11 ms·
Was Starship’s Stage Zero a Bad Pad?
- mnw21cam 3y agoSee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EsqMLT0Hzw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EsqMLT0Hzw for the video version of this.
- grimgoldgo 3y agoI am generally bullish on SpaceX, and I'm quick to forgive mistakes in flight - engines, avionics, control systems, etc - that shit is difficult. But the pad failing is indefensible. Any engineer on staff should have been able to see that as a problem, and if they were over ruled by executives then they have serious problems ahead.
- Abroszka 3y agoThey said that they expected some damage based on the previous tests. They just didn't expect the whole thing to be blown away.
- carabiner 3y agoThey're working without precedent and I don't blame them for wanting to go for it in a full scale test. I don't know if you read the article, but the author, a civil engineer, makes the case that SpaceX deliberately went without a real pad just to see how bad the damage would be. They're planning to use a radically different pad for the next launch: a steel plate upsidedown showerhead with water spraying out.
- esjeon 3y ago> They're working without precedent It's not "without precedent" - they want to ignore the precedent and the entire concept of careful engineering for the sake of going fast (i.e. less money spent on step-by-step experiments). I think this is as irresponsible as the Titanic submarine. Hardware is not software.
- sneak 3y agoThe Titan submarine was manned; errors resulted in lost lives. No one was killed or even injured in the Starship test flight. They are not comparable levels of "irresponsible".
- Gwypaas 3y agoThe alternative is the SLS, how many billions down the drain is that? The true issue with the launch was the flight termination system taking 15-30s to trigger, which they have had to requalify since that is what protects the public from harm.
- namaria 3y agoDown the drain? The money has been used to pay people's labor and sourcing materials. That was demand attended to by highly sophisticated supply chains. SLS isn't some stone monument in the desert. It's a huge engineering undertaking.
- kortilla 3y agoYes, a huge portion of the money was down the drain because of the significant waste. It enabled bloated, inefficient companies to stay alive supporting this one massive project. SLS could have been done differently. Instead it was loaded with political favors demanding specific parts/suppliers.
- namaria 3y agoWe can only know what was a dead end, waste or bloat in a complex systems pathways in retrospect. I would prefer for humanity's sake to see more avenues of technological advancement pursued rather then only those conforming to some(one's) definition of efficient/correct. SpaceX might be construed to be blowing private investment in some guy's grand vision of space exploration that might turn out to be simply vain. Time will tell. Deriding people exploring the edge of human progress because they don't fit with your values is presumptuous.
- 3y ago
- tsimionescu 3y agoIf that is true, it's dangerously irresponsible, both to the protected environment they make their base in, and to themselves in terms of regulatory risks they are exposing themselves to. It's quite likely that the launch will mean they have to litigate for their right to even keep using the Boca Chica site, given that both locals and environmental protection organizations are now aiming for their guts.
- XorNot 3y agoAnd none have a case. A worst case outcome of any rocket launch is a pad level detonation which levels the entire facility. Against that, trashing their own launch pad is nothing. The most they've got is the dust plume.
- tsimionescu 3y agoThat's why you can't just "move fast and break things" when dealing with rockets. SpaceX is not allowed to launch a rocket that they don't have confidence will not explode on the pad. If one ever does, they will surely have to dismantle the site and move somewhere that is not a protected wildlife reservation. In fact, they were also not really supposed to launch a rocket they didn't have confidence they could detonate if it veered off course - which they did (remember, the FTS failed to detonate the rocket on demand, and we were lucky that it was far enough away from anything after the attempt that it didn't put anyone in danger before structural forces destroyed it). The FAA investigation will determine whether they did their due diligence and simply made a mistake, or whether they acted irresponsibly on that front as well.
- XorNot 3y agoYou're completely missing the point: if the rocket fired up its engines and immediately went off course from the pad, they would have to trigger the flight termination system at ground level which would cause the near fully loaded to rocket to explode on the pad. If an area of a launch site is so valuable as to not be allowed to ever be at risk of mishap from the rocket launch, then the launch site should not be there. However, the launch site is there and has already passed review for launch operations from that location. The occurrence of a launch failure or damage to the site does not suddenly mean re-evaluation on that basis: the default state of all rocket launches is that the rocket may explode upon ignition. The environmental suit is motivated by people who have had an axe to grind with Elon Musk specifically (as opposed to SpaceX) unifying up with the regular environmentalist opposition, but neither has a valid claim here: a rocket failure resulting in destruction of the rocket and the facility is part and parcel of having any area performing launch operations. Talking about "confidence" is irrelevant because that's not how you do a safety assessment: the assessment is "what happens when a failure happens, not if". You can only factor in "confidence" if your mitigations would depend strongly on an expected rate of failure being achieved.
- alexvoda 3y agoThat will push water directly opposite of the thrust. I expect the water to be pushed backwards, the plate to melt and the exaust to be pushed into the water tank and maybe we will see a steam explosion. There is a reason flame diverters are diverters instead of blockers. It's much much easier to just throw the exaust to the side instead of trying to fight it head on. Don't try to use force to block it, put a 45 degree angle and use geometry and physics to your advantage. If they really want to experiment with unconventional solutions they could make a small scale test with a spent F9 and see if the idea is feasible. For what it's worth, even the F9 uses a flame diverter trench. I get why they don't want to. It probably means modifying the tower too, probably to make it taller. But I foresee this shower head plate going badly.
- kortilla 3y agoThe F9 uses the flame diverter trench because the pad it launches from already has it. Not because spacex built it. They don’t need to test with a spent F9. They already did with raptor engines blasting a steel plate in mcgregor.
- alexvoda 3y agoBut why would you ever put the plate at 0° when you can put it at 45°. Yes you need some height, but is that so onerous? I am not saying they have to build something equivalent to the SLS/SST/Satun/Soyuz/Proton concrete pad infrastructure. Just put a 45° angle. Wedge, cone, pyramid, whatever shape works. Make everything out of steel if it works and is cheaper. Even RocketLab with their tiny Electron have a diverter. You can see it here: https://youtu.be/P_tGKxL6CLI?t=31 https://youtu.be/P_tGKxL6CLI?t=31
- inglor_cz 3y agoAFAIK flame diverters at Boca Chica would be technologically very challenging because of high ground water level, that is why they try other solutions.
- alexvoda 3y ago
- CyanBird 3y agoThere are old tweets of Musk stating that maybe having the pad be the way it was without diverted could be a mistake This issue was a measured known risk for the team/leadership https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12tapz0/elon_musks_tweet_from_2_years_ago_aspiring_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12tapz0/elon_...
- labster 3y agoI’m out of tweets for today. Can someone post a screencap?
- defrost 3y agopublish.twitter.com generates embed codes for newspaper | magazines. It's not limited or login bound. https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Felonmusk%2Fstatus%2F1313952039869788173&widget=Tweet https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com...
- arcanemachiner 3y ago> I’m out of tweets for today. What a time to be alive.
- wwtdtgotiatl 3y agoPlease drink a verification can for 5 more tweets.
- prox 3y agoYour tweet is in the article actually :)
- ahoka 3y agoWelcome to anything Musk? Like the newly uncovered “gas” pedal issues affecting all Teslas, that were repeatedly shrugged off as user error, until an independent group found the issue for them?
- ubercore 3y agoHave a link to that?
- b112 3y agoWonder if Musk is then as safety, and build conscientious as Toyota, the "it must have been car mats!" throttle company. But, some just love to trash Musk.
- therobotking 3y agohttps://apnews.com/article/tesla-china-recall-accelerator-pedal-07e45911dfcd107d83e8ef1299617308 https://apnews.com/article/tesla-china-recall-accelerator-pe...
- Rygian 3y agoDirect quote from article: "drivers might step on the accelerator for too long" How is that a "newly uncovered “gas” pedal issue"?
- donkeyd 3y ago> drivers might step on the accelerator for too long, increasing the risk of a crash Wow, ok. So there's no actual issue with the accelerator pedal, it's just that people are too stupid to not correctly operate a vehicle and the need to be guarded from making mistakes by adding a warning to the software. There's a lot of stuff objectively wrong in Teslas (see phantom braking, for example), but this isn't one of those things.
- King-Aaron 3y ago100% skill issue, not a technical issue.
- dathinab 3y agoYes they know the problem, we for sure know Elon himself did know the problem, they went ahead with it anyway. They don't care if they damage some wetlands or create large dust clouds or similar, they simply write it off as a fine which they expect to not affect them in a major way.
- raverbashing 3y agoI'm not sure how "bad" it was if it also had the noise suppression system (read: a crapload amount of water being pumped into it) and a flame deflection system maybe
- mft_ 3y agoI wonder whether there' a reason behind all of this that they absolutely cannot share, perhaps related to the challanges and delays they experienced with the environmental assessment in '22? Maybe that they calculated they'd be better overall taking the hit on the pad in the short term and just getting that (already superceded) rocket launched, rather than opting for yet more bureaucratic delays? (Total speculation, of course)
- apple4ever 3y agoThat's what I believe too. They knew it wouldn't be great, and instead of waiting to get it perfect they decide to test the rocket anyway. I doubt they expected the damage they had, but that's why you test, so you know.
- helsinkiandrew 3y agoLooking at the clip of the huge amounts of debris being blasted into the sea and the damage done to tanks. Plus the cloud of sand that covered a town 6 miles away - the answer must be yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EsqMLT0Hzw&t=74s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EsqMLT0Hzw&t=74s https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/04/spacex-starship-explosion-dust-debris-texas/673881/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/04/spacex-s...
- reso 3y agoI am a fan of SpaceX, but I doubt we'll see another test in 2023, and at their pace they are ~5-10 "tests" from having a usable rocket. Starship is still 5+ years away.
- patd 3y agoI think it will mostly depend on the FAA. It seems SpaceX is still hoping another launch in the coming months.
- capableweb 3y agoGuess it depends on how you see things. I'd say it was up to SpaceX and they fucked up so badly that yeah, now they're gonna have to wait a long time to do another test, if FAA properly do their job and require more from them.
- lionkor 3y agoAnd I'm hoping to ship my product in a month, even though we've already put in half a year and have loosely connected backend, frontend, servers and clients, most of which are barely a prototype.
- _moof 3y agoThe failure of the flight safety system is a major screwup. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to talk to the FAA about it. Personally I'm not holding my breath for the next attempt.
- me_me_me 3y agoHow? They clearly have no launch pad system that can survive the back-blast. Unless they just trash another launch pad risking another rocket to debris damage.
- Shawnj2 3y agoI think everyone is still going to push for it to happen for the Artemis program
- weinzierl 3y ago"There was no payload; this was a test flight with the goal of gathering data not just on the rocket, but all the various systems involved." I'm out of aerospace for about 15 years and only worked there as a junior engineer, so take this with a grain of salt: There is always a payload. You could not just launch a rocket with an empty payload fairing. The payload dummies used are not only trimmed for appropriate mass and COG but also for the proper frequency response. I know this, because as a young engineer I did the FE-models of the MaqSat (H2 and B2 IIRC) dummies for the Ariane 5 and spent days trimming their frequency responses. http://astronautix.com/m/maqsat.html http://astronautix.com/m/maqsat.html
- capableweb 3y agoI think you're taking it too literally. It's meant to convey the meaning of "Delivering a payload wasn't the goal, testing the rocket and all associated systems was the goal".
- matricaria 3y agoI would really like to see humans on Mars in my lifetime, but things like this make me wonder how close we are to actually getting there.
- one_more_q 3y agoWait, them trying out if the concrete alone is strong enough to withstand the launch makes you wonder how close we are? I’m wondering about life support, producing fuel in Mars and a lot of other things, but the floor of the launch stand really does not bother me at all. People love to complain about spaceX and this gave them a great reason.
- dathinab 3y agoI mean intentional negligence re-framed in retrospective as a scientific test is always a good reason to complain, and if that wouldn't but a dent on the trust into a company acting responsible then people would have to be quite blind tbh. But yes the floor of the launch pad is really not something to worry about, I mean we know how to build safe launch pads since decades, we just have to do so.
- simiones 3y agoLook at it another way: if they can't even get the launch pad not to catastrophically fail and endanger the facility and all of their permits, why should we trust them to do anything else more complex much better?
- CSMastermind 3y agoI watched this video when it first came out (if you're not following Grady both his channel and recent book are excellent) and I think this part was particularly well put: > That’s the nature of SpaceX and why many find them so exciting. Unlike NASA that spends years in planning and engineering, SpaceX uses rapid development cycles and full-scale tests to work toward their eventual goals. They push their hardware to the limit to learn as much as possible, and we get to follow along. They’re betting it will pay off to develop fast instead of carefully. > But this wasn’t just a test of the hardware. It was also a test of federal regulations and the good graces of the people who live, work, play, and care about the Boca Chica area. And, SpaceX definitely pushed those limits as well with their first orbital test.
- res0nat0r 3y agoSounds like the same techbro idiocy that got people killed just the other week. Rush replied four days later, saying that he had “grown tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation and new entrants from entering their small existing market.” He understood that his approach “flies in the face of the submersible orthodoxy, but that is the nature of innovation,” he wrote. “We have heard the baseless cries of ‘you are going to kill someone’ way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult.” https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/the-titan-submersible-was-an-accident-waiting-to-happen https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/the-titan...
- kortilla 3y agoExcept the difference is, you know, risk to life.
- res0nat0r 3y agoBlowing up a landing pad, trashing the local environment and sending massive amounts of concrete flying hundreds of yards not killing anyone is in fact techbro idiocy. Not doing something stupid like that has in fact been understood since launches in the 1960's.
- bobsmooth 3y agoFrom what I understand they couldn't have built a better pad because of the location. They did the test anyway and gathered valuable data, namely that you need a good pad or alternatives.
- nocoiner 3y ago1. They knew they couldn’t build a better pad due to location. 2. The pad (as evidently predicted?) didn’t work and was destroyed and caused quite a bit of collateral damage. 3. They re-confirmed that they needed a better pad (as they knew in step one). 4. Uh, profit I guess?
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y agoWhat pad? There was nothing left of it after one launch.
- FeepingCreature 3y agoThe pad was fine, actually. It's the ground under it that got annihilated.
- voxadam 3y agoI'm pretty sure the huge chunks of concrete that got tossed hundreds of meters into the Atlantic were once part of the pad.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y agoA pad is not like a chair that's distinct from the ground it's placed on, it's a building with concrete foundations, into which it's integrated. Imagine saying "the house is fine, it's just its foundations that got annihilated."
- FeepingCreature 3y agoI mean, if you say the house "got annihilated" (edit: "there was nothing left of the house", rather) and the house is in fact still standing, I'd also call that misleading no matter how big the hole in the basement is.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago"Still standing"? Eh, debatable: https://i.insider.com/6446aa36120cd7001865df2c?width=700 https://i.insider.com/6446aa36120cd7001865df2c?width=700
- FeepingCreature 3y agoBut above that crop, the actual launch mount is fine, which is my point. That's why they're repairing it by just pouring new concrete. Even the supports are intact. Just all the material around them is gone.
- thereisnospork 3y agoIt's no wonder NASA is such a bloated ineffective pile when so much holier-than-thou crap slinging happens over a bit of vaporized concrete.
- 93po 3y agobut think of the birds it scared! FAA needs to shut this down prompto, that bird near me looked really distressed
- travisgriggs 3y agoI’m curious why stage zero isn’t at the end of a wharf with just good old ocean under it? You might still pump water as well, but why not start in a more supportive configuration? I’m reminded of all the secondary and tertiary pump systems that go into traditional PWR/BWR nuclear reactor designs because at all costs you most keep water flowing over the core. And then when they did the newer SBWR/APWR designs someone said “uh, I got an idea, let’s just make the upper floors of these things massive water tanks and then, ya know, gravity”
- GuB-42 3y agoOr why not launch from the water directly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket) More practically for Starship, I think one problem with the wharf idea is that you need to get a 5000t rocket there. Not unsolvable, but expensive. In fact, the problem isn't that making a launch pad that is able to withstand the thrust of Starship is impossible, they could have simply copied the Saturn V launch pad design. But the Saturn V launch pad design is (intentionally, for historical reasons) way overbuilt and expensive, prompting SpaceX to attempt a more economical solution.
- rich_sasha 3y agoSalt water everywhere bad perhaps?
- 93po 3y agoI have no idea how the physics work here. Does it take more energy to launch against water than solid ground, since the water gives way? is there an equivalent to the "ground effect" in rockets?
- gabesullice 3y agoIf you're interested in this, I recommend this video[0] as a follow up. It goes into the history of pad 39 in Florida as well. [0]: https://youtu.be/xfFhKqGrNYg https://youtu.be/xfFhKqGrNYg