Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket explodes in second test flight | CNN

stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to News@lemmy.world – 277 points –
Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket explodes in second test flight | CNN
cnn.com

SpaceX’s Starship rocket system reached several milestones in its second test flight before the rocket booster and spacecraft exploded over the Gulf of Mexico.

102

Alright, let me clear something up.

This is literally rocket science. The process to put humans into space is literally done this way, for this exact reason. They had two key primary objectives for this launch:

  1. Successful ignition and control of 33 raptor engines in first stage.
  2. Successful hot separation into second stage.

The first stage separated entirely and gained plenty of distance before it did explode.

The second stage flew for several minutes before the automated emergency flight termination kicked in and destroyed it.

All of the data that they were recording will pinpoint the failures in the return of the first stage, and the destruction in the second stage. They would not have that data if they did not do this test and nothing went wrong.

All of the data that they were recording will pinpoint the failures

Do they need data like last time with the launch pad? Where it was clear that it will desintegrate? Did that give them additional insights into how the engines react to debris doing back into them? Was that the goal all along?

Seriously, they are iterating, sure. But we already know they ignore known problems. So it is not like every explosion is necessary or helps in any way.

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I research complex systems. Failure is the best way to improve something, even if you know it's going to fail, you want to see how and what are the repercussions. I've done so many experiments that I knew were doomed, but I still have to do them just because I wanted to see how the system is would react.

Not a fan boy of Elon by the way, not trying to defend him or anything.

That was really non of that. It was predictable that and how it would fail. NASA etc. solved that issue decades ago. It also created new issues, like the (protected) water table being affected. All because he wanted a certain date and cheap out.

6 more...

So, actually kinda successful.

Actually kinda really successful 👍 All 33 engines were firing, the hot staging was successful. On both the first and second stages, it looks like the automatic FTS (flight termination system) was triggered. That would happen if it veered too far off of it's approved flight path (don't need it coming down over a populated region.) The only thing that didn't happen that I was hopeful for was atmospheric re-entry - we really need to see how that heat shield works in practice.

If the stage exploded due to the hot staging change, perhaps it won't count as a success. But it's too early to tell either way

Looked to me like the hot staging plus flip maneuver sent the 1st stage into a slow spin it couldn’t recover from using the ullage gas thrusters.

A user in another thread pointed out that during relight, not all engines lit, and the ones that did started going back out.

Scott Manley suggested the hot-stage combined with the fast flip maneuver may have caused fuel to slosh away from the intakes in the tank, leading to ingestion of gas bubbles in the fuel lines. Those would have damaged or destroyed engines as they worked their way into the turbo pumps, leading to the progressive engine-outs seen on the stream before the eventual catastrophic failure of the booster.

I'm guessing they wanted to show the FTS works really good now and terminates at the first sign of something wrong. Last time it was doing those flips for quite a while.

Maybe. I would think the best FTS is the one not used ¯_(ツ)_/¯

If i had a nickel for every time this happened to me in KBS...

2 more...

What a shitty title. The launch was an absolute success.

The launch achieved most of its objectives, but it was supposed to fly farther and splash down near Hawaii. It was a success in that the 32 engines fired together, and the ship achieved separation, and there will be plenty of data about what went wrong.

But some things did go wrong, so you can't say it was an "absolute" success. Both the superheavy and the starship were lost. Rocket science is slow and expensive progress. It's only a failure if we abandon the project. But it is disingenuous to say that everything worked out as intended.

1 more...

lol: “experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly”. That’s one way to describe it!

There's no shame in highlighting what went right and still acknowledging what went terribly wrong.

Censoring the latter prevents improvements. No need for fanboyism.

On test flights, having something go terribly wrong is expected. This is the second test flight of a brand new vehicle system which also happens to be the largest and most complicated vehicle ever made. They also have half a dozen more vehicles already made and waiting to fly, each with improvements learned in manufacturing the previous one. They are behind their original schedule, for sure, but this mission was a huge success for SpaceX considering all of the things that did work.

It weirds me out how many people want to get a brain implant done by a company of this guy

It would be very weird, if we could verify they weren't shills or bots. Insane and desperate people. It was only "interesting" years ago, before he exposed himself as a fraud (and tortured animals during failed testing).

eh... it looks like hot-staging still has some bugs to work out, but the 2nd stage worked just fine (and since that's the part that matters, the end fate of the first stage is irrelevant)

good test all in all

What bugs? At this point we don't have an explanation for the first-stage RUD, looking at the overlay it seems there were issues re-lighting the Raptors which could be for any reason.

From what I saw, the hot-staging went perfectly with the RUD happening when the ship was already in space.

I wonder what the simulation showed was going to happen compared to the actual flight. Would give you a real metric of progress.

If the simulation showed a problem, they could have fixed it before launch. I'm guessing they don't have a enough data to make a super high fidelity integrated model for all phases of fight, so they'd break down the sections individually. But integration always brings extra challenges.

So they don't have a physicist on staff? Or several? We have known the math for rocket science for some time. What data is it they need? When even NASA in the sixties has simulators.

I'm sure they have tons. But we don't know the full thermo areo dynamics at hypersonic speeds and complex geometries, especially their effect on unconventional control surfaces across huge temperature and speed ranges. Some military companies have even bought flights on electron to get high altitude hypersonic velocity data on how the air behaves in that regime.

So rocket science...the thing the world has been doing since the end of WWII. Weird how other rockets don't have this problem....

You know of any other companies doing a belly flop maneuver? Or a reusable first stage with hot staging?

How reusable? NASA had recoverable boosters How does math and physics change based on goals?

NASA has never used hot staging.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

Yeah it's super easy that rocket science. Just plug some numbers into a simulation and off you go. It's not exactly brain surgery.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

To late for Indipendence Day, to early for New Year - But what a splendid fireworks!

He certainly didn't have to be all anti-Semitic to deflect attention from this failure. It's telling.

Back to the drawing board. Yeah, I know they are with the sliderules.

I bet some of them own slide rules in homage to the people that went before them.

That is a nice thought. I have a few and have given a few away. Problem is when you have to teach others how to use them.

Look, I really want to like SpaceX and enjoy all their successes and so on.

But it's just not. going. to. happen. And they know why. This isn't complicated.

1 more...