Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Plans To Blast a Tesla Roadster Into Orbit Around Mars (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica:
Previously, SpaceX founder Elon Musk has said he intends to launch the "silliest thing we can imagine" on the maiden launch of the Falcon Heavy. This is partly because the rocket is experimental -- there is a non-trivial chance the rocket will explode on the launch pad, or shortly after launch. It is also partly because Musk is a master showman who knows how to grab attention. On Friday evening, Musk tweeted what that payload would be -- his "midnight cherry Tesla Roadster."
And the car will be playing Space Oddity, by David Bowie; the song which begins, "Ground Control to Major Tom." Oh, and the powerful Falcon Heavy rocket will send the Tesla into orbit around Mars. "Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn't blow up on ascent," Musk added. Ars was able to confirm Friday night from a company source that this is definitely a legitimate payload. Earlier on Friday, Musk also said the Falcon Heavy launch would come "next month" from Launch Pad 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, meaning in January.
"No private company has ever launched a spacecraft beyond low-Earth orbit, let alone to another planet," according to the article, adding that SpaceX's new rocket "could play a major role in any plans the agency has to send humans to the Moon." In addition, Musk added on Twitter, "Red car for a red planet."
UPDATE (12/2/17): Saturday Elon Musk told The Verge that he "totally made it up" about sending a Tesla Roadster to Mars. Then in "multiple emails" to Ars Technica --- sent Saturday afternoon -- "Musk confirmed that this plan is, indeed, real."
And the car will be playing Space Oddity, by David Bowie; the song which begins, "Ground Control to Major Tom." Oh, and the powerful Falcon Heavy rocket will send the Tesla into orbit around Mars. "Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn't blow up on ascent," Musk added. Ars was able to confirm Friday night from a company source that this is definitely a legitimate payload. Earlier on Friday, Musk also said the Falcon Heavy launch would come "next month" from Launch Pad 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, meaning in January.
"No private company has ever launched a spacecraft beyond low-Earth orbit, let alone to another planet," according to the article, adding that SpaceX's new rocket "could play a major role in any plans the agency has to send humans to the Moon." In addition, Musk added on Twitter, "Red car for a red planet."
UPDATE (12/2/17): Saturday Elon Musk told The Verge that he "totally made it up" about sending a Tesla Roadster to Mars. Then in "multiple emails" to Ars Technica --- sent Saturday afternoon -- "Musk confirmed that this plan is, indeed, real."
So, I clicked on the comments section thinking, "A private company launching the highest payload rocket since the Saturn V, with game-changing launch costs even without reuse, designed to land on barges and landing pads, and rather than risking a super-expensive satellite on the maiden launch, they're doing it in the most hilarious manner possible, at the CEO's expense? There's no way anyone is going to be turning this into a negative!"
Hello Slashdot. Thanks for finding new ways to disappoint.
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
This is the first launch of the Falcon Heavy. They're not getting a paying customer until they can prove that the rocket works. That means they don't have any important payload, so why not pull a stunt like this?
Well, they will have to do some work to make sure any liquids or gasses in the vehicle don't cause explosions and mess up the test. Obviously they need to remove the valve stems on the tires, but they'll have to look at lots of other fluids and places where air is trapped to be sure it won't be a problem.
Of course, there are other things they could launch. Perhaps they could do a resupply to the ISS--one of the few launches where the cargo isn't as expensive as the launch. They could also stage some supplies for a future Mars mission in Mars orbit. But if doing something like that would delay the launch as they prepare the payload, it might not be worth it.
A trip to Mars is like life. It's not the destination, but rather, the journey. The information we learn from building rockets and actually launching them is important for technological progress. Landing men on the moon was nothing. The process of getting them there, and the knowledge we gained as a result, was everything. "If people spent 10% the amount of time thinking about how to improve life on Earth and they do about living on Mars we would be better off" is a false dichotomy. Mars living is a technological problem. Social issues on Earth are social issues. Sorry, but you STILL can't solve many social issues with technology. I would argue that we are spending too much on social issues, since there is never going to be a solution to them without further advancement of technology. How would they be? They won't be solved with philosophical discussion.
... the most valuable car in the solar system.
Assuming it is (still) in a âoeparkingâ orbit (ha ha) around Mars and assuming that Mankind survives and prospers enough to colonize Mars, thatâ(TM)ll be one heck of a collectors item!
It should be in mint(?) condition and, because itâ(TM)s electric, might actually work on planets without oxygen (the driver will need to wear a spacesuit of course).
Then again, if it put into a stable parking orbit and presumably not âoelostâ or abandoned, are there any salvage rights? Call in the space lawyers! (Be careful though, their fees are astronomical!)
Boo hoo. The guy makes his own rocket, and his own car, and you're telling him he can't do with it whatever he wants ?
Is building a heavy launch vehicle an ego trip as well, according you you? Normally first launches like this have just a dummy load: bags of sand or whatever else can make up sufficient payload. If somebody wants to stretch the goals by adding a car to this dummy load and aiming for Mars in this first launch, I fail to see why that deserves so much grousing. Personally I think it is a waste of a perfectly fine car, but hey, he built the thing himself, and he seems to like to have fun with things like this, so who am I to judge him on that.
A Tesla Roadster is about to become the fastest car ever made.
If the earth would be flat than we would have sunrise for all at the same time. Or no sunrise at all (in the spotlight model). Furthermore, you can test the earth curvature when looking over the ocean. Do this from high enough altitude, use your best telescope and then try to see the Eifel tower from New York. Also you can follow ships and when the water is cold you can see that the first thing to go on any ship is the lower parts and the chimney/sail can be seen for a longer time.
There is also another experiment. Have a friend who lives south or north (1000 km at least) of your place. Build two tables and insert into this a stick upright. Then place one table at your home and one at his home. The table must be perfectly horizontal. Now you collect for half a year from highest to lowest position of the sun the angle between the sun and the surface. You can do this by measuring the length of the shadow and calculating the arc with acos((l_shadow + l_stick - sqrt(l_shadow + l_stick))/( 2 * l_shadow * l_stick)). With the two angles and the distance between you and your friend, you can calculate the distance of the sun in your flat earth model and subsequently its heights above the surface. According to flat earth idea, it should be always at approx. 4000 something km.
Also you can make this experiment as follows. Use a friend east of you (the farer away the better). Every day you see a sunrise, you write down the angle between ground and sun. And at the same time your friend takes a measurement (call him and synchronize your efforts). On a flat earth you should experience sunrise at the same time. On a spherical earth this will happen at different points in time. Anyway, for your flat model, the height of the sun should be the same.
he would just seem to be firing off extremely expensive rockets for his own amusement
The primary goal is testing a heavy lift reusable rocket that can be used to bring heavy satellites in Earth orbit for profit. In order to test the rocket, he needs a cheap dummy payload. The only "amusement" part is using an old car instead of a bag of rocks. The rest of the plan is business.
So, I clicked on the comments section thinking, "A private company launching the highest payload rocket since the Saturn V, with game-changing launch costs even without reuse, designed to land on barges and landing pads, and rather than risking a super-expensive satellite on the maiden launch, they're doing it in the most hilarious manner possible, at the CEO's expense? There's no way anyone is going to be turning this into a negative!"
Hello Slashdot. Thanks for finding new ways to disappoint.
You left out the biggest positive for Tesla: They can announce an option that increases your range by millions of miles on a single charge...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
In which case why not launch something useful? I realise he doesn't want to risk a commercial satellite but he could launch fuel.
Pro tip: if you suspect that your launch vehicle stands a higher-than-usual chance of blowing up, don't launch stuff that is going to increase the blast radius or be unsuitable as a new artificial reef in the ocean off Florida.
Or he could get a bunch of cube sats and put those into orbit, assuming the launch works.
...but which will still leave a bunch of dissatisfied customers, sunk costs and bad publicity if it doesn't.
Even if this ends in a fireball, Musk wants to be able to present it as a "learning experience": try and launch anything useful and it looks like a failure.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
f people spent 10% the amount of time thinking about how to improve life on Earth and they do about living on Mars we would be better off.
If your solution to a problem is "the people need to change", then it probably isn't much of a solution. A trip to Mars, on the other hand, is a straightforward engineering challenge that people have a shot at. Space nutters are not the dreamers, utopia on Earth nutters are. You CAN put people on Mars. Given high enough technology, they may even live there. And they will probably - eventually - fight with each other, because they are people.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
>> Do we really want to turn Mars into a publicity stunt laden dumping ground?
Yes. Yes we do.
The only way an average Joe is ever going to get affordable commercial space travel is if the "Only governments can do spaceflight" meme dies a fiery death. Putting a Tesla around Mars is a fantastic way to light that pyre.
If the BFR delivers on its promise of dirt-cheap space travel we can tidy up after ourselves later.
Have you considered that the guy running the space launch company might have a better grasp of the logistics of what you're talking about than you?
-That this is an experimental launch and they're trying to minimize potential losses.
-Putting a Dragon capsule on top of it to send experiments to the ISS would be pointless because:
A. It would double the price of the launch.
B. part of the certification requirement for the government is for there to be a payload fairing on top of the rocket, and the capsule can't launch with one equipped.
C. The capsule is already volume constrained so it wouldn't be able to carry any more than a regular launch, thus failing to demonstrate the heavy-lift capability (If the car is going to Mars, it would be light, but will have a much higher velocity).
Or would you rather they wait a few years (decades?) for someone willing to build a heavy satellite that they don't mind losing?
What they're doing is not letting a precious opportunity not go to waste.
Where in any other test launch the payload would have been a block of metal mass simulator, they're doing something fun, something that will get people talking about space for decades, and some bonus advertising for his other company out of his own pocket.
Temperatures are actually not that big a deal. In the same section you linked to is detailed climate data from the Gale crater. During the day average highs range from -23C to +4C over the year which is actually warmer than McMurdo. The difference is that because the atmosphere is so thin the temperature drops extremely quick at night all year long by around 70C. But for the same reason it doesn't actually chill much. Basically if you have any kind of heat reservoir you should be able to stay pretty close to the highs rather than the lows. Atmosphere and water sure, but we have managed to run the moon missions, Mir, ISS etc. in the vacuum of space. I think radiation is the wildcard here, can we find practical shielding to all those nasty cosmic rays.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I would send tanks of water. Harmless in a liftoff accident, very useful at Mars.