There is a car in outer space, and you can watch it live.

[MGKrebs]

Reminds me of that old movie Heavy Metal.

[rzemanfl]

1. Dumb question, but what happens to tires in a vaccuum? n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Just a guess. They have no air but instead are filled with something solid

[rzemanfl]

4. Good guess. It isn't like it would ride rough. n/t

[rzemanfl]

9. They must have put tension on the springs (if it has springs) too. n/t

[Yonnie3]

14. That would not be necessary.

The tires would increase their pressure by 14.7 PSI. They could have under-inflated them a bit before takeoff if that would be a problem.

[Yonnie3]

12. The pressure inside increases 14.7 PSI relative to the outside.

One atmosphere is only 14.7 PSI.

[rzemanfl]

13. Thanks! n/t

[Yonnie3]

19. I grew up watching Outer Limits and reading Sci-Fi.

There were always scenes where the "hard vacuum" of space would suck someone through a small hole or similar. It took me a long time to lose that way of thinking.

[rzemanfl]

25. I also didn't think the springs thing through. No earth gravity. n/t

[sl8]

38. Well, technically, lots of Earth gravity.

Gravitational force at Low Earth Obit altitudes is not very much less than it is on surface of the Earth.

A noticeable difference is that objects in orbit are in freefall. Think of jumping off a very tall cliff, with (nearly) no air resistance.

[lagomorph777]

40. The car is not staying in LEO: It's headed to the Asteroid Belt.

It'd be a pity to see it get dented up out there.

[sl8]

44. Of course.

I was only addressing the common (?) misperception that objects in orbit are "beyond the reach of gravity".

[msongs]

2. nasa men on moon and back, spacex advertisement for tesla cars nt

[EX500rider]

33. What do you expect from a commercial Enterprise?

Those rockets don't build themselves. Cost lots of money.

[kydo]

5. Too bad we couldn't have put orange man in the trunk of that car. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. +1000000!

[PJMcK]

26. And then, once in outer space...

...load him into a canon and blast him very fast into the Sun.

Where did I hear that idea? Hmmm.

[nolabear]

7. If Musk has any soul at all

he has wired that suit to turn toward the camera and wave at some point.

[Lucinda]

15. LOL

[Merlot]

8. Best car commercial ever!

[Demonaut]

10. poor Stig!

[Historic NY]

22. LOL.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

28. One Stig dies, another takes his place.

Or her place, who knows?

[Glassunion]

42. Some say

his tears taste like blueberries, and that his apartment is carpeted with Russell Brand's beard... All we know is he's the Stig's American cousin - Starman!

[blogslut]

11. DON'T PANIC

[Kali]

16. what did I just see about an hour ago in the SW sky?

I'm in SE AZ.

[hunter]

35. I wonder if it was the "Disco Ball"

A disco ball-like satellite is orbiting Earth. Here's why.

(CNN)The universe has some added sparkle -- now that a shiny, spherical satellite is traveling around our planet.

The newly launched satellite, dubbed the Humanity Star, resembles a disco ball. Its mission: to serve as a focal point for humanity and reminder about our fragile place in the universe.

"No matter where you are in the world, or what is happening in your life, everyone will be able to see the Humanity Star in the night sky," said Peter Beck, founder of the private company Rocket Lab, in a statement.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/world/humanity-star-launch-trnd/index.html

There's satellite tracking here:

http://www.n2yo.com

[Kali]

39. that is kind of cool, I guess

but it wasn't what I saw, this seemed to still be in the atmosphere and it was not blinking

[ornotna]

47. This is the track for Humanity Star

http://www.n2yo.com/?s=43166

Probably not what you saw.

[padfun]

52. You're in SE Arizona?

I graduated from Buena High School in 1973.

[Kali]

53. Texas Canyon

between Benson and Willcox

[padfun]

54. Ahh, Been a while

since I've been back there but I am going this May for a reunion. Two days in Tucson and then one day in Sierra Vista.
When I leave, I might go to Albuquerque so will go by the Chiricahua Mountains for recalling memories if I do.

Nice area if you like hiking and camping. Still a lot of wilderness out there.

[Kali]

56. You may be thinking of a different Texas Canyon

We are in the Little Dragoons. Old family ranch, I-10 runs right through us, along with a bunch of other infrastructure, right-of-ways, county roads, the railroad etc. I could only wish it more wild here, but the cities need their food, fuel, and energy. Sigh.

I have seen a Texas Canyon in the Chiricahuas on a map, but never actually been there.

[Dave Starsky]

17. Soft Landing - Heavy Metal

[MGKrebs]

29. Cool! Thanks!

[Lucinda]

18. It also has an inscription on the circuit board that says made by humans

https://www.instagram.com/p/Be31IJxgOoK/

[Xolodno]

20. Totally Faked, Staged, Hoax, etc. Where are all the stars?

I'm kidding and offering a bit of sarcasm. Plus, moon landing deniers can suck my balls...and deny they every did.

[edbermac]

21. Musk forgot the fuzzy dice!

Or the sticker from Spaceballs: We Brake For Nobody

[cwydro]

24. That wouldve been fantastic lol!

[Historic NY]

23. Its going to need a wash and wax.

[SonofDonald]

27. There's a couple of cars on the Moon

From what I remember, probably charge the batteries or replace them and go for a drive.

Except for of course any lubricants are now probably dessicated, lubricants in outer space have to be very special due to the temps and radiation among other issues.

[MGKrebs]

30. Not the same as sailing through space at 18,000 mph!

[Blue_true]

32. 18,000 mph for a deep space vehicle is really pedestrian.

In order to make deep space practical, propulsion will need to be close to the solar system escape velocity, beyond that number would be even better.

[SonofDonald]

34. But they did go pretty fast on the way up there

And they got one up to 17 kph on the moon, but yeah horse n buggy compared to a tesla roadster.

[Glassunion]

64. After the final burn, it's going about 74,937mph

The speedometer is pegged and the odometer has fried...

[Blue_true]

31. I won't watch it. Too over the top.

Plus, we are celebrating an effort where a group took a 50 year old technology, latched several pieces of that technology together then interfaced those pieces with modern communication technology. Not much to celebrate, that technology MAY get to Mars, but not anything beyond that.

I will be impressed when someone come up with a vastly innovative propulsion system that can go past Mars to other star systems near us.

[hunter]

36. Landing the boosters was something new.

50 years ago, maybe even 20 years ago, there was no technology that could do that.

It required some very clever science and engineering.

Having a heavy lift capacity again allows us to consider things like nuclear powered electric propulsion systems for deep space exploration.

[Blue_true]

41. I accept your last point mostly.

Lift off from earth and then use nuclear power for the long haul space travel. The synchronous landing of two side boosters did not impress me too much, that was just a case of modern communication technology, if that was available 50 years ago, it would have been done then.


Call me a nut that has gone off the deep end if you want to (been called things before), but I believe that there is a fundamental force of the Universe that has not been scientifically identified yet. It should have an origin from the same source as magnetism, but is radial in nature instead of polar. The reason that I believe this is that two planets and a number of Jovian moons have retrograde orbits, if one accepts wholly formation of those bodies from a primordial disk of mass pushed out from the Sun, then retrograde orbits would not have been possible. In addition, the orbital speed of Venus is higher than that of earth, Venus is a planet that has a retrograde orbit - most science that I have read say that Venus has the retrograde orbit because collision billions of years ago reversed the orbit of that planet - the issue that I have with that is that in order for the orbit to be reversed, inertia would have to be altered and then restored. If you look at the planets in order starting with Mercury thru to Neptune, the orbit speed progressively get lower, the only thing that makes sense when one considers that along with planet spacing from each other and their satellites is that a force which opposes Gravity is active between planets, the Sun and satellites of those bodies, with planets being satellites of the Sun.

Why am I interested in that unknown force? First, it answers all the attributes that scientists have attributed to Dark Matter. Second, it can be used to build spacecrafts that travel at or above planetary speed, up to around one ten thousandth the speed of light. Such speed would make interstellar travel, at least by robotic craft, possible.

[MGKrebs]

48. There are no planets with retrograde orbits.

Venus and Uranus have retrograde rotations. A much different phenomena.

In any case, the real exciting aspect of all this is the whole phalanx of young people involved in developing space travel to the next level.
To infinity, and beyond!

[Blue_true]

50. Venus and Uranus orbit the Sun clockwise.

All other known planets orbit counterclockwise. Clockwise or counter clockwise depends upon the observation point one takes, but even considering that Venus and Uranus orbit differently from the other known planets. Venus is also slowing down, which brings the concept of planets maintaining primordial inertia into question, but makes sense if an unknown force is interacting with gravity to establish orbit speed.

One last thing. The highest speed that humans can theoretically make a spaceship go if an unknown force is harnessed is the speed of the fastest moving Galaxy, around one seven hundredth the speed of light.

[MGKrebs]

55. Where do you get your information?

All 8 or 9 planets orbit the sun in the same direction. Venus and Uranus rotate on their axes opposite the other planets. Look it up anywhere.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=22778
https://www.geek.com/news/geek-answers-why-do-all-planets-rotate-and-orbit-in-the-same-direction-1564529/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_and_prograde_motion

[Blue_true]

65. Yes. You are right. 8 planets orbit in the same direction.

Pluto was downgraded from a planet to a minor planet, reducing the number to 8.

[nolabear]

46. Even the ability for us to watch it so clearly and beautifully is new.

You're a tough case. I think it's magnificent.

[Baclava]

49. Just like in the movies

[suffragette]

37. Now it is heading to the Asteroid Belt

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/elon-musk-space-car-overshoot-mars-asteroid-belt

“Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt,” Musk said in a tweet that seemed to confirm the final destination of the mission had changed.

Originally, the $100,000 electric Tesla Roadster, chosen by Musk as a whimsical experimental payload for the Falcon Heavy’s maiden flight, had been intended to reach a heliocentric orbit roughly the same distance from the sun as Mars, and orbit for a billion years.

On its new trajectory, the world’s first car-turned-spacecraft will take a months-long cruise through deep space before taking its chances in the circumstellar asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, where the risk of a catastrophic collision is greater.

[misanthrope]

57. It won't make it that far

The solar winds in combination with abundant cosmic rays will destroy the bonds on all the vehicle's organic material which includes the rubber and plastics. In a year's time, it will be a frazzled husk.

[edbermac]

43. "I...can't...drive.......55!!"

Last edited Wed Feb 7, 2018, 08:40 PM - Edit history (1)

[Bleacher Creature]

45. So was the car ejected from Falcon Heavy?

And what happened to the rocket itself? I know that two of the three boosters came back, but what about the ship?

[MGKrebs]

60. The main core apparently ran out of propellant shortly before

it was supposed to land on the barge, so it crashed near the barge, in the water. I haven't seen any updates to that yet.

[samnsara]

51. whats the speedometer read?

[Glassunion]

61. Around 74,937mph

According to The Atlantic - "The new numbers suggest the payload reached a speed of 33.5 kilometers per second after the last push"

Now, of course it's actual speed will vary as it settles into its orbit... But that's a good ballpark figure.

[alarimer]

58. This is a stupid pointless stunt and dangerous as well.

It is a giant piece of debris, dangerous to satellites and any other spacecraft. Fuck Elon Musk. He could have put something useful on that rocket, but instead he launched a car.

[pyro_archvile]

59. Idiot.

It's not going into earth orbit.

[cemaphonic]

62. It's in a heliocentric orbit that extends past Mars.

It's not going to be hanging around in LEO where it could actually hit anything.

[Glassunion]

63. No it is not.

#1. It is not in earth's orbit at all, so there is near zero probability of it hitting an existing satellite or any spacecraft whatsoever.
#2. A car was simply a fun choice for a test flight.

This was the very first flight of an experimental spacecraft, using refurbished rockets. You need to test things before you start putting billions of dollars worth of equipment on top if it. Now under normal circumstances, to test a rocket, with a good and proper payload, most space agencies (like NASA) use metal, and concrete to match payload weights. So if you're testing a rocket, why not just strap something fun to the top of the rocket, instead of boring dead weight?

This particular rocket is being tested for future Mars supply and exploration missions, as well as extremely heavy payloads into low earth orbit. Up until yesterday the retired Space Shuttle was the most economical method of getting heavy payloads into low earth orbit (about 1,200 miles altitude). However, the Shuttle's max payload was only 37.6% of what the Falcon Heavy is capable of. This is huge. A single FH launch will be capable of getting 140,600 lbs of payload into low earth orbit. Or 58,800 lbs of payload into a geostationary orbit.

Both the Falcon 9 and Heavy are able to take rather large payloads into space for a relatively low price. The Falcon 9 runs about $62 million to send a payload up, and the Heavy is estimated at about $90 million. Towards the end of its service the Space Shuttle was running about $450 million per launch.