Woah!
Posted on 04/21/2023 10:03:18 AM PDT by aquila48
NASA leadership had a lot to say after today's explosive first test flight of SpaceX's Starship.
NASA has tapped Starship for its upcoming Artemis 3 mission, which will put astronauts back on the moon no earlier than 2025. Following that, Starship will also ferry human crews to the lunar surface and back for Artemis 4 and perhaps also Artemis 5, according to NASA's current plans.
With so much banking on the successful development of the massive stainless steel vehicle, NASA leaders took the opportunity to hail today's flight test as an important step forward in the agency's moon plans.
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson praised the launch, congratulating SpaceX and writing on Twitter(opens in new tab) that "Every great achievement throughout history has demanded some level of calculated risk, because with great risk comes great reward. Looking forward to all that SpaceX learns, to the next flight test — and beyond."
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
Different philosophies: NASA dots all the “i”s and crosses all the “t”s making launch a very very expensive time consuming proposition.
SpaceX tests-to-failure. Failures are expected and welcomed. This is how the bugs are removed - just look at Falcon - flawless
StarShip is an entirely new concept, new motors, and design. When all the bugs are worked out of it in the next 5-10 years, it will revolutionize space flight.
NASA is derived from the 1960s Space Race.
Suppose the first launch of Saturn V had not gone well ... That would have been propaganda gold for the USSR. That could not be allowed.
NASA’s “race to the moon” is what is slow motion.
NASA now says “no earlier than 2025”.
First it was was 2020.
Then 2023.
Then 2024.
Then 2025.
Now “no earlier than 2025”.
Prediction—they can’t get it done by 2030.
At liftoff, the engines are only operating at 70% throttle. This means that, theoretically, they could lift off with only 22 engines (albeit with no margin for error). However, as the rocket flies, the margin increases quickly as propellant is expended and the atmosphere thins. By the time they were down to 25 or 26 engines on yesterday’s flight, they likely only needed 10 or so to achieve their desired speed and altitude. So at all times, yesterday, they appeared to have the engine power needed to fulfill their mission parameters. That several failed, while sub-optimal, can not be used as evidence of failure for that phase of flight.
As a child of the 50s, I was fascinated by the space race. One of the iconic comments during this time was “Why do ours always blow-up?”
Back then, NASA was run by rocket scientists with little liberal arts minions handling the menial tasks. But then, the rocket scientists either retired or died, and the minions took over.
NASA went from a “Can-Do” engineering department to a “Can’t Do” bureaucracy.
SpaceX is a “Can-Do” engineering firm. They will lead the way to space.
I think you have it exactly right. Amazing the ship got as far as it did given the possible debris damage it suffered at liftoff. To my mind, the test was quite a success. They got far more correct than wrong. I imagine the SpaceX engineers are working on a new launch pad design even as I write this. Additionally, the ship was robust enough to spin around several times, still fuel laden, and not break up.
They had already decided to use electric actuators on future tests rather than hydraulic ones for the stage release mechanism. No more hydraulic pumps in the lower tail which are a common source of failure. In short, SpaceX had a good test.
This was the very first orbital launch for a brand new spacecraft thats the most powerful ever built. There were no expectations other than to gather data. You don’t put together the first car in existence and expect it to go on an intercontinental trip the very first time you turn it on. The Starship launch reaching the stage it did instead of blowing up immediately was a success if it went further than that then great but that was never a requirement. SpaceX has always operated this way of iterating fast without the traditional excessive worry for prototype failure since they can learn from it. The Libtards are trying to cast this as a fiasco because they hate Musk politically.
Not even that. They had no intent to put anything in orbit. The plan, if it got that far, was a suborbital lob of the Starship test article into the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii.
because they hate Musk politically.
THIS!
NASA is derived from the 1960s Space Race.
—
Remember it well. NASA was created in 1958.
Likewise. Age helps with perspective.
Woah!
WOW! Great find!
I was created in 1958, but I wasn't delivered until April of 1959...
I was created in 1958, but I wasn’t delivered until April of 1959...
—
Youngster!!!
Right. A starship flight costs about 1/700th the price of a Saturn V launch, adjusted for inflation.
NASA could not take chances like a private company can. Congress will pull funding (or threaten to) if there are spectacular failures. Musk just says, that was interesting, try it again.
LOTS of damage under the orbital launch mount, and the launch tower. the road to the beach is closed due to debris on the road.
watching a nasaspaceflight.com stream post flight damage right on youtube.
Sasha - right. However, it can be a problem depending on which engines are not igniting. The engines opposite the failed ones can be throttled up, but can potentially unbalance the craft. Another problem would be if the center engines fail and affect gymbaled thrust of the craft. A lot of this is probably automatically taken care of by computers, but can they account for all scenarios? Anyway, SpaceX will figure it out for the next test or two, and they likely will not attempt bringing them back to land for a while, maybe another year.
That looks like a residential home and auto damaged. wtf! Can’t they plan better than that? Baaaad publicity & probably a lawsuit or certainly damages to pay out.
7 to 8 engines failed during flight and possible blew out the apu. during flight you can see the engines fail.
remember there are 33 engines.
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.