PDA

View Full Version : Falcon Heavy


SMT Member
6th Feb 2018, 21:02
SpaceX just successfully launched the Falcon Heavy, and what a sight it was! Seeing the Tesla Roadster, complete with dummy, exposed to the vast expanse of space, with David Bowie blaring out the stereo, was fantastic. That Tesla will now go into an orbit around the sun, mars and earth, and is expected to stay up there for a billion (a BILLION!) years.

But to see the two booster rockets land side-by-side within the same second was, probably, the coolest thing I've ever seen in the world of rocketry.

Well done SpaceX, and here's to the next chapter in space exploration.

For those not in the know, the Falcon Heavy is able to lift 63,8 tons into LEO, or roughly three times more than the Space Shuttle.

TWT
6th Feb 2018, 21:10
Incredible to watch. A magnificent achievement.

TWT
6th Feb 2018, 21:21
Video starts at T - 2 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c&feature=youtu.be&t=1674

tartare
6th Feb 2018, 21:26
Congratulations Space X - amazing achievement.
And yes - agree - maybe we're getting back to an era of risk taking.
Supersonic? Hell no, hypersonic!
I want to travel at a mile a second before I die.
I could have done without the audio of screaming spams in the background though - the sound of ripping calico is enough for me.
The kiwis were much more restrained... ;)

EDIT - just watched the boosters landing... astonishing.

NutLoose
6th Feb 2018, 21:29
I still think launching a robin reliant was the pinnacle of space exploration. :D

treadigraph
6th Feb 2018, 21:29
Fantastic!

Did the centre booster get down safely?

I still think launching a robin reliant was the pinnacle of space exploration.

Or even a Reliant Robin ;)

Gertrude the Wombat
6th Feb 2018, 21:33
the Tesla Roadster, complete with dummy ...
... and Douglas Adams tribute, let's not forget.

wiggy
6th Feb 2018, 21:38
Incredible...as others have said good to see some degree of risk taking is back...Now about the yelling...

Senior Paper Monitor
6th Feb 2018, 21:42
Wow - I am simply humbled by watching that !

denachtenmai
6th Feb 2018, 21:45
Wow, magnificent, well done to all who had a hand in this.

Private jet
6th Feb 2018, 21:48
A brilliant example of what can be done sans bankers and politicians.

TURIN
6th Feb 2018, 21:48
... and Douglas Adams tribute, let's not forget.

Lovely touch that, on the dashboard.

The image of Marvin parking his last car for several more millenia sprung to mind too. :D

Bull at a Gate
6th Feb 2018, 22:03
Amazing to watch the two booster rockets landing in almost perfect synchronization. It looked like a science fiction movie, but it was science fact!

TWT
6th Feb 2018, 22:06
Live view of 'Starman' in the Roadster on his way to the Sun. It is hard to believe it's real and not science fiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M

cavuman1
6th Feb 2018, 22:24
SMTMember has got it just right!

At 68 I am old enough to remember the American space program in its entirety: from Project Mercury, to Gemini, to Apollo, to the Space Transportation System.

My father held me on his shoulders one early October night in 1957: we looked upward to witness the rapid overhead passage of Sputnik. It was my mother's birthday. Though I was only eight years of age, I could feel the trembling in his shoulders and the tachycardia in his chest. As a mechanical engineer and naval architect, he was no doubt thrilled by the Russian accomplishment. As an American, he knew without question the political and societal implications.

That night he spent a little extra time by my bedside; I think to reassure me and to determine if I shared his love of voyage, whether sea, space, or otherwise. I fell asleep feeling his steady warm hand patting me on the shoulder.

Life goes by too rapidly. We all know that to be the truth. In mine, which was, all those years ago, bound up with the need to voyage and to admire those who do, I have had a number of very special opportunities.

When all networks covered Mercury launches and schoolchildren were given a day off, I watched as our beloved maid, Eileen O'Connor, dropped to her knees in front of our black and white television as Alan Shepard took flight on his suborbital mission, Freedom 7. After genuflecting, she drew me close and in her finest brogue, said:"Your Mr. Shepard is a brave man! Sure an' doncha know that we should pray for him and his family. Pray for good luck!" I did. She did. Our prayers were answered - fifteen minutes later Astronaut Shepard made it back to our home planet safely and Eileen's nephew, Neil Sheehan, was instrumental in the release of the Pentagon Papers. Nixon wanted to put Neil atop a rocket - with no capsule!

Along the way of my life I have learned to fly and been licensed to do it. I have taken those I love the most aloft and reveled in their slack-jawed amazement of being bound within the sky and their delight in safe landings. Some even wanted to do it again! I have shaken the hand of Alan B. Shepard and looked into his ice-Commander blue eyes and thanked him for lighting the candle. I have watched the assembly of satellites at Goddard and stood in the amazing atrium of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. I saw Charles Lindbergh there, staring at the Spirit, but was too afraid to interrupt his revelry. I have lived less than a mile from where the Brothers Wright first mastered powered flight and hugged my wife who, so concentrated on procuring her PPL there, after each lesson never forgot to say "I have just occupied the same airspace as Orv and Wil!"

I live in Cincinnati. So does Neil Armstrong's widow, Carol. At her urging, I wink at the moon at every opportunity. Mr. Armstrong was a professor at the University here - I have a number of friends on the faculty who told me that he was a kind, retiring, camera-shy, gentle, brilliant human being. Someone had to be first. Neil Armstrong was. Just so. Just right.

John Glenn represented Ohio in the Senate for decades and our nation in space even longer. I did not necessarily agree with his politics, but I certainly gave him a standing ovation for his aero- astronautical expertise. An hero in every sense of the word. And a Presbyterian...

Today, however, belongs to Elon Reeve Musk. Entrepreneur extraordinaire sans doubt! Able to assemble a team of dedicated high-IQ humans who shriek and applaud their amazing success! 27 F-1 engines ignited at once; all performing to perfection to achieve orbit! To have the aplomb and je ne sais quoi to launch his priceless Tesla Roadster in near Mars orbit! To land, simultaneously, two Falcon 9 boosters in an exquisite, delicate, high powered, how-'bout-these-balls landing! Did the central 9 make it? I don't know. I do know that NASA never dared dream of such performance! :D

... I was too busy remembering Eileen's prayers and the Ice Commander's firm handshake, and Slim Lindbergh's bowed head, and my Bride's pride, and the feel and joy of piloting my own aircraft, and bathing in the albedo of the Moon, and the reassuring pat of my father's hand upon my shoulder... :ok:

- Ed ;)

Mostly Harmless
6th Feb 2018, 22:27
I love hearing how excited that crowd is. There is a group of people who love their job.

It's good to know that there is a copy of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy out there for when we need it.

That landing was cool.

Safe travels Radar Rider. :)

Falcon Al
6th Feb 2018, 22:33
Falcon marvellous!

CATIII-NDB
6th Feb 2018, 22:42
I would like to know what happened here: too ?

As for increasing the qty of space junk in orbit: [edited ? Sun vis a vis Mars ? ] I will discreetly keep my peace.

An immense achievement though.

Well done.

CATIII

tartare
6th Feb 2018, 22:42
Salute Cavuman1 sir.

SpringHeeledJack
6th Feb 2018, 22:44
Pretty impressive! So is it more powerful than the Saturn V ?

TURIN
6th Feb 2018, 22:47
cavuman1

You missed a few names off your list there. Gagarin, Koralov etc.
The true pioneers of the space race.


I was watching the TV news tonight and a statement was made that one of these Falcon Heavies will be doing a manned trip around the moon...this year! Is that right?

ian_bird
6th Feb 2018, 22:51
As for increasing the qty of space junk in orbit: [edited ? Sun vis a vis Mars ? I will discreetly keep my peace.

CATIII

There is no junk from this launch in LEO. All three first stage boosters reentered. The fairings were released before orbit was achieved (as designed). They are even working on recovering those as well - although they are very quiet about that.

The second stage and it's quirky payload will soon be in a heliocentric orbit (i.e around the sun).

So there will be zero - exactly zero - "space junk".

Probably one of the most "junk free" launches ever.

MG23
6th Feb 2018, 22:57
I was watching the TV news tonight and a statement was made that one of these Falcon Heavies will be doing a manned trip around the moon...this year! Is that right?

Apparently someone has put a deposit down for a tourist flight around the Moon, but I'm guessing it won't happen this year. They'd want several flights before they put people on board.

MG23
6th Feb 2018, 23:00
Pretty impressive! So is it more powerful than the Saturn V ?

No. I think it's still only about 1/2 to 2/3 as powerful. But their next rocket should be more so.

Paul Wilson
6th Feb 2018, 23:46
Apparantly there is also a towel in the glove box.
Being 43 I grew up thinking there was a space program, but only eventually realising that the era of exploration seemed to have ended. I remember the first Shuttle launch, but only laterly realising it was an expensive dead(ish) end.
This though is exciting, it's very unlikely I'll ever go, but at least we are on the way to being an multi planet species.

India Four Two
6th Feb 2018, 23:50
I watched it live. An absolutely stunning achievement.

On a par with the other two live space broadcasts that stand out in my memory: Armstrong walking on the moon, and the repair of the Hubble telescope.

And the Douglas Adams tribute was a beautiful touch. I managed a screen grab:

http://i.imgur.com/dVYj4fu.jpg (https://imgur.com/dVYj4fu)

After reading about the lifting capability and comparisons to the Saturn V, I decided to look up the masses sent to the moon. I was stunned - I had no idea of the masses involved:

CSM 28 tonnes
LM 16 tonnes

I wonder how much of that was propellant.

Art Smass
7th Feb 2018, 01:36
wow - brilliant achievement.

Mostly Harmless
7th Feb 2018, 02:17
What kind of mileage do you think he's getting?

Looks like it's close to ∞ to the gallon.

dakarman
7th Feb 2018, 02:26
I would like to add my comments to this stunning achievement and congrats to Mr Musk. I was fortunately able to watch the live stream and as a scifi and science fan was blown away by the images, particularly the dual booster landing.
For those who have not seen any further info yet, the core didnt make it. According to CBS it hit the sea at 300mph near the landing barge and did a little damage. Supposedly due to running out of fuel but what the hey, awesome nontheless.

vaqueroaero
7th Feb 2018, 02:54
I was fortunate enough to watch it live....as in live not on tv or streaming, but live from the front porch of the house. Nothing like listening to the garage door shake and rattle once the sound hits you.

I made sure that my son understood that he watching history in the making.
It was very impressive to watch the two boosters falling earthwards then hearing the sonic booms as the boosters fire to land them softly back on their pads.

It's also interesting talking with all the old guys who worked for NASA years ago. One guy I have met, who is now a friend here, moved to Cape Canaveral in 1962 and retired in 1995. In his own words: "It was a tremendously exciting time to be alive". One of my neighbors was a pressure systems designer of the stage 2 on Saturn 5. Probably one of the smartest guys I've ever met.

Hopefully there will be many more launches to come.

meadowrun
7th Feb 2018, 03:29
Got to admire the guy. He's trumping giants - NASA, the Russians, Arianne (love to be a fly on the walls there). What kind of operation has he got going? Re-useable major components, double the lift capabilities and he's got a much bigger one coming that he wants to start flying next year - that was "old stock" being used up today. There be progress here.

Jetex_Jim
7th Feb 2018, 04:26
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/961083704230674438

Oh man, look at those cavemen go

pattern_is_full
7th Feb 2018, 04:44
Center Core (booster) had partial landing-engine failure, hit ocean 300 feet from the drone landing ship target at 300mph/500kph, damaged 2 of ship's positioning azimuth thrusters and deck with shrapnel.

Still darned impressive.... "And you, sir, are a steely-eyed missile man."

SnowFella
7th Feb 2018, 05:20
To quote Michael Lee Aday "2 out of 3 ain't bad". Wonder if that mishap will make the next Space X "how not to land an orbital rocket booster" video?

Hope they had some high res camera coverage of the dual landing, history in the making so I hope that somewhere nearby they had a whole bank of high Mp cameras going at 10FPS!

ORAC
7th Feb 2018, 07:19
I remember the first Shuttle launch, but only laterly realising it was an expensive dead(ish) end. The Falcon Heavy is also a technological dead end. Development has, effectively, been abandoned in favour of the BFR.

Payload comparison to LEO:

Saturn V - 310,000 lbs
Falcon Heavy - 119,000 lbs
BFR - 330,000 lbs

https://youtu.be/Mg0BB2bCDPo

https://youtu.be/HgzGwKwLmgM


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)

clareprop
7th Feb 2018, 07:44
He's trumping giants - NASA, the Russians, Arianne (love to be a fly on the walls there)

Not to mention earthbound luxury car manufacturers and their advertising agencies.

KelvinD
7th Feb 2018, 08:11
Great to watch but what was all that fire and smoke about? I thought Elon Musk and Tesla were champions of the electric vehicle?:O

treadigraph
7th Feb 2018, 08:36
Development has, effectively, been abandoned in favour of the BFR.

BFR? Big Feckin' Rocket? :)

G-CPTN
7th Feb 2018, 09:10
Elon Musk's expenditure on his rocket programme must be 'significant', and his losses on his electric car manufacturing also need to be considered.
Presumably his success attracts investments to support his ongoing expenditure?

meadowrun
7th Feb 2018, 09:19
And he's delivering payloads to orbit.
Good earner there.

ShotOne
7th Feb 2018, 09:29
Fantastic achievement!!

atakacs
7th Feb 2018, 09:55
Am I to understand that this was a "one off" and that further development will actually be on the BFR?

Sallyann1234
7th Feb 2018, 10:07
I'd like to imagine that some time, somewhere, a sentient being will come across the capsule and wonder which planet that primitive Earthling had been intending to explore in his electric car.

ORAC
7th Feb 2018, 10:17
The Falcon and Falcon Heavy will be used till the BFR is introduced around 2025 then retired.

The BFR is a two stage vehicle that is reusable and intended to be cheaper to operate than either if the above - and massive. so much so that that is even proposed to use it as a point-to-point hypersonic transport. Now that’s mainly hype - but it shows the planned reduction in cost, and intent to make access to LEO for those wanting to launch experimental craft around the solar system easily affordable. It’s not a pipedream, in essence it’s a bulked Falcon, and already under construction.

It’s also Musk’s route to Mars - where he says he wants to reach and live in his lifetime.

https://youtu.be/zqE-ultsWt0

https://youtu.be/0qo78R_yYFA

ORAC
7th Feb 2018, 10:19
I'd like to imagine that some time, somewhere, a sentient being will come across the capsule and wonder which planet that primitive Earthling had been intending to explore in his electric car. Taking delivery ahead of many if the waiting customers who have paid their deposits on Earth.....

I get the idea Elon’s heart is much more behind his rockets than his cars....

SMT Member
7th Feb 2018, 10:54
Some of the more emotive pictures.

http://i66.tinypic.com/x40vev.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/2n7qeww.jpg

In the words of Elon Musk 'it looks so fake, it has to be real - we could make it much better with CGI'.

Hokulea
7th Feb 2018, 10:57
I watched it live. An absolutely stunning achievement.

[...]

After reading about the lifting capability and comparisons to the Saturn V, I decided to look up the masses sent to the moon. I was stunned - I had no idea of the masses involved:

CSM 28 tonnes
LM 16 tonnes

I wonder how much of that was propellant.

Did a bit of looking up. The ascent and desent stqage (the LM) had roughly 23,000 lbs of fuels, most of it in the descent stage. As for the command module, I think it was around 40,000 lbs. I'll leave the conversions up to you if you don't mind.

In any case, a lot of that mass was fuel, and I will never forget what I saw today. Launching a car into space, meh, seeing two boosters landing themselves simultaneously? Priceless.

Bob Viking
7th Feb 2018, 11:37
A much overused word but I can think of no better adjective to describe what I watched in that video.

Aside from the technical achievement of launching the rockets the touch down of the boosters was incredible.

I also loved the humour of the Tesla Roadster.

As for the staff in mission control. Let them whoop I say. I’m delighted for them and what they collectively achieved. I wouldn’t blame them if they were still cheering.

BV

UniFoxOs
7th Feb 2018, 12:21
And doesn't it all make the Bearded Wonder look a bit pointless...

Sir Niall Dementia
7th Feb 2018, 12:50
And doesn't it all make the Bearded Wonder look a bit pointless...

Is it just Musk who makes him look pointless? :yuk:

SND

gruntie
7th Feb 2018, 13:10
Center Core (booster) had partial landing-engine failure, hit ocean 300 feet from the drone landing ship target at 300mph/500kph, damaged 2 of ship's positioning azimuth thrusters and deck with shrapnel.
.......and so on.

It must have been asked before, Shirley: why on earth (pun intended) do they not use parachutes? An extreme environment, to be sure, but they worked fine for Mercury/Gemini/Apolo etc. Yes they will add mass but so does extra fuel. Cape Canaveral is where it is as they launch over the ocean - and they have an annoying tendency of both being simple and NOT running out of fuel....

Effluent Man
7th Feb 2018, 13:24
How does music play in space with no atmosphere?

NutLoose
7th Feb 2018, 13:38
Is the next flight planned to take to lead to the Tesla so he can plug it into the wall?

SMT Member
7th Feb 2018, 13:48
.......and so on.

It must have been asked before, Shirley: why on earth (pun intended) do they not use parachutes? An extreme environment, to be sure, but they worked fine for Mercury/Gemini/Apolo etc. Yes they will add mass but so does extra fuel. Cape Canaveral is where it is as they launch over the ocean - and they have an annoying tendency of both being simple and NOT running out of fuel....

I'm not a rocket scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but the combination of salt water and liquid propelled rocket engines is, perhaps, not the best combination.

wiggy
7th Feb 2018, 13:53
gruntie


It must have been asked before, Shirley: why on earth (pun intended) do they not use parachutes? An extreme environment, to be sure, but they worked fine for Mercury/Gemini/Apolo etc.

FWIW when there were thoughts of an almost open ended Moon landing program and an associated Apollo applications program there were thoughts of reusing the first Stage of the Saturn V - various options involving parachutes/parawings were looked at, combined with water landing but AFAIK the need to screw every pound of payload out of the launcher stopped any thoughts of reusability once the program became more short term.

Of course the Shuttle SRBs were recovered, but there’s a cost to having recovery vessels, and then there’s the whole process of turning something around that has been immersed in sea water

As you say though in SpaceX’s case the addition of landing gear and other paraphernalia to the boosters and first stage plus the fuel needed for the landing (plus in the boosters case the fuel needed for the boosted return) must impose a payload penalty.

VP959
7th Feb 2018, 13:57
This was THE most exciting space-related stuff I've watched since watching the first moon landing. The synchronised landing of the two boosters at Canaveral was, literally, awesome, just unbelievable.

What Elon Musk and SpaceX have done is put excitement into space flight, with something to interest those of all ages with this test shot. I loved the Douglas Adams references and the homage to David Bowie, every bit as much as I admired the incredible engineering achievements that have resulted in this test shot.

What seems even more impressive to me is how relatively quickly SpaceX has been able to develop the technology needed to do this, as a relatively new company with no history of aerospace.

ORAC
7th Feb 2018, 14:40
As you say though in SpaceX’s case the addition of landing gear and other paraphernalia to the boosters and first stage plus the fuel needed for the landing (plus in the boosters case the fuel needed for the boosted return) must impose a payload penalty. The landing gear is a bolt on extra. The rocket has excess performance for the majority of payloads.

Where the payload is light they bolt on the gear and add extra fuel to take it back to the launch pad.

Where the payload is medium they bolt on the gear and aim for one of the floating pads positioned along the flight path with only extra fuel for the descent but not for the turn round and fly back.

Where the payload is heavily the leave the gear off and no recovery is attempted.

Why mess around with parachutes?

As they gain experience the aim is to able to Refuel and relaunch within hours - not the months of the Shuttle SRBs. They just need to gain confidence in, and improve where necessary, the first stage internals. Take a look at the publicity film for the terrestrial transport system with the BFR and estimate their planned turnaround time.....

ThorMos
7th Feb 2018, 14:50
How does music play in space with no atmosphere?

Without any problems. You just won't be able to listen to it.
;-)

SMT Member
7th Feb 2018, 15:07
As you say though in SpaceX’s case the addition of landing gear and other paraphernalia to the boosters and first stage plus the fuel needed for the landing (plus in the boosters case the fuel needed for the boosted return) must impose a payload penalty.

The SpaceX rockets (Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy) can be used either in reusable or disposable configurations. The latter allows for more fuel to be burned in the ascent phase, giving either a higher orbit or lifting more weight.

The Falcon Heavy can lift 22,2 tons into GTO in disposable configuration, but 'only' 6,4 tons when reusable.

wiggy
7th Feb 2018, 15:12
ORAC/SMT

Thanks for your replies and putting some numbers on the "penalty"..all makes sense.

ATB

Jack D
7th Feb 2018, 15:17
Brilliant just brilliant ! So happy that all those extraordinary people involved achieved such wonderful, unforgettable success ! Nice quirky touch with the car ... love it !

treadigraph
7th Feb 2018, 15:37
I watched Apollo 11 on TV aged 5, I do just recall it - first man made object in Space I ever saw was Skylab, I guess in '73. Saw the Shuttle twice, ISS umpteen times, still gives me a frisson...

Buster15
7th Feb 2018, 15:39
SMTMember has got it just right!

At 68 I am old enough to remember the American space program in its entirety: from Project Mercury, to Gemini, to Apollo, to the Space Transportation System.

My father held me on his shoulders one early October night in 1957: we looked upward to witness the rapid overhead passage of Sputnik. It was my mother's birthday. Though I was only eight years of age, I could feel the trembling in his shoulders and the tachycardia in his chest. As a mechanical engineer and naval architect, he was no doubt thrilled by the Russian accomplishment. As an American, he knew without question the political and societal implications.

That night he spent a little extra time by my bedside; I think to reassure me and to determine if I shared his love of voyage, whether sea, space, or otherwise. I fell asleep feeling his steady warm hand patting me on the shoulder.

Life goes by too rapidly.
- Ed ;)

Really lovely story, I enjoyed reading it, particularly as there are a number of similarities.
I too will be 68 later this year and I too well remember my father with me on his shoulders looking at what was Sputnik on a clear dark night.
A few years later, we moved to America as my father was a Service Rep working at Idlewild Airport on the Bristol Britanna. At school (in Long Beach LI) we eagerly watched the space programme and was in awe of astronauts. He unfortunately drowned in 1961 so we returned to England. Nevertheless I have followed the NASA space programme and that lead to an interest in the Universe and its origins.
The fact that a private individual has moved space exploration on from NASA is quite brilliant and like many others I am amazed at what has been achieved.

MG23
7th Feb 2018, 15:57
FWIW when there were thoughts of an almost open ended Moon landing program and an associated Apollo applications program there were thoughts of reusing the first Stage of the Saturn V - various options involving parachutes/parawings were looked at, combined with water landing but AFAIK the need to screw every pound of payload out of the launcher stopped any thoughts of reusability once the program became more short term.

It wasn't so much the payload as the cost. Boeing estimated that they'd need to launch the Saturn V sixty times for the savings to exceed the development cost of the reusable booster. Adding mass to the first stage wouldn't have had that much impact on payload, because it only went about 1/3 of the way to space.

My favourite ideas were the parawing for the Saturn I first stage, for a computer-controlled flight back to land, and the manned Saturn V first stage, which would have had a cockpit and wings to allow the crew to fly it back.

Of course the Shuttle SRBs were recovered, but there’s a cost to having recovery vessels, and then there’s the whole process of turning something around that has been immersed in sea waterMore to the point, recovering the SRBs was probably a cost rather than a saving, because they're just tin cans that you put the real rocket into. Though they'd never have known about the O-ring problems if they hadn't.

I believe SLS (if it ever flies) is just going to dump the SRBs into the ocean, to save money.

As for SpaceX, I believe they did initially try to recover stages with parachutes, but it turned out the stages didn't survive long enough for the parachutes to work. Once they realized they had to fire the engines to slow them down for re-entry, they might as well fire them again and land on rocket thrust.

If, as they say, the problem was due to not enough igniter fuel, they'll presumably just make the tank a bit bigger in future.

BTW, they are using steerable parachutes to try to recover the fairings and land them on a boat, but apparently it's a difficult job because the fairing kind of acts like a parachute itself, and makes it hard to steer.

MG23
7th Feb 2018, 16:03
Elon Musk's expenditure on his rocket programme must be 'significant', and his losses on his electric car manufacturing also need to be considered.
Presumably his success attracts investments to support his ongoing expenditure?

From what I've read, SpaceX has had a significant amount of investment money, but it's also likely to be a profitable endeavour with the number of customers they have. And if they can really begin to reuse rockets ten or more times with minimal maintenance, it could become very profitable.

Tesla makes little financial sense to me, but Musk needs electric cars for living on Mars.

G-CPTN
7th Feb 2018, 16:11
Tesla makes little financial sense to me, but Musk needs electric cars for living on Mars.

One wonders whether Musk's final activity will be to climb aboard the first rocket destined for Mars.

Highway1
7th Feb 2018, 20:47
One wonders whether Musk's final activity will be to climb aboard the first rocket destined for Mars.

If that is going to be his final activity remind me not to go with him..

Gertrude the Wombat
7th Feb 2018, 21:08
One wonders whether Musk's final activity will be to climb aboard the first rocket destined for Mars.

Been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_(short_story)

troppo
8th Feb 2018, 02:41
No one knows how much the rocket weighed but apparently it was Falcon Heavy (say it slowly)

B Fraser
8th Feb 2018, 07:44
The next rocket in the series will be the BFR or Big Falcon Rocket.

I like this man, he has a sense of humour. Meanwhile old Dickie Beardychops is falling behind in the race to space.

ORAC
8th Feb 2018, 08:15
Who got my tick when he named his floating landing pads....

https://www.space.com/28445-spacex-elon-musk-drone-ships-names.html

meadowrun
8th Feb 2018, 08:37
Isn't the beardedwonder mainly concerned with amusement rides into near-space giving a few of the rich some jollies?

ORAC
8th Feb 2018, 08:41
At this rate Musk will have got his paying passengers around the moon before Branson has got his off the ground....

B Fraser
8th Feb 2018, 09:39
Thanks Orac, I didn't know that. I often think I was lucky to be just old enough to watch the moon landings. This really was the stuff of the future. Airfix kits of the lunar module and the mighty Saturn 5 were essential display items in my mates bedrooms and woe betide anyone who hadn't painted every detail in precisely the correct colour.


I think we are now entering another golden age where we will get back to the moon and set record after record for the greatest distance from earth for manned spaceflight. Mars is still someway off but the Big Frikkin' Rocket takes us one giant leap closer.


I must have a look at what Airfix are selling these days.

Thomas coupling
8th Feb 2018, 10:05
https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_future_we_re_building_and_boring

So far ahead of his time and just the right amount of humility displayed which protects him from sliding into GOD status.

What an inspiration to all of us.

PS: I hear he has now removed himself from Tesla to concentrate on other things.

meadowrun
8th Feb 2018, 12:04
Mr. Musk did a cameo on The Big Bang Theory a while ago, playing himself volunteering at a soup kitchen. He met Howard when he was demoted to dishwashing after he was too generous doling out the turkey gravy.

stagger
8th Feb 2018, 13:08
Some great footage of the boosters landing - complete with sonic booms...

Seriously Cool Amateur Footage Of The Simultaneous Falcon Heavy Booster Landing - Digg (http://digg.com/video/simultaneous-landing-spacex-sonic-boom)

MG23
8th Feb 2018, 17:20
Isn't the beardedwonder mainly concerned with amusement rides into near-space giving a few of the rich some jollies?

To be fair, if it ever works, it'll be vastly cheaper than flights into orbit for the next couple of decades.

The problem is that the X-Prize encouraged people to pick a design that was quick to develop, and not one that had a lot of potential for commercial use. At the rate Virgin are going, I expect Bezos to be flying passengers before they are.

TURIN
8th Feb 2018, 23:02
And it will happen because of private, not government, investment. Just like the ships that were sent to trade and discover new parts of the globe,

At the risk of diverting this joyous thread into a typical JB slanging match, I'm sure the early ships that were sent to discover the New World were backed by Kings and Queens. Spanish?

tartare
8th Feb 2018, 23:28
That landing footage is sensational - just for the sound alone!!

SnowFella
9th Feb 2018, 08:22
Kinda has me scratching my head though, seen a few of the landing video's with sound now and some have the sonic booms well before the landings while others have it well after touchdown.
Yes sound travels at a "set" rate so the triple booms from each booster take a set time to reach each vantage point but how in the blazes can the boosters already be on the ground before the sound reaches the camera?

Compare with the above link given
https://youtu.be/ImoQqNyRL8Y

treadigraph
9th Feb 2018, 08:35
Thanks SnowFella, only got a telephone headset at work so couldn't enjoy the full majesty of it, but when I get home...

And MUCH better without the whoopin' an' a-hollerin''!

netstruggler
9th Feb 2018, 11:48
Do they look a bit less simultaneous than they did in the official stream?

wiggy
9th Feb 2018, 12:20
Do they look a bit less simultaneous than they did in the official stream?

I think in the heat of the event and all the “cor, wow, hollering etc” the livestream perhaps made it look simultaneous...but if you go back and look at that imagery again you’ll see that because of all the carp thrown up by the nearer booster you don’t really see much of the furthest one as it touches down. If you look at that stream again and concentrate on the top of the furthest booster you might just be able to see that it is still travelling downwards as the nearest touches down, which ties in with imagery showing the event from other angles.

MG23
9th Feb 2018, 16:33
I'm sure the early ships that were sent to discover the New World were backed by Kings and Queens. Spanish?

Depends on what you mean by 'discover'. I believe the original colonists walked across the land bridge from Russia, then there were the Vikings, and there's some evidence that some Scottish guy (forget his name) sailed across the Atlantic just for grins.

And Columbus needed government backing because his plan to reach India the long way round was quite insane, and no sensible person would have backed him with their own money: there was no way he'd have survived to reach India if America didn't happen to turn up in his way.

MG23
9th Feb 2018, 16:34
Do they look a bit less simultaneous than they did in the official stream?

I believe the original stream screwed up and showed the rocket-cam from the same booster twice. So it looked simultaneous because it was the same footage. In reality, it was very close, but not as close as that.

Cpt_Pugwash
9th Feb 2018, 17:31
and there's some evidence that some Scottish guy (forget his name) sailed across the Atlantic just for grins.

Are you thinking of the Welsh Prince Madoc? Supposedly landed near Mobile, and founded the Mandan tribe of pale-skinned Indians. :ok:

MG23
9th Feb 2018, 18:18
No, I remember reading something about it while visiting a weird church near Edinburgh years ago.

Gertrude the Wombat
9th Feb 2018, 19:16
how in the blazes can the boosters already be on the ground before the sound reaches the camera?
Um, that's the whole point of a sonic boom, it's made by something that's travelling faster than sound.

MG23
9th Feb 2018, 19:22
Um, that's the whole point of a sonic boom, it's made by something that's travelling faster than sound.

I saw a few space shuttle launches from KSC, and the sound took about ten seconds to arrive after the engines started up. Sound really doesn't travel very fast.

Gertrude the Wombat
9th Feb 2018, 21:45
I saw a few space shuttle launches from KSC, and the sound took about ten seconds to arrive after the engines started up. Sound really doesn't travel very fast.
I watched a fast jet beat up the runway at Duxford. The sound reached the crowd long after the jet had gone.

Thomas coupling
9th Feb 2018, 21:58
760mph @ sealevel.
12.3 miles in a minute.
350 yds per second.

All of the above only valid in the medium of air.

Ogre
9th Feb 2018, 22:15
760mph @ sealevel.
12.3 miles in a minute.
350 yds per second.

All of the above only valid in the medium of air.

So just so I can get this clear, are we saying the the booster rockets were travelling faster than the speed of sound, towards the ground?

Therefore the firing of the rocket engines slowed them from greater than mach 1 to zero in what, thousands of feet?

Being used to things coming back from space on parachutes I'm just trying to get my head around this concempt

SARF
9th Feb 2018, 22:43
Weren’t they just falling .. until they steered themselves in.

TURIN
9th Feb 2018, 22:52
Therefore the firing of the rocket engines slowed them from greater than mach 1 to zero in what, thousands of feet?


Yeah that was one of the things that dropped my jaw too.

SARF
9th Feb 2018, 22:55
Anything that is falling won’t be anywhere near the speed of sound

TURIN
9th Feb 2018, 23:01
Anything that is falling won’t be anywhere near the speed of sound
Not even from a semi ballistic re-entry?

SMT Member
9th Feb 2018, 23:06
As they explained during the live stream, after seperation the booster rockets will fire to slow from 'several Mach' to a speed 'above Mach 1'.

Two's in
9th Feb 2018, 23:19
So just so I can get this clear, are we saying the the booster rockets were travelling faster than the speed of sound, towards the ground?

Therefore the firing of the rocket engines slowed them from greater than mach 1 to zero in what, thousands of feet?

Being used to things coming back from space on parachutes I'm just trying to get my head around this concempt

Exactly that. Having watched it during a night launch it is as someone else said, simply jaw-dropping. When the retro fires, the booster is doing a couple of thousand mph, and within about 5 - 10,000 feet it is stationary a few feet above the pad.

Ogre
10th Feb 2018, 03:56
Exactly that. Having watched it during a night launch it is as someone else said, simply jaw-dropping. When the retro fires, the booster is doing a couple of thousand mph, and within about 5 - 10,000 feet it is stationary a few feet above the pad.

I just could not get my mind around the concept of something creating a sonic boom then a few seconds later dropping onto the ground. What is the deceleration force?

I hope they phoned the military before hand and warned them, or is there no way these returning boosters could be mistaken for ballistic missiles?

TWT
10th Feb 2018, 04:04
Apart from the military knowing about the launch in advance as they would have been informed of the details, the boosters wouldn't have a ballistic trajectory would they ???

( I'm not certain one way or the other)

PickyPerkins
10th Feb 2018, 06:32
Originally Posted by SARF
Anything that is falling won’t be anywhere near the speed of sound

In the lower atmosphere that’s true, but not high up.
Jumping from a balloon, Baumgartner reached 843.6 mph, M1.24 in free fall.
Felix Baumgartner Was Just Thinking About Coming Home - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/felix-baumgartner-skydiving.html)

What is the deceleration force?
If I have done my sums correctly, a deceleration from 2,000 mph to zero in 10,000 (vertical) feet takes about 6.8 seconds and a force of about 13.4G. At an angle to the vertical, less G and a longer time. It’s an empty rocket, so not all that heavy.

Katamarino
10th Feb 2018, 08:12
I hope they phoned the military before hand and warned them, or is there no way these returning boosters could be mistaken for ballistic missiles?

Yeah, I'm sure there a risk of the private space company, that contracts with the US government, "forgetting" to tell the military, or the FAA, or the media, that they're going to launch a rocket from a US government facility.

Probably not a very credible threat.

B Fraser
10th Feb 2018, 08:48
What is the deceleration force?

Falcon enormous.

I thought that footage with the sonic bangs was Falcon spectacular.

Hokulea
10th Feb 2018, 10:05
Thought some here might be interested - the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) happened to detect the SpaceX/Tesla using its telescope on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, last night (20180209 UT). They determined its distance at about 0.005 AU (about 465,000 miles) moving away from us at 2.2 miles/sec.

The dark patches are electronic artifacts on a small part of the detector:

https://goo.gl/Df8vgC

My understanding is the car is still attached to the upper stage, so most of the light is reflected from that rather than from the Roadster.

Thomas coupling
10th Feb 2018, 23:09
Re-entry is between 17000 and 25000mph, earths atmosphere slows this a fair bit and normally chutes do the rest. Falcon sustains significant speed until boosters slow it to zero on landing. No chutes.

Mr Optimistic
10th Feb 2018, 23:22
Anything falling won't be anywhere near the speed of sound? Strange idea when the thing was accelerated on ascent and then came back ballistically. Where did all that energy go?

WingNut60
11th Feb 2018, 01:58
Just going back through the Dec 15 re-entry of Falcon 9, the Stage 1 vehicle started it's landing burn at about 7:17 into flight.
Please note the significant deceleration before the landing burn started - I'm guessing that the paddles (grid-fins) alone are doing that.
Unable to see landing legs deploying, but somewhere between 7:33 and 7:40

Landing timeline went like this:


Time of flight : 7:03 Altitude : 10.1 km Velocity : 1493 km/h
Time of flight : 7:06 Altitude : 7.1 km Velocity : 1247 km/h
Time of flight : 7:14 Altitude : 5.0 km Velocity : 1086 km/h
Time of flight : 7:17 Altitude : 4.1 km Velocity : 1021 km/h
Time of flight : 7:20 Altitude : 3.3 km Velocity : 925 km/h
Time of flight : 7:23 Altitude : 2.5 km Velocity : 820 km/h
Time of flight : 7:27 Altitude : 1.7 km Velocity : 663 km/h
Time of flight : 7:30 Altitude : 1.2 km Velocity : 543 km/h
Time of flight : 7:33 Altitude : 0.9 km Velocity : 458 km/h
Time of flight : 7:43 Altitude : < one vehicle length above pad
Time of flight : 7:47 Altitude : 0

Come on all you amateur mathematicians, lets see some calcs.

WingNut60
11th Feb 2018, 04:36
Following on, footage from CRS-12 shows the boostback burn starting at 2:47, just a few seconds after main engine cut-off, and lasting until about 3:10.
Velocity then starts to drop at 3:24 after which it begins to increase again (briefly) even though altitude is also increasing (also briefly).
The paddles came out at 3:42.
Maximum altitude is achieved at about 3:57 – 118 km – and it stays there for about 15 secs while velocity drops to 1658 km/h.
Entry burn starts at 6:09 and ends at 6:23.
·


Time of flight : 2:47 Altitude : 82.4 km Velocity : 5427 km/h
Time of flight : 3:10 Altitude :100.0 km Velocity : 2935 km/h
Time of flight : 3:24 Altitude : 108.0 km Velocity : 1800 km/h
Time of flight : 3:30 Altitude : 111.0 km Velocity : 2036 km/h
Time of flight : 3:57 Altitude : 118.0 km Velocity : 1721 km/h
Time of flight : 4:11 Altitude : 118.0 km Velocity : 1658 km/h
Time of flight : 4:30 Altitude : 117.0 km Velocity : 1788 km/h
Time of flight : 5:00 Altitude : 107.0 km Velocity : 2363 km/h
Time of flight : 5:20 Altitude : 95.3 km Velocity : 2905 km/h
Time of flight : 5:40 Altitude : 80.4 km Velocity : 3483 km/h
Time of flight : 6:00 Altitude : 61.5 km Velocity : 4099 km/h
Time of flight : 6:09 Altitude : 52.0 km Velocity : 4371 km/h
Time of flight : 6:20 Altitude : 39.8 km Velocity : 3613 km/h
Time of flight : 6:23 Altitude : 37.4 km Velocity : 3231 km/h
Time of flight : 6:30 Altitude : 31.6 km Velocity : 3209 km/h
Time of flight : 6:40 Altitude : 22.9 km Velocity : 3277 km/h
Time of flight : 6:50 Altitude : 14.8 km Velocity : 2686 km/h
Time of flight : 7:00 Altitude : 9.3 km Velocity : 1737 km//h
Time of flight : 7:10 Altitude : 5.6 km Velocity : 1213 km/h
Time of flight : 7:15 Altitude : 4.1 km Velocity : 1105 km/h
Time of flight : 7:20 Altitude : 2.9 km Velocity : 916 km/h
Time of flight : 7:25 Altitude : 1.8 km Velocity : 696 km/h
Time of flight : 7:30 Altitude : 1.0 km Velocity : 499 km/h
Time of flight : 7:35 Altitude : 0.4 km Velocity : 314 km/h
Time of flight : 7:40 Altitude : 0.2 km Velocity : 162 km/h
Time of flight : 7:40 Altitude : 0.2 km Velocity : 162 km/h
Time of flight : 7:45 Altitude : 0.0 km Velocity : 35 km/h
Time of flight : 7:47 Altitude : 0.0 km Velocity : 0 km/h

So talk of speeds like 20,000 km/h on re-entry seem to be not at all applicable to these Stage 1 vehicles.

Hokulea
11th Feb 2018, 08:10
I make that roughly 1G of deacceleration on average from the time the boosters fired until they landed. Not as much as I thought!

wiggy
11th Feb 2018, 09:10
It’s a bit tricky to work out and I’m guessing “velocity” is just the scalar value but if I have got it right, and I have only looked at some of the intervals, it does indeed look like a general reduction in speed of around 10 m/s/s or a bit more in some places - of course to reduce the vertical velocity of a falling body (towards earth) by around 10 m/s/s you would be “pulling” 2g ..so that gives some vague feel for the general level of stresses on the boosters, but I’m guessing there would be some spikes.

So talk of speeds like 20,000 km/h on re-entry seem to be not at all applicable to these Stage 1 vehicles

Given orbital velocity for a Low earth orbit is in the region of 28,000 km and given how “strap-ons” :E generally work (burn for the first 3 ish minutes of a flight) I’d think anything up round 20,000 km/h for booster re-entry would be highly highly unlikely....and you’d be best building a landing pad in Africa or the India Ocean coz you sure as heck aren’t going to be turning them round...

WingNut60
11th Feb 2018, 09:48
I seem to remember a figure of 20-25000 mph (maybe kph) mentioned in someones prior post.

I think that people may be assuming that Stage 1 re-entry velocity is going to be similar to the typical velocities associated with shuttle re-entry etc.

Hokulea
11th Feb 2018, 09:49
Agreed, Wiggy. I did also look at the deacceleration from the fastest velocity when the boosters were coming down until the burn, and that was around 1.5G on average (2.5G including the earth). The shuttle astronauts used to experience about 3G so it's well within what's normal.

And yes, the boosters separate well before you get to orbital speeds, it's the second stage in the absence of the atmosphere that gets a payload up to > 17,000 mph (apologies for mixing units!). There's an example of this from a previous SpaceX launch when you see the data from the second stage showing speeds increasing beyond 20,000 km/h while the 1st stage crashes on the drone ship. I love Elon Musk's sense of humour - he called it a "rapid unscheduled disassembly"!

https://youtu.be/IFK0mJqsVnE

wiggy
11th Feb 2018, 10:00
I think that people may be assuming that Stage 1 re-entry velocity is going to be similar to the typical velocities associated with shuttle re-entry etc.

I think you are right.to sum up...Using “ traditional ;) units..”.

Entry from a typical circular Low Earth orbit will typically be at speeds of around 18000 miles per hour.....so that’s the sort of speeds and energies that Soyuz and the Shuttle Orbiter were designed to handle.

Entry from more eccentric orbits/trajectories as you get returning from the Moon are typically up at around 25,000 mph...e.g. Apollo.

There are plenty of objects that enter the earth’s atmosphere at even higher velocities -meteors and meteorites....

First stage booster/shuttle SRBS/ first stage “strap ons/Virgin Galactic spaceplanes.....etc re enter the earth’s atmosphere (if in fact they ever leave it) at much lower velocities than any of the above.....

SnowFella
11th Feb 2018, 10:03
Tend to like the compilation of "how not to land an orbital rocket booster" better, plus it was actually released by SpaceX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

WingNut60
11th Feb 2018, 10:05
....... and that was around 1.5G on average (2.5G including the earth). .......

Just checking, but are you sure that the vehicle sees the deceleration Gs cumulative with earth's gravity?

Hokulea
11th Feb 2018, 10:13
Good question. I'll give it some thought! I've never really considered that problem before.

PS. I think you do have to include it. Consider you're sitting on a rocket as it launches and accelerates at 1G. Before it moves you're already experiencing 1G then you include the rocket's acceleration, so you have to add both together (i.e., it's additive rather than cumulative). You'll experience 2G. The same ought to apply on the way down as well but now it's a matter of signs (i.e., plus/minus) especially as you're moving down at or faster than the planet's pull. But I will give it more thought. It's a bit late in the evening for me right now to think about it carefully!

WingNut60
11th Feb 2018, 10:25
Good question. I'll give it some thought! I've never really considered that problem before.

The Vomit Comet is pulling slightly more (less?) than -1G, and the occupants are feeling 0G but they are experiencing +1G, they just don't know it.

The booster certainly sees 1G once it's sitting on the pad, but before then?
I'm not sure. It's deceleration is in opposition to earth's gravity, so isn't that negative G?

I suspect that the force is only that from deceleration. But I'm only guessing.

Hokulea
11th Feb 2018, 10:57
I think the simple answer is that if you were in free fall, you'd be falling and accelerating at around 1G. You now decelerate at 10 m/s/s and you have to combine the two components, so you'll experience 2G. It becomes easier to visualize if you ignore gravity at first and just use the velocity of the booster which slowed at 1G. Then, think about there being no booster, you would continue to fall at 10 m/s/s. So you have to overcome gravity to fall at a constant velocity, which requires 1G, then to slow down at the rate the boosters did, that's another 1G. So I think you will feel 2G, or 2.5 G before the boosters fired.

VP959
11th Feb 2018, 11:02
Consider pulling a near-constant velocity loop in an aircraft.

Does the force you experience change as you go around the loop?

wiggy
11th Feb 2018, 11:06
The Vomit Comet is pulling slightly more (less?) than -1G, and the occupants are feeling 0G but they are experiencing +1G, they just don't know it.

The booster certainly sees 1G once it's sitting on the pad, but before then?
I'm not sure. It's deceleration is in opposition to earth's gravity, so isn't that negative G?

I suspect that the force is only that from deceleration. But I'm only guessing..

You”ve got to be careful with using g’s because if you are not you can indeed get bogged down with signs, etc.

If you want your occupants of the vomit comet to experience “free fall” you need it to fly a parabola which gives the airframe a downwards acceleration equal to the acceleration due to gravity also experienced by it's occupants...i.e. to a first approximation 10m/s/s. That by convention would be labelled as zero g on the aircraft accelerometer.. ..trying to fly an indicated minus 1g would require a “pushover” which would have the occupants stuck to the ceiling.

As far as the descending booster is concerned if you apply a force to load it up to 1g it will descend at a fixed rate of descent (rod), and funnily enough that is what is happens on the ground after landing - a fixed Rod, albeit zero, but not produced by thrust but by the structure/ground and newton's third law.... BTW if you are in an ascent at 1g you will also have a fixed rate of climb.....a bit like you are in a lift.... most of the time....:\

A few examples for the returning booster case:

If you have more than 1 g indicated/experienced in the descent your rate of descent will be reducing.

If you are loaded/ accelerating at 1g you will maintain a constant rate of descent.

If you are loaded/ accelerating at less than 1 g your rate of descent is increasing.

If you are loaded/accelerated at 0g you will be accelerating earthwards as 10 m/s/s. (Free fall).

Hokulea
11th Feb 2018, 11:36
Yep. I think it all comes down to understanding the difference between a force and velocity. Gravity is a force; velocity isn't. So if you are travelling towards the earth at a constant velocity of 1000 km/h, gravity will try and accelerate you at 10 m/s/s. You'll feel that force as if you were sitting in a chair at home. Then, fire your rockets to slow you down at 10 m/s/s, you're adding another 1G of deceleration, so the force you feel is 2G.

wiggy
11th Feb 2018, 11:57
Agreed, but you might want to emphasis the constant bit, otherwise confusion with freefall case might might appear again.

Hokulea
11th Feb 2018, 12:08
Done! Thanks. Freefall is not a constant velocity.

WingNut60
11th Feb 2018, 13:26
Yep. I think it all comes down to understanding the difference between a force and velocity. Gravity is a force; velocity isn't. So if you are travelling towards the earth at a constant velocity of 1000 km/h, gravity will try and accelerate you at 10 m/s/s. You'll feel that force as if you were sitting in a chair at home. Then, fire your rockets to slow you down at 10 m/s/s, you're adding another 1G of deceleration, so the force you feel is 2G.

OK, thanks. I think I've got it now.
Just need a month or two to let the brain-ache subside.

Hokulea
11th Feb 2018, 13:50
Don't worry, WingNut. I work in a field where I often have to talk to cosmologists. I usually get a migraine within 20 minutes...

mickjoebill
11th Feb 2018, 14:24
I notice that the booster engines were not protected from the heat of air friction.

At what altitude and speed is a thermal shield required?

Obviously, engines are designed to cope with the heat of the exhaust gases, but would they be resilient enough to withstand the heat of a reentry at a typical orbit velocity?

Mjb

wiggy
11th Feb 2018, 16:12
Obviously, engines are designed to cope with the heat of the exhaust gases, but would they be resilient enough to withstand the heat of a reentry at a typical orbit velocity?

Mjb

One for the engineers of course but bear in mind that when running many liquid fuel engines circulate fuel or oxidiser through pipework in the engine bell and/or nozzle walls to cool them.....

SincoTC
11th Feb 2018, 16:33
I notice that the booster engines were not protected from the heat of air friction.

At what altitude and speed is a thermal shield required?

Obviously, engines are designed to cope with the heat of the exhaust gases, but would they be resilient enough to withstand the heat of a reentry at a typical orbit velocity?

Mjb

Mick,

They never see a velocity anywhere near something returning from orbit :8

The Boosters and their engines are only used to get the rocket out of the dense lower layers of the atmosphere and only reach around 7,000 kmh before they shutdown and separate at around 60 km altitude, compared with around 28,000 kmh for an orbital reentry or 36,000 kmh for the Starman if he were to turn around and freefall back to Earth

Even the core stage only gets to just over 9,000 kmh, so it's reentry heating is not very challenging, it's the long burn of the second stage that gets it to orbital velocity and another burn from same to escape from the Earth's gravity!

MG23
11th Feb 2018, 20:15
One for the engineers of course but bear in mind that when running many liquid fuel engines circulate fuel or oxidiser through pipework in the engine bell and/or nozzle walls to cool them.....

Some of the single-stage-to-orbit designs of the past planned to avoid using a heat-shield by coming in tail-first and pumping fuel through the skin (which, in some cases, doubled as part of an aerospike engine for launch).

As I understand it, the Falcon-9 is burning three engines through the toughest part of its re-entry, and that tends to protect the stage from damage: the engine exhaust is blasting into the supersonic air as it comes down, and keeps it away from the metal.

I'm not sure whether those engines are liquid-cooled, or just rely on radiation cooling. I'm guessing the former, but the second-stage engine seems to glow red in the launch videos.

Um... lifting...
11th Feb 2018, 22:02
This is why they invented spreadsheets.

G force (rightmost column) in this spreadsheet is calculated based solely on change in velocity (∆ V) over the clock time intervals, which is why there are G-forces with an absolute value of less than 1 calculated for the last 32 seconds of the flight, among other places. The sign convention is based upon whether the craft is accelerating or decelerating without attempting to take into account which way the thing is pointed.

Experienced or measured G-force is based upon the frame of reference of the observer. Just as when you take your aircraft or motor vehicle through a banked turn, experienced G will increase. The addition of the acceleration vectors will give you the total force experienced. In the case of the spacecraft, as the orientation of the craft to the force of gravity changes, that 1g vector is going to change direction, probably to something other than the direction of craft acceleration, which is why I didn't attempt to account for it.

So, alert readers, feel free to do some thought experiments upon how things were situated at various time intervals to get a sense of what you might experience strapped into one of these things.

As an example, in the terminal phase, we can say that the craft is flying backward, as it were, while its velocity is decreasing, so that would probably feel like a positive G force. So, it's probably safe to say in the terminal phase of flight you can add up to 1g to the absolute value calculated numbers, e.g. touchdown G of 1.5.

None too bad.

Time Alt (km) | V (km/h) | V (m/s) | ∆ V (m/s) | ∆ T (sec) | Accel (m/sec2) | G (∆ V only)

2:47 | 082.4 | 5427 | 1507.50
3:10 | 100.0 | 2395 | 0665.28 | -842.22 | 23 | -36.62 | -3.73
3:24 | 108.0 | 1800 | 0500.00 | -165.28 | 14 | -11.81 | -1.20
3:30 | 111.0 | 2036 | 0565.56 | +065.56 | 06 | +10.93 | +1.11
3:57 | 118.0 | 1721 | 0478.06 | -087.50 | 27 | -03.24 | -0.33
4:11 | 118.0 | 1658 | 0460.56 | -017.50 | 14 | -01.25 | -0.13
4:30 | 117.0 | 1788 | 0496.67 | +036.11 | 19 | +01.90 | +0.19
5:00 | 107.0 | 2363 | 0656.39 | +159.72 | 30 | +05.32 | +0.54
5:20 | 095.3 | 2905 | 0806.94 | +150.56 | 20 | +07.53 | +0.77
5:40 | 080.4 | 3483 | 0967.50 | +160.56 | 20 | +08.08 | +0.82
6:00 | 061.5 | 4099 | 1138.61 | +171.11 | 20 | +08.56 | +0.87
6:09 | 052.0 | 4371 | 1214.17 | +075.56 | 09 | +08.40 | +0.86
6:20 | 039.8 | 3613 | 1003.61 | -210.56 | 11 | -19.40 | -1.95
6:23 | 037.4 | 3231 | 0897.50 | -106.11 | 03 | -35.37 | -3.61
6:30 | 031.6 | 3209 | 0891.39 | -006.11 | 07 | -00.87 | -0.09
6:40 | 022.9 | 3277 | 0910.28 | +018.89 | 10 | +01.89 | +0.19
6:50 | 014.8 | 2686 | 0746.11 | -164.17 | 10 | -16.42 | -1.67
7:00 | 009.3 | 1737 | 0482.50 | -263.61 | 10 | -26.36 | -2.69
7:10 | 005.6 | 1213 | 0336.94 | -145.56 | 10 | -14.56 | -1.48
7:15 | 004.1 | 1105 | 0306.94 | -030.00 | 05 | -06.00 | -0.61
7:20 | 002.9 | 0916 | 0254.44 | -052.50 | 05 | -10.5 | -1.07
7:25 | 001.8 | 0696 | 0193.33 | -061.11 | 05 | -12.22 | -1.25
7:30 | 001.0 | 0499 | 0138.61 | -054.72 | 05 | -10.94 | -1.12
7:35 | 000.4 | 0314 | 0087.22 | -051.39 | 05 | -10.28 | -1.05
7:40 | 000.2 | 0162 | 0045.00 | -042.22 | 05 | -08.44 | -0.86
7:45 | 000.0 | 0035 | 0009.72 | -035.28 | 05 | -07.06 | -0.72
7:47 | 000.0 | 0000 | 0000.00 | -009.72 | 02 | -04.86 | -0.50

Pinky the pilot
12th Feb 2018, 00:52
After reading the last couple of posts......well, there's a Monty Python sketch which says it all!!:ooh: If I knew how, I'd post a link.

My brain hurts!!:E

Cpt_Pugwash
12th Feb 2018, 00:56
Ah, the New Brain sketch. Go for the Bertrand Russell Super Silver, it's colour. Stapling machine, Mrs Zambezi!

tdracer
12th Feb 2018, 01:43
There is a reason it's called "Rocket Science" :E:E:E

Hokulea
12th Feb 2018, 05:01
After reading the last couple of posts......well, there's a Monty Python sketch which says it all!!:ooh: If I knew how, I'd post a link.

My brain hurts!!:E
Pinky - just go to the youtube video you want, click on "share" below the video and simply post that URL in your post. That works for me.
https://youtu.be/evlrs5Bi_6E

Hokulea
12th Feb 2018, 07:36
WingNut - do you happen to have the data from launch up until the 2.47? Or, if you prefer, a link to the data?

I'm just curious and would like to figure out the forces from lift off until landing. Many thanks.

ORAC
12th Feb 2018, 08:40
My vote for best headline about the launch goes to The Register with, after all Musk’s Sci-Fi homages, their homage to 2001...

“My God, It’s Full of Cars!” (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/06/spacex_falcon_heavy_launch/)

WingNut60
12th Feb 2018, 09:26
WingNut - do you happen to have the data from launch up until the 2.47?

I'm struggling with posting this. Here's the first minute.

T+ V (km/h) Alt. (km) Comments
00:00 0.0 0.0
00:01 3.0 0.0
00:02 7.0 0.0
00:03 12.0 0.0
00:04 22.0 0.0
00:05 29.0 0.0
00:06 40.0 0.0 Engines level with top of tower
00:07 52.0 0.0
00:08 68.0 0.0
00:09 81.0 0.1
00:10 96.0 0.1
00:12 124.0 0.2
00:14 151.0 0.3
00:16 174.0 0.3
00:18 206.0 0.5
00:20 240.0 0.6
00:22 272.0 0.8
00:24 301.0 0.9
00:26 330.0 1.0
00:28 374.0 1.3
00:30 410.0 1.5
00:35 504.0 2.1
00:40 618.0 2.9
00:45 728.0 3.8
00:50 852.0 4.9
00:55 930.0 6.2
01:00 1005.0 7.4

Bear in mind that ALT is vertical, not distance along trajectory.
Looking at footage, I think you could use 40 degrees off vertical as an indicative flight path.

Hokulea
12th Feb 2018, 09:48
Thanks, WingNut. I'd be happy if you just have a link to the data source to save you the work.

wiggy
12th Feb 2018, 10:03
FWIW Somebody has been putting data up here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7vtap9/falcon_heavy_test_flight_telemetry/

If you do a bit of digging around below the links for graphs you'll find links to what the poster there claims to be files of raw telemetry data, e.g.:

https://github.com/shahar603/Telemetry-Data/blob/master/Falcon-Heavy/FH%20raw.json

That should be enough to keep the rocket scientists busy for a day or two.

(I say "claims" because if you look at the debate in the redit thread with the information you'll see there is some thought/comment about the poster possibly just back generating the arrays from the velocity/altitude figures displayed on the live webcast, rather than actually having access to SpaceX enginnering data, so it's a treat with caution)

Hokulea
12th Feb 2018, 10:20
Thanks, Wiggy. I'll certainly treat it with some caution.

WingNut60
12th Feb 2018, 11:28
Thanks, WingNut. I'd be happy if you just have a link to the data source to save you the work.

The data is not a problem.
The problem is pasting it into PPrune and achieving a useable format.

Anyway, here's the rest.

01:05 1098.0 10.9
01:10 1193.0 10.4 MAX-Q
01:15 1306.0 12.1
01:20 1419.0 13.8
01:25 1559.0 15.7
01:30 1711.0 17.7
01:35 1969.0 19.9
01:40 2210.0 22.2
01:45 2517.0 25.1
01:50 2836.0 28.1
01:55 3180.0 31.4
02:00 3528.0 34.9
02:05 3914.0 38.8
02:10 4349.0 43.2
02:15 4806.0 48.0
02:20 5295.0 53.0
02:25 5803.0 58.3 MECO
02:30 5915.0 63.7
02:32 5862.0 66.0 Stage separation
02:35 5791.0 69.3
02:40 5660.0 74.5
02:45 5529.0 79.7
02:47 5427.0 82.4
02:50 5256.0 84.5
03:00 4204.0 93.1

And all I did was freeze frame the webcast. Close enough for anything that I was interested in.

Gertrude the Wombat
12th Feb 2018, 12:00
My vote for best headline about the launch goes to The Register
I reckon El Reg basically exists to write silly headlines, the stories themselves just being a tedious necessity on which to hang the headlines.

FlyingCroc
12th Feb 2018, 13:20
Kinda has me scratching my head though, seen a few of the landing video's with sound now and some have the sonic booms well before the landings while others have it well after touchdown.
Yes sound travels at a "set" rate so the triple booms from each booster take a set time to reach each vantage point but how in the blazes can the boosters already be on the ground before the sound reaches the camera?

Compare with the above link given
https://youtu.be/ImoQqNyRL8Y

There is no sound because the thing is a fraud. Terrible CGI, all a stupid hoax. Just look a the pictures, I can't believe people think this is real.

TEEEJ
12th Feb 2018, 17:40
There is no sound because the thing is a fraud. Terrible CGI, all a stupid hoax. Just look a the pictures, I can't believe people think this is real.

A hoax, really? Care to explain what the Astronomers are seeing?

https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/2018/02/08/elon-musks-tesla-roadster-imaged-8-feb-2018/

https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/webtv/

ORAC
12th Feb 2018, 18:28
https://www.expressandstar.com/resizer/uu6gZYZd4dI4rrl8IWqAt_1cCtE=/1000x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-expressandstar-mna.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3YUE4VHKCBGXDCB2AURGVBFHV4

FlyingCroc
12th Feb 2018, 19:02
Yep, just look at the fake pictures.

ORAC
12th Feb 2018, 20:05
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/wj4n5q/flat-earthers-are-mad-at-elon-musk-or-putting-a-tesla-in-space

Some beautiful links in there to crazy videos on YouTube...

TEEEJ
12th Feb 2018, 21:29
Yep, just look at the fake pictures.

So how did they fake the weather on earth during the live feed? Can you explain why the Starman footage matches exactly with weather satellite imagery? See following thread.

https://www.metabunk.org/starman-and-the-falcon-heavy.t9502/

WingNut60
12th Feb 2018, 22:21
There is no sound because the thing is a fraud. Terrible CGI, all a stupid hoax. Just look a the pictures, I can't believe people think this is real.

Perhaps you could ask the gentleman at Post #31.
Or is he just part of the hoax?

Hokulea
13th Feb 2018, 07:36
Since the launch, there have been ~260 observations of the SpaceX Tesla reported by astronomical observatories throughout the world supplying positions and orbital information which anyone with a sufficiently large telescope can use to observe the object themselves. I guess they're all in on the hoax as well.

wiggy
13th Feb 2018, 07:52
I do wonder how some of the conspiracy theorists manage to function in the real world ... do they question absolutely everything they perceive? “Is this really Pprune”? “Is it really Wiggy posting”...” is it really tomato sauce in this bottle”..........?

Sallyann1234
13th Feb 2018, 09:05
I do wonder how some of the conspiracy theorists manage to function in the real world ..........?
I do wonder how so many posters accept a very obvious windup as being serious, and then try to disprove it.
It happens often on pprune.

FlyingCroc
13th Feb 2018, 11:00
So how did they fake the weather on earth during the live feed? Can you explain why the Starman footage matches exactly with weather satellite imagery? See following thread.

https://www.metabunk.org/starman-and-the-falcon-heavy.t9502/

Most of the footage of the earth is a blur, except that tiny portion which seems to be Australia. And that would be easy to insert WX Satellite picture into the CGI. However many more questions, where are the stars etc. And why in hell would you use tax money of hundreds millions to blast a stupid car into space? It makes no sense.

TURIN
13th Feb 2018, 11:50
Most of the footage of the earth is a blur, except that tiny portion which seems to be Australia. And that would be easy to insert WX Satellite picture into the CGI. However many more questions, where are the stars etc. And why in hell would you use tax money of hundreds millions to blast a stupid car into space? It makes no sense.

It's a private venture. Tax dollars not involved.
Jog on ya daft bugger.

treadigraph
13th Feb 2018, 11:51
...and it's a dummy load on a test flight - which put a smile on the face of most of the world...

paulc
13th Feb 2018, 11:57
Can think of a few people who should have been in that space suit though

FlyingCroc
13th Feb 2018, 13:16
Nope, it is not a private venture, it is a contractor from NASA which collects about 19 billion US from taxpayers. Also Tesla which never made a profit on a single car gets government subsidies.

Nige321
13th Feb 2018, 13:45
Nope, it is not a private venture, it is a contractor from NASA which collects about 19 billion US from taxpayers. Also Tesla which never made a profit on a single car gets government subsidies.

FlyingCroc

Please stop posting rubbish.

Falcon Heavy is funded by SpaceX, to the tune of around $500M...

IFMU
13th Feb 2018, 15:15
And why in hell would you use tax money of hundreds millions to blast a stupid car into space?
If those are my tax dollars at work - Outstanding! Finally getting my money's worth!

I don't think you are serious at all, nice job winding up the jetblasters though.

TEEEJ
13th Feb 2018, 20:13
Most of the footage of the earth is a blur, except that tiny portion which seems to be Australia. And that would be easy to insert WX Satellite picture into the CGI. However many more questions, where are the stars etc. And why in hell would you use tax money of hundreds millions to blast a stupid car into space? It makes no sense.

Get yourself on a basic photography course. If the lack of stars fool you then it is no wonder that you think that the footage is CGI.
You obvously didn't read the Metabunk thread.

Camera exposure. The camera is exposed to see the bright Earth, car, and sun, rather than the stars. It's effectively like trying to take a video of the stars at night with a bright light pointing at your camera. The camera will expose to see the big bright light, not the stars.Camera exposure. The camera is exposed to see the bright Earth, car, and sun, rather than the stars. It's effectively like trying to take a video of the stars at night with a bright light pointing at your camera. The camera will expose to see the big bright light, not the stars.

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/219174/

Why do photos of space taken from space never show any stars? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/150-people-in-astronomy/space-exploration-and-astronauts/general-questions/926-why-do-photos-of-space-taken-from-space-never-show-any-stars-intermediate)

The "no stars" question also comes up in relation to the ISS.

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-astronauts-stars-space-station.html

It was either that or a boring mass simulator in the form of concrete or steel blocks. On such a test flight why not make it something inventive?

Elon Musk commented on this back in December 2017.

“Test flights of new rockets usually contain mass simulators in the form of concrete or steel blocks. That seemed extremely boring,” he wrote on Instagram. “Of course, anything boring is terrible, especially companies, so we decided to send something unusual, something that made us feel. The payload will be an original Tesla Roadster, playing Space Oddity, on a billion year elliptic Mars orbit.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/12/22/its-not-a-joke-elon-musk-just-released-a-photo-of-a-tesla-being-loaded-onto-spacexs-falcon-heavy-rocket/

SARF
14th Feb 2018, 00:10
It took at least three moon landings for the public to get bored of the Apollo program.
Tesla.com has made space travel boring within 48 hours

Um... lifting...
14th Feb 2018, 01:01
Tesla.com has made space travel boring within 48 hours

I think you can blame that on having a 30 second attention span, not Tesla.

Under 8 minutes liftoff to touchdown and ennui is an issue?

Sounds like a personal problem.

ethicalconundrum
14th Feb 2018, 01:25
Um, on the money front:

Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html)

While there are certainly companies that work on the 'Chinese wall' of financial independence in ventures, I would say that Musk is not one of those types. If SpaceX publicly disclosed its funding, and if the solar panel company(forget the name) were reported publicly, I might be convinced. It's quite a mix, and keeping all the various dollars in all the correct various buckets is rather a complex challenge. Has some SpaceX money gone to Tesla? Vice versa? Solar grants to Tesla? Tesla grants to solar co?

Who knows.

atakacs
14th Feb 2018, 06:55
FlyingCroc

Please stop posting rubbish.

Falcon Heavy is funded by SpaceX, to the tune of around $500M...
But isn't SpaceX being largely funded by public money, even if not directly?

(I'm not here to debate the wisdom of launching a Tesla in solar orbit, just trying to clarify the funding of what is in my book a privatisation of space launch in the US).

ORAC
14th Feb 2018, 07:46
SpaceX is a private company which gets a lot of its funding from government contacts to launch resupply missions to the ISS. Nothing if a subsidy there, they are just getting contracts that otherwise would have gone to the Russians. They also would never have got the contracts if they hadn’t built and certified the Falcon, using their own money, so the required launch safety standard.

It should be noted that they also have a multi-billion order list for commercial launches, on which they make a profit, because their launch costs are a magnitude below their competitors.

Similarly they are now starting to gain DoD contracts because they are cheaper than their American competitors such as ULA. again, no subsidy.

They do have a contract to build and fly a man-rated space capsule for crew changes to the ISS. Again the Dragon contract is not a subsidy, on the contrary it is saving NASA a large, not a small, fortune. (https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/10/16623752/nasa-commercial-cargo-crew-spacex-orbital-atk-boeing-orion)

When you buy a car or hire a taxi, it is not a subsidy to the company.

As far as Tesla goes, yes, it milks the government, and California, for subsidies relating to the development of electric vehicles and lowering pollution. But both created the subsidies for exactlly that purpose. Are they wrong to do so? Tesla has never made an unsubsidised profit - but it has been trying to break into a market dominated by the Big Three in the USA and foreign companies such as Volkswagen - all of whom are now, collectively, pouting billions into competing electric vehicle and battery development (with government subsidies). Some would claim the amount of seed-corn subsidies to Tesla well spent.

Between Tesla, SpaceX, Hyperloop etc Musk has shown he he is willing to spend time and effort in new technologies which no-one else would touch. Like any entrepreneur, some will succeed and some will fail. But I at least think the world is a far better place for he being in it.

meadowrun
14th Feb 2018, 10:34
There's thinking outside the box
and then there's thinking without the box.

MG23
14th Feb 2018, 14:45
But isn't SpaceX being largely funded by public money, even if not directly?

No more than an airline is being subsidized when government employees buy tickets.

As I understand it, SpaceX has been given some money to help develop their new methane rocket engine, because the Air Force wanted more competition in the market, and NASA may have given some money toward the Falcon 9 development. Otherwise, they're selling flights to NASA just like any other customer (except charging more money because NASA put extra requirement on them and expect SpaceX to provide a capsule that carries cargo or passengers to the space station).

Some of Musk's other companies apparently get a lot of subsidies, but SpaceX would likely be profitable even without the government business. They have a big backlog of commercial customers right now.

MurphyWasRight
14th Feb 2018, 15:07
There's thinking outside the box
and then there's thinking without the box.

I tend to get grumpy when my cats think outside the box :eek:

On cost of the roadster launch it amazes me how many people mix the cost of the test itself with the additional cost to send the car over a more traditional dummy payload.

Totally guessing here but would doubt it was over 0.1% of the total bill given that the falcon already had the plumbing for live videos. Just needed to add a few cameras to the existing set.
The support structure etc would be needed in some form for any dummy payload.
Don't know what a used Tesla roadster goes for but suspect they kept the batteries which would be a significant fraction of the value.
A LiOn battery fire in space would certainly have added to the drama though.

Overall well worth whatever it cost.

My only complaint is that SpaceX should have used the Blue Danube waltz as background music for the twin booster landing.

They could have synchronized the ending perfectly since I suspect they had a precises timeline from initial fly back burn to landing.

Anyone who has see 2001 A Space Odyssey will know what I mean.

I saw it in original release in Chicago in Cinerama (three screen) as a teenager.

I had a half day layover and decided it looked interesting from the lobby posters. I had not heard of it before, mind blowing to say the least...

meadowrun
14th Feb 2018, 16:52
I originally saw it in Cinerama as well when younger.
Actually thought we had gone into the wrong theatre for the first 15 minutes.

MurphyWasRight
14th Feb 2018, 17:26
Not the only one to think of sync to the Blue Danube, sound is a bit low but still fun to see and hear:https://youtu.be/9aUJYybZ2j4

glad rag
14th Feb 2018, 18:01
Bx2pcsy22Rs

JUST WATCH THOSE BOOSTERS COME BACK!!

nomorecatering
16th Feb 2018, 22:19
Correct me if I'm wrong, in the vacuum of space, in direct sunlight the temperature is 200+ deg, in the shaddows its -100 something or more. Wouldn't the plastic in the cabin, the rubber of the tyres melt, wouldn't the paint rapidly age from the intense UV radiation?

I;ve always wondered what would happen to ordinary mundane objects if you took them on a space walk. Such as tennis ball and a book.

Thomas coupling
16th Feb 2018, 22:24
It's got a 3 year warranty😁

Um... lifting...
17th Feb 2018, 00:04
Correct me if I'm wrong, in the vacuum of space, in direct sunlight the temperature is 200+ deg, in the shaddows its -100 something or more. Wouldn't the plastic in the cabin, the rubber of the tyres melt, wouldn't the paint rapidly age from the intense UV radiation?

Musk touched on that in an interview when he stated that everything on the car was just standard material. I should imagine that the various volatiles will leave all the plastic and plastic-like materials rather quickly, the paint will alternately bake and freeze and be abraded by particle collisions.

Everything on the machine that's supposed to be flexible is likely to lose that property, any fluids or gases that may have been contained at launch will probably escape.

But on the other hand, it is not likely to oxidize.

WhatsaLizad?
17th Feb 2018, 02:25
Blue Danube matches nicely but IMHO is seriously overplayed. Slightly less overplayed, but matches nicely with the launch video is "The Planets" by Gustav Holst starting with "Mars, Bringer of War".


Start the first two following videos at the same time (skipping the ads of course). Mute the launch video, turn up the sound of Holst, with headphones even better. Almost matches perfectly except for the Starman sequences.


He doesn't fit at all. My suggestion is to sync the last two videos with a second drink, mute the Starman feed and turn up Laika and the Cosmonauts.:cool:


Enjoy!

Sequence #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isic2Z2e2xs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB_nEtZxPog




Starman Sequence #2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3niFzo5VLI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyFfntitB2k&list=RDgyFfntitB2k#t=275

Hokulea
17th Feb 2018, 09:38
Enjoy!

"The random walk of cars and their collision probabilities with planets"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.04718.pdf

In the meantime, if the Tesla returns somewhere near the Earth in 2091, it's unlikely to look anything like now. I'd expect the odd micro-meteor impact (if the windshield survives I'll be stunned despite having passed away a long time before) and anything susceptible to radiation might, well, have changed colour a little bit and look a quite different.

Incidentally, any leaking of fluids or gases left in the car (e.g., the tyres or engine) will change the orbit so much over the next few months, let alone years, meaning we basically have no idea what its orbit will eventually be.

wiggy
21st Feb 2018, 09:47
feb 19, SpaceX Tesla imaged at 3.7 million km from Earth

SpaceX Tesla At 3.7 Million Km Distance, Near A Nice Star Cluster (http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=142753)

dazarland
21st Feb 2018, 16:52
The launch was amazing! The landing of the rockets was even better..... I felt like I was living in the future watching that. Thanks Elon Musk ;)

Nemrytter
22nd Feb 2018, 12:34
I felt like I was living in the future watching that.The exact opposite of Jet Blast, then.:}