Ongoing SpaceX Thread

[Fuzz]

"does not appear to be a nominal situation."




Annnd boom.

[nik-]

Are we supposed to be cheering for a big explosion? I'm confused.

... omg this panel has Truman Show smiles

[shogged]

Awesome stuff, they hit their objectives for the test but bummer it didn’t make it to stage separation. Something to look forward to for the next one!

[Fuzz]

Several engines didn't appear to function. But then, it also didn't separate. It's amazing how slow it appears to lumber off the pad.

[photon]

I wonder if they detonated it, it exploded not long after it started to lose altitude.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by photon

I wonder if they detonated it, it exploded not long after it started to lose altitude.

Seems like it.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by photon

I wonder if they detonated it, it exploded not long after it started to lose altitude.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Several engines didn't appear to function. But then, it also didn't separate. It's amazing how slow it appears to lumber off the pad.

I’d guess that they flamed out just based on how many were out. What a cool shot though. I guess it didn’t have max payload so maybe those engines didn’t fire at launch.

It looks so slow and fake. It’s so unbelievably huge. Then you glance at the speedometer and it’s going over 100km/hr as it clears the tower.

All in all. That was ####ing awesome.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I am not so sure anything after clearing the tower should be considered "icing on the cake", when they subsequently blew the whole thing up, but what do I know.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I am not so sure anything after clearing the tower should be considered "icing on the cake", when they subsequently blew the whole thing up, but what do I know.

This is just how SpaceX likes to test stuff. They just go for it and do real world tests. Not destroying the tower was a success, and getting through max q was something I honestly didn’t expect they’d do today.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

This is just how SpaceX likes to test stuff. They just go for it and do real world tests. Not destroying the tower was a success, and getting through max q was something I honestly didn’t expect they’d do today.

I appreciate the insight. I honestly don't know where the bar should be set and this wasn't intended as a dunk on Musk. Curious how much blowing up that first stage rocket would cost?

[photon]

The question isn't really how much does blowing up the rocket cost, it's does blowing up the rocket (or likely multiple rockets) cost more or less than the alternative design methodology of spending a lot more time on design and fabrication so that you basically succeed on the first try.

Artimis basically worked when they launched it but they spent a huge amount of time designing and building, fixing before launching. SpaceX just puts stuff together and tries it and learns and iterates. They did the same thing with the Starship itself trying to land it, they blew up a number of them before kind of being successful.

In software development I definitely lean towards the latter philosophy. Not sure which is cheaper for rockets.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by photon

The question isn't really how much does blowing up the rocket cost, it's does blowing up the rocket (or likely multiple rockets) cost more or less than the alternative design methodology of spending a lot more time on design and fabrication so that you basically succeed on the first try.

Artimis basically worked when they launched it but they spent a huge amount of time designing and building, fixing before launching. SpaceX just puts stuff together and tries it and learns and iterates. They did the same thing with the Starship itself trying to land it, they blew up a number of them before kind of being successful.

In software development I definitely lean towards the latter philosophy. Not sure which is cheaper for rockets.

Totally agree, which is what I was driving at. I get that "break stuff" in software development is a reasonable methodology, but not so sure on rockets. For sure it is problematic, for say, self driving cars...

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Totally agree, which is what I was driving at. I get that "break stuff" in software development is a reasonable methodology, but not so sure on rockets. For sure it is problematic, for say, self driving cars...

Yeah it seems insane but they did this already with Falcon 9 development. And now it’s doing weekly satellite launches.

[Tacopuck]

The whole starship program is based on volume of launches. Meaning they wont have have only like10 rockets they use in the long run, so part of the development program is actually the supply chain and manufacturing so 100's of rockets can be produced (I think the ratio is ~3 Ships per booster). From that since the design is iterative blowing up the rockets is not actually bad as SpaceX mentioned before if they didn't actually blow up they would have a massive 'graveyard' of old unusable rockets (as the design changes each iteration and it doesn't make sense to modify old designs expect perhaps at a small component level).

Making the program design needing lots of rockets allows them to iterate in every area of the design, manufacturing and launching lifecycles drastically lowering the costs of every area. I cant find the reference but I believe a booster manufacturing cost is close 3-5 mil right now and they hope to bring it down to 1 mil. Not sure what the cost of starship is at right now however.

[Leondros]

I always find it amusing that some of the same people (not CP) who are so focused on climate change and environmental impacts of industries are the same people so enamored and fan boy-esque of space travel. Sure it may solve some of our issues here on earth but to get to that point we are going to be emitting a lot of pollutants.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2021EF002612

The greatest impact of a decade of emissions on O3 occurs in the upper stratosphere in the northern high latitudes. Loss rates in that part of the atmosphere in springtime are 0.15% for 2019 emissions and 0.24% with space tourism emissions, due mostly to NOx from re-entry heating (51%) and chlorine from solid rockets (49%). A future industry with sustained growth in rocket launches, continued accumulation of space debris, ongoing use of solid rocket fuel, and routine space tourism launches could substantially offset remediation of upper stratospheric O3 achieved with the Montreal Protocol.

It appears the most green is going to have to be Liquid oxygen/Liquid hydrogen. Methane also looks to be quite interesting.

If space travel ends up being more and more common both form a commercial and tourist perspective we need to get ahead of this.

From the perspective of the environment, it can hardly get better than liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen (LOx/LH2). This fuel's exhaust is almost entirely made of water vapour, the effects of which in the atmosphere have been extensively studied. The impacts? Zero, Martin Ross said. Even Greta would approve.

While LOx/LH2 is rather explosive, this problem can be solved with careful handling. It also has low energy density — to lift a rocket off the ground using just LOx/LH2 would require enormous tanks. That's why large rockets such as ESA's Ariane 5 and 6 and NASA's SLS have additional solid boosters to overcome the initial pull of Earth's gravity. Smaller rockets, such as Blue Origin's suborbital New Shepard, can run just on LOx/LH2.

Methane-based rocket propellant is an upcoming technology that might in the future help the spaceflight industry to wean itself off the more polluting SRMs, Maggi said. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. But it burns more cleanly than RP-1 and provides more energy than LOx/LH2, according to Maggi.

Linking back to the SpaceX methodology, I hope they spend more time designing these things rather than continuing to waste materials and fuel on a trial by trial basis. That is not sustainable nor environmentally responsible.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Leondros

I always find it amusing that some of the same people (not CP) who are so focused on climate change and environmental impacts of industries are the same people so enamored and fan boy-esque of space travel. Sure it may solve some of our issues here on earth but to get to that point we are going to be emitting a lot of pollutants.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2021EF002612



It appears the most green is going to have to be Liquid oxygen/Liquid hydrogen. Methane also looks to be quite interesting.

If space travel ends up being more and more common both form a commercial and tourist perspective we need to get ahead of this.



Linking back to the SpaceX methodology, I hope they spend more time designing these things rather than continuing to waste materials and fuel on a trial by trial basis. That is not sustainable nor environmentally responsible.

SpaceX is developing Sabatier reaction CH4 generators. Fully carbon neutral cycle (assuming the electricity provided is renewable). Its needed so they can build propellent depots on mars.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

SpaceX is developing Sabatier reaction CH4 generators. Fully carbon neutral cycle (assuming the electricity provided is renewable). Its needed so they can build propellent depots on mars.

Thanks, it was interesting reading on those. The are predicated on the assumption of green hydrogen which appears decades away at best. I am quite heavily invested in the hydrogen space so am certainly rooting for it!

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Thanks, it was interesting reading on those. The are predicated on the assumption of green hydrogen which appears decades away at best. I am quite heavily invested in the hydrogen space so am certainly rooting for it!

The electricity part is one of the harder parts. Im not sure solar is the way to go. Especially for propellant depots give the area of solar arrays that would be required for the volume of propellent needed but nuclear RTG's are a prime candidate to make it feasible and economic.

[photon]

Was wondering how well the ground under the rocket would do given there's no flame trench, seems like it dug a hole lol.



One site I read said the debris hit cars and cameras and equipment.

Will be interesting to see what they do.

[Dan02]

It definitely looks like this was a launchpad failure moreso then a rocket failure. Would have been interesting to see how well it would have gone had they not lost 6 engines most likely due to debris from the launch pad disintegration.