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.
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.
If all of your tests pass without any problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
You haven't learned as much as you could have.
Re: If all of your tests pass without any problems (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: If all of your tests pass without any problem (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: If all of your tests pass without any problems (Score:4, Interesting)
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 ;)
Re: If all of your tests pass without any problems (Score:5, Interesting)
ED: I take that back. From the SpaceX Boca Chica Facebook group:
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems reasonable. Based on a cursory examination of the video it definitely wasn't an ignition event.
Re: (Score:2)
You learn from your mistakes (Score:2)
That's all. Expect more, and that's ok..
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Proof testing normally is done when you've got your final product run set up.
Re: If all of your tests pass without any problem (Score:2)
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
Re: If all of your tests pass without any problem (Score:2)
Elon made a comment about it earlier along the lines of "We were testing mass presurization of all systems. The results were not unexpected."
Re: (Score:2)
And you believe him?
Re: If all of your tests pass without any problem (Score:2)
Yep.
Re: (Score:2)
Given his track record of directly acknowledging failure and even explaining how/why...I don't see any reason this would be different.
Possible Overpressure Event (Score:3)
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
Re: If all of your tests pass without any problems (Score:2)
So, yeah; what you said.
Re: (Score:2)
If this were a Boeing vehicle they'd be classifying this test as a success ;)
(ref: In Boeing's recent Starliner abort test, only two of the three parachutes opened. Boeing nonetheless classified this as a "success" because (assuming they survived the toxic brown cloud of nitrogen tetroxide around their vehicle), any astronauts inside would have survived. It's unlikely however that NASA will take as sanguine a view in light of the fact that one of three parachutes failed; it's not an encouraging statistica
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: If all of your tests pass without any problems (Score:2)
without any problems...
You've obviously overlooked something.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Elon Musk (Score:5, Insightful)
If being first to land a rocket doesn't count as success, then i don't know what does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because it's not economical. The added fuel and tech needed to reuse the rocket requires a smaller payload and an even higher refurb cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Not anymore...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are it still isn't economical. You guys just assume it is because of what SpaceX says. You don't know their true launch cost and they are losing tons of money.
Yeah, and the whole thing is fake since the Earth is flat anyway, right? Those guys are just assuming it's round, but you know the real truth.
Re: (Score:2)
It's "Sea Level", not "Sea Curve"! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WindBourne is a MORON (Score:4)
What sort of stalker keeps a history log of any time anyone they're opposed to makes any sort of mistake or typo or debatable point among their thousands of posts, and then brings them up incessantly, as if that such a red herring has any bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand?
Secondly, what you linked to is you mocking them for citing an article ("Tesla's new 2170 battery packs more power"). Said cited article is:
It's the article that confuses the concept of power, amps, amp hours, and energy. Tracing back the cited numbers, it appears that the article got two things wrong in this regard:
* 5750-6000 is cited as *mAh* for the cells, not mA. There's no logic to a 6000 mA li-ion cell; that'd mean that the Model 3 battery pack is something like 114kW, which is nonsensically low, and could in no way support the vehicle's horsepower and acceleration.
* The numbers are not "tested at"; they're various people on the internet's calculations based on various released stats, and should not be taken as authoritative.
Beyond your repeated stalking:
"NASA and ESA says it is NOT profitable to re-use"
No, that's a five-year-old article (completely obsolete) citing skepticism about reuse, much of a year before SpaceX's first successful landing. And it wasn't "NASA" that was skeptical, but rather a specific person at NASA (Dan Dumbacher). You then mixed up ESA with CNES. And again, it wasn't CNES itself, but rather a specific person at CNES (Christophe Bonnal) expressing skepticism. And FYI? ESA is now pursuing reuse, and is now studying a rough Falcon 9 clone (with some minor changes) as a next-generation rocket. And as for Dumbacher and his comments on refurbishment: "Mostly, says Dumbacher, who oversaw work on the shuttle’s propulsion system, the biggest cost was how many people it took to approve the hardware for the next launch."
Amazing how many errors you managed to accumulate in such a short sentence.
In the last quarter which just reported [tesla.com]:
$261M GAAP operating income; 4.1% operating margin
$143M GAAP net income; $342M non-GAAP net income ex-SBC
22.8% GAAP Automotive Gross Margin
These are superb numbers.
Tesla customers gets $1875 (soon to be $0) in US tax incentives per EV, while all its other competitors except GM get $7500 (GM gets $3750). Tesla opposes the US tax credit.
The funds the US loaned Tesla for the Model S were paid back, early, with interest. As for the funds the US loaned GM? Over a $10B loss.
COTS has saved NASA vastly more, from having to pay the literal monopoly that they were buying launch services from, than they paid for it.
SpaceX's business is predominantly commercial (not government/military) launches, where it usually makes up a sizeable majority of the world's total market. Commercial launches have nothing to do with the government except for getting clearance. On government contracts, SpaceX virtually always significantly underbids competitors.
Lastly, why do you sometimes post as AC and sometimes as "Rei_is_a_dumbass", yet use the exact same posting structure and stalker style in each, making it obvious that you're the exact same person?
Re: (Score:3)
** - Tesla opposes the US tax credit in its current form. It's supportive of reformulating it. But as it stands, the US credit structure hurts Tesla.
Re: WindBourne is a MORON (Score:2)
What sort of stalker keeps a history log of any time anyone they're opposed to makes any sort of mistake or typo or debatable point among their thousands of posts, and then brings them up incessantly, as if that such a red herring has any bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand?
A very desperate SLS shill who's beginning to realize that they might not always have an employer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX never once hit orbit and landed the bit that actually hit orbit. It's a much harder problem than landing the first stage because you have to design a vehicle that carries enough fuel to reach orbit, enough fuel to land again (unless you do it Space Shuttle style), heat shielding to survive reentry and a useful payload.
Re:Elon Musk (Score:4, Interesting)
First to land an orbital class rocket - let’s not forget the predecessors (DC-X Delta Clipper, I’m betting there are others).
Re: (Score:2)
Much more importantly: first to land a rocket after actually delivering a payload to orbit. It all just expensive toys until that step.
It's not about who "invents" something (there's always some slightly-less-impressive precedent), it's about who productizes something.
Starship is planning on a launch cost of $2 million with full re-use. Even if Musk really misses the mark and its $10 million, that $100/kg, or about 1% of current launch costs. That changes everything. Let's hope the one that's not built
Re:Elon Musk (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, wait. Apparently, they are NOT losing $, but doing just fine.
Fact is, that YOU do not know what the true launch cost are, but these others do and they are all claiming that the company is already profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
110010001000 is at least a Musk short seller booster [slashdot.org], if not himself a short seller (110010001000? are you willing to say clearly?). There are plenty of people on slashdot who have a direct financial interest in some of these stories, for example I believe Rei is a self admitted investor in Musk's ventures. The investors can only lose their investment, so, whilst they will like boosting the stock there is nothing desperate about their situation. The short sellers have a potential unlimited loss since the
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what the true "launch cost" is.
Indeed. I said as much, in that post your responded to without reading. But we do know what the cost of fuel is. We also know how much government funding they get, and it's not much as rocket programs go.
But, does it matter? What matters is that the price to launch payloads is coming way, way down. And that changes everything.
Hardly the first (Score:2)
SpaceX is hardly the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No SpaceX rocket has ever landed after orbiting the Earth. Their capsules have, but so have lots of capsules. What they've done is landed and re-flown the expensive part: a booster which does most of the world but never gets anywhere near orbital velocities and thus suffers far less heat damage. It lands just a few hundred miles downrange, definitely without circling the planet first.
Starship is meant to be the first vehicle from which all pieces launched will land and be reused, which will be another remar
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they are the first to launch, orbit Earth and then land.
The first stage doesn't orbit the Earth, not even remotely close. The flight path is pretty close to what New Shepard did, it's just a much bigger lift vehicle that instead of barely reaching space lifts a whole second stage that will eventually reach orbit. That is why they say orbital class booster but that's kinda an arbitrary line that depends on the performance of the second stage. The next clearly defined line would be launching to orbit and landing, but that won't happen until Starship.
Re: (Score:3)
The flight path is pretty close to what New Shepard did,
He overshot. You undershot.
New Shephard Main Engine Cut Off 3,500 kph
Falcon 9 Main Engine Cut Off 7,500 kph
Pretty substantial difference in flight path.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk didn't do that first, and neither did Space X. It was done decades prior.
Are you sure that's a rocket? (Score:3)
It looks an awful lot like a grain silo, and those do burst into flame on rare occasions...
Re: (Score:2)
Research (Score:5, Interesting)
- Werner Von Braun - Rocket Surgeon and Nazi
gotta launch something (Score:2)
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
Re: gotta launch something (Score:2)
Um there's definitely video of both the launch and the landing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Semi-regular outbursts (Score:2)
Last week I had to go home and change because I couldn't make it to the lav in time before I partially burst.