Official Orion Launch Thread - 12-4-14

[Kryten]

Does anyone know what all the sparks pouring out during late stage 1 were?

Bits of ablative nozzle coating. Became visible because the plume widens under the lower pressure at high altitude.

[Reactordrone]

Any ideas on the time of splashdown?

Total mission time will be about 4hrs 20min, so about 17.30 UTC.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Reactordrone
added UTC time

[Robotengineer]

I missed the launch. I just got up.

Same here.

[Voyager55]

Can't wait to see that reentry, hopefully there's good coverage on it.

[katateochi]

So, as it goes into its gravity turn, how was it rolled? I couldn't make it out from the vids. Was it that both side boosters where parallel with the ground or was it 90 degrees from that in a more under/over type orientation?

[ANWRocketMan]

I'm lucky enough to have Orion pass almost RIGHT over me as it passes apoapse here in South Africa. Unfortunately I will be in an exam room writing math at the time. Studying engineering and working to one day be a part of something space-related.

Didn't see the launch but I will be watching when I get back.

Edited December 5, 2014 by ANWRocketMan

[felisconcolori]

So, as it goes into its gravity turn, how was it rolled? I couldn't make it out from the vids. Was it that both side boosters where parallel with the ground or was it 90 degrees from that in a more under/over type orientation?

It looked to me like it was an over/under type orientation on port and starboard booster separation.

[Motokid600]

Total mission time will be about 4hrs 20min, so about 17.30 UTC.

Thanks. Got an alarm set and its back to bed.

[ANWRocketMan]

So, as it goes into its gravity turn, how was it rolled? I couldn't make it out from the vids. Was it that both side boosters where parallel with the ground or was it 90 degrees from that in a more under/over type orientation?

I only saw the moment before the boosters separated and just before that it turned from under/over to horisontal. So it launched under/over and turned just before separation to be horisontal.

[michaelsteele3]

I'm lucky enough to have Orion pass almost RIGHT over me as it passes apoapse here in South Africa. Unfortunately I will be in an exam room writing math at the time. Studying engineering and working to one day be a part of something space-related.

Didn't see the launch but I will be watching when I get back.

It was awesome

[J.Random]

Congrats to NASA! Now land it safe, guys.

To anyone expecting reentry video: did you even watch the trailer? There will be no comms during reentry, because plasma and all. Best case scenario, you'll get low atmosphere descent and maybe splashdown.

[rtxoff]

Well Nasa i am disappointed:

[SRiley77]

We interrupt this program to bring you an important update. Jebediah Kerman just announced that, due to sheer joy and excitement at the success of the launch, he just stepped out of the hatch and went on an early EVA...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/rodsky/misc/jeb1_zpsdceef048.jpg

I think that KSP would be an improvement over the animation that NASA is using... If only they were, and an "accidental" eva happened on the live feed... One can dream

[RainDreamer]

Anyone seeing that cockpit video? Those screens looks sweet.

[katateochi]

It looked to me like it was an over/under type orientation on port and starboard booster separation.

I only saw the moment before the boosters separated and just before that it turned from under/over to horisontal. So it launched under/over and turned just before separation to be horisontal.

That's what I thought but I wasn't sure, thanks.

So....hmmm....I've always launched my rockets to be side-by-side rather than over/under as it goes into the G turn because I thought that would be more stable / require less force to turn. I wonder what the reasoning behind having over/under orientation is, especially as it then must roll before separation. Part of my thinking was also that if I had to ditch the boosters in an emergency part way up, then I'd already be rolled the right way, but I guess in RL if you have to ditch large boosters like that early then things are pretty doomed anyway.

[ANWRocketMan]

That's what I thought but I wasn't sure, thanks.

So....hmmm....I've always launched my rockets to be side-by-side rather than over/under as it goes into the G turn because I thought that would be more stable / require less force to turn. I wonder what the reasoning behind having over/under orientation is, especially as it then must roll before separation. Part of my thinking was also that if I had to ditch the boosters in an emergency part way up, then I'd already be rolled the right way, but I guess in RL if you have to ditch large boosters like that early then things are pretty doomed anyway.

Yeah, you definitely lose the spacecraft in that situation. No idea on why it was done the way it is though.

[Newt]

Well, it reminded me of some old KSP versions...

There was trouble watching the stream, but, I imagine that that stems from that fact that so many people were watching, which can not be a bad thing.

I am uncertain why it would turn as it appeared to, although I would say that the side mounted camera's perspective seems, well, a little hard to say exactly what is going on from. It is possible (I should re-watch it) that the appearance comes from lens distortion.

[VirtualCLD]

That's what I thought but I wasn't sure, thanks.

So....hmmm....I've always launched my rockets to be side-by-side rather than over/under as it goes into the G turn because I thought that would be more stable / require less force to turn. I wonder what the reasoning behind having over/under orientation is, especially as it then must roll before separation. Part of my thinking was also that if I had to ditch the boosters in an emergency part way up, then I'd already be rolled the right way, but I guess in RL if you have to ditch large boosters like that early then things are pretty doomed anyway.

I always do over/under in KSP, because I thought/felt it was more stable when controlling the pitch. I don't use any mods so I fly manually and I feel that I have better or more stable pitch control with it over/under. When I fly with it side-to-side, the pitch feels less stable and the rocket wants to pitch up or down on it's own (rather than maintaining current pitch) as the CG shifts with fuel burn.

NOTE: I am well aware that my experience in KSP has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance with real life rocket science.

[Tw1]

I always do over/under in KSP, because I thought/felt it was more stable when controlling the pitch.

If there are no other requirements due to the design, I go diagonally. Just because.

[Beduino]

I always do over/under in KSP, because I thought/felt it was more stable when controlling the pitch. I don't use any mods so I fly manually and I feel that I have better or more stable pitch control with it over/under. When I fly with it side-to-side, the pitch feels less stable and the rocket wants to pitch up or down on it's own (rather than maintaining current pitch) as the CG shifts with fuel burn.

NOTE: I am well aware that my experience in KSP has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance with real life rocket science.

Try RSS with FAR. I can tell you it's a little bit different, but not much really.

What's that nm unit? Perigee seems so low.

NASA seems to love JAVA.

Their ascent curve seems a little bit sub optimal, since the craft loses altitude a bit during the first orbital boost.

[ANWRocketMan]

I always do over/under in KSP, because I thought/felt it was more stable when controlling the pitch. I don't use any mods so I fly manually and I feel that I have better or more stable pitch control with it over/under. When I fly with it side-to-side, the pitch feels less stable and the rocket wants to pitch up or down on it's own (rather than maintaining current pitch) as the CG shifts with fuel burn.

NOTE: I am well aware that my experience in KSP has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance with real life rocket science.

I play RSS and Realism Overhaul only and my rockets are usually under/over too because I find it difficult to turn it in-atmosphere without destabilizing the stack. Not sure that's it though. The Space Shuttles, Energia, Soyuz, all of them rotate in the atmosphere though.

[RainDreamer]

What's that nm unit? Perigee seems so low.

I believe it is nautical miles. That unit seems to be very common in aviation apparently, and since space flight is a type of "flight", they use the same unit. Don't ask me why they still use it now.

[miracmert]

I believe it is nautical miles. That unit seems to be very common in aviation apparently, and since space flight is a type of "flight", they use the same unit. Don't ask me why they still use it now.

I think Russians and some other space agencies use km though. Americans are used to nautical miles and not very used to metric system, so that's why they use nm usually.

[Beduino]

I play RSS and Realism Overhaul only and my rockets are usually under/over too because I find it difficult to turn it in-atmosphere without destabilizing the stack. Not sure that's it though. The Space Shuttles, Energia, Soyuz, all of them rotate in the atmosphere though.

If you mean your rocket is wobbly, try this: make your root part the main booster tank.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/98033-Realism-Overhaul-Discussion-Thread?p=1553798&viewfull=1#post1553798

I believe it is nautical miles. That unit seems to be very common in aviation apparently, and since space flight is a type of "flight", they use the same unit. Don't ask me why they still use it now.

Naultical miles, ow man what a unit. Thanks was scratching my head, since SI seems to be more common nowadays.

[lajoswinkler]

I think Russians and some other space agencies use km though. Americans are used to nautical miles and not very used to metric system, so that's why they use nm usually.

The whole world uses kilometres.

BTW caught this few minutes ago. Gulf of Mexico.