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

iewgnem

Senior Member
Registered Member
I may be wrong here, but I remember Jupiter 3 being a lot larger than 6 tons - more than 9 tons to be exact, the largest commsat ever built, by far. And FH lobbed that to GTO.
You realize the fact that they've never tried dual payload missions, the standard for Ariane 5, means Falcon Heavy is really just a Long March 7 class rocket, lol

I should also remind you FH need to expend the center core for missions of only 5 tons to GTO
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
FH has a weak upper stage and the fairing is too small for large payloads. That is why.
It basically has the same upper stage as a regular Falcon 9. It is just nonsense.

How can you even dual manifest when your upper stage rocket engine cannot do multiple restarts?
Unless the satellites themselves have their own propulsion to place themselves in the target orbit this is impossible.
 
Last edited:

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
@iewgnem, I was simply responding to your post alleging that FH "has not managed to launch a single payload larger than 6 tons" (sic)

How can you even dual manifest when your upper stage rocket engine cannot do multiple restarts?
Unless the satellites themselves have their own propulsion to place themselves in the target orbit this is impossible.

The F9/FH upper stage uses a Merlin MVac engine that can do multiple restarts. Which is partly why some of its missions have been straight GEO injections.

Both Falcon 9 and FH have had dual/multiple manifest payloads. For FH, look at the ViaSat-3 Americas/Aurora 4A (Arcturus)/GS-1 mission.

Again, guys, I'm not trying to prove any point. It's just that you post things that are wrong. Do better.
 
Last edited:

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
So did they add multiple cartridges of hypergolics to Merlin Vacuum or something? It did not use to have them.
But it is still underpowered for the FH. And the fairing is too small.
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
So did they add multiple cartridges of hypergolics to Merlin Vacuum or something? It did not use to have them.
My understanding is that the first time a MVac was re-ignited for a second time in orbit was back in 2013 during SES-8, the first SpaceX GTO mission.

But the engine was capable of at least two re-ignitions from the start (so, at least three TEA-TEB canisters) . We positively know that due to what happened in the CRS-1 mission with the secondary payload (Orbcomm-OG2). ;)
 
Last edited:

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
My question of FH is that it has three times 1st stage (burn time, thrust, DV) of F9, but its 2nd stage is the same as F9 (burn time, thrust and DV). We know that when the rocket grows larger in liftoff mass its payload grows less higher as its mass even when if every stage increases by the same ratio. If the 2nd stage stays the same, it just can't provide same DV for the increased payload. So how could FH's claimed GTO capacity 26.7t be 3 times of 3 F9 FT combined (8.3*3=24.9t)? This question doesn't even consider the structure strengh yet.
 

Dante80

Junior Member
Registered Member
So how could FH's claimed GTO capacity 26.7t be 3 times of 3 F9 FT combined (8.3*3=24.9t)?

That's because Falcon Heavy is not 3 Falcon 9s strapped together. You are missing the extra two upper stages for that, it only has the one. That is a lot of mass missing.

Falcon Heavy is essentially a Falcon 9 with 2 giant LRBs strapped to it.
 
Last edited:

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
That's because Falcon Heavy is not 3 Falcon 9s strapped together. You are missing the extra two upper stages for that, it only has the one. That is a lot of mass missing.

Falcon Heavy is essentially a Falcon 9 with 2 giant LRBs strapped to it.
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.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
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.
 
Top