Apparently in about two to three or so hours.
It’s pretty ambitious and I hope it goes well. Here’s a link to the live video of it.
T minus 1:20 hours.
207,273 watching now Started streaming 7 hours ago
So where’s it off to?
Woodie said:
So where’s it off to?
>Assuming everything were to proceed as planned, Starship will rise up and head down range across the Gulf, the 33 engines on the bottom of the methane-fuelled booster burning for two minutes and 49 seconds.
At that point, the two halves of the rocket will separate, and the top section, the ship, will push on with its own engines for a further six minutes and 23 seconds.
By this time, it should be travelling over the Caribbean and cruising through space more than 100km above the planet’s surface.
SpaceX wants the Super Heavy booster to try to fly back to near the Texan coast and come down vertically, to hover just above the Gulf’s waters. It will then be allowed to topple over and sink.
The ship is aiming to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere after almost a full revolution of the Earth, coming down in the Pacific just north of the Hawaiian islands. It’s been given protective tiling to cope with the immense heating it will experience during the descent. A bellyflop into the ocean is timed to occur 90 minutes after lift-off.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65294084
Bubblecar said:
Woodie said:
So where’s it off to?
>Assuming everything were to proceed as planned, Starship will rise up and head down range across the Gulf, the 33 engines on the bottom of the methane-fuelled booster burning for two minutes and 49 seconds.
At that point, the two halves of the rocket will separate, and the top section, the ship, will push on with its own engines for a further six minutes and 23 seconds.
By this time, it should be travelling over the Caribbean and cruising through space more than 100km above the planet’s surface.
SpaceX wants the Super Heavy booster to try to fly back to near the Texan coast and come down vertically, to hover just above the Gulf’s waters. It will then be allowed to topple over and sink.
The ship is aiming to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere after almost a full revolution of the Earth, coming down in the Pacific just north of the Hawaiian islands. It’s been given protective tiling to cope with the immense heating it will experience during the descent. A bellyflop into the ocean is timed to occur 90 minutes after lift-off.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65294084
Ahhhhh….. so basically straight up and straight back down again.
Woodie said:
Bubblecar said:
Woodie said:
So where’s it off to?
>Assuming everything were to proceed as planned, Starship will rise up and head down range across the Gulf, the 33 engines on the bottom of the methane-fuelled booster burning for two minutes and 49 seconds.
At that point, the two halves of the rocket will separate, and the top section, the ship, will push on with its own engines for a further six minutes and 23 seconds.
By this time, it should be travelling over the Caribbean and cruising through space more than 100km above the planet’s surface.
SpaceX wants the Super Heavy booster to try to fly back to near the Texan coast and come down vertically, to hover just above the Gulf’s waters. It will then be allowed to topple over and sink.
The ship is aiming to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere after almost a full revolution of the Earth, coming down in the Pacific just north of the Hawaiian islands. It’s been given protective tiling to cope with the immense heating it will experience during the descent. A bellyflop into the ocean is timed to occur 90 minutes after lift-off.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65294084
Ahhhhh….. so basically straight up and straight back down again.
So using liquid methane as fuel.
Basically powered by bottled farts, hey what but!
Move along. Nothing to see here.
You can all go home now. It ain’t goin’ nowhere.
Gawn…… move along.
Bye. Come back next week.
Four-camera view
Launch aborted.
AussieDJ said:
Four-camera view
No commentary, but sound from the launch area
AussieDJ said:
AussieDJ said:
Four-camera viewNo commentary, but sound from the launch area
Impressive venting.
The cause of the spiral was surprisingly simple.
It was excess fuel that had been released from a SpaceX rocket that launched from California about three hours before the spiral appeared, according to space physicist Don Hampton.
Professor Hampton, from the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute, said rockets sometimes had fuel that needed to be jettisoned.
“When they do that at high altitudes, that fuel turns into ice,” he said.
“And if it happens to be in the sunlight, when you’re in the darkness on the ground, you can see it as a sort of big cloud, and sometimes it’s swirly.”
Update for 7:20 p.m. ET on April 17: On Monday evening (April 17), SpaceX announced(opens in new tab) it is now targeting Thursday (April 20) for the next Starship space launch attempt. The launch window opens at 9:28 a.m. EDT (1328 GMT) and closes at 10:30 a.m. EDT (1430 GMT).
https://www.space.com/spacex-scrubs-first-space-launch-starship
Second attempt at launching due to take place in about 15 minutes
Flight Director has called a Hold at T -40 seconds
Hold released … Liftoff!
It asploded…
Witty Rejoinder said:
It asploded…
It did, rather!
Witty Rejoinder said:
It asploded…
Shame they didn’t broadcast the fireworks as it hit the water
Nice launch but it blowed up, crew all dead.
Bubblecar said:
Nice launch but it blowed up, crew all dead.
They all survived.
SCIENCE said:
Bubblecar said:
Nice launch but it blowed up, crew all dead.
They all survived.
It was unmanned.
It was a test of the rocket systems only.
AussieDJ said:
SCIENCE said:
Bubblecar said:
Nice launch but it blowed up, crew all dead.
They all survived.
It was unmanned.
It was a test of the rocket systems only.
So everyone quoted here can be correct together¡
The SpaceX company described the event as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly before stage separation”.
———————————
LOL
———————————
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/spacex-giant-rocket-fails-minutes-after-launching-from-texas/102249972
They’ll have to do something about the launch pad getting partially destroyed during the early launch. There’s a reasonable chance that some of the failed engines were hit by debris being thrown around. I’m kinda surprised that they didn’t really put enough effort into getting that right before the first launch.
Michael V said:
The SpaceX company described the event as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly before stage separation”.———————————
LOL
———————————https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/spacex-giant-rocket-fails-minutes-after-launching-from-texas/102249972
Hehe
Luftschiffbau Zeppelin GmbH has described the Hindenburg incident as an “unscheduled barbecue”.
One of the better videos on the launch.
https://www.youtube.com/live/-1wcilQ58hI?feature=share&t=2677
Michael V said:
The SpaceX company described the event as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly before stage separation”.———————————
LOL
———————————https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/spacex-giant-rocket-fails-minutes-after-launching-from-texas/102249972
“Nevertheless, SpaceX officials on the webcast cheered the feat of getting the fully integrated Starship and booster rocket off the ground for a clean launch and declared the brief episode a successful test flight. “
LOL indeed.
Spiny Norman said:
They’ll have to do something about the launch pad getting partially destroyed during the early launch. There’s a reasonable chance that some of the failed engines were hit by debris being thrown around. I’m kinda surprised that they didn’t really put enough effort into getting that right before the first launch.
All Publicity Is Good Publicity
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:
The SpaceX company described the event as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly before stage separation”.
———————————
LOL
———————————https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/spacex-giant-rocket-fails-minutes-after-launching-from-texas/102249972
“Nevertheless, SpaceX officials on the webcast cheered the feat of getting the fully integrated Starship and booster rocket off the ground for a clean launch and declared the brief episode a successful test flight. “
LOL indeed.
The CEO’s Political Idol Celebrated A Landslide Election Victory By 4000000 Votes
A couple of seconds after lift-off, I can see at least one engine is out.
From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
esselte said:
From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
Did they test for that, I wondering how the test went.
esselte said:
From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
Yeah that’s my reading of it, I think they might need to rethink that maneuver.
Peak Warming Man said:
esselte said:From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
Yeah that’s my reading of it, I think they might need to rethink that maneuver.
The flip manoeuvre requires skill and care.
Peak Warming Man said:
esselte said:From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
Yeah that’s my reading of it, I think they might need to rethink that maneuver.
Tighten bolts by hand only and used a drill probably
Tau.Neutrino said:
Peak Warming Man said:
esselte said:From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
Yeah that’s my reading of it, I think they might need to rethink that maneuver.
The flip manoeuvre requires skill and care.
Grogu’s got it down pat.
esselte said:
From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
That seems unlikely as you’d really want to keep the upper stage heading uphill without tumbling and for its engines to burn ASAP after separation. Anything much different than that and you lose a lot of useful payload into orbit.
Spiny Norman said:
esselte said:From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
That seems unlikely as you’d really want to keep the upper stage heading uphill without tumbling and for its engines to burn ASAP after separation. Anything much different than that and you lose a lot of useful payload into orbit.
I think they should have gone for separation then he first stage accelerates then curves away.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Spiny Norman said:
esselte said:From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
That seems unlikely as you’d really want to keep the upper stage heading uphill without tumbling and for its engines to burn ASAP after separation. Anything much different than that and you lose a lot of useful payload into orbit.
I think they should have gone for separation then he first stage accelerates then curves away.
Yes that’s what usually happens.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Spiny Norman said:
esselte said:From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
That seems unlikely as you’d really want to keep the upper stage heading uphill without tumbling and for its engines to burn ASAP after separation. Anything much different than that and you lose a lot of useful payload into orbit.
I think they should have gone for separation then he first stage accelerates then curves away.
Are rockets insurable or does the nature of them mean no one will pay compensation if they blow up.
Spiny Norman said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Spiny Norman said:That seems unlikely as you’d really want to keep the upper stage heading uphill without tumbling and for its engines to burn ASAP after separation. Anything much different than that and you lose a lot of useful payload into orbit.
I think they should have gone for separation then he first stage accelerates then curves away.
Yes that’s what usually happens.
That’s what I thought, but they went for something different without proper testing.
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Spiny Norman said:That seems unlikely as you’d really want to keep the upper stage heading uphill without tumbling and for its engines to burn ASAP after separation. Anything much different than that and you lose a lot of useful payload into orbit.
I think they should have gone for separation then he first stage accelerates then curves away.
Are rockets insurable or does the nature of them mean no one will pay compensation if they blow up.
Payloads might be insured, dunno about rockets.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I think they should have gone for separation then he first stage accelerates then curves away.
Are rockets insurable or does the nature of them mean no one will pay compensation if they blow up.
Payloads might be insured, dunno about rockets.
They’d have to be wouldn’t they, worth a lot of money to just go boom, sorry
Spiny Norman said:
esselte said:From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
That seems unlikely as you’d really want to keep the upper stage heading uphill without tumbling and for its engines to burn ASAP after separation. Anything much different than that and you lose a lot of useful payload into orbit.
This article is a bit old, so maybe they changed their minds in the interm, but:
SpaceX takes simplicity to new extremes with two new Starship mechanisms
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-new-simplicity-extremes/
Sidestepping decades of precedent, Musk says that Starship will have no separation mechanism at all. Instead, at some point during the design or testing process, Musk decided that a separation mechanism was entirely superfluous and that the same effect could be more or less replicated by using existing systems on Super Heavy. By using the booster’s gimballing Raptor engines to impart a small but significant rotation on the rocket moments before separation, Super Heavy could effectively flick Starship away from it – a bit like how SpaceX currently deploys Starlink satellites from Falcon by spinning the upper stage end over end and letting the spacecraft just float away thanks to centripetal forces.
Because Starship is something like five times heavier than Super Heavy at stage separation, the ship would effectively float away from the booster in a straight and stable line, use cold gas thrusters to settle its propellant, and ignite its six Raptor engines to head to orbit. In return for the slightly unorthodox deployment profile, if this new approach works, SpaceX can entirely preclude the development of a pusher/spring system capable of pushing a ~1300 ton Starship away from Super Heavy. That approach is possible on Starship in large part because the ship’s six Raptor engines are completely tucked away inside a skirt, meaning that there is zero chance of nozzles being damaged by impacting the booster interstage.
esselte said:
Spiny Norman said:
esselte said:From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
That seems unlikely as you’d really want to keep the upper stage heading uphill without tumbling and for its engines to burn ASAP after separation. Anything much different than that and you lose a lot of useful payload into orbit.
This article is a bit old, so maybe they changed their minds in the interm, but:
SpaceX takes simplicity to new extremes with two new Starship mechanisms
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-new-simplicity-extremes/Sidestepping decades of precedent, Musk says that Starship will have no separation mechanism at all. Instead, at some point during the design or testing process, Musk decided that a separation mechanism was entirely superfluous and that the same effect could be more or less replicated by using existing systems on Super Heavy. By using the booster’s gimballing Raptor engines to impart a small but significant rotation on the rocket moments before separation, Super Heavy could effectively flick Starship away from it – a bit like how SpaceX currently deploys Starlink satellites from Falcon by spinning the upper stage end over end and letting the spacecraft just float away thanks to centripetal forces.
Because Starship is something like five times heavier than Super Heavy at stage separation, the ship would effectively float away from the booster in a straight and stable line, use cold gas thrusters to settle its propellant, and ignite its six Raptor engines to head to orbit. In return for the slightly unorthodox deployment profile, if this new approach works, SpaceX can entirely preclude the development of a pusher/spring system capable of pushing a ~1300 ton Starship away from Super Heavy. That approach is possible on Starship in large part because the ship’s six Raptor engines are completely tucked away inside a skirt, meaning that there is zero chance of nozzles being damaged by impacting the booster interstage.
Well I did not know that! Maybe the initial acrobatics did go as intended, but turned to shit very shortly after.
Sibeen seems to have quite a bit of influence now.
esselte said:
From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
sounds like quitter talk!
esselte said:
Spiny Norman said:
esselte said:From what I’ve been reading, it seems Starship was supposed to initiate a flip which would cause the restraints connecting the first stage to the second stage to break (and position the first stage to boost itself back towards the ground). It began the flip OK but separation did not occur. Unable to continue, it self-destructed.
That seems unlikely as you’d really want to keep the upper stage heading uphill without tumbling and for its engines to burn ASAP after separation. Anything much different than that and you lose a lot of useful payload into orbit.
This article is a bit old, so maybe they changed their minds in the interm, but:
SpaceX takes simplicity to new extremes with two new Starship mechanisms
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-new-simplicity-extremes/Sidestepping decades of precedent, Musk says that Starship will have no separation mechanism at all. Instead, at some point during the design or testing process, Musk decided that a separation mechanism was entirely superfluous and that the same effect could be more or less replicated by using existing systems on Super Heavy. By using the booster’s gimballing Raptor engines to impart a small but significant rotation on the rocket moments before separation, Super Heavy could effectively flick Starship away from it – a bit like how SpaceX currently deploys Starlink satellites from Falcon by spinning the upper stage end over end and letting the spacecraft just float away thanks to centripetal forces.
Because Starship is something like five times heavier than Super Heavy at stage separation, the ship would effectively float away from the booster in a straight and stable line, use cold gas thrusters to settle its propellant, and ignite its six Raptor engines to head to orbit. In return for the slightly unorthodox deployment profile, if this new approach works, SpaceX can entirely preclude the development of a pusher/spring system capable of pushing a ~1300 ton Starship away from Super Heavy. That approach is possible on Starship in large part because the ship’s six Raptor engines are completely tucked away inside a skirt, meaning that there is zero chance of nozzles being damaged by impacting the booster interstage.
From that link, a video that shows how it’s supposed to be done.
Concerning the flip maneuver I think the failure of some thrusters soon after take-off would have rendered the flip impossible. Still working out the kinks I think.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Concerning the flip maneuver I think the failure of some thrusters soon after take-off would have rendered the flip impossible. Still working out the kinks I think.
Why don’t they test these kinds of things on smaller rockets scaled down.
That would be a better way to test new technologies.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Concerning the flip maneuver I think the failure of some thrusters soon after take-off would have rendered the flip impossible. Still working out the kinks I think.
Why don’t they test these kinds of things on smaller rockets scaled down.
That would be a better way to test new technologies.
Scaled down rockets would only be marginally cheaper at best. They literally have to test that the rockets don’t explode on the pad and work from there constantly refining their systems to achieve a successful mission. Testing with numerous failures has been how it has always been done.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Concerning the flip maneuver I think the failure of some thrusters soon after take-off would have rendered the flip impossible. Still working out the kinks I think.
Why don’t they test these kinds of things on smaller rockets scaled down.
That would be a better way to test new technologies.
Scaled down rockets would only be marginally cheaper at best. They literally have to test that the rockets don’t explode on the pad and work from there constantly refining their systems to achieve a successful mission. Testing with numerous failures has been how it has always been done.
Not conducive to mass regular usage is it.
If humanities survival depended on it could we be launching rockets around the clock continuously
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Concerning the flip maneuver I think the failure of some thrusters soon after take-off would have rendered the flip impossible. Still working out the kinks I think.
Why don’t they test these kinds of things on smaller rockets scaled down.
That would be a better way to test new technologies.
Scaled down rockets would only be marginally cheaper at best. They literally have to test that the rockets don’t explode on the pad and work from there constantly refining their systems to achieve a successful mission. Testing with numerous failures has been how it has always been done.
I was thinking a human sized rocket with payload to test the flip
it would save heaps in fuel
not any real savings in research and development
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Why don’t they test these kinds of things on smaller rockets scaled down.
That would be a better way to test new technologies.
Scaled down rockets would only be marginally cheaper at best. They literally have to test that the rockets don’t explode on the pad and work from there constantly refining their systems to achieve a successful mission. Testing with numerous failures has been how it has always been done.
I was thinking a human sized rocket with payload to test the flip
it would save heaps in fuel
not any real savings in research and development
I would like to see rocket development introduced more in universities.
Cymek said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Why don’t they test these kinds of things on smaller rockets scaled down.
That would be a better way to test new technologies.
Scaled down rockets would only be marginally cheaper at best. They literally have to test that the rockets don’t explode on the pad and work from there constantly refining their systems to achieve a successful mission. Testing with numerous failures has been how it has always been done.
Not conducive to mass regular usage is it.
If humanities survival depended on it could we be launching rockets around the clock continuously
Yes.
Cymek said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Why don’t they test these kinds of things on smaller rockets scaled down.
That would be a better way to test new technologies.
Scaled down rockets would only be marginally cheaper at best. They literally have to test that the rockets don’t explode on the pad and work from there constantly refining their systems to achieve a successful mission. Testing with numerous failures has been how it has always been done.
Not conducive to mass regular usage is it.
If humanities survival depended on it could we be launching rockets around the clock continuously
Established rockets are pretty reliable once they perfect their systems.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Scaled down rockets would only be marginally cheaper at best. They literally have to test that the rockets don’t explode on the pad and work from there constantly refining their systems to achieve a successful mission. Testing with numerous failures has been how it has always been done.
I was thinking a human sized rocket with payload to test the flip
it would save heaps in fuel
not any real savings in research and development
I would like to see rocket development introduced more in universities.
If they had done that with a way smaller rocket they they would have picked up the fault.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Cymek said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Scaled down rockets would only be marginally cheaper at best. They literally have to test that the rockets don’t explode on the pad and work from there constantly refining their systems to achieve a successful mission. Testing with numerous failures has been how it has always been done.
Not conducive to mass regular usage is it.
If humanities survival depended on it could we be launching rockets around the clock continuouslyEstablished rockets are pretty reliable once they perfect their systems.
Yes.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Cymek said:Not conducive to mass regular usage is it.
If humanities survival depended on it could we be launching rockets around the clock continuouslyEstablished rockets are pretty reliable once they perfect their systems.
Yes.
and maintenance perfected as well.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Cymek said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Scaled down rockets would only be marginally cheaper at best. They literally have to test that the rockets don’t explode on the pad and work from there constantly refining their systems to achieve a successful mission. Testing with numerous failures has been how it has always been done.
Not conducive to mass regular usage is it.
If humanities survival depended on it could we be launching rockets around the clock continuouslyEstablished rockets are pretty reliable once they perfect their systems.
They seem to be, so its more about cost and payloads to launch then.
Perfect devices are reliable¿
Its why I favour single stage to orbit in the form of a space plane. Skylon had the right idea but was never built , just like HOTOL.
you could have something that takes off a normal airport runway then ditches a large fuel tank in the same way existing fuel tanks are dumped by jet fighters – known and proven technology. Could even be solid fuel – the spaceplane is brought up to speed for a ramjet using solid fuel.
A photo of the damage to the launch pad. I’m amazed that the rocket didn’t suffer more damage during lift-off.
Spiny Norman said:
A photo of the damage to the launch pad. I’m amazed that the rocket didn’t suffer more damage during lift-off.
Isn’t that like saying “hey look the bullet blew half that guy’s head off, surprised it didn’t do more damage to the gun“¿
Another different launch from the same anus: Twitter Blue.
SCIENCE said:
Another different launch from the same anus: Twitter Blue.
SCIENCE said:
SCIENCE said:
Another different launch from the same anus: Twitter Blue.
Next Level.
roughbarked said:
SCIENCE said:
SCIENCE said:
SCIENCE said:
Another different launch from the same anus: Twitter Blue.
Next Level.
Elon Musk’s revamp of Twitter’s blue tick service hits another hurdle as it emerges that several dead celebrities and other high-profile users appear to have been signed up to the verification service.
10m ago
Small price to pay for eternal life¡
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
How is Twitter signing up dead people?
Automated bots perhaps, this is to tweet false information ?
Microsoft is distancing itself from Twitter citing that is becoming unreliable.
Interesting that bots are helping Twitter to become unreliable.
Elon has special powers.
Happy Easter Egg¡
Or was it some pact with the devil or something, we don’t know any more.
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:
The SpaceX company described the event as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly before stage separation”.
———————————
LOL
———————————“Nevertheless, SpaceX officials on the webcast cheered the feat of getting the fully integrated Starship and booster rocket off the ground for a clean launch and declared the brief episode a successful test flight. “
LOL indeed.
The CEO’s Political Idol Celebrated A Landslide Election Victory By 4000000 Votes
Sorry, we should rephrase.
Calling this a success is literally a Texas sharpshooter fallacy if ever there was one.
transition said:
SCIENCE said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
“Nevertheless, SpaceX officials on the webcast cheered the feat of getting the fully integrated Starship and booster rocket off the ground for a clean launch and declared the brief episode a successful test flight. “
LOL indeed.
The CEO’s Political Idol Celebrated A Landslide Election Victory By 4000000 Votes
Sorry, we should rephrase.
Calling this a success is literally a Texas sharpshooter fallacy if ever there was one.
da wornch pad sploded
Planned Obsolescence Is More Turnover Is Good For The Economy Must Grow ¡
Musk using rocks for thrust?
Clean Ups & Repairs Has Began at SpaceX’s Starbase, Boca Chica, Texas Launch Pad Surroundings
Spiny Norman said:
Clean Ups & Repairs Has Began at SpaceX’s Starbase, Boca Chica, Texas Launch Pad Surroundings
Footage of the minivan getting hit!
https://youtu.be/34lKhDBBP-8?t=7661
at time 2:07:41 if the link doesn’t load to that time automatically, which it should do.
esselte said:
Spiny Norman said:
Clean Ups & Repairs Has Began at SpaceX’s Starbase, Boca Chica, Texas Launch Pad SurroundingsFootage of the minivan getting hit!
https://youtu.be/34lKhDBBP-8?t=7661
at time 2:07:41 if the link doesn’t load to that time automatically, which it should do.
fixed link.
CHINA, saving the world again¡
The scale of the boom in EV sales is being largely driven by China, which now accounts for more than half of all EVs on the road worldwide. In 2022, Chinese car maker BYD overtook Tesla in sales.
JudgeMental said:
fixed link.
Thanks JM
Damage to the van
Despite an explosion, Elon Musk is closer to his new space age
SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft is far more advanced than its competitors
Apr 20th 2023
The first flight lasted a bit less than four minutes. With 30 of its 33 engines firing, the first of SpaceX’s “Super Heavy” boosters lifted off its launch pad in Boca Chica, on the Texas coast at 13:33 gmt. A minute later it passed through “max Q”, the point at which the stress on the vehicle caused by thrust of the engines and the resistance of the atmosphere peaks. Two minutes in, the rocket had reached an altitude of 20km (12 miles) and was travelling at 1,600kph, even though at least two more of its engines had shut down.
By minute three, though, it was clear that something was wrong. The rest of the engines had not cut off at the appointed time; the rocket seemed to be changing its orientation strangely; the separation of the second stage, a prototype spaceship called Starship, from the Super Heavy was not progressing as intended. As video showed the rocket continuing to tumble, John Insprucker, a SpaceX engineer providing commentary for the company’s live feed, delivered a technical understatement for the ages: “obviously…this does not appear to be a nominal situation”. A few seconds later, with the rocket clearly out of control, its “flight termination system” did what it was meant to and blew it up over the gulf of Mexico.
Quite what went wrong was not immediately clear, at least to outside observers. Taking off with too few motors running and losing more during the ascent may have been crucial, but there are other possibilities. The good news is that SpaceX says it is building Super Heavies and Starships at a healthy clip; it should in principle be possible to rerun the test reasonably soon once the nature of the problem becomes clear and a fix is found. The bad news is that the structure which supports the Super Heavy as it launches seems to have been damaged to an extent that may well require a significant redesign rather than simply repair. That could entail significant delays.
The company, and its many supporters, will accentuate the positive. The rocket made it into the air and through max Q, both things it had not done before. And the point of flight testing is to find problems in processes which cannot be tested on the ground. In that sense the test was a success. And if that is a slightly rosy view, it is at heart a fair one. For the flight to have gone off entirely as planned would have been a truly phenomenal coup. Getting some of the way and being ready to try again soon is certainly good enough. The possibility that the Starship system will mark a huge leap forward in space travel remains one to take very seriously.
Not a leg to stand on
The Super Heavy is the most powerful rocket ever built; its thrust at take-off would normally be more than twice that of the Saturn V rockets that put men on the Moon, though with three engines out it might not quite have reached that goal. The Starship which is to act as its second stage will, when it gets there, be the largest spacecraft placed in orbit by a single launch since the days of the space shuttle.
If SpaceX puts right both the problems that struck today and the others that the test programme will surely uncover, the Starship system will not just be able to put larger payloads into orbit than any competitor, it will be able to do so at a cost per tonne far lower than any the industry has seen before. That low cost is one of the advantages offered by a system with just two parts, both of which are fully reusable. Another is that a system which can take off, land and take off again in short order opens up a new range of possibilities for flights beyond Earth orbit. If it lives up to the hopes of Elon Musk, SpaceX’s boss, the Starship system will be capable of taking human crews to the surface of the Moon and even Mars.
But there are a lot of further capabilities to add before that becomes a reality. Even had it been fully successful, this first test would only have been the beginning of a development process that will take a great deal more effort and investment.
The flight plan for this first mission was very like those that have become routine for SpaceX’s Falcon 9s, the rockets with which the company has come to dominate the satellite-launch business. The first-stage booster was meant to fly to the edge of space and then return, under power, to the surface as the second stage went on to orbit.
But there were two crucial differences. When a Falcon 9 booster returns to Earth it deploys its legs and lands. If the Super Heavy had executed the manoeuvres needed to get that far it would have plunged straight into the Gulf of Mexico.
The principal reason for this difference is that although the Super Heavy is intended to be fully reusable, just as the Falcon 9 first-stage boosters are, unlike a Falcon 9 booster, it has no legs on which to land. Deployable legs sturdy enough to support it would add an unacceptable amount to its weight. Instead Super Heavies will come down on to the pads from which they were launched, where they will be caught and cradled in mid-air by huge mechanical arms.
The gantry at the launchpad used for Thursday’s testflight, known to its fans as “Mechazilla”, is equipped with just such arms. They were used to lift up the Starship and stack it on top of the Super Heavy on the Boca Chica launchpad a couple of days before launch. Understandably, though, SpaceX wants to be sure that it knows how to return the big boosters to Earth with the requisite accuracy before it tries to catch one, not least because test rockets are expendable in a way that launch pads with a lot of infrastructure are not. The only outcome from the first test that the company would have had to acknowledge as a real failure would have been an explosion that took the gantry out. Fake “landings” at sea are the obvious way to develop faith in the booster’s performance before trying to catch one on the fly.
The second difference between the plans for the test flight and a standard Falcon 9 flight was that when a Falcon 9 puts something into orbit it stays there until its operator decides to bring it back. The Starship that was perched on top of the Super Heavy and shared its fate would have lasted in orbit for little more than an hour even if everything had worked perfectly. Its engines were going to put it onto a trajectory that would have seen it re-enter the atmosphere over the Pacific before it had made a complete circuit of the Earth. Its final resting place was to be a patch of sea approximately 100km off the northwest coast of Kauai, the northernmost main island in the Hawaiian chain.
Eventually, Starships will go into orbit, deploy satellites, then re-enter and land in the embrace of a Mechazilla gantry. But before that can happen they have to show that they can survive re-entry.
Neither Falcon 9 boosters nor the Super Heavy hit the lower atmosphere fast enough to need heat shields. Starship does, which is why the bits of it which will face the most heat are covered in hexagonal “thermal protection” tiles. How well they work, though, will not be known until, in future tests, the company attempts to bring Starships down in one piece. The system is significantly more ambitious than the heat shields used on the company’s much smaller Dragon spacecraft, currently used to take crews to and from the International Space Station. It is probably the aspect to the Starship system that is furthest beyond the capabilities SpaceX has demonstrated to date.
The prize for getting right will be a launch system of unparalleled capabilities. The company says that a Starship launched by a Super Heavy will be capable of lifting 100-150 tonnes of cargo to orbit. That far exceeds the capacity of today’s most powerful commercial launcher, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, which is basically three Falcon 9s strapped together so as to be able to lift up to 64 tonnes. The cargo which could be lifted with a space shuttle was just 24 tonnes.
It’s big, but it’s not yet clever
It is also more than that of any of the three big new launchers other companies are working on: the Ariane 6 being developed by ArianeGroup, a joint venture of Airbus and Safran, a French defence contractor; the Vulcan Centaur, a project run by ula, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing; and New Glenn which is being developed by Blue Origin, a company founded by Jeff Bezos, the executive chairman of Amazon (see diagram). An operational Starship system will not only be bigger than all of them. Because it will be fully reusable it should also be a lot cheaper, too. Ariane 6 and Vulcan Centaur take a one-and-you’re-done approach, though ula hopes eventually to be able to recover its Vulcan first-stage engines. New Glenn is designed to have a fully reusable first stage, as the Falcon 9 does.
The Starship system, though, is intended to do more than take payloads up to Earth orbit. nasa has chosen a version of the Starship as the spacecraft with which it will return humans to the surface of the Moon. Mr Musk has always planned for it to be the vehicle which will take them to Mars. For either of these things to happen another new technology is needed: on-orbit refuelling.
A rocket needs fuel and oxidiser in order to work. For the Raptor engines which power both Super Heavy and Starship, the fuel is liquid methane and the oxidiser liquid oxygen. By the time Starship reaches orbit, it has used up most of its supply of both. So if it needs to go further it needs refuelling. SpaceX plans to build a fleet of Starships configured as tankers to allow this.
The plan for nasa’s first Artemis moon landing, due in the second half of this decade, show the level of effort that will be necessary. The first step in the plan is to launch a Starship configured as a refuelling station into orbit around the Earth. A subsequent series of tanker missions then fills it up with liquid oxygen and methane. SpaceX’s agreement with nasa suggests a remarkable 14 tanker missions would be required; Mr Musk has since said it might be possible with considerably fewer. Once the refuelling station is full, a special version of the Starship is sent up to dock with it, refuels, and heads out to an orbit close to the Moon. There it takes on board astronauts who have reached the same orbit by other means, and ferries them down to the surface. When their mission is done it ferries them back up to orbit.
For this to work two things are necessary. One is the technology required to dock two spacecraft together, move significant amounts of very cold liquid from one to the other, and then decouple them. Automatic docking is already fairly routine; the transfer of lots of liquids from one spacecraft to another is not.
The second is for heavy launches to become a truly workaday experience. If you need to fly lots of tankers for every crewed mission, you need to be able to turn the tankers around quickly and cycle rockets through your launch facility at a speed far beyond anything anyone has managed to date. SpaceX currently launches Falcon 9s a bit more than once a week, which is a cadence higher than any other company or country has achieved. But to fly a significant number of crewed Starships to destinations beyond Earth orbit it will need to be able to handle launches daily and quite possibly more frequently still.
If it is to fulfil Mr Musk’s dreams of interplanetary flight, the Starship system needs a huge amount of further development. Its Super Heavies need to be able to fly back to their landing sites with unerring precision, its mechazilla system has to be able to perform its magic routinely, its Starships need to master re-entry, and its whole set up needs to be able to operate at a cadence the industry never previously imagined, let alone attempted. It is tempting to see the construction of the most powerful rocket ever as the easy bit.
But it was not easy, and it has been done. And SpaceX’s previous record in innovation is a remarkable one. There are many obstacles ahead; but it is not too hard to imagine them, too, being surmounted.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/04/20/despite-an-explosion-elon-musk-is-closer-to-his-new-space-age?
SPACEX – Starship Launch of 24/7 – A Cascading Failure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErDuVomNd9M
The Common Sense Skeptic eviscerates SpaceX’s recent Starship Launch.
-The launch was a cascading failure from T -0
- Signs of failure to watch for based on previous tests are
dark smoke coming from the engine compartment (which would indicate a fire)
orange flames indicating fire or failing engine
green flames indicating the copper components of the engine are being destroyed
flexing at the stage connections
blast damage to the launch pad
-at around T +10 giant chunks of concrete from the pad can be seen being ejected from the launch site, and rising to an altitude almost equal to the “Chopsticks” arms at the top of the launch tower, around 100 meters up
-Protected areas of the Los Palomas Wildlife sanctuary are blasted by chunks of debris flying hundreds of meters in mere seconds
-At T +15 seconds 3 of the Raptor engines have already failed
-At T +29 seconds, unidentified material detaches from the bottom of th super-heavy booster, which causes another engine to malfunction as seen by it’s flame turning bright orange.
-At T +32 there is an explosive flash and just above the failing engine other flames are visible either on or coming through the side of the booster.
-From around T +35 for the remainder of the flight the flames coming out of the engines are orange rather than the clearish blue / purple they should be, probably indicating incomplete combustion of the propellant or something else that is on fire, or a combination of both
-At t+47 something comes loose from Starship and falls down the length of the rocket, probably a heat tile.
-At T+55 the orange flames intensify, indicating another engine has suffered catastrophic failure, soon confirmed by the graphic SpaceX had on screen showing the running engines.
-At T +60 more unidentified pieces fall off the rocket assembly followed by another erupting orange flame.
-At T +90 we can see there is a discrepancy between the graphic SpaceX has on screen showing the operating engines and the actual engines that are operating. The graphic shows 5 engines out, whilst it can be clearly seen that 6 have failed.
-A T +72, more spurts of orange flame indicating another imminent engine failure
-At T+87, something else detaches and falls from the top of the second stage
-At T+95 white smoke or gas starts flowing from the left hand side of the craft
-This white plume grows larger and larger. Given that the on-screen graphic is showing the LOX tank rapidly emptying, this white plume is likely LOX venting from broken connections.
-At T +115 another orange plume appears, shooting flame and smoke upwards 90 degrees out the side of the vehicle rather than out the bottom.
-At T +151 green flames appear, indicating another Raptor engine is in the process of dying.
-At about T +160 control is lost. The commentators mistakenly think that this is initiation of the flip maneuver intended to be used to initiate separation of the stages. The flight never actually reached that stage before losing control.
-At about T +170 SpaceX removes the graphic from the bottom of the screen showing Starships orientation. Also, the graphic showing engines running has frozen at displaying 6 engines out despite the fact that many more than that have now died.
-At T+187 more green flames indicating more engines dying
-At T + 195 the vehicle starts to free fall.
- The Flight Termination System was activated but failed to work, merely puncturing the skin of the rocket but not destroying it. Both SpaceX and the FAA are incorrectly reporting that FTS was used to terminate the flight. This can be proven incorrect by available footage. The explosions that eventually destroy the rocket were not activated by the FTS.
-More than 1 minute after loss of control, at T +240 an explosion in the engine skirt causes catastrophic loss of vehicle. A second explosion occurs 1 second later.
There’s more, but I’m tired of typing and you will need to watch it yourself if interested.