SpaceX flight testing in South Texas
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
No attempt at a Starship catch tomorrow.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
48 hour slip - now targeting the same time on Wednesday.
SpaceX: ”The eighth flight test of Starship is preparing to launch as soon as Wednesday, March 5. The launch window will open at 5:30 p.m. CT.”
SpaceX: ”The eighth flight test of Starship is preparing to launch as soon as Wednesday, March 5. The launch window will open at 5:30 p.m. CT.”
Joined: Oct 2004
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 454
Likes: 134
From: Norfolk, UK
Really must drop Elon an email and point out that these late (GMT) launches are not convenient and the slips in the launch window are just not on. Push the damn red button and see what happens - that's what "Hardware rich development" means 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
Musk about the scrub....
Too many question marks about this flight and then we were 20 bar low on ground spin start pressure. Best to destack, inspect both stages and try again in a day or two.
Too many question marks about this flight and then we were 20 bar low on ground spin start pressure. Best to destack, inspect both stages and try again in a day or two.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,679
Likes: 3,341
From: Everett, WA
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
Footage of SpaceX’s Starship breaking up on reentry over the Bahamas and West Indies.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,679
Likes: 7,357
From: Peripatetic
Tabs please!
Joined: Jun 2004
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,098
From: Biffins Bridge
I used to describe a situation as "Failure Under Continual Test" ......or FUCT.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 262
From: Blighty
Joined: Jul 2022
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 897
Likes: 533
From: Down Sarf
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,679
Likes: 3,341
From: Everett, WA
What Musk and company is doing is much closer to what the US did with the Atlas - launch one, see what fails, fix it and try again. Similar to Starship, Atlas's were mass-produced (I think total production was over a thousand).
Even after the Atlas was man-rated for the Mercury program, the failure rate was not low - around 25% - NASA was somewhat fortunate that four manned Mercury-Atlas launches were successful.
Obviously Starship will need to get far better reliability than that before they can think of man-rating it.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,679
Likes: 3,341
From: Everett, WA
Just stumbled across this - puts things into perspective a bit:
Some people just don’t get it, however:
NASA has lost 42 spacecraft and 17 astronauts.
DoD has lost 550 spacecraft.
Space X has lost 9 spacecraft out of 477 launches. Frequently the ones being lost are EXPEREMENTAL.
NASA has lost 42 spacecraft and 17 astronauts.
DoD has lost 550 spacecraft.
Space X has lost 9 spacecraft out of 477 launches. Frequently the ones being lost are EXPEREMENTAL.
Joined: Jul 2022
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 897
Likes: 533
From: Down Sarf
The Saturn V has the rather unique claim that it never experienced a failure that prevented the payload from reaching earth orbit. No other US launch system with more than 10 launches can make that claim.
What Musk and company is doing is much closer to what the US did with the Atlas - launch one, see what fails, fix it and try again. Similar to Starship, Atlas's were mass-produced (I think total production was over a thousand).
Even after the Atlas was man-rated for the Mercury program, the failure rate was not low - around 25% - NASA was somewhat fortunate that four manned Mercury-Atlas launches were successful.
Obviously Starship will need to get far better reliability than that before they can think of man-rating it.
What Musk and company is doing is much closer to what the US did with the Atlas - launch one, see what fails, fix it and try again. Similar to Starship, Atlas's were mass-produced (I think total production was over a thousand).
Even after the Atlas was man-rated for the Mercury program, the failure rate was not low - around 25% - NASA was somewhat fortunate that four manned Mercury-Atlas launches were successful.
Obviously Starship will need to get far better reliability than that before they can think of man-rating it.