Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Iridium NEXT Flight 5 : March 30, 2018 @ Vandenberg : Discussion (Read 92064 times)

ZachS09 · « **Reply #160 on:** 03/30/2018 04:34 pm »

That's normal plume recirculation.

Nothing anomalous.

envy887 · « **Reply #161 on:** 03/30/2018 04:37 pm »

Quote from: AncientU on 03/30/2018 04:23 pm

Quote from: ZachF on 03/30/2018 04:08 pm
This is plain ridiculous...

Contact NOAA.
I already did.

As have I.

They can be contacted here: [email protected]

Or here: 301-427-2560

Per https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/generalContact.html

Perchlorate · « **Reply #162 on:** 03/30/2018 04:38 pm »

1. Welcome to the forum! You'll learn a ton...I have.

2. It's just you. IANARS (I Am Not A Rocket Scientist), but as the stack climbs into the thinner remnants of the atmosphere, this sort of recirculation is very common and apparently harmless. If I recall correctly, there are some spectacular examples of this from the Apollo days, with flame seeming to crawl 1/3 of the way up the stage.

3. Soak up the knowledgy goodness here for a while, then spring for L2. It really is "another level," and well worth the $$. Or ££ in your case.

cscott · « **Reply #163 on:** 03/30/2018 04:41 pm »

I wouldn't say recirculation is "harmless"; I'd say rather it is "expected" and there is heat shielding in place to protect against it. But I haven't actually seen the math done: how much heating of the bottom of the rocket is possible with recirculated flow? Maybe although visibly spectacular the actual heat transfer is minimal and so it actually *is* "harmless"?

leetdan · « **Reply #164 on:** 03/30/2018 04:47 pm »

See here for previous discussion.

AUricle · « **Reply #165 on:** 03/30/2018 04:48 pm »

Since there was no "high-fiving", is it safe to speculate Mr.Steven dropped the flyball ala Kyle Schwarber?

butters · « **Reply #166 on:** 03/30/2018 04:54 pm »

Quote from: AUricle on 03/30/2018 04:48 pm

Since there was no "high-fiving", is it safe to speculate Mr.Steven dropped the flyball ala Kyle Schwarber?

There was clapping from the Hawthorne peanut gallery around the time the simulated booster landing would occur. Nothing to do with fairing recovery in all likelihood.

SpikeTSSS · « **Reply #167 on:** 03/30/2018 04:59 pm »

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/979764513233715200

Still work to do.

Yellowstone10 · « **Reply #168 on:** 03/30/2018 05:00 pm »

Elon confirms fairing recovery was unsuccessful.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/979764513233715200

Quote

GPS guided parafoil twisted, so fairing impacted water at high speed. Air wake from fairing messing w parafoil steering. Doing helo drop tests in next few weeks to solve.

king1999 · « **Reply #169 on:** 03/30/2018 05:03 pm »

Quote from: Yellowstone10 on 03/30/2018 05:00 pm

Elon confirms fairing recovery was unsuccessful.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/979764513233715200

Quote
GPS guided parafoil twisted, so fairing impacted water at high speed. Air wake from fairing messing w parafoil steering. Doing helo drop tests in next few weeks to solve.

Not close, but cigar for a good try

RedLineTrain · « **Reply #170 on:** 03/30/2018 05:04 pm »

Quote from: ZachF on 03/30/2018 04:08 pm

This is plain ridiculous...

Worse than that, it's one part of the Department of Commerce (NOAA) working at cross purposes with another part of the Department of Commerce (AST).

Edit: Oops. AST is Department of Transportation. Interesting that AST may be moving to Commerce soon...

AUricle · « **Reply #171 on:** 03/30/2018 05:07 pm »

Quote from: envy887 on 03/30/2018 04:37 pm

Quote from: AncientU on 03/30/2018 04:23 pm
Quote from: ZachF on 03/30/2018 04:08 pm
This is plain ridiculous...

Contact NOAA.
I already did.

As have I.

They can be contacted here: [email protected]

Or here: 301-427-2560

Per https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/generalContact.html

Ditto

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #172 on:** 03/30/2018 05:11 pm »

Quote from: Yellowstone10 on 03/30/2018 05:00 pm

Elon confirms fairing recovery was unsuccessful.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/979764513233715200

Quote
GPS guided parafoil twisted, so fairing impacted water at high speed. Air wake from fairing messing w parafoil steering. Doing helo drop tests in next few weeks to solve.

I bet the test half is the one that landed safely on the previous attempt. Nice cheap test hardware.

These things are big $, so figuring it out sooner will save money sooner. Time to get on with it.

tleski · « **Reply #173 on:** 03/30/2018 05:33 pm »

Quote from: wannamoonbase on 03/30/2018 05:11 pm

I bet the test half is the one that landed safely on the previous attempt. Nice cheap test hardware.

These things are big $, so figuring it out sooner will save money sooner. Time to get on with it.

Do you have any source on this or is this just your speculation?
I doubt it is true.

Yellowstone10 · « **Reply #174 on:** 03/30/2018 05:40 pm »

Quote from: tleski on 03/30/2018 05:33 pm

Quote from: wannamoonbase on 03/30/2018 05:11 pm

I bet the test half is the one that landed safely on the previous attempt. Nice cheap test hardware.

These things are big $, so figuring it out sooner will save money sooner. Time to get on with it.

Do you have any source on this or is this just your speculation?
I doubt it is true.

I think they meant that SpaceX could use the one that soft-landed in the water for the air drop tests, not that they reflew it on this mission.

Slarty1080 · « **Reply #175 on:** 03/30/2018 05:41 pm »

Quote from: AUricle on 03/30/2018 05:07 pm

Quote from: envy887 on 03/30/2018 04:37 pm
Quote from: AncientU on 03/30/2018 04:23 pm
Quote from: ZachF on 03/30/2018 04:08 pm
This is plain ridiculous...

Contact NOAA.
I already did.

As have I.

They can be contacted here: [email protected]

Or here: 301-427-2560

Per https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/generalContact.html

Ditto

Ditto

abaddon · « **Reply #176 on:** 03/30/2018 06:01 pm »

The rocketcam being prohibited as "earth observation" without a license is silly, but I think it's way more embarrassing that NOAA didn't even know about it when contacted...

gongora · « **Reply #177 on:** 03/30/2018 06:05 pm »

Quote from: abaddon on 03/30/2018 06:01 pm

The rocketcam being prohibited as "earth observation" without a license is silly, but I think it's way more embarrassing that NOAA didn't even know about it when contacted...

It's not surprising a NOAA spokesperson wouldn't have a ready answer for that, NOAA has 12k employees and only a small number of them work on the remote sensing stuff.

abaddon · « **Reply #178 on:** 03/30/2018 06:06 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 03/30/2018 06:05 pm

Quote from: abaddon on 03/30/2018 06:01 pm
The rocketcam being prohibited as "earth observation" without a license is silly, but I think it's way more embarrassing that NOAA didn't even know about it when contacted...

It's not surprising a NOAA spokesperson wouldn't have a ready answer for that, NOAA has 12k employees and only a small number of them work on the remote sensing stuff.

Yes, it is understandable, but it's not a good look either. Just MO.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #179 on:** 03/30/2018 06:10 pm »

I would be more upset that they actually would be paying a warm body to rubber stamping obvious launch telemetry.