re: SpaceX Starship Flight Test 3 | B10 crashes in Gulf, S28 burns up during reentry

Is space X ever gonna get one of these to fly without exploding?

I wouldn't want to be the first to ride it....

quote:

---

My point is that they'll do as much as possible to paint it like it was a failure.

---

I'm sorry they've victimized you like that.

I know failure is baked into the cake as a part of these test launches but I feel like it would be so deflating losing a ship after everything that went into.

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet and gotta lose a few billion dollar spacecrafts to make it to the moon I guess.

That was amazing. What a great day for SpaceX.

quote:

---

I'm just saying that the model of not having rockets survive test flights isn't sustainable even if you're getting "good data" back

---

Yeah your budgetary limitations are not the same, as spacex has f you money and insane earning potential if they get starship working at the reliability levels of falcon

quote:

---

Any ideas on why the aborted the relight?

---

-Tank Pressures/Readings were not nominal, didn't wanna risk a RUD
-The spin of the vehicle could have been made worse
-The burn may have possibly given them too much of a boost and sent the trajectory beyond the exclusion zone in the Indian Ocean

I think after getting a successful demo of fuel transfer and the pez dispenser they wanted to get data from the reentry over risking a re-light.

quote:

---

Yeah your budgetary limitations are not the same as, as spacex has f you money and insane earning potential if they get starship working at the reliability levels of falcon

---

Even if my budgetary limitations were infinite, it doesn't change the engineering process behind my statements. In the event something fails, you get the best your best data and information regarding the failure back from intact vehicles. Beyond what I said about data issues, when things things explode and crash many things happen. 1). You damage the pieces you are trying to analyze when they hit the ground at high speed from high altitude. This makes it much more difficult to see what parts failed before the incident vs after an impact with the ground or other objects. 2). You don't get all of the pieces back. If the piece that failed is not recovered because it's scattered over hundreds of square miles then you never get to do all of the required failure analysis test on that equipment.

quote:

---

The inherent problem in this line of thinking is this. Quite often, when things catastrophically fail like this, the problem arises in the very last (milli)seconds before failure. When recording test flight data, there are two ways to do it. Onboard data recording and recording data terrestrially via telemetry signals. If your vehicle catastrophically fails, more often than not, those last critical moments of the failure are not preserved on your data loggers. Either you lose your telemetric link or the device(s) recording and storing your data are destroyed.

---

All these words and you still look like a noob. Let SpaceX cook and build your little model rockets.

how are they going to account for and understand how heat shields are going to work? They gathered countless data today on re-entry.

Also there was ice build ups on the thrusters they probably didn't account for that possibly threw off telemetry. (they wouldn't have know this without a space flight)

IDK, i just can't think that they would think of every little possibility that could go wrong without these test flights. But there again, these people are a lot smarter than I lol.