Meecrob

Fair enough, I'll concede that you can make any company go bankrupt if you try. The previous trajectory of SpaceX does not mean their future trajectory will be the same. They could drop the ball at any time hypothetically. Thanks for keeping me honest, lol. We have enough SpaceX fanboys up in here hahahaha!

Cool, I'm glad I mis-understood you in that way, it seems we are on the same page!

Thanks! Its great to have a laugh when I totally miss the point! Ok so now that I'm up to speed, am I correct in that they are going to transfer fuel from the header tanks to the main tanks or vice versa? As in not doing a Starship to Starship transfer?

I'm not sure Raptor is pressure-fed. I think its pump-fed.

There is no way SpaceX is going bankrupt. They as a single company, outpace all other launchers combined.

Ok, but the deluge system worked. Like we all saw the awesome shockwaves from the video...I'm not sure what your point is? Mine is that SpaceX reasonably knew they needed a deluge system, but they tried to get away without one. They obviously learned their lesson, as IFT-2 showed the effectiveness of their system. No concrete chunks tossed at high velocity to the surrounding areas.

Wait, so you are saying you don't get your own point? I thought you were trying to school me on how 100 devs who don't know the project are worse than 10 devs that are totally into the project kinda thing. I get I keep changing my wording...I am trying to be more accurate. Still though, you have yet to make any sense...none of you arguments actually opposed what I was saying. If you were golfing, you would be hooking it bigtime.

Oh, come on, you know that is not what I was getting at. If you just want to twist my words, then I'm done replying to you. Have a good one.

Where is yours? Glass house and all.

@Bej Kerman I'm trying to have a serious conversation here. Simpsons are funny, yes, I like that show too. Can you speak to the point? You assume I am not coherent enough to get that you are saying that it is faster to have 10 competent people do something as opposed to 100 incompetent people. I get your point...its not difficult to grasp. Can you get to where we can discuss this like adults?

Yeah, I explained I got that part...So what is up with the women and babies?

Maybe I don't get this, but, what? Who are the women and babies? And what does that have to do with game development? Dude, I get its harder to train new employees than to just do it yourself...but you therefore screwed yourself by not planning properly. I don't get why all the people who are programmers on this board argue this. They claim I don't get game development. I claim they don't get project management. They think its tomaytos vs tomahtos, but its much deeper. Seriously, just plan it out properly and you won't have to make excuses...

Good point, I'm guessing they erred too much on the side of "lets see if this works, and if it doesn't, we will add the deluge system." I totally agree, they kinda looked silly with the whole concrete tornado thing they had going on for IFT-1. My point was more specifically aimed at the fact that I think they already had the design down, they did not fabricate and install it because they were trying to get away with the least amount of infrastructure as possible. I think this time it was a misstep. they could have looked totally on the ball if they had've implemented their deluge system for IFT-1.

Nobody is asking for that. Put your strawman back in the barn. You assume because I want the game to not suck that I want it to be ruined? Don't assume my strategy is to hire a bunch of noobs and try to get them up to speed. Way to assume things. Seriously. I've had a job before, I get the concept of drowning in incompetence. Thanks for assuming that I'm not smart enough to get it. What I am asking for is for the existing devs to get on track. I never suggested they should hire a bunch of green noobs to help out. Like where did you get this idea from?

I have to admit, I have missed the point of how Pokemon relates to KSP? Like no offense, I don't care about Pokemon. I want a game that lets me play "space." I can bring up more examples than are necessary of franchises that made more money than KSP. I'm not on those message boards though, I'm here, talking about KSP...?

Just because something is completed does not mean it is the appropriate time to release it. If everyone wants one thing, and you give them something else entirely, you have to expect disappointment. You can't just be like "oh, it was a different department that dropped the ball" The whole point of a game being developed by a proper team is that everything is planned out and not haphazard. This isn't a couple guys coding a game in their college dorm in their spare time for fun. Imagine if you bought a car that has a defect in the steering system, and the car company is like "hey, we don't have the steering fixed yet, but check it out, we got you some new skins for your media player in the dash! Pretty neat, huh?"

Well, no, water cannot move a greater amount of water. What are you talking about? Edit: Overall, I think many commenting on this topic in general (I am not trying to attack anyone in this thread) have not had the experience in manual labour and basic physics to say that it is not realistic humans could just stack bricks. I would like to introduce basic technology such as the lever, pulley, inclined plane, etc.

Yeah, kinda like how in a couple hours, Concorde went from the safest to least safe commercial transport ever. Edit: I do honestly hope this update goes well, I'm not just here to rain on the parade. I'll believe it when I see it though.

Yes, but the question isn't "Can you design a Raptor to withstand these forces?" It is "What is the mass penalty?" Or if it was a different mode of failure, there are always ways to fix engineering issues. The question is "How much Mass can you give up, and how much Time and Money do you have to throw at it? We also know Elon absolutely loves the whole "no part is the best part" mantra. Sometimes, he is proven wrong. However, time and time again, there has been a part on the drawing board seemingly inhumanely soon after there is a failure. For example. the Water Deluge plates seem to have been almost fully designed at time of IFT-1. It seems they took the data from the flight test, validated their models/made some tweaks, and sent their order to the fabrication shop very shortly after the test completed. Having said that, my disclaimer is that I am going on logic. If anyone has actual data and not inferences, I'm all ears.

I thought the same at first, but the three centre engines stay lit. My guess is they wanted to test extreme forces on the booster, then when they broke it, the FTS kicked in to tick a box for the FAA. The benefits of being hardware rich.

Watch the video again. Look at the expansion rate of the plume at loss of vehicle. it propagates more uniformally circumferentially than chaotically...It was intended. Its the same way you can tell a man-made lake by how its shores are parallel, for example. Edit: having re-read what I said, I get how it can seem dubious without a high speed camera. Look I'll concede I have a theory, and I don't have the evidence to prove it.

Everyone is trying to say that the ship itself is not traveling along the longitudinal axis, but a tangential one with regards to the thought that the turbopumps could be put on a certain axis. The engines are all mounted in different axes. The solution is not putting that amount of force on the pumps to begin with. I suspect that if SpaceX was planning to FTS the booster, they pushed the limits to see what happens to the turbopumps. Those engines weren't coming back. Might as well gain data. This is "Test Flight"!! Everyone should remember that. They will maximize the amount of data they get back per vehicle/launch. They don't give two craps what the media thinks. They are playing the long game. Others upthread commented on how the CofG is probably in the thrust puck somewhere, or even lower at that point in flight. Not many have tried to maneuver such an unbalanced vehicle before, aside from Starship...SN15 rings a bell to me. Give them a try or two.

I get it, but think of "what is one test that they have the hardware to toss at?" The FAA was correct in asking "How can you make sure Starship rain does not fall on civilians? We don't care about superheavy really...it'll hit the Atlantic...we want a 100% positive demonstration of your ability to toss Starship up, and show us you can bring it down safely if something messes up before orbit." Edit: Wait, wait..the booster was totally an FTS...c'mon, it detonated too perfectly! Just because they did not declare it excplicitly as an FTS test means nothing. SpaceX is under no obligation to make sense to us. The booster had some problem I am still having fun trying to figure out, but they let it go a bit to gather data past when they knew it was done, as witnessed by the shutdown of engines on one "side." It was not aerodynamic forces that ripped it apart, it was an FTS detonation, then aerodynamic forces that took out the booster. It was more figuratively a "Challenger," as opposed to a " Columbia" to be crude.

Maybe both vehicles were supposed to be FTS'd? It was the biggest failure of the first launch. Launchpad was a second, but the fact that they could not reliably control when the rocket terminated is the main problem. Lets be real. We all love the "Little John" test. Elon does too. We all saw him giddy as poop when Grasshopper was FTS'd. The Crew Dragon test also ended in an explosion. I think he blows up his extra stuff. We are all trying to figure out what went wrong, when maybe nothing went wrong. It was maybe a test of the FTS system. That could be why it "failed" so far into the burn. And why Elon looked so chilled when they showed shots of him in the live feed?

I assume its a work in progress. If its a gag at my expense, that's pretty funny!