Posted on 04/20/2023 8:12:51 AM PDT by Red Badger
Story by mguenot@businessinsider.com (Marianne Guenot,Morgan McFall-Johnsen,Kate Duffy) • 13m ago
SpaceX launched its new Starship mega-rocket on Thursday after a frozen valve stopped the first attempt. The mega-rocket exploded about three minutes into its flight but managed to clear the pad. Musk previously said he estimated a 50% chance of success. SpaceX launched its new Starship mega-rocket toward space for the first time on Thursday, after canceling its first attempt due to a valve issue.
Stacked atop its Super Heavy booster at SpaceX's new launchpad in Boca Chica, Texas, the black-and-silver vehicle was poised to prove itself as the biggest, most powerful rocket ever built.
The rocket successfully roared off the launch pad at 8:33 a.m. Central Time, but blew up about three minutes into the flight, at the point when it was due to separate from its booster.
Starship is the rocket on which SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk is hinging his biggest aspirations — including building and populating a human settlement on Mars. NASA, meanwhile, is counting on Starship to land its next astronauts on the moon as soon as 2025.
The company live-streamed the flight attempt, in the broadcast embedded below.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I know absolutely nothing about it but I’d say the individual engine control issue is doable, given today’s instrumentation and computing power & control. Just my 2 cents and it’s over-priced at that.
Whether or not bigger and fewer engines is better...no idea on which.
27 out of 33 ain’t bad!..................
That is interesting about the used hardware. Can you elaborate Three or so minutes is quite a long period
—
Its old, not used. The new stuff has, for instance, electric instead of hydraulic engine swivels - there is a host of technical details I have forgotten - but one of the YouTube sites dedicated to SpaceX can explain far better than I can.
Its not the length of the burn, its the milestones passed or not passed.
My statement - and yes, it was improperly worded - was to multiple engines, whether on a small airplane or on a large rocket, allowing for an increased liklihood for a problem. Which I made clear in subsequent posts.
Early aviators did indeed find it was more dangerous to fly with more than one engine, depending on the airworthiness of the craft. The very reason for the old adage, back then, about one engine being safer than two.
To the main issue: I wish Starship well on the next attempt.
Yes actually I watched documentary on that. I had no idea how many rockets were lost to NASA test flights. You only ever hear about the successes.
Super Heavy launch vehicle with 33 engines.
At one moment in the flight, 9 engines were not functioning.
Vibration is a big problem. Trying to smooth out the shakes, with so many rocket engines - some working, some not working well, some not working at all - is seriously tough.
Forces on the rocket structure, trying to tear and twist that structure, alter the efforts made to stabilize flight.
Some destruction can include very undesireable thrust events - and that appeared to be occuring soon after launch.
Uh, more than one engine is required for flights across the ocean. You don’t want to be over the ocean when a single engine airplane gives out.
You have to have a minimum of 2. And for many years you had to have at least 3.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
It’s one thing to be stupid, tt’s another thing to be stubbornly stupid. Old addage my ass. I’m a pilot and spent more then 20 years in aerospace on planes and launch vehicles. You have no clue what you are talking about. And willing to make crap up rather then admit it.
Thanks. I was checking it to, but the last I remembered was about 16 km. I knew it was higher. Technically they made space but blew up before orbit.
I saw it reach 38~40 klicks.
Tell that to Lindy!
Have it you way, pal. I’ll rely on what I’ve read about early aviation.
Thanks very much for your #60 above.
Seriously.
Remember all of the failures of the Saturn V? Uh, not even one.
Saturn F-1: 1.75 million pounds of thrust each.
Falcon: 0.53 million pounds of thrust each.
The Saturn V never failed to launch. Ever.
Except that those weren't working together. They were wall-eyed.
I would like to know however on a serious note, with that amount of thrust, if the overall length of the ship shrunk/squeezed any shorter... even if it was 2mm overall, that would give me a grin!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.