SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship updates

[+primortal Subscriber²]

It appears a bad decision by Musk was the reason for the explosion.

 

[wakjak]

On 23/04/2023 at 15:55, primortal said:

It appears a bad decision by Musk was the reason for the explosion.

 

Just some "unkown unkowns".

 

And i'll quote from the last post on previous page

 

Quote

They speculate from a distance quite a bit, but the engineers & padrats on the open & private forums are having quite a discussion - largely shooting down arm-wavers. 

L. O. L.

[Steven P. Administrators]

I am sure @DocMwill find a way to explain it in such a way so as to divert blame from Lord Musk 😛 

[DocM]

On 23/04/2023 at 18:14, Steven P. said:

I am sure @DocMwill find a way to explain it in such a way so as to divert blame from Lord Musk 😛 

 

Musk took the blame, taking a chance to get real-world data because they weren't sure of their models. It's called a calculated risk.

And congratulations for proving me right about usual suspects transferring the "I hate Musk" thread here. Great way to suck the air out of a discussion.

The tweet guy's a  photographer, RGOTI.

++++++++++

The explosion happened because the stage separation system failed, which on Starship occurs as it rotates up - not in a straight line, and it was losing thrust. All the engines on that vehicle were an outdated version of Raptor, SN's 105 and under. They're on Raptor 2+ and around SN 300 now, and a completely different block number of the booster.

Starship has an autonomous flight safety system. If the vehicle malfunctions the AFSS triggers exp!osive charges to blow it up. SOP on most US launchers. When the above malfunctions occurred, it triggered. Boomski.

[DocM]

Ars Technica's Eric Berger, Senior Space Editor

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/

 

Quote

So what was that? Was Starship’s launch a failure or a success?

SpaceX's development process is messier, but it's also much faster.

>

Solving these issues, particularly with the ground systems, is likely to be the biggest hurdle before the next test flight of Starship can take place.

On the plus side, the Federal Aviation Administration confirmed there were no injuries during the test. Moreover, one of the rocket's biggest customers, NASA, was happy with the test.

"Every great achievement throughout history has demanded some level of calculated risk because with great risk comes great reward," NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in a statement after the test flight. "Looking forward to all that SpaceX learns, to the next flight test—and beyond."

>

 

[anthdci]

I don't understand why people have to come down on one side or another, was it a complete success? No, they didn't get it to orbit and do two controlled splashdowns. Was it a complete failure? No they got the rocket clear of the pad and didn't do a full RUD taking out all of stage 0. It's a partial success, getting past Max Q is a big win, blowing a huge hole under the pad and massive dints in the fuel farm is a big negative.

They will learn from this, they now know for sure that they need something to deal with the thrust, and the launch mount will need more shielding. The confirmed the hydronic vector control system wasn't reliable so their switch to electronic for booster 9 was right. I suspect internally they know why the raptors that went out did stop firing (or never started). They know the ship lost some tiles. That's just what's obvious to me a casual spectator, they will have far more to look into that they wouldn't have known had it not been from this flight.

[Steven P. Administrators]

On 24/04/2023 at 18:58, DocM said:

Ars Technica's Eric Berger, Senior Space Editor

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/

 

 

Hmm who to believe, some dude with an opinion on a blog, or the FAA?

Hard choice 🤡

[Slugsie]

It's my understanding from reading a few articles and some YT videos that Musk took the decision to not use a deflector because one of the operating modes for Starship is to take off from the surface of another body (Moon/Mars) which is unprepared. I.e. no launch pad of any form. Thus he wanted to see how it would perform. *If* that's true it's still a boneheaded moved. The damage was caused by the first stage Super Heavy launch vehicle, which won't be taking part in any operations from another body.

For a first test flight, there is no reason not to have a deflector in place.

[Steven P. Administrators]

[bguy_1986]

On 25/04/2023 at 06:21, Steven P. said:

Hmm who to believe, some dude with an opinion on a blog, or the FAA?

Hard choice 🤡

Is Christopher David from the FAA?  Or is he just some photographer on twitter?

 

Quote

The rockets will remain grounded pending an FAA investigation to ensure “any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety,” as is standard practice, the FAA said in a statement.

FAA grounds SpaceX's Starship rockets after explosion minutes into launch - POLITICO

Any failure was going to cause a grounding, it's standard practice.  This is a learning process for the FAA too as they have not seen a rocket this powerful.  Everyone knew there was no guarantee that the rocket flight was going to go as planned, except the clowns that would rather spread hate, than see someone with a different opinion then them, have success. 

And it all seems to be coming from the "inclusive and tolerant" left.  I was a fan of what Musk was doing with SpaceX and Tesla even when he was voting democrat and thought differently than I.  It wasn't that long ago, you can probably go back in my comments and look yourself.

Edited April 25, 2023 by bguy_1986

[+primortal Subscriber²]

On 25/04/2023 at 08:54, bguy_1986 said:

Is Christopher David from the FAA?  Or is he just some photographer on twitter?

What's the difference?  He posted what the FAA is doing and then added his own $.02 just like you just did.  Are you from the FAA?

We're pointing out the Musk made a bad decision (one of many by the way) and we're calling him out on it.  I'm no rocket scientist (nor is Musk) and I'd definitely take my engineers' recommendations over my own.  Plus, I personally would want to have a very successful launch to prove it can be done and then worry about testing liftoff without deflectors.  But that's just me...

[+primortal Subscriber²]

 

[bguy_1986]

On 25/04/2023 at 09:14, primortal said:

What's the difference?  He posted what the FAA is doing and then added his own $.02 just like you just did.  Are you from the FAA?

We're pointing out the Musk made a bad decision (one of many by the way) and we're calling him out on it.  I'm no rocket scientist (nor is Musk) and I'd definitely take my engineers' recommendations over my own.  Plus, I personally would want to have a very successful launch to prove it can be done and then worry about testing liftoff without deflectors.  But that's just me...

It's what he left out so he could insinuate that Musk is an idiot and caused this, when in reality it's standard practice and was likely to happen regardless.

[+primortal Subscriber²]

On 25/04/2023 at 09:23, bguy_1986 said:

It's what he left out so he could insinuate that Musk is an idiot and caused this, when in reality it's standard practice and was likely to happen regardless.

That's his call.  A lot of us believe Musk is an idiot.  There's speculation that he overrode the engineers in installing deflectors and the debris from the launch pad caused damage to one of the engines which lead to failed launch.  If that's true, then yes, he's an idiot.

We'll see what the FAA says after investigating.

People need to stop getting their panties in a bunch when people call people like Musk idiots.  We are all entitled to our opinion.

[FloatingFatMan]

On 25/04/2023 at 14:37, primortal said:

People need to stop getting their panties in a bunch when people call people like Musk idiots.  We are all entitled to our opinion.

There are several people here that seem to think the sun shines out of Musk's back side.  I'm not one of them.  He's not a rocket scientist, and he's not a vehicle designer. He's a businessman that knows how to take other people's ideas and run with it.

Every time he tries to put HIS "expertise" into the mix, things go boom.

[Skiver Veteran]

Can we not just enjoy the process from Space X without having to bring Musk into things though? He's just one person in a company that is doing some pretty amazing things, I don't really care what he does or doesn't do, I just want to enjoy watching this company do cool things.

It's a total bummer to come in here and catch up on the news and progress only to find a string of posts of people getting their panties in a twist about him.

[Astra.Xtreme]

On 25/04/2023 at 08:52, FloatingFatMan said:

There are several people here that seem to think the sun shines out of Musk's back side.  I'm not one of them.  He's not a rocket scientist, and he's not a vehicle designer. He's a businessman that knows how to take other people's ideas and run with it.

Every time he tries to put HIS "expertise" into the mix, things go boom.

Have you even read the discussion here?  It's the complete opposite.  Nobody is claiming Elon to be a god-like figure.  Where are you even getting those stupid ideas?  A handful of people here are trying to grasp at straws and dunk on him because the launch didn't go flawless.  Name a single aeronautics program that never had a failure during R&D.  Not a single one...   People just need to get over their political agenda against the guy.  It's no coincidence that the people whining here are the ones especially active in the politics forums...

And he actually is a rocket scientist since he's actually putting engineering work into the products.  Uneducated opinions like yours are the problem...  Literally every statement you made is a complete lie... Stick to the facts...

[anthdci]

On 25/04/2023 at 13:54, bguy_1986 said:

 

And it all seems to be coming from the "inclusive and tolerant" left.  I was a fan of what Musk was doing with SpaceX and Tesla even when he was voting democrat and thought differently than I.  It wasn't that long ago, you can probably go back in my comments and look yourself.

Don’t stereotype, I’d consider myself on the centre left (I’d certainly never vote GOP if I was American) and I think it’s great what spaceX are trying to achieve. 

[+primortal Subscriber²]

On 25/04/2023 at 10:16, Astra.Xtreme said:

People just need to get over their political agenda against the guy.

Who knew throwing shade at an eccentric billionaire is considered a "political agenda'.

(mods, feel free to move this and other 'Musk' posts to https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1424095-the-44-billion-elon-musk-show/ so we don't pollute this thread any more)

 

[Astra.Xtreme]

On 25/04/2023 at 09:30, primortal said:

Who knew throwing shade at an eccentric billionaire is considered a "political agenda'.

(mods, feel free to move this and other 'Musk' posts to https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1424095-the-44-billion-elon-musk-show/ so we don't pollute this thread any more)

 

You know exactly what I'm talking about...  People don't hate Elon because he builds rockets that occasionally blow up.  Those agendas have nothing to do with rocketry, but here they are tainting up every discussion involving Elon.

[+primortal Subscriber²]

On 25/04/2023 at 11:06, Astra.Xtreme said:

You know exactly what I'm talking about...  People don't hate Elon because he builds rockets that occasionally blow up.  Those agendas have nothing to do with rocketry, but here they are tainting up every discussion involving Elon.

Of course rockets blow up on occasion, its par for the course.  But on this occasion the CEO, Musk is to blame for a bonehead decision in ignoring years of experience in rocket launches.

Excellent writeup, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/22/2165317/-A-Starship-Post-mortem-Why-the-giant-rocket-failed-and-why-it-s-Elon-Musk-s-fault

Quote

 

For some reason, Musk became convinced early on that he did not want the launch tower to have:

• A flame-diverter or flame trench to redirect the blast from the booster’s engines
• A water deluge system to dump a massive amount of water around the launch tower during liftoff

The launch facilities at Kennedy have both of these. Even the launch pads used for the much smaller Falcon 9 have both a flame trench and a water deluge. They help to protect not just the launch pad, and the surrounding area, they also help to reduce the noise. Which sounds trivial, but that noise is energy. That’s what broke up the concrete under the Starship Stage Zero, not the fire. That’s what sent car-sized chunks flying in all directions.

A flame diverter and a water deluge would have greatly reduced, or even eliminated, the damage to the area around the pad. They would have prevented the blow back of debris that damaged Starship before it even left the ground. It might have headed off the whole cascade of events that resulted in that button being pressed 4 minutes into the flight.

 

 

[DocM]

On 25/04/2023 at 09:14, primortal said:

What's the difference?  He posted what the FAA is doing and then added his own $.02 just like you just did.  Are you from the FAA?

We're pointing out the Musk made a bad decision (one of many by the way) and we're calling him out on it.  I'm no rocket scientist (nor is Musk) and I'd definitely take my engineers' recommendations over my own. 

Musk has a degree in physics from UPenn, and is a self-taught aerospace engineer. Some of the best ones were. Now he's been elected to the National Academy of Engineering by his peer engineers.  

On 25/04/2023 at 09:14, primortal said:

Plus, I personally would want to have a very successful launch to prove it can be done and then worry about testing liftoff without deflectors.  But that's just me...

There's always an investigation after a launch accident, always, so this is not FAA clutching its pearls. That investigation will be conducted by SpaceX itself, then their report will be submitted to FAA. SOP.

CBC talks to Chris Hadfield; Canadian astronaut/test pilot, former ISS Commander. He has a few things to say about the "Failing Forward" development process SpaceX uses. 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by DocM

[+primortal Subscriber²]

On 25/04/2023 at 15:47, DocM said:

Musk has a degree in physics from UPenn, and is a self-taught aerospace engineer. Some of the best ones were. Now he's been elected to the National Academy of Engineering by his peer engineers.  

Granted book smarts in building rockets but no formal degree, https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/elon-musk-spacex-rockets-expert-expertise-books-reading-jim-cantrell.html.  It doesn't exclude him from being a "rocket scientist" though, but you can only learn so much from books.  Practical experience plays a part as well.  Hopefully, he learns from his mistakes and makes SpaceX stronger going forward.

[DocM]

 

[+primortal Subscriber²]

On 25/04/2023 at 16:52, DocM said:

 

Tweet aside..  You criticize an unfavorable Tweet about why the launch failed that's from a photographer then post a favorable Tweet from a choreographer 🤔

On 24/04/2023 at 00:49, DocM said:

The tweet guy's a  photographer, RGOTI.