SpaceX Falcon Heavy Demo - Discussion and Speculation

[macpacheco]

Because a fairing is required for the Demo.

How comes? Is the stress on the fairing stronger for a FH than for a regular F9?

There has been launch failures due to fairings on other rockets. Hence DoD certification requires launches with the exact same fairing that will be used for DoD launches to be used. Very picky.
In theory one could argue same fairing as F9, look at all those successful F9 launches with the same fairing. Regardless a certain minimum FH launches with the fairing are required to have proper data for certification (I'm assuming 93).

[guckyfan]

Regardless a certain minimum FH launches with the fairing are required to have proper data for certification (I'm assuming 9).

How about one, at least for doing the demo flight ordered by the airforce? That is the second launch for FH after the SpaceX demo flight. That would be the most urgent requirement. Have one flight with a fairing before that flight can happen and a reason why the the SpaceX demo flight needs a fairing. Some flights with fairing, needed for Airforce certification can come later.

[PahTo]

Whilst I understand the theoretical reason why the FH no. 1 has to fly with a fairing, I have to ask this:

1) Is it different in any substantive way from the F9 PLF?

2) Are the physical stresses on the fairing and the fairing mounting different in any way?

If the answer to both these questions are 'no', then I would question whether a fairing is really needed for the flight.

If nothing else, there are aeroloads on the boosters that needs to be understood and demonstrated (so yes, the physical stresses are different).  Beyond that, I imagine it will be a different fairing (5 meter?) because DoD payloads can be rather large.

[macpacheco]

Regardless a certain minimum FH launches with the fairing are required to have proper data for certification (I'm assuming 9).

How about one, at least for doing the demo flight ordered by the airforce? That is the second launch for FH after the SpaceX demo flight. That would be the most urgent requirement. Have one flight with a fairing before that flight can happen and a reason why the the SpaceX demo flight needs a fairing. Some flights with fairing, needed for Airforce certification can come later.

DoD certification requires minimum 3 launches, assuming FH is considered a brand new vehicle. I'm expecting SX needs 3 launches but commonality with F9 will allow expedited certification as if FH had flown the next category (which I think is 7 launches). That will depend on having zero launch failures.
Anyhow, once FH flies successfully (and all 3 boosters are recovered), lots of heavier GTO payloads should be upgraded to reused FH. There should be plenty of launches to provide lots of data just considering the next 18 months after the first FH launch.

[envy887]

Whilst I understand the theoretical reason why the FH no. 1 has to fly with a fairing, I have to ask this:

1) Is it different in any substantive way from the F9 PLF?

2) Are the physical stresses on the fairing and the fairing mounting different in any way?

If the answer to both these questions are 'no', then I would question whether a fairing is really needed for the flight.

If nothing else, there are aeroloads on the boosters that needs to be understood and demonstrated (so yes, the physical stresses are different).  Beyond that, I imagine it will be a different fairing (5 meter?) because DoD payloads can be rather large.

Falcon Heavy has much higher thrust/weight ratio and flies a different acceleration profile, so inertial and aero loads on the fairing are different.

[Lars-J]

Whilst I understand the theoretical reason why the FH no. 1 has to fly with a fairing, I have to ask this:

1) Is it different in any substantive way from the F9 PLF?

2) Are the physical stresses on the fairing and the fairing mounting different in any way?

If the answer to both these questions are 'no', then I would question whether a fairing is really needed for the flight.

If nothing else, there are aeroloads on the boosters that needs to be understood and demonstrated (so yes, the physical stresses are different).  Beyond that, I imagine it will be a different fairing (5 meter?) because DoD payloads can be rather large.

The normal (and only so far) F9 fairing is 5m diameter.

[kevin-rf]

The normal (and only so far) F9 fairing is 5m diameter.

(The beanie on the Dragon capsule doesn't count?)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SpaceX are still saying FH demo flight this year:

SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy to fly this year #satshow

https://twitter.com/chenry_sn/status/839590030511386625

[woods170]

SpaceX are still saying FH demo flight this year:

SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy to fly this year #satshow

https://twitter.com/chenry_sn/status/839590030511386625

The track-record of both Gwynne and Elon on delivering-on-promise is not all that good. Just sayin'...

[JamesH65]

SpaceX are still saying FH demo flight this year:

SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy to fly this year #satshow

https://twitter.com/chenry_sn/status/839590030511386625

The track-record of both Gwynne and Elon on delivering-on-promise is not all that good. Just sayin'...

Hasn't this fact be stated at least 1M times on here?

[ugordan]

SpaceX are still saying FH demo flight this year:

SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy to fly this year #satshow

https://twitter.com/chenry_sn/status/839590030511386625

The track-record of both Gwynne and Elon on delivering-on-promise is not all that good. Just sayin'...

Hasn't this fact be stated at least 1M times on here?

Yes, almost as the number of times we heard "FH this year".

[wannamoonbase]

SpaceX are still saying FH demo flight this year:

SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy to fly this year #satshow

https://twitter.com/chenry_sn/status/839590030511386625

The track-record of both Gwynne and Elon on delivering-on-promise is not all that good. Just sayin'...

Hasn't this fact be stated at least 1M times on here?

Yes, almost as the number of times we heard "FH this year".

I concur, the FH schedule has been broken more times than Walter White's Pontiac Aztec. 

However, this year, we could/should see hardware waiting at the launch site for pad modifications.

[meekGee]

SpaceX are still saying FH demo flight this year:

SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy to fly this year #satshow

https://twitter.com/chenry_sn/status/839590030511386625

The track-record of both Gwynne and Elon on delivering-on-promise is not all that good. Just sayin'...

Hasn't this fact be stated at least 1M times on here?

Yes, almost as the number of times we heard "FH this year".

I'm pretty sure this is all about Amos-6 fallout, not FH proper.

That failure screwed up a lot of things...   Could have been worse though if 39A did not exist.

[Comga]

SpaceX are still saying FH demo flight this year:

SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy to fly this year #satshow

https://twitter.com/chenry_sn/status/839590030511386625

The track-record of both Gwynne and Elon on delivering-on-promise is not all that good. Just sayin'...

Hasn't this fact be stated at least 1M times on here?

Yes, almost as the number of times we heard "FH this year".

And an article in Space News, dated February 27, ten days ago, quotes Shotwell saying LC-40 would be repaired by June and the Heavy would launch this summer.

We don't need to belabor the schedule slips.  We all know they happen, and that they will continue to happen.  Those of us who have been following, which is all of us, know to take all dates with a large grain of salt.

But I just saw the launch of a commercial cargo run to the station where the first stage came back and landed intact.
This is great progress whether or not we know the exact pace ahead of time.

[Jcc]

Do you think they want to fly FH demo based on Block 5 F9?
They already shipped 2 side cores that are reused Block 3 (v1.2, FT).
Would the demo mission not count towards certification if it does not use Block 5?
Could they use a Block 5 central core with Block 3 side cores?

[old_sellsword]

Do you think they want to fly FH demo based on Block 5 F9?

An employee says no:

We're not delaying FH for block 5.

Could they use a Block 5 central core with Block 3 side cores?

Which assumes that Falcon 9 Block 5 is the Falcon Heavy center core. There's no indication that FH center cores will be part of the Falcon 9 Block sequence.

[Roy_H]

Ever since Elon announced that they are going to send two people on a free-return around the Moon I have felt that this would change the FH demo mission from a mass simulator to LEO to sending a re-furbished Dragon on the same flight path around the Moon as planned for these two intrepid astronauts. Possibly the Dragon used for the pad abort.

It just does not make sense to me that they would send astronauts on such a mission without a prior non-manned test and the FH demo would be the perfect opportunity. They would instrument it for such things as radiation inside the capsule and maybe test the ECLSS. My reason for picking the pad abort Dragon is that they could also test landing at the end of the mission.

[gospacex]

SpaceX are still saying FH demo flight this year:

SpaceX's Shotwell: Falcon Heavy to fly this year #satshow

https://twitter.com/chenry_sn/status/839590030511386625

The track-record of both Gwynne and Elon on delivering-on-promise is not all that good. Just sayin'...

As opposed to most other aerospace projects, which are remarkable to be always on schedule and on budget, right? JWST, rings any bells?

[pippin]

Ever since Elon announced that they are going to send two people on a free-return around the Moon I have felt that this would change the FH demo mission from a mass simulator to LEO to sending a re-furbished Dragon on the same flight path around the Moon as planned for these two intrepid astronauts. Possibly the Dragon used for the pad abort.

It just does not make sense to me that they would send astronauts on such a mission without a prior non-manned test and the FH demo would be the perfect opportunity. They would instrument it for such things as radiation inside the capsule and maybe test the ECLSS. My reason for picking the pad abort Dragon is that they could also test landing at the end of the mission.

Do. they have all that on the pad abort Dragon? Heat shield? ECLSS? Full flight avionics that work for more than the short time of the abort?
IMHO this would push the schedule for the FH test flight significantly to the right. An old cargo Dragon, OK, but that's a completely different machine, so what would be the significance?

[IanThePineapple]

Ever since Elon announced that they are going to send two people on a free-return around the Moon I have felt that this would change the FH demo mission from a mass simulator to LEO to sending a re-furbished Dragon on the same flight path around the Moon as planned for these two intrepid astronauts. Possibly the Dragon used for the pad abort.

It just does not make sense to me that they would send astronauts on such a mission without a prior non-manned test and the FH demo would be the perfect opportunity. They would instrument it for such things as radiation inside the capsule and maybe test the ECLSS. My reason for picking the pad abort Dragon is that they could also test landing at the end of the mission.

Do. they have all that on the pad abort Dragon? Heat shield? ECLSS? Full flight avionics that work for more than the short time of the abort?
IMHO this would push the schedule for the FH test flight significantly to the right. An old cargo Dragon, OK, but that's a completely different machine, so what would be the significance?

'

If NASA could turn a structural test article into the shuttle Challenger, I'm sure SpaceX could make that capsule functional.