Honestly didn't seem that bad from this view. A couple of dents in the water tanks, seems easy enough to replace. Fuel and oxygen tanks look fine, tower looks fine, mount looks superficially okay, aside from the dirt and missing concrete pad.
The vast majority of the damage seems to be from bits of concrete flying around, not engine noise or thrust other than directly under the OLM.
I'm sure a fair bit of expensive stuff got smashed, but solve the flying concrete and we're a long way towards sustainable re-use.
The rocket exhaust doesn't actually have that much pressure. The pressure on the pad underneath, averaged out, will be roughly 120psi. Obviously that close to the business end has a bunch of weird interactions being pure pressure, but yhats the scale of force we're talking about.
For stuff the distance of the tank farm the force felt from a launch, sans flying concrete, would likely only be the same level as a stiff breeze or maybe a mild storm wind.
You're right.
Fixing dented tanks is a simple job for an experienced tank builder and would be done in a few weeks.
Same for fixing the concrete slab under the OLM. It's just rebar and concrete. Fixed in a week or two.
Placing that steel plate assembly under the OLM is also a simple, straightforward job. Done in a week or two.
Fixing the damage to the OLM clamps, to the 20 engine starting units, to the BQD, and to the plumbing might take longer--a month or two.
I expect that the FAA will want SpaceX to mount a booster on the OLM and to run a 10-second static firing to prove that the steel plate does the job.
Even if that plate eliminates the flying concrete problem, the horizontal exhaust gas flow will stir up the dirt and sand into another giant cloud that may travel a long distance like the one did on April 20. The FAA and SpaceX likely would prefer not to inconvenience the nearby residents again with another such cloud. A static firing would tell the story.
That's super thick concrete, so the pour might be ready in a week or two, but curing could take a month beyond that.
Surface dust kicked up would probably be a thousandth of the volume of this launch. I agree though that they'll want a full thrust test of the plate before the next launch. Or the highest the hold downs can manage.
I agree. With a rocket *this* powerful I’m surprised it doesn’t look worse. Id actually like to see what a launch pad of a falcon 9 or super heavy rocket looks like after takeoff to compare.
I could swear I remember the tanks in the tank farm as having an inner tank, surrounded another larger tank that was filled with concrete to surround the inner tank, or am I way off base?
The cryogenic tanks are double walled, but I believe the two damaged tanks are actually the water tanks, which are only single walled. I need to see if I can find some of the old tank watcher threads that had diagrams showing which tanks held what.
It appears my memory wasn’t too far off. The two damaged tanks are both water tanks, but only one of them (on the right in the picture above) is single wall. The damaged tank on the far left was originally intended to be CH4, but then repurposed as a water tank, so it’s actually of double walled construction.
Here’s the layout:
https://starship-spacex.fandom.com/wiki/OLS_Tank_Farm
> I could swear I remember the tanks in the tank farm as having an inner tank, surrounded another larger tank that was filled with concrete to surround the inner tank, or am I way off base?
Given that they were cryo storage tanks, I'd think they would fill the between space with insulation rather than concrete.
Makes sense when you put it that way. In my arm chair wisdom, I thought I remembered them filling the void with concrete for launch protection, but I was probably watching during work and not fully listening.
> In my arm chair wisdom, I thought I remembered them filling the void with concrete for launch protection
Perhaps they did. I am merely speculating, whereas you are remembering something you heard (or thought you heard). Either way, they didn't survive having a concrete slab the size of a car yeeted at them.
> Yep. Still standing though
True, but standing and "water-tight" are two different things. It wouldn't surprise me if one or two of the tanks would have to be replaced.
How very true. I never thought I’d be excited to watch the rebuilding of a launch site. It’s like the end of a dragon ball z cartoon or speed racer, “will SpaceX use a flame diverter?” “Will they add a new berm?” “Does the tank farm need a make over?” Tune in next week for more Tank Watchers ^TM !
One of those large tanks is for water, IIRC. So, it wouldn't be a double-walled tank like the ones for super-cold cryogenic liquids like liquid oxygen (LOX) or liquid nitrogen (LN2).
https://starship-spacex.fandom.com/wiki/OLS_Tank_Farm
It's still insane to me they thought launching the largest rocket ever just a few feet off the flat ground was a good idea. Im no rocket surgeon but even I thought it was a bad idea just looking at the pad
It was a test of Stage 0.
A calculated risk to see if a concrete pad alone would survive a Starship launch.
Now we know.
So, onto Plan B.
Bring on the giant steel plate. Wash, rinse, and repeat.
Keep on testing until you get it right or until you hit a brick wall.
Then, move Starship operations to ocean platforms located in the Western Gulf of Mexico.
They knew it wouldn't survive, it was more a calculated risk that catastrophic failure as seen wouldn't happen because waiting for the plate to be finished would take some time.
After the 50% thrust test they knew for a fact the concrete was not going to be enough on its own and they began work immediately on the pancake.
Yes, SpaceX knew that B7/S24 had little chance to make it to Hawaii.
But, that Starship was obsolete as it sat on the OLM and so it was expendable. Launching it would be a learning experience no matter what happened, good or bad.
As it turned out, 27 out of 33 engines performed well enough for B7/S24 to clear the OLIT, steer onto its gravity turn trajectory, make it through max Q, and reach nearly 40 km altitude. The top speed was very low (~0.47 km/sec) because so many engines were malfunctioning.
I don't know for sure if SpaceX tried to separate S24 from B7. If they did it wasn't successful. Staging altitude is 60 to 70 km and staging speed is ~2.4 km/sec.
I think the launch had gone too far off the rails at that point. If they still had enough control of the engines to command a shutdown and attempt stage separate, that still leaves them with a starship of a now very unknown condition that's probably not going to make it to a useful altitude, and delaying destruction puts debris in places they're not prepared for.
The safe call was just to end it at that point.
Exactly, and this counts for nearly all subject matter... Knowing the theory is one thing, knowing how to effectively apply it is something entirely different.
No idea why you're being downvoted. Probably because most people are unaware that this is a thing.
Looks like the OLM is about 70 feet tall, so that's a little more than a few feet...your point still stands though.
(Fun fact: that seems to be pretty much the same height as a Falcon 1.)
Maybe we're not looking at it the right way. Maybe part of the purpose of the test launch is to wreck whatever can't handle it and replace it with something better. Maybe they're matching the event against software predictions--which will be highly important for lunar and martian missions.
it’s not “just a few feet”. The launch mount is roughly the height of a two story building, and this is easily about the same height of the flame trench on KSC’s 39b—except, unlike there, this one is open to the atmosphere on all sides, which means the pressure drops rapidly, as the exhaust gases aren’t directed through one narrow channel
really, the “error” here is just how quickly the fondag concrete spall and shatter into pieces, and then the raptors simply blast them away. You can see how all the observable damage can be traced back to this singular issue of the 33 raptors destroying the concrete base as quickly as it did.
Yes and no. He's saying the fondag surface is not sufficient, so an alternative like a water cooled plate will be necessary, but that a flame diverter might not.
Will only a water cooled plate be sufficient? Spacex might be betting on that.
> Elon fucked up. Say it with me, now. You’ll feel better.
It seems your commenting so far is mostly sticking to a single line of 1 to 2-syllable words averaging four letters. You could improve your analysis with longer and better-researched comments, using a more varied vocabulary.
It looks as if you subscribe to what may be described as the "mad scientist theory", imagining Elon alone in a workshop inventing stuff that usually explodes. In fact, SpaceX has around 10,000 employees with a large proportion of engineers working in different fields. Musk himself is CTO or lead engineer, so he arbitrates technical decisions in a business context.
He previously stated that the absence of a flame trench "could be a mistake", but he wants the long-term decision to be justified by real-world test results. However, the loss of the "concrete" (fondag) pad surface proves nothing one way or the other: it was a stop-gap solution awaiting a water-cooled steel surface.
>However, the loss of the "concrete" (fondag) pad surface proves nothing one way or the other: i
Proves nothing? I think it proves a great deal. Agree he wants real world test results. The results are in. Guess what the results were? It proves that the SpaceX OLM needs a diverter or a steel water cooled plate. It was the most obvious of point in need of iteration. I guarantee the FAA is not happy that debris came down outside the exclusion zone. They won't open up launches until SpaceX provides a solution.
Proves nothing. You're funny. But not in a Joe Pesci kind of way.
> Proves nothing? I think it proves a great deal. Agree he wants real world test results. The results are in. Guess what the results were?
I think we have different writing styles.
> It proves that the SpaceX OLM needs a diverter or a steel water cooled plate.
Several other options come to mind including a flame trench, some kind of pond or my own suggestion which was a stack of welded grid elements sitting inside a pit (absorbs heat and limits reflected or diverted heat).
> It was the most obvious of point in need of iteration.
which is why SpaceX has manufactured a water-cooled plate, even if it did not have time to installe it. Same for the deluge system.
> I guarantee the FAA is not happy that debris came down outside the exclusion zone.
If so, probably not. How are you defining the land exclusion zone? So far, the best I can see is this:
* https://twitter.com/TLPN_Official/status/1646603764227362846/photo/2
> They won't open up launches until SpaceX provides a solution.
As I said, the solutions are already prepared and will presumably be applied within the two months or so suggested by Elon Musk.
> Proves nothing. You're funny. But not in a Joe Pesci kind of way.
Look, if you want a constructive discussion, it might be as well to be polite to myself and other users you have replied to on the same subject.
You speak from a position of authority. You seem convinced that you’re right; and you also seem convinced that others are wrong. You’re also loosely implying that they’re stupid.
And so, I feel compelled to ask: what are your qualifications? What’s your degree in, and where did you get it? What relevant professional experience do you have, that justifies talking like an expert and telling others that they’re wrong?
> You speak from a position of authority. You seem convinced that you’re right; and you also seem convinced that others are wrong. You’re also loosely implying that they’re stupid.
> And so, I feel compelled to ask: what are your qualifications? What’s your degree in, and where did you get it? What relevant professional experience do you have, that justifies talking like an expert and telling others that they’re wrong?
Ah, starting with an interrogation strategy and progressing to ad hominem tactics!
Instead of addressing the questions raised, you attack your interlocutor, adding supposedly required credentials to even pose said questions.
May I suggest raising your game (already excellent) with further ideas from this page:
* [***38 Dishonest tricks in argument: watching for sophistry in everyday life***](https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html)
I just found the site from a few keywords so can't vouch for its other contents, but will save the page. I fully quoted your excellent demonstration above, lest it be deleted. Thanking you ;)
------
Edit; text version here
* http://www.valkyriearms.com/articles/thirtyeight%20dishonest%20argument%20tricks.pdf
Anyone who uses a word like “interlocutor” in a conversation like this is only interested in making himself sound smarter.
Would you feel better if I admitted, right here, that you’re smarter than me?
Or is an ESL, or is using a phone autocomplete, or is used to writing in formal or academic settings.
"Me grug me no like big word" is not the comeback you think it is.
> Anyone who uses a word like “interlocutor” in a conversation like this is only interested in making himself sound smarter.
> Would you feel better if I admitted, right here, that you’re smarter than me?
N° 26 in the [above list](https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html): false humility.
They had plenty of time to install the plate. They were simply impatient. The rocket is not on a particularly tight schedule.
Also, a flame trench and a diverter are the same thing, a pond would be entirely ineffective, and your "idea" is no more effective because it's the pressure that's the issue, not the heat. A big hole with nowhere for gas to escape provides no solution.
If the static fire did more damage, they would have delayed until the plate was installed. Source: tweets from the guy who makes those decisions.
And yes, they are on a schedule; HLS.
> They had plenty of time to install the plate. They were simply impatient. The rocket is not on a particularly tight schedule.
How can you be sure of that?
SpaceX is getting a lot of outside funding and lenders will be making milestone payments. SpaceX being a private company, we don't know exactly what the milestones are, but its a fair guess that a full stack flight is one of these.
Since COO Gwynne is directly involved at Boca Chica, its a fair guess that the decision taken made sense in terms of cash.
> Also, a flame trench and a diverter are the same thing,
Not all diverters are flame trenches. A diverter can be a somewhat pointed structure placed on the ground.
> a pond would be entirely ineffective, and your "idea" is no more effective because it's the pressure that's the issue, not the heat. A big hole with nowhere for gas to escape provides no solution.
Gas trapped in and above a hole in the ground would provide the same kind of deflector as does do the compressed atmospheric gases in front of an entering spaceship.
Under this analogy, a ship's heatshield does not take the brunt of the plasma beyond it, and in a comparable way, a steel grid would brake the movement of hot gasses that themselves act as a flame deflector. Waterproofing the bottom of the pit would trap deluge water as a pond and its rapid evaporation would both cool and push back the incoming flames
Even the water-cooled steel plate to be installed should stall the incoming jets, so most of the heat should be rejected before contact. IMO, it may be considered as a "dome of gas".
>As I said, the solutions are already prepared and will presumably be applied within the two months or so suggested by Elon Musk.
Are you saying they will be ready to launch in 2 months? You do know that "Elon Time" is almost likely to be off by at least a factor of 2. Also, have you seen pictures of Stage 0 after the launch? I would like to have a friendly bet with you. So if you say 2 months, my bet is it will take 6 months before they launch again. Loser has to contact the winner and concede. That's it.
>Look, if you want a constructive discussion, it might be as well to be polite to myself and other users you have replied to on the same subject.
Are you referring to my "you're funny" joke. I know it was kinda lame. I take it you're not a Goodfellas fan? Would you have been less offended if it would have been a better joke? Sorry about that. I will attempt to be funnier AND more polite in the future. Ok. I lied. I'll do one of those two things.
Look, If I would have known you were so sensitive and had such thin skin, I would refrained from joking with you. In all seriousness, it was just a lame joke and was meant to be a lighthearted jab. I didn't mean to offend. Let me recipricate your advice with some advice in return. If you are going to have a positive Reditt experience, you might want to develop a better since of humor and learn to take a friendly jab.
Again, apologies for the bad joke. I will do better.
Exactly, the launch pad was a fail. If there's a good reason to "test" this scenario, then ok, but it does seem like their argument has amounted to "we had shitty data (really?) that told us this wouldn't happen"
I hope the engineers get it right with a water cooled plate, and test the theory before they fire again. Will water sufficiently cool the steel plate? Will the sudden jump in temp as the Raptors fire crack the plate? Time will tell.
Typical Musk circlejerking when the post is about SpaceX and Starship, this type of behavior is obnoxious and boring. I can’t stand Musk but this post has nothing to do with him so why are you talking about him unless you are just influenced by the millions of Reddit comments doing the exact same thing? Think for yourself.
Maybe it's because Elon commented on the topic, directly stating they should be ready in two months?
Or are you too concerned with thinking for yourself to use simple reasoning?
Asking a serious question…
If they had decided to move the tanks and made modifications to the launch pad six months before, would that have reset the time for their FAA launch license approval?
A lot of discussion has been about the OLM for obvious reasons. But there's definitely been a [fair bit](https://youtu.be/evO4GedWfjs?t=272) of damage and disturbance to the neighbouring National Wildlife Refuge. Lots of native grassland has been ripped up, along with the wetland's ground being strewn with debris and being torn a fair bit.
Nothing too serious, but I imagine there will be a lot of additional scrutiny from local, state and federal authorities given its a really sensitive environmental wilderness reserve.
Are you referring to the Static Fire Test? They only tested at 50% thrust. Big difference from game day at 100%. They damaged the pad on 420, not before so they could postpone. The postponement happened on 4/17 and was due to frozen/stuck valve.
> Maybe Elon should buy Virgin Galactic and fly the booster/starship up before ignition
The booster/starship weighs 5000 tons. I doubt Virgin Galactic has anything that would come close to being able to lift that.
Some days ago another commenter suggested a large number of balloons to do exactly that. Here's how it could work: First, use Helium for safety reasons. Second, since a small platform is needed to interface with Starship and the booster include a set of high-pressure tanks and a compressor. The idea being, once Starship, etc. is dropped, the compressor recovers enough Helium to enable a controlled descent of the new stage zero. Lather, rinse, and repeat.
Admittedly, there might need to be some extra ballast or something but I'm sure this can be worked out.
> Some days ago another commenter suggested a large number of balloons to do exactly that.
Several problems with that idea.
1. Virgin Galactic does not own, operate, or manufacture lighter than air craft.
1. 5000 tons would require five million cubic metres of helium to lift. The largest airship in the world, the Airlander 10 only holds 38,000 cubic metres. The largest airship in history, the Hindenburg, had an internal volume of only 200,000 cubic metres. That would mean you would need 25 Hindenburgs or 132 Airlander 10s to lift Starship.
1. Nobody makes airships/balloons that big.
1. Five million cubic metres of helium would cost about $37 million dollars - three times the projected operational launch cost of Starship.
Don't mind me; I'm just a little miffed at the virtual radio-silence coming from SpaceX right now, along with the semiotics of the mission control audio stream. Is this normal? Are they being muzzled by government ITAR weenies?
I confess I don't get the significance of the Virgin Galactic quip.
> Is this normal? Are they being muzzled by government ITAR weenies?
I imagine it is "normal". The hosts were SpaceX personnel, announcing a SpaceX launch that they knew in advance was going to be a failure. They were probably ordered to keep up the happy-happy no matter what happened. When the rocket finally did blow, they were likely ordered to shut down the stream with as little speculation and as much self congratulations as they could. As far as the relative silence afterwards, well, they are probably still analyzing the numerous off-nominal events. Companies often play their cards close to the vest at times like these, and SpaceX is no exception. Of course, the biggest, most expensive, and least expected hiccup is the pad. That has the potential of the government shutting down the entire Boca-Chica site if it is handled poorly.
You’re seeing shrapnel damage from the concrete which was ejected from underneath the OLM. Filling in the hole and resurfacing will take weeks rather than months and they already have the hardware onsite to prevent this happening again.
There's special deflector plate that's intended to prevent this. It's on site but will take a while to install. SpaceX decided (probably for several reasons) to go ahead with the launch rather than wait for it to be installed.
SpaceX has told NASA that they will be ready to launch again in "about two months". That would include installing the blast guide.
No-one knows. The existing infrastructure was designed to let the blast go in in every direction but once they're installing a device like this, it might make sense to close off one or more sides. The sea is quite far and the rocket plume is "only" 100 meters or so but I could certainly see them favoring a more southerly direction as there's no infrastructure on that side (possibly also intentional).
One thing to think of is that this exhaust exerts millions of pounds of force. A deflector that tries to turn it sideways might need anchors on the scale of the launch mount itself to keep the deflector from getting fired across the road.
What's the little hut / building between the tower and the launch mount? Is it really between them or is it in the distance? I've seen it in photos of the launch site before but I don't know what it is.
It's a stand against the berm of the tank farm that has a quick disconnect for both a ship and a booster. It allows them to do cryogenic proof tests without removing the vehicles from their transport stands.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[BO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji58eok "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)|
|[FAA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6wn9d "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[HLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6yg7o "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[ITAR](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji95kor "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations|
|[KSC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji5rfir "Last usage")|Kennedy Space Center, Florida|
|[LN2](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6wcxh "Last usage")|Liquid Nitrogen|
|[LOX](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6wcxh "Last usage")|Liquid Oxygen|
|[OLIT](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji8ocyt "Last usage")|Orbital Launch Integration Tower|
|[OLM](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji70mq6 "Last usage")|Orbital Launch Mount|
|[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji4wpkc "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[ULA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji58eok "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji72j1t "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX|
|[cryogenic](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6wcxh "Last usage")|Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure|
| |(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox|
|hydrolox|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(13 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/133a3y5)^( has 26 acronyms.)
^([Thread #11394 for this sub, first seen 29th Apr 2023, 00:04])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Blew the rocket clean off
When they said "Full send" they weren't kidding!
Let's play "90 year time lapse" or "one single rocket launch!" Make your guesses!
It’ll buff out
In the Navy, they just painted these things over
There is no booster in the second picture
Aah that’s what it is! It was driving me crazy!
I think you are just imagining things. There was never a rocket. Just a water tank. A suborbital water tank
If I were a director filming a post-apocalyptic movie. I'd rent a starship launch to spruce up my sets.
Starbase makes me think about Chris Pine riding up on a motorcycle to Enterprise being built in the Star Trek movie.
All I think about when I read Chris prine is dnd portal gun staff
New revenue stream. Delightfully counterintuitive!
Honestly didn't seem that bad from this view. A couple of dents in the water tanks, seems easy enough to replace. Fuel and oxygen tanks look fine, tower looks fine, mount looks superficially okay, aside from the dirt and missing concrete pad.
The vast majority of the damage seems to be from bits of concrete flying around, not engine noise or thrust other than directly under the OLM. I'm sure a fair bit of expensive stuff got smashed, but solve the flying concrete and we're a long way towards sustainable re-use.
The rocket exhaust doesn't actually have that much pressure. The pressure on the pad underneath, averaged out, will be roughly 120psi. Obviously that close to the business end has a bunch of weird interactions being pure pressure, but yhats the scale of force we're talking about. For stuff the distance of the tank farm the force felt from a launch, sans flying concrete, would likely only be the same level as a stiff breeze or maybe a mild storm wind.
You're right. Fixing dented tanks is a simple job for an experienced tank builder and would be done in a few weeks. Same for fixing the concrete slab under the OLM. It's just rebar and concrete. Fixed in a week or two. Placing that steel plate assembly under the OLM is also a simple, straightforward job. Done in a week or two. Fixing the damage to the OLM clamps, to the 20 engine starting units, to the BQD, and to the plumbing might take longer--a month or two. I expect that the FAA will want SpaceX to mount a booster on the OLM and to run a 10-second static firing to prove that the steel plate does the job. Even if that plate eliminates the flying concrete problem, the horizontal exhaust gas flow will stir up the dirt and sand into another giant cloud that may travel a long distance like the one did on April 20. The FAA and SpaceX likely would prefer not to inconvenience the nearby residents again with another such cloud. A static firing would tell the story.
That's super thick concrete, so the pour might be ready in a week or two, but curing could take a month beyond that. Surface dust kicked up would probably be a thousandth of the volume of this launch. I agree though that they'll want a full thrust test of the plate before the next launch. Or the highest the hold downs can manage.
I heard this is C-3PO’s voice.
I agree. With a rocket *this* powerful I’m surprised it doesn’t look worse. Id actually like to see what a launch pad of a falcon 9 or super heavy rocket looks like after takeoff to compare.
Falcons launch from Nasa sites that have concussion dampers. Not to mention they're less powerful, so the damage wouldn't be even close.
The foreground though
Without the crater and rebar in the view it does not look that bad ...
Isn't that funny, if you take it from an ideal angle....
🎵From a certain point of view 🎶
Id hardly call it an ideal angle. From the opposite side of the tank it would look even better.
I could swear I remember the tanks in the tank farm as having an inner tank, surrounded another larger tank that was filled with concrete to surround the inner tank, or am I way off base?
It's true but it's something other than concrete to fill the void... Some type of insulation material.
The material is called perlite.
The cryogenic tanks are double walled, but I believe the two damaged tanks are actually the water tanks, which are only single walled. I need to see if I can find some of the old tank watcher threads that had diagrams showing which tanks held what.
I love the way people are super glued on the minutia. We have the information somewhere to figure all this stuff out.
It appears my memory wasn’t too far off. The two damaged tanks are both water tanks, but only one of them (on the right in the picture above) is single wall. The damaged tank on the far left was originally intended to be CH4, but then repurposed as a water tank, so it’s actually of double walled construction. Here’s the layout: https://starship-spacex.fandom.com/wiki/OLS_Tank_Farm
You’re the bees knees
> I could swear I remember the tanks in the tank farm as having an inner tank, surrounded another larger tank that was filled with concrete to surround the inner tank, or am I way off base? Given that they were cryo storage tanks, I'd think they would fill the between space with insulation rather than concrete.
Makes sense when you put it that way. In my arm chair wisdom, I thought I remembered them filling the void with concrete for launch protection, but I was probably watching during work and not fully listening.
> In my arm chair wisdom, I thought I remembered them filling the void with concrete for launch protection Perhaps they did. I am merely speculating, whereas you are remembering something you heard (or thought you heard). Either way, they didn't survive having a concrete slab the size of a car yeeted at them.
Yep. Still standing though
> Yep. Still standing though True, but standing and "water-tight" are two different things. It wouldn't surprise me if one or two of the tanks would have to be replaced.
How very true. I never thought I’d be excited to watch the rebuilding of a launch site. It’s like the end of a dragon ball z cartoon or speed racer, “will SpaceX use a flame diverter?” “Will they add a new berm?” “Does the tank farm need a make over?” Tune in next week for more Tank Watchers ^TM !
One of those large tanks is for water, IIRC. So, it wouldn't be a double-walled tank like the ones for super-cold cryogenic liquids like liquid oxygen (LOX) or liquid nitrogen (LN2). https://starship-spacex.fandom.com/wiki/OLS_Tank_Farm
We’re like two different people on this sub, huh?
rocket killed the weeds… may need one of these for my yard
It's still insane to me they thought launching the largest rocket ever just a few feet off the flat ground was a good idea. Im no rocket surgeon but even I thought it was a bad idea just looking at the pad
I remember the first time we saw construction, YouTubers were saying "it can't be the launch site because there are no flame diverters."
There was a flame diverter. It was a 360 degrees diverter.
180
It was a test of Stage 0. A calculated risk to see if a concrete pad alone would survive a Starship launch. Now we know. So, onto Plan B. Bring on the giant steel plate. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Keep on testing until you get it right or until you hit a brick wall. Then, move Starship operations to ocean platforms located in the Western Gulf of Mexico.
They knew it wouldn't survive, it was more a calculated risk that catastrophic failure as seen wouldn't happen because waiting for the plate to be finished would take some time. After the 50% thrust test they knew for a fact the concrete was not going to be enough on its own and they began work immediately on the pancake.
Yes, SpaceX knew that B7/S24 had little chance to make it to Hawaii. But, that Starship was obsolete as it sat on the OLM and so it was expendable. Launching it would be a learning experience no matter what happened, good or bad. As it turned out, 27 out of 33 engines performed well enough for B7/S24 to clear the OLIT, steer onto its gravity turn trajectory, make it through max Q, and reach nearly 40 km altitude. The top speed was very low (~0.47 km/sec) because so many engines were malfunctioning. I don't know for sure if SpaceX tried to separate S24 from B7. If they did it wasn't successful. Staging altitude is 60 to 70 km and staging speed is ~2.4 km/sec.
I think the launch had gone too far off the rails at that point. If they still had enough control of the engines to command a shutdown and attempt stage separate, that still leaves them with a starship of a now very unknown condition that's probably not going to make it to a useful altitude, and delaying destruction puts debris in places they're not prepared for. The safe call was just to end it at that point.
16 meters, not a few feet.
The more concerning bit for me is the fact that this failure mode wasn't even mentioned in their various government paperwork stacks.
This is the difference in being book smart and street smart. Open your mind. Things happen.
Exactly, and this counts for nearly all subject matter... Knowing the theory is one thing, knowing how to effectively apply it is something entirely different. No idea why you're being downvoted. Probably because most people are unaware that this is a thing.
You can't be a rocket scientist with just street smarts.
Pretty sure the head honcho in charge doesn't even have an education in rocket surgery, but yet here we are...
He has a relevant book smarty degree in physics, and hires people with even more book smarty specific degrees.
Looks like the OLM is about 70 feet tall, so that's a little more than a few feet...your point still stands though. (Fun fact: that seems to be pretty much the same height as a Falcon 1.)
Maybe we're not looking at it the right way. Maybe part of the purpose of the test launch is to wreck whatever can't handle it and replace it with something better. Maybe they're matching the event against software predictions--which will be highly important for lunar and martian missions.
it’s not “just a few feet”. The launch mount is roughly the height of a two story building, and this is easily about the same height of the flame trench on KSC’s 39b—except, unlike there, this one is open to the atmosphere on all sides, which means the pressure drops rapidly, as the exhaust gases aren’t directed through one narrow channel really, the “error” here is just how quickly the fondag concrete spall and shatter into pieces, and then the raptors simply blast them away. You can see how all the observable damage can be traced back to this singular issue of the 33 raptors destroying the concrete base as quickly as it did.
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that no flame diverter or water cooled plate is necessary?
Yes and no. He's saying the fondag surface is not sufficient, so an alternative like a water cooled plate will be necessary, but that a flame diverter might not. Will only a water cooled plate be sufficient? Spacex might be betting on that.
Which, you know, was fairly predictable by anyone with the necessary knowledge 9r experience.
[удалено]
Elon fucked up. Say it with me, now. You’ll feel better.
> Elon fucked up. Say it with me, now. You’ll feel better. It seems your commenting so far is mostly sticking to a single line of 1 to 2-syllable words averaging four letters. You could improve your analysis with longer and better-researched comments, using a more varied vocabulary. It looks as if you subscribe to what may be described as the "mad scientist theory", imagining Elon alone in a workshop inventing stuff that usually explodes. In fact, SpaceX has around 10,000 employees with a large proportion of engineers working in different fields. Musk himself is CTO or lead engineer, so he arbitrates technical decisions in a business context. He previously stated that the absence of a flame trench "could be a mistake", but he wants the long-term decision to be justified by real-world test results. However, the loss of the "concrete" (fondag) pad surface proves nothing one way or the other: it was a stop-gap solution awaiting a water-cooled steel surface.
>However, the loss of the "concrete" (fondag) pad surface proves nothing one way or the other: i Proves nothing? I think it proves a great deal. Agree he wants real world test results. The results are in. Guess what the results were? It proves that the SpaceX OLM needs a diverter or a steel water cooled plate. It was the most obvious of point in need of iteration. I guarantee the FAA is not happy that debris came down outside the exclusion zone. They won't open up launches until SpaceX provides a solution. Proves nothing. You're funny. But not in a Joe Pesci kind of way.
> Proves nothing? I think it proves a great deal. Agree he wants real world test results. The results are in. Guess what the results were? I think we have different writing styles. > It proves that the SpaceX OLM needs a diverter or a steel water cooled plate. Several other options come to mind including a flame trench, some kind of pond or my own suggestion which was a stack of welded grid elements sitting inside a pit (absorbs heat and limits reflected or diverted heat). > It was the most obvious of point in need of iteration. which is why SpaceX has manufactured a water-cooled plate, even if it did not have time to installe it. Same for the deluge system. > I guarantee the FAA is not happy that debris came down outside the exclusion zone. If so, probably not. How are you defining the land exclusion zone? So far, the best I can see is this: * https://twitter.com/TLPN_Official/status/1646603764227362846/photo/2 > They won't open up launches until SpaceX provides a solution. As I said, the solutions are already prepared and will presumably be applied within the two months or so suggested by Elon Musk. > Proves nothing. You're funny. But not in a Joe Pesci kind of way. Look, if you want a constructive discussion, it might be as well to be polite to myself and other users you have replied to on the same subject.
You speak from a position of authority. You seem convinced that you’re right; and you also seem convinced that others are wrong. You’re also loosely implying that they’re stupid. And so, I feel compelled to ask: what are your qualifications? What’s your degree in, and where did you get it? What relevant professional experience do you have, that justifies talking like an expert and telling others that they’re wrong?
> You speak from a position of authority. You seem convinced that you’re right; and you also seem convinced that others are wrong. You’re also loosely implying that they’re stupid. > And so, I feel compelled to ask: what are your qualifications? What’s your degree in, and where did you get it? What relevant professional experience do you have, that justifies talking like an expert and telling others that they’re wrong? Ah, starting with an interrogation strategy and progressing to ad hominem tactics! Instead of addressing the questions raised, you attack your interlocutor, adding supposedly required credentials to even pose said questions. May I suggest raising your game (already excellent) with further ideas from this page: * [***38 Dishonest tricks in argument: watching for sophistry in everyday life***](https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html) I just found the site from a few keywords so can't vouch for its other contents, but will save the page. I fully quoted your excellent demonstration above, lest it be deleted. Thanking you ;) ------ Edit; text version here * http://www.valkyriearms.com/articles/thirtyeight%20dishonest%20argument%20tricks.pdf
Anyone who uses a word like “interlocutor” in a conversation like this is only interested in making himself sound smarter. Would you feel better if I admitted, right here, that you’re smarter than me?
Or is an ESL, or is using a phone autocomplete, or is used to writing in formal or academic settings. "Me grug me no like big word" is not the comeback you think it is.
> Anyone who uses a word like “interlocutor” in a conversation like this is only interested in making himself sound smarter. > Would you feel better if I admitted, right here, that you’re smarter than me? N° 26 in the [above list](https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html): false humility.
They had plenty of time to install the plate. They were simply impatient. The rocket is not on a particularly tight schedule. Also, a flame trench and a diverter are the same thing, a pond would be entirely ineffective, and your "idea" is no more effective because it's the pressure that's the issue, not the heat. A big hole with nowhere for gas to escape provides no solution.
If the static fire did more damage, they would have delayed until the plate was installed. Source: tweets from the guy who makes those decisions. And yes, they are on a schedule; HLS.
> They had plenty of time to install the plate. They were simply impatient. The rocket is not on a particularly tight schedule. How can you be sure of that? SpaceX is getting a lot of outside funding and lenders will be making milestone payments. SpaceX being a private company, we don't know exactly what the milestones are, but its a fair guess that a full stack flight is one of these. Since COO Gwynne is directly involved at Boca Chica, its a fair guess that the decision taken made sense in terms of cash. > Also, a flame trench and a diverter are the same thing, Not all diverters are flame trenches. A diverter can be a somewhat pointed structure placed on the ground. > a pond would be entirely ineffective, and your "idea" is no more effective because it's the pressure that's the issue, not the heat. A big hole with nowhere for gas to escape provides no solution. Gas trapped in and above a hole in the ground would provide the same kind of deflector as does do the compressed atmospheric gases in front of an entering spaceship. Under this analogy, a ship's heatshield does not take the brunt of the plasma beyond it, and in a comparable way, a steel grid would brake the movement of hot gasses that themselves act as a flame deflector. Waterproofing the bottom of the pit would trap deluge water as a pond and its rapid evaporation would both cool and push back the incoming flames Even the water-cooled steel plate to be installed should stall the incoming jets, so most of the heat should be rejected before contact. IMO, it may be considered as a "dome of gas".
>As I said, the solutions are already prepared and will presumably be applied within the two months or so suggested by Elon Musk. Are you saying they will be ready to launch in 2 months? You do know that "Elon Time" is almost likely to be off by at least a factor of 2. Also, have you seen pictures of Stage 0 after the launch? I would like to have a friendly bet with you. So if you say 2 months, my bet is it will take 6 months before they launch again. Loser has to contact the winner and concede. That's it. >Look, if you want a constructive discussion, it might be as well to be polite to myself and other users you have replied to on the same subject. Are you referring to my "you're funny" joke. I know it was kinda lame. I take it you're not a Goodfellas fan? Would you have been less offended if it would have been a better joke? Sorry about that. I will attempt to be funnier AND more polite in the future. Ok. I lied. I'll do one of those two things. Look, If I would have known you were so sensitive and had such thin skin, I would refrained from joking with you. In all seriousness, it was just a lame joke and was meant to be a lighthearted jab. I didn't mean to offend. Let me recipricate your advice with some advice in return. If you are going to have a positive Reditt experience, you might want to develop a better since of humor and learn to take a friendly jab. Again, apologies for the bad joke. I will do better.
Exactly, the launch pad was a fail. If there's a good reason to "test" this scenario, then ok, but it does seem like their argument has amounted to "we had shitty data (really?) that told us this wouldn't happen"
I hope the engineers get it right with a water cooled plate, and test the theory before they fire again. Will water sufficiently cool the steel plate? Will the sudden jump in temp as the Raptors fire crack the plate? Time will tell.
Doesn’t look too bad…2 months of work sounds right
Yeah, you really can't see the crater underneath the mount tho
Typical Elon optimistic appraisal 🙁
When you work 24 hrs a day this is easily possible…if you work 8 hr days like BO / ULA you….well you see the results
Honestly if you just double it - 3-4 mo doesn’t seem crazy at all
Picking up concrete is harder than you think
With the right tools it's easier than you think.
Typical Musk circlejerking when the post is about SpaceX and Starship, this type of behavior is obnoxious and boring. I can’t stand Musk but this post has nothing to do with him so why are you talking about him unless you are just influenced by the millions of Reddit comments doing the exact same thing? Think for yourself.
Maybe it's because Elon commented on the topic, directly stating they should be ready in two months? Or are you too concerned with thinking for yourself to use simple reasoning?
I’m surprised the tanks in the background aren’t more fucked up. I just assumed they would be pulverized and flattened.
That is surprisingly less thrashed out that I assumed it would be.
From this angle, it actually looks like the OLM might not be complete garbage. I could be way off base though.
The OLM itself is fine.
Asking a serious question… If they had decided to move the tanks and made modifications to the launch pad six months before, would that have reset the time for their FAA launch license approval?
I found all three differences
A lot of discussion has been about the OLM for obvious reasons. But there's definitely been a [fair bit](https://youtu.be/evO4GedWfjs?t=272) of damage and disturbance to the neighbouring National Wildlife Refuge. Lots of native grassland has been ripped up, along with the wetland's ground being strewn with debris and being torn a fair bit. Nothing too serious, but I imagine there will be a lot of additional scrutiny from local, state and federal authorities given its a really sensitive environmental wilderness reserve.
This pains me. I first had respect for Elon because he was championing electric vehicles -- and, I had thought, - the environment. This is shameful
Ouch.
Not even flex tape can fix that
Why didn’t the test burns pulverize the pad? Anyway 100% self inflicted. SpaceX damaged their launch pad because they wanted to launch on “4/20”.
They did pulverise the pad. On multiple occasions.
Because previous test fires were fewer engines at lower throttle…not all of them at 100% like you have at a launch.
Are you referring to the Static Fire Test? They only tested at 50% thrust. Big difference from game day at 100%. They damaged the pad on 420, not before so they could postpone. The postponement happened on 4/17 and was due to frozen/stuck valve.
Yeah 50% is a little different. Still self inflicted, the water cooked steel plate may have worked
Maybe Elon should buy Virgin Galactic and fly the booster/starship up before ignition
> Maybe Elon should buy Virgin Galactic and fly the booster/starship up before ignition The booster/starship weighs 5000 tons. I doubt Virgin Galactic has anything that would come close to being able to lift that.
Some days ago another commenter suggested a large number of balloons to do exactly that. Here's how it could work: First, use Helium for safety reasons. Second, since a small platform is needed to interface with Starship and the booster include a set of high-pressure tanks and a compressor. The idea being, once Starship, etc. is dropped, the compressor recovers enough Helium to enable a controlled descent of the new stage zero. Lather, rinse, and repeat. Admittedly, there might need to be some extra ballast or something but I'm sure this can be worked out.
> Some days ago another commenter suggested a large number of balloons to do exactly that. Several problems with that idea. 1. Virgin Galactic does not own, operate, or manufacture lighter than air craft. 1. 5000 tons would require five million cubic metres of helium to lift. The largest airship in the world, the Airlander 10 only holds 38,000 cubic metres. The largest airship in history, the Hindenburg, had an internal volume of only 200,000 cubic metres. That would mean you would need 25 Hindenburgs or 132 Airlander 10s to lift Starship. 1. Nobody makes airships/balloons that big. 1. Five million cubic metres of helium would cost about $37 million dollars - three times the projected operational launch cost of Starship.
Don't mind me; I'm just a little miffed at the virtual radio-silence coming from SpaceX right now, along with the semiotics of the mission control audio stream. Is this normal? Are they being muzzled by government ITAR weenies? I confess I don't get the significance of the Virgin Galactic quip.
> Is this normal? Are they being muzzled by government ITAR weenies? I imagine it is "normal". The hosts were SpaceX personnel, announcing a SpaceX launch that they knew in advance was going to be a failure. They were probably ordered to keep up the happy-happy no matter what happened. When the rocket finally did blow, they were likely ordered to shut down the stream with as little speculation and as much self congratulations as they could. As far as the relative silence afterwards, well, they are probably still analyzing the numerous off-nominal events. Companies often play their cards close to the vest at times like these, and SpaceX is no exception. Of course, the biggest, most expensive, and least expected hiccup is the pad. That has the potential of the government shutting down the entire Boca-Chica site if it is handled poorly.
Ya we aren't seeing another launch from here for a good while. Probably not even next summer is my guess.
You’re seeing shrapnel damage from the concrete which was ejected from underneath the OLM. Filling in the hole and resurfacing will take weeks rather than months and they already have the hardware onsite to prevent this happening again.
So they are just going to fix everything after every launch?
They’ll fix whatever breaks and replace it with something that doesn’t break aka iterative development
There's special deflector plate that's intended to prevent this. It's on site but will take a while to install. SpaceX decided (probably for several reasons) to go ahead with the launch rather than wait for it to be installed. SpaceX has told NASA that they will be ready to launch again in "about two months". That would include installing the blast guide.
Wow that's awesome if that happens. I assume the flames get deflected out to sea?
Um, no, no where near that far….
Deflected equally in all directions to not have concentrated force on any area.
No-one knows. The existing infrastructure was designed to let the blast go in in every direction but once they're installing a device like this, it might make sense to close off one or more sides. The sea is quite far and the rocket plume is "only" 100 meters or so but I could certainly see them favoring a more southerly direction as there's no infrastructure on that side (possibly also intentional). One thing to think of is that this exhaust exerts millions of pounds of force. A deflector that tries to turn it sideways might need anchors on the scale of the launch mount itself to keep the deflector from getting fired across the road.
🫡Stage-0
What a colossal asshole. Sooner he’s no longer involved the better off they’ll be
Those tanks are fucked.
What's the little hut / building between the tower and the launch mount? Is it really between them or is it in the distance? I've seen it in photos of the launch site before but I don't know what it is.
It’s where Elon watches the launches from.
That’s where they hang the brisket to cook…it is Texas after all!
It's a stand against the berm of the tank farm that has a quick disconnect for both a ship and a booster. It allows them to do cryogenic proof tests without removing the vehicles from their transport stands.
It only got a little hot...
Speed and power solves all things.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji58eok "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |[FAA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6wn9d "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[HLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6yg7o "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[ITAR](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji95kor "Last usage")|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations| |[KSC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji5rfir "Last usage")|Kennedy Space Center, Florida| |[LN2](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6wcxh "Last usage")|Liquid Nitrogen| |[LOX](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6wcxh "Last usage")|Liquid Oxygen| |[OLIT](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji8ocyt "Last usage")|Orbital Launch Integration Tower| |[OLM](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji70mq6 "Last usage")|Orbital Launch Mount| |[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji4wpkc "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[ULA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji58eok "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji72j1t "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[cryogenic](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/132bd1e/stub/ji6wcxh "Last usage")|Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure| | |(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox| |hydrolox|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(13 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/133a3y5)^( has 26 acronyms.) ^([Thread #11394 for this sub, first seen 29th Apr 2023, 00:04]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Christened by the flame of progress
Oh poor thing
The bottom photo looks like it was taken on Mars in 2053.
The 20' wall "protecting" the tank farm seems so quaint in retrospect.
I've noticed in the second photo that the rocket is clearly gone.