Starship goes boom, 4/20

Murph said:
Reading the news which I know isnt the most reliable source, they are saying it exploded.

I didnt hear anyone scream .."push the button!!"
Click to expand...
Was a launch about 25-30 years ago where the vehicle started veering off. The lead engineer for the developer had the opinion the vehicle would correct itself. The Range Safety officer didn't. He transmitted the order to activate the destruct system, but the lead engineer transmitted on the frequency too, basically, to prevent the destruct system operator from hearing the order.

As it turns out, the vehicle DID correct itself and made it to orbit. I expect the engineer had some 'splaining to do, but they couldn't argue against success.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Pioneers take the arrows. NASA did its development work WITHOUT sixty years of industry experience, or catalogs of standard parts.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

The point is not to throw shade at NASA, but to point out to the naysayers, who are not necessarily on this thread, that these things represent huge advances in technology in a field where mistakes and miscalculations are catastrophic.

I would much rather see people working on things like this than trying to figure out which bathroom to use.
 
PaulS said:
I would much rather see people working on things like this
Click to expand...
Me too...but Id like them to be spending that kind of talent and money on getting more than 35% efficiency out of an internal combustion engine..
 
Murph said:
Me too...but Id like them to be spending that kind of talent and money on getting more than 35% efficiency out of an internal combustion engine..
Click to expand...

Laws of thermodynamics make that difficult. That's why electric cars are so appealing.
 
This is what the 33 engines did to the orbital launch mount:
upload_2023-4-21_16-3-39.png
 
Murph said:
and some that just run out of money

Reading the news which I know isnt the most reliable source, they are saying it exploded.
Click to expand...
That's pretty obvious but says nothing about whether it was spontaneous or due to activation of the range safety system.
I didnt hear anyone scream .."push the button!!"
Click to expand...
Were you in the room?
 
Lindberg said:
That's pretty obvious but says nothing about whether it was spontaneous or due to activation of the range safety system.

Were you in the room?
Click to expand...
The FTS was invoked; whether intentionally or automatically is yet to be released.
 
PaulS said:
Laws of thermodynamics make that difficult
Click to expand...
Exactly, ...they had trouble with that at the beginning of the jet age too but money and technology got past it. Back in the late 70s there were several groups working on ceramic engine components with the goal of getting the operational temperatures up , I guess the end results would be more heat energy converted into mechanical energy .

Lindberg said:
Were you in the room?
Click to expand...

Nope...had the live stream on..
 
Lindberg said:
That's pretty obvious but says nothing about whether it was spontaneous or due to activation of the range safety system.
Click to expand...
SpaceX has confirmed this afternoon that the FTS systems, for both vehicles, were activated when they lost directional control.
 
wanttaja said:
Pioneers take the arrows. NASA did its development work WITHOUT sixty years of industry experience, or catalogs of standard parts.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I agree 99%. The 1% being I'm pretty sure they got the ideas for the liquid fuel pumps, and maybe an actual gyro design or two, from the V2 program. And I don't fault them for that, either. A good idea is a good idea, even if the people that funded it weren't good.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
This is what the 33 engines did to the orbital launch mount:
View attachment 116726
Click to expand...

That is incredible. They are thinking that debris damaged the engines that weren’t running and maybe caused the malfunction. There were plans for a water cooled steel launch plate to protect the pad. Just like my old Estes launch pad, they thought the pad would be good for one launch as is. Ooops. Elon said a brew metal protected pad would be ready in 2 months.
 
PaulS said:
That is incredible. They are thinking that debris damaged the engines that weren’t running and maybe caused the malfunction. There were plans for a water cooled steel launch plate to protect the pad. Just like my old Estes launch pad, they thought the pad would be good for one launch as is. Ooops. Elon said a brew metal protected pad would be ready in 2 months.
Click to expand...
Darn, that really sounds weird. Does that mean they DIDN'T do any test firings on the pad? Good gosh. The scary thought it that they didn't, BECAUSE of the expected damage to the pad. And thus they didn't test whether debris might impinge on the vehicle. Day-um.

Sometimes the new rocket companies take the "NASA and the traditional rocket companies are idiots" theme too far. Some very valuable lessons have been learned over the years, and there's a tendency to reject them. It's killed people.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You would think that was considered....
 
wanttaja said:
Darn, that really sounds weird. Does that mean they DIDN'T do any test firings on the pad? Good gosh. The scary thought it that they didn't, BECAUSE of the expected damage to the pad. And thus they didn't test whether debris might impinge on the vehicle. Day-um.

Sometimes the new rocket companies take the "NASA and the traditional rocket companies are idiots" theme too far. Some very valuable lessons have been learned over the years, and there's a tendency to reject them. It's killed people.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
They did do a 33-engine static fire. This was a special concrete that should have (on paper) withstood one launch. Of course, the company that designed it couldn't have known that 15,000,000 lbf for six or seven seconds wasn't in a realm they understood. A "cold plate" and deluge system is already in the works, and would have been installed for the next launch regardless. And the excavation for same is already done!
There is no company, in any business, as open as SpaceX. You can watch every success, and every failure. They try stuff, but then again, they don't bet the farm on a single vehicle with limited resources (SLS). Like Doritos, they'll make more. And more cheaply. And eventually, more reliably.
I don't hate NASA, but there development methodology is slow and cumbersome, and a failure sets them back years in some cases. I was more than pleased that JWST and Artemis I were successful.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Of course, the company that designed it couldn't have known that 15,000,000 lbf for six or seven seconds wasn't in a realm they understood.
Click to expand...

Kenny Phillips said:
This was a special concrete that should have (on paper) withstood one launch.
Click to expand...

So they didnt use the correct numbers when they did the calculations?
What was the rush for the launch?

Space X is a private company, it doesnt answer to share holders, or the American people like NASA has too...completely changes the way you can do things.
 
Murph said:
So they didnt use the correct numbers when they did the calculations?

What was the rush for the launch?
Click to expand...

A) Who knows how/why the concrete failed. Maybe the ground wasn't sufficiently compacted under the concrete and allowed it to fragment. Doesn't really matter going forward. One thing I like about spaceX is they don't seem to go on witch hunts and blamestorms. They just fix things and go on.

B)Rush? At some point, you hit the conditions that you've determined qualify you to "go". As long as you properly estimated the risk/reward, it is hard to question the decision.
 
Launchpad debris may have damaged the engines, but it is a minor incident in the path moving forward. I hope they make a Mars attempt in my lifetime. I do believe nothing will be gained other than a big “We Did It!” slap on the back, but at least it’s done by a private concern and not my tax dollar.
 
kyleb said:
Doesn't really matter going forward.
Click to expand...


Very true, the rush part is it sounds like they thought the pad would work but they know the one they are building now will.

hey Ive never launched anything over a C power myself and that was 50 years ago...:rolleyes:
 
Great Scott Manley video on the failure, covers most of the areas.
Word is they did a pad test, but only to 50% power.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Wonder why they stopped there....
 
Murph said:
So they didnt use the correct numbers when they did the calculations?
What was the rush for the launch?

Space X is a private company, it doesnt answer to share holders, or the American people like NASA has too...completely changes the way you can do things.
Click to expand...

Answering to the American people is like not answering to anyone in particular … basically mostly free reign with occasional irrational funding spasms ( going in either direction ) motivated by completely outside factors.
 
Last edited:
NASA may be slow now, but they were not slow during the Apollo program. They pushed the risk/reward envelope pretty far to move things as quickly as possible, and in some cases way too far, re Apollo 1. They also had people in the program with more experience in liquid fueled rockets than anyone else in the world at the time. In general, I agree that private sector is faster and more efficient than public sector, but there are exceptions to that.
 
Albany Tom said:
NASA may be slow now, but they were not slow during the Apollo program.
Click to expand...

Apollo 8 was the first manned "all up" flight of the Saturn V, probably one of the most daring decisions in the history of NASA to this day. It was done with solid reliance on the success of previous flights and statistical analysis, but still quite the leap.

I don't include the losses of Challenger and Columbia as the result of responsible decision making. The shuttle program failures were baked into the design and execution from the start.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top