Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

elderflower · 2018-02-06 15:45:06

I don't think it was ever Musk's intention to deliver the car to Mars. He has just set it on an orbit which would be the same as the Mars transfer orbit but not involving the planet when it reaches Mars radius. There would be all sorts of hassle from the planetary protection groups if he were to send it to Mars' surface.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-02-06 15:50:33

The almost simultaneous landings of the 2 side booster stages was also impressive. That will have me lifting my single malt later this evening!!

RobertDyck · 2018-02-06 17:35:54

Perfect! Wonderful! However... Would I get eviscerated for pointing a small issue? The video feed was supposed to show separate landing cameras from the side boosters. Commentary explicitly said video looks the same, but it's actually views from different boosters. However, look at the image just before landing.

Both views, left and right, show the first image. From T+ 00:07:51 through T+ 00:07:56, it shows the landing burn of the other booster at the top of the image. It also shows the landing zone painted with a black disk and a white "X". Then from T+ 00:07:57 through T+ 00:08:01 it shows the booster with the camera approach the landing zone painted white with the black "X". This is the same camera, from the same booster. Oops.

Void · 2018-02-06 17:49:43

Please forgive me.

SpaceNut · 2018-02-06 18:23:15

Missed it totally as I was on the way home on the road with the south to my back.....will need to watch reruns of it.....

RobertDyck · 2018-02-06 18:32:53

YouTube: Falcon Heavy Test Flight

YouTube: Live Views of Starman

RobertDyck · 2018-02-06 18:58:56

Side booster landing from different angles:
Pardon me. The perfectly synchronized landing shown on the official SpaceX video looked too perfect. Real life can't possibly land with that perfect precision. My initial gut reaction was this had to be a computer simulation, not real. So the alternate angle from the website of the Toronto Star (their local broad-sheet newspaper) makes me feel better.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-02-06 19:04:15)

Void · 2018-02-06 19:28:33

Articles I have read indicate that the core 1st stage missed the landing barge.
I think the whole thing qualifies as a success anyway.
I hope that the upper stage survives to launch the roadster to an elliptical (Cycling spaceship ) orbit.

Remember that before falcon 9 became expected to land successfully, there were several crashes.

Elon Musk said that if the thing cleared the launch pad without blowing up, it would be considered a success. It is a success.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-02-06 19:49:50

It was a success. Period. It didn't blow up. It didn't disintegrate going through maxQ. It delivered it's payload. Landed 2 of 3 first stage boosters. I lifted a Grand Marnier in respect!

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-02-06 21:45:15)

GW Johnson · 2018-02-06 21:43:15

Kudos to Spacex. Definitely the right stuff. I raised my glass (as filled from the keg) multiple times.

Does anybody know if the interplanetary injection burn has been made? That should have been around 8:45 to 9 PM central.

GW

Terraformer · 2018-02-07 05:35:38

Yes, but it burnt too long. Starman is driving to the asteroid belt, not Mars.

Still, they managed the main thing, successfully launching a payload into orbit.

Void · 2018-02-07 14:32:19

I bet they just told the 2nd stage to burn as long as it could to measure it's true power.

RobertDyck · 2018-02-07 15:57:08

CBC: SpaceX's 'Starman' misses Mars orbit, heads to asteroid belt

Originally, the plan was to place Starman in an orbit that would take it between Earth and Mars. However, the second stage fired longer than anticipated, which has placed the car and driver into an orbit that reaches the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-02-07 16:04:35

Pretty good for a private venture with no government financing behind it! All on Elon's nickel.

JoshNH4H · 2018-02-07 17:02:50

It's a quibble, but SpaceX has received a nice helping of government money through launch contracts valued above the price they'd charge other customers

SpaceNut · 2018-02-07 20:51:56

The Falcon Heavy: A Good Show, but Not Necessarily Great Business

SpaceX just landed two Falcon Heavy rocket boosters back on Earth, but the third didn't make it

best image of recent launch was this landing...
501ffff20137ba851c6e0fb909a48775

Void · 2018-02-07 21:11:53

Well, from what I understand they will not even reuse the two retuned boosters. Maybe I am wrong about that. But they are apparently an outdated version. They will probably recycle some of the parts such as the grid-fins I am guessing.

The core booster? I don't know what version it was. But did you ever think they might have intentionally crashed it into the sea, to discover what the results would be?

Remember that the original falcon 9's routinely crashed on attempted landings. And then from that SpaceX learned how to make it an art (So, it would seem).

If I understand what I read, they only want to continue with "Block 5" versions, possibly with minor updates.

Oops! They accidentally sent Starman to the Asteroid belt instead of Mars. Wow! Could they send probes to the asteroid belt for a fee?

On to BFR then, or so they say.

Don't be so dark. The SpaceX creatures are really and obviously quite clever.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-07 21:16:10)

Void · 2018-02-07 21:27:21

For instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Psyche

Might need some planetary gravitational assists to get a big probe there.

But maybe.

The Sun I am sure is totally reliable
Still, for fun:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2642475/n … s-economy/

Quote:

SPACE GOLD RUSH Nasa to explore asteroid 16 Psyche which is so valuable it could CRASH the world’s economy
Space miners have got their eyes set on a asteroid valued at £8,000 quadrillion

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ma … ORM=VDRVRV

Have a nice evening Spacenut in any case.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-07 21:39:15)

RobertDyck · 2018-02-07 22:36:43

Void wrote:

The core booster? I don't know what version it was. But did you ever think they might have intentionally crashed it into the sea, to discover what the results would be?

I don't think so. Video from the drone ship showed an impact. They wouldn't have deliberately damaged a drone ship.

Void wrote:

Remember that the original falcon 9's routinely crashed on attempted landings. And then from that SpaceX learned how to make it an art (So, it would seem).

In the post-mission press conference, Elon said they should have ignited 3 engines to land, but only one engine ignited. But everything I read said 3 engines for the boost-back burn, 3 engines for reentry burn, but only one for the landing burn. So, um, what? He also said this was a mixture of block 3 and 4. Did they use block 4 for side boosters, and block 3 for the centre? The same block that gave them problems landing on a drone ship before? Just guessing.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-02-08 21:47:03)

Void · 2018-02-07 23:24:53

Well He said He said then.

Fair enough put me in the reasonable bounds.

Still the first reports I saw said crash into the sea at 300 mph. A rather fast speed for a test impact.

So, maybe you have me there.

But still, starman to the asteroid belt, fantastic.

Elon Musk said that it would be a victory if the ship actually cleared the launch tower and did not blow it up.

I am an optimist. Optimists usually prevail.

And if Starman going to the asteroid belt was a mistake, it was a very good mistake.

I can pull in my horns, and not get negatively emotional, but it is rather obvious that there are some members here, who intend to harm what it is they should claim to adore.

Why is that?

Oldfart1939 · 2018-02-08 00:11:32

Elon has since publicly stated that the center core was new construction, as it had to withstand several times the stresses of the boosters. Only the side boosters were reflown stages.
All nit-picking aside, this was a magnificent achievement for SpaceX.
According to several other space websites, there is a manifest building for additional FH launches, with the number 5 being bandied about. This launch was a public relations masterpiece.

Below is a link to an article stating 5 more FH launches on the manifest--so far.

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organ … eep-space/

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-02-08 00:20:48)

RobertDyck · 2018-02-08 01:44:54

I think they did damn well! This was an excellent first test. And I would like to add this rocket can be used to return to the Moon. SpaceX has plans to send tourists into Lunar orbit and back. I posted before my idea: launch a lunar module into Lunar orbit with one Falcon Heavy, then Dragon with a second. Redesign the escape system for Dragon 2 so it doesn't attach to the trunk, just the capsule. That would allow filling the trunk with propellant tanks and an engine, converting it into a service module to return from Lunar orbit. And another stage: use the Falcon Heavy upper stage for TLI, this new stage for LOI, the service module for TEI. The new stage would have 3 jobs: LOI, refuel the lunar module, and crasher stage to de-orbit the lunar module. The lunar module would have just one propulsion stage, so everything that goes down to the surface comes back up again. The crasher stage would also refill the breathing oxygen tank. Astronauts could transfer by hand spare LiOH canisters for life support from Dragon to the LM, as well as food. And send a Mars Direct habitat unmanned on SLS block 2B. That would be a permanent Moon base. So one FH to deliver the LM, then a single FH for each manned mission thereafter.

Notice what I did there? SLS block 2B to deliver MD hab to the Moon? That same launch vehicle could deliver MD to Mars. Robert Zubrin and his partner David Baker pitched the idea of MD hardware to the Moon in their initial presentation in 1990.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-02-08 03:15:29)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-02-08 10:40:27

Elon Musk possesses great business acumen, so I suspect the success of FH will build some momentum towards building an entire financially self-supporting Moon mission, especially if an architecture such as Robert proposes is followed. This keeps ULA happy with a use for their overpriced and undercapable SLS included in the program. Hopefully, this will finally terminate the utterly ridiculous Deep Space Gateway and another $15 to $30 Billion in NASA expenses, which they cannot afford. He also drives the final nail in the coffin of the theory that only Governments can succeed in designing/building/launching interplanetary heavy lift vehicles.
There was a quibble earlier about my statement that SpaceX did this entire FH mission w/o and government support. There was no DIRECT government support, and the quibble was that SpaceX used profits from government contracts to accomplish such... My business experience is that profits are solely at the discretion of the corporation, and what to do with them a decision by said corporation. This mission was solely a business venture/risk, with no direct Federal dollar input.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-02-08 10:41:50)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-02-08 10:57:03

Military Certification is the next big step for Falcon Heavy.

In an article on the SpaceNews website, there was an informed discussion of "what's next" for Falcon Heavy.

http://spacenews.com/military-certifica … con-heavy/

If SpaceX moves ahead with this certification, it would certainly ensure Air Force money and participation, and ultimately getting the system human rated. So the circumlunar civilian flight might still occur...

Void · 2018-02-08 12:26:47

I'm paying attention O.F. just a bit of fun though:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/02/08/ … -belt.html
1518079216542.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Where you suggested ion rockets to carry propellants to Mars, I wonder about Falcon Heavy lofting a "Dawn" type probe with Ion drive. Maybe the use of some planetary gravity assists.

However if the Newmann drive works as advertised, maybe gravity assists not needed.

Perhaps people interested in researching asteroids would be another source of business.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-08 12:30:32)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2018-02-06 15:45:06

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#152 2018-02-06 15:50:33

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#153 2018-02-06 17:35:54

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#154 2018-02-06 17:49:43

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#155 2018-02-06 18:23:15

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#156 2018-02-06 18:32:53

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#157 2018-02-06 18:58:56

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#158 2018-02-06 19:28:33

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#159 2018-02-06 19:49:50

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#160 2018-02-06 21:43:15

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#161 2018-02-07 05:35:38

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#162 2018-02-07 14:32:19

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#163 2018-02-07 15:57:08

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#164 2018-02-07 16:04:35

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#165 2018-02-07 17:02:50

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#166 2018-02-07 20:51:56

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#167 2018-02-07 21:11:53

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#168 2018-02-07 21:27:21

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#169 2018-02-07 22:36:43

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#170 2018-02-07 23:24:53

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#171 2018-02-08 00:11:32

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#172 2018-02-08 01:44:54

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#173 2018-02-08 10:40:27

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#174 2018-02-08 10:57:03

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

#175 2018-02-08 12:26:47

Re: Falcon Heavy Assembly Underway

Board footer