User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:37:02 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AJ_Dual: And the Superheavy/Starship stack survived,and continued to function, after at least a half-dozen things happened to it that would have very likely caused many, if not all previous space launch rockets to RUD almost instantly. Very important point. That thing was continuing to accelerate even down several engines and survived max Q with no apparent difficulties. Yes, the separation failed, and they missed an opportunity to collect data from the rest of their planned flight profile, but it is a short-sighted stretch to call this evolution a failure. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:37:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dedreckon: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuKoJfxWAAgfWCs?format=jpg&name=small 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:38:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkGray: The :29 screenshot looks like those flames (and the subsequent piece of debris) may be from the bottom of the hydraulic power unit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkGray: Originally Posted By fox2008: Watching the live stream again and took some screenshots. When SpaceX put the graphics on the screen at 20s it showed 3 engines not running. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_20s_JPG-2789516.jpg At 29s you can see what looks like flames coming out of the bottom edge of the booster https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_29s_JPG-2789526.jpg Shortly after you can see debris fly from the bottom of the booster (hard to capture on a screenshot but here is one piece) https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_29-2s_JPG-2789524.jpg At 40s the 4th engine stops https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_40s_JPG-2789523.jpg At 62s the 5th engine stops https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_62s_JPG-2789522.jpg At 102s the 6th engine stops https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_102s_JPG-2789521.jpg At 111s the 6th engine shows back online, could be a sensor issue??? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_111s_JPG-2789532.jpg The :29 screenshot looks like those flames (and the subsequent piece of debris) may be from the bottom of the hydraulic power unit. No idea....if you go to 45:33 in the video you can see when it happens there is a significant amount of debris generated though.  Starship Flight Test |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:40:26 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmnoid77: Very important point. That thing was continuing to accelerate even down several engines and survived max Q with no apparent difficulties. Yes, the separation failed, and they missed an opportunity to collect data from the rest of their planned flight profile, but it is a short-sighted stretch to call this evolution a failure. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dmnoid77: Originally Posted By AJ_Dual: And the Superheavy/Starship stack survived,and continued to function, after at least a half-dozen things happened to it that would have very likely caused many, if not all previous space launch rockets to RUD almost instantly. Very important point. That thing was continuing to accelerate even down several engines and survived max Q with no apparent difficulties. Yes, the separation failed, and they missed an opportunity to collect data from the rest of their planned flight profile, but it is a short-sighted stretch to call this evolution a failure. Yep. IIRC, engine failures are what caused the sovient N1 to RUD. Engines failed and shut down. The resulting pressure spike in the fuel feed caused the RUD. Basically, the sudden flow stop works like a hydraulic hammer on the fuel system. All in all, Super Heavy seems to be one tough rocket. Pretty incredible that it survived to stage separation. Even more amazing it survived all that twirling around and around at separation failure. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:41:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dedreckon: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuKoJfxWAAgfWCs?format=jpg&name=small That is hilarious. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:42:22 PM EDT
[#6]
I really hope that the administration doesn't use this as a reason to curtail further attempts of starship launches. I could see them being bitches and raising hell about flying ground debris or making up shit about rocket debris in orbit.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:44:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stillnothere: I really hope that the administration doesn't use this as a reason to curtail further attempts of starship launches. I could see them being bitches and raising hell about flying ground debris or making up shit about rocket debris in orbit. I wouldn't worry about the flight termination. It didn't make orbit and that contingency was planned for. No biggie. The debris at ground level may be more than was expected though. That was wild. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:49:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voodochild: So when's the next SS Heavy launch try? Elon says a few months, which probably means next year sometime. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:54:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:55:27 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Elon says a few months, which probably means next year sometime. I'm going to go with 6 months. Mostly because of stage 0 upgrades/repairs. -ZA |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 12:59:34 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cgrant26: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cgrant26: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: Of course it is. 33 engines and no diversion of the exhaust or water deluge system to attenuate the forces. 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.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:04:45 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Elon says a few months, which probably means next year sometime. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: Originally Posted By voodochild: So when's the next SS Heavy launch try? Elon says a few months, which probably means next year sometime. Yeah, there's no way it's going to be "a few" months. I'm thinking 6 months at least. On the one hand, they probably have one or two boosters that are already at advanced stages of construction. On the other hand, if they are going to make big changes as a result of everything they learned, I could easily see it taking another year before the next attempt. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:25:58 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:27:35 PM EDT
[#14]
 
|
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:27:40 PM EDT
[#15]
 First SpaceX Starship Launch (with explosion) Looking at this it seems like the rocket is drifting sideways a bit after rising above the dust cloud. Then we see a few separate events in flight where the exhaust flashes yellow. And my favorite bit where someone yells out "Is it doing a Kerbal?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:28:45 PM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:29:00 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryI think Jeb had a few too many beers. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:29:29 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:32:53 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:33:37 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:33:46 PM EDT
[#21]
flashback
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:34:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryHas anyone checked.....did Elon draw a dick? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:34:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By double_trouble_2003: The tank farm is worse for wear. Brutal!! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/31659/7B053882-B3C9-4C7B-8CFC-383B760DCE02_jpe-2789593.JPG Holy shit
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:35:08 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:38:49 PM EDT
[#25]
One of the most awesome things I have seen in my life
|
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:39:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: flashback
Narrator: It was a mistake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:42:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Blue_Devil_JD: Narrator: It was a mistake. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Blue_Devil_JD: Originally Posted By Chokey: flashback
Narrator: It was a mistake. I remember all the pipes and equipment showing up....I'd assume it will be installed before the next launch. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:43:04 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: No idea....if you go to 45:33 in the video you can see when it happens there is a significant amount of debris generated though.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hIQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By fox2008: Originally Posted By DarkGray: Originally Posted By fox2008: Watching the live stream again and took some screenshots. When SpaceX put the graphics on the screen at 20s it showed 3 engines not running. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_20s_JPG-2789516.jpg At 29s you can see what looks like flames coming out of the bottom edge of the booster https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_29s_JPG-2789526.jpg Shortly after you can see debris fly from the bottom of the booster (hard to capture on a screenshot but here is one piece) https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_29-2s_JPG-2789524.jpg At 40s the 4th engine stops https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_40s_JPG-2789523.jpg At 62s the 5th engine stops https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_62s_JPG-2789522.jpg At 102s the 6th engine stops https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_102s_JPG-2789521.jpg At 111s the 6th engine shows back online, could be a sensor issue??? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/397309/Starship_111s_JPG-2789532.jpg The :29 screenshot looks like those flames (and the subsequent piece of debris) may be from the bottom of the hydraulic power unit. No idea....if you go to 45:33 in the video you can see when it happens there is a significant amount of debris generated though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hIAt about 47:34 in the video you can see the speed switch from steadily increasing to decreasing. I imagine that's about when stage sep was supposed to happen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:43:25 PM EDT
[#29]
  
|
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:45:50 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Blue_Devil_JD: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Blue_Devil_JD: Originally Posted By Chokey: flashback
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:47:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SoCalExile]
[#31]
nvm
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:48:52 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:49:45 PM EDT
[#33]
drone footage
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:52:33 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SoCalExile: nvm 
|
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:52:49 PM EDT
[#35]
I wonder how many seismographs picked that launch up.
"Find cover! It's the Big One letting loose! Never mind, just the Starship launch..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:55:42 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:56:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey:
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 1:58:04 PM EDT
[#38]
If this has not been posted it is a great video
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:00:51 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By t75fnaco3pwzhd:
:36 Seconds was definitely a raptor dieing |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:01:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Beautiful.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:10:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: RiverSwine45]
[#41]
Quote History Airplane - All Over The Place |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:10:32 PM EDT
[#42]
The latest Starlink launch has MECO around 2 min, 29 seconds about 63 kilometers altitude and a speed of roughly 7905 km/hour.
I did not catch the exact moment when MECO should have occurred for this launch but it may have been around 30 km altitude and 2140 km/hour. That seems to be a huge energy delta between the two. Six engines out certainly played a role. Does anyone know what altitude and speed should have been if everything worked as planned? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:11:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zam18th]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By double_trouble_2003: The tank farm is worse for wear. Brutal!! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/31659/7B053882-B3C9-4C7B-8CFC-383B760DCE02_jpe-2789593.JPG ETA I think 1 is empty and 1 may have been converted into a water tank.
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:12:39 PM EDT
[#44]
What Estes rocket that goes back to the 1960s does the initial liftoff period remind you of...if you ever launched Estes rockets.
That model is still available. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:15:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AmericanPeople: What Estes rocket that goes back to the 1960s does the initial liftoff period remind you of...if you ever launched Estes rockets. That model is still available. The multiple backflip maneuver reminds me of all of the ones I built that deviated from the instructions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:15:57 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryLOL. Not real funny but it's not far off. I contend that launch pad debris is what condemned the launch, rendering 3 engines inop at the beginning and damaging several others to the point of cascading failures, including the hydraulic pumps that provide the steering. The rocket was doomed as soon as the hold down clamps were released. Get there itis is a thing and it's universal. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:23:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: LOL. Not real funny but it's not far off. I contend that launch pad debris is what condemned the launch, rendering 3 engines inop at the beginning and damaging several others to the point of cascading failures, including the hydraulic pumps that provide the steering. The rocket was doomed as soon as the hold down clamps were released. Get there itis is a thing and it's universal. You may have the crux of the failures identified yet not having a flame diverter and water deluge system has to go back a year or more. See Musk tweet about it a page or so back. I am not a launch structures engineer but it just seemed sketchy early on. I would like to see unbiased engineering data that a water deluge system alone will solve this issue without trenches to get the flames away from that area. Even if I saw it personally I would reject the data and implement trenches as well. SpaceX has done incredible things but sometimes they make bone-headed decisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:25:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. The real tragedy is, they had planned the booster to separate and make a water landing. If the booster did not immediately sink, the commentators said the boat crew planned to shoot it with guns to make it sink So what guns did they have for the task? You’d think they would want something substantial- .50 cal. Maybe some Barretts? Why can’t my employer let us shoot something? We do send out armor samples to APG for testing, but we don’t get to do that, and that’s a quite different manner of shooting. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:26:42 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: drone footage
36 seconds, first major kaboom. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2023 2:30:01 PM EDT
[#50]
I wonder if a RUD on the launch mount would have caused more or less damage to stage 0
|
|
|
|
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.
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
