So....A Tesla Roadster is going to Mars....

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › So....A Tesla Roadster is going to Mars....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

7619 posts

Uber Geek

#1953429 8-Feb-2018 08:19

That rocket was seriously impressive, especially the reusable boosters landing in synchrony.

But if the humanity star was seen as ego driven what do you call putting a car into space?

Vulgar display of wealth?

And also more space junk.

Mike

MyHeritage

Shop MyHeritage and uncover your origins and find new relatives with a simple DNA test. (affiliate link).

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953431 8-Feb-2018 08:24

Agreed. Something tasteful. And unlike the Humanity Star, this car will last a billion years, although I guess its unbelieveably unlikely to hit anything of ours or anything else. The contrast in these two threads is startling

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1953455 8-Feb-2018 08:48

I think the primary difference is RocketLab's didn't need more payload, It was an unneeded secondary payload that was kept secret whereas everyone knew and accepted that FH was going to have a big mass simulator and it was going to go quite far out

Edit:// To be fair the ARK was a surprise but it's being kept on the roadster and not launched as a separate object

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953459 8-Feb-2018 08:58

Beccara:

I think the primary difference is RocketLab's didn't need more payload, It was an unneeded secondary payload that was kept secret whereas everyone knew and accepted that FH was going to have a big mass simulator and it was going to go quite far out

Edit:// To be fair the ARK was a surprise but it's being kept on the roadster and not launched as a separate object

I read Rocketlab's was a test deployment. It wasn't secret, and it want a hey look at this either.

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1953461 8-Feb-2018 09:03

The humanity star was, The press before was about 3 customer payloads. SpaceX was pretty open about what the FH payload was

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953466 8-Feb-2018 09:11

Beccara:

The humanity star was, The press before was about 3 customer payloads. SpaceX was pretty open about what the FH payload was

Maybe the next launch will be a garden shed hopefully

Rocketlabs was in the news, no secret. because they didnt make a hoopla about it leading to the launch shows it wasn't a publicity stunt. SpaceX should have out a similar useful satellite for its special thing, something that meant something or did something vaguely useful. Its very clear that the silly factor from SpaceX is way cool, and the meaningful factor from Rocketlabs was pretty much bagged in the other thread. As I said, fickle

kingdragonfly

8807 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1953467 8-Feb-2018 09:11

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5361587/SpaceX-confirms-DID-lose-Falcon-Heavy-rocket.html

"Where is Musk's Tesla now?

The Falcon Heavy's unusual cargo was sent into an unplanned trajectory when SpaceX accidentally over-fired the rocket's third booster stage.

The booster stages were supposed to make small adjustments to the vehicle's path before it disconnected from the final rocket component and began to coast unaided through space at around 7 miles per second (11 km/s).

Instead of intersecting with Mars' orbit around the sun, the Tesla missed by some distance, flying past the planet at an unknown distance and continuing deep into the solar system.

On Twitter, Musk said the car 'exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt', referring to the disk of asteroids in the solar system between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

SpaceX had said before launch that they had no plans to track the Tesla, and with the firm's cameras running out of battery 12 hours into the vehicle's journey, it's almost impossible to tell where Starman is now."

networkn

Networkn
30225 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953489 8-Feb-2018 09:29

SpaceX had said before launch that they had no plans to track the Tesla, and with the firm's cameras running out of battery 12 hours into the vehicle's journey, it's almost impossible to tell where Starman is now."

That makes the waste even worse in my book. The guy who is the face of solar on the planet, couldn't have mounted a battery that was solar powered to the car to allow them to track it.

Dingbatt

6421 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1953492 8-Feb-2018 09:31

kingdragonfly:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5361587/SpaceX-confirms-DID-lose-Falcon-Heavy-rocket.html

"Where is Musk's Tesla now?

The Falcon Heavy's unusual cargo was sent into an unplanned trajectory when SpaceX accidentally over-fired the rocket's third booster stage.

The booster stages were supposed to make small adjustments to the vehicle's path before it disconnected from the final rocket component and began to coast unaided through space at around 7 miles per second (11 km/s).

Instead of intersecting with Mars' orbit around the sun, the Tesla missed by some distance, flying past the planet at an unknown distance and continuing deep into the solar system.

On Twitter, Musk said the car 'exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt', referring to the disk of asteroids in the solar system between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

SpaceX had said before launch that they had no plans to track the Tesla, and with the firm's cameras running out of battery 12 hours into the vehicle's journey, it's almost impossible to tell where Starman is now."

So, unless SpaceX has secretly developed Warp Drive technology, what they mean to say is that the trajectory now exceeds Mars orbit and is headed to the Asteroid Belt. Even the Millennium Falcon on the Kessel run would only just be going past Mars by now.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

MikeAqua

7619 posts

Uber Geek

#1953512 8-Feb-2018 10:15

Now that we see the shipping method, we can all understand why Tesla keep missing it's volume targets ...

Mike

networkn

Networkn
30225 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953515 8-Feb-2018 10:17

MikeAqua:

Now that we see the shipping method, we can all understand why Tesla keep missing it's volume targets ...

This provided me some amusement, thank you!

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953652 8-Feb-2018 14:21

Can I ask a dumb question: why not attach a parachute to the bit that keeps crashing in the ocean instead of having to lift and and then use fuel to bring it back? You could take up less fuel, then use the fuel left to get it close enough to be recovered and use a parachute for a soft, non-explosive landing.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953653 8-Feb-2018 14:23

networkn:

SpaceX had said before launch that they had no plans to track the Tesla, and with the firm's cameras running out of battery 12 hours into the vehicle's journey, it's almost impossible to tell where Starman is now."

That makes the waste even worse in my book. The guy who is the face of solar on the planet, couldn't have mounted a battery that was solar powered to the car to allow them to track it.

Think of the marketing: "Tesla Solar Panels - The Only Solar Panels you can buy proven to work in space reliably!"

Beccara

1467 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1953655 8-Feb-2018 14:29

Hypersonic parachutes are tricky, expensive and hold a certain amount of unknowns that cant be accounted for. They also cant return the stage back to land so it would have to always be a barge landing. Remember at MECO S1 is going 8000+ kph

Once the software and hardware issues are found and resolved propulsive landings are more reliable

tdgeek

28622 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1953657 8-Feb-2018 14:32

Geektastic:

Can I ask a dumb question: why not attach a parachute to the bit that keeps crashing in the ocean instead of having to lift and and then use fuel to bring it back? You could take up less fuel, then use the fuel left to get it close enough to be recovered and use a parachute for a soft, non-explosive landing.

To have fuel left for the recovery (I assume you mean to slow it down on descent) you would need to take more fuel up, plus to take that extra fuel you need more fuel to carry it up. The problem with rockets is they need so much fuel to get the craft to orbital velocity, so you need lots of fuel and you need big fuel tank (the rocket) and now you are carrying so much weight you need even more horsepower (fuel)

But you do get the benefit of travelling at 17,000mph using no fuel once you are up there

EDIT take that back, the bit that crashed was meant to land like the other two wasn't it?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7