Belly-flop Successful

I totally missed this, super cool:

Watch SpaceX Starship SN10 launch and stick landing



Edit: I doubly missed this because apparently the bloody thing exploded a few minutes after successfully landing:



Well, at least they landed the thing this time.

It was a really impressive thing they did just to get it to actually land this time. Although it had a Leaning Tower of Pisa vibe, and I had a feeling they were in trouble when the fire broke out at the base shortly after it touched down. Still a big step forward though.

It was super impressive to see it stick the landing after the other 2 crashed spectacularly. Apparently, one of the legs failed, hence the "pisa" and "A leak in a propellant tank may have caused the explosion."

Hmm. I wonder if there were people on board this test whether they would agree with your assessment of 'success'?

Hmm. I wonder if there were people on board this test whether they would agree with your assessment of 'success'?

There weren't people on board, you know, being a test and all. And yes, it was a success, in part. They actually landed the behemoth this time as opposed to the last two. The not success part was the explosion that took place minutes later. My guess is that they will figure out why it listed after landing and why it exploded, correct that stuff and 11 will land like yesterday and not explode like yesterday.

Hmm. I wonder if there were people on board this test whether they would agree with your assessment of 'success'?

You wonder if, had the circumstances been different, the reaction to it would be different?
The answer is yes, because the thing you describe would have a very different goal than the thing they were actually doing.

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2021, 10:49:39 AM

Hmm. I wonder if there were people on board this test whether they would agree with your assessment of 'success'?

You wonder if, had the circumstances been different, the reaction to it would be different?
The answer is yes, because the thing you describe would have a very different goal than the thing they were actually doing.

Well the spin is interesting because even the first failure was deemed a 'success'. I mean, the next test it could blow up 1 second later and it would still be spun as being more successful than the last

But in each of these tests, the result is the same. You'd never want to be on the damned thing unless you wanted a horrific fiery death. Personally, I don't hold much stock that they'll get it right to a point that traveling on these things wont be a huge gamble with your life

They would be better off designing something that can crash into the ocean, not explode and recycle the materials to build again. If they want something that can land with a better chance of success, then design it like the shuttle and less like a penis

Quote from: boydster on March 04, 2021, 11:36:17 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2021, 10:49:39 AM

Hmm. I wonder if there were people on board this test whether they would agree with your assessment of 'success'?

You wonder if, had the circumstances been different, the reaction to it would be different?
The answer is yes, because the thing you describe would have a very different goal than the thing they were actually doing.

Well the spin is interesting because even the first failure was deemed a 'success'. I mean, the next test it could blow up 1 second later and it would still be spun as being more successful than the last

But in each of these tests, the result is the same. You'd never want to be on the damned thing unless you wanted a horrific fiery death. Personally, I don't hold much stock that they'll get it right to a point that traveling on these things wont be a huge gamble with your life

They would be better off designing something that can crash into the ocean, not explode and recycle the materials to build again. If they want something that can land with a better chance of success, then design it like the shuttle and less like a penis

The whole point is reusability. And they have repeat landed those boosters a bunch of times. No one thought they could do that either after a bunch of explosions. Why do you think they can't figure out how to land that thing?

But in each of these tests, the result is the same. You'd never want to be on the damned thing unless you wanted a horrific fiery death. Personally, I don't hold much stock that they'll get it right to a point that traveling on these things wont be a huge gamble with your life

Which is why they keep testing unmanned versions until they get it right.  For SpaceX, failure (at least during early testing) is an option.  In fact, they take each failure as a learning opportunity.  That's why they're building so many Starship prototypes so quickly. As I understand it, they're already working on SN18.

Did the Wright brothers waste so many prototypes in unmanned testing? Or did they put their money where their mouth was and test them with themselves on board...

Maybe if Elon sat in the hot seat of his rockets, they might not fail as they would be doing their damndest to make it safe

I mean sure, you can argue the Wright brothers weren't sitting on top of hundreds of tonnes of highly flammable fuel but their lives were still in peril if there was any slight screw up.

Verticle landing is dumb anyway. A micro percent of weight imbalance, a gust of wind, a tad too fast etc and it's up in flames. Put landing gear on the side and let it land like a plane where there is far more margin for error.

Or maybe land it in a large tank of water and let the passengers scuba their way out. Or land it on a platform where a mechanism can 'grab' the fuselage to prevent it from leaning over to everyone's doom

I would bet my life Elon won't ever be a passenger on one of his rockets. Can't say I blame him either

Quote from: boydster on March 04, 2021, 11:36:17 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2021, 10:49:39 AM

Hmm. I wonder if there were people on board this test whether they would agree with your assessment of 'success'?

You wonder if, had the circumstances been different, the reaction to it would be different?
The answer is yes, because the thing you describe would have a very different goal than the thing they were actually doing.

Well the spin is interesting because even the first failure was deemed a 'success'. I mean, the next test it could blow up 1 second later and it would still be spun as being more successful than the last

But in each of these tests, the result is the same. You'd never want to be on the damned thing unless you wanted a horrific fiery death. Personally, I don't hold much stock that they'll get it right to a point that traveling on these things wont be a huge gamble with your life

They would be better off designing something that can crash into the ocean, not explode and recycle the materials to build again. If they want something that can land with a better chance of success, then design it like the shuttle and less like a penis

That's uhhh, why these are tests.

You know... to test it before putting people on it?

Do you not know how tests work? 

Did the Wright brothers waste so many prototypes in unmanned testing? Or did they put their money where their mouth was and test them with themselves on board...

What SpaceX is trying to do with Starship is just a teeny bit harder and only slightly more dangerous than what the Wright brothers were trying to do.

Did the Wright brothers waste so many prototypes in unmanned testing?

Yes, they did.

"The Wright brothers’ flight-testing program was a key to their success. Extensive trials of their gliders not only provided valuable performance data, which was folded back into the evolving design, but also helped Wilbur and Orville develop piloting skills.

Kiting the Glider
Before making free glides, the Wrights always tested their gliders by flying them as kites. Kiting provided valuable information on lift and drag, and enabled them to get a feel for the controls. The first year they built a tower with a rope-and-pulley suspension device to test the glider, but it didn’t prove useful and they soon returned to kiting."
https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright-brothers/online/fly/1900/testflying.cfm

Here's an image of an unmanned Wright Brothers glider (1900):



More from 1899:

"Flight Testing the Kite
Wilbur flew the kite at a nearby field in mid-summer. The only witnesses were a group of schoolboys, who were fascinated by the large, unusual-looking kite this adult in business attire was “toying” with."

Here's one destroyed by a gust of wind:

Here's one destroyed by a gust of wind:

Phew! I bet that was one ride they were glad they missed!

Then again, had they been on it, probably wouldn't have crashed given they could be in control and their extra weight may have made the impact of the wind less severe

Also kite designs are one thing, a powered air plane is another. How many unmanned powered aircraft did they remote control?

Elon should strap his arse to the pilot seat of the next rocket if he wants to be a pioneer

Quote from: Stash on March 04, 2021, 07:33:41 PM

Here's one destroyed by a gust of wind:

Phew! I bet that was one ride they were glad they missed!

Then again, had they been on it, probably wouldn't have crashed given they could be in control and their extra weight may have made the impact of the wind less severe

Also kite designs are one thing, a powered air plane is another. How many unmanned powered aircraft did they remote control?

None. But they did hundreds of unmanned kite tests. Then scaled up manned glider tests. Then built a wind tunnel to test the burlier design that would carry a pilot and motor. Then in 1903, 4 manned flights were achieved. The longest of which lasted less than a minute. First one, "For 12 seconds, the aircraft left the ground before touching down 120 feet away in the soft sands." Their altitude was about 10 feet (3.0 m) above the ground. And no maneuvering was attempted.

Don't get me wrong, I think Orville was brave to pilot the first one (he won a coin toss to do so). Call me crazy, but 10 feet of altitude and a tiny gas engine is a little different than a massive tube with no lift capable wings, three tremendous rockets with big tanks of highly volatile fuel, and rising 10km above the earth, performing a belly-flop and trying to land the thing gently all the way back down the 10 KM is wee bit different in scale, complexity and danger.

So he 'won' the coin toss. I wonder if at the time he felt he 'lost' given the unknown and risk

So this fandangled Space X rocket exploded thanks to a methane leak. Alright, even in failure we can learn something or it is a total waste.

Maybe next time not bottle the rocket up with too many cow farts?

Also how much fuel do they intend to keep left over for landing? It was a huge explosion. By the time that touches down it should be running on fumes

So he 'won' the coin toss. I wonder if at the time he felt he 'lost' given the unknown and risk

I think he was probably stoked to be the first pilot of a powered flight. They both were probably the most experienced pilots in the world at the time given the myriad manned test flights they did with the scaled up gliders after the kite testing phase. And 10 feet above the ground for like 120 feet touching down in "soft sand" (it's why they picked kitty hawk, wind and sand) seems like a semi-minimal risk versus the massive reward.

So this fandangled Space X rocket exploded thanks to a methane leak. Alright, even in failure we can learn something or it is a total waste.

Maybe next time not bottle the rocket up with too many cow farts?

That's one theory. No one knows what caused it. SpaceX isn't sayin'. And yes, even in failure you learn something. That's what testing is all about. At least they got it to land this time. An advancement over the last one that never recovered from the flop maneuver and spectacularly cratered into a fireball mess. So they fixed something between 9 & 10.

Also how much fuel do they intend to keep left over for landing? It was a huge explosion. By the time that touches down it should be running on fumes

I agree. It was quite the fireball when you would think for many aero reasons, weight, weight distribution, maneuvering, etc., they would have spent most of the fuel. Maybe residual fumes? I don't know enough about how rocket propellants work. I assume they will figure it out and we'll see what happens with 11.

Quote from: Shifter on March 06, 2021, 12:02:01 AM

Also how much fuel do they intend to keep left over for landing? It was a huge explosion. By the time that touches down it should be running on fumes

I agree. It was quite the fireball when you would think for many aero reasons, weight, weight distribution, maneuvering, etc., they would have spent most of the fuel. Maybe residual fumes? I don't know enough about how rocket propellants work. I assume they will figure it out and we'll see what happens with 11.

The size of the explosion made perfect sense to me.

They had to have enough fuel to lift the entire weight of the rocket, otherwise it couldn't hover.  So unless it literally ran out of fuel the second it landed, there is still enough to lift it is, so when it goes up at once, it lifts the rocket... just not gently.

Looks like they finally got one to not blow up.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-sn15-launch-landing-success

 

Look, we can't halt every project just because of the tiniest design flaw.  All Elon has to do is just lay it out to the passengers before they land.  They just need to calmly gather their luggage and run for the lives before the ship explodes.

He did successfully land it.  Whatever happened later is a separate situation.

Look, we can't halt every project just because of the tiniest design flaw. 

It seems that they fixed a number of those "tiniest design flaws".

He did successfully land it.

Was he at the controls? Is it actually him who builds and designs the rocket/ship and flies it? Or is he just the money man that throws money at egg heads but takes the credit for the accomplishments as if it's his own work...

When NASA does something, the boss of NASA doesn't take any credit as if he made it happen

But when SpaceX does something, Elon Musk is all over it....

Quote from: Crouton on May 07, 2021, 11:08:24 AM

He did successfully land it.

Was he at the controls? Is it actually him who builds and designs the rocket/ship and flies it? Or is he just the money man that throws money at egg heads but takes the credit for the accomplishments as if it's his own work...

When NASA does something, the boss of NASA doesn't take any credit as if he made it happen

But when SpaceX does something, Elon Musk is all over it....

So what? Why is that a problem?

Quote from: Shifter on May 08, 2021, 01:57:14 AM

Quote from: Crouton on May 07, 2021, 11:08:24 AM

He did successfully land it.

Was he at the controls? Is it actually him who builds and designs the rocket/ship and flies it? Or is he just the money man that throws money at egg heads but takes the credit for the accomplishments as if it's his own work...

When NASA does something, the boss of NASA doesn't take any credit as if he made it happen

But when SpaceX does something, Elon Musk is all over it....

So what? Why is that a problem?

Because his fame, how intelligent people think he is and endearment is not justified. And he's a prime example of someone who takes credit for other peoples hard work and dedication. Whatever accomplishments SpaceX makes, a team did it. Not Elon. Elon fronted the money and told them his idea what he wants done. The real brains, blood, sweat and tears that go on to make the rocket are entirely hands off from Elon.

Yet who's fugly mug gets on the news saying LOOK AT ME! I DID IT! YEAAAAHHHH!!!

Disgusting personality trait

Quote from: Stash on May 08, 2021, 02:02:58 AM

Quote from: Shifter on May 08, 2021, 01:57:14 AM

Quote from: Crouton on May 07, 2021, 11:08:24 AM

He did successfully land it.

Was he at the controls? Is it actually him who builds and designs the rocket/ship and flies it? Or is he just the money man that throws money at egg heads but takes the credit for the accomplishments as if it's his own work...

When NASA does something, the boss of NASA doesn't take any credit as if he made it happen

But when SpaceX does something, Elon Musk is all over it....

So what? Why is that a problem?

Because his fame, how intelligent people think he is and endearment is not justified. And he's a prime example of someone who takes credit for other peoples hard work and dedication. Whatever accomplishments SpaceX makes, a team did it. Not Elon. Elon fronted the money and told them his idea what he wants done. The real brains, blood, sweat and tears that go on to make the rocket are entirely hands off from Elon.

Yet who's fugly mug gets on the news saying LOOK AT ME! I DID IT! YEAAAAHHHH!!!

Disgusting personality trait

Ok. So what? He's a narcissist. Whatevs. I still don't see what the problem is. So be it. It's not like he's the first, or last, CEO to claim victory over his company's achievements as his brainchild. Why do you even care? They (his company) made something work that is still somewhat of a marvel regardless of whether it advances humanity. He and his team made something work that didn't a few weeks ago. Keep on keepin' on. No harm, n foul.

Quote from: Crouton on May 07, 2021, 11:08:24 AM

He did successfully land it.

Was he at the controls? Is it actually him who builds and designs the rocket/ship and flies it? Or is he just the money man that throws money at egg heads but takes the credit for the accomplishments as if it's his own work...

When NASA does something, the boss of NASA doesn't take any credit as if he made it happen

But when SpaceX does something, Elon Musk is all over it....

Where is he taking sole credit for anything?