18 ms·
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket sets up at Cape Canaveral ahead of launch
- TeMPOraL 9y agoYes! Fingers crossed, and can't wait for the actual launch! Photos from Elon Musk, mentioned in the Techcrunch article: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc62hfJgf8K/ https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc62hfJgf8K/ Looking at the last one... that's an amount of engine nozzles I've never seen together before, beyond works of sci-fi and (obviously) Kerbal Space Program.
- nerdponx 9y agoIs there any way to see something posted on Instagram without an account? Edit: still had the app installed. Nothing to see here....
- robtaylor 9y agoYes, click the link.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rimunroe 9y agoIf you like that, you'll love the N1! http://i.imgur.com/6t2S5zu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6t2S5zu.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)
- iamcreasy 9y agoTheir central booster is also using refurbished engines. That's is really awesome!
- MR4D 9y agoThe thought of lighting up 27 rocket engines in unison is absolutely crazy. Then again, SpaceX thrives on crazy ideas like reusing rockets, which are now the norm. Good luck to them. Will be interesting to watch this beast launch!
- bryanlarsen 9y agoIIRC, the engines do not light up simultaneously, ignition is staggered.
- JshWright 9y agoIt's not exactly "unison" (it is indeed very tightly coordinated though). The engines will be lit in pairs, with a couple dozen milliseconds between each set starting up.
- igravious 9y agoHow on earth are all your answers so informative and authoritative? Do you work in the industry? SpaceX employee? Enthusiast? Honestly; thank you for taking the time to spread the knowledge.
- delinka 9y agoThe shot of the engines looks like an awesome screencap from KSP. Can’t wait to see this thing head to space.
- obblekk 9y agoCan anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)? A recent video of Elon mentioned that it was really hard to strap them together, but if they've overcome that, why build BFR?
- nerdponx 9y agoWhat's BFR?
- jacquesm 9y agoFairing diameter of Falcon heavy is rather smaller than BFR and BFR should be cheaper.
- phpnode 9y agoNot to mention that BFR can carry approx 3x the payload of Falcon Heavy to LEO
- mabbo 9y agoI think the BFR is just the next logical step. One more size of rocket you can use to do more things. BFR is also simpler, being one big rocket with one landing to do rather than 3 synchronized rockets with 3 landings. Plus faring size is much bigger on the BFR, which is needed for the Mars plans.
- mulletbum 9y agoCan anyone say what they will do during the first real launch? Where would they be trying to go to? How does a test like that work? I love space, I just have no idea how they actually would do a test of that magnitude.
- phpnode 9y agoThey will launch Musk's Tesla Roadster into orbit around the sun, where it will continue orbiting for hundreds of millions of years.
- phkahler 9y ago>> They will launch Musk's Tesla Roadster into orbit around the sun, where it will continue orbiting for hundreds of millions of years. Good god that's funny. I didn't realize the roadster was going anywhere, so it seemed stupid. But just imagine once people forget about this in 50 years. Perhaps we even have people on mars. But every few years someone post to the equivalent of HN a link to a wikipedia article about this car orbiting the sun... Or what if modern society suffers a setback (an actual nuclear war or something) and knowledge of this is forgotten and centuries hence, people redevelop technology and get images of it. Best joke ever.
- Banthum 9y agoWouldn't be the first time we rediscovered something we shot out there and sorta forgot about. If I recall correctly, a few years ago an astronomer detected something drifting pretty far away with weird visual characteristics. It turned out to be a big piece of metal discarded from one of the Apollo missions, painted white, still tumbling through space.
- indubitable 9y agoOr we succeed with the path we're starting to tread. And in less than a century there's a museum built around the car where people of all sorts, some perhaps even born on different planets, are free to visit and observe what would be utterly symbolic of the advent of private industry and deep space.
- _ph_ 9y agoI am so much excited about this upcoming launch. If they get the F9Heavy to work like the F9, this opens up entirely new possibilities in space. With the F9Heavy, not only very heavy loads can be put into orbit, but both the Moon and the Mars can be reached at a much lower cost than any previous system. Beyond being just a cool new rocket, what faszinates me most about the F9Heavy, is the clever system approach by SpaceX. They are not only reusing the F9 design, but two of the three first stage cores alreay had launched cargo into the orbit. This is just mindblowing.
- Shivetya 9y agomy joy is the same as their current systems, that a private company can innovate in such an expensive and difficult industry. between this and deep sea exploration it just amazes me that technology has opened this to private industry and people. that is the science "fiction" I have been waiting to see come about
- dnautics 9y agoIt was my understanding that the F9H components cannot be recycled F9 units, despite me Musk's best efforts at engineering a solution.
- stormtv 9y agoBoth the side boosters on the F9H inaugural flight will be reused boosters. The center boosters are only able to fly on F9H but are planned to be reusable. Here are both the landing videos of the side cores that will be flying on the F9H https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc https://youtu.be/DKqY8sy3nkM?t=55s https://youtu.be/DKqY8sy3nkM?t=55s
- avar 9y agoThey have 27 engines, but the Soviet N1 still holds the record at 30[1]. For comparison the Saturn V first stage had 5. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)
- jacquesm 9y agoIt holds the record for the number of engines but it never successfully flew more than about a minute and three of them blew up on the pad. Hopefully that will be different for FH. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc
- Already__Taken 9y agoOnly 1 failed due to some engine issue though. The rest was guidance related I think.* Tell you what why don't I actually read the wiki 1. Electronics issue 2. turbo pump exploded - material science 3. aerodynamics 4. blew the plumbing when 6 engines were planned shut down at higher altitude. I'd argue that's a control issue.
- jacquesm 9y ago1. The first launch did not fail due to that electronics issue though that was one of the first things to go wrong. The propellant leak caused by Engine #2 issues is what caused the rocket to fail. 4. Maybe if they had not shut them down that abruptly they could have avoided that particular failure mode. All in all a pity that that program got cancelled, I still think it is one of the most beautiful rockets ever built.
- maxxxxx 9y agoI think it's also on the list for biggest non nuclear explosions ever.
- Banthum 9y agoFun fact, the difference is because the Soviet designers chose to guide the rocket by varying the thrust between many small fixed engines. The American designers chose to have a few large engines that could turn slightly. I wonder which method the Falcon Heavy uses.
- andrewaylett 9y agoI find it interesting that not only is this rocket literally three Falcon 9s strapped together (including two that are reused) but they've not even taken the legs off. They don't look like they're going to unfold very well, though.
- phpnode 9y agoThey haven't taken the legs off because they're going to attempt to land all 3 cores, probably 2 at the launch site and 1 on the drone ship
- andrewaylett 9y agoThat's extra-impressive, then.
- _ph_ 9y agoThe three cores are boing to seperate from each other during the flight, and then are planned to individually land after the mission. The two outer cores are going to separate first, while the center core continues to propel the second stage a bit further up.
- tankenmate 9y agoIn case you are wondering about the fuel, the centre core throttles back as much as it can shortly after liftoff and then throttles up again after the two side boosters separate.
- mabbo 9y agoWorth mentioning: this isn't even the biggest rocket that's ever flown! The Saturn V that took man to the moon was a monster. https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png Of the rockets in that photo however, everything other than the Falcon 9 either isn't in production yet, or isn't anymore.
- mstade 9y agoI can highly recommend a visit to the Saturn V center[1] at Kennedy Space Center, where you can begin to truly appreciate the immense scale of the Saturn V rocket. I’ve been several times at this point and it still blows my mind just how huge that thing is. If you think of going, and have a flexible schedule, I can definitely recommend planning a trip to see a rocket launch on site. It’s a fantastic experience, but be prepared to come back several days in a row in that case, if they scrub the launch. [1]: https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/explore-attractions/race-to-the-moon https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/explore-attractions/race-...
- froindt 9y agoI went down the KSC every year during undergrad for the NASA Robotic Mining Competition. In 2012 we had the banquet under the Saturn V rocket. We were also very lucky to see a launch 3 out of the 4 years. It is really cool to see such a large rocket on its side, and to walk through the control room they used.
- 0x4f3759df 9y agoAnyone know the logistics of watching the launch? Is there a public viewing spot? Do you need to get tickets? Where to park?
- enzanki_ars 9y agoFor launches out of the Kennedy Space Center, see https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/events-calendar/see-a-rocket-launch https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/event.... Example of past availability: https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/events-calendar/2017/december/rocket-launch-spacex-crs-13 https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/event...
- mstade 9y agoCheck out the Kennedy Space Center website, they always post viewing options in advance. Typically the most intense viewing experience (i.e. the closest, the LC39 viewing gantry for instance) will be of limited quantity, but you can also just watch from the KSC visitor complex although in that case you won’t be able to see the rocket on the launch pad, only once it’s airborne. I can highly recommend going. I saw a launch in January, from the LC39 gantry, and it was truly stunning. Be prepared to go several days in a row though, in case of scrubbed launches. You’ll need to buy a new ticket if the launch gets scrubbed as well, they don’t issue refunds once you’ve left on the shuttle bus I think, so it’s worth thinking about when budgeting the trip. Also, pro-tip: get a yearly pass. Gets you in to the visitor complex as much as you want for a year, and becomes economical after two or three admission tickets, and also includes parking which is $10 or so otherwise I think. I got a yearly pass, and saved on admission and parking a fair bit since I went back probably 5-6 times. The launch I saw was scrubbed once. The other times I just geeked out. ;o)
- cyberfart 9y agoRegards to comments mentioning that this is three F9s strapped together: While this is somewhat true, the development of this program was apparently lot more difficult than just tying them together. I remember Musk mentioning that they had underestimated the problem, the two additional boosters changed the dynamics significantly, and the core booster had to be redesigned to accommodate the new load parameters. Needless to say, I'm extremely excited to even see a static fire of this monster. Re-using boosters for your early development is pretty nice and efficient too I imagine.
- paulmd 9y ago> Re-using boosters for your early development is pretty nice and efficient too I imagine. It sounds good on paper but it's not easy in practice, see: the Russian N-1 moon rocket, which basically just took the R7 rocket and scaled it up with more engines. Turns out too many engines means too many points of failure, and the rocket never worked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) Much like in computing, you can't substitute one oxen with a thousand chickens and expect the same outcome when you plow your field.
- valuearb 9y agoThe N-1 failed for lots of reasons besides having so many engines. It's designer died before it was completed. It's primitive control systems were inadequate. It's funding was inadequate. SpaceX has already shown that with modern control systems, you can bundle a bunch of chickens together to plow a field. Having 9 engines has already helped them complete missions where one failed. The Falcon Heavy problem isn't scaling from 9 to 27 per se, it's building a new structure to handle all the new stresses that will occur, from the launch sequence to aerodynamic.
- MPSimmons 9y agoThe engines were also ablative and couldn't be tested together.
- geerlingguy 9y ago
- marcosscriven 9y agoI note the 'fins' at the top of the outside rockets are black, whereas on the middle one are white. Is that purely cosmetic?
- phpnode 9y agoThe grid fins on the outer cores are aluminium, the centre core is titanium. Newer Falcons will have titanium grid fins (the outer cores have already flown once before) Edit. Looking closer I'm wrong - the titanium grid fins are on the side boosters and the the centre core is aluminium
- brixon 9y agoGuessing, but it is likely for visibility.
- adwn 9y agoThe grid fins on the side boosters are made from titanium (and are larger), while the center core's ones are made from aluminum with an ablative paint. The titanium grid fins have a better heat resistance.
- mhandley 9y agoThe titanium grid fins are also larger, which gives them better control authority. The center booster (like regular Falcon 9s) carries the interstage. This is light weight, but has significant aerodynamic effect when re-entering engines first for landing, like the feathers on an arrow. The side boosters lack this - the nose coses are much smaller - so are less stable aerodynamically. The likely reason for using the titanium fins is to give better control. They don't need the extra heat resistance for the side boosters - the center booster will have a toastier reentry as it's going much faster when it shuts down.
- jacquesm 9y agoAblative material to avoid frying the aluminum.
- 9y ago
- faitswulff 9y agoI recently took a tour of SpaceX due to a friend and learned that their rockets, unlike most others, are constructed horizontally. This makes logistics for getting them upright an engineering feat, but it also makes construction and maintenance easier for crew - you can rotate the rocket and access almost any part of the rocket from ground level. I'm curious to know more about the engineering constraints/trade-offs this puts the rockets under, so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear it!
- duddo 9y agoThis is the standard way the russian operate. Rockets as the Soyuz or the Proton are assembled and transported horizontally to the launching site and then erected on the launch pad. There are a lot of interesting photos of trains moving these large rockets
- JshWright 9y agoThis is the way all rockets are built. I think the OP is confusing construction and integration. Rockets are fabricated and transported horizontally. The distinction is whether the rocket is vertical or horizontal when the payload is attached.
- faitswulff 9y agoThanks, didn't know the distinction!
- rst 9y ago"All" is taking things a little far -- the Apollo Saturn V stack was assembled vertically (as were the smaller Saturn IB rockets when launched from LC 39).
- JshWright 9y agoYeah, I was a little ambiguous with the term "rocket". "Rocket stages" would have been more accurate. Most rockets that use vertical integration use it to assemble the various stages (i.e. the upper stage and payload are both mated to the booster in the vertical integration facility)
- le-mark 9y agoAny odds makers taking bets on this, I wonder? I'd put down $100 on the off chance it actually works the first time!
- BWStearns 9y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/HighStakesSpaceX/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStakesSpaceX/
- fatwa 9y agoI think putting Elon Musk inside that rocket and then launching it would be a really bold move. I recommend they do that.
- phyller 9y agoIf I was Elon Musk, and launching something like this, the reason my Roadster would be the payload is because I would be attempting to land it on the Moon or Mars. It's electric, so it should be able to drive around :) I wonder if that is possible. The weight of the car is much less than the 140,000 pound payload it could carry, so it could be sent much further if they wanted to.
- t_fatus 9y agoIf he manages to land his Roadster on Mars (intact - which is probably the hardest part), how many stars will it get on a NHTSA crash test ?
- phpnode 9y agoThe tesla sadly lacks the ability to do a propulsive landing on mars, they'd need a sky crane like Curiosity had - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Sky_crane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Sky_cr...
- rplnt 9y agoI'm pretty sure the batteries and motors are cooled by air (directly or not).
- dmoy 9y agoCool idea haha. I'd guess it'd probably get messed up from lack of air and/or too much exposure to radiation or something though.
- valuearb 9y agoI was going to reply just to tell you how dumb that is, but then I double checked, and the Falcon Heavy can put a 38,000 lb payload into Mars injection orbit. Thats enough for a big set of retro-rockets, a sky-crane landing system, some solar cells to recharge it, and a robot to drive it around.
- hwillis 9y agoFor reference, Curiosity weighed 2000 lbs, somewhere between 50% and 75% of what the new roadster will weigh. The MSL payload that landed Curiosity weighed 8,600 lbs total, so yeah- you could probably land two or three roadsters!
- ChuckMcM 9y agoI am super excited about this. It would have the capability to throw some pretty useful chunks of hardware into orbit and beyond. And of course Blue Origin has a lot riding on this as well :-) If SpaceX can get the heavy operational before BO gets the New Glenn operational, its going to be that much harder for Bezos to find any customers left for his rocket.
- Sammi 9y agoOr it will give investors confidence that private space flight is viable?
- hi-im-mi-ih 9y agoA rising tide lifts all ships.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoI think it will open up additional customers. So perhaps Apple will build and launch a couple of imagery satellites to augment their maps effort, or something like the old Teledesic concept will be launched (SpaceX has suggested they would do that). Given the lower costs of the re-usable platform one would hope we could effectively address some of the space junk issues. But that isn't really "private space flight" where I imagine tourists flying up to Bigelow inflated habititats for a three day stay where couples can experiment with zero g sex after getting over their motion sickness issues. That market seems a bit fanciful yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic
- curtis 9y agoStrictly speaking, Jeff Bezos doesn't need any customers for his rocket.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoIn a strict sense that is true, and he has a customer for the engine so he gets some revenue that way. I expect however that he would eventually taper off his funding of it if there wasn't some momentum from other participants.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dguest 9y agoSticking a car in the payload is funny. But this thing is going further from the earth than all but a few dozen man-made things in history. I have to wonder if some scientist has been waiting their entire life for an opportunity like this, and we're blowing it on a Tesla Roadster?
- Zelphyr 9y agoIf it blows up on launch, losing a Roadster is less painful than what that scientist poured years of his/her life into.
- dguest 9y agoThe cost of launching something into low earth orbit is about 50K per pound (before spaceX) so I can imagine an interplanetary trajectory is quite a lot more. At this rate there are probably a lot of science projects that will never be funded, so if I had a less popular proposal I might take those odds.
- nickik 9y agoThe problem is time. They need to launch when they are ready, it would take years for a scientific payload to be designed for this launch. Plus we could not invest so much because the risk. They should just test it and then the scientists can argue for cheaper and larger projects because they have a rocket option now.
- chiph 9y agoMy guess is Musk is launching a Roadster because he's a fan of the movie Heavy Metal https://youtu.be/rYy_XJpI6uk?t=1m45s https://youtu.be/rYy_XJpI6uk?t=1m45s
- jedberg 9y agoAccording to this[0] there is still a Falcon 9 Zuma launch scheduled for 2017. Anyone know if that is still happening? I ask because it happens that I'll be in the Canaveral area right after Christmas and would love to see the launch in person! [0] https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/events-calendar?pageindex=1&categories=Rocket%20Launches https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/event...
- Asparagirl 9y agoI have a sudden desire for a $10/year SaaS that will send you SMS or other push notifications as soon as rocket launch dates (ones with public viewing allowed) are formally announced, so that you can quickly make plans to go. Maybe the app could even make some extra cash by linking to available hotel deals in the area in the notifications, and then taking a cut of the reservations through click-through tracking.
- cjsuk 9y agoYouTube reminders already does this for free.
- cthulhujr 9y agoSpaceX Now (https://spacexnow.com https://spacexnow.com) on iOS and Android can do something similar with notifications enabled for manifest changes.
- lukerv4 9y agoYou can sync this Google Calendar if you want. It has up to date info about all space events (Dockings, Landings, EVAs) http://bit.ly/SpaceEventCalendar http://bit.ly/SpaceEventCalendar
- mabbo 9y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/ is usually the best place to learn about SpaceX launches. The 'about' part of that page has the current schedule. Jan 4 is the current NET date for Zuma.
- peterjlee 9y agoI got curious how it compares to Saturn V. Low Earth Orbit Payload: Falcon Heavy: 140,000lb, Saturn V: 260,000lb Launch cost: Falcon Heavy: ~$140M, Saturn V: $185M ($1B+ in 2016 dollars) It blows my mind how crazy Saturn V was and it was 50 years ago.
- api 9y agoWith sufficient funds you can often buy your way into the future. Saturn was awesome but nowhere near economically sustainable.
- nickik 9y agoFalse. Losing the Saturn and trying the Shuttle instead was a catastrophic failure. Per flight the Shuttle was almost as expensive with way less capability. Giving up the capabilities of the Saturn V hurt and cost every other project there after. Look at the Space Station. It was way way more expensive because it had to be assembled in lots of flights. The same goes for some of the deep space probs and space telescopes, they had to be designed often limited by small rockets. Giving up the Saturn V was the biggest mistake the US Space program ever made. We are still working under that mistake and now have 3 groups trying to finally achieve something like it again, SLS, BFR, New Armstrong.
- iamcreasy 9y agoI don't think you are correct. Space Shuttle came about because Saturn was not economically sustainable. NASA was getting those massive funds from the Gov for the Moon mission, and after the goal was achieved those funds stopped flowing, and NASA had no way to maintain those expensive rockets. So NASA came up with a reusable spacecraft design, the Space Shuttle. But DoD wanted the shuttle to have a certain payload capacity/features for their use cases and that forced NASA to change their original design, which also made it a maintenance nightmare. In hindsight, Space Shuttle would have achieved its mission of being a cheap reusable spacecraft, if NASA were able to use its original design.
- 9y ago
- rozap 9y agoCan anyone comment on the rationale behind having 27 engines? IIRC this was a fundamental reason why the Soviet N1 was so consistently unreliable. It seems like probability is kind of a pain in the ass here, no?
- MertsA 9y agoFalcon 9 does have engine out capability and that's been proven in the past on CRS-1. In theory even if one of the engines were to rupture the shrapnel should be contained by walls between the engines. Having less engines per core would mean an engine out condition is much harder to recover from as you would lose more thrust. If an engine goes out you don't just lose that single engine, you need to make sure that the thrust vector is still pointed straight at the center of mass. If you don't, then you'll get torque on the vehicle that will make the flight end sooner rather than later. If you plan for engine failure to not kill your primary payload you need to be able to use a combination of thrust vectoring and gimbaling engines and still be able to get the payload to an acceptable orbit with the reduced capacity. More engines means more chances that one of them will fail but less severe consequences when that failure occurs.
- grondilu 9y agoI'm not sure I understand your question. Falcon Heavy has 27 engines because three times nine is twenty-seven. Are you suggesting SpaceX should have developed a bigger engine instead, and do something similar to a delta-IV heavy?
- rsbartram 9y agoIs the Falcon one of their recycled rockets. SpaceX launched the Bulgarian satellite using a recycled rocket and is using recycled rocket more and more but I can't find any information on Falcon as to whether it's a recycled rocket or not. https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycled-rocket/ https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycle...
- greglindahl 9y agoIt so happens that the first Falcon Heavy will use recycled rockets for the 2 side cores.