SpaceX Falcon 9 historic landing thread (1st landing attempt & most recent missions)

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Very nice video above, by Tom Dodd, the Everyday Astronaut. He covered a lot of the rocket parts well. But as for why it took so long, he left out all of the ground support/construction/facilities aspects. Which would be sort of messy to explain in a video. Where SpaceX was claiming launch in 6 months and had not even gotten permits (sometimes not even applied for them) to build/modify anything, much less actually start working ("We'll launch Falcon Heavy in 6 months. Now let's file for a permit for building the HIF and have it all completed in 5.5 months". Uh, no). So the vast majority of those delays were not delays, internally they knew they were not going to have the launch (and landing) facilities ready for years, or the FH rocket even after changing from 1.0 to 1.2, but kept saying "6 months". I could understand deferring spending the $ to START on a lot of it. But again in deferring starting, then they were deferring when it could possibly be ready. Which again is fine, but they kept on blowing their credibility by claiming 6 months for years.

Anyway, at least it's weeks away, I expect it will have flown by 60 days from now. Presuming no big problems found. There will no doubt be some issues to crop up. Could be for mundane things like how things go when they do test tankings at the pad, doing quick loads of chilled RP-1 and LOX for all three boosters, in a short period of time. Or like how the vehicle/pad/TEL react during static firing.

Some things to catch up on:

https://www.space.com/39195-elon-musk-tesla-roadster-falcon-heaavy-photo.html

$


Ironically I think the leaked image looks better aesthetically because it's a pure side view and nose-up angle, and shows the mount assembly. I mean I've seen images of fairings before. Would probably feel different if there had indeed been a pure side view with the fairing.

Though I will say that in the above photo, when they try for a fairing recovery and only test with one fairing half (little point in doing both till they perfect it), seems like the one on the left will be the one. Those three tanks near the top. Probably Nitrogen tanks for the RCS (to orient the fairing the right way for the atmospheric re-entry and probably hold it steady enough).

Other news:

Scott Manley explains why the Iridium launch plume was so visible, plus some other news (FH Roadster, Mr Steven retrieval ship, etc)

[video=youtube;CJ6nn8fZOmc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ6nn8fZOmc[/video]
 
Last edited:
Though I will say that in the above photo, when they try for a fairing recovery and only test with one fairing half (little point in doing both till they perfect it), seems like the one on the left will be the one. Those three tanks near the top. Probably Nitrogen tanks for the RCS (to orient the fairing the right way for the atmospheric re-entry and probably hold it steady enough).

Other news:

Scott Manley explains why the Iridium launch plume was so visible, plus some other news (FH Roadster, Mr Steven retrieval ship, etc)

[video=youtube;CJ6nn8fZOmc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ6nn8fZOmc[/video]
I that video, cold gas RCS bursts seen from one half of the fairing at the 4:50 minute point onward.
 
A Space fan on a bus tour at KSC took this photo as the bus went past the SpaceX HIF at 39A:

COsoGQu.jpg


Yep, that's the FH payload shroud, which most certainly should have the Tesla Roadster inside.
 
Ironically I think the leaked image looks better aesthetically because it's a pure side view and nose-up angle, and shows the mount assembly. I mean I've seen images of fairings before. Would probably feel different if there had indeed been a pure side view with the fairing.

The rear view gets the Tesla logo in the shot, which I'm sure the company's shareholders appreciate.

James
 
Depends on if it was an officially sponsored Tesla or Musk just said "Hey, I'm going to put one of my things on top of one of my other things"
 
I am getting really excited with all of this SpaceX stuff going on currently. I will be at the cape for the Zuma launch, and potentially the FH as well, assuming things go really well for it and it gets away in the first half of the month.
 
I am getting really excited with all of this SpaceX stuff going on currently. I will be at the cape for the Zuma launch, and potentially the FH as well, assuming things go really well for it and it gets away in the first half of the month.

Forgive me for being lazy and not looking this up but what is the scheduled date as well as contingent date for the FH launch?
 
No date set.

"Early 2018"

Some are going with Jan 15th as the earliest possible but even SpaceX is not claiming that. Some of those going with Jan 15th are the same who said by end of November in September, and by the end of the year in November. Also a dumb App says Jan i5th because the app demands an actual date in it, won't accept "Early 2018", so some think the App has the "official" launch date....because.... it's an App, so it must be true.

I have begun to say "February 4th" when someone asks this question.

Because it is just as valid an answer as any other, for the near future at any rate.

And that's my feel for a ballpark date of when it might fly.

This is not like the 40th flight of a Falcon 9, or the 25th flight of version 1.2 (Block 3). This is the first pad-fit tests, upcoming first tanking tests (including RAPIDLY filling it with fuel at three times the flow rates into the boosters than they ever have), first static test firing of 27 engines, and much higher vibration/acoustic levels than any Falcon 9. It will also be the first time they stagger the ignition of the engines by a few dozen or hundred milliseconds apart

A more realistic No Earlier Than launch date will happen after they have done a series of tests at the pad. Most likely at least two static test firings. Whenever it DOES launch, that date probably will not have been set more than about a week before it happens.

Of course, I could be pleasantly surprised and it could launch before the end of January. But that would buck the trend of this whole thing, in mid-November some were talking Static Test firing in mid-December.
 
Inspector General - US Department of Defense
Evaluation of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program Quality Management System
Dec 2017

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001862093/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2018-045.PDF

Finding

We found that ULA, SpaceX, and AR did not perform adequate quality assurance management of the EELV program, as
evidenced by the 181 nonconformities to the AS9100C at the EELV contractor production facilities. For example, we found that ULA, SpaceX, and AR failed to comply with AS9100C, section 7.5.5, Preservation of Product.

At ULA, we found nonconformities related to Electrostatic Sensitive Device (ESD) protection in the avionics production
area. We found ungrounded ESD workstations, untested wrist straps, missing ESD protective covers, non-ESDapproved
containers and materials, and uncontrolled humidity levels. Inadequate ESD controls and mitigation could result in the premature failure of electronic components in the EELV system.

At SpaceX, we found an inadequately protected Merlin engine on the test stand. The Merlin engine exhaust ports
and vent tubes should have been protected with specific covers. Furthermore, we found bottles of soda and personal
items in FOD-controlled areas.

At AR, we found that the RL-10 engine test stand, used to test both the Delta IV and Atlas V second stage engine, had significant FOD issues, including loose bolts, nuts, tape, foil, tie wraps, and animal feces. Inadequate control of FOD
significantly increases the risk of damage to EELV hardware, which can lead to costly rework and schedule impact.
ULA’s, SpaceX’s, and AR’s inadequate quality assurance management could increase program costs, delay launch
schedules, and increase the risk of mission failure.

--------

BTW, I'm writing up the IG for incorrect bar chart axis prioritization and the resulting clumsy, difficult to read bar chart orientation in the report which I have corrected below:

38530153345_1b60dc3b5c_b.jpg
 
Good charts typically tell you what is being measured and provide units within the graph and do not compel you to assume based on the title at the top of the page. Not being someone who reads this chart month in and month out, I have no idea whether the number of reported incidents is low, high, or normal. I know from discussions with cosmetologists and restaurant managers, that the health regulations are written such that a health inspector in a bad mood can write infractions all day long of he/she feels like it. Some are mutually contradictory so compliance with one results in the failure of the other. Military supply and maintenance regulations are similarly written. I wonder how much this type of inspection suffers from that same sort of thing.
 
Falcon-9 launch of the Zuma payload (whatever it is) is still set for Thursday, Jan 4th, at 8:00 PM EST.

jwQTymM.jpg


Launch from the Cape, and booster is expected to RTLS land back at the Cape.

There is a new article on NSF about preparations for Falcon Heavy Static Firing:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/12/falcon-heavy-maiden-static-fire-test/

The Static Firing might be as early as January 6th. And if that and everything else goes well, then it MIGHT launch as early as January 15th.
 
Good charts typically tell you what is being measured and provide units within the graph and do not compel you to assume based on the title at the top of the page. Not being someone who reads this chart month in and month out, I have no idea whether the number of reported incidents is low, high, or normal. I know from discussions with cosmetologists and restaurant managers, that the health regulations are written such that a health inspector in a bad mood can write infractions all day long of he/she feels like it. Some are mutually contradictory so compliance with one results in the failure of the other. Military supply and maintenance regulations are similarly written. I wonder how much this type of inspection suffers from that same sort of thing.
The summary of findings is a clue to me since the severity of what it lists isn't tremendously high and one would think that the most severe deficiencies would be mentioned in it. That makes me wonder if the very large number of total discrepancies mentioned in the report are mainly a bunch of minor, forgot to dot the i's and cross the t's transgressions. Of course, imperial/metric measurement confusion cost us a mars orbiter, so being really picky is important with technical efforts where only one of a million things going wrong can destroy a multi-hundred-million or multi-billion dollar mission.
 
Things still on track for the Zuma launch Thursday at 8:00 PM EST.

SpaceX released a video shot by a multicopter, showing FH on the pad. But they posted it on Twitter....grumble-grumble, which is a PITA for video.

Anyway, Space.com edited the footage and posted it on Youtube:

[video=youtube;6u0Kfw3UKuY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u0Kfw3UKuY[/video]




SpaceX posted some hi-res photos of FH, on their Flickr account. Below is one sample

https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/

index.php
 
OK, let's see if I've got this right.

Central booster is new
Both side boosters are used

Central booster has aluminum grid fins
Both side boosters have titanium grid fins

...Right?

Isn't it odd that the central booster (which presumably has a much hotter return-to-land trajectory than the side boosters) has aluminum fins?

Is the plan for the central booster to land on a barge, or back at the Cape?
 
Pure speculation, but perhaps the switch to Ti on the normal boosters was late in the game for the design/construction of the core. As I recall, the Ti weathers the re-entry better. But if they have no intent on -actually- re-using the first Heavy Core (maybe tearing it at least part way down for analysis), then there's that much less incentive to switch to the Ti used in new builds.
 
I think the Everyday Astronaut segment about F9 Heavy mentioned that the central core had already been built when the switch to Titanium grid fins was made.
 
Back
Top