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

[CarlBar]

55 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I've said Falcon good. I've said Falcon Heavy good.  I just think Starship is a fundamentally flawed design. I then gave logical reasons for that.  TO which I got various personal attacks and lite censorship.   

 

And yet Falcon heavy disproves your reasons for why starship is a flawed design, 27 engines on falcon heavy, only 6 less than on starship.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I've said Falcon good. I've said Falcon Heavy good.  I just think Starship is a fundamentally flawed design. I then gave logical reasons for that.  TO which I got various personal attacks and lite censorship.   

Your "logical reasons" and biases are the ones being picked apart.  It's not attacking you personally if you start shouting 2 + 2 = 5; and claiming your logic is correct.

 

Your whole logical reasons, and hyperbole misleading statements seem to be very biased.

 

Again, like the whole FTS thing.  You stated it was a failure due to the size of the chunk but provided no evidence that was what the FTS is.

 

I on the other hand provided a NASA link that shows it wasn't about the size of the object, then you responded with your own 2 links trying to show you correct...but your direct quote semantically said nothing of what your claim was, so instead you claim that despite it semantically being interpreted as one way, they really meant it the way you want it.

 

That is the epitome of failure to approach this subject with any form of logic.  You have time and again shown lack of basic level logic, so yea it's not an attack on you per-se but an attack on an "expert" that is failing to apply basic levels of logic to what is being talked about while using the status of an expert to try swaying the opinion.

 

It's different if you approach it as more of an opinion or theory based, but you are making statements that are trying to make comparisons that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation and acting like what you are stating as facts of it being like a failure is somehow backed up.

[Uttamattamakin]

5 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

And yet Falcon heavy disproves your reasons for why starship is a flawed design, 27 engines on falcon heavy, only 6 less than on starship.

You forget the important difference.  The Falcon Heavy does that by combining separate systems with separate plumbing systems.  The problem with so many engines plmumbed as one system is keeping fuel flow, and pressure consistent across the whole large system.  This is a fundamental issue.  It is the reason they had rockets not re-light.  

That Falcon Heavy has been able to launch without mishaps at all is testament to how combining several smaller rockets and smaller boosters to make one large rocket is a better approach.    

Lastly the point of the comment you were replying to was to prove that I am not anti Space X.  I just told it like it is.  

 

@wanderingfool2 If you say so chief.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

On 11/19/2023 at 3:41 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

Also you know the engines you are talking about.. those engines, or a variant of those engines, made in USSR times have been used on the Atlas 5.  Russia makes a lot of crap but their rockets are pretty good.

You're mixing up your rocket engines. This is not correct.

 

The N1 rocket used the NK-15 rocket engine. This design evolved into the NK-33 eventually, which was used on the Soyuz 2-1v variant. It had 10 launches, so it's not a particularly well used variant. 

 

The rocket on the Atlas V is the RD-180. It uses similar fuel and a turbopump, but it's not the same rocket. Nor can I find any references that it was developed as an evolution of the NK-15.

 

The RD-180, however, was derived from the RD-170, which was used on the Energia rocket system (The Russian Shuttle launcher). You're clearly mixing up your rocket history here.

On 11/22/2023 at 6:23 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

Also an FTS is not supposed to just shut down the engine.  It's supposed to ensure that the spacecraft is so destroyed that any pieces will not harm those on the ground.

I'm not gonna go too much into detail, as others have already covered this in pretty good depth, backed with sources, including NASA itself, but the FTS system has 3 main goals:

1. To terminate the propulsion system

2. To burn up or otherwise consume the fuel

3. Contain the debris to a small number of pieces - this does not mean or imply anything about the size of the pieces. I would suspect it's more about containing the spread of debris. It's better to have one larger chunk crash into the empty ocean than having a large number of smaller pieces spread out all over the place, causing a larger hazard. That's what the flight corridor is for, to ensure there's a space place to drop the debris that doesn't burn up.

 

The FTS would need an insane amount of explosives to fully destroy a huge rocket of any kind, let alone Starship and Booster. Smaller rockets tend to more fully explode because.. well they're smaller. If the FTS system on SLS were set off, there'd likely be a few large chunks of that remaining too.

 

Plus the regulatory bodies seem satisfied with the FTS system at least for now. We'll see if there are any recommendations for change for the next launch.

[manikyath]

5 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

That Falcon Heavy has been able to launch without mishaps at all is testament to how combining several smaller rockets and smaller boosters to make one large rocket is a better approach.    

here's the thing with your logic you're still ignoring though...

 

starship launched fine on 33 engines, the problem only occurred with flip and boost-back, which from my very non-expert opinion was a VERY violent move to do with a rocket the size of a block of flats, and could probably be done a bit slower to allow the fuel to settle more.

 

past that, having multiple separate fuel systems would be less space and cost efficient, as well as creating a new problem: not all engines on starship are used equally, so the theoretical split up fuel systems would not be used equally either.

 

you keep coming back to how the booster "didnt work" because FTS was activated.. when it clearly visibly, as "your own lying eyes" can tell you if you watch the video.. IT WENT UP JUST FINE. if their goal was to make an expendable booster they would be as "done" at this stage as SLS is. 33 engines worked, stop acting like it never will.

 

now.. getting this block of flats back on the ground is another huge challenge in it's own right, but that challenge is largely equal wether it has 33 engines plumbed into one tank, 33 engines plumbed into a number of tanks, a smaller number of engines, or if it were a 3-module design that would have to land all 3 modules in the same way falcon does.. which in itself is quite the logistical challenge.

[CarlBar]

8 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

You forget the important difference.  The Falcon Heavy does that by combining separate systems with separate plumbing systems.  The problem with so many engines plmumbed as one system is keeping fuel flow, and pressure consistent across the whole large system.  This is a fundamental issue.  It is the reason they had rockets not re-light.  

 

Except the plumbing was never the issue with N1. I have zero idea where your getting the thought that the plumbing would be an issue?

 

It's not even like there can be imbalanced fuel/oxidiser flow to each engine. Each engine has its own individual pumps pulling the liquids in. It's just a matter of keeping the feed pipe filled which is a matter of pressure in the tanks, which is also partially involved in keeping the rocket from collapsing under its own weight. Everything upstream of the pumps is actually pretty simple, (relatively speaking, it's still serious engineering work, but it's not super complicated). Now the pumps themselves and everything downstream is another matter entirely, thats a major pain in the postier to get right. Which is why they test fire the engines so much.

Too much flow is basically impossible because it allready needs the pumps to get enough flow so the pump would have to be over pumping to cause an excess. Ad too little would cause a low pressure event which would vaporise some of the liquids and result in engines ingesting gas bubbles. The only real potentiol issue is water hammer from sudden changes in fuel flow, but thats a matter of having appropriately gentle throttle adjustments.

 

8 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

You're mixing up your rocket engines. This is not correct.

 

The N1 rocket used the NK-15 rocket engine. This design evolved into the NK-33 eventually, which was used on the Soyuz 2-1v variant. It had 10 launches, so it's not a particularly well used variant. 

 

The rocket on the Atlas V is the RD-180. It uses similar fuel and a turbopump, but it's not the same rocket. Nor can I find any references that it was developed as an evolution of the NK-15.

 

The RD-180, however, was derived from the RD-170, which was used on the Energia rocket system (The Russian Shuttle launcher). You're clearly mixing up your rocket history here.

 

To add to this. In addition to the lack of test firing to ensure the engines where functional the N1 had a couple of other major issues.

 

First it relied on differential thrust to steer, basically it would throttle engines up or down on specific sides to change the thrust balance to steer. Such a system is much less tolerant of engine failures than gimbals as if one engine fails, another engine opposite has to be throttle to near zero to keep the rocket from turning.

 

Second, the system responsible for handling the engine throttling was very simplistic, (computers of that era couldn't really do complex stuff on the level required). As a result if enough engines failed it couldn't control the rocket at all because it relied on throttling specific engines to archive a specific effect, it couldn't adapt which engines it waa throttling to take account of failures.

 

The result is it was very intolerant of any engine failures, in addition to being built in a way that maximized the odds of engine failures. Thats an inherently fatal problem. Plumbing wasn't the issue with the N1. It  was just a bad engine design, (in the sense they couldn't test each one without launching, the design itself was nothing amazingly special  ina good or bad way AFAIK).

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, manikyath said:

now.. getting this block of flats back on the ground is another huge challenge in it's own right, but that challenge is largely equal wether it has 33 engines plumbed into one tank, 33 engines plumbed into a number of tanks, a smaller number of engines, or if it were a 3-module design that would have to land all 3 modules in the same way falcon does.. which in itself is quite the logistical challenge.

There's also the concept of how much you can throttle down large engines to be able to do it's final burn.

 

The Falcon 9 has to do a suicide burn in order to land (if they reignite too early it is destroyed, too late it is destroyed)...and that's even with multiple engines already.

 

The issue is you can only throttle down engines to a certain amount, which means using a larger engine can effectively give you less control in the empty stage of the rocket landing.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, here is a good breakdown of the differences between flights; it's a good watch

 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

5 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Except the plumbing was never the issue with N1. I have zero idea where your getting the thought that the plumbing would be an issue?

 

The back up for this is all in the sources.  Of course many of the original most knowledgeable sources are in Russian and some are redacted. 

That this was a problem with Starship  listen to this. 

 

The fuel sloshing in the large tanks, large amounts of it, at high speed, with high momentum and angular momentum both starved some engines of fuel and may have damaged the plumbing.  This only happens to Starship, while Falcon 9 works because of the sheer size and complexity of this system.  

 

Here's my answer to the rest of your questions.  I love this song.  I just don't want to hear it again. 

I certainly don't want to hear it again because of the hubris of a rich man, cheered on.  I don't expect little old me to convince anyone of anything.   

 

Appeals to authority are terrible arguments... but data has failed, references have failed, and I have often been insulted in this thread so I leave you with this.  I am smart enough to be one of a handful of Black people in this picture. 

But go on explain to me how fundamental physics works. LOL

[HenrySalayne]

18 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Here's my answer to the rest of your questions.  I love this song.  I just don't want to hear it again. 

I certainly don't want to hear it again because of the hubris of a rich man, cheered on.  I don't expect little old me to convince anyone of anything.   

 

Appeals to authority are terrible arguments... but data has failed, references have failed, and I have often been insulted in this thread so I leave you with this.  I am smart enough to be one of a handful of Black people in this picture. 

But go on explain to me how fundamental physics works. LOL

 

"Won't somebody please think of the children!?" - Lovejoy's law hard at work again.

 

You could have done a little research to learn, who actually decides if and when a launch system is human-rated. Before Space X flies astronauts on Starship, NASA will be the one to certify the safety of Starship to NASA's standards. And they are not a high as you might think...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-rating_certification

 

 

[manikyath]

57 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

but data has failed, references have failed

references to what exactly? N1 failing? that's the only reference you keep bringing up, and there's plenty of arguments for why N1 failing bears no direct resemblence to starship booster failing.

 

case in point.. let's pick apart your sources:

57 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The back up for this is all in the sources.  Of course many of the original most knowledgeable sources are in Russian and some are redacted. 

quoting your own source: "the complex plumbing ... was fragile".

the problem wanst that "the plumbing was complex", the problem was that "the complex plumbing was fragile". i trust the engineers at SpaceX to have calculated the loads on the plumbing, and engineered it plenty strong enough together with a flight plan that  avoids unnecessary force peaks.

 

not that i believe you'll take a source i post as anything but propaganda at his point.. but here's an article talking about the similarities and differences between N1 and starship, and actually touching on why the number of engines wasnt inherently a problem even for N1:

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

the short of it:

- Starship does static fires of the mounted engines, N1 couldnt due to the pyrotechical valves.

- N1 relied on differential thrust for steering which meant the engines spent a lot of time spooling up and down, while starship has gimbals on the center 3 engines for steering.

- N1 had to rely on relatively primitive onboard computers to manage this many engines, while SpaceX sort of "just by being 50 years later" has much more compute power onboard to manage the engines in much more detail and ideally shut down opposite pairs before problems, rather than after an engine blows.

 

they also compare to SLS, ofcourse.. which spent 12 years in development for it's first (mostly) spotless launch, which is very good for the optics of a public funded entity, but costs much more than SpaceX's approach.

 

57 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The fuel sloshing in the large tanks, large amounts of it, at high speed, with high momentum and angular momentum both starved some engines of fuel and may have damaged the plumbing.  This only happens to Starship, while Falcon 9 works because of the sheer size and complexity of this system.  

here's the thing.. any problems during the flip can be resolved by changing the maneuver. it's not key to the booster's performance, so they have a lot of leeway in how they actually go about things.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I have often been insulted in this thread

you say this.. the line after making this reference about the rest of the thread:

57 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

the hubris of a rich man, cheered on.

 

57 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I am smart enough to be one of a handful of Black people in this picture. 

i no doubt believe you're intelligent enough to get yourself a degree in theoretical asterophysics.. i have no reason to doubt anything you write on your profile. but that doesnt mean you're always right, especially when criticizing the work of the hundreds of engineers that are working on starship, who i presume have degrees in all sorts of things that have to do with actually desginging a rocket.

 

57 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

But go on explain to me how fundamental physics works. LOL

no one is doing that..

the debate being had here is if the 33 engines on the booster work or not. evidence exists to suggest it did.

fundamental physics isnt my strong suit, but i'm fairly certain that if the fundamental physics of it didnt work out, the hundreds of engineers making it would have figured that out years ago. my point in this thread has been, is now, and will always be that there's enough people on-site that actually know what the heck they're doing.. that it makes whatever degree you may have irrelevant, because there's at least one person with the same degree on the "this will work" side of things, making it actually happen.

 

or.. to go ALL the way back to page 1 of this thread...

On 11/18/2023 at 5:15 PM, manikyath said:

i suggest we wait until flight 3 to see if you'll be proven wrong again.

 

On 11/18/2023 at 9:32 PM, HenrySalayne said:

Interestingly the AoA changes significantly shortly before the hot staging manoeuvre (1:15 to 1:22). I don't know if this was intentional or another problem.

i'd assume it's part of the hot staging procedure, either to initiate the flip, to have the 'course correction' after the AoA change and hot stage point starship's thrust away from the booster, or a combination of both.

 

but apparently i'm fuckall stupid and a blind simp, so the fundamental physics of that assumption are probably entirely wrong, and it was clearly the booster's bulkhead bursting wide open because that much plumbing could never work..

[Uttamattamakin]

4 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

You could have done a little research to learn, who actually decides if and when a launch system is human-rated. Before Space X flies astronauts on Starship, NASA will be the one to certify the safety of Starship to NASA's standards.

 

We'll see if NASA has the backbone that the dept of state and DOD didn't.  Musk has been able to influence policy with his money.   I have no doubt that if NASA certified it safe it would be safe.  Falcon 9 had to launch successfully for years and years without a major incident before they risked humans on it.  Artemis does not have time for that.    We are supposed to return to the moon by 2025 or 2026 at the latest. 

To me and to space fans a StarShip that eventually in 2030 or 2035 is deemed ready for humans is just as bad as if it was never built.  Odds are by then the political will to return to the Moon will be gone. 

 

@manikyath

I want you to know I read all you wrote and think that what is needed here is an experiment. 

1. Take a 2 liter bottle, the kind that in the US we sell soda in or take a one gallon bottle, the kind that in the US we sell milk in. 
2. Fill it to 15% full of water. 
3. Then toss it into the air in such a way that it flips over once. 
4. Observe what the fluids inside it do.  

Please tell me how Star Ship is going to disobey the same exact laws of physics.  Then bear in mind Starship is much larger, going much faster, and that those fluids need to be evenly fed into a high pressure, high complexity plumbing system.  

N1 wasn't trying to flip (on purpose) and it had problems with the complexity of plumbing all of those engines correctly. 

Can it be done.  Sure. Eventually.     
Could we do something better than trying to solve a problem that is more easily solved by using a smaller number of larger engines... look at almost every other rocket. 

 

No one said you are dumb or simp.  Plenty have said that about me.  Odds are none have any real ground to stand on when discussing these matters.  Their life's work does not depend on a rocket not blowing up.  Mine does. 

Space X would be better served by scaling down star ship into being a larger Falcon 9 type rocket.   Then Scaling up the payload by strapping the resulting rocket together to make a Even heavier falcon Heavy. Not just like the one we have now so don't @ me about that.  It might not be able to do all the things that Star ship could do in theory. 

 

 

 

[HenrySalayne]

4 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

We'll see if NASA has the backbone that the dept of state and DOD didn't.  Musk has been able to influence policy with his money.   I have no doubt that if NASA certified it safe it would be safe.  Falcon 9 had to launch successfully for years and years without a major incident before they risked humans on it.  Artemis does not have time for that.    We are supposed to return to the moon by 2025 or 2026 at the latest. 

To me and to space fans a StarShip that eventually in 2030 or 2035 is deemed ready for humans is just as bad as if it was never built.  Odds are by then the political will to return to the Moon will be gone. 

This is another thing: the centre of your worries, Super Heavy, will not carry any humans in the foreseeable future. Only a modified Starship (Starship HLS) will be the landing system for the moon. And it will not even use the Raptor engines but most likely Super Dracos to put it down without digging a new crater.

 

 

[manikyath]

  

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I want you to know I read all you wrote and think that what is needed here is an experiment. 

1. Take a 2 liter bottle, the kind that in the US we sell soda in or take a one gallon bottle, the kind that in the US we sell milk in. 
2. Fill it to 15% full of water. 
3. Then toss it into the air in such a way that it flips over once. 
4. Observe what the fluids inside it do.  

Please tell me how Star Ship is going to disobey the same exact laws of physics.  Then bear in mind Starship is much larger, going much faster, and that those fluids need to be evenly fed into a high pressure, high complexity plumbing system.  

starship isnt gonna disobey the exact same laws of physics, but in the same way as if you do this with a half liter bottle the fluid still sloshes all about.. this doesnt mean that falcon 9 doesnt work either.

 

please explain to me how this 2 liter bottle experiment affects superheavy but doesnt affect falcon 9?

 

also;

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Could we do something better than trying to solve a problem that is more easily solved by using a smaller number of larger engines... look at almost every other rocket. 

THE NUMBER OF ENGINES IS NOT THE PROBLEM. falcon heavy does 27 engines, falcon heavy does flip and burn on the outer boosters, falcon heavy doesnt have fluid slosh problems.

 

to come back to your experiment.. it's a matter of "how" you flip the bottle.. because water bottles appear to be something we both understand, let's talk about bottle flipping.

 

if you wildly fling a bottle with 15% water fill it will almost certainly fall over due to the water sloshing everywhere.. but if you find the perfect speed and angle to flip at, that bottle will stand upright exactly how you planned it. and the thing with modern day rockets is that it's all computer controlled to insane detail.. so the moment they nail the proverbial bottle flip, they can just bottle flip it all day.

 

and again.. i'm not an engineer, i just assume that the hundreds of engineers working on this project have done their homework, and if it were to be breaking the laws of physics, they wouldnt be trying to do it. please explain to me why i should believe you saying it cant be done, over the hundreds of engineers working on making it happen, i presume in the belief it can be done.

 

difficult? yes.. impossible? no.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

No one said you are dumb or simp. 

said, no - implied, yes. multiple times in fact. i'm not gonna grab the quotes because the forum starts to act up when multiquoting across 6 pages.

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Plenty have said that about me. 

because you talk from a position of authority, but at face value appear to be talking complete nonsense. you keep going to the point of 33 engines never going to work, but other than saying "too much complexity" have spent 6 pages just going on a bigger hyperbole each time someone presses you for details. i would gladly believe you work with space agencies on a satalite, but from what i've seen in this thread even my layman view is enough to convince myself that you've had nothing to do with the design of the thrust system.. and are just negative about this specific platform because the entities you work with having decided to do bigger engines instead of more engines, and wether connected or not you have a personal belief that superheavy(s similarity to the "final nail in the coffin" of the soviet lunar program is an inherent red flag that they will never get fixed...

 

or in other words, you wont breed any positive interaction if you're just using your own position to try to win a debate, when we have to choose between believing someone on a forum at face value, or believe the hundreds of engineers at starbase at face value. the problem is that what you're arguing doesnt just go against those of us who are here just hopeful to see big rocket go up, you're insulting the work of a lot of people who have the exact same life work as you have:

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Odds are none have any real ground to stand on when discussing these matters.  Their life's work does not depend on a rocket not blowing up.  Mine does. 

we're not discussing because *we* have a stake in this, but because we believe in the people who do, and because it is exciting to see the process happen before our eyes rather than behind closed doors.

 

the ideology behind starship is VASTLY different than anything people are used to seeing, which is what makes it exciting to us, and if your life work really revolves around rockets, seeing a new take on things should excite you too..

[CarlBar]

@Uttamattamakin Manikyath addressed N1 nicely so i'll leave that in his hands.

 

To address your example of the soda bottle. Replace that Soda bottle with a large jar, inside that jar glue a 500ml soda bottle that is 100% full to the bottom, then fill the remaining space 15%. Do your test. Notice how the fluid in the 500ml soda bottle is unaffected.

 

Slosh is a problem for 2 reasons, the first is water Hammer. The second is it can allow the pumps to suck in gas which they don't like.

 

The First issue is a matter of proper valves and various plumbing strength issues.

 

The Second issue is a problem that rockets, (including starship, SLS, and Falcon 9), allready have to deal with anytime they're in Zero G or freefall as in that scenario there's no force from gravity keeping the liquid fuel pinned to the intake at the bottom of the tank.

 

Starship plans to deal with the problem via header tanks that like the experiment variation i described above are much smaller tanks that are kept completely free of gas, meaning even in a slosh or zero-g or freefall scenario there's no gas t drift to the bottom of the tank and get sucked into the pumps.

 

 

As far as the date to go back to the moon. Like i said NASA is not going to it that date themselves. AFAIK before the first manned landing the following needs to happen:

 

1. A manne free return flight of Artemis around the moon. 

 

2. A manned full orbit flight of the moon by Artemis.

 

3. Upgrades to SLS and the use of that to send the components of the gateway station to Lunar Orbit.

 

4. Probably a manned Flight to and from the Gateway station to confirm everything is operation.

 

5. A HLS prototype to be launched and sent to the gateway after refueling in LEO.

 

6. That Prototype to make an unmanned landing on the moon, (itn may also be supposed to make an unmanned return).

 

7. a final form HLS to be launched, refueled and sent to the gateway.

 

8. That final Form then conducts the first manned landing, (possibly with another SLS launch to send the landing crew to the gateway).

 

 

Steps 1-4 and possibly also step 8, (if the crew from step 4 isn't left out there), all require 1 or more SLS launches. SLS is not going to fly 4+ times in the next 2 years. NASA is not meeting that target. Given the delays and other issues with SLS i'd be impressed if they get it done before the end of the decade.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

We'll see if NASA has the backbone that the dept of state and DOD didn't.  Musk has been able to influence policy with his money.   I have no doubt that if NASA certified it safe it would be safe.  Falcon 9 had to launch successfully for years and years without a major incident before they risked humans on it.  Artemis does not have time for that.    We are supposed to return to the moon by 2025 or 2026 at the latest. 

And if you had any basic level reasoning you would realize that you are wrong again.  And again, you are clearly showing your bias...you want "influence" policy look at the old cronies who got the contracts before (Boeing).  Your whole influencing with money is silly as well, as a whole Musk owned companies do a whole lot less bribing compared to the old school companies

 

Falcon 9's provability wasn't an issue; it was the dragon capsule that took it's time to be human certified.  Had they only flown a few Falcon 9 flights, they probably would have gotten it human rated if the dragon capsule had already done it's testing.  The first demo Dragon Capsule flew in 2019, and first human one in 2020.

 

The SLS, which DOES have political influence, under your standards then should not be flown with a human on board; since it only has had one successful flight; and the green test that ran up to it spotted a previously unknown issue in the design that caused the engines to shutdown early.

 

Let me stress this again, SLS, a rocket which had it's engines shutdown when it was supposedly ready to fly by all the old school testing you seem to praise highly of, is set to fly humans on it on it's second flight; despite multiple years of delays due to engineering issues.

 

 

 

Do you know why Starship was chosen?  It was chosen because NASA didn't have the money for the billion dollar launches required for the SLS to do the lunar mission.

 

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Please tell me how Star Ship is going to disobey the same exact laws of physics. 

It's statements like these that are the reason you are being criticized.  Making blanket statements as though you are an "expert" yet the statement as a whole is false/misleading.

 

SpaceX in this case does have baffles inside which reduces slosh, but more importantly they are attempting to accelerate in a way that will minimize the fuel slosh as you effectively maintain a force during the maneuver.

 

 

 

The old pre-school experiment, that I'm sure everyone knows of.

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

using a smaller number of larger engines... look at almost every other rocket. 

Just because others are stuck doing it one way doesn't mean it's the best way, they are trying to do something that other rockets have never done...and rockets where a single engine takes months to build, and costs more than all the raptor engines combined.

 

Rockets roll down range, it's done on essentially all older rockets.  So therefor your logic it should be done that way going forward.

 

It's that same mentality that had the community originally saying a reusable rocket is stupid, and that they should be using the old school approach...funny as well that that same community is now racing to build their own while singing to the high heavens to anyone who hears them that SpaceX is abusing it's position by pricing them out of the market

[wanderingfool2]

So it seems in post analysis the pad has remained intact and could support another launch of a quick refurbishment.

 

Seems like they are already getting the next booster and ship ready; where IFT-3 will be loaded with equipment to test fuel transfer in orbit (so they are predicting that on IFT-3 the booster will make it to a full orbit).

 

On another side note, https://blogs.nasa.gov/osiris-rex/2023/12/05/nasa-finds-likely-cause-of-osiris-rex-parachute-deployment-sequence/

The NASA capsule which had it's shoot fail, failed because they wired the shoot's sequence in reverse...so it cut the wire then deployed it later.  While it still landed successfully, that really wasn't a good thing....but it does remind me of Apollo 6.

 

While some here have made reference to Saturn V never exploded; the wiring mistake on Apollo 6 shows that such an event could have been possible.  To summarize: The Saturn V had engine issues on engine 2, but it did manage to burn successfully for a long enough time to at least avoid aborting when the command was issued to shutoff the engine.  When the command was sent for the engine shutoff, wires had been wired so there was crosstalk so 2 engines were shutdown.  (It missed it's targeted orbit).  The engines that went out were on opposite sides...had they been on the same side it would have likely tumbled and been terminated.

 

So yea, Saturn V never exploded, but had the engine failed earlier it would have lead to an abort with explosion.  (Also note the first stage also experienced over 2x greater lateral G's than it was planned for)

 

The Day the Saturn V Almost Failed: 50 Years Since Apollo 6 - AmericaSpace

 

The thing is that kind of run is what allowed it to be human rate; because it generally was successful and they were capable of figuring out what went wrong and correcting it.  Just like how SpaceX will do with this one.  Explosions and failures in test flights can and will occur; especially when pushing the boundaries of what has never been done before.

[CarlBar]

To add to the above, some digging about indicates the fuel transfer is probably just going to be moving fuel between the heard and main tanks, and is part of a NASA contract requirement, they may not even do it "in orbit" but rather in freefall on a suborbital trajectory. We've also received info that a few launches down the line they'll be onto using upgraded versions of starship, presumably the 9 engined version.

 

SpaceX internal documents have also surfaced indicating they themselves will be ready for a third launch by Christmas day this year. Weather the FAA will be able to process all required paperwork is less clear.

[Uttamattamakin]

14 hours ago, CarlBar said:

To add to the above, some digging about indicates the fuel transfer is probably just going to be moving fuel between the heard and main tanks, and is part of a NASA contract requirement, they may not even do it "in orbit" but rather in freefall on a suborbital trajectory. We've also received info that a few launches down the line they'll be onto using upgraded versions of starship, presumably the 9 engined version.

Lets hope they re-engineer some things to minimize how fuel slosh during the flip will effect the ship.  Some have suggested the way to do this might be to not have super heavy fly back to Boca Chica ... but have it fly over to Florida and land.  Then ship, on a literal ship, back to Texas.  

14 hours ago, CarlBar said:

SpaceX internal documents have also surfaced indicating they themselves will be ready for a third launch by Christmas day this year. Weather the FAA will be able to process all required paperwork is less clear.

I do hope that they can do this and NOT blow up, RUD, or anything like that for any reason.  The Artemis program needs complete and unqualified successes to have a chance of getting to the Moon on schedule. 

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Lets hope they re-engineer some things to minimize how fuel slosh during the flip will effect the ship.  Some have suggested the way to do this might be to not have super heavy fly back to Boca Chica ... but have it fly over to Florida and land.  Then ship, on a literal ship, back to Texas.  

I do hope that they can do this and NOT blow up, RUD, or anything like that for any reason.  The Artemis program needs complete and unqualified successes to have a chance of getting to the Moon on schedule. 

 

 

I've allready pointed out how NASA's ongoing launch schedule for SLS makes the deadline completely impossible. SLS needs to launch several more times before it can happen and that just isn't going to happen within the timeframe outlined. NASA will be lucky at this rate to get back to the moon much earlier than 2030.

[HenrySalayne]

6 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Some have suggested the way to do this might be to not have super heavy fly back to Boca Chica ... but have it fly over to Florida and land.  Then ship, on a literal ship, back to Texas. 

RTLS is a key design element of Super Heavy. Suggesting they need to fly to a place down range after a single test flight is preposterous.

[Uttamattamakin]

13 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

 

I've allready pointed out how NASA's ongoing launch schedule for SLS makes the deadline completely impossible. SLS needs to launch several more times before it can happen and that just isn't going to happen within the timeframe outlined. NASA will be lucky at this rate to get back to the moon much earlier than 2030.

SLS hasn't blown up and is based on proven, reliable, NASA technology That has already flown past the moon in Artemis 1.  

 

Artemis 2 will be launching next year crewed.   I'll put money on Artemis II going off without a hitch before even one person flies a Star ship into LEO let alone to the Moon. 

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

SLS hasn't blown up and is based on proven, reliable, NASA technology That has already flown past the moon in Artemis 1.  

SLS has flown once in the 13 years it took them to develop it, partially out of previously proven technology (parts designed for shuttle), and this launch was delayed 3 times due to an issue before launch.

 

if starship has two successful launches before 2041 (basing myself off starhopper for a starting point, because at that time all they were doing is testing the raptor engine) and 28 billion dollars spent, they would have more successful lfights in less development time and cost than SLS. the only reason why you keep whining about starship blowing up is because SpaceX has determined that doing more real-world tests is better for their budget than spending more time in theoretical tests and lab tests.

 

case in point...

- in theory the concrete would have held on test flight 1.

- in theory the flip and burn maneuvre on the booster would have worked.

 

starship isnt borrowing any hardware from existing designs, and while it's flight profile is vaguely similar to the center booster on a falcon heavy, the size difference makes it a very different beast.

 

and just to point out that what you see today is not relevant to the reliability of the final product...

- it was only 5 years ago that people didnt believe starhopper was a thing, and it was "obviously" just a water tower.. until "watertowers fly"

- it was only 8 years ago that people didnt believe SpaceX was ever gonna land a rocket, let alone make that a "habit". today it's noteworthy if they *dont* land a falcon 9.

 

we're still in the relatively very early stages of what the starship platform will be.. we're essentially discussing if the falcon-1 failures are relevant to the reliability of falcon-9.

 

and none of this is considering that Artemis 1 was theoretically 6 years late, because it should have flown in 2016.

[Uttamattamakin]

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

SLS has flown once in the 13 years it took them to develop it, partially out of previously proven technology (parts designed for shuttle), and this launch was delayed 3 times due to an issue before launch.

Consider that the SLS is based on, as in resumes prove, tested, reliable parts of previous systems.  Those have now been shown to work just fine in the SLS configuration to get a man rated craft from Earth, around, the moon and back.  That's what I'm talking about.  

I really hope Lunar StarShip will be ready to go.    For some reason they are supposed to transfer to it for landing.  That's all I have to say. 

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

For some reason they are supposed to transfer to it for landing.

perhaps because SLS would be too expensive to carry a lander all the way to the moon, i'd assume.

 

3 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Consider that the SLS is based on, as in resumes prove, tested, reliable parts of previous systems.  Those have now been shown to work just fine in the SLS configuration to get a man rated craft from Earth, around, the moon and back.  That's what I'm talking about.  

yet they delayed for 6 years, and when it finally was on the pad they had 3 delays amounting to a few extra months. yes, it flew, yes it did the mission, but it was hardly an achievement by that point. artemis 1 had more delay than starship has had dev time.

 

what i'm saying, and what you somehow seem to keep looking right past, is that they are vastly different launch platforms, with vastly different capabilities, that are being developed in vastly different ways.

 

and for my own version of

6 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

That's what I'm talking about.  

and

6 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

That's all I have to say. 

 

what i'm talking about, is that you shouldnt see an early test flight of a "very not finished" rocket as any indication for it's production reliability. realisticly there was no version of flight 2 where both the booster and the starship landed in one piece.

 

please, on flight test 3, just enjoy the fireworks and see what comes out of it, there's enough engineers on-site that know far more than any of us here. that's all i have to say.

[wanderingfool2]

On 12/8/2023 at 6:05 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

The Artemis program needs complete and unqualified successes to have a chance of getting to the Moon on schedule. 

"on schedule"...like the CLPS which was due in 2022; but then delayed to Nov 2023 (so 1 - nearly 2 years late)...oh wait it's December and the thing has been delayed until Jan.

 

Oh, what about your golden boy the SLS which you have sung high praises for, after all it won't be the cause of any delays surely...lets just ignore that it was supposed to launch in 2016....6 years later than planned.

 

How about the spacesuits?  They are the current reason why it was pushed from 2024 to 2025, because they realized it had no shot at being complete in time.

 

Fact is Starship, while there is a good shot the human lander won't be done by 2025, will be done with less of a delay than SLS ever was. (This also doesn't factor in that it took the FAA nearly a year to let Starship launch).

 

 

11 hours ago, manikyath said:

case in point...

- in theory the concrete would have held on test flight 1.

- in theory the flip and burn maneuvre on the booster would have worked.

Actually, if the ITF-1 wasn't done with the concrete and instead they put in the water deluge system they currently have, there is still a good chance the pad would have been broken up.  The reason was that they underestimated the load the ground itself could take from the weight.  So the concrete on IFT-1 could actually have saved them from having to rebuild it (after all had the ground been strong enough the concrete wouldn't have failed).

 

9 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Consider that the SLS is based on, as in resumes prove, tested, reliable parts of previous systems.  Those have now been shown to work just fine in the SLS configuration to get a man rated craft from Earth, around, the moon and back.  That's what I'm talking about.  

I really hope Lunar StarShip will be ready to go.    For some reason they are supposed to transfer to it for landing.  That's all I have to say. 

They've hodgepodged SLS together and have changed it still to a decent extent.  They also have lost some of the techniques/analysis of how some of the original pieces were made...that's why there were also so many delays.

 

IT FAILED DURING THE GREEN RUN static fire.  If it was so tried and tested then it shouldn't have failed that test