Space - The Final Frontier

[JoeWras]

Whatever lipstick they are putting on the "core crash" pig is pretty awesome, because somehow that got out as "It was OK, expected."

No way. Something went wrong. But that still doesn't kill the mission. I still call this a success, and I'm a pretty harsh Musk critic.

... "It is not a bug, it is a feature" ... Right.

 

[Chuckanut]

Interestingly the center core is not just another Falcon 9 rocket. Since it takes most of the launch stress it is custom built for the Falcon Heavy. Lots of design changes from the standard F9, and therefore not as predictable as the two outer rockets - which were used, err... flight tested boosters. No doubt they will figure it out. After all it was a test launch.

 

[Cessna152]

Interestingly the center core is not just another Falcon 9 rocket. Since it takes most of the launch stress it is custom built for the Falcon Heavy. Lots of design changes from the standard F9, and therefore not as predictable as the two outer rockets - which were used, err... flight tested boosters. No doubt they will figure it out. After all it was a test launch.

There's a wikipedia entry on the Falcon Heavy test flight:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy_Test_Flight

 

[Oma_here]

The Tesla Roadster is off course ladies and gentlemen heading for an asteroid belt.

Ground control to major Tom...

 

[Major Tom]

Ground control to major Tom...

Yes, yes, I've done all that stuff with the protein pills and the helmet. What do you want?

 

[MuirWannabe]

Yes, yes, I've done all that stuff with the protein pills and the helmet. What do you want?

Lol. Could you please go float in a most peculiar way

 

[Major Tom]

Lol. Could you please go float in a most peculiar way

Well, that's just about the nicest way I've seen of telling a feller to clear off

 

[Chuckanut]

Here's video of Elon Musk just before FH is launched and shortly after the launch. What is interesting is how his demeanor changes as the rocket moves from not blowing up on the launch pad (a success from Musk's previous comments) and starts looking far more successful than he anticipated.

https://video.nationalgeographic.co...usk-falcon-heavy-launch-behind-scenes-vin-spd

 

[NW-Bound]

My brother was an Apollo era scientist who retired from NASA after 42 years at the Houston Spacecraft Center.

Many years ago I asked him why we never went back to the moon and he said it was "political" and the main interest at the time was "lower space" [space shuttle and space station.]

.

Some years ago, I read that we stopped going to the Moon because there was nothing to do there. The reason for the Apollo program was to beat the Russians, and once that was achieved to boost the nation's spirit, it was a dead end.

It's like climbing Mt. Everest. It's very difficult but once you are on top, you take some photos, then go down.

 

[rocketjockey]

The Tesla Roadster is off course ladies and gentlemen heading for an asteroid belt.

Ground control to major Tom...

SpaceX haters were too quick to look for faults....

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/08/starman-puts-earth-in-the-rearview-mirror/

Relevant quote if not reading it all
"Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a noted space analyst, said the new data show the Tesla is, in fact, in a solar orbit with a high point just beyond Mars, as initially predicted by SpaceX, and not on a long drive deep into the asteroid belt."

 

[Chuckanut]

I think some of the 'experts' in the other Aerospace companies wisely decided that this time it's best to either remain silent or send polite congratulations.

When SpaceX landed their first booster, I remember a lot of critics who played down the achievement, some even claiming they could match SpaceX costs with disposable rockets. Another is going to parachute the engines back to Earth for re-use. So far none of them have shown they can successfully do what they claim. Heck, the traditional companies can't even match [-]Amazon's[/-] Blue Origin's 'pop-gun' rocket that just goes up and down. Time will tell.

Whenever I read critics blasting somebody who tried something difficult and failed - partly or entirely - I am reminded of this quote from TR:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

 

[CaptTom]

SpaceX haters were too quick to look for faults....

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/08/starman-puts-earth-in-the-rearview-mirror/

Thanks for the link. My favorite comment (and in keeping with the RE theme):

Imagine the standard business mileage deduction for the remainder of 2018...

 

[Chuckanut]

Here's an interesting article in Ars Technica about the Falcon Heavy, launch costs and how this might rocket will shake things up (in the author's opinion, of course):

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...velopment-could-buy-86-falcon-heavy-launches/

I was particularly hit by the cost comparison with the SLS being developed by NASA - another 2.7 Billion dollars a year over at least three more years. That would buy an awful lot of Falcon Heavy rockets.

That $7.8 billion equates to 86 launches of the reusable Falcon Heavy or 52 of the expendable version. This provides up to 3,000 tons of lift—the equivalent of eight International Space Stations or one heck of a Moon base.

Just a side note, the SLS uses solid fuel boosters along with liquid fueled main engines. I thought solids were a big negative for manned launches since in the event of a problem, they can't be shut off.

The cost advantage of FH over the Delta IV is also huge:

Put another way, the Department of Defense may have to pay half a billion dollars more for a single launch of certain military satellites on the Delta IV Heavy versus the Falcon Heavy.

The Air Force will have to balance its desire for mission success—some payloads are worth $1 billion or more—with the costs of launch. The balance may tip fairly soon in favor of cost.

A half billion a launch is a lot of insurance money. This assumes the Delta IV is more reliable. It's flown eight times with only one failure - it occurred on the initial flight.

The Europeans have also taken notice:

Europe should consider investing significantly in new and modern approaches toward spaceflight.

One wonders if this may be a case of 'build it and they will come'. That is if the FH drastically reduces the cost of launching heavy things into space, then maybe some previously un-affordable ideas may suddenly become affordable. Who knows?

 

[kgtest]

I think Musk's vision has always been to move industry to space. He wanted a re-usable model to send his lego parts up there like the space station. And he wanted to do it in a de-regulated manner after the Russians pissed him off and insulted him with a high-priced rehabbed rocket deal.

The guy is just ambitious as all hell. A true visionary for our time and IMHO we need more like him. I remember when I was pondering buying some SolarCity stock...Musk sooon-after decided to buy the whole damn company.

 

[rocketjockey]

I think Musk's vision has always been to move industry to space.

Musk's vision (at least for the SpaceX part) has always been to colonize Mars. Falcon Heavy is just a stepping stone to the BFR. All these current launches are just to get the money to pump it right back around into R&D. Customers are a necessary fundraising evil to him. One of the main reasons he refuses to go public with the company. People would start demanding he show a profit instead of continuous ginormous R&D expense.

 

[rocketjockey]

Just a side note, the SLS uses solid fuel boosters along with liquid fueled main engines. I thought solids were a big negative for manned launches since in the event of a problem, they can't be shut off.


One wonders if this may be a case of 'build it and they will come'. That is if the FH drastically reduces the cost of launching heavy things into space, then maybe some previously un-affordable ideas may suddenly become affordable. Who knows?

1) Shuttle flew solid boosters. Can't be turned off but can be jettisoned.

2) One of the tenets of SpaceX is lowering launch costs, exactly as you guessed. When the price drops by orders of magnitude, suddenly lots of other cool ideas become feasible. Not just for SpaceX competitive advantage, but to benefit everyone.

 

[kgtest]

I am waiting to see what becomes of breakthrough star shot . This involves sending nano craft 20% of the speed of light to Alpha Centauri. A one way trip would take 20 years. Quite recently some astronomers and scientists have grown increasingly curious about a Earth like planet orbiting around the system. I have no idea how communication would be possible over such vast distances . Assuming one of the many nano craft sent makes it to the star system some 4.37 light years away, the distance is beyond my understanding. Does anyone have an update as far as progress is going regarding breakthrough star shot? It would be fascinating to know what secrets the Alpha Centauri star system holds. I am 47, I may never see such a fascinating discovery. Edit to add: I read that the first launch isn't expected until 2036.

One would think you would need to setup a series if repeaters like a fishing line in space to phone home. At this pace i would be 74 before the first phone home of any relative habitable or inhabitable yes/no we can life here and or their is life message is even sent.

 

[kgtest]

Musk's vision (at least for the SpaceX part) has always been to colonize Mars. Falcon Heavy is just a stepping stone to the BFR. All these current launches are just to get the money to pump it right back around into R&D. Customers are a necessary fundraising evil to him. One of the main reasons he refuses to go public with the company. People would start demanding he show a profit instead of continuous ginormous R&D expense.

Ahh was confusing Bezos

 

[CaptTom]

The Air Force will have to balance its desire for mission success—some payloads are worth $1 billion or more—with the costs of launch. The balance may tip fairly soon in favor of cost.

Just a thought, not sure if this is even feasible:

What if, when designing and building a satellite, they simply made twice as many of each part, and built two of them. One spare.

That way, if the first one blows up on launch, they don't have to start over.

I assume only a small portion of the $1B is for materials. Designing, testing, tooling and manufacturing each part probably consume the lion's share of the costs.

 

[rocketjockey]

So when the primary spacecraft launches successfully, which greater than 95% do, what do you do with the very expensive spare you built?

 

[braumeister]

So when the primary spacecraft launches successfully, which greater than 95% do, what do you do with the very expensive spare you built?

Especially since it will probably be obsolete by the time the next one needs to be launched.

 

[CaptTom]

So when the primary spacecraft launches successfully, which greater than 95% do, what do you do with the very expensive spare you built?

Well, it's more useful than the insurance money they would have spent. They can donate it to a museum. For all I know some parts might even be somewhat standardized between missions.

And they wouldn't have to build the whole thing, just the unique and expensive items, or those which require a long lead time to obtain.

I don't know if it's practical or not, just that it might be a better alternative than paying a huge insurance bill and taking the risk that they may have to start over from scratch, or abandon the program altogether.

 

[TromboneAl]

Anyone bothered by the headlines that say "... Blasting David Bowie's 'Space Oddity'"?

There's no air. There's no sound.

 

[Chuckanut]

So when the primary spacecraft launches successfully, which greater than 95% do, what do you do with the very expensive spare you built?

Assembling and testing the thing must be a huge expense. After all, it's not like they can send a repairman to fix it any time soon. IIRC, fixing the Hubble telescope was a major undertaking with quite a bit of additional risk due to the altitude the Shuttle had to reach and the danger of debris damaging the Shuttle.

Hubble's orbit won't allow Atlantis to reach the safe haven of the space station if a debris strike proves too serious to patch.

 

[ERD50]

Anyone bothered by the headlines that say "... Blasting David Bowie's 'Space Oddity'"?

There's no air. There's no sound.

Well, the speaker cones would still be moving - does that count as 'blasting'?

And if there is no one there to hear it, does it matter? It's kind of the space-age version of "if a tree fell in the forest...".

-ERD50