5 ms·

It felt much less eerie as it had commentary this time (and probably because it wasn't the first Starship high-altitude flight), but on the face of it, it looke

It felt much less eerie as it had commentary this time (and probably because it wasn't the first Starship high-altitude flight), but on the face of it, it looked to be a rougher 'landing' than SN8. I'm sure they got a lot of data from it, but it looked like some of the debris was headed towards SN10 - definitely squeaky bum time then! Can't wait to see this work, though, it really will be a step change for space exploration.

dgritsko 6y ago
Yeah - it really looked like they just got lucky with the debris somehow avoiding SN10. I wonder what the reasoning was behind them even having SN10 on the other pad during this launch - surely it would have been safer to just keep it in a hangar until afterwards?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bdamm 6y ago
  Their hangars seem to be filling up and I am sure they want to make room for SH1 and SN11.
- samcheng 6y ago
  That opening shot with one spaceship launching while the other was still on the pad was priceless, though... and they are iterating so quickly that much of the value from SN10 was already gained in the manufacturing process.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- sbuttgereit 6y ago
  As others mentioned, space in rocket build area looks like it's to a point where any delay in getting completed test articles to test stands, means delaying construction. I suspect they weren't completely confident when they'd get FAA approval after getting into a full launch cycle and being pretty clearly rebuked (pulling of the TFR and announcement of the scrub by the FAA). So better to get it to the stands so they could move on the fronts they could... but also to be understood... There's probably a cost/benefit calculation here, too: SN15 has been said to be bringing significant design improvements over the current design they're flying, and SN10 is of the older design. SN11 is probably ready or very close to ready for "high-bay" stacking... SN10 was waiting in the high-bay along with the first booster (BN1)leaving really no room for anything else to go in there. SN12, also of the same older design is being pro-actively scrapped right now and SN13, SN14 are also not going to happen so they get to SN15 faster. They have a test article at the launch site (SN7.2) to test a different construction material (3mm think stainless steel vs. the current 4mm). All that said and done... I'm sure they want to get SN10 in the air and would be disappointed by losing it... but they already have their sights fixed on the future it doesn't completely represent.
- jccooper 6y ago
  It was ready to go, they got a week's jump on setting it up, and it isn't as close to the landing site as it looks.
rbanffy 6y ago
Win SN8 at least they had the engine firing itself through the nozzle. This time it seemed the others failed to start. Suicide burns are probably a very bad idea when they have crews and passengers anyway. I assume they'll fire up the landing engines sooner and leave enough time for the vacuum engines to fire as backups if needed.
- _Microft 6y ago
  I think they will practice until they get the landing right all the time. The engines with vacuum optimized nozzles are not suited for landing. They can not be gimbaled and are very over-expanded as well. I would not be surprised if the engines with vacuum nozzles destroyed themselves if they were fired at sea-level.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    The engines were tested at sea level with the vacuum nozzle. Not being gimballed is bad, but they are throttleable, at least. All these crazy failure modes will have to be tested before Starship is human rated.
    - _Microft 6y ago
      You are correct. There is even footage from a test on Youtube. Thanks for pointing this out.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        You don't want them running for long on full power, but it's probably OK to use them for slowing down an emergency landing if the sea-level engines become otherwise unavailable. The alternative, as we (and SN10) saw with SN8 and SN9 is not great.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Vacuum engines can’t be used at low altitudes, exhaust underexpansion cause flow to delaminate which will damage the nozzle which goes the way rocketry goes

dgritsko 6y ago

Yeah - it really looked like they just got lucky with the debris somehow avoiding SN10. I wonder what the reasoning was behind them even having SN10 on the other pad during this launch - surely it would have been safer to just keep it in a hangar until afterwards?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bdamm 6y ago
Their hangars seem to be filling up and I am sure they want to make room for SH1 and SN11.
samcheng 6y ago
That opening shot with one spaceship launching while the other was still on the pad was priceless, though... and they are iterating so quickly that much of the value from SN10 was already gained in the manufacturing process.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sbuttgereit 6y ago
As others mentioned, space in rocket build area looks like it's to a point where any delay in getting completed test articles to test stands, means delaying construction. I suspect they weren't completely confident when they'd get FAA approval after getting into a full launch cycle and being pretty clearly rebuked (pulling of the TFR and announcement of the scrub by the FAA). So better to get it to the stands so they could move on the fronts they could... but also to be understood... There's probably a cost/benefit calculation here, too: SN15 has been said to be bringing significant design improvements over the current design they're flying, and SN10 is of the older design. SN11 is probably ready or very close to ready for "high-bay" stacking... SN10 was waiting in the high-bay along with the first booster (BN1)leaving really no room for anything else to go in there. SN12, also of the same older design is being pro-actively scrapped right now and SN13, SN14 are also not going to happen so they get to SN15 faster. They have a test article at the launch site (SN7.2) to test a different construction material (3mm think stainless steel vs. the current 4mm). All that said and done... I'm sure they want to get SN10 in the air and would be disappointed by losing it... but they already have their sights fixed on the future it doesn't completely represent.
jccooper 6y ago
It was ready to go, they got a week's jump on setting it up, and it isn't as close to the landing site as it looks.

rbanffy 6y ago

Win SN8 at least they had the engine firing itself through the nozzle. This time it seemed the others failed to start. Suicide burns are probably a very bad idea when they have crews and passengers anyway. I assume they'll fire up the landing engines sooner and leave enough time for the vacuum engines to fire as backups if needed.

_Microft 6y ago
I think they will practice until they get the landing right all the time. The engines with vacuum optimized nozzles are not suited for landing. They can not be gimbaled and are very over-expanded as well. I would not be surprised if the engines with vacuum nozzles destroyed themselves if they were fired at sea-level.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  The engines were tested at sea level with the vacuum nozzle. Not being gimballed is bad, but they are throttleable, at least. All these crazy failure modes will have to be tested before Starship is human rated.
  - _Microft 6y ago
    You are correct. There is even footage from a test on Youtube. Thanks for pointing this out.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      You don't want them running for long on full power, but it's probably OK to use them for slowing down an emergency landing if the sea-level engines become otherwise unavailable. The alternative, as we (and SN10) saw with SN8 and SN9 is not great.
numpad0 6y ago
Vacuum engines can’t be used at low altitudes, exhaust underexpansion cause flow to delaminate which will damage the nozzle which goes the way rocketry goes