SpaceX (general discussion)

Michel Van said:
according the news, Space X lost booster B1086.5 after landing one of leg got damage and collapsed

View: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1896910945462649247
Click to expand...
Save to say afther 400+ booster landings, 1 in 100 still got lost.
Cannot really see how to reach aircraft safety with this method of landing.
Hysterical spacex fanboys call this a learning process, but afther 400+ booster landings still not aircraft safety
 
Michel Van said:
according the news, Space X lost booster B1086.5 after landing one of leg got damage and collapsed
Click to expand...
According to SpaceX on X:

"Following the successful landing, an off-nominal fire in the aft end of the rocket damaged one of the booster's landing legs which resulted in it tipping over."

View: https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1896562823955947643
 
Some of SpaceX is on Beal's old turf. I wonder if his biggest pressure rocket would have had less fueling problems
 
The Space Bucket put out a video a day ago about why SpaceX scrubbed the scheduled IFT-8 flight:


This afternoon we were less than a minute away from Starship's Eighth Flight Test when a few complications caused a scrub. Despite the fact that this is a test program with a long list of changes each flight, Starship launch scrubs are actually quite rare.
Click to expand...
This time around, updates from SpaceX confirmed that the reason had to do with a low ground spin start pressure among a few other complications, both with the ship and booster.
Click to expand...
Credit:
SpaceX - / spacex https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceX
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:28 - Launch Scrub
3:28 - Upgrades Since Flight 7
Click to expand...
 
publiusr said:
Some of SpaceX is on Beal's old turf. I wonder if his biggest pressure rocket would have had less fueling problems
Click to expand...
The Falcon 9 can put 5000kg more into orbit than the BA-2
And he would likely have helium loading issues, in addition to helium procurement issues.

Anyways, the comparison is inane. Location has nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Intuitive Machines Athena Moon-lander (Launched by a Falcon 9 on February 25) will be landing in less than a day's time, from the Space Bucket:


It's only been a few days since Blue Ghost touched down and within 24 hours a different lunar lander is scheduled to do the same. Late last month, a Falcon 9 launched Intuitive Machine's Athena spacecraft, apart of the IM-2 mission.
Click to expand...
This is also a privately built lunar lander and a follow up to the IM-1 mission, which managed to touch down but tip over in the process, resulting in the lander being on its side.
Click to expand...
Credit: I
ntutitive Machines - / @intuitivemachines
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:29 - Less Than 24 Hours
4:03 - Final Descent
Click to expand...
 
abheiden said:
Save to say afther 400+ booster landings, 1 in 100 still got lost.
Cannot really see how to reach aircraft safety with this method of landing.
Hysterical spacex fanboys call this a learning process, but afther 400+ booster landings still not aircraft safety
Click to expand...
Does calling people hysterical add any benefit to a discussion? It’s no question that spaceflight isn’t going to reach aircraft levels of safety for a long time. Few people, fanboy or otherwise, dispute that. Genuine full reuse is one of the keys to unlocking it. Flying far more often is another. As materials and propulsion science improve, we may see spaceplanes reemerge as well. It behooves anyone who actually cares, and isn’t merely trying to score points, to remember that airplanes were markedly unsafe for many years, and the learning curve to make them reliable was steep and costly.
 
News on Flight 7 issues
The Starship 33 endure harmonic frequency (pogo) in feed lines to engine.
This let to leakage on engines and resulting fire

They installed pogo dampers in Starship and nitrogen fire suppression system

Future Version of Starship feature Raptor 3 that so SpaceX will not have those problem.
 
I'm surprised they let it keep going that long once they lost control.
 
+00:08:05 a Vac Raptor shutdown follow by two SL Raptors
+00:08:08 all SL Raptors fail and smoke erupts
+00:08:10 Starship 34 loose altitude control

At least Booster 15 return safe
 
This from 2019 comes to mind,

"Space is hard." But why?
April 16, 2019 in Space Exploration

Every time a spaceflight failure occurs, the phrase “space is hard” will invariably be uttered in response. The sentiment typically being expressed is one of disappointment tinged with begrudging acceptance that spaceflight is challenging and not all attempts will succeed.
Click to expand...

"Space is hard." But why? — Elizabeth A. Frank

Every time a spaceflight failure occurs, the phrase “space is hard” will invariably be uttered in response. What is it that makes space so hard?
www.elizabethafrank.com

This is not an exhaustive list; spacecraft and rockets are adept at finding new ways to self-destruct. Yet each failure is an opportunity to learn from mistakes and to feed that knowledge forward through lessons learned. Just as space scientists and engineers stand on the shoulders of giants, successful missions in modern spaceflight operate thanks to the failures of their predecessors.
Click to expand...
 
If I'm not mistaken, the second stage on Saturn V was the toughest to work on--because everything else was locked in. They had to work around everything else--so those second stage guys were de facto agile while everything else was waterfall, so to speak.

They're not all dead--I think it is time Elon swallowed his pride and went to visit with some old hands at MSFC, so he can sit back--and listen.

This could be a learning experience for him.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
the second stage on Saturn V was the toughest to work on ... and went to visit with some old hands at MSFC
Click to expand...
Okay, but visit who?
Saturn rocket was designed and engineered in 1950s with its first flight in 1961.
A Saturn engineer who was 35 in 61 would be 99 this year.

This Month in NASA History: The First Saturn Rocket Launch | APPEL Knowledge Services

Saturn I-A was the bold first step in a giant technological leap. When it was stacked for launch at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in October 1961, the personnel there had never seen anything quite like it, a massive three-stage rocket taller than a 16-story building and weighing 460 tons. At...
appel.nasa.gov
 
Picture of engine bay
GlZQvxDXoAAHaFO

same view at +00:08.05
View: https://twitter.com/jackywacky_3/status/1897803970607038720

the Vac Raptor goes RUD

View: https://twitter.com/StefanieWaldek/status/1897797025321697471


View: https://twitter.com/ScMesab/status/1897797940787228937
 
southwestforests said:
Saturn rocket was designed and engineered in 1950s with its first flight in 1961.
Click to expand...

The design of the Saturn I Block I started in 1959 while the Saturn V started ~1961-62.

Here's the IFT-8 video from just before liftoff to the end:


SpaceX launched the eigth test flight of the Starship megarocket from Starbase in Texas on March 6, 2025. Starship's Super Heavy booster successfully separated, and returned to Earth and was caught by the "chopsticks" on the launch tower.
Click to expand...
SpaceX lost communications Starship after it began to spin out of control about 8 minutes into flight.
Click to expand...
 
publiusr said:
If I'm not mistaken, the second stage on Saturn V was the toughest to work on--because everything else was locked in. They had to work around everything else--so those second stage guys were de facto agile while everything else was waterfall, so to speak.

They're not all dead--I think it is time Elon swallowed his pride and went to visit with some old hands at MSFC, so he can sit back--and listen.

This could be a learning experience for him.
Click to expand...
Elon listening to *anyone* else - what are you high on, my man???
 
It's perfectly fine to have a "hardware rich" development with lots of failures, this is partially how SpaceX came to this point, but they used to do it in safe places and azimuths, Kwajalein, the middle of the atlantic, SpaceX's own land in boca chica, it's different when your rocket overflies millions and redirects many flights and grounds several airports in a failure.

IMO they really need to look into alternate trajectories that don't rain debris over the carribean until they can prove the "ascent" part of Starship v2 I don't know ,maybe a very lofted one, like those ICBM test, that has no chance of crashing anywhere except the Gulf of Mexico (or of america :p), or a very large dogleg, just do that for the next flight or two until they can prove that the Starship v2 won't explode 8 minutes into the launch and rain debris over cars. Then they can proceed to further testing.

On the positive side, very impressed with the 1st stage, which was able to be caught despite 2 adjacent engines being turned off during boostback and 1 engine being turned off during the landing burn.
 
publiusr said:
If I'm not mistaken, the second stage on Saturn V was the toughest to work on--because everything else was locked in. They had to work around everything else--so those second stage guys were de facto agile while everything else was waterfall, so to speak.
Click to expand...
That is not the definition of "agile"

publiusr said:
They're not all dead--I think it is time Elon swallowed his pride and went to visit with some old hands at MSFC, so he can sit back--and listen.
Click to expand...
That would be wrong.
a. It would be NAA. They did the design and construction, not MSFC.
b. Anyways. They couldn't relate to Starship or be of help, Aluminum vs SS, LH2 vs Methane, Design for performance vs design for cost. Expendable vs reusable, Retro and ullage rockets vs hot staging, govt contract vs commercial,
 
TheKutKu said:
It's perfectly fine to have a "hardware rich" development with lots of failures, this is partially how SpaceX came to this point, but they used to do it in safe places and azimuths, Kwajalein, the middle of the atlantic, SpaceX's own land in boca chica, it's different when your rocket overflies millions and redirects many flights and grounds several airports in a failure.
Click to expand...
It doesn't fly over"millions". The trajectory is chosen to minimize overflight of population,

TheKutKu said:
IMO they really need to look into alternate trajectories that don't rain debris over the carribean until they can prove the "ascent" part of Starship v2 I don't know ,maybe a very lofted one, like those ICBM test, that has no chance of crashing anywhere except the Gulf of Mexico (or of america :p), or a very large dogleg, just do that for the next flight or two until they can prove that the Starship v2 won't explode 8 minutes into the launch and rain debris over cars. Then they can proceed to further testing.
Click to expand...
Lofted doesn't work
 
The Space Bucket has just uploaded a video concerning IFT-8's rather explosive test-flight:


Following a host of upgrades both to the booster and especially the upper stage, this afternoon SpaceX launched Starship for the eighth time and again it was eventful. This time around we saw the third booster catch followed not long after by the loss of the upper stage.
Click to expand...
Similar to the last flight, this occurred near the end of Starship's upper stage burn. This time, however, we got live views of some of the Raptors cutting out, causing the ship to go into an uncontrolled spin.
Click to expand...
Credit:
SpaceX - / spacex
Alex Oha - https://x.com/oha_alex
GeneDoctor - https://x.com/GeneDoctorB
Click to expand...
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom