Photo: Is SpaceX Ready for Liftoff?

With another “rapid unscheduled disassembly,” the second Starship test in November was a mixed success.

In November, SpaceX conducted the second unmanned test of Starship, with mixed success. Unlike in the first test, all 33 engines fired and the super heavy booster and Starship spacecraft successfully separated. Thirty seconds after separation, the rocket experienced "rapid unscheduled disassembly" (read: explosion) with the spacecraft following soon after. The company will file a mishap report to the Federal Aviation Administration and may have to wait months for regulatory approval to conduct a third test.

Comments

[Don't look at me!]

NASA had the same problems in the beginning..

[mad.casual]

The Air Force experienced a ground-induced "rapid unscheduled disassembly" of an unmanned F-35 just a few months ago.

[BlytheAmanda]

I get paid more than $120 to $130 every hour for working on the web. I found out about this Qd activity 3 months prior and subsequent to joining this I have earned effectively $15k from this without having internet working abilities Copy underneath site to..
Check It—>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com

[Chumby]

The Soviet space program included numerous “rapid unscheduled disassemblies” during the design process. Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin came after those learning experiences.

[Dillinger]

Yuri always was a pyromaniac.

[Chumby]

Think that was Molotov.

[Moderation4ever]

I cannot help but wonder if the goal of the super heavy rocket is ahead of the technology available. SpaceX has fine products in its lifting rockets and capsules, maybe Starship is ahead of its time. I think the goal of a Moon base or Mars flight is also something for the future and there are better goals for the present. Robot exploration seems to be the best choice for today. I would space habitats in earth orbit for human is the also a good choice.

[Don't look at me!]

Can’t win if you don’t play.

[mad.casual]

Yeah, but you don't win by throwing every pitch at 110 mph and every pass 95 yds. for a touchdown.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the idea that we're going to live somewhere sustainably that's years away by space travel when there are vast places that are minutes away by air and sea travel where we don't and can't live sustainably is absurd.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

As Benjamin Franklin said when asked of what use was the first hot air balloon, of what use is a newborn baby?

Perhaps no one has proposed uses for reliable cheap heavy lifters because there has been no reliable cheap heavy lift.

[Rossami]

Since it's not your money, why do you think you get a say in what the "better" goals might be?

If you've got a better idea, put up your own money and do it. (And if you don't have enough money personally, put up your own time and start soliciting like-minded investors.) Stop wasting your time and mine carping about how other people choose to spend their money.

[jimc5499]

It's up to Space X. If they think it's worth doing then it's their call. Would we even be having this discussion if Musk hadn't gotten so many Liberal panties in a twist by buying Twitter?

[TryLogic]

^Exactly...

[Moderation4ever]

I agree it's Musk's call, I just would not be an investor. I also hope he doesn't pull down a good company with an over-the-top goal.

[Brett Bellmore]

If he can even get Starship working in a single shot mode, it will be cheaper than the current Falcon rocket on a $/Kg to orbit. And I'd say he's darned close to that, probably would have achieved it already if the government hadn't shut down his development program for a year.

Trying to launch over concrete that didn't even have a sheet of steel covering it was something of a self-own, though. They have made more than one mistake of that sort.

I'd say that the problem is that the regulators aren't on board with his fast cycle, "Launch something, see what fails, fix it, launch again" approach to rocket development, but they actually were fine with it right up until January 20th, 2021... It sucks to be an enemy of the administration and need regulatory approval for anything.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"The company will file a mishap report to the Federal Aviation Administration and may have to wait months for regulatory approval to conduct a third test."

Why is it that our government is not subject to the same scrutiny when they commit major fuck-ups?

[Moderation4ever]

Major government fuck-ups are usually followed by major internal or external investigations.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

More often by coverups.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Like for the New Deal? Or the War on Poverty?

And where are the institutional halts while we investigate?

[Moderation4ever]

Perhaps some equivalency is in order. The government did investigate the Apollo 1 fire, the Apollo 13 explosion and the loss of two shuttles. A week or so ago the entire US army fleet of CV-22 Osprey were grounded after a crash. So despite the whiny from Musk, I don't think SpaceX is being picked upon.

[Bill Falcon]

The Shuttle was a dangerous vehicle which was widely known. But the desire to fund "something" manned post Apollo in the Nixon admin budget allotment and its revenue stream to important congressman's districts ruled the day. The Ruskies never used solid rocket boosters for manned spaceflight, they are way too dangerous (and yet are used on the latest NASA congressional revenue pumping project the SLA which is years behind schedule and billions over budget).

As for SpaceX, Nasa could again put folks in orbit at a fraction cost/seat than the Shuttle or even Soyuz. Did Boeing or Lockmart ever think of landing a first stage for reuse? Hell, Boeing's Starliner is another hanger queen that hasn't launched with a crew.

Starship's economics in low earth/high earth and beyond earth is such a massive jump...sure 30 engines in the main stage is daunting both stages reuse is pushing the envelope, but I would not bet against this company.

And in the end SpaceX has to make a profit unlike say Amtrak or a hundred different "green" solar Federal Govt investments.

[mad.casual]

but I would not bet against this company.

That depends on what the goal and/or claim is. My $30K sticker price Tesla still has yet to materialize. 5 min. battery swaps have turned out to be... non-optimal.

If the goal is lower the cost of LEO payload delivery. Dumb bet, it's already been achieved. If the goal is just to put Musk's corpse on Mars, whole, circa his demise. Sure, safe bet. If the idea is to put people in a functioning permanent habitat on Mars and bring them back before most of us are dead. Dumb bet the opposite direction. Their LEO rocket science is great, but the fact is that 3 yrs. after NASA was founded they had animals returning from orbit alive and within a decade animals were orbiting the Moon and being recovered alive, even if there was no viable market for such endeavors, and SpaceX 20 yrs. on, from a strict "milestones achieved" perspective, is still perfecting on the "Don't disassemble rapidly." issue.

Not saying they aren't good at what they do or aren't or can't be profitable, just saying, as indicated, lots of talking heads, including the CEO, like to write checks their engineering, design, business development, etc. teams don't even seem to be trying to cash any time soon.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Did Boeing or Lockmart ever think of landing a first stage for reuse?"

DC-X, aka "Delta Clipper"

Ultimately a casualty of the cancellation of the the Strategic Defense Initiative, and NASA's "not invented here!" immune reaction to being forced to take on continuation of the program.

[Bill Falcon]

The Shuttle continued to fly after Challenger when it was obvious the system was prone to catastrophic failure.

Most federal programs fail as well by any metric yet they keep going.

[Dillinger]

SpaceX launched something last Thursday night right over the PopTarts bowl where I was watching KSU play NCState it was pretty spectacular