SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 20 : Discussion

[Chris Bergin]

New thread (20) for discussion of the Starship prototype being built in Boca Chica, Texas.  Previous posts on these prototypes can be found in these threads:

Discussion 1

Discussion 2

Discussion 3

Discussion 4

Discussion 5

Discussion 6

Discussion 7

Discussion 8

Discussion 9

Discussion 10

Discussion 11

Discussion 12

Discussion 13

Discussion 14

Discussion 15

Discussion 16

Discussion 17

Discussion 18

Discussion 19

Thread 20 - you're in it!

UPDATES:

SpaceX BFS : Phase 2 - Starship Orbital Prototype(s) - Photos and Updates -3 (Previous)

SpaceX Boca Chica - Production Updates - MASTER Thread (4)

Starship SN9 Test Launch - UPDATES

Starship SN10 Test Launch - UPDATES

Starship SN11 Test Launch - UPDATES (New/Current).

---

Follow NSF Twitter:
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight

---

NSF Youtube Channel with hundreds of original Starship videos:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSUu1lih2RifWkKtDOJdsBA

Supporting NSF and the team

Members of Red Team or higher get early clips pre-edit and more. Capcom and higher get access to our team Discord.

Subscribe and hit notifications for instant alerts of new videos as that'll be the first you'll see for a new video going live.

--

L2 Boca Chica (intense level updates - Master Thread from Day 1 to today)
Now with advanced clips from Mary's videos and unique content.

*Also now with standalone Starship L2 threads onwards for SN8, 9 and 10*

---

Store, with Boca Chica merch:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/shop/

---

RULES

There are 10s of millions of views on these Starship threads, so remember when you post your post is being viewed by a lot of people. Make sure you're posting something interesting:

Stay on topic (don't wander, use new or other threads). This is ONLY about discussing the prototypes
Make sure your post is useful and adding something. Failure to do so will see your post removed.

This Starship Section has many millions of views, and threads with a lot of bandwidth/data (we're not text only like Reddit (who also make a ton of money), we have photos and files hosted on our servers here. If you can support this site, please do via L2. It's a very expensive place to host and only viable if we have enough L2 support).

[StuffOfInterest]

I think people are reading too much into Elon's tweet about the crater being in the right place.

Footage from LabPadre and EDA shows an orange glow in the sky, followed by debris falling. No evidence of a fireball on the ground.

Combine that with the sheer size of the debris field (nothing from SN9 travelled nearly as far as SN11 debris went), bits of burned thermal blanket being cared by the wind for miles... it seems unlikely that it hit the ground intact.

The tanks may have been blown to bits in the air but I imagine the engine section with all of its reinforcement continued on a ballistic trajectory (although straight down).  That chunk probably left a nice divot wherever it hit.  Looking forward to some photos when the road reopens (or we get a fly-by).

[RocketLover0119]

I think people are reading too much into Elon's tweet about the crater being in the right place.

Footage from LabPadre and EDA shows an orange glow in the sky, followed by debris falling. No evidence of a fireball on the ground.

Combine that with the sheer size of the debris field (nothing from SN9 travelled nearly as far as SN11 debris went), bits of burned thermal blanket being cared by the wind for miles... it seems unlikely that it hit the ground intact.

But eh, some, some of it is on the landing pad, does that count? 

[Herb Schaltegger]

I think people are reading too much into Elon's tweet about the crater being in the right place.

Footage from LabPadre and EDA shows an orange glow in the sky, followed by debris falling. No evidence of a fireball on the ground.

Combine that with the sheer size of the debris field (nothing from SN9 travelled nearly as far as SN11 debris went), bits of burned thermal blanket being cared by the wind for miles... it seems unlikely that it hit the ground intact.

There’s info in the Updates thread that the FTS was triggered when a second engine failed to ignite for the flip. That makes sense, as the horizontal vehicle, suddenly under thrust, has a rapidly widening IIP radius that will exceed the landing area if it fails to rotate to vertical. That will send debris - including pressurized COPVs, potentially, flying several thousand feet up and around, probably shedding their wrappers, which then drifted on the wind. I will be curious how are metallic or other dense debris fell from the point of breakup.

On another note, watching LabPadre’s feed, there have been several vehicles parked near the pad area for a good while, and a few people mostly standing around the open tailgates and occasionally looking around but not walking very far from them. Anyone want to venture a guess what they’re doing?

[mlindner]

A couple of thoughts.

1. There's now contradicting information coming from an anonymous source at KSC and Elon's tweets.
    a. The KSC source claims FTS was activated because the vehicle went off course but Elon claims "At least the crater is in the right place!" so this is a contradiction.
    b. The KSC source claims that two engines failed to light, but Elon only mentions a single engine with issues "Looks like engine 2 had issues on ascent & didn’t reach operating chamber pressure during landing burn, but, in theory, it wasn’t needed." The note of "in theory, it wasn't needed" implies that the other two engines would have landed successfully.
    c. How do KSC sources already know details of what went wrong when they're nowhere nearby and in NASA, not SpaceX. This seems like very fast communication for government communication.

2. A few people have been making very absolutist statements like "highly evident the vehicle did NOT hit the ground in one piece, it for sure broke up in the air." Not only does this not really contribute to the discussion (no information stating why the person thinks so) but it's also making conclusions that even SpaceX may not obviously know for sure yet. (I was probably guilty of this myself a few times today.) Let's keep discussion high quality.

[Okie_Steve]

I interpret Musk's tweet as the FTS enforced "the right place" as intended, so no problems with a crater(s) in "the wrong place".

[mlindner]

I think people are reading too much into Elon's tweet about the crater being in the right place.

Footage from LabPadre and EDA shows an orange glow in the sky, followed by debris falling. No evidence of a fireball on the ground.

Combine that with the sheer size of the debris field (nothing from SN9 travelled nearly as far as SN11 debris went), bits of burned thermal blanket being cared by the wind for miles... it seems unlikely that it hit the ground intact.

The debris being carried on the wind for miles wouldn't have come from the explosion. Those would have come off at high altitude unless there's a hurricane blowing at the landing site. Those locations are over 5 miles away, for a light but still much heavier than air piece of material. So we shouldn't use those pieces of fabric as evidence of debris field until presented with other evidence (for example if we found debris on the far shore the canal which are slightly heavier than the insulation pieces.)

[Herb Schaltegger]

From my contacts at KSC.
Two engines failed to relight for flip, vehicle was out of proper position for landing, Flight Termination System self activated.

That does make sense.  Clearly, the explosion happened about T+ 5:50.  This is a second or so after the first engine relight.  We know that SpaceX's current profile is to light all 3 for the flip...and shut one down quickly depending on successful relights.  If neither of the remaining 2 engines lit after the first one...a lack of flip is going to put SS in the right place.  Especially with all the new construction around the orbital launch site...best to set of the FTS as high up as possible if there is any chance it would not rud on the pad if just left to fall.

Please don’t post discussion and commentary in the Updates thread.

[cuddihy]

Yes, from updates thread:

From my contacts at KSC.
Two engines failed to relight for flip, vehicle was out of proper position for landing, Flight Termination System self activated.

That's great info! With 2 Raptors not starting, that actually moves suspicion from "Raptor qua Raptor" to "Raptor feed system" again.

It also makes sense that with 1/3 thrust the SS was not in the right position to not get FTS'd... beating a dead horse again, but maybe it is time to flip w/ one Raptor at a much higher altitude, shutdown for 2 seconds to let props settle a bit, then light 2 or 3 for a hover slam? Yes, it will take more propellant, roger, but it makes for a much more likely good feed & successful landing start.

[Ben the Space Brit]

@mlinder,

In answer to your question about the early propulsion system tests (the 'flying tanks'), I was neither negative nor positive. I had an up-spike in positivity with SN8 and then, with every successive failure, I've become more and more haunted by a fear that SpaceX are going too fast and to ambitiously, driven by Elon's self-belief and vision.

"We'll fix it in a later version" is a common software company mindset but it doesn't work with expensive hardware that may carry expensive payloads. The margin to absorb 'learning experiences' is rapidly contracting as the orbital flight goal quickly approaches without one single unequivocally-successful landing.

[M.E.T.]

@mlinder,

In answer to your question about the early propulsion system tests (the 'flying tanks'), I was neither negative nor positive. I had an up-spike in positivity with SN8 and then, with every successive failure, I've become more and more haunted by a fear that SpaceX are going too fast and to ambitiously, driven by Elon's self-belief and vision.

"We'll fix it in a later version" is a common software company mindset but it doesn't work with expensive hardware that may carry expensive payloads. The margin to absorb 'learning experiences' is rapidly contracting as the orbital flight goal quickly approaches without one single unequivocally-successful landing.

For the umpteenth time, they don’t need a successful landing to make orbit.

[mlindner]

@mlinder,

In answer to your question about the early propulsion system tests (the 'flying tanks'), I was neither negative nor positive. I had an up-spike in positivity with SN8 and then, with every successive failure, I've become more and more haunted by a fear that SpaceX are going too fast and to ambitiously, driven by Elon's self-belief and vision.

"We'll fix it in a later version" is a common software company mindset but it doesn't work with expensive hardware that may carry expensive payloads. The margin to absorb 'learning experiences' is rapidly contracting as the orbital flight goal quickly approaches without one single unequivocally-successful landing.

IMO We're nowhere close to carrying expensive payloads, either of the hard kind or the squishy kind. So I guess I don't get how that factors into your worries. Perfecting the quality of construction can come after they actually figure out what the design is, which is obviously still in flux. More so I expect they'll do initial launches with Starlink satellites once they feel confident enough to risk their own money before any customers even. NASA doesn't need SpaceX for landing humans on the moon until 2025 at the earliest.

SN8-SN11 illustrated they had a lot of big problems with the existing design and so caused the scrapping of SN12-SN14. SN15 has large changes with new engine designs. BN1 has so many issues they're scrapping it outright apparently without even testing it maybe.

Reaching orbit in July doesn't mean it's ready for payloads either and that doesn't mean it returns successfully either. The first few will probably end up as hypersonic plasma.

[Proesterchen]

re: orbit

Does anyone believe at this point that SpaceX have the production rate of several Raptors a week required to get anywhere near their aspirational target launch date?

[StevenOBrien]

On another note, watching LabPadre’s feed, there have been several vehicles parked near the pad area for a good while, and a few people mostly standing around the open tailgates and occasionally looking around but not walking very far from them. Anyone want to venture a guess what they’re doing?

They're playing with a drone. Now that the fog has cleared, I assume they're mapping the debris field before clearing the road.

[M.E.T.]

re: orbit

Does anyone believe at this point that SpaceX have the production rate of several Raptors a week required to get anywhere near their aspirational target launch date?

Elon just tweeted that the goal is to get SH BN2 to the launchpad, with engines, by end of April. And that if they’re lucky it might even be capable of reaching orbit - presumably on its own, without a second stage.

[mlindner]

re: orbit

Does anyone believe at this point that SpaceX have the production rate of several Raptors a week required to get anywhere near their aspirational target launch date?

Given they just switched to a completely new engine design that looks like it shares little with the previous design, I'm not sure we can extrapolate forward on what their production will be based on past history.

[Yvung_Schmeat]

re: orbit

Does anyone believe at this point that SpaceX have the production rate of several Raptors a week required to get anywhere near their aspirational target launch date?

Elon just tweeted that the goal is to get SH BN2 to the launchpad, with engines, by end of April. And that if they’re lucky it might even be capable of reaching orbit - presumably on its own, without a second stage.

Second stage? As in starship?

[steveleach]

re: orbit

Does anyone believe at this point that SpaceX have the production rate of several Raptors a week required to get anywhere near their aspirational target launch date?

How do you get to "several Raptors a week"? At one a week (a rate they demonstrated last summer) they could have 40 or more stockpiled already.

[StuffOfInterest]

re: orbit

Does anyone believe at this point that SpaceX have the production rate of several Raptors a week required to get anywhere near their aspirational target launch date?

Elon just tweeted that the goal is to get SH BN2 to the launchpad, with engines, by end of April. And that if they’re lucky it might even be capable of reaching orbit - presumably on its own, without a second stage.

That raises a question.  Will BN2 have a modified bottom to go on the test stands (which are designed for a Starship aft end not a Superheavy) or will they need to get the table installed on top of the columns at the orbital launch site first?

[chopsticks]

@mlinder,

In answer to your question about the early propulsion system tests (the 'flying tanks'), I was neither negative nor positive. I had an up-spike in positivity with SN8 and then, with every successive failure, I've become more and more haunted by a fear that SpaceX are going too fast and to ambitiously, driven by Elon's self-belief and vision.

"We'll fix it in a later version" is a common software company mindset but it doesn't work with expensive hardware that may carry expensive payloads. The margin to absorb 'learning experiences' is rapidly contracting as the orbital flight goal quickly approaches without one single unequivocally-successful landing.

This is completely the wrong way to look at these tests. SN8 was a surprise in how well it performed, and besides, there does not seem to be much difference between SN8 - SN11. Why are people surprised at these test articles not landing? As others have said, these are, in a way, flying engine test stands and proof of concept. Obviously the concept works, and the design has not been finalized yet. Claiming success or failure as this point is way too premature. (Not necessarily in terms of time, but in number of tests and objectives met.)