Timeline for How variable is the landing spot of a reusable Falcon 9 with a GTO payload
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 2016 at 0:30 | comment | added | uhoh | @jkavalik OK I see now that maintaining the LOX and RP-1 for another 10-12 hours would require a substantial redesign of thermal management. The rest makes sense too. Thanks! | |
| Jun 20, 2016 at 18:42 | comment | added | jkavalik | During the search I found a comment stating that even in case of these not being prohibitive, the payload to GEO would be about 1.4T only (compared to 5.5T for GTO, so before a thrust upgrade). Not sourced but I suppose thats because you have to put the stage itself to GEO and it weights ~4T. | |
| Jun 20, 2016 at 18:33 | comment | added | jkavalik | @uhoh the LOX is cooled to ~-200°C and RP-1 is cooled to -7°C. As I understand it - in space during the time to the apogee lot of the LOX will boil away but the kerosene would actually solidify as the temperatures try to equalize. When both components of propellant are cryogenic, good enough insulation to keep both cold should be enough. About the batteries - for now the stage needs to stay online for ~35 minutes for GTO, not sure exactly how much for deorbit from LEO, but say 5-10x the battery life is needed an batteries are a bit heavy so they eat from the payload. | |
| Jun 20, 2016 at 3:19 | comment | added | uhoh | @jkavalik what does "not cryogenic" signify? No LOX? Why does that mean "...can not launch directly to GSO/GEO"? Also, is there really a need for a lot of battery power during the ~10 hour ride to the top? | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 18:53 | history | edited | geoffc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 360 characters in body
|
| Jun 16, 2016 at 13:45 | comment | added | jkavalik | Falcon 9 currently cannot launch directly to GSO/GEO. The second stage is not cryogenic and lacks battery life iirc. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 13:18 | history | answered | geoffc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |