12 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

A rapid unscheduled disassembly.....

This is approaching Monthy Python levels of deadpan delivery. 😜

 

I still think it was a giant firecracker! 🧨

 

1 hour ago, charliearon said:

I still think it was a giant firecracker! 🧨

The result when a $400 billion boy plays with fireworks 💥

42 minutes ago, Mike A said:

The result when a $400 billion boy plays with fireworks 💥

 

As I'm sure you know, it's far more profound than "playing". It's a company that provides employment for 2000 people, developing revolutionary technology that makes modern societies vital access to space cheaper, cleaner and fully reusable. 

4 hours ago, charliearon said:

Besides the Rocky Jones Space Ranger landings, I was wondering if this "hot separation" between booster and payload caused the booster to explode and also damaged the payload starship?

I think the hot-staging worked as intended. (but we'll see)

The problems with the booster seemed to appear after it flipped around for the boost-back burn. One, or more of its engines didn't re-ignite. To give an idea of how complicated this stuff is......if you look at the replay of the hot-staging, you'll see that the booster engines shut down in groups of five, rather than all at once. One of the reasons for this is the rapid pressure change from propellant suddenly stopping in the feed lines (at engine shutdown) can actually damage the plumbing. Shutting down all at once could destroy the rocket's innards.

Couple that with the G-forces involved in rotating the booster around, possibly pushing propellant in the tanks away from the feed lines, and you get a fairly long list of scenarios that could lead to the booster disassembling itself.

I don't envy the engineers who have to figure this stuff out. It's part science, part magic, part miracle when it all goes well, and orders of magnitude more difficult to do it routinely like they are with Falcon 9 / Heavy.

 

DB

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

As I'm sure you know, it's far more profound than "playing". It's a company that provides employment for 2000 people, developing revolutionary technology that makes modern societies vital access to space cheaper, cleaner and fully reusable.

No jokes about Elon?  OK, let's get serious  Meanwhile, back on planet earth

And so much poverty on "this" planet due to 1st world greed...Musk is from a 3rd world country. What a sly and mischevious person.

7 hours ago, Mike A said:

No jokes about Elon?  OK, let's get serious  Meanwhile, back on planet earth

 

No, lets not "get serious" 

Everyone knows that Musk does questionable things and laudable things like yesterday's launch. But by posting the link, you have perhaps demonstrated that your joke wasn't a joke at all.

His opinion that you have just linked to, whether you and me agree with it or not, is absolutely nothing to do with yesterday's laudable technological endeavour and would be defined as a controversial topic that would get this interesting thread locked. It will no doubt also encourage other Musk haters to join in. (Like the one above)

I'd rather the topic wasn't locked, if you don't mind, so perhaps you should start a separate topic of your own about why Musk is a bad person. Who knows, it might last a while before being locked. 😏

Edited November 19, 20232 yr by martin-w

Whatever people think of Elon Musk, it has to be said that SpaceX has almost single handedly reignited that feeling of "the right stuff" that the space industry has needed for a very long time. If I get to see humans setting foot on Mars in my lifetime, it will almost certainly be because of SpaceX.

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

rather the topic wasn't locked, if you don't mind, so perhaps you should start a separate topic of your own about why Musk is a bad person. Who knows, it might last a while before being locked. 😏

OK, we’ll agree to disagree. 

5 hours ago, Mike A said:

OK, we’ll agree to disagree. 

 

Well hopefully we both agree not to get the topic locked. 

Musk commented that Stage 0 is in excellent condition and no refurbishment required to the water deluge system for next flight.

Could be as soon as January for next flight. Cadence is important now to meet NASA's timeline. 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Musk commented that Stage 0 is in excellent condition and no refurbishment required to the water deluge system for next flight.

Could be as soon as January for next flight. Cadence is important now to meet NASA's timeline. 

That's great to hear....though I do recall seeing a massive dent in one of the tanks in the tank farm. Could just be cosmetic, but either way, it's a massive improvement over the last launch.

I think NASA's timeline is a bit ambitious, or at least it's a bit naive to think they can meet it. Everything always takes longer than you think.

 

DB

10 hours ago, DaviiB said:

 

I think NASA's timeline is a bit ambitious, or at least it's a bit naive to think they can meet it. Everything always takes longer than you think.

 

Yes, I agree Dave. 2025 is supposed to be the crewed landing. Although they do say "no earlier than". 2025 would be very optimistic.

I don't think SpaceX are that bothered about dented tanks as long as the tanks are structurally sound. Many of the dents were left in the tanks after the first launch. I've not seen the dent you refer to though. 

On 11/20/2023 at 6:12 AM, martin-w said:

 

I don't think SpaceX are that bothered about dented tanks as long as the tanks are structurally sound. Many of the dents were left in the tanks after the first launch. I've not seen the dent you refer to though. 

Maybe what I saw was left over from the last launch then. Either way, it'll be cool to see them pick up the launch cadence.

Long way to go still. She (Ship 25) shed a bunch of heat-shield tiles on the way up.

That implies that the next set of fireworks may be in the skies near Hawaii after the next launch.

DB