Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Skylon

By Skylon
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

Codraroll

Codraroll

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

All this could have been avoided by following standard industry practice of doing full up(all engines), full mission length, and full power static testing of stages.

It is clear and evident you do not understand the arguments that prove this assumption to be false. You keep bringing it up as fact despite repeated, thorough, and well-researched posts that show it to be a falsehood. Do you even acknowledge that those arguments were written? Are you capable of addressing even one of those points? If not, it should be time to re-evaluate your assumption. Or are you just unwilling? If so, what differentiates your endless harping on the subject from outright trolling?

Edited by Codraroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DAL59

DAL59

Posted
Posted

Docking and prop transfer demo will use Starship V3- so definitely won't meet the Q1 2025 goal, and probably not this year either. However, HLS will remain V2 derived, so if the refueling flights use V3, fewer launcher will be needed to refuel the smaller V2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Meecrob

Meecrob

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Yo Homies, I've just done a deal with Elon

You idiots think I be trolling, lol

14 hours ago, Codraroll said:

It is clear and evident you do not understand the arguments that prove this assumption to be false. You keep bringing it up as fact despite repeated, thorough, and well-researched posts that show it to be a falsehood. Do you even acknowledge that those arguments were written? Are you capable of addressing even one of those points? If not, it should be time to re-evaluate your assumption. Or are you just unwilling? If so, what differentiates your endless harping on the subject from outright trolling?

Dude, he's just a closeted Blue Origin lover...leave him alone

I mean, I take the liquid out of him all the time, but he is actually smart, just unguided kinda thing.

Edited by Meecrob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Exoscientist

Exoscientist

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

You idiots think I be trolling, lol

Dude, he's just a closeted Blue Origin lover...leave him alone

I mean, I take the liquid out of him all the time, but he is actually smart, just unguided kinda thing.

 Actually not a Blue Origin fan over SpaceX.  Let me give you an analogy. My wife and I are fans of the show American Greed. Often we marvel at the complexity of the schemes the fraudsters go through to acquire their wealth. We frequently ask, if they could do all that, they could become wealthy just doing it honestly. 

 That is similar to how I feel about SpaceX. It began at the very beginning from how they described their testing. Why call a little 7 second burn “full duration”? Every other space company has done short burn time tests before and they just call them that: tests of that short burn time. They reserve the term “full duration” for tests that are supposed to emulate an actual flight at its full flight burn time and full flight power level. The only reason I could think of for SpaceX wanting to use the term for such short burns was to give an unwarranted inference as to the Raptor reliability.

 The Apollo missions were the most spectacular successes in the history of spaceflight, while the Soviet N-1 rocket provided the most spectacular failures. Why on Earth then would you choose to follow the N-1 approach of testing in flight? Again the only thing I could think of is following standard industry practice where you had to do full up(all engine), full flight burn time, and full power level burns, that considering the large number of engines, the Raptor would have shown frequent test shut downs if not outright engine explosions. Testing in flight allows test flights before the Raptor was ready according to usual industry standards.

 When a Raptor exploded on the booster landing burn on IFT-4 SpaceX never acknowledged it happened and never provided an explanation. SpaceX managed to convince the FAA that as long as the public was not endangered then SpaceX didn’t have to provide mishap reports. That was a mistake on the FAA’s part because it allowed SpaceX to continue to imply the Raptor is a reliable engine.

 The ramifications of that mistake by the FAA continues onto other test flights. SpaceX told the FAA the booster would survive intact and float after ocean touchdown and tip over. Instead, it always exploded. Why, when SpaceX said it would survive intact? Since the public was not endangered, SpaceX didn’t have to provide any explanation. 

 However, we can get a clue from IFT-4. The Raptor fire and explosion during the landing burn likely damaged the vehicle integrity, so it couldn’t survive the tip over intact. Since the Raptor has a tendency to leaks and fires likely this also happened during booster ocean touchdowns even when no explosion was apparent during the landing burns. The flames seen shooting up the sides during the landing burns for flights 5,6, and 7 provide support for this.

 So what have we seen so far? Of the 7 test flights, 5 of the 7 had either Raptor explosions or full stage explosions. And on the two tower catch flights, flames were seen shooting up the side of the booster. Why did these flames happen? SpaceX hasn’t provided an answer. In fact, SpaceX hasn’t even acknowledged they even happened. Since the public was not endangered SpaceX doesn’t have to provide an explanation.

 This illuminates further why that mistake by the FAA of not requiring mishap reports could have negative consequences. If an investigation had been required, it may have become apparent the Raptor still  has a tendency to leak and catch fire. If the Raptor continues to leak and catch fire in flight then at some point this will result in danger to the public. In fact IFT-7 may have been an example of this.

 To insure the Raptor does not still have a tendency to leak and catch fire the FAA should require SpaceX to release any and all video of the engine bays of both stages while the engines are firing.

  Bob Clark 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Meecrob

Meecrob

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

Since the public was not endangered SpaceX doesn’t have to provide an explanation.

Exactly!

20 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

And on the two tower catch flights, flames were seen shooting up the side of the booster. Why did these flames happen? SpaceX hasn’t provided an answer. In fact, SpaceX hasn’t even acknowledged they even happened.

Cuz flames don't do nothing to steel, duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darthgently

darthgently

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

And on the two tower catch flights, flames were seen shooting up the side of the booster. Why did these flames happen?

How is this functionally different from the flare stacks that operate safely and normally at thousands of industrial facilities?  Why should it be treated differently?

This is SOP for dealing with excess flammable gases. One burns them at a chosen time and place so they don’t become a problem at a more random time and place.  The sky is not falling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Meecrob

Meecrob

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

Bob Clark 

If that is your real name, I get your analogy, but you seem to be scared of spaceflight. People have more balls than you, and want to maybe die to explore. Humans are awesome!

Having said that, I don't believe Elon wants to go somewhere off Earth to die

Edited by Meecrob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Exoscientist

Exoscientist

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, darthgently said:

How is this functionally different from the flare stacks that operate safely and normally at thousands of industrial facilities?  Why should it be treated differently?

This is SOP for dealing with excess flammable gases. One burns them at a chosen time and place so they don’t become a problem at a more random time and place.  The sky is not falling.

That might be the explanation. Only SpaceX can say for sure, but instead SpaceX “takes the fifth”.

It’s a combination of reasons that lead one to question if SpaceX is being fully forthright on the reliability of the Raptor:

1.)A Raptor actually exploded on IFT-4. But SpaceX has not “come clean” on that.

2.)Elon Musk’s explanation of the Starship explosion on IFT-7 raises the possibility the large plumes seen shooting up during the Superheavy landing burns were due to engine bay fires.

3.)SpaceX told the FAA the Superheavy would tip over and float after ocean landing. Instead they always exploded.

4.)The Raptor has to do 3-burns for reusability, but SpaceX hasn’t tested this a single time at full mission burn times, wait times, and power levels.

5.)For these reasons, the FAA should require SpaceX to release any and all videos of the engine bays of both stages while the engines are firing, most specifically during restarts:

The SpaceX Raptor engine is still of unproven reliability.
https://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-spacex-raptor-engine-is-still-of.htm

 

   Bob Clark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zolotiyeruki

zolotiyeruki

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quote

 The Apollo missions were the most spectacular successes in the history of spaceflight

Apollo was a great achievement, but it was hardly without its own failures:

Apollo 1 - fire in the capsule, 3 dead.
Apollo 6 - Two of the second stage engines shut down prematurely and the third stage did not reignite for its second burn, forcing an alternate mission. Wait, this sounds vaguely familiar...almost as if ground testing couldn't ensure engine reliability!
Apollo 11 - Nav computer ran out of memory during descent.  Also, ran pretty low on propellant.
Apollo 13 - One second-stage engine shut down early, and of course there's that whole oxygen tank thing that happened...

It's also worth pointing out that, adjusted for inflation, the Apollo program cost over $250 Billion (in 2020 dollars) over its 13-year run. You have to wonder what SpaceX would do with a freakin' quarter-trillion dollars.

Quote

1.)A Raptor actually exploded on IFT-4. But SpaceX has not “come clean” on that. Old engine design, not relevant to current-gen Raptor reliability.

2.)Elon Musk’s explanation of the Starship explosion on IFT-7 raises the possibility the large plumes seen shooting up during the Superheavy landing burns were due to engine bay fires. Apples and Oranges.  Starship failure is not relevant to the propellant venting that has been adequately explained.

3.)SpaceX told the FAA the Superheavy would tip over and float after ocean landing. Instead they always exploded. What does this have to do with Raptor reliability?  Boosters rupturing and causing a fireball after a water landing is nothing new, entirely anticipated, and has nothing to do with Raptor reliability.  I don't recall SpaceX ever promising that a water-landed booster *wouldn't* blow up.

4.)The Raptor has to do 3-burns for reusability, but SpaceX hasn’t tested this a single time at full mission burn times, wait times, and power levels.  Yes they have, with IFT-4, IFT-5, and IFT-6.

 

Edited by zolotiyeruki
wordsmithing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Codraroll

Codraroll

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

Again the only thing I could think of is following standard industry practice where you had to do full up(all engine), full flight burn time, and full power level burns

Again we have to ask: are you consciously aware of the repeatedly shown evidence that prove this to be nothing but a bunch of baloney? Are you unable or unwilling to address it?

Edited by Codraroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...