SpaceX (general discussion)

[TomcatViP]

The question is why do they have to launch a full stack when booster is not ready yet.

I mean, I understand betting in business but now they probably need to be rational.

Last but not least, I was, myself, following the event on NSF live feed but didn't get any flight view

 

[TomcatViP]

Though according to reports the N-1 explosion was the loudest and most powerful non-nuclear blast in the world to date. I am sure the Starship explosion will be in second place.

Nowhere close. See Port Halifax, Port Chicago, etc. Several times the yield of the N1.

Yeah. It felt like Dooms day.
Freakingly impressive.

 

[Archibald]

Upps ... that does not look good!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649062784167030785

View: https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1649062784167030785

This. Completely blew my mind. The damn thing dug a freakkin' crater below its milkstool that was 10 meter tall or more. And it dug that just through rocket blowtorch !

Then again, NASAspaceflight thread reading tells me they launched that monster
a) with no water deluge system
b) with no flame trench.

Which sounds truly insane. I KNOW it stood on a tall milkstool not unlike Saturn IB at Pad 39, but still - this is no Saturn IB. This is a monster rocket one-third or even one-half more powerful than either Saturn V or the N-1.

No surprise it send concrete spalling all over the place - including smack dab into the (unfortunate) NSF camera-van.

Yeah. It felt like Dooms day.
Freakingly impressive.

There is a liftoff picture where the smoke and dust looks like a freakkin' pyroclastic volcano - Mount Saint Helens in a bad day.

Can't help thinking about the Castle Bravo nuclear blast that was supposed to be 6 megatons but ended at 15 megatons - with disastrous results.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying that thing has megaton potential force of destructive blast. No. It is more subtle than that.

I have this feeling the brute power of that thing took a lot of people by surprise. Damage to Starbase might be contained but still substantial.

Feeling a bit like Marcus Brody...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zvKkMC-Tjo

You're meddling with powers you cannot possibly comprehend.​

SpaceX is meddling with rocket (potentially destructive) power they cannot fully comprehend.

 

[Flyaway]

The question is why do they have to launch a full stack when booster is not ready yet.

I mean, I understand betting in business but now they probably need to be rational.

Last but not least, I was, myself, following the event on NSF live feed but didn't get any flight view

Answer data, data, data.

 

[Archibald]

we've developed a brand-new method for exploding frogs?

Hulk clip with quote we've developed a brand-new method for exploding frogs? Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.

www.getyarn.io

"So, do we call Elon or The Boring Company; and tell them we've developed a brand-new method for digging enormous holes in the ground - very quickly ?"

 

[Archibald]

A fellow frenchmen send me a link to that video. Well worth a watch even if you don't understand french language nor Toulouse accent. I laughed so hard I can't breath anymore.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSu4E-kaBeg&list=PLWmL9Ldoef0sDwmO6Ef2m1PQ1KqsRFRea


The space nerd, the accent, the swearing, the despair and the laughing ... this is ME, if I ever played Kerbal one day (I never did - not my cup of tea.).

Best part is when he burns the launch complex into a smoldering, blackened crater.

 

[sferrin]

Upps ... that does not look good!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649062784167030785

View: https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1649062784167030785

There has been speculation in the past as to why they didn't do something like this:



Would not be surprised if we see something like this in the future. (Blast deflector, not a full on trench like at the Cape.)

 

[sferrin]

The question is why do they have to launch a full stack when booster is not ready yet.

I mean, I understand betting in business but now they probably need to be rational.

Last but not least, I was, myself, following the event on NSF live feed but didn't get any flight view

The booster was ready.

 

[Archibald]

They spent an entire year tweaking that Booster 7. For the best and for the worse. Along the way was some limited damage that was not worth fully repairing as the modifications to Booster 9 and beyond had made 7 already obsolete. Rapide prototyping, Cook & Craigie style except much improved and successfull (YF-102 - gasp !)

Cook–Craigie plan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At some point they just said "enough is enough, we have done the best we could tweaking that booster, now let's fly it and eventually bust it." And they did.

Booster 9 (hopefully) will do much better.

 

[Moose]

I'm a few hours from being able to watch this in HD on my home PC, but my initial thought is the engine outs were less of an issue than MECO never happening. To be sure, even on mobile it's pretty easy to see some of the Raptors flaming out and one of the stills on BBC seems to indicate a fire above the engine bells, but the flight looks relatively stable through Max-Q. But it almost seems like the stack's onboard guidance failed to accomplish MECO but did command the booster to try it's flip maneuver for boost-back...while Starship was still attached and at least some Raptors were still firing.

 

[sferrin]

I'm a few hours from being able to watch this in HD on my home PC, but my initial thought is the engine outs were less of an issue than MECO never happening. To be sure, even on mobile it's pretty easy to see some of the Raptors flaming out and one of the stills on BBC seems to indicate a fire above the engine bells, but the flight looks relatively stable through Max-Q. But it almost seems like the stack's onboard guidance failed to accomplish MECO but did command the booster to try it's flip maneuver for boost-back...while Starship was still attached and at least some Raptors were still firing.

In a way it would have been hilarious if it had managed to get turned around and start heading back -with Starship still attached.

 

[Flyaway]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649068688853671940

View: https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1649068688853671940/mediaViewer?

 

[Flyaway]

Confirmation that the automated flight termination statement destroyed the launcher.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649109929968402444

View: https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1649109929968402444

Confirmed by FAA: Starship's automated flight termination system terminated the rocket.

 

[Archibald]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649068688853671940

View: https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1649068688853671940/mediaViewer?

Holy cow, looks like a pyroclastic volcanic cloud ! Mount Saint Helens style.

 

[Anduriel]

launch was good, despite five raptor not working

That's quite a lot.
N-1 curse?

 

[sferrin]

launch was good, despite five raptor not working

That's quite a lot.
N-1 curse?

No. This is not an N-1.

 

[Desertfox]

A lot of engines = a lot of chances for failure

 

[Moose]

Too early to damn or defend the raptors, could be that the huge debris plume was responsible for some of their issues. None of the N-1 launch attempts were able to survive engine losses and continue without problems snowballing out of control, this looked like it was going to be more or less OK until staging didn't happen.

 

[NMaude]

Well that was a spectacular first launch attempt ending spectacularly, anyway from TheSpaceBucket:

From Starhopper, to SN5, to the 10km flights, today we finally got to see a full Starship launch attempt, and it did not disappoint. For years now SpaceX has been developing, testing, building, and preparing for this first test flight of Starship. While not perfect, it absolutely cleared the pad and gathered a host of invaluable data for the teams at SpaceX.

With this test now complete, we know the company is headed straight to the drawing board as they prepare for the next attempt with significantly upgraded hardware. Here I will go more in-depth into what happened on this first attempt, where the issues arose, what to expect in the near future, and more.

Something I noticed right away after it lifted off and clear the tower is that four of the booster's engines had shutdown followed shortly by a fifth engine but otherwise the flight appeared to be nominal right up till it flipped prior to booster separation and just kept flipping until it went boom. I thought that the booster would've shutdown and separated before boosting back to the launch site.

 

[hagaricus]

My impression was that it started too slow, went well, then the obvious issues of top-heavy and top-draggy (all the fins and fuel at the top) overcame control authority and made staging fail. Whether the ensuing pirouettes were an attempt at a boostback with the starship still attached or merely the death-spasms of an overwhelmed system IDK, but it was impressive.. I was surprised how long it went before it self-destructed.

 

[publiusr]

launch was good, despite five raptor not working

That's quite a lot.
N-1 curse?

N-1's last flight looked straight and true at least-not going on walkabout. And each end made for a nice fiery ka-boom. SS/SH couldn't even explode right. Maybe Elon could brush off some ALS/NLS papers-make SH longer, stronger....and side-mount. Each stage contributes thrust so you spread out your exhaust and not eat a hole in your pad. But Elon needs a pick-me-up, and I suggest a film about a team that suffered a loss-but came back stronger: "We Are Marshall"

 

[Moose]

Looks like it lifted with a pretty healthy number of raptors lit, at least until clearing the tower.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649141462469312512

View: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1649141462469312512

launch was good, despite five raptor not working

That's quite a lot.
N-1 curse?

N-1's last flight looked straight and true at least-not going on walkabout.

Until it started shutting engines down. N-1 couldn't tolerate an off-nominal engine situation without coming apart. This booster just trucked uphill with 1/4 of its engines quitting along the way and then did its impersonation of a hot dog caught in a hurricane...all the while staying intact.

 

[martinbayer]

launch was good, despite five raptor not working

That's quite a lot.
N-1 curse?

N-1's last flight looked straight and true at least-not going on walkabout. And each end made for a nice fiery ka-boom. SS/SH couldn't even explode right. Maybe Elon could brush off some ALS/NLS papers-make SH longer, stronger....and side-mount. Each stage contributes thrust so you spread out your exhaust and not eat a hole in your pad. But Elon needs a pick-me-up, and I suggest a film about a team that suffered a loss-but came back stronger: "We Are Marshall"

Parallel burn has an advantage in igniting (and confirming functionality of) all engines on the pad, but it may lead to the additional complication of propellant cross feed if the propellants are the same and shared across stages. While as a theoretician I prefer parallel staging for a variety of reasons, I can also wholeheartedly say that I truly wish Musk all the luck in the universe for the next Starship try, bless his little libertarian heart.

 

[publiusr]

Now I'm going to shock you gentlemen and suggest a way for Musk to kill SLS at last (sigh). SLS solids keep the energetics people happy. Steal them. I seem to remember big solids with nozzles canted at rather a severe angle, right? Yes SuperHeavy would need a redesign-but I'm betting he can iterate cores faster than ground equipment. The problem here was a vicious circle-the longer SuperHeavy sat the more chunks it blew into its venturi-the more engines disabled the longer it sat--until it finally started to rise once its self-excavated pit was as empty as it wanted-but the damage was done. But now we know how deep a hole it likes, so dig a hole that deep and make the footstool that much taller again-maybe a spiderwork of tunnels going between stool legs. But that's the NEXT pad. This one is undermined. Now for the solids. They are canted outward-and their support can be added to the outside ring of the stool-and their blast deflectors even farther back-such that the solids get the stack moving-and the solids' exhaust create a 'low' to draw the Raptor flames to either side. I think solid suppliers would leap at the chance to be a part of this. The solids will prevent walkabout- and would shed after staging allowing SuperHeavy to still be caught-SLS now an immense upper stage in place of Starship for deep space.

 

[Archibald]

and then did its impersonation of a hot dog caught in a hurricane

"a hot dog doing Immelmanns in a hurricane" wow, there is such a Jack Sparrow vibe in that sentence...

Cuttlefish! Ay? Let us not, dear friends, forget our dear friends the cuttlefish... flipper conories little sausages...

 

[jeffb]

Too early to damn or defend the raptors, could be that the huge debris plume was responsible for some of their issues. None of the N-1 launch attempts were able to survive engine losses and continue without problems snowballing out of control, this looked like it was going to be more or less OK until staging didn't happen.

My two cents:

Fast forward to 40 minutes in for the launch

They lost three Raptors prior to or at launch (or at least before the +18 secs mark when the graphic came up) almost certainly as a result of debris but, if you watch the launch video from minus 2:20 to minus 1:20, it appears they were having some sort of valve trouble with engines 2,11 and 23.



But my god, the debris!

At Launch plus 7 seconds you can see huge chunks of stuff thrown up past the booster. The before and after shots of the OLM are incredible:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12t0dg6

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12t0dg6/labpadre_on_twitter_i_am_floored_at_the_amount_of/

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12tfd7f/debris_hitting_the_ocean/

Then, either as a result of damage suffered of some other issue:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12sz58m/super_heavy_raptor_engines_exploding_mid_flight/

This is a nice closeup view starting just prior to them losing control. When you see orange in the exhaust that's either fuel leaking and burning inefficiently or engine parts being added to the exhaust. Bad. Once the thrust becomes unbalanced and starts pushing the base sideways it's pretty much doomed. They may not have had much engine gimbal capability/authority by that point though, even with the fins helping.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649052544755470338

View: https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1649052544755470338?s=20


It'll certainly be be interesting to see what SpaceX and Elon say about this. May be a little while before the next launch.

EDIT: Sadly the links to Reddit haven't embedded properly. Follow the links for some great video.

 

[martinbayer]

Now I'm going to shock you gentlemen and suggest a way for Musk to kill SLS at last (sigh). SLS solids keep the energetics people happy. Steal them. I seem to remember big solids with nozzles canted at rather a severe angle, right? Yes SuperHeavy would need a redesign-but I'm betting he can iterate cores faster than ground equipment. The problem here was a vicious circle-the longer SuperHeavy sat the more chunks it blew into its venturi-the more engines disabled the longer it sat--until it finally started to rise once its self-excavated pit was as empty as it wanted-but the damage was done. But now we know how deep a hole it likes, so dig a hole that deep and make the footstool that much taller again-maybe a spiderwork of tunnels going between stool legs. But that's the NEXT pad. This one is undermined. Now for the solids. They are canted outward-and their support can be added to the outside ring of the stool-and their blast deflectors even farther back-such that the solids get the stack moving-and the solids' exhaust create a 'low' to draw the Raptor flames to either side. I think solid suppliers would leap at the chance to be a part of this. The solids will prevent walkabout- and would shed after staging allowing SuperHeavy to still be caught-SLS now an immense upper stage in place of Starship for deep space.

Solids in space transportation truly are the devil's playground for a variety of reasons - for one, you can't terminate thrust as easily as with liquids (yes, you could vent upwards through frangible vents, but it adds mechanical complexity) and also, remember Challenger? In addition, in my bicontinental 35+ years aerospace career I've never met any mythical "energetics people" (are they perhaps like Oompa-Loompas?) that you speak of, so keeping them happy really would be one of my least concerns. Also, if you really desired to do so in order to diminish the effectiveness of your cumulative thrust vector, you most certainly can cant liquid rocket engines outwards just as easily as solids. And yes, I know, one point is the ability to compensate for any potential individual engine failures, but liquids give you a degree of freedom solids don't have, because you can design them to swivel. Keeping "solid suppliers" happy also does not strike me as an overriding objective of Musk - he is his own man, and I really don't think he cares very much about individual walkabouts, or any current solid rocket manufacturers, for that matter...

 

[Archibald]

In light of yesterday flight, I have now a few doubts related to Super Heavy. Exactly three major concerns.
Concern 1
What they call the OLM, I call it the milkstool - because it really looks like a three legged stool.

So, the three legged stool.
See the photos above ?
Surely, it didn't collapsed. But the amount of ground erosion is unbelievable.
Now, follow my reasonning. Elon wants mere flat concrete pads with extremely flight rates. In an ideal world, Super Heavy doesn't damages the stool, goes away without a hitch, and then returns with only 3, rather than 33, Raptors 2 firing. With only 3 engines the risk of blowtorching craters like yesterday are much reduced. Which is not a bad thing, because near the "stool" is the OLM to catch SH, refuel it, and relaunch it ASAP.

My concern is whether they can manage that monster blowtorch at liftoff REPEATEDLY and CHEAPLY.

The answer is obvious: throw more steel and concrete, and dig a flame deflector.

Yet digging flame trenches won't be cheap, and this may restrict SH liftoffs to a few places (hint: Pad 39s at The Cape).
But SH has to fly a lot, once a week or even once a day. So they better found a "compromise launch pad" that can bring together
- ground launch erosion issues : 33*Raptor-2 once a day blowtorching the mount
- flame trench or not ?
- ultra high flight rates
- including the SH catching system

And this brings my second concern.

Concern 2
Starship isn't that big, hasn't a lot of engines, so - flying alone a) suborbital on Earth b) on the Moon, orbital and c) orbital on Mars won't be much of an issue.

But Super Heavy is a monster. Three major concerns
- the noise
- the flying debris
- the explosion risk
They were known, and the FAA was on the case long before yesterday.
But yesterday flight made me realize how these three major issues (already present with N-1 and Saturn V, make no mistake) are exacerbated by Super Heavy immense size and power... and reusability, and planned ultra high flight rates.

33*Raptor 2 per launch, once a day ? that's the long term objective, correct ? that's the plan to go to Mars.

Well, I have some doubts now this will be ever allowed to happen. I mean, outside a few severely restricted launch areas - Starbase and The Cape.


Concern 3 is: did we reached some limits as far as concrete and steel are concerned ?

Key question. Since SpaceX build an OLM made of steel and concrete - how many times can these materials handle 33*Raptor 2 blowtorching them repeatedly ?

I know the answer might be "just add more steel and concrete over the melted steel and the spalled concrete, you dummy !" but I shall remember you the launch mount has to be reusable, too.

I think that's the big question mark after yesterday. Super Heavy is one of the most powerful blowtorch ever created. Can a reusable launch mount be build out of steel and concrete that will endure blowtorching hell once a day or once a week for years and decades ?

You can see that I'm not that much worried for the rocket itself, but rather for its reusable launch mount (let's call it that way).

 

[Archibald]

New picture of the damage.

Interesting post about hardened concrete. Can be done, but ain't cheap by any mean.

SpaceX Starship : First Flight : Starbase, TX : April 2023 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2

SpaceX Starship : First Flight : Starbase, TX : April 2023 - DISCUSSION THREAD 2

forum.nasaspaceflight.com

 

[Michel Van]

There is a liftoff picture where the smoke and dust looks like a freakkin' pyroclastic volcano - Mount Saint Helens in a bad day.

That very good depiction what happen during launch

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thA8jlgcJ-8&t=27s

 

[Anduriel]

Why don't just place stool into the pool of water deep enough? Water will take most of the brunt of flame damage and evaporates. New launch - add more water. And theoretically you can just replace stool/fill water again and concrete underneath the water could be of cheaper quality.

 

[Michel Van]

there indications that Booster suffer structural damage during launch

Note the bent of S24 on B7 ?

I think the collaps of B7 interstage prevented stage seperation

Also B7 loosing parts during flight

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649051496791801856

View: https://twitter.com/AlexSvanArt/status/1649051496791801856

 

[Archibald]

There is a liftoff picture where the smoke and dust looks like a freakkin' pyroclastic volcano - Mount Saint Helens in a bad day.

That very good depiction what happen during launch

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thA8jlgcJ-8&t=27s

The brown-dark cloud barreling furiously toward the doomed car and cameras reminds me of a few (fateful) pictures taken during the Saint Helens eruption - May 18, 1980.

 

[Michel Van]

On Archibald remarks
Concern 1
They need water deluge system and flame trench for KSC and Starbase
But for launch from Sea platform this is not needed, if you build the right platform.

Concern 2
Superheavy most issues can be solved with water deluge system and flame trench.
To prevent that debris hit the rocket engine.
Still there issue with hydraulics and structural
Since B9 got electrical system so no more hydraulic
and interstage can be adapted to take more stress and load during liftoff

Concern 3
i think on long term, SpaceX will use OLM 1# (Texas) and 2# (KSC) only for testing Superheavies
while OLM 3# to what ever number, will have proper water deluge system and flame trench worthy for Starship.

 

[sferrin]

launch was good, despite five raptor not working

That's quite a lot.
N-1 curse?

N-1's last flight looked straight and true at least-not going on walkabout. And each end made for a nice fiery ka-boom. SS/SH couldn't even explode right. Maybe Elon could brush off some ALS/NLS papers-make SH longer, stronger....and side-mount. Each stage contributes thrust so you spread out your exhaust and not eat a hole in your pad. But Elon needs a pick-me-up, and I suggest a film about a team that suffered a loss-but came back stronger: "We Are Marshall"

This will age well.

 

[bob225]

Good interview with Chris Hadfield summing up why it was a success, not a failure as the media are trying to tell us.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiDGb1CXw4I

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I'm a few hours from being able to watch this in HD on my home PC, but my initial thought is the engine outs were less of an issue than MECO never happening. To be sure, even on mobile it's pretty easy to see some of the Raptors flaming out and one of the stills on BBC seems to indicate a fire above the engine bells, but the flight looks relatively stable through Max-Q. But it almost seems like the stack's onboard guidance failed to accomplish MECO but did command the booster to try it's flip maneuver for boost-back...while Starship was still attached and at least some Raptors were still firing.

Supposedly both hydraulic units for thrust vectoring the center set of engines blew up on the flight - one early and one a bit later with the result there was no thrust vectoring available. All future boosters will have a electrical units so a one time failure.

Have to believe all that debris bouncing around at engine start/liftoff could not have missed the engine cluster and whatever else was mounted down there, like the hydraulic units. Lift off from the start of engines to actually moving up was rather slow and that volcano like cloud of smoke/dust and big bits and pieces was massive!

Guessing it'll take longer to repair/improve the launch site than get the next Starship/Booster ready to go....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Conspirator]

now after watching this launch i can say that not only is Elon a walking meme but a goddamm genius.
to be quite frank he overengineered this thing for maximum durability. I have never seen any spacecraft as durable as this.
this thing was slammed with structural G forces that should not be possible to withstand. I commend this launch for even getting off the ground. and with almost 8 engine failures the airspeed was very consistent. I would imagine that during the next launch Elon and the team will work out any kinks in the system.
i cannot wait to see what he has in store.
just need some SLS launch pad updates and a few minor tweaks to the rocket and I believe orbit is very much possible

was there any news on the next launch window?

 

[martinbayer]

Well, I guess that's at least one key difference between you and me . But seriously, I'm just not a fan of gaslighting. My point was to illustrate that there are oodles of topics that reasonable people can disagree on, but that there are also centillions of issues where that is not the case. Both election denialism and declaring a mid air explosion a successful launch vehicle mission firmly fall in the latter category.

 

[hagaricus]

Well, I guess that's at least one key difference between you and me . But seriously, I'm just not a fan of gaslighting. My point was to illustrate that there are oodles of topics that reasonable people can disagree on, but that there are also centillions of issues where that is not the case. Both election denialism and declaring a mid air explosion a successful launch vehicle mission firmly fall in the latter category.

Considering the the prognosis pre-launch, I'd say this test launch was a success. It was clearly stated that anything beyond clearing the tower was a bonus.