SpaceX Falcon Heavy Demo - Discussion and Speculation

[Jim]

So after a Red Dragon mission.

Edit: So my original statement about there not being a full on un-crewed test of the Dragon 2 and FH circumlunar mission still stands. A Red Dragon mission is not a circumlunar mission.

No, Red Dragon isn't until 2020

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

They aren't going to fly a manned mission to lunar distances without some kind of beyond LEO demo of the Dragon and a launch of a Dragon on FH.

That makes sense. And to clarify, your understanding is that any FH launch with Dragon won't count toward AF certification, as those flights must fly with the payload fairing. Correct?

Any flight of the FH counts for AF certification. It is up to the AF to determine if they want 3 flights of a faring to do a certification. The primary concern is 3 flights of the LV not the faring. But the faring has to fly at least once. It is a low risk item if it is shown that it works at least once in flight. A Lunar flyby mission is much more stressful of the LV capabilities than a LEO or GTO mission. So showing that it can accomplish a Lunar flyby without problems is a plus in the AF certification.

[deruch]

They aren't going to fly a manned mission to lunar distances without some kind of beyond LEO demo of the Dragon and a launch of a Dragon on FH.

That makes sense. And to clarify, your understanding is that any FH launch with Dragon won't count toward AF certification, as those flights must fly with the payload fairing. Correct?

Any flight of the FH counts for AF certification. It is up to the AF to determine if they want 3 flights of a faring to do a certification. The primary concern is 3 flights of the LV not the faring. But the faring has to fly at least once. It is a low risk item if it is shown that it works at least once in flight. A Lunar flyby mission is much more stressful of the LV capabilities than a LEO or GTO mission. So showing that it can accomplish a Lunar flyby without problems is a plus in the AF certification.

The requirement for the certification requires flights of a "Common Vehicle Configuration".  I don't think the USAF EELV New Entrant guide is public, but the NASA one (which I'm assuming is generally similar) includes the following: 

Common Vehicle Configuration Upgrades or Modifications: Items that do not substantially affect operating time, total impulse, and/or the thrust profile of one or more propulsive stages are considered upgrades or modifications to the certified common vehicle configuration. Examples of upgrades and modifications include changes in software, payload fairing, payload electrical/mechanical interfaces, incorporation of mission-unique requirements, and the addition or deletion of a final stage (exclusively used for orbit circularization or escape), strap-on motors, and/or trim stage. Upgrades or modifications are not to be interpreted as common vehicle configuration changes.  (bold added)

It's difficult to predict how this would be dealt with in the process of certification itself.  But if we first assume a certified FH for payloads attached with the PAF and encapsulated in the fairing, a FH+Dragon launch stack wouldn't be considered certified without delta-certification work.  It looks like it wouldn't rise to the point of being considered a changed configuration, but would be 2 modifications.  All of which is to say that for the "3 required flights" it seems like they probably want them to be as identical as possible otherwise it pretty much defeats the purpose of trying to baseline the vehicle and flight data.

[guckyfan]

That still leaves the question open, would or would not the Airforce do their planned test flight with FH when SpaceX has not done a flight with fairing before?

[RonM]

Doesn't the FH use the same SS and fairing as the F9? Shouldn't one FH test flight with a fairing be enough?

[Kaputnik]

Is interplanetary out of the question?
Launch mass simulator to mars or whatever. Still validates fairing.
Just impact the planet(or smaller).
Interstellar?
 

It's going to be hard enough to get FH off the pad, without having to hit an interplanetary launch window as well.

[Zed_Noir]

Is interplanetary out of the question?
Launch mass simulator to mars or whatever. Still validates fairing.
Just impact the planet(or smaller).
Interstellar?
 

It's going to be hard enough to get FH off the pad, without having to hit an interplanetary launch window as well.

The SX CTO might not think it is that hard to do. It is his toys after all. 

[CameronD]

Is interplanetary out of the question?
Launch mass simulator to mars or whatever. Still validates fairing.
Just impact the planet(or smaller).
Interstellar?
 

It's going to be hard enough to get FH off the pad, without having to hit an interplanetary launch window as well.

The SX CTO might not think it is that hard to do. It is his toys after all. 

"Light blue touch-paper and retire immediately." 


EDIT: Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

[Brovane]

SX needs 3 successful FH launches with the fairing to produce enough data for DoD certification.
Its been already stated that SX intends to fly a mass simulator as the payload for now.

Has it been confirmed that the USAF needs 3 successful FH launches for DOD certification?  From what I understand from Congressional Testimony, for EELV certification the number of required flights is flexible depending on the insight the launch provider is willing to provide into their process for design, manufacturing and launch flow. 

[Rei]

FH can launch a pretty darned heavy mass simulator. If they want something cheap, why not an impactor? For something unguided, targeting might be tough over interplanetary distances, but perhaps a lunar impactor for LRO to photograph.

Of course, I'm sure there's tons of student and private teams who have something cheap that they'd love to get launched even if there's a high risk to the payload.

[old_sellsword]

An Orbital Systems employee who has been working with the FH tracking software at the Cape recently posted this:

On a related note, this week SpaceX was here for the Factory Acceptance Test on the additional ground antennae for the Falcon Heavy. All went well, we think they're going to install them at the cape in April.

Yes, word is the first flight with land all three on solid ground.

[cro-magnon gramps]

ok, the excitement of yesterdays historic launch and landing is still reverberating through our veins.. what I wonder, how plausible is Elon's over exuberant thought that Demo FH second stage could do a Hail Mary Landing Attempt... or was it simple a reaction to the adrenaline running through his body... thoughts...

[kevinof]

I don't think Musk just says things. I've no doubt he and his team have trashed this idea around internally for a while and that's why he said it. They have nothing to lose - the S2 will burn up anyway so why not try something and learn from it.

[Craig_VG]

During the post SES-10 press conference Elon said this in regards to Falcon Heavy Demo:

We're not going to fly anything on.... we're probably going to fly something really silly on the first flight of Falcon Heavy as it's quite a high risk mission......

Center core will land downrange on the droneship.

[Nate_Trost]

Isn't the first FH going to be kind of an odd duck? As far as I can tell, the refurb side boosters and the first core are all pre-Block 5 final thrust upgrade. If the second FH flight would be the first with the upgraded thrust, that still seems like additional risk for a customer to consider.

[edkyle99]

Isn't the first FH going to be kind of an odd duck? As far as I can tell, the refurb side boosters and the first core are all pre-Block 5 final thrust upgrade. If the second FH flight would be the first with the upgraded thrust, that still seems like additional risk for a customer to consider.

Less thrust is probably a good thing for an inaugural flight. 

 - Ed Kyle

[robert_d]

Is anyone as surprised as I am that they still haven't decided on a payload for the Demo mission? Musk mentioned "something silly". So no Dragon, no paying customer, and very little time for them to prepare it if they really intend to fly this year.

So would something like a rollout solar array demo be better than silly?
There must be something that can be prepared relatively quickly?
Or how about just a huge rollout American Flag and detachable camera to photograph it?

[mme]

Is anyone as surprised as I am that they still haven't decided on a payload for the Demo mission? Musk mentioned "something silly". So no Dragon, no paying customer, and very little time for them to prepare it if they really intend to fly this year.

So would something like a rollout solar array demo be better than silly?
There must be something that can be prepared relatively quickly?
Or how about just a huge rollout American Flag and detachable camera to photograph it?

At the Pad 39A presser before CRS-10, Shotwell explicitly said that potential customers have expressed interest in flying something on FH demo flight and that SX does not want to.  SX does not want any payload related delays or contingencies on the demo flight.  It's more important to SX to get the rocket flying than to "do something useful".

The FH was much more difficult than SX originally expected. Both Musk and Shotwell have commented on this.

[wannamoonbase]

Isn't the first FH going to be kind of an odd duck? As far as I can tell, the refurb side boosters and the first core are all pre-Block 5 final thrust upgrade. If the second FH flight would be the first with the upgraded thrust, that still seems like additional risk for a customer to consider.

From the Block 5 descriptions we've heard it doesn't seem like the chassis of a booster itself can't be changed into a Block 5. 

Changing the engines likely the biggest change, but the rest sounds like 'bolt on bits'

We're years away from this possibility, but a reuseable second stage may make sense if the reuse of the F9 cores becomes so fast and quick that moving a payload to a fully reuseable FH over a partially reuseable F9. 

A long shot but maybe not in 5 years.

[dglow]

... we're probably going to fly something really silly ...

Cue the speculation.

Does 'silly' mean something that strikes Musk as humorous or goofy? Or is 'silly' code-speak for something surprising or impressive, as in "I can't tell you now, you wouldn't believe me, this will be awesome."