-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SpaceX FH - USSF-44 - LC-39A
- Thread starter Grendal
- Start date
Successful launch. Successful landing. All like clock work and nominal. Congratulations SpaceX. We will hear more about the payload injection in the correct orbit, or maybe not since it is a military mission we may not hear anything.
Side note: Subpar camera work. No long shots. Cameras were iced. They even missed to show the rocket during the first 10 seconds of launch from a distance. That would have been a spectacular view with the giant Falcon Heavy leaving the tower.
Side note: Subpar camera work. No long shots. Cameras were iced. They even missed to show the rocket during the first 10 seconds of launch from a distance. That would have been a spectacular view with the giant Falcon Heavy leaving the tower.
Wow. The center core booster stage got to 118 km and more than half the speed needed for orbit: 14,225 km/hr.
A direct insertion to GEO should be 22,223 miles (35,786 km) above Earth, the satellite must orbit at a speed of about 7,000 mph (11,300 kph).
A direct insertion to GEO should be 22,223 miles (35,786 km) above Earth, the satellite must orbit at a speed of about 7,000 mph (11,300 kph).
Last edited:
I don’t recall seeing so much ice on a booster camera before, like we did today on both side booster cameras, until the boosters started to hit the atmosphere and it got forced off the lenses.
Also, as compared to other FH missions, there seemed to be a larger difference between the time the boosters lit up for their re-entry burns. After the first one lit there was a delay and I started to get nervous about the status of the other booster. But then it started up and I relaxed. So the boosters seemed to land with a slightly greater time difference than I recall in the past.
Also, as compared to other FH missions, there seemed to be a larger difference between the time the boosters lit up for their re-entry burns. After the first one lit there was a delay and I started to get nervous about the status of the other booster. But then it started up and I relaxed. So the boosters seemed to land with a slightly greater time difference than I recall in the past.
I think it was too foggy for long distance ground views during the launch.
And I don’t blame SpaceX for the side booster camera lenses being covered with ice. That’s an uncontrollable atmospheric phenomenon.
It was fogged in.
That was soot from center stage deposited during separation.
However, that issue with the booster cameras after stage sep did not happen during the first FH mission.
Isn't center core just a regular F9? How did they manage to go that far compared to a regular F9? Just with less mass due to absence of landing gear and expending all the fuel? or did they pack more fuel?
ha ha ha. Same here. I am guessing they purposely staggered them to avoid any interference due to sonic booms?
Different flight profiles:
Test Flight: 7km/hr @ 62 km altitude
USSF-44: 5.8km/he @ 59 km
Plus, test flight had full center core with legs and grid fins so extra turbulence.
Booster cores along with operating at partial throttle to start.
That side booster camera issue also did not happen with the second and third FH missions; I just re-watched those videos.
So why did both side booster camera lenses get covered with soot and/or ice during todays mission? Flight profile differences seem minor.
This was the only intended to be expended center core launch. The rest had fins and legs. Different air flow patterns.
We will have a chance to test your hypothesis with the upcoming (NET Jan 2023) USSF-67 mission.
That mission will have the side boosters land on JRTI and ASOG, which will be a first! Apparently the payload is pushing the limit of what an FH launch with side booster recoveries can do.
Similar threads
