FAILURE: Relativity Terran 1 Test Flight : CCSFS SLC-16 : 23 Mar 2023 03:25 UTC

[Robotbeat]

They've publicly said they're not doing any deployment or fairing sep.

That's what I'd do for an inaugural flight. Reduces risk and cost.

And similar for the short nozzle for the upper stage: With a short nozzle, you can test it at sea level on the ground without any changes to the configuration for flight.

All defensible decisions.

[Gliderflyer]

The nozzle extension also looks like it is made from stacked conics rather than a smooth contour. I wonder if they will un-truncate it for future flights to bump up performance.

[heavylift]

They've publicly said they're not doing any deployment or fairing sep.

That's what I'd do for an inaugural flight. Reduces risk and cost.

And similar for the short nozzle for the upper stage: With a short nozzle, you can test it at sea level on the ground without any changes to the configuration for flight.

All defensible decisions.

I don't think it does so meaningfully or defensibly.

1. Fairing separation isn't very complicated comparatively, and since the truth is in the pudding, it's a $12mm+ flight where they aren't testing something. If reducing cost and risk were the name of the game, we wouldn't be talking about 3D printing structures or raising ~$1bn. Saving money isn't relativity's thing, neither is minimizing technical risk with their decisions.
2. I don't know of a vac engine that gets tested with the nozzle extension on the ground. I don't think that's something that happens (esp for any modern private launch provider). Open to being proven wrong.

We can try an frame the fairing and deploy as an intentional decision, but if we're being honest with ourselves, it is unlikely it was an intentional one. Rocket may be too heavy, engines might be underperforming, timeline didn't close - but at this point, and with their money and staffing, this was certainly an unfortunate miss on their part, not a choice they wanted to make.

[Robotbeat]

LOL at the idea that this decision occurred by accident.

[jongoff]

LOL at the idea that this decision occurred by accident.

I agree with Chris. Not having a separable fairing for the first mission was the plan as of at least a year and a half ago when I stopped by for a tour after Space Tech Expo... I think they've been pretty public about it.

~Jon

[chopsticks]

They've publicly said they're not doing any deployment or fairing sep.

That's what I'd do for an inaugural flight. Reduces risk and cost.

And similar for the short nozzle for the upper stage: With a short nozzle, you can test it at sea level on the ground without any changes to the configuration for flight.

All defensible decisions.

2. I don't know of a vac engine that gets tested with the nozzle extension on the ground. I don't think that's something that happens (esp for any modern private launch provider). Open to being proven wrong.

Raptor vacuum is routinely fired at sea level.

[vaporcobra]

They've publicly said they're not doing any deployment or fairing sep.

That's what I'd do for an inaugural flight. Reduces risk and cost.

And similar for the short nozzle for the upper stage: With a short nozzle, you can test it at sea level on the ground without any changes to the configuration for flight.

All defensible decisions.

2. I don't know of a vac engine that gets tested with the nozzle extension on the ground. I don't think that's something that happens (esp for any modern private launch provider). Open to being proven wrong.

Raptor vacuum is routinely fired at sea level.

Raptor Vacuum has an unusually low expansion ratio. Just eyeballing it, it honestly looks like AeonVac's is already higher.

[edzieba]

The bell looks like they optimised for what they could fit into their interstage (rather than just taking a bell and clipping it once it gets too long or too wide), then figured that losing a few fractions of a percent of propulsive efficiency was worth cutting the thing out of flat sheet and rolling it into two conic sections rather than tooling up for metal spinning or contracting out spin-forming or explosive-forming.

[zubenelgenubi]

Launch NET December 2022?
NET January 2023?

[PM3]

Launch NET December 2022?
NET January 2023?

NET 2023. Everything else is just placeholders for "we don't know when it will launch". The rocket is not completed, not qualified, not licensed. Still no full duration static fire, after the aborted test with green flames - right?

[edzieba]

Launch NET December 2022?
NET January 2023?

NET 2023. Everything else is just placeholders for "we don't know when it will launch". The rocket is not completed, not qualified, not licensed. Still no full duration static fire, after the aborted test with green flames - right?

Wrong. That was the completed static fire test (green flash was mid-burn and did not result in an abort or early shutdown), and the rocket is now assembled. Pad works are well underway to swap the static-fire bolt-downs for the hydraulic hold-downs, and beyond that the launch is waiting on licensing.

[zubenelgenubi]

NextSpaceFlight, updated November 24:
Launch NET December

Launch NET December 2022?

[Galactic Penguin SST]

NextSpaceFlight, updated November 24:
Launch NET December

Launch NET December 2022?

I was the one who changed it, based on the fact that a. There's no signs of a launch license; b. Relativity seems to be going to do further WDRs at least with both stages; c. Their latest tweet yesterday was not about 1st launch.

[Daniels30]

Hello, from the Relativity hangar. 🚀

Terran 1 nose cone
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1598850298130620416

Getting ready for roll out to pad next few days 🌟
https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1598857829016023040

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1599953194888544256

Vehicle to Transporter Erector integration complete for Terran 1; next up, final checks and pad rollout. This is ahead of vehicle static fire. @relativityspace

[edzieba]

For those thinking "but they already did the static fire": they completed the vehicle qualification static firing (with the bolt-downs to allow longer burn), the upcoming one is the pre-launch test firing of the flight configuration vehicle and pad (with hydraulic holddowns). The former is only done once per vehicle design change, the latter is once per launch.

[Conexion Espacial]

Terran 1 road to the Launch Pad.https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1600152248943665152
https://twitter.com/relativityspace/status/1600155068304539648

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/marcushouse/status/1600048305798811649

After the full vehicle static fire (and hopeful passing of all relevant results), are there any more significant steps before flight?

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1600158600604753921

Nope, just launch license from FAA. Have key steps passed on that journey, just waiting for final 👍

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thetimellis/status/1600194543906787328

[Conexion Espacial]

Terran 1 now vertical on SLC-16.https://twitter.com/GregScott_photo/status/1600604057533616132