SpaceX FH : Falcon Heavy Demo : early 2018 : Discussion Thread 1

[Rebel44]

If Zuma really is delayed until at least December (which is currently being reported) can SpaceX move its launch to SLC-40 and start working on LC 39A to prepare it for Falcon Heavy launch?

[speedevil]

If Zuma really is delayed until at least December (which is currently being reported) can SpaceX move its launch to SLC-40 and start working on LC 39A to prepare it for Falcon Heavy launch?

Related also to if FH-demo will use a fairing.

[ChrisGebhardt]

If Zuma really is delayed until at least December (which is currently being reported) can SpaceX move its launch to SLC-40 and start working on LC 39A to prepare it for Falcon Heavy launch?

Related also to if FH-demo will use a fairing.

Bingo.  FH has a fairing, too.  But to the SLC-40 question, why?  What would be the need to move Zuma to SLC-40?

CRS-13 is getting ready to go from SLC-40, and with a crew rotation period coming up, ISS traffic is a factor in having CRS-13 in early-December (not mid- to late-December if that can be avoided). 

And there is no need to move Zuma to SLC-40 just so 39A work can proceed for a maiden voyage of a rocket that doesn't have to launch by the end of the December.  If FH goes in January, that is perfectly all right.

Why completely disrupt paying customers' launch schedules by taking a perfectly active pad offline to prepare for a mission that isn't for a customer, isn't for profit, and doesn't have a "we need it launched by this date" aspect to its mission?

[zubenelgenubi]

If Zuma really is delayed until at least December (which is currently being reported) can SpaceX move its launch to SLC-40 and start working on LC 39A to prepare it for Falcon Heavy launch?

Related also to if FH-demo will use a fairing.

Seeking confirmation: Is the FH PLF to be the same "make/model" as currently used on F9?

[CuddlyRocket]

If Zuma really is delayed until at least December (which is currently being reported) can SpaceX move its launch to SLC-40 and start working on LC 39A to prepare it for Falcon Heavy launch?

Related also to if FH-demo will use a fairing.

Seeking confirmation: Is the FH PLF to be the same "make/model" as currently used on F9?

Does it matter? The demo mission is to demonstrate the launcher, not the fairing! If the fairing fails to open or opens improperly does that invalidate the test of the launcher which will have already passed through launch, maxQ, MECO, staging and second stage ignition? At worst you'll demonstrate an already suspected fault in the fairing. (Although the second stage might not complete its full firing sequence, it's a standard second stage - already flown on multiple missions.) Of course, you'll lose whatever's inside the fairing, but that might only be a mass simulator!

[gongora]

Yes it matters. A fairing failure would stop all launches with fairings during the failure investigation.

[penguin44]

If Zuma really is delayed until at least December (which is currently being reported) can SpaceX move its launch to SLC-40 and start working on LC 39A to prepare it for Falcon Heavy launch?

Related also to if FH-demo will use a fairing.

Seeking confirmation: Is the FH PLF to be the same "make/model" as currently used on F9?

Does it matter? The demo mission is to demonstrate the launcher, not the fairing! If the fairing fails to open or opens improperly does that invalidate the test of the launcher which will have already passed through launch, maxQ, MECO, staging and second stage ignition? At worst you'll demonstrate an already suspected fault in the fairing. (Although the second stage might not complete its full firing sequence, it's a standard second stage - already flown on multiple missions.) Of course, you'll lose whatever's inside the fairing, but that might only be a mass simulator!

Also you forgot that the fairing could fail any time after ignition. Could come apart before maxQ

[mn]

Yes it matters. A fairing failure would stop all launches with fairings during the failure investigation.

Seems that is already the case, without a failure.

[Michael Baylor]

Numerous reports and confirmed by SpaceX: Falcon Heavy NET early 2018.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Bit more detail:

SpaceX confirms Aviation Week report that the Falcon Heavy’s debut test flight is now expected in early 2018, a few weeks after a hold-down static fire test at KSC in December.

https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/935619345182543872

[ChrisGebhardt]

Bit more detail:

SpaceX confirms Aviation Week report that the Falcon Heavy’s debut test flight is now expected in early 2018, a few weeks after a hold-down static fire test at KSC in December.

https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/935619345182543872

In other words, it slipped by about 1 week.  And it's only "news" because it crossed a year boundary in that week.

[georgegassaway]

In other words, it slipped by about 1 week.  And it's only "news" because it crossed a year boundary in that week.

How did you extract "early 2018" to mean first week of January???  Not even January, but first week of January?

Heck, I take it to mean Q1 of 2018. Which is what I predicted during Q1 of this year (hoping I'd be wrong, but considering everything related to FH announced scheduling for years, that seemed more likely than July 2017 did at the time).

I'd love for it to be the first week of January. But fool me once, fool me twice, fool me 27 or so times.... eventually a pattern emerges.     and 

[hamerad]

In other words, it slipped by about 1 week.  And it's only "news" because it crossed a year boundary in that week.

How did you extract "early 2018" to mean first week of January???  Not even January, but first week of January?

Heck, I take it to mean Q1 of 2018. Which is what I predicted during Q1 of this year (hoping I'd be wrong, but considering everything related to FH announced scheduling for years, that seemed more likely than July 2017 did at the time).

I'd love for it to be the first week of January. But fool me once, fool me twice, fool me 27 or so times.... eventually a pattern emerges.     and 

Maybe the part that says bold mine

Bit more detail:

SpaceX confirms Aviation Week report that the Falcon Heavy’s debut test flight is now expected in early 2018, a few weeks after a hold-down static fire test at KSC in December.

[/b]

https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/935619345182543872

[woods170]

Bit more detail:

SpaceX confirms Aviation Week report that the Falcon Heavy’s debut test flight is now expected in early 2018, a few weeks after a hold-down static fire test at KSC in December.

https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/935619345182543872

In other words, it slipped by about 1 week.  And it's only "news" because it crossed a year boundary in that week.

You should have seen the static I was sent privately when I reported info (coming from SpaceX-ers no less), in september this year, that FH was fully expected to slip into 2018.

But in the end those SpaceX sources turned out to be correct.

[georgegassaway]

Maybe the part that says bold mine

SpaceX confirms Aviation Week report that the Falcon Heavy’s debut test flight is now expected in early 2018, a few weeks after a hold-down static fire test at KSC in December.

So, for your interpretation that  the launch to have just slipped one week into the first week of January,  you expect all hold down static firing tests  to be completed in the first week or two of December?

That’s the only way that “a few weeks” between then and the launch could be first week of January (if everything else worked out OK).

I’m willing to say “I was wrong” if it flies  before the 2nd week of January. Heck, I want to see it fly soon too.

Somewhere, there still may be someone expecting FH to launch tomorrow, because Elon said November.   

[guckyfan]

You should have seen the static I was sent privately when I reported info (coming from SpaceX-ers no less), in september this year, that FH was fully expected to slip into 2018.

But in the end those SpaceX sources turned out to be correct.

Actually no, they did not. Without the Zuma problems they might well have made it this year. Sources saying months ago that it can not happen this year were missing important developments like working in parallel on LC-40 and LC-39A.

[Pete]

You should have seen the static I was sent privately when I reported info (coming from SpaceX-ers no less), in september this year, that FH was fully expected to slip into 2018.

But in the end those SpaceX sources turned out to be correct.

Actually no, they did not. Without the Zuma problems they might well have made it this year. Sources saying months ago that it can not happen this year were missing important developments like working in parallel on LC-40 and LC-39A.

And yet, despite all your denials, the launch has still been moved to January. So YES they were correct.

[guckyfan]

And yet, despite all your denials, the launch has still been moved to January. So YES they were correct.

Not relevant. Their reasons were wrong.

Edit: Or to formulate it differently, their statement that FH would not fly this year was based on wrong assumptions. So invalid even if in the end FH now does not fly this year.

[old_sellsword]

And yet, despite all your denials, the launch has still been moved to January. So YES they were correct.

Not relevant. Their reasons were wrong.

Edit: Or to formulate it differently, their statement that FH would not fly this year was based on wrong assumptions. So invalid even if in the end FH now does not fly this year.

You have no idea what their reasons were.

And FH slipping to 2018 isn’t based purely on the Zuma situation anyways, it’s a complicated scenario with no one factor causing it.

[cscott]

The blame and I-told-you-so game is boring the rest of us.