Your take on Falcon Heavy maiden flight

>Anybody ever heard of a reason for the signal dropping out from time to time?

1. lots of vibrations aren't good for satellite links
2. proprietary info, they've got all the video/data stored and could release it if they wanted to. and/or they're deliberately injecting bad data for the public feed

Serious or trolling?

Another shuttle tier money dump.
Everything that's different about this design compared to F9 is wrong and will only generate problems and lower efficiency.

...

You have a directional antenna pointed at a receiver and then you point a rocket motor capable of accelerating a metal tube the size of a 14 story building at 3g directly at the antenna. Things get a little... Shakey. Enough noise and suddenly the receiver is getting packets all out of order or with big gaps in between and doesn't know how to make sense of it: signal lost.

That is a LEOlet shuttle.
And it is not meant to be manned, as far as I know.
How is it a problem for SpaceX?

>less than ten tons to LEO
>competition

It's essentially a flyback booster but can glide into a standard runway and does not require a huge recovery operation. The point of the XS-1 program is 10 flights in 10 days, if Boeing can manage that SpaceX would have to be doing 1-2 launches per week to achieve the same lower price. Or, SpaceX can make a bigger rocket.

Also no it's not manned, but Boeing has all the pieces in place to make a true "space shuttle" between the XS-1 and X-37. Larger versions of both could operate like how NASA originally wanted the STS to operate. At least, in theory.

>01/24/2018 18:08
>Venting and vapors now visible as fuel is loaded aboard the Falcon Heavy.

>01/24/2018 18:31
>Ignition

>64t to LEO with this fuckstick
you're all being conned

...

What day is it supposed to fly? Is it scheduled?

It's so beautiful

No. Somewhere february, if no more delays.

Side boosters are landing on the ground.

>At least, in theory.
It's not like I want them to fail because I think competition is a good thing but you're delusional if you think something still in its R&D phase is even close to bean a threat to SpaceX

>spaceX
>if no more delays.
Keked so hard that mom had to check if I am still alive

?

Boeing already has the X-37, and XS-1 will fly before 2020. If it meets the program goals it'll eat most of the DoD contracts because it'd be so much cheaper for them. Building a larger variant would be the next logical step and would be here by the 2030s, around the time NASA (supposedly) wants to go to Mars.

Everything is lining up for them, even if it's on a two decade long timeline. But again all SpaceX has to do is actually build the BFR.

Vidya:
floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/01/17/updates-spacex-targeting-falcon-heavy-test-fire-ksc-florida-before-launch/1041353001/

Imagine what she'll go through when you'll have to unkek at the start of next month.

IT FIRED! IT WAS AWESOME! I CAME!

twitter.com/nova_road/status/956221490785026053

F

twitter.com/SpaceX/status/956236301275054080

>SLC-40
>Falcon Heavy
Who you tryin to fool user?

Finally we're back on track. Everything post-saturn V was steps in the wrong direction or outright jumps from high altitude.

>another shitty spaceplane
When will this dumb meme die?

>Finally we're back on track.

Funny, considering Falcon Heavy is merely a detour and a distraction on the road to BFR. Cool rocket but something tells me Elon would not choose to develop it in hindsight.

How close can i get to the launch? I want to do a road trip up to watch it

>The point of the XS-1 program is 10 flights in 10 days, if Boeing can manage that SpaceX would have to be doing 1-2 launches per week to achieve the same lower price.
That depends entirely on the cost and payload of XS-1, and how much hardware they have to swap out between flights.

The fact that they're going with hydrogen fuel for a reusable booster is a big red flag. That means half the density impulse, which means a booster that's twice as big, entirely aside from the more costly and difficult handling of liquid hydrogen.

The fact that it's Boeing is an even bigger red flag. Odds are they won the contract the dirty way and their plan is just to suck up the development funding.

The program goal is $5 million per flight, for a 2 ton payload. That's barely competitive in $/lb with the expendable Falcon 9 price to customers, and it's the per-flight incremental cost goal. They're not even aspiring to cost-effective reusability.

I wonder if there might be some demand for heavier vehicles coming in, like say, the Moon. This could explain why FH actually came to be rather than being delayed indefinitely due to F9's high performance. The upcoming NASA budget could shed some light on the various rumors.

The XS-1 is just a suborbital booster too
Thats not a 2 t payload to orbit
thats a 2 ton payload + 2nd stage

Not sure the point of vertical take off & horizontal landing either
could have made use of those wings for lift with horizontal takeoff

>Elon would not choose to develop it in hindsight
Mostly as a cost cutting measure. It's very clear Musk thinks having only one type of vehicle will be cheaper than having multiple different ones.

Musk has clearly stated that he thought the Falcon Heavy would be as easy "strapping 3 Falcon 9s together", but instead it required a bunch of extra hardware, essentially creating a completely different type of booster from the Falcon 9.

That's why the BFR is will replace both Falcon heavy and Falcon 9. He wants only one vehicle.
I think if he had the choice he would prefer the "strapping multiple small boosters together" over "one big fucking rocket", alas it's not possible.

He might lose out on some market share because of this though. While bigger rockets are more efficient, if your satellite is small (like a lot of new cubesats are), and you don't want to piggyback with someone else it might be cheaper to with a smaller rocket company like pic related.

No, that's the orbital payload.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XS-1_(spacecraft)
>The goals of the program as of September 2013 were:[3][11] The space plane must carry a 3,000–5,000 lb (1,400–2,300 kg) payload to low Earth orbit for less than a cost of US$5 million per flight

>That's why the BFR is will replace both Falcon heavy and Falcon 9. He wants only one vehicle.
Personally, I strongly suspect they'll build a single-Raptor upper stage for Falcon 9/H with a ~5m diameter and double the mass of the current upper stage, and then a Raptor-powered booster for it that's very similar to the BFR upper stage.

It's the far faster, less expensive route to a fully-reusable launch system, the best way to get experience with the technologies they want to use on BFR, it's the fastest way to land men on the moon again (with in-orbit refuelling, they can launch a Dragon to the moon's surface and return it to Earth, with no other stages or rendezvous operations needed), and it'll make sense for as far into the future as they're flying BFR.

Even when BFR's flying, what will they use for Earth departure of deep-space probes? Throw away a whole 7-Raptor BFS each time? Build some custom stage? The 1-Raptor stage solves many problems, and it can fly as a payload in the full-size BFS.

Don't you mean this month, or last month, or 6 years ago?

>People in this thread on the "Science" board actually think the BFR will ever be anything other than a wetdream.

>launch a Dragon to the moon's surface and return it to Earth
Dragon won't have enough dV to land on the Moon by itself.

BFR engine and composite tanks are already under active development, as is the launch site

it is as real as any rocket under development and there is no technical reason why it shouldnt work

my ears hurt

I know what I ment.

This plan doesn't involve any rendezvous beyond LEO. Once refuelled in orbit, the single-Raptor stage could boost itself with a Dragon to the moon, then orbit the moon, then land on the moon, then boost itself back on a return trajectory to Earth.

Reusable rockets are impossib...

>Raptor is almost done development
>COPV almost done
>current factory can support construction
>Boca Chica finished by end of 2018/early 2019
>39A upgrades slated

It's more real of a rocket than fucking NG is, lmao.

Never because we already have a masive amount of infrastructure to service aircraft, being able to utilize it for spaceflight would make it accessible to regular people. That's where the maximum amount of money is, so much money it's kept SABRE alive despite it not going to have a working prototype for a few decades at least.

>They're not even aspiring to cost-effective reusability.

Not if they just build it bigger. A situation SpaceX will probably force.

>>current factory can support construction
They don't want to build 9m stages in the current factory, because it will cost them tens of millions of dollars to move through city streets to the docks. They're building a new factory for that.

This is one of the reasons I think they'll do the 5m single-Raptor stage first: even if they need a special permit, they should be able to drive it through the streets at night to the docks without having to take down streetlights and things like that that make it so expensive to move a 9m stage.

They are possible but impractical. You need to reserve 30% of the fuel just to return the first stage which translates to drastic reduction in payload raising costs. My sources are russian semi-official statements regarding reusability.

>You need to reserve 30% of the fuel just to return the first stage which translates to
...30% reduction in payload, and recovery of about 85% of the vehicle by cost.

>russian semi-official statements
Russians are still using 1970s tech. They don't know shit about modern rocketry, and SpaceX is eating their lunch.

>You need to reserve 30% of the fuel just to return the first stage
Cost of fuel is 0.3% of entire rocket
>impractical

What are Veeky Forums's estimates on these dates/answers to the questions?

>Raptor is almost done development
I seriously doubt that. I think they still don't have a full-size prototype or at least haven't test-fired it.
>It's more real of a rocket than fucking NG is
I think NG may actually be further ahead than BFR. As far as I know, they have built the factory and have full-scale prototypes of BE-4.

Would airlifting the rocket be doable in any way? Like getting two helicopters to carry it?

>Would airlifting the rocket be doable in any way?
BFS? Way too heavy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)
>Second stage – Spaceship
>Empty mass 85,000 kg (187,000 lb)

Largest helicopter in the world:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Specifications_(Mi-26)
>Capacity:
>20,000 kg cargo (44,090 lb)

lets not reject the possibility of Elon announcing an electric helo, or using 10 Grasshoppers working together, to do such lifting. The man knows no limits

>he thought the Falcon Heavy would be as easy "strapping 3 Falcon 9s together"
Why did he think this again?

He didn't. He was exaggerating for effect.

And he was also bullshitting about how difficult it was, to deflect the ire of inconvenienced customers who would have liked it to launch sooner, when it didn't make sense for SpaceX to fly Falcon Heavy until the Falcon 9 design was basically finalized. There were difficulties, but they also intentionally de-prioritized it.

It works in kerbal space program

Official static fire video is out (same as the one on Twitter plus a post-fire view from afar):
youtube.com/watch?v=sNgByUWwFKU
The video seems to be sped up as the static fire seems to have lasted 12 seconds according to observers, but appears to only take 6 in this video.

I doubt it's sped up. There was a rumour that it would be 12 seconds, but you couldn't really tell from a distance. The cloud carried on moving after the engines stopped, of course.

Beep

Electron isn‘t cheap, just flexible. Although I will admit, the BFR might actually run into the A380 issue where it‘s just not good business to cram so much shit into one vehicle every flight just to make it viable.

A380 had a market change under it and airport restrictions.

BFR can get heavy shit up or medium shit deep, for cheap. It is a ocean freighter.

A380 wasn't the first airliner that everyone didn't have to parachute out of, while it autopiloted to a crash in the hills.

I believe SpaceX will make a smaller fully-reusable launcher in the end, but the reason they talk about flying everything on BFR is that they expect it to be cheaper to fly than any other rocket, including Falcon 9 with mature flyback booster reuse.

All that thing puts in orbit is the tiny little payload in the fairing of the small rocket on it's back. It's in no way competing for the job of BFR or even F9.

XS-1 isn't really a competitor for Falcon. End goal with XS-1 is to have something that can launch a small payload to orbit given a day or two's notice at low cost. Same general purpose as the canceled ALASA. This isn't exactly a market Space-X is in a position to capture.

>could have made use of those wings for lift with horizontal takeoff
You run into bigger drag losses for a horizontal take off. Glide back is a decent choice. Its less complex and tricky than a power slam. Wings cut into payload but then again so does fuel for a power slam.

It worked for Delta IV

>This isn't exactly a market Space-X is in a position to capture.
You haven't seen Block 5. They've been saying for years that they intend to make Falcon 9 boosters capable of being reflown with no refurbishment and streamlining launch procedures.

Last year was the first time they started reflying boosters at all, and they've only done it a few times, so reuse hasn't contributed significantly to their launch rate.

There's a huge difference in mass between a rocket on the launchpad and an empty booster. It's easier to add more thrust than to build wings that can provide that kind of lift.

>Even when BFR's flying, what will they use for Earth departure of deep-space probes?
The BFS burns past escape velocity, unloads a "third" stage + probe, then brakes and returns to Earth

These sorts of missions are not common.

Webm

I will cum so hard if this thing explodes during launch.

Why does it make so much steam?

>autists won't shut up about spacex and elon musk whenever the topic of missions in space is brought up
>they talk shit about NASA because "muh reusability"
>they only know space related topics because of 3 minute animations made by "science" youtube channels
>don't understand any actual principals of rocketry and orbital mechanics
>most ignore the main mission and only watch the landing, like a baby amazed at jingling keys

You guys seem like you actually understand what you say, the normies who pretend to like science because it's trendy are the ones who do this.

cuz they are spraying water so it doesn't melt all the concrete

Would you prefer an explosion when it's in the sky or do you want it to level the launch pad?

why

I keep hearing about COPV.
Can somebody give me a quick rundown on why it is so important

Why not?

more video of the static fire

The copv is a carbon composite pressure vessel Spacex uses in the Falcon 9. It holds helium at a very high pressure which is used to pressurize the fuel tanks as they run dry. It's gotten a lot of attention because the copv has been directly and indirectly responsible for both of Spacex's failures. They're even considering switching to a normal titanium pressure vessel for crewed flights at the behest of Nasa.

Does FH just use the F9 fairing, and is that going to restrict things when they actually want to launch 60+ t payloads?

Man, you sound like a very cynical, angry person.

>You haven't seen Block 5. They've been saying for years that they intend to make Falcon 9 boosters capable of being reflown with no refurbishment and streamlining launch procedures.
>Last year was the first time they started reflying boosters at all, and they've only done it a few times, so reuse hasn't contributed significantly to their launch rate.
Even if Space-X gets to same day turnarounds I can't see them being able to launch on demand like the XS-1 is for. A week? Sure, maybe even down to a few days. Even if they get same day turnarounds I don't see it as something that will be economical for this job. The Falcon 9 is ridiculously overpowered for the kind of payloads XS-1 is for.

And you sound like a little bitch.
Almost everything I said in that post is true and you know it.

more flights = more money

This is where the next fight is, whoever can get the most things into orbit per week if not also per day. Again I'm not saying SpaceX will or could loose, just that Boeing will up the ante and Musk will meet them.

Because it is a 14 story metal tube autonomously landing itself on a pad comparable to a football field via a 3g suicide burn.

Ya, the landing is exciting, so it will draw people's attention. Why get buttmad that not everyone is a rocket scientist?

It's more about NASA trying to sabotage SpaceX and being general government bureaucrat faggots.

Why would NASA want to sabotage SpaceX? They save a lot of money by using them. Even if they did want to sabotage them, they could just deny them use of their launch pads.

>autists won't shut up about spacex and elon musk whenever the topic of missions in space is brought up
This is a spaceX thread.
Also you are projecting, elitist autist.
>they talk shit about NASA because "muh reusability"
What's wrong with criticism, especially when it's about public spending? And I would say criticism is not because reusability, but because regress after Apollo.
>they only know space related topics because of 3 minute animations made by "science" youtube channels
Then you can start educating "them" here.
>don't understand any actual principals of rocketry and orbital mechanics
Some even play KSP and think they are onto something, morans!
>most ignore the main mission and only watch the landing, like a baby amazed at jingling keys
"They" do? Oh well, landing really is kinda amazing.

>normies who pretend to like science because it's trendy are the ones who do this.
REEEE

Don't aim for 20km pe if your goal is only aero capture. Once down there's no longer any way up and she will not let you go and will embrace forever all who arrive to help. This is final transmission.

>nasa obstructing spacex out of entrenched interests and pathological risk averseness is a conspiracy because they could assassinate Elon instead it's that simple!

This is america we are talking about. Its never going to die because the american engineering technique in aerospace is just that if you have enough thrust you dont need lift.

(you)

you sound like the type of guy that when you go crazy and shoot up your office, everyone says, "yeah - doesn't surprise me."

of course people are interested in the landing - they can see it, it's exciting, it's something new.

you can bet when people go to Mars and booster landings are 2nd nature... are they getitng there already... that people will be most interested in the humans walking around on Mars.

YOU. DO NOT. NEED TO KNOW. EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. DETAIL. TO. ENJOY. A. THING.

fuck off.