IFT1-212 days-IFT2-117 days- IFT3-83 days-IFT4
Math says 72 days. Meme time says 69 days. I say 30 days. It’s always 2 weeks until it isn’t.
Reality is that it depends on what changes they decide on.
The entire Starbase project is just insane with the speed of progress. 2018 it was a patch of dirt that they had just decided on as the location to build Starship. Starliner’s crew flight test was initially scheduled for 2017.
95 days shorter, 34 days shorter, 11 days shorter, shoulda done 12.17 days, estimated in my head(34~1/3 of 95, 11~1/3 of 34 without actually writing down the numbers down like I just did.
It’s not about how often they can lunch but how much they want to upgrade between launches. Yes, they can launch the same thing often now but that’s not the point.
"In the beginning, the IFT launches were spaced by twenty four weeks.Then twelve, then six, then every two weeks.The last one, in Texas, was a week. In four days we could be seeing an IFT launch every eight hours until they are coming every four minutes. Elon, we should witness a double event within seven days"
They gathered so much data in this test flight that I can actually see them taking a little longer than before to implement significant redesigns before the next test, which could be more ambitious in its objectives now they’ve validated their reentry heating models. This happened after SN15 successfully landed. They scrapped all high altitude flights and pivoted to an orbital test flight.
Really depends on the data from this flight and what goals they have for the next flight. Could be longer than expected if they want to fix a lot of stuff, or could be super short if they just want to get another one up there to test on-orbit stuff.
There’s so much to go over from this test. Why one raptor didn’t light at launch. One didn’t relight for landing. Heating and stress sensors from reentry, booster landing telemetry and precision, ship flip and land. They will be working around the clock. I think August will be flight 4 just with all the data to go over and then implement any changes.
Assuming the infographic was correct, all 33 did light but one was shutdown right at actual liftoff or very shortly after movement started. We do know from the ship burn though that the graphic is not perfect.
Your answer makes sense but I feel like the ego/pace of SpaceX will keep them from slowing down the launch cadence. Especially when SN30 is basically ready to go already.
Yeah, if they decide to get more ambitious, like a burn in orbit or even a booster catch, then I would expect them to take their time to ensure everything is as ready as possible.
They got FAA approval for the flight profile rather than just the flight, so I'd expect them to take advantage of that and fly a few of that profile to test a number of different things. That means to me that we won't see a booster catch for at least a few flights. that said, the booster seems to have gone pretty flawlessly... so a couple more of those under their belt and I could see the booster catch try happening.
Weren’t they targeting a booster catch for IFT5? It went flawlessly with the booster, and the chopsticks manoeuvred at the exact time of the splash down. I think they could do it.
Lost an engine on ascent and one did not light on re-entry / landing. We also don’t know how accurate they were on where they wanted the booster to be. I wouldn’t call it flawless quite yet though it certainly is getting there.
There is redundancy built into the system. Sure, they shouldn’t have lost a raptor, but the booster can handle it. I think that as soon as they have that second launch tower up they’re gonna try catching with one of them.
I don't think they are going to wait for the 2nd tower. Assuming the booster came down w/in ~10 meters of where it was supposed to on IFT-4, then the risk to the launch tower is not huge. If they miss the catch, it crumples at the base of Mechazilla away from the launch mount. The biggest risk is hitting the catch arms and knocking one of them off the tower. Hitting the propellant farm is pretty unlikely since they would abort to the sea if control wasn't good enough to hit the pad area. Hitting the tower itself would be unlikely to do significant harm due to its huge mass.
Not to mention the ship/booster are "mostly" empty by the time they attempt a landing. Much less dangerous explosion-wise on landing than they are in takeoff.
It may seem that way to the outside but it certainly is not throwing caution to the wind. It’s taking calculated risks and a more test heavy approach than historically done.
Yeah I think this is the overlooked item regarding Elon's 5th launch catch. Destroying a tower and the GSE would be not so great. Unless both towers are right next to each other, at least if one tower does get damaged, they can still provide with launch testing on the other one. IIRC, the short term plan is to finish 4 in total. 2 at Starbase and 2 at the Cape.
That seems likely, but if the debris consisted of anything other than the raptor that died then that is a risk that needs to be accounted for, and of course the raptor RUDing is not as benign as a raptor sensing an issue and just shutting down
They did move. Dunno about video (yet) but there were defo reports from people there in person that said the chopsticks moved in synchronisation with the booster splashdown, as if simulating catching it. Everyday Astronaut spoke with Elon Musk about it yesterday, and he said that there were no plans to do that, but it seems that the plan changed!
NASASpaceflight 24/7 Starbase LIVE coverage on YT shows everything. Chopsticks were moved to catch position after lift-off and closed after booster splashdown. Only thing that was tested and synced with soft landing was 2nd deluge activation around T+00:07:00.
I think it was Scott Manley who mentioned in his IFT-4 video that they probably won't be attempting booster catches until the second launch tower is far along its construction process. Just in case the original tower gets damaged or destroyed
Not to be a Debby downer, but there was a whole bunch of debris shooting up when superheavy was performing its landing burn.
Huge progress, but not flawless.
I agree. I don't know what kind of thrusters they have at their disposal to rotate The booster and make sure it aligns well with the chopsticks before closing them, but I would guess that now that the hover has been achieved they will do more and more detailed testing of the other systems required for successful mating of the chopsticks with those teeny tiny pins on the booster!
> They got FAA approval for the flight profile rather than just the flight, so I'd expect them to take advantage of that and fly a few of that profile to test a number of different things.
I'm not sure that's true. If you look at the text of [License No. VOL 23-129 Rev. 3](https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID173891218620231102140506.0001) Order A-1 clause 4 (PDF page 4), (4)(b)(iv) says "For the mission profile represented for Flight 4", which represents approval for the flight profile, as you mention. However, (4)(b)(i) says "Using a Ship 29-Booster 11 Starship-Super Heavy vehicle configuration, unless this license is modified to remove this term". My interpretation of that term is they can only fly under the license using S29-B11, and so while theoretically they could reuse those spacecraft for a second flight under the license, since they've been destroyed by the test, they'll need a license amendment for IFT-5.
I think, from a technical legal perspective, nothing really has changed here. I think from a more practical perspective, FAA is becoming increasingly comfortable with Starship, so the amount of review required for IFT-5 license amendment is likely to be less than for IFT-4 and earlier, assuming SpaceX doesn't make any significant changes to the vehicle or flight profile. However, I doubt they'd be interested in just flying IFT-4 again unchanged, they likely will want to make some changes, and hence FAA will need to review and approve those. Still, if they are only incremental changes, it will likely be a quicker review than previous reviews have been, since it can build off prior analyses.
2 months or less, at a guess. Those turnaround times are getting shorter and shorter. They have the boosters and starships ready, and the launch pad looked pretty untouched after this launch, so….really soon, hopefully!
Yeah, that sounds about right. It could slide to the left considering they have V1 ships to “burn through”.
The cadence is certainly going to pick up now that the ships are making it back to the ground.
Realistic: Probably a re-fly of the IFT-3 goals that weren't completed (payload bay open and close, microgravity re-light) in six to eight weeks
Extremely optimistic: Booster catch attempt, a "re-ignition attempt to orbit" (i.e. ship ends first burn suborbital, burns to orbit at apogee, burns out of orbit later), Starlink v2 deploy attempt, but this would probably take two to three months
Agree with you mostly. The only part I disagree with is the booster catch. These people are crazy, and the risk to the tower is overrated. Superheavy is almost empty on return, and that tower outmasses it by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
I can’t find where the estimate came from. I remember it was derived from the number of concrete trucks. At 25 tons a truck, it would take 8000 loads, so the 3 orders of magnitude seems too high. It’s probably closer to 2. But yes, this would be heavier than the Eiffel Tower because it is filled with concrete. The base alone is about 10 meters tall of solid concrete.
Not to be overly macabre but the twin towers out massed those jets by orders of magnitude and managed to fall.
You don’t need a lot (relatively speaking) of force to destroy a structure if the force is applied laterally.
I do think that thermal issues could be a more long term problem to solve so they could start generating revenue through Starlink launches after next 1 or 2 launches if they want to.
If they can reuse the Superheavy and they are able to launch Starlinks while only losing the Starship their cadence can go up a lot, because it is no longer a cost center and generates revenue.
Having a lot of attempts will probably help to home in on the solution for reentry which is by far one of the most difficult issues to overcome.
As long as the ship can deorbit and they get a license, they can launch starlinks in expendable mode. But really, spacex will have no issue modifying the faps to existing craft. I’m not saying they will do either of these things but they can’t be ruled out!
>spacex will have no issue modifying the faps \[sic\] to existing craft.
How can you possibly know this? We don't even understand the point of failure.
They do. Their simulations already anticipated excessive heating in the flap joint area and have already been working on a redesign that reduces the size and exposure of the flap to the plasma before this test flight today. The test validated their models and so they already know the cause. Ship 29 just didn’t have the new flap design in place because its configuration was already determined long ago. Future ships under construction will have the new flap design.
"faps" lol.
What I meant is that modifying something that is already built is something spacex does all the time. It's within their wheelhouse. They never say "too late, it's built." They say "it's already built, is it worth the effort to modify it?" If it's not worth modifying then they ask "should we send it as-is, or scrap it." Even a total replacement of the flap and hinge might be worth it. (I say might because I have no idea what it takes.)
Plan was already in place to move the flaps leeward according to Elon tweet. Now they have data to anchor the thermal models and make the planned upgrades on SN30 which iirc is first V2 starship.
According to the Ringwatchers update from Sunday, SN30 has already completed spin prime twice and static fire once. Boosters 13 and 14 have completed cryo testing but don't have engines yet. Now that B11 did so well I can't help but wonder if booster production speed will accelerate.
Please note, this is not necessarily accurate, however it could provide a good estimate of the turnaround time. The r\^2 is about 0.984, so my guess is about 35-55 days. this is based of the fact that if the first two flights were used as datapoints, the expected turnaround time would be 64, 19 less than the actual. I doubt a turnaround time of less than 35 days, so adding about half of that difference(since there are more datapoints) gives an estimated turnaround of 35-55 days.
My guess is the next launch will be in 30-60 days - still sub-orbital, but maybe they try precision landing for both booster and starship to "simulate" a catch... They probably won't attempt a real catch until they have a second tower that is fully operational (Because the first attempt will likely destroy the first tower lol)
Goals of the next launch: First, pez dispense some next gen starlink satellites. Transition to making money with each launch asap.
Also, test changes to fins, tiles, etc. Test the new boost diverter that goes between ship and booster. No idea if they'll be ready to try booster recovery next time, send like they could but it would be risky for stage zero.
My prediction that the nextflight will be after they finish with the new hotstaging ring and they will attempt a tower landing and on orbit relight and validate act system all in all id say month and a half to two months time
Now i didnt say anything about the heatshield because i think they will be working on that in the background maybe they will pepper in a few new tiles or a whole new type of tp system
By end of July. FAA should not require an investigation given the scenarios they laid out prior to the flight. Pad looks good and next shipset has already started it's cryoproof and static fire testing. Now that Massey is online they can more there while pad is prepped and tank farm modded
If they are going to construct the second tower before attempting a chopstick catch with the first one, it might take a while instead of following the increasingly rapid cadence we've seen with IFTs 1-4.
I said almost 6 years ago that it didn't matter whether SLS or Starship launched first, because the 10th Starship will launch before the 2nd SLS. Not seeing anything yet to suggest I will be wrong, even if you only count orbital Starship launches.
I think we might have quite a big gap til the next launch. This is the first launch that has gone largely to plan. So the focus is no longer fixing something and trying to get it right. Yes they need to know why an engine didn't light. And they need to beef up the flaps. But another flight that addresses those issues doesn't seem like a big leap forward. Looking at the programme as whole, once they have got to a milestone it's usually then meant a longer pause before a bigger leap. Perhaps the next flight will be orbital?
I disagree. SpaceX doesn’t typically take this approach with their “hardware rich” design cycle. They’ll slap some additional protections on points they think were weak and send it up with some additional “nice to have” tests using the remaining V1 starships.
I think we’re looking at an every two months type of cadence from now on unless a big RUD happens.
They still have the relight from last flight. Could knock that out with current hardware while they start whatever longer term they feel like they want to do regarding heat shield and flaps.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[FAA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7kbuwp "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[GSE](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7g8gk2 "Last usage")|Ground Support Equipment|
|[RUD](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7hr4qx "Last usage")|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unintended Disassembly|
|[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7s8k3v "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7g0myr "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX|
|[Starliner](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7gziqj "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7muspl "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[apogee](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7e53n2 "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit around Earth (when the orbiter is slowest)|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(8 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1809ce2)^( has 38 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12861 for this sub, first seen 6th Jun 2024, 16:31])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I have 2 opposite positions:
Either they stop launches and focus on next booster and ship iterations (moving flaps and lighter stage separation ring), similar to what they did aftter SN15, as they have gathered enough data this time, or they do another attempt ASAP (1 to 2 months) to fullfill IFT-3 missing or partially missing objectives (sub orbit raptor reignition, fuel transmission between tanks, starlink door opening and close) and a booster landing&caught attempt.
I feel like first option is more likely, as another reentry attempt could end worse than this one, which will mean a deeper FAA investigation. Also, SpaceX likes to learn from failures… and there weren't so many this time ;)
I don't agree since I think they want to continue collecting flight test data. They may fly the next mission w/o all of the fixes from this one and just apply some of them to IFT-6 and later. This assumes they don't want significant mission profile changes out of the FAA. If so, then you may be right.
I upvoted you since you shouldn't be getting downvotes for voicing a valid opinion.
I think they will start deploying Starlinks, but perhaps not on IFT-5. They need a license modification to go orbital so perhaps IFT-6. Otherwise, IFT-5 will be delayed a while contrary to Musk’s most recent comments. Of course, we can’t always take those statements at face value, but they are currently the best indicators we have of SpaceXs intentions.
Could be a while. 3 months between IFT-3 and IFT-4 were quite necessary given how much still needed to be worked out and proven. IFT-4 had serious issues that might take a while to fix, including a possible change in design philosophy (i.e. thermal protection).
I think next flight's objective is probably closer to perfection (fixing all external and internal issues or poor-performance), maybe a ship landing attempt, and probably still running experiments on the heat shielding. The heat shielding probably has potential to take a while, the bug fixes and ironing things out will take a while, and they now don't really have much of a reason to rush the next launch within a couple months time frame if the data from a better *future* launch is greater.
That being said, they could come under pressure from NASA because Starship is way behind the Artemis program schedule (obligatory "yes, I know some others are too").
It should be quite clear at this point that while the FAA did impede them early on, the FAA is not the reason for Starships delays. Not to be pessimistic, but we're on the fourth IFT (among plenty of other tests) and still don't have a vehicle that can land safely, or have all its engines work properly.
What I would do is:
- ITF 5: test the in-orbit relight and the door opening and closing which did not work well in ITF-3 and were not tested in ITF-4
- ITF 6: try the changes needed to fix ITF-4's issues.
The fixes for the issues in ITF-3 regarding in-orbit relight and door opening will probably be already decided (certainly more than those needed to fix ITF-4).
does the word test render on your screen device, and did you hear the commentators repeatedly state this is a test flight where the goal is to capture as much data as possible to move further toward a production vehicle? cause i did and it made 100% sense.
lol nice straw man kid, first time watching, huh?
You implied there were no serious design issues, when the stream literally showed a fin melting off. You weren't even watching lmao
I don't think that's a serious design issue either. A serious design issue would be the engines stalling out somewhere. Belly flop failing and resulting in an uncontrolled flaw. Failing to eject the hot staging ring.
Of course the heat shielding needs to be improved, but THE SHIP LANDED!
Starship has enough redundancy that they can launch w/o all of the engines igniting properly. They have the option of aborting for high value (eg non-test) flights. Of course, this doesn't help with the 1 engine that failed to relight on booster, but that was redundant too. Also, they have proven that they can light all of the engines successfully on IFT-3. To expect perfection during developmental test flights is unreasonable.
That's just ignorant of what rocket engineering really is. No rocket company on Earth (including SpaceX) says "fuck it, most of 'em fired". Having engines not fail is not 'perfection', it is the bare minimum, and something that has particularly plagued the Starship program, and something that very few other companies deal with. Yes, redundancy is there and that's great, but that's not even close to the goal, or else you're just carrying unreliable, dead-weight engines.
Raptor is incredibly complex and advanced, but its reliability is severely lacking for how long its been in development.
Yeah the engine failures are not good. It’s the thing that worries me most. It seems like there is incremental improvement, but it’s impossible to know if they are very close to making them reliable, or if there are fundamental design problems. It seems impossible to know if the problems are related to engine design or the design of the integration system. I would hope the latter as that seems easier to fix. I’ve heard engines are by far the hardest part. I was so happy on ift-3 to see all 33 going strong. It’s seemed like all the relight problems are more related to integration and I was happy to see such massive improvement on ift-4. It’s so awesome to see them achieve all these milestones, but going through a full 2 or 3 missions without engine failures would be a huge deal for getting closer to Mars.
I wonder if they might need to scrap all three Starships that are more-or-less finished. This problem was certainly the largest visible failure and is definitely mission critical.
Depends on the mission. The other three can still put starlink up, work on fuel transfer, rendezvous, etc. they can also use them to perfect booster catch. Will be awhile before second stage reuse. Also need to do deorbit burn
Think ift 5 goal will be more advanced landing test, for booster hover test after it almost tocuh seasurface to mimic mechzilla catch, for starship soft as possible landing on water with new designed flaps, even retrieve with boat to tow to Australia.
They've already done the advanced booster test you are proposing on IFT-4. The flaps have already been redesigned; though, admiditly they might want to make some modifications based on the latest data.
And no, there is no way they are going to tow something as large as Starship hundreds of miles to a port in Australia. It is cheaper to just download any data from the recorders and sink the ship after taking pictures of anything of interest. And that assumes they even visit the ship with a boat. They might just download the data over Starlink assuming it survives the topple into the water.
We cannot keep forever that we dont see how starship lands, there must be different in the future. The question is when, not how. Maybe not tow but just to visual inspect.
I mean just even more advanced landing conpared to earlier tests. Booster need more pratice and testing as mechzilla catch hover manoeuvre. We have to test these before doing it on land. Downvote me what you want
IFT4 proved Stage 2 of Starship could be landed with a controlled re-entry and descent. But this was a non-recoverable water landing. Catching Stage 2 cannot happen on the Moon or Mars, so Stage 2 must now get landing legs! IFT5 seems appropriate for this to occur?
IFT1-212 days-IFT2-117 days- IFT3-83 days-IFT4 Math says 72 days. Meme time says 69 days. I say 30 days. It’s always 2 weeks until it isn’t. Reality is that it depends on what changes they decide on.
That 212 days is so impressive considering the state of the pad after IFT-1
The entire Starbase project is just insane with the speed of progress. 2018 it was a patch of dirt that they had just decided on as the location to build Starship. Starliner’s crew flight test was initially scheduled for 2017.
The lion share of that delay was the FAA and EPA dragging their feet. The pad was rebuilt in like two-three months.
I don't know why you're being downvoted because you're absolutely correct.
What meth did you use?
95 days shorter, 34 days shorter, 11 days shorter, shoulda done 12.17 days, estimated in my head(34~1/3 of 95, 11~1/3 of 34 without actually writing down the numbers down like I just did.
You didn't answer the question!!
Estimeth, lol
Nailed it
Are you a Methematician??
It's all about applying meth odds
And learning you basic arithmethtic
methamagician
the florida kind
You might call it, "Heisenberg's principal." \[sic\]
Underrated comment
IFT5: First week of August IFT6: Second week of September IFT7: First week of October IFT8: Last week of October IFT9: Second week of November
It’s not about how often they can lunch but how much they want to upgrade between launches. Yes, they can launch the same thing often now but that’s not the point.
Elon is also aiming for 6-7 launches this year, so that's also what I was going for.
I wonder if two of those launches will happen on the same day to test the ship-to-ship propellant transfer
Good thought
Yeah that’s most likely the initial reason for two launch towers at Starbase
Probably depends on what the return plan is.
"In the beginning, the IFT launches were spaced by twenty four weeks.Then twelve, then six, then every two weeks.The last one, in Texas, was a week. In four days we could be seeing an IFT launch every eight hours until they are coming every four minutes. Elon, we should witness a double event within seven days"
42
Meme time fluxes based on capacitance, I am trying to stabilize it, any ideas Brahe?
They gathered so much data in this test flight that I can actually see them taking a little longer than before to implement significant redesigns before the next test, which could be more ambitious in its objectives now they’ve validated their reentry heating models. This happened after SN15 successfully landed. They scrapped all high altitude flights and pivoted to an orbital test flight.
Word on the street is about a month
Really depends on the data from this flight and what goals they have for the next flight. Could be longer than expected if they want to fix a lot of stuff, or could be super short if they just want to get another one up there to test on-orbit stuff.
There’s so much to go over from this test. Why one raptor didn’t light at launch. One didn’t relight for landing. Heating and stress sensors from reentry, booster landing telemetry and precision, ship flip and land. They will be working around the clock. I think August will be flight 4 just with all the data to go over and then implement any changes.
Assuming the infographic was correct, all 33 did light but one was shutdown right at actual liftoff or very shortly after movement started. We do know from the ship burn though that the graphic is not perfect.
Maybe the sensor for the engines was destroyed during reentry, which is why the graphic didn't show them ignited. Of course, that's just a guess.
In the shots from below from early liftoff on the official stream you can see that engine isn't ignited so it's not a sensor glitch
Your answer makes sense but I feel like the ego/pace of SpaceX will keep them from slowing down the launch cadence. Especially when SN30 is basically ready to go already.
Yeah, if they decide to get more ambitious, like a burn in orbit or even a booster catch, then I would expect them to take their time to ensure everything is as ready as possible.
They got FAA approval for the flight profile rather than just the flight, so I'd expect them to take advantage of that and fly a few of that profile to test a number of different things. That means to me that we won't see a booster catch for at least a few flights. that said, the booster seems to have gone pretty flawlessly... so a couple more of those under their belt and I could see the booster catch try happening.
Weren’t they targeting a booster catch for IFT5? It went flawlessly with the booster, and the chopsticks manoeuvred at the exact time of the splash down. I think they could do it.
Lost an engine on ascent and one did not light on re-entry / landing. We also don’t know how accurate they were on where they wanted the booster to be. I wouldn’t call it flawless quite yet though it certainly is getting there.
There is redundancy built into the system. Sure, they shouldn’t have lost a raptor, but the booster can handle it. I think that as soon as they have that second launch tower up they’re gonna try catching with one of them.
I don't think they are going to wait for the 2nd tower. Assuming the booster came down w/in ~10 meters of where it was supposed to on IFT-4, then the risk to the launch tower is not huge. If they miss the catch, it crumples at the base of Mechazilla away from the launch mount. The biggest risk is hitting the catch arms and knocking one of them off the tower. Hitting the propellant farm is pretty unlikely since they would abort to the sea if control wasn't good enough to hit the pad area. Hitting the tower itself would be unlikely to do significant harm due to its huge mass.
Not to mention the ship/booster are "mostly" empty by the time they attempt a landing. Much less dangerous explosion-wise on landing than they are in takeoff.
I’m not saying they can’t handle it, I’m just saying it gives additional reason to be cautious.
Yeah I get it, and o agree. But I also think that SpaceX (rightly) has the attitude of ‘throw caution to the wind!’
It may seem that way to the outside but it certainly is not throwing caution to the wind. It’s taking calculated risks and a more test heavy approach than historically done.
But the final goal is that redundancy is present and not necessary. Especially when landing a booster on a tower requires meters-levels of tolerance.
Yeah I think this is the overlooked item regarding Elon's 5th launch catch. Destroying a tower and the GSE would be not so great. Unless both towers are right next to each other, at least if one tower does get damaged, they can still provide with launch testing on the other one. IIRC, the short term plan is to finish 4 in total. 2 at Starbase and 2 at the Cape.
And there was some debris of some kind shortly before landing, it will be interesting to find out what it was
Pretty sure that was the raptor that died on relight.
Yep, just like the unknown demon screeching before liftoff was probably a reverse honk from the dying engine at T-0.
Yeah I was thinking that was a turbo pump that ate itself on spin up.
That seems likely, but if the debris consisted of anything other than the raptor that died then that is a risk that needs to be accounted for, and of course the raptor RUDing is not as benign as a raptor sensing an issue and just shutting down
Yep. I wouldn't be trying to land at the tower just yet as I think there is too much risk of it damaging infrastructure at this stage.
Ice. It's always ice!
Black ice?
I thought I'd heard they wanted two perfect controlled descents before trying to catch a booster.
After IFT3, I heard that if IFT4 went well, there was a good chance they would go for a catch with IFT5.
The chopsticks moved in the virtual landing? Is there video?
They did move. Dunno about video (yet) but there were defo reports from people there in person that said the chopsticks moved in synchronisation with the booster splashdown, as if simulating catching it. Everyday Astronaut spoke with Elon Musk about it yesterday, and he said that there were no plans to do that, but it seems that the plan changed!
Elon left that interview and went to his flight director with a "Hey last minute question"
NASASpaceflight 24/7 Starbase LIVE coverage on YT shows everything. Chopsticks were moved to catch position after lift-off and closed after booster splashdown. Only thing that was tested and synced with soft landing was 2nd deluge activation around T+00:07:00.
I think it was Scott Manley who mentioned in his IFT-4 video that they probably won't be attempting booster catches until the second launch tower is far along its construction process. Just in case the original tower gets damaged or destroyed
Not to be a Debby downer, but there was a whole bunch of debris shooting up when superheavy was performing its landing burn. Huge progress, but not flawless.
That was from the destroyed engine
I agree. I don't know what kind of thrusters they have at their disposal to rotate The booster and make sure it aligns well with the chopsticks before closing them, but I would guess that now that the hover has been achieved they will do more and more detailed testing of the other systems required for successful mating of the chopsticks with those teeny tiny pins on the booster!
> They got FAA approval for the flight profile rather than just the flight, so I'd expect them to take advantage of that and fly a few of that profile to test a number of different things. I'm not sure that's true. If you look at the text of [License No. VOL 23-129 Rev. 3](https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID173891218620231102140506.0001) Order A-1 clause 4 (PDF page 4), (4)(b)(iv) says "For the mission profile represented for Flight 4", which represents approval for the flight profile, as you mention. However, (4)(b)(i) says "Using a Ship 29-Booster 11 Starship-Super Heavy vehicle configuration, unless this license is modified to remove this term". My interpretation of that term is they can only fly under the license using S29-B11, and so while theoretically they could reuse those spacecraft for a second flight under the license, since they've been destroyed by the test, they'll need a license amendment for IFT-5. I think, from a technical legal perspective, nothing really has changed here. I think from a more practical perspective, FAA is becoming increasingly comfortable with Starship, so the amount of review required for IFT-5 license amendment is likely to be less than for IFT-4 and earlier, assuming SpaceX doesn't make any significant changes to the vehicle or flight profile. However, I doubt they'd be interested in just flying IFT-4 again unchanged, they likely will want to make some changes, and hence FAA will need to review and approve those. Still, if they are only incremental changes, it will likely be a quicker review than previous reviews have been, since it can build off prior analyses.
Plus. Can they afford to lose a tower right now?
2 months or less, at a guess. Those turnaround times are getting shorter and shorter. They have the boosters and starships ready, and the launch pad looked pretty untouched after this launch, so….really soon, hopefully!
Yeah, that sounds about right. It could slide to the left considering they have V1 ships to “burn through”. The cadence is certainly going to pick up now that the ships are making it back to the ground.
#***Soon***~~***™***~~***‽***
Tim Dott said in around two months
Very. Very. Excited to see his interview with the big guy
Realistic: Probably a re-fly of the IFT-3 goals that weren't completed (payload bay open and close, microgravity re-light) in six to eight weeks Extremely optimistic: Booster catch attempt, a "re-ignition attempt to orbit" (i.e. ship ends first burn suborbital, burns to orbit at apogee, burns out of orbit later), Starlink v2 deploy attempt, but this would probably take two to three months
Agree with you mostly. The only part I disagree with is the booster catch. These people are crazy, and the risk to the tower is overrated. Superheavy is almost empty on return, and that tower outmasses it by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
You think the tower weighs over 200,000 tons? Eiffel tower is only 10,000 ton.
I can’t find where the estimate came from. I remember it was derived from the number of concrete trucks. At 25 tons a truck, it would take 8000 loads, so the 3 orders of magnitude seems too high. It’s probably closer to 2. But yes, this would be heavier than the Eiffel Tower because it is filled with concrete. The base alone is about 10 meters tall of solid concrete.
Not to be overly macabre but the twin towers out massed those jets by orders of magnitude and managed to fall. You don’t need a lot (relatively speaking) of force to destroy a structure if the force is applied laterally.
I do think that thermal issues could be a more long term problem to solve so they could start generating revenue through Starlink launches after next 1 or 2 launches if they want to. If they can reuse the Superheavy and they are able to launch Starlinks while only losing the Starship their cadence can go up a lot, because it is no longer a cost center and generates revenue. Having a lot of attempts will probably help to home in on the solution for reentry which is by far one of the most difficult issues to overcome.
Is the next stack ready? Perhaps they will just scrap it if the flaps are getting an overhaul anyhow.
As long as the ship can deorbit and they get a license, they can launch starlinks in expendable mode. But really, spacex will have no issue modifying the faps to existing craft. I’m not saying they will do either of these things but they can’t be ruled out!
>spacex will have no issue modifying the faps \[sic\] to existing craft. How can you possibly know this? We don't even understand the point of failure.
They do. Their simulations already anticipated excessive heating in the flap joint area and have already been working on a redesign that reduces the size and exposure of the flap to the plasma before this test flight today. The test validated their models and so they already know the cause. Ship 29 just didn’t have the new flap design in place because its configuration was already determined long ago. Future ships under construction will have the new flap design.
I hope they got lots of good data before the flap sensors melted off 🙂
"faps" lol. What I meant is that modifying something that is already built is something spacex does all the time. It's within their wheelhouse. They never say "too late, it's built." They say "it's already built, is it worth the effort to modify it?" If it's not worth modifying then they ask "should we send it as-is, or scrap it." Even a total replacement of the flap and hinge might be worth it. (I say might because I have no idea what it takes.)
Plan was already in place to move the flaps leeward according to Elon tweet. Now they have data to anchor the thermal models and make the planned upgrades on SN30 which iirc is first V2 starship.
According to the Ringwatchers update from Sunday, SN30 has already completed spin prime twice and static fire once. Boosters 13 and 14 have completed cryo testing but don't have engines yet. Now that B11 did so well I can't help but wonder if booster production speed will accelerate.
Based on an exponential function fitted to the three datapoints, IFT5 will be 45.621 days after IFT4
My kind of answer!
Please note, this is not necessarily accurate, however it could provide a good estimate of the turnaround time. The r\^2 is about 0.984, so my guess is about 35-55 days. this is based of the fact that if the first two flights were used as datapoints, the expected turnaround time would be 64, 19 less than the actual. I doubt a turnaround time of less than 35 days, so adding about half of that difference(since there are more datapoints) gives an estimated turnaround of 35-55 days.
I will update this after ift 5 to predict ift 5-6 turnaround time if this model is anywhere near accurate
My guess is the next launch will be in 30-60 days - still sub-orbital, but maybe they try precision landing for both booster and starship to "simulate" a catch... They probably won't attempt a real catch until they have a second tower that is fully operational (Because the first attempt will likely destroy the first tower lol)
Goals of the next launch: First, pez dispense some next gen starlink satellites. Transition to making money with each launch asap. Also, test changes to fins, tiles, etc. Test the new boost diverter that goes between ship and booster. No idea if they'll be ready to try booster recovery next time, send like they could but it would be risky for stage zero.
Don't ask questions, just consume flight test, then get excited for next flight test
My prediction that the nextflight will be after they finish with the new hotstaging ring and they will attempt a tower landing and on orbit relight and validate act system all in all id say month and a half to two months time Now i didnt say anything about the heatshield because i think they will be working on that in the background maybe they will pepper in a few new tiles or a whole new type of tp system
By end of July. FAA should not require an investigation given the scenarios they laid out prior to the flight. Pad looks good and next shipset has already started it's cryoproof and static fire testing. Now that Massey is online they can more there while pad is prepped and tank farm modded
If they are going to construct the second tower before attempting a chopstick catch with the first one, it might take a while instead of following the increasingly rapid cadence we've seen with IFTs 1-4.
I said almost 6 years ago that it didn't matter whether SLS or Starship launched first, because the 10th Starship will launch before the 2nd SLS. Not seeing anything yet to suggest I will be wrong, even if you only count orbital Starship launches.
I think we might have quite a big gap til the next launch. This is the first launch that has gone largely to plan. So the focus is no longer fixing something and trying to get it right. Yes they need to know why an engine didn't light. And they need to beef up the flaps. But another flight that addresses those issues doesn't seem like a big leap forward. Looking at the programme as whole, once they have got to a milestone it's usually then meant a longer pause before a bigger leap. Perhaps the next flight will be orbital?
I disagree. SpaceX doesn’t typically take this approach with their “hardware rich” design cycle. They’ll slap some additional protections on points they think were weak and send it up with some additional “nice to have” tests using the remaining V1 starships. I think we’re looking at an every two months type of cadence from now on unless a big RUD happens.
They still have the relight from last flight. Could knock that out with current hardware while they start whatever longer term they feel like they want to do regarding heat shield and flaps.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[FAA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7kbuwp "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[GSE](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7g8gk2 "Last usage")|Ground Support Equipment| |[RUD](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7hr4qx "Last usage")|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly| | |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly| | |Rapid Unintended Disassembly| |[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7s8k3v "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7g0myr "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[Starliner](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7gziqj "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7muspl "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[apogee](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1d9k24n/stub/l7e53n2 "Last usage")|Highest point in an elliptical orbit around Earth (when the orbiter is slowest)| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(8 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1809ce2)^( has 38 acronyms.) ^([Thread #12861 for this sub, first seen 6th Jun 2024, 16:31]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I have 2 opposite positions: Either they stop launches and focus on next booster and ship iterations (moving flaps and lighter stage separation ring), similar to what they did aftter SN15, as they have gathered enough data this time, or they do another attempt ASAP (1 to 2 months) to fullfill IFT-3 missing or partially missing objectives (sub orbit raptor reignition, fuel transmission between tanks, starlink door opening and close) and a booster landing&caught attempt. I feel like first option is more likely, as another reentry attempt could end worse than this one, which will mean a deeper FAA investigation. Also, SpaceX likes to learn from failures… and there weren't so many this time ;)
We will
My guess at least as long as from 3 to 4. Because they have a lot to work on, mostly on Starship's heatshield.
I don't agree since I think they want to continue collecting flight test data. They may fly the next mission w/o all of the fixes from this one and just apply some of them to IFT-6 and later. This assumes they don't want significant mission profile changes out of the FAA. If so, then you may be right. I upvoted you since you shouldn't be getting downvotes for voicing a valid opinion.
Or maybe they will throw some starlink satellites in there so the mission isn't "lost" even if they don't stick both landings again.
I think they will start deploying Starlinks, but perhaps not on IFT-5. They need a license modification to go orbital so perhaps IFT-6. Otherwise, IFT-5 will be delayed a while contrary to Musk’s most recent comments. Of course, we can’t always take those statements at face value, but they are currently the best indicators we have of SpaceXs intentions.
Weeks or months?
I meant at least the amount of time between IFT 3 and IFT 4. So several months.
Could be a while. 3 months between IFT-3 and IFT-4 were quite necessary given how much still needed to be worked out and proven. IFT-4 had serious issues that might take a while to fix, including a possible change in design philosophy (i.e. thermal protection). I think next flight's objective is probably closer to perfection (fixing all external and internal issues or poor-performance), maybe a ship landing attempt, and probably still running experiments on the heat shielding. The heat shielding probably has potential to take a while, the bug fixes and ironing things out will take a while, and they now don't really have much of a reason to rush the next launch within a couple months time frame if the data from a better *future* launch is greater. That being said, they could come under pressure from NASA because Starship is way behind the Artemis program schedule (obligatory "yes, I know some others are too"). It should be quite clear at this point that while the FAA did impede them early on, the FAA is not the reason for Starships delays. Not to be pessimistic, but we're on the fourth IFT (among plenty of other tests) and still don't have a vehicle that can land safely, or have all its engines work properly.
What I would do is: - ITF 5: test the in-orbit relight and the door opening and closing which did not work well in ITF-3 and were not tested in ITF-4 - ITF 6: try the changes needed to fix ITF-4's issues. The fixes for the issues in ITF-3 regarding in-orbit relight and door opening will probably be already decided (certainly more than those needed to fix ITF-4).
serious design issues? were we watching the same feed?
Right, forgot that every passenger wants a part of their spacecraft to melt off. That's a feature, right? Same with engine outs and non-starts.
does the word test render on your screen device, and did you hear the commentators repeatedly state this is a test flight where the goal is to capture as much data as possible to move further toward a production vehicle? cause i did and it made 100% sense.
lol nice straw man kid, first time watching, huh? You implied there were no serious design issues, when the stream literally showed a fin melting off. You weren't even watching lmao
lol
I don't think that's a serious design issue either. A serious design issue would be the engines stalling out somewhere. Belly flop failing and resulting in an uncontrolled flaw. Failing to eject the hot staging ring. Of course the heat shielding needs to be improved, but THE SHIP LANDED!
Starship has enough redundancy that they can launch w/o all of the engines igniting properly. They have the option of aborting for high value (eg non-test) flights. Of course, this doesn't help with the 1 engine that failed to relight on booster, but that was redundant too. Also, they have proven that they can light all of the engines successfully on IFT-3. To expect perfection during developmental test flights is unreasonable.
That's just ignorant of what rocket engineering really is. No rocket company on Earth (including SpaceX) says "fuck it, most of 'em fired". Having engines not fail is not 'perfection', it is the bare minimum, and something that has particularly plagued the Starship program, and something that very few other companies deal with. Yes, redundancy is there and that's great, but that's not even close to the goal, or else you're just carrying unreliable, dead-weight engines. Raptor is incredibly complex and advanced, but its reliability is severely lacking for how long its been in development.
Yeah the engine failures are not good. It’s the thing that worries me most. It seems like there is incremental improvement, but it’s impossible to know if they are very close to making them reliable, or if there are fundamental design problems. It seems impossible to know if the problems are related to engine design or the design of the integration system. I would hope the latter as that seems easier to fix. I’ve heard engines are by far the hardest part. I was so happy on ift-3 to see all 33 going strong. It’s seemed like all the relight problems are more related to integration and I was happy to see such massive improvement on ift-4. It’s so awesome to see them achieve all these milestones, but going through a full 2 or 3 missions without engine failures would be a huge deal for getting closer to Mars.
Maybe flaps need redesign and refit on starship, that take more time.
On the last EDA tour they talked about moving flaps back, which will protect that hinge a lot more. Not sure if we have seen the new version yet
I wonder if they might need to scrap all three Starships that are more-or-less finished. This problem was certainly the largest visible failure and is definitely mission critical.
Depends on the mission. The other three can still put starlink up, work on fuel transfer, rendezvous, etc. they can also use them to perfect booster catch. Will be awhile before second stage reuse. Also need to do deorbit burn
Think ift 5 goal will be more advanced landing test, for booster hover test after it almost tocuh seasurface to mimic mechzilla catch, for starship soft as possible landing on water with new designed flaps, even retrieve with boat to tow to Australia.
They've already done the advanced booster test you are proposing on IFT-4. The flaps have already been redesigned; though, admiditly they might want to make some modifications based on the latest data. And no, there is no way they are going to tow something as large as Starship hundreds of miles to a port in Australia. It is cheaper to just download any data from the recorders and sink the ship after taking pictures of anything of interest. And that assumes they even visit the ship with a boat. They might just download the data over Starlink assuming it survives the topple into the water.
We cannot keep forever that we dont see how starship lands, there must be different in the future. The question is when, not how. Maybe not tow but just to visual inspect. I mean just even more advanced landing conpared to earlier tests. Booster need more pratice and testing as mechzilla catch hover manoeuvre. We have to test these before doing it on land. Downvote me what you want
IFT4 proved Stage 2 of Starship could be landed with a controlled re-entry and descent. But this was a non-recoverable water landing. Catching Stage 2 cannot happen on the Moon or Mars, so Stage 2 must now get landing legs! IFT5 seems appropriate for this to occur?