- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SpaceX Starship Full Stack Test Flight Thread | Cleared Tower, Thru MaxQ, then RUD
Posted on 4/20/23 at 10:26 am to beerandt
Posted on 4/20/23 at 10:26 am to beerandt
quote:
They weren't even going to do the bellyflop maneuver they did on the last flight, because they wanted to be sure of the reentry location more than anything else.
I thought they were going to bellyflop Starship like it was a truly orbital flight but just hit the water in that position instead of re-orienting it upright before touchdown.
4
Posted on 4/20/23 at 10:55 am to Diseasefreeforall
I don't think they were far enough along in the flight for separation of the second stage. Probably losing the engines slowed the rocket down and it went wonky. The momentum seemed to be slow compared to other launches. You can see from the replay the engines blowing out or being shutdown.
I doubt with the forces being exerted would have let the second stage mechanisms work. Funny it did not shred the whole ship.
I doubt with the forces being exerted would have let the second stage mechanisms work. Funny it did not shred the whole ship.
This post was edited on 4/20/23 at 10:59 am
Posted on 4/20/23 at 10:59 am to Diseasefreeforall
There's speculation from people looking at pics/vids that more Raptors failed in flight
Down 5 or 6 was already putting booster at its limit... so any other lost engines would cause it to lose the thrust needed to keep it accelerating
Also... 1 of the failing Raptors might've actually exploded and took out the hydraulic system in the process... cutting the ability to gimble the engines and control the ship
If that did actually happen... well... part of that problem is already fixed as the next booster doesn't use hydraulics but rather electric motors to control the engine movement
Down 5 or 6 was already putting booster at its limit... so any other lost engines would cause it to lose the thrust needed to keep it accelerating
Also... 1 of the failing Raptors might've actually exploded and took out the hydraulic system in the process... cutting the ability to gimble the engines and control the ship
If that did actually happen... well... part of that problem is already fixed as the next booster doesn't use hydraulics but rather electric motors to control the engine movement
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:00 am to Diseasefreeforall
quote:
I thought they were going to bellyflop Starship like it was a truly orbital flight but just hit the water in that position instead of re-orienting it upright before touchdown.
The belly flop position is needed to get the heat shield in the right position for reentry
So yes it would be in belly flop position for splashdown by Hawaii
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:07 am to Blaeke
quote:
Typical participation trophy generation response. This was a failure, back to the drawing board.
Typical response from someone who knows nothing about the iterative process of continuous improvement.
Sometimes it's best to be quiet....
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:11 am to Blaeke
quote:
Typical participation trophy generation response. This was a failure, back to the drawing board.
Was actually a success in their eyes as defined by their minimum goals prior to launch.
They already have a new design in the factory being readied now.
This thing will continue to evolve and it won’t be the last time we see it blow up in the next few years. It’s not carrying humans for another 3-5 years so relax.
Also, even if the top stage (Starship) does not achieve reuseability or human flight soon, it’ll still be the most cost effective way to get massive payloads up there
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:17 am to Blaeke
quote:
Typical participation trophy generation response. This was a failure, back to the drawing board.
This is like saying LSU basbeall is a failure because we lost a mid week to USL.
This post was edited on 4/20/23 at 11:21 am
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:20 am to rt3
quote:
Down 5 or 6 was already putting booster at its limit... so any other lost engines would cause it to lose the thrust needed to keep it accelerating
One of the things I noticed was the speed, toward the end, was dropping and picking up in a few cycles.
Was that a result of the flipping, or engine issues?
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:23 am to YumYum Sauce
quote:
The roll sequence was supposed to sort of "fling" starship apart from B7.
That makes more sense. It also means "letting it ride" probably did return a good bit of additional/ useful stress/strain readings.
If it needed to torque a certain way to initiate separation, that brings into play the dead engines possibly being a factor in the separation failure.
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:25 am to beerandt
quote:
That makes more sense. It also means "letting it ride" probably did return a good bit of additional/ useful stress/strain readings.
If it needed to torque a certain way to initiate separation, that brings into play the dead engines possibly being a factor in the separation failure.
I think anyone in that building would call it getting off launch and past the tower a massive success
Unfortunately, the day he bought twitter and kicked over the anthill of suppressed speech, he lost a lot of sheep.
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:29 am to Diseasefreeforall
quote:
thought they were going to bellyflop Starship like it was a truly orbital flight but just hit the water in that position instead of re-orienting it upright before touchdown.
That might be right- I just know they weren't trying to do much with the starship "landing" other than aim it.
As opposed to the "soft splashdown" the booster would have attempted.
Even so, it obviously would/should have been post separation .
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:47 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Typical participation trophy generation response. This was a failure, back to the drawing board.
You people really don't have a clue.
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:48 am to jcaz
quote:
Was actually a success in their eyes as defined by their minimum goals prior to launch.
They already have a new design in the factory being readied now.
This thing will continue to evolve and it won’t be the last time we see it blow up in the next few years. It’s not carrying humans for another 3-5 years so relax.
Also, even if the top stage (Starship) does not achieve reuseability or human flight soon, it’ll still be the most cost effective way to get massive payloads up there
numerous Falcon 9s failed during testing and now that launch vehicle is the most popular launch vehicle in the world b/c of its reliability
SpaceX has already destroyed like 4 or 5 Starships testing this new system
whenever a ship blows up in testing... all they do is go 'oh well'... look at the data... and improve
sooner rather than later... Starship will be most desired launch vehicle in the world and it'll all be b/c of these learning opportunities
I think at least 2 Super Heavy boosters and 3 or 4 more Starships are already constructed just waiting their turn on the launch pads
This post was edited on 4/20/23 at 11:50 am
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:49 am to YumYum Sauce
quote:
Unfortunately, the day he bought twitter and kicked over the anthill of suppressed speech, he lost a lot of sheep.
He gained plenty of sheep in the same process
probably close to a net push, once adjusted for bots.Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:52 am to rt3
it'll be interesting to see what NASA admins had to say about today's test considering 1 of the upcoming Artemis missions is supposed to involve either a Super Heavy booster or a Starship... I forget which 1
Posted on 4/20/23 at 11:58 am to YumYum Sauce
quote:
Unfortunately, the day he bought twitter and kicked over the anthill
The deepstate sabotaged starship in retaliation.
Posted on 4/20/23 at 12:20 pm to Blaeke
quote:
Typical participation trophy generation response. This was a failure, back to the drawing board.
It takes some actual effort to be this ignorant
Posted on 4/20/23 at 12:46 pm to rt3
Watch this angle of the launch and watch the water's edge as it starts to go up. Tons of debris thrown out into the water. Kind cool.
Posted on 4/20/23 at 1:00 pm to YumYum Sauce
quote:
I think anyone in that building would call it getting off launch and past the tower a massive success
Agreed- I meant to use 'failure' in the technical sense of 'did not separate', not as a subjuctive degree of the test's success.
This post was edited on 4/20/23 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 4/20/23 at 1:34 pm to rt3
Had some time to download the SpaceX feed to make a gif
They were launched at 1.3 thrust to weight, that was why it was slow. Engines were not fired at max thrust, which would be 1.5 ttw. Looks like 3 failed at launch
They were launched at 1.3 thrust to weight, that was why it was slow. Engines were not fired at max thrust, which would be 1.5 ttw. Looks like 3 failed at launch
Page 13 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News