I'm sure this must have been discussed elsewhere but I haven't been able to track it down.Do we have a clear picture of why the final burn put the orbit further out? Was this an intentional decision, or a mistake?If intentional, was it perhaps to demonstrate the extra ∆v available?If it was a mistake, is it of much significance, either technically, or in terms of future customer perception?It seems to have been reported in a lot of mainstream press as a mistake.
Quote from: jpo234 on 02/08/2018 08:29 pmI didn't find this information anywhere: Did the roadster separate from the second stage or is it still attached?AFAIK, I'm not sure there is definitive information but consensus is almost certainly they remain attached. No reason to separate.
I didn't find this information anywhere: Did the roadster separate from the second stage or is it still attached?
It seems to have been reported in a lot of mainstream press as a mistake.
Quote from: Cabbage123 on 02/08/2018 09:16 pmIt seems to have been reported in a lot of mainstream press as a mistake.Those in the MSM that are saying this are most likely the same ones that thought the roadster was going to orbit Mars. They thought this because somebody else who hadn't researched it told them that. Reporters used to do their own research and made sure they understood their source material before publishing it. Not so much anymore. Most of what I've seen have been simple repeats of what some other reporter said or some other wire service reported. Doesn't matter whether it's stocks, technology, politics, medical or international. Journalistic laziness has become the norm. That's one of the reasons I like this site so much. Not just because it's about space, rockets and astronauts, but because of the high standards that are set for its journalistic excellence. Before any of the writers submit their stories for publishing, they do their own research, talk directly to multiple sources, and their stories are checked, crosscheck and verified. This is how it used to be in the MSM. Not so much anymore.You can trust what you read on this site. Not so much what anyone else writes, unless they are parroting this site, which happens a lot.
Soon after two of Falcon Heavy’s booster rockets landed safely on the launch pad, news reports with photos and video footage swept Tencent Wechat and Sina Weibo — two of China’s most important social media platforms. Thousands of Chinese netizens reposted the information on their own social media accounts and applauded Musk’s great achievement.
I found this mildly interesting... Sourcehttps://thediplomat.com/2018/02/china-has-mixed-feelings-about-elon-musks-falcon-heavy-success/SnipQuoteSoon after two of Falcon Heavy’s booster rockets landed safely on the launch pad, news reports with photos and video footage swept Tencent Wechat and Sina Weibo — two of China’s most important social media platforms. Thousands of Chinese netizens reposted the information on their own social media accounts and applauded Musk’s great achievement.The article goes to detail what the official news orgs in China said or didn't say...One made a big deal out of the Core missing the ASDS...
...Egorov probably put his finger on the difference. The private passion of a socially clumsy, irritating, science fiction-reading, electric roadster-driving geek has done more to establish SpaceX's leadership than any state support could have done. The dream behind the engineering and the enterprise may not look as serious as the state considerations of Rogozin and Komarov -- but it sure helps propel some heavy objects into space.
Using the new footage in the launch video, I went frame-by-frame to capture the fairing separation...I thought it was pretty cool!
The side camera mount continuously appears and disappears as the lighting changes.No photoshop necessary.
Lori Garver editorial in The Hill (Capitol Hill political newspaper/site). She really gets it, and says NASA refused a free ride on FH.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/08/2018 02:47 pmThe side camera mount continuously appears and disappears as the lighting changes.No photoshop necessary.Here's your image enhanced. Even though the mounts are in shadow, we can still see them. Quite different to the blob we see in the final image. Also attached is a capture closer to the final capture in where the shadows are. We can clearly see the mounts.
Quote from: docmordrid on 02/09/2018 04:11 amLori Garver editorial in The Hill (Capitol Hill political newspaper/site). She really gets it, and says NASA refused a free ride on FH.Quoting what Lori said"SpaceX offered NASA the opportunity to get a free ride on this first launch."What would NASA have flown? Certainly not an expensive space probe as the first flight of FH would have been too risky.
I think an Orion with a full LAS would have been low risk in that even a failure would produce useful flight test data and you'd probably get the most expensive part back.If it blows up you get an abort test if it works you get to send Orion on a test flight around the Moon well if FH was flown in expendable mode.Though you might be able to get a lunar free return expending just the core and using the Orion SM to perform part of the TLI burn.But this would have eaten up all the payload and I'm not even sure if FH's payload adapter can handle a payload that heavy.
I think an Orion with a full LAS would have been low risk in that even a failure would produce useful flight test data and you'd probably get the most expensive part back.If it blows up you get an abort test if it works you get to send Orion on a test flight around the Moon well if FH was flown in expendable mode.Though you might be able to get a lunar free return expending just the core and using the Orion SM to perform part of the TLI burn.
