User Panel
It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
|
Originally Posted By fox2008: You can see the debris pretty good in this video
View Quote some big chunks of something flying around there, you can get a sense of the scale from the impact they make when they hit the dirt, definely not a couple heat tiles or something small like that. |
|
.
|
|
|
|
Sir (Username Redacted), charter member Knights of Wonder
|
Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: That seems unlikely. View Quote Well it happened. Look at the feed. They have sand all over their shirts. Watch SpaceX launch Starship, the biggest rocket ever, LIVE |
|
|
Originally Posted By Shadyman: Ok, who’s is going to get fired? Some engineers fucked up royally. View Quote lol Nobody is going to be fired. This was an experimental vehicle on its first test flight. They'll have the next one ready to go in six months, with improvements to the separation system and other systems. This is how spaceX does it. Rapid iteration. |
|
“A real man does not think of victory or defeat. He plunges recklessly towards an irrational death. By doing this, you will awaken from your dreams.” -- Tsunetomo Yamamoto
|
Originally Posted By ZA206: I read where they were going to hold it on the launch mount for up to 8 seconds after engine ignition for some reason. I guess to make sure enough engines were running to get it off the pad. They definitely torched the crap outta the pad!!! LOLOLOL!!! I can't wait to see the stage 0 damage assessment. -ZA View Quote They light the engines in clusters which takes like 6 seconds and then maybe another couple to spool up... |
|
|
Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: Of course it is. 33 engines and no diversion of the exhaust or water deluge system to attenuate the forces. View Quote Intentional choice a lot have argued over. They probably don't want to deal with the amount of water that would be required for their planned launch tempo. That may be a expensive poor decision. |
|
|
Soldier for Life
|
Watch SpaceX launch Starship, the biggest rocket ever, LIVE |
|
"Never attribute to malice that which can be ascribed to sheer stupidity." LTC (CENTCOM)
"Round is a shape, right? I have the body of a god...Just happens to be Buddah! Az_Redneck |
Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise: Intentional choice a lot have argued over. They probably don't want to deal with the amount of water that would be required for their planned launch tempo. That may be a expensive poor decision. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: Of course it is. 33 engines and no diversion of the exhaust or water deluge system to attenuate the forces. Intentional choice a lot have argued over. They probably don't want to deal with the amount of water that would be required for their planned launch tempo. That may be a expensive poor decision. Rebuilding concrete pads may have gotten it past the enviro-weenies than having to redirect a tremendous amount of water from the area. |
|
Sir (Username Redacted), charter member Knights of Wonder
|
Rivethead, Gun Owner...., yes, we do exist (H+)
TN, USA
|
Originally Posted By SparticleBrane: Some poor schmuck at SpaceX forgot to put a check in the box titled "Allow stage separation" https://media.tenor.com/JM2Ao2QnqUgAAAAC/mess-up-mundane-detail.gif View Quote Always check your staging |
Ich Bin Dein Gummibär
Boogiepop Never laughs Callsign: OutcasT |
Wow that wasnt falling concrete that fucked up the van, that was going sideways
|
|
|
Video of the van getting hit.
|
|
"Never attribute to malice that which can be ascribed to sheer stupidity." LTC (CENTCOM)
"Round is a shape, right? I have the body of a god...Just happens to be Buddah! Az_Redneck |
The intentional spin-rotation to get separation is freaky as fuck.
I can understand why they're trying it, Starship itself is enormous and getting a positive separation from Superheavy using a system that's powerful enough to guarantee a clean separation is probably difficult. Last thing they want is them to separate then collide again. And I imagine that something powerful enough to ensure Starship is clear, and quickly igniting Starship's Raptors would possibly damage Superheavy, and they obviously want Superheavy back undamaged with minimum refurb required under ideal circumstances. And I'd guess that the spin separation offers substantial mass savings, if other ejection/separation hardware and it's associated complexity, wiring, control systems, and oressurized COPV tsnks, etc., can be eliminated, and it just uses the RCS both Superheavy and Starship are carrying anyway. If you can get a "two-fer" out of any particular rocket's system, that's a big win. But... damn... Even at high altitude way beyond Max-Q you just don't see a full stack bigger than a goddamn Saturn V intentionally flipping end over end like that without it being a disaster/RUD. Other thoughts... They got farther, a lot farther, than any Soviet N1 ever did. Chunks of hot debris, and sporadic flares in the plume indicates several Raptors RUD'ed. But hell... that's insanely robust! The thing's a goddamn tank to have that much go wrong and keep flying. It's like a V8 or V12 ICE engine blowing several valves, 2 cracked pistons, busted rods etc. and keeps on trucking down the freeway. And the Starship/Superheavy looked significantly off-axis a few times well before the attempt at spin separation too. Most any other rocket would be destroyed. I don't think I've ever seen a launch where so much shit went wrong, but it made it as far as it did. Superheavy is a beast, a damn dump truck juggernaut. And some of the engines being off was intentional, as the cycling probably has aspects for keeping some as backup, or unused to keep one fresh for the Superheavy back-burn and hover/landing. Especially one of the center gymbaled ones. But that many on the outer edge being off was probably related to the ones that failed. Shutting off or cycling engines might also have benefits for payloads substantially smaller than it's maximum capacity, or hitting certain trajectories that doesn't need 100% of the potential thrust. Just having an engine off is probably simpler/safer than messing with throttling. The turboprop spinning down could be a significant reduction in gyrosopic force the attitude control needs to fight. And of course, being able to shut engines off and switch others on at-will, autonomously, or as commanded by ground control, is insanely useful in case one or more fails. Some of the flares and unusual things in the exhaust plume might have been shutdowns and startups, and not all CATO/RUD effects. Honestly, I'm in awe, it was like watching an 18 wheeler intended to make a run from NY to CA, but was on fire, missing several tires, 1/4 of the stuff in the engine was blown, and it still made it halfway into PA. |
|
Like most Americans, I learned all I needed to know about the Vietnam War by watching M*A*S*H*...
|
Originally Posted By LatentUser: Rebuilding concrete pads may have gotten it past the enviro-weenies than having to redirect a tremendous amount of water from the area. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By LatentUser: Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: Of course it is. 33 engines and no diversion of the exhaust or water deluge system to attenuate the forces. Intentional choice a lot have argued over. They probably don't want to deal with the amount of water that would be required for their planned launch tempo. That may be a expensive poor decision. Rebuilding concrete pads may have gotten it past the enviro-weenies than having to redirect a tremendous amount of water from the area. And the civil engineering work that would be needed to make a full trench and such below the mount. Given the elevation there, that would be non-trivial, and probably need more .gov approvals for that much construction. |
|
" Laziness is an essential part of all walks of engineering."
|
Originally Posted By TapRackBang45: Even before that as there was no MECO. View Quote I noticed that too. Quite honestly, it didn’t seem to be a “clean” launch. 3 engines down on launch. 3 more shortly after, engines appeared to be eating themselves, I saw a few hard course corrections, and it appeared to be drifting to the side when it left the tower, yet it kept going. The damn thing quite literally brute forced its way into the upper atmosphere and I love it. And holy shit it got up there FAST. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Chokey: this was a cool shot https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuKWNJoaMAEvCvD?format=png&name=900x900 View Quote 7 engines out? Looks like 2 in the core and 5 on the perimeter. |
|
|
Originally Posted By KonamiCode: Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 20, 2023 View Quote In that video you can see debris flying as high as the arms! One piece was white, maybe ice, but another large piece was black. |
|
Get Active or Get Disarmed!
|
Direct hit !
|
|
It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
|
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson "He didnt punch anybody. He punched an idea." DrFrige |
Originally Posted By Hesperus: Engine rich exhaust? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
No one cared who I was until I put on the mask
USA
|
Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise: I'm not sure of that. With the engines out it may not have been able to get the right angle to separate, and was fighting to. I would think the boost back program wouldn't initiate until separation. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise: Originally Posted By Jack_Rackham: The failure happened when stage separation didn't happen. The first stage was trying to boost back and couldn't. I'm not sure of that. With the engines out it may not have been able to get the right angle to separate, and was fighting to. I would think the boost back program wouldn't initiate until separation. Looked to me like they had at least one engine refuse to shut down. That would explain the lack of separation. |
"It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong"
|
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: The intentional spin-rotation to get separation is freaky as fuck. I can understand why they're trying it, Starship itself is enormous and getting a positive separation from Superheavy using a system that's powerful enough to guarantee a clean separation is probably difficult. Last thing they want is them to separate then collide again. And I imagine that something powerful enough to ensure Starship is clear, and quickly igniting Starship's Raptors would possibly damage Superheavy, and they obviously want Superheavy back undamaged with minimum refurb required under ideal circumstances. And I'd guess that the spin separation offers substantial mass savings, if other ejection/separation hardware and it's associated complexity, wiring, control systems, and oressurized COPV tsnks, etc., can be eliminated, and it just uses the RCS both Superheavy and Starship are carrying anyway. If you can get a "two-fer" out of any particular rocket's system, that's a big win. But... damn... Even at high altitude way beyond Max-Q you just don't see a full stack bigger than a goddamn Saturn V intentionally flipping end over end like that without it being a disaster/RUD. Other thoughts... They got farther, a lot farther, than any Soviet N1 ever did. Chunks of hot debris, and sporadic flares in the plume indicates several Raptors RUD'ed. But hell... that's insanely robust! The thing's a goddamn tank to have that much go wrong and keep flying. It's like a V8 or V12 ICE engine blowing several valves, 2 cracked pistons, busted rods etc. and keeps on trucking down the freeway. And the Starship/Superheavy looked significantly off-axis a few times well before the attempt at spin separation too. Most any other rocket would be destroyed. I don't think I've ever seen a launch where so much shit went wrong, but it made it as far as it did. Superheavy is a beast, a damn dump truck juggernaut. And some of the engines being off was intentional, as the cycling probably has aspects for keeping some as backup, or unused to keep one fresh for the Superheavy back-burn and hover/landing. Especially one of the center gymbaled ones. But that many on the outer edge being off was probably related to the ones that failed. Shutting off or cycling engines might also have benefits for payloads substantially smaller than it's maximum capacity, or hitting certain trajectories that doesn't need 100% of the potential thrust. Just having an engine off is probably simpler/safer than messing with throttling. The turboprop spinning down could be a significant reduction in gyrosopic force the attitude control needs to fight. And of course, being able to shut engines off and switch others on at-will, autonomously, or as commanded by ground control, is insanely useful in case one or more fails. Some of the flares and unusual things in the exhaust plume might have been shutdowns and startups, and not all CATO/RUD effects. Honestly, I'm in awe, it was like watching an 18 wheeler intended to make a run from NY to CA, but was on fire, missing several tires, 1/4 of the stuff in the engine was blown, and it still made it halfway into PA. View Quote I honestly can't even tell if you're trolling. |
|
|
Seeing the debris/ejecta from the launch site.... I'm hoping nobody got hurt. I'm thinking there may be extensive damage to some of the stage 0 tankage/infrastructure. I also think videos of some of the vans/trucks getting smashed is crazy and very worrisome.
-ZA |
|
derp...
|
No one cared who I was until I put on the mask
USA
|
Originally Posted By Dagger41: It started losing engines in a very short order and you could see them eating themselves on the way up. They have a lot of work to do to sort that out. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By castlebravo84: Stage 0 tested and working. Stack cleared pad and made it past max Q so no show stopper stopper structural issues there. Flight termination systems also tested and working. Good first launch. It started losing engines in a very short order and you could see them eating themselves on the way up. They have a lot of work to do to sort that out. I'd imagine the engines being produced now already have improvements that these didn't. At least they know they whole thing won't blow up or become uncontrollable if they lose a few engines. |
"It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong"
|
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: And the Starship/Superheavy looked significantly off-axis a few times well before the attempt at spin separation too. Most any other rocket would be destroyed. I don't think I've ever seen a launch where so much shit went wrong, but it made it as far as it did. Superheavy is a beast, a damn dump truck juggernaut. Honestly, I'm in awe, it was like watching an 18 wheeler intended to make a run from NY to CA, but was on fire, missing several tires, 1/4 of the stuff in the engine was blown, and it still made it halfway into PA. View Quote While watching it I was thinking this is the rocket version of the A10. When does it get a rail gun? |
|
|
The water tanks took a hit.
|
|
I've seen better riots at Walmart on a black Friday - SrBenelli
|
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: Snip Honestly, I'm in awe, it was like watching an 18 wheeler intended to make a run from NY to CA, but was on fire, missing several tires, 1/4 of the stuff in the engine was blown, and it still made it halfway into PA. View Quote Falcon 9 has become the space truck that the Shuttle was hyped as but could never achieved. When they were designing the thing the Shuttle was intended to have a launch cadence of one a week. Clearly Shuttle never achieved that. Falcon 9 pulled that off last year. SHB was intended from day one to be on a whole other level of durability and reliability. Seeing it go through all that on its first flight was truly impressive. |
|
|
Originally Posted By ZA206: Seeing the debris/ejecta from the launch site.... I'm hoping nobody got hurt. I'm thinking there may be extensive damage to some of the stage 0 tankage/infrastructure. I also think videos of some of the vans/trucks getting smashed is crazy and very worrisome. -ZA View Quote +1. It should be totally safe to stand under the rocket while it takes off. |
|
|
The amount of debris in this video is nuts
ETA: One of the comments said this camera was 1100' from the OLM. |
|
EP429: Today's lesson - Don't provoke ARFCOM. People will see your butthole.
|
No one cared who I was until I put on the mask
USA
|
Originally Posted By jordanmills: That and they were probably ordered to cheer as long as nobody died. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By jordanmills: Originally Posted By Fulcrum-5: Originally Posted By Jack_Rackham: I'm so confused. Why cheering? Mission basically succeeded the second it cleared the launch complex, so SpaceX now has a mountain of data to improve and iterate the next design update. That and they were probably ordered to cheer as long as nobody died. Yeah. I'm sure. |
"It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong"
|
Can’t wait to see the crater! There was concrete flying everywhere.
I bet some of those dead raptors took concrete hits. |
|
|
Originally Posted By johnh57: 7 engines out? Looks like 2 in the core and 5 on the perimeter. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By johnh57: Originally Posted By Chokey: this was a cool shot https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuKWNJoaMAEvCvD?format=png&name=900x900 7 engines out? Looks like 2 in the core and 5 on the perimeter. 1 center and 5 on the outside. |
|
|
Originally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: I'd imagine the engines being produced now already have improvements that these didn't. At least they know they whole thing won't blow up or become uncontrollable if they lose a few engines. View Quote It went out of control because they lost a few engines. I think we will see a new booster design in the works with 5-9 much larger engines, like super-dooper Raptors or some such thing that produce as much if not more thrust than the 33 engine combination. |
|
It's a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
|
Originally Posted By JQ66: Would be neat to work at a place where everyone is so excited and personally invested in the success But then I have heard that Elon demands a lot of time at work. Weekends included. So probably a good bit of burnout View Quote |
|
Tom Sawyer.
|
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: lol Nobody is going to be fired. This was an experimental vehicle on its first test flight. They'll have the next one ready to go in six months, with improvements to the separation system and other systems. This is how spaceX does it. Rapid iteration. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By Shadyman: Ok, who’s is going to get fired? Some engineers fucked up royally. lol Nobody is going to be fired. This was an experimental vehicle on its first test flight. They'll have the next one ready to go in six months, with improvements to the separation system and other systems. This is how spaceX does it. Rapid iteration. "...everything after it cleared the launch tower was icing on the cake..." |
|
|
Originally Posted By ZA206: Seeing the debris/ejecta from the launch site.... I'm hoping nobody got hurt. I'm thinking there may be extensive damage to some of the stage 0 tankage/infrastructure. I also think videos of some of the vans/trucks getting smashed is crazy and very worrisome. -ZA View Quote Camera vans were parked close in. The human perimeter was miles |
|
|
Originally Posted By fox2008: The amount of debris in this video is nuts
ETA: One of the comments said this camera was 1100' from the OLM. View Quote Holy shit |
|
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a 10mm at your side, kid.”
|
No one cared who I was until I put on the mask
USA
|
Originally Posted By Dagger41: Direct hit !
View Quote Wow. I'm betting there's some serious damage to the pad and tank farm |
"It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong"
|
Originally Posted By fox2008: The amount of debris in this video is nuts
ETA: One of the comments said this camera was 1100' from the OLM. View Quote That camera was 1100 ft from the launch site (1/5 of a mile or roughly 350 yards). Holy crap. Star hopper looks like it was maybe 200 yards from the launch site. I think it probably has holes blown through it. What's crazy is that large debris was flying almost perfectly horizontal that far away.... not coming in on a rainbow trajectory. DAMN!!! -ZA |
|
derp...
|
I know I'll never go home.
So set fire to your ships, and past regrets, and be free. |
Originally Posted By Dagger41: It went out of control because they lost a few engines. I think we will see a new booster design in the works with 5-9 much larger engines, like super-dooper Raptors or some such thing that produce as much if not more thrust than the 33 engine combination. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: I'd imagine the engines being produced now already have improvements that these didn't. At least they know they whole thing won't blow up or become uncontrollable if they lose a few engines. It went out of control because they lost a few engines. I think we will see a new booster design in the works with 5-9 much larger engines, like super-dooper Raptors or some such thing that produce as much if not more thrust than the 33 engine combination. As long as they can detect an engine failure in progress and shut it down before it blows up and takes out other stuff, having 33 engines is a huge reliability advantage because they can lose a few of them and still complete the mission and land safely. If they only had five engines, losing just one would result in the loss of the vehicle. If the flip to separate maneuver was intentional, I think what went wrong is that the first stage engines didn't shut down to allow separation. Debris from the launch pad and/or shrapnel from an engine explosion might have damaged some of the control systems and left them unable to close valves or whatever they needed to do to shut all the first stage engines down. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Master_of_Orion: Video of the van getting hit.
View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: lol Nobody is going to be fired. This was an experimental vehicle on its first test flight. They'll have the next one ready to go in six months, with improvements to the separation system and other systems. This is how spaceX does it. Rapid iteration. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Originally Posted By Shadyman: Ok, who’s is going to get fired? Some engineers fucked up royally. lol Nobody is going to be fired. This was an experimental vehicle on its first test flight. They'll have the next one ready to go in six months, with improvements to the separation system and other systems. This is how spaceX does it. Rapid iteration. Thank you, I came to post something similar. The first three are free, always. |
|
|
No one cared who I was until I put on the mask
USA
|
Originally Posted By castlebravo84: As long as they can detect an engine failure in progress and shut it down before it blows up and takes out other stuff, having 33 engines is a huge reliability advantage because they can lose a few of them and still complete the mission and land safely. If they only had five engines, losing just one would result in the loss of the vehicle. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By castlebravo84: Originally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: I'd imagine the engines being produced now already have improvements that these didn't. At least they know they whole thing won't blow up or become uncontrollable if they lose a few engines. It went out of control because they lost a few engines. I think we will see a new booster design in the works with 5-9 much larger engines, like super-dooper Raptors or some such thing that produce as much if not more thrust than the 33 engine combination. As long as they can detect an engine failure in progress and shut it down before it blows up and takes out other stuff, having 33 engines is a huge reliability advantage because they can lose a few of them and still complete the mission and land safely. If they only had five engines, losing just one would result in the loss of the vehicle. Didn't the first stage of the Saturn V have 5 engines? And didn't they lose one at least once and still successfully place the payload in orbit? |
"It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong"
|
Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: Of course it is. 33 engines and no diversion of the exhaust or water deluge system to attenuate the forces. View Quote No, they have a water deluge system. Just looks like they might need to make it bigger and provide some more deflection for all the thrust. |
|
The road to Hell is paved with presidential candidates.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.