SpaceX (general discussion)

And don't forget that's also the largest technology sharing* since the British RR Nene.
(SpaceX doesn't pay attention to recovery of debris. As noted earlier tiles and other parts have been seen on-sale online).

*I would even call that "Technology Spraying"...
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
May have a point...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1897845510523785553
View: https://x.com/DrChrisCombs/status/1897845510523785553
Click to expand...
Lol. I see he’s still suffering from EDS.
Arjen said:
Elon Musk.
Click to expand...
I’ve been (theoretically reliably) told that Musk has little to do with SpaceX’s success. He has capable lieutenants in the form of Leuders at Starbase, and Shotwell overall. He’ll likely go back down to Starbase, but he does not need to be there full time anymore than the CEO of my company is out on the shop floor 24/7.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Lol. I see he’s still suffering from EDS.

I’ve been (theoretically reliably) told that Musk has little to do with SpaceX’s success. He has capable lieutenants in the form of Leuders at Starbase, and Shotwell overall. He’ll likely go back down to Starbase, but he does not need to be there full time anymore than the CEO of my company is out on the shop floor 24/7.
Click to expand...
Jeff Bezos doesn't pack boxes for shipment but you can be damn sure he played a major part in the success of Amazon.
 
The previous break up irked some in the aviation community then died down.

With DOGE in full swing--this incident could be very much more hurtful to SpaceX.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
I’ve been (theoretically reliably) told that Musk has little to do with SpaceX’s success.
Click to expand...
He has little to do with the operations but heavily into the design concepts and implementations. Mantra such as only one engine design on a vehicle, no ordnance, horizontal ops (Falcon), one fairing size, vertically integrated company, etc.
 
The Space Bucket has put out a video concerning IM's Athena Moon-lander and it toppling over after it landed:


Yesterday Intuitive Machines attempted to touch down on the Moon for a second time. Unfortunately, just like the first attempt, it landed but tipped over, leaving it on its side. To make matters worse, due to its exact landing location and its relation to the sun and temperatures, the lander is out of power and not expected to recharge, effectively ending the mission.
Click to expand...
This means practically all the payloads aboard that were hoping to gather data and conduct surface operations will not be able to.
Click to expand...
Credit:
Intuitive Machines - / @intuitivemachines
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:32 - Final Descent
Click to expand...

IM really needs to reconsider the physical design of its' landers as the tall design has a high CoG making it prone to toppling over.
 
Andreas Parsch said:
Which has what to do with SpaceX??
Click to expand...

The lander has been mentioned several times previously in this thread also it was launched by a Falcon 9, if there is a more appropriate thread for the above post please let me no so that I can repost it there and delete it here.
 
Last edited:
This from last year comes back to mind,

https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/01/08/the-meaning-behind-the-saying-space-is-hard/

For decades, “Space is hard” has been a common refrain in the space community. It succinctly encapsulates the immense challenges involved with accessing the vacuum of space and pushing the boundaries of exploration ever further. This truism gets trotted out by space agencies, engineers, scientists, and enthusiasts alike – especially in the aftermath of failed missions that never achieve their lofty goals.

The saying did not emerge from a single definitive event, but rather it slowly percolated into popular vernacular as a reflection of the underlying difficulty of spaceflight. It likely originated in the mid-20th century when space travel transitioned from science fiction into reality with the advent of rocketry powerful enough to reach Earth orbit. Pioneers quickly realized that escaping the bonds of gravity involved conquering a whole new realm of physics, engineering, and danger. The challenges span from designing functional yet lightweight spacecraft to withstanding the volatility of propellants to calculating precise trajectories across vast distances. The margin for error shrinks exponentially compared to any Earthbound endeavor.

As the Space Age accelerated from the late 1950s onward, “Space is hard” became a truism within NASA and other space agencies. It was likely invoked frequently behind closed doors whenever rockets unexpectedly blew up or small errors caused catastrophic accidents. The saying helped reinforce the need for fail-safes, redundancies, and rigorous testing regimens required for space hardware. In public, agencies preferred to portray an image of precision and infallibility to stand toe-to-toe with geopolitical rivals. So the colloquialism mostly spread through internal memos and engineering circles rather than official statements.
Click to expand...

More at article page.

It closes with,

No matter how far space travel advances with new propulsion technology, spacecraft materials, computing power and automation to offset human limitations – the underlying sentiment behind “Space is hard” will persist. Escaping Earth’s atmosphere to sustain human life in the harsh vacuum of space will always remain at the bleeding edge of technology and fraught with existential risk. Even if launch vehicles become as reliable as commercial airplanes, the complexity never completely disappears. Off-nominal problems can swiftly spiral into catastrophe when operating in such unforgiving conditions far from home.

So while “Space is hard” has already become something of a cliché trotted out too readily, the saying distills generations of hard-won experience into three simple words. It serves as an important reminder never to become complacent. The pioneers who first endeavored to defy gravity learned the maxim through tragedy, near misses, and countless headaches. Their successors carry forth the saying as a warning to maintain a culture focused on preparedness, safety, and precision in design. Because the moment space travel starts seeming easy, space demands harsh reminders that it is anything but. For those daring enough to ride rockets into the heavens and push farther into the unknown, “Space is hard” will continue echoing for generations to come.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Manley was released a video talking about SpaceX repeating the same mistake on IFT-8:


Starship's V2 redesign suffered almost exactly the same failure on flight 8 as it did on flight 7, fire in the engine bay leading to engine failure and RUD, but this time we got lots more video as the spacecraft tumbled out of control before breaking up and landing in the Carribbean.
Click to expand...
Shout out to Trevor Mahlmann who helped me figure out some of the timeline with his phone video - please check his work outhttps://www.tmahlmann.com/support/
Click to expand...
 
My understanding is that they’re only superficially the same failure. IFT-7’s started with a fire in an enclosed area above the skirt that caused a gradual engine loss. This flight had a sudden explosive problem that took out three engines.
 
My speculation what is wrong with Starship block 2
the biggest change they made is enlarge the tanks with additional feed line to Vac Raptors from Methan tank.
now SpaceX explain there were Harmonic frequency issue during flight (aka POGO)
That let to leakage in feed lines and fire that destroy the Starship 33 also Starship 34 in some extent on one of Vac raptor.

Now the Saturn V had allot issue with POGO during Test Flights
The F-1 engine produce a Harmonic frequency that went over lox feed line over to rocket structure
They installed dampers with Helium in lox feed line to suppress the Harmonic frequency much as possible.

The same issue has now Starship block 2 design because the long methane feed lines true Lox tank
were frequency hit the engine bay
I don't know what SpaceX has done to suppress the Harmonic frequency on Starship 34, but it failed on one engine.
 
Michel Van said:
My speculation what is wrong with Starship block 2
the biggest change they made is enlarge the tanks with additional feed line to Vac Raptors from Methan tank.
now SpaceX explain there were Harmonic frequency issue during flight (aka POGO)
That let to leakage in feed lines and fire that destroy the Starship 33 also Starship 34 in some extent on one of Vac raptor.

Now the Saturn V had allot issue with POGO during Test Flights
The F-1 engine produce a Harmonic frequency that went over lox feed line over to rocket structure
They installed dampers with Helium in lox feed line to suppress the Harmonic frequency much as possible.

The same issue has now Starship block 2 design because the long methane feed lines true Lox tank
were frequency hit the engine bay
I don't know what SpaceX has done to suppress the Harmonic frequency on Starship 34, but it failed on one engine.
Click to expand...
time to return on the drawing board, another failed and the program could be compromise.
 
A whole sale redesign is what's needed dark sidius, obviously there is something not quite right in Starship especially to have two failures in a row like that. The FAA should stop all future test flights until SpaceX sort out the problem and make sure that it does not happen again in the future.
 
Michel Van said:
Now the Saturn V had allot issue with POGO during Test Flights
The F-1 engine produce a Harmonic frequency that went over lox feed line over to rocket structure
They installed dampers with Helium in lox feed line to suppress the Harmonic frequency much as possible.
Click to expand...
They installed baffles in the spray injector curring Harmonics at the source.

images

Spray injector as seen from the top

If SpaceX did not check how design mods would react to this problem, that would be a sign of a botched design upgrade, and, IMOHO, reflects that someone took a decision without the right science background.
 
Last edited:
I get accused of throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks (which seems to work for blind evolution just fine)

—so let me throw this wild hair out.

Has there ever been a puck/dancing floor at at angle?

Instead of a cylinder terminating at a right angle—-a slanted terminus is an ellipse…not just a circle.

Might that have some advantages?
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Lol. I see he’s still suffering from EDS.

I’ve been (theoretically reliably) told that Musk has little to do with SpaceX’s success. He has capable lieutenants in the form of Leuders at Starbase, and Shotwell overall. He’ll likely go back down to Starbase, but he does not need to be there full time anymore than the CEO of my company is out on the shop floor 24/7.
Click to expand...
I've heard that in Musk related companies, if an bottleneck or critical step is identified, Musk does personally intervene (aka sleep in the factory floor stories) and get it resolved asap. That is a good chance for line engineers to impress the top guy and get whatever resources needed to fix the issue, or get fired on the spot if musk perceives the person as the problem itself.

On the other hand, it is hard to imagine someone like him having a better sense in hiring top management compared to all the other rocket and car companies, though perhaps I have overrated the practical ability of bureaucracy climbers.
 
publiusr said:
I get accused of throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks (which seems to work for blind evolution just fine)

—so let me throw this wild hair out.

Has there ever been a puck/dancing floor at at angle?

Instead of a cylinder terminating at a right angle—-a slanted terminus is an ellipse…not just a circle.

Might that have some advantages?
Click to expand...
You tell us what the advantages are.
 
Moose said:
I've not seen it identified, what is the issue with an easy fix?
Click to expand...
The entire ship would have to be AFU to require a clean sheet. No, two failures in a row does not indicate that. Once they identify it it's likely something they can fix with redesign of a couple parts. Both failures almost certainly had the same root cause.
 
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom