Author Topic: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion  (Read 126303 times)

Offline John-H

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #280 on: 12/04/2017 03:35 AM »
I think the Tesla launch is a stroke of genius. It solves a lot of problems.

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

Offline Formica

  • Rocket Boi
  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Richmond, CA
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 425
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #281 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.)
I'm just a space fan, please correct me if I'm wrong!

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8241
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4463
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #282 on: 12/04/2017 05:41 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.)
It might be harder than usual, since center core velocity will be high
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline shooter6947

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Idaho
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #283 on: 12/04/2017 05:50 AM »
It might be harder than usual, since center core velocity will be high
Higher 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.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6673
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1732
  • Likes Given: 1693
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #284 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.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8241
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4463
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #285 on: 12/04/2017 05:56 AM »
It might be harder than usual, since center core velocity will be high
Higher 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.
Low mass, yes. C3, I didn't see numbers.  But inherently FH has a higher velocity for the center core.

So I'm hoping they do, but won't be too surprised if they don't.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 368
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #286 on: 12/04/2017 06:04 AM »
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.

Well, we sort did during Apollo... ;)
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.
"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7400
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1085
  • Likes Given: 7314
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #287 on: 12/04/2017 06:29 AM »
BTW

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.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2017 06:30 AM by john smith 19 »
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #288 on: 12/04/2017 06:52 AM »
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.

How will this factor in the modifications required for the Roadster?
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4125
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #289 on: 12/04/2017 07:04 AM »
Besides, I thought Musk said he wasn't into flying cars

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Home
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #290 on: 12/04/2017 08:45 AM »
There is still very little concrete information about this payload.

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.

Offline Torbjorn Larsson, OM

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #291 on: 12/04/2017 11:30 AM »
Tesla cars - now with interplanetary "Wow Mode".

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 [email protected]
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?

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?]

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8187
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4307
  • Likes Given: 1332
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #292 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

Offline Ionmars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • North Carolina, USA
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 502
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #293 on: 12/04/2017 11:43 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?
Mars Pioneers will require our continued support.

Offline octavo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #294 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!

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8187
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4307
  • Likes Given: 1332
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #295 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.


Well, we sort did during Apollo... ;)
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
A glorified golf cart. :P Politely putting it. The polar opposite of any Tesla! ;)
It at least had a functional, operational purpose. In space.

Not true of the Tesla.
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.



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.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2017 12:03 PM by woods170 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8612
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2663
  • Likes Given: 6828
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #296 on: 12/04/2017 12:30 PM »
Can you imagine the final odometer reading on the Tesla... :o ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline CraigLieb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 849
  • Dallas Fort Worth
  • Liked: 778
  • Likes Given: 938
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #297 on: 12/04/2017 01:38 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.
Colonize Mars!

Offline zhangmdev

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #298 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.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2017 01:52 PM by zhangmdev »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2444
  • Liked: 393
  • Likes Given: 955
Re: Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion
« Reply #299 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.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2017 02:30 PM by Archibald »
... that ackward moment when you realize that Jeff Bezos personal fortune is far above NASA annual budget... 115 billion to 18 billion...

Tags: