Big SpaceX Launch Today?

[Popcorn]

Of course there is always the possibility that the reason it went bang, was that it achieved MaxQ to quickly...........

 

[rhubarb7]

I think Musk just likes fire, Rockets, Cars, and burning money on Twitter.

 

[mike os]

Of course there is always the possibility that the reason it went bang, was that it achieved MaxQ to quickly...........

It went bang because they would have destroyed it as soon as it was out of control ... from the video it appears to loose normal flight shortly before it went ... I don't think it self destructed

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

They use a trial/error approach...if a trial exceeds a previous trial then they'll consider it a success.

They expect the failures...no failures would mean they aren't taking enough risk!

It's just a very different development approach...but if you want people to keep taking risks then you need to accept their failures...hence the cheering!

Project managers have a very hard time with it I can tell you!

 

[Wildefalcon]

3m, the company that makes the PPE, babe an awards ceremony every quarter.

They give prizes for the best invention, all that sort of thing, but they also give an award, with cash, for the biggest disaster, the worst idea, because if you don't have bad ideas, and if you don't have failures, then you aren't trying hard enough.

 

[daedalusminos]

The fact it cleared the tower was a great achievement - if they'd destroyed the launch pad it would have been a major setback. At least one person miscalculated the sheer amount of debris created during launch...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649053476276797440

 

[Bullet2012]

Do you know what would really suck?

A rocket powered vacuum cleaner!

 

[mike os]

These things are built as close to the material and component failure limit as they can be... once they get into flight bodies. Unfortunately that means you get to test everything to destruction sooner or later .... having tested all the sub assemblies you then get to do it all again with the final product

Cad/cam/fea and rigorous testing still fails to show every potential issue..

All that failed appears to be part of the separation sequence... a line of code a faulty switch a bad connection a bit of ice .... a failed actuator?

Do they still use explosive bolts ?

 

[Wildefalcon]

I suspect the 6 engine failures caused it the corkscrew, so that there was too much twist for the separation to work.

 

[Wildefalcon]

Do you know what would really suck?

A rocket powered vacuum cleaner!

How about a jet powered blower?

 

[Sergei Slovenija]

These things are built as close to the material and component failure limit as they can be... once they get into flight bodies. Unfortunately that means you get to test everything to destruction sooner or later .... having tested all the sub assemblies you then get to do it all again with the final product

Cad/cam/fea and rigorous testing still fails to show every potential issue..

All that failed appears to be part of the separation sequence... a line of code a faulty switch a bad connection a bit of ice .... a failed actuator?

Do they still use explosive bolts ?

I read somewhere that the locks of the rocket and the ship should open, after a small forced impulse, to rotate the ship itself. And not during a pause, when all the engines are off.

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

Seems likely that the engine damage skuppered the flight as they may have lost full control.

Wonder if it was damage from the pad...so maybe nothing on starship went wrong!

 

[Sergei Slovenija]

Seems likely that the engine damage skuppered the flight as they may have lost full control.

Wonder if it was damage from the pad...so maybe nothing on starship went wrong!

The rocket made an aerobatics "dead loop" like an airplane. Engine thrust was enough. The problems started at the separation stage. I saw a poor quality photo, where on the launch pad, nothing was left of the concrete, only a pit. If so, you need reinforcement. After the last test of the engines, the concrete was changed to high-strength. It is not clear to me, as a novice welder, why not cover the launch pad with sheets of armor or other heat-resistant steel, in the "tile" format.

 

[mike os]

The rocket made an aerobatics "dead loop" like an airplane. Engine thrust was enough. The problems started at the separation stage. I saw a poor quality photo, where on the launch pad, nothing was left of the concrete, only a pit. If so, you need reinforcement. After the last test of the engines, the concrete was changed to high-strength. It is not clear to me, as a novice welder, why not cover the launch pad with sheets of armor or other heat-resistant steel, in the "tile" format.

Plume temp is itro 2500c I guess.... nasa used huge volumes of water to help minimise damage iirc

 

[Bullet2012]

Plume temp is itro 2500c I guess.... nasa used huge volumes of water to help minimise damage iirc

True, most of the “smoke” from a NASA launch is actually clods of steam from the water used to cool the pad.

 

[Sergei Slovenija]

True, most of the “smoke” from a NASA launch is actually clods of steam from the water used to cool the pad.

Absorption of heat by water is a fairly standard solution. Photos of destruction. Pieces of concrete, allegedly 500 kg each.

 

[optima21]

and I thought the pot holes on the roads were bad enough

 

[Sergei Slovenija]

For a stainless rocket - a deck made of stainless tiles, like a domed shell, with a small radius. Tiles have the possibility of displacement (heating-cooling-warping). From the inside, in the gap of the sheets, water is supplied. It takes 78 kJ of energy to melt 1 kg of steel. Issues of ablation, wear from a supersonic jet, shock waves - this is rocket science.

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

Can certainly see how the engines might have taken a hit that's for sure...all that debris flying around.

Impressive that it made it off the pad!

 

[Popcorn]

If you watch the video you can see the back window of the Silver Van shatter.