SpaceX rocket goes off course

[Unorthodox]

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/680105/SpaceX-Ceres-Falcon-Heavy-Launch-Tesla-Starman-Bowie-Asteroid-Belt-Elon-Musk-Centre-Core

Elon Musk’s cherry Tesla roadster was strapped to the top of the colossal Falcon Heavy rocket and fired out into the Solar System.

The stunt was designed as a proof-of-concept for SpaceX’s dream of launching a mission to Mars.

Floating thousands of miles from Earth, the space car – complete with a dummy in a space suit – has now believed to have overshot his course.

Scientists had originally plotted for the Tesla to go into an elliptical orbit around Mars.

And now the red roadster is doomed to sail out into the Asteroid Belt and possible reach the mysterious planet Ceres.

(Sorry could find a better article probably, but time is limited) 

__________________________________________________________

This actually means this test is a FAILURE.  It's not going to be painted that way in the press, but sticking your destination is what rockets are supposed to DO.  Anyone in the industry is going to be questioning what happened. 

[Buster's Uncle]

But it IS a test flight - it appears the booster worked, and it was something in the second stage that failed...

Musk now appears wise to have been trying to manage expectations in the run-up.

[Unorthodox]

But it IS a test flight - it appears the booster worked, and it was something in the second stage that failed...

Musk now appears wise to have been trying to manage expectations in the run-up.

Don't matter, it's a failed test flight in business terms. 

It's being billed as a resounding success in the media, sure.  But, he missed the target. 

I really don't think anyone expected EVERYTHING to go well here.  But, now you need to show what went wrong and how you correct it if industry standard is to be maintained.  (space X doesn't always maintain standard) 

[Buster's Uncle]

They haven't exactly had a lot of time to do that, have they?

[Unorthodox]

I don't think they will at all, though.  It's part of why they've been able to move so fast and do things so cheap, but the industry can't continue to praise them for being so much cheaper and faster while simultaneously not holding them to the same standards. 

[Lorizael]

My reading was that they realized they had enough fuel to shoot for the asteroid belt and decided sure why not.

[Unorthodox]

My reading was that they realized they had enough fuel to shoot for the asteroid belt and decided sure why not.

And I can see why people might think that, and they might even be spinning it that way, I don't buy it. 

Realistically the test can be broken down into targets:

Liftoff: success
Landing boosters: success.
Stage separation: Success
Landing Core: Failure  (not a big deal to anyone wanting to launch with them, but probably the most valuable of the three from a research perspective) 
2nd stage orbit separation firing: Success
2nd stage escape trajectory firing: Success
2nd stage post radiation belt firing: Mixed.  Fired on time, did not terminate on time. 

It's that last bit that was specifically testing the hardness of the control system on the craft, you could have hit mars target just from the escape firing, they specifically wanted to try their hardness.  Radiation hardness is something SpaceX has been struggling with from the very beginning as they don't "bake it in" from the get go.  Something NASA requires of other companies with everything hardened with backups, but Space X is able to ad hoc harden systems on an as needed basis, thus make it loads cheaper. 

Unfortunately, they've destroyed a few experiments as a result as well.  But that doesn't get the press. 

It's also why they are not certified for human travel and a few other things yet, and that's taking loads longer than originally projected.