[Merged] SpaceX’s Starship Rocket Explodes After Launch/Starship hop - Page 9

pzkpfw · 20th April 2023, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Lplus

It appeared to become thoroughly unstable before the end. Whether it simply fell apart or was aborted by the range officer we'll no doubt find out in due course.

edit, Blancolirio reported that it failed to separate at the end of the first stage flight and started to tumble so it was destroyed.

From what I've read there's a sort of deliberate tumble (of the spent stage) as part of the separation process; something to do with then not needing a bunch of the hardware usually used to make distance between the stages.

So I wonder if the start of the tumble was as desired and it's just that things didn't let go when they were supposed to?

Trebuchet · 20th April 2023, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Marcus

Speculation from Harvard astrophysicist- pad was damaged during takeoff, chunks of concrete could be seen flying up damaging some engines and hydraulic lines, redesign of launch pad may be required

Seems possible. Recent NSF videos have show some metal pieces labeled "flame deflector", but if that's what it is, it's not close to being installed and they were in a hurry to light the candle. Ditto the water deluge system -- in work but not done.

It does seem like the old flame trench & water system is a better idea.

crescent · 20th April 2023, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

That's true, but since then we've advanced well past the "every launch an explosion until we finally get it right" phase of rocket development. For instance, SLS's very first launch just worked, and its payload arrived at its destination.

I should hope SLS worked right on the first try! It cost at least twice as much as Starship (maybe even 10x more), and cost per launch will continue to be much higher than Starship. Development cost for SLS is around 30-40 billion. Starship seems to be around 3 billion so far.

SLS will cost about 4 billion per launch. Starship may run around 100 million per launch (or much, much lower).

This may seem far fetched, but SpaceX has already massively cut launch costs with the Falcon 9. They have a proven track record of doing this sort of thing.

(The red herring: Musk is an abominable stain of a human being. I don't like the guy. But SpaceX performs well anyway.)

Gulliver Foyle · 20th April 2023, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

CNN reports:

As has been widely reported, a fundamental difference between SpaceX and Nasa is, SpaceX is okay with "fiery mishaps," arguing accidents are the fastest way to get data. NASA prefers slower, more methodical testing.

One observer said it looked to him like a major problem was detected by the spaceship's systems and the ship blew itself up. Moment SpaceX explodes below:

That's because NASA have tried the first way,going down dead ends and getting peollple killed.

But then again, Musk loves trying "solutions" to problems others have discarded ages ago in favour of actual solutions.

Mike! · 20th April 2023, 03:32 PM

Here it is, from launch to kaboom.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Doubt · 20th April 2023, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by jadebox

A such as I enjoy bashing Musk, the launch fulfilled SpaceX's objectivea, so it isn't fair to call it "disastrous."

Not a fan of Musk either. But I do know their methodology for these things is not to make them perfect. Make them just good enough to learn from and do better with the next one.

This is not the last Starship explosion we will see.

The problem Space X has to deal with is that so far, the booster is duplicating the problems the Soviets had with the N-1 they were supposed to use for moon flights. balancing fuel flow to a lot of engines is a big problem that has not been solved since the Soviets ran into it 50 years ago.

GlennB · 20th April 2023, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Doubt

Not a fan of Musk either. But I do know their methodology for these things is not to make them perfect. Make them just good enough to learn from and do better with the next one.

This is not the last Starship explosion we will see.

The problem Space X has to deal with is that so far, the booster is duplicating the problems the Soviets had with the N-1 they were supposed to use for moon flights. balancing fuel flow to a lot of engines is a big problem that has not been solved since the Soviets ran into it 50 years ago.

I suddenly feel very old

Orphia Nay · 20th April 2023, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Mike!

Here it is, from launch to kaboom.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Seems bizarre when everyone applauds when it explodes.

GlennB · 20th April 2023, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Seems bizarre when everyone applauds when it explodes.

That was my thought in the other thread. Hootin' and hollerin' would be appropriate as it climbs, but getting positively excited when it explodes is a bit weird, imo.

BowlOfRed · 20th April 2023, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

SpaceX refers to it as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly”.

The term predates spacex by quite a bit. It's a humorous term used by lots of folks. (Usually refers to an engine going boom rather than an entire spacecraft though).

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

From what I saw, it seemed like they had a problem at the stage separation. Rockets are typically designed so that you can blow them up on purpose if you encounter a problem, and while they didn't explicitly state that in the video, it wouldn't surprise me if they made the decision to intentionally detonate the thing.

Replace "intentional decision" with "automatic system" and you're correct. When the flight path deviated sufficiently from planned (based on specific parameters), rocket go boom. This was the safety system shutting it down rather than something unplanned exploding. It was fortunately/unfortunately a successful test of the flight termination system.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Haven't we had the whole "reliably getting that puppy up there" thing worked out for generations? Are they experimenting with a new technology or something?

ETA: is it the simple size of the thing that is posing unique problems?

The engines are new. F9 engines are kerosene/oxygen, these are methane/oxygen. (And reportedly the ones on this particular ship are already a version behind). There have been many fewer methane engines produced, so presumably that's a big part of the learning.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I do have a question, though: during flight, there was a point where you could see the individual engines on the booster from below (around the 46:20 mark). Not all the engines were lit. I know the design is intended to work even with a few engine failures, but they were also saying that at that point in the flight profile, around max Q, they had reduced thrust. Does anyone know if those engines shut off by design as part of reducing thrust, or if they shut down because of some problem?

Any engines out going uphill is unplanned. Engines are supposed to throttle down a bit before maxQ (and then throttle back up). All of these were problems. Will have to wait to see if they can tell which were due to flinging concrete at them and which were due to other failures.

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Seems possible. Recent NSF videos have show some metal pieces labeled "flame deflector", but if that's what it is, it's not close to being installed and they were in a hurry to light the candle. Ditto the water deluge system -- in work but not done.

It does seem like the old flame trench & water system is a better idea.

Even traditional trenches aren't simple. Shuttle had trench failures several times. Getting anything to handle this (without planning $$$$ refurb after every launch) will be a challenge.

Marcus · 20th April 2023, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Seems possible. Recent NSF videos have show some metal pieces labeled "flame deflector", but if that's what it is, it's not close to being installed and they were in a hurry to light the candle. Ditto the water deluge system -- in work but not done.

It does seem like the old flame trench & water system is a better idea.

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Seems bizarre when everyone applauds when it explodes.

This launch was a proof of concept of a radical new design. 33 methane rocket motors in a single giant rocket. They performed beautifully, generating the required thrust even a few motors short, and successfully transitioning MECO. "Rocket explodes" makes great headlines but is only a minor part of the story.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 05:50 PM

From the very start of the live stream they were saying "if this thing clears the tower, it'll be a success."

They never intended to recover either part of the rocket. The booster was scheduled to crash into the Gulf. The orbiter, if it made it that far, was going to crash into the Pacific ocean near Hawaii.

Rapid unplanned disassembly at 4 minutes into its very first test flight? That was a good result.

Checkmite · 20th April 2023, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Doubt

The problem Space X has to deal with is that so far, the booster is duplicating the problems the Soviets had with the N-1 they were supposed to use for moon flights. balancing fuel flow to a lot of engines is a big problem that has not been solved since the Soviets ran into it 50 years ago.

It has been solved; it's just that the solution is "using lots of engines that way is impractical", and we supported that solution by using a different design of fewer engines which did successfully take humans to the Moon.

But it is, admittedly, an unfulfilling and uncomfortable solution, especially when one is invested in a particular design, and specific design considerations such as "but lots of engines looks really cool" and "it has to be different because it has to be different".

Checkmite · 20th April 2023, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

From the very start of the live stream they were saying "if this thing clears the tower, it'll be a success."

I've said it elsewhere; but in 2023, that is an extremely sad ambition for a new rocket design. Of course it was going to "clear the tower", the engines only have to burn for 3 seconds to do that and they had already static-fired them, so it's not like they didn't know if they would work.

Some of the engines went out mid-ascent. The thing got to max-Q late. They couldn't get the separation to work at all. Every single thing that's supposed to happen after clearing the tower not working isn't a success, no matter how many times fans insist through gritted teeth that it was.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

I only worked with flight crews so that wasn't a phrase I heard bandied about.

But the 'rapid disassembly' must go back to the Redstone days... or a crack about the early Soviet attempts.

Black humor... as critical a supply in aerospace as coffee.

SpaceX is good at the euphemistic description. "Geobraking" is another of my favourites.

And yes, they were cheering because the first test of the most gargantuan rocket in human history was a success.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It was never going to go into orbit. They did plan on it going into space, and if everything had gone perfectly it would have. Given their rapid prototyping model it's OK that things didn't go to plan, but the plan was still space.

If it had survived, a single orbit was planned before the craft was scheduled to crash into the ocean near Hawaii.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I've said it elsewhere; but in 2023, that is an extremely sad ambition for a new rocket design. Of course it was going to "clear the tower", the engines only have to burn for 3 seconds to do that and they had already static-fired them, so it's not like they didn't know if they would work.

Some of the engines went out mid-ascent. The thing got to max-Q late. They couldn't get the separation to work at all. Every single thing that's supposed to happen after clearing the tower not working isn't a success, no matter how many times fans insist through gritted teeth that it was.

There wasn't anything that was "supposed" to happen after clearing the tower. Clearing the tower was the goal. Everything else was just cake.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Seems bizarre when everyone applauds when it explodes.

Originally Posted by GlennB

That was my thought in the other thread. Hootin' and hollerin' would be appropriate as it climbs, but getting positively excited when it explodes is a bit weird, imo.

The test had already succeeded. Fireworks at the end were fun. If it had survived, it would have crashed in two pieces into the ocean anyway. This was more spectacular.

Checkmite · 20th April 2023, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

There wasn't anything that was "supposed" to happen after clearing the tower. Clearing the tower was the goal. Everything else was just cake.

Maybe you hadn't seen it, but there was an entire flight plan for this thing that was supposed to last an hour and a half. The booster and vehicle were intended to eventually splashdown and not be recovered; but it very much was supposed to separate. The booster very much was supposed to carry out its retro-fire function before splashing down, as a test. The vehicle was supposed to complete a full orbit before deorbiting and splashing down.

That is a hell of a lot of "cake"; and I can't help but wonder if maybe the mission would've been a lot more successful than it was if achieving those objectives was treated as the goal from the beginning instead of just an optional side-quest and the only thing that really mattered was that it got past the launch tower.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Maybe you hadn't seen it, but there was an entire flight plan for this thing that was supposed to last an hour and a half. The booster and vehicle were intended to eventually splashdown and not be recovered; but it very much was supposed to separate. The booster very much was supposed to carry out its retro-fire function before splashing down, as a test. The vehicle was supposed to complete a full orbit before deorbiting and splashing down.

That is a hell of a lot of "cake"; and I can't help but wonder if maybe the mission would've been a lot more successful than it was if achieving those objectives was treated as the goal from the beginning instead of just an optional side-quest and the only thing that really mattered was that it got past the launch tower.

No, I've seen the contingency plans for if the craft happened to survive the launch. You have to make those plans. Just lighting the booster and standing back isn't sufficient. It was a big rocket, and they needed to plan for what it was going to do should the primary mission objective be fulfilled.

The point is that those were not criteria for success.

Every rocket has failure mode contingencies built in.

Anyway, this as I said was the first test of the most gargantuan rocket system ever built. If it had succeeded on all of the "cake" contingencies, it would have been extremely surprising.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 07:12 PM

SpaceX is now selling Super Heavy branded chair height extenders. A shoplifter was arrested for stealing one, and I am raising money for bail.

I'm a booster booster booster booster.

(stolen from /r/WordAvalanches)

dudalb · 20th April 2023, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

That's true, but since then we've advanced well past the "every launch an explosion until we finally get it right" phase of rocket development. For instance, SLS's very first launch just worked, and its payload arrived at its destination.

SpaceX rockets explode so much during their development due to their choice of methodology, which is basically winging it and skimping on R&D to reduce time between headlines because that's how you keep investors happy.

The way rockets physically interact with the atmosphere is very, very, very well known; the physics are calculable and predictable. There's no scientific or engineering reason why you need exploded rockets to "collect data" in order to make sure you've designed your rocket correctly, that's just spin (no pun intended in this case).

I am in no way trying to defend Musk; the way he is running Space X..or not running it..is to blame for this fiasco.

jadebox · 20th April 2023, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

If it had survived, a single orbit was planned before the craft was scheduled to crash into the ocean near Hawaii.

No, it was to reach orbital velocity, but not complete an orbit.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by jadebox

No, it was to reach orbital velocity, but not complete an orbit.

Yeah, only mostly an orbit. East coast to near Hawai'i. It's important to be accurate.

dudalb · 20th April 2023, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Marcus

This launch was a proof of concept of a radical new design. 33 methane rocket motors in a single giant rocket. They performed beautifully, generating the required thrust even a few motors short, and successfully transitioning MECO. "Rocket explodes" makes great headlines but is only a minor part of the story.

Yeah, but since Space X made this a huge PR gimmick, they have egg on their face. THose who live by PR shall die by PR.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 07:35 PM

Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about doesn't see it as face egg.

dudalb · 20th April 2023, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Mike!

Here it is, from launch to kaboom.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Remember Professor Fate's experiments with rocket engines?

smartcooky · 20th April 2023, 07:51 PM

Anyone classing this as a failure because they failed in their object/plan doesn't understand what "rapid iteration" means. The object of this launch was to gather data... failure was always an option, and they will now have mountains of data to work though.

ON THE VALUE OF FAILURE
The value of failure is that you almost always learn something new about what your system can or cannot tolerate, plus you are forced to look at all of the potential failure modes as part of a disciplined failure review process.

Every time you succeed, all you learn is that you were some combination of good and lucky, and you never really know the ratio of one to the other. When you fail, you generally have a good idea of just how unlucky you were that day, and how to improve your odds tomorrow.
- Stranger-on-a-Train (straightdope.com) 7 December 2011

Thoughts:
A few of the Raptor engines failed just after liftoff. IMO, this could likely be the result of no water deluge system to attenuate the shock-waves generated by having 33 very powerful rocket engines all running at full noise

What I found astonishing was the structural integrity. This thing bloody well cartwheeled (at least four times as far as I could see) and did not disintegrate or even come apart at the interstage. I guess that will be a result of skinning it with stainless instead of aluminum.

SpaceX will have the pad repaired pretty smartly, and they already have the next Super Heavy Booster and Starship almost ready to stack for launch within a couple of months.

JayUtah · 20th April 2023, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I was really just hoping that, after some decades of designing and building liquid fuel rockets, someone could get it right the first time.

This is by no means an ordinary rocket or an ordinary development program. This is not just an incremental revision of customary designs and processes. Starship radically rethinks a number of things we do and a number of ways we used to do them.

The mission objective was to clear the tower, just as Apollo 11's mission objective was "To perform a manned lunar landing and return." (Nothing about pictures or rocks or even getting out of the LM.) The sights were set low on purpose. Seriously, just getting to the point of a full countdown and a few seconds of full-power controlled flight while maintaining structural integrity is a reasonable goal at this point in such an ambitious design.

Those of us in the more traditional business wish we could do the kind of rapid prototyping that SpaceX bases their development strategy on. It has its advantages, and SpaceX has learned to leverage it well. But a general tenet of advanced commercial engineering remains: that if you aren't incurring a substantial risk of failure then you're not doing anything that's significant enough to matter in the industry. That encompasses Starship and Vulcan, whose respective designers are trying to ride that edge in different ways.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 08:06 PM

I remember way back at TAM7 Adam Savage gave a memorable talk on the value of failure.

sackett · 20th April 2023, 08:09 PM

It's fine as long as the smelly cag suggah isn't spending public money.

Although when a billionaire burns wads of cash, you have to wonder whose money it really is. I have to wonder, anyway.

Orphia Nay · 20th April 2023, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The test had already succeeded. Fireworks at the end were fun. If it had survived, it would have crashed in two pieces into the ocean anyway. This was more spectacular.

The test succeeded, but doesn't it mean something else has gone wrong, though?

The Atheist · 20th April 2023, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The US government is paying SpaceX about $3 billion to develop a lunar lander. That's dirt cheap.

I see that's about right for the money, and it is cheap.

I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by crescent

This may seem far fetched, but SpaceX has already massively cut launch costs with the Falcon 9. They have a proven track record of doing this sort of thing.

I think maybe the key point is commercial launches have allowed for rapid development and economies of scale across the industry.

arthwollipot · 20th April 2023, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

The test succeeded, but doesn't it mean something else has gone wrong, though?

It depends on what you man by "gone wrong". A lot of data has been recorded about what happened. That data will be used in future flights. That data would not have been record if the full flight had been completed. They'd only know that "nothing broke this time".

The Great Zaganza · 20th April 2023, 09:26 PM

I wonder how many more "successful tests" SpaceX can afford.

crescent · 20th April 2023, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Yeah, but since Space X made this a huge PR gimmick, they have egg on their face. THose who live by PR shall die by PR.

I don't think they have egg on their face, I doubt they think so either. They just have a very different business model.

This is a video that they made themselves.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This is not the sort of video put out by a company that thinks they get egg on their face from a test flight crash.

(And the Falcon 9 has now had at least 195 consecutive successful launches, at a cost somewhere around 1/4 what the closest competition was charging)

crescent · 20th April 2023, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I wonder how many more "successful tests" SpaceX can afford.

So far they have spent about 1/10 as much as what was used to develop the Artemis rocket.

By that math it'll take at least 10 Starship to match that budget outlay. Say nine crashes and one good launch to match the one Artemis launch.

smartcooky · 20th April 2023, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Wudang

Elon Musk product crashes and burns is news?

...and Musk's product has successfully soft landed 186 times (the last 112 consecutive) isn't!

smartcooky · 20th April 2023, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Haven't we had the whole "reliably getting that puppy up there" thing worked out for generations? Are they experimenting with a new technology or something?

ETA: is it the simple size of the thing that is posing unique problems?

Originally Posted by Thermal

I gathered that it is bigger than the Sat V, but I didn't think by enough to start square cubing novel problems. Exploding going up seems like one of the things we would have reliably resolved though. I suppose the re-usability causes substantial engineering differences versus stage jettisoning though

You should stick to the construction industry.. at least you know something about that!

I will let someone who is probably our most experienced Aerospace Engineer explain it to you far better than I can.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

This is by no means an ordinary rocket or an ordinary development program. This is not just an incremental revision of customary designs and processes. Starship radically rethinks a number of things we do and a number of ways we used to do them.

The mission objective was to clear the tower, just as Apollo 11's mission objective was "To perform a manned lunar landing and return." (Nothing about pictures or rocks or even getting out of the LM.) The sights were set low on purpose. Seriously, just getting to the point of a full countdown and a few seconds of full-power controlled flight while maintaining structural integrity is a reasonable goal at this point in such an ambitious design.

Those of us in the more traditional business wish we could do the kind of rapid prototyping that SpaceX bases their development strategy on. It has its advantages, and SpaceX has learned to leverage it well. But a general tenet of advanced commercial engineering remains: that if you aren't incurring a substantial risk of failure then you're not doing anything that's significant enough to matter in the industry. That encompasses Starship and Vulcan, whose respective designers are trying to ride that edge in different ways.

The Great Zaganza · 20th April 2023, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by crescent

So far they have spent about 1/10 as much as what was used to develop the Artemis rocket.

By that math it'll take at least 10 Starship to match that budget outlay. Say nine crashes and one good launch to match the one Artemis launch.

That math would work if they were a State Agency.

20th April 2023, 02:36 PM	#321
pzkpfw Thinker Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 239	Originally Posted by Lplus It appeared to become thoroughly unstable before the end. Whether it simply fell apart or was aborted by the range officer we'll no doubt find out in due course. edit, Blancolirio reported that it failed to separate at the end of the first stage flight and started to tumble so it was destroyed. From what I've read there's a sort of deliberate tumble (of the spent stage) as part of the separation process; something to do with then not needing a bunch of the hardware usually used to make distance between the stages. So I wonder if the start of the tumble was as desired and it's just that things didn't let go when they were supposed to?
pzkpfw Thinker Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 239

20th April 2023, 02:51 PM	#322
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 38,281	Originally Posted by Marcus Speculation from Harvard astrophysicist- pad was damaged during takeoff, chunks of concrete could be seen flying up damaging some engines and hydraulic lines, redesign of launch pad may be required Seems possible. Recent NSF videos have show some metal pieces labeled "flame deflector", but if that's what it is, it's not close to being installed and they were in a hurry to light the candle. Ditto the water deluge system -- in work but not done. It does seem like the old flame trench & water system is a better idea.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

20th April 2023, 03:00 PM	#323
crescent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,591	Originally Posted by Checkmite That's true, but since then we've advanced well past the "every launch an explosion until we finally get it right" phase of rocket development. For instance, SLS's very first launch just worked, and its payload arrived at its destination. I should hope SLS worked right on the first try! It cost at least twice as much as Starship (maybe even 10x more), and cost per launch will continue to be much higher than Starship. Development cost for SLS is around 30-40 billion. Starship seems to be around 3 billion so far. SLS will cost about 4 billion per launch. Starship may run around 100 million per launch (or much, much lower). This may seem far fetched, but SpaceX has already massively cut launch costs with the Falcon 9. They have a proven track record of doing this sort of thing. (The red herring: Musk is an abominable stain of a human being. I don't like the guy. But SpaceX performs well anyway.)
	Last edited by crescent; 20th April 2023 at 03:08 PM.

20th April 2023, 03:52 PM	#326
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 8,022	Originally Posted by jadebox A such as I enjoy bashing Musk, the launch fulfilled SpaceX's objectivea, so it isn't fair to call it "disastrous." Not a fan of Musk either. But I do know their methodology for these things is not to make them perfect. Make them just good enough to learn from and do better with the next one. This is not the last Starship explosion we will see. The problem Space X has to deal with is that so far, the booster is duplicating the problems the Soviets had with the N-1 they were supposed to use for moon flights. balancing fuel flow to a lot of engines is a big problem that has not been solved since the Soviets ran into it 50 years ago.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 8,022	__________________ 45 es un titere

20th April 2023, 04:24 PM	#331
Marcus Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 3,718	Originally Posted by Trebuchet Seems possible. Recent NSF videos have show some metal pieces labeled "flame deflector", but if that's what it is, it's not close to being installed and they were in a hurry to light the candle. Ditto the water deluge system -- in work but not done. It does seem like the old flame trench & water system is a better idea. Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Seems bizarre when everyone applauds when it explodes. This launch was a proof of concept of a radical new design. 33 methane rocket motors in a single giant rocket. They performed beautifully, generating the required thrust even a few motors short, and successfully transitioning MECO. "Rocket explodes" makes great headlines but is only a minor part of the story.
Marcus Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 3,718	Last edited by Marcus; 20th April 2023 at 04:33 PM.

20th April 2023, 03:25 PM	#324
Gulliver Foyle Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Cork baaaiii Posts: 2,835	Originally Posted by newyorkguy CNN reports: As has been widely reported, a fundamental difference between SpaceX and Nasa is, SpaceX is okay with "fiery mishaps," arguing accidents are the fastest way to get data. NASA prefers slower, more methodical testing. One observer said it looked to him like a major problem was detected by the spaceship's systems and the ship blew itself up. Moment SpaceX explodes below: That's because NASA have tried the first way,going down dead ends and getting peollple killed. But then again, Musk loves trying "solutions" to problems others have discarded ages ago in favour of actual solutions.

20th April 2023, 03:55 PM	#327
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 30,954	Originally Posted by Doubt Not a fan of Musk either. But I do know their methodology for these things is not to make them perfect. Make them just good enough to learn from and do better with the next one. This is not the last Starship explosion we will see. The problem Space X has to deal with is that so far, the booster is duplicating the problems the Soviets had with the N-1 they were supposed to use for moon flights. balancing fuel flow to a lot of engines is a big problem that has not been solved since the Soviets ran into it 50 years ago. I suddenly feel very old

20th April 2023, 04:09 PM	#329
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 30,954	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Seems bizarre when everyone applauds when it explodes. That was my thought in the other thread. Hootin' and hollerin' would be appropriate as it climbs, but getting positively excited when it explodes is a bit weird, imo.

20th April 2023, 04:14 PM	#330
BowlOfRed Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 2,423	Originally Posted by alfaniner SpaceX refers to it as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly”. The term predates spacex by quite a bit. It's a humorous term used by lots of folks. (Usually refers to an engine going boom rather than an entire spacecraft though). Originally Posted by Ziggurat From what I saw, it seemed like they had a problem at the stage separation. Rockets are typically designed so that you can blow them up on purpose if you encounter a problem, and while they didn't explicitly state that in the video, it wouldn't surprise me if they made the decision to intentionally detonate the thing. Replace "intentional decision" with "automatic system" and you're correct. When the flight path deviated sufficiently from planned (based on specific parameters), rocket go boom. This was the safety system shutting it down rather than something unplanned exploding. It was fortunately/unfortunately a successful test of the flight termination system. Originally Posted by Thermal Haven't we had the whole "reliably getting that puppy up there" thing worked out for generations? Are they experimenting with a new technology or something? ETA: is it the simple size of the thing that is posing unique problems? The engines are new. F9 engines are kerosene/oxygen, these are methane/oxygen. (And reportedly the ones on this particular ship are already a version behind). There have been many fewer methane engines produced, so presumably that's a big part of the learning. Originally Posted by Ziggurat I do have a question, though: during flight, there was a point where you could see the individual engines on the booster from below (around the 46:20 mark). Not all the engines were lit. I know the design is intended to work even with a few engine failures, but they were also saying that at that point in the flight profile, around max Q, they had reduced thrust. Does anyone know if those engines shut off by design as part of reducing thrust, or if they shut down because of some problem? Any engines out going uphill is unplanned. Engines are supposed to throttle down a bit before maxQ (and then throttle back up). All of these were problems. Will have to wait to see if they can tell which were due to flinging concrete at them and which were due to other failures. Originally Posted by Trebuchet Seems possible. Recent NSF videos have show some metal pieces labeled "flame deflector", but if that's what it is, it's not close to being installed and they were in a hurry to light the candle. Ditto the water deluge system -- in work but not done. It does seem like the old flame trench & water system is a better idea. Even traditional trenches aren't simple. Shuttle had trench failures several times. Getting anything to handle this (without planning $$$$ refurb after every launch) will be a challenge.

20th April 2023, 05:50 PM	#332
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	From the very start of the live stream they were saying "if this thing clears the tower, it'll be a success." They never intended to recover either part of the rocket. The booster was scheduled to crash into the Gulf. The orbiter, if it made it that far, was going to crash into the Pacific ocean near Hawaii. Rapid unplanned disassembly at 4 minutes into its very first test flight? That was a good result.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 05:57 PM	#333
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 28,499	Originally Posted by Doubt The problem Space X has to deal with is that so far, the booster is duplicating the problems the Soviets had with the N-1 they were supposed to use for moon flights. balancing fuel flow to a lot of engines is a big problem that has not been solved since the Soviets ran into it 50 years ago. It has been solved; it's just that the solution is "using lots of engines that way is impractical", and we supported that solution by using a different design of fewer engines which did successfully take humans to the Moon. But it is, admittedly, an unfulfilling and uncomfortable solution, especially when one is invested in a particular design, and specific design considerations such as "but lots of engines looks really cool" and "it has to be different because it has to be different".
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

20th April 2023, 06:16 PM	#334
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 28,499	Originally Posted by arthwollipot From the very start of the live stream they were saying "if this thing clears the tower, it'll be a success." I've said it elsewhere; but in 2023, that is an extremely sad ambition for a new rocket design. Of course it was going to "clear the tower", the engines only have to burn for 3 seconds to do that and they had already static-fired them, so it's not like they didn't know if they would work. Some of the engines went out mid-ascent. The thing got to max-Q late. They couldn't get the separation to work at all. Every single thing that's supposed to happen after clearing the tower not working isn't a success, no matter how many times fans insist through gritted teeth that it was.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

20th April 2023, 06:17 PM	#335
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	Originally Posted by Jim_MDP I only worked with flight crews so that wasn't a phrase I heard bandied about. But the 'rapid disassembly' must go back to the Redstone days... or a crack about the early Soviet attempts. Black humor... as critical a supply in aerospace as coffee. SpaceX is good at the euphemistic description. "Geobraking" is another of my favourites. And yes, they were cheering because the first test of the most gargantuan rocket in human history was a success.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 06:19 PM	#336
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	Originally Posted by Ziggurat It was never going to go into orbit. They did plan on it going into space, and if everything had gone perfectly it would have. Given their rapid prototyping model it's OK that things didn't go to plan, but the plan was still space. If it had survived, a single orbit was planned before the craft was scheduled to crash into the ocean near Hawaii.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 06:20 PM	#337
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	Originally Posted by Checkmite I've said it elsewhere; but in 2023, that is an extremely sad ambition for a new rocket design. Of course it was going to "clear the tower", the engines only have to burn for 3 seconds to do that and they had already static-fired them, so it's not like they didn't know if they would work. Some of the engines went out mid-ascent. The thing got to max-Q late. They couldn't get the separation to work at all. Every single thing that's supposed to happen after clearing the tower not working isn't a success, no matter how many times fans insist through gritted teeth that it was. There wasn't anything that was "supposed" to happen after clearing the tower. Clearing the tower was the goal. Everything else was just cake.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 06:26 PM	#338
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay Seems bizarre when everyone applauds when it explodes. Originally Posted by GlennB That was my thought in the other thread. Hootin' and hollerin' would be appropriate as it climbs, but getting positively excited when it explodes is a bit weird, imo. The test had already succeeded. Fireworks at the end were fun. If it had survived, it would have crashed in two pieces into the ocean anyway. This was more spectacular.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 06:42 PM	#339
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 28,499	Originally Posted by arthwollipot There wasn't anything that was "supposed" to happen after clearing the tower. Clearing the tower was the goal. Everything else was just cake. Maybe you hadn't seen it, but there was an entire flight plan for this thing that was supposed to last an hour and a half. The booster and vehicle were intended to eventually splashdown and not be recovered; but it very much was supposed to separate. The booster very much was supposed to carry out its retro-fire function before splashing down, as a test. The vehicle was supposed to complete a full orbit before deorbiting and splashing down. That is a hell of a lot of "cake"; and I can't help but wonder if maybe the mission would've been a lot more successful than it was if achieving those objectives was treated as the goal from the beginning instead of just an optional side-quest and the only thing that really mattered was that it got past the launch tower.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

20th April 2023, 06:51 PM	#340
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	Originally Posted by Checkmite Maybe you hadn't seen it, but there was an entire flight plan for this thing that was supposed to last an hour and a half. The booster and vehicle were intended to eventually splashdown and not be recovered; but it very much was supposed to separate. The booster very much was supposed to carry out its retro-fire function before splashing down, as a test. The vehicle was supposed to complete a full orbit before deorbiting and splashing down. That is a hell of a lot of "cake"; and I can't help but wonder if maybe the mission would've been a lot more successful than it was if achieving those objectives was treated as the goal from the beginning instead of just an optional side-quest and the only thing that really mattered was that it got past the launch tower. No, I've seen the contingency plans for if the craft happened to survive the launch. You have to make those plans. Just lighting the booster and standing back isn't sufficient. It was a big rocket, and they needed to plan for what it was going to do should the primary mission objective be fulfilled. The point is that those were not criteria for success. Every rocket has failure mode contingencies built in. Anyway, this as I said was the first test of the most gargantuan rocket system ever built. If it had succeeded on all of the "cake" contingencies, it would have been extremely surprising.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 07:12 PM	#341
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	SpaceX is now selling Super Heavy branded chair height extenders. A shoplifter was arrested for stealing one, and I am raising money for bail. I'm a booster booster booster booster. (stolen from /r/WordAvalanches)
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 07:26 PM	#342
dudalb Suspended Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 60,126	Originally Posted by Checkmite That's true, but since then we've advanced well past the "every launch an explosion until we finally get it right" phase of rocket development. For instance, SLS's very first launch just worked, and its payload arrived at its destination. SpaceX rockets explode so much during their development due to their choice of methodology, which is basically winging it and skimping on R&D to reduce time between headlines because that's how you keep investors happy. The way rockets physically interact with the atmosphere is very, very, very well known; the physics are calculable and predictable. There's no scientific or engineering reason why you need exploded rockets to "collect data" in order to make sure you've designed your rocket correctly, that's just spin (no pun intended in this case). I am in no way trying to defend Musk; the way he is running Space X..or not running it..is to blame for this fiasco.

20th April 2023, 07:26 PM	#343
jadebox Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,783	Originally Posted by arthwollipot If it had survived, a single orbit was planned before the craft was scheduled to crash into the ocean near Hawaii. No, it was to reach orbital velocity, but not complete an orbit.

20th April 2023, 07:34 PM	#344
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	Originally Posted by jadebox No, it was to reach orbital velocity, but not complete an orbit. Yeah, only mostly an orbit. East coast to near Hawai'i. It's important to be accurate.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 07:34 PM	#345
dudalb Suspended Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 60,126	Originally Posted by Marcus This launch was a proof of concept of a radical new design. 33 methane rocket motors in a single giant rocket. They performed beautifully, generating the required thrust even a few motors short, and successfully transitioning MECO. "Rocket explodes" makes great headlines but is only a minor part of the story. Yeah, but since Space X made this a huge PR gimmick, they have egg on their face. THose who live by PR shall die by PR.

20th April 2023, 07:35 PM	#346
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about doesn't see it as face egg.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 07:51 PM	#348
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 24,829	Anyone classing this as a failure because they failed in their object/plan doesn't understand what "rapid iteration" means. The object of this launch was to gather data... failure was always an option, and they will now have mountains of data to work though. ON THE VALUE OF FAILURE The value of failure is that you almost always learn something new about what your system can or cannot tolerate, plus you are forced to look at all of the potential failure modes as part of a disciplined failure review process. Every time you succeed, all you learn is that you were some combination of good and lucky, and you never really know the ratio of one to the other. When you fail, you generally have a good idea of just how unlucky you were that day, and how to improve your odds tomorrow. - Stranger-on-a-Train (straightdope.com) 7 December 2011 Thoughts: A few of the Raptor engines failed just after liftoff. IMO, this could likely be the result of no water deluge system to attenuate the shock-waves generated by having 33 very powerful rocket engines all running at full noise What I found astonishing was the structural integrity. This thing bloody well cartwheeled (at least four times as far as I could see) and did not disintegrate or even come apart at the interstage. I guess that will be a result of skinning it with stainless instead of aluminum. SpaceX will have the pad repaired pretty smartly, and they already have the next Super Heavy Booster and Starship almost ready to stack for launch within a couple of months.
	__________________ Those who claim that something can't be done need to stop getting in the way of those who are actually doing it! - Anonymous Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! Last edited by smartcooky; 20th April 2023 at 09:00 PM.

20th April 2023, 08:02 PM	#349
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: The great American West Posts: 23,982	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto I was really just hoping that, after some decades of designing and building liquid fuel rockets, someone could get it right the first time. This is by no means an ordinary rocket or an ordinary development program. This is not just an incremental revision of customary designs and processes. Starship radically rethinks a number of things we do and a number of ways we used to do them. The mission objective was to clear the tower, just as Apollo 11's mission objective was "To perform a manned lunar landing and return." (Nothing about pictures or rocks or even getting out of the LM.) The sights were set low on purpose. Seriously, just getting to the point of a full countdown and a few seconds of full-power controlled flight while maintaining structural integrity is a reasonable goal at this point in such an ambitious design. Those of us in the more traditional business wish we could do the kind of rapid prototyping that SpaceX bases their development strategy on. It has its advantages, and SpaceX has learned to leverage it well. But a general tenet of advanced commercial engineering remains: that if you aren't incurring a substantial risk of failure then you're not doing anything that's significant enough to matter in the industry. That encompasses Starship and Vulcan, whose respective designers are trying to ride that edge in different ways.

20th April 2023, 08:06 PM	#350
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	I remember way back at TAM7 Adam Savage gave a memorable talk on the value of failure.
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 08:09 PM	#351
sackett Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 8,696	It's fine as long as the smelly cag suggah isn't spending public money. Although when a billionaire burns wads of cash, you have to wonder whose money it really is. I have to wonder, anyway.
	__________________ If you would learn a man's character, give him authority. If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.

20th April 2023, 08:10 PM	#352
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 44,237	Originally Posted by arthwollipot The test had already succeeded. Fireworks at the end were fun. If it had survived, it would have crashed in two pieces into the ocean anyway. This was more spectacular. The test succeeded, but doesn't it mean something else has gone wrong, though?

20th April 2023, 08:21 PM	#353
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 34,492	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The US government is paying SpaceX about $3 billion to develop a lunar lander. That's dirt cheap. I see that's about right for the money, and it is cheap. I stand corrected. Originally Posted by crescent This may seem far fetched, but SpaceX has already massively cut launch costs with the Falcon 9. They have a proven track record of doing this sort of thing. I think maybe the key point is commercial launches have allowed for rapid development and economies of scale across the industry.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

20th April 2023, 08:37 PM	#354
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 85,474	Originally Posted by Orphia Nay The test succeeded, but doesn't it mean something else has gone wrong, though? It depends on what you man by "gone wrong". A lot of data has been recorded about what happened. That data will be used in future flights. That data would not have been record if the full flight had been completed. They'd only know that "nothing broke this time".
	__________________ A million people can call the mountains a fiction Yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them https://xkcd.com/154/

20th April 2023, 09:26 PM	#355
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Photo Contest Winner Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 21,602	I wonder how many more "successful tests" SpaceX can afford.
	__________________ “Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”

20th April 2023, 09:40 PM	#357
crescent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,591	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I wonder how many more "successful tests" SpaceX can afford. So far they have spent about 1/10 as much as what was used to develop the Artemis rocket. By that math it'll take at least 10 Starship to match that budget outlay. Say nine crashes and one good launch to match the one Artemis launch.
	Last edited by crescent; 20th April 2023 at 09:42 PM.

20th April 2023, 09:45 PM	#358
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 24,829	Originally Posted by Wudang Elon Musk product crashes and burns is news? ...and Musk's product has successfully soft landed 186 times (the last 112 consecutive) isn't!
	__________________ Those who claim that something can't be done need to stop getting in the way of those who are actually doing it! - Anonymous Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!

20th April 2023, 09:53 PM	#359
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 24,829	Originally Posted by Thermal Haven't we had the whole "reliably getting that puppy up there" thing worked out for generations? Are they experimenting with a new technology or something? ETA: is it the simple size of the thing that is posing unique problems? Originally Posted by Thermal I gathered that it is bigger than the Sat V, but I didn't think by enough to start square cubing novel problems. Exploding going up seems like one of the things we would have reliably resolved though. I suppose the re-usability causes substantial engineering differences versus stage jettisoning though You should stick to the construction industry.. at least you know something about that! I will let someone who is probably our most experienced Aerospace Engineer explain it to you far better than I can. Originally Posted by JayUtah This is by no means an ordinary rocket or an ordinary development program. This is not just an incremental revision of customary designs and processes. Starship radically rethinks a number of things we do and a number of ways we used to do them. The mission objective was to clear the tower, just as Apollo 11's mission objective was "To perform a manned lunar landing and return." (Nothing about pictures or rocks or even getting out of the LM.) The sights were set low on purpose. Seriously, just getting to the point of a full countdown and a few seconds of full-power controlled flight while maintaining structural integrity is a reasonable goal at this point in such an ambitious design. Those of us in the more traditional business wish we could do the kind of rapid prototyping that SpaceX bases their development strategy on. It has its advantages, and SpaceX has learned to leverage it well. But a general tenet of advanced commercial engineering remains: that if you aren't incurring a substantial risk of failure then you're not doing anything that's significant enough to matter in the industry. That encompasses Starship and Vulcan, whose respective designers are trying to ride that edge in different ways.
	__________________ Those who claim that something can't be done need to stop getting in the way of those who are actually doing it! - Anonymous Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!