NASA & World Space Exploration...News, Views, Photos & videos

taxiya said:

If I understand you right, you just described why I asked the question. How could FH which lacks the two extra upper stages send GTO payload of 3 times of one F9. In other words, due to lack of 2 extra upper stages, FH should not be able to send 26.7t to GTO IMO, but around 15t.

Click to expand...

It is the same way that theoretically the Delta IV Heavy had more than triple the GTO performance of a Delta IV Medium+ (5,2) with the GEMs removed, even if you accounted for the larger fairing the Heavy had.

You are thinking the two (payload-less) stages as adding more fuel and range. It's the exact opposite, they simply add more mass and drag to the equation.

Delta IV is again a good example. Delta IV Medium+ (4,2) has a GTO capacity of 6,150 kilograms. The bigger Delta IV Medium+ (5,2), due to the larger 5-meter (16 ft) DCSS upper stage gets 5,072 kilograms. Even when it has a lot more fuel.

gelgoog said:

In a two stage rocket the ideal ratio is the lower stage should be 10x bigger than the upper stage. That is why Falcon 9 has 9 lower stage engines. 9 is the closest number to 10 for which you can still build a symmetrical engine arrangement. They are using the same engine on both stages.

This ratio is broken on Falcon Heavy. The upper stage for it is underpowered. Period.

Click to expand...

It's the other way around btw.

Falcon 9 has a first stage weighing ~440 tons wet, and a second stage weighing ~110 tons. That gives you a ratio of around 4.
Falcon 9 has an abnormally large and overpowered second stage, and it stages low and slow so it has to do most of the work to get a payload to orbit.

Falcon Heavy has a first stage weighing ~445 tons wet, two boosters weighing about ~433 tons and an upper stage weighing ~110 tons. That gives you a ratio of around 12. Which is better for high energy orbits/missions.

Trump intends to renominate Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator. The man's got some plans for sweeping reforms of NASA:
- procure science-as-a-service from commercial enterprises
- cancel the SLS and Gateway programs after two more flights
- incorporating elements of those programs (and prior US research) into nuclear propulsion


UPDATE: He tweeted this before making his account private...

- Reorganize and Empower
Pivot from the drawn-out, multi-phase RIF “death by a thousand cuts” to a single, data-driven reorganization aimed at reducing layers of bureaucracy between leadership and the engineers, researchers, and technicians--basically all the “doers”. Align departments tightly to the mission so that information flows for quick decision-making. One example, which was mischaracterized by a reporter, was exploring relocating all aircraft to Armstrong so there could be a single hierarchy for aviation operations, maintenance, and safety. From there, aircraft like T-38s would operate on detachment at JSC. Other goals of the reorganization, would be to liberate the NASA budget from dated infrastructure that is in disrepair to free up resources to invest in what is needed for the mission of the day. And maybe most importantly, reenergize a culture of empowerment, ownership, and urgency--and recalibrate a framework that acknowledges some risks are worth taking.

– American Leadership in the High Ground of Space
Put more astronauts in space with greater frequency, including rebooting the Payload Specialist programs to give opportunities for the NASA workforce--especially on opportunities that could unlock the orbital economy--the chance to go to space. Fulfill the 35-year promise and President Trump’s Artemis plan to return American astronauts to the Moon and determine the scientific, economic, and national security reasons to support an enduring lunar presence. Eventually, transition to an affordable, repeatable lunar architecture that supports frequent missions. When that foundation is built, shift resources toward the near-impossible that no one else will work on like nuclear electric propulsion for efficient transport of mass, active cooling of cryogenic propellants, surface power, and even potential DoD applications. To be clear, the plan does not issue a directive to cancel Gateway or SLS, in fact, the word “Gateway” is used only three times in the entire document. It does explore the possibility of pivoting hardware and resources to a nuclear electric propulsion program after the objectives of the President’s budget are complete. On the same note, it also seeks to research the possibility that Orion could be launched on multiple platforms to support a variety of future mission applications. As an example of the report being dated, Sen. Cruz’s has subsequently incorporated additional funding in the OBBB for further Artemis missions--which brings clarity to the topic.

- Solving the Orbital Economy
Maximize the remaining life of the ISS. Streamline the process for high-potential science and research to reach orbit. Partner with industry (pharmaceuticals, mining, biotech, etc) to figure out how to extract more value from space than we put in--and critically attempt to solve the orbital economy. That is the only way commercial space station companies will have a fighting chance to succeed. I don’t think there is anything controversial here--we need to figure out how to pay for the exciting future we all want to see in space.

– NASA as a Force Multiplier for Science
Leverage NASA’s resources--financial (bulk buying launch and bus from numerous providers), technical, and operational expertise to increase the frequency of missions, reduce costs, and empower academic institutions to contribute to real discovery missions. The idea is to get some of that $1 trillion in university endowments into the fight, alongside NASA, to further science and discovery. Expand the CLPS-style approach across planetary science to accelerate discovery and reduce time-to-science... better to have 10 x $100 million missions and a few fail than a single overdue and costly $1B+ mission. I know the “science-as-a-service” concept got people fired up, but that was specifically called out in the plan for Earth observation, from companies that already have constellations like Planet, BlackSky, etc. Why build bespoke satellites at greater cost and delay when you could pay for the data as needed from existing providers and repurpose the funds for more planetary science missions (as an example)? With respect to JPL, it was a research request to look at overlaps between the work of the laboratory and what prime contractors were also doing on their behalf. The report never even remotely suggested that America could ever do without the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Personally, I have publicly defended programs like the Chandra X-ray Observatory, offered to fund a Hubble reboost mission, and anything suggesting that I am anti-science or want to outsource that responsibility is simply untrue.

– Investing in the Future
The congressionally mandated “learning period” will eventually expire, and the government will inevitably play a greater role in certifying commercial missions (crewed and uncrewed) just like they do with aircraft, ships, trains, etc. NASA eventually should build a Starfleet Academy to train and prepare the commercial industry to operate safely and successfully in this future space economy, and consolidate and upgrade mission control into a single “NORAD of peaceful space,” allowing JSC to become the spaceflight center of excellence and oversee multiple government and commercial missions simultaneously. Other investments for the future included AI, replacing dated IT systems, and ways to alleviate the demand on the Deep Space Network.

Blue Origin will attempt to launch and then land New Glenn on Sunday, November 9th at 2:45 PM EST (7:45 PM UTC). If all goes well, Blue Origin could become the second company to successfully launch and land a booster stage after SpaceX.

New Glenn launch reset due to weather to Nov 12: