5 ms·
That's an interesting point about the flight plan - if the intention of the flight was to test the vehicle at max Q, then the rest of the plan is almost a conti
by spuz 3y ago
That's an interesting point about the flight plan - if the intention of the flight was to test the vehicle at max Q, then the rest of the plan is almost a contingency.
SpaceX: We expect the vehicle to reach 40km at which point it will probably blow up.
FAA: Ok but what if it doesn't blow up?
SpaceX: Well I suppose we could separate the stages.
FAA: And then what happens?
SpaceX: Well I suppose we could try to land the first stage and launch the second stage into the ocean...
etc etc.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoIt's not even about the FAA requirements, it is just bare minimum engineering to ask where will this rocket go if it doesn't blow up mid-air?
- lazide 3y agoWell, they could plan on blowing it up I guess?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoThat's one answer, but my point is that asking the question and forming an answer is basic development.
- p1mrx 3y agoIt's been launched beyond the environment. Nothing's out there.
- mindcrime 3y agoYou mean it's been launched from one environment into another environment?
- marssaxman 3y agoprobably a reference to this classic comedy sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
- mindcrime 3y agoOh definitely! As was my response above. :-)
- ChrisClark 3y agoYes, he was quoting it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ekimekim 3y agoWell the problem here is that the front didn't fall off.
- samwillis 3y agoYou joke but that's all also import rehearsal for all the teams responsible for each stage of the flight. The compleat plan, in full detail, with the "expectation" that it will happen is essential to learning. If you don't start practicing these details until later in the development you have missed an opportunity to fine tune them and prepare for all eventualities.
- soperj 3y ago> compleat Sorry, i've seen this spelling enough to now ask if this is a word that I don't know about or if it's just a mis-spelling of complete. Not trying to pick on you. I've had errors before, especially in space stuff (altitude & attitude).
- samwillis 3y agoTypo+iPhone+Dyslexia I usually edit my posts after posting (sometimes multiple times), I find going back and rereading them I always find errors. Will leave that mistake for prosperity and context. Dyslexia is both a gift and a curse, but only if you let it.
- soperj 3y agoAs far as typos go, this one has been very informative :)
- InitialLastName 3y ago> prosperity Just to help out: you probably mean "posterity" [0] [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/posterity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/posterity
- samwillis 3y agoI give up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Taywee 3y ago
- sandworm101 3y ago>> the intention of the flight was to test the vehicle at max Q, then the rest of the plan is almost a contingency. We don't know what the intention or internal expectation was. What we have are public statements, which are generally more conservative in order that every success be an amazing surprise, every failure an expected event. What SpaceX was internally hoping for, what they were aiming for, and the details of what actually happened will remain a mystery for a while.
- acomjean 3y agoI don't think they wanted it to blow up. I was told for something I was working on "if it works perfectly the first time, you may have spent to much time on it. " But they designed it to fly and it did for a while. I'm fairly certain they didn't design it to tumble and explode. If it had flown better and not exploded one would have to say it was more successful. It was a partial success and partial failure.
- kortex 3y agoI don't need to know the internal - it's pretty obvious. When you are test launching a rocket, MaxQ is the moment to test (aside from ignition, which you can test with static fire, so not really "test launching a rocket"). So SpaceX wants to test the booster launch; they have tested everything else on the ground that they realistically can at this point. That means ignition, get off the pad, MaxQ. Everything after that point is gravy. Of course there are plenty of systems after maxq they want to test, but not to sound like a software project manager, but "is the juice worth the squeeze?" Everything past maxq may not happen if the rocket goes RUD before or at that point, so how many points do you really want to be putting into stage separation, boostback, reentry, when those engineers could be triple checking Stage 0, fueling, start sequence, and liftoff? Was it supposed to tumble and explode? Of course not. How many weeks of delay of booster launch is "don't tumble during stage separation" worth? SpaceX says on the order of zero, save it for the next unit in the heckin rocket assembly line (that is wild to say out loud but that's what it is).
- baq 3y agoThey’re also testing the GSE and let’s say the pad failed today’s test scenario