Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday May 21 2022, @11:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the breaking-records-and-8-track-tapes dept.

SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket to launch record-breaking communications satellite

A report on the latest in a long line of SpaceX launches significantly delayed by customer payload readiness has been updated to confirm that the satellite in question will launch on Falcon Heavy, not Falcon 9.

Woo Hoo! I've been waiting to see another Falcon Heavy launch!

Hughes revealed that it had selected SpaceX to launch its Maxar-built Jupiter-3 geostationary communications satellite during an industry conference on March 21st, 2022. [....] Just six weeks later, manufacturer Maxar reported that the completion of Jupiter 3 – like many other Maxar spacecraft – had been delayed, pushing its launch to no earlier than (NET) "early 2023."

At the same time, Maxar revealed that Jupiter 3 – also known as Echostar 24 – was expected to weigh around 9.2 metric tons (~20,300 lb) at liftoff when that launch finally happens. That figure immediately raised some questions about which SpaceX rocket Hughes or Maxar had chosen to launch the immense satellite.

[....] At 9.2 tons, Jupiter 3 will leapfrog the world record for the largest commercial geostationary satellite ever launched by 30%. Barring the possibility of secret military spacecraft, it will likely be the heaviest spacecraft of any kind to reach geostationary orbit 35,785 km (22,236 miles) above Earth's surface.

[....] With its exceptional heft, a recoverable Falcon 9 launch may have only been able to loft Jupiter 3 around half the way to GTO from low Earth orbit (LEO). It was little surprise, then, to learn that Hughes and Maxar had actually selected SpaceX's far more capable Falcon Heavy rocket to launch the satellite. Even with full recovery of all three Falcon Heavy first-stage boosters, there's a good chance that the rocket would be able to launch Jupiter 3 most of or all the way to a nominal geostationary transfer orbit. If the center core is expended and the side boosters land at sea, Falcon Heavy would likely be able to launch Jupiter 3 to a highly supersynchronous GTO, meaning that the spacecraft's apogee would end up well above GEO.

[....] Falcon Heavy's Jupiter 3 mission won't beat the record for total payload to GTO in a single launch, held by Arianespace's Ariane 5 rocket after a 2021 mission to GTO launched two communications satellites weighing 10.27t, but it will be just one ton shy.

Looking at SpaceFlightNow.com's Launch Schedule it appears there will be several Falcon Heavy launches yet this year.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2022, @11:37PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 21 2022, @11:37PM (#1246944)

    Won't fly in Florida

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Sunday May 22 2022, @12:08AM (3 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 22 2022, @12:08AM (#1246948) Journal

      Because the SLS cost plus spice must flow, they will do anything to hinder SpaceX in both Texas and California, especially Vandenberg.

      However launching a commercial satellite doesn't seem to be direct competition for SLS. Nor does it directly make SLS look bad. So maybe they won't notice.

      Critical Game Theory sounds too much like CRT, thus you won't hear about it in Florida.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:11AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:11AM (#1246971)

        Or its because Elon Musk looks like a normal person trying to be important, tweeting about "virology" (seriously, who has ever heard it called this in science class??? There is no "virology" chapter in my textbook.) and other technobabble terms.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:47AM (#1246976)

          seriously, who has ever heard it called this in science class???

          Many.
          Maybe try to drop off school at a level beyond your 8th grade, mkay [wikipedia.org]?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:35AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:35AM (#1246973)

        Sorry, the post was supposed to go in the previous story

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 21 2022, @11:57PM (7 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 21 2022, @11:57PM (#1246947) Journal

    No super poisonous crap to dissipate into the atmosphere. Nothing like the smell of hypergolic gunk, burning in the morning.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Sunday May 22 2022, @04:04PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 22 2022, @04:04PM (#1247039) Journal

      Some Russian rockets, as I recall, the Proton in particular, used hypergolic fuels.

      The Dragon capsule uses hypergolic fuels for its abort system, and in smaller amounts for its on orbit manuvering.

      In your quote, what is it about everyone thinking alike? Sometimes everyone in the room might think alike because they all arrive at the same conclusion based on reason and evidence. They might all independently of one another count out the objects and independently verify that 2 + 2 = 4. Nothing is inherently wrong with thinking alike. An idiot who thinks 2 + 2 = 5 is not to be commended for his independent thought.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 22 2022, @10:19PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 22 2022, @10:19PM (#1247110) Journal

        what is it about everyone thinking alike? . . . An idiot who thinks 2 + 2 = 5 is not to be commended for his independent thought.

        Quite obviously, the simplest of human relations is not so simple as 2 + 2. You would do well to look into the quote. Patton was neither the first nor the last to make the observation.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @06:21AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @06:21AM (#1247155)

      Not sure what you're getting at. Falcon series rockets run on kerosene. It doesn't burn as clean as methane but the soot isn't particularly toxic either.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 23 2022, @07:41AM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 23 2022, @07:41AM (#1247162) Journal

        https://www.eclipseaviation.com/what-type-of-rocket-fuel-does-spacex-use/ [eclipseaviation.com]

        Do Spacex Rockets Use Hydrogen?
        We shall begin seeing SpaceX’s Starship and Falcon Superheavy this week if we don’t call it something else. They will instead use methane, which is just between hydrogen and kerosene as a fuel. A less dense, lighter formulation of kerosene has more efficiency, whilst still being denser and less powerful than a hydrogen-derived formulation.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @11:28PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @11:28PM (#1247351)

          Yes, but what does any of that have to do with the hypergolic fuels which you linked to, or how are hypergols relevant to the article?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @02:32AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @02:32AM (#1247384)

            The other guys (Boeing) are burning hypergolic fuels. The whole point was, SpaceX is burning 'clean' fuel in comparison, with 'clean' being a comparative descriptor. Nobody needs or wants tons of any exhaust wafting over their homes, but the hypergolic exhaust is much nastier.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @07:23AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @07:23AM (#1247415)

              Boeing's Starliner orbiter only runs its engines in space. It launches on a kerosene fuelled rocket [wikipedia.org]. In that respect it is no different than SpaceX's Dragon orbiter.

              Automotive exhaust is a much bigger public health hazard and pollutant than hydrocarbon based rocket exhaust. IIRC the only country currently flying hydrazine rockets is China, and even they are phasing them out.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday May 22 2022, @02:27AM (3 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday May 22 2022, @02:27AM (#1246965) Journal

    Companies can just launch bulkier satellites now, which may be cheaper. Starship should also be able to carry something relatively massive to GTO without a refuel launch, and something in the 100-200 ton range with a refuel.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 22 2022, @10:11PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 22 2022, @10:11PM (#1247107) Journal

      Companies can just launch bulkier satellites now, which may be cheaper.

      You are correct. There is extremely costly optimization for mass. Typical total costs range between 5 to 10 times the launch cost (with the high costs usually associated with one-off special projects and high end government satellites). The more mass you can launch for the same cost, the less $ you have to cram in per unit mass in order to justify what you're paying just for the launch.

      For a car analogy, if it costs $50 to drive out to shop, eat, have fun, etc, then the value of your trip doesn't need to be that great to justify it. You don't need to schedule every minute or min-max the value of your cargo and tasks. But if it were to cost $50000 (basically, that you're throwing away an expensive car every time you ride out), you better have good reason for that trip - like perhaps a major business deal or a heart transplant. And you might be working several such important tasks in at the same time - getting the heart transplant, buying that house, and picking up as much groceries as you can physically cram into the car and roof rack.

      Larger, cheaper payloads change the game considerably. There's still huge incentives to optimize mass, but they're an order of magnitude lower, allowing for cost/risk compromises that just wouldn't have made sense before. You can also create projects with higher volume. One-off stuff is really expensive and really slow over the course of a human lifetime. You can pack more in cheaper, have a faster lifetime cycle than before, and look at ideas that involve multiple launches/multiple vehicles that wouldn't been feasible before.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday May 22 2022, @10:40PM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday May 22 2022, @10:40PM (#1247115) Journal

        The economics will be fascinating once Starship is in play.

        Starship may get 150+ tons to LEO with no refuel, while the direct-to-GTO/GEO amount should be lower but still much higher than Falcon Heavy. But increasing the launch cost by using a refuel would probably be well worth it.

        They can reverse the miniaturization trend, add larger solar panels and more capabilities, and add more propellant. Potentially with lower launch costs than Falcon 9.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @11:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @11:58PM (#1247357)

          A Starship tanker flight should be cheaper than a cargo flight because there is no payload integration, just gas-and-go, so if Cargo Starship can match Falcon 9's per-launch cost then adding two tankers should put it around the price of a Falcon heavy, but with much greater performance, and it still isn't anywhere near the limits of the platform. Dial-a-tanker beats dial-a-rocket so badly it isn't even funny.

          Miniaturization isn't going away since it has too many advantages, but we won't need to push the envelope to such an absurd degree any more. Optimizing for bang for buck instead of bang for mass/volume isn't just game changing, it's flipping the table.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @02:53AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @02:53AM (#1246970)

    Is this the falcon that lands back vertically?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:49AM (#1246977)

      Nope, it's the one that lands vertically on its back.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @04:30AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @04:30AM (#1246979)

      still sleeping at the back of the class, huh?

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Sunday May 22 2022, @04:05PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 22 2022, @04:05PM (#1247040) Journal

        That would probably be horizontally.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Sunday May 22 2022, @06:35AM (1 child)

      by deimtee (3272) on Sunday May 22 2022, @06:35AM (#1246986) Journal

      It can, but it can also lift a larger payload if they throw it away. The fuel to land it basically subtracts from the payload mass.

      --
      If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @07:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @07:43PM (#1247083)
        The Wikipedia page on Falcon Heavy [wikipedia.org] says 8 metric tons (t) to GTO if all 3 boosters are recovered, 26 t to GTO if fully expended and 16 t to GTO if only the side boosters are recovered. For this 9.2 t load it looks like it'll be another 2 boosters landing ballet.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @02:28PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @02:28PM (#1247019)

    i hope my internet will get faster, my bakery gets better at estimating the amount of loafs to bake for the stock to last into the late afternoon, cancer becomes a thing of the past, the red-lights can finally talk to each other and the tech that enables to pay-back the energy expenditures for this whale-in-orbit will finally hit the market.
    at least we can get facebook and twitter updates from farther away (if you're into this kindda stuff).

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:13PM (5 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 22 2022, @03:13PM (#1247026) Journal

      and the tech that enables to pay-back the energy expenditures for this whale-in-orbit will finally hit the market

      We've had the tech to pay for those energy expenditures since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Please try to keep up.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @05:55PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @05:55PM (#1247061)

        really? like you can put all the rocket fumes back into the rocket? or all the energy and material wasted on a whale-com satellite deorbiting in a few years will magically reassemble itself from the atmospheric burn-up into nice little chunks or metal on the ground?
        if so, would somebody please turn off the halo deck and let me out already ...

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @06:04PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @06:04PM (#1247062)

          ah, also, you don't have to go thru the trouble to assemble a khallow reply really, in the future you can just copy-paste "khallow was here" or "i read it" if something catches your eye, heyya?

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday May 22 2022, @07:00PM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 22 2022, @07:00PM (#1247074) Journal
            One of my goals of this disussion will hopefully be to make you massively less stupid. You ok with that?
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 24 2022, @02:38AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 24 2022, @02:38AM (#1247385) Journal

              make you massively less stupid

              What, you want to screw up weights and measures around the world? Please leave the mass right where it is. It would be nice if I could weigh 140 pounds again, but at what expense if you remove all that mass?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 22 2022, @07:00PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 22 2022, @07:00PM (#1247073) Journal

          like you can put all the rocket fumes back into the rocket? or all the energy and material wasted on a whale-com satellite deorbiting in a few years will magically reassemble itself from the atmospheric burn-up into nice little chunks or metal on the ground?

          How about we start with you putting all the stupid back where you found it?

          "pay-back the energy expenditures" doesn't mean that all the human activity you don't like must be thermodynamically perfectly reversible. Instead, it just means that humanity can generate the energy to cover the activity - which we've been able to do easily for centuries.

(1)