3 ms·

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

by two_handfuls 3y ago

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]

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]