SpaceX Starship

Everyday Astronaut (Live now)
https://www.youtube.com/live/DjDFirLcQDM?si=PxNkOMMc8oederoN

Twitter/SpaceX
https://twitter.com/SpaceX

.

 

I am watching Everyday Astronaut now...

Why do I get the feeling that today will not be the success that flight 5 was? A lot of nervous energy around it...

 

Damn... no-go for catch on the booster... diverted to the Gulf

 

Hope the banana survives

 

Anyone hear the reason for the catch abort? It did seem to come to a stop above the water and the vent exhaust didn't seem to ignite this time. BTW, in spite of the mushroom cloud explosion, the booster is still floating in the Gulf!

Also, I'm watching LabPadre, any better commentary elsewhere?

Regards,

Art S.

 

Top of the body discolored and venting aggressively!

 

Impressive!

Given the 'banana' theme, the conclusion was a 'banana split'... :^)

 

I’m no expert, but on the initial ascent right after launch… it almost seemed like it was pitching too much? It was almost horizontal at hot stage separation. Then the narration was oddly quiet around that part too, something was definitely off. They were able to start the boost back burn, then called for the diversion away from the tower landing.

 

I would take the video stuff with a grain of salt. I thought the upper section was over-pressure on the way back with the venting and decolorization on the back of the main body but it was fine. Of course it became a 'banana split' once it hit the water (thermal shock or inadequate venting in the water - not a surprise).

For perspective, the trajectory is to tilt it away from the tower ASAP after liftoff - that way the bits don't fall on it in case of early RUD. Then it's close to vertical (some angle but not much) to get out of the thick, lower atmosphere as quick as possible. As altitude is achieved they begin to tilt it to build lateral velocity - remember, it needs to build speed to over 17,000 mph as well as altitude, that's why it had the 'horizontal' appearance (it was still angled up at reasonable angle based on the altitude gains at time of separation).

The call outs were go for catch (tower and booster) after separation. The divert call was made about 30 seconds before splashdown.

Regards,

Art S.

 

Remember, rockets can only be launched to Mars approx. every 2 years. (because of the orbital positions of Earth and Mars)

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

2yrs, then he has plenty of time to test things out on the moon. Maybe even add to the crater count, lol.

From the commentary yesterday this launch was really aggressive on the heat shield geometry and landing profile. Gotta hand it to Space-X for pushing the envelope on these tests, and willing to risk loss of a ship to obtain valuable knowledge. Wonder if this is sort of a 'lesson learned' from the shuttle program. When they reach the final design they will have built up a lot of confidence in the configuration.

 

The Shuttle was designed for polar launches out of Vandenberg, so its TPS was designed to absorb much higher heat loads than the lower inclination orbits it actually used. The failures on the STS were due to external damage, not being under-designed for reentry and the missions flown never stressed the TPS to design limits.

 

I don't recall any of the Vandenburg launches Regardless there was a tremendous amount of re-work between launches. Maybe not due to failure of the TPS from a thermal standpoint, more just staying attached. So falling off or being damaged from debris is still a failure. The shuttle TPS had some very thick tiles, and lots of unique shapes. Appears X is a lot different in both respects. The fact that they have had serious heat issues, including some by design, and the structure still performs is worth noting.

 

Jim- A big driver on STS payload (~66,000 lbs) and reentry requirements was the USAF. Goal was for STS to take over all national security satellite launches for USAF with dual basing at Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral. Challenger caused all that to come to a screaming halt and USAF decided it would never again rely on a single source for launch, ultimately resulting in the NSSL program.

But then, you already knew that.

The first failure was due to launching in marginal weather conditions.

The Orbiter had lost tiles before the last failure without incident. Not lucky that time. Ice caused too much damage in a critical location.

 

Scott Manley's Flight 6 analysis



.

 

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

FAA Seeks Public Comment on SpaceX Plan to Ramp Up Starship Launches - FLYING Magazine

 

Big difference between single source and never using a possible source. So more to the story.

 

Hot Staging

Image Unavailable, Please Login

.

 

The coverage of the hot stage adapter being jettisoned was pretty cool.

 

4k vid - many different views of launch ..... and @ 7:02 Booster splashdown followed by massive fireball



.

 

Love the entire production and the music as the booster lands and then explodes. Space-X is at the top in everyway.

 

I guess there was some fuel left in the tanks.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

.

 

STARSHIP splashdown
@ 7:45 it looks like the whole ship buckles and splits some seams where fire is coming out of sides.


.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

.

 

We Now Know Why SpaceX Aborted The Booster Catch

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Boosters exhaust bent/damaged the antenna 'tower' - Jump to 2:06


.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
.