Falcon heavy launch.

[Caldemeyn]

Now that is driving with style cold elbow, music and a trip to mars

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0E2So00le7I

[Gypsy Baron]

That launch was pretty awesome. I particularly like the fact that the Tesla auto is on it's way to orbit the sun

Paul

[Medtner]

I absolutely adore the fact that the big screen in the Tesla says "Dont Panic!", a reference to Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy", and that there is a copy of that book in the glovebox - aaand a towel in the trunk.

"The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" says, of course, the following about towels:

"A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value. You can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a miniraft down the slow heavy River Moth; wet it for use in hand-to-hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (such a mind-bogglingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you — daft as a brush, but very very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough.

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitchhiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have "lost." What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

Hence a phrase that has passed into hitchhiking slang, as in "Hey, you sass that hoopy Ford Prefect? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is." (Sass: know, be aware of, meet, have sex with; hoopy: really together guy; frood: really amazingly together guy.)"

[Alfredson007]

I think the most impressive thing was the booster rockets returning on their own to an up-right position, simultaneously

[Lewis - A2A]

wonderful to watch it really was.

For Dont panic, I believe Elon Musk also said the glove compartment has a towel in it too lol

thanks,
Lewis - A2A

[Paul K]

Absolutely enthralling to watch - I got a tingle about space flight that I haven't felt since the shuttle was retired. Very well done, Yanks !

[Medtner]

I think the most impressive thing was the booster rockets returning on their own to an up-right position, simultaneously

Yeah, this is too SciFi for words to be sufficient. However, it isn't science fiction - it's science fact!

[CodyValkyrie]

I still question the validity of re-landing these rockets, and using fuel to settle them down upon re-entry. That fuel could be used to better effect for stabilizing orbits, travel, or otherwise. I mean, yes, it’s cool, but is it practical? That’s additional delta V being wasted in my opinion.

[HighBypass]

You are of course correct Cody regarding usage of fuel, but having a re-usable rocket or at the very least, re-usable booster stages, is surely more cost effective in the long run if you're lobbing more than one object into space?

[CAPFlyer]

I still question the validity of re-landing these rockets, and using fuel to settle them down upon re-entry. That fuel could be used to better effect for stabilizing orbits, travel, or otherwise. I mean, yes, it’s cool, but is it practical? That’s additional delta V being wasted in my opinion.

Most modern launchers don't use all their fuel when launching payloads. There is always a reserve that doesn't get used. SpaceX just uses that leftover performance when available to recover the boosters. When more performance is needed, they simply make it an expendable mission. Falcon Heavy will most likely be used in the expendable version most of the time, or at least with the core booster expendable. It's "niche" in the market is the large payloads to Low Earth Orbit market that is currently occupied by the Delta IV Heavy and the Ariane V (in a limited fashion). As has been pointed out, in the fully recoverable configuration, the Falcon Heavy actually has less payload capability than the Falcon 9 to Geostationary Transfer Orbit, which is why it's unlikely to fly in that configuration for deep space payloads. In fact, it was pointed out the Falcon 9 could have flown any of the interplanetary missions launched to date without a problem and the majority of them could have been flown in the high energy recovery configuration (i.e. land the first stage on the drone ship).

As it is, if it was such a waste, then you wouldn't have Arianespace and ULA/Lockheed planning recovery of stages for their next launchers (Ariane VI and Vulcan).

[stiz]

the point of the reusable rockets is that the boosters that actually get the rocket/payload into orbit, then fall away, instead of being destroyed, can be reused again with little effort and used to launch the next rocket/payload, thus reducing the cost of space flight a bit.

I do wish though that someone like Musk would fund and put the same energy into deep sea exploration, we still know so little about it!!

[AKar]

Most modern launchers don't use all their fuel when launching payloads. There is always a reserve that doesn't get used.

Why would they do that in any significant amounts? A rocket is perhaps the most inefficient way to shoot up any excess weight from a standstill, against the gravity (that is, vertically). Equally so to use for landing vertically. There is actually a term in use called 'gravity drag' for precisely that issue, in itself relatively simple but great a-ha concept that is an excellent recap exercise on classical mechanics.

-Esa

[Aymi]

Arianespace and ULA/Lockheed planning recovery of stages for their next launchers (Ariane VI and Vulcan).

Sorry but this is not true. Ariane VI is pretty much complete right now and does not feature stage recovery.

Instead the philosophy is for the rocket to allow "customisation" and easily adapt the shape and power of the launcher for each payload.

[CAPFlyer]

Most modern launchers don't use all their fuel when launching payloads. There is always a reserve that doesn't get used.

Why would they do that in any significant amounts? A rocket is perhaps the most inefficient way to shoot up any excess weight from a standstill, against the gravity (that is, vertically). Equally so to use for landing vertically. There is actually a term in use called 'gravity drag' for precisely that issue, in itself relatively simple but great a-ha concept that is an excellent recap exercise on classical mechanics.

-Esa

You're applying aviation to space Esa, that's where the problem is.

Consider this - the average Low Earth Orbit satellite is around 3000kg. The Falcon 9 can (in expendable mode) can lift over 22,000kg to that orbit. The customer is going to pay for the whole Falcon 9 unless they get someone to ride with them and help split the cost. Even then, if you put 6 3000kg satellites to LEO on a Falcon 9, then it still has performace leftover. Even going to Geostationary Earth Orbit, the Falcon 9 has performance leftover. It can haul ~8000kg in ependable mode and ~5000kg in reusable mode. The average satellite going to GEO weighs ~4000kg, leaving plenty of excess performance. What SpaceX does with that remaining performance is bring the rocket back. By doing so, they can amortize the cost of that first stage over several flights instead of a single one and thus charge the customer less for the launch. Now, SpaceX is taking a risk on that first flight discount because if they don't get the stage back, it means they've lost money, but if they do, then everybody wins. As a result, the Falcon 9 launches which are in the reusable configuration cost ~$62 million each. Meanwhile, an Atlas V flight for the same payload averages ~$109 million, and that's a substantial discount because of the SpaceX competition. That's why you build a rocket that has reserve fuel capability.

BTW, according to multiple sources, the fuel for a Atlas V or Falcon 9 launch runs less than $500,000. It's by far the cheapest part of the launch.

[CAPFlyer]

Arianespace and ULA/Lockheed planning recovery of stages for their next launchers (Ariane VI and Vulcan).

Sorry but this is not true. Ariane VI is pretty much complete right now and does not feature stage recovery.

Instead the philosophy is for the rocket to allow "customisation" and easily adapt the shape and power of the launcher for each payload.

That's for the initial launch version. Airbus is still working on Adeline, a recoverable engine/avionics package that will replace the engine module on the Ariane 6 in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeline_(rocket_stage)

http://sen.com/news/airbus-is-testing-c ... cket-parts