SpaceX Loses Its Third Starship Prototype During a Cryogenic Test (arstechnica.com) 58
For a third time, SpaceX lost one of its Starship prototype spacecrafts during a pressure test at the company's test site in Boca Chica, Texas. Ars Technica reports: This week, SpaceX workers in South Texas loaded the third full-scale Starship prototype -- SN3 -- onto a test stand at the company's Boca Chica launch site. On Wednesday night, they pressure-tested the vehicle at ambient temperature with nitrogen, and SN3 performed fine. On Thursday night SpaceX began cryo-testing the vehicle, which means it was loaded again with nitrogen, but this time it was chilled to flight-like temperatures and put under flight-like pressures. Unfortunately, a little after 2am local time, SN3 failed and began to collapse on top of itself. It appeared as if the vehicle may have lost pressurization and become top-heavy. Multiple sources indicated that had these preliminary tests succeeded, SN3 would have attempted a 150-meter flight test as early as next Tuesday. SpaceX founder Elon Musk said on Twitter: "We will see what data review says in the morning, but this may have been a test configuration mistake." A testing issue would be good in the sense that it means the vehicle itself performed well, and the problem can be more easily addressed.
Rocket Science (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well they call it rocket science for a reason - bloody hard! And all that pesky testing!!
Never seemed to bother Boeing, I mean actually doing the testing part.
Re: (Score:2)
Several Alternate Angles (Score:2)
some with better lighting [youtube.com]
Re:Rocket Science (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not 'science', it is 'engineering'. In science, you're done when you get the first order terms - they tells you enough about the "phenomenon" in question to write a paper.
It is when you have to make something work that you need to do the higher orders, and that's an engineer's job, and it is hard and often unrewarding.
Re: (Score:2)
Applied science is somewhere in the middle, where you actually aim to produce something working, just not necessarily industrialized.
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious. I just finished listening to an engineer complain about scientists always pursuing every little detail to death, far beyond the "good enough" necessary for actual application.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they are both correct. The scientist pursues the theoretical details, the engineer the practical details, .. neither really cares much about the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well they call it rocket science for a reason - bloody hard! And all that pesky testing!!
You could do it like Boeing, test in the field! You know, like they do it for most software. Boeing has started doing that with airplanes a while ago, space-ships soon to follow. Although their current ones seem to be even worse than their planes.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty funny how often SpaceX is criticized for finding problems in tests, instead of getting everything perfect on paper before building anything. Boeing really shouldn't be throwing stones here.
Re: Rocket Science (Score:2)
Boeing's MCAS problems were a result of modifications made after testing, so this particular hit of criticism is pretty stupid. Some flaws simply don't manifest during testing. A failure of the AOA vane is a fairly uncommon event; they could have flown 10,000 test flights without experiencing even one failure. Even if it had occurred during a test it's fairly safe to assume that a highly trained test pilot would have followed the correct procedures to overcome the issue, which may only have reinforced Bo
Re: (Score:2)
Any idiot would have figured out making a system which change the flight path of the aircraft depending on a single sensor was a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
"Boeing's MCAS problems were a result of modifications made after testing,..."
That is actually even worse - after testing is completed NO modifications to anything are allowed. That's how it is in my industry, and we don't even make flight critical systems! Rather than being an excuse for Boeing, modifications after testing is a pretty big indictment.
Why are they still building and testing rockets?!? (Score:1, Troll)
Seriously, I thought that all "non essential" business was shut down right now. Those rocket scientists should be "social distancing" at home with the rest of us right now, or at least building something that we need like ventilators.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I thought that all "non essential" business was shut down right now
Obviously you have no idea just how bad the virus will get, if you don't think the ability to transport humans off planet has value.
Re: (Score:2)
Only very few among us believe that the virus will not be the first to board a rocket. No surprise you're one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you have no idea just how bad the virus will get, if you don't think the ability to transport humans off planet has value.
I can't think of a place where a virus would spread more quickly than an outpost of depressed gravity-weakened, radiation-riddled settlers scratching out a pointless existence in cramped underground hovels on Mars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obligations to launch US government satellites, sure. Not to test Elon's new Starship toy. All that stainless steel would probably be better used to make ventilator parts right about now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like "starships", right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why are they still building and testing rocket (Score:2)
All that stainless steel would probably be better used to make ventilator parts right about now.
Clearly they didn't get the memo re: the iron shortage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why are they still building and testing rocket (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm there with you on Falcon/FH. But Starship has way too many issues to surpass before it becomes available. Plus the economics case for it simply does not make any sense. It is way too large for market demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Starship with the booster at least makes no economic sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligations to launch US government satellites, sure. Not to test Elon's new Starship toy. All that stainless steel would probably be better used to make ventilator parts right about now.
In case this isn't parody: Musk was one of the first to offer to convert manufacturing lines to ventilator production. Obviously, the specific steel used to make Starship isn't relevant to ventilators, nor is there any kind of shortage in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
These objections are historic and have been applied to space programs since their origin. We've shown that we need global communications, and weather satellites. SpaceX is providing increasing launch capability for very useful technologies for telecom, for growing food, and for predicting and managing natural disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
The US military has been very interested in rapid turn around reusable spacecraft for a long time. I suspect someone recognized that in the event of war with an equal adversary, all the satellites were going to die and it would be very important to be able to put more up faster than the other guy can shoot them down. In 50 years SpaceX has come by far the closest to actually demonstrating that kind of capability.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that's a compelling reason to invest. If I may opint out, it's not merely military disasters. Solar flares can do enormous damage, as can programming errors.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but I bet if a solar flare took out a bunch of satellites they'd be replaced in a somewhat more leisurely manner than if someone shot them all down.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut down everything! The only items we need right now are ventilators, face masks, and a steady supply of upvotes for Reddit stories of people 3D-printing ventilator parts and face masks!
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously, I thought that all "non essential" business was shut down right now. Those rocket scientists should be "social distancing" at home with the rest of us right now, or at least building something that we need like ventilators.
Not sure why the parent is modded "Troll" as he absolutely right. And I'm a huge SpaceX fan. But there's a time and a place for everything. It's not a problem to hold off development of a new launcher and spacecraft for six months or a year if doing so helps stopping the spread of a deadly flu strain that will likely kill more than a million people in the US alone if not contained.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thusfar, at least, SpaceX has been deemed to be an essential business due to their contracts with NASA and the DoD, and neither NASA, the DoD, nor the state of Texas (which only just belatedly issued a (very mild) stay at home order) has seen fit to even request (let alone order) the company to shut down specific sites or projects.
This might of course change in the future.
Re: (Score:1)
Just a testing issue... (Score:2)
"A testing issue would be good in the sense that it means the vehicle itself performed well, and the problem can be more easily addressed."
Yes, that would be nice. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
The video reminds me of a drunk guy smashing a beer can on his forehead.
Other than that, it's sad to see the poor thing crumple up and fall over like that. It started out ugly then things got so much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how it could be uglier than New Shepard. While all rockets are vaguely phallic, New Shepard looks like a literal penis.
Re: Such a shame (Score:2)
you probably dont realise this is only the top part.
And sk (Score:2)
Unfortunately, a little after 2am local time, SN3 failed and began to collapse on top of itself
Many slashdotters similarly find at 2am a part of their own body collapsing on top of itself.
Oblig (Score:2)
Re: Oblig (Score:2)
Highly underrated.
Hydraulic Pressure? (Score:4, Interesting)
Was it just the weight of the loaded upper tank or where they putting hydraulic pressure on it, to simulate max-Q pressure? If they didn't and it collapsed from just the weight of the nitrogen then the vehicle has serious structural problems. Also wondering, was the upper tank 100% full or how close?
The crumple was clearly between the two tanks so that sounds like an easy place to add additional structure. That will entail more weight, of course.. If they just made the two tanks cylinders with extra re-enforcing on the top and bottom, they'd have the extra structure and extra space fo fuel for perhaps the same additional weight.
The pressure from forward to aft sections will be much more during an orbital launch.
And, how consistent can this steel alloy be made? How different are strengths from place to place? Stainless steel is iron mixed with chrome. Also, during descent an alloy like this is guaranteed to warp at high temperatures.... maybe less so with cold rolled steel, though, as this is. Also, I understand they plan on adding ceramic tiles. I think with a small air gap or soft insulator, maybe this will protect the hull. I think the flaming descent will be another major challenge to overcome, in which they might loose another prototype or two, down the road.
Though I love these ships, my personal opinion is that they should be used for shorter flights such as to the Moon or other space stations near cislunar orbit. If I were Musk, I'd use one of the early cargo versions of Starship to build an orbiting station and then send that station of a continuous orbit between Earth and Mars (such as orbit is possible). In simple terms, arrange cables and structural floor beams in the circular shape (similar to chains for car tires in the snow). Spin it up for it to take full size and shape then send chicken bricks from the lunar surface to add strong shielding for it. By chicken bricks, I mean wrap moon rocks in chicken wire to form the shape of bricks. Shoot those up to the station using a lunar railgun. With no atmosphere and lots of strong solar energy, a railgun should be able to send these to any luner or Earth orbit with very high precision, effortlessly. Fix these chicken bricks to the whole exterior and inflate a PVC-based interior (fire resistance, anti-microbial, food-safe, holds pressure very well, almost zero moisture absorption rate, weldable, and very inexpensive). This will provide a very large and safe environment for perhaps a thousand people at a time (how big do you want to make it?), would be well shielded from micrometeors (even baseball sized asteroids), and most importantly would have flushing toilets and showers. The vessel could carry a permanent, even multi-generational, crew. Starships would be used rather to transfer passengers from Earth, the Moon, and Mars and not have to travel, themselves, those entire distances.. This would safe a lot of money, add comfort, and safety..
--Matthew C. Tedder
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX rocket designs (both Falcon and Starship) are a hybrid between self-supporting and balloon tanks. With self-supporting tanks, the rocket can support its own weight in all (or most) situations. With balloon tanks, the rocket can never support its own weight, ev
Re: (Score:2)
It might also be something else. From what I heard Elon said the test was done with liquid nitrogen. Well the thing is liquid methane and liquid oxygen don't have the same density. Liquid methane is a lot less dense. While liquid oxygen and kerosene are a lot closer in density per volume. I suspect that was part of the problem.
Liquid nitrogen is cryogenic at similar temperatures and is less problematic in case of failure so that's probably why they used it.
In case of designs with a common bulkhead like this
Could be... (Score:3)
...this may have been a test configuration mistake.
Or it might be a fundamental flaw in the design.
Re: (Score:1)
...this may have been a test configuration mistake.
Or it might be a fundamental flaw in the design.
Like what?
What would be a fundamental reason why you can build a propellent tank out of aluminium-lithium or carbon fibre, but not out of stainless steel? The engineering community is waiting to have 200 years of material science rewritten by the internet.
Proper testing (Score:2)
Sorry guys (Score:1)
I swear it wasn't me.
-Cryogenic