SpaceX

2698 readers

3 users here now

Rules:

Posts and discussion must be related to SpaceX.
Community focus is on the company, not its CEO.
Currently experimenting with the moderation policy for niche communities. If you think you have been banned in error, please reach out.

Related space communities:

Memes:

!spaceflightmemes@sh.itjust.works

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works

few@sh.itjust.works

clothes@lemmy.world

burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Canigou@jlai.lu

SpaceX reveals why the last two Starships failed as another launch draws near (arstechnica.com)

submitted 7 months ago by llamacoffee@lemmy.world to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Oh you mean this paragraph?

The rocket compensated for the drop in main tank pressure and completed its engine burn, but venting from the nose cone and a worsening fuel leak overwhelmed Starship's attitude control system. Finally, detecting a major problem, Starship triggered automatic onboard commands to vent all remaining propellant into space and "passivate" itself before an unguided reentry over the Indian Ocean, prematurely ending the test flight.

Nowhere do I see what exactly was leaked or how much. If we're using rocket terminology 'propellant' means methane, oxidizer means oxygen so I'm guessing they mean methane? Why doesn't the article say it was methane and couch it behind terminology? How much 'substance' was 'vented'?

Perhaps you could quote the part where they specify what the leak was and how much?

[–] sleep_deprived@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago

Personally I'm entirely used to reading "propellant" as "the stuff that gets oxidized in the motor" in space communication, and it's not our of the ordinary for what I'd expect from Ars. Eric Berger there tends to write more layperson-friendly articles.

In any case, they later use the word "fuel" repeatedly. Some clarification may have been nice but it's just not a big deal IMO.

As for how much, my expectation would be SpaceX didn't share. They used to be a little more open, but... Well, Elon certainly isn't any less of a dickhead than he used to be.

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Perhaps you could quote the part where they specify what the leak was and how much?

Then you need to read the article again. I'm not going to quote the part where they specifically say what part failed and what tank it was attached to, which should give you a very big clue as to whether it was methane or LOX.

Unfortunately, the *precise *volume in cubic metres wasn't specified. The effect that it had on the nosecone and temperatures of various sensors in the nosecone was mentioned, which implies it was more than just a trivial leak. The loss of the ship also implies that.

edit: Oof my instance is slow today, multiple duplicated comments deleted.