Space In General

[Obelisk]

Oops.

Too far out?

 

[Danoff]

Oops.

Too far out?

Does anyone know if the plan was to encounter mars? For all I know they lit the fires just to see how far out they could push it. If the plan was to encounter mars, they still might be on the plan, it was never going to capture at Mars anyway. It'll be a hyperbolic trajectory with respect to mars regardless. The question is can they make it cross mars's orbit at the same time mars is actually there.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Too far out?

Yeah. Not sure if they decided at the last minute to make the change or if they accidentally burned too long.

 

[Dotini]

Short vid of Mr Musk's roadster being celebrated by confetti crystals in space.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah. Not sure if they decided at the last minute to make the change or if they accidentally burned too long.

According to some articles, the plan was to boost the roadster apoapsis (farthest point in the orbit) to mars's orbital radius and leave the roadster periapsis (closest point to the sun) roughly at Earth radius. That would put the roadster on a course that might interact with mars every... gazillion years. I think they might have planned to further correct the orbit with a mars gravity assist so that it came close to mars more often.

The burn does indeed look like it went too long (by a considerable margin) which means that they won't be able to get as slow a flyby as perhaps originally planned. But encountering mars is still not out of the question (at least from where I'm sitting, maybe it is from the desk of an engineer at SpaceX who has the necessary data).

Edit:

Ok, teasing more out of these press releases... it looks like they had no intention of really getting close to mars. They're just sending it out to a mars orbit crossing trajectory, not a mars intercept. I think they didn't even detach the roadster from the upper stage, so there was never any hope of seeing mars. You'd have to detach it to have a prayer of making the correction burns that will be absolutely necessary with an outgassing CAR on the spacecraft, and you'd have to track it, and like... have staff, and plans for making that maneuver. So mars was never the intent and they were a little misleading with their press releases on that one.

They were literally just blasting it blindly into the outer reaches of the solar system and hoping to get at least as far from the sun as mars is.

 

[CodeRedR51]

 

[Dotini]

Starman takes a ride through the Van Allen belts.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I'd prefer it if we don't give those kind of people publicity. Not even going to give them the click.

 

[Dotini]

I'd prefer it if we don't give those kind of people publicity. Not even going to give them the click.

Sorry about that. Certainly the cover is distasteful. However, it purports to be live feed. You can see the fenders of the Tesla literally disintegrating in front of your eyes, presumably from the radiation in the Van Allen belt. There's stuff in there like ice crystals, debris, optical effects - nothing that can't be easily explained. The music is not the worst.

Is there a different vid that shows the same live feed without the awful cover?

 

[twitcher]

I'm actually quite surprised by the number of people I've talked to about Falcon Heavy who are completely unimpressed, and think it's all just a massive waste of time and energy. Followed up with the "they should be working on fixing more important problems."

 

[Dennisch]

"they should be working on fixing more important problems."

HurrdurrpeoplearedyinginAfricaHurrdurr.

 

[Danoff]

I'm actually quite surprised by the number of people I've talked to about Falcon Heavy who are completely unimpressed, and think it's all just a massive waste of time and energy. Followed up with the "they should be working on fixing more important problems."

Yea, that's a common response to NASA. Not sure they understand the subtle and not-so-subtle differences in applying that to SpaceX vs. NASA. Those same people also usually have startlingly little understanding of how much their everyday lives involve signals going through or coming from space.

Context is pretty important here. Saturn V was a much bigger rocket from a long time ago. This one is trying to make the effective cost per pound of delivering large payloads to space cheaper by making the rockets reusable. It's not so much paving new paths in terms of the size of payload we can deliver to space as much as it is trying to make it affordable.

 

[TexRex]

I mean...

I get that the shape is dictated* by all sorts of factors like fuel storage, delivery and combustion, payload storage, efficiency of construction by way of modular design, etc etc etc, and probably not so much by ego...but rockets really look like...

...

...

...you know?



*No pun intended.

 

[Dennisch]

but rockets really look like...

Female massage apparatuses.

 

[TexRex]

Female massage apparatuses.

I was actually referring to the physiological manifestation that those are intended to supplement/replace. And here I thought my mind was in the gutter.

 

[Dotini]

Saturn V was a much bigger rocket from a long time ago. This one is trying to make the effective cost per pound of delivering large payloads to space cheaper by making the rockets reusable. It's not so much paving new paths in terms of the size of payload we can deliver to space as much as it is trying to make it affordable.

Yes, and not only that, the Merlin engine of the Falcon is far and away more efficient than the Rocketdyne F-1 used on the Saturn V. Back in the day, they were so worried about meltdown that they ran the F-1's way rich to keep the combustion chamber cooler. Watch any Saturn V launch video that gives a good view of the exhaust plume. You'll see the first 8' to 12' of the exhaust plume is solid black with unburnt fuel. Very inefficient in comparison with modern design and practice.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, and not only that, the Merlin engine of the Falcon is far and away more efficient than the Rocketdyne F-1 used on the Saturn V. Back in the day, they were so worried about meltdown that they ran the F-1's way rich to keep the combustion chamber cooler. Watch any Saturn V launch video that gives a good view of the exhaust plume. You'll see the first 8' to 12' of the exhaust plume is solid black with unburnt fuel. Very inefficient in comparison with modern design and practice.

Here you go:

 

[ProjectWHaT]

 

[twitcher]

Yea, that's a common response to NASA. Not sure they understand the subtle and not-so-subtle differences in applying that to SpaceX vs. NASA. Those same people also usually have startlingly little understanding of how much their everyday lives involve signals going through or coming from space.

Context is pretty important here. Saturn V was a much bigger rocket from a long time ago. This one is trying to make the effective cost per pound of delivering large payloads to space cheaper by making the rockets reusable. It's not so much paving new paths in terms of the size of payload we can deliver to space as much as it is trying to make it affordable.

I was looking up some numbers last night, and just off google and Wikipedia, it cost $450mil per shuttle mission, while Falcon Heavy costs $90mil per mission. If those numbers are right, that's a pretty amazing cost reduction in a relatively short time period.

And yes, of course these people I was talking with were completely lost to the idea that they love and use "space tech" every day, and just don't realize it.

 

[Dotini]

I was looking up some numbers last night, and just off google and Wikipedia, it cost $450mil per shuttle mission, while Falcon Heavy costs $90mil per mission. If those numbers are right, that's a pretty amazing cost reduction in a relatively short time period.

And yes, of course these people I was talking with were completely lost to the idea that they love and use "space tech" every day, and just don't realize it.

Eye-opening difference in costs, clearly. But comparing shuttle to Falcon Heavy is apples and oranges, since the shuttle delivered people to space, and Falcon Heavy, not yet. No capsule is ready. And then the capsule would have to be folded in to the costs.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Picture from the 3rd burn last night.

 

[Exorcet]

I was looking up some numbers last night, and just off google and Wikipedia, it cost $450mil per shuttle mission, while Falcon Heavy costs $90mil per mission. If those numbers are right, that's a pretty amazing cost reduction in a relatively short time period.

I think part of that was due to the Shuttle eating money. While its ability to do so much was impressive, it came at a cost. Space X's rockets are more akin to what the Shuttle should have been if it was to be a true shuttle to space.

 

[twitcher]

So right now on Twitter, I'm having an arguement with two "F1 photographers", Drew Gibson and Andy Hone, along with 2014 Le Mans 24hr winner Simon Dolan....all three of them think that Musk's rocket is a waste of time, and that space exploration doesn't have anything to offer humanity, and that we should be focusing on bigger problems down here. Gibson says he's contributing to humanity by choosing to not have kids - and he think if everyone did like him, the worlds problems would be solved in about 100 years.

I'm so torn between being angry and just dumbfounded. What wrong choices did I make that I'm a construction worker and these guys are part of the Motorsport circus. FML.

 

[wfooshee]

I wonder what kinds of cameras they would be using without electronic miniaturization that began in the space race of the 60s... They'd still be shooting with press cameras from the 50s, probably.

 

[Touring Mars]

So right now on Twitter, I'm having an arguement with two "F1 photographers", Drew Gibson and Andy Hone, along with 2014 Le Mans 24hr winner Simon Dolan....all three of them think that Musk's rocket is a waste of time, and that space exploration doesn't have anything to offer humanity, and that we should be focusing on bigger problems down here.

Given that all three make a living from extravagantly expensive entertainment (motorsport), their attitude is rather ironic - a lot of people would argue that F1 (and motorsports in general) are a massive waste of time, money, resources etc. that could all be better used fighting more pressing problems. However, as we all know, motorsport isn't just entertainment - it is arguably at the forefront of technological development in automotive engineering that has led to massive advances in safety, fuel economy etc., that has (in the grander scheme of things) contributed towards economic growth and development that brings with it greater prosperity and living standards - the exact same can be said of space exploration, albeit with advances in different areas (such as aerospace). Hence it is hard to understand the attitude that some people have that this is all being done for a lark.

 

[CodeRedR51]

It's no different from people in our past that sailed to new continents. Just on a grander scale. We can be, and should be, an interplanetary species.

 

[Danoff]

So right now on Twitter, I'm having an arguement with two "F1 photographers", Drew Gibson and Andy Hone, along with 2014 Le Mans 24hr winner Simon Dolan....all three of them think that Musk's rocket is a waste of time, and that space exploration doesn't have anything to offer humanity, and that we should be focusing on bigger problems down here. Gibson says he's contributing to humanity by choosing to not have kids - and he think if everyone did like him, the worlds problems would be solved in about 100 years.

I'm so torn between being angry and just dumbfounded. What wrong choices did I make that I'm a construction worker and these guys are part of the Motorsport circus. FML.

SpaceX and the falcon heavy aren't necessarily about exploration. In 2018 falcon heavy has two launches scheduled (according to one article), one is a communications satellite, and the other is US military. That's not space exploration, that's servicing military and communications. So... I have no idea what they're talking about with regard to SpaceX. Even servicing the space station isn't really exploration. ISS is doing space research, which is not exactly the same thing as exploration. They're doing research on plants, bacteria, disease, zero-g fabrication, and lots of other things. Common research payloads for space involve ocean and atmospheric research. Solar research is another big one.

In terms of exploration, we have the terrestrial planet finder, space-based observatories in general, rover missions (like the MER rovers on Mars that everyone loves), probes like Cassini, Dawn, Deep Impact, Juno, and many others. Those are all exploration, and no doubt SpaceX has launched and will continue to launch exploration missions for NASA. But SpaceX is not NASA, it's not purely research-based, they're launching communications and military projects. I'm sure, for example, that SpaceX would be in line to help service the GPS constellation (I don't know if they've done that already). NASA is pretty much research, but there is so much research that NASA does that's directly applicable to right now (like atmospheric, oceanographic, zero-g, etc.). Solar system and planet finder exploration missions are much fewer, but they also offer deep insights into the formation of the solar system, planets, and can even shed light back onto Earth atmospheric studies. We learn a great deal about Earth's formation and atmosphere by observing the formation and atmospheric differences with other planets. It's wildly beneficial to study a planet that has a different atmospheric composition when we want to understand what happens on Earth if it has a different atmospheric composition.

Putting a person on Mars or the Moon is what a lot of people think of when they think of "there are better problems to solve". And we haven't done those things in a while and while they are spectacular stunts and feats of engineering, they are some of the tougher projects that NASA undertakes when it comes to justifying how they benefit the public. I would say though, that those are some of the most interest-stimulating things that NASA does, and society does benefit a great deal from sparking interest in science and engineering. I do not expect SpaceX to support those, at the very least not directly. I kindof doubt NASA will put people on a SpaceX rocket. I could be wrong though, I wouldn't have expected them to use Soyuz.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Good video of the booster landings from launch complex 37B.

 

[eran0004]

On its way to becoming the fastest* car** in human history. I guess previously the record was held by this:

* with respect to the surface of the Earth
** for people

Someone claimed that the Tesla was "the first electric car in space", which begs a few questions:

1. Did someone launch a non-electric car into space already? Or is there a other reason for why it wouldn't simply be the first car in space?

2. What counts as being in space? Is the surface of the moon considered space or not? Does transporting the lunar rover to the moon counts as it being in space, or is some kind of deployment in flight required?

3. Does the lunar rover count as a car or is it a separate category of vehicle?

 

[TetsuKobura]

Someone claimed that the Tesla was "the first electric car in space", which begs a few questions:

1. Did someone launch a non-electric car into space already? Or is there a other reason for why it wouldn't simply be the first car in space?

2. What counts as being in space? Is the surface of the moon considered space or not? Does transporting the lunar rover to the moon counts as it being in space, or is some kind of deployment in flight required?

3. Does the lunar rover count as a car or is it a separate category of vehicle?

1. I don’t know the specifications of the rover vehicles, but it’s safe to say that it was the first production car in space.

2. I wouldn’t consider the surface of the moon to be space since there’s a gravitational pull, even if it’s just a weak one. Space to me is where there’s no bounds holding something back.

3. I guess that could be inferred multiple different ways depending on how you look at it.