Commercial/Private Space Industry Projects: News and Updates

Big_Gazza wrote:So totally expected.        

The US version of the N-1 is coming along nicely.            

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1546605684070006784

Why post a video from July 2022?

Post when it explodes on its upcoming flight.

owais.usmani wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:So totally expected.        

The US version of the N-1 is coming along nicely.            

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1546605684070006784

Why post a video from July 2022?

Post when it explodes on its upcoming flight.

I didn't notice the date... I thought this was a recent event.

Oh well, still worth a laugh.

Starshit 2nd launch ends as expected!!  1st stage recovery attempt goes bang...  Starshit vehicle goes bang...

I guess the pentagram will just have to wait some more until they can deploy special forces plus their expeditionary kit to anywhere on the planets surface within 1 hour...  

Nice shot of the 1st stage booster blowing itself to shit (T=214 secs)  





Vid of the Starship vehicle doing likewise (T=32 secs)

owais.usmani wrote:Post when it explodes on its upcoming flight.

Happy now?  Yeah, I though so!!

"Unscheduled dissasembely"

Musk is running out of missiles.

Big_Gazza wrote:

owais.usmani wrote:Post when it explodes on its upcoming flight.  

Happy now?  Yeah, I though so!!

Well yeah, sort of. But as I have said before, the real fun starts when they put people on that thing.

I bet that the two morons to the right will still be volunteers for the first manned ride.

Funny how the use of 33 first stage engines in a US private rocket is progress, but on the N-1 such an approach was a sign of Russian inferiority.
Each of the engines on the N-1 was a technological masterpiece. The N-1 design could be fixed with modern CAD where all the vibration harmonics
can be identified and controlled.

The problem with recovery is that they need fuel to return to Earth. Space-X has not mastered the management of this fuel and we see the
result. Likely the second stage exerted sufficient thermal stress on the first stage to lead to the delayed detonation. They probably skimp on
the insulation to save weight. Conventional disposable does not have this problem since no fuel is left and thermal damage is not an issue.

If the detonation was caused by the engine compartment of the first stage, then Space-X has bigger problems. Having 3 engines running should
not be a catastrophic risk.

Big_Gazza wrote:I guess the pentagram will just have to wait some more until they can deploy special forces plus their expeditionary kit to anywhere on the planets surface within 1 hour...

It might be able to deploy the special forces within 1 hour. But it won't be fueled in 1 hour, nor will the deployed units be able to get back. It will be a one way trip. Because there is no way the rocket will have enough fuel to make it back.

lancelot wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:I guess the pentagram will just have to wait some more until they can deploy special forces plus their expeditionary kit to anywhere on the planets surface within 1 hour...

It might be able to deploy the special forces within 1 hour. But it won't be fueled in 1 hour, nor will the deployed units be able to get back. It will be a one way trip. Because there is no way the rocket will have enough fuel to make it back.

Pentagram morons who are pushing for this garbage system probably play too much Warhammer 40K... they seem to have a huge boner for US special forces clad in power armour and alighting from Drop Pods straight into glorious combat. The main problem of course is that while they think they are the Space Marines, in reality they are the Orks.

In reality, anyone with a half-way decent SAM system will blast this flying silo out of the sky without any problems. Seems like a silly way to dispose of a company of elite troops and their expensive toys, but its their meat and money so I encourage them to double down for all they are worth

kvs wrote:Funny how the use of 33 first stage engines in a US private rocket is progress, but on the N-1 such an approach was a sign of Russian inferiority.  
Each of the engines on the N-1 was a technological masterpiece.   The N-1 design could be fixed with modern CAD where all the vibration harmonics
can be identified and controlled.

The problem with recovery is that they need fuel to return to Earth.   Space-X has not mastered the management of this fuel and we see the
result.   Likely the second stage exerted sufficient thermal stress on the first stage to lead to the delayed detonation.   They probably skimp on
the insulation to save weight.   Conventional disposable does not have this problem since no fuel is left and thermal damage is not an issue.  

If the detonation was caused by the engine compartment of the first stage, then Space-X has bigger problems.   Having 3 engines running should
not be a catastrophic risk.  

I find it hilarious that the murkans have relentlessly ridiculed the Soviet N-1 for having too many engines and needing to perform what was essentially destructive testing in order to develop the N-1 stack, ie 1960s computational resources could not model the complexities of the engines, fluid dynamics or vibrational modes of the stack in flight, or the hydraulic hammer loadings on its complex piping systems. They held up this approach as evidence of Soviet backwardness and technological inferiorty, but now that US exceptionalism is personified in the form of SpaceX, these assessments have been dumped and SpaceX does exactly the same except its all presented to the braindead public as a new and "innovative" methodology that breaks with the "old fashioned" and "inefficient" and "bureaucratic culture" of government agencies like NASA (who despite their apparent "lack of innovation", can develop the SLS and Orion and launch Artemis 1 on a very successful test flight around the Moon).  

The media circus and endlessly-cheering low-brow groupie mob that accompanies everything SpaceX simply adds a veneer of absurdity to the whole SpaceX fiasco.  These clowns can't even be dignified in failure.  They act like two catastrophic explosions in the course of a single mission is somehow a great achievement.  Heck, these idiots even presented the functioning of the pad improvements as a Great Leap Forward, when all they did was to replicate the same basic water deluge methods that every space agency since Sputnik has been using to minimise blast damage to pad structure.

Looking forward to the next flight.  My money is on more failures for #3 and #4, and that Starshts run of expensive catatrophic failures will exceed that of N-1 even though SpaceX has the advantage of 55+ years of tech development and virtually unlimited development capital.

It might be able to deploy the special forces within 1 hour. But it won't be fueled in 1 hour, nor will the deployed units be able to get back. It will be a one way trip. Because there is no way the rocket will have enough fuel to make it back.

Don't know about you guys but the cheering that starts when the countdown starts makes it feel like an American situation comedy, and the words they use to describe an explosion are ridiculous.

Deploying troops with this thing would require them to find a nice solid piece of very flat ground to land on and an enemy that are idiots that wont fire at this huge rocket coming down... you can bet even small arms fire will set the lower section on fire and then those special forces troops get the Wicker man experience...

This system is supposed to be made cost effective because you get to reuse parts over and over, but I suspect reuse is going to be a problem.

In reality, anyone with a half-way decent SAM system will blast this flying silo out of the sky without any problems. Seems like a silly way to dispose of a company of elite troops and their expensive toys, but its their meat and money so I encourage them to double down for all they are worth

Even small arms fire will be a problem... a PKP belt fed light machinegun would rip it a new one...

Big_Gazza wrote:
Pentagram morons who are pushing for this garbage system probably play too much Warhammer 40K...  they seem to have a huge boner for US special forces clad in power armour and alighting from Drop Pods straight into glorious combat.  The main problem of course is that while they think they are the Space Marines, in reality they are the Orks.

In reality, anyone with a half-way decent SAM system will blast this flying silo out of the sky without any problems.  Seems like a silly way to dispose of a company of elite troops and their expensive toys, but its their meat and money so I encourage them to double down for all they are worth

Its also like they don't *know* how their SF dudes fight.

Their guys push gung ho like retards and get slapped and cry for daddy chairforce to bail their ass.

Where are they getting that air support if the nearest airbase is 1000 miles away?

Rapid unscheduled disassembly

"Oh, meltdown. It's one of these annoying buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested fission surplus."

I used to think a countdown from 10 before launch was normal till I got used to watching Russian launches... and you start to wonder who the countdown is even for...

It is all showbusiness.

3rd Starshit launch is a flop as expected

Booster crashed into the sea and the "orbiter" lost control during re-entry and exploded.

Still the moron SpaceX groupies are all fiddling themselves with glee over "another awesome success".

1 more failure and SpaceX will have recreated the N-1, then its time to close up shop and try something else.

Space travel was still young as the N-1 was created and Koroljow died in the middle of her development.
Even if the rocket was not his creation, he was the father of the russian space program.

What is Musks excuse?
Not enough money?

Hole wrote:What is Musks excuse?

Piss poor engineering, treating a VERY complex system with the same dismissive complacency as his nonsensical HyperLoop absurdity.

NASA has over-engineered their moon rocket and the Orion crewed vehicle, but i expect it will perform near flawlessly on its first few tests.  Musk and similar private-enterprise groupies all sing from the same hymn book with their nonsense about challenging "outdated, inefficient and inflexible paradigms in space engineering" <insert similar jagon BS> but in truth NASA does it right, and this stuff takes lots of time and money to get it right.  Forget about cutting corners, or pursuing ideologically-driven cost saving goals.  If you can't spend what it takes and take the time that is needed then just don't bother trying.  Engineering is done by faceless boffins in back rooms who are personnally dedicated to their art, not by slick PR consultants and marketting people who are motivated by the earning of sales commissions.

Being creative and thinking outside the box can be a great way of solving some very serious problems but it is not a good way to solve all problems... especially problems that have simple and elegant solutions already.


Would be interesting to see their criteria for hiring engineers... perhaps no one over 40, no white males... like the Royal Air Force... which is when the Chinese started offering to hire white male western pilots to train their pilots and develop tactics etc etc... and the Brits went mental over that...

We see a drop in quality across the board in the modern corporate culture. Everything is outsourced to a slew of subcontractors and low bid to save every cent.
It is a quality assurance nightmare. This profit maximization does not work for rocket design. You do it right, or go home. Space X has not figured out a superior
development model, it is engaging in trial and error.

The multiple use feature is a gimmick and you can see how it works over the minds of techno sheeple who think it is some sort of profound innovation and proof
of Space X prowess and superiority.

It is even worse for those old enough to remember... no wonder they don't want older more experienced engineers.

When they came out with the US space shuttle it was going to be super cheap because it was a plane that was reusable... but cheap it never was.

The one advantage it had over rockets was landing at an air strip so you didn't have to go and scoop a capsule out of the water...

The reusability that was supposed to make it cheap actually made it expensive because the solid rocket boosters were very expensive and were not reusable. The rocket motors and all the heat shield tiles had to be taken apart and checked before being put back together for another flight... it was very expensive.

This was made worse when it was used as a shuttle to take three people up to a space station and bring three people back because it cost about $600 million per flight.

Literally 10 times more than a Russian rocket for people or for cargo.

No wonder the Americans wanted to share access to the ISS because their own options were eye wateringly expensive for quite a while and then for a period they had no options...