An always cool Falcon 9 launch (and other Space News)

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

 

 

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:(.

I'm merely stating the truth; it's not anger it's calling out someone who is claiming to be a place of authority while being either ignorant/bias or has to be so inept at their reported field of education that their credentials has to be called into account.

 

We are at the 11 page mark, where on multiple of the pages Uta has been correct again and again that a) explosion doesn't mean failure, b) fuel slosh isn't what caused the issue.

 

It's a simple fact, the public statements by SpaceX have already assessed the reason why it didn't make orbit.  For Uta to state otherwise is just a stupid argument.  Again, we are at the 11th page of having to correct the very basic facts that Uta is expressing.  While Uta is praising success of other different attempts; it's clear there is biased thoughts going on here

 

If it's just some rando who states crazy "facts" that aren't facts that is one thing, but this is someone who claims to be working on pretty much a billion dollar contract, that seems to be actively trying to invite LTT to cover their stuff...that is a troubling thing

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

someone who is claiming to be a place of authority while being either ignorant/bias or has to be so inept at their reported field of education that their credentials has to be called into account.

i dont question their education or credentials at all.. the field they studied is about as irrelevant to rocketry as is my 6 years of IT experience. they may as well be a beancounter at NASA for the relevance to this thread.

[Uttamattamakin]

3 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

 

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:(.

Take care of yourself. 

 

@wanderingfool2  I get it you take Elons words and Space X press realeses as gospel.  I am going by what I saw in the data. The line that they almost got to orbit but for not having a payload makes no sense.  NONE.   Surely they would've factored that in. 

 

@manikyath That's because here's what happens.  

I post news from reliable sources. 

Then people come at me with Got'em energy about something not relevant while explaining that what Space X is doing is "revolutionary". 

 

Meanwhile I just want them to not let down Artemis and don't care about anything else. 

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I get it you take Elons words and Space X press realeses as gospel.  I am going by what I saw in the data

What "data" suggests a fuel slosh preventing orbit?

 

Are you seriously that biased that you can't even consider that the publicly stated reason is perhaps true.  After all, they have to submit an incident report to the FAA, which eventually there is going to be information on the cause.

 

For IFT-2, the upper stage literally went 5 minutes of engine firing...no way the loss was caused by fuel slosh at that point.  No one even analyzing the data seems to think that is the cause of not reaching orbit except you.

 

The explanation given by SpaceX fits., and they don't have a reason to state things otherwise in this case.

 

6 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The line that they almost got to orbit but for not having a payload makes no sense.  NONE.   Surely they would've factored that in. 

What makes no sense is your whole fuel slosh theory given that fuel slosh hadn't occurred for at least 5 minutes (and the upper stage would have actually been more akin to it taking off from the ground as it was accelerating away from the booster).

 

Since you can't seem to piece things together, let me dumb it down for you

 

They wanted to attempt a launch with it being fully fueled (as that is what the fuel tanks will be in during actual missions, and they need them full).

They needed full fuel for the separation, as it's an important for the upper stage.

They were wanting to attempt a re-entry but they wanted to simulate the ship being in the state it would be in real world scenarios.  With extra LOX because of no payload they had to dump it.

 

So they DID factor in that no payload would be onboard, which is why they were dumping LOX (could kind of see this point in some of the videos).

 

What they didn't factor in, the LOX dump fueling fires and the fires causes failures.

 

6 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I post news from reliable sources. 

Then people come at me with Got'em energy about something not relevant while explaining that what Space X is doing is "revolutionary". 

You forgot after post news, you claim to make absurd and biased statements where you display "facts" based on no truth.

 

You then mark your replies as answers.

In this thread so far, you insinuate that Starship is a failure because of the explosions and imply they aren't doing things properly;

Yet you then also change the title to include other space stuff, and so far don't treat the failures of other companies the same way.

 

After all, it's clear from anyone who watched the recent moon landing that things went wrong.  They failed with their LIDAR with a mistake that is quite frankly unjustifiable, they failed to deploy, and they fell over when landing...and yet where's your same level of criticism of a company that clearly made quite a serious mistake.

 

I'm against a lot of your posts you seem to make because you lack basic level of critical thinking of what you are reading and when challenged you blame other things.

[CarlBar]

6 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Take care of yourself. 

 

@wanderingfool2  I get it you take Elons words and Space X press realeses as gospel.  I am going by what I saw in the data. The line that they almost got to orbit but for not having a payload makes no sense.  NONE.   Surely they would've factored that in. 

 

@manikyath That's because here's what happens.  

I post news from reliable sources. 

Then people come at me with Got'em energy about something not relevant while explaining that what Space X is doing is "revolutionary". 

 

Meanwhile I just want them to not let down Artemis and don't care about anything else. 

 

Thnx. Will probably start on a reply in a day or two.

[manikyath]

11 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

That's because here's what happens.  

I post news from reliable sources. 

Then people come at me with Got'em energy about something not relevant while explaining that what Space X is doing is "revolutionary". 

let me help you refresh your memory;

 

- you post news from reliable sources and add your own opinion, as per forum guidelines.

- you get a reply that nuances those opinions based on the reports of multiple outlets and opinions that are just as valuable as your own.

- instead of engaging in debate, you take a position of imagined authority, call people shills, and are then surprised when people call you out when you then start to make statements that are factually inaccurate.

 

case in point:

- you comparing starship to N1, and even your opinions about N1 appear misinfored.

- you still blaming IFT2 on fuel slosh, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

- this:

11 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

 

11 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I am going by what I saw in the data. The line that they almost got to orbit but for not having a payload makes no sense.  NONE.   Surely they would've factored that in. 

what data? spacex's data? the data that they base their own press release on?

 

i'm sure you watched the same news outlets i did, the payload thing has been well explained, i can only imagine your lack of provided context is because no context fits your narrative better.

 

and while sure some people here dont make good examples of themselves.. but falling equally low doesnt help your case.

 

11 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Meanwhile I just want them to not let down Artemis and don't care about anything else. 

they'll make it work faster and cheaper than nasa would have on their own. that's what matters most, isnt it?

[Uttamattamakin]

4 hours ago, manikyath said:

case in point:

- you comparing starship to N1, and even your opinions about N1 appear misinfored.

- you still blaming IFT2 on fuel slosh, while we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

- this:

The nuances you speak of are often.  "It's totally fine for Space X's rockets to blow up they are doing things never done before and are revolutionary".  

 

N1 is comparable to Starship.  So far they have had the same problems with the same end results.    

Starship has done better in that at least it hasn't caused a mass casualty tragedy... so far.   It'll be great if and when it works until then Space X needs to prove it can. 

 

4 hours ago, manikyath said:

what data? spacex's data? the data that they base their own press release on?

 

Video.  You can see with your own eyes and if you know what you are looking at you can know what is going on.  Multiple creators who focus on space have agreed with what my eyes have seen. 

 

Space X has a vested interest in saying this is fine. 

 

In fact OMG  Co pilot 

I didn't even mention musk in the prompt and it more or less generated an Elon Musk saying it.  LMBO  Look in the center of the Explosion it's like MS copilot is even laughing at it.    As it makes a legally distinct person who totally wouldn't be Elon Musk. 

 

 

9 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Thnx. Will probably start on a reply in a day or two.

You're replies are good and informative and I learn something from them.  I mean they don't change the fundamentals that are leading to Starship blowing up again and again.  Those are what Space X needs to be willing to rethink.   I mean you see above even AI LLM's and image gens are picking up on the trend. LOL  

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

What "data" suggests a fuel slosh preventing orbit?

Look at the videos of the test.  Notice how some of the engines start to fail every time?  

This is because of disruptions in fuel flow as the fuel sloshes.  They also always happen when the rocket is starting to maneuver  either hot staging in IFT2 or the attempted kick flip in the first one.  

 

Second.  The laws of basic physics dictate that mass in motion will try to remain in motion on a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.  The body of the rocket my try to change direction ... the fule in it will react to that.  

 

Take water, put it in a 2 liter bottle and toss it in the air.  Watch what the water does.   TONS and TONS of that stuff sloshing about causes problems. 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

After all, it's clear from anyone who watched the recent moon landing that things went wrong.  They failed with their LIDAR with a mistake that is quite frankly unjustifiable, they failed to deploy, and they fell over when landing...and yet where's your same level of criticism of a company that clearly made quite a serious mistake.

 

I'm against a lot of your posts you seem to make because you lack basic level of critical thinking of what you are reading and when challenged you blame other things.

Right you were so correct about LK99, Hyperloop, and everything else so far LOL.  

You see Wandering I don't need to write a long rebuttal because nature itself agrees with me.  

[manikyath]

17 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The nuances you speak of are often.  "It's totally fine for Space X's rockets to blow up they are doing things never done before and are revolutionary".  

you are again misquoting what was said in this regard. as i've said several times in this thread.. making it to orbit wasnt a requirement for IFT-2, all the major goals for this launch have been met, in this regard it can be considered a successful test.

 

and again.. just to make sure you cannot misquote me by accident... NOT A PRODUCTION ROCKET..

TEST  OF A PROTOTYPE

 

17 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

N1 is comparable to Starship.  So far they have had the same problems with the same end results.    

they havent had the same problems, they havent had the same end results. look up N1's history.

i'm not gonna repeat what i've said the past 11 pages...

 

(and if "it exploded" is your "same end result" you are in no way capable of assessing a rocket's failure mode from a video.)

 

17 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Starship has done better in that at least it hasn't caused a mass casualty tragedy... so far.   It'll be great if and when it works until then Space X needs to prove it can. 

again.. between starship and SLS, starship still has several years to prove itself a reliable vehicle until it's taken as long as SLS, and it's going for literally 1/1000th of the budget. the only reason you're being so negative about starship is because SpaceX prefers to do a lot of real-world tests, and these tests happen to be very visible. if it exploded with no cameras on it you wouldnt be angry. a point i've made before.

 

17 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

You can see with your own eyes and if you know what you are looking at you can know what is going on.  Multiple creators who focus on space have agreed with what my eyes have seen. 

are we confusing starship's second stage, and the RTLS maneuvre of the booster again? RTLS isnt a requirement for artemis, it's somethign spaceX is doing for their own cost efficiency reasons.. and if they launch vehicles, they may as well use them as tests for booster recovery.. the same way as it has happened with falcon 9.. and again - the only reason why you're upset about starship is because you're witnessing these tests.

a point i've made several times in this thread.

 

17 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I didn't even mention musk in the prompt and it more or less generated an Elon Musk saying it.  LMBO

that is the most "default male businessman" cartoon i've ever seen... the only reason you're seeing an elon musk in it, is because you want it to be an elon musk.. perhaps this is more confirming your own bias than the other's bias?

 

EDIT: ps, the only images i can find of elon musk in a suit with a tie is a black suit, when he is photographed on his way in or out of court.. that cartoon is in no way resembling elon musk other than that it is a white male with short hair.

 

as i've said earlier - 

4 hours ago, manikyath said:

and while sure some people here dont make good examples of themselves.. but falling equally low doesnt help your case.

 

[Beerzerker]

44 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

 

The one doing all the blasting/blowing up reminded me of this:

[HenrySalayne]

36 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

N1 is comparable to Starship.  So far they have had the same problems with the same end results. 

If you use such a broad scope, I probably encountered similar problems as N1 getting out of bed this morning.

It's only natural to use superficial and basic comparisons for a quick assessment. But at this point in the thread we are long beyond that. It has all been said before and you can read it again a few pages back.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Right you were so correct about LK99, Hyperloop, and everything else so far LOL.  

You see Wandering I don't need to write a long rebuttal because nature itself agrees with me.  

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.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Video.  You can see with your own eyes and if you know what you are looking at you can know what is going on.  Multiple creators who focus on space have agreed with what my eyes have seen. 

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.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Look at the videos of the test.  Notice how some of the engines start to fail every time?  

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.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

This is because of disruptions in fuel flow as the fuel sloshes.  They also always happen when the rocket is starting to maneuver  either hot staging in IFT2 or the attempted kick flip in the first one.  

 

Second.  The laws of basic physics dictate that mass in motion will try to remain in motion on a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.  The body of the rocket my try to change direction ... the fule in it will react to that.  

 

Take water, put it in a 2 liter bottle and toss it in the air.  Watch what the water does.   TONS and TONS of that stuff sloshing about causes problems

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.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Starship has done better in that at least it hasn't caused a mass casualty tragedy... so far.   It'll be great if and when it works until then Space X needs to prove it can. 

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

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Starship has done better in that at least it hasn't caused a mass casualty tragedy... so far.   It'll be great if and when it works until then Space X needs to prove it can. 

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.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, Beerzerker said:

The one doing all the blasting/blowing up reminded me of this:

IKR.  Like what's with the metal kitty cat face with red and blue eyes.  (In the past I'll sometimes ask Bing GPT or Copilot) to generate an image of a body it would have it will have those eye colors. )  How would that prompt lead to that? 

 

 

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

If you use such a broad scope, I probably encountered similar problems as N1 getting out of bed this morning.

It's only natural to use superficial and basic comparisons for a quick assessment. But at this point in the thread we are long beyond that. It has all been said before and you can read it again a few pages back.

It's not superficial and basic.    Someone who REALLY likes Space X and I'm sure you all agree knows things about it points out the big differences AND deep similarities in design. 

https://everydayastronaut.com/starship-vs-n1/

 

Quote

In summary, while the N1 faced significant difficulties, Starship has the advantage of technological advancements, financial stability, and a proven track record of pushing boundaries. SpaceX’s commitment to iterative design, economies of scale, and reusability positions Starship for success and the potential to revolutionize space transportation.

(Which will all respect to Tim Dodd ... I hope he gets to space on one of these AND gets back alive.  This kinda also sounds like "Space X is awesome and Starship is revolutionary so it has to work") 

 

@wanderingfool2 and @manikyath

 

As I've said to you before and about other things... like LK99 appearing to untrained eyes to be levitating by super conductivity but not to my trained eyes. ... I hope I am wrong.  IT would be a good thing if I am wrong.    I would be HAPPY VERY HAPPY to be wrong.  Starship would be awesome and given enough time it will put lots of Starlink satellites in orbit. 

It just doesn't seem to be on track to be useful for Artemis which in my book makes it a failure unless they can get it together PDQ.   I've stated what the observable fundamental issues are.  They manifest in large explosions / RUDs or whatever.

 

I can't help it.  I even found an image with Elon doing a pose just like this.  You have to admit it's funny that such a prompt basically brings up Elon Musk. 

[wanderingfool2]

33 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

It's not superficial and basic.    Someone who REALLY likes Space X and I'm sure you all agree knows things about it points out the big differences AND deep similarities in design. 

https://everydayastronaut.com/starship-vs-n1/

We are on page 12, and you still can't spell SpaceX correctly?

 

Overall you are running on false notions and false logic

 

Your statements so far, in regards to a comparison

Starship has too many engines, and too many engines are worse/cause the failure

Starship's plumbing is too complex because of too many engines.

Both you make comparisons to N1, with the concept that N1 failing means Starship is doomed.

 

While others have pointed out, engine design was completely different on N1 vs Starship; which means the direct comparison isn't true (Starship can fly with loss of engines, as was proven on IFT-1, N1 couldn't realistically)...N1 engines had to actually be hand crafted/tuned because of the technology back then (not rolled off the factory).  So the whole engine failure thing isn't as bad as you imply.

 

As for the plumbing, it's not shown to have been a problem yet...they flew IFT-1 knowing of issues could occur (they knew if a single engine blew up they would lose the vehicle).

 

The issue with you is you are only comparing crude grade school level ideas and making a blanket statement.  You are effectively comparing Apples to Oranges...compared to Tim Dodd's article which actually tries to do some fair comparisons and contrasts the differences that make them non-comparable.

 

43 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

t just doesn't seem to be on track to be useful for Artemis which in my book makes it a failure unless they can get it together PDQ.   I've stated what the observable fundamental issues are.  They manifest in large explosions / RUDs or whatever.

Again with this absurd reasoning.

 

THEY KNEW IT WOULD LIKELY END IN EXPLOSIONS

 

On IFT-1 and IFT-2 the FTS was triggered.  For the sake of sanity, try to get it into your mind explosion doesn't mean there is a fundamental issue.  Falcon 9 had multiple explosions before going on for being the most reliable rocket.

 

Again, SLS flying live missions is a whole lot more of a crazy move by NASA in my opinion...since SLS failed on the green run (and had the green run actually not showed this issue at this particular time they would have ran it and eventually had an abort as the issue would have eventually cropped up in one of their flights)....and had it been on the maiden voyage, you guessed it...it would have blown up.

 

Anyone in their right mind knows that Artemis isn't going to happen on time, the time constraints at the awarding of the contracts weren't realistic (but it's political, it's how they got their funding).  The whole Artemis being pushed back as well hasn't even been solely because of Starship.  The spacesuits have already pushed the schedule, the Orion capsule is going to take like a year to repair, etc...

 

By your sloppy way of thinking then, SLS is a failure, Space Suits are a failure, IM-1 is a failure, Peregrine is a failure, Orion is a failure...after all they all have created massive delays and have shown they aren't designed well enough to work on their first go.

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

It's not superficial and basic.    Someone who REALLY likes Space X and I'm sure you all agree knows things about it points out the big differences AND deep similarities in design. 

https://everydayastronaut.com/starship-vs-n1/

 

Quote

In summary, while the N1 faced significant difficulties, Starship has the advantage of technological advancements, financial stability, and a proven track record of pushing boundaries. SpaceX’s commitment to iterative design, economies of scale, and reusability positions Starship for success and the potential to revolutionize space transportation.

(Which will all respect to Tim Dodd ... I hope he gets to space on one of these AND gets back alive.  This kinda also sounds like "Space X is awesome and Starship is revolutionary so it has to work") 

Oh, maybe you should read that article again:

Quote

Similarly, SpaceX chose a similar philosophy of iterative testing with Starship, despite conducting engine tests and static fire tests. They believe that testing, even if it fails, provides valuable data and insights. Rather than trying to solve all the complexities of flying, landing, and reusing the world’s largest rocket in one go, SpaceX adopts a step-by-step approach, learning from each test.

 

[Lunar River]

4 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I didn't even mention musk in the prompt and it more or less generated an Elon Musk saying it.  LMBO  Look in the center of the Explosion it's like MS copilot is even laughing at it.    As it makes a legally distinct person who totally wouldn't be Elon Musk. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I can't help it.  I even found an image with Elon doing a pose just like this.  You have to admit it's funny that such a prompt basically brings up Elon Musk. 

Using an ai genned image as part of your argument is an.... interesting strategy.

I'm sure you're not biased at ALL.

[manikyath]

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

untrained eyes

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.

[Uttamattamakin]

8 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Oh, maybe you should read that article again:

 

I did.  Iterative testing does not have to mean blowing up a bunch of rockets.  I mean that is what the USSR was doing with N1 as well. 

[Uttamattamakin]

7 hours ago, manikyath said:

untrained eyes.. like yours?

 

Oh I'm so hurt.  Are we riding on LK99 based hoverboards yet?  Rember how excited so many were for that and what an Idiot I supposedly was for stating what is clear to anyone who knew anything. 

[Uttamattamakin]

8 hours ago, Lunar River said:

 

Using an ai genned image as part of your argument is an.... interesting strategy.

I'm sure you're not biased at ALL.

I pointed out something funny.  Come on you have to admit it is funny. 

I mean look at this thing.

  

 

What in literal hellfire is that?  LOL. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I did.  Iterative testing does not have to mean blowing up a bunch of rockets.  I mean that is what the USSR was doing with N1 as well. 

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.

 

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Oh I'm so hurt.  Are we riding on LK99 based hoverboards yet?  Rember how excited so many were for that and what an Idiot I supposedly was for stating what is clear to anyone who knew anything. 

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/

Quote

At vehicle separation, Starship’s upper stage successfully lit all six Raptor engines and flew a normal ascent until approximately seven minutes into the flight, when a planned vent of excess liquid oxygen propellant began. Additional propellant had been loaded on the spacecraft before launch in order to gather data representative of future payload deploy missions and needed to be disposed of prior to reentry to meet required propellant mass targets at splashdown.

 

A leak in the aft section of the spacecraft that developed when the liquid oxygen vent was initiated resulted in a combustion event and subsequent fires that led to a loss of communication between the spacecraft’s flight computers. This resulted in a commanded shut down of all six engines prior to completion of the ascent burn, followed by the Autonomous Flight Safety System detecting a mission rule violation and activating the flight termination system, leading to vehicle breakup. The flight test’s conclusion came when the spacecraft was as at an altitude of ~150 km and a velocity of ~24,000 km/h, becoming the first Starship to reach outer space.

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

[manikyath]

4 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Oh I'm so hurt.  Are we riding on LK99 based hoverboards yet?  Rember how excited so many were for that and what an Idiot I supposedly was for stating what is clear to anyone who knew anything. 

behold, the queen of misquoting has spoken...

 

have you even read what my point was, or are you just pulling things out of context to seem like you're in the right here?

[manikyath]

4 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I did.  Iterative testing does not have to mean blowing up a bunch of rockets.  I mean that is what the USSR was doing with N1 as well. 

please, go fish up the history on N1 and explain how their process was similar to starship. i've already done so to explain how different they are, are you just gonna sit here shouting or are you gonna come with any facts to support this statement?

[manikyath]

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.

[CarlBar]

Pardon me for asking but does anyone have a breakdown of the smarter everyday video. This is the third time i've tried to watch it, (turned up in my recommendation the day it was posted), and i've bounced off it everytime. Something about his style completely fails to hold my attention. That or a transcript, i imagine i'd read through it better than listen to it.

[wanderingfool2]

16 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

Pardon me for asking but does anyone have a breakdown of the smarter everyday video. This is the third time i've tried to watch it, (turned up in my recommendation the day it was posted), and i've bounced off it everytime. Something about his style completely fails to hold my attention. That or a transcript, i imagine i'd read through it better than listen to it.

Which one?  The one where he was the guest lecturer talking about Artemis, or one of his other space ones?