Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy Demo - Discussion and Speculation (Read 243620 times)

Jim · « **Reply #220 on:** 03/22/2017 11:50 am »

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/22/2017 06:03 am

I think speculation of what the payload is, is definitely on topic! All SpaceX need to do to fly a Dragon 1 inside a fairing is to build an adaptor from the normal spacecraft mount to the Dragon trunk.

It is not going to happen. And not really feasible. The spacecraft adaptor in the fairing is narrower than the Dragon and hence would require new adapter with fairing attachment, which would invalidate the demo.

No shape or form of Dragon is going to fly on the mission.

2megs · « **Reply #221 on:** 03/22/2017 12:51 pm »

The concern about having the exact same fairing has me wondering: For the purpose of demonstrating three flights of a given configuration, why isn't it a problem that the demo mission will fly re-used block 3 boosters, instead of the (presumably brand new) block 5 boosters that the Air Force would be getting?

The uprated thrust alone seems like enough reason to invalidate any flight qualifications of the inter-core structures and supports.

gongora · « **Reply #222 on:** 03/22/2017 01:07 pm »

Quote from: 2megs on 03/22/2017 12:51 pm

The concern about having the exact same fairing has me wondering: For the purpose of demonstrating three flights of a given configuration, why isn't it a problem that the demo mission will fly re-used block 3 boosters, instead of the (presumably brand new) block 5 boosters that the Air Force would be getting?

The uprated thrust alone seems like enough reason to invalidate any flight qualifications of the inter-core structures and supports.

FH with uprated boosters would need additional qualification from the Air Force, but probably not as much as starting over with a new vehicle. There also seems to be an initial level of qualification (Air Force has enough confidence to allow the company to bid for missions with the vehicle that will fly in a couple years) and then qualification for an actual flight (Air Force has enough confidence to actually put their payload on top of the vehicle). F9 block 5 will need a delta qualification, just like block 3 did. The "three flights of a given configuration" doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule, depends on other factors.

gongora · « **Reply #223 on:** 03/22/2017 01:09 pm »

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/22/2017 06:03 am

I think speculation of what the payload is, is definitely on topic!

Speculation of what people want the payload to be is not necessarily on topic.

mvpel · « **Reply #224 on:** 03/22/2017 02:41 pm »

Quote from: 2megs on 03/22/2017 12:51 pm

The uprated thrust alone seems like enough reason to invalidate any flight qualifications of the inter-core structures and supports.

Boosters don't count, so to speak, under the EELV rules.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

baldusi · « **Reply #225 on:** 03/22/2017 04:22 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 03/22/2017 11:50 am

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/22/2017 06:03 am
I think speculation of what the payload is, is definitely on topic! All SpaceX need to do to fly a Dragon 1 inside a fairing is to build an adaptor from the normal spacecraft mount to the Dragon trunk.

It is not going to happen. And not really feasible. The spacecraft adaptor in the fairing is narrower than the Dragon and hence would require new adapter with fairing attachment, which would invalidate the demo.

No shape or form of Dragon is going to fly on the mission.

Why the fairing attachment to the adapter? You could have a second adapter to take the diameter difference. It would probably have ugly harmonics, but could be done. Certifying that for the flight would be expensive and time consuming, though.

Jim · « **Reply #226 on:** 03/22/2017 05:37 pm »

Quote from: baldusi on 03/22/2017 04:22 pm

Why the fairing attachment to the adapter?

That is how Spacex does it. The adapter is everything black

Steven Pietrobon · « **Reply #227 on:** 03/23/2017 05:21 am »

Quote from: Jim on 03/22/2017 11:50 am

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/22/2017 06:03 am
I think speculation of what the payload is, is definitely on topic! All SpaceX need to do to fly a Dragon 1 inside a fairing is to build an adaptor from the normal spacecraft mount to the Dragon trunk.

It is not going to happen. And not really feasible. The spacecraft adaptor in the fairing is narrower than the Dragon and hence would require new adapter with fairing attachment, which would invalidate the demo.

You misunderstood what I wrote. There would be two adaptors. The normal one used for spacecraft (the PAF) and then another adaptor from the PAF to Dragon 1. Picture below.

Semmel · « **Reply #228 on:** 03/23/2017 06:15 am »

Dragon usually gets umbilicals, see the very old picture from 2012:
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/staticfire-2012.jpg

That would be pretty hard to supply through the fairing. It can be re-routed, sure but requires a ton of work to get the lines through the adapter and out at the side of F9. Not sure how that would work without compromising the certification.

Oersted · « **Reply #229 on:** 03/23/2017 10:08 am »

They'll fly a Tesla Model S under that fairing. Around the Moon. You read it here first.

Bynaus · « **Reply #230 on:** 03/23/2017 10:31 am »

As much as I would have wanted SpaceX to send a Dragon around the Moon on the FH Demo flight, I don't think anymore that this is going to happen. Aside from the technical problems (which might well be overcome if they wanted to - but they don't), SpaceX is not exactly known for overdoing while underpromising things. There is just no good reason why they would keep something like that a secret, especially after the recent 2018 circumlunar flight announcement. What good would it do to keep a Demo mission for that a secret? Also, with all the SpaceXers posting here (both L2 and open forum), we would certainly know at least something by now. It's just not going to happen.

Jim · « **Reply #231 on:** 03/23/2017 12:43 pm »

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/23/2017 05:21 am

Quote from: Jim on 03/22/2017 11:50 am
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/22/2017 06:03 am
I think speculation of what the payload is, is definitely on topic! All SpaceX need to do to fly a Dragon 1 inside a fairing is to build an adaptor from the normal spacecraft mount to the Dragon trunk.

It is not going to happen. And not really feasible. The spacecraft adaptor in the fairing is narrower than the Dragon and hence would require new adapter with fairing attachment, which would invalidate the demo.

You misunderstood what I wrote. There would be two adaptors. The normal one used for spacecraft (the PAF) and then another adaptor from the PAF to Dragon 1. Picture below.

That is not going to happen. You're ignoring the Dragon umbilical

JamesH65 · « **Reply #232 on:** 03/23/2017 12:48 pm »

Quote from: Bynaus on 03/23/2017 10:31 am

Also, with all the SpaceXers posting here (both L2 and open forum), we would certainly know at least something by now. It's just not going to happen.

Really, and get themselves sacked? That fact we haven't heard about anything doesn't mean nothing is going to happen.

I don't believe a Dragon will be the payload btw.

As someone above said, I'd send a Model S. Although the adaptor would be an odd shape...

ugordan · « **Reply #233 on:** 03/23/2017 12:54 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 03/23/2017 12:43 pm

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/23/2017 05:21 am
Quote from: Jim on 03/22/2017 11:50 am
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/22/2017 06:03 am
I think speculation of what the payload is, is definitely on topic! All SpaceX need to do to fly a Dragon 1 inside a fairing is to build an adaptor from the normal spacecraft mount to the Dragon trunk.

It is not going to happen. And not really feasible. The spacecraft adaptor in the fairing is narrower than the Dragon and hence would require new adapter with fairing attachment, which would invalidate the demo.

You misunderstood what I wrote. There would be two adaptors. The normal one used for spacecraft (the PAF) and then another adaptor from the PAF to Dragon 1. Picture below.

That is not going to happen. You're ignoring the Dragon umbilical

That's hardly an issue. With a little bit more of photoshopping, the umbilical connection can be covered as well.

Flying Beaver · « **Reply #234 on:** 03/23/2017 01:13 pm »

Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/23/2017 05:21 am

Quote from: Jim on 03/22/2017 11:50 am
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/22/2017 06:03 am
I think speculation of what the payload is, is definitely on topic! All SpaceX need to do to fly a Dragon 1 inside a fairing is to build an adaptor from the normal spacecraft mount to the Dragon trunk.

It is not going to happen. And not really feasible. The spacecraft adaptor in the fairing is narrower than the Dragon and hence would require new adapter with fairing attachment, which would invalidate the demo.

You misunderstood what I wrote. There would be two adaptors. The normal one used for spacecraft (the PAF) and then another adaptor from the PAF to Dragon 1. Picture below.

A good real world example of that would be Cygnus to the A5.

Negan · « **Reply #235 on:** 03/23/2017 01:38 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 03/23/2017 12:43 pm

That is not going to happen. You're ignoring the Dragon umbilical

What is the umbilical for?

Jim · « **Reply #236 on:** 03/23/2017 01:40 pm »

Quote from: Negan on 03/23/2017 01:38 pm

Quote from: Jim on 03/23/2017 12:43 pm
That is not going to happen. You're ignoring the Dragon umbilical

What is the umbilical for?

Power, data, cooling, etc

Negan · « **Reply #237 on:** 03/23/2017 01:50 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 03/23/2017 01:40 pm

Quote from: Negan on 03/23/2017 01:38 pm
Quote from: Jim on 03/23/2017 12:43 pm
That is not going to happen. You're ignoring the Dragon umbilical

What is the umbilical for?

Power, data, cooling, etc

It's interesting that satellites manage to be launched without such an umbilical, but Dragon can't.

Jim · « **Reply #238 on:** 03/23/2017 01:57 pm »

Quote from: Negan on 03/23/2017 01:50 pm

It's interesting that satellites manage to be launched without such an umbilical, but Dragon can't.

No, satellites get the same services through disconnects on the adapter (it can be seen in the photo above behind the leftmost person) and the fairing has cooling.

Dragon isn't in a fairing and so the connections are direct.

Also, Dragon is more active than other spacecraft (which are quiescent during launch).

S.Paulissen · « **Reply #239 on:** 03/23/2017 02:05 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 03/23/2017 01:57 pm

Quote from: Negan on 03/23/2017 01:50 pm

It's interesting that satellites manage to be launched without such an umbilical, but Dragon can't.

No, satellites get the same services through disconnects on the adapter (it can be seen in the photo above behind the leftmost person) and the fairing has cooling.

Dragon isn't in a fairing and so the connections are direct.

Also, Dragon is more active than other spacecraft (which are quiescent during launch).

Is this to be taken as, Dragon is more active that most other satellite payloads or more active than other Dragon-like spacecraft? I would be surprised to hear that Dragon is more active than, say, Orion is.