nortex97 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Bregxit said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Whelp, good thing SN10 is ready for the next test flight. LOL.

Looked like the engines relit per command is the good news, but the whole last second belly flop back to vertical bit still seems a bit iffy. I'm not quite ready to jump on SN11 as a test pilot, myself, but I've never been the Gus Grissom type.

---

Confirmed from SpaceX replay only one raptor relit. The other flamed out so there wasn't enough thrust to get it pointed back upright.

---

Are these new engine designs?

---

No, the issue I think/guess is getting fuel to them from a belly state. (The raptors are relatively new designs yes, but that's not the issue.) The PSI required for these methelox engines is tremendous, and as well the fact that these are full cycle engines (quite exotic) makes it trickier I think than they thought.

It's not an engine design problem so much as a "crap, we have fuel slushing around in a big empty tank" problem. They'll get it fixed.

---

I wonder if they are going to fix it on SN10 (assuming it's unscathed) or are they going to do the same thing with that one too?

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

Bregxit said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Whelp, good thing SN10 is ready for the next test flight. LOL.

Looked like the engines relit per command is the good news, but the whole last second belly flop back to vertical bit still seems a bit iffy. I'm not quite ready to jump on SN11 as a test pilot, myself, but I've never been the Gus Grissom type.

---

Confirmed from SpaceX replay only one raptor relit. The other flamed out so there wasn't enough thrust to get it pointed back upright.

---

Are these new engine designs?

---

No, the issue I think/guess is getting fuel to them from a belly state. (The raptors are relatively new designs yes, but that's not the issue.) The PSI required for these methelox engines is tremendous, and as well the fact that these are full cycle engines (quite exotic) makes it trickier I think than they thought.

It's not an engine design problem so much as a "crap, we have fuel slushing around in a big empty tank" problem. They'll get it fixed.

---

I wonder if they are going to fix it on SN10 (assuming it's unscathed) or are they going to do the same thing with that one too?

---

I haven't kept up with the 'thrust pack' changes per SN. My guess is everything with SN10 is largely similar to SN9. They're changing A LOT from the header tank configurations, steel thicknesses, various plumbing parts, major structural components like the 'thrust pack' and more in terms of software adjustments we can't see (which for purposes of a 12km test flight are probably the most significant).

They have a lot more telemetry/data now than they did 45 days ago, and I bet that is incorporated into any prototype flights they do next with SN10, especially with regards to software controlling the fuel/turbopumps for re-light.

A few more pumps and they'll have it...

Musk is gonna need a fleet of corvettes around his rig to keep them from getting too close.

I think they're skipping SN11-14 and going straight to 15 after 10 blows up lands perfectly.

PJYoung said:

---

I think they're skipping SN11-14 and going straight to 15 after 10 blows up lands perfectly.

---

I think that's 12-14, there will be an SN11

So odds on how long it takes for the FAA("encouraged" by Boeing and ULA) to declare the test flights to dangerous and stop them entirely?

anyone know what came loose from the rocket about t+6:02

A few friends thought it was one of the landing legs that shook loose

Ag_of_08 said:

---

So odds on how long it takes for the FAA("encouraged" by Boeing and ULA) to declare the test flights to dangerous and stop them entirely?

anyone know what came loose from the rocket about t+6:02

---

Well... Couple hours it would seem

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/tech/spacex-starship-sn-9-test-launch-faa-scn/index.html

Quote:

---

"The FAA's top priority in regulating commercial space transportation is ensuring that operations are safe, even if there is an anomaly," an agency spokesperson said in a statement, using the industry term for a launch failure. "The FAA will oversee the investigation of today's landing mishap involving the SpaceX Starship SN9 prototype in Boca Chica, Texas. Although this was an uncrewed test flight, the investigation will identify the root cause of today's mishap and possible opportunities to further enhance safety as the program develops."

When asked how the investigation would be carried out, the spokesperson said "we have nothing further to add tonight."

---

SpaceX probably knew what went wrong within 20ms of that engine failing to fire.

When I think problem solving I think government bureaucrats. We'll be on Mars by next year!

Decay said:

---

SpaceX probably knew what went wrong within 20ms of that engine failing to fire.

---

LOL @ FAA telling SpaceX anything they don't already know. If this didn't have serious potential to drag the program down it would be laughable.

Brad06ag said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

So odds on how long it takes for the FAA("encouraged" by Boeing and ULA) to declare the test flights to dangerous and stop them entirely?

anyone know what came loose from the rocket about t+6:02

---

Well... Couple hours it would seem

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/tech/spacex-starship-sn-9-test-launch-faa-scn/index.html

Quote:

---

"The FAA's top priority in regulating commercial space transportation is ensuring that operations are safe, even if there is an anomaly," an agency spokesperson said in a statement, using the industry term for a launch failure. "The FAA will oversee the investigation of today's landing mishap involving the SpaceX Starship SN9 prototype in Boca Chica, Texas. Although this was an uncrewed test flight, the investigation will identify the root cause of today's mishap and possible opportunities to further enhance safety as the program develops."

When asked how the investigation would be carried out, the spokesperson said "we have nothing further to add tonight."

---

---

About right. Aren't their new rules governing launches set to go into place soon? Last grasp at trying to punish spacex

Ag_of_08 said:

---

So odds on how long it takes for the FAA("encouraged" by Boeing and ULA) to declare the test flights to dangerous and stop them entirely?

anyone know what came loose from the rocket about t+6:02

---

Dangerous for what? Sand castles?

I was watching Everyday Astronaut's feed here


4:30:59 the engine relights
4:31:08 it "lands"

4:31:07 we hear the engine relight
4:31:16 I think we hear the engine stop and a small boom from the explosion
He says hold on listen for the boom, and then at
4:31:35 there's a larger Boom sound

There's 9 seconds from the relight to the "landing". From the time we hear the engine relight to the time it sounds to me that the engine stops and the small boom is also 9 seconds, so that matches up.

What is the Boom at 4:31:35? There's not really anything for sound to bounce off of and echo.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

So odds on how long it takes for the FAA("encouraged" by Boeing and ULA) to declare the test flights to dangerous and stop them entirely?

anyone know what came loose from the rocket about t+6:02

---

Dangerous for what? Sand castles?

---

Safety or environmental, one of the two will be the excuse.

Brad06ag said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

So odds on how long it takes for the FAA("encouraged" by Boeing and ULA) to declare the test flights to dangerous and stop them entirely?

anyone know what came loose from the rocket about t+6:02

---

Well... Couple hours it would seem

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/tech/spacex-starship-sn-9-test-launch-faa-scn/index.html

Quote:

---

"The FAA's top priority in regulating commercial space transportation is ensuring that operations are safe, even if there is an anomaly," an agency spokesperson said in a statement, using the industry term for a launch failure. "The FAA will oversee the investigation of today's landing mishap involving the SpaceX Starship SN9 prototype in Boca Chica, Texas. Although this was an uncrewed test flight, the investigation will identify the root cause of today's mishap and possible opportunities to further enhance safety as the program develops."

When asked how the investigation would be carried out, the spokesperson said "we have nothing further to add tonight."

---

---

I was pretty surprised they cleared space X to land a rocket on shore near cap Canaveral. A controls mishap or any failure on the return flight could send the rocket into a building. And if they are going to be doing many launches over years, I just don't think it's reliability is proven yet for landing anywhere but the desert or ocean. Obviously there is even greater risk with these test rockets, what if it came down on their other rocket?

Then they're slightly ahead of schedule by blowing up two rockets with one launch?

Honestly I doubt they expect SN10 to land at this point given it's still basically the same design as SN8 and SN9. They're going to use the next few launches to try and hone it in but it sounds like they still have to build the solution.

bmks270 said:

---

Brad06ag said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

So odds on how long it takes for the FAA("encouraged" by Boeing and ULA) to declare the test flights to dangerous and stop them entirely?

anyone know what came loose from the rocket about t+6:02

---

Well... Couple hours it would seem

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/tech/spacex-starship-sn-9-test-launch-faa-scn/index.html

Quote:

---

"The FAA's top priority in regulating commercial space transportation is ensuring that operations are safe, even if there is an anomaly," an agency spokesperson said in a statement, using the industry term for a launch failure. "The FAA will oversee the investigation of today's landing mishap involving the SpaceX Starship SN9 prototype in Boca Chica, Texas. Although this was an uncrewed test flight, the investigation will identify the root cause of today's mishap and possible opportunities to further enhance safety as the program develops."

When asked how the investigation would be carried out, the spokesperson said "we have nothing further to add tonight."

---

---

I was pretty surprised they cleared space X to land a rocket on shore near cap Canaveral. A controls mishap or any failure on the return flight could send the rocket into a building. And if they are going to be doing many launches over years, I just don't think it's reliability is proven yet for landing anywhere but the desert or ocean. Obviously there is even greater risk with these test rockets, what if it came down on their other rocket?

---

No kidding the reliability isn't there, these are early prototypes. They know full well to expect RUDs on these, its built into their plans. On SN8, Musk himself only gave it a 1/3 chance. The problem is this is a different design philosophy than government run space flight. SpaceX philosphy is basically, Design, build, test, break, and recycle back to design rapidly. We've seen the massive delays, budget overruns, etc that NASA projects do because they are so far down design before they ever have a chance to find an issue. The idea here is to work out the kinks early so that you have a reliable design to be reused.

And what if it did come down on their other rocket? 1. Its already outdated hardware design, its expendable. It was basically a shell with empty fuel tanks, no engines installed yet. 2. I'm pretty sure they already risk factored that in when they rolled it out to the pad.

bmks270 said:

---

Brad06ag said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

So odds on how long it takes for the FAA("encouraged" by Boeing and ULA) to declare the test flights to dangerous and stop them entirely?

anyone know what came loose from the rocket about t+6:02

---

Well... Couple hours it would seem

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/tech/spacex-starship-sn-9-test-launch-faa-scn/index.html

Quote:

---

"The FAA's top priority in regulating commercial space transportation is ensuring that operations are safe, even if there is an anomaly," an agency spokesperson said in a statement, using the industry term for a launch failure. "The FAA will oversee the investigation of today's landing mishap involving the SpaceX Starship SN9 prototype in Boca Chica, Texas. Although this was an uncrewed test flight, the investigation will identify the root cause of today's mishap and possible opportunities to further enhance safety as the program develops."

When asked how the investigation would be carried out, the spokesperson said "we have nothing further to add tonight."

---

---

I was pretty surprised they cleared space X to land a rocket on shore near cap Canaveral. A controls mishap or any failure on the return flight could send the rocket into a building. And if they are going to be doing many launches over years, I just don't think it's reliability is proven yet for landing anywhere but the desert or ocean. Obviously there is even greater risk with these test rockets, what if it came down on their other rocket?

---

Boca Chica is a very long way from Cape Canaveral. It's actually incredibly remote (the landing/launch site) from civilization, just a handful of residents in the zone that could get broken windows from the blasts. The videos we see are those using massive zoom lenses from a very safe distance (several miles I believe).

SH is just about ready to begin stacking it sounds like.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-first-super-heavy-booster-halfway-complete/

Quote:

---

While Super Heavy is dramatically different from Starship by almost any measure, SpaceX has ensured that hardware commonality is as extensive as possible. Ultimately, with minor tweaks, that means that SpaceX can (in theory) build Super Heavy with the exact same tools and techniques it's used to churn out Starship prototypes.

As of the end of this month, a flurry of public photos from local (and visiting) photographers have confirmed that Super Heavy booster BN1 is effectively halfway to completion and currently stands 18 steel rings tall. Aside from booster-specific layout changes, that 33-meter-tall (~105 ft) barrel section is virtually identical to a Starship's 20-ring barrel section, lacking only conical nose section that caps them off.

---

Now, back at Cape Canaveral, there are 2 F9 launches for tomorrow;

The small control thruster flying over the hopper cracks me up.

The best part was the NASA broadcaster making the "woooo wooo wooo" sound along with it live on the livestream.

Do the falcon rockets or startship have an abort detonator to prevent landing on structures if they go wildly off course?


The fail fast, iterative mentality is great to see. I use it all the time as an example of how to work to deliver value more quickly.

GCRanger said:

---

Do the falcon rockets or startship have an abort detonator to prevent landing on structures if they go wildly off course?

---

yes

If their drone recovery barges weren't so over-tasked off Florida, it would be interesting if they tried to land SH on one in the gulf.

Maybe good news, ultimately, that the moon program won't be gutted (too much largess to Boeing/LM).

GCRanger said:

---

Do the falcon rockets or startship have an abort detonator to prevent landing on structures if they go wildly off course?


The fail fast, iterative mentality is great to see. I use it all the time as an example of how to work to deliver value more quickly.

---

Yes, you can actually see an in flight test of it on the Crew Dragon I'm flight abort, they apparently pushed the button on that one when the booster did not come apart.


There was concern over the booster coming down at the cape and losing control. That has actually happened, the boosters descent profile is such that, unless they have control to make a course correction in the last seconds, it lands in the water. This one actually DID regain landing control, as has another that failed offshore, but not in time to come over the pad.

nortex97 said:

---

If their drone recovery barges weren't so over-tasked off Florida, it would be interesting if they tried to land SH on one in the gulf.

---

Don't think they're big enough, and they can't risk sinking one.

Once the landing sequence is more...refined, they'll probably switch to.the platforms. Right now concrete is cheap.


It is highly ironic that Russian arrogance is what pissed Musk off and pushed him to form spacex, yet they're working so much like the Soviet program did.... keep launching them until one works, figure out why, then go. It's really a shame they forceably scrapped the N1, they had the engines and the data for one of the ones they had built to have gone...