You're missing the point of why spacex is flying then.

Any pictures of the debris field yet?

Some of the thermal insulation cloth made its way over to the southern tip of SPI.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Notice it's two of the three west coast states, when Musk is bailing from the west coast. If the CA pols had done it he could have yelled bias, so their buddies set it up.

I'm so sick of this mess. We stand on the verge of the greatest age of exploration humanity has ever known, and all any of these politicians can think about is how to line their , and their friends, pocket books.

---

That's why Elon Musk must get to the point of a sustainable base on Mars. Then he can say good bye to petty politics.

First 'reliable?' Rumor 2 engines failed to light and led to auto-detonation for straying from flight corridor which I have seen.

It seems clear that the test flights are more about testing the raptor s and tanks than they are about the flight characteristics of the starship itself. And they only way they can test them is under flight conditions.

Mathguy64 said:

---

It seems clear that the test flights are more about testing the raptor s and tanks than they are about the flight characteristics of the starship itself. And they only way they can test them is under flight conditions.

---

I thought the test flights were more about the belly flop and learning to fly it down to the pad with those 4 flaps.

I think they wanted to prove that the idea worked.

nortex97 said:

---

NavyAg95 said:

---

Don't know why they insisted on launching in that visibility. Lost a tremendous amount of visual data for the test. Very disappointing.

---

I don't know what they really lost? I mean, we like watching it, but they know what the data said the engines were doing and that's really all that matters, not what it looked like. And, they probably have a lot more visual data; they had cameras inside the tanks/on the ship etc., and while some of that glitched out on the livestream I bet they have a very good visual idea of what was happening from that data they can stitch together too from...onboard cameras which are a lot better than the commercial guys on the ground.

As well, they have had great/very high resolution/frame rate cameras on the pad so they probably have that too but aren't real likely to show it off this morning. It failed to pivot from the belly flop, but more cameras on it from the ground wouldn't, in short, really tell us much.

---

I think the fog showed up at launch time and SpaceX wanted to impress everyone that they could land in the fog. I wasn't able to see it this morning and just saw it. When I watched the launch at liftoff I was saying this was a dumb move to launch in the fog. Yes, technically the fog doesn't matter, but this is their 4th launch. They need all the data they can get, and it's nothing that waiting a few hours wouldn't normally solve.

Decay said:

---

I think there's some international treaties that prevent private moon development (and probably also apply to Mars etc) but I doubt that's a real impediment.

---

Not to a private company

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

NavyAg95 said:

---

Don't know why they insisted on launching in that visibility. Lost a tremendous amount of visual data for the test. Very disappointing.

---

I don't know what they really lost? I mean, we like watching it, but they know what the data said the engines were doing and that's really all that matters, not what it looked like. And, they probably have a lot more visual data; they had cameras inside the tanks/on the ship etc., and while some of that glitched out on the livestream I bet they have a very good visual idea of what was happening from that data they can stitch together too from...onboard cameras which are a lot better than the commercial guys on the ground.

As well, they have had great/very high resolution/frame rate cameras on the pad so they probably have that too but aren't real likely to show it off this morning. It failed to pivot from the belly flop, but more cameras on it from the ground wouldn't, in short, really tell us much.

---

I think the fog showed up at launch time and SpaceX wanted to impress everyone that they could land in the fog. I wasn't able to see it this morning and just saw it. When I watched the launch at liftoff I was saying this was a dumb move to launch in the fog. Yes, technically the fog doesn't matter, but this is their 4th launch. They need all the data they can get, and it's nothing that waiting a few hours wouldn't normally solve.

---

Except the only the the fog had any part of in this, was the lack of being able to see it.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

NavyAg95 said:

---

Don't know why they insisted on launching in that visibility. Lost a tremendous amount of visual data for the test. Very disappointing.

---

I don't know what they really lost? I mean, we like watching it, but they know what the data said the engines were doing and that's really all that matters, not what it looked like. And, they probably have a lot more visual data; they had cameras inside the tanks/on the ship etc., and while some of that glitched out on the livestream I bet they have a very good visual idea of what was happening from that data they can stitch together too from...onboard cameras which are a lot better than the commercial guys on the ground.

As well, they have had great/very high resolution/frame rate cameras on the pad so they probably have that too but aren't real likely to show it off this morning. It failed to pivot from the belly flop, but more cameras on it from the ground wouldn't, in short, really tell us much.

---

I think the fog showed up at launch time and SpaceX wanted to impress everyone that they could land in the fog. I wasn't able to see it this morning and just saw it. When I watched the launch at liftoff I was saying this was a dumb move to launch in the fog. Yes, technically the fog doesn't matter, but this is their 4th launch. They need all the data they can get, and it's nothing that waiting a few hours wouldn't normally solve.

---

Except the only the the fog had any part of in this, was the lack of being able to see it.

---

It would just take a few hours. And now we know there will be FAA and other political consequences.

Their only chance today was early am. As you're aware, once the sun warmed up the winds have probably exceeded their minimums; it's been blowing a gale all day.

Not looking to argue, I too was shocked when they blasted off in the fog, but I have a suspicion they were looking at constraints down the calendar and decided if they were within flight parameters they were going. If that was to be today, early am was their only opportunity.

Speaking of the FAA. It's interesting that the FAA observer apparently OK'd the launch.

I wonder if this is him

(If you're an old space cadet you may get this reference)

Centerpole90 said:

---

Their only chance today was early am. As you're aware, once the sun warmed up the winds have probably exceeded their minimums; it's been blowing a gale all day.

Not looking to argue, I too was shocked when they blasted off in the fog, but I have a suspicion they were looking at constraints down the calendar and decided if they were within flight parameters they were going. If that was to be today, early am was their only opportunity.

---

Makes sense. I just hope it doesn't give any politicians an excuse to be a pain in the ass.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

NavyAg95 said:

---

Don't know why they insisted on launching in that visibility. Lost a tremendous amount of visual data for the test. Very disappointing.

---

I don't know what they really lost? I mean, we like watching it, but they know what the data said the engines were doing and that's really all that matters, not what it looked like. And, they probably have a lot more visual data; they had cameras inside the tanks/on the ship etc., and while some of that glitched out on the livestream I bet they have a very good visual idea of what was happening from that data they can stitch together too from...onboard cameras which are a lot better than the commercial guys on the ground.

As well, they have had great/very high resolution/frame rate cameras on the pad so they probably have that too but aren't real likely to show it off this morning. It failed to pivot from the belly flop, but more cameras on it from the ground wouldn't, in short, really tell us much.

---

I think the fog showed up at launch time and SpaceX wanted to impress everyone that they could land in the fog. I wasn't able to see it this morning and just saw it. When I watched the launch at liftoff I was saying this was a dumb move to launch in the fog. Yes, technically the fog doesn't matter, but this is their 4th launch. They need all the data they can get, and it's nothing that waiting a few hours wouldn't normally solve.

---

Except the only the the fog had any part of in this, was the lack of being able to see it.

---

It would just take a few hours. And now we know there will be FAA and other political consequences.

---

Those consequences would have come if it had blown up in clear blue skies too. Again, the failure was not even .00000001% caused by the fog.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Centerpole90 said:

---

Their only chance today was early am. As you're aware, once the sun warmed up the winds have probably exceeded their minimums; it's been blowing a gale all day.

Not looking to argue, I too was shocked when they blasted off in the fog, but I have a suspicion they were looking at constraints down the calendar and decided if they were within flight parameters they were going. If that was to be today, early am was their only opportunity.

---

Makes sense. I just hope it doesn't give any politicians an excuse to be a pain in the ass.

---

Since when has a politician needed one?

I feel like they almost wanted to get SN11 out of the way and make room for the new tech of SN15.

If it wasn't FTS then it must have been a large leak from the tank/a pipe around the engines that literally shredded the main tank when it blew on relight. I still suspect FTS was used. There was a pretty good size fire/flame around the engines (above the bell nozzles) on ascent.

PJYoung said:

---

I feel like they almost wanted to get SN11 out of the way and make room for the new tech of SN15.

---

The more I read and the more has been said, I really think this was proving a point to the FAA. "Oh, delaying for safety or revisions hampers YOUR schedule? Going to bully us by refusing to send an obeserver/regulator from Texas? OK, we told you 8 am, we're go to launch, you ready? We know, but it meets the parameters YOU said we had to meet..... oh it exploded? Maybe we should have delayed the flight to check things again?"

To that point... it was so far unprecedented that they say 'we are going to launch at 8 AM.' Period.


... and then launch like they were on a railroad schedule.

I noticed that too... I was watching a few minutes behind and already knew the end result. We've seen stray fire in there before, but don't think I've ever seen it like that. Think the random fire around the engines is usually just at shut down when methane accumulates inside the skirt.

Ok, casual rocket fans, I'll add some commentary/review for the quiet/silent enthusiasts.

All those engine pipes up top with a fire around them 25-30 seconds into the flight may look benign, but here (the link is better than my quote) is an explanation, pretty much in layman's terms, for why that stuff on the Raptor specifically is pretty exotic/has to work quite precisely.

A leak up there, or a turbine in the turbopumps, or anything really going wrong there and the engines can be...really a big problem.

Quote:

---

Today, we will be discussing: What is meant by "Full-flow staged combustion cycle" the one that mighty Raptor Engine has got. The idea of this article is to give you a complete layman's explanation.

One Tip: Try not to get bogged down by the flow diagrams of the engine. Focus more on the text content.

First: Staged Combustion (Closed Cycle)

You have got two propellants: Fuel & Oxygen, in their independent cylinders. They both have to meet in combustion chamber to ignite and produce a massive amount of thrust. So we connect high-pressure pumps which pump the propellants out to meet down the line in the combustion chamber. Now the pumps also need energy to run. So, we bring an intermediate "stage". The pumps, pump the propellant to pre-burner a mini-engine. Here a mini-combustion happens which then runs a turbine and this turbine powers the pumps and makes everything above go in a cycle.

Let's build on this further.

In the combustion chamber, the ratio of propellants is kept optimum. To utilize the right amount of oxygen to burn the complete fuel. This optimisation if done in the mini-engine will lead to a very high temperature, which would pose a difficulty for the turbine and mini-engine. So what we do is, force a non-optimum propellant ratio go through the pre-burner. Send all of the one propellant and a tiny amount of other. So the pre-burner is either Fuel rich or Oxygen rich.

After the pre-burner runs the turbine, the entire exhaust is forced to go through the combustion chamber, so that whatever "extra" propellant it was having, undergoes combustion. This is called Propellant-rich staged combustion. The propellant can be fuel/oxygen.

Let's build further.

Until now we are having one preburner (mini-engine) pumping both propellants. In some cases, the amount of fuel & propellant needed to be pumped can be quite similar and for some it can be very different. For the later case, each will need its own pre-burner. So, now there can be two engine types. One having the same propellant rich pre-burner for both the pumps or having fuel-rich pre-burner for fuel pump and oxygen rich pre-burner for oxygen pump. The first case is called "Propellant-rich dual shaft/burner staged combustion" and the second case is called "Full flow staged combustion".

---

No one's flown one of these until SN8, again, and as per at least the verbiage at the link I think it's not surprising that as they are tweaking this (and they have changed a lot during the past few months, all the way to including a different color bell housing for some reason on SN10 and 11 engines), it's creating...new challenges too.

Some more here; I remain convinced they'd do themselves some favors with more ground testing, but am happy to enjoy the show.

Quote:

---

The reusability is a key aspect, as Musk has said each engine needs to be capable of flying up to 1,000 times to support the ambitious operations of Starship. That's a major challenge; the most re-used engines in space exploration history were the main engines on each Space Shuttle, which flew up to only a few dozen times each. "It's quite ambitious," says Dodd. "I don't know if 1,000 flights is necessarily going to be achievable in the near future. If it lives up to its potential, maybe 1,000 is within the realm of possibility one day."

SpaceX's existing engine is called Merlin, which is used on its operational Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, but Raptor heralds a significant improvement. One is that it has double the thrust of its predecessor thanks to a much higher pressure, 380,000 pounds of thrust at sea level versus 190,000 pounds, despite being a similar size.

The other is the use of methane. No methane-powered rocket has ever made it to orbit, with Starhopper's test hop the other day being the first time a methane-powered rocket engine had actually taken flight. Methane prevents a build-up of deposits in the engine compared to other fuels like kerosene,
a process known as coking, while its higher performance allows for lower costs.

"The cost of propellant for liquid rockets is such a trivial proportion of the total launch costs," says space consultant Rand Simberg. "With reusable vehicles, we want to get to the point at which we care what the propellant costs. In airlines typically 35 per cent of the total operating costs is fuel. With a rocket it's less than one per cent traditionally."

Raptor also uses what's known as a full-flow staged combustion engine, only the third engine in history to employ this technique, whereas Merlin uses the more common open cycle system. The previous two attempts at such an engine, one in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and another in the US in the early 2000s, never made it beyond testing.

A full-flow stage combustion engine refers to how a pump spins a turbine to drive the engine, using what's called a preburner to get this process going by injecting a small amount of fuel. Normally some of the propellant is expended in a traditional open cycle engine to start this process, but Raptor will use every drop of propellant available, making it one of the most efficient rocket engines ever built.

"Raptor burns that fuel at a high enough pressure that can then steer the fire from preburner back into the combustion chamber and completely burn that propellant with the rest of the propellants," says space consultant Charlie Garcia from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). "And it does this in a very clever way that only the Russians have done previously by putting all the propellant in the engine through the preburners."

The end result is that Raptor has a much higher pressure than Merlin, about three times greater, making it the highest pressure rocket engine in existence and leading to its aforementioned larger thrust than Merlin despite its similar size. In 2016, Musk referred to the "insane pressure" inside the main chamber of the engine, 300 bars, which required the development of a new metal alloy.

---

It's no real surprise these exotic engines are giving them fits, in short, even when they are given fuel during the flip in a steady way/flow.

Didn't understand half of that, but still interesting. Thanks!

These have been in development for years so you're going to have plenty of literature and videos about it, but I still learned a lot from that post. Very, very cool.

I wonder if it's even possible to meet all those goals. Reuse, high pressure and temps, throttle control, etc etc. It's just an incredible amount of engineering. I hope they don't blow too many up before the nail it.

They won't have access to their cameras until the debris is all cleaned up.

That debris field is pretty massive. I don't see the FAA clearing the next launch any time soon.

PJYoung said:

---

That debris field is pretty massive. I don't see the FAA clearing the next launch any time soon.

---

It's been reported some debris landed 5 miles away.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

NavyAg95 said:

---

Don't know why they insisted on launching in that visibility. Lost a tremendous amount of visual data for the test. Very disappointing.

---

I don't know what they really lost? I mean, we like watching it, but they know what the data said the engines were doing and that's really all that matters, not what it looked like. And, they probably have a lot more visual data; they had cameras inside the tanks/on the ship etc., and while some of that glitched out on the livestream I bet they have a very good visual idea of what was happening from that data they can stitch together too from...onboard cameras which are a lot better than the commercial guys on the ground.

As well, they have had great/very high resolution/frame rate cameras on the pad so they probably have that too but aren't real likely to show it off this morning. It failed to pivot from the belly flop, but more cameras on it from the ground wouldn't, in short, really tell us much.

---

I think the fog showed up at launch time and SpaceX wanted to impress everyone that they could land in the fog. I wasn't able to see it this morning and just saw it. When I watched the launch at liftoff I was saying this was a dumb move to launch in the fog. Yes, technically the fog doesn't matter, but this is their 4th launch. They need all the data they can get, and it's nothing that waiting a few hours wouldn't normally solve.

---

Except the only the the fog had any part of in this, was the lack of being able to see it.

---

Which is the problem. Now the FAA has ammo to use against SpaceX
1 Couldn't see it so don't know why it failed
2 FAA will say going in fog=irresponsible danger to public

Probably. We can certainly count on the federal government (even if the county/city/state governments fail) to delay interstellar exploration in the interest of remote sand dune road pot holes.

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

NavyAg95 said:

---

Don't know why they insisted on launching in that visibility. Lost a tremendous amount of visual data for the test. Very disappointing.

---

I don't know what they really lost? I mean, we like watching it, but they know what the data said the engines were doing and that's really all that matters, not what it looked like. And, they probably have a lot more visual data; they had cameras inside the tanks/on the ship etc., and while some of that glitched out on the livestream I bet they have a very good visual idea of what was happening from that data they can stitch together too from...onboard cameras which are a lot better than the commercial guys on the ground.

As well, they have had great/very high resolution/frame rate cameras on the pad so they probably have that too but aren't real likely to show it off this morning. It failed to pivot from the belly flop, but more cameras on it from the ground wouldn't, in short, really tell us much.

---

I think the fog showed up at launch time and SpaceX wanted to impress everyone that they could land in the fog. I wasn't able to see it this morning and just saw it. When I watched the launch at liftoff I was saying this was a dumb move to launch in the fog. Yes, technically the fog doesn't matter, but this is their 4th launch. They need all the data they can get, and it's nothing that waiting a few hours wouldn't normally solve.

---

Except the only the the fog had any part of in this, was the lack of being able to see it.

---

Which is the problem. Now the FAA has ammo to use against SpaceX
1 Couldn't see it so don't know why it failed
2 FAA will say going in fog=irresponsible danger to public

---

My response if I'm Musk, loudly and publicly:
There was an FAA inspector on site, who not only was the reason for the prompt and less flexible launch schedule, but APPROVED the launch in fog conditions as safe while on site.

The FAA told them it was safe to launch, and that they had to stick by their schedule, so they launched.