Speaking at the International Space Station Research and Development conference, Elon Musk said that a successful maiden flight for Falcon Heavy was unlikely:
SpaceX CEO and founder Elon Musk has downplayed the chances of a successful inaugural flight for his Falcon Heavy space launch vehicle, admitting there is a "good chance it would not make it to orbit in its first launch."
Development of the booster rocket, which is powered by 27 engines, has proven to be "way harder than the team initially thought," he told the International Space Station Research and Development conference on Wednesday.
Falcon Heavy will be the most powerful rocket booster in the world, capable of delivering a 54 ton payload into orbit.
Musk said that combining three Falcon 9 rockets together had multiplied vibrations throughout the vehicle making it difficult to test without a launch.
The maiden test flight is due to take place toward the end of the year.
As if watching the inaugural launch of the most powerful rocket since the Saturn V were not tempting enough, how many more people will watch in hopes of seeing it go BOOM!?
Related Stories
The static test fire of the Falcon Heavy, already delayed several times in recent days, has now been delayed due to the U.S. government shutdown:
SpaceX will be unable to test fire its three-core Falcon Heavy rocket at Kennedy Space Center due to the government shutdown, further delaying checkout operations ahead of the rocket's demonstration flight, the 45th Space Wing said Sunday.
"Due to the shutdown removing key members of the civilian workforce, the 45th Space Wing will not be able to support commercial static fires taking place on KSC," the Wing said, further noting that launch operations at KSC and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station are also on hold until the shutdown is resolved.
SpaceX teams have fueled the 230-foot-tall Falcon Heavy rocket at pad 39A at least twice ahead of the static test fire, which is essentially a test before the test – engineers will examine data from the 12-second firing of the rocket's 27 Merlin main engines before giving the all clear to launch on its premiere mission.
General article about Falcon Heavy.
Previously: SpaceX to Attempt Landing Three Falcon Heavy Boosters on Pads
Elon Musk Says Successful Maiden Flight for Falcon Heavy Unlikely
Falcon Heavy Prepares for Debut Flight as Musk Urges Caution on Expectations
SpaceX Successfully Tests Falcon Heavy First Stage Cores
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy Rocket Sets Up at Cape Canaveral Ahead of Launch
Falcon Heavy Readied for Static Fire Test
U.S. Government Shutdown Starting on January 20, 2018
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Thursday July 20 2017, @07:17PM (9 children)
"54 ton payload into orbit" .. LEO orbit? geosynchronous? TLI?
To make ballpark Saturn V comparison that is needed to know.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday July 20 2017, @08:19PM
Given the nature of press releases, presumably 54 tons is the largest payload it could deliver to *any* orbit. That in turns implies LEO, since if it could reach anything higher it could also deliver a more impressive payload to LEO.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday July 20 2017, @09:00PM (6 children)
Sorting the following list by kg to LEO helps give some perspective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems [wikipedia.org]
Unfortunately it separates retired from present/future, so the comparison there is a little slow. Saturn V and Energia have huge payloads.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:07PM (5 children)
True, but Falcon Heavy could theoretically lift 4 or 5 times what SaturnV or Energia could.
The sheer Bomb Factor of an on-pad explosion would be astounding.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 21 2017, @12:51AM (2 children)
What does that mean? That they will have 10x more launches of Falcon Heavy?
Falcon Heavy is neat. But if you want to get excited about something, the planned SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System launch vehicle [wikipedia.org] would have 2x the LEO payload of Saturn V [wikipedia.org] in reusable mode, and 4x in expendable mode.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 21 2017, @05:15AM (1 child)
Presumably that it can be scaled up. Some designs can't.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday July 21 2017, @05:20AM
I don't think Falcon Heavy will be "scaled up" that much. Falcon 9 was actually scaled up somewhat, allowing it to lift more massive loads including some intended for launch with Falcon Heavy. But at the end of the day the next step is to go from Falcon Heavy to the Interplanetary Transport System, in order to lift superheavy loads much bigger than what Saturn V could lift. And it will be glorious (if it gets made).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 21 2017, @05:11AM
I think NASA uses a distance of 10 km for safety. Essentially anything closer can run a serious risk of incineration. To visit the zone during risk of rocket failure a retired tank is used for protection.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:54PM
How do you figure? Is there an error on the linked Wikipedia page? Because it says their respective payloads to LEO are
Falcon Heavy: 63.8Mg
Saturn V: 140Mg
Energia: 100Mg
Which puts a theoretical Falcon Heavy at about half the launch capacity we had in the 70s
Perhaps you're thinking of the far more theoretical SpaceX "Interplanetary Transport System launch vehicle" which is speculated to be able to lift 550Mg? That would certainly be cool, and I'd love to see the Bigelow inflatable space habitats built to be launched by that sucker! But it's just a *wee* bit premature to start counting on that working out as planned.
As the saying goes - "In theory there's no difference between practice and theory. In practice there is."
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday July 21 2017, @12:53AM
Just to cover everything, canceled Russian projects: Energia 100 ton leo, 18 ton geo; Vulcan 200 ton leo. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F_(%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C) [wikipedia.org]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday July 20 2017, @07:18PM (5 children)
After so many high-profile successes, setting low expectations for a prototype, 3 times bigger than anything they've ever done, is not a bad policy.
The first Ariane 5 was a nice expensive fireworks show. Now you hardly ever hear about its always-successful launch.
The question, Mr Musk, is how many tries before you get it right?
These days you're barely allowed one BOOM and one "not-quite", before knowledgeable people start asking questions (as prodded to do so by your competitors).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday July 20 2017, @07:25PM (2 children)
You remind me of something I wrote an posted online quite some time ago, I think on Ars.
There is an important lesson that SpaceX should learn.
Dear SpaceX:
When you set out to do something bold, innovative and challenging. Something that you, yourself, are not even sure can be made to work. The risk is high. The task is difficult.
The important point is that you might possibly fail.
Therefore, you should not ever try. Ever. Just don't bother.
This message brought to you by SpaceX's competitors.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 20 2017, @07:38PM (1 child)
Not trying is to ensure no success.
It goes for girls. It goes for finances. It goes for rockets etc.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday July 20 2017, @08:28PM
I do believe that was the point.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday July 20 2017, @09:15PM
I've followed SpaceX since before their first launches. I remember finding a proposal similar to this current rendition of their vision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#/media/File:Falcon_rocket_family4.svg [wikipedia.org]
It looks so much like my strategy to Kerbal Space Program. "The first rocket worked, so double the size! That rocket worked, so just add more boosters!" Unfortunately rockets are more difficult than that in the real world (or even on Kerbin, those poor green space pioneers).
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday July 21 2017, @06:04AM
It's actually an excellent policy. They're going to have a failure at some point (in fact I'm really surprised they've been so successful so far), so prepping the media for the inevitable is a must-do. Certainly when something does fail it'll be global news for a long time, so you need to be ready in advance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 20 2017, @08:12PM (3 children)
Might as well stuff 27,000 Estes C6-7's in there.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 20 2017, @08:47PM (2 children)
For those of you not already aware, the ill-fated Soviet N1 rocket [wikipedia.org] sounds like a similar design inasmuch as there were a bunch of individual engines constructed in parallel to launch the thing. Out of 4 launches, the N1 *almost* successfully got to first-stage separation on the last test launch. At least it didn't blow everything to smithereens and kill all the scientist like the R-16 [wikipedia.org], though.
But this is the USSR we're talking about and they had atrocious QA. Musk is probably doing it at least 1 or 2 magnitudes more safely.
Well the Soviets sure had a difficult time of it. We don't refer to brain surgery and rocket science on the same level for nothing :)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday July 20 2017, @09:11PM (1 child)
I first thought of the N1 also. Technology also will be enabling beyond just quality control: a purely analog control scheme for that many engines sounds like a horrible nightmare. Glancing over the Wikipedia article the Soviets might have agreed, the N1 originally used the KORD (Russian acronym for KOntrol Racketnykh Dvigateley—literally "Control (of) Rocket Engines") but it was unable to compensate for the exploding turbopump of the second launch attempt. The last launch actually used the first digital control system employed by a Soviet rocket, the S-530, mitigating some of the deficiencies of the KORD.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Saturday July 22 2017, @02:16PM
Indeed. Not to mention the apparently considerably more robust components enabled by 3D printing and modern material science. And SpaceX has the benefit of a *much* more responsive digital control system than the S-530, one with dozens of smaller-scale launches informing it's design.
(Score: 1, Troll) by looorg on Thursday July 20 2017, @08:12PM (18 children)
Is it going to be a manned test flight? Who the f*ck would want to sign up for that after the boss comes out and say that believes the craft will fail (perhaps spectacularly so in a giant BOOOM!)?
At least perhaps somewhat sobering to see Elon admitting that some things are or turned out harder then predicted. After all if it was easy to get stuff into space more companies and countries would probably do it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday July 20 2017, @08:15PM (9 children)
The test flight was always planned to be unmanned.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday July 20 2017, @08:59PM (8 children)
I am pretty convinced that slapping a Dragon on top, putting out a call for free volunteers, while making it very clear that not only is reaching orbit uncertain, but the crew escape system probably will not save them, would results into a lot more applicants than there are seats.
By a few orders of magnitude.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 20 2017, @09:18PM (6 children)
Its been studied before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf-UOVOYRxE [youtube.com] ---Run the speed down to .25 setting after viewing it once.
You will see the capsule clears the highest tower at the pad (by a wide margin) evee while starting from ground level, in less time than the fireball envelops the rocket, and just barely reaches the top of the tower.
You know that was a design requirement, right?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday July 20 2017, @09:37PM (3 children)
That requires it to properly fire and perform during whatever lateral acceleration big BOOM the FH may throw at it.
Imagine a dislocation at max-Q with some spinning and a sheared side booster exploding next to the Dragon instead of below.
It's designed to work during a worst case, so it should. But that doesn't mean it's going to. Never been tested.
If it ain't 100%, you tell the volunteers that their quest for eternity may be a nice marble/granite monument to them, and a check to their kids.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @04:19AM (2 children)
Safety measures never are 100%.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 21 2017, @04:50PM (1 child)
But if you take a boat or a plane (>99% safe), they only tell you which steps to take to try to behave properly in an "unlikely unfortunate unplanned emergency" and omit the fact that in many cases they won't be enough.
I'm pretty sure the people flying a prototype rocket would have to go over a thick stack of legalese detailing the various casket sizes for each type of dysfunction of untested last-chance hardware (is KYAG an official acronym?).
The original point was "Yes, you'll be famous, but you're highly likely to die, despite our best efforts to avoid bad publicity. Anyone wants to leave? Okay, we're gonna need more resources to process all those resumes".
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday July 22 2017, @01:19PM
It's always seemed to me that those "crash routines" were designed primarily to minimize expressions of passenger panic likely to make things worse. I mean in what crash scenario is "put your head between your knees" so that any sudden deceleration is absorbed neck-first a good idea? It does however keep everyone in their seat so that the vehicle's center of mass remains constant. It also keeps them from seeing the flames billowing from the engine, which won't help anyone's frame of mind, and in a position where you can't breathe deeply so your screams will be short and muffled.
As for "...but you're highly likely to die, despite our best efforts to avoid bad publicity..." I think that's exactly why you refuse to carry passengers on such a test flight. Period. An "energetically disassembled" rocket makes for a good firework show, with minimal PR fallout - especially if you make sur the hype is that you epect to fail going in. Just prep a few good lines about "lessons learned for the next attempt" and the "revolution eventual success will enable", and you're good to move on. Put some people on board though, even fully disclaimered, and it becomes a "human interest story" of the sort that can turn popular opinion against you terribly. Passengers couldn't pay a high enough ticket price to be worth risking that kind of backlash.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 20 2017, @09:40PM (1 child)
Yeah, but his point was, even if you removed the ability to say "well, the escape system will save me", there are people who would take that risk of death in exchange for the certain glory (such as it is) of being the first Dragon pilot.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday July 22 2017, @01:23PM
Except they wouldn't be the pilot, they'd just be a passenger on a suicide trip aboard an autonomous launch vehicle. I suspect the "glory" would be limited to a Wikipedia footnote about how the pointless passenger deaths inspired well-justified regulatory interference that drastically slowed further development.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @02:56AM
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday July 20 2017, @08:26PM (5 children)
Why on Earth would it be a manned test flight? They don't even man their comparatively safe-as-houses Falcon 9 launches.
They have impressive and well-tested automated systems making corrections far faster than a human pilot could hope to - pretty much the only reason they can coordinate even the Falcon's nine engines, much less perform "hover-slam" landings using a single engine that can't be throttled down enough for something more graceful, and by all accounts the Heavy is going to require even faster and more delicate fine-tuning. The only reason to put a human in one of their rockets is as a passenger being delivered to orbit.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 20 2017, @09:04PM (4 children)
With 27 engines and a first stage weight and size 3 times larger, the landing probably gets easier. Because you don't have to throttle your engine down into their crappy operational range so much. Much below 59% these engines run rough and produce inconsistent thrust.
He can maybe use two engines at 75% thrust, or three engines at lower than 59% and betting they will balance each other's variations.
Musk is not talking about the landing anyway. He's talking about the launch and reaching orbit. He's not positive the machine will hold together long enough.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday July 20 2017, @09:40PM (3 children)
The falcon heavy is supposed to land as three separate falcon 9 first stages. Typically two near the launchpad, one at sea, I believe.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:23PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @12:51PM (1 child)
I think I read somewhere that they gave up on (or maybe postponed) propellant crossfeed, and the first FHs were just going to use differential throttling to conserve fuel in the center core.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @03:29PM
It sounds like the additional plumbing was causing more trouble than it was worth.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 20 2017, @08:34PM
Why would you think the initial flight of a new rocket would be manned. And then use that, might I say ridiculous, presumption to attack space-x.
Were you dropped on your head as a child, or is it irrational hate for Elon?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @09:29AM
I would be inclined to sign you up
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Friday July 21 2017, @10:33AM (1 child)
I.e. "Nobody knew that rockets could be so complicated."
Sound familiar? Ah, the age we live in.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday July 21 2017, @12:10PM
Al they need is 54 tons of struts to make all the nasty vibrations go away.