Space x go boom

The test of a new rocket failed on landing.

Cant find a news link yet but it was on Twitter.


arstechnica.com...


Gotta break a few eggs they say.


www.spacex.com...

a reply to: Bluntone22

I missed it!!!



I usually get a notification from SpaceX before a luanch.

Foooey!
👇👇👇👇 forward to edit: 6:50

a reply to: Bluntone22

They've enjoyed a rather high success rate with their launches, this was to be expected at some point.

a reply to: djz3ro

After 60 years rockets still fail around 1% of the time. They are complicated and one failed piece can destroy the whole thing.

That's why I always get a good laugh when people believe that we will be going on weekend trips to the moon.

a reply to: Bluntone22

At least it missed the other rocket.

a reply to: gortex

Good point, great point...

So they got the landing pad down. They just can't stick the landing.

Looks like they over corrected the vertical sweet spot and was a bit fast approaching. They can get 2 separate rockets to land perfectly at Cape Canaveral, but this one is a biggy😥

And to think of all the homeowners down there were holding out for prime viewing payouts.. windows would have been a great weekly business. But Space X got Imminent Domain. Good call.

a reply to: Bigburgh

I'm surprised that the launch site allows them to land. It's a huge risk to the infastructure.

Thought it was off till Thursday??

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Bigburgh

I'm surprised that the launch site allows them to land. It's a huge risk to the infastructure.

The control center is 2 miles from the launch pad. But yea it's ballzy.

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: gortex

Good point, great point...

So they got the landing pad down. They just can't stick the landing.

Looks like they over corrected the vertical sweet spot and was a bit fast approaching. They can get 2 separate rockets to land perfectly at Cape Canaveral, but this one is a biggy😥

And to think of all the homeowners down there were holding out for prime viewing payouts.. windows would have been a great weekly business. But Space X got Imminent Domain. Good call.

Relax, that's only the second time they flew starship in that configuration. It wasn't long ago that this was deemed "impossible" by many prominent scientists.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Bigburgh

I'm surprised that the launch site allows them to land. It's a huge risk to the infastructure.

It’s SpaceX’s private launch/landing site, so they’re willing to take the risk. However, they do have to evacuate the residents of the nearby village for just such events as this.

It looks like this failure was very similar to the last one, so they obviously still haven’t fixed the problem. What this test is simulating is the return of the starship from space. It enters the atmosphere in an extreme nose-up attitude (about 45 degrees above the horizontal—just like the Space Shuttle did). That’s to spread the atmospheric heating over as much of the spaceship body as possible and avoid hot spots that could burn through the skin. After it bleeds off all the excess speed of entry, it falls vertically, like a sky diver. Those two big fins on the front basically act like a sky diver’s arms to keep it falling in the horizontal attitude. That scrubs off as much vertical velocity as possible so that when the landing comes the rockets have to do the least amount of work. But at some point, the starship has to transition from a horizontal attitude to a vertical attitude falling tail first and then re-light the rocket motors for the soft landing. Since there are only a few seconds left in the flight trajectory by the time you have to do that maneuver, there is basically zero margin for error. If there is any hiccup, there is no time to recover.

What happened last time—and looks like it happened this time—is that when the ship flips from falling in the horizontal attitude to falling in the tail first attitude it momentarily uncovers the fuel feed line so one or more of the motors gets starved for fuel. When the motors can’t generate all the thrust they’re supposed to, you can’t come to zero vertical velocity while you’re still above ground.

They absolutely, positively have to get this fixed because this is supposed to be a human rated vehicle.

Was the video in the OP from today, because it looked like the last test they ran?

a reply to: 1947boomer

Also it looked like they were testing if they could pilot it with only 2 of the 3 main engines. Did they do that the first flight?

Seemed to do well on two engines till the end.

It looked like there was a few hickups during the flight and descent to me.

Hopefully they captured a lot of good data.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
Was the video in the OP from today, because it looked like the last test they ran?

Yes it was.
When I posted it had happened a few minutes earlier so I didn’t have a video.

Two engines are supposed to re-light for the flip and then one shuts down for the landing. It looked like only one engine re-lit.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: 1947boomer

Also it looked like they were testing if they could pilot it with only 2 of the 3 main engines. Did they do that the first flight?

Seemed to do well on two engines till the end.

It looked like there was a few hickups during the flight and descent to me.

Hopefully they captured a lot of good data.

I think the way it’s supposed to work is that the central engine fires first to put a little bit of forward acceleration on the vehicle. That’s supposed to settle the fuel that remains into the bottom of the fuel tank. Then the other two engines beside the central engine fire up to actually perform the braking and landing maneuver. You need at least two so that you can correct side to side motions as well as bring the vehicle to zero velocity at the moment of touch down. Only one of the two fired up to full power, initially. That didn’t allow the vehicle to fully slow down or become fully upright at the moment of contact with the ground.

It really, really amazes me just why Musk and now Bezos put so much money into these ventures. When you bring it down to the bottom line they are just glorified fireworks. If they want to spend oodles of money look into more futuristic forms to get vehicles into space.
It's exactly the same technology as NASA used for the moon shots only scaled down. And this technology has been around for nearly 80 years but with slight twists. Technology evolution it aint.

originally posted by: crayzeed
It really, really amazes me just why Musk and now Bezos put so much money into these ventures. When you bring it down to the bottom line they are just glorified fireworks. If they want to spend oodles of money look into more futuristic forms to get vehicles into space.
It's exactly the same technology as NASA used for the moon shots only scaled down. And this technology has been around for nearly 80 years but with slight twists. Technology evolution it aint.

I think they just need to get to orbit and then once they begin selling trips (like they just recently announced) they can begin the real projects in space. At this point it is a money suck but with contracts with government and private trips it will expand their capabilities. Getting the materials up there is the hardest part, and then you can construct additional craft in orbit to go to other locations, experiments etc. and we can get to farther destinations.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The test of a new rocket failed on landing.

Cant find a news link yet but it was on Twitter.


arstechnica.com...


Gotta break a few eggs they say.


www.spacex.com...

I love how at the end of the video the dude says everything else was great, just have to work on that landing a little bit....made me belly laugh.

They should just refer to the technology we had for the 1969 moon landing.