Bad Landing, SpaceX Style

Still impressive all the same
 

Attachments

  • 60AB4577-4A61-4517-8933-1C3014132549.jpeg
    60AB4577-4A61-4517-8933-1C3014132549.jpeg
    104.3 KB · Views: 43
  • BCC9A70F-EC8D-4273-9161-713D09051DF6.jpeg
    BCC9A70F-EC8D-4273-9161-713D09051DF6.jpeg
    16.7 KB · Views: 45
Kind reminded me of a game I used to play as a kid called moonlander. No matter how smooth you landed it always exploded.
 
"You often learn more with failures than successes."--anonymous steely eyed missile man
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
From the soundtrack it seemed an audience pleaser. :rolleyes:
 
I see 2 in-flight simulated engine fails, am I right? (They intentionally failed 2 of the 3 engines) In the description, it says the low header tank pressure caused the hard (and exciting!) landing. I assume this is another test on landing engine fail?
It seems to me these were all on purpose. Therefore, it's a success.

SpaceX version from -10 second.
 
That’s the most rockety looking rocket I’ve seen in a long time!

But seriously, fantastic job by SpaceX - that was incredible to watch.
 
I read somewhere that there was a 90% chance of the rocket failing on takeoff. The fact that it made it as far as it did makes it a huge success.

Here is a good breakdown of the flight

 
jpskies said:
I see 2 in-flight simulated engine fails, am I right? (They intentionally failed 2 of the 3 engines) In the description, it says the low header tank pressure caused the hard (and exciting!) landing. I assume this is another test on landing engine fail?
It seems to me these were all on purpose. Therefore, it's a success.

SpaceX version from -10 second.
Click to expand...
Turns out those were planned shutdowns, but the low header tank pressure, not planned.
 
Looks like an "Unscheduled Disassembly" to me.
 
I love how the flight is billed as a success. Only thing we didn't accomplish was landing! Sounds like some of my students.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I love how the flight is billed as a success. Only thing we didn't accomplish was landing! Sounds like some of my students.
Click to expand...
It was a test flight. There would have been a whole list of mission objectives. This was the first attempt at achieving most of the objectives. Almost all of the objectives were achieved and important data was collected on the problem which led to the failed landing--low header tank pressure. This is how SpaceX advances their technology so quickly.
 
Why is everyone cheering the crash.??

When I fly, the entire flight can be a total success, smooth air, good tailwinds, awesome scenery, but bang in the landing and that is what everyone remembers and no one cheers....
 
The landing was the least interesting part of that flight.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I love how the flight is billed as a success. Only thing we didn't accomplish was landing! Sounds like some of my students.
Click to expand...

Zeldman said:
Why is everyone cheering the crash.??

When I fly, the entire flight can be a total success, smooth air, good tailwinds, awesome scenery, but bang in the landing and that is what everyone remembers and no one cheers....
Click to expand...

The test flight wasn't about the landing, it was about the myriad of other things they did, the biggest being the "flip" and the controlled descent.
 
That was amazing video. I’m pretty sure they weren’t expecting the spacecraft to survive ... although it probably would have if not for the low header pressure.

If I’m not mistaken this is a 2nd (?) stage of the bigger picture Starship? These stages are designed to separate and “fly” back to base, land vertically and be able to be reassembled and refueled in a short amount of time.
 
woodchucker said:
That was amazing video. I’m pretty sure they weren’t expecting the spacecraft to survive ... although it probably would have if not for the low header pressure.

If I’m not mistaken this is a 2nd (?) stage of the bigger picture Starship? These stages are designed to separate and “fly” back to base, land vertically and be able to be reassembled and refueled in a short amount of time.
Click to expand...

Correct Musk only give it 30% chance of making the landing. Starship will be launched on top of a “Super Heavy” (previous known as BFR) Falcon

You can guess the BFR reference:)
 
woodchucker said:
If I’m not mistaken this is a 2nd (?) stage of the bigger picture Starship?
Click to expand...
It is the entire Starship. Depending on the mission, it could launch alone (probably just for sub-orbital missions?) or on top of the Super Heavy booster. Then there's the plan to refuel Starship in orbit for missions which leave Earth orbit.

Scrabo said:
You can guess the BFR reference:)
Click to expand...
Big Falcon Rocket, of course! :)
 
Larry in TN said:
It is the entire Starship. Depending on the mission, it could launch alone (probably just for sub-orbital missions?) or on top of the Super Heavy booster. Then there's the plan to refuel Starship in orbit for missions which leave Earth orbit.


Big Falcon Rocket, of course! :)
Click to expand...
It is the second stage of a combination also called "Starship", with a Super Heavy Booster behind it. Both are needed for orbital flight. Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) hasn't been achieved, and probably won't be tried, as the fuel fraction would eat all of the payload allowance. Probably the only future "solo" flights of the top stage (once they nail the landings a few dozen times) will be from the build site to an offshore launch site for a Super Heavy combo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top