Posted on 03/30/2021 6:53:55 AM PDT by Red Badger
A SpaceX Starship rocket flies high above South Texas on Tuesday, minutes before the test flight crashed and exploded in fog below. Photo courtesy of SpaceX
March 30 (UPI) -- A fourth Starship rocket prototype for Elon Musk's SpaceX launch company exploded after a test flight on Tuesday morning in South Texas.
As with previous test flights, SpaceX flew Starship -- model SN11 -- to over 6 miles high above the launch facility about 180 miles south of Corpus Christi. The rocket then glided on wing flaps back to the launch pad.
Heavy fog and problems with the video feed made it unclear exactly what happened, but SpaceX engineer John Insprucker confirmed the explosion.
"Well, looks like we've had another exciting test of Starship ... A reminder again, this is a test series to gather data," Insprucker said during SpaceX's live broadcast.
Previous test flights of the giant, stainless steel rocket ended in fireballs in December, February and March. The last attempt, on March 3, featured an upright landing but a fire on the rocket's base caused an explosion moments later.
The tests are part of SpaceX's rapid prototype development methods, which the company used to develop its highly successful Falcon rockets.
Landing and reusing the rocket is key to Starship's proposed interplanetary use, according to the company. The rocket is roughly the height of a 14-story building.
RELATED SpaceX aims to nail landing on flight of moonship that exploded on last 3 tries Starship is "designed to carry both crew and cargo on long-duration, interplanetary flights and help humanity return to the Moon, and travel to Mars and beyond," according to SpaceX.
Musk founded SpaceX in 2002 with a stated goal of reducing spaceflight costs to enable human exploration of Mars.
Starship is one of three spacecraft NASA has chosen as possible means to send astronauts back to the moon this decade. The space agency intends to choose two proposals for those crewed lunar missions by mid-2021.
one engine relit and boom, didnt make it to ground
It sounds like 1 of 2 things. Either one of the Raptors exploded upon relight, or something was wrong in the internals of Starship, and the onboard systems detected it and activated the auto self-destruct.
They should start naming these “starships” with more realistic names—I like Death Wish 1,2,3,4.....
It would be nice if _somebody_ in 2021 just told it like it was....
It appears that one engine did not come back on.
I noticed what looked like a ‘leak’ or something during the initial seconds of firing after liftoff.............
Here’s something else that was shared to me this morning. Elon apparently tweeted this today after the big boom...
Elon Musk (@elonmusk) Tweeted:
Please consider moving to Starbase or greater Brownsville/South Padre area in Texas & encourage friends to do so!
SpaceX’s hiring needs for engineers, technicians, builders & essential support personnel of all kinds are growing rapidly. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1376901399867441156?s=20
Having a reusable rocket, according to Musk, will allow SpaceX to make rockets at a tenth the cost of traditional ones. However, some suggest the savings would only be around ten percent, and all of these failures are eating into what little savings they may be getting from reuse.
I may consider relocating......................
That thing is huge - parachutes are not a practical option, no more so than they would be as a safety measure for an entire 747. Also, you can’t do a parachute landing on a Moon or Mars mission if you want the ship back.
Agreed, I think SpaceX’s biggest obstacles ahead are US government interference, mostly by way of foot dragging, and Chinese government interference by way of sabotage.
You go first.
No you go first.
No you go first.
Future astronauts on first manned flight on the Starship rocket.
yep or the FTS activated..
I think the “new” scheme was to relight all three engines in case one engine didn’t relight in time, as occurred with the SN9 test. Then they could shut down all but one and still have a safety margin in case one or more didn’t relight.
Learning by making mistakes to get through development quickly used to be what America did. Now it's what the Russians and especially the Chinese do, while our procurement bureaucracy is stuck on status and requirements and change control reviews.
I think their cost per test vehicle is so low they can do this 100x if needed.
The worse part, to me, is they barely seem to be improving each time. With Falcon 9 they had a few crashes, then landing failures
They've blown up a lot of rockets prior to getting a launch capable Falcon-9. They were blowing up and crashing hopper prototypes on a regular basis in McGregor TX, prior to fielding the all-up tests. The earlier series of Falcon booster went through a similar development cycle out in the Pacific.
The current StarShip effort appears effectively intended to reduce costs by another order of magnitude without spending an order of magnitude more money. The re-usable multi-mission upper stage for a TSTO mission is thus a necessary priority. They're using stainless steel, updating proven welding techniques, high surface-to-dry-mass ratio. The whole rocket costs roughly 10% of a SSME (guesstimation on my part). Remember NASA wanted to throw away multiple $140M SSMEs per expendable launches post-Shuttle, considered reasonable because the total mission costs were typically specified in Giga$.
It looks like Space-X is channelling some of the cost-saving techniques proposed by Truax for the Sea Dragon. The "Big Dumb Booster" Truax wanted to develop was also intended to be reusable. At the time, Aerojet and NASA couldn't find a mission for putting 500 tons in orbit every month (hmm, StarShip test articles are roughly 100 tons ). A lot of the technology used by SpaceX was studied to death by NACA and NASA in the 20th Century. SpaceX is certainly using "Minimum Cost Design" principles to guide strategy.
Step back from the entertainment and consider: what if StarLink successfully disrupts the telecom sector? There will be plenty of investment dollars looking for a home. Probably $trillions. I feel the risk equation is firmly in favor of continuing the StarShip show. It's probably worth a Giga$ investment right now.
Oh, I’m not for them canceling Starship. I just wonder if they might want to reconsider a lot of the design or flight profiles.
The main problems *seem* to be related to the engines/fueling. SN15 is a few weeks away it looks and hopefully will do better. The main thing I’m worried about is how long it might take to make it feasible to carry humans.
Good post. I am a big fan of Elon and SpaceX but good point.
Sure hope he is better with the other reporting he does.
That thing is huge - parachutes are not a practical option, no more so than they would be as a safety measure for an entire 747. Also, you can’t do a parachute landing on a Moon or Mars mission if you want the ship back.
From what I gather they lost telemetry at the re ignition phase after flipping over and it may have auto destructed at altitude. Interesting views of flashes and flames on one engine and lots of what looked like propellant flowing past rocket, I think it buckled during the gliding flip over phase. Exploded say around 400 meters or so off ground by the debris field and time to ground impacts.
I disagree.
In fact, the 50-year-old Musk has coldly calculated that within the failure rate of the one-way Mars missions -- that he would like to begin in 5 years -- that he will not be leaving until he has a colony in size that reaches the exact tipping point to regard an arriving 70-something-year-old Musk as the 'George Washington of Mars'.
He has intensely studied the group dynamics that detail how he can send x number of astronauts who will not attempt to usurp his empty throne and follow chain-of-command, until finally he has a 'rogue' pretender on Mars proper, and after that person is removed, Musk will surely have to leave on the next tender to fill the void, the rogue having wakened émigrés to the idea of a potentate, or lack thereof.
No one, NO ONE who has invested this much time and effort and money has a 'death wish'. Perhaps megalomania, but not a 'death wish'. Anyone who has cravely calculated that he can leave in 2040, with his Earth career mostly completed, if he survives the trip, probably has a useful 5-year run as "Governor of New Mars". That is a sane presumption, just as previous conquerors in Western Civilization have held, no less so than Eriksson or Columbus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.