Did anyone else watch the SpaceX Starship launch this morning? I'm impressed that they were able to light 33 Raptor engines at once without a spectacular explosion on the launch pad. Even though 5 engines powered down soon after liftoff, quite a few stayed lit for most of the flight.
I have witnessed several launches during the evolution of Starship and none have disappointed. I didn't travel down to Boca Chica for the launch this time because, frankly, I didn't expect them to make it to liftoff. Next time though, we're taking the RV down to witness a launch no matter how many delays it takes.
I followed this on the television in the afternoon. The whole thing is a super technique. We mustn't forget how many rocket tests were necessary in the Apollo project for the flight to the moon.
it start so slow, i say "it explode now", but it go higher and higher...
Absolutely. SpaceX are unique in the rocket business in the sense that they understand that an iterative approach to design can lead to faster success. If you can afford it. 
1 Like
I had a similar thought, If you recall, the Apollo launches seemed to spend a bit of time getting started but quickly achieved supersonic speed.
The Space Shuttle starts were much faster, but they were also a "bit" lighter in weight.
Yes, mass counts! The Starship had something like 10 million pounds of fuel at launch! This is in addition to the dry weight of the rocket.
1 Like
A lot in any measurement system!
It's interesting that most of the news article headlines reference the fact that Starship exploded during the test. Few seem to recognize the accomplishment that just getting off the launchpad successfully represents.
As far as I know, no rocket with 33 engines has flown before. Just managing the heat from a cluster that size has to be a challenging engineering problem. Rewatching the flight, it looks like there were multiple engine problems. I look forward to reading about the lessons learned from this test.
1 Like
Meh. I wouldn't have minded some bigger explosions. 
1 Like
haha, yeah, some of the early Starhopper tests were fun. I witnessed two spectacular explosions of the Starship upper stage before they successfully stuck a landing.
2 Likes
They do seem to move quickly from a BOOM to something more resembling a landing and then just as quick to "NAILED IT" !
It's a tried and true design procedure. It's easier to do if you don't have a board of directors breathing down your neck and if you understand that a properly instrumented failure can lead to a faster success.
Some in this forum encourage newbies to "just try it" to answer their questions but few seem to take the advice.
2 Likes
I spent nearly 30 years testing solid propellant rocket motors and ballistic devices. In development, it is only a failure when no data was gathered or lessons learned.
Any endeavor that has a culture of asking what went wrong way before demanding who to blame has a much shorter path to success.
4 Likes
Accepting every failure as a success to define limits and design faults.
I believe they call it "experimentation".
Tom... 
4 Likes
I have found that that sort of culture is easier to cultivate when there are fewer levels of bureaucracy and someone with vision is in charge. I've found that design by committee can be a real disaster sometimes.
4 Likes
Hi,
A camel is a horse designed by a committee
Tom..
3 Likes
4535 tonnes . . . Or less than two Yamato-class triple 18" turrets.
Of course, the Russian army is the current expert on turret launches.
2 Likes
They got any tanks left ?
Seems they use em as crew launchers.