These damn JavaScript powered rockets keep crashing on bootup!
Don't worry, they also fly a-plenty in the meantime, see Falcon-9 list of flights.
SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
111–120 of 317 posts
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
*While building the first space rockets in the world, literally making it up as they went. That's not quite the same situation SpaceX is in right now.
Actually it is the same situation. The launch was fine. What blew it up is something nobody has attempted before.
It's totally different because only the government is allowed second chances! Everyone else has to get it right the first time. Especially if they're competing with !
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX Starship is way outside established industry specifications.
How so?
No orbital upper stage has been rapidly reusable.
No existing rocket has tried to perform either the "belly flop" or the "Landing flip manouver" that SpaceX is trying to do.
The failures are due to complex issues (fuel tanks, valves, engine reliability under complex forces) not simple control system issues (choosing wrong thrust, not able to orient using thrusters, etc)
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#114I am impressed by the camera angles. How do you think they filmed the last parts? With a drone?
The initial star-hopper ("Water tower") is several stories high and covered with cameras pointed at the launch site. That would be my guess.
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#115When 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.
I'd strongly recommend Boris Chertok's "Rockets and People" - https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/rockets_people_vol1_deta... . 4-volume first hand account (Chertok's immediate boss was Korolev and then Mishin, of N-1 fame, and Glushko, Energiya-Buran) . Really good memoirs about Soviet side of things.
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#116I’m not sure if I’d call that a landing.
It landed. It just can't fly again. ;)
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Also keep in mind that it's already doing what pre-F9 rockets did: go up. The RUDs so far are on landing attempts. Landing is a whole lot harder.
Unfortunately it seems like traditional aerospace now has a very big lever to pull to get SpaceX shut down: public opinion following the reasoning "rocket go boom. go boom bad. rocket bad".
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#118I'm very impressed by how it's coasting on the fins down the atmosphere. I had never even heard that idea discussed before I saw SN8 do it. Of course, they'll have to land some other way on Mars or the Moon.
it will be coasting on its fins during atmospheric entry for mars EDL. (Old-ish) video simulation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDTZEVMArBE
That phase wipes off >99% of the total energy required to get to 0 m/s, which is pretty remarkable because Mars' atmosphere is ~1% of Earth's.
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#119For 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.
Indeed. Those engines are currently missing partially because there's no reason to lose more engines than strictly necessary and also because they only need that much thrust when the fuel tanks are completely full.
If they decide to lift the StarShip from sea level completely full they will need to use only sea level engines (not vacuum optimized) or risk engine damage. Of course in production the booster will put the StarShip (upper stage) well above sea level.
Re: SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing
#120For 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.
> because it sure seems like they can't deal with losing even a single engine
Define "deal with". This rocket did 100% of what any rocket was ever supposed to do, before SpaceX came along and redefined what a rocket is supposed to do: go up.