Remember when the FAA investigated SpaceX's violation of it's launch license over them ignoring warnings of worsening shockwave damage after their botched SN8 landing?
In the early days of Starship I was a little bit optimistic. The "move fast and break things" strategy had quickly succeeded when SpaceX was trying to land boosters, so I was hopeful that each exploding Starship was one step closer to a working spacecraft.
But at this point it's just sad. I don't see anything resembling progress.
I think the boosters were a "fake it till we make it" thing that luckily worked out. I don't think Starship will ever make it into space.
True but disingenuous. This statement is often used to mock blue origin for just going 100km straight up into space and then back down, which is very far from reaching orbit. But the flight profile of IFT-3 was so close to orbital velocity, it's not a significant difference.
It is a significant difference. When it comes to orbit, there is no close enough, either you’re going fast enough or you’re not. They have not shown this thing can do what they say it can.
IFT-3 was completely empty and the tanks were full. Where is the weight of the crew decks, the solar panels and batteries, life support equipment, docking mechanism, food, water, and cargo? These are not trivial things, and they weigh a lot. Proving an empty shell can achieve a suborbital flight and be just barely not be in orbit is not proof of anything useful.
If they had shown there was a significant amount of delta-v left with this empty test article, then that’s one thing. But those tanks had a whisper of fuel left in them. I don’t believe for a second that it would have gotten that close when it was full of over a hundred tons of additional equipment.
I can't say I know enough about the subject to agree or disagree in general, it seems pretty clear to me that these people are sore about the fact that the billion (trillion?) dollar corporation they pathetically stan for didn't make it to orbit.
DeltaV is the amount you can change your velocity in space.
To put it another way, if a semi truck company says it’s new truck can haul 20 tons of cargo 500 miles on one tank/charge, and then during the press release with an empty trailer, it has to pull to side of the road at 400 miles driven because it’s out of gas, do you think it can get to 500 miles when it has 20 tons in the back? And the previous 2 press releases had the vehicle spontaneously detonate just after leaving the driveway.
That’s what starship did, it ran out of gas at almost the finish line while completely empty. There’s no way it can get itself + 100 tons to orbit if it can’t even get itself to orbit.
The point is a more accurate analogy would be the truck pulling over after 494 miles, with plenty of charge left in the batteries, because they decided not to continue the test during rush hour.
Sure, technically they didn’t make 500 miles, but they were pretty damn close, encountered nothing preventing it, and chose not to for other reasons. Continuing those few extra miles serves no purpose at this time,and is arguably contrary to successful testing
That's a bonkers take. It's the largest and most powerful rocket in history and it's already made orbit. The raptor engines are the first full flow staged combustion engines to ever be put into a production rocket (This is a holy grail of rocketry). All estimates suggest that it's also probably much cheaper to build than any of the other heavy lift rockets. And that was accomplished while also building full reusability into the design...
The work they've done is nothing short of astounding. Which makes your take come off as either insane, blind, or biased.
The difference between getting to space and getting to orbit is well, an orbit.
Starship did not achieve the speed needed to maintain an orbit around the earth, if it can do so has not been proven.
Getting something that big off the ground is impressive, but we did it 50 years ago with slide rules and pencils. Getting something off the ground should not be a success for a company that already has an orbital rocket in frequent use. Having 3 vehicles fail to achieve orbit, fail to demonstrate critical features like fuel transfer and engine relight, and fail to re enter the atmosphere while under control, is not a success. I do not buy the SpaceX corporate spin that “everything after clearing the pad is icing on the cake” that’s not good enough for a critical piece of hardware that is supposed to take humans to the moon and land them there.
If ULA can develop a rocket that completes its mission on the first launch, and NASA can do the same, because they take the time to check everything, then why are we giving SpaceX the pass to move fast and break things when it’s clearly not working. They do not have a heavy lift orbital rocket. They have a rocket that can, from all evidence, achieve a suborbital flight while completely empty.
And remember, this is not private money they are burning every time one of these explodes or burns up in the atmosphere. They were given 3 billion American Tax dollars to develop this thing. And now the Government Accountability Office has not even been shown that the Raptor engine is even capable of achieving the mission goals for Artemis. And their test articles are behind schedule and routinely failing in catastrophic ways.
I want to see humans back on the moon in my lifetime. I think we need to go and set up a colony so that we can explore our solar system better and develop technologies for sustaining humanity both off of earth and in the harsh conditions we will face as our climate changes. Anything that threatens the mission of establishing a human presence off of earth needs to be looked at closely and realistically.
Back in the 60’s we knew that the only way to get humans to the moon was to keep the equipment reliable and redundant, anything else was asking for people to die. We seem to have lost that simple insight in recent years, and Starship is the epitome of that hubris. A ridiculously complicated vehicle with a complicated flight plan that has not been shown to work in any capacity. That needs to be pointed out and investigated if for no other reason then it is delaying a major mission.
"Starship did not achieve the speed needed to maintain an orbit around the earth, if it can do so has not been proven. "
Arguing this point makes you seem either uneducated on the launch or just someone shitting on SpaceX because musk. If you were actually familiar with the launch profile you would know starship nearly reached orbital velocities but did not on purpose, so it could reenter the atmosphere and test the heat shield.
So you'd be technically right in your statement, however knowing the full details of the situation makes your take stupid.
And it was a safety measure in case they lost control that would ensure it would burn itself up and not become space junk. This guy is a nut job lmao. SpaceX is badass!
setting all politics and social issues from the CEO aside.
Right but I think that was their point though no? That, for safety reasons, they didn't make it to orbit. Seems like a pretty cut and dry "no" they didn't make it to orbit just like that person said. And the reason was that they didn't know if it would make it. Which kind of supports their point.
I'm not going to claim to know enough either way (besides Elon Musk being an idiot), but they don't seem wrong there.
It seems like you guys are mad that it didn't make orbit and get defensive when people point it out.
Because the longer a launch goes the easier it is. Basically there are critical phases of flight and there's the actual continuous operation of the rocket all the time. Things like clearing the tower, max q, stage separation, engine re-lighting are all insanely complex operations, but once all that's done and all you need to do is burn the engines for longer it's pretty easy to just burn more rocket fuel on a flight that has been working the whole time. its something that is much less risky to the mission going on. Things can go wrong, but the chance is much higher during one of those complex things.
An empty vehicle does not have the same performance as one with cargo.
Ignoring this point make you seem either uneducated on space flight or just someone blinded by the tech bro philosophy of “trust me bro it’ll work next time”
¯_(ツ)_/¯ while starship performance is ass compared to what they want they could still have easily put cargo onboard, you are talking about the most successful and likely profitable spaceflight company in history here you know?
SpaceX gets a lot of credit from space fans because they have proved the haters wrong time and time again, people just like you were saying the exact same garbage about falcon 9 and reusing the booster, now that SpaceX succeeded at that they practically own earth's entire launch industry and will revolutionize it again with starship.
I'm sure we will get lots of "failures" (expected test vehicle losses) along the way for you to doom on, but at the end of the day SpaceX will be the winners like they always are at the end of the day.
You've written a whole lot for someone who doesn't seem to know what they're talking about.
It has not made orbit.
It has done a suborbital flight.
The difference between getting to space and getting to orbit is well, an orbit.
These statements are intentionally misleading. The starship was less than 100 dv short of orbit when they decided to cut the engines in order to test another flight regime. It takes at least 8500 dv to make orbit, which means they were already 98.8% of the way there and they still had plenty of propellent to spare. All systems were nominal, they could have continued, but they had already proved their capability to make orbit and were now aiming to accomplish more. The fact is, they did achieve the kind of speed you need to reach orbit, but rockets have been able to reach orbit for a long time, that's not impressive, but rockets have only just begun to start returning to earth.
And remember, this is not private money they are burning every time one of these explodes or burns up in the atmosphere. They were given 3 billion American Tax dollars to develop this thing.
So far, the SLS has spent 23 billion tax payer dollars. They have built 1 rocket. But saying they "built" the rocket isn't even fair, as they salvaged the engines from previous space shuttles, expending engines that had previously been reused. What will they do when they run out of pre-built engines? Prices will go up for sure...
Again, the SLS is attempting to use antique engines and essentially develop nothing new, and it has cost the public $23B. The starship is attempting to develop many ground breaking technologies, is so far achieving more of their goals with every launch. And they've spent 3 billion doing all of that.
At this point it may also be worth noting that the SLS has been in development for 14 years, the starship has been in real development for 5-7 years.
I remain in the position I started, to deny that SpaceX is doing something truly astonishing is plain bonkers.
Will every reader know that? Will every reader also know the finer nuances of the 3 downward arrows, one of them referring to Stalin's authoritarianism? I'm not here to score sick comebacks? 🤷♀️
Maybe we can hear directly from them about their views on Stalin:
The Three Arrows were adopted as an official social democrat symbol by the SPD leadership and the Iron Front by June 1932. Iron Front members would carry the symbol on their arm bands. The slogan "neither Stalin's slaves nor Hitler's henchmen" was also used by the SPD in connection with the symbol.
Im authentically perplexed as to where we disagree and why you're in "sick dunk" mode. Do you think I'm simping for Stalin? The 3 arrows appeal to me for the same reasons they do you, seems.
Will every reader also know the finer nuances of the 3 downward arrows, one of them referring to Stalin’s authoritarianism?
Yeah it seemed like you were implying (or actually just saying) that one of the arrows refers to Stalin's authoritarianism. Which is a bad thing, right? Do we agree on that? And I have it as my profile pic... So I dunno how else I was supposed to take your comment?
And to be clear, again, it is not true that one of the arrows refers to Stalin in any way.
"Down with all forms of authoritarianism" is how i associate with the symbol. We do inded agree fash in any manifestation are a bad thing.
Meanwhile here in the Elon thread, I'd like for folks not to associate Communism with dead bigoted tyrants who usurped the unions-of-unions that were Soviets, while misattributing a quote from a capitalist whose competing to have as much blood on his hands as Stalin did.
I didnt bring stalin up. The comment i was replying to misattributed (or "sounds like"'d, if you prefer) a quote from Zuckerberg to Stalin. That read to me as right-wing rhetoric, pushing red scare, equating Communism, the society which is classes, moneyless, stateless, and flattening that concept into "been-tried-already-Stalin's-Tyranny"
Which is pretty gross considering the big picture; the extensive harm which not only Zuck/ FB has done, not only by technocratic bro billionaires and corpo-owner social media as a trend, but the overall economic system and specifically imperial-colonial project which it is an extension of (colonizing of minds and thought, of our attention, to advertise to, for quarterly profit and power coupons) -- all the while doing their best to promote apathy.
To prefigure a betted society, we must be able to dream. The only thing doomerism does is give the owning class that apathy while they bulldoze over Sudan, Palestine, Rojava
Or at least thats how I see. All of the power and pleasure to all of the people. Hope that clears things up.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? Because my comment you replied to said nothing about Stalin or Zuckerberg or any of that shit. I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
My initial comment in this thread was in response to someone (maskenox?) conflating the two. (Neither of which i am fond of, to be abundantly clear)
Edit: also, yes? When i went and folded all the comments...ig your initial reply was also to the same comment? Even though the voyager app shows them as diff colors...yellow and orange...doesnt make it as obvious and it isnt clear when it indents and when not... 💀
Also this is just an engine test at McGregor. They used to blow them up much more often as they were finding the limits. Nowadays it's much less common, hence why it's news when they broke one.
At a greater cost than every starship built to date combined...
Congrats?
I expect they'll be able to launch 2, perhaps even 3 more Artemis rockets before the program is cancelled and the rocket architecture abandoned due to unreasonable cost.
Where's your evidence proving exactly how much Starship has cost in total? Or wait, maybe you are just making bullshit up because you have no idea how much it has actually cost them because they don't disclose that information like NASA does.
SpaceX can likely build and launch a fully expendable version of Starship for about $100 million. Most of that money is in the booster, with its 33 engines. So once Super Heavy becomes reusable, you can probably cut manufacturing costs down to about $30 million per launch.
This means that, within a year or so, SpaceX will have a rocket that costs about $30 million and lifts 100 to 150 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.
Bluntly, this is absurd.
For fun, we could compare that to some existing rockets. NASA's Space Launch System, for example, can lift up to 95 tons to low-Earth orbit. That's nearly as much as Starship. But it costs $2.2 billion per launch, plus additional ground systems fees. So it's almost a factor of 100 times more expensive for less throw weight. Also, the SLS rocket can fly once per year at most.
The starship is built out in the open, the whole world can watch. Because of that, there are pretty good estimates for how much construction costs. If you take the more pessimistic estimates, my statement would still hold true.
Also, as a reminder, even without knowing exact numbers you can still make some ballpark assertions with confidence. For example, Jupiter has the mass of more than a dozens earths. I could look up the actual number, but I can be pretty damn sure it's more than twelve.
Different philosophy. Play it safe and analyze everything extensively to make sure you don't have a PR nightmare. That leads to less aggressive designs and longer schedules, but looks better for the public and Congress.
And they don’t even have a goal of more than one launch a year and billions of dollars per launch. Artemis is the same old flag waving BS: do it once to say you’re first, then lose interest.
Starship’s goals of reusability, frequent launches, order of magnitude cost reductions can be the foundation of the next jump in space industry/exploration
Weekly explosions on a test pad? No. None of the integrated tests have exploded on the pad. (Edit: like this one, which did)
The last starship on the pad was mid March. It made it up, but fell apart during reentry. Before that, IFT 2 was in Nov 23, and the exploded 8 min up. IFT 1 was over a year ago, and that only made it 4 min after lift off.
Like you say, nobody is making this explosion out to be a deadly emergency but it also probably doesn't inspire confidence when the company fails so much more often than it succeeds. Starship engines have been "unexpectedly" exploding for years.
I don't think exploding was part of the test. I don't think being investigated by the FAA in 2020 for failure to listen to warnings about unintended shockwave damage was part of their tests. I don't think losing an entire rocket to a booster explosion last year was part of the test.
I think their tests are throwing things at the stainless steel wall and hoping it sticks.
This is dumb. SpaceX is launching over a hundred times per year. PER YEAR. Dear Moon was always a long term goal for anyone in the science community they understood it will never happen before 2030. The large launch quantity has helped reduce launch costs and has enabled small sat launches aka cubesats. Universities can now launch things to space because the launch costs are so low. So your statement that it hasn't helped anyone is patently false. You just have a raging boner against SpaceX, but you are incredibly uninformed. You can either continue in your delusion or see that SpaceX is actually good for the industry, universities, knowledge, and technology over all. That is all. Have a good life, or continue being a miserable hater. Whatever
Telling how you only focus on the few experimental failures vs the hundreds of successes. Just admit you're a hater based not on logic but just hate. You have no other argument. Loser
No, it was a test stand at the McGregor rocket testing facility, it wasn't even at Boca chica (the place where all the finished rockets are launched from). This is not a big deal and won't affect their schedule at all.
I don’t know how frequent it is, but the important point is the attitude that test failures can be ok. I don’t know if this one is, but yes there’s a pattern ….
Instead of being so risk averse that you take years and billions extra doing your best to create one of a kind hardware trying be perfect (NASA/Boeing), SpaceX builds many copies, iterate, test frequently, learn from failures. This approach seemed to have worked extremely well for previous rockets, so I’m still cheering them on.
Even just consider this test - the fact that they’re trying to build a rocket engine every week with the goal of automating the process well enough to have high confidence in them, can test it without the rocket, can build a rocket and attach engines later, can use a rocket and replace a failed engine. If this modular approach comes together this is huge!
...what? SpaceX is years behind schedule for delivering crewed space flight to NASA. US tax payers have had to cough up billions of dollars for seats on Russian Soyuz spacecraft to at least be able to get to space somehow in the meantime.
Iterating and failing is okay, but SpaceX has neither been faster nor cheaper in doing so than NASA's original moon landing program.
SpaceX is years behind schedule for delivering crewed space flight to NASA
You are a few years behind the times yourself. SpaceX first flew crew to the ISS in 2020, and have flown 8 more crewed missions for NASA since then, as well as a few private missions.
Boeing (the other commercial crew contractor) has yet to fly a single human :)
A few years ago (already) I would have been sad and shocked. Now I don't give a shit about SpaceTwitter. That douchebag managed to kill all the interest I had for space exploration, a topic I was passionate about for most of my life. He really is that kind of killjoy.
Why would you let that ruin all of space exploration for you? He's a dick. I don't give a crap about his company. But exploring the solar system is still absolutely amazing.
SpaceX is still making tremendous progress compared to NASA. I'm as annoyed with Musk as everyone else, but it's looking like they're the biggest hope we have right now of actually making progress with space exploration.
But are they really making progress? NASA has pured billions into SpaceX, are they really getting what they were promised? AFAIK the answer to that is No-No-No and No, because they are so far behind, and haven't met any requirements for what SpaceX was supposed to do for the NASA manned moon mission Artemis.
SpaceX launched the biggest rocket every to be launched in history, three times at this point, and you're questioning whether they're "making progress?"
As I said, you've prioritized hating Elon Musk over everything else.
This is focused more on NASA's problems with the Artemis program, but I highly recommend reading this article.
Basically the whole Artemis mission plan is riddled with issues, and SpaceX and Blue Origin are required to have major breakthroughs in space refueling tech for their required roles to even be possible. With how many different issues the project has, it looks like the only good thing we may get out of the project is these breakthroughs (if they happen).
If you think he's a liar and a con man, then why even bring up his promises? They're obviously false. SpaceX has done great work despite who their current CEO is.
He was saying several years ago that he would be start building a Mars base in 2022 and have manned missions in 2024 which are both basically no closer today than they were then, that was a lie.
He said he would build hyperloops that would be cheap fast efficient across the country, that was a lie, that we now know was to stop building public transport.
He said in 2016 that full self driving that was safer than a person driving would be ready in 2017, and that was something they could do TODAY (in 2016). He repeated that lie in 2019, even claiming people could make up to $200000 per year if they bought a Tesla, because they could drive as autonomous taxi's beginning 2020. He claimed buying anything other than a Tesla would be stupid, because Tesla cars were the only ones that could do that. Except they couldn't and they still can't.
There is a very clear picture that Elon Musk is lying through his teeth, and he cons people into investing in and buying his products under false pretenses.
Okay? I thought we already established that he's a liar. You really sound like a fan of the guy since you follow his every word, but none of this detracts from the accomplishments of the engineers working at these companies.
Maybe he lost interest because of all the bullshit Elon Musk promised that came to NOTHING, remember a few years back he promised there would be manned missions to Mars now... NOW!!! MANNED MISSIONS!!! They were supposed to be well along building a base on Mars that should have started 2 years ago!!
Reality may seem kind of dull compared to the fantasies Musk promised.
Personally I never believed Musk for a second, and I thought Neil Tyson was a blabbering idiot for parroting him. But many fell for it, and my wife thought I was "negative" for not believing and agreeing with them!
But things like the James Webb telescope are 100% cool.
Well, before SpaceX I looked at the space exploration program as a science enthusiast. The missions were rare but important for science. Then this dude came out of nowhere, saying he was about to save the Earth with electric cars and build a station on Mars. And for a moment it really worked. I genuinely thought he was a good billionaire. Then he completely loose his mind, start talking and acting like the worse moron of the universe, and I started studying his statements without the shiny distorting layer. He's so full of shit it makes me sick. Most of the things he says is nonsense.
So I can't tell why my brain works that way, but it does. Today I'm more exited by new ways to produce renewable energies on Earth than I am about rockets. That joy I felt for any SpaceX news slipped away.
My comment was just the realization of that. That was weird to be honest, but true.
Wow talk about blaming someone else for your waning interest. If you were really into space exploration, you wouldn’t let one person come in the way. A person who doesn’t even know you. Or you don’t know either technically.
I’m no Elon shill and I dislike him like everyone else. But I’ll be damned if I lose interest in space just because of him. Even if the whole world was a douchebag, I’d still get out telescoping equipment and gaze at the skies.
And oh by the way, if not for SpaceX do it for NASA who were there way before anyone else. Do it for your ancestors who looked at the sky in amazement every night.
the explosion, which took place at its Boca Chica Starbase facilities
The raptor testing stand at McGregor experienced an anomaly
Well, which is it? I'm going to trust NASASpaceflight over this article and go with it was a McGregor. No where near Starbase. And that means it will likely have no effect on IFT4 as this article says.
edit: Adding to this, the author of this article has no idea what they are talking about.
The Raptor engines that are currently undergoing testing are SpaceX’s Raptor 2 engines
So clearly nothing to do with IFT4, as Ship 29 and Booster 11 are already outfitted with their engines, non of which are Raptor 2s.
On its last flight test, IFT-3, Starship finally reached orbital velocity and it soared around Earth before crashing down into the Indian Ocean. On the next flight, SpaceX aims to perform a reentry burn, allowing Starship to perform a soft landing in the ocean.
IFT3 burned up on reentry, maybe parts of it made it to the ocean, but it was not crashing into the ocean that was the problem. IFT4 does not plan on doing a reentry burn. No one does a reentry burn from orbit. Starship uses a heat shield like every other orbital space craft. They are planning to attempt a landing burn, that is probably what they are talking about.
Yeah anyone following space YouTube has seen this a dozen times already and knows that it was a deflagration likely due to busted lines and not a detonation. The test stand is likely undamaged (In anysignificant way at least) and it was just an engine test of likely raptor 2 design. This has nothing to do with IFT4 or starbase as far as we can tell.
Indeed. We don't know the conditions of the test. Maybe it was running the engines through a simulated flight. Or they were testing the engine in different failure modes to see if it shuts itself down or takes care of the problem correctly. Or they were doing a deliberate test to failure where a RUD is the expected result.
But the headline promised me a "massive explosion" and I'm only reacting to those words. Didn't read the article, nor did I watch the video to see what actually happened.
Brother yeah, it's a ground up redesign. It's brand new. Shit breaks. This article is a big fat nothing burger. and other comments on here being like SEE SPACEX IS DOG SHIT.... Just telling the world how uninformed they are with no regard for their own dignity lmao
IFT 3 was a suborbital flight, so... either it did not reach orbital velocity, or the upper stage careened so wildly out of control that it borked it.
Its kind of confusing as in the live stream of it they keep saying the phrase orbital velocity, reached orbit, but also say it was intended to be a suborbital flight.
Also, the lower stage crashed into the ocean at around mach 2, so maybe that is what they are referring to? Looked like many of the engines did not relight, in addition to significant instability as it traversed back through the atmosphere.
Also also, the 're entry' burn may be referring to attempting to relight the engines while in space? You are probably correct that they mean the landing burn / belly flop???
Edit 2: If they intend to do a suborbital flight, but also reach orbital velocity, this would entail a trajectory leading to a fairly steep descent path, which could need a ... basically a pre reentry burn, to lessen velocity and/or change the descent path to something more shallow.
Its pretty hard to tell actual info about these Starship flights, partially because SpaceX outright lies during their live feeds, is tight lipped about other things, and many sources of coverage are often confused and/or simping for Musk.
One last thing: Does... Starship, the upper stage... even have monopropellant thrusters, or gyros, or anything for out of atmosphere orientation adjustments?
From the IFT3 vid it seemed like either no, or they malfunctioned.
IFT3 was technically suborbital, but only barely. Like a couple hundred km/h short. Literally a couple of seconds longer second stage burn would have put it into a stable orbit. Or the same velocity just with a lower apogee. They intentionally left the perigee just inside the atmosphere so a deorbit burn was not required. This is also the plan for IFT4, iirc. I think they are talking about the bellyflop/suicide burn. It was not planned on IFT3, but is for IFT4.
Both the booster and the ship have attitude control thrusters that you could see firing during the live stream of IFT3. Early prototypes used nitrogen cold-gas thrusters, but were planned to be upgraded to methane/oxygen hot-gas thrusters at some point. I don't recall if/when they were.
IFT3 began to tumble shortly after launch, at least before they opened the "door" where it was obvious. The tumble may have been caused by a leak, and the "reentry" was simply a chaotic mess where the engine(s) began to burn up in the atmosphere, and it was absolutely 100% out of control.
The re-entry burn is the burn to slow down your spacecraft below orbital speeds, initiating re-entry.
Every spacecraft that wants to land back on earth after orbiting it needs to do a re-entry burn.
The only exception, theoretically, are spacecraft that return from outside earth's orbit. They could in theory re-enter by steering towards the atmosphere at the right angle. I don't know if they actually do that in practice or slow down to orbital speeds first, though.
What you're talking about is usually referred to as a de-orbit burn. Sure somebody could call it a reentry burn, but not SpaceX. What SpaceX calls a reentry burn is the maneuver when a Falcon 9 booster lights its engines as it first hits the atmosphere to slow down and move the heating away from it's body. Neither the super heavy booster nor the ship make a maneuver like this.
IFT3 did not make a de-orbit burn, and there is not one planned for IFT4 either.
As another commenter stated, this explosion is not at “Starbase” where they launch starship. It’s unlikely to have any impact on the launch schedule for Starship.
They tested an engine on a test stand and it failed. They will likely learn something from it.
If something is going to blow up, its much better to happen on a test stand than on an actual product or test launch.
Best case would be doing the math beforehand, as they Didn't do with the flame trench iterations until the water pump system was added. And we know that because other people on youtube did do the math and determined even the special high temperature concrete from NASA wasnt going to be enough by itself.
They knew that it wasn't going to be enough by itself, they were predicting that it would last long enough to survive a single launch. They were already planning to replace the pad, they just figured they would do it after the first test launch.
They were slightly off in their prediction, but that's why these are test launches. Fortunately it didn't do much harm, and they were already gearing up to replace the launch pad surface anyway so free excavation.
Dude, the entire pad was gone. People in the "safe" zone had concrete raining down on them and the rocket itself was severely damaged from the takeoff.
If they had done the math before that, they would have never attempted that launch.
No, the entire pad wasn't gone. The concrete under the pad had a big hole in it, but most of the structure was intact - as evidenced by the fact that they just patched the hole and continued using the pad without having to replace the whole thing.
Nobody was hurt. The rocket was damaged, but it still managed to accomplish much of what they'd wanted it to accomplish. It was a test launch, they knew it wasn't going to cruise all the way to the finish line. They wanted to see what went wrong.
Do you really think they didn't do the math at all? They did the math, they figured they could risk it based on what the math told them, they turned out to be wrong in hindsight. Plenty of things seem like good risks that turn out to be bad ones in hindsight. They're not a bunch of yee-haw wild men who do stuff without thinking or calculating, the FAA would never be giving them launch licenses if they were.
