SpaceX Falcon Heavy Launch Happening Now

It's almost enough to make me forgive Musk's Hyperloop idiocy.
 
When will he launch a hyper loop to mars?

If he really wants to make a statement, the next launch or so, put a Telsa into a free return trajectory around the room.
 
Should be news about the final 2nd stage burn by now. Anyone see any?
Musk tweeted it out:

Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt. https://twitter.com/SpaceX

Way past the orbit of Mars, according to the graphic with the tweet.
AMAZING!

Now I want to know how long the live video stream from the roadster will last. :)
 
Last edited:
The ginormous rockets landing in sync is simply amazing. It would have been amazing to see a trifecta and have all 3 engines land. Still always in awe of every launch and landing be it from Space-X or Blue, just seeing those huge rockets land where video/pictures do not do justice is simply awe inspiring. Talking the family through it all after watching it 10 times today, I was just as excited from the first time I saw.. haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Cheered in our office too actually. Elon has constantly been amazing. The doubt for him here is sometimes obnoxious. Good to see him once again proving the doubters wrong with actual fucking action.
 
the autolander tech is cool but i still have a hard time getting really excited for this since the Saturn V was conceived and put into production in a mere 7 years and has something like double or triple the power as the FH after you factor in all 3 stages, whereas the FH is still in testing for the last 13 years. We know what we're capable of, and this is not it.
 
the autolander tech is cool but i still have a hard time getting really excited for this since the Saturn V was conceived and put into production in a mere 7 years and has something like double or triple the power as the FH after you factor in all 3 stages, whereas the FH is still in testing for the last 13 years. We know what we're capable of, and this is not it.
Some of the fuel is reserved for landing. That means less can be used for exit and more weight to lift off the ground. Apparently the cost savings is worth the time and cost of development for a private company.
 
Some of the fuel is reserved for landing. That means less can be used for exit and more weight to lift off the ground. Apparently the cost savings is worth the time and cost of development for a private company.
yeah i get it, FH has a different mission. Falcon rockets are multi-purpose cheap ways to throw a satellite into space. Saturn was a single purpose single use rocket to put a man on the moon. But it's like, the FH doesnt do anything we couldnt do before. It costs 1/5th of a shuttle launch and carries twice the payload, but that doesnt mean it's doing anything new. If we wanted we could get the same hardware into orbit with an overpriced shuttle. The FH is not going to get us to the moon, mars, or anything beyond. It's just a cheap alternative to existing technology.

The FH is a 2 stage rocket isnt it? Furthermore isnt it really just 3 Falcon 9's strapped together? The 3rd stage of the SaturnV alone delivered 33% more power. Also the Saturn had 5 primary rocket engines whereas the Falcon has something like 30. It takes the FH 30 engines to do what the Saturn could do with 5. The soviets ran into similar design problems during the space race that ultimately cost them the win. They simply could not develop an engine as powerful as the Saturn F1, so they resorted to lots of smaller engines to get the same thrust. It's just less elegant.
 
Last edited:
yeah i get it, FH has a different mission. Falcon rockets are multi-purpose cheap ways to throw a satellite into space. Saturn was a single purpose single use rocket to put a man on the moon. But it's like, the FH doesnt do anything we couldnt do before. It costs 1/5th of a shuttle launch and carries twice the payload, but that doesnt mean it's doing anything new. If we wanted we could get the same hardware into orbit with an overpriced shuttle. The FH is not going to get us to the moon, mars, or anything beyond. It's just a cheap alternative to existing technology.

The FH is a 2 stage rocket isnt it? Furthermore isnt it really just 3 Falcon 9's strapped together? The 3rd stage of the SaturnV alone delivered 33% more power. Also the Saturn had 5 primary rocket engines whereas the Falcon has something like 30. It takes the FH 30 engines to do what the Saturn could do with 5. The soviets ran into similar design problems during the space race that ultimately cost them the win. They simply could not develop an engine as powerful as the Saturn F1, so they resorted to lots of smaller engines to get the same thrust. It's just less elegant.
While it often does, elegant does not always mean efficient. We're not in a race anymore, so there's no reason to waste money and resources throwing things into space and hoping it all works out. We have computers capable of completing complex calculations and accurate simulations, we just need to tackle one or two hurdles at a time, not all of them. This flight in particular proved that they are capable of launching and recovering multiple-staged rockets, and revealed a deficiency in the fuel delivery or storage which will likely be addressed in future tests (hopefully increasing the success rate).

Also, apparently they had more power than they needed for this mission, so if they fine-tuned their control system and calculations, they could easily get to the moon with fuel to spare. They may not be able to land with the current configuration, but with a different config and payload it could be done.
 
Last edited:
Why can't they creep up, or slit into smaller steps, the burn process, calculating trajectories on the way until they see it reaches their target?
 
yeah i get it, FH has a different mission. Falcon rockets are multi-purpose cheap ways to throw a satellite into space. Saturn was a single purpose single use rocket to put a man on the moon. But it's like, the FH doesnt do anything we couldnt do before. It costs 1/5th of a shuttle launch and carries twice the payload, but that doesnt mean it's doing anything new. If we wanted we could get the same hardware into orbit with an overpriced shuttle. The FH is not going to get us to the moon, mars, or anything beyond. It's just a cheap alternative to existing technology.

The FH is a 2 stage rocket isnt it? Furthermore isnt it really just 3 Falcon 9's strapped together? The 3rd stage of the SaturnV alone delivered 33% more power. Also the Saturn had 5 primary rocket engines whereas the Falcon has something like 30. It takes the FH 30 engines to do what the Saturn could do with 5. The soviets ran into similar design problems during the space race that ultimately cost them the win. They simply could not develop an engine as powerful as the Saturn F1, so they resorted to lots of smaller engines to get the same thrust. It's just less elegant.

Saturn V rocket was ungodly expensive to launch, NASA had a massive budget at the time and they needed every dollar for it. Secondly the Saturn V rocket plans were destroyed to keep enemies of the state from ever getting a hold of that tech. Could we build the Saturn V again, sure but why would you when the cost to launch it is beyond expensive. Being able to reuse the engines is the big deal with the Falcons, it massively lowers the cost to launch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Why can't they creep up, or slit into smaller steps, the burn process, calculating trajectories on the way until they see it reaches their target?
They could, but at the distances we're talking about, a small correction can result in several miles difference in trajectory, so it's best to get as close as possible with your first burn and get yourself lined up as early as possible, then leave everything alone as long as you are still in the ballpark. These big engines are also less efficient as you throttle down, so the less time you spend between 0% and 100%, the better.
 
It costs 1/5th of a shuttle launch and carries twice the payload

That's what's new. The name of the game is COST. Getting more done with less is the only way there will be any significant progress with space programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Sending up a 747's mass worth of a space station means you could either send up something of similar size for much less cost, or something MUCH larger for the same price. I want to see moon mining and colonization. I want to see asteroid capture. I want to see permanent space ships not meant for re-entry, but designed to fly from orbit to orbit be assembled up there.

I WANT!
 
It's almost enough to make me forgive Musk's Hyperloop idiocy.

... umm the hyperloop will be built and will be used into the future (hint it's a modern version of bullet trains)

Lines are already being planed and test infrustructure has been built and testing is under way.
 
Proof the private sector can do amazing things. Government just gets in the way.

Hint: The government contracts out to the private sector and the private sector has learned how to milk the government for all it's worth (i've seen it first hand)

Then again SpaceX is partially funded by the government and would not exist without it so there's that side to.

Stinks when there's gray instead of black and white.

P.S. Another difficulty for government is the inability to fail. SpaceX had many failures and if tax payers saw their tax money was being 'wasted' there'd be hell to pay for the elected officials. Lucky for us, innovators know failure is all a part of the process.
 
Last edited:
Hint: The government contracts out to the private sector and the private sector has learned how to milk the government for all it's worth (i've seen it first hand)

Then again SpaceX is partially funded by the government and would not exist without it so there's that side to.

Stinks when there's gray instead of black and white.

P.S. Another difficulty for government is the inability to fail. SpaceX had many failures and if tax payers saw their tax money was being 'wasted' there'd be hell to pay for the elected officials. Lucky for us, innovators know failure is all a part of the process.
Just wrong. SpaceX is NOT partially "funded" by the government anymore than Verizon is partially "funded" by me. The US Government is a customer of SpaceX, and also a landlord (SpaceX leases the launch pads). Every dollar the government pays to SpaceX is to purchase a product and/or service. SpaceX has received more income from private companies than the government, and would exist without the government contracts. Elon's goal has always been to privatize access to space and colonize Mars with or without any help from the government.
 
Being able to reuse the engines is the big deal with the Falcons, it massively lowers the cost to launch.

NASA has been re-using engines for decades but we know that did little to drive down costs. SpaceX engine development for the Merlin borrowed heavily from the Apollo program, which is great, but a lot of the development costs for architecture were borne out by US taxpayers, many long since dead. The true cost savings will be in refurbish time, because the Merlin is designed for overhaul and is a far less complex design, whereas the SSME was designed for maximum ISP.
 
Why can't they creep up, or slit into smaller steps, the burn process, calculating trajectories on the way until they see it reaches their target?
Because they didn't actually care.

There was no real target. No, "we have to be at this place, at this time." They just needed the PR bragging rights of having the payload go at least a certain distance, in order to prove that they could send it that far.

And they delivered, in spades.
 
NASA has been re-using engines for decades but we know that did little to drive down costs. SpaceX engine development for the Merlin borrowed heavily from the Apollo program, which is great, but a lot of the development costs for architecture were borne out by US taxpayers, many long since dead. The true cost savings will be in refurbish time, because the Merlin is designed for overhaul and is a far less complex design, whereas the SSME was designed for maximum ISP.
Um, no. SpaceX did not "borrow heavily" from the Apollo program (which I am guessing you mean the Saturn V rocket). The designs for those engines were lost/destroyed. Also, the Saturn V was a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engine while the Merlin is a kerosene/liquid oxygen burner. Also the combustion chamber, turbo pumps, and control electronics are all different. In principle the Merlin engines are similar to the Saturn V's F-1 engines, and every other liquid rocket engine ever flown. But it is good to see that all the public money that was spent on Apollo is continuing to bear fruit in the private markets, just like computers, cell phones, and many of the other marvels of our technological society.
 
Just wrong. SpaceX is NOT partially "funded" by the government anymore than Verizon is partially "funded" by me. The US Government is a customer of SpaceX, and also a landlord (SpaceX leases the launch pads). Every dollar the government pays to SpaceX is to purchase a product and/or service. SpaceX has received more income from private companies than the government, and would exist without the government contracts. Elon's goal has always been to privatize access to space and colonize Mars with or without any help from the government.

Please understand I am fully behnd SpaceX and I want the government to give it more money. To make sure you know though, from the beginning NASA has been a big funder of SpaceX (hint NASA is the government, so the government has funded SpaceX)

For the first 10 years, $500 million of the 1 billion SpaceX's capital came from a NASA contract. SpaceX would not exist today w/o the US government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Funding
 
I take it all back, if we ever intend to land a man on mars we need a reusable rocket and thats what SpaceX has been developing from day 1. So the marvel isnt the power it's the tech.
 
Um, no. SpaceX did not "borrow heavily" from the Apollo program (which I am guessing you mean the Saturn V rocket). The designs for those engines were lost/destroyed. Also, the Saturn V was a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engine while the Merlin is a kerosene/liquid oxygen burner. Also the combustion chamber, turbo pumps, and control electronics are all different. In principle the Merlin engines are similar to the Saturn V's F-1 engines, and every other liquid rocket engine ever flown. But it is good to see that all the public money that was spent on Apollo is continuing to bear fruit in the private markets, just like computers, cell phones, and many of the other marvels of our technological society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)

"The injector at the heart of Merlin is of the pintle type that was first used in the Apollo program for the lunar module landing engine (LMDE)."

Just saying
 
Just wrong. SpaceX is NOT partially "funded" by the government anymore than Verizon is partially "funded" by me. The US Government is a customer of SpaceX, and also a landlord (SpaceX leases the launch pads). Every dollar the government pays to SpaceX is to purchase a product and/or service. SpaceX has received more income from private companies than the government, and would exist without the government contracts. Elon's goal has always been to privatize access to space and colonize Mars with or without any help from the government.

And SpaceX certainly isn't run like the government, certainly not our current government. When you see SpaceX employees interviewed it's very apparent how re genuinely excited and proud they are to be working there, to have a leader they're inspired by and believe in - one that genuinely seems more interested in tech-human advancement than mere self enrichment.

Love this guy.

upload_2018-2-7_13-3-35.png
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)

"The injector at the heart of Merlin is of the pintle type that was first used in the Apollo program for the lunar module landing engine (LMDE)."

Just saying

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

"For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest filing date as above (excluding provisional applications) or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. "

Just saying
 
Please understand I am fully behnd SpaceX and I want the government to give it more money. To make sure you know though, from the beginning NASA has been a big funder of SpaceX (hint NASA is the government, so the government has funded SpaceX)

For the first 10 years, $500 million of the 1 billion SpaceX's capital came from a NASA contract. SpaceX would not exist today w/o the US government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Funding
And what exactly did NASA get for that "contract"? They got cargo service to the ISS at a much lower cost than they could have done themselves. That contract was for the Dragon capsule which is only needed by NASA, so yeah, of course they had to pay SpaceX to design, test, and build the thing for them. All the development costs for the Merlin engines and the Falcon 9 rocket were covered by SpaceX. Look, you can believe all you want that had NASA not contracted with SpaceX for cargo delivery to the ISS, that SpaceX would have failed, but that's just speculation on your part since history did not unfold that way, and I am free to disagree with your speculation. The fact is, we'll never know for sure. The important part is that SpaceX did succeed and in spectacular fashion; no need to piss on Elon's shoes.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)

"The injector at the heart of Merlin is of the pintle type that was first used in the Apollo program for the lunar module landing engine (LMDE)."

Just saying
You call that borrowing heavily because they used the same type of pintle? Pfffttt. I'm sure they used the same type of wiring as well, and lots of other things that are now considered standard. So what? Almost everything new is built on top of existing technology.
 
Back
Top