7 ms·

Upcoming test: SpaceX Starship high-altitude flight

194 points by modeless 6y ago

ClosedPistachio 6y ago
If you're looking for the date/time: > As early as Tuesday, December 8 [...] the schedule is dynamic and likely to change YouTube live stream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf83yzzme2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf83yzzme2I
- ghshephard 6y ago
  Currently: Live in 14 hours December 8, 9:00 AM
- qilo 6y ago
  For European folks, currently the test flight is scheduled for: 2020-12-08 14:00 UTC (earlier time was 12:00 UTC)
zaroth 6y ago
I’ve been following testing progress on /r/spacex and it’s a lot of fun having such a detailed view into the whole operation as these Starship prototypes are built and iterated upon out in the open. Elon has said chance of a soft landing is less than 50%, so I would expect a very eventful livestream. Personally I’m hoping to see re-light and some sort of flip, with limited damage to ground support equipment. IMO a soft landing is too much to even hope for. The engine re-light is non-trivial because they will be fed from a separate header tank at the tip of the nosecone at that point. It would not be surprising if this didn’t actually happen tomorrow, there’s a million things which could lead to further delays. If it happens at all this month it would be thrilling.
- beamatronic 6y ago
  Fail fast and often!
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    The next prototype is already built, so if this one lands nose first they can just fix any issues and try again. Elon really is building rockets like a software engineer.
- alangibson 6y ago
  I'm betting on a spectacular crash, but they did nail Falcon Heavy on the first go.
  - azernik 6y ago
    They actually lost the center booster, so not entirely nailed. Unfortunately we didn't get good imagery of that particular catastrophe, but if Starship goes down in flames it will be within reach of lots of ground-based cameras. Would make for pretty fireworks.
    - alangibson 6y ago
      Booster recovery isn't a mission objective. But now that you mention it, they did miss Mars so I guess they didn't quite nail it after all.
      - jonplackett 6y ago
        I don't think they ever actually tried to hit mars. mars was in completely the wrong orbit at time of launch - they just wanted to get to about where mars would have been.
      - Cogito 6y ago
        In case people don't know, they hit the orbit they were going for. This was a solar orbit that goes out as far as Mars orbit, but does not actually rendezvous with Mars. It's similar to the first part of a Hohmann transfer, but without course correction and circularisation burns. Trying to actually hit Mars would require launching within a specific window, as well as all the other things required for planetary missions - powered upper stage (not a car), planetary protection protocols, etc. So actually hitting Mars would not only restrict launch opportunities (bad for a test launch) but would also add a whole suite of costs associated with going to another planet (also bad for a test).
    - orangecat 6y ago
      Unfortunately we didn't get good imagery of that particular catastrophe The best footage I've seen is at 1:10 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw
- nickik 6y ago
  Doing the landing swing move and then stopping the swing with the rocket engine seems dicey to me. The timing on those firings need to be incredibly accurate.
mabbo 6y ago
For those who aren't following this religiously like I am, here's the Tl;Dw: SpaceX's falcon 9 is pretty big, but Starship is massively larger. It's also made cheaply out of steel in a huge garage in rural Texas. The engines are the most advanced ever made (arguably). Tomorrow, SpaceX is going to try to fly the prototype 12.5km up, then have it freefall, falling sideways. At the last moment, it will reorient itself and land on a landing pad. Or, it will explode stupendously. It's going to be awesome either way.
- valuearb 6y ago
  It’s a Heinlesque story.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Yes, indeed, we have plenty of real-life cyberpunk around us already, may it please be the time when earlier space SF finally starts to become real, too? :)
- alangibson 6y ago
  The world's most sophisticated engines on a vessel that started out as a water tower. I can't get enough of Starship.
- Florin_Andrei 6y ago
  > The engines are the most advanced ever made (arguably). Maybe not arguably. They embody a technology that's been considered for a long time the Holy Grail of rocket science - the full-flow staged combustion cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle#Full-flow_staged_combustion_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle#Full-f...
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    As much as I love the Space Shuttle, I wish the US had not went all in on Hydrogen Oxygen. The RS-25 are amazing engines, but we could have had operational full flow staged engines 20 years ago if we had gone down that route. Though probably not the landing part.
alangibson 6y ago
Youtuber Everyday Astronaut is on South Padre this week getting ready to live stream the festivities. I recommend all good space nerds have it on on the background tomorrow.
soheil 6y ago
There a free app that lets you fly the Starship made by Austin Meyer [0]. I highly recommend anyone with an iOS device who is interested to give it a try. [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/x-plane-starship/id1540346715 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/x-plane-starship/id1540346715
hikerclimber 6y ago
hopefully it fails and crashes in a populated area.
baking 6y ago
A couple more useful links: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52397.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52397.0 Updates only forum, no discussion. Basically the best place for the most recent test information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5l9ZxsG9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5l9ZxsG9M Livestream from a pole mounted camera well within the exclusion zone, so probably the best live independent video stream.
_Microft 6y ago
Someone made a video how the flight might look like if everything goes well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdTYMry7fq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdTYMry7fq0 The model is pretty current (except for the tank strapped on the side that is downwind during the drop phase) and the flight phases look reasonable as well (phases: launch, horizontal drop with flaps correcting the position and a turn to land vertically again). If it does not... well, then this instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L90SVqbK5Uc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L90SVqbK5Uc (refers to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ )
mncharity 6y ago
There are daily videos of the construction and test site, by Mary @BocaChicaGal and NASASpaceFlight. Pretty marsh sunrises over rockets, and meditative construction timelapses. Today's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRN2Ikt6x6w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRN2Ikt6x6w
ncmncm 6y ago
My only question is why the thing is not made of titanium. He talks about composites and aluminum, but never mentions the titanium alternative. Clue?
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  Probably because titanium is super expensive and they clearly want to roll these out like cheap cars?
- torpfactory 6y ago
  Stainless maintains better strength at ultra low temperatures, is an order of magnitude cheaper, and can be manufactured more easily with a vastly larger set of forming and joining options.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    But, that doesn't explain why he never mentions titanium, which is the other half of the question. If you even mention aluminum, the titanium question is clearly more relevant. And, if these things are to be re-used, up-front material cost is less relevant than value. Titanium maybe doesn't get stronger at cryo temperatures, but is it still stronger than steel at such a temperatures? I couldn't find numbers. If it is, the dry weight of the vehicle could be much less, with large follow-on benefits.
    - torpfactory 6y ago
      Stainless strength is ~1600MPA at -200C, Titanium is ~900MPA. Density difference is 8.0g/cc vs. 4.5g/cc for titanium. So at low temp, strength to weight ratio is about even. Maximum working temp for stainless is ~800C vs ~600C for Titanium, therefore requiring a smaller heat shield. Some parts of the vehicle will require no shielding or insulation. So strength to weight is a wash at low temp (fully loaded with propellant), stainless is better at high temp (re-entry) and Titanium costs ~10x more. Aluminum is also cheap and easy to work with but will require larger heat shields. SpaceX is making a trade-off between weight, re-usability, development cost, and development speed. I really think between the marginal performance benefits and significant manufacturability challenges Titanium just doesn't bring a lot to the table.
throwawaybutwhy 6y ago
Raptor abort, standing down for the day. Aww. [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf83yzzme2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf83yzzme2I

194 points by modeless 6y ago

If you're looking for the date/time: > As early as Tuesday, December 8 [...] the schedule is dynamic and likely to change YouTube live stream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf83yzzme2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf83yzzme2I

ghshephard 6y ago
Currently: Live in 14 hours December 8, 9:00 AM
qilo 6y ago
For European folks, currently the test flight is scheduled for: 2020-12-08 14:00 UTC (earlier time was 12:00 UTC)

zaroth 6y ago

I’ve been following testing progress on /r/spacex and it’s a lot of fun having such a detailed view into the whole operation as these Starship prototypes are built and iterated upon out in the open. Elon has said chance of a soft landing is less than 50%, so I would expect a very eventful livestream. Personally I’m hoping to see re-light and some sort of flip, with limited damage to ground support equipment. IMO a soft landing is too much to even hope for. The engine re-light is non-trivial because they will be fed from a separate header tank at the tip of the nosecone at that point. It would not be surprising if this didn’t actually happen tomorrow, there’s a million things which could lead to further delays. If it happens at all this month it would be thrilling.

beamatronic 6y ago
Fail fast and often!
- wongarsu 6y ago
  The next prototype is already built, so if this one lands nose first they can just fix any issues and try again. Elon really is building rockets like a software engineer.
alangibson 6y ago
I'm betting on a spectacular crash, but they did nail Falcon Heavy on the first go.
- azernik 6y ago
  They actually lost the center booster, so not entirely nailed. Unfortunately we didn't get good imagery of that particular catastrophe, but if Starship goes down in flames it will be within reach of lots of ground-based cameras. Would make for pretty fireworks.
  - alangibson 6y ago
    Booster recovery isn't a mission objective. But now that you mention it, they did miss Mars so I guess they didn't quite nail it after all.
    - jonplackett 6y ago
      I don't think they ever actually tried to hit mars. mars was in completely the wrong orbit at time of launch - they just wanted to get to about where mars would have been.
    - Cogito 6y ago
      In case people don't know, they hit the orbit they were going for. This was a solar orbit that goes out as far as Mars orbit, but does not actually rendezvous with Mars. It's similar to the first part of a Hohmann transfer, but without course correction and circularisation burns. Trying to actually hit Mars would require launching within a specific window, as well as all the other things required for planetary missions - powered upper stage (not a car), planetary protection protocols, etc. So actually hitting Mars would not only restrict launch opportunities (bad for a test launch) but would also add a whole suite of costs associated with going to another planet (also bad for a test).
  - orangecat 6y ago
    Unfortunately we didn't get good imagery of that particular catastrophe The best footage I've seen is at 1:10 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0FZIwabctw
nickik 6y ago
Doing the landing swing move and then stopping the swing with the rocket engine seems dicey to me. The timing on those firings need to be incredibly accurate.

mabbo 6y ago

For those who aren't following this religiously like I am, here's the Tl;Dw: SpaceX's falcon 9 is pretty big, but Starship is massively larger. It's also made cheaply out of steel in a huge garage in rural Texas. The engines are the most advanced ever made (arguably). Tomorrow, SpaceX is going to try to fly the prototype 12.5km up, then have it freefall, falling sideways. At the last moment, it will reorient itself and land on a landing pad. Or, it will explode stupendously. It's going to be awesome either way.

valuearb 6y ago
It’s a Heinlesque story.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Yes, indeed, we have plenty of real-life cyberpunk around us already, may it please be the time when earlier space SF finally starts to become real, too? :)
alangibson 6y ago
The world's most sophisticated engines on a vessel that started out as a water tower. I can't get enough of Starship.
Florin_Andrei 6y ago
> The engines are the most advanced ever made (arguably). Maybe not arguably. They embody a technology that's been considered for a long time the Holy Grail of rocket science - the full-flow staged combustion cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle#Full-flow_staged_combustion_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle#Full-f...
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  As much as I love the Space Shuttle, I wish the US had not went all in on Hydrogen Oxygen. The RS-25 are amazing engines, but we could have had operational full flow staged engines 20 years ago if we had gone down that route. Though probably not the landing part.

alangibson 6y ago

Youtuber Everyday Astronaut is on South Padre this week getting ready to live stream the festivities. I recommend all good space nerds have it on on the background tomorrow.

soheil 6y ago

There a free app that lets you fly the Starship made by Austin Meyer [0]. I highly recommend anyone with an iOS device who is interested to give it a try. [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/x-plane-starship/id1540346715 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/x-plane-starship/id1540346715

hikerclimber 6y ago

hopefully it fails and crashes in a populated area.

baking 6y ago

A couple more useful links: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52397.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52397.0 Updates only forum, no discussion. Basically the best place for the most recent test information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5l9ZxsG9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky5l9ZxsG9M Livestream from a pole mounted camera well within the exclusion zone, so probably the best live independent video stream.

_Microft 6y ago

Someone made a video how the flight might look like if everything goes well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdTYMry7fq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdTYMry7fq0 The model is pretty current (except for the tank strapped on the side that is downwind during the drop phase) and the flight phases look reasonable as well (phases: launch, horizontal drop with flaps correcting the position and a turn to land vertically again). If it does not... well, then this instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L90SVqbK5Uc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L90SVqbK5Uc (refers to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ )

mncharity 6y ago

There are daily videos of the construction and test site, by Mary @BocaChicaGal and NASASpaceFlight. Pretty marsh sunrises over rockets, and meditative construction timelapses. Today's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRN2Ikt6x6w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRN2Ikt6x6w

ncmncm 6y ago

My only question is why the thing is not made of titanium. He talks about composites and aluminum, but never mentions the titanium alternative. Clue?

andrewflnr 6y ago
Probably because titanium is super expensive and they clearly want to roll these out like cheap cars?
torpfactory 6y ago
Stainless maintains better strength at ultra low temperatures, is an order of magnitude cheaper, and can be manufactured more easily with a vastly larger set of forming and joining options.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  But, that doesn't explain why he never mentions titanium, which is the other half of the question. If you even mention aluminum, the titanium question is clearly more relevant. And, if these things are to be re-used, up-front material cost is less relevant than value. Titanium maybe doesn't get stronger at cryo temperatures, but is it still stronger than steel at such a temperatures? I couldn't find numbers. If it is, the dry weight of the vehicle could be much less, with large follow-on benefits.
  - torpfactory 6y ago
    Stainless strength is ~1600MPA at -200C, Titanium is ~900MPA. Density difference is 8.0g/cc vs. 4.5g/cc for titanium. So at low temp, strength to weight ratio is about even. Maximum working temp for stainless is ~800C vs ~600C for Titanium, therefore requiring a smaller heat shield. Some parts of the vehicle will require no shielding or insulation. So strength to weight is a wash at low temp (fully loaded with propellant), stainless is better at high temp (re-entry) and Titanium costs ~10x more. Aluminum is also cheap and easy to work with but will require larger heat shields. SpaceX is making a trade-off between weight, re-usability, development cost, and development speed. I really think between the marginal performance benefits and significant manufacturability challenges Titanium just doesn't bring a lot to the table.

throwawaybutwhy 6y ago

Raptor abort, standing down for the day. Aww. [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf83yzzme2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf83yzzme2I