8 ms·

Whatever you think about Elon, the push for innovation with Spacex has been admirable. I've been more than a little disappointed with all the "they tried but i

Whatever you think about Elon, the push for innovation with Spacex has been admirable. I've been more than a little disappointed with all the "they tried but it blew up" headlines that came in the days following the test flight. The whole point is that this is bigger and more ambitious than any prior attempt - the failure is the most important part, it means you learn something. Anything more than a failure to ignite should be considered a success in my book.

rich_sasha 3y ago
I mostly agree, I think what irks is the combination of this approach and hubris at galactic scale (mostly just Musk I think, and some disciples thereof). But hey, a well built rocket with a ton of hubris will still fly.
armada651 3y ago
The thing is the launch likely failed for reasons that were known beforehand and were noticable even to a layman. They purposefully chose not to have a flame diverter, instead they were hoping to get away with simply blowing up the launchpad beneath them. I respect that they're trying to push boundaries, but this just seems foolish. For a company so focused on reducing cost through reusability, why did they choose to blow up the launch pad upon launch? I understand building a flame diverter for a rocket this massive is an incredible amount of work, but if it makes subsequent launches cheaper then wouldn't that amortize the costs?
- 8bitben 3y ago
  I think that's a reasonable response. At the same time, if it would have taken several more months to install a flame diverter / metal plating below the launch pad, would that be worth it, or negate the progress made by gathering flight data? I'm not sure we can know that for sure. I would hazard a guess that in the long term, it will have been the right decision.
- Szpadel 3y ago
  keep in mind this is still a prototype rocket, they have no guarantee that they won't learn anything important about how this should look like or what issues it could introduce they used something they knew to work so there is one less variable that should prevent liftoff at this point there is no reducing the cost phase yet, they try to test assumptions and learn what and how things can go wrong. It's much better that things go wrong at test flight than at mission flight. if they would get lucky and none of the issues would manifest, they could assume that design is perfect and do not try to improve it. so it's good if whatever can go wrong goes wrong at test flight
  - armada651 3y ago
    > if they would get lucky and none of the issues would manifest, they could assume that design is perfect and do not try to improve it. so it's good if whatever can go wrong goes wrong at test flight I agree that the success should be measured in lessons learned from the launch. However we learned next to nothing about the second stage because the first stage failed for reasons that weren't unexpected. So from that perspective the launch could be considered a failure, because they traded getting data on the second stage for learning a lesson that was already known.
    - Szpadel 3y ago
      assuming that this failure was caused by failed engines, I think this is a very important lesson, engines can fail during real missing and if their algorithms couldn't account correctly that, this is a very important thing to improve. and remember, as you already mentioned, that stage 2 won't even start until stage 1 succeeds, so they need to perfect that first. but I see your point, if they would manage to separate before stage 1 failure they could gather more data
      - AstralStorm 3y ago
        Engines are not supposed to fail ever. Super Heavy does not have sufficient margin to handle multiple failures (maybe one, maybe), and Starship has the same engines, where one failing means it is liable to just fall from the sky. Unless on the Moon, but then it would have to LEO or lunar orbit abort if it does not burn up on the spot and require a recovery mission.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  It is also indicative of how their lunar starship will damage itself on descent. At least NASA came to it's senses and funded a backup plan.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    It is not indicative of that. Lunar Starship is the second stage, this was the first that did the damage. Even that is different from the one launched in the recent test; it’s a variant that will do the final landing on different engines high up on the rocket. Per Wikipedia: > Within 100 meters of the lunar surface, the variant will utilize high‑thrust RCS thrusters located mid‑body to avoid plume impingement problems with the lunar regolith. Landing is also very different than takeoff; the F9 takes off with nine, lands with one. Likewise, Super Heavy launches with 33, but Starship lands with 3-6, and three of those are the vacuum variant, with much less focused plumes.
    - soperj 3y ago
      > but lands with 3-6, and three of those are the vacuum variant First stage will likely use more than 3-6, none will be the vacuum variant.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        The first stage isn’t going anywhere near lunar regolith. Ever.
        AstralStorm 3y ago
        And second stage has different engines since when? Starship proper is not that different, it has fewer engines, its landing gear provides worse conditions than the launchpad.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        Second stage (Starship) has always had different engines (both in quantity and construction; some are vacuum Raptors) than Super Heavy. Lunar Starship is itself a variant of the regular second stage; it'll need the cargo elevator, for example, which is shown in NASA's announcement graphics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEnz8V97Qck&t=2100 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEnz8V97Qck&t=2100 > for the terminal descent of Starship, a few tens of meters before we touch down on the lunar surface, we actually use a high-thrust RCS system, so that we don't impinge on the surface of the Moon with the high-thrust Raptor engines. ... uses the same methane and oxygen propellants as Raptor. (We'll see if that winds up being the actual final solution, but they've clearly at least thought about this aspect.)
- drfrank 3y ago
  Elon wrote: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784 > 3 months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount. > Wasn’t ready in time & we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag would make it through 1 launch. To me, it sounds like people that would have been considered experts (and probably still are) made assessments than turned out to be incorrect.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sundvor 3y ago
    Some times you just have to try. This was way bigger than anything that's gone before. I'm sure they'll have plenty of data now to make the launch pad even better than it would otherwise have been. Videos of the debris storm were pretty mind boggling to watch - it's difficult to comprehend the sheer amount of energy expended. I am truly looking forward to the learnings published from this.
- postmeta 3y ago
  Where is your evidence for "they were hoping to get away with simply blowing up the launchpad"? "Aspiring to have no flame diverter in Boca, but this could turn out to be a mistake" -Musk https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313952039869788173 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313952039869788173
  - armada651 3y ago
    Because they chose to go ahead with the launch with no flame diverter or anything else that would've protected the launch pad?
kickopotomus 3y ago
I agree with this sentiment. I have also been somewhat unsettled by the detractors here. I am not sure if this is purely an American sentiment, but it seems like more of the general population has started to view advancement in binary terms. In both science and public policy, it seems that an increasing proportion of the population view anything less than 100% success/improvement as an abject failure.
- WWLink 3y ago
  > I have also been somewhat unsettled by the detractors here. I wouldn't worry about it. The news papers always view it in a sorta pessimistic way. I used to joke about this with spacex's booster landings. When they couldn't stick a landing even though the mission itself was successful, the news sites always made headlines that sounded like "welp, spacex screwed up again" lol :D The news sites will always pick the headline that raises the most eyebrows. As for my liking of spacex but my great distaste for the jackass known as Elon, well, that's nothing new. I was saying that 10 years ago lol. You can still cheer on the accomplishments all of the engineers are spacex are making. That's fine.
  - AstralStorm 3y ago
    The problem with it is this is actually burning many millions of US taxpayer dollars. You think Musk is paying for it? Check SpaceX grants. As for the failure, the Raptor 2 failures have caused a RUD on multiple Starship launches so far. They should be back to static firing the Super Heavy or something, but this is not sexy enough for the billionaire. Until the engine and launchpad works reliably, there is literally no point in launching the boosters when you have high probability of mission failure right at the launch. (Even if it clears the tower.) Musk/SpaceX redefining failure as success is terribly annoying too. If done repeatedly enough it has the potential to tank the whole space program. They obviously wanted to test separation the most (since it was issued despite the control failure) and that failed too.
    - goalieca 3y ago
      The director of nasa calls this a great success. So does a former astronaut. > Thursday's launch was hailed as "a real accomplishment" and "so successful" by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and retired International Space Station Commander Chris Hadfield, respectively. SpaceX agreed. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171202753/spacex-starship-launch-explosion-cheer-success https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171202753/spacex-starship-la...
ksec 3y ago
>Whatever you think about Elon The problem is in modern mainstream media anything Elon does should be painted with a heavy dose of negative brush. All while adding more Social Media hatred to fuel the cycle. You then see a lot of people are actually very supportive of SpaceX and Starship. They dont get the MSM media or Social media boost of their voice. So now MSM and Social Media are changing their tone to question their previous reporting of "they tried but it blew up" and offer some insight to label it more like success.
anovikov 3y ago
Success of failure will be defined by the FAA, let's see how will they approach issuing a launch license for the next test. Somehow i'm not too optimistic.
drewcoo 3y ago
The media (and pop culture in general) has a different understanding of failure. I think they're wrong. I'm not sure I agree with you either, though. I'm a big believer in failing as often as possible and recovering in such a way that no customer or outside observer notices. And the fact that rockets have a history of audacious risks and fantastic explosions is no excuse for that ongoing pattern. It's not just about fatalities or the raw cost of equipment lost. It's also about confidence and, where applicable, stock prices. Any decent manager should understand that, so maybe it's another example of Musk's companies being mismanaged.

rich_sasha 3y ago

I mostly agree, I think what irks is the combination of this approach and hubris at galactic scale (mostly just Musk I think, and some disciples thereof). But hey, a well built rocket with a ton of hubris will still fly.

armada651 3y ago

The thing is the launch likely failed for reasons that were known beforehand and were noticable even to a layman. They purposefully chose not to have a flame diverter, instead they were hoping to get away with simply blowing up the launchpad beneath them. I respect that they're trying to push boundaries, but this just seems foolish. For a company so focused on reducing cost through reusability, why did they choose to blow up the launch pad upon launch? I understand building a flame diverter for a rocket this massive is an incredible amount of work, but if it makes subsequent launches cheaper then wouldn't that amortize the costs?

8bitben 3y ago
I think that's a reasonable response. At the same time, if it would have taken several more months to install a flame diverter / metal plating below the launch pad, would that be worth it, or negate the progress made by gathering flight data? I'm not sure we can know that for sure. I would hazard a guess that in the long term, it will have been the right decision.
Szpadel 3y ago
keep in mind this is still a prototype rocket, they have no guarantee that they won't learn anything important about how this should look like or what issues it could introduce they used something they knew to work so there is one less variable that should prevent liftoff at this point there is no reducing the cost phase yet, they try to test assumptions and learn what and how things can go wrong. It's much better that things go wrong at test flight than at mission flight. if they would get lucky and none of the issues would manifest, they could assume that design is perfect and do not try to improve it. so it's good if whatever can go wrong goes wrong at test flight
- armada651 3y ago
  > if they would get lucky and none of the issues would manifest, they could assume that design is perfect and do not try to improve it. so it's good if whatever can go wrong goes wrong at test flight I agree that the success should be measured in lessons learned from the launch. However we learned next to nothing about the second stage because the first stage failed for reasons that weren't unexpected. So from that perspective the launch could be considered a failure, because they traded getting data on the second stage for learning a lesson that was already known.
  - Szpadel 3y ago
    assuming that this failure was caused by failed engines, I think this is a very important lesson, engines can fail during real missing and if their algorithms couldn't account correctly that, this is a very important thing to improve. and remember, as you already mentioned, that stage 2 won't even start until stage 1 succeeds, so they need to perfect that first. but I see your point, if they would manage to separate before stage 1 failure they could gather more data
    - AstralStorm 3y ago
      Engines are not supposed to fail ever. Super Heavy does not have sufficient margin to handle multiple failures (maybe one, maybe), and Starship has the same engines, where one failing means it is liable to just fall from the sky. Unless on the Moon, but then it would have to LEO or lunar orbit abort if it does not burn up on the spot and require a recovery mission.
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
It is also indicative of how their lunar starship will damage itself on descent. At least NASA came to it's senses and funded a backup plan.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  It is not indicative of that. Lunar Starship is the second stage, this was the first that did the damage. Even that is different from the one launched in the recent test; it’s a variant that will do the final landing on different engines high up on the rocket. Per Wikipedia: > Within 100 meters of the lunar surface, the variant will utilize high‑thrust RCS thrusters located mid‑body to avoid plume impingement problems with the lunar regolith. Landing is also very different than takeoff; the F9 takes off with nine, lands with one. Likewise, Super Heavy launches with 33, but Starship lands with 3-6, and three of those are the vacuum variant, with much less focused plumes.
  - soperj 3y ago
    > but lands with 3-6, and three of those are the vacuum variant First stage will likely use more than 3-6, none will be the vacuum variant.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      The first stage isn’t going anywhere near lunar regolith. Ever.
      - AstralStorm 3y ago
        And second stage has different engines since when? Starship proper is not that different, it has fewer engines, its landing gear provides worse conditions than the launchpad.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        Second stage (Starship) has always had different engines (both in quantity and construction; some are vacuum Raptors) than Super Heavy. Lunar Starship is itself a variant of the regular second stage; it'll need the cargo elevator, for example, which is shown in NASA's announcement graphics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEnz8V97Qck&t=2100 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEnz8V97Qck&t=2100 > for the terminal descent of Starship, a few tens of meters before we touch down on the lunar surface, we actually use a high-thrust RCS system, so that we don't impinge on the surface of the Moon with the high-thrust Raptor engines. ... uses the same methane and oxygen propellants as Raptor. (We'll see if that winds up being the actual final solution, but they've clearly at least thought about this aspect.)
drfrank 3y ago
Elon wrote: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649523985837686784 > 3 months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount. > Wasn’t ready in time & we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag would make it through 1 launch. To me, it sounds like people that would have been considered experts (and probably still are) made assessments than turned out to be incorrect.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sundvor 3y ago
  Some times you just have to try. This was way bigger than anything that's gone before. I'm sure they'll have plenty of data now to make the launch pad even better than it would otherwise have been. Videos of the debris storm were pretty mind boggling to watch - it's difficult to comprehend the sheer amount of energy expended. I am truly looking forward to the learnings published from this.
postmeta 3y ago
Where is your evidence for "they were hoping to get away with simply blowing up the launchpad"? "Aspiring to have no flame diverter in Boca, but this could turn out to be a mistake" -Musk https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313952039869788173 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313952039869788173
- armada651 3y ago
  Because they chose to go ahead with the launch with no flame diverter or anything else that would've protected the launch pad?

kickopotomus 3y ago

I agree with this sentiment. I have also been somewhat unsettled by the detractors here. I am not sure if this is purely an American sentiment, but it seems like more of the general population has started to view advancement in binary terms. In both science and public policy, it seems that an increasing proportion of the population view anything less than 100% success/improvement as an abject failure.

WWLink 3y ago
> I have also been somewhat unsettled by the detractors here. I wouldn't worry about it. The news papers always view it in a sorta pessimistic way. I used to joke about this with spacex's booster landings. When they couldn't stick a landing even though the mission itself was successful, the news sites always made headlines that sounded like "welp, spacex screwed up again" lol :D The news sites will always pick the headline that raises the most eyebrows. As for my liking of spacex but my great distaste for the jackass known as Elon, well, that's nothing new. I was saying that 10 years ago lol. You can still cheer on the accomplishments all of the engineers are spacex are making. That's fine.
- AstralStorm 3y ago
  The problem with it is this is actually burning many millions of US taxpayer dollars. You think Musk is paying for it? Check SpaceX grants. As for the failure, the Raptor 2 failures have caused a RUD on multiple Starship launches so far. They should be back to static firing the Super Heavy or something, but this is not sexy enough for the billionaire. Until the engine and launchpad works reliably, there is literally no point in launching the boosters when you have high probability of mission failure right at the launch. (Even if it clears the tower.) Musk/SpaceX redefining failure as success is terribly annoying too. If done repeatedly enough it has the potential to tank the whole space program. They obviously wanted to test separation the most (since it was issued despite the control failure) and that failed too.
  - goalieca 3y ago
    The director of nasa calls this a great success. So does a former astronaut. > Thursday's launch was hailed as "a real accomplishment" and "so successful" by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and retired International Space Station Commander Chris Hadfield, respectively. SpaceX agreed. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171202753/spacex-starship-launch-explosion-cheer-success https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171202753/spacex-starship-la...

ksec 3y ago

>Whatever you think about Elon The problem is in modern mainstream media anything Elon does should be painted with a heavy dose of negative brush. All while adding more Social Media hatred to fuel the cycle. You then see a lot of people are actually very supportive of SpaceX and Starship. They dont get the MSM media or Social media boost of their voice. So now MSM and Social Media are changing their tone to question their previous reporting of "they tried but it blew up" and offer some insight to label it more like success.

anovikov 3y ago

Success of failure will be defined by the FAA, let's see how will they approach issuing a launch license for the next test. Somehow i'm not too optimistic.

drewcoo 3y ago

The media (and pop culture in general) has a different understanding of failure. I think they're wrong. I'm not sure I agree with you either, though. I'm a big believer in failing as often as possible and recovering in such a way that no customer or outside observer notices. And the fact that rockets have a history of audacious risks and fantastic explosions is no excuse for that ongoing pattern. It's not just about fatalities or the raw cost of equipment lost. It's also about confidence and, where applicable, stock prices. Any decent manager should understand that, so maybe it's another example of Musk's companies being mismanaged.