47

The video below of Pythom Space's first rocket test has raised a few eyebrows

The video prompted hundreds of replies on Twitter, including some from rather horrified rocket scientists. "We knew better as untrained college students," said Jordan Noone, the co-founder of Relativity Space.

Pythom “Micro jump”

What exactly did they get wrong with this test?

Note: The Pythom Space CEO did eventually respond to the original Ars Technica story linked above. It does offer their own take on some of the issues raised there and elsewhere (including some of the points in the answer below)

Topcode
  • 893
  • 8
  • 24
Machavity
  • 7,905
  • 1
  • 30
  • 69
  • 34
    Besides the part where they are standing beside an untested rocket engine that uses toxic propellants without any safety equipment? Nothing at all. – Organic Marble Apr 12 '22 at 19:57
  • 21
    Their own report says they were tired and worriedly racing against bad weather. Aviators, and mariners for centuries before, can vouch that that's asking for trouble. – Camille Goudeseune Apr 12 '22 at 20:10
  • 2
    People fairly near a rather large, firing liquid fuel rocket is eye-opening. – ikrase Apr 13 '22 at 05:34
  • 23
    @CamilleGoudeseune: Pilots call this "get-there-itis" and it is one of the most dangerous psychological factors in incidents. Ignoring safety protocols and procedures and/or "your gut" / instincts because you are tired and want to get to your destination. – Jörg W Mittag Apr 13 '22 at 07:03
  • 27
    From their own website, "Pythom's "green" propellant combination of furfuryl alcohol and WFNA (nitric acid) is much kinder to people and the environment and a major reason for our choice of it." Did they read the MSDS on those substances? Furfuryl alcohol is rather toxic, and white fuming nitric acid is even worse. I would need 100s of palms to properly face-palm myself regarding how bad this was, from beginning (the hoist with ropes and a person underneath) to the end (people running away from the toxic cloud). – David Hammen Apr 13 '22 at 11:04
  • 36
    Continuing from their website, "The two of us, Pythom founders and authors of this entry, have done four unguided expeditions to Everest, three unguided and unsupported full-length expeditions to the South- and North Poles, and sailed across the Atlantic from Europe to South America. During our expeditions, we lost many friends to the elements." So they are adrenaline junkies with little concern for safety and no concern for the law (several of those expeditions they describe are illegal). Self-claimed lack of expertise in aerospace engineering. Perfect recipe for how to do things wrong. – David Hammen Apr 13 '22 at 11:20
  • 3
    @DavidHammen it's truly hilarious that they advertise those propellants as "green", I had missed that gem. Clearly these people are rank amateurs and a danger to themselves and others. – Organic Marble Apr 13 '22 at 13:06
  • 3
    OSHA should get a copy of this and needs to pay them a visit before someone gets killed. By the time you smell the nitric acid fumes that are clearly all over the plume at start and end you may have a lethal dose. – Sifu Yee Apr 13 '22 at 18:31
  • 4
    They also seem to be an impressive case of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. From their statements reported in that article, they seem to sincerely believe that flying humans to Mars is as simple as really wanting to do it - the woman literally says, "You have to work hard, but you do not have to be very smart,". It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that they've managed to blow themselves up (or gas themselves to death) within a year or two if they're honestly going to continue along this path. – Kayndarr Apr 14 '22 at 07:43
  • 3
    @OrganicMarble WFNA is indeed no fun, but certainly "greener"/safer than methylated hydrazines, nitrogen tetroxide, and the like. Furfuryl alcohol is indeed "green" in many senses (produced from waste molasses, relatively safe to handle, only moderately toxic - you have to swallow like a tablespoon of it to get killed, not just take one breath of the vapour like with many other hypergolics). Other common green propellants like hydroxylammonium nitrate are somewhat toxic as well. – TooTea Apr 14 '22 at 10:52
  • 7
    "In this case, co-founders Tina and Tom Sjögren have the goal of flying to Mars in 2024—and if not then, by 2026." Are they actually that delusional? or are they just trying to scam clueless investors? seems more like a money making scam to me – Dave Smith Apr 14 '22 at 11:51
  • @DaveSmith could be a mix of both. I find it hard to believe that they could manage to make a rocket engine actually fire while being that dumb, but it also just really seems like they are that dumb. Either way what they claim will happen is going to be something distinctly not happening. – Topcode Apr 14 '22 at 22:12
  • 1
    And I’m just noticing they said “including the "scary" parts, normally swept under the rug in the aerospace industry.” No, there aren’t scary parts swept under the rug. Instead people follow safety procedures so they don’t inhale toxic fumes or get lit on fire. (Which is not just running away) “we have yet to encounter one single injury in our team.” Very glad of that but it doesn’t look like that track record is going to be held for very much longer. – Topcode Apr 14 '22 at 22:24
  • 3

    What safety protocols did this Pythom Space rocket crew ignore? Every single one of them. Like, anything you look at them doing, they do it wrong. My middle schooler is safer doing wheel swaps on our car than they are doing just about anything. It's mind-boggling really, coming from supposedly intelligent people. Imagine a figurative neurosurgeon. Plenty of experience. One day they decide to put together a semiconductor fab. Over some drinks every evening, they boast about it. The semiconductor people who overhear are like "here goes another superfund site when those clowns are done and dust

     – Kuba hasn't forgotten Monica Apr 15 '22 at 13:33
  • 3
    ed". Their Everest and other "extreme" experiences are as relevant to rocketry as neurosurgery is for semiconductor manufacturing. Their story is exactly how it should not be done, and they got no excuses for any of it. It's just hubris and beliefs in fairy tales. They keep doing it and there will be lives lost, and it'll be a good day if it's only their lives, and not, say, a major traffic accident with dozens poisoned. – Kuba hasn't forgotten Monica Apr 15 '22 at 13:33
  • When multiple people's safety depends on running away (here, from a toxic cloud), some percentage will trip and fall. When under a lifted heavy object (containing hypergolics!), their safety depends on the hoist cable not coming loose ("I could have sworn it was on there!") or breaking, the legs not collapsing, the truck not stalling. These are only the immediately apparent, known risks; make allowance for surprises. While the percentage for each failure may be low, they add up to eventual fatalities. – Technophile Apr 15 '22 at 22:28
  • @Technophile That insanity was fueled when lifted?! – Loren Pechtel Aug 07 '22 at 03:35

1 Answers1

84

The easy-to-spot stuff:

  1. (assumed) Improper transportation of hazardous materials. Both white fuming nitric acid and furfuryl alcohol are considered hazardous materials; none of the vehicles in the video appears to have a hazmat placard, the rocket is not an approved hazmat container, and the fuel containers seen in other videos are emphatically not approved.
  2. No personal protective gear. Nitric acid and furfurly alcohol are both toxic, and heavy loads are being lifted. Nobody is seen wearing any sort of protective gear, not even hard hats or safety glasses.
  3. Insecure rigging when lifting the test object upright. A strap, particularly one being pulled at a sharp angle, is far less safe than a proper lifting point.
  4. Bad angle when lifting the test object upright. This puts excess loads on things, increasing the risk of a fall or failure.
  5. Using unbraced legs as a pivot point when lifting the test object upright. You can see they're on the verge of buckling.
  6. (assumed) Lifting the test object while already fueled. In the event of a fall, this ensures an explosion if the tanks rupture, as the fuels are hypergolic.
  7. Having people stand under a suspended load. If the test object falls, this will cause serious injury or death to at least two people.
  8. Using a truck to pull the lifting cable. This provides far less control than a proper winch.
  9. Having personnel in the blast area of the test object. In the event of an failure, this makes it highly likely that they will be engulfed in the fireball, struck by debris, or poisoned by fuel vapors.
  10. Having personnel in the exhaust area of the test object. Even during normal operation, they will be exposed to nitric acid, furfuryl alcohol, and assorted nitrogen oxides, all of which are highly toxic.
  11. Having unnecessary equipment in the test area. In the event of a failure, this can become additional flying debris.
  12. Not properly securing the test object. In the event of higher-than-expected performance, this will become self-propelled debris; in the event of a premature shutdown, the resulting hop-and-crash will rupture the fuel tanks and cause an explosion.
  13. Not providing a flight termination system. In the event that the test object becomes airborne, they have no way of keeping it from leaving the test area.
  14. (assumed) Insufficient fire-extinguishing equipment on site. None of the area views show a pumper truck or other equipment capable of dealing with a brush fire ignited by 15+ kg of hypergolic fuels.
  15. Improper fire-extinguishing equipment. At one point, you can see what appears to be an ordinary dry-chemical fire extinguisher. This should not be used when dealing with nitric acid.
  16. Oxidizer-rich shutdown. You can see see the reddish cloud of nitric-acid byproducts at the end of the burn; this is likely the result of the oxidizer reacting with the engine.
  17. (assumed) No post-burn decontamination of the area. The celebratory post-burn shot shows no sign of cleanup. Combined with the oxidizer-rich shutdown, this means they're likely walking through an area contaminated with nitric acid.
Mark
  • 15,260
  • 60
  • 70
  • Issues marked "(assumed)" are ones where it could simply be off-camera, but probably isn't. – Mark Apr 13 '22 at 03:48
  • 1
    So, basically everything the did was wrong. Or as Organic Marble sarcastically put it, "Nothing at all.". – David Hammen Apr 13 '22 at 11:34
  • 9
    The developers seem to think furfuryl alcohol and white fuming nitric acid are green propellants. My parents gave me a chemistry set ages ago. I somehow managed to make red fuming nitric acid with it. I was ten years old or so. Ten year olds by definition are naive, stupid, and have no regard for safety. Those kinds of home chemistry sets are no longer legal, for good reason. White fuming nitric acid is even worse than is red fuming nitric acid. – David Hammen Apr 13 '22 at 11:39
  • 10
    I'm sure you missed a point or two. They only did seventeen things wrong? But super plus one. As one redditor sarcastically put it, "Now this company will get all the attention it so richly deserves." – David Hammen Apr 13 '22 at 11:59
  • 3
    Might also add: "Publicly posting this video on YouTube, setting a bad example that will be seen by potentially millions of people, some of whom may try to copy their reckless behavior..." – Darrel Hoffman Apr 13 '22 at 15:57
  • 1
    Seems a pretty thorough list. Always go through the failure modes of heavy equipment and mitigate them where possible. Sometimes you might decide to take a risk, but this many easy ones rather indicates that they weren't taking calculated risks, but merely not thinking about the dangers. – Perkins Apr 13 '22 at 16:12
  • 1
    @DavidHammen The alcohol definitely isn't green, but the nitric acid is unstable enough that it won't go very far before reacting with something and probably becoming harmless. That might be why they appear to have cut the alcohol first on shutdown. Hard on the engine though. – Perkins Apr 13 '22 at 16:14
  • 1
    @DavidHammen, compared to the usual run of hypergolic propellants, WFNA and furfuryl alcohol are green. (They've also got lousy specific impulse, which is why the professionals put up with the hazards of things like UDMH or MMH.) – Mark Apr 13 '22 at 19:36
  • 12
    Worth noting that most of these aren't particularly "space" or "rocket" safety protocols, they are basic things that need to be done on a building site or a small-scale chemical or industrial process. – djr Apr 14 '22 at 17:52
  • 5
    @djr, if you want rocket safety, it's likely that a successful launch would have violated every clause of the NAR high-power rocket safety code. (The actual event only violated clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12.) – Mark Apr 14 '22 at 21:50
  • @djr the one that really gets me is gunning the truck on gravel instead of using a winch. Almost every offroader has a winch on their truck, it's not a remotely uncommon piece of equipment and yet they can't even be bothered with that – llama Apr 14 '22 at 23:06
  • @Mark to be fair, that code effectively means that any liquid fueled rocket would be in violation, as well as any company trying to develop a motor. Those do seem more aimed at hobbyist/amateur rocketry (not that this particular group would be adequately described as “professional”) – fyrepenguin Apr 14 '22 at 23:14
  • worth mentioning to reinforce point 10: the video literally shows people running for cover as the exhaust cloud expands. you mention flying debris in point 11; what's truly impressive is that it looks like they managed to have flying debris without an explosion, in the form of their camera drone doing what feels like stunt flying around the rocket – user371366 Apr 15 '22 at 05:32
  • 1
    I disagree with your use of the word "or" in #9. It should be "and". – Technophile Apr 15 '22 at 21:43
  • 3
    @fyrepenguin California (CalFire) requires a licensed "Pyrotechnic Operator--Rockets First Class (04)" to fuel a liquid rocket. I think it's obvious they didn't have someone and if they did, the Fire Marshal is about to go after that person with disciplinary action. I talked with them in February asking about what they would be doing with rockets and he made it clear they were going to enforce regulations regarding rockets. – gwally Apr 15 '22 at 23:45
  • #9 and #13 are basically incompatible--if people are in the blast zone a FTS guarantees trouble rather than simply making it likely. And I'm not sure a FTS would really be needed anyway--if it can't go far enough to be a problem it wouldn't need one. – Loren Pechtel Aug 07 '22 at 03:41
  • @LorenPechtel, the impression I got from watching their other videos is the engine they're using is very temperamental -- some days, it burns nicely and produces what might be shock diamonds, while other times it just sputters. On a good-performance day, their test object could well go cartwheeling through the sky to crash several hundred meters away. If the readers of Ars Technica are correct about where the test took place, there are things within that range that you don't want a heavy metal object to land on. – Mark Aug 08 '22 at 21:39
  • I'm saying that firing a destruct when you're within the blast radius is absolutely the opposite of safety. It ensures harm. – Loren Pechtel Aug 09 '22 at 02:23
  • @LorenPechtel, which is why you don't have anyone within the blast radius. – Mark Aug 09 '22 at 02:25
  • I was referring to how they did it, not how it should be done. It doesn't seem fair to ding them for both the being in the blast radius and not including something that would fry them for being in the blast radius. – Loren Pechtel Aug 09 '22 at 02:27