SpaceX's Massive Rocket Explodes Due to Rapid Unscheduled Digging

SpaceX performed the debut launch of their next Generation Starship-Superheavy launch vehicle, and it didn't make it to orbit. But it was still very much a case of Excitment delivered as the vehicle destroyed its launchpad, had engines fail and parts explode as it ascenced, before finally spinning end over end until it was destroyed in a giant cloud of cryogenic propellents.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley

[@rescyn1190]

Watching what is effectivley a skyscraper do several cartwheels in the air was something I'll remember. Surprised the connections to Starship were strong enough to withstand those forces.

[@acephantom903]

That surprised me too. I thought that the lower stage wasn't supposed to have a lot of structural integrity without being full of fuel.

[@marcusberger7324]

probably the autogenous pressurization worked really good to stabilize hull integrity to say it in star trek terms ;o)

[@TheVergile]

for real. that inside camera on the second stage engines not showing any flexing or movement was unreal

[@TEN-ve8mp]

EXACTLY ResCyn!

[@Ekstrax]

@@TheVergile yeah i think the the image froze at one point though, as at the start you could see some smoke and stuff but then nothing definitely very amazing to see a skyscraper do cartwheels and stay in one piece

[@fepatton]

As we were watching the launch, my son said, “That’s the most KSP launch ever!”

[@solarisone1082]

Pretty sure everyone who has played KSP was thinking the same thing!

[@Vollmilch-Joghurt]

@@solarisone1082 yes xD I was in a discord conversation with some firends and i was screaming how kerbal that shit is and we all agreed that it looked like one of our rockets... starting to do cartwheels and you try to switch engines ona nd off to get back on track xDDDD crazy shit

[@programablenuance]

Elon Musk: "I just bought Kerbal Space Program 2" ... "Why does the bill say you bought 100 acres of land in Texas then"

[@mileskessler2905]

me who plays KSP: "totally recoverable... Adjust the rotation...stop the yaw...oh too late."

[@13orrax]

they forgot to check the stage sequencing

[@MIflyer5124]

That launch reminded me of an old story from the early days of the Atlas ICBM program. An Atlas was launched and the assembled group of program engineers watched anxiously. Groans broke out and became yells of dismay as the vehicle loss stability and performed a total of three loops before exploding. But while all this was happening there was one man who was cheering loudly, sounding like he was a rodeo. After the vehicle blew up the others turned to the cheering man and angrily asked what was wrong with him, didn't he realize that was a serious failure? He beamed back at them, clearly delighted. "Did you see those loops? That was fabulous! I'm with the structures group!"

[@notme5844]

Tumbling around at nearly mach 2 and not immediately disintigrating was incredibly impressive to me.

[@ronschlorff7089]

yup, kind of a "silver lining" to the launch! Get it, silver lining, as in the stainless steel color?, LOL LOL, :D

[@IvanTre]

35 km altitude..

[@core-experience]

@@IvanTre Still quite a lot of drag for something that light relatively speaking.

[@Aviator27J]

Chuck Yeager could've saved it

[@falconwaver]

Didn't the challenger do that when the ET ruptured?

[@Bizob2010]

When I saw it start tumbling, I was immediately reminded of many of my KSP rockets 🤣

[@porterejohn]

and the brief hope that somehow I can regain control...

[@Bizob2010]

@@porterejohn Hehe, I must be more of a pessimist: when that happened in my rockets, I pretty much immediately reverted to hanger 🤣

[@acephantom903]

Seeing the engines disintegrate did it for me.

[@namewarvergeben]

And the very noticable angle of attack (5:14 in this video). This must have been the most Kerbal launch yet! I hope one day they'll name one of these rockets "Untitled Spacecraft"

[@SteveMHN]

Mine too. I'm good at dodgy kerbal vehicles and even better at disaster launches.

[@RinAldrin]

I think my favorite part about watching this was when I noticed how the vapor trail was moving. I have played enough KSP to recognize that effect and I instantly went "welp it won't make it"

[@TheRiskyBrothers]

Yeah this really has "KSP launch that's not gonna get to orbit but you're still trying" energy

[@47CryXMA]

Yeah, as soon as I saw it start to be off-angle, I was thinking the same thing. Ah well. What we need next, is a KSP launch pad mod that does away with the flame diverters.

[@fst-timer7107]

REVERT TO VEHICLE ASSEMBLY BUILDING

[@protokardas]

Flatspins mean you will not be going to space today.

[@MAGGOT_VOMIT]

Who invited the 'tards wearing the masks at Scott's party?? 😷😷👈😂 Looks like they're at a benefit for Skid Row. 🤣

[@bunnypeople]

Literally any engineer worth their weight could've told you that that pad was going to fail spectacularly

[@bunnypeople]

@twerkingbollocks6661 Very true

[@TerrAkon3000]

I am honestly impressed how long and how many individual failures it took for the thing to explode. Great video.

[@philipkudrna5643]

Finally. The first serious and technically sound analysis of this event - in the Scott Manley quality we are used to expect. This as definitely worth the wait! Thank you very much! I also believe that stage zero is the main challenge - I never understood, why they did not build a proper flame diverter. It‘s quite different, if you start a solo starship with three engines or a super heavy booster with 33 engines. The crater is impressively massive!

[@kevintieman3616]

I think were so desperate for flight data they did not want to completely redesign the OLM before the first flight. I would not be suprised if they end up completely rebuilding the OLM.

[@matthewerwin4677]

Money and time. A proper flame diverter would probably add a year to this project.

[@mick0matic]

@@matthewerwin4677 surely not if they built it right away like they planned to do initially at cape canaveral.

[@ahfreebird]

@@kevintieman3616 I don't think they're going to have much choice. The soil underneath is obviously compromised, a lot of the concrete is obliterated, and I presume a good portion of what remains is damaged beyond salvage. Certainly it would be cheaper to just start over.

[@absalomdraconis]

​@@matthewerwin4677 : A proper flame diverter might be a few months, not a year.

[@jaydonbooth4042]

Lmao, your live reaction was appropriate Scott. Also, holy crap that crater under the OLM was way worse than it looked in the first pic available.

[@SeanCMonahan]

Right? They may have more Starships ready to go, but they sure as hell need a new launchpad lol

[@SlartiMarvinbartfast]

@@SeanCMonahan What they also need is a flame diverter and a good deluge system. Still, at least B7 carved out some concrete and earth to get things started. 🙂

[@JULIAN11.]

@@SeanCMonahan Reports have begun to come through that certain hangar near Starship OLIT in Cape Canaveral is preparing to move a big ring to Brownsville port... The door in the mount was blown open and is probably somewhere several hundred meters away, the extremely heavy blast reinforced door, so did the door on the Booster QD so it is probable that the entire inside of the table is toasted Either way, I think it is a good idea to whatch and see what they will do, they have to change things for the next flight; concrete won't magically resist Superheavy

[@NeonVisual]

@@SeanCMonahanThe OLM isn't a launchpad.

[@michaelangelosiracusa]

Also, is that Tom Scott standing behind in a light grey hoody?

[@Darisiabgal7573]

I think there are a couple of problems. 1. The one thing you noted was the lag, my concern is that the launch clamps held the vehicle a bit too long. 2. Once it actually started moving it actually had pretty good acceleration, i will have to inspect the telemtry, but it seems to be higher than net 2 meters per second. - So I wonder if they thought they werent getting enough power, increased power to compensate for sticky launch clamp, and when that clamp finally released sent a shock wave up the system causing an O2 leak. -The problem might not have been immediately obvious, when the craft passed max Q tears in the skin of the craft might have allowed reconvergece shock wave to damage internal components. I think their rocket has too much fin on the top and not enough steering on the bottom. I would have the boost stage shorter and wider as this would give more control. Having it shorter means you have it higher of the pad and the ejecta is over a wider area, however see bottom, given the ISP this is hardly going to make that much of a difference. BTW, i did note the debris, if you look carefully, as the main engines clear the smoke there were a couple of large pieces of debris following them. It could be the case that erosion of the launch base caused the launch clamps to bind. After the rocket launched there was a huge piece of debris that i spotted behind the Launch tower. This ISP of those 327 which translates to an exhausted velocity of 3240 m/s or about 7000 mph. At the center of the plume its pretty much a gigantic plasma torch. Imagine that cutting through concrete.

[@beardy4831]

If there was a problem just after separation from pad, better to let it get as high as possible before destruction. Otherwise that's a big explosion going off at ground level and all the pad infrastructure would be toast. As well as probably damage to surrounding homes and buildings.

[@atigerclaw]

That was the most Kerbal launch failure I've seen out of Space-X so far. Most people would say just exploding is the most Kerbal. But ask yourself if the following sounds like literally everyone's experience with a KSP launch at some point: You have this oversized stack on the pad, and stupid amounts of engines. Something breaks almost the moment you launch because there's always that one staging error... Worried, but undaunted, you pilot the inherently unstable and off-axis-thrust rocket to medium altitude, but you can already see the control slipping away as the air gets thinner and the CoM of the rocket shifts to the upper stage. It begins to slowly tumble, but your struts hold. However, the tumble ruins your outbound trajectory, so the rocket starts to fall back into the atmosphere. You desperately try to recover, but it just continues to cartwheel, and finally something snaps, and the chain-explosions begin. You enjoy the show before reverting to VAB.

[@timschafer2536]

It would be very interesting to know if a majority of failures can be back traced to damage due to flying debris of stage zero. I would not be surprised if some engines were struck.

[@radekmoh8452]

Jeśli błędy z platforma startową są tak oczywiste to dlaczego dostali zgodę na start.

[@hankkingsley9183]

I would bet on it

[@charliebrown8278]

More importantly, it definitely looks like hydraulics were messed up badly. Probably no gimballing once they failed. The new all electric gimbal will solve that. Well… that and stop heaving massive chunks of concrete at it.

[@fireofenergy]

Computer modeling of the concrete under such a force must have been premature. Microscopic cracks torn into gaping potholes which allow "reverse eddies" to kick large chunks of concrete everywhere, possibly even against the obvious flow of force.

[@spaceranger3728]

The Shuttle's first flight had a massive impulse like that that reflected back and knocked hundreds of tiles off and nearly exceeded the body flap hinge moment, which would have been a loss-of-vehicle situation. It was a long time until the next flight and they had to install the water suppression system and do a lot of mods. Too many engines to keep track of on this vehicle. It's a kludge.

[@dillduvee7040]

I'm so happy they actually show you what's going on in real time. Feels like I'm watching a KSP video haha

[@johnbigelson7471]

Except they didnt - notice the engine active diagram didn't correspond immediately to the real-time losses.

[@daansteeman5227]

Right! Being to low and just keeping it more vertical to compensate... if there ever was the kerbal thing to do... it's that. "crap, it isn't going the way I want, oh well, just fudge the flightpath a bit" xD

[@DonnaPinciot]

@@johnbigelson7471 The systems probably can't detect it immediately. It could be a few moments before it stops receiving data, or it notices the fault.

[@aaronwestley3239]

Well for starters he's not born in America

[@Dangerooman]

@@johnbigelson7471 ever heard of data transmission speed and delay? the hud we are seeing might not even be directly connected to the actual flight computers or anything, just done independently by one of the production crew or something as well.

[@bretthoffstadt]

Thanks Scott. I hadn't thought that blast debris knocked out a couple of engines (and possibly more damage) but now that seems very likely. Great recap and analysis!

[@kenwittlief255]

you are correct a few engines failed to ignite several more were either damaged by the pad debris, or they tore themselves apart, along with the hydraulics being damaged the rocket was damaged BEFORE it cleared the tower, possibly before it lifted off the pad this was not a successful flight by any means also, the 6 NASA manned flights to the moon had a Lunar Lander that functioned as its own launch pad for the part of the spacecraft that took off from the moon. The chances of landing this Spacex rocket on the moon, without it toppling over from settling, and then taking off again without the rocket blast causing similar damage to the engines, are highly questionable.

[@Stoney3K]

@@kenwittlief255 You can see pieces of debris falling off from the rocket's midsection during the early ascent. Might be the debris from HPU failure.

[@FleetAdmiralDouglas]

@@kenwittlief255 They are not going to land the whole rocket on the moon, just the top half (Starship). The rocket they designed for it will also have rockets on the side to guide it down. With the Moon having much lower gravity than Earth, they will not need nearly as much thrust as they would here.

[@fredfred2363]

The engineer in me thinks that flying rock debris on the moon or mars is going to be a problem. Personally I think "the Apollo way" of doing mars (and moon) missions, is going to be the only method. You NEED a launch platform. Can't chance a rock flying up causing damage.

[@Stoney3K]

@@fredfred2363 Don't forget that Starship will take off on its own from the moon or Mars, so no big boosters with 33 sea-level Raptor engines to take into account.

[@KougaJ7]

4:58 you can quite clearly see that 6 engines are out (2x 2 in the outer ring and 2x 1 in the outer ring and middle), not 5 as per the HUD.

[@EASYTIGER10]

I'm amazed the 2 bits of Starship stayed attached to each other for as long as they did. The stresses as it twisted and turned must have been incredible.

[@MrGriff305]

Yes. Astronauts should be excited to experience that. Confidence is high.

[@liquidpatriot4480]

​@@MrGriff305 it's called RND, for testing new technology, not for riding yet silly.

[@NBDY-lp9vp]

I don't think so. The air is quite thin at that altitude - about as thin as on the surface of mars or so no much resistance. Also the spin was slow so again no much stress. But had it kept falling at some point it would have started spinning faster and bending of the airframe would have exceeded structural limits..

[@MrGriff305]

@@liquidpatriot4480 Lol.. I prefer the SLS RND. It went around the Moon on the first try and didn't pull a million Gs before detonating.

[@MrGriff305]

@@NBDY-lp9vp I see that you're a physics expert.

[@Togidubnus]

To me, the Manley Version is always the definitive version, and the wait was worth it. Deep insight as always. Thank you! I've got to say, though, that their Stage Zero was always going to be smithereens. I mean, what were they thinking? SLS very nearly wrote off its launch pad, so there was a precedent.

[@rtlibby]

@@DelPlays No way they intended to flip before staging.

[@therocinante3443]

100%

[@astrowuff]

I'm amazed about how much in-depth information he got so quickly while also being at some kind of convention...

[@digi3218]

​​@@DelPlays Like Scott said the engines should cut off before stage separation so I don't think it was even initiated. I think some of the hydraulics failed for the thrust vector controls and along with some engines out (also just a thought there was less air to help stabilize the rocket .. if that even makes sense) it started whipping around and ultimately started bending before it was terminated.

[@NazriB]

Lies again? UDK Module Google Drive

[@BennyKleykens]

We're not going to be sending humans to Mars anytime soon.

[@Pete_Finch]

It was wild to see that thing even lift off of the ground - I expected much worse and was pleasantly surprised. One of the cooler things I've seen in my lifetime of watching these launches regardless of eventual disintegration

[@kwuite1738]

I love that after it failed my immediate response was, "Can't wait for the Scott Manley video explaining what I just saw."

[@lewisvanatta639]

You were not the only one! ;-) (Although Angry Astronaut had a pretty good video this morning, too).

[@Forke13]

Haha, me too. The second the explosion has passed. 😅

[@nagualdesign]

Same. I didn't even bother to rewatch the launch.

[@tomt5054]

Why some people think it was success? To me it was failed no excuse. I’m sure they’re not planning for it to explode just collect data.

[@deadoon]

​@@tomt5054 Objectives. It completed it's primary objectives and was able to complete some of it's secondary ones. The fact that it didn't complete all of them is not means for failure, it just means that more work needs to be done to rectify areas which are deficient. Some of those deficiencies may not have been able to be known prior to real world testing.

[@avsrule247]

SpaceX engineers were patiently waiting for this video Scott could tell them what went wrong

[@glassesstapler]

naw, I think they were too busy patting themselves on the back for saving money on the launch mount... oops

[@anssiluomaranta34]

Nah. Just revert and add more boosters!

[@Highspeedfutzi]

Come on guys don’t be toxic…

[@grantwells4491]

I think everyone was waiting for Scott’s video 😆

[@kentstallard6512]

​@@HighspeedfutziLike Musk?

[@Aurumai]

This is the first video of yours I've seen and I've got to say I'm impressed with how thorough you are about explaining your theories and supporting them with technical information. Great video!

[@Hunter_Bidens_Crackpipe_]

He's a psychopath

[@ghislainedidntkillherself]

you should definitely subscribe to him. he is arguably one of the most important space communicators. and he is also just a lovable dude

[@si2foo]

he does this all the time.

[@Ottee2]

This is nominal for Scott Manley videos. We've grown to expect it.

[@mervstash3692]

shame most of it was wrong

[@jollyjack5856]

Respect! Great video, packed with info and specifics. Extremely well done. You'll be my go-to source on these things now.

[@joyl7842]

The fact that it didn't come apart spinning like that at those angles and speeds had me very surprised. That's one heck of a strong structure.

[@amcname494]

The forces must have been tremendous.

[@alesksander]

Almost too heavy. :d So a lot room for optimization or a lot of room for many reuses. Depends how u look at it i Guess.

[@himenaaa3565]

yeah it totally strong structure but the structure has maximum limit stress, probably it already reaching maximum stress level making the materials disintegrate faster, since it combined the atmospheric force created heat and the burning fuel adding more heat

[@stevensmith7949]

Could they shave off some weight to increase the payload?

[@joyl7842]

@@stevensmith7949 It was already flying without a payload.

[@ejreob]

I'm super impressed by the whole thing spinning and going that much off prograde without disintegrating. Don't think I've ever seen a rocket do that before. Outside of KSP of course, where my rockets pretty much always do a somersault at some point before achieving orbit.

[@MindzEnt]

Yeah it wasn't supposed to do that, that rocket should have kicked in safety measure as soon as it started spinning to prevent that thing from becoming a missile and possibly kill thousands of people, but keep being impressed.

[@reginaldbentworth9159]

@@MindzEnt range safety has parameters if it had violated them the vehicle would have been terminated

[@mythrin]

@@MindzEnt The safety measure was literally the flight termination system destroying the rocket. But keep being stupid.

[@Reazintful]

@@MindzEnt actually, if the rockets trajectory is safe on guidance (they are tracking the thing, ya know) they will let it get closer to the ground/water to minimize debri field. FTS is not always instantly triggered after failure. spacex also doesnt fully control this, there is an FAA range safety officer onsite that makes the call.

[@serena-yu]

A Russian Proton rocket once did half a circle, and ... disintegrated as expected. No one was surprised because that was like throwing a skyscrapper into a laundry machine. The structure of the Starship is phenomenal.

[@brandsplanet4381]

It's so satisfying to watch SpaceX Rockets explode.

[@jonathan_123]

Thats not Happening often so...

[@java4653]

​@@jonathan_123 LOL. But this irresponsible waste of taxpayer money did, Musk Cultist.

[@jonathan_123]

@@java4653 Space x is a private company.

[@canwelook]

@Jonathan Try researching their funding buddy.

[@grahamf57]

60 years ago the guys at NASA designed and built Launch Complex 39 at Cape Canaveral, Florida. High Water table, swampy and mosquito infected land. They built launch pads 45 feet above nominal ground level, with flame trenches, designed flame deflectors, put a great big hole underneath the Saturn V, and in November 1967, the first of 13 Saturn V launched perfectly. I know hindsight is particularly useful, but don't the people today recognise the experience and foresight of their predecessors? It was always a ridiculous assumption (in my opinion) that something so huge and powerful as this would simply lift into the heavens without the basic ground precautions which were significant to the success of the Saturn V and the Apollo programme.

[@canwelook]

Yep. Elon had successfully reverted rocket science back more than 60 years.

[@PanzerschrekCN]

Tom Scott and Scott Manley? Best crossover ever!

[@coreyclarke6929]

at T+1:28, you can see a massive fire in the engine skirt at the center, i think that the hydraulics are leaking everywhere at this point and spraying out into the exhaust plume causing the plume to burn orange, also this would explain the loss of control at the end as the hydraulics have completely run out of oil.

[@thewiirocks]

I’ve been wondering what was going on there. Hydraulic problems would make a lot of sense.

[@bumponalog7164]

Hopefully the engine failures were due to external factors because if the engines were eating themselves that might take a long time to fix.

[@gedw99]

Either the pad debris puctutrs hydraulic lines And / or The self destructing engines did it . My money is on the pad debris damaging the hydraulic lines , because I would have presumed that they designed for engine failures to not cause adjacent hydraulic line failures .

[@coreyclarke6929]

@@gedw99 Ageed, but Scott Manley and Marcus house both noted a flash at the HPU, I am thinking when the engine under HPU blew up, the explosion went out the engine shroud side and up the HPU assembly, things cascaded from there...

[@eh1600]

Should have a pit under the launchpad like the soyuz

[@jackallread]

Thanks Scott, always enjoy your commentary and insight!!

[@rodsprague369]

I think the internal view and the view looking down the rocket were supposed to capture the staging event. Also, at times during the tumble, I saw engine rich exhaust green a good distance from the vehicle.

[@thomasreese2816]

Looks like Tom Scott made a surprise appearance, watching the launch with you 😮

[@itsprochy]

Also spotted Tom immediately, now I *have* to know what that is about!!!

[@IstasPumaNevada]

Also noticed them immediately, despite the lack of red shirt. :D

[@u1zha]

Good catch.

[@rednammoc]

Also looks like Integza & AlphaPhoenix there too

[@NFS305]

Wearing a mask. Ugh.

[@tperk]

Best technical explanation yet, Scott you do not disappoint.

[@Petrvsco]

Very good, but I disagree with the max q on re-entry. Termination happened way above ascent max q (not very dense atmosphere) and the rocket is not accelerating at n descent as it was on ascent. Agree 100% that the root of the problem happened on launching. Even for a test flight having so many engines failing is good evidence.

[@captaintoyota3171]

​@@Petrvsco good 4 you

[@karenrobertsdottir4101]

@@Petrvsco When you keep in mind how huge that rocket is, the scale of those chunks of concrete flying up around the rocket is truly terrifying. Many years back, I predicted that ultimately, Stage Zero is just going to be a tower (on Earth, a floating spar), with no semblance of a pad. I think we keep showing more and more that this is where we're headed. Heck, maybe some day even the connection with the thrust puck will be ditched, relying solely on grid fin connections at multiple heights up the rocket body (I know the thrust puck is a convenient place to bear loads, as it already has to be able to bear the weight of of the rocket (and then some), but a hanging rocket is "structures in tension", not compression, so I don't expect much of a mass penalty from going that route, and it'd mean you don't have to have *anything* blasted by those engines)

[@virnin7759]

@@karenrobertsdottir4101 If the rocket has to transition from a structure in tension to a structure in compression, I think it would greatly enhance the pogo problem, forcing significant changes to the design.

[@willl7780]

never fails...my go to guy...i wish i was half as smart as scot lol

[@craigdeandean4036]

Great explanation of what went wrong Scott thank you I really enjoy your channel!

[@Haymaker75]

Awesome analysis Scott - thank you as always!

[@Ding_Bat]

The fact that the structure held up that long while spinning out of control at 2,000kph is amazing!

[@aserta]

The launch pad didn't tho. It's junk because the supreme leader opted out of a diverter. It's been ablated to shit and back and you can see the rebar inside what was, once, concrete. That's a fail of epic proportions. This isn't about rocket successes, it's about how much corner cutting they've done. I wouldn't trust my life on any amount of wins knowing that the dildo of consequences can arrive at any moment. Unlubbed.

[@MartinDlabaja]

​@@aserta your argument is not based on facts: 1. no flame diverters has a reson - landing on mars or moon - there will be no diverters also, its may be good to test the consequences of that 2. SpaceX uses a different approach of quick prototyping, where failure is expected, it is a different approach to building stuff instead of slow steady progress I am not a Musk fanboy, but it is still to reason using some facts before hating him because he is "emperor" I would probably do the same and try my best but stll be a hated and polarizing figure, as well as you ... or anyone else

[@anteshell]

@@MartinDlabaja Come on. Don't spoil good baseless whining with facts.

[@larryboy2222]

@@MartinDlabaja the first stage will never be used on Mars. That’s not a good excuse for not having a flame diverter

[@dustman96]

@@aserta Perhaps you should ponder the difference between the way nasa does things and the iterative process that spacex uses. Analyzing failures gives them an enormous amount of data. You can launch and destroy at least 10 starships for the price of one SLS launch. If this thing eventually works it will save hundreds of billions and change space travel in a monumental way. Not to mention, in this scenario the public doesn't have to pay for the failures.

[@eicdesigner]

I know next to nothing about rockets, but always come here for a thorough explanation that presents technical data in a relatable manner. Thank you again, Scott, for making a complicated subject easy for anyone to understand.

[@craignapoli]

Ditto.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

I am becoming more pessimistic about the entire project , especially, after seeing the crater under the star ship platform. What else did Elon musk not foresee?

[@asantebacala3365]

This launch system will never reach orbit. Going back to the Saturn V rocket, Von Braun wanted a larger rocket. NASA nixed that idea, because the stresses on such a large rocket during flight was not possible. I guess NASA was right. Looking forward to the next explosion, which may never happen, since the FAA has grounded Starship for the foreseeable future.

[@flintprayerchain]

Scott, we need more detail and conjecture from you regarding the events seen during the launch: T+00:28 parts shedding from vehicle, T+00.32 bright flash in exhaust, T+01:11 intermittent bright flashes, T+01:56 big flare in exhaust plume, T+0.02:14 cloud/explosion inside the interstage skirt. Love your analysis so far!

[@sweaterdog5475]

Somethin Scott forgot to mention which was NOT supposed to happen is a relighting of a booster engine which has no hardware to use to reignite the engine, It was most likely turned back on by having the turbopumps continue running but had a failure with combustion before the event.

[@amotriuc]

Thank you Scott, You are one of the few on KZbin who reports facts with good explanation and no hype. I do respect your integrity.

[@fietae]

Idk man must be you falling for clickbait too often. I havent gotten a single hype video on this

[@-.._.-_...-_.._-..__..._.-.-.-]

This launch took me right back to my KSP days, when I launched rockets without doing any math.

[@JP-xd6fm]

When you see the bunch of guys with caps in control room you may understand it...

[@imageingredients8110]

Just like Space X! Lol

[@jasonupton2765]

How the thing stayed in one piece with how much weight was in stage 2 vs the emptying stage one... Only Jebediah would be able to save it.

[@Le_Comte_de_Monte_Felin]

@Scott Manley - Thank you for your informative and entertaining videos. This 62 year old guy learns a lot from both you and Mars Guy. I don't know if my grandkids will be raising hell on Mars but thanks to you & MG I'm able to envision what the future could be like.

[@Shademarc]

Fantastic test, waiting for the next launch with great hopes!

[@enkidu78]

Been waiting for this update since the launch, you are the most technical space KZbinrs. Love the content 👍🏻

[@stevebeal73]

me too!

[@Galerak1]

Pretty much the same here. I saw loads of media outlet 'sensationalism' titles and lots of YT creator clickbait titles but I held out knowing Scott would give us his no-nonsense assessment as soon as he could.

[@SlartiMarvinbartfast]

Yup, this is the one I've been waiting for. Really great and I hope Scott does an even deeper analysis in the next few days as more info becomes available.

[@yumazster]

Same here. Main media coverage was very crimgeworthy. I believe Chris Hadfield had to explain facts of life to one of the presenters because it is rarely prearranged for the TV talking head to hear that they were entirely wrong on air 😊

[@Alex-bn9xx]

When it did those flips with the second stage attached and did not break up it was truly an amazing sign of engineering

[@atakama2380]

it was not to Fast for that altitude

[@LongTran-em6hc]

Must have autostrut turned on

[@stardolphin2]

Indeed. I couldn't see it live, but when watching video later, I'm sure I *would* have wondered at one or two points in that gyration if they might still stabilize it and more-or-less continue... But at least it got past Max-Q and *almost* to staging, so there's plenty of reason for hope in that...

[@samgriess438]

lol you realize that wasn't by design

[@sys3248]

They failed to release 2nd stage that actually can land by itself.

[@grantjohnston6152]

I am so happy this blew up! I hope the next one does as well! And on and on... But with absolutely NO loss of life.

[@mirage1500]

At least they have most of the excavation for the deluge system done now, but it definitely would have been cheaper to use an excavator. I so wanted to see if the heat tiles were going to work.

[@hjalfi]

I was waiting for this! It's not official until Scott Manley does an analysis! Also, I really hope SpaceX release all the on-board footage. I want to see all the details.

[@nogoodnameleft]

It's funny how they were happily releasing everything until the disaster happened, isn't it? I thought the SpaceX cultists were saying that this was a "Success" and "WINNING" though....so why don't they release all the videos?

[@tonywood3660]

It went bang! What else do you need to know? 😊

[@Mafuskas]

I also hope we get to see footage from the WB-57 as well!

[@NavinBetamax]

@@tonywood3660 ...would like to know if it was Big, Small or Medium ...Bang - that is !!! Lol !

[@cybhunter007]

@@tonywood3660 With an engineering mind, you don't take things face value; you look at a problem, your mind start hypothesizing the process.

[@Dangerooman]

words cannot describe how excited i am to see a skyscraper belly flop from the heavens to spin upright and get caught by another skyscraper.

[@aaronhanes1828]

Great video! Good comprehensive review of the aftermath of the launch. 🙂👍

[@gabrielmaitre4034]

I have been waiting for Scott’s take on this!

[@draconightwalker4964]

same here, should be good

[@marcusberger7324]

so have I!!!!!

[@LegacyUser]

It was an absolutely Kerbal launch. One of the coolest things I have seen. Great analysis as always.

[@freeculture]

Well, now we know why the game doesn't let you launch your giant rocket using the cheap launch pad. Ah Elon found the hard way 🙂

[@falsevacuum4667]

@@freeculture I don't think they "found out the hard way". As the video mentioned, they were well aware of the launch pad requirements. They were just trying their best to keep those at a minimum because they won't have a launch pad on Mars.

[@forbidden-cyrillic-handle]

It was a KSP2 ad.

[@IsaacNewtongue]

That's quite the star-studded cast you've got in the background during the launch!

[@Vitnir3]

This is why I wait for Scotts video, better than any newspaper.

[@MarkCarline]

Looking forward to Scott's breakdown of what happened

[@WarrenGarabrandt]

I bet they simply forgot to check their staging. Happens to me all the time in KSP.

[@SlartiMarvinbartfast]

@@WarrenGarabrandt There was a lot more to it than that - firstly not enough speed, wrong altitude, also Starship relies on a 'flip and separate' to separate the ship from the booster (it's far simpler than Falcon 9's arrangement).

[@Dusto9]

​@@SlartiMarvinbartfast Don't be silly, all of those things are just the result of forgetting to check the staging. Any experienced kerbonaut can confirm that.

[@dmurray2978]

Hpu damaged, no gimbal, flips.

[@Jehty_]

@@WarrenGarabrandt looks more like they forgot to turn on SAS.

[@larsliamvilhelm]

The fact that it didn't immediately snap in half after tumbling around like that is very structurally impressive.

[@pauligrossinoz]

The atmosphere at 38km is extremely thin, as Scott pointed out, so it's not very impressive. Aerodynamic drag is very small at that height, putting very little force on the structure compared to the engine thrust. If you watched the video, you'd see that the rocket actually bent, then it exploded, as it fell down into the thicker atmosphere after the engines ran out of fuel.

[@larsliamvilhelm]

@@pauligrossinoz It started tumbling at 25 km of altitude and it reached max q at 15 km. There was still a shitload of drag at the point it started tumbling.

[@pauligrossinoz]

@@larsliamvilhelm - no, it started it's pitch maneuver at the 25 km mark while still _ascending._ During that part of the ascent it was still pushing almost straight upwards into the much thinner atmosphere above 25 km. Thus there was only a small amount of aerodynamic drag at that stage, as the ascent max-Q had already been passed. The _descent_ meant that the rocket reached another max-Q, the descent max-Q, and then bent at the join from the aerodynamic forces, followed moments later by the self-destruct. The structure _did not_ cope with the reentry drag. You really should watch the video before commenting.

[@larsliamvilhelm]

@@pauligrossinoz He literally says in the video that they started to lose control. I'm starting to doubt that you even watched the vid yourself, and is just a Elon Musk hater who wants something to nitpick/complain about.

[@pauligrossinoz]

@@larsliamvilhelm - "starting to lose control" isn't the same as experiencing great aerodynamic stresses. The rocket experienced great aerodynamic stress _as it descended,_ then it bent and exploded, _as I already said._ I'm starting to think that you are cognitively impaired. 🙄

[@boxborolad]

This is a great post & explanation, as usual from you. Thanks & I'm trying to share it with my fellow space nerds. All the best and keep up the excellent content!

[@martyanderson3390]

You’re the best Scott, keep up the excellent work!

[@fsclips]

It seems the real genius of starship is that it digs it's own flame trench on take off 😊. Very cool launch and I loved every minute of it.

[@Real28]

I said, if they were all just wanting it to "clear the pad", would it count if the vehicle just "moved" the pad somewhere else? 🤣🤣

[@iandennis1]

Great review! Nice to see someone looking at this in a methodical and balanced manor.

[@DrNickAG]

Agreed! Answered a lot of the questions I was asking, but no other reporting provided. Thank you for your excellent journalism on this.

[@QuantumHistorian]

Yep. Some people put it down as a complete failure, and others as an "unqualified success" because it cleared the minimal mission objective which was to clear the launchpad. Really, it's a mixed bag, and a first look at the likely failure modes (at least two: stage 0 and attitude control) was insightful.

[@SlartiMarvinbartfast]

The first so far, other analyses pale in comparison to Scott's.

[@romanroad483]

@@QuantumHistorian A partial success. No one seems to say this.

[@DrDeuteron]

his house is perfectly straight.

[@i-love-space390]

The idea that Stage 0 is going to be the real driver on flight rate and turnaround on the Starship Launch System is the big elephant in the room. The more complexity you offload onto Stage 0, the more of the system you lose if something goes wrong. One disaster on launch or recovery, and your fleet of SuperHeavies and Starships is grounded. By planning on recovering the booster AND the Starship at the pad, you are doubling or tripling your chances of destroying the pad. And one could argue that recovery is even more unpredictable and dangerous than launch.

[@slaction]

So doing the right thing is harder than doing the easy thing? Good insight there bud.

[@romeoarchila7492]

Scott thanks for explaining this in detail, very helpful video.

[@tiagdvideo]

The best post launch summary out there - as always. Thanks Scott.

[@mikec1096]

no kidding, I was really waiting for this.

[@masterofwriters4176]

0:38 hold on is that tom scott?

[@pBlackcoat]

That was my first thought!

[@namraj1]

Thanks for the in-depth look at the launch.

[@dustinplatt6882]

This rocket launch is exactly what happens to me when I'm in bed with my gf. It's chaotic thrust at the beginning, 30 seconds of supersonic thrust, and an explosion at the end, then random clapping in the background.

[@doneB830]

I am very impressed with the structural strength of the rocket. This is huge because it’s easy to lower strength but probably impossible the other way. A huge success to their structural engineers.

[@waynesimpson2074]

Yes, its a pity the same team responsible for the structural integrity of the rocket weren't involved with the design and engineering of the launch platform

[@doneB830]

@@waynesimpson2074 yes so true, I can’t believe that they use concrete.

[@OpiatesAndTits]

Rofl your impressed? If NASA treated space travel like spaceX does as if it’s software their just loading up to see if the bug was fixed it would be a national scandal. The fact Musk is allowed to be so reckless with multi megatons of explosive fuel around protected nature reserves containing endangered species including turtles WHO ARE HATCHING SOON is black stain on our regulators. Where the fuck are the adults? Do you have any idea how much damage a fully fueled star ship could do? The explosion would be measured in Hiroshima’s. Yes it’s that bad and that’s not hyperbole- the explosive potential if the thing went off on the pad and fully detonated the fuel would be comparable to setting off a bloody nuke. It’s insane this man child is allowed to play with rockets like a 12 year old strapping bottle rockets to his plastic army men to “see what happens”. This is not how rocket science is done. I can’t wait to see the environmental implications of this latest fiasco. When was the last launch at Boca Chica that didn’t result in a fire and or explosion? We shouldn’t be encouraging this behavior with “better luck” next times. Also if the structural engineers are the ones who designed the fuel tanks then they are actually very bad at their jobs. I guess we won’t see change until someone is actually killed.

[@kingblondie7075]

I think there's a setting for that, they probably had damage turned off.

[@awuma]

@@doneB830 Elon said they were building a big steel pad to cover the surface, but it wasn't ready in time, and they thought the concrete could survive one launch.

[@jameskrych7767]

Plenty of videos about this, but you didn't fail to perform up to par. Great job on the analysis, Scott!

[@635574]

And he doesnt take 50m

[@vladpalets]

guys gather around, James Krych said this video is up to par!! holy shit, everyone thank him for his approval

[@PrestonWatches]

Which other analysis videos do you recommend? There are too many

[@jameskrych7767]

@@PrestonWatches Too many is right. There is one that takes 50m and goes frame by frame.

[@theboatgoat]

Thanks Scott, Great Analysis, i was waitong for this video!

[@robertcase4995]

Thanks for a great analysis.

[@amanichristopher719]

Thank you so much Scott. As always you have given out the most detailed explanation than every body out there. Very reliable and makes all sense.

[@snufkin84]

Far better than the Elon fanboys that’s for sure

[@lorsod3380]

@@snufkin84 really saying that the spacex workers are feeling bad they are feeling good about it scott thinks he knows more than elon

[@BillAnt]

Another great Manley presentation. :)

[@nogoodnameleft]

@@lorsod3380 The same SpaceX cultists here who are screaming "Success!!!" even though this was a catastrophic failure would be shaming and trashing NASA if they had a Saturn 1, Saturn 5, or SLS launch fail badly. There has never been a Saturn or SLS failure while Starship has 1 launch and 1 failure. The launch pad has been completely destroyed by Starship and the debris that it caused due to poor construction destroyed at least 8 of the 33 engines. So much "winning"!!!! SpaceX cultists could be seeing a complete disaster happening at 1 second with a 500 yard crater being created and catastrophic damage everywhere and they would still be screaming "That was awesome!!! SUCCESS!!!!!"

[@vanstry]

The biggest problem with stage 0 is, as you said: Mars. There won't be a stage 0 there, unless they bring it with them. Then again, there won't be that massive booster on Mars either. So it will be interesting to see how they deal with this.

[@nick_0]

Yeah super heavy isn't what's going to be taking off from Mars, and the gravity there is 1/3 of Earth's so the thrust required to reach orbit will be significantly lower thus the plume cloud will be minimal when launching. Although I will note that the design specifications posed to NASA for a Lunar landing has the thrusters located at the top of the vessel meaning that they acknowledge the need to lessen the debris and crater size caused by landing and takeoff.

[@simonoconnor7759]

Very little relevance, as only Starship, not super heavy, will ever need to take off from the surface. Without either the gravity or atmospheric pressure there is less force reflecting back at the rocket. Sound vibration will be 1/100 or less compared to Earth. Starship has less engines, and could potentially use a lower throttle setting for initial lift off from Mars. To overcome it's own mass, it will only need 1/3rd the lift that it would on Earth. IMO, there was no good reason to try and launch Super Heavy without a proper flame trench and deluge system, and the subsequent damage and loss of vehicle were entirely predictable.

[@greenlamp9219]

the way they will deal with it is elon will continue to postpone the deadline for ever getting to mars for another two more weeks and convince more investors to pour more money into spacex funding without anyone even asking the question why are we even going to mars in the first place?

[@Tom-xd4ct]

You think they are going to Mars? Lol

[@keeganhenderson24]

Why not place iron or even titanium plates under the rocket instead of concrete? Or just a thick layer of iron in addition to the concrete?

[@Shredderbox]

The decision to not use any kind of flame diverter was obviously a cost cutting measure, it absolutely smacks of "an engineer told us this would happen, but the MBAs knew better and wanted a bonus".

[@Secretlyanothername]

It's more like: the engineers told us, but Elon said no.

[@SR-fx5sm]

Elon: "we're launching on 420.."

[@XenZenSen]

Part of it is that they want to launch from Mars and the moon i think.

[@jonathanyoke6585]

It's a combination of these comments. Some engineers said "we should wait until we're done building the steel heat sink pad," others said "Send It." Elon said "wait we could launch on 4/20? Send It." I used to work at SpaceX. Sometimes you just Send It and see what happens. Especially when the risk to personnel and/or customer payloads is low. See: the Falcon 9 booster landings or the entire history of Starlink.

[@rdablock]

isn't the entire point of SpaceX to cut costs? it's a bean counter's game

[@wingman8586]

Great recap!

[@biplaneflights]

Excellent summary - thank you. Yes, no point in launching any more Starships from Starbase until they sort out the launch pad. Given previous damage on tests, damage to the pad on a fully-stacked flight was inevitable. The booster was probably fatally wounded by flying concrcete before it had even cleared the tower - particularly given its lateral movement.

[@vicroc4]

This could've been prevented if they'd built a flame diverter or a water deluge system. Like the ones they use with their other, successful, rocket the Falcon 9. Whoever decided to ignore those mission-critical pieces of hardware during the design and planning stages has only proven they're a moron.

[@HunterAllyn]

Definitely what I'm thinking. After seeing close pics of the launchpad, it's positively anemic, almost embarrassing how little it's built up. Sure it makes sense to want to test how it will operate on other planets, but for the home base? They gotta beef that shit up, considerably. Plus, no flame diverter almost made it so the crowd couldn't see the rocket rising! The tip barely outpaced the rising smoke! Probably the biggest flaw in the Starship system atm

[@Fe4rN4ught]

Had the same thought watching those several ton chunks flying hundreds.of feet into the air

[@Ampelmannchen42]

I don't really see a point in using the "other planet" take-off ability when there wouldn't be a concrete launch pad there anyway. Why not just use a water dampening system like almost every other launch from Earth and use this just as a needed learning experience?

[@user2C47]

​@@Ampelmannchen42 Also, they don't plan on launching the booster from other planets.

[@fiveoneecho]

This was easily the best thing I have ever watched live. I bet they learned a lot about Raptor and it would seem like they should know all they need to about Stage 0 to get that worked out now. Edit: like, after thousands of hours over the years playing KSP, I have always wanted to see a rocket just tumble like they often do in the game... Man... Never thought I would actually get to check that one off- and with the largest rocket ever constructed, no less!

[@mrs.6813]

Nice and clear explanation. Thanks!

[@johnteves2231]

As a veteran of the aerospace industry, I have attended several launches. When I watched this live I couldn’t figure out why people in the office were cheering what I thought to be a command destruct.

[@malaweyeelizabethandromeda14]

Not highschool chum who started out at SpaxeX as an aerospace engineer and went into management at SpaceX "that place is a cult of personality". Acting like a failure is a victory is...a problem lol

[@swaxtastic]

A massive booster which was never flown before, launched and got all the way to stage separation. That is a huge success.

[@FleetAdmiralDouglas]

I think most of them were expecting it to blow up on the pad.

[@JohanAndersson78]

Also, look at the LOX consumption at T-00.55 (4:38 in the video). The LOX dropped super fast for a few seconds.

[@stefanschneider3681]

Was waiting for your words on that milestone, and you didn‘t dissapoint, as always, thanks!

[@authorwes]

Outstanding presentation.

[@carlstenger5893]

Great video. Excellent analysis. Thanks!

[@grexursorum6006]

KSP actually taught me something. As soon as i saw the sideways movement as it tryed to correct upwards back on tack, I knew it was doomed. All the engine rich exaust was obvious, but I hoped, maybe its enougth without a payload. But the slinding ruined all hopes and from this shot on I only waited for the termination. And i got serious N1 backflashes, like instant, I wish them alle the best. It ws an amazing launch

[@mikegmdw1]

the take off was late and I knew then that something was wrong - at least it didn't explode at the launch site

[@bayardkyyako7427]

Yeah for rocket scientists they sure can't do what they were hired to do huh? Almost like spacex is a scam, but naah that's too simple of an explanation to be true.

[@zanderwohl]

@@TJ-W The above commenter isn't talking about tumbling at all

[@grexursorum6006]

@@TJ-W this comment wasn't about the tumbling at all. The tumbling was the inevitable consequence of the desperate course correction manovers before. You would know if you had watched more closely in KSP 🤣 I'm a geek at best btw not a nerd 🤓

[@Smannellites]

How do you know that the sideways movement was not intentional? It would make good sense to get the rocket to move away from the launch tower to minimise the risk of contact and tower/rocket damage.

[@A.R.77]

I was surprised by so many things. It's amazing to see someone signed off on the concrete being able to stand the anticipated forces. The basic destruction of the launch pad base. I thought they had a water suppression device installed at the top of the launch pad. I guess not. The physics of the whole spectacle were so amazing to see real time and from many angles. SpaceX for sharing engine dynamics in real time and upfront with everything. For me, tops the list.

[@petergerdes1094]

Are you really shocked that Musk signed off on that? Have you been watching his management of Twitter?

[@sunspot42]

@@petergerdes1094 Exactly. SpaceX does good work when the engineers aren't overruled by his dimwitted "ideas".

[@Purpletrident]

@@petergerdes1094 This is why he should listen to the actually educated, smart workers.

[@petergerdes1094]

@@Purpletrident Well yes. But you see why that might be hard to realize if you became a billionaire by ignoring all the people who said it wouldn't work and that you were taking too many risks. There are lots of smart innovative people but it's only the tiny fraction who take big risks and repeatedly get lucky with them that become billionaires. And it's an essentially universal human feature that we credit our success to our virtue/skill not luck.

[@Purpletrident]

@@petergerdes1094 Billionaires don't become billionaires by taking risks. They're always extremely rich to begin with, from birth.

[@hendrikeilers5376]

I cant belive i never thought this was so exiting

[@StefanDembowski]

Dude, that was a great reaction by you!😁 Great analysis, thank you for sharing.

[@wadewilson524]

I know we’re supposed to be “Three cheers! Data data data!”…. But that was a huge launch infrastructure fail. These are really smart people - it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that level of damage was going to happen without a flame diverter. That energy had to go somewhere, and it was allowed to be random instead of directed away from all things important. They trashed the launch pad and a lot of ground support equipment, not to mention that FOD damage to engines and at least one HPU is likely the cause of the launch failure. I won’t be surprised if the orbital launch mount needs a near complete rebuild. At least two of the large tanks near the pad are likely damaged beyond repair as well. Elon’s estimate of two months to be ready for the next launch is absurdly optimistic, even for Elon.

[@paulhaynes8045]

At last - a sane assessment! Anyone paying any attention would have known that this was going to destroy the launchpad. And, ditto, as the engines had never been tested with all firing at once, that some - possibly many - would fail. So, why go ahead with this 'test'? Especially with a Starship on top that was pretty much guaranteed not to fly (and we also knew that some of the heat tiles would come off!). My personal theory is that the whole development has taken so long since the (only) successful Starship flight, that Musk just couldn't wait any longer. He, and his fan-boys, wanted something - anything - to happen, they didn't care what. And if it blew up, so much the better - everyone likes a pretty explosion... No way to develop a rocket.

[@5000mahmud]

Also gonna be a PITA to separate issues caused by debris vs issues endemic to the booster itself.

[@beansdad70]

I’ve been waiting for this update since launch. Scott you never disappoint.

[@RMANUEL1996]

Waw, amazing progress!!

[@hellofranky99]

It is so bizarre to hear so many people cheering in the background as the rocket was literally disintegrating in real time.

[@mikentx57]

Thank you.. I so agree on that. I was watching this and could see early on things did not seem to be going well. I could see that engine after engine was dying and all these people were cheering away. They were even cheering when you could see it was tumbling. I would think that as the people that helped build this, launch it or just work around others that did all this. That they would be very in tune with what was going right and what was going wrong with it. I would expect that when they saw it start to tumble they all would have let out a "Ohhh...", then silence. Not still cheering like they just won the Superbowl. I wonder if SpaceX does not tell everyone there what to expect. Or are they all caught up wit the feeling they (and Musk) can never have anything go wrong.

[@java4653]

They all cheered for Bush in Iraq. Delusion was built in when that group jumped to Musk Maniacs to avoid responsibility. You can see it happening in comments a decade ago.

[@canwelook]

They know the only way to hold their jobs is to make fools of themselves on video.

[@TheSkyline5467]

I appreciate how you almost always have new points to make on the topic.

[@Zappygunshot]

I remember seeing the debris spewing upwards during launch, as well as the random engine flares; but two more things of note are the change in colour of the exhaust flames, and the glassed remnants beneath the launch pad. As the rocket is spinning out of control and falling back toward the surface, you can see some of the exhaust turning greenish, which is consistent with burning metals like copper. It's likely that by this point, the rocket has gutted itself so deeply that the flames are burning up the internals of the craft. Furthermore, the closeup of the damage to the launch pad shows that the heat of the exhaust has at least partially melted ground particulates enough that they stuck together and formed globs of slag, a particularly big one of which cooled down mid-gloop right in the middle of the picture; which shows that its brief lifespan included at least a passing interest in photography and modelling which is nice.

[@ke6gwf]

Thumbs up for the humor at the end lol, but burning copper is from the engines, it's not really used in the rocket itself.

[@Laerei]

As Scott said, it's engine rich exhaust!

[@MiguelMorales85]

Great analysis

[@Lost-In-Blank]

An alternative to massively upgrading Stage Zero (along the lines I described yesterday) would be to delay going to full throttle. Do NOT exceed the maximum throttle setting tested in static fire tests on the launch pad (Stage Zero to Stage One Integration Testing). Delay full throttle until several hundred meters up. IF they could do that, then maybe they won't have to raise Stage Zero up to install a blast diverter/flame trench underneath it (and all the pump and valve changes that go with that). Maybe adding liquid cooled blast plates would be enough. They cannot dig down to create a trench due to the very high water table. But they could create a 20m high flame trench by elevating Stage Zero by a further 20m. If delaying full throttle under clear of Stage Zero is possible, that would be a cheaper and faster solution. I still cannot believe they skipped doing an all-engine full-throttle full-duration static fire test using Stage Zero and a dummy Stage One before attempting an expensive full flight test and consuming flight-ready Stages One and Two. What they learned as a result was largely limited to "Raptor engines and hydraulic controllers don't work well after being pummelled with large chunks of high velocity concrete". If they'd done the Stage Zero to One Integration Test first and solved the pad destruction problem, then the first flight test could have properly tested the Stage One Raptors, Stage One guidance systems, Stage Separation, Stage One Manoeuvring, Stage Two Raptors, Stage Two Manoeuvring, etc. As it was, the failure of Stage Zero 'severely limited' the usefulness of everything that followed.

[@LeoGB]

I assume they knew/suspected what would happen on full thrust, and if they did the static fire at full thrust they would have damaged the booster beyond usability, and delayed the first flight test by many months. This way they do at least get to learn some data from the flight as well as the fact that S0 needs a rework. If they'd done full thrust static fire, could easily have resulted in complete destruction of the launch tower if the entire thing exploded on the pad.

[@DrWhom]

blah blah blah

[@bifrostbeberast3246]

@Deipatrous, you seem overwhelmed and out of your league.

[@DanStaal]

If you can lift off with less than full throttle, you're likely carrying more engine weight than you need.

[@LeoGB]

@Daniel Staal true but this test flight had no payload that we know of, right?

[@maritimeshark1467]

7:36 S24 was still sending telemetry for about a second after the first explosion. This is likely a picture taken at that time.

[@mrrichardlaw]

I’ve been waiting patiently for your post launch analysis. So many others rush to post their videos to get the early views, but your review never disappoints. My guess is August before we see another launch 🚀

[@samgriess438]

ahhh they wont time it up with the july 4th? great firework show

[@ruslankadylak2999]

August which year?

[@AndyAtHome]

Excellent video, thank you.

[@terrykilo951]

The only discussion that I bother with. Worth the wait. Well done.

[@HOUROFPOW3R]

'It's moving! It's moving! I did not expect that' 😭😂