Why SpaceX Needs New Launch Pads for Starship, and Soon
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 04. 2023
- brilliant.org/CuriousDroid Get 20% off the annual subcription with this link.
For all the success of the first Starship launch, the launch pad left a great deal to be desired and could have been the reason why the biggest rocket in history's initial test flight ended in a termination just minutes into the flight. Elon Musk must bear some of the responsibility and he predicted back int 2020 that having no flame trench might not be a good idea. So in this video, we look at the issues the launch caused and how NASA has been doing this for over 56 years without any major problems.
To give one off tips and donations please use the following :
www.buymeacoffee.com/curiousd...
or paypal.me/curiousdroid
This video is sponsored by Brilliant : brilliant.org/CuriousDroid
Written, researched and presented by Paul Shillito
Images and footage : SpaceX, NASA, Ryan Hansen Space, US DoD, LabPadre, RGV Aerial Photography
And a big thanks go to all our Patreons :-)
Eριχθόνιος JL
Adriaan Von Grobbe
Alipasha Sadri
Andrew Smith
Brian Kelly
Carl Soderstrom
Charles Thacker
ChasingSol
Collin Copfer
Daniel Armer
erik ahrsjo
Florian Muller
George Bishop II
Glenn Dickinson
inunotaisho
Jesse Postier
Joey Piccola
Jonathan Travers
Ken Schwarz
L D
László Antal
Lorne Diebel
Mark Heslop
Matti J Malkia
Paul Freed
Paul Shutler
Robert Sanges
Ryan Emmenegger
Samuel Finch
SHAMIR
stefan hufenbach
Steve Ehrmann
Steve J - LakeCountySpacePort
tesaft
Thales of Miletus
Tim Alberstein
Tomasz Leszczyński
Tyron Muenzer
Will Lowe
Music from the CZcams library
Destiny Day by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/ - Věda a technologie
This rocket had the historic first of having both the vehicle and the pad clear the tower!
Dude the pad cleared the tower ? Neat
@JZ's BFF It's what happens when you allow a job to be rushed.
@JZ's BFF hey, watch it mister! Those amateurs clearly self-identity as professionals!
Don't try to use facts!
NASA have been clearing towers successfully since the 1960s (without absolutely destroying the launch pad and site including mutliple cars and trucks they had parked too close, while destroying a nature reserve).... Also already had reusable shuttles and faster turn arounds way back then too. 13/13 of Saturn2 rockets launched and were then retrieved successfully. I thought the Musk Rats were meant to be on Mars by now?😮 You know get in there Cybertruck, throw it on autopilot and jump in the Hyperloop to get to work ... Oh wait.
@JZ's BFF Tbf, it's not engineers who made those decisions, it is one genius we all know who.
I was on the crew that installed the sound suppression overpressure water bags in the srb holes of the mobile launch platform for the space shuttle for 10 years. They were made out of parachute material lined with plastic to hold water and needed to prevent damage to the Orbiter tiles on launch. We also dropped 300,000 gallons of water in 12 seconds from the rainbirds on 0 level. Spacex pad for this rocket was way insufficient. They need a proper flame trench and water deluge.
FYI 11:35 talks of a tank with 94,000 liters, a small fraction of 300g. (And he speaks of 30 seconds capacity.)
[Edit: I'm pretty sure I'm confusing shuttle vs. Saturn. But still, did the shuttle use 12 or more times the volume?]
Elon was talking about a giant water cooled steel pad. Hahah absolutely ridiculous. It would be an immediate steam bomb. There's a reason NASA used soft containment vessels for the water.... It expands.
They can't get permission for a large deluge because of environmental impact. They picked a lousy place to build a launch facility!
@@JohnDlugosz I can't understand why they picked there with all the environmental concerns?
Why does this man have to try to reinvent the wheel. The almost fanatical way he refuses to use the knowledge and technology that has been proven to work just because it's not new and shiney and can impress ignorant share holders.
I used to work as a tech in R&D at a diesel engine company startup. Just about as much design had to go into the test stand as went into the engine, and both engine and test stand were developed together and upgraded over time. SpaceX may have plenty of ex-NASA personnel but I'd wager that hardly any of them had to work on the launch pad design itself beyond incremental changes. The basic design decisions for the launch pads in Florida were done 60 years ago, and those engineers that experienced that brutal initial learning curve with the launch pads are long gone. Where I worked, new engineers would always try to reinvent the wheel and not understand why things were done and designed a certain way. I highly suspect that is what happened at SpaceX. The tribal knowledge/wisdom didn't get passed down.
That is human i think, people wont believe slippery floor sign until they get slipped 😅
I run paint store, no rocket science needed here, but sometime it is very hard to tell new staff to "do not rely on paint can hanger when you lift big can (20L) paint" until they drop the paint once because the paint hanger sometimes (not always and seldom, but it surely will happened) failed to support the weight of 20L paint (of course not every people are like these, but it happened to some people).
In short word, people tend to not believing in bad day experience that previously happened, until they experience it by themself 😂
I have the feeling it has more to do with management. Musk makes big promises and expects them to be delivered within a fraction of the time needed.
But Elon has invented a magical concrete….
Elon frequently directs his people to discard the tribal knowledge in order to reinvent the wheel on purpose, because the reasons that certain solutions were arrived at are no longer understood, and the old solutions may no longer be the correct ones.
Yeah, I know you're being sarcastic, but for the ignorant; Musk didn't invent shit. Literally, but on the topic of concrete he didn't invent that, either.
It's also NOT the strongest concrete out there by a LONG shot.
Love the explanation for why the Saturn V pads were built the way they were. I’d always wondered why there was the incline (and so the cleverness of the mobile launch tower keeping it level while going up hill) from the VAB to the pad
Curious Droid just did a great video on the Crawler Transporters :) czcams.com/video/RAeQyJXsi7Y/video.html
Although those pads are fantastic, and have stood the test of time, there is another pad that NASA uses that is even more impressive when it comes to civil engineering.
Stennis Space centre test pad.
It can hold the entire SLS on an 8 minute green run just metres above the ground without digging a huge hole or the whole thing trying to take off.
czcams.com/video/XGRE_7yz_kM/video.html
And note built with very little earth ramp even though at near sea level. No trees were hurt during these 8 minutes, though the lesser spotted gulf sparrow minding its own business lost all its feathers....
Their torque wrenches must be mighty .......
@@zakelwe Excellent observation.
Yes, then imagine an idiot who has that knowledge ready to go- and then he builds the space-x...
I don't think I'd call that clever, more just the massive bud`get NASA had at the time. Being the cold war and all
The Russian N-1 launch pad had three separate trench outlets at 120 degrees to each other for a similar stage 1 engine arrangement. Food for thought for SpaceX?
Also, one of the on-the-pad failures of the N-1 pretty much wiped out the 6-storey underground facilities & machine rooms under the launch ring, resulting in a near two-year rebuild. Expensive.
Ironically pre launch on a twitter spaces Elon compared it to a N1. They’re not going to make the 2025 lunar landing launch.
Do you really expect the good Americans to learn from the bad and evil Russian? They are inferior by design, how could you forget..... 🙄
@@sparten17708 well they have to wait on NASA anyway so I doubt spacex is in any need to rush things
@@Toefoo100 No they don't NASA is on track to meet it's deadline.
@@phanomtaxskibididoodoo Seems to be so. In spite of all the SLS delays and cost overruns it looks more and more likely that the gating item will be the human landing system. Incidentally, that was also true back in the 1960s with Project Apollo. The Lunar Module was the last piece to fall in place. Of course back then there was a lot more government money and things were happening on a much faster schedule compared to now.
Absolutely the best info session on the event! No hysterics, no hype, just facts. Thanks 'Droid!
@glenn. What would space x do without these blogs. LOL.
@@danwright1794 Dunno. Elon must be a subscriber.
I dunno, I came for the hype and hysterics
You might wanna watch the Common Sense Skeptic. He is less polite, and brings up many more things, like how out of whack Elon is with his EPA agreements, and other stuff.
@@dougerrohmer CSS definitely pulls no punches, but they bring the receipts which is something no one else seems to do.
Surprising that Musk and SpaceX thought "the most powerful rocket in history" would not need ... the strongest launch platform in history.
It's almost like the owner of the company isn't actually a rocket scientist but can't help himself pretending he is...
@@ChristopherSadlowski As for NASA, it's almost like they looked at the ground out at Canaveral in 1965 and said, "you know, we need some thought into launch facility ... because this giant rocket of Wernher's is gonna blast a typical pad to bits."
@@ChristopherSadlowski It's one thing to make a pad as beefy as possible when you have taxpayer money and plenty of time. Another thing altogether when you work on a tight budget and time schedule, need to be able to replicate the pad in different environments (and probably on another planet) and make it withstand multiple uses a day.
It makes sense to aim for the lowest possible specs you can get away with and improve from there until it works. That, of course, includes the possibility that you blow up the pad at the first real test and probably damage it considerably in further iterations until you reach the state you aim for.
If you chuckle at the blown-out pad, what until they get to test their landing system for the first time and they miss the chopsticks.
@@strangereyes9594 Yeah. because destroying a rocket is far and a setback. Is far cheaper then doing it right the first time!!!! /s
@@justcows7772 Well, it IS cheaper. In case you don't know, they already built 26 Starships and 8 boosters in their iteration progress and it was cheaper than building one Saturn 5 by a huge margin. Starship development cost so far: 2 billion. Saturn 5 development cost: 50 billion.
I guess even you can see that 2 is less than 50.
It’s honestly pretty impressive this was the first rocket to launch with the pad coming with it
I'm sure the endangered wildlife next door didn't like massive chunks messing up their nesting
@@ev17dan The funny thing is, the people who are big space enthusiasts, who you would expect to be interested in scientific endeavors such as preservation, seem to not give a damn about that. The real truth that no one wants to mention is that they should never have been given the go-ahead for a site this close to a protected wildlife area.
But now that they have, it's all just kind of a mess to try to figure out how to deal with a really precarious location.
@doublestrike photo yea the typical response is "what did you invent?" idk, seems NASA had more accountability than some edge lord who thinks Twitter is real life
I agree. Elon looked pleased afterwards.
STARSHIP Mission Control: "Stage-1 separation failure."
Elon: "Mmmkay.....make it do Loop-De-Loops"
SpaceX Mission Control: "Luh Luh Luh Loops??!! ..... Suh Suh Suh ....SIRRRR??!!
Elon: (raises Force-Choke hand) Gimme my loops. /ovo\
@MAGGOT VOMIT Gratz my man, of the most dent headed things to say, that was the most dented
This channel is an absolute treasure to all curious minds alike. It's astounding that Paul has singlehandedly kept it going for all these years and I am so thankful for it.
well said
And to think he was almost taken from us.
Why then he refer to himself as "we"?
It's possible that he has help with editing these (many channels do), or compiling the futage, hence the "we," but as stated in his intro, they're written, researched, and presented by himself.
@@Neb_Raska His illness is still terminal though. He has MDS
It's been a head scratcher for me ever since Space-X started building the first starship launch stand. If there was ever any doubt that the design was inadequate, the earlier Starship second stage launch/hop tests (where only 3 Raptor engines tore up the concrete in the flame path) should have dispelled that myth.
100%
How much evidence do we need to finally conclude that Elon actually is not smart?
Musk likes taking shortcuts. Build the rocket first and figure out the pad later sounds exactly like the kind of brain dead backwards thinking he is known for.
Didn't musk tweet something about it would probably be a problem before the launch? I also heard that launching from Mars would present similar issues so maybe they wanted to test that. Seems a bit too predictable that it would go wrong though
They even left trucks and other heavy machinery nearby to be burned to the crisp , you can see burnt carcasses on some photos, maybe cost of those vehicles is small , comparing to rocket, pad etc, but driving those machines further away was such a simple task, makes you wonder what's going on in SpaceX.
I've watched several videos from several videos from several space oriented CZcams channels and this is by far the best explanation and analysis of the damage done to the starship launch Tower and the need for something vastly more expensive and complex if they plan on doing this on a regular basis at Boca chica.
I grew up as a kid watching all of the NASA launches from Mercury through Apollo, and I don't think anyone at anytime ever really gave any attention to the launch towers or the flame diverters, I guess they just aren't considered sexy! I had no idea that it took three and a half years and so much work to build the launch towers at 39a, so once again thanks for taking the time to explain this to all of us so that we have a much greater appreciation of just how much work (and time) SpaceX has ahead of it if it wants to launch starship at Boca chica. Thanks!
That's treu but, it's also the last one, so he had 10 days to study the competition and write a script. 😀
As just like all the others there's no word about the failing flight termination system even though Musk mentioned it in a twitter -llive😀
This is good, but Common Sense Skeptic has a better video on the aftermath, I recommend you check it out
Agreed, Paul did a fabulous job on this video. Looks like far more engineering will have to go into their flame diverters. I'm sure that SpaceX will come up with something good - I just wonder if it will also lead to more delays.
It’s wonderful to see Curious Droid covering Starship events.
Great video! I'd hate to see 39A obliterated!!!
@JZ's BFF 💀
The whole point of the Boca Chica site is development of the starship and the launch pad. Most of the work at the Cape has stopped apparently to see how development at BC gets to the working model of both.
Even Canaveral LC-5, where the relative tiny Mercury-Redstone rockets launched from had a small, pyramid shaped flame diverter on the pad. As you progress through the later launch complexes, you see more and more elaborate flame diverters and shock suppression systems. Obviously this was intentional based on lessons learned.
How SpaceX thought that they could just ignore these lessons and blast a flat concrete pad with the largest rocket ever is baffling to me.
Even the Nazi V-2 rocket had a flame diverter under it!
They needed to see how bad it cpuld be, given the possibility a Starship launch from the Moon or Mars will not have suppression.
If they can't lick it on Earth, they will have to devise some means of constructing a launchpad far more extensive than they anticipated in the hostile environment beyond Earth.
@@BogeyTheBear That doesn’t make sense. They are not launching the 1st stage (“Superheavy”) from anywhere but Earth. Extraterrestrial launches would be done with the much less powerful 2nd stage (“Starship”). There’s no reason for Superheavy to be able to endure adverse condition launches.
I’m pretty sure the real reason is that SpaceX wanted to build a proper launch facility, but they couldn’t get the construction approvals and costs to line up. So they gambled big that they could get by with a really half assed launch facility, and now it’s coming back to bite them.
@@splewy I bet they expected this, even counted on it. Now either A) they have pre-dug a trench to use for a flame diverter or the metal plate OR B) they have ammo to try to force approval of a more complicated launch platform.
They didn't think they could ignore anything. This video sadly ignores a pretty big point. There's increasing indication that boca chica may end up being nothing more than a development station. There's constant pressure of lawsuits to stop them from launching (too many) rockets from there. And Elon himself already had doubts, but I guess enough people felt it was a risk that could be accepted. The question is largely what spaceX is going to do on the site where they actually want to do high cadence launches from.
Its incredible the chain of engineering problems that needed to be solved by nasa to get the Saturn v launched. From the site chosen to the method to dig the flame trench to how they would have to get the rocket up the hill etc
My thought exactly. This whole "NASA dumb, Elon smart" stuff is in fact the pinnacle of ungratefulness.
@@eriktempelman2097 and the whole „elon dumb, nasa can do no wrong“ is even more annoying. SpaceX doesn’t have 5% of the federal budget to spend. Just the crawler cost 360 million in today’s money, that’s probably more than what SpaceX has spent so far in Boca Chica, including all the test vehicles. Also, do you think the EPA did any environmental assessments back then? In a military base?
NASA did a pretty good job of thinking the whole thing through from beginning to end, including everything from hurricanes at the launch site to how to pee in space.
It feels like SpaceX have concentrated mostly on the exciting rocket bit, forgotten some significant but boring details.
I wonder how many engineers in SpaceX are prepared to say "this is a bad idea"?.
@@HNedel "that’s probably more than what SpaceX has spent so far in Boca Chica, including all the test vehicles" that's nonsense, they spent a billion dollars alone on the whole tower, insider sources reported already over 10 billion dollars total for the whole project, last year. Musk announced 2 billion dollars expenses only for this year, they're probably gonna reach over the budget NASA spent on SLS which is a bit over 20 billion. Spaceflight on this level is super hard and expensive, there's no way around it. Musk's marketing of Starship are nothing but delusional fantasies, reality is different. If people haven't learned at this point to not trust anything Musk says, they never will. Being a salesman is what he's truly good at.
@@HNedel NASA isn't run by a petulant manchild who can't take no for an answer
NASA had a similar train of thought with their recent moon mission; thinking it's better to re-build stronger, than delay the launch working-out how & where to reinforce the launch-pad.
I’d love to see a supercomputer simulation of the starship launch with current setup compared to a couple alternatives.
@@monohedron9633 I think Elon knows a little about everything he does, but the issue is that he knows a little about it. He can’t effectively and consistently make good decisions, although often spacex is still working out because of those engineers you mentioned.
you don't need a supercomputer to find out this is exactly what was always going to happen. They launched anyway because they had no choice, they're running out of money and they need something, anything to grab more investors.
@@tvre0 this is the correct answer. They also make the decisions based on cost vs best choice.
@@chengong388 I doubt that display of reckless stupidity attracted any investors
@@sparten17708 they make the best decision per dollar, that is legal and safe. Still not the best choice, especially long term like we saw with the IFT flight
SpaceX needs to upgrade their launch pads to Level 3, which will cost 280,000 Kerbal bucks.
And hopefully not so many Kerbal lives
Interestingly, KSP launch pad level 2 has flame diverters.
later on in the shuttle program they did have problems with the fire brick along the sides of the trench with them being shot out of the fire trench. they had to make some quick fixes to keep it in place. If I remember right, they ended up rebuilding the sides before the SLS program. Also, they ended up adding the water bags under the engines after the first launch (STS-1) because of the pressure wave reflecting back and damaging the back side of the shuttle.
Actually 39A did suffer damage on several occasions. The video segment starting at 11:07 was actually the original flame trench being relined with refractory shotcrete after a Shuttle launch blew firebricks out to and through the perimeter fence.
he said substantial damage so that might fall under lesser damage maybe?
@@samuelzackrisson8865possibly in the category of cheap to repair damage, if one just out the brick back, but also probably an unacceptable risk going forward. A loose brick smashing into a shuttle engine could cause an explosion killing the crew.
I suspect that they decided that the task of guaranteeing that each and every brick was firmly attached was too difficult, and it would be cheaper in the long run to reline it with larger blocks whose fixament can be tested, as there's fewer of them to test!.
Hush, you can't upset the hate train in the comments section. The armchair rocket scientists will get very upset.
@@abarratt8869 ahh cool
@@samuelzackrisson8865 In safety engineering, it pays to take the hints from small discrepancies. Get a little lucky with something going wrong in a small way once, one then has proof positive that something can go wrong. Next time, it might be a lot worse.
When calculating the risk, if a variable goes from "100% cannot break" to "has broken" , that's like pulling the whole system risk figure all the way up.
It's difficult to be completely honest about such risks. NASA had calculated it for Space Shuttle overall and got it wrong, far too optimistic. This was something that emerged in the Challenger enquiry.
A lack of honest assessment of the risks posed by loose foam lead to Columbia getting clobbered and lost. Of course, when they did a test afterwards... Sometimes the most innocuous of things can be misunderstood by everyone, leading to what I call a "Conspiracy of Optimism". Test, test, test is a useful mantra, even if it seems dumb.
It's the same in every day ordinary engineering, except there one can pick and choose. If there is a risky aspect of a project that you know can be fixed later, provided one explores the risk and understands it, one can park it until later.
It's like watching a bunch of school kids making all the rookie mistakes and learning why it's called 'Rocket Science' and not 'Bi-carb Volcano'.
Except the school kids have been doing this for the better part of a decade now, and should know better.
@@86pp73 Get back to me when they get to Mars, hang on wasn't that supposed to be two years ago according your leader L Ron Musk?
@@marklatimer7333 Oh Mark,, I hear your Mommy calling you in for dinner.. do your homework and grow up son...
@@francom6230 Seek help Man, You've been indoctrinated into L. Ron Musk's evil cult - get out while you still can.
@@francom6230 I stand by my original comments, it's obvious to me that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
To be fair, SpaceX only said the goal was to reuse the rocket, not the launch pad. 😊
i think you will find keeping the aeroplane but rebuilding the airport each time much more expensive 🤣
It’s always just super impressive what NASA did in the 60s. I hope SpaceX comes up with a solution as durable as the pads at Kennedy have been.
So... you don't find it odd in any way that space travel technology is the only sector is human history to move backwards? It doesn't raise any questions for you regarding the legitimacy of NASA's presentations?
Thanks for the physical and historical context of the launch pad troubles of Space X's first Starship launch, just ten days after the event. Your account of how construction firms built the 39A and B launch pads was eye-opening -- a massive civil engineering project in a water-logged coastal environment. Another gem is the possibly prohibitive impact of coastal environmental regulations on a contemporary attempt to dredge locally in support of a launch pad build. Fascinating!
Forget about using pad 39 and give SpaceX a remote site to build an entirely new pad. I think Maralogo would do.
Excellent analysis. Thanks CD for not falling for the apparent cult of personality around Elin Musk and intead giving a calm, objective account away from the hype.
Some of his information was a bit misleading (because obviously, you can’t know everything about a project by just researching it for a video) but overall it’s a good video.
If you watch the drone launch footage, you can see that about 3 seconds after engine start, there are about 20 or more massive concussive shockwaves that shoot up the side of the rocket. This is the constructive interference of the supersonic shockwaves coming off the engine exhausts. ( the thousands of sonic boom shockwave that are the crackling sound of rockets launching, and the things causing that violent camera shaking even in the NASA rigid mounted engineering cameras that shot the shuttle launches ) You don’t see these shockwaves in shuttle launches because the flame diverter causes them to reflect to the SIDE out the trench. The flat surface under starship causes them to reflect straight back up.
It was these shockwaves that shattered the concrete under the pad, and its not until these shockwaves start to subside that you see massive chunks of concrete flying. They subside because the flat surface of the pad is no longer there to reflect them straight up. THIS is the Acoustic damage that actually shattered the concrete. Its the SOUND of the hundreds of sonic booms created by the super sonic turbulence between the rocket exhaust and the surrounding air.
THIS is what water deluge systems are largely for. They Absorb the shockwaves into atomizing water, and then the engine flames can flash that atomized water into steam and the diverter deflects the steam in the rocket exhaust plume to carry the heat away from the pad.
A flat water cooled plate will NOT solve the problem. Musk needs a launch pad that needs zero repair and maintenance. One that diverts the blast AWAY from critical nearby infrastructure. He hasn’t got one. And shoving a water cooled plate under the pad won’t provide those features that every other large launchpad has. That’s his ‘team’ trying their best to come up with something slapdash to solve the problem of an entirely insufficient design.
I appreciate and prefer the ads towards the beginning of the video rather than the end. Leaves me feeling satisfied rather than sighing
Great piece Paul. The definition of madness is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Got a feeling Elon might have to pull the pin on launching super heavys from Boca Chica for now and launch them from Cape Canaveral. At least until they make a proper launch pad.
No heavy or super heavy rockets have ever been launched without a flame diverter and deluge syatem. The FAA shouldn't have allowed the first launch to take place without a diverter- deluge system. They won't the next time around. Nevermind that the FAA is now getting sued for this FUBAR.
Having the rocket clear the tower is a super low bar for a definition of success, right? How can anyone be okay with that definition of success?
While the employees were jumping up and down with delight, Dear Leader looked pretty glum sitting in the control room.
Excellent, thoughtful video, especially when you included the 65 year history of NASA launch pad design, construction and use. I will be surprised if SpaceX ever uses SLC 39A for Starship based on possible destruction of nearby structures especially those for SLS. NASA seemed to be in the dark (or out to lunch) regarding this hazard.
Small error @ 3:57. While the rocket thrust definitely did do some direct damage to the launch pad, the actual damage to the pad was caused by vaporizing ground water below the fondag creating a massive pressure bubble that burst about 4-5 seconds after the engines started, about a second before liftoff. There are Nasa documents back to the 70s on launch pad design that explain the destruction process. While spalling is a concrete problem, the pad didn't blow up from spalling! Instead, the heat and noise exacerbated spalling and cracking from the test-launch which facilitated heat transfer and ostensibly exhaust from passing through the pad to the underlying water where it vaporized and started building up pressure like a pressure vessel. The longer it lasted, the greater the pressure. When the fondag let go under tension from below, the explosion occurred, sending shrapnel in every direction, including into the engines. The engine exhaust would have prevented a lot of that hypersonic debris from getting launched into the engines and up through the rocket, but a bunch did get through, destroying 3 of the engines while it was still on the pad and putting holes and dents into pipes so that some of them weren't flowing sufficiently and some were leaking. Basically, it was a giant cluster-F from about the 6 second mark and the launch should've been scrubbed rather than potentially launching the rocket like a V2, so that it landed on the pad, maybe not even clearing the launch tower. Readings from the launch profile show the engines underperforming by about 20% and a severe lack of trajectory control as a consequence. Of course, the debris damage to the gimbaling systems killed the attitude control completely at around the three minute mark. Oh, and the detonation system didn't work. So, all in all, the whole thing could've gone slightly worse, but not much. On the positive side, we got to see how SpaceX has zero organizational safety culture and zero concern for the environment. So, that's nice, right?
SpaceX telemetry should've shown that all the engines lit at the start and then three of them went out abruptly at the same time at about the 4 second mark. That was 2-3 seconds prior to liftoff and ample time for someone on the ground to scrub the mission, realizing that it was doomed.
Wow man, you can lay down the bullshit bro.. that was just a long diatribe of uninformed bullshit..
Is this all conjecture or do you have some source you didn't mention?
@@intrepidpursuit Nasa has numerous reports dating back to the 70s on the process by which rocket exhaust damages and undermines concrete as well as techniques to mitigate damage and I've read a couple of them. Google "Nasa flame trench report" for your reading pleasure. When it comes to rocketry, ignore Nasa findings at your own peril!
I'm an engineer who has studied strength of materials including steel and concrete and worked around legal pressure vessels. Spalling (another possible destructive means) isn't generally explosive and also not so simultaneous or widespread. What is seen in the video is the result of an instantaneous explosion with pressure from below the pad, ejecting material in every direction. The Nasa reports detail this process because the Cape Canaveral water table is similarly high, as at Boca Chica.
There's a remote possibility that the rocket exhaust got under the concrete through cracks in it, but that would have eroded the concrete over time rather than the instantaneous explosion seen in the footage at about the +4 second mark and that exhaust would've vaporized the ground water anyway, so either means of heat transfer results in water below the pad vaporizing and nowhere to go but detonating the fondag. That's also why there's a crater offset from the center of the pad. If the rocket had actually dug it out, it would've been at the middle.
Aside from someone having planted explosives below the pad, the only way you're going to get that sort of instantaneous explosion to blow the pad to bits is from water vapor building pressure below the pad until it literally exploded in every direction, damaging all the engines and removing at least one of them in the launch video. Bits of that engine should be either on the pad or in the massive debris field.
Yes, I wasn't standing under the rocket watching the pad explode, but I didn't need to be to readily recognize what happened and read about how it happened in those Nasa docs.
To me, it's mind-boggling how they are still not going with a diverter trench. Think about how much a little money spent here, now, could save big money and time in the future with not having to repair stage 0 after each launch. It doesn't have to have a huge footprint, only be tall enough to accommodate an adequate trench. Bite the bullet SpaceX and just build what you should have built in 2020.
They need to permits for this, and that is not likely to happen soon, or if at all.
try digging below sea level and let me know how it works out.
Your mind is boggled by alot of things right?
As the video said, a trench will take massive time and money they don't have, if they even get permission.
@@StevenAndrews Um, no one said anything about digging. They need a flame diverter trench. That can be built just like at KSC, or even higher above ground. And NO, there is no need for such a wide mound when retaining walls can be built. They made a HUGE mistake building at the Cape before even knowing how the Boca Chica pad would perform.
Thank you, Paul Shillito, for a very informative article. I was curious both before and after the launch about the feasibility SpaceX building a LC Pad 39A-style launch facility and you filled in the gaps.
to launch 10x a day, they'd need better pads.. but they'd also need some kind of an actual reason to launch 10x a day
If you build it, they will come.
It's not building stuff here to go into space, it's going into space to build stuff there.
After seeing so much damage from the Starship landing, you'd think they'd realize how ineffective that flat surface of concrete is. And of course the part where virtually every commonly used launch site has some kind of flame trench...
If you believe the well circulated and reasonably founded rumour mill - they did know. Or at least spaceX team did. Musk forced it through because 'he knows best'.
Surprised there was no mention of Elons tweet a month or so before the launch… He said something like “Ive decided to have no flame trench, but this could be a mistake”… So it was a calculated decision- maybe it would work, maybe not… Move fast, break things 😁
It was a Tweet 7. okt. 2020. Quote: "Aspiring to have no flame diverter in Boca, but this could turn out to be a mistake".
The problem is breaking the rocket prototype is so much less disruptive than breaking the launch pad. They need to come up with a launch pad that withstands those forces several times a week.
He’s breaking other people’s things. That’s a problem.
@@grahamstrouse1165 LOL, yeah never thought of it like that. Technically you are right as SpaceX have recieved billions of dollars in subsidies.
When I lived in Waco Texas the test facility at McGregor was about 6 miles away. The seismic shock was strong enough from that distance to shatter the glass in the back door of the house.
Super interesting stuff and well fleshed out, thank you !
No one makes better videos than you.
Something about the way you speak just absolutely clicks with my brain. Thank you for the quality.
I can't help notice how close all those facilities are to the launch pad.
(Yeah, I know, that's a large part of the what the video is about. I typed this comment at 30sec in)
Yeah, I know right. Those tanks better not be fuel!
@@mrdan2898 um, where do you think they keep the fuel? It can't be too far away, otherwise it wouldn't feed the system effectively. Those tanks aren't decorations...
Elon is not a responsible guy but he does keep a death grip on his companies.
totally irresponsible engineering if you ask me
@@ChristopherSadlowski The fact that they were severely dented means we almost witnessed an amazing fuel explosion.
Astonishing, really, that the engineers thought the damage was going to be acceptable. I assume that Musk was warned and he chose to put the risk to one side.
Pay cheep pay twice in operation
@neoanderson6128It was catastrophic.
he wanted to launch on 4/20 cause he thought it was funny. thats the real reason
The difference in Nasas layout of the launchpad is striking compared to Spacex´s. Instead of the silos being close to the rocket in Nasas layout they are as far away from the rocket as possible. My guess as to why Elon chose this particular site for the launch was that it was cheap to buy despite not probably being optimal for launching rockets this big.
Nicely done, thanks.
There's been talk of an off-shore launch facility once the system goes beyond the current 3 locations. This might solve a LOT of problems - including noise pollution from rapid re-launches. In the case of multiple pads, per platform there's the possibility of multiple flights per day. The shock wave off water from a recommissioned oil derrick would be negligible not to mention the height for all manner of flame mitigation.
Instant Fried fish Sticks , If over the ocean
Right now is at best talk of an off shore launch facility.
That degree of sound would be incredibly damaging to marine life, for an enormous radius. It would be orders of magnitude beyond the current concerns over protected wildlife around Boca Chica. I hope it never happens.
As a person who has been watching this all go on for years. I believe that if they extend the tower a few more sections. And then take the stand. Chop the legs off of it and then build a flame diversion system and water deluge system. Up above ground level. I believe they will have successfully dealt with their issues. I'm just a random guy looking at a problem and thinking of a system that might help.
Chuck up a big steel high tension wire fence in front of of the tanks too
I think that this is what they will do, raising a steel tower is pretty simple, look at how construction cranes goes up, they could do the same, but at much larger scale.
@@worawatli8952 indeed, the chopsticks are raised and lowered by cable, doesn't seem like it should be problematic to stand it on something.
Thank you! That was super informative and very interesting.
I know Starship's second stage is meant to land and take off from surfaces that aren't necessarily prepared for a launch, such as the lunar or martian surface. The booster, however, is meant to launch from fixed sites on Earth only, even returning to those points to land. It boggles my mind that SpaceX isn't taking every known and already well understood measure to protect those fixed sites from launch damage from that much more powerful rocket.
Do you want to pay for "every known measure"
It only took NASA 3 years and more money than has been spent on Starship to built the pad alone. Clearly doing the same thing is how progress is made.
@@zyeborm🙄🙄🙄 And that knowledge already exists now. Reinventing the wheel is pointless.
@@zyeborm If they can't do it safely, then they shouldn't do it at all.
@@ToaArcan European?
Well researched credible quality content as usual.
check out Common Sense Skeptic, curious droid is a child compared to him.
Excellent reporting as usual. Thanks CD
Great report - Very important points raised...
Casual observation: the vintage NASA pads clearly work, and scaling the facilities and systems up is fairly straightforward. Seems like SpaceX wants to find a smaller, cheaper, more clever solution that wouldn't tie them or anyone so tightly to a specific location.
yeah and I want to find a winning powerball ticket
I agree! and yet SpaceX is too cheap to even copy another design already tested.
@@mrdan2898 Why copy it? They know it works and is annoying to bother with. They want to design a better launch platform, not just a better rocket.
Or is it a case of those who know a bit about how previous diversion approaches have been successful, are not speaking up, or they are sharing there knowledge and it’s being ignored.
@@lx-mw1cc they did a great job designing a new one, didn’t they? They only risked their pad, the tower, the rocket and the tank farm all on the same launch. The dumbasses could have blown the rocket up right on the pad because they decided not to do anything about it. It was a stupid decision and I look forward to them reaping what they’re sowing.
Even with a steel plate and water deluge system, there will still be a lot of overpressure blasting against the bottom of the booster.
The new system will help regarding erosion of the base but will it be enough to solve the blast problem-?
There's no way that acoustics aren't worse like that, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it ends up like N1 on its second launch. The thing is, they still don't have a deluge, they'll just be water cooling the plates. For a proper deluge system they would need a permit for which they don't have time to wait for, same is for a flame trench they applied for in 2019 then abandoned the process.
@@FrankyPi the temperatures that those rockets put out, that water will get vaporised instantly, it's a terrible "solution" to have it on *metal plates*
@Cat King It's also a question whether those plates and welds will even hold up under that 6000+ tons of thrust, we will see I guess. Worst possible scenario would set them back for a long time and would only help the ongoing lawsuit against FAA.
@@FrankyPi worst case scenario (for them) i think would them being grounded permanently from that site. It's really unbelievable that the OLM was put together with a 'this will do' mentality when it's like...well we see what that attitude brought them lol
You are my favorite science engineering channel. You kind are dying off and as a 35 year old who had great science professors who forced us to think to solve real world problems. I respect your point of view so much and I always wish you would upload more but I’m not complaining. You and thunderfoot are incredible
Great video Paul
Musk is trying to do a space program on the cheap. The launch facility looks like the back lot of a movie set.
You wouldn't get me on one of those TIN CANS.. it's one thing to put a rocket into orbit.. it's another to land on the moon and land back on the earth with out killing the crew and everyone around the landing site!!.😎♥️🇺🇸
Paul, Thank you for the in-depth analysis of the Boca Chica launch site. That video on the "camera car" taking a direct hit from a piece of concrete was terrific and showed how lucky Space X was that they did not detonate their tank farm. Keep up the excellent work, CD.
Very nice work
I just wanted to say, I am happy that you appear well. Another great video!
I love the pragmatism of 20th century NASA engineers" just make it strong enough for nuclear engines". also did space x not understand they are building the next generation of space travel pad included, although if I was elon I'd let them blast a crater in Florida as well
Possibly his engineers advised against. But Musk wanted this and his hubris likely forced it through.
Billionaires like Musk at some point develop an oversized ego. They think they know best even when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise. NASA engineers figured out a solution to this problems decades ago. It was foolhardy of that muppet Musk to not apply the lessons learned by those NASA engineers.
I work construction part time. Concrete is not made to resist the extreme heat and pressure expelled by a massive rocket like Spaceship. It was completely clear from the beginning that this would happen. It also likely led to the damage of some of those engines which in turn led to the loss of the vessel
It is mind-boggling that Space X did not expect this will happen. Or they did, but decided to proceed anyway. This isn't a little detail they missed.
And you ?
The end of this video states that SpaceX did anticipate the launch pad issue, applied for federal permits to essentially copy the NASA style pads, but did not receive permission from the federal government due to environmental concerns.
Odd, since the federal government OK'ed SpaceX's use of thst beach for launch operations. Federal government screw ups at their finest, the most common scenario as usual.
There was a high chance the whole thing would blow up on the launchpad anyway...
They proceeded anyway. All Powerfull Rockets need such things. But it would have been expensive. I bet it was better to proove to the investors that an expensive Pad is nessesery in a way they understand it. I begin to think thats Musks secret, he knows the investors need cool stories not facts. I dont like Musk.
That's what happens when you work 60 hour weeks for an egomanaic boss who fires 10% of his employees every year.
Wow! What you said was brilliant! That's just made my thoughs so much clearer. Thank you.
Curious Droid always makes so insightful videos. I think 1.07 M subs is underrating.
👍👍 nice video. CommonSenseSkeptic (another YT channel) did a nice video on that launch too. very questionable
I think an extremely deep flame trench is the best option. Water cooling some kind of steel surface sounds like it could be explosive. Water cannot carry away that concentrated power quickly enough. I know the water table is low, but a flame trench, or tunnel, could still be built. It just needs pumping out for the launch. Raising the whole launch system, as mentioned in this video, would be another good option. Anyway, whatever is done, it needs to be something with extreme improvement.
You might be the only smart comment in a sea of dumb comments.
That infrastructure could be built, but the problem is those projects require extensive permits for which SpaceX already showed no interest for because it would take too long for everything to be complete. They already applied for a trench permit in 2019 then abandoned it later.
@@FrankyPi Yes. I had heard of that. I think it could be done in another way, mainly above ground, but the launch tower and ring (the whole system really) would need to be a couple of frames higher. The trench and launch ring probably needs carbon heat tile protection in places. Some of the steel parts in this launch were eroding at nearly an inch per second, I heard.
@J Adams The only thing they can do without any permit is a surface structure below the mount, like a steel diverter (see Saturn 1B for example), but that would still be an inadequate solution for a vehicle of this size and power, they're stuck with only making inadequate solutions. Also, they already indicated they don't want any structure like that as they need space for engine inspection and replacement if needed. A flame trench would be incredibly difficult to dig and build on this land anyway, they would need to make a whole raised pad structure first, then dig to ground level, just like NASA did back in the 60s, but again that's a significant project and requires a permit. It took NASA 3 years to build those with Apollo budget, while SpaceX would need another 2 or so years just for the permit, they don't have 5 years to spare, should've thought about this way earlier when they knew they were aiming for this site here, it could've been done by now. Their approach to this whole project was completely skewed from the start. Shot themseleves in the foot and I don't see a promising future for it at all.
Thanks for the amazing content!
Space x ultimately plans to launch these rockets on platforms out a sea so a flame diverting trench will not be suitable in this application at Starbase they are not just developing the rocket but also the manufacturing and launch processes. you could say that they should have put in a flame diverter but honestly I'm surprised at how little damage was done to the launch pad considering there is no water deluge system or flame diverters.
It completely obliterated the thing, smashed up the rocket site and covered the surrounding nature reserve with bit concrete boulders, and you call that 'little damage'?
😂 right
@@sandran17 Compared to the damage that could have been caused yes there is little damage. It could have caused way more damage by taking out the tower, launch mount, quick disconnect arms and the tank farm. Considering all of this infrastructure survived the damage is quite minor.
@@adamflohr5166 its still a shit tonne of damage compared to how NASA does its launches. Its like comparing an A result on an exam and a C result. The C result could have completely failed, but they still did pretty shite, and need severe improvement.
@@sandran17guess what, SpaceX isn't NASA.
It only has to justify its methods to a small number of sophisticated investors, not Congress and their constituents.
I wonder how much thought was given to the erosive effect of the rocket exhaust in the original design of the launch pad. Obviously the principal problem is how to deflect the exhaust through 90 deg while keeping the deflecting material in one piece. Next, the main exhaust stream needs to be broken into many separate streams so as to render each stream more manageable. I don't think concrete is suitable: without the use of any water, all surfaces have to be coated with an ablative material. I'll be interested to see how the designers tackle this!
Zero. Zero thought given. This is SpaceX.
Makes a " Sea Dragon" style launch seem more feasible.
Dynamite fishing, god-mode.
Aquatic creatures for miles will just burst their floatation bubbles, and for hundreds of miles go deaf.
Fun.
Sea dragon was dismissed years ago for good reasons. Never more than a concept.
@@nilesbutler8638 fish can hear?
My thoughts exactly, but for the sea life there would need to be some extensive studies done to ensure that it's not going to make a huge fish graveyard.
I know the environmentalists will not be happy with the thoughts of this sort of launch but before its scrapped out of hand maybe we should try to understand just what it's effects would be. The answer may surprise us.
@@TheWizardGamez Yes? ever tap the glass on a tank? guess what the fish are reacting to.
This is slowly becoming one of my favorite space content channels seemingly out of nowhere
100% Steals videos from smaller guys!! Including clips script the lot! Reported this channel.
1:27 - - NASA launched 12 Saturn 5s + 82 space shuttles from launch pad 39a for over 56 years - - without any substantial damage.
7:33 - - NASA sent off the largest rockets for 50+ years (with only minor damage to the mobile launch pad on the SLS launch + almost no issues prior to that).
9:42 - - schematic profile of flame trench + deflector
11:06 - - flame trench
11:09 - - inverted v steel flame deflector
11:33 - - a water tower to cool the flame deflector
12:59 - - rocket taking off
13:21 - - 6 legs
13:24 - - rocket taking off (aerial view)
13:38 - - diagram of flame trench
14:02 - - rocket taking off (long take + wide view)
4:10 - - aerial view showing explosive force
It looks like SpaceX was under pressure to show results. They had to known that launch pad was woefully inadequate. In the end, they had a good show and hopefully investors will keep shoveling $$$ into SpaceX.
Plausible explanation…
After that amateur hour sh--show I wouln't invest any $ in spacex
My tax money was in that launch. I would prefer to scrap the unrealistic Starship.
Could you elaborate why Elon said they do not think they need to do funding round this year then? Was he just lying?
They just wanted this off the pad so they can move on to more advanced versions. Fairly straight forward I think?
They did. Elon Tweeted multiple times that the engineers said hsi pad was inadequate and they needed a flame trench. He felt differently and tried to be cheap. It's litterally all Elon.
If you look with attention to the close up footage from the Everyday Astronaut, the Booster lost around ten engines during the flight, as a failure in the flight termination system to destroy the rocket instantaneous.
Visual evidence shows it lost 8 engines. I saw Angry's vid and don't agree with his take on the destruct system. Scott Manley did one shortly after the flight, plus a vid specifically about FTS in the last day or so. The FTS is not designed to and is not capable of instantly destroying a rocket.
@@RechargeableLithium I didn't used the Angry Astronaut channel as reference. Check all the explosions in the engine area, as the greenish colours with engines probably going out.
@@RogerM88 The greenish fire normally means that the engine is burning bits of itself, rather than just the fuel.
@@ToaArcan so it means engine failure.
CSS had it at 10/11 with the possibility of one or two more right before the ship blew itself apart (also pointed out that it looks like the FTS was triggered and failed twice). How anyone is spinning this as a positive because 'at least it left the launchpad/think of all the data!' when you know they'll be perched on launches by non-SpaceX entities ready to tear apart the smallest issues. The entire thing was a failure and it's grounded them for the rest of the year - forget what Musk says about when they'll be ready again, it's not up to him, it's the FAA
The upgraded OLP at the Boca Chica launch site will in fact have a much stronger foundation on top of which will be laid the water cooled steel sandwich which will also provide a powerful upwardvpointing shower to counter the wrath of 33 raptors firing. Add to that is the plan to raise starship off the launch pad in half the time as happened on launch one. All of these changes should make a big difference.
great content thanks very much
Hopefully the Moon pad on which Starship will land and take off again will be better built...
Oh wait, it's just a flat field of regolite.
There's talk of using a laser on Earth to bake moon dust into glass. But frankly it'd be easier and cheaper to use a nuke
you need way less thrust to take off from moon, so it should be less of a problem there :)
@@J-IFWBR Except that your engines will be much closer to the ground, and the oversized lander will still need massive thrust to launch.
I mean, "flat" isn't accurate. And regolith is soft. They won't have to worry about taking off from the surface since it's just going to fall over once it touches down anyway.
No. The lunar engines for landing and departing are high on the Starship, not on the bottom.
Exactly.......The Boca Chica launch pad is "dead-in-the-water" for quite some time! Also, the rocket could have exploded at lift-off.....who's to say what damage that could have done. It's difficult to ponder what SpaceX was thinking in any scenario.
Musk has already addressed all this. This really feels to be a click bait titled video. The pad had stood up to multiple test fires and they suspected it would handle a single launch with minimal damage. They already have months of building on a water cooled flame diverter, but that would have delayed the launch by further months. So they proceeded with fingers crossed. The loss of the ship means nothing, it was likely to be lost regardless and the newer prototypes already have significant improvements. So extra damage to the pad is unfortunate, but a minor detail in the scheme of things.
@@jonny360 The loss of the ship is negligible since they got the flight data up to about 40 km high and the pad is probably repairable fairly easy. The bigger question is whether Nasa will insist that they build a trench, flame diverters, water deluge and much beefier blast protection for the tank farm. They got lucky and the situation doesn't seem that bad but I doubt Nasa will accept anything like this happening in Florida. Their whole stage 0 concept is sorely lacking.
@@jonny360 The ship was expendable, but yall are crazy if you think the launch stand, tower, and tank farm can just be easily fixed. And SpaceX is crazy if they try. You cant throw tons of concrete and steel at things and still consider them safe.
@@wombatillo It's not really NASA that they have to worry about currently, it's the impact of this launch pad failure on their future FAA approvals. The debris field was well outside the regulations / approvals, so you can be sure the FAA is going to be scrutinising SpaceX's proposed solutions and launch applications much closer.
@@Thermalions FAA is what makes china win the space race in the long run because of their slow progress... Great job
Boca Chica launch pad is a laboratory. The first Starship launch there was an experiment in that lab. Progress at the launch pad in Florida is being delayed, waiting on the next experiment(s) at Boca Chica. No one knows better than Elon how many quick turn-around launch pads they need. Boca Chica launch pad v2 will not be the last iteration. Musk wants the glory of launching Starships from historic Kennedy, without any fireballs or particle colliders. He wants to stand with the giants, Saturn V and The Shuttle. He will perfect the system in Texas and export what they learn to Florida and other properties unbought. They've got this.
You're optimism is blind and uneducated. Starship only did a 2 sec static test. The pad needs to survive at least 8 secs before starship will lift. To launch Starship without a 10 sec test on the water plates is nothing short of stupid. But what is Elon doing now? He is trying to launch: 1) without P&R permits 2) without proper waterplate test
You be silly to think Elon knows what he is doing when he is repeating the same mistake cause he sucks at planning and NOT LYING.
Great presentation.
It's as if they said the rocket is an out dated version and why bother making the pad good if it all blows up, let's launch and see what happens 😮🚀
Was cool to see tho
It was irresponsible for SpaceX to take the attitude of "see what happens" with a rocket that big. It could have caused considerably more damage to the surrounding area than it did, and the damage that it did cause wasn't trivial.
SpaceX is made of a group of computer programmers, mechanical and electronic engineers, and propulsion experts. It looks like they will have to hire a group of civil engineers now.
Regarding the cooled metal plate, even if it resists the thrust and the heat of the 33 engines, it will reflect the acoustic waves toward the rocket, so the pad will also require a sound suppression system.
Thank you Mr. Shiillito for the great video.
Greetings,
Anthony
100% agree, have you seen the high quality footage from Everyday Astronaut? They have a great slow motion shotthat clearly shows insanely powerful shockwaves rippling through the dust cloud, right back up the length of the rocket. Considering how likely traumatic the launch was on the components, it's amazing it even made it as far as it did. I guess there's just some corners you can't cut.
@@ZachAlanPhotography the same crap happened at NASA.
It's just they make sure the public is over a mile away and are very locked down unlike space x.
Space x is more public transparent.
Nasa is kown for lies.
@@ZachAlanPhotography Musk is a master of hype.
@@liamhickey359 The amount of people calling the launch "perfect" is making me crazy. So much of this could've been avoided!
The plan is to have the water deluge go through the plate cooling it and go up towards the engines with equal pressure to the thrust, whether they can do that and make it work is good question.
I really like your commentary, I just came across the channel. 👍
Great analysis. Love the videos.
A tremendous presentation, as always. One point of correction: there were 13 Saturn V launches when you count Skylab.
I'm surprised the launch tower could handle the forces
The tower doesn't actually carry any load during launch. The rocket sits on the pad. The segments get lifted onto the pad empty by the tower.
Love your videos!
Boca Chica will never ever host actual launches to the moon and mars. The initial license was for up to two Falcon Heavy launches per year. SpaceX requested a modification and said that the site will be used mostly for building and testing Starship prototypes. So the launchpad there was never designed to support frequent launches, let alone be human rated.
One thing that was missing I think in their previous design was supporting the pad itself with piles. Their static tests made them believe it could withstand one launch, probably because they considered only temperature response of the pad. The thing is, they were also applying a large load, a dynamic load to boost, on a saturated loose sand (which is what supported the pad). That kind of foundation soil is very susceptible to liquefaction under dynamic loading...
When watching the videos of the launch from close positions (the one with the palm tree) you can see that at first you only had the exhaust plume coming out, when the engines were throttled. It's when they throttled up to lift up the rocket that you see suddenly the plume getting darker and chunks of concrete coming out. The change was sudden matching the throttling. This makes me think that it is less an issue of thermal shock (the initial temperature shock would have been greater) and more a case of the dynamic load increasing suddenly. This may have triggered a failure of the soil below the foundation (particularly if liquefaction was triggered by the sudden increase in applied load). The soil having to support the full weight of the rocket, but with a reduced strength would have led the pad to bend which would have initiated cracks. With that cracking initiated, the exhaust finished the job through erosion with the exhaust flowing below the concrete blocks of the pad further out too.
Considering the heavy (dynamic) loads that were to be applied to the pad itself, I have to admit I am surprised that it was not supported underneath by piles that would have carried the load to greater depths where the loose saturated sand of the surface would not have been an issue. The slab on grade approach that they used was in no way appropriate to support the weight of such a tall tower on a weak foundation soil. Considering the size and height of the rocket, the pad needed similar deep foundations that were use for the orbital launch mount.
I agree. Latest SpaceX theory is the soil below collapsed causing cracks in the fondag, causing it to be ‘peeled up’ and ejected.
The piles are about 45m deep, 6 of them one under each leg.
Couldn't agree more. Further, if liquefaction had occurred I would also be concerned about the stability of foundations for the tower too. Just tiny movements in the tower's foundations could effect the functioning of the tower to stack and mate the propellent lines. The 7 or 8 seconds of that rocket directly pounding the ground with all that energy could have caused cascading problems all over the site
@@andyalder7910 not the piling under the legs, the flat concrete directly under the rocket nozzles.
@@jakethesnake630 OP referred to the full weight of the rocket so I think they were suggesting there were no foundations at all. Either way let's hope the water cooled steel plates welded to the legs sort the problem.
1 note to add is that SpaceX is already building a crew access tower to SLC 40 at the cape to help with the tight schedules and possible complications from LC39a launches
If knew something catastrophic was going to happen to the launch pad, then how didn't the big brains at Space X figure this into the building of their launch pad!!??
How could you not think anything was going to happen!!?? All those powerful rocket engines firing all at once!!!
Anyway, hoping for a speedy recovery....get your asses back on track Space X!!
Love your Videos paul
Good point about the static fire weakening things before the main event.
I never believed the pad would survive.
I have seen how prone concrete is to heat damage. Even with Fondag I doubted it due to the massive pressure.
That was a tremendous mistake not to throw the metal plate in before start as Elon knows by now
What would have happened to the booster with such plate in place
would have been a scene in Idiocracy if they had the budget
i got a furnace for casting iron. made it with 1650C rated cement. up to 1800 for brief bursts.
ive managed to exceed that rating a few times, and oh boy, does it make a mess...
normal portland cement makes nice little pools of lava at these temps... even mica is starting to look a bit unhappy.
wish i was rich and could play with platinum all day though.. just a few hundred more degrees to go...
and thats still nothing compared to whats coming out of a rockets nether regions, despite the prodigious cooling taking place in the bell itself... (expanding gases and delaval nozzles converting heat directly to velocity crap...) by the time its hitting the pad its well below what it was in the chamber...
Course there's a suggestion that the point of failure was the soil under the pad that gave out first, which potentially means that the same failure would have occurred even with the metal plate.
@@jonasthemovie The crater may have saved the rocket.
The static firing of 33 engines losening or cracking the concrete before the launch, giving Elon false confidence reminds me of his Tesla Cybertruck presentation. They presented the extremely strong glass windows by throwing a metal ball at it and it cracked, due to previous testing and sledgehammering the door below the window which caused the structural strength of the glass to be compromised. We should call this the Elon Effect lmao
Good call!
In the aftermath of this first test it seems that the launch cadence necessary to complete Lunar Starship testing and to establish orbital refueling by 2025 may well be unrealistic. Refueling will take multiple launches of this giant rocket with very short intervals in between.
Musk promised cargo missions to Mars by 2022 ,lol.
Lunar starship 2030 is no way unrealistic
I'm going to make the prediction right now that China will beat the US (back) to the moon.
@@hippomormor yeah they should have asked ula to do it. How's their progress on Vulcan going? They have only been working on it for a decade and they still don't have the new upper stage for it yet.
@@zyeborm I’m not sure what your point is and how it relates to me just giving a very realistic timeline. That’s just whataboutism
We can get to one of the ten launches a day using the hyperloop system :-)
The best explanation for the pad being destroyed is that the sand underneath the concrete compressed and the concrete snapped in half. The concrete was going to fracture, but snapping in half wasn't considered. The plate they're going to install fixes that, and with no concrete boulders flying around, the rest of the pad will be perfectly fine. A rapid cadence will be easily achievable. For sound suppression, it's well known that rocket sound reflects at a 45 degree angle to the ground, so reflection up at the vehicle won't be an issue. The water cooled plate will fix almost every problem the pad experienced from the first launch.
Fantastic as expected. Also love that shirt.
It was Musk himself who kept going on about the importance of 'stage zero'. I've always wondered if the old adage about Americans not understanding irony was true. Apparently, at least in Musk's case, it is.
What sort of 'brilliant engineer' thinks that a short duration, half power test is the same as a launch??
I guess the answer is the same sort of brilliant engineer that dismisses 50+ years of experience and decides that a water filled metal plate will do as well as a deluge system and a flame trench.
Even if the metal plate had been in place and had worked (anyone wanting to bet on that?), it would only have dealt with the heat problem. It wouldn't have redirected the exhaust, and, more importantly, it wouldn't have reduced the sonic shock waves. In fact it would probably just have reflected them straight up, back at the engines.
The idea of launching the largest rocket ever built in the middle of a nature reserve was always one of Musk's crazier schemes. And now he is going to reap the (possibly fatal) consequences of that idiot idea.
I can't see NASA stumping up the money to build a Starship-proof launch faculty, and even Musk doesn't have that sort of cash - especially post-Twitter.
And, anyway, what for? To launch a rocket that will never be human-rated and that is based on a pot head's sci-fi dream of colonising Mars.
Is this going to go down in history as 'Musk's Folly'? I suspect it is.
The reason for not launching with a flame diverter is because the goal was to build a craft that could take off and land vertically on Mars or the Moon. That requires launching w/o a fancy pad.
As for funding further development, that's not a problem. The capabilities demonstrated so far are obviously super valuable (ppl, including NASA, pay alot for heavy lift to orbit). All he has to do is issue stock in the company and people will buy it.
Now he might find that unpleasant since at some point those stockholders are going to demand he give up on this crap about landing on Mars and just focus on launching to earth orbit where all the money is but this isn't Paul Allen's stratolaunch...it's got a ton of commercial value.
@@petergerdes1094 the whole Mars thing is pure fantasy. I won't rehearse all the reasons why again, I'm sure you know all that. But no one is going to Mars. Possibly the Moon, but, even there, I don't really see the point of the Starship.
Musk didn't do (or not do) all these things because of Mars or the Moon, he did it because he thinks he knows best. Just like he did with Twitter.
And they both worked out about as well.
It’s almost as if Elon Musk is an idiot
He's not as smart as we hoped he was.. anyone who manufacturers that many boosters with out having a working prototype is a fool... the wrecking crew will be busy for awhile..if I was a astronaut scheduled for the first starship flight to the moon I'd be thinking about changing jobs!!.🚀💥☠️😪
@@paulhaynes8045 He did it because he has a fuckton of money and when you are a billionaire you get to make companies to cater to your fantasies of exploring the solar system.
Ultimately, it's mostly his money and there isn't anything irrational about him using it to cosplay explorer if that's what makes him happy.
Not how I'd build a rocket to make life better on earth but probably a better use of resources than just buying up private islands and building giant yachts or whatever rich ppl waste money on.