6 ms·

SpaceX's Starship didn't immediately respond to a self-destruct command

39 points by Zigurd 4y ago

samwillis 4y ago
See another thread related to this from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35760327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35760327
yabones 4y ago
I can't imagine the FAA will be thrilled with this...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 7373737373 4y ago
  Is the relationship between the FAA and space companies really as hostile as people allude to?
  - yabones 4y ago
    I can't speak on the relationship between FAA & Spacex, but I can't imagine it's great considering the public statements that have been made (ie. Twitter). But, FAA takes safety incredibly seriously. Range safety is top priority, and a malfunction of flight termination gear would be a showstopper. If there is indeed a serious design problem with their FTS it would ground the vehicle for a lot longer than the 1-2 months they're claiming for next test flight.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > it would ground the vehicle for a lot longer This is what Elon is quoted to be saying. [1] "The longest item on that [requirements to next launch] is probably requalification of the flight termination system" > the 1-2 months they're claiming for next test flight Do you have a source for that claim? 1: https://tlpnetwork.com/news/2023/04/starship-ift-postlaunch-update https://tlpnetwork.com/news/2023/04/starship-ift-postlaunch-...
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Elon sated 2 months the day of the launch and again in the interview discussed in this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIqSPux3FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIqSPux3FY
        krisoft 4y ago
        Thank you for your response! (And you have such an excellent user name!) I don't want to sound like a stickler but I'm not hearing him claim 1-2 months for the next test flight. That is the specific thing I'm asking about. I even downloaded the subtitles and was reading through it. Are you maybe confused about this part? "I think from a technique from a rocket standpoint and Pad standpoint we are probably ready to launch in uh six to eight weeks" Or maybe this one "and hopefully be ready to fly again in a couple months uh once again". That's not a claim that in 1-2 months they will fly again. That is a hope that in a few months they will be able. A "couple months" can be very well more than 2, and a hope is not a promise.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Thanks! Those were the parts I was talking about and I agree it is far from a firm claim or commitment. Even "plans" are subject to uncertainty. If I recall correctly, There was also a bit where he talked about expectations/aspirations for 4-5 launches this year.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        PS, where does krisoft come from? It sounds familiar?
        krisoft 4y ago
        Ah. Thank you for asking. It is a very mundane thing. Literally my name (Krisztian) + soft for software. :) I choose it when I was very young as a "brand" for the programs I was writing.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chasd00 4y ago
from the article "In one of many spins on the day's failures.." I stopped reading there, the author has a clear bias against SpaceX. Expectations and what "success" meant for the test were set well in advanced from multiple sources.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Defining expected failure states is good, because it allows you to distinguish expected failures from unexpected ones. What it doesn’t allow you to do is re-cast failures as successes, which is the spin that the author identifies.
- mmustapic 4y ago
  Starship not separating, launch stand disintegrating, 5-6 raptors not working, HPUs exploding, all of those were failures. That doesn't mean the test as a whole was a failure, but you cannot say that everything worked fine.
  - senectus1 4y ago
    it was from the very beginning meant to be a destructive test. the fact that it didn't blow up on the pad marks it as a success! Every millisecond of lift it gave was telemetry that will refine the end product. This. Was. Never. Meant. To. Succeed. As. An. End. Product. the launch, short flight and destruction was a wonderful success. Mistakes were definitely made... but thats the fastest way to learn! (As I often tell my kids)
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      There's a wide spectrum of possible outcomes for a destructive test. Blowing up on the launchpad during fueling would've been a destructive test. So would splashing down in the ocean off Hawaii. That doesn't make them the same; one went well, the other did not.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    i am willing to admit being biased. On the other hand, every requirement of the test was met. The failures lie in the expectations of the viewers IMO.
onychomys 4y ago
So Musk was arguing that the reason it didn't explode as it should have is that he just built it too darn strong? I'd have thought they would have tested the bomb on some big hunk of steel just like the actual tank to make sure that it worked right. They test all the other parts of a rocket, surely they do the termination system too.
- gvb 4y ago
  His point had nothing to do with the termination system. The rocket tumbled for four complete revolutions. Most rockets will be destroyed by inertial and aerodynamic forces well before the first revolution (they are designed to withstand forces along the major axis, not significant side forces). It was helpful from an aerodynamic force POV that the rocket was well over 100,000 feet before it started to tumble. Still, the inertial forces when the full stack started rotating must have been huge.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    That's not exactly a direct response though to the question unless you're suggestion is that SpaceX's destruct mechanism consisted of expecting aerodynamic forces to destroy the rocket during a tumble.
    - gvb 4y ago
      I interpreted Musk's comment to reflect the fact that rockets generally will be destroyed if the tanks lose pressurization and/or the rocket tumbles. The (load bearing) tank walls usually cannot support major side loads. The Starship stack needs to be a lot stronger than "usual" rockets to withstand the rotational forces and aerodynamic forces involved in landing them. Ref: https://headedforspace.com/why-and-how-rocket-fuel-tanks-are-pressurized/ https://headedforspace.com/why-and-how-rocket-fuel-tanks-are...
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        OTOH, most rockets are transported horizontally. (insert picture of Falcon9 going down a road on a flatbed here). This means that they are designed to withstand 1g side loads. SuperHeavy is always roughly vertical. Starship of course has to withstand insane loading horizontally during it's crazy descent and flip stage, but SuperHeavy stays vertical.
HarryHirsch 4y ago
Good thing one of the day's many failures didn't take the rocket on a course over Port Isabel or Matamoros. Someone really needs to explain why the flight was permitted to continue after the hydraulics were lost.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  It wasn't. There was a 40 second delay between FTS signal and explosion.
  - HarryHirsch 4y ago
    Thrust vector control was lost 85 seconds in. Then they continued onwards for several minutes more, and even then range safety couldn't terminate the flight for 40 seconds. That's not a good sign, also because anyone capable will either have been fired or left on their own accord a long time ago.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      It was within the flight corridor during that time.
      - HarryHirsch 4y ago
        Let's skirt as closely to the edge of the safety envelope as we can. That'll work!
        bryanlarsen 4y ago
        TVC was lost at 85 seconds, FTS was initiated before 90 seconds.
candiddevmike 4y ago
Do Teslas have a self-destruct command?
- speed_spread 4y ago
  Along with remote piloting, that would make a good terrorist plot in a cyberpunk B movie. Or just have them crash into each other, trying to set off battery "explosions".
  - mgdlbp 4y ago
    https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-fight-to-repair-demand-the-right-to-repair https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-fight-to-repair-de...
- tedivm 4y ago
  Yeah, they call it "autopilot".
magicalhippo 4y ago
On the off chance someone here is interested in the topic but isn't already subscribed, Scott Manley recently released a video[1] going over flight termination systems for rockets. Everyday Astronaut also released[2] some incredible shots from the event, including a very nice 4k tracking shot. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yekMWWcpfOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yekMWWcpfOA [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCYSVmSPM7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCYSVmSPM7E
bryanlarsen 4y ago
IIRC, RocketLab launches from Wallops were delayed by about a year due to delays in FTS certification. Doesn't bode well for seeing Starship launch again any time soon.
- oses 4y ago
  RocketLab's largest hurdle was certifying their generalized AFTS software for any rocket and any spaceport, this won't be an issue for SpaceX.
techdragon 4y ago
It’s really frustrating to me how much public info is getting “dumped” in Twitter spaces, which are for the most part impossible to get back. It’s hiding useful information that would let people make more informed decisions, even if just on something like their own opinion of how something happened… it’s as if you put press releases up on a time limited Snapchat… it’s dumb. And I can immediately think why Elon is doing it, it’s harder for people to go back and dredge up what he says and report on it if the primary source is gone. It’s his choice (unless legally obligated by other circumstances such as reporting requirements) but it’s deeply frustrating to try and follow Space industry news when you have one of the most newsworthy recent events disappear into a smokescreen of hate posts online and primary sources get turned into disappearing mirages in twitter spaces.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  It was uploaded to YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIqSPux3FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIqSPux3FY
- Invictus0 4y ago
  I don't disagree, but recently a twitter space comment was noted in an official FDIC press release: https://twitter.com/AlderLaneEggs/status/1652020811413479424 https://twitter.com/AlderLaneEggs/status/1652020811413479424
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  This is an an understandable frustration, but I don't think it is a underpinned by a reasonable expectation. In the post internet world, people have come to expect information to be available immediately with minimal effort; to be able to find the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow with a click of a button[1]. I think the most challenging part is the expectation of immediacy and that someone will pre-package the information. If you are fine waiting a year or two, there will likely be books on the topic with extensive information, maybe some FOIAed original reports. [1] Im guilty of this too. I googled the quote to get it right and was frustrated that the complete text wasn't the first response.
  - 4y ago
Ajedi32 4y ago
Anyone know where I can find a recording of the "Twitter audio chat on Saturday"? As-is it's not clear the article's body supports the claim made in the headline. > Musk claimed it was because "the vehicle’s structural margins appear to be better than we expected." What do high "structural margins" have to do with inability of the self-destruct system to respond to commands? This is pure speculation (since again, I haven't been able to find the primary source), but it sounds to me like the self-destruct system did respond immediately, but the command to self-destruct wasn't issued because the vehicle took 40 seconds longer than expected to reach a state where a self-destruct was necessary. If that's true then this isn't a critical safety issue like the headline is implying.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelsheetz_elon_musk_details_spacexs_current/ji93yeo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelshee...
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    Thanks! Looks like the portion referenced in the article headline is at 3:16: https://youtu.be/mmIqSPux3FY?t=196 https://youtu.be/mmIqSPux3FY?t=196
    - Ajedi32 4y ago
      From Elon's description there it sounds like he believes the self-destruct system did immediately activate, but there wasn't enough detonation cord for the resulting explosion to immediately destroy the spacecraft at that altitude. That's where the "40 seconds" number comes from. He also suggests that re-qualifying the abort (self-destruct) system is the item that will take the most amount of time before they'll be ready for the next launch.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    > Musk: "The outcome was roughly in what I expected, and maybe slightly exceeding my expectations, but roughly what I expected, which is that we would get clear of the pad." I'm still surprised by such a low bar.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
The FAA probably used NASA modelling software to certify the SpaceX Flight Termination System. They probably used the same software to certify the FTS on SLS, Vulcan and other large rockets that haven't had an implicit or explicit FTS test. That might call into question the safety of those rockets...
joakleaf 4y ago
Common Sense Sceptic did a whole analysis of the launch pointing to this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErDuVomNd9M&t=2s Note: CSS is very anti Elon Musk and SpaceX. However, they are usually very thorough and include a lot factual information in their material. So it can be interesting to see, just to hear an opposite (less positive) view of Elon Musk's statements and endeavors.
ragebol 4y ago
This Reddit thread has a nice summary [0], as well as this Twitter thread [1]. I'm not bothering with the giant Engadget cookiewall to get to the fluff around proably nothing more than these summaries. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelsheetz_elon_musk_details_spacexs_current/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelshee... [1] https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1652451971410935808 https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/16524519714109358...
- laverya 4y ago
  The article was significantly worse (less accurate and less detail) than those summaries.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Von Braun said that they learned more from a launch failure than they did from 10 launch successes. This is an example of something that they never would have learned from a successful launch.
- dboreham 4y ago
  Von Braun knew that you can't have a giant rocket deployed like a blowtorch onto concrete structures. He knew that without ever trying it.
  - sho_hn 4y ago
    To be fair, Von Braun and parts of his team had a huge amount of experience from many years of testing experimental smaller rockets at Peenemünde (the museum is great) and other places. You can find footage of V-2 test launches where the entire test article comes falling/crashing down into the countryside. I would also assume that approvals for risky launches or going hard on gear was a bit easier to get during a war time weapons research operation, so they presumably had their cowboy years.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > You can find footage of V-2 test launches where the entire test article comes falling/crashing down into the countryside. Absolutely. Here are some of the test footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFU4KaJSSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFU4KaJSSc (not really fancying the music, but couldn't find one without.)
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    The concrete launchpad that SpaceX built has already withstood forces greater than any rocket in Von Brauns lifetime and every other rocket that has ever flown. The successful half-thrust Starship test applied more force than the Saturn V or SLS in development do at full thrust. People quick to criticize the spaceX pad conveniently ignore this fact, as well as the fact that SpaceX knew it was not reusable and was already planning to upgrade it. If Von Braun actually thought what you claim, he has already been proven wrong.
xnx 4y ago
News also came out that the rocket was leaning shortly after launch. Not a great situation with a faulty flight termination system.
vpribish 4y ago
Clickbait and lying. It did immediately respond - by detonating the self-destruct explosives. It's just that that didn't immediately destroy the whole rocket.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
trothamel 4y ago
A couple things. The first is that Starship has a AFTS (Autonomous Flight Termination System), which means that it's commanding itself to destruct if it predicts that it will be going out of bounds, rather than the ground sending the command to it. I don't think there is a way to command the rocket remotely after launch. The other thing is that it did break up when it was around 30 KM above ground.
- dgrin91 4y ago
  I'm fairly sure that by regulation they need to have a manual override just in case the AFTS fails.
  - magicalhippo 4y ago
    Correct as far as I can see. D417.9 in the FAR[1]: (a) A flight termination system must include a command destruct system that is initiated by radio command and satisfies the requirements of this section. [1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter-C/part-417/appendix-Appendix%20D%20to%20Part%20417 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...
andrewflnr 4y ago
I'm baffled that they didn't use a linear charge for the FTS. Was it that much cheaper to just put the two little hole-poking charges?
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  I suspect it isn't cost but the desire to have as little explosive as possible for worker safety.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  sounds like they did. Elon mentioned a "longer cord" not adding a cord.
jccooper 4y ago
It "responded" immediately to the "command" (an onboard automatic trigger) and the explosive charges ruptured the tanks instantly. However, the explosive charges which ruptured the tanks didn't cause the vehicle to disintegrate immediately, as it was stronger than anticipated and at a high altitude with lower wind force. (No one has flown a rocket of this construction and size before.) The flight was, however, pretty well terminated at that point (the FT in FTS). They will be adding more explosives for the future to ensure structural failure.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That isn't what Elon stated in the interview (but you may still be correct). [Edit: You are correct] "The longest lead we dont have is probably requalification of the FTS. Um, Because we did initiate the FTS, but it was not enough to.. it took way too long to rupture the tanks. We need.. basically we need more detonation cord to unzip the tanks at altitude and ensure the rocket explodes immediately."
  - ortusdux 4y ago
    It sounds like the FTS worked as intended, but the holes created in the fuel tank were undersized, allowing the tank to maintain enough pressure to remain structurally sound. You can see 4 plumes of gas venting from the 4 locations of the FTS boxes while it tumbles. I would expect them to switch to long shaped charges, possibly radial in orientation. It sounds to me that the FTS was triggered automatically by the onboard computer, but that Musk concedes that it possibly should have triggered (or been triggered) sooner: Musk: Time for AFTS to kick in "was pretty long," about "40 seconds-ish." On the other hand, rockets have blown up on the pad due to over-aggressive AFTS, so I would imagine the bounds were pretty loose for an initial test flight.
mkoc 4y ago
I wonder if it also just replied with a U+1F4A9 PILE OF POO.
- twic 4y ago
  "Looking into it".
slenk 4y ago
I can't find the documents/video but you can see that the self destruct explosives do indeed go off. All that they do in starship is punch holes into the fuel tanks. Then, as soon as air mixes with the fuel in the correct ratio, boom. However, there was too much pressure in the fuel system and it was jetting out so strongly that it appeared O2 wasn't mixing with the fuel. After about 10 seconds you then see it explode.
H8crilA 4y ago
Aegis would have taken care of it easily with an SM-3. I wonder if some Arleigh Burkes or other Aegis-enabled ships are on standby every time there's a launch. Or perhaps the Air Force helps with a Patriot battery.

39 points by Zigurd 4y ago

See another thread related to this from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35760327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35760327

yabones 4y ago

I can't imagine the FAA will be thrilled with this...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
7373737373 4y ago
Is the relationship between the FAA and space companies really as hostile as people allude to?
- yabones 4y ago
  I can't speak on the relationship between FAA & Spacex, but I can't imagine it's great considering the public statements that have been made (ie. Twitter). But, FAA takes safety incredibly seriously. Range safety is top priority, and a malfunction of flight termination gear would be a showstopper. If there is indeed a serious design problem with their FTS it would ground the vehicle for a lot longer than the 1-2 months they're claiming for next test flight.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > it would ground the vehicle for a lot longer This is what Elon is quoted to be saying. [1] "The longest item on that [requirements to next launch] is probably requalification of the flight termination system" > the 1-2 months they're claiming for next test flight Do you have a source for that claim? 1: https://tlpnetwork.com/news/2023/04/starship-ift-postlaunch-update https://tlpnetwork.com/news/2023/04/starship-ift-postlaunch-...
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Elon sated 2 months the day of the launch and again in the interview discussed in this thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIqSPux3FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIqSPux3FY
      - krisoft 4y ago
        Thank you for your response! (And you have such an excellent user name!) I don't want to sound like a stickler but I'm not hearing him claim 1-2 months for the next test flight. That is the specific thing I'm asking about. I even downloaded the subtitles and was reading through it. Are you maybe confused about this part? "I think from a technique from a rocket standpoint and Pad standpoint we are probably ready to launch in uh six to eight weeks" Or maybe this one "and hopefully be ready to fly again in a couple months uh once again". That's not a claim that in 1-2 months they will fly again. That is a hope that in a few months they will be able. A "couple months" can be very well more than 2, and a hope is not a promise.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Thanks! Those were the parts I was talking about and I agree it is far from a firm claim or commitment. Even "plans" are subject to uncertainty. If I recall correctly, There was also a bit where he talked about expectations/aspirations for 4-5 launches this year.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        PS, where does krisoft come from? It sounds familiar?
        krisoft 4y ago
        Ah. Thank you for asking. It is a very mundane thing. Literally my name (Krisztian) + soft for software. :) I choose it when I was very young as a "brand" for the programs I was writing.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

chasd00 4y ago

from the article "In one of many spins on the day's failures.." I stopped reading there, the author has a clear bias against SpaceX. Expectations and what "success" meant for the test were set well in advanced from multiple sources.

woodruffw 4y ago
Defining expected failure states is good, because it allows you to distinguish expected failures from unexpected ones. What it doesn’t allow you to do is re-cast failures as successes, which is the spin that the author identifies.
mmustapic 4y ago
Starship not separating, launch stand disintegrating, 5-6 raptors not working, HPUs exploding, all of those were failures. That doesn't mean the test as a whole was a failure, but you cannot say that everything worked fine.
- senectus1 4y ago
  it was from the very beginning meant to be a destructive test. the fact that it didn't blow up on the pad marks it as a success! Every millisecond of lift it gave was telemetry that will refine the end product. This. Was. Never. Meant. To. Succeed. As. An. End. Product. the launch, short flight and destruction was a wonderful success. Mistakes were definitely made... but thats the fastest way to learn! (As I often tell my kids)
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    There's a wide spectrum of possible outcomes for a destructive test. Blowing up on the launchpad during fueling would've been a destructive test. So would splashing down in the ocean off Hawaii. That doesn't make them the same; one went well, the other did not.
- chasd00 4y ago
  i am willing to admit being biased. On the other hand, every requirement of the test was met. The failures lie in the expectations of the viewers IMO.

onychomys 4y ago

So Musk was arguing that the reason it didn't explode as it should have is that he just built it too darn strong? I'd have thought they would have tested the bomb on some big hunk of steel just like the actual tank to make sure that it worked right. They test all the other parts of a rocket, surely they do the termination system too.

gvb 4y ago
His point had nothing to do with the termination system. The rocket tumbled for four complete revolutions. Most rockets will be destroyed by inertial and aerodynamic forces well before the first revolution (they are designed to withstand forces along the major axis, not significant side forces). It was helpful from an aerodynamic force POV that the rocket was well over 100,000 feet before it started to tumble. Still, the inertial forces when the full stack started rotating must have been huge.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  That's not exactly a direct response though to the question unless you're suggestion is that SpaceX's destruct mechanism consisted of expecting aerodynamic forces to destroy the rocket during a tumble.
  - gvb 4y ago
    I interpreted Musk's comment to reflect the fact that rockets generally will be destroyed if the tanks lose pressurization and/or the rocket tumbles. The (load bearing) tank walls usually cannot support major side loads. The Starship stack needs to be a lot stronger than "usual" rockets to withstand the rotational forces and aerodynamic forces involved in landing them. Ref: https://headedforspace.com/why-and-how-rocket-fuel-tanks-are-pressurized/ https://headedforspace.com/why-and-how-rocket-fuel-tanks-are...
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      OTOH, most rockets are transported horizontally. (insert picture of Falcon9 going down a road on a flatbed here). This means that they are designed to withstand 1g side loads. SuperHeavy is always roughly vertical. Starship of course has to withstand insane loading horizontally during it's crazy descent and flip stage, but SuperHeavy stays vertical.

HarryHirsch 4y ago

Good thing one of the day's many failures didn't take the rocket on a course over Port Isabel or Matamoros. Someone really needs to explain why the flight was permitted to continue after the hydraulics were lost.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
It wasn't. There was a 40 second delay between FTS signal and explosion.
- HarryHirsch 4y ago
  Thrust vector control was lost 85 seconds in. Then they continued onwards for several minutes more, and even then range safety couldn't terminate the flight for 40 seconds. That's not a good sign, also because anyone capable will either have been fired or left on their own accord a long time ago.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    It was within the flight corridor during that time.
    - HarryHirsch 4y ago
      Let's skirt as closely to the edge of the safety envelope as we can. That'll work!
      - bryanlarsen 4y ago
        TVC was lost at 85 seconds, FTS was initiated before 90 seconds.

candiddevmike 4y ago

Do Teslas have a self-destruct command?

speed_spread 4y ago
Along with remote piloting, that would make a good terrorist plot in a cyberpunk B movie. Or just have them crash into each other, trying to set off battery "explosions".
- mgdlbp 4y ago
  https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-fight-to-repair-demand-the-right-to-repair https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-fight-to-repair-de...
tedivm 4y ago
Yeah, they call it "autopilot".

magicalhippo 4y ago

On the off chance someone here is interested in the topic but isn't already subscribed, Scott Manley recently released a video[1] going over flight termination systems for rockets. Everyday Astronaut also released[2] some incredible shots from the event, including a very nice 4k tracking shot. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yekMWWcpfOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yekMWWcpfOA [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCYSVmSPM7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCYSVmSPM7E

bryanlarsen 4y ago

IIRC, RocketLab launches from Wallops were delayed by about a year due to delays in FTS certification. Doesn't bode well for seeing Starship launch again any time soon.

oses 4y ago
RocketLab's largest hurdle was certifying their generalized AFTS software for any rocket and any spaceport, this won't be an issue for SpaceX.

techdragon 4y ago

It’s really frustrating to me how much public info is getting “dumped” in Twitter spaces, which are for the most part impossible to get back. It’s hiding useful information that would let people make more informed decisions, even if just on something like their own opinion of how something happened… it’s as if you put press releases up on a time limited Snapchat… it’s dumb. And I can immediately think why Elon is doing it, it’s harder for people to go back and dredge up what he says and report on it if the primary source is gone. It’s his choice (unless legally obligated by other circumstances such as reporting requirements) but it’s deeply frustrating to try and follow Space industry news when you have one of the most newsworthy recent events disappear into a smokescreen of hate posts online and primary sources get turned into disappearing mirages in twitter spaces.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
It was uploaded to YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIqSPux3FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIqSPux3FY
Invictus0 4y ago
I don't disagree, but recently a twitter space comment was noted in an official FDIC press release: https://twitter.com/AlderLaneEggs/status/1652020811413479424 https://twitter.com/AlderLaneEggs/status/1652020811413479424
s1artibartfast 4y ago
This is an an understandable frustration, but I don't think it is a underpinned by a reasonable expectation. In the post internet world, people have come to expect information to be available immediately with minimal effort; to be able to find the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow with a click of a button[1]. I think the most challenging part is the expectation of immediacy and that someone will pre-package the information. If you are fine waiting a year or two, there will likely be books on the topic with extensive information, maybe some FOIAed original reports. [1] Im guilty of this too. I googled the quote to get it right and was frustrated that the complete text wasn't the first response.
- 4y ago

Ajedi32 4y ago

Anyone know where I can find a recording of the "Twitter audio chat on Saturday"? As-is it's not clear the article's body supports the claim made in the headline. > Musk claimed it was because "the vehicle’s structural margins appear to be better than we expected." What do high "structural margins" have to do with inability of the self-destruct system to respond to commands? This is pure speculation (since again, I haven't been able to find the primary source), but it sounds to me like the self-destruct system did respond immediately, but the command to self-destruct wasn't issued because the vehicle took 40 seconds longer than expected to reach a state where a self-destruct was necessary. If that's true then this isn't a critical safety issue like the headline is implying.

Gwypaas 4y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelsheetz_elon_musk_details_spacexs_current/ji93yeo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelshee...
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Thanks! Looks like the portion referenced in the article headline is at 3:16: https://youtu.be/mmIqSPux3FY?t=196 https://youtu.be/mmIqSPux3FY?t=196
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    From Elon's description there it sounds like he believes the self-destruct system did immediately activate, but there wasn't enough detonation cord for the resulting explosion to immediately destroy the spacecraft at that altitude. That's where the "40 seconds" number comes from. He also suggests that re-qualifying the abort (self-destruct) system is the item that will take the most amount of time before they'll be ready for the next launch.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  > Musk: "The outcome was roughly in what I expected, and maybe slightly exceeding my expectations, but roughly what I expected, which is that we would get clear of the pad." I'm still surprised by such a low bar.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

The FAA probably used NASA modelling software to certify the SpaceX Flight Termination System. They probably used the same software to certify the FTS on SLS, Vulcan and other large rockets that haven't had an implicit or explicit FTS test. That might call into question the safety of those rockets...

joakleaf 4y ago

Common Sense Sceptic did a whole analysis of the launch pointing to this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErDuVomNd9M&t=2s Note: CSS is very anti Elon Musk and SpaceX. However, they are usually very thorough and include a lot factual information in their material. So it can be interesting to see, just to hear an opposite (less positive) view of Elon Musk's statements and endeavors.

ragebol 4y ago

This Reddit thread has a nice summary [0], as well as this Twitter thread [1]. I'm not bothering with the giant Engadget cookiewall to get to the fluff around proably nothing more than these summaries. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelsheetz_elon_musk_details_spacexs_current/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelshee... [1] https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1652451971410935808 https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/16524519714109358...

laverya 4y ago
The article was significantly worse (less accurate and less detail) than those summaries.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Von Braun said that they learned more from a launch failure than they did from 10 launch successes. This is an example of something that they never would have learned from a successful launch.

dboreham 4y ago
Von Braun knew that you can't have a giant rocket deployed like a blowtorch onto concrete structures. He knew that without ever trying it.
- sho_hn 4y ago
  To be fair, Von Braun and parts of his team had a huge amount of experience from many years of testing experimental smaller rockets at Peenemünde (the museum is great) and other places. You can find footage of V-2 test launches where the entire test article comes falling/crashing down into the countryside. I would also assume that approvals for risky launches or going hard on gear was a bit easier to get during a war time weapons research operation, so they presumably had their cowboy years.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > You can find footage of V-2 test launches where the entire test article comes falling/crashing down into the countryside. Absolutely. Here are some of the test footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFU4KaJSSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFU4KaJSSc (not really fancying the music, but couldn't find one without.)
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  The concrete launchpad that SpaceX built has already withstood forces greater than any rocket in Von Brauns lifetime and every other rocket that has ever flown. The successful half-thrust Starship test applied more force than the Saturn V or SLS in development do at full thrust. People quick to criticize the spaceX pad conveniently ignore this fact, as well as the fact that SpaceX knew it was not reusable and was already planning to upgrade it. If Von Braun actually thought what you claim, he has already been proven wrong.

xnx 4y ago

News also came out that the rocket was leaning shortly after launch. Not a great situation with a faulty flight termination system.

vpribish 4y ago

Clickbait and lying. It did immediately respond - by detonating the self-destruct explosives. It's just that that didn't immediately destroy the whole rocket.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

trothamel 4y ago

A couple things. The first is that Starship has a AFTS (Autonomous Flight Termination System), which means that it's commanding itself to destruct if it predicts that it will be going out of bounds, rather than the ground sending the command to it. I don't think there is a way to command the rocket remotely after launch. The other thing is that it did break up when it was around 30 KM above ground.

dgrin91 4y ago
I'm fairly sure that by regulation they need to have a manual override just in case the AFTS fails.
- magicalhippo 4y ago
  Correct as far as I can see. D417.9 in the FAR[1]: (a) A flight termination system must include a command destruct system that is initiated by radio command and satisfies the requirements of this section. [1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter-C/part-417/appendix-Appendix%20D%20to%20Part%20417 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...

andrewflnr 4y ago

I'm baffled that they didn't use a linear charge for the FTS. Was it that much cheaper to just put the two little hole-poking charges?

bryanlarsen 4y ago
I suspect it isn't cost but the desire to have as little explosive as possible for worker safety.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
sounds like they did. Elon mentioned a "longer cord" not adding a cord.

jccooper 4y ago

It "responded" immediately to the "command" (an onboard automatic trigger) and the explosive charges ruptured the tanks instantly. However, the explosive charges which ruptured the tanks didn't cause the vehicle to disintegrate immediately, as it was stronger than anticipated and at a high altitude with lower wind force. (No one has flown a rocket of this construction and size before.) The flight was, however, pretty well terminated at that point (the FT in FTS). They will be adding more explosives for the future to ensure structural failure.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
That isn't what Elon stated in the interview (but you may still be correct). [Edit: You are correct] "The longest lead we dont have is probably requalification of the FTS. Um, Because we did initiate the FTS, but it was not enough to.. it took way too long to rupture the tanks. We need.. basically we need more detonation cord to unzip the tanks at altitude and ensure the rocket explodes immediately."
- ortusdux 4y ago
  It sounds like the FTS worked as intended, but the holes created in the fuel tank were undersized, allowing the tank to maintain enough pressure to remain structurally sound. You can see 4 plumes of gas venting from the 4 locations of the FTS boxes while it tumbles. I would expect them to switch to long shaped charges, possibly radial in orientation. It sounds to me that the FTS was triggered automatically by the onboard computer, but that Musk concedes that it possibly should have triggered (or been triggered) sooner: Musk: Time for AFTS to kick in "was pretty long," about "40 seconds-ish." On the other hand, rockets have blown up on the pad due to over-aggressive AFTS, so I would imagine the bounds were pretty loose for an initial test flight.

mkoc 4y ago

I wonder if it also just replied with a U+1F4A9 PILE OF POO.

twic 4y ago
"Looking into it".

slenk 4y ago

I can't find the documents/video but you can see that the self destruct explosives do indeed go off. All that they do in starship is punch holes into the fuel tanks. Then, as soon as air mixes with the fuel in the correct ratio, boom. However, there was too much pressure in the fuel system and it was jetting out so strongly that it appeared O2 wasn't mixing with the fuel. After about 10 seconds you then see it explode.

H8crilA 4y ago

Aegis would have taken care of it easily with an SM-3. I wonder if some Arleigh Burkes or other Aegis-enabled ships are on standby every time there's a launch. Or perhaps the Air Force helps with a Patriot battery.