SpaceX FH - GOES-U - LC-39A

[Grendal]

Launch Date: June 25
Launch Window: 5:16pm EDT (2:16pm PDT, 21:16 UTC)
Launch site: LC-39A, Cape Canaveral, Florida
Side Booster Recovery: RTLS - LZ-1 and LZ-2
Core Booster Recovery: Expended
Boosters: Side Boosters: B1072.1 and B1086.1 Center Core: B1087.1
Mass: 5,000 kg (11,023 lb)
Orbit: GTO highly elliptical
Yearly Launch Number: 67

A SpaceX Falcon Heavy will launch the fourth and final satellite of the next-generation series of geostationary weather satellites for NASA and NOAA. GOES-U will orbit 22,300 miles above the equator to monitor weather conditions across the United States. The satellite will be renamed GOES-19 once it reaches its operational orbit. The Falcon Heavy’s two side boosters will return to Landing Zones 1 and 2 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station for recovery. The center core will be expended.

GOES-U - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is the 10th Falcon Heavy launch.

 

[Grendal]

 

[scaesare]

Falcon Heavy launches are still unique enough I'll try and catch this.

The synchronized booster landings are fun. Wish it was all 3 cores...

 

[bxr140]

Sensible choice to go with FH despite the satellite mass being easily within the capability of F9. FH is going to make the insertion orbit super high energy, which manifests as less propellant used to orbit ‘raise’ (insertion apogee will be higher than GEO…) and thus more propellant available on station. More propellant for on station maneuvers directly translates into the opportunity for extended mission life, and given these sats are hyper conservatively designed, it’s very easy to figure they can last much longer than their 15 year design life with a willing propellant load.

So…NASA is basically spending +$50M or so for FH [over F9] to get what will likely be years worth of additional mission life. Near as I can tell from The Googs the four sat goes-R program is $10.8B; 0th order at least, that’s $180M per satellite mission year.

While it’s fair to question the budget in the first place, leveling up to Heavy is certainly a massive discount.

 

[Grendal]

If successful, this will be the 249th and 250th successful landing since the last landing failure.

 

[ICUDoc]

If successful, this will be the 249th and 250th successful landing since the last landing failure.

Wow. Spectacular positive numbers.
(Raises a philosophical question- how many do you need to land safely before you call it Safe for Humans?)

 

[JB47394]

(Raises a philosophical question- how many do you need to land safely before you call it Safe for Humans?)

Define "safe for humans". Everything involves risk, and people die even in the safest of systems. Do you want to know when NASA would allow their astronauts to land that way? When the FAA would certify SpaceX employees to land that way? When the FAA would allow paying customers to land that way? When I would be willing to land that way?

 

[scaesare]

Define "safe for humans". Everything involves risk, and people die even in the safest of systems. Do you want to know when NASA would allow their astronauts to land that way? When the FAA would certify SpaceX employees to land that way? When the FAA would allow paying customers to land that way? When I would be willing to land that way?

It's been suggested that for Starship it would take 40-50 flights before it could be human rated. I personally find that strange (previous discussion here), as it seems there have been lots vehicles that have flown humans with far fewer.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Wow. Spectacular positive numbers.
(Raises a philosophical question- how many do you need to land safely before you call it Safe for Humans?)

Yes but boosters aren’t re-entering from orbital velocities so you are kinda of asking an apples and oranges question. You want human rated orbital capsules not sub orbital boosters.

 

[JB47394]

It's been suggested that for Starship it would take 40-50 flights before it could be human rated. I personally find that strange (previous discussion here), as it seems there have been lots vehicles that have flown humans with far fewer.

SpaceX relies on flying their vehicles to understand them. They don't do piles of ground testing the way NASA and its contractors do. Elon has spoken of the process, where you find the most egregious problems in the first flights, then more and more subtle problems as you fly more. At some point, you've got enough experience with the vehicle to say that you understand not only it, but also how to fly it from an organizational standpoint. Then you can put people onboard. Because of Elon's vertical integration / holistic approach to tackling problems, it means that everything gets exercised and optimized as a system, from ordering materials on through to disposal of retired vehicles.

 

[scaesare]

SpaceX relies on flying their vehicles to understand them. They don't do piles of ground testing the way NASA and its contractors do. Elon has spoken of the process, where you find the most egregious problems in the first flights, then more and more subtle problems as you fly more. At some point, you've got enough experience with the vehicle to say that you understand not only it, but also how to fly it from an organizational standpoint. Then you can put people onboard. Because of Elon's vertical integration / holistic approach to tackling problems, it means that everything gets exercised and optimized as a system, from ordering materials on through to disposal of retired vehicles.

But the discussion I linked to suggested it would take 40-50 successful flights, which implies that the system has been ironed out for the most part, with lots of the test flights you refer to, and then another 40-50 flights, which is what I find incongruous...

 

[JB47394]

But the discussion I linked to suggested it would take 40-50 successful flights, which implies that the system has been ironed out for the most part, with lots of the test flights you refer to, and then another 40-50 flights, which is what I find incongruous...

Is that discussion authoritative in any respect? SpaceX will fly Starship experimentally until they think it can handle operational missions. Then they'll go operational and launch satellites, propellant, space stations, etc., until they think Starship can handle manned missions. Then they'll launch crews.

My recollection is that Elon said that he wanted a couple hundred flights before putting people onboard. To really smooth out every last wrinkle. If they can get Starship up to the Falcon 9 launch cadence, then they could knock that out in about 18 months of flying. The hard part is getting up to that launch cadence, but if Starship works, then they should be able to do it. It's designed for that.

 

[scaesare]

Is that discussion authoritative in any respect? SpaceX will fly Starship experimentally until they think it can handle operational missions. Then they'll go operational and launch satellites, propellant, space stations, etc., until they think Starship can handle manned missions. Then they'll launch crews.

I don't think so... following the breadcrumbs back, I think it was @Grendal who tossed out that number here a while ago.... @Grendal not sure if you had based that on something official-ish at all? In the ensuing discussion a couple of folks seemed to support the idea... with the specific issue being that the landing mechanism (belly flop + retro-propulsion) was all very new/different as compared to traditional parachutes, hence the need for so many successful launches prior to human rating...

My recollection is that Elon said that he wanted a couple hundred flights before putting people onboard. To really smooth out every last wrinkle. If they can get Starship up to the Falcon 9 launch cadence, then they could knock that out in about 18 months of flying. The hard part is getting up to that launch cadence, but if Starship works, then they should be able to do it. It's designed for that.

Hmmm... here you had mentioned late last year that you had assumed the 40-50 number came from Elon when we started discussing it, but realized that's not something Elon is known to have said. Is your couple of hundred you now talk about something you recall him have said since then?

 

[JB47394]

Hmmm... here you had mentioned late last year that you had assumed the 40-50 number came from Elon when we started discussing it, but realized that's not something Elon is known to have said. Is your couple of hundred you now talk about something you recall him have said since then?

I had to dig a while, but here's an old 2020 quote from Elon

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html

“We’ve got to first make the thing work; automatically deliver satellites and do hundreds of missions with satellites before we put people on board,”

That's the sort of thing that has formed my impression that Elon wants Starship flying lots of operational missions so that SpaceX has lots of experience with the vehicle before trying to fly anyone to orbit. I'm pretty sure that he has said similar things on other occasions, but I can't find the quotes.

 

[scaesare]

I had to dig a while, but here's an old 2020 quote from Elon

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html

“We’ve got to first make the thing work; automatically deliver satellites and do hundreds of missions with satellites before we put people on board,”

That's the sort of thing that has formed my impression that Elon wants Starship flying lots of operational missions so that SpaceX has lots of experience with the vehicle before trying to fly anyone to orbit. I'm pretty sure that he has said similar things on other occasions, but I can't find the quotes.

Ah ok... so it is from him.... and hundreds, not just 40-50....

Well, with the cadence they're planning for, that might only be a yr or so lol...

 

[Grendal]

Really beautiful launch with some incredible visuals.

 

[scaesare]

Missed it... watching the replay... indeed some cool shots. The sync'd 180 deg opposite orientation booster boost back startups at altitude was cool. Love those dual landings...

Also, they mentioned a new fairing... we know anything about it?

 

[MyJoule]

Missed it... watching the replay... indeed some cool shots. The sync'd 180 deg opposite orientation booster boost back startups at altitude was cool. Love those dual landings...

Also, they mentioned a new fairing... we know anything about it?

Previously unused, not new design.

 

[scaesare]

Previously unused, not new design.

Ah, ok.. thanks.

 

[JB47394]