Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Successfully Lands Two Falcon Heavy Boosters Simultaneously After Rocket Launch [Update] (spaceflightnow.com)
After nearly a decade of development, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket has successfully launched from pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida today. After reaching orbit, the two side boosters simultaneously landed at Landing Zone One. We do not know the status of the central core of the rocket, which was destined to land on the "Of Course I Still Love You" drone ship roughly 8:19 minutes into the flight.
According to Space.com, the Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket to launch since NASA's Saturn V -- the iconic vessel that, with 7.5 million pounds of thrust, accomplished the definitive Apollo-era feat of putting astronauts on the moon. Elon Musk says that Falcon Heavy is "twice as powerful as any other booster operating today." As for the payload, it includes a Tesla Roadster electric car. "The Falcon Heavy will send the vehicle around the sun in an elliptical orbit that will extend farther than Mars' orbit," reports Space.com.
UPDATE: SpaceX has confirmed The Verge's reporting that the middle core of SpaceX's Heavy Rocket missed the drone ship where it was supposed to land. "The center core was only able to relight one of the three engines necessary to land, and so it hit the water at 300 miles per hour," reports The Verge. "Two engines on the drone ship were taken out when it crashed, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said in a press call after the rocket launch. It's a small hiccup in an otherwise successful first flight."
According to Space.com, the Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket to launch since NASA's Saturn V -- the iconic vessel that, with 7.5 million pounds of thrust, accomplished the definitive Apollo-era feat of putting astronauts on the moon. Elon Musk says that Falcon Heavy is "twice as powerful as any other booster operating today." As for the payload, it includes a Tesla Roadster electric car. "The Falcon Heavy will send the vehicle around the sun in an elliptical orbit that will extend farther than Mars' orbit," reports Space.com.
UPDATE: SpaceX has confirmed The Verge's reporting that the middle core of SpaceX's Heavy Rocket missed the drone ship where it was supposed to land. "The center core was only able to relight one of the three engines necessary to land, and so it hit the water at 300 miles per hour," reports The Verge. "Two engines on the drone ship were taken out when it crashed, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said in a press call after the rocket launch. It's a small hiccup in an otherwise successful first flight."
That I had to double-check that I was watching a live stream and not a CGI of what they expected to happen.
It's like they know what they are doing or something over there at Space-X.. Time to make some money!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
King of the Nerds !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Quite amazing to watch the two boosters land simultaneously (at 37:58).
I guess Mr. Musk was sandbagging a bit when he said he would be happy if the pad wasn't destroyed.
Everyone at SpaceX must be very proud, and rightly so.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Slashdot has breaking news!?
As I write this, still no word as to whether or not the core stage landed on the drone ship successfully.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Where is the knowledgeable insider to let us know how the core fared on landing?
many things are shitty nowadays - islamic fundamentalism, dying off of coral reefs, melting of permafrost, plastic pollution in the oceans, spreading of idiocracy.... one bright, very bright spot is Space X and a community of people (of which I am a member) that fervently follows the space programs, our steps into the new frontier.
I feel lucky that there are other people like me, and I can interact with them through the Internet (mostly on reddit).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I could clearly see some debris flying around in the few frames of video that made it back from the drone ship. Looks like it just missed.
Undoubtedly the coolest technology test in history. Epic. Well done SpaceX! You've just inspired kids again like NASA did in the 60's.
I'm making a note here...
What a shitty Slashdot summary for such an important event!
Don't bother reading that shitty article. Just go to SpaceX's website directly, where there is video footage. Or look at the SpaceX tweets.
Is this a lame attempt at humor?
There is an official live feed...
I can't wait for them to put a rover or something on mars.
I think it's time to re-read the mars trilogy, ringworld, and the commonwealth saga.
Did the core of stage 1 land successfully?
Awe-inspiring to watch those 2 boosters land in a flawless ballet of dust and fire. This is one for the history books.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Fox News, LOL
I have to admit I was watching it live and it looked like everything went smoothly as can be. I'm guessing SpaceX probably simulated everything for the launch but as they say sometimes you have to try it out in real-life to see if it really works! I imagine the United Launch Alliance might be panicking now as SpaceX is well on their way of making "Heavy" launches significantly cheaper as former heavy launches were all done by them with a significantly more expensive rocket.
Sure, what they've done isn't exactly easy, but it's not as groundbreaking as you make it out to be. This is an incremental improvement on 1960s-era technologies. The hardest work underlying this technology was done before 1970. That earlier work was truly groundbreaking, and even more impressive because so much of it predated practical digital computing. They aren't 'stepping into a new frontier'. That was done decades ago by our grandparents, or even our great grandparents on some cases. The most innovative aspects of SpaceX are more when it comes to the economics and financing of space launches. The technological advances are actually quite minimal.
According to twitter posts, it seems that it did not. 2 out of 3 is not bad ;) Also, they had to have something not go perfect in order to learn from the test flight :)
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Even if the center core turned out to not land correctly, this is still absolutely amazing. The simultaneous landing of both the side boosters was literally awe-inspiring. SpaceX had initially said they might stagger their landings by a little in case one went wrong, but it looks like they had the hubris to land them both literally at the same time. And lesson there is hubris is fucking awesome, and those obnoxious Greek gods can go suck it.
More seriously, this is going to have a massive impact on the heavy end of the launch market. Even without reuse, it looks like Falcon Heavy is going to be cheaper for almost all big payloads than any of the other heavy launchers, especially Ariane 5 and Delta Heavy. The only issue right now limiting its use are twofold: First, it has a relatively small fairing, so it is possible that some payloads will have volume issues- but that will be rare, and making a new fairing is something SpaceX may do if a customer is interested in it. Second, the Falcon Heavy is for pretty obvious reasons not man-rated. That may change in the future, and the current plan right now is to just man-rate the Falcon 9, but if the Falcon Heavy does get man-rated then there will be almost no market for anything else. If Grey Dragon or others can go on a Falcon Heavy it will be a very different situation. And of course, the Falcon Heavy doesn't have the same lift capability as the SLS, but the SLS still hasn't flown yet, and will cost literally a billion dollars or so a launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B_tWbjFIGI&feature=youtu.be&t=2299
CNN, LOL. Your point?
The only way this could be cooler to hear about is if it was a 60's Corvette convertible; that's what this reminds me of. :-)
Wow, not bad for a first try.
Question:
It is hard to make a rocket nozzle that works well in the atmosphere and in space.
With that many engines to steer, I wonder if there is some way to use the extra degrees of freedom to shape the plume to get a bit more thrust?
The simultaneous landing of both the side boosters was literally awe-inspiring.
Oh man, you said it. I lost it somewhere between the lift-off and that awesome visual of both boosers landing simultaneously.
A tiny, little, shy but manly tear rolling down them old cheecks.
OK, maybe not that manly. I don't care.
Even without reuse, it looks like Falcon Heavy is going to be cheaper for almost all big payloads than any of the other heavy launchers, especially Ariane 5 and Delta Heavy.
I agree, but reusing the boosters would be more than just icing on the cake.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
BFR is progressing nicely according to reports. I think the Heavy will have a short lifetime with the BFR taking over its role over the next 5 - 7 years. So amazing watching it lift off, i literally hung up after a fight with a sr. dev. right as it was taking off and so wasn't in the best of moods but it was pretty incredible nonetheless.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Did they FINALLY prove the Earth is ffffffflllllllaaaaaaaaaaatttttt?!?!?
It's all good, pal. Bunch of us were in tears by the end of it. It's manly to cry at the National Anthem and a badass space launch.
becomes the fastes car ever built... currently travelling well past 15000MPH
WooHoo!
Very exciting, though I couldn't help but notice that the supposedly different booster feeds were actually one duplicated feed. If you watch carefully at the buildings and roads you can see that they both show an identical landing on the bottom-right-most "X-only" pad, while the ground-level cam clearly shows the nearer one landing in the X-in-circle pad. You can even see circle-pad destined booster's flame at the top of both feeds.
I assume somebody goofed with the feeds, and didn't notice in all the excitement - they would have likely been nearly identical until the last few seconds.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Yes, "whataboutism" is bad.
But what about other stupid forms of argument such as ad hominem?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Here is a tweet with a view of monitors showing smoke clearing from the drone ship deck with no rocket aboard. It seems it missed the ship. Not too surprising as the centre core is a new machine that has never flown before. Also, the re-entry profile was likely one of the hottest ones they have tried.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
His Geek Cred just went up over the limit...
What an amazing historical day...
Congrats to all those involved.
What a pleasure it was to see rockets land like God and Robert A. Heinlein intended!
Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
Now thats the kicker... this launch clears my doubts that he may actually do it. And from the looks of things on this planet... just in the nick of time. https://science.slashdot.org/s...
[($)]
They are streaming a live view of the star man here It is rolling a bit...I believe this called a BBQ roll, to prevent the car from getting too hot in the sun.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Just hear it hear from spacex stream itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B_tWbjFIGI&feature=youtu.be&t=2310
Yup. It takes a lot for me to cry, but watching that was, well, goddamit, one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. This is the beginning of the Second Space Age. You've got to give Musk credit. He may seem like a money-burning madman, but maybe that's what it takes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Despite all the naysayers, we will get to Mars with Mr. Musk!
Hes in development mode... error reports are still turned on. :) It would have sucked if nothing went wrong... it leaves you wondering and waiting for that bug to show up.
[($)]
Right from the start you could tell they were the same: both feeds had the connection to the center core at the top, and the background land was in the same orientation. To be correct, one or the other should have been flipped by 180 degrees.
Having said that, I only suspected we were getting a duplicate feed up to the point when they headed for the same landing pad. I had to rewatch to get confirmation it was the same feed from the start.
Also, there is a live feed of Starman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As I type, you can see south east Australia in the background.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
There's one more burn, I believe, in several hours.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Fake news unless it comes from Fox.
I wondered about that as well, but if you watch and compare closely, the feeds have a slightly different perspective AND if you follow them all the way down, you'll see that the burns are different and just before landing, you'll see that one of the feeds has the engine burn of the other.
The technology is really awe-inspiring.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
SpaceX plan to send tourists (and possibly also NASA astronauts) around the moon in a Dragon launched by FH. Unless plans have changed, that means they will be man-rating FH.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Starman's live feed is giving us amazing views of the spherical earth, and the moon occasionally. I suspect I'll have this streaming an awful lot.
I noticed the words "Don't Panic" displayed in large, friendly letters on the Tesla's console.
Let me make sure I have a firm grip on my towel.
There's also a live feed from the car. It's pretty amazing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"I was only cutting onions, really!"
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
He may seem like a money-burning madman, but maybe that's what it takes.
I see little madness in burning money this way. What better can a man do with lots of money? Get a nice car, maybe two, get a beautiful villa... a yacht, a place to spend the winter... and then? Another villa? Two more, three more? After a certain point, magabucks are just a number on your bank account, and purely pointless.
What Elon is doing with his money is awe-inspiring, electrifying, actually transcendent. One of the best damn thing you can do with your life before kicking the bucket.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Heâ(TM)s employing people and doing interesting and good things for the planet. Not hoarding cash or mining stupid bitcoins.
"I'm seeing on Fox News that the 2nd stage fired successfully putting a Tesla roadster towards Mars.."
Watching TV again in bed with a cheeseburger?
Nope - look again.
If you look closely at the waffle fins you can see the slightly different perspective of each camera.
They really were two different feeds... just perfectly choreographed.
Very much so. I wish I could have been there, but just watching it on TV was awe inspiring. I'm now really curious what the battery/solar setup on the payload is. Obviously Musk does both, and with dragon has the space experience. I'm wondering if we're going to get video from Spaceman in his Tesla for just a little while, or if he's got it set up to broadcast for the next decade.
Knowing Musk, it's the latter.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
The simultaneous landing of both the side boosters was literally awe-inspiring. SpaceX had initially said they might stagger their landings by a little in case one went wrong, but it looks like they had the hubris to land them both literally at the same time. And lesson there is hubris is fucking awesome, and those obnoxious Greek gods can go suck it.
Thank you for my QOTD!
I think you summarized this better than I could have. If I had Musk money, I'd like to think I'd be doing stuff like this, but honestly, I'm not sure I would. I bet I'd be pretty happy on my tropical island, and I wouldn't be trying to change the world.
Kudos to him.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
When the sun angle is right, I see little bright specks zipping away from the car. Evidently there is outgassing carrying away small particles. (speed and direction are wrong for them to be bright background stars.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Falcon Heavy has a much smaller payload capacity than Saturn V.
Good thing they can send 2 or 3 for less money.
As Airbus is learning quite painfully, larger payload isn't the ultimate metric.
The Saturn V was an amazing thing for its day. But needs and the optimal equipment changes. In the era of a few big missions, that Saturn V made sense. But now we are in the era of lots of small to medium sized missions, the Falcon Heavy makes more sense.
Reusable launch systems aren't new. Nothing about it is particularly remarkable.
Except the boosters that fly themselves back to the launch site and land on their tail. That, until Space X, was sci fi movie stuff.
Absolutely!
Unfortunately, space itself is curved so that it still looks like a spheroid from any direction. You can only tell it's actually flat if you rapidly consume at least a week's supply of heavily spiked Kool-Aid and welcome the truth of Jebus-Under-The-Mountain into your heart.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
After several years of our so-called "leaders" casting their eyes down, looking to the past, and pitting one against another in a zero-sum game, it is exhilarating to see what happened today.
America is greatest when we look for hard - some might say impossible - challenges and go for it.
And all this because of an immigrant.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Nope. Focus on the big obvious bit: The ground cam clearly shows one booster landing on the bigger X-in-O pad, while both booster feeds show them landing on the smaller X-only pad.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If they're two feeds, they're from adjacent cameras on the same booster - which seems unlikely but not impossible. Where's the big black circle around the X on the landing pad? The ground cam clearly shows it, while both booster feeds clearly show a landing on the smaller X-only pad.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Musk is a fucking crony, funded by government and people who buy the hype until he succeeds.
Indeed. In his latest September "Becoming a Multiplanet Species" speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gFxiOR8UTw ) he said that construction of the first BFR would likely begin sometime this summer, with the optimistic ambition to be able to launch for Mars by 2022. And I think he said the plan was to entirely phase out Falcon 9 Block 5 production in the same timeframe to focus all available assets on the BFR, once enough Falcon 9s were built to satisfy forseeable demand for more conservative customers. And presumably to tide them through any early problems with the BFR.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You can actually see the plume from the other rocket during the landing burn if you watch closely.
It's time for Operation Crazy Plan.
I may be crazy, but it looks to me that both booster feeds on landing were from the same Booster. Both landing motors fired at the same time, and the flames for the other Booster were visible from the top of both feeds. Either they were from the same Booster, or they were facing each other mirror image, but the overhead view of the landing pad(s) are also appear identical in the feeds, but show as not being symmetrical from from the feed views from higher elevation that show both pads and terrain.
Not saying it's faked, just that it wasn't feeds from both Boosters.
F X=0:1:9999 F D=2:1 Q:((X>2)&(X#D=0)!((D>X/2)&(X'=1))) I D>(X/2) W:$X>75 ! W X,?$X+5-$l(X) Q
I'd say the man-rating probably has more to do with carrying crew to the ISS. I'm not sure if NASA rating is even relevant to tourists - other than making the tourists more comfortable taking the risk.
I didn't see anything on that page to suggest NASA astronauts would be sent around the moon though - only to the ISS. Which makes sense - it would be rather pointless sending astronauts on a joyride around the moon - there's nothing they could do from orbit that unmanned satellites couldn't do better. I suspect that when NASA gets involved with manned moon missions again it will be either the proposed lunar space-station, or an actual moonbase - either of which will probably wait for the BFR with its massively increased payloads and planned ability to land on the Moon and return.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Do you have a link?
I'm hoping the book was part of the navigation system. :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
I'm hoping Elon helps us escape the Vogons. :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
You just gave me the idea for a new Crypto. Heres my whitepaper. MuskCoin can only be mined by launching a spaceship. One MuskCoin is 90 million dollars. I have already premined 0.5 MuskCoin as my fee for this Whitepaper
**Life is too short to be serious**
I hope "Of Course I Still Love You" is still alive; the rapidity of the "engine firing" to "we lost the center" was pretty quick.
A rocket stage falling thru you could be bad; M'Kay? :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Nope. Watch the video again, they both seem to be focusing on one pad, as you say, but in the last few seconds the other pad comes into view on one of the feeds.
They're really close, but they are different.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
From what I've been able to tell, the payload (Musk's roadster and the dummy in the space suit) are in some giant elliptical orbit around the sun with an orbital diameter as far out as Mars.
Is this right? Also, is the payload configured to have long-term telemetry like a probe, or is it just dead weight in a perpetual orbit?
Nope, you're right - I suspect somebody goofed on the feeds. The ground-cam clearly shows the near rocket landing on the bigger pad with the X inside a black circle, while the supposedly-different booster feeds show both landing on the same X-only pad (look at the buildings and roads in the last seconds to confirm it's actually the same pad)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Elon confirmed that the center core did not land on the drone ship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KORTP545vAc
Not seeing it. Both feeds come in apparently focussed on the X-in-circle pad, both then veer down-right to the smaller X-only pad, and then the feed cuts away to the ground cam for touchdown.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
First off, there is no obvious reasons to NOT man-rate FH, other than BFR coming up quickly. FH is as safe as F9.
Secondly, according to musk, FH will NOT be man-rated because the BFR's development is moving much faster than anticipated. Basically, the raptors are close to ready. Likewise, the tanks are tested. As such, they should be capable of putting together stage 1 within 1-1.5 years.
And assuming that FH gets man-rated, that changes nothing. America has lost our space access 2x for years. The GOP wanted all the money to go to ULA for doing manned launches, but NASA wanted MULTIPLE launchers so that they will NEVER lose space access again. As such, that is why they defied the GOP and gave TWO manned launchers and then gave a 3rd cargo launcher to SNC so that they could develop it into a manned launcher. But for this to work, we need 2+ systems that are distinctly different. Hence ULA or BO will ALWAYS have the ability to launch humans along with SX.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
pretty much, except that you missed an important part. IF SX uses just mars for BFR, then it will be too expensive. As such, it will be used for everything including the moon. While Musk says that BFR will go to mars by 2022, what he is not saying is that they expect to launch next year or sometime in early 2020. And it will be used for LEO, GEO AND LUNAR missions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The plans Changed. Musk said on the media interview that they were NOT going to man rate FH because BFR will be ready much sooner than they thought and it will handle the moon. It sounds like end of 2019.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Mostly agreement. One point: The main reason to not man-rate the FH that I was thinking of was that the primary customer for it would be NASA using the Dragon, and the Dragon can get to the ISS fine on a Falcon 9. I agree that if they want to do other stuff, then manrating it makes sense, and in that context, the fact that they think BFR is going to be very soon coming down the pipeline is a good reason not to, but the location of the primary destination is also pretty important.
destination is everything. For sending man beyond LEO, it will take FH or better. And even then, FH can ONLY orbit around the moon. It is not capable of dealing with landings.
Personally, I was pissed that he killed red dragon and now manned FH. BUT, if he really can get BFR first stage done in another 1-1.5 years, AND have it man rated rather quickly, then things are not bad. BUT that second stage will actually take a lot of work. 3 different types. 1 for ppl; 1 for cargo; 1 for tanker. I would guess that cargo makes the most sense to do first and then send that to the moon for at least several trips.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It wasn't quite live. There is obviously a long enough delay inserted that they were able to shut down the feed before the world saw the main rocket crash. I wouldn't call that part catastrophic. I don't intend to rain on the parade, because all in all this is a brilliant achievement, but losing the main vehicle isn't the small blip that SpaceX said it was either. Two of the three engines failed. That's significant in and of itself. Losing the main vehicle because of that isn't a minor event. Still, it represents mission success, which is the main thing. And it's nice to see something outside of government with that kind of heavy lift ability.
His work is based directly on the work of others. NASA and similar scientists created that shit *from scratch*. And sending his car? Could he be more egotistical? The former space program was for all of humanity, not the narcissistic yearnings of a corporate douche like Musk. I'm sorry, but I fail to see this as an accomplishment. Left to his own devices, and without his wealth, he's pretty much just a mental patient.
FH is as safe as F9
How do you figure that? FH is basically three F9s strung together. Whatever the chance of a catastrophic failure is on a F9 launch, FH will be basically 3 times that.
Tell that to the poor, spectating whale pod. If only they had streaming capabilities in the ocean, the whole tragedy could have been avoided :(
There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!
Elon said in the news conference that the battery on the second stage is good for about 12 hours after launch.
Enigma
I wonder what modifications they made to the car. The wheels didn't pop from low pressure, so they must have filled it in. What's powering the cameras, the car's motive battery? How long will those last, the whole trip to mars? When will we lose video?
..I have ever seen.
Case 1) Atmospheric pressure is 15 psi. Suppose an inflated but not pressurized tire at sea level reads 0 psi. It is actually 15 psi on the outside and 15 psi on the inside. Take that unpressurized tire into space, it will read as 15 psi (1 atmosphere).
Case 2) Suppose a tire at sea level is pressurized to read 35 psi. Its actual pressure will be 15 psi on the outside and 35+15=50 psi on the inside.
If the tire is raised into space, the pressures on the tire will be 0 psi on the outside and 50 psi on the inside. Most tires will not immediately burst from this, but it's high.
Case 3) Fill a sea-level tire with 20 psi. Take it into space. It now reads 20+15=35 psi. An optimal pressure for driving.
What happens to the whales is tragic, but what happens to the bowl of petunias is a crime against Agrajag.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
During the event, lots of people around me were commenting that the footage of the booster landing looked like it was just one feed duplicated, and not separate footage from each booster...I thought it was just the miracle of computer guidance making things look freakishly synchronized.
But later tonight I pulled up the footage and took a closer look.
Yes, I'm absolutely sure that the footage of the landing comes from only one of the boosters. But I also noticed that they were slightly offset from each other...So I said what the hell, and crossed my eyes to see if it was in stereo...yep!
And the more corporate egotists we have in space now, the better off we are. It means competition, new ideas and assumption of risk.
Fixed that Subject for you [Scarletdown], though it was inherited. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit for emphasis, but still...
I think your post was supposed to be humorous or insightful? However it's sort of on the end of the scale of my initial reaction, which was "Why waste the launch on interplanetary garbage?" In the end, the entire thing looks like a publicity stunt. Perhaps the biggest and technically most sophisticated publicity stunt in history, perhaps personally gratifying to Elon Musk, but fundamentally rather pointless.
I can understand that they didn't want to spend too much money on a payload for a risky launch, but couldn't Musk decide to do something with the launch more useful than park his personal and very own car in a billion-year parking space? If I understand the situation correctly, they wasted quite a bit of technical effort for the next part of sending it to Mars, but why not use the entire thing for some constructive purpose? Perhaps consumables for the space station? Some sort of moderate complexity payload for the moon?
Don't get me wrong. I am somewhat impressed by the technology, but I'm also impressed by the waste. If NASA had launched a car, then I'm certain there would have been some criticism. (However I think most of the technology Musk used is just refining NASA's earlier research, and I'm not at all convinced of the economic value of recovering the boosters. Too soon to say on that count because there is nothing like a truly competitive market yet.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You are correct: the EELV Program started because of the Challenger accident. DoD/NRO found it unacceptable to lose their access to space due to the STS safety/reliability issues. So EELV (Atlas/Delta) became their backup. Elon Musk opens up the field again, and they're not going to accept closing it down.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Virtually all human endeavor is built on the shoulders of previous peoples work. NASAs successes were built (mostly) on the work of German research into rocketry pre/during WWII. Europe got most of their knowledge of early rocketry from the Middle east, which in turn were probably let in on the technology by the Chinese.
Your life must suck badly.
Quite - I tried to capture the timing in "launch for Mars by 2022", not get there.
And yeah - I could have been clearer that the revised BFR is intended to completely replace the Falcon 9 and Heavy - being cheaper on a per-launch basis, while having much greater payload capacity in terms of both mass and volume, to the point that the initial version of the BFR is projected to lower the per-pound launch cost to LEO 5-fold compared to the F9.
Plus the second stage is being designed to be able to, with orbital refueling around Earth, be able to land on the moon and return on a single tank of gas. As well as being able to land on Mars and, once refueled with locally-produced fuel, be able to make it back to Earth in a single stage with a payload of several (20?) tons. And be able to reach and land on the moons of the outer planets. And function as a suborbital transport on Earth, making most long journeys in under 30 minutes.
Basically a solid first step to a general purpose cargo-and-passenger mover. It should even be able to easily get the next-gen Bigelow BA2100 concept module into orbit - at least in terms of mass, and quite possibly in terms of volume - that's quite a large cargo bay.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There are points when both falling boosters are firing where the plume coming off them are identical. Pause the video and then do the old Magic Eye cross-eyed lineup. Absolutely identical.
But at other times you can pause it and the plumes will be different.
This happens for the entire length of the video when those two shots are on screen.
I suspect we might be looking at something like even and odd frames from a single higher speed camera.
Ya, Perhaps most if not all life sustaining planets have nasties trapped in their polar ice caps... and periodically when they melt they kill most of whats alive on the planet. Great filter maybe....
[($)]
> BUT that second stage will actually take a lot of work. 3 different types.
Maybe. But maybe not nearly so much as you'd expect. Consider - the passenger version could be, essentially, a sealed-closed cargo version. Just a giant open bay with fabric partitions arranged as desired, and any desired facilities (toiletries, air recycling, etc) bolted to the walls. Have everybody lash themselves into acceleration couches on the "floor" during launches and landings, and the rest of the time it's a spacious micro-gravity habitat.
Similarly, while a dedicated tanker would no doubt be handy, the job could initially be done, somewhat more expensively, by more numerous zero-payload cargo vessels. Adding supplemental tanks in the cargo bay might be possible as well, though at that point I suspect a dedicated cargo design might be easier. Though... supplemental tanks would let them benefit from standardized "working components", with the supplemental tanks only tied into the fuel system during transfer to the destination.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There's one more burn, I believe, in several hours.
This was an amazing accomplishment and it makes me excited for the next few years!
I found this link from the ISS showing the launch. Fast forward to 47 minutes. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/112609768
I was waiting to see a stream of the third burn and I didn't see anything posted All I found is a tweet from Musk that it was successful. I haven't yet found any video of the event or any actual news reporting it.
If I were to have any complaint about the event is that a camera feed was not made available continually from pre-launch to final burn when the craft left Earth orbit several hours later.
On a re-watch, I think it's probably a single booster's stereo image.
Did they strip out the Tesla's main battery (to reduce weight), or is that what's powering the transmitter & camera? It seems like a fully-charged Tesla battery capable of driving 200+ miles at 80mph SHOULD be more than capable of powering a camera and 100-watt transmitter for quite a while (100 watts doesn't sound like a lot, but it's actually the same amount of power used by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter when it uploads image data from the rovers back to NASA via the Deep Space Network).
Source: Elon Musk twitter.
"Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt. "
There is a diagram, showing aphelion 2.61AU, perihelion 0.98 AU, nearly reaching the orbit of Ceres. (By comparison, Mars has apohelion 1.67 AU, perihelion 1.38 AU.)
This surprises me. All the material I'd seen prior to this showed an orbit with aphelion at Mars orbit. I'd have thought they'd be a whole lot more organized than just "lets put peddle to the metal and see how far it goes."
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The roadster, or something in it, is Musk's horcrux. He wanted to put it somewhere safe.
(Yes, I have been reading Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
I'm quite sure there were no batteries at all in that Tesla. They simply aren't designed for being in a vacuum and probably would have exploded from internal pressure. I'm actually quite surprised how much of the car seemed to take the vacuum without issues. None of the dashboard plastics or foams seemed to swell or deform.
> And lesson there is hubris is fucking awesome, and those obnoxious Greek gods can go suck it.
OK, comment of the year there :)
hawk
Who put forward an ad hominem? Do you even know what it means?
It is a fallacy, not name-calling or any other such nonsense.
numbnuts
as if it was not enough that the whole city is packed with cars, now they start to send them to the orbit...
Most large payloads have volume issues, massive ones at that, GEO sats are built like origami these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Falcon is not at a disadvantage here tho, all the heavy lift vehicles have about the same size fairing.
Yesterday's video was quite nice. Not sure about how relevant is being nice for something like space exploration, but if they deliver there shouldn't be any problem.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Yup, I noticed that too when watching it live (even when they were saying they're different). I then re-watched it this morning and I noticed that they fixed the video so the bottom panels show different feeds.
They also fixed the fairing separation - I didn't see it happen live, just heard the music and the cheers, but now you see it how it happened.
They've fixed the video, it was definitely the same feed when broadcast live.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... ;)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The Aerospike is a ground tested but not flight tested variable ratio rocket motor. It offers the possibility of eliminating the rocket gimble (stearing) assembly (a bunch of weight). Rocketdyne promotional video
"FOX, LOL" is an ad hominem against a legal person rather than a natural.
the dude just put his fucking car in orbit! Kudos! If the final phase goes good, it will leave Earth orbit and head on out! BAD ASS MOFOJO!
I laughed my ass off.
No, poor millennial Untermenschen, there is no outer space.
And blockchains are a Communist Red Hydra. You specimen of long lost, but finally created homo stultum have achieved the absurd: ex matera nihilo fit, for money is nothing.
One is a little nervous about those incoming boosters. If they lose thrust or attitude control, how do you protect life and property? I could imagine some bad PR there. I suppose there's a range safety procedure with some explosives, but that would convert one big bomb into lots of mid size bombs.
Fiat Lux.
They reached space and then turned around. They were going more than 10 times slower than orbital speed. Stage 2's job is to get the payload to orbital speed, and in this case put it into an aphelion-near-Asteroid-belt heliocentric orbit. This car will never come near the Earth again.
Elon did get a nice car... then he lobbed it into a heliocentric orbit...
Gave me nearly as much excitement as the Saturn V launches back in the late 60's/early 70's! Seeing that car appear after the fairings fell away was AMAZING! Go Starman, GO!
The accumulation of more money is not the end goal. The money is a means to power, a way to influence society or pure ego gratification (how many rich folk have libraries or other places named after themselves?)
That is why the rick try to get richer, for the power it can bring.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Two Out of Three Ain't Bad
Cool, I had to rewatch it in response, and you're absolutely correct. The difference is dramatic, *definitely* almost-duplicate feeds last time. Perhaps, like CL said, the two feeds from a stereo camera. But an awesome landing, and now we can follow both down to their respective pads.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
For some classes of catastrophic failure yes, but one of the more common failure modes involve loss of an engine or two. For most flight profiles the F9 has engine-out capability so it can fill most mission criteria (or at least with people abort to orbit) with an engine out. The Falcon Heavy though has more redundancy and so has an engine-out capability as high as 6 engines. That said, this probably doesn't matter much because there are very few situations where one is going to lose more than 1 engine and not have a highly catastrophic failure event.
According to NASA, the last Saturn V launch was 1973.
On the other hand the last Russian Energia launch was 1988. Energia had a LEO capacity of 220,000 lb. Falcon Heavy has 140,700 to LEO.
Everyone at SpaceX must be very proud, and rightly so.
I thought about all those who pulled a lot of allnighters along with 60 hr work weeks for months.
I tuned in just as FH was going through max Q, I thought it was cool they had crowds cheering behind the SpaceX PIO pair that were giving verbal updates (but if something went bad, would we hear the crowd groan?). It was nice SpaceX PIO gave thanks to Range people and FAA providing permits.
mfwright@batnet.com
6000 people at SpaceX plus tens of thousands of others in suppliers created an awesome piece of art as a stepping stone to getting humanity to Mars. It was hardly a narcissist piece: it was an homage to the hopes and dreams of all of us who enjoy science fiction and have dreamed of going to the stars ever since we were old enough to realize we could go there. Musk provided the framework and the impetus, but, I assure you, a whole lot of other people supported creating that visionary photograph of the astronaut driving to Mars.
Hah, Elon's companies have done great things, but usually much later than anticipated. Maybe they'll be on time this time... but I'll believe in when it's on a live webcast!
I know you. You're the one who didn't find a way to sell him on the idea of a better payload. Do you know what the deductible is on insurance for payloads on a totally un-tested rocket configuration? I'm no actuary, but I'm pretty sure it's 100%. Nobody will insure it, no research team can sell the idea. Real science payloads cost $millions, and nobody with any real cred wanted to risk it. Maybe you could have sold him on the idea of putting a few 30 cm cube probes in the trunk... but what if the trunk popped open during launch? For that matter, what if anything more sophisticated than a stripped car malfunctioned during launch? They wanted to test the rocket not the payload. Yeah, it's flashy but it's his rocket. You wanna put a dumb block of concrete on your first test? Fine. Build your own Earth-gravity escape capable rocket and get back to us.
Laughing at a person, a fake person in this case, is not an ad hominem.
How fucking stupid can you numbnuts get? It is not that hard of a term to understand.
You seem to miss the joke. I state that whataboutism is bad, and then in the very next sentence engage in whataboutism to divert attention to something else. Which is exactly what "whataboutism" is used for. To derail the conversation. The joke is to illustrate this.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The pictures of the driver in the space suit behind the wheel of a sports car in orbit were amazingly similar to the opening sequence of the movie.
A joke is not an ad hominem, it is a joke.
Illiterate numbnuts