| General > General Technical Chat |
| Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE |
| << < (7/22) > >> |
| vk6zgo:
--- Quote from: coppercone2 on April 20, 2023, 09:30:12 pm --- --- Quote from: tautech on April 20, 2023, 08:34:20 pm --- --- Quote from: coppercone2 on April 20, 2023, 03:20:43 pm ---rapid unscheduled disassembly ;) --- End quote --- Short version: https://www.wsj.com/video/starship-explosion-video-watch-elon-musk-rocket-explode-after-launch/2EA61904-215F-4BFB-8EBE-7F940FA74C43.html --- End quote --- yeah I feel like there is politispeak behind this one. the rocket performed well until it failed catastrophically ::) With 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 analysis Until I watched the video, even after trying to do 5 minutes of research, it was unclear to me if it exploded or not. Impressive PR ??? I 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. --- End quote --- The "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, but finally 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. |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 20, 2023, 10:47:09 pm --- --- Quote from: rdl on April 20, 2023, 10:06:44 pm ---Clearing the tower was all that was needed for this launch to be considered a success. --- End quote --- Wow, 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, all Saturn 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". --- End quote --- The 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. |
| rdl:
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. |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 20, 2023, 10:47:09 pm --- --- Quote from: rdl on April 20, 2023, 10:06:44 pm ---Clearing the tower was all that was needed for this launch to be considered a success. --- End quote --- Wow, that's setting the bar incredibly low, but that seems par for the course for a Musk operation. --- End quote --- It 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? :popcorn: |
| sleemanj:
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on April 20, 2023, 10:47:09 pm --- --- Quote from: rdl on April 20, 2023, 10:06:44 pm ---Clearing the tower was all that was needed for this launch to be considered a success. --- End quote --- Wow, that's setting the bar incredibly low, but that seems par for the course for a Musk operation. --- End quote --- NASA 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. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |