Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

SpaceX Starship - Orbital Test Flight - Starbase TX

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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:
 

Attachments

  • 114D7452-0A1B-4E20-96D8-03070063E31C.jpeg
    114D7452-0A1B-4E20-96D8-03070063E31C.jpeg
    184.7 KB · Views: 1,117
Last edited:
Back pressure issue? The ignition blast created a crater large enough to reduce thrust? The engine failure/damage reduced thrust.
Reduced thrust resulted in altitude too low to trigger separation but the timing was correct to trigger flip?
Cascading faults but massive quantities of data so SpaceX wins again.
I assume that it was a debris issue. Because the concrete couldn't handle the thrust, they effectively had a massive sand blasting unit on their hands. It created both a huge amount of debris as well as vortices that pulled that debris back down along the sides of the rocket. That debris struck the outermost engines in several places, damaging them and the hydraulic unit mounted just above. Engines failed. The hydraulic unit failed. Thrust vectoring was lost. Rocket stability was lost. The rocket tumbled and SpaceX just stuck with it until the stack started to come apart. Then they destroyed each stage. I saw no signs of MECO, so I don't believe there was an attempt at staging.

I also don't believe the innermost engine shut down was related to debris.

If this theory is correct, then if SpaceX had correctly managed the thrust interaction with the ground, that flight could have gone much farther along and the Raptor engine design is very solid.
 
If this theory is correct, then if SpaceX had correctly managed the thrust interaction with the ground, that flight could have gone much farther along and the Raptor engine design is very solid.
+1.

While there might have been other problems, me thinks the lack of back pressure & debris control is probably the most significant issue that precipitated a host of other failures.

What makes it more painful is, this was one of those that could have been easily predicted and should have been mitigated. While a cowboy attitude is good to get quick results on the field and iterate, it doesn't help when the problem and the solution is well known with enormous experience between NASA, SpaceX and every other major launch providers on this subject.
 
Last edited:
That debris struck the outermost engines in several places, damaging them and the hydraulic unit mounted just above. Engines failed. The hydraulic unit failed. Thrust vectoring was lost. Rocket stability was lost. The rocket tumbled and SpaceX just stuck with it until the stack started to come apart. Then they destroyed each stage. I saw no signs of MECO, so I don't believe there was an attempt at staging.
I appreciate that you made clear you were providing your “theory”, but want to note again (I’ve stated this twice, upthread) that two regular contributors on the NFS forum have said they have contacts in SpaceX who have stated that booster hydraulic control was not lost during the flight and that TVC was maintained. The intended stage sep procedure for Starship is very different from Falcon. I don’t claim to fully understand it, but apparently the vehicle is meant to partially yaw before MECO, then yaw back at which time MECO occurs and the clamps release, “throwing” Starship away from Super Heavy.

It does seem clear that the new stage sep procedure failed. It could be due to the software incorrectly compensating for the much-less-than-planned thrust which resulted in a slower ascent, throwing off the timeline.

At this time we don’t know why multiple engines failed. There are certainly multiple possibilities. Recall that for the static fire some engines failed to ignite and that was not due to pad debris. The firat 3 SH engine failures could have been due to pad debris, but maybe not. The next 3 engine failures could be due to multiple causes.

Again, I appreciate you labeling your post as a “theory”.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Matias
I appreciate that you made clear you were providing your “theory”, but want to note again (I’ve stated this twice, upthread) that two regular contributors on the NFS forum have said they have contacts in SpaceX who have stated that booster hydraulic control was not lost during the flight and that TVC was maintained.
I recall those assertions, but I was going by what looked like a detonation in a hydraulic tank during ascent, combined with obvious control issues at altitude. The rocket wasn't at staging altitude or speed, and there was no MECO, so those dots connected.

The loss of a single tank doesn't necessarily mean that they lost the whole system, of course. So if they retained thrust vectoring control then apparently it wasn't up to the task of performing the staging maneuver in such thick air and/or with so much unbalanced thrust. I was wondering why they were staying with the rocket for so long as it gyrated, and the idea that the flight software might actually stage at some point fits with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ecarfan
…The intended stage sep procedure for Starship is very different from Falcon. I don’t claim to fully understand it, but apparently the vehicle is meant to partially yaw before MECO, then yaw back at which time MECO occurs and the clamps release, “throwing” Starship away from Super Heavy…

I read that part on NSF as well. Mind boggling, and can't wait to see it. My mental model is that it should be like cracking a whip: pull it back, then throw it forward. The physical separation happens toward the end of the "throw it forward" motion. The important part to understand though is that all those motions are done by the main engines, which means that MECO cannot happen until closer to the end of the maneuver.

So everybody saying that they didn't try stage sep because MECO didn't happen has it wrong. They appear to have started the separation maneuvers, which then went wrong. We don't know why things went wrong: maybe bugs with that process, or maybe something as simple as it was planned to happen much higher than 39km and there was just far too much wind for it to work at that low altitude. But if you go back and listen you'll hear them talk about the maneuvers starting.
 
Musk liked this Tweet. Now we will see experts in here opine why a flame diverter is a great idea. ;)

Huh?
We already know they shipped in deluge parts from Florida.
Has anyone said flame diverters are a bad idea? They are somewhat infeasible when the pad is barely above sea-level (and you are on the coast).
Not that I think Elon's like means they are putting in a classical trench. We've also seen parts labeled flame diverter, which may be for the water cooled plate Elon mentioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SO16
I assume that it was a debris issue. Because the concrete couldn't handle the thrust, they effectively had a massive sand blasting unit on their hands. It created both a huge amount of debris as well as vortices that pulled that debris back down along the sides of the rocket. That debris struck the outermost engines in several places, damaging them and the hydraulic unit mounted just above. Engines failed.
Time will tell, but your theory could be right. I've no doubt that in the months ahead SpaceX will resolve this issue and be able to mitigate the debris created from the Super Heavy exhaust gases...

Well, it might be premature, but after watching Thursday's incredible concrete chucking launch, wonder if SpaceX and NASA will step up focus on the moon? Fairly confident that Starships will be able to precisely stick their landings on a flat lunar terrain. Can think of a couple aids to help reduce the risk of damage to the vehicle...Reduced thrust required for one-sixth G. Also, the engines will likely shutdown just prior to actual touchdown. Although seems likely it'll form a crater of undetermined size. Lifting off from the surface would appear to be a bigger concern. Apollo's Lunar Module launched from a clean descent stage platform. Early Starships won't have that benefit. That inch or two of loose lunar regolith on the surface is quite different from the sand found here on earth. It consists of tiny shards of glass, along with other hazards posed by various sized rocks.
Even though the first lunar landing will be an uncrewed test, would be great to see SpaceX well prepared for these scenarios.

There's apparently quite a bit of debate concerning stage separation....MECO, a flip maneuver, etcetera.... We know there's no traditional Launch Abort System (LAS) for Starship. It likely wouldn't survive a catastrophic failure of Super Heavy early in the ascent. But at altitude, would at least hope for a simple enough stage separation design to allow Starship some chance for a RTLS attempt.

A couple of bright spots I haven't yet seen mentioned....There's been no reports of unwanted pogo oscillations during Super Heavy's flight. Also, despite the multiple engine failures, apparently those failures remained self-contained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB47394
Can think of a couple aids to help reduce the risk of damage to the vehicle...
One of the visualizations of a lunar Starship had thrusters high up on the ship, angled slightly outward. I would think that should avoid cratering. They'd only need to use those thrusters around the surface.

Down the road, I sure hope they'll custom design a ship for landing on the moon. It could have the engines up top and all the stuff that you'd offload down on the bottom, close to the surface. No need for aerodynamics; just engines, fuel tanks, and containers to drop off.

1682194818799.jpeg

There's been no reports of unwanted pogo oscillations during Super Heavy's flight.
I think they had that solved as soon as they decided on 33 engines. You're just not going to have synchronized combustion instabilities across those engines to kick off the pogo effect.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: mongo and EVCollies
but after watching Thursday's incredible concrete chucking launch, wonder if SpaceX and NASA will step up focus on the moon?
SpaceX was awarded the HLS contract and is using that to develop Starship, and clearly NASA is focused on the Moon with the hyper expensive SLS/Artemis program.
Fairly confident that Starships will be able to precisely stick their landings on a flat lunar terrain. Can think of a couple aids to help reduce the risk of damage to the vehicle...Reduced thrust required for one-sixth G. Also, the engines will likely shutdown just prior to actual touchdown. Although seems likely it'll form a crater of undetermined size. Lifting off from the surface would appear to be a bigger concern.
SpaceX released this image sometime last year, I think. What look like bright lights high up on the vehicle are actually thrusters angled downwards. Think Super Dracos. Since lunar gravity is low, it is believed that the vehicle could land with those and avoid using the Raptor vac engines. If so, that will mitigate the issue of displacing lunar regality, as I understand it.
IMG_2331.jpeg

We know there's no traditional Launch Abort System (LAS) for Starship. It likely wouldn't survive a catastrophic failure of Super Heavy early in the ascent.
I think there is a Starship abort system that will work from very early in ascent to stage sep. Command the clamps to release and ignite the Starship raptors. Doesn’t seem like it would work in the first few seconds however.
One of the visualizations of a lunar Starship had thrusters high up on the ship, angled slightly outward. I would think that should avoid cratering. They'd only need to use those thrusters around the surface.

Down the road, I sure hope they'll custom design a ship for landing on the moon. It could have the engines up top and all the stuff that you'd offload down on the bottom, close to the surface. No need for aerodynamics; just engines, fuel tanks, and containers to drop off.
No need to “hope”, in my opinion. :D That’s what the NASA HLS contract is for; a Starship specifically designed for landing on the Moon. It will never return to Earth. It will take astronauts from the Lunar Gateway to the lunar surface and back. It won’t have flaps or a heat shield. It will need Raptor Vacs to achieve orbit before departing for the Lunar Gateway, using those same Raptors, after being re-field.

To me it makes much more sense to launch the Lunar Starship to LEO, re-fuel it, launch a Crew Dragon to rendezvous with it, the Lunar Starship takes the astronauts to the lunar surface and then back to LEO, they transfer to Dragon and return to Earth. But that is not the NASA plan because that plan is dictated by Congress, not by sensible space explorers.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2330.jpeg
    IMG_2330.jpeg
    1 MB · Views: 24
  • Informative
Reactions: EVCollies