Watching that grainy video I do get the impression that the burn was cut short of the intended duration, for a couple of reasons. Usually, when there's an abort at ignition, you can see the LOX and RP-1 tanks being immediately vented, this is what is seen here. Secondly, one would not expect the burn to end with another TEA/TEB flash. Also, chamber ignition and thrust ramp-up on M1Ds seems to start 2 seconds before T-0, the actual burn here seems to have been shorter.
Watch the video again. The stage fired for an extended period.
I wonder if adaptive optics could be used to get an improved image. Here's a possible source.http://www.stellarproducts.com/
Does anyone know how long it takes for the engines to stabilise after startup? so essentially minimum amount of time the test would have to run before they knew there were thrust fluctuations in one of the engines?
QuoteDoes anyone know how long it takes for the engines to stabilise after startup? so essentially minimum amount of time the test would have to run before they knew there were thrust fluctuations in one of the engines?From past launches, its around two seconds, isn't it?
Quote from: somepitch on 01/16/2016 03:38 amLooks like it only lit for a second or so to me... ~1:50 mark in the videoIt sounded like a pretty long fire to me. It takes a few second for the sound of the rocket motor firing to reach the camera's location. But at around the 2:00 mark you can start to hear the distinct rumble of the engine firing and it pretty much lasts all the way till the end of the video.
Looks like it only lit for a second or so to me... ~1:50 mark in the video
Quote from: terryy on 01/16/2016 05:33 amQuote from: somepitch on 01/16/2016 03:38 amLooks like it only lit for a second or so to me... ~1:50 mark in the videoIt sounded like a pretty long fire to me. It takes a few second for the sound of the rocket motor firing to reach the camera's location. But at around the 2:00 mark you can start to hear the distinct rumble of the engine firing and it pretty much lasts all the way till the end of the video.It's only as long as you can see the flame. The towers would be continue to be lit up if the flame was still going.The video is a flat out forgery. Why do that? I have no idea. Maybe he wanted additional views for revenue making for his youtube channel.
There is also clearly a continued stream of exhaust in the video. At first I thought it was foreground fog, but there are a few moments that seem to show a fast moving stream being directed somewhat away and to the right from the point of view.
Quote from: ugordan on 01/16/2016 06:21 pmQuote from: PreferToLurk on 01/16/2016 06:10 pmWatch the video again. The stage fired for an extended period. No, it didn't. It's obvious that the chambers were burning for just slightly under 2 seconds. It's also fairly obvious that the "rumble" sound was pasted into the video after the fact. A sample form an actual launch from the sound of it. There is a distinctive pop at 2:02 in the left audio channel that occurs when a waveform that doesn't start at 0 level is copy/pasted into another waveform so there is a discontinuity in the resulting wave. The audio sample was then pasted in *again* at 2:57. Rather dishonest, if you ask me.Or maybe we don't attack someone's journalistic integrity over something that could easily be explained by a cheap microphone instead. The engine sounds fade in and out of the video multiple times without the " artifact" so, what, he painstakingly edited his video carefull to match all the waveforms except for that one audio channeling that one time? And for what purpose? Click Bait? Isn't a "failed static fire!!!" better click bait anyway? There is also clearly a continued stream of exhaust in the video. At first I thought it was foreground fog, but there are a few moments that seem to show a fast moving stream being directed somewhat away and to the right from the point of view. Both the "double green" and "temporarily lit" towers could be explained by exhaust reflecting up past the water deluge in the first few moments of the firing. Remember when one of the F9's blew dirty water on itself at liftoff? Eventually everything starts flowing in the correct direction. Personally I find it in very poor taste to question someone's integrity on a public forum without more evidence than has been provided here. That's a veteran owned 501c3 non-profit that you are accusing, FYI.
Quote from: PreferToLurk on 01/16/2016 06:10 pmWatch the video again. The stage fired for an extended period. No, it didn't. It's obvious that the chambers were burning for just slightly under 2 seconds. It's also fairly obvious that the "rumble" sound was pasted into the video after the fact. A sample form an actual launch from the sound of it. There is a distinctive pop at 2:02 in the left audio channel that occurs when a waveform that doesn't start at 0 level is copy/pasted into another waveform so there is a discontinuity in the resulting wave. The audio sample was then pasted in *again* at 2:57. Rather dishonest, if you ask me.
Full Power 3 minutes, just under 6 total. Booster was there for two days.
Its impossible to do a burn of 360s. The guy is not lying, he simply was too far away and misjudged what happened.
Personally I find it in very poor taste to question someone's integrity on a public forum without more evidence than has been provided here. That's a veteran owned 501c3 non-profit that you are accusing, FYI.
The static fire was just shy of two seconds. That is confirmed in L2 by hands on data observation. Any other suggestion is incorrect or (and I don't like people using harsh words) a misinterpretation.
