User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 9:01:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: The stated goal was low Earth orbit with Starship splashing down off Hawaii and the booster doing a soft landing off the coast of Boca Chica, it was in the flight plan. None of that happened. SpaceX loves to move the goal posts and it appeases their supporters/fanatics. They eat it up. I'm just one of those that doesn't eat it up because of the multiple letdowns of promises from Musk and SpaceX because of constant moving of said goal posts. That is my opinion, and when that opinion cannot be shared here I will leave. That's all there is to it, this site was cherished for shared opinions with real debate without name calling and I appreciate your opinion on the subject. Even though we differ. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By kallnojoy: Don't know why you're being obtuse about the value of a test flight, specifically in an iterative design program. The 4/20 launch wasn't even with their "best designs" of either stage 1 or 2 - each were 4 or 5 revs behind. They launched "good enough" components to test specific concepts. Their goal is not to build "a" rocket... but to evolve a rocket design and manufacturing process. Essentially it was destructive testing of already outdated components. ETA: and it didn't matter *when* the rocket made max Q, only that it did, and survived it. That it subsequently also survived some impressive improv corkscrews only added to validation of the structural integrity. The stated goal was low Earth orbit with Starship splashing down off Hawaii and the booster doing a soft landing off the coast of Boca Chica, it was in the flight plan. None of that happened. SpaceX loves to move the goal posts and it appeases their supporters/fanatics. They eat it up. I'm just one of those that doesn't eat it up because of the multiple letdowns of promises from Musk and SpaceX because of constant moving of said goal posts. That is my opinion, and when that opinion cannot be shared here I will leave. That's all there is to it, this site was cherished for shared opinions with real debate without name calling and I appreciate your opinion on the subject. Even though we differ. Elon has clearly stated repeatedly that success was 50% chance AT BEST. The big takeaway to me is that the vehicle is amazingly robust and can tolerate immense damage without outright failure-FAR more than any other launch vehicle. And this one is the last one with the hydraulic actuation, which seems to be where most of the failures came from when the HPU (or both) popped. How well would SLS fare getting concrete blocks up the ass, assymetric thrust, and 25% engine loss? Would have been lucky do clear the tower without leveling the facility. Nick |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 9:06:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: LurkerII]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realwar: FAA mad. The Federal Aviation Administration has now grounded all of SpaceX's Starship rockets as it investigates the failed launch. Ray Charles saw that coming. 1-2  |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 9:38:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: I'm just one of those that doesn't eat it up because of the multiple letdowns of promises from Musk and SpaceX because of constant moving of said goal posts. That is my opinion, and when that opinion cannot be shared here I will leave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 9:45:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realwar: FAA mad. The Federal Aviation Administration has now grounded all of SpaceX's Starship rockets as it investigates the failed launch. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/19/70147377-12004897-image-a-30_1682275291298.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146729-12004897-image-a-24_1682272653311.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146731-12004897-image-a-23_1682272638126.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146739-12004897-image-a-25_1682272661075.jpg More there is absolutely nothing about FAA grounding Starship other than DailyJunkMail and Politico reporting it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 9:48:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: there is absolutely nothing about FAA grounding Starship other than DailyJunkMail and Politico reporting it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: Originally Posted By realwar: FAA mad. The Federal Aviation Administration has now grounded all of SpaceX's Starship rockets as it investigates the failed launch. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/19/70147377-12004897-image-a-30_1682275291298.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146729-12004897-image-a-24_1682272653311.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146731-12004897-image-a-23_1682272638126.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146739-12004897-image-a-25_1682272661075.jpg More there is absolutely nothing about FAA grounding Starship other than DailyJunkMail and Politico reporting it. Doesn't really make sense either. Seemed to be a good test as far as they're concerned. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 9:49:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: Doesn't really make sense either. Seemed to be a good test as far as they're concerned. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd: Originally Posted By Chokey: Originally Posted By realwar: FAA mad. The Federal Aviation Administration has now grounded all of SpaceX's Starship rockets as it investigates the failed launch. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/19/70147377-12004897-image-a-30_1682275291298.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146729-12004897-image-a-24_1682272653311.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146731-12004897-image-a-23_1682272638126.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146739-12004897-image-a-25_1682272661075.jpg More there is absolutely nothing about FAA grounding Starship other than DailyJunkMail and Politico reporting it. Doesn't really make sense either. Seemed to be a good test as far as they're concerned. Depends on what safety expectations and assurances were in place contingent to approval of the launch. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 9:58:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: The stated SpaceX loves to move the goal posts and it appeases their supporters/fanatics. They eat it up. I'm just one of those that doesn't eat it up because of the multiple letdowns of promises from Musk and SpaceX because of constant moving of said goal posts. That is my opinion, and when that opinion cannot be shared here I will leave. That's all there is to it, this site was cherished for shared opinions with real debate without name calling and I appreciate your opinion on the subject. Even though we differ. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By kallnojoy: Don't know why you're being obtuse about the value of a test flight, specifically in an iterative design program. The 4/20 launch wasn't even with their "best designs" of either stage 1 or 2 - each were 4 or 5 revs behind. They launched "good enough" components to test specific concepts. Their goal is not to build "a" rocket... but to evolve a rocket design and manufacturing process. Essentially it was destructive testing of already outdated components. ETA: and it didn't matter *when* the rocket made max Q, only that it did, and survived it. That it subsequently also survived some impressive improv corkscrews only added to validation of the structural integrity. The stated SpaceX loves to move the goal posts and it appeases their supporters/fanatics. They eat it up. I'm just one of those that doesn't eat it up because of the multiple letdowns of promises from Musk and SpaceX because of constant moving of said goal posts. That is my opinion, and when that opinion cannot be shared here I will leave. That's all there is to it, this site was cherished for shared opinions with real debate without name calling and I appreciate your opinion on the subject. Even though we differ. Small correction. The PLAN was for that flight path. Which Elon specifically stated, well before the launch, was far from guaranteed. They had to have a plan if the thing miraculously made a perfect flight, even though they knew it most likely would not. The goal was to launch it without it blowing up and destroying the pad. Just the fact that they got 30 engines to start and burn for the start of the flight is a huge accomplishment. Test flight is far different than test burn. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2023 10:13:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: The stated goal was low Earth orbit with Starship splashing down off Hawaii and the booster doing a soft landing off the coast of Boca Chica, it was in the flight plan. None of that happened. SpaceX loves to move the goal posts and it appeases their supporters/fanatics. They eat it up. I'm just one of those that doesn't eat it up because of the multiple letdowns of promises from Musk and SpaceX because of constant moving of said goal posts. That is my opinion, and when that opinion cannot be shared here I will leave. That's all there is to it, this site was cherished for shared opinions with real debate without name calling and I appreciate your opinion on the subject. Even though we differ. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By kallnojoy: Don't know why you're being obtuse about the value of a test flight, specifically in an iterative design program. The 4/20 launch wasn't even with their "best designs" of either stage 1 or 2 - each were 4 or 5 revs behind. They launched "good enough" components to test specific concepts. Their goal is not to build "a" rocket... but to evolve a rocket design and manufacturing process. Essentially it was destructive testing of already outdated components. ETA: and it didn't matter *when* the rocket made max Q, only that it did, and survived it. That it subsequently also survived some impressive improv corkscrews only added to validation of the structural integrity. The stated goal was low Earth orbit with Starship splashing down off Hawaii and the booster doing a soft landing off the coast of Boca Chica, it was in the flight plan. None of that happened. SpaceX loves to move the goal posts and it appeases their supporters/fanatics. They eat it up. I'm just one of those that doesn't eat it up because of the multiple letdowns of promises from Musk and SpaceX because of constant moving of said goal posts. That is my opinion, and when that opinion cannot be shared here I will leave. That's all there is to it, this site was cherished for shared opinions with real debate without name calling and I appreciate your opinion on the subject. Even though we differ. Holy shit you SpaceX haters are hard to deal with. Of course they had to give the entire flight plan of what they hoped would happen. Otherwise do you just tell the FAA hey we're gonna be ecstatic if this thing even leaves the tower and as soon as it does we're gonna blow it up cause we never thought it would make it to Hawaii? When's the last time you saw a rocket get sideways and it still held together? This is even after all the damage it received on launch. The data from this is insane and probably why they kept letting it do that until it did start to fail. Now they can optimize the boosters even further either keeping it like it is (cause it's a fucking tank) or lighten it up where it's not as strong to increase the possible payload and lower the cost to send payload to orbit even further. Booster wise it's a complete success and now they know for sure they need to figure out the pad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 10:00:16 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RyanEsstac: The lack of gravity makes many activities more efficient. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RyanEsstac: Originally Posted By mohabie: That's why space sex is so much more efficient than the government. The lack of gravity makes many activities more efficient. Newton's 3rd law will be a true pain in this instance. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 10:25:28 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: The stated goal was low Earth orbit with Starship splashing down off Hawaii and the booster doing a soft landing off the coast of Boca Chica, it was in the flight plan. None of that happened. SpaceX loves to move the goal posts and it appeases their supporters/fanatics. They eat it up. I'm just one of those that doesn't eat it up because of the multiple letdowns of promises from Musk and SpaceX because of constant moving of said goal posts. That is my opinion, and when that opinion cannot be shared here I will leave. That's all there is to it, this site was cherished for shared opinions with real debate without name calling and I appreciate your opinion on the subject. Even though we differ. There is real debate, always has been.... but no name calling? Been here over a decade man, ball busting's been a feature not a bug since day one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 10:30:49 AM EDT
[#11]
There is plenty of room to admit that SpaceX likely made some unforced errors while still acknowledging that a test launch can be a resounding success whether or not it completes its full flight profile.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 10:41:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: LurkerII]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmnoid77: There is plenty of room to admit that SpaceX likely made some unforced errors while still acknowledging that a test launch can be a resounding success whether or not it completes its full flight profile. I'll throw my purse into all the purse swinging. Full flight profile was never a requirement for a success. Elon himself said success would at the least be the rocket clearing the launch pad with stage 0 intact. Stage 0 is far from intact. Just sayin'. Rocket was a huge success, stage 0 a huge failure. Space nerds/analysts/NSF/WAI etc... saw the pad issue coming a year plus ago. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 10:43:47 AM EDT
[#13]
I believe we can lay the flame trench issue to rest.
|
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 10:52:01 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realwar: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146739-12004897-image-a-25_1682272661075.jpg Sweet damn it blasted off at 1,243mph! What a garbage "article". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 10:55:20 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmnoid77: There is plenty of room to admit that SpaceX likely made some unforced errors while still acknowledging that a test launch can be a resounding success whether or not it completes its full flight profile. Well, that's the debate isn't it? There's what SpaceX hoped might be possible if everything went perfectly, soft landing the booster and starship, which would in fact, exceed their own expectations of the test. And then there is what SpaceX said constituted the minimum objectives to be considered a success and anything past that was a bonus. The test launch met the objectives and validated Elon's statement from months ago, that the launch pad setup was probably a mistake. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 11:36:27 AM EDT
[#17]
I enjoyed streaming from the #Starship launch site, yesterday. From what I saw, I have several takeaways I feel are important to mention: . 1) Let us not forget ➡️ this is prototype testing and the collection of data is crucial for learning what works best (and vice versa) as SpaceX strives towards rapid iteration and full reusability. . 2) People seem to be being a bit dramatic about the damage they’ve seen on video or in photos. SpaceX and @elonmusk know what the heck they are doing. We (the general public) doesn’t know 1/100th of what they’re doing - even with the visuals gathered from outside sources — as we don’t work for the company nor do we sit in on meetings where plans are discussed. No matter how much a person may feel their experience deems them an expert in the field of such and such, at the end of the day, we are merely outside observers. It is important to remember this when giving an opinion on something — as we don’t know the whole story! We are spectators, only. Please keep this in mind when spreading an opinion around as some people will see it as “factual information.” . 3) My OPINION ➡️ from an outsider’s perspective (as a human with knowledge from working in civil, structural, & construction engineering) ➡️ the damage is not as significant as people online are making it out to be. I won’t take more than a few months (6 months, tops) to get back up and running, in my opinion, whether that means they repair this during that time frame or they ship in the modular sections of the prefabricated tower sitting at the Cape and start work on Tower II (upon approval). . I understand the structural integrity concerns for the Orbital Launch Mount (OLM); however, SpaceX has the right structural engineers / inspectors on call to make sure everything is structurally sound in preparation for the next flight test. . 5) I, personally, view the hole beneath the OLM as *less digging* they’ll need to do for the flame diverter trench and water deluge system installation. . 6) Concrete and rebar debris is no big deal, in my honest opinion. I’m glad they moved forward with the launch before having *everything spectators thought they should have* installed, based on their preconceived notions of what other rocket 🚀 launch pads have used in the past (I.e. NASA’s 39-A, etc). . 7) Cleanup outside of the launch site boundaries won’t take a whole lot of time once inspections are complete. . @SpaceX moves fast. We know this. . 8) This damage could have been far worse — and if it were any other company besides #SpaceX — the launch would have never even been attempted (#1) nor would other companies ground support equipment (GSE) have faired so well (#2). . 9) Let us not forget, the orbital tank farm’s GSE tanks have shells over them — which can be replaced — or there’s always a possibly SpaceX may decide to swap out the eight vertical tanks for horizontal prefabricated tanks in the future. They have many options. . 10) Aesthetic damage to fencing or char / scorch marks are insignificant (in the grand scheme of this project). . For example, one panel of the black fencing wall on the front side of the launch site was damaged. No big deal! It can be replaced! However, because SpaceX is so generous in allowing the public to get so close, people can see it and make it out to be something huge, when it’s nothing more than a fence panel needing replaced & painted black (to the best of my knowledge). . In summary ➡️➡️ Remember, This was only a TEST. That’s why it was named ORBITAL FLIGHT TEST-1 (OFT1). This was only the beginning. . Don’t lose faith in SpaceX, Elon Musk, or the overall mission. . I encourage you to stay positive and look at things from an optimistic mindset. . 🚨 My request for you 🚨 When you hear people talking crap, I encourage you to politely remind them this is a prototype & 4/20’s flight was progress. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 11:37:08 AM EDT
[#18]
Check out the shock waves in this video, holy crap !
 The world's most powerful rocket takes off in 4K 120fps |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 11:48:09 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Check out the shock waves in this video, holy crap !  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaLGrJ-14hs |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 12:06:52 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realwar: FAA mad. The Federal Aviation Administration has now grounded all of SpaceX's Starship rockets as it investigates the failed launch. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/19/70147377-12004897-image-a-30_1682275291298.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146729-12004897-image-a-24_1682272653311.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146731-12004897-image-a-23_1682272638126.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146739-12004897-image-a-25_1682272661075.jpg More Was it confirmed some of the engines "failed to ignite" or could they have ignited and been damaged? We don't know that unless it comes from SpaceX, you can't just count the number of engines out 30 seconds into the flight and declare they failed to ignite. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 12:36:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AJE: Was it confirmed some of the engines "failed to ignite" or could they have ignited and been damaged? We don't know that unless it comes from SpaceX, you can't just count the number of engines out 30 seconds into the flight and declare they failed to ignite. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AJE: Originally Posted By realwar: FAA mad. The Federal Aviation Administration has now grounded all of SpaceX's Starship rockets as it investigates the failed launch. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/19/70147377-12004897-image-a-30_1682275291298.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146729-12004897-image-a-24_1682272653311.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146731-12004897-image-a-23_1682272638126.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146739-12004897-image-a-25_1682272661075.jpg More Was it confirmed some of the engines "failed to ignite" or could they have ignited and been damaged? We don't know that unless it comes from SpaceX, you can't just count the number of engines out 30 seconds into the flight and declare they failed to ignite. I haven't seen an "official" response from SpaceX.....based on the volume of concrete flying around ignited and damaged seems more likely. The way they sequence the engine start it's also possible some could have been damaged prior to ignition??? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 12:41:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: I haven't seen an "official" response from SpaceX.....based on the volume of concrete flying around ignited and damaged seems more likely. The way they sequence the engine start it's also possible some could have been damaged prior to ignition??? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: Originally Posted By AJE: Originally Posted By realwar: FAA mad. The Federal Aviation Administration has now grounded all of SpaceX's Starship rockets as it investigates the failed launch. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/19/70147377-12004897-image-a-30_1682275291298.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146729-12004897-image-a-24_1682272653311.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146731-12004897-image-a-23_1682272638126.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/23/18/70146739-12004897-image-a-25_1682272661075.jpg More Was it confirmed some of the engines "failed to ignite" or could they have ignited and been damaged? We don't know that unless it comes from SpaceX, you can't just count the number of engines out 30 seconds into the flight and declare they failed to ignite. I haven't seen an "official" response from SpaceX.....based on the volume of concrete flying around ignited and damaged seems more likely. The way they sequence the engine start it's also possible some could have been damaged prior to ignition??? Couldn't find the image I was looking for but there were some indications that at least some of the inop engines were missing their nozzles. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 12:42:51 PM EDT
[#23]
Booster 7 has the record for world's largest sandblaster.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 1:11:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: I haven't seen an "official" response from SpaceX.....based on the volume of concrete flying around ignited and damaged seems more likely. The way they sequence the engine start it's also possible some could have been damaged prior to ignition??? I think it would depend heavily on the ignition/throttle up sequence. With a little luck, SpaceX will tell us eventually. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 1:11:49 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MtnMusic: IMHO, the closer other programs get to providing viable orbital launch services for the fedgov, the more they are going to tighten the screws down on There's a possibility that Starship may never fly again (at least from a US launch site). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 1:15:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grendelsbane: I think it would depend heavily on the ignition/throttle up sequence. With a little luck, SpaceX will tell us eventually. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grendelsbane: Originally Posted By fox2008: I haven't seen an "official" response from SpaceX.....based on the volume of concrete flying around ignited and damaged seems more likely. The way they sequence the engine start it's also possible some could have been damaged prior to ignition??? I think it would depend heavily on the ignition/throttle up sequence. With a little luck, SpaceX will tell us eventually. I thought someone said the engines come on in 3 stages.....but I'm not sure what the configuration of the phases is. This is a screengrab from the SpaceX live feed, at 16 seconds is when they put the overlay graphic of the engines in the bottom left and you can see that 2 are out on the outer ring and 1 in the middle. Agreed that until SpaceX gives info (assuming they do) it's all speculation. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 1:20:49 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: If all the altitude the Starship needs is 20 miles and what, 1200 miles per hour, they may as well stretch it 30 feet and make it SSTO. But it doesn't need that, it needs much more speed, and much more altitude before it lights and can attain an orbital speed. Max Q was planned at 55 seconds, it occurred @ 1:20 @ 9km MECO was planned @ 2:59 but they lost it @ 2:15 at 26 km. At ~ 2:30 the pointy end was aimed at the Earth, just watch the telemetry before the shut that feature off. Speed was rapidly decreasing at that point too. Throw your pearls and hate away and look at the data. There is no way the Starship would have gotten anywhere near orbital speeds if it did sep at that point in speed and altitude. Instead, the flight plan was useless once it left the OLM. It was spectacular though. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By Zam18th: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/DKprofLOL-122511-526.png You're either trolling or have no idea what you're talking about. I gave you an honest reply in case you really didn't understand the difference between Starship and F9. Most of your response is completely unrelated to my post and is just industrial grade pearl clutching or pure hating. Good luck in your future endeavors.  If all the altitude the Starship needs is 20 miles and what, 1200 miles per hour, they may as well stretch it 30 feet and make it SSTO. But it doesn't need that, it needs much more speed, and much more altitude before it lights and can attain an orbital speed. Max Q was planned at 55 seconds, it occurred @ 1:20 @ 9km MECO was planned @ 2:59 but they lost it @ 2:15 at 26 km. At ~ 2:30 the pointy end was aimed at the Earth, just watch the telemetry before the shut that feature off. Speed was rapidly decreasing at that point too. Throw your pearls and hate away and look at the data. There is no way the Starship would have gotten anywhere near orbital speeds if it did sep at that point in speed and altitude. Instead, the flight plan was useless once it left the OLM. It was spectacular though. None of that really matters though. It made it off the launch pad intact, although the launch pad wasn't intact when it left. That was the test and the measure of success. It launched and they got their data. Rapid prototyping and testing to failure is a thing for them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 1:31:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cobradriver]
[#28]
Quote HistoryThat dude is an annoying asshat. If I had to be around someone like him daily...an alligator might end up eating really well.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 1:33:03 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 2:00:21 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 2:26:09 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 2:29:07 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 3:26:05 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tortilla-flats: That would be incredible if the chopsticks are still functional. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tortilla-flats: Originally Posted By Chokey:
They are. I just watched them close and lower all the way to the bottom. I can't believe the drawworks might still be alive. I know chopsticks have emergency brakes but I'm not sure if they have the means to lower them without a functional drawworks. Anyone know? Either way, this bodes well for the chopsticks and the tower in general. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 3:40:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Draw works by nature have to be built strong. That type unit is used on drilling rigs that carry the weight of the drill string, which is heavy. You can't have one break with 15-18k feet of steel hanging off it. Some control works may have been damaged, but not the main unit.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 3:43:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NOVA1234]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: https://i.redd.it/byxbry0wvtva1.jpg You remember Starship! The Butcher of Boca Chica! [crowd boos] I can choose anyone I want, and I choose Starship! That rocket’s one mean motherfucker! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 3:52:36 PM EDT
[#36]
That's huge. All is not lost.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 4:01:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TinLeg]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By trapsh00ter99: I bet that's why the Arfcommer who was down there said it sounded weird. That was I. That video does an OK job. But... I just don't think a microphone has the ability to really record how it 'sounds' which is a combination of sound vibrations and... well... physical vibrations. (Admitting those are one and the same). I don't know how to communicate / describe the sensation and... skipping... nature of how it sounded / felt. Maybe.... a pulsejet engine but much larger and with a longer period between 'pops' which are much deeper in tone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 4:20:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: elcope]
[#38]
  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 4:44:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cobradriver: That dude is an annoying asshat. If I had to be around someone like him daily...an alligator might end up eating really well.... He also spews misinformation in order to be edgy not to mention he thinks ISP is how many seconds a engine burns. I gave the guy a chance but am fed up with him. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 4:46:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: elcope]
[#40]
   @DK-Prof https://starbaseoutfitters.com/starbase-scale-models/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 4:50:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HeavyMetal: He also spews misinformation in order to be edgy not to mention he thinks ISP is how many seconds a engine burns. I gave the guy a chance but am fed up with him. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HeavyMetal: Originally Posted By Cobradriver: That dude is an annoying asshat. If I had to be around someone like him daily...an alligator might end up eating really well.... He also spews misinformation in order to be edgy not to mention he thinks ISP is how many seconds a engine burns. I gave the guy a chance but am fed up with him. In 2023, nothing after the word "misinformation" ever matters or is heard/read |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 4:52:23 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By elcope:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FufSrs4XwAMbqoU?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FufSrssXgAgcfyt?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FufSrsrXsAEJghc?format=jpg&name=large @DK-Prof That’s crazy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 5:39:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Hadrian]
[#43]
Cool model. They're pricey, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 5:51:17 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By elcope:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FufSrs4XwAMbqoU?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FufSrssXgAgcfyt?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FufSrsrXsAEJghc?format=jpg&name=large @DK-Prof https://starbaseoutfitters.com/starbase-scale-models/ Dks finances won't survive you. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 5:52:15 PM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 6:01:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shooter_gregg: Draw works by nature have to be built strong. That type unit is used on drilling rigs that carry the weight of the drill string, which is heavy. You can't have one break with 15-18k feet of steel hanging off it. Some control works may have been damaged, but not the main unit. Good to hear. They mentioned similar on RGV's stream. Plus the upward and outward angle of the concrete that blasted the enclosure likely helped. The launch mount itself looks like it held up pretty well and tank farm damage isn't an issue. Really the only issue I'm concerned about is the launch mount foundation. The legs go down 100+ feet underground and seemingly only one lateral support was destroyed, so it still should have remained pretty strong. I'm hopeful that it can still be repaired. But I'm also an optimist. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 7:11:05 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
With starship rumored to be getting 30’ taller… Who wants to bet it ends up being 420’ tall…? |
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 7:24:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NwG: With starship rumored to be getting 30’ taller… Who wants to bet it ends up being 420’ tall…? Really?? Hadn't heard that reported. Wonder if it's yet another floor for occupant, propellent, or both. I watched a good video that discussed ideas for layout of crew and storage areas on Starship. Imagine a space going "capsule" with more interior volume than the Intl. Space station?!? Where did you hear that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 7:39:01 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Utahshooting: Really?? Hadn't heard that reported. Wonder if it's yet another floor for occupant, propellent, or both. I watched a good video that discussed ideas for layout of crew and storage areas on Starship. Imagine a space going "capsule" with more interior volume than the Intl. Space station?!? Where did you hear that? Twitter livestream right before the launch, during which Elon mentioned a 10m extension for Starship. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2023 7:40:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vmpglenn: Twitter livestream right before the launch, during which Elon mentioned a 10m extension for Starship. And 3 more vacuum engines IIRC. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
