Space x goes boom,,,, again

a reply to: Bluntone22

Oh poo...

originally posted by: Charliebrowndog
So There are consistent issues with Spacex performing and on this particular mission the went 6 miles high and then came back. Are we to really believe that the recent mission to Mars went off without a hitch?

If space flight is this difficult is NASA just that much better than Spacex or were they just lucky? Or is it all a hoax? I am no expert in space flight by any means but to me something doesn’t add up.

NASA has not attempted to reland and use rockets this increases the dificulty 10000 fold. Spaceex is trying to make the entire spacecraft and rocket reusable. This is amazing they managed to work out the kinks with booster rockets look like they have that down now. Now they are moving on to the main rocket stage there is going to be trial and error as no one has ever attempted this

But it will increase turn around time for rocket launches what used to take months of prep can be done in weeks.

a reply to: Charliebrowndog

The maths and engineering to get to Mars (and the moon) is tried and tested, and not just by NASA. Even that doesn't always work.

Trying a completely new design of rocket with a whole bunch of new techniques for it, not so much.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Ahh dude I didn't realise there was a live stream of the car in it's current condition?! please do feel free to share the link with the rest of us!

a reply to: dragonridr

You sound like a space x sales brochure.
NASA has done research and test on landing rockets but decided against them for economic reasons.

The rockets pretty much have to be taken apart after every launch and put back together.
There is also a much greater cost for a rocket to be passenger certified.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Yep... People going to Mars are looking at a miserable death likely sooner than later.

a reply to: schuyler

Probably break your legs there Schuler, that would be some jump.

a reply to: Bluntone22

cool thing is it nailed the landing , and sat for a good 5 minutes before blowing up and that was the SN10
they have the SN15 better model etc
so hopefully that will be the last time one goes boom on the landing pad

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Charliebrowndog

The maths and engineering to get to Mars (and the moon) is tried and tested, and not just by NASA. Even that doesn't always work.

What NASA found out is that if you mix metric and english units and don't keep them straight, the math doesn't work.

When NASA Lost a Spacecraft Due to a Metric Math Mistake

That's not the only conversion error, others are discussed at the link too. It's amazing how a simple thing like converting units can trip us up.

I don't know why the US hasn't converted to the metric system yet. There are other losses from juggling two unit systems, even in commercial operations, that aren't in the limelight like the NASA blunders.

a reply to: sapien82

Every failure is simply a learning process.

Blowing up down here is one thing.

But better here than on Mars with the crew, passengers, and 100 tons of payload.

I don't imagine it will be the last time we see a Space X vehicle go boom but practice makes perfect.

perhaps the Space X logo/ insignia should be changed from X to Cross-Bones (like a pirate flag)

Elon Musk is up to $179 Billion in personal fortune, so he's got the $$ to experiment a bunch on landings of those 'dated'... chemical-fueled rocket motors

a reply to: St Udio

as andy said above , better he experiments with no crew or payload and gets it right before we send the humans there

Id rather he spent his fortune testing than just going # it lets go!

a reply to: Bluntone22

You people going over that ocean to that new world “are looking at a miserable death likely sooner than later.”

Been said before and ignored.

Don’t go over that river, the dragons will eat you.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Bluntone22

You people going over that ocean to that new world “are looking at a miserable death likely sooner than later.”

Been said before and ignored.

Don’t go over that river, the dragons will eat you.

And they were right..
A bunch of people died...
Same is true with Mars..

A big difference is that being a different planet with a 3rd of earth's gravity, no magnetic field and no oxygen you have some much larger problems to overcome.

a reply to: Bluntone22

What they are trying to do is difficult. Ever try to balance a pencil with one finger? That is what they are tryingt to do landing a rocket back at its launch site. If i had to guess what the problem is its dissapating heat. To fight earths gravity requires alot of thrust which means it builds up alot of heat.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yep..
NASA thought so when they did it 30 years ago.

youtu.be...

a reply to: dragonridr

It was leaking fuel, which then ignited. Whether the leak was caused by the "soft" landing or something else I do not know.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: dragonridr

It was leaking fuel, which then ignited. Whether the leak was caused by the "soft" landing or something else I do not know.

When you consider that a rocket is basically a "controlled" explosion and that it's greatest stress is at takeoff, it's not surprising that something fails after a second high stress event on landing.

I read that each test Starship is relatively inexpensive for a launch vehicle -- extraordinarily so. The estimate I saw was roughly $2 million for everything but the three Raptor engines, which supposedly cost about $2 million each. These are pure guesstimates of course; could be wildly inaccurate. But Musk is the richest person in the world, and I think he's much more concerned about reaching Mars in a hurry than half a dozen failed test flights.

Anyone here know why they apparently skipped some numbers on the SNs? As far as I know, they have SN11 almost ready and I keep hearing they're working on SN15. What about 12, 13 and 14?