3 ms·

The original IFT-3 flight plan had them reaching orbit and then doing the in-orbit relight as a de-orbit burn. At that altitude, there's enough drag that you w

The original IFT-3 flight plan had them reaching orbit and then doing the in-orbit relight as a de-orbit burn. At that altitude, there's enough drag that you will de-orbit pretty quickly if you are in orbit and your de-orbit burn fails, so there was no risk of a big piece of space junk. The disinformation I mentioned is why everyone keeps being "wrong" about SpaceX. It's incredibly difficult to be right. Here's the original graphic that SpaceX put out before the flight happened: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVxFzY9rdOu6cXly46axk8Wq2LH3tMqWEZOij9f3s2YjsWDPAycrsfQE1SgZ3f25OD7XOBIw_1WTRyKyZGUbLWHHLP9P0HSrGcB1kyEp8MGtWScjVbb_BkYOw_y_zNNZ2RvRYoljAL4693YPmQUOMPMzUoLYimNtqIkEAm6dBIoCGcnIRfNruobriImqoi/s2048/SpaceX%20Starship%20B10S28%20orbital%20flight%20test%203%20infographic%20by%20Tony%20Bela.jpg https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi...

mpweiher 2y ago
No. All the info about IFT-3 pre launch always mentioned that they were deliberately not actually going to enter orbit, so as not to need an unproven de-orbit burn to avoid 100t of space junk. 100t of space junk that would then re-enter at some unpredictable time. Bad idea. So they were on a trajectory that would automatically have the vehicle re-enter the atmosphere and splash down in some ocean, even if it were fully inert.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  A 150 km orbit has enough drag to de-orbit you very quickly if you don't propulsively stay in it. The atmosphere doesn't just suddenly stop at 100 km, it gets exponentially thinner and thinner, and at 150 km there's still plenty of atmosphere to slow down a big chunk of stainless steel. Even 3x higher there's enough atmosphere that tiny satellites can essentially turn their solar panels into sails and deorbit with no propulsion within a few weeks. The ISS at ~400 km has to regularly burn their engines to stay in orbit. Read the IFT-3 pre-flight materials, preferably from a source that comes from before the flight. They clearly intended to enter an orbital trajectory and then get out of it. SpaceX's historical revisionism muddies the waters. At the very least, they would not have announced (ie lied about) successful orbital insertion (which they didn't do) if they had no intention to get there.
  - enslavedrobot 2y ago
    You do not rely on drag to deorbit a stainless steel 10 story building partially covered in heat shielding in a random location. They deliberately selected a suborbital trajectory with a velocity that matched orbital reentry... See 1:20 of this video. Everyone who actually follows SpaceX knows this. You are confidently and totally wrong.https://youtu.be/LOerY66mrPc?si=5FUAARFQ3Z98eqjb https://youtu.be/LOerY66mrPc?si=5FUAARFQ3Z98eqjb
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      All I see is a video from after IFT-3 that parrots SpaceX's post-hoc rationalization about the fact that their craft could not reach orbital velocity. If you look at the GAO report on Artemis, one of the big issues they mentioned is that Starship has not proven that it can reach orbit, and SpaceX is very interested in making sure that the narrative is that it can and did. It was only after the fact that they said that the never intended to reach an orbital trajectory with IFT-3. And actually, people rely on drag to deorbit huge objects in space in a controlled manner all the time. It's the preferred way to do it, and is basically the only way it's done - any satellite with fuel left will just stay in orbit. They have it down to a science. Usually they aim for the middle of an ocean. Sometimes they miss and chunks fall in a backyard.
      - sbuttgereit 2y ago
        > All I see is a video from after IFT-3 that parrots SpaceX's post-hoc rationalization about the fact that their craft could not reach orbital velocity. Given that the video was posted 4 days prior to that test, it is downright prescient that they are parroting a post-hoc rationalization.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        Just watched it, I had my dates mixed up. The trajectory this guy drew on the map does not involve starship reaching orbital velocity anywhere on it, which is inconsistent with SpaceX's publications. SpaceX's claim was that IFT3 would enter an orbit and then leave it, not that it would follow a ballistic trajectory to the indian ocean. It's possible that SpaceX made the mistake of using the words "orbital velocity" and this YouTuber is right, though.

mpweiher 2y ago

No. All the info about IFT-3 pre launch always mentioned that they were deliberately not actually going to enter orbit, so as not to need an unproven de-orbit burn to avoid 100t of space junk. 100t of space junk that would then re-enter at some unpredictable time. Bad idea. So they were on a trajectory that would automatically have the vehicle re-enter the atmosphere and splash down in some ocean, even if it were fully inert.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
A 150 km orbit has enough drag to de-orbit you very quickly if you don't propulsively stay in it. The atmosphere doesn't just suddenly stop at 100 km, it gets exponentially thinner and thinner, and at 150 km there's still plenty of atmosphere to slow down a big chunk of stainless steel. Even 3x higher there's enough atmosphere that tiny satellites can essentially turn their solar panels into sails and deorbit with no propulsion within a few weeks. The ISS at ~400 km has to regularly burn their engines to stay in orbit. Read the IFT-3 pre-flight materials, preferably from a source that comes from before the flight. They clearly intended to enter an orbital trajectory and then get out of it. SpaceX's historical revisionism muddies the waters. At the very least, they would not have announced (ie lied about) successful orbital insertion (which they didn't do) if they had no intention to get there.
- enslavedrobot 2y ago
  You do not rely on drag to deorbit a stainless steel 10 story building partially covered in heat shielding in a random location. They deliberately selected a suborbital trajectory with a velocity that matched orbital reentry... See 1:20 of this video. Everyone who actually follows SpaceX knows this. You are confidently and totally wrong.https://youtu.be/LOerY66mrPc?si=5FUAARFQ3Z98eqjb https://youtu.be/LOerY66mrPc?si=5FUAARFQ3Z98eqjb
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    All I see is a video from after IFT-3 that parrots SpaceX's post-hoc rationalization about the fact that their craft could not reach orbital velocity. If you look at the GAO report on Artemis, one of the big issues they mentioned is that Starship has not proven that it can reach orbit, and SpaceX is very interested in making sure that the narrative is that it can and did. It was only after the fact that they said that the never intended to reach an orbital trajectory with IFT-3. And actually, people rely on drag to deorbit huge objects in space in a controlled manner all the time. It's the preferred way to do it, and is basically the only way it's done - any satellite with fuel left will just stay in orbit. They have it down to a science. Usually they aim for the middle of an ocean. Sometimes they miss and chunks fall in a backyard.
    - sbuttgereit 2y ago
      > All I see is a video from after IFT-3 that parrots SpaceX's post-hoc rationalization about the fact that their craft could not reach orbital velocity. Given that the video was posted 4 days prior to that test, it is downright prescient that they are parroting a post-hoc rationalization.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        Just watched it, I had my dates mixed up. The trajectory this guy drew on the map does not involve starship reaching orbital velocity anywhere on it, which is inconsistent with SpaceX's publications. SpaceX's claim was that IFT3 would enter an orbit and then leave it, not that it would follow a ballistic trajectory to the indian ocean. It's possible that SpaceX made the mistake of using the words "orbital velocity" and this YouTuber is right, though.