9 ms·
Starship SN11 Launch Attempt Ends in Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly
- Kyrio 6y agoThe official live feed suddenly froze, no new frames or audio for a few minutes until someone said "We are not waiting for new footage, SN11 is not coming down". I'm amazed by how quickly SN11 came together after SN10: how many rockets does SpaceX have in store?
- stetrain 6y agoThey have another one (SN15, they skipped a few) in final assembly: https://twitter.com/_brendan_lewis/status/1375567483952762881 https://twitter.com/_brendan_lewis/status/137556748395276288...
- dgritsko 6y agoSN12-14 were cancelled due to them being based on the now-obsolete design used for SN8-11, right?
- NortySpock 6y agoYes
- mchusma 6y agoTheir focus has been on the mass production of starships, with one rolling off the assembly line about every 2 weeks now. The next big milestones are SN15 launch (major upgrades in that version onward) and the booster launch (hasn't been tried yet). They are hoping to get the 2 stage to orbit this summer, so probably after at least 4 more tests.
- grishka 6y agoWhat happened to SN12, 13, and 14?
- bryanlarsen 6y agoThey were scrapped. SN12 had significant work on it before it was scrapped, but SN13 and SN14 only had a few pieces made before it was scrapped.
- someperson 6y agohttps://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/03/starship-sn11-spacex-orbital-flight-summer/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/03/starship-sn11-spacex... That link is the best coverage of the next flights SN15, SN16, SN17 and BN1, BN2, BN3. The aspirational schedule has been confirmed by Elon
- halfmatthalfcat 6y ago"Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly", just amusing prose there.
- imglorp 6y agoSee also "lithobraking" and "engine rich" burns :-)
- BitwiseFool 6y agoI got quite a chortle out of the SLS being "contractor rich".
- SketchySeaBeast 6y agoI appreciate how Googling lithobraking's suggested pictures are all from Kerbal.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoKSP is space industry's exposure therapy - it's where you get to explore all the things you absolutely do not want happening on an actual mission :).
- SketchySeaBeast 6y agoExcept that we all share the same goal - bring some little green men home.
- sq_ 6y agoI was a fan of the “Rapidly Scheduled Non-Ascent” jokes a few weeks ago when Starship’s computers aborted a launch seconds before it would’ve started up.
- someperson 6y agoElon Musk on the SN11 landing burn failure: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1376889786762428421 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1376889786762428421 > At least the crater is in the right place! > Looks like engine 2 had issues on ascent & didn’t reach operating chamber pressure during landing burn, but, in theory, it wasn’t needed. > Something significant happened shortly after landing burn start. Should know what it was once we can examine the bits later today. Q: After cleanup, will you roll out SN15? Perhaps BN1 too? > SN15 rolls to launch pad in a few days. It has hundreds of design improvements across structures, avionics/software & engine. > Hopefully, one of those improvements covers this problem. If not, then retrofit will add a few more days. For posterity, here's a link to the full 16 minute official SpaceX launch stream (obviously quickly wrapped up after the failure): https://youtu.be/gjCSJIAKEPM?t=86 https://youtu.be/gjCSJIAKEPM?t=86
- xoa 6y ago>"SN15 rolls to launch pad in a few days. It has hundreds of design improvements across structures, avionics/software & engine." Yeah at this point everything before SN15 was already completely obsolete, which is why they didn't even bother finishing a few serials before it, and SpaceX only has so much actual physical room to store completed rockets there right now. They may have been getting into "launch it or scrap it" territory and just really wanted to move on, which would explain why this one seemed a touch rushed. Maybe they figured they might as well see if they could get some useful data out of it, and to some extent even launching under foggy and suboptimal conditions was itself a new thing to try. The advantage of a hardware rich cheap dev program, that entire launch probably cost a few million at most. SN15 is going to be more interesting, the first really major revision towards "finished" status in a while. They're clearly confident they're making progress since they've begun pathfinding for the booster.
- someperson 6y agoRaptor engines are still expensive. Wasting a perfectly good Raptor seems like a bad idea. Unless the Raptor engines they flew were also old and obsolete.
- new_realist 6y agoIt's pretty clear to me that SpaceX has no comprehensive model of how their craft works, or a clear testing methodology; they're just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. They're going to be finding unfortunate surprises in the "Starship" until the day it is taken out of service. It reminds me of how the Space Shuttle was designed. Hope is not a strategy.
- someperson 6y agoSpaceX has a "test as you fly" philosophy. It's the same approach that built the Soviet Union's excellent rockets (including the Soyuz). Unlike the Soviet Union, SpaceX can afford to fund their version of the "N1" moon rocket: at around $1 million per Raptor engine (and 3 Raptors per Starship hop test) the R&D program is still relatively affordable, even with the failures. This philosophy is in stark contrast to the SLS (Space Launch System) which after decades of development has only just done a static fire. Also SpaceX's philosophy around the Starship test program is focused on building a factory that can manufacture thousands of Starships vehicles a year. But I agree on the spectrum between "analysis paralysis" and "reckless" SpaceX is arguably a bit too far towards reckless at the moment. I hope apparently wasteful R&D program yields better results soon. They need to start testing rapid reuse for Starship to be able to meet its cost goals.
- kazinator 6y agohttps://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/cosmonaut-crashed-into-earth-crying-in-rage https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/c...
- avmich 6y agoYeah, Komarov's story was a really bad example of rushing things. Looks like it helped to bring space industry leaders to senses. USSR was infamous for trying to make "victories" by the time of next anniversary of October Revolution, or party gathering, but spaceflights since then weren't rushed with half-baked tech and a human onboard.
- 6y ago
- xqcgrek 6y agoIt also rained down toxic debris over a 10 km radius of pristine land. The EPA needs to get involved. It's clear SpaceX doesn't know what they're doing.
- fasteddie31003 6y agoWhat part of the rocket is toxic?
- rini17 6y agoWhy? There isn't much, if any, toxical chemicals involved.
- ccmcarey 6y agoI'd be impressed if debris could travel 10km from a RUD at <1km.
- Aeolun 6y agoWell, it is basically a flying bomb. If some pieces get launched out and upwards it could reach quite far. Edit: Guess it can https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1376910148116082694?s=21 https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/13769101481160826...
- CDSlice 6y agoThe rocket was supposed to be able to blow up like this, that’s why the flight termination system is installed. Also SpaceX has to get certified for launching from Boca Chica which means that all the government agencies that could get involved have already given their permission for this sort of event occurring.
- akamhy 6y agoHow? Please explain.
- natosaichek 6y agoOnboard the fuel is methane (evaporates) and lox(just oxygen). What toxic debris do you imagine rained down? Who knows better than spacex what they're doing? The EPA?
- fnoof 6y agoIt exploded mid air just after landing burn started. In this video you can hear engines start then an immediate explosion https://mobile.twitter.com/TheFavoritist/status/1376895130125414404 https://mobile.twitter.com/TheFavoritist/status/137689513012... Possible the burn started late right above the ground. But I reckon we would have seen a larger explosion on the cameras in that case.
- jcims 6y agoPlus there was very little horizontal velocity in the parts raining down, I think you're right.
- dgritsko 6y agoWow, I wonder how much damage there will be to the launch complex - some of those chunks of debris are enormous. Hard to imagine that nothing important was hit by falling parts.
- m4rtink 6y agoWell, one of the Yuca plants got the top sliced off. And the Nasaspaceflight camera got shovered with dirt. :)
- gvb 6y agoWhat is interesting is that, if you watch the views of the engines during ascension, there are flames around the base of the engine(s) (only one? somewhat hard to tell) starting at T+00:14 and continuing off and on until around the first engine cutoff time (T+02:10). https://youtu.be/4qS5Vhz8VJo https://youtu.be/4qS5Vhz8VJo
- mabbo 6y agoTim Dodd (Everyday Astronaut) and his group of friends had gotten permission to put a bunch of camera equipment right near the landing zone. They were psyched to have up-close footage of SN11 landing, or at least trying. They setup apparently $20,000 worth of cameras down there. The last images those cameras broadcast were of large pieces of debris falling out of the foggy sky, smashing into the ground around the camera, splashing up dirt, and then everything went dead. I feel bad for the guy, but the look on his face as he realizes what's happening is priceless. I donated $5 just for that. Edit: Here's the moment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myVvmb2dF9U&t=2h19m32s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myVvmb2dF9U&t=2h19m32s
- creaturemachine 6y agoConsidering the 100% failure rate, what was he really expecting to happen?
- gpm 6y agoProbably for it to blow up on the ground like previous failures... But yes they definitely knew of and accepted this risk.
- Denvercoder9 6y agoJust to clarify, his immediate comment that "they blew it out of the sky" is (at best) pure speculation. If you want to watch third-party livestreams, I usually recommend the NASASpaceFlight streams [1] that have more fact-based narration. They also had debris hitting their camera, but it seems to have survived. [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSUu1lih2RifWkKtDOJdsBA/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSUu1lih2RifWkKtDOJdsBA/vid...
- ASalazarMX 6y agoConversely, I find it odd that these experimental ships have failed that many times without having neded to autodestruct a single one. The mechanism must be there, but seems like it has not been used.
- 6y ago
- malandrew 6y agoOne question I have that is tangentially related is why salaries and total comp is so bad at SpaceX? I'm a staff engineer at FANG with some highly relevant skills and would love to work at SpaceX, but the comp friends that worked their told me about was a dealbreaker at 2/3 of what I currently make. Asking because SpaceX employees might be reading this and could share some insight here. Is it possible to get comparable comp?
- danpalmer 6y agoYou could probably also get 2x what you're making now in finance. Why do people work for FAANG companies when they could make so much more in finance? A mix of culture, technology, perks, and prestige. Why would someone work for SpaceX for 2/3 the salary? Because they're putting rockets in orbit. The other factor is that I don't think SpaceX see software as a differentiator. They have talented software engineers, sure, but a lot will be a very different type of software engineering to the typical FAANG sort, lots more real-time and embedded software. I believe their main piece of non-real-time/embedded software is their inventory/work management application which is all on the Microsoft stack. My gut feeling, could be wrong, is that your average .NET dev makes less than your average dev at a FAANG company. The market may just not need the higher salaries.
- CDSlice 6y agoI would imagine it’s because you are working with rockets and satellites that actually go into space. Personally I’d gladly make the trade off with 2/3 less comp compared to FANG in order to work with Falcon 9, Starlink, and Starship. And considering how many capable engineers SpaceX has I think there are more top tier engineers willing to make that trade off.
- biggieshellz 6y agoSame reason Tesla talks a big game but has skipped their 401(k) match for three straight years. If they can get the people they need for less $$$, they will.
- gamblor956 6y agoNot sure why you're being downvoted, but yes, comp is very low at SpaceX for given level of experience. I know a number of people working in engineering in SpaceX (as in, designing the rockets or modules), and most of them are making between 50k and 90k, despite having PhDs or years of experience in aerospace engineering. To put the salary in perspective, a few of these people took a pay cut when they left JPL to work for SpaceX. They work at SpaceX because they find the work exciting and rewarding, but if you're in it for the money you'll have to work at one of their competitors.
- 7e 6y agoThat's a fair amount of greenhouse gas emitted... for nothing.
- Denvercoder9 6y agoIt's about the same as a full plane emits on a roundtrip Los Angeles - London.
- dotancohen 6y agoThat methane would have been released to atmosphere had SpaceX not purchased it. Methane is a byproduct of oil extraction in many places, and two years ago the law in the US stipulating that the methane must be recovered was rescinded. I don't know why the EPA did that, methane is a potent greenhouse gas. So what is actually happening, these Starships are burning the methane into CO2, which is a far less potent greenhouse gas than is methane.
- aphextron 6y agoSeems very strange that they went ahead with the launch with all that fog. Was there some reason for this to be rushed?
- Denvercoder9 6y agoWhy wouldn't they? A rocket doesn't have eyes, and they get all the data through telemetry anyway.
- aphextron 6y ago>A rocket doesn't have eyes, and they get all the data through telemetry anyway. Well sure, but people still have eyes. You would want to visually see what's happening with your rocket test wouldn't you? It just makes no sense why they didn't scrub for a few hours. Especially given the abundance of caution SpaceX has always shown with that.
- Denvercoder9 6y ago> You would want to visually see what's happening with your rocket wouldn't you? Not really? You'd just see it explode, not much information to be gained from that. > It just makes no sense why they didn't scrub for a few hours for it to clear out Winds (which are much more dangerous for a rocket than fog) were forecasted to pick up later in the day.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gpm 6y ago> Especially given the abundance of caution SpaceX has always shown with that. SpaceX treats customer payloads with an abundance of caution, internal tests... not so much.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- yabones 6y agoThe NSF stream had immediate audio of bits hitting the ground: https://youtu.be/bDL-ZMRHYrE?t=8443 https://youtu.be/bDL-ZMRHYrE?t=8443 I also noticed (and this could be entirely unrelated) that during the ascent one of the engines was burning a bit richer than the rest. Notice that the flame is quite a bit more orange during ascent: https://youtu.be/bDL-ZMRHYrE?t=8208 https://youtu.be/bDL-ZMRHYrE?t=8208 It becomes a bit more noticeable once they get higher in the atmosphere and the cones expand.
- Aeolun 6y agoI’m surprised that nobody seems to have had eyes on the rocket from outside. Even with all that fog.
- Denvercoder9 6y agoVisibility through the fog was significantly lower than the radius of the exclusion zone.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoTrevor Mahlmann has some photos: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/spacex-loses-another-starship-prototype-as-landing-sequence-fails/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/spacex-loses-another...
- ctdonath 6y agoGiven the onset of SN15-20, I wonder if SN11 is considered obsolete and was deliberately launched under adverse (yet FAA-approved) conditions. Better to launch and see what happens (fog, rapid turnaround, etc) than just dismantle it in a boring manner.