JoeSchmuckatelli

Because that is not the design process of STS. They're on the 'zero defects' with public money train. Partly because before SX started this whole thing they announced 'move fast and break things' and then along the way rebuilt domestic rocket capabilities that are both innovative and regularly functional. I can't even get the general population interested in space or rockets at all - to them it's background noise. But, yeah, if STS tried this with public funding they'd be liquided. OTOH - if the companies that make up the STS team paid for rapid iterations and then sold a finished product to the US? Might be a different take

Motie novel(s) shields had problems. Although, tbh, you could fly into a star with them. Point defense is cool looking. What I might remind is that the entire history of humanity shows a stagger - step march of offense vs defense, with each improvement in one begetting an advancement in the other (although time scales are not uniform by any means).

Smaller pieces burn up more easily, too. So FTS really only needs to cut it into chunks. Whole thing was moving abt 24k kmh when it went boom - so all of the little pieces, especially not particularly shaped to reduce drag pieces, get nice and hot

What site is there that speculates with some reliability about the differences between iterations? Is there anything significant between Ship 25 and Ship 28? Or Booster 9 vs 10 (besides the obvious hot staging vent ring being missing)? Just wondering, given the speed of the iteration's production vs launch attempts and lessons learned whether they can do much more besides software / easily accessible exterior equipment.

Spoke too soon Puerto Rico https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fbooster-and-ship-weather-radar-debris-clouds-from-re-entry-v0-or8dmedi151c1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1826%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D84968b88c0b6af7d978b238a20a74ff1163f6322 (debris track)

I'm actually surprised at the lack of debris reentry projections.

I looked at sea-level weight vs mountain weight a long time ago and the difference is tiny - quick google shows a New York Times article that a person who weighs 150lbs at sea level (New York Hipster Male?) would only weigh 149.92 lbs at 10,000 feet. So not thinking there's a gravity disadvantage to your scenario. We've also previously discussed the advantages (or not) of dedicated rail / onsite construction at the equatorial Andes vis-a-vis atmosphere pressure & etc. and IIRC, it was a negligible savings. (Cannot math you an answer - but perhaps good enough?)

Turns out it is harder than I thought to google a quick answer to the terminal velocity of an object dropped into the ocean as it hits the bottom. Anyone know how fast the gridfins were going on sea-floor impact?

Yeah - but I'm talking about a system to close down baffles after fuel has been expended. To keep the fuel where it should be. Mind you - I know nothing about liquid rocket fuel and the problems of tank pressurization - and had never even considered slosh until @sevenperforce mentioned it. So my lay image is that once the flip happens and centrifugal forces are keeping the fuel together, that any slosh taking fuel past the baffles = fuel staying past the baffles. (Assumes that engine cutoff = coasting / freefall) So without a way to cut off baffles, what you effectively get is puddles of fuel between baffles - all separated by gasses. Relighting the engines should pull all the fuel back towards the engines, of course, but doesn't that mean a problem with bubbles/gas in the intakes? Shrug. Don't know - just spitballing.

Stupid question time. If Slosh is a factor can't they partition the tanks? Seems like some kind of inflatable valve or something that closes off the top (or top half) of the tanks after some significant period of burn / propellant use would restrict fuel to the lower end of the tanks near the engines during the flip. From watching the flip - it looks like centrifugal force should keep much of the fuel engine-ward, but after the maneuver? Clearly they've resolved any issue with F9 - but Booster is a different beast. Anyone know what they did with F9? Quick - bum rush the beach and find Tiles! EBay here we come!

Looked actually like only one lag. The outer ring does a 'groups of three' thing - with only one rocket on the left not lighting with the others. The final five all seem to light together

I know. I have to tell my students that while the 300 did not 'win' at Thermopylae, they did 'accomplish the mission'. So, yeah. Not achieving total success can be called failure... but again, everything is relative. Looking forward to how rapidly they can test the next iteration. Given what did / did not occur during the previous attempt; this certainly achieved several other milestones down the line toward a 'successful flight' (hopefully in the near future!).

CNN has a good view of the flip (@ 2:40 in the vid) See moment SpaceX launched world's most powerful rocket (cnn.com) - and to my untrained eye, it looked great. Ship flipped and looked to end up with the rockets in line with direction of travel. (Much better than random tumble!) I've stared at the top end (trailing) of the booster over and over again and can't see anything particularly wrong. Looks like the ignition did not go well - leading me to think @sevenperforce 's comment about 'slosh' might be a culprit. (the 'venting' I see in this vid looks more like the attitude thrusters more than anything)

Gotta love France. SpaceX Starship test flight fails minutes after launch on second attempt (france24.com) (I mean, the press) I call this a successful flight test. "Failure" is relative.

Everyday was there. No dust complaints from them this time.

Everyday Astronaut showed a cam angle that indicates minimal if any damage - at least nothing on the scale of the first oops. All the press cams were still standing. Some possible debris - but maybe not debris in the shot - which, tbh, was very far from the pad. So... yeah... looking for someone's better angle on the pad environ Interesting how far the exhaust cloud spreads in that loop. Also - I would have thought SS was a LOT further down range when it went boom. Thanks for the link!

The commentary I heard was LOSignal - there's apparently a lack of ground options along the flight path and the hope was that Starlink could pick up (also part of the test). But that's just commentary. There's possibilities including they saw something they did not like and blew it, or perhaps there was a robot system on the ship set to blow it if something went wrong. Truth / reasonable explanation probably coming out soon.

and impressively First stage BOOM left no doubt about the FTS - and from the puff at the end guessing SS disassembled as designed.

If I could have recorded my wife and son's running commentary on my excitement (and running commentary) about the launch... You would all be amused. Apparently, my hair was every bit as entertaining as my nerd-citement.

I barely woke up in time. My alarm went off, and I automatically snoozed it. Then my brain said, "Why is there an alarm going off on Saturday?"... Oh Crap! Jumped up and got to the TV just in time to see the candle light - and wow

@Gargamel -- Thanks for getting me back on the forums in time for this!

Those Raptors burning were gorgeous!

Freaking beautiful launch!

Good RUD (not the nominal result desired) But if you had to RUD, no one can complain about that one

Yep. Throwing a large space rock at the earth likely violates several environmental and OSHA regulations.