Science Falcon Heavy Launch Discussion - A big fucking rocket, but not the Big Fucking Rocket

In about 24 hours, SpaceX will launch what will be the most powerful American rocket since the retirement of Saturn V. 27 engines, 5 million pounds of thrust, and a Tesla roadster blasting David Bowie's Space Oddity as payload.

Here's a Verge article, but I'll tl;dr it and cover anything they didn't.

FAQ

why is there a car on the rocket
elon musk is autistic

isn't this just three falcon 9s glued together
yes

is this the most engines ever on a rocket
no, but the only rocket with more exploded

space is dumb
your feedback has been recorded

Falcon Heavy will have the same payload as an Atlas V in a fully reusable configuration (all cores return), 20% more payload than a Delta V Heavy in a fully expendable configuration (nothing returns), and an unknown middle-ground payload in a semi-expended configuration (one core spent, two return). It uses the same fly-back mission architecture as Falcon 9, and will be made from "block v" Falcons designed for 10 flights between refits and 100 flights on each airframe. And rockets flying backwards looks fucking cool.

Most of the interest in Falcon Heavy right now comes from using it instead of Delta or SLS for deep space probes to distant moons like Europa, and it will return the ability for America to fly men to the moon (one such flyby is planned for late 2018 / 2019 by two Russian tourists). It will also be able to launch heavy payloads to high orbits, and is being entered in the EELV competition for US National Recon Office spy satellite launches.

Falcon Heavy is the steppingstone in SpaceX's business plan to the Big Fucking Rocket, which is their next project. The BFR will enable manned missions to Mars with dozens of passengers, including colonial missions.

 

[TS 298]

Elon Musk literally described Wozniak as a fake nerd after he opted to buy a Merc because he got sick of waiting for a Tesla.

"I received an email from Elon Musk that said, 'You're not a real Silicon Valley boy.'"

Every single time something goes wrong, he goes on twitter and spergs about something huge and stupid and exciting.The few Model 3's on the road are either falling apart, attacking other cars or held together by cable ties. Manual assembly in the year of our Lord 2018? Fucking lunacy. Major OEMs call Tesla their worst client, "by a wide margin." His response to all this? Hit the tweet machine and yell about flamethrowers. The man's a thin-skinned idiot in many ways, but he certainly knows his audience. He's been lucky so far that the actual petrolheads who can afford the cars (and actually have them because of the fucking delays) are the minority and just get ignored.

*rates self :autism:*

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

So when it's applied to a scam artist who isn't making things as good as the 60s made, what cutting edge or what expanding do you see?

This is like giving me personally 400 billion dollars to make a model T ford.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying, it's from a snake oils salesman who's not coming up with anything new or better than what we had. The only benefit is reduced costs for either governments or mega corps who don't pass the savings on. So how is this good? It's a rare case of literally just the rich getting richer.

When you get your cell phone bill reduced, maybe I'll listen. The reality is even if I had Bill Gates money, what good does this do me? I can't just throw up satellites due to UN laws and all. So it's not a boost to people wanting to grow or expand the market all due to regulation.

Well, first of all: You might call Elon Musk a snakeoil salesman or a scammer, but that's kind of the person you need in such a position from time to time. You need someone that gets people invested and interested in this kind of shit. In case you're wondering why: The Sentinel Mission is being financed via public fundraising, like a ton of other projects.

But be that as it may...
While the payload of the Falcon Heavy might not be as big as that of the Satrun V there is one thing you obviously overlook (well, apart from a shitton of technological aspects):
While the Saturn V could launch a lot more weight into orbit, the kind of payload was limited to precisely one thing: The Apollo spacecraft.
The Falcon Heavy is now going to lift a fucking sportscar into orbit, which is obviously a marketing stunt but you know what else it is? A sign that it doesn't matter what you strap on top of that thing.
And it does so while being almost fully reusable - with the option of ditching that aspect in order to increase performance by 20%.
The fueltanks are, if I'm not mistaken, fortified with Carbonfiber to make them lighter and more sturdy, which is a new technology.
The whole design doesn't use explosive bolts and instead uses a completely new pneumatic system that is unique to SpaceX.
But please, do tell me again how that is not "as good as the 60s". Guess I just missed all the Saturn V Stages landing in Cape Canaveral...

Another thing that you seem to completely overlook even though you've said it yourself. We had the Saturn V. Past Tense. We don't have it any longer and never again will we have that marvel of technology - it has become impossible to rebuilt due to NASA losing the original plans to build the engines.

We regain the ability to send people to the Moon -and- it puts Mars within our range.
Don't get me wrong but with your attitude we'd never gain the ability to reach for Mars or Venus with manned missions since, obviously, hitting a stepping stone in between what we have now and what we might have later is apparently a bad thing if it's a milestone that we had been at before.
I just don't understand that attitude at all.

The reality is even if I had Bill Gates money, what good does this do me?

This is like Nick Bate going "What good is clean tap water and dental products? I don't brush my teeth anyway."

Yes, while it's true that the space race did generate a lot of technical advancements, it certainly didn't do it cost effectively. Look, we don't need to set a big pile of government cash on fire to generate innovation. We already do generate innovation through the private sector.

Well, it was called a space race for a reason. When you try to get results quicker than your competition you can either throw money at whatever it is you're doing like NASA (and have your costs explode) or try to eyeball it like the SU (and have your rockets explode).
The point is: "Slow and steady wins the race" was not an option and goverments are hilariously bad at managing such projects financially. But it was a huge driving force in the beginning and I sincerely doubt that without the pioneer work of NASA and the Soviet Union, we'd have seen the kinds of leaps that did happen - even if they had been cost inefficient as all hell compared to anything the private sector would do.
Which is exactly why it's a good thing that the private sector is now taking over - they have to be efficient, or otherwise their competition will eat them alive. [edit:] And besides... there now is a competition. [/edit]
They're also more willing to use new technology. NASA prefers to use tested, reliable systems and doesn't like to experiment too much. If I'm not mistaken, they still use surpluss rocket engines the SU build several decades ago and the less we speak about the computer systems and OS on the ISS the better. So, while there are some materials and technologies that we get through their research, it can take forever for that shit to go from "planned" over "built a prototype" to "widely used" when it comes to NASA.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

And we have a liftoff.
Vehicle just went super sonic 60 seconds after launch.

Edit 1: Sideboosters detached without a problem.
Edit 2: It just started blarring David Bowie and deployed the fairing. The Tesla is now on course for geostationary orbit, where it will loiter for 6 hours before accelerating towards an orbit that will intersect Mars orbit for roughly the next billion years.
Edit 3: Sideboosters landed successfully at the same time. Core is going to land on the barge soon.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Watching on TV. This is some epic shit.

DON'T PANIC is a nice touch.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

Seriously... watching those two boosters land within seconds of one another was ... quite amazing.

 

[Marvin]

Well, it was called a space race for a reason. When you try to get results quicker than your competition you can either throw money at whatever it is you're doing like NASA (and have your costs explode) or try to eyeball it like the SU (and have your rockets explode).
The point is: "Slow and steady wins the race" was not an option and goverments are hilariously bad at managing such projects financially.

Right. Moving quickly was necessary for the government at the time. Necessary for one government to beat the other government, anyway.

It wasn't necessary to develop the incidental technologies though. Those can be developed at a normal pace.

But it was a huge driving force in the beginning and I sincerely doubt that without the pioneer work of NASA and the Soviet Union, we'd have seen the kinds of leaps that did happen - even if they had been cost inefficient as all hell compared to anything the private sector would do.

Why do you doubt that?

That's like Chris pointing to plastic stuff and claiming it wouldn't exist had Bob not invented controls for plastic molding machines.

If there's a use for it, someone will inevitably invent it eventually.

Arguing for space exploration, not on the merits of space exploration itself, but on the incidental inventions it might produce, is arguing for a fishing expedition. Which is fine. But it's not an argument for space exploration specifically. You can substitute out any other big goal and it's the same argument.

In fact, if we're talking about fishing expeditions, there are a lot better ones than I can think of. Like AIDS.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

Images of the Tesla:

This might be merely a marketing stunt, but goddamn, it's still kind of awesome.
Btw, in order to launch that car into the orbit that it's going, a regular Falcon 9 would have been sufficient, but it's a dummy payload and the main goal was to see if the boosters would seperate nice and without problems and manage to land back on their pads.

Why do you doubt that?
That's like Chris pointing to plastic stuff and claiming it wouldn't exist had Bob not invented controls for plastic molding machines.

Don't get me wrong, the overhwelmingly huge majority of technical applications would have been made sooner or later, at some point, anyway. I'm not saying none of them would have been made - not even that "a lot" would not have been made, but I am pretty certain that a lot of them would have taken a lot longer and I do think some might not have been made at all.
I mean, clearly, there's always someone in need of a new kind of sensor or alloy or whatever.
Another thing that needs to be considered is that NASA had a lot of resources to invest into research and thus, a lot of groups from a lot of disciplines worked together on certain things, so the question is whether or not such research groups would have been able to form without NASA and how long it would have taken them in case that would have been unable.
I assume a few things would have been stalled for quite some time in that manner.

If there's a use for it, someone will inevitably invent it eventually.

To a certain degree, yes, of course. But sometimes, application follows availability. To put it bluntly, if the cost or effort to research something is higher than the value of that application, noone might bother to make that research. If that thing, however, is absolutely necessary for some other application that is very important for some reason (like the Space Race), it might be researched for that specific application and then trickle down to the other applications thereafter. For instance, do you think someone would have bothered to make "space blankets" just to put them into first aid kits?

Sorry if I'm a bit vague on this one, it has been a long day...

Arguing for space exploration, not on the merits of space exploration itself, but on the incidental inventions it might produce, is arguing for a fishing expedition. Which is fine. But it's not an argument for space exploration specifically. You can substitute out any other big goal and it's the same argument.

Oh absolutely.
Even if space exploration was actually completely derivative of technology that was build for other purposes (ie: none of the tech was actually new) and it was just a huge grave for government funding to satiate some scientists hunger for information on far away planets and moons, I would still wholeheartedly support space exploration.
That is to say, as far as I'm concerned, space exploration is its own merit, but this conversation was started essentially by the question what the big deal is and how this was improving the lives of the average joe, outright stating that the only tangible effect of space exploration was to get rich people even richer.

/edit:
And as a quick clarification on an earlier statement: When I said that without the Space Race between NASA and the Su, we wouldn't have seen some of the big leaps, that wasn't meant as a "these technologies wouldn't exist", I wanted to point out the speed at which developement happened in the first 2 or so decades of the space exloration. We saw the first satellite in 1957, the first mammal in space just a month later. 1961 was the flight of Yuri Gagarin and Apollo 11 landed in 1969 after milestone after milestone from the Mercury and Gemini projects.
Might have been inefficient when it comes to money, but just imagine: the timeframe between Sputnik and "The Eagle has landed" was merely 12 years.

 

[DeadwastePrime]

Images of the Tesla:

musk is gonna have a massive speeding ticket after this

 

[Eternal Gopnik]

There's a live feed on youtube cycling through multiple cameras on the stage with the car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M

I'm just waiting for the mannequin to suddenly start moving and give half a million people heart attacks. I'm going to be seriously disappointed if this doesn't turn out to be the most expensive practical joke in history.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

There's a live feed on youtube cycling through multiple cameras on the stage with the car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M

I'm just waiting for the mannequin to suddenly start moving and give half a million people heart attacks. I'm going to be seriously disappointed if this doesn't turn out to be the most expensive practical joke in history.

It should flip off the viewer and blast into the sunset.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Images of the Tesla:

This might be merely a marketing stunt, but goddamn, it's still kind of awesome.
Btw, in order to launch that car into the orbit that it's going, a regular Falcon 9 would have been sufficient, but it's a dummy payload and the main goal was to see if the boosters would seperate nice and without problems and manage to land back on their pads.

I caught the Hitchhiker's Guide reference right away, but somehow until now I didn't catch the Heavy Metal reference.

The nerd game is very strong.

 

[bemeas]

This was pretty cool for what was essentially a marketing stunt. I'm not a fan of Musk (I think he's a tool) but the fact that this is pushing the field forward is really nice.

 

[RP 520]

You can watch the car live right now as it slowly gets further away from Earth.

 

[DeadwastePrime]

You can watch the car live right now as it slowly gets further away from Earth.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M

in space, no one can hear bowie singing

 

[ToroidalBoat]

fiction: manned missions to Jupiter by 2001
reality: launching a car into space in 2018

 

[usernames can change now!]

For the record, the center core ran out of fuel and slammed into the barge at 300mph. So it landed, but not the way Musk would have liked.

 

[Graffiti canvas]

I won't be shy to admit it.

Marketing stunt or not, this was the coolest fucking thing I've seen from humanity in a very long time. Advancing space flight (finally) while incorporating a couple huge nerd references from my generation.

 

[The Demon]

i wish i watched this live.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

For the record, the center core ran out of fuel and slammed into the barge at 300mph. So it landed, but not the way Musk would have liked.

Well, it didn't ram the boat directly, it slammed into the water roughly 100m away from the boat, damage to the boat is still not known afaik, but a couple engines got broken. Let's hope the cameras are intact and have some nice footage of that impact. A bit of a shame, if that thing had also landed, it would have been perfect, but even so it's a huge success:
Both side boosters returned and managed to land as planned and the upper stage made it into orbit, was zapped with radiation for 5 hours and still worked just fine when reignited to send the payload on its course.
Now, let's hope they'll manage to get a perfect score next time.

Btw: The Tesla will fly past Earth once more in February 2030.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

people keep on pushing for space.

Yes, while it's true that the space race did generate a lot of technical advancements, it certainly didn't do it cost effectively. Look, we don't need to set a big pile of government cash on fire to generate innovation. We already do generate innovation through the private sector. It's cost effective and it develops products people actually want to use. Because otherwise the company funding the research goes out of business.

I think a lot of the hype we all heard growing up about all the amazing tech we got from NASA was more about hyping the USA over the Soviets than anything else.

There was just too much bragging about goofy shit like velcro and tang and upside-down pens for a lot of it to not be hyperbolic.