Why Starship Rocket failed

[mikbone]

Before

After

The launch was a huge success.  Starship reached Max Q, survived lift off while destroying the launchpad, and flew straight without 6 rockets with most of the gimbals non functional.

The headlines display that the news agencies have no idea what they are talking about.

The Falcon 9 has 9 Merlin engines, whereas the Starship had 33 Raptor engines.  Raptors are 4x more powerful than the Merlin engines. Thus the thrust was 33*4 / 9 = almost 15x as powerful.

I bet next launch will require the building of a flame trench.

https://headedforspace.com/flame-trench/

Cant wait to watch the next one in a couple of months hopefully.

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

What a cool thing.  I get why uninformed folks are all guffawing at how Elon's pretty little spaceship blew up.  But I also understand why the whole launch, including the failure to separate and spiraling, was a success.  The data gathered on what worked and what didn't, and why, will make future iterations better.

I work in the electronics R&D industry.  It's a common thing, when designing a new circuit board or chip, to spend millions of dollars on the equipment that creates the chip.  When you've got a new chip, it's quite common for the first version just not work, in ways people couldn't predict.  So they take the shiny new multimillion dollar tooling equipment, and chuck it in the trash and start again.  Good electronics producers build this sort of thing into their overall budgets, and it's reflected in the final cost of whatever ends up getting sold.

[Vort]

Let's be clear. The whole launch operation, from liftoff to termination, was a resounding success. Could it have gone better? Sure. But neither Musk himself nor anyone actually knowledgeable about the mission expected the planned suborbital flight to come off without a hitch. Musk himself said if the rocket clears the tower before flight termination, he would consider that a success. Instead, they got almost 25 miles up. Yes, with all the operational data and the success of so many flight systems, I'd say it was a resounding success. It was certainly very impressive.

(I have noticed that reporters who cover "science" for news organizations are often deeply ignorant of seemingly even the basics of science. I do not understand this at all, how "science reporters" can be so badly deficient in understanding the fundamentals of what they're supposed to be reporting about.)

It looked to me like the biggest failure of the mission was how the launch pad disintegrated under the thrust of the engines. IMO, those flying chunks of concrete may well have caused the lower-rocket damage that doomed the flight to a short hop rather than a full suborbital flight. Why SpaceX didn't start digging a flame trench a year ago, I can't figure out. They've known for a long time that the concrete launch pad cannot stand up to the forces of all those engines blasting away. A flame trench to redirect all that force away from the launch seems the obvious solution. I guess the Super Heavy booster got that project kickstarted...

[Vort]

Here's a good example of a reporter not really understanding what he's talking about. To the reporter's credit, he accepted the blunt correction (is this really Canadian TV?) and asked the reasonable follow-up of, "How is this not a failure?" I like Chris Hadfield and appreciate the enthusiasm of his response, though it would have been better if he had given specific examples of how the launch and flight were successes. Not always easy to think on your feet in the heat of battle, I know.

 

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

It looked to me like the biggest failure of the mission was how the launch pad disintegrated under the thrust of the engines. IMO, those flying chunks of concrete may well have caused the lower-rocket damage that doomed the flight to a short hop rather than a full suborbital flight. Why SpaceX didn't start digging a flame trench a year ago, I can't figure out. They've known for a long time that the concrete launch pad cannot stand up to the forces of all those engines blasting away. A flame trench to redirect all that force away from the launch seems the obvious solution. I guess the Super Heavy booster got that project kickstarted...

My understanding is that they can not build a flame trench or any trench really.  They are just a few feet above the water table.  So they would have to build up before they could reasonably build down.

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

My understanding is that they can not build a flame trench or any trench really.  They are just a few feet above the water table.  So they would have to build up before they could reasonably build down.

It’s possible that Musk did not want to build a flame deflector because he wants to fly the same ship back from Mars.  And he surely doesn't want to build a flame trench on Mars.  Rough gamble.

You can always dig down.  All kinds of options.  Depends on how much you are willing to spend and your time frame.

It will be interesting watching how Musk and his engineers solve this problem.

I mean, he owns a boring company.  Cofferdams can be built.

I know they were hoping to re-launch in 2 months.  And Musk’s hope was that the launch tower would not be destroyed.

I’m betting that there will be a 4-6 month lag between the next launch.  

I’m sure his hope is to make starship launches routine and frequent. 

He has a bunch of balls in the air.  Still needs to get lots more satellites into orbit.

“As of February 2023, Starlink consists of over 3,580 mass-produced small satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO), which communicate with designated ground transceivers. In total, nearly 12,000 satellites are planned to be deployed, with a possible later extension to 42,000.”

Im still waiting for my Cyber Truck…

Edited April 21, 2023 by mikbone

[mikbone]

So many haters out there.

 

 

FONDAG® is a ready-to-use, high strength, durable concrete. Its special characteristics are achieved by combining strong, hard, dense and non-porous synthetic aggregates which develop very strong chemical and mechanical bonds with calcium aluminate cement.

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

“As of February 2023, Starlink consists of over 3,580 mass-produced small satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO), which communicate with designated ground transceivers. In total, nearly 12,000 satellites are planned to be deployed, with a possible later extension to 42,000.”

My wife's business bought us Starlink.  It is pretty dang amazing technology.  Easiest most idiot-proof install I've ever seen for home internet.  The satellites even have a way to obsolete themselves and slow down to get burned up in the atmosphere.  

[mikbone]

[Vort]

That's some real, concrete damage there.

[popatr]

It was super cool. 

But I certainly don't know how big their problems are; Elon probably has a much better idea but even he might not know.  He's an optimist.

The rosiest view of the situation is that their only major problem is the launch mount--and my armchair guessing is that it could be a pretty bad one.   Like estradling75  said, I think they may have to build UP.  Maybe a lot.  Affecting the mount AND the tower.

Maybe their water-cooled steel plate will survive but will reflected sound waves be a problem and will they successfully control it with relatively minor upgrades to water deluge?  We don't know.

A less optimistic view speculates that they have major problems with their engine.  Sure we can imagine that maybe all those engines going out was the unfolding of damage sustained on the pad.  I mean, it's not a bad theory.  But we don't really know.  I think the main evidence supporting that theory is that two engines failed to start on their static fire test and another self shutdown almost immediately; and in that case it's much harder to blame the pad.  It suvived that test and didn't visibly spray concrete missiles everywhere.  That test was at about half thrust I think.

If the engines themeselves are the problem, what will it take to fix them?  How the heck do we know?
It's even possible that not all engines on the rocket are the same iteration and quality level.  Maybe the best engines are already solid and good enough and only crappier development versions failed due to their own shortcomings.

All of this has the common theme: we don't know.  We will have to patiently wait for the proof to be in the pudding.

Edited April 24, 2023 by popatr

[mikbone]

I think the problem was probably the extreme and rapid heating and not the force of the rockets.

There is water in concrete, and if it turns into steam too fast… Kapow!

Happened to me once just building a small fire on 15 year old concrete.  The top 4 inches with a diameter of 8 inches gave way and shrapnel went everywhere.  We were stupid and lucky.

I know that the special type of concrete Musk used was designed for extreme conditions.

https://www.imerys.com/product-ranges/fondag

Probably just not super extreme conditions.

 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 4/21/2023 at 3:16 PM, mikbone said:

It’s possible that Musk did not want to build a flame deflector because he wants to fly the same ship back from Mars.  And he surely doesn't want to build a flame trench on Mars.  Rough gamble.

You can always dig down.  All kinds of options.  Depends on how much you are willing to spend and your time frame.

It will be interesting watching how Musk and his engineers solve this problem.

I mean, he owns a boring company.  Cofferdams can be built.

I know they were hoping to re-launch in 2 months.  And Musk’s hope was that the launch tower would not be destroyed.

I’m betting that there will be a 4-6 month lag between the next launch.  

I’m sure his hope is to make starship launches routine and frequent. 

He has a bunch of balls in the air.  Still needs to get lots more satellites into orbit.

“As of February 2023, Starlink consists of over 3,580 mass-produced small satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO), which communicate with designated ground transceivers. In total, nearly 12,000 satellites are planned to be deployed, with a possible later extension to 42,000.”

Im still waiting for my Cyber Truck…

This is a testing facility, not a use facility. They do not need a trench because when it is complete they will launch from Florida.

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

This is a testing facility, not a use facility. They do not need a trench because when it is complete they will launch from Florida.

Hmmmm. That doesn't jibe with my understanding, which is that Musk wants to launch the Super Heavy booster and Starship from Texas. The reason for no flame trench is, I believe, the idea that Starship should be able to land on the moon or Mars and then take off again from that spot, which of course would not allow for a flame trench. I think SpaceX is going to have to come up with a way to force debris and detritus out the edges without it being blasted back up into the engine bay. Maybe a single-use disposable launch diverter skirt on the lunar or Martial soil and unattached to the ship, or something of the sort?

[mikbone]

SpaceX has at least a 5 year window @ Boca Chica.  From the above, looks like there are plans to go to Florida we will see.  GodSpeed.

I saw some commentary about Musk not wanting a flame diverter on Earth cuz cant make one on Mars.  But gravity is vastly different on the moon and mars.

The gravity on Mars is 3.711 m/s², which is just 38 percent the gravity on Earth. Earth's gravity is 9.807 m/s², compared to the moon's gravity of 1.62 m/s² or just 17 percent of Earth's gravity.

No flame diverter needed on the Moon at least.  Looks like a good sized firecracker will get you off the launchpad. 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

15 hours ago, Vort said:

Hmmmm. That doesn't jibe with my understanding, which is that Musk wants to launch the Super Heavy booster and Starship from Texas. The reason for no flame trench is, I believe, the idea that Starship should be able to land on the moon or Mars and then take off again from that spot, which of course would not allow for a flame trench. I think SpaceX is going to have to come up with a way to force debris and detritus out the edges without it being blasted back up into the engine bay. Maybe a single-use disposable launch diverter skirt on the lunar or Martial soil and unattached to the ship, or something of the sort?

Maybe they underestimated how powerful this rocket actually ended up being. He did say that his main goal with this launch was getting it off the ground without destroying the tower. We will see what changes they make.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

The first video explains a lot about what happened.

[NeuroTypical]

I once (saw someone else) build a pile of fireworks so big, it melted big holes the tin coffee can in which it was contained, and left a permanent black spot on the parking lot asphalt.   I've never (seen someone else) be able to melt/destroy rocks or dirt though, despite (seeing others) making several attempts back in the day.

 

[Carborendum]

I like the comments and videos shared here.  I tend to agree with everything that has been said so far.

He really can't get the launch pad ready in 2 months.  There are physical characteristics of materials that no one on his team knows about.  It isn't in their discipline.  I wish I could talk to him.

[Traveler]

On 4/25/2023 at 2:28 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I once (saw someone else) build a pile of fireworks so big, it melted big holes the tin coffee can in which it was contained, and left a permanent black spot on the parking lot asphalt.   I've never (seen someone else) be able to melt/destroy rocks or dirt though, despite (seeing others) making several attempts back in the day.

 

As a youth I was determined to launch something into outerspace.  One effort really did not even get off the ground a blew a hole in an asphalt road 6 feet across and 3 feet deep and ended up in my first introduction to the Provo City Police.  What was most impressive is how quickly they trace it back to me.  

Rocket science is much more difficult than one would think.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

[popatr]

23 hours ago, mikbone said:

Isn't the FAA in the way now?