Science SPACEX "Starship" explodes shortly after launch

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

SPACEX​

"Starship" explodes shortly after launch​

The unmanned "Starship" giant rocket of the US space company SpaceX has exploded during its first test flight. The largest and most powerful rocket ever built took off on Thursday from the SpaceX spaceport Starbase in Boca Chica in the US state of Texas. However, just over three minutes after launch, the rocket detonated, live footage showed.​
Online since today, 3:41 p.m. (Update: 3:57 p.m.)

At that point, the first booster stage called "Super Heavy" should have separated from the "Starship" space shuttle. SpaceX spoke on Twitter of a "rapid unplanned breakup prior to stage separation." "Teams will continue to evaluate data and work toward our next flight test," tech billionaire Elon Musk's company added. The launch was delayed by a few minutes: the countdown had been briefly interrupted to check some more details. Afterwards, the launch was released after all. Actually, the "Starship" of the private space company SpaceX of tech billionaire Elon Musk should have already taken off on Monday for a first short test flight. But that was postponed shortly before the planned launch because of a problem with a valve.

Enormous setback
The "Starship" rocket system - consisting of the roughly 70-meter-long "Super Heavy" booster and the roughly 50-meter-long upper stage, also called "Starship" - is intended to enable manned missions to the moon and Mars in the future. The "Starship" system is in itself designed so that the spacecraft and rocket can be reused after returning to Earth. The explosion, however, is an enormous setback for the initiative. The U.S. space agency NASA has selected "Starship" to fly humans to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years in the Artemis 3 mission at the end of 2025. Even flights to Mars should be possible with the rocket.

First attempt briefly halted
The launch of the 120-meter-high rocket from SpaceX's Starbase spaceport in Boca Chica was stopped on Monday less than ten minutes before the planned ignition. As a kind of dress rehearsal, however, the countdown continued until ten seconds before the originally planned launch time. The reason given for the abort was a technical problem with the pressure equalization on the most powerful space rocket ever built. Musk wrote on Twitter, apparently a valve had frozen. However, he said SpaceX had "learned a lot" from the launch attempt. It was only in February that almost all of the rocket's first stage engines had successfully ignited for the first time during a test in Boca Chica. Musk then declared that the 31 engines ignited in the test were "enough to reach orbit".

Explosion after first landing
Apart from the size and the associated possibility of transporting large loads, the reusability of all rocket components pursued by SpaceX is another central element of the "Starship" program. The declared goal is to significantly reduce the cost of operating spacecraft. SpaceX reported the first successful landing of a prototype in May 2021. Shortly thereafter, the explosion of the rocket made headlines. It was the third explosion within a few months - yet Musk remained convinced that the "Starship" rocket would soon be "safe enough" to transport people.

Youtube Video

Private moon orbit with billionaire and artists
Since last year, SpaceX has been trying to launch its spacecraft into orbit for the first time. At the beginning of the year, Musk had initially set a launch date of February or March - but at the same time made this dependent on the further course of testing. The schedule will be missed by at least a few weeks. A first private space mission is also planned for this year. The Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa recently announced his intention to circumnavigate the moon in a "starship" together with eight artists. The moon will then also be the destination of a mission pursued jointly with NASA.

Central role for NASA moon program

NASA is currently planning to use "Starship" as a landing module in its Artemis program in 2025 at the earliest. The rocket is significantly larger and more powerful than NASA's SLS rocket, which the space agency plans to use to put astronauts into orbit around the moon from 2024.​
1681999822370.png
After several weeks in space, the unmanned "Orion" capsule of NASA's Artemis 1 lunar mission returned to Earth in December

According to NASA plans, the "Starship" mission is dependent on the progress of the Artemis-2 mission. After the Artemis-1 mission, which ended in December with the return of an unmanned Orion space capsule to Earth, a manned orbit of the moon is now on the agenda. The next step will be to bring astronauts to the moon again with the "Starship". NASA put the last humans on the moon in 1972 with the Apollo 17 mission. The USA was the only country to put twelve astronauts on the moon with the Apollo missions between 1969 and 1972.

Space suits ready
Artemis 3 will be much more complex, according to NASA, combining the SLS "Orion" system with spacecraft built and flown by SpaceX. The NASA plan calls for a four-person "Orion" crew to dock in space with a SpaceX lander that will carry two astronauts to the lunar surface for nearly a week.

Twitter | Archive

According to NASA, an orbital fuel depot and a space tanker are required in addition to the Starship. The new space suits developed for the mission in collaboration with Axiom Space were unveiled by NASA in mid-March. In the "Starship" program, the moon is only the first stopover on the first manned mission to Mars, which Musk has already announced for 2029.
red, ORF.at/Agencies

Source (German)
 
It's all about data, regardless of how the test went, as long as it flew, it provides valuable data for subsequent launches until it's perfected. I'm not sure what people expected, that rocket would make it to Mars?
This was really common back in the Space Age when all of these technologies were being tested for the first time. Not really different today with another generation of newer and more powerful rockets.

The Soviets had a disaster so terrible it basically ended their crewed lunar mission for good.
 
Love it how a lot of the leftist that hate Musk, that claim to be intellectuals and pro science are just revealing how uninformed and dishonest they are. Most of our current scientific achievements have been made by constant trial and error. That the thing managed to launch without 6 of its engines is honestly impressive. Yet they'll point at the explosion as a massive L. Even when they should know that the goal of the experiment was to get the thing off the ground and not into orbit.
 
Was pretty exciting to see. Very weird seeing it kind of just spinning in place. Sure wouldn't want to get on one, probably ever, since there's really no abort method possible with it.

Saw this thing bitching, really hates Elon..

View attachment 5072919
>You are a fraud and a liar!
>Said by a ghoul looking motherfucker that has his entire life based on lying and being a fraud
How embarrassing
 
Was pretty exciting to see. Very weird seeing it kind of just spinning in place. Sure wouldn't want to get on one, probably ever, since there's really no abort method possible with it.

Saw this thing bitching, really hates Elon..

View attachment 5072919

Checking his twatter, it looks like he re-wrote that tweet. I'm guessing he got mass reported for being a huge asshole.

Is math related to science?

Maths and true Science!™ are indeed directly related. If there is no maths involved then it is "Science" rather than Science!™.


You know you have a damn powerful explosion when it is caught by the lightning mapper!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr
It seems like the engines blowing up weren't even a huge problem for the ascent. Stage separation not working was what killed the rest of the flight plan.

BTW, this specific Starship had been sitting around for like a year and is outdated compared to newer ones. Although perhaps all of them will need a redesign from what they learned from this test.
 
All right, I was hoping it would take off. Imagine that explosion with full to the brim tanks.
Worst though was they even got clearance to launch at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rabid Northman
Lol everyone at SpaceX was cheering with joy even after the explosion. The data collection was hugely important.

Media gotta spread propaganda against Musk though. “Disastrous” indeed.
Because they accomplished their main mission goal. They got it off the pad. Musk said 2 weeks ago he fully expected it to explode. Its part of the process. 3 minutes of flight is pretty good for a first time rocket flight.

The downside is todays failure looked an awful lot like several of the Soviet N-1 failures. The ossilations caused by unbalances and asymetric thrust because of the huge array of smallish rocket engines.
 
You can't simulate reality on a computer, you must launch the rocket and get data.
Then redesign the rocket and try again, as long as it takes. Learn how Falcon 9 was developed.
(prototyping, testing, analyzing, and refining)

There are already 2-3 more version of starship waiting to be launched in the coming months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr and Puff
SpaceX's rockets still make it to orbit on a consistent basis, to the point that space launches became a trivial matter, that's just undeniable.
Their failure rate is near the best but not out of this world, they've had a good track record for seven years now though.

Some high launch vehicles:
~180 launches with Falcon 9, 3 failures. ~60 flights per failure. Landing is still finicky but it's a novel approach at scale so not comparable to anything else.
135 launches for Space Shuttle, 2 failures. ~68 flights per failure
786 for Soyuz, 22 failed. ~36 flights per failure


SpaceX has a neat pic from below showing 6 main engines didn't fire and it still got up.
Cool pic.
Stage separation is the bigger issue, but engines not igniting or not remaining ignited means problems, like fuel delivery.
That thrust is over provisioned for achieving orbit is the point of the design, to deliver things out of orbit.

The fact that it passed Max-Q (highest aerodynamic stress on the vehicle) first try and got to stage sep was very encouraging.
Missing six engines? A little bit less thrust than peak.
 
Really fun to watch. I prefer rocket launching Musk to neurolink musk. . The reason the journoscum think it blowing up is a failure is because they’ve never done anything that ground breaking or difficult. They have no idea that you try and fail and try and fail better and after years of hard work and being inventive and smart the thing works. I mean why would they, with what they do? They have absolutely o idea how really ground breaking technical projects work.
 
Some high launch vehicles:
~180 launches with Falcon 9, 3 failures. ~60 flights per failure. Landing is still finicky but it's a novel approach at scale so not comparable to anything else.
135 launches for Space Shuttle, 2 failures. ~68 flights per failure
786 for Soyuz, 22 failed. ~36 flights per failure
Would love to compare the cost too, I assume SpaceX is cheaper than Shuttle at the very least, and by a significant margin. Shuttle program was notoriously expensive if my memory serves me right.
 
Back