SpaceX's first Falcon Heavy has its first and second stages ready, and they made some photos.

[captain cactus]

9 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

haha, has Elon Musk ever been anything BUT confident!?

 

For anyone NOT born in the 60's... this is the most powerful rocket produced and slated for launch SINCE THE APOLLO MISSIONS. You know, the ones that took us to the moon? I might take some vacation time to watch this sucker light in the flesh.

 

Does anyone know the launch date of this behemoth?

January 2018, that's all. Exact day and time still not known.

[ItsMitch]

21 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

haha, has Elon Musk ever been anything BUT confident!?

 

For anyone NOT born in the 60's... this is the most powerful rocket produced and slated for launch SINCE THE APOLLO MISSIONS. You know, the ones that took us to the moon? I might take some vacation time to watch this sucker light in the flesh.

 

Does anyone know the launch date of this behemoth?

 

Late January it seems, but I'm strongly considering renewing my passport to watch this live. 

[shermantanker]

that's just sexy...

[Stefan1024]

I'm wondering for how may miles you have to drive an electric car instead of a petrol based one, to compensate the pollution of a single start of this rocket......

[Taf the Ghost]

I'm more than willing to give Elon a lot of flak because Solar City & Tesla are non-economically viable companies and there's a lot of questionable financial things going on with them, but it's hard to get too worked up about it when he's provided what Western governments wanted, all the while being part of his master plan to get to Mars.

 

Also, is he seriously going to put his own Tesla on the Moon? Musk would forever be the winner in "hold my beer".

[Dissitesuxba11s]

11 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Also, is he seriously going to put his own Tesla on the Moon? Musk would forever be the winner in "hold my beer".

I think he is only shooting for space (correct me if I'm wrong). The current theories in my office on why he is doing this are:

 

1. Sell the car as the first commercial car to go to space.

2. Secretly launch a satellite from the car.

3. Test the structural integrity of the car for space travel.

4. The car is secretly a spaceship.

5. Because he can.

 

[Teddy07]

What is the purpose of these rockets?

 

Seems like a lot of Musk hype here.

[Linus_torvalds]

46 minutes ago, Stefan1024 said:

I'm wondering for how may miles you have to drive an electric car instead of a petrol based one, to compensate the pollution of a single start of this rocket......

It is better to plant trees. I have planted about 55 in my life. Yes i know it's a small number, but imagine if every person on this planet did the same thing. 7 000 000 000 * 55 = 385 000 000 000 trees

I am 26 years old. According to research 3.5 billion to 7 billion trees are cut down per year. So in my lifetime there would have been cut down 182 000 000 000 trees at max. Today we would have 385 000 000 000 more trees

 

[captain cactus]

Just now, Teddy07 said:

What is the purpose of these rockets?

 

Seems like a lot of Musk hype here.

To get to Mars with space ships or to put massive satellites (or space station parts for that matter) in earth/moon orbit. And to show off the giant e-peen.

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

I think he is only shooting for space (correct me if I'm wrong). The current theories in my office on why he is doing this are:

 

1. Sell the car as the first commercial car to go to space.

2. Secretly launch a satellite from the car.

3. Test the structural integrity of the car for space travel.

4. The car is secretly a spaceship.

5. Because he can.

 

Well, it's a test-flight of a heavy rocket, which means you need to put some payload on it, but it's not also something you can sell. So, what do you do? Yeah, put your signature car in there and blast it out of the Solar System. Toss some sort of transmitter system and take "car selfies" as it passes by Jupiter or something. Why? Because you can.

 

Realistically, we only ever went to the Moon because it was a terrible idea to beat the Russian there. There's a reason funding almost instantly dried up. It was a massively expansive "Look at me!" project, but it worked. And it's still working. Now if we can figure out a commercially viable reason to run a Moon base.

[CommandMan7]

@Sakkura @Damascus @Dissitesuxba11s

 

Although it's essentially 3 Falcon 9's strapped together, there are still a lot of small physical differences between the boosters in Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, therefore these will have to be new. Using a used booster would require a complete rebuild of the booster (negating a lot cost savings). Conversion between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy is probably not even be possible.

[Dissitesuxba11s]

2 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

Although it's essentially 3 Falcon 9's strapped together, there are still a lot of small physical differences between the boosters in Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, therefore these will have to be new. Using a used booster would require a complete rebuild of the booster (negating a lot cost savings). Conversion between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy is probably not even be possible.

Makes sense, especially since they have enough Merlin engines in stock.

[Stefan1024]

24 minutes ago, mate_mate91 said:

It is better to plant trees. I have planted about 55 in my life. Yes i know it's a small number, but imagine if every person on this planet did the same thing. 7 000 000 000 * 55 = 385 000 000 000 trees

I am 26 years old. According to research 3.5 billion to 7 billion trees are cut down per year. So in my lifetime there would have been cut down 182 000 000 000 trees at max. Today we would have 385 000 000 000 more trees

 

Auctually, 55 trees is not bad at all, keep going.

 

Personally I still hope they get the fusion reactor ready by 2030/2040. But until then we have to look for other solution.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

I think the boosters go away at the same altitude as the current one since it's still a stage. The middle booster will come down from higher up. I mean, this rocket is meant to place stuff into Earth escape trajectories so there's a hell of a lot of speed and energy involved.

Not necessarily. The first stage boosters can either:

1. Go the same distance with a significantly heavier load, or

2. Go much farther up compared to the same load of a Falcon 9

 

I don't know any specific specs though.

[CommandMan7]

@Damascus @Dissitesuxba11s @Damascus

 

Found a source:

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a14470638/falcon-heavy-three-core-first-stage-assembled-at-cape-canaveral/

 

Quote

The two side boosters, which are previously flown Falcon 9 first stages, will land on landing pads at Cape Canaveral, while the new primary center core will land on an autonomous drone ship in the Atlantic.

 

So apparently the side boosters are interchangable, while the center booster isn't.

[Dissitesuxba11s]

4 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

.

Quote

Elon Musk has cautioned, however, that the first flight of the Heavy comes with a number of risks, and that he would consider the first test launch a success if the vehicle just makes it far enough away from the pad to not cause any damage.

This is quite a different definition for success. 

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, CommandMan7 said:

@Sakkura @Damascus @Dissitesuxba11s

 

Although it's essentially 3 Falcon 9's strapped together, there are still a lot of small physical differences between the boosters in Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, therefore these will have to be new. Using a used booster would require a complete rebuild of the booster (negating a lot cost savings). Conversion between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy is probably not even be possible.

The differences for the core first stage are indeed quite big and would preclude swapping between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. But it's my impression that the side boosters are not modified nearly as much, and could (with a little work) be converted back and forth between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy if necessary.

 

It's probably cheaper to just use dedicated first stages for each though. They already got the R&D cost savings from having the Falcon Heavy derived from Falcon 9.

 

Edit: Oh, you came to a similar conclusion anyway. My bad.

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, Stefan1024 said:

Auctually, 55 trees is not bad at all, keep going.

 

Personally I still hope they get the fusion reactor ready by 2030/2040. But until then we have to look for other solution.

You're not getting off this planet without Kerosene.

[Stefan1024]

17 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

You're not getting off this planet without Kerosene.

There are ways, but Kerosene is a bit more practical:

 

https://youtu.be/7dUYfDg3G2A

[System Error Message]

13 hours ago, Stefan1024 said:

I'm wondering for how may miles you have to drive an electric car instead of a petrol based one, to compensate the pollution of a single start of this rocket......

Actually rocket fuel isnt petroleum based. There are a few types of fuels rockets can used and none of them are polluting but are only toxic and reactive in their separate form. For instance, hydrogen + oxygen rocket fuel only outs water. Some are based on alcohols which as we know is far less polluting than petrol.

 

Just because rockets burn fuel doesnt mean it is polluting. Its the same with engines, you could retrofit a petrol engine to run on hydrogen and oxygen. Combustion really is just the process of hydrogen reacting with oxygen and in petrol you have the carbon and sulphur along for the ride.

[RagnarokDel]

14 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

What is the purpose of these rockets?

 

Seems like a lot of Musk hype here.

being able to carry astronauts in space eventually?

13 hours ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

This is quite a different definition for success. 

He's managing expectations.

[sof006]

Wow, simply amazing!

 

Is there anything this man won't do?

[dalekphalm]

23 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

What is the purpose of these rockets?

 

Seems like a lot of Musk hype here.

The main purpose is simple: To get as much as possible into Orbit, at a low cost.

 

These rockets are pretty much the most powerful rockets currently being deployed anywhere in the world. The only thing more powerful is the Saturn V, which hasn't been flown since 1973.

 

Plus the Falcon Heavy is fully reusable for the lower stage.

 

To put that all into perspective, the Falcon Heavy could lift an entire 747 737 jet liner, fully loaded with fuel and passengers, into orbit - that's how much weight it can lift.

 

That means we can put bigger and more complicated satellites into orbit. Or multiple smaller satellites at the same time. Or put larger Station Modules into orbit. It's a very flexible and powerful design.

[N0rm]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

To put that all into perspective, the Falcon Heavy could lift an entire 747 jet liner, fully loaded with fuel and passengers, into orbit - that's how much weight it can lift.

Falcon Heavy's Low Earth Orbit payload is 63.8 tons, a fully loaded 747 is over 400 tons. It can lift about a Boeing 737 (the single aisle one) without fuel.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, N0rm said:

Falcon Heavy's Low Earth Orbit payload is 63.8 tons, a fully loaded 747 is over 400 tons. It can lift about a Boeing 737 (the single aisle one) without fuel.

You are correct, it was a Typo, 737.

 

With that in mind, that DOES include fuel:

Quote

With the ability to lift into orbit over 54 metric tons (119,000 lb)--a mass equivalent to a 737 jetliner loaded with passengers, crew, luggage and fuel

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy