SpaceX Starship development: 7th flight January 10

[.Scott]

No stage 2 separation - The whole thing is tumbling - RUD.

 

[mfb]

Well, that flight was a bit shorter than planned, but certainly very exciting!

It did clear the pad, so that should be ready for another launch relatively quickly unless they decide it needs a major redesign. It reached something that looked like max-Q even though the thrust was lower than expected and it survived that.

They'll have to check what happened to the engines and work on that.
They'll have to find out why the ship started the separation maneuver that low and why it didn't separate.

Starship became the heaviest object ever to fly.

 

[berkeman]

That was weird when it was tumbling and it blew up and everybody was cheering...

 

[Borg]

I noticed that also. Cheer like your Twitter account depends on it!

 

[mfb]

Well, when it was tumbling there was tension what would happen. After it blew up people celebrated the steps that worked. It didn't reach orbit, but it still went farther than most expected.

 

[.Scott]

That was weird when it was tumbling and it blew up and everybody was cheering...

If you were watching the SpaceX feed, "everyone" was that crowd of SpaceX employees in the flight control building. The SpaceX objective was to clear the tower (rebuilding it would take months) and collect enough data for the next try. They have additional rockets built and close to ready.

They already have some Stage 2 data from a few years ago - so the rocket made it through much of the remaining uncharted engineering territory.

 

[nsaspook]

Flipped 4 times, that's an impressive structural success.

 

[hutchphd]

Flipped 4 times, that's an impressive structural success.

Note that neither stage fell apart during those somewhat parapatetic final maneuvers. To my eye the first stage and then the starship destruction charges were required. The loss of five engines (including one pretty obvious RUD) upon ascent was concerning but impressive nonetheless. Huge.

 

[berkeman]

What was supposed to happen? They said something about the full rocket would tilt back and the upper stage would separate and then the 1st stage would do a retro burn to return? I'm guessing the upper stage would then re-orient and fire its engines to proceed to orbit? Why is the reorientation needed before separation?

 

[mfb]

The engines of the booster started a slow rotation of the rocket. After releasing the clamps that rotation was supposed to separate booster and ship naturally - the rotation *is* the separation mechanism. The ship would have ignited its engines, got into the right orientation again and kept burning to reach an almost-orbital trajectory. The booster would have kept rotating (maybe even used an engine to speed it up more) until it could fire a few engines to reverse its course to return to the coast (30 km offshore in this case, the landing site later).
It's very impressive that the rocket survived in every orientation at a pretty low altitude.

The next ship/booster set might be ready soon but they'll probably have to upgrade the launch pad.
Tank farm damaged
Concrete raining down here

People were joking about Starship digging its own flame trench because SpaceX didn't build one. Looks like the jokes were right, it left a literal crater under the launch mount:

It did take off significantly slower than planned so a nominal launch should damage the pad less than that, at least.

We also learned that an exploding engine doesn't take out the whole ship. It looks like it took out an adjacent engine in two cases (or two engine pairs failed due to a common cause each), but overall the engine failures were well-contained.

 

[.Scott]

Except for an area 4nm in diameter around Starbase itself, there are no active Temporary Flight Restriction areas.

 

[.Scott]

What happens when you leave your car parked in the launch evacuation zone:
https://gizmodo.com/spacex-starship-launch-pad-damage-video-1850357836

 

[nsaspook]

 

[mfb]

SpaceX statement

Starship gave us quite a show during today’s first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy rocket from Starbase in Texas.

At 8:33 a.m. CT, Starship successfully lifted off from the orbital launch pad for the first time. The vehicle cleared the pad and beach as Starship climbed to an apogee of ~39 km over the Gulf of Mexico – the highest of any Starship to-date. The vehicle experienced multiple engines out during the flight test, lost altitude, and began to tumble. The flight termination system was commanded on both the booster and ship. As is standard procedure, the pad and surrounding area was cleared well in advance of the test, and we expect the road and beach near the pad to remain closed until tomorrow.

With a test like this, success comes from what we learn, and we learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems today that will help us improve on future flights of Starship.

Thank you to our customers, Cameron County, and the wider community for the continued support and encouragement. And congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on an exciting first flight test of Starship!

Former Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield discussing the flight

As far as I understand the booster had two hydraulic units to gimbal engines. It looks like one of them failed early during flight. That means half of the engines were unable to change their thrust direction. The other half compensated for a while, but when it came to the flip maneuver something went wrong. It's possible the upper stage didn't separate because it never reached the planned conditions for that.
This won't be an issue in the future as SpaceX will change to electric motors for gimballing.

It's likely most of the damage we saw came from launch pad debris hitting stuff. If they can minimize that then a second flight should be much smoother.

 

[Tom.G]

Except for an area 4nm in diameter around Starbase itself

I must be slow this evening.

I initially read that as 4nanometers - thought that couldn't be right - then settled on nautical miles.

 

[phinds]

I must be slow this evening.

I initially read that as 4nanometers - thought that couldn't be right - then settled on nautical miles.

I'm still thinking it's nanometers, 'cause that's a better story.

 

[.Scott]

The methalox combustion resulted in a zone just below the engines where the "flames" were entirely transparent. Before Starship cleared the tower, the length of this zone was as little as dozens of feet.

But once it got going, it provided a completely unobstructed view of the white-hot engines.

They look like an array of flood lamps. Six of the bulbs need to be replaced.

Some day you'll have to explain Mach Diamonds to your kids by telling them to look at old videos of jet engines, rocket launches, or engine tests.

 

[mfb]

6 engines are out - two at the top, one top right, two bottom right, and the left of the 3 center engines.

Each of these engines has enough thrust to fly two or even three Boeing 747.

 

[PeroK]

6 engines are out - two at the top, one top right, two bottom right, and the left of the 3 center engines.

Each of these engines has enough thrust to fly two or even three Boeing 747.

That's a lot of Boeings blown to pieces!

 

[gleem]

The next ship/booster set might be ready soon but they'll probably have to upgrade the launch pad.

I believe there was some criticism of the design of the launch pad. It seems they were right. I wonder how the repair/redesign will extend the next launch date.

I just found a more dramatic video of the launch pad debris.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...0,w_1315/a24c2b340df0ce8847adefa6b2f48d41.mp4

 

[mfb]

Looks like SpaceX was working on a water-cooled steel plate already, but didn't expect to need it for a first test flight:



Here is a slow-motion video of the liftoff from the tower, with some boulders flying in the background:

 

[nsaspook]

 

[nsaspook]

That ship was fighting all the way up to the end.

 

[gleem]

The launch pad, what a mess

Outside of the crater, what other damage might be present? Musk says 1 to 2 months before the next launch attempt. it seems like a lot more to me. How about a completely new one?

 

[mfb]

The floor should be relatively easy to repair.

The chopsticks have moved again, they look fine overall. Debris strikes to the upper part of the launch mount could be the most time-consuming issue.

 

[Tom.G]

Well, Starship got off the ground, but also scatterd a bunch of it!

Excerpt from Los Angeles Times, Thu. Apr. 27, 2023, page A10

[bold] SpaceX launched concrete chunks far away. [/bold]

...[ scattered ] pulverized concrete up to 6.5 miles NorthWest of the launchpad and resulted in about 385 acrers of debris on SpaceX's facility and at nearby Boca Chica State Park...

...many large cocncrete chunks, stailesss-steel sheets, metal and other objects were "hurled thousands of feet away."...

...A 3.5-acre fire also started on Boca Chica State Park, south of the launchpad, the agency (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) said.

 

[Astronuc]

Massive, exploded SpaceX rocket devastated a town and a wildlife reserve — and locals are furious

But the community living near the launch site has been dealing with fallout from the launch, in both senses of the word. The explosion essentially obliterated the launch pad, carving a massive crater and sending chunks of concrete, sheets of stainless steel and other debris flying into the ocean on Boca Chica Beach. A Dodge Caravan was smashed with wreckage, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported was scattered over 385 acres, causing a fire that burned 3.5 acres on Boca Chica State Park land.

Clouds of ash and particulates rained down on residents of Port Isabel, about six miles away, settling onto homes, cars, and streets, breaking several windows. It's not clear if the particulate matter is dangerous to breathe or touch, or if it will pollute the soil.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...fe-reserve-and-locals-are-furious/ar-AA1auxQJ

Seems rather sloppy and unnecessary. I understand the desire to launch and cut corners, but there is a 'right way' to launch a rocket, as has been demonstrated over the past 6+ decades, e.g., at Cape Canaveral, aka Kennedy Space Center.

 

[berkeman]

Seems rather sloppy and unnecessary.

Sloppy and clumsy. Unfortunate.

 

[mfb]

Massive, exploded SpaceX rocket devastated a town and a wildlife reserve — and locals are furious

A bit of sand and dust falling down does not "devastate a town", nor do some chunks of concrete falling down "devastate a wildlife reserve". It's sand and concrete parts, they are not toxic. The headline is absurd.

No one was harmed, and no significant damage was found outside of SpaceX's property besides a few broken windows - and I haven't seen a confirmation that these refer to windows of building, not windows of cars parked close to the launch.

If you would put the rocket horizontally and rotated it around one end it would cover an area of 11 acres. The wildfire was 1/3 of that area, and it's in a region that has frequent natural fires anyway - if it's not started by a rocket then a thunderstorm will ignite the same stuff.

Seems rather sloppy and unnecessary.

The sloppy part is on the side of the reporters trying to blow this story up more than the rocket.

but there is a 'right way' to launch a rocket, as has been demonstrated over the past 6+ decades, e.g., at Cape Canaveral, aka Kennedy Space Center.

The maiden flight of the Saturn V (Apollo 4) also damaged the launch pad significantly and threw debris around. Here is a report, damage to the pad is described on page 3-15. Back then we just didn't have 2135 cameras inspecting every centimeter of the area and the internet to show these pictures to everyone within an hour. Back then news focused on the rocket.
Some debris flying around from Apollo 8 and fires in the launch tower.

 

[Rive]

The maiden flight of the Saturn V (Apollo 4) also damaged the launch pad significantly and threw debris around.

Exactly because of that (that we know what should be expected, for 50+ years already ) why this was so gross.

Big rocket does not match well with oversized sloppy stools as 'launch pads'.

I hope the next one will be something more decent.

 

[Astronuc]

No one was harmed, and no significant damage was found outside of SpaceX's property besides a few broken windows - and I haven't seen a confirmation that these refer to windows of building, not windows of cars parked close to the launch.

I would agree that the headlines are hyperbolic, which is unfortunate and disappointing.

PORT ISABEL, Texas (ValleyCentral) — Residents in Port Isabel are reporting small particles of debris are falling from the sky after this morning’s SpaceX launch at Boca Chica Beach.

Port Isabel Police Chief Robert Lopez said the particles “looked a lot like gunpowder.”

A caller who resides in Port Isabel told ValleyCentral everything in the city looks like it is covered in dust.

https://www.valleycentral.com/news/...idents-report-particles-falling-after-launch/

Port Isabel spokeswoman Valerie Bates told The New York Times that most of the city was covered with a thick, granular sand that landed on everything.

"It was truly terrifying," said Sharon Almaguer. She was home with her 80-year-old mother when her brick house shook from the rocket explosion.

The Cameron County Emergency Management Division confirmed the debris was sand and soil from the SpaceX launch.

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2023/04/21/SpaceX-starship-rains-debris-Port-isabel/1451682102059/

https://www.tpr.org/technology-entr...rticulates-spacex-explosion-rio-grande-valley (Images of a vehicle in Port Isabel covered in particulate matter - from the owner in Port Isabel) It's probably not toxic, but then one would not want to inhale mineral dust.

Articles do not indicate if the particulate/dust/debris are from the launch (launch pad damage) or from the explosion of the rocket. I would think that at 4 minutes the rocket would be down range over the Gulf of Mexico away from Port Isabel. Port Isabel is about 5-6 miles to the NNW of SpaceX launch site, so not in the direction of the rocket trajectory.

The Federal Aviation Administration said SpaceX violated its launch license by not ensuring “far field blast overpressure” was within regulation, Reuters reported, . . . .

https://www.portisabelsouthpadre.co...tivity-debris-concerning-activists-officials/

Still waiting for reports of broken windows in towns outside of SpaceX site.

Waiting for FAA statement on investigation into SpaceX mishap.
https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship
https://www.faa.gov/space/compliance_enforcement_mishap

 

[mfb]

Some more information about the flight timeline:
SpaceX to spend about $2 billion on Starship this year, as Elon Musk pushes to reach orbit

Video of a Twitter Spaces discussion and some highlights on Twitter:

Three engines showed abnormal readings so they were not started at takeoff. The rocket can reach orbit missing three engines. So far no evidence that debris damaged the rocket significantly.
Some explosion after 27 seconds damaged four engines and the rocket lost thrust vector control 85 seconds into the flight. That later lead to the spin of the rocket.

The next flight will have a water-cooled steel plate under the launch mount and will also take off faster. The plate was already in preparation but SpaceX expected the concrete pad to survive (at least to the point where it doesn't fly everywhere).

 

[mfb]

Crater has been filled in, rebar is being fixed. We don't know how many of the wires, pipes, valves and so on need attention, but the obvious damage to the ground is largely gone after two weeks:

 

[artis]

Don't wish to sound like mr. Wise guy or mr. "told ya so" but rockets with far less thrust and less engine exhaust require water spray jets to save the launchpad so that it can be reused without repairs. NASA knows this, everyone knows this, it's been practically tested.

How in the world anyone at SpaceX thought that this rocket would not absolutely obliterate everything below it especially without a waterjet or whatever flame retarder , I just don't get it.

I would understand the wish to rush forward without delays and then repair whatever damage comes afterward but thinking such a launch wouldn't cause serious damage is simply not imaginable.

+ what if the debris that was flying around due to missing retarders hit the rocket itself or the launch pad and then caused damage or possibly failed the whole launch itself?
I mean I really don't understand this part, it seems somewhat reckless to me.
Here is a video documenting the debris that flew off from the launchpad, pretty serious if you ask me.
Steel rebar chunks littered like needles in a haystack , those things could have easily hit something of value on the very launch site itself.
The debris part is on the second part of the video


Now I am not among those that care for speculative titles or hype but from that video it can be clearly seen the whole laucnh site is just covered with smaller and larger holes and dents and buckled metal, + the whole area is covered with rebar and concrete, sure enough I do not believe it is toxic or anything, it's not radioactive or anything but it will require quite a bit of human effort to clean it all up and I still don't see why that was necessary.

 

[artis]

On a more general note , this rocket seems eerily similar to the less known Soviet Union's moon mission attempt rocket N1, maybe not in visuals but in the many parallel engine count, N1 first stage had 30 engines (NK-15 later 33) while starship has 33 Raptors.
Back then in the 60's the soviets had problems with reliably running so many parallel engines,
I do wonder , although technology has advanced quite a bit as has diagnostics , can Space X or anyone for that matter run so many parallel rocket engines reliable even now?

It seems you can only lose "x" number of engines before the rocket becomes unstable + even if you don't lose any engine but one say explodes that has the tendency to take out others and then you all of a sudden lose many engines and again become unstable.
The only success that came out of the soviet N1 was it's advanced rocket engine (advanced for it's time) the NK-15 later upgraded to NK-33 which was used even after the 2000's by American company making the Antares rockets as NASA contractor. Out of it's physics then came the RD-180, also an oxygen rich engine , more advanced that the Russians sold to US for use in Atlas V launch vehicles.
Anyone interested can simply google these and see for himself.

Anyway IIRC starship seems to me to be the second only attempt in history to make a functioning rocket out of so many parallel engines and the first attempt failed by the soviets, it will be interesting to see whether this time it will come to pass.