Wow, they did it at night! That is confidence. I can see there was a lot of lighting used, but still…
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The really short sections are covers over the hydraulic systems (at least that was the thought on the NSF stream).
Main chine placement may have dihedral for stability.
Current live view from NSF. Chopsticks are away and down so B7 is clamped onto the mount. Impressive.
Right. I was not referring to the short covers, not sure if technically those are even called “chines”. I was referring to the new features, the four very long chines. I think Elon said in the recent Tim Dodd interview that the chines will result in the booster losing more velocity during re-entry meaning less fuel will need to be used for the re-entry burn?
All lined up for S24...
Guessing they do partial static fires of B7 first?
Oh, I think I see which you are speaking of, not a raceway cover?
More crossection should help scrub speed, but isn't it mostly tail first? I seem to recall Elon saying they might be able to get down to 2 or 3 grid fins on booster and much smaller flaps on Starship (but it's hazy).
Definitely multiple B7 static fires, I assume starting with a small number of center engines and then increasing. Whether they will do a full 33 engine static fire before launch I can’t say.
Regarding the chines, the four long structures, those are not raceway covers. There is one raceway going the length of the booster that is not shown in the photo I posted.
F9 booster re-entry is at a significant angle and B7 is expected to be similar, I think.
Regarding the chines, the four long structures, those are not raceway covers. There is one raceway going the length of the booster that is not shown in the photo I posted.
F9 booster re-entry is at a significant angle and B7 is expected to be similar, I think.
Yeah, multiple statics, just wondering at what point they stack S24 on top.
I know some of those are chines that double as COPV covers, the other in your first pic looked racewayish.
Agreed about the bigger chines probably covering COPVs at their base, and I could be wrong about the smaller chines not also serving a raceway function. But I did spot a dedicated raceway on the other side of the booster, not shown in the photo I posted above but visible in the videos showing the booster on the move.
h/t StarshipGazer on Twitter:
Static fire testing June 27-30 10am-10pm
Static fire testing June 27-30 10am-10pm
I went back to Tim Dodd’s recent interview with Elon at Starbase to recall what was said about the new chines. At 10:15 the director of booster development starts talking about the chines enabling the booster to ”come in at a higher velocity and get more precision for the tower catch”. They are offset 120 degrees. The chines are about “getting the area of the rocket to pressurize…and you get more net drag on the vehicle” And then Tim added “at an angle” and he agreed. Elon goes on to explain in more detail and it’s quite interesting. Watching it again leads me to correct my statement upthread that there are four chines. I think when they talk about chines they mean the two large ones and the two smaller ones are just raceways, so apologies for my error. And @Electroman to confirm the two big chines do hide COPV tanks but it sounds like Elon wants to try to get rid of them. He also wants to move to less than four grid fins, saying they may only need two or maybe two plus a smaller third one. He’s always looking for ways to save weight. It’s fascinating to hear him talk about the vehicle and how they expect to continually make changes to try to optimize performance, including likely changing the shape of the chines.
At 3:30 in the latest NSF video of Starbase activities there is a booster igniter test (not with engine ignition, not a static fire). Turn up your speaker volume to hear the announcement over the PA system.
As it happens I watched that earlier today. 
It was pretty good but nothing new to SpaceX fans. Still, I’m glad to see that a scientist and non-SpaceX employee is publicizing what Starship is aiming for.
It was pretty good but nothing new to SpaceX fans. Still, I’m glad to see that a scientist and non-SpaceX employee is publicizing what Starship is aiming for.
BTW, she is an astrogeophysicist at NASA with a Ph.D. in Planetary Science from the University of Colorado.
Yesterday SpaceX opened the cargo door (really more of a “slot”) on S24, hoisted up the “Starlink loader” container, and positioned it next to the door. It is generally assumed that container will be packed with V2 Starlinks and when positioned like that they will be inserted one by one into the “dispenser” mechanism inside the Starship.
So it appears SpaceX is testing the loading process, which adds credence to the idea that the first orbital flight will include some Starlink and they will attempt to place them in orbit. Which is a massive display of confidence and/or an indication of how urgent it is that SpaceX start using Starship to build out the V2 constellation ASAP. Elon has stated as such recently.
Not clear on how the loader container is going to be powered; onboard battery or it gets plugged in somewhere.
So it appears SpaceX is testing the loading process, which adds credence to the idea that the first orbital flight will include some Starlink and they will attempt to place them in orbit. Which is a massive display of confidence and/or an indication of how urgent it is that SpaceX start using Starship to build out the V2 constellation ASAP. Elon has stated as such recently.
Not clear on how the loader container is going to be powered; onboard battery or it gets plugged in somewhere.
Or something of the same size/ mass (frame sans most electronics). Unless SpaceX is planning a deorbit burn, I don't see how sattelites can raise their orbits before reentry.
I suppose they could send up full sats to test their systems, if the deploy and unfurling can happen before burn up.
If I recall correctly, the plan for the first Starship orbital flight — launching to the east, of course —- is to achieve orbital velocity and then de orbit over the western Pacific and land just northeast of the Hawaiian Islands. I suspect there would be enough time during that flight more than halfway around the world to attempt to eject a few Starlinks which could then raise their orbits in the usual manner.
I had speculated upthread a few months ago that it seemed too risky to try to launch real Starlink sats during the first Starship flight to orbit. But now that SpaceX has revealed what appears to be a functional cargo door on S24, the aptly named “Pez dispenser” mechanism inside, and a Starlink loading structure, it seems more likely that they might use real V2 Starlinks on the first orbital flight.
I had speculated upthread a few months ago that it seemed too risky to try to launch real Starlink sats during the first Starship flight to orbit. But now that SpaceX has revealed what appears to be a functional cargo door on S24, the aptly named “Pez dispenser” mechanism inside, and a Starlink loading structure, it seems more likely that they might use real V2 Starlinks on the first orbital flight.
I think the key point is whether:
Starship will achieve a sustainable orbit and then do a retrograde burn
Or
Starship's initial burn will put it in a failsafe deorbit
If the latter, given the issue with the Starlink v1 orbit raise failure due to solar induced atmospheric density increase, it doesn't seem the Starlink Hall thruster will have sufficient thust to achive a sustainable orbit since they will also be in that failsafe return orbit.
You make good points. I do not know enough about orbital mechanics to make determinative statements, I can only speculate that for Starship to make a flight from Texas to near Hawaii it has to achieve orbital velocity and could therefore reach something around the 236km altitude at which SpaceX released the most recent set of Starlink during the June 17th mission.
What is the altitude achieved by what you call a “fail safe return orbit”?
Given how apparently successful SpaceX has been with re-starting Raptor engines in flight, and how they would likely want to test that capability during the upcoming mission as well as test a complete de-orbit profile, my money is on them doing just that.
What is the altitude achieved by what you call a “fail safe return orbit”?
Given how apparently successful SpaceX has been with re-starting Raptor engines in flight, and how they would likely want to test that capability during the upcoming mission as well as test a complete de-orbit profile, my money is on them doing just that.
The issue is hitting the correct altitude with both the correct velocity and direction. Alone, reaching 236km doesn't ensure lack of re-entry.
Hawaii is basically 60 degrees short of a full orbit. An orbit that passes through the thicker atmosphere will result in a landing. The delta V difference of a guaranteed re-entry vs multi-orbit is pretty small. A 200km x 200km circular orbit has an apogee velocity of 7784 m/s. A 200km x 40km eliptical has an apogee velocity of 7736m/s, so speed difference is only 48m/s or less than 1%. With a 300km apogee, it's about 80m/s difference between circular and 40km.
Elliptical orbit height and speed calculator
For Starship, the speed of a guaranteed deorbit trajectory will line up with a retro-burn induced one. Engine restart(s) make sense to test, but not needing them in order to hit the landing zone is safer. If the relight fails, then the imapct site is uncontrolled.
For Starlink, they would need to add in that extra delta-V in a short time span (60 minutes max?) and in the least efficient portion of the orbit.
Possibly: they could launch on free return trajectory, do some number of engine tests to validate relight, if everything works then boost, release, and brake.
Similar threads
- Article
