Oh my God my wife bought this bean bag once. It was a photography thing so it had to be absolutely packed full. So the skin came folded up in this tiny little plastic bag and then it came with three giant bags of styrofoam balls.
If you stuck your hand in the back and pulled it out it would just be coated. I spent hours just trying to scoop them into the bean bag.
When I got to the second bag to fill I found a long narrow box and taped it up to the side of the bean bag slice the bean bag open and used it to pour them through.
The whole experience was awful. And the cleanup took nearly as long as the fill.
As another commenter stated, this explosion is not at “Starbase” where they launch starship. It’s unlikely to have any impact on the launch schedule for Starship. They tested an engine on a test stand and it failed. They will likely learn something from it.
If something is going to blow up, its much better to happen on a test stand than on an actual product or test launch.
Best case would be doing the math beforehand, as they Didn't do with the flame trench iterations until the water pump system was added. And we know that because other people on youtube did do the math and determined even the special high temperature concrete from NASA wasnt going to be enough by itself.
They knew that it wasn't going to be enough by itself, they were predicting that it would last long enough to survive a single launch. They were already planning to replace the pad, they just figured they would do it after the first test launch.
They were slightly off in their prediction, but that's why these are test launches. Fortunately it didn't do much harm, and they were already gearing up to replace the launch pad surface anyway so free excavation.
Dude, the entire pad was gone. People in the "safe" zone had concrete raining down on them and the rocket itself was severely damaged from the takeoff.
If they had done the math before that, they would have never attempted that launch.
No, the entire pad wasn't gone. The concrete under the pad had a big hole in it, but most of the structure was intact - as evidenced by the fact that they just patched the hole and continued using the pad without having to replace the whole thing.
Nobody was hurt. The rocket was damaged, but it still managed to accomplish much of what they'd wanted it to accomplish. It was a test launch, they knew it wasn't going to cruise all the way to the finish line. They wanted to see what went wrong.
Do you really think they didn't do the math at all? They did the math, they figured they could risk it based on what the math told them, they turned out to be wrong in hindsight. Plenty of things seem like good risks that turn out to be bad ones in hindsight. They're not a bunch of yee-haw wild men who do stuff without thinking or calculating, the FAA would never be giving them launch licenses if they were.
the explosion, which took place at its Boca Chica Starbase facilities
The raptor testing stand at McGregor experienced an anomaly
Well, which is it? I’m going to trust NASASpaceflight over this article and go with it was a McGregor. No where near Starbase. And that means it will likely have no effect on IFT4 as this article says.
edit: Adding to this, the author of this article has no idea what they are talking about.
The Raptor engines that are currently undergoing testing are SpaceX’s Raptor 2 engines
So clearly nothing to do with IFT4, as Ship 29 and Booster 11 are already outfitted with their engines, non of which are Raptor 2s.
On its last flight test, IFT-3, Starship finally reached orbital velocity and it soared around Earth before crashing down into the Indian Ocean. On the next flight, SpaceX aims to perform a reentry burn, allowing Starship to perform a soft landing in the ocean.
IFT3 burned up on reentry, maybe parts of it made it to the ocean, but it was not crashing into the ocean that was the problem. IFT4 does not plan on doing a reentry burn. No one does a reentry burn from orbit. Starship uses a heat shield like every other orbital space craft. They are planning to attempt a landing burn, that is probably what they are talking about.
Yeah anyone following space YouTube has seen this a dozen times already and knows that it was a deflagration likely due to busted lines and not a detonation. The test stand is likely undamaged (In anysignificant way at least) and it was just an engine test of likely raptor 2 design. This has nothing to do with IFT4 or starbase as far as we can tell.
Indeed. We don’t know the conditions of the test. Maybe it was running the engines through a simulated flight. Or they were testing the engine in different failure modes to see if it shuts itself down or takes care of the problem correctly. Or they were doing a deliberate test to failure where a RUD is the expected result.
But the headline promised me a “massive explosion” and I’m only reacting to those words. Didn’t read the article, nor did I watch the video to see what actually happened.
Brother yeah, it’s a ground up redesign. It’s brand new. Shit breaks. This article is a big fat nothing burger. and other comments on here being like SEE SPACEX IS DOG SHIT… Just telling the world how uninformed they are with no regard for their own dignity lmao
IFT 3 was a suborbital flight, so… either it did not reach orbital velocity, or the upper stage careened so wildly out of control that it borked it.
Its kind of confusing as in the live stream of it they keep saying the phrase orbital velocity, reached orbit, but also say it was intended to be a suborbital flight.
Also, the lower stage crashed into the ocean at around mach 2, so maybe that is what they are referring to? Looked like many of the engines did not relight, in addition to significant instability as it traversed back through the atmosphere.
Also also, the ‘re entry’ burn may be referring to attempting to relight the engines while in space? You are probably correct that they mean the landing burn / belly flop???
Edit 2: If they intend to do a suborbital flight, but also reach orbital velocity, this would entail a trajectory leading to a fairly steep descent path, which could need a … basically a pre reentry burn, to lessen velocity and/or change the descent path to something more shallow.
Its pretty hard to tell actual info about these Starship flights, partially because SpaceX outright lies during their live feeds, is tight lipped about other things, and many sources of coverage are often confused and/or simping for Musk.
One last thing: Does… Starship, the upper stage… even have monopropellant thrusters, or gyros, or anything for out of atmosphere orientation adjustments?
From the IFT3 vid it seemed like either no, or they malfunctioned.
IFT3 was technically suborbital, but only barely. Like a couple hundred km/h short. Literally a couple of seconds longer second stage burn would have put it into a stable orbit. Or the same velocity just with a lower apogee. They intentionally left the perigee just inside the atmosphere so a deorbit burn was not required. This is also the plan for IFT4, iirc. I think they are talking about the bellyflop/suicide burn. It was not planned on IFT3, but is for IFT4.
Both the booster and the ship have attitude control thrusters that you could see firing during the live stream of IFT3. Early prototypes used nitrogen cold-gas thrusters, but were planned to be upgraded to methane/oxygen hot-gas thrusters at some point. I don’t recall if/when they were.
IFT3 began to tumble shortly after launch, at least before they opened the “door” where it was obvious. The tumble may have been caused by a leak, and the “reentry” was simply a chaotic mess where the engine(s) began to burn up in the atmosphere, and it was absolutely 100% out of control.
The re-entry burn is the burn to slow down your spacecraft below orbital speeds, initiating re-entry.
Every spacecraft that wants to land back on earth after orbiting it needs to do a re-entry burn.
The only exception, theoretically, are spacecraft that return from outside earth’s orbit. They could in theory re-enter by steering towards the atmosphere at the right angle. I don’t know if they actually do that in practice or slow down to orbital speeds first, though.
What you’re talking about is usually referred to as a de-orbit burn. Sure somebody could call it a reentry burn, but not SpaceX. What SpaceX calls a reentry burn is the maneuver when a Falcon 9 booster lights its engines as it first hits the atmosphere to slow down and move the heating away from it’s body. Neither the super heavy booster nor the ship make a maneuver like this.
IFT3 did not make a de-orbit burn, and there is not one planned for IFT4 either.
A few years ago (already) I would have been sad and shocked. Now I don’t give a shit about SpaceTwitter. That douchebag managed to kill all the interest I had for space exploration, a topic I was passionate about for most of my life. He really is that kind of killjoy.
Why would you let that ruin all of space exploration for you? He’s a dick. I don’t give a crap about his company. But exploring the solar system is still absolutely amazing.
SpaceX is still making tremendous progress compared to NASA. I’m as annoyed with Musk as everyone else, but it’s looking like they’re the biggest hope we have right now of actually making progress with space exploration.
But are they really making progress? NASA has pured billions into SpaceX, are they really getting what they were promised? AFAIK the answer to that is No-No-No and No, because they are so far behind, and haven’t met any requirements for what SpaceX was supposed to do for the NASA manned moon mission Artemis.
SpaceX launched the biggest rocket every to be launched in history, three times at this point, and you're questioning whether they're "making progress?"
As I said, you've prioritized hating Elon Musk over everything else.
This is focused more on NASA’s problems with the Artemis program, but I highly recommend reading this article.
Basically the whole Artemis mission plan is riddled with issues, and SpaceX and Blue Origin are required to have major breakthroughs in space refueling tech for their required roles to even be possible. With how many different issues the project has, it looks like the only good thing we may get out of the project is these breakthroughs (if they happen).
If you think he’s a liar and a con man, then why even bring up his promises? They’re obviously false. SpaceX has done great work despite who their current CEO is.
He was saying several years ago that he would be start building a Mars base in 2022 and have manned missions in 2024 which are both basically no closer today than they were then, that was a lie.
He said he would build hyperloops that would be cheap fast efficient across the country, that was a lie, that we now know was to stop building public transport.
He said in 2016 that full self driving that was safer than a person driving would be ready in 2017, and that was something they could do TODAY (in 2016). He repeated that lie in 2019, even claiming people could make up to $200000 per year if they bought a Tesla, because they could drive as autonomous taxi’s beginning 2020. He claimed buying anything other than a Tesla would be stupid, because Tesla cars were the only ones that could do that. Except they couldn’t and they still can’t.
There is a very clear picture that Elon Musk is lying through his teeth, and he cons people into investing in and buying his products under false pretenses.
Okay? I thought we already established that he’s a liar. You really sound like a fan of the guy since you follow his every word, but none of this detracts from the accomplishments of the engineers working at these companies.
Maybe he lost interest because of all the bullshit Elon Musk promised that came to NOTHING, remember a few years back he promised there would be manned missions to Mars now… NOW!!! MANNED MISSIONS!!! They were supposed to be well along building a base on Mars that should have started 2 years ago!!
Reality may seem kind of dull compared to the fantasies Musk promised.
Personally I never believed Musk for a second, and I thought Neil Tyson was a blabbering idiot for parroting him. But many fell for it, and my wife thought I was “negative” for not believing and agreeing with them!
But things like the James Webb telescope are 100% cool.
Well, before SpaceX I looked at the space exploration program as a science enthusiast. The missions were rare but important for science. Then this dude came out of nowhere, saying he was about to save the Earth with electric cars and build a station on Mars. And for a moment it really worked. I genuinely thought he was a good billionaire. Then he completely loose his mind, start talking and acting like the worse moron of the universe, and I started studying his statements without the shiny distorting layer. He’s so full of shit it makes me sick. Most of the things he says is nonsense.
So I can’t tell why my brain works that way, but it does. Today I’m more exited by new ways to produce renewable energies on Earth than I am about rockets. That joy I felt for any SpaceX news slipped away.
My comment was just the realization of that. That was weird to be honest, but true.
Wow talk about blaming someone else for your waning interest. If you were really into space exploration, you wouldn’t let one person come in the way. A person who doesn’t even know you. Or you don’t know either technically. I’m no Elon shill and I dislike him like everyone else. But I’ll be damned if I lose interest in space just because of him. Even if the whole world was a douchebag, I’d still get out telescoping equipment and gaze at the skies. And oh by the way, if not for SpaceX do it for NASA who were there way before anyone else. Do it for your ancestors who looked at the sky in amazement every night.
interestingengineering.com
Oldest