Codraroll Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 (edited) 1 minute ago, RCgothic said: WOW: Well, that's something to modify for the next attempt ... Edited April 20, 2023 by Codraroll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pthigrivi Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 My wife: Did it happen? Me: Yeah! My wife: And did it make it to orbit? Me: Oh no it spun out of control and blew up. My wife: Wait it BLEW UP? Me: Oh yeah like a few times. It was awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said: Me: Oh yeah like a few times. It was awesome. "Everyone cheered!" "Awww, people are so mean." "No, I mean all the SpaceX people were cheering" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 7 minutes ago, RCgothic said: WOW: That is not norminal. Maybe this whole "we don't need no flame trench" business was ill-advised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 5 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said: It seems like right after it started the gravity turn, it was already not pointed prograde. My guess is that losing 20% of the engines impacted TWR too much, and we all know how much more drag you get when you try to fly your rocket sideways! Maybe it didn't separate because it hadn't reached the appointed altitude? I reacted on that it wanted to separate at only 2000 km/h while falcon 9 does this at 6-8.000 km/h. Now Starship was empty and would not try to burn to land. On the other hand it was 4 engines out at liftoff and it has an serious TWR if all are running and they could cut short on the boost back burn so it might not push as hard as falcon 9 first stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropian Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 At this rate they could just keep launching and have the rockets build the trench for them xD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 Just now, Entropian said: At this rate they could just keep launching and have the rockets build the trench for them xD You ninjaed me there. on the other hand an flame trench does not go under the launch pad support structure. As said thick metal plates, if they get to hot weld together hollow beams and pressurize with water, drill holes in the top so it can escape. Now I get that they want it flat under the pad so they can service the engines but it need armor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 13 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said: My wife: Did it happen? Me: Yeah! My wife: And did it make it to orbit? Me: Oh no it spun out of control and blew up. My wife: Wait it BLEW UP? Me: Oh yeah like a few times. It was awesome. I literally had the same interaction via txt with my wife, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DECQ Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 N1 v2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 10 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: That is not norminal. Maybe this whole "we don't need no flame trench" business was ill-advised. Outta reactions. Yeah, this is an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 They propably have to reconsider their whole approach, maybe go for a traditional launchpad like LC-39 with lots of water. A reusable rocket is of no use if the launchpad isnt reusable... Just now, DECQ said: N1 v2 Thats what i thought, too. Looks like failing engines took out controls/hydraulics, just like N1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 Just now, Elthy said: They propably have to reconsider their whole approach, maybe go for a traditional launchpad like LC-39 with lots of water. A reusable rocket is of no use if the launchpad isnt reusable... The offshore platforms are looking like a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropian Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, magnemoe said: on the other hand an flame trench does not go under the launch pad support structure it does now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 Hoppy is not ok: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 Just now, tater said: The offshore platforms are looking like a good idea. To bad they sold them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 1 hour ago, sevenperforce said: For one brief moment the camera started shaking from the force and wobble back-and-forth and it looks like the rocket was bending at the center. I know they ran the engines at lower throttle than they could have, but it really crept off the pad slowly. I wonder what the damage to the pad looks like and I also wonder whether they are able to see if tiles were lost on lift off. Something was falling off, but I assumed it was ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 1 hour ago, RCgothic said: I know we were expecting a flip, but looking at EA's stream the flip seemed to happen concurrent with something happening aft. I’m guessing they just lost too many engines on one side to keep the craft stable through gimbal and throttle control. While it is very impressive to see it still flying after that many engine failures, it does speak to the viability of the current engine design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 5 minutes ago, magnemoe said: As said thick metal plates, if they get to hot weld together hollow beams and pressurize with water, drill holes in the top so it can escape. The concern with metal plates was that the spalling could be worse than with concrete because concrete disintegrates but metal can slough off like the shaped charge in an antitank missile. Clearly nothing could be worse than this, in terms of spalling. The concrete just got deleted out of existence. They may need to go to a super-heavy...uh...ultra-heavy?...steel diverter and just flood the hell out of it. Way, way more water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Gargamel said: I’m guessing they just lost too many engines on one side to keep the craft stable through gimbal and throttle control. While it is very impressive to see it still flying after that many engine failures, it does speak to the viability of the current engine design. Yeah, they were way too low and slow for it to be stage sep time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve9728 Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 18 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said: My wife: Did it happen? Me: Yeah! My wife: And did it make it to orbit? Me: Oh no it spun out of control and blew up. My wife: Wait it BLEW UP? Me: Oh yeah like a few times. It was awesome. Same thing happened with my gf. $3 billion firework is not something you can see everyday hahaha Thank you Musk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 5 minutes ago, Elthy said: Looks like failing engines took out controls/hydraulics, just like N1. To have come so far and learned so little.... Spoken in jest, of course. We obviously know far more than Korolev did. But it does seem like the same issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 21 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said: My wife: Did it happen? Me: Yeah! My wife: And did it make it to orbit? Me: Oh no it spun out of control and blew up. My wife: Wait it BLEW UP? Me: Oh yeah like a few times. It was awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Hoppy is not ok: What was it Chuck Yeager used to say -- any landing you can walk away from is a good landing? From Hoppy's perspective, any launch where Hoppy is left still standing is a good launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 One could say "Jingle bells", but based on the video, they should obviously check the quaternion calculation routine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastleKSide Posted April 20, 2023 Share Posted April 20, 2023 The decision not to build a full launchpad with flame diverter plus water deluge and instead go with something looking like piece of concrete modern art always seemed like the most insane out of all thier engineering decisions. Yes, even more than rocket catching Kung Fu panda chopsticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.