I’ve got to do a deep dive into the launch requirements of mission designs beyond LEO and compare F9 Arlas V 401, 551, FHeavy and FHeavy Expendable. I think a lot of people will be VERY surprised. Specific Impulse on the upper stage is everything.
-
-
Replying to @doug_ellison
I keep hearing the FH isn't that great when it comes to tossing things beyond LEO, and at a higher cost than competitors.
4 replies 5 retweets 44 likes -
Replying to @dsfpspacefl1ght
Basically a recovered FHeavy is out performed by the high end Atlas Vs, and an expendable FHeavy is probably more expensive than those Atlas Vs. the performance numbers are at https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/pages/Query.aspx …
5 replies 5 retweets 63 likes -
Replying to @doug_ellison @dsfpspacefl1ght
The performance numbers in this database are not accurate. In process of being fixed. Even if they were, a fully expendable Falcon Heavy, which far exceeds the performance of a Delta IV Heavy, is $150M, compared to over $400M for Delta IV Heavy.
47 replies 195 retweets 1,579 likes -
Both exhaust velocity (Isp) and mass ratio drive the rocket equation. Also thrust/mass matters a lot for Oberth effect. Delta upper stage Isp is good, but mass ratio and thrust are not.
22 replies 62 retweets 767 likes -
How much does a Falcon Heavy cost if only the center core is expendable?
3 replies 4 retweets 62 likes -
And just as importantly - what does that do to performance.
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
11 replies 21 retweets 439 likes
There is something very much like this for life trajectories
-
-
Replying to @DanielleFong @elonmusk and0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.