| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" 15:41 - Apr 20 with 2940 views | Vic |
I guess that’s one way to describe an almighty explosion! |  |
| |  |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:01 - Apr 20 with 2251 views | J2BLUE |
Is this from OwlsTalk? |  |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:02 - Apr 20 with 2246 views | WeWereZombies |
The footage of people clapping and cheering right after SpaceX explodes is weird, looks more like the regulars of a Beijing or Moscow sports bar jeering their local rivals when they see a clip of the Elon Muck team shipping a late goal to lose a vital promotion or relegation match. Talk about putting a brave face on things... |  |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:03 - Apr 20 with 2238 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:01 - Apr 20 by J2BLUE |
Is this from OwlsTalk? |
It's the terminology used by SpaceX to describe their rocket exploding.
However, it wouldn't be out of place on OwlsTalk given the last few weeks on there.
SB |  | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:04 - Apr 20 with 2233 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:02 - Apr 20 by WeWereZombies |
The footage of people clapping and cheering right after SpaceX explodes is weird, looks more like the regulars of a Beijing or Moscow sports bar jeering their local rivals when they see a clip of the Elon Muck team shipping a late goal to lose a vital promotion or relegation match. Talk about putting a brave face on things... |
I guess it's all about context.
Getting something with twice the thrust of the Saturn V off the launchpad and 4 minutes into a flight was more than they were expecting.
However watching the stream I did think the same as you, the "crowd" was rather odd.
SB | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:05 - Apr 20 with 2218 views | J2BLUE |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:03 - Apr 20 by StokieBlue |
It's the terminology used by SpaceX to describe their rocket exploding.
However, it wouldn't be out of place on OwlsTalk given the last few weeks on there.
SB |
Cheers. I would have put my money on Putin but that sounds about right. | |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 18:08 - Apr 20 with 2040 views | Guthrum |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 16:03 - Apr 20 by StokieBlue |
It's the terminology used by SpaceX to describe their rocket exploding.
However, it wouldn't be out of place on OwlsTalk given the last few weeks on there.
SB |
Technically, they blew their own rocket up, as it was by then falling out of control. Just to make sure it didn't stray out of the safety exclusion zone.
Did pretty well considering they lost between five and eight engines during the ascent (three of them at around lift-off, apparently). Seems to have achieved supersonic speed and a 30km+ altitude. Lots of data to analyse.
RUD is a term popular with Kerbal Space Programme game players. |  |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 20:22 - Apr 20 with 1927 views | stonojnr |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 18:08 - Apr 20 by Guthrum |
Technically, they blew their own rocket up, as it was by then falling out of control. Just to make sure it didn't stray out of the safety exclusion zone.
Did pretty well considering they lost between five and eight engines during the ascent (three of them at around lift-off, apparently). Seems to have achieved supersonic speed and a 30km+ altitude. Lots of data to analyse.
RUD is a term popular with Kerbal Space Programme game players. |
Not sure if kerbel came up with it first and SpaceX adopted it or SpaceX used it and kerbel fans adopted it, but its a been used by SpaceX since the early Falcon booster days to describe these kinds of events.
So yeah it was a very successful launch attempt imo, i think the public/media become desensitised to NASA/ESA launches, they forget NASA/ESA don't do these kinds of launches in public and take years to perfect their systems so nothing goes wrong when they do launch.
SpaceX launched the world's largest, most powerful rocket, which is a prototype, on its first launch for super heavy booster and first integrated launch with Starship, with the most rocket engines firing combined at once ever, that themselves are completely new tech built from scratch.
It cleared the tower and the launch complex and flew a nominal flight plan for several minutes over the gulf of mexico, it went through max q, the area of most dynamic air pressure on the vehicle and achieved an altitude of 39km, Starship had only achieved 10km before.
How it then precisely lost control isn't clear yet, as lots of things were happening and its difficult to judge cause or effect just viewing video replays.
But why wouldn't the SpaceX employees be happy and cheering, I don't believe a rocket ever built has launched successfully at its first attempt, most RUD on the pad, this got quite a long way further than most, and they've now got tons of data of how this thing works in practice, how all 33 engines interact, they'll learn the lessons improve the rocket and within a month or two be ready to go again and it will keep going.
The fact SpaceX achieved their 25th successful launch and booster landing this year already, earlier this week, they did 60 in 2022, to no fanfare, to no media coverage because its just routine for them to launch and land rockets like Falcon 9 now. Starship will become like that ultimately. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:17 - Apr 20 with 1797 views | Guthrum |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 20:22 - Apr 20 by stonojnr |
Not sure if kerbel came up with it first and SpaceX adopted it or SpaceX used it and kerbel fans adopted it, but its a been used by SpaceX since the early Falcon booster days to describe these kinds of events.
So yeah it was a very successful launch attempt imo, i think the public/media become desensitised to NASA/ESA launches, they forget NASA/ESA don't do these kinds of launches in public and take years to perfect their systems so nothing goes wrong when they do launch.
SpaceX launched the world's largest, most powerful rocket, which is a prototype, on its first launch for super heavy booster and first integrated launch with Starship, with the most rocket engines firing combined at once ever, that themselves are completely new tech built from scratch.
It cleared the tower and the launch complex and flew a nominal flight plan for several minutes over the gulf of mexico, it went through max q, the area of most dynamic air pressure on the vehicle and achieved an altitude of 39km, Starship had only achieved 10km before.
How it then precisely lost control isn't clear yet, as lots of things were happening and its difficult to judge cause or effect just viewing video replays.
But why wouldn't the SpaceX employees be happy and cheering, I don't believe a rocket ever built has launched successfully at its first attempt, most RUD on the pad, this got quite a long way further than most, and they've now got tons of data of how this thing works in practice, how all 33 engines interact, they'll learn the lessons improve the rocket and within a month or two be ready to go again and it will keep going.
The fact SpaceX achieved their 25th successful launch and booster landing this year already, earlier this week, they did 60 in 2022, to no fanfare, to no media coverage because its just routine for them to launch and land rockets like Falcon 9 now. Starship will become like that ultimately. |
I strongly suspect that damage from engines which failed and the resulting uneven thrust eventually became too much for the guidance systems to cope with.
Still a very good performance for a first test of the complete vehicle. | |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:22 - Apr 20 with 1773 views | Kievthegreat |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:17 - Apr 20 by Guthrum |
I strongly suspect that damage from engines which failed and the resulting uneven thrust eventually became too much for the guidance systems to cope with.
Still a very good performance for a first test of the complete vehicle. |
Some Scott Manley tweets if anyone is interested...
|  | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 00:04 - Apr 21 with 1737 views | Swansea_Blue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 18:08 - Apr 20 by Guthrum |
Technically, they blew their own rocket up, as it was by then falling out of control. Just to make sure it didn't stray out of the safety exclusion zone.
Did pretty well considering they lost between five and eight engines during the ascent (three of them at around lift-off, apparently). Seems to have achieved supersonic speed and a 30km+ altitude. Lots of data to analyse.
RUD is a term popular with Kerbal Space Programme game players. |
You wouldn’t want to be on it though, would you |  |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 06:32 - Apr 21 with 1648 views | WeWereZombies |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 20:22 - Apr 20 by stonojnr |
Not sure if kerbel came up with it first and SpaceX adopted it or SpaceX used it and kerbel fans adopted it, but its a been used by SpaceX since the early Falcon booster days to describe these kinds of events.
So yeah it was a very successful launch attempt imo, i think the public/media become desensitised to NASA/ESA launches, they forget NASA/ESA don't do these kinds of launches in public and take years to perfect their systems so nothing goes wrong when they do launch.
SpaceX launched the world's largest, most powerful rocket, which is a prototype, on its first launch for super heavy booster and first integrated launch with Starship, with the most rocket engines firing combined at once ever, that themselves are completely new tech built from scratch.
It cleared the tower and the launch complex and flew a nominal flight plan for several minutes over the gulf of mexico, it went through max q, the area of most dynamic air pressure on the vehicle and achieved an altitude of 39km, Starship had only achieved 10km before.
How it then precisely lost control isn't clear yet, as lots of things were happening and its difficult to judge cause or effect just viewing video replays.
But why wouldn't the SpaceX employees be happy and cheering, I don't believe a rocket ever built has launched successfully at its first attempt, most RUD on the pad, this got quite a long way further than most, and they've now got tons of data of how this thing works in practice, how all 33 engines interact, they'll learn the lessons improve the rocket and within a month or two be ready to go again and it will keep going.
The fact SpaceX achieved their 25th successful launch and booster landing this year already, earlier this week, they did 60 in 2022, to no fanfare, to no media coverage because its just routine for them to launch and land rockets like Falcon 9 now. Starship will become like that ultimately. |
Thanks for a quite fascinating widening out of the ethos surrounding this commercial rocket launch. Curious that the supposedly moribund state funded programmes do better at public relations than an all out capitalist venture, The whole SpaceX business I find unconvincing, it does not serve a useful purpose in the way that Hubble or the James Webb do. On the other hand doesn't satisfy the 'finding out just for the sake of finding out' that pure science purports to (and there is always some self interest somewhere to stymie that anyway) because we already know how rockets work. Also habitable planets are too far away to reach with any degree of safety at the moment and escape velocity from the Earth is an unsustainable use of energy even if terraforming of the Moon is possible etc.
Whether it was an exercise in vanity or a demonstration of futility does remain moot though... | |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 09:09 - Apr 21 with 1584 views | Guthrum |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 06:32 - Apr 21 by WeWereZombies |
Thanks for a quite fascinating widening out of the ethos surrounding this commercial rocket launch. Curious that the supposedly moribund state funded programmes do better at public relations than an all out capitalist venture, The whole SpaceX business I find unconvincing, it does not serve a useful purpose in the way that Hubble or the James Webb do. On the other hand doesn't satisfy the 'finding out just for the sake of finding out' that pure science purports to (and there is always some self interest somewhere to stymie that anyway) because we already know how rockets work. Also habitable planets are too far away to reach with any degree of safety at the moment and escape velocity from the Earth is an unsustainable use of energy even if terraforming of the Moon is possible etc.
Whether it was an exercise in vanity or a demonstration of futility does remain moot though... |
NASA is reliant upon Starship working in order for its Moon visit programme to go ahead (ignoring Mars for now). There isn't anything else with that kind of heavy lift capability beyond the planning stage (more than double Falcon Heavy and 50% greater than the current SLS). This was less about 'finding out' than "getting it to work". The way the world presently works, putting stuff into orbit (and being able to maintain it while there) is always useful.
I also tend to think that SpaceX are pretty good on PR - they just do everything in the open, even discussing things with outside enthusiasts, commentators and pundits. Things going bang is only seen as bad if nothing is learnt, rather than being a state secret like during the Cold War. | |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 09:18 - Apr 21 with 1559 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
“Rapid, Unscheduled Disassembly”
Is what I’ve called my book about Ipswich Town in the Marcus Evans Era. |  |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 09:20 - Apr 21 with 1553 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 06:32 - Apr 21 by WeWereZombies |
Thanks for a quite fascinating widening out of the ethos surrounding this commercial rocket launch. Curious that the supposedly moribund state funded programmes do better at public relations than an all out capitalist venture, The whole SpaceX business I find unconvincing, it does not serve a useful purpose in the way that Hubble or the James Webb do. On the other hand doesn't satisfy the 'finding out just for the sake of finding out' that pure science purports to (and there is always some self interest somewhere to stymie that anyway) because we already know how rockets work. Also habitable planets are too far away to reach with any degree of safety at the moment and escape velocity from the Earth is an unsustainable use of energy even if terraforming of the Moon is possible etc.
Whether it was an exercise in vanity or a demonstration of futility does remain moot though... |
I don't really think that is true.
They serve a very useful purpose in that it's innovations in reusability has drastically cut the cost of getting things into space, something that NASA have realised can be done better by private organisations rather than themselves. They have moved rocket development on a long way, it's not really fair to say we already knew how rockets worked - nobody else was landing full rocket stages on return from orbit on a large scale before SpaceX.
This has allowed them to pivot more funds into producing things like the JWST and more probes to do more science rather than worrying about the infrastructure.
The SLS will be the last rocket that the US government builds, it's already antiquated compared to the SpaceX stuff and it's just a huge waste of money that can be used on science when the launches can be outsourced for a fraction of the cost.
With regards to escape velocity, that won't be an issue for Starship given the thrust it has available.
Are public relations that important? I think SpaceX probably does pretty well on that as well, watching rockets land in formation was huge for their public relations. It's not the general public work are going to be buying their service after all (at least not directly).
SB | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 09:29 - Apr 21 with 1543 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:17 - Apr 20 by Guthrum |
I strongly suspect that damage from engines which failed and the resulting uneven thrust eventually became too much for the guidance systems to cope with.
Still a very good performance for a first test of the complete vehicle. |
Not bad for a pointless vanity project. |  |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 09:58 - Apr 21 with 1528 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 09:29 - Apr 21 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Not bad for a pointless vanity project. |
It's not really a vanity project. It's heavy lift capacity which NASA needs in order to further it's scientific aims.
For instance, it's large enough to take the next generation of space telescope into orbit without the complicated folding mirror mechanisms which added huge costs to the James Webb.
SB | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 10:28 - Apr 21 with 1490 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 09:58 - Apr 21 by StokieBlue |
It's not really a vanity project. It's heavy lift capacity which NASA needs in order to further it's scientific aims.
For instance, it's large enough to take the next generation of space telescope into orbit without the complicated folding mirror mechanisms which added huge costs to the James Webb.
SB |
Is this not something that NASA can do themselves with the SLS?
Just wonder why NASA have put heavy lift effectively out to tender. | |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:03 - Apr 21 with 1453 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 10:28 - Apr 21 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Is this not something that NASA can do themselves with the SLS?
Just wonder why NASA have put heavy lift effectively out to tender. |
The SLS concept was started before SpaceX was even a thing, it's been proposed for ages and thus the design is non-reusable. The SLS could put up a large telescope for instance and even some components for the lunar orbital base which is going to be built but the cost is horrendous because it's not re-usable.
For comparison, the SpaceX Falcon Heavy (which could have launched the James Webb without folding) which is not much smaller than the initial SLS models costs 100m USD per launch. The absolute lowest estimated cost per launch of the SLS is 2bn USD (possible double that). NASA can outsource 20+ Falcon Heavy launches for the minimum cost of 1 SLS launch and achieve far more payload into orbit.
Starship will actually allow bigger payloads than the SLS also at a fraction of the cost (if they can get it working).
NASA want's to concentrate on spending it's money on science - probes and telescopes - if the SLS wasn't already so far along they would probably have cancelled it. From the inception of the project in 2011 it's cost upwards of 20bn USD.
SB | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:08 - Apr 21 with 1446 views | stonojnr |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:17 - Apr 20 by Guthrum |
I strongly suspect that damage from engines which failed and the resulting uneven thrust eventually became too much for the guidance systems to cope with.
Still a very good performance for a first test of the complete vehicle. |
It looks from a shot of the area below the launch mount some of the space youtubers were sharing last night, the world's most powerful rocket :) dug a gigantic hole through the concrete under the OLM, that debris was all the rocks and stuff that went and knocked over most of the cameras close up that we saw. Obviously that debris also bounces back up into the booster engine area, true story it happened on the shuttle at launch once a brick in the flame trench broke free bounced up and hit one of the main engines and by a stroke of luck only nicked the engine bell such that it burned more hydrogen, which also by a strike of luck didnt run out before engine cut off, if it had hit a slightly different angle the shuttle would have RUDd on the pad
So concrete debris and engines not great mix and is probably what caused damage to those engines at launch and led to the failures It may well also have knocked out other systems that led to the loss of control later on possibly steering on some of the centre engines went and why it started to steer hard one way as its guidance was trying to over correct it back to the right trajectory but assuming it had full control when it likely didn't. | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 11:14 - Apr 21 with 1438 views | stonojnr |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 23:22 - Apr 20 by Kievthegreat |
Some Scott Manley tweets if anyone is interested...
|
I know what he's saying, and Scott knows what he's talking about, but once you get to a certain speed aero surfaces really don't play any part in control, you have to use steering on the engines, and thrusters, essentially you can have a flying brick if its being pushed fast enough forward
And the moon version of Starship won't have any fins, plus they've been looking at smaller versions already, so any changes you see might not be as a result of this. | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 21:18 - Apr 21 with 1340 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 09:58 - Apr 21 by StokieBlue |
It's not really a vanity project. It's heavy lift capacity which NASA needs in order to further it's scientific aims.
For instance, it's large enough to take the next generation of space telescope into orbit without the complicated folding mirror mechanisms which added huge costs to the James Webb.
SB |
Or we could just concentrate on more pressing issues closer to home. | |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 21:31 - Apr 21 with 1331 views | readtheleaguetable |
Spacex launch was as almost as much a bomb as Musk’s Twitter launch. |  |
| Qu'est-ce que vous chantez? Nous chantons "Les Bleus, allez!" |
| |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 21:47 - Apr 21 with 1317 views | StokieBlue |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 21:18 - Apr 21 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Or we could just concentrate on more pressing issues closer to home. |
Why can't we do both?
You're essentially saying scientific research should be scrapped, possibly one of the worst stances I've ever heard on here.
SB | | | |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 22:13 - Apr 21 with 1244 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| “rapid unscheduled disassembly" on 21:47 - Apr 21 by StokieBlue |
Why can't we do both?
You're essentially saying scientific research should be scrapped, possibly one of the worst stances I've ever heard on here.
SB |
Or perhaps I'm saying that enough is enough with regards to looking beyond our planet and that asteroid mining/living on other planets is the same 'male' thinking that has got us into the mess we are now in as a species. But maybe you see Musk and his ilk as our saviours.
A terrible stance perhaps but there you go. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
