SpaceX FH : Falcon Heavy Demo : Feb 6, 2018 : Discussion Thread 2

[catdlr]

Is there a version of the launch webcast without all the cheering? I'm all for enthusiasm, but it's hard to hear what's happening at times. During the live feed I briefly switched over to the alternate feed, but I don't see that version archived anywhere yet.

Here is the direct link to the Net Audio version:

[mme]

Has anything departing from 39A (or B for that matter) ever been sent further than this?  Seems like only Apollo (moon), Skylab (low orbit), Ares (went basically nowhere), and Shuttle (low orbit).?.

I just re-watched the launch broadcast and it looks to me as if its been edited, corrected from what it originally was.  I think that the two side booster backup camera views that were originally a single one duplicated have now been corrected to show clearly two different video streams.  I think that there was some non-useful video originally shown at fairing separation which has now been replaced with the proper video of the fairing separation and Star Man.

This has been one non-productive day for this man, one hugely productive step forward for all of us.  The trajectory of space progress is once again what it was in my childhood for sure now.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/interplan-explorer_missions.html

› STS-30
Atlantis, May 4-8, 1989. Magellan/Venus radar mapper attached to Inertial Upper Stage booster deployed on quest to complete radar mapping of Earth's nearest neighbor.

› STS-34
Atlantis, Oct. 18-23, 1989. Galileo/Jupiter spacecraft, attached to Inertial Upper Stage booster, deployed on trajectory toward Jupiter.

› STS-41
Discovery, Oct. 6-10, 1990. European Space Agency-sponsored Ulysses spacecraft deployed, attach to two upper stages, Inertial Upper Stage and Payload Assist-Module-S boosters, on mission to explore polar regions of sun.

[envy887]

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

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

Wait a second.  So was this intentionally an MRS (minimum residuals shutdown) burn?  Because if not, ending up with an aphelion in the Asteroid Belt instead of at Mars Orbit is kind of a problem.  We hadn't heard anything about them just launching the Roadster as deep as they could.  Seems strange to me to hype sending it to Mars Orbit altitude, but then not actually aiming.  However, sometimes SpaceX gonna SpaceX (their communications don't seem to always perfectly match their actual plans).  Simply achieving a full burn after the extended coast period is a big win all on its own.  And, assuming that it was MRS by intention, such a burn would be better for determining the FH's actual max performance capabilities.  It would, however, leave them without the accuracy data that a targeted shutdown would have provided.  Though, since they are soon going to be doing the STP-2 mission which has a series of payload deployments to multiferious orbits followed by an additional, post-injection burn, they will be able to use data from that mission to support their claims to accurately deliver.

Avionics and stage hardware and software commonality with F9 should support insertion accuracy claims, so long as the performance is there to go where the avionics tell it to go. Once the core separates it's an F9.

[tvg98]

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

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

Wait a second.  So was this intentionally an MRS (minimum residuals shutdown) burn?  Because if not, ending up with an aphelion in the Asteroid Belt instead of at Mars Orbit is kind of a problem.  We hadn't heard anything about them just launching the Roadster as deep as they could.  Seems strange to me to hype sending it to Mars Orbit altitude, but then not actually aiming.  However, sometimes SpaceX gonna SpaceX (their communications don't seem to always perfectly match their actual plans).  Simply achieving a full burn after the extended coast period is a big win all on its own.  And, assuming that it was MRS by intention, such a burn would be better for determining the FH's actual max performance capabilities.  It would, however, leave them without the accuracy data that a targeted shutdown would have provided.  Though, since they are soon going to be doing the STP-2 mission which has a series of payload deployments to multiferious orbits followed by an additional, post-injection burn, they will be able to use data from that mission to support their claims to accurately deliver.

Musk said the vehicle should get as far as 380 to 450 million km from Earth, depending on how the third burn goes.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/this-may-be-the-moment-spacex-opened-the-cosmos-to-the-masses/

 

[sdub]

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

Elon mentioned during the press conference that S2 was "...gonna do a restart, deplete it's propellant, and go to trans Mars injection."

[1]

Clearly they just expended the center core to give the Roadster a better transfer orbit.

[NGCHunter]

Here's my footage of the launch through booster landing, uncut, with my telescope.

[catdlr]

Here's my footage of the launch through booster landing, uncut, with my telescope.

Excellent NGCHunter, great alternate view to watch from this vantage point, and great equipment.  Get to run side by side with the SpaceX version.  Thanks.

PS. Love the ZUMA launch video too.  By the way, welcome to the forum.  I'm sure you will become a valuable contributor.  Tony D.

[deruch]

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

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

Wait a second.  So was this intentionally an MRS (minimum residuals shutdown) burn?  Because if not, ending up with an aphelion in the Asteroid Belt instead of at Mars Orbit is kind of a problem.  We hadn't heard anything about them just launching the Roadster as deep as they could.  Seems strange to me to hype sending it to Mars Orbit altitude, but then not actually aiming.  However, sometimes SpaceX gonna SpaceX (their communications don't seem to always perfectly match their actual plans).  Simply achieving a full burn after the extended coast period is a big win all on its own.  And, assuming that it was MRS by intention, such a burn would be better for determining the FH's actual max performance capabilities.  It would, however, leave them without the accuracy data that a targeted shutdown would have provided.  Though, since they are soon going to be doing the STP-2 mission which has a series of payload deployments to multiferious orbits followed by an additional, post-injection burn, they will be able to use data from that mission to support their claims to accurately deliver.

Avionics and stage hardware and software commonality with F9 should support insertion accuracy claims, so long as the performance is there to go where the avionics tell it to go. Once the core separates it's an F9.

Except this upper stage has had some mods to enable the long coasting and performance of the burn post 6hr in space.  Is it explicit that other changes haven't been made?  e.g. Structural upgrades to support much heavier payloads and higher forces for FH, similar to those made on the 1st stage center core?  The EELV RFPs routinely talk about having to actually have demonstrated a specific capability with a proposed vehicle.  Just because F9 might be capable of X mission requirement doesn't mean that it has actually demonstrated it.  And in the case of precise burns after an extended coast, IIRC, it hasn't.  That was my main issue. 


Also, I'm not convinced they allow you to extrapolate from other "similar" vehicles.  By the same token, if Vulcan was going to use a lightly modified Centaur III upper stage, would they allow ULA to just claim equivalence to prior performance without at least a single benchmarking mission to prove it?

[cscott]

Here's my footage of the launch through booster landing, uncut, with my telescope.

Where were you set up for this? I want to watch the next FH launch from there! Looks like great visibility all the way down to landing, and that double-triple sonic boom!

[tvg98]

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

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

Wait a second.  So was this intentionally an MRS (minimum residuals shutdown) burn?  Because if not, ending up with an aphelion in the Asteroid Belt instead of at Mars Orbit is kind of a problem.  We hadn't heard anything about them just launching the Roadster as deep as they could.  Seems strange to me to hype sending it to Mars Orbit altitude, but then not actually aiming.  However, sometimes SpaceX gonna SpaceX (their communications don't seem to always perfectly match their actual plans).  Simply achieving a full burn after the extended coast period is a big win all on its own.  And, assuming that it was MRS by intention, such a burn would be better for determining the FH's actual max performance capabilities.  It would, however, leave them without the accuracy data that a targeted shutdown would have provided.  Though, since they are soon going to be doing the STP-2 mission which has a series of payload deployments to multiferious orbits followed by an additional, post-injection burn, they will be able to use data from that mission to support their claims to accurately deliver.

Avionics and stage hardware and software commonality with F9 should support insertion accuracy claims, so long as the performance is there to go where the avionics tell it to go. Once the core separates it's an F9.

Except this upper stage has had some mods to enable the long coasting and performance of the burn post 6hr in space.  Is it explicit that other changes haven't been made?  e.g. Structural upgrades to support much heavier payloads and higher forces for FH, similar to those made on the 1st stage center core?  The EELV RFPs routinely talk about having to actually have demonstrated a specific capability with a proposed vehicle.  Just because F9 might be capable of X mission requirement doesn't mean that it has actually demonstrated it.  And in the case of precise burns after an extended coast, IIRC, it hasn't.  That was my main issue. 


Also, I'm not convinced they allow you to extrapolate from other "similar" vehicles.  By the same token, if Vulcan was going to use a lightly modified Centaur III upper stage, would they allow ULA to just claim equivalence to prior performance without at least a single benchmarking mission to prove it?

I think in the webcast they said more Helium was added to the second stage, but that was it. I'll add a time stamp when I find it.

[cscott]

Wait a second.  So was this intentionally an MRS (minimum residuals shutdown) burn?  Because if not, ending up with an aphelion in the Asteroid Belt instead of at Mars Orbit is kind of a problem. 

Avionics and stage hardware and software commonality with F9 should support insertion accuracy claims, so long as the performance is there to go where the avionics tell it to go. Once the core separates it's an F9.

Except this upper stage has had some mods to enable the long coasting and performance of the burn post 6hr in space.  Is it explicit that other changes haven't been made?

Elon was asked about the second stage in the phone call with press yesterday, and he said it had "increased battery" and "additional pressurant for RCS and settling". No other changes were mentioned.

In the Ars Technica interview and today in the press conference he explicitly stated an intention to burn to depletion, not target Mars.

[refsmmat]

Jonathan McDowell is reporting that the escape burn will be at apogee 33600km. A large burn of Merlin Vacuum at that altitude 6 hrs after launch should produce a cloud of kerosene soot and water vapor that will appear sunlit from the ground after local nightfall. A ground track may indicate the most likely observing sites.

Although there was a significant edit and escape burn was not and could not have been at apogee, I'm glad that the Company did not have to move heaven and earth to make just that kind of event out of it from an area with good observing sites.

Apollo TLI burns were seen from the ground on several occasions. I've seen 3 CCAM or comparable outgassing events in orbit, the last two I expected to see, and I figure an escape burn would just look that much better.

[ppb]

So what’s that orbital period?

Did a quick very rough estimation and came up with roughly 6 years. Anyone care to check that?

I got ~880 days, but I botched my last calc. Will wait for others to chime in.

I get about 880 days also for a 0.98 x 2.61 AU helio orbit

[Lars-J]

Here's my footage of the launch through booster landing, uncut, with my telescope.

Wow, amazing work!

And dang, those boosters did come down fast... I thought they seemed to fall faster and start the landing burn later than usual in the webcast, that 3 engine deceleration looked like a LOT of G’s.

[deruch]

In the Ars Technica interview and today in the press conference he explicitly stated an intention to burn to depletion, not target Mars.

Thank you.  That was what I was looking for in relation to my original comment.  All coverage I had previously seen was about Mars distance aphelion and not depletion burn.

Elon was asked about the second stage in the phone call with press yesterday, and he said it had "increased battery" and "additional pressurant for RCS and settling". No other changes were mentioned.

IMO, this is the type of thing where the exhaustive accuracy that us space nerds would prefer is often sacrificed to the "mass audience" gods.  But, I think that statement would likely rule out any structural upgrades like those on the first stage, that I had been curious about.  I haven't listened to those in context though yet.

[tvg98]

Hopefully this launch will help end the whole "many engines = bad mentality" that's been around since the days of the N1.

[whitelancer64]

The Tesla is permanently connected to the second stage, yes? No separation of it?

[Falcon8]

Tesla Roadster...  fastest car in the Universe!

[macpacheco]

Congrats to SpaceX for this amazing feat but what will a Falcon 9 launch with a single landing core willl look like now?

As cool as it ever was.
It will keep reminding us of that awesome upcoming Falcon Heavy launch !