UPDATE: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 · 11:11:08 AM +00:00 · Uncle Vasili Shwetz
Quick update to include this fantastic analysis from the Voice of Thunder. This video includes an early spectacular Raptor explosion just after launch. Also, in-depth discussion of the FTS and oxygen levels, and how the flight nearly ran out of the oxygen necessary for an explosion to even happen.
Read the diary below first, then come back and check this out:
He concludes with dire analysis for the planned Artemis moon mission:
“Relying on SpaceX for the lander? I don’t see this happening. … The first thing they need is a reliable engine. If you don’t have a reliable engine, it’s dead on arrival. There’s nothing you can do with that.
“So it all boils down to, from the very beginning Musk’s deal with the raptor is, it was going to be the highest chamber pressure engine, blah blah blah. Lots of superlatives, but that’s basically made a rod for their own back. The engines blow up, they’re unreliable. Can’t make a rocket out of unreliable engines.”
SpaceX finally launched an integrated Super Heavy/Starship this past week, and to hear most people tell it, everything went just fine.
From ABC News, for example:
Space X confirmed Thursday afternoon it triggered Starship's flight termination system after the boosters failed to separate.
Starship was veering off its planned trajectory, the company said. SpaceX and FAA have procedures in place to keep a rocket from injuring people or damaging property.
Nice. Comforting.
Funny thing, though. Even as SpaceX curiously does not appear to be able to afford to provide the public high-res video footage of their launches (no doubt P.T. Barnum would be proud), there are plenty of space enthusiasts out there to fill in the blanks and reveal what actually happened.
TL;DR, it sure appears that the Flight Termination System (FTS) was unsuccessful in terminating the flight. Whoopsie. Everyone duck!
Here we get a nice rundown by Project Virtual Haven on YouTube of the catastrophe in action. For the issues with the FTS, jump to about 7:30 in the video.
After the failed stage separation and with the rocket apparently in a tumble, we hear SpaceX call out for the booster engine cutoff. Yet for over a minute, the engines plainly continue to fire.
Video notes (emphasis mine):
“Most curious of all, after the vehicle lost control and the engines continued to fire, the Flight Termination System (FTS) was not immediately activated. I want to believe that since Starship was still in the safety corridor, SpaceX wanted to see if separation would still occur so they could get some data on Starship ignition, even if it wouldn’t make it much further than that. If so, that means separation also failed.”
Hey, sometimes I’ve believed at least six impossible things before breakfast, but tomato/tomatoe.
It’s also worth observing that at around this moment, SpaceX removes the graphic showing pitch from the information on the screen, which sure suggests they didn't like what it exposed.
For over a minute, the rocket tumbles out of control in mid-air. Then you see two small bursts, one from the FTS on Starship followed by the one on Super Heavy, near the top of the booster. Yet neither one of these blasts terminate the flight, as seen plainly in the video (emphasis mine):
“The final idea to consider about the activation of the FTS is something Scott Manley pointed out. It looks like the FTS was activated on Starship at 3:10, and Super Heavy two seconds later, but it just punched holes in the tank without any ignition. Propellant leaks out for 47 seconds until eventually the pressure in the tanks is dropped enough that they lose their rigidity and the airstream rips them apart.
“If this is what happened, then it still means SpaceX waited for over a minute after the rocket started tumbling to activate the FTS and destroy both stages.”
And here is the aforementioned Scott Manley, who can explain FTS systems to you in probably far more detail than you have time for in your day, but interesting stuff nonetheless:
So keeping track, that’s a full minute before the FTS is even triggered, followed by another 47 seconds after it didn’t work before the ship blew itself up.
Still feeling comfy?
So yeah, the FAA has a lot of explaining to do. Mainly, how any of this foreseeable disaster was allowed to go off in the first place.
As you’ll recall, it was a year ago that the FAA required SpaceX and Musk to submit to a 75-point checklist designed to mitigate environmental impacts from its proposed plan (FAA Requires SpaceX to Take Over 75 Actions to Mitigate Environmental Impact of Planned Starship/Super Heavy Launches, June 13, 2022)
“The environmental review is one part of the FAA Launch Operator License application process. SpaceX also must meet FAA safety, risk, and financial responsibility requirements before a license is issued for any launch activities. The review was completed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and all applicable laws, regulations, and agency guidance.”
So who exactly was in charge of compliance here? How did the FAA issue any flight plan at all?
Indeed, today a federal lawsuit was filed by environmentalists (Environmentalists sue FAA over SpaceX launch license for Texas)
“The shattering force of the launch hurled large chunks of reinforced concrete and metal shrapnel thousands of feet from the launch site, located adjacent to the Lower Rio Grand Valley National Wildlife Refuge near Boca Chica State Park and Beach in Texas.
“The blast also ignited a 3.5-acre (1.4-hectare) fire on nearby grounds and sent a cloud of pulverized concrete drifting 6.5 miles to the northwest, raining over surrounding tidal flats and the nearby town of Port Isabel, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”
If Elon Musk and SpaceX are complying with the binding FAA mandate, then why are SpaceX cars routinely parking in the wildlife refuge, which is strictly prohibited? (Report: Government Documents Allege SpaceX has Violated FAA Permit, Encroached on Boca Chica National Wildlife Refuge, August 18, 2021)
In one letter to the FAA’s environmental protection specialist, written in April of 2019, Fish and Wildlife asked for closures and testing to stop until, “noncompliance issues are resolved.”
A refuge manager expressed his frustration in an internal email to a Fish and Wildlife biologist. They wrote, “this is totally unacceptable. If we don’t stop this now, we’ll never be able to reel it back in.” They added, “how do we stop this thing in its tracks and start over?”
This was all predictable, as seen in this fire-breathing video from the Common Sense Skeptic YouTube channel:
Amazingly, in footage from the blast site shown in the video above, we can see that the literal rocket scientists at SpaceX left rows and rows of perfectly fine maintenance vehicles and support equipment within the blast zone: (emphasis mine)
“Now on top of all the damage to adjacent properties, there was also a lot of damage done to the site and machinery on site that was the result of pure negligence as well. Any fool should have known the tank farm was going to get hit, and leaving all your site transports lined up in a row to get roasted along that wall seems especially idiotic.”
Sunny-eyes supporters of all this will say this was all worth it for the precious telemetry data, but the Common Sense Skeptic says that’s nonsense.
“...It really must be said Musk and SpaceX have learned nothing from readily available information regarding how to build launch pads, and develop space launch sites in general — such as the design of flame diverters, or the proper location of propellant tanks in relation to the hot end of a rocket. So don’t hold your breath that they’re going to learn anything from this.”
Who at the FAA coordinated with SpaceX to ensure compliance before flight authorization was given?
Has anyone directly asked SpaceX or the FAA if the FTS actually brought down the flight, or merely that the flight terminated after the FTS failed?
What are Starship’s abort procedures, anyway, when they intend to be sending hundreds of these up in the coming years?
One last note about all of this, but is everyone aware of where the other Starship launch pad is? It’s at the Kennedy Center, the legendary Complex 39-A. That’s sacred ground. On January 27, 1967, we lost astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee on the pad of Launch Complex 34 in a tragic fire within the Command Module.
Yet in November of that same terrible year, on the pad currently leased by SpaceX, the world witnessed this:
That is Apollo 4, NASA’ first “all-up” test, meaning it was the first time all of the integrated systems would be tested at once and they all performed flawlessly.* From that site, humankind was set on a confident path to eventually successfully land on the moon repeatedly (and with an excellent safety and performance record).
I have a question for the FAA: Do you want what we all just witnessed in Boca Chica to happen to 39-A?
Tax Musk. Fund NASA. Get a different result.
Note: Various edits made throughout for clarity, additional links. Viewer comment reminded me I misstated where the Apollo One fire occurred, I said it was here at 39-A but it happened at Complex 34.
* You got me, a few comments have wisely pointed out there were a handful of problems on Apollo 4, but honestly, I was just using the success scale established by Musk. Let’s call it “performed beyond expectations,” all right? Sheesh, Musk gets to hyperbole, I don’t get to brag about Apollo 4?!?! :)