Is this just a fit test with payload/fairing attached to verify the TEL and will it be removed before the static fire?
Quote from: Brovane on 12/29/2017 03:00 amIs this just a fit test with payload/fairing attached to verify the TEL and will it be removed before the static fire? I'm almost certain they'll leave it attached, it's not a customer payload - just a mass simulator, it's not a point of failure during the static fire. In fact, fuelling and COPV issues aside, I don't think the static fire itself is going to be at all problematic, certainly not from a catastrophic failure point of view. Things are only really going to get interesting post launch. Can they control 27 engines across 3 cores and keep them balanced? Will there be unanticipated mechanical or (perhaps more likely) aerodynamic loads? Any of those could lead to mission failure. I don't have any inside line on this, just my personal view.
Yeah, I'm really not sure. Standard is to remove the payload, but yes it's not some expensive satellite....and they may want some three core ignition data on how the entire stack behaves.I've seen notes claiming both scenarios, so I don't know for sure.More people heading down to KSC today, so let's keep an eye on the rocket, in case they lower her off the pad, so we can at least warn people on a several hour car trip.
My guess is they’ll remove the payload prior to static fire. Why? Because that’s now SOP for their customers’ payloads. So they will want to try to replicate that process as accurately as possible. Additionally, demating and mating a payload to a FH stack would be good practice as I’m sure there are subtle differences to the same operation for F9. Regardless, we’ll know soon enough. Which is amazing!
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/29/2017 11:16 amYeah, I'm really not sure. Standard is to remove the payload, but yes it's not some expensive satellite....and they may want some three core ignition data on how the entire stack behaves.I've seen notes claiming both scenarios, so I don't know for sure.More people heading down to KSC today, so let's keep an eye on the rocket, in case they lower her off the pad, so we can at least warn people on a several hour car trip.I really wish SpaceX (or somebody else who had cameras in the vicinity) would livestream the first Falcon Heavy SF, like what happened for the first Falcon 9. Even with zero commentary, discussion, talking, etc. That would definitely be lit. [sorry, couldn't help myself there]http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20787.0
QuoteA quick check of the coast reveals no #FalconHeavy on pad. Although up in the late night hours, it appears to possibly be back in the barn. Is it all good or adjustments needed? Nobody knows yet. @SpaceXhttps://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/946737095565107204
A quick check of the coast reveals no #FalconHeavy on pad. Although up in the late night hours, it appears to possibly be back in the barn. Is it all good or adjustments needed? Nobody knows yet. @SpaceX
I think the static fire test has the potential to be interesting for exactly the same reasons as you list for launch - getting all 27 engines to fire up in a balanced manor without RUD... (e.g. torque stresses ripping the rocket apart, not to mention 3 times the potential failure points of a standard F9)