5 ms·

Has Starship ever launched successfully yet? i.e. if it makes it will this be the first? i.e. a really big deal?

throwuwu 3y ago
Having the test achieve its goals would be good but this is still a prototype and just one in a series that will be tested to destruction. The big deal is that the process of developing this launch system is moving again.
two_handfuls 3y ago
Launched, yes. Successfully? Debatable. It did clear the tower at least.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  It was a success according to the expectations set before the launch
  - cma 3y ago
    The biggest failure was the delay in the flight termination system working. If it had sailed towards the town they might not have been able to terminate it in time.
    - foobarian 3y ago
      I would probably add the damage to the launch pad to the list. That seemed to add unnecessary delay to the next launch though I don’t know if it was the long pole or not.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      That was part of it, but the engine failures that immediately caused a loss of trajectory (it was visibly off even before it cleared the pad) were most likely the worst problem.
      - mr_toad 3y ago
        The engine failures didn’t cause the rocket to deviate significantly from its planned trajectory. The biggest failure was a fire causing the flight control system to lose communications with the engines, at which point the rocket was out of control.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      If the FTS would have triggered at a lower altitude it would have worked. The FTS was sufficient to protect the town.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    Not entirely. It reached about 70 km where the booster had to detach, and it failed to detach. Also, there were several apparent engine failures which did not crash the booster, but very certainly were not nominal operation.
    - hoseja 3y ago
      >according to the expectations set before the launch None of those were set expectations for a successful test. Why are people this resistant to understanding it was the very first test of a completely new and revolutionary rocket.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      No, it failed almost immediately off the launch pad when the engines started malfunctioning and it started out on a wrong trajectory even off the launch pad. The detachment was never attempted, and the decision not to attempt detaching was taken as soon as the safe trajectory was missed. Additionally, the self-destruct mechanism also failed, though thankfully it produced enough damage to allow the rocket to naturally explode later.
    - throwawaymaths 3y ago
      The advertised metric for success was that it needed to not blow up the launch tower: https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/04/19/elon-musks-success-criteria-for-starship-test-flight-dont-blow-up-the-launch-pad/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/04/19/elon-musks-success-cri... > Also, there were several apparent engine failures It's pretty clear they were expecting this, as the status graphic had the capability to show on telemetry which of the engines had flamed out in real time.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Well we can say clearly it has not reached orbit, if we want a clear criteria to talk about. Obviously the first launch had many successes, but orbit was not one of them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
cryptoz 3y ago
Starship without Booster has had many successful suborbital tests, but with Booster only 1 attempt. Much of that attempt was successful but it did have critical issues and they had to remotely blow it up, which also initially failed. If this gets to orbit or close enough, that will be considered the first successful real launch.
Laremere 3y ago
No. This is the second integrated flight test. Even if this flight fully meets all of its goals, it won't /really/ be a successful launch by standard measures. Starship (the top part) has successfully completed several suborbital hops, including a "bellyflop". So in that sense, yes. This upcoming test involves launches with both Starship and the Super Heavy Booster. Succeeding the current mission goals would be the booster soft(ish) landing in the ocean near the launch site, and the Starship obtaining a parabolic arc before surviving reentry to crash into the ocean near Hawaii. To really have a "success" by standard measures under their belt, SpaceX will need to target having Starship actually orbiting with a test payload (probably Starlinks). After that "success", they're likely to still have secondary mission failures with landing the booster, and deorbiting and landing Starship.
- strangesmells06 3y ago
  Gotcha! So this test criteria this weekend may not be to reach orbit, but just test out heavy booster and getting starship correct trajectory. If they crash into the ocean do you know if they are supposed to be recoverable or will they sink?
  - randallsquared 3y ago
    It is not supposed to be recoverable for reuse.
  - jws 3y ago
    Best case, they get to test the new sound dampening, armored pad, armored pad cooling, igniting all the engines on the pad, booster launch, staging, booster fly back, booster descent, booster landing (though not on anything solid). If that works they have a booster floating in the Gulf of Mexico they need to clean up. For Starship they get to test staging, engine in vacuum, bellyflop control from very high altitude to sea level. Apparently all the way to sea level. They do not appear to be planning the reignition and flip. They may set the record for "most powerful bellyflop". All the excitement is in the first 9 minutes of the flight. A little over an hour later the Starship's "orbit" will intersect too much atmosphere and will re-enter for about 12 minutes. As for why not to try landing the Starship on water, I think they'll play with all their available fuel mass in vacuum. Those engines haven't operated there yet.
stevebmark 3y ago
[flagged]
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
  SpaceX is a bit different because there's people like Gwen Shotwell there to keep Elon's worst tendencies in check. They also have to convince the FAA they're not doing anything stupid.
- bruce511 3y ago
  I get the trend (and need) to personalize a company, to give it a "face", but SpaceX is not Elon, Tesla is not Elon, even Twitter is not Elon. There are thousands of people doing the heavy lifting every day which ultimately determine success or failure. Yes Elon takes a driving interest in one or the other (currently X) from time to time, and yes, because the media likes personalities, and cultivating personalities, you are encouraged to think of those companies as "Elon" - but in truth his daily impact is minimal. (Sure, he can fire half the staff, load it up with debt, kill an iconic brand, and do other ceo stuff, all with predictable impacts, but ultimately he doesn't actually do the work that is required.)
- rlt 3y ago
  Turns out he and his companies are still doing interesting things.
- vultour 3y ago
  So your Mastodon bubble wasn't representative of everyone? How shocking.
jtriangle 3y ago
Generally it kept the pointy end pointed toward space long enough to not kill anyone. Pad was fubar'd, which was a source of much drama. It's hard to answer the whole success question though. SpaceX has a very bend it and send it approach to R&D, they've had a hard time with starship and the powers that be, mostly because of the scale of the whole operation. They got some useful data, but, they didn't get to do all the things they wanted/planned to do, so, failure, but, a useful one. If you remember, they smashed a few falcon 9's into the ground before they landed one. That model might not be tenable with something the size of starship, but, only because the powers that be would much rather you not blow up moon capable rockets as a habit. Are they right, are they wrong, not really an important question for regual saps like us to be concerned with. All the spaceX fans in the world have no chance of moving the needle there any more than the spaceX haters do. I think at least most can agree, however, rockets are cool, and, watching them fly or not in 4k on youtube for free is a good thing.

Having the test achieve its goals would be good but this is still a prototype and just one in a series that will be tested to destruction. The big deal is that the process of developing this launch system is moving again.

two_handfuls 3y ago

Launched, yes. Successfully? Debatable. It did clear the tower at least.

throwawaymaths 3y ago
It was a success according to the expectations set before the launch
- cma 3y ago
  The biggest failure was the delay in the flight termination system working. If it had sailed towards the town they might not have been able to terminate it in time.
  - foobarian 3y ago
    I would probably add the damage to the launch pad to the list. That seemed to add unnecessary delay to the next launch though I don’t know if it was the long pole or not.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    That was part of it, but the engine failures that immediately caused a loss of trajectory (it was visibly off even before it cleared the pad) were most likely the worst problem.
    - mr_toad 3y ago
      The engine failures didn’t cause the rocket to deviate significantly from its planned trajectory. The biggest failure was a fire causing the flight control system to lose communications with the engines, at which point the rocket was out of control.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    If the FTS would have triggered at a lower altitude it would have worked. The FTS was sufficient to protect the town.
- nine_k 3y ago
  Not entirely. It reached about 70 km where the booster had to detach, and it failed to detach. Also, there were several apparent engine failures which did not crash the booster, but very certainly were not nominal operation.
  - hoseja 3y ago
    >according to the expectations set before the launch None of those were set expectations for a successful test. Why are people this resistant to understanding it was the very first test of a completely new and revolutionary rocket.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    No, it failed almost immediately off the launch pad when the engines started malfunctioning and it started out on a wrong trajectory even off the launch pad. The detachment was never attempted, and the decision not to attempt detaching was taken as soon as the safe trajectory was missed. Additionally, the self-destruct mechanism also failed, though thankfully it produced enough damage to allow the rocket to naturally explode later.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    The advertised metric for success was that it needed to not blow up the launch tower: https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/04/19/elon-musks-success-criteria-for-starship-test-flight-dont-blow-up-the-launch-pad/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/04/19/elon-musks-success-cri... > Also, there were several apparent engine failures It's pretty clear they were expecting this, as the status graphic had the capability to show on telemetry which of the engines had flamed out in real time.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Well we can say clearly it has not reached orbit, if we want a clear criteria to talk about. Obviously the first launch had many successes, but orbit was not one of them.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

cryptoz 3y ago

Starship without Booster has had many successful suborbital tests, but with Booster only 1 attempt. Much of that attempt was successful but it did have critical issues and they had to remotely blow it up, which also initially failed. If this gets to orbit or close enough, that will be considered the first successful real launch.

Laremere 3y ago

No. This is the second integrated flight test. Even if this flight fully meets all of its goals, it won't /really/ be a successful launch by standard measures. Starship (the top part) has successfully completed several suborbital hops, including a "bellyflop". So in that sense, yes. This upcoming test involves launches with both Starship and the Super Heavy Booster. Succeeding the current mission goals would be the booster soft(ish) landing in the ocean near the launch site, and the Starship obtaining a parabolic arc before surviving reentry to crash into the ocean near Hawaii. To really have a "success" by standard measures under their belt, SpaceX will need to target having Starship actually orbiting with a test payload (probably Starlinks). After that "success", they're likely to still have secondary mission failures with landing the booster, and deorbiting and landing Starship.

strangesmells06 3y ago
Gotcha! So this test criteria this weekend may not be to reach orbit, but just test out heavy booster and getting starship correct trajectory. If they crash into the ocean do you know if they are supposed to be recoverable or will they sink?
- randallsquared 3y ago
  It is not supposed to be recoverable for reuse.
- jws 3y ago
  Best case, they get to test the new sound dampening, armored pad, armored pad cooling, igniting all the engines on the pad, booster launch, staging, booster fly back, booster descent, booster landing (though not on anything solid). If that works they have a booster floating in the Gulf of Mexico they need to clean up. For Starship they get to test staging, engine in vacuum, bellyflop control from very high altitude to sea level. Apparently all the way to sea level. They do not appear to be planning the reignition and flip. They may set the record for "most powerful bellyflop". All the excitement is in the first 9 minutes of the flight. A little over an hour later the Starship's "orbit" will intersect too much atmosphere and will re-enter for about 12 minutes. As for why not to try landing the Starship on water, I think they'll play with all their available fuel mass in vacuum. Those engines haven't operated there yet.

stevebmark 3y ago

[flagged]

jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
SpaceX is a bit different because there's people like Gwen Shotwell there to keep Elon's worst tendencies in check. They also have to convince the FAA they're not doing anything stupid.
bruce511 3y ago
I get the trend (and need) to personalize a company, to give it a "face", but SpaceX is not Elon, Tesla is not Elon, even Twitter is not Elon. There are thousands of people doing the heavy lifting every day which ultimately determine success or failure. Yes Elon takes a driving interest in one or the other (currently X) from time to time, and yes, because the media likes personalities, and cultivating personalities, you are encouraged to think of those companies as "Elon" - but in truth his daily impact is minimal. (Sure, he can fire half the staff, load it up with debt, kill an iconic brand, and do other ceo stuff, all with predictable impacts, but ultimately he doesn't actually do the work that is required.)
rlt 3y ago
Turns out he and his companies are still doing interesting things.
vultour 3y ago
So your Mastodon bubble wasn't representative of everyone? How shocking.

jtriangle 3y ago

Generally it kept the pointy end pointed toward space long enough to not kill anyone. Pad was fubar'd, which was a source of much drama. It's hard to answer the whole success question though. SpaceX has a very bend it and send it approach to R&D, they've had a hard time with starship and the powers that be, mostly because of the scale of the whole operation. They got some useful data, but, they didn't get to do all the things they wanted/planned to do, so, failure, but, a useful one. If you remember, they smashed a few falcon 9's into the ground before they landed one. That model might not be tenable with something the size of starship, but, only because the powers that be would much rather you not blow up moon capable rockets as a habit. Are they right, are they wrong, not really an important question for regual saps like us to be concerned with. All the spaceX fans in the world have no chance of moving the needle there any more than the spaceX haters do. I think at least most can agree, however, rockets are cool, and, watching them fly or not in 4k on youtube for free is a good thing.