dalekphalm

Actually now I read back on your top comments, you did say you are unhirable for some disability reasons, can't be an employee but can and want to work as contractors? Well, there is driving for uber, door dashing, and instacart. Go at it. You won't have any benefits and won't be earning much but it is more than you will ever get from social security and welfare. 

i missed this earlier.. but let's turn it on you...
 
Given the track record, SLS has a 100% chance of a 6 year delay.

Because you are phrasing and acting as though it's a final product and showing a lack of basic understanding of how SpaceX is engineering the thing.
 
Again it's the whole concept of development.  SpaceX could spend an 5 - 6 years simulating, doing closed door testing, etc to get to the same point they are now...or they can just go out and test it can get enough information to accelerate their development cycle.
 
It's like the whole concept of Waterfall vs Agile development; back in the day the massive firms would insist that Waterfall was the only proper method, and that agile would introduce bugs/shows a lack of understanding.  Lots now in the industry focus more on agile development because it produces the results faster and gets to a finished product so much sooner at less cost.
 
Ignorant statement showing that you don't know what you are talking about.  You want to say that it's because of lots of engines give PROOF of it by an actual rational argument how many engines failed it.  At the moment you just use an explosion as proof which isn't a proper rationalization of what is going on.
 
Here, let me break it down for you AGAIN:
 
IFT-1: Fire in engine bays, likely caused by hydraulic gimble system.  They flew knowing an explosion in the engine bay would take out neighboring engines though [they didn't want to retrofit their solution into it].  They flew the thing with 4 broken engines originally at liftoff.  Notice how those 4 engines didn't cause it to blow up on the pad and didn't abort the launch [although a 5th engine gone and it would have past the tolerance].

Eventually the fire got to the point it disabled the gimble system at which point termination was attempted.  So IFT-1 didn't have to do with more engines, it just had to do with fire prevention and using hydraulic fluid which becomes the fuel source.
 
IFT-2 booster: All engines fired perfectly, failed to properly relight because of fuel filter.  That would occur having single large engines as well.  So again not anything to do with lots of small engines.  More likely to do with the fact it's a 3600 ton mass where extreme forces are applied during a flip maneuver.
IFT-2 ship: Oxygen dump, which likely caused a fire in the hydraulic system again.  
 
 
They are exploding because they are trying to do things that really hasn't been done before and they are pushing their vehicles to the limits and at the same time flying hardware they know has faults but still flies it to gather more data about how it's flying [so they can make changes to future vehicles].
 
 
The chances of an engine exploding doesn't scale linearly with the number of engines when in relation to size.  Smaller engines are able to be produced more and tested/swapped out more when errors are present leading to a decreased chance of them exploding compared to a larger engine.  You get this benefit because they are able to manufacture like 360 engines in a year and test them all at extremes beyond what they will operate at and reject any that isn't performing right (or that fails).  If you can only make a few large engines though you don't have the luxury of testing them to the point where you might lose a few.  It is why Raptors will fail, but will fail in a less energetic fashion because they have already been pushed to an extreme that will not be met during flight.
 
Actually larger engines would mean you have larger pipes going to them, so when you shutdown the engine you get more of a liquid hammer than you would when you can shut-off smaller engines overtime.
 
Larger engines means more SPOF.  It's that simple.  If you want to keep claiming lots of engines = bad for Starship them actually try doing proper reasoning on WHY that amount of engines amounted to their failures...because again look above, notice how the reason for failures doesn't have to do with multiple engines.  In fact the IFT-2 ship and IFT-1 could likely be attributed directly to having a hydraulic controlled gimble. [IFT-3 had both systems electronic]
 
Again, like what I mentioning before, SpaceX is capable of over 10% of their engines during relight to fail and it will still be within it's capabilities.  If you use larger engines you knock the amount of engine failures down to 0% failures.

What is your obsession with bringing AI into your rebuttals?
 
..no, I don't think you do. You keep saying this throughout this thread, but I believe nothing would make you happier than to see spaceX fail.
 
You've already fallen into the "people who disagree with me are spaceX fans"

and when one of SLS's engines fails it probably explodes too.. but if you have the capacity to shut down off-nominal engines before criticality (which starship's booster has) it's a boost for reliability figures... and in fact it's how the airplane industry works.
 
the 'points of failure' argument also only holds if you consider the reliability of the engine itself to be a known value to compare against. just to put some numbers behind this, we've seen two boosters reach the point of hot-staging, at which point we've essentially seen 66 raptor engines perform as expected during the critical part of the mission (landing isnt critical), which is more than the amount of RS-25 engines that were used during the entire lifespan of shuttle.
 
losing one engine (and the opposing pair for balance) also only means a 6-10% decrease in thrust (depending on pairs or triplets), which can be made up for by increasing power level on the rest, because it's been stated they have a quite decent headroom on them. if i recall they have some 30% of headroom that eventually leads into "engine-rich exhaust" (yes, every term here is a meme.. welcome to engineering) where they quite literally sacrifice engines to save the mission.
 
to me it's interesting how some very expensive problems of rocketry are resolved with surprisingly simple concepts. i find rocketlab's electron ditching batteries on it's way up a hilareous solution to the problem of electric fuel pumps.

haha, I know right.
 
Don't forget 11 F-1 engines also would weigh an extra ~40 tonnes...so expected payload to orbit would be reduced by about 40 tonnes.
 
Also F-1 engines minimum thrust  at it's lowest can only be ~65%.  [1 M lbf where you got combustion instability, as per https://www.enginehistory.org/Rockets/RPE08.11/RPE08.11.shtml] Or roughly 4,448 kN.
Now here is just a bit of AI goodness then.
Mass of booster, without fuel is ~3,600,000kg [~* 9.8 to get kN]...to hover you need ~35,280 kN.
With F-1 you need 5.2 engines to match that weight (no acc./dec.).  That means you need to light at minimum 6 engines.
Now what is the max number of engines you can light to hover.  7.9, now the issue is 8 would produce too much thrust [also you wouldn't be running all engines a pure minimum].  So you end up with 7 engines max you could light.  Or 6 - 7 engines needed for a hover maneuver.
 
This is where the issue starts to come into play, which is similar to what Falcon 9 experiences (and why Falcon 9 does a suicide burn).
You could have a range of thrust with those 6 - 7 engines as follows: ~26,688 kN - ~47,390 kN.  Since the weight is 35,280 kN though the min it would be would be 35,280 - 47,390.
 
So you wouldn't want to light the minimum, but rather light the maximum...so lets say you light 7; and 1 fails to light.  You will have an imbalance in thrust from one side, so you need to reduce the power on the other engines (equal to 1 engines worth).  That means failing to light a single engine could cause the loss of vehicle.  Because the range is only 6 - 7 engines you effectively have no wiggle room when it comes to underperforming  or failed relights.
 
So a single engine relight will effectively end your mission (and larger engines have the same if not maybe more changes of failing).
 
Lets look at the Raptor engines now though, lets even assume for the calculation that it had the ~65% pitfall (although raptors can do at worst 50%, but lets assume 65% which is in F-1 argument favor).  That's 1,485 - 2,260 kN 
 
Min engines required, 15.6, so 16 engines.
Max engines possible, 35280 23.7 engines; so rounding down to 23 [remember in actuality, based on the true specs, they could have 30 engines and hover]
That means the min to max range is 16 - 23 engines with a usable range of: 23,760 - 51,980
 
Notice how it allows for an extra of ~4.6 mN of wiggle room.  Also note that you can lose ~7-8 engines of thrust before an issue...going like above that means you could lose 3 - 4 engines [with balancing out the load] and still maintain within acceptable range.
 
So Uta I think the above shows the point everyone is making, that you fail to see, more engines = better resiliency when things go wrong.  The booster is capable of returning with 4 engines failing (over 10% engine loss).  That is something a large engine is unable to do...in-fact large engines makes it worse in the sense that you lose a lot more fine grain control.

idolize < = > assume they know what they are doing better than some outsider with a degree and an opinion.
likewise, people who think in a very theoretical way have no real respect for the difficulties of executing ideas in practisce. if they cant pinpoint it as a variable, it simply doesnt exist. (sidenote, this is referred to as "an unknown unknown", and it's what the majority of engineering time tends to go to.)
THIS point drives home very well why you're getting so much headwind here, to not realise there's two equal and opposite sides to that argument is a perfect example of how shallow your own thinking is.
 
ellaborate, provide example, please support this statement with anything other than a james may-esque "i dont believe in magnetism" joke, from anyone who has any credibility to be quoted. it might not have occurred to you - but engineers love to joke about everything.
at my place of work we have very in-depth theories about how the colour of a PCB affects the reliability.. which is ofcourse utter nonsense, it's just that not all manufacturers have the same quality standards, but it's funny to blame the colour.
 
up until here i'm following you with that thought...
here you're just falling into your theory pit again.. they're engineers, if the current iteration doesnt work, they will iterate until it works - "iterative design" and "rapid prototyping". go look that up, it might make sense to you one day.
also - i dont think anyone with a key role in the Starship thinks it's likely it wont work.. since it essentially already works "as a rocket", it's just the landing portion and the payload portion to add on top of that to finish it off.. and by my calculations they still have 6 years before they're more delayed than SLS 😉
 
deer lord.. page 4 all over again.. there's a lot of practical, real-world issues with making fewer bigger engines. you wouldnt understand because you're stuck in your theory course, but even just yesterday's point about "these engines fit on a regular-ass flatbed truck" is a major factor for something that will be - for the scope of a rocket - mass produced.
 
oh, and copilot did such a great job before.. but i'll entertain your idea..
- less points of failure, but also less redundancy.
- i havent measured this.. but based on images i have a strong feeling 11 of these dont fit under starship. or is that too practical for you?
- it would be more difficult to transport and attach 11 of these than 33 raptors. that's a key part of raptors: they're mass producable and 'easy' to swap out. (all statements relative to the field of rocketry)
- if that engine is relevant to starship, why isnt SLS flying on them?
- you keep shouting 9 engines.. and the best example you could come up with ends up at 11.
 
because people you interact with might share your beliefs, and/or dont get called dumb fanboys by you on a daily basis.
because you havent said anything that you could support with any facts along this entire thread. dont make this a sob story now.. we're not attacking you personally because of any trait of yoruself, other than your absolute determination to be incorrect in this thread.
 
none of us here have claimed that, it's not what we're here for, we dont know your situation and we dont care about your situation. we're here to talk about big rocket go up is cool. stop trying to victimize yourself.
 
aerospikes are also very troublesome in the real world (see, here comes reality again.. pesky reality.), and the efficiency benefit is largely offset by the fact that there's very few usecases where a single engine needs to perform from ground level to space. when we go SSTO perhaps, but not on a multiple stage heavy lifter.
 
afaik last time i saw an aerospike it was on some crew SSTO concept that was deemed too complex to make financial sense at the time.
 
i'd dare make a guess that SpaceX will never develop an aerospike engine, because the upfront investment will most likely not match the profitability compared to making engines with an atmosphere version and a vaccuum version. or should i remind you again - SpaceX is a for profit rocket corporation, not a research facility.
 
besides.. i'd argue that making things orders of magnitude cheaper is quite an innovation.

I don't idolize SpaceX people, but I'm calling YOU an ignorant person for making statements COUNTER to the SpaceX engineers with the truly crazy statement that you somehow know better than what was in the press release.  And the fact YOU are slagging profession.  We get it you are a theoretical person, your previous statements are still stupid theories that run counter to all the information that has been presented.  Your theory is equivalent of someone stating that the air is 99% oxygen, and people pointing to the nitrogen concentrations and you still stating that they are wrong and just a fanboy of the labs that ran the test.
 
You want to know the type of person Sabine is though, she's the type who lacks AWARENESS in the computer science field, presents the information anyways, and lacks integrity to correct her mistake.  Case in point, she confuses petabit with petabyte [literally in her thumbnail and title she uses the word byte instead of bits], for the first few days the video existed the top comments were all about her usage of bits and bytes almost interchangeably; and still no correction.  Talks about encryption on AI, yet is ignorant of the fact the way LLM's work [and similar advanced AI networks] mostly require non-encrypted information because it's not just simple transforms on encrypted data...the data itself needs to effectively almost "fit" a certain pattern and reasoning basis off the data it sees [I'm not going more into this because I'll start running up against a NDA, but processing on encrypted data would yield worse results and a whole lot less useful insights]
 
The point is stop holding up Sabine as though she is some sort of fixture, she makes mistakes and worse yet when she does make major mistakes in a topic she doesn't readily correct them.
 
After all you are the person making the kind of statement
  
So again, your education means nothing if you are conceited enough to believe your word of SpaceX.
 
Please at least THINK before you try responding with something like this; because I'm getting tired of having to point out flaws in your silly theories
 
Falcon 9 uses smaller engines compared to Starship.
 
Falcon 9 has to use a suicide burn because it can't perform a hover maneuver.  In fact, if they don't light it/shutoff at the correct time it will either crash land or if it lands and doesn't shut off in time it will actually start flying again.
 
Again, if you read anything at all and actually comprehended what was said you will notice that the landing burn required would be a lot harder with large engines (because you won't be able to get the control needed AND you will be generating too much power).
 
You say it's an easier solution, but do you understand.  What evidence do you present because so far the engines you keep going on about weren't the root cause of the failure.  A lot of the failures have stemmed from the fact that the Starship is the largest thing ever to take flight and with that comes a learning curve...but again the engines weren't the problem.
 
IFT-1, actually would have been a scrub (as 4 engines weren't available at launch time, but they decided to fly anyways).  Had it been larger engines it would have been a scrub, and we would have had to wait longer.  Engines going out on IFT-1 and it was still able to fly for a longer period of time. [Actually larger engines would have resulted in less data]...actually had they switched to electronic gimbling [which they were going to switch to anyways] it's very likely we would have seen the flip maneuver occur and starship get to the Karman line.
 
IFT-2 , engines not the fault, "complex" plumbing (which really it's pretty simple plumbing) wasn't the issue, it was a blocked filter in the main tank which has nothing to do with many smaller engines as you still would need a similar design to the tank with a few engines and for the starship it was the oxygen dump (along with the hydraulic fire again).
 
So using larger engines isn't the easier solution.  ESPECIALLY since you can't seem to get it through your mind the GOAL IS NOT GET INTO SPACE.  It's GET INTO SPACE AT A LOW COST.  You are missing a great qualifier to the requirements.  You cannot easily create a large engine at a low cost.  Larger engines means a whole lot more specialized equipment, more road closures, slower replacement times, higher cost of manufacturing, higher minimum thrust [which is bad when trying to land the thing], and greater risk of a SPOF.
 
Because you label anyone who gives you a problem as SpaceX fans...seriously, go to all the people you work with and ask them to come here and back you up then in your assessment.  Or perhaps, just perhaps stop making asinine statements that are false.
 
They are doing something new and never done before.  They literally brought ~5000 TONNES of mass into space.  Starship is also only the second methalox ship ever to fly into orbit.  The simple fact is it is attempting to do things never done before.  Starship created the largest mach diamonds ever as well [with the 33 engines all combining together to create giant mach diamonds]
 
Your video you posted about Aerospike, did you ever even watch it?  Here's a hint, Tory Bruno (ULA) talked about heat issues and such, Musk talked about not getting enough performance increase vs optimizing (keeping a simpler design), RocketLabs talking about the pricings and added complexity in engineering, and Vector Aerospace talked about the added weight/parts needed to do it pretty much offset the benefits.  So ultimately you have 4 companies that looked into it, and they all came to similar conclusions that it's not worth pursuing at the moment because the benefits don't outweigh the risks.

As I also mentioned earlier, it's maybe not even about simplifying the manufacturing process but rather the practicality of the manufacturing process.
 
The cooling channels in the rocket main combustion chamber were effectively electroplated on.  The old school method was to create the inner portion, then use wax to fill up the channels and then electroplate to build up like a CM of metal surrounding it.
 
This wasn't used on the Saturn V however, but was used later on on things like the shuttle.
 
The Saturn V though, it used pipes to do it iirc, and at that stage it's about the validation required for each engine would take an inordinate amount of time if it was used...since to create 1 large engine it would be overall simpler to do the process a single time [and the benefit that the more volume gave a better weight to thrust ratio]...either way though both of these methods are obsolete with the advent of modern manufacturing process.
 
SmarterEveryDay's method lacks the awareness of modern rocketry, falls prey to hindsight, and is just as unrealistic as the current timeline is.
 
e.g. The SLS was one of those "playbooks" that congress ate up.  It was meant to be old proven technology that would save money and only cost $10 billion to make, be ready by 2015 and cost $500 million to launch.  It has cost over $23 billion, didn't launch until late 2022, and estimated at maybe upwards of $5 billion per launch [but probably at least $1 billion].
 
As I stated before as well, some of the documents he pointed to would have been classified at the time. There are mission updates, but the public isn't privvy to listening and seeing them.  They already have the testing underway for the starship to Orion dock being tested [and a prototype built]
 
Apollo also existed in the time when the peak budget was ~5%, which today no one would accept that kind of budget today.  Do you know why we stopped going to the moon?  Because it was too expensive to keep the Saturn V running and operating missions.  NASA is setting to accomplish this without breaking the bank, so no the "playbook" is not the same playbook.  The playbook this time is a sustainable mission to the moon.
 
If the Starship isn't ready for Artemis it won't be the fault of SpaceX, but instead it's the pencil pushers who decided to set a public target date that is unrealistic with the actual mission objectives.  It's the whole, don't start a bidding processing on something with only 3 years lead time.
 
Again, the SLS is the prime example of this kind of mentality, it was supposed to have missions by 2015 but didn't.  The Orion capsule was supposed to be in service in 2015 but wasn't.  The old playbook has failed.
 
No need to try making this into a discussion on politics.  The moon is an international body, and the whole combativeness of this country that country etc only leads to additional conflicts.  Space should not be an us vs them mentality, which is what you seem to be pushing

to be fair, the little of that speech i could bear to watch didnt really present as a man deeply involved with the intricacies of modern day rocket design. he might be an engineer, he might be knowledgable, but that doesnt make him an authority on the difference between NASA's design philosophy and SpaceX's design philosophy.
 
also - he's a youtuber, a guest speaker.. if he truly was an authority on the matter, why is he a guest speaker instead of an engineer at NASA? to me this felt like a cross-marketing opportunity for both parties. successful, a brilliant idea, a perfect person to light some fire under NASA's butts, but it doesnt make him an authority on the details of an incredibly complicated field. it's obvious to laymen like us, it should be obvious to you.

Seriously, learn to read and have an ounce of comprehension and honestly the way you proclaim your education you are much like ThunderF00t ego stroking.
 
I know master level computer science major who worked at Google who I talked to about Waymo before...his response to it was talking about the trolley problem and he seriously was considering that that was an important part of programming it [in the literal sense he had no knowledge of how self driving technology actually worked]
I had a prof who was pretty much illiterate when it came to using a computer, but he taught algorithm design.
I know CCNA's who deployed networks, and I had to come in and correct them on their mistakes [in one case having to show a POC that I wrote proving their setup didn't match the specifications].
 
General education, or even education in a field DOES NOT mean they are knowledgeable in aspects of the field...actually it can be worse in that you could have a very narrow field of focus.
 
Again, I said "lacks the AWARENESS of modern rocketry".  He didn't follow the rocketry and missions up to the point where he was asked to talk with them.
 
He pretty much admits it himself, that he wasn't even aware that it would require in-space refueling.  You can tell that his calculations on burn off are also off, more likely using early numbers of what Starship might have required to launch...because while the statement was 6, he talked about 12 (just still hinted he thought it was more).  Even at a boil off of 20%, the v3 Starship will hypothetically need a max of 6 ships.  Assuming 12 ships would assume a boil-off of roughly 50%.
 
The issue like above is exactly why someone who can have a higher educational background can be wrong when they lack the awareness of their current subject.  Again he's pulling papers and looking at things with hindsight knowledge of the inner workings of Apollo.
 
Degrees and "credentials" in the form of education don't mean anything you ignorant person.
 
It's logic 101, I've made claims, claims that are verifiable that can be tested against; I've made guesses of outcomes that are closer to what turned out to reality than you.
 
But hey you are the one who is to thick to realize your education doesn't mean a thing when you make stupid statements like [fuel slosh is why they never made orbit] and your stupid bits where you somehow think you are better than the people WHO WORK AT SPACEX..
 
To only rely on education merits as a standard is just stupid.

You don't need to tell us how much money you spend. You just need to tell us inputs and outputs and device models.
Does your audio interface have a "Pre-Out" or any remaining audio outputs that are variable?
 
You would hook up the subwoofer's stereo RCA ports to the audio interface's pre-out (or other variable output). I don't see a Gain on the subwoofer, so you would need to adjust the Gain on your HS8's to volume match them to your subwoofer. Then ideally the single volume control on the interface will raise/lower volume like any normal device without weird volume mismatching.

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.

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.

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:
 

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.

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.

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.

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
 

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]

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.

That 90% of people concerned about bottlenecks don't understand bottlenecks. 

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.

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.

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.