FAA to ground the SpaceX Starship Super Heavy launch program pending a "mishap investigation."

[Nevilledog]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/spacex-starship-explosion-spread-particulate-matter-for-miles.html

SpaceX launched the largest rocket ever built for the first time on Thursday from its Boca Chica, Texas, spaceport. The Starship spacecraft, designed to fly people on a Mars mission someday, lifted off the launch pad then blew up in mid-flight, with no crew on board.

Now, residents and researchers are scrambling to assess the impact of the explosion on local communities, their health, habitat and wildlife including endangered species. Of primary concern is the large amount of sand- and ash-like particulate matter and heavier debris kicked up by the launch. The particulate emissions spread far beyond the expected debris field.

As a result of the explosion, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded the company’s Starship Super Heavy launch program pending results of a “mishap investigation,” part of standard practice, according to an email from the agency sent to CNBC after the launch. No injuries or public property damage had yet been reported to the agency as of Friday.

SpaceX did not immediately return a request for comment.

Not in the plan

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, speaking publicly on Twitter Spaces on April 16 ahead of the test flight, acknowledged that a vehicle with 33 engines is akin to “a box of grenades,” and that the Starship vehicle was not likely to reach orbit but was likely to explode.

However, Musk and SpaceX did not accurately predict that their launchpad would be destroyed, nor that particulate matter would rain down on residents and habitat as far away as Port Isabel, a town about six miles from the launchpad, and South Padre Island, a few miles up the coast from the site.

*snip*

[Mr.Bill]

1. You mean you can't be so filthy rich

that you're allowed to just blow shit up without regard to what falls from it?

[Pinback]

2. Maybe somebody smarter than I can explain why launching

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2023, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

a vehicle with 33 engines (that) is akin to “a box of grenades”

is a good idea.

I mean, I understand that any rocket is by its nature potentially explosive, but this sounds like they expected — even intended — for the thing to blow up. Help me out here — what am I missing?

[VMA131Marine]

5. On the one hand ...

having 33 engines means you can afford to have two or three shut down during the launch because each one only represents 3% of the total thrust of the rocket. The Saturn V first and second stages both had five engines so losing one meant losing 20% of the total thrust. That said, the Saturn V Rocketdyne F-1 first stage engines never had an inflight shutdown. The Soviet N1 moon rocket, in contrast, had 30 engines in its first stage, almost as many as Starship, and never had a successful launch. Indeed engine failures played a role in all four N1 launch failures. With that many engines, there’s just more likelihood of something going wrong and then a failure can cascade from one engine to the others.

Based on what we know so far, my guess is that the engines that shutdown on Starship were damaged by debris gouged out of the ground under the launch pad. It’s not obvious why this then prevented stage separation and second stage ignition except maybe the conditions for this to happen were never met until after the rocket had started tumbling. At that point there wasn’t enough authority in the thrust vectoring system to bring the rocket back under control.

I’m not sold on using so many engines, but developing a large engine equivalent to the F-1 was probably cost prohibitive and small engines would likely be needed anyway for the boost-back burn, descent, and landing.

[Pinback]

9. Interesting and well explained. Thanks.

Certainly better for a launch to go awry with no humans on board. So I hope future missions will benefit from lessons learned this time.

[Matthew28]

4. I support space travel

and I hope that what ever that is the problem can be fixed so we can go to mars.

[VMA131Marine]

6. Going to Mars is less of a problem...

than getting back.

[Matthew28]

7. The first missions to mars

maybe one way trips. The people that go may have to sign a legal waiver and accept that reality.

[VMA131Marine]

8. I think that's unlikely tbh.

The chance of getting back may be low, but it won’t be zero. Suicide missions aren’t great for public opinion.

That said, once self-sustaining habitation modules start to be built out on Mars it’s a very real possibility that people will go to Mars with no intention of coming back. Not even the IRS can reach you on Mars. 😀