Of course and guess who fell asleep on the sofa and missed it...
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
Currently this is rescheduled for 20:45 tonight. Launch window closed at
21:00

Could be well worth a look.


https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...lly-fly-today/

Tim



--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:17:46 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Of course and guess who fell asleep on the sofa and missed it...

This might be of interest then Brian.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16...failed-landing

And if you want the whole thing, the following Youtube link gives you
the launch, recovery and the press meeting with Elon (and loads of
chat in between). Handy if you have 5 + hours to spare. ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLOZPoVV04A

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:13:13 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:05:56 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:17:46 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Of course and guess who fell asleep on the sofa and missed it...

This might be of interest then Brian.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16...failed-landing

Two out of three is not bad for a first attempt.

I don't think it is the first attempt at landing the cores though as
they have even done so on the drone barge.

I'll give you that it's was the first time they had launched the
Falcon Heavy and tried to recover all 3 cores simultaneously!

It's funny how some people don't see things [1]. Whilst watching the
live feed of the recovery stage it was very obvious to me that on the
feed I was watching that what should have been the feed from the two
side cores was two duplicate feeds from one (because they 'both'
landed on the same pad). ;-)

https://youtu.be/TLA7jo90V2k?t=424

You can also see the retro burn(s) of both side cores in both video
feeds but the orientation of the landing pad is the same in both
feeds.

I'm not suggesting that there weren't two side cores, or that they
didn't land safely (even though the landing pad video looked like an
animation g), just that we didn't get to see the ride from both side
cores. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[1] I spotted that the picture of the kitcar on the home page of the
club website was reversed, making it a LHD and apparently it had been
like that for years! ;-)

T i m wrote:

Whilst watching the
live feed of the recovery stage it was very obvious to me that on the
feed I was watching that what should have been the feed from the two
side cores was two duplicate feeds from one (because they 'both'
landed on the same pad). ;-)

They have now posted a corrected version of the webcast with video
from both side boosters. (It also has some extra footage of the car
tagged on the end.)

https://youtu.be/bCc16uozHVE


--
Geoff Clare

On 07/02/2018 11:48, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:13:13 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:05:56 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:17:46 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Of course and guess who fell asleep on the sofa and missed it...

This might be of interest then Brian.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16...failed-landing

Two out of three is not bad for a first attempt.

I don't think it is the first attempt at landing the cores though as
they have even done so on the drone barge.

I'll give you that it's was the first time they had launched the
Falcon Heavy and tried to recover all 3 cores simultaneously!

It's funny how some people don't see things [1]. Whilst watching the
live feed of the recovery stage it was very obvious to me that on the
feed I was watching that what should have been the feed from the two
side cores was two duplicate feeds from one (because they 'both'
landed on the same pad). ;-)

https://youtu.be/TLA7jo90V2k?t=424

You can also see the retro burn(s) of both side cores in both video
feeds but the orientation of the landing pad is the same in both
feeds.

I'm not suggesting that there weren't two side cores, or that they
didn't land safely (even though the landing pad video looked like an
animation g), just that we didn't get to see the ride from both side
cores. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[1] I spotted that the picture of the kitcar on the home page of the
club website was reversed, making it a LHD and apparently it had been
like that for years! ;-)


I believe the "Govsat" launch last week had a 3 engine test landing, at
sea which was successful, though without a barge so the core was lost.

Stage separation on that was about 8000 kmh.

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:49:58 +0000, Vortex13
wrote:

snip

I believe the "Govsat" launch last week had a 3 engine test landing, at
sea which was successful, though without a barge so the core was lost.

Interesting, thanks. Elon said he was hoping for a new 'space race' so
it looks like it's on. ;-)

Stage separation on that was about 8000 kmh.

Mad speeds eh. I was watching the speedo go up at launch and whist it
started off quite modestly, it really picked up after that!

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?

Cheers, T i m

On 07/02/2018 14:02, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:49:58 +0000, Vortex13
wrote:

snip

I believe the "Govsat" launch last week had a 3 engine test landing, at
sea which was successful, though without a barge so the core was lost.

Interesting, thanks. Elon said he was hoping for a new 'space race' so
it looks like it's on. ;-)

Stage separation on that was about 8000 kmh.

Mad speeds eh. I was watching the speedo go up at launch and whist it
started off quite modestly, it really picked up after that!

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?

Cheers, T i m


I wonder if it's simply an optical thing. The cameras are focussed on
the vehicle, rather than infinity.

On 07/02/2018 13:45, Geoff Clare wrote:
T i m wrote:

Whilst watching the
live feed of the recovery stage it was very obvious to me that on the
feed I was watching that what should have been the feed from the two
side cores was two duplicate feeds from one (because they 'both'
landed on the same pad). ;-)

They have now posted a corrected version of the webcast with video
from both side boosters. (It also has some extra footage of the car
tagged on the end.)

https://youtu.be/bCc16uozHVE



Much better. Shame the video feeds weren't correct last night.

So the vehicle will be in space for millions of years.

Huge temperature extremes from close to 0K to 400K maybe. Lots of
radiation.

I wonder how long before the tyres turn to dust. They aren't going to
last forever.

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:45:46 +0000, Geoff Clare
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Whilst watching the
live feed of the recovery stage it was very obvious to me that on the
feed I was watching that what should have been the feed from the two
side cores was two duplicate feeds from one (because they 'both'
landed on the same pad). ;-)

They have now posted a corrected version of the webcast with video
from both side boosters. (It also has some extra footage of the car
tagged on the end.)

https://youtu.be/bCc16uozHVE

That looks a bit better, thanks for that Geoff. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:30:23 +0000, Vortex13
wrote:
snip

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?


I wonder if it's simply an optical thing. The cameras are focussed on
the vehicle, rather than infinity.

Yeah, possibly ... I'm sure someone will come along with the
definitive answer. ;-)

I just thought that once clear of our atmosphere the place would be
full of stars, especially the brighter ones?

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 14:47:07 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:30:23 +0000, Vortex13
wrote:
snip

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?


I wonder if it's simply an optical thing. The cameras are focussed on
the vehicle, rather than infinity.

Yeah, possibly ... I'm sure someone will come along with the
definitive answer. ;-)

Could be they just aren;t bright enough for teh given exposure time.
The same was said about photos taken on the moon.

And if you look at the cameras on the ISS on one of those smartphone apps, (which I do most nights) you can't see any stars either.


I just thought that once clear of our atmosphere the place would be
full of stars, especially the brighter ones?

Cheers, T i m

On 07/02/2018 14:02, T i m wrote:

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?

You might just about see Venus on a video feed if it happened to be in
the field of view but it would be right on the limits of detection and
only slightly above the noise floor. Its too close to the sun now.

You can see Venus with the naked eye in daylight from the Earth if you
know exactly where to look in the sky - stand in the shadow of a
building to get a bit of help. The hard bit is tricking your eye to
focus at infinity when staring at an apparently featureless blue sky.

If you use any optical aid you *MUST* stand in the shade. You cannot
afford to look at the sun through binoculars if you value your sight.

Your best chance of seeing it with the naked eye in daytime this year is
in mid to late summer when it is magnitude -4 (substantially brighter
than Sirius) and more than 40 degrees away from the sun. See:

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/venus.htm

Its a lot easier if you have someone who knows where to look.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 7 Feb 2018 15:35:21 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2018-02-07, Vortex13 wrote:
On 07/02/2018 13:45, Geoff Clare wrote:
T i m wrote:

Whilst watching the
live feed of the recovery stage it was very obvious to me that on the
feed I was watching that what should have been the feed from the two
side cores was two duplicate feeds from one (because they 'both'
landed on the same pad). ;-)

They have now posted a corrected version of the webcast with video
from both side boosters. (It also has some extra footage of the car
tagged on the end.)

https://youtu.be/bCc16uozHVE



Much better. Shame the video feeds weren't correct last night.

So the vehicle will be in space for millions of years.

What a stupid piece of vandalism *that* is. They could have launched
something useful.

Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing.

Who is going to risk millions on a viable commercial payload (again)
.... until it proved itself (which was the point of the mission).

https://www.timesofisrael.com/spacex...eli-satellite/

Or would you rather they did what they normally do a test launch with
a lump of concrete?

And if launching a car into space gets people interested in the whole
space thing, or even to just raise the profile of the SpaceX project
then it *is* doing something useful.

However: 'Musk, who wants to colonise Mars, said the approach was
"kind of silly and fun, but I think that silly and fun things are
important".

Only to some it seems ...

Cheers, T i m

On 07/02/2018 14:45, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:45:46 +0000, Geoff Clare
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Whilst watching the
live feed of the recovery stage it was very obvious to me that on the
feed I was watching that what should have been the feed from the two
side cores was two duplicate feeds from one (because they 'both'
landed on the same pad). ;-)

They have now posted a corrected version of the webcast with video
from both side boosters. (It also has some extra footage of the car
tagged on the end.)

https://youtu.be/bCc16uozHVE

That looks a bit better, thanks for that Geoff. ;-)

Looks to me like they had a bit of grot on the lens of the feed that
they didn't show live and someone put the sharper image feed in both.
The feed from the core also goes bad shortly after its re-entry burn -
presumably since something ended up on the lens.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 07/02/2018 16:11, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 7 Feb 2018 15:35:21 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2018-02-07, Vortex13 wrote:

So the vehicle will be in space for millions of years.

What a stupid piece of vandalism *that* is. They could have launched
something useful.

They deliberately didn't do that, because they didn't know whether it
would be a successful launch. They didn't want to risk a squillion
pound satellite being incinerated in a massive kerosene-LOX fireball.


I think it's fantastic publicity. The alternative lump of steel or
concrete would just not cut it and I certainly would not risk my
expensive satellite in such an experiment.

A TV advertising slot in the Superbowl about 4 megadollars. Throwing
away a Tesla and a few cameras is small potatoes.

The other commercial launch providers should be quaking in their boots.

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 16:12:10 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/02/2018 14:02, T i m wrote:

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?

You might just about see Venus on a video feed if it happened to be in
the field of view but it would be right on the limits of detection and
only slightly above the noise floor. Its too close to the sun now.

You can see Venus with the naked eye in daylight from the Earth if you
know exactly where to look in the sky - stand in the shadow of a
building to get a bit of help. The hard bit is tricking your eye to
focus at infinity when staring at an apparently featureless blue sky.

If you use any optical aid you *MUST* stand in the shade. You cannot
afford to look at the sun through binoculars if you value your sight.

Your best chance of seeing it with the naked eye in daytime this year is
in mid to late summer when it is magnitude -4 (substantially brighter
than Sirius) and more than 40 degrees away from the sun. See:

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/venus.htm

Its a lot easier if you have someone who knows where to look.

Yep :-?

but whenever I've seen it it's always been in the Sky :-D

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/3466971234/

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:24:39 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

snip

https://youtu.be/bCc16uozHVE

That looks a bit better, thanks for that Geoff. ;-)

Looks to me like they had a bit of grot on the lens of the feed that
they didn't show live and someone put the sharper image feed in both.

That doesn't explain how it's 'now' ok though does it? It's not
something they can easily re-run? ;-)

I think someone just picked up the same feed twice shrug.

The feed from the core also goes bad shortly after its re-entry burn -
presumably since something ended up on the lens.

That seems to happen just as it's approaching some clouds (so my first
thought was water droplets) but I guess it could be whatever was
supposed to be burning, assuming it wouldn't have all evaporated at
that speed?

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:12:07 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 07/02/2018 14:02, T i m wrote:

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?

You might just about see Venus on a video feed if it happened to be in
the field of view but it would be right on the limits of detection and
only slightly above the noise floor.

So was it just that the Roadster was on the 'day' side of the earth so
it was too bright to see *anything*?

Its too close to the sun now.

You can see Venus with the naked eye in daylight from the Earth if you
know exactly where to look in the sky - stand in the shadow of a
building to get a bit of help. The hard bit is tricking your eye to

focus at infinity when staring at an apparently featureless blue sky.

Amazing to think you can see celestial bodies (other than our sun of
course) during the day (I have seen some).

If you use any optical aid you *MUST* stand in the shade. You cannot
afford to look at the sun through binoculars if you value your sight.

Understood.


Your best chance of seeing it with the naked eye in daytime this year is
in mid to late summer when it is magnitude -4 (substantially brighter
than Sirius) and more than 40 degrees away from the sun. See:

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/venus.htm

Its a lot easier if you have someone who knows where to look.

Or failing that, an app?

Cheers, T i m

Tim Streater explained on 07/02/2018 :
Like Jezza.

There is enough polution up there!

On 07/02/18 17:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vortex13
wrote:

On 07/02/2018 14:02, T i m wrote:

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?

It's too bright in general. People asked the same Q about Apollo
moonshot pix from the Moon's surface.

They're all using the same movie set.

On 07/02/2018 17:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vortex13
wrote:

On 07/02/2018 14:02, T i m wrote:

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?

It's too bright in general. People asked the same Q about Apollo
moonshot pix from the Moon's surface.

Too bright for seeing any stars but Venus is doable from the ground when
it is at its brightest and maximum elongation close to midday. You just
need to stand out of direct sunlight and know exactly where to look.

The hard part is focussing your eyes at infinity.

I'd be very surprised if you couldn't see Venus from space. Or if a
video camera didn't capture it in the same frame as a car if it was
pointed in the right direction.

The albedo of Venus is 75% which makes it stand out nicely in sunlight.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 13:44:30 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:34:08 +0000, Richard
wrote:

On 07/02/18 17:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vortex13
wrote:

On 07/02/2018 14:02, T i m wrote:

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?

It's too bright in general. People asked the same Q about Apollo
moonshot pix from the Moon's surface.

They're all using the same movie set.

Thunderbirds set for the return of two of the rockets. How do you
explain the crowds who watched? Film extras provided by Rentacrowd

CGI grins

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 13:44:30 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 06:34:08 +0000, Richard
wrote:

On 07/02/18 17:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vortex13
wrote:

On 07/02/2018 14:02, T i m wrote:

Silly question for you ... why don't you see any stars in any of the
shots from the Roadster? Is it that it's too bright in general, even
though it looked pitch black in the background?

It's too bright in general. People asked the same Q about Apollo
moonshot pix from the Moon's surface.

They're all using the same movie set.

Thunderbirds set for the return of two of the rockets. How do you explain the
crowds who watched? Film extras provided by Rentacrowd

;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_kfM-BmVzQ

Cheers, T i m

On 7 Feb 2018 15:35:21 GMT
Huge wrote:

On 2018-02-07, Vortex13 wrote:
On 07/02/2018 13:45, Geoff Clare wrote:
T i m wrote:

Whilst watching the
live feed of the recovery stage it was very obvious to me that on
the feed I was watching that what should have been the feed from
the two side cores was two duplicate feeds from one (because they
'both' landed on the same pad). ;-)

They have now posted a corrected version of the webcast with video
from both side boosters. (It also has some extra footage of the
car tagged on the end.)

https://youtu.be/bCc16uozHVE



Much better. Shame the video feeds weren't correct last night.

So the vehicle will be in space for millions of years.

What a stupid piece of vandalism *that* is. They could have launched
something useful.



It's a good job he's not in the UK as he'd have a hell of a job
explaining to the DVLA why his car didn't need the VED paying.

Statutory Off Planet Notice?

On 08/02/2018 16:29, Steve wrote:
On 7 Feb 2018 15:35:21 GMT
Huge wrote:

On 2018-02-07, Vortex13 wrote:
On 07/02/2018 13:45, Geoff Clare wrote:
T i m wrote:

Whilst watching the
live feed of the recovery stage it was very obvious to me that on
the feed I was watching that what should have been the feed from
the two side cores was two duplicate feeds from one (because they
'both' landed on the same pad). ;-)

They have now posted a corrected version of the webcast with video
from both side boosters. (It also has some extra footage of the
car tagged on the end.)

https://youtu.be/bCc16uozHVE



Much better. Shame the video feeds weren't correct last night.

So the vehicle will be in space for millions of years.

What a stupid piece of vandalism *that* is. They could have launched
something useful.



It's a good job he's not in the UK as he'd have a hell of a job
explaining to the DVLA why his car didn't need the VED paying.

Statutory Off Planet Notice?


I was wondering about that - "Exporting the car then are we Sir. Where
to?" g

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:48:51 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

snip

I was wondering about that - "Exporting the car then are we Sir. Where
to?" g

And the answer to that question concerns me slightly as I understand
the 3rd burn took the Roadster out into a bigger Lunar orbit than
'planned' and that may take it though an asteroid belt between Mars
and Jupiter?

So, *if* it hits (or is hit) by an asteroid, who is to say it (or the
asteroid) don't go off track and then who knows were it / they will
go?

Maybe we will find out when the Roadster comes back and it's not the
~40M km away from us as originally planned? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:49:12 +0000
T i m wrote:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:48:51 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote:

snip

I was wondering about that - "Exporting the car then are we Sir.
Where to?" g

And the answer to that question concerns me slightly as I understand
the 3rd burn took the Roadster out into a bigger Lunar orbit than
'planned' and that may take it though an asteroid belt between Mars
and Jupiter?

So, *if* it hits (or is hit) by an asteroid, who is to say it (or the
asteroid) don't go off track and then who knows were it / they will
go?

Maybe we will find out when the Roadster comes back and it's not the
~40M km away from us as originally planned? ;-(


"Excuse me, Sir, where do you say this collision occurred? I can't find
that on my AA atlas."

--
Davey.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 19:12:21 +0000, Davey
wrote:

snip

Maybe we will find out when the Roadster comes back and it's not the
~40M km away from us as originally planned? ;-(


"Excuse me, Sir, where do you say this collision occurred? I can't find
that on my AA atlas."

Quite. I'm 'hoping' the Roadster would burn up in our atmosphere if it
came back fast enough but what of the 5 km diameter asteroid it knocks
off course ... ?

Cheers, T i m

On 08/02/2018 16:48, Adrian Brentnall wrote:

I was wondering about that - "Exporting the car then are we Sir. Where
to?" g


ITYM Statutory Off Rocket Notice.

jim k wrote:

Graham. Wrote in message:


Mmmm he's not the only one launching things into the middle of
nowhere!

Why do your posts keep appearing as their own seperate threads?


Looks to me like JbG contributed to the "OT: Falcon heavy rocket
launch" thread but renamed his post omitting the "OT:"


Indeed. And with a "" added, like an email....

Different clients react differently, but for mine at least the lack of a
"References" header may be more important.

--

Roger Hayter

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:14:16 +0000, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

jim k wrote:

Graham. Wrote in message:


Mmmm he's not the only one launching things into the middle of
nowhere!

Why do your posts keep appearing as their own seperate threads?


Looks to me like JbG contributed to the "OT: Falcon heavy rocket
launch" thread but renamed his post omitting the "OT:"


Indeed. And with a "" added, like an email....

Different clients react differently, but for mine at least the lack of a
"References" header may be more important.

For me, many of Brian Gaff's replies start a new thread (Forte Agent)?

His first to Tim+ started a new thread prefixed ' but when he
replied to himself in the (my) second thread he didn't.

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:

For me, many of Brian Gaff's replies start a new thread (Forte Agent)?

I think Brian strips off "", "ot:" and other prefixes, can't remember
the reason he does that now, but any client that threads based on
subject, rather than references will see that as a different thread.

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:11:36 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

For me, many of Brian Gaff's replies start a new thread (Forte Agent)?

I think Brian strips off "", "ot:" and other prefixes, can't remember
the reason he does that now, but any client that threads based on
subject, rather than references will see that as a different thread.

Thanks Andy. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Andy Burns wrote:

Johnny B Good wrote:

My news client, as the subsequent 8 follow ups before, all correctly
repeated the subject line which was already possessed of a " " prefix
(but now sans the "OT: " prefix which Martin's follow up had stripped out
of the OP Subject line).

*NEXT!*

Not quite so fast ...

Subject lines aren't the mechanism proper for grouping messages into
threads in a decent client, and yours seems to have stripped the
references header in two of your replies yesterday (to Adrian Brentnall
@ 19:02 and Martin Brown at 13:59) hence creating two new threads as
far as most here are concerned.

Interestingly, my client shows a break in threading due to lack of
reference headers, but links the subject line (despite the lack of [OT])
and connects the offending subthreads at the right chronological places
in the main thread. I'm quite impressed.



--

Roger Hayter

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:39:49 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

And the answer to that question concerns me slightly as I understand
the 3rd burn took the Roadster out into a bigger Lunar orbit than

Inter-planetary orbit.

That happens to also be round the sun?

'planned' and that may take it though an asteroid belt between Mars
and Jupiter?

So, *if* it hits (or is hit) by an asteroid, who is to say it (or the
asteroid) don't go off track and then who knows were it / they will
go?

The asteroid belt is, for this purpose, essentially empty.

Duh. 'Space' is mostly empty ...

All of the
probes that go to Jupiter and beyond have done so with no problems
whatever.

Typical left brainer, confabulating a very organised space mission
(and using a probe that may also be 'manoeuvrable), launched by
professionals with 'some bloke' privately test launching some ballast
into space. ;-(

If you can be arsed, look up this;

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

Interesting:

"The asteroid material is so thinly distributed that numerous unmanned
spacecraft have traversed it without incident.[6] Nonetheless,
collisions between large asteroids do occur ... "

Fancy that ... and that space yet they still hit each other? ;-)

and read the section on Exploration.

This one you mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt#Exploration

"Due to the low density of materials within the belt, the odds of a
probe running into an asteroid are now estimated at less than one in a
billion."

So, it has been suggested that the Roadster will continue it's orbit
for 1 Billion years and has an orbit that takes one year so it's odds
on it *will* collide with an asteroid ... it's just a matter of time.
;-)

Cheers, T i m