this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
463 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

60078 readers
3275 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Wildlife officials say SpaceX launch left behind significant damage::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 24 points 1 year ago (6 children)

So, something the article mentions is that SpaceX planned for the rocket to explode. That seems odd, why would they want that? Was it to determine what would happen if it did, or to find weak points that could lead to a catastrophic failure in the event of a manned mission? If so, why did it have to be on a launch pad and not in, say, rural Kentucky? It wasn't going to get off the ground to begin with, so why blow it up on an actual launch pad?

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So, something the article mentions is that SpaceX planned for the rocket to explode. That seems odd, why would they want that?

They don't want it to explode, but it is an expected outcome during initial testing like this. Starship is not like any other rocket ever made. It also has very little in common to the existing Falcon 9. Almost all of its design is new and has not been done by any other company. From the steel structure, to the full flow staged combustion rocket engine, an engine design never actually launched previously.

SpaceX operates using iterative design. They build the current design and find and fix issues as they complete it. Once complete they may not even be able to use the specific one they built due to changes in design, but the build teams get extremely valuable experience working with that iterative design and solving issues in the real world.

Most other companies instead spend decades and millions or billions of dollars designing and testing without actually building anything until they have a design they think is final. They then begin to build that model and inevitably discover issues that were never found during design, sometimes requiring large changes in design. See the entire SLS program and subsequent cost-overruns and delays.

In this particular case, it should also be pointed out that the rocket did not explode on the pad, it did lift off. The damage from the pad destruction may have actually been part of the Starship failure, not the Starship itself. The pad structure itself was part of the launch test as well, not just the rocket. The launch caused massive damage to the pad, which was expected and planned for. A water deluge system was planned, but not in place yet. They decided to launch as is to get real world data for what the actual damage to the pad would be. No data existed for what would happen to a launch pad with thrust this high at launch, and the deluge system may not have been enough as designed. No way to know without real world data because it was so far away from any previous tests anyone has ever done for launches. Even the Saturn V, the biggest rocket ever launched, had less than half the thrust at liftoff as the Starship Booster does. The Saturn V had 7.5 million pounds of thrust at launch versus Starship's 16.9 million pounds of thrust.

Very little about Starship has ever been done before. Almost everything related to the vehicle itself, the first stage booster, and the launch pad are entirely new research with very little theoretical research and development, and with almost no real world testing before. SpaceX is not following anyone here. Just like landing rockets for re-use,they are blazing an entirely new trail here no one has done before. And that means there will be failures along the way, they are 100% expected at this point.

[–] kiwifoxtrot@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

What you said is correct except that they went into it ignoring the lessons of the past. NASA had done tons of testing and knew that the launch pad wouldn't survive half the Starship's thrust and designed a launch pad that worked. Space X instead chose to believe that a special concrete would be enough. The new launch pad is missing a flame diverter and will likely be the failure of the next vehicle. The iterative approach doesn't work if you can't get a launch clearance from the FAA due to a lack of trust.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pretty sure they actually did successfully do a half thrust test and it was acceptable.

I'm like 80% sure it was at least half.

They had no idea how bad it would fail given that test.

Edit ya there it is, half thrust. https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/faa-spacex-starship-investigation-explosive-test-flight

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649800747834392580

[–] a_new_sad_me@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I recall something about the engineers in SpaceX wanting to follow NASA's lesson and Elon basically telling them "trust me, we don't need that".

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, all things considered, Musk is still part of what made SpaceX exist. Real world may work in obscure ways.

[–] a_new_sad_me@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's only that he didn't make it happen via his (non-existing) genius. He made it via his deep pockets and ego.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think you fully got the meaning of my comment. Other than that, Musk's deep pockets were shallow at some point.

[–] roboticide@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They already did a static fire with the new deluge system and it seems to work just fine.

The FAA has continued to trust SpaceX and issue licenses as they address issues. Keep in mind the FAA issues launch licenses for each of the hundreds of Falcon 9s they've launched so far, has issued more launch licenses for them than for any other company ever, and has a long working relationship at this point.

Iterative design isn't really a problem and we wouldn't have reusable rockets at this point without it.

[–] kiwifoxtrot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They static fired at half the thrust available again. There were no issues when they did that last time as well.

[–] Dashi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks for putting time and effort into explaining it for us non sciency types. What you said makes a lot of sense

[–] Aidinthel@reddthat.com 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The article that this article links to says that the rocket failing wasn't the outcome they hoped for but since the launch was a test rather than a critical mission they spun it as a learning experience. Also apparently the explosion was a deliberate self-destruct after the engines failed partway up, so at least that system works.

[–] Mobile_Audience@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

That didn’t work as expected either. They sent the command for self-destruct and it took a while for the rocket to actually fall apart. Something about the self-destruct charges not being strong enough? It was kind of amazing to see this ginormous rocket pinwheeling through the air before it finally tore apart once the pressure inside lessened enough.

[–] greybeard@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

I watched the launch live, they set the expectation that "if it gets off the pad it is a successful test" way before the launch. That wasn't just post failure spin. They certainly didn't complete the mission as planned, but they gathered a lot of valuable data. Something tells me that they didn't expect the pad to be as damaged as it was. I'm guessing their data said there would be damage, but it would be significantly less. Now they know. Unfortunately there are few small errors on a ship that size.

The Starship launch of April 20 was a test for the BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) and Starship. It was considered a major success as it was able to launch off the rocket pad with no major issues (some of the engines did fail on the first stage but the Launch Vehicle was able to continue). One thing to note is the current test of Starship was to launch and possibly test proper separation (which this launch failed iirc). It was never meant to go and complete a full orbit. This launch was the first test of the entire system (BFR and Starship together), so it acts more of "how far can we go with our current progress?"

Almost all unmanned rockets have a faliure mode of exploding, but this is usually done above a safe area. A bunch of debris falling down is a lot safer than a whole Rocket, loaded with explosive fuel. Starship had exploded above the Gulf of Mexico, far away from any pockets of civilization. Keep in mind, to do this launch, they would have to had clearance from government agencies (not sure which one specifically, probably NASA?) to perform said launch.

I guess one major criticism I have of SpaceX's trial and error method is that it does cause more environmental damage than NASA's method (slower development but leads to less lost of vehicles).

Take this with a grain of salt, as I am no means an expert, just an Aerospace enthusiast and am going by what I recall.

[–] fahfahfahfah@lemmy.billiam.net 10 points 1 year ago

They didn’t plan for it to explode. The article is quoting another article that explains that the rocket exploded because they triggered the flight termination system after they lost control of the rocket. It got off the ground just fine, aside from the fact that it’s massive engines obliterated the concrete under the launch mount.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yes it's better to test a real rocket. You can only simulate so much. Also launching into the ocean is by far the safest option. And you need to test the actual pad and the huge launch tower.

[–] zappson@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)