I am so much excited about this upcoming launch. If they get the F9Heavy to work like the F9, this opens up entirely new possibilities in space. With the F9Heavy, not only very heavy loads can be put into orbit, but both the Moon and the Mars can be reached at a much lower cost than any previous system.<p>Beyond being just a cool new rocket, what faszinates me most about the F9Heavy, is the clever system approach by SpaceX. They are not only reusing the F9 design, but two of the three first stage cores alreay had launched cargo into the orbit. This is just mindblowing.
Regards to comments mentioning that this is three F9s strapped together: While this is somewhat true, the development of this program was apparently lot more difficult than just tying them together. I remember Musk mentioning that they had underestimated the problem, the two additional boosters changed the dynamics significantly, and the core booster had to be redesigned to accommodate the new load parameters.<p>Needless to say, I'm extremely excited to even see a static fire of this monster. Re-using boosters for your early development is pretty nice and efficient too I imagine.
Worth mentioning: this isn't even the biggest rocket that's ever flown! The Saturn V that took man to the moon was a <i>monster</i>.<p><a href="https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png" rel="nofollow">https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png</a><p>Of the rockets in that photo however, everything other than the Falcon 9 either isn't in production yet, or isn't anymore.
I got curious how it compares to Saturn V.<p>Low Earth Orbit Payload: Falcon Heavy: 140,000lb, Saturn V: 260,000lb<p>Launch cost: Falcon Heavy: ~$140M, Saturn V: $185M ($1B+ in 2016 dollars)<p>It blows my mind how crazy Saturn V was and it was 50 years ago.
I recently took a tour of SpaceX due to a friend and learned that their rockets, unlike most others, are constructed horizontally. This makes logistics for getting them upright an engineering feat, but it also makes construction and maintenance easier for crew - you can rotate the rocket and access almost any part of the rocket from ground level.<p>I'm curious to know more about the engineering constraints/trade-offs this puts the rockets under, so if anyone knows more I'd love to hear it!
Yes! Fingers crossed, and can't wait for the actual launch!<p>Photos from Elon Musk, mentioned in the Techcrunch article:<p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc62hfJgf8K/" rel="nofollow">https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc62hfJgf8K/</a><p>Looking at the last one... that's an amount of engine nozzles I've never seen together before, beyond works of sci-fi and (obviously) Kerbal Space Program.
The thought of lighting up 27 rocket engines in unison is absolutely crazy. Then again, SpaceX thrives on crazy ideas like reusing rockets, which are now the norm.<p>Good luck to them. Will be interesting to watch this beast launch!
I am super excited about this. It would have the capability to throw some pretty useful chunks of hardware into orbit and beyond.<p>And of course Blue Origin has a lot riding on this as well :-) If SpaceX can get the heavy operational before BO gets the New Glenn operational, its going to be that much harder for Bezos to find any customers left for his rocket.
They have 27 engines, but the Soviet N1 still holds the record at 30[1]. For comparison the Saturn V first stage had 5.<p>1. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)</a>
Sticking a car in the payload is funny.<p>But this thing is going further from the earth than all but a few dozen man-made things in history. I have to wonder if some scientist has been waiting their entire life for an opportunity like this, and we're blowing it on a Tesla Roadster?
According to this[0] there is still a Falcon 9 Zuma launch scheduled for 2017. Anyone know if that is still happening? I ask because it happens that I'll be in the Canaveral area right after Christmas and would love to see the launch in person!<p>[0] <a href="https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/events-calendar?pageindex=1&categories=Rocket%20Launches" rel="nofollow">https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/event...</a>
If I was Elon Musk, and launching something like this, the reason my Roadster would be the payload is because I would be attempting to land it on the Moon or Mars. It's electric, so it should be able to drive around :)<p>I wonder if that is possible. The weight of the car is much less than the 140,000 pound payload it could carry, so it could be sent much further if they wanted to.
Can anyone say what they will do during the first real launch? Where would they be trying to go to? How does a test like that work? I love space, I just have no idea how they actually would do a test of that magnitude.
Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)?<p>A recent video of Elon mentioned that it was really hard to strap them together, but if they've overcome that, why build BFR?
Is the Falcon one of their recycled rockets. SpaceX launched the Bulgarian satellite using a recycled rocket and is using recycled rocket more and more but I can't find any information on Falcon as to whether it's a recycled rocket or not.
<a href="https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycled-rocket/" rel="nofollow">https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycle...</a>
I find it interesting that not only is this rocket literally three Falcon 9s strapped together (including two that are reused) but they've not even taken the legs off. They don't look like they're going to unfold very well, though.
Can anyone comment on the rationale behind having 27 engines? IIRC this was a fundamental reason why the Soviet N1 was so consistently unreliable. It seems like probability is kind of a pain in the ass here, no?