SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket sets up at Cape Canaveral ahead of launch

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/spacexs-falcon-heavy-rocket-sets-up-at-cape-canaveral-ahead-of-launch/

by mkarthik • 9 years ago

275 234 9 years ago

techcrunch.com

TeMPOraL3• 9 years ago

Yes! Fingers crossed, and can't wait for the actual launch!

Photos from Elon Musk, mentioned in the Techcrunch article:

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bc62hfJgf8K/

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.

nerdponx2• 9 years ago

Is there any way to see something posted on Instagram without an account?

Edit: still had the app installed. Nothing to see here....

robtaylor• 9 years ago

Yes, click the link.

rimunroe• 9 years ago

If you like that, you'll love the N1! http://i.imgur.com/6t2S5zu.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

iamcreasy4• 9 years ago

Their central booster is also using refurbished engines. That's is really awesome!

MR4D• 9 years ago

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.

Good luck to them. Will be interesting to watch this beast launch!

bryanlarsen• 9 years ago

IIRC, the engines do not light up simultaneously, ignition is staggered.

JshWright9• 9 years ago

It's not exactly "unison" (it is indeed very tightly coordinated though). The engines will be lit in pairs, with a couple dozen milliseconds between each set starting up.

igravious2• 9 years ago

How on earth are all your answers so informative and authoritative? Do you work in the industry? SpaceX employee? Enthusiast?

Honestly; thank you for taking the time to spread the knowledge.

delinka• 9 years ago

The shot of the engines looks like an awesome screencap from KSP. Can’t wait to see this thing head to space.

obblekk• 9 years ago

Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)?

A recent video of Elon mentioned that it was really hard to strap them together, but if they've overcome that, why build BFR?

nerdponx2• 9 years ago

What's BFR?

phpnode6• 9 years ago

the Big Falcon Rocket - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)

TeMPOraL3• 9 years ago

Big F..alcon Rocket.

neillyons• 9 years ago

Big Fucking Rocket

jacquesm7• 9 years ago

Fairing diameter of Falcon heavy is rather smaller than BFR and BFR should be cheaper.

phpnode6• 9 years ago

Not to mention that BFR can carry approx 3x the payload of Falcon Heavy to LEO

mabbo4• 9 years ago

I think the BFR is just the next logical step. One more size of rocket you can use to do more things. BFR is also simpler, being one big rocket with one landing to do rather than 3 synchronized rockets with 3 landings.

Plus faring size is much bigger on the BFR, which is needed for the Mars plans.

AlanSE2• 9 years ago

Can anyone explain why SpaceX is not going to invest in falcon heavy long run (switching to BFR instead)?

He argued exactly why in his 2nd presentation (with the revised and smaller BFR).

His belief is that a launch of the BFR will actually be cheaper than a launch of a Falcon Heavy, or even a Falcon 9. This isn't accounting for payload, he was saying the cost of of single launch would be lower for the BFR - it's a bombastic claim.

Having read about this subject, I can at least grok the economic argument. SpaceX is already in the rocket reuse business, and over the long run their costs will limit to the costs involved with refurbishment. Falcon Heavy will always have a higher operational cost because of the management of the 3 separate cores. Having only a single massive core offers obvious cost reduction.

There's also the business case for reducing the number of products they are supporting. Since the large rocket can launch small payloads, they can just use it for all their customers. Cost savings come in the form of simplification of the company's processes. Again, since they are now a rocket reuse business, this is possibly their primary cost driver.

While I understand that all in business terms, they're missing a critical component - sufficient proven demand to support enough volume to justify these investments and consolidation. Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars".

iamcreasy4• 9 years ago

While I understand that all in business terms, they're missing a critical component - sufficient proven demand to support enough volume to justify these investments

Probably BFR will lower the launch cost low enough that would create new customers.

phkahler2• 9 years ago

> His belief is that a launch of the BFR will actually be cheaper than a launch of a Falcon Heavy, or even a Falcon 9.

I didn't think he actually said it'd be cheaper. If it's not, there will be room for a competitor.

> There's also the business case for reducing the number of products they are supporting.

That was my take on what he said, and if there's a case for BFR then perhaps it makes sense.

> Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars".

Nice thing about a private company. Elon doesn't really have to answer to anyone. Well, actually he's got enough investors that maybe he does, but they all understand his goals are bigger than just making money. BFR will be the ferry to mars and that opens a door. Nobody know what lies behind that door and I think his investors want to know as much as anyone.

thinkcontext3• 9 years ago

Right now, there are not enough customers in the world to justify an investment to replace all Falcons with BFRs. They have an answer to that (however flawed), and that answer is simply "Mars".

I agree, they are taking on huge risk attempting something on the scale of BFR. It seems likely that development will take much longer than planned giving their competitors time to catch up.

ceejayoz• 9 years ago

The Falcon 9's second stage wasn't designed to be reusable, and I'd imagine there are quite a few lessons learned they'd like to incorporate in a totally new vehicle instead of attempting to rework the F9.

mikeash• 9 years ago

BFR is vastly more capable. Falcon Heavy is mostly reusable and can send a capsule to Mars. BFR is 100% reusable and can send a hundred people to Mars.

jccooper4• 9 years ago

FH is (1) not big enough for economic Mars flights, and (2) cannot be fully reusable because it can't support a large enough upper stage.

nickik11• 9 years ago

The difference in size is huge 140000t to 64t.

A single core makes more sense, specially because you can put a bigger space ship on top for a rocket of equal power.

The 3 core design is only a economic way to get a bigger rocket with a existing design. Look at the Delta 4 Heavy for example.

mulletbum• 9 years ago

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.

phpnode6• 9 years ago

They will launch Musk's Tesla Roadster into orbit around the sun, where it will continue orbiting for hundreds of millions of years.

phkahler2• 9 years ago

> They will launch Musk's Tesla Roadster into orbit around the sun, where it will continue orbiting for hundreds of millions of years.

Good god that's funny. I didn't realize the roadster was going anywhere, so it seemed stupid. But just imagine once people forget about this in 50 years. Perhaps we even have people on mars. But every few years someone post to the equivalent of HN a link to a wikipedia article about this car orbiting the sun... Or what if modern society suffers a setback (an actual nuclear war or something) and knowledge of this is forgotten and centuries hence, people redevelop technology and get images of it. Best joke ever.

JshWright9• 9 years ago

The first launch will be a "dummy" payload (nothing a customer is paying for). Elon has said on Twitter that they will be launching his Telsa Roadster out past Mars (there has been some discussion about how serious he was in this claim, but the general consensus among people who are pretty well connected with SpaceX is that he was indeed serious).

ufmace2• 9 years ago

You gotta wonder about that. I'd sure like to see some pictures of a Tesla Roadster being integrated into the payload section of the rocket.

On the mars orbit thing - I think we have people who try to make sure that we don't contaminate Mars with Earth bacteria any more than we can avoid. You would think people would take a dim view of sticking a random car in Mars orbit, where it will probably decay and crash to the surface eventually.

mabbo4• 9 years ago

They're going to launch Elon Musk's Telsa Roadster into orbit of the sun, possibly to Mars orbit.

I'm not even joking. That's the goal.

lscharen• 9 years ago

I often think of this kind of whimsical angle when I read other news stories about various archaeological and historical discoveries. There’s always so much discussion on how a particular statue is “the cultural center of the community” or that a jeweled box was of “great religious significance”.

How do we know that the Elon Musk of 3000BC didn’t just build a big obelisk for the lulz?

Probably a bigger question of the problems of inferring great significance from extremely few samples...

crispyambulance2• 9 years ago

Yep. He said "Mars transfer orbit."

I find it disappointing, however, that a worthy scientific payload isn't being launched. There was a late cancellation of a moon orbiter mission a few years back because of European Space Agency budget concerns (http://www.esa.int/Education/ESA_concludes_student_ESMO_Moon...). Could they not have adapted something for a Mars mission?

Seems a waste to send an automobile advertisement into orbit around Mars for eternity.

IndrekR• 9 years ago

My sources say that his Roadster is already orbiting the sun.

Mars would be a new thing. If this fails it will still be orbiting the sun, but as a distributed cluster this time.

jacquesm7• 9 years ago

Makes me wonder how well a Tesla Roadster would hold up when exposed to hard vacuum. They probably have a nice sized high vacuum chamber to put this to the test before they launch it.

Funny how this will probably be the best preserved Tesla Roadster in a couple of decades.

_ph_3• 9 years ago

The test itself is to launch the second stage towards the orbeit. The big question is, can they make the three cores work as well, as the single F9 core does?

As they have excessive load capacity for the second stage with this test mission, but no commecial cargo to transport, if Elons tweets are to believed, they plan to send his 2008 Tesla Roadster into a Mars orbit. Beyond winning any award for sillyness, if SpaceX manages to do that, it would be the first private mission to the Mars orbit, which would be another big feat.

_ph_3• 9 years ago

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.

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.

Shivetya• 9 years ago

my joy is the same as their current systems, that a private company can innovate in such an expensive and difficult industry.

between this and deep sea exploration it just amazes me that technology has opened this to private industry and people. that is the science "fiction" I have been waiting to see come about

dnautics2• 9 years ago

It was my understanding that the F9H components cannot be recycled F9 units, despite me Musk's best efforts at engineering a solution.

stormtv• 9 years ago

Both the side boosters on the F9H inaugural flight will be reused boosters. The center boosters are only able to fly on F9H but are planned to be reusable.

Here are both the landing videos of the side cores that will be flying on the F9H https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc https://youtu.be/DKqY8sy3nkM?t=55s

jessriedel• 9 years ago

The two side boosters on the FH demo flight are recycled from previous F9 missions. The central core is new and will be recovered. I do not think it’s possible to use the central FH core on an F9 mission, but it will be re-used for further FH missions.

mLuby• 9 years ago

Any idea why that is? I could imagine that its structure being incapable of handling the additional mass.

kilroy123• 9 years ago

Me too! I really hope NASA just abandons their plans for a heavy launch system to get to the moon and mars. Use a mix of SpaceX F9 Heavy, Delta IV Heavy, and Ariane 5.

valuearb6• 9 years ago

And Blue Origin's New Glenn.

And Ariane 6.

And Falcon 9 (which can lift as much as the Ariane rockets)

And BFR.

Yea, the US really should be spending $20B in taxpayer dollars building a new heavy lift rocket system that has zero re-usablity.

avar2• 9 years ago

They have 27 engines, but the Soviet N1 still holds the record at 30[1]. For comparison the Saturn V first stage had 5.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

jacquesm7• 9 years ago

It holds the record for the number of engines but it never successfully flew more than about a minute and three of them blew up on the pad. Hopefully that will be different for FH.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc

Already__Taken• 9 years ago

Only 1 failed due to some engine issue though. The rest was guidance related I think.*

Tell you what why don't I actually read the wiki

1. Electronics issue

2. turbo pump exploded - material science

3. aerodynamics

4. blew the plumbing when 6 engines were planned shut down at higher altitude. I'd argue that's a control issue.

maxxxxx• 9 years ago

I think it's also on the list for biggest non nuclear explosions ever.

Banthum2• 9 years ago

Fun fact, the difference is because the Soviet designers chose to guide the rocket by varying the thrust between many small fixed engines. The American designers chose to have a few large engines that could turn slightly.

I wonder which method the Falcon Heavy uses.

mhandley2• 9 years ago

All F9 engines are gimballed. The center engines can gimbal further though, for extra control authority when landing.

The many smaller engines approach is useful for re-using boosters. When coming back in to land, the stage is almost empty, so very light compared to when it launched. The problem then is reducing thrust far enough to be able to do a propulsive landing. Even with one F9 engine lit, and it throttled down, there's still too much thrust to hover, so the timing has to be really good to reach zero velocity at zero altitude.

avar2• 9 years ago

What's your source for that? I'd have assumed that the reason was the engineering effort required to produce an engine the size of the American F-1, leading to smaller engines, at which point it becomes more natural to steer with variable thrust than with gimballed engines.

The Soviets didn't produce anything rivaling the F-1 until the RD-170 in the mid-80s, and that uses 4 thrust chambers instead of 1 as the F-1.

dsfyu404ed2• 9 years ago

After a few more design iterations I'm sure it'll exceed 30.

http://i.imgur.com/BX1HXkr.png

mark-r2• 9 years ago

I can still play back in my head the picture of those 5 engines roaring to life. Followed by the magic word "Liftoff!"

andrewaylett2• 9 years ago

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.

phpnode6• 9 years ago

They haven't taken the legs off because they're going to attempt to land all 3 cores, probably 2 at the launch site and 1 on the drone ship

andrewaylett2• 9 years ago

That's extra-impressive, then.

_ph_3• 9 years ago

The three cores are boing to seperate from each other during the flight, and then are planned to individually land after the mission. The two outer cores are going to separate first, while the center core continues to propel the second stage a bit further up.

tankenmate• 9 years ago

In case you are wondering about the fuel, the centre core throttles back as much as it can shortly after liftoff and then throttles up again after the two side boosters separate.

mabbo4• 9 years ago

Worth mentioning: this isn't even the biggest rocket that's ever flown! The Saturn V that took man to the moon was a monster.

https://i.redd.it/whrexuerscpz.png

Of the rockets in that photo however, everything other than the Falcon 9 either isn't in production yet, or isn't anymore.

mstade6• 9 years ago

I can highly recommend a visit to the Saturn V center[1] at Kennedy Space Center, where you can begin to truly appreciate the immense scale of the Saturn V rocket. I’ve been several times at this point and it still blows my mind just how huge that thing is. If you think of going, and have a flexible schedule, I can definitely recommend planning a trip to see a rocket launch on site. It’s a fantastic experience, but be prepared to come back several days in a row in that case, if they scrub the launch.

[1] https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/explore-attractions/race-...

froindt2• 9 years ago

I went down the KSC every year during undergrad for the NASA Robotic Mining Competition. In 2012 we had the banquet under the Saturn V rocket. We were also very lucky to see a launch 3 out of the 4 years.

It is really cool to see such a large rocket on its side, and to walk through the control room they used.

bfirsh• 9 years ago

I will never forget the feeling of awe when I entered that hanger and saw the butt end of the Saturn V. It is really is something that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

And then, after walking quite a distance down the length of the rocket, realising they’ve left out the middle stage because it doesn’t fit in the vast building it is in. I laughed in disbelief.

jccooper4• 9 years ago

Johnson Space Center in Houston has a Saturn V similarly displayed.

lorenzhs• 9 years ago

There are one and a quarter F-1 engines from a Saturn V at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in DC, with a bunch of mirrors to fake the rest of the engines: https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/rocket-engine-.... Seeing that was really impressive, the entire thing must be even better :)

Zelphyr2• 9 years ago

Do they have a Saturn V at Marshall Space Flight Center? I remember visiting there with my Cub Scout den in the 80's and just standing next to the cones of one of the rockets, staring in awe at just.how.big it was.

perl4ever• 9 years ago

Based on my recent experience, (with CRS-13) it's best to avoid committing to any plans until the morning of the launch, if possible.

mark-r2• 9 years ago

The FH looks svelte in comparison.

What's that beast on the right side?

diggernet• 9 years ago

I believe that far right is the old SpaceX BFR design, and 2nd from right is the new BFR design.

0x4f3759df• 9 years ago

Anyone know the logistics of watching the launch? Is there a public viewing spot? Do you need to get tickets? Where to park?

enzanki_ars• 9 years ago

For launches out of the Kennedy Space Center, see https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/event....

Example of past availability: https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/event...

mstade6• 9 years ago

Check out the Kennedy Space Center website, they always post viewing options in advance. Typically the most intense viewing experience (i.e. the closest, the LC39 viewing gantry for instance) will be of limited quantity, but you can also just watch from the KSC visitor complex although in that case you won’t be able to see the rocket on the launch pad, only once it’s airborne.

I can highly recommend going. I saw a launch in January, from the LC39 gantry, and it was truly stunning. Be prepared to go several days in a row though, in case of scrubbed launches. You’ll need to buy a new ticket if the launch gets scrubbed as well, they don’t issue refunds once you’ve left on the shuttle bus I think, so it’s worth thinking about when budgeting the trip.

Also, pro-tip: get a yearly pass. Gets you in to the visitor complex as much as you want for a year, and becomes economical after two or three admission tickets, and also includes parking which is $10 or so otherwise I think. I got a yearly pass, and saved on admission and parking a fair bit since I went back probably 5-6 times. The launch I saw was scrubbed once. The other times I just geeked out. ;o)

cyberfart• 9 years ago

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.

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.

paulmd2• 9 years ago

Re-using boosters for your early development is pretty nice and efficient too I imagine.

It sounds good on paper but it's not easy in practice, see: the Russian N-1 moon rocket, which basically just took the R7 rocket and scaled it up with more engines. Turns out too many engines means too many points of failure, and the rocket never worked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

Much like in computing, you can't substitute one oxen with a thousand chickens and expect the same outcome when you plow your field.

valuearb6• 9 years ago

The N-1 failed for lots of reasons besides having so many engines. It's designer died before it was completed. It's primitive control systems were inadequate. It's funding was inadequate.

SpaceX has already shown that with modern control systems, you can bundle a bunch of chickens together to plow a field. Having 9 engines has already helped them complete missions where one failed. The Falcon Heavy problem isn't scaling from 9 to 27 per se, it's building a new structure to handle all the new stresses that will occur, from the launch sequence to aerodynamic.

mulmen2• 9 years ago

I believe GP means literally re-using boosters that flew in space, not just the design.

greglindahl3• 9 years ago

All supercomputing is now done with armies of chickens. It was a great saying when Cray said it, but the future was not what he imagined.

CPLX• 9 years ago

If you can control the chickens, anything is possible.

ilogik• 9 years ago

Also, my understanding is that initially there was supposed to be a corss-feed system that would increase the total delta-V considerably, but it isn't ready yet

AshleyGrant3• 9 years ago

That was initially the plan. It proved too complex and has since been dropped from the design. It won't be coming back.

Which is too bad, because it would be really awesome if they had managed to make it work.

nbanks2• 9 years ago

I wonder if they throttle back the central booster to ensure its fuel lasts longer than the two outside boosters. This is likely far easier than the cross-feed system though it would lower the total thrust.

jczhang• 9 years ago

Does anyone know how they keep it NOT moving when doing a static fire of something like this?

nickik11• 9 years ago

There are clamps in the launch pad that hold the rocket down.

This is easier then one would think because the rocket is fuelled and the engines already have a hard time living the rocket at all.

They use the same launch pad during launch and the clamps only release when the computer has made sure all engines have correctly stared and are running correctly.

Check out the video from RocketLab when they had a launch abort to see a example of this.

marcosscriven• 9 years ago

I note the 'fins' at the top of the outside rockets are black, whereas on the middle one are white. Is that purely cosmetic?

phpnode6• 9 years ago

The grid fins on the outer cores are aluminium, the centre core is titanium. Newer Falcons will have titanium grid fins (the outer cores have already flown once before)

Edit. Looking closer I'm wrong - the titanium grid fins are on the side boosters and the the centre core is aluminium

brixon• 9 years ago

Guessing, but it is likely for visibility.

adwn• 9 years ago

The grid fins on the side boosters are made from titanium (and are larger), while the center core's ones are made from aluminum with an ablative paint. The titanium grid fins have a better heat resistance.

mhandley2• 9 years ago

The titanium grid fins are also larger, which gives them better control authority. The center booster (like regular Falcon 9s) carries the interstage. This is light weight, but has significant aerodynamic effect when re-entering engines first for landing, like the feathers on an arrow. The side boosters lack this - the nose coses are much smaller - so are less stable aerodynamically. The likely reason for using the titanium fins is to give better control. They don't need the extra heat resistance for the side boosters - the center booster will have a toastier reentry as it's going much faster when it shuts down.

jacquesm7• 9 years ago

Ablative material to avoid frying the aluminum.

JshWright9• 9 years ago

No, the ablative material is white (like on the center core). The darker fins are the fancy new titanium fins (note they're a little larger too).

Not sure why they went with the new fins on the side cores and not the center core... The side cores are going to have a pretty tame reentry (gentler than a Falcon 9 to LEO), while the center core will be coming in very hot. Currently they only use the titanium fins on very hot GTO reentries.

faitswulff2• 9 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.

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!

duddo• 9 years ago

This is the standard way the russian operate. Rockets as the Soyuz or the Proton are assembled and transported horizontally to the launching site and then erected on the launch pad. There are a lot of interesting photos of trains moving these large rockets

JshWright9• 9 years ago

This is the way all rockets are built. I think the OP is confusing construction and integration.

Rockets are fabricated and transported horizontally. The distinction is whether the rocket is vertical or horizontal when the payload is attached.

mikepurvis• 9 years ago

Some good discussion here: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3922/what-are-the-...

Essentially it boils down to what g-forces your rocket components and payload are able to withstand. Designing for zero (in orbit) and high vertical (during liftoff) is tough enough, but a rocket that's horizontally built/integrated _also_ needs to withstand ~1G laterally. It may not sound like a big deal, but when every kg counts, I believe it adds up to a bunch of additional strengthening parts, plus a lot more FEA at design time.

Retric• 9 years ago

Space X has regularly focused on lower costs at the expense of payload. Their rockets get significantly less to orbit, but the price saving ends up being huge which more than offsets the loss.

JshWright9• 9 years ago

That depends on what you mean by "constructed". The individual stages of all rockets are constructed horizontally. The difference is in how the stages and payload are integrated.

With a rocket like the Atlas V, the upper stage and payload are integrated with the first stage while it is vertical. This is a common approach taken with rockets that frequently fly satellites with big mirrors in them (if the payload is never tipped on its side, it's a lot easier to secure the heavy optics inside).

SpaceX does not currently support vertical integration, they only support horizontal integration. Generally speaking customers prefer vertical integration, since it makes their payload design easier (and in some cases it's a hard requirement), so SpaceX will be adding vertical integration support at their LC-39A launch pad (mostly for government launches).

nbanks2• 9 years ago

This must be helpful for transporting the rocket by truck for reuse (see youtu.be/qohKt8ckCS4). If the rocket remained vertical, the drone ship would have to dock very close to the launch pad.

le-mark2• 9 years ago

Any odds makers taking bets on this, I wonder? I'd put down $100 on the off chance it actually works the first time!

BWStearns• 9 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStakesSpaceX/

phyller2• 9 years ago

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 :)

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.

t_fatus• 9 years ago

If he manages to land his Roadster on Mars (intact - which is probably the hardest part), how many stars will it get on a NHTSA crash test ?

phpnode6• 9 years ago

The tesla sadly lacks the ability to do a propulsive landing on mars, they'd need a sky crane like Curiosity had - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Sky_cr...

rplnt• 9 years ago

I'm pretty sure the batteries and motors are cooled by air (directly or not).

dmoy• 9 years ago

Cool idea haha. I'd guess it'd probably get messed up from lack of air and/or too much exposure to radiation or something though.

valuearb6• 9 years ago

I was going to reply just to tell you how dumb that is, but then I double checked, and the Falcon Heavy can put a 38,000 lb payload into Mars injection orbit. Thats enough for a big set of retro-rockets, a sky-crane landing system, some solar cells to recharge it, and a robot to drive it around.

hwillis• 9 years ago

For reference, Curiosity weighed 2000 lbs, somewhere between 50% and 75% of what the new roadster will weigh. The MSL payload that landed Curiosity weighed 8,600 lbs total, so yeah- you could probably land two or three roadsters!

hi-im-mi-ih2• 9 years ago

They're not going to try to land the car and drive it - The car is going to be put into orbit around mars indefinitely, so that one day an alien species can find it, long after we're gone.

walshemj2• 9 years ago

that needs to be a plot point for the new ST series :-)

mejari• 9 years ago

It won't be orbiting Mars, it will pass by Mars.

greenhouse_gas• 9 years ago

Not going to land or even orbit Mars.

From a response from Elon Musk:

It’s going near Mars. He said it’ll be placed in “a precessing Earth-Mars elliptical orbit around the sun.” What he means by this is what’s sometimes called a Hohmann transfer orbit, an orbit around the Sun that takes it as close to the Sun as Earth and as far out as Mars. This is a low-energy orbit; that is, it takes the least amount of energy to put something in this orbit from Earth. That makes sense for a first flight.

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/elon-musk-on-the-roadster-to-ma...

mulmen2• 9 years ago

It's great that he is launching his own car as the payload but I would really like to see that replaced by an Oldsmobile Starfire.

ChuckMcM5• 9 years ago

I am super excited about this. It would have the capability to throw some pretty useful chunks of hardware into orbit and beyond.

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.

Sammi• 9 years ago

Or it will give investors confidence that private space flight is viable?

ChuckMcM5• 9 years ago

I think it will open up additional customers. So perhaps Apple will build and launch a couple of imagery satellites to augment their maps effort, or something like the old Teledesic concept will be launched (SpaceX has suggested they would do that).

Given the lower costs of the re-usable platform one would hope we could effectively address some of the space junk issues.

But that isn't really "private space flight" where I imagine tourists flying up to Bigelow inflated habititats for a three day stay where couples can experiment with zero g sex after getting over their motion sickness issues. That market seems a bit fanciful yet.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic

hi-im-mi-ih2• 9 years ago

A rising tide lifts all ships.

curtis• 9 years ago

Strictly speaking, Jeff Bezos doesn't need any customers for his rocket.

ChuckMcM5• 9 years ago

In a strict sense that is true, and he has a customer for the engine so he gets some revenue that way. I expect however that he would eventually taper off his funding of it if there wasn't some momentum from other participants.

rst2• 9 years ago

Blue already has at least three customers for New Glenn:

http://spacenews.com/blue-origin-signs-up-third-customer-for...

dguest2• 9 years ago

Sticking a car in the payload is funny.

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?

Zelphyr2• 9 years ago

If it blows up on launch, losing a Roadster is less painful than what that scientist poured years of his/her life into.

dguest2• 9 years ago

The cost of launching something into low earth orbit is about 50K per pound (before spaceX) so I can imagine an interplanetary trajectory is quite a lot more. At this rate there are probably a lot of science projects that will never be funded, so if I had a less popular proposal I might take those odds.

nickik11• 9 years ago

The problem is time. They need to launch when they are ready, it would take years for a scientific payload to be designed for this launch. Plus we could not invest so much because the risk.

They should just test it and then the scientists can argue for cheaper and larger projects because they have a rocket option now.

chiph• 9 years ago

My guess is Musk is launching a Roadster because he's a fan of the movie Heavy Metal

https://youtu.be/rYy_XJpI6uk?t=1m45s

jedberg2• 9 years ago

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!

[0] https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/event...

Asparagirl• 9 years ago

I have a sudden desire for a $10/year SaaS that will send you SMS or other push notifications as soon as rocket launch dates (ones with public viewing allowed) are formally announced, so that you can quickly make plans to go. Maybe the app could even make some extra cash by linking to available hotel deals in the area in the notifications, and then taking a cut of the reservations through click-through tracking.

cjsuk• 9 years ago

YouTube reminders already does this for free.

cthulhujr• 9 years ago

SpaceX Now (https://spacexnow.com) on iOS and Android can do something similar with notifications enabled for manifest changes.

lukerv4• 9 years ago

You can sync this Google Calendar if you want. It has up to date info about all space events (Dockings, Landings, EVAs)

http://bit.ly/SpaceEventCalendar

mabbo4• 9 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/ is usually the best place to learn about SpaceX launches. The 'about' part of that page has the current schedule. Jan 4 is the current NET date for Zuma.

jedberg2• 9 years ago

Thanks! I really should have thought of that. :)

markvdb• 9 years ago

Totally OT, but when hearing "Falcon 9 Zuma launch", I couldn't help but think of the song "Chase the Devil"[0] :-)

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjGb56hX9WE

peterjlee• 9 years ago

I got curious how it compares to Saturn V.

Low Earth Orbit Payload: Falcon Heavy: 140,000lb, Saturn V: 260,000lb

Launch cost: Falcon Heavy: ~$140M, Saturn V: $185M ($1B+ in 2016 dollars)

It blows my mind how crazy Saturn V was and it was 50 years ago.

api• 9 years ago

With sufficient funds you can often buy your way into the future. Saturn was awesome but nowhere near economically sustainable.

nickik11• 9 years ago

False. Losing the Saturn and trying the Shuttle instead was a catastrophic failure. Per flight the Shuttle was almost as expensive with way less capability.

Giving up the capabilities of the Saturn V hurt and cost every other project there after.

Look at the Space Station. It was way way more expensive because it had to be assembled in lots of flights.

The same goes for some of the deep space probs and space telescopes, they had to be designed often limited by small rockets.

Giving up the Saturn V was the biggest mistake the US Space program ever made. We are still working under that mistake and now have 3 groups trying to finally achieve something like it again, SLS, BFR, New Armstrong.

api_or_ipa• 9 years ago

It blows my mind that SpaceX's BFR project plans to send more payload in reusable mode than Saturn V did in full expendable mode (150,000 kg vs 140,000 kg).

nickik11• 9 years ago

And for less money per launch then the F9.

ajnin• 9 years ago

This capacity is only for a fully expendable vehicle (See http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities). Reusable payload is subtantially less, although not specified on their website.

Also it's 140000 lbs, or 63800kg.

jcims• 9 years ago

The Saturn could send an M1 Abrams into space with 50 tons to spare for fuel and ammo.

rozap• 9 years ago

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?

MertsA• 9 years ago

Falcon 9 does have engine out capability and that's been proven in the past on CRS-1. In theory even if one of the engines were to rupture the shrapnel should be contained by walls between the engines. Having less engines per core would mean an engine out condition is much harder to recover from as you would lose more thrust. If an engine goes out you don't just lose that single engine, you need to make sure that the thrust vector is still pointed straight at the center of mass. If you don't, then you'll get torque on the vehicle that will make the flight end sooner rather than later. If you plan for engine failure to not kill your primary payload you need to be able to use a combination of thrust vectoring and gimbaling engines and still be able to get the payload to an acceptable orbit with the reduced capacity. More engines means more chances that one of them will fail but less severe consequences when that failure occurs.

grondilu2• 9 years ago

I'm not sure I understand your question. Falcon Heavy has 27 engines because three times nine is twenty-seven. Are you suggesting SpaceX should have developed a bigger engine instead, and do something similar to a delta-IV heavy?

rsbartram• 9 years ago

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. https://latechnews.org/spacex-launches-bulgariasat-1-recycle...

greglindahl3• 9 years ago

It so happens that the first Falcon Heavy will use recycled rockets for the 2 side cores.

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket sets up at Cape Canaveral ahead of launch

Related Stories