Space X Pad Damage…

[mk378]

nature or physics.

The satellites were launched during a solar storm. Something that has been well known for decades.

Elon saying he didn't care if the rocket blows up and was actually expecting it to, doesn't sit well with the FAA. The FAA's mission is to keep airspace and people on the ground safe from crazy flying machines. Don't allow the launch of anything that isn't expected to fly properly.

 

[Thermo1223]

The satellites were launched during a solar storm. Something that has been well known for decades.

Elon saying he didn't care if the rocket blows up and was actually expecting it to, doesn't sit well with the FAA. The FAA's mission is to keep airspace and people on the ground safe from crazy flying machines. Don't allow the launch of anything that isn't expected to fly properly.

LOL, ok.

Because ULA or NASA or any space agency has a 100% rate of success. It flew somewhat properly until it failed to stage and was aborted and detonated over the Gulf, so it harmed no one except his pocket.

The FAA has more problems with pilots and airplanes than any rocket.

 

[PandaBear]

I do not get it. The launch pad for the Saturn engines were very carefully designed to avoid damage. You would think they would make use of some of the features which have been tested and proven effective

Musk know it may damage the launch pad, and he did mention before the launch the success rate is 50% so the rocket is going to blow up, just hoping that it won't damage the pad. Well it did.

I'm just glad that nobody died.

 

[ctechbob]

It flew somewhat properly until it failed to stage and was aborted and detonated over the Gulf,

That's the thing. It didn't. Yes, it lifted off the pad, which is an achievement. But it was well down on velocity by the time they expected it to stage. Max Q also happened much later. So it was struggling going up hill pretty much from the get-go. Just because it has all of those engines doesn't mean that it can just make do with what's left and burn them longer. You still have to have the thrust to get the speed up in the beginning. Add the probable damage to the hydraulics and you have more issues.

Would those engines have lit without the pad damage? Maybe, maybe they were borked from the get-go.

It was a risky launch without a flame deflector and they paid the price in a severely hurt machine from the outset. They can spin it any way they want, but they knew better and decided to go with it anyways, probably because of pressure from the top to make a news story for him.

 

[billt460]

........ Just because it has all of those engines doesn't mean that it can just make do with what's left and burn them longer. You still have to have the thrust to get the speed up in the beginning.

I remember the Russian N1. It was supposed to be the equivalent of our Saturn V back in the day. It looked like a giant inverted sugar ice cream cone.

It had a cluster of something like 32 small engines. I think they blew up several of them before they finally gave up. It never made it into orbit.... Let alone to the Moon.

 

[ctechbob]

I'm sure SpaceX will finally get it done, but maybe this will pump their brakes a little and convince them be a little more careful and a little less cavalier.

 

[MNgopher]

Of all of the things that have come out, the one that causes concern on my end was that it took roughly 45 seconds from the time the self destruct button was pushed to when it actually did self destruct. Anyone else think that is a lifetime in a rocket flight? How much ground can a rocket cover in 45 seconds?

Everything else is along the lines of we assumed it would fail... And we do learn from failure. The silly thing here is that so much of this has already been learned. Yet we feel like we have to go back and relearn it? It just feels much more like what corners can we cut and how far can we cut them, and still arrive at a usable product. Safety does not seem to be a huge priority in getting there...

 

[Drew7a]

All the BITOG Monday morning Engineers are out in force.

Sometimes theory of Design does not follow reality. You need real world test to validate theory. The data gathered from that flight will help the next launch.

Why did they not self destruct right away, because the wanted more data, the telemetry of the object was no where over a populated area. $10B spent on the program every additional data point is useful 45 additional seconds provides a lot of data. The fact that that thing lifted off with several engines out is amazing.

People forget the Wright brothers first flight was not even as long as a 747. How about the Challenger disaster over and O-ring yet people are overly critical of the largest rocket launched.

 

[labfan]

Guys...I don't think i wanna go to mars anymore

 

[MNgopher]

All the BITOG Monday morning Engineers are out in force.

Sometimes theory of Design does not follow reality. You need real world test to validate theory. The data gathered from that flight will help the next launch.

Why did they not self destruct right away, because the wanted more data, the telemetry of the object was no where over a populated area. $10B spent on the program every additional data point is useful 45 additional seconds provides a lot of data. The fact that that thing lifted off with several engines out is amazing.

People forget the Wright brothers first flight was not even as long as a 747. How about the Challenger disaster over and O-ring yet people are overly critical of the largest rocket launched.

I think there is a significant difference in interpretation. Yours is they let it go 40+ seconds past the point they were going to push the self destruct button in a quest for data.

The actual reality is that the self destruct button was pushed, and it did not respond for 40+ seconds after it was pushed.

Seems to me you want a self destruct button to work just a bit faster than that, no?

 

[Drew7a]

I think there is a significant difference in interpretation. Yours is they let it go 40+ seconds past the point they were going to push the self destruct button in a quest for data.

The actual reality is that the self destruct button was pushed, and it did not respond for 40+ seconds after it was pushed.

Seems to me you want a self destruct button to work just a bit faster than that, no?

I know a guy in the team that wrote the software.

 

[mk378]

If it doesn't work, even a vital safety feature like the self destruct, don't worry, apologists will come around to say that was a good thing.

 

[MNgopher]

Should I go with:

I know a guy

or

What Elon himself said, and the video that actually shows that the charges had blown, but didn't result in the destruction it should have until 40+ seconds later...

From https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/space/spacex-starship-initially-failed-self-destruct

“It took way too long to rupture the tanks,” he said. “The vehicle’s structural margins appear to be better than we expected.”

Musk said he took the incident as a learning experience and that the company would think about placing more explosives inside the rocket at the next launch so that it would self-destruct as soon as commanded.