SpaceX's Massive Rocket Explodes Due to Rapid Unscheduled Digging
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- SpaceX performed the debut launch of their next Generation Starship-Superheavy launch vehicle, and it didn't make it to orbit. But it was still very much a case of Excitment delivered as the vehicle destroyed its launchpad, had engines fail and parts explode as it ascenced, before finally spinning end over end until it was destroyed in a giant cloud of cryogenic propellents.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley - Věda a technologie
Watching what is effectivley a skyscraper do several cartwheels in the air was something I'll remember. Surprised the connections to Starship were strong enough to withstand those forces.
That surprised me too. I thought that the lower stage wasn't supposed to have a lot of structural integrity without being full of fuel.
probably the autogenous pressurization worked really good to stabilize hull integrity to say it in star trek terms ;o)
for real. that inside camera on the second stage engines not showing any flexing or movement was unreal
EXACTLY ResCyn!
@@TheVergile yeah i think the the image froze at one point though, as at the start you could see some smoke and stuff but then nothing
definitely very amazing to see a skyscraper do cartwheels and stay in one piece
When I saw it start tumbling, I was immediately reminded of many of my KSP rockets 🤣
and the brief hope that somehow I can regain control...
@@porterejohn Hehe, I must be more of a pessimist: when that happened in my rockets, I pretty much immediately reverted to hanger 🤣
Seeing the engines disintegrate did it for me.
And the very noticable angle of attack (5:14 in this video). This must have been the most Kerbal launch yet! I hope one day they'll name one of these rockets "Untitled Spacecraft"
Mine too. I'm good at dodgy kerbal vehicles and even better at disaster launches.
That launch reminded me of an old story from the early days of the Atlas ICBM program. An Atlas was launched and the assembled group of program engineers watched anxiously. Groans broke out and became yells of dismay as the vehicle loss stability and performed a total of three loops before exploding. But while all this was happening there was one man who was cheering loudly, sounding like he was a rodeo. After the vehicle blew up the others turned to the cheering man and angrily asked what was wrong with him, didn't he realize that was a serious failure? He beamed back at them, clearly delighted. "Did you see those loops? That was fabulous! I'm with the structures group!"
Tumbling around at nearly mach 2 and not immediately disintigrating was incredibly impressive to me.
yup, kind of a "silver lining" to the launch! Get it, silver lining, as in the stainless steel color?, LOL LOL, :D
35 km altitude..
@@IvanTre Still quite a lot of drag for something that light relatively speaking.
Chuck Yeager could've saved it
Didn't the challenger do that when the ET ruptured?
As we were watching the launch, my son said, “That’s the most KSP launch ever!”
Pretty sure everyone who has played KSP was thinking the same thing!
@@solarisone1082 yes xD I was in a discord conversation with some firends and i was screaming how kerbal that shit is and we all agreed that it looked like one of our rockets... starting to do cartwheels and you try to switch engines ona nd off to get back on track xDDDD crazy shit
Elon Musk: "I just bought Kerbal Space Program 2"
... "Why does the bill say you bought 100 acres of land in Texas then"
me who plays KSP: "totally recoverable... Adjust the rotation...stop the yaw...oh too late."
they forgot to check the stage sequencing
Finally. The first serious and technically sound analysis of this event - in the Scott Manley quality we are used to expect. This as definitely worth the wait! Thank you very much! I also believe that stage zero is the main challenge - I never understood, why they did not build a proper flame diverter. It‘s quite different, if you start a solo starship with three engines or a super heavy booster with 33 engines. The crater is impressively massive!
I think were so desperate for flight data they did not want to completely redesign the OLM before the first flight. I would not be suprised if they end up completely rebuilding the OLM.
Money and time. A proper flame diverter would probably add a year to this project.
@@matthewerwin4677 surely not if they built it right away like they planned to do initially at cape canaveral.
@@kevintieman3616 I don't think they're going to have much choice. The soil underneath is obviously compromised, a lot of the concrete is obliterated, and I presume a good portion of what remains is damaged beyond salvage. Certainly it would be cheaper to just start over.
@@matthewerwin4677 : A proper flame diverter might be a few months, not a year.
I think there are a couple of problems.
1. The one thing you noted was the lag, my concern is that the launch clamps held the vehicle a bit too long.
2. Once it actually started moving it actually had pretty good acceleration, i will have to inspect the telemtry, but it seems to be higher than net 2 meters per second.
- So I wonder if they thought they werent getting enough power, increased power to compensate for sticky launch clamp, and when that clamp finally released sent a shock wave up the system causing an O2 leak.
-The problem might not have been immediately obvious, when the craft passed max Q tears in the skin of the craft might have allowed reconvergece shock wave to damage internal components.
I think their rocket has too much fin on the top and not enough steering on the bottom. I would have the boost stage shorter and wider as this would give more control. Having it shorter means you have it higher of the pad and the ejecta is over a wider area, however see bottom, given the ISP this is hardly going to make that much of a difference.
BTW, i did note the debris, if you look carefully, as the main engines clear the smoke there were a couple of large pieces of debris following them. It could be the case that erosion of the launch base caused the launch clamps to bind. After the rocket launched there was a huge piece of debris that i spotted behind the Launch tower.
This ISP of those 327 which translates to an exhausted velocity of 3240 m/s or about 7000 mph. At the center of the plume its pretty much a gigantic plasma torch. Imagine that cutting through concrete.
If there was a problem just after separation from pad, better to let it get as high as possible before destruction. Otherwise that's a big explosion going off at ground level and all the pad infrastructure would be toast. As well as probably damage to surrounding homes and buildings.
Thanks Scott. I hadn't thought that blast debris knocked out a couple of engines (and possibly more damage) but now that seems very likely. Great recap and analysis!
you are correct
a few engines failed to ignite
several more were either damaged by the pad debris, or they tore themselves apart, along with the hydraulics being damaged
the rocket was damaged BEFORE it cleared the tower, possibly before it lifted off the pad
this was not a successful flight by any means
also, the 6 NASA manned flights to the moon had a Lunar Lander that functioned as its own launch pad for the part of the spacecraft that took off from the moon.
The chances of landing this Spacex rocket on the moon, without it toppling over from settling, and then taking off again without the rocket blast causing similar damage to the engines, are highly questionable.
@@kenwittlief255 You can see pieces of debris falling off from the rocket's midsection during the early ascent. Might be the debris from HPU failure.
@@kenwittlief255 They are not going to land the whole rocket on the moon, just the top half (Starship). The rocket they designed for it will also have rockets on the side to guide it down. With the Moon having much lower gravity than Earth, they will not need nearly as much thrust as they would here.
The engineer in me thinks that flying rock debris on the moon or mars is going to be a problem.
Personally I think "the Apollo way" of doing mars (and moon) missions, is going to be the only method.
You NEED a launch platform. Can't chance a rock flying up causing damage.
@@fredfred2363 Don't forget that Starship will take off on its own from the moon or Mars, so no big boosters with 33 sea-level Raptor engines to take into account.
Lmao, your live reaction was appropriate Scott. Also, holy crap that crater under the OLM was way worse than it looked in the first pic available.
Right? They may have more Starships ready to go, but they sure as hell need a new launchpad lol
@@SeanCMonahan What they also need is a flame diverter and a good deluge system. Still, at least B7 carved out some concrete and earth to get things started. 🙂
@@SeanCMonahan Reports have begun to come through that certain hangar near Starship OLIT in Cape Canaveral is preparing to move a big ring to Brownsville port...
The door in the mount was blown open and is probably somewhere several hundred meters away, the extremely heavy blast reinforced door, so did the door on the Booster QD so it is probable that the entire inside of the table is toasted
Either way, I think it is a good idea to whatch and see what they will do, they have to change things for the next flight; concrete won't magically resist Superheavy
@@SeanCMonahanThe OLM isn't a launchpad.
Also, is that Tom Scott standing behind in a light grey hoody?
It would be very interesting to know if a majority of failures can be back traced to damage due to flying debris of stage zero. I would not be surprised if some engines were struck.
Jeśli błędy z platforma startową są tak oczywiste to dlaczego dostali zgodę na start.
I would bet on it
More importantly, it definitely looks like hydraulics were messed up badly. Probably no gimballing once they failed. The new all electric gimbal will solve that. Well… that and stop heaving massive chunks of concrete at it.
Computer modeling of the concrete under such a force must have been premature. Microscopic cracks torn into gaping potholes which allow "reverse eddies" to kick large chunks of concrete everywhere, possibly even against the obvious flow of force.
The Shuttle's first flight had a massive impulse like that that reflected back and knocked hundreds of tiles off and nearly exceeded the body flap hinge moment, which would have been a loss-of-vehicle situation. It was a long time until the next flight and they had to install the water suppression system and do a lot of mods. Too many engines to keep track of on this vehicle. It's a kludge.
I am honestly impressed how long and how many individual failures it took for the thing to explode. Great video.
Literally any engineer worth their weight could've told you that that pad was going to fail spectacularly
@twerkingbollocks6661 Very true
I think my favorite part about watching this was when I noticed how the vapor trail was moving. I have played enough KSP to recognize that effect and I instantly went "welp it won't make it"
Yeah this really has "KSP launch that's not gonna get to orbit but you're still trying" energy
Yeah, as soon as I saw it start to be off-angle, I was thinking the same thing.
Ah well. What we need next, is a KSP launch pad mod that does away with the flame diverters.
REVERT TO VEHICLE ASSEMBLY BUILDING
Flatspins mean you will not be going to space today.
Who invited the 'tards wearing the masks at Scott's party?? 😷😷👈😂
Looks like they're at a benefit for Skid Row. 🤣
I'm amazed the 2 bits of Starship stayed attached to each other for as long as they did. The stresses as it twisted and turned must have been incredible.
@MrGriff305 it's called RND, for testing new technology, not for riding yet silly.
I don't think so. The air is quite thin at that altitude - about as thin as on the surface of mars or so no much resistance. Also the spin was slow so again no much stress. But had it kept falling at some point it would have started spinning faster and bending of the airframe would have exceeded structural limits..
@MrGriff305 SLS did a fine job, but SLS isn't really new. The RS-25s are flight proven, pre used Shuttle hardware, and the SRBs are Shuttle SRBs just one segment extended. They essentially build a new fuel tank around existing hardware. Starship is completely new, including the launch tower, which seem to need some additional attention
@MrGriff305 Different methods of RND. SpaceX is not the first or the last to go this route. And people won't fly till it's flight ready like dragon. But if that bothers you, yes there is always SLS.
I feel better about my kerbal space program failures that did (exactly this) knowing even professionals IRL had this problem.
We're not going to be sending humans to Mars anytime soon.
That was the most Kerbal launch failure I've seen out of Space-X so far. Most people would say just exploding is the most Kerbal. But ask yourself if the following sounds like literally everyone's experience with a KSP launch at some point:
You have this oversized stack on the pad, and stupid amounts of engines. Something breaks almost the moment you launch because there's always that one staging error... Worried, but undaunted, you pilot the inherently unstable and off-axis-thrust rocket to medium altitude, but you can already see the control slipping away as the air gets thinner and the CoM of the rocket shifts to the upper stage. It begins to slowly tumble, but your struts hold. However, the tumble ruins your outbound trajectory, so the rocket starts to fall back into the atmosphere. You desperately try to recover, but it just continues to cartwheel, and finally something snaps, and the chain-explosions begin. You enjoy the show before reverting to VAB.
I love that after it failed my immediate response was, "Can't wait for the Scott Manley video explaining what I just saw."
You were not the only one! ;-) (Although Angry Astronaut had a pretty good video this morning, too).
Haha, me too. The second the explosion has passed. 😅
Same. I didn't even bother to rewatch the launch.
Why some people think it was success? To me it was failed no excuse. I’m sure they’re not planning for it to explode just collect data.
@@tomt5054 Objectives. It completed it's primary objectives and was able to complete some of it's secondary ones. The fact that it didn't complete all of them is not means for failure, it just means that more work needs to be done to rectify areas which are deficient. Some of those deficiencies may not have been able to be known prior to real world testing.
I'm so happy they actually show you what's going on in real time. Feels like I'm watching a KSP video haha
Except they didnt - notice the engine active diagram didn't correspond immediately to the real-time losses.
Right! Being to low and just keeping it more vertical to compensate... if there ever was the kerbal thing to do... it's that. "crap, it isn't going the way I want, oh well, just fudge the flightpath a bit" xD
@@johnbigelson7471 The systems probably can't detect it immediately. It could be a few moments before it stops receiving data, or it notices the fault.
Well for starters he's not born in America
@@johnbigelson7471 ever heard of data transmission speed and delay? the hud we are seeing might not even be directly connected to the actual flight computers or anything, just done independently by one of the production crew or something as well.
This is the first video of yours I've seen and I've got to say I'm impressed with how thorough you are about explaining your theories and supporting them with technical information. Great video!
He's a psychopath
you should definitely subscribe to him. he is arguably one of the most important space communicators. and he is also just a lovable dude
he does this all the time.
This is nominal for Scott Manley videos. We've grown to expect it.
shame most of it was wrong
Respect! Great video, packed with info and specifics. Extremely well done. You'll be my go-to source on these things now.
I'm super impressed by the whole thing spinning and going that much off prograde without disintegrating. Don't think I've ever seen a rocket do that before. Outside of KSP of course, where my rockets pretty much always do a somersault at some point before achieving orbit.
Yeah it wasn't supposed to do that, that rocket should have kicked in safety measure as soon as it started spinning to prevent that thing from becoming a missile and possibly kill thousands of people, but keep being impressed.
@@MindzEnt range safety has parameters if it had violated them the vehicle would have been terminated
@@MindzEnt The safety measure was literally the flight termination system destroying the rocket. But keep being stupid.
@@MindzEnt actually, if the rockets trajectory is safe on guidance (they are tracking the thing, ya know) they will let it get closer to the ground/water to minimize debri field. FTS is not always instantly triggered after failure. spacex also doesnt fully control this, there is an FAA range safety officer onsite that makes the call.
A Russian Proton rocket once did half a circle, and ... disintegrated as expected. No one was surprised because that was like throwing a skyscrapper into a laundry machine. The structure of the Starship is phenomenal.
SpaceX engineers were patiently waiting for this video Scott could tell them what went wrong
naw, I think they were too busy patting themselves on the back for saving money on the launch mount... oops
Nah. Just revert and add more boosters!
Come on guys don’t be toxic…
I think everyone was waiting for Scott’s video 😆
@@HighspeedfutziLike Musk?
Great explanation of what went wrong Scott thank you I really enjoy your channel!
Thanks Scott, always enjoy your commentary and insight!!
To me, the Manley Version is always the definitive version, and the wait was worth it. Deep insight as always. Thank you! I've got to say, though, that their Stage Zero was always going to be smithereens. I mean, what were they thinking? SLS very nearly wrote off its launch pad, so there was a precedent.
@@DelPlays No way they intended to flip before staging.
100%
I'm amazed about how much in-depth information he got so quickly while also being at some kind of convention...
@@DelPlays Like Scott said the engines should cut off before stage separation so I don't think it was even initiated. I think some of the hydraulics failed for the thrust vector controls and along with some engines out (also just a thought there was less air to help stabilize the rocket .. if that even makes sense) it started whipping around and ultimately started bending before it was terminated.
Lies again? UDK Module Google Drive
The fact that it didn't come apart spinning like that at those angles and speeds had me very surprised. That's one heck of a strong structure.
The forces must have been tremendous.
Almost too heavy. :d So a lot room for optimization or a lot of room for many reuses. Depends how u look at it i Guess.
yeah it totally strong structure but the structure has maximum limit stress, probably it already reaching maximum stress level making the materials disintegrate faster, since it combined the atmospheric force created heat and the burning fuel adding more heat
Could they shave off some weight to increase the payload?
@@stevensmith7949 It was already flying without a payload.
It was wild to see that thing even lift off of the ground - I expected much worse and was pleasantly surprised. One of the cooler things I've seen in my lifetime of watching these launches regardless of eventual disintegration
Awesome analysis Scott - thank you as always!
I was waiting for this! It's not official until Scott Manley does an analysis! Also, I really hope SpaceX release all the on-board footage. I want to see all the details.
It's funny how they were happily releasing everything until the disaster happened, isn't it? I thought the SpaceX cultists were saying that this was a "Success" and "WINNING" though....so why don't they release all the videos?
It went bang! What else do you need to know? 😊
I also hope we get to see footage from the WB-57 as well!
@@tonywood3660 ...would like to know if it was Big, Small or Medium ...Bang - that is !!! Lol !
@@tonywood3660
With an engineering mind, you don't take things face value; you look at a problem, your mind start hypothesizing the process.
This is a great post & explanation, as usual from you. Thanks & I'm trying to share it with my fellow space nerds. All the best and keep up the excellent content!
I think the internal view and the view looking down the rocket were supposed to capture the staging event. Also, at times during the tumble, I saw engine rich exhaust green a good distance from the vehicle.
I know next to nothing about rockets, but always come here for a thorough explanation that presents technical data in a relatable manner. Thank you again, Scott, for making a complicated subject easy for anyone to understand.
Ditto.
I am becoming more pessimistic about the entire project , especially, after seeing the crater under the star ship platform. What else did Elon musk not foresee?
This launch system will never reach orbit. Going back to the Saturn V rocket, Von Braun wanted a larger rocket. NASA nixed that idea, because the stresses on such a large rocket during flight was not possible. I guess NASA was right. Looking forward to the next explosion, which may never happen, since the FAA has grounded Starship for the foreseeable future.
The fact that the structure held up that long while spinning out of control at 2,000kph is amazing!
The launch pad didn't tho. It's junk because the supreme leader opted out of a diverter. It's been ablated to shit and back and you can see the rebar inside what was, once, concrete. That's a fail of epic proportions. This isn't about rocket successes, it's about how much corner cutting they've done. I wouldn't trust my life on any amount of wins knowing that the dildo of consequences can arrive at any moment. Unlubbed.
@@aserta your argument is not based on facts:
1. no flame diverters has a reson - landing on mars or moon - there will be no diverters also, its may be good to test the consequences of that
2. SpaceX uses a different approach of quick prototyping, where failure is expected, it is a different approach to building stuff instead of slow steady progress
I am not a Musk fanboy, but it is still to reason using some facts before hating him because he is "emperor"
I would probably do the same and try my best but stll be a hated and polarizing figure, as well as you ... or anyone else
@@MartinDlabaja Come on. Don't spoil good baseless whining with facts.
@@MartinDlabaja the first stage will never be used on Mars. That’s not a good excuse for not having a flame diverter
@@aserta Perhaps you should ponder the difference between the way nasa does things and the iterative process that spacex uses. Analyzing failures gives them an enormous amount of data. You can launch and destroy at least 10 starships for the price of one SLS launch. If this thing eventually works it will save hundreds of billions and change space travel in a monumental way. Not to mention, in this scenario the public doesn't have to pay for the failures.
@Scott Manley - Thank you for your informative and entertaining videos. This 62 year old guy learns a lot from both you and Mars Guy. I don't know if my grandkids will be raising hell on Mars but thanks to you & MG I'm able to envision what the future could be like.
4:58 you can quite clearly see that 6 engines are out (2x 2 in the outer ring and 2x 1 in the outer ring and middle), not 5 as per the HUD.
Best technical explanation yet, Scott you do not disappoint.
Very good, but I disagree with the max q on re-entry. Termination happened way above ascent max q (not very dense atmosphere) and the rocket is not accelerating at n descent as it was on ascent.
Agree 100% that the root of the problem happened on launching. Even for a test flight having so many engines failing is good evidence.
@@Petrvsco good 4 you
@@Petrvsco When you keep in mind how huge that rocket is, the scale of those chunks of concrete flying up around the rocket is truly terrifying.
Many years back, I predicted that ultimately, Stage Zero is just going to be a tower (on Earth, a floating spar), with no semblance of a pad. I think we keep showing more and more that this is where we're headed. Heck, maybe some day even the connection with the thrust puck will be ditched, relying solely on grid fin connections at multiple heights up the rocket body (I know the thrust puck is a convenient place to bear loads, as it already has to be able to bear the weight of of the rocket (and then some), but a hanging rocket is "structures in tension", not compression, so I don't expect much of a mass penalty from going that route, and it'd mean you don't have to have *anything* blasted by those engines)
@@karenrobertsdottir4101 If the rocket has to transition from a structure in tension to a structure in compression, I think it would greatly enhance the pogo problem, forcing significant changes to the design.
never fails...my go to guy...i wish i was half as smart as scot lol
at T+1:28, you can see a massive fire in the engine skirt at the center, i think that the hydraulics are leaking everywhere at this point and spraying out into the exhaust plume causing the plume to burn orange, also this would explain the loss of control at the end as the hydraulics have completely run out of oil.
I’ve been wondering what was going on there. Hydraulic problems would make a lot of sense.
Hopefully the engine failures were due to external factors because if the engines were eating themselves that might take a long time to fix.
Either the pad debris puctutrs hydraulic lines
And / or
The self destructing engines did it .
My money is on the pad debris damaging the hydraulic lines , because I would have presumed that they designed for engine failures to not cause adjacent hydraulic line failures .
@@gedw99 Ageed, but Scott Manley and Marcus house both noted a flash at the HPU, I am thinking when the engine under HPU blew up, the explosion went out the engine shroud side and up the HPU assembly, things cascaded from there...
Should have a pit under the launchpad like the soyuz
You’re the best Scott, keep up the excellent work!
This rocket launch is exactly what happens to me when I'm in bed with my gf.
It's chaotic thrust at the beginning, 30 seconds of supersonic thrust, and an explosion at the end, then random clapping in the background.
This launch took me right back to my KSP days, when I launched rockets without doing any math.
When you see the bunch of guys with caps in control room you may understand it...
Just like Space X! Lol
How the thing stayed in one piece with how much weight was in stage 2 vs the emptying stage one... Only Jebediah would be able to save it.
Looks like Tom Scott made a surprise appearance, watching the launch with you 😮
Also spotted Tom immediately, now I *have* to know what that is about!!!
Also noticed them immediately, despite the lack of red shirt. :D
Good catch.
Also looks like Integza & AlphaPhoenix there too
Wearing a mask. Ugh.
Fantastic test, waiting for the next launch with great hopes!
It's so satisfying to watch SpaceX Rockets explode.
Thats not Happening often so...
@@jonathan_123 LOL. But this irresponsible waste of taxpayer money did, Musk Cultist.
@@java4653 Space x is a private company.
@Jonathan
Try researching their funding buddy.
Thank you Scott, You are one of the few on CZcams who reports facts with good explanation and no hype. I do respect your integrity.
Idk man must be you falling for clickbait too often. I havent gotten a single hype video on this
Tom Scott and Scott Manley? Best crossover ever!
Scott, we need more detail and conjecture from you regarding the events seen during the launch: T+00:28 parts shedding from vehicle, T+00.32 bright flash in exhaust, T+01:11 intermittent bright flashes, T+01:56 big flare in exhaust plume, T+0.02:14 cloud/explosion inside the interstage skirt. Love your analysis so far!
Great video! Good comprehensive review of the aftermath of the launch. 🙂👍
Been waiting for this update since the launch, you are the most technical space CZcamsrs. Love the content 👍🏻
me too!
Pretty much the same here. I saw loads of media outlet 'sensationalism' titles and lots of YT creator clickbait titles but I held out knowing Scott would give us his no-nonsense assessment as soon as he could.
Yup, this is the one I've been waiting for. Really great and I hope Scott does an even deeper analysis in the next few days as more info becomes available.
Same here. Main media coverage was very crimgeworthy. I believe Chris Hadfield had to explain facts of life to one of the presenters because it is rarely prearranged for the TV talking head to hear that they were entirely wrong on air 😊
When it did those flips with the second stage attached and did not break up it was truly an amazing sign of engineering
it was not to Fast for that altitude
Must have autostrut turned on
Indeed. I couldn't see it live, but when watching video later, I'm sure I *would* have wondered at one or two points in that gyration if they might still stabilize it and more-or-less continue...
But at least it got past Max-Q and *almost* to staging, so there's plenty of reason for hope in that...
lol you realize that wasn't by design
They failed to release 2nd stage that actually can land by itself.
Great recap!
Scott thanks for explaining this in detail, very helpful video.
I have been waiting for Scott’s take on this!
same here, should be good
so have I!!!!!
It was an absolutely Kerbal launch. One of the coolest things I have seen. Great analysis as always.
Well, now we know why the game doesn't let you launch your giant rocket using the cheap launch pad. Ah Elon found the hard way 🙂
@@freeculture I don't think they "found out the hard way". As the video mentioned, they were well aware of the launch pad requirements. They were just trying their best to keep those at a minimum because they won't have a launch pad on Mars.
It was a KSP2 ad.
I am so happy this blew up! I hope the next one does as well! And on and on... But with absolutely NO loss of life.
"It did dig deeper than most other rockets". I laughed enough to spook my cat.
The biggest problem with stage 0 is, as you said: Mars. There won't be a stage 0 there, unless they bring it with them. Then again, there won't be that massive booster on Mars either.
So it will be interesting to see how they deal with this.
Yeah super heavy isn't what's going to be taking off from Mars, and the gravity there is 1/3 of Earth's so the thrust required to reach orbit will be significantly lower thus the plume cloud will be minimal when launching. Although I will note that the design specifications posed to NASA for a Lunar landing has the thrusters located at the top of the vessel meaning that they acknowledge the need to lessen the debris and crater size caused by landing and takeoff.
Very little relevance, as only Starship, not super heavy, will ever need to take off from the surface. Without either the gravity or atmospheric pressure there is less force reflecting back at the rocket. Sound vibration will be 1/100 or less compared to Earth. Starship has less engines, and could potentially use a lower throttle setting for initial lift off from Mars. To overcome it's own mass, it will only need 1/3rd the lift that it would on Earth.
IMO, there was no good reason to try and launch Super Heavy without a proper flame trench and deluge system, and the subsequent damage and loss of vehicle were entirely predictable.
the way they will deal with it is elon will continue to postpone the deadline for ever getting to mars for another two more weeks and convince more investors to pour more money into spacex funding without anyone even asking the question why are we even going to mars in the first place?
You think they are going to Mars?
Lol
Why not place iron or even titanium plates under the rocket instead of concrete? Or just a thick layer of iron in addition to the concrete?
Looking forward to Scott's breakdown of what happened
I bet they simply forgot to check their staging. Happens to me all the time in KSP.
@@WarrenGarabrandt There was a lot more to it than that - firstly not enough speed, wrong altitude, also Starship relies on a 'flip and separate' to separate the ship from the booster (it's far simpler than Falcon 9's arrangement).
@@SlartiMarvinbartfast Don't be silly, all of those things are just the result of forgetting to check the staging. Any experienced kerbonaut can confirm that.
Hpu damaged, no gimbal, flips.
@@WarrenGarabrandt looks more like they forgot to turn on SAS.
Thanks for the in-depth look at the launch.
Thanks Scott, Great Analysis, i was waitong for this video!
Great review! Nice to see someone looking at this in a methodical and balanced manor.
Agreed! Answered a lot of the questions I was asking, but no other reporting provided. Thank you for your excellent journalism on this.
Yep. Some people put it down as a complete failure, and others as an "unqualified success" because it cleared the minimal mission objective which was to clear the launchpad. Really, it's a mixed bag, and a first look at the likely failure modes (at least two: stage 0 and attitude control) was insightful.
The first so far, other analyses pale in comparison to Scott's.
@@QuantumHistorian A partial success. No one seems to say this.
his house is perfectly straight.
I don't know what SpaceX expected when it comes to the launch pad. This candle is too powerfull.
Uh oh, that's not a candle it's dynamite. 😂
@BlackH - yep, if they can't dig down to divert it, the venue is wrong
And they are repeating the mistake with the Florida towers.
The Launchpad was a major mistake. To build it right they're going to have to divert the water table something like when they built the Golden Gate Bridge towers in San Francisco. It's going to take months to build it. This could be a big setback for the future launches.
Cant they use the water table to their advantage? Sure, need to be dry when they dig the diverter hole, but after that, what if they allowed water to flood in? The water in the hole & maybe culverts would "divert" alot of energy being converted into steam, like a natural water thingamajig instead of the traditional water suppression system
Thank you so much Scott. As always you have given out the most detailed explanation than every body out there. Very reliable and makes all sense.
Far better than the Elon fanboys that’s for sure
@@snufkin84 really saying that the spacex workers are feeling bad they are feeling good about it
scott thinks he knows more than elon
Another great Manley presentation. :)
@@lorsod3380 The same SpaceX cultists here who are screaming "Success!!!" even though this was a catastrophic failure would be shaming and trashing NASA if they had a Saturn 1, Saturn 5, or SLS launch fail badly. There has never been a Saturn or SLS failure while Starship has 1 launch and 1 failure.
The launch pad has been completely destroyed by Starship and the debris that it caused due to poor construction destroyed at least 8 of the 33 engines. So much "winning"!!!!
SpaceX cultists could be seeing a complete disaster happening at 1 second with a 500 yard crater being created and catastrophic damage everywhere and they would still be screaming "That was awesome!!! SUCCESS!!!!!"
Thanks for a great analysis.
Great video again Scott
Excellent summary - thank you. Yes, no point in launching any more Starships from Starbase until they sort out the launch pad. Given previous damage on tests, damage to the pad on a fully-stacked flight was inevitable. The booster was probably fatally wounded by flying concrcete before it had even cleared the tower - particularly given its lateral movement.
This could've been prevented if they'd built a flame diverter or a water deluge system. Like the ones they use with their other, successful, rocket the Falcon 9. Whoever decided to ignore those mission-critical pieces of hardware during the design and planning stages has only proven they're a moron.
Definitely what I'm thinking. After seeing close pics of the launchpad, it's positively anemic, almost embarrassing how little it's built up. Sure it makes sense to want to test how it will operate on other planets, but for the home base? They gotta beef that shit up, considerably.
Plus, no flame diverter almost made it so the crowd couldn't see the rocket rising! The tip barely outpaced the rising smoke! Probably the biggest flaw in the Starship system atm
Had the same thought watching those several ton chunks flying hundreds.of feet into the air
I don't really see a point in using the "other planet" take-off ability when there wouldn't be a concrete launch pad there anyway. Why not just use a water dampening system like almost every other launch from Earth and use this just as a needed learning experience?
@@Ampelmannchen42 Also, they don't plan on launching the booster from other planets.
Plenty of videos about this, but you didn't fail to perform up to par. Great job on the analysis, Scott!
And he doesnt take 50m
guys gather around, James Krych said this video is up to par!! holy shit, everyone thank him for his approval
Which other analysis videos do you recommend? There are too many
@@MessiForever-q9l Too many is right. There is one that takes 50m and goes frame by frame.
This is why I wait for Scotts video, better than any newspaper.
The only discussion that I bother with. Worth the wait. Well done.
The best post launch summary out there - as always. Thanks Scott.
no kidding, I was really waiting for this.
I am very impressed with the structural strength of the rocket. This is huge because it’s easy to lower strength but probably impossible the other way. A huge success to their structural engineers.
Yes, its a pity the same team responsible for the structural integrity of the rocket weren't involved with the design and engineering of the launch platform
@@waynesimpson2074 yes so true, I can’t believe that they use concrete.
Rofl your impressed? If NASA treated space travel like spaceX does as if it’s software their just loading up to see if the bug was fixed it would be a national scandal.
The fact Musk is allowed to be so reckless with multi megatons of explosive fuel around protected nature reserves containing endangered species including turtles WHO ARE HATCHING SOON is black stain on our regulators. Where the fuck are the adults?
Do you have any idea how much damage a fully fueled star ship could do? The explosion would be measured in Hiroshima’s. Yes it’s that bad and that’s not hyperbole- the explosive potential if the thing went off on the pad and fully detonated the fuel would be comparable to setting off a bloody nuke.
It’s insane this man child is allowed to play with rockets like a 12 year old strapping bottle rockets to his plastic army men to “see what happens”.
This is not how rocket science is done. I can’t wait to see the environmental implications of this latest fiasco. When was the last launch at Boca Chica that didn’t result in a fire and or explosion?
We shouldn’t be encouraging this behavior with “better luck” next times. Also if the structural engineers are the ones who designed the fuel tanks then they are actually very bad at their jobs.
I guess we won’t see change until someone is actually killed.
I think there's a setting for that, they probably had damage turned off.
@@doneB830 Elon said they were building a big steel pad to cover the surface, but it wasn't ready in time, and they thought the concrete could survive one launch.
Quite an insightful video!
Great video. Excellent analysis. Thanks!
It seems the real genius of starship is that it digs it's own flame trench on take off 😊. Very cool launch and I loved every minute of it.
I said, if they were all just wanting it to "clear the pad", would it count if the vehicle just "moved" the pad somewhere else? 🤣🤣
4:27 "engine rich exhaust" still remains a pretty hilarious phrase! 🤣
Yo I saw that too lol
Nice and clear explanation. Thanks!
words cannot describe how excited i am to see a skyscraper belly flop from the heavens to spin upright and get caught by another skyscraper.
Thank you Scott, you gave me answers to the many quetions I had over this launch. Onwards and (hopefully) upwards to the next launch.
KSP actually taught me something. As soon as i saw the sideways movement as it tryed to correct upwards back on tack, I knew it was doomed. All the engine rich exaust was obvious, but I hoped, maybe its enougth without a payload. But the slinding ruined all hopes and from this shot on I only waited for the termination. And i got serious N1 backflashes, like instant, I wish them alle the best. It ws an amazing launch
the take off was late and I knew then that something was wrong - at least it didn't explode at the launch site
Yeah for rocket scientists they sure can't do what they were hired to do huh? Almost like spacex is a scam, but naah that's too simple of an explanation to be true.
@@TJ-W The above commenter isn't talking about tumbling at all
@@TJ-W this comment wasn't about the tumbling at all. The tumbling was the inevitable consequence of the desperate course correction manovers before. You would know if you had watched more closely in KSP 🤣 I'm a geek at best btw not a nerd 🤓
How do you know that the sideways movement was not intentional? It would make good sense to get the rocket to move away from the launch tower to minimise the risk of contact and tower/rocket damage.
Great video, one of the best about this topic
Dude, that was a great reaction by you!😁
Great analysis, thank you for sharing.
The amount of analysis you do is amazing, love all the map overlays and added graphics. Makes it very ELI5! Thanks!
I remember seeing the debris spewing upwards during launch, as well as the random engine flares; but two more things of note are the change in colour of the exhaust flames, and the glassed remnants beneath the launch pad.
As the rocket is spinning out of control and falling back toward the surface, you can see some of the exhaust turning greenish, which is consistent with burning metals like copper. It's likely that by this point, the rocket has gutted itself so deeply that the flames are burning up the internals of the craft.
Furthermore, the closeup of the damage to the launch pad shows that the heat of the exhaust has at least partially melted ground particulates enough that they stuck together and formed globs of slag, a particularly big one of which cooled down mid-gloop right in the middle of the picture; which shows that its brief lifespan included at least a passing interest in photography and modelling which is nice.
Thumbs up for the humor at the end lol, but burning copper is from the engines, it's not really used in the rocket itself.
As Scott said, it's engine rich exhaust!
At least they have most of the excavation for the deluge system done now, but it definitely would have been cheaper to use an excavator. I so wanted to see if the heat tiles were going to work.
Great analysis
Been waiting for your take on this Scott. I think your post launch debriefs are spot on and very informative.
if you look at the prelaunch gimbal test, one center engine had no cryo frost on it. Which could mean that that engine did not do the chill down and therefore never ignited.
Do you think they save it for landing?
Regarding the gimbal test: that was so incredible mesmerizing
Because its a center motor, it may not gimbel at all
That's a good observation, it is E7. They show it at T-00:02:12 on the SpaceX feed. Not sure if it is just an optical effect because many other engines look similarly black.
Saw that, too, and thought "hm, that's not good."
really good, interesting and informative video Scott - thanks! Hope Spacex have a good stock of gaffer tape! ;)
I’ve been waiting patiently for your post launch analysis. So many others rush to post their videos to get the early views, but your review never disappoints. My guess is August before we see another launch 🚀
ahhh they wont time it up with the july 4th? great firework show
August which year?
0:38 hold on is that tom scott?
That was my first thought!
Rapid Unscheduled Digging... Just the title made me laugh Scott. Brilliant
I cant belive i never thought this was so exiting
Great job as always, Scott. I was there for my first launch, and with the haze I wasn't sure what was going on.
I know we’re supposed to be “Three cheers! Data data data!”…. But that was a huge launch infrastructure fail. These are really smart people - it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that level of damage was going to happen without a flame diverter. That energy had to go somewhere, and it was allowed to be random instead of directed away from all things important. They trashed the launch pad and a lot of ground support equipment, not to mention that FOD damage to engines and at least one HPU is likely the cause of the launch failure. I won’t be surprised if the orbital launch mount needs a near complete rebuild. At least two of the large tanks near the pad are likely damaged beyond repair as well. Elon’s estimate of two months to be ready for the next launch is absurdly optimistic, even for Elon.
At last - a sane assessment! Anyone paying any attention would have known that this was going to destroy the launchpad. And, ditto, as the engines had never been tested with all firing at once, that some - possibly many - would fail. So, why go ahead with this 'test'? Especially with a Starship on top that was pretty much guaranteed not to fly (and we also knew that some of the heat tiles would come off!). My personal theory is that the whole development has taken so long since the (only) successful Starship flight, that Musk just couldn't wait any longer. He, and his fan-boys, wanted something - anything - to happen, they didn't care what. And if it blew up, so much the better - everyone likes a pretty explosion... No way to develop a rocket.
Also gonna be a PITA to separate issues caused by debris vs issues endemic to the booster itself.
As usual, your video is by far the most informative. You would make a pretty good crash investigator.
Thanks for feeding our insatiable desire for information.
The pad damage just goes to show, you can't just dismiss the experience of pretty much every other rocket design team since the 1950's and forego an important piece of equipment like a flame diverter on the most powerful booster in history. As for Mars take-off, at least it would only be a Starship, not a SuperHeavy. But they may end up going for a take-off like Lunar Starship HLS, with smaller engines to get above the surface before the main engines light.
That last suggestion I think is an excellent idea, esp. considering that while there isn't the amount of dust that was believed before first touchdown, there is known to be significant amounts of loose regolith.
Great video, and explanation ❤
'It's moving! It's moving! I did not expect that' 😭😂
I was impressed with how well starship handled the stress of the spin. It also surprised me that it took that long for the flight termination to blow up the rocket
Well they were going to wait as long as possible so as to gain data, but also to claim some degree of success.
@@SamLowryDZ-015 Clearing the launchpad was the success. Anything after was a bonus.
Maybe that was intentional. They wanted as much telemetry they could get. Who knows when can they have an unseparated starship + heavy tumbling down in max-q? That data is invaluable.
@@limeyUK99 Bollocks - and it did not clear it - it blew a massive hole in it sending tonnes of concrete flying through the air.
Everyday Astronaut commented that apparently it's common to trigger termination as late as possible, in order to minimise the area on the ground that debris rains down on. OTOH, you also don't want to let the vehicle hit the ground unterminated, because that will thoroughly mix all the fuel and oxidiser and you'll end up with a much bigger bang --- a detonation rather than a conflageration. This is somehow avoided by the flight termination charges, but I'm not sure how.
Waw, amazing progress!!
Awesome analysis, thank you!
Was waiting for your words on that milestone, and you didn‘t dissapoint, as always, thanks!