On Wed, 26 Apr 2023, Sauli Kiviranta via Starlink wrote:
It was interesting to see that such a "basic" thing as the launch pad structure was overlooked as a rather large problem vector. Even if it was recognized as an issue, that it turned out to be a majestic borderline catastrophic issue was surprise to me. Easy to overlook everything when scaling up. There is a great book on the topic of systems and their scaling parts when sizes change "Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth" by Geoffrey West, highly recommended.
It wasn't overlooked, they did a 7 engine static fire, it damaged the pad, so they improved it, they did a 14 engine static fire and it damaged it again, so they improved it again, they did a 31 engine 50% power static fire with minimal pad damage and had other blocks of material mounted in the engine exhaust at McGreggor. They just failed to catch some inflection point between the 50% power test and the full power test. They expected some damage to the pad, but not nearly as much as what happened.
David Lang _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
