SpaceX's Starship Launches and Again Crashes in Test of Prototype (nytimes.com) 81
On Tuesday, a test flight of SpaceX's Starship, a huge next-generation spacecraft that Elon Musk, the founder and chief executive of the private rocket company, dreams of one day sending to Mars, came to an explosive end. From a report: That brief flight, to an altitude of about 6 miles and then back to a landing pad, appeared to again demonstrate how the mammoth rocket would tip over on its side as it descended in a controlled belly flop back toward a landing. But when the prototype fired its engines to right itself back to a vertical orientation, it appeared that one engine did not properly ignite, and Starship hit the ground at an angle, disintegrating in a fireball, leaving a cloud of smoke rising over the test site, which is in Boca Chica, Tex., near Brownsville. The end was similar to the last test flight in December which also ended in an explosion at landing, although the particular cause of the rocket failing to slow down enough may have been different.
This time, however, SpaceX at least had the permission of government regulators. Last week, SpaceX and the Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates rocket launches, seemed to be in a strange regulatory standoff. SpaceX had filled the propellant tanks of this prototype of Starship -- its ninth one -- and looked ready to launch. But then the rocket stayed on the ground when no approval from the F.A.A. arrived. Mr. Musk expressed frustration on Twitter, describing the part of the F.A.A. that oversees SpaceX as "fundamentally broken." Mr. Musk wrote, "Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars." Late on Monday, the F.A.A. gave permission for Tuesday's launch, but then added that the December launch had occurred without the agency's approval. SpaceX had requested a waiver to conduct that flight even though it posed a greater danger to the public than allowed by regulations. The F.A.A. denied the request. SpaceX defied the ruling and launched anyway.
This time, however, SpaceX at least had the permission of government regulators. Last week, SpaceX and the Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates rocket launches, seemed to be in a strange regulatory standoff. SpaceX had filled the propellant tanks of this prototype of Starship -- its ninth one -- and looked ready to launch. But then the rocket stayed on the ground when no approval from the F.A.A. arrived. Mr. Musk expressed frustration on Twitter, describing the part of the F.A.A. that oversees SpaceX as "fundamentally broken." Mr. Musk wrote, "Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars." Late on Monday, the F.A.A. gave permission for Tuesday's launch, but then added that the December launch had occurred without the agency's approval. SpaceX had requested a waiver to conduct that flight even though it posed a greater danger to the public than allowed by regulations. The F.A.A. denied the request. SpaceX defied the ruling and launched anyway.
All your crash (Score:5, Funny)
are belong to us.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL I've used that a few times in the last couple months and people are like WHAT is that mean?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL I've used that a few times in the last couple months and people are like WHAT is that mean?
How can anyone not know where it comes from?
Point 'em here: https://youtu.be/8fvTxv46ano [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
ROCKET GO BOOM!!!
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5... [imdb.com]
was it running linux? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't use consumer software to control hardware that may need millisecond response times.
Comment removed (Score:5)
Re:There's nothing inherently "consumer" about Lin (Score:5)
GP almost got it right.. You don't use non-realtime software to control hardware that requires millisecond response time, or more realistically, microsecond. And the Linux, kernel reliable as it is, is still way too complex for critical systems. This kind of control system is always implemented with a far simpler real time control system, often not much more than a scheduler and a few drivers.
No doubt there are multiple instances of Linux running on board the beast, but not for real time control. Things like video compression or telemetry which, while important, have far looser latency requirements than controlling engines or control surfaces.
And yeah, referring to Linux as "consumer grade" is just plain dumb, as the reality is, Linux not only runs the majority of smart consumer appliances, it runs the whole world, including multiple $trillions of online enterprises and essentially all the world's supercomputers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:was it running linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I know Mr. Musk is a big Linux user... wondering how the flight control software on this is written.
I heard they were using a beta version of systemd-landd.
Re: was it running linux? (Score:2)
Oh snap
Re: was it running linux? (Score:5)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Musk was a Windows fanboy.
Unfortunately for Marvin.... (Score:4, Funny)
It wasn't an Earth-shattering Kaboom...
Low fuel pressure again? (Score:4)
It looks like it might have been the same problem as last time, which is low fuel pressure after the rocket performed the flip to orient the engines downward.
In addition to the main two large fuel tanks used for ascent, which comprise the bulk of the volume of the ship, there are two smaller tanks used for landing. The fast flip from horizontal flight to vertical orientation for landing causes any remaining fuel in the big tanks to slosh around severely, so it can't feed properly to the engines. The smaller tanks are full, so the fuel should feed out of them as desired.
After the last failed landing (SN8), SpaceX made some changes to remedy the low pressure issue, but that may not have worked. Since SN9 (which flew today) was mostly built, SpaceX may have had to do a more superficial modification to try and fix the problem, instead of more significant engineering to the tanks / feed system. SN10, which is already at the launch pad awaiting its test flight, could have more fundamental changes to fix the problem.
Or it could have been something else entirely.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It looked to me like it just didn't get oriented correctly in time. But what do I know? I'm just some guy watching the video. In any case, I hope it's something different so that they learn about another failure mode and can fix it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Low fuel pressure again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seemed to me that one of the engines lit fine and was producing thrust until impact, but the other just failed to light. Quite different from the other failure as the engine didn't start eating itself as it leaned out on propellant - it just didn't light at all. This would suggest the header tanks were working okay, but the issue was with the engine itself.
If you look at the landing profile you can see the control system trying to operate from a single engine's thrust, which results in it over-rotating on the flip and running out of time to bring the rocket back to vertical. In the first test, because both engines produced thrust during this phase, the flip and deceleration were better.
It must be a bit painful having to eat the cost of three Raptors every time this test fails. They'll be hoping that SN10 can get the issue sorted, otherwise it might be prudent to put some chutes on it and test the flip/relight at higher altitude (with a landing on water/chutes) until they iron out the issues.
Re:Low fuel pressure again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To me it looked like a lack of oxygen this time.
The oxygen header tank is in the nose and clearly had a lot left (the white clouds in the images).
Re: (Score:2)
That doesnt mean the engine cant be starved of it for many reasons - blockage in the line, failure to switch over to the alternative supply for landing etc etc
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confused (as usual). I thought that none of these prototype rockets were designed to land successfully. They have no legs and the plan is to eventually "catch" them with the launch tower when they return.
The problems with the failure of an engine to light notwithstanding, won't they all explode upon landing until they get their new landing system developed and perfected?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused (as usual). I thought that none of these prototype rockets were designed to land successfully. They have no legs and the plan is to eventually "catch" them with the launch tower when they return.
These are the second stage of the rocket, which's designed to go to mars and to return from orbit. SN9 did have legs, just short stubby ones that flip out just before landing. These same legs were used on SN5&6 and worked OK.
The first stage (known as Super Heavy, or the booster) will be much bigger and will never go to orbit. It will launch and land much like the current Falcon 9, although there's now talk of it landing back on the pad and being caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Starship is the orbiter and is designed to land on legs (they are folding ones which drop down from inside the skirt on these test vehicles). What launched today was a Starship test article, SN9.
Super Heavy is the booster and is what SpaceX are referring to when they talk about it being caught by the launch tower. We haven't yet seen a Super Heavy in the wild, let alone had a test launch.
Re: (Score:2)
They are also the test bed for learning to land on raptors, which the booster will do eventually (although maybe getting caught by a gantry or whatever) and starship is supposed to do for things like long distance ballistic flights and mars missions.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be a bit painful having to eat the cost of three Raptors every time this test fails.
They're pretty much eating that cost anyway until the engines are perfect, which they clearly are not. But that was a $10mil+ explosion, which is like $40 of net worth to the average American...
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Low fuel pressure again? (Score:5, Informative)
One of the two engines used for the landing failed to ignite. Something broke with enough force to send debris flying out when it was supposed to start.
With just one engine there was not enough thrust to control the orientation or slow down enough. The vehicle overshot the flip maneuver, ending up "on its back" in a roughly 45-degree angle to the ground as it fell.
There's a great video here [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
learn to write a decent headline (Score:5, Funny)
TFTFY
Re: (Score:2)
It botth launched and crashed again, so:
"SpaceX's Starship Launches and Crashes Again in Test of Prototype"
And, given this was not the same Starship that crashed previously, and we know it launched:
"Another SpaceX Starship Prototype Crashes on Landing"
Re: (Score:2)
This is trouble with the headlines... over in YRO they're talking about SpaceX's StarLink as the solver of Internet freedom problems, but over here they're having trouble landing their space transport system...
so Elon (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Does he own a cat?
Re: (Score:1)
Good God! Don't own. It's much better to rent them as needed.
here's a softball set-up for you: (Score:2)
Jeff Bezos doesn't crash rockets.
Re: here's a softball set-up for you: (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s a lot easier to not crash when your only operational flight hardware is just an overgrown Estes rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
I like Jeff, but... (Score:2)
He's slow as a Sloth and he's never launched a rocket capable of reaching orbit. His company's slogan is “Step by Step, Ferociously” [but in latin, of course] which would be fine if we'd see some of that "Ferociously" stuff in one of these decades. Perhaps now that he's stepping down as Amazon CEO his Blue Origin work might finally accelerate (would probably help if he'd back away from the desk at the WaPo as well, any idiot can run a newspaper into the ground & Blue needs his full attention
Re: (Score:3)
You do realise that SpaceX choose to develop rockets this way, with a higher risk of as catastrophic failures, as opposed to more conservative development paths taken by other rocket devleopers ?
Or have you COMPLETELY MISSED THAT POINT ?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are stupid.
The evidence:
I pointed out why your first post was stupid, and now your "read what I wrote" reply shows you failed to read or to comprehend my post, as well as not understanding SpaceX's development process.
Yep, it's Dunning-Kruger, folks !
Re: (Score:2)
I just can't help myself...
I pointed out why your first post was stupid
Not exactly. You demonstrated that you completely misunderstood his intent, and the meaning of his post.
... your "read what I wrote" reply
He, rather rudely I'll admit, pointed out your misunderstanding.
shows you failed to read or to comprehend my post, as well as not understanding SpaceX's development process.
You likely told him nothing he didn't already know about their development process. Furthermore, clearly he did understand what you'd written, which is why he tried to correct your misapprehension. You, on the other hand, have just doubled down in demonstrating your misunderstanding (or perhaps you just can't
Re: (Score:2)
You likely told him nothing he didn't already know about their development process. Furthermore, clearly he did understand what you'd written, which is why he tried to correct your misapprehension.
Did YOU read my post ?
Did you UNDERSTAND my post ?
Do you understand that SpaceX's development process is different to the more conservative development paths taken by other rocket developers ?
Yes ?
Then it's time to shut up and stop making a fool of yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
You likely told him nothing he didn't already know about their development process. Furthermore, clearly he did understand what you'd written, which is why he tried to correct your misapprehension.
Did YOU read my post ?
Did you UNDERSTAND my post ?
Do you understand that SpaceX's development process is different to the more conservative development paths taken by other rocket developers ?
Yes ?
Of course I read your post. It's not clear whether I understood it, as your responses to the replies make no sense in light of the most likely interpretation of it. After all, you didn't say anything complicated, nor anything which is not widely known. Perhaps you could clarify:
What does SpaceX's development process have to do with the bias within the NYT article? What does it have to do with the fact that you misunderstood the post you replied to? What does it have to do with the fact that I pointed this o
Re: (Score:2)
Here. Educate yourself. And apologise.
https://spacenews.com/foust-fo... [spacenews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Here. Educate yourself. And apologise.
https://spacenews.com/foust-fo... [spacenews.com]
What gave you the impression I didn't already know that? Was it when I said "After all you didn't say anything ... which is not widely known"?
That aside I note that you failed to answer my questions.
I'll ask them again:
What does SpaceX's development process have to do with the bias within the NYT article?
What does it have to do with the fact that you misunderstood the post you replied to?
What does it have to do with the fact that I pointed this out to you in my previous post?
And, perhaps, one more:
What do y
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's Dunning-Kruger, folks !
Re: (Score:3)
Catastrophic failure is the technical term for the mode of failure (it made the vehicle completely explode nearly instantly). It's not a value judgement. It's not an implication that anything except the exploding vehicle is doomed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... and the FAA seems to be discovering these problems on a whiteboard. Musk deserves to be arrested for letting these go forward.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if they could spin up the pumps on all three engines and ignite two, then within 100ms or so attempt to light the third if one doesn't light for redundancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe next time: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Maybe next time: (Score:2)
*SN-11 *SN-10
SN-9 crashed already. If SN-10 was parked nearby, the damage is already done. Bettet luck with SN-11, then? *shrug*
not so easy flying a silo... (Score:2)
"...fundamentally broken" (Score:2)
Which ironically mirrors the status of the Starship's software.
Re: (Score:2)
Software is not what causes an engine to blow up on attempting to re-light. Raptor engines have proven finicky so far, lots of static fire issues with lighting them. They are, of course, a novel engine design which is still being developed.
Re: (Score:3)
2. The designers of the software in this case failed to consider that when the Starship suddenly changes attitude the density of the fuel entering the engine has drastically changed.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how shot it is. Maybe it has enough output to run the drive for short periods. You could work around it enough to get data off the drive in small amounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule #2. See Rule #1.
Innovation in rocket science is messy (Score:1)
Re: Innovation in rocket science is messy (Score:3)
You are right that SpaceX made this innovation, but not for Starship. Falcon 9â(TM)s first stage lands with the same Merlin engines that it launches with, and they have perfected the maneuver with that vehicle to the point of it being as mundane as the landing of a 727 jet.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is nice to see that when Musk's engineers finally have to do something new instead of refining 70s tech, it suddenly turns out that all those government engineers weren't morons, rocket science is actually hard.
Re: (Score:1)
Danger? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Musk is speeding right through these no-go's... so the FAA needs to turn this over to the FBI.
Please re-think (Score:2)
We do not need to live in a totalitarian world where everything is illegal and you need government permission slips to do anything; that's the opposite of the nation our founders handed us.
Musk did not endanger ANYBODY with either flight. His flights occurred entirely over land he owns, coastal waters of the US, and possibly (I have seen no telemetry data) international waters - with those waters being cleared of people before the tests.
Frankly, with these conditions, our founders would be astonished that t
Tesla build quality? (Score:2)