SpaceX: The Latest

To be honest I’m not sure what those objects are, could be small fragment of dust being illuminated by sunlight or other satelites with sunlight reflecting off them. Whatever they are they are being illuminated by the sun. Given what the camera is exposing for its not stars, they would be too dim to show up. Go out during the day and try to photograph the stars, they are still there, not gone away, just too dim to see! A bit like you really dim!
You flat earthers must really hate this stuff as it kills stone dead your prehistoric beliefs.

Aww, scared?
"I don't know, but you're wrong! you've got to be! WAAAAA MOMMY!!"

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 07, 2018, 02:43:06 PM

To be honest I’m not sure what those objects are, could be small fragment of dust being illuminated by sunlight or other satelites with sunlight reflecting off them. Whatever they are they are being illuminated by the sun. Given what the camera is exposing for its not stars, they would be too dim to show up. Go out during the day and try to photograph the stars, they are still there, not gone away, just too dim to see! A bit like you really dim!
You flat earthers must really hate this stuff as it kills stone dead your prehistoric beliefs.

Aww, scared?
"I don't know, but you're wrong! you've got to be! WAAAAA MOMMY!!"

I know! You must love being wrong, you’ve made a career out of it.
Spectroscopy
Stars
Satelites
Shape of the earth
DE bullshit
Little magnetic imps
Relativity
It’s a long long wrong list. At least your consistent.

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

The chamber wasn't on the side, it was on the top. Did you watch the launch? I wouldn't think it would be airtight but rather would be allowed to depressurise as the rocket gained altitude.

How feasible? Well it's been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, so presumably not that difficult.

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 07, 2018, 02:39:44 PM

JRowe I am astounded at your ability to avoid a simple question.
Is it the atmosphere that you think should be causing friction on it?  If not, what?

You're seriously going to sit there and claim I'm evading?!
This didn't actually happen. i couldn't tell you what would or wouldn't happen because there's nothing to tell. There are a billion possible set-ups you could use, some where it is the atmosphere, some where it isn't. What matters is when you put it all together. So look at it, and tell me rather than avoiding the issue:

Quote

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

Yes I do claim that because you have answered every time with a question.
You brought up friction.  I asked friction from what?
You then responded with more questions about what I thought possible.
Can you not simply say, friction from the atmosphere, friction from aether, or whatever?

Oh what a surprise, the latest is he overshot Mars and is headed towards the asteroid belt. He probably got nervous people were onto his con job so he's writing off the stunt a mere day after launch.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 07, 2018, 02:07:22 PM

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

The chamber wasn't on the side, it was on the top. Did you watch the launch? I wouldn't think it would be airtight but rather would be allowed to depressurise as the rocket gained altitude.

How feasible? Well it's been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, so presumably not that difficult.

Great, that just makes it even harder to get rid of the covering. And depressurising will still exert a lot of friction given the rate of it, even if air and heat can't get back in. Which it can, but whatever.
No it hasn't been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, and the fact you need to refer to that clinches it.

You're a boiled frog. You get fed the lie over and over and you know that if you compare it to what you know, it's nonsense, so you have to compare it to all the middle steps they've given you as they've turned the temperature up. Look at that, you just do it without even thinking.

Yes I do claim that because you have answered every time with a question.
You brought up friction.  I asked friction from what?
You then responded with more questions about what I thought possible.
Can you not simply say, friction from the atmosphere, friction from aether, or whatever?

Jesus christ this is pathetic. Stop ignoring me.

This didn't actually happen. i couldn't tell you what would or wouldn't happen because there's nothing to tell. There are a billion possible set-ups you could use, some where it is the atmosphere, some where it isn't. What matters is when you put it all together. So look at it, and tell me rather than avoiding the issue:

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

You are asking me to tell you the details of something that didn't happen. I can't. No one can. It doesn't matter. It didn't happen.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 07, 2018, 02:53:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 07, 2018, 02:07:22 PM

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

The chamber wasn't on the side, it was on the top. Did you watch the launch? I wouldn't think it would be airtight but rather would be allowed to depressurise as the rocket gained altitude.

How feasible? Well it's been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, so presumably not that difficult.

Great, that just makes it even harder to get rid of the covering. And depressurising will still exert a lot of friction given the rate of it, even if air and heat can't get back in. Which it can, but whatever.
No it hasn't been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, and the fact you need to refer to that clinches it.

You're a boiled frog. You get fed the lie over and over and you know that if you compare it to what you know, it's nonsense, so you have to compare it to all the middle steps they've given you as they've turned the temperature up. Look at that, you just do it without even thinking.

Quote

Yes I do claim that because you have answered every time with a question.
You brought up friction.  I asked friction from what?
You then responded with more questions about what I thought possible.
Can you not simply say, friction from the atmosphere, friction from aether, or whatever?

Jesus christ this is pathetic. Stop ignoring me.

Quote

This didn't actually happen. i couldn't tell you what would or wouldn't happen because there's nothing to tell. There are a billion possible set-ups you could use, some where it is the atmosphere, some where it isn't. What matters is when you put it all together. So look at it, and tell me rather than avoiding the issue:

Quote

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

You are asking me to tell you the details of something that didn't happen. I can't. No one can. It doesn't matter. It didn't happen.

Then why did you bring up that friction on the car would be a problem?

Then why did you bring up that friction on the car would be a problem?

READ. MY. FUCKING. POSTS.
God this is just pathetic at this point.

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

DO YOU NOT SEE HOW FRICTION IS ONE OF THE ISSUES IT COULD FACE?!?!??!?!?!?

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 07, 2018, 03:03:22 PM

Then why did you bring up that friction on the car would be a problem?

READ. MY. FUCKING. POSTS.
God this is just pathetic at this point.

Quote

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

DO YOU NOT SEE HOW FRICTION IS ONE OF THE ISSUES IT COULD FACE?!?!??!?!?!?

Can you not see how you answered a question with a question about what I thought was feasible?  When the question was simply what is causing the friction?

Can you not see how you answered a question with a question about what I thought was feasible?  When the question was simply what is causing the friction?

ARE YOU FICKING BLIND?!??!?
God
Fucking
Damn

Do you have the memory of a godlfish? We literally just went over this.

This didn't actually happen. i couldn't tell you what would or wouldn't happen because there's nothing to tell. There are a billion possible set-ups you could use, some where it is the atmosphere, some where it isn't. What matters is when you put it all together. So look at it, and tell me rather than avoiding the issue:

You want me to be making an argument I'm not making. Shut up for one minute. Read what I said. Actually think about it. Think about the conclusions. Respond to THAT argument rather then demanding I explain something completely fucking different. I am not going to put up with more of this roundie bullshit.
There's friction in some set-ups, not in others. Those other set-ups face the other problems. Compared as a whole, it makes no sense. Which is why I am asking you the quetsion you are STILL evading (all the while whinging I'm evading you like some kind of fucking hypocrite)

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

You've been answered. Are you going to answer me at any stage?

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber...

Why should the fairing need to be perfectly airtight? 

...that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere...

Umm...  Why should the fairing be struck on the side?  Do you understand anything at all about aerodynamics and which way the rocket is pointed?

... that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?

It opens like a big clam shell carrying a small car.  It really isn't that difficult.

Why should the fairing need to be perfectly airtight? 

Good luck dealing with the friction of the air blasting up out of the atmosphere otherwise.

Umm...  Why should the fairing be struck on the side?  Do you understand anything at all about aerodynamics and which way the rocket is pointed?

Just making it easier for getting it off. If you want to stick it on the front, good luck to you.

It opens like a big clam shell carrying a small car.  It really isn't that difficult.

Good luck to you securing that. All that weight on one hinge. Momentum still exists even if you waited until vacuum.

Hi guys I found something like this.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on February 07, 2018, 02:53:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 07, 2018, 02:07:22 PM

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

The chamber wasn't on the side, it was on the top. Did you watch the launch? I wouldn't think it would be airtight but rather would be allowed to depressurise as the rocket gained altitude.

How feasible? Well it's been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, so presumably not that difficult.

Great, that just makes it even harder to get rid of the covering. And depressurising will still exert a lot of friction given the rate of it, even if air and heat can't get back in. Which it can, but whatever.
No it hasn't been done hundreds of times for the launch of satellites, and the fact you need to refer to that clinches it.

1. Build rocket.
2. Put car on top.
3. Put fairing round car.
4. Launch rocket.
5. When rocket high enough, jettison fairing, like so:



Which bit do you think is too hard?

You're a boiled frog. You get fed the lie over and over and you know that if you compare it to what you know, it's nonsense, so you have to compare it to all the middle steps they've given you as they've turned the temperature up. Look at that, you just do it without even thinking.

I'm not sure how you think this helps your case. A valid point from a 'boiled frog' is still a valid point. Argue the point, not the man or frog.

Oh what a surprise, the latest is he overshot Mars and is headed towards the asteroid belt. He probably got nervous people were onto his con job so he's writing off the stunt a mere day after launch.

Who's writing what off?  It was a test flight to make sure the 3 cores could work together as advertised (and they did, quite nicely).  Sending the roadster to Mars was just to make what would otherwise be boring payload more interesting.

Which bit do you think is too hard?

Getting a fairing both secure enough and airtight enough to let the car survive, and still be able to jettison it. Like I'd already made clear several times over. Reading isn't your strong suit is it?

I'm not sure how you think this helps your case. A valid point from a 'boiled frog' is still a valid point. Argue the point, not the man or frog.

Reading really isn't your strong suit huh?
If you put a frog in boiling water, it'll jump out. But put it in cold water and crank the heat up, it won't notice until it dies.
They raised the heat with dribbles of bullshit, until now you buy even this, and you only buy it because they acclimatized you to it. Judge it on its own terms.

Quote

Which bit do you think is too hard?

Getting a fairing both secure enough and airtight enough to let the car survive, and still be able to jettison it. Like I'd already made clear several times over. Reading isn't your strong suit is it?

Quote

I'm not sure how you think this helps your case. A valid point from a 'boiled frog' is still a valid point. Argue the point, not the man or frog.

Reading really isn't your strong suit huh?
If you put a frog in boiling water, it'll jump out. But put it in cold water and crank the heat up, it won't notice until it dies.
They raised the heat with dribbles of bullshit, until now you buy even this, and you only buy it because they acclimatized you to it. Judge it on its own terms.

Proof is something you find great difficulty with. The SpaceX video proves all your beliefs are pure bullshit. When have you ever presented anything resembling a proof to the ideas you present?

Quote

Why should the fairing need to be perfectly airtight? 

Good luck dealing with the friction of the air blasting up out of the atmosphere otherwise.

Since when does aerodynamic mean airtight?

Quote

Umm...  Why should the fairing be struck on the side?  Do you understand anything at all about aerodynamics and which way the rocket is pointed?

Just making it easier for getting it off. If you want to stick it on the front, good luck to you.

I'll take that as a no (which explains a whole lot).

Quote

It opens like a big clam shell carrying a small car.  It really isn't that difficult.

Good luck to you securing that. All that weight on one hinge. Momentum still exists even if you waited until vacuum.

Doesn't look like a problem to me:

Lots and lots of assumptions.

Quote

Which bit do you think is too hard?

Getting a fairing both secure enough and airtight enough to let the car survive, and still be able to jettison it. Like I'd already made clear several times over. Reading isn't your strong suit is it?

Why do you think that would be too hard?

Quote

I'm not sure how you think this helps your case. A valid point from a 'boiled frog' is still a valid point. Argue the point, not the man or frog.

Reading really isn't your strong suit huh?
If you put a frog in boiling water, it'll jump out. But put it in cold water and crank the heat up, it won't notice until it dies.
They raised the heat with dribbles of bullshit, until now you buy even this, and you only buy it because they acclimatized you to it. Judge it on its own terms.

My point, which I didn't hide, is that you should argue with what I'm saying rather than my frog-like status (or my reading ability).

You guys are the best entertainment. Thank you!

Quote

Can you not see how you answered a question with a question about what I thought was feasible?  When the question was simply what is causing the friction?

ARE YOU FICKING BLIND?!??!?
God
Fucking
Damn

Do you have the memory of a godlfish? We literally just went over this.

Quote

This didn't actually happen. i couldn't tell you what would or wouldn't happen because there's nothing to tell. There are a billion possible set-ups you could use, some where it is the atmosphere, some where it isn't. What matters is when you put it all together. So look at it, and tell me rather than avoiding the issue:

You want me to be making an argument I'm not making. Shut up for one minute. Read what I said. Actually think about it. Think about the conclusions. Respond to THAT argument rather then demanding I explain something completely fucking different. I am not going to put up with more of this roundie bullshit.
There's friction in some set-ups, not in others. Those other set-ups face the other problems. Compared as a whole, it makes no sense. Which is why I am asking you the quetsion you are STILL evading (all the while whinging I'm evading you like some kind of fucking hypocrite)

Quote

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

You've been answered. Are you going to answer me at any stage?

You did make the argument that friction would be a problem.  I did back you into any corner or put those words n your mouth.  Now you are saying you didn't.
Why is this so hard for you?
But I will answer your question.  Is it feasible that they could build a system to keep the atmosphere out and the eject said covering?
Absolutely.  Every fighter plane has a system for doing that.
So, are you saying the friction YOU claimed would be a problem is coming from the atmosphere?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 07, 2018, 10:37:02 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 07, 2018, 10:34:14 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 07, 2018, 10:05:42 AM

Quote from: sokarul on February 07, 2018, 10:03:46 AM

I think you are the only one that saw stars. Do you have a time stamp?

Little past the three hour mark. Pay special attention to how the Earth dwindles into the distance in the reflection rather than being cut off as the car rotated, when no possible movement could justify that, especially when the Earth pops up again later.

Haven't seen the stars yet on the video but what friction are you talking about and why would the frame be damaged?

Try getting out of the atmosphere sometime.

Ok.  What friction should the car have been subject to and why should the frame be bent?

Because that's the way he argues.
If the video had shown the car with burned up paint from the friction
And the frame all twisted and bent

He would say "Well that proves it's a fake,
If there was that much stress on the car, how could the rocket survive it?"

You did make the argument that friction would be a problem.

No, he made an assertion that friction would be a problem.  Calling it an argument would suggest that he made some sort of point.

Quote

Stars whooshing by.....wow.  As you know the only star within 4 light years of Earth is our star, the Sun.  The journey to the sun would itself take months and months.  The only way you would see stars in the distance whooshing by is of the craft was traveling near light speed.  I know it is difficult to understand because the distances involved are so vast. 

Three hour mark. You can actually see them. Watch the damn video.

Quote

Notice how you still haven't actually answered the question?  Are you saying it's exposed to the atmosphere during the launch?

How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?
Don't give me that "But they say they did it!" nonsense. That's completely circular. tell me how you think that is even possible.

They've been doing that successfully for more than 50 years. Here's an example of one that didn't work correctly:



Affectionately known as "the angry alligator", it's from Gemini 9. In 1966. They got better at it. How they make complex stuff look simple and be reliable is called "engineering".

"How feasible is it that they could create a perfectly sufficiently airtight chamber that is both detachable but secure enough to survive being stuck on the side [?] during being blasted out the atmosphere, that when it detaches gets far enough away to not even scratch the paintwork?"

Quite. That's what engineers do. They're trained professionals, and for some of them, that is their job.

You can see the Earth's reflection vanishing despite occupying the same basic location on the car's side; impossible by rotation, only possible by moving far away, but it isn't moving that fast.

The reflection appears to be moving relative to the panel. Rotation will cause this, and there's nothing except wishful thinking on your part that suggests it's anything but rotation.

Also:

You can see a star to the right there. There is no explanation for that speed.

How do you know that's a star? Watching that clip shows bright specks drifting "up" relative to the car, and others drifting to the right at the same time, the latter at about the same apparent speed the earth comes into view from the left. This looks like the system is rotating, that's all. Probably none of the bright specks are stars. Most likely, they are relatively nearby bits of stuff left over from the launch hardware.

You really do see what you want to see and ignore everything else, don't you?

Quote

Which bit do you think is too hard?

Getting a fairing both secure enough and airtight enough to let the car survive, and still be able to jettison it. Like I'd already made clear several times over. Reading isn't your strong suit is it?

Quote

I'm not sure how you think this helps your case. A valid point from a 'boiled frog' is still a valid point. Argue the point, not the man or frog.

Reading really isn't your strong suit huh?
If you put a frog in boiling water, it'll jump out. But put it in cold water and crank the heat up, it won't notice until it dies.
They raised the heat with dribbles of bullshit, until now you buy even this, and you only buy it because they acclimatized you to it. Judge it on its own terms.

OK.

The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of threats that arise gradually.

While some 19th-century experiments suggested that the underlying premise is true if the heating is sufficiently gradual, according to contemporary biologists the premise is false: a frog that is gradually heated will jump out. Indeed, thermoregulation by changing location is a fundamentally necessary survival strategy for frogs and other ectotherms.

That's wikipedia, but they do provide references. Have at it!

Unsubstantiated opinion: if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will probably die before it can jump out. If that is indeed correct (but I'm not going to torment any frogs to test it), your metaphor is exactly backwards.

Spacex launched a rocket.
The two outside boosters separate
And LAND without incident.
Granted, the 3rd booster ended up in the ocean.
But as Meatloaf said 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Interestingly, before the launch, Spacex put out an animation of it.
The landing of the 2 boosters in the animation is very similar to the real footage.
The animation shows the third boosted landing on a ship,
Which didn't happen.

The reason I bring this up is that Spacex predicted what would happen.
The biggest oops was the 3rd booster falling in the ocean.

The flat earth world is getting harder and harder to explain.
And I bet FEs are cursing Elon from morning to night.

Spacex launched a rocket.
The two outside boosters separate
And LAND without incident.
Granted, the 3rd booster ended up in the ocean.
But as Meatloaf said 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Interestingly, before the launch, Spacex put out an animation of it.
The landing of the 2 boosters in the animation is very similar to the real footage.
The animation shows the third boosted landing on a ship,
Which didn't happen.

The reason I bring this up is that Spacex predicted what would happen.
The biggest oops was the 3rd booster falling in the ocean.

The flat earth world is getting harder and harder to explain.
And I bet FEs are cursing Elon from morning to night.

Wow, a near infinite amount of variables and the predictions work almost like clockwork. Hmm, I wonder if the final thing we saw was just another (more sophisticated) animation

In any event it seems Elon has pretty much canned it a day after launch, claiming the 'rocket' will shoot past Mars and into the asteroid belt. Convenient as now no one will bother to 'watch' with as much interest. I guess he got nervous the jig was up

Quote from: ER22 on February 07, 2018, 04:37:59 PM

Spacex launched a rocket.
The two outside boosters separate
And LAND without incident.
Granted, the 3rd booster ended up in the ocean.
But as Meatloaf said 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Interestingly, before the launch, Spacex put out an animation of it.
The landing of the 2 boosters in the animation is very similar to the real footage.
The animation shows the third boosted landing on a ship,
Which didn't happen.

The reason I bring this up is that Spacex predicted what would happen.
The biggest oops was the 3rd booster falling in the ocean.

The flat earth world is getting harder and harder to explain.
And I bet FEs are cursing Elon from morning to night.

Wow, a near infinite amount of variables and the predictions work almost like clockwork. Hmm, I wonder if the final thing we saw was just another (more sophisticated) animation

In any event it seems Elon has pretty much canned it a day after launch, claiming the 'rocket' will shoot past Mars and into the asteroid belt. Convenient as now no one will bother to 'watch' with as much interest. I guess he got nervous the jig was up

But you have to remember there were actual people who watched the rockets land.
Not on computer or TV but LIVE and in person.
If you wanted to, you could have been there to watch it, LIVE.

You could have contacted an FE who lived in the area of the launch
And asked them to go have a look.

Of course, the rockets landing does not prove the car went to space.
But my point is that most FEs can't even accept stuff that regular people saw
Live and in person.

Or were there guards at the launch site and the large surrounding area
That kept all FE personnel from watching?

Wow, a near infinite amount of variables and the predictions work almost like clockwork. Hmm, I wonder if the final thing we saw was just another (more sophisticated) animation

Why don't you ask the spectators watching the blast off and landing of the 2 outer cores how sophisticated the animation was?

In any event it seems Elon has pretty much canned it a day after launch, claiming the 'rocket' will shoot past Mars and into the asteroid belt. Convenient as now no one will bother to 'watch' with as much interest. I guess he got nervous the jig was up

What jig?  I don't understand what you're getting at.  The payload was intended to go in a heliocentric orbit out past Mars anyway.  So what if they overshot somewhat?  It's not as if they intended to land on Mars.