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

    • Weirldy, in Texas the age of consent is 17, not 18.
    • DXVK generally performs better on Linux (using Wine/Proton) than on Windows. Because Linux utilizes highly optimized, open-source Vulkan drivers (like RADV/ACO) that were specifically built for AMD Radeon hardware, the translation of Direct3D 9/11 to Vulkan is highly efficient. But if you take the trouble to watch my video, you can see that there are also advantages for Nvidia users. You see that I run Assassin's Creed Odyssey on 4GB RAM and on an i3-3240. What do you think are the minimum system requirements for windows11? For CPU-based rendering, Linux is generally faster than windows11 by about 15% due to lighter background overhead and efficient kernel scheduling.
    • NetSpeedTray 1.3.2 by Razvan Serea NetSpeedTray is a lightweight, open-source Windows network monitor that shows live upload and download speeds directly on the Taskbar. Designed for efficiency, it quietly sits in the system tray, conserving CPU and battery with dynamic updates. It blends seamlessly with Windows 10/11, adapts to light/dark themes, and auto-positions to avoid overlaps. Features include accurate interface detection, customizable display, optional mini-graph, color coding, granular font and unit control, detailed per-interface history graphs, safe data management, and easy CSV export—bringing the network monitoring Windows forgot. NetSpeedTray key features: Lightweight & Efficient Runs quietly in your system tray without consuming resources. Features a "Dynamic Update Rate" that lowers refresh frequency when the network is idle to save CPU and battery life. Native Look & Feel Blends seamlessly with Windows 10/11 UI. Smart detection for light and dark taskbar themes ensures text is always visible. Intelligent & Adaptive Positioning Automatically finds empty space next to your system tray and shifts to make room for new icons, preventing overlaps. Seamless OS Integration Behaves like a native Windows component. Hides instantly with auto-hiding taskbar Hides when a fullscreen app is active Smart Network Monitoring Accurate by Default: Auto mode identifies your main internet connection and ignores noise from VPNs or virtual adapters. Easy Interface Selection: Switch effortlessly between Auto, All, or Selected network interfaces via intuitive radio buttons. Total Visual Customization Free Move Mode: Unlock and place the widget anywhere on your screen. Optional Mini-Graph: Real-time graph of recent network activity with adjustable opacity. Color Coding: Customize colors and speed thresholds to quickly see network status. Granular Display Control Text & Font: Adjust font family, size, weight, and alignment. Units: Automatic (B/s, KB/s, MB/s) or fixed Mbps display. Precision: Set decimal places and always show them for uniform appearance. Detailed & Intelligent History Graph Smart Scale: Logarithmic scale shows low-level traffic and large spikes clearly. Per-Interface Filtering: View speed history for specific adapters (Wi-Fi, Ethernet, VPN). Safe & Efficient Data Management: Adjustable retention, automatic cleanup, optimized database. Easy Data Export: Export raw data to .csv or save high-quality graphs for reports. NetSpeedTray v1.3.2: Smaller, Lighter, Better Multi-Monitor NetSpeedTray v1.3.2 focuses on being smaller, lighter, and more reliable, with major memory savings, better multi-monitor support, stronger privacy protections, and easier troubleshooting. Changes 24% smaller installer (106 → 81 MB) 28% smaller portable ZIP (127 → 91 MB) 45–70% lower idle RAM usage (~135 MB → ~40–75 MB) Preferred Monitor setting for multi-monitor setups (#72) Export Support Bundle for one-click bug-report packaging Live Windows Light/Dark theme detection (#62) Lazy loading of matplotlib & numpy for faster, lighter startup Improved multi-monitor widget position restore after reboot (#133) Windows 10/11 stylesheet and font compatibility fixes (#149) Support Bundle includes sanitized logs, config, and system info PII obfuscator hardened to cover IPv6, MACs, hostnames, GUIDs, and paths (#141) Unified log redaction across file and console logging Better diagnostic logging included by default in support bundles Korean translation improvements and updated translator credits (#139) Test suite expanded from 146 → 191 passing tests (+45) [full release notes] Download: NetSpeedTray 1.3.2 | 81.6 MB (Open Source) Download: NetSpeedTray Portable | 91.1 MB View: NetSpeedTray Home Page | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Reluctantly..bs. In this day and age(pun intended) information is more valuable then apps; big tech worked with the GOP and in dem states like California to add this crap so they can agro better marketing data.
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      jefred earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      473
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      232
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      69
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      59
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!