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

[Taf the Ghost]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/22/elon-musk-shows-off-the-tesla-roadster-hes-prepping-for-space/

 

@Dissitesuxba11s

 

Because he can.

[captain cactus]

9 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/22/elon-musk-shows-off-the-tesla-roadster-hes-prepping-for-space/

 

@Dissitesuxba11s

 

Because he can.

Because he can indeed.

 

Here's a direct pic: 

[Dissitesuxba11s]

9 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/22/elon-musk-shows-off-the-tesla-roadster-hes-prepping-for-space/

 

@Dissitesuxba11s

 

Because he can.

Quote

all while David Bowie's Space Oddity plays

My favorite part. Beautiful.

[DildorTheDecent]

On 12/21/2017 at 7:45 AM, sof006 said:

Is there anything this man won't do?

Actually have a profitable business.

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

Actually have a profitable business.

SolarCity is really a bust but kept alive by the other two. Tesla will survive on subsidies because governments want it. SpaceX is the actual, viable business, plus almost the single reason Elon is doing this. For as much, deserved, flack as he should get, I'll always have respect for a guy that wants to set foot on Mars and figured out a way to do it.

[ItsMitch]

16 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

Actually have a profitable business.

who needs money? it's almost 2018, cmon money is for chumps. 

[DildorTheDecent]

52 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

figured out a way to do it.

What like building a rocket?

 

Who'd have thought it...

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, DildorTheDecent said:

What like building a rocket?

 

Who'd have thought it...

A trip to Mars will cost, in total, billions. Gotta find the money and build the specific technology to pull it off.

[yian88]

On 12/20/2017 at 4:10 PM, cj09beira said:

they said they would use used ones first, 

Im i the only one who has mixed feelings, i want them to succeed, with reused one to make it even more  cool and funny, but at the same time i want to see big explosions.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, yian88 said:

Im i the only one who has mixed feelings, i want them to succeed, with reused one to make it even more  cool and funny, but at the same time i want to see big explosions.

There are some excellent SpaceX compilation videos on YouTube. Enjoy some explosions! ?

[LED_Guy]

On 12/20/2017 at 10:47 AM, lots of unexplainable lag said:

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.

The space shuttle was largely a waste of energy.  At maximum load a space shuttle put about 100 tons into low earth orbit.  A great accomplishment!  Roughly 80 tons was returned to earth at the end of each mission.

 

ISS could have been assembled much more quickly if we only launched the modules.  Using the space shuttle also put some severe constraints on diameter and length of the ISS modules.

 

We still don’t have the ability to relaunch Skylab and that was orbited back in the 1970’s.  Falcon Heavy will be the closest thing in a long time to the Saturn V.

[straight_stewie]

On 12/20/2017 at 7:45 AM, BuckGup said:

Is this one reusable too? 

It's as reusable as the 9's it's built out of. In fact, judging by the inside of the engine bells, I'm guessing these are actually post flight 9's.

 

Quote

The space shuttle was largely a waste of energy.  At maximum load a space shuttle put about 100 tons into low earth orbit.  A great accomplishment!  Roughly 80 tons was returned to earth at the end of each mission.

 

ISS could have been assembled much more quickly if we only launched the modules.  Using the space shuttle also put some severe constraints on diameter and length of the ISS modules.

 

We still don’t have the ability to relaunch Skylab and that was orbited back in the 1970’s.  Falcon Heavy will be the closest thing in a long time to the Saturn V.

In addition, it turns out that it was likely extremely more expensive to reuse the space shuttle than it would have been to just buy new ones every flight. Oops. @LED_Guy

[LED_Guy]

16 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

It's as reusable as the 9's it's built out of. In fact, judging by the inside of the engine bells, I'm guessing these are actually post flight 9's.

 

In addition, it turns out that it was likely extremely more expensive to reuse the space shuttle than it would have been to just buy new ones every flight. Oops. @LED_Guy

I know one of the senior directors at NASA - the space shuttle was pretty much designed to be disassembled, inspected, rebuilt and reassembled before each launch.  

 

If NASA had made the shuttles disposable (even with the exact

same design) they would have at least had the economic benefits of an assembly line instead of one offs.  We sacrificed our future in space for the idea of a space plane that was a disaster before it ever reached the launch pad.

[straight_stewie]

2 minutes ago, LED_Guy said:

If NASA had made the shuttles disposable (even with the exact

same design) they would have at least had the economic benefits of an assembly line instead of one offs.  We sacrificed our future in space for the idea of a space plane that was a disaster before it ever reached the launch pad.

Exactly. The space shuttle was just the first in a long line of examples of what happens when politicians get involved in making non administrative flight hardware decisions.

[Trik'Stari]

On 12/20/2017 at 8:48 AM, VegetableStu said:

most likely, those long triangles above around the nozzles look like sheathed tripods.

I'm guessing they're going to have separated landings as well

IIRC the boosters will land back at their launching base, and the main booster will land on the drone ship.

[Trik'Stari]

11 hours ago, LED_Guy said:

The space shuttle was largely a waste of energy.  At maximum load a space shuttle put about 100 tons into low earth orbit.  A great accomplishment!  Roughly 80 tons was returned to earth at the end of each mission.

 

ISS could have been assembled much more quickly if we only launched the modules.  Using the space shuttle also put some severe constraints on diameter and length of the ISS modules.

 

We still don’t have the ability to relaunch Skylab and that was orbited back in the 1970’s.  Falcon Heavy will be the closest thing in a long time to the Saturn V.

Isn't it supposed to be more powerful than Saturn V?

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

Isn't it supposed to be more powerful than Saturn V?

Nope. I checked the specs. The Saturn V is still more powerful (I forget the exact the numbers, but something like 20% bigger payload to LEO).

 

However, they can get away with saying "The most powerful rocket*", because in the fine print, they say:

*Still in operation

 

Saturn V hasn't been in use since 1973 if I remember correctly. They just didn't have a need for such a powerful and expensive rocket after the Apollo program ended.

 

With that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if future modifications (Eg: Additional side boosters or something) could make the Falcon Heavy as powerful as the Saturn V.

[Sakkura]

On 24/12/2017 at 3:50 PM, dalekphalm said:

With that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if future modifications (Eg: Additional side boosters or something) could make the Falcon Heavy as powerful as the Saturn V.

They have the BFR in development for missions beyond the scope of the Falcon Heavy. While the Falcon Heavy is much less capable than the Saturn V, the BFR will be more capable.

[Bensemus]

In case people are still wondering the side boosters are reused F9’s that have received only slight modifications. The center booster and I believe most of the second stage had to be heavily modified to handle launching 60 ton payloads as they have to handle all the extra stresses. SpaceX didn’t get crossfeed working so the side boosters will run at full throttle while the middle booster will run a a lower level and then throttle up after the side boosters separate. During the test mission the side boosters will fly back to land while the centre booster will land, likely much farther then ever before, out at sea on a drone ship. 

 

One thing they may do in the future is land all three stages out at see which would allow for a larger payload and reusability. They would need some more drone ships for that though.

 

when starting the rocket they have to stagger the engine ignitions to prevent the rocket from getting twisted and damaged by the massive thrust. The amount of engines they are using is one of the big challenges of the FH. 

[knightslugger]

5 hours ago, Bensemus said:

SpaceX didn’t get crossfeed working so the side boosters will run at full throttle while the middle booster will run a a lower level and then throttle up after the side boosters separate.

It's actually a flight proven protocol. The Delta 4 Heavy does the exact same thing.

[Sakkura]

56 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

It's actually a flight proven protocol. The Delta 4 Heavy does the exact same thing.

It's a nice and simple way to do it, with less complexity, but you do lose the full efficiency of asparagus staging.

 

With crossfeed and asparagus staging, you can drop the side boosters with the core stage still completely filled with fuel and oxidizer. Without it, the core stage will be burning its own fuel, albeit slower, and be partly empty by the time the dead weight of the side boosters is shed.

[knightslugger]

Just now, Sakkura said:

It's a nice and simple way to do it, with less complexity, but you do lose the full efficiency of asparagus staging.

 

With crossfeed and asparagus staging, you can drop the side boosters with the core stage still completely filled with fuel and oxidizer. Without it, the core stage will be burning its own fuel, albeit slower, and be partly empty by the time the dead weight of the side boosters is shed.

Well, you'll be be much higher in the atmosphere and there will be less aerodynamic load on the vehicle allowing it to make better use of the propellant. It makes me wonder though if they want less weight in the core to minimize staging events...