This is the FIRST launch of Falcon Heavy 3rd launch of 2018 for SpaceX 13th launch out of KSC LC-39A for SpaceX 7th and 8th reuse for SpaceX
FH Stats: * 22,819kN of thrust at takeoff (Saturn V: 35,100 kN) * 63,800 kg to LEO in expendable configuration (Saturn V: 140,000 kg) * Wet mass of 1,420,788 kg (Saturn V: 2,970,000 kg)
~~~~~~ News from Elon’s press conference ~~~~~~~~ - doing a six-hour coast before final second-stage burn; going through Van Allen Belts. Also fuel could freeze or oxygen lost. - Tesla will be placed into a heliocentric orbit and become a Earth-Mars cycler; only extremely tiny chance of hitting Mars in foreseeable future. - one area of concern is relative interactions of the three booster cores; could be resonance or shockwave impingement. Once second stage separates, we’re in much more known territory other than long-duration coast. - looks like development of BFR is moving quickly, and won’t be necessary to qualify Falcon Heavy for crewed spaceflight. - if we’re successful, offer near super-heavy-lift for little more than Falcon 9. “Game over” for all other heavy-lift rockets. - if successful with this test launch, we’ll be ready to put a satellite on the next Falcon Heavy launch. - if successful should be able to d another FH in three to six months. Can produce them at a pretty rapid rate. - if we wanted to, we could add to more side boosters, make it Falcon Super Heavy. - we kind of tabled Crew Dragon on Falcon Heavy (including the cislunar mission announced last Feb.) and focus our energies on BFR. - it would be a “real huge downer” if Falcon Heavy blows up, but hope to learn a lot. It’s a win if it just clears the pad. - main reason for the six-hour coast is to demonstrate direct GEO insertion (for national security customers). - will be three cameras mounted on the Roadster, should provide “epic views” if all goes well. - it should be an exciting day tomorrow. We’ll have a good time whatever happens.
Owen Young
...
Aaron Nelson
>- if we wanted to, we could add to more side boosters, make it Falcon Super Heavy. Korolev's cross Mk.II?
Thomas Price
>so what's happening to the two rich people going to the moon on Grey Dragon? they're probably getting Formosat'd to a BFR
>why is FH important? It's the most powerful rocket in the world (currently)
>why not put a useful satellite onboard instead of a car? look up what a "mass simulator" is, lad
>Won't FH be redundant in a few years with BFR flying? yeah
>how big a kaboom will it be if FH explodes on the pad? 2933 tons of TNT
Camden Hernandez
>they're probably getting Formosat'd to a BFR dont tempt me with a good time, user
Justin Phillips
El Chapo
Musko Memeo
Matthew Cruz
>2933 tons of TNT
That's about a 2.933 Kiloton explosion
Jordan Hughes
> today's strongest rocket is almost completely reusable I bet Thundercuck is on denial right now, wishing for it's explosion tomorrow so he can clickbait soybois with his cuck videos
Nathaniel Gutierrez
tbf it's not the strongest in reusable config
Dylan James
damn, how strong is it then (on reusable config)?
Kayden Collins
8k kg to GTO? F9 can only do 5.500 kg GTO reusable.
Cooper Bell
...
Jaxson Sanders
>those people at the bottom that's one big rocket
Tyler Evans
how long until it "reaches" mars?
Dylan Phillips
it won't reach "mars", but it will get as far out as mars's orbit.
I dunno, a few months?
Jose Campbell
8 tonnes isn't the limit of what it can launch to GTO with recovery of all three stages, it's just the maximum size of the established GTO launch market. They're priced to compete with the market. They want to negotiate prices on a case-by-case basis for services people can't easily find elsewhere.
John Sanchez
When looking at pictures of it, remember one Merlin engine is roughly the size of one persone.
Jordan Taylor
...
Cooper Nelson
¡Musk es un charlatán!
¡No nos va a llevar a Marte!
Michael Hall
>looks like development of BFR is moving quickly There is only so much blood that fits into my penis.
>looks like development of BFR is moving quickly What?
Jaxon Walker
>false information >Xcuck >soybois >cuck
Jack Thomas
I mean it's mainly the structure that has to be designed. They know how to do instrumentation, sensor suites, computers, comms, power, and the engine is pretty fleshed out. Just gotta throw all of their existing tech into a phatt BFR shell and stick some raptors on the bottom.
Super simplifying it all, but the fact is that it's not exactly unknown territory.
Samuel Mitchell
>they're probably getting Formosat'd to a BFR Why would they want to wait an additional 10 years just to fly on BFR? >but it will be ready soon Dragon 2 took 6 years to build and it's tiny.
Jace Jenkins
10 years is a bit too pessimistic I think
can't extrapolate from previous projects anyways. Number of employees has changed, overall institutional experience has changed, facilities/resources has changed, and not to mention the lack of NASA oversight will change a lot too
Jackson Green
>can't extrapolate from previous projects anyways
Xavier Robinson
>Why would they want to wait an additional 10 years just to fly on BFR?
formosat was supposed to go up on a falcon 1 wasnt it? with all the delays didn't spacex end up paying them?
Caleb Torres
the fees maxed out at 60% or so. SpX didn't pay them, but it did cost them money
>10 years is a bit too pessimistic I think You're right. It's too optimistic because it's never being made lmao.
Jace Nguyen
You're not exactly helping my raging erection.
Jacob Long
Is this the most memed rocket launch of all time?
Evan Morris
Probably, until Webb flies
Jacob Walker
>Until Webb flies >NASA's James Webb Space Telescope now is planning to launch between March and June 2019 from French Guiana
Can't fuckin' wait!
Jeremiah Price
>Dragon 2 took 6 years to build Dragon 2 is being built on contract to NASA. The delays are from dealing with NASA bureaucracy. It's NASA. They've managed to drag out Orion development for fourteen years, and it'll likely be an even twenty before it actually carries astronauts into space, if it doesn't get cancelled first.
Anyway, BFR has been under development for years already, and if anything, it's easier to design a large crew vehicle than a small one. No need to miniaturize the life support equipment.
Lincoln James
Is BFR going to happen? No meme answers please.
Joshua Williams
yes. they've already bought tooling, they've already constructed test articles for components, and they've already committed to phasing out F9/FH/Dragon when BFR is flying.
Dragon 2 won't fly with people until FH has made 5 flights with cargo dragons.
Jayden Lee
you got that a bit mixed up.
Dragon 2 won't fly people until block 5 F9 has flown five times in a stable configuration.
they're not going to crew certify FH
Julian Johnson
>FH isn't a meme >BFR isn't a meme >SpaceX starts selling one way tickets to Mars
Hypothetical of course, but would you sell all your earthly posessions and assets for a one-way ticket to the new frontier?
Chase Ortiz
No, because they could charge $10 million a ticket and there'd still be a waiting list longer than 3 human lifespans.
You will never live on Mars.
Die.
Joseph Harris
that's exactly the plan that Elon has. He has stated on multiple occasions that an average middle class person in the US will be able to afford a one-way ticket if they liquidate all of their possessions on earth.
John Smith
so what, 500k-1m for a ticket? Seems pretty cheap.
Cooper King
F9 can't go to the moon.
Angel Scott
huh? Dragon 2 ≠ FH
yep. iirc he quoted $200k somewhere one time
Brandon King
200k seems absurdly cheap.
Juan Ortiz
and you won't be paying that to go to mars for a very long time.
it'll be dutch auction style for at least 40 years.
Brody Anderson
Please, you think mega rich motherfuckers are going to sign over tens of millions to live somewhere they can't go outside? Sure there will be a bunch of them but I really don't think all that many.
Jackson Phillips
Give me a quick rundown on Elon Musk and Falcon heavy.
Are they just soyboy dreams or do they actually contribute to the advancement of humanity?
Christopher Cooper
Mostly memes, but if he can corner the market effectively with FH then yeah who knows.
Jayden Nelson
long time since I saw the friendly looking bogoff
Ayden Allen
>they're probably getting Formosat'd to a BFR >Why would they want to wait an additional 10 years just to fly on BFR?
I know SpaceX will probably want to take on additional passengers if they actually go down that route. But can you imagine for a second how fucking awesome it would be if you could have the entire BFR just for the two of you for a trip around the moon? Maybe with a small entourage of technicians and waitstaff. It'd be hard to top that kind of first class treatment.
Carter Lee
...
Isaac Ortiz
No. It's a massive meme rocket with no use at all.
Evan Bell
>citation needed
Jordan Phillips
Prove that it's not a meme. And no, them designing a new engine is not a sign that such a useless rocket will be built. They could just as easily put that engine into a new, not retarded rocket.
Austin Jones
>Useless
I don't see how a reusable rocket with a cheap launch cost and massive payload capability is useless. The technology for the BFR is pretty much already there, they just need to integrate it into the BFR shell.
Ryan Evans
Well, firstly it won't be cheap. They can't get a smaller rocket to be the mythical and totally true "$200k" per launch. And yes, a massive payload capacity is useless. No one needs such massive payloads. The most powerful rocket that exists today is the Delta 4 Heavy, and that's only flown every 18 months or so and only carries US government payloads.
I find the downplaying of rocket development and the simplification of engineering to be hilarious. The "technology" for rockets in general has been around for over half a century, yet rocket development still takes an inordinate amount of time and failures are still possible.
Landon Gutierrez
>yfw Falcon Heavy works flawlessly and Russia panics and restarts the Energia/Uragan project in response
A little late for that. Though a full Vulkan-Hercules Energia would be a sight to see. 8 boosters separating and landing on an airfield.
Jack Reed
SpaceX is committed to it. The Red Dragon Mars platform and the lunar tourist mission were both cancelled because they distracted from BFR. Facilities are early in planning. If BFR is even partially realized, SpaceX could be making an order of magnitude more profit than they would with Falcon 9/Heavy, and they know it.
Lucas Scott
>The most powerful rocket that exists today is the Delta 4 Heavy, and that's only flown every 18 months or so and only carries US government payloads. Because it costs 400k
Cameron Cox
Not really. The thing many people don't realize is that the launch costs are a fraction of the total cost of a satellite/probe. Just look at the cost of probes or telescopes and compare them to the cost of the rocket they launched on.
Cassini–Huygens: 3.26B, launched on a Titan IV Curiosity: 2.5B, launched on an Atlas V Juno: 1.1B, launched on an Atlas V New Horizons: 700M, launched on an Atlas V James Webb: 8.8B, planned for launch on an Ariane 5. Euclid: 1.2B, planned for launch on a Soyuz 2 BepiColombo: 1.2B, planned for launch on an Ariane 5.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Kevin Butler
lots of that cost is due to size, weight, and time restrictions. The missions are specced to last 15+ years or whatever.
With high launch cadence and low $/kg to orbit, probes can be cheaper simply due to the fact that you can launch 2x the mass 4x as often for 1/2 the cost.
Xavier Young
>the lunar tourist mission were both cancelled Give us just one (1) reason to take you seriously when you're this wrong?
James Allen
Euclid wasn't restricted by size, weight, or time as the Ariane 5 was an option yet it still costs over a billion.
Ryder Thomas
>James Webb: 8.8B, planned for launch on an Ariane 5.
Can't wait until this blows up and we shut down NASA.
Angel Sanders
pls no not webb
Asher Johnson
Uhh, you do realize that the Ariane 5 has a practically spotless record? It's never exploded on the pad and it's been squeaky clean for over a decade. The recent partial failure was caused by humans, not the rocket.
Brayden Williams
The costs are so high in that list of probes because: 1) they can't do lots of flights to test technology or work on them from orbital space stations where real space conditions are just an airlock away, so they end up spending huge amounts of money doing testing and analysis on the ground to make sure things will work on the first try, 2) the rockets are anemic, so they end up spending huge amounts of money on keeping the mass down, and often having to go back to the drawing board after a large investment in development because something violated the mass budget, 3) these are big government projects where there's no monetary return, so the profit motive is entirely focused on extracting the maximum amount of funds from the public purse into specific individual hands, and the high cost and low launch rate of existing launch vehicles makes that far easier for the profiteers, and 4) you're cherry-picking the most expensive missions, the ones where costs spiralled out of control (related to the above three factors) but people played politics well enough to keep the money flowing.
Cooper Anderson
>The recent partial failure was caused by humans exactly
Joshua Brooks
You know they just lost a satellite with their last launch, right?
Jaxon Reyes
Alright, fine. How about normal LEO satellites that turn a profit?
>Building such a complex machine requires lots of resources, which is why, historically, only government agencies and corporations with deep pockets have been able to get into the satellite business. Much of the cost is wrapped up in the equipment carried by a satellite -- transponders, computers and cameras. A typical weather satellite carries a price tag of $290 million; a spy satellite might cost an additional $100 million.
They can easily cost more. Zuma cost billions yet was a spy satellite.
John Walker
Why you lyin? The satellites weren't lost.
>SES-14 needs about 4 weeks longer than planned commissioning time, meaning that entry into service now expected in August instead of July.[12] Nevertheless, SES-14 is still expected to be able to meet the designed life time, since it does not use chemical propulsion which could reduce more life time if such thing happened.[13] SES informed NASA that they expect no effect on the quality of observations and data of the agency’s GOLD instrument after the launch anomaly.[14]
>Al Yah 3 was also confirmed healthy after more than 12 hours without further statement, and like SES-14, Al Yah 3's maneuvering plan was also revised to still fulfill the original mission.[15]
Justin Baker
THANK YOU BASED ELON
Lincoln Barnes
The rocket was so off course that automatic self detonation should have been triggered. They're however too proud of their 'spotless record' and endangered lives not doing so.
Christian Mitchell
I don't think the rocket is going to be the problem. NASA is going to fuck something up. Worse than hubble this time.
Charles Hall
CGI the earth is flat wake up sheeple
Brayden Rogers
>itt
Levi Myers
>citation needed
Zachary Stewart
Go back to your own kind
Luis Nelson
Say what you want about me, but leave Eric out of this. That man is Meteorologist Jesus Incarnate for Houstonians and we will find you and make you suffer if you talk shit about him.
Colton Gutierrez
Trumpster,
Without Space X and New Zealand's Electron, ULA would have a monopoly on heavy lifts and wouldn't be doing anything to cut costs.
Aiden Collins
she's a big girl
William Sanders
>electron >heavy lift
Luis Ramirez
you gotta say tho, electric turbopumps a cute
Andrew Hill
> How about normal LEO satellites that turn a profit? The first two factors still apply: the high launch costs prevent in-space testing or strategies of launching multiples in case of failure, and the low payloads require a lot of effort to minimize mass.
>A typical weather satellite carries a price tag of $290 million; a spy satellite might cost an additional $100 million. Those figures are close to the actual cost of a launch. SpaceX has been drastically undercutting the competition.
>Zuma cost billions How stupid do you have to be to believe this? It's part of the whispering campaign intended to discredit SpaceX, as a classified launch where claims like "SpaceX screwed up!" and "it cost BILLYUNS!" can't be debunked.
