Codraroll

Some pictures of a launch from Yangjiang yesterday morning: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202312/06/WS656fbfb3a31090682a5f19e8_1.html I'm no expert on aerodynamics, but this could not possibly be healthy for the payload? No word on whether anything failed, but I wouldn't expect those authorities to admit failure even if the rocket exploded on live national television.

Only because Higgs' editor didn't like swearing. Higgs originally referred to it as "that goddamn particle", which was changed by the editor.

Never mind the tiles. The real treasure buried at the bottom of the sea would be the Superheavy grid fins. Those cost an absolute fortune to manufacture, and may have survived the explosion somewhat intact. They're probably stuck several meters deep in the mud, in mile-deep seas halfway to Florida, though ...

The same number of destroyed engines as 8 Proton flights, regardless of failure or success. And yes, this was a testing and development flight. That runs the risks of losing the hardware somewhat earlier than the best-case scenario (which in this case would also involve losing the hardware), but at least something new is learned and steps are taken to build a new, functional rocket design. You know, development. Functional space agencies do that sometimes.

Wouldn't be a surprise. Pretty much all Russian rocketry since the fall of the Soviet Union are "localized" Soviet designs, in some cases with new stickers.

Yeah, things seem to have played out a lot smoother than the last time. But it would be nice to see confirmation.

Now I want to see pictures of the launch pad. Hope it survived better than last time. The fact that all engines lit up indicates that there wasn't too much of a carnage there, at least.

That last glimpse we got of the Ship might have been its explosion. Wonder why that happened. It might have meant things weren't exactly as nominal as they seemed throughout the launch, separation, and second stage burn.

First stage RUD after separation! Pretty, though!

All engines shining in a pretty pattern like the LEDs in a flashlight. This might go as intended! But edit: My scrub prediction was wrong. I feel a little disappointed in the midst of all the elation

Hold at T-40. What does that mean, again?

I'm going to bet safe and say scrub. That'd at least leave me with the small satisfaction of being right, amidst all the other disappointment. If not scrub, then I guess it will make it up real high, but perhaps not to the intended orbit. Engine-outs are still a major risk.

Two questions immediately spring to mind here. The first is, how? Granted, there's a vacuum in space and a lack of gravitational force and all that, but the pressure differential in a tank is "just" 1 atm more than it would be on the ground, where we've had pressurized hydrocarbon tanks for very, very long. I can't see gravity - or the lack thereof - affecting the process that much either. Sure, there's less pressure at the top of a tank in gravity, but also more at the bottom. And if you go down to the molecular scale, what could possibly be going on to cause excessive boil-off? Neither the tank material or the gas/liquid would be any more prone to diffusion than on the ground. Hydrocarbons are big molecules, and tank walls are made to be vapour tight. Does the tank material age faster in space than previously assumed? If so, the ISS would have been in big trouble long before now. Are valves and flanges somehow less vapour tight in space? Again, the ISS doesn't seem perturbed by it. And there have been multiple instances of small-scale spacecraft operating fine in space for years before using their engines - and hence, their fuel - without any unexpected issues. The second is, assuming they have found out that boil-off is worse than previously thought, how did they find that out now? I mean, they haven't conducted an experimental test of large tanks filled with fuel in space yet (small tanks have been tested and found adequate for Mars trips already, as demonstrated by the multiple spacecraft that have landed there without succumbing to boil-off problems). Any calculations, simulations, or theoretical exercises they could have run to evaluate the feasibility of orbital fuel depots, surely NASA would have also run decades ago? The discovery on hitherto unknown boil-off problems would have required SpaceX to run an unprecedented research project on the subject. In that case, I presume we would have known about it earlier. I mean, it could be that they have discovered something new, but from existing knowledge, I don't understand what or how that could be.

This message is brought to you by Scissors, Inc.

Yes, but these numbers are about the safety of manufacturing the vehicles, not travelling with them.