SpaceX Starship : First Flight : Starbase, TX : 20 April 2023 - DISCUSSION

[alphacentauri]

If they were doing a recovery, then I'd agree, but there is no planned recovery for either booster or Starship, and an intact landing for either is very unlikely.

According to the materials SpaceX released today, they will not even attempt a vertical landing of Starship. The diagram shows it landing horizontally on the Pacific Ocean. Apparently, they will let it "float" horizontally until splashdown, with no landing burn.

[Alberto-Girardi]

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Escreen-name%3ANASASpaceflight%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c1

Things are starting to feel real!

The news from NSF Alex that there would not be a WDR is confirmed.

Also we have an official countdown. It feels a little bit strange, it is the end of us being totally blind and having to figure out everything, like it was done during the suborbital campaign ( i will never forget how beautiful it was that a few guys could figure out starship launch time precise to the second only watching other tests.). Not to say that we won't have anything to do, obviusly.

Interesting things I noted:
- raptor ignition sequence is going to start at t-8 s. It will be long, similar to the Saturn V or Shuttle one, compared to Falcon 9 or other rockets. I hope the commentator calls out "ignition sequence start"like in Apollo 11.
-what is "Fluid interfaces begin ventdown"? at t -40s? could be ship qd disconnect?

[Alberto-Girardi]

also nice is that in the infographic below the landed booster and ship icons ther is drawn something that seems a landing pad, even if both will go into the sea.

[neoforce]

Is it just me, or did spacex update their page and remove the graphic?

Chris' tweet and the post here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47352.msg2473864#msg2473864 includes the graphic.  But when I go to the page on spacex at https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-test  it has the countdown/timeline but not the graphic?

EDIT: never mind, was just me

[kevinof]

Is it just me, or did spacex update their page and remove the graphic?

Chris' tweet and the post here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47352.msg2473864#msg2473864 includes the graphic.  But when I go to the page on spacex at https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-test  it has the countdown/timeline but not the graphic?

I see the graphic and timeline

[neoforce]

Is it just me, or did spacex update their page and remove the graphic?

Chris' tweet and the post here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47352.msg2473864#msg2473864 includes the graphic.  But when I go to the page on spacex at https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-test  it has the countdown/timeline but not the graphic?

I see the graphic and timeline

Thanks, its just me... tried it from another computer/browser and i see it.  Either a browser or proxy issue.

[Malisk]

So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and propulsively land?.

[TheRadicalModerate]

If they were doing a recovery, then I'd agree, but there is no planned recovery for either booster or Starship, and an intact landing for either is very unlikely.

According to the materials SpaceX released today, they will not even attempt a vertical landing of Starship. The diagram shows it landing horizontally on the Pacific Ocean. Apparently, they will let it "float" horizontally until splashdown, with no landing burn.

I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't do the flip maneuver.  There's no reason not to gather more landing data, especially since there have been so many changes since the SNxx series of tests.  I suspect the graphics designer simply didn't want to make the chart too busy.

[Nomadd]

So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and repulsively land?.

If it's a marine sanctuary, there could be a problem with firing engines into the water. But that shouldn't prevent them from igniting to go vertical. They might want to hit horizontal to insure breakup and sinking.

[Robotbeat]

So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and repulsively land?.

Possibilities
1) graphic designer forgot
2) they decided they didn’t want to bother doing all the mods needed to enable a successful flip. Remember, this is probably the most challenging part of the whole mission for the suborbital tests, and it failed multiple times in multiple ways. They may have just deleted those mitigations on this vehicle since it was already tested on suborbital flights and this is an old design of Starship anyway.
3) they want to do sideways landing now. If they’re already potentially adding auxiliary thrusters for the Moon, they could just avoid flipping at all for Earth landings. This would be the first we’ve heard about it.

I’d say 2 is more likely than 1, and 3 is by far the least likely.

[chariotoffire]

If they were doing a recovery, then I'd agree, but there is no planned recovery for either booster or Starship, and an intact landing for either is very unlikely.

According to the materials SpaceX released today, they will not even attempt a vertical landing of Starship. The diagram shows it landing horizontally on the Pacific Ocean. Apparently, they will let it "float" horizontally until splashdown, with no landing burn.

I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't do the flip maneuver.  There's no reason not to gather more landing data, especially since there have been so many changes since the SNxx series of tests.  I suspect the graphics designer simply didn't want to make the chart too busy.

The timeline shows a landing burn for the booster but not the ship. I don't think they're going to try the flip.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/tgmetsfan98/status/1645886078338097152

The NSF team is live discussing the release of the flight profile for SpaceX's Starship Flight Test!

[Alberto-Girardi]

So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and repulsively land?.

Possibilities
1) graphic designer forgot
2) they decided they didn’t want to bother doing all the mods needed to enable a successful flip. Remember, this is probably the most challenging part of the whole mission for the suborbital tests, and it failed multiple times in multiple ways. They may have just deleted those mitigations on this vehicle since it was already tested on suborbital flights and this is an old design of Starship anyway.
3) they want to do sideways landing now. If they’re already potentially adding auxiliary thrusters for the Moon, they could just avoid flipping at all for Earth landings. This would be the first we’ve heard about it.

I’d say 2 is more likely than 1, and 3 is by far the least likely.

I think the most likey is 2. It is interesting what Nomadd metioned. Maybe due to the provisional payload bay design s24 can't handle a flip.  Also I would mention that the flip maneuver WAS NOT tested completely successfully, in fact spacex said a few weeks ago that pressure was lost in a header tank. They still have to do it perfectly.
If 3 is true it is a little bit disappointg, the fun of Starship for me was also the challenge of the incredible flip maneuver, but we have already a lot of reason to think that they need a flip to have good efficiency on the landing.

[TheRadicalModerate]

2) they decided they didn’t want to bother doing all the mods needed to enable a successful flip. Remember, this is probably the most challenging part of the whole mission for the suborbital tests, and it failed multiple times in multiple ways. They may have just deleted those mitigations on this vehicle since it was already tested on suborbital flights and this is an old design of Starship anyway.

S24 has the methane header tank in the nose, doesn't it?  Why wouldn't they want to field-test its dynamics--especially since that's a known problem area with the flip maneuver?

[philw1776]

So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and repulsively land?.

Possibilities
1) graphic designer forgot
2) they decided they didn’t want to bother doing all the mods needed to enable a successful flip. Remember, this is probably the most challenging part of the whole mission for the suborbital tests, and it failed multiple times in multiple ways. They may have just deleted those mitigations on this vehicle since it was already tested on suborbital flights and this is an old design of Starship anyway.
3) they want to do sideways landing now. If they’re already potentially adding auxiliary thrusters for the Moon, they could just avoid flipping at all for Earth landings. This would be the first we’ve heard about it.

I’d say 2 is more likely than 1, and 3 is by far the least likely.

Curse you for reviving that topic with option 3.

[Slothman]

I see no reason why whey would not "test as you fly".. even if they have no payload, pretend you have.. even if you have no landing site.. pretend that you have. Just run everything as if it was an operational, recovered mission. Any deviation or concessions to the flight plan would mean a loss of information (should they get to that point in flight)

[alugobi]

They might think that they've fixed the door for max-q stress, but aren't confident about torque on the frame during a flip.

[Herb Schaltegger]

They might think that they've fixed the door for max-q stress, but aren't confident about torque on the frame during a flip.

There will be no "torque" on the frame (torsion). The only stresses on the airframe for the flip will be in tension and compression modes. Presuming a belly-entry, the door will be on the leeward side of the structure and thus should face predominantly compression forces from a flip. That door structure will face far more compression on launch than it will during the flip.

[JCopernicus]

Maybe they want to recover it to inspect tiles, and not risk having it completely come apart.

[wolfi44]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1645875678657810439

Teams are focused on launch readiness ahead of Starship’s first integrated flight test as soon as next week, pending regulatory approval – no launch rehearsal this week spacex.com/launches/

Will they skip the WDR ?