back to article SpaceX Starship booster in flames after unexpected ignition

Space fans bored of waiting for the James Webb Space Telescope briefing were treated to fireworks of a very different nature after SpaceX's latest Starship prototype suffered an explosive anomaly during testing. Super Heavy Booster 7 was on its orbital mount during the test, which was a step on the road to a static fire test. …

  1. elDog

    Amazed the commenters on the video segment could only muster a few "whoas".

    I probably would have used a few more expressions including some fricatives...

    As Musky said, this was not ideal.

    1. grndkntrl

      Re: Amazed the commenters on the video segment could only muster a few "whoas".

      The NSF folks later said that they really had to hold themselves back from using stronger words, because it's a relatively family friendly stream.

    2. Totally not a Cylon
      Flame

      Re: Amazed the commenters on the video segment could only muster a few "whoas".

      Also for a "SpaceX explodey moment" it was pretty mild....

      A slightly toasted OLM and one thoroughly shredded air conditioning hose...

      First reports indicate just 'a lot of carbon scoring'.......

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Short video

    Only 2 minutes instead of 6 hours.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Yiw7_JTXY

    1. Mr Templedene

      Re: Short video

      thank you

    2. elDog

      I'm sure that didn't foul the environment much.

      I did see some strange objects flying off during the explosion that appeared to be perhaps arms, torsos, perhaps a stray seagull.

      1. Bubba Von Braun

        Re: I'm sure that didn't foul the environment much.

        That was the remains to the white pipe likely an AC style vent.. kid of looked like shredded paper.

  3. dlc.usa

    Oops

    The first FAA acronym expansion is incorrect. The second is correct but aviation is misspelled.

    1. grndkntrl

      Re: Oops

      There's also a typo in the 8th paragraph:

      > "... 33 of the company's Raptor enginers. Together, ..."

      "enginers" should be "engines"

      1. NeilPost Silver badge

        Re: Oops

        https://www.grammarly.com/

        I guess they tossed the Editor position during COVID.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Oh! Oh! Can I play too?

      boss Elon Musk admitted the event was less than ideal

      (3rd paragraph)

      1. A.P. Veening Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: Oh! Oh! Can I play too?

        boss Elon Musk admitted the event was less than ideal

        (3rd paragraph)

        You are mistaken, Elon Musk never admits anything ;)

  4. aki009

    N1...

    The Soviet N1 rocket had a massive bundle of motors also. That didn't work out too well for the Soviet moon program.

    I hope SpaceX will figure out what went wrong.

    1. Bubba Von Braun

      Re: N1...

      Well the folks at SpaceX did figure out how to land a stage..

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: N1...

        "Well the folks at SpaceX did figure out how to land a stage.."

        That's nothing new:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcys-t2thk8

        NASA was doing it on the moon in the 60's.

        Landing on a barge at sea is a good one, I'll give them that.

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: N1...

      N1 was massively different in just about every possible way starting with money. Because of lack of budget the only way to test an N1 rocket was to try to launch it. SpaceX test each part and sub-assembly at each possible point in production until it they get it right so often that the chance of a test of failing becomes really small.

      What went wrong was very clear. The first step in starting a Raptor engine is to blast high pressure gaseous oxygen into the oxygen turbine and high pressure gaseous methane into the methane turbine until the pumps spin up fast enough to pressurise the liquid oxygen and methane. For the outer ring of twenty engines the high pressure gasses are supplied by the launch table as these engines do not have to relight during flight. Someone thought it would be a good idea to test this on several (all?) engines at once without deliberately igniting the propellants as soon as possible. After they had time to build up into a really big cloud the propellants found an ignition source.

  5. ecarlseen
    Alert

    The event occurred at 4:20 PM, so this may just have been another very expensive troll by Elon Musk.

  6. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
    Mushroom

    On a brighter note...

    ...at least SLS can say theirs never blew up on the pad :-)

    (yet)

  7. jmch Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Part of the game

    I believe that SpaceXs Falcon / Heavy line of rockets had a rapid unscheduled disassembly / failure to land correctly at multiple points during testing. That's what testing is for. Seeing that their Falcons have now been flying (and landing, and flying again) for a few years now, I'm pretty sure they can sort this out, too. An explosion isn't a setback, it's a (n expensive) lesson learnt.

    And, much as it is 'not ideal', at least we get some fireworks to enjoy :)

    1. NeilPost Silver badge

      Re: Part of the game

      Just have to hope no-one was near/under the launch-pad doing any work.

      1. Totally not a Cylon

        Re: Part of the game

        Prior to any hazardous activity, even just filling the tanks, everyone is evacuated to the production site 2.1 miles away and the public road outside is closed by the police.

        Only cameras are put at risk, plus the 2 Boston Dynamics robo-dogs...

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Part of the game

          "and the public road outside is closed by the police."

          Not the police. SpaceX "security" closes the road. The problem is they are only allowed to do that a certain number of hours per month/year and have grossly exceeded that. They are only supposed to conduct operations during daylight hours, but ignore that restriction too.

  8. Scene it all

    I am not worried so much about the fire, but the shockwave and what it could have done to parts of the booster. Weakened welds? Pipes and fittings? My prediction is they will scrap it.

  9. MachDiamond Silver badge

    A telling statement

    For Elon to say that they won't be doing any spin testing again with 33 engines mounted shows he isn't an engineer. In the aerospace world, it's a given that you test as you fly. Yes, component testing is done but that had already been done at the MacGregor site and testing on the booster is to prove out the system as a whole. It wouldn't be a good idea to find out there are issues with 4800t of propellents loaded. Big badda boom.

    I was under the impression that they were just flowing lox and had put liquid nitrogen in the fuel tank to keep from having too much of a temperature differential at the common bulkhead. But, something turned out to be a pretty good fuel and detonated real good. Did they load Methane? Did they get a static discharge when the big plume of one component flowed out and crashed to the ground? It will be interesting if any truth about the incident gets reported out. Elon and SpaceX are known for doing different testing than they announce, but given the gear spotted around the "integration tower", it doesn't seem like they prepped for an ignition burp.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like