Another successful flight for SpaceX's Starship apart from the landing-in-one-piece thing
- Reference: 1617125111
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/03/30/spacex_starship_sn11/
- Source link:
Originally planned for 29 March, the test flight from the company's facility in Boca Chica, Texas, had been postponed until this morning because a Federal Aviation Administrator (FAA) had been unable reach the site in time to observe the test.
[1]
The inspector was present today to witness another demonstration of Tesla [2]Technoking Elon Musk's prowess at blowing up big, shiny rockets.
The test was a repeat of the [3]Serial Number 10 prototype vehicle flight earlier in March. SN10 broke the heart of SpaceX fanbois around the globe by coming so close to complete success. That vehicle managed to return from its high-altitude test in one piece, landing upright. However, seconds later it exploded spectacularly, leaving the way clear (except for some bits of twisted metal) for SN11.
[4]
With SN10 almost succeeding, hopes were high for SN11.
The silver rocket, obscured by mist, launched on time. The three Raptor engines appeared to burn normally during the flight, with one shutting down just after the two-minute mark as planned. A second engine was then shut down before the vehicle reached the desired 10km point and the last engine was cut off.
Despite spotty video, the signature "belly flop" of the vehicle was visible as SN11 flipped over for its return to Earth. As it passed through 1km in altitude (according to the SpaceX announcer) the Raptors could be seen gimballing into position and at least one igniting.
And then the video froze again.
However, the audio continued for a few more seconds before a very audible bang was heard. Shortly after, SpaceX's announcer returned to the air to confirm "another exciting test."
Starship SN11 came down hard. Debris came flying past the [5]@NASASpaceflight camera near the pad and even appeared to knock it a bit. [6]pic.twitter.com/Wo9T4Im5ug — Michael Baylor (@nextspaceflight) [7]March 30, 2021
Exciting for those on the ground, perhaps, as the rocket exploded in the mist.
Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly aside, the test was relatively successful, though there were a few issues during ascent. Musk [8]noted : "Looks like engine 2 had issues on ascent & didn't reach operating chamber pressure during landing burn, but, in theory, it wasn't needed."
However, the big issue according to SpaceX's boss was that "something significant happened shortly after landing burn start [sic]."
You think? Not so much Technoking, more Monty Python [9]Swamp King at the rate Musk is ploughing through Starship prototypes, high production rate or not.
Still, we'll leave the last word to the man himself. ®
At least the crater is in the right place! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) [10]March 30, 2021
[11]
®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YGOfgiiefJWC0xlENfwLqAAAAJQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/19/something_for_the_weekend_/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/04/maezawa_spacex_moon/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YGOfgiiefJWC0xlENfwLqAAAAJQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[6] https://t.co/Wo9T4Im5ug
[7] https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1376884010912075791?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[8] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1376891464333017090
[9] https://quotegeek.com/quotes-from-movies/monty-python-and-the-holy-grai/2266/
[10] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1376889786762428421?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YGOfgiiefJWC0xlENfwLqAAAAJQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
So would you prefer the NASA approach of spending $50 billion and they've only been able the light the engines 1 and a half times after 10 years of work?
How about the NASA approach of "no, it's impossible to recover a booster, it takes too much fuel, that's just common sense"?
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
How about the NASA approach of "no, it's impossible to recover a booster, it takes too much fuel, that's just common sense"?
Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. I'd love to see a real cost comparison for the different approaches, but that would get very complicated. So SRBs vs liquid fuel would have a lot of different costs/benefits, and presumably it'd be a tad complicated to reliably shut down and relight an SRB vs liquid. Then there'd be costs to recover & refurbish engines vs making low-cost, disposable ones.
But I guess my main gripe is vertical landings aren't really anything new, ie the DC-X predated Space-X, but wasn't pursued for various reasons. So if those include it's just safer/cheaper to go with space planes instead, and if Starship will end up morphing into a Shuttle Mk2. But I guess even that includes a whole bunch of different costs, like real-estate's cheaper for vertical landings than buying/leasing long runways for a space plane.
But it's mostly fun to watch. This launch wasn't exactly great visibility, but cameras managed to capture clanging and spanging from low flying chunks of stainless steel. It'll be interesting to see if the weather played any part in SN-11's demise. I was a bit suprised it wasn't scrubbed anyway, but I guess data from a suboptimal launch is useful.
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
People are already questioning the SpaceX math which doesn't come anywhere close to what has been promised.
Musk claims he can get launches per passenger down to sub-$1000 (to compete with jet airliners) yet he's still charging more per launch (per cubic Kg of payload) than the final Space Shuttle.
And the SpaceX failure rate is way, way too high (even the projected 1% failure rate is far too high for his sub-orbital passenger airline plans). Only the gullible and fully signed up members of the Musk Cult are buying his nonsense.
I'm not knocking Musk for trying, I'm knocking him because he's mostly talking bullshit (hyperloop, anyone? Or cars in tunnels?) and getting away with it because people aren't calling him out on it. And what he's doing with SpaceX is nothing new, he's just iterating on old, existing technology - some of it 40+ years old. Most of it Russian.
Look at SABRE and Skylon for the radical, new and innovative. Not SpaceX.
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
"Look at SABRE and Skylon for the radical, new and innovative."
Let me know when they have their next launch live-streamed on YouTube!
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
The first road vehicle (the Puffing Devil) exploded when parked outside a pub.
The first jet engine couldn't be stopped, it carried on accelerating even after they turned off the fuel supply.
The Falcon 9 exploded regularly when attempting landing, and it's now the only rocket 1st stage to be regularly reused. And, you know, it can now carry people.
Plenty of new things are too dangerous to put people in, on or near. Then they get improved until they're reliable enough to do the job safely.
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
Chemical rockets are nothing new (close to 100 years old). SpaceX are just iterating on rocket designs from 40+ years ago.
Landing rockets is admittedly impressive, but you've got to admit it's fast becoming "reactionary engineering" - they're responding to the failures and designing out the flaws rather than predicting and designing out the flaws prior to build and then launch. Yes, the latter takes longer but should result in more reliable and successful designs.
At the moment it's hard to have faith in rockets designed the SpaceX way, especially when they expect to make them man rated. A new never-before-seen launch scenario occurs and the entire rocket is lost because the effort isn't being put in on the drawing board, it's just working it out as you go along. But hey, at least the next one will be fine - they'll just tweak the design of the next rocket etc. and cross their fingers, right? Because that's so how it feels.
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
Oh. Right. So you're comparing SpaceX with Apple? Go back to your dial-up landline Internet access, fool!
These tests by SpaceX have NOT cost a single life. The only cost is to Mr. THE BEST PERSON ON THE FUCKING FACE OF THIS PLANET Musk, and his investors.
What did it cost you? Oh... apologies.. you... what... wasted a few hours watching the NASASpaceFlight YouTube feed? Diddums.
Meanwhite, the rest of the planet sees this as a massive step towards the future of human space flight to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
I still have my old Netcomm 2400 baud modem - it's yours!
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
@AC
I invoke the Black Eyed Peas.
(icon is a weapon of violence)
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
@Sanctimonious Prick
> I invoke the Black Eyed Peas.
Well, if we're invoking pop culture, here's my suggestion:
"You went full retard, man. Never go full retard."
Feeling better now, Elon?
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
Boeing has been "designing out the flaws" for 10 years and they still haven't managed an untethered flight.
Meanwhile, SpaceX has developed, tested, and flown three launch vehicles (the Starship is the fourth). They have developed, tested, and launched three spacecraft, one of them man rated (the Starship will be the fourth). Also note that the single engine Starship test flights were successful, including landing. It's the triple engine flights that are still being worked out.
Designing out the flaws didn't work for Apollo 1 or Apollo 13 or Space Shuttle Challenger or Space Shuttle Columbia because you can only design out flaws you can think of in advance. Think of it as designing out all the security holes or all the software bugs in a system.
SpaceX is not engaging in 'spaghetti engineering', it's engaging in destructive testing. It's an engineering concept that has been around for years.
Re: SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
Except for the cost, and the fact that I can't afford it, I'd sign up for the first trip. In fact, If they want a passenger on the first to-space-and-back test flight on their new booster, sign me up.
"more Monty Python"
Considering he's the only person/company/entity to reliably land rockets on a small barge in the middle of the ocean... I do not feel qualified to throw stones.
It's amazing how quickly people forget how many boosters crashed before that feat was accomplished.
("Tall poppy syndrome" and "I can't do it, so nobody else should even try" is a pet peeve of mine)
I have plenty of time for this form of testing. Right up to the 1960s flight test meant building something and flying it. Iterative design. Look at the pace of progress from 1910 to 1970. Trying to over analyse everything on paper takes bloody ages, misses things and prevents progress. FAA will no doubt be overbearing on their investigation again... What's the problem if it's not a risk to life to test like this?
Over analyse everything
An example could be the flying boondoggle that is the F35, been modeled to Hades and back several times over and what have they got?
"Lockheed Martin F-35 deficiencies: two fewer in 2020, 871 issues remain."
The Technoking may be a bit of an arse at times but SpaceX has gone out of the box in many respects and IS moving forward, more than can be said for the SLS/Boeing circus.
It matters because Musk has stated that he wants to got to Mars in this thing. Okay Mars gravity is less than Earth gravity but the atmosphere seems to change density which would explain the death rate of Mars probes. Starship takes off fine, it travels fine, it just cannot land fine.
He wants to go to Mars in it? Will they be relying on autopilot on Mars or like the Eagle landing on Luna will they have a test pilot on hand to take over just in case?
He wants to go to Mars in it? Will they be relying on autopilot on Mars or like the Eagle landing on Luna will they have a test pilot on hand to take over just in case?
Given the complexity, I wonder if a test pilot could realistically fly the vehicle. Or how much fuel it'd need for landing given the lower air density. But that's all a long way off, a bit like Mars really. Seeing and reading about the challenges of landing probes on Mars, it's a rather wicked problem to solve.
Given his personal wealth (at the time of writing) Musk can probably just about afford to send a dozen rockets to Mars working the kinks out of the design with each attempt until they can finally stick the landing. The Mars landscape will be littered with SpaceX failures. Let's see if he's willing to put himself on the first rocket.
SpaceX have turned rocket science into Spaghetti Engineering
"Throw it at the wall and see what sticks."
Literally. Or until the money runs (handy then that the owner has a bottom pit of cash).
And they really think they're going to to put people inside this. I can't wait for the Corporate Manslaughter charges. Or will the idiot millionaire/billionaire space tourists sign away all their rights because they believe in the Cult of Musk? Most probably.
[1]"I'm a con-man, or maybe I'm a God..."
[1] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7yiqiu