SpaceX's Starship SN4 prototype explodes after rocket engine test

[Admin]

SpaceX's Starship SN4 prototype explodes after rocket engine test : Read more

 

[ngifford]

Anyone else feel like this whole rocket program is like watching a train wreck in slow motion? The prototypes look amateurish, and the launch facility looks amateurish. This is not going to end well.

 

[Wolfshadw]

Looks can be deceiving. If they work, who cares how they look?

-Wolf sends

Edit:

 

[Douglas E Knapp]

It's called a prototype for a reason. Have you ever seen the very first apple computer? Did look like an Iphone to you? Why put spit and polish on something that is likely to fail? That would be nothing but a waste of money. Look at the astronaut launch, they look really cool and the finished starship will too, once they finish it.

 

[HamyMac]

Must be a fun wait til Saturday for the other guys then, eh?

 

[Phantom-e]

The launch facility, specifically launch pad 39A has a vast historical legacy. It was used to send the first Astronauts to the moon, so "looks" aren't everything. Most prototypes lack "window dressing", so don't go by the looks. A test on a prototype isn't doom if it fails, but helps to reveal flaws, learn from them and fix them.

 

[Brian]

You know darn well that things are going BOOM!
Why bother with good looking facilities and a shiny rocket.
That's for the finalized design.
People forget Redstone?

 

[2NYaz]

Anyone else feel like this whole rocket program is like watching a train wreck in slow motion? The prototypes look amateurish, and the launch facility looks amateurish. This is not going to end well.

Sir, Your not understanding the full scope of this engineering? In Research and Development no one plans to fail and failures happen all the time. In this development of SN4 rocket engine Reliability of a Successful Firing is what you gain in knowledge so when the engine is fully developed what made this failure will not occur again. Whatever the cause Make Dam Sure it is not repeated. In aerospace there is a term called Murphy's Law. If something is going to go wrong it will and that's when everyone feels it's OK to GO too. Your might agree that the SS Main Engines worked well on all the Space Shuttles. What you don't know is how many failures we had before we brought them to perfection.

 

[ChrisA]

Sir, Your not understanding the full scope of this engineering? In Research and Development no one plans to fail and failures happen all the time....

Actually this is NOT how modern R&D works. Elon Musk is using a very different method that has not been used for rocket development since the 1940s. Today we tend to finish the engineering BEFORE we build anything and it generally just works. SpaceX is building before they have a final design. Blowing up four rockets of this size in a row is unheard up today. It is likely he will lose another four.

He might save money doing it this way, who knows. But this is far from the way thngs are typically done.

My guess is that he will have to change his method

 

[annodomini2]

Anyone else feel like this whole rocket program is like watching a train wreck in slow motion? The prototypes look amateurish, and the launch facility looks amateurish. This is not going to end well.

They are using a different development methodology known as Agile, fail fast and fail often.

If you find your weaknesses early it is usually cheaper and more efficient.

There are always failures when you are pushing the boundaries of engineering.

The other thing is they are (for better or worse) doing it in the public eye, most developments have failures, SpaceX are choosing to publish them.

 

[HamyMac]

Ask yourself why a company that has hundreds of launches under its belt thought that delivering 6million kg of thrust to a concrete platform, with nothing but a shower of water to diffuse that power, would not disintegrate the launch pad and scatter the debris far and wide and why they would not anticipate that at least some of that debris would be blown in the direction of the ship itself and damage the engines during take-off, as it most obviously did.
I think the answer is cost-cutting or complete stupidity. If you can plan a trajectory to Mars and beyond, but cannot anticipate the trajectory of a large amount of concrete scatteting during the 'unscheduled disassembly' of the launch pad, then should you be launching at all?
Personally, I love the Starship, the concept and the sheer audacity of it and I can see the advantages that it could give us, the teflon pan buying public, but if someone thinks they can put a bomb under a spaceship and not expect or plan for the kind of debris we all saw, then I'm not sure I'd want to book a flight with them until someone else was in charge of health and safety.