Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Speculation

[Roy_H]

How will those modifications be made in time for the demo launch?

How do we know they haven't been planning this for a (sufficiently) long time already?

Because the mention of possible 'Hail Mary' attempts at second stage recovery imply that something risky could be attempted on the demo mission. Something that although not guaranteed to succeed, could return valuable data.

I don't understand how an attempted recovery of the second stage impacts the payload, other than somewhat reduced payload mass because of reserving fuel in the second stage. For the most part these are two separate issues and the payload can be almost anything.

[OneSpeed]

I don't understand how an attempted recovery of the second stage impacts the payload, other than somewhat reduced payload mass because of reserving fuel in the second stage. For the most part these are two separate issues and the payload can be almost anything.

It depends whether the modifications to enable the recovery attempt are to the second stage only, or if the payload itself enables the landing. 'Hail Mary' suggests to me a high risk approach, perhaps because of time and effort constraints that have increased/forced SpaceX's appetite for risk.

[Ben the Space Brit]

How fast would the Falcon Heavy upper stage be travelling on its way back from a lunar free-return trajectory? If the stage had a secondary payload of a fold-out TPS and parachutes in place of the aft cube-sat racks could a realistic attempt be made at a sea recovery?

I'm thinking of the main payload and its adapter separating and making its own way to EML2 whilst the upper stage configures for re-entry and then goes into a redundant timer-controlled hibernation, starting up again a few hours before re-entry interface. If the U/S can survive just a descent and splash-down in a recoverable condition (perhaps with the TPS and its mounting taking the brunt of the impact stresses) then it will certainly manage the same from LEO.

[rpapo]

Sorry if it's been answered - but what's the payload going to be on this demo mission? Or will it be kept secret until close to the launch date? Will a Dragon capsule be involved in this demo flight?

Gwynne has stated that there won't be a customer for the first FH flight during the LC-39A press conference before the CRS-10 launch. So most likely just a mass simulator.

Don't forget that the very first Falcon 9 test had only a mass simulator too.  Of course, SpaceX has learned a lot since then, so who knows what they might do?

[Jcc]

Sorry if it's been answered - but what's the payload going to be on this demo mission? Or will it be kept secret until close to the launch date? Will a Dragon capsule be involved in this demo flight?

Gwynne has stated that there won't be a customer for the first FH flight during the LC-39A press conference before the CRS-10 launch. So most likely just a mass simulator.

Don't forget that the very first Falcon 9 test had only a mass simulator too.  Of course, SpaceX has learned a lot since then, so who knows what they might do?

Must said it would be something crazy. If not cheese related, it is likely Pythonesque.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Must said it would be something crazy. If not cheese related, it is likely Pythonesque.

"Fetchez le vache!"

[Semmel]

I would put a 10T sculpture of Jebediah, Bill and Bob in it and launch it to a GTO profile. Then de-orbit at the point of GEO orbital insertion to prove that a direct insertion into GEO is possible.

[sanman]

Bah, for such an expensive test flight, why worry about making witty statements - why not send a payload to the Moon, or Mars, or somewhere else?

"Because that would make the whole thing so much more expensive!"

You don't have to send a Hubble Space Telescope - you could send people's ashes to the Moon, or Mars, or even into the Sun.

SpaceX has a wealth of engineering talent - I'm sure they could rig up a cubesat fitted with solar panels and an ion-drive, to send it out of the solar system.

[JBF]

Bah, for such an expensive test flight, why worry about making witty statements - why not send a payload to the Moon, or Mars, or somewhere else?

"Because that would make the whole thing so much more expensive!"

You don't have to send a Hubble Space Telescope - you could send people's ashes to the Moon, or Mars, or even into the Sun.

SpaceX has a wealth of engineering talent - I'm sure they could rig up a cubesat fitted with solar panels and an ion-drive, to send it out of the solar system.

Why spend time, money and effort developing a unique item that has a good chance of not achieving the proper orbit or in the worst case is destroyed?

[wxmeddler]

Must said it would be something crazy. If not cheese related, it is likely Pythonesque.

"Nooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

[wannamoonbase]

Must said it would be something crazy. If not cheese related, it is likely Pythonesque.

"Nooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

28 Tons of Shrubbery.

I think by the time LC40 is ready and the mods done to LC39A that we will be at the end of this year or the start of next.  So I'm leaning toward CommX demo sats.

That and maybe a demo of a second stage recovery.

[Proponent]

I'm thinking we should have a poll on the payload for the first Falcon Heavy.  But we'd need to narrow down the possibilities first.  Personally, I'm going for a really big piece of cheese.

[Lar]

I'm thinking we should have a poll on the payload for the first Falcon Heavy.  But we'd need to narrow down the possibilities first.  Personally, I'm going for a really big piece of cheese.

I'm thinking we should not have a poll.. Way too hard to narrow down possibilities

[TomH]

I am now thinking that the so called payload will be unspent prop in the US. This extra margin will allow testing of reentry and landing of the US. Future flights with real payloads will not have the luxury of this much prop, but the margin on this flight will allow for conservative preliminary testing which will provide for a lot of learning.

[sanman]

Bah, for such an expensive test flight, why worry about making witty statements - why not send a payload to the Moon, or Mars, or somewhere else?

"Because that would make the whole thing so much more expensive!"

You don't have to send a Hubble Space Telescope - you could send people's ashes to the Moon, or Mars, or even into the Sun.

SpaceX has a wealth of engineering talent - I'm sure they could rig up a cubesat fitted with solar panels and an ion-drive, to send it out of the solar system.

Why spend time, money and effort developing a unique item that has a good chance of not achieving the proper orbit or in the worst case is destroyed?

Because if it does work, then you'd have otherwise lost an opportunity to send something great into space.
If you send another big wheel of cheese, then it's guaranteed to be useless.

What about SLS? They were potentially going to send people around the Moon on the first flight.

[hkultala]

I would put a 10T sculpture of Jebediah, Bill and Bob in it and launch it to a GTO profile. Then de-orbit at the point of GEO orbital insertion to prove that a direct insertion into GEO is possible.

De-orbit from GTO needs only some tens of meters/sec when the burn is done at apogee.

Circulation from GTO to GEO needs 1500 (or 1800) m/s.

Only thing deorbit burn at apogee "proves" it that their propellents can survive couple of hours in space.

Better just shoot that statue to impact the mün.

[Semmel]

I would put a 10T sculpture of Jebediah, Bill and Bob in it and launch it to a GTO profile. Then de-orbit at the point of GEO orbital insertion to prove that a direct insertion into GEO is possible.

De-orbit from GTO needs only some tens of meters/sec when the burn is done at apogee.

Circulation from GTO to GEO needs 1500 (or 1800) m/s.

Only thing deorbit burn at apogee "proves" it that their propellents can survive couple of hours in space.

Better just shoot that statue to impact the mün.

Sure the dV requirements are vastly different. But thats just the amount of fuel you have to pack. The hard part is keep the stage alive, restart the engine, and have any fuel at all thats not frozen or evaporated by the time you reach 40000 km. So a deobrit burn at the tip of a GTO orbit would demonstrate FHs capability quite accurately. Much more than to shoot a hole into the mün

[Ben the Space Brit]

Anything from Lunar X-Prize about a payload being somewhat ready to fly?

[JBF]

Bah, for such an expensive test flight, why worry about making witty statements - why not send a payload to the Moon, or Mars, or somewhere else?

"Because that would make the whole thing so much more expensive!"

You don't have to send a Hubble Space Telescope - you could send people's ashes to the Moon, or Mars, or even into the Sun.

SpaceX has a wealth of engineering talent - I'm sure they could rig up a cubesat fitted with solar panels and an ion-drive, to send it out of the solar system.

Why spend time, money and effort developing a unique item that has a good chance of not achieving the proper orbit or in the worst case is destroyed?

Because if it does work, then you'd have otherwise lost an opportunity to send something great into space.
If you send another big wheel of cheese, then it's guaranteed to be useless.

What about SLS? They were potentially going to send people around the Moon on the first flight.

The big difference is that with FH they are planning to get 3/4 of the rocket back to use again if everything works right; so minimum waste if things work properly.  A silly mass simulator makes the most sense.

[MATTBLAK]

A really BIG wheel of cheese?