281–290 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, neither is the rocket.
More of a 500 class error on the rocket however.
Edit: This is basically how automated FTS works, folks. Follow parameters of the flight, and if an "exception" occurs, solve the situation by exploding the rocket over a safe spot, before it veers too much off course.
Second stage lost, looks like the flight termination system did its job. Unknown as to why yet. Going to be very very interesting to see the data that's released from this as well as all the higher quality video/stills that surface.
AFTS activation indicates deviation from planned trajectory. It's unusual, being so late in the burn. Could be a guidance issue, but SpaceX should be pretty good at that by now. Could be engine underperformance, but we got nominal callouts and it would have to be pretty bad for AFTS to notice with minutes left, so that seems unlikely. I'd guess engine control (due to damage during staging) is the main suspect. We say…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect Starship would also go a lot faster with the weight of the President directly behind it, helping to remove those pesky regulatory issues :)
Start of the Apollo program literally precedes the Clean Air Act, establishment of EPA etc. When the government decided to build Kennedy Space Center in Florida wilderness, they just did. No lengthy environmental impact assessment process in the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Start of the Apollo program literally precedes the Clean Air Act, establishment of EPA etc. When the government decided to build Kennedy Space Center in Florida wilderness, they just did. No lengthy environmental impact assessment process in the way.
Sure, but most of the (anyways rapid) turnaround time from Starship launch #1 to #2 was rebuilding and deluge system .. can't be more than a month or two max delay attributed to regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine explaining to the court that the passengers were blown up by your AI algorithm... I expect these things are only on test flights indeed.
I'm pretty sure Falcon 9 carrying crew has an AFTS. Challenger was destroyed by an FTS system as well despite having crew on board. I think it's just a risk you have to take to go on a rocket ride.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Dragon_In-Flight_Abort_Te...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would recommend using the Nasa link posted above, since it's on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOI35G7cP7o
> the Nasa link *NASASpaceflight NASASpaceflight.com (and their Youtube channel) has no affiliation with NASA.
It's extremely sketchy, and I wish NASA would do something to protect their trademark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im not interpreting their message as negative. Something obviously went wrong, the termination system was activated, and it blew up. Thats what it’s supposed to do when activated.
>Im not interpreting their message as negative. But shouldn't it be interpreted as negative? It blew up.
@dang: can you please fix the link? It's supposed to be https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1dRKZEWQvrXxB
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the fact that it survived long enough for the second stage to get on its way was incredible in itself. We'll see how it goes!
Both the booster and ship have been destroyed. SpaceX can keep claiming these RUDs are 'fine' and 'we're getting data', but the rest of the industry does not consider it normal or a "success." Hotstaging didn't "work" until they can demonstrate the Starship vehicle survives orbital insertion, re-entry, and landing without damage or malfunction caused by the hotstaging.
https://youtu.be/w9OsSN2kJrk?si=FZ30c9jmkMOmYo3n&t=180
Certainly doesn't sound like the folks who built the thing thought it was a failure.