Connect with us

SpaceX

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy to ignite all 27 Merlin engines in early morning test

Falcon Heavy ignites all 27 Merlin 1D engines for the first time prior to its inaugural launch, January 2018. (SpaceX)

Published

on

SpaceX is set to take another stab at the first integrated static fire test of Falcon Heavy Block 5 rocket, a milestone that will open the doors for its commercial launch debut just a handful of days later.

The window for the second Falcon Heavy’s static fire test will open at 10am EDT on Friday, April 5th and lasts until 7pm EDT (14:00-23:00 UTC), after which SpaceX engineers will likely spend a minimum of 24-48 hours analyzing the data produced and verifying the rocket’s health. Soon after, the rocket will be brought horizontal and rolled back into Pad 39A’s main hangar, where the payload fairing – containing the Arabsat 6A communications satellite – will be installed atop Falcon Heavy’s second stage before the rocket rolls back out to the pad for launch.

If all goes well during these relatively routine procedures, SpaceX can be expected to announce a date for Falcon Heavy’s second-ever launch, likely no sooner than 4-5 days after the static fire is completed. In other words, a flawless performance tomorrow could permit a launch date as early as April 9-10. Launching fewer than four days after completing static fire testing is rare even for Falcon 9, which has the luxury of far less complexity (and data produced) relative to Falcon Heavy, which has only flown once and is will attempt its second launch in a significantly different configuration.

Three months after Falcon Heavy’s February 2018 debut, SpaceX debuted Falcon 9 in its upgraded Block 5 configuration, featuring widespread changes to avionics, software, structures, thermal protection, and even uprated thrust for its Merlin engines. Falcon Heavy Flight 1 was comprised of Block 2 and Block 3 variants of the Falcon 9’s umbrella V1.2 Full Thrust configuration, which debuted in December 2015. Both side boosters – Block 2s – were flight-proven and had previously launched in 2016, while the rocket’s heavily modified center core was effectively a new version of Falcon 9 based on Block 3 hardware.

Falcon 9 B1046 returned to Port of Los Angeles on December 5 after the rocket's historic third launch and landing. (Pauline Acalin)
(Top) Falcon 9 B1046 – the first Block 5 booster completed – launched for the first time in May 2018. (Bottom) Almost exactly seven months later, Falcon 8 B1046 flew for the third time in a historic first for SpaceX rockets. (SpaceX/Pauline Acalin)

One of the biggest goals of Block 5 / Version 6 is ease of reusability. In principle we could re-fly Block 4 probably upwards of ten times, but with a fair amount of work between each flight. The key to Block 5 is that it’s designed to do ten or more flights with no refurbishment between each flight. Or at least no scheduled refurbishment between each flights. The only thing that needs to change is you reload propellant and fly again.

And we have
upgrades to all the avionics as well. So we have an upgraded flight computer, engine controllers, a … more advanced inertial measurement system. [Block 5 avionics are] lighter, more advanced, and also more fault-tolerant. So it can withstand a much greater array of faults than the old avionics system. [They’re] better in every way.

Block 5 has improved payload to orbit. Improved redundancy. Improved reliability. It’s really better in every way than Block 4. I’m really proud of the SpaceX team for the design.


– SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, May 2018

A different different rocket

Given just how extensive the changes made with Block 5 are, Falcon Heavy Flight 2 is drastically different than its sole predecessor, emphasized by the 13+ months SpaceX has taken to go from Flight 1 to Flight 2. Had SpaceX been able to successfully recover Falcon Heavy’s first center core (B1033) after launch, its quite likely that the company would have attempted to refly the rocket’s three landed boosters a bit sooner than April 2019, but the booster’s failed landing threw a bit of a wrench in the production plan.

After intentionally expending almost a dozen recoverable Block 3 and 4 Falcon 9 boosters in 2017 and 2018, SpaceX’s fleet of flightworthy cores had been reduced to a tiny handful. Interrupting Falcon 9 Block 5’s production ramp would have likely become a bottleneck for 2018’s launch cadence, and may well have contributed to SpaceX falling short from its planned 30 and then 24 launches last year with a still-impressive 21. Building an entirely new Falcon Heavy center core was simply not a priority as SpaceX required all production hands on deck to build enough Block 5 boosters to avoid major launch delays.

An overview of SpaceX’s Hawthorne factory floor in early 2018. (SpaceX)

As a result, SpaceX delayed the production of the first Falcon Heavy Block 5 center core by ~6 months and ~8 boosters, shipping the rocket – presumed to be B1055 – to McGregor, Texas for static fire acceptance testing in Q4 2018. The center core arrived in Florida in mid-February 2019, following both side cores and a payload fairing.

Ultimately, SpaceX is likely to conduct Falcon Heavy’s first commercial launch with about as much caution as could be observed during the unique launches of SSO-A (the first triple-reflight of a Falcon 9), Crew Dragon DM-1 (stringent NASA oversight), and GPS III SV01 (stringent USAF oversight), as well as Falcon Heavy’s original launch debut. All four missions took anywhere from one to three weeks to go from a successful static fire to launch. Falcon Heavy Flight 2 will likely be similar, although a much faster turnaround is undeniably within the realm of possibility. For Falcon 9 Block 5, SpaceX’s current record stands at three days, achieved twice in ten Block 5 launches.

Stay tuned for an official SpaceX confirmation of Falcon Heavy’s second integrated static fire, as well as new launch date.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Advertisement
-

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla gives the Roadster an official “Go for launch” demonstration date

Tesla teased an October 1 Roadster reveal, reviving years of delayed SpaceX thruster hover promises.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of a Tesla Roadster with SpaceX Package via Grok
Concept rendering of a Tesla Roadster with SpaceX Package via Grok

Tesla teased an October 1 event date for its next generation Roadster, posting an image on X Saturday that shows the car lit up like it is sitting on a launch pad, with the date “10.01” stamped across the bottom and the caption “Go for launch.” A countdown clock on Tesla’s Roadster order page now points to the same date, which falls on a Thursday. The company has not said where the event will happen or whether it will be streamed at the moment. Stay with us @Teslarati for live updates.


Tesla has since sent formal invitations to reservation holders confirming the event will take place in Waco, Texas, about 90 minutes north of its Austin headquarters, based on a digital ticket shared on X by Sawyer Merritt. Tesla did not name the exact venue, though Waco sits close to SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas, rocket test site, previously reported as the planned location for a Roadster thruster demonstration. The invite sets the reveal for 8:30 p.m. Eastern on October 1, requires RSVPs by midnight on September 16, and limits entry to guests 21 and older. Invitations are non-transferable.

The tease follows nine years of a project defined by unimaginable specs along with slipped dates. Musk first showed the second generation Roadster in November 2017 as a surprise reveal at the end of the Tesla Semi event, promising a 0 to 60 mph time under two seconds, a top speed above 250 mph, 620 miles of range from a 200 kWh battery, and production starting in 2020. At last November’s shareholder meeting, Musk set an April 1 demo date and joked the choice gave him “deniability” if it slipped again, which it did, moving first to late April, then to “a month or so,” then to August.

Tesla Roadster SpaceX Package’s 1.1-second 0-60 mph launch visualized in concept video

Whatever Tesla shows on October 1 is expected to center on the SpaceX developed thruster package Musk has described since 2018. Internally code named A71, a nod to the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, the system reportedly uses cold gas thrusters fed by a composite overwrapped pressure vessel, the same tank design SpaceX uses on Falcon 9. Musk has said a thruster equipped Roadster could hit 60 mph in about 1.1 seconds under roughly 2.75 g of launch force, well past the 1.9 second figure quoted for the standard car. That version reportedly will not be street legal and has reportedly been discussed as a limited run sold through a track only program.

The standard Roadster is still expected to carry the original $200,000 base price and $250,000 Founders Series tier, both set when Tesla opened $50,000 and $250,000 reservations in 2017. Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy has confirmed production will happen at Gigafactory Texas, with Musk targeting 2027 or 2028, 12 to 18 months after whatever the company demonstrates next month.

Continue Reading

News

SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit

SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.

Published

on

By

SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.

Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.

The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.

SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’

Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.

Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.

The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.

On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”

Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”

In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.

The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.

Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.

That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.

Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”

SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success

That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.

Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.

One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.

Continue Reading