11 ms·

SpaceX Launches Super-Heavy Communications Satellite

174 points by blago 9y ago

jamesrom 9y ago
Can someone explain why it's called "Super-Heavy"?
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Because it has a mass large enough to be awkward to launch in an Ariane 5 upper berth or with Proton. "Super Heavy" is a bad choice of words since rockets themselves are often classed as "medium", "heavy", and "super heavy", and this satellite is nowhere near the mass for needing a "super heavy" rocket to launch.
kirrent 9y ago
Interestingly, this launch wasn't within the original capabilities of the falcon 9 and was originally scheduled for a falcon heavy launch. The lengthening of the rocket, using densified propellants, and more changes meant that they could instead use a falcon 9 even though they couldn't recover it. It's a cool reminder of just how much the falcon 9 has changed.
- deegles 9y ago
  I was wondering if they've considered just leaving the first stage in orbit and then refueling it later for recovery. It might be worth it to refuel after super heavy loads on the Falcon Heavy.
  - sitharus 9y ago
    The first stage never makes it to orbit, it's on a ballistic trajectory in to the Atlantic Ocean. Landing from a short hop is a much easier operation than from orbit. So far SpaceX have abandoned second stage recovery as too hard.
    - DiThi 9y ago
      Second stage recovery of F9 is not out of the table completely yet. It seems more likely now that there will be attempts in the future.
    - bisby 9y ago
      https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847882289581359104 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847882289581359104 as of 1.5 months ago. > Considering trying to bring upper stage back on Falcon Heavy demo flight for full reusability. Odds of success low, but maybe worth a shot. So they've definitely not abandoned it, and in fact, are actively considering at least as a small possibility again.
      - sitharus 9y ago
        I was referring to the standard falcon 9, but you're quite right. It'll be impressive if SpaceX manage second stage recovery.
      - aninhumer 9y ago
        Is there any information about how second stage recovery would work? A powered landing on a single vacuum engine from orbital velocity seems implausible...
        zardo 9y ago
        Other than "bring it back like dragon", nothing official. The addition of heatshield and some alternate landing device seems very likely.
  - dfox 9y ago
    The first stage does not have enough delta-V to reach stable orbit which is the sole reason for existence of second stage. Building something that can reach orbit with only one stage is in fact the holy grail of cheap space flight, it is my understanding that such thing is physically impossible when you carry entire used reaction mass from the surface of earth.
    - skykooler 9y ago
      According to Elon Musk [1], the first stage could technically fly all the way to orbit (if it weren't lifting the rest of the rocket); it just wouldn't be able to carry a useful payload. [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669132749500887040 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669132749500887040
      - stcredzero 9y ago
        So throw some advanced carbon fiber construction at it and launch it from a mass driver. Then you'd have an SSTO with a small usable payload!
        sitharus 9y ago
        Something that can withstand the acceleration of a mass driver and the accompanying atmospheric heating while still being light enough to achieve orbit would be quite the feat.
        brianwawok 9y ago
        Would hybrid help? Say mass driver to 1000 m/s before the rocket booster starts?
        TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        You made it sound easy. The tallest building is about 830m high. A rocket would have to undergo some fierce acceleration to gain any useful speed over that distance. Something like pushing a bullet through water. The stresses on such a structure, and the launch vehicle, would probably give them a limited life span. I suspect economics plays a big role here. I suspect it is cheaper to launch multistage rockets than to build a mass driver long / tall enough to be useful.
  - feelix 9y ago
    It's not like a car that just needs more gas to keep going. It takes a lot of refurbishment to make it so it fly again after it's taken off into space.
    - avmich 9y ago
      They work on making those refurbishments done within 24 hour time period.
  - devrandomguy 9y ago
    If we're going to do creative difficult things with orbital first stages, then I would like to see them used as space stations. 3.7m OD should be nice and roomy on the inside. Perhaps, a bunch of them could be linked together into a ring? There were ideas like this for the Shuttle's big orange tank, back in the day.
- ValG 9y ago
  This is super interesting - is there any information if they're doing this for other Falcon 9s? Or are all of the new 9s built like this now? Was this a contingency plan if the heavy wasn't launched on time or a scramble to get it done?
  - sitharus 9y ago
    All new falcon 9s are like this, it's the 'full thrust' variant. It's also how they have the fuel to land.
    - simonh 9y ago
      Then again there is Block 5, the 'final' version including the new retractable landing legs, new engine enclosure heat shield and further performance improvements. Those were supposed to be in production by now, but we'll see. They're an important next milestone because that will be the version that gets man-rated and will thus have to be a 'frozen' config.
      - ChuckMcM 9y ago
        This is the one I'm really interested in seeing. In theory it is the culmination of all the things they will have learned from landing boosters back. Given the thermal damage to the guide fins on SES-10 (another one that wasn't 'supposed' to be recoverable) I expect there will also be an upgrade there some how. I found it interesting that the latest piece on New Glenn showed the booster landing with winged guide fins. I'm not sure that will work given NASA research into hyper-sonic flight with airfoil wings. If they can pull it off that will be a good data point as well. At lunch the other day we got into a discussion as to whether a 'landable' booster could also continue on to orbit. Specifically if, after the second stage had separated and headed on, the first stage could re-light and put itself into its own orbit. I couldn't find anywhere that suggested what the mass of the booster was at separation. Would be a fun kerbal program.
        neolefty 9y ago
- valuearb 9y ago
  According to wikipedia the Falcon 9 has increased GTO payloads from 4,500 kg to 8,000 kg from the 1.0 version to the Full Thrust version. And payload to LEO from 10,450 kg to 22,800 kg. These improvements have been passed on to the Falcon Heavy, and it's expect to put 64,000 kg into LEO, just shy of the SLS's 70,000 kg.
  - pinewurst 9y ago
    Does anyone actually believe that the Senate Launch System (SLS) will fly, much less carry a significant payload?
    - yborg 9y ago
      It may have had some real function as a hedge against failure of the commercial launch ventures to retain an in-house American launch capability, but this no longer looks like a problem. I believe that there is a use for NASA and even the manned program, but building a booster is stupid at this point, it's just literal corporate welfare now.
      - rst 9y ago
        That function was served not by SLS but by the formation of United Launch Alliance (a/k/a ULA), which merged the former rocket divisions of both Lockheed/Martin and Boeing, operating both their boosters (Atlas V and Delta IV). The formation of this venture was effectively brokered by government, which also let it charge above-market rates for launches, and until recently gave it an additional $1 billion or so per year on top of that to preserve "launch capability and readiness". Like the speciality shipyards that make nuclear submarines, the Pentagon was arranging to make very sure they stayed in business -- though that may be changing, now that lower-priced, American commercial competition has emerged (in the form of SpaceX, with Blue Origin perhaps coming along as well, having announced plans for an orbital booster with capabilities comparable to the SpaceX Falcon Heavy). SLS isn't really suitable for defense satellite launches. It's oversized for the job, and won't be capable of the required flight rates (several launches per year at least) for a very long time, if ever. (Current schedule is years between launches.) It also isn't necessary for launching crew to at least low earth orbit; one of the commercial crew contractors (Boeing) is expecting to send crew up on man-rated versions of the ULA Atlas V.
- Symmetry 9y ago
  All those changes to the Falcon 9 are probably a large part of why we're only getting a Falcon Heavy now.
Animats 9y ago
This is good. Space-X just needs to keep those routine launches going, catch up on their backlog, and keep their customer base happy. They were falling behind for a while, and losing customers to Arianespace.
ge96 9y ago
Damn 50Mbps by satellite

174 points by blago 9y ago

jamesrom 9y ago

Can someone explain why it's called "Super-Heavy"?

greglindahl 9y ago
Because it has a mass large enough to be awkward to launch in an Ariane 5 upper berth or with Proton. "Super Heavy" is a bad choice of words since rockets themselves are often classed as "medium", "heavy", and "super heavy", and this satellite is nowhere near the mass for needing a "super heavy" rocket to launch.

kirrent 9y ago

Interestingly, this launch wasn't within the original capabilities of the falcon 9 and was originally scheduled for a falcon heavy launch. The lengthening of the rocket, using densified propellants, and more changes meant that they could instead use a falcon 9 even though they couldn't recover it. It's a cool reminder of just how much the falcon 9 has changed.

deegles 9y ago
I was wondering if they've considered just leaving the first stage in orbit and then refueling it later for recovery. It might be worth it to refuel after super heavy loads on the Falcon Heavy.
- sitharus 9y ago
  The first stage never makes it to orbit, it's on a ballistic trajectory in to the Atlantic Ocean. Landing from a short hop is a much easier operation than from orbit. So far SpaceX have abandoned second stage recovery as too hard.
  - DiThi 9y ago
    Second stage recovery of F9 is not out of the table completely yet. It seems more likely now that there will be attempts in the future.
  - bisby 9y ago
    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847882289581359104 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847882289581359104 as of 1.5 months ago. > Considering trying to bring upper stage back on Falcon Heavy demo flight for full reusability. Odds of success low, but maybe worth a shot. So they've definitely not abandoned it, and in fact, are actively considering at least as a small possibility again.
    - sitharus 9y ago
      I was referring to the standard falcon 9, but you're quite right. It'll be impressive if SpaceX manage second stage recovery.
    - aninhumer 9y ago
      Is there any information about how second stage recovery would work? A powered landing on a single vacuum engine from orbital velocity seems implausible...
      - zardo 9y ago
        Other than "bring it back like dragon", nothing official. The addition of heatshield and some alternate landing device seems very likely.
- dfox 9y ago
  The first stage does not have enough delta-V to reach stable orbit which is the sole reason for existence of second stage. Building something that can reach orbit with only one stage is in fact the holy grail of cheap space flight, it is my understanding that such thing is physically impossible when you carry entire used reaction mass from the surface of earth.
  - skykooler 9y ago
    According to Elon Musk [1], the first stage could technically fly all the way to orbit (if it weren't lifting the rest of the rocket); it just wouldn't be able to carry a useful payload. [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669132749500887040 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669132749500887040
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      So throw some advanced carbon fiber construction at it and launch it from a mass driver. Then you'd have an SSTO with a small usable payload!
      - sitharus 9y ago
        Something that can withstand the acceleration of a mass driver and the accompanying atmospheric heating while still being light enough to achieve orbit would be quite the feat.
        brianwawok 9y ago
        Would hybrid help? Say mass driver to 1000 m/s before the rocket booster starts?
      - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
        You made it sound easy. The tallest building is about 830m high. A rocket would have to undergo some fierce acceleration to gain any useful speed over that distance. Something like pushing a bullet through water. The stresses on such a structure, and the launch vehicle, would probably give them a limited life span. I suspect economics plays a big role here. I suspect it is cheaper to launch multistage rockets than to build a mass driver long / tall enough to be useful.
- feelix 9y ago
  It's not like a car that just needs more gas to keep going. It takes a lot of refurbishment to make it so it fly again after it's taken off into space.
  - avmich 9y ago
    They work on making those refurbishments done within 24 hour time period.
- devrandomguy 9y ago
  If we're going to do creative difficult things with orbital first stages, then I would like to see them used as space stations. 3.7m OD should be nice and roomy on the inside. Perhaps, a bunch of them could be linked together into a ring? There were ideas like this for the Shuttle's big orange tank, back in the day.
ValG 9y ago
This is super interesting - is there any information if they're doing this for other Falcon 9s? Or are all of the new 9s built like this now? Was this a contingency plan if the heavy wasn't launched on time or a scramble to get it done?
- sitharus 9y ago
  All new falcon 9s are like this, it's the 'full thrust' variant. It's also how they have the fuel to land.
  - simonh 9y ago
    Then again there is Block 5, the 'final' version including the new retractable landing legs, new engine enclosure heat shield and further performance improvements. Those were supposed to be in production by now, but we'll see. They're an important next milestone because that will be the version that gets man-rated and will thus have to be a 'frozen' config.
    - ChuckMcM 9y ago
      This is the one I'm really interested in seeing. In theory it is the culmination of all the things they will have learned from landing boosters back. Given the thermal damage to the guide fins on SES-10 (another one that wasn't 'supposed' to be recoverable) I expect there will also be an upgrade there some how. I found it interesting that the latest piece on New Glenn showed the booster landing with winged guide fins. I'm not sure that will work given NASA research into hyper-sonic flight with airfoil wings. If they can pull it off that will be a good data point as well. At lunch the other day we got into a discussion as to whether a 'landable' booster could also continue on to orbit. Specifically if, after the second stage had separated and headed on, the first stage could re-light and put itself into its own orbit. I couldn't find anywhere that suggested what the mass of the booster was at separation. Would be a fun kerbal program.
      - neolefty 9y ago
valuearb 9y ago
According to wikipedia the Falcon 9 has increased GTO payloads from 4,500 kg to 8,000 kg from the 1.0 version to the Full Thrust version. And payload to LEO from 10,450 kg to 22,800 kg. These improvements have been passed on to the Falcon Heavy, and it's expect to put 64,000 kg into LEO, just shy of the SLS's 70,000 kg.
- pinewurst 9y ago
  Does anyone actually believe that the Senate Launch System (SLS) will fly, much less carry a significant payload?
  - yborg 9y ago
    It may have had some real function as a hedge against failure of the commercial launch ventures to retain an in-house American launch capability, but this no longer looks like a problem. I believe that there is a use for NASA and even the manned program, but building a booster is stupid at this point, it's just literal corporate welfare now.
    - rst 9y ago
      That function was served not by SLS but by the formation of United Launch Alliance (a/k/a ULA), which merged the former rocket divisions of both Lockheed/Martin and Boeing, operating both their boosters (Atlas V and Delta IV). The formation of this venture was effectively brokered by government, which also let it charge above-market rates for launches, and until recently gave it an additional $1 billion or so per year on top of that to preserve "launch capability and readiness". Like the speciality shipyards that make nuclear submarines, the Pentagon was arranging to make very sure they stayed in business -- though that may be changing, now that lower-priced, American commercial competition has emerged (in the form of SpaceX, with Blue Origin perhaps coming along as well, having announced plans for an orbital booster with capabilities comparable to the SpaceX Falcon Heavy). SLS isn't really suitable for defense satellite launches. It's oversized for the job, and won't be capable of the required flight rates (several launches per year at least) for a very long time, if ever. (Current schedule is years between launches.) It also isn't necessary for launching crew to at least low earth orbit; one of the commercial crew contractors (Boeing) is expecting to send crew up on man-rated versions of the ULA Atlas V.
Symmetry 9y ago
All those changes to the Falcon 9 are probably a large part of why we're only getting a Falcon Heavy now.

Animats 9y ago

This is good. Space-X just needs to keep those routine launches going, catch up on their backlog, and keep their customer base happy. They were falling behind for a while, and losing customers to Arianespace.

ge96 9y ago

Damn 50Mbps by satellite