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

    • I can name 10x that on why not to switch.... It's funny outlook/office are going towards web app wrappers, and then MS is now preaching native apps again.... ugh can we just pick a lane and stay in it
    • Absolutely NOBODY has suggested such a conclusion. I am affirming the sober reality check that AV2's overall market adoption will take longer than AV1's adoption rate -- which, by the way, is the whole point of the article! While PCI-SIG is productive (on paper), other WGs have created all sorts of confusing progress plans that consumers have tuned-out of their improvements... HTML/W3C, USB, HDMI, BT, WIFI (ieee802.11) as a few other groups where spec naming conventions, split progress paths, overlapping ambitions... I'm not critiquing the AV specs group; I'm simply affirming that adoption for AV2 faces headwinds beyond the macroeconomics of it all.
    • Segra 1.5.2 by Razvan Serea Segra is a free, open-source OBS-powered game recorder offering fast gameplay capture, instant clips, AI highlights, deep game integration, and seamless uploads—perfect for gamers, streamers, and content creators. Lightweight, fast, zero bloat. Segra key features: Automatic Game Recording: Begin capturing gameplay the moment your game launches, with zero manual setup. Instant Clipping: Save important moments instantly using a customizable hotkey—perfect for highlights, montages, or quick shares. Segra AI Highlights: Let Segra automatically detect kills, assists, deaths, and key events to generate polished highlight reels without manual editing. Gameplay Uploads: Upload recordings and clips directly to Segra.tv for fast sharing and cloud access. Deep Game Integration: Enjoy advanced game-data tracking across hundreds of supported titles, enabling smart highlight generation and stat-informed clipping. High-Performance Capture: Record up to 4K at 144 FPS using OBS-powered technology with minimal performance impact, supporting NVENC, AMD VCE, and custom quality controls. Segra Editor: Edit recordings easily with timeline controls, segment management, and event-based navigation to build the perfect clip. Customization Options: Adjust hotkeys, output formats, storage paths, codecs, capture quality, and performance settings for a tailored recording experience. Segra 1.5.2 changelog: Settings: Added an Airplane Mode that hides account, login, and upload features. Storage: Added a button to migrate videos into the recording path after changing it. Import: Added auto-scroll and a highlight pulse to videos right after importing. Recording: Added graceful handling of low disk space and output failures, finalizing files safely with clear errors. Recording: Added a guard blocking recording when any drive exceeds 99% full. OBS: Removed the download timeout to support users with slow internet. Clips: Fixed an error modal incorrectly appearing when clip creation was cancelled. Settings: Fixed the content folder path not refreshing in the UI after changes. Updates: Improved error handling for multiple simultaneous update checks. Stability: Fixed a WebSocket reconnect loop that ran while the window was backgrounded. Dependencies: Updated project dependencies. Maintenance: Removed dead code, reduced duplication, and fixed several latent bugs. Download: Segra 1.5.2 | 73.1 MB (Open Source) View: Segra Homepage | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • 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
      470
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      246
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      69
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!