Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

twitter.com

101–110 of 265 posts

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#101
post #26
post #6

And that's why they are testing it.

Depends on what kind of test that was supposed to be. If they pumped it until it explodes it would be a kind of test (also called experiment) where it makes sense. If you design something with a margin of safety, then pump it to working pressure and it blows, then it means you made a mistake. If you made a mistake it shows you don't know what is necessary to design a rocket (yet). Seriously, they don't build skyscrap…

Skyscrapers have been built again and again, and they have much different constraints. Starship Mk1 is the first of its kind.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#102
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any elementary student of history can tell you how bad an idea this is. Apollo 1 almost ended the program. A backlash in public opinion will crater SpaceX in the market and legislature. There is no space mission in the near decades worth the loss of human life. Economy in terms of money is no priority if you are to undertake human space flight. Move fast and break things is cute for a global search index or regressin…

> There is no space mission in the near decades worth the loss of human life. This is a weird assertion. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents each year, but no one proclaims that going to the grocery store isn't worth the risk to human life.

Yours is far weirder. How does mortality in daily life have anything to do with a billionaire’s fantasy.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#103
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any elementary student of history can tell you how bad an idea this is. Apollo 1 almost ended the program. A backlash in public opinion will crater SpaceX in the market and legislature. There is no space mission in the near decades worth the loss of human life. Economy in terms of money is no priority if you are to undertake human space flight. Move fast and break things is cute for a global search index or regressin…

They aren't using any tax dollars for Starship. It's entirely funded by their profits (at least as far as I know). And this Starship MK1 is/was a prototype designed to test some aspects of their design in the real world. It was never going to be anywhere close to taking people onboard. Even this incident had all people far away before they started doing anything like pressurising. This is active development, every si…

Citations needed for the funding. Sounds like people being loose with the truth. The accounting alone would be close to impossible to keep separate.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#104
post #26
post #6

And that's why they are testing it.

Depends on what kind of test that was supposed to be. If they pumped it until it explodes it would be a kind of test (also called experiment) where it makes sense. If you design something with a margin of safety, then pump it to working pressure and it blows, then it means you made a mistake. If you made a mistake it shows you don't know what is necessary to design a rocket (yet). Seriously, they don't build skyscrap…

I expect this was more likely a manufacturing mistake. It was assembled night and day under a very tight deadline.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#105
post #80
post #71

Oh dear! It looks like someone accidentally divided by 2 for the cylindrical hoop stresses, forgetting that they're not the same equation as for spherical stresses. :) Less facetiously, a thin-walled cylinder's stress is a function of pressure, radius and thickness with the equation: sigma = P*r/t whereas for a sphere (including the spherical end caps on a cylindrical pressure vessel), it follows the equation: sigma…

That's why you take your maximum design stress and double it, right? /s

How else do you think I keep my reputation as a miracle worker? -- Scotty

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#106
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When their entire business depends on very carefully managing their PR, you're not going to get a public post-mortem without spin. If a government regulator runs the investigation, you might. I don't know if a regulator's going to get involved in this, though.

> When their entire business depends on very carefully managing their PR You really think this? My perception is that their PR is fairly blunt and upfront. while they may not tell you everything they dont seem to be trying to "spin" anything

>they dont seem to be trying to "spin" anything

Compare their statements about the cause of the CRS-7 explosion to NASA's.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#107
post #12
post #6

And that's why they are testing it.

They are supposed to begin personal cross continental flights on this thing in just a few years for a bit more than the cost of an economy coach plane ticket. A bit before that it is supposed to do a manned moon flyby in 2023.

Sources:

New York to Shanghai slightly more than economy ticket by 4/2028:

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17227036/flight-spacex-gwynne-...

Moon 2023:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacex-plans-to-f...

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#108

for some reason i feel like im watching a 2nd grader's baking soda volcano project. i guess it's the perspective of the camera, or im not accustomed to the looks of prototype rockets, but to me it looks like a paper mache diorama

Starship looks particularly shoddy because it's made from relatively small steel plates welded together. The welding process causes each plate to warp slightly, so the end result looks like a quilt rather than a nice uniformly smooth cylinder. Most rockets don't look like this. Most prototype rockets don't look like this either.

The argument has been that this is good enough to start testing structural features, and probably also good enough to do a little bit of low-stress flying as well. The first argument seems sound. I'm not so sure about the second... there are a lot of welds. At least a few of them are likely to be structurally unsound, and assessing weld quality is difficult.

In any case, for the "real" Starship, they plan to use a technique similar to the one they use on Falcon, where they roll a huge metal plate and then stir-friction weld along the seam. This kind of tooling is difficult and expensive to set up, and the configuration of the machinery and the material depends a lot on the actual design, which hasn't been finalized yet.

Apparently they're using thicker steel then they plan to use on the monolithically constructed version to compensate for weld quality, but I don't know... weld seams are great stress concentrators, and stress concentrations are where fractures are likely to form, and fractures on the skin of a rocket are usually catastrophic failures. All it takes is one defect.

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#109
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it strong enough to take a full tank of water? Liquid methane weighs less than half what water weighs.

Liquid oxygen weighs more than water though...

True, although only slightly. Of course, it also wouldn't be trying to take off with a full tank of water and you'd expect it to pull at least 2G during takeoff (do we have an actual figure?) so I'm guessing the answer would be 'yes, it could take it'?

Re: SpaceX's Starship Mk1 just blew off its bulkhead in a pressurization accident

#110

Is the Starship Mk1 more structurally sound than it looks? From a first glance and having no knowledge of its design, it looks like an empty soda can that would deform at the slightest disturbance. And the way it crumpled in the video doesn't seem far off from what I would expect.

Yes, rockets are basically soda cans full of propellant with rocket engines on the bottom and the payload usually on the top. They are entirely constrained by thrust versus mass, so the designers make the structure as light/thin as possible while still being able to handle the acceleration forces when fuelled and pressurised. If the weight of the rocket itself is too high it will not be able to lift any payload. If i…

Atlas booster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkdz63agHY

Post reply on HN