• vatlark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Does anyone else think the thumbnail looks like a llama with laser eyes?

  • rImITywR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      It waw McGregor. And while the explosion was spectacular, it happened on the test stand, so not much damage was done actually.

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Just to be pedantic:

      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.

      Edit: Yeah as best I can tell it was not even intended to be an orbital flight. https://x.com/planet4589/status/1765586241934983320

      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.

      • rImITywR@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Just to further clarify this…

          They did the suborbital thing because they wanted to ensure it came in over the ocean.

          If they went orbital, and anything went wrong, they’d have lost control of where it would deorbit and land, potentially putting people at risk.

          So sure the rocket did not reach orbit.

          No one with even a pinch of knowledge on the topic would ever try to dispute they could have if they wanted.

          It was for our saftey that they didn’t.

    • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • rImITywR@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

  • ghostblackout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    Bruh its a TEST STAND TEST STAND this is not the Frist time a engine exploded on a test stand raptor engines in their development phase are supposed to explode. Elon musk has said if something doesn’t explode then you did something wrong

    • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      If you’re testing for fail state, sure.

      If you’re testing for sustained burn, you fucked up. Time to science and figure up how to unfuck it.

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Good lord, everyone please learn a tiny bit about spacex and the state of the space industry instead of letting your (justified) hatred of Elon do the typing.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’d have a lot more sympathy for this comment if people would actually do this in reference to Space Billionaires. I’ve had far too many conversations online and elsewhere where the individual shits on NASA for space industry problems and worships Space Billionaires because [some convoluted “government bad rich entrepreneurs good” reason] and their problems aren’t really problems. I’m not saying you’re part of the billionaire sycophant club, but I’m not against musk’s well deserved criticism as he sacrifices people in his rush, and probably work quality suffers alongside them.

    • the_doktor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’ve been against the space industry/NASA/etc’s bullshit love of Elon’s fucked up project ever since the idiot took over. If they can’t see how he has mismanaged every single thing he’s ever touched and pulled out of every single contract with them because of him, they have serious issues.

      Maybe now NASA will come to their senses, kick SpaceX to the curb, and work with someone actually competent.

      • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Please see my other comment in this same thread. It’s not like Tesla or Twitter where they’re clearing slipping and releasing bad product. Look at the actual accomplishments!

        As much as we on lemmy might look down on consumers of conservative news, I’m really surprised by how similarly reflexive and uninformed a lot of the comments here are.

        • the_doktor@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          One only has to read any current news about how mismanaged SpaceX is and how many problems they are having to recant this “we love Elon and can’t imagine not having our dicks all the way up his ass” attitude about SpaceX or anything that incompetent, privileged little shit runs.

      • Argonne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Cry harder. Without SpaceX the US space industry would be worse than Russia right now. SpaceX launches hundreds of rockets per year and saves NASA millions in launch costs, and can actually launch people into space, unlike Boeing

    • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      A disposable rocket at $4 billion dollars a pop, if not more. They built one rocket, they may build a second and maybe even a third. Eventually.

      SpaceX is not building a rocket, they are building a rocket factory. A factory that will mass-produce fully reusable rockets.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Different philosophy. Play it safe and analyze everything extensively to make sure you don’t have a PR nightmare. That leads to less aggressive designs and longer schedules, but looks better for the public and Congress.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        And they don’t even have a goal of more than one launch a year and billions of dollars per launch. Artemis is the same old flag waving BS: do it once to say you’re first, then lose interest.

        Starship’s goals of reusability, frequent launches, order of magnitude cost reductions can be the foundation of the next jump in space industry/exploration

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      At a greater cost than every starship built to date combined…

      Congrats?

      I expect they’ll be able to launch 2, perhaps even 3 more Artemis rockets before the program is cancelled and the rocket architecture abandoned due to unreasonable cost.

      • 3volver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Where’s your evidence proving exactly how much Starship has cost in total? Or wait, maybe you are just making bullshit up because you have no idea how much it has actually cost them because they don’t disclose that information like NASA does.

        • llamacoffee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/thursdays-starship-flight-provided-a-glimpse-into-a-future-of-abundant-access-to-space/

          SpaceX can likely build and launch a fully expendable version of Starship for about $100 million. Most of that money is in the booster, with its 33 engines. So once Super Heavy becomes reusable, you can probably cut manufacturing costs down to about $30 million per launch.

          This means that, within a year or so, SpaceX will have a rocket that costs about $30 million and lifts 100 to 150 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.

          Bluntly, this is absurd.

          For fun, we could compare that to some existing rockets. NASA’s Space Launch System, for example, can lift up to 95 tons to low-Earth orbit. That’s nearly as much as Starship. But it costs $2.2 billion per launch, plus additional ground systems fees. So it’s almost a factor of 100 times more expensive for less throw weight. Also, the SLS rocket can fly once per year at most.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          The starship is built out in the open, the whole world can watch. Because of that, there are pretty good estimates for how much construction costs. If you take the more pessimistic estimates, my statement would still hold true.

          Also, as a reminder, even without knowing exact numbers you can still make some ballpark assertions with confidence. For example, Jupiter has the mass of more than a dozens earths. I could look up the actual number, but I can be pretty damn sure it’s more than twelve.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      DEFINITELY not first try. I was there in their first try… and second… Still didn’t see it launch.

    • red_pigeon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Only a stupid person would compare rocket fuels to brain implants. Are you Elon ?

  • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Do we have a shot of SpaceX employees cheering and clapping?

    I kinda got used to seeing happy faces after a catastrophic failure.

  • paraphrand@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    SpaceX CEO Elon Musk recently announced that Starship’s fourth integrated flight test, IFT-4, could be just days away.

    He should really stop predicting things.