SpaceX

NMaude said:
The Saturn 5 had no launch failures.
Click to expand...
They lost allot hardware during testing or trying manufacture them first
This was the S-IVB 503 stage destine for apollo 8 Saturn V

ER9_NdqWAAEcRt2.jpg
 
Michel Van said:
They lost allot hardware during testing or trying manufacture them first
Click to expand...

True but these were all ground failures which provided valuable lessons.

Michel Van said:
This was the S-IVB 503 stage destine for apollo 8 Saturn V
Click to expand...

IIRC that S-IVB stage explosion was the result of the catastrophic failure of one of the helium gas spherical storage tanks exploding due to a faulty weld resulting from the wrong filler material used for the weld (In other words a manufacturing defect due to someone's fuckup on the production-line).
 
NMaude said:
The Saturn 5 had no launch failures.
Click to expand...
Apollo 6 was a launch vehicle failure
Saturn V was not reusable.
Saturn V had 4 test units built per stage.
there was static firing test stands for each stage
a dynamic test stand was built for the whole vehicle.

spaceX uses a hardware rich flight test program
I bet 9 Starship flight test vehicles are cheaper
 
Cheap you say?

Which would you rather work on--a car engine, or the Sistine Chapel?

Might that be the difference between Falcon and Starship?

Since Byeman's pet hobby is verbally abusing anyone's attempt at brainstorming--I'll ask everyone else but him to answer this for-instance:

Which staging method presents a greater threat to engines of a second stage...a confined environment like Starship's Raptors face--or something more akin to asparagus staging as in ALS?
 
publiusr said:
Cheap you say?
Click to expand...
They are

publiusr said:
Which would you rather work on--a car engine, or the Sistine Chapel?

Might that be the difference between Falcon and Starship?
Click to expand...

not an accurate or relevant analogy.
Starship is not a work of art
publiusr said:
Since Byeman's pet hobby is verbally abusing anyone's attempt at brainstorming-
Click to expand...
Only when there is no brain involve or they are inane
Like Starship changing to parallel staging.
and repeating the same nonsense isn't going to help your case.

publiusr said:
Which staging method presents a greater threat to engines of a second stage...a confined environment like Starship's Raptors face--or something more akin to asparagus staging as in ALS?
Click to expand...
Not relevant. ALS still had serial staging for an upper stage.
And parallel staging makes the vehicle structure more complex.
A new interstage was revealed Monday
 

Attachments

  • 501448188_1316011153858252_3092821001674993414_n.jpg
    501448188_1316011153858252_3092821001674993414_n.jpg
    145.1 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
Apollo 6 had problems during its' flight but it wasn't a failure as it still yield useful data so it was as a qualified success (Apollo 8 was originally supposed to have been the third and final unmanned Saturn 5 test-flight before becoming the first manned Saturn 5 flight).
 
NMaude said:
Apollo 6 had problems during its' flight but it wasn't a failure as it still yield useful data so it was as a qualified success (Apollo 8 was originally supposed to have been the third and final unmanned Saturn 5 test-flight before becoming the first manned Saturn 5 flight).
Click to expand...
SA-502 was a failure, plain and simple. It would have aborted if there was crew onboard and the third stage failed to restart so the vehicle didn't complete its task. Only because the CSM had excess propellant, the "mission" could continue and achieve most of the objectives.
 
SpaceX is under no such scrutiny by Pentagon budget hawks, even as it becomes integral to US Defense agencies. Judging by Musk's own metrics — not just reaching Mars, but building a million-person colony by 2044 — the private company is lagging way behind its childlike ambitions.

In the meantime, it's burning through about $1.5 billion a year on the joint Starbase and Starship program alone, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Though SpaceX is currently profitable thanks almost entirely to Starlink, a subscription-based satellite internet service, the company's future hinges on Starship. Without a viable Starship, the company's $1.6 billion in outstanding debtwill only grow as the launch debris piles up.

When that happens, the Pentagon's contracts will likely ensure that SpaceX is too big to fail — great news for Musk, bad news for US taxpayers, and a curious contradiction in a supposedly free-market system.
Click to expand...

futurism.com

If NASA Had Blown Up This Many Rockets, The Government Would Have Cancelled the Space Program

NASA was not allowed to fail in the same ways that SpaceX is, but that doesn't mean the US government isn't funding both.
futurism.com futurism.com
 
Flyaway said:
futurism.com

If NASA Had Blown Up This Many Rockets, The Government Would Have Cancelled the Space Program

NASA was not allowed to fail in the same ways that SpaceX is, but that doesn't mean the US government isn't funding both.
futurism.com futurism.com
Click to expand...
Comes off too much as narrative manipulation versus honest concern. Also, colonizing Mars is childlike? How arrogant. I used to read Futurism occasionally, but it’s gone downhill rapidly in the quality of its writing. Even the title is a blatant misunderstanding of reality - and I would bet that the author knows little about NASA’s numerous operational losses in the 50s and 60s, let alone more current failures. Reading the article, it’s completely unbalanced and only quotes people who hate SpaceX (anyone who references Will Lockett to support their claims should have their motives questioned). Definitely narrative manipulation, and nothing to be taken seriously, only rejected.
 
Last edited:
Flyaway said:
futurism.com

If NASA Had Blown Up This Many Rockets, The Government Would Have Cancelled the Space Program

NASA was not allowed to fail in the same ways that SpaceX is, but that doesn't mean the US government isn't funding both.
futurism.com futurism.com
Click to expand...
The legendary R&D on Atlas iCBM
the USAF not care if rocket explode during testing
So long as General Dynamics produce Atlas and modified them after every explosion
Until the ICBM was ready for Service

you could say the Atlas ICBM was first hardware rich flight test program in US
 
More from the space Bucket concerning the future of Spaceship and Mars exploration:


Just a few hours ago, SpaceX hosted a presentation on Starship and its role in future missions to Mars. Fortunately, it included quite a bit of new information, both on design upgrades for Super Heavy and Starship, but also future launch goals, Mars plans, and even renders.
Click to expand...
We also got more insight on the schedules the company is trying to hit with future Starship catch attempts and general launch progress.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/new-insigh...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...into-starships-upgrades-future/&v=mNuaAQIiIWU
Credit: SpaceX - / spacex https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceX
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:27 - Vehicle Changes
Click to expand...

As for SA-502 it was a qualified success but if it had been manned and the mission ended in a Mode-IC high-altitude abort then, yes, it would've been a failure.
 
Musk's Mars talk CGI was gorgeous and the whole project is bold and exciting.
Aiming for Mars, grounded in a septic tank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueAbyssal said:
Also, colonizing Mars is childlike? How arrogant. I used to read Futurism occasionally, but it’s gone downhill rapidly in the quality of its writing.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That piece was all about politics....even if Starship never flies again, SpaceX's Falcon will go down in history as perhaps the greatest rocket ever made. You have to give Musk props, however you may feel about his views. On balance, Elon has been more boon than bane.

I forget the internet handle of the guy that talked about triangles.

Oh—just in? Jared is on the way out.

I am going to be sick…
 
Last edited:
if your goal is concern trolling it’s a great article, but the author is not particularly honest, and assumes whatever he thinks will let him support his predetermined conclusion. His opening paragraphs about no outsiders having access to SpaceX’s financials undercut his entire argument.
 
Musk's problem is that he is destination-centric. China is more about technology development.

Falcon succeeds because it was built upon youthful enthusiasm. Starship fails because it was built on ideology.

Were I a demon capable of possessing humans--I'd give tween girls a break and possess Elon....and go to the HOTOL guys:

"I will never abandon you--your life and work have meaning...even if we can't make this work today, tomorrow..or ever---YOU are not expendable."

That would give the Reaction guys the same morale SpaceX gained with Falcon, but is losing to Starship.

Nations are to be run with laws not men--but aerospace makes leaps with men, not lay-offs.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Musk's problem is that he is destination-centric. China is more about technology development.

Falcon succeeds because it was built upon youthful enthusiasm. Starship fails because it was built on ideology.

Were I a demon capable of possessing humans--I'd give tween girls a break and possess Elon....and go to the HOTOL guys:
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Just a bunch of nonsense

Starship is not "destination-centric". The spacecraft is designed to transport both crew and cargo to a variety of destinations, including Earth orbit, the Moon, and Mars. It is a tanker, lander and launch vehicle.

Technology development? New tiles, TPS, Entry trajectories, Raptors, power systems, thrusters, space suits, etc.
Even though unseen at this point, life support systems, surface equipment, etc
publiusr said:
Falcon succeeds because it was built upon youthful enthusiasm. Starship fails because it was built on ideology.
Click to expand...
Wrong on both points. Falcon succeeds because it is low cost
Starship hasn't failed

publiusr said:
Were I a demon capable of possessing humans--I'd give tween girls a break and possess Elon....and go to the HOTOL* guys:
Click to expand...
Wrong again.
A. What makes you think Skylon will work?
B. Musk doesn't believe in wings

publiusr said:
That would give the Reaction guys the same morale SpaceX gained with Falcon, but is losing to Starship.
Click to expand...
SpaceX doesn't not have a morale problem with starship.
Morale is not going to make Skylon work

*HOTOL is not Skylon
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom