Starship launch debris landed 6 miles north, residents report broken windows | Hacker News Reader

Starship launch debris landed 6 miles north, residents report broken windows

space.com

32 pointsbelter34 comments

Open articleView on HN

Latest tweet from Elon about the launch mount:

"3 months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount.

Wasn’t ready in time & we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag would make it through 1 launch.

Looks like we can be ready to launch again in 1 to 2 months."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784

"Wasn't ready in time" - yeah, the memes (4/20 and all that nonsense) are more important than waiting for things to be ready...

"Safety is our Third, no, Fourth priority."

SpaceX is spending way over a million dollars per day for a fixed price $2.9B Artemis HLS contract. Delaying 2 months is a big deal.

OTOH Boeing et al are getting $20B a year for the cost plus SLS rocket. The more they delay, the more they get paid.

The question is what's faster - finishing an adequate launch platform or repairing/rebuilding a destroyed one?

I'm convinced that a 2 month delay followed by a less destructive test flight and a quicker turnaround time for the next attempt would've been quicker. But we'll see how long it'll take SpaceX to fix the damage. If it takes less than 8 weeks until the next launch attempt, I was wrong about my assessment.

Isn't that a question with multiple variables? If you wait longer to fly Starship then it's longer to get data about how it flies. What if it has an unknown flaw that blows it up on the pad? Now you're at rebuild plus 2 mos. How much was a lack of the data gained from this test holding up changes? What if the test had been more successful?

I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't think the answer is as simple as the amount of time it would have taken to put a flame diverter on the stage 0.

I've heard from 2 sources about time to repair+improve stage zero (Musk saying 2-3 mos. and a E. Burger quoting someone saying 4 - 6 mos.) That says to me that 8 weeks will be a miracle.

Von Braun claimed that they learned more from failed tests than they did from successful ones.

Now they have an extra two months to analyze data from flight. So even if it takes three months until the next flight instead of 2 under your plan, I think launching this week instead of two months from now likely shaved most of two months off their schedule.

Even if they could get all of the approvals, which they won't, there is no way they are rebuilding that in 2 months. And even if government permits were forthcoming, which -- at this point they're likely grounded for a long time -- they'd likely face residents nearby suing them in court to stop launches.

They F-ed up bigtime. Look, SLS which has 1/2 the power of Starship, launched with a flame diverter, flame trench, AND massive water deluge system and yet it still damaged the mobile launcher.

SpaceX tested the fondag with 50% power, it still destroyed it, and yet they thought a full power launch was going to be ok?

This was reckless and likely sabotaged their prospects for launch until 2024, assuming legal and regulatory challenges don't hamstring them further. The FAA probably feels they lied about the risks and won't be so quick to accept their claims next time.

I remember that article that got flagged recently predicted that we should expect broken windows in peoples' homes. I wonder if anyone will do an analysis to see what the article got right and what it got wrong. I cannot find the link anymore.

SpaceX is obviously willing to take risks, but yoloing the pad damage situation is surprising. They've had engine damage from flying pad before. If they had lost enough engines at T0 and the rocket had fallen back on the pad, there would have been an unholy conflagration. And Lord knows how long it would have taken to get another launch license.

Current license issued a few days/a week ago is good for 5 years.

I would summarize this launch as "It's better to be lucky than to be careful." The launchpad risk was not one they should have taken. Had one of those chunks of debris hit slightly differently, the rocket would not have cleared the tower. Amazing that the rocket got so far!

There's been no statement from anyone at SpaceX that any pad debris struck the rocket, even in off the record interviews.

"SpaceX urges finders to report debris from Starship test flight" - https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-test-flight-debris-hot...

the negative press around this launch is pretty odd. It was actually a huge milestone for the company. Move fast and break things used to be cool. But now people don’t like Elon and Zuck or ruffling anyone’s feathers.

Oh yeah. It’s so very odd that public opinion is not in favor of moving fast and breaking things anymore! Who cares if by doing that Facebook facilitated ethnic cleansing and genocide in Myanmar, or the biggest privacy scandal of the century! Just look at those dividends!

> Just look at those dividends!

I mean, META/FB doesn’t even pay dividends - which only strengthens your point.

Surely we see a difference between a company attempting to bring space travel to the masses and a platform designed to show ads.

Yes. Things that can blow up and can break people's houses and can damage sensitive ecosystems should be treated with more caution not less.

"Move fast and break things" has never been cool outside the startup bubble.

Turns out some of those things that got broken outside of the company were important and people cared about them. Funny how things that work great in software development don’t work great when applied to the real world, eh?

Clearly are going to need to fix the debris issue with a flame diverter or aggressive suppression. Obviously they didn't anticipate the booster eating through the entire concrete pad and boosting the beach into the atmosphere.

That's a bit I find surprising. I would have thought that working out if the pad was up to the job would be one of the easier rocket-science tasks they were faced with.

Was well not the most critical part, though.

I'm guessing that undiverted flame and related debris could ricochet up to the rocket and cause problems.

Which could have been the cause of the dead engines during flight, which could have been the reason why it didn't make altitude and didn't separate.

You can see huge chunks of debris flying into the air on launch, and half a dozen engines were out by the time they were visible. The discolourations and asymmetry in the plume indicates damaged engines. The term of art is engine rich exhaust.

It looks like debris tore up the engines, which progressively lost more thrust and control authority as more engines failed, leading to the loss of the vehicle.

> Obviously they didn't anticipate the booster eating through the entire concrete pad and boosting the beach into the atmosphere.

I'm pretty sure there were voices at SpaceX who predicted this outcome. We've been launching orbital rockets for over 65 years now, and every single launch facility for heavy lift vehicles uses flame diverters and water deluge systems.

It baffles me how anyone could even think that the most powerful rocket in history could do without these systems in place.

They were using some new blast resistant concrete (not sure on the details, maybe not so new). The expectation was that it would ablate somewhat this time and they could resurface it and install deluge system for next time. Turns out instead of ablating a little is shattered and left the area in chunks exposing the sand underneath to be blown away as well.

I can see why the idea of no flame trench is alluring. Imagine the capability to land a rocket on essentially a parking lot, refueling and taking off again. You could land and take off on the moon or Mars like that too.

But that's outdated by now. There's an orbital launch mount and once you need that you might as well have a trench too.

There was sand falling on livestreamers within minutes of launch. They're definitely going to have to get the debris issue fixed, to say nothing of the former pad itself.

Note: The "debris" is wind-blown fine dust, not large pieces that could harm people.

They should've dug a trench, like NASA does.

Apparently they can't trench deep at the Boca launch site because of a high water table.

Ah yes, in contrast to the Florida swamps with their famously deep water tables... /s

NASA in Florida builds a hill to house the flame trench and puts the launch pad on top. Same should be done in Texas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com