/sci/ - Science & Math

>stretching the rocket instead of making it wider

Starship de geso

interesting that they’ve started showing off Boca Chica in the F9 webcasts

>>11479370
Aerodynamics.

Reminder to exercise every day. Feel the burn. Improve. Reach your potential.

So-o, what went wrong on the first attempt?
Faulty sensor or was there an actual problem?

>>11479475
It stayed vertical so probably something sensor related

>>11479416
Aerodynamics is irrelevant in a rocket

>>11479512
Worse than a flat earth bait post

>>11479263
It‘s... beautiful...

T-60

>>11479370
can't make it wider, Falcon 9 is as big as it can get and still be easily transportable by road

>>11479263
do you have B1048.0 and also all the rest just give them all to me

ah, yes
of course
everything makes sense now, thank you SpaceX for this wonderful graphic

>>11479475
Something to do with engine power. If I'm not mistaken later someone wrote in /sfg/ that thrust was too high.
Also curious what they determined to be the cause.

>>11479826
nobody fucking knows
big mystery

WE HAVE WUBS

wub wub wub

No further info what caused the out of family engine readings?

>>11479857
nope

Has there ever been an instance where a static fire led to the discovery of an anomaly and they had to delay the launch?

New Glenn is almost 100m long? I had no idea it's that big.

>>11479881
based

>>11479253
https://discord.gg/VbZw6HE

>no live feed of the fairings being caught
Why does no one care about the fairings, damnit.

>>11479886

I've never seen the exhaust duct on the MVac actually catch solid oxygen before, look at it jump around

>>11479253
>wake up right in time for live because I had to take a shit
neat

>shutting down cameras because it was wobbling a bit
laaame

>>11479895
I left the window open in the countdown overnight and fucking youtube didn't autoplay. I woke up, grabbed the laptop, saw that, clicked play, and it was T-8. That's why launch cat was a bit slow this morning.

>that piece of debris a few seconds before entry burn

>that roll

I bet 100$ on F

Is it kill?

wtf no landing feed

how haven't they figured this out by now; faggots

> they lost an other

oxygen ice on the exhaust duck?

an another losted

RIP 1st stage.

>>11479918
who cares about that, look at the fucking space jelly that passed the camera just before the entry burn.

also F for booster.

so did they cut the feed or lose the signal, fucking no fun faggots if they purposefully didn't let us watch

1st stage confirmed kill

>>11479927
I think the former. The readings were likely showing that it's not going to make it.

>>11479927
it was wobbly, maybe they lost signal

More like WORST stage

>another booster lost
wtf i thought the landings were supposed to be "boring" now

>>11479938
These are old boosters, so 5th time landing. So its probably something breaking.

>>11479938
With no video feed they kinda are. Just one drone, Elon, seriously.

>>11479938
They are boring, which is why SpaceX doesn't really care to try anymore.

>>11479942
I thought they were supposed to be airplane levels of reusable, elon

SpaceX statement says that COVID-19 was eating away at the booster. More information to follow.

Is it in any way possible to recover the second stage without it being prohibitively expensive?

>>11479938
They seem to be bored, though. Notice the half-hearted applause. It's routine by now.

>>11479949
airplane level is a goal and an unachievable one for Falcon 9
that's what Starship is for

>>11479942
I thought the last one died because their weather data was off and it simply missed as a result.

>>11479949
I thought falcon 9 was just supposed to be 10 times

>>11479958
looks like it's hard :(

>>11479951
>Notice the half-hearted applause.
could be because of the coronavirus situation

(all the more reason to leave this gay planet as soon as possible though)

>>11479949
Learning curve. Once they figure out what is going on, they might fix it. Or they might have Starship running before and not want to spend any more resources on F9. If the fix is simple/cheap/easy, then it could be pushed further until something else breaks. Otherwise, they wont devote too much time.

>>11479963
Landing is hard. They're still the ONLY company to land an working rocket.

>>11479985
only company to land an orbital booster, anon
plenty of people have landed rockets

>>11479987
Only WORKING rocket. Everyone else had tried but failed, had concepts, were testing, isn't put to work, etc.

No other company has one.

>>11479984
this is why I'm worried that they haven't even started on SH yet. How is what they learned on F9 useful when they can't even get it to double digit reusability?

>>11480009
Material cost constraints. F9 design is costly(in comparison to internal Starship). What they want to improve cannot be improved simply because it would risk their other launches. Any major changes take time/expenses; due to the mature state of the vehicle, their customers would have to take input into accepting more risk for a more than good enough rocket.

In short, what they learn from F9 isn't all what is shown on F9.

>>11479984
my theory is that these old boosters will be super expensive to get rid of when starship comes online, so they are purposely dumping these older ones in the ocean for free.

>>11480009
Can starship reach Orbit without SH.?

>>11480019
For demo/test? Probably. For actual payload? No.

>>11480015
>their customers would have to take input into accepting more risk for a more than good enough rocket.
the only thing they seem to be launching these days is starlink and apparently they have a huge backlog of satellites. IMO it's a mistake to tunnel vision so hard on starship without even reaching your most modest goal of reusability with F9

>>11480009
>>11480021
not with 3 sea level engines it cant.
I'm fairly certain the mass of starship is millions of pounds more than the thrust of 3 engines.

>>11480018
>Hey, technology museums around the world, you want a used falcon 9 to put in your display?
>Fuck yeah, well even pay for transport.

Bitchin falcon9 booster with reentry burnmarks, coming to a museum near you.

>>11480023
SX team will still work on F9 as best they can in their allotted time/money. Since they don't have unlimited resources, devoting more time to F9 = taking resources from Starship. If SX is making a mistake by not devoting their time on polishing F9 design goals, then doing the same for Starship would be an "order of magnitude"(tm) more mistake. Its an either or situation. F9 is an adult who needs some fixes here/there but Starship is their baby now. SX needs to devote all their time/resources on Starship if they want their company to stay alive for next gen rocket race.

An issue during ascent like this is a lot worse for SpaceX than one during landing because it’s going to draw the scrutiny of NASA, delaying DM-2.

Another failure and this time with actual risk of mission failure.

This is why nobody takes landing rockets seriously it is utterly pointless and counterproductive strategy.

How long can spacex last with such financial losses? Surely, the united states is not willing to subsidize them indefinitely just to poorly spite us?

>>11480070
bait

>>11479951
>Is it in any way possible to recover the second stage without it being prohibitively expensive?
Yes, design a new rocket. Like they're doing in Boca Chica right now.
>>11480009
>they haven't even started on SH yet
It'll literally be just combining what they know from F9 and SS. Until they get SS working, there's no point in starting on SH.

>>11480088
>hand waving literally anything part of building a LV of that size

>>11480096
This.
Even if a miracle happens and they build the much smaller 'starship' the booster will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Immensely huge and complicated and rushed a total recipe for disaster.

The engine failure easily translates to crew dragon delays.

How long?

>>11480116
Not enough for Boeing to get the flag.

>>11480119
Aren't you underestimating some people's willingness to take safety seriously and their talents at investigation?

>>11480116
Probably, even though that engine-out capability is exactly why F9 is one of the few rockets that deserves to be human-rated.
And NASA prefers fresh rockets anyhow, not five-timers.

>>11480052
>>11480116
Corona was gonna delay it anyways

>>11480070
They said on the stream this was the first two they did only one ignition burn or something rather than 2. Surely the problem was likely a cause of that experiment and not a factor for a 2 butn Dragon launch.

>>11480070
Only Boeing can deliver a truly safe and sound rocket. Upstarts like SpaceX are a risk to our national security. We should defund them and put our money on a well established company. At the rate of failure SpaceX is experiencing, frankly we need to nationalize them and break up the company for the sake of the future of our country.

>>11479989
New Shepard is launching payloads
very slowly, but New Shepard is launching payloads

the DC-X was successful employed in the business of grant farming

>>11480232
>the DC-X was successful employed in the business of grant farming

>DescriptionThe DC-X, short for Delta Clipper or Delta Clipper Experimental, was an uncrewed prototype of a reusable single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle

The DC-X was never designed to make money, it was purely a test bed for an envisaged future SSTO. It’s not comparable to an operational launch vehicle like New Shepard.

>>11480232
>>11480247
DC-X became New Shepherd. Many of the engineers for DC-X went to BlueOrigin. You can tell by looking at the way the rockets land. DC-X = hover landing. SpaceX = bruteforce/hoverslam.

>>11480247
the government gave them grant money for it
mission accomplished
then they got shut down
fission mailed
>>11480255
Yeah, the Chad Suicide Burn vs the Virgin Hover

>>11480247
>New Shepard
>operational
>just goes up and back down
It's not even an operational carnival ride without passengers.

>>11480263
New Shepard can be considered operational because it’s generated revenue by carrying payloads for customers.

>>11479370
You don't need to change the tooling or thrust structure or interstage if all you're doing is lengthening the tanks. Obviously at some point it makes more sense to to wider, but that point is when you are designing an entirely different rocket.

>>11480110
>Immensely huge
Smaller than a lot of things we've built from steel
>complicated
It's a steel tube with three domes and engines on the bottom, what's complicated

>>11480274
>>11480263
Who gives a shit about New Shepard, it is just a dinky rocket
I want to see New Glenn

Boats missed the fairings too

>>11480304
>I want to see New Glenn

Here

R.I.P.

I guess this thread is the makeshift /sfg/ for now?

>>11480332
Yeah

>>11480297
>just go up and to the right, what's so complicated about rocket science?

>>11480360
Quick someone link the previous thread so we continue the unbroken connection

>>11480362
Yes.

>>11480323
thanks, Google
you really helped me out here

>>11480373
>>11480323
figured it out
Alfred M. Worden, Apollo 15 CMP
RIP

>>11480362
Rocketry shouldn't be complicated.

here's your sfg thread
>>11480402

>>11480291
If they are at this point, with nothing close to a finished rocket, enlarging the design to meet payload numbers, then they should damn well be looking to increase width leaving room for the stretch later

>>11480460
You talking about Falcon 9 or Starship?

It makes sense to stretch the rocket to accommodate improvements in engine performance; Stronger engine per unit basal area lets you lift a taller column of rocket and propellant and payload. If your engines aren't changing but you want more payload, wider is better. Since Raptor is still under development, it could have got a decent bit stronger than it was when the shorter Starship design was base-lined. Stretching it would make sense in that case, more sense than making it wider.

>>11480483
they've still got plenty of room to make the rocket taller, the T/W right now is something stupid like nearly 2

>>11480460
As stated earlier in this thread, due to the way SpaceX transports it's Falcon 9s, making them wider isn't possible.

>>11480031
Yes, please give working locket. We put it in museum, no take apalt!

>>11480485
Starship TWR needs to be high to increase the overall efficiency. It's a different design paradigm when you're optimizing for first stage RTLS re-use versus expendable performance.

>>11480488
well ofcourse they wont give it to the batsoup people.

>>11480487
>>11480483
We are talking starship here which recently got lengthened on paper

>>11480379
>>11480373
Can you not read a name badge and mission patch?

>>11480495
Salam aleikum, effendi! We would greatly appreciate if this recent exhibit you received could be available for study. Discretely, of course. Do you want to have our appreciation in dollars, drugs, weapons or (cheap) oil?

>>11480519
Not him, but at first it looked like "Apollo 18", and I knew that was wrong.