All three prototype ship Straship Ilona Mask exploded

April 4 2020 45

SpaceX continues to test prototypes for its Starship spacecraft. It is reported that the SN3 prototype exploded during cryogenic testing. On this, April 3, 2020, NASASpaceflight YouTube channel informed the public.

At the same time, Elon Musk, the head of SpaceX, has already stated that the details of what happened are being studied. In his opinion, the cause of the incident, most likely, is the incorrect test parameters.

SpaceX has already informed the public that the remnants of SN3 are now being dismantled to make room for the SN4 prototype. A video of the dismantling was also published on the specified channel.

We remind you that this is the third unsuccessful Starship test in the last six months. Before that, in February 2020, at a company training ground near the village of Boca Chica in Texas, on a cryo-test exploded prototype SN1. And in January 2020, during testing, the capacity of the future spacecraft exploded when it was checked for overpressure. Moreover, even earlier, in November 2019, the testing of the prototype Mk1 ended in failure.

It should be added that before this, Elon Musk promised that the orbital flight of the Starship prototype will certainly take place in 2020.

45 comments

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Arkharov

-4

April 4 2020 15: 58

And in January 2020, during testing, the capacity of the future spacecraft exploded when it was checked overpressure. Moreover, even earlier, in November 2019, ended in failure testing the prototype Mk1.

- a hundred thousand times for the stupid, it was explained that these tests are made to break. No, again the same thing: "unsuccessful tests". That all of these prototypes have to withstand any excess pressure to be considered successful? 100 million atmospheres ?!
1. Igor Pavlovich
  
  -1
  
  April 4 2020 17: 51
  
  This was explained for the literate - stupid are guided by OBS (one woman said) ...
2. boriz
  
  +3
  
  April 5 2020 00: 20
  
  In fact, during tensile tests, they do not shake until they turn blue. There is some calculated value, during tests they pump up to it + 15-20%. The design must withstand this pressure. And, for the sake of pure children's curiosity, no one will swing indefinitely and ruin designs one by one.
  1. Arkharov
    
    -1
    
    April 5 2020 08: 52
    
    "In the footsteps of Mask: they want to destroy the Angara missile during testing."
    https://topcor.ru/12931-po-stopam-maska-raketu-angara-hotjat-razrushit-vo-vremja-ispytanij.html
AICO

0

April 4 2020 16: 43

I wonder how much he took in the beak, otherwise you need to bind to one of these - let him fly? !!!
begemot20091

0

April 4 2020 18: 00

Quote: Arkharov
100 million atmospheres ?!

Since when should a missile casing withstand pressure in the epicenter of a nuclear explosion?

When extruding and supplying fuel from the fuel tanks of the fuel and oxidizer 7, 8, for example, to the corresponding fuel tanks of the propulsion system of a spacecraft or a space station such as Mir, the shut-off valves 9, 10 and gas, such as nitrogen, are opened from boost cylinders 3 , 4 (boost cylinders are filled with nitrogen to a pressure of 350 kgf / cm2 before start) enters gas reducers 11, 12 tuned to outlet pressures (working pressures), for example, 20 kgf / cm2. These pressures are necessary to squeeze the fuel out of the 7,8 fuel tanks and supply it to the consumer. In the event of a failure, for example, of a gas reducer 11 installed on the pneumatic line 1, the pressure behind the reducer 11 and the gas cavity 5 of the fuel tank 7 will begin to increase. At a pressure of, for example, 28 kgf / cm2, the safety valve 13 will start to operate. At a pressure of 30 kgf / cm2, the safety valve 13 will fully open, while the gas flow through it will become sufficient to maintain a pressure of not more than 30 kgf / cm2, for which the strength is calculated fuel tanks. When the safety valve 13, 14 is activated, the discharged gas from the pneumatic line 1, 2 enters the drainage line 15 and then into the cylindrical chamber 17, from where it is discharged through the diametrically located through-holes 18 into the environment (into space).
1. Arkharov
  
  -2
  
  April 5 2020 08: 53
  
  Probably hard to live, if everything is so literally understood?
Bakht

+3

April 4 2020 19: 35

To get the certification of a new device, you need to go through a bunch of approvals. Especially in the States. Some aircraft engine models are certified for several years. Who does not believe, can look at obtaining certification for the MC21 aircraft. Or Superjet.
The question is - how did an unknown (by and large unknown) company get certification for a couple of years for housing, systems, controls, engines and a bunch of other things?
Does anyone still believe that Elon Musk makes a rocket on his own? This is an entirely NASA program. And Ilon Musk himself is the zits-chairman ...
1. Cyril
  
  -2
  
  April 4 2020 21: 03
  
  Does anyone still believe that Elon Musk makes a rocket on his own?
  
  - adequate people do not "believe" in this, they know it. Funding for the development of Falcon-9 and the Dragon ship is publicly available, you can check it yourself.
  
  This is an entirely NASA program. And Ilon Musk himself is the zits-chairman ...
  
  - Why, then, is NASA financing the construction of the SLS superheavy, which is a direct competitor to Starship?
Bakht

+4

April 5 2020 00: 03
Well, at least a little laugh

https://politikus.ru/articles/politics/76562-makaronnyy-monstr-ilona-maska.html
1. mor7d
  
  0
  
  April 5 2020 10: 30
  
  Well, at least a little laugh
  
  And why didn’t you put the crashed Russian missiles or the satellites full of holes, hammered microcircuits, unsuitable Oriental, etc. for a laugh? Then laugh and laugh.
  1. YUG64
    
    +1
    
    April 5 2020 10: 52
    
    We laugh at the liberda and the Central Europeans, who with such jambs at Roscosmos would have sprinkled everything around with righteous indignation and ridicule, but any joint - even a garland of jambs - at the nanogeny meets with a mouthful of water .. Bo tse Elon and Ameryka !! Woodpeckers ...
    1. mor7d
      
      -1
      
      April 5 2020 10: 55
      
      We laugh at the liberdas and the Europeans
      
      Then, it's OK. And then I thought you were laughing at a speck in someone else's eye, not seeing a log in your own.
    2. Cyril
      
      -2
      
      April 5 2020 13: 03
      
      Under what "similar jambs"? Does Roscosmos have its own returnable rockets? What is the name of?
2. Cyril
  
  -1
  
  April 5 2020 13: 01
  
  Even stubborn maskophobes do not even mention this little scribble called "Elon Musk's Macaroni Monster". You are out of date.
  1. Bakht
    
    +4
    
    April 5 2020 13: 05
    
    Yes, the article is old, but the facts are refuted? I was not interested in technical parameters. Here I am not special. But patents, factories, certification - is all this fiction or not?
    It is just a question. Can any campaign take the Nasov engine and install it on its ship without permission? Or is it true that entire teams of engineers from NASA were transferred to Mask?
    There are more modern publications. But I am only interested in this moment.
    And the article itself .... Maybe outdated. But I liked such a juicy description.
    1. Bakht
      
      +3
      
      April 5 2020 13: 42
      
      Immediately indicate that the article is 2017. But are the ideas true or not? Does Musk hide his expenses? And where does the money come from? And the very concept of reusable missiles AT THIS STAGE is being questioned ...
      
      https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/05/17/72479-mask-eto-prezhde-vsego-pro-dengi
      1. Cyril
        
        0
        
        April 5 2020 14: 52
        
        But are the ideas true or not?
        
        - no. Absolutely.
        
        And where does the money come from?
        
        - from private launches and from government orders. Approximately 50/50. He does more private descents than state descents, but state descents are paid more, therefore approximately 50/50.
        
        And the very concept of reusable missiles AT THIS STAGE is being questioned ...
        
        - And some even question the shape of the Earth, the heliocentricity of the solar system, and the theory of evolution.
        
        Musk has been making repeated launches of its missiles for more than two years now, thus almost completely ousting the Russian Proton from the commercial launch market. Thanks to the reusability of its missiles and the optimization of production.
        
        Bakht
        
        +5
        
        April 5 2020 15: 16
        
        I will not consider technical issues. I don’t think I'm an expert. But here are the commercial issues .... you wrote
        
        from private launches and from government orders. Approximately 50/50. He does more private descents than state descents, but state descents are paid more, therefore approximately 50/50.
        ----
        ... having almost completely displaced the Russian Proton from the commercial launch market. Thanks to the reusability of its missiles and the optimization of production.
        
        This is a very significant point. The fact is that in the States and Russia a completely different approach. Government orders (the Pentagon and NASA) pay for launches more than commercial ones. About 2 times. Different numbers, but an average of 150 million against 90 million. Well, you yourself indicated that.
        In Russia, state and military launches are paid for much cheaper. Approximately $ 55 million. This is linked to the law and Roskosmos may be sued for "misappropriation of budget funds." Therefore, Roskosmos is forced to compensate for its costs by increasing the cost of commercial launches. That is why Musk pushed Roscosmos out of the commercial launch area. Money, but not reusability. They (launches) are elementary cheaper. But there is a nuance, which has already been indicated here. State and military launches are funded by taxpayers, while commercial launches go into Musk's pocket. This is the state support for its manufacturer. Or spending on the state, and profit for yourself. So there is no need to talk about equal competition.
        Of course, this does not remove responsibility from Roscosmos. It is necessary to work, and not to tell tales about trampolines.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        April 5 2020 15: 27
        
        but on average 150 million against 90 million
        
        - no, on average 100 against 62 (in a one-time version of a rocket).
        
        https://tass.ru/kosmos/6253862
        
        - somehow this does not fit with your words that Roskosmos cannot reduce the cost of commercial launches of Proton.
        
        True, he intends to reduce them to the cost of launching a one-time Falcon-9, while SpaceX currently uses its reusable missile for commercial launches, which is even cheaper (about 45-50 million per launch).
        
        Bakht
        
        +3
        
        April 5 2020 15: 44
        
        The price of 150 million voiced Rogozin. I took it. But I do not insist. Nevertheless, there is not much faith in Rogozin. But I took the figure that I found in October 2018. In that link that you brought (TASS) it is said that Roscosmos wants to reduce the price due to ground handling. Verbatim
        
        Now we have taken steps to reduce launch services for us due to the fact that we are compressing some of the costs of the Center for Ground-Based Space Infrastructure Operation.
        
        Elon Musk, as I understand it, has no such expenses. He actively uses ready-made complexes at Cape Canaveral. No one knows how much he pays. Evil tongues claim to not pay anything.
        There is such information
        
        The officially announced commercial price for launching the payload of the Falcon 9 rocket is $ 62 million, which includes both the cost of the rocket and the work to ensure the launch.
        
        As you can see, this does not include the cost of post-flight inspection of the descent module. And Musk did not disclose this figure either.
        So there is no data on real value yet. Or not reliable. I. Musk continues to work because he has state support.
        
        SpaceX's government customers - NASA and the Pentagon - pay more for launches. The launch of the CRS program for the supply of goods to the International Space Station is paid by NASA in the amount of $ 133 million. This amount includes a rocket, a cargo spacecraft, and launch support.
        
        Again there is no cost of an after-flight survey.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        April 5 2020 19: 45
        
        Elon Musk, as I understand it, has no such expenses
        
        - there is. First, he leases launch sites (for money) from NASA and the military, and secondly, he carries out re-equipment of these sites with his own rockets and their maintenance.
        
        As you can see, this does not include the cost of post-flight inspection of the descent module.
        
        - right. Because 62 million dollars is the cost of launching the Falcon-9 for commercial customers in a one-time option. Therefore, this does not include the cost of post-flight maintenance of the return stage.
        
        But when in 2017 the first re-launch of a rocket already flying before this took place, Gwyneth Schottwell (Director of SpaceX) said that the cost of inter-flight service was half the cost of manufacturing a new rocket.
        
        I. Musk continues to work because he has state support.
        
        - This is not state support, but the fulfillment of government orders. State support is a gratuitous financing of a loss-making enterprise for its preservation. A vivid example of state support is subsidies to the Khrunichev Center, repayment of its debts. Musk, on the other hand, fulfills the state order (in addition to launches for private clients). In fact, the state is exactly the same SpaceX client as commercial customers.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        April 5 2020 20: 28
        
        Good. I will take note.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        April 5 2020 20: 42
        
        State support for SpaceX can, with a certain reservation, be called the fact that it was NASA that became the first customer for the young SpaceX. Yes, at the initial stage, an order from NASA really helped the company get on its feet, and then private customers pulled themselves up. NASA also partly (partly) funded the creation of the Falcon-9 and the Dragon truck.
        
        However, SpaceX received this order, on a competition basis participating in the NASA program to develop a launch vehicle and space truck for the ISS. SpaceX was one of the participants in the competition, along with a bunch of other companies - the same Boeing, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada and others. This also speaks in favor of the fact that SpaceX is not a "screen" for NASA, otherwise they would have been given a contract out of competition.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        April 5 2020 20: 44
        
        By the way, it's nice to see an adequate and polite interlocutor.
        
        Bakht
        
        +4
        
        April 5 2020 20: 54
        
        And thank you for the conversation and information. I am generally adequate if I see adequate people. We may have different views. But I have already said that I can accept someone else's opinion. Moreover, I honestly admitted that this topic is not mine. And I gave my first post marked "you can laugh".
        I can explain my position without going into technical details. There is a lot of information that Tesla lives at the expense of state support. Lots of criticisms of Mask missiles.
        And somehow in the 90s I had to stand close to creating a high-tech company. Do not create, but simply participate. And I know that to create something like Falcon from scratch out of the blue is practically impossible. It took us three years, only to go to zero on costs. And I know that the transition from one technique to another is fraught with huge costs. Documentation alone will take more than one year. And to use other people's developments is generally from the realm of fantasy. On ships dragged and ruined. We changed the co-owner three times and three times had to redo all the documentation, permissions, approvals. And the technique had to be changed almost completely. Foreign developments cannot be used. A mask seems to be possible.
        But ... the topic is not mine. Mine is geopolitics, oil and a bit of history. But I am grateful to you for the calm tone of the discussion without insults and teachings. I really will take your comments into service, and think about it at my leisure. There will be time - I will delve a little more into the subject. But this, if there is time.
        Good luck.
        
        Cyril
        
        0
        
        April 5 2020 21: 20
        
        Well, Musk founded his SpaceX in 2002, in 2008 (after 6 years) he was only able to launch the Falcon-1 (ultralight rocket), and only in 2010 (that is, after 8 years) created the Falcon-9. The timing is quite adequate, especially considering modern computing power.
        
        Moreover, no one ever claimed that Musk had developed everything from scratch. Naturally, he, like any other inventor, used the previous experience of other developers. He did not take, as Konanykhin insists, directly from the Apollo engines, but, of course, he took into account the developments in this program. And based on the experience and achievements of his predecessors, he created a rocket that no one had ever made before.
        
        In the same way, our Korolev created his magnificent R-7, taking into account the experience gained by the Germans during the creation of the V-2. And at the initial stage, captured German designers who participated in the creation of the V-2 worked in his team. But this does not detract from the achievements of the Queen himself, right? We are not saying that the research institute and design bureau headed by him were a "screen" for German rocketry, and that Korolev owes all his achievements to the Germans?
        
        Musk, by the way, is very respectful of the Soviet and Russian astronautics. At the SpaceX headquarters, among the portraits of people who have contributed to world space exploration, are the portraits of the Queen, Glushko? Tsiolkovsky, Gagarin. He repeatedly called the Soviet Zenith rocket the best in the world before the Falcon-9.
        
        And therefore, it is personally unpleasant for me when, in response to his respect for our cosmonautics and recognition of its objective merits, some like Konanykhin humiliate the objective merits of his company. This is not due to the fact that I am worried about Mask - he does not care what some couch expert thinks about him. It’s unpleasant for me because people like Konanykhin shame us, the Russians, with their highs.
        
        Oh well, thanks for the conversation, good luck)
        
        monman
        
        0
        
        April 5 2020 21: 29
        
        And to use other people's developments is generally from the realm of fantasy.
        
        NASA provided its Shuttle designs and documentation to interested companies for free. Which of these developments came to Mask - I do not know.
        
        There is a lot of information that Tesla lives at the expense of state support.
        
        In order to have “state support” (from NASA or the military-industrial complex), you need to win a contract for something. All contracts won are not classified. You can see my comment below and see some of them. I did not give military orders.
    2. isofat
      
      0
      
      April 5 2020 14: 25
      
      I read your comment and decided to post the video from the forum in numbers, 2018. See below ...
      With us, as in the days of the USSR, they are fighting with advertising leaflets.
      PS Of course, this is not the only tool, more sanctions, etc. etc.
    3. Cyril
      
      -1
      
      April 5 2020 14: 45
      
      But patents, factories, certification - is all this fiction or not?
      
      What patents are you talking about? Can you indicate the numbers?
      
      Factories? The Hawthorne plant for assembling Falcon-9 missiles was bought by the company from Boeing, before that it produced ... Boeing 747 passenger airliners. Since when has NASA been engaged in passenger aircraft?
      
      Certifications? What is wrong with them? It was issued exactly when the Falcon-9 and Dragon spacecraft rockets began to comply with NASA standards for completing missions to the ISS.
      
      Or is it true that entire teams of engineers from NASA were transferred to Mask?
      
      - Some NASA employees came to SpaceX. So what?
      
      This passage of his speaks about the level of Konanykhin’s article and himself:
      
      Naturally, the technology of soft landing on the planet has been worked out for more than 60 years, so you take the same ideas from the lunar landing module and attach the landing supports to the rocket.
      
      Konanykhin, it seems, is not aware of the fact that the conditions on the Moon with its gravity are 6 times less than the Earth’s and the complete absence of the atmosphere, to put it mildly, somewhat different from the conditions on Earth.
      
      You would not choose the sources for the "juiciness of the description", but for the technical and factual reliability.
mor7d

+1

April 5 2020 10: 27

All three prototype ship Straship Ilona Mask exploded

The Americans are amazing. After all, these are ordinary people, such as you and I, who finance space.
69

-1

April 5 2020 14: 07

I can imagine what will happen if you entrust drug addict Mask with condom production.
1. Arkharov
  
  -2
  
  April 5 2020 15: 20
  
  Do you want to say that a large number of people like you will begin to appear?
  1. 69
    
    +1
    
    April 5 2020 15: 25
    
    It’s enough that people like you and the Mask have appeared.
    1. Arkharov
      
      -4
      
      April 5 2020 16: 16
      
      As for me, it’s unlikely, but the fact that Musk appeared, I think such luck to humanity comes once every several hundred years.
isofat

+1

April 5 2020 14: 08

Discussion of Kaspersky and Chubais. Digital forum. 2018. St. Petersburg.
1. Bakht
  
  +3
  
  April 5 2020 14: 51
  
  Thanks. Good info. Chubais is right in one. I wrote about this not so long ago.
  
  Russia will not be able to repeat the Chinese path due to the small population. There was a discussion about inclusive development here. China has set the goal of creating a domestic market of 400 million consumers. This is comparable to the domestic market of the entire EU. By creating such an internal market, China can look down on any foreign trade incentives. Due to the small population, Russia does not even make sense to try to count on it. But keeping all the doors open is dangerous. Kaspersky is also right - we have all seen how to bring down the economy of an open system. For example, I remember there was information that in the United States it was forbidden to use Kaspersky antivirus. This market for Kaspersky was closed with one stroke of the pen. Need a middle ground.
  
  As for I. Mask directly. It's a little difficult to talk about rockets. There is still a lot of specifics. But everyone thinks of themselves as connoisseurs of cars. Musk's car is often called "a collection of Chinese batteries in an expensive package." He declares a mileage of 1 million km and a battery life of 20 years. Although there is information (you can search) that the battery capacity after 1 year of service is reduced by 10-15%. My batteries can be discarded after 1 charges. If a Tesla car really can work without changing batteries for 000 years and give 20 million mileage, then this is truly a miracle. But is this statement true?
  1. Bakht
    
    +2
    
    April 5 2020 15: 46
    
    Here is an interesting video.
    
    https://www.autocentre.ua/avtopravo/avtobiznes/kak-vyglyadit-tesla-model-s-s-probegom-pod-1-mln-km-video-996152.html
steelmaker

-2

April 5 2020 15: 07

For the last 30 years I do not live - I survive. Although at the same time he worked in five jobs. Then I realized that I would spend everything I earned on medicines later. Therefore, the more the United States and Europe explode and die, the more I feel happy! More such good news !!!
1. Arkharov
  
  -2
  
  April 5 2020 15: 24
  
  What, never lived as shitty as under Trump? It’s bad that this is the logic of most of the population: we hardly survive with us, but for some reason we rejoice at the explosions there. What is the relationship, besides the famous saying about the neighbor's cow? With this approach, we will continue to "survive" for a long time.
69

-1

April 5 2020 15: 30

Quote: Arkharov
but for some reason we rejoice at the explosions in them.

The usual manner, all measure by yourself, beloved.
1. The comment was deleted.
monman

0

April 5 2020 17: 16

Meanwhile, NASA selected a crew of astronauts to fly to the ISS on the Crew Dragon - 3 amers and Japanese. The flight will take place in 2020.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-astronauts-for-crew-dragon-mission/

When Hopkins and Glover were scheduled for the flight, NASA announced that two other places (out of 6) on the spacecraft would be filled by NASA's international partners. This applies not only to NASA's partners in the so-called station operating segment in the USA - Canada, Europe and Japan, but also to Russia.

Roscosmos in the person of Rogozin honorably refused to participate because of the "unreliability of the device."

Stafford said Russian officials who met with the Stafford committee in Houston in December did not allow astronauts to fly on the grounds that the spacecraft was “not reliable enough.” “The Russian side noted that before agreeing to a mixed crew plan, there must be successful launches of the USCV,” he said. "Roscosmos will consider participation after successful launches, but will not participate in the first launch of the ship."
1. Arkharov
  
  0
  
  April 5 2020 20: 41
  
  They wanted to launch Rogozin himself? For free, or for money? He would probably agree to take it for rubles. For initiative ....
2. monman
  
  0
  
  April 5 2020 21: 10
  
  Meanwhile:
  
  NASA selects SpaceX Falcon Heavy to launch Psyche's mission on a metal asteroid in 2022.
  
  (contract signed)
  
  https://www.space.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-launching-nasa-psyche-asteroid-mission.html
  
  NASA selects SpaceX as its partner in the delivery of cargo to the lunar orbit of the Gateway station.
  
  (planned for 2024)
  
  https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a31960826/dragon-xl-lunar-gateway/
  
  Dragon XL capsule will be equipped for transportation of goods under pressure and without pressure up to 5 tons. After docking, the capsule will remain with the station for up to a year.
Martial Artist

+1

April 6 2020 07: 56

And the USA told us that the Americans were on the moon ... ha ha ha ha ...
In this American tale, NASA believes only Fools!