[dead]
Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
511–520 of 559 posts
Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
#512Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good one. :-) SLS, anyone?
Good one? Silly Lizard String? Consider a more substantial contribution the next time, this reeks of some sort of internalized battle the rest of us don't know about, and projection of it onto others.
If you're trying to elevate the discussion here, I recommend you stop being so aggressive and sarcastic when chastising someone for being playful
Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
#513- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)
I previously said that if the launch works through staging, SpaceX fans would declare it a success. Personally, that seems like a pretty low bar compared to things like Saturn V and even STS, both of which launched successfully to orbit the first time.
cratermoon, you strike me as a rocket enthusiast. Take a look at a little-known rocket called "Falcon 9". Had more test failures than most rockets had launches. You can use that to help strengthen your argument that they really don't know what they're doing over there
Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely the final Starship carrying passengers will not have auto flight termination?
As I understand it, on crewed flights of the Falcon 9 the AFTS is somehow integrated with the abort system so that it is impossible for it to detonate without the capsule having a few seconds to get to safety first. I don't see how this would work for Starship, since it won't have an abort system.
For the first flights of the space shuttle it was fitted with ejection seats, though how useful they would have been in reality is questionable.
Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely the final Starship carrying passengers will not have auto flight termination?
As I understand it, on crewed flights of the Falcon 9 the AFTS is somehow integrated with the abort system so that it is impossible for it to detonate without the capsule having a few seconds to get to safety first. I don't see how this would work for Starship, since it won't have an abort system.
Probably the same. Even with an abort system, aborting isn't an option throughout the whole flight.
Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's the other way around. NASA flew the shuttle 135 times and lost two of them, but they kept going after the first failure. And both failures followed NASA being advised of the root cause before the orbiters' destruction, and NASA management ignored the advice. Meanwhile the safety track record for Falcon 9 exceeds that of the shuttle, and it exceeded it before humans were put on top of Falcon 9. The Apollo…
Lip-service to safety versus actual safety that looks unsafe. I deal with bureaucracies a lot and this is how they do everything: it has to look good, but they don’t actually care to make things good. E.g.: fill out a ton of paperwork about how secure the web application is against hacking, but nobody reviews the source code for vulnerabilities. Or they fill out the paperwork and report the app as “secure” even when…
It was five nines "safe".
Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's the other way around. NASA flew the shuttle 135 times and lost two of them, but they kept going after the first failure. And both failures followed NASA being advised of the root cause before the orbiters' destruction, and NASA management ignored the advice. Meanwhile the safety track record for Falcon 9 exceeds that of the shuttle, and it exceeded it before humans were put on top of Falcon 9. The Apollo…
Lip-service to safety versus actual safety that looks unsafe. I deal with bureaucracies a lot and this is how they do everything: it has to look good, but they don’t actually care to make things good. E.g.: fill out a ton of paperwork about how secure the web application is against hacking, but nobody reviews the source code for vulnerabilities. Or they fill out the paperwork and report the app as “secure” even when…
GP might have meant that NASA is more risk-averse in the business sense of the word risk, as in they don't want to risk failure, therefore they don't risk success. SpaceX definitely doesn't have that sort of risk aversion.
Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
#518- Starship got just below orbit - Booster destroyed during hot staging - SpaceX reporting that destruct system fired on upper stage towards end of burn all in all a pretty good result: clean launch and separation, good performance on the booster during ascent (no engine mishaps this time)
Also worth mentioning that all engines on the first stage successfully ran until separation of the second stage. On the first flight, a number of engines didn't light and more shut down early.
Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
#519Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starship didn't really start in a meaningful way in 2012. In 2012 there were at best some vague concepts of a large rocket and some initial concept ideas for Raptor. But at that time for Raptor they were still thinking about Hydrolox. SpaceX simply didn't have the resource to fully invest in Starship until much later. Even by the early presentations around 2016 it was a tiny part of SpaceX and was prototyping with li…
Well, whether you want to call it 8/9 years ('61-'69) or 14 ('55-'69), I don't think NASA looks too shabby landing men on the moon in that time frame without the decades of experience we have to draw on today, and with 1950's/60's technology, and so far no-one else has done it.
Yeah they did less than 20 launches, had 6 successful missions, and then had to kill the program because the costs were too high at a $500B equivalent annual budget. Apollo 1 also burnt up and killed 3 astronauts on the ground.
Modern day NASA could not redo the Saturn V missions again. They lost the talent that achieved those missions a long time ago.
Re: Starship Integrated Flight Test 2 at 7 Am Central Time
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an industry term. Lithobraking is too.
Oh, I know. I used to work at NASA. But I still think it's a delightful euphemism. (And yes, I'm being ironic.)
Is it a humoristic (sarcastic) style form, or just a very neutral, matter of fact, professional assessment? I can't tell, in part, I guess, due to esl.