4 ms·

Elon Musk on the SN11 landing burn failure: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1376889786762428421 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1376889786762428421 > A

Elon Musk on the SN11 landing burn failure: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1376889786762428421 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1376889786762428421 > At least the crater is in the right place! > Looks like engine 2 had issues on ascent & didn’t reach operating chamber pressure during landing burn, but, in theory, it wasn’t needed. > Something significant happened shortly after landing burn start. Should know what it was once we can examine the bits later today. Q: After cleanup, will you roll out SN15? Perhaps BN1 too? > SN15 rolls to launch pad in a few days. It has hundreds of design improvements across structures, avionics/software & engine. > Hopefully, one of those improvements covers this problem. If not, then retrofit will add a few more days. For posterity, here's a link to the full 16 minute official SpaceX launch stream (obviously quickly wrapped up after the failure): https://youtu.be/gjCSJIAKEPM?t=86 https://youtu.be/gjCSJIAKEPM?t=86

xoa 6y ago
>"SN15 rolls to launch pad in a few days. It has hundreds of design improvements across structures, avionics/software & engine." Yeah at this point everything before SN15 was already completely obsolete, which is why they didn't even bother finishing a few serials before it, and SpaceX only has so much actual physical room to store completed rockets there right now. They may have been getting into "launch it or scrap it" territory and just really wanted to move on, which would explain why this one seemed a touch rushed. Maybe they figured they might as well see if they could get some useful data out of it, and to some extent even launching under foggy and suboptimal conditions was itself a new thing to try. The advantage of a hardware rich cheap dev program, that entire launch probably cost a few million at most. SN15 is going to be more interesting, the first really major revision towards "finished" status in a while. They're clearly confident they're making progress since they've begun pathfinding for the booster.
- someperson 6y ago
  Raptor engines are still expensive. Wasting a perfectly good Raptor seems like a bad idea. Unless the Raptor engines they flew were also old and obsolete.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Wasting 3.
  - zionic 6y ago
    The raptors flying are also obsolete, tons of improvements on higher SN's
  - ChickeNES 6y ago
    > Unless the Raptor engines they flew were also old and obsolete. They were, SN15+ will use pre-production Raptors instead of prototype ones. A few of the newer engines have already been spotted, they are much cleaner in design and their mounts are rotated compared to the earlier engines (making them incompatible with the rockets that have flown so far)
  - xoa 6y ago
    As well as what others pointed out about these too being prototypes: >Raptor engines are still expensive. They stated a while ago the cost of a Raptor was already under $1 million and that they're aiming for <$250k each with 2.0. That'd mean those three cost, at most and prototype status aside, a few million. That's just really not expensive in rocketry, or big machine early development in general. Even ignoring all other investment they can get, they're probably making at least $10-20m+ net income per commercial launch of the F9 at this point. So every single launch could cover multiple Starship tests. It's really wild how frugal it is compared to what everyone has become used to in rocketry, and in turn the kinds of things they can try. Edit: just for context at the polar opposite end of the scale, "NASA will pay $146 million for each SLS rocket engine" (they need four per launch, and they're all thrown away each time). https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-staggering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-stag...
    - someperson 6y ago
      Falcon 9 is doing great, but Starlink appears to be eating through all their earnings and well into their cash reserves. Elon Musk has said "SpaceX needs to pass through a deep chasm of negative cash flow over the next year or so to make Starlink financially viable. Every new satellite constellation in history has gone bankrupt. We hope to be the first that does not." (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lan... At this point their R&D spending on Starship and Starlink means they're running off constantly raising capital from investors (same as many other startups). When Starlink is generating decent income they're going to be an extremely profitable company, but they're not there yet.
fhifjfhjjjk 6y ago
"obviously" why not talk about the failure's possible causes for 3 hours? would be more interesting than not
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Too little ascertained facts to share, too big a risk of someone saying something they shouldn't have - like a trade secret, or something covered by exports regulations?
- user-the-name 6y ago
  Because they don't know?
lolthishuman 6y ago
Pretty cool that they already have a buildout until SN20. Interesting. So they’re just pumping it out for data and then a revision comes in C units later with improvements. Very cool. They’re expecting to crash quite a few then. Haha.

xoa 6y ago

>"SN15 rolls to launch pad in a few days. It has hundreds of design improvements across structures, avionics/software & engine." Yeah at this point everything before SN15 was already completely obsolete, which is why they didn't even bother finishing a few serials before it, and SpaceX only has so much actual physical room to store completed rockets there right now. They may have been getting into "launch it or scrap it" territory and just really wanted to move on, which would explain why this one seemed a touch rushed. Maybe they figured they might as well see if they could get some useful data out of it, and to some extent even launching under foggy and suboptimal conditions was itself a new thing to try. The advantage of a hardware rich cheap dev program, that entire launch probably cost a few million at most. SN15 is going to be more interesting, the first really major revision towards "finished" status in a while. They're clearly confident they're making progress since they've begun pathfinding for the booster.

someperson 6y ago
Raptor engines are still expensive. Wasting a perfectly good Raptor seems like a bad idea. Unless the Raptor engines they flew were also old and obsolete.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Wasting 3.
- zionic 6y ago
  The raptors flying are also obsolete, tons of improvements on higher SN's
- ChickeNES 6y ago
  > Unless the Raptor engines they flew were also old and obsolete. They were, SN15+ will use pre-production Raptors instead of prototype ones. A few of the newer engines have already been spotted, they are much cleaner in design and their mounts are rotated compared to the earlier engines (making them incompatible with the rockets that have flown so far)
- xoa 6y ago
  As well as what others pointed out about these too being prototypes: >Raptor engines are still expensive. They stated a while ago the cost of a Raptor was already under $1 million and that they're aiming for <$250k each with 2.0. That'd mean those three cost, at most and prototype status aside, a few million. That's just really not expensive in rocketry, or big machine early development in general. Even ignoring all other investment they can get, they're probably making at least $10-20m+ net income per commercial launch of the F9 at this point. So every single launch could cover multiple Starship tests. It's really wild how frugal it is compared to what everyone has become used to in rocketry, and in turn the kinds of things they can try. Edit: just for context at the polar opposite end of the scale, "NASA will pay $146 million for each SLS rocket engine" (they need four per launch, and they're all thrown away each time). https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-staggering-146-million-for-each-sls-rocket-engine/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/nasa-will-pay-a-stag...
  - someperson 6y ago
    Falcon 9 is doing great, but Starlink appears to be eating through all their earnings and well into their cash reserves. Elon Musk has said "SpaceX needs to pass through a deep chasm of negative cash flow over the next year or so to make Starlink financially viable. Every new satellite constellation in history has gone bankrupt. We hope to be the first that does not." (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lang=en https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1359024384200101888?)lan... At this point their R&D spending on Starship and Starlink means they're running off constantly raising capital from investors (same as many other startups). When Starlink is generating decent income they're going to be an extremely profitable company, but they're not there yet.

fhifjfhjjjk 6y ago

"obviously" why not talk about the failure's possible causes for 3 hours? would be more interesting than not

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Too little ascertained facts to share, too big a risk of someone saying something they shouldn't have - like a trade secret, or something covered by exports regulations?
user-the-name 6y ago
Because they don't know?

lolthishuman 6y ago

Pretty cool that they already have a buildout until SN20. Interesting. So they’re just pumping it out for data and then a revision comes in C units later with improvements. Very cool. They’re expecting to crash quite a few then. Haha.