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

You know for such a cool thing that may inspire the youth to pursue a career in astrophysics or engineering.. I find it odd this topic and the stunt is garnering so much hate..

Truly fascinating reaction to this imho..



Respectfully,
~meathead

originally posted by: Christosterone
So they lost 2 payloads instead of 1...
Great job SpaceX!!!

To all the triggered SpaceX apologists, I’ll be happy to eat my words when they launch and land with astronauts in their [colossally stupid] landing rocket...

"Colossally stupid landing rocket"???? WTH is your problem? Sounds like you're the one who is triggered. What's your beef? SpaceX can get a satellite into orbit for $60 to $90 million. The United Launch Alliance can do it for $300 million. Is there anything you don't understand about that? Normally, on a test rocket, the payload is a slab of concrete. SpaceX said that was boring, so they had a little fun with it. Is that a problem for anyone? Who is "triggered" here?

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

May wanna consider Zuma wasn't lost and launched exactly as planned

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, according to information I read, the car going to Mars is not going to get to Mars, it will wind up someplace else floating around. I sure wouldn't want to be aboard a ship sent to Mars by Musk, You'd never get there.

The car was never intended to "go to Mars." That's media misunderstanding. The car was supposed to go to the VICINITY of Mars ORBIT, which it is doing. It's going out a little farther than they expected because they let it burn all its fuel--and why not? Unused fuel wasn't going to be recycled or anything. It's still going on a heliocentric orbit, which was the original intention anyway.

So you are saying that the misinterpreted fake news that first came out was wrong....that is so believable nowadays

I'm saying that SpaceX NEVER SAID the car was "going to Mars." In every release they said the car was going to intersect the orbit of Mars to achieve a heliocentric orbit around the Sun. People, including people on ATS, misinterpreted that to mean the car was 'going to Mars' as if it meant "landing on Mars," which NOBODY at SpaceX ever said. So it's not so much a matter of "Fake News" as it is a lack of reading comprehension on the part of the public. I would maintain that a lot of so-called "fake news" falls into the same category.

I don't know about that. I don't think that people interpreted this wrong. I think that the information presented was wrong.

www.space.com...

www.digitaltrends.com...

www.cnet.com...

mashable.com...

a reply to: rickymouse

Where the car is or isn't doesn't matter it was a publicity stunt the fact remains Space X successful launched the most powerful rocket ever launched and landed the boosters to be used again.

It beggars belief people are trying to knock down an historic launch.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, according to information I read, the car going to Mars is not going to get to Mars, it will wind up someplace else floating around. I sure wouldn't want to be aboard a ship sent to Mars by Musk, You'd never get there.

The car was never intended to "go to Mars." That's media misunderstanding. The car was supposed to go to the VICINITY of Mars ORBIT, which it is doing. It's going out a little farther than they expected because they let it burn all its fuel--and why not? Unused fuel wasn't going to be recycled or anything. It's still going on a heliocentric orbit, which was the original intention anyway.

So you are saying that the misinterpreted fake news that first came out was wrong....that is so believable nowadays

I'm saying that SpaceX NEVER SAID the car was "going to Mars." In every release they said the car was going to intersect the orbit of Mars to achieve a heliocentric orbit around the Sun. People, including people on ATS, misinterpreted that to mean the car was 'going to Mars' as if it meant "landing on Mars," which NOBODY at SpaceX ever said. So it's not so much a matter of "Fake News" as it is a lack of reading comprehension on the part of the public. I would maintain that a lot of so-called "fake news" falls into the same category.

I don't know about that. I don't think that people interpreted this wrong. I think that the information presented was wrong.

Let's look at what each of those articles said.

www.space.com...

"Destination is Mars orbit," Musk wrote. "Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn't blow up on ascent."

I understand the confusion. "Mars Orbit" sounds as if the Tesla is going into orbit around mars. However, want it really means is that the Tesla will be in orbiting the Sun near to where Mars orbits the Sun.

That is to say:
"Mars Orbit" = "An Orbit Like Mars' Orbit"....NOT "Orbit Around Mars"

www.digitaltrends.com...

"The Falcon-Tesla-Bowie combo will head for a Mars orbit, where it could remain for a billion years, according to Musk"

Same thing. "Mars Orbit" is not "Into orbit around Mars". I understand the confusion, but "orbit around Mars" is not the intent of what was written in the article.

www.cnet.com...

"The planned trajectory: a "billion year elliptic Mars orbit".

Again, Ambiguous? Yes.
Incorrect? No.

mashable.com...

For this one, the title seems to get it wrong (not Ambiguous, but wrong). The title of the article is:
"SpaceX is Sending a Tesla Roadtser to Mars Aboard the Falcon Heavy"

"To Mars" does sound as if the Tesla is going TO Mars itself.

However, the body of the story gets it right:
"A SpaceX official that isn't Elon Musk has confirmed that the Tesla payload is real and expected to launch to Mars' vicinity on the Falcon Heavy."

"Mars' Vicinity" is more correct.

Sometimes the Headline Writer is an editor (not the actual article author) who may not truly understand the details of the information being written about in the article.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: rickymouse

Where the car is or isn't doesn't matter it was a publicity stunt the fact remains Space X successful launched the most powerful rocket ever launched and landed the boosters to be used again.

It beggars belief people are trying to knock down an historic launch.

That thing is supposed to be able to haul something as heavy and big as a city bus. Kind of impressive.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, according to information I read, the car going to Mars is not going to get to Mars, it will wind up someplace else floating around. I sure wouldn't want to be aboard a ship sent to Mars by Musk, You'd never get there.

The car was never intended to "go to Mars." That's media misunderstanding. The car was supposed to go to the VICINITY of Mars ORBIT, which it is doing. It's going out a little farther than they expected because they let it burn all its fuel--and why not? Unused fuel wasn't going to be recycled or anything. It's still going on a heliocentric orbit, which was the original intention anyway.

So you are saying that the misinterpreted fake news that first came out was wrong....that is so believable nowadays

I'm saying that SpaceX NEVER SAID the car was "going to Mars." In every release they said the car was going to intersect the orbit of Mars to achieve a heliocentric orbit around the Sun. People, including people on ATS, misinterpreted that to mean the car was 'going to Mars' as if it meant "landing on Mars," which NOBODY at SpaceX ever said. So it's not so much a matter of "Fake News" as it is a lack of reading comprehension on the part of the public. I would maintain that a lot of so-called "fake news" falls into the same category.

I don't know about that. I don't think that people interpreted this wrong. I think that the information presented was wrong.

Let's look at what each of those articles said.

www.space.com...

"Destination is Mars orbit," Musk wrote. "Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn't blow up on ascent."

I understand the confusion. "Mars Orbit" sounds as if the Tesla is going into orbit around mars. However, want it really means is that the Tesla will be in orbiting the Sun near to where Mars orbits the Sun.

That is to say:
"Mars Orbit" = "An Orbit Like Mars' Orbit"....NOT "Orbit Around Mars"

www.digitaltrends.com...

"The Falcon-Tesla-Bowie combo will head for a Mars orbit, where it could remain for a billion years, according to Musk"

Same thing. "Mars Orbit" is not "Into orbit around Mars". I understand the confusion, but "orbit around Mars" is not the intent of what was written in the article.

www.cnet.com...

"The planned trajectory: a "billion year elliptic Mars orbit".

Again, Ambiguous? Yes.
Incorrect? No.

mashable.com...

For this one, the title seems to get it wrong (not Ambiguous, but wrong). The title of the article is:
"SpaceX is Sending a Tesla Roadtser to Mars Aboard the Falcon Heavy"

"To Mars" does sound as if the Tesla is going TO Mars itself.

However, the body of the story gets it right:
"A SpaceX official that isn't Elon Musk has confirmed that the Tesla payload is real and expected to launch to Mars' vicinity on the Falcon Heavy."

"Mars' Vicinity" is more correct.

Sometimes the Headline Writer is an editor (not the actual article author) who may not truly understand the details of the information being written about in the article.

I know that from MSM, the title and first two paragraphs make it look real, then the last half, which nobody reads, tells it is only an opinion or is from some unnamed person close to the source....could even be the person cleaning the toilet, they are working in the same building, so is the mailman.

What the headlines say and the first paragraph, set your mind going in one direction. Unless you know they do this, you will not comprehend what the article says, people get confused and stop reading when later it tells you the parameters of the use of the info, it goes against what you have been taught to believe in the beginning and it does not register that the article was not real. When something flipflops, people quit reading.

There was actually a good science daily article or physics.org article I read about a year or two ago that explained this. I started to compare the articles content and find out what was realy being said, people do not get down to the disclaimer part that shows that what the title and first paragraph says is possibly not real.

The EU is already plotting to have the net falcon Heavy launch (planned for June) to be a catastrophic failure with a massive explosion.

originally posted by: Flanker86
The EU is already plotting to have the net falcon Heavy launch (planned for June) to be a catastrophic failure with a massive explosion.

And you base this belief on ....?