Great job as always Scott. One simplified way to look at this is to start with the objective of an FTS system. It is NOT to blow up the rocket (although that is a frequent side effect). The primary objective is to keep it on the range by rendering it non-propulsive. When liquid propellants are present, we would also like to disperse them. Burning is not generally required, it's just another common side effect. To that end, most FTS designs cut the SRM's dome or sidewall so it will tumble and not have a significant net thrust vector. The resulting "unplanned" burn surfaces sometimes, but not always, also result in some spectacular rapid combustion... As you said, liquid propellant tanks are also cut and vented. When do we want this to occur? Three circumstances: 1) The rocket has left the safe corridor. 2) The rocket is obviously about to leave the safe corridor, or 3) The rocket is clearly out of control and/or breaking up. How do we know this is happening? Three common ways: 1) Skin tracking, via RADAR of the rocket's position. 2) Autonomous tracking of the rocket's position via on board GPS receivers and/or conveying the GPS signal from the rocket to the ground, typically via a GPS solution or "bent pipe" translator, and 3) On board monitoring of critical systems. This data is also sent the ground. All 3 of these are usually present on any given rocket. Then what? Three ways it get's started: 1) Command destruct from the ground by the Range Safety Officer. Usually based on the skin track or the on board GPS, but this can also be prompted by the other data based on his/her judgement. 2) Self Destruct, where the rocket initiates its own destruct based on violating pre-programmed parameters, including position. 3) Auto Destruct, where a departing stage or SRM, during a breakup, detects that it's no longer attached (when it should be, ie: this function is "inhibited" during planned staging) and initiates destruct to render itself non-propulsive. It is not uncommon for all of these to happen. Auto goes off during a break up, the individual stages self destruct, and the Range Safety Officer slams the button. Off board command destruct and skin tracking is being phased out in favor of autonomous flight safety systems (AFSS), to reduced the burden on the Ranges going forward as launch rates increase and USSF infrastructure ages. The systems above are at least dual redundant, extremely reliable, able survive "abnormal" environments (ie the kind of thermal and mechanical loads that would only happen during a bad day) and must be certified by the Range who is generally involved in the disposition of any anomalous behavior or observations. They must also function instantaneously when triggered. Remember that a space launch vehicle very quickly attains hypersonic velocity and is easily capable reaching populated areas within seconds of loosing control. Tb
@@gentrywalker My first thought reading Mr. Bruno‘s comment without reading the commenting persons name: What a smarta…, he just kinda repeats what Scott just posted. Then I read your comment and went OOOOOPPPS, sorry Mr. Bruno! and read his comment again with the due respect. Thanks to both of you! Have a nice sunday.
Hello Tory (CC Scott), are you allowed and willing to share your opinion on the operation of the Starship FTS? During this test flight it seemed to have fit the criteria in your comment. However, I'm not (yet) confident it would have resulted in a timely termination if that would have been required earlier on in the flight.
Holy crap! This is what I do for a living! I’m an explosives fabricator in the aerospace industry, and I make linear shaped charges (among other things) for flight termination systems. Thank you Scot! I’m just happy someone went to the trouble of putting together a video doc on my job! “Saving lives through the delicate application of high explosives.”
My limited (one time) experience with flight termination systems....... Late 80s or early 90s (I know it was after Challenger) I worked for the company that had the computer and scientific equipment maintenance contract for Redstone/Marshall. I had just finished fixing a problem with the telemetry recording system, and was invited to stand in the corner to watch a test launch of the EFOGM (we just called it the "fog em"). This missile had the ability to get locked onto a target, and then the controller was free to launch a second missile and lock onto another target. This was done via a fiber optic cable that spooled out of the missile and a television camera in the nose of the missile. This was the first (and last) test of multiple missiles in flight. "Launch one" Missile two takes off. "Destruct missile two" Missile one explodes on launch platform. Honest, it really happened this way. By the time the second missile was detonated, it was uncomfortably close to a large solid rocket engine factory. True story.
@@bbgun061 I have interesting stories about Patriot as well, but can't tell them. Interesting place to work, for a week at a time you might see migs or hinds circling low and slow, to test tracking systems on the real deal (not Patriot, but Stingers). Sometimes they would take Stingers up to the roof of a 4 or 5 story building to track car radiators on the road passing by. This was while the Stinger was still being produced and upgraded. I hope they get that production line up and running before we run out.
@@john_in_phoenix, yep one of the hardest parts of working on some of those old tests. I mean, I understand why they were sensitive back in the day, but we are talking 30 years ago. But nope, still sensitive data. Of course, you and I can’t whisper a word but you see the idiots in DC every day talking about stuff they’d throw us under the jail for talking about.
Used to work with FTS systems before. This probably sounds childish but my favourite part was testing the system. There was a key switch to put it to operating mode then most buttons were protected by spring loaded flaps. Pressing the big, illuminated ARM and DESTROY buttons was so cool, felt like a movie!
@@zyeborm unfortunately no, I was just a technician and had to sign the system over to the operator/officer. I think twice it was used during my time there. No cool explosions though, it was used both times for large drones. In both cases they splashed down in to the sea for recovery.
I worked on the Ariane 6 NFS (Neutralization Firing System), it's own version of the Flight Termination system. It's a strange system to design, specially the jokes in the office like: "if everything else fails at launch day, you'll be the only ones opening the champagne bottle" 😁
What did you do in your career? Well a real highlight was when I designed a super reliable a system that should never get used. 😂 Lol I kid, I really love the design philosophy of this kind of thing and I try to bring as much of it as I can to my daily work. Does the light controller on an emergency vehicle really need to be a 4 channel series parallel arrangement to avoid common single point failures? No. Is it cool? Hell yeah!😂
I wonder what's more disappointing: if the whole NFS project is never seen in action because every launch succeeds or if the rocket fails and the NFS has to step in :D
My father worked on minuteman launch systems back in the 70's. One thing he mentioned to me is that the radio receiver of the termination system has its radio bandwidth saturated so that it could only go off when they wanted it to, any termination signal would get lost in the noise of the saturation unless they turned off the ground transmitters.
In systems I've worked with, they have 2 radio channels and, as well as a commanded destruction signal, the system will trigger if one of the two radio signals is lost for a preset period, IIRC about 500ms.
What’s good for the rocket isn’t good for the human… if you want to try being a rocket, drive only by looking through your rear view mirror (but don’t, because you could kill your self or others, and other liability disclaimers).
@@philmaggiacomo the guidance subsystem generates corrective commands to guide the rocket, subtracting where it should be from where it wasn’t. The rocket doesn’t know exactly where it is, but it does know, within reason, where it isn’t. And, by subtracting where it isn’t from where it was, the guidance subsystem obtains a value that reflects its likely position, with a reasonable margin. It then approximates where it is by cross-referencing the data it obtains by referencing where it was and using onboard avionics data to produce a reliable estimation of where the rocket now is. in order to do this, the rocket needs to know how it itself might fly given the information it has obtained over the duration of its flight. By estimating the time when it lost touch with where it was and applying what it knows about its velocity and heading at the time it lost touch with its position, the rocket can obtain a correction which will accurately interpret its position to within 3 square miles. It will then plug in its approximation into the algebraic formula which the guidance subsystem utilizes to determine its optimal flight path, and generates as a result a deviation or variation which will correct the misalignment in its flight path.
Linear shaped charges are also used in demolition of buildings and bridges to cut through steel girders, and for sinking ships to make reefs by cutting a sqare hole in the hull (there's a vid on the latter)
My introduction to the world of flight termination was via the 1992 version of Range Commanders Council standard 319. Lots of interesting stuff and you will see that a FTS can be used on things other than rockets. Global Hawk for example. (An infamous case.) Designs compliant with RCC 319 are more easily used at ranges other than where they were approved. Which is how I ended up travelling to the National Test Site in Nevada. Use of NASA standard initiators are not universal. The program I worked on settled on an electronic safe and arm unit that used Exploding Foil Initiators. These have the advantage of not using sensitive primary explosives like the ZPP used by the NASA initiator. Since you mentioned the Titan missile, an interesting case of an FTS failure was the first Titan II silo launch. Due to failures in the quick disconnects (they didn't), parts of the wiring harness were ripped out of the missile. So it came out of the silo unguided and without a functioning FTS.
@@alexdrockhound9497 Why would anyone expect an ICBM to be able to reach the moon? That's like expecting your fireworks rocket to reach orbit. Not enough delta-v there.
@@roqua That's a great illustration on how it's not only important to have more than one safety system, but to have more than one _kind_ of safety system. Without the ISDS that launch could have been literally disastrous. (Although I suspect the ISDS was designed with the priority of Nat'l. security rather than civilian safety in mind.)
When the autonomous flight termination system was introduced, my first thought was: I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that. Great explanation of something many of the general public wouldn’t even consider.
A minimal risk of failure to operate and a minimal risk of unintended operation is a pretty heavy design requirement. Especially in a vibrating environment or using radio/electronic initiation. These are pretty neat.
You gave the briefest mention of the Saturn 5 rockets using shaped charges to separate stages which is something I have not heard before ! This sounds incredibly crazy and a spectacular way of facilitating stage separation, I heard they used 'explosive bolts' for that sort of thing but had no idea it was an explosive can opener !
If I'm not mistaken, some of those connections were made by Marman clamps. Invented by Herbert Marx. Yep, Zeppo Marx. We used them on the Douglas MD-11. steve
I was building Command Control receivers with Conic Data Systems (later bought out by Loral) in the early 1980s. We were responsible for the receivers for EVERY nuclear-capable missile being produced in the USA at the time - including ALL of the Cruise Missile variants. I got to take a tour (with my co-workers) of the GD factory where the cruise missiles were being built. I later worked for SAI Technology - were one of our Plasma Display terminals was used in the control system for the GLCM, including flight termination command issuance. This was before "automatic" systems existed to any degree for flight termination.
Thanks for another informative video. You kinda touched on it, but is there a possibility of doing a "things KSP doesn't teach you" video about the various devices used for stage separation?
My favorite FTS story is from the early tests FTS and LES for manned flight. The flight was to test the FTS, but the rocket malfunctioned, triggered the FTS, LES ultimately having a successful test, maybe it was even a better test than the one planned.
I knew a guy at work who had been involved with the very early rocket test in the 1950's. At that time they used a pen plotter in the control room to continuously plot the calculated impact point of a suborbital rocket based on the current parameters. If it wandered outside the safe zone, they could destroy it.
At 5:32 into the video you can see several clips of pen plotting being used to display and record flight data. Analog chart recorders like this have been long used, even into the digital era because of their reliably simple operation. The new digital options are better (mostly), but it's taken it's sweet time to become affordable!
My Dad was a Range Safety Officer at Port Canaveral in the 70's, before Kings Bay opened up. He would blow up sub launched dummy ICBM's when needed. They used a grease pencil and drew lines on a radar screen to help them see when a missile went off-course. To destruct he flipped a switch that was covered by a red button. I think he also had to insert and turn a key first, and it may have taken 2 people to send the destruct command. Obviously I was never allowed in the room during a launch. I do remember seeing a few destruct, and man did they blow up. One missile was destructed at night and the whole east coast of C FL thought the Russians were attacking us. Good times
There's a nice opportunity for expanding upon this discussion, thanks to recent events. Details that Elon has recently revealed about the launch of Starship that occurred recently indicates that the FTS failed to promptly terminate the flight. I'm curious what modifications will be necessary to make that beast terminate more gracefully in the futute
Blow up the common bulkhead maybe? Or det cord all down the side. I'm sure it won't be hard for the experts there to think of something better Edit: just got to the part about Falcon 9s FTS... I'd just do the same thing on starship if possible without affecting the rockets aerodynamics
As Elon mentioned, and Scott discussed in a video a couple of days ago*, the FTS went off as commanded. (No one has said whether it was terminated by an onboard system or manually.) The steel rocket was just too damn strong and didn't unzip like all other rockets. The modification will very likely involve a brute force approach; bigger explosive charges blowing bigger holes and perhaps more of them. This will release the internal pressure more quickly so the structural integrity will fail quickly, not 40 seconds later. *"Is This Why Starship Wasn’t Destroyed The Moment It Lost Control?"
@@donjones4719 Perhaps similar to how the vehicle survived doing a couple of somersaults without tearing itself apart... the vehicle seems to have more structural strength than people were expecting. Which might be a good thing, since it suggests that SpaceX have some room to trim excess mass.
@@simongeard4824 Or a bad thing considering they have spent so much time and energy on learning how to work this specific alloy and thickness. And an easier to destruct material may not acheive the structural resilience required to land with empty tanks. Its a bit of a conundrum for them... along with how to modify their pads so they DON'T self destruct.
@@patreekotime4578 True, but weight reduction has always been on the roadmap... Musk stated some years ago that early Starships would be somewhat conservative around tolerances, and they'd look to trim it down once they knew it worked.
Good one Scott! The initiators/detonators are the hard part of all this. They absolutely/positively have to work only when you tell them too, and never any other time. The trick with explosives isn't making things go boom, it's making them go boom at the right time and right way!
now you are better , I have been watching you since you had couple of thousands of subscribers , I have to say this is one of you r best videos , how to explain the Flight Termination Systems nicely , Good work keep going
Thanks for touching on flight termination with crewed launches, it's something I've thought about for a while as another version of the trolley problem
Glad to have this in-depth introduction to FTS systems. There are quite some misunderstandings going around. I heard said that it's completely automated with no manual override, which of course would be ludicrous. So, for the record: you can both manually trigger it or disable it.
Controlled flight termination with solid rocket motors was the first issue which made me aware of Scott Manley and his amazingly good amateur space commentary. Cheers!
I’m glad Scott brought up what he did at the end of the video. The worst feeling in the world is having everyone in the Test Bay all in agreement that the item is is within conditions/parameters and is doing what it’s supposed to be doing and trying to get there and we’re letting it ride so to speak… we can see all this through telemetry…. And then the automatic side ends up being too conservative and pops the item. Many items can have FTS not just big rockets and there are two main types of FTS. Not all FTS employ explosives and the items that do not only have destruct boundaries but debris boundaries as well. Just like the missile knows where it is by knowing where it isn’t….. we know where the debris will be by knowing where we need to cut it. So sometimes the command will come way before one would think. Great vid Scott! Greeting from the weapons test side of the house! FTS is near and dear to my heart as i employ many systems often.
It's enlighting to learn that rockets exploding isn't usually the direct result of some internal failure, but rather it's a deliberate action taken to stop the rocket without turning it into a missle.
7:00 the missile knows where it is at all times. it knows this because it knows where it isn't. by subtracting where it is from where it isn't or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater) it obtains a difference, or deviation...
Thank you. An informative and enjoyable video. A friend and I built our own rockets when we were in the sixth and seventh grades. Ocassionally we had a good launch. Mostly, fizzles or explosions. Getting the exhaust nozzle the correct diameter was crucial. Still have a interest in rocketry and explosives. Thanks again.
Fantastic overview. Very accurate. A couple other interesting things about Flight termination (from an insider): - The ranges safety officer works for the Air Force and is in no way associated with the launch provider, therefore they do not have any sentimental attachment and hesitation towards pushing the big red button. - Flexible Confined Detonating Cord (FCDC) is also a very common explosive used on launch vehicles. Imagine hundreds of feet of this explosive cord (looks like coaxial cable) running throughout the rocket to assist with FTS. - Yes, ULA uses the same initiators. There are also "Lanyard Pull initiators" which automatically detonate when their lanyard is pulled, creating a chain reaction. My understand is that these are usually used for intentional separations. - The radio signal used for FTS is a very closely closely guarded secret. You wouldn't want someone to figure those out and decide to make their own fireworks show.
Scott, IMHO you are the most informative space flight commentator ! Thank you. bty, I witnessed a spectacular rocket termination in late 1975. Living in Freeport Bahamas, from my swimming pool 10pm, floating looking up a the stars, I saw a rocket from (near by ) KSC When it got directly overhead it exploded into a million pieces lighting up the sky !! Pretty Shure it was off course, Should not go over Freeport.
Did you really put all this footage together since you posted your thoughts on the flight termination of Starship and its booster? Great video as always you are just such a talented narrator! Thanks!
In the early 70's I worked at Allen Bradley (now Rockwell Automation). They had a contract from the Air Force to build an antenna duplexer for the Atlas rocket (the RF coupler in your diagram). It was referred to as a "command destruct" unit. It was a passive device, but the only single point of failure component and thus super tested. It was hand built in the R&D lab, and, naturally, gold plated! By the way, the lab was headed up by Dr Heinz Schlicke, former German scientist (Google U 234, Operation Paperclip)
Thanks for that overview of the FTS. It has a complicated history, but it doesn't sound like there was any loss of life from an FTS malfunctioning. I was a little surprised that you didn't spend more time talking about the FTS on starship that took 40 seconds to destroy the vehicle from the time it was triggered to act. Why was their such a delay in the response by the system? Was it faulty design or something else? Keep up the great work educating the rest of us.
Shaped charges have also been used for many decades in gas/oil well completion. First, heavy casing is run into the borehole. Next, cement is pushed down through the casing, U-tubing up the borehole annulus surrounding the casing. After the cement sets up, shaped charges--at the exact depth of the hydrocarbon-bearing layer--are detonated, blowing holes in the casing and the cement, penetrating into the rock some depth.
1:31 - "As a private pilot I had to read the Federal Aviation Regulations, the FAR" Well it's good that you had the Federal Aviation Regulation Tome to help you out with that
Wow that was the most thorough explanation of FTS that I could actually understand. LoL. :) Your knowledge and experience really sets you apart from most youtubers.
0:17 Sometimes there's nothing you CAN do, it happens too soon. Reference the second launch of the Soviet N-1. You'll find it listed on many "Top 10" or "Top 20" lists of "the largest man-made non-nuclear exposions" when it landed back on the pad and exploded before it reached 15 seconds into it's flight.
6:43 that makes sense in early flights, that termination callout was so fast "its going the wrong way!!!" if they were relying on readings only it could have been another 5-10 seconds before the button was pushed and who knows how far it would be by then.
Not sure if this was to do with FTS or tracking, but someone who worked at one of the rocket startups told me that someone from the FAA ( or some other govt dept) would bring in a box that had to be integrated, and nobody from the rocket company was allowed to literally even touch it, and if they did, it would have to be sent back for inspection/recertification. Any ideas what that might have been?
Love your videos man! So informative and nerdy :D Really surprized you didnt mention that one soyuz rocket that got destroyed on the pad by FTS because of earth rotation. I remember you made a video going in depth into that incident. Just thought its a good time to mention it again.
Not only are rockets tamed bombs, no they even have a button to untame themselves. And worst of all, someone else has this button in his hand while you are flying this thing. The more I learn the more disencouraged I get to try this 🎉 brilliant video! Thx
I worked in the field from early ‘60s to ‘90’ and at that time telemetry was an important component of range safety. I presume only bent pipe GPS is used now. Nice video. Thanks.
Another problem with Ares was that the escape system couldn't get the capsule far enough away from the shrapnel cone. The parachutes would have beem shredded by debris or solid propellant
My dad & his brother both worked on Atlas. One time in about 1962 (when I was 6) my uncle brought back from Cape Canaveral a film reel of all the original Atlas test launch detonations. That was fun. My cousins & I sat on the floor awed by all the cool rockets going *>>BOOM
One detail from the Shuttle... Wayne Hale had a couple great blog posts about flight termination. He said "So the Commander and the Pilot are designated Deputies of the Range. If the really bad thing happens, they are sworn to protect the population of the east coast, even at the expense of their crews’ lives. It takes courage to fly in space."
The Saturn 5 had explosives on Lox and RP-1 tanks, but on opposite sites. This was to NOT mix Lox and Fuel during rupture. This would result in "gradual" burnoff instead of a shock wave, guaranteeing save escape for crew.
Nuclear weapons also have some interesting ideas related to safety. The "physics package" (explodey bit) has a safety concept of "strong link, weak link."
A couple of things, my father worked on the early rockets and they used a pendulum that would be released to terminate the rocket by swinging around and it would proceed to beat the innards of the rocket to death. And I think that it was "The Smithsonian" or "Army Times" magazine that had a really great article on Range Safety Officers about 50 years ago. Early on, they would be situated at different locations and look through a "V" which was made by stringing two wires up from the ground. If the rocket deviated outside of either wire, the RSO would hit the kill button. Apparently there would often be higher ranking officers assisting the RSOs to (helpfully) make sure that the rocket was really outside of its bounds and actually needed to be destroyed. One of the photos in the article showed a rocket travelling horizontally through the wires with the caption "Sometime the RSO's decision was an easy one" or something along those lines. If anyone else remembers that article I would love to get the link to it. :)
I've always wanted to see an interview with one of the engineers who actually had to initiate and destroy the Challenger's SRBs. It's the only time that's been done on a US manned mission. At least a detailed description of how it was done moment by moment.
I'd be really curious to learn about the environmental impact of rocket launches and disasters. Is modern rocket fuel toxic? Does it affect the ozone layer in the atmosphere? Does it contaminate ocean water killing wild life? Is it better to burn the fuel during termination or have it fall into the ocean or disperse into the atmosphere etc. I've never heard this being talked about, and I wonder how rocket lancuhes compare to other indistries caron emissions and stuff. Thanks!
Hi there. Me from the future again. In January 2025 the SpaceX team augmented their FTS with their new Universal Proximity Multi-Yaw Auxiliary Steering System, ushering in a new era of space flight that practically eliminated the need to blow up perfectly good rockets just because they were going off course. Now, in the event of a course deviation, the SpaceX teams can simply order the rocket to go UPMYASS and continue with their mission to explore where no-one dared to go before.
The Common Sense Skeptic did a detailed analysis using much sharper video and photo images apparently showing that the Flight Termination System packages failed to destroy either stage of the tumbling Starship. They may have pushed the button on the ground, but apparently all that happened was additional venting of gasses. The analysis also showed how possibly up to eleven engines had failed prior to the tumble.
Elon just said a few hours ago in a paywalled update on starship that the FTS did in fact fail to terminate flight as Scott and others have speculated, and that it is being redesigned.
I don’t trust common sense skeptic he doesn’t do his research. His criticism of starship and the mars mission has some good points but he uses way to much assumptions in his criticism lacking cold hard facts.
If anyone wants to see how shape charges work, the famous channel _The Slow Mo Guys_ have a couple of videos on them in the 100,000fps range. Spectacular stuff.
Great job as always Scott. One simplified way to look at this is to start with the objective of an FTS system. It is NOT to blow up the rocket (although that is a frequent side effect). The primary objective is to keep it on the range by rendering it non-propulsive. When liquid propellants are present, we would also like to disperse them. Burning is not generally required, it's just another common side effect.
To that end, most FTS designs cut the SRM's dome or sidewall so it will tumble and not have a significant net thrust vector. The resulting "unplanned" burn surfaces sometimes, but not always, also result in some spectacular rapid combustion... As you said, liquid propellant tanks are also cut and vented.
When do we want this to occur? Three circumstances: 1) The rocket has left the safe corridor. 2) The rocket is obviously about to leave the safe corridor, or 3) The rocket is clearly out of control and/or breaking up.
How do we know this is happening? Three common ways: 1) Skin tracking, via RADAR of the rocket's position. 2) Autonomous tracking of the rocket's position via on board GPS receivers and/or conveying the GPS signal from the rocket to the ground, typically via a GPS solution or "bent pipe" translator, and 3) On board monitoring of critical systems. This data is also sent the ground. All 3 of these are usually present on any given rocket.
Then what? Three ways it get's started: 1) Command destruct from the ground by the Range Safety Officer. Usually based on the skin track or the on board GPS, but this can also be prompted by the other data based on his/her judgement. 2) Self Destruct, where the rocket initiates its own destruct based on violating pre-programmed parameters, including position. 3) Auto Destruct, where a departing stage or SRM, during a breakup, detects that it's no longer attached (when it should be, ie: this function is "inhibited" during planned staging) and initiates destruct to render itself non-propulsive. It is not uncommon for all of these to happen. Auto goes off during a break up, the individual stages self destruct, and the Range Safety Officer slams the button.
Off board command destruct and skin tracking is being phased out in favor of autonomous flight safety systems (AFSS), to reduced the burden on the Ranges going forward as launch rates increase and USSF infrastructure ages.
The systems above are at least dual redundant, extremely reliable, able survive "abnormal" environments (ie the kind of thermal and mechanical loads that would only happen during a bad day) and must be certified by the Range who is generally involved in the disposition of any anomalous behavior or observations.
They must also function instantaneously when triggered. Remember that a space launch vehicle very quickly attains hypersonic velocity and is easily capable reaching populated areas within seconds of loosing control.
Tb
it just makes my day a little better knowing that Tory Bruno has an average-Joe youtube account like the rest of us
Thanks, I hope ULA continues to not need to use the FTS hardware it flies!
@@gentrywalker My first thought reading Mr. Bruno‘s comment without reading the commenting persons name: What a smarta…, he just kinda repeats what Scott just posted. Then I read your comment and went OOOOOPPPS, sorry Mr. Bruno! and read his comment again with the due respect. Thanks to both of you! Have a nice sunday.
gets started
Hello Tory (CC Scott), are you allowed and willing to share your opinion on the operation of the Starship FTS? During this test flight it seemed to have fit the criteria in your comment. However, I'm not (yet) confident it would have resulted in a timely termination if that would have been required earlier on in the flight.
Holy crap! This is what I do for a living! I’m an explosives fabricator in the aerospace industry, and I make linear shaped charges (among other things) for flight termination systems. Thank you Scot! I’m just happy someone went to the trouble of putting together a video doc on my job!
“Saving lives through the delicate application of high explosives.”
Thanks Scott for explaining not only the hardware but regulations involved with rocket self termination systems.
My limited (one time) experience with flight termination systems.......
Late 80s or early 90s (I know it was after Challenger) I worked for the company that had the computer and scientific equipment maintenance contract for Redstone/Marshall. I had just finished fixing a problem with the telemetry recording system, and was invited to stand in the corner to watch a test launch of the EFOGM (we just called it the "fog em"). This missile had the ability to get locked onto a target, and then the controller was free to launch a second missile and lock onto another target. This was done via a fiber optic cable that spooled out of the missile and a television camera in the nose of the missile. This was the first (and last) test of multiple missiles in flight.
"Launch one"
Missile two takes off.
"Destruct missile two"
Missile one explodes on launch platform.
Honest, it really happened this way. By the time the second missile was detonated, it was uncomfortably close to a large solid rocket engine factory. True story.
Whoopsie!
Are you glad you worked on the telemetry and not the FTS?
@@bbgun061 I have interesting stories about Patriot as well, but can't tell them. Interesting place to work, for a week at a time you might see migs or hinds circling low and slow, to test tracking systems on the real deal (not Patriot, but Stingers). Sometimes they would take Stingers up to the roof of a 4 or 5 story building to track car radiators on the road passing by. This was while the Stinger was still being produced and upgraded. I hope they get that production line up and running before we run out.
@@davidf2281 Switching positions is _tight_ !
@@john_in_phoenix, yep one of the hardest parts of working on some of those old tests. I mean, I understand why they were sensitive back in the day, but we are talking 30 years ago. But nope, still sensitive data. Of course, you and I can’t whisper a word but you see the idiots in DC every day talking about stuff they’d throw us under the jail for talking about.
Used to work with FTS systems before. This probably sounds childish but my favourite part was testing the system. There was a key switch to put it to operating mode then most buttons were protected by spring loaded flaps. Pressing the big, illuminated ARM and DESTROY buttons was so cool, felt like a movie!
That does sound like fun.
Did you get to make anything (even test articles) a long way away go boom?
@@zyeborm unfortunately no, I was just a technician and had to sign the system over to the operator/officer. I think twice it was used during my time there. No cool explosions though, it was used both times for large drones. In both cases they splashed down in to the sea for recovery.
I worked on the Ariane 6 NFS (Neutralization Firing System), it's own version of the Flight Termination system. It's a strange system to design, specially the jokes in the office like: "if everything else fails at launch day, you'll be the only ones opening the champagne bottle" 😁
What did you do in your career?
Well a real highlight was when I designed a super reliable a system that should never get used. 😂
Lol I kid, I really love the design philosophy of this kind of thing and I try to bring as much of it as I can to my daily work. Does the light controller on an emergency vehicle really need to be a 4 channel series parallel arrangement to avoid common single point failures? No. Is it cool? Hell yeah!😂
I wonder what's more disappointing: if the whole NFS project is never seen in action because every launch succeeds or if the rocket fails and the NFS has to step in :D
My father worked on minuteman launch systems back in the 70's. One thing he mentioned to me is that the radio receiver of the termination system has its radio bandwidth saturated so that it could only go off when they wanted it to, any termination signal would get lost in the noise of the saturation unless they turned off the ground transmitters.
That's actually an ingenious solution to the problem of stray signals.
Ohhhh wow your father probobly had a lot of hair and it's ok if he had projlems trying to resist eating his hair
@@TimPerfetto
Someone 'probobly' has 'projlems' spelling and/or forming cogent thoughts.
@@HuntingTarg Ohh yes you are so old you went into an antique store and they kept you
In systems I've worked with, they have 2 radio channels and, as well as a commanded destruction signal, the system will trigger if one of the two radio signals is lost for a preset period, IIRC about 500ms.
The rocket knows where it is because it knows where it isn’t.
We know
@@theunluckycharm9637 because we know what we dont
What’s good for the rocket isn’t good for the human… if you want to try being a rocket, drive only by looking through your rear view mirror (but don’t, because you could kill your self or others, and other liability disclaimers).
But what happens if the position that the rocket is in is not the position that it wasn't?
@@philmaggiacomo the guidance subsystem generates corrective commands to guide the rocket, subtracting where it should be from where it wasn’t. The rocket doesn’t know exactly where it is, but it does know, within reason, where it isn’t. And, by subtracting where it isn’t from where it was, the guidance subsystem obtains a value that reflects its likely position, with a reasonable margin. It then approximates where it is by cross-referencing the data it obtains by referencing where it was and using onboard avionics data to produce a reliable estimation of where the rocket now is. in order to do this, the rocket needs to know how it itself might fly given the information it has obtained over the duration of its flight. By estimating the time when it lost touch with where it was and applying what it knows about its velocity and heading at the time it lost touch with its position, the rocket can obtain a correction which will accurately interpret its position to within 3 square miles. It will then plug in its approximation into the algebraic formula which the guidance subsystem utilizes to determine its optimal flight path, and generates as a result a deviation or variation which will correct the misalignment in its flight path.
Linear shaped charges are also used in demolition of buildings and bridges to cut through steel girders, and for sinking ships to make reefs by cutting a sqare hole in the hull (there's a vid on the latter)
they have so many applications.
They can cut a hole lol 2ft into metal material of done properly they are wicked cool!
"9/11"
Shaped charges are very cool! I wonder how a nuclear shaped charge would perform
@@mastershooter64 are you seriously wondering or is this a fbi setup LMAO
My introduction to the world of flight termination was via the 1992 version of Range Commanders Council standard 319. Lots of interesting stuff and you will see that a FTS can be used on things other than rockets. Global Hawk for example. (An infamous case.) Designs compliant with RCC 319 are more easily used at ranges other than where they were approved. Which is how I ended up travelling to the National Test Site in Nevada.
Use of NASA standard initiators are not universal. The program I worked on settled on an electronic safe and arm unit that used Exploding Foil Initiators. These have the advantage of not using sensitive primary explosives like the ZPP used by the NASA initiator.
Since you mentioned the Titan missile, an interesting case of an FTS failure was the first Titan II silo launch. Due to failures in the quick disconnects (they didn't), parts of the wiring harness were ripped out of the missile. So it came out of the silo unguided and without a functioning FTS.
Where did it go?
To the moon like crypto currency!
Oh wait, neither of them did ;)
@@alexdrockhound9497 Why would anyone expect an ICBM to be able to reach the moon? That's like expecting your fireworks rocket to reach orbit. Not enough delta-v there.
@@roqua
That's a great illustration on how it's not only important to have more than one safety system, but to have more than one _kind_ of safety system. Without the ISDS that launch could have been literally disastrous.
(Although I suspect the ISDS was designed with the priority of Nat'l. security rather than civilian safety in mind.)
@@roqua Do you maybe want to cite that you pasted that from the Wikipedia article on the Titan II?
When the autonomous flight termination system was introduced, my first thought was:
I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that.
Great explanation of something many of the general public wouldn’t even consider.
It has always been due to human error
@@TimPerfetto I am afraid that is something that I cannot allow to happen.
As someone who is not involved with flight whatsoever, I still love to hear you explain anything about it. Awesome videos 👍 very engaging
A minimal risk of failure to operate and a minimal risk of unintended operation is a pretty heavy design requirement. Especially in a vibrating environment or using radio/electronic initiation. These are pretty neat.
You gave the briefest mention of the Saturn 5 rockets using shaped charges to separate stages which is something I have not heard before ! This sounds incredibly crazy and a spectacular way of facilitating stage separation, I heard they used 'explosive bolts' for that sort of thing but had no idea it was an explosive can opener !
If I'm not mistaken, some of those connections were made
by Marman clamps. Invented by Herbert Marx. Yep, Zeppo
Marx. We used them on the Douglas MD-11.
steve
I was building Command Control receivers with Conic Data Systems (later bought out by Loral) in the early 1980s.
We were responsible for the receivers for EVERY nuclear-capable missile being produced in the USA at the time - including ALL of the Cruise Missile variants.
I got to take a tour (with my co-workers) of the GD factory where the cruise missiles were being built.
I later worked for SAI Technology - were one of our Plasma Display terminals was used in the control system for the GLCM, including flight termination command issuance.
This was before "automatic" systems existed to any degree for flight termination.
In all these years, I've never seen video of the Challenger's SRB destruction. Thank you Scott.
I saw it decades ago, it was part of the standard footage shown in the UK. Might have even seen it on the BBC news.
Have long wanted to know more about fts. Thanks Scott for covering this so well
Thanks for another informative video. You kinda touched on it, but is there a possibility of doing a "things KSP doesn't teach you" video about the various devices used for stage separation?
Yes, do another one Mr. Manley!
I upvote on this ! =) 👍
My favorite FTS story is from the early tests FTS and LES for manned flight.
The flight was to test the FTS, but the rocket malfunctioned, triggered the FTS, LES ultimately having a successful test, maybe it was even a better test than the one planned.
8:40 Osaka doing Demon core screwdriver adjustment at laptop screensaver somehow falls in line with whole FTS theme...
Every time I watch one of your videos I’m amazed by the amount of knowledge you have on whatever the subject is. Really enjoy your channel.
I knew a guy at work who had been involved with the very early rocket test in the 1950's. At that time they used a pen plotter in the control room to continuously plot the calculated impact point of a suborbital rocket based on the current parameters. If it wandered outside the safe zone, they could destroy it.
At 5:32 into the video you can see several clips of pen plotting being used to display and record flight data. Analog chart recorders like this have been long used, even into the digital era because of their reliably simple operation. The new digital options are better (mostly), but it's taken it's sweet time to become affordable!
My Dad was a Range Safety Officer at Port Canaveral in the 70's, before Kings Bay opened up. He would blow up sub launched dummy ICBM's when needed. They used a grease pencil and drew lines on a radar screen to help them see when a missile went off-course.
To destruct he flipped a switch that was covered by a red button. I think he also had to insert and turn a key first, and it may have taken 2 people to send the destruct command. Obviously I was never allowed in the room during a launch.
I do remember seeing a few destruct, and man did they blow up. One missile was destructed at night and the whole east coast of C FL thought the Russians were attacking us.
Good times
Excellent information, thank you for sharing!
There's a nice opportunity for expanding upon this discussion, thanks to recent events.
Details that Elon has recently revealed about the launch of Starship that occurred recently indicates that the FTS failed to promptly terminate the flight.
I'm curious what modifications will be necessary to make that beast terminate more gracefully in the futute
Blow up the common bulkhead maybe? Or det cord all down the side. I'm sure it won't be hard for the experts there to think of something better
Edit: just got to the part about Falcon 9s FTS... I'd just do the same thing on starship if possible without affecting the rockets aerodynamics
As Elon mentioned, and Scott discussed in a video a couple of days ago*, the FTS went off as commanded. (No one has said whether it was terminated by an onboard system or manually.) The steel rocket was just too damn strong and didn't unzip like all other rockets. The modification will very likely involve a brute force approach; bigger explosive charges blowing bigger holes and perhaps more of them. This will release the internal pressure more quickly so the structural integrity will fail quickly, not 40 seconds later.
*"Is This Why Starship Wasn’t Destroyed The Moment It Lost Control?"
@@donjones4719 Perhaps similar to how the vehicle survived doing a couple of somersaults without tearing itself apart... the vehicle seems to have more structural strength than people were expecting. Which might be a good thing, since it suggests that SpaceX have some room to trim excess mass.
@@simongeard4824 Or a bad thing considering they have spent so much time and energy on learning how to work this specific alloy and thickness. And an easier to destruct material may not acheive the structural resilience required to land with empty tanks. Its a bit of a conundrum for them... along with how to modify their pads so they DON'T self destruct.
@@patreekotime4578 True, but weight reduction has always been on the roadmap... Musk stated some years ago that early Starships would be somewhat conservative around tolerances, and they'd look to trim it down once they knew it worked.
Scott no one has ever explained all this to my knowledge. What would we do without you? Many thanks for your expert explanations.
TOPIC REQUEST: Heat management on spacecraft. White paint, louvres, passive fins, fluid circulation, heat pipes, etc
Good one Scott! The initiators/detonators are the hard part of all this. They absolutely/positively have to work only when you tell them too, and never any other time. The trick with explosives isn't making things go boom, it's making them go boom at the right time and right way!
Knowledge 💣as usual thank you Sir 😁
now you are better , I have been watching you since you had couple of thousands of subscribers , I have to say this is one of you r best videos , how to explain the Flight Termination Systems nicely , Good work keep going
Since the Eve Online days! Those were the days... I kind of miss Eve Online.
Great rundown, Scott
Thanks for touching on flight termination with crewed launches, it's something I've thought about for a while as another version of the trolley problem
Glad to have this in-depth introduction to FTS systems. There are quite some misunderstandings going around. I heard said that it's completely automated with no manual override, which of course would be ludicrous. So, for the record: you can both manually trigger it or disable it.
I love this channel so much 😭😭
Controlled flight termination with solid rocket motors was the first issue which made me aware of Scott Manley and his amazingly good amateur space commentary. Cheers!
And here we have another video full of great content! Thank you Scott!!
I definitely didn't expect Scott Manley of all people to quote/reference the missile guidance computer copypasta
Thank you, Scott, for that detailed explanation of FTS.
I’m glad Scott brought up what he did at the end of the video. The worst feeling in the world is having everyone in the Test Bay all in agreement that the item is is within conditions/parameters and is doing what it’s supposed to be doing and trying to get there and we’re letting it ride so to speak… we can see all this through telemetry…. And then the automatic side ends up being too conservative and pops the item. Many items can have FTS not just big rockets and there are two main types of FTS. Not all FTS employ explosives and the items that do not only have destruct boundaries but debris boundaries as well. Just like the missile knows where it is by knowing where it isn’t….. we know where the debris will be by knowing where we need to cut it. So sometimes the command will come way before one would think.
Great vid Scott!
Greeting from the weapons test side of the house! FTS is near and dear to my heart as i employ many systems often.
It's enlighting to learn that rockets exploding isn't usually the direct result of some internal failure, but rather it's a deliberate action taken to stop the rocket without turning it into a missle.
7:00 the missile knows where it is at all times. it knows this because it knows where it isn't. by subtracting where it is from where it isn't or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater) it obtains a difference, or deviation...
Thank you.
An informative and enjoyable video.
A friend and I built our own rockets when we were in the sixth and seventh grades. Ocassionally we had a good launch. Mostly, fizzles or explosions. Getting the exhaust nozzle the correct diameter was crucial.
Still have a interest in rocketry and explosives.
Thanks again.
Fantastic overview. Very accurate. A couple other interesting things about Flight termination (from an insider):
- The ranges safety officer works for the Air Force and is in no way associated with the launch provider, therefore they do not have any sentimental attachment and hesitation towards pushing the big red button.
- Flexible Confined Detonating Cord (FCDC) is also a very common explosive used on launch vehicles. Imagine hundreds of feet of this explosive cord (looks like coaxial cable) running throughout the rocket to assist with FTS.
- Yes, ULA uses the same initiators. There are also "Lanyard Pull initiators" which automatically detonate when their lanyard is pulled, creating a chain reaction. My understand is that these are usually used for intentional separations.
- The radio signal used for FTS is a very closely closely guarded secret. You wouldn't want someone to figure those out and decide to make their own fireworks show.
Scott, IMHO you are the most informative space flight commentator ! Thank you.
bty, I witnessed a spectacular rocket termination in late 1975. Living in Freeport Bahamas, from my swimming pool 10pm, floating looking up a the stars, I saw a rocket from (near by ) KSC When it got directly overhead it exploded into a million pieces lighting up the sky !! Pretty Shure it was off course, Should not go over Freeport.
8:44 - That daemon core manga is epic 🤣
Watching his laptop screensaver is entertaining by itself.
I always wondered how they did this, linear shaped charges between bulk heads make so much sense! Thanks for the research and great videos!
Nice unpacking of the FTS, thank you kind sir!
Well done Sir Scott. ✌
Grt content.
Thank you for mentioning the Ares 1-X, I've always loved that vehicle!
Did you really put all this footage together since you posted your thoughts on the flight termination of Starship and its booster? Great video as always you are just such a talented narrator! Thanks!
Quite possibly, he started this video in anticipation of the Starship launch, knowing that using the FTS was a real possibility during the launch.
Typo....Diagram at 9:29 has KCL04 as KC104. Love your content Scott.
Great video as always. He manages to explain everything without mentioning tha big starship in the room.
In the early 70's I worked at Allen Bradley (now Rockwell Automation). They had a contract from the Air Force to build an antenna duplexer for the Atlas rocket (the RF coupler in your diagram). It was referred to as a "command destruct" unit. It was a passive device, but the only single point of failure component and thus super tested. It was hand built in the R&D lab, and, naturally, gold plated! By the way, the lab was headed up by Dr Heinz Schlicke, former German scientist (Google U 234, Operation Paperclip)
Thanks for that overview of the FTS. It has a complicated history, but it doesn't sound like there was any loss of life from an FTS malfunctioning. I was a little surprised that you didn't spend more time talking about the FTS on starship that took 40 seconds to destroy the vehicle from the time it was triggered to act. Why was their such a delay in the response by the system? Was it faulty design or something else? Keep up the great work educating the rest of us.
Shaped charges have also been used for many decades in gas/oil well completion. First, heavy casing is run into the borehole. Next, cement is pushed down through the casing, U-tubing up the borehole annulus surrounding the casing. After the cement sets up, shaped charges--at the exact depth of the hydrocarbon-bearing layer--are detonated, blowing holes in the casing and the cement, penetrating into the rock some depth.
1:31 - "As a private pilot I had to read the Federal Aviation Regulations, the FAR"
Well it's good that you had the Federal Aviation Regulation Tome to help you out with that
An explosive triax connector! Don’t know why, but that makes me very happy 😃
You just have to encourage it to misbehave.
Priceless!
Wow that was the most thorough explanation of FTS that I could actually understand. LoL. :) Your knowledge and experience really sets you apart from most youtubers.
0:17
Sometimes there's nothing you CAN do, it happens too soon.
Reference the second launch of the Soviet N-1.
You'll find it listed on many "Top 10" or "Top 20" lists of "the largest man-made non-nuclear exposions" when it landed back on the pad and exploded before it reached 15 seconds into it's flight.
Thank you for referencing "the missile knows where it is, because it knows where it isn't" :)
Great job as always Scott…
You’re the 🐐
6:43 that makes sense in early flights, that termination callout was so fast "its going the wrong way!!!" if they were relying on readings only it could have been another 5-10 seconds before the button was pushed and who knows how far it would be by then.
Pretty fascinating stuff, Scott! Thanks! 😃
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Thanks Scott
Not sure if this was to do with FTS or tracking, but someone who worked at one of the rocket startups told me that someone from the FAA ( or some other govt dept) would bring in a box that had to be integrated, and nobody from the rocket company was allowed to literally even touch it, and if they did, it would have to be sent back for inspection/recertification. Any ideas what that might have been?
Could’ve been the NSA with a telemetry encryption box.
Hi @scott Manley At 6:21, you mention a launch from Vandenberg - what launch was it?
Love your videos man! So informative and nerdy :D
Really surprized you didnt mention that one soyuz rocket that got destroyed on the pad by FTS because of earth rotation. I remember you made a video going in depth into that incident. Just thought its a good time to mention it again.
Not only are rockets tamed bombs, no they even have a button to untame themselves. And worst of all, someone else has this button in his hand while you are flying this thing. The more I learn the more disencouraged I get to try this 🎉 brilliant video! Thx
EXCELLENT video!
I for some reason misread and thought the title said “how to assemble a rocket backward, flight termination systems” and thought “yeah, that fits”.
More info about the Vandenberg termination at 6:29 ?
Yea, I’d like more information about that too. 😬 It looked like before the RSOs blew it up it was headed straight for Lompoc.
Scott! Great video as always! Keep up the good work! 🙂
That was great Scott! I'd always wondered about termination systems and how they make them reliable.Super interesting
I worked in the field from early ‘60s to ‘90’ and at that time telemetry was an important component of range safety. I presume only bent pipe GPS is used now. Nice video. Thanks.
Absotively posilutely 100% galactically fantastic video! Thank you Scott Manley
Another problem with Ares was that the escape system couldn't get the capsule far enough away from the shrapnel cone. The parachutes would have beem shredded by debris or solid propellant
When your rocket is named Ares, it's victory or death.
6:37 As a former member of more than one Launch Disaster Control Group, this would've been the moment I knew I was about to have a very long day.
My dad & his brother both worked on Atlas. One time in about 1962 (when I was 6) my uncle brought back from Cape Canaveral a film reel of all the original Atlas test launch detonations. That was fun. My cousins & I sat on the floor awed by all the cool rockets going *>>BOOM
One detail from the Shuttle... Wayne Hale had a couple great blog posts about flight termination. He said "So the Commander and the Pilot are designated Deputies of the Range. If the really bad thing happens, they are sworn to protect the population of the east coast, even at the expense of their crews’ lives. It takes courage to fly in space."
14:26 Granted there were a bunch if factors in play, but wasn’t this one of the core issues of Ares 1 as a Crewed launch vehicle?
The Saturn 5 had explosives on Lox and RP-1 tanks, but on opposite sites. This was to NOT mix Lox and Fuel during rupture. This would result in "gradual" burnoff instead of a shock wave, guaranteeing save escape for crew.
You know Scott enjoyed making this video just because he got to use lots of footage of rockets going BOOOM! 😆
Scott-as always another great video.
Nuclear weapons also have some interesting ideas related to safety. The "physics package" (explodey bit) has a safety concept of "strong link, weak link."
To get a rocket to self-destruct, "you just need to encourage it to misbehave."
This needs to be on a T-shirt.
Discussing the FTS with the Demon Core in the background. ( 8:42 )
"this is the same principle that is used in many anti-tank weapons" makes sense, since its an anti-tank weapon :P
Awesome video Scott!
A couple of things, my father worked on the early rockets and they used a pendulum that would be released to terminate the rocket by swinging around and it would proceed to beat the innards of the rocket to death.
And I think that it was "The Smithsonian" or "Army Times" magazine that had a really great article on Range Safety Officers about 50 years ago. Early on, they would be situated at different locations and look through a "V" which was made by stringing two wires up from the ground. If the rocket deviated outside of either wire, the RSO would hit the kill button. Apparently there would often be higher ranking officers assisting the RSOs to (helpfully) make sure that the rocket was really outside of its bounds and actually needed to be destroyed.
One of the photos in the article showed a rocket travelling horizontally through the wires with the caption "Sometime the RSO's decision was an easy one" or something along those lines. If anyone else remembers that article I would love to get the link to it. :)
I've always wanted to see an interview with one of the engineers who actually had to initiate and destroy the Challenger's SRBs. It's the only time that's been done on a US manned mission.
At least a detailed description of how it was done moment by moment.
8:41 Fantastic meme
I'd be really curious to learn about the environmental impact of rocket launches and disasters. Is modern rocket fuel toxic? Does it affect the ozone layer in the atmosphere? Does it contaminate ocean water killing wild life? Is it better to burn the fuel during termination or have it fall into the ocean or disperse into the atmosphere etc.
I've never heard this being talked about, and I wonder how rocket lancuhes compare to other indistries caron emissions and stuff. Thanks!
It really depends on the fuel. There are some that are pretty nasty.
No.
Z
Love your videos so much. Thank you for the decade of awesome!
"encourage it to misbehave" - lovely phrasing.
Scott Manley - is that Osaka handling the demon core at @8:45 lol?
Hi there. Me from the future again. In January 2025 the SpaceX team augmented their FTS with their new Universal Proximity Multi-Yaw Auxiliary Steering System, ushering in a new era of space flight that practically eliminated the need to blow up perfectly good rockets just because they were going off course. Now, in the event of a course deviation, the SpaceX teams can simply order the rocket to go UPMYASS and continue with their mission to explore where no-one dared to go before.
Thanks very much for the great work . ❤ And so much respect excited for the next episode
The Common Sense Skeptic did a detailed analysis using much sharper video and photo images apparently showing that the Flight Termination System packages failed to destroy either stage of the tumbling Starship. They may have pushed the button on the ground, but apparently all that happened was additional venting of gasses. The analysis also showed how possibly up to eleven engines had failed prior to the tumble.
Elon just said a few hours ago in a paywalled update on starship that the FTS did in fact fail to terminate flight as Scott and others have speculated, and that it is being redesigned.
I don’t trust common sense skeptic he doesn’t do his research. His criticism of starship and the mars mission has some good points but he uses way to much assumptions in his criticism lacking cold hard facts.
@@tstartrekdude Elon says a lot of things.
@@TheAmericanCatholicyeah, agreed.
@@TheAmericanCatholic there's not a lot of speculation in his 24/7 flight analysis, and it shows 11 engine failures before a loss of control
If anyone wants to see how shape charges work, the famous channel _The Slow Mo Guys_ have a couple of videos on them in the 100,000fps range. Spectacular stuff.