Predictions for Starship IFT-3

[kennerado]

Allegedly, Ship 28 (and every ship after) has a different method of title application where they test EACH tile during installation, which is something that didn't happen previously.

[matthewkantar]

Flight Pairing: S28/B10
Launch Date: 7:00am, January 28th Texas time.
Mission Success Chance:%100

One hundred percent chance of success because even flights with multiple explosions are going to be deemed successful.

[wannamoonbase]

Flight Pairing: S28/B10
Launch Date: 7:00am, January 28th Texas time.
Mission Success Chance:%100

One hundred percent chance of success because even flights with multiple explosions are going to be deemed successful.

Not if they are expected to do cryogenic propellant transfer.

I appreciate the 100% prediction though.

[litton4]

Even if they just repeat IFT-2 with 33 engines to successful stage separation, it will be a success, since they will have verified that it wasn't just luck to get that working.

SS to orbit (with or without it's tiles) will be a major win.

Booster RUD, less of an issue, but if the relight does better, that will be progress too.
Remember it took them a number of attempts before SS could do a flip and burn......

[ZachS09]

Flight Pairing: S28/B10
Launch Date: 7:00am, January 28th Texas time.
Mission Success Chance:%100

One hundred percent chance of success because even flights with multiple explosions are going to be deemed successful.

Not if they are expected to do cryogenic propellant transfer.

I appreciate the 100% prediction though.

I don’t think the term “success” would apply to a future flight that falls shorter than its predecessors.

Did you think Falcon 1 Flight 3 was another success even after Flight 2 nearly reached orbit?

[TergenFlerg]

Full success.

[JohnsterSpaceProgram]

Since it's been a few weeks since the launch of the second integrated flight test (IFT-2), I thought that I would start a predictions thread for the third flight. This will be similar to this IFT-2 predictions thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59531.0), although this one will be a little different.

You can either put your predictions in a reply to this post, or add it to my IFT-3 predictions spreadsheet, which you can fill out here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qLzdPCsyB7oZgIODzBblGvzBOaSipdPt4frOHPzWNXI. 

Anyways, here are my predictions:
Flight Pairing: Booster 10 And Ship 28 (B10/S28)
Launch Date: Sometime in January 2024
Mission Success Chance: 75% (The hotstaging would most likely be successful again, but maybe the booster experiences a RUD near the end of the boostback burn or during the simulated landing burn over water, and the ship survives all the way to reentry but is then lost during reentry due to losing too many heat shield tiles).

I could end up being totally wrong (especially in regards to the launch date prediction, which is a bit ambitious, but not totally impossible given the current state of the launch site), but those are just my predictions. Now I'd like to hear what your predictions are for the third integrated flight of SpaceX's Starship vehicle. 

And here's my prediction on what the testing and work flow could end up being like for Booster 10 and Ship 28 for the testing that remains ahead of launch (this would be in the best case scenario, where no major issues occur during either vehicle's test campaigns):

Ship 28's work is completed >>> S28 rolls out and is installed on the suborbital pad for static fire testing >>> Booster 10's work is completed >>> B10 rolls out and is installed on the orbital launch mount for static fire testing >>> S28 completes a 6 engine spin prime & static fire not long after B10's installation on the OLM >>> B10 completes a 33 engine spin prime & static fire not long after S28's static fire >>> S28 is removed from the suborbital pad, any needed work following the static fire is completed, and the ship is then moved over to the orbital launch site, followed by the stacking of S28 on B10 for the first time >>> The B10 & S28 full stack complete a wet dress rehearsal >>> S28 is destacked from B10 and any needed work is completed while waiting for a launch license >>> Following the approval of a launch license, a target launch date is announced followed by the arming of the FTS on both vehicles not long afterwards >>> Shortly before the first launch attempt, S28 and B10 and stacked for the last time ahead of that attempt >>> The launch of IFT-3 either occurs on the first attempt, or is scrubbed to a later date.

Seeing how IFT-2 launched on the first attempt, I wouldn't be surprised if that is also the case for IFT-3. I would also like to see your predictions for what you think the testing & work flow for both vehicles could end up being like.

Well, it looks like my first prediction about Ship 28 rolling out to the suborbital pad before Booster 10 ended up being correct. 

Also, credit to NSF for their livestream covering the S28 rollout that is linked below (it's the second link). And also the image screen-captured from Starbase Live.

[Greg Hullender]

Remember it took them a number of attempts before SS could do a flip and burn......

I dunno. As I recall, it flipped and burned a lot! :-)

[litton4]

Flight Pairing: S28/B10
Launch Date: 7:00am, January 28th Texas time.
Mission Success Chance:%100

One hundred percent chance of success because even flights with multiple explosions are going to be deemed successful.

Not if they are expected to do cryogenic propellant transfer.

I appreciate the 100% prediction though.

I don’t think the term “success” would apply to a future flight that falls shorter than its predecessors.

Did you think Falcon 1 Flight 3 was another success even after Flight 2 nearly reached orbit?

It's all about uncovering failure modes.

The more that can be found and fixed early in the programme, the better.

So even if B10 fails during the flip/boostback and/or S28 activates FTS or RUDs, it's ok, so long as they were for different reasons compared to the first time.

[steveleach]

Flight Pairing: S28/B10
Launch Date: 7:00am, January 28th Texas time.
Mission Success Chance:%100

One hundred percent chance of success because even flights with multiple explosions are going to be deemed successful.

Not if they are expected to do cryogenic propellant transfer.

I appreciate the 100% prediction though.

I don’t think the term “success” would apply to a future flight that falls shorter than its predecessors.

Did you think Falcon 1 Flight 3 was another success even after Flight 2 nearly reached orbit?

It's all about uncovering failure modes.

The more that can be found and fixed early in the programme, the better.

So even if B10 fails during the flip/boostback and/or S28 activates FTS or RUDs, it's ok, so long as they were for different reasons compared to the first time.

This is all straying off topic, but SpaceX will know what their goals for each mission are, and those goals may not always be obvious to us outsiders. It is quite likely that they will have a primary and numerous secondary goals for each mission. I imagine they would view any launch that meets its primary goal as a success, regardless of how many secondary goals are met, or whether it ends up with a RUD or not. But even failures, that don't achieve their primary goal, can still be valuable if they learn something.

[sdsds]

It's all about uncovering failure modes.

The more that can be found and fixed early in the programme, the better.

So even if B10 fails during the flip/boostback and/or S28 activates FTS or RUDs, it's ok, so long as they were for different reasons compared to the first time.

Concur, with a major caveat. If B10 or S28 fail and the cause of the failure was something introduced by changes intended to fix a B9 or S25 failure mode, this is churn rather than progress.

[litton4]

It's all about uncovering failure modes.

The more that can be found and fixed early in the programme, the better.

So even if B10 fails during the flip/boostback and/or S28 activates FTS or RUDs, it's ok, so long as they were for different reasons compared to the first time.

Concur, with a major caveat. If B10 or S28 fail and the cause of the failure was something introduced by changes intended to fix a B9 or S25 failure mode, this is churn rather than progress.

We saw that with the Starship 10km flights, different causes of relight failures caused when they tried different things.
Prototyping what the boosters are now attempting.......

[lykos]

It is a test article.
Every new data is a sort of success.

[TomH]

....even flights with multiple explosions are going to be deemed successful.

...even if B10 fails during the flip/boostback and/or S28 activates FTS or RUDs, it's ok...

...failures, that don't achieve their primary goal, can still be valuable if they learn something.

It is a test article.
Every new data is a sort of success.

I agree with all of these statements. Unfortunately, the people who filed that lawsuit are going to continue filing supplemental complaints every single time a flight doesn't go as smoothly as a commercial airlines flight.

No intent to be off topic, it's just that some people lacking the necessary background do not understand what success means when it is within the experimental realm. So, unless everything goes as hoped with no anomalies, that set of people, who see things differently than we, will continue to scream complete failure no matter what. Even aerospace competitors who know better take advantage of and add to that sentiment. Hopefully, SpaceX will ramp up a better PR machine aimed at press and social media to let the public know why these flights are a success. All of us understand; even the court will probably understand. It's getting the public to understand that could be very important.

[alugobi]

The public doesn't care about spaceflight. Only explosions and bad news for Musk get attention when it comes to Space X.

[Robotbeat]

I’ve recently realized that SpaceX doesn’t bother with correcting that misconception because it makes their competitors less likely to take them seriously.

[Stan-1967]

It's all about uncovering failure modes.

The more that can be found and fixed early in the programme, the better.

So even if B10 fails during the flip/boostback and/or S28 activates FTS or RUDs, it's ok, so long as they were for different reasons compared to the first time.

Concur, with a major caveat. If B10 or S28 fail and the cause of the failure was something introduced by changes intended to fix a B9 or S25 failure mode, this is churn rather than progress.

I agree that the current 2 test flights have felt like churn.   F9 had lots of successes before CRS-7 or AMOS-6.  At some point the reliability needs to be good enough to complete multiple missions & define a set of proven parameters for success.  Improbable failure modes will eventually uncover themselves in more explosions, or hopefully, in data that shows where gaps are and how to continuously improve following flights.

I do think IFT-2 was a very large step function better the first flight.  I predict an equivalent jump in overall performance for IFT-3.  That would see either the booster return to precision landing ( however defined) or Starship makes it to orbit & has a successful re-entry, and a coin toss on successful landing.  Falling short of orbit again would be back to churning through failure modes.

[steveleach]

It's all about uncovering failure modes.

The more that can be found and fixed early in the programme, the better.

So even if B10 fails during the flip/boostback and/or S28 activates FTS or RUDs, it's ok, so long as they were for different reasons compared to the first time.

Concur, with a major caveat. If B10 or S28 fail and the cause of the failure was something introduced by changes intended to fix a B9 or S25 failure mode, this is churn rather than progress.

Only if the later failure is more difficult to address than the original.

If I fix my car by replacing a failed alternator, and then I break down because of a loose wire on the new alternator, I've still progressed compared to the original state (dead alternator).

[mordroberon]

I'll go super optimistic on this one

Launch: last week of January 2024
Ships: S28/10
Mission: Suborbital path, test satellite deployment, fluid transfer between tanks
What will happen: Successful launch, hot staging, boost-back, target trajectory hit, fluid transfers, satellite deploys, booster soft-lands in gulf, starship survives re-entry, hard landing in the middle of the pacific.

[alugobi]

If they cannot Until they get a handle on the engine relighting/staying lit issue, then the criticism of churn remains valid.  The success of the booster flight profile depends upon that in large measure.  Not so much for the ship in the next flight, because they're not relighting it. 

But, you know, so what?  It's a prototype.  It's a test bed.  Since it doesn't appear that they made any internal revisions to the booster, it's perhaps correct to say that they think that they can correct the engine out problems of flight 2 with software/timing adjustments. 

So maybe they have to do that a few times.  Call it churn.  That's just impatience at watching them get to where they want to be.

Edit to clarify.