SpaceX SpaceX Starship development: 7th flight January 10

[.Scott]

Before the next flight, SpaceX needs to identify what went wrong with the two stages, find a way to fix that, start implementing that in the hardware and/or software for the third flight, write a report and send that to the FAA. Then the FAA needs to approve it. It's true that they have a booster and a ship almost ready to fly, but repeating the second flight with no changes makes no sense. There is some work to do, and at the moment the critical path is with SpaceX.

Though Elon is probably willing to publish a estimated completion time (as 3 to 4 weeks) with knowing what needed to be done, I would still guess that the core problems have already been identified.
The FAA has already announced that they are investigating, and since the issues are likely known, the paperwork is likely already in progress.
There are probably a handful of issues related the causes of this 'accident" and a handful of test and installation procedures that will be required for FAA review. But by now the FAA may already be saturated in reviewing the causes and they may remain saturated throughout the flight review process. So the FAA may already own the critical path.

 

[.Scott]

No, this isn't scifi!

It's hot stage separation.
(photo compliments of SpaceX via X)

 

[mfb]

That's nice, but if you suggest that for this occasion they well filled to the brim then those fuel indicator bars of the 'live' feed ran awful fast for a no-load launch just to the edge of space.

I hoped that if the amount of fuel they got is known then we might get some data about the capacity.

I don't know what you expect. The fuel consumption rate does not depend on the payload mass. It's determined by the engines. The expected payload is ~10% of the fully fueled Starship, launching with no payload means something like 10% of the fuel will be left when it reaches its target velocity. It was ~95% through the second-stage flight, so it had consumed ~95% of the fuel it needed.

----

Slow motion tracking shot. Look at these Mach diamonds!

 

[Rive]

I don't know what you expect.

Well, something like this.
I had that feeling that either those fuel bars were not about the maximal capacity but about the actual fill (required for the task planned) or the flight performance just fell short, especially for no load.

No biggie (it's the same feeling when they smashed the first Falcon recovery attempts - it could be already seen/felt that nothing there what cannot be solved) but also not great (yet).
A nice flight, a stable progress: no less and no more.

 

[pinball1970]

No, this isn't scifi!
View attachment 335908
It's hot stage separation.
(photo compliments of SpaceX via X)

Incredible image, worthy of using as an avatar!

 

[.Scott]

In an X message, Elon described a lighter bigger Starship version 2. There will only be 6 version 1's, the two launched plus four that are parked near the Starship bays in Texas.

 

[mfb]

The third flight will include a propellant transfer demo (within the spacecraft). Confirmed here by NASA.

It's a funny contrast to Blue Origin on the same slide: "Mockup delivered".

 

[mfb]

Static fire of booster 10 with all 33 engines:



The ship has done a static fire test as well. Looks like the hardware will be ready soon and then we'll wait for regulatory approval again.

 

[mfb]

Company update from Musk

The second flight is discussed at ~49:20: It might have reached orbit if it had carried a payload. It didn't, so it vented its excess oxygen - and that started a fire that destroyed the ship.

The third flight is expected to reach orbit, it will do a short engine burn there to demonstrate controlled deorbiting. Rumors say February, if they have completed the accident investigation and it was something as avoidable as venting oxygen I can see that happening.

 

[mfb]

Booster assembly line

Edit: The three assembled boosters are 10 (left, will make the next flight), 12 (center), 11 (right), and booster 13 is in two pieces in the far left and far right.

 

[mfb]

NASA released some of their tracking footage of the second flight. The hot staging isn't shown, unfortunately.

 

[Tom.G]

FYI Two sentences are visible, rest of frame is blank.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[mfb]

I only wrote two sentences, the rest should embed a tweet (it works for me). Here is a direct link

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1755636732005872066

 

[Tom.G]

I only wrote two sentences, the rest should embed a tweet (it works for me). Here is a direct link

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1755636732005872066

Both of your links here worked. Twitter responds to them with:

This browser is no longer supported.​

with a link listing the browsers they deign to talk to.

Do I detect a conspiracy against older browsers?

 

[mfb]

Time to upgrade from Netscape?

Explosives for the flight termination system have been spotted and SpaceX aims at a launch in the second week of March.

 

[gleem]

SpaceX is looking to launch Starship at least nine times this year if the third attempt expected in March is successful The FAA currently limits them to five attempts which SpaceX is actively attempting to change.
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-plan-nine-launches-2024/

 

[mfb]

FAA closed the mishap investigation
SpaceX released more details what went wrong. The booster had clogged liquid oxygen filters.

News article

Timeline of the previous flight:
Nov 1: FAA closes investigation (that's what happened today)
Nov 10: Flight termination system explosives installed (they are already at the launch site)
Nov 16: Launch license issued
Nov 18: Launch

If they repeat that pattern we get a launch in mid March. If it is successful and the ship reaches orbit then we can expect additional flights to follow relatively quickly. The hardware for the fourth flight is almost ready.

 

[mfb]

Starship completed its rehearsal for launch, loading more than 10 million pounds of propellant on Starship and Super Heavy and taking the flight-like countdown to T-10 seconds

Needs some final work on the flight termination system and then the launch license.

 

[mfb]

March 14

(with the usual caveats about pending regulatory approval, scrubs and so on)

 

[.Scott]

March 14th - but the waters north of Hawaii are no longer part of the splashdown plan!
There are also several additional tests being planned during its even shorter "orbit".

The original source of this news is from a "broadcast" on Musk's X site - of which I am not a subscriber.

But the news has been picked up by space.com:
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-3rd-test-flight-date

It has been reported the FAA is very close indeed to approving the modified launch license for this 3rd flight.
Regarding the objectives for this 3rd flight, this is a post from SpaceX:

The third flight test aims to build on what we’ve learned from previous flights while attempting a number of ambitious objectives, including the successful ascent burn of both stages, opening and closing Starship’s payload door, a propellant transfer demonstration during the upper stage’s coast phase, the first ever re-light of a Raptor engine while in space, and a controlled reentry of Starship. It will also fly a new trajectory, with Starship targeted to splashdown in the Indian Ocean. This new flight path enables us to attempt new techniques like in-space engine burns while maximizing public safety.

 

[mfb]

It's now on the SpaceX website: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3

It's expected that the launch will put it on a similar trajectory as planned for the earlier flights. If the deorbit burn fails it'll fall down near Hawaii, if it succeeds it will shorten the trajectory to enter over the Indian ocean.

Timeline from the website, I added my estimates for the locations:

00:08:35 Starship engine cutoff <- south-west of Florida
00:11:56 Payload door open <- a bit north of Puerto Rico
00:24:31 Propellant transfer demo <- central Atlantic
00:28:21 Payload door close <- central Atlantic
00:40:46 Raptor in-space relight demo <- over Madagascar or so
00:49:05 Starship entry <- Indian ocean, around 25 S 80 E
01:02:16 Starship is transonic <- Indian ocean, near Australia
01:03:04 Starship is subsonic <- Indian ocean, near Australia
01:04:39 An exciting landing! <- Indian ocean, near Australia

 

[.Scott]

According to NASA Space Flight, the explosives for the Flight Termination System have been installed.
Since one goal is to minimize the handling of those explosives, installing them reflects confidence that the next time the ship travels, it will be vertically.
Stage 2 and the booster were mated on the launch pad just a moment ago.
The FAA go-ahead is still pending.

 

[.Scott]

I'm ready to see this thing reenter .. and I have been since it was described about 8 years ago.
At that time, it was ITR (Interplanetary Transportation System) and its method of reentry included perforations in the shell to vent steam - a fast-falling steam iron. It sounded ... hopeful.

Since then, the name has changed from ITS to BFR to Starship; the reentry system has become somewhat less radical; the shell material has settled in with a kind of stainless steel, and a "stage 0" has been added.

Its main competitor has gone from a soon-to-be-launched NASA SLS with a 7 year head start to a soon-to-be retired NASA SLS with about 18 months left of that head start.

Musk has his eyes on Mars. But the most immediate effect of a successful Startship reentry will be to open up much, much easier access to Earth orbit.

 

[mfb]

Update from Eric Berger

I've been told a license is indeed likely to come today. (That is not a guarantee.) As for a Thursday launch attempt, the winds may be a bit of a concern. The hardware is ready. So some uncertainty, but a Thursday launch remains possible.

After Thursday the weather will get worse, so a delay will likely be several days long. Starship is designed to fly in almost all weather conditions thanks to its size but won't do that for an early test flight.

 

[.Scott]

I find the current situation very entertaining: The IFT-3 launch is set for tomorrow morning. The FAA has still not issued the required launch license. And nobody's worried about that.

The status of all the various government preparations are described in this WCCTech news article.
The article starts out:

Even as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is yet to issue an updated launch license for SpaceX's upcoming third Starship test flight due on Thursday, the agency's notice to pilots and the Coast Guard's notice to mariners share that the gears are turning. The FAA's operations plan advisory and its NOTAM are both live and mention Thursday as the day ITF-3 will take place. The airspace management agency is joined by the Coast Guard's mariner notice, which also mentions a similar date, indicating that just like the second Starship test flight, SpaceX will launch as soon as it receives the FAA's approval for the third Starship test flight.

This is actually a very good sign. It means that SpaceX is fully cooperative and fully participating in the regulatory process.

I have been centrally involved as an engineer on a US Govt contract in getting major mission-critical systems approved. There are basically three roles in the work and discussions leading up to approval: The contractor management, the engineering staff, and the technical regulatory staff. And there are basically two ways of working through the audits: as an adversary or as a partner.

In this case, the "contractor management" is SpaceX - and since the system being approved by the government is their system, their role is more "applicant management" than "contractor management". They seem to be solidly promoting and supporting the "partnership" strategy. They aren't happy with the speed of the of the FAA process and have responded by going directly to Congress asking that staffing at that FAA office be doubled. More importantly, they must be allowing what I would call a "normal conversation" between the SpaceX engineers and the FAA regulators. This "normal conversation" means that the engineers not only understand the "paperwork" and procedures - but also the purposes of those procedures. It means that they have fully adopted the basic FAA goals and are not only compliant with FAA-specified or FAA-suggested methods but are invested in the purposes behind those methods. In the ideal case, the SpaceX engineers are actively advancing the regulatory technology to mate well with their evolving rocket technology.

 

[mfb]

Here is the launch license

Changed paragraph 4(b)(iv) from “Orbital Flight Test 2” to “Flight 3.”

Let's go. The 110 minute launch window opens 7:00 local time, 12:00 UTC, that is 11 hours and 18 minutes after this post.

 

[mfb]

Propellant loading has started. Now targeting 8:25 (in 40 min).
They had some boats in the area that has to be empty.

SpaceX
Everyday Astronaut
NASASpaceflight

The booster loads propellant at a rate of more than 1 tonne per second.

 

[mfb]

3 minutes
Propellant loading finished.

If needed, they can hold at T-40 seconds for up to 15 minutes.

 

[mfb]

Successful launch!
Everything worked on ascent. We got awesome shots from the vehicle in flight.

The booster performed its boostback burn, but lost control shortly at the time of the planned landing burn and crashed into the ocean.
The ship is in an almost-orbital trajectory as planned.

Edit: Updates from SpaceX

Pez door checkout complete, door closing, and HD views are over @Starlink
Propellant transfer demo complete

No engine relight in space, reentry coming up.

We got some live video of the early reentry. This is completely unprecedented. Normally you would lose connection - even telemetry - and only get data later. They lost connection later deeper in the atmosphere, to be seen if the ship is still intact.

Edit: Doesn't look good for the ship, but they got data from the first part of the reentry.
Edit: Ship was lost during reentry.

 

[Rive]

Really impressive progress, I would say.

Ps.: I wonder if there was some particular reason why they went with those grid-fins open all the way?

 

[mfb]

Got roughly as far as I expected. Great progress. The launch part was flawless. This is an operational rocket that can launch over 200 tonnes of payload to space (and >100 tonnes of its own mass) when reuse isn't considered. Reuse still needs more work, obviously.

Methane burns so cleanly that you don't see the exhaust from the onboard views at all.

 

[Borg]

Has there been a discussion of the exhaust profile on these rockets? When I look at the pictures of it in flight, it looks like the outer engines form a curtain that keeps the exhaust from the central engines contained such that they form a wave pattern within the curtain. I would guess that helps to increase thrust and burn efficiency.

EDIT: I forgot to also mention the ability to move the engines could contribute as well.

 

[Rive]

I would guess that's some bit messed up Mach diamonds. With that many tightly packed engines working parallel it's reasonable that they could work bit like one big engine.

 

[pinball1970]

 

[mfb]

Some analysis:
Update from SpaceX
After Thursday’s flight, Starship is already the most revolutionary rocket ever built
SpaceX Orbit Largest Spacecraft In History also SpaceX Destroy Largest Spacecraft In History.

The booster broke up 500 m above the ocean.
The rolling motion of the ship prevented the relight demo. It was still rolling a lot when starting reentry so it probably contributed to the issues there, too.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Starship is already the most revolutionary rocket ever built
…
The rolling motion of the ship prevented the relight demo. It was still rolling a lot when starting reentry so it probably contributed to the issues there, too.

It was too revolutionary!

 

[mfb]

Various 4K and slow motion shots of takeoff. It produces very visible shockwaves.

 

[mfb]

Static fire of the ship for the fourth flight.

 

[mfb]

The booster has made a static fire as well now.

Long update on Starship and more

Flight 4 will try to land the booster on a "virtual tower", a precise spot over the ocean surface. If that succeeds, flight 5 might try to land on the actual tower. This animation could become a real video later this year. For the ship they hope to get through the hottest phase of reentry with flight 4, but returning a ship to the launch site will need at least two successful reentries and maybe more - if it breaks up on a return to launch site attempt the debris would fall over Mexico or the US.

 

[mfb]

NASA Updates on Starship Refueling, as SpaceX Prepares Flight 4 of Starship

* The internal fuel transfer test during the last flight was successful
* The fourth launch is planned in May, maybe as early as the second week
* A fuel transfer between two ships is planned for 2025

 

[mfb]

The beach and the highway will be closed on June 1 for "flight testing activities". They performed a wet dress rehearsal already, this could be a repetition or maybe even a launch date.

Surviving reentry is the key goal for SpaceX’s fourth Starship test flight

 

[mfb]

It is a (planned) launch date! SpaceX has filed a notice to mariners (NOTMAR) along the flight path.

 

[gleem]

Re; Starship4, the FAA says go for it.

 

[Borg]

Re; Starship4, the FAA says go for it.

I'm guessing that it was a little more formal than that.

 

[berkeman]

I'm guessing that it was a little more formal than that.

Yes, the quote omitted the last word "dude".

 

[mfb]

Flight discussion happened here

The FAA confirmed that there is no incident investigation after the fourth flight as both ship and booster flew their nominal mission. SpaceX could launch another mission with the same profile as soon as they are ready.

It's possible they'll try to catch the booster with IFT-5. Getting that approved will take some time.

SpaceX is exchanging the way the heat shield tiles are attached to ship 30. Future Starships will have their flaps a bit farther to the back, reducing the control authority but also reducing heat loads.

 

[mfb]

Slow motion of a six Raptor static fire (the ship being prepared for the fifth flight):



Link in case the embedding doesn't work.

 

[mfb]

Looks like the fifth flight won't happen before late November.

• because the ship isn't ready - it is
• because the booster isn't ready - it is
• because the launch pad isn't ready - it is
• because they are still working on landing tests - everything is ready
• because there are safety concerns about the landing process - resolved
• because there is too much mercury in the deluge water - made up by CNBC
• because a steel ring will crash into the ocean at a slightly different position compared to the previous flight
• because the radius where the sonic boom is audible might be slightly larger than previously approved

It's a simple, inert structural steel ring between booster and ship that gets discarded after staging and boostback burn and crashes into the ocean. It doesn't affect any life in the ocean unless it directly hits something on impact. And that was already approved - the fifth flight just changes the impact location a bit. That delays the launch by at least two months.

Unsurprisingly, SpaceX isn't happy.

 

[mfb]

SpaceX recovered some components of the booster from the fourth flight. It performed a successful soft "landing" at a simulated capture height, but then dropped down into the ocean which broke things, and of course it has been in the water for a while now. Part of the engine section

 

[mfb]

No FAA approval yet, but SpaceX is now optimistic to have it for an October 13 launch (this Sunday). They have obtained all the road closures, exclusion zones and so on, and prepare the rocket for launch. The booster capture is still planned.