Maybe April 17 if FAA gets out of the way and grants launch license. 394 ft tall. If all engines light off, it will be the most powerful rocket ever built.
SpaceX engineers have a million questions for which they seek data. Can the tall rocket clear the launch tower? Will enough of the vehicle's 33 main engines fire long enough to put Starship into its planned trajectory? Will Starship's engines ignite? Can the vehicle survive the harsh conditions of reentry? How intact will everything be once it reaches the ocean?
GO STARSHIP!!!!
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-10-2023).]
I wanted to post up a snippet of video from "Wallace and Gromit's Grand Day Out" where they light the rocket but Wallace realizes he forgot the crackers- while he runs upstairs from the basement (Where they had built the rocket) to get the crackers, Gromit (The dog) rolls his eyes at how....dumb...Wallace is.
I could not find that one section of video, tho...
(Note; My Dog may need eye surgery because of how many times she rolls her eyes at me)
I'm going to go ahead and be a Rocket Snob: the Super Heavy looks so blah to me, like a model rocket, whereas the Saturn V looks so business-like, a marvel of 1950-60s engineering. It is sad, however, that it's taken 60 Years to reach even this point, where we are finally surpassing the Apollo launch platforms. We should have had bases on multiple planets by now, at least the Moon. Space 1999 anyone??
' You want to sail west to China ? That's insane ! ' C. Columbus, 1492. ' You deny the Earth is the center of the heavens ? That's insane ! ' So, they burned him at the stake. Giordano Bruno, Febuary 1600. ' You want to build Automobiles ? That's insane ' Gottlieb Daimler did. 1886 ' Your flying machine is insane ! ' Wright Brothers 1901.
Forever, the projection of posturing imbeciles, working on exactly sweet eff all, making noises to present themselves as informed. ' It's just an act I do to appear knowledgeable, to feel good. ' Millennia of uninformed humans lying to feel good. Competing with high achievers is difficult, because you would have to work harder. Landing on Mars in 2024. Yep, he'll, they'll, get it done.
Terraforming Mars Bring Terran plants to convert the atmosphere. Import an Ocean from Jupiter's Moons. Grow plankton to convert the CO² on a global scale. You would travel to Mars with an intention of creating a habitable planet. The Debrief
Terraforming Mars Bring Terran plants to convert the atmosphere. Import an Ocean from Jupiter's Moons. Grow plankton to convert the CO² on a global scale. You would travel to Mars with an intention of creating a habitable planet. The Debrief
Maybe April 17 if FAA gets out of the way and grants launch license. 394 ft tall. If all engines light off, it will be the most powerful rocket ever built.
Starship comparison:
GO STARSHIP!!!!
I'll be crossing my fingers... this will be awesome.
Originally posted by maryjane: maybe, but first....
They made a movie about that.
An Ocean on Mars, Olympus Mons capped with ice, the best skiing in the Solar system, 72K. Whales, and fish, and coral. Trees, redwood cedars growing to 300'. Most awesome planet, Mars.
[This message has been edited by Valkrie9 (edited 04-13-2023).]
This is the FOURTH FAA postponement. Reason: the Environmental Review begun in 2020 still isn't done.
Or not...
quote
A story published earlier Thursday incorrectly reported that the Federal Aviation Administration was holding off approval for launch of SpaceX's Starship on its maiden flight.
The story incorrectly stated that the FAA had yet to complete an environmental review. In fact, that review was conducted in 2022.
Reports currently say that SpaceX hopes to launch Starship in coming days, perhaps as early as April 17.
"Starship’s upcoming test does not have a very high probability of success, according to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Last month, he put the chances of success at around 50%; in a Twitter Spaces earlier this week, he seemed to downgrade that probability even further. “If we do launch, I would consider anything that does not result in the destruction of the launch mount itself, the launch pad […] I would consider that to be a win,” he said."
"Starship’s upcoming test does not have a very high probability of success, according to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Last month, he put the chances of success at around 50%; in a Twitter Spaces earlier this week, he seemed to downgrade that probability even further. “If we do launch, I would consider anything that does not result in the destruction of the launch mount itself, the launch pad […] I would consider that to be a win,” he said."
There's a report that a SpaceX spokesperson actually described what happened as a "rapid, unscheduled disassembly" of the launch vehicle.
Ya' think?
I saw that quote on NBC and shook my head. It's this kind of Big Tech, Gen Z, doublespeak that really is sad. They don't want anybody to 'feel bad.' I imagine the Safe Spaces, Emotional Coaches, and Petting Zoos at SpaceX are very busy today. What kind of statement would Gene Kranz have released?
p.s. Congratulations ARE in order, for all the things that went right, and I don't mean to take away from that.
Ahaha... well, I think it's important to look at this differently from how NASA test flights go.
Just looking at this rocket from Space-X, you can tell that it's really, really a prototype. To be honest, it didn't even look like it was complete... so I don't know what they expected. But when NASA tests rockets, they generally go over something over and over and over... with the letter of bureaucracy. So when NASA attempts a launch of something... there's generally an expectation that it's going to succeed. With Space-X... this was a very unfinished product, and I think that's OK... because the amount of money this likely cost Elon Musk is peanuts compared to what similar R&D would cost from NASA on a big NASA contract.
Part of me here is playing fan-boy and explaining away the explosion, but in reality... this whole thing was a self-funded side-project. I'm sure he didn't enjoy losing the capsule... but the rest of it probably wasn't totally unexpected. I think they assumed though that the "emergency disconnect" would have worked properly (which it didn't seem that it did).
Elon said pretty loudly a few days ago that it was gonna fail... not like 50/50 that it would take out the launch pad, more like 70/30. I'm paraphrasing, but he seemed fairly confident that it would fail. (and fail earlier on, maybe not make it off the pad) But I'm surprised no one mentioned that UFO that swooped in and shot the laser beam at the rocket just before the explosion!!!!!!
Build fast and iterate...that's their model, all on a budget. This isn't being built on a 4+ billion dollars per launch Artemis budget here. It's SpaceX playing Kerbal Space Program in real life. SpaceX doesn't have (and probably doesn't feel the need to due to the incredible expenditure needed) a full size test facility like NASA does at their Stennis testing center. They prefer to test by actually launching things (because who knows, there "could" be a chance that everything works like it was intended the first time).
I'm rather surprised it made it as far as it did, and even more surprised that it wasn't a catastrophic failure of the actual rocket....it seems to be a failed stage separation mechanism that doomed the flight. In SpaceX's video of the launch, the camera's switch to the internal shot of the interstage section and the commentators are clearly expecting stage separation, and if you look really close you can even see what appears to be explosive bolts firing off around the perimeter of the joint between the stages, but it stays stuck together like someone welded it together solid. Some are hypothesizing the sheer vibrations and tremendous force of the launch bent the interconnecting section mount rings together somehow in a way not anticipated.
The booster had never been tested as a system for a full flight burn....it just had a few short static fire tests. Simulators and computer models only get you so far with the millions of variables in a real world. The booster itself seemed to perform rather well and even tried a boost-back return burn like it was programmed to, it just wasn't expecting the Starship section to still be attached, resulting in several interesting spiraling somersault maneuvers before the flight termination was triggered once it fell back to around 30km in altitude.
I anticipate at least the next 3 or 4 launches to fail spectacularly in some way as well as new "bugs" in the system are found with this kind of design methodology, but they'll iterate and redesign through the issues on the fly, just like they did with the Falcon rockets. Already the next booster being prepped does away with the hydraulic gimble system on the Raptor engines in favor of faster, less complicated ones actuated by electric motors. I'm guessing the next Starship section for the next launch also won't be as complete (maybe no heat shielding and flaps) as well to save on costs until they can guarantee the reliable separation of the sections and then move on to testing the next stage of flight.
I'm more concerned with the crater left under the launch pad than the rocket failure itself. As repairs and modifications to that will most likely take longer than design changes to the booster and Starship.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
There's a report that a SpaceX spokesperson actually described what happened as a "rapid, unscheduled disassembly" of the launch vehicle.
Ya' think?
quote
Originally posted by Notorio:
I saw that quote on NBC and shook my head. It's this kind of Big Tech, Gen Z, doublespeak that really is sad. They don't want anybody to 'feel bad.' I imagine the Safe Spaces, Emotional Coaches, and Petting Zoos at SpaceX are very busy today. What kind of statement would Gene Kranz have released?
Gene Kranz would have probably said the same thing. "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly" is rocket geek speak that has been used for decades. It's found even in McDonnel Douglas documentation describing a Saturn-IVB stage rupturing during a test in the 1960's where the term used was RUDE, as in a Rapid, Unplanned Disassembly Event.
I'm pretty also sure Elon would fire anyone that requires a safe space or an emotional coach.
[This message has been edited by kslish (edited 04-21-2023).]
I think you are pretty spot on with your assessment Kslish. and:
quote
I'm more concerned with the crater left under the launch pad than the rocket failure itself. As repairs and modifications to that will most likely take longer than design changes to the booster and Starship.
This is one of the reasons SpaceX wants to eventually do both launches and recoveries offshore but has decided to NOT use pre-existing modified oil platforms. SpaceX has sold off the 2 old ENSCO rigs they bought and are going to get a few land launched rockets under their belts before moving out into Gulf waters.
Back around 2000, NASA had Lockheed developing a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle called VentureStar...When the program was originally started, NASA specified Composite fuel tanks- These would obviously be CRYO tanks, meaning fuel- and Oxygen cooled to well below zero to be a concentrated liquid. A number of engineers at Lockheed pointed out that this would be near-impossible.
As testing was conducted, it became clear that the cryo tanks were failing every test- the reason was that a composite structure- for strength/lightness- is honeycomb and that structure exposed to extreme cold would create ice leading to structural failure.
Lockheed actually developed an ALUMINUM tank that worked- and was LIGHTER!
Congress was conducting hearings on progress of the X-33...and an (EXTREMELY stupid) NASA (Planetary) scientist stated "We should do this project with all of the new technology- if we don't have it all, then why bother?"
So Congress cancelled the program....That scientist- Ivan Bekey should win an award for total, complete idiocy!
Lasers ? In 1964 ? Prof. Robert Jacobs Since what Prof. Jacobs says is true, then we can say that in fact, we are not alone, and live with ' our fathers, who live in heaven. ' Interesting concept, if you can believe in the stories from all of our history. ' It's Biblical in Scale ! ' omg ! A pillar of fire ! Nuclear test ban treaty of 1963 -- JFK
The newly expatriated German, Dr. Wernher von Braun, like an astrophysicist Mary Poppins who materialized out of nowhere to teach the people of Huntsville, Alabama, how to make rockets...
This isn't directly related in any way to SpaceX, but I've come here to put a spotlight on this truly inspired and literary remark which I read recently in an article in the New York Times:
“Dr. Wernher von Braun and his team of rocket scientists transformed Huntsville, Ala., known in the 1950s as the ‘Watercress Capital of the World,’ into a technology center that today is home to the second-largest research park in the United States,” proclaims the “About Us” section of the U.S. Space and Rocket Center — a Smithsonian-affiliated museum and the home of the renowned Space Camp program. (A representative of the center said, “We are in a current redevelopment of the rocket center’s website and affiliated Space Camp pages,” and that the center intends to provide additional context.)
In the meantime, von Braun is lauded at practically every turn: on the Space Camp website, on the University of Alabama in Huntsville’s school history page, in the description of the Dr. Wernher von Braun Scholarship, even in a 2019 speech by Robert Altenkirch, who was then the university president — none of which mention Nazis or slave labor. (The school does have a web page about rocketry and slave labor that mentions von Braun.)
As for the von Braun Center performing arts venue, a spokesperson for the city of Huntsville said that there is “an ongoing effort to provide greater historical context and information” on the center’s website. But how long does it take to correct the record?
The impression one gets from these sanitized histories is that this was a man who had materialized out of nowhere, with no discernible past, like an astrophysical Mary Poppins who had come to teach the people of Huntsville how to make rockets.
It seems it is less common to note a Nazi past than to look past it. Such is the case with the NASA Kennedy Space Center’s visitor complex in Florida, which is home to the Dr. Kurt H. Debus Conference Facility. In the official NASA biography of Debus there is but a short, vague paragraph about his life in Germany. On June 24, the Kennedy Space Center’s director, Janet Petro, accepted the National Space Club Florida Committee’s Dr. Kurt H. Debus Award; NASA’s webpage celebrating the event referenced Debus’s astronomical achievements, noting nothing of his SS membership and intimate involvement with building the V-2.
I want to read the Mary Poppins reference in its original context from the article in the New York Times
I'm not trying to seed a discussion about "Operation Paperclip" and the American effort to bring the scientists and engineers who were part of Hitler's Germany to the United States after the war. Not at all. I just think this invocation of "Mary Poppins" is off the charts in this context, as far as literary acumen. A wordsmith's crowning achievement. A literal tour de force of unforgettable erudition. A veritable Fort Knox gold bullion treasury's worth of word coinage.
As far as why I have chosen this forum thread, my thinking is that it's a thread that is of interest to people who have an interest in rockets and space exploration, and that would logically extend to the history of rockets and space exploration, even as far back as the years that came in the immediate aftermath of World War Two. And so I think that no one could fault me in any serious way for glomming onto this thread and using it as a backdrop for this "selfless" act of sharing with the forum.
Am I wrong? (A reference to some recent goings on in the Politics & Religion section that go back to the recent episode involving the Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams.)
As MSNBC weekday morning anchor José Díaz-Balart (Caballero) always ends his program, "Thank you for the privilege of your time."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-23-2023).]
I have no doubt you have more educated insight into the subject.
I think I heard that five of the rockets failed. I did not check if they were launch rockets or subsequent rockets.
Just a spaceflight fan....that and both my wife and I have physics related degrees and she's an engineer that tests things to the point of failure for safety certification so she knows the process of continuous improvement through testing to failure....
Five Raptor engines did fail in the primary stage during launch, but the rest of the engines should have been enough to carry out the primary stage's mission to stage separation considering the Starship section wasn't carrying any kind of payload.
The separation issue is an educated guess on my part, but you'd think that they would have at least tried a mission abort sequence (i.e. separate Starship and return for a pad or perhaps a water landing) if it could have separated. Most other rockets would have been ripped apart performing three loops mid flight. Starship ITSELF is supposed to be the launch abort system after all.
Originally posted by kslish: Just a spaceflight fan....that and both my wife and I have physics related degrees and she's an engineer that tests things to the point of failure for safety certification so she knows the process of continuous improvement through testing to failure....
I want to have your Wife's job. I am good at making failure happen, .
Gene Kranz would have probably said the same thing. "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly" is rocket geek speak that has been used for decades. It's found even in McDonnel Douglas documentation describing a Saturn-IVB stage rupturing during a test in the 1960's where the term used was RUDE, as in a Rapid, Unplanned Disassembly Event.
I'm pretty also sure Elon would fire anyone that requires a safe space or an emotional coach.
On a related note (and I can appreciate that the Raptor failures were a 'entire system' experience, not just an isolated engine design problem), some years ago I got to wondering why modern rockets are not using Rocketdyne engines from the Apollo days. There are fascinating details in this article and this gave me a new level of admiration for what was accomplished back then.
Elon had a event on Twitter Spaces on Saturday. Some things of note:
1.) 3 engines were shut down on launch as they didn't throttle up correctly.
2.) They lost two more engines in flight.
3.) The hydraulic systems started to fail at approximately 85 seconds into flight, eventually causing loss of directional control. This was a factor in why they never made stage separation. This was the only fully functional Super Heavy booster built with hydraulic controls, booster #9 (the next one up) uses electric TVC (Thrust vector control) actuators instead of hydraulic ones.
4.) The most concerning thing according to Elon (even more than the pad erosion) was the fact that the flight termination system took 40 seconds to destroy the rocket, this lag will require them to recertify the system with the FAA (which may take a while).
5.) Next launch they will only hold the rocket on the pad for 2-3 seconds before release unlike the 6 seconds of this launch which should help mitigate what the pad needs to withstand.
6.) Next launch will still most likely only have a 30-50% probability of completing the orbital mission.
Apparently, he says the pad will be repaired in 6-8 weeks (so 12-16 weeks translated from Elon time to real world time). They plan on installing an additional water deluge system and a water cooled "steel sandwich" under the pad. The water and LOx tanks at the pad were already scheduled to be replaced with vacuum jacketed versions, but the commercial tank supplier couldn't supply them in time which is why they built their own temporary ones.
Booster #9 is next up with it's upgraded systems. Which Starship to launch next is up in the air, they have #26 (no heat shield and no flaps), and #27 (with heat shield tiles and flaps). If they use #26, presumably stage separation will be the primary new goal, and not orbit....which would be a bonus and most likely burn up on reentry without flaps and heat tiles (or go boom if they figure out their flight termination system issues).
.
