Since a number of cool things are happening in space exploration these days, we'll widen the scope of this thread a smidge. Conversation about all things space exploration are welcome, whether it be from NASA, SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, or anyone else. Chances are most of the discussion will still be about SpaceX since they love to make things public and fun, but nothing's off limits. I'll eventually get around to modifying the OP to include resources for other companies too, but in the meantime, feel free to post any cool stuff you run across.
Tim Dodd (Everyday Astronaut) - A "random dude" who got really into space (particularly SpaceX). He's a great resource for simple explanations of this stuff, as well as live hosting launches.
USLaunchReport - Lost of videos of the more mundane stuff (e.g., booster recovery operations). Not a ton of commentary.
NASASpaceFlight - Live hosting of most launches including a ton of video of Starlink operations.
Glossary
Spoiler!
Space discussions tend to get a little bogged down in jargon, so here's a list of terms you might encounter. (Others, please let me know of others that should be added.)
ASDS - Autonomous Spaceport Droneship - The "barges" that they sometimes land rockets on.
Dragon - The cone-shaped capsule that sits at the top of the rocket for ISS-bound launches that holds the cargo (or, in the future, humans).
F9 - Falcon 9, the name of the rocket itself.
FH - Falcon Heavy, the three-booster version.
GTO - Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit, a type of orbit that will eventually result in the satellite orbiting the earth as it turns so that it seems to be in the same spot from the ground (such as DirecTV or Dish satellites). These types of launches are particularly challenging because they require a lot of power to get them into the right orbit, leaving very little fuel left for landing.
HIF - Horizontal Integration Facility - the building near the launch pad where they put all of the pieces of the rocket together before rolling it out to the pad.
ISS - The International Space Station
JRTI - Just Read The Instructions, the name of the "barge" that they land on for west-coast launches.
LEO - Low Earth Orbit, a fairly low orbit shared by many satellites and ISS. These launches usually require less power to achieve the proper orbit, so the first stage can often be landed back on land rather than on a drone ship.
LZ1 - Landing Zone 1, basically a big open slab of concrete at Cape Canaveral where the first stage will attempt to land (for some launches).
NET - No Earlier Than, basically the date they're hoping to launch, but rocket launches have a tendency of getting delayed.
OCISLY - Of Course I Still Love You, the name of the "barge" that they land on for east-coast launches.
RTLS - Return to Landing Site, a mission where the first stage comes back and lands at LZ1.
Starship - SpaceX's next-generation rocket (and spacecraft) that will hopefully one day take us to Mars. Starship is the "second stage" that will carry cargo or people, but also refers to the whole system. (It's confusing, but think of it like the Space Shuttle, which was both the shuttle itself and the entire launch system.)
Super Heavy - The giant booster that will carry Starship to space.
Originally Posted by Donger:
Some cool shots here:
Unless it's a weird illusion, the ship really "leaned" away from the tower on launch.
It certainly looks that way. I wonder if that was due to the crater that it created underneath the launchpad.
I also wonder if that damage has anything to do with the 6 rocket engines that were not active. That is nearly 20% of the power they were expecting to use. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hydrae:
It certainly looks that way. I wonder if that was due to the crater that it created underneath the launchpad.
I also wonder if that damage has anything to do with the 6 rocket engines that were not active. That is nearly 20% of the power they were expecting to use.
Yeah, I wonder if it was intentional though just to make sure the tower didn't get damaged. [Reply]
Crazy shot. It looks like it came from the spot where one of the burned-out engines was located, but that's by no means a confirmation that it was an engine failure.
It definitely seems like engine reliability is a bit of a problem for now. It could just be debris getting kicked up at launch, but one way or another, I don't think losing all that thrust is ideal. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
So, it was supposed to explode?
It's not that they WANTED it to explode. It's that SpaceX's way of doing things often means things will blow up along the way.
NASA (and some others) spend years and years and years working everything out on paper and only build when it's ready to roll. They perfect every little thing (in theory), which does work (usually) but tends to be very expensive and time-consuming.
SpaceX believes that they can move a lot faster if they put together a minimum viable product, launch it, and see what happens. They build stuff cheaply, put sensors all over the place, and use what they learn each time to figure out what needs to be fixed. It's messy and destructive, but they tend to end up with VERY solid results at a much lower cost and timeline (or at least that's what happened with the Falcon 9).
Would they have loved to reach orbit today? Absolutely. Is it possible that there's a design flaw, and Starship will never be successful? Doubtful based on SpaceX's track record, but it's possible. But was today a failure? Nah. No matter what happened, this launch was ending with the rocket either blown up in the air or scuttled at sea. The only thing that really failed was they didn't get as much data from the second stage as they would have liked. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Okay. Seems like a huge waste of materials/equipment, but if they planned on the thing exploding, can't criticize. Yet.
Musk said that anything better than blowing up on the pad would be a success. He may have even meant it.
Don't forget that SH had never flown at all until today, let alone with Starship attached to the top of it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
It's not that they WANTED it to explode. It's that SpaceX's way of doing things often means things will blow up along the way.
NASA (and some others) spend years and years and years working everything out on paper and only build when it's ready to roll. They perfect every little thing (in theory), which does work (usually) but tends to be very expensive and time-consuming.
SpaceX believes that they can move a lot faster if they put together a minimum viable product, launch it, and see what happens. They build stuff cheaply, put sensors all over the place, and use what they learn each time to figure out what needs to be fixed. It's messy and destructive, but they tend to end up with VERY solid results at a much lower cost and timeline (or at least that's what happened with the Falcon 9).
Would they have loved to reach orbit today? Absolutely. Is it possible that there's a design flaw, and Starship will never be successful? Doubtful based on SpaceX's track record, but it's possible. But was today a failure? Nah. No matter what happened, this launch was ending with the rocket either blown up in the air or scuttled at sea. The only thing that really failed was they didn't get as much data from the second stage as they would have liked.
I read that the plan was not to reach orbital velocity today. Not sure why not. Still planned on Starship "landing" NW of Hawaii so that's still moving at quite a clip. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Okay. Seems like a huge waste of materials/equipment, but if they planned on the thing exploding, can't criticize. Yet.
To give you the idea, NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) has been under development since 2011, has cost $24 billion dollars on development, and launched successfully in November of 2022 with an estimated ongoing cost of $2 billion per launch.
SpaceX has spent an estimated $3 billion on development over about 5 years so far, and they hope to get the per-launch costs down into the single-digit millions (though that's admittedly a lofty goal). [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Musk said that anything better than blowing up on the pad would be a success. He may have even meant it.
Don't forget that SH had never flown at all until today, let alone with Starship attached to the top of it.
It looked like a good launch until it started doing the pirouettes and losing altitude; If they never planned on recovering the equipment, then it looked like a good launch right up to 1st stage sep (which obviously didn't occur). [Reply]