It seems the issue was the rocket failed to separate at the designated time.
It seems to be flipping before that, means nothing to separate if it was rolling.
It was supposed to flip and separate in the same motion.
SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
981–990 of 1001 posts
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#982Anyone know how the controlled demolition works? I imagine something more sophisticated than a "radio controlled bomb" but maybe KISS.
I was curious too. I found: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Boo... - https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5775/how-are-self-... tldr: shape charges for solid boosters, dumping fuel for liquid
Excellent. Thank you.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#983Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> People want to see 100% success in all things. But that isn't very economical. That sounds logical, but isn't really a thing in aerospace/space. Complicated high-energy systems have thousands of failure points. So to have any chance of success each failure point needs to be engineered below, by way of example, a 0.0001% chance of failure. That costs lots of money. But say one decides to accept more risk for less c…
I'm not proposing something, I'm describing it. This is what SpaceX is doing , and it's quite successful. And you can look all the way back to their little hopper version of the Falcon 9 and see that this strategy has been the key to them undercutting the launch market significantly. My prediction: SpaceX will have a 5th 100% successful launch of Starship before the SLS has a 5th successful launch. They'll just have…
50th launch of Starship may be more like it…. If SpaceX finds a market for that many launches.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#984Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the real legacy of propulsion flight. What is the end goal of this? Moon trips for rich people? Disgusting.
Have you no sense of wonder or exploration? On what planet is the tiny amount of "pollution" from orbital rocket launches the "real legacy of propulsion flight"? Great write-up on this topic: https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/
Perhaps research should progress beyond combustion engines? Is blowing things up the only way? And my sense of wonder has been pretty much extinguished by the realization that space is a locus of human power dynamics and incorporation, not a utopian pursuit, but very selfish.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#985Earlier quoted context omitted.
> clearing the tower was all we hoped All, really ? What about the flight plan ? I like the American philosophy to see the good part of experiences even when thinks don’t go as planned, but IMHO I feel like it's drifting more and more from « there’s good in failure » to « let’s call everything a success ». May be wrong, just my European point of view through the transatlantic optic fiber.
They're required to file a flight plan with the FAA or they can't launch. If the plan says they'll go all the way into orbit and they abort early, that's ok. If the plan says they'll get 100m off the ground and go no further, and they instead manage to make it all the way into orbit, they'd be in a huge amount of trouble. Given the above, what sort of flight plan would you recommend they file?
« go all the way into orbit » (and down to Hawaï) seems totally fair as a flight plan. Being ok with aborting early is SpaceX decision and I totally get it. Nevertheless, « all they hope was to clear the tower » is quite hard to believe for me but this was only an opinion.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the first part of the flight was important and considered mostly a success.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#986Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am generalizing but a lot of the space community and certainly a lot of SpaceX fans were deriding the several scrubbed launches of SLS/Artemis. I am not suggesting that it’s the exact same people, and the context for each vehicle is very different. Nevertheless both the SpaceX and NASA approaches to this are valid engineering approaches. Whether this particular failed launch is a long term success remains to be see…
NASA approach cost 20 billion $ at least and has a per launch cost of 4-5 billion $ going forward. They didn't develop new engines and is mostly based on legacy avionics. There really isn't a comparison in those terms. If SpaceX spends the next 10 years and another 10 billion $ on Starship. It would still be far superior to SLS. > maybe the NASA approach of get it right first is the way to go when it comes to space f…
> NASA approach cost 20 billion $ at least and has a per launch cost of 4-5 billion $ going forward. They didn't develop new engines and is mostly based on legacy avionics. There really isn't a comparison in those terms.
You're leaning on a lot of hypotheticals and assumptions, right?
Do we even know how much a Starship launch costs? The only cost I can find is Musk saying they'd dropped $2-3B, but that was back in 2019. My point is...how can it not be a comparison when costs may (or, may not) be comparable?
I don't think the reason NASA Is risk-adverse is because of cost - it's because a similar explosion would effectively crash the entire NASA space program.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#987Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're required to file a flight plan with the FAA or they can't launch. If the plan says they'll go all the way into orbit and they abort early, that's ok. If the plan says they'll get 100m off the ground and go no further, and they instead manage to make it all the way into orbit, they'd be in a huge amount of trouble. Given the above, what sort of flight plan would you recommend they file?
« go all the way into orbit » (and down to Hawaï) seems totally fair as a flight plan. Being ok with aborting early is SpaceX decision and I totally get it. Nevertheless, « all they hope was to clear the tower » is quite hard to believe for me but this was only an opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the first part of the flight was important and considered mostly a success.
Hmm... this seems like maybe taking things in an overly literal way. It sounds like clearing the tower was their threshold for a successful test - if they didn't get that far, it would be deemed a failure.
A phrase like "all I hope for" doesn't necessarily mean "the only thing I hope for" but instead usually means "the thing I hope for most (or above all)". If someone were to say, "all I want is a good night's rest", it doesn't mean they no longer want oxygen, for example. :)
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#988Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen that analysis too, the twitter thread suggested that both HPUs on the booster eventually failed before second stage separation. That could be quite significant. Also the lack of gimballing capability could presumably have the booster continuing to thrust as it attempted to maintain attitude control even as it reached the MECO point. I wonder how much of this learning can be applied to the next launch as t…
The good news here is that the gimballing system that failed today was already obsolete. The booster that launched today (B7) was the last prototype that was built with hydraulic gimballing (B8 might of had it, but that booster was scrapped). Subsequent boosters starting with B9 were built with an electrically actuated gimballing system. So the HPUs that supported the old system aren't present on the newer prototypes…
How is that good news? It means the data from this test is worthless.
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#989Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yeah. In this sense, it's the second-worst thing that could have happened, with the worst outcome being injured or dead people. But they probably didn't expect such a bombastic finale so quickly.
exploding 4 minutes after launch is the second worst thing that could have happened? I don't think you know much about rocket history, do you?
Your point being? Care to educate me?
Re: SpaceX Starship rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas
#990Earlier quoted context omitted.
Falcon Heavy has 27 engines, Starship 33. Its not that different. And if anything Starship has a simpler engine configuration. This is not some unsolvable problem.
Falcon Heavy has 3 packs of 9 engines, each pack is thoroughly tested. They can treat the whole package as 3 sources of thrust, manipulating them as a one (which they actually do). Every booster has its own fuel tanks, lines and so on. Also, I don't remember a single engine failure during Falcon Heavy launches. Today we had 8 (?) of them.
Falcon Heavy as complete system is still far more complex. You still need to coordinate all these cores. There is a reason every designer goes to single core as systems grow larger. SpaceX actually had initially planned to do a very large 3 core and then rejected it.
And Falcon Heavy was building on 10 years of Falcon 9 knowlage and an incredibly reliable engine.
Falcon Heavy was launching from a perfectly designed launch pad that didn't throw up huge chunks of debris everywhere.
Its incredibly that people are way to fast to jump to doomsday conclusion from one test.