This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

The First Falcon Heavy Awaits Its Sports Car Payload

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 20, 2017
Filed under

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

26 responses to “The First Falcon Heavy Awaits Its Sports Car Payload”

  1. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Look at all those engines! Where’s the Tesla?

    • james w barnard says:
      0
      0

      If this beast works, even if the first one doesn’t go perfectly, maybe Musk should forget about Tesla and become a used rocket salesman! 🙂

  2. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    Soon ™

    Great to see this. Even with all the poo pooing and nay saying this is real hardware. Moon in 2019.

  3. unfunded_dreams says:
    0
    0

    Whether you’re in the Elon fanclub or not, if you don’t giggle a little and think “this is going to be fun” when you see 27 engines configured and ready to launch… you are working in the wrong profession. Add in the bonus opportunity to see two rockets flying back to land in formation (with video of a boat landing) – that will be a show worth taking a day off of work.
    I wish SpaceX the best of luck – my daughters and I will absolutely be out at the cape whenever you’re ready to give it a go.

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      I think SpaceX has done much more extensive ground tests with engines and control systems unlike the Soviet N1 (they built the rocket but not much support infrastructure).

      Looks very exciting to watch, maybe not as big as Saturn V but should be impressive show. Mechanical delays are challenge but can be overcome, weather is the wild card (unless Musk has people working to make a “all weather” rocket).

      It is amazing to see photos of actual hardware instead of computer graphics (I hope these have not been extensively photoshopped). Question I have is all these photos of actual hardware has very few if any people. Is it they clear everyone away during photo shoots? automation? Compared to back in the days The Cape had armies of techs and engineers all over the place.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        My understanding is that they can only test one stage at a time. The engine tests at the cape prior to launch will be the first time all 27 engines are running at the same time. I’ve heard they’ll likely have more than one test firing.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      My last live launch was Apollo 17. If SX ever actually establishes a date I am ready to drive up.

  4. robert_law says:
    0
    0

    amazing cant wait to see this go !

  5. George Purcell says:
    0
    0

    Kerbal Factor: Extreme.

  6. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    Wow! Whether it works or not, it will be a step forward from which we can advance. Contrast with Orion.

  7. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    Can someone with rocket engineering savvy explain to me what that long pipe is that runs from the starboard engine cluster all the way up that booster and crosses over all the way to the port booster ? And is there another one just like it on the off side ?

    • Robert van de Walle says:
      0
      0

      Seems likely it’s the un-implemented crossfeed system. I’m curious about the thrusters visible in the largest “pipe.”

    • Not Invented Here says:
      0
      0

      They’re two different things. The long pipe running from engines all the way up to the nose cone is the housing for all the wires and pipes that need to run up and down the rocket body. Each booster only has one of these, the center core and port booster’s pipe is on the side facing the ground.

      The horizontal bar that goes from one booster to the center core to the other booster is one of the struts that hold them together. I believe there’s another set of struts on the opposite side.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        When the boosters separate the horizontal struts separate at the attachment to the booster and pivot 90 degrees forward to a stowed position against the core stage.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        A wire chase? I think I figured rocket would use some sort of wireless tech for all the parts to talk to one another.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          People who build spacecraft are very paranoid about electromagnetic interference. I assume the people who build rockets feel the same way. The idea that a signal intended for a first stage engine might be received and acted on by the second stage engine isn’t pleasant.

          (By the way, does know what the 1967 U.S.S. Forrestal fire was about? It’s sometimes used as an example of this problem. A NASA document lists it as “an uncommanded release of munitions” due to electromagnetic interference. But when I tried to find more details, I ended up with a completely different account involving deck handling of ordinance.)

          In the age of modern wireless networks, this is probably much less of an issue. The savings in mass and complexity due to running cable would be significant. We aren’t there yet, but in a sense, we’re making progress. The first time I hear a suggestion of replacing cables with wireless was twenty years ago, as a crazy idea from a friend I went to college with. This year, I heard it suggested at a JPL-sponsored conference on CubeSats. While people had mixed feelings, it was seriously discussed in a room full of engineers who build spacecraft for a living.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            JAG report is here.
            http://www.jag.navy.mil/lib
            The incident was initiated by the uncommanded firing of a 5-inch rocket mounted on an F-4 just as the aircraft was switching to internal power during the engine start procedure. The rocket and its fragments struck and ignited fuel tanks on two A-4s preparing for launch about 100 feet away, one of them piloted by John McCain. A WW-II era 1000lb bomb eas engulfed in the fire and exploded about 90 seconds later, just as fire crews were geting water on the fire, starting a chain reaction of fires and explosions.

            The exact reason for the rocket ignition was not determined.

            Having ridden in the rear cockpit of an F-4 a few times (on Reserve training flights) I can only say that the electronic systems were primitive by modern standards (no actual computers) but could be complicated to configure and operate. Electronic crosstalk or software errors don’t seem likely. Long-standing human factors problems resulting in a system misconfiguration seems more probable. Somewhere a component failed or was misconfigured. Incorrect plugging of a rocket umbilical into a socket caused a massive launch disaster in Russia and could have been a factior in this case. Contributing factors were the extraordinary operational tempo (more than 30 aircraft were on the deck being armed, started and launched), the length of the war, which resulted in (and possibly required) shortcuts such as plugging the rocket ignition lines into the launcher prior to aircraft engine start rather than just before launch, the limited experience of many personnel, and the use of WWII-era bombs that were more susceptible to detonation in fire. Probably the aircraft from which the missile was fired was jetissoned overboard as the fire spread, so the wiring wasn’t available for examination.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      The vertical and horizontal structures are separate.
      http://www.spacex.com/falco
      http://www.valuewalk.com/wp
      Possibly cable trays?

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        Possibly cable trays?

        Don’t they have an internal ethernet system? You should be able to jump in at the nearest node, at the top, where it would normally integrate to the upper-stage, rather than run a full set back to the engine computers.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        I suppose this is a sovled problem, but those of us are spectators would wonder about fuel consumption rates and shifting centers of mass. Perhaps when that thing is in full burn the fuel disappears faster than it can become a problem?

  8. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    They could at least clean out the pigeons before they test-fire.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media

  9. Charles F. Radley says:
    0
    0

    Does the Tesla have enough structural strength to handle the G-loads of a space rocket launch ? Normally a payload must receive stress analysis and shake/bake tests to make sure it will not disintegrate …. was this done with the Tesla ?

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      It will be really embarrassing if the launch fails because of the Tesla.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        The Roadster can easily take take several G’s of acceleration, the hard part will be keeping the tires firmly on the road when there is no gravity, and no road.