SpaceX Starship megarocket launches on 2nd-ever test flight, but explodes in 'rapid unscheduled disassembly'

[DrRaviSharma]

During SI SII and SIVB of Saturn, we used many techniques. One of them was namely SIVB was impacted on Moon to test ALSEP Seismometers.
Martin Marietta Classified (then) Accelerometers were used and also suggested by Classical Motion will work two stages are attached or not and it very light no power issues.
Why then other simple techniques suggested by me after Apollo 13 such as pyrotechnics for Instrument bay on CSM for separation while all 3 astronauts were together, why this is not being used for stage separation.
Finally they should go for accelerometer and pyrotechnics it will work and no sloshing or damage to first stage recovery.
Re safety in reusable rockets and recovery and reuse, we will discuss as a separate thread later.
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSFEB Apollo time frame
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cells 29 Years and voting member

 

[billslugg]

The reason Super Heavy does not use the conventional method is to save money. it is an evolution of rocket science. From now on out, hot staging is all we will see on new rocket designs.

There is no disruption of the fluid surface in the tanks as the rocket turns. The engines are running and pushing on it to keep the liquid in the bottom of the tank. The engines swivel to rotate the rocket in a giant loop, liquid never sloshing.

Coast separation is elegant but consumes extra fuel because of the need to rotate stage 2. Hot staging allows for 10% heavier payloads since stage 2 just keeps going straight.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill, I am not so sure about the free surface issue during the flip maneuver. Yes, the engines are pushing, but not along the axis of the vehicle. And there is still some sort of air drag at those speeds, even at that altitude - and there are 4 flight control surfaces sticking out from the top of the vehicle to utilize that effect. So, at best, the Super Heavy stage could make a slow arc turn that would have a similar effect as a person sitting in a car going around a curve in the road at high speed - there is a side force involved and coffee sitting in your cup has its surface tilt.

The admittedly highly compressed telescopic video of the back flip maneuver did not make it look like it followed some giant arc trajectory - it still seemed to be mostly along the flight path, or at least the line of sight to Star Ship. So, it looked more like a tumble than an arc to me. And, considering that is when the FTS triggered to destroy Super Heavy, maybe it was off course and not following the intended flip path at that point.

 

[billslugg]

The free surfact tilts slightly as the engine force vector angles a few degrees, but it stays intact. The "loop" for burnback is a half loop, greatly elongated.

 

[saychoss]

Typo by the article author I think:
"It's worth nothing that Starship's second test mission did fly longer and higher than its first test flight"

I think the author meant to say "It's worth NOTING..."

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Typo by the article author I think:
"It's worth nothing that Starship's second test mission did fly longer and higher than its first test flight"

I think the author meant to say "It's worth NOTING..."

I'm hoping it is a typo, rather than something written by the FAA.

 

[Racerxr5]

I'm hoping it is a typo, rather than something written by the FAA.

Excuse me for asking but after spending 10 minutes watching the Video titled “Watch SpaceX Starship …………….explode in stunning video”. It was an annoying video that should not be in slow motion and the dramatic music leading up to ?

Now my question: Like I said I watched it 3 times WHERE IS THE ACTUAL EXPLOSION ? I stumbled across a crappy video showing the actual extremely rapid disassembly. All the slow motion and dramatic music could possibly show something in slow motion without the most advance technology because the gas that gets ignited expands at a rate no camera owned by an amateur astronomer could capture in slow motion. The fps is too slow. The actual explosion would simply look like a quick flash like in the crappy video I ran across a couple days ago. What I’m saying is the video of the explosion appears to show everything leading up to the rapid disassembly (explosion) but not the actual explosion. It looks to me like your video ends just before the really really big kaboom. Is it me or is there an amazing amount of deception in online advertising.
It’s odd that you would lure people to view your video by using the word “explodes” then not show the “explosion”. ??? This type of internet bait and switch is everywhere online. If it says click here to watch this video rarely does the actual video begin. Countless times it will take you to a site that has that video but you have to search for it.
That’s a waste of everyone’s time.
.
I went through the hassle to register so I could post a response on a forum or blog exactly twice in over 20 years.
2 Rants in 20 years isn’t to bad

Just say’n
I’ll try to find the video I mention and if and when I do, I’ll post a link.

 

[Racerxr5]

“Could not possibly”
Sorry it’s 4:35am and I forgot to proof read any of what I wrote

 

[billslugg]

The first stage explosion was at 3:51 in the video.

The second state explosion was after the video ended. It was out over the Bahamas, too far to see from TX.

 

[Lara]

I love the announcer diligently awaiting the separation of the stages even minutes after it's extremely obvious that that is not happening. I'm sitting there like bro.... It's flipping over his head and it's on fire. You're not going to get the stage separation. It's going to crash.