Post by: Michael Baylor on 12/02/2017 01:24 am
Elon Musk on Twitter:
Quote
Payload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912
Post by: Craig_VG on 12/02/2017 01:25 am
Payload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912
Post by: rockets4life97 on 12/02/2017 01:28 am
Post by: shooter6947 on 12/02/2017 01:31 am
Post by: enzo on 12/02/2017 01:32 am
Elon Musk on Twitter:I am genuinely interested in the payload adapter and whether it is a likely mode of failure. ;DQuotePayload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/02/2017 01:35 am
Elon Musk on Twitter:QuotePayload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912
Is he trolling us all or is he serious? Guess we'll find out in 5 - 8 weeks.
Post by: gongora on 12/02/2017 01:36 am
Elon Musk on Twitter:QuotePayload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912
Is he trolling us all or is he serious? Guess we'll find out in 5 - 8 weeks.
The sad part is I can't be sure. I think he's trolling?
Post by: Michael Baylor on 12/02/2017 01:40 am
Quote
@beeberunner @nextspaceflight oh this is legit and of course there will be cameras!
https://twitter.com/RocketJoy/status/936786839268032513
Post by: Craig_VG on 12/02/2017 01:42 am
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/02/2017 01:43 am
I'm on the verge of tears.
Post by: mlow on 12/02/2017 01:45 am
So what value does launching an electric car have over say, a hunk of 'crete. And how the eff are they getting it to Mars ORBIT.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/02/2017 01:45 am
Elon Musk on Twitter:I am genuinely interested in the payload adapter and whether it is a likely mode of failure. ;DQuotePayload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912
I literally clicked on this thread to ask a similar question. Will require some interesting integration between the adaptor and the car and keeping the thing stable going uphill.......
Post by: Michael Baylor on 12/02/2017 01:48 am
So is S2 capable of that longevity wise, or some kind of kicker stage to get Mars orbit? Never mind the special one-off adapter, space-rating the car, wrong time of year to launch to Mars and I'm sure a plethora of other issues. As cool-factor of a launch it is, one where they don't want to risk a customer on and need to find a payload to test with. I was going to be disappointed if it was a hunk of concrete, because it would be a missed opportunity for either something "cool" or something of some value such as a test of something.The big implication of the Mars orbit is that it almost certainly rules out a second stage recovery attempt.
So what value does launching an electric car have over say, a hunk of 'crete. And how the eff are they getting it to Mars ORBIT.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/02/2017 01:53 am
The big implication of the Mars orbit is that it almost certainly rules out a second stage recovery attempt.
I'd rather have a Mars Car than S2 recovery, to be honest.
Also, did anyone else think this will be GLORIOUS PR for Tesla?
"Fastest car ever", "First commercial car in space", "First car in Mars orbit"
Post by: gongora on 12/02/2017 01:54 am
Post by: Marine_Mustang on 12/02/2017 01:56 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWMPe3wF9jQ&app=desktop
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/02/2017 02:00 am
Wouldn't Mars orbit require a power and propulsion bus for orbital insertion?
Just use a few Starlink buses, no instruments, just engines, control and solar panels. Then decouple once in orbit and you're golden (Or Martian ;D )
Post by: Orbiter on 12/02/2017 02:04 am
Post by: lrk on 12/02/2017 02:08 am
So is S2 capable of that longevity wise, or some kind of kicker stage to get Mars orbit? Never mind the special one-off adapter, space-rating the car, wrong time of year to launch to Mars and I'm sure a plethora of other issues. As cool-factor of a launch it is, one where they don't want to risk a customer on and need to find a payload to test with. I was going to be disappointed if it was a hunk of concrete, because it would be a missed opportunity for either something "cool" or something of some value such as a test of something.The big implication of the Mars orbit is that it almost certainly rules out a second stage recovery attempt.
So what value does launching an electric car have over say, a hunk of 'crete. And how the eff are they getting it to Mars ORBIT.
But it was already mentioned that the upper stage for this flight is some sort of 'Frankenstein' stage. And if it is going to be going to mars orbit, then that seems to imply it would have some significant form of propulsion capable of boosting it from an eccentric earth orbit - so I wouldn't completely rule it out just yet.
Also, assuming this isn't a joke, there would be significant value in practicing deep-space navigation to Mars in lieu of Red Dragon.
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 12/02/2017 02:11 am
Quote from: Elon Musk
Quote from: J.C.Just to reiterate, the payload for the first Falcon Heavy rocket will be a Tesla electric car, playing Space Oditty, heading for Mars.Yes
https://twitter.com/JC_Channel/status/936793484303859712
Post by: Patchouli on 12/02/2017 02:18 am
Ladies and Gentlemen:Crazier than the wheel of cheese on the first F9.
Payload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912
The best reply someone posted was what's the sober Elon payload?
Seeing as how delayed Falcon Heavy is I wonder if said Roadster is actually a rover built using hardware derived from Tesla's cars to be landed on the Moon or Mars?
They do have all the hardware needed to build a lander.
For the Moon they could use the F9 second stage as a crasher and then have a lander be based off the propulsion system off Dragon V2.
Post by: envy887 on 12/02/2017 02:19 am
So is S2 capable of that longevity wise, or some kind of kicker stage to get Mars orbit? Never mind the special one-off adapter, space-rating the car, wrong time of year to launch to Mars and I'm sure a plethora of other issues. As cool-factor of a launch it is, one where they don't want to risk a customer on and need to find a payload to test with. I was going to be disappointed if it was a hunk of concrete, because it would be a missed opportunity for either something "cool" or something of some value such as a test of something.The big implication of the Mars orbit is that it almost certainly rules out a second stage recovery attempt.
So what value does launching an electric car have over say, a hunk of 'crete. And how the eff are they getting it to Mars ORBIT.
But it was already mentioned that the upper stage for this flight is some sort of 'Frankenstein' stage. And if it is going to be going to mars orbit, then that seems to imply it would have some significant form of propulsion capable of boosting it from an eccentric earth orbit - so I wouldn't completely rule it out just yet.
Also, assuming this isn't a joke, there would be significant value in practicing deep-space navigation to Mars in lieu of Red Dragon.
The hard part is going from solar orbit to Mars orbit - that requires a 3 to 6 month coast and then around 1 km/s worth of delta-v.
That means a spacecraft bus with power, comms, nav, and propulsion for deep space. Much more than a mass simulator.
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 02:27 am
The hard part is going from solar orbit to Mars orbit - that requires a 3 to 6 month coast and then around 1 km/s worth of delta-v.
That means a spacecraft bus with power, comms, nav, and propulsion for deep space. Much more than a mass simulator.
Well the roadster 2 does have a 200kwh battery, over the air updates and gps. Not sure about propulsion, but it hits plaid speed.
Post by: envy887 on 12/02/2017 02:33 am
January 2018 is not an ideal launch date for a Mars transfer. 2 year transfer, 4.5 km/s injection.
Post by: punder on 12/02/2017 02:35 am
Post by: Michael Baylor on 12/02/2017 02:36 am
Wouldn't be surprised if they film a Tesla Roadster ad in Mars orbit.The big implication of the Mars orbit is that it almost certainly rules out a second stage recovery attempt.
I'd rather have a Mars Car than S2 recovery, to be honest.
Also, did anyone else think this will be GLORIOUS PR for Tesla?
"Fastest car ever", "First commercial car in space", "First car in Mars orbit"
Post by: DanielW on 12/02/2017 02:36 am
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 02:37 am
Post by: Darkseraph on 12/02/2017 02:48 am
Post by: Michael Baylor on 12/02/2017 02:50 am
Maybe they will use some sort of Dragon like thing to perform deep space maneuvers?So is S2 capable of that longevity wise, or some kind of kicker stage to get Mars orbit? Never mind the special one-off adapter, space-rating the car, wrong time of year to launch to Mars and I'm sure a plethora of other issues. As cool-factor of a launch it is, one where they don't want to risk a customer on and need to find a payload to test with. I was going to be disappointed if it was a hunk of concrete, because it would be a missed opportunity for either something "cool" or something of some value such as a test of something.The big implication of the Mars orbit is that it almost certainly rules out a second stage recovery attempt.
So what value does launching an electric car have over say, a hunk of 'crete. And how the eff are they getting it to Mars ORBIT.
But it was already mentioned that the upper stage for this flight is some sort of 'Frankenstein' stage. And if it is going to be going to mars orbit, then that seems to imply it would have some significant form of propulsion capable of boosting it from an eccentric earth orbit - so I wouldn't completely rule it out just yet.
Also, assuming this isn't a joke, there would be significant value in practicing deep-space navigation to Mars in lieu of Red Dragon.
Post by: colbourne on 12/02/2017 02:54 am
I always thought the film "Heavy Metal" was a documentary.
Post by: envy887 on 12/02/2017 02:55 am
I assume he means a mars transfer orbit that does not actually aim at mars. I highly doubt the falcon upper stage can loiter long enough to circularize. or are they going to stick a satellite bus on it?
The Roadster is only 1,235 kg, which is approximately what F9 (not FH) can launch to Mars transfer with a RTLS booster landing.
That's only 7.3% of Falcon Heavy's maximum payload to Mars transfer, so I would expect something more substantial than just the car.
Post by: envy887 on 12/02/2017 02:59 am
Would prefer if it was a free return refurbished Dragon around the Moon. To practice for the tourist mission they are allegedly doing in 2018.
I'm sure Elon would too, but there are a lot of practical issues with putting Dragon in a fairing and they need to demo the fairing.
Post by: CeeJayDugan on 12/02/2017 03:03 am
Post by: su27k on 12/02/2017 03:30 am
Quote
Ars was able to confirm Friday night from a company source that this is definitely a legitimate payload.
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2017 03:30 am
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/02/2017 03:41 am
But seriously. How much could Musk write off as a business expense with the areocentric Roadster orbiter as ad promo for his side-business?
Post by: Helodriver on 12/02/2017 03:43 am
Eric Berger confirms it's not a joke: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/with-bowie-playing-on-the-radio-elon-musk-plans-to-launch-his-tesla-to-mars/QuoteArs was able to confirm Friday night from a company source that this is definitely a legitimate payload.
Once again Helodriver predicts the Future in regards to SpaceX. Called the use of the former shuttle carrier for moving landed F9 cores, and now, called the Tesla Roadster, from 5 years ago in a post here from September 2012.
They should use the flight to test the fairing, and with the same mindset that put the first wheel of cheese in space, under that fairing should be a Tesla roadster. The first car in space and with a reignition of the second stage, the first car in solar orbit or on an escape trajectory out of the solar system. Inside the car, cameras and a telemetry system, powered by the car's lithium ion cells, which should last while a while if low powered enough or indefinitely with solar panels on the hood, roof and rear deck lid. Imagine the marketing and PR buzz.
Elon if you want to PM me for more ideas, I'm available. 8) You don't have to lurk on my posts here. ;D
Post by: guckyfan on 12/02/2017 03:50 am
So maybe to TMI but it would also need to be reenforced to survive launch. We will see.
Post by: yokem55 on 12/02/2017 03:56 am
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/932322853009080320
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/02/2017 04:01 am
It's both "legit" and will include cameras :)
https://twitter.com/RocketJoy/status/936786839268032513
Post by: speedevil on 12/02/2017 04:06 am
Could be not quite zero worth in ads, however it goes.
Post by: rakaydos on 12/02/2017 04:27 am
Or is it an "Interplanetary expressway" trajectory that uses phobos slingshots to capture into mars orbit over "billions of years in space"?
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/02/2017 04:28 am
Elon Musk on Twitter:I am genuinely interested in the payload adapter and whether it is a likely mode of failure. ;DQuotePayload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912
I literally clicked on this thread to ask a similar question. Will require some interesting integration between the adaptor and the car and keeping the thing stable going uphill.......
I wonder if it will be just the chassis and frame structure (or stripped down to as such, if the car is used), because installing the 1575 mm standard connection interface to the back of the Roadster will be.....awkward.
I guess it is possible to use the Roadster to satisfy certification and testing requirements of payload mass distribution to represent a common satellite?
Post by: drzerg on 12/02/2017 04:29 am
Post by: guckyfan on 12/02/2017 04:34 am
Post by: david1971 on 12/02/2017 04:37 am
Trajectory from https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/example_queries.php
January 2018 is not an ideal launch date for a Mars transfer. 2 year transfer, 4.5 km/s injection.
Perhaps "Mars orbit" simply means that the green circle will intersect the red circle. It would be disappointing, but going to Mars orbit might not actually mean going to Mars.
Post by: matthewkantar on 12/02/2017 04:40 am
Matthew
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/02/2017 04:42 am
Quote
Musk first tweeted out the idea on Friday evening, but has since separately confirmed his plans with The Verge.
Post by: Phil Stooke on 12/02/2017 04:46 am
Post by: K-P on 12/02/2017 05:02 am
Playing "Space Oddity" in a vacuum? Huh?
Matthew
Just put the music player with a mic inside an airtight box.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/02/2017 05:21 am
I believe they might want the car to not go into Martian orbit, but sail along at the same distance and inclination of Martian orbit; leading or trailing Mars by some distance. Heh - what if the 'trunk' had some Draco thrusters in it?! Some maneuvering could be achieved!! ;D
Post by: x15_fan on 12/02/2017 05:29 am
The Mars orbit thing makes me sceptical. He also announced on Twitter that the Tesla Semi can transform into a robot and fight aliens. It can also make an awesome Latte.
So maybe to TMI but it would also need to be reenforced to survive launch. We will see.
Why would it need re-enforcement? Comm sats much more fragile than street legal car than can take a crash.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/02/2017 05:35 am
Post by: kdhilliard on 12/02/2017 05:41 am
The roadster should fit in horizontally, unlike the school bus. Reenforcing the base plate may be easier than launching it vertical.
I wouldn't have expected that, but yes, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_(2008)) describes the 2008 Roadster as being 3,946 mm long and 1,873 mm wide, and the diagonal of such a rectangle is 4,368 mm, so it should fit a standard F9 fairing which offers 4.6 m ID.
Trajectory from https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/example_queries.php
January 2018 is not an ideal launch date for a Mars transfer. 2 year transfer, 4.5 km/s injection.
Perhaps "Mars orbit" simply means that the green circle will intersect the red circle. It would be disappointing, but going to Mars orbit might not actually mean going to Mars.
That would be consistent with Musk's, "Will be in deep space for a billion years or so ...".
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/02/2017 05:46 am
Quote
Gen1 roadster?https://twitter.com/mswagle/status/936829446052462592
Quote
Yeahhttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936829494874091520
Post by: octavo on 12/02/2017 05:54 am
Do the Tesla going past Mars!!This! Haha!
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/02/2017 05:55 am
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/02/2017 06:10 am
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/02/2017 06:15 am
Second thought: Actually those are interesting problems to solve. Fun problems. This is how you motivate your workforce and keep your company in the public eye. As soon as I thought about the vac thing, I immediately wanted to sit down and work out how to solve the problem. Dammit, I want to go work for SpaceX...
And that (plus a few billion dollars) is the difference between Elon and normal people.
Post by: sanman on 12/02/2017 06:36 am
I always thought the film "Heavy Metal" was a documentary.
This was exactly the same thing that came into my head, when I read the tweet - that same opening scene from Heavy Metal, with the corvette doing the atmospheric reentry, as the song Radar Rider plays in the background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWMPe3wF9jQ
But other than momentarily captivating the masses and their pedestrian tastes, couldn't he have found some more scientifically worthwhile payload than this? They should have contracted with Bigelow to put up their big inflatable Olympus space station for free.
Post by: docmordrid on 12/02/2017 07:07 am
Post by: rakaydos on 12/02/2017 07:24 am
Post by: docmordrid on 12/02/2017 07:38 am
Post by: redliox on 12/02/2017 07:55 am
Post by: Hauerg on 12/02/2017 07:59 am
The press and twitterguys already getting it wrong per default.
Post by: deruch on 12/02/2017 08:25 am
Best estimate is that it will maybe get close to Mars. I'm dubious it will really course correct along the way or actually capture, even if it is still alive when it gets there after 2 years (again, doubtful). But it can get out to the general vicinity, without a doubt. Best playful payload ever!!
edit: ninja'd by Haureg while typing.
Post by: Hobbes-22 on 12/02/2017 08:31 am
Post by: Jarnis on 12/02/2017 08:34 am
So, he's going for the first car crash on another planet?
Nooooo, tweeted that it'll be in space for a billion years.
Unless it ends up as the first orbital class rocket launched car crash on Earth. Lets hope not.
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 09:23 am
The hard part is going from solar orbit to Mars orbit - that requires a 3 to 6 month coast and then around 1 km/s worth of delta-v.
That means a spacecraft bus with power, comms, nav, and propulsion for deep space. Much more than a mass simulator.
Well the roadster 2 does have a 200kwh battery, over the air updates and gps. Not sure about propulsion, but it hits plaid speed.
Well it seems I was mistaken, they are sending a Gen 1 Roadster (2008), no over the air updates, no GPS, no plaid, and only a 53kwh battery.
It's a foolish idea and very silly :D
Post by: jak Kennedy on 12/02/2017 10:12 am
Post by: Jarnis on 12/02/2017 10:16 am
I am not really believing Elon on his latest tweet. I would still put my money on the pad abort Dragon inside the fairing. Or any pre flown Dragon. The adaptor for this has to be easier than for a Roadster. Anyone know where the pad abort Dragon is?
Well, it has been confirmed by multiple reputable members of the press and by another SpaceX manager. Tesla Roadster is it.
Post by: Elthiryel on 12/02/2017 10:46 am
The first option is that it may be something like a Hohmann transfer orbit with an apogee at the Mars orbit (they would go to the Mars orbit then, to some extent), but with the planet in the other place at the same time.
The second option is just a Mars flyby, far enough from the planet to make sure the payload won't smash into the surface. I guess that Roadster is not going to have any trajectory correction thrusters, so I don't think they would risk going too close.
Post by: geza on 12/02/2017 10:59 am
Well, it has been confirmed by multiple reputable members of the press and by another SpaceX manager. Tesla Roadster is it.With, or without, a satellite bus, that is the question.
Post by: deruch on 12/02/2017 11:11 am
Well, it has been confirmed by multiple reputable members of the press and by another SpaceX manager. Tesla Roadster is it.With, or without, a satellite bus, that is the question.
With cameras. That's as much as we've gotten so far beyond Elon's original tweets.
Post by: Oersted on 12/02/2017 11:11 am
If they experiment with (hitherto untried) Mars aerocapture it will be a highly useful test mission, despite the playful payload.
Post by: Jarnis on 12/02/2017 11:27 am
Elon said "Mars orbit", which is quite confusing. But he also said it's going to stay in the deep space for years, I think it leaves us with two options left. Actual orbit around Mars does not seem plausible, with transfer window a few months away and most probably no motor to perform braking maneuver.
The first option is that it may be something like a Hohmann transfer orbit with an apogee at the Mars orbit (they would go to the Mars orbit then, to some extent), but with the planet in the other place at the same time.
The second option is just a Mars flyby, far enough from the planet to make sure the payload won't smash into the surface. I guess that Roadster is not going to have any trajectory correction thrusters, so I don't they they would risk going too close.
Considering the cost of something space-navigation-propulsion-worthy of braking over a ton to Mars orbit after many months, I'm pretty sure "Mars orbit" in this case means "an orbit around the Sun that touches Mars orbit at one end, Earth orbit at the other". Might target for a Mars flyby, might not. Launch date would imply probably not, at least not a very close one.
Post by: eeergo on 12/02/2017 11:27 am
Lol
Quote from: @DutchSpace
Hey Elon, that idea was used before back in 1975 when @CNES introduced their new launcher #DiamantBP4 and placed a @renault 4 on the launcher/pad (didnt launch it though...) @ESA_History
Post by: Oersted on 12/02/2017 11:49 am
LEGO pieces happen to be indestructible and could hurt people when they fall to Earth after re-entry, so I think we should stay with a school bus or perhaps a Tesla Model S.
- And if they say they'll launch a car of course that is what they'll do. Not something else made of car pieces...
Post by: AncientU on 12/02/2017 11:51 am
Post by: geza on 12/02/2017 11:54 am
Well, it has been confirmed by multiple reputable members of the press and by another SpaceX manager. Tesla Roadster is it.With, or without, a satellite bus, that is the question.
With cameras. That's as much as we've gotten so far beyond Elon's original tweets.
Cameras only means, that we will not have picture from Mars, only from the vicinity of Earth. Still great, but the huge PR could be even more fantastic via seeing Mars through the windshield!
Post by: JamesH65 on 12/02/2017 12:06 pm
Well, it has been confirmed by multiple reputable members of the press and by another SpaceX manager. Tesla Roadster is it.With, or without, a satellite bus, that is the question.
With cameras. That's as much as we've gotten so far beyond Elon's original tweets.
Cameras only means, that we will not have picture from Mars, only from the vicinity of Earth. Still great, but the huge PR could be even more fantastic via seeing Mars through the windshield!
I doubt it will end up anywhere near Mars itself. And by the time its get to a Mars orbit batteries will be flatter than a flat thing that is really flat. Unless it has solar panels, which I doubt. This I reckon is going to be a bung it in the general direction and let it go shot.
Post by: geza on 12/02/2017 12:50 pm
This is why we either have a complete satelite bus (which may allow course correction and orbit insertion), or must be satisfied with few minutes of video during ascent and separation. Even the second would make MUCH bigger PR, that launch itself. However, the first option whould communicate to EVERYBODY on Earth that electric cars are coming AND mankind is going to Mars.Well, it has been confirmed by multiple reputable members of the press and by another SpaceX manager. Tesla Roadster is it.With, or without, a satellite bus, that is the question.
With cameras. That's as much as we've gotten so far beyond Elon's original tweets.
Cameras only means, that we will not have picture from Mars, only from the vicinity of Earth. Still great, but the huge PR could be even more fantastic via seeing Mars through the windshield!
I doubt it will end up anywhere near Mars itself. And by the time its get to a Mars orbit batteries will be flatter than a flat thing that is really flat. Unless it has solar panels, which I doubt. This I reckon is going to be a bung it in the general direction and let it go shot.
Post by: AncientU on 12/02/2017 12:54 pm
Wish it was a Dragon, though.
Post by: Jcc on 12/02/2017 12:58 pm
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/02/2017 01:35 pm
Couldn't Mars aerocapture lead to an eventual orbit?
If they experiment with (hitherto untried) Mars aerocapture it will be a highly useful test mission, despite the playful payload.
No. Trajectories in that time frame (Jan '18) would require on the order of several thousand km/s delta-v to be captured into Mars orbit. Mars' atmosphere is far too thin to provide anything close to that, especially for a dense/high ballistic coefficient payload like an electric car. It'd fly through the atmosphere then keep on going ... And then you'd have to worry about pissing off NASA's planetary protection people re contaminating Mars with Earth bacteria. That's bad press.
Post by: matthewkantar on 12/02/2017 01:36 pm
Elon said "Mars orbit", which is quite confusing. But he also said it's going to stay in the deep space for years, I think it leaves us with two options left. Actual orbit around Mars does not seem plausible, with transfer window a few months away and most probably no motor to perform braking maneuver.
The first option is that it may be something like a Hohmann transfer orbit with an apogee at the Mars orbit (they would go to the Mars orbit then, to some extent), but with the planet in the other place at the same time.
The second option is just a Mars flyby, far enough from the planet to make sure the payload won't smash into the surface. I guess that Roadster is not going to have any trajectory correction thrusters, so I don't they they would risk going too close.
Considering the cost of something space-navigation-propulsion-worthy of braking over a ton to Mars orbit after many months, I'm pretty sure "Mars orbit" in this case means "an orbit around the Sun that touches Mars orbit at one end, Earth orbit at the other". Might target for a Mars flyby, might not. Launch date would imply probably not, at least not a very close one.
They have had a long time to work on this and have plenty of spare parts to play with. A Super Draco has the in space endurance and performance to brake into orbit. There are probably test articles aplenty. A weldment to attach to the car's chassis, some solar panels, precise location of the COG, etc. I think SpaceX could cobble something up in a month or so. No big deal if it does not work, right?
Still a completely inane idea.
Matthew
Post by: AncientU on 12/02/2017 01:56 pm
Elon said "Mars orbit", which is quite confusing. But he also said it's going to stay in the deep space for years, I think it leaves us with two options left. Actual orbit around Mars does not seem plausible, with transfer window a few months away and most probably no motor to perform braking maneuver.
The first option is that it may be something like a Hohmann transfer orbit with an apogee at the Mars orbit (they would go to the Mars orbit then, to some extent), but with the planet in the other place at the same time.
The second option is just a Mars flyby, far enough from the planet to make sure the payload won't smash into the surface. I guess that Roadster is not going to have any trajectory correction thrusters, so I don't they they would risk going too close.
Considering the cost of something space-navigation-propulsion-worthy of braking over a ton to Mars orbit after many months, I'm pretty sure "Mars orbit" in this case means "an orbit around the Sun that touches Mars orbit at one end, Earth orbit at the other". Might target for a Mars flyby, might not. Launch date would imply probably not, at least not a very close one.
They have had a long time to work on this and have plenty of spare parts to play with. A Super Draco has the in space endurance and performance to brake into orbit. There are probably test articles aplenty. A weldment to attach to the car's chassis, some solar panels, precise location of the COG, etc. I think SpaceX could cobble something up in a month or so. No big deal if it does not work, right?
Still a completely insane idea.
Matthew
Fixed that for you.
Maybe not so crazy... GM spende almost $4B per year on advertising. What have they purchased with that tidy sum that will get as much press?
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 02:08 pm
Maybe not so crazy... GM spende almost $4B per year on advertising. What have they purchased with that tidy sum that will get as much press?
Good point, especially as Tesla has a marketing budget of essentially zero.
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/02/2017 02:10 pm
Good point, especially as Tesla has a marketing budget of essentially zero.I wouldn't exactly call the cost of a Falcon Heavy zero ;-)
Post by: ClayJar on 12/02/2017 02:11 pm
Of course, even if there's absolutely no potential post-RUD issue, not having hypergols to deal with during the test and launch campaign would be convenient.
(Elon should have just used an apostrophe and made it perfectly clear: destination Mars' orbit.)
Post by: Darkseraph on 12/02/2017 02:15 pm
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/02/2017 02:18 pm
If, as they have said, they're not completely sure it'll go off without a hitch, would it be smarter *not* to include large amounts of toxic hyperbolic propellants? In an RUD, most of them would disappear in the big fireball, but could enough remain to be inconvenient?What's a 'hyperbolic propellant'? :-)
Of course, even if there's absolutely no potential post-RUD issue, not having hypergols to deal with during the test and launch campaign would be convenient.
(Elon should have just used an apostrophe and made it perfectly clear: destination Mars' orbit.)
Let me introduce the power of the word 'just':
Getting into Mars orbit is east. Just deploy the airbags for aerobreaking and then pump the breaks to slow it down the rest of the way. Of course you have to orient the firewall properly with the steering wheel...
Post by: gongora on 12/02/2017 02:18 pm
Post by: envy887 on 12/02/2017 02:19 pm
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 02:20 pm
Well it is if SpaceX are paying for it, and it's launching anyway so... I do feel sorry for the Roadster though, hopefully it won't get as lonely as Spirit out there.Good point, especially as Tesla has a marketing budget of essentially zero.I wouldn't exactly call the cost of a Falcon Heavy zero ;-)
Post by: Dave G on 12/02/2017 02:27 pm
We need to be careful. I am 100% sure it will fly out to the orbit OF Mars around the sun, NOT enter orbit around Mars.
The press and twitterguys already getting it wrong per default.
Right.
Here's Elon's exact tweet (emphasis mine).
Quote
"Payload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent."
If Elon meant that his Roadster will orbit the planet Mars, then wouldn't that be a decaying orbit?
If so, then wouldn't it crash onto the Mars surface way before "a billion years or so"?
With this in mind, I'm inclined to agree. In this case, when Elon says "Mars orbit", I think he means an orbital path around the sun that's very similar to the path of Mars.
Post by: matthewkantar on 12/02/2017 02:38 pm
the vehicle will be permanently attached to the second stage.
The money shot has to be the car drifting away from the PAF/bus/service module all on its own against the infinite black.
Matthew
Post by: cscott on 12/02/2017 02:49 pm
I haven't noticed any FCC filings under the SpaceX name for this payload. Unless they're registering a payload under some foreign subsidiary that only communicates with ground stations outside the U.S., it should have FCC filings if they intend to communicate with it.What if they were using NASA resources for deep space communication? Would an FCC filing be necessary in that case?
Post by: lamontagne on 12/02/2017 02:55 pm
Do the Tesla going past Mars!!-With or without the hardtop?
-Any accessories? Cameras? Thrusters?
-How close to Mars?
-Can anyone post a picture of the actual Musk Roadster for reference?
-Solar panel or would the battery be enough for a few years at low draw? Probably run down fairly quickly if it needs to keep itself from freezing?
Post by: docmordrid on 12/02/2017 02:57 pm
Post by: Pete on 12/02/2017 02:57 pm
What communications?I haven't noticed any FCC filings under the SpaceX name for this payload. Unless they're registering a payload under some foreign subsidiary that only communicates with ground stations outside the U.S., it should have FCC filings if they intend to communicate with it.What if they were using NASA resources for deep space communication? Would an FCC filing be necessary in that case?
The way i see it, the FH will shove it in the right direction, Hopefully separate from the payload/car, and that's it. No further comms , control or anything just a car drifting into a Mars-apogee solar orbit.
Well, likely some onboard cam coverage using the same sort of tech that we already have on the second stage, for the first couple minutes after launch.
We asked for a cool payload, Spacex needs a cheap and noncritical boilerplate mass, and this would be a very nice combination of the two!
Post by: inonepiece on 12/02/2017 03:00 pm
Right: Why wouldn't we believe him, he's a showman (of the best sort) and it's guaranteed to get SpaceX AND Tesla in the news.I am not really believing Elon on his latest tweet. I would still put my money on the pad abort Dragon inside the fairing. Or any pre flown Dragon. The adaptor for this has to be easier than for a Roadster. Anyone know where the pad abort Dragon is?
Well, it has been confirmed by multiple reputable members of the press and by another SpaceX manager. Tesla Roadster is it.
We know he's read some Iain M. Banks. In the short Banks story "The State of the Art", Diziet Sma, a citizen of The Culture, travels to 1970s Earth in "a large red Volvo station wagon".
Post by: Ludus on 12/02/2017 03:06 pm
Mars orbit not in orbit around Mars would fit Russell’s Teapot exactly, be easier to achieve, and not generate any silly objections about planetary protection.
Post by: Jim on 12/02/2017 03:07 pm
Wonder if Road and Track could schedule a trial between the Roadster and Curiosity?
On Mars? That would be a crater vs a functioning rover
Post by: cscott on 12/02/2017 03:08 pm
If you're feeling ambitious, I'd take a shot at rendering both scenarios. The former should be fairly easy, and at a relatively large distance from mars (it would be using the stock S2 telemetry); the latter would be a Mad Max assemblage of pieces from other SpaceX ships, and end up close to Mars. Bonus points for showing the orbital insertion burn.
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2017 03:11 pm
Post by: docmordrid on 12/02/2017 03:15 pm
"Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Not saying the next gen Roadster special upgrade package *will* definitely enable it to fly short hops, but maybe
Certainly possible. Just a question of safety. Rocket tech applied to a car opens up revolutionary possibilities.
2:01 PM - Nov 19, 2017"
Post by: Bynaus on 12/02/2017 03:18 pm
If the Roadster is in heliocentric orbit (i.e., just crossing Mars' orbit around the sun), its dynamical lifetime will be no longer than for a near-Earth asteroid, on the order of a few 10 million years. This the typical time it can spend in this region of space without being thrown into the sun by an encounter with a planet or through orbital changes induced by resonances etc (or, much less likely, collide with one of the planets). Musk is probably just unaware of this though. ;)
Post by: docmordrid on 12/02/2017 03:23 pm
Post by: billh on 12/02/2017 03:24 pm
Post by: rakaydos on 12/02/2017 03:38 pm
I don't think there will be any pictures from deep space. SpaceX is not going to spend millions making it into a functioning spacecraft, and even if they did would NASA ever approve using the Deep Space Network for anything so frivolous?Y'know... Starlink is going up in just a few years... just saying.
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 03:40 pm
Beyond that it's whether we take at information at face value or not. So why would they mislead?
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/02/2017 03:42 pm
Post by: x15_fan on 12/02/2017 03:44 pm
What does Starlink have to do with deep space communication?I don't think there will be any pictures from deep space. SpaceX is not going to spend millions making it into a functioning spacecraft, and even if they did would NASA ever approve using the Deep Space Network for anything so frivolous?Y'know... Starlink is going up in just a few years... just saying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: dror on 12/02/2017 03:44 pm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)Thanks for the post and link.
Mars orbit not in orbit around Mars would fit Russell’s Teapot exactly, be easier to achieve, and not generate any silly objections about planetary protection.
Though, I don't understand why so many people around here treats planetary protection as silly.
Finding life on another planet would be THE greatest scientific discovery ever. Anything that could seriously undermine the credibility of such a potential discovery should be avoided. And, there's the chance of wreaking havoc to an entire plant.
(Do we have a thread about it?)
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 03:53 pm
Communication engineers, lots of them (presumably)What does Starlink have to do with deep space communication?I don't think there will be any pictures from deep space. SpaceX is not going to spend millions making it into a functioning spacecraft, and even if they did would NASA ever approve using the Deep Space Network for anything so frivolous?Y'know... Starlink is going up in just a few years... just saying.
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/02/2017 03:58 pm
Post by: billh on 12/02/2017 03:58 pm
1. How long (and how far) could communication be maintained with the second stage? The payload cam we see on almost every F9 launch can presumably send pictures back.
2. How long (and how far) could an object the size of a Roadster be tracked by optical or radar astronomy?
Post by: wilbobaggins on 12/02/2017 04:13 pm
I'd go for stock. Anything else would cost millions extra.
Well I'd like to think, given the cost of the mission anyway due to the rocket they would put some stuff on it to make it worthwhile. I'd even go as far to think they would send something like a dragon capsule but with a roadster on the front.
It's not every day you are lobbing a rocket with several tonnes payload to spare (even with landing every core, the roadster won't be close to maximum payload)
Perhaps it will look a little like the cargo dream chaser but with the roadster instead of the shuttle.
Wouldn't cost too much seeing as dragon could be reused one from an iss mission.
Post by: david1971 on 12/02/2017 04:19 pm
I assume he means a mars transfer orbit that does not actually aim at mars. I highly doubt the falcon upper stage can loiter long enough to circularize. or are they going to stick a satellite bus on it?
The Roadster is only 1,235 kg, which is approximately what F9 (not FH) can launch to Mars transfer with a RTLS booster landing.
That's only 7.3% of Falcon Heavy's maximum payload to Mars transfer, so I would expect something more substantial than just the car.
For comparison, MOM had a launch mass of 1340 kg.
This is great PR for Tesla, but unless there are more tricks up the sleeve, it's drastically underselling the capabilities of FH.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/02/2017 04:31 pm
(This has every actual possibility of happening over the course of a billion years - so those who scoff at 1I potentially being something other than a rock may want to at least keep this in mind!)
Post by: rakaydos on 12/02/2017 04:31 pm
Keep in mind another "joke post"of elon's a while back.I assume he means a mars transfer orbit that does not actually aim at mars. I highly doubt the falcon upper stage can loiter long enough to circularize. or are they going to stick a satellite bus on it?
The Roadster is only 1,235 kg, which is approximately what F9 (not FH) can launch to Mars transfer with a RTLS booster landing.
That's only 7.3% of Falcon Heavy's maximum payload to Mars transfer, so I would expect something more substantial than just the car.
For comparison, MOM had a launch mass of 1340 kg.
This is great PR for Tesla, but unless there are more tricks up the sleeve, it's drastically underselling the capabilities of FH.
"It's "certainly possible," Musk said. "Just a question of safety. Rocket tech applied to a car opens up revolutionary possibilities.""
So an actual entry burn isnt entirely unreasonable.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/02/2017 04:45 pm
Post by: Norm38 on 12/02/2017 05:07 pm
Post by: Norm38 on 12/02/2017 05:13 pm
Well if SpaceX wants to land on Mars in 5 years, they're going to need a radio. If they have hardware to test, now's the time.
But if there's no attitude control they can only use a low gain antenna. But still, test early, test often.
Post by: cscott on 12/02/2017 05:23 pm
A couple of practical questions:There were communications with the S2 during the deep-space DSCOVR mission, so presumably there's comm capability at least that far out.
1. How long (and how far) could communication be maintained with the second stage? The payload cam we see on almost every F9 launch can presumably send pictures back.
2. How long (and how far) could an object the size of a Roadster be tracked by optical or radar astronomy?
Post by: Archibald on 12/02/2017 05:38 pm
Post by: dgates on 12/02/2017 05:43 pm
Post by: Dave G on 12/02/2017 05:47 pm
The man has Panache.
Here's the car:
Have we confirmed that it's the old Roadster?
Tesla already gave test rides for the new Roadster, 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, a.k.a. plaid mode. 200 kWh battery.
Perhaps Elon already has one of these in his favorite color, cherry red.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCMKfEE3vlk
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 05:50 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936829494874091520
Post by: ketivab on 12/02/2017 05:54 pm
Quote
Elon Musk told us he was sending a car to space, then said he totally made it up
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/1/16726822/spacex-falcon-heavy-tesla-roadster-launch-elon-musk (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/1/16726822/spacex-falcon-heavy-tesla-roadster-launch-elon-musk)
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 05:56 pm
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 12/02/2017 05:59 pm
QuoteElon Musk told us he was sending a car to space, then said he totally made it up
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/1/16726822/spacex-falcon-heavy-tesla-roadster-launch-elon-musk (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/1/16726822/spacex-falcon-heavy-tesla-roadster-launch-elon-musk)
This is becoming more weird in front of our eyes.
Post by: scr00chy on 12/02/2017 06:00 pm
One thing would be to tweet the crazy plan, not comment on it and then later say it was a joke. But he and other SpaceXers confirmed it as real and THEN he says he made it up? Uncool.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/02/2017 06:01 pm
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/02/2017 06:03 pm
Quote
Once again Helodriver predicts the Future in regards to SpaceX. Called the use of the former shuttle carrier for moving landed F9 cores, and now, called the Tesla Roadster, from 5 years ago in a post here from September 2012.
Elon if you want to PM me for more ideas, I'm available. 8) You don't have to lurk on my posts here. ;D
Were you also around when he drove away the entire PayPal management team *twice*, almost went bankrupt first time with Tesla (he's now working on the second time), almost failed to pay back the govt loan, went after a starlet who can't stand his looks, decided to do a static fire of an unproven chilled propellant booster with the payload on top, and the other less brilliant choices he's made in his life?
Yes, am quite the wet blanket on this one. Perhaps he should back off the Xanax for a few years, or visit the Betty Ford clinic if its still around.
Nothing so much as convinces me he believes that FH will fail in the first flight as this apparent gesture of decadent foolishness.
Grow up Musk.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/02/2017 06:05 pm
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 06:06 pm
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/02/2017 06:17 pm
Well we know one thing it isn't... possibly.
I'll list some things I know it won't be:
Humans
Animals
Jeff
A Falcon 9
Post by: vanoord on 12/02/2017 06:36 pm
Quote
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
2 minutes ago
Replying to @highqualitysh1t
I love the thought of a car drifting apparently endlessly through space and perhaps being discovered by an alien race millions of years in the future
Not exactly clarity.
Post by: ZachS09 on 12/02/2017 06:39 pm
I say that because GTO is a common orbital destination nowadays. Plus, the maximum payload to GTO for Falcon Heavy is around 8 tons.
Post by: vanoord on 12/02/2017 06:40 pm
Quote
Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
2 minutes ago
Elon Musk told me just now, on Saturday afternoon: The Tesla to Mars mission is "100% real."
Would be nice if SpaceX's communications team stepped in here.
Post by: kdhilliard on 12/02/2017 06:41 pm
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/02/2017 06:47 pm
Post by: Kosmos2001 on 12/02/2017 06:48 pm
And...QuoteEric Berger
@SciGuySpace
2 minutes ago
Elon Musk told me just now, on Saturday afternoon: The Tesla to Mars mission is "100% real."
Would be nice if SpaceX's communications team stepped in here.
We do have right now enough info to make a "Mind blowing" meme about the whole story.
Post by: cebri on 12/02/2017 06:50 pm
Could this mean a flyby? Is it even possible if launched next January? Gosh i really need to learn more about astrodynamics.
Post by: Comga on 12/02/2017 06:52 pm
(snip)The roadster should fit in horizontally, unlike the school bus. Reenforcing the base plate may be easier than launching it vertical.
I wouldn't have expected that, but yes, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_(2008)) describes the 2008 Roadster as being 3,946 mm long and 1,873 mm wide, and the diagonal of such a rectangle is 4,368 mm, so it should fit a standard F9 fairing which offers 4.6 m ID.
The length of a Roadster IS the diagonal, or rather, the diameter.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/02/2017 06:54 pm
Post by: inonepiece on 12/02/2017 07:01 pm
Well, I'm as confused as anybody, but I guess "Made it up" can have two meanings: 1. he doesn't intend to do it 2. he made up the idea (but he does intend to do it).QuoteElon Musk told us he was sending a car to space, then said he totally made it up
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/1/16726822/spacex-falcon-heavy-tesla-roadster-launch-elon-musk (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/1/16726822/spacex-falcon-heavy-tesla-roadster-launch-elon-musk)
These engineer types have a literal mindset, you know.
;)
Post by: CJ on 12/02/2017 07:12 pm
But what if Elon meant "Mars' orbit"? In other words, heliocentric but at the same distance from the sun Mars is? Use a Mars grav assist to roughly match Mars' orbit? Viable?
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/02/2017 07:17 pm
Regarding "Mars orbit". I'm very, very skeptical that it means "Orbiting Mars" because of the need for an orbital insertion burn. I suppose they could try aerobraking, but that still requires some propulsion. We can rule out the second stage for this; nowhere near enough duration time.
But what if Elon meant "Mars' orbit"? In other words, heliocentric but at the same distance from the sun Mars is? Use a Mars grav assist to roughly match Mars' orbit? Viable?
I'm guessing they'll fit a Starlink bus (minus everything except power, propulsion, control and comms) onto the back to get it into a crazy elliptical orbit, perhaps aerobraking to a more stable orbit, then using leftover fuel to boost the periapsis up.
Post by: watermod on 12/02/2017 07:31 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/02/2017 07:35 pm
Post by: Kaputnik on 12/02/2017 07:44 pm
Regarding "Mars orbit". I'm very, very skeptical that it means "Orbiting Mars" because of the need for an orbital insertion burn. I suppose they could try aerobraking, but that still requires some propulsion. We can rule out the second stage for this; nowhere near enough duration time.
But what if Elon meant "Mars' orbit"? In other words, heliocentric but at the same distance from the sun Mars is? Use a Mars grav assist to roughly match Mars' orbit? Viable?
I'm guessing they'll fit a Starlink bus (minus everything except power, propulsion, control and comms) onto the back to get it into a crazy elliptical orbit, perhaps aerobraking to a more stable orbit, then using leftover fuel to boost the periapsis up.
Just a nit: you don't aerobrake into orbit. You aerocapture. And nobody has ever done that.
Aerobraking is a much gentler procedure requiring no special modifications; aerocapture requires the vehicle to be capable of high speed atmospheric entry, i.e. it needs a heatshield.
Post by: Formica on 12/02/2017 07:46 pm
Is that one note on the Verge article all we have to suggest this was a four month premature prank?
Yup, followed shortly by Eric Berger saying Elon told him it's for real, as vanoord noted. However this ends up, Elon is earning his trolling merit badge with aplomb this weekend :o At least one person with contacts inside SpaceX, young John Kraus the photographer, also says it's for real over on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7h4c10/elon_musk_admits_he_made_up_the_story_about/dqo07dq).
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 07:56 pm
However this ends up, Elon is earning his trolling merit badge with aplomb this weekend.
Do you think we should send him one (http://www.patchtown.com/trollfacepatrolpatch.aspx)? He could sew it onto his hat
Post by: Eagandale4114 on 12/02/2017 08:03 pm
Quote from: erberger
Quote from: rustybeancakeMy money’s on “totally made it up” being a sarcastic response to The Verge’s inquiry. But we’ll see.At this point, knowing what I know, I'd guess this is the correct answer.
Eric Bergers comment over on /r/spacex (Note, this links to the parent which provides context.) (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7h4c10/elon_musk_admits_he_made_up_the_story_about/dqo1hyn)
Post by: Jim on 12/02/2017 08:10 pm
Regarding "Mars orbit". I'm very, very skeptical that it means "Orbiting Mars" because of the need for an orbital insertion burn. I suppose they could try aerobraking, but that still requires some propulsion. We can rule out the second stage for this; nowhere near enough duration time.
But what if Elon meant "Mars' orbit"? In other words, heliocentric but at the same distance from the sun Mars is? Use a Mars grav assist to roughly match Mars' orbit? Viable?
I'm guessing they'll fit a Starlink bus (minus everything except power, propulsion, control and comms) onto the back to get it into a crazy elliptical orbit, perhaps aerobraking to a more stable orbit, then using leftover fuel to boost the periapsis up.
nah, they will not risk going into Mars.
And what starlink bus? Anyways, they are LEO buses.
Post by: JasonAW3 on 12/02/2017 08:20 pm
Post by: Comga on 12/02/2017 08:23 pm
Could the fairing problem that halted the Zuma flight be related to some clearance issue they discovered with this car?
Logically, no
See Steven Pietrobon's post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42801.msg1755022#msg1755022) and mine above.
If the Roadster launch was real, which is highly doubtful, the fairing would be more than sufficient large.
Post by: Comga on 12/02/2017 08:28 pm
Regarding "Mars orbit". I'm very, very skeptical that it means "Orbiting Mars" because of the need for an orbital insertion burn. I suppose they could try aerobraking, but that still requires some propulsion. We can rule out the second stage for this; nowhere near enough duration time.
But what if Elon meant "Mars' orbit"? In other words, heliocentric but at the same distance from the sun Mars is? Use a Mars grav assist to roughly match Mars' orbit? Viable?
I'm guessing they'll fit a Starlink bus (minus everything except power, propulsion, control and comms) onto the back to get it into a crazy elliptical orbit, perhaps aerobraking to a more stable orbit, then using leftover fuel to boost the periapsis up.
nah, they will not risk going into Mars.
And what starlink bus? Anyways, they are LEO buses.
Yup
Launched a LEO bus to Mars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer) once
Didn't end well
And that was a bus with flight heritage
Post by: Michael Baylor on 12/02/2017 08:40 pm
Quote
To clarify, I said it’s legit because the boss tweeted it out. I don’t know any more info and Elon’s the go to guy on this.
https://twitter.com/RocketJoy/status/937072189118939136
Ok, a crucial piece of evidence in favor of this being true just bit the dust. Not sure why she made the original comment. Clearly she didn't actually know if there would be cameras or not. Was probably just making a logical assumption.
Post by: deruch on 12/02/2017 08:50 pm
That's actually going to be the mission patch.However this ends up, Elon is earning his trolling merit badge with aplomb this weekend.
Do you think we should send him one (http://www.patchtown.com/trollfacepatrolpatch.aspx)? He could sew it onto his hat
Post by: AncientU on 12/02/2017 08:50 pm
And...QuoteEric Berger
@SciGuySpace
2 minutes ago
Elon Musk told me just now, on Saturday afternoon: The Tesla to Mars mission is "100% real."
Would be nice if SpaceX's communications team stepped in here.
We do have right now enough info to make a "Mind blowing" meme about the whole story.
Not until we see how it ends... best yet to come.
Post by: docmordrid on 12/02/2017 09:07 pm
Quote
erberger Ars Technica Space Editor 26m
Elon says the mission is real on Twitter.
Confirms last night in email.
Elon tells the Verge he totally made it up.
Elon is pretty adamant with me this afternoon.
He has told one publication it's not real. My guess is that he's unhappy with that publication. (edited)
Post by: SpaceX_MS on 12/02/2017 09:09 pm
That is all. :)
Post by: guckyfan on 12/02/2017 09:09 pm
Post by: spacetraveler on 12/02/2017 09:11 pm
Plus, the maximum payload to GTO for Falcon Heavy is around 8 tons.
No, that's the max Falcon 9 payload in expendable configuration.
Max Falcon heavy to GTO is 26 tons.
Post by: Comga on 12/02/2017 09:21 pm
Confirmed! The payload is a Roadster going to Mars. What exactly "going to Mars" means is yet to be confirmed.
Eric Berger:QuoteAnother SpaceX official confirms:https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/937078015720394756 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/937078015720394756)
"The Roadster to Mars payload is real."
Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, and so on
Lot's of evidence the Roadster to Mars is NOT real.
Can we agree to put discussion of payload for Heavy here in the Payload Speculation thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42801.0) and keep this one for updates on and discussion about the vehicle and launch?
(Done - Mod).
Post by: Ludus on 12/02/2017 09:23 pm
Putting any “Silly” object in earth orbit would draw reasonable criticism for adding to SpaceJunk and adding a nonzero probability of injuring or killing someone on reentry.
Putting it in orbit around Mars would draw criticism for Planetary Protection issues since it would eventually hit the planet. It would also be harder to achieve.
Putting his own Tesla Roadster into the same orbit as Mars seems brilliant. It’s a demonstration of FH but even more a demonstration that he can do what he says he’s going to do even if it seems fantastic. It’s great promotion for Tesla and SpaceX going into 2018 which will be a big year for both of them.
It’s essentially a fulfillment of Musks original ambition before founding SpaceX to send a private mission to Marssimply to promote interest in Space faring. It would do that very well. The original idea of sending a green house to the surface would have encountered opposition.
Post by: Dave G on 12/02/2017 09:24 pm
There's only a very small amount of places that can get answers from SpaceX because they have earned it with their coverage. This site and its reporters is one example. Eric Berger is another. And some others .......................
SpaceX will attempt to launch a red Tesla to the red planet [Updated]
ERIC BERGER - 12/1/2017, 10:25 PM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/with-bowie-playing-on-the-radio-elon-musk-plans-to-launch-his-tesla-to-mars/
Quote
Saturday update: There has been some confusion today because Elon Musk told The Verge on Saturday morning that he "totally made it up" about sending a Tesla Roadster to Mars. However, in multiple emails with Ars on Saturday afternoon, Musk confirmed that this plan is, indeed, real. Another SpaceX official also said the Tesla payload was very much real.
Post by: ZachS09 on 12/02/2017 09:25 pm
Plus, the maximum payload to GTO for Falcon Heavy is around 8 tons.
No, that's the max Falcon 9 payload in expendable configuration.
Max Falcon heavy to GTO is 26 tons.
I meant when all of Falcon Heavy's boosters are reusable. Just like Falcon 9; its maximum payload to GTO is 5.5 tons when reusing the first stage.
Post by: AncientU on 12/02/2017 09:32 pm
If it helps, as you've seen with this thread, this is where you're going to see everyone who's ever been to a launch claiming they have inside information. There's only a very small amount of places that can get answers from SpaceX because they have earned it with their coverage. This site and its reporters is one example. Eric Berger is another. And some others .......................
That is all. :)
Nice!
Post by: Formica on 12/02/2017 09:45 pm
Yup
Launched a LEO bus to Mars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer) once
Didn't end well
And that was a bus with flight heritage
Huh. While I was familiar with the mission, I had never read about the specific findings: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer#Communications_loss)
Quote from: Wikipedia
The engine was derived from one belonging to an Earth orbital satellite and was not designed to lie dormant for months before being fired.
Quite the contrast to the recent Voyager 1 firing! (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/after-37-years-voyager-has-fired-up-its-trajectory-thrusters/)
This is of course all wild speculation. That said, if they were to "cobble together" a Mars orbit insertion stage from a SuperDraco (insert "spacecraft are not LEGOs" caveat here), we know that they are designed for at least a few months of on-orbit storage, since Dragon 2 will be docked at the ISS for X number of months (6?). Or, as guckyfan speculates, it makes hypothetical sense that the Starlink design is made with Mars in mind, if they have such hardware to use on this adventure. All of this speculation really depends on just how long SpaceX has been working on this project.
(The thread title does say speculation, I hope this post is sufficiently relevant. I deleted this post from the other FH payload thread after Comga's post was moved to this one.)
Post by: Ludus on 12/02/2017 09:48 pm
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=123217 (http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=123217)
If the Roadster is confirmed, we need a thread about other things that ought to be included with it.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 12/02/2017 09:51 pm
I have been watching monty python links from eric bergers acticle.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/with-bowie-playing-on-the-radio-elon-musk-plans-to-launch-his-tesla-to-mars/#ampshare=https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/with-bowie-playing-on-the-radio-elon-musk-plans-to-launch-his-tesla-to-mars/
The parrot sketch and the cheese sketch and david bowie's space oddity ...
Post by: meekGee on 12/02/2017 10:02 pm
Wonder if Road and Track could schedule a trial between the Roadster and Curiosity?
On Mars? That would be a crater vs a functioning rover
Not unless they land on the rover.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/02/2017 10:05 pm
Post by: gongora on 12/02/2017 10:08 pm
My first time seeing this--is this new?
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/elon-musk-on-the-roadster-to-mars
quote: "Incidentally, for the first launch there is no plan to recover the boosters as has been done on Falcon 9 launches, but future flights will bring all three back to Earth. "
This article also clarifies the orbit:
Quote
He said it’ll be placed in “a precessing Earth-Mars elliptical orbit around the sun.”
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/02/2017 10:10 pm
Like an Aldrin Cycler?My first time seeing this--is this new?
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/elon-musk-on-the-roadster-to-mars
quote: "Incidentally, for the first launch there is no plan to recover the boosters as has been done on Falcon 9 launches, but future flights will bring all three back to Earth. "
This article also clarifies the orbit:QuoteHe said it’ll be placed in “a precessing Earth-Mars elliptical orbit around the sun.”
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vq6Yz.png)
Post by: Jdeshetler on 12/02/2017 10:43 pm
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/02/2017 10:58 pm
Quote
SpaceX just sent an email: Elon's Roadster will be the Falcon Heavy test-flight payload.
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/937090427882176512
Quote
One of their Comms team members followed up on my requests from yesterday.
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/937091702220906496
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/02/2017 11:09 pm
How about a couple mannequins strapped into the seats?
At a 200w continuous discharge the 200kwhr Roadster battery would last 41 days.
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 12/02/2017 11:10 pm
Post by: nacnud on 12/02/2017 11:14 pm
How about a couple mannequins strapped into the seats?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/02/2017 11:24 pm
I wonder what sort of preparation will be done to the car to make it safe for the flight. I would presume that all fluids would be removed to prevent any leaking and the tires would be cut open to avoid them blowing out when the pressure drops.From a vibration standpoint highway driving is almost as stressful as most LV vibration testing. Its amplitude is not as high but the duration is a lot longer. The key in qualifying a design is the multiplier of amplitude (level) and the duration. Less amplitude but longer duration is almost as good as a higher amplitude and shorter duration.
As far as any of the car's electronics I would not power any of it up or even have it connected to the batteries. But then again it's Musk's rocket and car!!!
One of the items that may need removal is the shocks. They have a gas filled core and could cause problems.
Air conditioner
Windshield washer fluid
Shocks
Tires
Brake fluid
Anything else?
Post by: docmordrid on 12/02/2017 11:31 pm
Post by: vapour_nudge on 12/02/2017 11:45 pm
This causes me to speculate, if the upper stage makes a course correction will the car need to indicate?
They’ll need the brake lights if the car is going to brake into orbit anywhere.
Power assisted steering could help there
GPS might get a little confused “Turn around and drive 36000km”
Air conditioner wouldn’t be needed but perhaps the heater though it’s going to be hard to heat the vacuum.
Post by: envy887 on 12/02/2017 11:58 pm
My first time seeing this--is this new?
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/elon-musk-on-the-roadster-to-mars
quote: "Incidentally, for the first launch there is no plan to recover the boosters as has been done on Falcon 9 launches, but future flights will bring all three back to Earth. "
This article also clarifies the orbit:QuoteHe said it’ll be placed in “a precessing Earth-Mars elliptical orbit around the sun.”
The article have been updated to say that the boosters will be attempting landings.
Post by: RoboGoofers on 12/03/2017 12:05 am
Post by: vapour_nudge on 12/03/2017 12:06 am
The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/03/2017 12:11 am
The battery, electronics and electric motor(s) have liquid cooling systems (glycol.)Thanks.
So replace the normal battery pack with a smaller set of space rated batteries not needing a cooling loop and some ballast/fill. Do a vibration acceptance of the battery pack and then mount to car. This greatly reduces any operating time but also decreases risk to the rocket. I am sure that it would not take much work to come up with a replacement space rated Tesla Roadster battery pack (a few kwh only not the 200kwh extended pack)
Post by: cppetrie on 12/03/2017 12:16 am
Post by: hamerad on 12/03/2017 12:18 am
The battery, electronics and electric motor(s) have liquid cooling systems (glycol.)Thanks.
So replace the normal battery pack with a smaller set of space rated batteries not needing a cooling loop and some ballast/fill. Do a vibration acceptance of the battery pack and then mount to car. This greatly reduces any operating time but also decreases risk to the rocket. I am sure that it would not take much work to come up with a replacement space rated Tesla Roadster battery pack (a few kwh only not the 200kwh extended pack)
Since it's an original roadster and only had a 53kwh pack I think it would need to have been replaced anyway.
Post by: Ludus on 12/03/2017 12:20 am
The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_memory_crystal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_memory_crystal)
A lot of Superman memory crystals. These guys made it to Elon’s Twitter.
http://www.archmission.com (http://www.archmission.com)
Post by: RoboGoofers on 12/03/2017 12:37 am
The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
matryoshka dolls. Better question is what goes in the frunk?
Post by: lamontagne on 12/03/2017 12:40 am
Post by: lamontagne on 12/03/2017 12:40 am
Post by: lamontagne on 12/03/2017 12:41 am
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/03/2017 01:00 am
The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
I don't know, but it would glow. Ask Harry Dean Stanton!
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/03/2017 01:01 am
I wonder what sort of preparation will be done to the car to make it safe for the flight. I would presume that all fluids would be removed to prevent any leaking and the tires would be cut open to avoid them blowing out when the pressure drops.
Also, the windows will be opened slightly.
Post by: Lumina on 12/03/2017 01:11 am
Still convinced it’s completely real until Musk says otherwise. It makes too much sense, especially in the Mars Orbit version not in orbit around Mars.
Putting any “Silly” object in earth orbit would draw reasonable criticism for adding to SpaceJunk and adding a nonzero probability of injuring or killing someone on reentry.
Putting it in orbit around Mars would draw criticism for Planetary Protection issues since it would eventually hit the planet. It would also be harder to achieve.
Putting his own Tesla Roadster into the same orbit as Mars seems brilliant. It’s a demonstration of FH but even more a demonstration that he can do what he says he’s going to do even if it seems fantastic. It’s great promotion for Tesla and SpaceX going into 2018 which will be a big year for both of them.
It’s essentially a fulfillment of Musks original ambition before founding SpaceX to send a private mission to Mars simply to promote interest in spacefaring. It would do that very well. The original idea of sending a green house to the surface would have encountered opposition.
Exactly. It's a stroke of genius.
Elon is also acutely aware that customers who've paid their money are waiting for their Teslas. Hence, it's "his own" Tesla that's going up, and not "a Tesla".
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/03/2017 01:44 am
The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
A Dragon model
Post by: DanielW on 12/03/2017 01:52 am
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 12/03/2017 02:00 am
Tesla has now partnered with SpaceX to give you the following guarantee,
"Order online and we will deliver your new car anywhere in the world within the next hour OR IT'S FREE!"
Post by: Stormbringer on 12/03/2017 02:25 am
No need to remove the tires. Just take out the valve stems so they are vented to space.there are automotive rated tires that consist of hexgonal cells open to the surrounding environment. They cannot go flat or burst. They were developed for the military (i think) and they are now available after market for civilian vehicles.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hexagonal+airless+tires&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiInuT_8ezXAhXIxYMKHcr9AGsQsAQILg&biw=1536&bih=751
Post by: nacnud on 12/03/2017 02:43 am
So Elon isn't Tony Stark, he's Hari Seldon!A lot of Superman memory crystals. These guys made it to Elon’s Twitter.http://www.archmission.com (http://www.archmission.com)The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
Post by: billh on 12/03/2017 03:26 am
A wheel of cheese.The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
Post by: Darkseraph on 12/03/2017 03:29 am
There should be a actual Teapot, hopefully one that belonged to Bertrand Russell, in the Trunk of the Roadster.
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=123217 (http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=123217)
If the Roadster is confirmed, we need a thread about other things that ought to be included with it.
And that teapot should be a 3D printed Utah Teapot! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_teapot) :)
Post by: lamontagne on 12/03/2017 03:52 am
Post by: Ludus on 12/03/2017 03:53 am
There should be a actual Teapot, hopefully one that belonged to Bertrand Russell, in the Trunk of the Roadster.
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=123217 (http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=123217)
If the Roadster is confirmed, we need a thread about other things that ought to be included with it.
And that teapot should be a 3D printed Utah Teapot! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_teapot) :)
Bertrand Russell would likely approve.
Post by: lamontagne on 12/03/2017 04:03 am
Post by: sanman on 12/03/2017 04:06 am
Post by: docmordrid on 12/03/2017 04:08 am
Neither The Verge or Elon come out of this well, but especially not The Verge.
"Musk sent us a response in a direct message on Twitter saying he “totally made it up.” We now know that response was false; a person familiar with the matter told The Verge Saturday evening that the payload is in fact real. "
>
Why believe Verge's interpretation of the Musk comment? It could just as easily have been a misinterpretation of him relating the decision-making process. They screwed up one thing...
Post by: JAFO on 12/03/2017 04:15 am
A copy of The Mars Chronicles.The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
A Major Matt Mason doll.
Post by: lamontagne on 12/03/2017 04:30 am
A car seems like a waste of money - I would have offered Bigelow a free ride to space for one of their biggest habs, if they'd accept the risk. Come on - give a leg up to your fellow spacefarer, or something - but a car seems like a wasteful indulgence. Ultimately, it's just another piece of space junk to clutter the solar system with.This is the attitude that has killed space exploration. The strange disdain of fun. The solar system is made of junk. Planets are just accreted junk piles. So this seems fitting to me.
Bigelow, 'shudder', a lawsuit magnet.
If you absolutely have to be practical, they might monitor the car to see how various materials behave, in particular the battery, as they are going to need a lot of them, eventually.
Post by: vapour_nudge on 12/03/2017 04:34 am
So Elon isn't Tony Stark, he's Hari Seldon!A lot of Superman memory crystals. These guys made it to Elon’s Twitter.http://www.archmission.com (http://www.archmission.com)The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
Launching the Tesla into space just confirms it for me. The Roadster price is Sky High for me.
Let's hope Elon doesn't blow it all sky high.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO320HpYV-M
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 12/03/2017 04:45 am
Post by: Ludus on 12/03/2017 04:49 am
A car seems like a waste of money - I would have offered Bigelow a free ride to space for one of their biggest habs, if they'd accept the risk. Come on - give a leg up to your fellow spacefarer, or something - but a car seems like a wasteful indulgence. Ultimately, it's just another piece of space junk to clutter the solar system with.
It doesn’t cost anything because it’s just a necessary test of FH. NASA or it’s traditional contractors would never do something like this which is exactly why it’s genius and a Declaration of Independence. They wouldn’t dare do something that might be seen as an indulgence. Art is indulgence. Is is Art. It’s very unambiguously only about symbolism and ideas. That happens to bring closure to the first chapter of SpaceX history since Musk first started it after considering what amounted to a Mars mission as an Art installation. SpaceX finally achieves Musk’s Mars Art project without wasting anything but his Tesla Roadster.
Post by: Aussie_Space_Nut on 12/03/2017 04:56 am
Imagine in 10 years or so, should BFR/BFS get up and running, the potential media goldmine of recovering said roadster, bringing it back to earth, and getting it running again!
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/03/2017 05:31 am
I would have offered Bigelow a free ride to space for one of their biggest habs...
I doubt Bigelow has any space-worthy hardware ready to go. It's expensive to build large, complicated hardware and then just have it sit around hoping someone is going to launch it for free.
Quote
...but a car seems like a wasteful indulgence. Ultimately, it's just another piece of space junk to clutter the solar system with.
You have to keep remembering what Musk's goal is - to inspire humanity to move to Mars.
If he can send his roadster there, then people will be more likely to believe that he can move humans there too.
And because this is a test flight, why waste an opportunity?
Post by: Hauerg on 12/03/2017 05:37 am
The amount of power in the batteries of a Roadster is phenomenal. Once the last S2 firing is accomplished the computer triggers a relay connecting the Roadsters batteries into the S2. This could power the S2 for a very long time. With power the S2 can maintain attitude and communications back to Earth complete with video/images of the Roadster as it gets farther away from Earth especially an image of Earth and the Moon far in the background behind the Roadster would be priceless. A camera mounted as if your the driver looking forward out the windshield would be an amazing shot.Wrong Roadster model in your mind you have.
How about a couple mannequins strapped into the seats?
At a 200w continuous discharge the 200kwhr Roadster battery would last 41 days.
Post by: meekGee on 12/03/2017 05:52 am
A car seems like a waste of money - I would have offered Bigelow a free ride to space for one of their biggest habs, if they'd accept the risk. Come on - give a leg up to your fellow spacefarer, or something - but a car seems like a wasteful indulgence. Ultimately, it's just another piece of space junk to clutter the solar system with.
I don't think SpaceX holds such great fascination with Bigelow... I actually think they try to quietly stay away from that outfit.
Post by: sanman on 12/03/2017 06:39 am
Surely that wouldn't be so hard for Tesla to do, considering they made a big battery reserve for Australia in record time.
A large solar array could be used as the basis to build out a space station or depot. It could also be a signature Tesla product. At least it would be more practical and useful than a car. Call it the Solar Roof Over the World, if you like.
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 12/03/2017 06:41 am
QuoteTo clarify, I said it’s legit because the boss tweeted it out. I don’t know any more info and Elon’s the go to guy on this.
https://twitter.com/RocketJoy/status/937072189118939136
Ok, a crucial piece of evidence in favor of this being true just bit the dust. Not sure why she made the original comment. Clearly she didn't actually know if there would be cameras or not. Was probably just making a logical assumption.
My guess is that RocketJoy's follow-up was a hasty retraction cloaked in plausible deniability. She may not have wanted to get ahead of Elon.
Post by: su27k on 12/03/2017 09:25 am
It doesn’t cost anything because it’s just a necessary test of FH. NASA or it’s traditional contractors would never do something like this which is exactly why it’s genius and a Declaration of Independence. They wouldn’t dare do something that might be seen as an indulgence.
I agree that the Roadster payload makes all sort of sense in terms of PR, but I don't think it's fair to say NASA would never do something like this. They used to do this when they still have their own launch capability, remember NASA launched two US senators to space (and tried to launch a teacher to space which unfortunately didn't end well). If we go back further, there's also Alan Shepard who played golf on the Moon. What are these actions if not indulgence? This is why I'm very surprised to see SpaceGhost is against Elon's latest PR gimmick, this is exactly the kind of move NASA used to make when they were the top dog.
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/03/2017 09:55 am
And there have been foreign Payload Specialists, too.
Post by: vapour_nudge on 12/03/2017 10:16 am
That would be wheely too cheezy :)A wheel of cheese.The roadster could almost fit in the dragon trunk.So what would fit in the Roadster’s trunk?
He sent up cheese last time, perhaps this time he could send up crackers or some South African red - maybe some Pinotage? Go on My Musk, send some South African Pinotage up there.
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/03/2017 10:25 am
Would a launch into Earth orbit not have been a better publicity stunt? People could then track the Tesla with telescopes, and maybe even take the odd snapshot of it if you have a high enough resolution camera. It would be an equally impressive feat to the vast majority of the population, given that a "car was launched into space". But its closer proximity would give it a greater presence in people's minds, I reckon.
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/03/2017 11:01 am
This is the attitude that has killed space exploration. The strange disdain of fun. The solar system is made of junk. Planets are just accreted junk piles. So this seems fitting to me.IDK if this is a real thing but it has some very attractive features.
Bigelow, 'shudder', a lawsuit magnet.
If you absolutely have to be practical, they might monitor the car to see how various materials behave, in particular the battery, as they are going to need a lot of them, eventually.
What's the recurring worry about electric vehicles?
Range anxiety of course.
What better demonstration of the viability of an EV than 140 million miles on 1 charge. :)
Post by: inonepiece on 12/03/2017 12:56 pm
The amount of power in the batteries of a Roadster is phenomenal. Once the last S2 firing is accomplished the computer triggers a relay connecting the Roadsters batteries into the S2. This could power the S2 for a very long time. With power the S2 can maintain attitude and communications back to Earth complete with video/images of the Roadster as it gets farther away from Earth especially an image of Earth and the Moon far in the background behind the Roadster would be priceless. A camera mounted as if your the driver looking forward out the windshield would be an amazing shot.Top Gear, you are outdone.
How about a couple mannequins strapped into the seats?
Post by: tdperk on 12/03/2017 12:59 pm
"And we're going to trust this childish man ... to launch our billion dollar payload? Can anyone get a straight answer out of him? Anyone? Are we sure he's not joking ... again?"
Either missing the point completely, or trolling. Which one?
It makes no sense to risk any payload intended to be of future use--launch may fail catastrophically.
With no particular developed and integrated means of course correction--and we have seen none--there aren't many scientific payloads that make much sense either. Whimsical choices of ballast thereby are of no valence towards the evaluation of any speculated inutile state of mind in the chooser.
As for helodrvr's snark, falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus ... Tesla had no problems paying back their government loan available to all automakers in the crash. They paid it back early in full.
Post by: BobHk on 12/03/2017 01:26 pm
Post by: Jim on 12/03/2017 02:23 pm
Some naysayer see a man launching a car to Mars, I see a man giving his old Roadster a proper viking funeral...
So, are you saying it is going to be on fire?. I think that is a wrong analogy.
Post by: Striker-tech on 12/03/2017 02:28 pm
Some naysayer see a man launching a car to Mars, I see a man giving his old Roadster a proper viking funeral...
So, are you saying it is going to be on fire?. I think that is a wrong analogy.
It gets accidentally dropped from some incident on launch, otherwise really long odds of reentry on any planetary body, or it hangs around in orbit for a billion years or three until the Sun goes nova.
It's gonna burn.
Viking funeral. ;D
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 12/03/2017 02:41 pm
Why Mars orbit - which apparently will not be an actual orbit around Mars in any case, but rather some distant orbit in the depths of space which Mars also sometimes passes through? The Roadster will be out of sight and effectively "lost in space" pretty quickly.
Would a launch into Earth orbit not have been a better publicity stunt? People could then track the Tesla with telescopes, and maybe even take the odd snapshot of it if you have a high enough resolution camera. It would be an equally impressive feat to the vast majority of the population, given that a "car was launched into space". But its closer proximity would give it a greater presence in people's minds, I reckon.
Some reasons why not Earth orbit.
1) Earth orbit doesn't undeniably 'prove' the abilities of the FH to 'throw deep'.
2) Enough space junk in Earth orbit already.
3) "Hello, Nationwide? Yeah, uh... well... I just sideswiped the ISS in my Tesla Roadster. Accident forgiveness?"
Post by: topo334 on 12/03/2017 02:49 pm
Edit: I think you mean D. D. Harriman. Also let's dial back the purely party posts a bit, ok? ++Lar
Post by: inonepiece on 12/03/2017 02:57 pm
"And we're going to trust this childish man ... to launch our billion dollar payload? Can anyone get a straight answer out of him? Anyone? Are we sure he's not joking ... again?"Ironically, I'm not 100% sure you're serious, but I'll assume you are.
People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.
Post by: Barrie on 12/03/2017 03:02 pm
Elon (H.H Harriman) Musk
D. D. Harriman
Post by: AncientU on 12/03/2017 03:14 pm
"And we're going to trust this childish man ... to launch our billion dollar payload? Can anyone get a straight answer out of him? Anyone? Are we sure he's not joking ... again?"Ironically, I'm not 100% sure you're serious, but I'll assume you are.
People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.
Or block of steel...
Relax and enjoy the ride; long time coming.
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/03/2017 03:29 pm
Top Gear, you are outdone.Exactly.
What could possibly go wrong?
So, are you saying it is going to be on fire?. I think that is a wrong analogy.Priceless. :)
Post by: Stan-1967 on 12/03/2017 03:30 pm
Some naysayer see a man launching a car to Mars, I see a man giving his old Roadster a proper viking funeral...
In a proper Viking funeral, wouldn't Elon have to also be in the Roadster?
Perhaps Viking funerals in Space is an untapped market? Has more appeal than those offering to send your ashes up in some tin can.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/03/2017 04:30 pm
Post by: Patchouli on 12/03/2017 04:42 pm
https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/936930034568151047 (https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/936930034568151047)
LolQuote from: @DutchSpaceHey Elon, that idea was used before back in 1975 when @CNES introduced their new launcher #DiamantBP4 and placed a @renault 4 on the launcher/pad (didnt launch it though...) @ESA_History
I'm surprised this didn't come up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM
Post by: Ludus on 12/03/2017 05:00 pm
Alright - they could have sent up a large solar array also built by Tesla.
Surely that wouldn't be so hard for Tesla to do, considering they made a big battery reserve for Australia in record time.
A large solar array could be used as the basis to build out a space station or depot. It could also be a signature Tesla product. At least it would be more practical and useful than a car. Call it the Solar Roof Over the World, if you like.
Anything of this sort that attempts to be useful has the problem that if it’s serious it’s a major project on its own that’s much more costly and difficult. That’s exactly what’s not called for on a test of a new rocket. If it’s not serious it’s just junk, not Art. Something that unambiguously has no practical purpose has the clear value of just being a symbol. Some sloppy attempt to do something that seems practical serves no purpose at all.
Post by: M_Puckett on 12/03/2017 06:13 pm
It is depicted as a Corvette instead of a Tesla though.
https://youtu.be/t_KXgFpguE0 (https://youtu.be/t_KXgFpguE0)
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/03/2017 06:21 pm
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/03/2017 06:35 pm
Post by: guckyfan on 12/03/2017 07:16 pm
Why does almost every SpaceX thread turn into a party thread?? ??? ;D
Because most of what SpaceX does, feels like a party to many space fans.
Post by: meekGee on 12/03/2017 07:33 pm
Why does almost every SpaceX thread turn into a party thread?? ??? ;D
Because most of what SpaceX does, feels like a party to many space fans.
This quiet Sunday morning I was marveling (with my wife) about the awesomeness not of the Roadster launch, but of the fact that in our solar system, in sun orbit, there will be a sports car, just floating on.
How bloody surreal. It might become a tourist destination one day, unless of course someone goes and retrieves it. Can you imagine going to see the car for your birthday or some such? Too much.
Let's hope the launch succeeds.
Post by: AncientU on 12/03/2017 08:21 pm
Once Elon said he is launching his car then this became a party thread!!!
Because he is... launching.... his car.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/03/2017 08:25 pm
Once Elon said he is launching his car then this became a party thread!!!
Because he is... launching.... his car.
space car hype
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/03/2017 08:28 pm
Evaluated it alongside the "wheel of cheese". Formally as a business effect."And we're going to trust this childish man ... to launch our billion dollar payload? Can anyone get a straight answer out of him? Anyone? Are we sure he's not joking ... again?"Ironically, I'm not 100% sure you're serious, but I'll assume you are.
People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.
The cheese wheel barely trended briefly. Likewise this will as well. Estimate that the amount of "influence" is worth a few million as an advertising campaign. Whoopee.
For comparison, the "landing circus" had a few hundred million, which when it landed successfully went to a half billion. Not bad.
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory. For NASA/ESA/other govt planetary science, you'd lob a satellite/cruse stage like mass with highest C3 (I'd shoot for out of solar system as highest velocity) on an accurate trajectory (possibly shooting by an well know asteroid). For NSS, inject a major mass simulator into a difficult orbit, with a high enough eccentricity for specific reentry in a chosen spot. For large geosats, likewise a mass simulator into a GTO-1500 would be desirable.
Those would be missions that would demonstrate skill and performance. If you do them successively, your repeat-ability becomes encouraging for use by actual customers. It would be the thing that SX's rivals would be chilled to the bone with.
Because it would be worth an greatly increased chance at a few hundred million of revenue, not marketing expense. Yes, I know this doesn't mean anything to most fans. I get that.
As it is, he's doing them a favor.They don't have to take FH seriously for another few years. But then let's cater to the fans, who a few months later by griping about some other thing like BFS being late ... ::)
(Not directed at anyone) His companies, his rocket, his car. If you don’t approve of his actions you’re welcome to start your own car company, your own rocket company, create some very successful products and then launch whatever you want wherever you want. Otherwise, why not appreciate the fact our world has such a person and enjoy the ride...Heard this also when I criticized Bezos about his $100M avoidable waste on Firephone.
Both are still demonstrations of incompetence. Apparently, competence isn't in, but bread and circuses are. Explains the tomfoolery in DC perfectly. Perhaps Musk got brain rot from hanging around Trump for too long.
It's a launch vehicle for spacecraft. I don't care about it's likelihood for failure - if it's too high they won't launch. Rest is useless nonsense. Not a fan.
And, as I've told many including the billionaires mentioned here, just because you have more doesn't mean you have the liberty to care less - you have to care more. Otherwise you get all the avoidable disasters we see on a daily basis.
Some naysayer see a man launching a car to Mars, I see a man giving his old Roadster a proper viking funeral...
In a proper Viking funeral, wouldn't Elon have to also be in the Roadster?
Perhaps Viking funerals in Space is an untapped market? Has more appeal than those offering to send your ashes up in some tin can.
This comes to mind:
Seymour Cray Charts New Waters in Supercomputers (http://articles.latimes.com/1989-06-04/business/fi-2522_1_cray-computer-seymour-cray-cray-research)
Quote from:
The story goes that Seymour Cray builds a new sailboat for himself by hand every year. But at the end of each summer, Cray burns the boat to the ground.
He does so, those who know him say, because he doesn't want to become a prisoner of his old boat design. He wants to start with a blank sheet of paper the following year.
Post by: Ludus on 12/03/2017 08:59 pm
Post by: pb2000 on 12/03/2017 09:00 pm
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory. For NASA/ESA/other govt planetary science, you'd lob a satellite/cruse stage like mass with highest C3 (I'd shoot for out of solar system as highest velocity) on an accurate trajectory (possibly shooting by an well know asteroid). For NSS, inject a major mass simulator into a difficult orbit, with a high enough eccentricity for specific reentry in a chosen spot. For large geosats, likewise a mass simulator into a GTO-1500 would be desirable.
Those would be missions that would demonstrate skill and performance. If you do them successively, your repeat-ability becomes encouraging for use by actual customers. It would be the thing that SX's rivals would be chilled to the bone with.
If Musk can launch a stock roadster (no course adjustment equipment) and nail his intended heliocentric orbit, that would be pretty impressive imo.
Personally, I'm hoping the car is mounted on a simple spacecraft bus that does the fine maneuvering to ensure a close flyby of mars and then releases the car with mars in the background. Bonus points if they spacecraft bus then has enough delta-v to slam on the brakes and enter orbit around mars to serve as a relay for future missions.
Post by: vapour_nudge on 12/03/2017 09:06 pm
Why does almost every SpaceX thread turn into a party thread?? ??? ;DThink of the possibilities. I’m asking for his dash-cam footage and his reversing camera footage too
Post by: AncientU on 12/03/2017 09:17 pm
Maintaining your sense of humor or whimsy is not a 'character flaw'.
Acting like the steely eyed rocket man is better?
...perhaps to some...
Post by: the_other_Doug on 12/03/2017 09:19 pm
Once Elon said he is launching his car then this became a party thread!!!
Because he is... launching.... his car.
I'd be more impressed if the car was launching itself... ;)
Post by: andrewsdanj on 12/03/2017 09:46 pm
A Roadster/frankenupperstage doing the same thing would be *AWESOME*.
(http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/02/rosetta_s_self-portrait_at_mars/14284311-1-eng-GB/Rosetta_s_self-portrait_at_Mars.jpg)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/03/2017 09:55 pm
Throwing a car out into space changes the conversation. It demystifies things a bit. The absurdity makes it inherently relatable. Everyone has a car and can imagine theirs sailing off into space. Not many people have a Spacecraft in their garage. It will be a catalyst to more space related creative thinking than any 6-Billion Journey To Mars posters and hashtags. I can't wait to see the mission patch and Fairing Creative.
I mean, if they have a video/audio stream of the car playing Space Oddity during launch...what a way to kick off a new year. God knows we could use a bit of levity...
Post by: M.E.T. on 12/03/2017 09:57 pm
It is going to become a part of humanity's collective space history. Maybe with a dummy Elon sitting behind the steering wheel for all eternity.
Of course, it has to make it to space first.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 12/03/2017 10:00 pm
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/03/2017 10:20 pm
When we showed up we were one of 30 teams from all around that were set for competition with a few differences all the other teams built their cars during regular course work over the entire year and as mentioned ours in 27 days after classes were over for the day. Many of the other teams were found surrounding the car in the paddock, first because all the other teams were all male and ours was half female including the driver Maria. The other reason was that we had an on board motor controller from a forklift that was programmable with a probit which they were quickly taking photos of...
The race went well except for my main concern of the overheating Ford supplied motors prove true and we had to make two pit stops to replace the them as they threw the windings. When all was said and done the race was over and we ran the distance finishing 6th out of 30 cars on it's first race ever against former race winners. Queen's university was so impressed with the effort that they called us up to the podium for the "Award of Merit" for our effort and the technology on board the car.
I don't know if Elon was on campus that day during the race but it is interesting to speculate that his idea for electric cars may have been from his time at Queen's....
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/03/2017 10:21 pm
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory. For NASA/ESA/other govt planetary science, you'd lob a satellite/cruse stage like mass with highest C3 (I'd shoot for out of solar system as highest velocity) on an accurate trajectory (possibly shooting by an well know asteroid). For NSS, inject a major mass simulator into a difficult orbit, with a high enough eccentricity for specific reentry in a chosen spot. For large geosats, likewise a mass simulator into a GTO-1500 would be desirable.That's all very sensible and a very pragmatic use of resources.
Those would be missions that would demonstrate skill and performance. If you do them successively, your repeat-ability becomes encouraging for use by actual customers. It would be the thing that SX's rivals would be chilled to the bone with.
Because it would be worth an greatly increased chance at a few hundred million of revenue, not marketing expense. Yes, I know this doesn't mean anything to most fans. I get that.
As it is, he's doing them a favor.They don't have to take FH seriously for another few years. But then let's cater to the fans, who a few months later by griping about some other thing like BFS being late ... ::)
But let's play "I am Elon Musk" for a moment.
You've identified your biggest serious competitor has a very long successful launch record and a strong pre-existing relationship with several large institutional customers. You simply can't match this because you have just not been in the business long enough to do so.
Fortunately for you they are effectively handicapped by joint parents who are completely fixated on short term gains and don't believe there is anything to worry about.
Which suits you just fine.
So you need to test you new LV without obviously demonstrating the level of skills you have in a way that's obvious enough to arouse the concern of your competitors parents.
On this basis any fairly heavy object would be suitable as a surrogate payload.
Sending your car to Mars maintains the "Elon Musk, what a crazzzzy guy, eh?" image, while in fact giving your Operations team a fairly hard test of their skills in trajectory design and propulsion management, while fulfilling the goal that anything SX does is with aim of getting you to Mars betters/faster/cheaper. And of course there is no reason not to add a few (TBD) mods to the vehicle in the process. ;)
Result. LV tested. Operations team tested carrying out hard (but not obvious) mission. Frog broiling operation continues.
Of course I could be wrong.
Post by: hkultala on 12/03/2017 10:21 pm
In one of his tweets Elon wrote:
Quote from: Elon Musk@twitter
Not saying the next gen Roadster special upgrade package *will* definitely enable it to fly short hops, but maybe …
Certainly possible. Just a question of safety. Rocket tech applied to a car opens up revolutionary possibilities.
This might be a hint to the thrusters used to put it to martian orbit?
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 12/03/2017 10:36 pm
People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.Evaluated it alongside the "wheel of cheese". Formally as a business effect.
The cheese wheel barely trended briefly. Likewise this will as well. Estimate that the amount of "influence" is worth a few million as an advertising campaign. Whoopee.
For comparison, the "landing circus" had a few hundred million, which when it landed successfully went to a half billion. Not bad.
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory.
Part of "enthusing" HSF is having the public view it in a positive light. I gave my bi-annual space lecture yesterday (and of course Elon decides to drop this nugget immediately afterwards. We really need to talk about scheduling). The students really enjoyed the humorous tone of the landing failure video SpaceX put out recently. By not taking themselves too seriously SpaceX is creating a lot of positive feeling for HSF.
Launching a car into space has never been done before and as mentioned up thread it brings to light the reality that space is (and will be more of) a part of everyday life.
Also if SpaceX wants to they can launch a boilerplate Dragon or whatever else is considered "useful" on the next flight. What really matters in the eyes of potential customers for this first flight isn't the payload, it's whether the rocket blows up or not.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/03/2017 11:34 pm
Launching his Roadster has much more impact reaching a global mass audience.There are better means for reaching a global mass audience.
Example, using his existing marketing trope - have everyone send you one of their spare car keys that you toss into the trunk/passenger compartment. There - many thousand people have a personal stake in the launch. Millions of better ways if your objective is that, other than his current trope.
If Musk can launch a stock roadster (no course adjustment equipment) and nail his intended heliocentric orbit, that would be pretty impressive imo.As long as he has enough thrust/duration for boosters/US, he could be off by as much as 30 degrees in any direction and make a heliocentric orbit. So sans LOM or severe under performance, no big deal.
If you're going to do anything, do it with skill and accuracy. If it blows up anyway, its still the same. And if it doesn't, then every mission second further buys you that much more mission success. That you accomplished so much. That's a certain truth with no cynicism.
We heard a lot of the same 'not serious' discussion when he named the Drone ships Just Read The Instructions and Of Course I Still Love You. Doesn't seem to have reduced their reliability or his success at bringing boosters or customers on board.Having read the books, and understanding the hidden message back to BO, quite enjoyed that exchange.
Quote
Maintaining your sense of humor or whimsy is not a 'character flaw'.Not humor at all - I read it as a decadent cynicism, a denial of the need to care. Not at all the same. It cheapens things to no purpose.
Acting like the steely eyed rocket man is better?
...perhaps to some...
Throwing a car out into space changes the conversation. It demystifies things a bit. The absurdity makes it inherently relatable.Everyone has toilet paper, but imagining it in space doesn't help all that much.
Everyone has a car and can imagine theirs sailing off into space.
Quote
Not many people have a Spacecraft in their garage. It will be a catalyst to more space related creative thinking than any 6-Billion Journey To Mars posters and hashtags. I can't wait to see the mission patch and Fairing Creative.Don't get the connection. "Share the vacuous experience?" I'm straining, but really can't get this.
Quote
I mean, if they have a video/audio stream of the car playing Space Oddity during launch...what a way to kick off a new year. God knows we could use a bit of levity...So I'm guessing, but ... "performance art?"
Perhaps what it is, is that having a Dada-esque expression appeals ... where the functional art of something with a direct linkage to the real world ... has an ... "advantage?" Am I getting close?
You've identified your biggest serious competitor has a very long successful launch record and a strong pre-existing relationship with several large institutional customers. You simply can't match this because you have just not been in the business long enough to do so.Sounds ... fatalistic?
Quote
Fortunately for you they are effectively handicapped by joint parents who are completely fixated on short term gains and don't believe there is anything to worry about.So the advantage gained is to not "scare the competition"?
Which suits you just fine.
So you need to test you new LV without obviously demonstrating the level of skills you have in a way that's obvious enough to arouse the concern of your competitors parents.
Quote
On this basis any fairly heavy object would be suitable as a surrogate payload.Advantage of "crazzzy guy" please?
Sending your car to Mars maintains the "Elon Musk, what a crazzzzy guy, eh?" image, while in fact giving your Operations team a fairly hard test of their skills in trajectory design and propulsion management, while fulfilling the goal that anything SX does is with aim of getting you to Mars betters/faster/cheaper.
Look, any mission you fly will have people pouring over it examining vehicle performance - that's all the same.
Sounds to me all we're saying here is coming up with ways to "handicap" (as in golf) the performance, in asking for a "mulligan" in advance?
By not taking themselves too seriously SpaceX is creating a lot of positive feeling for HSF.Because they don't have to aspire to the skills that might "distance" them from those who do launch spacecraft?
(You know, you can do the opposite. You can take them with video inside a SC launch prep and encapsulation, where they can be a part of all the goes on in a launch. Woutldn't this be more "genuine"?)
Quote
Launching a car into space has never been done before and as mentioned up thread it brings to light the reality that space is (and will be more of) a part of everyday life.Back to launching toilet paper, car keys, or even the Mona Lisa, How about an X-box or an iPhone?
I wonder if what is really going on here is an attachment with pop culture. Like trying to make Austin Power's "Big Boy" rocket real, as a means to bring things down to a common trope, because people prefer fantasy to reality. Personally reality is much more to me.
Quote
Also if SpaceX wants to they can launch a boilerplate Dragon or whatever else is considered "useful" on the next flight.Pardon me but ... why not the first flight? Then if a second, there's two useful things, not just one?
Quote
What really matters in the eyes of potential customers for this first flight isn't the payload, it's whether the rocket blows up or not.So ... planning for failure instead of planning for success? When you go to launch, you spend a lot of time working down the odds.
Sorry to all you thoughtful people. Not trying to be insulting at all. I guess I'm just a hard case ...
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/04/2017 12:28 am
Well, we sort of already did during Apollo... ;)People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.Evaluated it alongside the "wheel of cheese". Formally as a business effect.
The cheese wheel barely trended briefly. Likewise this will as well. Estimate that the amount of "influence" is worth a few million as an advertising campaign. Whoopee.
For comparison, the "landing circus" had a few hundred million, which when it landed successfully went to a half billion. Not bad.
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory.
Part of "enthusing" HSF is having the public view it in a positive light. I gave my bi-annual space lecture yesterday (and of course Elon decides to drop this nugget immediately afterwards. We really need to talk about scheduling). The students really enjoyed the humorous tone of the landing failure video SpaceX put out recently. By not taking themselves too seriously SpaceX is creating a lot of positive feeling for HSF.
Launching a car into space has never been done before and as mentioned up thread it brings to light the reality that space is (and will be more of) a part of everyday life.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/04/2017 12:35 am
Well, we sort did during Apollo... ;)People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.Evaluated it alongside the "wheel of cheese". Formally as a business effect.
The cheese wheel barely trended briefly. Likewise this will as well. Estimate that the amount of "influence" is worth a few million as an advertising campaign. Whoopee.
For comparison, the "landing circus" had a few hundred million, which when it landed successfully went to a half billion. Not bad.
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory.
Part of "enthusing" HSF is having the public view it in a positive light. I gave my bi-annual space lecture yesterday (and of course Elon decides to drop this nugget immediately afterwards. We really need to talk about scheduling). The students really enjoyed the humorous tone of the landing failure video SpaceX put out recently. By not taking themselves too seriously SpaceX is creating a lot of positive feeling for HSF.
Launching a car into space has never been done before and as mentioned up thread it brings to light the reality that space is (and will be more of) a part of everyday life.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
A glorified golf cart. :P Politely putting it. The polar opposite of any Tesla! ;)
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/04/2017 12:44 am
It at least had a functional, operational purpose. In space.Well, we sort did during Apollo... ;)People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.Evaluated it alongside the "wheel of cheese". Formally as a business effect.
The cheese wheel barely trended briefly. Likewise this will as well. Estimate that the amount of "influence" is worth a few million as an advertising campaign. Whoopee.
For comparison, the "landing circus" had a few hundred million, which when it landed successfully went to a half billion. Not bad.
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory.
Part of "enthusing" HSF is having the public view it in a positive light. I gave my bi-annual space lecture yesterday (and of course Elon decides to drop this nugget immediately afterwards. We really need to talk about scheduling). The students really enjoyed the humorous tone of the landing failure video SpaceX put out recently. By not taking themselves too seriously SpaceX is creating a lot of positive feeling for HSF.
Launching a car into space has never been done before and as mentioned up thread it brings to light the reality that space is (and will be more of) a part of everyday life.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
A glorified golf cart. :P Politely putting it. The polar opposite of any Tesla! ;)
Not true of the Tesla.
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/04/2017 12:46 am
Same could be said for Carl Benz's first car compared to a new Mercedes... It all starts with the pioneers... Put in some fresh batteries in the LRV and it's good to go again... :)Well, we sort did during Apollo... ;)People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.Evaluated it alongside the "wheel of cheese". Formally as a business effect.
The cheese wheel barely trended briefly. Likewise this will as well. Estimate that the amount of "influence" is worth a few million as an advertising campaign. Whoopee.
For comparison, the "landing circus" had a few hundred million, which when it landed successfully went to a half billion. Not bad.
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory.
Part of "enthusing" HSF is having the public view it in a positive light. I gave my bi-annual space lecture yesterday (and of course Elon decides to drop this nugget immediately afterwards. We really need to talk about scheduling). The students really enjoyed the humorous tone of the landing failure video SpaceX put out recently. By not taking themselves too seriously SpaceX is creating a lot of positive feeling for HSF.
Launching a car into space has never been done before and as mentioned up thread it brings to light the reality that space is (and will be more of) a part of everyday life.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
A glorified golf cart. :P Politely putting it. The polar opposite of any Tesla! ;)
Post by: pb2000 on 12/04/2017 12:55 am
Hence why he has to nail it if the car doesn't have any course correction thrusters. Missing by a million miles (or to a lesser extent hitting mars) would be almost as bad as blowing up the rocket on the pad.If Musk can launch a stock roadster (no course adjustment equipment) and nail his intended heliocentric orbit, that would be pretty impressive imo.As long as he has enough thrust/duration for boosters/US, he could be off by as much as 30 degrees in any direction and make a heliocentric orbit. So sans LOM or severe under performance, no big deal.
If you're going to do anything, do it with skill and accuracy. If it blows up anyway, its still the same. And if it doesn't, then every mission second further buys you that much more mission success. That you accomplished so much. That's a certain truth with no cynicism.
We still haven't heard definitively if he intends the car to enter a stable mars orbit, or merely do a flyby, but either way, if the payload ends up on the right trajectory, it'll be a win for SpaceX.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/04/2017 01:04 am
So therefore, you think sending ice cream into space serves no purpose. It’s a waste of valuable up mass that could otherwise be put towards useful science?It at least had a functional, operational purpose. In space.Well, we sort did during Apollo... ;)People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.Evaluated it alongside the "wheel of cheese". Formally as a business effect.
The cheese wheel barely trended briefly. Likewise this will as well. Estimate that the amount of "influence" is worth a few million as an advertising campaign. Whoopee.
For comparison, the "landing circus" had a few hundred million, which when it landed successfully went to a half billion. Not bad.
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory.
Part of "enthusing" HSF is having the public view it in a positive light. I gave my bi-annual space lecture yesterday (and of course Elon decides to drop this nugget immediately afterwards. We really need to talk about scheduling). The students really enjoyed the humorous tone of the landing failure video SpaceX put out recently. By not taking themselves too seriously SpaceX is creating a lot of positive feeling for HSF.
Launching a car into space has never been done before and as mentioned up thread it brings to light the reality that space is (and will be more of) a part of everyday life.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
A glorified golf cart. :P Politely putting it. The polar opposite of any Tesla! ;)
Not true of the Tesla.
If no, then where do you draw the line? It has to be at some point - some quantifiable delineation.
Is it at some level of pleasure (that of one of Now hundreds of ISS residents vs that of one single impactful individual who can actually shape the course of future space flight)?
Or is it based on some other metric? Would you argue that the record on voyager(s) was a waste of time, money, and effort? If not, then if a record was put in the Roadster would that be better (after all - it’ll be up there for a billion years, give or take a few orbits).
You could argue that there’s no connection between the two, but there is.
I agree that on one level it’s a bit more Dr Who than Carl Sagan, but if Elon’s Gambit inspires just one individual who then grows up to develop the next breakthrough in astrophysics or rocket propulsion, wouldn’t it be worth it?
Where do you put a limit on inspiration...?
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/04/2017 01:10 am
Post by: su27k on 12/04/2017 01:35 am
If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory.
I think Jim has shot down this idea many times...
Quote
For NASA/ESA/other govt planetary science, you'd lob a satellite/cruse stage like mass with highest C3 (I'd shoot for out of solar system as highest velocity) on an accurate trajectory (possibly shooting by an well know asteroid).
This is basically what SpaceX has chosen to do, it's not highest C3 (C3 is not FH's strong suit anyway) but a TMI, which should be of interest to any space agency. A Mars launch also re-affirms company's commitment to Mars when the government is pivoting towards the Moon, kind of important for moral I'd think.
As for accuracy, I'm sure they'll measure it after the burn and report the numbers to interested customers. That's all the customers want, just a number, they won't care whether the mass is simulated using a car or a sperm whale, as long as it has the right mass.
Quote
Those would be missions that would demonstrate skill and performance.
Launching a car doesn't prevent a demonstration of skill and performance, what they use to simulate the mass is completely orthogonal to performance and accuracy, Newton's law made sure of that.
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 12/04/2017 01:44 am
Well, we sort of already did during Apollo... ;)
Launching a car into space has never been done before and as mentioned up thread it brings to light the reality that space is (and will be more of) a part of everyday life.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
Good point. First sports car then. ;)
Post by: daver on 12/04/2017 02:25 am
They should use the flight to test the fairing, and with the same mindset that put the first wheel of cheese in space, under that fairing should be a Tesla roadster. The first car in space and with a reignition of the second stage, the first car in solar orbit or on an escape trajectory out of the solar system. Inside the car, cameras and a telemetry system, powered by the car's lithium ion cells, which should last while a while if low powered enough or indefinitely with solar panels on the hood, roof and rear deck lid. Imagine the marketing and PR buzz.
Post by: Formica on 12/04/2017 02:48 am
We still haven't heard definitively if he intends the car to enter a stable mars orbit, or merely do a flyby, but either way, if the payload ends up on the right trajectory, it'll be a win for SpaceX.
According to The Bad Astronomer (http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/elon-musk-on-the-roadster-to-mars), they will not be doing MOI, just TMI to a Mars precessing orbit. This is direct from Elon himself to Mr. Plait.
Post by: rakaydos on 12/04/2017 03:00 am
You've identified your biggest serious competitor has a very long successful launch record and a strong pre-existing relationship with several large institutional customers. You simply can't match this because you have just not been in the business long enough to do so.Sounds ... fatalistic?QuoteFortunately for you they are effectively handicapped by joint parents who are completely fixated on short term gains and don't believe there is anything to worry about.So the advantage gained is to not "scare the competition"?
Which suits you just fine.
So you need to test you new LV without obviously demonstrating the level of skills you have in a way that's obvious enough to arouse the concern of your competitors parents.QuoteOn this basis any fairly heavy object would be suitable as a surrogate payload.Advantage of "crazzzy guy" please?
Sending your car to Mars maintains the "Elon Musk, what a crazzzzy guy, eh?" image, while in fact giving your Operations team a fairly hard test of their skills in trajectory design and propulsion management, while fulfilling the goal that anything SX does is with aim of getting you to Mars betters/faster/cheaper.
Look, any mission you fly will have people pouring over it examining vehicle performance - that's all the same.
Sounds to me all we're saying here is coming up with ways to "handicap" (as in golf) the performance, in asking for a "mulligan" in advance?
The point is to have Tony Bruno begging Boeing and Lockeed for priority funding to develop SMART reuse to compete with SpaceX, and his masters laughing off SpaceX without realizing what a powerhouse Elon's company is. Just because the experts know the truth, doesnt mean the people with the money believe it. Just look at Climate change.
Post by: John-H on 12/04/2017 03:35 am
Payload - There was no payload for a heavy launcher. The car is no heavier than other payloads launched to similar orbits, but now no one cares.
Reuse - Three returned stages would be spectacular, but tricky. They can't reuse the boosters on a high energy launch anyway, so now no one cares.
Mars - Elon said he was going to launch to Mars Real Soon Now. This is in the general direction of Mars, so he is keeping his word. It also helps with the long term goal of getting some of the attention, and money, from SLS.
Tesla - Anything that gets your name on the internet, or Twitter, is good.
All in all, a stroke of PR genius.
John
Post by: Formica on 12/04/2017 04:05 am
Reuse - Three returned stages would be spectacular, but tricky. They can't reuse the boosters on a high energy launch anyway, so now no one cares.
What do you mean by this? I would be gobsmacked if they didn't recover the center core. While it is basically a one off prototype, it will provide a virtual gold mine of engineering data for future block 5 gen center cores. From my admittedly amateur perspective, it seems downright foolish to expend it. (I may also be misinterpreting your statement.)
Post by: meekGee on 12/04/2017 05:41 am
It might be harder than usual, since center core velocity will be high
Reuse - Three returned stages would be spectacular, but tricky. They can't reuse the boosters on a high energy launch anyway, so now no one cares.
What do you mean by this? I would be gobsmacked if they didn't recover the center core. While it is basically a one off prototype, it will provide a virtual gold mine of engineering data for future block 5 gen center cores. From my admittedly amateur perspective, it seems downright foolish to expend it. (I may also be misinterpreting your statement.)
Post by: shooter6947 on 12/04/2017 05:50 am
It might be harder than usual, since center core velocity will be highHigher velocity is no particular problem so long as you reserve enough fuel for a super-long entry burn. Given the low mass and c3 requirements of the mission, should be plenty of fuel to spare.
Post by: guckyfan on 12/04/2017 05:54 am
Reuse - Three returned stages would be spectacular, but tricky. They can't reuse the boosters on a high energy launch anyway, so now no one cares.
What do you mean by this? I would be gobsmacked if they didn't recover the center core. While it is basically a one off prototype, it will provide a virtual gold mine of engineering data for future block 5 gen center cores. From my admittedly amateur perspective, it seems downright foolish to expend it. (I may also be misinterpreting your statement.)
When asked about it, Elon Musk said he thinks they can land the central core on a Red Dragon mission to Mars. Thats borderline but a very demanding mission.
Post by: meekGee on 12/04/2017 05:56 am
Low mass, yes. C3, I didn't see numbers. But inherently FH has a higher velocity for the center core.It might be harder than usual, since center core velocity will be highHigher velocity is no particular problem so long as you reserve enough fuel for a super-long entry burn. Given the low mass and c3 requirements of the mission, should be plenty of fuel to spare.
So I'm hoping they do, but won't be too surprised if they don't.
Post by: Dalhousie on 12/04/2017 06:04 am
Well, we sort did during Apollo... ;)People do understand viral marketing, and this is that. It's also a bit of fun. And of course it accomplishes the objective of the demo mission, as much as a wheel of cheese.Evaluated it alongside the "wheel of cheese". Formally as a business effect.
The cheese wheel barely trended briefly. Likewise this will as well. Estimate that the amount of "influence" is worth a few million as an advertising campaign. Whoopee.
For comparison, the "landing circus" had a few hundred million, which when it landed successfully went to a half billion. Not bad.
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use. If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory.
Part of "enthusing" HSF is having the public view it in a positive light. I gave my bi-annual space lecture yesterday (and of course Elon decides to drop this nugget immediately afterwards. We really need to talk about scheduling). The students really enjoyed the humorous tone of the landing failure video SpaceX put out recently. By not taking themselves too seriously SpaceX is creating a lot of positive feeling for HSF.
Launching a car into space has never been done before and as mentioned up thread it brings to light the reality that space is (and will be more of) a part of everyday life.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
A glorified golf cart. :P Politely putting it. The polar opposite of any Tesla! ;)
At least it was useful.
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/04/2017 06:29 am
Perhaps because of how often NASA has sent probes to Mars it now appears to be viewed as an "easy" destination. But look at the operating ranges involved in terms of the Rough Orders of Magnitude
Earth LEO 250 miles Baseline
GEO 25 000 miles x100
Moon 250 000 miles x1000
Mars 125 000 000 miles x500 000
Sending a car to Mars is a stunt. Tracking, monitoring and commanding it when it gets there is not.
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/04/2017 06:52 am
How will this factor in the modifications required for the Roadster?
Post by: sanman on 12/04/2017 07:04 am
Post by: DreamyPickle on 12/04/2017 08:45 am
Is it known if it will have any sort of power and avionics? Otherwise we will only see a few shots from the second stage as it separates never to be seen again.
A tesla in heliocentric orbit is really quite small and I don't know if can be tracked passively (without a transmitter). So it might get lost very quickly.
Post by: Torbjorn Larsson, OM on 12/04/2017 11:30 am
How is the car going from mars transfer orbit to martian orbit?
According to the comments surrounding yours, it is not (i.e the mission targets close to "Mars['] orbit" as per Musk's Twitter).
Quote
In one of his tweets Elon wrote:Quote from: Elon Musk@twitterNot saying the next gen Roadster special upgrade package *will* definitely enable it to fly short hops, but maybe …
Certainly possible. Just a question of safety. Rocket tech applied to a car opens up revolutionary possibilities.
This might be a hint to the thrusters used to put it to martian orbit?
It is unrelated. Specifically, IIRC, the tech transfer has been described as at least using SpaceX developed high temperature materials and know how, likely in the electric power parts during super-ludicrous acceleration, either by Musk or by others' speculation.
[And why would you put thrusters in a car aimed at passing traffic use certification?]
Post by: woods170 on 12/04/2017 11:36 am
"And we're going to trust this childish man ... to launch our billion dollar payload? Can anyone get a straight answer out of him? Anyone? Are we sure he's not joking ... again?"
You're sounding like Jim:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30059.msg964694#msg964694
Post by: Ionmars on 12/04/2017 11:43 am
Post by: octavo on 12/04/2017 11:49 am
Now we must ask the gnawing question on everyone's mind: How hard would it be to sneak into the trunk of a Tesla Roadster?
Shotgun!
Post by: woods170 on 12/04/2017 11:53 am
Space Ghost 1962 said something that caught my attention. "It's a launch vehicle for spacecraft..." There's probably a large subset who think the same. But to me that's the beauty of this. It reminds me of the facial expression and overall reaction Tory Bruno had when Gwynne Shotwell uttered the words "Launch as Commodity" Commodity? COMMODITY? It's too special, too complex, too important, too expensive...no way, no how. How dare you even suggest it...
This.
IMO Space Ghost doesn't get it. Much like Ed fails to understand that rockets are not just there to make profit.
Both SpaceX AND Blue Origin are working towards a future where space launch is indeed a commodity. Just look, for example, at Jeff Bezos' stated goal: millions of people working and living in space. That will never happen if space launch never becomes a commodity.
Same goes for Elon Musk: he wants to make the human race multi-planetary. That also will never happen if space launch never becomes a commodity.
Same goes for an ordinary mass-simulator. And mind you, over the past 5 decades the space-fairing nations have thrown dozens of those in all kinds of orbits. Some of those mass-simulators were one-offs costing as much as $1 million. Didn't hear you complaining about "decadence" back then.It at least had a functional, operational purpose. In space.Well, we sort did during Apollo... ;)A glorified golf cart. :P Politely putting it. The polar opposite of any Tesla! ;)
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html)
Not true of the Tesla.
A car seems like a waste of money - I would have offered Bigelow a free ride to space for one of their biggest habs, if they'd accept the risk. Come on - give a leg up to your fellow spacefarer, or something - but a car seems like a wasteful indulgence. Ultimately, it's just another piece of space junk to clutter the solar system with.A different mass simulator would just as much have been a wasteful indulgence given that neither serve any usefull purpose other than having mass.
Also, I suggest you do your complaining at NASA, ESA and ULA as well. All of them have added pointless pieces of spacejunk to clutter the solar system with.
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/04/2017 12:30 pm
Post by: CraigLieb on 12/04/2017 01:38 pm
Post by: zhangmdev on 12/04/2017 01:49 pm
I wonder how much different the loads reaction and dynamic forces acting on the car will be from the usual spacecraft. A spacecraft usually have the loads acting on the central frame, while for a car the forces act on the whole chassis and car frame. Also while a car by its nature can withstand great loads (both from usual driving and from crash protection), I suspect that the resonance frequency will be different from those of satellites.
...
Anything could be shaken loose will be neither removed or welded/glued shut. Drain all fluid. Add ballast to make it balanced on one spot where the adapter will be attached. Unlike a real spacecraft, it has no volatile liquid sloshing around or delicate tubing filled with high pressure gas. I think making this hunk of mass spaceworthy should rather straightforward.
Post by: Archibald on 12/04/2017 02:26 pm
Considering how much a sci-fi nerd Elon is, I suppose he (perfectly) knows about this peculiar Top Gear episode.
Maybe he wanted his own, better variant of it. "I can do better things with my car than those eccentric British fellows that launched their on a rocket".
Plus a Tesla roadster is far more sexier than a Reliant Robin - it is kind of comparing Margaret Thatcher with Taylor Swift.
Post by: LewisS on 12/04/2017 02:35 pm
Post by: speedevil on 12/04/2017 04:47 pm
Sending a car to Mars is a stunt. Tracking, monitoring and commanding it when it gets there is not.
In principle, it may be possible to negotiate a few bytes from MAVEN or similar, for basic presence comms, as it passes Mars.
A 2m class dish, and uplink system would in principle be quite within the mass budget, get a megabit or three a second if they can buy DSN time, or rather less without, but would mean developing new hardware that has little near-term use, and may be too constrained for later mars use.
Though they might view this as worth it.
Reusing existing hardware is also an option.
Starlink has several 15cm optical dishes, presumably for LASER comms.
Several meter class telescopes at various points on the ground are relatively inexpensive, and combined with a several watt LASER the 15cm dish will illuminate about a 1Mm spot on earth at mars furthest distance.
A 1m dish would pick up 10^-12 of this, or around 3*10^-12W, for a 6W laser 50% modulated, or 10^7 photons/s.
Visible magnitude around 10, about the same as Phobos at close approach.
Phobos is easily visible in amateur scopes of under 50cm. (in good seeing, with good geometry).
I think it's safe to assume a datarate of several tens of kilobits a second downlink near Mars, without heroic optical efforts, even in the absence of extraordinary effort, for a cost of tens of thousands of dollars in ground equipment, rather than millions.
The pointing of the mirror does of course need good 3-axis stabilisation of the craft. But starlink satellites are likely to want good pointing on their mirrors for signal strength reasons if nothing else.
The starlink satellite will need moderately larger solar panels and various things to cope better with the environments on mars, but given that Elon has explicitly stated he plans to put starlink or similar around Mars, it does not seem a huge stretch to imagine that this might be available at least in a prototype form.
Imagine also if it just so happens that the mirrors on the standard starlink can be flipped into a low bitrate mode and do kilobits to Mars with a six inch mirror on the far end, megabits to the moon, or a kilobit to Jupiter.
(much higher with a larger mirror, and clearly not if you cross the planet or get too close as it's too bright).
Post by: Senex on 12/04/2017 04:52 pm
Can you imagine the final odometer reading on the Tesla... :o ;D
There would never be one . . . ;)
Post by: envy887 on 12/04/2017 04:55 pm
If you wanted to enthuse govt HSF, you'd lob a boilerplate Dragon capsule on a cislunar trajectory.
I think Jim has shot down this idea many times...
No, Jim has shot down the idea of lobbing a functional Dragon to cislunar space. A boilerplate capsule doesn't have to be powered, networked or air conditioned while in the fairing, or have a functional payload adapter. It's also not nearly as interesting because it really wouldn't test any of Dragon's cislunar capabilities.
Post by: Formica on 12/04/2017 04:57 pm
What do you mean by this? I would be gobsmacked if they didn't recover the center core. While it is basically a one off prototype, it will provide a virtual gold mine of engineering data for future block 5 gen center cores. From my admittedly amateur perspective, it seems downright foolish to expend it. (I may also be misinterpreting your statement.)
When asked about it, Elon Musk said he thinks they can land the central core on a Red Dragon mission to Mars. Thats borderline but a very demanding mission.
True. That said, the Roadster is a much lower mass payload than Red Dragon was to be. It's outside the optimum transfer window, so that could contribute to a hotter landing profile as well, but still, 1500kg vs 10,000kg is a huge difference. Granted, we still don't know if the Roadster will have some kind of spacecraft bus on it, but so far, the answer appears to be "probably not" since we know they aren't doing MOI. Ergo, recovering the center core seems doable, and again, extremely valuable from an engineering perspective.
Post by: DistantTemple on 12/04/2017 05:25 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFMTeslas go more than 54 miles, or even 54 million miles before running out of juice. Top Gear is the fake, and history is showing real men and women can make world changing rocket engines in their garages, rather than motorised sheds. Tesla doesn't need to take the mick out of the lovely Reliant Robin, or mess around with exploding stage props, as they are the cutting edge of space, car and battery technology, applying adult intellect, and not thrills for 8 year old "men".
Maybe he wanted his own, better variant of it. "I can do better things with my car than those eccentric British fellows that launched their on a rocket".
Post by: laszlo on 12/04/2017 05:42 pm
I do wonder if Elon has offered to his employees to place a personal item maybe limited in size and weight in the trunk. I would send a sample of hair (dna) or maybe a bit of my moms ashes Or maybe a DVD with family photos and videos.Fish food for the inhabitants of the Atlantic's newest reef ;) <running for his life dodging brickbats...>
Post by: dror on 12/04/2017 05:47 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM
Considering how much a sci-fi nerd Elon is, I suppose he (perfectly) knows about this peculiar Top Gear episode.
Maybe he wanted his own, better variant of it. "I can do better things with my car than those eccentric British fellows that launched their on a rocket".
Plus a Tesla roadster is far more sexier than a Reliant Robin - it is kind of comparing Margaret Thatcher with Taylor Swift.
Oh, Musk has bigger issues with top gear than that. He could be doing it just to spite
https://youtu.be/pQkJpRCvdjs
Post by: nacnud on 12/04/2017 05:59 pm
Can you imagine the final odometer reading on the Tesla... :o ;D
There wouldn't be one . . . ;)
I have images of Ferris Bueller's day off running through my head
Post by: jpo234 on 12/04/2017 06:31 pm
Fire is going to carry it to Valhalla.Some naysayer see a man launching a car to Mars, I see a man giving his old Roadster a proper viking funeral...
So, are you saying it is going to be on fire?. I think that is a wrong analogy.
Post by: sanman on 12/04/2017 06:33 pm
Can you imagine the final odometer reading on the Tesla... :o ;D
There wouldn't be one . . . ;)
I have images of Ferris Bueller's day off running through my head
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4DMs262vr4
Post by: jpo234 on 12/04/2017 06:44 pm
https://youtu.be/qQlijvjsurE
Post by: cppetrie on 12/04/2017 06:55 pm
Have not seen this one yet:This was posted on Saturday and says it’s launching in 6 months...uh...January is not 6 months away. 6 weeks maybe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQlijvjsurE
Post by: jpo234 on 12/04/2017 07:04 pm
Have not seen this one yet:This was posted on Saturday and says it’s launching in 6 months...uh...January is not 6 months away. 6 weeks maybe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQlijvjsurE
It's a running gag that the first FH launch is and always will be 6 months away.
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/04/2017 07:23 pm
Exactly.
Reusing existing hardware is also an option.
Starlink has several 15cm optical dishes, presumably for LASER comms.
Several meter class telescopes at various points on the ground are relatively inexpensive, and combined with a several watt LASER the 15cm dish will illuminate about a 1Mm spot on earth at mars furthest distance.
A 1m dish would pick up 10^-12 of this, or around 3*10^-12W, for a 6W laser 50% modulated, or 10^7 photons/s.
Visible magnitude around 10, about the same as Phobos at close approach.
Phobos is easily visible in amateur scopes of under 50cm. (in good seeing, with good geometry).
I think it's safe to assume a datarate of several tens of kilobits a second downlink near Mars, without heroic optical efforts, even in the absence of extraordinary effort, for a cost of tens of thousands of dollars in ground equipment, rather than millions.
The pointing of the mirror does of course need good 3-axis stabilisation of the craft. But starlink satellites are likely to want good pointing on their mirrors for signal strength reasons if nothing else.
The starlink satellite will need moderately larger solar panels and various things to cope better with the environments on mars, but given that Elon has explicitly stated he plans to put starlink or similar around Mars, it does not seem a huge stretch to imagine that this might be available at least in a prototype form.
Imagine also if it just so happens that the mirrors on the standard starlink can be flipped into a low bitrate mode and do kilobits to Mars with a six inch mirror on the far end, megabits to the moon, or a kilobit to Jupiter.
(much higher with a larger mirror, and clearly not if you cross the planet or get too close as it's too bright).
The actual payload is not really the point, or even that important (although pictures of Mars from the parking cams should be interesting).
The skills needed to implement the goal (and of course proving FH works as a system) are the goal. Most of that will not be on obvious display.
And all of them tie into the goal of going to Mars. Hitting a target that's 5000x further away than any payload SX has launched so far.
Post by: envy887 on 12/04/2017 07:42 pm
Exactly.
Reusing existing hardware is also an option.
Starlink has several 15cm optical dishes, presumably for LASER comms.
Several meter class telescopes at various points on the ground are relatively inexpensive, and combined with a several watt LASER the 15cm dish will illuminate about a 1Mm spot on earth at mars furthest distance.
A 1m dish would pick up 10^-12 of this, or around 3*10^-12W, for a 6W laser 50% modulated, or 10^7 photons/s.
Visible magnitude around 10, about the same as Phobos at close approach.
Phobos is easily visible in amateur scopes of under 50cm. (in good seeing, with good geometry).
I think it's safe to assume a datarate of several tens of kilobits a second downlink near Mars, without heroic optical efforts, even in the absence of extraordinary effort, for a cost of tens of thousands of dollars in ground equipment, rather than millions.
The pointing of the mirror does of course need good 3-axis stabilisation of the craft. But starlink satellites are likely to want good pointing on their mirrors for signal strength reasons if nothing else.
The starlink satellite will need moderately larger solar panels and various things to cope better with the environments on mars, but given that Elon has explicitly stated he plans to put starlink or similar around Mars, it does not seem a huge stretch to imagine that this might be available at least in a prototype form.
Imagine also if it just so happens that the mirrors on the standard starlink can be flipped into a low bitrate mode and do kilobits to Mars with a six inch mirror on the far end, megabits to the moon, or a kilobit to Jupiter.
(much higher with a larger mirror, and clearly not if you cross the planet or get too close as it's too bright).
The actual payload is not really the point, or even that important (although pictures of Mars from the parking cams should be interesting).
The skills needed to implement the goal (and of course proving FH works as a system) are the goal. Most of that will not be on obvious display.
And all of them tie into the goal of going to Mars. Hitting a target that's 5000x further away than any payload SX has launched so far.
They won't be tangibly "hitting a target". Mars isn't going to be there when the Roadster gets to the other end of the Hohmann transfer.
But they can still calculate the accuracy of the orbital insertion as long as the upper stage is alive and can be tracked from Earth. That will tell them if the payload would have hit Mars if it launched in an interplanetary window.
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 12/04/2017 08:04 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSg3WfOcfTM
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Ford_truck
It's just in the wrong quadrant...
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/04/2017 08:08 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFMAnd it won't roll over as often... ;D
Considering how much a sci-fi nerd Elon is, I suppose he (perfectly) knows about this peculiar Top Gear episode.
Maybe he wanted his own, better variant of it. "I can do better things with my car than those eccentric British fellows that launched their on a rocket".
Plus a Tesla roadster is far more sexier than a Reliant Robin - it is kind of comparing Margaret Thatcher with Taylor Swift.
Post by: speedevil on 12/04/2017 08:29 pm
They won't be tangibly "hitting a target". Mars isn't going to be there when the Roadster gets to the other end of the Hohmann transfer.
But they can still calculate the accuracy of the orbital insertion as long as the upper stage is alive and can be tracked from Earth. That will tell them if the payload would have hit Mars if it launched in an interplanetary window.
There are in principle >2y trajectories for the first week or so of January, to Mars, without greatly boosting the delta-v needed.
It rapidly climbs to the levels at which the Jan 18 window for a Jupiter-> Saturn (6.5km/s) mission becomes cheaper, with the option of a few hundred m/s trajectory to Uranus.
Alas, outer planet missions that actually do something are completely implausible right now cheaply anyway.
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/04/2017 10:40 pm
As long as he has enough thrust/duration for boosters/US, he could be off by as much as 30 degrees in any direction and make a heliocentric orbit. So sans LOM or severe under performance, no big deal.Actually an attractive feature, given the range is about 5000x larger than SX have ever operated at before.
Everything above that is a bonus. A fairly classic SX operating tactic.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
I should probably have qualified that SX has not been in the business long enough yet.You've identified your biggest serious competitor has a very long successful launch record and a strong pre-existing relationship with several large institutional customers. You simply can't match this because you have just not been in the business long enough to do so.Sounds ... fatalistic?
SX can do so if they keep up a high enough launch rate for long enough (and without any more failures).
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
Technically it's not scaring the BoD of the parents. They control the purse strings. I think Bruno is already taking SX quite seriously.QuoteFortunately for you they are effectively handicapped by joint parents who are completely fixated on short term gains and don't believe there is anything to worry about.So the advantage gained is to not "scare the competition"?
Which suits you just fine.
So you need to test you new LV without obviously demonstrating the level of skills you have in a way that's obvious enough to arouse the concern of your competitors parents.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
Possibly a poor choice of words? How about "bold" or "flamboyant"?QuoteOn this basis any fairly heavy object would be suitable as a surrogate payload.Advantage of "crazzzy guy" please?
Sending your car to Mars maintains the "Elon Musk, what a crazzzzy guy, eh?" image, while in fact giving your Operations team a fairly hard test of their skills in trajectory design and propulsion management, while fulfilling the goal that anything SX does is with aim of getting you to Mars betters/faster/cheaper.
You seem to be treating this as just a test launch of a new SX LV. Something of interest to potential SX customers only.
But SX (and Musk) have always spoken to several audiences. If your end game is to establish a settlement of a million people on Mars the spade work for raising public awareness of that has to start sooner rather than later.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962
Sounds to me all we're saying here is coming up with ways to "handicap" (as in golf) the performance, in asking for a "mulligan" in advance?You were aware that one of his earlier comments was along the lines of "There's a fair chance it will explode. My only hope is it will clear the pad before it does so" ?
While many commentards have always been optimistic on SX's chances of success (at anything) Musk himself has always been very careful to manage expectations, possibly following the 3 in a row failures of F1's before ultimate success.
So no he's doing what he's done with (AFAIK) all F9 flights and showing caution. Don't confuse his comments with other people's.
But if FH did fail what would SX do?
Simple.
Figure out what went wrong and launch another.
I think that's a key point of SX.
They regret launch failure, they do not fear it.
Post by: AJW on 12/05/2017 01:03 am
If you are a news commentator, pick your headline: 'SpaceX Rocket Blows Up!', or 'SpaceX Rocket Blows Up Destroying Used Tesla Roadster!' Adding the side story of the Roadster significantly diminishes what could be a far more negative public impression. By discussing this early, the public now has a month to process that this flight is risky, so if they will be long prepared for this eventuality.
Yes, a RUD would be a significant setback, but by sending a used car as the payload, it would be much easier to mitigate the public's and even the internal SpaceX employee's perception of a LOM than if a commercial, scientific, or even a mass simulator were on board.
As an aside, I do hope they at least connect the odometer and place a driver's view dashcam out the front for a first-person view of the fairing opening. The concept images posted so far have the roadster horizontal, but you really want the car mounted in the direction of travel.
Post by: TripD on 12/05/2017 01:30 am
Post by: tvg98 on 12/05/2017 01:32 am
Quote
The concept images posted so far have the roadster horizontal, but you really want the car mounted in the direction of travel.
@johnkrausphotos has said that the Roadster will be mounted at a roughly 45 degree angle. So how would one go about attaching it to the PAF?
Post by: rakaydos on 12/05/2017 01:42 am
(http://www.mangorock.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/DodgeMtn1.jpg)QuoteThe concept images posted so far have the roadster horizontal, but you really want the car mounted in the direction of travel.
@johnkrausphotos has said that the Roadster will be mounted at a roughly 45 degree angle. So how would one go about attaching it to the PAF?
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/05/2017 01:53 am
QuoteThe concept images posted so far have the roadster horizontal, but you really want the car mounted in the direction of travel.
@johnkrausphotos has said that the Roadster will be mounted at a roughly 45 degree angle. So how would one go about attaching it to the PAF?
You could probably attach it to both axles
Post by: meekGee on 12/05/2017 02:33 am
A beacon with a small solar panel maybe, so it can be found later?
Or if it's for show, any elements of the now defunct Red Dragon?
Or a red toy dragon?
Post by: dorkmo on 12/05/2017 02:49 am
Is there any chance that there's something attached to the car?
A beacon with a small solar panel maybe, so it can be found later?
Or if it's for show, any elements of the now defunct Red Dragon?
Or a red toy dragon?
how about a wheel of this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Fenni_cheese
Post by: TripD on 12/05/2017 03:01 am
Is there any chance that there's something attached to the car?
A beacon with a small solar panel maybe, so it can be found later?
Or if it's for show, any elements of the now defunct Red Dragon?
Or a red toy dragon?
There's no reason that solar panels couldn't be placed on the underside of the carriage.
Post by: ModZero on 12/05/2017 09:00 am
The cheese wheel barely trended briefly. Likewise this will as well. Estimate that the amount of "influence" is worth a few million as an advertising campaign. Whoopee.
For comparison, the "landing circus" had a few hundred million, which when it landed successfully went to a half billion. Not bad.
But to customers of the FH, no, not an effective use.
I mostly agree with you, but I think there's one more audience, and it might be a quite important one: SpaceX current and potential employees. You know, those highly qualified people sometimes paid in stock options of a company that doesn't want to go public, who must be kept really excited or they'll find their somewhat precarious situation no longer acceptable.
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/05/2017 10:24 am
(http://www.mangorock.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/DodgeMtn1.jpg)QuoteThe concept images posted so far have the roadster horizontal, but you really want the car mounted in the direction of travel.
@johnkrausphotos has said that the Roadster will be mounted at a roughly 45 degree angle. So how would one go about attaching it to the PAF?
Volunteers will hold it in place.
Post by: Striker-tech on 12/05/2017 11:56 am
Tires. Even at zero inflation at sea level, that's a problem once in orbit, UV radiation degrades the compounds, and now you have a gas jet of unknown impulse / duration changing your trajectory. Simple solution is remove the Schrader valve core, and et voila, they vent on ascent. Headlights, LED screens, seat foam, that massive battery, all sources, however small, can be unintended of gas emissions and course deflection. Getting it in orbit will be the easy part. Predicting its orbit in a couple years? We'll find out.
Post by: sghill on 12/05/2017 12:08 pm
All the raging about the mass simulator aside, I'm curious how you'd prepare a vehicle for a trip like this, with expectations that it will be where you predict its orbit in three years. The vanity of having it appear as it did at launch should be addressed, but also watch for unintended consequences.
Tires. Even at zero inflation at sea level, that's a problem once in orbit, UV radiation degrades the compounds, and now you have a gas jet of unknown impulse / duration changing your trajectory. Simple solution is remove the Schrader valve core, and et voila, they vent on ascent. Headlights, LED screens, seat foam, that massive battery, all sources, however small, can be unintended of gas emissions and course deflection. Getting it in orbit will be the easy part. Predicting its orbit in a couple years? We'll find out.
It's going to Mars orbit, not orbit around Mars. Once it's launched, course corrections are pointless from outgassing of seats, and electronics, and other items. Even if it IS intended to go into orbit around Mars (which I seeeeeeeeeeeriously doubt), it'll be bolted and welded to the top of the far more massive second stage.
Post by: kdhilliard on 12/05/2017 12:25 pm
Even if it IS intended to go into orbit around Mars (which I seeeeeeeeeeeriously doubt), it'll be bolted and welded to the top of the far more massive second stage.
That's just one of many suggestions that it might remain attached to the upper stage. It's been stated upthread that a payload fairing was required for this flight to count toward DOD certification (arguing against a normally mounted Dragon capsule). Would successful release of the payload from the payload attach fitting (PAF) also be a certification requirement?
Post by: MaxTeranous on 12/05/2017 12:42 pm
Even if it IS intended to go into orbit around Mars (which I seeeeeeeeeeeriously doubt), it'll be bolted and welded to the top of the far more massive second stage.
That's just one of many suggestions that it might remain attached to the upper stage. It's been stated upthread that a payload fairing was required for this flight to count toward DOD certification (arguing against a normally mounted Dragon capsule). Would successful release of the payload from the payload attach fitting (PAF) also be a certification requirement?
Probably not. Fairing qualification is needed as the aerodynamics of the FH is completely different to the F9. However the S2 PAF is identical on both vehicles, and the F9 to FH change would have no bearing on it.
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/05/2017 01:14 pm
Welcome to the forum! :)Even if it IS intended to go into orbit around Mars (which I seeeeeeeeeeeriously doubt), it'll be bolted and welded to the top of the far more massive second stage.
That's just one of many suggestions that it might remain attached to the upper stage. It's been stated upthread that a payload fairing was required for this flight to count toward DOD certification (arguing against a normally mounted Dragon capsule). Would successful release of the payload from the payload attach fitting (PAF) also be a certification requirement?
Probably not. Fairing qualification is needed as the aerodynamics of the FH is completely different to the F9. However the S2 PAF is identical on both vehicles, and the F9 to FH change would have no bearing on it.
Post by: tdperk on 12/05/2017 01:54 pm
QuoteThe concept images posted so far have the roadster horizontal, but you really want the car mounted in the direction of travel.
@johnkrausphotos has said that the Roadster will be mounted at a roughly 45 degree angle. So how would one go about attaching it to the PAF?
Really very simple trusswork.
Post by: MaxTeranous on 12/05/2017 02:22 pm
Welcome to the forum! :)Even if it IS intended to go into orbit around Mars (which I seeeeeeeeeeeriously doubt), it'll be bolted and welded to the top of the far more massive second stage.
That's just one of many suggestions that it might remain attached to the upper stage. It's been stated upthread that a payload fairing was required for this flight to count toward DOD certification (arguing against a normally mounted Dragon capsule). Would successful release of the payload from the payload attach fitting (PAF) also be a certification requirement?
Probably not. Fairing qualification is needed as the aerodynamics of the FH is completely different to the F9. However the S2 PAF is identical on both vehicles, and the F9 to FH change would have no bearing on it.
Thanks!
Post by: SpacedX on 12/06/2017 01:48 pm
Could the car be equipped with 2 telescopes continuously transmitting (within BW) images of Earth and Mars?
Otherwise, I think sending a car out there will have only short term and minimal PR value. Many will interpret it as nonsense. IMO, a missed opportunity for SpaceX to grab more mindshare and for longer.
Post by: ugordan on 12/06/2017 02:00 pm
Could the car be equipped with 2 telescopes continuously transmitting (within BW) images of Earth and Mars?
Almost anything can be done if you throw enough money at it. In this case you have to ask yourself at least two questions:
1) where does three-axis pointing control come from to be able to point at those objects?
2) where does deep space downlink capability come from? You're going to ask NASA to allocate DSN time for a PR stunt?
Otherwise, I think sending a car out there will have only short term and minimal PR value. Many will interpret it as nonsense.
I tend to agree.
Post by: JamesH65 on 12/06/2017 02:22 pm
Hello,
Could the car be equipped with 2 telescopes continuously transmitting (within BW) images of Earth and Mars?
Otherwise, I think sending a car out there will have only short term and minimal PR value. Many will interpret it as nonsense. IMO, a missed opportunity for SpaceX to grab more mindshare and for longer.
For the first part, huge cost to develop as a one off that may not make it to space.
First the second part, short term minimal PR, probably*, but still better than a tank of water ballast which has no PR value at all. Any other cargo fits in to point one.
* I suggest looking at the social media/news media impact of this already, and it hasn't launched yet...
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/06/2017 02:34 pm
Post by: meekGee on 12/06/2017 02:47 pm
Hello,Even considering the case of "no extra goodies", it'll grab headlines and add to SpaceX's cool factor.
Could the car be equipped with 2 telescopes continuously transmitting (within BW) images of Earth and Mars?
Otherwise, I think sending a car out there will have only short term and minimal PR value. Many will interpret it as nonsense. IMO, a missed opportunity for SpaceX to grab more mindshare and for longer.
They should talk about the possibilities of one day retrieving it, or of visiting it in space, and these kinds of things fire fire up the imagination of anyone (almost).
SpaceX is not just a launch company. SpaceX wants to affect a huge social goal. This meshes perfectly with that goal.
Post by: gongora on 12/06/2017 02:53 pm
Post by: speedevil on 12/06/2017 03:10 pm
Assuming for the moment that the Roadster idea is real.
When might this idea have happened?
He's had the roadster since around 2008, so that's no constraint.
In 2016, there the professed intention to launch Red Dragon to mars in 2018, though this seems to have slipped to 2020 by May 2017.
By at the latest summer 2017, it was clear Red Dragon was not happening.
The launch windows for Mars are roughly every two years:
Oct 2015-Mar 2016
Oct 2017-May 2018.
Nov 2019-Aug 2020
Up to March 2016, it's clear that Red Dragon was thought to be the first payload to Mars, and at this time it was clear that F9H wasn't in any way going to be ready for the trailing edge of the 2016 window.
As late as May 2017, noises were being made about a dual Red Dragon in 2020.
It seems unlikely any concrete development would be made on the Tesla plan before it became clear that NASA wasn't going to fund RD, and the decisions about retro-propulsion on commercial crew killed last hopes of doing it without NASA funding, as it would have been yet more investment at a time when ITS/BFR was coming into mind as the way forward.
For several of the proposed inaugural Falcon Heavy launch dates, it would have entirely missed the window to Mars.
In April 2017, it seemed that FH might make the october beginning of the launch window, if everything went right.
So, if up till July (?) it was thought that Red Dragon was happening, it may be that they had to initially aim at design and construction for this payload to happen in 3 months or so?
Perhaps by April 2017 it became clearer to Elon that Red Dragon was not going to proceed, hence the 'silliest thing we can imagine' tweet was aimed at this idea, meaning ~6mo.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/06/2017 03:18 pm
They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload. The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.
That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.
Post by: gongora on 12/06/2017 03:21 pm
They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload. The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.
That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.
I don't see an application for any STA dealing with the payload. If they intend to do one they're sure taking a long time to file it.
Post by: Shanuson on 12/06/2017 03:24 pm
They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload. The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.
That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.
I don't see an application for any STA dealing with the payload. If they intend to do one they're sure taking a long time to file it.
Do we already have a FCC application for the launch itself? If the car stays with the 2nd stage it would be part of the rocket itself and so maybe the communication with it would also be part of the launch FCC application?
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/06/2017 03:28 pm
They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload. The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.
That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.
I don't see an application for any STA dealing with the payload. If they intend to do one they're sure taking a long time to file it.
Do we already have a FCC application for the launch itself? If the car stays with the 2nd stage it would be part of the rocket itself and so maybe the communication with it would also be part of the launch FCC application?
Right. Basically, the STA would be for an “extended coast” post-injection burn; a modification of the launch TT&C permit. It’s been a year or two since I looked at an STA application, or a permit for launch, so it’s possible the launch permit may be enough to allow tracking & comms for long enough to cover any PR video stuff.
Post by: gongora on 12/06/2017 03:33 pm
Do we already have a FCC application for the launch itself? If the car stays with the 2nd stage it would be part of the rocket itself and so maybe the communication with it would also be part of the launch FCC application?
Right. Basically, the STA would be for an “extended coast” post-injection burn; a modification of the launch TT&C permit. It’s been a year or two since I looked at an STA application, or a permit for launch, so it’s possible the launch permit may be enough to allow tracking & comms for long enough to cover any PR video stuff.
Yeah, they can transmit from the second stage cameras as long as that stage is alive, and they could have a car mounted camera, but it doesn't appear they intend to transmit anything from the car after it separates from the second stage (assuming it does separate from the second stage, I'd assume they want a shot of it floating away).
Post by: andrewsdanj on 12/06/2017 10:05 pm
It would be quite an achievement to beat the Atlas V 541 in terms of mass through TMI whilst recovering all three cores... Time will tell I guess!
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/07/2017 08:38 am
The launch windows for Mars are roughly every two years:Thanks. That neatly quantifies the BFR/BFS schedule
Oct 2015-Mar 2016
Oct 2017-May 2018.
Nov 2019-Aug 2020
Just to confirm you're saying to hit Mars in 2022 they need to be ready for launch by Aug 2020 at the latest?
Post by: nacnud on 12/07/2017 08:51 am
Post by: hektor on 12/07/2017 09:51 am
Post by: speedevil on 12/07/2017 10:04 am
The launch windows for Mars are roughly every two years:Thanks. That neatly quantifies the BFR/BFS schedule
Oct 2015-Mar 2016
Oct 2017-May 2018.
Nov 2019-Aug 2020
Just to confirm you're saying to hit Mars in 2022 they need to be ready for launch by Aug 2020 at the latest?
For 2022 Mars arrival, the window ends on ~Sep 26 2022, at high energy (5.7km/s), ending up on Mars on Dec 31 2022.
Relaxing '2022' somewhat, and launching Sep 10 gets you there in April 2023, needing only 4km/s.
link (https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=mars&mission_class=oneway&mission_type=flyby&LD1=2020&LD2=2023&maxDT=1&DTunit=yrs&maxDV=10&min=DV&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results)
There are high energy ~80-100 day transits for many transits, if you spend a kilometer a second or two extra fuel.
link (https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=mars&mission_class=oneway&mission_type=flyby&LD1=2017&LD2=2028&maxDT=0.5&DTunit=yrs&maxDV=10&min=DT&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results)
(https://i.imgur.com/tuWVQY8.jpg)
To drag this back on topic, you can also do a high energy launch up to perhaps the first week of Jan, taking ~22 months to Mars for 1.5km/s extra.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/08/2017 08:06 am
Quote
Will the glove box contain "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy"?https://twitter.com/tiamaria68uk/status/938930620511801345
Quote
Yeshttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/938947119246860290
Quote
Plus a towel and a sign saying “Don’t Panic”https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/938947119246860290
Post by: Semmel on 12/08/2017 12:03 pm
Post by: AncientU on 12/08/2017 12:05 pm
Imagine in about 100M years, some alien civilization finds the solar system. Humans are long gone and extinct. Some ruins on the planets surface are left but nothing major. Some stray satellites are still around, not many since most are kicked out by the moon. Then they find the roadster. First of all.. why would there be a wheeled thing in orbit? Its the first and only clue they get for the shape and physiology of humans since all other sats were robotic and apart from handling tools, nothing would indicate the size or shape of humans. So there is this car, what the hell does it do in orbit? And the aliens find the book in the glove box. Of course, they dont know its a glove box but they find the book there. And they reverse engineer the human culture from that book if its not turned to dust. Ohh dear ohh dear, the misinterpretations!
They'd get the mostly harmless part right.
Post by: nacnud on 12/08/2017 12:06 pm
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/08/2017 12:46 pm
Excellent clarification. Thank you. Orbital mechanics is not my strong suit.The launch windows for Mars are roughly every two years:Thanks. That neatly quantifies the BFR/BFS schedule
Oct 2015-Mar 2016
Oct 2017-May 2018.
Nov 2019-Aug 2020
Just to confirm you're saying to hit Mars in 2022 they need to be ready for launch by Aug 2020 at the latest?
For 2022 Mars arrival, the window ends on ~Sep 26 2022, at high energy (5.7km/s), ending up on Mars on Dec 31 2022.
Relaxing '2022' somewhat, and launching Sep 10 gets you there in April 2023, needing only 4km/s.
There are high energy ~80-100 day transits for many transits, if you spend a kilometer a second or two extra fuel.
To drag this back on topic, you can also do a high energy launch up to perhaps the first week of Jan, taking ~22 months to Mars for 1.5km/s extra.
I think Musk has been talking in terms of 90-100 day trips. Also that allows maximum time to build BFR/BFS
So until the end of Q322 to get it done. I'm guessing the first BFR/BFS's will be loaded to whatever level is needed to assure that delta v capability.
About 4 years and 9 months.
The clock is definitely running.
Post by: StarTracker on 12/08/2017 01:33 pm
https://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/snoopy-the-apollo-lunar-module-awaiting-collection/ (https://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/snoopy-the-apollo-lunar-module-awaiting-collection/)
Imagine in about 100M years, some alien civilization finds the solar system. Humans are long gone and extinct. Some ruins on the planets surface are left but nothing major. Some stray satellites are still around, not many since most are kicked out by the moon. Then they find the roadster. First of all.. why would there be a wheeled thing in orbit? Its the first and only clue they get for the shape and physiology of humans since all other sats were robotic and apart from handling tools, nothing would indicate the size or shape of humans. So there is this car, what the hell does it do in orbit? And the aliens find the book in the glove box. Of course, they dont know its a glove box but they find the book there. And they reverse engineer the human culture from that book if its not turned to dust. Ohh dear ohh dear, the misinterpretations!
Post by: Patchouli on 12/08/2017 05:53 pm
With apologies for being "that guy," (and for being off-topic) Snoopy could also inform their archaeological pursuits:There's also the lunar rovers left on the moon which would have a good chance of still being there.
https://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/snoopy-the-apollo-lunar-module-awaiting-collection/ (https://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/snoopy-the-apollo-lunar-module-awaiting-collection/)Imagine in about 100M years, some alien civilization finds the solar system. Humans are long gone and extinct. Some ruins on the planets surface are left but nothing major. Some stray satellites are still around, not many since most are kicked out by the moon. Then they find the roadster. First of all.. why would there be a wheeled thing in orbit? Its the first and only clue they get for the shape and physiology of humans since all other sats were robotic and apart from handling tools, nothing would indicate the size or shape of humans. So there is this car, what the hell does it do in orbit? And the aliens find the book in the glove box. Of course, they dont know its a glove box but they find the book there. And they reverse engineer the human culture from that book if its not turned to dust. Ohh dear ohh dear, the misinterpretations!
Post by: dnavas on 12/09/2017 04:38 pm
A further, but very important, payload detail:
Seems to me the Roadster needs a driver, and while Buzz Lightyear is an amusing thought, Musk is the best driver for his own car. And since he's not really available, I nominate IronMan. In particular, a lego replica seems appropriate to be launched by a Heavy....
:shrug:
Post by: Norm38 on 12/10/2017 03:01 am
They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload. The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.
That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.
I have to get FCC certification on new radio designs, and permission to put it into production. But I don't have to get FCC approval for every single radio. I don't have to get FCC permits to make a cell phone call.
Once they have FCC permission to communicate with one payload, why doesn't that cover every payload provided they stick to their allotted spectrum?
Post by: kramax on 12/10/2017 03:11 am
(https://youtu.be/fvsZ8Mwotqw))
So looking forward to the actual launch and wish I could be there. For now, simulations will have to do.
Post by: deruch on 12/10/2017 04:29 am
They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload. The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.
That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.
I have to get FCC certification on new radio designs, and permission to put it into production. But I don't have to get FCC approval for every single radio. I don't have to get FCC permits to make a cell phone call.
Once they have FCC permission to communicate with one payload, why doesn't that cover every payload provided they stick to their allotted spectrum?
Because your radios get licensed to use spectrum and commercial launches only get experimental Special Temporary Authority (STA) to use it for limited time and purposes that are explicitly outlined in the grant (1 specific launch). Further, each experimental STA contains the condition that future launches would be considered on a case-by-case basis and that there shall be no expectation that spectrum for future launches will be approved. Experimental STA allows operation only on a non-interference basis. Stations operating on a non-interference basis have no protection from and must not cause interference to stations operating under a primary or secondary allocation. As for why they are limited to STAs instead of full licensing, that's due to the spectrum bands that the radios operate in. Those spectra are allocated for federal government usage and so that limits the type of usage the FCC can grant.
Here's the FCC's GUIDANCE ON OBTAINING EXPERIMENTAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES (March 2013)
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-446A1.pdf
Post by: AncientU on 12/10/2017 11:35 am
I am an avid KSP fan and was intrigued with the possibility of launching the roadster to Mars. I simulated such a launch and I do believe that it is possible to actually fly-by Mars. I simulated a 1.3T payload and launched in the afternoon of January 30, 2018. Here is a video of the simulated mission (it uses fairly accurate physics) if anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvsZ8Mwotqw
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvsZ8Mwotqw))
So looking forward to the actual launch and wish I could be there. For now, simulations will have to do.
Welcome to the forum!
Post by: speedevil on 12/10/2017 12:06 pm
Here's the FCC's GUIDANCE ON OBTAINING EXPERIMENTAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES (March 2013)Upthread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44375.msg1755839#msg1755839) I noted that if there is near-flight hardware for Starlink optical out there, this could provide (in conjunction with a ground station) comms not requiring a licence out to well beyond GEO. Tens of kilobits/s to Mars is plausible.
Post by: deruch on 12/10/2017 11:30 pm
Here's the FCC's GUIDANCE ON OBTAINING EXPERIMENTAL AUTHORIZATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES (March 2013)Upthread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44375.msg1755839#msg1755839) I noted that if there is near-flight hardware for Starlink optical out there, this could provide (in conjunction with a ground station) comms not requiring a licence out to well beyond GEO. Tens of kilobits/s to Mars is plausible.
It's probable that the receiver for the optical comms would require authorization through NOAA (which regulates Earth Sensing satellites). So, while it could potentially avoid having to go through the FCC, in actuality, it wouldn't likely save any effort.
Post by: AncientU on 12/11/2017 12:09 am
The USG doesn't control everything... yet.
Post by: Patchouli on 12/11/2017 12:14 am
Post by: speedevil on 12/11/2017 12:18 am
It's probable that the receiver for the optical comms would require authorization through NOAA (which regulates Earth Sensing satellites). So, while it could potentially avoid having to go through the FCC, in actuality, it wouldn't likely save any effort.
The dish is 15cm, and may be due to its design (no orbit, probable LASER filter over it, perhaps no imager or diffraction limited one), poweron most of the way to GTO, ... that it is deemed not to need a licence.
The regulation seems to have no 'de minimums' limits, the only exemption is 'small handheld cameras', and a strict reading would include devices with only solar panels and temperature probes.
The assumed intent wasn't so much 'what can we do to avoid the FCC', but 'what useful testing can we do of prototype starlink hardware that might also do interesting stuff if it happens to work'. Especially if one of the 'back of the mind' capabilities of this hardware was planetary comms.
Post by: Craig_VG on 12/22/2017 01:20 am
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/7ledab/this_ia_an_imge_ff_the_roadster_on_the_payload/
Post by: Craig_VG on 12/22/2017 01:32 am
Either way, photos coming soon.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/943699548169388032
Post by: midnightrider3000 on 12/22/2017 02:19 am
Did Elon just drive it in and toss someone the Keys? "Here ya go?"
This is an original limited quantity Roadster. His baby. All the headaches and heartaches this thing caused while getting Tesla started. There is more of a connection to this car than any other car he's owned (i would think). It's not like dropping off your car for a trade in. ::)
I know it must have seemed really funny talking about the idea of sending your car into space (or blowing it up :o), but when he handed over the key(s) I just can't help wondering if he thought "Shit, I might have taken this joke just a littttttttttle toooooo far, crap! can't back out now"
Post by: nacnud on 12/22/2017 02:26 am
Post by: the_other_Doug on 12/22/2017 02:57 am
The batteries and cooling system have to have been removed, as well as the tires having had their inflation cores pulled out, to avoid them over-inflating and eventually exploding in the vacuum. If any of the roadster systems are going to be powered up at the beginning, to provide super-kewl images of the headlights flashing and the cockpit panels all lit and alive, I imagine they will have to connect the roadster up to the Falcon upper stage's electrical system.
In any event, the conversion of the car to a vacuum-safe payload had to have taken several weeks, and likely wasn't even done at the Cape. It could have conceivably been done at Hawthorne, the car being crated up and shipped to the Cape for encapsulation. In fact, that makes a lot of sense -- it would have been useful to have the car there while building the payload module adapter that secures it in the fairing.
Since it appears it will be set at about a 30-degree angle to the base of the payload adapter, I'd say that argues for them planning on leaving the roadster permanently attached to the second stage.
Post by: Comga on 12/22/2017 03:04 am
Deflate the tires to 20 PSIG. They will remain rigid for launch and be just fine in vacuum at 34 PSIA/G.
Drain the brake lines and leave them open.
Just open any A/C system.
Is there a liquid cooling system? For what?
Would seem to be rather straight forward and quick.
And a waste I am not all that comfortable with.
Post by: johnkrausphotos on 12/22/2017 03:17 am
Post by: meekGee on 12/22/2017 03:26 am
I cannot think of a more surreal gag. The ultimate tag. Elon Musk is about to tag the solar system.
Post by: midnightrider3000 on 12/22/2017 03:50 am
In a way it's a sad end for the roadster. Cars are meant to be driven, rockets are meant to fly. Sending Teslas to space or rockets to display defeats their purpose. Still awesome though, especially as it means I can still get to see a Saturn V, someday, maybe even a roadster if I'm lucky (there is on in a museum in Vienna)
One day I could image someone slipping out of their spacecraft and sliding into the front seat of the roadster. Guess that wouldn't really count as being driven. However, it could end up as tourist attraction in the future. LOL surrounded by cheap space food joints and souvenir stores
Post by: midnightrider3000 on 12/22/2017 03:59 am
Musk had to have handed over the roadster a little while back. As has been pointed out, the batteries and their cooling system are not rated for vacuum, and would almost assuredly develop energetic leaks. Possibly before you could attempt a TMI-type maneuver.
Likely true, but the whole "handing over the keys" thing just seems so surreal to me. Do you take it on grand tour before dropping it off? Just think how you act before trading in a car you really liked and had a lot of great memories. This time your going to have even more great memories but your not going to be able to physically touch it again.
Post by: TYRTlive on 12/22/2017 04:03 am
Post by: GeneBelcher on 12/22/2017 04:07 am
Post by: Saabstory88 on 12/22/2017 04:14 am
I'm not sure I buy that photo being real. That seems like an odd way to do it.
It actually seems pretty logical. The custom adapter appears to support the car by its jack points. What better load bearing structures are there to attach to? Additionally, if the vehicle is to long to sit level in the payload envelope, then rotate the car until clearances are acceptable.
Post by: cuddihy on 12/22/2017 04:58 am
Should look epic as the fairing falls away.
Post by: CameronD on 12/22/2017 05:51 am
Should look epic as the fairing falls away.
Still think they should be sending a Yellow School Bus... :(
(but I'll submit that a Tesla Roadster would be far less of a challenge!)
Post by: jpo234 on 12/22/2017 08:29 am
There's... uhh.. something developing on reddit.Are this Talulah Riley and Elon in the car?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/7ledab/this_ia_an_imge_ff_the_roadster_on_the_payload/
Post by: jpo234 on 12/22/2017 08:35 am
So I'm curious how the Roadster got to the HIF.Tweet incoming ten years from now:
Did Elon just drive it in and toss someone the Keys? "Here ya go?"
This is an original limited quantity Roadster. His baby. All the headaches and heartaches this thing caused while getting Tesla started. There is more of a connection to this car than any other car he's owned (i would think). It's not like dropping off your car for a trade in. ::)
I know it must have seemed really funny talking about the idea of sending your car into space (or blowing it up :o), but when he handed over the key(s) I just can't help wondering if he thought "Shit, I might have taken this joke just a littttttttttle toooooo far, crap! can't back out now"
Quote
I'm missing that roadster. Will send a BFR chomper to get it back.
I will do it.
Post by: tvg98 on 12/22/2017 08:39 am
There's... uhh.. something developing on reddit.Are this Talulah Riley and Elon in the car?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/7ledab/this_ia_an_imge_ff_the_roadster_on_the_payload/
Yes, photoshopped of course. I'm surprised the leak originated over there but considering what that subreddit is about, I guess I shouldn't be.
Post by: JBF on 12/22/2017 11:11 am
There's... uhh.. something developing on reddit.Are this Talulah Riley and Elon in the car?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/7ledab/this_ia_an_imge_ff_the_roadster_on_the_payload/
Yes, photoshopped of course. I'm surprised the leak originated over there but considering what that subreddit is about, I guess I shouldn't be.
I can almost guarantee this is not accurate. One of the goals of the first flight will be to prove out it's lift capability. There is no way just a roadster is event close. Even if that pedestal is solid steel, I don't thick that would even be close.
Post by: jpo234 on 12/22/2017 11:27 am
A number of knowledgeable people say that this is legitimate.There's... uhh.. something developing on reddit.Are this Talulah Riley and Elon in the car?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXMasterrace/comments/7ledab/this_ia_an_imge_ff_the_roadster_on_the_payload/
Yes, photoshopped of course. I'm surprised the leak originated over there but considering what that subreddit is about, I guess I shouldn't be.
I can almost guarantee this is not accurate. One of the goals of the first flight will be to prove out it's lift capability. There is no way just a roadster is event close. Even if that pedestal is solid steel, I don't thick that would even be close.
Post by: speedevil on 12/22/2017 12:42 pm
I can almost guarantee this is not accurate. One of the goals of the first flight will be to prove out it's lift capability. There is no way just a roadster is event close. Even if that pedestal is solid steel, I don't thick that would even be close.
Lift capability is not one number.
It depends on the payload mass, and the orbit relative to earth and other bodies, even the launch site and safety regulations.
99% of the difficulty of falcon heavy is in burning for X seconds at Y thrust, giving Z total impulse.
Not in the payload adaptor, or the mechanical strength of the walls of the second stage.
Post by: hkultala on 12/22/2017 12:46 pm
One of the goals of the first flight will be to prove out it's lift capability.
No, it's not.
The main point of the first flight is to test if it works or not, and if it does not work, find out, why/what breaks, so that it can be fixed for the next flight.
The lift capacity can be easily calculated by simulations. And because they already have lots of actual flight data from F9, which has the same engines etc, the simulations can be very accurate for FH.
Post by: seawolfe on 12/22/2017 12:47 pm
Should look epic as the fairing falls away.
Still think they should be sending a Yellow School Bus... :(
(but I'll submit that a Tesla Roadster would be far less of a challenge!)
Or, why not send a London Double Decker Bus? International cooperation, eh? ;)
Post by: Machdiamond on 12/22/2017 12:49 pm
So, no additional payload mass presumably.
Post by: Augustus_ on 12/22/2017 12:57 pm
So I'm curious how the Roadster got to the HIF.Tweet incoming ten years from now:
Did Elon just drive it in and toss someone the Keys? "Here ya go?"
This is an original limited quantity Roadster. His baby. All the headaches and heartaches this thing caused while getting Tesla started. There is more of a connection to this car than any other car he's owned (i would think). It's not like dropping off your car for a trade in. ::)
I know it must have seemed really funny talking about the idea of sending your car into space (or blowing it up :o), but when he handed over the key(s) I just can't help wondering if he thought "Shit, I might have taken this joke just a littttttttttle toooooo far, crap! can't back out now"QuoteI'm missing that roadster. Will send a BFR chomper to get it back.
I will do it.
And do it he will, amazing the entire planet in the process.
Post by: deruch on 12/22/2017 01:31 pm
Elon tweeted a couple of days ago that the first FH mission will run at 92%.Even so, FH will be massively overpowered for a payload consisting of a Tesla Roadster unless they stuffed it full of depleted uranium. This is going to be like a repeat of the the F9v1.1 launch of DISCOVR. It doesn't matter that much if they reduce the thrust on this mission. There's lots and lots of margin for that.
So, no additional payload mass presumably.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/22/2017 01:37 pm
Honestly not sure what is authorized and what isn't right now. I've simply taken out the uploaded pics, and left the links as the best solution. Sooner Elon tweets pics the better! ;D
If you're unsure, PM me first.
Post by: speedevil on 12/22/2017 02:01 pm
Elon tweeted a couple of days ago that the first FH mission will run at 92%.Even so, FH will be massively overpowered for a payload consisting of a Tesla Roadster unless they stuffed it full of depleted uranium. This is going to be like a repeat of the the F9v1.1 launch of DISCOVR. It doesn't matter that much if they reduce the thrust on this mission. There's lots and lots of margin for that.
So, no additional payload mass presumably.
That depends on the orbit and margin.
It is probably overpowered to get it into a least energy solar orbit with apoapsis at Mars radius.
However, you can pick a higher energy trajectory to anywhere on Mars orbital track that will suck up all of the performance of the rocket and more.
Post by: mrhuggy on 12/22/2017 03:53 pm
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/22/2017 04:05 pm
https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/944248007213563904
And it looks like Vector took that off Reddit (not that they cite origin).
This is getting messy. Elon needs to release some official pics. Heck, the adaptor stuff might be proprietary/ITAR as it is.
Please note: Link will die naturally if SpaceX parachute lawyers into Vector. ;)
Post by: tvg98 on 12/22/2017 04:09 pm
Per what I said about not attaching.....well here it is in link form, before SpaceX lawyers call them at least:
https://twitter.com/vectorspacesys/status/944248007213563904
And it looks like Vector took that off Reddit (not that they cite origin).
This is getting messy. Elon needs to release some official pics. Heck, the adaptor stuff might be proprietary/ITAR as it is.
Please note: Link will die naturally if SpaceX parachute lawyers into Vector. ;)
I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has to be honest. The post which got real traction on the SpaceX subreddit was deleted not too long ago so the lawyers are probably getting down to business.
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 12/22/2017 04:15 pm
Heck, the adaptor stuff might be proprietary/ITAR as it is.
There are plenty of pictures of SpaceX payload adapters out there. Why would this one specifically be ITAR?
Post by: Roy_H on 12/22/2017 05:08 pm
Musk had to have handed over the roadster a little while back. As has been pointed out, the batteries and their cooling system are not rated for vacuum, and would almost assuredly develop energetic leaks. Possibly before you could attempt a TMI-type maneuver.
The batteries and cooling system have to have been removed, as well as the tires having had their inflation cores pulled out, to avoid them over-inflating and eventually exploding in the vacuum. If any of the roadster systems are going to be powered up at the beginning, to provide super-kewl images of the headlights flashing and the cockpit panels all lit and alive, I imagine they will have to connect the roadster up to the Falcon upper stage's electrical system.
In any event, the conversion of the car to a vacuum-safe payload had to have taken several weeks, and likely wasn't even done at the Cape. It could have conceivably been done at Hawthorne, the car being crated up and shipped to the Cape for encapsulation. In fact, that makes a lot of sense -- it would have been useful to have the car there while building the payload module adapter that secures it in the fairing.
Since it appears it will be set at about a 30-degree angle to the base of the payload adapter, I'd say that argues for them planning on leaving the roadster permanently attached to the second stage.
I'll bet that the batteries, transmission/differential, motor and controller have all been removed. Going by the picture the COG has to be nearer the front of the car. Primary reason to reduce mass. I wonder what the stripped Roadster weighs?
Post by: NX-0 on 12/22/2017 05:26 pm
I'll bet that the batteries, transmission/differential, motor and controller have all been removed. Going by the picture the COG has to be nearer the front of the car. Primary reason to reduce mass. I wonder what the stripped Roadster weighs?I bet it doesn't have a transmission, either...since it didn't have one to start with.
It'll be the same with the Tesla BAMF (Semi).
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/22/2017 06:02 pm
Primary reason to reduce mass. I wonder what the stripped Roadster weighs?
Absolutely not. Falcon Heavy easily has enough impulse to throw a full-mass vehicle probably well past Jupiter if not further. To the extent parts were removed it will have been to prevent energetic events (airbags & inflators, batteries and maybe displays), off-gassing that might interfere with the injection burn, or for dynamics/vibrational concerns during launch.
Post by: Craig_VG on 12/22/2017 06:14 pm
Captioned:
Quote
Test flights of new rockets usually contain mass simulators in the form of concrete or steel blocks. That seemed extremely boring.
Of course, anything boring is terrible, especially companies, so we decided to send something unusual, something that made us feel.
The payload will be an original Tesla Roadster, playing Space Oddity, on a billion year elliptic Mars orbit.
Edited to add higher res photos
Post by: MKremer on 12/22/2017 06:16 pm
Post by: gongora on 12/22/2017 06:33 pm
Post by: cppetrie on 12/22/2017 06:35 pm
Is that the most complete picture of a fairing interior we've gotten?I was just thinking the same thing. Any recovery bits visible?
Post by: Svetoslav on 12/22/2017 06:36 pm
Post by: russianhalo117 on 12/22/2017 06:38 pm
Well... I'll save my opinion about this one for myself, but ... can someone answer this question for final: Are there going to be smallsats on the mission?AFAIK from what I can find is Just the Tesla will be onboard.
Post by: Ronpur50 on 12/22/2017 06:54 pm
Well... I'll save my opinion about this one for myself, but ... can someone answer this question for final: Are there going to be smallsats on the mission?
Maybe in the trunk?
Post by: Greg Hullender on 12/22/2017 06:57 pm
Post by: jimbowman on 12/22/2017 06:59 pm
Well... I'll save my opinion about this one for myself, but ... can someone answer this question for final: Are there going to be smallsats on the mission?
Maybe in the trunk?
Smaller unpressurized trunk than Dragon for sure
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/22/2017 07:00 pm
Edit to add Elon’s comment:
Quote
elonmusk A Red Car for the Red Planet
Test flights of new rockets usually contain mass simulators in the form of concrete or steel blocks. That seemed extremely boring.
Of course, anything boring is terrible, especially companies, so we decided to send something unusual, something that made us feel.
The payload will be an original Tesla Roadster, playing Space Oddity, on a billion year elliptic Mars orbit.
Post by: ZachF on 12/22/2017 07:06 pm
One thing they should do is to put a mannequin with a space suit in the drivers seat.
Jebediah Kerman
Post by: mgreb on 12/22/2017 07:38 pm
Post by: Jim_LAX on 12/22/2017 07:45 pm
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/22/2017 07:48 pm
One thing they should do is to put a mannequin with a space suit in the drivers seat.
Jebediah Kerman
A Jeb plushie in the glove box, would be pretty safe from radiation for a while
Post by: nacnud on 12/22/2017 07:53 pm
One thing they should do is to put a mannequin with a space suit in the drivers seat.
Jebediah Kerman
A Jeb plushie in the glove box, would be pretty safe from radiation for a while
A Kerbal, safe? Seems wrong somehow.
Post by: IanO on 12/22/2017 08:17 pm
Not to mention the Lunar X Prize entrants. Pretty much all of them are dependent on cheap rideshares on other launchers, since they are all operating on shoestring budgets. This could have been a golden opportunity to get them all to their destination in one fell swoop!
Post by: nacnud on 12/22/2017 08:26 pm
Much better to use the spare capacity on launch 3 or 4 where there is a much greater expectation of success.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/22/2017 08:32 pm
“It was so irrational to put real payloads on a test flight”, “SpaceX should be ashamed of themselves to do that when Elon himself said low probability of success”, etc etc
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 12/22/2017 08:49 pm
It would have been so much more meaningful if instead, the FH carried a BEAM-like inflatable module from Bigelow or another vendor. Put a few instruments aboard like radiation gauges or GoPro cameras. Just the image of a potentially habitable inflated module with Mars in the background would have wormed the idea of human flights to the Mars system into the public mind. Such a payload wouldn't even have to be stabilized if a low-gain antenna with low bit rate were used.
It's Elon's rocket and company, of course, and sniping from the peanut gallery doesn't matter. Still...
Post by: rockets4life97 on 12/22/2017 09:26 pm
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Tesla Roadster payload is a missed opportunity. My first reaction to this payload was "too cool for school," but...
It would have been so much more meaningful if instead, the FH carried a BEAM-like inflatable module from Bigelow or another vendor. Put a few instruments aboard like radiation gauges or GoPro cameras. Just the image of a potentially habitable inflated module with Mars in the background would have wormed the idea of human flights to the Mars system into the public mind. Such a payload wouldn't even have to be stabilized if a low-gain antenna with low bit rate were used.
It's Elon's rocket and company, of course, and sniping from the peanut gallery doesn't matter. Still...
I think you are underestimating the risk of failure.
Post by: AC in NC on 12/22/2017 09:49 pm
Is that the most complete picture of a fairing interior we've gotten?
Definitely seems to put the fairing cost into perspective. Heck of a lot more there than just a composite shell.
Post by: meekGee on 12/22/2017 09:59 pm
This Tesla will likely be in orbit long after humans are extinct.
Check.
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 12/22/2017 10:11 pm
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Tesla Roadster payload is a missed opportunity. My first reaction to this payload was "too cool for school," but...
It would have been so much more meaningful if instead, the FH carried a BEAM-like inflatable module from Bigelow or another vendor. Put a few instruments aboard like radiation gauges or GoPro cameras. Just the image of a potentially habitable inflated module with Mars in the background would have wormed the idea of human flights to the Mars system into the public mind. Such a payload wouldn't even have to be stabilized if a low-gain antenna with low bit rate were used.
It's Elon's rocket and company, of course, and sniping from the peanut gallery doesn't matter. Still...
I think you are underestimating the risk of failure.
Rest assured, that's unlikely. Twenty years in the pharma industry as a pathologist breeds pessimism, patience, and humility.
Post by: theinternetftw on 12/22/2017 10:31 pm
Edit: More future-proof link.
Post by: Oersted on 12/22/2017 10:33 pm
"Falcon Heavy launching from same @NASA pad as the Saturn V Apollo 11 moon rocket. It was 50% higher thrust with five F-1 engines at 7.5M lb-F. I love that rocket so much."
Maybe, as a homage to the Saturn V, he could put this LEGO set in the trunk... - Space aliens will be building a LEGO Saturn V millions of years into the future and grasp the true genius of mankind!
Post by: midnightrider3000 on 12/22/2017 11:16 pm
Post by: Patchouli on 12/22/2017 11:47 pm
Elon tweeted:Also a Commodore Vic-20 which was Elon Musk's first computer.
"Falcon Heavy launching from same @NASA pad as the Saturn V Apollo 11 moon rocket. It was 50% higher thrust with five F-1 engines at 7.5M lb-F. I love that rocket so much."
Maybe, as a homage to the Saturn V, he could put this LEGO set in the trunk... - Space aliens will be building a LEGO Saturn V millions of years into the future and grasp the true genius of mankind!
Post by: JAFO on 12/23/2017 12:39 am
Remember: pictures or it didn't happen.
Post by: Brovane on 12/23/2017 12:43 am
The more I think about it, the more I believe the Tesla Roadster payload is a missed opportunity. My first reaction to this payload was "too cool for school," but...
It would have been so much more meaningful if instead, the FH carried a BEAM-like inflatable module from Bigelow or another vendor. Put a few instruments aboard like radiation gauges or GoPro cameras. Just the image of a potentially habitable inflated module with Mars in the background would have wormed the idea of human flights to the Mars system into the public mind. Such a payload wouldn't even have to be stabilized if a low-gain antenna with low bit rate were used.
It's Elon's rocket and company, of course, and sniping from the peanut gallery doesn't matter. Still...
Sending the Roadster does a couple of things.
#1- It certainly has caught the attention of the news cycle.
#2- It also has generated free publicity for Tesla.
Both of those are good things.
Post by: envy887 on 12/23/2017 01:48 am
Only bad thing is that with no antenna, stabilization, etc, they won't be able to beam images back to earth of it once it gets too far away. Or am I missing something?
Remember: pictures or it didn't happen.
It doesn't look to be separating from the second stage, or transmitting on it's own. It will phone home as long as the second stage lives.
Post by: speedevil on 12/23/2017 02:00 am
Only bad thing is that with no antenna, stabilization, etc, they won't be able to beam images back to earth of it once it gets too far away. Or am I missing something?
Remember: pictures or it didn't happen.
It doesn't look to be separating from the second stage, or transmitting on it's own. It will phone home as long as the second stage lives.
Does anyone recall how far out DSCOVR transmitted from?
Post by: Nomadd on 12/23/2017 02:00 am
I don't know....A 75kwh battery pack, jigger the suspension so the wheels can face odd angles and use them for reaction wheels....Only bad thing is that with no antenna, stabilization, etc, they won't be able to beam images back to earth of it once it gets too far away. Or am I missing something?
Remember: pictures or it didn't happen.
It doesn't look to be separating from the second stage, or transmitting on it's own. It will phone home as long as the second stage lives.
Post by: enzo on 12/23/2017 02:34 am
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/23/2017 02:36 am
I am curious if the car+stage would be detectable via radar for orbit confirmation. Would anyone with knowledge of radio astronomy be able to calculate whether Arecibo is capable? Obviously I only expect a few pixels, if we knew where to look based on the last known trajectory.
They'll have active telemetry of the stage through the injection burn and then some ... The stage's own inertial measurements and Doppler tracking will tell them the final orbit just fine before LOS.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/23/2017 02:46 am
I don't know....A 75kwh battery pack, jigger the suspension so the wheels can face odd angles and use them for reaction wheels....Only bad thing is that with no antenna, stabilization, etc, they won't be able to beam images back to earth of it once it gets too far away. Or am I missing something?
Remember: pictures or it didn't happen.
It doesn't look to be separating from the second stage, or transmitting on it's own. It will phone home as long as the second stage lives.
My goodness... That's genius ;D
Post by: Lars-J on 12/23/2017 04:58 am
The idea of Tesla Roadster in Space is delightfully whimsical, but I can't help thinking of the wasted opportunity. There are hundreds of student experimental payloads desperate for a launch opportunity; why not offer them a ride?
To do what? How would those payloads be able to communicate out of LEO? They’d just be student experimental dead mass instead of Elon’s dead mass.
Not to mention the Lunar X Prize entrants. Pretty much all of them are dependent on cheap rideshares on other launchers, since they are all operating on shoestring budgets. This could have been a golden opportunity to get them all to their destination in one fell swoop!
How many lunar X entrants are ready to fly? Exactly zero, I believe. Besides, a lunar trajectory places restrictions on the launch window, something you DON’T want for an experimental launch.
Geez, people seem to think that ready to fly payloads are just sitting around waiting to go, since people are suggesting bigelow modules and whatever else... C’mon, think about it!
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/23/2017 06:51 am
Post by: zhangmdev on 12/23/2017 09:52 am
Post by: mike721 on 12/23/2017 12:29 pm
They really ARE going to launch Elon's car!
That's awesome!
These pictures give me a better idea of just how big that fairing really is, I guess I never really appreciated the size until now... it looks like they could have launched the new Tesla Semi Truck if he had wanted to..or maybe they are saving that for the first flight of the BFR...
Post by: aero on 12/23/2017 02:24 pm
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/23/2017 02:32 pm
Elon tweeted:Also a Commodore Vic-20 which was Elon Musk's first computer.
"Falcon Heavy launching from same @NASA pad as the Saturn V Apollo 11 moon rocket. It was 50% higher thrust with five F-1 engines at 7.5M lb-F. I love that rocket so much."
Maybe, as a homage to the Saturn V, he could put this LEGO set in the trunk... - Space aliens will be building a LEGO Saturn V millions of years into the future and grasp the true genius of mankind!
I have 2 Vic 20’s, he can have 1 of mine.
I like that he loves the Saturn V, it’s such an amazing accomplishment. But after 50 years I’m ready for a larger one.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/23/2017 02:33 pm
Yes - that fairing is big and it must be expensive. I'm starting to understand why SpaceX wants to recover them.
They say $5 million.
Post by: aero on 12/23/2017 02:39 pm
Yes - that fairing is big and it must be expensive. I'm starting to understand why SpaceX wants to recover them.
They say $5 million.
Hmm - $5 million is a chunk of change but it doesn't seem like that would be the sole driver for the recovery efforts. Does it take a lot of time to build a fairing? Maybe construction time is a driver for the recovery efforts. What else might the driver be?
Post by: nacnud on 12/23/2017 02:42 pm
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/23/2017 02:51 pm
I guess if you are just about every other rocket company out there, the short sighted answer would be, “All that effort just to recover $5,000,000 in hardware? Ha, that’s rich! “
Post by: sevenperforce on 12/23/2017 02:52 pm
Hmm - $5 million is a chunk of change but it doesn't seem like that would be the sole driver for the recovery efforts. Does it take a lot of time to build a fairing? Maybe construction time is a driver for the recovery efforts. What else might the driver be?Construction time is another bottleneck, yes.
But mostly cost.
Post by: deruch on 12/23/2017 02:55 pm
Yes - that fairing is big and it must be expensive. I'm starting to understand why SpaceX wants to recover them.
They say $5 million.
Hmm - $5 million is a chunk of change but it doesn't seem like that would be the sole driver for the recovery efforts. Does it take a lot of time to build a fairing? Maybe construction time is a driver for the recovery efforts. What else might the driver be?
1) As Elon has said, "Imagine there was a pallet of 6 million dollars falling out of the sky. Wouldn't you try to go recover it?" Yes, you would.
2) Fairing production takes up a lot of factory floor space and is slow. With the rate of launches that SpaceX is ramping up to, if they can't recover and reuse them, they will soon need to institute a second line making fairings. That is both a large capital investment for the tooling/ovens and a big space investment. So long as they are launching fewer than the number where they would have to start a second line, it's probably not a big money saver to recover (though every little bit helps). But as soon as they start butting up to that limit, it becomes a big money saver.
Post by: cscott on 12/23/2017 03:13 pm
It is also difficult and time consuming to manufacture, involving long bake times in giant composite curing ovens as big as a fairing half. They cost a lot of money to build and the curing takes a long time. So in order to speed up production of the fairings (and thus flight rate), you either have to spend $$$ building a bunch of new ovens (in a bunch of new buildings)... or start recovering fairing halves.Yes - that fairing is big and it must be expensive. I'm starting to understand why SpaceX wants to recover them.
They say $5 million.
Hmm - $5 million is a chunk of change but it doesn't seem like that would be the sole driver for the recovery efforts. Does it take a lot of time to build a fairing? Maybe construction time is a driver for the recovery efforts. What else might the driver be?
EDIT: yeah, what @deruch said. ;)
Post by: nacnud on 12/23/2017 03:19 pm
Post by: meekGee on 12/23/2017 03:39 pm
How can anyone tell if that launch mount separates or not?Only bad thing is that with no antenna, stabilization, etc, they won't be able to beam images back to earth of it once it gets too far away. Or am I missing something?
Remember: pictures or it didn't happen.
It doesn't look to be separating from the second stage, or transmitting on it's own. It will phone home as long as the second stage lives.
Under the car, the clamps may release on command, and there may be a push-off spring.
At a very minimum.
Given that SpaceX knows a thing or two about payloads, a small solar panel and a beacon don't seem far fetched, and would not require stabilization.
Me, I'd also put a nice retro-reflector on it, because if it was my car, I'd want to know where it is.
And a LoJack.
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/23/2017 04:15 pm
Interestingly they only have to recover one half of the fairing to effectively double the launches they can support... OK it's a truism but that gets them the ability to launch 60 times a year. :o (just considering fairings)
Not quite - the fairings are unique halves. And that also assumes return, inspection and refurbishment are trouble-free and no real re-work or repair is required. I think it'll be awhile until they're at that point. But bravo to SpaceX for trying and pushing the technology.
Now, all this talk of fairing recovery isn't really on-point for this thread. The Mods are going to get angry. :)
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/23/2017 04:28 pm
Still have mine MIB... ;)Elon tweeted:Also a Commodore Vic-20 which was Elon Musk's first computer.
"Falcon Heavy launching from same @NASA pad as the Saturn V Apollo 11 moon rocket. It was 50% higher thrust with five F-1 engines at 7.5M lb-F. I love that rocket so much."
Maybe, as a homage to the Saturn V, he could put this LEGO set in the trunk... - Space aliens will be building a LEGO Saturn V millions of years into the future and grasp the true genius of mankind!
I have 2 Vic 20’s, he can have 1 of mine.
I like that he loves the Saturn V, it’s such an amazing accomplishment. But after 50 years I’m ready for a larger one.
Post by: zhangmdev on 12/23/2017 04:30 pm
Post by: jabe on 12/23/2017 04:37 pm
jb
Post by: Lar on 12/23/2017 09:07 pm
Six. And probably off topic, try the Fairing Reuse thread.Yes - that fairing is big and it must be expensive. I'm starting to understand why SpaceX wants to recover them.
They say $5 million.
Post by: TripD on 12/23/2017 11:53 pm
Post by: guckyfan on 12/24/2017 12:03 am
my guess...seats had to be replaced at minimum... air pockets in foam + space = lots of debris
jb
Open cell cell foam shold not be a problem.
Post by: rubtest on 12/24/2017 02:24 am
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/24/2017 02:28 am
my guess...seats had to be replaced at minimum... air pockets in foam + space = lots of debris
jb
Open cell cell foam shold not be a problem.
Poking holes in parts that may hold air pretty well is all that's needed really.
Post by: Nomadd on 12/24/2017 03:20 am
Post by: envy887 on 12/24/2017 03:30 am
How can anyone tell if that launch mount separates or not?Only bad thing is that with no antenna, stabilization, etc, they won't be able to beam images back to earth of it once it gets too far away. Or am I missing something?
Remember: pictures or it didn't happen.
It doesn't look to be separating from the second stage, or transmitting on it's own. It will phone home as long as the second stage lives.
Under the car, the clamps may release on command, and there may be a push-off spring.
At a very minimum.
Given that SpaceX knows a thing or two about payloads, a small solar panel and a beacon don't seem far fetched, and would not require stabilization.
Me, I'd also put a nice retro-reflector on it, because if it was my car, I'd want to know where it is.
And a LoJack.
They don't have a license to transmit from the payload. Maybe they would film it floating away from the upper stage, but they wouldn't get any video from the car after separation.
Post by: pb2000 on 12/24/2017 03:37 am
Does SpaceX have access to a big enough vacuum chamber to make sure nothing in the roadster explodes?They did manage to find one big enough to do full scale fairing separation tests, so something tells me finding one for a comparatively tiny roadster won't be a problem. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually have a large enough vacuum chamber on site in Hawthorne.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 12/24/2017 04:02 am
Does SpaceX have access to a big enough vacuum chamber to make sure nothing in the roadster explodes?They did manage to find one big enough to do full scale fairing separation tests, so something tells me finding one for a comparatively tiny roadster won't be a problem. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually have a large enough vacuum chamber on site in Hawthorne.
Maybe up in Washington at their sat facility, since they'd need it soon anyway.
Post by: ppb on 12/24/2017 04:30 am
Post by: mikelepage on 12/24/2017 05:18 am
- They already have a camera in the second stage LOX tank.
- They can try pointing the second stage towards the sun after TMI to quantify how this slows down boil-off rates, which will improve the accuracy of their models for BFR.
- The angled tesla might even help to reflect some of the light away or radiate some excess heat.
Who knows, if it works well enough, they might even have some left by the time they reach Mars periapsis. They could try relighting the stage to try and settle into a (very) high Martian orbit. If it fails, they fly by Mars and no harm is done, but if it succeeds, then what a monument for the future people of Mars!
Post by: Nomadd on 12/24/2017 05:40 am
Haven't seen this posted elsewhere, but if all goes well, this could be a useful exploratory experiment to find out about propellent boil-off times over a full-length transit to Mars? Has anyone actually sent a liquid-fuelled rocket to Mars before?Extending the life of the stage from minutes to months is a little more complicated than that.
- They already have a camera in the second stage LOX tank.
- They can try pointing the second stage towards the sun after TMI to quantify how this slows down boil-off rates, which will improve the accuracy of their models for BFR.
- The angled tesla might even help to reflect some of the light away or radiate some excess heat.
Who knows, if it works well enough, they might even have some left by the time they reach Mars periapsis. They could try relighting the stage to try and settle into a (very) high Martian orbit. If it fails, they fly by Mars and no harm is done, but if it succeeds, then what a monument for the future people of Mars!
Post by: biosehnsucht on 12/24/2017 07:39 am
They don't have a license to transmit from the payload. Maybe they would film it floating away from the upper stage, but they wouldn't get any video from the car after separation.
1) Do we know if they intend to separate the "payload" from S2 ? (and if not, could they just keep using S2's license until the stage dies)
2) Would they need a license for optical communication ? (they have those test sats going up soon in theory, perhaps they could do some more "testing" with optical gear on PAF and Roadster, then use S2's license to retransmit over RF)
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/24/2017 10:31 am
The Tesla will separate, just like any other payload. Do you honestly think Elon would have it any other way? Put on your Elon Hat (he has one) and think Elonish...
http://www.planetarysystemscorp.com
Post by: First Mate Rummey on 12/24/2017 11:33 am
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/24/2017 12:04 pm
It would make some more sense to me to maximize the publicity for Tesla to launch the new roadster than the old one which is no longer available to buy.Yes, but this more about the Elon Musk brand; "the man, the myth, his rockets and his cars"...
Post by: Barrie on 12/24/2017 12:54 pm
It would make some more sense to me to maximize the publicity for Tesla to launch the new roadster than the old one which is no longer available to buy.
EM has explained at length how the original Roadster was something of a lemon, so i think it will be spun as 'out with the old, in with the new'
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/24/2017 01:06 pm
Obviously, since there’s no sign of landing legs on that Roadster...It would make some more sense to me to maximize the publicity for Tesla to launch the new roadster than the old one which is no longer available to buy.
EM has explained at length how the original Roadster was something of a lemon, so i think it will be spun as 'out with the old, in with the new'
Post by: nacnud on 12/24/2017 01:10 pm
It has landing wheels.....Obviously, since there’s no sign of landing legs on that Roadster...It would make some more sense to me to maximize the publicity for Tesla to launch the new roadster than the old one which is no longer available to buy.
EM has explained at length how the original Roadster was something of a lemon, so i think it will be spun as 'out with the old, in with the new'
Post by: sghill on 12/24/2017 01:45 pm
IMHO, The Tesla will separate, just like any other payload. Do you honestly think Elon would have it any other way? Put on your Elon Hat (he has one) and think Elonish...
http://www.planetarysystemscorp.com
Fixed that for you.
Aside from the added complexity of separating the roadster from the booster, they have no FCC communications license for the "payload". In which case, why bother?
If the roadster separates, there will be no images or video, just the mounting platform drifting away from the booster. If the roadster remains attached and the whole thing blasts into heliocentric orbit, we get photos, video, and David Bowie (presumably not heard by anyone) until the batteries run out on the second stage.
Post by: meekGee on 12/24/2017 01:51 pm
If there's no footage planned, why even bother launching it in the first place?
Post by: Oersted on 12/24/2017 02:07 pm
Does SpaceX have access to a big enough vacuum chamber to make sure nothing in the roadster explodes?
No, but they have access to SPACE!
Merry Christmas :-)
Post by: WizZifnab on 12/24/2017 03:04 pm
I was initially thinking about a time capsule in the trunk. But then thought maybe put some things that would appreciate in value. So that the longer its out there the more valuable they become. To actually encourage development of commercial technology to rendezvous and retrieve...at the very least as a 'prize'.
Maybe on Elon's death he releases a list of a few things that might encourage retrieval in the distant future? Hopefully the vehicle itself would be left orbiting in space.
Post by: tvg98 on 12/24/2017 03:13 pm
I assume that Elon maintains ownership of the Tesla after its deployed right? At what point could someone decide to 'salvage' it?
I was initially thinking about a time capsule in the trunk. But then thought maybe put some things that would appreciate in value. So that the longer its out there the more valuable they become. To actually encourage development of commercial technology to rendezvous and retrieve...at the very least as a 'prize'.
Maybe on Elon's death he releases a list of a few things that might encourage retrieval in the distant future? Hopefully the vehicle itself would be left orbiting in space.
Quote
If I manage to find the Tesla Roadster in Mars orbit and retrieve it, can I keep it? @elonmusk
Quote
Yes
Tweets are not exactly legally binding, but someone's floated the idea to Elon already.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800)
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/24/2017 03:25 pm
QuoteIf I manage to find the Tesla Roadster in Mars orbit and retrieve it, can I keep it? @elonmuskQuoteYes
Tweets are not exactly legally binding, but someone's floated the idea to Elon already.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800)
That could create some level of demand to go to Mars (i.e. to retrieve something of potential value). Maybe not a $1B worth, but little by little Musk is likely enticing people to go to Mars...
Post by: Comga on 12/24/2017 04:57 pm
A car attached to a white, 4 my 6 meter aluminum second stage has a somewhat greater chance.
What would be the advantage of separating other than seeing it drift off?
Given the Elon-logic of launching his car onto space, that may be enough
Post by: docmordrid on 12/24/2017 05:01 pm
Post by: dodo on 12/24/2017 05:02 pm
Higher resolution images now released by SpaceX
Is there any reason why the car appears to be slanted on the adapter? Seems like the best way to have it sliding sideways during ascent.
P.S.: On second though, maybe a silly question. Perhaps it's the only way it fits.
Post by: meekGee on 12/24/2017 05:12 pm
A dark red, carbon fiber bodied <3 m car in interplanetary space will be nigh on impossible to find.A solar-powered beacon/transponder and a retro-reflector would be much better for locating it at some future date.
A car attached to a white, 4 my 6 meter aluminum second stage has a somewhat greater chance.
What would be the advantage of separating other than seeing it drift off?
Given the Elon-logic of launching his car onto space, that may be enough
And yes, the drift-off shot is half the PR value here.
Post by: cscott on 12/24/2017 05:31 pm
P.S.: On second though, maybe a silly question. Perhaps it's the only way it fits.Yeah. I think if you scroll back you can find NSF renders on a slanted orientation from before the Elon reveal, based solely on the published payload volume and the roadster dimensions. (And the fact that the jack points on the bottom frame of the car are the logical lift points.)
Post by: Comga on 12/24/2017 06:10 pm
Not trueP.S.: On second though, maybe a silly question. Perhaps it's the only way it fits.Yeah. I think if you scroll back you can find NSF renders on a slanted orientation from before the Elon reveal, based solely on the published payload volume and the roadster dimensions. (And the fact that the jack points on the bottom frame of the car are the logical lift points.)
The roadster fits within a 3.0 meter circle.
Fitting within the dynamic envelope is not the reason for tiliting it.
Post by: aero on 12/24/2017 06:33 pm
How does that fit into a 3-meter circle? A 4-meter circle, yes.
Post by: mme on 12/24/2017 06:54 pm
It would make some more sense to me to maximize the publicity for Tesla to launch the new roadster than the old one which is no longer available to buy.There's no such thing as a new roadster unless you wait until 2020. I think using a new car (for models they are currently making) would be a real blunder given that Teslas tend to have long delivery times.
Post by: whatever11235 on 12/24/2017 08:06 pm
It would make some more sense to me to maximize the publicity for Tesla to launch the new roadster than the old one which is no longer available to buy.There's no such thing as a new roadster unless you wait until 2020. I think using a new car (for models they are currently making) would be a real blunder given that Teslas tend to have long delivery times.
There is a prototype of new roadster.
Post by: Jimmy Murdok on 12/24/2017 08:15 pm
Post by: First Mate Rummey on 12/24/2017 08:48 pm
It would make some more sense to me to maximize the publicity for Tesla to launch the new roadster than the old one which is no longer available to buy.There's no such thing as a new roadster unless you wait until 2020. I think using a new car (for models they are currently making) would be a real blunder given that Teslas tend to have long delivery times.
There is a prototype of new roadster.
Not only a prototype, already tested by some journalists (you can find videos on YouTube), but you can already also reserve it now, and it is quite expensive, so this would really be the right time for sponsoring it:
https://www.tesla.com/roadster?redirect=no
Post by: cscott on 12/24/2017 10:32 pm
It's a silly idea. The point of a mass simulator is to throw something you don't care about losing. Musk has 7 kids and a Model X as his daily driver. The first gen roadster, a fun toy from his bachelor life, fits the bill as a throwaway payload. The one-and-only next-gen roadster? Not.
Post by: Lar on 12/24/2017 10:46 pm
That could create some level of demand to go to Mars (i.e. to retrieve something of potential value). Maybe not a $1B worth, but little by little Musk is likely enticing people to go to Mars...Or to Mars orbit, anyway...
Post by: Comga on 12/25/2017 12:04 am
The inner fairing is 4,6m the car is 3,946 mm x 1,873 mm. The hypotenuse is 4,367. Clearance is a bit tight but on space technology should be fine.There is no “hypotenuse” 😉
From above the car fits nicely in a circle the diameter of its length.
But your conclusion is correct.
Post by: garcianc on 12/25/2017 01:28 am
I think what Jimmy Murdok meant by hypotenuse is the diagonal, which is more important than the length. ~20cm of clearance (~10cm at each corner) is tight for a non-standard payload sitting atop a rocket that will shake the ground a mile away.The inner fairing is 4,6m the car is 3,946 mm x 1,873 mm. The hypotenuse is 4,367. Clearance is a bit tight but on space technology should be fine.There is no “hypotenuse” 😉
From above the car fits nicely in a circle the diameter of its length.
But your conclusion is correct.
Post by: aero on 12/25/2017 01:34 am
The inner fairing is 4,6m the car is 3,946 mm x 1,873 mm. The hypotenuse is 4,367. Clearance is a bit tight but on space technology should be fine.There is no “hypotenuse”
From above the car fits nicely in a circle the diameter of its length.
But your conclusion is correct.
It fits nicely with about 11 cm to spare at the corners. There could be a lot of reasons why 11 cm is not enough distance. Placing the Roadster so that its center of mass is near the horizontal center of the fairing comes to mind. Later attachment of ductwork or something else to the wall is a possible reason for needing more space. Whatever the reason I'm sure that SpaceX had a valid one for choosing the orientation that they did.
edit - cross posted with garcianc above.
Post by: kdhilliard on 12/25/2017 01:47 am
From 18 pages back:I think what Jimmy Murdok meant by hypotenuse is the diagonal, which is more important than the length. ~20cm of clearance (~10cm at each corner) is tight for a non-standard payload sitting atop a rocket that will shake the ground a mile away.The inner fairing is 4,6m the car is 3,946 mm x 1,873 mm. The hypotenuse is 4,367. Clearance is a bit tight but on space technology should be fine.There is no “hypotenuse” 😉
From above the car fits nicely in a circle the diameter of its length.
But your conclusion is correct.
The length of a Roadster IS the diagonal, or rather, the diameter.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=44375.0;attach=1462472;sess=46592)
Post by: Comga on 12/25/2017 01:52 am
🙄I think what Jimmy Murdok meant by hypotenuse is the diagonal, which is more important than the length. ~20cm of clearance (~10cm at each corner) is tight for a non-standard payload sitting atop a rocket that will shake the ground a mile away.The inner fairing is 4,6m the car is 3,946 mm x 1,873 mm. The hypotenuse is 4,367. Clearance is a bit tight but on space technology should be fine.There is no “hypotenuse” 😉
From above the car fits nicely in a circle the diameter of its length.
But your conclusion is correct.
Oh come on
Everyone here knows what a hypotenuse is.
Read my serious line
The calculation is spurious. Not wrong. Just irrelevant.
Read what aero wrote.
What adhillard quoted from my earlier post.
Do you see why “hypotenuse “ doesn’t apply?
Maybe it’s inclined to add clearance to the dynamic envelope.
Maybe it’s inclined to look cool.
Post by: Norm38 on 12/25/2017 01:56 am
Post by: cppetrie on 12/25/2017 01:57 am
Maybe it’s inclined to look cool.This. Makes it look like the cars at the tops of trophies. It is itself the prize for first passenger vehicle to cross Mars’s orbit.
Post by: Norm38 on 12/25/2017 02:03 am
Where is the rest of the ballast? That Roadster is only 3 Mg max.
Upper stage fuel. Curiosity was only 3.9 Mg at launch. The goal is to demo a payload into TMI, and that means delta-V.
They'll know the exact launch mass and the resulting speed. Thus they can then accurately quote any other payload a customer wants to throw to Mars.
Now if you think the Roadster in that huge fairing looks silly, I kindly refer you to these two images (credit NASA) of Curiosity's encapsulation. First Curiosity in its capsule, then that capsule in its fairing.
So I ask, does the car still look silly as a Mars payload demonstration?
Merry Christmas!
Post by: Hauerg on 12/25/2017 07:13 am
(Which also makes it easier to find in the future.)
Post by: deruch on 12/25/2017 12:34 pm
I assume that Elon maintains ownership of the Tesla after its deployed right? At what point could someone decide to 'salvage' it?
I was initially thinking about a time capsule in the trunk. But then thought maybe put some things that would appreciate in value. So that the longer its out there the more valuable they become. To actually encourage development of commercial technology to rendezvous and retrieve...at the very least as a 'prize'.
Maybe on Elon's death he releases a list of a few things that might encourage retrieval in the distant future? Hopefully the vehicle itself would be left orbiting in space.QuoteIf I manage to find the Tesla Roadster in Mars orbit and retrieve it, can I keep it? @elonmuskQuoteYes
Tweets are not exactly legally binding, but someone's floated the idea to Elon already.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800)
The Outer Space Treaty might apply and thereby prohibit anyone from salvaging.
Post by: LouScheffer on 12/25/2017 12:45 pm
More seriously, it would be interesting to compare the engineering effort and build costs of this adapter (where mass and size were not constraints) to the effort required to build a typical custom adapter. Many have claimed that relaxing the normal tight constraints would lead to much lower costs - here's a chance to see if that's true, and perhaps quantify it for a particular case.
Post by: yg1968 on 12/25/2017 02:30 pm
I assume that Elon maintains ownership of the Tesla after its deployed right? At what point could someone decide to 'salvage' it?
I was initially thinking about a time capsule in the trunk. But then thought maybe put some things that would appreciate in value. So that the longer its out there the more valuable they become. To actually encourage development of commercial technology to rendezvous and retrieve...at the very least as a 'prize'.
Maybe on Elon's death he releases a list of a few things that might encourage retrieval in the distant future? Hopefully the vehicle itself would be left orbiting in space.QuoteIf I manage to find the Tesla Roadster in Mars orbit and retrieve it, can I keep it? @elonmuskQuoteYes
Tweets are not exactly legally binding, but someone's floated the idea to Elon already.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800)
The Outer Space Treaty might apply and thereby prohibit anyone from salvaging.
It's not salvaging if someone gives it to you.
Post by: deruch on 12/25/2017 07:10 pm
Tweets are not exactly legally binding, but someone's floated the idea to Elon already.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800)
The Outer Space Treaty might apply and thereby prohibit anyone from salvaging.
It's not salvaging if someone gives it to you.
Elon isn't giving it to anyone. He's "abandoning" it in orbit. If someone wants to go get it, Elon's cool with that. Which is pretty much the definition of salvage. But unless the US Govt. is also on board with this being an ok idea, no one can legally go get it even if Elon did give it to anyone. That's true regardless of the retriever's citizenship or where they launched from. In fact, under OST they should be prohibited from launching to recover the roadster unless they already have USG permission to retrieve it. And if they somehow did it on the sly, the US still has the rights to take it back on applying to the government of whatever country the car was in. Of course, none of this is ever likely to happen, so it probably doesn't matter. Or, by the time it could/will happen the OST will likely have been modified so the issue may be irrelevant in practice.
Post by: envy887 on 12/25/2017 09:41 pm
Tweets are not exactly legally binding, but someone's floated the idea to Elon already.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800)
The Outer Space Treaty might apply and thereby prohibit anyone from salvaging.
It's not salvaging if someone gives it to you.
Elon isn't giving it to anyone. He's "abandoning" it in orbit. If someone wants to go get it, Elon's cool with that. Which is pretty much the definition of salvage. But unless the US Govt. is also on board with this being an ok idea, no one can legally go get it even if Elon did give it to anyone. That's true regardless of the retriever's citizenship or where they launched from. In fact, under OST they should be prohibited from launching to recover the roadster unless they already have USG permission to retrieve it. And if they somehow did it on the sly, the US still has the rights to take it back on applying to the government of whatever country the car was in. Of course, none of this is ever likely to happen, so it probably doesn't matter. Or, by the time it could/will happen the OST will likely have been modified so the issue may be irrelevant in practice.
Are satellites considered abandoned after they have completed their mission? I would think they remained property of the owner to perpetuity.
If SpaceX launched a mission in 5 years to go get the Roadster, I don't see why the USG would try to stop them. It should still be their property. Same if they legally transfer ownership to another party who then tries to recover it.
Post by: meekGee on 12/25/2017 09:51 pm
Tweets are not exactly legally binding, but someone's floated the idea to Elon already.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800)
The Outer Space Treaty might apply and thereby prohibit anyone from salvaging.
It's not salvaging if someone gives it to you.
Elon isn't giving it to anyone. He's "abandoning" it in orbit. If someone wants to go get it, Elon's cool with that. Which is pretty much the definition of salvage. But unless the US Govt. is also on board with this being an ok idea, no one can legally go get it even if Elon did give it to anyone. That's true regardless of the retriever's citizenship or where they launched from. In fact, under OST they should be prohibited from launching to recover the roadster unless they already have USG permission to retrieve it. And if they somehow did it on the sly, the US still has the rights to take it back on applying to the government of whatever country the car was in. Of course, none of this is ever likely to happen, so it probably doesn't matter. Or, by the time it could/will happen the OST will likely have been modified so the issue may be irrelevant in practice.
Are satellites considered abandoned after they have completed their mission? I would think they remained property of the owner to perpetuity.
If SpaceX launched a mission in 5 years to go get the Roadster, I don't see why the USG would try to stop them. It should still be their property. Same if they legally transfer ownership to another party who then tries to recover it.
:) seriously, at the DMV. Where they should also get a non-operative vehicle permit. To save on insurance.
I mean, the law is the law.
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 12/26/2017 12:46 am
Post by: su27k on 12/26/2017 03:36 am
Tweets are not exactly legally binding, but someone's floated the idea to Elon already.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800)
The Outer Space Treaty might apply and thereby prohibit anyone from salvaging.
It's not salvaging if someone gives it to you.
Elon isn't giving it to anyone. He's "abandoning" it in orbit. If someone wants to go get it, Elon's cool with that. Which is pretty much the definition of salvage. But unless the US Govt. is also on board with this being an ok idea, no one can legally go get it even if Elon did give it to anyone. That's true regardless of the retriever's citizenship or where they launched from. In fact, under OST they should be prohibited from launching to recover the roadster unless they already have USG permission to retrieve it. And if they somehow did it on the sly, the US still has the rights to take it back on applying to the government of whatever country the car was in. Of course, none of this is ever likely to happen, so it probably doesn't matter. Or, by the time it could/will happen the OST will likely have been modified so the issue may be irrelevant in practice.
Are satellites considered abandoned after they have completed their mission? I would think they remained property of the owner to perpetuity.
If SpaceX launched a mission in 5 years to go get the Roadster, I don't see why the USG would try to stop them. It should still be their property. Same if they legally transfer ownership to another party who then tries to recover it.
Since the US is the launching country, OST Article VII and VIII doesn't apply if a US citizen/company wants to salvage the car, the savager still need a FAA launch license though. Things get murky and complicated if a foreign entity wants to salvage the car.
Post by: CyndyC on 12/26/2017 06:42 pm
Elon isn't giving it to anyone. He's "abandoning" it in orbit.....
Citizen Musk's future Rosebud
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/26/2017 09:49 pm
Untested in the International Court against longstanding Admiralty law (or maritime law).Tweets are not exactly legally binding, but someone's floated the idea to Elon already.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/944783379022540800)
The Outer Space Treaty might apply and thereby prohibit anyone from salvaging.
It's not salvaging if someone gives it to you.
Elon isn't giving it to anyone. He's "abandoning" it in orbit. If someone wants to go get it, Elon's cool with that. Which is pretty much the definition of salvage. But unless the US Govt. is also on board with this being an ok idea, no one can legally go get it even if Elon did give it to anyone. That's true regardless of the retriever's citizenship or where they launched from. In fact, under OST they should be prohibited from launching to recover the roadster unless they already have USG permission to retrieve it. And if they somehow did it on the sly, the US still has the rights to take it back on applying to the government of whatever country the car was in. Of course, none of this is ever likely to happen, so it probably doesn't matter. Or, by the time it could/will happen the OST will likely have been modified so the issue may be irrelevant in practice.
Are satellites considered abandoned after they have completed their mission? I would think they remained property of the owner to perpetuity.
If SpaceX launched a mission in 5 years to go get the Roadster, I don't see why the USG would try to stop them. It should still be their property. Same if they legally transfer ownership to another party who then tries to recover it.
Since the US is the launching country, OST Article VII and VIII doesn't apply if a US citizen/company wants to salvage the car, ...
If the payload is jettisoned off the stage (and contains no ITAR or munitions related content), it should be no different than a vehicle falling off a cargo ship in international waters (which does/has happened).
Quote
... the savager still need a FAA launch license though.If an American and/or launched from America.
Quote
Things get murky and complicated if a foreign entity wants to salvage the car.Only if one proves the supremacy of untested law against proven longstanding.
The point of the OST was to regulate / slow down aggressive country "land grabs" at the cost of smaller countries having no chance to participate. What if they could equally contract for said salvage operation, possibly from different jurisdictions (say an on-orbit service from contract ), perhaps then since they all have access to common means, then the prior facility for the OST could be challenged as not applicable ;D
It's untested against the
Post by: meekGee on 12/26/2017 10:04 pm
If the payload is jettisoned off the stage (and contains no ITAR or munitions related content), it should be no different than a vehicle falling off a cargo ship in international waters (which does/has happened).
That doesn't sound right. The payload is intentionally released to follow a pre-determined course. That's not like falling off of a cargo ship and then not being salvaged. It's more like being offloaded and parked.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/26/2017 10:13 pm
SALVAGE LAW: Do You Get to Keep an Abandoned Boat? (http://www.wavetrain.net/techniques-a-tactics/492-salvage-law-when-do-get-to-keep-an-abandoned-boat)
If the payload is jettisoned off the stage (and contains no ITAR or munitions related content), it should be no different than a vehicle falling off a cargo ship in international waters (which does/has happened).
That doesn't sound right. The payload is intentionally released to follow a pre-determined course. That's not like falling off of a cargo ship and then not being salvaged. It's more like being offloaded and parked.
Post by: meekGee on 12/26/2017 10:21 pm
SALVAGE LAW: Do You Get to Keep an Abandoned Boat? (http://www.wavetrain.net/techniques-a-tactics/492-salvage-law-when-do-get-to-keep-an-abandoned-boat)
If the payload is jettisoned off the stage (and contains no ITAR or munitions related content), it should be no different than a vehicle falling off a cargo ship in international waters (which does/has happened).
That doesn't sound right. The payload is intentionally released to follow a pre-determined course. That's not like falling off of a cargo ship and then not being salvaged. It's more like being offloaded and parked.
Read it.
Emphasis "Abandoned". As in the case the captain says "abandon ship", and the sailors remain on board and salvage the ship, thus claiming it.
You can't play that trick on every bit of hardware out there. Why can't you go to a US Coast Guard buoy and "salvage" it? Because it is not abandoned.
SpaceX has charts depicting the future course of the payload, they have documentation of their intent to set it on that orbit, they keep referring to it in their PR - so they clearly own it, and there is no "salvage".
If fact, if you start planning a mission to "salvage" it, you'll get a quick letter from their lawyer removing any doubt about it, saying: "don't salvage it, it's not abandoned."
If you broadcast your intent to salvage it, and SpaceX didn't react, that could be the beginning of a case to claim you're going to salvage it.
Post by: Lar on 12/26/2017 10:30 pm
That's not necessarily a binding statement but it is indicative.
Post by: zodiacchris on 12/26/2017 10:46 pm
Post by: meekGee on 12/26/2017 11:26 pm
Musk said that if someone went and got it, they could have it.If the owner explicitly gives it up, then sure... Not much to argue about...
That's not necessarily a binding statement but it is indicative.
Post by: OxCartMark on 12/27/2017 03:04 pm
ATTEMPT NO RETRIEVAL.
USE THEM TOGETHER.
USE THEM IN PEACE.
Post by: NX-0 on 12/27/2017 03:06 pm
If someone has the ability to salvage this...that means someone has developed some awesome spacefaring technology and Elon would be thrilled.
Right now, only one publicly proposed vehicle might have the ability to do something like this...and that's BFR.
Post by: OxCartMark on 12/27/2017 04:23 pm
If someone has the ability to salvage this...that means someone has developed some awesome spacefaring technology
Not necessarily. One of the more low tech ways that it could be salvaged would be with side scan sonar, a ROV, and a ship with a crane. Go Searcher and Go quest should be in good position to get there first if things go that way and other potential salvage ships will initially be outside the exclusion zone - a head start that Elon may have been thinking of when he said others could try salvaging it. This is if things go that way, not saying they will or not, actually hoping for a higher outcome.
Post by: NX-0 on 12/27/2017 04:36 pm
If someone has the ability to salvage this...that means someone has developed some awesome spacefaring technology
Not necessarily. One of the more low tech ways that it could be salvaged would be with side scan sonar, a ROV, and a ship with a crane. Go Searcher and Go quest should be in good position to get there first if things go that way and other potential salvage ships will initially be outside the exclusion zone - a head start that Elon may have been thinking of when he said others could try salvaging it. This is if things go that way, not saying they will or not, actually hoping for a higher outcome.
Go Searcher and Go Quest are not quite equipped for deep space salvage.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/27/2017 04:47 pm
I think maybe you missed OxCartMark's point...If someone has the ability to salvage this...that means someone has developed some awesome spacefaring technology
Not necessarily. One of the more low tech ways that it could be salvaged would be with side scan sonar, a ROV, and a ship with a crane. Go Searcher and Go quest should be in good position to get there first if things go that way and other potential salvage ships will initially be outside the exclusion zone - a head start that Elon may have been thinking of when he said others could try salvaging it. This is if things go that way, not saying they will or not, actually hoping for a higher outcome.
Go Searcher and Go Quest are not quite equipped for deep space salvage.
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/27/2017 05:35 pm
I think OxCartMark is an optimist, if things go that way, you will need a strainer to find and pick up all the pieces.I think maybe you missed OxCartMark's point...If someone has the ability to salvage this...that means someone has developed some awesome spacefaring technology
Not necessarily. One of the more low tech ways that it could be salvaged would be with side scan sonar, a ROV, and a ship with a crane. Go Searcher and Go quest should be in good position to get there first if things go that way and other potential salvage ships will initially be outside the exclusion zone - a head start that Elon may have been thinking of when he said others could try salvaging it. This is if things go that way, not saying they will or not, actually hoping for a higher outcome.
Go Searcher and Go Quest are not quite equipped for deep space salvage.
Post by: matt_ellis on 12/27/2017 06:14 pm
Post by: envy887 on 12/27/2017 06:27 pm
Space.com appear to have a photo of the Tesla mounted and awaiting closure of the fairing halves...
Something like this?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44375.msg1763413#msg1763413
Post by: Tonioroffo on 12/29/2017 07:10 am
I assume that Elon maintains ownership of the Tesla after its deployed right? At what point could someone decide to 'salvage' it?A bitcoin "paper wallet" with the first ever mined 10.000 bitcoins, as obviously Elon invented it! /s
I was initially thinking about a time capsule in the trunk. But then thought maybe put some things that would appreciate in value. So that the longer its out there the more valuable they become. To actually encourage development of commercial technology to rendezvous and retrieve...at the very least as a 'prize'.
Maybe on Elon's death he releases a list of a few things that might encourage retrieval in the distant future? Hopefully the vehicle itself would be left orbiting in space.
Post by: garidan on 12/29/2017 08:18 am
Inviato dal mio MI 5 utilizzando Tapatalk
Post by: woods170 on 12/29/2017 09:23 am
Is there any margin payload is not the roadster? It has been a funny joke, but seriously wtf? Even a tank of water would be more useful, as resource or fuel. And anyway, glasses of the car will break already on static fire test.....When dealing with Elon, don't do "wtf".
Inviato dal mio MI 5 utilizzando Tapatalk
Other than that: The Roadster has been treated like any other payload and has spent quite some time on the shaker.
Also, it will take a helluvalot more than launch vibrations to break that laminated windshield.
And there is the fact that the windshield is pretty much the only glass on the roadster. Most (if not all) of the other transparent stuff is plastic.
Post by: biosehnsucht on 12/29/2017 07:33 pm
Post by: LouScheffer on 12/29/2017 08:47 pm
Does "the shaker" reproduce the acoustic environment of a launch as well as the direct vibrations? I'm not sure if it will matter, it could be the fairings are sufficiently above and insulated from the sound to reduce it to a point it doesn't matter, but I had not considered this before.
Yes, spacecraft are normally tested for acoustic effects as well as shake. This can be done in a special acoustic chamber, as shown in Orion service module passes major shake test at NASA’s Plum Brook Station (http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/orion-service-module-passes-major-shake-test-nasa-plum-brook-station/).
Or you can build a circle of speakers around the object under test, called Direct Field Acoustic Testing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-field_acoustic_testing) as shown here: Why Lockheed Martin Is Blasting The Orion Spaceship With 1,500 Speakers (https://www.popsci.com/why-lockheed-martin-is-blasting-orion-crew-capsule-with-noise-from-1500-speakers).
Post by: Mader Levap on 12/29/2017 11:55 pm
Is there any margin payload is not the roadster? It has been a funny joke, but seriously wtf? Even a tank of water would be more useful, as resource or fuel.
You seem to not know what this FH launch is about. This is test launch. Tesla is not intended as useful payload. It was either Roadster or block of concrete.
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/30/2017 12:00 am
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/30/2017 12:01 am
Other than that: The Roadster has been treated like any other payload and has spent quite some time on the shaker.
Also, it will take a helluvalot more than launch vibrations to break that laminated windshield.
And there is the fact that the windshield is pretty much the only glass on the roadster. Most (if not all) of the other transparent stuff is plastic.
I wonder how long it will be before his Tesla appears on eBay - buyer collect...
Post by: midnightrider3000 on 01/01/2018 02:26 am
Other than that: The Roadster has been treated like any other payload and has spent quite some time on the shaker.
Also, it will take a helluvalot more than launch vibrations to break that laminated windshield.
And there is the fact that the windshield is pretty much the only glass on the roadster. Most (if not all) of the other transparent stuff is plastic.
I wonder how long it will be before his Tesla appears on eBay - buyer collect...
LOL, I was actually thinking of listing it.
Post by: Oersted on 01/12/2018 09:42 pm
https://youtu.be/R8PEnK3aoFQ?t=27
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/12/2018 10:01 pm
Here's a vid of the payload, BTW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8PEnK3aoFQ?t=27
I thought that would be a video of someone walking around the roadster on the PAF or something like that, not just a vid of the car driving
Post by: dnavas on 02/05/2018 12:47 pm
A further, but very important, payload detail:
Seems to me the Roadster needs a driver, and while Buzz Lightyear is an amusing thought, Musk is the best driver for his own car. And since he's not really available, I nominate IronMan. In particular, a lego replica seems appropriate to be launched by a Heavy....
Well, it's not Ironman, but using a prototype / mockup spacesuit was inspired. 150 points to Gryffindor.
Whoever made that happen ... that's gotta be a story worth telling.
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/05/2018 02:22 pm
I don’t know, I thought it was kind of poignant - it showed Elon showing off the beautiful Roadster doing what it was made to do. Wonder Elon then would have thought if he knew what Elon Now was going to do with that car. I mean - the vehicle has its own storied history, and is about to become historic (one way or another...)Here's a vid of the payload, BTW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8PEnK3aoFQ?t=27
I thought that would be a video of someone walking around the roadster on the PAF or something like that, not just a vid of the car driving
Post by: CorvusCorax on 02/05/2018 03:31 pm
Thats likely not info SpaceX would share, but it kinda would make sense - if you put a spacesuit through an interplanetary test, u might as well get some data from it. At least some basics - temperature, pressure, maybe radiation, acceleration? ( although the regular 2nd stage telemetry already gices them that )
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/05/2018 03:41 pm
Post by: ThePonjaX on 02/06/2018 03:42 am
I wonder if they put a crash test dummy inside the spacesuit and if its actially instrumented.
Thats likely not info SpaceX would share, but it kinda would make sense - if you put a spacesuit through an interplanetary test, u might as well get some data from it. At least some basics - temperature, pressure, maybe radiation, acceleration? ( although the regular 2nd stage telemetry already gices them that )
I think you're right, this is a great opportunity to a real test for the suit. I understand the S2 is going for some hours through the Van Hallen belt , the radiation information inside the suit could be priceless.
Post by: hkultala on 02/06/2018 02:59 pm
So, if everything does well today, we then know the return payload of one of the BFS outer space missions:
Elon Musk's Tesla roadster.
He will bring it back, and then drive it again on earth.
Post by: speedevil on 02/06/2018 06:37 pm
He will bring it back, and then drive it again on earth.
Or not on Earth.
Post by: lcs on 02/06/2018 06:46 pm
I wonder if they put a crash test dummy inside the spacesuit and if its actially instrumented.
Somehow I refuse to believe they did not put a video camera pointing at the driver's seat with a 'crash dummy' that resembles Elon Musk.
Post by: FlokiViking on 02/06/2018 06:51 pm
https://www.space.com/39606-spacex-falcon-heavy-fourth-car-space.html (https://www.space.com/39606-spacex-falcon-heavy-fourth-car-space.html)
I'm proud to say that some of the managers that I worked with early in my career worked on those first three cars earlier in their careers. It was fun and educational to listen to their stories about it. I'm still amazed at what they were able to do.
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 02/06/2018 09:35 pm
Post by: Lars-J on 02/06/2018 09:36 pm
Post by: sanman on 02/06/2018 09:42 pm
Post by: PeterAlt on 02/06/2018 11:42 pm
Post by: Oersted on 02/06/2018 11:51 pm
Post by: speedevil on 02/06/2018 11:54 pm
Will we see a lunar flyby of the current mission? If so, when? Thanks
I saw the moon, on the camera, if that counts.
However no, the current mission will not be flying by the moon.
Post by: PeterAlt on 02/07/2018 12:23 am
Will there still be communication when it flys by Mars? If so, how? It won’t still be attached to the second stage, or will it? It could get closer to the moon on a subsequent Earth flyby, right? And will it still have power then?Will we see a lunar flyby of the current mission? If so, when? Thanks
I saw the moon, on the camera, if that counts.
However no, the current mission will not be flying by the moon.
Post by: Lars-J on 02/07/2018 12:29 am
Will there still be communication when it flys by Mars? If so, how? It won’t still be attached to the second stage, or will it? It could get closer to the moon on a subsequent Earth flyby, right? And will it still have power then?Will we see a lunar flyby of the current mission? If so, when? Thanks
I saw the moon, on the camera, if that counts.
However no, the current mission will not be flying by the moon.
It will likely stay attached to the upper stage, which provides the power for the current video and telemetry being broadcast. But that power will be gone just a few hours from now.
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/07/2018 12:49 am
Will there still be communication when it flys by Mars? If so, how? It won’t still be attached to the second stage, or will it? It could get closer to the moon on a subsequent Earth flyby, right? And will it still have power then?Will we see a lunar flyby of the current mission? If so, when? Thanks
I saw the moon, on the camera, if that counts.
However no, the current mission will not be flying by the moon.
No. The Tesla is not a Mars probe. It's a mass simulator that Musk decided to use instead of concrete blocks, to let the rocket have something to lift. (For various reasons, you don't want to launch without any payload at all -- it affects how they rocket bends and vibrates as it flies.)
The power is all coming from batteries in the second stage. They will last a total of about 12 hours. The stage won't do its injection into the trajectory outbound for beyond where Mars orbits the Sun (it won't actually go near Mars, at least any time in the next several thousand years) until about six hours after launch. So, we will get these pictures for six hours in this lopsided Earth orbit, with a high point of about 7,000 km, and another six hours watching the Earth shrink in the rearview mirror.
Then, except for the data reduction SpaceX will do from the flight, it's all over.
That's all there is.
Post by: TheFallen on 02/07/2018 12:50 am
It will likely stay attached to the upper stage, which provides the power for the current video and telemetry being broadcast. But that power will be gone just a few hours from now.
According to the infographic below, the Tesla will separate from the Upper Stage after TMI.
Which begs the question: Can Tesla and SpaceX brag that they'll soon have the farthest human-rated vehicle (NOT spacecraft) to leave Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in '72? ;D
Post by: cscott on 02/07/2018 12:53 am
Post by: TheFallen on 02/07/2018 12:56 am
Despite Elon retweeting it, that graphic is from NSF, not SpaceX.
D'oh! Thanks for the clarification
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/07/2018 12:56 am
It will likely stay attached to the upper stage, which provides the power for the current video and telemetry being broadcast. But that power will be gone just a few hours from now.
According to the infographic below, the Tesla will separate from the Upper Stage after TMI.
Which begs the question: Can Tesla and SpaceX brag that they'll soon have the farthest human-rated vehicle (NOT spacecraft) to leave Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in '72? ;D
As noted, that's an NSF graphic, meant to indicate the launch events during a "generic" FH launch. I truly don't believe the mount holding the Tesla is designed to separate it from the upper stage.
Post by: Jeramiah Johnson on 02/07/2018 01:04 am
That in fact they should not take a pass on the Hopper trials because in the end there are questions about Sub-orbital Point to Point transportation.
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 02/07/2018 07:52 am
So it was mentioned that there was also a storage device called the "ark" which had Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy on it. Was that all it had? No Library of Congress, or anything like that?
I'm sure if you offer to pay to transcribe the Library of Congress onto the Arch storage media, they'll try and arrange something! :)
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 02/09/2018 12:15 am
Post by: FlokiViking on 02/09/2018 01:17 am
So it was mentioned that there was also a storage device called the "ark" which had Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy on it. Was that all it had? No Library of Congress, or anything like that?Looks like yes, just the trilogy - this "ark" (aka "ArchTM") was the first of its kind, but there are plans for more.
Here are references to a description at the Arch Mission Foundation:
https://medium.com/arch-mission-foundation/arch-mission-foundation-announces-our-payload-on-spacex-falcon-heavy-c4c9908d5dd1 (https://medium.com/arch-mission-foundation/arch-mission-foundation-announces-our-payload-on-spacex-falcon-heavy-c4c9908d5dd1)
And the parent organization:
https://www.archmission.com/ (https://www.archmission.com/)
Cool technologies and cool mission.
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 02/09/2018 01:21 am
Can someone annotate this picture, please?
Stage 2 LOX tank camera most likely.
Post by: sanman on 02/09/2018 02:09 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLLHsstAY44
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/09/2018 02:56 am
Can someone annotate this picture, please?
Attached is an enhanced image. We're looking into the bottom of the upper stage LOX tank. At each corner we can see four black cylindrical helium tank. There might be other helium tanks at the top and bottom of the picture, but the long aspect ratio means we can't see them. You can see there is still quite a bit of LOX left as the LOX level is close to the top of the helium tanks. Not 100% sure what the silver cylindrical object is. It might be to contain supercold helium during the filling process. It might also be close to the camera and be some kind of level sensor.
SpaceX seems to have added a vertical structure in the middle with six fins to the sides. I believe this is to help hold the LOX to the bottom of the tank during the coast phase. At the top of the vertical structure a half hemisphere of LOX can be seen.
Post by: starsilk on 02/09/2018 05:19 am
It is clearly Elon's fish tank, you can see the fishies swimming in it.Can someone annotate this picture, please?
Attached is an enhanced image. We're looking into the bottom of the upper stage LOX tank. At each corner we can see four black cylindrical helium tank. There might be other helium tanks at the top and bottom of the picture, but the long aspect ratio means we can't see them. You can see there is still quite a bit of LOX left as the LOX level is close to the top of the helium tanks. Not 100% sure what the silver cylindrical object is. It might be to contain supercold helium during the filling process. It might also be close to the camera and be some kind of level sensor.
SpaceX seems to have added a vertical structure in the middle with six fins to the sides. I believe this is to help hold the LOX to the bottom of the tank during the coast phase. At the top of the vertical structure a half hemisphere of LOX can be seen.
But seriously, what are those? Debris??! Seems highly unlikely..
Post by: speedevil on 02/09/2018 10:50 am
It is clearly Elon's fish tank, you can see the fishies swimming in it.
But seriously, what are those? Debris??! Seems highly unlikely..
Is it at all possible they could be solid oxygen?
I can't see a reason for it to get that cold though, unless the tank is wholly vented.
If it is wholly vented, this would considerably reduce heat transfer to the kerosene.
A super-chilled liquid at the bottom with negligible vapour pressure, with a rarefied atmosphere on top of it, not dense enough to have meaningful losses through convection.
If the tank is then not isothermal, it might do very good things to the heat gain into the blob of oxygen.
Post by: speedevil on 02/09/2018 11:19 am
SpaceX seems to have added a vertical structure in the middle with six fins to the sides. I believe this is to help hold the LOX to the bottom of the tank during the coast phase. At the top of the vertical structure a half hemisphere of LOX can be seen.
Reminiscent of the landing propellant tanks in the BFR, though surface tension driven.
I wonder if this could be to ensure programatically that there is enough LOX to start the burn in a very assured manner with no glitches due to bubbles.
A couple of hundred litres of oxidiser gathered in one blob means you are basically certain to have a clean start.
Post by: archipeppe68 on 02/09/2018 12:01 pm
Ciao
Giuseppe
Post by: Jim on 02/09/2018 01:05 pm
SpaceX seems to have added a vertical structure in the middle with six fins to the sides. I believe this is to help hold the LOX to the bottom of the tank during the coast phase. At the top of the vertical structure a half hemisphere of LOX can be seen.
No, they use thrusters to settle the tanks
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 02/09/2018 01:26 pm
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 02/09/2018 01:46 pm
It is clearly Elon's fish tank, you can see the fishies swimming in it.
But seriously, what are those? Debris??! Seems highly unlikely..
Is it at all possible they could be solid oxygen?
I can't see a reason for it to get that cold though, unless the tank is wholly vented.
If it is wholly vented, this would considerably reduce heat transfer to the kerosene.
A super-chilled liquid at the bottom with negligible vapour pressure, with a rarefied atmosphere on top of it, not dense enough to have meaningful losses through convection.
If the tank is then not isothermal, it might do very good things to the heat gain into the blob of oxygen.
If I had to guess Id say the discoloration is from where there are objects attached to the bottom side of the tank.
Post by: speedevil on 02/09/2018 01:48 pm
DEIMOS (Deep Extragalactic Imaging Multi-Object Spectrograph) at the Keck Observatory has spotted the Roadster:
Wow -- some astronomer gave up Keck time to look for the Roadster?!
A lot of work has been done looking at OnumaOnuma (or whatever its name is) including in quite a few large telescopes, and hypothesising about its structure and composition.
It is an obvious extension of that work to take a quick look at the Tesla and see what it looks like.
Due to its comparative ridiculous brightness (for Keck), the exposure time needed is really very minimal indeed, and if the instrument is already setup, it's very limited time to do the observation. Plus, seeing could be 'bad' and still be good enough for observing something this bright.
Post by: Nomadd on 02/09/2018 03:08 pm
I thought the six ribs were baffles to help reduce sloshing.Or swirling as in Falcon 1 flight 2.
Post by: cscott on 02/09/2018 03:17 pm
I agree that it's extremely worthwhile to image the Roadster "asteroid" so we have a better idea what something like ʻOumuamua would look like if it were an artifact of a technologically advanced alien civilization. Of course I'm sure we "know" in theory what it looks like, but doing so in practice allows us the opportunity to be surprised by unexpected features of reality.
It also establishes a baseline for future observations in years to come, and that really is an unknown: I don't think anyone knows quite what a technologically advanced artifact would look like after eons of space weathering.
Post by: rockets4life97 on 02/09/2018 03:40 pm
In a follow-up tweet (https://twitter.com/lori_garver/status/961767203963113472), Lori Garver said SpaceX made the same offer to the Air Force as well.
This seems to me to put the rest the question of why SpaceX didn't launch something more valuable on the demo flight.
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 02/09/2018 04:29 pm
It doesn't look very especially different to me than this picture from SES-9 two years ago. The LOX ripples on SES-9 make it harder to see, but it does look to have all of the same structures with possibly 4 baffles rather than six.Can someone annotate this picture, please?
Attached is an enhanced image. We're looking into the bottom of the upper stage LOX tank. At each corner we can see four black cylindrical helium tank. There might be other helium tanks at the top and bottom of the picture, but the long aspect ratio means we can't see them. You can see there is still quite a bit of LOX left as the LOX level is close to the top of the helium tanks. Not 100% sure what the silver cylindrical object is. It might be to contain supercold helium during the filling process. It might also be close to the camera and be some kind of level sensor.
SpaceX seems to have added a vertical structure in the middle with six fins to the sides. I believe this is to help hold the LOX to the bottom of the tank during the coast phase. At the top of the vertical structure a half hemisphere of LOX can be seen.
I defer to anyone who knows, but they appear pretty similar.
Post by: JonathanD on 02/09/2018 04:29 pm
This seems to me to put the rest the question of why SpaceX didn't launch something more valuable on the demo flight.
I can understand why they didn't. They probably didn't have something ready that fit the profile, and the spectrum of negative consequences for payload loss likely far outweighed the cost of a free flight.
In the end I'm glad they didn't. Spectacle or inspiration, whatever you want to call it, Starman and his ride have reignited interest in space launches in a way not seen in a very long time. Exciting times.
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/10/2018 05:49 am
I defer to anyone who knows, but they appear pretty similar.
The bottom looks quite different to me.
Post by: CameronD on 02/12/2018 12:04 am
This seems to me to put the rest the question of why SpaceX didn't launch something more valuable on the demo flight.
I can understand why they didn't. They probably didn't have something ready that fit the profile, and the spectrum of negative consequences for payload loss likely far outweighed the cost of a free flight.
In the end I'm glad they didn't. Spectacle or inspiration, whatever you want to call it, Starman and his ride have reignited interest in space launches in a way not seen in a very long time. Exciting times.
Well... they could have launched a big Yellow School Bus. With fluffy dice.
(Where the hell is the fluffy dice? Isn't Elon into fluffy dice??)
Exciting times indeed. :)
Post by: Mongo62 on 02/14/2018 02:16 am
On February 6th, 2018 SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster on a Mars crossing orbit. We perform N-body simulations to determine the fate of the object over the next several million years, under the relevant perturbations acting on the orbit. The orbital evolution is initially dominated by close encounters with the Earth. The first close encounter with the Earth will occur in 2091. The repeated encounters lead to a random walk that eventually causes close encounters with other terrestrial planets and the Sun. Long-term integrations become highly sensitive to the initial conditions after several such close encounters. By running a large ensemble of simulations with slightly perturbed initial conditions, we estimate the probability of a collision with Earth and Venus over the next one million years to be 6% and 2.5%, respectively. We estimate the dynamical lifetime of the Tesla to be a few tens of millions of years.
Post by: Pete on 02/14/2018 05:48 am
The random walk of cars and their collision probabilities with planets (https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.04718)
Their analysis is subject to a large number of approximations, among which they have decided that the car and PAF are all that need to be considered.
I was under the impression that the car is still attached to the second stage?
This would make a huge difference to the derived Yarkovski effect, which is the primary orbital permutation they address.
Post by: speedevil on 02/14/2018 10:59 am
I was under the impression that the car is still attached to the second stage?I have mailed the author of the paper, though noticed one person commenting on this on twitter also, asking if it's likely to make a difference.
This would make a huge difference to the derived Yarkovski effect, which is the primary orbital permutation they address.
He responded saying they have tried variants, including boosting yaardovsky by 10000 times, and found little effect.
The orbit is practically dominated by gravitational interactions with planets.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/15/2018 09:29 am
http://www.whereisroadster.com/index.html (http://www.whereisroadster.com/index.html)
Post by: crandles57 on 02/16/2018 03:53 pm
Suppose you wanted to deflect asteroid/comet from path that collides with Earth using mass of spacecraft put on close parallel path but didn't want to lift all the mass required from Earth. Is it possible to imagine that grabbing this spacecraft whose dimensions are known might be easier to work out how to connect it firmly to your new spacecraft than looking for a suitable mass asteroid of uncertain dimensions?
Changing the orbit to intercept the asteroid seems like it would likely be a big problem: Presumably better to gather some junk and/or satellites past (or towards) end of life in Earth orbit before setting off out of Earth orbit. Therefore, doubt this potential use works, unless others think differently?
Any other potential use(s)?
(BTW, I am fine with it having no potential use.)
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/16/2018 04:14 pm
Post by: crandles57 on 02/16/2018 05:18 pm
Aphelion 1.6639 au
Inclination 1.078°
Mars Inclination 1.85°
Mars Aphelion 1.666 AU
Mars Perihelion 1.382 AU
Inclination angle difference 0.772°
1.382AU * 150 million km * 2 * Pi / 360 * 0.772 = ~ 2.8 million Km is about as close as they could possibly get while the inclination stays at 1.078° to the ecliptic.
4.3 million km closest approach in Oct 2020 is not a huge amount further away and Mars is presumably not at perihelion then, so the closest they could get with this inclination in Oct 2020 would be further than 2.8 million km.
If it is this close to the minimum possible distance for that inclination, does that mean they were deliberately aiming to get it as close as possible for the inclination? Would this be good accuracy, poor accuracy or ... ?
.
Does a sideways nudge at aphelion result in a different inclination orbit or a varying inclination orbit or ...?
Post by: rsdavis9 on 02/16/2018 05:35 pm
Perihelion 0.98614 au
Aphelion 1.6639 au
Inclination 1.078°
Mars Inclination 1.85°
Mars Aphelion 1.666 AU
Mars Perihelion 1.382 AU
Inclination angle difference 0.772°
1.382AU * 150 million km * 2 * Pi / 360 * 0.772 = ~ 2.8 million Km is about as close as they could possibly get while the inclination stays at 1.078° to the ecliptic.
4.3 million km closest approach in Oct 2020 is not a huge amount further away and Mars is presumably not at perihelion then, so the closest they could get with this inclination in Oct 2020 would be further than 2.8 million km.
If it is this close to the minimum possible distance for that inclination, does that mean they were deliberately aiming to get it as close as possible for the inclination? Would this be good accuracy, poor accuracy or ... ?
.
Does a sideways nudge at aphelion result in a different inclination orbit or a varying inclination orbit or ...?
A object in a inclined orbit does pass through the ecliptic at the nodes. So you have to figure out where the nodes are for both mars and roadset.
Post by: crandles57 on 02/16/2018 06:04 pm
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/44375.0/1478176.jpg)
Space .... the final museum.
Post by: crandles57 on 02/16/2018 06:49 pm
Perihelion 0.98614 au
Aphelion 1.6639 au
Inclination 1.078°
Mars Inclination 1.85°
Mars Aphelion 1.666 AU
Mars Perihelion 1.382 AU
Inclination angle difference 0.772°
1.382AU * 150 million km * 2 * Pi / 360 * 0.772 = ~ 2.8 million Km is about as close as they could possibly get while the inclination stays at 1.078° to the ecliptic.
4.3 million km closest approach in Oct 2020 is not a huge amount further away and Mars is presumably not at perihelion then, so the closest they could get with this inclination in Oct 2020 would be further than 2.8 million km.
If it is this close to the minimum possible distance for that inclination, does that mean they were deliberately aiming to get it as close as possible for the inclination? Would this be good accuracy, poor accuracy or ... ?
.
Does a sideways nudge at aphelion result in a different inclination orbit or a varying inclination orbit or ...?
A object in a inclined orbit does pass through the ecliptic at the nodes. So you have to figure out where the nodes are for both mars and roadset.
>A object in a inclined orbit does pass through the ecliptic at the nodes.
Yes it does, but they are clearly nowhere close at the nodes or any time until Oct 2020.
Mars Perihelions October 29, 2016 and September 16, 2018.
http://earthsky.org/sky-archive/mars-at-perihelion-in-late-october
So presumably next will be around August 3, 2020. So October 2020 isn't long after Mars' perihelion.
1AU of Earth is about perihelion distance so about Feb 7 for leaving Earth orbit maybe less a few days. Oct 2020 is 2.67 year. Tesla orbit 1.525 years so one orbit and 1.145 years around a 1.525 year orbit.
Don't see that gets me anywhere apart from telling me at Oct 2020 distance from sun is only a little greater than at perihelion. So calculation (1.382AU * 150 million km * 2 * Pi / 360 * 0.772 = ~ 2.8 million Km) is only a slight underestimate.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 02/16/2018 07:27 pm
https://www.projectpluto.com/temp/spacex.htm#elements2
also
10,469,000km on oct 13 2027
Post by: CorvusCorax on 02/19/2018 07:04 am
http://www.whereisroadster.com/about.html
and browsing through
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/25042/how-close-will-the-tesla-roadster-with-starman-actually-get-to-mars
I found this nice web based orbital simulator which can display orbits of celestial bodies and import stuff from NASA HORIZONS
http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/simulations/1518543007674_teslaFeb13.html
I don't know how accurate it is, but according to this, the Roadster will have a first encounter with earth close enough to significantly alter the orbit around January 12 2047 at around 11 times the lunar distance
http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/simulations/1519025754573_close%20encounter%20tesla-earth.html
The reverse-swingby in front of earth would slow the roadster down, lowering the apohelion from 1.664 AU to around 1.655 AU - around 0.5%
I'd guess any prediction beyond that would be extremely sensitive to how close exactly the roadster gets at that point, as any tiniest difference would be magnified a lot by the encounter, resulting in significantly different orbits - to the point I'd be hesitant to even predict any further encounters beyond that.
Post by: sanman on 02/21/2018 04:40 am
Post by: Mader Levap on 02/21/2018 10:50 am
Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?
USAF STP-2 and bunch of secondaries.
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/21/2018 11:13 am
Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?
Google LXP lander as primary payload, upper stage recovery after lunar free-return orbit demonstrator as secondary payload.
Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
Post by: speedevil on 02/21/2018 11:45 am
Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?
My previous answer has been on the lines of cost reduction and technical readiness.
For example, a pile of completely standard industrial robot arms with only the most basic modifications for working in vacuum, and some assembly tasks using assorted test tasks.
For example, assembling Ikea furniture, or putting together a 'large' cylinder using rivets.
Tests of inexpensive reentry - and on orbit tests - everything from LASER comms to 'best momentum wheel you can make from $100 in parts from hobbyking'.
Literally free tests of reentry of hardware from groups that would have no hope of otherwise getting funded, given a very rough screen to eliminate obviously idiotic ones, and leaving ones with a 1% or better chance of working. (and in some way capable of telemetering back their reentry status). On the basis that the group gets some award if it works, and SpaceX gets some rights to any IP.
An iphone in a coconut, for example, with a weight, and foam inside, with a satellite USB adaptor.
(https://i.imgur.com/wc30E47.jpg)
Kilo reentry vehicles - MIRKA2 specifically.
Basically, things needed to progress into an era when space launch falls from $1300/kg or whatever from FH, to $100/kg or below.
However, the Tesla captured the public information in ways that I am not sure the above would.
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 02/21/2018 05:48 pm
Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?There would have been no better payload IMO.
What the Tesla and Starman did, bringing this new age of commercial spaceflight to public awareness, is easy to underrate and was meaningful in ways that are hard to tabulate.
Post by: Lar on 02/21/2018 08:49 pm
The best payload they could have chosen is the one they did. No way to know that the launch would be successful, and this payload minimized risk. It ALSO had the most massive upside of any payload any of us could imagine. The positive PR and buzz generated are immense.Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?
USAF STP-2 and bunch of secondaries.
Second guessing them now is just as boring (and wrong) as all the "they should have chosen pet project X" talk was before the launch.
Post by: IanThePineapple on 02/21/2018 08:52 pm
The best payload they could have chosen is the one they did. No way to know that the launch would be successful, and this payload minimized risk. It ALSO had the most massive upside of any payload any of us could imagine. The positive PR and buzz generated are immense.Knowing what we know now following the successful launch, what would have been a more meaningful payload to put on Falcon Heavy's demo flight?
USAF STP-2 and bunch of secondaries.
Second guessing them now is just as boring (and wrong) as all the "they should have chosen pet project X" talk was before the launch.
And with Elon lowering expectations about the launch I don't think many people would have volunteered...
Post by: speedevil on 02/21/2018 09:24 pm
And with Elon lowering expectations about the launch I don't think many people would have volunteered...
People would not have volunteered their ten million dollar experiments.
I personally, and I suspect many other interested hobbyists would have found the opportunity to try things they would have had no hope of otherwise launching. And would have had little problem with SpaceX having some claim on any IP generated.
Ten million dollar experiments are in many ways not what is interesting, as ten million dollar experiments cost ten million dollars.
If SpaceX actually wants to not have to have any sort of space industry not in the 'hardware must cost $10000/kg' mode they pretty much are at the moment, disruptive stuff needs to start happening.
You can't do Mars on that, even if your launch to mars costs $100/kg.
(comms from orbit is an intractable problem, and the above pretty much assumes this is riding along with a Starlink sat, orbital debris is not a problem if it's all in one big evacuated tank)
I note, for example, the high altitude balloon crowd.
Payloads are often not really expected to be recovered, or at best with a large failure mode, where getting someone to mail back your SD card is a win.
http://leobodnar.com/balloons/B-64/
As one example of a custom payload series from an unfunded individual that ended up going round the earth several times.
(https://i.imgur.com/GpWoblAl.jpg)
Several 'orbits'.
And yes, that was the 64th.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/21/2018 11:34 pm
The worldwide impact of FH on other space agencies didn't matter a rat's a$$ on the stunt payload, but the fact that three low cost boosters functioned as a HLV on a high C3 mission. That kicked all of them in the teeth HARD!
It meant that potentially HLV could be built off of low cost vehicles. That means they can reinforce economics, not subtract (as with DIVH or Angara or a few others). They all had a load in their pants, because now they have to go back to ministries and governments and tell them that they had it wrong from the start that such a thing could be done.
(It didn't even matter that it was reusable boosters - that's just added salt in the above self-inflicted wound to come when the economics build even more.)
Because all of those "world experts" called it wrong.
"So Musk did this for $X billion, and you've told us it needed more than 10X billions, and we've already given you a third that, what are we getting for our money you idiots!"
Watching the Tesla for hours did help - it reminded them of NSS/military capability the entire time, while not looking remotely military at all.
Yes it also was a popular meme too, and that will have the effect of reviving the impact routinely when the general worldwide audience reminds every policymaker that they cannot ignore/avoid.
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice. It is even under spoken as a unique American advantage, even with a grandstanding fool and his foolish ruling party, because they also have no courage either, even though they were handed a massive advantage on the global stage, because the political consequences here are ... awkward.
That is also why the means to take advantage of this event practically, even for SX, is hard to achieve.
The trivial thrill of the spectacle might be great in people's eyes. Fine. But this sustainable HLV example has massive ramifications for all LV programs worldwide, because they won't be able to justify premium development budgets. SX pulled all their shorts over their heads.
add:
For an alternate view, read Jeff Bingham's (http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/374931-how-spacex-and-nasas-rockets-compare). Someone I've just lost a lot of respect for. Perhaps he needs more work in retirement. Farewell 51D Mascot, back to the shadows again.
Post by: Mader Levap on 02/22/2018 12:05 pm
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.
Man, people say darndest things when helped by power of hindsight... ::)
Post by: Semmel on 02/22/2018 12:32 pm
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.
That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it. This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO. I cant think of any payload that NASA would want in <GEO orbit with an unimportant sat. A telescope, any telescope, is already asking too much.
So unless you have inside knowledge to the contrary, I dont think politics was a decisive factor. IMO, It might have been politically convenient to not come up with a payload that fits the restrictions above, but thats about it.
Post by: AncientU on 02/22/2018 03:36 pm
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.
That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it. This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO.
...
Europa Clipper/SLS Block 1B?
Post by: kessdawg on 02/22/2018 03:39 pm
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.
That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it. This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO.
...
Europa Clipper/SLS Block 1B?
That's congress, not NASA mandating Europa Clipper fly on SLS.
Post by: envy887 on 02/22/2018 03:40 pm
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.
That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it.
...
Now that doesn't sound like NASA. EM-2 is the first mission of a new rocket (Block 1B), and NASA is not only putting Orion on it but putting crew in that Orion. I'm sure NASA could have found something slightly less important than a fully crewed capsule for the first FH launch.
Post by: envy887 on 02/22/2018 03:41 pm
NASA ran away from FH Demo for real mission collateral out of unsurprising pure political cowardice.
That doesnt sound like NASA. FH is the first mission of a new rocket, sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. You dont put important payloads on it. This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO.
...
Europa Clipper/SLS Block 1B?
That's congress, not NASA mandating Europa Clipper fly on SLS.
It's NASA deciding that EUS doesn't need a test launch, whether they put crew Orion or Europa Clipper on it.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/22/2018 05:05 pm
This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO. I cant think of any payload that NASA would want in <GEO orbit with an unimportant sat. A telescope, any telescope, is already asking too much.IRIS (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/iris.php)
CU-E3 (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3704&context=smallsat)
MarCO (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/marco.php)
...more. Have had them in my hands.
Quote
So unless you have inside knowledge to the contrary, I dont think politics was a decisive factor.Politics is the only factor. Even Boeing wasn't stupid about this.
And its intensely stupid politics. Grade-A level moronic. "We must stay away otherwise we PO by being pro-SX". Horsecrap.
When a country of America's size/leadership walks away from a world-wide accomplishment, rather than pressing the advantage for all it can get out of it, its just plain moronic. In Russia they disfavor the unfavored, habit. In China they get hung up on who gets the advantage for doing something. No excuse for American idiocy can be found.
At least you celebrate your victories, as a nation.
Post by: Mader Levap on 02/23/2018 11:21 am
IRIS (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/iris.php)
CU-E3 (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3704&context=smallsat)
MarCO (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/marco.php)
...more. Have had them in my hands.
IRIS? "Launch Date: May 2018". Already booked somewhere else, why they would move it to FH months before it is ready?
Middle link does not work.
And MarCo wouldn't be launched on FH either way. Maybe if you read mission description, you would know why.
Post by: JamesH65 on 02/23/2018 12:10 pm
This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO. I cant think of any payload that NASA would want in <GEO orbit with an unimportant sat. A telescope, any telescope, is already asking too much.IRIS (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/iris.php)
CU-E3 (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3704&context=smallsat)
MarCO (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/marco.php)
...more. Have had them in my hands.QuoteSo unless you have inside knowledge to the contrary, I dont think politics was a decisive factor.Politics is the only factor. Even Boeing wasn't stupid about this.
And its intensely stupid politics. Grade-A level moronic. "We must stay away otherwise we PO by being pro-SX". Horsecrap.
When a country of America's size/leadership walks away from a world-wide accomplishment, rather than pressing the advantage for all it can get out of it, its just plain moronic. In Russia they disfavor the unfavored, habit. In China they get hung up on who gets the advantage for doing something. No excuse for American idiocy can be found.
At least you celebrate your victories, as a nation.
Thought experiment.
The FH launch failed.
Now what would you be saying? The same thing? If NOT then you are using hindsight. Which is always 20/20.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/23/2018 05:13 pm
This leaves only unimportant payloads, maybe NASA has some of these (I doubt it). FH had a history for not being on any schedule whatsoever. How can you plan a payload for a rocket that is notoriously random in its launch time? This removes almost any sensible payload beyond GEO. I cant think of any payload that NASA would want in <GEO orbit with an unimportant sat. A telescope, any telescope, is already asking too much.IRIS (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/iris.php)
CU-E3 (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3704&context=smallsat)
MarCO (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cubesat/missions/marco.php)
...more. Have had them in my hands.QuoteSo unless you have inside knowledge to the contrary, I dont think politics was a decisive factor.Politics is the only factor. Even Boeing wasn't stupid about this.
And its intensely stupid politics. Grade-A level moronic. "We must stay away otherwise we PO by being pro-SX". Horsecrap.
When a country of America's size/leadership walks away from a world-wide accomplishment, rather than pressing the advantage for all it can get out of it, its just plain moronic. In Russia they disfavor the unfavored, habit. In China they get hung up on who gets the advantage for doing something. No excuse for American idiocy can be found.
At least you celebrate your victories, as a nation.
Thought experiment.
The FH launch failed.
Now what would you be saying? The same thing? If NOT then you are using hindsight. Which is always 20/20.
They're cubesat DSN programs with multiple flight ready articles.
Nothing much lost on failed test, so just fine as if still on the ground, because you have losses in ground tests.
But, any flight data you get back secures missions that fly (as soon as May) with actual flight history.
Biggest cost in current only comes AFTER a successful launch/insertion - DSN time to "check" on each payload for short intervals/schedule.
Much better than on main mission(s).
And the more successes with DSN cubesats, the easier to justify them on ALL following high C3 missions for scientific secondary missions.
More results/history back means more funded BLEO cubesats, means demand for long lived cubesats, means higher flight rate overall.
Post by: Pete on 02/25/2018 07:39 am
Nothing much lost on failed test, so just fine as if still on the ground, because you have losses in ground tests.
Loss of secondary/lesser payloads can have devastating PR results.
Consider the SpaceX CRS-1 mission:
What should have been a thundering PR accolade (we lost an engine and the Falcon STILL delivered!!),
is instead known as "the mission that lost Orbcomm"
Post by: speedevil on 02/25/2018 10:54 am
Loss of secondary/lesser payloads can have devastating PR results.
Consider the SpaceX CRS-1 mission:
What should have been a thundering PR accolade (we lost an engine and the Falcon STILL delivered!!),
is instead known as "the mission that lost Orbcomm"
By who?
If you ask most people, you'll find they remember only the first commercial launch to ISS.
And by most, I mean >99.9% of those that remember the flight at all.
Some of the rest remember it vaguely as 'that mission where NASA rules that made no sense were slavishly followed'.
I suspect a very large majority of PIs with small sats that have been sitting on a shelf in their office for the last five years, and who have no prospect at all of launching them would much rather be able to tell of their small sat that exploded on launch of a new vehicle rather than point to the small still on the shelf.
Never mind those with no even vague prospect of launch that have an idea they'd like to try.
Post by: Greg Hullender on 02/25/2018 06:49 pm
Post by: speedevil on 02/25/2018 06:51 pm
Would any of those small satellites have been able to return useful information from the asteroid belt though? Or are you thinking they'd have taken such a huge load of them that they'd all have been deposited in LEO?
LEO, for the most part - dumping off a large pile of satellites in a rapidly decaying orbit.
The stage could then have restarted and thrown stuff further, done coast tests, ...
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2018 05:06 pm
Would any of those small satellites have been able to return useful information from the asteroid belt though?The chief issue with such cubesats is longevity, signal integrity, and data rate.
Just by being "reachable" by DSN on a routine schedule (weekly, monthly, ... yearly) is a major achievement.
(Those mentioned above are relay/comm in purpose.) As a science product, a simple SEP detector (about an ounce in weight including electronics) would return valuable solar wind science, useful in following missions.
Post by: speedevil on 02/27/2018 05:30 pm
Just by being "reachable" by DSN on a routine schedule (weekly, monthly, ... yearly) is a major achievement.
(Those mentioned above are relay/comm in purpose.) As a science product, a simple SEP detector (about an ounce in weight including electronics) would return valuable solar wind science, useful in following missions.
Add little more than an additional cubesat, a tiny amount of propulsion for mid-course correction and you can have an entirely independent mars atmospheric probe that might even survive impact.
(https://i.imgur.com/wc30E47.jpg) as an example.
MIRKA2 - designed for earth reentry, would need the iridium radio swapped out of course.
With a little more orbital manoevering, close flybys and a cellphone class camera can do enormously better than any billion dollar telescope or probe at 1AU.
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 02/27/2018 07:11 pm
Nobody believes in low cost, long lived, DSN cubesats. Cubesats are seen as strictly short lived, short range comm "missions:.
And a lot of them are junk - they don't even work long enough to commisson on orbit.
The large sat vendors don't want the disruption, so they make things hard.
Which is why a few FH high c3 cubesats could have corrected this block to disruption.
If you correct it, then planetary missions have "tag on" secondaries routinely.
Which increases market competition on all missions, matures the cubesat markets, and restructures the entire sat/SC market for higher growth (they have the same myopia that the LV guys have had).
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/07/2018 09:00 am
Quote
EU space conferences, on any topic, evoke @SpaceX. Here's EU @GalileoGNSS director Matthias Petschke Mar 6 at #MunichSatnavSummit: 'Some global players are sending cars into space; we prefer to send satellites that help cars navigate on the ground.' @esa chief Woerner applauded.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971320811230580737
Quote
Not laughing: @esa chief @janwoerner isn't only European who thinks @SpaceX Falcon Heavy Starman roadster-in-orbit headlines should have read: SpaceX Voluntarily Creates Orbital Debris.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971322796612702208
Post by: deruch on 03/07/2018 09:38 am
QuoteNot laughing: @esa chief @janwoerner isn't only European who thinks @SpaceX Falcon Heavy Starman roadster-in-orbit headlines should have read: SpaceX Voluntarily Creates Orbital Debris.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971322796612702208
Obnoxious, sour grapes nonsense. Orbital debris is only controlled for "useful" orbits which is why disposing of satellites or rocket bodies into graveyard orbits is totally acceptable.
Post by: Jakusb on 03/07/2018 10:11 am
QuoteNot laughing: @esa chief @janwoerner isn't only European who thinks @SpaceX Falcon Heavy Starman roadster-in-orbit headlines should have read: SpaceX Voluntarily Creates Orbital Debris.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971322796612702208
Obnoxious, sour grapes nonsense. Orbital debris is only controlled for "useful" orbits which is why disposing of satellites or rocket bodies into graveyard orbits is totally acceptable.
Indeed a clear and painful sign that upper management of ESA is not getting the intentions and immense progress SpaceX is bringing to the world of Spaceflight...
ESA should not feel threatened but inspired and motivated to take advantage of the previously considered impossible options now proven possible and economically feasible..
Not feeling too proud on 'our' ESA, being European
Post by: woods170 on 03/07/2018 11:49 am
QuoteNot laughing: @esa chief @janwoerner isn't only European who thinks @SpaceX Falcon Heavy Starman roadster-in-orbit headlines should have read: SpaceX Voluntarily Creates Orbital Debris.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971322796612702208 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971322796612702208)
Obnoxious, sour grapes nonsense. Orbital debris is only controlled for "useful" orbits which is why disposing of satellites or rocket bodies into graveyard orbits is totally acceptable.
Indeed a clear and painful sign that upper management of ESA is not getting the intentions and immense progress SpaceX is bringing to the world of Spaceflight...
ESA should not feel threatened but inspired and motivated to take advantage of the previously considered impossible options now proven possible and economically feasible..
Not feeling too proud on 'our' ESA, being European
Me neither.
Just plain stupid remark by Jan given that ESA itself has voluntarily created orbital debris, by injecting mass simulators into orbit, on at least seven (7) Ariane missions:
- Ariane L01 (CAT 1)
- Ariane L02 (CAT 2)
- Ariane L03 (CAT 3)
- Ariane L04 (CAT 4)
- Ariane 502 (Maqsat B, Maqsat H)
- Ariane 503 (Maqsat 3)
- Ariane 521 (Maqsat B2)
Pot meet Kettle. ESA sour grapes. Jan Woerner really ought to know better than to react like this.
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/07/2018 11:52 am
Post by: AncientU on 03/07/2018 11:54 am
QuoteEU space conferences, on any topic, evoke @SpaceX. Here's EU @GalileoGNSS director Matthias Petschke Mar 6 at #MunichSatnavSummit: 'Some global players are sending cars into space; we prefer to send satellites that help cars navigate on the ground.' @esa chief Woerner applauded.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971320811230580737
Gentlemen,
Now that you brought up the subjects of satellites and cars, one global player is out launching constellation satellites put up by EU/ESA (who are actually hiring the Russians to send most to orbit). That global player is also manufacturing, launching, and operating a satellite constellation that will out number and out compete the constellation being built by Airbus/One Web. They are also building the autonomous electric vehicles and their AI supercomputer brains to use these constellations. These vehicles are already out competing established European luxury cars BMW/Mercedes Benz who along with all other auto makers are scrambling to bring their own BEVs to market. This movement is allowing many European nations to declare an internal combustion engine free future.
So yes, the Tesla in space was a one-off stunt that you can look down your collective noses at... otherwise, it's going to be Simon Says with that global player for a very long time.
Post by: Reflectiv on 03/07/2018 04:57 pm
Me neither.
Just plain stupid remark by Jan given that ESA itself has voluntarily created orbital debris...
FWIW I asked him about the remark, here's the answer:
Quote
You did not get my message, unfortunately: I said that I admire how fast they could succeed in getting the Tesla on top of the launcher. And I said that I could not dare to send a car in space. I dont know whom you are quoting.
Jan
ESA - European Space Agency
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Johann-Dietrich Wörner
Director General
Post by: rcoppola on 03/07/2018 05:39 pm
Just wait until the first Block-5 FH returns all 3 cores from a real mission. Or a Block 5 F9 core is flown 14 days post return. Or better yet, the first hop of the BFS. ESA/EU better get used to this nightmare. It's only going to get worse.
Post by: AncientU on 03/07/2018 05:52 pm
Disbelief has settled into an anxious nervousness. Theory is now becoming practice. With Block-5 imminent and nothing ready to counter it, I'm afraid we'll hear more of these types of comments in the months and years to come.
Just wait until the first Block-5 FH returns all 3 cores from a real mission. Or a Block 5 F9 core is flown 14 days post return. Or better yet, the first hop of the BFS. ESA/EU better get used to this nightmare. It's only going to get worse.
Global player is just hitting stride:
First truly reusable booster is on the test stand.
Fully 'Full Thrust' finally arriving.
30 launches scheduled this year.
Raptor soon to flight quals.
BFR/BFS is being built.
Meanwhile:
Starlink is in its infancy.
Tesla, too...
Post by: woods170 on 03/08/2018 06:43 am
Me neither.
Just plain stupid remark by Jan given that ESA itself has voluntarily created orbital debris...
FWIW I asked him about the remark, here's the answer:QuoteYou did not get my message, unfortunately: I said that I admire how fast they could succeed in getting the Tesla on top of the launcher. And I said that I could not dare to send a car in space. I dont know whom you are quoting.
Jan
ESA - European Space Agency
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Johann-Dietrich Wörner
Director General
Peter B. de Selding is the reporter in question and he is not known for mis-quoting or mis-interpreting people.
Post by: JamesH65 on 03/08/2018 09:14 am
Me neither.
Just plain stupid remark by Jan given that ESA itself has voluntarily created orbital debris...
FWIW I asked him about the remark, here's the answer:QuoteYou did not get my message, unfortunately: I said that I admire how fast they could succeed in getting the Tesla on top of the launcher. And I said that I could not dare to send a car in space. I dont know whom you are quoting.
Jan
ESA - European Space Agency
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Johann-Dietrich Wörner
Director General
Peter B. de Selding is the reporter in question and he is not known for mis-quoting or mis-interpreting people.
On the other hand, you have an extremely specific comment from the PERSON INVOLVED saying he does not recognise the quote.
Who should you believe, the person who is supposed to have said it but who says he didn't, or the reporter that reported it.
Sounds like a misquote or misinterpretation to me.
Post by: saliva_sweet on 03/08/2018 09:17 am
Who should you believe, the person who is supposed to have said it but who says he didn't, or the reporter that reported it.
Pbdes didn't say Woerner said anything. He clapped.
Post by: woods170 on 03/08/2018 10:32 am
Quote from: Peter B. de Selding
Not laughing: @esa chief @janwoerner isn't only European who thinks @SpaceX Falcon Heavy Starman roadster-in-orbit headlines should have read: SpaceX Voluntarily Creates Orbital Debris.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971322796612702208 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971322796612702208)
The ESA DG agreeing on the less-than-stellar alternative headline (even if it was just by applauding, not actually speaking) does not project favorable on the space-activities of his very own organisation, given that it has added to orbital debris, in a similar manner, not once but at least seven times.
Post by: Nehkara on 03/08/2018 03:24 pm
The tweet in question once more:Quote from: Peter B. de SeldingNot laughing: @esa chief @janwoerner isn't only European who thinks @SpaceX Falcon Heavy Starman roadster-in-orbit headlines should have read: SpaceX Voluntarily Creates Orbital Debris.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971322796612702208 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/971322796612702208)
The ESA DG agreeing on the less-than-stellar alternative headline (even if it was just by applauding, not actually speaking) does not project favorable on the space-activities of his very own organisation, given that it has added to orbital debris, in a similar manner, not once but at least seven times.
Even worse... I'm guessing that orbital debris from ESA activites was around the Earth rather than in a heliocentric orbit that honestly will have no conceivable impact on any space operation, ever.
Post by: CJ on 03/08/2018 08:31 pm
What I'm basing this on is the still image Elon sent out titled the last picture of Starman (or words to that effect) that was from several hours post TMI burn, showing Earth well behind.
My guess, based on that, is there is more video/images taken between the final burn and that photo, and SpaceX and/or Tesla are saving it for later release or use. I hope this is correct, because I'd love to see more. (the 4 hours they posted was epic.)
BTW, did we ever hear definitively if they removed the roadster's battery pack? I have a hard time believing they'd launch with it unless they both needed the mass and electrical capacity and were certain it would pose no danger to the mission (such as via rupturing or exploding in vacuum).
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/09/2018 05:04 am
BTW, did we ever hear definitively if they removed the roadster's battery pack? I have a hard time believing they'd launch with it unless they both needed the mass and electrical capacity and were certain it would pose no danger to the mission (such as via rupturing or exploding in vacuum).
We haven't heard anything, but as the front brakes were removed (as seen from the footage), presumably to reduce mass, I think its a good bet that the batteries and other heavy internal parts were also removed.
Post by: niwax on 03/09/2018 06:06 am
Post by: AncientU on 03/09/2018 01:15 pm
BTW, did we ever hear definitively if they removed the roadster's battery pack? I have a hard time believing they'd launch with it unless they both needed the mass and electrical capacity and were certain it would pose no danger to the mission (such as via rupturing or exploding in vacuum).
We haven't heard anything, but as the front brakes were removed (as seen from the footage), presumably to reduce mass, I think its a good bet that the batteries and other heavy internal parts were also removed.
Where Starman is going, he don't need brakes...
Post by: Nomadd on 03/09/2018 03:11 pm
We haven't heard anything, but as the front brakes were removed (as seen from the footage), presumably to reduce mass, I think its a good bet that the batteries and other heavy internal parts were also removed.
Where Starman is going, he don't need brakes...
That's because he doesn't need to go into Mars orbit.
Post by: Nehkara on 03/09/2018 03:57 pm
"Will be at SXSW Sat/Sun with Jonah & Lisa, who created Westworld. Jonah made an incredible short reel of Falcon Heavy & Starman. Releases tmrw aft."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/972149891848798208?s=19
Post by: cscott on 03/10/2018 08:01 pm
I don't think that picture is definitive proof. See for example these photos of a Tesla Model X. You can clearly see through the wheels, and the brakes are definitely still in place.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180310/5fe02c7b9f77bd2487cbbefa53004156.jpg)BTW, did we ever hear definitively if they removed the roadster's battery pack? I have a hard time believing they'd launch with it unless they both needed the mass and electrical capacity and were certain it would pose no danger to the mission (such as via rupturing or exploding in vacuum).
We haven't heard anything, but as the front brakes were removed (as seen from the footage), presumably to reduce mass, I think its a good bet that the batteries and other heavy internal parts were also removed.
Post by: Comga on 03/10/2018 11:21 pm
We haven't heard anything, but as the front brakes were removed (as seen from the footage), presumably to reduce mass, I think its a good bet that the batteries and other heavy internal parts were also removed."presumably" (my emphasis)
We can take it from the photo that the brake was removed, but we don't know why.
Reducing the mass seems unlikely to me.
Even the battery is probably small compared the total mass of the second stage and payload mount.
SpaceX could have just bolted the front camera to the hood and the side one to the passenger door, but they built those large projecting mounts. This doesn't seem very sensitive to minimizing mass.
There are other guesses, like using the brake mounting points as anchors to lock out the suspension so the wheels didn't bounce wildly on launch.
However, in the absence of inside knowledge, this is just another guess.
edit:typo
Post by: Comga on 03/11/2018 03:36 am
There are images of the suspension in the video linked in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44376.msg1797858#msg1797858)
Perhaps someone with a sharp eye for auto mechanics can spot a theme to what has been removed and what has been added to make the Roadster "flyable".
edit: There's just not quite enough resolution to tell if the Matchbook Roadster with the miniature Starman on the dash has a microsopic Roadster with a nano-Starman on it's dash.
Post by: Freddedonna on 03/11/2018 04:03 am
compared to the Model X though : (http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2016/12/Tesla-Roadster-25-front-three-quarter-1.jpg)
It's hard to tell from the pictures because of the angles and shadows, but from the Starman video (at this timestamp : https://youtu.be/aBr2kKAHN6M?t=10923 (https://youtu.be/aBr2kKAHN6M?t=10923)), it's pretty clear that we can see through pretty much the entire wheel (the car's body and some tubes seem to block the rest).
This doesn't seem very sensitive to minimizing mass.
There are other guesses, like using the brake mounting points as anchors to lock out the suspension so the wheels didn't bounce wildly on launch.
I don't know the weight of these specific discs, but they can be around 15 to 20 pounds each, and taking into account the rest of braking system (calipers, pads, fluids, etc), I can see this removing ~100 pounds from the total mass. Still a pretty small saving, I'd be more inclined to say they removed them to weld the wheels in place to reduce vibrations/variables.
Post by: ddeflyer on 03/11/2018 04:05 am
Frankly I suspect alot of the suspension wasn't in there; you don't want droplets of axles grease floating around or the dampers blowing oil out their seals, etc.
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 03/11/2018 06:28 am
Once you've done that you'd need to remove the calipers since they would blow out the pistons and make a mess if you didn't.
Pistons? It's an electric car. :)
Post by: ddeflyer on 03/11/2018 07:20 am
Brake calipers have hydraulic pistons that push the brake pads against the brake rotors. If you don't have the rotors in place then any pressure in the brake system will push the pistons out of the caliper leaving big holes for the slippery, messy, and corrosive brake fluid to come dumping out all over the place.
Post by: cscott on 03/11/2018 02:36 pm
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p85d-electric-mechanical-braking-system.36882/
Solenoid, not hydraulic. (Granted, not 100% sure this is was the case for 1st Gen roadster, but likely.)
Post by: cscott on 03/11/2018 02:37 pm
There seems to be some work being done to the wheel hubs in the new starman video. Goes by quickly so I can't be certain what I'm seeing there.This doesn't seem very sensitive to minimizing mass.
There are other guesses, like using the brake mounting points as anchors to lock out the suspension so the wheels didn't bounce wildly on launch.
I don't know the weight of these specific discs, but they can be around 15 to 20 pounds each, and taking into account the rest of braking system (calipers, pads, fluids, etc), I can see this removing ~100 pounds from the total mass. Still a pretty small saving, I'd be more inclined to say they removed them to weld the wheels in place to reduce vibrations/variables.
EDIT screenshots here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44376.msg1797897.msg#1797897
Post by: envy887 on 03/12/2018 01:30 am
Teslas use electric brakes:Those still have a hydraulic piston. The "electric" part is a pump and a solenoid valve that pressurize and control the hydraulic circuit.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p85d-electric-mechanical-braking-system.36882/
Solenoid, not hydraulic. (Granted, not 100% sure this is was the case for 1st Gen roadster, but likely.)
However, brake hydraulics are built to take hundred of atmospheres of pressure. They wouldn't even notice a little vacuum, nevermind explode or leak brake fluid.
Post by: ddeflyer on 03/12/2018 03:16 am
Teslas use electric brakes:Those still have a hydraulic piston. The "electric" part is a pump and a solenoid valve that pressurize and control the hydraulic circuit.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p85d-electric-mechanical-braking-system.36882/
Solenoid, not hydraulic. (Granted, not 100% sure this is was the case for 1st Gen roadster, but likely.)
However, brake hydraulics are built to take hundred of atmospheres of pressure. They wouldn't even notice a little vacuum, nevermind explode or leak brake fluid.
As long as you have the rotors in there to limit the piston travel and block the lines before the master cylinder :-D (the reservoir isn't totally sealed)
Post by: Nomadd on 03/12/2018 03:39 am
Not sure I get you. The problem I'd expect would be vacuum causing brake fluid to boil, forcing the pistons out if the rotors were missing. That would take almost no pressure.Teslas use electric brakes:Those still have a hydraulic piston. The "electric" part is a pump and a solenoid valve that pressurize and control the hydraulic circuit.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p85d-electric-mechanical-braking-system.36882/
Solenoid, not hydraulic. (Granted, not 100% sure this is was the case for 1st Gen roadster, but likely.)
However, brake hydraulics are built to take hundred of atmospheres of pressure. They wouldn't even notice a little vacuum, nevermind explode or leak brake fluid.
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/12/2018 09:58 am
Quote
French CNES launcher chief: Worries about SpaceX Falcon Heavy debris are overwrought
by Peter B. de Selding | Mar 12, 2018
WASHINGTON — The director of launchers of the French space agency, CNES, on March 11 entered the European debate about the inaugural flight of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, apparently in an effort to dispel public misconceptions.
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/french-cnes-launcher-chief-worries-about-spacex-falcon-heavy-debris-are-overwrought/ (https://www.spaceintelreport.com/french-cnes-launcher-chief-worries-about-spacex-falcon-heavy-debris-are-overwrought/)
Post by: cscott on 03/12/2018 01:55 pm
Following up: Electronic Wedge Brakes (EWB) don't have any hydraulics at all. Siemens has been developing them for over a decade. But in my cursory Google, I couldn't find any evidence they've yet been used in a passenger car. The roadster appears to have had quite conventional brakes.Teslas use electric brakes:Those still have a hydraulic piston. The "electric" part is a pump and a solenoid valve that pressurize and control the hydraulic circuit.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p85d-electric-mechanical-braking-system.36882/
Solenoid, not hydraulic. (Granted, not 100% sure this is was the case for 1st Gen roadster, but likely.)
However, brake hydraulics are built to take hundred of atmospheres of pressure. They wouldn't even notice a little vacuum, nevermind explode or leak brake fluid.
Post by: Lar on 03/12/2018 06:03 pm
Following up: Electronic Wedge Brakes (EWB) don't have any hydraulics at all. Siemens has been developing them for over a decade. But in my cursory Google, I couldn't find any evidence they've yet been used in a passenger car. The roadster appears to have had quite conventional brakes.It was a rolling chassis/body from Lotus so it would be surprising if it didn't.. much more engineering to fit non conventional brakes. That's not where Tesla was at that time.
Post by: Hog on 03/12/2018 08:37 pm
I don't see hydraulic brake fluid boiling just because of vacuum. Its not like blood or any similar fluid.Not sure I get you. The problem I'd expect would be vacuum causing brake fluid to boil, forcing the pistons out if the rotors were missing. That would take almost no pressure.Teslas use electric brakes:Those still have a hydraulic piston. The "electric" part is a pump and a solenoid valve that pressurize and control the hydraulic circuit.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p85d-electric-mechanical-braking-system.36882/
Solenoid, not hydraulic. (Granted, not 100% sure this is was the case for 1st Gen roadster, but likely.)
However, brake hydraulics are built to take hundred of atmospheres of pressure. They wouldn't even notice a little vacuum, nevermind explode or leak brake fluid.
Post by: acsawdey on 03/13/2018 06:41 pm
I don't see hydraulic brake fluid boiling just because of vacuum. Its not like blood or any similar fluid.Not sure I get you. The problem I'd expect would be vacuum causing brake fluid to boil, forcing the pistons out if the rotors were missing. That would take almost no pressure.Teslas use electric brakes:Those still have a hydraulic piston. The "electric" part is a pump and a solenoid valve that pressurize and control the hydraulic circuit.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/p85d-electric-mechanical-braking-system.36882/
Solenoid, not hydraulic. (Granted, not 100% sure this is was the case for 1st Gen roadster, but likely.)
However, brake hydraulics are built to take hundred of atmospheres of pressure. They wouldn't even notice a little vacuum, nevermind explode or leak brake fluid.
I found a vapor pressure plot for diethylene glycol (component of some brake fluid) here:
www.meglobal.biz/media/product_guides/MEGlobal_DEG.pdf
The vapor pressure at room temperature is off-the-chart low (less than 1mm Hg) so I think "boiling" is the wrong word for what would be happening --- "offgassing" is more like it. Especially as the roadster ventured out into interplanetary space and started to cool off. But if I was doing it, I would remove the whole brake system just so as not to have to worry about it while processing/encapsulating the roadster on the ground -- brake fluid is messy noxious stuff. Any gearhead worth their salt ought to be able to pull the master cylinder, lines, and calipers in a couple hours at the most.
Post by: deruch on 03/13/2018 10:13 pm
Post by: Lar on 03/13/2018 10:33 pm
But can we bring this side thread convo to a full stop?