Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space

SpaceX's Prototype Starship Rocket Partially Bursts During Testing In Texas (theverge.com) 76

A test version of SpaceX's next-generation rocket, Starship, partially burst apart during ground tests in Texas today, erupting plumes of gas and sending some pieces of hardware soaring into the sky. The Verge reports: The explosive result occurred while SpaceX was seemingly conducting some pressure tests with the vehicle at the company's test site in Boca Chica, Texas. The local live streams showed the vehicle venting gas periodically throughout the day, indicating that testing was underway. This prototype was meant to test the design of Starship -- a monster spacecraft the company is working on to transport cargo and people to deep space destinations like the Moon and Mars. In fact, this same vehicle is the one that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk showed off to reporters in September. At the time, he claimed the test vehicle could be doing flights to low altitudes within the next couple of months and that some version of Starship could reach Earth orbit within six months.

Now, that timeline is almost certain to shift. After the explosion, Musk indicated on Twitter that SpaceX may no longer fly this particular prototype and will instead conduct flight tests with a newer, more up-to-date model that the company planned to build. "This had some value as a manufacturing pathfinder, but flight design is quite different," Musk wrote, referring to the prototype that burst.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX's Prototype Starship Rocket Partially Bursts During Testing In Texas

Comments Filter:
  • by scalveg ( 35414 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2019 @07:54PM (#59437474) Homepage

    You haven't learned as much as you could have.

    • by NagrothAgain ( 4130865 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2019 @08:01PM (#59437492)
      Exactly. And it's possible that they were testing to see how far they could push something before it fails. Without knowing more we have no way to know if this was actually a setback or not.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        This is a setback, because this particular test article was intended to perform the flight tests to 20KM - with the failure of the pressure vessel, that is definitely not going to happen.

        Testing to destruction is something that should be part of the test regime, but it should be done on articles you don’t intend to base next steps on - this was an unexpected failure and has associated effects.

        • This is a setback, because this particular test article was intended to perform the flight tests to 20KM

          You are incorrect; the plan was to fly the MK3 model currently under construction. I'm sure at some point they did to plan this one, but they scrapped that idea well before it blew up, and skipped over the MK2 as well.

          • by bigpat ( 158134 )

            This is a setback, because this particular test article was intended to perform the flight tests to 20KM

            You are incorrect; the plan was to fly the MK3 model currently under construction. I'm sure at some point they did to plan this one, but they scrapped that idea well before it blew up, and skipped over the MK2 as well.

            It would be more fair to say that the real setback happened when they decided to change the plan to fly this prototype. That shift must have happened because of some design review, inspection result or maybe some operational conflict.

            The over-pressurization is just a set back in terms of them performing additional tests on this prototype besides the already cancelled flight test. But overall yes they have had at least a couple setbacks, just the more important setback was far less dramatic than this mino

        • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Thursday November 21, 2019 @05:36AM (#59438434) Homepage

          Failures are budgeted into the programme. Which is why SpaceX is building Starships two at a time (one in Florida, one in Texas). It's all about rapid iteration - getting the data as fast as you can to feed back into your next version. Failure absolutely is an option.

          It's clear from watching the frame-by-frame of the video that a weld failed - if I recall right, between the second and third ring from the top. At least the weld count will be dropping with the Mk3 version, as they'll be switching from welding together panels and instead will be welding together sheets. I wouldn't be surprised either if they switch to (automated) orbital welding to ensure consistent, perfect welds all the way around. It's not necessarily clear that it's a bad weld to blame - it's also possible that there was an overpressure event inside the structure, and that the welds weren't rated for the loads that they were subjected to. But it's obviously the leading theory.

          Regardless... congratulations to SpaceX for their upper bulkhead getting closer to orbit than SLS ever has ;)

          • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Thursday November 21, 2019 @05:42AM (#59438446) Homepage

            ED: I take that back. From the SpaceX Boca Chica Facebook group:

            RUPTURE UPDATE:

            Through back channels it has been revealed that MK1 suffered an accidental overpressure to failure. Fuel and oxidizer would typically be loaded to 3 Bar or 43.5 psi~ for densification purposes and flightworthy tanks may be tested to 1.5-2x that value for single time structural proofing. In the case of what happened today the story is that communications errors between the pumps/sensors and remote controls allowed the tanks to be massively and erroneously overpressured to the point of failure, leading to catastrophic rupture.

            Just a rumour at this point, but if that's the case, then it's not a bad weld to blame but rather the control system. Massive overpressure could explain how the bulkhead flew so far.

      • That's all. Expect more, and that's ok..

      • I doubt that, since they were planning on launching it later. You don't test the flight units to destruction or overstress.

        I also dispute the fact that you have to break something to learn something from the test. You can predict, say, the distortion/strain expected at less-than-damaging condtions, and then test to see if the actual strain matches the prediction. That's how tests like this are usually done, only occasionally is something tested to yeild levels, and it is not particular

      • I'd argue that a failure on the ground that provides data to stop a failure in the air is in fact a success. It means the testing process is working and saving lives. Because as we know from the shuttle program nothing kills congressional passion for space quicker than a dead astronaut

      • Elon made a comment about it earlier along the lines of "We were testing mass presurization of all systems. The results were not unexpected."

      • There was some discussion on the Boca Chica FB page that this might have been an over-pressure incident. To quote:

        RUPTURE UPDATE: Through back channels it has been revealed that MK1 suffered an accidental overpressure to failure. Fuel and oxidizer would typically be loaded to 3 Bar or 43.5 psi~ for densification purposes and flightworthy tanks may be tested to 1.5-2x that value for single time structural proofing. In the case of what happened today the story is that communications errors between the pumps/sensors and remote controls allowed the tanks to be massively and erroneously overpressured to the point of failure, leading to catastrophic rupture. We expect SpaceX in good time to reveal the details, they may explain it was deliberate as big changes in airframe and control surfaces in the succeeding MK series variants are coming.

        Source [reddit.com]

        It kind of makes sense. If they were testing for maximum pressure, automatic pressure relief systems on the tank would probably be turned off, with pressure being controlled by some external system. Perhaps that external system failed. If you look at the video, it appeared that not only did the top bulkhead blow off, but there appeared to be release of LN2 from the lower part of the roc

    • You haven't learned as much as you could have.

      "If you want to increase your success rate, double your failure rate.”
      -- Thomas Watson Jr., Second President of IBM

    • without any problems...

      You've obviously overlooked something.

    • We don't know what was being tested. Perhaps it was something new. Hopefully it wasn't something that was poorly designed. However, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they exceeded the capacity of 100 metric butt tonnes of Musky bullshit.

    • That is literally correct. But when I see a statement like:

      This prototype was meant to test the design of Starship -- a monster spacecraft the company is working on to transport cargo and people to deep space destinations like the Moon and Mars. In fact, this same vehicle is the one that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk showed off to reporters in September. At the time, he claimed the test vehicle could be doing flights to low altitudes within the next couple of months and that some version of Starship could reach Ear

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Which is why if they do all pass you continue testing to destruction.

      In this case though they had planned to do flight tests with this prototype, so they have lost some opportunities and their schedule is delayed. No big deal, it happens in engineering.

      The only real issue is Musk's Twitter account continually making predictions and promises that don't pan out. It's much worse with Tesla since people buy the cars off the back of those promises, but even for SpaceX it would probably be better if he just stopp

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2019 @08:30PM (#59437550)

    It looks an awful lot like a grain silo, and those do burst into flame on rare occasions...

  • Research (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slick7 ( 1703596 ) on Wednesday November 20, 2019 @08:52PM (#59437632)
    "Research is what you're doing when you don't know what you're doing".

    - Werner Von Braun - Rocket Surgeon and Nazi
  • Seems like if they don't launch something during a test it's not a test.

    I recall Hopper launching a sub component on one if its prelim tests too. But the video at least showed it launch and moments later land.
    The tank which launched on this test was much larger but no video yet shows its trajectory nor landing.

    Tests expose weaknesses or flaws and better now than later.

    LoB
  • Last week I had to go home and change because I couldn't make it to the lav in time before I partially burst.

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...