Does Centaur have the performance to launch IXPE like this ?
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1469049907843633152
That hard left turn can't be real? I would imagine the plane change happens slowly over a period of time?(Considering how much dV the plane change costs, all that dV can't be expended in one instant unless you blow something up)I'd love to see a depiction showing the actual path.
That hard left turn can't be real? I would imagine the plane change happens slowly over a period of time?
... I'd love to see a depiction showing the actual path.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 12/09/2021 05:17 pm... In theory, Vega is commercially cheaper than Falcon 9 at 32 million Euros.Yes, it is cheaper, in absolute cost per launch.So is Rocketlab's Electron.I fail to grasp what you try to say by this?You are comparing apples to watermelons.
... In theory, Vega is commercially cheaper than Falcon 9 at 32 million Euros.
ThanksI didn't realize that entire plane change burn was only 60 seconds.
Quote from: mn on 12/10/2021 04:12 pmThanksI didn't realize that entire plane change burn was only 60 seconds.It's so short since the acceleration is very high, with an almost empty second stage, a light payload, and an engine that's quite big for a second stage. It added more than 3600 m/s in 60 seconds, so averaged more than 6Gs. The only reason it didn't average even more (and hence be even shorter) is that SpaceX had to leave some unused fuel in the tanks to avoid over-accelerating the payload. Otherwise it would reach about 12 Gs at the end, even with the engine throttled down as far as it can go. The need for this unused fuel is likely what led SpaceX to land on ASDS, rather than return the booster to the launch site.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 12/10/2021 06:22 pmQuote from: mn on 12/10/2021 04:12 pmThanksI didn't realize that entire plane change burn was only 60 seconds.It's so short since the acceleration is very high, with an almost empty second stage, a light payload, and an engine that's quite big for a second stage. It added more than 3600 m/s in 60 seconds, so averaged more than 6Gs. The only reason it didn't average even more (and hence be even shorter) is that SpaceX had to leave some unused fuel in the tanks to avoid over-accelerating the payload. Otherwise it would reach about 12 Gs at the end, even with the engine throttled down as far as it can go. The need for this unused fuel is likely what led SpaceX to land on ASDS, rather than return the booster to the launch site.They also need to leave some unused fuel because they want to deorbit the 2nd stage.
Separation!
JRTI waiting for Falcon IX.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 12/09/2021 07:15 amA little late to ask to be sure, but out of curiosity, what kept IXPE from flying on Vega?NASA Policy Directive NPD 8610.12H:Quotea. It is NASA's policy to encourage and facilitate a viable, healthy, and competitive U.S. commercial space transportation industry. To that end, NASA shall plan for and utilize commercial space transportation services using space transportation vehicles manufactured in the U.S. for NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads to the maximum extent practicable.There're some exceptions like the case of JWST, but none of that applies in this case.
A little late to ask to be sure, but out of curiosity, what kept IXPE from flying on Vega?
a. It is NASA's policy to encourage and facilitate a viable, healthy, and competitive U.S. commercial space transportation industry. To that end, NASA shall plan for and utilize commercial space transportation services using space transportation vehicles manufactured in the U.S. for NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads to the maximum extent practicable.
