
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket sets up at Cape Canaveral ahead of launch - mkarthik
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/spacexs-falcon-heavy-rocket-sets-up-at-cape-canaveral-ahead-of-launch/
======
_ph_
I am so much excited about this upcoming launch. If they get the F9Heavy to
work like the F9, this opens up entirely new possibilities in space. With the
F9Heavy, not only very heavy loads can be put into orbit, but both the Moon
and the Mars can be reached at a much lower cost than any previous system.

Beyond being just a cool new rocket, what faszinates me most about the
F9Heavy, is the clever system approach by SpaceX. They are not only reusing
the F9 design, but two of the three first stage cores alreay had launched
cargo into the orbit. This is just mindblowing.

~~~
dnautics
It was my understanding that the F9H components cannot be recycled F9 units,
despite me Musk's best efforts at engineering a solution.

~~~
stormtv
Both the side boosters on the F9H inaugural flight will be reused boosters.
The center boosters are only able to fly on F9H but are planned to be
reusable.

Here are both the landing videos of the side cores that will be flying on the
F9H [https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc](https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc)
[https://youtu.be/DKqY8sy3nkM?t=55s](https://youtu.be/DKqY8sy3nkM?t=55s)

~~~
walshemj
are they landing all 3 first stages - that would be so cool

~~~
Zardoz84
It would be EPIC to see it

~~~
dnautics
Go see it!

------
cyberfart
Regards to comments mentioning that this is three F9s strapped together: While
this is somewhat true, the development of this program was apparently lot more
difficult than just tying them together. I remember Musk mentioning that they
had underestimated the problem, the two additional boosters changed the
dynamics significantly, and the core booster had to be redesigned to
accommodate the new load parameters.

Needless to say, I'm extremely excited to even see a static fire of this
monster. Re-using boosters for your early development is pretty nice and
efficient too I imagine.

~~~
paulmd
> Re-using boosters for your early development is pretty nice and efficient
> too I imagine.

It sounds good on paper but it's not easy in practice, see: the Russian N-1
moon rocket, which basically just took the R7 rocket and scaled it up with
more engines. Turns out too many engines means too many points of failure, and
the rocket never worked.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_\(rocket\))

Much like in computing, you can't substitute one oxen with a thousand chickens
and expect the same outcome when you plow your field.

~~~
valuearb
The N-1 failed for lots of reasons besides having so many engines. It's
designer died before it was completed. It's primitive control systems were
inadequate. It's funding was inadequate.

SpaceX has already shown that with modern control systems, you can bundle a
bunch of chickens together to plow a field. Having 9 engines has already
helped them complete missions where one failed. The Falcon Heavy problem isn't
scaling from 9 to 27 per se, it's building a new structure to handle all the
new stresses that will occur, from the launch sequence to aerodynamic.

~~~
geerlingguy
And even the seemingly small things; like how to detach the side boosters, how
to handle the vastly different aerodynamics when you don't have an interstage
(nosecone instead), etc.

It uses the same engines and very similar hardware, but there are so many
new/not-flight-proven things on this rocket that it will be exciting, one way
or another!

~~~
Pokepokalypse
Although, Boeing has proven the concept with Delta IV heavy, (and, I think
there are a few other precursors, as well, including STS). So this isn't
completely new territory.

------
mabbo
Worth mentioning: this isn't even the biggest rocket that's ever flown! The
Saturn V that took man to the moon was a _monster_.

[https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png](https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png)

Of the rockets in that photo however, everything other than the Falcon 9
either isn't in production yet, or isn't anymore.

~~~
mstade
I can highly recommend a visit to the Saturn V center[1] at Kennedy Space
Center, where you can begin to truly appreciate the immense scale of the
Saturn V rocket. I’ve been several times at this point and it still blows my
mind just how huge that thing is. If you think of going, and have a flexible
schedule, I can definitely recommend planning a trip to see a rocket launch on
site. It’s a fantastic experience, but be prepared to come back several days
in a row in that case, if they scrub the launch.

[1]: [https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/explore-
attractions/race-...](https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/explore-
attractions/race-to-the-moon)

~~~
bfirsh
I will never forget the feeling of awe when I entered that hanger and saw the
butt end of the Saturn V. It is really is something that needs to be seen to
be appreciated.

And then, after walking quite a distance down the length of the rocket,
realising they’ve left out the middle stage because it doesn’t fit in the vast
building it is in. I laughed in disbelief.

~~~
stcredzero
The 1st stage of the Saturn V alone is enough to debunk the moon hoaxers.
Hundreds of thousands of people saw a whole bunch of those things launch, and
they were tracked by astronomers. Just what is faking the last part of the
mission supposed to "save?"

------
peterjlee
I got curious how it compares to Saturn V.

Low Earth Orbit Payload: Falcon Heavy: 140,000lb, Saturn V: 260,000lb

Launch cost: Falcon Heavy: ~$140M, Saturn V: $185M ($1B+ in 2016 dollars)

It blows my mind how crazy Saturn V was and it was 50 years ago.

~~~
api_or_ipa
It blows my mind that SpaceX's BFR project plans to send more payload in
reusable mode than Saturn V did in full expendable mode (150,000 kg vs 140,000
kg).

~~~
ajnin
This capacity is only for a fully expendable vehicle (See
[http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities](http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities)).
Reusable payload is subtantially less, although not specified on their
website.

Also it's 140000 lbs, or 63800kg.

~~~
phyller
The poster you are replying to was talking about the BFR not the Falcon Heavy

------
faitswulff
I recently took a tour of SpaceX due to a friend and learned that their
rockets, unlike most others, are constructed horizontally. This makes
logistics for getting them upright an engineering feat, but it also makes
construction and maintenance easier for crew - you can rotate the rocket and
access almost any part of the rocket from ground level.

I'm curious to know more about the engineering constraints/trade-offs this
puts the rockets under, so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear it!

~~~
mikepurvis
Some good discussion here:
[https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3922/what-are-
the-...](https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3922/what-are-the-
consequences-of-vertical-vs-horizontal-integration-for-spacex)

Essentially it boils down to what g-forces your rocket components and payload
are able to withstand. Designing for zero (in orbit) and high vertical (during
liftoff) is tough enough, but a rocket that's horizontally built/integrated
_also_ needs to withstand ~1G laterally. It may not sound like a big deal, but
when every kg counts, I believe it adds up to a bunch of additional
strengthening parts, plus a lot more FEA at design time.

~~~
Retric
Space X has regularly focused on lower costs at the expense of payload. Their
rockets get significantly less to orbit, but the price saving ends up being
huge which more than offsets the loss.

------
TeMPOraL
Yes! Fingers crossed, and can't wait for the actual launch!

Photos from Elon Musk, mentioned in the Techcrunch article:

[https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc62hfJgf8K/](https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc62hfJgf8K/)

Looking at the last one... that's an amount of engine nozzles I've never seen
together before, beyond works of sci-fi and (obviously) Kerbal Space Program.

~~~
nerdponx
Is there any way to see something posted on Instagram without an account?

Edit: still had the app installed. Nothing to see here....

~~~
robtaylor
Yes, click the link.

------
MR4D
The thought of lighting up 27 rocket engines in unison is absolutely crazy.
Then again, SpaceX thrives on crazy ideas like reusing rockets, which are now
the norm.

Good luck to them. Will be interesting to watch this beast launch!

~~~
JshWright
It's not exactly "unison" (it is indeed very tightly coordinated though). The
engines will be lit in pairs, with a couple dozen milliseconds between each
set starting up.

~~~
igravious
How on earth are all your answers so informative and authoritative? Do you
work in the industry? SpaceX employee? Enthusiast?

Honestly; thank you for taking the time to spread the knowledge.

~~~
JshWright
Just a passionate enthusiast with some friends in the industry.

Here's a source on the engines being started in pairs:
[https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-aims-
december...](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-aims-december-
launch-falcon-heavy/)

~~~
robocat
Relevant quote from that link:

"Instead, Falcon Heavy will take a page from the Space Shuttle’s book and will
employ a staggered start sequence – like main engine start on Shuttle where
each main engine started 120 milliseconds after the previous.

For Falcon Heavy, it is understood that two engines will be lit simultaneously
followed by the next two… and so on until all 27 are up and running."

------
ChuckMcM
I am super excited about this. It would have the capability to throw some
pretty useful chunks of hardware into orbit and beyond.

And of course Blue Origin has a lot riding on this as well :-) If SpaceX can
get the heavy operational before BO gets the New Glenn operational, its going
to be that much harder for Bezos to find any customers left for his rocket.

~~~
Sammi
Or it will give investors confidence that private space flight is viable?

~~~
ChuckMcM
I think it will open up additional customers. So perhaps Apple will build and
launch a couple of imagery satellites to augment their maps effort, or
something like the old Teledesic concept will be launched (SpaceX has
suggested they would do that).

Given the lower costs of the re-usable platform one would hope we could
effectively address some of the space junk issues.

But that isn't really "private space flight" where I imagine tourists flying
up to Bigelow inflated habititats for a three day stay where couples can
experiment with zero g sex after getting over their motion sickness issues.
That market seems a bit fanciful yet.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic)

------
avar
They have 27 engines, but the Soviet N1 still holds the record at 30[1]. For
comparison the Saturn V first stage had 5.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_\(rocket\))

~~~
jacquesm
It holds the record for the number of engines but it never successfully flew
more than about a minute and three of them blew up on the pad. Hopefully that
will be different for FH.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc)

~~~
Already__Taken
Only 1 failed due to some engine issue though. The rest was guidance related I
think.*

Tell you what why don't I actually read the wiki

1\. Electronics issue

2\. turbo pump exploded - material science

3\. aerodynamics

4\. blew the plumbing when 6 engines were planned shut down at higher
altitude. I'd argue that's a control issue.

~~~
jacquesm
1.

The first launch did not fail due to that electronics issue though that was
one of the first things to go wrong.

The propellant leak caused by Engine #2 issues is what caused the rocket to
fail.

4.

Maybe if they had not shut them down that abruptly they could have avoided
that particular failure mode.

All in all a pity that that program got cancelled, I still think it is one of
the most beautiful rockets ever built.

------
dguest
Sticking a car in the payload is funny.

But this thing is going further from the earth than all but a few dozen man-
made things in history. I have to wonder if some scientist has been waiting
their entire life for an opportunity like this, and we're blowing it on a
Tesla Roadster?

~~~
Zelphyr
If it blows up on launch, losing a Roadster is less painful than what that
scientist poured years of his/her life into.

~~~
dguest
The cost of launching something into low earth orbit is about 50K per pound
(before spaceX) so I can imagine an interplanetary trajectory is quite a lot
more. At this rate there are probably a lot of science projects that will
never be funded, so if I had a less popular proposal I might take those odds.

------
marcosscriven
I note the 'fins' at the top of the outside rockets are black, whereas on the
middle one are white. Is that purely cosmetic?

~~~
adwn
The grid fins on the side boosters are made from titanium (and are larger),
while the center core's ones are made from aluminum with an ablative paint.
The titanium grid fins have a better heat resistance.

~~~
mhandley
The titanium grid fins are also larger, which gives them better control
authority. The center booster (like regular Falcon 9s) carries the interstage.
This is light weight, but has significant aerodynamic effect when re-entering
engines first for landing, like the feathers on an arrow. The side boosters
lack this - the nose coses are much smaller - so are less stable
aerodynamically. The likely reason for using the titanium fins is to give
better control. They don't need the extra heat resistance for the side
boosters - the center booster will have a toastier reentry as it's going much
faster when it shuts down.

------
jedberg
According to this[0] there is still a Falcon 9 Zuma launch scheduled for 2017.
Anyone know if that is still happening? I ask because it happens that I'll be
in the Canaveral area right after Christmas and would love to see the launch
in person!

[0] [https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-
events/event...](https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-
events/events-calendar?pageindex=1&categories=Rocket%20Launches)

~~~
Asparagirl
I have a sudden desire for a $10/year SaaS that will send you SMS or other
push notifications as soon as rocket launch dates (ones with public viewing
allowed) are formally announced, so that you can quickly make plans to go.
Maybe the app could even make some extra cash by linking to available hotel
deals in the area in the notifications, and then taking a cut of the
reservations through click-through tracking.

~~~
lukerv4
You can sync this Google Calendar if you want. It has up to date info about
all space events (Dockings, Landings, EVAs)

[http://bit.ly/SpaceEventCalendar](http://bit.ly/SpaceEventCalendar)

------
phyller
If I was Elon Musk, and launching something like this, the reason my Roadster
would be the payload is because I would be attempting to land it on the Moon
or Mars. It's electric, so it should be able to drive around :)

I wonder if that is possible. The weight of the car is much less than the
140,000 pound payload it could carry, so it could be sent much further if they
wanted to.

~~~
hi-im-mi-ih
They're not going to try to land the car and drive it - The car is going to be
put into orbit around mars indefinitely, so that one day an alien species can
find it, long after we're gone.

~~~
mejari
It won't be orbiting Mars, it will pass by Mars.

------
0x4f3759df
Anyone know the logistics of watching the launch? Is there a public viewing
spot? Do you need to get tickets? Where to park?

~~~
mstade
Check out the Kennedy Space Center website, they always post viewing options
in advance. Typically the most intense viewing experience (i.e. the closest,
the LC39 viewing gantry for instance) will be of limited quantity, but you can
also just watch from the KSC visitor complex although in that case you won’t
be able to see the rocket on the launch pad, only once it’s airborne.

I can highly recommend going. I saw a launch in January, from the LC39 gantry,
and it was truly stunning. Be prepared to go several days in a row though, in
case of scrubbed launches. You’ll need to buy a new ticket if the launch gets
scrubbed as well, they don’t issue refunds once you’ve left on the shuttle bus
I think, so it’s worth thinking about when budgeting the trip.

Also, pro-tip: get a yearly pass. Gets you in to the visitor complex as much
as you want for a year, and becomes economical after two or three admission
tickets, and also includes parking which is $10 or so otherwise I think. I got
a yearly pass, and saved on admission and parking a fair bit since I went back
probably 5-6 times. The launch I saw was scrubbed once. The other times I just
geeked out. ;o)

------
mulletbum
Can anyone say what they will do during the first real launch? Where would
they be trying to go to? How does a test like that work? I love space, I just
have no idea how they actually would do a test of that magnitude.

~~~
mabbo
They're going to launch Elon Musk's Telsa Roadster into orbit of the sun,
possibly to Mars orbit.

I'm not even joking. That's the goal.

~~~
crispyambulance
Yep. He said "Mars transfer orbit."

I find it disappointing, however, that a worthy scientific payload isn't being
launched. There was a late cancellation of a moon orbiter mission a few years
back because of European Space Agency budget concerns
([http://www.esa.int/Education/ESA_concludes_student_ESMO_Moon...](http://www.esa.int/Education/ESA_concludes_student_ESMO_Moon_orbiter_project)).
Could they not have adapted something for a Mars mission?

Seems a waste to send an automobile advertisement into orbit around Mars for
eternity.

~~~
greedo
Considering the risk with this initial launch, short of a very low budget
package, I think most researchers would prefer to wait for a safer launch.

~~~
w8vY7ER
Prudence from greedo on the topic of first shots?

------
obblekk
Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run
(switching to BFR instead)?

A recent video of Elon mentioned that it was really hard to strap them
together, but if they've overcome that, why build BFR?

~~~
nerdponx
What's BFR?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Big F..alcon Rocket.

------
rsbartram
Is the Falcon one of their recycled rockets. SpaceX launched the Bulgarian
satellite using a recycled rocket and is using recycled rocket more and more
but I can't find any information on Falcon as to whether it's a recycled
rocket or not. [https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-
bulgariasat-1-recycle...](https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-
bulgariasat-1-recycled-rocket/)

~~~
greglindahl
It so happens that the first Falcon Heavy will use recycled rockets for the 2
side cores.

------
andrewaylett
I find it interesting that not only is this rocket literally three Falcon 9s
strapped together (including two that are reused) but they've not even taken
the legs off. They don't look like they're going to unfold very well, though.

~~~
phpnode
They haven't taken the legs off because they're going to attempt to land all 3
cores, probably 2 at the launch site and 1 on the drone ship

~~~
andrewaylett
That's extra-impressive, then.

------
rozap
Can anyone comment on the rationale behind having 27 engines? IIRC this was a
fundamental reason why the Soviet N1 was so consistently unreliable. It seems
like probability is kind of a pain in the ass here, no?

~~~
MertsA
Falcon 9 does have engine out capability and that's been proven in the past on
CRS-1. In theory even if one of the engines were to rupture the shrapnel
should be contained by walls between the engines. Having less engines per core
would mean an engine out condition is much harder to recover from as you would
lose more thrust. If an engine goes out you don't just lose that single
engine, you need to make sure that the thrust vector is still pointed straight
at the center of mass. If you don't, then you'll get torque on the vehicle
that will make the flight end sooner rather than later. If you plan for engine
failure to not kill your primary payload you need to be able to use a
combination of thrust vectoring and gimbaling engines and still be able to get
the payload to an acceptable orbit with the reduced capacity. More engines
means more chances that one of them will fail but less severe consequences
when that failure occurs.

------
le-mark
Any odds makers taking bets on this, I wonder? I'd put down $100 on the off
chance it actually works the first time!

~~~
BWStearns
[https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStakesSpaceX/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStakesSpaceX/)

------
delinka
The shot of the engines looks like an awesome screencap from KSP. Can’t wait
to see this thing head to space.

