nextspaceflight.com

Astyanax · 2025-03-02T17:02:16+00:00

Here's a site that shows the next rocket launch around the world. It can be filtered to particular places. Enjoy. https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/ Might be worthy of being stickied.

MacLeech

MacLeech SpaceX Starship flight 8 may launch today. NSF has a rocket launch "stakeout stream" running watching it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg1lozrqKlo

MacLeech

The much delayed Ariane 6 launch finally occurred earlier today as well. It's first commercial launch included a French military reconnaissance satellite CSO-3.
https://newsroom.arianespace.com/ariane-6-performs-first-commercial-flight-with-successful-launch-of-cso-3-satellite
Video:
https://youtu.be/5Z8vWVkqqyo

MacLeech

SpaceX Starship flight test 8 launched on-time today. Booster was caught successfully again, but the upper stage Starship lost attitude control when multiple engines went out at 134KM altitude, 20388 KM/H speed. The stage was lost about 20-30 seconds short of its full rocket burn completion.
Booster landing video:
https://x.com/i/status/1897794546781532408
Starship reentry after loss video:
https://x.com/i/status/1897803678914167243
https://x.com/i/status/1897796382221910338

Bobcat00

When will this stop. They lost engines on the first stage and while trying to come back to the tower and it gyrated wildly in the last moments. It was lucky not to crash into the tower and create a massive disaster that would end the whole program.

This is not safe and needs to be put a stop to it.

MacLeech

Bobcat00 It was still a successful catch. That makes 3 catch attempts, 3 successful catches, and 1 waved off catch due to a tower problem. Successful even with engines out (luckily they have many so one or two doesn't mean a loss) and "it gyrated wildly in the last moments".

They have 2 other towers almost completed, at least 2 boosters and 2 Starships already waiting in the hanger for their test flights, plus an entire new version of engines that haven't flown yet. A booster loss won't stop it, and neither would a tower loss.

ANY rocket launch is not safe. Why do you seem so desperate to have these stopped?

If you're really worried about peoples' safety, EVERYONE needs to stop driving and flying. Tens of thousands are killed every year that way.

InternetJeff

Bobcat00 ...create a massive disaster that would end the whole program.

Hyperbole much?

This is what development testing is. Three astronauts died in Apollo 1, and it didn't "end the whole" Saturn V or Apollo program.

For some context...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g79K-R7xTFo

MacLeech

InternetJeff Here's a fun launch from back in 2021 by Astra in Alaska:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfjO7VCyjPM

Here's the Orbital Sciences Antares 5th launch from Wallops Island, Virginia. It was a NASA resupply mission for the ISS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF_YCj99VXk
A LOX turbopump in one of it's two first stage engines failed. It pushed them to use Roscosmos sold Russian RD-181 engines in later flights until 2022:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/orb3_irt_execsumm_0.pdf
NASA is still using Antares rockets, over a dozen more, launched from Wallops to resupply the ISS.

I can't think of a single rocket company who hasn't lost multiple rockets after launch. There are good reasons people compare difficult things to "rocket science".

px_eliezer_

InternetJeff Bobcat00 …create a massive disaster that would end the whole program.

Hyperbole much?

This is what development testing is. Three astronauts died in Apollo 1, and it didn’t “end the whole” Saturn V or Apollo program.

Exactly.

We remember the Challenger and Columbia disasters, yet we move on.

HooRU

My problem is a danger to those not involved. It seems reckless their approach. And wasteful when actual engineering can pre-empt some of this mess.

I want Starship to succeed though, but under better owners. Patriotic ones.

MacLeech

HooRU Actual engineering is always a trade off between delivery speed, cost, and performance (aka the iron triangle). The order of those factors’ priority are usually picked by personnel above of the engineers’ authority.

InternetJeff

HooRU

HooRU My problem is a danger to those not involved

How?

HooRU It seems reckless their approach.

How?

HooRU And wasteful when actual engineering can pre-empt some of this mess.

No. This isn't the Jurassic era space development with with big bloated dinosaur companies trying to engineer every possible contingency on paper, where when you miss something a payload or astronauts are lost (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia). It's a new modern era where fully instrumental hardware is tested to failure so that you can know what cannot be fully anticipated on paper. The proof is in the Falcon 9 operational records, many of which are unmatched.

HooRU ...under better owners. Patriotic ones.

Ridiculous. Starship going to the Moon or Mars will plant the American flag on those destinations, supported by an American company, supporting American NASA space mission goals.

HooRU

MacLeech

HooRU It flew over the ocean and fell into the ocean like countless rockets the last several decades. The travel corridor was cleared of aircraft (by FCC notice and radar) and boats (by CC notice and patrol). The land around the launch pad was cleared by local law enforcement. These are all the SAME things done for NASA and other rocket launches in the U.S.

What else do you expect?

HooRU

Photo speaks for itself.

MacLeech

HooRU As well as the hundreds of photos of NASA and other rocket explosions, like this:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2013/01/31/10-years-after-shuttle-columbia-tragedy-crew-s-kids-spouses-still-struggle-to-move-forward/
That one scattered debris across 250 miles of east Texas, not international ocean waters like Starship did. NASA kept flying them 8 more years after this, completing 22 more missions.

It just shows rockets are hard. That doesn’t mean give up.

BTW, just a reminder, these Starship flights are part of the biggest NASA project in generations. The Artemis missions to the moon. NASA doesn't get to the moon without them in the current project design, so NASA is all over this Starship development and their launches. To mischaracterize it as Musk playing around or wanting them to fail just because Musk is involved is disingenuous or ignorant. If you want NASA to succeed, SpaceX has to succeed.

InternetJeff

HooRU Photo speaks for itself.

Yes, it does. It speaks to a development test flight in which no humans or payloads were lost due to insufficient real-world environmental testing. It speaks to not relying upon paper designs and pressing said designs to failure so that the chance of losses can be reduced when the system enters the operational phase. It speaks to the amount of data collected that will perfect the design before becoming a man-rated vehicle.

But this approach has not always been taken. We used to rely on more on the paper designs and less on pressing systems to their breaking point under potential environmental circumstances. At the cost of lives and payloads. Something something O-rings not tested to failure under possible environment conditions. Photos do speak for themselves.

HooRU

Not this size rocket. Anyway, the people affected have a right to complain if they want to, the USA is not Musks' playground.

InternetJeff

HooRU people affected have a right to complain

Who are these people and how were they affected (for this launch)? All test launches, no matter the brand, launch in a manner whereby the test trajectory presents the least risk in case of a flight anomaly. It's approved and authorized by the FAA and other agencies.

MacLeech

Back to rocket launching, here's the next 6 launches in the world over the next few days. 4 of them American, 2 are Chinese. 1 is for NASA. 3 for private companies, and 2 for the Chinese government.
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/

MacLeech

InternetJeff All ~~test~~ launches, no matter the brand, launch in a manner whereby the ~~test~~ trajectory presents the least risk in case of a flight anomaly. It's approved and authorized by the FAA and other agencies.

Fixed that for you. It's all launches, not just test launches. It's why west coast Vandenberg launches can't fly east (over populated areas) to reach the most common orbits. KSC, Cape Canaveral, and Wallops are on the East Coast so they launch over the Atlantic. Pacific Spaceport Complex is on the south-east coast of Alaska, launching over the Pacific. SpaceX picked Boca Chica, the absolute southern east most tip of Texas, so they launch over the gulf. Early SpaceX Falcon flights were from Reagan Test Site at the Marshall Islands in the middle of the Pacific because they weren't allowed to fly over other occupied launch pads at Vandenberg. There are no orbital launch facilities in the United States that launch rockets above populated areas.

Likewise, it's originally why the Space Shuttle landed at Edwards Air Force Base, with a backup landing facility in White Sands, New Mexico which they used on the third mission. Since it came in from the west, they spent most of the time glide falling over the Pacific Ocean and not above populated areas. NASA moved landings to KSC as a cost saving measure. Which resulted in spraying Texas and Louisiana with debris on the Columbia failure.

InternetJeff

MacLeech Good point!

« Previous Page Next Page »