9 ms·

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

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 3y 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 3y 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.
- samwillis 3y ago
  Yes, this is "Elon time", so x2. Four months? If the piles under the launch mount aren't damaged (which would surprise me!), it's "just" filling in the hole, pour some concrete and cover with the new water cooled steel plate. Then replace any other stage zero kit that got damaged (the tall tanks particularly) I think he's probably right the longest thing to solve though is flight qualification with the FAA.
  - rhaway84773 3y ago
    x2? x10 has historically been more accurate. I also love how Elonauts have decided that FAA qualification is a mere trivial formality as opposed to a necessary check on a founder deciding to go ahead with a premature launch because he wants to talk about it on 4/20 for example. The fact that the FAA check will be the longest is no defense. It’s a reflection of the fact that the FAA gave him an easy way out and all the critics of the FAA’s decision (including flagged stories on HN) turned out to be absolutely right.
    - zpeti 3y ago
      Sigh. Yes, perhaps you are accurate that it’s not always 2x but your 10x things is pretty childish. So what if it’s not 2x but more? Why are people like you so resentful of someone building something cool you literally can’t wait to point out any flaws. It’s sad tbh.
      - dmreedy 3y ago
        Because unrealistic representation of timelines can sound like a non-technical manager eager to claim credit for arduous research and mechanical work they don't seem to understand enough to give accurate forecasts for, just as much it might sound like an excited geek who can't wait for a cool thing. Maybe it sounds like aggressive and optimistic goals. Maybe it sounds like someone who doesn't understand that nine women can't give birth to a child in one month, and cracks the whip like they could if they tried hard enough.
      - AlexandrB 3y ago
- phire 3y ago
  Also, it's not enough to simply repair the damage. They need do proper failure analysis and engineer a solution so this damage won't happen next time, 6-8 weeks seems way too short. Elon is suggesting just slapping down a shitload of steal, but I really doubt that will meet standards.
  - sschueller 3y ago
    I don't understand why Elon insists on re-inventing the wheel when we know how to deal with rockets this size. The Saturn V was similar in size and power, the launch pad at Cape Canaveral is still standing, just build a copy.
    - jorlow 3y ago
      Starship is all about finding ways to whittle down margins from the status quo
    - cschmatzler 3y ago
      Super Heavy has more than double the thrust of Saturn V, how is that similar?
    - zpeti 3y ago
      I mean challenging the “well known” engineering orthodoxies like rockets landing being almost impossible and not worth doing seem to have worked out ok for him? I love it when people take one small issue and point out how stupid he’s being, yet ignore how by challenging every point of engineering on rockets he’s almost at the point of making a mars transportation system possible.
      - sschueller 3y ago
        Rockets landing was never considered impossible, NASA even built and tested several such vehicles long ago. What was determined is that is is not economically viable which even SpaceX has started to realize on some launches where they ditch the landing in order to be able to carry more payload. The launch pad at Cape Canaveral may not be exactly what Starship needs but it would be a good start. Like flame trenches and placing the fuel storage tanks far enough away from the launch pad.
- detrites 3y ago
  Doesn't the specific "pad standpoint," qualifier at the beginning of the statement mean to make clear that the pad will be ready in 6-8 weeks, not the rocket? Otherwise, why prefix with it?
- v0idzer0 3y ago
  Who said they’d launch in 8 weeks? He only said the pad would be repaired in 8 weeks
tjpnz 3y ago
>"We're going to putting down a lot of steel" under the launch tower before the next Starship flight. I understand that Starship needs the ability to operate in places where launch infrastructure can't exist. But that's a problem for another day. Put in a flame trench + water suppression system and get the thing to orbit.
- tomp 3y ago
  Not really. As far as I understand, the booster is only for launching from Earth. From elsewhere (moon, Mars) Starship can launch alone. Then maybe it would also require that much less thrust?
- ant6n 3y ago
  I thought the issue with throwing up a bunch of dust is that the planet this rocket was starting from is inhabited.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    Not quite. It is speculated that the rocket engines were damaged by chunks of the pad hitting them. That is a danger to the launch itself even if the dust wouldn’t bother anyone else.
  - George83728 3y ago
    The dust is a problem for the community in that immediate area on the order of miles, but on a planetary level it's nothing compared to the dust the mining, construction, etc industries produce. Per the ATF: "In 2015, the latest date for which statistics are available, the U.S. used slightly less than 4.5 billion pounds of explosives." Of course measures are often taken to reduce rock dust falling on people, but away from populated areas it's common to blast rock in the open air, in vastly greater quantities than the debris lofted by this rocket.
- undefinedzero 3y ago
  A flame trench would probably be a lot more inconvenient to them. Right now they can freely move around most of the launch pad. This is probably important for their rapid iteration, which is what is going to get them to orbit as quickly as they can. If a big chunk of the launch pad is consumed by a trench, that area becomes inaccessible by their platforms, cranes, etc.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
I'm going to violate one of my Prime Directives about posting on Musk threads, but there's just no way they'll repair that pad in two months. Even if Musk was a Stalin-esque Maximum Leader, it couldn't happen. That's not even considering the other regulatory hurdles you might encounter when your planned building expels apartment-sized chunks of concrete at 83 m/s. Of course, regulatory is . . not the primary problem, even if you're of the persuasion that things like safety and the environment don't matter. Some chunks rebounded and almost certainly hit that rocket. Even without "lotto ball concrete debris", Dougherty et al figured out in 1984 that high impulse continuous shock would reflect, resonate, and shake a rocket to bits. It's research related to the "water deluge" system; arguably, the Soviets came to the same conclusion with Energia, based on the N1 work from the decade prior. Minimum safety distance, that's to protect infrastructure that takes a long ass time to put back, and the V2 rocketmen started paying pretty close attention to that even for their suborbital shots. I guess I'm not too sure what got learned here, aside from the fact that Raptor is a pretty great engine, still burning at all after that abuse. Also, Saturn V's S-1C had 13 launches and 13 orbits . . fifty years ago. Why is that? Well, there's lots of reasons, and one of them is the cost of labor. Those big F-1 engines were essentially hand-fitted pieces of welding art, but, counterpoint, computing and other tech would MORE than make up for a surfeit of cheap master welders[1]. Leadership from capital is another. I'm not going to say anything negative about anybody, but let's take a look at one of the maximum leaders from the era: Thornton Wilson. Born on a Missouri dirt farm, ISU BS Aero Engineering, CIT MS in same, NAS award winner, as undergrad he worked on B-47 and B-52, and then kept on working aerospace UNTIL HE DIED. In 1969, the buck stopped with this guy. This is who capital put in charge of the big booster back in the day. How does capital do leadership now? [1] You would think, right? Maybe these computer things aren't actually all that useful, but I don't believe that. More likely, computing has a whole bunch of secondary effects on organizational health that are really, really, really bad, which partly offset the amazing gains.

sschueller 3y 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 3y 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.
samwillis 3y ago
Yes, this is "Elon time", so x2. Four months? If the piles under the launch mount aren't damaged (which would surprise me!), it's "just" filling in the hole, pour some concrete and cover with the new water cooled steel plate. Then replace any other stage zero kit that got damaged (the tall tanks particularly) I think he's probably right the longest thing to solve though is flight qualification with the FAA.
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  x2? x10 has historically been more accurate. I also love how Elonauts have decided that FAA qualification is a mere trivial formality as opposed to a necessary check on a founder deciding to go ahead with a premature launch because he wants to talk about it on 4/20 for example. The fact that the FAA check will be the longest is no defense. It’s a reflection of the fact that the FAA gave him an easy way out and all the critics of the FAA’s decision (including flagged stories on HN) turned out to be absolutely right.
  - zpeti 3y ago
    Sigh. Yes, perhaps you are accurate that it’s not always 2x but your 10x things is pretty childish. So what if it’s not 2x but more? Why are people like you so resentful of someone building something cool you literally can’t wait to point out any flaws. It’s sad tbh.
    - dmreedy 3y ago
      Because unrealistic representation of timelines can sound like a non-technical manager eager to claim credit for arduous research and mechanical work they don't seem to understand enough to give accurate forecasts for, just as much it might sound like an excited geek who can't wait for a cool thing. Maybe it sounds like aggressive and optimistic goals. Maybe it sounds like someone who doesn't understand that nine women can't give birth to a child in one month, and cracks the whip like they could if they tried hard enough.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
phire 3y ago
Also, it's not enough to simply repair the damage. They need do proper failure analysis and engineer a solution so this damage won't happen next time, 6-8 weeks seems way too short. Elon is suggesting just slapping down a shitload of steal, but I really doubt that will meet standards.
- sschueller 3y ago
  I don't understand why Elon insists on re-inventing the wheel when we know how to deal with rockets this size. The Saturn V was similar in size and power, the launch pad at Cape Canaveral is still standing, just build a copy.
  - jorlow 3y ago
    Starship is all about finding ways to whittle down margins from the status quo
  - cschmatzler 3y ago
    Super Heavy has more than double the thrust of Saturn V, how is that similar?
  - zpeti 3y ago
    I mean challenging the “well known” engineering orthodoxies like rockets landing being almost impossible and not worth doing seem to have worked out ok for him? I love it when people take one small issue and point out how stupid he’s being, yet ignore how by challenging every point of engineering on rockets he’s almost at the point of making a mars transportation system possible.
    - sschueller 3y ago
      Rockets landing was never considered impossible, NASA even built and tested several such vehicles long ago. What was determined is that is is not economically viable which even SpaceX has started to realize on some launches where they ditch the landing in order to be able to carry more payload. The launch pad at Cape Canaveral may not be exactly what Starship needs but it would be a good start. Like flame trenches and placing the fuel storage tanks far enough away from the launch pad.
detrites 3y ago
Doesn't the specific "pad standpoint," qualifier at the beginning of the statement mean to make clear that the pad will be ready in 6-8 weeks, not the rocket? Otherwise, why prefix with it?
v0idzer0 3y ago
Who said they’d launch in 8 weeks? He only said the pad would be repaired in 8 weeks

tjpnz 3y ago

>"We're going to putting down a lot of steel" under the launch tower before the next Starship flight. I understand that Starship needs the ability to operate in places where launch infrastructure can't exist. But that's a problem for another day. Put in a flame trench + water suppression system and get the thing to orbit.

tomp 3y ago
Not really. As far as I understand, the booster is only for launching from Earth. From elsewhere (moon, Mars) Starship can launch alone. Then maybe it would also require that much less thrust?
ant6n 3y ago
I thought the issue with throwing up a bunch of dust is that the planet this rocket was starting from is inhabited.
- krisoft 3y ago
  Not quite. It is speculated that the rocket engines were damaged by chunks of the pad hitting them. That is a danger to the launch itself even if the dust wouldn’t bother anyone else.
- George83728 3y ago
  The dust is a problem for the community in that immediate area on the order of miles, but on a planetary level it's nothing compared to the dust the mining, construction, etc industries produce. Per the ATF: "In 2015, the latest date for which statistics are available, the U.S. used slightly less than 4.5 billion pounds of explosives." Of course measures are often taken to reduce rock dust falling on people, but away from populated areas it's common to blast rock in the open air, in vastly greater quantities than the debris lofted by this rocket.
undefinedzero 3y ago
A flame trench would probably be a lot more inconvenient to them. Right now they can freely move around most of the launch pad. This is probably important for their rapid iteration, which is what is going to get them to orbit as quickly as they can. If a big chunk of the launch pad is consumed by a trench, that area becomes inaccessible by their platforms, cranes, etc.

MilStdJunkie 3y ago

I'm going to violate one of my Prime Directives about posting on Musk threads, but there's just no way they'll repair that pad in two months. Even if Musk was a Stalin-esque Maximum Leader, it couldn't happen. That's not even considering the other regulatory hurdles you might encounter when your planned building expels apartment-sized chunks of concrete at 83 m/s. Of course, regulatory is . . not the primary problem, even if you're of the persuasion that things like safety and the environment don't matter. Some chunks rebounded and almost certainly hit that rocket. Even without "lotto ball concrete debris", Dougherty et al figured out in 1984 that high impulse continuous shock would reflect, resonate, and shake a rocket to bits. It's research related to the "water deluge" system; arguably, the Soviets came to the same conclusion with Energia, based on the N1 work from the decade prior. Minimum safety distance, that's to protect infrastructure that takes a long ass time to put back, and the V2 rocketmen started paying pretty close attention to that even for their suborbital shots. I guess I'm not too sure what got learned here, aside from the fact that Raptor is a pretty great engine, still burning at all after that abuse. Also, Saturn V's S-1C had 13 launches and 13 orbits . . fifty years ago. Why is that? Well, there's lots of reasons, and one of them is the cost of labor. Those big F-1 engines were essentially hand-fitted pieces of welding art, but, counterpoint, computing and other tech would MORE than make up for a surfeit of cheap master welders[1]. Leadership from capital is another. I'm not going to say anything negative about anybody, but let's take a look at one of the maximum leaders from the era: Thornton Wilson. Born on a Missouri dirt farm, ISU BS Aero Engineering, CIT MS in same, NAS award winner, as undergrad he worked on B-47 and B-52, and then kept on working aerospace UNTIL HE DIED. In 1969, the buck stopped with this guy. This is who capital put in charge of the big booster back in the day. How does capital do leadership now? [1] You would think, right? Maybe these computer things aren't actually all that useful, but I don't believe that. More likely, computing has a whole bunch of secondary effects on organizational health that are really, really, really bad, which partly offset the amazing gains.