N5329K
Active Member
It's a very good day when we get to learn from our mistakes.
Looking forward to the FH launch, too.
Robin
Looking forward to the FH launch, too.
Robin
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Maybe they have force sensors embedded in the structural connections between the cores and a very fast, very real time computer adjusts each core's output to minimize stresses. I have zero idea if this is even possible, just spitballing...
Unique? Yes. Unprecedented? No. I know it's hard to believe, but spacex isn't exactly breaking new ground here.
In fact, due to the significantly more violent dynamics of solid motors, launchers like STS and Ariane 5 likely experience significantly higher stresses/loads on their cores than those expected on falcon heavy or delta 4 heavy.
Ulmo
Active Member
Falcon Heavy has been postponed so long it seems like it's just not a practical program from the outside. So, I take it SpaceX is going to finally skip Falcon Heavy and go straight to the downsized version 1 of the Interplanetary Transportation System in the name of International Cooperation and "funding", thus making it the new do-nothing NASA? Or, will we have a better outcome than that? Will we Mars or better? FH was supposed to be the first Mars rover sender, but now we can do humans on the original ITS proposal, so they say, which is great, and now that's scratched too, so with this track record, what's really happening? I've given up on waiting for named progress, and noticed SpaceX just works on what they have and keeps improving it.
Last edited:
Falcon Heavy is scheduled for a November launch. All the pieces for the rocket have been tested and there is little doubt that a launch will be attempted. Success is not assured, of course. Elon has said he gives it 50%/50% chance of success. That is just Elon lowering expectations IMO. Falcon Heavy has a number of commercial and military launches on its manifest, so it is important for SpaceX for it to succeed. As for whether it will be used for something other than commercial launches is probably going to be determined at a future time.
So now I will throw out some speculation on my part that may explain what happened with Red Dragon and ITS. For Red Dragon, I think SpaceX announced RD and hoped that someone (NASA, Congress, other governments, scientific community) would step up and show a lot of enthusiasm and put money into the project. Dragon 2, in practice, does not have the capabilities that SpaceX hoped it would be able to achieve. While it is possible to work, it would take more time and money than SpaceX has available to them at this time. The primary customer for Dragon 2 is NASA. NASA is not going to risk any astronauts on experimental powered landings without unbelievably thorough testing. SpaceX learned this just by all the safety and qualification needed to use Dragon 2 to just get to the ISS and come back. If SpaceX were going to use D2 for powered landings then the company would have to pay for all the testing themselves. It would probably cost a billion or more to do. So powered landings for D2 is not going to happen. Which then makes Red Dragon not work either. You only want to do Red Dragon if it leads to something much better.
ITS. ITS was incredibly ambitious. A lot more ambitious than a relatively new launch company can pull off without $10 or $20 billion sitting around to spend. So Elon got ahead of himself. Another point is that the carbon fiber storage tank failed. So that says the technology isn't quite ready for ITS yet. SpaceX does have the mini Raptor and it works. It seems to be working very well. We'll get more details on that in September at this years IAS conference. So the company has changed their strategy and is going with the more multi-purpose mini BFR. This smaller system will be a super heavy lift vehicle which should be able to do a lot more than just colonize Mars. I expect it will be able to launch very large satellites, go to the Moon, carry equipment for a Moon landing, go to Mars but not colonize it, and possibly be used to build a space station to replace the ISS. All of those things can easily generate money that can be used, at a later time, for Mars colonization. It also thoroughly tests the hardware for such a venture.
I'll be interested to see if FH is actually used more than a few times. My suspicion, based on zero facts, is that the mini-BFR (mBFR), using Raptor engines, may well take over not only FH, but also F9 launches!
My justification is that since mBFR is a second clean sheet try at a fully recoverable launcher, including second stage, that it may well net out to be cheaper to launch irrespective of payload than F9 and certainly FH. The presumably significant payload increase over FH is a great benefit as well.
My justification is that since mBFR is a second clean sheet try at a fully recoverable launcher, including second stage, that it may well net out to be cheaper to launch irrespective of payload than F9 and certainly FH. The presumably significant payload increase over FH is a great benefit as well.
Here's a good article going over the Falcon Heavy details:
'Major Pucker Factor': Will SpaceX's Falcon Heavy Ace Its Maiden Launch?
'Major Pucker Factor': Will SpaceX's Falcon Heavy Ace Its Maiden Launch?
New posted video (instagram link) of one of the falcon cores being tested in mcgregor. Must have been done at night - I can only imagine what it's like to be in mcgregor when one of those things fires up in the middle of the night.
I thought that tank was tested by pressurizing it to the point where it exploded, and that was intentional? So, not a "failure" in the sense that it could not contain propellant or oxidizer at the desired pressure.
I admit I cannot provide a source to support my assertion. But that was a point of view espoused by many in the SpaceX FB group. They could be wrong...
Good point and I should clarify my comment. Yes, the tank was tested to the point of destruction. I believe that was below expected parameters. That means that for SpaceX needs the tank is not yet where it must be to do what must be done. It's hard to know for sure since SpaceX isn't making announcements about it. We do know that SpaceX is changing their strategy. We also know that one of the other major pieces of equipment, the Raptor engine, is doing very well. If it was just the money, then I expect that wouldn't deter Elon and SpaceX from pursuing the original ITS plans. A technological shortfall would force a change in strategy. But as I wrote, it is still just speculation on my part. We'll know a lot more at the end of this month when Elon gives his new presentation at this years IAS.
@Grendal thanks for the updated info on Dragon 2 and ITS, plus your informed speculation. The only thing I found possibly questionable was yoursaying it would probably cost a billion for SpaceX to do sufficient testing of powered landings to satisfy NASA for astronaut use.
A billion dollars is ALOT of testing for a space capsule. It did not take a billion to test and then refine Falcon 9 booster soft landings (at sea as well) to the point of excellent reliability. Dragon 2 does not even require expending a booster to get it to testing altitude. How many soft landing tests could be done in a month for how much $ when each can be done by topping off the fuel tanks and paying for the monitoring crews? After further refinement from new testing, if SpaceX demonstrates 50 safe landings with 50 attempts, is NASA really going to say its safety needs yet more testing?
This is admittedly just back of a napkin analysis and you will be able to think of a dozen detailed sources of testing cost. But I'm still skeptical they'd all add up to a billion. I wonder if the congressional overseers of NASA's budget would challenge them not using powered landings after a few years testing and dozens of safe landings? Powered landings with U.S. astronauts makes for great pictures and video and a great source of pride that U.S. space technology leads the world. An impudent congressman or senator might be so bold as to ask NASA why 1 catastrophic failure in 86 missions was good enough for the Space Shuttle but better odds with D2 is way too risky now.
I wouldn't want to be the NASA administrator making that argument when NASA lost two shuttles and crews during the Shuttle years.
The first is the tank going out to be tested. The second is the remnants of the tank after testing.
Both pictures came from Reddit.
Bobfitz - You could easily be right about the money.
Not at all. And technically, I'm speculating that it failed below its specifications based on the fact that the ITS plans have changed and some comments by Gwynne Shotwell.
Thu, 06/22/2017 - 14:00 | Gwynne Shotwell
FH test launch could damage ground equipment, so they cannot risk it before they have separate launch site for F9. They need money from clients to survive. Because of the explosion year ago, they had to postpone FH launch.
Perhaps mini-BFR will have larger capacity than FH, so both will be used.
SpaceX has lovered launch prices, so number of launches will increase. High cost of launch has forced to design extremely light satellites. This has increased manufacturing costs. Cost has been limiting number of space projects.
A tweet from Chris B of NASA Space Flight:
Chris B - NSF on Twitter
So, if KoreaSat 5A (3rd launch from now) is launched from the repaired SLC-40 in mid-October (currently NET October 14th), then that will be a huge sign that FH will be launching in late November/early December. The tweet seems to indicate that this is a likely possibility.
Chris B - NSF on Twitter
So, if KoreaSat 5A (3rd launch from now) is launched from the repaired SLC-40 in mid-October (currently NET October 14th), then that will be a huge sign that FH will be launching in late November/early December. The tweet seems to indicate that this is a likely possibility.
I see that as of Oct 10, the Falcon Heavy demo flight has been delayed from "November" to "Late 2017" according to spaceflight now
Launch Schedule – Spaceflight Now
Kind of a curious choice of changes, if it's delayed from November that only leaves December of course, so why "Late" instead of "December"?
Launch Schedule – Spaceflight Now
Kind of a curious choice of changes, if it's delayed from November that only leaves December of course, so why "Late" instead of "December"?
Because it could push into January. Someone commenting on a SpaceX article pointed out that FH could potentially launch on the anniversary of the first booster recovery in December. That would be utterly cool. The reality is that it all comes down to when they get LC-39A ready for the FH launch.
Similar threads
- Article
