Author Topic: SpaceX FH : Falcon Heavy Demo : Feb 6, 2018 : Discussion Thread 2 (Read 598045 times)

spacetraveler · « **Reply #860 on:** 02/07/2018 02:23 am »

Quote from: the_other_Doug on 02/07/2018 02:21 am

You don't imagine nothing is being said or tweeted, etc., because the TMI burn partially failed, thus bringing into question that DoD demo Musk mentioned, do you?

It was barely more than a few mins ago. Too soon for negative nancy.

dnavas · « **Reply #861 on:** 02/07/2018 02:23 am »

Quote from: the_other_Doug on 02/07/2018 02:21 am

Man! I was *really* looking forward, as the piece de resistance, to seeing the disk of the Earth shrink in the Tesla's rear-view mirror, so to speak, as she left the environs of Terra.

I too hope they capture a picture or two on the way out.

inventodoc · « **Reply #862 on:** 02/07/2018 02:24 am »

I think we'll hear about the burn fairly soon. Going to bed now after seeing the single most exciting space launch (and landings) of my lifetime. Wow!

the_other_Doug · « **Reply #863 on:** 02/07/2018 02:36 am »

After the Zuma fiasco, I do NOT want to post a congratulatory message on the Update thread until we get some kind of verification of a successful third stage 2 burn.

A glowing conical smudge in the sky over LA does not constitute an official verification of a completely successful burn...

Nomadd · « **Reply #864 on:** 02/07/2018 02:39 am »

Quote from: the_other_Doug on 02/07/2018 02:36 am

A glowing conical smudge in the sky over LA does not constitute an official verification of a completely successful burn...

What are you trying to do, destroy the entire UFO industry?

spacetraveler · « **Reply #865 on:** 02/07/2018 02:40 am »

Quote from: the_other_Doug on 02/07/2018 02:36 am

After the Zuma fiasco, I do NOT want to post a congratulatory message on the Update thread until we get some kind of verification of a successful third stage 2 burn.

A glowing conical smudge in the sky over LA does not constitute an official verification of a completely successful burn...

According to Elon's pre-launch criteria, the mission is already a success.

A successful 3rd burn is just icing on the cake, with no real downside if anything should fail since this is a nonfunctional payload.

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #866 on:** 02/07/2018 02:40 am »

Not to take anything away from this amazing day but:

"Most exciting launch of a lifetime" etc. Gee - some people are already forgetting the Shuttle era?!

I remember incredible cam views from the E.T. and boosters. I remember one particularly memorable launch when an Orbiter separated from her E.T. and rose; eclipsing the Sun for a moment before rising up and away, thrusters firing...

...And some night launches were incredible, too.

gth871r · « **Reply #867 on:** 02/07/2018 02:41 am »

It's been over an hour since the plume was observed over California. Is there some reason why they wouldn't know if it was successful yet? I'm starting to think that the reason we haven't heard anything is that something went wrong.

Edit:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/961083704230674438

I stand corrected.

Nomadd · « **Reply #868 on:** 02/07/2018 02:43 am »

Quote from: spacetraveler on 02/07/2018 02:40 am

According to Elon's pre-launch criteria, the mission is already a success.

A successful 3rd burn is just icing on the cake, with no real downside if anything should fail since this is a nonfunctional payload.

Isn't that burn suppose to be the test for direct GSO insertion?

AnnK · « **Reply #869 on:** 02/07/2018 02:44 am »

Who says Zuma was a failure? As for the 3rd burn it is important to remove this soon to be inert spacecraft from around the Earth. It is just space junk after the 2nd stage becomes inert. The important thing is the test was a success despite the loss of the core stage.

missinglink · « **Reply #870 on:** 02/07/2018 02:44 am »

Quote from: Metalskin on 02/07/2018 01:27 am

I captured this screen shot hours ago, as I thought that the object to the right of the top right screen shield was the ISS. I'm not across relative distances and orbits for these things, but the object appeared static against the surface of earth (as the earth rotated due to the BBQ roll) and it looked too big to be a ground based object.

:edit: time is Aussie, so was just on 2.5 hours ago.

Vehicle part that's just been liberated by differing thermal contraction/expansion rates? (Surprised that SpaceX got permission to send up something not built for space and with an unknown risk of producing orbiting space debris.)

dnavas · « **Reply #871 on:** 02/07/2018 02:46 am »

Quote from: gth871r on 02/07/2018 02:41 am

It's been over an hour since the plume was observed over California. Is there some reason why they wouldn't know if it was successful yet? I'm starting to think that the reason we haven't heard anything is that something went wrong.

It would be helpful if the people who had seen the burn would describe how long it was. It would be surprising if there was sufficient propellant, and the engines started, and the thing was pointed in a stable direction, and *then* something went wrong. Not impossible, just surprising.

tleski · « **Reply #872 on:** 02/07/2018 02:47 am »

elonmusk: Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt. https://t.co/bKhRN73WHF

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/961083704230674438

Lars-J · « **Reply #873 on:** 02/07/2018 02:48 am »

Quote from: AnnK on 02/07/2018 02:44 am

Who says Zuma was a failure? As for the 3rd burn it is important to remove this soon to be inert spacecraft from around the Earth. It is just space junk after the 2nd stage becomes inert. The important thing is the test was a success despite the loss of the core stage.

If the burn failed, it would not have remained space junk for long. The perigee was low enough for it to re-enter fairly quickly. (weeks, months?)

dnavas · « **Reply #874 on:** 02/07/2018 02:48 am »

Quote from: tleski on 02/07/2018 02:47 am

elonmusk: Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt. https://t.co/bKhRN73WHF

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/961083704230674438

Hah, now, *that* makes sense. It went too far!

the_other_Doug · « **Reply #875 on:** 02/07/2018 02:50 am »

Quote from: Nomadd on 02/07/2018 02:43 am

Quote from: spacetraveler on 02/07/2018 02:40 am

According to Elon's pre-launch criteria, the mission is already a success.

A successful 3rd burn is just icing on the cake, with no real downside if anything should fail since this is a nonfunctional payload.
Isn't that burn suppose to be the test for direct GSO insertion?

Exactly.

And by Elon's pre-launch criteria, clearing the pad far enough before it exploded such that they didn't need to rebuild the pad was "success". I don't think anyone here would have agreed with that assessment.

The test was of all phases of the flight, including the DoD requirement for a direct-to-GSO insertion test. By that score, it was indeed not 100% successful, as one of the cores was lost.

Am I elated that the launch, staging and return of the side boosters worked? Yes! Was I elated at the Starman video? Yes!

Do I think it doesn't make any difference at all to SpaceX or to the "success" of this flight if the Falcon upper stage cannot successfully coast for six hours? NO!

Thankfully, it's a moot point...

Johnnyhinbos · « **Reply #876 on:** 02/07/2018 02:52 am »

I just got lonely for the Starman. It was one thing to have him circling in our neighborhood, but now he’s just gone

.

But also, wooo hooo! Amazing!

spacetraveler · « **Reply #877 on:** 02/07/2018 02:52 am »

2.61 AU, I'd call that a smashing success.

Kabloona · « **Reply #878 on:** 02/07/2018 02:52 am »

Quote from: dnavas on 02/07/2018 02:48 am

Quote from: tleski on 02/07/2018 02:47 am
elonmusk: Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt. https://t.co/bKhRN73WHF

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/961083704230674438

Hah, now, *that* makes sense. It went too far!

LouScheffer and envy887 calculated earlier that the upper stage had at least 1900 m/sec excess delta V (over 4900 m/sec remaining after first 2 burns vs 3000 m/sec needed for TMI). So did they burn to depletion instead of "settling" for Mars orbit?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44778.msg1784200#msg1784200
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44778.msg1784111#msg1784111

Would make sense to swing for the fences and not leave anything in the tank. SpaceX under-promised and over-delivered. Home run.

ArbitraryConstant · « **Reply #879 on:** 02/07/2018 02:54 am »

Quote from: Kabloona on 02/07/2018 02:52 am

So did they burn to depletion instead of "settling" for Mars orbit?

That was my thought as well.