Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)  (Read 487406 times)

Offline Craig_VG

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Liked: 730
  • Likes Given: 528
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #40 on: 09/08/2016 11:28 pm »
Some other things Bill said in the interview which may or may not be true (as Chris said, grain of salt)

- He said SpaceX was planning on doing the RTF "differently" than last time.
- Falcon Heavy launch in November.
- The light sail is on the next Heavy launch in the spring.
- Falcon heavy will have a new center core with reused cores for the side boosters.

EDIT: Video on Facebook from KSC press building:

https://www.facebook.com/thaddeus.cesari/videos/10102334418613342/

Speech:

« Last Edit: 09/09/2016 12:25 am by Craig_VG »

Offline ccicchitelli

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Boston, MA
    • CastleOS
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #41 on: 09/09/2016 12:19 am »
Bill is likely confused by the comments that 39A may be pad ready by November, per F9 options during SLC-40 repair.

I would tell people to expect FH to be a lady for 2017. Anything other would be a nice surprising bonus, but that was before Amos-6, so I think the focus should be on when the next F9 is going to be launched and as Bill noted, he's not speaking for SpaceX.

After watching the video, it seems clear he's not confused. As the CEO of a company that is a paying customer for the FH, there is no reason not to take him at his word. IMHO it's far more likely he said something publicly he probably shouldn't have (he tends to do that) that he misunderstood the mission update his company got from SpaceX.

Edit: to clarify, the video I'm referring to is of Bill Nye's presser where he said this, not the video Craig_VG posted above.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2016 12:20 am by ccicchitelli »

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #42 on: 09/09/2016 12:22 am »
Some other things Bill said in the interview which may or may not be true (as Chris said, grain of salt)

- He said SpaceX was planning on doing the RTF "differently" than last time.
- Falcon Heavy launch in November.
- The light sail is on the next Heavy launch in the spring.
- Falcon heavy will have a new center core with reused cores for the side boosters.

Video:



If you take all the bullet items above literally, it appears the RTF would be on Spacex's nickel and would be the first FH with the first reused stage 1's from 39a.  First FH was their nickel anyway.  I would be surprised if they would commit all that for RTF so soon.  It would really be gutsy and exciting.  A part of me could see Elon going for it as a show of confidence.

Offline ccicchitelli

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Boston, MA
    • CastleOS
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #43 on: 09/09/2016 12:29 am »
If you take all the bullet items above literally, it appears the RTF would be on Spacex's nickel and would be the first FH with the first reused stage 1's from 39a.  First FH was their nickel anyway.  I would be surprised if they would commit all that for RTF so soon.  It would really be gutsy and exciting.  A part of me could see Elon going for it as a show of confidence.

Perhaps we should stop thinking of this as an RTF. If the public post by a known ex SpaceX employee on Reddit is true, the cause was external to the rocket. If the rocket doesn't need modifications, it's not a RTF. Considering the differences in equipment at the new launchpad, it may simply be a launch delay until construction there is complete.

I have a personal hunch that something arced/sparked and ignited the venting LOX, which then caused the rapid fire that spread into the vent and into the tank, leading to the initial telemetry that the tank was the cause that Musk tweeted about. When the fire spreads that far in just 35 ms, it's easy to think the fire started in the wrong location.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2016 12:29 am by ccicchitelli »

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #44 on: 09/09/2016 12:32 am »
The considerations even before Amos-6 were numerous, but right now its something like this:

1) Amos-6 investigation - still ongoing.
2) Investigation complete, any resulting resolutions to be implemented.
3) Clearance to proceed to launch activity (not sure if they need FAA or whatever approval given it was a pad failure not a flight failure).
4) Immediate customers to be launched. FH isn't next on the list and is a demo flight.
5) SLC-40 repair timeline, per immediate customers and the SpaceX release about using 39A for F9 options.
6) 39A to actually be ready (SpaceX say November).

So let's get those all tied up. Then on to FH.

For FH, need to get the entire rocket into and processed in the HIF.
Rollout checks (Fit Checks if we're to use a Shuttle reference).
WDR.
Static Fire.
Launch window.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #45 on: 09/09/2016 12:37 am »
The considerations even before Amos-6 were numerous, but right now its something like this:

[SNIP]

3) Clearance to proceed to launch activity (not sure if they need FAA or whatever approval given it was a pad failure not a flight failure).

A few days ago in the AMOS-6 thread, someone posted the applicable language from the launch license. The FAA is indisputably the investigating authority once the F9 arrives at the launch facility for the planned launch. I'll see if I can't find post, or better yet, track down the FAA launch license itself if you don't find it first.

EDIT: Ah, here we go:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-090%20Rev%202%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL)%2001_21_2016%20-%20signed%20copy.pdf
« Last Edit: 09/09/2016 12:41 am by Herb Schaltegger »
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline UberNobody

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #46 on: 09/09/2016 06:18 am »
Wow.  Would SpaceX really be bold enough to try Falcon Heavy as their first flight?  I mean, that's pretty insane, but it would make for one heck of a comeback! 

The first Falcon Heavy, 2 used boosters, and 3 landing attempts?  Sign me up! :o ;D

Offline Space Junkie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • IL, USA
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #47 on: 09/09/2016 08:56 am »
The first Falcon Heavy, 2 used boosters, and 3 landing attempts?  Sign me up! :o ;D

My understanding is that that Bill was referring to the FH that Lightsail-2 would be riding on (the second FH flight). The 2 used boosters will be the ones recovered from the first FH flight. The boosters will be new for the first FH flight.

Offline Bynaus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Scientist, Curator, Writer, Family man
  • Switzerland
    • Final-Frontier.ch
  • Liked: 424
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #48 on: 09/09/2016 09:08 am »
The first Falcon Heavy, 2 used boosters, and 3 landing attempts?  Sign me up! :o ;D

My understanding is that that Bill was referring to the FH that Lightsail-2 would be riding on (the second FH flight). The 2 used boosters will be the ones recovered from the first FH flight. The boosters will be new for the first FH flight.

That's exactly how I understand it too - or, let's say, that's what I think SpaceX likely meant when they were talking to Bill, but it's not what he thought they said. Not completely sure about that November date, too.

But I can see SpaceX "coming back" (RTF) with the Falcon Heavy launch. It's totally Elon. Also, it would kinda make sense to fly a non-commercial mission as RTF. First show you can fly crazy ambitious rockets. Shock and awe. Then go back to daily operations. Quite similar, in a way, to the last RTF...
More of my thoughts: www.final-frontier.ch (in German)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #49 on: 09/09/2016 12:27 pm »
The considerations even before Amos-6 were numerous, but right now its something like this:

[SNIP]

3) Clearance to proceed to launch activity (not sure if they need FAA or whatever approval given it was a pad failure not a flight failure).

A few days ago in the AMOS-6 thread, someone posted the applicable language from the launch license. The FAA is indisputably the investigating authority once the F9 arrives at the launch facility for the planned launch. I'll see if I can't find post, or better yet, track down the FAA launch license itself if you don't find it first.

EDIT: Ah, here we go:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-090%20Rev%202%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL)%2001_21_2016%20-%20signed%20copy.pdf

SpaceX, and not the FAA, is leading the AMOS-6 investigation. But they will assuredly have to get FAA approval to RTF, whether that be with Heavy or F9.

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #50 on: 09/09/2016 12:36 pm »
Parse my words carefully please. I'm an engineer and a lawyer. Words matter. I didn't say who is leading the investigation. 
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #51 on: 09/09/2016 08:09 pm »
The first Falcon Heavy, 2 used boosters, and 3 landing attempts?  Sign me up! :o ;D

My understanding is that that Bill was referring to the FH that Lightsail-2 would be riding on (the second FH flight). The 2 used boosters will be the ones recovered from the first FH flight. The boosters will be new for the first FH flight.
We had prior indications that reused cores were being converted to FH side boosters.  I don't recall any one saying for sure which flight they were for, but the timing would seem to indicate the inaugural flight.

Economics, too: the first flight is on SpaceX's own dime.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #52 on: 09/09/2016 10:01 pm »
The first Falcon Heavy, 2 used boosters, and 3 landing attempts?  Sign me up! :o ;D

My understanding is that that Bill was referring to the FH that Lightsail-2 would be riding on (the second FH flight). The 2 used boosters will be the ones recovered from the first FH flight. The boosters will be new for the first FH flight.
We had prior indications that reused cores were being converted to FH side boosters.  I don't recall any one saying for sure which flight they were for, but the timing would seem to indicate the inaugural flight.

Economics, too: the first flight is on SpaceX's own dime.

The returned booster believed to be from Thaicom was seen parked outside Hawthorne with all engines removed. Maybe that's the first step in the conversion process. The octaweb would have to be modified, at a minimum, or removed and replaced with the new design.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2016 10:02 pm by Kabloona »

Offline alang

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #53 on: 09/10/2016 01:35 pm »
The considerations even before Amos-6 were numerous, but right now its something like this:

[SNIP]

3) Clearance to proceed to launch activity (not sure if they need FAA or whatever approval given it was a pad failure not a flight failure).

A few days ago in the AMOS-6 thread, someone posted the applicable language from the launch license. The FAA is indisputably the investigating authority once the F9 arrives at the launch facility for the planned launch. I'll see if I can't find post, or better yet, track down the FAA launch license itself if you don't find it first.

EDIT: Ah, here we go:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-090%20Rev%202%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL)%2001_21_2016%20-%20signed%20copy.pdf

"“Flight” shall mean the flight of a Falcon 9 Version
1.2 launch vehicle commencing with ignition..."

so no flight or attempted flight has taken place.

For aircraft I think the legal definition of a flight varies in jurisdiction and some places can say a flight begins with movement of an aircraft with the intention to fly - I don't know the U.S. version.

The special reporting requirements are interesting in that it refers to a prior launch rather than a flight. I wonder what the legal definition of a launch is and whether that means the same as a flight. It could be that the fact that there was no "flight commencing with ignition" also means that there was no launch that meets the special reporting requirements.

So, it could be that all SpaceX has to do is satisfy the air force and make sure they've still got enough insurance.

No doubt the wording will be tightened up in future.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #54 on: 09/10/2016 02:31 pm »
The question was about the investigating authority, not whether a "launch" has occurred. Nothing in your post---except your conclusion---contradicts what Herb (again: a lawyer as well as an engineer) carefully wrote earlier.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2016 02:33 pm by cscott »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #55 on: 09/10/2016 02:41 pm »
The considerations even before Amos-6 were numerous, but right now its something like this:

[SNIP]

3) Clearance to proceed to launch activity (not sure if they need FAA or whatever approval given it was a pad failure not a flight failure).

A few days ago in the AMOS-6 thread, someone posted the applicable language from the launch license. The FAA is indisputably the investigating authority once the F9 arrives at the launch facility for the planned launch. I'll see if I can't find post, or better yet, track down the FAA launch license itself if you don't find it first.

EDIT: Ah, here we go:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-090%20Rev%202%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL)%2001_21_2016%20-%20signed%20copy.pdf

"“Flight” shall mean the flight of a Falcon 9 Version
1.2 launch vehicle commencing with ignition..."

so no flight or attempted flight has taken place.

For aircraft I think the legal definition of a flight varies in jurisdiction and some places can say a flight begins with movement of an aircraft with the intention to fly - I don't know the U.S. version.

The special reporting requirements are interesting in that it refers to a prior launch rather than a flight. I wonder what the legal definition of a launch is and whether that means the same as a flight. It could be that the fact that there was no "flight commencing with ignition" also means that there was no launch that meets the special reporting requirements.

So, it could be that all SpaceX has to do is satisfy the air force and make sure they've still got enough insurance.

No doubt the wording will be tightened up in future.

No, it is plain and simple, it states "preflight ground operations".  FAA has the jurisdiction.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2016 02:42 pm by Jim »

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #56 on: 09/10/2016 08:24 pm »
We had prior indications that reused cores were being converted to FH side boosters.  I don't recall any one saying for sure which flight they were for, but the timing would seem to indicate the inaugural flight.

What indications? All I ever saw was completely unfounded speculation.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #57 on: 09/11/2016 01:54 am »
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-090%20Rev%202%20-%20License%20and%20Orders%20(FINAL)%2001_21_2016%20-%20signed%20copy.pdf
"“Flight” shall mean the flight of a Falcon 9 Version
1.2 launch vehicle commencing with ignition..."

You stopped reading a bit too soon there:
Quote from: SpaceX's FAA Launch License for GTO from SLC-40
License Number: LLS 14-090 (Rev 2)
----
General.  Space Exploration Technologies is authorized to conduct:
...
(b)     pre-flight ground operations at CCAFS associated with the flights, as identified in paragraph (a) of this license, of the Falcon 9 Version 1.2 launch vehicle. 

This license is granted subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in licensing orders A,...
---
License Order No. LLS 14-090A (Rev 3)
...
3. (b) “Pre-flight ground operations” shall mean SpaceX’s pre-flight preparations of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle at CCAFS, beginning with the arrival of the Falcon 9 Version 1.2 launch vehicle at CCAFS.

Also, important to consider are:
* 14 CFR §401.5--Definitions
Quote
     Launch means to place or try to place a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle and any payload from Earth in a suborbital trajectory, in Earth orbit in outer space, or otherwise in outer space, and includes preparing a launch vehicle for flight at a launch site in the United States. Launch includes the flight of a launch vehicle and includes pre- and post-flight ground operations as follows:

(1) Beginning of launch. (i) Under a license, launch begins with the arrival of a launch vehicle or payload at a U.S. launch site.

<snip>

     Mishap means a launch or reentry accident, launch or reentry incident, launch site accident, failure to complete a launch or reentry as planned, or an unplanned event or series of events resulting in a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2), or resulting in greater than $25,000 worth of damage to a payload, a launch or reentry vehicle, a launch or reentry support facility or government property located on the launch or reentry site.

* 14CFR §417.109--Ground safety for Launch
Quote
(a) Ground safety requirements apply to launch processing and post-launch operations at a launch site in the United States.

(b) A launch operator must protect the public from adverse effects of hazardous operations and systems associated with preparing a launch vehicle for flight at a launch site.

(c) §§417.111(c), 417.113(b), and 417.115(c), and subpart E of this part provide launch operator ground safety requirements.

*14CFR §417.401 to §417.417--Ground Safety Subpart: not quoting this because there's a ton of subsections that apply and it's long.   

*Appendix J to Part 417—Ground Safety Analysis Report: not quoting but this is all about the report that the FAA requires. 

* There's more about reporting requirements and Launch Site Accident Investigation Plans in sections dealing with Launch Site Operators (but I'm not totally sure on how or whether these apply on CCAFS).
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #58 on: 09/11/2016 02:17 am »
No, it is plain and simple, it states "preflight ground operations".  FAA has the jurisdiction.

Very clearly pointed out in 14CFR §417.111(h)--Launch Safety Responsibilities; Launch Plans; Accident Investigation Plan (AIP).  It specifically triggers (1)(ii):
Quote
Notification within 24 hours to the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Washington Operations Center in the event of a mishap, other than those in §415.41 (b) (1) of this chapter, that does not involve a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2)
And then all the rest of the AIP requirements.

This is in addition to any changes to SpaceX's Ground Safety Analysis Report for current/future launch licenses which the FAA would have to approve before they could launch a commercial payload again.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2016 02:20 am by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline alang

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 5)
« Reply #59 on: 09/11/2016 07:27 pm »
No, it is plain and simple, it states "preflight ground operations".  FAA has the jurisdiction.

Very clearly pointed out in 14CFR §417.111(h)--Launch Safety Responsibilities; Launch Plans; Accident Investigation Plan (AIP).  It specifically triggers (1)(ii):
Quote
Notification within 24 hours to the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Washington Operations Center in the event of a mishap, other than those in §415.41 (b) (1) of this chapter, that does not involve a fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2)
And then all the rest of the AIP requirements.

This is in addition to any changes to SpaceX's Ground Safety Analysis Report for current/future launch licenses which the FAA would have to approve before they could launch a commercial payload again.

Thanks deruch. So a rocket launch is defined differently to a rocket flight in this context.
'special' reporting requirements should have been a clue as it implies the existence of standard reporting requirements. I don't think I need to be a lawyer. I think that you have the advantage in the U.S. of some legislation that requires plain English in government documents and this is clear enough.
All I need to do now is improve my reading comprehension...:-)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0