This photo was posted at 8:57AM Dec 26 on twitter by @ECDiazdeLeon who tweeted “We got a sneak peek at @SpaceX #FalconHeavy rocket while taking the bus tour. #SpaceX ”
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
swaltner
Active Member
New nickname for the Falcon Heavy - “Dalton”
“I thought you’d be bigger.”
“I thought you’d be bigger.”
FH starting to go vertical on the pad! Posted at Live from launch pad 39A – Spaceflight Now
More info, posted at Twitter , quote: “Remember, this is not the Static Fire test flow, this is a fit check. Static Fire will be about a week away.”
More info, posted at Twitter , quote: “Remember, this is not the Static Fire test flow, this is a fit check. Static Fire will be about a week away.”
MacGreiner
5YJ
Did you notice in the twitter conversation that Chris B. thinks a mid Jan launch looks to be a reasonable prediction.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Earth to Mars and Exploration of Mars - Wikipedia
Optimal tx to mars centers around an April/May 2018 Launch. Still not bad if they do Jan 2018, just takes a little longer to get there and since the roadster doesn't need life support the travel time isn't an issue.
Post 14 in this thread Delta-V to Mars outside the launch windows? - Orbiter-Forum has a good delta V table for non optimal launch dates just to give you a sense of the extra dV needed.
different rocket and payload, just consider for date/power comparison
2-May-18 205.8 days 3604.2 dV (call this 100%, it's close to the optimal date)
12-Jan-18 262.5 days 4563.5 dV (27% longer travel time, 26.6% more dV required)
every day that falcon heavy delays between now and the end of April is a reduction in dV required and speeds up the travel time.
Doesn't matter for the test flight but in 2020 we are sending something more important it wouldn't hurt to get used to the cost/time factors now.
Optimal tx to mars centers around an April/May 2018 Launch. Still not bad if they do Jan 2018, just takes a little longer to get there and since the roadster doesn't need life support the travel time isn't an issue.
Post 14 in this thread Delta-V to Mars outside the launch windows? - Orbiter-Forum has a good delta V table for non optimal launch dates just to give you a sense of the extra dV needed.
different rocket and payload, just consider for date/power comparison
2-May-18 205.8 days 3604.2 dV (call this 100%, it's close to the optimal date)
12-Jan-18 262.5 days 4563.5 dV (27% longer travel time, 26.6% more dV required)
every day that falcon heavy delays between now and the end of April is a reduction in dV required and speeds up the travel time.
Doesn't matter for the test flight but in 2020 we are sending something more important it wouldn't hurt to get used to the cost/time factors now.
Last edited:
I suppose that is possible but would guess that it will all depend on if any issues are found, first with the pad fit check, and then with the static fires. I’m sure that SpaceX will take their time analyzing the data from the static fires. They want to do everything they can to avoid a RUD.
My understanding is that it will not orbit Mars, but will have an orbit that crosses Mars'.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
It will not orbit mars but that doesn't change the transit time/deltav window concept if they want it to be a mars test flight. I'm assuming they'll go for a just short of capture hohman transfer and thus the difference in time/deltav will be pretty much spot on (they'll just aim to miss every so slightly instead of trying to hit a spot ideal for entering orbit). The table in post #14 that I linked to has the dV separated between leaving earth and entering orbit at Mars. I didn't include the entering orbit portion in my comparison.
The fact that they won't have to burn to enter orbit of mars and don't have to have any sort of lander or useful cargo keeps the dV requirement lower but you still need to get to the orbit of mars (not to be confused with mars orbit)
* orbit of mars (the distance from the sun that mars orbits at)
* mars orbit (a circle around the planet that a satellite would follow)
It will get to the orbit of mars, it just won't orbit mars.
Last edited:
Gotcha, Mavrick is going to request a fly-by and buzz the tower. That sounds much more interesting.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't put a mars flyby past him, but I'm assuming a profile closer to a detective tailing a suspect in a car. Driving close enough to say you did but not actually getting close enough to blow your cover.
Last edited:
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
When aliens find it in a few million years, they will have a hell of a time looking at the Roadster and trying to figure out what heck we were doing. Consider it our first intergalactic prank maybe?
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Time lapse of the rocket being erected.
Falcon Heavy goes vertical at launch pad 39A on December 28, 2017. The video runs at 34 times normal speed
https://player.vimeo.com/video/248983328
https://player.vimeo.com/video/248983328
Falcon Heavy goes vertical at launch pad 39A on December 28, 2017. The video runs at 34 times normal speed
https://player.vimeo.com/video/248983328
https://player.vimeo.com/video/248983328
Launch window to mars is open once in two years. Launch window for Roadster is open always, because it goes close to orbit of Mars. It does not need to meet Mars there. They cannot do orbit insertion burn, because they cannot keep LOX from boiling away.
With help from google:"
Sorry
Because of its privacy settings, this video cannot be played here."
Time-lapse video: Falcon Heavy goes vertical at launch pad 39A – Spaceflight Now
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
That assumes SpaceX has no desire to get it close. Even without an insertion burn it could be guided near Mars just to say they did (just outside the gravity well).
I expect they have a target distance from Mars they want to hit and will have some way to track it to show it did go the desired route.
Always expect Elon to take it to the next level. He won't just put it in orbit of the sun and say it's good enough even if it never got anywhere near mars.
Roadster cannot take pictures of Mars so I don't see any reason to get close to Mars. They can measure its orbit and verify it is correct transfer orbit to Mars. Hohmann orbit with target close to Mars limits launch window. If you want to launch outside launch window you have to forget Hohmann or meeting with Mars. FH probably has fuel for non Hohmann transfer orbit, but why would they do that?
Similar threads
- Article
