Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab
-
@Kirwan said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kiwiwomble said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kirwan apologies, those of us that dont follow these things that closely or if im honest just dont understand a lot of the technical stuff even when its explained can sometime only ask the really obvious (to those who know so much more) questions
The whole approach of casual acceptance of something so expensive and potentially important exploding when not inherently planned for is also a different approach to lots of other industries, great that is par for the course for them, but the instinctual through for a lot of average people i believe would be WOW, what happened?
You keep saying it's not planned to explode, they absolutely are planned to explode during development. They are testing to failure to find out where the safetly margins are.
In fairness, that was my original question, was it planned to explode or had something gone "wrong" even after 100's or 1000's of things had gone "right" beforehand
I can completely understand the idea of testing till failure if that had been the answer to my first question
@Kiwiwomble said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@voodoo havent had a chance to read anything about it so have only seen the headlines, were they testing something and it was meant to explode?
-
-
@voodoo said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
Someone else here will explain better, but I think ideally it wouldn't explode,
the 'lead nerd' described it as sub-optimal
It clearly wasn't the perfect mission, but things seldom are. They will learn so much from the four-minute flight. In may ways a 'failure' is the best result. The way humans are wired we seem to learn more from our mistakes than our successes.
-
@dogmeat said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@voodoo said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
Someone else here will explain better, but I think ideally it wouldn't explode,
the 'lead nerd' described it as sub-optimal
It clearly wasn't the perfect mission, but things seldom are. They will learn so much from the four-minute flight. In may ways a 'failure' is the best result. The way humans are wired we seem to learn more from our mistakes than our successes.
I love the term RUD: Rapid unscheduled disassembly
-
-
@dogmeat said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kirwan yeah I couldn't remember the acronym but it made me smile when I heard it.
I really like that their coverage uses people that actually work their. Get good information, even if the presentation skills can be a bit lacking. Lead Nerd was genuinely excited when it launched, I love the enthusiasm.
-
Debris from the launch
image url)
-
Yeah, some work ahead to repair the mount. The plan was to have steel plates to protect the concrete but they rain out of time. They thought they could get away with one launch based on the static fire test, but that was......ummmm....wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if they end up building a flame divertor as well.
-
@Kirwan said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
Yeah, some work ahead to repair the mount. The plan was to have steel plates to protect the concrete but they rain out of time. They thought they could get away with one launch based on the static fire test, but that was......ummmm....wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if they end up building a flame divertor as well.
The Apollo and Shuttle launchers always had diverters. But that's a little more power than people are used to...
-
From the BBC:
One might expect SpaceX to be pleased, but outside experts were also impressed with the improvements that had been made.
"This time all the 33 engines, which are called Raptor engines, were all up and running during lift-off. And this allowed Starship to actually reach what we call first-stage separation which is the most interesting part - this is what they wanted to test," said Dr Emma Gatti, editor in chief of Space Watch Global.
Dr Phil Metzger is a former Nasa scientist, now with the University of Central Florida, who studies rocket systems. He told BBC News: "Elon was predicting a 60% chance of success. And I would say that they probably got 60% success.
"They'll be looking at the data. A rocket has a huge amount of data being sent to the ground. They'll have data on every system and subsystem imaginable, so I don't doubt they're going to be able to pinpoint the causes of what did go wrong; and I'm sure they'll be pressing ahead for their next launch as soon as possible."
-
