SpaceX Falcon Heavy : USSF-44 : KSC LC-39A: 1 Nov 2022 (13:41 UTC)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Photos from SpaceX

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/erdayastronaut/status/1588563690319740933

This is what it's like to stand next to Falcon Heavy boosters landing w/ incredible audio!! Watch them punch through the fog! Thanks @spaceX / @sldelta45 for letting us put cameras at the landing zone! Part of a 3D VR film by Cosmic Perspective (@considercosmos)👇 link below 👇

[Oersted]

Photos from SpaceX

Hot damn, that one of the two side boosters descending together..... Mindblowing.

[Citabria]

I don't see this in the STP-2 webcast.  The view from the 2 side cores at separation clearly show the center core overtaking them while under power.  The view from the center core ( center frame camera) clearly shows one of the side cores separating & falling downwards into the active plume of the center core.  Shutting down the center core is not how separation occurs, that is how re-contact & LOM occur.  Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Agreed. That's why I corrected myself above and suggested the brief, low acceleration bump (17%) is due to the dead weight of the side boosters after they shut down and before they separate. Then 42% after sep and before center core throttle up.

[OneSpeed]

... Shutting down the center core is not how separation occurs, that is how re-contact & LOM occur.  Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Although there are eight pneumatic struts that prevent the three fuselages rolling relative to each other, and two latches up forrard that connect each side booster to the core, the thrust transfer is all done from one point on the base of each side booster, to two corresponding points on the base of the core stage. To maintain contact, the side boosters need to be lifting the core by some amount during flight, because there doesn't appear to be any release mechanism at the thrust transfer points.

For separation to have the best chance of success, the forces between the boosters should be minimised. From the USSF-44 telemetry plots there is a core coast phase from 149 to 153 seconds. The webcast is delayed by a few seconds, so the coast is from T+2:32 to T+2:36 in the webcast. The least force that would still maintain contact and control authority would be with the side boosters running a single engine at minimum throttle, and the core stage shut down.

So, here's my suggested order of events, based on the evidence of the attached video from the STP-2 separation.

1. Before staging, at T+2:32, the side boosters have throttled slightly (around 90%) to limit the thrust transferred to the core stage, and the core is running at around 46%. There is a pronounced lobe in the exhaust plume, most visible in the middle core stage camera view, which is created by the interaction of the plumes from each booster, and is most pronounced when the core stage is running (circled). The lobe is perpendicular to a line between the booster centrelines. The physics are the same as for the wide "Eye of Sauron" plume from a Falcon 9 three engine re-entry burn, which is also perpendicular to the line between the running engines.

2. Just prior to separation. at T+2:34, the lobe from the core has collapsed completely, which to me suggests a shutdown. The plumes from the side boosters continue, but are substantially diminished.

3. The next event, at T+2:35 is the release of the forrard latches, and subsequent splaying of the side boosters, which are still connected at the aft thrust mounts.

4. In order to disconnect at the thrust mounts, the core stage needs to accelerate, and at T+2:37 it restarts some of its engines, quickly leaving the side boosters behind. By T+2:39 a circular core plume is re-established.

5. At T+2:41, it restarts the remaining engines, further expanding its plume. This event is evidenced in the telemetry as a bump in the core acceleration.

Mind you, I'm open to other interpretations of the telemetry and the webcast videos. If you think another scenario better fits the evidence, please post it.

Edit: I've also attached the video edit the images are taken from.

Edit2: Added telemetry plot with labels.

[ugordan]

2. Just prior to separation. at T+2:34, the lobe from the core has collapsed completely, which to me suggests a shutdown. The plumes from the side boosters continue, but are substantially diminished.

It's not the lobe from the center core, it's the interference pattern between the center core and side booster exhaust.
It disappears because the thrust from the side boosters is gone, thus missing the other component for that interference pattern.

There is no center core shutdown during booster sep and no remaining engine(s) burning on boosters *during* sep. That would have been an engineer's nightmare in terms of vehicle reliability and complexity (having to have to relight 9 engines in mid flight just beacuse you wanted them to shut down for 3 seconds, seriously?)

No, it's just a good ol'e separation - center core throttles down to a minimum, boosters cut off and then the separation pushers impart the separation momentum. No ground tracking footage of any FH flight even slightly suggests the center core was shut down during sep. We see the massive 3-body plume reduce to a F9-like smaller octoplume and then the boosters peel off, that's it.

I'm sorry, but sometimes junk in SpaceX webcast telemetry is just junk in SpaceX webcast telemetry.
Also, does your analysis which (I assume) hangs on the km/h graph to pull the acceleration from the webcast take into effect that the earth is still pulling down on the vehicle at 1 G * sin(pitch angle) ?
The fact the speed does not appear to increase in the webcast does not mean the vehicle is not producing thrust.

[OneSpeed]

It's not the lobe from the center core, it's the interference pattern between the center core and side booster exhaust.
It disappears because the thrust from the side boosters is gone, thus missing the other component for that interference pattern.

If just the side boosters had shut down, the plume would have changed to circular. It didn't.

[ulm_atms]

It's not the lobe from the center core, it's the interference pattern between the center core and side booster exhaust.
It disappears because the thrust from the side boosters is gone, thus missing the other component for that interference pattern.

If just the side boosters had shut down, the plume would have changed to circular. It didn't.

It wouldn't be circular until the side boosters were out of the way and allowed the air flow to be circular around the core again.

To add to that, there are three distinct light points in the video....one for each core right at sep.

[ugordan]

It's not the lobe from the center core, it's the interference pattern between the center core and side booster exhaust.
It disappears because the thrust from the side boosters is gone, thus missing the other component for that interference pattern.

If just the side boosters had shut down, the plume would have changed to circular. It didn't.

What do you mean it didn't?
Do you really expect to see the exact same pattern when a core is isolated in space vs when it has
1) a big object attached to the side constricting the airstream and thus the shape of the plume downstream?
2) when that same attached object is in the midst of a shutdown transient/engine purge?

[mandrewa]

Although there are eight pneumatic struts that prevent the three fuselages rolling relative to each other, and two latches up forrard that connect each side booster to the core, the thrust transfer is all done from one point on the base of each side booster, to two corresponding points on the base of the core stage. To maintain contact, the side boosters need to be lifting the core by some amount during flight, because there doesn't appear to be any release mechanism at the thrust transfer points.

For separation to have the best chance of success, the forces between the boosters should be minimised. From the USSF-44 telemetry plots there is a core coast phase from 149 to 153 seconds. The webcast is delayed by a few seconds, so the coast is from T+2:32 to T+2:36 in the webcast. The least force that would still maintain contact and control authority would be with the side boosters running a single engine at minimum throttle, and the core stage shut down.

So, here's my suggested order of events, based on the evidence of the attached video from the STP-2 separation.

1. Before staging, at T+2:32, the side boosters have throttled slightly (around 90%) to limit the thrust transferred to the core stage, and the core is running at around 46%. There is a pronounced lobe in the exhaust plume, most visible in the middle core stage camera view, which is created by the interaction of the plumes from each booster, and is most pronounced when the core stage is running (circled). The lobe is perpendicular to a line between the booster centrelines. The physics are the same as for the wide "Eye of Sauron" plume from a Falcon 9 three engine re-entry burn, which is also perpendicular to the line between the running engines.

2. Just prior to separation. at T+2:34, the lobe from the core has collapsed completely, which to me suggests a shutdown. The plumes from the side boosters continue, but are substantially diminished.

3. The next event, at T+2:35 is the release of the forward latches, and subsequent splaying of the side boosters, which are still connected at the aft thrust mounts.

4. In order to disconnect at the thrust mounts, the core stage needs to accelerate, and at T+2:37 it restarts some of its engines, quickly leaving the side boosters behind. By T+2:39 a circular core plume is re-established.

5. At T+2:41, it restarts the remaining engines, further expanding its plume. This event is evidenced in the telemetry as a bump in the core acceleration.

Whether or not the center core was shut down, didn't the side boosters move up and then past the center core after separation? (I've replayed the launch video several times and each time that's what I believe I'm seeing.)

And if that's the case, doesn't that mean the side boosters would have been pushing on the thrust mount all through the separation?

The reason there were would be a separation despite this would the ever increasing angle between the side boosters and the center core as the top of the side boosters falls out and away from the center core.

[tacoLover7916]

What you are seeing* is the opposite. The view is of the center core from the perspective of the side boosters.

Edit: missing word

[TheRadicalModerate]

I don't see this in the STP-2 webcast.  The view from the 2 side cores at separation clearly show the center core overtaking them while under power.  The view from the center core ( center frame camera) clearly shows one of the side cores separating & falling downwards into the active plume of the center core.  Shutting down the center core is not how separation occurs, that is how re-contact & LOM occur.  Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Agreed. That's why I corrected myself above and suggested the brief, low acceleration bump (17%) is due to the dead weight of the side boosters after they shut down and before they separate. Then 42% after sep and before center core throttle up.

If it's really 42% net throttle and The Merlin 1D's minimum throttle is 57% (User Guide, p. 9), that seems like you'd have to have 3 engines completely shut down, with the rest at a higher-than-minimum throttle.  Do we have any evidence of engines restarting at throttle-up after BECO?

[alugobi]

There is no center core shutdown during booster sep and no remaining engine(s) burning on boosters *during* sep. That would have been an engineer's nightmare in terms of vehicle reliability and complexity (having to have to relight 9 engines in mid flight just beacuse you wanted them to shut down for 3 seconds

This seems the simplest and most reasonable conclusion about what is going on at that point in a FH flight.

Edit: shutting the core completely off during boost phase with the second stage AND payload at stake just doesn't seem likely at all.

[mandrewa]

What you are seeing* is the opposite. The view is of the center core from the perspective of the side boosters.

Edit: missing word

Thanks, tacoLover.  I'd missed that.

[OneSpeed]

If just the side boosters had shut down, the plume would have changed to circular. It didn't.

What do you mean it didn't?
Do you really expect to see the exact same pattern when a core is isolated in space vs when it has
1) a big object attached to the side constricting the airstream and thus the shape of the plume downstream?
2) when that same attached object is in the midst of a shutdown transient/engine purge?

Yes, I would expect it. That's what happens when F9 is transitioning from 3 to 1 engine(s) during its re-entry burn. And that's while travelling backwards through the atmosphere. The nearby downstream base of the booster doesn't prevent the plume from assuming the same pattern. So why would an upstream one? And remember, the lobe is perpendicular to the side boosters, so it is the opposite effect of what you are suggesting.

Agreed. That's why I corrected myself above and suggested the brief, low acceleration bump (17%) is due to the dead weight of the side boosters after they shut down and before they separate. Then 42% after sep and before center core throttle up.

If it's really 42% net throttle and The Merlin 1D's minimum throttle is 57% (User Guide, p. 9), that seems like you'd have to have 3 engines completely shut down, with the rest at a higher-than-minimum throttle.  Do we have any evidence of engines restarting at throttle-up after BECO?

As ugordon mentioned up-thread, the webcast telemetry does not take into account the effect of gravity. At side booster separation the rocket is travelling at about a 30° pitch up, so when it coasts, gravity is 9.8 x sin(30) = 4.4m/s². So, the 'bump' is actually at about 53% throttle. This implies that the core stage throttled from no more than 34% to near 100%, meaning at least some engines must have been shut down prior, as you suggest.

I'm suggesting the booster was being briefly pushed along by side boosters just before this point, and it actually re-ignited about half (5?) of the core stage engines at T+2:37. Also, there is a large, bright flash of light from the base of the rocket at T+2:37, which corresponds with that assumption. I'm also suggesting the remainder ignited at T+2:41.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1590045871370301440

USSF-44 fairings. New record downrange distance for recovery (1496km):

twitter.com/virtualperson4/status/1588863410892312577

@SpaceOffshore Doug arrives in Port Canaveral

[GewoonLukas_]

Cross-post:

A Falcon Heavy Side Booster from USSF-44 (which will be re-used on USSF-67) has been spotted waiting outside the hangar at LC-39A for refurbishment. Based on the soot markings, this is B1064 (per the video).

Edit: uploaded image

[gongora]

Successful USSF-44 Launch ‘Sign of What’s to Come’

EL SEGUNDO, Calif. -- The successful U.S. Space Force USSF-44 mission launch was notable for several reasons: it was the first National Security Space Launch (NSSL) on a Falcon Heavy rocket and the first Falcon Heavy launch since June of 2019.
 
But Dr. Walter Lauderdale, Space Systems Command's chief of Falcon Systems & Operations and USSF-44 Mission director, said what made the launch unique “and a sign of what’s to come,” was the fact that the Nov. 1 launch included a variety of payloads from multiple commercial and government mission partners, all successfully deployed into geosynchronous orbit (GEO).
 
“USSF-44 highlighted the kinds of ways we need to work together to accomplish that objective,” Lauderdale said. “We will see more of that – we need to be learning from these campaigns and taking those ‘lessons learned’ as an entire command and putting it into what we do for the future, to make sure we’re ready for 2026.”
 
SSC and its industry and mission partners have maintained a 100 percent mission success rate for launches conducted under the NSSL program since 2003, and USSF-44 continued that record.
 
USSF-44 launched from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, using a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket. The rocket’s two side boosters were recovered on land and will be reused for the USSF-67 launch in January 2023, Lauderdale said.
 
The Falcon Heavy can lift nearly 64 metric tons (140,660 lbm) to low Earth orbit (LEO) and 58,860 lbm to geosynchronous orbit (GEO). The Falcon Heavy is comprised of a center core and two side core boosters, each with nine Merlin engines, totaling 27 Merlin rocket engines that produce roughly five million pounds of thrust at liftoff.
 
“The whole concept of reuse which SpaceX has matured in a tremendous way – you don’t want to throw away rockets that can be used again if you don’t have to,” Lauderdale noted.
 
In order to reuse the rocket boosters, they have to have enough fuel to bring them back in a safe and controlled manner, Lauderdale said. Landing on the ground is one thing, but SpaceX also has landed boosters on drone ships in the ocean, where the water is constantly moving.
 
“If you have a drone ship, you have to worry about how bumpy the ocean is – that could make recovery more hazardous for the rocket coming back,” Lauderdale said. “The waves are going up and down, the ship is going up and down six and seven feet – that’s going to affect the ability to make a safe landing.”
 
GEO orbits also can be more difficult to obtain than LEO, Lauderdale noted. More propulsion is needed to reach GEO, which is about 22,000 miles above Earth. In order to be in a particular orbit, an object also must be traveling at a certain speed – either from the rocket itself, or the satellite’s own propulsion mechanisms.
 
Often, satellites will be deposited in a transfer orbit, at the perigee – the point closest to Earth – and finish the ellipse to the apogee, or point farthest from the Earth, Lauderdale said. If the rocket does the work, more of the satellite’s mass can be dedicated to its capabilities; if a transfer orbit is used, it may mean a cheaper rocket ride, but then part of the satellite’s mass is going to be dedicated to propulsion.
 
USSF-44 included six payloads on one satellite that advance communications, space weather sensing, and other technologies into near-geosynchronous orbits.
 
Managing multiple payloads isn’t just a matter of weight and size. Some payloads need to be kept at certain temperatures, others need power or fuel. To accomplish this, USSF-44 used the Long Duration Propulsive EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA). The LDPE-2 is a spacecraft built around the ESPAStar Bus, developed by Northrop Grumman, and provides added propulsion, power, and avionics subsystems enabling operations as a fully functional satellite, said Lt. Col. Michael Rupp, materiel leader for the LDPE and Rooster programs at SSC.
 
"ESPAStar vehicles can use excess payload space on launches and our streamlined integration process allows for unification at the launch site," said Troy Brashear, vice president, national security systems, Northrop Grumman. "These capabilities enhance mission value and redefine rapid access to space as we provide the U.S. Space Force with the technology to make their missions more efficient."
 
The six payloads included three separable and three hosted payloads on LDPE-2. The separable payloads – which will fly independently – included Alpine, a Millennium Space Systems program to demonstrate GEO small satellite designs and leverage commercial GEO communications; Linus, a Lockheed Martin Independent Research and Development GEO servicing risk reduction effort; and Tetra-1, an SSC prototype small satellite designed as a pathfinder for streamlined acquisition processes, innovative methods of space vehicle design and on-orbit Tactics Techniques and Procedures development.
 
The hosted payloads - which stay attached to the LDPE-2 in orbit - include: Mustang, a small size/weight/power communications experiment; Xenon, a commercial off-the-shelf component maturation for flight at GEO; and Energetic Charged Particle-Lite, an SSC space weather sensor.
 
“A lot of this is tech demonstration to make sure that we can get the capabilities to meet the coming challenges later in the decade,” Lauderdale said.
 
“We’re working with these multiple payloads, making sure they don’t cause any harm to each other, working through the integration issues and staying on the schedule so that we can safely deliver every one of them to their orbits and bring this new capability to the warfighter,” Lauderdale said.
 
“Our space capabilities are supporting our terrestrial forces in accomplishing our nation’s objectives,” Lauderdale said. “That’s a key role. One of the things we see is an asymmetric threat from our near peers – they are going to look to attack some of our strengths and try to interfere with the capabilities we can deliver from and through space to the warfighter.”
 
“We are looking for how we can rapidly reconstitute and deliver capabilities,” in the event some space assets are damaged or destroyed, Lauderdale said. “These kinds of multi-manifested missions, where you have all these disparate payloads, they provide us the ability to deliver multiple things into different places. It’s part of a layered strategy for getting mission capability on orbit.”
 
LDPE-2 has now completed its month-long post-launch checkout phase, and is in the process of deploying the three separable payloads into their respective orbits, Rupp said. LDPE-2, with the remaining three payloads on board, will be in GEO orbit for a one-year mission life, with the space vehicle being operated from the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Support Complex at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico.
 
“LDPE has propulsion so it can move these satellites around in orbit and place them exactly where they want to be,” Rupp said. “It’s a coordinated effort between SSC and the mission partners as to when they want to be deployed and where they need to be to maximize their testing and prototyping.”
 
This is the second launch to use the LDPE satellite, Rupp noted. The first was the STP-3 launch in late 2021, the second was USSF-44, and the third will be USSF-67 in January 2023.
 
“We’re launching two satellites within 70 days of one another, which is fantastic from a program perspective,” Rupp said.
 
“The real benefit of the LDPE program is to essentially provide a ride for these smaller payloads,” Rupp said. “The mission partners are able to cheaply and rapidly test out and prototype these capabilities and insert them into future programs without having to spend a lot of time and resources doing it themselves. It enables that technology insertion to get after the fight now.”
 
“We had a great launch and we’re really happy with the partnership between SSC Launch Enterprise and SpaceX – our work started then, but it didn’t end there,” Rupp said. “We’re looking forward to our year of mission life and to future success.”

[Steven Pietrobon]

Linus is WL2XOU.

https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-STA-20211130-01849

"SSC Space US (dba Universal Space Network) a Delaware corporation request a special temporary authority to support testing of the WL2XOU (Linus), a US spacecraft mission from the Alaskan earth station in preparation for LEOP support of the mission."

The above post says that Linus is a Lockheed Martin spacecraft and could also be referring to LINUS A1/A2 (LINUSS Chase/RSO) from Lockheed Martin, but that is two spacecraft! However, Parabolic Arc says that WL2XOU is from Universal Space Network.

https://parabolicarc.com/2022/11/01/spacex-launches-first-falcon-heavy-rocket-since-2019-50th-launch-of-2022/

I'm confused. Here's the notice for USUVL.

https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-STA-INTR2022-03276

"The USN Naalehu Hawaiian ground station is requesting authorization to conduct TT&C support for the USUVL for a period of 180 days. The spacecraft is testing small satellite operations near the geo-belt in super-synchronous orbit."

[russianhalo117]

Linus is WL2XOU.

https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-STA-20211130-01849

"SSC Space US (dba Universal Space Network) a Delaware corporation request a special temporary authority to support testing of the WL2XOU (Linus), a US spacecraft mission from the Alaskan earth station in preparation for LEOP support of the mission."

The above post says that Linus is a Lockheed Martin spacecraft and could also be referring to LINUS A1/A2 (LINUSS Chase/RSO) from Lockheed Martin, but that is two spacecraft! However, Parabolic Arc says that WL2XOU is from Universal Space Network.

https://parabolicarc.com/2022/11/01/spacex-launches-first-falcon-heavy-rocket-since-2019-50th-launch-of-2022/

I'm confused. Here's the notice for USUVL.

https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-STA-INTR2022-03276

"The USN Naalehu Hawaiian ground station is requesting authorization to conduct TT&C support for the USUVL for a period of 180 days. The spacecraft is testing small satellite operations near the geo-belt in super-synchronous orbit."

Note that this is a WIP post.

In documentation the plural is LINUSS, Lockheed Martin In-space Upgrade Satellite System and the singular is LINUS, Lockheed Martin In-space Upgrade Satellite (i.e TDRSS and TDRS). CHASE is A1 and RSO is A2. "Lockheed Martin’s IN-space Upgrade Satellite System (LINUSS) is a new CubeSat family designed to demonstrate technologies". Note that their are other Linus  spacecraft which are not launching as a pair such as Linus 2 et al. WL2XOU is NOT from Universal Space Network RATHER SSC Space US or Swedish Space Corporation Space US subsidiary is doing business as Universal Space Network, Inc under its former name for the sake of the contract as it changed after contract award. SSC Space U.S. (formerly Universal Space Network) is providing launch and early operations on behalf of Lockheed Martin to test and commission the spacecraft prior the handover to the customer which is undisclosed. Note that the Spacecraft bus Linus uses can be can be configured to launch and deploy as a single object split mating later at its operational position.

Note that STA for WL2XOU LEOPS was withdrawn on 30 November 2022 meaning that it has been handed over.

USUVL's ITU IDN SNS is 120545273 and was coregistered at the same date and time with its yet to launch sibling USTOM which is 120545274. Note that there are multiple earlier filings and named satellites using the USxxx designation system i.e. USAAK et cetera. Follow on Spacecraft receive a number i.e. USDKA2.
https://www.itu.int/net/ITU-R/space/snl/bresult/radvance.asp?sel_ific=2957&ie=y

The codenames USUVL, Uncasville; USTOM, Terreton; USAAK, Armada; USDKA, Kenna appear in many government codename and geolocation databases and related searches.

Note that this is a WIP post.