SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[Ragmar]

Any news/updates on FAA license approval for Falcon Heavy? Either vehicle license approval or an approval for a launch date? Just wondering if that is complete or still underway, as it could impact the feasibility of November debut date.

[gongora]

Any news/updates on FAA license approval for Falcon Heavy? Either vehicle license approval or an approval for a launch date? Just wondering if that is complete or still underway, as it could impact the feasibility of November debut date.

We usually don't see FAA licenses until very close to launch date (they don't have a license posted yet for the  Aug. 24 launch of Formosat 5).

[gongora]

Any news/updates on FAA license approval for Falcon Heavy? Either vehicle license approval or an approval for a launch date? Just wondering if that is complete or still underway, as it could impact the feasibility of November debut date.

We usually don't see FAA licenses until very close to launch date (they don't have a license posted yet for the  Aug. 24 launch of Formosat 5).

The license application we should see ahead of time is from the FCC for launch vehicle communications.  If there was any kind of active payload it would probably need an application sooner, but if they're just keeping a mass simulator attached to the second stage it shouldn't need any payload permit from FCC.

[spacenut]

Can FH actually lift over 50 tons to LEO?  I've heard the second stage isn't strong enough to support 50 tons.  If, not, are the upgrades to the second stage going to improve strength and lift capability?

[Lars-J]

Can FH actually lift over 50 tons to LEO?  I've heard the second stage isn't strong enough to support 50 tons.  If, not, are the upgrades to the second stage going to improve strength and lift capability?

Where have you heard this? There is lots of misinformation out there.

[abaddon]

Not sure it matters until a payload materializes that needs even a quarter of that...

FH maximum lift capacity is pretty likely to remain notional permanently (as much as I'd like to see different), IMO.

[envy887]

Can FH actually lift over 50 tons to LEO?  I've heard the second stage isn't strong enough to support 50 tons.  If, not, are the upgrades to the second stage going to improve strength and lift capability?

The current payload attachment fitting is only rated for a little over 10 tonnes. A larger payload will need a special PAF. It's not a big deal, and not currently a priority since FH will mostly be enabling reuse for 5-10 tonne payloads, or sending them to very high energy trajectories.

[GWH]

Any news/updates on FAA license approval for Falcon Heavy? Either vehicle license approval or an approval for a launch date? Just wondering if that is complete or still underway, as it could impact the feasibility of November debut date.

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80036

Posted on the SpaceX subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6xgbfc/falcon_heavy_demo_flight_fcc_sta_application/

EDIT: Oops FCC attached not FAA 

[Basto]

Any news/updates on FAA license approval for Falcon Heavy? Either vehicle license approval or an approval for a launch date? Just wondering if that is complete or still underway, as it could impact the feasibility of November debut date.

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80036

Posted on the SpaceX subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6xgbfc/falcon_heavy_demo_flight_fcc_sta_application/

That is the FCC permit. Cool to see though.

[woods170]

First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.

[Semmel]

First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.

We all learned to not take time estimates by SpaceX seriously. Thanks for your insight! Also, do you have any indication what takes the longest on LC40?

[Star One]

First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.

Then it will be Q2 2018, then Q3 & so on. Maybe overly sarcastic but when people like complaining about SLS delays then that kind of attitude cuts both ways with other launchers.

[woods170]

First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.

We all learned to not take time estimates by SpaceX seriously. Thanks for your insight! Also, do you have any indication what takes the longest on LC40?

From what I hear it is the TEL and all it's associated details. Much like was the case with LC-39A. Also hearing about troubleshooting on replacement cryo systems but it's not quite clear if that was recent. One thing I was told was very clear though: having a relatively trouble-free activation of LC-40 has priority over getting LC-39A ready for FH. And that is not surprising at all.

[Star One]

First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.

We all learned to not take time estimates by SpaceX seriously. Thanks for your insight! Also, do you have any indication what takes the longest on LC40?

From what I hear it is the TEL and all it's associated details. Much like was the case with LC-39A. Also hearing about troubleshooting on replacement cryo systems but it's not quite clear if that was recent. One thing I was told was very clear though: having a relatively trouble-free activation of LC-40 has priority over getting LC-39A ready for FH. And that is not surprising at all.

Therefore why are you giving an estimate of early Q1 2018 above, when in fact there is no guarantee it will even make that?

[john smith 19]

First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.

Then it will be Q2 2018, then Q3 & so on. Maybe overly sarcastic but when people like complaining about SLS delays then that kind of attitude cuts both ways with other launchers.

That would make it 5 years since the first date SX announced it would be launched.

However I think people are much more forgiving of SX's delays because they, as a company, did not exist the last time the US built an LV this size, or did it in this way, whereas Boeing and NASA both retained extensive archives of the Saturn V days.

They are also trying to make most of it recoverable and reusable on a regular basis, whereas all NASA will end up with is a big, fully expendable rocket. I think SLS lost a lot of credibility when (having spent years and had a lot of money given to them already) both candidates announced they were going to use RS25's for the 2nd stage, then announced that high altitude ignition was impossible to do.

It beggars belief 2 experienced companies would base their plans on operating a key piece of equipment so far outside its known operating envelope and not check it until so far into the design process. 

Likewise when Shuttle was designed it was Von Braun's  instinct that SRB's were a bad move for crewed spaceflight but there were analyses that suggested they were all manageable, despite the fact that all attempts to find a way to shut them down in flight without destroying the stack had failed.

Challenger demonstrated segmented SRBs were a bad idea (and in fact US SRBs share nothing with the propellant mix used in the ICBM fleet, so "preservation of capability" is nonsense, as discussed in earlier threads. Apparently the SRB mix "slumps" too much during long term vertical storage IE in a submarine launch tube).

These may explain why people are more forgiving of SX. It will be interesting to see wheather the FH does fly before the SLS and how much below the SLS IOC it is with each of the Merlin upgrades. My guess is not much, and all of its engines will be capable of shut down at any point in flight.

[woods170]

First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.

We all learned to not take time estimates by SpaceX seriously. Thanks for your insight! Also, do you have any indication what takes the longest on LC40?

From what I hear it is the TEL and all it's associated details. Much like was the case with LC-39A. Also hearing about troubleshooting on replacement cryo systems but it's not quite clear if that was recent. One thing I was told was very clear though: having a relatively trouble-free activation of LC-40 has priority over getting LC-39A ready for FH. And that is not surprising at all.

Therefore why are you giving an estimate of early Q1 2018 above, when in fact there is no guarantee it will even make that?

Emphasis mine.

I'm not giving an estimate. I'm just communicating what I'm being told by SpaceX sources. It's them making the estimates. But my sources tend to not look thru "Elon-colored" glasses, hence their estimates being less "spectacular" then the ones coming from Elon (and Gwynne to a lesser extent).

[Star One]

First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.

Then it will be Q2 2018, then Q3 & so on. Maybe overly sarcastic but when people like complaining about SLS delays then that kind of attitude cuts both ways with other launchers.

That would make it 5 years since the first date SX announced it would be launched.

However I think people are much more forgiving of SX's delays because they, as a company, did not exist the last time the US built an LV this size, or did it in this way, whereas Boeing and NASA both retained extensive archives of the Saturn V days.

They are also trying to make most of it recoverable and reusable on a regular basis, whereas all NASA will end up with is a big, fully expendable rocket. I think SLS lost a lot of credibility when (having spent years and had a lot of money given to them already) both candidates announced they were going to use RS25's for the 2nd stage, then announced that high altitude ignition was impossible to do.

It beggars belief 2 experienced companies would base their plans on operating a key piece of equipment so far outside its known operating envelope and not check it until so far into the design process. 

Likewise when Shuttle was designed it was Von Braun's  instinct that SRB's were a bad move for crewed spaceflight but there were analyses that suggested they were all manageable, despite the fact that all attempts to find a way to shut them down in flight without destroying the stack had failed.

Challenger demonstrated segmented SRBs were a bad idea (and in fact US SRBs share nothing with the propellant mix used in the ICBM fleet, so "preservation of capability" is nonsense, as discussed in earlier threads. Apparently the SRB mix "slumps" too much during long term vertical storage IE in a submarine launch tube).

These may explain why people are more forgiving of SX. It will be interesting to see wheather the FH does fly before the SLS and how much below the SLS IOC it is with each of the Merlin upgrades. My guess is not much, and all of its engines will be capable of shut down at any point in flight.

Personally I think they are as bad as each other. But sometimes it seems when looking at commentary about the delays, and I am not talking particularly about this forum here, that some cut SX more slack because they are a private company and SLS are seen as a government initiative. Just speaking for myself I don't see that as a fair or accurate metric of comparison.

[JamesH65]

First launch of FH now unlikely to be in November 2017, due to this: http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-shared-echostar-ses-satellite-in-october/

Pad 39A won't be taken down for FH conversion until somewhere in October 2017 and that basically rules-out November 2017 for FH. It is all beginning to line-up nicely with what I keep hearing from SpaceX sources: that first FH launch is much more likely to be in early Q1 of 2018.

Then it will be Q2 2018, then Q3 & so on. Maybe overly sarcastic but when people like complaining about SLS delays then that kind of attitude cuts both ways with other launchers.

That would make it 5 years since the first date SX announced it would be launched.

However I think people are much more forgiving of SX's delays because they, as a company, did not exist the last time the US built an LV this size, or did it in this way, whereas Boeing and NASA both retained extensive archives of the Saturn V days.

They are also trying to make most of it recoverable and reusable on a regular basis, whereas all NASA will end up with is a big, fully expendable rocket. I think SLS lost a lot of credibility when (having spent years and had a lot of money given to them already) both candidates announced they were going to use RS25's for the 2nd stage, then announced that high altitude ignition was impossible to do.

It beggars belief 2 experienced companies would base their plans on operating a key piece of equipment so far outside its known operating envelope and not check it until so far into the design process. 

Likewise when Shuttle was designed it was Von Braun's  instinct that SRB's were a bad move for crewed spaceflight but there were analyses that suggested they were all manageable, despite the fact that all attempts to find a way to shut them down in flight without destroying the stack had failed.

Challenger demonstrated segmented SRBs were a bad idea (and in fact US SRBs share nothing with the propellant mix used in the ICBM fleet, so "preservation of capability" is nonsense, as discussed in earlier threads. Apparently the SRB mix "slumps" too much during long term vertical storage IE in a submarine launch tube).

These may explain why people are more forgiving of SX. It will be interesting to see wheather the FH does fly before the SLS and how much below the SLS IOC it is with each of the Merlin upgrades. My guess is not much, and all of its engines will be capable of shut down at any point in flight.

Personally I think they are as bad as each other. But sometimes it seems when looking at commentary about the delays, and I am not talking particularly about this forum here, that some cut SX more slack because they are a private company and SLS are seen as a government initiative. Just speaking for myself I don't see that as a fair or accurate metric of comparison.

I simply don't understand why people get all upset about delays. They happen. All the time. In almost every industry. SpaceX having delays is just one company amongst many. And I simply don't care about the delays. I'll leave that to the people who the delays actually affect, the people who have a payload.  And I doubt they worry too much about delays, but more about failed launches. There seems to be a general lack of patience nowadays.

[Robotbeat]

It helps that SpaceX is actually flying a launch vehicle (Falcon 9 block whatever) that they've upgraded to the point that it's about on par with the earlier Falcon 9 Heavy plan, have already flown the FH's boosters, and are already working on a better, bigger rocket.

FH will fly. In 6 months, it'll be in the rear view mirror.

[spacenut]

SpaceX also does MORE with far LESS money.  SLS is expensive, like $3 billion a year for 10 years, and still no rocket.  That is why I give SpaceX slack.  Any government project is expensive, and more so than private.  Private is more efficiently operated.