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.
It's not new.
What will happen? (A launch later this year, a successful launch later this year, or a successful launch later this year that also returns the first stages?)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
according to Musk's twitter here
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?
Yes, the cartoon was supposed to be enough of a distraction, but you were too clever to fall for that... smugly sitting there changing the World in a fashion that Elon Musk can only dream about.
To be fair, I believe the launch delays began after the 06/15 CRS-7 crash. The last thing a privately held rocket company could afford is a reputation for repeated failure, so it seems prudent that they became a bit more cautious.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
To be fair, I believe the launch delays began after the 06/15 CRS-7 crash.
The first non-committal estimate was in 2008:
By 2008, SpaceX were aiming for the first launch of Falcon 9 in 2009, and "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years."
By 2011:
In April 2011, Elon Musk was targeting a first launch of Falcon Heavy from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the West Coast in 2013.
It kept getting pushed back, then the CRS crash but initially only to April/May 2016:
By September 2015, impacted by the failure of SpaceX CRS-7 that June, SpaceX rescheduled the maiden Falcon Heavy flight for April/May 2016, but by February 2016 had moved that back again to late 2016. The flight was now to be launched from the refurbished Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A. In August 2016, the demonstration flight was moved to early 2017, then to Summer 2017, and finally to November 2017.
It's been "a couple years out" now for almost a decade and under a year since 2015. Musk's schedules should be taken with significant amounts of salt, he wants to move much faster than what they can manage in practice.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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 changes? What is the demand for this?
Well let's list the ways he has already changed the world then:
1) co-founded PayPal, which revolutionized online payments.
2) founded Tesla, which is the first all electric car company.
3) founded Solarcity, revolutionized solar with his solar tiles.
4) built the largest battery manufacturing plant in the world.
5) built a functioning hyperloop test facility.
6) founded SpaceX
7) helped SpaceX become the first commercial spaceflight company to contract with Federal govt. Both for ISS missions and for military flights.
So, bub, what have YOU done to match the LEAST of these?
It will happen. And it changes things, yet again.
What will change?
Isn't this a bit like a small car company saying they'll probably, possibly, real soon now, test a car that's 2/3 as powerful as a 1960s model?
Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!
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
The demand, most obviously, is a means for America to start putting astronauts into space again. No more relying on the Russians to do it.
And it puts in place a stepping stone to moon trips or mars trips.
Yes, most of this is regaining lost capability.
nice link, cheers
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Large payloads to geostationary orbit with re-usable launch vehicles. SpaceX can just barely do geo with the Falcon 9 and it can't be landed afterwards. They'd really like to be able to geo (where there's a lot of demand) and get the cost savings of reusability.
On the other hand he has pressure not to fail.
Here's the problem with rockets: they work right on the knife edge between inferno and explosion. Catastrophic failure is normal in testing new, cutting edge designs.
During the space race a lot of rockets failed. This is how the Russians got so good at it without having anything like the funding NASA had: they failed a *lot* but kept trying because they were behind the US. Once the Moon race heated up the US was able to reduce its failure rate in its very public program by spending almost inconceivable amounts of money.
So it's the old engineering tradeoff: cost/quality/schedule. Either you spend a lot of money, put up with a lot of failure, or spend lots of time. NASA in the 60s spent money; the Soviets of that era put up with failure; and on their super-heavy launch vehicle SpaceX has spent more time.
Ultimately in business there's no such thing as being your own boss. When you own the show, your customers are the boss. So what would potential customers say if SpaceX kept to schedule but had the kind of failure rate the old Soviet space program had?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
A space Luddite on slashdot. Interesting!
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.
Sure are a lot of you peeps on here. I guess it's neatly explained by jealousy. Sad!
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
>Musk's schedules should be taken with significant amounts of salt
Quite, and yet he nevertheless maintains impressive forward momentum. As the old adage goes "If you don't fail regularly, you're not trying hard enough." And you've got to give him credit for consistent vision - the details may change, the timeline may slip, but he mostly keeps on reaching his goals eventually. That's a lot more than you can say for an awful lot of people.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
Name a heavy lift rocket that doesn't have years or decades of delays.
Angara has had, what, 2 launches 3 years ago and nothing since.
Antares has had 1 launch in the 3 years since it had a failure.
Vulcan, Ariene 6?
Will SLS ever fly?
Aside from Senate Launch System all of these delays are mostly normal for big rocket development.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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
The reason why it took so much longer time than the initial estimates was that SpaceX thought it would require just a few modifications to an existing falcon 9 rocket, by slapping on two side boosters.
:)
But the forces and stresses from having the side boosters on the core effectively meant they had to design the core from scratch again. It had to be able to withstand much larger stresses. Also having 27 engines close to each other rather than 9 increases vibration and heat. So in effect falcon heavy is almost a completely different rocket from falcon 9. And according to Musk, had they known this in advance they might not have gone down this path.
What they have achieved so far is truly amazing. I'm happy to be alive right now
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
The launch should go fine, just like in the video - so long as there's no roof snipers about.
You're quite right on this one. However I don't really think
Is necessarily true. I mean, Musk is a businessman as well, so he understands the importance of marketing. This animation itself is from 2015 as others have pointed out, yet as Musk just re-posted it to his Twitter it's now making the rounds in the news again. SpaceX has a lot of promise, but so far they - like many of Musks ventures - are fueled by publicity. He needs to build and maintain the company brand , and he's succeeded. SpaceX is the most well known private space company, but it won't stay that way unless it stays on the news. And when you've got no new and exciting news, you pick up a trick from master entertainers and do some of the all-time classics.
So every few month's Musk pops up when the analytics start to show it's time and brings up their project so that people won't forget. As for what the actual schedule is, that, I doubt, is a highly kept company secret that only Musk himself and the teams working on the rocket know of. As far as the rest of the world is concerned they're always just about to launch.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Actually you can not build a Sarturn V again.
There never where any 'version controlled' plans/sketches for them.
So what you now have are mere ideas on uncorrect blueprints, and if you have luck, some shipping lists for parts (which I doubt).
Reviving a 40+ year old project is close to impossible, imho.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Please give me your address. ...
I can google for you in your neighbourhood for a doctor that can help you with your mental illness.
For free
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.
> Isn't it a bit like a small aviation company saying they'll test a relatively cheap warplane that goes at 2/3 the speed of a 1960s model (the SR-71)?
No.
It's like a rocket company saying they'll test a rocket that's much cheaper to fly than the competition and carries a heavier payload. There will be demand for it because engineers will look at it and say to themselves "Hey, this lets me fit more stuff on my satellite to make it last longer and work better."
Making a spacecraft last a year longer dramatically improves the cost/earnings math for projects. It's a huge consideration.
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!
Paypal only sucks if you've never looked at what it takes to get a merchant account. Before Paypal it cost you a grand, minimum, to accept credit cards.
For Tesla, how many new Electric cars could you buy in the US when they started selling them? It was practically zero. People who wanted an electric car were stuck with having to buy a gasser and converting them.
If you don't consider Tesla's autopilot revolutionary you just aren't paying attention.
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
they work right on the knife edge between inferno and explosion.
So do a great many things. You can bring down a jumbo jet if you know which wire to cut or hole you build your wasp nest in or where to forget to add oil.
You have so little faith in laser scanners and modern manufacturing CAD/CAM/CAE software?
That's a ridiculous assertion. They do not want to keep their launch schedules secret. They want their customers to know when they can expect to launch, they want NASA and the coast guard to know when they're going to launch. It's just not easy, it's rocket science.
This space intentionally left blank
The F9H is not necessary to put astronauts into space. Astronauts will go to the ISS on the regular F9 as soon as NASA decides crew dragon is safe.
This space intentionally left blank
There's also the fact that they've doubled the payload capacity of the single-core Falcon 9, and can now use it for many payloads originally planned for the Heavy. Combine that with the fact that reuse makes 3x as big a difference for Heavy launches, and it's perfectly clear why they prioritized getting Falcon 9 optimized and re-flying over the Falcon Heavy. Getting stuff into orbit is the goal, not launching the Falcon Heavy.
Yes, they're way behind their original estimated launch dates. They adapted their plans in response to what they learned. In an industry that spent 30 years flying a vehicle known to be badly flawed and a complete failure at its goals of reducing cost of space access, this is something that is badly needed.
It's interesting to me that in the transpired time the first stage boosters landing themselves stopped being a goal and started being reality.
Don't get your point.
What do you want to scan? A more or less dismanteled Saturn V in a museum?
To use CAD/CAM you need a model. If you have none ....
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes. Disassemble it, scan it and duplicate all the parts.
If the thing is complete it would work, but then again likely parts are missing. Most likely we can not get the electronics and compiters again. If the software is still available we could emulate it on modern hardware, though.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.