SpaceX flight testing in South Texas

[HOVIS]

Originally Posted by Sam W

Yes I have. Note I said reusability, not survivability. Did you note the heat deformed engine nozzles on the booster? The problem is that non-running engines have no fuel cooling of the nozzle or engine core so are damaged due to reentry heating. Also the fire after landing at the base of the booster is not suppose to be the norm. Exposing hardware to these temperatures pretty well scraps them so no reusability.

As to the orbiter, 5’s orbiter violently exploded right after landing and 6 was last seen on fire so not ringing endorsements for reusability.

Do you understand that these are iterative test articles, not finished production types.
The deformed engine nozzles are a problem, I'm not sure how they are going to fix that, but fix it they will.
The cause of the fire at the base is known and fixed.
The Falcon 9 is exposed to similar temperatures regularly and is reusable. So far over 20 times per booster. Super Heavy will be even better.
Both Starships from IFT 5 & 6 soft landed in the designated spot exactly as planned, then fell over, exactly as expected. I would be more surprised if it didn't blow up. The Starships are being designed to be caught in the same way as the boosters not in the sea! Other versions will land on the moon and Mars. They have to learn how to walk before running. They can't have an untested vehicle of this size barreling in over California, New Mexico etc if they are not 100% certain it can be controlled with pinpoint accuracy. Besides that they only have one operational tower at the moment.

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Musk - one more sea landing for Starship and then they will go for a catch.

Don’t know if that means off Australia again or if they’ll do an orbit and try and land it off the launch site. Since they’ll have to bring it back for a catch I think it probable as a dry run (sic)….

Interesting though. Makes a lot of sense to get as much of the flight plan done as possible before going for the catch. They'd need to give a bit more of a kick to get around the globe for starters, might need a de-orbit burn too. Either way, that'll need the FAA to uplift their licence...
Suspect they'll bin the booster at sea vs getting Tower 2 up and running in some capacity with those timelines.

[MostlyHarmless]

...anyway - where's the really important footage of the dynamics of the banana on re-entry and splashdown? Be fascinating to see if there was any heating / burn through in there!

[meleagertoo]

During the return of booster from T+05:40 or so we can see what appears to be flame coming from the engines some time before the landing burn - or at least, the nozzles certainlty aren't dark. What is this?

[ORAC]

Interesting though. Makes a lot of sense to get as much of the flight plan done as possible before going for the catch. They'd need to give a bit more of a kick to get around the globe for starters, might need a de-orbit burn too. Either way, that'll need the FAA to uplift their licence...

Suspect they'll bin the booster at sea vs getting Tower 2 up and running in some capacity with those timelines.

Not much more of a kick, this launch was only just short of orbital speed deliberately - because they had to test the Raptor relight in order to be able to do a de-orbit burn next time.

Onece in orbit they can delay de-orbit for a day or more in order to clear the booster from the chopsticks and stand prior to attempting the starship catch - so essential need for a second stand.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1859074034698183118

An interesting thing I noticed, but didn't think much of at the time...

During the pad avoidance maneuver, the chopsticks seemed to take quite a beating (per usual).

After Starship cleared the tower the chopsticks began closing to perform the automated health checks. The ended up opening up again a few minutes later which did not happen during flight 5. This the time period where the issue was detected.

Since the road opened crews have been on the chopsticks performing inspections.

Note: You can also see the before and after of the lightning tower damage. I doubt this truly played a part in triggering the abort but its possible it was a factor.

Here is the Official statement from SpaceX:

​​​​​​​"Following a nominal ascent and stage separation, the booster successfully transitioned to its boostback burn to begin the return to launch site. During this phase, automated health checks of critical hardware on the launch and catch tower triggered an abort of the catch attempt."

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Onece in orbit they can delay de-orbit for a day or more in order to clear the booster from the chopsticks and stand prior to attempting the starship catch - so essential need for a second stand.

Be interested what the endurance of this version is. AFAIA they're all on Tesla(ish) batteries vs fuel cells or something with a bit more longevity.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/space_time3/status/185...805203746?s=61
​​​​​​​

The FAA has released a Revised Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment for Starbase. This includes:

Up to 25 annual launches of Starship,

Up to 25 annual landings of Starship,

Up to 25 annual landings of Super Heavy,

Catches can only happen during the daytime,

And three water landings are allowed per year.

Full document: https://www.faa.gov/media/87646

[HOVIS]

Originally Posted by meleagertoo

During the return of booster from T+05:40 or so we can see what appears to be flame coming from the engines some time before the landing burn - or at least, the nozzles certainlty aren't dark. What is this?

I thinks it's the precooling gases from the engines themselves spilling out into the airflow.

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by ORAC

The FAA has released a Revised Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment for Starbase.

Step in the right direction, but as they ramp up production, they'll be launching a damn site more than 25 a year to prevent the rocket garden becoming a rocket jungle; even if they do shift some to LC39a+

[ORAC]

SpaceX video of landing.

https://x.com/spacex/status/1860083533001424973?s=61

Starship landing burn and splashdown in the Indian Ocean.


​​​​​​​

[HOVIS]

Amazing, how did they get that? Is someone remotely controlling the camera or is it automatic?

[Jhieminga]

Volunteer in a raft with a handheld camera? 😉

It’s most likely a 360 degree cam.

[meleagertoo]

Why would it be a 360' cam? They are able to place returning rockets within centimeters so they're able to place boo-ees (aka rafts/boats) carrying a camera with similar accuracy. And given the wide angle of the lens that camera was very close to the landing spot indeed, far closer than it looks.

[ORAC]

Looks like the sank booster Q3 with heavy calibre fire - it had been drifting since landing and was in Mexican waters.

​​​​​​https://x.com/csi_starbase/status/18...696692557?s=61

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by meleagertoo

Why would it be a 360' cam? They are able to place returning rockets within centimeters so they're able to place boo-ees (aka rafts/boats) carrying a camera with similar accuracy. And given the wide angle of the lens that camera was very close to the landing spot indeed, far closer than it looks.

Covers bases in case something goes wrong - cost difference negligible, so why not? Spherical deformation on bits of the video looks very much like it was a 360.

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Starship landing burn and splashdown in the Indian Ocean.

To my eye, there's some definite signs of thermal stress on the side there where the heat shield finishes. Hardly surprising, but shows the difference making it out of steel vs ally / composite makes to things.

[ORAC]

To my eye, there's some definite signs of thermal stress on the side there where the heat shield finishes. Hardly surprising, but shows the difference making it out of steel vs ally / composite makes to things.

Well, it is the last of the Mk 1s and they stripped off over 2000 heat tiles as well as programming a more extreme re-entry profile just to gather data - they didn’t expect it to survive.

The fact it did, and made a precise touchdown, shows the strength of the construction and over-engineering.

Every ton they can strip out of the design means another ton of payload to orbit.

V2 has a planned payload weight of 100 tons.

V3, has a planned payload weight of 200-250 tons.

[ORAC]

Interesting - another sub-orbital trip into the Indian Ocean.

Means that, if a catch is intended for IFR8, it will be combined with the first full orbit and de-orbit burn.

Put 11 Jan in your diaries.

​​​​​​​https://x.com/space_time3/status/186...234875817?s=61

NASA has filed a document to the FAA requesting to fly their Gulfstream V to capture pictures and videos of Starship Flight 7's re-entry in the Indian Ocean.

The document also states that Starship Flight 7 is NET January 11th, 2025.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/interstellargw/status/...882663568?s=61

Starship S31's debris have returned to Australia!

All sorts of items, ranging from tiles, COPV tanks, and other components from the Starship upper stage have been brought back to shore for further analysis 🧵

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...aign=topunroll