The SpaceX Thread

With the upcoming Starship launch, Musk & Co deserve their own thread.

I don't see this launch being a complete success, too many things could go wrong. But if it only gets off the ground it'll be a big step.

I heard the Thunderbirds music as I read your post. They will surely be standing by during the launch.

>1 UncleMort: Agreed, Musk says the chances of reaching orbit are 50% or so, but I'm skeptical it is that high. Just hope it doesn't end up crashing anywhere on land.

>3 Karlstar: I hope it doesn't, apart from the danger the FAA wouldn't like that.

They have launch approval from the FAA!! Planned launch date is Monday the 17th! Looks like they've changed the flight profile a little from an orbit/deorbit to a near-orbit then land. Guess we'll have to wait for the next one for an orbital flight.

Launch in 39 minutes. Largest Space-X launch vehicle test yet I heard. There must be a massive risk matrix for this launch.

I wonder what the percentage of objectives they will achieve today.

Am reading a cute SF book each evening, the backdrop is a post apocalyptic frozen earth, where the "manned" spacecraft Argo is being sent on a 70 year, one way mission to an inhabitable planet 10 LY from earth 140 years in the future. Interesting, I just heard on the news minutes ago that the first earth sized planet in the goldilocks zone has been detected. Quite interesting tri-synchronism there.

Well, one objective met - don't destroy the launch vehicle.

>6 Nick-Myra: Now we have to wait two more days.
:o(

>6 Nick-Myra: >7 clamairy: I guess a delay was likely, after all. Looking forward to Wednesday's launch.

A disappointment but not unexpected.

Now delayed to Thursday the 20th. The flight profile looks interesting, I wonder if they are actually planning on recovering either the booster or starship prototype, it doesn't look like it.

It launched!!! What a great sight.

And then there was an RUD after 3 and half minutes. The analysis should be interesting, it was clearly spinning out of control before Starship separation.

>12 Karlstar: Did it ever actually separate? It looked like it spun for a bit, and then went boom. But that launch was spectacular!

>13 clamairy: Did not separate. Appeared that the Super Heavy attempted to perform its flip back maneuver with Starship still attached. It seems several Raptors failed soon into flight.

>14 surly: I believe the flip back maneuver is supposed to happen with Starship still attached, and that the centrifugal force (yes) of the flip back is supposed to help with the separation. Obviously that didn't happen, and that seems to have led to uncontrolled flat spin. At least six Raptors were out, but it's unclear how many failed and how many were shut down by being too close to ones that failed. For sure, at least one failed pretty spectacularly.

All that said, the fact that it cleared the tower is a clear success from a testing point of view.

>15 Foretopman: Indeed!

However I am getting a N-1 vibe with the engine failures. Also, the crater shown under the launch platform indicates SpaceX may have underestimated the exhaust impingement issue.

On to the next test flight!

>16 surly: Yeah, that crater is troubling. I think it's too earlier to make N-1 comparisons, but they definitely need to work on engine reliability

>17 UncleMort: For sure, but it's going to be several months, at least.

>13 clamairy: and >12 Karlstar: : Oh no - when I got this far in the thread, these two posts brought images of Ariane 5's first flight flooding back ...

I wonder if we'll get to hear of the true failure analysis if it's IN THE SOFTWARE - (Not necessarily The Software per se, but the implementation of an algorithm and it not being properly reviewed and tested) - it'll probably get buried under less controversial stuff.
Tesla and Boeing have both been hurt by algorithms, incorrectly being put down to "software problems".

With 33 Raptors firing at full thrust, I wonder how tolerant it is of rocket failures - maybe it's harder than they thought to control the thrust vector direction and centre of effort - many more freedoms than the Saturn V make the algorithm harder to get right, even if there are enough actuator freedoms.

>20 Nick-Myra: The consensus at this point seems to be that the concrete apron under the launch mount was broken up by the initial rocket blast. Debris from this was flung with considerable force in all directions, and for quite some distance. It's probable that some of this debris struck the base of the booster. All the other problems can then be traced back to this.

>21 Foretopman: Thanks for that info.

So that may well be root cause, there may be recovered pieces showing critical mechanical damage. It did fly for several minutes after this, so maybe flight control was only jeopardised at a critical speed, or when initiation of first stage separation changed thrust, attitude or balance. A pity, if it had maintained flight stability and separation had occurred successfully, maybe Starship could have continued on - so close, aah, just so close.

>21 Foretopman: It has been clear for a while that they seriously underestimated the amount of sheer firepower that the booster would inflict on the launch mount and the ground. The lack of a flame diverter system and deluge system was a big mistake. The big question will be - do they need to completely rebuild the launch tower/launch mount, or can they retrofit a deluge system and flame diverter? The deluge system has been in process for a couple of months, but it may be insufficient.

Lots of rework coming in the future. Hopefully the modifications aren't too late for the launch towers they've already started at Canaveral.

>23 Karlstar: If it's mostly a question of moving dirt, you make the changes. The results of the last launch really leaves you no choice.

I guess most of you read the quoted text below on Twitter (though that is no longer necessarily true, I was surprised to read this in the same news brief today :
" Elon Musk has an alternative Twitter account. More than 24,700
followers pay $4 a month to access his subscriber-only Muskiness."
)

" Elon Musk, SpaceX’s CEO, said on Twitter that the company had begun building a “massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount” three months ago. However, Musk said the plate wasn’t ready in time, and engineers went ahead with the launch thinking that the high-strength concrete below the rocket could withstand the force. That analysis was apparently based on a test when the rocket was fired at half its thrust capacity.

" __When will Starship launch again?__

" Beyond preventing environmental contamination, Musk and company have good reason to solve this problem: It’s possible that debris thrown up by the rocket contributed to the failure of multiple Starship engines and, in turn, the failure of the vehicle to make it into space. Final word on any links between destruction at the site and destruction in flight will wait on a thorough engineering analysis.

"Musk said that the launch site might be ready to go in one to two months, but that’s likely an optimistic estimate. Besides figuring out what went wrong with the rocket itself, the company will need to repair its launch infrastructure and win the approval of the FAA again."

>24 Shrike58: >25 Nick-Myra: Figure 6 months to rebuild the launch mount and install the new protection system - plus repair/replaced the damaged tanks, better protection for the tanks, plus they have to do something about the dust. That's IF the FAA ever allows them to launch from there again.

Now the spin begins. Will the launch site really be repaired in 6 to 8 weeks? Will the FAA issue a launch permit again that fast? This by FAR is not the first rocket to blow up in flight, so this should be fairly routine by now. Maybe more concerning is the news that the auto-termination sequence was delayed significantly.

Is the environmental damage as minimal as SpaceX says, or is it a total disaster as the environmental groups say? Almost guaranteed to be somewhere in the middle.

Apart from the FTS allowing four full rotations before self destruct (mentioned in #27), I also have a concern that the 2x redundant hydraulic systems that effect gimballing (stage 1 flight control) as well as stage 1 separation, have a single point of failure in the nozzle exhaust area.

I know their plan is to upgrade to electrical gimbal actuation, but good practice is to review the entire hydraulics risk matrix at the same time. And the lesson learned from first launch is that shortcutting by just performing the 50% thrust test on a risky stage 0 blast deflection system was a bad decision.

SpaceX have been grounded due to the environmental damage caused by the launch.

This amateur short reel is very effective in its big picture, compressed time view of Starship 1.0

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TX7pH4oGNsU

And a hilarious anecdote:

Understatement of the programme - "We're going to fix that"

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TIyu7iuoYIo

Some really interesting feedback in the first 12 min or so of this vid :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlkSA3fKyBc
SpaceX Deriving New Plan For Starship Launches! & FAA Sued! How Will SpaceX Get Through This?

232,973 views May 5, 2023 #starship #SpaceX #elonmusk

Starbase is getting fixed, the FAA gets sued over SpaceX and Starship, Falcon Heavy sets a new record, and Rocket Lab is ready for its next mission. Stay tuned, and let’s dive right in!

https://www.youtube.com/@Whataboutit

But this is the best starship Launch 10 video yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkiyr25pQ-E

224,972 views Apr 30, 2023

I watched the Starship Test Flight at quarter speed & Saw What Went Wrong | Starship Flight Analysis

Project Virtual Haven

After countless hours of painstaking analysis, I made this video to show you everything you missed from SpaceX's Starship Test Flight. I'll examine key moments during the flight, assess the damage to the launch site, discuss the positive and negative takeaways, and finally finish off by talking about what this test means for the future of Starship, and when we can expect its next flight. Enjoy!

>31 Nick-Myra: I frequently watch the videos from What About It? Usually good analysis and information.

Good news on the success of the AX-2 mission. Another private mission to space, it is hard to believe.

Hot off the pressure news, and some great video clips of the last launch

SpaceX's NEW trick to face 33 engines...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo6fvvalbZQ

We'll see! All that steam created might be a problem. They also have to get past the environmental lawsuit.

Great updates in the last few days

nose cone quip
IMG SRC= https://www.librarything.com/pic/9978926 (- see not enabled in this group
(from last video listed)

Stage 0's worst enemy is being muscled up again
https://www.librarything.com/pic/9978988
(from 2nd video listed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBup3uNwaIQ
17,709 views Jun 14, 2023
SpaceX changes everything at Starbase for 2nd Starship launch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsU7T5mFOsk
Elon Musk INSANE ADJUSTMENT On The Spacex Raptor Engine CHANGED EVERYTHING!
4,257 views Jun 14, 2023

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk5_mnQYgPE
Starship's Nosecone design change will blow your mind...
54,519 views Jun 12, 2023

>36 Nick-Myra: Thanks for the links! Hopefully they'll get permission to launch again in the next month or so.

Still waiting on permission, but the new 'deluge' system is in place already and booster 9 is on the launch mount! Amazing progress.

In 88 page notice to mariners, window for 2nd launch opens on 31 August
https://youtu.be/Ol2ToBOZY_4?t=508

Note : This is not an approval to SpaceX, just an advisory to sea traffic.

>39 Nick-Myra: I wonder how they can be that optimistic, without FAA approval yet? Wonder what they know that we don't.

Stacked and ready to go. Just waiting on the FAA.

Hot news - an hour ago

FAA Officially Denied SpaceX Starship Launch License Demanding 63 Fixes, S26 Static Fire, SLIM-XRISM

Sep 8, 2023
FAA closes Starship mishap investigation, directs 63 corrective actions for SpaceX. Starship full stack complete but launch delayed. Starship-26 static fire test. Water deluge system repairs. Starship test stands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJYEUwIBj10

I'm glad to see that the FAA has required further design reviews, analysis and testing as below - it's one thing to be safe, but another to achieve the mission requirements

>42 Nick-Myra: It should be interesting to see if they are just waiting for FAA verification that SpaceX already made the requested modifications. The one that concerns me is the launch mount - I wonder if the FAA will impose a complete design change. I don't think SpaceX would have bothered to stack the thing if they weren't confident of approval soon.

>43 Karlstar: I would guess that SpaceX proceeded with their preparations of a second test assuming that their changes would satisfy the FAA. 63 requested modifications is a bit of a surprise and may require destacking (is that a word?) I imagine SpaceX is currently arguing their changes fullfill the FAAs requrements.

>43 Karlstar: >44 UncleMort: According to Felix at WAI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsr2WcYEtUw

The 63 were SpaceX self-identified corrective actions subsequently approved by the FAA. SpaceX released the list which the FAA had preferred to keep confidential.

Another interesting revelation in the latter vid was that there was loss of flight control of the raptors due to a comms breakdown due to internal fire within Superheavy. Wonder what the sequence of events was related to that, was it associated with the FTS failure, or did the FTS cut the FCS comms and then the self destruct fail?

>45 Nick-Myra: That was an interesting new nugget. I'm glad they got agreement on the fixes, now have to wait for the launch license. Hopefully the FAA won't drag that out.

>46 Karlstar: It's showmanship -

SpaceX is making a point of being ready, pushing the boundaries, self-identifying and self-reporting of problems ....

knowing that the FAA is making a point of flexing their right to determine the timeline, and there not be any suggestion of handing over certification to the OEM, as they clearly did with Boeing.

Good to see that the Psyche launch on Falcon Heavy went well. With all of the other launch providers, both old and new, having issues, there's going to be more work for Falcon Heavy in the next couple of years.

The launch license has finally been granted and the 2nd Starship test flight is scheduled for Friday the 17th!

Now delayed until tomorrow, the 18th.

Well.... that went better than last time, but the explosion of the first stage was epic. I'll guess a problem with the hot separation, but we'll see.

>51 Karlstar: I'm thinking it's more a problem with the flip than with the hot staging, but, as you say, we'll see.

... just put the eye candy summary down:

Starship IFT2 T=012 - 175km_h.Jpg


Remaining tasks before IFT-3:
...
3. S28 TPS tile replacement
4. Possible rollback of S28 to load small number of Starlink sats
...

So now the story is that the explosions were caused by venting excess oxygen, which was only necessary because flight 2 was sub-orbital. I guess we'll see on the next one, now that they are planning on an orbital flight plan.

I'm a bit concerned that the refueling necessary for the moon lander will take up to 10 launches! I know they will just be transferring 'excess' fuel and they'll actually be saving the fuel in the long run, but that seems like too many.

I'm happy to see Ax-3 going well. Hopefully this will be more frequent in the near future.

No one posted this yet ??

Mar 6, 2024
BREAKING NEWS: Starship IFT-3 will now aim for Indian Ocean, not Hawaiian coast! 🚀
(This new flight path enables SpaceX to attempt new techniques like in-space engine burns while maximizing public safety)

SpaceX has scheduled X stream starting on March 14th
07:30-06:00 (730am local time)

https://youtu.be/imARE2xEd4U?t=12

Good news! though I doubt it'll be 100% successful.

Still, another step on the path.

Still waiting on the launch license, though they must be expecting it any day now.

8 minutes ago
License issued as of 3-13-24 15:46 ET.

Assume it is for 3-14-24 07:00 EST

Watching the flight on Spaceflight Now's Youtube...

What a great launch! Much more successful than I expected. Still waiting on full results of the reentry of Starship. They'll get the landing right, it took years to perfect the landing of Falcon 9 and see how successful that is now, it has gotten to be routine.

It went well, Some great visuals. Bodes well for number 4.

From the below, I'd conclude that the failed relight of the 6 or so Super Heavy rocket motors spooked sX mission control.

A partial relight of the 3+3 Starship rockets at the planned 135 km altitude, and the near earth escape velocity speed, could have sent it over a populated area, so over the 40 minute lapse between the two relights, they wisely decided not to attempt it.

www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/03/launch-roundup-0312
SpaceX opted to skip the de-orbit burn at an altitude of around 135 kilometers, at which point the ship was seen maneuvering into a re-entry attitude. The reasons for skipping this burn will be clarified later after a data review.

Plasma was seen on the body and flaps as the ship passed below 100 kilometers and the signal was lost as the ship entered an expected blackout phase at 65 kilometers while still traveling at a speed of over 25,000 kilometers per hour. SpaceX later updated that the ship was lost
before splashdown – this will have prompted a mishap investigation.

forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60479.msg2577189;topicseen#new
Before allowed to go orbital, Starship has to demonstrate to reliably maintain attitude in orbit and relight its engines for deorbit burn. Once that is demonstrated, Starship can fly expendable missions with optional reentry attempts "somewhere safe".

Successful reentry is no requirement for operational missions, just like with Falcon9 -- However, demonstrating control in orbit is! - Without that you could have 100+ tons of defunct Starship decay and reenter in an uncontrolled fashion and land on someones house.

Edit: It follows the next flight will follow the same or a similar suborbital trajectory.

I was on track to capture screenshots of the entire launch until SS reached the 250 km orbital, however when I switched to a slower screenshot rate, my SW glitched and I lost everything from T+04:36 to T+12:36.

Back-calculating from the sX twitter photo with plasma glow, I estimated how much total energy had been bled by the frictional heating to produce the plasma sheath, basically nothing at all.

Note that the difference in potential energy, due to g changing from sea level to 185 km altitude, is greater than the total frictional energy loss dropping from 185 to 93 km.



(mm:ss) v(km/hr) alt(km) ( KE PE PE(=gh) TotE ( .Min : .Max) ) (MJ /kg)
12:39 26343 185 26.77 1.76 1.81 28.53 (-0.0015 : +0.0015)
47:07 26744 093 27.59 0.89 0.91 28.49 (-0.0015 : +0.0015)

>62 Nick-Myra: Still a long way to go, but great progress. I'm waiting to hear what damage the launch mount sustained.

>1 UncleMort:

Success in this industry comes in many forms.

Looks like they'll get approval for the next launch soon. I've been away for a few days, not caught up on the latest news.

That was an interesting flight today. I'm still not sure the booster return was successful and the Starship de-orbit definitely was not. Having a flap mostly burn off is not good. It went better than last flight, that's for sure, but enough better to continue on this path? This will work for a Moon lander that will never see atmosphere again after the launch and doesn't need flaps anyway, but other than that, there's a long way to go.

A long, long way to go.

Soft landing, Reusability, in-flight refuelling, even getting man-rated.

I really cannot see this system working for the Artemis Program. What on earth are Nasa thinking?

>67 UncleMort: I agree, but they seem to think that tweaks are the answer, not a wholesale change. The booster may be ok, but Ship may be too big and too ambitious for a first step, they make have to scale back/down. We'll see.

The Polaris Dawn mission may finally launch tomorrow morning, or possibly the day after. Launch and return site weather are both a little iffy.

Starship Flight 5 may happen this month. Maybe. I'm not optimistic about the booster catch, seems like something that should be practiced a few times.

I was able to watch the live video of the 'space walk'. They never actually left Dragon, but still, they were standing partially outside the capsule in space! Amazing. The suits seemed to perform well.

>70 Karlstar: One (almost) small step...

>71 surly: It is, but the news that the next starship launch won't be until November is a bummer. I wonder how long it will be until someone comes up with a more capable vehicle for LEO tourism, with Starship being so delayed. I also wonder by Virgin Galactic is even bothering with their next generation of gliders.

>72 Karlstar: Concur with both thoughts!

They somehow got permission for flight 5 today! I can't believe they actually managed the booster catch on the first try. The small fire on the booster was a little concerning. Apparently Starship landed on target and intact, but it also appeared to be on fire and there was still significant (but less) melt through on the flaps. Still a ways to go there.

>74 Karlstar: Progress, very significant progress!

Add to that the Europa Clipper launch today on a Falcon Heavy. Great two days for spaceflight and research.

...

only my grandpa keeps up with this stuff
not meant to be offensive sorry

>76 Karlstar: Followed by two Falcon 9 launches this morning. If only there was a Falcon 1 extant to complete the Starship/Falcon Heavy/Falcon 9 launch pattern!

>79 surly: They are on a roll, I hope they've solved all the Falcon 9 2nd stage issues. Dragon astronaut return currently scheduled for Sunday.

With several launches since the last issue, it would seem that they have. Haven't seen seen any details other than the Crew-9 de-orbit burn lasted a tad too long.

Let's hope the next Starship flight on the 18th continues to improve. There were still too many issues on flight 5.

Flight 9 may make it up this month. Let's hope Ship does better than flights 7 and 8.

It did, a little better this time. I think they have some root cause work to do on the problems with Ship. I think they don't care what happened with the booster, they were throwing that one away anyway.

>84 Karlstar: The Block 2 Starship seems to be a bigger update than SpaceX realized. Reminds me of the problems Lockheed had with the C-130J Super Hercules and Boeing is having with the 777X.

>85 surly: I agree, I think the problem is the changes in Block 2.

A seriously big explosion. Going to put a bit of delay in the program.

A much more successful flight! I saw pictures of damage to the skirt around the engines and definitely some flap damage, as usual, though much less this time. Great to see a successful payload deployment and landing!
Next up is true orbit, actual payload deploy and successful catch.

Now let's see if they can launch the next flight quickly. I read that the CEO said the HLS will be ready for the Artemis program in 2027. At least that one doesn't have to land in the atmosphere.

Pad 2 is almost ready and so is the v3 booster and starship. It is going to be interesting to see how many 'test' flights will be required for v3. At least they won't destroy the pad on launch. Probably.

Partial success last Friday. Considering how different V3 is from V2, it is encouraging, but there are still too many problems with both the booster and Ship.