The Falcon Heavy has successfully launched, sending a dummy payload on a journey slightly past Mars orbit (that will not actually come close to Mars). So, that’s nice.

The Super Heavy Lifter is only the fourth Super Heavy Lifter ever built, which by definition means a lifter capable of putting a >50 tonne payload in low earth orbit. The others were the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle system and the Energia Buran system. Those last two were not capable of putting arbitrary 50 tonne objects in LEO (only their own orbiters) so this is the second versatile SHL in history.

The Falcon Heavy comprises of a Falcon 9, with two other Falcon 9 First Stages stuck to it: max thrust is around 25 kN.

Each of the three main stages is reusable, capable of safely returning to Earth and landing vertically. In this maiden flight, it appears that one of the engines, the central one, has not been successfully recovered.

Higher LEO payloads are attained by using an expendable or partly expendable configuration rather than reusable.

In fully expendable mode, the payload mass to LEO is 68 tonnes. In fully reusable mode (ie recovering all three engines) the payload mass to LEO is around 21 tonnes. However, the price AND the price per tonne is lower when fully reusable mode is employed. The price for 21 tonnes to LEO (or 8 tonnes on Mars transfer orbit) is 90 million dollars. On a per tonne, this is about 25% of the price offered by heavy lifters such as the Delta IV Heavy.

Well done

Human crewed Mars missions would require the craft to be assembled in orbit wouldn’t it, I assume you could never lift something that heavy and large from the ground

• Human crewed Mars missions would require the craft to be assembled in orbit wouldn’t it, I assume you could never lift something that heavy and large from the ground

Read somewhere that this rocket can lift the weight equivalent of a fully laden 737. I don’t know what that is in Opera Houses though…

Dunno about those vertically landed boosters being reusable. They sound complicated. NASA found out that it’s boosters which were just a case and a parachute cost more when you include recovery, refurbishing and compliance. Easier to build a new one.

Cymek said:

Human crewed Mars missions would require the craft to be assembled in orbit wouldn’t it, I assume you could never lift something that heavy and large from the ground

Using the Baker/Zubrin mission profiles (Mars Direct etc), you could do it with a Saturn V scale vehicle.

The Saturn V had about twice the capacity of the Falcon Heavy. One can conceive of a Falcon Heavy derived vehicle (basically using more Falcon 9 stages) that could do it but I am not aware that a vehicle of that scale is in Musk’s plans.

So, two ways to do it would be:

1/
Use two Falcon Heavies. One to launch the trans-mars rocketry stage, and one for everything else, then assemble the two parts.
Although the ISS was assembled in space, I’m still a bit wary of the idea of assembling an interplanetary craft in space. The ISS has never had to suffer any major accelerations. But what do I know, maybe space welding is great now.

2/
Use two Falcon Heavies. One to launch the trans-mars rocketry fused to the bare-bones mars mission hardware, and then other manned missions to put the equipment and consumables etc aboard.

3/
Switch to fully reusable mode, and hence assemble it in 21 tonne chunks, of which you would need 6 or 7. This would result in much lower launch costs, but probably increased costs elsewhere in terms of design and assembly.

furious said:

• Human crewed Mars missions would require the craft to be assembled in orbit wouldn’t it, I assume you could never lift something that heavy and large from the ground

Read somewhere that this rocket can lift the weight equivalent of a fully laden 737. I don’t know what that is in Opera Houses though…

Sounds a bit low, I think 737s are up in the hundreds of tonnes, they can carry a main battle tank plus and there is not much change from 60 tonnes for one of them.

737 max takeoff weight is about 80 tonnes. so this rocket can’t quite handle a fully loaded 737 as payload.

or 8 tonnes on Mars transfer orbit

I wonder what the weight of a Mars craft would be, you’d need it as light as possible obviously for cost and launch considerations but it would need to be robust enough to keep people alive for a couple of years.

Getting to Mars really is a big undertaking as you obviously also need to build a structure on Mars for them to live in which also has to be launched and flown there.

It would make sense to try and built some sort of base there than can either by permanently crewed or reactivated when new people arrive

Cymek said:

or 8 tonnes on Mars transfer orbit

In expendable mode, max MTO for the Falcon Heavy is 16.8 tonnes.

I wonder what the weight of a Mars craft would be,

Referring again to the Baker/Zubrin Mars Direct mission profiles, the Hab and return vehicles would be sent separately. Each of these would require a bit over 40 tonnes to be sent on MTO.

Srsly though if this topic interests you I would recommend you read The Case For Mars by R. Zubrin, which gives details for the mission profiles and much background material.

dv said:

Cymek said:

or 8 tonnes on Mars transfer orbit

In expendable mode, max MTO for the Falcon Heavy is 16.8 tonnes.

I wonder what the weight of a Mars craft would be,

Referring again to the Baker/Zubrin Mars Direct mission profiles, the Hab and return vehicles would be sent separately. Each of these would require a bit over 40 tonnes to be sent on MTO.

Srsly though if this topic interests you I would recommend you read The Case For Mars by R. Zubrin, which gives details for the mission profiles and much background material.

I have that book. got it at one of the astrofests. good read and he makes a strong case.

dv said:

max thrust is around 25 kN.

How does that work:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

max thrust is around 25 kN.

How does that work:

lol

I mean MN

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

max thrust is around 25 kN.

How does that work:

lol

I mean MN

TATE agrees with your revised units.

dv said:

Cymek said:

or 8 tonnes on Mars transfer orbit

In expendable mode, max MTO for the Falcon Heavy is 16.8 tonnes.

I wonder what the weight of a Mars craft would be,

Referring again to the Baker/Zubrin Mars Direct mission profiles, the Hab and return vehicles would be sent separately. Each of these would require a bit over 40 tonnes to be sent on MTO.

Srsly though if this topic interests you I would recommend you read The Case For Mars by R. Zubrin, which gives details for the mission profiles and much background material.

It does and thanks

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

Cymek said:

or 8 tonnes on Mars transfer orbit

In expendable mode, max MTO for the Falcon Heavy is 16.8 tonnes.

I wonder what the weight of a Mars craft would be,

Referring again to the Baker/Zubrin Mars Direct mission profiles, the Hab and return vehicles would be sent separately. Each of these would require a bit over 40 tonnes to be sent on MTO.

Srsly though if this topic interests you I would recommend you read The Case For Mars by R. Zubrin, which gives details for the mission profiles and much background material.

I have that book. got it at one of the astrofests. good read and he makes a strong case.

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

Referring again to the Baker/Zubrin Mars Direct mission profiles, the Hab and return vehicles would be sent separately. Each of these would require a bit over 40 tonnes to be sent on MTO.

Srsly though if this topic interests you I would recommend you read The Case For Mars by R. Zubrin, which gives details for the mission profiles and much background material.

I have that book. got it at one of the astrofests. good read and he makes a strong case.

exactly. old pork sausage fingers.

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

Referring again to the Baker/Zubrin Mars Direct mission profiles, the Hab and return vehicles would be sent separately. Each of these would require a bit over 40 tonnes to be sent on MTO.

Srsly though if this topic interests you I would recommend you read The Case For Mars by R. Zubrin, which gives details for the mission profiles and much background material.

I have that book. got it at one of the astrofests. good read and he makes a strong case.

Looked and book depository has it for $20 with free shipping, bargain

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

Referring again to the Baker/Zubrin Mars Direct mission profiles, the Hab and return vehicles would be sent separately. Each of these would require a bit over 40 tonnes to be sent on MTO.

Srsly though if this topic interests you I would recommend you read The Case For Mars by R. Zubrin, which gives details for the mission profiles and much background material.

I have that book. got it at one of the astrofests. good read and he makes a strong case.

The case for sending Boris to Mars.

I think going to mars and doing a few orbits with a maned craft is quite doable, landing something quite heavy will require some inventive thinking.

Bogsnorkler said:

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

I have that book. got it at one of the astrofests. good read and he makes a strong case.

exactly. old pork sausage fingers.

Ahhh my eyes!

• I think going to mars and doing a few orbits with a maned craft is quite doable

You mean like a Ferrari? More flashy than a Tesla I suppose…

furious said:

• I think going to mars and doing a few orbits with a maned craft is quite doable

You mean like a Ferrari? More flashy than a Tesla I suppose…

Yes with Mars gravity about 40% of Earth’s there would still be needed quite a mass of propellant to reachieve Mars orbit.

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

dv said:

Referring again to the Baker/Zubrin Mars Direct mission profiles, the Hab and return vehicles would be sent separately. Each of these would require a bit over 40 tonnes to be sent on MTO.

Srsly though if this topic interests you I would recommend you read The Case For Mars by R. Zubrin, which gives details for the mission profiles and much background material.

I have that book. got it at one of the astrofests. good read and he makes a strong case.

speaking of falcon heavy….

Cymek said:

I wonder what the weight of a Mars craft would be, you’d need it as light as possible obviously for cost and launch considerations but it would need to be robust enough to keep people alive for a couple of years.

If trips to Mars are to be regular and continuing it would be well worth going the route of a Mars cycler to address some these issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler

> maybe space welding is great now.

It isn’t. You’d bolt it together and even then sometimes the lubricant fails and the bolts freeze in place.

mollwollfumble said:

> maybe space welding is great now.

It isn’t. You’d bolt it together and even then sometimes the lubricant fails and the bolts freeze in place.

Wouldn’t you have male and female connectors that lock in place

• It isn’t. You’d bolt it together and even then sometimes the lubricant fails and the bolts freeze in place.

Magnets…

Peak Warming Man said:

I think going to mars and doing a few orbits with a maned craft is quite doable, landing something quite heavy will require some inventive thinking.

…whilst checking out the parking situation….

Satellite’s gone way up to Mars
Soon it’ll be filled with parkin’ cars
I watched it for a little while
I love to watch things on TV

Satellite of love
Satellite of love
Satellite of love
Satellite of

One of the things to work on is getting to mars faster, halv the travel time.
One way to do this is to send up a propulsion capsule, dock it to the man moduel and get a good long burn.

Peak Warming Man said:

One of the things to work on is getting to mars faster, halv the travel time.
One way to do this is to send up a propulsion capsule, dock it to the man moduel and get a good long burn.

You’d need two wouldn’t you to slow down at the half way mark

Peak Warming Man said:

One of the things to work on is getting to mars faster, halv the travel time.
One way to do this is to send up a propulsion capsule, dock it to the man moduel and get a good long burn.

You will then need almost the same amount of fuel to slow it down again.

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One of the things to work on is getting to mars faster, halv the travel time.
One way to do this is to send up a propulsion capsule, dock it to the man moduel and get a good long burn.

You will then need almost the same amount of fuel to slow it down again.

A parachute or similar should reduce the need for slowing down fuel, shouldn’t it?

poikilotherm said:

Tamb said:

Peak Warming Man said:

One of the things to work on is getting to mars faster, halv the travel time.
One way to do this is to send up a propulsion capsule, dock it to the man moduel and get a good long burn.

You will then need almost the same amount of fuel to slow it down again.

A parachute or similar should reduce the need for slowing down fuel, shouldn’t it?

They only work in atmosphere.

Tamb said:

poikilotherm said:

Tamb said:

You will then need almost the same amount of fuel to slow it down again.

A parachute or similar should reduce the need for slowing down fuel, shouldn’t it?

They only work in atmosphere.

We’re going to Mars right, I’m too lazy to read the whole thread? As in landing there? or just flying by to pick up the Roadster?

poikilotherm said:

Tamb said:

poikilotherm said:

A parachute or similar should reduce the need for slowing down fuel, shouldn’t it?

They only work in atmosphere.

We’re going to Mars right, I’m too lazy to read the whole thread? As in landing there? or just flying by to pick up the Roadster?

Dunno.

poikilotherm said:

Tamb said:

poikilotherm said:

A parachute or similar should reduce the need for slowing down fuel, shouldn’t it?

They only work in atmosphere.

We’re going to Mars right, I’m too lazy to read the whole thread? As in landing there? or just flying by to pick up the Roadster?

Mars has an atmosphere and aerobraking has been used there for several missions, and is part of NASA’s reference mission (which is based on the aforementioned Baker/Zubrin Mars Direct mission profile).

Memories of the good old days (2008) of the Falcon 1, which was no bigger than the recent launcher from New Zealand! Who at that stage really thought it would become the USA’s only man-rated rocket? Then the Falcon 1 became the Falcon 1e and they were off and running.

In any case, Musk recently announced that he does not expect Falcon Heavy to be used for crewed missions.

The BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) is expected to be the focus of SpaceX’s crewed program. This will have a launch capacity of around 150 tonnes to LEO, so will be truly comparable to Saturn V.

dv said:

In any case, Musk recently announced that he does not expect Falcon Heavy to be used for crewed missions.

The BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) is expected to be the focus of SpaceX’s crewed program. This will have a launch capacity of around 150 tonnes to LEO, so will be truly comparable to Saturn V.

I had a guess at what BFR meant. I was wrong. Never would have guessed Falcon.

party_pants said:

dv said:

In any case, Musk recently announced that he does not expect Falcon Heavy to be used for crewed missions.

The BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) is expected to be the focus of SpaceX’s crewed program. This will have a launch capacity of around 150 tonnes to LEO, so will be truly comparable to Saturn V.

I had a guess at what BFR meant. I was wrong. Never would have guessed Falcon.

Fully-reusable?

dv said:

The Falcon Heavy has successfully launched, sending a dummy payload on a journey slightly past Mars orbit (that will not actually come close to Mars). So, that’s nice.

The Super Heavy Lifter is only the fourth Super Heavy Lifter ever built, which by definition means a lifter capable of putting a >50 tonne payload in low earth orbit. The others were the Saturn V, the Space Shuttle system and the Energia Buran system. Those last two were not capable of putting arbitrary 50 tonne objects in LEO (only their own orbiters) so this is the second versatile SHL in history.

The Falcon Heavy comprises of a Falcon 9, with two other Falcon 9 First Stages stuck to it: max thrust is around 25 kN.

Each of the three main stages is reusable, capable of safely returning to Earth and landing vertically. In this maiden flight, it appears that one of the engines, the central one, has not been successfully recovered.

Higher LEO payloads are attained by using an expendable or partly expendable configuration rather than reusable.

In fully expendable mode, the payload mass to LEO is 68 tonnes. In fully reusable mode (ie recovering all three engines) the payload mass to LEO is around 21 tonnes. However, the price AND the price per tonne is lower when fully reusable mode is employed. The price for 21 tonnes to LEO (or 8 tonnes on Mars transfer orbit) is 90 million dollars. On a per tonne, this is about 25% of the price offered by heavy lifters such as the Delta IV Heavy.

Concepts for a Falcon Heavy launch vehicle were initially discussed as early as 2004. SpaceX unveiled the plan for the Falcon Heavy to the public at a Washington DC news conference in April 2011, with initial test flight expected in 2013.

A number of factors delayed the planned maiden flight by 5 years to 2018, including two anomalies with Falcon 9 launch vehicles, which required all engineering resources to be dedicated to failure analysis, halting flight operations for many months. The integration and structural challenges of combining three Falcon 9 cores were much more difficult than expected.

In July 2017, Elon Musk said, “It actually ended up being way harder to do Falcon Heavy than we thought. … Really way, way more difficult than we originally thought. We were pretty naive about that.”

The initial test flight for a Falcon Heavy lifted off on February 6, 2018, at 3:45 pm EST, after a two-hour delay due to unfavorable wind conditions.

Falcon pics

Saturn V Pic

Website info

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

Launch pic falcon heavy

Comparison charts

Another pic of Falcon Heavy

Things have gone badly wrong in the best possible way.

Instead of ending up in a Mars Transfer Orbit, the orbit will now take it way past Mars into the asteroid belt. The orbit will still take it past Mars every now and again.

More on https://amp.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/spacex-s-rocket-flung-the-tesla-car-on-a-path-that-goes-beyond-mars-20180208-p4yzro.html

The picture below is a realistic artists impression of the spacecraft. The name of the dummy in the drivers seat of the red Tesla roadster is “Starman”, which could possibly make this the most expensive advertisement in space so far.

Stumpy_seahorse said:

How will the car cope? Assuming an ordinary up modified car, in a hundred years how will it’s paint be looking? Will the tyres be powder in a little cloud following it? Glass would be good but maybe frosty from micro meteors. How about the upholstery?

Unmodified.

AwesomeO said:

How will the car cope? Assuming an ordinary up modified car, in a hundred years how will it’s paint be looking? Will the tyres be powder in a little cloud following it? Glass would be good but maybe frosty from micro meteors. How about the upholstery?

One of the failings of electric cars is that you cant push start them on earth let alone anywhere else.

Peak Warming Man said:

AwesomeO said:

How will the car cope? Assuming an ordinary up modified car, in a hundred years how will it’s paint be looking? Will the tyres be powder in a little cloud following it? Glass would be good but maybe frosty from micro meteors. How about the upholstery?

One of the failings of electric cars is that you cant push start them on earth let alone anywhere else.

They should put dynamos on the axles so the car charges itself as the wheels turn.

AwesomeO said:

How will the car cope? Assuming an ordinary up modified car, in a hundred years how will it’s paint be looking? Will the tyres be powder in a little cloud following it? Glass would be good but maybe frosty from micro meteors. How about the upholstery?

Exactly! An extremely good test of the survival of common materials in space. The effects of radiation, micrometeorites, vacuum and extreem low temperatures will be very interesting.

This is, according to wikipedia, the last genuine photo from the spacecraft.

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

How will the car cope? Assuming an ordinary up modified car, in a hundred years how will it’s paint be looking? Will the tyres be powder in a little cloud following it? Glass would be good but maybe frosty from micro meteors. How about the upholstery?

Exactly! An extremely good test of the survival of common materials in space. The effects of radiation, micrometeorites, vacuum and extreem low temperatures will be very interesting.

This is, according to wikipedia, the last genuine photo from the spacecraft.

until it pulls a ‘Christine’ and starts taking over military satelites…

AwesomeO said:

Peak Warming Man said:

AwesomeO said:

How will the car cope? Assuming an ordinary up modified car, in a hundred years how will it’s paint be looking? Will the tyres be powder in a little cloud following it? Glass would be good but maybe frosty from micro meteors. How about the upholstery?

One of the failings of electric cars is that you cant push start them on earth let alone anywhere else.

They should put dynamos on the axles so the car charges itself as the wheels turn.

you gotta stop looking at those free energy youtube clips.

AwesomeO said:

How will the car cope? Assuming an ordinary up modified car, in a hundred years how will it’s paint be looking? Will the tyres be powder in a little cloud following it? Glass would be good but maybe frosty from micro meteors. How about the upholstery?

the paint will fade pretty quickly.

Bogsnorkler said:

AwesomeO said:

How will the car cope? Assuming an ordinary up modified car, in a hundred years how will it’s paint be looking? Will the tyres be powder in a little cloud following it? Glass would be good but maybe frosty from micro meteors. How about the upholstery?

the paint will fade pretty quickly.

UV? Some paints have UV blockers. Some pigments that are inorganic would last longer.

I’d be more worried about the tyres. Perhaps cooled below glass transition temperature making them brittle or evaporation of monomers.

mollwollfumble said:

Bogsnorkler said:

AwesomeO said:

How will the car cope? Assuming an ordinary up modified car, in a hundred years how will it’s paint be looking? Will the tyres be powder in a little cloud following it? Glass would be good but maybe frosty from micro meteors. How about the upholstery?

the paint will fade pretty quickly.

UV? Some paints have UV blockers. Some pigments that are inorganic would last longer.

I’d be more worried about the tyres. Perhaps cooled below glass transition temperature making them brittle or evaporation of monomers.

Its heading to the asteroid belt.

Why couldn’t they land the car on Mars?

A self driving all electric car driving around on Mars would be cool.

Make it so people in a astronaut suit could fit in.

Wonders how many attempts it would take.

Make a great ad too.

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

Bogsnorkler said:

the paint will fade pretty quickly.

UV? Some paints have UV blockers. Some pigments that are inorganic would last longer.

I’d be more worried about the tyres. Perhaps cooled below glass transition temperature making them brittle or evaporation of monomers.

Its heading to the asteroid belt.

Why couldn’t they land the car on Mars?

A self driving all electric car driving around on Mars would be cool.

Make it so people in a astronaut suit could fit in.

Wonders how many attempts it would take.

Make a great ad too.

How would a car from Earth fare on Mars?

What changes would be required?

Here is a video of the landing of the Spacex Falcon Heavy outboard boosters.

FALCON HEAVY Boosters LANDING 02/06/2018

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here is a video of the landing of the Spacex Falcon Heavy outboard boosters.

FALCON HEAVY Boosters LANDING 02/06/2018

> Why couldn’t they land the car on Mars?

Not this time. They want the car to last forever – fat chance.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here is a video of the landing of the Spacex Falcon Heavy outboard boosters.

FALCON HEAVY Boosters LANDING 02/06/2018

Ooo…I hadn’t seen that part.

That’s rather special. It’s like a sci-fi novel.

http://scibabe.com/falconheavylaunch/

“Holy flying f*ck, that thing took off!” Watch Elon Musk’s first reaction at Falcon Heavy launch

More related news

SpaceX Hid a Second, Secret Payload Aboard Falcon Heavy, And It Sounds Amazing

https://www.sciencealert.com/spacex-launched-second-secret-payload-designed-last-millions-years-tesla-arch?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencealert-latestnews+%28ScienceAlert-Latest%29

SpaceX Hid a Second, Secret Payload Aboard Falcon Heavy, And It Sounds Amazing

Elon Musk’s personal Tesla might have gotten all the headlines during SpaceX’s historic rocket launch last week, but the Falcon Heavy also carried a second, secret payload almost nobody knew about.

Stashed inside the midnight-cherry Roadster was a mysterious, small object designed to last for millions (perhaps billions) of years – even in extreme environments like space, or on the distant surfaces of far-flung planetary bodies.

more…

Arch Mission Foundation Announces Our Payload On SpaceX Falcon Heavy

Our goal at the Arch Mission Foundation™ is to permanently archive human knowledge for thousands to billions of years. We exist to preserve and disseminate humanity’s knowledge across time and space, for the benefit of future generations.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arch Mission Foundation Announces Our Payload On SpaceX Falcon Heavy

Our goal at the Arch Mission Foundation™ is to permanently archive human knowledge for thousands to billions of years. We exist to preserve and disseminate humanity’s knowledge across time and space, for the benefit of future generations.

more…

https://archmission.org/

from

https://medium.com/arch-mission-foundation/arch-mission-foundation-announces-our-payload-on-spacex-falcon-heavy-c4c9908d5dd1

These Arch disks are written by a femtosecond laser on quartz silica glass. Data is encoded digitally using plasma disruptions from the laser pulses.

This new medium, invented over decades by Dr. Peter Kazansky, is expected within 10 years to achieve a storage capacity of 360 Terabytes per 3.75 inch disk of quartz (that’s 7000 Blu-Ray Disks!), and is stable for at least 14 billion years, under a wide range of extreme conditions. Today this is the best way to store data for billions of years in space.

I’d like one

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arch Mission Foundation Announces Our Payload On SpaceX Falcon Heavy

Our goal at the Arch Mission Foundation™ is to permanently archive human knowledge for thousands to billions of years. We exist to preserve and disseminate humanity’s knowledge across time and space, for the benefit of future generations.

more…

https://archmission.org/

from

https://medium.com/arch-mission-foundation/arch-mission-foundation-announces-our-payload-on-spacex-falcon-heavy-c4c9908d5dd1

These Arch disks are written by a femtosecond laser on quartz silica glass. Data is encoded digitally using plasma disruptions from the laser pulses.

This new medium, invented over decades by Dr. Peter Kazansky, is expected within 10 years to achieve a storage capacity of 360 Terabytes per 3.75 inch disk of quartz (that’s 7000 Blu-Ray Disks!), and is stable for at least 14 billion years, under a wide range of extreme conditions. Today this is the best way to store data for billions of years in space.

I’d like one

I wonder if that enough to encode an person entire lifetime worth or memories/knowledge and personality plus entire DNA profile.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arch Mission Foundation Announces Our Payload On SpaceX Falcon Heavy

Our goal at the Arch Mission Foundation™ is to permanently archive human knowledge for thousands to billions of years. We exist to preserve and disseminate humanity’s knowledge across time and space, for the benefit of future generations.

more…

https://archmission.org/

from

https://medium.com/arch-mission-foundation/arch-mission-foundation-announces-our-payload-on-spacex-falcon-heavy-c4c9908d5dd1

These Arch disks are written by a femtosecond laser on quartz silica glass. Data is encoded digitally using plasma disruptions from the laser pulses.

This new medium, invented over decades by Dr. Peter Kazansky, is expected within 10 years to achieve a storage capacity of 360 Terabytes per 3.75 inch disk of quartz (that’s 7000 Blu-Ray Disks!), and is stable for at least 14 billion years, under a wide range of extreme conditions. Today this is the best way to store data for billions of years in space.

I’d like one

I wonder if that enough to encode an person entire lifetime worth or memories/knowledge and personality plus entire DNA profile.

I’d say so, that is why I would want one, imagine if everyone had one, and it recorded dreams as well.

I compose music in dreams, but can never play it when I wake up, if my dreams were recorded while I was asleep, and I could play the music back when I woke up, well, that would be awesome.

Technology is being developed for recording thoughts and dreams. This technology can store it all.

Maybe not in out lifetime, but who knows, they might have it in ten years.

We Now Know Why SpaceX Falcon Heavy’s Core Booster Failed to Land Last Week

A week after the successful launch of the Falcon Heavy, currently the world’s most powerful rocket, SpaceX has analysed what went wrong, and Elon Musk has taken to Twitter to explain why the core booster did not land as it was supposed to.

The simultaneous landing of Falcon Heavy’s two side boosters was like a finely choreographed work of art, as they gently touched down in tandem on landing pads at Cape Canaveral.

But the main core booster, supposed to land on offshore drone ship Of Course I Still Love You, missed its target by 100 metres (328 feet) because two of its three engines had failed to fire.

more…