SpaceX revealed Starship Flight 9 Pez Dispenser Open Attempt Problem...Never Happened!

As A Regular Person, I Suggest Every Possibly Should be Foreseen before Launch. Is it a Waste of time and Money? Or Designed For Research? 🤔

From the first Time I saw those wobbling movements of the Door on those tiny Actuators I could not believe, they will ever work. Add railings to each Side and a solid Gear to move it. Thats my Opinion as a Non-Engineer

Split the doors in half vertically then put them on tracks and open them sideways rolling to the sides. Just like a garage door at a home rolling up on tracks

< - - - Hmmm 🤔 ???

It is my understanding that our B-52's have both a rotary payload dispenser and a reliable bomb bay door. Perhaps a B-52 would be a better place to start than a Pez dispenser? 🤔Just a thought ... Go Starship ! 😎👍

Are you sure it is not an adhasive failure ?

The Early starships that were successful re-entering the atmosphere. They should have kept going on those and use them for testing. The new heat shields, rather than throwing four good heat shields away, use the best working copy you have which would be the original five starships and so you can keep refining other systems rather than getting stuck on one problem. Rapid iteration is good but when you have a working design, you keep it for a while and use it as a test object. I mean it may not be as light as you want, but I think Elon gets a little obsessed with having the perfect spacecraft in his next iteration and so he kind of pushes his luck a little bit too much. With that approach, we could have been a lot closer to the refined product and we wouldn't have had the regulatory delays with the FAA because we wouldn't have starships spreading shards of steel for thousands of miles.

95% of the 3.5 Billions USD given to Musk for Starship to be able to possible land on the moon by 2026. They can't even reach orbit with that heap. They all explode. "Just getting it in to space was a really big moment" - Who are they kidding. Stick to LEO with the reusable Falcon. Musk only contributions or inventions for his companies have all been utter failures. Hyperloop, Starship, CyberTruck. All the successes came from actual innovators and engineers. Starship is the CyberTruck of rockets.

I think they cancelled deployment. Because ship was rotating with no control

I believe the issue lies with 20 year old wiz bang engineers. I have read at least three responses from experienced engineers with actual solutions. Let see the super villain used its trump skills and fix it. It is becoming a very sad joke.

Is it possible that there was also a propellant leak internally that pressurised the cargo bay, holding the Pez door against the hull?

I have read most of the comments and seems alanbrown397 works as some sort of agent for musk? May even be one of the engineers who failed. Seems to have an argument against any solution that requires a change in the design?

The loss of control for the entire ship may be to blame for the loss of control for the door, the door mechanism has been updated since its first iteration looked a little "flimsy" after I mentioned it on here.

Difficult to say why the payload door failed to operate but if the fuel system failed maybe the payload deployment was aborted as the ship had bigger issues and deploying tge payload without full control of the ship could've put more than just the payload or ship in jeopardy so safer to abort for other satellites etc already in orbit.

The skin above the payload door deforms at 5.03 when the door closes

👍

Interesting that the Starship Rocket became unstable at the same time of the failed door opening attempt, or have i missed something. This may be due to pressure differences between inside and outside. In my opinion, Spacex should test one thing at a time and leave the payload deployment to once they have sorted out the launch and return of Starship wihout incident.

Commercial partnerships? The whole pez thing is made for Starlink. Need a whole new development for launching commercial objects… double ditto for moon lander.

imho the payload bay door design is flawed. instead of 1 massive piece, that lifts back out of the way a better design would be two segmented doors that retract from the sides.

Per me Starship many componenets are not tested for withstanding very high vibration during launch. Full powered 33 Raptor engines could destroy some components.

I saw how a building 2 miles far from launch tower is shaking during Starship launch. Don't you think that some components could be damaged?

How do you know the internal bay isn’t pressurized? One of the previous starship V1 that reached orbit did a door test and the bay was pressurized, which could be seen escaping.

There is the simple possibility the fuselage got torqued and deformed during launch. It’s a common problem with new fighter jet development and it’s often near impossible for engineers to figure out until the airframe has been placed under lots of G loading. In 2014, an F-35 had an engine fire during warm up. Cause was unusual and excessive compressor blade wear in the F135 engine. A few engines were pulled and same problem was found. But the problem wasn’t the engine. It was the airframe! The airframe was flexing too much under g loading, warping the engine. The airframe was re-enforced and the engine was modified with different spacers to help minimize compressor blade contact.

I'm shocked that Starship flights have never tried to open the door until flight 9.

Is that ice floating around the payload bay? Isn't it vented?

Two rails, top and bottom that the door rides on with actuation being pulling one end that unseats the door rollers into the rails. Immediately there is a slight jog in the rails that moves the door inward slightly to clear the structure. As the door is pulled it follows the track along the interior wall till hitting limit switches. The closing pulls the other end along the track until the door rollers encounter the slight jog in the rails which forces the door , one end at a time, into the opening. Actuation is via push/pull cable loop and capstan with capture pulleys positioned along the interior wall to constrain cable movement. Simple, effective.

Aptly named Space❌, nothing goes ✔️❗

Is the payload pez door needed after deployment? If not, jetison it.

Should have been vertical in the first place, DUH! Elon brain fart!

Unlock and pull to the inside then rotate on a track around the inside 🧐

This explanation is idiotic. The door isn't operating under different loads in space or on the ground as a result of air pressure. The payload bay isn't sealed. The reason they didn't open the door is because thecship wasn't in stable flight. It started pitching at SECO, five minutes before door actuation.

Nine tries... still hasn't orbited, still hasn't come back for a landing, but it'll land on Mars and then land on Earth!
Musk still thinks we're going to pack this hunk of junk disaster with people someday.
Time to pull the plug before someone gets un-viabled.

It must be tough to open a door while tumbling uncontrollably in space.
Never tried it, but I assume it's tough to do that.

The door opening and dummy payload jettison should have occurred after Spacex realised that they had a Starship stability issue. If you go ahead and eject large items from Starship at that stage perhaps that would have made controlling Starship’s attitude even more difficult (Newton’s third law). So maybe Spacex prioritised a Starship recovery over a payload deployment?

Vertical doors? But it would be more problematic for storage

Dispensador TAMPAX

Why not an accordion type of door?

What happened to the ozone layer every time a rocket explode?

To minimise internal space taken up by actuators (two too flimsy at best) I am surprised the engineers never thought to use sliding door.
... You could split the door in the middle and slide each half inside to one side or the other.
... you could even leave the door in its current structure and slide it up or down.

This would minimise taking up valuable internal space much needed for cargo.
... carerfully spaced roller assemblies would be a lot smoother and definitely more rigid

The only issue would be a possible increase in weight but if the cargo 'spaceship' is for cargo and not refueling or moon landings then not an issue.

Ned Kelly

Having a big complex analysis is all well and fine, but the real issue is that the ship was out of control and going end over end. Just how were they expected to launch a payload under those conditions?

Given the ship was oscillating more and more wildly, is it any surprise the door couldn't open? Even if it did, dispensing the payload couldn't possibly have been demonstrated effectively.

Good information but sometimes it seems like the author speaks as they know more than the engineers. Not overtly but the style. Thoughts?

Doesn't the Falcon rockets use the same system dispensing the smaller star link satilites?

Watch the airframe skin approximately 12’ above the door as the door opens. They have some serious flex issues and I don’t doubt that this flexing is also causing other structural issues during hot staging. I’ll bet the whole upper section above the door is moving around quite a bit during the violent inputs during these events. Watch the footage during the door opening test and focus on that section above the door.

I believe cargo bay was under high pressure, due to fuel leaks all around and inside the ship.

Im willing to bet it was D:
The cargo bay test was CANCELLED, regardless if the door was gonna open or not.
Why? Starship was already tumbling and releasing dummy satellites in an uncontrolled manner might have been a safety hazard.

🚪🚪🚪🚪🚪🚪

I think,….
I’ll mind my own biscuits

Space X have a reputation for thinking outside the box but the early flight 3 door designs look almost like a budget solution.

Doors in general would seem to be an area that deserves to be radically rethought with hinges and release mechanism that are bullet proof and reliable. What would be the point of getting somewhere and then not being able to open the door?

One big door would seem to be ambitious as that is a lot of weight to support a curved section on two hinges, and if the door opens, deforms and then can't be closed/sealed - that would be a problem. Maybe three smaller doors would be better than one large one? While three might make the total door mechanism more robust, it does mean more risk of failure and probably more weight. Its certainly a challenge that Space X would seem to yet crack.

For StarShip 9 by the time the cargo doors were expected to open, the mission was effectively already over and the failure to open might be more down to software with the ships orientation and stabilising systems disabling the door opening feature.

The cylinder itself is too flimsy to remain round irrespective of any pressure differentials and the ship was shaking wildly during launch.

How could this be possible!?1?1 Looks like they will have to have MORE weight!