SpaceX Starship - Orbital Test Flight - Starbase TX

Launch Date: April 20
Launch Window: 8:28am CDT (6:28am PDT, 13:28 UTC) - 62 minute window
Launch site: LC-1? - Starbase, Boca Chica Beach, Texas
Core Booster Recovery: Expended in Gulf
Starship Recovery: Water landing near Hawaii
Booster: Super Heavy Booster 7
Starship: Starship 24
Mass: No mass simulator mentioned
Orbit: LEO-ish
Yearly Launch Number: 26

A SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship launch vehicle will launch on its first orbital test flight. The mission will attempt to travel around the world for nearly one full orbit, resulting in a re-entry and splashdown of the Starship near Hawaii.

Webcast:

 

[Electroman]

New image from RGV showing pad damage. Wow. And that’s only part of the damaged area.

View attachment 930522

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to have predicted this and the need to have a flame trench.

 

[ecarfan]

Velocity and altitude graphs posted on twitter by @Cosmic_Penguin

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649280821352890368

 

[ecarfan]

NSF forum member @Corvus_Corvax reiterates communication with SpaceX regarding the stage sep technique in this discussion:

I had a conversation with a SpaceX engineer who corroborates this. The flip maneuver is apparently designed to be a pretty dramatic change in attitude that then reverses and swings the ship off the interstage just after MECO. HPU did not fail according to my source. TVC was operating fine during the flip maneuver, but he suspects that there was an anomaly with the software / interstage. Software got confused and the commands for the second half of the flip maneuver + MECO didn't execute as planned.

So the initial pitch change in attitude, before MECO, was intentional but then the rest of the manuveur did not occur because of a software error.

 

[ecarfan]

This NSF Michael Baylor video has a clear view of the failed engines. It’s just bad luck that all the failed engines in the outer ring are on one side (Plus one of the 3 center engines). My guess is that overall thrust was so asymmetric that properly controlling the vehicle became impossible.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649052544755470338

 

[ecarfan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649381415442698242

 

[ecarfan]

Clearer view of pad damage at OLM.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649425500526329863

 

[tivoboy]

Clearer view of pad damage at OLM.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649425500526329863

Looks like outside some schools in Bakhmut..

 

[ColoradoMike]

It is funny to see some of the "media" who have zero idea about spaceflight and testing. In My Opinion Only....this was a total success! The new launch will have TONS of information to look and and decipher to make a better attempt! Things will not be perfect AT ALL, and I do not expect that. What I believe is that each and every iteration of these flights will get closer and closer to a system that will work as reliably as the Falcon does! People need to look back in history to see the "failures" of SpaceX in its early years....now it is the GO TO system to put satellites and PEOPLE into space reliably! With that being said there is merit to the way NASA does things....Look at the JWST. I for one thought it would be a total bust but it simply worked!

Two different ways of achieving a goal.

 

[Electroman]

Given the low bar of clearing the launch tower is considered a success, this is definitely a success. But calling this a 'spectacular' success is a bit of a reach, given that Starship did not even get a chance to get ignited and provide any data at all.

 

[mongo]

Given the low bar of clearing the launch tower is considered a success, this is definitely a success. But calling this a 'spectacular' success is a bit of a reach, given that Starship did not even get a chance to get ignited and provide any data at all.

Engines lit
Stack left the pad
Despite failures, it maintained controlled trajectory
Starship/ stack survived some version of MaxQ.
Full stack survived crazy maneuvers.

Didn't totally destroy stage zero
Didn't injury any people

 

[jackmott]

Why would Starship go to a different totally unproven flip maneuver for stage separation?. What is wrong with the tried and proven standard separation method? The whole idea of separation by flipping and thru angular momentum seem very convoluted to me. Why change the attitude of the Starship? Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Relativity Space: "We have a clever new way to ignite stage 2 engines! *proceeds to fail*
SpaceX: "We have a clever new way to separate!" *proceeds to fail*

maybe next time!

 

[ColoradoMike]

Given the low bar of clearing the launch tower is considered a success, this is definitely a success. But calling this a 'spectacular' success is a bit of a reach, given that Starship did not even get a chance to get ignited and provide any data

I suppose it all depends on perspective. It is absolutely not a "low bar" whatsoever.

Tons of things learned...for one, how to design a "pad" that can withstand the forces of the rockets. Another issue is that I honestly believe, SpaceX needs to move the "farm" a "tad" bit further from the launch site. To comment on Starship did not even get to be ignited....fair point but I believe this was a SpaceX stretch. Failures bring NEW ideas on how to FIX things!

I always tell folks that Failures make you better.....if you know how to adapt to them!

Look at all the Star Ship/Falcon attempts.....they pretty much failed...but then it worked! Now SpaceX is melding the Star Ship to the booster and this is the first time it was attempted. I consider it a great accomplishment!

Think of it this way.....if the first time you tried to ride a bicycle. It was probably horrid. Did you fail? Probably. Did you GIVE UP? Heck NO! You tried again and after multiple attempts you figured it out! (this is pre-training wheels mind you). However, eventually you figured it out and it is now second nature! As a parent, did anyone say if riding a bike a failure if on the first attempt would it be a failure? I think not. Probably a bad example but it worked for me when I learned to ride a bike.

I also am kind of upset that now folks think that SUCCESS is based on a goal established from outside sources. The team at SpaceX had a goal and it was met (at least as far as I know). Next time they will get better and figure things out. Just my two cents.....

 

[JB47394]

Engines lit
Stack left the pad
Despite failures, it maintained controlled trajectory
Starship/ stack survived some version of MaxQ.
Full stack survived crazy maneuvers.

Didn't totally destroy stage zero
Didn't injury any people

I agree with your summary, except we'll have to wait and see if stage zero was destroyed. NASASpaceFlight is reporting that the road will remain closed until 12pm CDT on Saturday.

At least they have a flame diverter now.

 

[mongo]

Sorta makes sense:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649439282766000129

May replace launch table:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649482637319217162

 

[mongo]

I agree with your summary, except we'll have to wait and see if stage zero was destroyed. NASASpaceFlight is reporting that the road will remain closed until 12pm CDT on Saturday.

At least they have a flame diverter now.

Emphasis on "totally"

 

[mongo]

Some of the upderpad...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649504488045019139

 

[bxr140]

The booster got off the pad only at T+00:07, which is an eternity

That's not uncommon, actually. Big motors need time to come up to a relatively steady state operation...things like transients in engine temperatures and pump pressures and combustion flame fronts, etc need to ~settle out before you want to release the vehicle....and there's an additional element of most rockets using this phase as the equivalent of what we think of with F9's 'static fire', so that takes a little bit of time too. (One could imagine this concept is baked into the Booster timeline)

And of course, all that is massively compounded with Booster. You know how when someone flushes the toilet in an old building and the water pressure everywhere drops for a moment? Imagine 33x raptors worth of toilet flushing.

It's also worth noting that there's not consistency in the way countdowns are scripted. In some cases when the clock hits zero that means the vehicle is released. In some cases when the clock hits zero that actually means ignition.

It is funny to see some of the "media" who have zero idea about spaceflight and testing.

I'm not seeing any ill will or particularly unfair reporting. Certainly not to a degree so pervasive as to warrant a broad swing at The Media.

Interestingly, what I have noticed is post-event taking points focusing on "success is just clearing the tower" and equivalent [where there was absence of said talking points pre-event]. If SX had published criteria prior to the launch it certainly wasn't played up in enthusiast forums (like this one) and the specialty media (Berger, et al) to any significant degree, nor was any talk about the thing <ahem> going orbital and splashing down near Hawaii metered to any noticeable degree in favor of 'success is just clearing the tower'.

If a general media reporter were to do some research its not like they would find a ton of talk on specific success criteria; if any one of those general media reporters did draw a conclusion that the launch was less than successful based on what they learned from enthusiast corners of The Internet, that seems a pretty forgivable offense.

And, sorry I have to do this, but before the Outrage Police jumps on this one be advised that I'm 100% in camp Nothing But Big Success Here.

 

[mongo]

Interestingly, what I have noticed is post-event taking points focusing on "success is just clearing the tower" and equivalent [where there was absence of said talking points pre-event]. If SX had published criteria prior to the launch it certainly wasn't played up in enthusiast forums (like this one) and the specialty media (Berger, et al) to any significant degree, nor was any talk about the thing <ahem> going orbital and splashing down near Hawaii metered to any noticeable degree in favor of 'success is just clearing the tower'.

Bull feathers
Of course SX is going to put up the best case timeline on their website, but to claim SX leadership didn't express low expectations is unfactual.

G Shotwell in February "Keep in mind, this first one is really a test flight... and the real goal is to not blow up the launch pad, that is success," she said at a Wednesday press conference, as quoted by CNBC."

Eric Berger Feb 9: "The real goal is to not blow up the launch pad, that is success." SpaceX completes a hot fire test of its massive Super Heavy rocket [Updated]

Elon a bunch: "I’m not saying it will get to orbit, but I am guaranteeing excitement. It won’t be boring,” Musk promised at a Morgan Stanley conference last month. “I think it’s got, I don’t know, hopefully about a 50% chance of reaching orbit.”

Elon on Twitter spaces this week was all about low expectations.

 

[mongo]

Awe yeah!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649523985837686784

 

[ecarfan]

Given the low bar of clearing the launch tower is considered a success

For a completely new rocket, the largest and most powerful ever built, with a new engine design, launching from a pad that has never had a rocket lift off from it, clearing the launch tower essentially intact is not a “low bar”.

The test flight achieved a number of successes and included a number of failures. A tremendous amount will be learned from the flight.

Whether or not the OLM has to be replaced remains to be seen. But I’m leaning towards “yes”.

Whether or not there will be another Starship test flight this year is also up in the air. But if Stage Zero at Boca requires more than 6 months of work, I’m thinking that SpaceX will barge an SH/Starship pair to Florida and launch from there, after installing a flame diverter and water deluge system