SpaceX Falcon Heavy Vertical and Being Prepped for Launch

[cubby]

So exciting that SpaceX has come so far so fast and is actively launching a rocket with Mars in it's target sights (not this launch, but the rocket model - I'm sure @Skroe will fix any mistakes I make ). Musk is launching his original roadster on this maiden voyage of the Falcon Heavy.

SpaceX is getting ready for its first ever test flight of the Falcon Heavy, its heavy-duty rocket aimed at propelling large cargo loads into low Earth orbit. The rocket uses three Falcon 9 boosters combined for maximum load capacity when leaving Earth's atmosphere, and it's looking to do its first test launch within the next few weeks from Cape Canaveral in Florida.

The rocket made its way to the Cape Canaveral launch facility late in 2017, but now it's actually vertical on the launchpad, undergoing its long preflight test check list before the actual attempt is made. SpaceX celebrated getting its rocket upright with an impressive drone's eye view video of the massive spacecraft, along with brand new images captured of the Falcon Heavy aiming skyward on the pad.

Falcon Heavy also has a cargo pod up top with the 'FH' logo clearly visible, and we know what it contains – Elon Musk's own original cherry red Tesla Roadster, which is set to launch on the rocket's first trial run – destined for an eventual Mars orbit, if all goes to plan.

Since this is the first ever launch SpaceX has attempted using its Falcon Heavy, however, there's a significant chance that not everything will go to plan. Musk himself has hinted that there could be a considerably sized fireball in store for anyone watching the show, since no matter how many simulations you run, real-world launches always prove different from what a computer tells you will happen.

Source.

I have a relatively benign and dumb question. Mars is further away from the sun (obviously). Are solar panels still a viable source of power for Mars?

[Ninjaturtle]

They would work but its about a third less solar energy there. However there wouldn't be a loss of solar energy while on Mars compared to orbit since it has no atmosphere.

[Ripster42]

I have a relatively benign and dumb question. Mars is further away from the sun (obviously). Are solar panels still a viable source of power for Mars?

I mean, some of the rovers were solar powered. Depends what you mean by viable. I'm going to guess there's going to be a decent amount of nuclear power there for a while as there's not really an environment to fuck up that badly, not really even an active hydrosphere to speak of.

[cubby]

They would work but its about a third less solar energy there. However there wouldn't be a loss of solar energy while on Mars compared to orbit since it has no atmosphere.

Given that - I would assume that at least an initial settlement will have some/all solar power to run it?

[Ripster42]

Given that - I would assume that at least an initial settlement will have some/all solar power to run it?

I'd guess nuclear mostly, supplemented with smaller scale solar for things like batteries for transportation.

[cubby]

I'd guess nuclear mostly, supplemented with smaller scale solar for things like batteries for transportation.

Nuclear seems kind of dicey being so far away from any repairs. I mean, I guess you can say that about any power source.

[Ripster42]

Nuclear seems kind of dicey being so far away from any repairs. I mean, I guess you can say that about any power source.

Nuclear (though just RTGs) was used for the bigger rovers IIRC.

[cubby]

Nuclear (though just RTGs) was used for the bigger rovers IIRC.

Good point - that would work. I should have thought of that as I just reread Seveneves last week.

[Independent voter]

Was reading something that said this rocket can lift twice as much weight as any rocket on earth today.

[Easo]

Finally something positive in news. Best of luck to our new overlord.
P.S.
Probably gonna blow up but hey, that's how progress with rockets goes.

[Zoldor]

There are some dudes with a lot of money finally doing things not centered around getting a lot more money (ie investment banking, loans etc...bascially banking and real estate) and using their money for cool shit. Hats off. I feel like if I had Musk's money or someone like that. I do cool shit like this. This could make me money, but it seems a lot more badass and fun than setting up hedge funds, loan buildings and real estate ventures.

Hats off to the generation of cool rich people who dig on some science. Now, please don't enslave me for being rather mundane. I'd make a great house pet.

[cubby]

Finally something positive in news. Best of luck to our new overlord.
P.S.
Probably gonna blow up but hey, that's how progress with rockets goes.

I thought he said previously that it's 50/50 whether it makes it off the pad. He said his hope overall is that the launch pad isn't permanently damaged.

- - - Updated - - -

There are some dudes with a lot of money finally doing things not centered around getting a lot more money (ie investment banking, loans etc...bascially banking and real estate) and using their money for cool shit. Hats off. I feel like if I had Musk's money or someone like that. I do cool shit like this. This could make me money, but it seems a lot more badass and fun than setting up hedge funds, loan buildings and real estate ventures.

Hats off to the generation of cool rich people who dig on some science. Now, please don't enslave me for being rather mundane. I'd make a great house pet.

Agreed. And lol.

It's great to see rich people doing the right things for the country and the species.

[Ripster42]

He is launching his car to space?

How else are you supposed to drive around up there?

[bladeXcrasher]

There are some dudes with a lot of money finally doing things not centered around getting a lot more money (ie investment banking, loans etc...bascially banking and real estate) and using their money for cool shit. Hats off. I feel like if I had Musk's money or someone like that. I do cool shit like this. This could make me money, but it seems a lot more badass and fun than setting up hedge funds, loan buildings and real estate ventures.

Hats off to the generation of cool rich people who dig on some science. Now, please don't enslave me for being rather mundane. I'd make a great house pet.

Do you know that spacex doesn't charge a lot for their services?

[Skroe]

So exciting that SpaceX has come so far so fast and is actively launching a rocket with Mars in it's target sights (not this launch, but the rocket model - I'm sure @Skroe will fix any mistakes I make ). Musk is launching his original roadster on this maiden voyage of the Falcon Heavy.





Source.

I have a relatively benign and dumb question. Mars is further away from the sun (obviously). Are solar panels still a viable source of power for Mars?

Yes Solar Panels are viable. All Mars rovers and landers since Pathfinder in 1997 except for the most recent Curiosity, have been Solar powered (Curiosity is nuclear).

The Mars Exploration Rovers solar panels generate 140 Watts on of power on Mars. The rover requires 100 Watts to drive. This means that the rovers require generally twice the wattage of a laptop computer on Earth to operate, and around one third to one half the wattage of a typical desktop computer.

That should say something about how efficiently designed they are.

But building two such rovers and having one of them operate for a staggering 13 years (unbelivable) and counting, on its original motors, is what $2.5 billion gets you.

[Allybeboba]

So exciting that SpaceX has come so far so fast and is actively launching a rocket with Mars in it's target sights (not this launch, but the rocket model - I'm sure @Skroe will fix any mistakes I make ). Musk is launching his original roadster on this maiden voyage of the Falcon Heavy.





Source.

I have a relatively benign and dumb question. Mars is further away from the sun (obviously). Are solar panels still a viable source of power for Mars?

The Mars rovers (Sojourner, Opportunity and Spirit) are solar powered.

Cheers

[cubby]

Yes Solar Panels are viable. All Mars rovers and landers since Pathfinder in 1997 except for the most recent Curiosity, have been Solar powered (Curiosity is nuclear).

The Mars Exploration Rovers solar panels generate 140 Watts on of power on Mars. The rover requires 100 Watts to drive. This means that the rovers require generally twice the wattage of a laptop computer on Earth to operate, and around one third to one half the wattage of a typical desktop computer.

That should say something about how efficiently designed they are.

But building two such rovers and having one of them operate for a staggering 13 years (unbelivable) and counting, on its original motors, is what $2.5 billion gets you.

Just amazing. I guess my question about solar panels is would they be effective enough to use (and also so that you wouldn't have to transport too many of them) or would "going nuclear" be a better option for the first semi-permanent visitors? Basically establishing a base.

[Skroe]

Was reading something that said this rocket can lift twice as much weight as any rocket on earth today.

The Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket to launch since the Saturn V. With the exception of the NASA SLS, it will remain the most powerful rocket to launch for many years to come.

The original design of the Falcon Heavy was supposed to launch 55 tons to Low Earth Orbit. This has since been increased to 64 tons. By comparison the baseline Falcon 9 FT can launch 23 tons to LEO. The increase in Falcon Heavy performance is because the Falcon 9 FT is much more capable the the v1.1 and v1.0 versions of the rocket (13.1 and 10.5 tons to LEO respectivley). SpaceX improving the Falcon 9 made the Falcon Heavy more capable, in other words.

For a further comparison
-> Saturn V = 122 t to LEO
-> SLS Block IA = 70 tons
-> SLS Block IB = 105 tons
-> SLS Block II = 130 tons

-> Delta IV Heavy (largest US rocket currently in service) = 28.8 tons
-> Atlas V 401 (US workhorse launcher, ULA) = 9.8 tons
-> Atlas V 551 (heaviest Atlas V variant, 7 launches) = 18.8 tons

-> Russian Proton rocket (heaviest Russian rocket) =22.8 tons to LEO
-> Soyuz-FG / Soyuz-U (Russian workhorse) = ~7-8 tons to LEO depending on mission.

-> Ariane 5 ES (largest European rocket) = 20 tons to LEO.


Now the truth of the matter is, there hasn't been much purpose to build Saturn V sized until now. Humanity wasn't going back to the Moon. America had the space shuttle. Most satellites are well under 8 tons. Really the only thing that need something like the Delta IV Heavy is the biggest US national security satellites, like big signal collection ones that unfold to be 300 feet in diameter. Your run of the mill telecommunications satellite or GPS satellite simply needed a Atlas V 401 or something low mass like that.

For a number of technical reasons though, launch masses are needing to go up, which makes the laughable $480 million cost of a Delta IV Heavy no realistic for commercial launches. This is where the Falcon Heavy, which comes it at $90 million with over twice the capability of a Delta IV Heavy, comes into play.

Large launchers like this are important, especially the Falcon Heavy's approach. America kind got has it naive with how Apollo went down. Everything in one stack on a super big rocket? That works for the Moon. For Mars, with the SLS Block II that will be able to lost 130 tons to LEO, NASA estimated that it will need around 9 to 11 launches of it to construct the Mars Transit Vehicle, the lander, the fuel and everything else, in orbit, for a single mission.

To put it in perspective, that's up to 11 launches of a rocket that could cost as much as $1 billion per launch, depending how you count it, for a single mission.

This is why the approach of the Falcon Heavy is so attractive. It may have less capability (for now) but it comes it at a fraction of the cost and just like the Falcon 9, exploits economy of scale and advanced manufacturing techniques to drop costs all along the production pipeline. A simple example: the engines on a rocket are normally among the most expensive parts of it. The four RS-25 engines (aka the Space Shuttle Maine Engine) of the SLS Block IB will cost about $40 million each, or $160 million per launch for something expendable. By contrast the 9 Merlin 1D engines of a Falcon 9 first stage cost around $2 million each, for a total of ~$18 million. Three first stage cores means a net engine cost of $54 million. Oh and because Falcon 9 cores land, they are reusable.

And that is why SpaceX is destroying every single Rocket company and Space program around the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Just amazing. I guess my question about solar panels is would they be effective enough to use (and also so that you wouldn't have to transport too many of them) or would "going nuclear" be a better option for the first semi-permanent visitors? Basically establishing a base.

Going nuclear would be far, far, far more efficient from a launch-mass perspective, which is the driving impetus behind mission design. Solar power = more solar arrays = heavier by comparison = more launch mass = more cost. Nuclear reactors is a lot of energy density in a small package.

The US and USSR launched a number of nuclear reactors into orbit for sattelites during the Cold War (and I don't mean RTG "nuclear batteries" as used as space probes. I mean small reactors). We have proven designs and designs that could be implemented. There are no major technical hurdles.

From my perspective, nuclear power is the indicator of how close we are to a Mars mission. NASA doesn't go this far because it's also a political issue, but reading between the lines, you can tell, they basically consider nuclear power a requirement for a Mars mission. Their preferred design for a Mars Transit Vehicle (the vehicle that gets the crew from Earth to Mars and back) is nuclear powered, but that is not a requirement. The preferred design for the base camp though is nuclear powered.

So let me put it like this: how soon are we going to Mars? The year we start (or rather restart) a serious space-capable small package nuclear reactor, and add ~15 years. That's when. Which is why I think the first human mission to Mars by Americans will be around 2041. NASA is starting to make the political case. And Naval Reactors, the group in the US Navy that designs reactors for US warships, designed several such reactors during Project Prometheus in the mid 2000s. But the time is coming to build one and operate it in the middle of the desert for 5 years.

[Zoldor]

Do you know that spacex doesn't charge a lot for their services?

Is that true, I assume it would be expensive, but I don't know what the market is really like for the services they provide. I imagine at some point it is about testing, but I wonder what the ROI on something like this is, as I assume it is insanely expensive R&D + Actual launching etc

[Tiwack]

Can't wait to see it launch !!1
Landing multiple boosters simultaneously is going to look insane if they can pull it off.