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)
 
Guy's been running the company for what, over a decade at this point and at least has an active plan to continue to be profitable even if everyone using their rocket services drops out for some reason and you're saying he's not interested in the long term now? I think his le epic mars future is somewhat of a LARP but he probably actually also believes in it. His rocket tech though I don't see him giving up on any time soon and the progress he's made blows his competitors out of the water even if we're essentially just at the point where his rockets are going to be as capable of the payload that the saturn program had.


There are a lot of reasons to call Elon out but the launch test of their largest rocket by far failing after doing what they already wanted it to do is not one of them. Should Elon Derangement Syndrome be a thing?
Somebody HAS to do private space exploration. Humanity needs a new frontier. We are stagnating, we must expand and explore and challenge ourselves. When you read about what those early test pilots did it’s astonishing and it shows you how fat and lazy and dumb we’ve all become.
We live such odd lives of material pampered ness and psychological stress that we are going to all go insane and degrade unless we find something as a species to focus on. Space flight could be that thing. We need a frontier.
I am still not sure whether Elon is chaotic good or not (neuralink doesn’t sit well with me) but I am glad somebody with vision and a sense of wonder and humour is driving all this. I’d rather have the rocket man billionaires than the George Soros billionaires.
 
Space flight could be that thing. We need a frontier.
Yep, total utter agreement, the only way out of the mouse utopia hell we find ourselves in.
Problem is, I think (and I linked a video earlier and channel about it) Musk is wasting time, money and goodwill on absolutely useless shit. SpaceX is doing nothing different to other space providers and creating layers of BS that may kill interest in space dead.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Matt Damon
It exploded like the hopes of all the faggots on Twitter that they would get to keep their blue check marks for free.
 
Yep, total utter agreement, the only way out of the mouse utopia hell we find ourselves in.
Problem is, I think (and I linked a video earlier and channel about it) Musk is wasting time, money and goodwill on absolutely useless shit. SpaceX is doing nothing different to other space providers and creating layers of BS that may kill interest in space dead.
Genuine question: what would a better focus be?
 
Genuine question: what would a better focus be?
Well the problem is that the rocket question is already answered. The envelope of operation of a rocket is pretty much fixed, you can tweak some of the values but rockets aren't going to get better.
rockets.png

Launch rockets also suffer from the problem the more fuel you load, the heavier it gets, the more fuel you need etc etc.
So rocket alternatives, Blue Origin had the right idea of using an aircraft for the first step to LEO which allows you to have a smaller rocket for the rest of the trip. This lowers the cost significantly.
The video I linked talks about Star Raker:

zstarrak.jpg

Its a essentially an aircraft/rocket hybrid with a 100 tonne payload.
Who knows if something like Star Raker is feasible but I think the best place to look is at rocket hybrids & alternatives. If we can get the cost to LEO down then we can seriously start looking at orbital stations and platforms and them from there the solar system. Maybe while we are up there we figure out the next step in propulsion? One can hope.
 
Space elevators. Arthur c Clarke was right about a lot of stuff.,..
Yeh dunno how feasible they are currently, needed carbon nanotubes or something else miraculously strong, an anchor point ~60K above the earth and some method of transport capable of traversing the elevator without needing fuel. But yeh, probably still a better investment than yet more rockets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt Damon and Vecr
Their biggest "fingers crossed" item today was not destroying their launch pad.
I refuse to believe that they expected that site to be reusable, it had to have been expected that it is condemned afterward. There's no way anyone in today's rocket industry is dumb enough to think that a primitive-ass launch site like that would surive a massive rocket launch. 100% of them have seen what was necessary as a reusable launch site for smaller rockets decades ago. I think it was a total throwaway.

NASA Spaceflight's car got hit by a high-speed chunk of concrete.
This whole thing with the stuff scattered around the site was lulzworthy, nasa spaceflight's OMG SOYENCE crew parking a van and placing cameras at a distance that guarantees it is going to be showered by remnants of the pad the concrete barstool was sitting on.

Not having a water sound suppression system seems really odd to me. That might end up being a necessity and set things back a lot.
This whole thing was too rushed, the lack of a flame trench or suppression system limits the validity of the launch data since the booster is being exposed to a lot more destructive overpressure and vibration than it would be in actual operation.
 
Well the problem is that the rocket question is already answered. The envelope of operation of a rocket is pretty much fixed, you can tweak some of the values but rockets aren't going to get better.
View attachment 5076118
Launch rockets also suffer from the problem the more fuel you load, the heavier it gets, the more fuel you need etc etc.
So rocket alternatives, Blue Origin had the right idea of using an aircraft for the first step to LEO which allows you to have a smaller rocket for the rest of the trip. This lowers the cost significantly.
The video I linked talks about Star Raker:

View attachment 5076120
Its a essentially an aircraft/rocket hybrid with a 100 tonne payload.
Who knows if something like Star Raker is feasible but I think the best place to look is at rocket hybrids & alternatives. If we can get the cost to LEO down then we can seriously start looking at orbital stations and platforms and them from there the solar system. Maybe while we are up there we figure out the next step in propulsion? One can hope.
I find the high altitude launch platform to be really cool. Didn't Virgin Galactic try it out with SpaceShipTwo but for smaller payloads to shuttle tourists? Maybe it doesn't scale well for bigger loads. Something like the Arkbird from AC5 made into reality would be so cool.

AC5Arkbird.jpg
 
Saturn was massively over-engineered relative to its capabilities. Partly because of the lesser understanding of materials science the era, partly due to the design philosophy prevalent in the organisation's involved in its construction. The Saturn was built to withstand far greater stresses than it was anticipated to undergo and was, as I said, over-engineered for its purpose. It worked, but it was extremely inefficient and expensive. This is the polar opposite of spacex, which pares back to the barest minimum viable structure and then iterates designs until they stop exploding.
This isn't true at all. Saturn V was pared down to the bone as much as possible with very marginal safety factors - something like 1.2-1.3.

The metric by which the efficiency of rockets is usually assessed is payload to orbit divided by the launch weight.

For the later Saturn V this was 310000 to LEO with a launch weight of 6537000lbs. This means ~4.7% of Saturn Vs launch weight went to orbit.

By comparison the weight fractions for Space Xs line is;
Falcon heavy - 4.5%
Falcon 9 - 4.1
Starship - 3

As can be seen the fraction for Space X, especially Starship, is quite a bit worse than the Saturn V. And this shouldn't be surprising as resuability requires much higher margins then a one time use rocket. About the best that can be done with chemical engines is 5% or so, and Saturn V was impressively close to that theoretical ideal.
 
Lot of damage at the launch pad. The booster chewed at that spot for a while and it almost looked like it wasn't going to leave the tower.
FuPvv2mXgAIJgui.jpg
Well a good chuck of the excavation needed for a flame diverter is done. Hope it doesn't delay the next launch too long. There is some tank farm damage that needs a lot of work too.
 
Last edited:
Lot of damage at the launch pad. The booster chewed at that spot for a while and it almost looked like it wasn't going to leave the tower.
View attachment 5076695
Well a good chuck of the excavation needed for a flame diverter is done. Hope if doesn't delay the next launch too long. There is some tank farm damage that needs a lot of work too.
That tank farm needed an upgrade anyways.

Hopefully they will be going with horizontal tanks and building a big beautiful wall.
 
Update - not yet an official one, just some third party speculation, but Scott Manley really knows his stuff. I'll attempt to summarise his points:

  • Superheavy Starship fulfilled its goal of providing real-world test data for future flights.
  • The launch left a smouldering crater under the launchpad.
  • It may have largely failed because flying debris from said crater damaged the engines (indeed, Manley is not the only one to say this).
  • It would have benefitted from a water suppression system on the ground or a flame trench. Saturn V (a rocket half as powerful as Starship and, until recently, the world record holder for the most powerful rocket) and many smaller ones used a flame trench.
  • Very bright engine flames are "consistent with [fuel]-rich exhaust" (he says "engine rich", but I don't think that is correct, Edit: I am retard. It means the engine is burning itself up), suggesting that they did not function at their full performance
  • The Superheavy Starship did very well to not fall to pieces when it flipped sideways, although it probably did break up in the last few seconds before self-destruct was triggered).
(Just my observation, but the way that SpaceX showed an overlay of which engines were working kinda tells you that they were expecting to lose some engines.

All this is not to diminish the huge achievement that SpaceX made by even launching the thing. It was impressive for Starship to get this far even. And early failures like these are common in space flight.

SpaceX's first rocket back in 2008 (the Falcon 1) needed 4 attempts to reach orbit. Landing a rocket vertically took 10 attempts and practice langings. As much as we would have liked to see this succeed on its first try, that would have required several miracles to take place.
 
Last edited:
It was impressive for Starship to get this far even. And early failures like these are common in space flight.
Horseshit, this is just another million dollar fireworks show. Another exploding reinvented wheel, we are well past the 'early stages' of rockets. This is pure hubris and incompetence on display.
 
Back