Well I'm completely and utterly shocked!. Why are there no transgenders? I'm sure there are some of them who also want the opportunity to walk on the moon!

I do have to say though that I see no point in returning to the moon just so that people who are not male have the opportunity to walk on the moon. If there are good reasons to return to the moon then such people, with the relevant skills, will get that opportunity as a side effect.

Dates set for Falcon Heavy. Static fire 15 Dec, launch 29 Dec.

zanl188 wrote:

Dates set for Falcon Heavy. Static fire 15 Dec, launch 29 Dec.

Anyone want to place any bets? I am firmly in the "not this year" camp.

moo wrote:

zanl188 wrote:

Dates set for Falcon Heavy. Static fire 15 Dec, launch 29 Dec.

Anyone want to place any bets? I am firmly in the "not this year" camp.

Well, the launch date only needs to slip 3 days for that to happen.

Francoflier wrote:

Why isn't SpaceX using the new Ti gridfins they were so enthused about just a few months ago?

Probably still have a stock of the Al ones to work through.

bmacleod wrote:

Just to note all those who say it makes no sense returning to the moon.

Beside additional scientific research -mining ice/water testing - only men have walked on the moon and many women astronaut trainees no doubt want the opportunity to be first woman to walk on the moon.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/half-nasa-newest-astronaut-class-wmeon-180957850/

Too late:
http://screenanarchy.com/assets/2014/08 ... 0image.jpg

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Why isn't SpaceX using the new Ti gridfins they were so enthused about just a few months ago?

Probably still have a stock of the Al ones to work through.

The point of using the titanium based ones is for ease of reuse - the aluminium ones get the job done but often come out unusable after a high energy landing. Problem is, the titanium ones are significantly more expensive...

They are currently using aluminium fins on landings where they are not 100% sure of success - if they lose the booster, fair enough (currently they are getting significantly fewer reusable boosters from high energy landings anyway, simply due to damage even when the landing is successful), but theres no need to put something on the booster solely there for the reusability factor if there is a significant chance you are going to lose it anyway. Better to spend less and replace if successful.

Once high energy returns lower their risk factor enough, SpaceX will switch over to the titanium fins across the board.

Tugger wrote:

Does anyone know (estimate) the launch cost difference for Spacex between the F9 and the FH?

Tugg

Musk released some figures a few years ago, but they cant be relied upon because at that point they thought that the FH would simply be three F9 cores strapped together.

The FH today is a significantly customised version of the F9 core, and the FH second stage is not the same as the F9 first stage (whereas it was supposed to be a F9 second stage). Thus far no reliable launch cost figures have been floated for this new version.

It all depends on how much of the FH customisation can be reworked back into the F9 core without compromising the F9 itself - at the moment, they are two very disparate rockets (where they actually wanted two very very similar rockets, with the cores coming off the same production line with use in either stack), and the FH isn't in serial production so its anyones guess right now.

bmacleod wrote:

Just to note all those who say it makes no sense returning to the moon.

Beside additional scientific research -mining ice/water testing - only men have walked on the moon and many women astronaut trainees no doubt want the opportunity to be first woman to walk on the moon.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/half-nasa-newest-astronaut-class-wmeon-180957850/

as much as i like gender equality, that isn´t a sufficient reason to spend billions going to the moon again. But if we go there again one day, the people flying should be the best people they could find. If that happens to lead to an all male crew again, or to an all female crew, that is fine too.

best regards
Thomas

Regarding FH.My understanding is that it is the central 'core' that required all the changes.Personally I don't find this 'that' surprising as it has to take a huge amount of additional stresses.But clearly more than they initially envisaged.
The outer 2 F9's are 'standard' indeed they are reusing existing pre flown units.
I know nothing about the second stage mods.
Although there has been a long delay I don't believe it is wasted time as they have needed this period to get their reliability factors up to scratch - both with take off and landing.
One gets the impression that 2017 was indeed they year when this has been achieved and a man capable Flight can be considered for the future.
EM rightly plays down the % chance of success but I do feel there is probably a lot riding on this flight hence many of the delays.
If it does all go according to plan he will have one hell of a pair of launch vehicles!
It will certainly open up moon flights which will be exciting even if it's a little too much of a stretch (FH) for Mars.

I love his talks on the BFR but taking off the rose tinted specs they are a long way away.

Stop press.I noted on the Teslarati website that a launch date of Dec 29th has been pencilled in for the Falcon Heavy first launch.

tommy1808 wrote:

bmacleod wrote:

Just to note all those who say it makes no sense returning to the moon.

Beside additional scientific research -mining ice/water testing - only men have walked on the moon and many women astronaut trainees no doubt want the opportunity to be first woman to walk on the moon.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/half-nasa-newest-astronaut-class-wmeon-180957850/

as much as i like gender equality, that isn´t a sufficient reason to spend billions going to the moon again. But if we go there again one day, the people flying should be the best people they could find. If that happens to lead to an all male crew again, or to an all female crew, that is fine too.

best regards
Thomas

I agree that it isn't a sufficient reason to go there. I disagree, however, with your crew selection. At some point in the selection process, you're playing rock-paper-scissors. Which of the three is the best?

Remember that nearly all crewed spaceflight so far is entirely funded through taxes. That means that 50% of the people paying for the program are female (and 50% male ofc), and they will be able to identify better with someone who has the same gender. Additionally, 50% of the students who might grow up to become great space engineers and scientists are female. The chance to inspire these to such a career increases drastically once they have popular role models. This is also one reason why I would like to see a multi-ethnic, multi-national crew. We cannot tell where the great minds of the future are born today, or which skin colour or gender they have. We can afford to send the second-best crew (obviously still a very good one) to the moon if it means securing the best minds for the many other important spaceflight jobs.

Whilst EM is in a rush to go to Mars I think we probably all accept that he has a habit of oversimplification.Going to/around etc the moon would give him invaluable knowledge for the bigger task ahead (imho).The FH is suited for this task (just).He could do some moon orbits and perhaps some private moon landers (he has already booked a German lander project).
It's nearly 50 years since anybody has been to the moon.Not a bad idea to go back.Good practice for the future!I appreciate that it is cancelled but the Red Dragon concept would have worked well for an unmanned return mission to the moon.

Several outlets are reporting that SpaceX had a Merlin engine explode on the test stand on November 5th - no people were injured, but the engine and test stand are a write off. SpaceX has suspended engine testing and are expected to suspend flights while an investigation is carried out.

The stories have been corrected to say that the incident happened on November 4th. Turns out they were testing a Block 5 engine, which hasn't yet flown and is still undergoing certification trials. As all current engines are still Block 4, there is no expected impact to the current launch schedule.

"No one was injured and all safety protocols were followed during the time of this incident," according to the statement. "We are now conducting a thorough and fully transparent investigation of the root cause."

The explosion occurred during a test of a "Block 5" Merlin engine, which will be used in a future generation of the company's Falcon 9 rockets, a source told Space.com. Falcon 9 rockets that are currently in operation utilize the "Block 4" Merlin engine, so the incident will not require the company to halt any of its scheduled launches.

"SpaceX is committed to our current manifest and we do not expect this to have any impact on our launch cadence," the statement said.

The incident occurred during a "LOX drop" test, in which an engine is filled with liquid oxygen fuel and tested for leaks, according to the source. The engine did not fire during this test. At some point during the test, the liquid oxygen ignited; the company does not know if the engine itself exploded, the source said. The test bay where the explosion took place may take two to four weeks to repair.

SpaceX anticipates that a full investigation into the incident will take several weeks.

Now, SpaceX plans to suspend all Block 5 engine testing at McGregor until the accident investigation is included, though Block 4 engine testing will proceed. The company will also start repairing the test bay the engine exploded on, which should take two to four weeks to complete. SpaceX expects repairs to be done before the investigation is over, but just in case, the company has an additional test bay at McGregor it can use. However, that second test bay sustained some minor damage in the explosion, too, but repairs should only take two to three days before testing can resume.

Sources:
https://www.space.com/38712-spacex-rock ... osion.html
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/8/1662 ... s-falcon-9
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 1e63072a71

Seems like a rather minor setback in an otherwise perfect year for SpaceX (so far). Much better to have had this happen on a test stand than a real launch. I suppose it's why they do all the testing in the first place.

That's bad luck.Particularly as it wasn't even a hot test.Still.One imagines they have high speed cameras on at all times which should help them identify the issue.Their previous anomaly was a cold pressure test too as I recall.
They will get it right.This engine has performed magnificently and will remain their workhorse for many years to come.
Fingers and toes crossed for the FH launch in EO Dec.

Sounds like either a leak or a cleaning issue. Either way should be straight forward to identify cause.

Tugger wrote:

Interesting to look and the two engines.. Don't know which is block 4 and block 5 but I am think the 5 is on the left. Visible differences appear minimal (not saying it is).

Based on the impression the engine on the left doesn't seem to have been fired yet, that seems like a decent guess.

Plus it appears to have a larger turbo pump, which should go along with higher fuel flow, and therefore thrust.

I thought the Block 5 changes were supposed to be all about reusability and crew certification, but reviewing elsewhere just now, it does sound like SpaceX is pursuing yet *another* thrust increase.

Currently the Merlin 1D Block 3 (I think) gets around 150,000 lbs sea level thrust.

The Falcon 9 originally flew with the Merlin 1C at 94,000 lbs sea level thrust.

The original Falcon 1 attempts were with the Merlin 1 A at 77,000 lbs sea level thrust.

At this point, I'm not sure the Merlin engine has any components at all in common with the original version - it's been going through constant evolution pretty much everywhere.

I agree with you 'iamlucky'.Yes block5 is mostly about reliability (both commercially re reuse but also to be 'man rated').However he is clearly looking to squeeze a little more power out of the engines if he can.
We know that some of the heavier satellites he puts up cannot use the return mechanism do to its weight.This additional thrust should eliminate this issue.Thus making the F9(block5) the perfect all round commercial launch vehicle (there is competition on the horizon).

But what of FH (assuming a successful first launch).?
Some people say it's becoming redundant.I am not so sure.
It's all well and good showing pretty pictures of BFR's going to Mars but totally another thing creating it and doing it.I am not suggesting he won't.But I do think his time table is hopelessly optimistic.(and he probably knows this full well).
It's not just the mammoth engineering challenge (off the planet -literally!) it's his total lack of any experience in what he is hoping to do (taking people to Mars and back -safely).
Why not use the FH to gain invaluable and necessary experience over the next decade whist the BFR is developed?

The Moon.Its there and really useful to practice with.First some deep space and back (unmanned then manned).Also get some high speed reentry data.
Then landing on the Moon (far easier than Mars with its thin atmosphere).If you can't do the Moon you certainly can't do Mars.
Then there is that pesky 'taking off again'! Gotta sort that out too.Eventually with people on board.This is all tough stuff and very relevant to the end goal.
As for Mars.I was disappointed (and confused) about the demise of Red Dragon.The FH can do this.He has to learn about getting to Mards (and back).He has to perfect his technique of landing (with 100% safety) on Mars.
And yes -getting back to Earth again.
So much to learn and master.Just sitting around a decade till the BFR is finally sorted and ready is not intelligent (and he is).
NASA did not sit around till the Saturn 5 was fully ready.They used that decade perfecting all the techniques necessary.First the Mercury programme.Then the Gemini programme.Then Saturn before the final Saturn5 system.Logical stuff.

EM has used F1 as a proof of concept.His F9 programme has sorted out docking and reentry.Next up 'man rated' flights.The FH (and the Moon) is the obvious vehicle to take the programme to the next level while his 'Saturn'veichle is being created for eventual man rated Mars landings.

Some weird timing considering what just happened there, but SpaceX just released a promotional/behind-the-scenes type video of the McGregor facility on their YouTube account. As usual, it's pretty high quality stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYh4re0j8M

Trololzilla wrote:

Some weird timing considering what just happened there, but SpaceX just released a promotional/behind-the-scenes type video of the McGregor facility on their YouTube account. As usual, it's pretty high quality stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYh4re0j8M

I had to watch it twice. Very cool video.

Exploding engine = rip FH first flight in 2017 I guess.

Everyone ready for launch tomorrow?

"Launch window: 0100-0300 GMT on 16th (8:00-10:00 p.m. EST on 15th)
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the Zuma payload. Northrop Grumman arranged to launch the Zuma payload with SpaceX on behalf of the U.S. government, but no other details about the mission have been disclosed. The Falcon 9 rocket’s first stage will return to landing at Landing Zone-1 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Delayed from Nov. 15 to complete mission assurance work. [Nov. 15]"

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

aviationaware wrote:

Exploding engine = rip FH first flight in 2017 I guess.

I'm not sure if Falcon Heavy uses Block 5 engines?

I believe I read that the 2 outer F9's for the FH are refurbished ones.The central rocket is a heavily modified new one.
One imagines that the block5 engine schedule will now be delayed.But it will still come in sometime in late 2018?
I believe the principle objective is greater reusablity.Although I think there may be a further pip involved as well.

On a personal note I do hope( if FH is successful) that EM announces some interesting projects for it concerning the moon for the next 2 years or so whilst he continues to develop is BFR over the medium term (his own timings look hopelessly optimistic imho).

Zuma launch webcast going live @5pm PST. http://www.spacex.com/webcast

The video showing SpaceX's McGregor facilities in Texas is interesting - the entire operation looks very lean and efficient to me. I like it!

Just a curious question: Why do other launch companies like ESA and Orbital ATK not carry on-board cameras, or live feeds?

It constantly amazes me how SpaceX values publicity, and tries everything to make us part of these events.

David

flyingturtle wrote:

Just a curious question: Why do other launch companies like ESA and Orbital ATK not carry on-board cameras, or live feeds?

Technically they might, but they may just not release footage publicly.

I think a lot of it has to do with Musk really wanting the general public to be engaged and thrilled by space again, which has been stated as a goal of his. Plus the overall goal of a rocket is merely to get its payload to its orbit; it seems ESA and other organizations want to focus entirely on that aspect for now, which is perfectly reasonable.

The mission is scrubbed for tonight unfortunately.

From SpaceX Twitter:

"Standing down on Zuma mission to take a closer look at data from recent fairing testing for another customer.
3:33 PM - 16 Nov 2017"

"Though we’ve preserved the range opportunity for tomorrow, we’ll take the time needed to complete the data review and then confirm a new launch date.
3:35 PM - 16 Nov 2017"

JetBuddy wrote:

The mission is scrubbed for tonight unfortunately.

Funnily, their live stream is still counting down... 29 minutes to go, as I type.

David


Edit: Offline now.


David

Trololzilla wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Just a curious question: Why do other launch companies like ESA and Orbital ATK not carry on-board cameras, or live feeds?

Technically they might, but they may just not release footage publicly.

I think a lot of it has to do with Musk really wanting the general public to be engaged and thrilled by space again, which has been stated as a goal of his. Plus the overall goal of a rocket is merely to get its payload to its orbit; it seems ESA and other organizations want to focus entirely on that aspect for now, which is perfectly reasonable.

^^ That.

Musk has interaction with the public as a big part of how he does stuff. One can view it nicely as he wants people to get into science and engineering like he does. Or if you want to be cynical Musk wants to use the PR as leverage when things don't go so well in the business side; like Tesla still having business troubles.

Though I have noticed a lot more live streaming of launches since SpaceX started pushing it. Even if they don't really do on board camera stuff.

Either way it's a cultural difference between SpaceX and other launch providers. SpaceX appears to be much more ok with showing stuff going wrong. And as fans of space stuff we get to benefit from it.

Falcon Heavy launch has been pushed back to January 2018.

SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy rocket is expected to roll out to pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center for the first time next month for a hold-down firing of its 27 Merlin main engines, but the mega-rocket’s inaugural test launch will slip into January, officials confirmed Tuesday.

The commercial space company, led by billionaire Elon Musk, held out hope of launching the first Falcon Heavy test flight before the end of December until recently. The delay to early 2018 was first reported Tuesday by Aviation Week and Space Technology, and SpaceX confirmed the schedule slip to Spaceflight Now.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/28/d ... n-january/

I'm disappointed and I want my money back.

Elon Musk should start it in December, and give it a nifty slogan... "The Biggest Bang", or something like that.


David

Musk tweets that payload for initial Falcon Heavy will be his Tesla Roadster. To Mars.

We’ll need payload separation video Elon. Or it didn’t happen.

“Payload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent”

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912

I am speechless.

https://twitter.com/romn8tr/status/936808016615059457

Way to go.

What does Musk mean "to Mars"? Without an engine the car cannot enter Mars orbit.

KarelXWB wrote:

What does Musk mean "to Mars"? Without an engine the car cannot enter Mars orbit.

Yes it can, there are a number of mars orientated orbits (both eliptical and circular) it can achieve without an engine, especially if they don't need a "useable" orbit for the payload.

I'll punch Mr. Musk if it isn't Mr. Hadfield's version of Space Oddity.

David

As far as I understand, he's going to leave it in Mars orbit:


Elon Musk‏Verified account
@elonmusk
Following Following @elonmusk
More
Replying to @highqualitysh1t
I love the thought of a car drifting apparently endlessly through space and perhaps being discovered by an alien race millions of years in the future
11:33 AM - 2 Dec 2017

The Verge now reporting that Musk replied to their attempt to reach out to him with "[I] totally made it up".

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/1/1672 ... -elon-musk

Other sources are still reporting that it's on though, so now I'm somewhat confused.

Trololzilla wrote:

The Verge now reporting that Musk replied to their attempt to reach out to him with "[I] totally made it up".

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/1/1672 ... -elon-musk

Other sources are still reporting that it's on though, so now I'm somewhat confused.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was something he thought of all of a sudden. Then calls his chief engineer over at SpaceX and asks him/her if it's technically possible, then fires off a tweet. It would be very cool if he actually launched his car into Mars orbit.

Looks like it was just a mix-up. The Verge updated the article again:

But confirmation followed a bizarre exchange between The Verge and Musk. After Musk tweeted the plan, we asked him to confirm that it was real. Musk replied to us first by email, confirming that it was real. Then, after The Verge published a story about the plan, Musk sent us a response in a direct message on Twitter saying he “totally made it up.” We now know that response was false; a person familiar with the matter told The Verge Saturday evening that the payload is in fact real.

While it's definitely a "silly" payload, I wonder if it's worth the cost to try to convert the car into a fully functioning satellite, complete with solar arrays, communications equipment, and possibly cameras/other scientific instruments? Hell, they could even re-purpose the wheels as reaction wheels. It could give SpaceX valuable experience with complex systems in 'deep space' (i.e. past the moon's orbit) in preparation for future Falcon Heavy and BFR missions. Probably won't happen, but it could be worth a shot. I mean, it's likely the rocket blows up no matter what they do to the payload anyway.

JetBuddy wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if it was something he thought of all of a sudden. Then calls his chief engineer over at SpaceX and asks him/her if it's technically possible, then fires off a tweet. It would be very cool if he actually launched his car into Mars orbit.

Forum member HeloDriver mentioned it on nasaspaceflight.com in September 2012. Is Musk lurking on spaceflight forums? HeloDriver has asked Musk for a tour of the payload on twitter.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index ... #msg950901

zanl188 wrote:

Forum member HeloDriver mentioned it on nasaspaceflight.com in September 2012. Is Musk lurking on spaceflight forums? HeloDriver has asked Musk for a tour of the payload on twitter.

Well, I've read the suggestion that the first FH payload could be a Tesla months before. In a comment on youtube. It's not that ill-logical.


David

Apparantly Musk's cherry red Tesla will enter a "Hohmann transfer orbit" between the Sun and Mars.

Also, all three cores will be heading back to earth to land. At least that's the plan.



From Syfy:
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/elon-musk- ... er-to-mars

flyingturtle wrote:

zanl188 wrote:

Forum member HeloDriver mentioned it on nasaspaceflight.com in September 2012. Is Musk lurking on spaceflight forums?

Well, I've read the suggestion that the first FH payload could be a Tesla months before.

Musk a "Heavy Metal" fan? Who would have thunk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWMPe3wF9jQ

Speculation seems to be increasing that SpaceX and Tesla may merge in the future.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-an ... ey-2017-12
https://electrek.co/2017/12/05/tesla-ts ... s-analyst/

I can definitely see both the benefits and disadvantages of such a merger, though it likely wouldn't happen for some time, if at all.