Space X

Nate--IRL-- · 02-02-2021 9:43pm

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1356703226737745921?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Nate

Shlippery · 02-02-2021 9:49pm

Yea, looks like the second engine didn't light at the very end, so not enough to straighten her up

dalyboy · 02-02-2021 10:05pm

SpaceX should be renamed “fireworX”

Specialists in a series of failures and explosions.

Kinda hilarious at this point

jogdish · 02-02-2021 10:12pm

dalyboy wrote: »

SpaceX should be renamed “fireworX”

Specialists in a series of failures and explosions.

Kinda hilarious at this point

How so? Two experimental rockets crashed, and their Falcon has a 100% success rate for paid missions. They are a very reliable company.
It's a test campaign, we normally don't see these things - moreover they are a private company who are not accountable to tax payers so a quick fail and try again can be faster at this early stage compared to need it to be perfect day 1.

Shlippery · 02-02-2021 10:22pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UsCCRGLP0Q& It's crazy to see how far they've come in the one year of Starship testing.
SN1 was last February.

jogdish · 02-02-2021 10:31pm

Scott Manly seems to have noticed that one of the raptors on descent failed to ignite. The launch, cut offs roll all looked smoother than last time, hopefully 10 can get it sorted.
SN10 should be ready by months end.... but we said the same about SN9

josip · 02-02-2021 10:37pm

I understand it's only testing, but I thought there was some redundancy built into the design so that it could tolerate 1 engine failure and still land?
Or does it only have 2 working engines at this point in time?

Shlippery · 02-02-2021 10:44pm

josip wrote: »

I understand it's only testing, but I thought there was some redundancy built into the design so that it could tolerate 1 engine failure and still land?
Or does it only have 2 working engines at this point in time?

https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1356710355737726981?s=20
If you look, it just leans a bit too far, needed the second engine to give it that little kick to the upright position...

But, I'm sure they've enough data to plan for that and work it into SN10

jogdish · 02-02-2021 10:44pm

josip wrote: »

I understand it's only testing, but I thought there was some redundancy built into the design so that it could tolerate 1 engine failure and still land?
Or does it only have 2 working engines at this point in time?

No, it currently has three and needs all three - the eventual will be able to tolerate some engine loss but currently its the concept, can you ignite burn, stop, re ignite control and land. No sense having extra raptors there to only get destroyed when you have yet to have a 100% perfect hop.

There are three engines (raptors) needed to lift, and it needs two to gimbal to control landing, but extra engines extra weight. This is probably the optimal config for testing.

Capt'n Midnight · 03-02-2021 1:27am

dalyboy wrote: »

SpaceX should be renamed “fireworX”

Specialists in a series of failures and explosions.

Kinda hilarious at this point

This comment about the recent failed SLS engine test.
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2021/02/01/nasa_sls_hotfire_2/

In contrast to the first moon landing, SLS up till now has relied on research and design whereas Apollo relied on building, testing, and flying bigger and bigger rockets. After 11 years Apollo made it to the moon while after 10 years the SLS has yet to launch.

jogdish · 03-02-2021 1:48pm

The slow pace of SLS and fast pace of Apollo is apples and oranges,
In the time of Apollo the public were less up to date on day to day budget spending and hearing shock reports about so many millions being 'wasted' on this or that, so money votes were less hard to pass, Also you had a cold war media thing to win so that made any legal hurdles that much easier to clear.

Give Nasa the time and the money and they will do the best currently since they have the experience and facilities, the martian probes and their landing systems show this as well as all the other probes. SpaceX is hoping a tin can at the moment the pace is of course faster, it will slow down to a crawl when they want to get cargo certs.

I am not a spaceX hater or anything and I personally think a star ship vehicle is the future for cargo to orbit. They will partner with NASA for lunar and Mars - if only because of political reasons and the shear amount of money/risk and the training/knowledge that something like that will need.

Renault 5 · 03-02-2021 1:50pm

Im addicted to the Starship project

Renault 5 · 03-02-2021 2:44pm

dalyboy wrote: »

SpaceX should be renamed “fireworX”

Specialists in a series of failures and explosions.

Kinda hilarious at this point

When at first you dont succeed.

Try, try again

Capt'n Midnight · 03-02-2021 7:43pm

jogdish wrote: »

The slow pace of SLS and fast pace of Apollo is apples and oranges,
In the time of Apollo the public were less up to date on day to day budget spending and hearing shock reports about so many millions being 'wasted' on this or that, so money votes were less hard to pass, Also you had a cold war media thing to win so that made any legal hurdles that much easier to clear.

Give Nasa the time and the money and they will do the best currently since they have the experience and facilities, the martian probes and their landing systems show this as well as all the other probes. SpaceX is hoping a tin can at the moment the pace is of course faster, it will slow down to a crawl when they want to get cargo certs.

I am not a spaceX hater or anything and I personally think a star ship vehicle is the future for cargo to orbit. They will partner with NASA for lunar and Mars - if only because of political reasons and the shear amount of money/risk and the training/knowledge that something like that will need.

SLS started out with flight proven hardware sitting in warehouses. And they didn't start from scratch either as they inherited the work done for Constellation including Aries and Orion

SLS means buying in some of the difficult bits - based on the ESA ATV that used to deliver cargo to the ISS. Europe will be building a further three service modules for the US space agency's (Nasa) Orion crew capsule.

jogdish · 04-02-2021 11:37pm

Seems SN10 will have a three raptor re light on the flip and turn off one should all three work hopefully giving some redundancy, according to an Elon tweet.

jogdish · 10-02-2021 11:44am

SN10 was installed with a refurbished raptor from SN9's failed static fire - interesting as this might point towards raptor production issues. According to Elon they wanted one every 12hrs by this point ( yes I know an Elon tweet promise is worthless ) but they are not as quick as they would like.

Come boosters (which eventually want 28/ship) they will have issues, im sure it will be solved but for the moment the starships might be being made faster than the raptors.

silverharp · 15-02-2021 12:36am

Thunderf00t ripping into Space X on the basis that it isnt that cheap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxkE_oYrjU

xper · 15-02-2021 3:04pm

jogdish wrote: »

SN10 was installed with a refurbished raptor from SN9's failed static fire - interesting as this might point towards raptor production issues. According to Elon they wanted one every 12hrs by this point ( yes I know an Elon tweet promise is worthless ) but they are not as quick as they would like.

Come boosters (which eventually want 28/ship) they will have issues, im sure it will be solved but for the moment the starships might be being made faster than the raptors.

I have no more idea than anyone else whether their raptor production rates are meeting realistic or Elon expectation levels but this one instance doesn't tell us anything really one way or the other.
They had an engine with a fault on a flight ready vehicle, they swapped it out, have apparently fixed the issue and it has been returned to the line. Happens in aviation all the time, which is sort of the model Space X are chasing. One would hardly expect them to have thrown it in the skip if it was repairable.

jogdish · 15-02-2021 3:08pm

xper wrote: »

I have no more idea than anyone else whether their raptor production rates are meeting realistic or Elon expectation levels but this one instance doesn't tell us anything really one way or the other.
They had an engine with a fault on a flight ready vehicle, they swapped it out, have apparently fixed the issue and it has been returned to the line. Happens in aviation all the time, which is sort of the model Space X are chasing. One would hardly expect them to have thrown it in the skip if it was repairable.

Yes I agree but it has been mentioned a few times that the raptors themselves are evolving so I would have thought they would bin the old ones to concentrate on getting data from the newer ones - assuming the star ship body is not the main issue.

donspeekinglesh · 16-02-2021 9:30am

Starlink launch earlier this morning. Booster failed to land on the drone ship: https://youtu.be/L0dkyV09Zso

greenpilot · 16-02-2021 9:34am

silverharp wrote: »

Thunderf00t ripping into Space X on the basis that it isnt that cheap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxkE_oYrjU

Who?

silverharp · 16-02-2021 10:11am

his real name is Dr Phil Mason , among other things he debunks a lot of startup ideas, he has done a few videos on Hyperloop which I thought were interesting. I cant rate the quality of this video as I know next to nothing about Space X or the financials behind it and he did get some push back in the comments but the questions are reasonable

Westernyelp · 16-02-2021 11:20am

They missed the booster landing last night. First time in ages. Not sure why

josip · 16-02-2021 11:40am

Westernyelp wrote: »

They missed the booster landing last night. First time in ages. Not sure why

3 seagulls apparently

Thargor · 16-02-2021 5:08pm

greenpilot wrote: »

Who?

silverharp wrote: »

his real name is Dr Phil Mason , among other things he debunks a lot of startup ideas, he has done a few videos on Hyperloop which I thought were interesting. I cant rate the quality of this video as I know next to nothing about Space X or the financials behind it and he did get some push back in the comments but the questions are reasonable

He does that unbearable swallowing and gulping while he speaks that makes him painful to listen to, Jeremy Clarkson does the same thing aswell. His other videos are interesting but my God he repeats himself a lot, he could fit all his main points in a 3 minute video if it wasnt for the repetition. Anything to do with Musk seems to make him a bit irrational like many other people though.

Shlippery · 16-02-2021 6:19pm

Sad about the booster, although that's just a sign of how good their track record was, shock at an unplanned loss! Hopefully they figure it out, looks like something wasn't nominal on the entry burn!

I think SN10 static fire is on a short pause because of the cold weather in Texas! Apparently their whole power grid went out with the pressure. A strange world over there.

Hopefully it won't be delayed as long as the gap between SN8 and 9. Think Musk has it at 60% chance of landing this time.

AMKC · 18-02-2021 12:27am

Shlippery wrote: »

Sad about the booster, although that's just a sign of how good their track record was, shock at an unplanned loss! Hopefully they figure it out, looks like something wasn't nominal on the entry burn!

I think SN10 static fire is on a short pause because of the cold weather in Texas! Apparently their whole power grid went out with the pressure. A strange world over there.

Hopefully it won't be delayed as long as the gap between SN8 and 9. Think Musk has it at 60% chance of landing this time.

Apparently their whole power grid went out with the pressure. A strange world over there.

Yes Texes relays a lot on wind turbines believe it or not for power. There power system went out because so many people were using it at the same time all in from the cold. I thought it ironic The Texes mayor telling people to be calm if there power is out. Only problem there is there power was out they can not see or hear you miss.

Capt'n Midnight · 18-02-2021 12:43am

AMKC wrote: »

Apparently their whole power grid went out with the pressure. A strange world over there.

Yes Texes relays a lot on wind turbines believe it or not for power. There power system went out because so many people were using it at the same time all in from the cold. I thought it ironic The Texes mayor telling people to be calm if there power is out. Only problem there is there power was out they can not see or hear you miss.

The other theory is that Texas isn't on the national grid because then they'd have to bring kit up to national grid specs and that would eat into profits.

Gas shortages for other power stations too.

donspeekinglesh · 18-02-2021 11:30am

Wind is only about 10% of the Texas grid. Their main problems were with conventional power generation mostly. They have their own grid as they didn't want to have to have Federal oversight.

This video is a good look at what might have happened to the booster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXTIt5WIKoE

Capt'n Midnight · 19-02-2021 1:06am

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

Wind is only about 10% of the Texas grid. Their main problems were with conventional power generation mostly. They have their own grid as they didn't want to have to have Federal oversight.

Only a sixth of the power lost was due to wind.

Five sixths was due to fossil and nuclear being offline.

And the wind turbines might not have been offline had they been cold weather rated.

Space X

Comments