[SpaceX](http://Space X Launch)
I think you meant this link:
Now my question. Has it launched? I saw that they were watching the weather earlier today.
1 Like
Just scrubbed due to weather. Next try on 5/30.
2 Likes
I watched for a while on NASA TV after the scrub and I was quite interested in the timing precision requirements for the Falcon 9. Their launch window is much tighter than on other launch vehicles because of time limits on heating up of the cryogenics with their particular fueling/oxidizer strategy. Hitting the ISS right is hard enough since you have to launch as it passes over and basically catch it on the way by, but the warming issue and tighter than historical window made me wonder how many scrubs they’ll experience because of the smaller window.
4 Likes
Just brings back so many memories of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo.
Fascinating mathematics and engineering
1 Like
Anyone catch the Starship launch this morning. Missed it by 15 minutes, but I think the objective was met (launch, get past MaxQ). I saw not all engines fired (30+ which is the most ever at once - 16M pounds of thrust vs. 9M pounds of thrust for Saturn rocket). I read it was supposed to detach (no plan for return landing) but didn’t so it exploded, perhaps from a self-destruct protocol. Any other details? Insights? Sounds like the reduction in cost to take heavy payloads (Starship could take almost the whole ISS up at once) is a game-changer - as long as they can get it up there and not explode, but progress is step by step.
1 Like
I watched the video just after on Spaceflightnow.com. I think those “success criteria” are ridiculously weak. Their announcement that it experienced an, “unexpected rapid disassembly,” is asinine.
What I saw was that there were at least 4 engines out fairly early in FS flight. That’s not necessarily bad as their design plans for a lot of redundancy. But it also looked to me like some of those failures happened after liftoff. You can see flares or sparks periodically, and I’m suspecting those are when those engines failed.
Failure to stage cannot be just written off as a small deal. It’s an f-ing huge deal. They had a live shot of the engine bells of the SS that clearly was intended to show them ignite after staging, yet it hadn’t staged and it didn’t fire up. Probably an interlock on the SS ignition software, but I I don’t know that.
The vehicle tumbled out of control for quite a while before it blew up. That’s a big deal, too. There’s no way the autodestruct should have allowed for two or three backflips before destroying the vehicle. From a range safety standpoint that’s simply unacceptable. Even the SpaceX commentators during the launch couldn’t say whether there was an autonomous destruct or they had to have someone push the button. If it was manually done in my opinion they were sure lax in getting around to it.
Several minutes after launch, maybe five or so and well after the vehicle was destroyed, they had a benign shot of the launch tower, and out of the blue there were suddenly two puffs of smoke and then a fire started on the ground. They’ve obviously got an issue there too.
They may want to pretend life is rosy, but from my perspective they’re putting lipstick on a pig, and they plan for that when they say the only flight objectives are to clear the tower and get through Max Q. Obviously no SS objectives were met. It never functioned. SpaceX does some amazing stuff, but their PR is childish.
5 Likes
Watched the video. The second stage was visibly leaking propellant at about T +0:10. It was the same problem noted for the launch scrub a week ago.
Guess they figured actually delaying further to actually fix the problem wasn’t worth the time and money.
Wish I had the money spent on that Roman Candle. We probably could have fed every homeless person in the US for a couple of years on what that cost. Instead…BOOM!
4 Likes
Feel free to ask questions.
I get accused of being a SpaceX hater sometimes. I’m not. They’ve accomplished some amazing things. The return to launch base booster thing on Falcon 9 is fantastic. They launch for much less than their competitors, although recently they lost an Air Force contract to my old employer on cost.
My personal issues with them are twofold. 1) Gwynne Shotwell, their President, flat out lied to me about how much they were paying to make large, graphite/epoxy structures for Falcon. The number she quoted wouldn’t even pay for the materials, let alone the manufacturing of it. If you don’t want to do business with us, fine, but be an adult about it. 2) They’ve been cheaper for NASA than the “traditional space” folks because they didn’t have to meet the same specifications that NASA inflicted on the rest of us. I once made this point sitting on a panel per NASA’s invite to discuss composite structures for use in human-rated launch systems. Not sure it went over too well with some NASA folks, but it’s true. The in-process testing requirements in NASA’s specs drove an insane amount of cost, and Space X as a “commercial supplier” wasn’t subject to those same specs. Either it’s a real need or it isn’t, but don’t tip the playing field as a result of being inconsistent. I blame a lot of this on a former NASA associate administrator, Lori Garver, who was a major Elon suck-up.
6 Likes
I am just glad we still have a “rocket” guy on the board now that Pangloss has passed.
5 Likes
My good friend Pangloss (RIP - I still miss him) just sent the bills that rocket guys like me racked up. 
8 Likes
When you are talking about price and contracts, my mind went immediately to him. Somebody has to get the contracts priced and the bills paid.
1 Like
In the late 1990s my job was to figure out which of six Titan IV solid rocket motor segments that were in what was dubbed, “The Sin Bin,” were actually flight worthy. (Two that had gotten water in them at a launch base and four suspected, well one suspected and three guilty by association, of having teflon tape contamination in the propellant.) On what seemed like nearly a daily basis as I left the building we were in to go to lunch there was this relentless woman in Contracts standing on the steps smoking asking me, “When are you going to get me some center segments so I can bill the shipset?” Worse yet, we’d add a few more to the Bin once in a while, so it was hard to empty it.
We’ll be married 20 years come October.
10 Likes
That was actually me that sent the bills. Pangloss made sure we didn’t miss any costs.
2 Likes
This is very true. People like to complain about the $1000 hammers. What many don’t realize is that you can’t just go down to Home Depot and buy a hammer. The hammer has to be made to the exact specs that the customer (NASA, DoD, etc) want, has to have compatible materials, has to be inspected, and has to have the manufacturing “book” that goes along with it.
3 Likes
After watching a Space Shuttle explode, and another burn up on reentry, requiring some specs on the tools and parts makes sense.
Yes, the Russians have killed more voyagers in space than anyone. We just don’t need to add to our total and make it a competition. Definitely not a #1 you want to have.
3 Likes
And then the specs change over and over as the project progresses. And each change adds to the cost 
2 Likes
About half way through my six year run on the Titan program, our customer had a guy pounding on us to tighten a spec that would have resulted in stacked and ready to fly rockets on both coasts being discrepant. Great thinking. We reasoned with his boss and he was overruled, but then gave us extra crap for months to get even, which, of course, we dutifully billed correctly to the government.
4 Likes
Sounds like your “center segment” met specs… ;-/
Total respect for all in the aerospace industry. I get super aggravated when people start spouting off about Apollo moon conspiracy shiz.
What’s “magic” is science.
I believe science can save or greatly improve our lives and the world we inhabit.
But I guess we’re all supposed to ignore science nowadays because some of us are too stupid, lazy or just don’t give a ■■■■about anything but their own confederacy of dunces.
5 Likes