Also, that last screenshot shows an altitude of 359km…wasn’t the planned altitude 350km ?Perhaps the first stage guidance was lofting the rocket and the 2nd stage ran out of fuel trying to obtain orbital velocity?
Quote from: Thorny on 06/12/2022 06:25 pmQuote from: DaveS on 06/12/2022 05:55 pmTracking map, yellow vertical line is 1st stage MECO point with the green vertical line being the planned SECO and orbital insertion point:MECO was back much closer to Florida. I think the yellow line was the planned Stage 2 cutoff and the green line was planned payload deploy.That doesn't make any sense unless the vehicle was seriously underperforming and flew long as the tracking line was well beyond the yellow line before the early SECO. ...
Quote from: DaveS on 06/12/2022 05:55 pmTracking map, yellow vertical line is 1st stage MECO point with the green vertical line being the planned SECO and orbital insertion point:MECO was back much closer to Florida. I think the yellow line was the planned Stage 2 cutoff and the green line was planned payload deploy.
Tracking map, yellow vertical line is 1st stage MECO point with the green vertical line being the planned SECO and orbital insertion point:
...So what does this mean? Reentry somewhere?
That's five failures and two successes over the course of Rocket 3's flight history.
Quote from: Mr. Scott on 06/12/2022 08:40 pm...So what does this mean? Reentry somewhere?My guess? Reentry before the coast of Africa. (A 1 km/s deficit is a lot.)Anyone care to do the math?6575 m/s at 531 km for T+07:21, with that speed including Manley's estimated 700 m/s of loft.We get to see another minute of telemetry (contradicting what I said earlier), with final values of 6518 m/s at 570 km for T+08:20, so a more precise calculation of angle could be made.Just remember that with a significant portion (~ 85%) of orbital velocity achieved, it is no longer a "flat Earth" calculation.
Slight revision: I estimate reentry about 400 km west of Dakar. I am now a bit more confident that the debris wouldn't have got quite as far as the African coast.
Zurbuchen, on Astra/TROPICS launch failure: after it happened, wondered if we should have done something different; concluded absolutely not. Mission costs $30M, three launches $9M, to get a new capability into the field. #AAS240
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/14/2022 07:35 pmZurbuchen, on Astra/TROPICS launch failure: after it happened, wondered if we should have done something different; concluded absolutely not. Mission costs $30M, three launches $9M, to get a new capability into the field. #AAS240I understand they had to say that in public. But that's not a good attitude to have in engineering. You can ALWAYS have done something better, be it more analysis, more testing or better modeling etc. If it was a problem you didn't anticipate, you would need to have a better fault tree.
Quote from: king1999 on 06/14/2022 10:14 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/14/2022 07:35 pmZurbuchen, on Astra/TROPICS launch failure: after it happened, wondered if we should have done something different; concluded absolutely not. Mission costs $30M, three launches $9M, to get a new capability into the field. #AAS240I understand they had to say that in public. But that's not a good attitude to have in engineering. You can ALWAYS have done something better, be it more analysis, more testing or better modeling etc. If it was a problem you didn't anticipate, you would need to have a better fault tree.Zurbuchen is the NASA administrator in charge of the acquisition, so not part of the engineering team. He’s saying he’s happy to have bought launches in this risky way.
Astra do not appear to use a throttle down for MaxQ, but there is an unusual artifact at around T+104s, where the acceleration appears to increase dramatically for about 6 seconds. From the telemetry, first motion is not until T+11s, so perhaps they are allowing the telemetry to catch up by a few seconds for separation?
Maybe its a change from relative velocity to inertial velocity.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:03 amMaybe its a change from relative velocity to inertial velocity.Perhaps, but why is the elapsed time from first motion to MECO about 6 seconds longer on the video feed than for the telemetry?Video Elapsed 02.56Telemetry Elapsed 02.50
Quote from: OneSpeed on 06/15/2022 11:40 amQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 06/15/2022 05:03 amMaybe its a change from relative velocity to inertial velocity.Perhaps, but why is the elapsed time from first motion to MECO about 6 seconds longer on the video feed than for the telemetry?Video Elapsed 02.56Telemetry Elapsed 02.50Video delay may be variable over time, or even at the same time between shots. Add to that the latencies of receiving the telemetry, generating the pretty-printed video overlay, overlaying that onto the muxed final video mix, and adding any additional intentional time delay to the final mix, and there's no guarantee a video feed will resemble real-time. This is not unusual: we see on SpaceX's broadcasts that sequence callouts occur 'before' video of those activities (e.g. fairing sep) due to video delay, or landing shots from the droneship showing the vehicle has landed on one angle and still descending in the angle shown next to it. For the public feed getting something out is prioritised over timing precision. Accurately timed and synchronised video footage can be reconstructed from embedded timecodes offline at a later date if needed.
but for each camera, the offset is constant