Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday November 21 2019, @05:38AM   Printer-friendly
from the off-the-top dept.

SpaceX Starship Mk. 1 fails during cryogenic loading test

SpaceX's first full-scale Starship prototype – [Mark 1 (Mk. 1)] – has experienced a major failure at its Boca Chica test site in southern Texas. The failure occurred late in the afternoon on Wednesday, midway through a test of the vehicle's propellant tanks.

The Mk. 1 Starship – which was shown off to the world in September as part of SpaceX's and Elon Musk's presentation of the design changes to the Starship system was to fly the first 20 km test flight of the program in the coming weeks.

The main event of today, the Mk. 1 Starship's first cryogenic loading test, involved filling the methane and oxygen tanks with a cryogenic liquid.

During the test, the top bulkhead of the vehicle ruptured and was ejected away from the site, followed by a large cloud of vapors and cryogenic liquid from the tank.

There will be no attempt to salvage Starship Mk1, with focus instead shifting to Mk3 (in Texas) and Mk2 (in Florida):

Minutes after the anomaly was broadcast on several unofficial livestreams of SpaceX's Boca Chica facilities, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk acknowledged Starship Mk1's failure in a tweet, telegraphing a general lack of worry. Of note, Musk indicated that Mk1 was valuable mainly as a manufacturing pathfinder, entirely believable but also partially contradicting his September 2019 presentation, in which he pretty clearly stated that Mk1 would soon be launched to ~20 km to demonstrate Starship's exotic new skydiver landing strategy.

Musk says that instead of repairing Starship Mk1, SpaceX's Boca Chica team will move directly to Starship Mk3, a significantly more advanced design that has benefitted from the numerous lessons learned from building and flying Starhopper and fabricating Starship Mk1. The first Starship Mk3 ring appears to have already been prepared, but SpaceX's South Texas focus has clearly been almost entirely on preparing Starship Mk1 for wet dress rehearsal, static fire, and flight tests. After today's failure, it sounds like Mk1 will most likely be retired early and replaced as soon as possible by Mk3.

Above all else, the most important takeaway from today's Starship Mk1 anomaly is that the vehicle was a very early prototype and SpaceX likely wants to have vehicle failures occur on the ground or in-flight. As long as no humans are at risk, pushing Starship to failure (or suffering unplanned failures like today's) can only serve to benefit and improve the vehicle's design, especially when the failed hardware can be recovered intact (ish) and carefully analyzed.

Video of the rupture is available on NASASpaceFlight's forums. Start with this forum post and continue down the page for other pictures and videos.

Previously: SpaceX Provides Update on Starship with Assembled Prototype as the Backdrop

Related: The SpaceX Starship Pushback: NASA Administrator's Scolding and More
SpaceX's Starship Can Launch 400 Starlink Satellites at Once
Artemis Program Requires More Cash to Reach Moon by 2024; SLS Could Cost 1,000x More Than Starship


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:24AM (13 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:24AM (#922921) Homepage Journal

    No problem, time for the next generation, which will be So Much Better!

    This is the paradigm of the future [youtube.com].

    Six months to Mars? No problem. If the life support system fails enroute, no worries. We'll have another ship (and another crew) ready to go at the next launch window [clowder.net].

    If those folks die too, meh. There's lots more where they came from. We'll get it right. Eventually.

    And each time, we learn new stuff! So it will better next time. We promise!

    Or they could just use my idea [soylentnews.org]:

    But what if we took a different angle and weren't so concerned about returning people safely? We could send older folks, those with terminal diseases, those with spinal cord injuries (who needs to walk in micro-gravity?) and those who just want the glory and adventure of advancing human knowledge and helping to make humans a space-faring race.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:50AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:50AM (#922932)

    There are two types of tests. There are tests like these where you're genuinely not entirely sure how it's going to turn out and you expect it to break a reasonable chunk of the time. And then there are public tests. Those are the tests that are done after lots of tests like this where you claim it's a test, but you're already extensively tested your system inside out and this is just a demonstration of your results.

    This was the former test, unannounced and caught out only due to the fact that SpaceX is building and testing their ship in plane view of anybody with a camera. And indeed there are lots of cameras pointed right at it 24/7; there are even live streams.

    The first trips to Mars, especially to colonize, will almost certainly be one-way trips, one way or the other. And Musk has also made no secret of that. That doesn't have much of anything to do with stuff like this. Aside from that though the reason you want fit and qualified people on the early tests is because they aren't just passive passengers counting the stars. Building up a colony is going to be a ton of work. Those guys aren't being sent to go lounge around on Mars or to act as human guinea pigs (though that is de facto part of their role), they're being sent to go work their asses off so some decades from now the type of folks you mention can go retire and live a passive life of leisure on Mars.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:55AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:55AM (#922936) Journal

      that SpaceX is building and testing their ship in plane view of anybody with a camera.

      Oh, wasn't that-other-what's-his-name with launching rockets from planes? (grin)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday November 21 2019, @11:04AM (1 child)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday November 21 2019, @11:04AM (#922938) Homepage Journal

      Note to self: Remember to put snark/Poe's law tags on pretty much everything I post. Otherwise, bad things happen.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 22 2019, @01:16AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22 2019, @01:16AM (#923253) Journal
        Out of curiosity, what was the point of that snark? SpaceX is using standard engineering techniques that have been successfully used by aerospace for the past century and the past decade by SpaceX. Break stuff in tests so it doesn't break in practice. And if you're not breaking stuff, then you're not doing the tests right.
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:52AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:52AM (#922933)

    Or they could just use my idea [soylentnews.org]:

    Oh, a pity sending idiots doesn't serve the purposes of feeding takyon's obsession with Musk space travel agency. We could send khallow. Or Runaway.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 21 2019, @11:14AM (3 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday November 21 2019, @11:14AM (#922941) Journal

    They are going to be launching Starship dozens if not hundreds of times to orbit before sending humans in one.

    They already have experience working on life support with Crew Dragon, with one successful orbital test (sans humans). Starship's version will be more complicated, but it's probably easier to make it work than these pressurized tanks which they seem to have so much trouble with. And the environment of space is typically not as difficult to deal with as re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, a known killer of astronauts.

    6 months to Mars is often quoted but probably a worst case scenario. In-orbit refueling can give it more delta-v. They can probably cut trip time to 2-3 months. They might have to do something special to get it down to 30 days. Nuclear propulsion? Less travel time means less supplies needed, less cancer risk, etc.

    Your idea to send elderly volunteers is probably worthwhile. But it's too far into the 2020s/2030s to matter right now. It remains to be seen how the whole thing would be organized (and there could be multiple independent private, commercial, and government efforts to send people to Mars). Starship's low-Earth orbit capabilities will be revolutionary even if nobody is sent to Mars. Also, the official line is that anybody who goes to Mars could get a ride back. And if you help build the Mars methane factory, you can die knowing that going to Mars doesn't need to be a commitment for the fickle youngsters who will follow in your footsteps and shit on your grave (to fertilize crops).

    We should consider sending only women to Mars [slate.com]. Elderly women, to use your idea.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 22 2019, @03:19AM (2 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Friday November 22 2019, @03:19AM (#923294)

      And one of the nice thing about life support systems, is that you can actually test them pretty thoroughly on the ground. Microgravity and radiation throw some extra wrenches into the mix, but at this point they're things that we understand pretty well and can mostly solve in the design phase.

      I wonder how fast you could get going if you had a cluster of several Starships in orbit, all fully fueled, operated "Falcon Super-Heavy" style as a multistage rocket launching to Mars. You might even be able to get the Starships that disconnect as they're exhausted to Mars on a more leisurely path - I'm sure they'd come in handy for something.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 22 2019, @04:37AM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday November 22 2019, @04:37AM (#923309) Journal

        I don't know if they will ever start bolting them together like Falcon Heavy. What has been mentioned is widening Starship, possibly making it comparable in capabilities to ITS:

        https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-the-next-generation/ [teslarati.com]
        https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/08/spacex-super-heavy-starship-2-0-will-be-8-times-bigger-than-super-heavy-starship.html [nextbigfuture.com]

        Note that there is no confirmation that the height would change as the illustrations assume, just the width. It could look fatter like Starhopper. It might happen in the 2030s, or it might just live and die as a tweeted idea.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 22 2019, @03:16PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday November 22 2019, @03:16PM (#923401)

          The next-gen rocket is impressive - but I'm not sure it'd actually be called for any time soon. You need a big rocket to lift big payloads into orbit, and it's going to take a long while before Starship is maxed out.

          For interplanetary passenger flights though you may well want something much bigger - and there's no need for aerodynamics or high thrust, just lots of fuel. It seems to me that in that environment, Star-Tankers(?) would make for excellent "tugboats", or even just autonomous fuel tanks - let them keep a separate "pusher plate" fueled rather than trying to coordinate thrust from multiple Tankers.

          Hmm, or perhaps the easiest route - I bet a SuperHeavy (1st stage) pushing just a nose cone rather than a Starship could make it to orbit on its own. Equip it for orbital refueling and with as few engines as possible (to cut down of cost and dead weight), and you've got two Starships worth of fuel capacity in a platform already designed to push a Starship. It probably couldn't survive reentry, but you might be able to park it in orbit for re-use as an interplanetary pusher, or just as a fuel depot.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Thursday November 21 2019, @01:31PM (3 children)

    by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 21 2019, @01:31PM (#922969)

    > No problem, time for the next generation, which will be So Much Better!™

    Falcon (1 variant) blew up on first three launches (not ground tests, actual launches).

    First few booster landings also failed or blew up.

    Now, Falcons go up fine, they come down fine, they go up again, and so on until it's ******* boring.

    Meanwhile Boeing and co. continue flushing money (way more than falcon) down the toilet seat so SLS will be "right first flight", if that ever happens.

    End of the day, the question is would you rather fly on something built by Musk or something built by the company that brought you the 737-Maximum-Lawndart. Not that easy a call now is it?

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 21 2019, @01:41PM (2 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday November 21 2019, @01:41PM (#922970) Journal

      At one point, there was even talk of sending astronauts on the very first SLS flight [space.com]. But now the plan is muuuch safer with crew on the second flight instead.

      It's totally safe because it reuses some Space Shuttle parts. It's like it has been flown dozens of times already with no incident.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday November 21 2019, @08:46PM (1 child)

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday November 21 2019, @08:46PM (#923141)

        Yep, launching with crew on the first flight - who would do such a crazy thing? It's not like the very first Space Shuttle launch was crewed. Oh wait, yes it was - it had a crew of two and circled the Earth 36 times before landing without serious incident.

        Now I'm a fan of SpaceX's iterative design philosophy - you couldn't have gotten me onto that first Space Shuttle launch. Nothing is perfect and I'd just as soon fly on a system that's been repeatedly tested as a unified system to find the unexpected problems.

        However, the "do it right the first time" philosophy also has a proven track record. It seems to be far slower and more expensive, but for an organization that depends on political support for funding... maybe it's the only strategy that really makes sense. One rocket blows up, and suddenly the purse strings are being cinched closed because nobody wants to be on record throwing good money after bad. And if your organization is already operating on "this *can't* be allowed to fail" mentality, putting a few human lives on the line too is no big deal. We spend far more human lives on far less noble goals on a regular basis.

        That said - if you don't actually have a good reason to put people on board for the first test flight, it's probably not a great idea, as it will amplify the backlash in case of a fatal problem. But at ~$2 billion per launch you'd better have some sort of payload worth launching - otherwise it makes for an extremely expensive test flight.