-
#420
by
intelati
on 18 Jun, 2019 16:06
-
SpaceX’s drone ship is heading for a landing zone hundreds of miles off the Florida coast, multiple sources say. No center core landing close to shore, as suggested in an FCC filing earlier this year.
Try 2.0 Now with improved Roomba!
Edit: remove Twitter embed
-
#421
by
ZachS09
on 18 Jun, 2019 18:44
-
Why are they taking the drone ship 1,000 km out to sea again? Let me know if any of the following factors are true or false.
They want to try to do the hottest reentry for the center core again and grab the engine base properly.
They want to give more performance for the upper stage to use for the four burns needed to complete the mission. Therefore, they will not position the drone ship 39 km downrange.
They want to do it just because.
-
#422
by
scr00chy
on 18 Jun, 2019 19:11
-
Maybe they decided to add more ballast to show off the payload capability (or test something)?
-
#423
by
Norm38
on 18 Jun, 2019 20:19
-
I would guess upper stage performance. They can use fuel as ballast. And they can demonstrate extra performance with a longer disposal burn if they don't end up needing the fuel for the mission.
I don't know why they'd put extra performance anywhere except in orbit where it belongs.
-
#424
by
Alexphysics
on 18 Jun, 2019 21:44
-
Updated FCC filing for STP-2 recovery: 1112-EX-ST-2019
North 27 56 52 West 68 0 55 Autonomous Drone Ship
For those of you that might want to know the distance, that's 1234km from LC-39A (kinda funny the distance is 1234). That'll break the previous record of furthest landing of a Falcon booster by at least 300km.
-
#425
by
gongora
on 18 Jun, 2019 22:07
-
https://twitter.com/AF_SMC/status/1141099481628364808
The 3700 kg Integrated Payload Stack (IPS) for #STP2 has been completed! Have a look before it blasts off on the first #DoD Falcon Heavy launch! #SMC #SpaceStartsHere
So would the Integrated Payload Stack be the full mass? It sounds like it should be.
-
#426
by
Elthiryel
on 18 Jun, 2019 22:14
-
If that's right, it means no ballast and around 800-900 kg for adapters/dispensers according to mass data provided by Gunter's Space Page.
-
#427
by
gongora
on 18 Jun, 2019 22:17
-
It looks like they ditched one of the ESPA rings and mounted a couple of the COSMIC-2 sats to DSX? (Either that or the perspective is just confusing me.)
-
#428
by
ZachS09
on 18 Jun, 2019 22:17
-
Is the FCC license for the original drone ship position still available to download? I don’t see the coordinates in Raul’s SpaceX Map, and I was wanting to input those coordinates in my Google Earth files.
-
#429
by
gongora
on 18 Jun, 2019 22:19
-
Is the FCC license for the original drone ship position still available to download? I don’t see the coordinates in Raul’s SpaceX Map, and I was wanting to input those coordinates in my Google Earth files.
The original was
0546-EX-ST-2019
-
#430
by
ZachS09
on 18 Jun, 2019 22:26
-
Is the FCC license for the original drone ship position still available to download? I don’t see the coordinates in Raul’s SpaceX Map, and I was wanting to input those coordinates in my Google Earth files.
The original was 0546-EX-ST-2019
Thanks for that, but before Raul deleted his marker of where the drone ship was gonna be, I saw different coordinates than the ones on the FCC.
Basically, I just calculated the distance from SLC-40 to the coordinates on the FCC, and it was 35 kilometers downrange. For Raul’s coordinates, I remember doing the distance calculation, which was 40 kilometers downrange. Where do those other coordinates come from?
-
#431
by
Alexphysics
on 18 Jun, 2019 22:58
-
Is the FCC license for the original drone ship position still available to download? I don’t see the coordinates in Raul’s SpaceX Map, and I was wanting to input those coordinates in my Google Earth files.
The original was 0546-EX-ST-2019
Thanks for that, but before Raul deleted his marker of where the drone ship was gonna be, I saw different coordinates than the ones on the FCC.
Basically, I just calculated the distance from SLC-40 to the coordinates on the FCC, and it was 35 kilometers downrange. For Raul’s coordinates, I remember doing the distance calculation, which was 40 kilometers downrange. Where do those other coordinates come from?
Remember the mission is launching from LC-39A not SLC-40, that 5km difference may be due to that.
-
#432
by
jimothytones
on 18 Jun, 2019 23:10
-
Any weather folks know anything about that cyclone to the north of the LZ?
-
#433
by
Kabloona
on 18 Jun, 2019 23:18
-
Any weather folks know anything about that cyclone to the north of the LZ?
Apparently no concern through next week.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/hurricane/atlanticThe windy.com model shows the circulation being pushed east gradually, with essentially no pressure drop in the eye, which is forecast to remain over 30 in Hg, and winds around 10 kts in the landing zone in early/midweek, so it looks quite good actually.
-
#434
by
ZachS09
on 19 Jun, 2019 00:22
-
Is the FCC license for the original drone ship position still available to download? I don’t see the coordinates in Raul’s SpaceX Map, and I was wanting to input those coordinates in my Google Earth files.
The original was 0546-EX-ST-2019
Thanks for that, but before Raul deleted his marker of where the drone ship was gonna be, I saw different coordinates than the ones on the FCC.
Basically, I just calculated the distance from SLC-40 to the coordinates on the FCC, and it was 35 kilometers downrange. For Raul’s coordinates, I remember doing the distance calculation, which was 40 kilometers downrange. Where do those other coordinates come from?
Remember the mission is launching from LC-39A not SLC-40, that 5km difference may be due to that.
Sorry. Wasn't thinking about the actual launch pad.
-
#435
by
Orbiter
on 19 Jun, 2019 00:58
-
Any weather folks know anything about that cyclone to the north of the LZ?
Not sure what that's about, there's no active tropical storms in the area. That might just be a leftover from TS Andrea a few weeks ago.
-
#436
by
gongora
on 19 Jun, 2019 02:03
-
-
#437
by
Skyrocket
on 19 Jun, 2019 05:29
-
It looks like they ditched one of the ESPA rings and mounted a couple of the COSMIC-2 sats to DSX? (Either that or the perspective is just confusing me.)
I don't think so. I guess, the perspective from below gives this illusion. The ESPA, which is integral part of the DSX satellite is too small to accommodate the COSMIC-2 satellites.
-
#438
by
emerrill
on 19 Jun, 2019 11:05
-
-
#439
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 19 Jun, 2019 11:43
-
Eric Ralph discusses various possible reasons for centre core recovery being so far downrange:
A SpaceX surprise: Falcon Heavy booster landing to smash distance record
By Eric Ralph
Posted on June 19, 2019
In an unexpected last-second change, SpaceX has moved Falcon Heavy Flight 3’s center core landing on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) from 40 km to more than 1240 km (770 mi) off the coast of Florida.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-surprise-falcon-heavy-booster-landing-distance-record/