NASA & World Space Exploration...News, Views, Photos & videos


j17wang

Junior Member
Registered Member
No not failure. Destructive engineering.
The Rocket in question is part of a line of Space X rockets that have been built and destroyed one after another on the companies dime. This was SN11 they are already planning this series through to SN20 with a major design change around SN15. That’s not even talking about the booster stage tests which would be BN1 was built but scrapped for BN2 set for this coming month.
This differs from the government engineering model which is to test everything for decades and launch it as bits and pieces on the tax payers dime. SpaceX is doing these at it’s own facility. Testing to the point of destruction so as that down the road they can offer a product that has all the issues ironed out. Since 2018 they started work on this hardware launching something every 4 months since 2019.

No it was a failure. Please look at the video, they were trying to land.
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
This one had worse results than the previous flight attempt.

This is an engineering model not that dissimilar to how it used to be done.
For example the Russians fired like a hundred R-7 rockets until it was reliable enough.

They are testing all sorts of possible configurations for the fuel tanks and vehicle structure.
The fact is no one has flown a LOX/Methane rocket so there are a lot of things which aren't well defined yet.
Add to that the fact that they have to flip the launch vehicle over and that increases difficulty a lot.
They would have been done already if this did not need that belly flop maneuver.

To be honest I would have gone for a simpler flight profile and a smaller rocket.
This is really expensive, they are losing three engines on each flight attempt.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
No it was a failure. Please look at the video, they were trying to land.
They always try to land. But even if it went boom it’s not a failure it’s part of the process the want is to land so they can take it all apart. If it successfully does than that’s great. If it goes boom they have black box data. Will look at the wreckage and work it out.
Basically build it, launch it see how far it goes. Learn.
@gelgoog yes it’s also how the light bulb was done. Trial and error. Fortunately SpaceX has a lot more control and safety vs some of those Russian rockets. If memory serves one incident happened in the Russian program early on where a Russian General was on site when the rocket went up. He was at the test site at the rocket the head of the artillery.

SpaceX has the Falcon series. The point of these is to develop the stages of a Super Heavy. As such they wheedle to go big or go home here. This is basically simulation of a reusable upper stage for a two stage rocket that would Rival Saturn V, N1 or SLS.
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
Trying to land it in foggy weather was a baffling idea. You can't track the rocket/position easily when there is inclement weather. If the idea is to gain as much data possible they should've waited a few days for the fog to clear up.
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
The landing is by computer on instruments as such only the video was blinded. Fog isn’t as big an issue today as it was 50 years ago.

I think a lot of data (like positioning and relative speed) are still gathered by ground based videos. At a minimum you can tell at a glance what went wrong by referring to a video.
 

SlothmanAllen

New Member
Registered Member
That is a huge win for SpaceX and validation of their development model. I think it also recognizes that SpaceX is the world leader in rocket design and are pushing the boundaries of what is possible. They seem to have purpose beyond sending objects in LEO in the most profitable manner, but actually want to push human space flight forward in a major way.
 

Top