Connect with us

SpaceX

SpaceX’s first Block 5 Falcon Heavy days away from critical static fire test

(SpaceX)

Published

on

The first commercial launch of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket – this time in a Block 5 configuration – is as few as ten days away from a targeted window beginning at 6:36 pm EST (22:36 UTC), April 7th. That target hinges on whether Falcon Heavy is ready and able to roll out to Pad 39A and successfully conduct its first integrated static fire, currently scheduled on April 1st.

The payload for this mission – communications satellite Arabsat 6A – had its original Lockheed Martin manufacturing and SpaceX launch contracts signed back in the first half of 2015, while the 6000 kg (13,200 lb) spacecraft was effectively completed once it was shipped from California to Florida at the start of 2019. After approximately 12 months of delays from an original launch target shortly after Falcon Heavy’s 2018 debut, Arabsat 6A’s four-year journey will hopefully reach completion in a geostationary transfer orbit. At the same time, the US Air Force says that it will be watching this launch – and the one meant to follow soon after – as a critical test along the path to fully certifying the powerful rocket for military launches.

As a pathfinder for an unproven rocket, SpaceX’s first Falcon Heavy launch suffered a number of likely minor to moderate anomalies as company engineers and technicians learned for the first time how the rocket actually behaves in the real world, under real-world conditions and operations. Case in point, the first integrated Falcon Heavy was taken through its first wet-dress rehearsal – in which the vehicle is filled with a flight load of fuel and oxidizer – on January 11th. An anomaly required additional work and took nearly two weeks to resolve, culminating in the rocket’s first (and successful) static fire on January 24th. An additional two weeks after that, SpaceX went ahead with the first attempted launch of Falcon Heavy with great success, pushing the T-0 back several hours due to weather but ultimately completed an almost flawless debut, aside from an anomaly that caused the center core to impact the ocean surface at high speeds.

Despite the invaluable experience gained by those orchestrating the launch and those who built the vehicle, Falcon Heavy’s second launch may result in similar teething pains, particularly due to the fact that the rocket’s complete upgrade to Block 5 hardware likely necessitated significant design changes across the board. In other words, the rocket SpaceX aims to launch in early April may be quite a bit different from the vehicle that launched 14 months prior, creating much of the same uncertainty inherent in the first launch(es) of any new rocket. Still, many of the complex boosters’ connection and separation mechanisms that were flight-tested for the first time that February were likely more or less unchanged in the move from Block 2/3 to Block 5 hardware.

Falcon Heavy prior to its first static fire test, January 2018. (SpaceX)

“Again, I don’t want to tempt fate. But this is a much stronger octaweb structure. It’s made of a much higher strength of bolted aluminum. A 7000 series instead of a 2000 series. So the strength of the octaweb is dramatically greater. It also has quite a bit of thermal protection in case there’s say, an engine fire, or something like that. Such that it does not melt the octaweb.” – SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, May 2018

“Biggest process change [for Block 5] was eliminating Tig welding of the thrust structure or “Octaweb” and the move to a bolted design but this made it much easier and faster to produce overall as well.” – SpaceX VP of Production Andy Lambert, April 2018

A step further, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has indicated that one major section of Block 5 upgrades – moving from a welded to a bolted thrust structure (i.e. octaweb) – was expected to be a boon for Falcon Heavy, while also making octawebs far easier to manufacture, assemble, and even disassemble. According to Musk, new bolted octawebs are also “dramatically” stronger, a boon for Falcon Heavy boosters – particularly the center core – that need to survive forces multiple times stronger than those subjected upon Falcon 9 first stages.

Falcon 9’s engine section is an extremely strong structure known as an octaweb. (SpaceX)

Meanwhile, according to comments made by Air Force officials to Spaceflight Now, the USAF is looking at SpaceX’s Arabsat 6A and subsequent STP-2 Falcon Heavy launches as critical steps along the way to fully certifying the rocket for valuable military payloads. Currently, the only option available for military and NRO payloads past a certain weight or in need of exceptionally high-energy orbits is ULA’s Delta IV Heavy rocket, an extremely expensive ($300M+ per launch) rocket with a bad track record of schedule reliability.

An Air Force spokesperson this week confirmed the agreement to use previously-flown side boosters for the STP-2 mission. The center core will be new for the Arabsat 6A and STP-2 launches.

“This provides an early opportunity for the Air Force to understand the process for using previously-flown hardware with the goal to open future EELV missions to reusable launch vehicles,” the spokesperson said in response to an inquiry from Spaceflight Now.

Given that STP-2 will need to reuse both of the Arabsat 6A Falcon Heavy’s side boosters, the USAF official also specifically noted that the military branch would be examining SpaceX’s refurbishment processes and the performance of the flight-proven stages with the intention of ultimately allowing reused rockets to launch military satellites. As such, the successful launch, landing, refurbishment, and re-launch of both Falcon Heavy side boosters (B1052 & B1053) will be doubly critical for SpaceX.

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