6 ms·

Just saw the splash down. I think this was 100% successful test.

by chasd00 1y ago

Geee 1y ago
Yes, although one booster engine failed at the start. Not a big deal. :)
- rlt 1y ago
  The nice thing about SpaceX’s rapid iteration philosophy (and having Starlink as its first “customer”) is that they can account for engine unreliability by building extra margin into early launches, fly with reduced payloads, collect data on failures, and improve the reliability over time.
- imglorp 1y ago
  They said ahead of time they were shutting one booster engine down to test redundancy.
  - itishappy 1y ago
    They did that too, but they also had an early engine failure. No big deal, they're redundant, and the booster they caught during flight 8 suffered worse.
  - ericcumbee 1y ago
    that was on the landing burn. they had a engine out on the ascent.
    - indoordin0saur 1y ago
      Yes. Looks like it ignited and ran correctly for the first few minutes though.
kersplody 1y ago
Not quite, but it's a major milestone. Still quite a bit of work to go on the rapid reusability part (burnt flaps, oxidized body, missing tiles, tile waterproofing). Starship might actually deliver payload to orbit on flight 11.
- ericcumbee 1y ago
  It accomplished all the goals for this flight. That’s 100% successful
- rlt 1y ago
  They mentioned in the stream they were intentionally stressing the ship on reentry. But yes, “rapid reusability” is a ways off. I expect they’ll be spending weeks inspecting and repairing ship and booster before reflight for a few years, but they’ll drive it down over time. TBD how “rapid” the reusability ends up being in the end.
  - dotnet00 1y ago
    The push for rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships. It seems like if they can get boosters to rapid reuse (a much easier goal), and churn out ships at sufficient scale, they can afford to take time inspecting/refurbing each ship as part of a pipelined approach.
    - ralfd 1y ago
      > The push for rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships. Elon always talks about a city on Mars but seeing for the first time the gargantuan size of Starfactory it dawned on me that SpaceX are true believers. It is still a big IF, because the dimension of the mission is absolutely bonkers, but IF the goal is to send every two years hundreds of Starships to Mars (everyone needing around 3-4 tanker missions) you need large scale production of ships.
      - testing22321 1y ago
jiggawatts 1y ago
A composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) seems to have exploded on the upper stage during reentry. It did significant damage to the rear flap and it made some dents in the engines too.
- gpm 1y ago
  The rear flap was damaged before that explosion, not sure by what.
  - rubzah 1y ago
    Yes, it was not the explosion what done it. It looked like it happened during separation somehow.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  It's interesting to see which parts are critical at each stage of flight. Clearly those parts weren't needed by that point!
- chasd00 1y ago
  Another copv failure? That’s what ripped open the starship during the ground test. Wtf I suspect that sub won’t be making copvs for spacex any longer.
timeninja 1y ago
The hype had this thing already on the Moon by now.
- verzali 1y ago
  *Mars
  - tim333 1y ago
    "An uncrewed test flight was planned for 2025 to demonstrate a successful landing on the Moon which has since been delayed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS Still they are making good progress if a bit slower than that.
- testing22321 1y ago
  “At SpaceX We specialize in making the impossible merely late” -Elon

Just saw the splash down. I think this was 100% successful test.

Geee 1y ago

Yes, although one booster engine failed at the start. Not a big deal. :)

rlt 1y ago
The nice thing about SpaceX’s rapid iteration philosophy (and having Starlink as its first “customer”) is that they can account for engine unreliability by building extra margin into early launches, fly with reduced payloads, collect data on failures, and improve the reliability over time.
imglorp 1y ago
They said ahead of time they were shutting one booster engine down to test redundancy.
- itishappy 1y ago
  They did that too, but they also had an early engine failure. No big deal, they're redundant, and the booster they caught during flight 8 suffered worse.
- ericcumbee 1y ago
  that was on the landing burn. they had a engine out on the ascent.
  - indoordin0saur 1y ago
    Yes. Looks like it ignited and ran correctly for the first few minutes though.

kersplody 1y ago

Not quite, but it's a major milestone. Still quite a bit of work to go on the rapid reusability part (burnt flaps, oxidized body, missing tiles, tile waterproofing). Starship might actually deliver payload to orbit on flight 11.

ericcumbee 1y ago
It accomplished all the goals for this flight. That’s 100% successful
rlt 1y ago
They mentioned in the stream they were intentionally stressing the ship on reentry. But yes, “rapid reusability” is a ways off. I expect they’ll be spending weeks inspecting and repairing ship and booster before reflight for a few years, but they’ll drive it down over time. TBD how “rapid” the reusability ends up being in the end.
- dotnet00 1y ago
  The push for rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships. It seems like if they can get boosters to rapid reuse (a much easier goal), and churn out ships at sufficient scale, they can afford to take time inspecting/refurbing each ship as part of a pipelined approach.
  - ralfd 1y ago
    > The push for rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships. Elon always talks about a city on Mars but seeing for the first time the gargantuan size of Starfactory it dawned on me that SpaceX are true believers. It is still a big IF, because the dimension of the mission is absolutely bonkers, but IF the goal is to send every two years hundreds of Starships to Mars (everyone needing around 3-4 tanker missions) you need large scale production of ships.
    - testing22321 1y ago

jiggawatts 1y ago

A composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) seems to have exploded on the upper stage during reentry. It did significant damage to the rear flap and it made some dents in the engines too.

gpm 1y ago
The rear flap was damaged before that explosion, not sure by what.
- rubzah 1y ago
  Yes, it was not the explosion what done it. It looked like it happened during separation somehow.
HPsquared 1y ago
It's interesting to see which parts are critical at each stage of flight. Clearly those parts weren't needed by that point!
chasd00 1y ago
Another copv failure? That’s what ripped open the starship during the ground test. Wtf I suspect that sub won’t be making copvs for spacex any longer.

timeninja 1y ago

The hype had this thing already on the Moon by now.

verzali 1y ago
*Mars
- tim333 1y ago
  "An uncrewed test flight was planned for 2025 to demonstrate a successful landing on the Moon which has since been delayed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS Still they are making good progress if a bit slower than that.
testing22321 1y ago
“At SpaceX We specialize in making the impossible merely late” -Elon