The purpose of this test, as described, was to get as much data as possible instead of just simulating things. The tested one, and two-engine out on ascent, and we’re able to verify their return trajectory and airborne maneuvering on descent and coast, as well as a switch from the primary fuel tanks to the header tanks for landing.
Unfortunately, the Raptors didn’t have enough fuel pressure from the header tanks at landing, so they failed to slow down the ship, but according to spaced they got both the data they needed, and nailed all of the important maneuvers other than a soft landing, which is pretty awesome for a first flight testing so many novel technologies.
Let’s not confuse Boing Boing and the BBS community here. The world isn’t black-and-white. The following lks at spaces are doing amazing, groundbreaking work and at the same time firing up the next generation of space and science enthusiasts, regardless of Elon’s escapades.
Tests like these are going to help create rockets that take off carrying more payload than any before it, turn around, come home, and do it again with minimal refurbishment. It is a path to making spaceflight accessible to everyone, and I couldn’t personally be more excited that the science and technology of spaceflight is ”cool” again and that youngsters the world over are thinking about STEM careers thanks to the success of things like Crew Dragon and these public starship tests, out in the open, for everyone to share in their successes (and failures).
We might have different understandings of what testing is supposed to accomplish and what information can be learned from “failure” that can make it somewhat more ambiguous. I dunno, maybe SpaceX was genuinely expecting and counting on everything to work right on this test and the landing is a genuine failure that they’re just putting a brave face on. I accept that’s a possibility. Or, it might be possible that the data gleaned from seeing how all these systems functioned under the test conditions, including the inability to land, might be be invaluable in refining the rocket and more than offset the loss of one test rocket, no?
I see that @orenwolf posted a much more lucid description of what I was attempting to convey while I was typing this, so I’ll point to that above.
No, these engines use spark ignition, not TEA/TEB. That green exhaust was what is sometimes jokingly called “engine rich combustion”…the oxygen-rich environment burned through the inconel and started burning the copper components.
Oh, c’mon, you know that’s not what I was getting at and that’s not a fair response. Read @orenwolf’s post above and tell me that it’s not possible to recognize that SpaceX is doing pretty incredible stuff without being a Musk fanboy of any kind.
Clearly the context is in launch systems. Compare SpaceX performance on the Dragon cargo and crew system with the more traditionally administered ULA . It is good to note that SpaceX does not have a science mission, it’s a technology developer. I expect this will come to a head if SpaceX does end up generating the capability to put a payload on Mars, especially a Human one. They will perhaps have little interest in preserving the integrity of the Martian biosphere. NASA’s contribution’s to planetary science, and astronomy are unquestioned. How well those aims were achieved wrt cost is another matter…lot’s of pork there, certainly not NASA’s fault, that’s politics
I think orenwolf posted a pretty good summary a few minutes ago, but from my perspective this was the first “real” flight of a starship, including throttling, cutout and re-light of multiple Raptor engines, high-altitude control of a large craft with cold-gas thrusters, and a completely new kind of descent and landing profile for an orbital (and eventually interplanetary) vehicle. SpaceX got loads of detailed telemetry all the way up and down, and can feed it into the next iterations of Starship. So yes, this was a great test.
Unfortunately your choices as a rocket scientist are to put yourself and your work at the mercy of either governments/politics, or unaccountable late stage capitalist billionaires. Nobody’s nose will be clean in any kind of venture that requires this much money to implement.
Regan decided the space program had run its course as a propaganda tool against communism, and so he converted it mostly into a pork funnel to Lockheed Martin and friends. And it fossilized.
We will see if Elon gets to have his libertarian slave state on mars or not.
The advantage of unmanned craft is that you can test it to destruction, without killing anybody. They probably did learn more from this than if everything had gone off perfectly first go.
I’m sorry, but you’re talking past what I posted and trying to have a different discussion. I’m not trying to “stop” anyone from doing anything, I questioned whether using a different word in the headline might lead to a different perception of the event. (I am of the opinion it would)
I don’t agree with your statement that “any ‘landing’ where it explodes is unambiguously a failure” for the reasons I stated, and the other posts I referred to. (that Ars article is worth reading, if you haven’t). I’m not really interested in any side issues about whether or not one thinks Elon Musk is a boob (I am of the opinion he is). Frankly, I think we do the megalomaniac’s work for him by making every achievement of SpaceX synonymous with him, and all the baggage that entails, so I choose not to do that.
