Rocket Report: Starship experiences a RUD; Blue Origin nails its debut launch

"The computed numbers below prove that this is quite feasible with margins to spare."

See full article...

 

[SomeHandleThatStartsWithS]

Nothing about the Starship RUD, other than the headline?

 

[Chuckgineer]

There's a new article about the RUD which came out last night.

 

[ColdWetDog]

It was slightly concerning to see footage of debris raining down over the Caribbean Sea filmed from the cockpit of a commercial jet and planes rerouting on Flightradar. Is this really safe testing?

Maybe not. I think the FAA is going to have their panties in a twist for a bit. But it made for some neat in flight entertainment.

 

[MLMichael]

This Week's Additional Launches
It is a slow week. There are only three launches scheduled in the next seven days.

 

[Wickwick]

Weirdly, the emailed version of the Report had SpaceX readying Starship for launch in the subject with no article on the topic. So while I guess it's consistent to have the title mentioning Starship's RUD unconnected to a blurb, one would think that a single line ahead of the main article directing readers to the new article on the subject would have been helpful.

 

[SubWoofer2]

After having read the space company power ranking report (Ars, 7 January) and lost a few hours in the rabbit hole that is the Pythom test thread, perhaps it is by way of footnote to comment that the Pythom wikipedia page looks almost as stale as the Pythom web site updates themselves. It's a sad state of affairs in such a fast-moving industry as rocketry. I did look in vain in the wikipedia article - it has a positive investor-friendly tone - for mention of the Ars reports and commentary on Pythom's operations. Did any regulatory intervention ever happen?

 

[joshv]

Both launches had a RUD, no?

 

[blackhawk887]

It was slightly concerning to see footage of debris raining down over the Caribbean Sea filmed from the cockpit of a commercial jet and planes rerouting on Flightradar. Is this really safe testing?

Nothing is perfectly safe. The FAA has risk thresholds, and will evaluate if this flight met them. And they will make sure the next flight meets them before approving it to launch.

 

[MLMichael]

Right now there are two operational reusable rockets in the world. It seems likely that, within two years, there will be six. All of them will have, or be seeking, national security certifications and at least some of the new ones will be seeking human ratings. I have my doubts that the market can support all six, although I'd love to see it happen, but I am certain that the market cannot support expendable rockets in such an environment. ULA and Northrup Grumman are either going to have to develop their own reusable rockets, and they are awfully late to that game, or go out of the launch business. I think I know which will happen.

 

[MLMichael]

Nothing is perfectly safe. The FAA has risk thresholds, and will evaluate if this flight met them. And they will make sure the next flight meets them before approving it to launch.

I hope that doesn't take six months.

 

[DougF]

From Musk on X: “Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.
Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing suggests pushing next launch past next month.”

Personally, that’s a bit too aspirational for me for a next launch date. The FAA will want a thorough review of causes, mitigations, and future flight routes/timing, etc.

 

[inecatus]

And, Musk’s post doesn’t explain the sequential shutdown of engines nor the change in attitude prior to the RUD. I “think” the FTS engaged when Ship started wandering outside the prescribed path due to premature engine shutdown.

The engines being on fire could easily explain the shutdown. All it requires is that as the fire spreads the engines shut down.

 

[Wickwick]

Both launches had a RUD, no?

BO lost their booster before landing. SpaceX recovered theirs.
SpaceX lost an upper before reaching their target trajectory. BO made orbit.

Between the two we had a perfect launch!

 

[fenris_uy]

DELETED by me

I notice that you don't read Ars. I count 8 Eric's articles in the last week and 5 from Stephen.

EDIT: I noticed that the mods deleted his comment, so I'm going to delete my copy of his comment.

 

[Boskone]

This Week's Additional Launches
It is a slow week. There are only three launches scheduled in the next seven days.

It's impressive that this is surprising.

Not that long ago, just having three launches in a week would have been remarkable.

 

[Unstablefan]

From Musk on X: “Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.
Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing suggests pushing next launch past next month.”

Personally, that’s a bit too aspirational for me for a next launch date. The FAA will want a thorough review of causes, mitigations, and future flight routes/timing, etc.

It's not conclusive yet, but all evidence seems to point to "leaking methane tank." If true, pretty embarrassing, but easy to quickly address to the FAA's satisfaction. I'm optimistic.

 

[Boskone]

Right now there are two operational reusable rockets in the world. It seems likely that, within two years, there will be six. All of them will have, or be seeking, national security certifications and at least some of the new ones will be seeking human ratings. I have my doubts that the market can support all six, although I'd love to see it happen, but I am certain that the market cannot support expendable rockets in such an environment. ULA and Northrup Grumman are either going to have to develop their own reusable rockets, and they are awfully late to that game, or go out of the launch business. I think I know which will happen.

I think the market for some will be distorted by government demand for a domestic rocket.

But in a general commercial sense I agree.

 

[Wickwick]

It's not conclusive yet, but all evidence seems to point to "leaking methane tank." If true, pretty embarrassing, but easy to quickly address to the FAA's satisfaction. I'm optimistic.

As I observed in the comments of the article on the breakup, there were flames visible inside the control surface prior to breakup. Musk's comments that they're going to add fire suppression to this area supports that conclusion. That's not (only) a methane leak. One has to have an oxidizer to sustain a fire. Once the fire started it absolutely could have created a massive methane leak, but that leak would be a symptom, not a root cause.

I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but watching the livestream I saw fire in the hinge box for one of the flight surfaces. Scott Manley saw the same and circled it:

https://x.com/djsnm/status/1880025107948794244

 

[1Zach1]

In SLS news

Yesterday, teams with Exploration Ground Systems transported the forward assemblies of the @NASA_SLS solid rocket boosters for the @NASAArtemis II mission. Each assembly consists of three parts: a forward skirt which houses avionics, a frustum which houses motors that separate the boosters from the core stage during flight, and a nose cone which serves as the aerodynamic fairing for the booster.

Read more about the solid rocket boosters here: https://go.nasa.gov/4gXsrde

Spoiler

https://x.com/NASAGroundSys/status/1879634634897768521

 

[First-light]

The fire and destruction of the starship almost guaranties a safer future for this spacecraft. The information from this failure will most likely add to the understanding of how these systems work together and the fixes will hopefully improve reliability and saftey.

 

[nucrash]

I hope that doesn't take six months.

It won't. We will probably see a Starship launch in April at the latest but I expect March to happen.
This all depends on how certain they are about what failed and if their mitigation addresses the issue.

I expect the next launch will require a larger exclusion zone but there should also be a discussion on if the FTS should be pulled after a certain point.

 

[Darath]

Nothing about the Starship RUD, other than the headline?

I wanted to comment on the same thing. RUD is mentioned in the heading and then never defined in the article.

 

[jandrese]

If we're being realistic, if NASA were to put out a call for bids for a lunar lander tomorrow, it would not have one in hand before the end of the decade at the very earliest.

For comparison the Apollo landers were in development for about 8 years before they went to the moon. I'd say even a 2030 deadline would be challenging, especially if NASA is directly contracting out the work. There is really only one space company in the modern world that does rapid prototyping and actually flies hardware, and they are busy with other projects.

 

[NetMage]

There is really only one space company in the modern world that does rapid prototyping and actually flies hardware, and they are busy with other projects.

Fortunately they are already working on a lunar lander.

 

[jandrese]

Is New Glenn blowing up really a "smashing success"? I'd characterize that as a partial success at best.

It's exciting to see new rockets reach orbit and much credit to BO for reaching this milestone! Though it's hard to imagine this being a commercially viable platform without reuse. Everyone is pursuing reuse and being price competitive will soon require that for most of the market.

It seems like they are planning on reuse, even if that plan didn't work out today. I'd expect they will need at least 2 or 3 more launches before they work all the the bugs out of the rocket recovery system. It's a hard problem.

 

[Wickwick]

Is New Glenn blowing up really a "smashing success"? I'd characterize that as a partial success at best.

It's exciting to see new rockets reach orbit and much credit to BO for reaching this milestone! Though it's hard to imagine this being a commercially viable platform without reuse. Everyone is pursuing reuse and being price competitive will soon require that for most of the market.

The objective of a launch is to deliver the payload to orbit successfully. New Glenn did that. Recovering the booster is only advantageous to the launch company. Let's call it a secondary goal. BO failed to achieve this goal (or even really get through entry), so they've got work ahead of them.

 

[jamesb2147]

For comparison the Apollo landers were in development for about 8 years before they went to the moon. I'd say even a 2030 deadline would be challenging, especially if NASA is directly contracting out the work. There is really only one space company in the modern world that does rapid prototyping and actually flies hardware, and they are busy with other projects.

Aren't you forgetting the other reasonably commercially successful rocket company, Rocket Lab?

I mean the NASA might not want to trust them b/c they're Kiwis, but I believe they follow a very similar development ethos to SpaceX, and have for the entire life of the company (and even before that, for Peter Beck's entire life).

 

[toastie]

Is New Glenn blowing up really a "smashing success"? I'd characterize that as a partial success at best.

It's exciting to see new rockets reach orbit and much credit to BO for reaching this milestone! Though it's hard to imagine this being a commercially viable platform without reuse. Everyone is pursuing reuse and being price competitive will soon require that for most of the market.

Not sure if I should reply "No shit, everyone knows that", except the ESA with Ariane 6 didn't seem to get the memo. If BO can get it working in less than the time that SpaceX took with Falcon, it will be a major success.

 

[Zylon]

After having read the space company power ranking report (Ars, 7 January) and lost a few hours in the rabbit hole that is the Pythom test thread, perhaps it is by way of footnote to comment that the Pythom wikipedia page looks almost as stale as the Pythom web site updates themselves. It's a sad state of affairs in such a fast-moving industry as rocketry. I did look in vain in the wikipedia article - it has a positive investor-friendly tone - for mention of the Ars reports and commentary on Pythom's operations. Did any regulatory intervention ever happen?

You sound like you put Pythom in the same category as real launch companies, which is surprising if you have indeed researched them. They were a bunch of hippies playing around with toxic explosives. The absolute best possible ending for their story is the one we actually got: they stopped before someone died. Wish not that regulators smite them, but enjoy the rare sight of stupidity just barely falling short of being stupid enough.

 

[HBrown]

Obviously the Starship RUD during the launch will trigger an FAA investigation. But what about the failed New Glenn landing? Will this trigger an FAA investigation also? Or will Blue Origin be OK since the upper stage made it to orbit and completed the primary flight plan, while the landing was a secondary objective?

 

[1Zach1]

Obviously the Starship RUD during the launch will trigger an FAA investigation. But what about the failed New Glenn landing? Will this trigger an FAA investigation also? Or will Blue Origin be OK since the upper stage made it to orbit and completed the primary flight plan, while the landing was a secondary objective?

Yes, the FAA has already said they are requiring a mishap investigation for New Glenn.

 

[DragonDeborn]

I wait years for New Glenn to launch and it ends up being too cloudy to see the rocket. At least I was able to hear the rocket.