https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-rocke ... 29650.html


Wile E. Coyote must have installed some parts from ACME on board...


BN747

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1468685

Might want to post over in the Miltiary Aviation and Space Forum page.

casinterest wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1468685

Might want to post over in the Miltiary Aviation and Space Forum page.

I posted more as kick at Musk's ego than the techological/mechanical short comings...

BN747

BN747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1468685

Might want to post over in the Miltiary Aviation and Space Forum page.

I posted more as kick at Musk's ego than the techological/mechanical short comings...

BN747

Kick at his ego or not, at this point, anyone who believes anything that Musk says about timelines and ease of development can buy some oceanfront property I have for sale in Flagstaff.

So how is this a kick to Musk's ego? It is a development process and the very first launch of this vehicle. Have people not seen how first launches of rockets often go? How many rocket have blown up? This is exciting and incredible and maybe a bit disappointing, but certainly not any kick to anyone ego.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

So how is this a kick to Musk's ego? It is a development process and the very first launch of this vehicle. Have people not seen how first launches of rockets often go? How many rocket have blown up? This is exciting and incredible and maybe a bit disappointing, but certainly not any kick to anyone ego.

Tugg

Musk has a tendency to promise results faster than most, implying and at times outright stating that he has abilities that others don't. Tesla and SpaceX product development timeframes suggest differently.

Go anti woke go boom

luckyone wrote:

Tugger wrote:

So how is this a kick to Musk's ego? It is a development process and the very first launch of this vehicle. Have people not seen how first launches of rockets often go? How many rocket have blown up? This is exciting and incredible and maybe a bit disappointing, but certainly not any kick to anyone ego.

Tugg

Musk has a tendency to promise results faster than most, implying and at times outright stating that he has abilities that others don't. Tesla and SpaceX product development timeframes suggest differently.

Yes he certainly does, he pushes almost any timeline prediction to impossibility. He is known to do this and for this and often follows up with statements indicating he expects a high risk of failure with "firsts" etc. So I don't see how this is any "ego kick" to him. A bit disappointing sure, but you just go on to the next task, adjust your milestone chart and move forward. Ego has little to do with this (even if he is a giant ass with an ego to match).

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Tugger wrote:

So how is this a kick to Musk's ego? It is a development process and the very first launch of this vehicle. Have people not seen how first launches of rockets often go? How many rocket have blown up? This is exciting and incredible and maybe a bit disappointing, but certainly not any kick to anyone ego.

Tugg

Musk has a tendency to promise results faster than most, implying and at times outright stating that he has abilities that others don't. Tesla and SpaceX product development timeframes suggest differently.

Yes he certainly does, he pushes almost any timeline prediction to impossibility. He is known to do this and for this and often follows up with statements indicating he expects a high risk of failure with "firsts" etc. So I don't see how this is any "ego kick" to him. A bit disappointing sure, but you just go on to the next task, adjust your milestone chart and move forward. Ego has little to do with this (even if he is a giant ass with an ego to match).

Tugg

The "ego kick" is because he doesn't have any more special skills than anybody else. His space program is just as prone to developmental challenges engineers have been facing since the '60s.

Tugger wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Tugger wrote:

So how is this a kick to Musk's ego? It is a development process and the very first launch of this vehicle. Have people not seen how first launches of rockets often go? How many rocket have blown up? This is exciting and incredible and maybe a bit disappointing, but certainly not any kick to anyone ego.

Tugg

Musk has a tendency to promise results faster than most, implying and at times outright stating that he has abilities that others don't. Tesla and SpaceX product development timeframes suggest differently.

Yes he certainly does, he pushes almost any timeline prediction to impossibility. He is known to do this and for this and often follows up with statements indicating he expects a high risk of failure with "firsts" etc. So I don't see how this is any "ego kick" to him. A bit disappointing sure, but you just go on to the next task, adjust your milestone chart and move forward. Ego has little to do with this (even if he is a giant ass with an ego to match).

Tugg

All true, but he also didn't look very pleased in the live feed, which got cut rather quickly I might add.

One technical point that was interesting - I immediately noticed when they were waiting for stage separation that the vehicle was losing quite a bit of altitude, 3-5 km in a few seconds. Would this not suggest insufficient velo?

Aaron747 wrote:

One technical point that was interesting - I immediately noticed when they were waiting for stage separation that the vehicle was losing quite a bit of altitude, 3-5 km in a few seconds. Would this not suggest insufficient velo?

Noticed it as well and that was my "uh oh, here comes the RUD" moment. I'm assuming the stage separation and second stage firing was supposed to occur before any altitude loss. But I also thought that the commentators were talking about the booster flip/burnback maneuver beginning before the stage separation--not sure if I misheard or they said some things out of sequence.

I did notice that several first stage engines appeared to be not firing based on the graphic during the livestream. Four or five at various times during the ascent. Whether this contributed to a possible insufficient velocity at staging I have no idea.

Seems clear to this amateur accident investigator that something happened in the leadup to or the staging sequence. Insufficient velocity is certainly a possibility. Will be interesting to see the post-flight analysis.

NASA's comment expressed confidence that this was only a disappointment, and that they are confident in this particular rocket series.

I figured something was odd when they were going for stage separation at 30km. I get it was a test, but that’s beyond low when it comes to anything orbital.

It’s all part of the learning process but still can’t help but be a little disappointed. Seems like clearing the tower was kind of the minimum objective, and while it passed that by a huge margin, it had problems starting at t-0

It’s funny, I know SLS catches a lot of heat (including from myself) but sometimes you can’t help but admire NASA. Everyone else is launching and testing, but only NASA is absolutely nailing it on the first try.

The rocket explodes and the spectators are cheering and applauding? How weird is this?

What did I miss? Or are they all brain washed Elon Musk fanboys?

Looks like SpaceX goes the way of the Russian N1 moon rocket. Bundling so many rocket engines is never a good idea.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

NASA's comment expressed confidence that this was only a disappointment, and that they are confident in this particular rocket series.

One of the interesting things is that NASA needs Starship to work for the HLS portion of Artemis. So there is a bit of a disconnect between NASA saying they are meeting all their milestones, and the schedule to land a test vehicle on the moon by the end of this year.

The rank and file engineers at NASA are pointing out that SpaceX aren't anywhere close to that schedule, and wondering what the outcome will be.

Avatar2go wrote:

One of the interesting things is that NASA needs Starship to work for the HLS portion of Artemis. So there is a bit of a disconnect between NASA saying they are meeting all their milestones, and the schedule to land a test vehicle on the moon by the end of this year.

The rank and file engineers at NASA are pointing out that SpaceX aren't anywhere close to that schedule, and wondering what the outcome will be.

So in other words just like every program NASA has. This an issue this one time why?

Tugg

FGITD wrote:

I figured something was odd when they were going for stage separation at 30km. I get it was a test, but that’s beyond low when it comes to anything orbital.

It’s all part of the learning process but still can’t help but be a little disappointed. Seems like clearing the tower was kind of the minimum objective, and while it passed that by a huge margin, it had problems starting at t-0

It’s funny, I know SLS catches a lot of heat (including from myself) but sometimes you can’t help but admire NASA. Everyone else is launching and testing, but only NASA is absolutely nailing it on the first try.

SpaceX and NASA are held to different standards by the public. SpaceX gets a lot of slack because of the success of the Falcon program. Most people don't know how large a role NASA played in that, both in terms of technical advice and funding.

The other thing is that Starship is enormously more challenging than Falcon was. Most people believe Musk when he says he's going to Mars in it, and expect the same outcome as Falcon. But the real challenges of making it work, at all, were on display today. That's why Musk began lowering expectations dramatically. There's a huge difference between the hype and reality. But people get addicted to the hype, unfortunately.

The fact that Musk wants to develop Starship is great, I just wish he would represent it truthfully. He did in the last few days, but he soon be back on the hype train, with the public following along.

Tugger wrote:

So in other words just like every program NASA has. This an issue this one time why?

This is where the hype comes into play. The SLS design was always a feasible program, but ran into quality and technical issues that had to be resolved.

There are questions about whether Starship, in it's beyond Earth orbit role, is a feasible program. It's hard to judge because they are iterating so heavily on HLS. Every week, they come in with new changes, and there is no prototype because the design is still changing too fast. NASA works for a week, then starts over the next week, to analyze and understand their design. After two years of that, they are beginning to wonder. How close really, was SpaceX to being able to build their proposal?

Most of the challenges, such as orbital refueling and closing the mass & propellent case, are still ahead. HLS is shrinking in size and mass, and the separate propellent launches are increasing. Musk has said publicly it could be done with as little as 4 launches, although the proposed case was 14. That has now grown to 16. Although that could all change again in future weeks.

I know that GAO has taken an interest in this as well, I've heard they are interviewing and asking questions of the NASA engineers. That's why I think it will be interesting to see how that all gets reconciled.

The best thing, I think, would be to bring the hype in line with the reality, so people have a clear understanding of what is needed going forward. Neither HLS nor Starship is anywhere near the maturity of SLS. They have yet to get to the challenges that SLS faced. So it's really a different kind of problem.

Heinkel wrote:

The rocket explodes and the spectators are cheering and applauding? How weird is this?

What did I miss? Or are they all brain washed Elon Musk fanboys?

Looks like SpaceX goes the way of the Russian N1 moon rocket. Bundling so many rocket engines is never a good idea.

No, they were mostly Space X employees and their friends and family.
Not like an N1 either, remotely, here is an general news report, with some context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImTbS6vU4GU

You might not have noticed but we are coming up on 3 years since a Space X rocket and capsule, yes with NASA help and some funding, restored US access to the ISS. Has operated ever since and not just for ISS flights.
Boeing's one, with the same NASA support, yet to even fly a test crew, huge delays, from the opposite of a start up in this business.
Space X dominate the commercial launch business, having already reduced launch costs and this has driven a host of others.

Starship, the Super Heavy, will take a lot of testing and a lot of failures, still it is not quite 6 years since Musk unveiled the idea of what was then the BFR, if we are talking timescales. He does it to drive things along, those bold timescales, 'Elon Time' is well known and accepted for what it is.
A rather less extreme design, itself with many iterations, not least in the structure of it's primary material, has just lifted off for the first time. Powerpoint to first flight attempt, which announced in August 2017.

Besides, for the the bold ideas, showmanship, claims, a Ms Shotwell, with Space X since the start, really runs the show. No car or worse social media distractions.

Aaron747 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Musk has a tendency to promise results faster than most, implying and at times outright stating that he has abilities that others don't. Tesla and SpaceX product development timeframes suggest differently.

Yes he certainly does, he pushes almost any timeline prediction to impossibility. He is known to do this and for this and often follows up with statements indicating he expects a high risk of failure with "firsts" etc. So I don't see how this is any "ego kick" to him. A bit disappointing sure, but you just go on to the next task, adjust your milestone chart and move forward. Ego has little to do with this (even if he is a giant ass with an ego to match).

Tugg

All true, but he also didn't look very pleased in the live feed, which got cut rather quickly I might add.

One technical point that was interesting - I immediately noticed when they were waiting for stage separation that the vehicle was losing quite a bit of altitude, 3-5 km in a few seconds. Would this not suggest insufficient velo?

There are some tweets and analysis of launch videos that appear to show the hydraulic power units both failing/exploding during ascent. Those units control the thrust-vectoring of the engines (and thus directional control). Shortly afterwards, the rocket started it's tumbling. Loss of hydraulic power could also have de-activated the hooks that attach the first and second stages, making separation impossible. Overall, this was a truly historic test.

The fact that largest and most powerful rocket ever built, using 33 of the most sophisticated rocket engines ever built (full-flow staged combustion Methalox) reached an airspeed of 2100 km/hr (Mach 2) and 40km in altitude on it's first flight is remarkable, regardless of the lofty mission goals.

This was the first time the booster and ground launch equipment (Stage 0) had ever attempted a real flight. Lots of things to be optimistic about...first they have 3 more Starships/boosters nearly-ready to fly, they learned alot about fixes that are needed to the ground equipment to launch successfully (flame trench/water deluge anyone?), and the next prototypes of Starship will use electrical motors instead of hydraulics for thrust vectoring (which may already eliminate the cause of today's abort).

GDB wrote:

You might not have noticed but we are coming up on 3 years since a Space X rocket and capsule, yes with NASA help and some funding, restored US access to the ISS. Has operated ever since and not just for ISS flights.
Boeing's one, with the same NASA support, yet to even fly a test crew, huge delays, from the opposite of a start up in this business.
Space X dominate the commercial launch business, having already reduced launch costs and this has driven a host of others.

So in fairness, while Boeing did initially mess up with Starliner, they have both struggled to get a berth at ISS due to launch schedule congestion, and to have NASA apply the same expediency of approval that they did to Crew Dragon. The circumstances are of course different, NASA desperately needed a human rated American launch vehicle then. They can take their time with Starliner now. These have been frustrations for Boeing, but the priorities are what they are. It's the consequence of being second.

Also as far as the launch tonnage and market, it's important to realize SpaceX has given itself all the Starlink missions. And that represents the majority of both launches and tonnage. As Vulcan and other new rockets come online, that percentage will change dramatically.

Lastly as I noted in comments above, there is really no similarity between the Starship program and Falcon program, other than they are both reusable. Falcon was quite conservative, in comparison to Starship. People have the same development expectations for Starship as for Falcon, but that's not realistic.

To be clear, I see no reason why Starship will not eventually succeed in the reusable LEO delivery mission. It should do that quite well. The BEO missions still have a lot of uncertainty, and will take longer to accomplish.

Heinkel wrote:

The rocket explodes and the spectators are cheering and applauding? How weird is this?

What did I miss? Or are they all brain washed Elon Musk fanboys?

Looks like SpaceX goes the way of the Russian N1 moon rocket. Bundling so many rocket engines is never a good idea.

That’s the Agile Methodology applied to space exploration.

Build, test, fail, learn and start again.

And with Cargo/Crew Dragon they demonstrated they were damn effective in bringing back astronauts into ISS.

Today’s failure is just part of the process and I’m pretty confident that Starship will eventually become a successful product as well.

Heinkel wrote:

The rocket explodes and the spectators are cheering and applauding? How weird is this?

What did I miss? Or are they all brain washed Elon Musk fanboys?

Looks like SpaceX goes the way of the Russian N1 moon rocket. Bundling so many rocket engines is never a good idea.

You missed the part where that was not an explosive failure of the vehicle, but rather the Flight Termination System working as designed. The employees were cheering because even though there were issues with the launch, there was a whole lot that went correctly. This happens at EVERY rocket manufacturer.

meecrob wrote:

You missed the part where that was not an explosive failure of the vehicle, but rather the Flight Termination System working as designed. The employees were cheering because even though there were issues with the launch, there was a whole lot that went correctly. This happens at EVERY rocket manufacturer.

Well, if they hadn't triggered the FTS, the rocket would've exploded by itself fairly soon anyway when inevitably hitting the ground after losing control.
But yes, at least that part worked.

The SpaceX Starship test flight was intentionally terminated when the first stage failed to separate. Hence the "explosion."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAl3gVvMNNM

I was listening in on a chat after the launch -- I have no idea how qualified the participants were, but it was an interesting listen. There was a large amount of damage to the launch site -- big chunks of concrete tossed about. The tank farm was badly damaged and kept the access road closed.

In reviewing the launch footage, they identified a number of debris hits against the ship as it rose. The hydraulic power plants that steer the engines were badly damaged. It appears that there may have been some fuel tanks punctured. Perhaps some raptors were also damaged by the debris. A very badly damaged ship still manage to climb out -- a testament I suppose to its design.

If all true, the irony is that the ship was probably capable of completing more of its mission, but indirectly damaged itself by generating all of that flying debris. The failure may have been more on the launch facility than the rocket itself. Doubly ironic since the minimal goal as stated was not not damage the launch site -- instead they have a damaged launch site and a flight that could have been more productive if the launch site were more resilient.

NoWorries wrote:

I was listening in on a chat after the launch -- I have no idea how qualified the participants were, but it was an interesting listen. There was a large amount of damage to the launch site -- big chunks of concrete tossed about. The tank farm was badly damaged and kept the access road closed.

In reviewing the launch footage, they identified a number of debris hits against the ship as it rose. The hydraulic power plants that steer the engines were badly damaged. It appears that there may have been some fuel tanks punctured. Perhaps some raptors were also damaged by the debris. A very badly damaged ship still manage to climb out -- a testament I suppose to its design.

If all true, the irony is that the ship was probably capable of completing more of its mission, but indirectly damaged itself by generating all of that flying debris. The failure may have been more on the launch facility than the rocket itself. Doubly ironic since the minimal goal as stated was not not damage the launch site -- instead they have a damaged launch site and a flight that could have been more productive if the launch site were more resilient.

They probably thought launch site damage was inevitable. They won’t admit it, but they know thet need a flame trench/diverter and water deluge system and they let the rocket excavate in 10 seconds what would take a demo team a week or more to do.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the only issue was flying debris. That was a major problem as noted, and the launch pad system will have to be redesigned. But Raptors continued to drop out throughout the flight.

The autogenous pressurization system appeared to have an issue at lift-off, as the booster vented extensively. It was slow to develop thrust and lift off, and there was a sideways drift with considerable tilt. And the interstage may have had a buckling issue (or perhaps just got dented).

That's just for the booster. There was no real test of the Starship second stage, except some of the thermal protection tiles came off (which was expected).

All these problems may be interrelated. We really need the analysis to understand the sequence. I'm hopeful that SpaceX will be open and forthcoming about problems, as NASA is. But they have no obligation to be, as a private company.

We'll have to wait for the full report for conclusions on what happened but I just can't see how a lot of the failures in the systems wasn't directly attributable to the massive amount of debris that was thrown up from the launch pad underneath.

Like said, I feel it is bordering on gross negligence what they did with the launch base design. I get the idea to go lean and be iterative, but this is known thermodynamic effects. Concrete, heat, pressure, limited spaces etc. So the only way they "didn't know" was by ignoring time tested (aka previous history) launch pad design criteria. Essentially deciding every other heavy rocket launch pad design didn't know what they were doing.

I am thinking they might just have to dissemble the launch tower to fix the pad. Hopefully not and they can just redesign, excavate and rebuild the pad area itself to incorporate a true flame trench.

Tugg

The most recent assessment is that the foundation of the launch mount was blown out, stripped down to the rebar, to a depth of 40 feet. The inside of the launch mount was fried by the heat and was effectively destroyed. It's not considered safe as the structural properties of the steel are likely to have been compromised.

The current plan is to transport the mount that was being built for KSC, to Boca Chica. But it weighs 2 million pounds and is a questionable proposition to transport.

Elon has also claimed there is a water-cooled steel plate under construction, to be fixed below the mount, to protect the foundation. It wasn't ready in time for this launch. He prefers that solution to a flame trench.

SpaceX has not yet addressed whether the new mount could survive more than one launch. And of course, the usual disclaimer is in order, that all of this could change tomorrow. Elon tweets tend to be more like a stream of consciousness than reliable predictive statements.

I suspect that if SpaceX can find any way to salvage and repair the existing mount, they will. I take comfort in the fact that the FAA will review all this carefully, before they authorize another launch.

Avatar2go wrote:

I take comfort in the fact that the FAA will review all this carefully, before they authorize another launch.

Very very scary. They don't need a bunch of career civil servants who know nothing about launching an 18 million pound thrust rocket gumming up the works. That's the absolute last thing they need.

bobinthecar wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I take comfort in the fact that the FAA will review all this carefully, before they authorize another launch.

Very very scary. They don't need a bunch of career civil servants who know nothing about launching an 18 million pound thrust rocket gumming up the works. That's the absolute last thing they need.

I think the influence of the FAA (as well as the range safety office) was evident in that no one was injured, and the vehicles were both safely destroyed and disposed.

This despite the fact that the launch destroyed or damaged the mount, the pad, the tank farm, surrounding structures and objects, and the roadways, which were cratered and won't open until tomorrow.

The FAA will be trying to ensure that none of that happens in future launches, before they authorize another.

FGITD wrote:

I figured something was odd when they were going for stage separation at 30km. I get it was a test, but that’s beyond low when it comes to anything orbital.

It’s all part of the learning process but still can’t help but be a little disappointed. Seems like clearing the tower was kind of the minimum objective, and while it passed that by a huge margin, it had problems starting at t-0

It’s funny, I know SLS catches a lot of heat (including from myself) but sometimes you can’t help but admire NASA. Everyone else is launching and testing, but only NASA is absolutely nailing it on the first try.

SLS is also using engines from the Space Shuttle that went through their growing pains 40+ years ago.

The most impressive thing NASA has done to date is the first flight of the Space Shuttle being manned and not having any major issue and safety launching and landing.

bobinthecar wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I take comfort in the fact that the FAA will review all this carefully, before they authorize another launch.

Very very scary. They don't need a bunch of career civil servants who know nothing about launching an 18 million pound thrust rocket gumming up the works. That's the absolute last thing they need.

Wait... so who are you thinking DOES know about launching an 18 million pound thrust rocket? To my knowledge this was the first such launch, so everyone is coming from "knowing nothing" and learning. SpaceX knows about the rocket's design and engineering, and NASA has the extensive knowledge built on experience of launch platforms and systems that SpaceX does not. And together they are experiencing, reviewing, discussing and learning.

Tugg

planecane wrote:

The most impressive thing NASA has done to date is the first flight of the Space Shuttle being manned and not having any major issue and safety launching and landing.

The thing is, that event is viewed at NASA today as a cringe-worthy moment. Bob Crippen put the odds at 50/50 they would return. And they had a few near misses in that mission.

The modern risk assessment methods NASA uses today, put the STS-1 accident risk at 1:10. It was equivalent in risk to Apollo 11 landing on the moon.

NASA has moved beyond that way of thinking, driven mostly by the Challenger and Columbia accidents. By the end of the shuttle era, they had developed risk models that correctly predicted the overall shuttle program accident risk as about 1:65. The very last flights were about 1:95. So although they improved the risk by a factor of 10, it still wasn't enough to continue the program.

Today, for SLS/Orion, the allowable risk is about 1:250 for near-Earth operations, and about 1:100 for cislunar operations. Commercial crew, which is LEO only, is 1:270. When the moon landings occur, they will be about 1:75, or about 7 times better than Apollo. The main risk factor for the moon is distance and time from resources. That's why Gateway will be very useful, it will help to lower lunar risks.

One of the concerns NASA has about SpaceX, is that Elon has an Apollo-era view of development, that safety is established by experience. While there is certainly value in experience, most industries have moved away from that to statistical methods which can accurately predict risk. It doesn't replace testing, but it makes testing more valuable in validating the models, which are then widely applicable.

For NASA projects like commercial crew, NASA can dictate those models and require compliance. That has helped Falcon to attain a human rating, that is quite reliable. Starship is a quasi-NASA project, with NASA being mainly concerned with HLS, but keeping an eye on Starship as the launch vehicle. Since HLS won't carry people at launch, it doesn't need a human rating for that phase of flight.

Avatar2go wrote:

planecane wrote:

The most impressive thing NASA has done to date is the first flight of the Space Shuttle being manned and not having any major issue and safety launching and landing.

The thing is, that event is viewed at NASA today as a cringe-worthy moment. Bob Crippen put the odds at 50/50 they would return. And they had a few near misses in that mission.

The modern risk assessment methods NASA uses today, put the STS-1 accident risk at 1:10. It was equivalent in risk to Apollo 11 landing on the moon.

NASA has moved beyond that way of thinking, driven mostly by the Challenger and Columbia accidents. By the end of the shuttle era, they had developed risk models that correctly predicted the overall shuttle program accident risk as about 1:65. The very last flights were about 1:95. So although they improved the risk by a factor of 10, it still wasn't enough to continue the program.

Today, for SLS/Orion, the allowable risk is about 1:250 for near-Earth operations, and about 1:100 for cislunar operations. Commercial crew, which is LEO only, is 1:270. When the moon landings occur, they will be about 1:75, or about 7 times better than Apollo. The main risk factor for the moon is distance and time from resources. That's why Gateway will be very useful, it will help to lower lunar risks.

One of the concerns NASA has about SpaceX, is that Elon has an Apollo-era view of development, that safety is established by experience. While there is certainly value in experience, most industries have moved away from that to statistical methods which can accurately predict risk. It doesn't replace testing, but it makes testing more valuable in validating the models, which are then widely applicable.

For NASA projects like commercial crew, NASA can dictate those models and require compliance. That has helped Falcon to attain a human rating, that is quite reliable. Starship is a quasi-NASA project, with NASA being mainly concerned with HLS, but keeping an eye on Starship as the launch vehicle. Since HLS won't carry people at launch, it doesn't need a human rating for that phase of flight.

The shuttle program would have probably continued with some modifications if the launches didn't cost so much. With respect to Elon's risk tolerance and development philosophy, as long as the high risk missions and iterative development are done with uncrewed spacecraft then the method is fine. After the design is worked out and reliable they can work on human rating. Falcon was developed in much the same way.

The biggest thing that makes current craft far less risky than the space shuttle is the launch escape system for the capsules. I haven't seen any details on how such a system will be integrated into starship. All of the renderings I've seen have the crew cabin integrated into the second stage, similar to the shuttle.

bobinthecar wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I take comfort in the fact that the FAA will review all this carefully, before they authorize another launch.

Very very scary. They don't need a bunch of career civil servants who know nothing about launching an 18 million pound thrust rocket gumming up the works. That's the absolute last thing they need.

You're making two completely unjustified assumptions: one, that the FAA people involved are career civil servants, and two, that career civil servants are clueless / useless. There are some 2 million people in the US federal government, excluding military and the USPS, and yes, some will be obstructive clock-watchers. Those people will tend to migrate to non-technical positions where they can watch the clock without being bothered. Then you have those who have technical competence and are genuinely committed to trying to balance safety and progress.

Imagining that the federal government is one big faceless incompetent thing is easy and fun. It's also extremely foolish.

planecane wrote:

The shuttle program would have probably continued with some modifications if the launches didn't cost so much. With respect to Elon's risk tolerance and development philosophy, as long as the high risk missions and iterative development are done with uncrewed spacecraft then the method is fine. After the design is worked out and reliable they can work on human rating. Falcon was developed in much the same way.

The biggest thing that makes current craft far less risky than the space shuttle is the launch escape system for the capsules. I haven't seen any details on how such a system will be integrated into starship. All of the renderings I've seen have the crew cabin integrated into the second stage, similar to the shuttle.

It's true that the shuttle had economic troubles and would never meet it's original goals. But the reason it was stopped, was because the risk assessment had maxed out at about 1:100, and it still had black zones on ascent where there was no recovery or abort option. That is not allowed today, every phase of flight must have a safe recovery option.

It's also true that the launch abort system eliminates the ascent black zones, and that is an important contribution to safety. But it is far, far from the only one. The probability risk assessment method is applied to everything, from the very beginning of design.

In fact the benefit of that method is you can predict the risk of the design, during the design, and remove it. Thus the risk never manifests at all. That's not something you can tack on, after the fact. This is the concern that NASA has. Some risks are engineered into the design. That was the issue with shuttle as well.

The goal of safety is specifically not to do that. We just had an excellent demonstration of what happens when you do.

With regard to Falcon, I made two important points in earlier posts:

1. Starship is not Falcon. Anyone who thinks they are similar or are on the same development path, is deluding themselves.

2. NASA assisted substantially in the development of Falcon, both monetarily and technically. And it was a far more conservative design. What SpaceX did, was take existing technology, and develop within it the boost-back reusability that we see today. That was a very important contribution, and it lowered the cost of access to space. But Starship is far more ambitious, and many of the concepts remain unproven.

Avatar2go wrote:

It's true that the shuttle had economic troubles and would never meet it's original goals. But the reason it was stopped, was because the risk assessment had maxed out at about 1:100, and it still had black zones on ascent where there was no recovery or abort option. That is not allowed today, every phase of flight must have a safe recovery option.

It's also true that the launch abort system eliminates the ascent black zones, and that is an important contribution to safety. But it is far, far from the only one. The probability risk assessment method is applied to everything, from the very beginning of design.

In fact the benefit of that method is you can predict the risk of the design, during the design, and remove it. Thus the risk never manifests at all. That's not something you can tack on, after the fact. This is the concern that NASA has. Some risks are engineered into the design. That was the issue with shuttle as well.

The goal of safety is specifically not to do that. We just had an excellent demonstration of what happens when you do.

We don't know what we had a demonstration of until SpaceX engineers root cause the failure and make the root cause public. Had there been a Launch Escape System and had it been a manned launch the crew would have survived. There was no catastrophic destruction of the craft until it was destroyed on purpose.

The issue with the shuttle is that risks that were engineered in were mostly due to political decisions. The use of SRBs was to give a contract to Morton Thiokol and to pretend that the first stage was a reusable rocket since nobody back then could envision a way to recover and reuse liquid rockets. Dunking them in salt water wasn't going to lead to engine reliability. Had proper pre-launch risk assessment been done or had the joint seals been designed well then Challenger wouldn't have happened. Had they not removed CFCs from the external tank foam application process, Columbia probably would not have happened.

Some of the launch black zones would have existed even had they used liquid boosters because very few engineers actually think the RTLS abort maneuver would have worked. The aborts across the Atlantic or the Abort Once Around were the only realistic ascent abort modes.

Starship doesn't have any design components that are designed the way they are due to politics. Nor does SpaceX have the inability to make major changes to improve safety and reliability. In my opinion, the biggest risk is the sheer number of first stage engines that have to function properly to have a successful launch.

planecane wrote:

Starship doesn't have any design components that are designed the way they are due to politics. Nor does SpaceX have the inability to make major changes to improve safety and reliability. In my opinion, the biggest risk is the sheer number of first stage engines that have to function properly to have a successful launch.

Starship lacks a launch abort system, though, and I'm not sure how or where you could add one. Just like the space shuttle, it's a large, heavy ship. Its inertia makes it challenging to gain separation quickly from a malfunctioning first stage. Additionally, the stage separation currently relies on a working booster.

I agree that politics play a minor role in Starship's design, well, aside of whatever ideas Musk wants to see realized, but at the same time, certifiability doesn't seem to play a major role either. At this point, it's basically a tech demo to prove that such a vehicle can work.

NASA is smart to keep Artemis as their primary crewed launch vehicle to the moon (or beyond), and to rely on Starship for cargo transport and lunar landing only. You might not be able to get the full rocket crew-certified, but Starship on its own could have a chance.

planecane wrote:

.
We don't know what we had a demonstration of until SpaceX engineers root cause the failure and make the root cause public. Had there been a Launch Escape System and had it been a manned launch the crew would have survived. There was no catastrophic destruction of the craft until it was destroyed on purpose.

The issue with the shuttle is that risks that were engineered in were mostly due to political decisions. The use of SRBs was to give a contract to Morton Thiokol and to pretend that the first stage was a reusable rocket since nobody back then could envision a way to recover and reuse liquid rockets. Dunking them in salt water wasn't going to lead to engine reliability. Had proper pre-launch risk assessment been done or had the joint seals been designed well then Challenger wouldn't have happened. Had they not removed CFCs from the external tank foam application process, Columbia probably would not have happened.

Some of the launch black zones would have existed even had they used liquid boosters because very few engineers actually think the RTLS abort maneuver would have worked. The aborts across the Atlantic or the Abort Once Around were the only realistic ascent abort modes.

Starship doesn't have any design components that are designed the way they are due to politics. Nor does SpaceX have the inability to make major changes to improve safety and reliability. In my opinion, the biggest risk is the sheer number of first stage engines that have to function properly to have a successful launch.

Very frankly, this way of thinking, and revision of history, will get people killed. It is exactly what NASA fears.

It's a complete regression of the progress and learning that's been made within safety culture over the last two decades. It clings to the same narratives that resulted in the loss of NASA astronauts.

There was no catastrophic destruction of the craft until it was destroyed on purpose.

The Starship flight was doomed from the moment the engines ignited, for a multitude of reasons. To say there was no failure until the FTS, is beyond comprehension. You are defending the indefensible here.

The issue with the shuttle is that risks that were engineered in were mostly due to political decisions. The use of SRBs was to give a contract to Morton Thiokol and to pretend that the first stage was a reusable rocket since nobody back then could envision a way to recover and reuse liquid rockets. Had proper pre-launch risk assessment been done or had the joint seals been designed well then Challenger wouldn't have happened. Had they not removed CFCs from the external tank foam application process, Columbia probably would not have happened.

This is a bullshit narrative that is clearly refuted by the Rogers Commission report. There was no allegation whatsoever, that politics were involved. The joint had an issue that was waived for a few seconds at launch, but the waiver was then used to cover blowby which occurred later in flight. A new joint had already been designed and tested, when the Challenger accident occurred. And the fatal decision was the joint being used at or below the limit of its design temperature range. Despite warnings that it might fail.

The risk assessments of that era, which Starship is again emulating, were inadequate. Had today's modern risk assessments been in place, that flight would never have occured. It had nothing whatever to do with liquid rockets.

Same is true for Columbia. Even after the accident, there was disbelief that foam could penetrate the reinforced carbon composite leading edge of the wing. It wasn't believed until it was demonstrated in a test. Today, that test would be required to develop the statistical risk assessment.

Starship doesn't have any design components that are designed the way they are due to politics. Nor does SpaceX have the inability to make major changes to improve safety and reliability.

Starship already has major risk factors integrated into it's design. That is the point I'm trying to get across to you. And they cannot be engineered out, without significant redesign. That is already evident in the pad and mount structures. If you think it's not evident in Starship as well, you are naive.

Avatar2go wrote:

Starship already has major risk factors integrated into it's design. That is the point I'm trying to get across to you. And they cannot be engineered out, without significant redesign. That is already evident in the pad and mount structures. If you think it's not evident in Starship as well, you are naive.

What risk factors are integrated to the point that redesigns can't be implemented that reduce the risk? Sure some weight might need to be added but, for example, a redundant separation system controlled by the 2nd stage could be added to eliminate the branch of the fault tree that the 1st stage controls separation.

Changes can be (and I'm sure will be) made to the launch pad so that the rocket doesn't drill a crater into the ground on liftoff.

What I'm saying is that significant redesign is allowed under the SpaceX development philosophy and method. In a way it is planned for in the way they do their process.

It might be too expensive to get it human rated but it can still achieve the goal of significantly lowering the cost of putting satellites in LEO. It can also be used to send things to the moon or Mars to support the missions while another craft carries the crew.

luckyone wrote:

Musk has a tendency to promise results faster than most, implying and at times outright stating that he has abilities that others don't. Tesla and SpaceX product development timeframes suggest differently.

SpaceX does have abilities that other's don't, such as manned and unmanned flight to the ISS and reusable boosters. I get it that Musk over-promises, but also I wouldn't slight the accomplishments like many here are doing.

Heinkel wrote:

Looks like SpaceX goes the way of the Russian N1 moon rocket. Bundling so many rocket engines is never a good idea.

Lots of things the Soviet space program did were good ideas, such as full-flow staged combustion. N1 was a good idea but was very limited in terms of time and resources.

Avatar2go wrote:

The fact that Musk wants to develop Starship is great, I just wish he would represent it truthfully. He did in the last few days, but he soon be back on the hype train, with the public following along.

You're fighting a losing battle. Hype is part of the package, it won't be going away.

Avatar2go wrote:

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the only issue was flying debris. That was a major problem as noted, and the launch pad system will have to be redesigned. But Raptors continued to drop out throughout the flight.

The autogenous pressurization system appeared to have an issue at lift-off, as the booster vented extensively. It was slow to develop thrust and lift off, and there was a sideways drift with considerable tilt. And the interstage may have had a buckling issue (or perhaps just got dented).

That's just for the booster. There was no real test of the Starship second stage, except some of the thermal protection tiles came off (which was expected).

All these problems may be interrelated. We really need the analysis to understand the sequence. I'm hopeful that SpaceX will be open and forthcoming about problems, as NASA is. But they have no obligation to be, as a private company.

Did you honestly expect the opposite, a flight where no Raptors would drop out, no problems with pressurization, no issues with buckling, no issues with the launch pad being destroyed?

I listened to Everyday Astronaut's pre-launch audio, and he made it really clear that these kinds of things were to be expected. While the best case would end up with Starship in orbit, no one said this was the final object. In fact there are three more follow-ons already in construction which proves they knew this was just one step in a long line of test flights.

If your expectations were shaped by projection against NASA Artemis goals, then IMO it does make it fair to start bringing in how long SLS has faffed about, how Starliner is now six years behind schedule, how Boeing was test-flying their projected Starliner final object twice and they failed, etc.

The debate over redesigns is pretty simple. SpaceX is private, and they’re spending their own money. Musk could trot out tomorrow and say that starship was a dumb idea, big miscalculation and going forward they’re designing something new.

It wouldn’t be great, but it’s not like NASA where it would have major ripples through Congress and with contracts already being signed etc.

I have to agree, starship is an inherently risky design. There’s no escape tower or abort, so it’s along for the ride. And likewise the bellyflop flip landing is just simply more dangerous than coming back down vertically or horizontally. Simply put…there’s a pretty good reason none of these ideas have ever been tried before. Not to say it’s a bad idea, but it’s just very new territory.

My personal “frustration” with them is that they seem to be running the same “oh that won’t happen to us even though it’s happened to everyone else” startup mentality. 30+ engines on a booster has been tried. They failed. No flame trench or deluge? Also led to failure. They’re going for something revolutionary and along the way seem to be missing steps that have already been tried and tested

FGITD wrote:

My personal “frustration” with them is that they seem to be running the same “oh that won’t happen to us even though it’s happened to everyone else” startup mentality. 30+ engines on a booster has been tried. They failed. No flame trench or deluge? Also led to failure. They’re going for something revolutionary and along the way seem to be missing steps that have already been tried and tested

This is exactly it. SpaceX advocates will always say, they need to test to find problems. But as you pointed out, they are finding problems that others have already found and solved. That is what happened last week.

As I noted, NASA has moved on from that approach some time ago. They no longer try to get systems to work, then address safety and reliability as add-on features. We have tools now to eliminate risk & build safety into the design from the very beginning. This is why the first Artemis flight was so successful.

What stumps me completely, is that Elon is supposed to be a visionary that is ahead of the pack. But in this approach, he is well behind. I know of no industry that is not actively embracing the newer tools and methods. It's well recognized that safety culture results in lower costs, better environments, and better products.

Yet Elon is out in the weeds, claiming that he can do better with rapid iteration and addressing problems as they arise. And even more unbelievably, people accept this because of his other technical successes.

The Starship launch should be a clear indicator of the problems with that approach. Most of the destruction was completely predictable and needless. There is a lack of design and implementation maturity that is plainly evident. It's worrisome as to what that means for HLS. I think if that continues, there will be a collision between SpaceX and NASA.

Revelation wrote:

Did you honestly expect the opposite, a flight where no Raptors would drop out, no problems with pressurization, no issues with buckling, no issues with the launch pad being destroyed?

In a word, yes. I expected to see the operation we were led to believe will launch an uncrewed mission to the Moon by the end of the year. And that ground systems would be designed for the anticipated launch loads.

I did not expect a perfect flight. Other recent new rockets have had problems with second stage operations. That is understandable because they can't be tested on the ground. First stage problems are less common, because they can be thoroughly tested on the ground. SpaceX chose not to do that, which created elevated risk, that we saw manifested during the flight.

I listened to Everyday Astronaut's pre-launch audio, and he made it really clear that these kinds of things were to be expected. While the best case would end up with Starship in orbit, no one said this was the final object. In fact there are three more follow-ons already in construction which proves they knew this was just one step in a long line of test flights.

Tim Dodd has been offered a seat on the first non-NASA Starship flight to the moon. I watched him gush about the program, and then wondered about his response to the failure. If that was my seat, I'd be concerned. But Tim is an enthusiastic guy, so lord bless him and his unbridled admiration of Elon.

If your expectations were shaped by projection against NASA Artemis goals, then IMO it does make it fair to start bringing in how long SLS has faffed about, how Starliner is now six years behind schedule, how Boeing was test-flying their projected Starliner final object twice and they failed, etc.

I'd point out the vast difference in the types of problems encountered by these programs. SLS ran into delays related to the state of technology. They were not inherent to the design, which did not change. The technology was instead improved, which took some time.

Starliner too, has a mature and stable design. There were quality problems in the software, but notably the first mission completed safely with loss only of a mission objective. Then the valve problems were a moisture issue, which was again quality control in subjecting the vehicle to high humidity after the oxidizer was loaded.

The Starliner second flight also was a full mission success, finding very few issues. The delays since then have been due to scheduling and certification by NASA and ASAP.

That Boeing has struggled with quality control, is well known. But those issues are not comparable to what we saw last week with Starship.

Lastly it's notable that even with a successful flight, NASA has still put Starliner through a rigorous post-flight process of continuing certification. And that has taken time, more than a year. As NASA says, we fly when we are ready. In a nutshell, Starship was not really ready last week.

Avatar2go wrote:

This is exactly it. SpaceX advocates will always say, they need to test to find problems. But as you pointed out, they are finding problems that others have already found and solved. That is what happened last week.

As I noted, NASA has moved on from that approach some time ago. They no longer try to get systems to work, then address safety and reliability as add-on features. We have tools now to eliminate risk & build safety into the design from the very beginning. This is why the first Artemis flight was so successful.

What stumps me completely, is that Elon is supposed to be a visionary that is ahead of the pack. But in this approach, he is well behind. I know of no industry that is not actively embracing the newer tools and methods. It's well recognized that safety culture results in lower costs, better environments, and better products.

Yet Elon is out in the weeds, claiming that he can do better with rapid iteration and addressing problems as they arise. And even more unbelievably, people accept this because of his other technical successes.

The Starship launch should be a clear indicator of the problems with that approach. Most of the destruction was completely predictable and needless. There is a lack of design and implementation maturity that is plainly evident. It's worrisome as to what that means for HLS. I think if that continues, there will be a collision between SpaceX and NASA.

I agree on the worry for HLS. It’s all good and fun for them to blow up their own ships, but NASA needs this thing to work sooner rather than later. Perhaps in hindsight, having Blue Origin work something up wasn’t the worst idea.

One further note on the readiness of starship…it also is worth mentioning that they had also never successfully managed a full 33 engine static fire. So even under the best circumstances, they still couldn’t get everything going as it should. I get this is now an older iteration of starship, but it really does beg the question. What exactly were they testing?

SpaceX already knew the concrete would get destroyed after they did the static fire. This is why a complex water system is already being developed.

Also the second booster already has shielding and a more robust thrust vectoring system that solves the problems that occurred with the first test launch.

From my understanding the first booster and starship was worthy of being recycled but they decided to launch it to collect data despite a very low probability of full flight success. In hindsight they probably wish they waited until the water cooling is added to the launch pad and they launched the second booster that is already waiting.

The pad damage was higher than expected. The engine failures would have been fine providing starship separated. Even at the much lower altitude and speed starship could have put a lot of heat into the shield and probably still made it above 100km. The launch probably wasn't far off being mildly successful.

Regarding the moon. I found is unusual how the lander and the humans launch separately. I also found it unusual that such a huge moon lander was selected. I would have thought an Apollo style disposable lander could easily have launched on a Falcon Heavy rocket.

RJMAZ wrote:

SpaceX already knew the concrete would get destroyed after they did the static fire. This is why a complex water system is already being developed.

Also the second booster already has shielding and a more robust thrust vectoring system that solves the problems that occurred with the first test launch.

From my understanding the first booster and starship was worthy of being recycled but they decided to launch it to collect data despite a very low probability of full flight success. In hindsight they probably wish they waited until the water cooling is added to the launch pad and they launched the second booster that is already waiting.

The pad damage was higher than expected. The engine failures would have been fine providing starship separated. Even at the much lower altitude and speed starship could have put a lot of heat into the shield and probably still made it above 100km. The launch probably wasn't far off being mildly successful.

Regarding the moon. I found is unusual how the lander and the humans launch separately. I also found it unusual that such a huge moon lander was selected. I would have thought an Apollo style disposable lander could easily have launched on a Falcon Heavy rocket.

It would have to be a pretty small lander to fit into the limited width of the the FH fairing.
In 2018, Blue Origin unveiled a concept for a multi purpose lander for Lunar payloads.
Ready to be corrected if it would be possible to send say one to land with a shelter as payload, then later one with a more austere module, with just one use, a ferry to and from the surface with an ascent stage.

Not a new idea, there were proposals to a LM Shelter, without an ascent stage, more internal volume, airlock and the ability to support missions of up to two weeks, with two astronauts.
With a LM Taxi, one delivered to the surface on one launch, the CSM and LM Taxi being launched later.
This did not survive the cancellation of most of the Apollo Applications Program (only what became Skylab survived), as the costs of the escalating Vietnam War became huge, this was before the Nixon Administration cuts.

A New Glenn could launch one at a time, once the shelter was down successfully a second Blue Origin launch by New Glenn, with the Taxi version, which a SLS launch would put an Orion to rendezvous in Lunar orbit with before descent.

The Starship derived HLS being longer term, being essentially a more longer term program, essentially being a base once landed.
Though still with the ability to ascend to orbit.

The main issue with NASA's requirements for the HLS program, is that no launcher was capable of a single launch of the fully fueled lander, that could complete its mission without further support. The mass requirement was just too high.

The closest proposal was Boeing's lander, which could be launched fully fueled on an SLS Block 1B or Block 2 Cargo. Boeing gave up some capability in order to do that. But it was screened out in the first round, for lack of technical development & maturity. With it went any hope of a single launch mission.

So now, any lander will require multiple launches of lander and propellant, and refueling in orbit. The only question is how many launches of propellant. The SpaceX lander requires the most, being the largest. But they all require at least one.

SLS/Orion remains the only crew rated launcher that can reach the needed lunar NRHO orbit. NASA has no plans to change that, as other solutions would increase risk.

Orion is designed to return the astronauts safely, even if the pressure vessel becomes compromised, or the service module main engine becomes unusable. It's the only capsule that can reenter safely on an emergency return from lunar orbit.