will25u said:

---

Team at Starbase completed a single Raptor engine static fire test of Super Heavy Booster 7 on the orbital launch pad pic.twitter.com/16R7eE985V

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 9, 2022

---

The intent is to stack them both and take the shot. At this point they have the upperstage prototype out well, and a RUD on the pad is going to mangle it no matter what...they m8ght as well launch what they have. Musk has never been too big on payload simulators, falcon heavy used one because it needed the mass anyway, and was great PR.

I'm not super confident about the first launch...there's a LOT of firsts at once going there.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Will there be a super heavy booster test launch without a starship stacked on? Or will they go for a full stack on the first attempt?

---

They'll launch the full stack I think. Haven't seen any sort of mass simulator mount on any of the boosters to date.

So this is test firing just the one engine?

Pretty sure that was the first ever static fire on the OLM, right? Booster 3's little static fire was on the suborbital pad.

Also, we got a triple engine static fire from Ship 24!

I believe you're right. They're not just still testing the booster with these first ststice fires, it's also a test of the pad, which is an oddball in it's own right because it has no divereter underneath.

Everytime I see a shot of those engines, I have to think Korolev is sitting somewhere in the afterlife chuckling and toasting with his vodka at what is, essentially, the culmination of the theory behind the N1, and clustering smaller engines instead of the huge, unlimited budget monsters.

It looks just a little too close to other ground infrastructure and it started a brush fire. And they are going to fire 30 of these? It will be an impressive sight.

That's gotta be some kind of deluge system right? You can't just light 20 engines without unleashing Mount Doom under there.

There is a deluge system, I wouldn't be surprised to see them using it once they start the big static fires. I think today was just a repeat of the "oops" that previously happened, to make sure they got the gas build up fixed.

That's speculation, but would explain why they didn't turn the water on.

My understanding is that they will not fire all 30 at once in the static fires, but will light and extinguish them in rapid sequence.

bmks270 said:

---

It looks just a little too close to other ground infrastructure and it started a brush fire. And they are going to fire 30 of these? It will be an impressive sight.

---

No. The static fire of S24 (second stage) was on the sub-orbital launch mount. The most they can fire there is six. This one was three. This launch mount puts the ship about 28-30 feet off the ground and it uses a deluge.

The static fire of 20 of the Boost Raptors or eventually all 33 of the raptors on B7 will use the orbital launch mount which puts the nozzles 65-70 feet off the ground. IIRC there is a deluge system in the launch table that will cascade downward but one was not used for this single engine test.

Correct. On the booster I read that they didn't mount the inner engines again yet (those are the ones that pivot). They're just firing up some of the outer ring of engines right now. I'm guessing they are keeping it simpler than they had initially planned as far as test firings.

Also, switching to electrical gimballing might mean there's some work/changes they need to do with the thrust puck or whatever it is. I really doubt they try to catch this first booster.

nortex97 said:

---

Correct. On the booster I read that they didn't mount the inner engines again yet (those are the ones that pivot). They're just firing up some of the outer ring of engines right now. I'm guessing they are keeping it simpler than they had initially planned as far as test firings.

Also, switching to electrical gimballing might mean there's some work/changes they need to do with the thrust puck or whatever it is. I really doubt they try to catch this first booster.

---

I would assume they stick with the plan - first stacked flight would have Ship go to Hawaii and the Booster soft-land in the Gulf. There's no reason to change that.

You're both probably right but that's not what they have said.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-booster-catch-plans-2022/

PJYoung said:

---

You're both probably right but that's not what they have said.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-booster-catch-plans-2022/

---

Very interesting...

Quote:

---

"will separate[,] perform a partial return[,] and land in the Gulf of Mexico or return to Starbase and be caught by the launch tower."

---

Agreed though. Seems a crazy risk to take... aiming the largest fuel-air-explosive ever made at your launch site

Just the way that SpaceX rolls.

One ballsy thing they did with Apollo is rather than test each individual stage separately, they said "why not just save time and test the whole damn thing at once?" If the first stage failed, they would have blown their opportunity to test stages 2 and so on. They were taking major risks for the sake of Kennedy's deadline.

Yes, and spending an absolute fortune in the process, with various contractors bits bolted together in one stack.

I love that it worked, but the Apollo program also, if re-run 50 times in parallel universes, probably gets people killed in at least 40 of those. Luck/divine intervention played a role, imho.

Starship, despite it's incredible power, is fundamentally a simple rocket by comparison (Raptor complexity to the side), with vastly less pneumatics/superior electronics/telemetry abilities, and of course only two stages (the 1st stage doesn't even go as far up/across earth as the F9 1st stage does).

Testing/firing the 2nd stage separately makes a lot of sense, as we still have rocket programs today that are serially delayed due to stage separation issues (and this almost killed the falcon program/SpaceX years back, in it's infancy launching out there in the pacific).

Also note that Apollo did have fatalities, just none in space. The program was on a razor's edge.

nortex97 said:

---

Yes, and spending an absolute fortune in the process, with various contractors bits bolted together in one stack.

I love that it worked, but the Apollo program also, if re-run 50 times in parallel universes, probably gets people killed in at least 40 of those. Luck/divine intervention played a role, imho.

Starship, despite it's incredible power, is fundamentally a simple rocket by comparison (Raptor complexity to the side), with vastly less pneumatics/superior electronics/telemetry abilities, and of course only two stages (the 1st stage doesn't even go as far up/across earth as the F9 1st stage does).

Testing/firing the 2nd stage separately makes a lot of sense, as we still have rocket programs today that are serially delayed due to stage separation issues (and this almost killed the falcon program/SpaceX years back, in it's infancy launching out there in the pacific).

---

I disagree with a 80% fatality-per-launch rate. It probably was more like 5% rather than 2% like the shuttle. Which are both incredibly high and intolerable in normal circumstances.

I don't mean per launch, I mean net. Yes, I forgot the pad fire/fatalities (senior moment). Still sad.

Starship also benefits in that at least the first 20 (or 50? 100?) launches will be unmanned. Let those starlink satellites be the brave first passengers. Pretty incredible to consider the mass to orbit proportion for Starship vs. Saturn V.

Watching Dragon (etc.) cruise up to ISS and dock robotically with incredible precision is still fun. Yes, it's also a beneficiary of all the tech/work that went into Apollo all those years ago.

The shuttle was likely higher than 2%.

RE: no testing of the s-II and s-IVb. They actually DID have great data on the s-IV and b, it flew on the Saturn I and Ib. The s-II used the same J-2 as the S-IVb as well.

Apollo 8 was probably the most dangerous of the Saturn V launches truth be told.... the dependability was not there, and the rocket was only border line rated at that point. The real saving grace was that it had so much excess dV it could limp to orbit pretty easily.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Apollo 8 was probably the most dangerous of the Saturn V launches truth be told.... the dependability was not there, and the rocket was only border line rated at that point. The real saving grace was that it had so much excess dV it could limp to orbit pretty easily.

---

It's amazing they did one manned LEO flight with Apollo 7, and the very next flight they go around the moon.

Decay said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

You're both probably right but that's not what they have said.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-booster-catch-plans-2022/

---

Very interesting...

Quote:

---

"will separate[,] perform a partial return[,] and land in the Gulf of Mexico or return to Starbase and be caught by the launch tower."

---

Agreed though. Seems a crazy risk to take... aiming the largest fuel-air-explosive ever made at your launch site

---

This seems pretty crazy …. Definitely will want to watch

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Apollo 8 was probably the most dangerous of the Saturn V launches truth be told.... the dependability was not there, and the rocket was only border line rated at that point. The real saving grace was that it had so much excess dV it could limp to orbit pretty easily.

---

It's amazing they did one manned LEO flight with Apollo 7, and the very next flight they go around the moon.

---

And 7 was a Saturn 1b, not a Saturn 5. You have to think Borman, Lovell and Anders knew there was a high chance, probably the highest since Glenn( and maybe even worse), that they would not return safely from 8. That mission and the point where Apollo 10 put its LEM on a sub orbital trajectory, have been two of the greatest risks we ever took with the space program. The fact that all of them came back is a testament to good engineering and sheer dumb luck...

The launch mount is venting. Could be another engine test coming soon?

Supposedly residents have received notice of potential static fire today

The loss on rural broadband looks very political. I don't know a better way to get Internet to rural areas that's out there right now and ready to go.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-loses-900-million-rural-broadband-subsidy/

Quote:

---

"We must put scarce universal service dollars to their best possible use as we move into a digital future that demands ever more powerful and faster networks," FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement.

"We cannot afford to subsidize ventures that are not delivering the promised speeds or are not likely to meet program requirements."

---

Translation: They didn't agree to line enough Democrat pocketbooks.

TexAgs91 said:

---

The launch mount is venting. Could be another engine test coming soon?

---

There's a siren... 10 minute warning

21 second burn

TexAgs91 said:

---

21 second burn

---

About to attempt long duration engine firing to test autogenous pressurization

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 11, 2022

Looks like the move away from Russia has hit another acceleration point.

Makes me think Cygnus may be being looked at in light of the starliner debacle to ensure reboost.

SLS rolling out.