Falcon Heavy Demo Mission Payload Discussion

[Rocket Science]

Might have been a good opportunity to speak with NASA and Orbital/ATK for testing a Cygnus to ISS as was the case when they made a flight with ULA on Atlas. A load of consumables would probably be welcomed if there is room to store on ISS...

[meekGee]

Hello,

Could the car be equipped with 2 telescopes continuously transmitting (within BW) images of Earth and Mars?

Otherwise, I think sending a car out there will have only short term and minimal PR value. Many will interpret it as nonsense. IMO, a missed opportunity for SpaceX to grab more mindshare and for longer.

Even considering the case of "no extra goodies", it'll grab headlines and add to SpaceX's cool factor.

They should talk about the possibilities of one day retrieving it, or of visiting it in space, and these kinds of things fire fire up the imagination of anyone (almost).

SpaceX is not just a launch company. SpaceX wants to affect a huge social goal. This meshes perfectly with that goal.

[gongora]

They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload.  The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.

[speedevil]

To start a separate subthread.
Assuming for the moment that the Roadster idea is real.

When might this idea have happened?
He's had the roadster since around 2008, so that's no constraint.

In 2016, there the professed intention to launch Red Dragon to mars in 2018, though this seems to have slipped to 2020 by May 2017.

By at the latest summer 2017, it was clear Red Dragon was not happening.

The launch windows for Mars are roughly every two years:
Oct 2015-Mar 2016
Oct 2017-May 2018.
Nov 2019-Aug 2020

Up to March 2016, it's clear that Red Dragon was thought to be the first payload to Mars, and at this time it was clear that F9H wasn't in any way going to be ready for the trailing edge of the 2016 window.
As late as May 2017, noises were being made about a dual Red Dragon in 2020.

It seems unlikely any concrete development would be made on the Tesla plan before it became clear that NASA wasn't going to fund RD, and the decisions about retro-propulsion on commercial crew killed last hopes of doing it without NASA funding, as it would have been yet more investment at a time when ITS/BFR was coming into mind as the way forward.

For several of the proposed inaugural Falcon Heavy launch dates, it would have entirely missed the window to Mars.
In April 2017, it seemed that FH might make the october beginning of the launch window, if everything went right.

So, if up till July (?) it was thought that Red Dragon was happening, it may be that they had to initially aim at design and construction for this payload to happen in 3 months or so?

Perhaps by April 2017 it became clearer to Elon that Red Dragon was not going to proceed, hence the 'silliest thing we can imagine' tweet was aimed at this idea, meaning ~6mo.

[Herb Schaltegger]

They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload.  The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.

That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.

[gongora]

They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload.  The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.

That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.

I don't see an application for any STA dealing with the payload.  If they intend to do one they're sure taking a long time to file it.

[Shanuson]

They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload.  The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.

That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.

I don't see an application for any STA dealing with the payload.  If they intend to do one they're sure taking a long time to file it.

Do we already have a FCC application for the launch itself? If the car stays with the 2nd stage it would be part of the rocket itself and so maybe the communication with it would also be part of the launch FCC application?

[Herb Schaltegger]

They don't have any permits for communicating with the payload.  The most likely explanation for that is an inert payload.

That’s true, but it’s possible that the FCC will issue STA (Special Temporary Authority) for short-term TT&C for a few hours to remain in contact with the payload post-SECO; that would at least allow some passive reception of video and stage safing/monitoring as it recedes.

I don't see an application for any STA dealing with the payload.  If they intend to do one they're sure taking a long time to file it.

Do we already have a FCC application for the launch itself? If the car stays with the 2nd stage it would be part of the rocket itself and so maybe the communication with it would also be part of the launch FCC application?

Right. Basically, the STA would be for an “extended coast” post-injection burn; a modification of the launch TT&C permit. It’s been a year or two since I looked at an STA application, or a permit for launch, so it’s possible the launch permit may be enough to allow tracking & comms for long enough to cover any PR video stuff.

[gongora]

Do we already have a FCC application for the launch itself? If the car stays with the 2nd stage it would be part of the rocket itself and so maybe the communication with it would also be part of the launch FCC application?

Right. Basically, the STA would be for an “extended coast” post-injection burn; a modification of the launch TT&C permit. It’s been a year or two since I looked at an STA application, or a permit for launch, so it’s possible the launch permit may be enough to allow tracking & comms for long enough to cover any PR video stuff.

Yeah, they can transmit from the second stage cameras as long as that stage is alive, and they could have a car mounted camera, but it doesn't appear they intend to transmit anything from the car after it separates from the second stage (assuming it does separate from the second stage, I'd assume they want a shot of it floating away).