Recommended Posts

Hopefully not stupid question time...

 

I found myself in a bit of a problem yesterday when someone was questioning why the Tesla and why not just something simple etc. Initially, I responded with well it had to be something Heavy, it's Falcon Heavy and it's designed for heavy lifting etc. I then realised, a Tesla actually isn't that heavy!

 

From some very quick google searches, it looks like a Tesla Roadster weighs in at around 2900lbs and a Falcon 9 can lift 18,000lbs to GTO so unless I'm misunderstanding something, Falcon 9 was quite capable of this mission. I believe the boosters were never really pushed to full throttle and I'm sure they would have had a fair amount more fuel in the tanks (if they were full at launch).

 

Was this a good test for Falcon Heavy? Should Elon have elected for something even heavier?

18 minutes ago, Skiver said:

Was this a good test for Falcon Heavy? Should Elon have elected for something even heavier?

they could have, but it was a test, would it have been worth risking it with something heavier? It was also going towards the mars orbit so that GTO figure isn't important, it'll be less than that. 

 

the tanks will have been full, I think the centre ran out of the chemical it uses to re-light the engines rather than the fuel itself.  

Just now, anthdci said:

they could have, but it was a test, would it have been worth risking it with something heavier? It was also going towards the mars orbit so that GTO figure isn't important, it'll be less than that. 

 

the tanks will have been full, I think the centre ran out of the chemical it uses to re-light the engines rather than the fuel itself.  

Oh yeah, I understand the centre core issue. I only referenced GTO as a reference to the details Space X publish - X lbs to LEO and Y lbs to GTO which takes more fuel, so in theory, by looking at GTO we're looking at its rough max intended specification.

 

I guess the problem is, if you were looking to throw your million dollar satellite(s) into orbit and required a heavy lifter, the Falcon Heavy has only proven it can fly, not actually lift a heavy load. I'd almost want it to do another test with a much heavier and representative load. I think Falcon Heavy has a rough planned launch for the US DoD in June? 

Not much mass is required. From the data they got vs their preflight projections they can model other masses.

 

As to why not launch a real payload - historically about 30-50% of maiden flight  launches fail, so why risk a $multi-million$ satellite?

 

Delta IV Heavy: wrong orbit

Ariane 5: exploded

Electron: telemetry failure

Falcon 1 failed 3 times before achieving orbit

Edited by DocM
4 minutes ago, DocM said:

Not much mass is required. From the data they got vs their preflight projections they can model other masses.

 

As to why not launch a real payload - historically about 30-50% of maiden flight  launches fail, so why risk a $multi-million$ satellite?

 

Delta IV Heavy: wrong orbit

Ariane 5: exploded

Electron: telemetry failure

etc.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely don't think they should have put a multi-million anything on there. Surely they could have just engineered a 20,000lbs block of something and used that. It wouldn't be as cool sure, but it would have been realistic of a test if they don't plan to do any more testing?

 

The problem with models is they aren't real, sure they can say on paper based on X we predict Y but as you say, a lot of early flights end with failure so I don't think Space X should rest on their laurels that this went near perfect and call it a job well done.

 

I guess another way of looking at this is, do Space X want their first commercial flight with a more realistic load to be the DoD? Given the number of contracts that can come their way by successful launches, I think I'd want to be a lot more sure that they can be from this test.

Whose payload would it be? Even with insurance risking your $300m bird on a new rocket at higher schedule risk, also risking losing that revenue stream until a reflight years later, is a good way to ###### off the shareholders.

 

14 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

That thing is zipping right along. :) As any sportscar should be.

 

Zipping along because FH delivered an insane amount of delta-V to it's backside.

 

From Australia,

 

~493,000 km, magnitude 16

 

http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=142537

 

Quote

Observation of 2018-017A (Tesla & Starman) using the remote telescope iT32 from Siding Spring (Q62). The craziest object I could capture so far with a telescope.

 

Raymond-Kneip-roadster_2018_017_A_20180208_1518152701.thumb.jpg.d68a1ef0c7438392e25c17d05d1bbd8e.jpg

Edited by DocM
  • Like 2
22 hours ago, Skiver said:

... a Falcon 9 can lift 18,000lbs to GTO so unless I'm misunderstanding something, Falcon 9 was quite capable of this mission.

The falcon 9 could have taken the car to GTO, but it did not just go to GTO it's orbit is going almost all the way to the asteroid belt.
So yes, the FH could have taken up a lot more, but it would not have gone as far.

Not sure if it might have been better, test wise, to load up as much weight as possible to test that capability, but this mission was surely much more interesting :-)

  • Like 3

The real test was the 6+ hour coast and restart for DoD. That's by necessity going to result in a loss of LOX due to boiloff, about 1/3 of what they started with, which limited how far they could toss the Tesla after restarting.  Doing the Mars insertion ASAP (larger props load) would have tossed it further.

  • Like 3

An educated guess would see SpaceX refining the S2 so that it mitigates the LOX boiloff issue. There are things SpaceX can do, but it would require a significant redesign of their S2 tankage and the plumbing hardware which could include adding a set of radiators, cryocoolers, insulators, etc ... 

 

See the problem? Anything and everything that SpaceX could do would add weight to the second stage -- weight that otherwise would be used to toss payloads

And why do that R&D when they have a MUCH more capable vehicle in the wings?

 

Launch BFS into LEO, send up a few tankers to refill it and preposition return props at the destination, and you could easily visit Jupiter's outer moons - safe from it's radiation belts. Extra points once SpaceX adds plasma propulsion to it (bet on it. )

  • Like 2

Yep. Look for FH to be a transitory vehicle, at best. And it's not really gonna be in service that long, either. BFS is going to completely overshadow it, and soon. As in "we could launch it this year on Heavy, or delay two years, give you a massive discount, and launch on BFS.". THAT is how soon BFS is going to be doing stuff. It's a SSTO platform in of itself, and it's gonna put OldSpace out of business if they don't change everything. :yes: 

On 10/02/2018 at 7:38 AM, SALSN said:

The falcon 9 could have taken the car to GTO, but it did not just go to GTO it's orbit is going almost all the way to the asteroid belt.
So yes, the FH could have taken up a lot more, but it would not have gone as far.

Not sure if it might have been better, test wise, to load up as much weight as possible to test that capability, but this mission was surely much more interesting :-)

Did Falcon Heavy take it much further than GTO? I thought Falcon Heavy took it to around GTO and then the second stage is responsible for the rest?

36 minutes ago, Skiver said:

Did Falcon Heavy take it much further than GTO? I thought Falcon Heavy took it to around GTO and then the second stage is responsible for the rest?

Ignore the car as a "capability" ... remember the FH is the entire stack (first/second stage).  FH can take 140K pounds to LEO, 58K pounds to GTO, 37K pounds to Mars and almost 8K pounds to Pluto.

 

But yea, on simpler terms, the first stage is responsible for the "heavy lift" ... punching it through the denser atmosphere while the second stage is responsible for insertion into whatever trajectory is needed (GTO, Mars, etc) .... plus whatever booster is on the payload.

17 hours ago, Jim K said:

Ignore the car as a "capability" ... remember the FH is the entire stack (first/second stage).  FH can take 140K pounds to LEO, 58K pounds to GTO, 37K pounds to Mars and almost 8K pounds to Pluto.

 

But yea, on simpler terms, the first stage is responsible for the "heavy lift" ... punching it through the denser atmosphere while the second stage is responsible for insertion into whatever trajectory is needed (GTO, Mars, etc) .... plus whatever booster is on the payload.

Silly me of course! The side boosters are classed as stage 1, the centre core is stage 2 with the (not sure if it has a name) last stage being the single Merlin engine that did the 6 hour coast and then final burn off to Mars/Ceres.

 

 

5 hours ago, Skiver said:

Silly me of course! The side boosters are classed as stage 1, the centre core is stage 2 with the (not sure if it has a name) last stage being the single Merlin engine that did the 6 hour coast and then final burn off to Mars/Ceres.

 

 

All the stages are part of the Falcon Heavy rocket, and as far as I can tell, only the upper stage (which I would call the second stage) reaches orbital velocity.
Of course it is similar, perhaps even entirely identical, to the F9 upper stage, but with the three cores beneath, it is the FH second stage :-)

FH's upper stage is different than previous upper stages, described as a "Frankenstage" because it has to fly heavier payloads and there's also the "Long Coast" mission kit for direct injection into geostationary orbits. 

 

The same is true of the center core - beefed up on the production line handle increased loads from heavier  payloads and the boosters. 

 

Some of these changes will carry over into the new Block 5 cores, but odds are there will still be "mission kits" added to Falcon Heavy center cores and upper stages.

  • Like 2
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft launches Godot Sample to streamline Xbox PC game development on the engine by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe Microsoft today announced a new endeavor that aims to make it simpler for Godot developers to get their products into the Xbox PC ecosystem. Dubbed the "XBOX Godot Sample," this is a new public reference for developers using the open-source engine. This is set to serve as an example of how Microsoft GDK, Xbox Services, and PlayFab can be integrated into their projects. The sample is available now on GitHub as a working example. This covers key features in gaming projects that developers may need to release their projects on Xbox PC, with everything from matchmaking and game sign-in to gamepad compatibility with Godot being covered. This release is being called the first step in giving Godot developers the tools to bring their games over to Xbox PC, with more changes to come based on feedback and issue reports. However, the company was clear that this is not related to bringing Godot projects to Xbox consoles. The engine's open development model stops it from accessing console SDKs due to the requirement of NDAs and legal contracts. Here's how it explained this Godot sample project's focus: This is a source-only sample, not a product. It's MIT-licensed at the wrapper layer; the GDK and PlayFab dependencies still require their own installs and license acceptance, consistent with our other XBOX samples. There is no set update cadence for support or maintenance. We’ll watch the repo, monitor issues, and iterate where it makes sense, but this isn't a commercial release. That said, we’re excited to hear your feedback and see any community PRs, as we evolve this together. This is the first step in bringing Godot for XBOX on PC. We plan to evolve it over time based on what the community tells us is most valuable. This sample is built specifically for XBOX on PC. It doesn’t include support for XBOX Series X|S or XBOX One. If you’re already building for XBOX Series X|S or XBOX One, please talk with your XBOX representative. If not, you can get started by signing up here. Game developers can find the XBOX Godot Sample by heading to GitHub over here. Documentation on how to get started with Godot for building an Xbox PC project can be seen here.
    • I don't understand the vision. Do people really want to buy a new computer from Dell with 6 browsers installed? We all keep asking for Microsoft to stop having so much junk on their OS, and adding a bunch of browsers seems to go against that. Ideally, we would just be asked what browser we want during OOBE but Google is just going to pay Dell a bunch of money to include Chrome. Additionally, would you want your phones to start including all the browsers too when you get them? The only thing I ever wanted was to be able to uninstall IE or edge and I believe you are now able to. I do agree that microsoft needs to chill with their "are you sure you don't want to try edge before you install chrome" ads when going to download chrome.
    • It is notable that around 70% of web browser users choose Google Chrome. However, it is puzzling why anyone on Windows would opt for Chrome when Microsoft Edge is often superior in many aspects and comes pre-installed. Edge collects less data, uses less RAM, and is more optimized for Windows as a native Microsoft product. While some may point to bloat in Edge, much of it can be removed with simple tools, requiring no more effort than installing Chrome. Meanwhile, Chrome reportedly downloads large amounts of AI data (4 GB) without explicit consent. I'm sure you Chrome users love that, or? Here is one example of a tool that doesn't even need to be installed to be able to use: https://github.com/TheBobPony/MSEdgeTweaker Although Microsoft’s aggressive promotion of Edge may be questionable, the browser’s current advantages make it a preferable choice over Chrome today, even if Chrome may have been better in the past.
    • JetBrains rolls out IntelliJ IDEA update with Markdown preview fixes and more by David Uzondu Image via JetBrains IntelliJ 2026.1.3 from JetBrains has landed, bringing several highly requested bug fixes that target common UI glitches and terminal rendering issues. If you run tmux inside the integrated terminal, the IDE no longer renders the cursor above the active line. The Markdown preview bug, which was fixed in this release, had annoyed developers for quite some time, as the preview pane failed to render images saved outside the project directory. Instead of displaying the actual image, the IDE simply showed a broken image icon, a problem that stuck around for two years before this update. Over on Windows, developers running WSL can now use wsl.exe to spin up their environments without losing terminal functionality. In previous builds, launching a terminal shell with something like wsl.exe -d ubuntu inside a Windows-based project broke both shell integration and active process detection. Other bug fixes in this release include: An issue where Gradle sync incorrectly reported success as a failure on WSL when using Gradle 9.5.0. A syntax highlighting bug that flagged valid Java for-loop initialization blocks with multiple statements as incorrect. A warning bug that triggered a false non-null local variable alert when using JSpecify annotations. A database generation bug that hid the option to use a DELETE statement instead of a TRUNCATE checkbox. A Kotlin highlighting failure where an assertion error in the Gradle redundant library inspection broke error highlighting. A UI bug where the ComboBox popup lacked a maximum height restriction. A Snowflake syntax error where DataGrip failed to support the "create temp" command. A Svelte syntax parsing failure that incorrectly flagged quotes inside inline expressions. A VCS repository manager deadlock that triggered thread pool exhaustion. A memory leak where the LazyTree component kept all previous versions of a tree in memory. IntelliJ 2026.1.3 is the third bug fix release for the IntelliJ 2026.1 series. The first one landed back in April with a fix for the WSL Python interpreter freeze, another fix for guest participants using Emmet abbreviations, and corrected WildFly server deployment errors.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      Asgardi earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Conversation Starter
      mobandz earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Apprentice
      fernan99 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • One Month Later
      nothanks earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      468
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      243
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      73
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!