I wonder what's that tiny thing that seems to have broken off some two seconds before it hit the ground?
Watching it in slow motion, it looks almost like pieces of insulating foil.
SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
51–60 of 317 posts
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#52Love seeing these tests for two reasons: 1.) Experiencing history in the making, especially knowing that the SpaceX team will eventually get it right. 2.) Realizing that even the best of the best have repeated failures and need to rely on iteration to get "there."
On the 'repeated failures' piece, that's somewhat new for aerospace. Traditionally, things would be over-engineered, and losing a test vessel would be considered a bad thing. SpaceX seems very content to blow up a bunch of rockets on their way towards not blowing up rockets.
This seems to have caused at least part of their recent issues with the FAA, who seem to be less ok with explosions. It will be very interesting to see if this iterative approach leads to more reliable rockets down the line!
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#53When you look at the history of the space race between Soviets vs USA, one thing that is clear is the approach used by both countries to engineer their craft were very different. The Soviets would do design by testing and blow up many rockets and gather data vs the USA which would be more up-front about it's design and design testing before gong live. SpaceX clearly took the Soviet's approach to rocket design. EDIT:…
Does anyone know some good books that explore the space race? I've read Carrying the Fire(which was excellent), but it doesn't touch much on what the Soviets were doing.
This biography of the chief rocket designer of the Soviets, Sergei Korolev, is also a good introduction to the Soviet space program.
https://www.amazon.com/Korolev-Masterminded-Soviet-Drive-Ame...
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As of 2020, there have been 15 astronaut and 4 cosmonaut fatalities during spaceflight. Astronauts have also died while training for space missions, such as the Apollo 1 launch pad fire which killed an entire crew of three The numbers don't really seem to support your assertion that NASA is generally much safer than Soviet/Russia
At least 126 technicians and cosmonauts were killed by accidents during the Soviet space program. It’s rumored that additional cosmonauts died on missions that the Soviets covered up.
We also lost all three astronauts in a test of the Apollo capsule which doesn’t count as flight but I think we would agree still counts in the buckets of blood both programs have spent.
If you do more tests which kill more people before declaring the system good, you don’t get to not count those people like it’s a different color of money in some bureaucratic dystopia.
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#55Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#56For both SN8 and SN9 my brain is screaming at me "surely they need more than 3 engines?!" Is the ultimate expectation that the engines will never fail, because it sure seems like they can't deal with losing even a single engine. I'm sure this is completely incorrect given that the issue for SN8 was tank pressure.
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#57Illustration how "move fast and break things" in aerospace domain works.
Honestly, my main takeaway from this testing and Falcon 9 dev has been that we should be doing a whole lot more of that than we have been, at least until there are human passengers. The contrast in rate of progress with eg SLS is stunning.
We knew this since watching how much the Russians got done in the time they had for the resources. Put the engineers together with the manufactures, build often, test more.
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#58Another amazing test flight! Can't wait for SN10. I understand they have already started the last step of construction which is fitting the Raptor engines to SN10. Should be ready to fly very soon.
You loved the quality of the explosion. Did you?
Bigger the explosion, the more promising is the venture! NOT
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#59For both SN8 and SN9 my brain is screaming at me "surely they need more than 3 engines?!" Is the ultimate expectation that the engines will never fail, because it sure seems like they can't deal with losing even a single engine. I'm sure this is completely incorrect given that the issue for SN8 was tank pressure.
It's my understanding currently that a 'production' starship will have three central engines optimized for sea level, and additionally three vacuum-optimized engines installed around its inside base perimeter.
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#60And that's why you have an assembly line for Starships: https://i.redd.it/dmr9bjhpcee61.jpg (SN9 lacking the RUD symbol in that image of course.)
Also note that BN1 (which is the booster stage) is getting close to completion! I wonder when we'll see one of those fly?
I saw photos a few days ago that the base piece of the BN1, which will need to hold the weight of the entire thing and thrust mounts for the engines has been spotted at boca chica.