Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 10:29:04 am
content: Second attempt in two hours, stream starts at 12:45 GMT

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 12:56:57 pm
content: Stream started, launch in 30 minutes. Here's another view:

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 01:40:21 pm
content: Well, they didn't blow up Stage 0, so I guess that makes it a success.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 01:59:49 pm
content: Somebody forgot to turn on the stage separators.I wonder if the computer was trying to stabilise the rotation before separation. They determined it probably wasn't going to stabilise and so range control made the rocket not exist any more.Also looks like they lost more than a few Raptors going up. But, space is hard! And you've gotta appreciate the skill in trying to get something this big launched and not destroying the whole pad in the process.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 02:29:07 pm
content: They had problems to get off the launch pad, had to make hard vector corrections to get the rocket straight, normally they would cancel it at that moment, but decided to follow the experiment further on (or/and get the rocket in a larger distance from the ground installations)..Well, it was tried with so many first stage engines some 60y back, with zero result. Hopefully they will be more successful next time..

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 03:20:43 pm
content: rapid unscheduled disassembly

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 03:33:25 pm
content: A super success. It was incredibly impressive how well it held together under all that stress.

author: AlbertL
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 03:49:32 pm
content: Ludicrous Mode.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 06:22:31 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 20, 2023, 01:59:49 pmIt was stable until the last of the three engines with steering capability shut down. Some of the video shows only one engine with a gimbal mount still running.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 06:31:08 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on April 20, 2023, 06:22:31 pmAh, that makes sense. I heard that it can lose a maximum of two engines and still retain mission capability. Six is clearly pushing it, even for a demo, and several of the failures appeared catastrophic.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 06:46:44 pm
content: I have now seem some discussion suggesting that the hydraulic supply failed (exploded) so all gimbal steering would have been lost even if the engines were still operating. This was the last booster (and Starship?) with hydraulic power for the steering. Apparently the next one uses electrically powered actuators.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 06:55:47 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on April 20, 2023, 06:22:31 pmThe middle ring has gimbal mounts also, not just the centre three.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 07:47:36 pm
content: Impressive rocket.But isn't the future 100% electrically powered rockets with big batteries?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 08:34:20 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on April 20, 2023, 03:20:43 pmShort version:https://www.wsj.com/video/starship-explosion-video-watch-elon-musk-rocket-explode-after-launch/2EA61904-215F-4BFB-8EBE-7F940FA74C43.html

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 08:41:25 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on April 20, 2023, 06:55:47 pmThe trouble started a couple of seconds after the ignition, imho - look at the heavy vectoring the rocket made some 100-200m over the ground in order to stay stable. Like low thrust in general, or low thrust in the gimballed engines. Such vectoring over the launchpad always means the vehicle is lost (soon or later, as it cannot achieve the planned trajectory).. Otherwise that first flight was impressive, indeed..

author: MathWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 09:08:58 pm
content: Of all the things to go wrong, I would think by now that that should be the easy part. So I wonder what really led up to it ? Damage after launch? Or some coding done wrong, or some electrical oversight or interference ? Or something didn't separate properly, and it leaks something that blows up ?Ok I just watched the video, it had problems long before separation was due to happen.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 09:30:12 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on April 20, 2023, 08:34:20 pmyeah I feel like there is politispeak behind this one. the rocket performed well until it failed catastrophicallyWith NASA it would be 'rocket exploded after launch' with elon musk you get some crazy shit. Whats with the people clapping when its spinning out of control too, bizarre! I just find it odd people are never that kind to NASA with... post launch analysisUntil I watched the video, even after trying to do 5 minutes of research, it was unclear to me if it exploded or not. Impressive PRI don't have any real problem with rockets exploding, I know their complicated especially when you are trying to be cheap, but damn the initial presentation I got seemed like it was made by Elliot Carver (James Bond, Tomorrow Never Dies)! It seems that is cleared up now.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 09:37:51 pm
content: Test launch - TickTest flight - CrossAt least our fellow engineers have a day job doing rocket science. Rejoice

author: boz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 09:38:14 pm
content: awesome sight. Shame about all the exploding concrete blocks at liftoff, I thought that was a solved problem, also a shame the starship couldn't have separated, anyway good thing he has a few backup starships, will be back again for round 2

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 09:39:45 pm
content: This one struck me as amusing, glad they clarified (seriously)

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 09:43:47 pm
content: and perhaps they should have added a voice over if there is clapping, like 'the traditional mission end clap has begun' because its just disturbing to see people clapping when their experiment just went up in smoke lol, wtfI mean you can clap if a gymnast makes a mistake, but your not gonna clap if they impaled themselves on a pole vault or something. It seems like a explosion should exclude clapping unless its a bomb.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 09:44:51 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on April 20, 2023, 09:30:12 pmThis kind of thing is the difference between NASA and the private sector providers like SpaceX though.SpaceX embraces a Silicon Valley type mindset of "fail fast and often", whereas NASA would spend over 10 years designing, testing and simulating a new launch system with it launching perfectly first time (SLS).Look at how much effort SpaceX spent on trying to get boosters to land. They didn't care if they failed, because as far as they were concerned, the rocket was trash anyway.I think there's a time and a place for this mindset, perhaps in aerospace engineering it makes some people nervous, but it is a unique attitude. It's not tolerable if you have humans in danger, but it's tolerable when all it is, is some investors and billionaires cash.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 09:46:15 pm
content: I just think they should have been more clear with the headline like 'test rocket explodes but delivers useful telemetry'.Maybe its just me, but any time a big explosion is downplayed, it makes me a little nervous you know? I feel like someone is trying to alter my 'risk matrix'. I don't think anything good can come of people renaming explosions. Nothing wrong about being proud of making a explosion, its impressive and often useful, but its putting paint on a pond to rename it.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 10:04:16 pm
content: It's just the first test flight. I don't see a big problem with focusing on the good parts when the team considers they have reached their goals rather than focusing on the explosion.I'm personally more concerned when people start downplaying other people's death.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 10:06:44 pm
content: Clearing the tower was all that was needed for this launch to be considered a success.I'm sure they're disappointed that they didn't get separation and Starship ignition data. If it was KSP I would have been trying to hit the spacebar as soon as it was pointed anywhere near the right direction.I'm still very impressed how well it held together even while cartwheeling. That's one sturdy machine.Watching replays from LabPadre I saw some people had cameras and such (even a car) close to the pad that suffered a lot of damage and at least one of those vertical tanks near the pad was severely buckled. Tim Dodd (Everyday Astronaut) was several miles away and still got covered with sand.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 10:18:45 pm
content: Wow! That minivan parked there got absolutely pummeled, the force of that rocket is insane.This is a really good video showing multiple engine failures on the ascent eventually leading to failure.https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1649052544755470338

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 10:47:09 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on April 20, 2023, 10:06:44 pmWow, that's setting the bar incredibly low, but that seems par for the course for a Musk operation.By contrast, the first Saturn V launch five decades ago went off without a hitch. In fact,allSaturn launches successfully reached orbit. The first launch of the space shuttle, with men aboard, also was a success. The Space X method seems to be "throw mud at a wall and see what sticks".

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2023, 11:32:27 pm
content: If NASA was building Starship, it would be 20 years from now before anything got off the ground.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 01:16:04 am
content: Quote from: rdl on April 20, 2023, 11:32:27 pmThe current NASA is more bureaucratic and doesn't have the blank check budget it used to have. The NASA of old went from nothing to putting men on the moon in ten years.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 01:18:17 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on April 20, 2023, 09:30:12 pmThe "happy clappers" got to me, too----- they were apparently somewhere a long way from launch control.Maybe they were all "gee'd up" beforehand to applaud on cue, like a "studio audience".I prefer the "warts & all" approach of the old NASA launches, where there may be a lot of enthusiam upfront, but it is sensible enthusiasm, & dampened by a failure.Here I will insert a story from 1960s Woomera rocket range when they were testing things like the "Black Knight" rocket, as a precursor to the "Blue Streak project.It seems a particular rocket had 1/4 wave antennas protruding out of the sides to send signals to the "Acquisition Aids" sites at each end of the launch region, which in turn, pointed the RADAR in the right direction.With the rocket vertical on its pad, the "Acq Aids" were tested, receiving equal signals at both sites from the antennas, which were at that point, horizontally polarised.The rocket was launched, & all was well, until it turned substantially horizontal, & the "Acq Aids" sites lost the signal, due to cross polarisation signal level losses.The near site reported a loss of signal, as did the far site, the computer said "Oops!" & the auto destruct operated---goodbye rocket."Interesting" thought the EEs, who mulled through the options of replacing the site antennas with circularly polarised ones, butfinally opted to take a rubber mallet & gently tap the rocket's antennas so they were at 45 degrees to its outside surface.The signal was now reduced "a bit" in level for both vertical & horizontal attitudes, but there was no longer an around 20dB drop between the two.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 01:58:49 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 20, 2023, 10:47:09 pmThe first fully assembled Saturn V launched successfully. However, you are ignoring a rather long series of precursors which blew up trying to learn enough to bring that about. You are also ignoring Apollo 1, a subset of the full Saturn V, which incinerated its three occupants before even leaving the ground.Every rocket program has a dodgy early history. What differentiates them is whether they truly learn and achieve a mature solution.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 02:17:02 am
content: NASA in the 1960s was completely different from today. They had a deadline and they were driven. They took many risks and got lucky most of the time. And they got things done.NASA of today? I don't know. They have a rocket that works, but only plan a launch every year or so? Apollo launched every other month.You really can't compare NASA of today with NASA as it was before the Moon landings.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 03:20:27 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 20, 2023, 10:47:09 pmIt is isn't it? When one of his ventures is a success, it has nothing to do with him and all due to the hard work of his teams, when something doesn't quite go as planned, then it's definitely his project. Right?

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 04:14:37 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 20, 2023, 10:47:09 pmNASA also sets the bar low on it's missions, missions regularly end waaaaay into extended mission phase, the mission bit was what they were sure they would achieve, the extended bit what they hope to achieve.

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 07:45:46 am
content: That was something to behold getting off the ground, amazing engineering feat.The clapping of the "failure", I don't mind that at all, I look at it as a bit of stoicism. As in.... right that just happened, lets take what we an from it and get another up there asap.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 10:51:02 am
content: I'd say the rocket itself was pretty successful for a first try. The real mess up was the launch tower. They should have been able to predict pretty well how much punishment that would need to take, and civil engineering is pretty good at building to stress requirements. However, it seems a lot of concrete was smashed up on that launch pad. That feels like incompetence.

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 11:12:24 am
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 10:51:02 amThat's the sentiment some older lay-person said to me today. Old enough to remember how NASA were able to solve this 50+ years ago, yet, here we are.Not following this closely myself and certainly not trying to be a prick, but seriously, WTF?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 11:18:12 am
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on April 21, 2023, 11:12:24 amBoth NASA and the Russians had enormous problems trying to avoid their launch pads getting damaged in the early days. Several approaches to venting exhaust, and using huge sprays of water were tried before a few reliable solutions were settled on. SpaceX has upped the power, so they might be hitting limits in the proven approaches. This literally isn't rocket science, though. Its civil engineering with steel and concrete. A very well travelled road.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 11:24:59 am
content: In one of the shots from the internal stage sep camera you could see a lot of dust/dirt flying around in an area that should be sealed until separation.Makes me think there was damage or some sort of a hole in that area and maybe that damage jammed the separation system

author: Neutrion
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 12:27:50 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on April 20, 2023, 09:43:47 pmI also didn't get why everyone is so happy. And also the commentators all smiling.But maybe they are all spece-x emloyees in North-Korea mode now, and a camera with AI and face recognition is sending the scoring to the HR.And it was of course not an explosion, but a Special Desintagration Operation.Is it true what David Hess wrote, that they are now suddenly abandoning completely the hydraulic steering and going for electronic? Its quiet a huge change.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 12:38:57 pm
content: Quote from: Neutrion on April 21, 2023, 12:27:50 pmThis first launch was with a preliminary version of the ship. The others they have already assembled use electrically powered steering, and have numerous other substantial revisions. I think they learned a lot from building and ground testing this first one, so immediately they moved to building the second one they had already refined the design in numerous ways.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 02:20:19 pm
content: I wonder if the SpaceX R&D philosophy is derived from thecontinuous integrationapproach adopted in the software industry; that is, keep changing bits until they either stop failing or they start working? The aerospace industry uses a more tried and tested approach I know, but they have limited budgets. Our press was applauding the heavy launcher for its ability to place up to 100 people in space at the same time. No mention of the return. For continuous integration read, continuous disintegration.Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 11:18:12 amAn issue for any rocket launch is thereflectedshock wave. As the engine rumble travels outward, it reflects back off of the ground and the air. Think of striking the edge of a bucket of water. As the waves travel inwards, these amplify before 'bursting' at the centre. With the relatively slow progress of a heavy launch, a vehicle can receive a substantive shake from its own back wave. Maybe SpaceX can try launching from a mountain top to reduce air pressure, from a launch platform made of ice? Ice is sustainable, green and, as the ice melts, it damps the shockwave. They'll also need less coolants and be closer to space

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 02:49:36 pm
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on April 21, 2023, 02:20:19 pmIf legacy US space industry had similar budget limits to SpaceX they'd never be able to pump out anything. Frankly it's stupid to make things multiple times more expensive and spend unreasonable amounts of time to make something that works on a first try. Not to say in the end it still fails like CST-100. And this stupid stagnant approach was why Challenger disaster happened. They knew about the issue for years, yet failed to iterate the design. It's more like PR issue to ensure that nothing explodes to keep politicians happy. However it results in a ton of money wasted and utterly disappointing lack of progress. What a joke that US had no means to launch astronauts from own soil for many years and relied on Russia instead.You can say that SpaceX throws things at the wall and see what sticks, however Block 5 version of Falcon 9 (since 2018) seems to have the most reliable track record with about 170 launches and zero payload delivery failures, even though they reuse the boosters for more than 10 times. They iterated quite a bit to get to that and 5 year old F9 B5 barely resembles early Falcon 9 from 10 years ago.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 03:00:23 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 11:18:12 amYep, and it still not 100% solved. I heard that almost every Soyuz launch a few of fire trench tiles are lost and have to be replaced. This new rocket has like a double of thrust of Saturn-5, so some pad damage after first few launches is all but expected.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 03:03:23 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on April 21, 2023, 02:49:36 pmNASA is a political creature and as such it does what politicians say. That's why some people say that SLS stands for "Senate Launch System".

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 03:20:27 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 10:51:02 amIn particular, it's odd that SpaceX chose not to use a water deluge system as has been used for Falcon 9 and many other heavy launch systems. It is almost as if they acknowledged this damage is better than waiting for a deluge system to be fitted.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 03:24:02 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on April 21, 2023, 03:20:27 pmMusk said that losing the launch tower would be a real setback, as constructing a new one would slow them down. So I assume they were not casually putting it at risk.

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 03:32:56 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 21, 2023, 03:00:23 pmIt doesn't look like their Texas launch site has a real flame trench at all (yet?). So this may not be so much about hitting the limits of conventional approaches and more about figuring out just how little you can get away with?

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 03:50:08 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 01:58:49 amWhat precursors? NASA boldly took an all-up approach to testing the Saturn V. The S-1C and S-II stages had never flown before the flight of Apollo 4.Apollo 1 used the Saturn 1B, which apart from using the S-IVB as its second stage, was not a subset of the Saturn V, and the fire was entirely due to faults in the command module and had nothing to do with the Saturn booster. In fact, the Saturn that would have flown Apollo 1 was used successfully to launch Apollo 5 (the first in-space test of the LM).The Saturn series had a perfect record of reaching orbit. Note that I'm only talking about Saturn here, not the Atlas, the Titan, or any of the other launch vehicles used by NASA for various programs.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 04:12:48 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 03:50:08 pmSo, if you define things narrowly enough, you can spin the line that things went really well. Whoda thoguht?

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 05:02:41 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 04:12:48 pmI'm not implying the Saturn/Apollo program was perfect, just that it had vastly more successes than failures. The Saturn boosters had a nearly perfect record. The Apollo spacecraft, with the exception of the issues that caused the Apollo 1 fire and the Apollo 13 abort, also had an excellent track record. In seven attempts to land on the moon, six were successful. Kennedy's goal was achieved with six months to spare.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 05:19:03 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 05:02:41 pmI'm not implying SpaceX is perfect, but after a few nasty incidents as they tested and refined Falcon 9, they've had more than 150 launches in a row without a major incident, and will put 80% of all payload into orbit this year. What makes you think the new ship will be any different? They do everything in the public gaze, with various YouTubers documenting every success and mishap. The reason the old NASA looked a lot better is it was working in the cold war, and revealing much less. To kids like me in the west Russia's efforts appeared cleaner, but that's only because we were even less aware of how many touch and go incidents the Russians had. At least we got to see the terror on various astronauts faces as they waited hours for lift off after it was stalled numerous times for incidents during countdown. A LOT of US rockets blew up in the late 50s and early 60s, and they'd only just started to settle down when the first men were sent up.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 05:32:24 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 05:19:03 pmYes, lots of U.S. rockets blew up in the 1950s and early 1960s. Not all of these were NASA projects (they were military projects to develop ICBMs to carry nukes). The reason Saturn/Apollo was so successful was the project management/quality assurance/testing processes that NASA instituted starting with the manned programs. I think SpaceX uses a looser process, which results in more test failures. Sure, they get there in the end, but the development process seems more chaotic and out of control.The Russians had a policy of only publicizing successful missions. Who knows how many failed and were swept under the rug? NASA (and SpaceX) do things completely out in the open, so the failures are there for all to see.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 05:43:25 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 05:32:24 pmIn the 60s NASA was only as open as it was pushed to be (i.e. not very open except for actual launches, which didn't occur deep in deserted areas, like Kazakhstan, so they were hard to hide), and things seemed to go quite well. Now its almost as open as SpaceX and its performance looks quite poor. Coincidence? I doubt it. Look under the surface of most development work and it looks pretty messy.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 05:48:34 pm
content: wonder how many of the early nasa explosions was down to there head honchos previous job were making things go bang was the final goal

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 06:01:41 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 05:43:25 pmPlease explain what you mean by your assertion that NASA was only as open as they had to be in the 1960s. I've extensively studied the history of the space program in the 1960s, including reviewing primary sources, and I don't see any trend to secrecy at all. Yes, the military had their own parallel space programs (such as the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the various spy satellite programs), but these weren't connected with NASA, except in very peripheral ways. NASA published almost everything relating to their programs and it was available in book form from the very beginning (I've got copies of a lot of it).As to messy, yes, some of it may have seemed messy, and that's understandable because a lot of what they were doing had never been done before. As an example, I suggest people read a series of memos written by Howard "Bill" Tindall known as Tindallgrams -- they give a good flavor for the types of internal discussions that took place at NASA in the 1960s.https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-Tindallgrams.html

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 06:40:09 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 06:01:41 pmTake an example. Everyone knows Neil Armstrong, and pilot David Scott nearly died on Gemini 8, when things got out of hand in a docking manoeuvre with an Agena craft, and had to return immediately to Earth. In 1966 you wouldn't have been aware that anything serious had taken place. I was one of those watching the news about anything to do with space travel at that time.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 07:40:49 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 06:40:09 pmI've watched the news coverage of all NASA flights starting with Gemini III in 1965 and I distinctly remember the coverage of Gemini VIII and the stuck thruster issue. It received prominent coverage on the US TV networks.What the news shows is up to them, not NASA. If the news didn't show the docking and the stuck thruster problem, that's not NASA's fault.NASA themselves published a documentary on the flight of Gemini VIII in 1966 and they certainly didn't hide anything. In fact, this video is on YouTube and you can see for yourself:

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 09:53:16 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 07:40:49 pmYep, just as I said. That's the story we got, saying nothing the Russian couldn't figure out for themselves. It describes a modest problem, handled smoothly. No big deal, and protection against a recurrence was added afterwards. Only much later did we find out that the astronauts came within seconds of blacking out in a ship spinning out of control, which would certainly have killed them.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 10:16:34 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 09:53:16 pmWhat do you consider "much later"? NASA did publish the transcripts of the debriefing of Armstrong and Scott at the time, so perhaps the seriousness of the issue wasn't communicated in mass media, but it certainly wasn't kept secret either.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 21, 2023, 11:02:57 pm
content: Ground zero damage:

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 12:21:25 am
content: It effing flew away the concrete.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2023, 03:04:51 am
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 05:19:03 pmNASA used to take risks and innovate rapidly, but being funded by taxes they quickly got burnt and learned that having things explode creates public outcry of wasted tax dollars.So they slowed down innovation and spend 10x as much money slowly testing every part to the extremes so launches were likely to work first time and avoid public launch failures wherever possible.Which is pretty stupid, it uses more money and takes longer just to avoid the public *perception* of wasting money.The current slow validate-everything NASA approach is only a valid approach if the first flight must be manned for some reason, and in todays world of computers, AI and automation, that is never the case.

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2023, 06:42:10 am
content: I recommend Scott Manley's channel, I hadn't noticed the chunks of debris at clast off, didn't know the ground water is an issue if they wanted to a chamber.https://youtu.be/w8q24QLXixo

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2023, 06:56:36 am
content: Personally I find the cavalier approach kind of worrying. I have to follow all kinds of government regulations in order to fly ~1kg model airplanes and these guys are launching 5,000 ton rockets that have not been thoroughly tested. What happens if it malfunctions and flies toward a populated area? It has a destruct mechanism but that doesn't make the entire thing just disappear, and what if that fails?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2023, 07:30:57 am
content: Quote from: bookaboo on April 24, 2023, 06:42:10 amEvery construction project has issues but you just deal with them instead of doing shortcuts.Groundwater is NO excuse for not build the launch pad properly.....have they not heard of coffer dams and pumps ?

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2023, 08:07:45 am
content: While watching the launch you may see the immense shock waves spreading in the smoke/dust.. Those shock waves have to be diverted off the rocket body, indeed.I do understand Elon's intention to mimic the future simplistic launchpads built on Moon/Mars, but his current rocket is not of the V2 size where Wernher could launch it off a citrus reamer sized diverter, imhoPS: here is the diverter soviets used to use in their attempt with N1 moon rockets (30 engines in the first stage) - interestingly it is not that big as I would expect (perhaps there were two in opposite sides of the launchpad). Doable to dig similar one out in the Boca Chica as well, imho..https://www.popsci.com/this-rocket-failed-to-put-soviets-on-moon/Quote from: tautech on April 24, 2023, 07:30:57 amI would even let the diverters flooded with the water most of the time, and pump the water out before the actual launch (and store the water in a tank, it will be reused during the launch)..PPS: nope, they had three diverters at each launchpad..https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-soviet-s-moon-rocket-s-rollout-to-pad-affects-apollo-plans

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2023, 09:21:15 am
content: Quote from: tautech on April 24, 2023, 07:30:57 amComparisons have been made between how NASA did things and SpaceX does things.I wonder if we can compare the build quality of a Tesla car since we have a common denominator.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2023, 07:37:12 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on April 22, 2023, 03:04:51 amAgain, NASA is a political creature. It used to take risks when there was a political imperative to do so, and now it's primary function is to channel taxpayer's money into right districts, so it keeps low profile and tries not to upset the public too much.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 25, 2023, 07:46:40 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on April 24, 2023, 07:30:57 amHave they never heard of the Netherlands? Its nature is right there in the name.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 01:19:18 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 05:32:24 pmI worked as a work-study at NASA Wallops Island in 1972 in the 2-way radio and CCTV section. They had a "blooper reel" of video of stuff blowing up that just went On and ON! There were also war stories. One I remember was they launched a rocket and then zoomed the camera in on some object left on the pad. Somebody who knew the rocket yelled "That's the steering drive" as the rocket started to sway and then zoomed and looped all over the island. Some brave soul got up on the otpcal tracker and tried to guide the radars on the rocket visually so the command destruct antennas had a chance to point at it. It was just looping all over so fast that the antennas couldn't slew that fast. Finally, tne thing plunged into a sand dune and exploded.Another story was a rocket that was supposed to arc over into an orbital path, but the timer that was to start the course change failed, and it just kept going up and up. Nobody knew exactly where it was going to come down. Due to Coriolus effects, they were pretty sure it would end up somewhere in the Atlantic, but not sure how far off the coast. They had to sit there with the radar until well after midnight before they could be sure it would be safe.So, LOTS of stuff went boom back then.Then, there were range safety oopses. Due to ocean swells, it was possble for small fishing boats to be missed when they swept the area. Some guys were out there in a 16 foot boat and had a Nike first stage drop out of the sky at a couple thousand miles per hour a few hundred feet from their boat. I think they were tossed dozens of feet in the air.Jon

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 03:10:55 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 21, 2023, 07:40:49 pmI appreciate this, its really easy to run into NASA related 'disinformation' related to NASA/MIC/GOVERNMENT collusion/conspiracy that are used to credit some whacky theories and discredit the organization. Alot of people won't bother to check what NASA actually said. People seem to imply that US and the USSR space programs behaved similarly, but it seems to be far from the truth.I think publishing the video only 1 year after the event, with the limitations of technology (difficulty in editing, distributing, etc film) means that it was incredibly diligent about being transparent. These are the same people that sent the golden record out after all. They seemed hopeful. If NASA was as paranoid as some conspiracists/propagandaists claim, the golden record would never ever be produced, its practically a blue print on the earth.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 03:44:04 am
content: Quote from: jmelson on April 26, 2023, 01:19:18 amThere were a series of training videos made in the 70s by the DoD, and used across NATO countries, to stress the importance of taking EMI/EMC issues seriously in defence systems, and giving guidance about how to proceed. The first video was basically to scare you into taking things seriously, by showing a series of calamities caused by various interference issues. Quite a few of those were large rockets, performing some spectacular inappropriate manoeuvres. Thankfully most of them did receive and correctly process the self-destruct command.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 05:49:43 am
content: How much explosive charge does a typical large rocket carry and what's left after it destructs? There are a lot of big, heavy metal components and it seems unlikely that they all just vaporize. The self destruct gets rid of all the fuel and oxidizer but there must be quite a few big heavy chunks raining down.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 12:54:50 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 26, 2023, 05:49:43 amThere's a reason most launch sites have a large expanse of sparsely populated land or sea to their east. Self-destructing the rocket is not about cleaning up the impact. Its about controlling where the impact happens. You don't need that much explosive. Rockets are generally destroyed while there is still considerable fuel on board. If the fuel is exhausted, blowing the thing up doesn't achieve that much. The explosive only needs to get the remaining fuel and oxidiser to mix and go pop.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 02:00:39 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 21, 2023, 12:38:57 pmThat is my understanding. It came down to either removing this one for disassembly without learning anything, or launching it just to get it out of the way for the newer one, and at least launching it will provide data, which is what they did.Now they know that the launch infrastructure needs to be significantly improved before launching the next one.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 06:47:22 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 26, 2023, 05:49:43 amIt's actually not much explosive, typically just a linear charge to "unzip" the component. Aerodynamic stress does the rest.Depending how high the failure occurs, some of the components will burn up in the atmosphere, others won't. Launches are usually directed over water so falling components won't impact land--rockets are launched eastward from KSC and southward from Vandenburg, for example. Notice to mariners is given well in advance to avoid these areas.Shuttle SRBs came down on parachutes, while the Saturn V S-1C stage just fell into the ocean intact.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 06:55:17 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 26, 2023, 06:47:22 pmThe vast majority of rocket stages just fall out of the sky, either whole or in pieces. SpaceX are the first to start changing that.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 10:53:52 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 26, 2023, 06:47:22 pmShuttle SRB "reuse" makes so much sense that it actually does not. It's just an empty shell that gets rescued (in SRB engine burns itself), taken apart into segments, stripped of paint, refurbished, refilled and assembled back. Literally it would be cheaper to just not reuse them. From what I read it was estimated to be about 3 times cheaper to just use brand new ones. Also this segmented construction is the reason why Challenger exploded.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 26, 2023, 11:18:40 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on April 26, 2023, 10:53:52 pmThe segmented construction was a contributor to the Challenger explosion, but the real cause was the poorly designed joints between the segments that would flex under load. That wasn't a major issue at the usual ambient temperatures at KSC, but when Challenger was launched the temperature was around 30F, and the rubber o-rings lacked resiliency and failed to contain the hot gases inside the segment. The joints were redesigned to prevent the issue that doomed Challenger and no further issues were encountered in over 100 subsequent flights.The SRBs were segmented because it was impractical to transport full-length boosters from the Utah plant to KSC.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 08:25:06 am
content: There is a lot of comparison to Nasa in this thread. I believe Nasa was first testing the launch abort systems for the Saturn V even before they launched it suborbital. Is there any abort systems on the Starship, other than the one we just saw demonstrated?

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 11:46:47 am
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 26, 2023, 11:18:40 pmThe ultimate cause has always been disputed, and NASA directed the blame elsewhere:https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/382045main_19%20-%2020090730.11.STS%20Problem%202003.pdf

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 03:03:51 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 26, 2023, 11:18:40 pmI would imagine that the safety aspect was also important as SRB is basically a LOT of highly-explosive material with some moderator to control burning, and so if something goes sideways during transportation, it will be one hell of explosion. Splitting it in segments limits potential damage.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 03:48:53 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 27, 2023, 03:03:51 pmThe fuel is solid. Its not volatile. It burns ferociously once ignited, but like many high energy combustible or explosive materials its pretty hard to get started. One of the nice things about solid fuel rockets for things like air-to-air attacks is you want them to sit around for years unused with minimal risk and maintenance, and they do.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 04:14:13 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 27, 2023, 03:03:51 pmThere was a transportation incident involving SRB segments back in May 2007. A train carrying eight segments derailed in Alabama. The segments were tossed around, but none ignited and there was no disaster. After inspection, all eight segments were used on shuttle flights.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 05:43:49 pm
content: I'd imagine it would be pretty spectacular if and accident resulting in a fire ignited a complete assembled SRB being transported horizontally on the ground. Of course they're massive things so I'm not even sure how you'd transport an assembled one, the logistics of that alone support the segmented approach.

author: asmi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 07:28:28 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 27, 2023, 03:48:53 pmThat is still more dangerous than with liquid rockets, which are simply transported unfueled and therefore these is zero chance of explosive accident.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 07:37:00 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 27, 2023, 07:28:28 pmThat rather ignores the bulk transport of the fuel and oxidiser, which are potential disasters throughout the supply chain. There is no escape from hazard when high energies are involved. Solid fuels is comparatively benign.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 07:59:03 pm
content: Before and after.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 08:16:13 pm
content: Quote from: asmi on April 27, 2023, 07:28:28 pmAh, but you still have to transport the liquid fuel and oxidizer, which isn't without its own hazards, especially for hypergolics like hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.

author: Dundarave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 08:24:08 pm
content: There was a reference earlier in the thread regarding the failures and successes of the Russian rocket programs, and I wanted to bring attention to these four PDF books by Russian academician Boris Chertok for those interested:https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol1.pdfhttps://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol2.pdfhttps://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol3.pdfhttps://history.nasa.gov/SP-4110/vol4.pdfThey describe the Russian rocket and space program from the beginning in amazing personal detail from a high-ranking insider. Lots of incredible screwups that make for great comparisons.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 08:29:28 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 27, 2023, 08:16:13 pmTransporting hypergolics must be a nightmare. They seem like something you would restrict to places where the alternatives have serious problems, like control thrusters. In reality there are large vehicles driven entirely by them.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 09:39:47 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 27, 2023, 08:29:28 pmHypergolics have the advantages of easy ignition, easy storage, and high performance. It took a long time for solid fuels to reach useful levels of performance and cryogenic fuels are difficult to store.As far as safety, solid fuels have the disadvantage of not being able to throttle, shut-off, or restart, except for hybrid rockets which have the disadvantages of both and more.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 09:41:39 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on April 27, 2023, 08:29:28 pmI do not think hypergolics are any more dangerous to transport than many industrial chemicals. They are sure a hazard if spilled, but so are a lot of things.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 10:29:16 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on April 26, 2023, 10:53:52 pmThere were quite a few things worth reusing.The SSRBs featured a pair of APUs which used onboard hypergolic fuel to provide hydraulic and backup electrical power. They also had actuation and control systems to ensure thrust was directly correctly, and a set of gyros to stabilise the thruster during flight. These were all rated for 20 flights before requiring replacement. And, of course, you have the casing of the SSRBs; the rockets weighed 91 tonnes dry, so certainly not negligible material there to dispose of every time.

author: AlbertL
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2023, 10:35:01 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on April 27, 2023, 07:59:03 pmSomeone pointed out that SpaceX has taken us from expendable rockets on reusable launch pads, to reusable rockets on expendable launch pads!

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2023, 04:35:46 am
content: As long as you ship the hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide separately they're no more hazardous than many other industrial chemicals. They are not hypergolic with themselves.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 28, 2023, 09:28:40 am
content: Quote from: rdl on April 28, 2023, 04:35:46 amDepends on what you mean by hazardous. Many industrial chemicals like Phosgene are very toxic like hydrazine. They may not necessarily explode but cause fatal accidents nonetheless. Potentially spilling hundreds of tons of very toxic chemical is not the best idea.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2023, 09:53:37 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on April 27, 2023, 08:25:06 amThat is an interesting point.. One of the serious issues with the Space Shuttle was its abort system.. Actually none, in reality. The capsules like in those "standard rockets" are easy to abort and land them without killing the astronauts inside. How it should work with the Starship?

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2023, 07:20:12 pm
content: Fixed.As long as you ship the hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide separately they're no more hazardous than any other toxic, corrosive, and/or carcinogenic industrial chemicals. They are not hypergolic with themselves.Point being, it takes two to tango.Quote from: wraper on April 28, 2023, 09:28:40 am

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2023, 10:04:13 pm
content: Quote from: rdl on April 28, 2023, 07:20:12 pmGreat. That'll make people on the transport routes feel so much more at ease.Most hypergolic fuels are seriously corrosive, but sit in satellites for years to do their occasional positional corrections. Does anyone know what materials they use for tanks, pipes, valves and so on to tolerate this?

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2023, 10:45:27 pm
content: It would be interesting to know. Here is an interesting anecdote.I worked for most of my life in the industrial coatings business. I mostly formulated clear finishes for wood. A common finish system used for kitchen cabinets required an acid catalyst (PTSA). To ship this by air was a pain, regulations required multiple layers of packaging because it was "corrosive". One day, annoyed after having to pack and ship some of this stuff and somewhat curious, I wadded up a ball of aluminum foil (aluminum, what airplanes are made of) and dropped it in a bottle of PTSA. Nothing really happened. So I screwed the lid on and set it aside.Two years later the wad of aluminum foil was still shiny, sitting in it's bottle of "corrosive" PTSA.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2023, 10:48:06 pm
content: Doesn't mean it's not corrosive. If you put an iron nail or your finger in the bottle you might get different results.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2023, 11:09:54 pm
content: Well yeah. The point is there's degrees to everything. Don't assume because IATA says it's corrosive that it can dissolve an airplane.For the record, PTSA does almost nothing to human parts. It will leach iron into the finish which can eventually cause discoloration (your pretty white kitchen cabinets may eventually turn a bit purple).

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 03, 2023, 12:27:58 pm
content: So, I was a bit puzzled at the time that they waited so long to terminate when they had clearly lost control... well, turns out the FTS failed:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/29/science/elon-musk-spacex-starship.htmlYikes! There's going to be a few awkward question, not just about the failure itself but also about the risk assessment they submitted to get it approved in the first place.