SpaceX

[Karearea]

Mysterious glowing spiral in the sky over Alaska draws questions, and a simple explanation

Don Hampton, a research associate professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute, said by email Saturday that the spiral “appears to be rocket engine exhaust from a SpaceX Transporter-7 mission that launched on the Falcon 9 about three hours earlier in California.”

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/science ... planation/

[Boac]

Launch window opens at 1200(Z) on 17th.

[Boac]

Under 45 mins to the launch of the biggest and most powerful rocket ever. SpaceX stream now live at https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission ... light-test

[Woody]

Close but no cigar

It will take least 48 hours to reset the rocket

Rebecca Morelle
Science editor
It came close - but with a few minutes go SpaceX has announced that we won’t get to see the rocket fly today.

A pressurisation issue in the first stage of the rocket was the problem.

It’s not uncommon - filling a rocket with fuel is a tricky business - and it’s especially hard the first time you do it.

But while the flight was paused, SpaceX decided to carry on with the countdown. It's a chance to turn this into a wet dress rehearsal - a chance to run through what would happen if the rocket was to fly.

They’ll now have to troubleshoot the pressure issue - to find out exactly what went wrong. It will take a minimum of 48 hours to reset the rocket before they can try again.

[Boac]

Next launch window starts at 13:28 (Z) on 20th. Send more popcorn!!

[PHXPhlyer]

Ho Hum!
Another SpaceX StarLink launch and first stage recovery
25 launches in 109 days so far this year

SpaceX launches 21 Starlink V2 satellites, lands rocket at sea
This was SpaceX's 25th mission in 2023.

https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-s ... SmartBrief
See link for videos

SpaceX carried another batch of Starlink satellites on Wednesday (April 19).

A Falcon 9 rocket carrying 21 of SpaceX's new Starlink "V2 mini" satellites took off at 10:31 a.m. ET (1431 GMT) from Space Launch Complex 40 at Florida's Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, after two slight delays earlier in the day for undisclosed reasons.

About 8 minutes and 26 seconds after launch, the rocket's first stage landed on the autonomous SpaceX droneship A Shortfall of Gravitas nearby in the Atlantic Ocean, within view of a livestream from SpaceX.

It was the space company's 25th launch of 2023 so far, according to statistics provided in the broadcast, along with this Falcon 9 first-stage booster's eighth launch overall.

SpaceX's V2 mini Starlink satellites are designed to be more powerful than earlier iterations, allowing for more broadband capacity than previous generations, according to the company(opens in new tab). They also feature Hall thrusters, which are electric propulsion systems that offer over twice the amount of thrust compared to those aboard first-generation Starlink satellites, SpaceX has said(opens in new tab).

SpaceX already has over 4,000 Starlink satellites in orbit, but has plans to greatly increase that number. The company has regulatory approval to launch up to 12,000 more Starlink craft and is seeking permission to add a whopping 30,000 more.

While the satellites will help bring broadband internet to remote or underserved locations around the globe, that amount of satellites also comes with its downsides, with astronomers complaining of Starlink craft interrupting science observations.

Wednesday's mission will mark the 25th flight for the company so far in 2023. The first stage booster flying this mission previously launched the private Hakuto-R rover to lunar orbit and three Starlink missions, in addition to other payloads.

When it comes to upcoming SpaceX launches, however, all eyes are on the first space launch of the company's massive Starship rocket, which is currently targeted for Thursday (April 20). When Starship launches on the landmark test flight, it will assume the title of the world's most powerful rocket and pave the way for a new era of human spaceflight.

PP

[Woody]

Lots of YouTube live streams, but mostly with really aggravating commentary, this one is the least annoying one I’ve found

[OneHungLow]

T-00:17 and no abort yet.

Held at T - 40 seconds. More opportunities for crowd whooping later again I guess.

Impressive launch but then failed second stage separation and in flight break up.

Not so much an integrated flight test as a disintegrated one!

Gene Krantz wouldn't have tolerated whooping in his control room. The controllers and technicians all look like children, and not one grizzled buzz cut ex-fighter jock type in the building. Not the right stuff at all, in my jaundiced opinion.

Thanks to Woody for posting the link, which gave me the opportunity to enjoy the launch and have a good moan at the same time. !

[Boac]

Well done SpaceX- despite the 'RUD' at 'separation' a stunning achievement and in the record books.

From my armchair it looked as if a geek forgot a 'conditional' on the booster flip programme

So, Starship flies higher than ever before. Interesting to see the state of the launch area!!

[OFSO]

One launch when I was on the Gold Team, first stage of the vehicle exploded hurling the spacraft ahead of it. Nobody said anything until the Mission Manager stood up in the Main Control Room and said "well, it was insured" and left via the Briefing Room door.

[OneHungLow]

One launch when I was on the Gold Team, first stage of the vehicle exploded hurling the spacraft ahead of it. Nobody said anything until the Mission Manager stood up in the Main Control Room and said "well, it was insured" and left via the Briefing Room door.

He clearly wasn't one of the Lloyd's Names, given his insouciance at the value of the loss!

[PHXPhlyer]

Notable silence from the commentators until about the third rotation before "RUD".

PP

[Boac]

Woody's link was the SpaceX live stream, and as PHX says, the SpaceX commentary 'team' was remarkably amateur. It was apparent things were rotten in the state of Texas for a while while they prattled on about the 'flip' (er, a little premature, that 'flip'... you would think they would have known).

Still waiting for damage assessment on the launch site. It does appear that the Raptor performance was a big problem. I guess they will recover nothing of the ship - the booster's engine bay would have been invaluable.

[PHXPhlyer]

I think I counted 6 engines not firing.

PP

[Boac]

The damage to the launch site was significant.

[OneHungLow]

I think I counted 6 engines not firing.

PP

I read that by the time of stage separation failure, up to 6 of the rocket engines had failed.

Data displayed on the webcast showed that, at T+15 seconds, three Raptor engines, two in a fixed outer ring and one in a center section capable of gimballing, were not working. A third engine in the outer ring shut down at T+40 seconds, followed by another 20 seconds later. By T+100 seconds, six engines were not operating, although one was restored a few seconds later.

According to the timeline provided by the company, the Raptor engines in Super Heavy were supposed to shut down at T+2:49, followed second later by the separation of the Starship upper stage and ignition of its six Raptor engines. Instead, the combined Starship/Super Heavy stack started to tumble as the engines in Super Heavy continued to fire. “This does not appear to be a nominal situation,” said SpaceX’s John Insprucker in the webcast.

At T+4:00, the vehicle broke apart when controllers activated the flight termination system on both the Super Heavy booster and Starship upper stage.

https://spacenews.com/starship-lifts-of ... tes-later/

I am sceptical of a test driven development cycle that sees a total vehicle loss as a "successful failure", a failure is a failure no matter how much data is gathered and how much experience is gained, although as this was the first full launch failure of this vehicle I am apt to admit that they will have gathered a load of useful telemetry data that no simulation would have offered. They still have two rockets in hand but if they are still ending up with a pile of disintegrated scrap at the bottom of the ocean at the end of this test cycle then I suspect that investors will be asking some very hard questions about this programme and the technical viability of a 33 engined rocket design.

I was apt to look at the (failed) Russian N1 multi engine launcher development cycle...

[OneHungLow]

Look at the damage done to the launch pad with the concomitant risk of damage to the engines and the rocket itself. The resulting launch dust cloud caused contamination issues in a nearby town.

As ever Scott Manley's review is thorough, thoughtful and very informative.

[Boac]

I'm not putting anything in the diary for some months for another launch, I fear.

[Woody]

Looks like some lots of redesign required on the launch pad

[PHXPhlyer]

SpaceX Starship explosion spread particulate matter for miles
The Federal Aviation Administration grounded the company’s Starship Super Heavy launch program pending results of a "mishap investigation."

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/s ... -rcna81235

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.

SpaceX did not immediately return a request for comment.

Not in the plan
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, speaking publicly on Twitter Spaces on April 16 ahead of the test flight, acknowledged that a vehicle with 33 engines is akin to “a box of grenades,” and that the Starship vehicle was not likely to reach orbit but was likely to explode.

However, Musk and SpaceX did not accurately predict that their launchpad would be destroyed, nor that particulate matter would rain down on residents and habitat as far away as Port Isabel, a town about six miles from the launchpad, and South Padre Island, a few miles up the coast from the site.

Images captured during the test flight show that the SpaceX launch pad also exploded, with concrete chunks from it flying in multiple directions leaving behind a giant crater underneath. According to Dave Cortez, the Lone Star chapter director for the Sierra Club, a 501c4 environmental advocacy group, “Concrete shot out into the ocean, and risked hitting the fuel storage tanks which are these silos adjacent to the launch pad.”

Jared Margolis, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said that in an environmental assessment — which SpaceX completed to obtain a launch license — the company told the FAA and other agencies that in the event of an “anomaly” they expected debris would fall within a limited, 700-acre area surrounding the launch site.

That would translate to a one-square-mile debris field, with debris emanating about three-quarters of a mile away from the site, he said, referencing SpaceX environmental site assessment documents that are public record.

In reality, following the test flight and explosion, people in Port Isabel reported broken windows in their businesses, shaking windows at their homes, and dust and particulate matter that coated their homes, schools and land unexpectedly, according to Cortez.

Port Isabel is a mainland town near the SpaceX spaceport, and across from the South Padre Island offshore, which also got a share of particulate matter, according to correspondence between researchers and residents shared with CNBC.

It’s not yet known whether the ash- and sand-like particulate matter is dangerous to touch or breathe in and what effect it could have on soil health, Cortez and Margolis both noted.

One industry chronicler who reported locally on the launch, Lavie Ohana, wrote that the launch was also “one of the loudest” she had ever witnessed, “with shockwaves that just felt like getting punched over and over and over.”

Effects on endangered species
Margolis said the Center for Biological Diversity is worried about the effects of the noise, particulate and heavier debris on endangered species that make their home in the area, including the piping plover, red knot, jaguarundi, ocelot populations and sea turtles including the Kemp’s Ridley, which nests on the beaches of Boca Chica and is one of the most critically endangered sea turtles in the world.

February through June is the nesting season for the Kemp’s Ridley.

National Wildlife Refuge lands, which are very near the launch pad, are designated critical habitat for the piping plover, he emphasized.

Cortez added that Sierra Club members have been especially worried about human health impacts and how the aftermath of the explosion may limit people’s ability to get outdoors, whether to fish for their dinner, enjoy the beach or take a hike in the many parks and protected wildlife areas close to Starbase.

Health concerns
The impacts of particulate emissions from the SpaceX launch won’t be understood until samples are evaluated and the debris field measured comprehensively.

But in general, particulate emissions are regulated under the federal Clean Air Act and Texas state law.

Eric Roesch, an environmental engineer who has been tracking the impact of SpaceX facilities and launches on his blog, ESGHound, said that particulate emissions are associated with pulmonary and respiratory issues, and are considered a high priority pollutant by the EPA. Health impacts depend upon exposure time and quantity, as well as particle size, and contents of the particulate, he added.

Roesch has been warning the public for months that the FAA and SpaceX had not been careful enough in their environmental analysis to comfortably proceed with a launch of this magnitude. He said, “The possibility of a widely dispersed plume of emissions was not disclosed by the FAA or SpaceX, during the initial environmental permitting and approval process.”

Margolis and Cortez both noted that roads had been damaged, with gates and cordons closed immediately following the SpaceX Starship test flight. That meant wildlife biologists and other field researchers could not immediately pass through to study the full scale of any damage that occurred in a nearby wildlife refuge area — though some were reportedly on location by Saturday April 22.

One concern is that evidence of harm to endangered species could be removed from the site before regulators have an opportunity to assess it, Margolis said.

Getting back to flight
Elon Musk wrote in a tweet on April 21, 2023, after the test flight: “3 months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount. Wasn’t ready in time & we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag would make it through 1 launch. Looks like we can be ready to launch again in 1 to 2 months.”

CNBC asked the FAA what it will take for SpaceX to be authorized to conduct another test flight or launch of the Starship Super Heavy vehicle from Boca Chica, Texas.

The agency said in an email that a return to flight for the Starship Super Heavy will require the FAA to decide that “any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety.”

Because they are still gathering information, the FAA and the Texas regional office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were not able to answer questions yet about any environmental impacts of the Thursday launch. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.

However, the FAA told CNBC via e-mail that the explosion activated something called an “anomaly response plan,” which is part of a 2022 Programmatic Environmental Assessment completed by the company along with state and federal agencies, and that SpaceX has additional “environmental mitigations” they must complete before launching again. The plan “was triggered by debris entering adjacent properties,” the FAA noted.

After completing the list of tasks in the plan and mitigations SpaceX will need to ask the FAA to amend their launch license, to gain clearance for another test flight.

The Center for Biological Diversity attorney, Jared Margolis, believes the FAA requirements will be minimal and easy for the company to fulfill, but not ultimately effective in safeguarding local residents’ wellbeing and endangered species.

He explained, “We are not against space exploration or this company. But while we are looking to the stars, we should not readily sacrifice communities, habitat and species.”

PP