5 ms·

Man that test yesterday was great, here's a list of successes: * Did you see them hold and restart the countdown in the last minute, just the ability to do tha

Man that test yesterday was great, here's a list of successes: * Did you see them hold and restart the countdown in the last minute, just the ability to do that at all is amazing * The full startup sequence which is super complicated for 33 engines worked * The six second hold down and release system worked - holding down a rocket with twice the thrust of Saturn V * They found out the limits of the pad, and we know now they were already working on a cover for the pad with water cooled steel that wasn't ready in time * Stage 0 worked, launched the rocket, and the flight computers on the rocket worked as well * The rocket was able to maintain stable flight with many engine outs * The launch tower was cleared, that is a huge milestone to get past. Blowing up the launch tower really sets you back, it's also like too much damage to collect really good data from, as well as it probably would of blown up the propellent farm as well which sets you back with regulatory agencies. * The engines survived what looks like multiple failures without taking out the rest of the vehicle * There is tons of data from build and test to correlate all the engines that worked vs the ones that didn't and find all kinds of correlations. Lots of engines, lots of test data. * It made it past max Q, another big milestone * The tanks held their pressure the whole way up * It made it all the way to stage separation, this is where many rockets flown for the first time have their failure so this is par for the course * FTS (flight termination system) worked, no better way to test it than actually setting it off * They probably flew with tons risks and unknowns that we'll never know about, but now they have the data to resolve. Similar to Falcon Heavy, they are cheering because holy crap this thing is actually working

CamperBob2 4y ago
would have blown up the propellent farm as well which sets you back with regulatory agencies. This is Texas. You get a tax break for causing accidental explosions, based on the kilotonnage achieved.
- the_mungler 4y ago
  This is still in the USA. They still had to get approval from the EPA to set up all of this stuff. I realize this comment is satire, but the reason this location was chosen has to do with orbital mechanics. A launch pad close to the equator can send payloads to a larger range of orbital inclinations.
  - prox 4y ago
    Your comment makes me wonder why Mexico doesn’t have a launch facility. And if I remember correctly Costa Rica actually builds rocket parts.
    - the_mungler 4y ago
      You're right, Mexico would be a better place to launch rockets from. You want to be close to the equator, and on an east coast so you can launch rockets over the water and avoid dropping boosters on people. Rockets generally are launched to the east to take advantage of Earth's rotation (we're all moving about 1,000 mph to the east, so launching west requires about 2,000mph extra Delta v). SpaceX is a USA company, and I believe their rocket technology is considered a government secret and must stay in the USA. So that's why SpaceX themselves aren't putting launch pads in Mexico. Also I believe equatorial orbits are still possible to achieve from USA launch sites, it just means more fuel/ reduced payload. Interestingly, the James Webb telescope was launched from French Guiana, which is almost right on the equator. Also Israel is one of the few countries that regularly launches their rockets to the west, as they only have a West Coast.
      - sbuttgereit 4y ago
        It's more complicated than that. For example, even though Rocket Lab was founded in New Zealand it is now a US based company. It operates launch facilities both in New Zealand and the US and pretty sure it builds stuff in both countries.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        If the earth is rotating to the east, and we launch a rocket that drops boosters from the east coast, doesn't that mean that the land mass would move under where the boosters would drop? Wouldn't the earth need to be rotating towards the west for it to move the land mass away from the launch site?
        cubic_earth 4y ago
garyclarke27 4y ago
Mostly agree with your positive conclusions- but I can’t help thinking about the poor judgement re the known weaknesses of the launchpad. The concrete was nowhere near strong enough to withstand that much thrust - thousands of lumps of flying concrete are obviously going to damage the engines, they were lucky that none of them pierced the fuel tanks
- nickpp 4y ago
  Elon chimed in on Twitter: 3 months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount. Wasn’t ready in time & we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag would make it through 1 launch. Looks like we can be ready to launch again in 1 to 2 months. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784?s=20
  - HarryHirsch 4y ago
    OK Elon, they used flame trenches since Gemini. Why did you not start building one 6 months ago, then it would have been ready in time for the launch?
    - 19870213 4y ago
      From what I understand, when they plan to land on the Moon or Mars, they won't have a flame trench setup (on the Moon/Mars), so it needs to be able to land and take off from the ground.
      - localplume 4y ago
        [dead]
      - nunuvit 4y ago
        Yeah but there's a huge difference between fully loaded in earth's gravity and (a smaller stage) partially empty in less gravity.
billfruit 4y ago
How are FAA and EPA going to view the event? What are the external ramifications for SpaceX for this event? FAA has already grounded Starship from further flights after this event, till they investigate matter on their own. There are also reports of dust clouds triggered by the explosion in Texas dropping dust in a large area in Texas.
- Cogito 4y ago
  Just FYI, they always ground vehicles after they explode, until the investigation clears them as safe (within bounds of the license). So this is par for the course, and unless the investigation turns up an issue that entails unacceptable risk to people, natural environment, or built environment we should see a return to flight as soon as the launchpad is rebuilt etc.
  - croutonwagon 4y ago
    Are the remnants of rocket fuel mixed into the dust hazardous? SpaceX has specifically told folks in the town not to touch any debris or handle and call them. They are also VERY careful about handling dragon capsules etc. though I think that’s more for the thruster, rather than the engines. I know ch4+o2 should convert to co2 and h2o but I’m unsure what other particulate could be included in the dust. Like concrete remnants (concrete dust is really bad to breathe) paint, or other additives or chemicals that were still n the pad and rocket.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      It's mostly silica dust from concrete turning into powder, you don't want to breathe it for sure, but it's not like this is a rocket filled with hypergolic fuels.
- nickpp 4y ago
  > reports of dust clouds I wonder if Texas experiences any natural dust storms.
ShamelessC 4y ago
I like you. That is all.
guenthert 4y ago
> * FTS (flight termination system) worked, Yeah, it seems it did eventually. Yet, I'm surprised that it took a whopping minute (25% of total flight time) to ignite after deviation from the flight plan. Was that intended too?
- the_mungler 4y ago
  Usually there is a defined "flight envelope" and if it deviates from that, they detonate. I'm guessing they simply waited as long as possible, and once it left the designated buffer is when they finally detonated it.
- 93po 4y ago
  As long as you leave runway to safely set it off, you'd want to delay it as much as safely possible to collect as much data as possible. The cost of this launch spread over 3 minutes means the cost per second is extremely high. Another 10 seconds of data is millions of dollars worth of data.

CamperBob2 4y ago

would have blown up the propellent farm as well which sets you back with regulatory agencies. This is Texas. You get a tax break for causing accidental explosions, based on the kilotonnage achieved.

the_mungler 4y ago
This is still in the USA. They still had to get approval from the EPA to set up all of this stuff. I realize this comment is satire, but the reason this location was chosen has to do with orbital mechanics. A launch pad close to the equator can send payloads to a larger range of orbital inclinations.
- prox 4y ago
  Your comment makes me wonder why Mexico doesn’t have a launch facility. And if I remember correctly Costa Rica actually builds rocket parts.
  - the_mungler 4y ago
    You're right, Mexico would be a better place to launch rockets from. You want to be close to the equator, and on an east coast so you can launch rockets over the water and avoid dropping boosters on people. Rockets generally are launched to the east to take advantage of Earth's rotation (we're all moving about 1,000 mph to the east, so launching west requires about 2,000mph extra Delta v). SpaceX is a USA company, and I believe their rocket technology is considered a government secret and must stay in the USA. So that's why SpaceX themselves aren't putting launch pads in Mexico. Also I believe equatorial orbits are still possible to achieve from USA launch sites, it just means more fuel/ reduced payload. Interestingly, the James Webb telescope was launched from French Guiana, which is almost right on the equator. Also Israel is one of the few countries that regularly launches their rockets to the west, as they only have a West Coast.
    - sbuttgereit 4y ago
      It's more complicated than that. For example, even though Rocket Lab was founded in New Zealand it is now a US based company. It operates launch facilities both in New Zealand and the US and pretty sure it builds stuff in both countries.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      If the earth is rotating to the east, and we launch a rocket that drops boosters from the east coast, doesn't that mean that the land mass would move under where the boosters would drop? Wouldn't the earth need to be rotating towards the west for it to move the land mass away from the launch site?
      - cubic_earth 4y ago

garyclarke27 4y ago

Mostly agree with your positive conclusions- but I can’t help thinking about the poor judgement re the known weaknesses of the launchpad. The concrete was nowhere near strong enough to withstand that much thrust - thousands of lumps of flying concrete are obviously going to damage the engines, they were lucky that none of them pierced the fuel tanks

nickpp 4y ago
Elon chimed in on Twitter: 3 months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount. Wasn’t ready in time & we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag would make it through 1 launch. Looks like we can be ready to launch again in 1 to 2 months. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784?s=20
- HarryHirsch 4y ago
  OK Elon, they used flame trenches since Gemini. Why did you not start building one 6 months ago, then it would have been ready in time for the launch?
  - 19870213 4y ago
    From what I understand, when they plan to land on the Moon or Mars, they won't have a flame trench setup (on the Moon/Mars), so it needs to be able to land and take off from the ground.
    - localplume 4y ago
      [dead]
    - nunuvit 4y ago
      Yeah but there's a huge difference between fully loaded in earth's gravity and (a smaller stage) partially empty in less gravity.

billfruit 4y ago

How are FAA and EPA going to view the event? What are the external ramifications for SpaceX for this event? FAA has already grounded Starship from further flights after this event, till they investigate matter on their own. There are also reports of dust clouds triggered by the explosion in Texas dropping dust in a large area in Texas.

Cogito 4y ago
Just FYI, they always ground vehicles after they explode, until the investigation clears them as safe (within bounds of the license). So this is par for the course, and unless the investigation turns up an issue that entails unacceptable risk to people, natural environment, or built environment we should see a return to flight as soon as the launchpad is rebuilt etc.
- croutonwagon 4y ago
  Are the remnants of rocket fuel mixed into the dust hazardous? SpaceX has specifically told folks in the town not to touch any debris or handle and call them. They are also VERY careful about handling dragon capsules etc. though I think that’s more for the thruster, rather than the engines. I know ch4+o2 should convert to co2 and h2o but I’m unsure what other particulate could be included in the dust. Like concrete remnants (concrete dust is really bad to breathe) paint, or other additives or chemicals that were still n the pad and rocket.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    It's mostly silica dust from concrete turning into powder, you don't want to breathe it for sure, but it's not like this is a rocket filled with hypergolic fuels.
nickpp 4y ago
> reports of dust clouds I wonder if Texas experiences any natural dust storms.

ShamelessC 4y ago

I like you. That is all.

guenthert 4y ago

> * FTS (flight termination system) worked, Yeah, it seems it did eventually. Yet, I'm surprised that it took a whopping minute (25% of total flight time) to ignite after deviation from the flight plan. Was that intended too?

the_mungler 4y ago
Usually there is a defined "flight envelope" and if it deviates from that, they detonate. I'm guessing they simply waited as long as possible, and once it left the designated buffer is when they finally detonated it.
93po 4y ago
As long as you leave runway to safely set it off, you'd want to delay it as much as safely possible to collect as much data as possible. The cost of this launch spread over 3 minutes means the cost per second is extremely high. Another 10 seconds of data is millions of dollars worth of data.