Overclock.net banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
On Tuesday, Feb. 6th at 3:45 PM ET, Falcon Heavy successfully lifted off from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Falcon Heavy is the most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor of two, with the ability to lift into orbit nearly 64 metric tons (141,000 lb)--a mass greater than a 737 jetliner loaded with passengers, crew, luggage and fuel.

Falcon Heavy's first stage is composed of three Falcon 9 nine-engine cores whose 27 Merlin engines together generate more than 5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, equal to approximately eighteen 747 aircraft. Only the Saturn V moon rocket, last flown in 1973, delivered more payload to orbit.
Source: http://www.spacex.com/news/2018/02/07/falcon-heavy-test-launch
Video:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
I watched this live!

Elon Musk is the OG of real life memes....

He put a Car in Space, with a Rocket Man inside of it. With the Words "Don't Panic" on the dash....

Nasa would have put some scientific instrument onboard.... Boring!


That Rocket was pretty amazing, watching the two boosters land side by side. Welcome to the 21st century. The Core rocket had problems with the needed engines going back online, but regardless a huge success for the Falcon. Goes to show how bloated and mismanaged NASA has become.
 

·
Unwilling Beta tester
Joined
·
7,188 Posts
It was a partial success, but a great test. You often learn more when things go wrong, as they did here, than when everything goes right.

The two boosters landing in parallel though, that was just incredible. I'm still not tired of watching that.

Nasa would have put some scientific instrument onboard.... Boring!
Meh - more likely on a test launch they'd have put a concrete block or similar solid mass on board, along with the telemetry instrumentation. Still not as fun and quirky as a car though.


As for NASA 'failing', it is worth noting that the Saturn V was their baby. As mentioned in the article it still holds the record for biggest payload, carrying more than twice the payload of the Falcon Heavy, at 141 tonnes (310,000 lbs) to LEO. And it was designed in the 60's...

If all goes well the Saturn V will finally lose its record next year to the BFR, with a target payload to LEO of 150 tonnes (330,000 lbs).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
It was a partial success, but a great test. You often learn more when things go wrong, as they did here, than when everything goes right.

The two boosters landing in parallel though, that was just incredible. I'm still not tired of watching that.



Meh - more likely on a test launch they'd have put a concrete block or similar solid mass on board, along with the telemetry instrumentation. Still not as fun and quirky as a car though.


As for NASA 'failing', it is worth noting that the Saturn V was their baby. As mentioned in the article it still holds the record for biggest payload, carrying more than twice the payload of the Falcon Heavy, at 141 tonnes (310,000 lbs) to LEO. And it was designed in the 60's...

If all goes well the Saturn V will finally lose its record next year to the BFR, with a target payload to LEO of 150 tonnes (330,000 lbs).
Nasa also is working on the SLS which will also be more powerful than the Saturn V.

While I still love Nasa's old Saturn V Rocket, and what it has done for the history of the world. It was still a costly Launch platform, and same goes with their new SLS platform.

The BFR I believe is also going to be a one use rocket as well, but I believe the cost to launch is still a good deal lower than the SLS.

The Falcon Heavy is still crazy cool for bringing overall cost down. This is what Nasa should focus on. Even the Russians with their ancient rocket tech should take note and move for the future. As using decade old launch platforms vs building more efficient systems is down right crazy. The Private Sector is going to replace government funded space organizations very quickly. But maybe that is a good thing, they tend to be mismanaged anyhow.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,473 Posts
Ya I don't think you can make a dig at NASA. They were doing these things in the 60's using slide rulers. NASA budget:




Once we went to the moon and shuttle launches became routine, our zest for space dropped off dramatically.
 

·
Indentified! On the Way!!
Joined
·
2,928 Posts
Ya I don't think you can make a dig at NASA. They were doing these things in the 60's using slide rulers. NASA budget:




Once we went to the moon and shuttle launches became routine, our zest for space dropped off dramatically.
Precisely this.

Though, I would say the private sector will be WAY MORE efficient than government could ever be. I do think, however, there is room for both.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Ya I don't think you can make a dig at NASA. They were doing these things in the 60's using slide rulers. NASA budget:




Once we went to the moon and shuttle launches became routine, our zest for space dropped off dramatically.
That is because the shuttle program was a giant waste of time. People could care less about going into lower orbit. Even the Apollo missions got stale for the masses after doing the same thing over and over. While not a bad thing, people like something new and different. But honestly it wasn't until the last decade where Nasa has really become stale...

SpaceX has done nothing but impress so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
Hoping for video of the third part of the rocket (the core) taking out that drone ship. Watched this live also and was wondering why the feed cut out before the third part landed on the ship. I guess the core hit the drone ship at over 300mph!

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/musk-falcon-heavy-soars-core-180207054158335.html

Even with the loss of the core and the payload (car) overshooting the mars orbit, this still has to be called a success.

http://https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16983744/spacex-tesla-falcon-heavy-roadster-orbit-asteroid-belt-elon-musk-mars
 

·
Adclock.net
Joined
·
3,752 Posts
Why is this not bigger on OCN, who cares about an automated drone taking a few people somewhere, This is SPACE travel being done by a private company and a massive success in the grand scheme of things.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Why is this not bigger on OCN, who cares about an automated drone taking a few people somewhere, This is SPACE travel being done by a private company and a massive success in the grand scheme of things.
If this was a "Nvidia releases new Drivers xxx.xx" the thread would have 50 posts by now....

Honestly the fact that this wasn't front and center on OCN before the launch is pretty sad...


Luckily every other news site cares enough about it. lol
 

·
I Love this Hobby!
Joined
·
7,793 Posts
About the non melting Tesla car in space - Elon Musk: "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake, honestly. Like we'd have way better CGI if it was fake."

He should also improve the CGI on those, zero witness, booster landings.
 

·
Unwilling Beta tester
Joined
·
7,188 Posts
About the non melting Tesla car in space - Elon Musk: "You can tell it's real because it looks so fake, honestly. Like we'd have way better CGI if it was fake."

He should also improve the CGI on those, zero witness, booster landings.
Wait, do you honestly believe that the whole thing was CGI? Because he car didn't melt and 'no one witnessed' the booster landings?

What makes you think the car would melt? The surface would only reach something like 150°C on the side facing the sun, well below the melting point of metal. Since the dash of the car is made from carbon fibre that won't melt either. There may be some plastics in there that would, but I'd imagine that they stripped them out before launch.

As for witnessing the landing of the boosters, would you like to volunteer to stand next to the landing pad? The pad that the booster might land on, or might miss and crash into the ground at 500kph sending shrapnel flying everywhere?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
Wait, nobody witnessed the booster landings in person??

You'd think there would be some other video or witnesses from a distance at least. Of the booster landing or the drone ship crash.

Gotta admit the perfect dual booster landing was the jaw dropping part for me. Also thought the glowing rocket engine nozzle pics in orbit during it's last stages were the most suspect of all if you want to talk about fakery.

And I thought some science-test guys say radiation in space will toast the car in a year anyway.

http://www.thedrive.com/news/18301/if-asteroids-dont-destroy-elon-musks-space-tesla-radiation-will-experts-say
 

·
Unwilling Beta tester
Joined
·
7,188 Posts
Wait, nobody witnessed the booster landings in person??

You'd think there would be some other video or witnesses from a distance at least. Of the booster landing or the drone ship crash.
The exclusion zone for those would be pretty large, meaning that independent observers would have a hard time getting close. After all, the chances of things going wrong are pretty high and the resultant damage to things around it pretty devastating, as was demonstrated by the centre core missing the drone ship by 300ft (100m) and still doing major damage to it.

And therein lies another argument for it not being CGI; if it were fake, how come the centre core failed to land?


Edit: However there is independent footage:

http://digg.com/video/simultaneous-landing-spacex-sonic-boom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Nasa also is working on the SLS which will also be more powerful than the Saturn V.

While I still love Nasa's old Saturn V Rocket, and what it has done for the history of the world. It was still a costly Launch platform, and same goes with their new SLS platform.

The BFR I believe is also going to be a one use rocket as well, but I believe the cost to launch is still a good deal lower than the SLS.

The Falcon Heavy is still crazy cool for bringing overall cost down. This is what Nasa should focus on. Even the Russians with their ancient rocket tech should take note and move for the future. As using decade old launch platforms vs building more efficient systems is down right crazy. The Private Sector is going to replace government funded space organizations very quickly. But maybe that is a good thing, they tend to be mismanaged anyhow.
The Space Shuttle was hugely expensive. As a system, it could launch about 100 tons into low earth orbit. The only problem was that at best it could only leave about 30 tons. Most of the weight was the shuttle itself which was returned to earth, only to be disassembled, inspected, refurbished and reassembled before it could be launched again. Imagine removing and rebuilding the engine of you car every time you parked it in your garage. It was worse than that for the Space Shuttle.

Skylab was an ~80 ton space station sent into orbit in a single (Saturn V) launch. Because the ISS relied on the space shuttle it needed 4 launches to assemble the same mass and also required a lot more work to assemble. All that modularity came at a huge cost.

Rumor has it that a complete set of plans for the Saturn V was hidden under the elevated flooring in one of the buildings at Kennedy when Nixon ordered everything destroyed. That was a sad sad day for US Space Exploration.
 

·
Original 16-bit Genesis®
Joined
·
1,756 Posts
How could anyone claim that this was faked? Random people in U.S. saw the vapor trails from the ground.
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top