I did, you are the one that derailed it by throwing in something else, which I then answered. Then claiming demanding over and over that was not in the original post. Even though the original post was about the explosion, you are the one that tried to claim they did not take government money which I then busted by proving that they did. You then over and over screamed it was not in the OP, even though nothing in the topic or first post says a damned thing about them taking government money. In essence, you seem pissed and are doing your best to simply spin anywhere other than the truth.
Especially as it is essentially a rehash of a failed design from over 5 decades ago. But at least the Soviets were able to not destroy their own launch complex with a simple liftoff (that did happen however when one crashed back to earth and created one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history).
Actually, the likely best would be what the US did with Apollo. One advantage of the Saturn V, is that they overengineered the hell out of it, and it only relied upon 5 engines. That is a huge reduction of potential points of failure than relying upon 36 engines. And now the most powerful and second most powerful rockets ever tested have the same things in common. Overly complex designs that relied upon everything working perfectly, and the fact that both failed spectacularly. And for what seems to be the same reason. They did not work perfectly, and failed. Yet we have also seen the Saturn V not perform perfectly and still fulfill the mission. Because it had less parts prone to failure, when there was a failure it was easier to recover from it, and even the failures ended with success. None of these overly complex rockets have yet to even leave the atmosphere. It is 0 for 5, and to be honest I can't see it improving much. And I wonder how long it will be until the next launch, considering they destroyed their launch complex.
NASA was in the rocket design and construction business only because no corporation could make the required investment. That's changed. Today there are valid competitors. Federal funding is still required for some objectives. When congress orders NASA to send humans to the Moon, that absolutely does require massive federal funding, as there isn't a market for that kind of travel. The novel means of propulsion have been focused on travel after having left the majority of Earth's gravity or on ultralight vehicles - such as some number of grams of light sail. Any prospective improvement in how to get to orbit would be WILDLY exciting to private enterprise.
My Dad told me years ago that NASA lost the plans for the Saturn V in a fire, and we basically lost that technology.
Seems unlikely, but reengineering a Saturn V replacement rocket from scratch would not likely be exceedingly difficult these days.
The SpaceX Starship first stage is TWICE as powerful as a Saturn V. Engineers determined that multiple engines were a superior choice for this new first stage lifting capability. A similar decision was made for the SLS, which uses 4 engines plus 2 solid fuel rockets. The fact that not all first stage engines were functioning would not have prevented Starship from reaching orbit. So, your argument about Saturn V is also evident in the FAR more powerful Starship. I've heard no indication that the failure point had to do with the first stage rocket motors. Have you?
Not likely, as NASA did not even build it. It was a program that involved dozens of lesser companies and several main ones. For example, the F-1 Engines were designed and built by Rocketdyne. Which after several changes in ownership it is now Aerojet Rocketdyne. And it is likely that in the near future they will be owned by L3Harriss. In fact, the intent of the SLS (Space Launch System) Orion that NASA designed was to reuse Rocketdyne RS-25D engines left over from the Shuttle program. And when those are all expended, they already have a design for an improved RD-25E that will be made to replace them. Orion uses 4 RS-25 engines, and everybody should be aware that their first test last year was a success.
Darn! I worked for Harris before and just after it was bought by L-3. Looks like I should have stayed! Sounds like they're doing well.
It will be great to see how well they do! I'm excited about SpaceX performance, too. Russia is sucking fumes. And, the US has dramatically cut the cost of delivering payloads, including astronauts, to space. I think the real killer for Russia is that SpaceX boosters are being used as much as 15 times over, while Russia dumps it all in the ocean on every launch. Some US companies are at least detaching their rocket motors and salvaging them from the ocean!
Here's Scott Manley with ideas on what happened! He points to the absolute crushing of the launch pad as possibly damaging the rocket. He shows high def closeups of the damage to "stage 0" and surrounding structures, such as the tank farm. The closeups of the launch pad are amazing - those rockets basically eliminated the launch pad, turning it into dust and high speed projectiles. In his estimation this was a first stage failure, with the ship probably damaged before clearing the launch system, resulting in reduction of speed and control. He mentioned that one of the aspects of this test was to gauge what might be necessary in landing or taking off from the Moon or Mars where there will probably be none of the standard force deflectors under the rockets used in the return voyage. The moon has less gravity, but ... Engineers have estimated that a moon landing of such a craft will send lunar regolith into lunar orbit. There have been ideas such as dropping material that will stabilize the landing zone?!?! Landing a ship such as Starship on the moon? Hmmm.
Your OP says the mission was a complete failure. The gist of the OP is NASA wasted $1B. No link to show anything about NASA funding in the OP. According to the company, SpaceX, based on their minimum success requirements, it was a success. And since most of SpaceX funding is private, it's their money to burn. I am certain the company running said test knows far far more about the success or failure of a test than anonymous internet posters.
Which test resulted in a destroyed launch complex? Seems it wasn't the SpaceX Starship test. Manned missions to the moon, so stupid. What, to play golf again? Gather some rocks? What they should be doing is designing an asteroid defense system. Also arguably a waste of money, but the miniscule potential for a successful beneficial outcome is way better than any possibility of sustaining humans living anywhere other than Earth with present technology. No amount of improvement in combustion based rocket systems leads in the direction of the tech needed to allow humans to sustainably live off world. But, asteroid busters would be way more fun, wouldn't they!? Target the next near flyby for a test! Put a 1Mt warhead on it! Exciting!!!
That was the same pad that had survived the last firing of all booster rocket motors. That test wasn't a full power test, but it is claimed to have been a major test firing, and the launch platform sustained no damage. SpaceX has a fleet of these starship boosters that Musk says need to be fired - boosters more sophisticated than the one in this test. He says they took a chance on the pad in part because they needed this one to be launched to make way for others. This rocket is just stupendously powerful - like no other rocket created so far. --- I agree with you on the whole "spacemen" direction. We're seeing rapidly increasing sophistication of robots that can explore our solar system for a small fraction of the price and go places that humans simply can not go. Human space flight is FABULOUSLY expensive and not oriented to science/discovery. We could be exploring the universe with the money spent by NASA on Moonmen. We've got the care and feeding of the ISS solved. We can do experiments in essentially zero gravity and vacuum of space. We don't need Starship or SLS for that. This rocket will do nothing for the safety of Earth, as you point out. Also, it can't catch asteroids that come here from outside the solar system. Let's remember that NASA doesn't even have a choice in this. It is federal LAW that NASA send humans to the moon. NASA is NOT making decisions based on science or exploration or protection. They are fulfilling the wishes of congressmen, with a budget that is clearly inadequate - thus limiting science.
Wow really? You posted a video to a completely different launch, then say I was wrong? Yes, I am talking about this launch. Have you not watched any of the videos of the extensive damage?
No, that is YOUR spin. But it was indeed over $1 billion of taxpayer dollars invested in this (something you state over did not happen). YOu keep spinning in circles, completely ignoring that a huge chunk of this was paid for by the government. And you do not actually discuss the failure, you just spin and spin incircles flinging poo and trying to deflect.
It was a TEST! SpaceX has ALWAYS had tests that were not expected to be successful. The whole issue of the pad (stage 0) is part of that test. Remember that they plan to land on the moon, with NO pad and then launch from there with NO pad. Stage 0 had been tested by all engines running on something less than max thrust, and the pad did just fine, so it isn't crazy that Musk decided to launch. And, your claims of budget are for a successful program. Remember that SpaceX has blown up other pieces of this solution in tests that clearly would not have ended without catastrophic damage. What makes you hate SpaceX? I don't get it. Are you like me, not actually wanting a manned moon landing? Or what?
Oooof, well, got that completely wrong didn’t I? Hahaha, man, what a disaster. SpaceX just wingin it. Didn’t even bother to hit pause when I’m sure some of it’s folks had concerns about the launch facility.
That's cool, we all make mistakes. Other than me. I thought I made a mistake once, but I was mistaken. I have to admit, I am shaking my head at this. I see a PR disaster where it seems like they take it all as a joke. The dismissal of things that even the Soviets were doing five decades ago when it comes to launch complexes and just playing it by ear at every single step. And I do look at these things closely. I saw the images that show engines were clearly out and their telemetry confirms that. But none of the steps that should have been taken to correct that. Such as shutting down the engines on the opposite side so the craft will not be unbalanced. Then the question, if that step was even taken could it have achieved orbit with at least 12 of the 36 engines shut off? But the destruction of the launch complex bothers me just as much. As it shows they are not really looking at things as professionals should, but like a bunch of amateurs playing with toys. Even the West Virginia "Rocket Boys" took significant safety steps to isolate their launches from other things that could possibly be damaged. Yet they had no deflector, no water canons, they just put this on a concrete stand with a concrete base and hoped it would be enough. And the more shots I see of this, the more I am bothered by it. One can see the engines coming on and off as it is in flight, and in a video I recently saw for the first time one can even see flames escaping from the sides moments before the explosion. And apparently the capsule part was to separate but it failed to do so. This is something else I would like to know about. Were they that unaware at the time it was in trouble so never tried to jettison and recover it, or did they try to jettison it and fail? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Xl1j2en8Gjs At least in 1986 when we lost Challenger NASA took it very seriously and released information as quickly as they could and did nothing to hide the fact that they screwed the pooch big time. Elron Musk and company all seem to be taking it like this is nothing but a joke.
The SpaceX version of corporate PR is catchy. Hopefully, internally they are much more serious about it. I don’t really follow this kinda stuff very much at all though, so I thought that NPR video had to be correct, but SpaceX has apparently coined the term “unplanned disassembly” on previous occasions.
And remember, Elron Musk is a real fanboi of 1980s pop culture. He launched a car into space in recreation of a 1981 movie, and the phrase used here is almost a copy of an iconic line from a 1986 movie. And many are likely not aware that he has placed Spaceballs references into his cars, and saying that the Mel Brooks movie taught him all he needed to know about business.
The Model S Spaceballs Plaid. It’s a wicked wicked great zoom zoom machine. Elon, well, ****ing Amber Heard in Johnny Depp’s Penthouse, meh, low class even for a nerd commander like Musk.
