SpaceX's Starship didn't immediately respond to a self-destruct command
engadget.com
engadget.com
They will be adding more explosives for the future to ensure structural failure.
[Edit: You are correct]
"The longest lead we dont have is probably requalification of the FTS. Um, Because we did initiate the FTS, but it was not enough to.. it took way too long to rupture the tanks. We need.. basically we need more detonation cord to unzip the tanks at altitude and ensure the rocket explodes immediately."
It sounds to me that the FTS was triggered automatically by the onboard computer, but that Musk concedes that it possibly should have triggered (or been triggered) sooner:
Musk: Time for AFTS to kick in "was pretty long," about "40 seconds-ish."
On the other hand, rockets have blown up on the pad due to over-aggressive AFTS, so I would imagine the bounds were pretty loose for an initial test flight.
Everyday Astronaut also released[2] some incredible shots from the event, including a very nice 4k tracking shot.
This is an example of something that they never would have learned from a successful launch.
You can find footage of V-2 test launches where the entire test article comes falling/crashing down into the countryside.
I would also assume that approvals for risky launches or going hard on gear was a bit easier to get during a war time weapons research operation, so they presumably had their cowboy years.
Absolutely. Here are some of the test footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFU4KaJSSc
(not really fancying the music, but couldn't find one without.)
The successful half-thrust Starship test applied more force than the Saturn V or SLS in development do at full thrust.
People quick to criticize the spaceX pad conveniently ignore this fact, as well as the fact that SpaceX knew it was not reusable and was already planning to upgrade it.
If Von Braun actually thought what you claim, he has already been proven wrong.
"withstood"
Von Braun also knew that if you built missiles for the power-hungry US military, they'd conveniently forget the fact that you were a Nazi.
I think the most challenging part is the expectation of immediacy and that someone will pre-package the information. If you are fine waiting a year or two, there will likely be books on the topic with extensive information, maybe some FOIAed original reports.
[1] Im guilty of this too. I googled the quote to get it right and was frustrated that the complete text wasn't the first response.
My biggest complaint was that SpaceX are posting primary source material into a twitter space that other people have to archive. For instance the Reddit post earlier linked to a YouTube video posted by the account. “Elon Musk History” which feels pretty ephemeral given it has only been online since a bit over a week ago. It bugs me that official primary source information of relevance to the public, to the space industry, and to space nerds in general, has to be captured and archived away by passionate ransoms on the internet… people should not need to be doing OSINT style scrape and archive tactics on SpaceX public statements by the CEO regarding the first integrated test flight a rocket that will be part of the Artemis moon landing run by NASA … the tinfoil hat urge to label this as Elon forcing people to engage with Twitter features to make them more relevant … but it’s more likely he wanted to be able to do this briefing from his phone regardless of where he was at the time and decided to just do it in twitter “because that’s good enough” (the unsaid subconscious decision making being that obviously it’s good enough because he bought the whole company)
If this was better managed, it would be archived and published by Elon or SpaceX to some other channel, but it’s not, it’s left on the floor of the internet as trash headed for the delete pile unless someone jumps in to make a copy for historical record.
I’m not trying to imply they should do nothing if they won’t try and pass the bar I’m setting… and managing this information officially themselves…
I’m lamenting the fact they aren’t trying to live up to the bar that used to be considered normal for official communication from a company, that the official communication will be available once they are done speaking… and hilariously enough I just realised what this is, we went from the modern YouTube era where companies wanted to be in more control of the content they posted and would this run the PR event then published the “official take” to a corporate controlled channel and hold copyright and all the power it gives them… back to the pre-YouTube era of the press conference where reporters brought their own voice recorders and shotgun mics and all hustled for optimal position, recorded their own copy of what the people speaking said, and then all either wrote it up themselves or passed it back to the news desk to have a writer do the article writing… and it feels very stupid to step back like this when all the bullshit can be replaced by a shell script the company runs.
But the alternative is not that you get a nicely packaged information dump in some public channel.
The alternative is that the company says "There are multiple anomalies we are investigating alongside our governmental partners." And then x months later they say "The regulatory agencies gave the all clear for a new test launch." You as the public is not expected, nor usually privy to these information. Maybe you can FOIA it out of the FAA later, if you are lucky.
I'm not bothering with the giant Engadget cookiewall to get to the fluff around proably nothing more than these summaries.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/133c59u/michaelshee...
[1] https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/16524519714109358...
It did immediately respond - by detonating the self-destruct explosives. It's just that that didn't immediately destroy the whole rocket.
All that they do in starship is punch holes into the fuel tanks. Then, as soon as air mixes with the fuel in the correct ratio, boom.
However, there was too much pressure in the fuel system and it was jetting out so strongly that it appeared O2 wasn't mixing with the fuel.
After about 10 seconds you then see it explode.
The first is that Starship has a AFTS (Autonomous Flight Termination System), which means that it's commanding itself to destruct if it predicts that it will be going out of bounds, rather than the ground sending the command to it. I don't think there is a way to command the rocket remotely after launch.
The other thing is that it did break up when it was around 30 KM above ground.
(a) A flight termination system must include a command destruct system that is initiated by radio command and satisfies the requirements of this section.
[1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...
> Musk claimed it was because "the vehicle’s structural margins appear to be better than we expected."
What do high "structural margins" have to do with inability of the self-destruct system to respond to commands?
This is pure speculation (since again, I haven't been able to find the primary source), but it sounds to me like the self-destruct system did respond immediately, but the command to self-destruct wasn't issued because the vehicle took 40 seconds longer than expected to reach a state where a self-destruct was necessary. If that's true then this isn't a critical safety issue like the headline is implying.
He also suggests that re-qualifying the abort (self-destruct) system is the item that will take the most amount of time before they'll be ready for the next launch.
I'm still surprised by such a low bar.
I wanted to get the primary source but can’t unless I get lucky and someone saved it… and I can find the saved copy somehow… and I even know it happened to go look for it (which is a major issue when these things happen late at night in my Timezone and I may be asleep from before it’s even posted as an alert let alone when it’s done and disappears)
If anyone has a copy, yeah I’d love the link as well.
Based on having watched Scott Manley's video though, I am surprised an onboard auto-destruct did not kick off immediately when it went through the first full rotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErDuVomNd9M&t=2s
But, FAA takes safety incredibly seriously. Range safety is top priority, and a malfunction of flight termination gear would be a showstopper. If there is indeed a serious design problem with their FTS it would ground the vehicle for a lot longer than the 1-2 months they're claiming for next test flight.
This is what Elon is quoted to be saying. [1] "The longest item on that [requirements to next launch] is probably requalification of the flight termination system"
> the 1-2 months they're claiming for next test flight
Do you have a source for that claim?
1: https://tlpnetwork.com/news/2023/04/starship-ift-postlaunch-...
I don't want to sound like a stickler but I'm not hearing him claim 1-2 months for the next test flight. That is the specific thing I'm asking about. I even downloaded the subtitles and was reading through it.
Are you maybe confused about this part? "I think from a technique from a rocket standpoint and Pad standpoint we are probably ready to launch in uh six to eight weeks"
Or maybe this one "and hopefully be ready to fly again in a couple months uh once again". That's not a claim that in 1-2 months they will fly again. That is a hope that in a few months they will be able. A "couple months" can be very well more than 2, and a hope is not a promise.
Those were the parts I was talking about and I agree it is far from a firm claim or commitment. Even "plans" are subject to uncertainty. If I recall correctly, There was also a bit where he talked about expectations/aspirations for 4-5 launches this year.
I stopped reading there, the author has a clear bias against SpaceX. Expectations and what "success" meant for the test were set well in advanced from multiple sources.
Every millisecond of lift it gave was telemetry that will refine the end product.
This. Was. Never. Meant. To. Succeed. As. An. End. Product.
the launch, short flight and destruction was a wonderful success. Mistakes were definitely made... but thats the fastest way to learn! (As I often tell my kids)
Blowing up on the launchpad during fueling would've been a destructive test. So would splashing down in the ocean off Hawaii. That doesn't make them the same; one went well, the other did not.
I get that no one expected the rocket to work perfectly, and so the expectation is that it was going to go up and explode. That's reasonable, and I've watched other SpaceX flights with similar expectations (and occasional explosions) while considering those a success.
But there were multiple failures here, even inside of those parameters. Their safety systems, which were supposed to work, failed. They also failed to safely launch the rocket, in the sense that they scattered debris from the launch pad over hundreds of acres. Both of those can reasonably be considered massive issues that should not have happened.
This article summarizes some of the flight objectives:
https://spacenews.com/faa-issues-license-for-first-starship-...
There was a planned stage separation, 9+ minute total engine burn, and peak altitude of 235km.
The rocket tumbled for four complete revolutions. Most rockets will be destroyed by inertial and aerodynamic forces well before the first revolution (they are designed to withstand forces along the major axis, not significant side forces).
It was helpful from an aerodynamic force POV that the rocket was well over 100,000 feet before it started to tumble. Still, the inertial forces when the full stack started rotating must have been huge.
Ref: https://headedforspace.com/why-and-how-rocket-fuel-tanks-are...
This is the whole of Rocket Science. You can't test for some conditions, you can only test IN them by actually launching a rocket.
I think of it like diving into a pool. There is no way to practice diving into a pool before actually diving in. You learn to dive by diving.
If this is really the mechanism then I suppose tough to test (at least expensive to have large enough low-pressure test chamber to blow stuff up in), but it does seem odd they wouldn't just have explosive charges to destroy the rocket shell as well.
You can decide how long that is before and after, though I'll note that it may be complicated to determine what's not nominal: Starship has an unconventional staging maneuver that's basically a spin.
I'll also note that "they" didn't send anything; the FTS is autonomous, and will trigger on violation of its conditions, which is probably (1) departure of the instantaneous impact point (where the rocket will hit if all thrust stops now) from a safe ground corridor or (2) indications of disintegration of the vehicle. "The vehicle is doing something weird" is not a condition for flight termination.