SpaceX launched the largest rocket ever built for the first time on Thursday from its Boca Chica, Texas, spaceport. The Starship spacecraft, designed to fly people on a Mars mission someday, lifted off the launch pad then blew up in mid-flight, with no crew on board.
Now, residents and researchers are scrambling to assess the impact of the explosion on local communities, their health, habitat and wildlife including endangered species. Of primary concern is the large amount of sand- and ash-like particulate matter and heavier debris kicked up by the launch. The particulate emissions spread far beyond the expected debris field.
As a result of the explosion, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded the company’s Starship Super Heavy launch program pending results of a “mishap investigation,” part of standard practice, according to an email from the agency sent to CNBC after the launch. No injuries or public property damage had yet been reported to the agency as of Friday.
Anybody who had experience launching rockets more powerful than an Estes model rocket could have foreseen this. SpaceX launched a rocket that had a maximum thrust of two Saturn Vs. After engine start, it sat on the pad for six seconds, building thrust, and those nincompoops thought that they could get away with launching from a pad with no blast protection.
That suggests, at least to me, that SpaceX is operating on a Sillicon Valley mindset, rather than an aerospace mindset. The Silicon Velley mindset is to say "ecch, close enough" and if things blow up or people die, that's the price of progress. That includes doing things that anyone with even a glib understanding of things, would have said "no fucking way, dude."
When they start putting passengers on board SpaceX's Starship, Musk can go first. And you know and I know that he never would.
5 comments:
Broken windows in businesses and damaged windows in homes are already reported. Road damage in the aftermath prevented access to the area by environmental authorities. The airborne materials are likely to have violated both Federal and State laws.
Over all I see the FAA requirement for analysis after a failed launch
as expected and usual event.
The pad was constructed on wet ground (high water table) and boiling
mud makes for a rather messy result. The pad design was clearly an
engineering fail and heads being rolled for it is not beyond the
realm. I'd have expected a Falcon-9 to have resulted in similar if slightly less energetic result.
Expending the rocket itself was less an issue as flight testing has
been a consistent method for SpaceX. With cameras and modern telemetry they have a lot to look at and analyse.
The yabut is some of the engine and other failures were potentially
self induced and avoidable. Engineering failures work that way
with cascade of events.
eck!
They are damn lucky that the pad didn't collapse, which would have led to one hell pf a blast. Especially if those storage tanks had also blown.
Comrade, seeing the damage from some of those chunks of concrete, it’s a miracle the tanks didn’t “go” for the ride.
No question, they learned by the worst way what not to do.
Also pad should really be launch complex, those tanks are
too exposed.
I think that the pad didn't collapse was due to the rocket pulling
up until the clamps were released.
Though NASA made more than a few errors that proceeded
into disaster.
Eck!
Post a Comment