Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Speculation

[Zed_Noir]

If SpaceX is thrashing the solar system, I wonder what you think about NASA... 

active spacecraft is different from a inert car

There are all those spend Centaur stages drifting outward.

[gaballard]

If SpaceX is thrashing the solar system, I wonder what you think about NASA... 

active spacecraft is different from a inert car

Oh, we're not talking about active spacecraft. We're talking the detritus we take with us or leave behind as we explore other worlds. The bottom halves of all the lunar landers are still on the Moon, along with everything else the Apollo astronauts left there. Mars is littered with discarded heat shields, parachutes, and airbags. We've deliberately crashed things into the moon (and once, into a comet) and left the debris there. There are still spent Apollo stages in orbit around the Sun.

If you want to talk about all littering in the solar system, not just from NASA sources, then you'll want to add heat shield and parachute-related debris on Titan and Venus and a number of inert landers on Mars and the Moon. We even left some trash on a comet a few years ago.

[Robotbeat]

There are more asteroids about Roadster size than there are humans that have ever lived.

It's alright. A fitting tribute to Bowie.

[meekGee]

Awright, new tack.

That report from a few days back about the Roadster not being in the fairing for reasons that will become apparent...

Struck me as odd just like it did most readers, but since some folks expressed confidence in the reporter, then just as a thought experiment, let's assume both parts are true, and that the source of the rumor knew what the plan is.

The only scenario that comes to mind and fits the nuances is that there may be a propulsion/cruise stage that will go under the Roadster.

So the Roadster was subsequently mated to it, and the stack is currently being loaded into the fairing.

Why not have them on board during the static fire?  Because A) it's hypergolic, and B) they only have one.

Why do the photoshoot w/o the stage?  Since it's ugly and it was only a photoshoot and it's an easter egg.

A million reasons why all this can't be true, I know.  But if it is, this won't be the first time the "impossible" happened...

[Jim]

 Roadster was mated to the standard fairing PAF and with one half a fairing mated.

[virnin]

Roadster was mated to the standard fairing PAF and with one half a fairing mated.

Why couldn't the speculative payload booster stage be constructed using the same PAF ring size, both upper and lower, as whatever rig the Roadster is bolted to?  I would do it so the sep mechanisms, and electrical/electronic controls, would be as identical as possible for both rings.

[meekGee]

Roadster was mated to the standard fairing PAF and with one half a fairing mated.

I know.

This was an exercise of "what if that report was literary true?".

It does not include "the report is not true..."

[meekGee]

So is the Roadster clamped down in some special way to prevent structural resonance thru launch?

Last weekend I had a weird dream.

Has anyone else had a dream where they are watching the falcon heavy launch, and the vehicle blows up in colossal fashion after clearing the tower and junk flies everywhere?

This launch sounds completely nuts.  Will be watching online a 1000 of miles away.

Hoping for success.

When I dream, I AM the rocket.

[woods170]

If SpaceX is thrashing the solar system, I wonder what you think about NASA... 

active spacecraft is different from a inert car

Active spacecraft are also different from the spent upper stages of Voyager 1 & 2, most Pioneer missions and New Horizons, a cr*p-load of descent hardware left on various planets, not to mention the various no-longer active landers on Mars, Venus, Titan, the Moon, and several asteroids.

I don't hear you complaining about those. I assume that is because they once had a useful purpose (but no longer so) whereas the Roadster is useless from the get-go.

Oh wait, that is not correct. The roadster is useful: it's a mass-simulator.

[deruch]

More like just trashing the solar system.

video of classic anti-pollution ad

If SpaceX is thrashing the solar system, I wonder what you think about NASA... 

active spacecraft is different from a inert car

Active spacecraft are also different from the spent upper stages of Voyager 1 & 2, most Pioneer missions and New Horizons, a cr*p-load of descent hardware left on various planets, not to mention the various no-longer active landers on Mars, Venus, Titan, the Moon, and several asteroids.

I don't hear you complaining about those. I assume that is because they once had a useful purpose (but no longer so) whereas the Roadster is useless from the get-go.

Oh wait, that is not correct. The roadster is useful: it's a mass-simulator.

Wait.  Sort of out of usual NSF comment character for Jim, but I read that original comment with the linked video as a joke.  Maybe better if he clarifies whether it was actual criticism for SpaceX "littering" before we any further into this discussion.

[Skyrocket]

Putting some inert mass (be it a block of metal or a Tesla Roadster) on a maiden flight of a rocket is a sensible approach. Arianespace learned it on the painful way, when the maiden Ariane-5 destroyed the Cluster science payload (a loss of more than US$370 million).

[woods170]

Putting some inert mass (be it a block of metal or a Tesla Roadster) on a maiden flight of a rocket is a sensible approach. Arianespace learned it on the painful way, when the maiden Ariane-5 destroyed the Cluster science payload (a loss of more than US$370 million).

In retrospect it was unbelievable that ESA made the decision to launch such a valuable payload on the very first mission of a completely new launch-vehicle architecture. Ariane 5 had no commonality with Ariane 4 whatsoever (which made it all the more surprising that Ariane 4 GNC software was re-used for Ariane 5).

The Ariane 1 architecture was also completely new and flew only an instrumented mass simulator on the first mission. The next two (2) missions flew low-value payloads in combination with more instrumented mass simulators. Just as well because the second Ariane 1 mission was a complete failure.

On the maiden missions of Ariane 2, Ariane 3 and Ariane 4 valuable payloads were flown. But those Ariane types were minor evolutions from the Ariane 1 base vehicle.

[Svetoslav]

There are dozens of cubesats waiting for their launch on ground. I'm pretty sure certain people would be happy to have their satellites fly on Falcon Heavy for free, no matter the risks.

[woods170]

There are dozens of cubesats waiting for their launch on ground. I'm pretty sure certain people would be happy to have their satellites fly on Falcon Heavy for free, no matter the risks.

Sure. But I very much doubt a full load of cubesats would come in at a price-tag similar to that of Cluster on Ariane 501.

[Lampyridae]

So is the Roadster clamped down in some special way to prevent structural resonance thru launch?

Last weekend I had a weird dream.

Has anyone else had a dream where they are watching the falcon heavy launch, and the vehicle blows up in colossal fashion after clearing the tower and junk flies everywhere?

This launch sounds completely nuts.  Will be watching online a 1000 of miles away.

Hoping for success.

When I dream, I AM the rocket.

That sounds like rocket company management-speak.

BE the payload.

What is the golden umbilical?

Well, I have never been so amped for such a... unique payload before. First man-rated (Earth) payload beyond cislunar space

[Robotbeat]

There are dozens of cubesats waiting for their launch on ground. I'm pretty sure certain people would be happy to have their satellites fly on Falcon Heavy for free, no matter the risks.

No matter what the risks?

SpaceX could just destroy the satellites on the ground and save the trouble of integrating and launching them on a rocket that has a high chance of failure. Same outcome. See how dumb that argument is?

[Robotbeat]

"Student projects destroyed in another one of Elon's failed promises."

That, and payload integration of cubesats isn't free, and cubesats usually cost more to construct than to launch. Therefore it doesn't make sense to put them on a rocket that only has a 50:50 chance of succeeding.

[Svetoslav]

SpaceX could just destroy the satellites on the ground and save the trouble of integrating and launching them on a rocket that has a high chance of failure. Same outcome. See how dumb that argument is?

Electron also had a high chance of failure on the second flight, and it carried satellites. SLS will carry satellites on its first flight. What's the difference?

[hopalong]

SpaceX could just destroy the satellites on the ground and save the trouble of integrating and launching them on a rocket that has a high chance of failure. Same outcome. See how dumb that argument is?

Electron also had a high chance of failure on the second flight, and it carried satellites. SLS will carry satellites on its first flight. What's the difference?

SpaceX did not want to take the risk or be distracted by having an payload other than a mass simulator (Elons car) , their vehicle, their choice. 

[Svetoslav]

SpaceX did not want to take the risk or be distracted by having an payload other than a mass simulator (Elons car) , their vehicle, their choice. 

I'm not denying it. I'm just questioning whether it's wise