People recognie names better than numbers, so use of names allows identification of articles which may be massively upgraded between instances and can help minimize probability that wrong stuff gets put together, computers are mostly agnostic for this stuff if programmed correctly
You never mentioned what video platform you are moving to since RUclips isn't getting and doesn't deserve a cut any more. Is it Twitch or Vimeo? I don't want to miss your very informative vids. The onsite live view alone is great. Keep up the good work. 👍🏾
Peregrine's valve failure is but one more. Valve failures are too frequent in the space industry to go unnoticed, and they usually cause heavy economic losses, from wet dress rehearsal failures that force withdrawal, fixing, and test repetitions to complete mission failures once in flight. It should demand from engineers the replacement of single valves by fail-safe valve devices already in the design phase of development. A fail-safe device multiplies by four the number of valves needed but requires two unfortunate valve failures, not one, to fail its proper working (two sets of valves in series, each with two valves in parallel, make a single valve failure in the open or closed position irrelevant). The relative cost of using fail-safe valve devices instead of single valves is too low compared to the expectancy of mission failure costs due to valve malfunction.
The main cost comes in weight. And weight is the biggest cost driver thanks to the rocket equation. There are also other corresponding factors if you quadruple the valves, like the needed space, electric power, harmonic waves and flow problems. So in the end they will use the solution that is economical most viable. Sometimes it is more cost effective to roll the dice on fewer parts and factor in the 1 in x chance that the mission will fail. You assumptions on „fail safe design“ are just that assumed parameters.
the new glenn booster that rolled out the SLC41 HIF is not the same one that we saw in the flyover a couple weeks ago. The livery is totally different. Does this mean that they have a pathfinder for testing and a booster almost ready for flight?
Because Falcon 9 is the most commercially viable launch vehicle actually in operation today. Starship is not a peer until it starts putting commercial payloads into orbit
@@blengi Well, as I mention on this livestream, it's probably because it's more important right now for the ship to get to orbit than to get the booster back
@@ale131296 sure, but it was *the major malfunction of the whole test flight,* so it would be good if he instilled some confidence about that aspect of the program by implying it was no biggie like he did with his implying the lox dump was nothing too major going forward
It was NOT the major malfunction of the flight. The Starship explosion as it neared the end of its flight is much more troubling. The booster performed its primary function perfectly, the unfortunate explosion later didn’t affect its main job. The booster was going to splash into the ocean regardless
Are they sure the lander wasn't damaged during deployement or something like vibrations during launch?
great to see Ian on the broadcast :)
Glad to be on! :)
People recognie names better than numbers, so use of names allows identification of articles which may be massively upgraded between instances and can help minimize probability that wrong stuff gets put together, computers are mostly agnostic for this stuff if programmed correctly
With all due respect, but the elefant in the room for us was not Vulcan 😂
Y'all should interview Jessica Jensen
If only it was that easy... 😅
Thanks NSF for a fun and informative show.
You never mentioned what video platform you are moving to since RUclips isn't getting and doesn't deserve a cut any more. Is it Twitch or Vimeo?
I don't want to miss your very informative vids. The onsite live view alone is great.
Keep up the good work. 👍🏾
Peregrine's valve failure is but one more. Valve failures are too frequent in the space industry to go unnoticed, and they usually cause heavy economic losses, from wet dress rehearsal failures that force withdrawal, fixing, and test repetitions to complete mission failures once in flight. It should demand from engineers the replacement of single valves by fail-safe valve devices already in the design phase of development. A fail-safe device multiplies by four the number of valves needed but requires two unfortunate valve failures, not one, to fail its proper working (two sets of valves in series, each with two valves in parallel, make a single valve failure in the open or closed position irrelevant). The relative cost of using fail-safe valve devices instead of single valves is too low compared to the expectancy of mission failure costs due to valve malfunction.
The main cost comes in weight. And weight is the biggest cost driver thanks to the rocket equation. There are also other corresponding factors if you quadruple the valves, like the needed space, electric power, harmonic waves and flow problems.
So in the end they will use the solution that is economical most viable. Sometimes it is more cost effective to roll the dice on fewer parts and factor in the 1 in x chance that the mission will fail. You assumptions on „fail safe design“ are just that assumed parameters.
About BE's naming scheme... The New Elon rocket
the new glenn booster that rolled out the SLC41 HIF is not the same one that we saw in the flyover a couple weeks ago. The livery is totally different. Does this mean that they have a pathfinder for testing and a booster almost ready for flight?
01:11:00 starts the starship talks ;)
Not rockets with names its classes of rocket
Why bother comparing New Glenn a new rocket to a 10 year old rocket F9? Better to compare against it's peers.
Because Falcon 9 is the most commercially viable launch vehicle actually in operation today. Starship is not a peer until it starts putting commercial payloads into orbit
They are doing a static fire, just not a full-duration one. Think more like the Vulcan test FRF back in June.
@43:0, the factory photo was taken all the way back to June.
Boo missed you
Put dampener around those ceramic parts!
didn't watch the whole thing, why did super heavy's engines fail and booster explode on boost back according to elon?
He didn't talk about it
@@ale131296 oh that's disappointing, you'd think he be quick to reassure the issue is minor, a bit like he intimated lox dump thing was
@@blengi Well, as I mention on this livestream, it's probably because it's more important right now for the ship to get to orbit than to get the booster back
@@ale131296 sure, but it was *the major malfunction of the whole test flight,* so it would be good if he instilled some confidence about that aspect of the program by implying it was no biggie like he did with his implying the lox dump was nothing too major going forward
It was NOT the major malfunction of the flight. The Starship explosion as it neared the end of its flight is much more troubling. The booster performed its primary function perfectly, the unfortunate explosion later didn’t affect its main job. The booster was going to splash into the ocean regardless
No shout out to the Titans of CNC Machining Huntsville tour video!? Shame!
It was another overpriced throw away rocket with a pretty paint job. What a joke and it's not even funny.