FAA Grounds Starship After Mixed Result Of Test launch, Explosion, Severe Pad Damage. With Implications For Star Link Expansion.

[Uttamattamakin]

Summary

The FAA has grounded Starship prototypes until measures can be taken for a safe launch.  There was massive destruciton to the pad.  Large chunks of concrete as well as concrete dust spread over the environment including populated areas.  Starship is meant to carry Space X's next generation of Starlink satellites well as be the basis for a human landing system for the Artemis Moon Landing effort. 

 

Quotes

From IGN

Quote

The FAA has now grounded Starship prototypes as it conducts a thorough “mishap investigation” designed to determine issues with the launch vehicle, their effect on the environment, and to ensure the safety of the nearby population for subsequent launches.

 

From Quartz

 

Quote

Business insiders headline and an important image.

Quote

The dust thrown up by the rocket’s engines was more broadly felt: A thick layer of sand descended on the surrounding communities, notably the nearby city of Port Isabel. While the dust isn’t known to be contaminated with any chemicals, breathing particulate matter in general is hazardous to health. Last year, when evaluating the air quality risks of a Starship launch, the FAA concluded that it was “not expected to result in significant impacts to air quality.”

A related YouTube Video

 

A good and balanced youtube outlet "Angry Astronaut"    Note it mixes facts with, an educated opinion on what needs to be done, but does show footage of where the debris field is. 

 

My thoughts

Here is an image from the above video of a very large chunk there are multiple independent vids that show images of parts of the launch pad concrete hitting to ocean 100's of meters away from the launch pad.   My thought is that this is uncceptable.  

 

My thought on this is that the FAA should never have permitted this launch to occur without the sort of structures and measures NASA and others have used to launch similar rockets and avoid this level of destruction.  YES, when SLS launched it damaged its launch structure a bit.  So do most launches in fact.   Not like this. Space X will need to build a flame trench and proper deluge system to direct and suppress the natural effect of all of that energy being released.  A rocket launch is basically a sustained, controlled, and directed explosion even when it works right.  Matter is thrown out the back at high velocity in the form of hot gasses expanding out of a nozzel.    The ground under that will react to having this force applied to it in the way we see here. 

 

Space X will have to do some rebuilding and will eventually get back up there, but it will take time.   

That said, this is a lesson in rocketry learned a long time ago.  Space X has brilliant engineers but needs to accept those parts of the system that do not need to be reinvented. 

 

 

 

Sources

https://www.ign.com/articles/faa-grounds-spacexs-starship-prototypes-pending-mishap-investigation-of-explosive-launch-attempt

https://qz.com/the-faa-let-spacex-launch-starship-without-the-usual-pa-1850368386

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starship-rocket-crater-concrete-launchpad-upon-liftoff-2023-4

 

[jaslion]

Fair enough.

 

I get it's a prototype and all but it really feels irresponsible to basically have the only expectation be that it clears the launchpad (it did in more than one way), have multiple engine failures, fail to correctly self destruct and then launch rocks everywhere because the launchpad blew up.

 

I know nasa is hyper carefull and slow on purpose to not get backlash but they have had a ton of success doing this.

 

It feels that this second space race is just a reflection of the current world. Spend as much as you can as rapidly as you can to be the first to launch a minimum viable product and then rack in more money to build the actual one.

[Uttamattamakin]

1 minute ago, jaslion said:

Fair enough.

 

I get it's a prototype and all but it really feels irresponsible to basically have the only expectation be that it clears the launchpad (it did in more than one way), have multiple engine failures, fail to correctly self destruct and then launch rocks everywhere because the launchpad blew up.

The explosion high up and far out to sea is not really ... as much of an issue.  The issue at the launch pad as that video puts it is this.  

This destruction was the result of StarShip working as normal.  The engines are very powerful and there are a lot of them.  This kind of destruction of the launch pad for every launch can't be how it works all the time.   We have known a way to prevent this that works for decades and decades.  Digging a flame trench and delugeing the launch area with copious amounts of water. 
 

They need to make the investment to build this.    Maybe they just need to use one of NASA's pads or one of the US Space forces pads.   You know use the wheel instead of reinventing it. 

[manikyath]

8 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

The FAA has grounded Starship prototypes until measures can be taken for a safe launch.

i feel like SpaceX would have been shocked if this wouldnt have happened.

 

i'm also pretty sure SpaceX has internally grounded starship until it does not throw the launch pad up higher in the air than the rocket is tall.

 

slight sidenote on the "populated areas" notion...

population of 5, and evacuated for any tests that could potentially cause an engine to fire.

 

while this result is *obviously* unacceptable, i think SpaceX "assumed" at least some level of damage, but perhaps underestimated the amount of absolute concrete shredding that would happen. there were already parts delivered to starbase that appear to be part of a flame diverter / whatever it's called these days. maybe SpaceX assumed they'd be tearing down the pad anyways to do redesigns based on just "out of hand" this got.

 

another thing to note.. "the FAA has grounded" - the FAA has to approve everything on an as-need basis anyways. the FAA grounds starship more regularly than SpaceX does tests. it's simply a process of "are all boxes ticked?" and as this test shows.. they arent. when boxes are ticked, starship will fly again.

[jaslion]

3 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The explosion high up and far out to sea is not really ... as much of an issue.  The issue at the launch pad as that video puts it is this.  

This destruction was the result of StarShip working as normal.  The engines are very powerful and there are a lot of them.  This kind of destruction of the launch pad for every launch can't be how it works all the time.   We have known a way to prevent this that works for decades and decades.  Digging a flame trench and delugeing the launch area with copious amounts of water. 
 

They need to make the investment to build this.    Maybe they just need to use one of NASA's pads or one of the US Space forces pads.   You know use the wheel instead of reinventing it. 

I didn't want to believe you that they didn't use a flame trench, water, a guide,... anything but wow.

 

It's really just a cooled launchpad up in the air and then the rocket blasting on a generic slab of concrete.

 

No wonder it blew up. Adding 10's of meters of distance isn't gonna save a slab of concrete from that force or heat.

 

I get that they want to make their own thing entirely but as you said dont reinvent the wheel when it's not needed.

[jaslion]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

there were already parts delivered to starbase that appear to be part of a flame diverter / whatever it's called these days. maybe SpaceX assumed they'd be tearing down the pad anyways to do redesigns based on just "out of hand" this got.

Could also be rushing the timeline. Wouldn't be too surprised with that either considering who's behind spacex

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, jaslion said:

Could also be rushing the timeline. Wouldn't be too surprised with that either considering who's behind spacex

SpaceX is never not rushing the timeline. should i point out that just 6 years ago "watertowers fly" happened in some random swampland next to Boca Chica?

 

the first ever test of a prototype that was basicly just a tank on 3 legs with an engine underneath flew in 2017, and a mere 6 years later they're making some "unscheduled digging" with the world's most powerful rocket.

 

if concrete is the only thing holding back starship, this timeline may actually be "elon time" for once...

[jaslion]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

should i point out that just 6 years ago "watertowers fly" happened in some random swampland next to Boca Chica?

 

Never heard of this.

 

After looking up:

That honestly looks just funny. A water tank with an engine. Honestly kinda surprised it didn't fall over.
 

4 minutes ago, manikyath said:

and a mere 6 years later they're making some "unscheduled digging" with the world's most powerful rocket.

It's impressive but if I wanted a mining robot I'd go to germany and see how far they are on google maps with making a coal pit the size of a small country

 

Jokes aside it's cool what they are doing but quite rushed and making quite a few mistakes as for a fully made prototype you'd expect more than lifting off a bit is good enough. Then again it's private money so they can fuck around a bit more I guess?
 

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Then again it's private money so they can fuck around a bit more I guess?

with some irony, "failing faster" makes SpaceX a significantly cheaper space program, because at some point doing more simulations just hits diminishing returns.  if at that point you can just send something to the sky "curious if it'll stay together" you get *a lot* of valuable telemetry to continue your research with.

 

Artemis, on the other hand, was basicly a given that it would at least fly close enough to it's scheduled flight plan... but that cost significantly more than starship is costing SpaceX.

 

but it just happens that "blowing stuff up with taxpayer money" doesnt look as good as sitting behind a computer until it actually takes off, even  if blowing stuff up is the more cost-efficient way of going at it.

[BobVonBob]

6 minutes ago, manikyath said:

slight sidenote on the "populated areas" notion...

population of 5, and evacuated for any tests that could potentially cause an engine to fire.

The launch dusted Port Isabel, with a population of more than 5,000. Blowing (warning: guesstimate) 50 tons of concrete and dirt into the air definitely affected populated areas, even if you dismiss those five people.

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

The launch dusted Port Isabel, with a population of more than 5,000. Blowing (warning: guesstimate) 50 tons of concrete and dirt into the air definitely affected populated areas, even if you dismiss those five people.

okay.. i was unaware it flew *that* far.

[Uttamattamakin]

4 minutes ago, manikyath said:

Artemis, on the other hand, was basicly a given that it would at least fly close enough to it's scheduled flight plan... but that cost significantly more than starship is costing SpaceX.

 

I think we need to give proper respect for NASA.  For years they were the ones people thought of as a laggard.  Now SLS the rocket that would never fly has sent an Orion Spacecraft to orbit the Moon and return to Earth.  To land they are waiting on a Star Ship derived human landing system. 

This is why to me the more interesting story is how this will affect.    Starship was going to take much larger numbers of a new generation of Starlink satellite to orbit.  This would have increased coverage and reduced latency.  

[Uttamattamakin]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

okay.. i was unaware it flew *that* far.

Look at the video.  It shows footage taken at the time of big chunks that got to the beach and even hit the ocean.  100's of meters from where the pad was.  

[jaslion]

13 minutes ago, manikyath said:

but it just happens that "blowing stuff up with taxpayer money" doesnt look as good as sitting behind a computer until it actually takes off, even  if blowing stuff up is the more cost-efficient way of going at it.

Oh for sure if this was a nasa rocket people would be there with spitforks and torches

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I think we need to give proper respect for NASA.  For years they were the ones people thought of as a laggard.  Now SLS the rocket that would never fly has sent an Orion Spacecraft to orbit the Moon and return to Earth.  To land they are waiting on a Star Ship derived human landing system. 

This is why to me the more interesting story is how this will affect.    Starship was going to take much larger numbers of a new generation of Starlink satellite to orbit.  This would have increased coverage and reduced latency.  

it's a valid business strategy, but there's a reason why US space missions are all trough partners these days. it's just too expensive to do "daily operations" the way NASA is used to doing them.

2 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Look at the video.  It shows footage taken at the time of big chunks that got to the beach and even hit the ocean.  100's of meters from where the pad was.  

i watched it live, there's a difference between concrete flying overtop of starship and concrete flying more than 5km away.

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Oh for sure if this was a nasa rocket people would be there with spitforks and torches

nah, if it were a nasa rocket it would have taken 5x the time to develop, 10x the money to develop.. but it would have flown the frist time.

(see: artemis.)

[Uttamattamakin]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

i watched it live, there's a difference between concrete flying overtop of starship and concrete flying more than 5km away.

 

Maybe I have miscommunicated.  Debris from the launch bad did exactly that.  It didn't just fly over the pad... some chunks from the launch pad ... hit the ocean.   The pad was that destroyed. 

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

Maybe I have miscommunicated.  Debris from the launch bad did exactly that.  It didn't just fly over the pad... some chunks from the launch pad ... hit the ocean.   The pad was that destroyed. 

i'm well aware. like i said - i watched it happen live.  i just sort of assumed that concrete didnt fly a 5km flight across said ocean to hit the city.

 

and i read  your source to confirm this....

- the dust cloud drifted towards the city, and left a bunch of grime. this can be resolved by picking a day with favorable winds.

- one window claims to have smashed, and one old lady was scared now.. the rocket was cartwheeling at some point, and eventually "terminated". i'm assuming one of the latter is the more likely cause of the damaged window. given the quoted pricetag i'm assuming it was a big window aimed at the bay, so in perfect position to receive the blast shockwave.

- i dont see any mention of actual concrete having made the bay flight.

[Zando_]

24 minutes ago, manikyath said:

with some irony, "failing faster" makes SpaceX a significantly cheaper space program, because at some point doing more simulations just hits diminishing returns.  if at that point you can just send something to the sky "curious if it'll stay together" you get *a lot* of valuable telemetry to continue your research with.

The problem is exploding things causes this:

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Debris from the launch bad did exactly that.  It didn't just fly over the pad... some chunks from the launch pad ... hit the ocean.   The pad was that destroyed. 

This is the reason other folks do a lot of math and simulation before going "hehe ronket lonch". I guess at least they haven't done this sort of testing with people onboard, but it's a worrying precedent. Not a surprising one for a company ran by Musk tho, looking into motorcycles and it's (not) nice to learn that a few bikers have been killed by Teslas because they wanted to rush a cheap image recognition system into production instead of relying on well known and industry standard redundant sensor setups. Being willing to blow things up and dust an entire town because "it's cheaper than doing proper testing beforehand" is expected behavior at this point. 

 

IIRC the reason... I think it was one of the space shuttles blew up, was also because a private company had something out of spec but forced the launch anyways because it would have looked bad for their company (and thus hurt profits) if it didn't launch. This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster. There were some concerns about O-rings but then the company changed their minds and said to launch it anyways, sure enough they failed and the shuttle failed killing all on board. 

 

Bit rambly, but yeah this is a line of reasoning we've seen result in deaths before, and is a precedent other companies with the same leader have already set, so it's worrying to see here as well. 

[Holmes108]

Quote

Last year, when evaluating the air quality risks of a Starship launch, the FAA concluded that it was “not expected to result in significant impacts to air quality.”

Maybe some of this was just hard to predict. I haven't followed this super closely, but my understanding is this is an unprecedented level/type of rocket, hence why we're doing this test to begin with. Even the FAA may have miscalculated. 

 

Changes need to be made, but none of it seems to be a catastrophe, thankfully.

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, Zando_ said:

The problem is exploding things causes this:

except.. the source says nothing about actual debris making the flight across the pad, just the dust cloud.

 

and this:

59 minutes ago, manikyath said:

i think SpaceX "assumed" at least some level of damage, but perhaps underestimated the amount of absolute concrete shredding that would happen. there were already parts delivered to starbase that appear to be part of a flame diverter / whatever it's called these days. maybe SpaceX assumed they'd be tearing down the pad

anyways to do redesigns based on just "out of hand" this got.

[Uttamattamakin]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

i'm well aware. like i said - i watched it happen live.  i just sort of assumed that concrete didnt fly a 5km flight across said ocean to hit the city.

 

and i read  your source to confirm this....

- the dust cloud drifted towards the city, and left a bunch of grime. this can be resolved by picking a day with favorable winds.

- one window claims to have smashed, and one old lady was scared now.. the rocket was cartwheeling at some point, and eventually "terminated". i'm assuming one of the latter is the more likely cause of the damaged window. given the quoted pricetag i'm assuming it was a big window aimed at the bay, so in perfect position to receive the blast shockwave.

- i dont see any mention of actual concrete having made the bay flight.

Actually here is the video from Washington post.  It did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/21/spacex-starship-launch-debris-shrapnel/

 

[Uttamattamakin]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

except.. the source says nothing about actual debris making the flight across the pad, just the dust cloud.

 

and this:

See above the sources do say this.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/21/spacex-starship-launch-debris-shrapnel/    This is what all the news media says about this news.   It's not good news but it is what the news says.   

Not just this new news source but the news sources originally cited.  

[jaslion]

22 minutes ago, manikyath said:

nah, if it were a nasa rocket it would have taken 5x the time to develop, 10x the money to develop.. but it would have flown the frist time.

(see: artemis.)

Meant if a nasa rocket would have exploded.

 

For sure if it was a nasa rocket it would have done basically everything as expected.

[Uttamattamakin]

4 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

Maybe some of this was just hard to predict. I haven't followed this super closely, but my understanding is this is an unprecedented level/type of rocket, hence why we're doing this test to begin with. Even the FAA may have miscalculated. 

 

Changes need to be made, but none of it seems to be a catastrophe, thankfully.

No this wasn't hard to predict.  People have been launching very large rockets for decades and decades... most of a century now.    Plus basic analysis via Newtons laws and the laws of Thermodynamics would tell us what is going to happen.  NASA, Roscosmos, and others don't use the structures and systems they do just to waste money.