed doubts. So, instead if incessantly repeating these doubts, provide some support for them. For instance, Forbes says it's got enough lift to be in the NASA super-heavy category (60 mT vs the 50 mT NASA cutoff). You say, "oh, that's only fully expendable and SpaceX will NEVER fly it that way." I counter that SpaceX has flown MANY expendable missions and they quoted a price of $150M USD for a fully-expendable Falcon Heavy. They also qouted $95M for a partially expendable mission that would, indeed, be super-heavy. So, again, I challenge you to pony up a Forbes, CNN, National Geographic, or similar caliber reliable source that refutes SpaceX's published capabilities for their operational and proven launcher. I will not hold my breath.--Winged Brick (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
JFG has a point here. Note that SpaceX's own website never says "super-heavy", instead calling it a "heavy-lift launch vehicle": These same engines power Falcon 9, enabling efficiencies that make Falcon Heavy the most cost-effective heavy-lift launch vehicle in the world. I also can't find any good sources that call Falcon Heavy a super-heavy launch vehicle. Every source so far seems to be essentially copying whatever the Wikipedia page says. Since the categories are fairly arbitrary, it is best to wait for a source to officially call Falcon Heavy a super-heavy. Appable (talk | contributions) 20:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why you're questioning what "Super-Heavy" means.McConnaughey, Paul K.; et al. (November 2010). "Draft Launch Propulsion Systems Roadmap: Technology Area 01" (PDF). NASA. Section 1.3. Small: 0–2 t payloads; Medium: 2–20 t payloads; Heavy: 20–50 t payloads; Super Heavy: > 50 t payloads This was established by NASA. It's just a category. That doesn't mean that the references have to use the ACTUAL term "super-heavy." --Winged Brick (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Super Heavy: > 50 t payloads" - That is pretty much the pivotal definition at the Super heavy-lift launch vehicle article. I don't see the reluctance to recognize this established classification AND contradict the Super heavy-lift launch vehicle article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Winged Brick writes: Forbes says it's got enough lift to be in the NASA super-heavy category. Well. Forbes does not say that. Forbes does not mention the NASA classification, nor does it use the term "super heavy". This has been my point all along: we cannot engage in WP:synthesis and we must find a source that makes the super heavy link themselves. When even Musk and SpaceX only call it "heavy-lift", despite advertising a higher theoretical lift capacity, we would need strong corroboration to claim a "super heavy" label. Our WP:Verifiability policy also states that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. — JFG talk 20:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I really hope that you aren't being serious. I'm done. Bring your authoritative counter-source or join the consensus. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
To justify calling a rocket "super heavy" in the lede sentence, you use a source that does not include that term at all. If you appreciate seriousness, please bring along a better source that actually makes this claim. — JFG talk 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I reject your premise. Bring a source that contradicts mine or join the consensus. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ "Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle Payload User's Guide" (PDF). 21 October 2015. Retrieved 29 November 2015.
  2. ^ Ralph, Eric (6 February 2018). "Elon Musk teases even bigger Falcon "Super Heavy", 5 rockets strapped together". Teslarati. Retrieved 23 February 2018.

Given the deadlock in dialogue, I have opened a WP:DRN request for help: see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Falcon Heavy#Super-Heavy lift or not?. — JFG talk 01:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no deadlock. There is an abject failure of one party to accept the published data on the Falcon Heavy. --Winged Brick (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, please remain WP:CIVIL. If by "published data", you mean the theoretical maximum payload, I have never contested it. If you mean the super-heavy classification, I have not seen this claim in any published data, and you have not provided a source making that statement. — JFG talk 02:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
You're taking up everybody's time with minutia and semantics. Hmmm, have you bothered LOOKING for a reference that says the magic words, "Super-Heavy"? Google could have saved you a lot of time. --Winged Brick (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Favoritism

"Falcon Heavy is the world's fourth-highest capacity rocket ever built, after Saturn V, Energia and N1, and the most powerful rocket in operation as of 2018." Neither Energia or N1 ever demonstrated a higher capacity, and yet you're gonna say that they both have a higher capacity than FH? If you're gonna say that then there's no doubt FH is super-heavy lift BananaIAm (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Energia did fly super-heavy payloads, twice : the Buran spaceplane that succeeded, and the Polyus military satellite that failed. N-1 failed to launch four times but did carry test vehicles (a Soyuz variant and the LK lander) targeted towards a Moon flyby each time, so that puts it definitely on par with Saturn V carrying Apollo test missions. — JFG talk 23:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, we know Energia and STS were capable of launching super-heavy payloads as the orbiters themselves were the payload. Even though Polyus failed to reach orbit, Energia did prove that it could lift a non-orbiter external payload. --Winged Brick (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my original post. I didn't say it wasn't impossible that they could have, but they never demonstrated a capacity that would make them Super-Heavy lift, Buran was only 32~ tons, not anywhere near 50, and N1 never even got past the first stage with its payload, so on Paper all FH, Energia, and N1 can lift 50+ tons, none have, so if you're saying that they're super-heavy lift, then FH is too. BananaIAm (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Buran was not only 32 tons, that is the payload carried inside the Buran. Unlike the Space Shuttle the Buran was not a part of the launcher so it was itself the payload; in total around 105 tons including cargo. Re: Polyus although the total mission was a failure that was due to the payload, the Energia launch itself was a success (somewhat similar to SpaceX's Zuma launch for instance). ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Sight your sources, and, even if energia did do its job and did carry 50+ tons, N1 definitely didn'tBananaIAm (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Does "built" even matter? Energia and N1 are interesting to readers, as a comparison. That's all we need: they were credible plans for a launch vehicle that was of similar size. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but if you're gonna say that in the lead, then you should also say that FH is Super-heavy in the lead BananaIAm (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

STP-2

Right now STP-2 is actually scheduled for NET April, although on the chart it says it's scheduled for June 2018, so A) is my source wrong or B) Should I change it https://ipeer.auron.co.uk/launchschedule/ BananaIAm (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Not Earlier Than (NET) April; Launch date is not defined but expected between April and June. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Links?

Maybe we should site the video of the core crashing? Just a thought BananaIAm (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't the payload figures on the initial section specify they use a fully expendable Falcon Heavy?

A youtube comment brought me here, where people seemed to be citing Wikipedia as suggesting the reuseable payload for the Falcon Heavy was around 63 tonnes to LEO. One could be forgiven for thinking that given that it's only mentioned far later on in the article that the reusable payload is around 30 tonnes to LEO. If nobody objects I will be adding a note next to those numbers saying "fully expendable" or something like that.

Thanks.

Chuckstablers (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Payload capacities

Watching Scott Manley I was surprised to hear that the Falcon 9 can lift as much into GTO (~8 tonnes) in expendable operation as the Falcon Heavy can lift in fully-reusable operation. By the sounds of it, the maximum stated lift capacity for these vehicles depends on them being expendable, so the Falcon Heavy can only launch ~27 tonnes into GTO if none of the boosters return to be reused. If this is true then I'm surprised it isn't made much clearer in the article. I doubt that our readers would consider that rockets specifically designed to be reusable can also be used expendably, or that the maximum stated payload depends on them being destroyed in the process. nagualdesign 13:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Under Falcon Heavy#Capabilities is does say, "The maximum payload is achieved when the rocket flies a fully expendable launch profile, not recovering any of the three first-stage boosters." followed by a table. I suggest we show 2 tables, one for expendable operations (the one we have now) and one for fully-reusable operation. nagualdesign 13:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

So, this seems to come from the "Capabilities" page of the Falcon Heavy. If you look here: http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities you will see under the prices (to the left of the rockets) where it says "$90M, Up to 8.0 mT to GTO". The figures for the F9 are $62M for 5.5 mT. Those number seem to be for a flat reusable mission with boosters landing on land and the core landing at sea. This capacity is FAR less than the 11 mT for Ariane 5 (though that gets a boost for its launch latitude). Of course, these figures are for the ECA and the as-yet unflown Falcon Heavy Block 5. The quoted prices are under half of what an Ariane 5 costs. Here's the problem, though. That doesn't list the MAXIMUM capacity for a reusable mission. That is just the cost for 8.0 tonnes. It is possible that you can pay more for a more risky reentry profile. It is also possible that SpaceX has built a margin into their pricing so that it will cost more if you have lower fuel margins. Further, it is plausible that there will be a sliding scale of reusability with F9 Block 4 boosters expended on a few launches or core booster expendability adding significantly to the cargo. Lots of this stuff will be proprietary.--Winged Brick (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Do you agree that this should be mentioned more prominently in the article? As I see it, most people think of the Falcon rockets as being reusable – their raison d'être – yet the numbers quoted in the lead section (and in the table) are definitely not possible during fully-reusable operation. I think it would surprise our readers to learn that those numbers are only applicable during fully-expendable operation. I expect most of them would imagine a 26-tonne probe being launched to GTO while the first stage boosters return to the Cape. nagualdesign 19:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Since I'm the one that toned it down in the first place, I absolutely do NOT think it should be featured prominently. The reason is that this is a pricing scheme that only tangentially reflects the capabilities of the rocket. The purpose seems to be only for pricing. As I stated in the earlier post, this is not a firm, fixed, capability, rather a price point that can change dramatically based on partial reuse, fuel margins, where the boosters land, etc. For all we know this could be a figure for all three boosters landing on land. Without that extra data, the 8.0 mT figure is simply misleading. If data comes to light, a more comprehensive table can be developed. As it is, this data is in the article. For the lead, the maximum capability better reflects the Falcon Heavy's place among other boosters without misleading the reader by getting into a price/reusability debate better suited for farther down in the article. --Winged Brick (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
IIRC, "90 million for 8 tonnes to GTO" is actually "90 million for 8 tonnes to GTO-1800" and all three cores return to launch site. It's cheaper and safer for the cores to return to the launch site than to land on ships. The next option up is "XX million for 14 tonnes to GTO-1800" (no pricing known), with center core landing on a ship, and the other two boosters returning to launch site. Second to last configuration is "95+ million for 20 tonnes to GTO-1800" which expends the center core and lands the two side cores on ships. Musk said 95 million... but that doesn't seem quite right to expend the center core. Maybe he typoed. The final configuration is "150 million for 27 tonnes to GTO-1800", which is fully expendable mode. — Gopher65talk 17:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
This discussion reflects the problem people have in understanding the FH. The FH is a very poor design, suffering from an unhealty relation between first stage(s) and the upper stage. That would not matter much, if SpaceX was not all about reusability. While the F9 was a reusable penalty of about 30%, the penalty is about 2/3s on the FH. 8t to GTO is indeed the maximum payload, which corresponds to roughly 20-25t to LEO.
Let us take the Intelsat 35e mission for comparison. Stage seperation took place at about 9.500km/h, with the second stage providing another 17.300km/h plus the thrust for GTO. With any larger payload the 2nd stage will provide less acceleration. Accordingly to get to orbit, the speed at separation must be higher. I roughly calculated the necessary separation speeds for different payloads. 22,8t LEO - 10.900km/h, 25t - 11.600km/h, 30t - 12.850km/h, 40t - 14.800km/h and 64t - 17.700km/h. It may not be perfectly accurate, but it demonstrates the problem. Recovering any first stage at speeds above 10.000km/h is very hard to do, and comes at least with large fuel demands for entry burn and so on. All reusable, the FH is limit to about 8t for GTO and 22t for LEO.
Fixing the "problem" would require a much larger 2nd stage with at least 2 engines.--Leitwolf22 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A spaceflightnow article give us better numbers from mr. Koenigsmann for the capability of Falcon Heavy for a GTO Flight: 15t for a expandable launch, 8t for landing all 3 boosters on sea and 5t for landing the side boosters on land. [1] 93.241.24.179 (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/03/14/air-force-sees-upcoming-falcon-heavy-launches-ask-key-to-certifying-reused-rocket-hardware/

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I plan to add more article as the my fellowship of royal astrollogical society 

Michaelbezos (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Environmental impact, delete section?

I don't think this section serves at all. None of the other launcher articles in Wikipedia (including Falcon 9) have such section and comments, and I don't see why this article should have such a soapbox, especially when exclusively focused on the negative from fringe sources.... and someone tagged it for a needed expansion! The Falcon 9 (and FH) are already planned to be occasional secondary launchers when the BFR starts flying, so the alarmist "impact" is POV. Regarding its Tesla payload, it is addressed at that article. I say it is irrelevant, and biased, and should be deleted. Any thoughts against it? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate information in the table "Falcon Heavy launches"

At the line: "NASA (Gateway Logistics Services)", references 138 and 139 don't indicate that Dragon XL will be a modified Crew Dragon. Here something have to be corrected 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.77.255 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done Corrected. Ruslik_Zero 05:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

USSF-44 launch timing

Per Spaceflight Now ([[3]]), USSF-44 is scheduled for "Second quarter 2021". 203.214.33.235 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Updated, thanks. --mfb (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Kindly do not change the primary thrust unit

What we do here must be collectively useful for ever one to understand.

Below are examples from CEO/CTO Elon himself, I hope you accept the primary unit accordingly.

Time and again Elon Musk posted unit of thrust in tonne-force (tf) rather than Newton.

Reason is, As you could take this below tweet as example,

With 1.5 Thrust/Weight ratio, you need like 150 tf of thrust to lift 100 t rocket, Just simple as that.

Even simpler example is 1N = 100 gram of force which not practical unit, thats why kgF & tF are used by Elon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1300700639786340353 Chandraprakash (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Payload Figures inconsistent with NASA's launch vehicle performance calculator

Hi,

Look at https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx. This webpage shows you the payload capability of different rockets, using information that is supplied by the manufacturers. I believe the payload estimates are wrong on the wikipedia page for the Falcon Heavy. it says around 16 tonnes to a mars transfer orbit in expendable mode, but this is NOT the case. If you want to count the dry mass of the stage, then I guess it's technically correct, but that's VERY misleading. No other page on any other rocket on wikipedia counts the DRY MASS of the upper stage in the payload mass. The actual payload to a high energy orbit with a C3 of 12 km^2/s^2 (the C3 required for a mars transfer orbit) is 11880 kg's. This is very different from 16; that's actually about a third more than the actual payload capacity. This webpage uses data from the manufacturer of the rockets, so this should be considered more up to date than earlier (seemingly very optimistic) estimates.

Inaccurate trans martian injection numbers.

The data on the TMI payload capacity is VERY wrong. It is based off of a source from 2012, well before the thing even flew. Up to date data from NASA and SpaceX shows a DRAMATICALLY different payload capacity to a TMI injection orbit. A trans mars injection orbit has a specific orbital energy of around 8-12 km^2/s^2. Source for that is from NASA's trajectory browser, which keeps catalogues of basic trajectories to other planets/near earth objects. Typing in mars as the destination with a one way rendezvous, the C3 required for the optimal (least delta v required) trajectory is 9.1 km^2/s^2. Now; nasa has a launch performance calculator website, which uses the launch providers own data which they provide for customers for a first step in mission design. Plugging in a C3 of 9.1 km^2/s^2 for the orbit, we find that the falcon heavy in expendable mode can inject 12.575 tonnes into that orbit. That is 22% less than the quoted figure from 2012. This is likely because they were doing an optimal back of the envelope analysis, with idealistic settings that you won't find in real life. In real life you have propellant residuals, performance residuals, etc. In any case; to be clear, this 12.575 tonnes figure is what SpaceX ACTUALLY provides to NASA.... The least C3 I found for a trajectory was 8.2 km^2/s^2, which brings up the payload to 12.8 tonnes, so that's still dramatically less. The launch performance website is https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Query.aspx. I think we need to be careful about using incredibly out of date, highly optimistic and misleading "sources", when we have far more up to date and reliable sources available. These are the numbers SpaceX essentially guarantees to their customers. Why would we be using numbers that SpaceX themselves don't support in 2022? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.61.252 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the 2nd stage a standard Falcon 9 2nd stage

The FH centre/core is a strengthened F9 booster. Is the FH 2nd stage a standard or strengthened F9 2nd stage ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The current featured image in the info box is from the Falcon Heavy test flight, which was derived from the block 3/4 versions of Falcon 9. Since then, all subsequent FHs have been based on the block 5 variant, which has distinct cosmetic differences in the landing legs and grid fins, as shown in the diagram in the article. Photographs of this version of the rocket are available on SpaceX's flickr under what I think are acceptable license requirements for inclusion on wiki.

Given that every Falcon Heavy rocket since the test flight and for the foreseeable future is of the block 5 variant, I think the image should be changed to show one. Labtec901 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a good replacement? Launch 3, 4 and 5 were in darkness. From launch 2 we have this image which could be cropped to show the rocket only. --mfb (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Heavy lift or super heavy lift? - when Reusable or expended

Checking User:Khaefu's edits I noticed that, according to our Super heavy-lift launch vehicle article, the Falcon Heavy ought to be classed as a super heavy as it can lift over 50 tonnes to LEO. Should the article be changed? At the very least it cannot be both a heavy-lift and super heavy-lift launch vehicle, so Khaefu's edits will need amending or undoing. nagualdesign 03:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah.. I see now; only in its fully-expendable mode can it lift over 50t to LEO. nagualdesign 03:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The payload adapter fairing can't handle the forces with a 50 tonne payload, and it's unclear who would want to get such a massive object to LEO. In principle the rocket could be used as super-heavy-lift vehicle, but for all practical purposes it is heavy-lift. --mfb (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Some clarification in the infobox Capacity section might be advisable. If it's not possible to show both the reusable and expendable payload capacities, I'd recommend just showing the former. As it is, the lead section and the infobox are at odds. nagualdesign 18:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Clearly super heavy lift. The definition is capacity over... Which FH is. I added a note saying that in reusable config it is heavylift Starship 24 (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Expandable falcon heavy and reuseable falcon heavy is basically different rocket bacause it can be assume expendable falcon heavy would have no leg meaning different configuration . So falcon heavy can be both super heavy and heavy launch vehicle Khaefu (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. nagualdesign 18:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget: There are two partly-reusable configurations : Recovering just the two side boosters, and recovering all three cores. - Rod57 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

How many stages does it have?

The infobox states that it has 2.5 stages. Anyone can explain what it means? Technically it has two, if we count the center core + the 2nd stage. The other two falcon 9 first stages are technically boosters, but are they still taken into consideration when calculatiing the number of stages? Spacex does refer to them as "boosters", "first stage" and "second stage". Cocobb8 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Boosters are considered [by some] a half stage, such as with the Space Shuttle stack. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
That makes more sense. Thanks! Cocobb8 (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Expendable Payload

It should be noted next to the 63.8 t (141,000 lb) payload figure that this is the capacity for a fully expendable launch. The fact that the Falcon Heavy has never had a fully expendable launch nor does SpaceX seem to have any plan to, the figure can be misleading. The Falcon 9 wiki page also gives note whether the payload figure is for an expendable configuration or reusable, however since SpaceX does not seem to publically give the expendable figure for the Falcon Heavy. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Europa Clipper is expected to be fully expendable, but it doesn't matter. The Saturn V never launched 140 tonnes of payload to LEO either. It had the option, that's enough. --mfb (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I never said to remove the fully reusable payload figure, I said it should be noted in the article the 63.8 t figure is for a fully expendable configuration. A reader could easily assume the figure is for a fully reusable launch system, when in reality the FH's fully reusable LEO payload is less than half of 63.8t. Also the Saturn V's 140t payload figure isn't apples to apples with modern rocket payloads as the mass of the third stage and it's fuel are part of the payload figure. Using current standards for payload the LEO capacity of the Saturn 5 is ~122.4 t as calculated by NASA. --SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

False claims regarding launch of Orion by Falcon Heavy

Section 1.5 of the Falcon Heavy article, contains a false statement regarding the capacity of the Falcon Heavy to launch the Orion spacecraft, attributed to NASA Administrator Bridenstine. This false statement is not supported by the content of either of the two references listed in support.

The actual Bridenstine statement can be seen on YouTube, dating April 2, 2019, under a title "Falcon Heavy for NASA Moon Shots? NASA Chief Talks Challenges" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y81vx__JngY

Unpacking the complexity of what Brindenstine said, amounts to two key conclusions: 1) That using the Falcon Heavy for the Artemis-1 mission scheduled for launch in the summer of 2020, requires too many changes to meet the deadline 2) But, that potential use of the Falcon Heavy for Orion launches in the future is viable, if the Boeing ICPS stage is added to the Falcon Heavy as a third stage of the rocket

In no case does Bridenstine say, as the wikipedia article claims that, "NASA director Jim Bridenstine announced that Falcon Heavy is powerful enough to launch the Orion capsule, but cannot launch it on top of the European Service Module in the same flight, and thus Falcon Heavy cannot be used as a replacement for SLS." Nor do the sources listed contain anything close to resembling that false statement.

Yes, in later months after Bridenstine floated the potential of Falcon Heavy, Bridenstine did recommit NASA to exclusive use of SLS for launching Orion. But this was not due to incapacity of Falcon Heavy, nor was there ever any direct statement claiming Falcon Heavy incapacity.

The Bridenstine recommitment to SLS was widely understood to be a political maneuver by Bridenstine to bolster support for Project Artemis within the U.S. Congress. U.S. Senator Shelby, a long time champion of the SLS program had chided Bridenstine for his heresy. See this interchange from May 2019 between Senator Shelby and Bridenstine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKksVsuhtso

Thank you for your attention,

from your friendly neighborhood space-nerd, gunsandrockets 2600:8801:FF00:200:9C29:1268:B72E:C2E1 (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have edited in the detail about the Boeing ICPS requirement. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, instead of correcting the error, the edit compounded the error. So not only does the statement in the Falcon Heavy article remain false, and remain unsupported by any evidence, it is now wildly and laughably false.
Taken at face value, the false statement seems to suggest that a Falcon Heavy requires the aid of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage, to launch as little as 10 metric tons payload (the approximate mass of the crew capsule of the Orion spacecraft) to a trans-lunar-injection trajectory!
SMH. 2600:8801:FF00:200:9C29:1268:B72E:C2E1 (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed the questionable details. Seems to be more a political decision than a technical one anyway. --mfb (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@2600:8801:FF00:200:9C29:1268:B72E:C2E1 The Boeing ICPS is needed because it's required to carry the Orion spacecraft, not because it needs the extra thrust. Although I admit I did fudge the wording on that edit. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falcon_Heavy/Archive_1&oldid=1216741925"