There were no extreme aerodynamic forces to withstand when tumbling started, both due to the height and speed of the vehicle at that time.
Passing max Q on the first try is a very important milestone indeed.
China's Space Program Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
There were no extreme aerodynamic forces to withstand when tumbling started, both due to the height and speed of the vehicle at that time.
Passing max Q on the first try is a very important milestone indeed.
I think that would be hard. Governments are routinely pressed with the "we got poor people but you spend all that money for space" flawed argument. But at least the gov can shoot back and claim that its space program is providing many benefits and it is a well-run program etc
If the public starts seeing multiple test launches failures they will soon start seriously complaining about incompetency, corruption, and politics. Then the politicians will start pushing the engineers to be more careful, avoid risk etc. After you do all that, what do you get in the end? The exact same situation governments are in now lol
Given how politics work, I think its extremely hard-to-impossible for governments to adopt SpaceX methods.
IMO the best approach, ironically enough, is the US recent practise on space launches. Just set up requirements, let the private sector bid for them by using their existing, or developing new rockets. The private sector doesn't have the public to answer off. Not like shareholders also like seeing explosions but at least if you explain them your business and R&D model they would be more willing to accommodate "failed" tests.
The private sector is also much more willing to experiment, adopt new ideas/practises, be much more motivated in controlling costs, launch cadence, maintainability, turn around time etc.
I actually think the old way of national space agencies slowly building new rockets in a 10 year period is becoming outdated. They will have to change their model towards something more like what NASA does, where they set strict requirements and just let the private sector do the hard work. Of course i would also argue that having a national rocket builder isn't a bad idea so that you won't be held hostage by companies of Boeing's ilk.
they can only absorb failures because there won't be predatory adversary media spinning every tiny failure as a massive humiliation. Otherwise, an endless drumbeat of slanderous media hit pieces would sap investor confidence rapidly.
That in itself should be seen as an advantage of their model.
Ultimately, the ability to rapidly test and repeatedly fail multiple times to accelerate their timelines to reach a successful product faster is something that's desirable. The fact that others cannot do so is a limitation on those other companies or governments, not an unfair advantage that SpaceX has.
depends on whether the destruction of value that each test represents, and the opportunity costs these failures impose, makes up for the probability of eventual success AND the probability that their theory of design represents the most cost effective path.
That's where having money to burn and sufficient technological reserves comes in as a benefit.
If you have the money and the technology as well as not having the political or social pressures of having to succeed on the first go, then it absolutely makes a lot of sense to embark on multiple repeated failures to fast track and accelerate your development faster than your competitors can.
Other companies and governments might not have those advantages, in which case it is understandable they do not pursue development like the way companies like SpaceX does.
However, that doesn't mean that SpaceX's method of development is not the correct one for itself, and it certainly doesn't mean that the starship test yesterday was a "failure".
If anything it was quite successful and went essentially according to plan and then some, if we consider that the expectation for multiple repeated initial failures is built into their development model (and thus should be part of our expectations) to begin with.
Well they have built themselves a good reputation with Falcon 9 and Heavy. How critical was the media when Falcon 9's were crashing constantly? And after they began succeeding, their PR team made a compilation of their failures to persuade investors that failures are expected.
Similarly now with the reputation of China's space program, I think the engineers can afford to be a little bolder than before.
SpaceX proved it with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, so when the time came with Starship, even if it was unconventional, it wasn't directly dismissed as impossible by outsiders.
Now imagine if a random unproven European or Chinese private rocket company suddenly says that its going to build a Starship equivalent in X years. Not only will they be laughed out of the room, their investors will also chew them up for wasting their money.
It all depends if you have established technological reserves and track record to prove to the world, your government, your customers, your investors that they can trust you to deliver on your promises
SpaceX has proven this, have other private companies done it as well?
The overall design is not much different from the previous PPT. The three-stage tandem configuration has a diameter of 10.6 meters, a total length of 114 meters, a take-off mass of about 4400 tons, and a take-off thrust of about 6100 tons. 50 tons..
copying from Weibo account -
There is a small change in the power configuration: the third stage of hydrogen and oxygen is changed from one 120-ton YF-91 high-pressure supplementary combustion hydrogen-oxygen machine to four 25-ton YF-79 expansion cycle hydrogen-oxygen machines! The primary and secondary main engines are still the same. The "Turtle Raptor" 200-ton full-flow staged combustion cycle liquid oxygen methane engine is used. The former is connected in parallel with 30 units, and the latter is connected in parallel with 2 units.
In addition, the propellant filling volumes of the first, second and third stages are 3420 tons, 370 tons and 140 tons respectively.
