Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Releases Animation of Planned Falcon Heavy Launch (gizmodo.com.au)
intellitech writes: SpaceX CEO Elon Musk recently shared a new (and, really freaking cool) animation demonstrating how the company plans to launch the maiden flight of their Falcon Heavy system later this year, which will be the most powerful rocket since the Saturn V used for the moon landings during the Apollo-era. According to Elon Musk's Instragram post, "FH is twice the thrust of the next largest rocket currently flying and ~2/3 thrust of the Saturn V moon rocket." He also reiterates that there's a "lot that can go wrong in the November launch."
Direct link to the YouTube video.
Direct link to the YouTube video.
Pretty sure the Falcon 9 Heavy was supposed to have launched for real by now. Is this animation supposed to make up for the lack of the real thing?
I am not as skeptical as most that this won't actually happen.
It will happen. And it changes things, yet again.
I do love progress. I promise you... this will happen.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
It's not new.
I don't see the detonation? Where is the detonation at the end?
way to go baltimore.. sing along..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M
according to Musk's twitter here
Would someone please update the headline?
This "recently shared new animation" is from 2015
So is this basically three of the regular ones strapped together or a different thing entirely?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
What programming language is used for the control systems of these craft? Since it seems like a mission-critical real-time system, I would expect a memory-safe and thread-safe language like Rust to be used, although Ada and Erlang are also candidates. I wish there was a slick vid about the control system software.
C and C++. Sorry hipster.
The concept was "three of the regular ones strapped together", but actually it's required a lot more design changes than originally thought...
https://youtu.be/XqYPmshyCDU?t=28m24s
So has the SLS, the shuttle replacement, and a few thousand other things.
Unlike the aforementioned, Musk is a private dictator without quite as much bureacratic red tape to climb through as a politician attempting to fund the space program, as such he has far more leeway to actually get it done, even if it is a few years late, rather than a few decades late as with the previously mentioned examples.
nice link, cheers
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Actually the original concept included crossfeed which required major changes to each booster. That was deemed infeasable.
Pretty sure the Falcon 9 Heavy was supposed to have launched for real by now. Is this animation supposed to make up for the lack of the real thing?
It will launch when it is ready to launch. Why are you fixated on whether SpaceX actually launches on or before whatever date Elon guesses? It's not as if anything terrible happens if it takes a little longer than expected. Relax. Elon guessed a (probably optimistic) date based on information available at the time. Turned out to take longer. The only people who should give even a theoretical shit are the customers of SpaceX which is pretty much nobody here.
Holy fuck you Musk cocksuckers are unbelievable. If someone isn't "changing the world" as Musk claims (but fails to do), then according to you, they cannot criticize him at all.
Heaven forbid someone not be a cynical whiner like yourself who wants nothing more than to find some tiny flaw in others so they can tear them down. Musk IS changing the world and doing so in ways that appear ethically sound as a general proposition. If you don't appreciate that fact then that is your problem. He's working hard to solve serious problems and making real headway in doing so. Go ahead and criticize him if you like but don't be surprised when we tell you that your opinion isn't persuasive.
Where the fuck is the Raptor engine? How about an update on that? I am seriously interested in seeing a re-usable methane full flow staged combustion rocket engine.
Seems appropriate for a vaporware rocket that's going to land on a vaporware ship.
That animation gives me an incredible feeling of deja vu. I can't quite put my finger on it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYSOmYyNHpU
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I don't understand the issue with crossfeed - it works really well with my Rockomax Jumbo-64 Fuel Tanks. That is, when you get the FTX-2 External Fuel Duct the correct way round.
Very nice animation - - - BUT
1) note the word 'planned' - even Musk is down-playing the full success of the initial launch
2) only the 2 out-board engines will land at Kennedy - the central engine burns longer and thus Kennedy is outside it's return/landing capability - - - it will land on a barge in the Atlantic
3) Item of Interest - the 2 out-board engines have been 'flight-tested', they are recycled launch engines
All-in-all, a very nice YouTube vid - but the odds of some kind of failure are pretty high. Still, I wish the best of luck for Musk and his team. They have done wonders over the last few years in turning the governmentally-controlled space-launch industry into a viable commercial business.
GO - MUSK - GO . . . It's gonna' be neat to see the 2 outboard engines landing simultaneously at Kennedy.
cheers . . .
redneck geek
Here's one for the BOTE crowd - - -
How about strapping FOUR outboard engines (or even SIX in a hexagonal array) wrapped around the central engine.
OK, so the thrust of even 3 full-burn engines over-stresses the vehicle, burn the outboards at 2-at-a-time max thrust, with all others throttled down, then jettison the exhausted engines and ramp up the next 2 to full thrust.
With a 4x set of outboards, the range is vastly expanded - geosync and moon insertion.
And with a 6-pack - burning 2 at a time, Mars and the Asteroids become real possibilities.
For near-earth orbits, the payload capacity becomes HUGE - equal / exceeding the Saturn V with the 4 outboard (plus central core) - - - and REALLY HUGE using the 6-pack plus core configuration.
Hell, with the 6-pack configuration, you could conceiveably deliver TWO fully loaded engines to low-to-medium orbit so they could be strapped onto another vehicle - - - to be used for Lunar, Mars, and Asteroid missions.
redneck geek
He was being sarcastic, you fucktard. Go make yourself look stupid elsewhere.
The launch should go fine, just like in the video - so long as there's no roof snipers about.
Interesting.
I guess none of the engineers at Space X has thougt about that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
> OK, so the thrust of even 3 full-burn engines over-stresses the vehicle, burn the outboards at 2-at-a-time max thrust, with all others throttled down, then jettison the exhausted engines and ramp up the next 2 to full thrust.
> And with a 6-pack - burning 2 at a time, Mars and the Asteroids become real possibilities.
Burning 2 at a time is extremely inefficient. Spend some time in Kerbal Space Program and you'll see why this doesn't work. You want to burn as much of your fuel as close to the ground as possible.
Well, boosters create a lot of sideways forces on the main stage. It's been done as a cheap way to increase thrust for greater flexibility, but I imagine that with many boosters you're better off just building a bigger core stage so you get all the force behind it. That's why for example the ITS concept is one huge cylinder, if that's your regular launch size you don't use boosters.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
How do I know that all the other launches were not just also very good animations? Even Musk says we might live in a simulation!
Very true - but if it disassembles your rocket due to stress overload, your totally up the proverbial creek - - - and the docs I've read about the structural stress loads on the Falcon indicate that it can NOT withstand more than 2 engines at full thrust in it's current configuration. So - - - whatcha' gonna' do? - build a completely new rocket, or use what you have and boost the system with PAIRS of engines firing together?
Hell, the most efficient thrust system today is to fire off a small nuke under your arse and then use extra thrusters to finalize the orbital logistics - but - - - since you'll be red jelly smeared on the bottom of a (probably) vaporized launch vehicle, you'd best factor in other technical issues - LIKE STRUCTURAL STRESS OVERLOADS!
redneck geek
Agreed. But if you want to do it NOW, you use what you have - basically the current launch vehicle with extra strap-on engines.
redneck geek
Works great in Kerbal. Just sayin
OP way above explains it better, but structural integrity goes to shit with more than 2 boosters on the main F9 core.