But what got me thinking was what I read about temperatures of space. Temps go from +250F in the sunlight down to -250F in the shadows. Eloin said they did not harden the roadster for space. But I would assume that the tires had no air in them.
So the questions about why the interior of the car is not melted or maybe paint popping off.
Just something to ponder.... 🤔
https://www.space.com/39690-elon-musk-explains-falcon-heavy-core-booster-crash.html
Yes, at sea. Quite literally ran out of fuel.
The twin boosters landed with absurd choreography. Simultaneously, like a launch in reverse.
Brett,
Did they leave the battery out do you think?
Chris...
The next day I scoured YouTube for more information and perspectives and that turned into a bad idea. All sorts of self appointed experts with nothing more than degrees from the "U. of 'Tube" were angrily shouting it all down as fake. Fairly sickening. But one of them did catch something that I couldn't help but wonder about. He was pointing out how the two camera feeds on the side boosters' plumes were identical. Every motion and the size and shapes of the exhaust plumes, flares, and reflections were identical second by second during the ascent. Like one camera was split to make both feeds.
I stayed close during the whole launch window so as not to miss any of it. It was as refreshing and exciting as the first launch of the Columbia shuttle to see us back into the serious business of space travel. I haven't missed many televised launches since Mercury.
The next day I scoured YouTube for more information and perspectives and that turned into a bad idea. All sorts of self appointed experts with nothing more than degrees from the "U. of 'Tube" were angrily shouting it all down as fake. Fairly sickening. But one of them did catch something that I couldn't help but wonder about. He was pointing out how the two camera feeds on the side boosters' plumes were identical. Every motion and the size and shapes of the exhaust plumes, flares, and reflections were identical second by second during the ascent. Like one camera was split to make both feeds.
Then on Thursday in the SpaceX launch video, it had changed and the exhaust plumes were obviously different. I can think up several possible explanations, but there was no notice attached regarding it having been edited.
I'm not really worried about it. I have no doubts, especially as so many people were there to see it launch and land, but I'd rather not have started watching the haters' videos flooding the place.
Rusty - Space Junky from way back.
.... I thought it couldn't be that perfect, was almost convinced it was CGI.Don't worry! The wife and I live in Titusville and were standing on the shoreline with one heck of a lot of people who witnessed the launch and the twin sonic booms, return and landing of the two boosters! It was so totally kool.
That was probably a copy-paste error. When they went to build the display, they wrote the HMTL for putting (say) the "right-hand" window on the display, then to put up the "left-hand" display, they copied the first one, pasted it in for the second, changed the position attribute to move it to the other side of the window, but failed to select which camera feed to use, so it was the same one. Later, they fixed it and remade the movie.Brilliantly simple. Thanks, Brett.
Brilliantly simple. Thanks, Brett.
Hopefully Youtube overlooked their normal policy and let them edit it in situ, so the url and comments remained in tact. If I was in charge of the 'Tube, I would have.
Rusty
I've searched around a bit and haven't found any, are there any pics of the Telsa-naut space dude sitting in the car?
Thanks Brett. I haven't had much time to keep track of this whole event, is that supposedly an actual shot of the car out in space or just a photoshopped PR deal?
Brilliantly simple. Thanks, Brett.
If you think it was brilliant, perhaps I should not mention how I managed to have such a deep insight into the issue. I certainly never spent hours chasing down a problem only to find that I had made a copy/paste error, so put that right out of your mind.
Brett
Ah well, I didn't say "simply brilliant," I'm familiar with that copy/paste/oops drill too.
My thinking was more along the lines of a couple of techs saying,
"Hey Bert camera 1 is out!"
"No prob Bernie, just patch the #2 feed into it, nobody'll notice."
"Yeah, great idea, Bert. You're a genius."
HTML or some such code never occurred to me. In any case, I suppose we'll never know for sure.
It doesn't matter the dummy won't survive the Van Allen belt LL ~. But here is a serious question. If the Van Allen belt has such high radiation how did the Apollo astronauts survive it in 1969 flying in a beer can?
I know nothing or try to think I know anything about space. But we can watch him live here.
Might be boring for a while. LL~
I have read reports that "space" is getting cluttered with old satellites and pieces of Space Junk which is not going to come down.
Putting more "junk" into space seems to be a reckless exercise in self-worship on the part of people with too much money and with no government restrictions.
Thanks for the thorough radiation explanation, I'm glad I left it alone.
Brett, this is something I've wondered about for a long time now, but never had anyone to ask; If a booster with the power of a Saturn V(or now a BFR) was launched from the moon with a cargo of probes and satellites, how long could we estimate it would take to get to the outer planets? I'm guessing it would just go straight away from the moon. If not, then my question may be rubbish.
At first I was doubtful of the possibility of a booster being able to land without the aid of some sort of recovery system, from the stand point of how would you guide it? A spent booster??? A rocket is usually designed to go in one direction, and I didn't think the transmissions in them had a reverse!!
LL~ On a typical launch, how far down range does a Falcon fly? I know that the rocket just doesn't go straight up. And at what point in the trajectory does it jettison the boosters> How does it reverse course so it ends back more or less on the pad it took off from? The spent booster looks like anything BUT aerodynamic and any kind of ballistic shape. It definitely ain't pretty!! How far from the launch pad is the landing pad? It was definitely cool, and mind blowing that the two landed at almost t he same instant!
It makes me laugh, You can see launches from the space center as far away as West Palm beach. Just go to the shore and look north any launches are readily visible. I was at the space center the Saturday before the launch ad saw the vehicle sitting out at the pad. Then went to the beach and saw the launch. Did not see the landing but I believe it happened. I can watch the reentry landings over and over. If anyting I thought it couldn't be that perfect, was almost convinced it was CGI.Can see launches further south: Broward County- at night - spectacular
I was searching for amateur movies of the launch and booster landings, and found one that is by far the clearest and best video I have seen. It's really worth watching, especially the separation and decent of the side boosters.
Yes, there is some vector control in the engines in addition to creating some torque by choosing which engine is lit. The latest generation of Merlin engine has some throttle control.
Yeah, that Polar Lander was a huge disappointment. Not to mention, an embarrassment.
Yeah, that Polar Lander was a huge disappointment. Not to mention, an embarrassment.Now I realize when I wrote that comment, I had Polar lander and Climate Orbiter confused with each other. I was thinking of the English/metric mixup that tore up the Orbiter as being the embarrassment.
Now I realize when I wrote that comment, I had Polar lander and Climate Orbiter confused with each other. I was thinking of the English/metric mixup that tore up the Orbiter as being the embarrassment.