8 ms·

SpaceX Rocket Struggled to Self-Destruct as It Spun Out of Control

56 points by perihelions 4y ago

inglor_cz 4y ago
The sheer resilience of the steel rocket was fascinating. The aerodynamic stresses that it encountered during its out-of-control flight must have been gigantic. Anything made of mostly aluminium would likely be torn apart almost immediately. (In a somewhat similar situation, though not entirely comparable, STS Challenger was indeed torn apart by aerodynamic forces in a matter of seconds. The crew cabin, being reinforced, stayed intact, but the rest of the vehicle absolutely not.)
- elromulous 4y ago
  Indeed. A gut-wrenching read, the challenger crew survived for longer than was expected: "...indicating that Smith made the switch changes, presumably in a futile attempt to restore electrical power to the cockpit after the crew cabin detached from the rest of the orbiter." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_dis...
  - no_butterscotch 4y ago
    Interesting! Potentially up to 2 minutes and 45 seconds! "Pressurization could have enabled consciousness for the entire fall until impact. The crew cabin hit the ocean surface at 207 mph (333 km/h) approximately two minutes and 45 seconds after breakup. The estimated deceleration was 200 g, far exceeding structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels. The mid-deck floor had not suffered buckling or tearing, as would result from a rapid decompression, but stowed equipment showed damage consistent with decompression, and debris was embedded between the two forward windows that may have caused a loss of pressure. Impact damage to the crew cabin was severe enough that it could not be determined whether the crew cabin had previously been damaged enough to lose pressurization."
pjio 4y ago
https://archive.is/0WtTm https://archive.is/0WtTm
- clnq 4y ago
  Bless you and all others who post these archive links.
topspin 4y ago
What was the peak altitude reached in this test launch?
- bo0tzz 4y ago
  Going off memory here, but I think it was about 30km?
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  ~39 km
- Zigurd 4y ago
  Here are a few predictions for what comes out soon: First, several more engines failed at various times than currently acknowledged. Not all, or even most of the engine failures can be attributed to debrid strikes on the ground. Second, the rocket was far off course for most of the flight. Third, control of the rocket was lost earlier than acknowledged, due to both losing 2 out of three gimbaled engines and losing hydraulics in the gimbal. Lastly, the flight termination system failed. It should have been engaged as soon as directional control was lost, and it is likely that the booster blew up of other reasons.
samwillis 4y ago
The working theory from people on Twitter who generally "know their stuff" is that the FTS blew holes in the tanks, but where normally this would result if the tanks immediately structurally failing they didn't. This was probably a combination of the stainless steel contraction, pressurised tanks, and under specified FTS. It took a good 40 seconds from FTS to structural failure. There have also been questions as to why it appears the FTS was only point charges rather than a cord down the side of the tanks. There is a good stabilised video of this portion of the flight here (https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1652506390802358273 https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/165250639080235827...), you can see the plumes of propellant from the sides of the tanks where the FTS has made holes. Elon also just did a Twitter Spaces where he answers a load of questions, summary here: https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1652451971410935808 https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/16524519714109358... Key takeaways: > From a "pad standpoint, we are probably ready to launch in 6 to 8 weeks.' > "The longest item on that is probably requalification of the flight termination system ... it took way too long to rupture the tanks." > Probably an 80% probability of reaching orbit with Starship this year, and "I think close to 100% change of reaching orbit within 12 months." > "We're going to putting down a lot of steel" under the launch tower before the next Starship flight. > The vehicle's structural margins appear to be better than we expected > At T+27 seconds, SpaceX lost communications due to "some kind of energy event." And "some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, or 20." > Rocket kept going through T+62 seconds" with the engines continuing to run. Lost thrust vector control at T+85 seconds
- sschueller 4y ago
  They will never launch within 8 weeks. That time frame is insane and not enough to repair the damage at the launch site. Also I don't expect a FAA to give an ok until SpaceX has cleaned up the surrounding area.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > They will never launch within 8 weeks. And the quotes don’t say that they will. In fact they imply that they won’t.
  - 4y ago
rhaway84773 4y ago
External, non Elon fluffers, were posting YT videos stating these exact facts based on the grainy SpaceX video (and they were also pointing out how NASA was able to provide much higher definition video 2 decades ago) but were considered conspiracy theorists because Elon Musk was claiming the exact opposite at the same time. In a shocking turn of events, the grifter extraordinaire, Mr Musk, turned out to be grifting.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > but were considered conspiracy theorists because Elon Musk was claiming the exact opposite at the same time Do you have a citation for these two claims? One for the “Elon Musk was claiming the exact opposite” and one for the “were considered conspiracy theorists”. Thank you.
rhaway84773 4y ago
Even the definition of success is a contradictory lie from the conception cited definition of success that was created right after the launch blew up. At the time they said it was successful because the launch was successful. But as we now know, and Elon has admitted as quoted in the article, the launch wasn’t successful. Way more shit blew up than planned. He redefines success as learning a lot. Which would have been the case in any launch, except, ironically, a launch that was actually successful.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > cited definition of success that was created right after the launch blew up Categorically false. Just watch the recording of the live stream. They told us what their definition of success is at multiple points before they lit a single engine. > He redefines success as learning a lot. Look, I find Elon distastefull in uncountable ways. But this particular mindset is an important one if you want to achieve hard things. More people should live by it.
  - devb 4y ago
    Learning from failure is not success. It's just a benefit.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > Learning from failure is not success. It most definietly is if your goal is to learn as much as possible. This is exactly my point. This is a different mindset so many people can benefit from. Many people want to build things, they try it, the end result fails short of their expectations and they give up. That is how you guarantee to not achieve anything. Instead anyone who wants to get better at doing things should do (carefully and with as much attention and deliberation as you can muster, but put tool to material don’t just think about doing), observe how things went (not just the end product, but every single step), figure out what are the low hanging fruits you can improve on, try again. This is how you can achieve great results (in creating hardware and software, but also in various other parts of life.) Make sure you can sustain this process of iterative improvement and you will end up with things you couldn’t imagine any other way. In my case with my limited means that means don’t spend more on a single iteration than what my hobby budget can sustain, make sure nobody gets hurt and the workshop doesn’t burn down. SpaceX clearly has a lot more money to throw around but the principles are the same.
rhaway84773 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Edit: it looks like you've been posting a lot of comments in the 'ideological battle' category. We have to ban accounts that primarily use HN for that, so please don't do that. Past explanations in case helpful: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
fooker 4y ago
Starship and superheavy are fairly important for NASA and various components of the US military, so don't expect regulatory hurdles. I have heard the project described as NASA skunkworks with fairly experienced engineers and scientists from the public sector available for consultation without barriers.
fpanzer 4y ago
Paywalled, can't access

56 points by perihelions 4y ago

The sheer resilience of the steel rocket was fascinating. The aerodynamic stresses that it encountered during its out-of-control flight must have been gigantic. Anything made of mostly aluminium would likely be torn apart almost immediately. (In a somewhat similar situation, though not entirely comparable, STS Challenger was indeed torn apart by aerodynamic forces in a matter of seconds. The crew cabin, being reinforced, stayed intact, but the rest of the vehicle absolutely not.)

elromulous 4y ago
Indeed. A gut-wrenching read, the challenger crew survived for longer than was expected: "...indicating that Smith made the switch changes, presumably in a futile attempt to restore electrical power to the cockpit after the crew cabin detached from the rest of the orbiter." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_dis...
- no_butterscotch 4y ago
  Interesting! Potentially up to 2 minutes and 45 seconds! "Pressurization could have enabled consciousness for the entire fall until impact. The crew cabin hit the ocean surface at 207 mph (333 km/h) approximately two minutes and 45 seconds after breakup. The estimated deceleration was 200 g, far exceeding structural limits of the crew compartment or crew survivability levels. The mid-deck floor had not suffered buckling or tearing, as would result from a rapid decompression, but stowed equipment showed damage consistent with decompression, and debris was embedded between the two forward windows that may have caused a loss of pressure. Impact damage to the crew cabin was severe enough that it could not be determined whether the crew cabin had previously been damaged enough to lose pressurization."

pjio 4y ago

https://archive.is/0WtTm https://archive.is/0WtTm

clnq 4y ago
Bless you and all others who post these archive links.

topspin 4y ago

What was the peak altitude reached in this test launch?

bo0tzz 4y ago
Going off memory here, but I think it was about 30km?
the_third_wave 4y ago
~39 km
Zigurd 4y ago
Here are a few predictions for what comes out soon: First, several more engines failed at various times than currently acknowledged. Not all, or even most of the engine failures can be attributed to debrid strikes on the ground. Second, the rocket was far off course for most of the flight. Third, control of the rocket was lost earlier than acknowledged, due to both losing 2 out of three gimbaled engines and losing hydraulics in the gimbal. Lastly, the flight termination system failed. It should have been engaged as soon as directional control was lost, and it is likely that the booster blew up of other reasons.

samwillis 4y ago

The working theory from people on Twitter who generally "know their stuff" is that the FTS blew holes in the tanks, but where normally this would result if the tanks immediately structurally failing they didn't. This was probably a combination of the stainless steel contraction, pressurised tanks, and under specified FTS. It took a good 40 seconds from FTS to structural failure. There have also been questions as to why it appears the FTS was only point charges rather than a cord down the side of the tanks. There is a good stabilised video of this portion of the flight here (https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1652506390802358273 https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/165250639080235827...), you can see the plumes of propellant from the sides of the tanks where the FTS has made holes. Elon also just did a Twitter Spaces where he answers a load of questions, summary here: https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1652451971410935808 https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/16524519714109358... Key takeaways: > From a "pad standpoint, we are probably ready to launch in 6 to 8 weeks.' > "The longest item on that is probably requalification of the flight termination system ... it took way too long to rupture the tanks." > Probably an 80% probability of reaching orbit with Starship this year, and "I think close to 100% change of reaching orbit within 12 months." > "We're going to putting down a lot of steel" under the launch tower before the next Starship flight. > The vehicle's structural margins appear to be better than we expected > At T+27 seconds, SpaceX lost communications due to "some kind of energy event." And "some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, or 20." > Rocket kept going through T+62 seconds" with the engines continuing to run. Lost thrust vector control at T+85 seconds

sschueller 4y ago
They will never launch within 8 weeks. That time frame is insane and not enough to repair the damage at the launch site. Also I don't expect a FAA to give an ok until SpaceX has cleaned up the surrounding area.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > They will never launch within 8 weeks. And the quotes don’t say that they will. In fact they imply that they won’t.
- 4y ago

rhaway84773 4y ago

External, non Elon fluffers, were posting YT videos stating these exact facts based on the grainy SpaceX video (and they were also pointing out how NASA was able to provide much higher definition video 2 decades ago) but were considered conspiracy theorists because Elon Musk was claiming the exact opposite at the same time. In a shocking turn of events, the grifter extraordinaire, Mr Musk, turned out to be grifting.

krisoft 4y ago
> but were considered conspiracy theorists because Elon Musk was claiming the exact opposite at the same time Do you have a citation for these two claims? One for the “Elon Musk was claiming the exact opposite” and one for the “were considered conspiracy theorists”. Thank you.

rhaway84773 4y ago

Even the definition of success is a contradictory lie from the conception cited definition of success that was created right after the launch blew up. At the time they said it was successful because the launch was successful. But as we now know, and Elon has admitted as quoted in the article, the launch wasn’t successful. Way more shit blew up than planned. He redefines success as learning a lot. Which would have been the case in any launch, except, ironically, a launch that was actually successful.

krisoft 4y ago
> cited definition of success that was created right after the launch blew up Categorically false. Just watch the recording of the live stream. They told us what their definition of success is at multiple points before they lit a single engine. > He redefines success as learning a lot. Look, I find Elon distastefull in uncountable ways. But this particular mindset is an important one if you want to achieve hard things. More people should live by it.
- devb 4y ago
  Learning from failure is not success. It's just a benefit.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > Learning from failure is not success. It most definietly is if your goal is to learn as much as possible. This is exactly my point. This is a different mindset so many people can benefit from. Many people want to build things, they try it, the end result fails short of their expectations and they give up. That is how you guarantee to not achieve anything. Instead anyone who wants to get better at doing things should do (carefully and with as much attention and deliberation as you can muster, but put tool to material don’t just think about doing), observe how things went (not just the end product, but every single step), figure out what are the low hanging fruits you can improve on, try again. This is how you can achieve great results (in creating hardware and software, but also in various other parts of life.) Make sure you can sustain this process of iterative improvement and you will end up with things you couldn’t imagine any other way. In my case with my limited means that means don’t spend more on a single iteration than what my hobby budget can sustain, make sure nobody gets hurt and the workshop doesn’t burn down. SpaceX clearly has a lot more money to throw around but the principles are the same.

rhaway84773 4y ago

[flagged]

dang 4y ago
You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Edit: it looks like you've been posting a lot of comments in the 'ideological battle' category. We have to ban accounts that primarily use HN for that, so please don't do that. Past explanations in case helpful: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....

fooker 4y ago

Starship and superheavy are fairly important for NASA and various components of the US military, so don't expect regulatory hurdles. I have heard the project described as NASA skunkworks with fairly experienced engineers and scientists from the public sector available for consultation without barriers.

fpanzer 4y ago

Paywalled, can't access