totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, K^2 said:

My concern is that, based purely on preliminary, the part that failed is not related to systems that have been changed for this flight. The failure happened due to insufficient safety margin on systems that have already passed the tests. And as a consequence, some of the new changes still need to be first-tested on the next flight on top of things that need to be improved for the parts that failed. Technical debt has gone up, not down, as an outcome of this flight.

There is a part of the design process where you move fast and break things. But you have to ramp it down gradually. You're not going to arrive at a working model by changing everything every time. You have to arrive at smaller and smaller changes as time goes on. Sometimes, that means flying with something imperfect knowing it will work well enough and get the mission to results. This is something that all good engineers understand, and something we've seen with Falcon's design process. They've flown older engine configs when they were itching to test new ones, because there were other flight systems that had to be checked first.

I'm not seeing that with Starship. Now, maybe, it's still very far away from completion. Maybe nobody expects it to even remotely reliably until flight 100-something, and I'm expecting too much consistency from flight 7, and SpaceX is happy to burn $100M per flight to keep doing these tests where they overhaul multiple major systems for each flight. But that's not congruent with the promises that SpaceX is making on the schedule. And it sounds like the team's under pressure to test more things in every flight precisely because management is trying to cut cost by flying fewer tests. Which is, predictably, backfiring.

And even that isn't a huge deal if all that happens is that SpaceX burns more money. But we've seen how self-driving on Tesla was handled. The progress was slow, and instead of that resulting in more tests, the company pushed a raw product around the safety checks that should have prevented it. Hopefully, I'm wrong here, but it sounds like SpaceX is making all the same mistakes that Boeing has been, from how they cut corners, to how they handle tests and safety, except that SpaceX now has an ability to bully its project through by using the gov't connections leverage, regardless of the safety in ways that even Boeing couldn't.

 

If that is the case, this largest rocket might also turn into the largest disaster with loss of human life.

 

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic here. I am confident that the Starship project is not in as good of a shape as the PR tries to show it, but some delays and overruns aren't the worst thing in the world - so long as appropriate steps are taken when it starts to become unsafe. Given how close the debris track came with threatening a few airliners this time, hopefully, we'll see FAA take steps to increase the safety in the future by requiring that the airspace is properly cleared. That will put additional costs and constraints on SpaceX. If the SpaceX plays along - good. They're taking responsibility and eating the costs. If not, and they bully FAA into allowing the future launches to continue putting passenger flights at risk instead, then we should all start being way, way more concerned about how SpaceX is handling the Starship project.

 

FAA's investigation shouldn't be into why the rocket failed. Rockets do that sometimes. It's into why airliners managed to make it so close to the debris track. The warning to traffic was only given for the area immediately around the launch site, presumably, because the rocket was above relevant flight levels. That's fine if you have a well-established rocket with known failure characteristics. It's irresponsible if you're flying an experimental rocket that may fail in novel ways, like what just happened.

Clearly, the simplified procedures were some sort of an agreement with FAA that SpaceX takes responsibility for keeping the launches safe to air traffic. That didn't happen. FAA must clamp down on that. It is part of the agency's direct responsibility.

And yes, if that doesn't happen, we should be worried about influence of corporate interests over regulatory agency, because that's putting all of us at risk. Especially in light of the Boeing's recent failures on that front.

Not sure where to start, but the aircraft were never in danger because the FAA has an extended defined area in case of a breakup that they activate in plenty of time for aircraft to clear.  The pilots are made aware of this area in prior briefings and that if it is activated they will need to proceed out of the zone.  The breakup happens at a much higher altitude than the aircraft that no planes were in danger and had plenty of time to respond, as planned.  There was no ad hoc scurrying going on in the response anywhere down the chain.

This is nothing like Boeing aircraft which are in service with tens of thousands of passengers daily (being conservative here and lazy).  Starship is a developing test article with zero crew on board flying every few months.

We don’t know the failure didn’t involve new changes.  Currently we are told a leak developed in the space above the firewall over the engines and below the tank.  I don’t know whether changes were made there or not.  But the flames at the lower hinge of a lower flap corroborates the presence of props emitting from that area where props shouldn’t have been.

It is sad that the opportunity to gain more reentry data was lost, but that is the only sad part imho.  No one died.  A pile of treasure and sweat, maybe tears, poorly invested in hindsight at worst.  But no blood was lost.

I do appreciate your concerns but think they can be rationally dialed back without losing the good points made

Grok summary:

Spoiler

Yes, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had predetermined safety zones for potential Starship breakups, which could be activated in case of an anomaly during the launch:

- **Safety Zones**: The FAA, in coordination with SpaceX, established specific areas where aircraft would be prohibited from operating or warned of potential hazards. These zones were determined based on the anticipated flight path, debris risk, and potential impact areas. For instance, posts on X mention that there were designated areas where aircraft were either prohibited or warned about potential hazards related to Starship launches.[](https://x.com/dpifke/status/1880041184350896564)

- **Briefing to Airline Pilots**: While there's no direct mention in the provided web results or X posts about explicit briefings to airline pilots before each launch, the system in place suggests pilots would be informed through standard aviation safety notifications. The FAA manages the National Airspace System and typically disseminates information about temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) and other safety measures through NOTAMs (Notices to Air Missions), which pilots are required to check before flights. Given the nature of these safety zones, it would be standard procedure for pilots to be made aware of such restrictions through these official channels, particularly for operations around major launch sites like Boca Chica in Texas or Cape Canaveral in Florida.

- **Activation of Safety Zones**: These safety zones would be actively managed during the launch window. If a Starship experienced a breakup, the FAA would close or reopen airspace accordingly to ensure public safety. The exact procedures for activating these zones in response to a breakup would involve real-time coordination between SpaceX, FAA, and air traffic control to ensure the safety of all airspace users.[](https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/04/15/faa-clears-spacex-to-launch-worlds-largest-rocket/)

In summary, the FAA did have predetermined safety zones for Starship breakups, which were part of a broader safety and airspace management strategy. Pilots would likely be briefed indirectly through NOTAMs and other FAA communications about these potential safety zones, ensuring they are aware of any restrictions or warnings in place during SpaceX launches.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by darthgently

[tater]

4 hours ago, K^2 said:

FAA must clamp down on that.

Controlling the flight path of aircraft is their business (or whoever runs ATC), not SpaceX's. The reality is that for any new rocket, or just any experimental rocket (apparently Shuttle was experimental it's entire lifetime?) debris might rain down along the entire orbital path at any time, though certainly upon reentry (for something orbital, like Shuttle, & hopefully SS soon), but during launch until orbit is a certainty. Having a mechanism to warn/redirect aircraft in real time for such a threat makes sense.

That's interesting if you think about it. Engine out situations, for example, where the burn to orbit is longer. That means that the hazard area for any launch should probably extend the distance to an entry/reentry (which word, when not orbital?) zone for a maximally long ascent with engine(s) out.

SS engine cutoff was supposed to be at T+8:53. How many engines could be out and still make orbit by a longer burn? This presumably moves the hazard area East, and needs to include the reentry part, obviously. The question is if planes need to be rerouted around the entire hazard area (and for longer launch windows this might be troublesome), or if close to the pad it's a no go the whole time, then at some point where the warning time of a mishap is longer, they are in an area where they have to expect to be redirected at any moment (what seems to have happened). Wonder if launch sites could provide downrange radar to pipe into ATC systems? Maybe a radar picket ship such that precise hazard warning could be fed to ATC, and they know what is and is not harmless?

Until space travel is airline level routine, I have to think of all rocket launches as "experimental" I guess. The chance of failure being orders of magnitude higher than that of aircraft—and more aircraft losses are pilot error, not mechanical failures.

Edited 6 hours ago by tater

[tater]

25 minutes ago, darthgently said:

We don’t know the failure didn’t involve new changes.

We know for sure it involved new changes. The downcomer changed to 3 downcomers.

So much of the nitty-gritty engine plumbing at the bottom changed completely with this vehicle I would expect.

[darthgently]

 

8 minutes ago, tater said:

We know for sure it involved new changes. The downcomer changed to 3 downcomers.

So much of the nitty-gritty engine plumbing at the bottom changed completely with this vehicle I would expect.

Ok, glad I wrote “I don’t know” instead of “we don’t know”.  Because I didn’t know if others knew, ha ha.

edit: wait, apparently I did write “we” in a separate part.  Oh well

Now I know.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by darthgently

[tater]

That's the downcomer for S33 per Zack Golden, so my claim assumes he's correct on the vehicle ID.

[tater]

 

[PakledHostage]

More nice footage: 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE6GXMtMiJF/?igsh=MXQzbm5sM3g1YWlzYQ==

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Musk saying on X that next month's flight unlikely to be delayed. 

 

Hope that is true. 

 

I know we were handwringing last night because of the dramatic footage from aircraft and rerouting of planes - but now I'm reading that everything stayed within the corridor and exclusion zones.  Tells me that the safety and mitigation plan was effective. 

Everyone knows these are test flights of prototypes and space is hard. 

I'm now leaning towards hoping the FAA & other powers that be don't delay the next scheduled iteration. 

[Exoscientist]

  Agree or disagree: it was a mistake for SpaceX to follow the failed N-1 approach to testing Starship. A Raptor failed both on the booster and on the ship, and on the ship one failed catastrophically. How many total test flights needed now just to make orbit with high payload? 10? A dozen? How many total to prove Raptor reuse reliability? 15? How many total to prove orbital refueling? 20? In contrast standard industry practice is to construct a separate, full test stand to do full up, full thrust, full duration testing. Done this way at least Starship could be doing expendable flights already by now, and with paying customers. Even Raptor reuse reliability could have been tested on the full test stand, providing a faster route to Starship reuse.

The comparison of the Superheavy/Starship to the N-1 rocket has been claimed invalid as N-1 rocket engines could not be tested individually, whereas the Raptor engines are. But note a key fact: even when tested, Raptor engines still fail at high rate:

SpaceX should withdraw its application for the Starship as an Artemis lunar lander.
It is my contention the attempt of SpaceX trying to reach a 2025 deadline to have the SH/SS flying and with multiple successful test flights completed puts undue pressure on its normal safety procedures. For that reason my opinion is it should withdraw the Starship for consideration as a lander for the Artemis III lander mission.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/08/spacex-should-withdraw-its-application.html

 

  Robert Clark

 

[magnemoe]

14 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

SX has a working very large 1st stage.  Three successful launches with two RTLS catches.  They could commercialize Booster. 

Question is - how much is the cost of expendable second stages?  Like, cool factor aside, is Starship actually necessary? 

Can we get a lot more weight to the moon and Mars now using traditional-style upper and payload staging ideas matched to the size Booster now allows? 

Or do we really need Starship to work, too? 

(is it a nice to have or a need to have?) 

An expendable second stage would be cheaper and lighter, more so if they used an fairing. Musk has discussed if for specialized missions like very heavy payloads or deep space missions. 
But even an single use SS would still be heavy, an dry weight on 40 ton is mentioned, same as Saturn 5 second stage  
But it would still be much more expensive than reuse: Now I suspect the first tanker who go to the moon would be single use so would cargo ships for an moon or mars base as the stage would be more valuable as building materials. 

[Codraroll]

24 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

How many total to prove Raptor reuse reliability?

How many total times must you havee explained that your probably-pathological fixation on Raptor reliability hinges on absolute bunk, before it sinks in? Each and every one of those arguments have been refuted dozens of times, yet you still appear come back in the earnest belief that repeating them enough times makes them true, and that the counterarguments stop being valid if you never acknowledge them.

Edited 4 hours ago by Codraroll

[magnemoe]

14 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

  Agree or disagree: it was a mistake for SpaceX to follow the failed N-1 approach to testing Starship. A Raptor failed both on the booster and on the ship, and on the ship one failed catastrophically. How many total test flights needed now just to make orbit with high payload? 10? A dozen? How many total to prove Raptor reuse reliability? 15? How many total to prove orbital refueling? 20? In contrast standard industry practice is to construct a separate, full test stand to do full up, full thrust, full duration testing. Done this way at least Starship could be doing expendable flights already by now, and with paying customers. Even Raptor reuse reliability could have been tested on the full test stand, providing a faster route to Starship reuse.

The comparison of the Superheavy/Starship to the N-1 rocket has been claimed invalid as N-1 rocket engines could not be tested individually, whereas the Raptor engines are. But note a key fact: even when tested, Raptor engines still fail at high rate:

SpaceX should withdraw its application for the Starship as an Artemis lunar lander.
It is my contention the attempt of SpaceX trying to reach a 2025 deadline to have the SH/SS flying and with multiple successful test flights completed puts undue pressure on its normal safety procedures. For that reason my opinion is it should withdraw the Starship for consideration as a lander for the Artemis III lander mission.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/08/spacex-should-withdraw-its-application.html

  Robert Clark

Its been some time since we had an raptor fail, the missing firing for the boost back burn stated for landing so I assume computer did not start it for some reason, my guess is fuel flow issues. Say to low or unstable pressure after the flip so engine did not start. it could be running hot but then why did it not shut down early once the trust was not very needed they could just run the other engines a second longer. 

That they are really testing now is second stage reentry and landing. Current blow up is likely related to its an new upgraded starship version with lots of changes including new down lines to the vacuum engines. 
Previous test looks like nailed the landing well.

N1 was never able to get higher than starship first failed test and they had fails who took out launch pads. 

[AckSed]

Current Exo vibe:

 

[Exoscientist]

 

 Flames were seen shooting out the side of this booster like during the last booster catch.  Everyone ASSumes it’s just venting. But nobody asks SpaceX and SpaceX ain’t telling. ( And we all remember the warning about what can happen when you ASSume.) In view of a Raptor leaking fuel and exploding on the ship on this flight, and Raptors previously leaking fuel and catching fire in flight, the question should be asked: were the flames seen shooting out the sides of the booster during landing burns, including ones without a catch attempt,  due to fuel leaks on the Raptors?

A little vignette when it does come out there were fuel leaks during the landing burns, and these things always do come out:

Space journalists: Why didn't you say fuel leaks were the cause of the flames shooting out the side of the booster during the landing burns?

SpaceX: you never asked.

   Bob Clark

[Exoscientist]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Its been some time since we had an raptor fail, the missing firing for the boost back burn stated for landing so I assume computer did not start it for some reason, my guess is fuel flow issues. Say to low or unstable pressure after the flip so engine did not start. it could be running hot but then why did it not shut down early once the trust was not very needed they could just run the other engines a second longer. 

That they are really testing now is second stage reentry and landing. Current blow up is likely related to its an new upgraded starship version with lots of changes including new down lines to the vacuum engines. 
Previous test looks like nailed the landing well.

N1 was never able to get higher than starship first failed test and they had fails who took out launch pads. 

 

 I like this review of the Raptors by Ultimate Steve:

 

 I agree with him that an engine not starting or not completing its burn counts as an engine failure. In addition to those he mentions, it is almost a certainty that a Raptor actually exploded during the landing burn on IFT-4, but SpaceX still has not come clean on this:

 

 Given that SpaceX has not been open about what happened during this prior landing burn, and given the Raptors prior history of leaking fuel and catching fire in flight, I consider it likely the flames seen shooting out the sides of the booster during both tower catches actually arose from Raptor fuel leaks. Consider, that giant 25 meter, 80 foot, tongue of flame shooting up the side of the booster during the prior catch was quite surprising and puzzling. Yet, SpaceX has said nothing about it. It's like they are acting like it never happened. That doesn't inspire confidence that it was something planned.

  Robert Clark

 

 

Edited 4 minutes ago by Exoscientist
Clarity

[darthgently]

18 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 

 I like this review of the Raptors by Ultimate Steve:

 

 I agree with him that an engine not starting or not completing its burn counts as an engine failure. In addition to those he mentions, it is almost a certainty that a Raptor actually exploded during the landing burn on IFT-4, but SpaceX still has not come clean on this:

 

 Given that SpaceX has not been open about what happened during this landing burn, and given the Raptors prior history of leaking fuel and catching fire in flight, I consider it likely the flames seen shooting out the sides of the booster during both tower catches actually arose from Raptor fuel leaks. Consider, that giant 25 meter, 80 foot, tongue of flame shooting up the side of the booster during the prior catch was quite surprising and puzzling. Yet, SpaceX has said nothing about it. It's like they are acting like it never happened. That doesn't inspire confidence that it was something planned.

  Robert Clark

 

 

squeak-squeak-squeaker-squeak

Edited 3 hours ago by darthgently

[tater]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Its been some time since we had an raptor fail, the missing firing for the boost back burn stated for landing so I assume computer did not start it for some reason, my guess is fuel flow issues. Say to low or unstable pressure after the flip so engine did not start. it could be running hot but then why did it not shut down early once the trust was not very needed they could just run the other engines a second longer. 

It's important to note that the engine and fuel system failures after IFT-1 were in a way that no amount of static testing would ever have discovered. And some of the IFT-1 failures might have been FOD related—so doing the static fire might cause the failures. Also, IFT-1 had the least modern engines ever flown on SS, they are constantly improving them.

I say "engine and fuel system" very intentionally—an engine failure means something entirely within the engine. The tricky bit has been operating them during extreme forces on the vehicle: g loads from negative to positive (negative removed via hot staging), sideways accelerations, supersonic airstreams into engine bells, etc.

Static testing this vehicle would self-evidently be a stupid waste of time—a horse that has beaten long past it being dead.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by tater

[Nuke]

its been < 24 hours since the breakup and people's imaginations are running wild in lieu of an actual data-based analysis which has not had time to come to fruition. welcome to the internet. it has a way of making mountains out of molehills.

[Codraroll]

13 minutes ago, Nuke said:

its been < 24 hours since the breakup and people's imaginations are running wild in lieu of an actual data-based analysis which has not had time to come to fruition. welcome to the internet. it has a way of making mountains out of molehills.

In this case it's mostly one specific user with a fixation on insisting that every information gap must be filled with his very specific pet theory, regardless of how many times it has previously been debunked, often using the same arguments as before.

At what point being honestly mistaken becomes indistinguishable from deliberate malfeasance, I don't know, but we must be close.

[tater]

 

[Brotoro]

I remember when we were told definitively and repeatedly in this thread that it was IMPOSSIBLE for a cylindrically shaped vehicle to maintain stability during reentry.  This turned out not to be the case.  Now we hear definitively and repeatedly that every eruption of flame or propellant distribution problem is the result of some catastrophic Raptor failure. This, too, shall pass.

[tater]

 

Doesn't even look real:

 

[Minmus Taster]

So no major consequences from what I can see, fine by me as long as the debris landed in the expected areas and no one was hurt. Still gives me the ick that a private company can be leading the investigation for the incident it caused.

[tater]

14 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

So no major consequences from what I can see, fine by me as long as the debris landed in the expected areas and no one was hurt. Still gives me the ick that a private company can be leading the investigation for the incident it caused.

This is true for every rocket incident.

How would FAA possibly lead an investigation? Tap one of the many highest level rocket engineers they employ? Use their massive infrastructure to test rocket components? Good thing the very best and brightest aerospace engineers graduate and immediately apply to FAA, then SpaceX, BO, etc get the dregs.

Edited 14 minutes ago by tater

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

24 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

a private company can be leading the investigation for the incident it caused

No other way to really do it without losing IP to the competition.  Given that an explosion was always a possibility, even a likelihood, I'm not bothered this is an Internal investigation with reporting to the relevant agencies. 

 

Had something unforseen or injuries to a third party - I'd agree with you