if they can do it they will, but for em-1 it won't. figuring out how to launch the whole stack to the moon on falcon heavy would take more money and time then sls will at the accelerated pace. not to mention that falcon heavy can only sent it on a free return trajectory.
Maby usefull for the lighter missions. But sls has a much higher payload spec than f heavy. Especilly when going to geo or above. Hydrogen realy takes the crown when it comes to higher orbits. Its why the ariane rocket is still one of the mosted used rockets. Hydrogen rules.
FH just cant do some of the things SLS can do without breaking a sweat. Its horrible it keeps getting defunded and kneecapped over and over, SLS actually is incredibly innovative and a proper heavy lifter.
Integration and pad modifications would have to be sorted out, and it doesn't seem that those can be done by fall of 2020. But they are not show stoppers; the real concern, as Bridenstine noted, is how the aerodynamics and stress loads of such a tall stack would play out. Some modeling and wind tunnel tests would have to be done. I suspect it will work; but we'd need to be sure.
As EM1 is supposed to be uncrewed, they can be more aggressive with modifications. My guess is that Starship would be ready by then and that Orion wouldn't even fly with a crew AT ALL, at least not before a few years.
Such tests are no more necessary today, it exists programs giving same results on computers. If Falcon Heavy components can support 64 tons + 40% more (for maximum stress at two or three miles), it's possible. If not, no way.
Anybody can launch just one rocket. The real challenge is TWO rockets, so naturally the Delta IV Heavy is already better... because you need two... LOGIC!
The cost of 2 Deltas is nearely 1 billion whereas 1 FH is around 100 million. You talk about logic and yet with the comparative costs there is none in your argument.
I’m sorry but in 2021 Delta IV Heavy absolutely sucks in every way you compare the specs to Falcon Heavy or Vulcan SLS (block 1) makes more sense due to single launch than 2 D IV Heavy’s which defeats the point of a cheaper, more efficient replacement
There’s something really significant that both of you guys have missed. Ariane 5 is LH2/LOX, on a completely independent infrastructure with a separate pad and ESA is already building the service module. Last but not least Ariane has a 4.57 meter fairing and the kickstage to take em1 to the moon is 4 meter. The easiest way to do this mission is to launch delta 4 heavy from ksc and the booster from Guyana simultaneously. No muss, no fuss.
While that is a great idea I don’t think the government will be happy with that. They want this to be a pure *American* Project I don’t think they want anymore help from other countries. But you do know a lot more than me sooo idk
Oof-boi Русский бой I don’t know anything more than anybody else, I’m just a spacefan like most of us who play and have played KSP. All I am thinking about is the solution to the problem that requires the least possible effort. I mean if you’ll remember that international cooperation in space is what America is all about. I mean that’s why we have the ISS not space station “freedom.” Also, remember how much American pride we hold in Hubble? Her successor is being built just up the road from me in Greenbelt MD, but her ride to orbit is aboard the Ariane 5.
I think I know why you didn't get quite the performance out of the Falcon Heavy that you expected: You had the tanks loaded up with Nitrogen. I would assume that on a fully expendable mission, that Nitrogen gets AT LEAST dumped and the tanks stripped for weight, if not even filled with whatever fuel mixture the Merlins run on. ... Just a guess, though.
@@MarcusHouse Also, I think at liftoff, the center booster should be at full throttle to minimize gravity loss. Reduce throttle when aerodynamic pressure overcomes gravity losses. Also, I'm not sure Merlin can throttle down to 36%. I thought minimum was 75%. I may be wrong.
@@MarcusHouse nitrogen+COPVs+nozzles+piping. In the end it adds up to quite a lot, also the heat shield on the bottom and the hydraulic system for the grid fins.
Now what would it take to have 3 falcon boosters on the Falcon Heavy? Would we call it the WTF? (Whoa Three Falcon) :) Seriously tho, the hours in Kerbal alone for this video.. *whew* Nice work!
SpaceX seems happy/confident enough with Raptor and BFR to mean any serious needed changes to FH would result immediately in "Well, then we should just use BFR".
Awesome collab, guys. I think Marcus House’s falcon heavy option is the most feasible. The only other second launch site suitable for launching a delta IV heavy is Vandenberg and that site only works for polar and retrograde launches. It’s more likely that if this mission happens, an unknown third option would be pursued but of the two shown in your videos, my money is on the falcon heavy.
Sadly it's not about what would work best or is obvious. It's about politics. Tens of billions will be casually spent for the not-so-best option to keep the money flowing to the "right" companies.
@@skippityblippity8656 It's not a matter of American or not, it's a matter of how much taxpayer money flows and where it flows. For example, certain Representatives and Senators might do NASA some favors in terms of overall funding if they spend some of that money on overpriced rockets that are built in their districts and states. These politicians may even get secret kickbacks (bribes) from the companies involved in building the overpriced rockets, and the same may be true of some NASA officials who are in place to influence the decision. Of course, none of these people have any interest whatsoever in paying SpaceX and Elon Musk a fraction of the price for the same mission. What's in it for them personally, right? They would save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and the mission would be easier (and therefore be more likely to succeed), too, but they don't care about those things when there is money to be made for them and their "friends." Obviously not everyone is like this, as SpaceX has received funding and technical support from NASA, but we've seen enough strange decisions being made to suggest some collusion going on with the traditional suppliers of rockets and contract work. The current NASA administrator, Jim Bridenstine, who was somewhat recently appointed by President Trump, does offer some hope that NASA will do the sensible thing. He and Trump both favor SpaceX for their efficiency and low cost. Some of us are just a bit cynical because of how companies like Boeing and Lockheed have always been draining the pockets of NASA and taxpayers with their cost-plus (whatever the company says it costs plus a guaranteed profit margin) contracts that always take several times longer than they ought to and are therefore often canceled only to start a new contract that never finishes anything. It's still going on as we speak, which is why so many of us are still suspicious and expect the worse. Maybe Bridenstine or Trump will finally get fed up, cancel NASA's SLS, and turn NASA rocketry over to SpaceX. I'm sure they'll get a lot of opposition to this from every direction, though, including Congress and NASA as a whole, so it would not be an easy decision to make.
I'm 68yo and pretty computer literate, but I am impressed by both the posters' and commenters' knowledge of and facility with all this simulation software. I'm not sure how well it translates to reality, but it certainly appears to be a good base for speculation. I just wait until it happens and then deploy my awe!
You can burn pro-grade for those transfers and eliminate those cosine losses until about the last 20% when you can switch to aim at the maneuver to correct any error in trajectory This should make your transfers more efficient.
Starship seems a bad business move. If it were me, I'd go "Falcon Super heavy, with a 5-booster stack, and fairings to accommodate larger payloads. Cheaper than re-inventing the wheel, and would be able to handle much of what BFR could. If anything, invest in methane upper stages, and leave the rest "stet."
@Robert Willis BZZT! Thanks for playing. Don Pardo, do we have any consolation prizes? Uh, Poindexter, Musk has admitted the goal in building the BFR is NOT to maximize profit. The goal is to get humans to Mars. In fact, that was ALWAYS his goal. He only started SpaceX because nobody could get humans to Mars at a cost that would make anyone go along with it. The whole company is essentially a "side hustle" to gain enough bankroll and expertise to realize the end goal. Which is NOT "profit maximization." From a dollars-and--cents perspective, an upgraded FH is a lot more cost effective. Just not really useful for a self-sustained trip to Mars.
Everybody knows they will use a fleet of Electrons to build the Orion spacecraft in orbit (jk, but it would be cool and hella expensive at the same time)
Way to steep at launch. The fact that, after booster separation the core pitch down instead of up indicates inefficient trajectory design. There's no need to head further up than ~ 200 km at launch. Anything after that is way more efficiently done by Hohmann transfer.
The reason given for not sending the lunar injection stage up first and then docking with it is that "It's not designed to be docked with". It seems to me that this is the solution. Rather than just getting it done and trashing the rockets, we should be getting the rockets back and putting up smaller payloads that can be linked together later to accomplish the task.
Sure SpaceX's Heavy could launch EM-1Mission. It has been said that an expendable Falcon Heavy could satellize 63 tons, and that the lunar train would be of 55 tons, Orion+ESM+ICPS. More, it'd be interesting to look at something: imagine that if Heavy Falcon launch Orion, after the three cores of first stage, it fires a second stage, with one merlin engine, which could give 934KN and be fired at many times, its limits are only the size of tanks, ergols and hypergols. Upon this stage would be the ICPS, which engine can only give 110KN, but weigh 20 tons... Il could be interesting to unify these two stages, on an only second stage more strong, with higher tanks of ergols and hypergols. And when Bridenstine says that it would be necessary to launch two Falcon Heavy, sure, it could be easy to launch a part or future LOP-G which could be moved to the lunar orbit by a lunar train consisting in Orion+ ESM+ Stronger second Falcon stage...
I really do hope they continue with it. They need to learn how to compete. Sadly it all seems to largely be about job creation instead of efficiency. Maybe this commercial scare will kick everyone in the arse and get this thing moving.
I haven't been a NASA fan (as far as rockets go) since _Challenger._ Frankly, I think somebody should have done prison time for that, and the org. razed and built anew. Ironic that Von Braun was that org's moral compass...
One other options is to let New Glenn join the field. Dual launches, FH with Orion + ESM (probably + Lunar Lander) & New Glenn with ICPS Unlike DIVH, New Glenn is more capable at LEO 45 tons, but has the same advantage = also has an existing hydrolox facility, because of their second stage Another advantage is quick turnaround (of course, different pads), less pad modifications, and both could be launched in reusable mode ! (FH is going to be tight though, but Orion + ESM + Lander is going to be lighter than Orion + ESM + ICPS, light enough to be possible to reused. Maybe they will expend the center core) Disadvantage is of course New Glenn currently didn't exist. But it still 3 years from its debut to VP's 2024 target, so it could be a chance if BO could lobbying for it All of this said, SpaceX has a more simpler & (obviously) already in prototype phase, which is to launch & land a Starship directly to the moon (okay, with a rendezvous for refueling, but they have 2 launchpads in BC & Cape) 😝
If orion flies on the falcon heavy they can just launch 3 falcon 9's and use the boosters for a new orion mission because it will be expandable as you said
I wonder if it would be possible to launch the Orion and the Interim booster on separate Falcons? That would increase your margins and possibly allow for partially reusable configurations
You can't do a distant retrograde orbit without principia. DRO's are 3 body orbits; they rely upon the gravity of the earth and the moon interacting uniquely in a way that the patched conic approximation cannot replicate.
launch profile looks a bit steep. although this payload is quite heavy, fh's engines are probably still too powerful for a steep launch profile. Also worth noting, all falcon launch systems are throttled down at max q to avoid wasting fuel to drag.
New Glenn won’t be ready and never considered. But as a thought experiment pretending it would be available would it be capable of doing this mission in one launch.
The Falcon Heavy is the only current rocket that can launch all three stages of the Orion system. Others like the Delta IV Heavy can launch in two but that adds a docking need. In any case this won't happen when this was just NASA annoyed with SLS delays with SLS vowing to speed up. Also by 2022 we will have new rockets available that would make SRS obsolete including SpaceX's BFR Starship & Super Heavy then Blue Origin's New Glenn.
My vote is option C: neither of these profiles will happen. EM-1 will be cancelled as per standard US operating procedure. If I had to do it Kerbal style though, definitely FH. Max Q fears are nothing Kerbal Joint Reinforcements can't solve. ;)
hey Marcus, I've been thinking right, Jim bridenstine said that a falcon heavy could send Orion on a free return trajectory, but to send orin to lunar orbit, it needed an ICPS. but in theory, if a falcon heavy can get Orion to a free return trajectory, couldn't it use its service module to insert into lunar orbit, just like any old mission? I feel like if FH can get Orion on a FRT then you don't need an icps on top. what do you think about that?
Pretty sure a standard falcon heavy cannot insert Orion to a TLI and Orion has to burn most of its on board propellant just to reach a free return trajectory
Man, Boeing really screwed us over on that SLS. I think Boeing is trying to do too much and just cannot meet any goals anymore. Why can't Falcon 2nd stage do this?
Why wouldn't they launch a Falcon Heavy with the Orion & Service Module and a Delta 4 Heavy with the ICPS? They both have launch pads on the east coast, don't they?
Clearly the stress would be to high at max q.... The oscillations would tear it apart.... I suggest using ISRO to put one module in LEO where it can safely rendezvous with falcon heavy. ISRO takes like 1.5 mil to make one of their PSLV so the price in a collaboration would be low.
I love the Delta IV Heavy - but Falcon 9 Heavy is more powerful and just as sexy. What part of "more delta-V" is ShadowZone unable to admit? Falcon can get TWICE as much payload to MARS.
25 tons is the mass of Orion command module and service module only, not counting the abort tower. You used Orion spacecraft from SSTU mod, which is a bit too light, someone just made a mistake while making Realism Overhaul configs for it.
I think Starship and Supper heave is going to leave everything else including SLS in the dust and if they outfit supper heavy with a payload capability it's going to be over with for all the other rockets out there
SpaceX have upgraded the Falcon Heavy to the block 5 for the Arab Sat 6 this may explain the loss of delta-v if the website is updated and the mod is not.
Would cope with three hours ok. Might reduce the benefit of splitting into 2 burns. Was more efficient on paper, but would also add radiation risk if crewed. Probably best to just go with a less efficient single burn.
Maybe all three booster landing on the sea can make it happen? (Sorry bad english)
5 років тому
This is KSP it is way easier than real life if this falcon heavy is matching real life it would bea the same strength or stronger than a kerbal matching SLS
Why add cryogenic second stage when you can replace it with a simple adapter and fairing and BOOM! Still able to go to space, could reuse 2 or 3 boosters. And what to do with that second stage? Just simply put it in some kind of random Delta IV or Delta Heavy and here you go. Nice and simple.
I guess that modifying ICPS and Orion to dock together in orbit will delay the mission more than modifying FH's payload adapter and adding back a Hydrogen fueling facility to Pad 39A. I don't see ULA being able to build 2 D4H's in time for the mission as well. But the problems faced by the two competitors to modify their hardware just for one uncrewed flight might not make it worth it. I guess it would be more reasonable to wait for the SLS to be finished, or wait for Starship to take over the mission completely. In all scenarios, there will be more money to spend and more delays. If the mofications to bring to ICPS and Orion as well as to FH are too cumbersome, waiting to finish the original launch system would be a valid option, if only theiy were getting their asses moving a little more...
Scrap SLS ASAP, with Trump as President I think that will happen and Space X gets the job as they should. Do what it takes to adapt the Falcon Heavy,engineers can do anything.
ShadowZones mission has no chance. There is a card poll (top right) - Vote #1 - Falcon Heavy - to replace future SLS missions! 😜
FH for the win!
if they can do it they will, but for em-1 it won't. figuring out how to launch the whole stack to the moon on falcon heavy would take more money and time then sls will at the accelerated pace. not to mention that falcon heavy can only sent it on a free return trajectory.
Maby usefull for the lighter missions. But sls has a much higher payload spec than f heavy. Especilly when going to geo or above. Hydrogen realy takes the crown when it comes to higher orbits. Its why the ariane rocket is still one of the mosted used rockets. Hydrogen rules.
Just gotta wait till bfr gets operational
FH just cant do some of the things SLS can do without breaking a sweat. Its horrible it keeps getting defunded and kneecapped over and over, SLS actually is incredibly innovative and a proper heavy lifter.
Outstanding, simply outstanding guys. Awesome job!
I prefer Falcon Heavy for this lol. One rocket launch is preferred over two launches in my opinion!
Falcon Heavy! 🚀🚀🚀
O ye of little faith.
*FH ftw! Op'd for a reason ppl.*
:-)
2 Delta IV heavy rockets would cost $800mil and Falcon heavy is just $150. That's over 5 times cheaper!
@@hrvojeherceg2636
No; "one time cheaper" would be free. You mean "one-fifth the price."
Yes, I'm your drive-by pedant.
Integration and pad modifications would have to be sorted out, and it doesn't seem that those can be done by fall of 2020. But they are not show stoppers; the real concern, as Bridenstine noted, is how the aerodynamics and stress loads of such a tall stack would play out. Some modeling and wind tunnel tests would have to be done. I suspect it will work; but we'd need to be sure.
As EM1 is supposed to be uncrewed, they can be more aggressive with modifications.
My guess is that Starship would be ready by then and that Orion wouldn't even fly with a crew AT ALL, at least not before a few years.
I am doubtful that a 2020 mission is realistic. It'd probably take NASA that long just to select who will get the launch contract.
Such tests are no more necessary today, it exists programs giving same results on computers. If Falcon Heavy components can support 64 tons + 40% more (for maximum stress at two or three miles), it's possible. If not, no way.
Anybody can launch just one rocket. The real challenge is TWO rockets, so naturally the Delta IV Heavy is already better... because you need two... LOGIC!
Logic is just okay.
Kerbal logic => moar rockets! 2 > 1
The cost of 2 Deltas is nearely 1 billion whereas 1 FH is around 100 million. You talk about logic and yet with the comparative costs there is none in your argument.
@@TheAlchemisification issa joke
I’m sorry but in 2021 Delta IV Heavy absolutely sucks in every way you compare the specs to Falcon Heavy or Vulcan
SLS (block 1) makes more sense due to single launch than 2 D IV Heavy’s which defeats the point of a cheaper, more efficient replacement
There’s something really significant that both of you guys have missed.
Ariane 5 is LH2/LOX, on a completely independent infrastructure with a separate pad and ESA is already building the service module. Last but not least Ariane has a 4.57 meter fairing and the kickstage to take em1 to the moon is 4 meter.
The easiest way to do this mission is to launch delta 4 heavy from ksc and the booster from Guyana simultaneously. No muss, no fuss.
While that is a great idea I don’t think the government will be happy with that. They want this to be a pure *American* Project I don’t think they want anymore help from other countries. But you do know a lot more than me sooo idk
Oof-boi Русский бой I don’t know anything more than anybody else, I’m just a spacefan like most of us who play and have played KSP. All I am thinking about is the solution to the problem that requires the least possible effort.
I mean if you’ll remember that international cooperation in space is what America is all about. I mean that’s why we have the ISS not space station “freedom.” Also, remember how much American pride we hold in Hubble? Her successor is being built just up the road from me in Greenbelt MD, but her ride to orbit is aboard the Ariane 5.
@@theretroaviator3171 it can't be a fully american project if ESA builds the service module, can it?
Jorge I never said it was completely American I just said that they probably didn’t want any MORE help from other countries
Oof-boi Русский бой to be completely honest it all has to do with American politics.
If Trump has some balls he will make financing SLS a priority,
I think I know why you didn't get quite the performance out of the Falcon Heavy that you expected: You had the tanks loaded up with Nitrogen. I would assume that on a fully expendable mission, that Nitrogen gets AT LEAST dumped and the tanks stripped for weight, if not even filled with whatever fuel mixture the Merlins run on.
... Just a guess, though.
Actually that would account for a little bit of delta-v. Didn't strip the nitrogen out. Good thought.
@@MarcusHouse did you look over the ISP curve of the most recent Merlins?
@@MarcusHouse Also, I think at liftoff, the center booster should be at full throttle to minimize gravity loss. Reduce throttle when aerodynamic pressure overcomes gravity losses. Also, I'm not sure Merlin can throttle down to 36%. I thought minimum was 75%. I may be wrong.
Musk said 40% in 2016. So ok for 36% I guess?
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/728753234811060224
@@MarcusHouse nitrogen+COPVs+nozzles+piping. In the end it adds up to quite a lot, also the heat shield on the bottom and the hydraulic system for the grid fins.
Now what would it take to have 3 falcon boosters on the Falcon Heavy? Would we call it the WTF? (Whoa Three Falcon) :) Seriously tho, the hours in Kerbal alone for this video.. *whew* Nice work!
SpaceX seems happy/confident enough with Raptor and BFR to mean any serious needed changes to FH would result immediately in "Well, then we should just use BFR".
Why not four? Make it a Falcon Super Heavy.
Help! I'm stuck in a infinite loop watching these videos!
Ha ha! We have you trapped.
@@MarcusHouse coming very fast folks .
I know buddy! I know!
SpaceX just has to get FH man-rated... :D
They don't intend to. Not with Starship on the horizon. Now this will be a gamechanger :)
You probably do not want to make 2 burns to TLI with crew onboard because of additional exposure to the radiation belts.
Hmmm.. you know what... that is a fantastic point! Pity the TWR on the engine is so poor. Can be done in one burn but not real efficient.
Awesome collab, guys. I think Marcus House’s falcon heavy option is the most feasible. The only other second launch site suitable for launching a delta IV heavy is Vandenberg and that site only works for polar and retrograde launches. It’s more likely that if this mission happens, an unknown third option would be pursued but of the two shown in your videos, my money is on the falcon heavy.
Sadly it's not about what would work best or is obvious. It's about politics. Tens of billions will be casually spent for the not-so-best option to keep the money flowing to the "right" companies.
indeed
im european so i have no stance pesonally
i dont seem to understand whats the problem since all of the are american?
have a good one mate
@@skippityblippity8656 It's not a matter of American or not, it's a matter of how much taxpayer money flows and where it flows. For example, certain Representatives and Senators might do NASA some favors in terms of overall funding if they spend some of that money on overpriced rockets that are built in their districts and states. These politicians may even get secret kickbacks (bribes) from the companies involved in building the overpriced rockets, and the same may be true of some NASA officials who are in place to influence the decision.
Of course, none of these people have any interest whatsoever in paying SpaceX and Elon Musk a fraction of the price for the same mission. What's in it for them personally, right? They would save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and the mission would be easier (and therefore be more likely to succeed), too, but they don't care about those things when there is money to be made for them and their "friends."
Obviously not everyone is like this, as SpaceX has received funding and technical support from NASA, but we've seen enough strange decisions being made to suggest some collusion going on with the traditional suppliers of rockets and contract work. The current NASA administrator, Jim Bridenstine, who was somewhat recently appointed by President Trump, does offer some hope that NASA will do the sensible thing. He and Trump both favor SpaceX for their efficiency and low cost. Some of us are just a bit cynical because of how companies like Boeing and Lockheed have always been draining the pockets of NASA and taxpayers with their cost-plus (whatever the company says it costs plus a guaranteed profit margin) contracts that always take several times longer than they ought to and are therefore often canceled only to start a new contract that never finishes anything. It's still going on as we speak, which is why so many of us are still suspicious and expect the worse. Maybe Bridenstine or Trump will finally get fed up, cancel NASA's SLS, and turn NASA rocketry over to SpaceX. I'm sure they'll get a lot of opposition to this from every direction, though, including Congress and NASA as a whole, so it would not be an easy decision to make.
Perfectly said!
I’m all for a combined falcon heavy, delta 4 heavy combo!
Delta 4 core with falcon heavy boosters.
I'm 68yo and pretty computer literate, but I am impressed by both the posters' and commenters' knowledge of and facility with all this simulation software. I'm not sure how well it translates to reality, but it certainly appears to be a good base for speculation.
I just wait until it happens and then deploy my awe!
Loved the collab, this was a really cool topic. Thanks!
it would be logical to launch Capsule+Service module with fully recoverable Falcon Heavy and booster with Delta Heavy into LEO and connect them
Connecting is the problem, Orion can't do it now. Ay the moment only thing to modyfy is erector arm
Too complex and risky
Single launch is better
Great Video! I'm absolutely vor Falcon Heavy! (Im a big SpaceX fan)
I’ve never seen something so cursed and cool simultaneously
You can burn pro-grade for those transfers and eliminate those cosine losses
until about the last 20% when you can switch to aim at the maneuver to correct any error in trajectory
This should make your transfers more efficient.
Starship will make Orion and LOP-G obsolete the moment it launches.
Starship seems a bad business move.
If it were me, I'd go "Falcon Super heavy, with a 5-booster stack, and fairings to accommodate larger payloads.
Cheaper than re-inventing the wheel, and would be able to handle much of what BFR could. If anything, invest in methane upper stages, and leave the rest "stet."
@Robert Willis
BZZT! Thanks for playing. Don Pardo, do we have any consolation prizes?
Uh, Poindexter, Musk has admitted the goal in building the BFR is NOT to maximize profit. The goal is to get humans to Mars.
In fact, that was ALWAYS his goal. He only started SpaceX because nobody could get humans to Mars at a cost that would make anyone go along with it.
The whole company is essentially a "side hustle" to gain enough bankroll and expertise to realize the end goal. Which is NOT "profit maximization."
From a dollars-and--cents perspective, an upgraded FH is a lot more cost effective. Just not really useful for a self-sustained trip to Mars.
@@bcubed72 thats cheaper for earth launches but is worse for relaunching back from moon or mars im guessing
Everybody knows they will use a fleet of Electrons to build the Orion spacecraft in orbit (jk, but it would be cool and hella expensive at the same time)
Way to steep at launch. The fact that, after booster separation the core pitch down instead of up indicates inefficient trajectory design. There's no need to head further up than ~ 200 km at launch. Anything after that is way more efficiently done by Hohmann transfer.
i dont know why but it looks like an ares 1 when the side boaster's are seperated
Good cooporation and Nice to see shadow here ! Keep it up
Great video. You guys should do more collabs!
We've actually only done one other before (collaboration station).
UR BACK
AGAIN!!! :DDD
I sure hope Falcon heavy can launch it before LMA/BOEING are ready. Go SpaceX.
Isn't Falcon Heavy never going to be crew rated? There would have to be at least a separate Falcon 9 launch to get the crew up to Orion.
Lol. Saw the notification for this video and it cut off after Explo... thought for sure it was explosion. What a relief
No.
The decision had already been made to use SLS. In the event that it isn’t ready for EM1, a Delta V heavy will be used.
Delta IV Heavy sucks as an SLS block 1 replacement
The reason given for not sending the lunar injection stage up first and then docking with it is that "It's not designed to be docked with".
It seems to me that this is the solution. Rather than just getting it done and trashing the rockets, we should be getting the rockets back and putting up smaller payloads that can be linked together later to accomplish the task.
Do you think the Orion could launch on the upcoming Vulcan or maybe New Glenn?
Only to Low Earth orbit, but they could technically do it
Unmm. Ariane 5.... it solves all of the drawbacks of both of them damn near perfectly.
Love the collaboration 💪 Pure awesomeness and we want more 🙌 👏 🚀
Wait, I thought there were plans to maybe launch a crew with EM-1. Still this is awesome! I'd love to actually see this happen!
Great Collaboration Guys!!.. Liked..
Hi Marcus house and shadow zone thanks for letting me see how the space ship 🚀 works around the moon 🌙🌙❤️🇬🇧🚀🙏👍
Sure SpaceX's Heavy could launch EM-1Mission. It has been said that an expendable Falcon Heavy could satellize 63 tons, and that the lunar train would be of 55 tons, Orion+ESM+ICPS. More, it'd be interesting to look at something: imagine that if Heavy Falcon launch Orion, after the three cores of first stage, it fires a second stage, with one merlin engine, which could give 934KN and be fired at many times, its limits are only the size of tanks, ergols and hypergols. Upon this stage would be the ICPS, which engine can only give 110KN, but weigh 20 tons... Il could be interesting to unify these two stages, on an only second stage more strong, with higher tanks of ergols and hypergols. And when Bridenstine says that it would be necessary to launch two Falcon Heavy, sure, it could be easy to launch a part or future LOP-G which could be moved to the lunar orbit by a lunar train consisting in Orion+ ESM+ Stronger second Falcon stage...
I do think the falcon heavy is better for this job but I am a big fan of nasa and the SLS
I really do hope they continue with it. They need to learn how to compete. Sadly it all seems to largely be about job creation instead of efficiency. Maybe this commercial scare will kick everyone in the arse and get this thing moving.
My interests include watching grass grow and paint try, not so different from being an SLS fan!
I haven't been a NASA fan (as far as rockets go) since _Challenger._ Frankly, I think somebody should have done prison time for that, and the org. razed and built anew.
Ironic that Von Braun was that org's moral compass...
I want to see the sls. There is something about the raw power of the thing.
I miss these kerbal simulations done by you
Btw try a FalconHeavy with 4 side boosters instead of 2 I'll be interesting
One other options is to let New Glenn join the field. Dual launches, FH with Orion + ESM (probably + Lunar Lander) & New Glenn with ICPS
Unlike DIVH, New Glenn is more capable at LEO 45 tons, but has the same advantage = also has an existing hydrolox facility, because of their second stage
Another advantage is quick turnaround (of course, different pads), less pad modifications, and both could be launched in reusable mode ! (FH is going to be tight though, but Orion + ESM + Lander is going to be lighter than Orion + ESM + ICPS, light enough to be possible to reused. Maybe they will expend the center core)
Disadvantage is of course New Glenn currently didn't exist. But it still 3 years from its debut to VP's 2024 target, so it could be a chance if BO could lobbying for it
All of this said, SpaceX has a more simpler & (obviously) already in prototype phase, which is to launch & land a Starship directly to the moon (okay, with a rendezvous for refueling, but they have 2 launchpads in BC & Cape) 😝
6:12 yeeeaaaaaaaaah, no. Just no. Lowne Aerospace with give SpaceX a run for its money and clearly have a superior chief engineer
So excited!!!
hey hey!
If orion flies on the falcon heavy they can just launch 3 falcon 9's and use the boosters for a new orion mission because it will be expandable as you said
I wonder if it would be possible to launch the Orion and the Interim booster on separate Falcons? That would increase your margins and possibly allow for partially reusable configurations
I agree. Falcon Heavy Blk V should have increased thrust/payload capability.
You can't do a distant retrograde orbit without principia. DRO's are 3 body orbits; they rely upon the gravity of the earth and the moon interacting uniquely in a way that the patched conic approximation cannot replicate.
NASA re looking at this video.
Bridenstine said that FH is the only option that really works, and that would only be a viable option for later flight
launch profile looks a bit steep. although this payload is quite heavy, fh's engines are probably still too powerful for a steep launch profile. Also worth noting, all falcon launch systems are throttled down at max q to avoid wasting fuel to drag.
Is it okay that I like SLS and Delta IV more than Falcon Heavy despite it being much more practical?
of course its okay sls is way cooler than the fh but delta 4 is performance wise inferior though.
2 Delta 4 heavies can work, but each launch costs $350 million. Without NASA costs that is $700 million compared to $150 million.
New Glenn won’t be ready and never considered. But as a thought experiment pretending it would be available would it be capable of doing this mission in one launch.
The Falcon Heavy is the only current rocket that can launch all three stages of the Orion system. Others like the Delta IV Heavy can launch in two but that adds a docking need.
In any case this won't happen when this was just NASA annoyed with SLS delays with SLS vowing to speed up.
Also by 2022 we will have new rockets available that would make SRS obsolete including SpaceX's BFR Starship & Super Heavy then Blue Origin's New Glenn.
Yes I hope we see Starship/New Glenn by 2022.
My vote is option C: neither of these profiles will happen. EM-1 will be cancelled as per standard US operating procedure. If I had to do it Kerbal style though, definitely FH. Max Q fears are nothing Kerbal Joint Reinforcements can't solve. ;)
hey Marcus, I've been thinking right, Jim bridenstine said that a falcon heavy could send Orion on a free return trajectory, but to send orin to lunar orbit, it needed an ICPS. but in theory, if a falcon heavy can get Orion to a free return trajectory, couldn't it use its service module to insert into lunar orbit, just like any old mission? I feel like if FH can get Orion on a FRT then you don't need an icps on top. what do you think about that?
Pretty sure a standard falcon heavy cannot insert Orion to a TLI and Orion has to burn most of its on board propellant just to reach a free return trajectory
We're clearly ignoring cost here lol. 150 million vs 700 million, I know which one I would pick if I had the money.
That looks better than the real cgi! You might get a job..
Man, Boeing really screwed us over on that SLS. I think Boeing is trying to do too much and just cannot meet any goals anymore. Why can't Falcon 2nd stage do this?
Why wouldn't they launch a Falcon Heavy with the Orion & Service Module and a Delta 4 Heavy with the ICPS? They both have launch pads on the east coast, don't they?
take note that you have the cores still filled with nitrogen. i think spacex won't do that if this is the option.
Clearly the stress would be to high at max q....
The oscillations would tear it apart....
I suggest using ISRO to put one module in LEO where it can safely rendezvous with falcon heavy.
ISRO takes like 1.5 mil to make one of their PSLV so the price in a collaboration would be low.
I love the Delta IV Heavy - but Falcon 9 Heavy is more powerful and just as sexy. What part of "more delta-V" is ShadowZone unable to admit? Falcon can get TWICE as much payload to MARS.
Got here after watching Scott Manley's attempt with Delta 4 Heavy
25 tons is the mass of Orion command module and service module only, not counting the abort tower. You used Orion spacecraft from SSTU mod, which is a bit too light, someone just made a mistake while making Realism Overhaul configs for it.
Anywhere where you can find the mass of the launch tower? I couldn't see that spec.
@@MarcusHouse Here: www.braeunig.us/space/specs/orion.htm
Looks like Falcon Heavy will be the rocket to send people to the moon.
Reckon it will be a few providers. Hopefully Starship to get all the gear up to LEO.
How about slapping two more boosters on Falcon Heavy and make it a Falcon Super Heavy?
Very Kerbal!
MOAR BOOSTERS
I think Starship and Supper heave is going to leave everything else including SLS in the dust and if they outfit supper heavy with a payload capability it's going to be over with for all the other rockets out there
Can't wait to see the supper heave fly!
YES YOU MADE IT!
Whoo! :)
Please write "KSP" in title so that I could filter out such videos!
Ah, normally I do that. Must have slipped my mind. Will keep in mind.
SpaceX have upgraded the Falcon Heavy to the block 5 for the Arab Sat 6 this may explain the loss of delta-v if the website is updated and the mod is not.
The cores being used for next week's Arabsat *are* all Block 5's. I think what you mean is that SpaceX hasn't updated its numbers on the website?
This won't work. The supersonic shockwave created by the larger bulkier faring would destabilize the side boosters down wind.
Probably true. I folded it in half a few times just with KSP.
Can you simulate ditching ICPS using only merlin vacuum with a bigger tank, both for LEO and translunar injection?
With the new artemitis mission funding we might see the sls in the next year or 2
And you’d be right with your latter guess
Nice one
But! Could you do this with a Crew Dragon on top of a Falcon Heavy?
I imagine that hydrogen boil-off would prevent the TLI burn from being divided.
Would cope with three hours ok. Might reduce the benefit of splitting into 2 burns. Was more efficient on paper, but would also add radiation risk if crewed. Probably best to just go with a less efficient single burn.
What a beautifull vídeo man :')
Cheers mate.
Maybe all three booster landing on the sea can make it happen? (Sorry bad english)
This is KSP it is way easier than real life if this falcon heavy is matching real life it would bea the same strength or stronger than a kerbal matching SLS
Why add cryogenic second stage when you can replace it with a simple adapter and fairing and BOOM! Still able to go to space, could reuse 2 or 3 boosters. And what to do with that second stage? Just simply put it in some kind of random Delta IV or Delta Heavy and here you go. Nice and simple.
great vid
12:14 Burberry is now dead from Van Allen radiation!
Or just add 2 more rockets so it looks like a +. New 2x falcon heavy
Squint: Does the planet earth look a tad flat in those computer graphics? ;-)
Wear your 3D glasses... :)
That's just your drink. No more bubbles.
It will only happen with very limited government financing. This is nearly totally about financing. Or rather, politics.
I guess that modifying ICPS and Orion to dock together in orbit will delay the mission more than modifying FH's payload adapter and adding back a Hydrogen fueling facility to Pad 39A.
I don't see ULA being able to build 2 D4H's in time for the mission as well.
But the problems faced by the two competitors to modify their hardware just for one uncrewed flight might not make it worth it. I guess it would be more reasonable to wait for the SLS to be finished, or wait for Starship to take over the mission completely.
In all scenarios, there will be more money to spend and more delays. If the mofications to bring to ICPS and Orion as well as to FH are too cumbersome, waiting to finish the original launch system would be a valid option, if only theiy were getting their asses moving a little more...
Totally agree with what you are saying here. SLS will still likely be the provider.
Great video, Do you have a Mod list for your KSP?
In the description.
EM-1, the mission that will never be. Too much politics.
I have no doubt Falcon Heavy can push SLS into orbit.
Scrap SLS ASAP, with Trump as President I think that will happen and Space X gets the job as they should. Do what it takes to adapt the Falcon Heavy,engineers can do anything.
Plottwist: Starship will take the launch
I am the only one who thought that they can use New Glenn
Won't two burns cause the spacecraft to cross the Van Allen belts more than once and expose your Kerbals to more Radiation.
Would be ok for EM-1 with no crew (possibly for testing) no good for a crewed flight.
TEAM SHADOWZONE!!!!!!!
#TeamFH!!
Question: did you factor in the effect of the Van Allen and did the flight plan irl factor that?
Would be ok for EM-1 with no crew (possibly for testing) no good for a crewed flight.
Couldn't they just send the Orion capsule and cryo-stage up to the ISS for final assembly and then do the TLI from there?
inclination of its and moon are completely different so you'd have to do a plane change maneuver wich would take too much delta v
well can you make a video on how to build the falcon 9(beside the landing legs)with just squad parts?