RCgothic Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago My puzzle is that an engine would need to run LOX rich for quite a while to fall catastrophically. Surely they could just... turn the engine off? Which begs the question why didn't they? Also whilst it's probably worth trying, low lox levels in the tank for a static fire probably wouldn't be sufficient to replicate the long duration and high G environment that may be causing harmonic vibration issues in flight in the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuessingEveryDay Posted 13 hours ago Share Posted 13 hours ago Crew-10 delayed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted 11 hours ago Share Posted 11 hours ago 3 hours ago, RCgothic said: My puzzle is that an engine would need to run LOX rich for quite a while to fall catastrophically. Surely they could just... turn the engine off? Which begs the question why didn't they? The remaining engines not shutting off really is a puzzler. But that assumes the software has a totally clear idea of what was happening back in the engine bay. If it assumed some vectoring engines were still operating the goal may have been to regain attitude, keep chugging, and get the debris field out into the mid Atlantic instead of in the islands. It broke one of my KSP rules: never thrust in the wrong direction. My kOS scripts typically taper the throttle as attitude error goes up as a safety net. No throttle, or just enough for vectoring steerage, if error is greater than 20 degrees or so on ascent. This code typically only kicks in when I’m doing something new but it allows me to keep playing and testing for awhile rather than crashing and starting over. Anyway, the point is that I’m not sure why they didn’t shut the remaining engines off, or at least throttle them down when pointed in the wrong direction. They may have made it well past the islands, even doing endos, if they only throttled up when pointed down range with a positive pitch and tapered throttle down when not. And maybe the engines were on for an reason but the software was confused about the attitude and available control authority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted 10 hours ago Share Posted 10 hours ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted 10 hours ago Share Posted 10 hours ago Repeated engineering failures stem from the top. What SpaceX needs to do first is hire a true Chief Engineer. Then follow standard industry practice of doing full-up(all engines), full mission duration, full thrust static tests. Bob Clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted 9 hours ago Share Posted 9 hours ago What is a true Chief Engineer? Do they have aerospace experience? Are they a respected expert in their field? Do they have at least ten years of working at a rocket company? Are they experienced with a high-pressure environment as they work with a team to push boundaries? And are they also sensible and know when not to push the boundaries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotel26 Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago 4 hours ago, AckSed said: What is a true Chief Engineer? Do they have aerospace experience? Are they a respected expert in their field? Do they have at least ten years of working at a rocket company? Are they experienced with a high-pressure environment as they work with a team to push boundaries? And are they also sensible and know when not to push the boundaries? Are you saying that SpaceX put thousands of StarLink satellites in orbit, is launching resupply missions to ISS and created the first fully reusable 1st stage rocket (Falcon 9) without one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotel26 Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago Definition: "a true Chief Engineer has a pocket protector and is never seen without his slide rule." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago 2 hours ago, Lisias said: Are you saying that SpaceX put thousands of StarLink satellites in orbit, is launching resupply missions to ISS and created the first fully reusable 1st stage rocket (Falcon 9) without one? I read it as meaning they couldn’t have done it without one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted 36 minutes ago Share Posted 36 minutes ago Nuance: I was trying to reframe the question but tired 3AM thinking turned it into a CV of what an imagined Chief Engineer 'should' be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deddly Posted 32 minutes ago Share Posted 32 minutes ago 5 hours ago, Hotel26 said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results", Albert Einstein I thought that was the definition of KSP. 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.