Are they targeting tomorrow then? Don't see a reason they will leave it there unless they are gonna do another WDR first.
Quote from: FutureMartian97 on 01/08/2018 05:10 pmAre they targeting tomorrow then? Don't see a reason they will leave it there unless they are gonna do another WDR first.Did they do a WDR before? Thought it was just fit checks?
Quote from: SPITexas on 01/08/2018 04:33 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 01/08/2018 04:03 pmQuote from: SPITexas on 01/08/2018 04:07 amSo the falcon heavy has been pushed back to late January said by Elon musk so when’s the static fire? This week? Yes, this week. Possibly Wednesday...SUBJECT TO CHANGE.But they'll fire up when they are good and ready. 27 engines. This is not going to be your usual firing.Let them get on the pad and ready to prop load. Then we'll know. Dates on this one have been moving around. If I get a good "going for it now" note, it'll be posted here (well the update thread) And I want to see SWARMS of people taking their Facebook live and such to various viewing spots to stream this big girl firing up to the masses. So that makes it doubly important that the SECOND we get a good "going for it" date/time, it'll be posted HERE (well, the update thread ) and tweeted out and sent to all reaches of the planet via Pony Express, smoke signals and carrier pigeons. I heard the Heavy is back on the pad again. But no confirmation if it’s a static fire so we wait. Yes, the update thread shows they are heading back to the pad and this is for the Static Fire test.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 01/08/2018 04:03 pmQuote from: SPITexas on 01/08/2018 04:07 amSo the falcon heavy has been pushed back to late January said by Elon musk so when’s the static fire? This week? Yes, this week. Possibly Wednesday...SUBJECT TO CHANGE.But they'll fire up when they are good and ready. 27 engines. This is not going to be your usual firing.Let them get on the pad and ready to prop load. Then we'll know. Dates on this one have been moving around. If I get a good "going for it now" note, it'll be posted here (well the update thread) And I want to see SWARMS of people taking their Facebook live and such to various viewing spots to stream this big girl firing up to the masses. So that makes it doubly important that the SECOND we get a good "going for it" date/time, it'll be posted HERE (well, the update thread ) and tweeted out and sent to all reaches of the planet via Pony Express, smoke signals and carrier pigeons. I heard the Heavy is back on the pad again. But no confirmation if it’s a static fire so we wait.
Quote from: SPITexas on 01/08/2018 04:07 amSo the falcon heavy has been pushed back to late January said by Elon musk so when’s the static fire? This week? Yes, this week. Possibly Wednesday...SUBJECT TO CHANGE.But they'll fire up when they are good and ready. 27 engines. This is not going to be your usual firing.Let them get on the pad and ready to prop load. Then we'll know. Dates on this one have been moving around. If I get a good "going for it now" note, it'll be posted here (well the update thread) And I want to see SWARMS of people taking their Facebook live and such to various viewing spots to stream this big girl firing up to the masses. So that makes it doubly important that the SECOND we get a good "going for it" date/time, it'll be posted HERE (well, the update thread ) and tweeted out and sent to all reaches of the planet via Pony Express, smoke signals and carrier pigeons.
So the falcon heavy has been pushed back to late January said by Elon musk so when’s the static fire? This week?
Why the Falcon Heavy should be America's next Moon rocket
Choosing the right architectureThere are a number of possible architectures that could use the Falcon Heavy as part of a lunar development program. The architecture described here is just one but it envisions using hardware which could reasonably be available within the term(s) of the current presidency. The various possible architectures should be explored prior to this administration publicly selecting an architecture that may be much less cost effective and also potentially slower.
Vulcan, New Glenn, Blue Moon, and the Big “Falcon” Rocket (BFR) could and should compete for contracts within a “Lunar COTS” public private partnership (PPP).
Lunar COTS needs to be on the scale of the current public private programs (that is, about five percent of NASA’s budget). Small commercial launches in support of the “real” program (i.e. SLS-Orion-DSG) is not the model that has proven so successful. To be sustainable, we need to use PPPs to help private companies eventually establish a commercial transportation to the Moon for both cargo and crew.
Here's a Lunar program proposal based on FH:QuoteWhy the Falcon Heavy should be America's next Moon rocket...
Such price tags could transform mission planning for NASA and other space agencies, Stern says. "You're talking about savings of hundreds of millions of dollars, which is sufficient to create whole new missions just from the savings." Of course, were NASA to save on launches, Congress could take that money and use it elsewhere, says Henry Hertzfeld, who studies space policy at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He adds that the launch fees that government agencies pay tend to be negotiated in long-term contracts, based on payload needs, and don't necessarily align with prices published on a company website.
If you're wondering what that pad looks like from the NASA causeway, here's a private video I took of STS-135. Maybe it helps settle some minds about where to see FH launch. The causeway doesn't suck. There might be better spots but it's not exactly terrible Please ignore the background commentary. I didn't feel like going through the whole thing to remove anything bad or annoying, since I'm just posting this for the L2 crew, not the whole world.Thanks!KCEdit: the "autofix" went awry on this thing. Never let a computer tell you how art should look. It's reverting...
I was on the Causeway when they scrubbed STS-134. Are they selling tickets for the Causeway for FH?
Quote from: Ictogan on 01/30/2018 02:12 pmQuote from: OnWithTheShow on 01/30/2018 01:34 pmPhysical size isnt everything....Straight from BO and SpaceX (accuracy not guaranteed)FHLEO 63,800kgGTO 26,700kgNG (2-stage)LEO 45,000kgGTO 13,000kgThat is comparing expendable to reusable paylod capability, so not really a good comparison.Not that inaccurate, as New Glenn does not do a boostback or entry burn and lands considerably further downrange, so it's reuse penalty is lower. Also, New Glenn's recovery hardware appears to be permanently mounted and structurally integrated (not bolt-on like FH) so it likely does not have the option of flying of flying expendable without it like FH does. This would reduce the expendable payload. NG's theoretical expendable payload is likely only ~10% more than recovered, so ~50 tonnes vs 63.8 tonnes.It's entirely reasonable to say that FH is quite a bit bigger.
Quote from: OnWithTheShow on 01/30/2018 01:34 pmPhysical size isnt everything....Straight from BO and SpaceX (accuracy not guaranteed)FHLEO 63,800kgGTO 26,700kgNG (2-stage)LEO 45,000kgGTO 13,000kgThat is comparing expendable to reusable paylod capability, so not really a good comparison.
Physical size isnt everything....Straight from BO and SpaceX (accuracy not guaranteed)FHLEO 63,800kgGTO 26,700kgNG (2-stage)LEO 45,000kgGTO 13,000kg
From SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6Quote from: envy887 on 01/30/2018 02:25 pmQuote from: Ictogan on 01/30/2018 02:12 pmQuote from: OnWithTheShow on 01/30/2018 01:34 pmPhysical size isnt everything....Straight from BO and SpaceX (accuracy not guaranteed)FHLEO 63,800kgGTO 26,700kgNG (2-stage)LEO 45,000kgGTO 13,000kgThat is comparing expendable to reusable paylod capability, so not really a good comparison.Not that inaccurate, as New Glenn does not do a boostback or entry burn and lands considerably further downrange, so it's reuse penalty is lower. Also, New Glenn's recovery hardware appears to be permanently mounted and structurally integrated (not bolt-on like FH) so it likely does not have the option of flying of flying expendable without it like FH does. This would reduce the expendable payload. NG's theoretical expendable payload is likely only ~10% more than recovered, so ~50 tonnes vs 63.8 tonnes.It's entirely reasonable to say that FH is quite a bit bigger.AIUI the SpaceX payloads are advertised with recovered boosters. Elon believes in pushing the boundaries both ways, that is improving thrust of Merlin 1D series as much as possible AND increasing reliability. Keep in mind that Elon told his engineers to design the Merlin 1C and 1D for 40 flights right from the start, this is not an afterthought. Bezos has taken a very conservative approach and decided to accept lower performance to gain reliability. The listed payloads on Blue's site are probably conservative and I wouldn't be surprised to see significant increases in the future as Blue gains confidence with their design.Edit: Blue doesn't list the performance of their 3-stage design. SpaceX listing would be with Block 5 boosters and second stage.
SpaceX specifies that the "performance represents max capability on fully expended vehicle", so 63.8 tonnes is full expendable.http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilitiesThe listed prices are for lower payloads, which likely do factor in recovery (but not reuse).I agree that Blue's numbers are likely conservative, but probably not by enough to close the gap with FH. I do think they can beat FH on price though, only having a single core and 7 engines to build and operate.
> I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that. >
Further to that article I posted about I really can imagine Europa Clipper ending up being launched on Falcon Heavy rather than the SLS. If it wasn’t for the large political factor in the matter it would be the more logical option from a cost basis.
Quote from: Star One on 01/26/2018 06:23 amFurther to that article I posted about I really can imagine Europa Clipper ending up being launched on Falcon Heavy rather than the SLS. If it wasn’t for the large political factor in the matter it would be the more logical option from a cost basis.no, there are other choices than those two.
Quote from: Roy_H on 01/30/2018 06:15 pm> I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that. >"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"
Quote from: docmordrid on 01/30/2018 06:32 pmQuote from: Roy_H on 01/30/2018 06:15 pm> I think it is pretty disingenuous for SpaceX to hide a disclaimer like that. >"Hidden" in plain sight on the Falcon Heavy main page. Top-right under "FALCON HEAVY PRICING"This is just like auto manufacturers who show a picture of the deluxe version (fancy wheels etc.) but advertise the stripped down basic price. They put an asterisk on the price and print a disclaimer on the same page stating that the picture is the deluxe and usually show the "as pictured" price. SpaceX shows the rocket with legs then lists performance without and I am supposed to realize that at the top of the page in small dark print that there is a link about pricing (not payload) and only there do I get information about the payload disclaimer!?