Jump to content

dalekphalm

Member
  • Posts

    15,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    let's break down what your cold unfeeling robot has to say...
    your AI misquoted their own source.. they're on about how creating an engine with fewer parts simplifies the manufacturing process.
     
    again.. a misquoted source, it's a stackexchange discution (of all places to pull data from...) about the pros and cons of both sides, and the reasons to choose one or another. it's a shame your AI misquoted it because it's a pretty good read.
     
    my job is safe, AI will not replace me.. because nothing in the quoted source evn talks about TWR, instead it talks about the reliability benefit of having more engines, and how modern computer technology allows us to control more complex rockets more accurately.
    also - kinda funny.. the source YOU are quoting here.. is elon musk.
     
    same source as 2, same misquoting.. the only reference to combustion stability is a reference to car engines.
     
    this is exactly what we have been telling you.. and you now blatantly use it to somehow try and prove your own point? have you any idea how ridiculous this makes you look? have you not proof-read this at all?
     
    so.. NASA then? because the artemis contracts are historically tight timing-wise, presumably because of the 6-year delay from
     
    NASA's own internal dealings.
     
    i think you mistake "being cautious with optimism" for being critical. now, i've only watched the final thoughts of the video you linked.. but i dont think they sounded critical at all.
    apollo essentially got a bunch of "test subjects" to the moon and back in a tin can, as a physics person you ofcourse understand that if you want to get more than "just another tin can" to the moon, you'll need more energy. the goal of artemis isnt "put human on moon", the goal is to put ACTUAL science down on the moon, and be a pathfinder for further human spacetravel.
    or to put it in a vaguely quoted clarkson quote from earler in the thread:
     
    enough time and money.. should i bring up the cost difference between starship and SLS again? and why do you think NASA isnt flying the whole party with SLS?
    BECAUSE THEY CANT AFFORD IT.
     
    wether you, or anyone else at NASA likes it or not, fact of the matter is that any chance the US has got at winning the modern era space race has to include their commercial launch partners, because they simply cannot do it on their own dime. NASA is too slow, too expensive, and too complicated of an entity to do revolutionary things. the reason why SpaceX is actively blowing up starship prototypes is because it's cheaper and faster to develop that way. two things NASA sorely needs, but cant do themselves for political reasons.
  2. Agree
    dalekphalm got a reaction from Lunar River in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    I absolutely cannot stand Thunderf00t. Every video I've ever watched of his left an extremely bad taste in my mouth from the way he presents things, to the way he picks his data, and everything in between. He's been shown to be wrong on multiple occasions.
     
    Listen, I think most people dislike Elon Musk. Personally I think he's a huge AH and I can't stand him, especially his views personally on many subjects. But he isn't SpaceX, even though he owns it. SpaceX is doing incredible work for the commercial space industry.
  3. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    it was "assumed" ahead of time that this starship wouldnt make it back, because it was still using an older method of attaching the heat shield.. so in a sense IFT3's re-entry was a test of just how well the starship can cope with potential missing tiles. i once again introduce you to the concept of iterative design.. figure out going up first, then figure out coming down.
     
    this is exactly why we dont need:
     
    also, at this point i do want to add this quote from earlier in the thread, because it feels ever so valid now..
    not only did it work, this massive piece of steel managed to do a flip and burn (part of SpaceX design goal to eventually do RTLS on the booster) after hot staging, and then did a landing burn. the booster defenately didnt come back "smooth sailing", but it was a pretty solid attempt.
     
    then starship itself did all the necessary "demo" stuff: payload door, prop transfer, lighting an engine in space.
    it then did a re-entry, which essentially only served as a way to provide SpaceX with the data of how well the thermal protection and ship itself held up trough re-entry. 
     
    that all aside, NSF made an "all the angles" video that's a collection of all vareous cameras they had pointed at the scene:
     
  4. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to wanderingfool2 in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    The pez door didn't seem to properly close [I'm wondering if that's the reason they decided to skip the engine relight...or maybe they decided against it after what happened to the booster].
     
    Nice to see the boostback for the booster work correctly (I think you could see the starship in a few of the booster camera views as things happened).  It's unfortunate they didn't have a softer water landing, I'm wondering if there was some type of issue with their software design for the return (after all they never really would have been able to properly test it).  The reason I'm guessing this is that you have the one gimble engine light, but you had 2 other non gimble engines light [right around the time they experienced the instability].  So I'm wondering if either they had initial issues lighting and what we witnessed was the software trying to compensate by firing 2 other engines or if maybe the return burn had instructed the wrong engines to light.
     
    Booster seems like they might be able to fix it though, if it was an issue about too little fuel remaining they could change up the flight a bit.  I'm thinking that maybe they were intending to do the relight a bit earlier in the decent because the grid fins I don't think were meant to handle keeping it stable at those speeds in full atmosphere.
     
    One thing, iirc this boosters grid fins actually went back to close to the original design [not that it would make any difference]
     
    That plasma was so cool to watch.  With how the camera began overheating or whatever it was was interesting to see as well (with the feed going on).  I'm wondering if they didn't have quite as much control as they hoped for with the flaps (it seemed to not be keeping the ship in correct orientation).
     
    Although if the Pez doors didn't close, I wonder if that would have caused the issue.  From my understanding they have to form a partial seal in order to partially repressurize the cargo bay to maintain structural stability.  If it failed to close it might have met it's fait by folding itself during re-entry. [All speculations at this time].
     
    Lots of what looked like foam as well when it started entry, so I'm wondering what sections those came from.
     
    Overall a good flight, if the propellant transfer was successful they actually will have passed the NASA milestone (which means it's worth $53 million).
     
     
    So here are my official guesses from watching it once, booster failed to preserve enough fuel for engine relights/didn't plan for the forces that quickly where they will do a second decent burn in the future to reduce the forces [or some way to reduce the velocity before hitting cloud height]...I think they might have underestimated the speed it would return.
     
    Upper stage, I think the door not closing correctly might end up being one potential cause since it could snap during re-entry; but I'm on the fence I think they had maneuverability issues which might have caused the issue.
  5. Agree
    dalekphalm got a reaction from Uttamattamakin in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    So I'm a little bit behind the live stream but Phase 1 went literally perfectly. Launch was seemingly flawless. Hot staging went perfect. Max Q had no visible issues (The Pez Bay door didn't crumple in half).
     
    The Booster made the boost back burn, everything looked good for the first part. The second burn did seem to have some issues right before Ocean splash down. I'm not sure what exactly what supposed to happen, but according to the data from the stream, it hit the ocean at something like 1100 km/h, and the relight didn't seem to happen properly. This might have been a telemetry issue or it might have been an actual issue. Either way, this is still a huge success, and none of these issues will affect Artemis.
     
    The Starship itself made orbit, and I'm waiting to see how the re-entry goes. Skipping ahead in the live stream - they're waiting for signal with the Starship. There might be some issue with the re-light of the raptors, as it seems like they skipped a burn in orbit. But now the Starship is maneuvering for de-orbit.
     
    Damn - the camera feed of the de-orbit is insane. You can see the plasma form in HD. The maneuver doesn't look like it's going properly but I'm going to wait until there's a debrief before I comment on what I'm seeing. It's crazy how the signal is holding strong throughout the re-entry. Looks like they've stabilized. So far so good. Video keeps cutting out but that's expected.
     
    Starship was officially lost during re-entry but that was also expected.
  6. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    lots of people think the earth is flat. numbers dont make you correct. not about IFT2, not anout IFT3.
    "complete success" is not what you think it is.
     
    SpaceX themselves have pressed on the fact that this is a "development test" that just so happens to be in public view instead of in a lab. there's a lot of things they've changed since IFT2, from the very start of the mission things are different:
    - they have significantly accelerated prop load.
    - there's been a number of redesigns in the engine bays (iirc IFT3 is where they're switching away from hydraulic thrust vector control)
    - this is the first flight where the payload bay door is operational, which is a very significant structural change.
     
    after staging the booster will do an RTLS flip, but they're not actually returning it to the launch pad. i wouldnt be surprised if they have issues with the booster again. it took them a long time to start landing falcon 9 boosters, i dont expect starship boosters to go quickly. it's also in no way a requirement for artemis for the booster to last beyond staging.
     
    the starship will then go on a suborbital trajectory, hopefully completing 3 mission objectives:
    - not folding in half because payload bay door.
    - do the propellant transfer demo
    - do the "lighting a raptor in space" demo
     
    and on the way back down they're hoping to collect some information on how well the tiles will deal with the heat, and how much the ship is impacted by tiles that fall off. again.. it would be a surprise if the ship makes it, but that doesnt mean failure - it wasnt meant to make it down.. just so we dont have to argue about that next week...
     
    ---
     
    that aside.. on the thunderf00t thing.. i find his rage quite tiring.. he's made some videos on transport infrastructure (including on hyperloop) that are very right to be extremely critical about the topic... but very often it just feels like he's using the topic to settle some personal vendetta. i guess for me it kinda boils down to "he's often right, but for the wrong reason."
     
    i guess to me i cant even bother figuring out if his math is correct, when quite often you can just tell that the only reason he's even treating the topic is because he's got a very strong opinion on the matter, and just wants to prove himself correct in video form. if that's what you want in a channel that's great.. but it's not what i'm looking for.
  7. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to wanderingfool2 in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    No, it's because he enters into things assuming he's right and thus cherry picks/manipulates numbers in an idiotic fashion that make his numbers come out in his favor [because if the "real number SCARE people" then he wouldn't have mentioned the real numbers earlier in some of his videos, but proceeded to use absolutely wrong numbers].
     
    Oh also, I'll go into detail below but he uses those "real numbers" in another video to mislead.
     
    He lacks the basic understanding of how businesses work.
     
    Letting biases interfere with fact.  ThunderF00t should be as much believed as a random guy on the street proclaiming the world is going to end with the amount of factual errors he introduces in his videos.  Like I've said before, people speaking as though they are an authority while presenting clearly biased and wrong facts are the worst types of people.
     
    When presenting for "busting" if one is to use whole numbers or easy to work with numbers you HAVE to skew them in the favor of your opponents if you want to make a correct logical argument as otherwise you are just playing with errors working in your favor.  Or you need to use actual numbers that is rounded within reason.
     
    Here is an example:
    ~14:14 - Compares what the contract cost as though it's the build cost [shows lack of any knowledge how businesses work]  [i.e. You don't lower your price to customers just because it's cheaper, you lower it when there is competition]
     
    16:17 - Tries show "rough" reusability, assumes reusable reduces payload by 1/2 (when he clearly was on the wiki page where you could notice the delta is 4.3 tonnes, given the metric of comparing against a fully filled rocket that's 0.82)
    19:14 he ADMITS that it's nearer to 70% number [still off by 12% in his favor], he leaves his calculations based on 50%, but changes .  Even IF we assume things in his favor, 75% is at least a fairer number to assume not 70%...but he goes on to conclude the break even point would be at 6 launches [after assuming reusing costs 40% of build cost].  Even assuming 50% refub cost [in his favor] and 70% payload [number he admitted to, which is greatly in his favor]...that gives, 3...seriously 3 launches.  He was off by a factor of 2x.
     
    Actually IF you assume the 40% refub [which he used, but the true numbers from statements appear to be less than 30%], and his admitted 70% payload, you get 2 launches is the break even...2...that's all...or off by a factor of 3x.  Now of course there are other factors in play, but the statement which was shown on screen from Musk states it's 2 maybe 3 when all things are accounted for.
     
    So yea, TF made a statement, tried showing the maths, messed putting the numbers into the formula, showed a quote from Musk stating 2 is about break even, but decides to go with the competitors statements of "10", and refuses to acknowledge later that if you used the numbers he even assumed it puts it at 2 launches.
     
    He's creating "busted" videos, when he goes on for over 10% of the video about it making major basic level mistakes is not acceptable and shows his utter lack of competency in any of his statements.
     
    There's tons of other videos that show his propensity to chose numbers that fit his narrative.
     
    Lets not forget:
    ThunderF00t's - Talks about boiling a kettle of water, proceeds to calculate the energy to BOIL IT DRY from what I could tell, and uses that as a way to show that the energy method he was busting was flawed.
    TF - pulled an image of iirc a logging truck (I'm not going to look up the video) or something similar with a multi-axle and concludes the Tesla Semi won't have realistic carrying capacity. [He also used the wrong sized Jersey barriers, he chose the small ones etc]
    TF - Assumed people worried about nuclear contaminants would be just worried about the food being grown next to the radiation [proceeds to put a radioactive rock next to it]...failing to realize people are worried about those minerals and how the plants will incorporate radioactive substances into it's growth.
     
    ThunderF00t is essentially a comedy act masquerading as an educational channel
     
  8. Informative
    dalekphalm reacted to wanderingfool2 in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    Heat shield is unlikely to work correctly, so likely burn up on reentry.  I think future ones have a better mounting mechanism.  3 Starlink sats on it though to test no blackout zone/data until it burns up.
     
    The amount they are testing there will most likely be many things wrong with it, and the baydoors pose more of an issue than I think SpaceX is letting on.
     
    There is already a company though that has designed something to fit inside the starship eventually that can do lunar payload injections without refill though.
     
    ThunderF00t lacks the integrity to really talk about any of his "BUSTED" videos.  He cherry picks numbers, and straight up changes numbers in his favor while claiming the actual numbers don't really matter for his demonstration [except he ignores that using the actual numbers changes his calculations in favor of SpaceX]
  9. Informative
    dalekphalm reacted to wanderingfool2 in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    IFT-3 is likely to be Thursday if the FAA grants the license on time; the explosives are already installed and full WDR has been completed (they greatly decreased the propellant load times)
     
    https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3
    The sub-orbital trajectory has changed in order to accommodate the tests they wish to conduct in space.  It seems like this time they have a large confidence that they will achieve sub-orbital numbers; as the amount that they have put into the Starship upper stage is quite a bit more than has been seen in the past [along with the change in trajectory]
     
    The biggest thing with the trajectory change is likely due to relighting an engine in space.  While it's not mentioned, the trajectory gives a larger window in case things go wrong on the relight [like if it fails it will come down over the ocean still].  One speculation as well is that the fuel transfer they do could also show that an engine can be relight from the transferred fuel...but maybe not.
     
    One thing to note, the payload doors are not welded shut this time, which could be a potential for excitement on lift-off/stage separation/max-q.  The reason being that it's speculated the doors were welded shut on IFT-2 because they were working out the structural supports needed to not crush the starship.  So if there is to be a failure pre-engine cut off I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being a cause....so yea my guess it would be t+52 seconds where the payload doors will show if they have been sufficiently supported.
     
    It should be noted though, there is a high confidence of it reaching sub-orbital velocity...but there is a really good chance at it breaking apart during re-entry [assuming everything goes right up to that point].  The reason being that the heat-shield tiles iirc are on an earlier mounting mechanism on this version still...but if it survives it (or even if it doesn't) SpaceX will hopefully be able to start gathering data on how hot the stainless steel on the belly gets to [and at what point it fails with how many tiles missing].
     
     
    It's expected, but as far as I can tell not confirmed that they will just do a bellyflop into the ocean [as opposed to attempting a soft-landing followed by having to blow it up to sink it].  It's most likely though as they don't mention trying to relight the engines for landing.
  10. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to GuiltySpark_ in What do all pc builders agree on?   
    That 90% of people concerned about bottlenecks don't understand bottlenecks. 
  11. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to wanderingfool2 in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    Congratulations, it took you only 3 pages to acknowledge that...now if you can only admit that fuel slosh was not the reason it failed to reach orbit
     
    Say it with me, the booster failing in IFT-2 was mutually exclusive from not achieving their sub-orbital velocities.
     
    It's like the ICE people who are yelling that vehicles have already been solved and no one has ever managed to make an EV semi work.
     
    You fail to grasp the justification, if we made all buildings to withstand all major earthquakes, tornados, floods etc, we could do so...but the cost of the house and practicality of the house would be too much.  Your so called "solved" engineering is exactly that; even if you assume the best case scenario the cheapest you can get for Earth to LEO is $2,9000/kg.
     
    They aren't engineering it to just bring payload to orbit, they are engineering it so the COST of bringing payload to orbit is reduced.  Even if you assume 100T, and fully expendable Starship you , the cost to build will be $200m [the cost actually appears to be $100m, but lets say they add 2x markup]...that's $2,000/kg.  If they can save the booster and Starship (even if it costs $50m to refurb with a 2x markup...which it won't), you get close to $1,000/kg.  That's a drastic reduction.
     
    So tell me, do you think it's truly a solved problem when their target is affordable travel to orbit?  Name one competitor to it that costs even remotely near what the eventual cost to orbit will be.
     
    Also, the whole "no one else has gotten to work" is because no one has even really tried what they are doing [And no you cannot compare it to N1 because the goal is completely different]
     
    By that definition then SLS has already messed it up bad.  After all, as @manikyath has pointed out (and I've pointed out); Artemis 1 was supposed to already have flown [even before Starship HLS entered the bidding process].
     
    Because to put it frankly you make stupid comments that shows you don't know what you are talking about.
    Here's some quotes of yours, which are categorically wrong
      
    So wrong
      
    Again, wrong and extremely stupid essentially saying that the official releases are wrong [This one is you essentially pitting your knowledge against people who ACTUALLY do it for a living.
     
    Still haven't shown a quote where I said it wasn't a test...again showing you aren't using an ounce of critical thinking
     
     
     
    Now onto more of your whole business
    It could easily have been a slosh baffle that needed more structural support falling off and blocking the filter...or it could have been what I mentioned early and having a water hammer being the cause of the filter issue [during hotstaging].  Both of which can be relatively easily fixed
     
    Older engines required electroplating for what amounted to months at a time....and required fine tuning to make sure they didn't create any unwanted oscillations (things that can all be accounted for now with newer technology).  The addition of multiple engines back in the day would mean that the chance of creating a failure one would be higher (and back then it would mean having to wait literal months for a replacement).  Engines on Starship can literally be swapped out in a day, which makes a lot of the points moot.
     
    Again, as it was been pointed out, Falcon Heavy has 27 engines; under your asinine logic Falcon Heavy should be using just a few larger engines instead.
     
    The basic fact is there are benefits and negatives to using a bunch of smaller engines...but in this case the rapid manufacturing of engines allows for better quality controls and a massive reduction in eventual cost.
     
     
    I do mean this seriously, let any of your colleagues read what you have written here from day one and ask them if you are wrong.
  12. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    it's amazing how you'll misquote anything i say to make it look like something else.
     
    i dont question the validity of your eeucation, i'm telling you that your education does not apply to this topic, which is why people attack you over claims you somehow have superior knowledge in this regard.
     
    maybe you should go back and start misquoting me on N1. that's a topic i at least had to research to call your shallow BS.
     
    also find it funny you're here grasping at every straw to say starship is a danger to the artemis project.. and then you bring up potentially the most 'questionable usability in the real world' project we've seen in decades. even if we dont question it's theory in practisce it just doesnt make any sense to use.
     
    lovely, go ahead with your imagined moral win, doesnt make anything you said correct.
  13. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to wanderingfool2 in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    WE DIDN'T SAY THAT; This is greatly disturbing if your claims of working on on LISA are true, and your other claims are corrected because someone as close minded/biased as you should not be in that kind of position.  Again, send this thread to your supervisors and see if they agree.
     
    My statement is, and has always been that the SLS has approached things differently in sacrificing time and money to get to where it is.  I honestly don't know how you can be so clueless on interpreting a statement like this (anyone who has worked or even dabbled in basic level engineering/sciences/computer sciences/maths knows this).
     
    SLS would have been a failure IF it blew up because it was effectively a release candidate; Starship is like the beta/alpha candidates.  The key being that SLS was effectively supposed to be in it's final form, the one that is supposed to fly the missions state of testing.  Starship is not, to suggest otherwise is just showing your ineptitude for critical thinking (actually even basic level thinking).
     
    You test a release candidate for issues, BUT at that stage a RC should not result in any major defects being found.  It's why blowing up would be a failure at that stage.
     
    I did mention that the SLS actually was lucky though it didn't get aborted during flight, because their green run found an issue (but that issue wasn't necessarily going to come up in a green run).  So that meant SLS got a bit lucky in terms of having the issue spotted before it lead to a failure.
  14. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    how are you THIS close minded?
     
     
     
    in this regard, the definition of "test flight" used means that it was literally never expected for it to not blow up. the timing and reason may have been different based on what did and did not go well, but past the stage where we got with IFT-2 literally the only "mission" for the crafts was "plunge into the ocean roughly here".
     
    essentially, let's put it like this;
     
    artemis was management test-driving the model before it goes on sale.
    IFT-2 is those ncap safety tests where they plunge the car into a wall to see how well it performs.
     
    both are "tests", both are very different, at very different stages of development. or in your words:
    you're the one comparing prototypes "getting slammed into the wall" to an essentially finished rocket on a "test drive". yes, starshop needs to prove itself.. that is what they are actively working on, checking off every step of a rocket launch one by one, in a very "publicly visible" way, as opposed to NASA's "behind the scenes" way.
     
    or to put it a way i've stated before in this thread.. the only reason you're angry, is because you're aware of them developing it. if you didnt SEE it blowing up, you wouldnt have cared.
  15. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    EXACTLY MY POINT
     
    you're the one making a fuss of starship's flight tests as compared to the one flight SLS has done, literally everyone else here is trying to tell you that one was a flight with a payload, and the other is a test of an unfinished prototype vehicle that was not necessarily expected to make it to space in the first place. even if the flight with a payload was a "test" for future generations of the craft, it was intended to make it to it's destination. we're at a stage of starship where half of the flight plan is "optional, if all else goes as expected". this very point is what wev'e been trying to make you understand, and now you somehow assume that this newly gained knowledge is somehow supporting your point?
     
     
    oh, and i will refresh you on this one, because for as much as you shout about N1, getting called out on it leads to silence, so i must assume you have nothing to back up your claims then.
     
  16. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to wanderingfool2 in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    Again, you are either arguing in bad faith, or seriously need to be schooled on reading/logic
     
    Do you know why Artemis 2 was delayed?  Orion capsule delayed the launch of that due to safety concerns, because Orion exceeded the safety threshold required.
     
    Do you not understand what I am referring to either.  The green run, which happened to trip the safety parameters DID NOT necessarily have to trip those safety parameters.  If that was the case, the SLS would have aborted.
     
    Do you not understand that, or are you going to conflate luck that things were caught then.
     
    e.g. Luck is the reason IM-1 didn't end a complete failure, and AFTER the luck; skill and abandoning of missions is what kept it from becoming a complete failure
    Luck with the probabilities is what kept SLS's problem becoming apparent during the green run.
     
    And you are the guy from the viral clip of lecturing a PGA woman that she is doing it wrong; and then stating the [there you go] when you perceive what you said is true.
     
    Everyone here, but you, is saying that SpaceX is using a DIFFERENT testing methodology.
     
    Or if you want to keep to climbing analogies
     
    You are the one who pays multiple sherpas to carry all your equipment, setup camp , and help you climb the mount...then telling someone who is trying a solo climb that they are being a failure because they never made it and "look I've climbed it" smugness.
     
    The simple fact you seem to not get is that things such as testing to it's limits IS part of the SpaceX testing methodology.  They sacrifice vessels for the insight into the vehicle and note where they need to improve/change.  There is nothing wrong with this methodology like you keep implying.
     
    Again what you fail to see:
    IFT-1, primary goal lift off the pad and effectively test to see if their concept would hold [even pre-flight they though there was a high probability of not even leaving the pad]  So yes, it ended in explosion but it wasn't a failure.  The only real failure on IFT-1 was that they discovered the ground beneath the pad compresses more than the simulations indicated (again from the prior topic, had they had your "flame trench" they would have had the same issue, except this time they would have wasted multiple months building that first flame trench only to have it destroyed).
     
    You can easily tell this because they knew at least 2 engines were not going to light prior, and then just prior to ignition they knew 4 would be offline (which was just enough to still attempt)
     
    IFT-2, again it was an exploratory testing.  The stretch goal was to effectively de-orbit it and practice the maneuver, but the primary goal was assessing the changes made and achieve hot-staging (and observe the effects of hot-staging).  It did so, and they also learned additional information.  IFT-2 wasn't a failure and the explosion wasn't like you keep implying really bad.
     
    Again, you are showing the lack of reading comprehension, or did you not notice I posted a transcript and already posted my thoughts on this PRIOR to your post.
     
    The true number of Starships launches needed won't be know until real world testing is done and finalizations happen.  To achieve a moon landing it could be done in as little as 4 launches but depending could be a lot more.  Again, Dustin's video is good but it's clear he had limited knowledge prior to this and thus hasn't followed along with some of the reasonings behind it.
     
    I don't think he recognizes that the way he was suggesting would never get the funding approval [and wouldn't work].
     
    SLS is currently has a limit to their building capacity, which instantly makes missions requiring multiple SLS launches in a year infeasible (that was never discussed).  It wasn't discussed that even if SLS could be built with enough cadence it would cost multiple times more.
    What isn't discussed is that SLS is not practical if you are planning decades of moon exploration (again cost)
    The current SLS variant doesn't have the payload capacity to bring most of the other solutions for HLS to the moon.
     
    SLS had multiple fuel leaks during fueling (where an errant spark could have created serious issues)
  17. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    you see.. there's where you're missing the point.. the things you're referring to here that blow up *ARE* tests.
  18. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    it landed on the moon, the mission was supposed to last 8 days, the article was written on the 6th day, at which time the craft was still operational and sending back data on the experiments.
     
    the fact we've recently had two belly landings on the moon shows that perhaps we need to do more testing before we send a final product to the moon, but if the data we wanted to collect from this mission was successfully collected, the mission itself can be considered a success.
     
    and while, inded, we wouldnt want a human-capable craft to fall on it's ass.. this is not human rated, it has nothing to do with anything human rated.. and is accidentially a good example of why "human rated" exists.
  19. Informative
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    typing out as i watch:
     
     
    IFT2 mishap investigation has concluded, the investigation was lead by SpaceX (just so everyone is on the same page: rocket engineers at SpaceX, not elon's armpits) and accepted by the FAA.
     
    17 corrective actions were made, of which 7 relate to the booster, and 10 relate to starship itself.
    i like the TL:DR that they conclude on this part: "applied lessons learned to the next flight."
    it appears SpaceX has done separate mishap investigations for booster and starship, i'd assume because at the point of mishap both were separate vehicles essentially doing separate missions. (booster doing RTLS, starship doing suborbital)
     
    according to the SpaceX investigation, this happened to the booster:
    when the booster tried to re-light the middle ring of engines, the engines started to shut back down immediately one by one until one of the engines had a critical fault, because of a blocked filter.. it's not certain what blocked it. one of the corrections is adding extra filtration.
    besides that, they have updated their models for thrust vectoring, most likely to ease the slosh caused by flipping around(?)
     
    according to the SpaceX investigation, this happened to the starship itself:
    excess LOX was loaded onto starship to simulate a heavier load to gather data regarding future payload missions, which needed to be vented before re-entry. at this point a mixture of explosions and sustained fires (because you're venting LOX...) broke down communication lines in the ship, and triggered FTS as per requirement.
     
    it's difficult to say what *started* the fire, but hardware redesigns were made to reduce the potential impact of fires if they should happen.
     
    besides this, fuel dumps before engine cutoff will be excluded in future missions to avoid this happen again.
     
    in this, ofcourse SpaceX decided to run trough which aspects went right during IFT2:
    - they had liftoff, with all engines lit nominally
    - the booster had a full duration burn
    - hot-staging went well
    - starship lit it's engines, and worked nominally up until the point of the fuel dump.
  20. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to wanderingfool2 in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    The way SpaceX has designed things, it's testing things to failure; so yes you will get things blowing up.
     
    You were the one who stated many smaller engines; and yet Falcon Heavy has 27.  You mention complex plumbing, but aside from the manifold there actually isn't too much extra complexity (the biggest thing is the massive fuel tanks, but you would still need that on a rocket this big).
     
    The simple fact is, you don't know what you are talking about, you are just stuck in your ways and spewing out comparisons without apply logic to your comparisons.
     
     
    As an fyi as well, this is me stating your whole untrained eye statement; you are clearly unfit and the one with untrained eyes [And btw, the FAA accepted SpaceX's mishap report]
     
    https://www.spacex.com/updates/
    Now lets see, their statement vs what I said was clearly visible from the video vs what you said was visible.  You better get your prescription checked, because SpaceX's description matches exactly what was on the video.
     
    So there you have it, stop spouting this whole "fuel slosh" tinfoil hat was the reason it didn't reach orbit.
     
    But hey, you knew from the video that it must be fuel slosh right?  Our untrained eyes, the untrained eyes of FAA, the untrained eyes of SpaceX engineers must all be mere mortals compared to your infinite education and trained eye. /s
  21. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to manikyath in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    untrained eyes.. like yours?
     
    like i've stated before, the only thing you have here that is different to the rest of us is potential for bias because of who you happen to work with/for. you're not a rocket engineer. similarly, no one else here is a rocket engineer either.
    and no - working on the math regarding an experiment that happens to be on a satalite is not a get out of jail free card here.
     
    look.. i dont *want* to pick on your personality because that is not what this thread is about at all, but you make it VERY hard not to, because you somehow keep pulling it towards you having some sort of deeper understanding here to which there is absolutely zero evidence.
     
    and with every page this thread grows your arguments get even more and more ridiculous, to the point you HAVE to see that using image generating AI as some sort of supporting note to your opinion really doesnt do your reputation here any good.
  22. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to Lunar River in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    Using an ai genned image as part of your argument is an.... interesting strategy.
    I'm sure you're not biased at ALL.
  23. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to HenrySalayne in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    Oh, maybe you should read that article again:
     
  24. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to wanderingfool2 in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    I'm not sure I ever even wrote anything on LK99; at the time, at least at other places, I was the hopeful but waiting peer reviews.
     
    Hyperloop I said I didn't think hyperloop would be a thing, but I did say you were focusing on the wrong bit because you were and you made up numbers to fit your purpose when we had real world examples.  [i.e. that whole 10 meters, when the real world was 3.3m which changes everything]
     
    But hey, "nature itself agrees with me", and if by that you are full of ... then I agree.  You are making claims based on "evidence" but are vague can't mention any real evidence.
     
    Give me a break with your asinine logic.
     
    The 6 engines on the upper stage lasted 5 minutes
     
    Show me the multiple creators that say it was fuel slosh that caused failure to orbit!
     
    I don't care about the booster flip maneuver or the booster after stage separation because YOU CLEARLY stated fuel slosh was what prevented orbit.  After successful hot staging the booster doesn't have an effect on orbit (unless it literally blows up with the booster still in range).
     
    Tell me, what makes you think the video shows fuel slosh?
    ~3:00 minute all engines on upper stage light and hot staging is complete
    ~7:06 gas plumes visible
    ~7:49 gas plumes stop [engines still running, fuel indicator had dropped slightly quicker during this period] [Between this time there was a callout that pressures remained nominal]
    ~7:52 all engines running
    ~8:04 upper stage self terminates
     
    Guess what, the whole fuel dump matches with what is shown on the IFT-2 launch.
     
    See above; don't care about the discussion of the booster after stage separation as it has nothing to do with it making it to orbit.
     
    Again, this all relates to the BOOSTER after stage separation not the upper stage.  Remember you are the one who stated that fuel slosh is the reason for it not making it to orbit.
     
    I'm not arguing about the cause of the booster, as I have already clearly stated that the booster could have been fuel slosh...but was also likely a hydraulic shock effect from hot staging.
     
    As I stated before as well,  you can minimize slosh by keeping an acceleration into a curve.
     
    To prevent slosh as well, you don't need multiple different tanks (which would vastly complicate plumbing and create issues in terms of piping/complexity).  You just need to add more slosh baffles.
     
    The thing is you are so quick to make these apples to oranges comparisons with SpaceX (which btw, at least try to bother spelling it right...there isn't a space between the space and x)...and yet you don't hold everything else to the same standard you seem to be applying to SpaceX.
     
    Where is your concern, and multi paragraph of "reporting of news" opinion on how the recent moon lander was an utter failure?
    After all, IM-1 had a LIDAR failure because some tech forgot to essentially remove the safety.
    IM-1 would have completely crashed on the lunar surface had it not been a stroke of luck that they tried turning on the LIDAR sensors early
    IM-1 failed to deploy eagle cam
    IM-1 is shutting down the mission early
    And it's this kind of comment which shows just how biased you are being.  Your addition of things like so far, your wording to imply that explosion = automatic complete failure (even if it was a known and likely outcome that was documented).  Even on IFT-1 it was stated before that it was something like 50% chance of making it off the pad.
     
    Even for the IFT-3, even if you say that Elon is overly optimistic, he still only puts it at 80% chance of reaching the target.
  25. Agree
    dalekphalm reacted to CarlBar in Last of the Delta IV Heavy's, will launch tomorrow(and other Space News)   
    Cool your jets, i get the frustration but getting angry won't help. I'll be doing my own big reply at some point, but too unwell to focus that long atm. Ughhh stomach bug:(.
×