- 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 Flight Test 3 | B10 crashes in Gulf, S28 burns up during reentry
Posted on 3/14/24 at 1:53 pm to Lonnie Utah
Posted on 3/14/24 at 1:53 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Quite often, when things catastrophically fail like this, the problem arises in the very last (milli)seconds before failure.
There are usually signs a bit before this. When the ship was gettign wobbly before re-entry and they decided to not light the engine one more time, the goose was likely cooked. They have plenty of data (hopefully) on THOSE issues that they can use to fix THOSE issues and then that might have prevented THIS issue.
Or not... but sometimes you need to fix one set of problems before you find another set of problems to fix.
2
Posted on 3/14/24 at 1:57 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
If SpaceX was run by the government and not a private individual/corporation would you still be as nonchalant with how their progress is going?
If SpaceX was run by the government they would be 8-10 years behind.
You know, like they are with the space programs they ARE running.
The path Elon has chosen is to fly things that are 95% ready and learn along the way. It works. It might not be the cheapest way to do it, but it is likely the fastest.
And again, money is no concern for this group.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 1:59 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
If SpaceX was run by the government they would be 8-10 years behind.
You know, like they are with the space programs they ARE running
You're arguing with a RoCkEt ScIeNtIsT the likes of which could teach Elon Musk a thing or two. You should just give up.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 1:59 pm to LSUFanHouston
SpaceX
Preliminary analysis from SpaceX
They will need to add a reentry burn to the booster profile. Came in way too hot and the oscillations were too much for the grid fins.
The roll rates were abnormal after all. Hopefully just a software fix for next time. Looks like during Starship MECO something threw it off.
As for re-entry, I have no doubt it would have survived if the wobble gets resolved. Thing is a tank.
Preliminary analysis from SpaceX
quote:
uper Heavy successfully lit several engines for its first ever landing burn before the vehicle experienced a RUD (that’s SpaceX-speak for “rapid unscheduled disassembly”). The booster’s flight concluded at approximately 462 meters in altitude and just under seven minutes into the mission.
They will need to add a reentry burn to the booster profile. Came in way too hot and the oscillations were too much for the grid fins.
quote:
While coasting, Starship accomplished several of the flight test’s additional objectives, including the opening and closing of its payload door (aka the pez dispenser,) and initiating a propellant transfer demonstration. Starship did not attempt its planned on-orbit relight of a single Raptor engine due to vehicle roll rates during coast.
The roll rates were abnormal after all. Hopefully just a software fix for next time. Looks like during Starship MECO something threw it off.
As for re-entry, I have no doubt it would have survived if the wobble gets resolved. Thing is a tank.
This post was edited on 3/14/24 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 3/14/24 at 1:59 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
But that doesn't invalidate the my observation that the SpaceX's success rate, based upon vehicles surviving launch and reentry, isn't great right now.
In no way, shape, or form, is SpaceX grading themselves on that metric. It is 100% unimportant to what they are trying to currently do.
And it's not like I'm just trying to pass of propaganda. They have clearly admitted as such.
Would they love to have a successful landing at this point? Sure. But it is in no way part of their operational requirements.
There will be a time when landing becomes the marker... we ain't there yet.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:03 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Model rocketry
quote:
SpaceX Starship Flight Test 3
totally the same thing, pal
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:03 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
My critique comes from, based my limited knowledge of the process, it appears their engineering processes have some apparent flaws (with catastrophic failures nearly every flight). Let me pose this question. If SpaceX was run by the government and not a private individual/corporation would you still be as nonchalant with how their progress is going?
They used the same philosophy during Falcon 9 process. It is not arguably, but is, the most important rocket ever produced by anyone.
The time spent to over engineer everything, cost more than trying things real life, and upgrading as you go. We are less than five years in from the first Raptor engine test, to putting the largest single object ever into space.
This post was edited on 3/14/24 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:04 pm to jcaz
quote:
successfully lit several engines for its first ever landing burn before the vehicle experienced a RUD (that’s SpaceX-speak for “rapid unscheduled disassembly”). The booster’s flight concluded at approximately 462 meters in altitude and just under seven minutes into the mission.
So it actually didn't hit the water intact. Guess the FAA will count that as a mishap.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:04 pm to rt3
I take issue with the permanent post title left by SpaceX extraordinaire rt3.
WAY too negative. Today was a great day.
quote:
SpaceX Starship Flight Test 3 | B10 crashes in Gulf, S28 burns up during reentry
WAY too negative. Today was a great day.
This post was edited on 3/14/24 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:06 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
There will be a time when landing becomes the marker... we ain't there yet.
Yep because Artemis III doesn't require reentry for mission success. They don't even plan on bringing it back to Earth after it ferries the astronauts back to Orion.
The proofing of Starship will consist of multiple launches per month carrying Starlink as payloads. They have proven they can get payload to orbit now. Eventually the booster and reentry gets sorted out and costs come down. It's the Falcon 9 roadmap.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:08 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
So it actually didn't hit the water intact. Guess the FAA will count that as a mishap.
Yeah SpaceX already opened a mishap investigation. They work in parallel with FAA. I feel like they won't be holding them up any more than SpaceX itself does now. FAA is just rubber stamping the corrective actions.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:13 pm to jcaz
They were going to blow it up anyway when it hit the ogulf. Might as well make a pyro show before.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:24 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
When the ship was gettign wobbly before re-entry
They said the appearance of it getting bobbly was because the camera was on one of the control flaps.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:47 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
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.
If you disagree with the design process of the starship program, what are your comments on the development of the Falcon 9 rockets?
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:50 pm to jcaz
quote:
They will need to add a reentry burn to the booster profile. Came in way too hot and the oscillations were too much for the grid fins.
A landing burn was planned which required the 2 inner rings of engines
From what I recall from the live stream... only 1 of the inner 3 and 1 of the engines in the middle ring lit back up... far fewer than should've
There are still issues with re-lighting after the initial burn
Solid progress with the full boostback burn on booster though
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:52 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
It might not be the cheapest way to do it, but it is likely the fastest.
Considering SLS has cost $30 billion so far, SpaceX’s way probably is the cheapest.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 3:09 pm to crazyLSUstudent
quote:
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.
Man this don't make no goddamn sense. Before SpaceX no one had ever recovered a rocket before so getting back any pieces, much less intact ones, was never even considered.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 3:28 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
There are so many sensors on these vehicles now old school engineering feedback loops no longer apply
Posted on 3/14/24 at 3:58 pm to rt3
Elon Musk is GOAT! And the doors to his Dragon Spacecraft doesn't fall off like the doors on those Affirmative Action Jets over at Boeing.
Go Woke, Go Broke!
Go Woke, Go Broke!
Posted on 3/14/24 at 4:24 pm to rt3
After watching Scott Manley's video on it... they might've been putting the booster's grid fins to the test on reentry and that's why the engines were late for the landing burn
Page 12 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News