Sorry doubters, Starship had a remarkably successful flight(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Sorry doubters, Starship had a remarkably successful flight
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/heres-why-this-weekends-starship-launch-was-actually-a-huge-success/
6 comments
The flight termination system is not only standard practice, but also a legal requirement. The risk is that the out-of-control rocket might not explode, and its unpredictable path might return it over land, where its crash could cause considerable damage. It is better to destroy the rocket quickly and intentionally, at a high altitude, where the explosion is unlikely to harm anyone and the debris will fall in the ocean.
> wouldn't it otherwise just burn-up or explode on failure?
There's eventually a point the rocket is high enough and moving fast enough that if it broke up or went off course it would burn up on re-entry.
Before that point, though, it's better to be able to destroy the rocket at a chosen time before it can go so far off course that it poses a threat to things on the ground outside of the cleared launch corridor.
Edited to add: You can read about the flight termination system from the Apollo missions (known as PDF for Propellant Dispersal System) starting on page 33 of this PDF: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090015395/downloads/20...
There's eventually a point the rocket is high enough and moving fast enough that if it broke up or went off course it would burn up on re-entry.
Before that point, though, it's better to be able to destroy the rocket at a chosen time before it can go so far off course that it poses a threat to things on the ground outside of the cleared launch corridor.
Edited to add: You can read about the flight termination system from the Apollo missions (known as PDF for Propellant Dispersal System) starting on page 33 of this PDF: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090015395/downloads/20...
> Starship now is arguably as successful as NASA's SLS rocket
Remember when the Artemis 1 first stage lost structural integrity just after staging and blew up, then the upper stage FTS activated before reaching orbit? Good times.
Oh wait, no, that didn't happen. The booster operated as expected, the Orion spacecraft spent six days in a distant retrograde orbit (DRO) around the Moon and returned to earth after about three weeks. The capsule splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on December 11 and was recovered and returned to the Port of San Diego.
Remember when the Artemis 1 first stage lost structural integrity just after staging and blew up, then the upper stage FTS activated before reaching orbit? Good times.
Oh wait, no, that didn't happen. The booster operated as expected, the Orion spacecraft spent six days in a distant retrograde orbit (DRO) around the Moon and returned to earth after about three weeks. The capsule splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on December 11 and was recovered and returned to the Port of San Diego.
Two different machines attempting to solve two different problems. Yes Artemis and Orion overlap part of starship goals, but they neither have rapid turn around and reusability, nor adaptability as requirements. They are, put human on moon machines, not tanker, pickup truck, delivery vehicle, Martian launch vehicle, etc.
purpose has nothing do with whether or not a rocket can fly without a RUD. As for adaptability, rapid turn around and reusability, apparently the engineers working on Starship aren't the same ones that built Falcon 9, or else they forget everything they learned from that booster.
Is it me or is it weird they build in a self destruct system?, wouldn't it otherwise just burn-up or explode on failure?