A question that just occurred to me: I think that we're all in agreement that the initial orbit of the Tesla Roadster will take it nowhere near Mars due to a difference in alignment. Is there any likelihood of precession or orbital mechanics bringing the Roadster to Mars in less than 100 years?
I hoped I am mistaken but it seems the line of sight to 2 incoming boosters may ended a a mile above LZ-1 from Apollo/Saturn Center area since the VAB (500' high) is blocking and is ten times closer than LZ-1?
To reduce the perigee from Earth to Venus, the minimum delta-V solution would require a retrograde burn at apogee, ie more energy.
Nope, as the Tesla's orbital plane will not match Mars' orbital plane.(it *cannot* do so for a launch now, without also needing a mid-course plane changing maneuver)
Scooplet: Harrison Ford is heading down to Kennedy Space Center to view the #SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch next week. After all, it was named after his old ride.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/30/elon-musk-is-set-to-launch-his-falcon-heavy-rocket-a-flamethrower-of-another-sort/?utm_term=.636058d6f791Some factual inaccuracies in there and no mention of the difference in performance of SLS vs FH. But surprisingly fair for the source.
SpaceX has said that the Falcon Heavy would cost $90 million a launch, a fraction of what NASA’s more powerful Space Launch System would cost.
Since when has the Washington Post's coverage of SpaceX been bad? They usually do a pretty good job in my view.
One argument against the direct insertion.What capability SpaceX would like to demonstrate to customers ?Long coast.This is an upper stage feature (common to F9 and FH). So if SpaceX knows it can coast for 3 hours (just a guess), then why not demonstrate it ?I think people are too obsessed with the Roadster and Mars and missing the big picture.SpaceX is showing NASA, USAF, NRO, ... what the Falcon family of rockets can do. Its the first opportunity in a long time to show them off.I'm suggesting this from a strictly business/marking view, technically I have no idea how it would impact the launch window and resulting orbit.
Quote from: gongora on 01/30/2018 07:24 pmSince when has the Washington Post's coverage of SpaceX been bad? They usually do a pretty good job in my view.You are right. For some reason I was conflating WaPo with WSJ in my head.
Quote from: Basto on 01/30/2018 07:52 pmQuote from: gongora on 01/30/2018 07:24 pmSince when has the Washington Post's coverage of SpaceX been bad? They usually do a pretty good job in my view.You are right. For some reason I was conflating WaPo with WSJ in my head. I still have no idea of what WSJ IS.
Quote from: Kabloona on 01/30/2018 02:11 pmTo reduce the perigee from Earth to Venus, the minimum delta-V solution would require a retrograde burn at apogee, ie more energy.Not true. If your delta V was either directly towards the sun or away from it, the resulting heliocentric orbits would be very similar. In both cases a single burn would result in an orbit with higher than Earth apogee and a lower than Earth perigee.
They've already demonstrated the long coast. This launch is to demonstrate the tri-core design performs as modeled and makes it to orbit... anything else is gravy.
Oh. It looks like a Spaceport. Reminds me of these pictures.The difference is, of course, both these will fly.
Quote from: mike robel on 01/31/2018 01:22 am Oh. It looks like a Spaceport. Reminds me of these pictures.The difference is, of course, both these will fly.If we get lucky with scheduling, in the future could it be possible to get a picture with 4 vehicles all on their pads at once? SLS on LC-39B, F9/FH on LC-39A, Atlas 5/Vulcan on SLC-41, and F9 on SLC-40. Given SpaceX's planned high cadence and the lengthy amount of time SLS is likely to be on the pad prior to launch, the deciding factor may be ULA's schedule on SLC-41.
