On April 20, Elon Musk's SpaceX company made the first launch of the new Starship super-heavy rocket, the first reusable space system in history. However, four minutes after launch, the rocket exploded during the separation of the first stage. Musk said the company learned "a lot" for the next launch, which will be ready in a few months. The Insider asked space experts, science popularizers, to explain why the company still considers this launch an important milestone, and Musk himself does not assess the rocket explosion as a disaster. According to preliminary estimates of experts, the fact that the rocket rose by almost 40 km is already a success, judging by the video, the problem was in the engines, while the engineers need to put a "solid five".
Philip Terekhov, popularizer of science
Given the amount of testing and getting used to Musk's successes, I expected either a successful flight or an accident in sections that were not tested: for example, on the first stage descent or braking of the ship in the atmosphere.
Seeing in the 21st century a remake of the launches of the Soviet N-1 (or even the first launches of the R-7) from Musk is somewhat surprising. It was impossible to expect such a number of failed engines.
So far, having only information from the published video, I give a solid five to the strength engineers who created the case, which withstood abnormal loads that seem very serious. It can be seen how the automation fought to the last, trying to maintain a controlled flight. But the “engineers” were unpleasantly surprised. Mankind has become richer with unique shots of a super-heavy rocket starting against the background of flying fragments, on which some kind of flashes occur and an unexpected flame appears. It seems that she was flying, despite the explosions of the engines, and the fire in the tail section. But this, of course, is only an assumption based on the video, we are waiting for the investigation and the results.”
Vitaly Egorov, popularizer of astronautics, author of the blog Zelenyikot
“Even before these tests began, Musk already wrote on Twitter: “Even if the rocket leaves the launch pad and does not destroy it, then this can be considered a success.” In general, we can say that the rocket did even more and climbed 40 kilometers. But this is still not its final version, but a test layout or sample, which in any case was created in order to check all the weak points of the design, and he showed them to a large extent.
Of course, the entire flight program was not even close to being completed, but if we are talking about the test program, then they were successful. Previously, the first stage was not tested in flight, the full cycle of operation, too, there were only short inclusions on the launch pad.
If we talk about the negative results of this launch, then the launch pad was seriously damaged. And this consequence can be even more significant and more expensive than the destruction of a rocket. They have already learned how to build rockets quite quickly, and they have prototypes, but the modernization and repair of the launch pad and the entire complex around are more serious expenses, and some of them were clearly not laid down, because there pieces of concrete scattered hundreds of meters and caused damage to the entire infrastructure. This result is also important, because it turned out that the current design of the launch pad does not meet the safety and reliability requirements for the regular use of such a system. This is a positive result of the tests, because now it has become known. Everything was damaged, but nothing but the rocket was destroyed. The launch complex continues to operate."
Foreign experts also say that even despite the explosion, the launch can be considered successful.
Poppy Northcutt, who worked for NASA to return the Apollo missions to Earth in the 1960s, said on Twitter that people don't understand the purpose of the test flight.
“Some believe that the test launch was unsuccessful because it ended in an abort, which indicates an elementary misunderstanding of the purpose of the test flight. A test flight is a stress for the system in order to improve it. (…) To paraphrase Bill Gates, you can say that you learn more from failure than from success. The difficulty lies in coping with the situation when something goes wrong. Any idiot can handle a situation when everything is going well. When a crash occurs, you want the crash to be orderly. It's good work here."
Science columnist and PBS host Svapna Krishna, in turn, said that people who are not connected with space are confused. “Of course it would have been better if the rocket hadn’t exploded, but there’s really nothing to worry about.”
Former NASA employee, executive director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Daniel Dumbacher also refused to consider the launch a failure, despite the explosion. He stated this in an interview with NYT.
“It's a learning experience. It's not a failure, although it may look like it to some people. They will study it, sort it out, come back next time, fix these problems and move on to the next stage, in the end, they will bring it to orbit.
The launch of Starship could be watched live, after the end, a recording with an exploding rocket was published on the network. The test flight took place without a crew. According to the plan, it was supposed to last an hour and a half, while the Super Heavy booster, having separated, was supposed to splash down in the Gulf of Mexico, and Starship was supposed to go to suborbita, and then splash down in the ocean northwest of Hawaii.
The launch of Starship is considered a major milestone in SpaceX's work to send humans to the Moon and eventually Mars. The new rocket is 120 meters high and nine meters in diameter, with a total payload capacity of 150 tons in low orbit. The system consists of two reusable stages: the first is a Super Heavy with 33 Raptor methane engines, the second is a rocket and at the same time a Starship spacecraft with three Raptor thrust vectoring engines and three Raptor Vacuums.
