Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Cheezoholic

(3,137 posts)
24. It's amazing to me that SpaceX engineers are re-learning all of the lessons NASA testing has already gone through
Thu Jun 19, 2025, 11:12 AM
Jun 19

One of the biggest issues with very large rockets is "POGO", a harmonic vibration issue that rips very large rockets apart under acceleration. NASA pretty much solved (though not 100%) this issue 60 years ago with the way the different stages were attached to each other (ripping off a Russian design on the original Soyuz. SpaceX thought they were smarter but guess what, hey are now implementing those design characteristics.

Another is "sloshing" of the massive amounts of fuel in the tanks during acceleration, deceleration and maneuvering. If a powerful rocket engine which pumps 1k's of pounds of fuel per second into its ignition chamber is deprived of either the oxidizer and/or the fuel being burned for even a millisecond because the fuel is "sloshing" around in the pressurized tanks it will melt and explode. NASA solved this problem 60 years ago including doing something called "hot staging" that allows the second stage to ignite while the first stage is still accelerating bot at an ever decreasing rate. SpaceX lost 2 boosters due to this now they are "hot staging".

This "ship" has a new version of their very impressive Raptor engine however they are tackling issues with fuel leaks and transport to these engines. These engines are some of the most powerful and efficient rocket engines yet designed but without being too nerdy there are some lessons once again from the Apollo F1 they could learn from and possibly prevent the issues they
are having with leaks etc. (Btw, the engineers during the Gemini/Apollo program were dealing with Hydrogen to mix with O2 and burn in their engines, a fuel that is 1000 times more complex to work with that the Methane SpaceX uses. Should be a hint right there of how good they were back then)

There are several other things from the 60's SpaceX has ignored as "old thinking" , "just a bunch of nerds with slide rules and pocket protector" rocket scientists and engineers when in fact they should've taken the engineering prowess from that period and used it as a foundation instead of shrugging it off. It's one of the reasons SpaceX's legendary engine designer Tom Mueller left the company many years ago. There was too much resistance by Musk mainly to apply what Musk thought was ancient technology.

I will confess I have been a rocket/space nerd all my life and am fairly well versed in a lot of aspects (rocket scientist I am not lol) and I love what SpaceX is trying to achieve. Not so much the Mars colony fantasy in 5 years ( we have to go back to the moon first period) but they are the ones pushing the envelope in rocket design and efficiency. Contrary to what people may think the engineers and for that matter everyone who works for SpaceX are not a bunch of Eloon fanboys. I personally know a couple. These are very smart young people with vision and drive to do the undoable in their minds. The same vision and drive of the "slide rule" folks back in the 50's and 60's. The sad part is our government space and engineering program has been thrown onto the trash heap so these kids have nowhere to go but someplace like SpaceX. The asshole literally has all the money in the world to throw at this so it's where these bright minds land. There's a reason Eloon doesn't "run" the company. There's actually a contract that keeps him from totally wrecking it, which he would if he had free-range.

And I think, from what I'm hearing and seeing, they are cracking open some notebooks from the 60's because they've already changed many facets of their design using the knowledge from some amazing engineers 60 years ago. They are "hot staging" now, they've incorporated water suppression and flame trench's on the pad, they've re-designed pad fueling connecters to nearly Apollo specs, and tons of other things. They're a year or 2 away still from getting this thing flight ready so expect more "RUD's". They could be 5 years ahead from where they are now if they'd have done that in the first place IMHO.

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It could have been worse. mahatmakanejeeves Jun 19 #1
yes. the staff were safe. Thanks for post riversedge Jun 19 #3
WE can buy more rockets. How long do we let this company operate? travelingthrulife Jun 19 #16
No rocket program ever avoids losses like this. Our national security depends on access to dependable delivery vehicles. Martin68 Jun 19 #31
Another Musked-up attempt to launch. nt taxi Jun 19 #2
Fire Department inbound........... riversedge Jun 19 #4
"Rapid unscheduled disassembly". boonecreek Jun 19 #5
"blowed up real good" speak easy Jun 19 #6
- surfered Jun 19 #7
I was under the impression NASA had figured out how to launch a rocket into space decades ago. sop Jun 19 #8
Yes, it is unfortunate NASA has not made in real progress in decades hueymahl Jun 19 #9
Come again? Gore1FL Jun 19 #17
Maybe eLoon wanted to get rid of NASA because it made Space-X look bad Wicked Blue Jun 19 #21
Space X is a leader in reusable vehicles. One-time-use delivery vehicles are too expensive and bad for the environment. Martin68 Jun 19 #32
Seems as though the DOGE "Boys" 3825-87867 Jun 19 #10
Most aerospace engineers view SpaceX merely as a stepping stone to a better job groundloop Jun 19 #18
Rocket just as well built as a CyberTruck Canada Kid Jun 19 #11
The Chinese PLA Navy can't put a sub into the water without it tipping over or sinking, and this asshole can't put a AZLD4Candidate Jun 19 #12
What is weird in the slowed down video was that the first flame was not from the starship but the gantry. LiberalArkie Jun 19 #13
Did any taxpayer dollars blow up with it? mdbl Jun 19 #14
Yet another SpaceX "major anomaly"? Good. Paladin Jun 19 #15
I'm reminded of that part in "The Right Stuff..." Archae Jun 19 #19
Stop right there jmowreader Jun 19 #29
Rocket science ain't easy Zorro Jun 19 #20
Another bad break-up? Marthe48 Jun 19 #22
When I was young, I never thought there would be a day when I would root against the space program. Intractable Jun 19 #23
I do, if Elon goes first and stays there. Ocelot II Jun 19 #28
It's amazing to me that SpaceX engineers are re-learning all of the lessons NASA testing has already gone through Cheezoholic Jun 19 #24
So there's nothing new in the technology? Martin68 Jun 19 #33
Didn't say that. But there are fundamental issues with building a big rocket that every engineer must deal with Cheezoholic Jun 19 #38
TY, interesting stuff (space fan here)!. Got a question about "a harmonic vibration issue"... electric_blue68 Jun 20 #39
Expensive fireworks Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 19 #25
Eloon, you ignorant slut Jilly_in_VA Jun 19 #26
We certainly got our $$ worth with that light show dweller Jun 19 #27
As much as I would like the US to have a robust spaceflight program, I can't help but enjoy hearing of the failure Martin68 Jun 19 #30
Elon is just saving time and blowing them up on the ground now. LetMyPeopleVote Jun 19 #34
! LudwigPastorius Jun 19 #35
It blowed up real good. Mysterian Jun 19 #36
nothing to see here, right FAA? RussBLib Jun 19 #37
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»SpaceX Starship upper sta...»Reply #24