Powerful Blast from SpaceX’s Starship Damages Launch Pad and Wrecks Nearby Minivan
Posted on 04/21/2023 10:03:18 AM PDT by aquila48
NASA leadership had a lot to say after today's explosive first test flight of SpaceX's Starship.
NASA has tapped Starship for its upcoming Artemis 3 mission, which will put astronauts back on the moon no earlier than 2025. Following that, Starship will also ferry human crews to the lunar surface and back for Artemis 4 and perhaps also Artemis 5, according to NASA's current plans.
With so much banking on the successful development of the massive stainless steel vehicle, NASA leaders took the opportunity to hail today's flight test as an important step forward in the agency's moon plans.
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson praised the launch, congratulating SpaceX and writing on Twitter(opens in new tab) that "Every great achievement throughout history has demanded some level of calculated risk, because with great risk comes great reward. Looking forward to all that SpaceX learns, to the next flight test — and beyond."
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
1. 7 of the 31 engines failed, or failed to start. That is 22% of the main engines thrust. I don’t care what level the bar was set at, that is not a successful launch/flight criteria.
2. The first stage failed to separate from the upper stage, resulting in the total loss of both stages. That is not a successful flight criteria.
3. SpaceX had intended to fly-back the main stage and land it for inspection/testing/reuse. The main stage blew up. That is not a successful flight criteria.
Elon Musk is a smart guy. But he is gaslighting some of you on this test flight. He took the “bar” down and laid it on the ground before the flight. He must have known things were not going to go well.
Apparently, SpaceX has money to burn. The reaction by Musk and the viewing crowd was bizarre. They acted like this was a big fireworks show. They failed 3-4 MAJOR milestones of the flight plan on this launch.
At my advanced years, it's always nap time.
But SpaceX does also operate Launch Complex 39A at the Cape, and use it for most of their Falcon launches, and will use it for future Starship launches as well.
The booster stage was going to soft land in the gulf of Mexico. That was always the plan for this test launch. No recovery of either stage was planned. As a result of the anomalous performance both stages were detonated using the FTS system by the safety officer.
I have to disagree with you there. On this test flight SpaceX never intended to return either the booster or the Starship back to a landing for inspection/testing/reuse. This launch they specifically planned for controlled landing into the water.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-first-orbital-launch-explainer
The test flight will launch from South Texas, head over the Gulf of Mexico and ultimately splash down near Hawaii.
-Excerpt.
Good point. They generally launch to the east. That slows down the earths rotation which causes more extreme weather. It is the science. There is no denying it. Stop the space program!
I saw pictures of the crater, really big. Lots of concrete and sand got kicked up. Probably didn't help as I think they ignited engines in smaller groupings, and the first debris probably damaged the other groups of engines that were fired a little later. A lot of sand cascaded down from the sky miles away, and probably fell on Mexico a few miles south.
So you suspect the fluid dynamics of the engines is different when running right next to other running engines? The vibrations or heat or external pressure maybe?
Sounds reasonable to me, but foreign object damage also seems possible to me.
From what I saw and read, 3 engines failed to start. During ascent, a 4th and then 5th flamed out. A 6th possibly flamed out but reignited. Despite this, the launch was not throttled to full so even with 6 engines out they could potentially get to orbit. 7 would be iffy.
3. SpaceX had intended to fly-back the main stage and land it for inspection/testing/reuse.
Nope, never intended to land the main stage. Both craft were not going to be landed or reused. The flight had a lot of success, and the intent was to reap data for iterative improvements in later flights.
Prototypes do blow up
There were 33 engines, not 31. Some of the failures may be attributable to launch pad debris, not engine design. The test article had enough speed and altitude to reach stage separation. The failure of stage separation was likely related to damage from the launch mount to the hydraulic system, likely again a failure of the pad, not the test article. SpaceX had NOT intended to fly the main stage back to land. The main stage did not ‘blow up’. It was blown up deliberately for flight safety. This is also not a failure of the design. There were far more design successes proven than failures on this flight, hence a successful test.
Thanks. I’ve seen it ... it’s impressive. If you keep looking, you’ll find images of the crater where all that debris came from. I’m impressed that the launch stand still exists.
If I knew nothing about the launch, and somebody told me that was video near an explosives factory having an industrial accident, I would believe it.
I didn’t count all of the ones lit, just the ones not firing. The flight was not intended to fly dragging 7 unlit engines. Whether it is launchpad debris or inflight problems, it was still 7 of 33 which is right at 20%. By any measure, it looks bad.
I heard a commentator on the video talking about it flying back. Other than that, I have no idea if they were flying it back or not. IS his first stage disposable? If not they intended on recovering it somehow, which they cannot do.
Again, failure to separate is still a failure. Whether range safety pressed the self-destruct button or it suffered structural failure and broke apart or “blew up”, all of that debris raining down early is a failure of some type.
Better get a flame diverter ,LOL They’re working on one ?
Wow you are stuck on black and white thinking. Of course it failed, but it did about as expected and Musk himself also said as long as it gets off the pad that’s some measure of success but set expectations low.
You don’t even know the basics of the system and are spouting off. Try to research things a little, like does it return to base or was it even supposed to this time, before spouting off so hard.
The audio I heard on the video indicated they were going to fly it back. Hence, my comment.
I don't recall all of the details, but I remember hearing somewhere that a full flame diverter trench was not possible because of the Boca Chica wetlands. They figured that the pedestal would suffice.
As I understand it, Boca Chica was only supposed to be a development facility for Super Heavy, and Kennedy Space Center would be the "real" launch area for actual Moon and Mars flights.
But if SpaceX thinks that they are capable of reusing a Super Heavy booster every couple of days, they had better get this launch pad damage issue under control.
Obviously the prior 5 second booster test was woefully inadequate
That's the plan, for when the system is operational. There was never any plan to even attempt a return to launch site on this test flight.
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.