Did they not have the center of mass right? It started tipping over as soon as it left the ground.
Starship*... Yes I understand that. But it was moving laterally when it should have been moving vertically. So something was off.jt2hunt said:
The spaceship was empty and had no payload.
will25u said:
Did they not have the center of mass right? It started tipping over as soon as it left the ground.
My bad.RED AG 98 said:
Looks like maybe that's a fake "space x" yt account
nortex97 said:
The ocean has lot's of stuff in it, not just the Bismarck and Titanic.
Nothing wrong a new artificial reef.tk for tu juan said:
Concrete and debris going out into the ocean will ruffle some peopleLiftoff from Starbase pic.twitter.com/rgpc2XO7Z9
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) April 20, 2023
Engines failed on the side it leaned / drifted too.will25u said:
Did they not have the center of mass right? It started tipping over as soon as it left the ground.
It's engineered to do a rotation to throw off starship to clear it from the booster.JobSecurity said:
Would max q from a true orbital flight be greater stress than flipping end over end at those speeds? Like others I'm shocked it didn't break itself apart
Starship successfully lifted off from the orbital launch pad and climbed to an apogee of ~39 km over the Gulf of Mexico pic.twitter.com/PcmHRscp6w
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) April 20, 2023
Dead raptor burning out.PJYoung said:
Allow me to introduce you to the conversation you'll be having for the next 2-3 years pic.twitter.com/ORT34fvXUo
— Ken Kirtland IV (@KenKirtland17) April 20, 2023
lb3 said:Aggie, back row ISS flight controller leaving in 2006…. You had my curiosity before but now you have my attention.FireAg said:
I left in 2006...unless she's in Medical Operations, EVA, or has become an FD from a former position in the last few years, I probably don't...but never know...PM me if you want...
Bregxit said:Bubblez said:Again, its a cost issue at that point. Musk is capable of plowing billions upon billions into SpaceX. Not every company is in that position to eat all of those up front development costs.Teslag said:Bubblez said:Agile works great for software monkeys as long as they keep their schedule and quality commitments. The cost of a build and test cycle is not much more than development time. In other disciplines when you have to manufacture something, the costs of building prototype failure after prototype failure quickly add up.Caliber said:A lot of people keep trying to introduce Agile methods like this in a lot industries.Ag87H2O said:Agree. This is how you move the ball forward. Launch, learn, redesign, launch again, learn ... the iterative approach advances the technology and allows them to progress at a faster pace. It would be hard to take those kinds of risks and vehicle failures if he wasn't filthy rich. He is spending a ton on R&D plus the cost of the rockets and launch vehicles. No telling how much it will cost to repair the launch tower and tank farm.AustinAg2K said:
One thing I love about SpaceX is their ability to cheer on a failure. If this had happened at NASA, people would be freaking out, and it would shut down the program from the next six years. At SpaceX, everyone is pumped at having a massive explosion. They really have the right attitude to make amazing things happen. At NASA, they don't allow any sort of failure at all, even if it's unmanned.
We learn from our failures and mistakes. Musk fails fast, evaluates and learns quickly, and keeps plowing ahead. It is an admirable quality and incredibly exciting to watch.
Many of the old timers keep pushing back just calling it lazy engineering instead of even trying to understand the idea of failing fast to keep things moving faster.
And yet it's working perfectly for Space X
I the past 11 years since SLS started, SpaceX has developed the Falcon 9, Dragon, Dragon 2, nailed rocket reusability and is sending crewed missions to soace for under $1 billion in development cost total. Elon isn't plowing billions upon billions into anything. SpaceX is making a killing now by launching most tonnage each year into space.
Meanwhile SLS has had one launch in 11 years at a cost of $24 billion.
Which approach seems better?
FireAg said:
Either way, doesn't matter…the vehicle was lost (and folks are welcome to argue as to whether or not that matters based on a NASA vs SpaceX paradigm)…
Not a Bot said:
Not sure if this has been posted yet but was reading the other day that this booster was already a few generations behind what they have coming down the pipeline. They are re-designing a lot of things already. The next one that flies will have a lot of changes already baked in, plus whatever they learned from this flight.
Respectfully I think it's tempting to go down this road and think of 'how nasa would do things differently.'FireAg said:
I suppose it's possible, but I Am personally skeptical…
The vehicle was well out of control for a relatively long period of time, and if it had an auto destruct, it took its sweet time to trigger…
Looked more like to me that the ground wanted to gather as much data as possible before destroying down range…
I have no idea what Artemis has beyond what I assume remains unchanged on the SRBs…. For reference, the 51-L SRBs continued up hill, post crew vehicle and ET failure, until the RSO sent the destruct command (as evidenced by both SRBs being terminated simultaneously)…
Now, even if there was an auto destruct feature on the Starship launch today, I guarantee there was a backup manual destruct feature, and frankly, based on how long the vehicle was allowed to burn while clearly out of control (and folks, it was out of control to some extent at liftoff, and it only got worse), then the auto destruct had to have failed and a backup manual command was sent…
Either way, doesn't matter…the vehicle was lost (and folks are welcome to argue as to whether or not that matters based on a NASA vs SpaceX paradigm)…
nortex97 said:Respectfully I think it's tempting to go down this road and think of 'how nasa would do things differently.'FireAg said:
I suppose it's possible, but I Am personally skeptical…
The vehicle was well out of control for a relatively long period of time, and if it had an auto destruct, it took its sweet time to trigger…
Looked more like to me that the ground wanted to gather as much data as possible before destroying down range…
I have no idea what Artemis has beyond what I assume remains unchanged on the SRBs…. For reference, the 51-L SRBs continued up hill, post crew vehicle and ET failure, until the RSO sent the destruct command (as evidenced by both SRBs being terminated simultaneously)…
Now, even if there was an auto destruct feature on the Starship launch today, I guarantee there was a backup manual destruct feature, and frankly, based on how long the vehicle was allowed to burn while clearly out of control (and folks, it was out of control to some extent at liftoff, and it only got worse), then the auto destruct had to have failed and a backup manual command was sent…
Either way, doesn't matter…the vehicle was lost (and folks are welcome to argue as to whether or not that matters based on a NASA vs SpaceX paradigm)…
I think overall though, to Elon, SpaceX benefits from SLS, doesn't see them as a competitor, and it gets nasa on 'team SpaceX' moreso with starship too. They can complement/learn from each other, internet message board dynamics aside.
I think that's structural break up occurring. Notice the grid fin that looks to be in a normal position below the wing/flap. The wing flap is on Starship, but the grid fin is on the booster. Stage separation is supposed to occur between those two locations.FTAG 2000 said:
Looks like it partially separated, based on the onboard cams.