When is the Starship orbital launch?

[NTP2]

There was some kind of filler material that was installed in the gaps between each of the tiles. I don't remember what it was though.

Well there goes theory 1… I guess I’ll bet on thermal expansion for number 2.

LOL. The surface of a re-entering orbital spacecraft is around 2500°F.

curse you Ben rich! You sold me some paint that doesn’t work!

 

[Tractionengines]

My "GUESSES":
1) Booster looked good until "landing burn" they had fuel, but ran out of LOX. IF THE TELEMETRY FEED WAS ACCURATE. The instability happened at that point.
They will adjust the time on pad less, and staging a second or 2 earlier to save propellant/LOX for landing.

2) It did look a little "herky-jerky" in the grid fins at times. PID tuning is an ARTFORM. In 30+ years I've NEVER seen a control system that didn't need some fenessing, to dial it in. Math and science, will get you close, but artistry is knowing how to make the final small adjustments to optimize it.

3) The "in space" thrusters had issues. Wouldn't surprise me to hear they have to make "significant changes" to them for flight 4. [ AND / OR ] they had some venting that was pushing "ship" around, and the thrusters were "over worked" trying to control orientation.

I think 3 is why they didn't do the relight test. They wouldn't know for sure what direction it would be pushed, and probably if they did the burn it would push it off course. So it was better to ride-it-out and get whatever re-entry data they could.

Re-entry video was REALLY COOL, AND AMAZING THEY COULD GET THAT MUCH BANDWIDTH for the video, and data. I am sure they have TONS of data to go over about re-entry, and what happened.

 

[cvanc]

On tiles falling off, remember the structure they're attached to is alive with stresses and torques and twisting and bending. It is not an unchanging monolithic surface. It WANTS to throw tiles off.

Scott Manley has chimed in and says the ship never stopped rotating and often had the wrong side facing the heat...

 

[NTP2]

On tiles falling off, remember the structure they're attached to is alive with stresses and torques and twisting and bending. It is not an unchanging monolithic surface. It WANTS to throw tiles off.

Scott Manley has chimed in and says the ship never stopped rotating and often had the wrong side facing the heat...

I bet the instability was a symptom not a cause, plasma getting in where there was a tile.

Ps I got a crazy idea, plasma responds to magnetic fields you could build an electromagnet into the hull or something. As I said a crazy idea.

 

[techrat]

Scott Manley has chimed in and says the ship never stopped rotating and often had the wrong side facing the heat...

Does he work from home or something? Or has Scott become a full-time Youtuber? I'm at work, and haven't even had a spare moment today to go over the footage. Never mind that there's already hours of footage to watch from the various streamers and I'm sure more than half of my evening is going to spent watching youtube, never mind finding the time to make and edit something to "chime in" with.

It's gotta be quite the hassle to be a youtuber. I'm glad I only watch. I can't watch the WAI guy -- his videos are too much him, and not enough actual footage. I like Scott, Tim Dodd, and Marcus House. Everybody else seems to be insane. But then again, I'm not a youtuber.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Watch for a new Rocketry Forum user, Xrocket420, to join and immediately start two new threads:

• What’s the Best Glue for Heat Shield Tiles? Gorilla, JB Weld, or Titebond III?
• Is SR-71 the Best Paint for Re-entry, or is BBQ Grill Paint Better?

 

[bad_idea]

Question for the brain trust - would the FAA require an incident report and investigation this time around?

Certainly. Although the test may have been successful, the flight was not.

The definition of mishap in the relevant CFR has been met on several counts, certainly 7 and 9 and possibly others:

(From US CFR Title 14, Chapter III, Subchapter A, Part 401)

Mishap means any event, or series of events associated with a licensed or permitted activity resulting in any of the following:

(1) A fatality or serious injury (as defined in 49 CFR 830.2);

(2) A malfunction of a safety-critical system;

(3) A failure of the licensee's or permittee's safety organization, safety operations, safety procedures;

(4) High risk, as determined by the FAA, of causing a serious or fatal injury to any space flight participant, crew, government astronaut, or member of the public;

(5) Substantial damage, as determined by the FAA, to property not associated with licensed or permitted activity;

(6) Unplanned substantial damage, as determined by the FAA, to property associated with licensed or permitted activity;

(7) Unplanned permanent loss of a launch or reentry vehicle during licensed activity or permitted activity;

(8) The impact of hazardous debris outside the planned landing site or designated hazard area; or

(9) Failure to complete a launch or reentry as planned as reported in § 450.213(b).

If no incident report then SpaceX would be free to launch a little sooner?

Even were that the case, I'm not convinced SpaceX's launch timelines have been much affected by the FAA reviews, no matter their public carping. They were going hammer and tongs to prepare for flights 1 and 2 right up until the licenses were granted, and while I've not paid attention in the past few weeks, as of a month ago, they didn't seem ready to launch flight 3.

 

[BEC]

Yes, today's flight certainly met the letter of paragraphs 7 and 9 above.

I just watched Scott Manley's latest. I agree with his assessment of things.

 

[techrat]

I just watched Scott Manley's latest. I agree with his assessment of things.

In particular, he points out how a door that opens inwards is going to have trouble even if there's 1PSI of atmosphere still left inside as opposed to the zero psi outside.

Suddenly, this explains all the sliding pocket doors of Star Trek.
They don't open in or out and therefore are pressure neutral. Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries were right again!!

 

[Charles_McG]

The vapors getting sucked out into the void through the opening door slit were uber sci-fi. In the various clips they show of the interior, looking at the door once it's open enough , you can see from the changing shadows that the ship is in a roll. I would have thought that a reaction to payload venting would be a pitchwise tumble. Maybe those would be hard to distinguish from the vids available.

Scott did miss one bit about the booster landing non-burn. He noted that some middle ring engines seems to try to light - but thought it was supposed to be only the middle three. The SpaceX commentary says that the landing burn was planned to start with 13, and drop to 3.

 

[cerving]

Watch for a new Rocketry Forum user, Xrocket420, to join and immediately start two new threads:

• What’s the Best Glue for Heat Shield Tiles? Gorilla, JB Weld, or Titebond III?
• Is SR-71 the Best Paint for Re-entry, or is BBQ Grill Paint Better?

I think if they had painted the whole thing with BBQ paint it would have been fine.

 

[cvanc]

Armchair quarterbacking here, but did anyone else think the Pez dispenser door was kinda wimpy looking?

If that failed to fully close, and the ships' movement was not confining the door to the 'upwind' side of the ship where it was supposed to be, it would be a heck of a weak spot.

 

[Huxter]

The instant the booster hit the water with one engine lit - you can see waves in the lower left corner. Must have been comin in hot!




BIG BADDA BOOM!

 

[Cape Byron]

Watch for a new Rocketry Forum user, Xrocket420, to join and immediately start two new threads:

• What’s the Best Glue for Heat Shield Tiles? Gorilla, JB Weld, or Titebond III?
• Is SR-71 the Best Paint for Re-entry, or is BBQ Grill Paint Better?

I think NASA uses this stuff.

 

[4regt4]

I think NASA uses this stuff.

View attachment 635477

I guess I'm on the cutting edge. I use it too.

Hans.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I think NASA uses this stuff.

View attachment 635477

For headers and re-entry vehicles — the good stuff!

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Armchair quarterbacking here, but did anyone else think the Pez dispenser door was kinda wimpy looking?

If that failed to fully close, and the ships' movement was not confining the door to the 'upwind' side of the ship where it was supposed to be, it would be a heck of a weak spot.

A payload bay full of 3,000-degree plasma could be a potential problem.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I don’t think anyone posted a link to the Scott Manly video. Here it is. It’s pretty good. It seems clear that Starship had attitude control problems before reentry and throughout.

 

[RocketPro]

Muzak, nail polish, and "plasma crack"... this thread has taken quite a turn!

Still a good day though

Starship flopping around near the end - can you have low frequency sloshing, might this have been in play?

They were transferring propellants between tanks during the post-MECO part of the flight. One of their NASA contracted tests. Lots of ullage activity associated with that. They were going to hit the ocean with ~30,000kg of prop still onboard which would have structurally failed the vehicle and resulted in a large boom…

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

My MIL said for as long as she remembers, every time they launch a major rocket, Texas and Florida get hit with severe weather, so there must be an obvious correlation between severe weather in Texas and Florida and with launching a big rocket.

She's also only 80% sure the Moon landing was real because we didn't have the technology at the time.

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

 

[MClark]

Like a roast on the rotisserie

I too really wanted it to work.

 

[techrat]

I too really wanted it to work.

Frankly, it *did* work.

Let's all remember that this was the first time they got Starship into orbit. And for the most part, they've got the getting into space part figured out -- all 33 engines lit for 2 out of three flights. -- hot staging worked for 2 out of three flights. Now comes the tougher part of dialing in just the right amount of control inputs to get the booster to not crash into the ocean and what needs to be done to orient Starship into a good re-entry profile.

That may take 3 more test flights. This is why I always laugh at some joker who joins this forum and 2 seconds later asks how to make a rocket that goes into space, even though he's never even built an Estes kit. Space is hard. And they are working in unknown territory because this thing is the largest flying object made by man.

It would be one thing if they were just trying to replicate the Saturn IV and put a tiny capsule into space after expending an enormous rocket. But they are hoping to make the entire system re-usable, which means they are literally breaking new ground in space technology. It may turn out that they are going to end up putting legs on the booster to land it like a Falcon 9... FOR YEARS, before they learn how to catch the Booster in the Chopsticks.

There are going to be changes as they learn. Already Musk has accepted that this design is not the final design and has spoken openly about V2.0 of Starship, which is going to extend the body to hold more fuel.

It's going to take a while, but eventually Starship flights will become as routine as Falcon 9 flights. But that is a long way off -- at least 5 years.

 

[MClark]

Yes it worked.

I told a SpaceX guy,
You will be totally successful when a Starship launches for Mars and nobody watches. Like just another 737 headed for Chicago.

 

[CalebJ]

What is coming off the ship during the descent back towards the atmosphere? It's especially visible around T+45m. Definitely not the thermal tiles, but lots of objects that don't appear to have significant mass. If I had to describe it, they look more like of chunks of cardboard (clearly that's not what it really is).

 

[manixFan]

What is coming off the ship during the descent back towards the atmosphere? It's especially visible around T+45m. Definitely not the thermal tiles, but lots of objects that don't appear to have significant mass. If I had to describe it, they look more like of chunks of cardboard (clearly that's not what it really is).

It seems to me it is likely thermal tiles that are disintegrating as they are stripped away from the surface of the ship.


Tony

 

[CalebJ]

It seems to me it is likely thermal tiles that are disintegrating as they are stripped away from the surface of the ship.


Tony

I wondered about that, but some of the pieces are both flexible and larger than any visible tiles. Plus at the rate they're flying past the camera, there ought to be more than one or two missing tile locations visible.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Frankly, it *did* work.

Let's all remember that this was the first time they got Starship into orbit. And for the most part, they've got the getting into space part figured out -- all 33 engines lit for 2 out of three flights. -- hot staging worked for 2 out of three flights. Now comes the tougher part of dialing in just the right amount of control inputs to get the booster to not crash into the ocean and what needs to be done to orient Starship into a good re-entry profile.

That may take 3 more test flights. This is why I always laugh at some joker who joins this forum and 2 seconds later asks how to make a rocket that goes into space, even though he's never even built an Estes kit. Space is hard. And they are working in unknown territory because this thing is the largest flying object made by man.

It would be one thing if they were just trying to replicate the Saturn IV and put a tiny capsule into space after expending an enormous rocket. But they are hoping to make the entire system re-usable, which means they are literally breaking new ground in space technology. It may turn out that they are going to end up putting legs on the booster to land it like a Falcon 9... FOR YEARS, before they learn how to catch the Booster in the Chopsticks.

There are going to be changes as they learn. Already Musk has accepted that this design is not the final design and has spoken openly about V2.0 of Starship, which is going to extend the body to hold more fuel.

It's going to take a while, but eventually Starship flights will become as routine as Falcon 9 flights. But that is a long way off -- at least 5 years.

I agree, it did “work” for the reasons you stated. And as long as they gathered enough data to determine why certain things didn’t work, there will be progress. Why didn’t the booster engines relight, and what was going on with the janky grid fin corrections near the end? Why was the ship tumbling, and why couldn’t it regain attitude control? They need to demo the raptor relight in space before they’ll be allowed a true orbital flight. So there are things to work out, for sure. It’s probably going to take at least 3 more test flights, if not more.

 

[manixFan]

I wondered about that, but some of the pieces are both flexible and larger than any visible tiles. Plus at the rate they're flying past the camera, there ought to be more than one or two missing tile locations visible.

I downloaded and have watched the video several times. To my eye, the pieces floating by don't look larger than any of the tiles, since we can't know where they are in relation to the camera. I also don't see any that 'flex' – they are all just tumbling away from the ship. And it seems pretty clear they are all from the leading edge of the ship, out of the camera's view.

If you look at the lower left hand of the feed from the on-board camera, you can see a broken tile right along the border – the exposed material seems to be a pretty good match for what we are seeing float by. And in the animated GIF I created, you can see a piece of tile break off and behave very much the same way.

But, of course it could be something else. Hopefully SpaceX will reveal a lot more details.


Tony

This is from T+47:08 – I included a reference frame so it is easier to see the original tile:



closeup of broken tile material:

 

[CalebJ]

Definitely looking forward to more detail. For what it's worth, I was referring to things this: