Spacex Starship Pad Damage

Jose

Jose

Phishfry posting here because the 420 character limit for profiles is making me crazy. Hopefully this is not too off-topic.

They nuked the pad but good:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1649425500526329863
View: https://twitter.com/unrocket/status/1649425500526329863

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649208223294009345
View: https://twitter.com/nicansuini/status/1649208223294009345

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649062784167030785
View: https://twitter.com/labpadre/status/1649062784167030785

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649091753922924545
View: https://twitter.com/csi_starbase/status/1649091753922924545


There are videos of huge chunks of concrete wasting cars and making huge splashes in the Gulf. Also reports of being showered in sand as far as 5 miles away. It's going to take a non-trivial amount of time to rebuild the pad. I also expect the FAA is going to have a lot of questions about the damage and debris. I don't think we'll see another launch out of Boca Chica in 2023, as others have said
 
The launch mount sure looked small to me, and the ground-support equipment looked awful close. I'm not a rocket scientist, so I figured they knew what they were doing. Looks like that was not the case.

Phishfry also questioned the lack of a flame trench and water suppression system. Maybe Spacex should consult with him before the rebuild.
 
I don't see how a armchair engineer counldn't predict it let alone an licensed engineer.
We have fantastic engineering tools these days. I suspect someone (E) didn't believe the data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjs
I am only surprised the crater wasn't deeper. I suspected 150ft. Looks like 20ft max. Exposed foundation.

I am surpised the craft got so high. For that kudos to the team. Not a success but you have to try.

Water cooled plate...Hmmm...
Water evaporates at 100C pressurized system higher.
Why not liquid nitrogen. That is where I would be looking.

Still from an engineering point you are steering all that thrust at a flat plate?
Make it convex or angular geez.
 
They knew it was gonna be a problem and went with it anyway.

I'm just amazed the raptors worked after ingesting concrete and being near that one that blew up on the way up.
 
The F.A.A. said in a statement on Friday that Space X’s “anomaly response plan” was activated.
In the outlined plan, SpaceX is responsible for evaluating the situation and notifying the proper agencies.
If an event causes debris in the area where the rocket took off, the plan says that the company would need to obtain an emergency special use permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and that access in the area could possibly be restricted.
The F.A.A. said that SpaceX is required to ensure that “any ground safety and flight hazards do not pose unacceptable risk to the public during licensed activities.”
Click to expand...
www.nytimes.com

SpaceX’s Starship Kicked Up a Dust Cloud, Leaving Texans With a Mess

Residents of Port Isabel said that their city was covered in grime following SpaceX’s rocket launch on Thursday. The city said there was no “immediate concern for people’s health.”
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
That tower looks shot to me.
Just build a new one. The right way.
Listen to your engineers. They know more than you do.
Learn from your mistakes.
Rapid iteration.
 
cracauer@ said:
There was no way to predict that?
Click to expand...
As an engineer I can tell you that that is the wrong question to ask.
Most engineering related "things" could be predicted with relatively high degrees of certainty. The questions are:
  • Are resources available to do so (both temporal & financial)?
  • Does the risk outweigh the cost of the necessary resources to do so?
  • Do the parties actually financing R&D want you to spend resources on this?
  • As far as predictions took place, was there absolutely no mistake (including human errors & communication issues)?
Sometimes falling on your face is more efficient than spending more time & money on increased certainty models. At the end of the day - stuff can always go wrong, no matter what. You can only reduce risk - not eliminate it (from an engineering perspective).

And in case of anything that Elon touches: PR seems to matter most. Everybody looks at the rocket - nobody cares for the surrounding infrastructure. Reusable rockets but single-use launch pad? Good enough for their current agenda (I assume).

And these are the things where an R&D focused institution such as NASA heavily deviates from a commercially driven company such as SpaceX. I'm not saying one is better than the other. After all, NASA was always interested in doing the R&D part and letting others figure out commercialization.
 
jbo said:
Everybody looks at the rocket - nobody cares for the surrounding infrastructure. Reusable rockets but single-use launch pad? Good enough for their current agenda (I assume).
Click to expand...
This is the part that is particularly incoherent. They spent so much time and money figuring out the "chopsticks" that are supposed to catch the booster when it comes back to the pad, only to nuke the thing with an ill-conceived launch mount.

I think (E) unfortunately believes his own hype.
 
Look at it this way. Now they have a complete set of engineering drawings.
They should be able to replicate the top part quicker.
Now they can fab all that tubing off site and in quantity. (Massive pipefitting on scene on prototype)
So if the upper part survived they can reuse much of the design.
Saving them money on the Florida launch site too.
Obviously the base must be reworked.
It will be hard to let it go though.
I see it alot in repair work. It is very hard to put a price tag on repairs until you dive in.
So customer invests a shit-ton to repair only to find it is dead. Wasted time and money.
Just build it over. Admit you were wrong.
 
Phishfry said:
Saving them money on the Florida launch site too.
Click to expand...
Problem here is NASA is nervous about damage to LC-39A, which is where the cargo and crew versions of the Spacex Dragon launch. We don't have a backup for crew since Boeing is still trying (and mostly failing) to get Starliner off the ground. Ironic that Boeing's ineptitude would slow down Spacex's Florida pad construction.

There's LC-39B, a "clean" pad with an Apollo-era flame trench and water suppression system... sitting idle for years at a time as the pork-barrel rocket slowly shambles towards cancellation. Well, I hope that jobs program will be cancelled anyway.

Yes, I know Starship out of LC-39B is a non-starter. It's just a dream of mine.
 
Maybe this was a calculated plan. To redo the launch pad you need to tear down anyway. Also the tank farm needed moving also (maybe not at mach numbers). Also now there will be pressure on some people in florida to speed up building that launch site.

In the end, starship needs to land on mars and take off again without all that fancy launch pad sugar. Now they see how bad it will be. Loosing some engines at takeof from mars is a no-go.
 
They planned on making fuel on mars.

getopt This is not only engineering but also politics. Lateral thinking is a must.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top