3 ms·

They need to redesign the bottom half of the rocket so it doesn't blow up during staging, and figure out what happened to the top half and fix that.

saberience 3y ago
It wont be six months. Also, your comment makes it seem like they would have redesign the whole first stage, which is highly unlikely. This is the first time they've tried to do a hot staging and it might be something relatively easy to fix related to that. For the second stage, my guess is they triggered the FTS due to the telemetry issues or just for safety's sake, i.e. they didn't want to take any risk with the lack of telemetry.
- Gare 3y ago
  > For the second stage, my guess is they triggered the FTS due to the telemetry issues or just for safety's sake, i.e. they didn't want to take any risk with the lack of telemetry. Most likely it was on board automatic FTS.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
They don't necessarily have to redesign the booster. The booster completed its primary mission of boosting successfully. It survived long enough that it seems reasonable to say that if they wouldn't have attempted boost back it would successfully coasted to a splash in the ocean. So the SuperHeavy booster can likely be used as is, if they're willing to spend an extra ~$50M per mission on not recover the booster.
- idlewords 3y ago
  I guess it depends on the test program priorities. If Elon has promised everyone a succulent ham if they can get Starship to orbit before some deadline, then you're absolutely right. If instead they want to get the most out of every flight test, then they'll take the time to fly a fix for the "bottom half blows up" issue.
  - userinanother 3y ago
    So more booms by Christmas?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I is a lot more complicated than that. There is a trade off between data per flight, total timeline, and overall cost. I dont think data per flight is the driving goal. There are lots of unknown, and if you stop completely for every problem, you are aren't learning about new problems. As long as they get the ship up and make some progress, it isnt critical if these boosters blow up or sink the bottom of the ocean as planned They have 4 boosters built and 3 more in production, and FAA license for 20 launches per year. My guess is that if the fix takes substantial time, they will work it into future production and keep going with what they have.
- hparadiz 3y ago
  Pretty sure NASA doesn't care about losing the booster for a moonshot mission. Shuttle was 1.6 billion per flight.
  - foota 3y ago
    Having a rocket explode next to the shuttle might be a bit too much danger though imo.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Plus you get extra tonnage from not having to save enough fuel for landing.
Culonavirus 3y ago
Complete nonsense. Which anyone with even cursory interest in Starship's development can confirm.

saberience 3y ago

It wont be six months. Also, your comment makes it seem like they would have redesign the whole first stage, which is highly unlikely. This is the first time they've tried to do a hot staging and it might be something relatively easy to fix related to that. For the second stage, my guess is they triggered the FTS due to the telemetry issues or just for safety's sake, i.e. they didn't want to take any risk with the lack of telemetry.

Gare 3y ago
> For the second stage, my guess is they triggered the FTS due to the telemetry issues or just for safety's sake, i.e. they didn't want to take any risk with the lack of telemetry. Most likely it was on board automatic FTS.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

They don't necessarily have to redesign the booster. The booster completed its primary mission of boosting successfully. It survived long enough that it seems reasonable to say that if they wouldn't have attempted boost back it would successfully coasted to a splash in the ocean. So the SuperHeavy booster can likely be used as is, if they're willing to spend an extra ~$50M per mission on not recover the booster.

idlewords 3y ago
I guess it depends on the test program priorities. If Elon has promised everyone a succulent ham if they can get Starship to orbit before some deadline, then you're absolutely right. If instead they want to get the most out of every flight test, then they'll take the time to fly a fix for the "bottom half blows up" issue.
- userinanother 3y ago
  So more booms by Christmas?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I is a lot more complicated than that. There is a trade off between data per flight, total timeline, and overall cost. I dont think data per flight is the driving goal. There are lots of unknown, and if you stop completely for every problem, you are aren't learning about new problems. As long as they get the ship up and make some progress, it isnt critical if these boosters blow up or sink the bottom of the ocean as planned They have 4 boosters built and 3 more in production, and FAA license for 20 launches per year. My guess is that if the fix takes substantial time, they will work it into future production and keep going with what they have.
hparadiz 3y ago
Pretty sure NASA doesn't care about losing the booster for a moonshot mission. Shuttle was 1.6 billion per flight.
- foota 3y ago
  Having a rocket explode next to the shuttle might be a bit too much danger though imo.
rpmisms 3y ago
Plus you get extra tonnage from not having to save enough fuel for landing.

Culonavirus 3y ago

Complete nonsense. Which anyone with even cursory interest in Starship's development can confirm.