Author Topic: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE  (Read 8977 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3667
  • Country: us
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2023, 10:06:44 pm »
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.
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2023, 10:18:45 pm »
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
 

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1764
  • Country: us
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2023, 10:47:09 pm »
Clearing the tower was all that was needed for this launch to be considered a success.

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".
"That's not even wrong" -- Wolfgang Pauli
 

Offline rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3667
  • Country: us
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2023, 11:32:27 pm »
If NASA was building Starship, it would be 20 years from now before anything got off the ground.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, wraper, Brumby

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1764
  • Country: us
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2023, 01:16:04 am »
If NASA was building Starship, it would be 20 years from now before anything got off the ground.

The 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.
"That's not even wrong" -- Wolfgang Pauli
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7858
  • Country: au
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2023, 01:18:17 am »
rapid unscheduled disassembly  ;)
Short version:
https://www.wsj.com/video/starship-explosion-video-watch-elon-musk-rocket-explode-after-launch/2EA61904-215F-4BFB-8EBE-7F940FA74C43.html

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.

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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2023, 01:58:49 am »
Clearing the tower was all that was needed for this launch to be considered a success.

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".
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: SiliconWizard

Offline rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3667
  • Country: us
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2023, 02:17:02 am »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: bookaboo

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15800
  • Country: fr
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2023, 03:20:27 am »
Clearing the tower was all that was needed for this launch to be considered a success.

Wow, that's setting the bar incredibly low, but that seems par for the course for a Musk operation.

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:
 

Offline sleemanj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3051
  • Country: nz
  • Professional tightwad.
    • The electronics hobby components I sell.
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2023, 04:14:37 am »
Clearing the tower was all that was needed for this launch to be considered a success.

Wow, that's setting the bar incredibly low, but that seems par for the course for a Musk operation.


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.




~~~
EEVBlog Members - get yourself 10% discount off all my electronic components for sale just use the Buy Direct links and use Coupon Code "eevblog" during checkout.  Shipping from New Zealand, international orders welcome :-)
 

Offline bookaboo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 763
  • Country: ie
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2023, 07:45:46 am »
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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2023, 10:51:02 am »
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.
 

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #37 on: April 21, 2023, 11:12:24 am »
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.

That'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?
iratus parum formica
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #38 on: April 21, 2023, 11:18:12 am »
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.

That'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?
Both 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Ed.Kloonk

Offline Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10385
  • Country: nz
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2023, 11:24:59 am »
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
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 

Offline Neutrion

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 305
  • Country: hu
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2023, 12:27:50 pm »
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, wtf

I 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.  :-//
I 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.    :-DD

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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2023, 12:38:57 pm »
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.
This 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Neutrion

Offline AndyBeez

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nu
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2023, 02:20:19 pm »
I wonder if the SpaceX R&D philosophy is derived from the continuous integration approach 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.

Both 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.
An issue for any rocket launch is the reflected shock 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 :-//

 

Online wraperTopic starter

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Country: lv
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2023, 02:49:36 pm »
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.
If 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.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2023, 02:58:02 pm by wraper »
 

Offline asmi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2861
  • Country: ca
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2023, 03:00:23 pm »
Both 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.
Yep, 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.

Offline asmi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2861
  • Country: ca
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2023, 03:03:23 pm »
If 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.
NASA 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".
 
The following users thanked this post: wraper

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2023, 03:20:27 pm »
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.

In 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.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2023, 03:24:02 pm »
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.

In 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.
Musk 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.
 

Offline switchabl

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 445
  • Country: de
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2023, 03:32:56 pm »
Yep, 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.

It 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?
 

Offline Sal Ammoniac

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1764
  • Country: us
Re: Starship/SuperHeavy orbital Flight Test LIVE
« Reply #49 on: April 21, 2023, 03:50:08 pm »
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.

What 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.
"That's not even wrong" -- Wolfgang Pauli
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf