I assume that by now, everyone has heard about Starship 36's RUD late last night at Starbase (11:02 PM CDT), resulting in total loss of the ship and damages to the test stand at the Massey's Test Site that still remain hard to document. There are dozens of good videos on YouTube, and gathered by NASASpaceflight, Lab Padre, and others. Ars Technica uses a couple of good videos in their early morning article on the subject, revised as the day progressed. This is screen grab of two replays of the explosion as it was happening, from Ars Technica's coverage. NASASpaceflight top and Lab Padre bottom,
Considering we're around three hours short of 24 hours since the event, it's not surprising there's virtually no additional information. One source I checked had a Tweet from Elon Musk saying it appears to be a component that failed to meet the pressure handling specifications it was sold to. From YouTube channel Ellie in Space:
Where a COPV is a Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vehicle. This appears to be referring to the small auxiliary tanks above the larger fuel tanks in the Starship.
It's hard to not feel the concern in the press and "fan channels" that this yet another failure of a Starship and the overall trend in Starship test flights really seems to have gone desperately bad in a very short amount of time. Starship has yet to make orbit and despite memorable accomplish-ments like the capture of the returning booster with the chopsticks back in last October, they have not completed the recent test flights.
Be interesting to see if the failed component was bought from another supplier. If so, I wonder how quickly SpaceX will be making their own component?
ReplyDeleteEither way, I see testing of sub-components like the COPV before installation to occur.
If it is a 'bought from other supplier' component, I wonder if it was deliberate sabotage or just a freak accident? If it was an accidental failure, why didn't the manufacturer catch the pressure issue before it went boom in a Starship?
I assume, from what I remember about my brief engineering college education (before my brain locked up hard,) that standard testing of products like the COPV that are exposed to pressure usually require testing to pressures reasonably way above the working pressure without failure.
Really be interesting to why it failed. Made not to spec? Sabotage? Old tank and the composite bonding deteriorates over time and stress (which, come to think of it, is why SpaceX/Musk ditched a composite Starship and went with special stainless steel, after buying some of the biggest composite winders and kilns that the industry could provide.
Getting metals that meet spec is difficult these days; between recycling and fraud, almost nothing is exactly what it's supposed to be.
DeleteWhen your specs are high end, that becomes a BIG problem.
A decade ago I investigated two serious accidents (one was a fatality) that were both traced to a combination of poor design and substandard material.
Jonathan
I merely note that COPV issues were known during the later years of Shuttle, and had specific requirements for use.
DeleteIf indeed it was a COPV failure, one hopes that it was not from lack of knowledge of this issue.
The intent of the overwrap is to prevent catastrophic failure in the event of cracking of the metallic liner.
"Really be interesting to why it failed. Made not to spec? Sabotage?..."
DeleteThe bottom line in any component failure. To my mind, we're probably days away from having even a good guess of what happened. Sabotage is far harder to conclude than just that the component failed.
I wonder if they will re-think putting expensive ground equipment so close to the pad? It may be they can't put the cryogen handlers too far away, so at least armor it all a bit better?
ReplyDeleteI think it was a year ago, so the date is approximate, but Elon started referring to the ground infrastructure as "Stage Zero" with the idea of moving as much as possible from the SuperHeavy (first stage) to the ground. That had to involve the plans for everything around the pad and how far away it can be. I think we can assume they looked at what gets versus not getting extra armor. Whether or not it was 100% right is a different question.
DeleteI have various thoughts on the issues that SpaceX is having with Starship Block 2.
DeleteOne possibility is that SpaceX has been too aggressive in applying Elon's engineering rule that "no part is the best part of all" in the redesign of Block 2 to reduce weight and complexity. I watched Scott Manley's video on the S36 deflagration and he came to the same conclusion. But with the S36 destruction, it may have just been a defective COPV that created a domino effect of failures.
Another possibility that I and others (on other forums) have postulated is sabotage. This could be because of Elon's political leanings that some within SpaceX would destroy the company because their politics. It could also be that a foreign country has got some on the inside sabotaging the Block 2 to interfere with the U.S.'s capabilities.
Replied at the wrong level.
DeleteThe sabotage angle is impossible to dismiss out of hand. Once Elon Musk started being friendly with that Bad Ole Orange Man and they started not by just keying innocent bystanders' cars, but burning cars and dealerships it was obvious enough. I have a hard time envisioning a SpaceX employee doing something like that, but I might be too naive. It's easy to say, "I've known people who work in jobs like that for over 40 years and I can't imagine them doing it" but that's a form of willing blindness.
DeleteCould it be China, Iran, or some other country sending people to work for SpaceX to learn as much as possible and mailing home reports all the time? Do we even need to ask if it's possible?
Doesn't have to be a SpaceX employee. A parts supplier sending what looks like at-spec fasteners but are 'below grade.' A COPV vender where an employee purposefully ships a bad product with 'good' certification. Simple things like that.
DeleteIt was a quiet part of the worries about the Shuttle. Only certain fastener suppliers were allowed to supply fasteners and all the certifications had to be provided. You think regular aerospace requires too many layers of certifications and proofs, well, you haven't seen how overboard the documentation requirements on the Shuttle were.
"Lawrence Engineering" bolts, eh?
DeleteFailed pressure vessel?
ReplyDeleteWell, at least we know where all those submarine engineers for OceanGate went.
One theory about the Hindenburg suggested someone shot it with incendiary bullets from the ground. With targets that big a mischievous person would not have to be a top notch rifleman or anywhere close by.
ReplyDeleteStefan v.