So they lost the video because it exploded? The stream is playing it off as nothing to see here.
SpaceX Starship
- Thread starter isutrevman
- Start date
They are always vocally optimistic.
It blew up at a much higher altitude than previous attempts.
i was watching both spacex and spaceflight. spaceflight has a bunch of pieces of the rocket landing in the camera views with a loud explosion. Hard to see but im guessing rockets didnt light to slow it down enough.
Just went back to the spaceflight video. See that now. Saw the debris and heard the explosion on that stream.
can someone refresh me to what their goal(s) is/are with these launches? Are they attempting to get to a certain altitude, but not being successful, or are they getting to where they need to go, but then doing the free fall, then self landing thing?
I'm just trying to understand why things were happening with greater success when duct tape was barely functional and tv had just been invented.
I'm just trying to understand why things were happening with greater success when duct tape was barely functional and tv had just been invented.
Testing out the main stage landing as well as the testing the Raptor engines. The flip and reorienting is new for this rocket compared to the Falcon rocket.
What is the goal/need for the landing? Is this so the ppl who go to mars are able to land without dying?
Correct, this is how they will land/retake off from Mars or the Moon.
does seem like the engine blew on reignite, and then crash landing. spaceflight was saying there were 2 big explosions.
I think it's a completely different approach to rocket development. NASA has historically been very conservative with testing. They basically don't launch anything unless they are sure it's going to work. This makes sense because they are using tax payer money and tax payers don't like to see them wasting money with explosions.
SpaceX is a private enterprise that is using more of an iterative approach. Test it, see what fails, fix it, test again, see what fails, fix it. etc... They don't really care if these things fail (to a point, obviously it needs to work eventually). These test rockets were only going to be used once, whether they worked, or not. Even if it landed successfully, it would have been scrapped afterward. It's a much faster way to develop the rockets. I have no idea if it's more cost effective.
For example: NASA began development of the SLS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System) in 2011. It's not even close to a test launch. They only just completed the first full duration engine fire test.
SpaceX started developing starship in 2016 and has had 4 test launches. They've also done several test "hops" with smaller prototypes in the last couple years.
SpaceX launched more mass into orbit than the rest of the world combined last year. There is a reason for that. Their development method is insanely fast.
They are also doing things with rockets that have never been tried, like full reusability involving propulsive landing.
Sounds like the largest chunks hit the launch pad? Would be nice if it didn't destroy anything else.
There are reports of debris being 5 miles away.
Full, and quick reusability of the rockets. If starship ends up being what SpaceX hopes, it will be insanely cheap to fly. Each flight you'd essentially only be paying for the fuel and maintenance, instead of building a whole new rocket.
The end goal is to be able to re-use them almost as quickly as airplanes. It's hard to believe they would ever get to that pace, but maybe 1 launch per day? Land, swap out cargo and passengers, re-fuel, launch again, repeat... They want to use this for earth-to-earth travel as well as space travel. New York to Tokyo in less than 30 minutes.
This is the SpaceX method. They'll have another test vehicle out on the launch pad pretty much as soon as the debris is cleaned up. I don't know what their plans are for this one, but probably have some more testing with another launch in the next few weeks. Barring any other damage they need to fix at the site first.
If NASA has a failure on their SLS, it could be a couple years until they try it again.
If NASA has a failure on their SLS, it could be a couple years until they try it again.
Keep in mind SpaceX is developing these rockets in full view of the public. When NASA, or private enterprises like ULA have failures with prototypes or their testing programs, something might leak to the public, but you never see it.