Zitat Adrian Beil@BCCarCounters 🚀 Today’s Space Launch Update: Starship & New Glenn 🌌
Starship by SpaceX The countdown is on for Starship Flight #7—but Mother Nature might have a say in it.
🌧️ What’s happening? Weather concerns, especially rain in Boca Chica, could complicate plans. However, SpaceX is still targeting tomorrow for liftoff.
🕔 Launch Window: Opens 4:00 PM CT / 5:00 PM ET.
🚀 Quick Note: Starship's propellant loading is lightning-fast, taking just 45 minutes! This means we might see a last-minute decision to proceed, so stay tuned!
New Glenn by Blue Origin The New Glenn launch hit a speed bump when an auxiliary power unit froze over due to ice buildup. This system powers key hydraulics, so safety first!
🔧 What’s next? Blue Origin is on it, aiming to fix the issue and retry on Thursday.
🕕 Launch Window: Opens at 1:00 AM ET for three hours.
🌊 Weather Watch: Conditions look 60% favorable, but offshore waves might add some extra drama. 5:47 PM · Jan 14, 2025
Kleine Erinnerung: Heute vor 20 Jahren, am 14.1.2005, ist die Huygens-Sonde der ESA aus dem Saturnmond Titan gelandet.
Windgeschwindigkeit an der Landstelle: 1 km/h aus Nordnordwest Temperatur -180°C Atomsphärendruck 1,45 ATÜ Feuchtigkeit: 50% Methan 131 Stunden vor Sonnenuntergang
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Zitat Elon Musk@elonmusk Starship Flight 7 launches tomorrow, provided weather is good 11:22 PM · Jan 14, 2025
SpaceX@SpaceX Starship's seventh flight test is targeted to launch Wednesday, January 15, with a 60-minute launch window opening at 4 p.m. CT. The Starbase team is keeping a close eye on weather conditions
Zitat January 15, 2025 at 4:34 PM Starship won't fly today, after all. In a post on X, SpaceX announced that Starship Flight 7 has been delayed until no earlier than Thursday (Jan. 16) due to weather concerns. The 60-minute window will open at 5 p.m. EST (2200 GMT). You can watch the action live here at Space.com courtesy of SpaceX, or directly via the company. Coverage will begin about 35 minutes before launch.
Zitat SpaceX@SpaceX Due to weather, we're now targeting Thursday, January 16 for Starship's seventh flight test. The 60-minute launch window opens at 4 p.m. CT. 4:19 PM · Jan 15, 2025
Zitat A. Pettit@PettitFrontier·2h Starship is now launching Jan 16 at 4PM. @astro_Pettit will have views from the ISS that day at 4:20PM Central. 420.
@elonmusk has the chance to do the funniest thing ever if he delays the launch just 20 minutes. Either way the ISS will be in range starting about 4:15PM Central. A few minutes of holds may happen, aligning orbits.
And other portions of flight such as entry should still be visible at the right angles. If anyone like @DJSnM has data on the entry time/position, that’d help! 4:23 PM · Jan 15, 2025
Ryan Caton@dpoddolphinpro New Glenn-1 Weather Update: @SLDelta45 Weather Squadron forecasts a 60% Probability of Violation (40% Go) for launch. Recovery area forecast currently shows 16kt winds, gusting 24kt, wave height 3 metres. This is between the 4m (official scrub) and 2m (tried it), so unsure if this is over or under their limit, but it's probably close. @SLDelta45 calls recovery weather "moderate".
A 24 hour delay sees a big improvement for launch, decreasing to a 10% Probability of Violation (90% Go). Recovery forecast shows winds 22 - 23kt, gusting 29 - 32kt, waves 2.4 - 2.6m. @SLDelta45 again calls recovery weather "moderate". 4:46 PM · Jan 15, 2025
Zitat Eric Berger@SciGuySpace BLUE ORIGIN HAS REACHED ORBIT. An awesome moment for the company and Jeff Bezos. The future is bright. 8:16 AM · Jan 16, 2025
Zitat Blue Origin also tried to land New Glenn's reusable first stage on a ship in the Atlantic Ocean, which is nicknamed Jacklyn, after company founder Jeff Bezos' mother. The booster managed to fire up three of its engines in a reentry burn as planned, but it didn't stick the landing.
A successful landing would have been something of a surprise; the company had stressed repeatedly in the leadup to launch that this was a secondary goal that was unlikely to be achieved on NG-1.
Zitat Blue Origin@blueorigin New Glenn safely reached its intended orbit during today's NG-1 mission, accomplishing our primary objective. The second stage is in its final orbit following two successful burns of the BE-3U engines. The Blue Ring Pathfinder is receiving data and performing well.
We lost the booster during descent. We knew landing the first stage on the first try was ambitious. We'll learn, refine, and apply that knowledge to our next launch in the spring. We're thrilled with today's outcome. 9:55 AM · Jan 16, 2025
Nachtrag zu Blue Origin, New Glenn (jemand schlug vor zwei Tagen das Akronym BONG vor).
Zitat Eric Berger@SciGuySpace The hiring of Dave Limp as CEO of Blue Origin, and subsequent launch of New Glenn only a little more than a year later, underscores the importance of leadership in aerospace. Multiple sources report a major culture change at Blue vectored toward results. 7:25 PM · Jan 16, 2025
@mnmcsofgp·1h Any thoughts on what this means for ULA in the medium to long-term?
Eric Berger@SciGuySpace·1h ULA is in very serious trouble because they are owned by companies that do not care to invest in technology, and simply want to harvest profits.
Läßt sich auch am Beispiel Boeing sehen, wo das Fehlen einer ausschließlichen Ausrichtung an greifbaren Resultaten zu greifbaren Resultaten geführt hat.
PS.
Zitat Reductionist@idontwa86202030 one thing I did notice on the booster, which may be related to its loss, was just *how low* their "exoatmospheric braking burn" really was
they started slowing down at ~34km!
Falcon 9 entry burn started at 67km during its last flight
don't think that was nominal
for Transporter 12 the entry burn started much lower, more like 42km, but that's *still higher* than New Glenn, and on a much lower energy RTLS trajectory
another datapoint here is the speed/altitude at which they lost telemetry
6800kph at not even 26km! that's *crazy* fast and low. Falcon 9 was at ~5400kph at the same altitude during the last flight
and keep in mind this is a proven vehicle with well understood margins
even Starship, which is notorious for staying fast really low, only had 4300kph at 26km during flight 5
Blobifi@Blobifie·9h i would have never known this because they used FUCKING IMPERIAL ON THE STREAM
Zitat VSB Space@spacecoastwest Looks like Blue Origin may have experienced a BE-4 RUD during the Exoatmospheric Deceleration Burn (Entry Burn). From camera views, the burn was about 15 seconds shorter than expected, and the engines were not decelerating the booster much at all. The hue of the engine burn does not match that of ascent. It appears to be a fuel-rich combustion rather than the OXrich it is designed for.
This would explain why they were not performing as expected. The LOX tank on New Glenn is in the bottom like Super Heavy, and based on the animation, there is quite a dramatic (and unrealistic) flip prior to the entry burn. My guess is that this could have led to fuel slosh and oxygen starvation, which in return destroys the turbopumps leading to an engine RUD.
This might not be correct at all, but based on my analysis, this might be what led to the loss of “So You are Telling Me There’s a Chance”. 8:43 AM · Jan 16, 2025
23:38 MEZ. Liftoff of Flight 7. Alle 33 Triebwerke haben gezündet. 2.37 MECO. 2:41 Hot staging. 3:37: Go for Booster catch. 6:53 CATCH!!! 12:25. Dafür scheint die Verbindung zum Schiff/zur zweiten Stufe verlorengegangen zu sein. Keine Telemetriedaten. Zur Erinnerung: es war der Erststart der Block 2-Version des Schiffs.
Man darf davon ausgehen, daß die zweite Stufe indertat versagt hat. Ausfall einer der drei zentralen Brennkammern bei 7:30; Ausfall der zweiten bei 8:08, der dritten bei 8:14. Ausfall der ersten der drei äußeren bei 8:18; der zweiten bei 8:23.
PS. Mit Video.
Zitat Alex D.@adavenport354 Starship Flight 7 breaking up and re-entering over Turks and Caicos 11:56 PM · Jan 16, 2025
Zitat Dean Olson @deankolson87 Just saw the most insane #spacedebris #meteorshower right now in Turks and Caicos @elonmusk what is it?? 11:58 PM · Jan 16, 2025
Andrew Smolenski@asmolenski·10m You could see a fire in the joint of where one of the flaps connected to the main ship just prior to loss of comms. LOT to study from data on this and video. @SpaceX I'm sure would like the video for details on path, angle, etc of the debris reentry for analysis.
Zitat TheSpaceEngineer@mcrs987 Starship 33's Reentry corridor. LOTS of debris expected to wash up in the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. Engine loss in the sequence that it went clearly caused the vehicle to go lopsided and changed the inclination of the trajectory. This is BAD 12:59 AM · Jan 17, 2025
Zitat A. Pettit@PettitFrontier As exciting as this is, it will be used as ammunition against the Starship program for years to come. Chances of 1-2 Starship launches per month in 2025 just dropped significantly. Hopefully a swift & safe resolution will be found to keep launch rates high and spirits higher. 1:03 AM · Jan 17, 2025
Zitat Elon Musk@elonmusk Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.
Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month. 2:14 AM · Jan 17, 2025
Zitat Scott Manley@DJSnM OK - thanks to @FrankTaylor who gave me a timestamp for a photo showing the explosion, it looks like this is over 11 minutes into the flight, while the stream showed the last telemetry at 8:26 - so the stage flew for a few minutes before exploding. The FTS likely triggered after the ship got too far out of the launch corridor, the starship was falling back down. This is interesting because if the FTS was triggered at engine failure it would have created a much wider debris field. 4:09 AM · Jan 17, 2025
Zitat January 16, 2025 Starship's Seventh Flight Test
The first Starship flight test of 2025 flew with ambitious goals: seeking to repeat our previous success of launching and catching the world’s most powerful launch vehicle while putting a redesigned and upgraded Starship through a rigorous set of flight demonstrations.
It served as a reminder that development testing by definition is unpredictable.
On its seventh flight test, Starship successfully lifted off from Starbase in Texas at 4:37 p.m. CT on Thursday, January 16. At launch, all 33 Raptor engines powered the Super Heavy booster and Starship on a nominal ascent. Following a successful hot-stage separation, the booster successfully transitioned to its boostback burn, with 12 of the planned 13 Raptor engines relighting, to begin its return to the launch site.
Super Heavy then relit all 13 planned middle ring and center Raptor engines and performed its landing burn, including the engine that did not relight for boostback burn. The landing burn slowed Super Heavy down and maneuvered itself to the launch and catch tower arms, resulting in the second successful catch of a Super Heavy booster.
Following stage separation, the Starship upper stage successfully lit all six Raptor engines and performed its ascent burn to space. Prior to the burn’s completion, telemetry was lost with the vehicle after approximately eight and a half minutes of flight. Initial data indicates a fire developed in the aft section of the ship, leading to a rapid unscheduled disassembly.
Starship flew within its designated launch corridor – as all U.S. launches do to safeguard the public both on the ground, on water and in the air. Any surviving pieces of debris would have fallen into the designated hazard area. If you believe you have identified a piece of debris, please do not attempt to handle or retrieve the debris directly. Instead, please contact your local authorities or the SpaceX Debris Hotline at 1-866-623-0234 or at recovery@spacex.com.
As always, success comes from what we learn, and this flight test will help us improve Starship’s reliability as SpaceX seeks to make life multiplanetary. Data review is already underway as we seek out root cause. We will conduct a thorough investigation, in coordination with the FAA, and implement corrective actions to make improvements on future Starship flight tests.
The ship and booster for Starship’s eighth flight test are built and going through prelaunch testing and preparing to fly as we continue a rapid iterative development process to build a fully and rapidly reusable space transportation system.
"Am 28sten August 1749, Mittags mit dem Glockenschlage zwölf, kam ich in Frankfurt am Main auf die Welt. Die Konstellation war glücklich: die Sonne stand im Zeichen der Jungfrau und kulminierte für den Tag; Jupiter und Venus blickten sie freundlich an, Merkur nicht widerwärtig, Saturn und Mars verhielten sich gleichgültig; nur der Mond, der soeben voll ward, übte die Kraft seines Gegenscheins um so mehr, als zugleich seine Planetenstunde eingetreten war. Er widersetzte sich daher meiner Geburt, die nicht eher erfolgen konnte, als bis diese Stunde vorübergegangen." - Goethe, Dichtung und Wahrheit (1811), Kap. 1.
Zitat Jono Casino@JNizzleCizzle Starship Flight 7: Overlaid clips from today's flight with Gravity (2013) and the music from the re-entry scene. 7:41 AM · Jan 17, 2025
Zitat Dave Limp@davill Our Blue Ring Pathfinder hit all our mission objectives within the planned six-hour journey after being inserted into the desired orbit by New Glenn with an apogee of 19,300 km and a perigee of 2,400 km at a 30-degree inclination. GS2 and the BE-3U engines nailed insertion with a less than 1% deviation from our exact orbital injection target. 11:49 PM · Jan 17, 2025
Zitat A. Pettit@PettitFrontier·2h I have just CONFIRMED that @astro_Pettit photographed New Glenn’s launch from the ISS. Just as he did Starship. Despite the holds, orbits, and the odds he did it again. Fortune flew these rockets. Photo release soon on his account. @JeffBezos & @davill will want to see this!
For those curious if he photographed the Starship RUD, that is as of now visually unconfirmed. If he did, it’s buried as a small red streak in a stack of 100s of photos he took that were automatically downlinked and out of his hands. I am having my people search for them.
Zitat Don Pettit@astro_Pettit New Glenn rocket launch photographed from ISS on Jan 16th. This shows New Glenn upper stage in coast phase following booster separation. In this 4 minute time exposure, New Glenn is seen as the faint streak moving from lower right to upper left as it crosses the brighter vertically oriented star trails. This was not an easy photograph to take. ISS was over Oklahoma at the beginning and over central Gulf of Mexico at the end of the exposure. 10:01 PM · Jan 19, 2025
A. Pettit@PettitFrontier New Glenn burned so blue you could see it from SPACE! 🚀
A gift to my colleagues at Blue Origin: a time exposure star trail streaked with the faint path of New Glenn’s orbiting second stage.
I stayed up all night, communicating directly with my father aboard the ISS to make this happen. Every shifting data point on countdown, flight path, and orbital position relative to the ISS itself, I relayed live to him.
And the product he captured is immaculate.
Congratulations on the maiden launch, and to the leadership of @JeffBezos and @davill into this new era.
Resonanzschwingungen als Ursache dafür, daß sich das Starship beim letzten Start unplanmäßig zerlegt hat.
Zitat SpaceX@SpaceX The seventh flight test of Starship ended before reaching its ambitious goals. Lessons learned are being applied to future vehicles to make them more reliable. A technical summary of the investigation can be found here → http://spacex.com/updates/#flight-7-report 6:58 PM · Feb 24, 2025
Zitat On January 16, 2025, Starship successfully lifted off at 4:37 p.m. CT from Starbase in Texas. At launch, all 33 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy booster started up successfully and completed a full duration burn during ascent. After powering down all but the three center engines on Super Heavy, Starship ignited all six of its Raptor engines to separate in a hot-staging maneuver and continue its ascent to space.
Following stage separation, Super Heavy initiated its boostback burn to propel the rocket toward its intended landing location. It successfully lit 12 of the 13 engines commanded to start, with a single Raptor on the middle ring safely aborting on startup due to a low-power condition in the igniter system. Raptor engines on upcoming flights have a pre-planned igniter upgrade to mitigate this issue. The boostback burn was completed successfully and sent Super Heavy back to the launch site for catch.
The booster successfully relit all 13 planned middle ring and center Raptor engines for its landing burn, including the engine that did not relight for boostback burn. The landing burn slowed the booster down and maneuvered it to the launch and catch tower arms at Starbase, resulting in the second ever successful catch of Super Heavy.
After vehicle separation, Starship's six second stage Raptor engines powered the vehicle along its expected trajectory. Approximately two minutes into its burn, a flash was observed in the aft section of the vehicle near one of the Raptor vacuum engines. This aft section, commonly referred to as the attic, is an unpressurized area between the bottom of the liquid oxygen tank and the aft heatshield. Sensors in the attic detected a pressure rise indicative of a leak after the flash was seen.
Roughly two minutes later, another flash was observed followed by sustained fires in the attic. These eventually caused all but one of Starship’s engines to execute controlled shut down sequences and ultimately led to a loss of communication with the ship. Telemetry from the vehicle was last received just over eight minutes and 20 seconds into flight.
Contact with Starship was lost prior to triggering any destruct rules for its Autonomous Flight Safety System, which was fully healthy when communication was lost. The vehicle was observed to break apart approximately three minutes after loss of contact during descent. Post-flight analysis indicates that the safety system did trigger autonomously, and breakup occurred within Flight Termination System expectations.
The most probable root cause for the loss of ship was identified as a harmonic response several times stronger in flight than had been seen during testing, which led to increased stress on hardware in the propulsion system. The subsequent propellant leaks exceeded the venting capability of the ship’s attic area and resulted in sustained fires.
Immediately following the anomaly, the pre-coordinated response plan developed by SpaceX, the FAA, and ATO (air traffic control) went into effect. All debris came down within the pre-planned Debris Response Area, and there were no hazardous materials present in the debris and no significant impacts expected to occur to marine species or water quality. SpaceX reached out immediately to the government of Turks and Caicos and worked with them and the United Kingdom to coordinate recovery and cleanup efforts. While an early end to the flight test is never a desired outcome, the measures put in place ahead of launch demonstrated their ability to keep the public safe.
SpaceX led the investigation efforts with oversight from the FAA and participation from NASA, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the U.S. Space Force. SpaceX is working with the FAA to either close the mishap investigation or receive a flight safety determination, along with working on a license authorization to enable its next flight of Starship.
As part of the investigation, an extended duration static fire was completed with the Starship flying on the eighth flight test. The 60-second firing was used to test multiple engine thrust levels and three separate hardware configurations in the Raptor vacuum engine feedlines to recreate and address the harmonic response seen during Flight 7. Findings from the static fire informed hardware changes to the fuel feedlines to vacuum engines, adjustments to propellant temperatures, and a new operating thrust target that will be used on the upcoming flight test.
00:30. Liftoff. t 02:32 Hot staging. Polled "go" for Booster return. MEZ 00:37. Einfang des Boosters. t 08:24. Zwei Brennkammern des Ship ausgefallen. Schiff rollt. 00:40. Telemetrie verloren. Lagekontrollausfall des Ship bei Brenndauer 06:07 Min. Aufnahmen vom Zerbrechen über Florida werden hochgeladen.
Zitat Scott Manley@DJSnM Looks to me like one of the Vacuum raptors failed and that failure almost immediately propagated to the sea level raptors in the middle. It began spinning, and you can see the propellent levels jumping all over the place. Which probably lead to voids in the propellent fee that killed the other engines. 12:46 AM · Mar 7, 2025
Zitat 📸Trevor Mahlmann🚀@TrevorMahlmann RIP Starship Flight 8, just caught it exploding after a few engines cut off and it losing attitude control, viewed from Titusville, FL🚀 12:46 AM · Mar 7, 2025
Zurzeit ist das noch Spekulatoin, aber das scheint mir Hand & Fuß zu haben. Da das Ende von Flug 8 im Großen + Ganzen so wie bei Flug 7 verlief, könnte die Ursache dieselbe sein.
A few days before the flight, I wrote on another Facebook page: "For me, the most interesting thing about this flight is how the rocket will behave if it is indeed loaded with 300 tons of more fuel."
In my opinion, these 300 tons are our big pink elephant in the IFT-7 "room" when considering the causes of the Starship explosion. Let's add that in addition to the 300 tons of fuel, we also have 20 tons of mass-size models of Starlink 2.0, plus another 5 tons of additional mass due to the fact that Starship 2 is 2 meters longer than Starship 1, plus about 5 tons thanks to the new Penz dispenser, plus another 2-3 tons of additional equipment, which they add with each new flight in the form of additional stringers, anti-splash devices (especially in the Superheavy liquid oxygen tank), etc. This gives us about 330 tons more mass than the IFT-6. Or the mass of 5 heavy battle tanks, each weighing 66 tons. About 99% of this new mass was added to the Starship and only 1% to the Superheavy.
As a result, the weight that the 33 engines of the Superheavy now have to lift increases by 6.6% - from 5,000 to 5,330 tons. During the launch, it was obvious to the naked eye that the rocket was more cumbersome than previous flights, and in the end it achieved its weakest telemetry result to date, excluding IFT-1: 4,400 km/h, at an altitude of 60 kilometers at the moment of the booster engine shutdown.
After the separation of the stages, the difficult fate of the six engines of the Starship began. The mass they had to accelerate to 26,500 km/h is not 6.6%, but a full 26% more than in previous flights. The thrust-to-weight ratio(TWR) for IFT-7 has dropped from 1.1 to 0.88, which means that the combined thrust of the six engines - 1464 tons, now lifts 1670 tons instead of 1325 tons. A TWR of 0.88 is usually not fatally low for a second stage, but in this case Starship was left by Superheavy in a much deeper gravity well than usual. For comparison, the TWR of the Falcon 9 second stage is even lower - 0.8 with full load of Starlinks, but the Falcon 9 booster takes it to an altitude of 62 kilometers and a speed of 8000 km/h. At IFT-7, at this point in the flight, Starship was 2 kilometers lower in altitude and 3,600 km/h slower. At such low levels, Starship's engines have to work at the limit of their capabilities to bring it to the required altitude and speed. And as we know from IFT-1 and in particular from the list of 63 FAA recommendations, Raptor2 and its piping systems are extremely susceptible to leaks when operating at full power - about a third of these 63 recommendations are directly or indirectly related to minimizing these leaks and extinguishing them with carbon dioxide if they occur. As can be seen in point C2, for example, the FAA requires that the fire protection system of the Superheavy be increased after IFT-1 by a factor of 15.
However, from Musk's words about the accident at IFT-7, it follows that there is no fire protection system at all in the upper engine compartment of the second stage! To me, this is extremely strange.
After IFT-1, SpaceX did everything possible to improve the reliability of the Raptor2, but it seems that no matter how much they tighten the nuts on the joints, those between 300 and 611 atmospheres of pressure constantly remind of themselves. Especially the 611 atmospheres of the methane turbopump. As can be seen in the photos, the amount of methane in the tank begins to drop after the first engine fails at a speed of 17,700 km/h. Judging by the volume of lost fuel, I can assume that this is not just a leak, but an extremely large-scale rupture of pipelines and connections. There, in the compartment between the engines, a huge fire really raged. It was this tendency of the Raptor2 to leak that prompted SpaceX to start working on the creation of the Raptor3 - an engine that is as close as possible to the state of a monolithic capsule. Starship 3 will be equipped with 9 of these Raptor3 engines instead of 6, but it will also add over 1,000 tons to its mass, so uncertainty about its ultimate success still hangs in the air.
For the next SpaceX flight, the pipelines and connections of the methane tract, which operates under extremely high pressure, will have to be greatly reinforced. Because if such a large amount of methane leaks again, no fire-fighting system will be able to cope with such a flow.
Zitat Ryan Hansen Space@RyanHansenSpace It's really early for speculation, but it kinda looks like the RVac engine that had the glowing orange area on one of the regen cooling manifolds starts losing thrust output and the ship starts turning in that direction slowly. Then we lose an RVac and all center Raptor engines on the on screen telemetry causing the two remaining RVac engines to create an offset thrust vector with the ship losing control. 1:22 AM · Mar 7, 2025
FOR CLARIFICATION, yes, an RVac did explode. I'm aware of the video from the screen in mission control. I'm specifically talking about the observations before that. The RVac losing thrust could indicate a health issue prior to RUD, which can possibly be corroborated with onboard views.
It's hard to say if the problem stemmed from a fire in the attic this time or not. There was clearly an orange glow in the skirt indicating a fire within the open skirt, but it's unclear if this was coming from a leak in the attic or an engine leak that was on fire in the skirt. We don't have views from last time to compare to.
I don't want to sound like someone who thinks they know more than the engineers at #SpaceX, but, assuming the issue stems from the new RVac feed lines, I don't know if the longer static fire test would have given them all the data they needed to fix this issue. This issue might become worse as propellant levels in the LOX tank drop over time. They wouldn't have data on this effect if the LOX tank was fully filled, as it was with the longer static fire, but I suppose this is hard to test since they use LOX as ballast in the tank.
Zitat G G@gwgerrond·22h I suspect the issue is the new straight pipe CH4 feeds to the RVacs, if it's a harmonics issue again. They start out ok because the LOX is dampening them, but as the LOX drains they are likely vibrating like guitar strings.
Ryan Hansen Space@RyanHansenSpace·18h This is exactly what I was theorizing before making this post. Just didn't include that amount of detail. But yes, if the issue stems from the new transfer tubes, I feel like this could be a condition that they haven't tested for.
07:53 Flight 7, Höhe 143 km, 18926 km/h erstes der 3 zentralen Triebwerke fällt aus, / Flight 8: 145 km, 18695 km/h. 08:04 Flight 7, Höhe 144 km, 20099 km/h zwei der 3 zentralen Triebwerke ausgefallen, + das direkt daenebenliegende äußere / Flight 8: 146 km, 20027 km/h. 08:05 Flight 7, Höhe 144 km, 20183 km/h (zwei der 3 zentralen Triebwerke ausgefallen, + das direkt daenebenliegende äußere) / Flight 8: 146 km, 20150 km/h zwei innere Triebwerke und das über den rechtem befindliche äußere. 08:08 Flight 7: 20369 km/h, Flight 8: das dritte der inneren Triebwerke fällt aus.
"Les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande." - Voltaire
Bitte beachten Sie diese Forumsregeln: Beiträge, die persönliche Angriffe gegen andere Poster, Unhöflichkeiten oder vulgäre Ausdrücke enthalten, sind nicht erlaubt; ebensowenig Beiträge mit rassistischem, fremdenfeindlichem oder obszönem Inhalt und Äußerungen gegen den demokratischen Rechtsstaat sowie Beiträge, die gegen gesetzliche Bestimmungen verstoßen. Hierzu gehört auch das Verbot von Vollzitaten, wie es durch die aktuelle Rechtsprechung festgelegt ist. Erlaubt ist lediglich das Zitieren weniger Sätze oder kurzer Absätze aus einem durch Copyright geschützten Dokument; und dies nur dann, wenn diese Zitate in einen argumentativen Kontext eingebunden sind. Bilder und Texte dürfen nur hochgeladen werden, wenn sie copyrightfrei sind oder das Copyright bei dem Mitglied liegt, das sie hochlädt. Bitte geben Sie das bei dem hochgeladenen Bild oder Text an. Links können zu einzelnen Artikeln, Abbildungen oder Beiträgen gesetzt werden, aber nicht zur Homepage von Foren, Zeitschriften usw. Bei einem Verstoß wird der betreffende Beitrag gelöscht oder redigiert. Bei einem massiven oder bei wiederholtem Verstoß endet die Mitgliedschaft. Eigene Beiträge dürfen nachträglich in Bezug auf Tippfehler oder stilistisch überarbeitet, aber nicht in ihrer Substanz verändert oder gelöscht werden. Nachträgliche Zusätze, die über derartige orthographische oder stilistische Korrekturen hinausgehen, müssen durch "Edit", "Nachtrag" o.ä. gekennzeichnet werden. Ferner gehört das Einverständnis mit der hier dargelegten Datenschutzerklärung zu den Forumsregeln.
Sie sind vermutlich noch nicht im Forum angemeldet - Klicken Sie hier um sich kostenlos anzumelden
Offline