7 ms·
Another amazing test flight! Can't wait for SN10. I understand they have already started the last step of construction which is fitting the Raptor engines to SN
by 6nf 6y ago
Another amazing test flight! Can't wait for SN10. I understand they have already started the last step of construction which is fitting the Raptor engines to SN10. Should be ready to fly very soon.
- GizmoSwan 6y agoYou loved the quality of the explosion. Did you? Bigger the explosion, the more promising is the venture! NOT
- reasonabl_human 6y agoI loved the explosion. These guys get stuff done. Move fast and break things
- GizmoSwan 6y agoIt should not have been an experiment leading to explosion at this stage. You are not seriously willing to justify the explosion, are you? I hope that you are being sarcastic. The experimental flying of rockets of this size are the 1960s thing. They should have acquired proper specs by now.
- reasonabl_human 6y agoIt’s been a few days and other people above have already put you through the ringer on this, but funny enough the 1960’s work style, of the soviets specifically, is ideal for rapidly advancing rocket tech. Or any tech, for that matter! They iterated and flight tested early and often. The soviets only lost the space race because they ran out of resources, as this is an expensive approach, but SpaceX is back-stopped by Elon + the US gov via contracts + they already have production flight revenue and wildly successful products. I won’t be able to do the explanation much justice in a paragraph here but Google around about how the Soviet approach to rocketry was far superior than that of the US and you’ll uncover plenty on the topic. SpaceX is executing that same style of engineering development, marrying the ‘move fast and break things’ tech company ethos with aerospace engineering. That’s why they’re so revolutionary: aero is typically riddled with red tape and risk aversion... they take the Silicon Valley approach of moving fast and breaking things, along with keeping as much engineering in-house as possible to cut down on expenditure, lead time, quality control etc. etc. Source: used to work on SpaceX’s only commercial crew capsule competitor, Boeing’s Starliner, down at the Kennedy Space Center.
- ctdonath 6y agoSpaceX Starship is way outside established industry specifications.
- GizmoSwan 6y agoHow so?
- gridspy 6y agoNo orbital upper stage has been rapidly reusable. No existing rocket has tried to perform either the "belly flop" or the "Landing flip manouver" that SpaceX is trying to do. The failures are due to complex issues (fuel tanks, valves, engine reliability under complex forces) not simple control system issues (choosing wrong thrust, not able to orient using thrusters, etc)
- GizmoSwan 6y agoI don't understand the term belly flop or rapidly reusable. Do You mean that it is becoming horizontal to reduce the falling speed rate to land on its belly? shuttle was reused and landed on wheels parallel to its belly.
- gridspy 6y agoBelly flop - https://youtu.be/vRPrLvVaQq8?t=145 https://youtu.be/vRPrLvVaQq8?t=145 (Yes, to reduce the falling speed. No, it lands vertically). Rapidly reusable - You can land it directly on (or next to) a launch platform, refuel it and launch it again the same day. Same as a regular aircraft. The Space shuttle had a disposable tank (which was lost on launch), recovered but basically destroyed solid rocket boosters (ditched into ocean) and finally on landing it had (potentially) damaged heat tiles which all needed inspection and which were all fragile and different.
- GizmoSwan 6y agoDoes it use Nasa's pica heat shield. Nasa could have upgraded shuttle too to use their own tech so the shield tech is not material argument. The boosters were recovered. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/about/star/shuttle_110803.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/about/star/shuttle_110...
- avmich 6y agoYou can choose to develop rockets - especially of such size - this way instead of putting (much) more efforts in calculating how it would behave and prepare for all cases.
- GizmoSwan 6y agoNasa did the calculation with with ancient computers and these guys are speculating and not using proper technology to achieve success. It makes no sense in 2021. They should not be experimenting. Their simulations should be been solid before this stage. It is good way to burn cash.
- avmich 6y agoSimulations of certain things are still a problem today, even though less than it was in 1960-s. For example, trans-sonic aerodynamics is still hard. I'd imagine a good simulation of Raptor's inner flow when Starship does active maneuring can be a problem, especially if you also need to take into account material properties under dynamic loads.
- GizmoSwan 6y agoLets assume that is the case. That is where they should spend their cash to produce something of real value that can be reused. Simulation close to perfection is the end game. Not sending something chunky into space.