Interesting perspectives from all. I expected success. However, after considering what happened with all the flying concrete and sand, it did far better that I would have thought. Quite simply, the rocket seems tough as nails.
Starship liftoff planned for Thursday, April 20
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
I was wondering if the second stage rockets fired despite a lack of separation and that's when it exploded.
When it was clear that the second stage was not going to detach and fly, they fired the self-destruct charge. The self-destruct feature of a civilian rocket is designed to burst the fuel tanks in the air so that there isn't a fuel explosion when the wreckage hits the ground.
Unprotected concrete and no water spraying to reduce the shock waves.
Maybe rocket was damaged in the first 5 seconds of launch ?
Some clues are there. 3 engines were out on liftoff. 2 of them were adjacent engines and maybe had a common "impact" taking them out.
As far as the thing buckling in flight, I think I saw that in the live feed. My guess was aerodynamic instability, leading to a tumble and sideways stress.
“FAA Closes SpaceX Starship Mishap Investigation
Friday, September 8, 2023The FAA has closed the SpaceX Starship Super Heavy mishap investigation. The final report cites multiple root causes of the April 20, 2023, mishap and 63 corrective actions SpaceX must take to prevent mishap reoccurrence. Corrective actions include redesigns of vehicle hardware to prevent leaks and fires, redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness, incorporation of additional reviews in the design process, additional analysis and testing of safety critical systems and components including the Autonomous Flight Safety System, and the application of additional change control practices.
The closure of the mishap investigation does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica. SpaceX must implement all corrective actions that impact public safety and apply for and receive a license modification from the FAA that addresses all safety, environmental and other applicable regulatory requirements prior to the next Starship launch. “
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closes-spacex-starship-mishap-investigation
Turns out… “current design” Starship is only capable of 40-50 tons to orbit vs. the 100-150 tons they initially claimed. They need another bigger version “V2” to get to 100 tons and yet another bigger V3 to get to 200 tons.
For reference, SLS Block 1, which has already flown around the moon, has TWICE the payload to LEO than Starship is capable of.
31:30
For reference, SLS Block 1, which has already flown around the moon, has TWICE the payload to LEO than Starship is capable of.
31:30
Last edited:
I was reading about this yesterday. It seems this is not exactly a solid number and there is some solid speculation SpaceX throttled these early engines down for reliability, along with carrying less fuel, hence the lower than expected numbers. The current gen Raptor 2 is down on thrust compared to the Raptor 3, and as always, a specific impulse of 320 seconds or so (vacuum raptor is a bit better at 382 seconds and 670,000 pounds thrust) may not be ideal, especially at the lower thrust levels.
Put another way, the Starship should very easily reach it's goals when properly powered with full thrust Raptor 3's.
SLS uses engines with far better specific impulse, and even so, at the moment also falls short of the 3 stage Saturn V.
Last edited:
musk fail on full display
4 years from now, I'm sure, just like any tezzzla model.
Thats a lot of carbon CO2 and much worse Black Carbon (500 times worse than CO2 for holding heat in the atmosphere) and all other kinds of nasty stuff.
The Smaller Space X Falcon 9 admits 116 tons of CO2 in 165 seconds along with other nasty stuff.
The new one will be far worse, the reason these studies are starting up because countries all around the world are now putting rockets into space.
Just having fun here ... though very factual. The discussion is starting to take place as we start talking about space tourism. Big difference than maintaining our lead in space. Touchy subject I know.
Briefly read this source = https://theconversation.com/space-t...-than-flights-imagine-a-whole-industry-164601
The Smaller Space X Falcon 9 admits 116 tons of CO2 in 165 seconds along with other nasty stuff.
The new one will be far worse, the reason these studies are starting up because countries all around the world are now putting rockets into space.
Just having fun here ... though very factual. The discussion is starting to take place as we start talking about space tourism. Big difference than maintaining our lead in space. Touchy subject I know.
Briefly read this source = https://theconversation.com/space-t...-than-flights-imagine-a-whole-industry-164601
I gotta find out when these are launched. The light show here in AZ looks spectacular from pics I've seen from a CA launch. There's also the very rare White Sands NM ones that are cool, too.
Similar threads
