31
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

SpaceX Starship page

Portions of this thread copied from the Starship Dev thread on r/SpaceX.

FAQ

  1. When next launch? IFT-3 is NET Feb 2024, and after completion of the IFT-2 mishap investigation. Candidate vehicles are Booster 10 and Ship 28.
  2. When previous launch? (IFT-2)? Booster 9 and Ship 25 launched on 2023-11-18.
  3. What was the result? Successful lift off with minimal pad damage. Successful booster operation with all engines to successful hot stage separation. Booster destroyed by AFTS after attempted boost-back. Ship fired all engines to near orbital speed then destroyed by AFTS. No re-entry attempt.
  4. Was IFT-2 a complete failure? No. As part of an iterative test programme, many milestones were achieved. Perfection is neither expected nor desired at this stage.

​---

Quick Links

RAPTOR ROOST | LAB CAM | SAPPHIRE CAM | SENTINEL CAM | ROVER CAM | ROVER 2.0 CAM | PLEX CAM | NSF STARBASE

Starship Dev 51 | Starship Dev 50 | Starship Dev 49 | Starship Dev 48

Official Starship Update


Status

Road Closures

Type Start (CDT) End (CDT) Status
Primary Date 2023-12-18 08:00 2023-12-18 20:00 Closure Revoked. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach will be open.
Alternative Date 2023-12-19 08:00 2023-12-19 20:00 Closure Revoked. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach will be open.
Alternative Date 2023-12-20 08:00 2023-12-20 20:00 Closure Concluded. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach now open.
Primary Date 2023-12-21 08:00 2023-12-21 20:00 Closure Concluded. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach now open.
Alternative Date 2023-12-22 08:00 2023-12-22 20:00 Closure Concluded. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach now open.
Primary Date 2023-12-27 08:00 2023-12-27 20:00 Closure Revoked. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach open.
Primary Date 2023-12-29 06:00 2023-12-29 16:00 Possible closure.
Alternate Date 2024-01-03 08:00 2024-01-03 18:00 Possible closure.
Alternate Date 2024-01-04 08:00 2024-01-04 18:00 Possible closure.

Up to date as of 2023-12-27

Vehicle Status

As of 2024-01-05

Follow Ring Watchers on Twitter and Discord for more.

Ship Location Status Comment
S24 Gulf of Mexico Destroyed April 20th (IFT-1): Destroyed by flight termination system after successful launch.
S25 Atlantic Ocean Destroyed Mostly successful launch and stage separation
S26 Rocket Garden Mysterious Static fire Oct. 20. No fins or heat shield, multiple mysterious changes. Completed 3 cryo tests, latest on Oct 10.
S28 Highbay Pre-flight prep Static fired Dec 29th
S29 Megabay 2 Pending engine install 3x cryo
S30 Massey's Cryo testing 2x cryo: Jan 3rd and Jan 5th
S31 High Bay Receiving aft flaps
S32 High Bay Under construction Stacking in progress.
S33-34 Build Site Parts spotted To be scrapped in preparation for Starship V2

 

Booster Location Status Comment
B7 Gulf of Mexico Destroyed Destroyed by flight termination system after successful launch.
B9 Gulf of Mexico Destroyed Successfully launched, destroyed during Boost back attempt.
B10 Megabay 1 Pre-flight prep Static fired Dec 29th.
B11 Megabay 1 Finalizing Completed 2 Cryo tests.
B12 Massey's Pending cryo testing
B13 Megabay 1 Stacking LOx tank stacked
B14 Build Site Assembly Assorted parts spotted
B15 Build Site Assembly Potential aft end spotted Jan 5th

Resources

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago

As part of an iterative test programme, many milestones were achieved. Perfection is neither expected nor desired at this stage.

Sounds reasonable, except for the final bit. It's just ridiculous to claim that perfection was not desired. Sensors provide the same data, investors will be happier and invest more, clients will gain more trust and spend more. It feels like the excuse some kid would come up with, who is lacking self confidence to stand by their limited success and claimed it was all intentio... oh.

[-] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

It’s just ridiculous to claim that perfection was not desired.

I think this refers to SpaceX's hardware-rich iterative development process. The quote "if you never fail, you're not pushing the boundaries enough" sums up the sentiment well.

[-] John_Hasler@lemmy.one 2 points 11 months ago

If you never succeed you are pushing them too hard.

A test that goes to completion always returns more data than one that doesn't. For example there is a theory that the flaps on the ship are too large. IFT2 could have confirmed or falsified it.

[-] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Hmm, interesting take. Do you think SpaceX's current IFT goals are too ambitious? If you were in charge, what modifications would you make to the testing schedule?

[-] xvlc@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago

I think you are reading too much into this. SpaceX has a rather aggressive test program, and the purpose of the tests is not (only) to verify the functionality of the system, but also to learn about the vehicle and involved technologies. At this stage they are pushing the boundaries of the systems capabilities intentionally up to the point where it might start to fail. So if things don’t fail, it only means that they could have pushed harder and squeezed out more performance.

That does not mean that anyone wants Starship to explode. But the objective is clearly not to do a perfect launch, because SpaceX knows that it’s more efficient to make mistakes a few times times and then succeed, instead of spending excessive amounts of time and money one single perfect test launch. This has been communicated very clearly from the very beginning.

[-] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Not really. It has been communicated very clearly that if there wasn't a successful starship launch every two weeks by 2022 (I believe that's the year Elon Musk used?), SpaceX runs the risk of bankruptcy. At this point what they are doing means, that he wasn't truthful when he said that, or that they are failing unintentionally and downplaying it, or that they are actually very far behind their plans and heading toward bankruptcy.

[-] John_Hasler@lemmy.one 1 points 11 months ago

"Runs the risk" means it might happen, not that it will happen. When he said that Starlink was committed to switching to the version two satellites and F9 was not expected to be able to launch them. They would have missed their FCC deadlines. However, they were able to develop the "shrunken" Starlink2 that fits on F9. I also think that both the F9 launch cadence and Starlink sales have exceeded expectations.

this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
31 points (100.0% liked)

SpaceX

1943 readers
31 users here now

A community for discussing SpaceX.

Related space communities:

Memes:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS