Spacex's Falcon Heavy - Launch successful! -

[Ken g6]

Well, I called it right in the poll, anyway. No explosion and 2 boosters recovered.

 

[TennesseeTony]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16980954/spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket-middle-core-failed-landing

 

[tynopik]

Printed on the circuit board of a car in deep space

 

[tynopik]

Elon said they never planned to reuse any of the boosters as they were block 3/4 and all future FH launches will use block 5, but he was glad to get the side boosters back because their titanium grid fins are expensive and a production bottleneck being so hard to make. The center core used the old aluminum grid fins.

The side boosters needed the titanium grid fins because their nose cone messed with the aerodynamics and gave them less control authority, making the grid fins work harder.

of course all this effort is something of a dead end. Falcon Heavy has very few uses on its own and it isn't going to be human-rated. The future of SpaceX is BFR. Elon hopes to have BFR doing some small test flights by the end of 2019. Granted that's 'Elon time', so more like 2025, but regardless, that's where SpaceX is headed, Falcon Heavy is just a cool waste of resources.

 

[DietDrThunder]

What does BFR stand for? Big Freakin' Rocket?

 

[tynopik]

What does BFR stand for? Big Freakin' Rocket?

technically Big Falcon Rocket, but there's a big wink-and-nod at the other definition

What's in a Name? SpaceX's 'BFR' Mars Rocket Acronym Explained


------


https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16981730/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-youtube-live-stream-record

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy launch was YouTube’s second biggest live stream ever

the live stream of the event was the second biggest in YouTube’s history. The event reached over 2.3 million concurrent views on YouTube, coming in second to the Red Bull Stratos jump, which racked in a ridiculous 8 million concurrent views back in 2012.

 

[Paratus]

What does BFR stand for? Big Freakin' Rocket?

Officially? Big Falcon Rocket.

What it really stands for? you know.

 

[PottedMeat]

want a FAA license to launch a similar rocket? show you have gobs and gobs of insurance

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or... Demo License and Orders FINAL 2018_02_02.pdf

 

[ultimatebob]

Gotta hand it to Elon... he made going to space "cool" again. NASA hasn't been able to pull that off for years now.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Stupid question. I know space is cold, BUT, with the Tesla in direct sunlight with no protection from the atmosphere, why hasn't the paint peeled off and the tires melted? I remember on the Apollo missions, the crew capsule was in constant rotation so that no surface would over heat.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Stupid question. I know space is cold, BUT, with the Tesla in direct sunlight with no protection from the atmosphere, why hasn't the paint peeled off and the tires melted? I remember on the Apollo missions, the crew capsule was in constant rotation so that no surface would over heat.

Shows how good Teslas are! Jokes I have no idea, that's a good question.

 

[brainhulk]

Stupid question. I know space is cold, BUT, with the Tesla in direct sunlight with no protection from the atmosphere, why hasn't the paint peeled off and the tires melted? I remember on the Apollo missions, the crew capsule was in constant rotation so that no surface would over heat.

Maybe the car is going ludicrous speed

 

[bigi]

Elon said that side boosters were crucial to recover due to them having titanium fins which can and will be reused.

Apparently, those fins are very expensive. Center one was just meh.

 

[PottedMeat]

Stupid question. I know space is cold, BUT, with the Tesla in direct sunlight with no protection from the atmosphere, why hasn't the paint peeled off and the tires melted? I remember on the Apollo missions, the crew capsule was in constant rotation so that no surface would over heat.

i think they did put a 'apollo bbq spin' on the 2nd stage, would explain the starman video spin

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronau...fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT16_07F09_Lec32.pdf

it may be months/years before the paint peels due to UV and i think the tires will just disintegrate into powder instead of melt

 

[NoTine42]

I was wondering about the tires in the vacuum of space. Did they foam fill them?

I guess other objects don’t have the same problems as humans in a vacuum .

This suggests that radiation will tear any carbon-based material in the car apart:
https://www.livescience.com/61680-will-spacex-roadster-survive-in-space.html

 

[Thebobo]

YEa I was thinking it would of been cool if they slapped on some solar cells and kept the batteries going to allow live video and maybe some data but that would require a guidance system and thruster and a whole lot of other ground support. Just wishful thinking.

Another cool pic of the launch.

 

[spacejamz]

so the car is just tumbling around up there?

the livestream videos do look pretty cool...

 

[Thebobo]

so the car is just tumbling around up there?

the livestream videos do look pretty cool...

It's on a path for a large elliptical orbit passing close to mars then continue onto the elliptical orbit of the sun for eons.

And there is no more "live" video since the batteries are dead.

 

[Thebobo]

Correction, there was a small problem with the burn.

https://www.inverse.com/article/41032-elon-musk-tesla-roadster-miss-mars-deep-space

Tuesday’s test mission of the Falcon Heavy proved that the SpaceX rocket is in fact the world’s most powerful operational booster. But it might have even been a little too powerful for its precious payload.

The launch was supposed to send Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster into orbit around the sun, where it would fly by Mars and Earth over and over again. But late on Tuesday night, Musk tweeted an image depicting the current trajectory of his vehicle, and it’s not going according to plan.

“Third burn successful,” wrote Musk. “Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt.”

Trajectory of Musk's Roadster.

 

[spacejamz]

It's on a path for a large elliptical orbit passing close to mars then continue onto the elliptical orbit of the sun for eons.

And there is no more "live" video since the batteries are dead.

you would have thought there might have been some solar panels or something???

 

[Thebobo]

you would have thought there might have been some solar panels or something???

Yea I mentioned that in an earlier post. You would need a control system and thrusters to keep the space craft oriented to the sun. I was hoping someone would of asked him about that last night at the press conference.

One thing I did learn from the press conference is that it was his investment alone in the falcon heavy, costing him around $500 million to develop.

 

[DietDrThunder]

Yea I mentioned that in an earlier post. You would need a control system and thrusters to keep the space craft oriented to the sun. I was hoping someone would of asked him about that last night at the press conference.

One thing I did learn from the press conference is that it was his investment alone in the falcon heavy, costing him around $500 million to develop.

That is cheap in comparison to the Saturn V development costs of $7 billion in 1970's dollars.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

you would have thought there might have been some solar panels or something???

Yea I mentioned that in an earlier post. You would need a control system and thrusters to keep the space craft oriented to the sun. I was hoping someone would of asked him about that last night at the press conference.

One thing I did learn from the press conference is that it was his investment alone in the falcon heavy, costing him around $500 million to develop.

Ironically, if configured correctly, maintaining power on the vehicle could have potentially allowed them to use the vehicle's wheels as reaction wheels to maintain orientation. I wonder how well that could have worked.

 

[zinfamous]

That is cheap in comparison to the Saturn V development costs of $7 billion in 1970's dollars.

indeed. but it's also cheaper to design from what is known over decades of R&D, rather than di novo, like with Saturn V.

 

[DietDrThunder]

indeed. but it's also cheaper to design from what is known over decades of R&D, rather than di novo, like with Saturn V.

OK, a more fair comparison. During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10 billion for the SLS rocket, $6 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2 billion for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.

Do we really know what the true costs of the SLS program are?