** The Official Space Flight Thread - The Space Station and Beyond **
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,301
That’s a lot of money just gone.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,450
- Location
- Cheltenham
I know NASA take a long time to do anything, but maybe there's a good reason for that...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,621
They seemed to cheer the explosion? Weird.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,209
- Location
- Southampton
a launch and a blow up - pretty good 
no separation = rocket death
3 engines out as well I think on launch
edit : they wont care about its loss, its all data gained "anything after clearing the tower is new data" iterative rapid prototyping
there was a few bits coming off on launch as well, not sure if the bits on the pad were rocket parts or equipment
then a bit further up when they throttled up some more came off
no separation = rocket death
3 engines out as well I think on launch
edit : they wont care about its loss, its all data gained "anything after clearing the tower is new data" iterative rapid prototyping
there was a few bits coming off on launch as well, not sure if the bits on the pad were rocket parts or equipment
then a bit further up when they throttled up some more came off
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
They were happy just for it to leave the launch pad.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,301
‘A rapid unscheduled disassembly’
Love it
In my terms, it blew up.
Love it
In my terms, it blew up.
Last edited:
Think they started off with 3 down, then it went to 6 at one point, then to 5 so not sure if there was a sensor glitch or something.
A lot of these failures seem to be down to relatively trivial mechanical (or sensor) issues which really should be perfect by now. A lot of the more complicated stuff seems to work fine and/or parts I'm amazed there is no failover/backup even for tests like these and even with considerations for space and weight, etc.
Last edited:
True. They never did blow up a Saturn V.
In concept I guess the closest thing to Starship's launcher is Korolev's N1 - many, many smaller engines in a cluster rather than the Saturn-esque five giant engines. And look how the N1 did
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 46,301
Think it needs quite a bit more testing before anyone sits on top of it.
Test often...
If you were listening to the control audio stream, the cheers were in sequence of what they said.
They are a cautious, political agency who needs to please politicians. failure and wasting public money is frowned upon. There are benefits to both approaches.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,450
- Location
- Cheltenham
Next step - Mars!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,621
How many people is Musk firing for that then?
Yeah - but personally I find it grating - cheer when it actually launches, cheer a success sure, the rest just kind of cheapens the actual successes.
Yeah I thought that, a part of the separation sequence apparently, once it'd span the first time and not separated it was only going to end badly, I would say it was only going in one direction, but ended up going in every direction.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,450
- Location
- Cheltenham
True. They never did blow up a Saturn V.
In concept I guess the closest thing to Starship's launcher is Korolev's N1 - many, many smaller engines in a cluster rather than the Saturn-esque five giant engines. And look how the N1 did
It has it's benefits though - Falcon 9 proves that but maybe 33 is a little too much. I'll be intrigued to see what the report for this all says, but it made it off the pad which surprised me a little!