3/10/25, 7:45 AM:
Missing engines! Shows damage inside engine compartment after explosion.
Good video, with some interesting comments.
12:09 PM:
Anon sources say re-design may be necessary.
3/9/25:
Some folks seem to think that to go forward with new stuff when the latest new stuff isn't working. Hmm. I would think that going back to what worked before may be a better idea in order to move forward. The Version 1 worked. Version 2 isn't. Go back to Version 1, and then push forward to a catch with a somewhat modified Version 1. You could fix whatever is wrong with the new stuff while testing the old stuff. The modifications that could be kept would be the change in location of the forward flaps, and heat shield changes. The bigger tanks with the changed plumbing needs more thinking out.
SpaceX should not get into the habit of failure. They've had 8 launches, and they're still not in orbit. Time to get to orbit and start doing something useful.
3/8/25, 7:33 AM:
Is this problem any way related to the
POGO effect? It could explain the extra long static fire test prior to flight 8. If it is POGO, then why did it surface for the new Version 2 and not the Version 1? There's discussion of leaks, but POGO could induce leaks through the hammer effect.
10:45 AM:
Let's assume that it WAS POGO. If so, nobody used that term. Why not? What I'm getting at is how this is being framed. If it was framed as "vibrations" instead, then why? POGO was encountered in the Saturn V, so obviously it isn't a death sentence for a rocket. There are means to handle it.
POGO is a hazardous condition. The early Saturn V rocket launches had some damages due to POGO. It isn't inconceivable that POGO could cause failures. Just curious about why they would want to smooth over the discussion. Are they worried about it?
3/7/25, 12:25 PM:
Some tidbits coming in slowly, some not confirmed. 1) Trajectory was off before engine shutdowns 2) mention of something wrong with appearance of the exhaust from the engines, 3) fire was observed, and possible explosion of vaccuum engine...
Speculation: the leak was far greater than thought, hence the ineffective repair. If it is a design flaw, it's back to the drawing board for Version 2. But what about Version 1?
6:07 PM:
Another
plausible failure mode? A hot spot on one of the vaccuum engines leads to speculation that it destroyed the engine, and caused the others to fail as well. I guess we'll find out eventually what the cause really was.
3/6/25; 6:19 PM:
It's a version 2, which means it is a new design. Evidently, there's a persistent bug in the system, which is causing these RUDS. Of course, it could be something else entirely, but it does seem to have the same type of thing happening. Not much information available yet.
7:55 PM:
After a quick comparison between flight 7 and flight 8, the failure mode appears about the same time. Consequently, I am of the opinion now that they've made no progress in correcting the problem. This is most definitely going to set back the program. We'll see though.
