SpaceX sets February 6 for first Falcon Heavy launch attempt

Capitalism in space: SpaceX has now scheduled February 6 as the date for its first attempt to launch its Falcon Heavy rocket.

I was amused by this tidbit from the article:

While a launch date has been set, the company still faces a regulatory obstacle ahead of the launch. The Federal Aviation Administrationโ€™s Office of Commercial Space Transportation has not yet issued a launch license for the Falcon Heavy, a requirement for a commercial launch such as this. Such licenses are often issued days ahead of a launch.

I dare the FAA to deny this launch a license. I just dare them.

9 comments

Bad times fall on Russian Proton rocket

Link here. The key quote is this:

All this means that after 53 years in service, the venerable Proton rocket might set an anti-record in 2018 by flying only a couple of missions. And, for the first time since its entrance onto the world market at the end of the Cold War, it may not bring any money to its cash-strapped developer.

This story confirms much of what I have been reporting about Proton and the loss of its customer base in the past three years.

0 comments

Video of Falcon Heavy static fire test

I have embedded below the fold the video that SpaceX has released of yesterday’s Falcon Heavy static fire test. This is the first footage I have seen that allows one to make a good estimate of the test’s length, though because the video has one edit during the firing the time length could have been edited.

The video makes it appear that the firing lasted seven seconds. Witnesses however suggest it lasted about twelve seconds, which was the length expected. The difference raises some questions. If the video was edited and the actual test lasted twelve seconds, one has to ask why SpaceX edited their video. Was there some proprietary information that SpaceX was protecting that would have been revealed had it kept the view locked on the close-up camera for the full twelve seconds? Or was there some issue that occurred during the test that they do not yet wish the public to see?

If the test did last only seven seconds, not twelve as planned, was there instead an issue that caused them to shut down early?

I’m not sure what to think. I am also of the mind that I might be over-analyzing this. Other footage from farther away suggests the test was for twelve seconds, as described by witnesses. The footage however is also not definitive. The trees prevent one from seeing exactly when the firing starts and stops.

We will have to wait and see what SpaceX does. If it schedules a launch relatively quickly, then all this analysis is what I suspect, mere junk. If not, or if they schedule a second static fire test, which was always an option, then this analysis is brilliant.

Personally, I prefer the former, not the latter.

» Read more

3 comments

The Falcon Heavy vs the Saturn 5

As SpaceX prepares for what it hopes will be the first static fire test of its Falcon Heavy rocket today, this article provides a nice detailed comparison between the new heavy lift rocket and the Saturn 5, the biggest rocket ever built and successfully launched.

But where the Falcon Heavy comes out ahead is in economy. The estimated cost of a Saturn V launch in today’s dollars is a whopping US$1.16 billion. Meanwhile, the upper estimate for Falcon heavy is US$90 million. That’s million with an “M.”

So, which rocket comes out ahead? In terms of sheer numbers, the Saturn V wins hands down, but the contest is a bit unfair. Saturn V was a Cold War project with a main objective to put a man on the Moon as part of the struggle to prove the superiority of the Free World over the Soviet Union. It was a cost-is-no-object machine intended to win a bloodless battle for world supremacy.

Falcon Heavy, on the other hand, is a business venture. Its job is to make a profit for SpaceX’s investors and its development always had one eye on the ledger at all times. Its design is different, its function is different. To compare it with the Saturn V is a bit like comparing a nuclear strike carrier with the Queen Mary 2. Beyond a certain point, the exercise becomes meaningless.

Read it all. The comparison is quite fun, especially if you are an American and proud of our country’s history in space. To date, no one has built a rocket that truly compares with the Saturn 5. And now, today, an American company is proving that such rockets can be built in the future, for an affordable price.

6 comments

Falcon Heavy static fire test delayed again

It appears that the first static fire test of the Falcon Heavy has been delayed again from today to later in the week.

There is no word on why the delay, but all indications suggest that they are going through the process step-by-step with great care. As they find things that need addressing they are addressing them, and that only when all issues are resolved will they go forward.

7 comments

Detailed update on Falcon Heavy static fire test set for later today

Link here. The article has a lot of good information not only about the test but about the launchpad and how it will be used in the future.

One take-away that I came off with however came from the picture of the Falcon Heavy on the launchpad. It made me realize how far apart the two side stages sit from the core stages, as the rocket is now reconfigured. My impression of most strap-ons today is that they are placed very close to the core, and they generally have aerodynamic cones that slope away from the core, so that the air is directed away from the space between the stages. Falcon Heavy however has all that space, and the side strap-ons have rounded cones.

I wonder if this is one of the rocket’s most worrisome unknowns, as it travels through Max Q, the period shortly after launch when the stresses created from its speed and the atmosphere are the highest. As designed, a lot of atmosphere will travel between the stages. While this isn’t entirely unique (the shuttle had a somewhat comparable gaps between its various parts), I do wonder.

3 comments

Falcon Heavy static fire test scrubbed for today

Capitalism in space: SpaceX decided to scrub its Falcon Heavy static fire test today soon after they had loaded propellants into the rocket during countdown.

No details, but it appears to me that they are taking this test very seriously, and approaching each step with care. This was the first time they had loaded the entire Falcon Heavy, and I am not surprised they saw an issue that made them hesitate about continuing.

4 comments

Falcon Heavy prepped for static fire test

Capitalism in space: SpaceX has raised its first Falcon Heavy rocket onto the launchpad in preparation for the static fire test required before the rocket can do its first launch.

SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy rocket has been raised vertical at pad 39A for the second time in advance of a planned hold-down test-firing of its main engines tomorrow during a window that extends from 1-7 pm EST (1800-0000 GMT). Kennedy Space Center employees were told to expect an estimated 15-second firing.

7 comments

An update on Zuma status

Link here. The article provides a nice summary of all the reports on the SpaceX launch and its mysterious top secret payload Zuma, including outlining the various failure possibilities. The one scenario they do not mention, however, is that the failure story itself is entirely bogus, a misinformation campaign by the unknown government agency that launched it.

I have no idea what happened, though it still appears to me most likely that SpaceX’s rocket performed as contracted.

12 comments

SpaceX military payload might have been lost

Anonymous sources are suggesting that the top secret government payload that SpaceX successfully placed in orbit two days ago might have been lost.

Very little is presently known. Statements from SpaceX suggest that its Falcon 9 rocket worked perfectly, which would suggest the problems occurred after second stage separation. However, one source seems to suggest otherwise.

Until I get more information, I am therefore still counting this launch as a success for SpaceX.

13 comments
1 102 103 104 105 106 144