Military Review

The company SpaceX moved tests engines rocket Falcon Heavy

41
Tests of engines of the American heavy rocket carrier Falcon Heavy of the SpaceX company on Cape Canaveral will take place not earlier than Thursday, transfers TASS Post specialized network edition of Spaceflight Now.




The first fire tests of the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle at the Florida 39A site are postponed at least until Thursday. The test window will open in 13: 00 according to the time of the US East Coast (21: 00 Moscow time),
the report said.

There are no reasons for the transfer of information. The initial test was scheduled for Wednesday.

According to media reports, “first, a test refueling of the launch vehicle will be carried out, and then, after checking all the systems, a static test will take place: the engines will be started, but the rocket will not detach from the launch pad”. Testing will last about 15 seconds.

Earlier it was reported that Falcon Heavy is created on the basis of the Falcon 9 heavy-class rocket. It is assumed that it will be able to deliver more than 54 tons of cargo to orbit. "With more than 5 million pounds (2,2 million kilograms) at launch - which is equivalent to about 18 Boeing 747 aircraft taking off - Falcon Heavy will be the most powerful of the in-service missiles in the world," SpaceX said.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Loess
    Loess 11 January 2018 10: 54
    0
    Transferred again?
    It is estimated that it will be able to deliver more than 54 tons of cargo into orbit.
    So pulls to fix it is assumed that she will be able to fly.
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 11 January 2018 10: 57
      +2
      Already not the first year transferred. I remember she was supposed to fly in 13.
      1. maxim947
        maxim947 11 January 2018 11: 02
        +5
        Not sickly, not very sickly ... Their ambitious plans and ready-made projects are even good for us, this should give us an impetus (here with hope in our voices), we cannot do without it, we must be slowed down)))
        1. Alex Nevs
          Alex Nevs 11 January 2018 12: 38
          +3
          it’s bad when under the word "brake" is a "kick" in the ass. "Kick" in the mildest sense of the word, and "ass" means "in"
          1. maxim947
            maxim947 11 January 2018 14: 11
            0
            it turns out to be a kick

            ))) to be honest, at first I wrote just that, then fixed it))
      2. Proxima
        Proxima 11 January 2018 11: 15
        +3
        Quote: Muvka
        Already not the first year transferred. I remember she was supposed to fly in 13.
        Maybe someday it will fly, but so, for the next pampering of the Mask. Normally operate a rocket starting from the 27th belay engines - unreal !!!
    2. BVS
      BVS 11 January 2018 10: 58
      +2
      And what is the second or third transfer? It seems to me that the first. Or how to explain yours - "again"?
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 11 January 2018 11: 07
        +5
        There were many of them already. Today’s news is not even drawn. Just a day after four years of transfers. wassat
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 11 January 2018 11: 02
      +2
      Quote: Less
      Transferred again?

      It happens. Here we have, for the second time in a month, due to technical personnel errors at the test bench, they are testing missile defense systems. It is good that control services detect errors on time.
      1. Barmal
        Barmal 11 January 2018 11: 23
        +1
        Here you have tests at the stand. Mask has engine tests on the launch pad. Type static tests. Because it’s not pragmatic to build a stand for testing such engines. That is unprofitable. In the USSR, such a stand was built.
        1. Alex Nevs
          Alex Nevs 11 January 2018 12: 40
          +1
          the stand is very expensive
          1. Winnie76
            Winnie76 11 January 2018 13: 02
            +2
            Quote: Alex Nevs
            Mask has engine tests on the launch pad. Type static tests. Because it’s not pragmatic to build a stand for testing such engines. That is unprofitable.

            I remember the mace also abandoned bench tests. So the wind in Ilon’s back ... Let’s save
          2. Barmal
            Barmal 14 February 2018 13: 03
            0
            the stand is very expensive
            expensive.
  2. Dormidont
    Dormidont 11 January 2018 10: 57
    +1
    Let's hope it doesn't take off
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 11 January 2018 10: 59
      +4
      Quote: Dormidont

      engines will be started, but the rocket will not come off the launch pad. ” Testing will last about 15 seconds. Read.
    2. zhekazs
      zhekazs 11 January 2018 11: 35
      0
      Yes, let it fly. Noble Clapper Coming laughing
  3. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 11 January 2018 11: 01
    +5
    Falcon Heavy will be the most powerful missile in the world
    That's when it will be, then it will be possible to talk on this topic.
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 11 January 2018 11: 18
      +3
      Gene, hello! hi Americans love to run ahead of the engine. They have, as always: everything is "the very best", starting with the arrow and ending with the sucker (pah!) Railguns. wink
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 11 January 2018 11: 19
        +4
        The most powerful exploited LV in the world, also American now. Delta Heavy.
        1. Vard
          Vard 11 January 2018 11: 23
          0
          A flag in their hands ... a drum around their neck ... They don’t have normal engines ... and they won’t ... As it was said with a good engine, the fence will fly ... and vice versa ...
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 11 January 2018 11: 28
            +4
            Delta Heavy flies on American engines
          2. BVS
            BVS 11 January 2018 11: 30
            +8
            The most powerful (today) American launch vehicle has its own engines:
            1st stage - RS-68 engine manufactured by Rocketdyne;
            2nd stage - Pratt & Whitney RL-10B-2 engine.
            This is all to your comment - "They don’t have normal engines ... and they won’t ..."
            As you can see there.
            1. Winnie76
              Winnie76 11 January 2018 13: 07
              0
              Quote: bvs
              As you can see there is

              If you do, why buy from us? I would venture to suggest that they are probably golden
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 11 January 2018 13: 44
                +2
                But there is nothing complicated and secret here. It has long been revealed why and why
                MOSCOW, May 11 - RIA Novosti. OJSC NPO Energomash sold Russian RD-180 rocket engines for American Atlas-5 launch vehicles for half the cost of their production costs, according to the Russian Audit Chamber.

                "In this regard, only in 2008-2009, the loss from their sales amounted to about 880 million rubles, or almost 68% of all Energomash losses," the materials say.
      2. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 11 January 2018 11: 29
        +2
        Hello Pasha! hi The advertisement is engine of the trade. And in this they succeeded.
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 11 January 2018 11: 49
          +2
          Quote: rotmistr60
          The advertisement is engine of the trade. And in this they succeeded.

          I don’t remember where I heard: "A good product does not need advertising."
        2. Dalailama
          Dalailama 11 January 2018 11: 58
          0
          but then suddenly it turned out that 27 engines at the start is all the same bad.
  4. Professor
    Professor 11 January 2018 12: 01
    +3
    They moved it because they do not want to risk their hard-earned money. Reinsured bourgeois.

    PS
    By the way, to the “joy” of the party, Space Isk again reported that at the extreme launch of Falcon with the Zuma satellite, the rocket worked normally. fellow
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 11 January 2018 12: 35
      +1
      This is according to the SpaceX message.
      A neighbor says x ... in the garage, and there is firewood.
      You then of course believe them unconditionally, and do not believe Roskosmos.
      And here we are the other way around.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 11 January 2018 12: 39
        +4
        Zuma is listed as a satellite in orbit.
        The list is created and maintained not by SpaceX, but by an independent authority.
        What is unknown (due to its military secrecy) is the "living" satellite or not.
        Dead satellites dangle in orbit.
      2. Professor
        Professor 11 January 2018 13: 20
        +4
        Quote: Mestny
        This is according to the SpaceX message.

        Hmm ... SpaceX's reputation makes you doubt their honesty?
        SpaceX is one of the most transparent companies.
  5. Mentat
    Mentat 11 January 2018 13: 11
    +1
    Quote: BlackMokona
    The most powerful exploited LV in the world, also American now. Delta Heavy.

    Quote: bvs
    The most powerful (today) American launch vehicle has its own engines:
    1st stage - RS-68 engine manufactured by Rocketdyne;
    2nd stage - Pratt & Whitney RL-10B-2 engine.
    This is all to your comment - "They don’t have normal engines ... and they won’t ..."
    As you can see there.

    Which are used once a year and the launch price is astronomical.
    At the same time, the first, test, launch of the “heaviest” one took place in 2004, and Protons of the same class with a launch cost of up to 6 (!) Times less are in serial operation since the 60s. Sixties. Do you feel the difference?
    Therefore, why should they not buy inexpensive, reliable and massive engines in Russia?
    I will not press here a mysterious story with the loss of competence, documentation and the ability to build Saturn-5. Did Brown and his students take the magic secrets of creating superheavy rockets to the grave? : D
    1. BVS
      BVS 11 January 2018 13: 28
      +3
      Are you serious - "and Protons of the same class"?
      Delta Heavy at DOE 28 kg
      Proton at DOE 23 kg
  6. dedboroded72
    dedboroded72 11 January 2018 17: 19
    0
    According to open sources, the maximum payload at the IEO is 63,8 tons in the irrevocable version - the inaccuracy in the article ...
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 11 January 2018 17: 34
      0
      In the article, the old data is simple, FalconHavy not only was delayed and modernized during development
  7. Mentat
    Mentat 11 January 2018 21: 06
    0
    Quote: bvs
    Are you serious - "and Protons of the same class"?
    Delta Heavy at DOE 28 kg
    Proton at DOE 23 kg

    Both launch vehicles belong to the heavy class. So hold back your cry of a pinched um ... reassessment of technical superiority over the whole world.
    With regard to the degree of entrapment, a difference of 20% of the payload does not justify the difference in 500% (for today) launch costs, which simply means Delta Heavy’s technological imperfection. In the economic sense, the United States does not have a heavy missile. For all the "printability of the dollar," the US space program budget is far from rubber.
    1. iwind
      iwind 11 January 2018 22: 58
      0
      Quote: Mentat
      Both launch vehicles belong to the heavy class. So hold back your cry of pinched um ... re-evaluating technical superiority over the whole world

      delta heavy to super heavy.
      Quote: Mentat
      as for the degree of entrapment, the difference is 20% of the payload

      on Noo yes but on the GPO and GSO where the satellites take out thanks to the hydrogen stage
      at delta heavy gpo 14 220 kg GSO 6 750 kg
      proton on GPO 7.1 GSO GSO 3,7 t
      Quote: Mentat
      In the economic sense of the United States does not have a heavy missile

      Delta IV Medium M + (5,4) GPO 7,300 kg
      Falocn-9 GPO 8300 kg
  8. Mentat
    Mentat 12 January 2018 02: 39
    0
    Quote: iwind
    Quote: Mentat
    Both launch vehicles belong to the heavy class. So hold back your cry of pinched um ... re-evaluating technical superiority over the whole world

    delta heavy to super heavy.
    Quote: Mentat
    as for the degree of entrapment, the difference is 20% of the payload

    on Noo yes but on the GPO and GSO where the satellites take out thanks to the hydrogen stage
    at delta heavy gpo 14 220 kg GSO 6 750 kg
    proton on GPO 7.1 GSO GSO 3,7 t
    Quote: Mentat
    In the economic sense of the United States does not have a heavy missile

    Delta IV Medium M + (5,4) GPO 7,300 kg
    Falocn-9 GPO 8300 kg

    You yourself are not burdened by the noodles that you are trying to hang on your ears here? Do not bother?
    delta heavy to super heavy

    Where does this fantasy come from?
    Do you know why DH provides such a GHG to GPO? In fact, three missiles will start instead of one “in a pack”. Which provides her a monstrous cost. Thank you, you can run 5 (FIVE!) Proton-M instead of one Delta Heavy with a payload of greater mass. Therefore, nobody needs it, except the Pentagon and Co., which cannot / does not want to be dependent on certain issues from foreign / private agencies and relies on the enchanting US military budget.

    Don’t stutter about all kinds of Falcons, because this is dumping with the goal of “containing” the space programs of the countries that possess them. In the company of Mask, billions of state funds are pouring in. subsidies, and here we are talking about hundreds of millions, i.e. much smaller amounts. In the United States itself, there is doubt that it is generally possible to talk about some kind of real business Mask.
    1. iwind
      iwind 12 January 2018 10: 38
      0
      Quote: Mentat
      Do you know why DH provides such a GHG to GPO? In fact, three missiles will start instead of one “in a pack”

      AND? The same thing can be said about Angora. The essence of this does not change GPO 14 220 kg GSO 6 750 kg
      Quote: Mentat
      Thank you, you can run 5 (FIVE!) Proton-M instead of one Delta Heavy with a larger payload

      laughing laughing and cut the satellite into pieces ...
      To do this, they have a Delta IV Medium M + (5,4) GPO 7,300 kg which can also remove the proton.
      And with DH they can display unique satellites that others simply cannot
      satellite Mentor in geostationary orbit, satellites have a huge antenna about 100 m in diameter and weigh more than 5 tons

      Quote: Mentat
      Don’t stutter about all kinds of Falcons, because this is dumping with the goal of “containing” the space programs of the countries that possess them. In the company of Mask, billions of state funds are pouring in. subsidies, and here we are talking about hundreds of millions, i.e. much smaller amounts. In the United States itself, there is doubt that it is generally possible to talk about some kind of real business Mask.

      yeah. And Chip Spaecx received subsidies. Just do not fantasy magazine. And I'm waiting for the documents.
      Aha laughing
      doubt Falcon 9 FT 18 launches in 2018
  9. Redfox3k
    Redfox3k 12 January 2018 09: 42
    0
    I have doubts about the "particular" business of Mask. The office is essentially public, but under the guise of a private shop. Well, private owners cannot develop and produce launch vehicles. Can not. Grandmas just do not have so much. And a loan, in the normal sense of the word, will not be given by any bank for such dubious projects. America is throwing dust in the eyes of the whole world, they say look, we have everything private ... you give total private property in the whole world! Hooray! Thus, misleading other "space" states ... There is one goal - to remove competitors.
  10. Mentat
    Mentat 13 January 2018 09: 55
    0
    Quote: iwind
    Quote: Mentat
    Do you know why DH provides such a GHG to GPO? In fact, three missiles will start instead of one “in a pack”

    AND? The same thing can be said about Angora. The essence of this does not change

    True, it does not change: an ultra-expensive rocket, which is needed, in fact, only for the only "largest satellite in the world." And these non-optimal technical solutions are paid by ordinary citizens. The hangar is still 3 times cheaper.
    And if we talk about achievements, then the Energy was developed and flew decades earlier and could carry more than twice as much payload.
    But on practice this is not necessary at the moment.

    Quote: Mentat
    Thank you, you can run 5 (FIVE!) Proton-M instead of one Delta Heavy with a larger payload

    laughing laughing and cut the satellite into pieces ...

    No one except the Americans needs to demonstrate gold toilets in space at a cost of $ 400 million per launch for a sense of self-importance.

    To do this, they have a Delta IV Medium M + (5,4) GPO 7,300 kg which can also remove the proton.

    It can’t, it’s missiles of a different class. Read the specifications carefully.

    And Chip Spaecx received subsidies. Just do not fantasy magazine. And I'm waiting for the documents.
    Aha laughing

    Already wrote on this topic, look in the forum. Yes, and no one canceled the independent search.