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:

 

[Dan D.]

So they learned some lessons from this launch. Because certain things went wrong. But needing a flame diverter and deluge system were lessons that did not need to be learned, they were already known.

One of the risks of Starship's method of cutting back the fat as much as possible and trying to see how far is too far, is that there are now many many possible things that can go wrong. You would have to continually face disaster in order to learn the "too far" level in each cutback. That requires way more testing than they are scheduling.

Reducing the safety level across the board just means it will take ages to discover each particular flaw point. Some flaws may not show up at all for a while - but they are still there waiting for just the wrong conditions.

That's too much innovation. At least test each cutback in isolation, not by throwing them all into one testbed at once. Many novel systems were not even tested because the whole thing was damaged from the start. This approach is bound to leave many critical flaws undiscovered.

 

[Electroman]

But needing a flame diverter and deluge system were lessons that did not need to be learned, they were already known.

+100. Even a casual Space launch enthusiast could have predicted this..

 

[zoomer0056]

+100. Even a casual Space launch enthusiast could have predicted this..

Then you could say SpaceX also predicted this. If so, what was the purpose of the Superheavy/Starship launch and were the goals met?

 

[Knightshade]

Then you could say SpaceX also predicted this. If so, what was the purpose of the Superheavy/Starship launch and were the goals met?

I guess they learned Elon was...right?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1313952039869788173

 

[Dan D.]

I guess they learned Elon was...right?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1313952039869788173

Elon was....to blame

 

[DarkandStormy]

Starship program is grounded pending FAA mishap investigation, in case that wasn't going to be blatantly obvious.

 

[Grendal]

Starship program is grounded pending FAA mishap investigation, in case that wasn't going to be blatantly obvious.

Standard procedure.

 

[ecarfan]

Starship program is grounded pending FAA mishap investigation, in case that wasn't going to be blatantly obvious.

The FAA launch license was for the first flight. The FAA would obviously want to take time to review the first flight — even if it had gone completely according to plan — before allowing more launches.

 

[scaesare]

Elon was....to blame

I feel like there's a little arm-chair quarterbacking going on here. Elon's tweet from 2020 you posted literally ends with:

...this could turn out to be a mistake

And thus they recognized it was a risk, but made the decision to verify if it was or not. Do you really think that they didn't weigh all the factors, such as:

• The version of the booster they'd expend
• The speed to launch without constructing a trench
• The amount of booster/ship data they'd gather
• The speed with which they can build Raptors
• The # of boosters/Starships they have in the pipeline
• The amount of OLM/lach facility data they'd gather
• + a million other things...

And made the call recognizing there's a non-zero chance of failure?

Elon has tested lots of things that turned out not to work. And amazingly lots that have that fly in the face of conventional thinking.

 

[zoomer0056]

I feel like there's a little arm-chair quarterbacking going on here. Elon's tweet from 2020 you posted literally ends with:


And thus they recognized it was a risk, but made the decision to verify if it was or not. Do you really think that they didn't weigh all the factors, such as:

• The version of the booster they'd expend
• The speed to launch without constructing a trench
• The amount of booster/ship data they'd gather
• The speed with which they can build Raptors
• The # of boosters/Starships they have in the pipeline
• The amount of OLM/lach facility data they'd gather
• + a million other things...

And made call recognizing there's a non-zero chance of failure?

Elon has tested lots of things that turned out not to work. And amazingly lots that have that fly in the face of conventional thinking.

I like it!

 

[Madmolecule]

Elon and other non engineers proving engineers right again! It would be cool dude, to launch, I mean light it up on 4/20. It will take a lot more than a water cooled plate. Texas solution, more metal, hell yes.
Stage 0 is at ground zero. when can I go to mars for $100K?
Does an ecological paradise normally have flying concrete?
florida solution is do it in Texas, thanks Ron
@halfanAstronaut

 

[JB47394]

I feel like there's a little arm-chair quarterbacking going on here.

Worse, it's Monday-morning quarterbacking, and the web is being flooded with it. I don't understand the need to insist to the world that SpaceX will succeed or that it will not succeed. Just respect the people doing the work, follow along and find out.

 

[Electroman]

Then you could say SpaceX also predicted this. If so, what was the purpose of the Superheavy/Starship launch and were the goals met?

I believe they had two goals and only one goal was met. The two goals were:

Launch Super Heavy & Star Ship and a) get test data from Super Heavy and b) get test data from Star Ship. They didn't get any data from Star Ship.

 

[ColoradoMike]

I believe they had two goals and only one goal was met. The two goals were:

Launch Super Heavy & Star Ship and a) get test data from Super Heavy and b) get test data from Star Ship. They didn't get any data from Star Ship.

I think they did get data from Starship....perhaps not everything, or even close to what they wanted, but rest assured they had all sorts of data coming from Starship. SpaceX surely had tons of sensors seeing how Starship was reacting to the launch.

 

[mongo]

I believe they had two goals and only one goal was met. The two goals were:

Launch Super Heavy & Star Ship and a) get test data from Super Heavy and b) get test data from Star Ship. They didn't get any data from Star Ship.

Starship survived max-Q and stayed attached to the booster.

There was no (successful) release, engine, nor reentry validation though.

 

[Electroman]

Someone screwed the bolt too tight that the starship could not wiggle away from booster.

 

[bxr140]

There is one key difference I am noticing between the Raptors and all other rockets. Typically there is so much exhaust coming out like a huge plume often the length of twice of that of the rocket itself.

But over here there is hardly any exhaust seen, but a clean burning engine like a gas stove at home.

FWIW, I don’t really see a significant difference in plume length or intensity from other liquid rockets. Obviously the Booster plume isn't anything like what you’d see from a solid motor, but if you check out Delta 4, Atlas 5 (at least the 401/501 variants), Proton, Soyuz, or even Falcon, I think you'll come to the same conclusion. Some puts and takes here or there (like Proton 'bleeding' NTO into the plume) but all generally similar.

 

[Nikxice]

Starship survived max-Q and stayed attached to the booster.

Starship survived the timeline for max-Q, but has SpaceX confirmed all parameters were met? Specifically with reference to velocity and air density. The acceleration and speed of the stack looked to be lagging before eventually reversing.

 

[mongo]

Starship survived the timeline for max-Q, but has SpaceX confirmed all parameters were met? Specifically with reference to velocity and air density. The acceleration and speed of the stack looked to be lagging before eventually reversing.

That is a good question. Given the lower than planned altitude and the acceleration curve's M shape, I'm thinking it did hit the maximum aero force value.

 

[Bobfitz1]

+100. Even a casual Space launch enthusiast could have predicted this..

That seems for sure. I don't understand how SpaceX engineers modeling the forces and heat those 33 engines would generate and for how long, would not have concluded the pad was way underprotected. The substantial launch successes might just as well have gone against SpaceX.