“SpaceX can now proceed with Starship Flight 10 launch operations under its current license.”…
  • Peppycito@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    8·
    12 days ago

    when the rocket started leaking propellant after reaching space

    Oxygen or methane?

    The final mishap report cites the probable root cause for the loss of the Starship vehicle as a failure of a fuel component.

    Oxygen or methane?

    How much?..

    • Dave.@aussie.zoneEnglish
      45·
      12 days ago

      Perhaps if you had read just a little further into the article you would have discovered the answers to your questions that were presented there.

      • Peppycito@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        53·
        12 days ago

        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.comEnglish
          5·
          12 days 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.

        • Dave.@aussie.zoneEnglish
          33·
          12 days 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.

  • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksMEnglish
    5·
    12 days ago

    SpaceX identified the most probable cause for the May failure as a faulty main fuel tank pressurization system diffuser located on the forward dome of Starship’s primary methane tank. The diffuser failed a few minutes after launch, when sensors detected a pressure drop in the main methane tank and a pressure increase in the ship’s nose cone just above the tank.

    Engineers recreated the diffuser failure on the ground during the investigation, and then redesigned the part to better direct pressurized gas into the main fuel tank. This will also “substantially decrease” strain on the diffuser structure, SpaceX said.

    I’m having difficulty visualising what this “diffuser” looks like. Is it part of the autogenous pressurisation system? Do any photos of it exist?