-
#1020
by
Lar
on 12 Jan, 2018 01:53
-
Can someone clarify exactly how much propellants were loaded into all three stages today? Thanks! 
You mean all 4 stages, I think
No, this is not a 4 stage rocket by any definition. 3 cores and an upper stage, but not 4 stages.
In US terms, it is a 2 stage vehicle with boosters.
In Russian terms, it is a 3 stage vehicle as the boosters count as their own stage.
4 units that take propellants. Which is what OP was asking about.
2, 2.5, or 3 stages, depending on how you count, in terms of launch/sequence/staging etc.
I'm comfortable with my reply. How many Lars does it take to nitpick a post?
-
#1021
by
vanoord
on 12 Jan, 2018 09:43
-
Emre Kelly @EmreKelly on Twitter:
UPDATE: SpaceX #FalconHeavy test fire now scheduled for Saturday from 1700 to 2200 ET (2200 to 0300 UTC). Could be more timing adjustments, so stay tuned.
-
#1022
by
woods170
on 12 Jan, 2018 09:52
-
Emre Kelly @EmreKelly on Twitter:
UPDATE: SpaceX #FalconHeavy test fire now scheduled for Saturday from 1700 to 2200 ET (2200 to 0300 UTC). Could be more timing adjustments, so stay tuned.
SpaceX source telling me this is a combination of multiple things, including some fixing to do and sub-cooled propellant requirements. Also, it was stressed (again I might add) that they are not in a hurry.
-
#1023
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 12 Jan, 2018 14:00
-
Makes sense - if the data was indicating an issue with a holddown (unconfirmed) then they’d want to unload the offending gear to work on it.
-
#1024
by
Grandpa to Two
on 12 Jan, 2018 23:12
-
I see that the two side boosters are reversed. What’s the reason. Countering torque is the only reason I can think of. Did other three first stage rockets do the same? Delta IV Heavy, Titan IV
-
#1025
by
oiorionsbelt
on 12 Jan, 2018 23:16
-
Otherwise you'd need a left and right booster.
-
#1026
by
MKremer
on 12 Jan, 2018 23:29
-
Otherwise you'd need a left and right booster.
Or at least two different octoweb/upper attachment designs.
-
#1027
by
Nomadd
on 12 Jan, 2018 23:46
-
I see that the two side boosters are reversed. What’s the reason. Countering torque is the only reason I can think of. Did other three first stage rockets do the same? Delta IV Heavy, Titan IV
They're actually the same. They both attach to the core at the same point on the booster. I'm not sure how "countering torque" enters into it.
-
#1028
by
Electric Paint
on 12 Jan, 2018 23:57
-
I see that the two side boosters are reversed. What’s the reason. Countering torque is the only reason I can think of. Did other three first stage rockets do the same? Delta IV Heavy, Titan IV
This would make it easier to build Falcon Heavy side boosters, whether they build it new or repurpose a single stick booster, because they don't have to worry about maintaining even numbers of righties and lefties.
-
#1029
by
Jim
on 13 Jan, 2018 00:41
-
I see that the two side boosters are reversed. What’s the reason. Countering torque is the only reason I can think of. Did other three first stage rockets do the same? Delta IV Heavy, Titan IV
Think of the tail service mast at base of the core. It is on the opposite side of the TEL. Now take another core and make it the left booster. The attach points of the booster to the core are on the right side of the booster. Now, duplicate the left booster and to attach it to the core, it has to rotated 180 degrees. This now puts TSM on the TEL side of the vehicle.
Titan had right and left boosters. Delta IV Heavy had three unique cores, that is why it was expensive
-
#1030
by
Grandpa to Two
on 13 Jan, 2018 01:04
-
I see that the two side boosters are reversed. What’s the reason. Countering torque is the only reason I can think of. Did other three first stage rockets do the same? Delta IV Heavy, Titan IV
Think of the tail service mast at base of the core. It is on the opposite side of the TEL. Now take another core and make it the left booster. The attach points of the booster to the core are on the right side of the booster. Now, duplicate the left booster and to attach it to the core, it has to rotated 180 degrees. This now puts TSM on the TEL side of the vehicle.
Titan had right and left boosters. Delta IV Heavy had three unique cores, that is why it was expensive
Now this I understand. That was exactly the answer I needed to figure it out. Pulled out some pictures of the rocket bases and it was clear. Thanks Jim.
-
#1031
by
RocketLover0119
on 13 Jan, 2018 02:21
-
Per the update thread the SF is potentially slipping to Monday....
-
#1032
by
Roy_H
on 13 Jan, 2018 04:03
-
Per the update thread the SF is potentially slipping to Monday....
Monday is a holiday, what's the rush? Give the guys a break.
-
#1033
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 13 Jan, 2018 04:16
-
Per the update thread the SF is potentially slipping to Monday....
Monday is a holiday, what's the rush? Give the guys a break.
Absolutely no evidence that they are rushing. The fact that they are pushing this two days, in fact, directly contradicts an assertion that they are rushing in any way with this.
Federal holidays do not prevent critical operations from occurring at the space center. Moreover, federal holidays, are not a guaranteed day off in the US.
-
#1034
by
john smith 19
on 13 Jan, 2018 08:15
-
Think of the tail service mast at base of the core. It is on the opposite side of the TEL. Now take another core and make it the left booster. The attach points of the booster to the core are on the right side of the booster. Now, duplicate the left booster and to attach it to the core, it has to rotated 180 degrees. This now puts TSM on the TEL side of the vehicle.
Titan had right and left boosters. Delta IV Heavy had three unique cores, that is why it was expensive
It's these sorts of quite subtle design points that make the whole "Let's make a big rocket by clustering a bunch of common stage together" idea quite a bit trickier IRL than it seems on paper.
In hindsight it's pretty impressive that SX have gotten away with only needing 2 separate designs
and being able to reuse single stick F9 boosters as the boosters, rather than a whole new booster design.
-
#1035
by
Jim
on 13 Jan, 2018 12:40
-
Think of the tail service mast at base of the core. It is on the opposite side of the TEL. Now take another core and make it the left booster. The attach points of the booster to the core are on the right side of the booster. Now, duplicate the left booster and to attach it to the core, it has to rotated 180 degrees. This now puts TSM on the TEL side of the vehicle.
Titan had right and left boosters. Delta IV Heavy had three unique cores, that is why it was expensive
It's these sorts of quite subtle design points that make the whole "Let's make a big rocket by clustering a bunch of common stage together" idea quite a bit trickier IRL than it seems on paper.
In hindsight it's pretty impressive that SX have gotten away with only needing 2 separate designs and being able to reuse single stick F9 boosters as the boosters, rather than a whole new booster design.
Atlas V Heavy would have only required one design for all three boosters since all cores can handle solid boosters.
Things would have been much different if Altas V had won the lion’s share and heavies of the EELV order.
-
#1036
by
Karloss12
on 13 Jan, 2018 14:05
-
Think of the tail service mast at base of the core. It is on the opposite side of the TEL. Now take another core and make it the left booster. The attach points of the booster to the core are on the right side of the booster. Now, duplicate the left booster and to attach it to the core, it has to rotated 180 degrees. This now puts TSM on the TEL side of the vehicle.
Titan had right and left boosters. Delta IV Heavy had three unique cores, that is why it was expensive
It's these sorts of quite subtle design points that make the whole "Let's make a big rocket by clustering a bunch of common stage together" idea quite a bit trickier IRL than it seems on paper.
In hindsight it's pretty impressive that SX have gotten away with only needing 2 separate designs and being able to reuse single stick F9 boosters as the boosters, rather than a whole new booster design.
The FH side cores used for the demo lift the centre core from the octoweb base only. They are actually designed in a regular F9 launch to lift a second stage and payload positioned on top of them. This suggests that the tankage and structure above the octoweb is excessively over designed (when used as FH side cores). Perhaps there is a bending moment along the side cores length when used for FH.
With BFR in the pipework to ultimately replace FH, I doubt there will be a specially designed light weight side core.
-
#1037
by
nicp
on 13 Jan, 2018 15:21
-
Look like titanium grid fins on the boosters, Al on the core.
-
#1038
by
Cherokee43v6
on 13 Jan, 2018 15:29
-
Per the update thread the SF is potentially slipping to Monday....
Monday is a holiday, what's the rush? Give the guys a break.
Absolutely no evidence that they are rushing. The fact that they are pushing this two days, in fact, directly contradicts an assertion that they are rushing in any way with this.
Federal holidays do not prevent critical operations from occurring at the space center. Moreover, federal holidays, are not a guaranteed day off in the US.
I would point out that from a safety perspective, doing a high-risk operation, like the FH's first static fire, on a Holiday during which most other operations at the facility would be shut down actually makes a ton of sense. If something goes wrong and there is an RUD there is not a mad scramble (as was the case with AMOS 6) to safely shut down and evacuate surrounding operations.
-
#1039
by
shuttlefan
on 13 Jan, 2018 15:43
-
Will the FH remain upright all through the weekend and through the potential static fire Monday, and is it possible they will do another WDR today or tomorrow?
