Altogether, it was a terrific flight and a big step forward for the Starship program. The biggest success was the survival of stage zero, which bodes well for a quick turnaround for the next flight.
Hot staging was the second big success, and Starship got to space.
The flight termination was disappointing, but the actual functioning of the FTS system seems to be fixed. That was a problem with the first flight and should make the FAA very happy.
The second big success was all 33 engines working reliably all the way up! There were so many nay-sayers saying if the soviets could build those amazing engines but couldn't solve their flameout problem on their N-1 rocket that Superheavy was never going to work
Looking at that full set of 33 engines burning almost brought a tear to my eye (and the controlled cutoff). That more than anything else tells me they've made it.
Starship didn't do re-entry though right? They lost signal, and what happened after that was not explained. It was at the target height and >24,000km/h when it lost signal. Some coverage suggested SECO happened, they they lost signal.
Yeah, me too. There were onboard cameras on Starship and Super Heavy. Hopefully they'll release more footage and info over time.Even the first launch had some. https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12claay/the_k.... I recall the during the SpaceX audio commentary of this morning's launch (but perhaps EverydayAstronaut's) it was mentioned that onboard cameras on Starship and Super Heavy would be attempting to communicate via Starlink for the first time.
The largest rocket ever built just got to space for the first time. Even without re-entry this is a milestone.
They have a production line to build these things. They’ll roll out the next one and try again. It’s not like SLS where everything is expected to work perfectly.
It was more successful than the last one. These are experimental rockets that are tested, usually to destruction. It's a success to the extent that it gets them further along in their R&D. To call it a failure would be to ignore the fact that this is progress.
But yeah, landings would have been much bigger successes.
They got through staging this time and it looked like all the engines stayed on during the first stage boost. It's a flight test program, as long as new things are breaking each time you're making progress.
If they can get stage 2 to a stable orbit then they can start putting payloads up, and this is long before they start recovery of the units. Now stage 2 popping at the (almost) orbital insertion stage is interesting as it just should have shut down for stable flight.
I don't understand why people are celebrating failed rocket launches.
Apollo 4, the first time the full Apollo Saturn V rocket stack was assembled, did not blow up on the first attempt to space. That is something to celebrate. Now wasting millions of government dollars from subsidies, which in the end comes from citizens.
I notice you omitted an earlier, extremely prominently failed, Apollo mission.
Apollo 1 is highly analogous to the current testing of Starship. New spacecraft, highly ambitious, coming together for the first time.
Its conflagration was predictable, and a total waste of the life of the astronauts onboard. Only their deaths forced the whole spacecraft to be redesigned the way it should have been before any astronauts were onboard. Even afterwards, a second electrical fire nearly killed three more astronauts, far from any safety though their shiny new door.
The Space Shuttle ran much the same way. Carrying astronauts on its very first flight, people though it was safe, right up until it spectacularly killed seven astronauts. After that, it was flown much less ambitiously, and then it killed seven more people, and then we still kept flying it because it was all we had, and our bureaucracy was stuck with it.
Starship blowing up today poses no risk to human life, or to any organizational ambition. Rather, its present failures represent progress towards future success. Somebody is trying to do better than has been done in the past. If they learn all the things to not do to their rocket before valuable payloads and people fly on it, all the better.
Because, even in failure, there's progress. "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration" is often attributed to Edison, without whom, we wouldn't have the lightbulb. In order to make progress, you need to try. And if you never fail, you're not trying hard enough. Would it be better if it hadn't failed? Absolutely. But better to try and fail than never try.
I'm disappointed there won't be a test of the heat shield, but it's definitely a successful test. All engines lit and the new "hot staging" stage separation was seemingly successful, despite the explosions later on. Can't wait for the next one!
Similar reaction, I was hoping to see the heat shield tested on re-entry but a successful hot staging was a huge milestone. Also they didn't absolutely devastate the launch pad thanks to the launch deluge system!
This was mostly a success as far as test flights of experimental rockets go: it left the platform (which remained intact), it cleared the tower, continued on the set course, made it past stage separation and the second stage made it close to orbital speed and as such gave proof of the validity of the concept once the wrinkles have been ironed out.
As predictable the news media - most of which seem to have an antipathy against anything related to Musk, most likely due to ideological differences between their staff and Musk himself - present the launch as "a failure", "a flop", "a disaster", "a fiasco" and more of the like. This goes for nearly all of the ones I sampled ranging from the likes of CNN to places like Sweden's "Dagens Nyheter". As to whether this misrepresentation is due to them not understanding the expectations of test launches like these or in an(other) attempt to tar-and feather another Musk enterprise is unclear but I find it hard to believe that these institutions do not have the facts at hand to honestly report on such tests.
Again to the downvoters: instead of trying to get an opinion counter to your own greyed out tell us why you do not agree. Let's hear it, what did I get wrong? Certainly not the twisted media reporting on this launch as that is plain as daylight, visible for anyone who cares to look. What, then?
Maybe it’s your own biases at work as well. The major publications I frequent including the NYT talk about it as being progress even with the explosion and seem very neutral if not hopeful and positive.
NYT: “The journeys of Starship’s two parts ended in separate explosions. But the engineers at Elon Musk’s spaceflight company overcame problems that marred the rocket’s first flight in April.”
Depends on what you consider a machine, the largest power grids are more powerful. Though those are arguably multiple devices acting together not a single device. Most powerful local machine that’s close to steady state is probably Three Gorges Dam at 22.5 GW.
Starship is like a top drag racer where it’s quickly damaging itself in normal operation, but it’s the most powerful local machine that can last for over a minute.
However, there’s a lot of pulsed devices that briefly get to much higher energy levels like artillery or experiments that charge capacitor banks for massive discharges like Z machine which briefly hits 300TW.
I might be off here, but I think the super heavy booster actually puts out more power than 3 Gorges. At stage separation, the booster and starship were moving at ~5500 kph, or about 1500 m/s. The nominal maximum thrust of the super heavy booster is given as 75,000 KN on Wikipedia. Possibly that level of thrust is only happening ar liftoff, I’m not sure, but if the engines were still burning that hot at stage sep, then that would give an instantaneous power output of 75,000,000 N * 1500 m/s = 112.5 GW.
Edit: misread your comment, we’re in agreement. But I’ll leave the arithmetic.
Readit News
Hot staging was the second big success, and Starship got to space.
The flight termination was disappointing, but the actual functioning of the FTS system seems to be fixed. That was a problem with the first flight and should make the FAA very happy.
Who are you talking to where many people are saying that? I work in the space industry and no one I've ever spoken to says that.
They have a production line to build these things. They’ll roll out the next one and try again. It’s not like SLS where everything is expected to work perfectly.
But yeah, landings would have been much bigger successes.
Apollo 4, the first time the full Apollo Saturn V rocket stack was assembled, did not blow up on the first attempt to space. That is something to celebrate. Now wasting millions of government dollars from subsidies, which in the end comes from citizens.
We should not be celebrating failure.
Apollo 1 is highly analogous to the current testing of Starship. New spacecraft, highly ambitious, coming together for the first time.
Its conflagration was predictable, and a total waste of the life of the astronauts onboard. Only their deaths forced the whole spacecraft to be redesigned the way it should have been before any astronauts were onboard. Even afterwards, a second electrical fire nearly killed three more astronauts, far from any safety though their shiny new door.
The Space Shuttle ran much the same way. Carrying astronauts on its very first flight, people though it was safe, right up until it spectacularly killed seven astronauts. After that, it was flown much less ambitiously, and then it killed seven more people, and then we still kept flying it because it was all we had, and our bureaucracy was stuck with it.
Starship blowing up today poses no risk to human life, or to any organizational ambition. Rather, its present failures represent progress towards future success. Somebody is trying to do better than has been done in the past. If they learn all the things to not do to their rocket before valuable payloads and people fly on it, all the better.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7LYw6gU65ac
As predictable the news media - most of which seem to have an antipathy against anything related to Musk, most likely due to ideological differences between their staff and Musk himself - present the launch as "a failure", "a flop", "a disaster", "a fiasco" and more of the like. This goes for nearly all of the ones I sampled ranging from the likes of CNN to places like Sweden's "Dagens Nyheter". As to whether this misrepresentation is due to them not understanding the expectations of test launches like these or in an(other) attempt to tar-and feather another Musk enterprise is unclear but I find it hard to believe that these institutions do not have the facts at hand to honestly report on such tests.
[ apparently click that down-arrow again... ]
NYT: “The journeys of Starship’s two parts ended in separate explosions. But the engineers at Elon Musk’s spaceflight company overcame problems that marred the rocket’s first flight in April.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/science/spacex-starship-l...
Successful test of Starship’s two stages ended in explosions, making progress over the initial test flight in April.
(A fusion bomb generates more power for a minuscule period of time, but that sort of competes in a different class.)
Starship is like a top drag racer where it’s quickly damaging itself in normal operation, but it’s the most powerful local machine that can last for over a minute.
However, there’s a lot of pulsed devices that briefly get to much higher energy levels like artillery or experiments that charge capacitor banks for massive discharges like Z machine which briefly hits 300TW.
Edit: misread your comment, we’re in agreement. But I’ll leave the arithmetic.
Dead Comment
Here is more recent and complete version: https://archive.ph/aN2dV
Happens on my phone every time.
https://community.cloudflare.com/t/archive-today-is-failing-...