totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Hannu2]

3 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

 If SpaceX had taken that approach with the Starship, they would already be making operational launches, and making a profit on those launches. And it could be making single launch flights to both the Moon and Mars now. No refueling flights or even SLS required.

How sad that those who always know how things really are and what would be best to do never have power and money to build perfect world.

[Piscator]

Seeing how little the flaps were used (and how little of the flaps was used at times), I wonder if you could get away with just using attitude control or some kind of grid flaps.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

7 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

first going for an expendable launcher

Falcon was trying to do (and keep doing) something that had not really ever been done before.  SX was also just getting into space as the scrappy up and coming new kid trying to prove its mettle. 

Having done what they did with Falcon - there was no reason to repeat all of the steps - doing so would be tantamount to admitting they'd learned nothing along the way. 

By progressing to Booster and SS propulsive landings from the start - they're showing confidence in what they've learned and what they think they're capable of.  And in an impressive manner. 

ITF-4 and we are already hovering both craft?  In what?  6 years of effort? 

[Flying dutchman]

"Exoscientists comments are nominal, proceeding forum thread"

[Kartoffelkuchen]

4 minutes ago, Piscator said:

Seeing how little the flaps were used (and how little of the flaps was used at times), I wonder if you could get away with just using attitude control or some kind of grid flaps.

No. The flaps didn't move much, but that's because they were in the position they needed to be in, and didn't need to correct much movement of the ship. They were still sticking very much out into the airstream and controlled the ship. It was kinda like a well trimmed out aircraft really. But the moment something changes, you need that rudder (flap) deflection for control authority.

They need the moving flaps to account for a shifted Center of Mass etc.

[Ultimate Steve]

@Exoscientist What would convince you that Raptor has become reliable?

We don't know exactly how many engines lit for the landing burn as the indicator didn't work, and who knows, there might have been an engine out there, though I doubt it. There were 2 engine outs, which were compensated for, across 33+10+13+6+2? attempted engine starts, a score of 62/64 plus or minus one, 96.8% reliable on this flight. One of those failures was in a particularly intense environment (landing burn, that thing was going FAST) on the second ever attempt, the first of which was, to my knowledge, foiled by a clogged filter.

While that's obviously not amazing, I don't think it is worth doomering about on flight 4 (IIRC flight 3 of Raptor 2).

While I don't think it is an amazing comparison, Falcon 9 was 39/40 cumulative through Flight 4, and the J-2 (at least on the Saturn V, I didn't look up Saturn I, or the Merlins on Falcon 1 for that matter) was 23/26 by flight 4 of the Saturn V. I'd have to go back and do a lot more counting for a cumulative Starship number though.

Edited June 6 by Ultimate Steve

[Yaivenov]

1 hour ago, AckSed said:

"Did the primary buffer panel just fall off my gorram ship?"

I said the exact same thing to my friend when I saw the debris during final relight.

[StrandedonEarth]

That was …. Crazy!

Was watching the labpadre stream while working. Favourite quote from the chat stream: “Hear me baby? Hold together!”

[MashAndBangers]

Sonic booms in the air!
And the rocket's red glare!
Gave proof through the night!
That our flap was still there!

*bows*

[Flying dutchman]

6 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said:

Sonic booms in the air!
And the rocket's red glare!
Gave proof through the night!
That our flap was still there!

*bows*

Which song are you referencing? I really want to know to be able to read your comment as it was intended.

[MashAndBangers]

2 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said:

Which song are you referencing? I really want to know to be able to read your comment as it was intended.

Star Spangled Banner, Anthem of the United States of America uwu

[CBase]

Goal of this test flight was to improve recoverability. Ship and Booster managed to get below 10 km/h within few hundred meter above the surface. Seriously we don't know what the exact program targets for a virtual tower are, but it seemed damn close.

I am just curious if both would swim and maybe a recovery is thinkable.

[Ultimate Steve]

If this is not acceptable, feel free to remove it.

There was a particularly persistent naysayer on the forums back in the days. Now that we have a semi-successful re-entry, I thought I'd go through his (I'm assuming he/him) Starship related statements and do a tally of sorts. I'll skip most of the Mars-only related ones for the sake of brevity, as basically every other post is saying "There will never be a Mars colony". That remains to be seen. Maybe throw in a few other general spaceflight ones. Will be interesting to see how much has been proven true vs false. I'm going to try to tilt things as much in his favor as I can.

Quote

The US space program does not have the capability to put people into space. It hasn't for years. Americans pay Russians to take them into space. If space missions of a military nature required manned capable spacecraft, the US space program would have one. That says what the US program's priorities are and it isn't exploration and science for humanity's sake.

True at the time, now there's 2, almost 3 spacecraft (Dragon, Starliner, almost Orion), 5 if you count suborbital.

Quote

It would be near miraculous if it happens by mid-century. If it would happen, it would take a government effort, and that government would be Chinese. No NewSpace effort would be able to put that together, braggadocio notwithstanding. I don't see how. Apollo was a program that topped off with a tiny capsule that 3 people squeezed into. It went to the moon. BFR is supposed to carry 100+ people all the way to Mars and back. I think that's the idea for BFR? That's bucu $$$.

(In response to the suggestion that Starship (at the time BFR) could be developed for less than Apollo)

Most of that statement still remains to be seen, and we will probably never know how much Starship cost to develop.

Quote

No guy or gal has the 400 billion+ you'd need for a Human landing on Mars. You'd need taxpayers and they won't pay.

Still correct, although the assumption that you would need much money may not be completely valid. Worth noting that there are three people with over 200B, although with inflation since 2018, it probably isn't half anymore, and obviously that isn't all cashable in reasonable timeframes.

Quote

Mr. Musk is making a lot of money on government contracts. Taxpayers dime. There is no financial incentive to go to Mars. So he won't go. That's why now he is saying no humans will ride on the FH. He doesn't see any money in it. He is a business man.

(And many other similar statements) Nobody ever flew on FH, nobody probably ever will. He was right about that. Mars remains unproven.

Quote

Losing one of the boosters is not doing well in my book when you are all about reusable rockets. Today's launch was a partial failure.

(And other such statements saying FH's first test flight did not meet expectations) FH center core recovery was mostly abandoned after a few more attempts, so FH did not meet its reuse goals. Does have a similar ring to the current discourse about Raptor.

Quote

Billionaires have huge egos and like to make wildly optimistic predictions for company PR purposes. And that includes Elon Musk from SpaceX. It's good to get people talking about their companies and themselves.

Elon Musk has said in 2022, two BFRs will be making cargo runs to Mars with equipment to start a colony.  This is to be followed in 2024 by two more BFR cargo runs and 2 BFR colony ships carrying colonist. These are all recent statements. Now I know there are many Musk fans here but I'll tell you these predictions are NOT going to happen. No way, no how. It's wildly fantastical science fiction. The capabilities do not exist anywhere do be able to do this and are not even on the 30 year horizon.

So Mr. Musk is going to be eating some words of his own in the next 5-10 years. It's just not Richard Branson. Space is hard to do. 

2022 nor 2024 happened (unsurprisingly to anyone who was paying attention). 30 year horizon statement was wrong, as the vehicle that will theoretically do that is now flying in some capacity 6 years later.

Quote

Right now it's technically possible to land around 1 metric ton on Mars. Like the Curiosity rover. That's the limit right now. NASA is busy bees trying to figure out how to land around 40 metric tons for small human missions of a few people down to Mar's surface. That's the technological frontier on entry decent and landing at Mars at present. Giant BFR ships carrying a hundred people and many tons of colony material to land on Mars at a time is Star Trek. It's not even remotely possible. And isn't going to be anywhere in the close future. That's just one example of the capabilities lacking.

A 100+ ton ship (admittedly a broken shell) was just landed on Earth. Martian challenges are obviously different but that's a step. Depending on "anywhere close" or "remotely possible" you can give this one to him.

Quote

Hmmm.

You really believe this is less than 15 years away? Mmmkaay.

(In response to sending cargo to Mars by early 2030s) Remains to be proven, but looking hopeful.

Quote

No way. That thing has got to weigh at least 200 tons loaded. NASA pulls every trick in the book to land just 1 metric ton on Mars right now. So for Elon Musk to be landing giant 200 ton spaceships in 5 years is, it's not happening bro.

But anyways, this might be interesting for you. It's a NASA lecture on entry, decent and landing on Mars and possible near future tonnage. It's not even close to what is shown in Elon's picture.

He was right. No 200 ton lander on Mars by 2023, but again, not surprising. Says Starship doesn't land like NASA lands things, which, well, yeah.

Quote

Well to be honest, NASA has assisted SpaceX with technical expertise from the very beginning. NASA continues to work with SpaceX on engineering its rockets and spacecraft even today. Where SpaceX beats NASA and everyone else hands down is being able to bring down the development and launch cost to low earth orbit. That's where SpaceX has been far superior. But NASA is working with other private companies to develop their capabilities too, so in some time SpaceX will have competition.

NASA did a very smart thing here. It knew being a big bloated government bureaucracy it couldn't compete in the financial aspect of the low earth orbit space business. So it is aggressively commercializing access to low earth orbit to vastly bring down the cost. But I still believe NASA does and will continue to lead on the missions to the frontier of space exploration. Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc.     

No real competition just yet, most agencies are trying to capture their domestic home country market, trying to be the redundant second provider, or being the "anyone but SpaceX" option. Accurate on second statement with Artemis.

Quote

And oh by the way, NASA is working with other private companies right now to develop their capabilities too to give SpaceX competition. For example, NASA is working with United Launch Alliance on a reusable booster program that might be cheaper than SpaceX's fly-back boosters. NASA is cost cutting to low earth orbit. Not seeking help because it forgot how to fly.

Remains to be seen, but Falcon is in what, the 350 flight range these days? Vulcan has flown once, SMART reuse is a few years off at best, nobody I know seriously expects it to be cheaper than F9. Even if it is, Starship has flown more than Vulcan. This has not conclusively been proven one way or the other, but I don't see a realistic path to him being right about this.

Quote

If they happen at all.

Elon Musk said he was planning to land a Dragon spacecraft on Mars in 2018, but that program was cancelled last July. Then he said he was going to fly two tourist around the moon in 2018 after being launched in a Falcon Heavy. But now that plan has recently been cancelled too. Except it is now going to be carried out by a BFR. Wait, what? If you can't fly 2 people around the moon in a little capsule what chance is there of you flying a 200 ton giant spaceship around the moon that holds 150 people?

I'll be waiting for the announcement the BFR has been cancelled so he can focus on building the Death Star.

Maybe you should start out small Elon and work your way up in this human spaceflight thing. Get your feet wet a little bit before you jump in the deep end.

He hit the nail on the head here. Red Dragon is gone, Grey Dragon is gone, and now Dear Moon is gone. Starship is still here though. Demo 2 was still two years out at this point in time, so the comment about starting small is accurate.

Quote

I don't believe the BFR is ever going to be built. It's at least 10+ billion to develop even according to Musk and he doesn't have that much money.  Even if he could get past all the massive engineering problems and find the money it wouldn't make sense. There is no economic incentive for a spacecraft to build a colony on Mars. There is no demand for a colony on Mars at all. There is nothing on Mars. Why would you build a colony there? No one went and built a city in the middle of Antarctica did they? So why would you build a city on Mars where it is even more hostile to life? So there is no real reason for such a spacecraft to begin with.

Even if a BFR is built, the plan is to refuel it after landing on Mars from local resources. Okay, so now before you even land a single BFR on Mars, you've got to build a substantial infrastructure on Mars. You're going to need some sort of big processing plant to produce the liquid oxygen and liquid methane rocket fuel. You'll need to build massive storage and refueling facilities too. Pipes, pumps tanks, the whole 9 yards. All of this would be a difficult construction on Earth and you want to do it on Mars! And how's all this material getting down to the surface of Mars so you can even start construction? Who is putting all this together? Robots? People? Both? Both of those would need their own massive infrastructures to be built. A wave of Elon Musk's hand maybe?

In orbit refueling has never even been done before and that's needed for this BFR plan too. Man! You could go on forever once you get into the technical challenges of this thing.

The BFR is pie in the sky. No way, no how. Not in this lifetime.   

Starship has flown four times. Mars challenges are still huge. We know they did some ISRU work but who knows how much. In orbit refueling still hasn't happened, but they did the header tank test successfully and NASA appears to be behind refilling for Artemis.

 

It is worth noting that this guy is usually just referring to Starship/BFR in the context of a Mars lander and doesn't necessarily think LEO stuff is a pipe dream:

Quote

Yeah, he can build a big rocket to put things in LEO. That's very possible. But what's the whole build a city on Mars thing about? Publicity?

Quote

If he can build the version you're talking about here, yeah that would be great. A kind of giant space truck whose re-usability is actually cheap to use. The space shuttle was supposed to do this and failed miserably. But I think Musk can make this version work. The whole city on Mars thing is like hearing a crazy uncle talk though.

 

Quote

From what I can tell, NASA decided on this issue long ago. Its manned deep space exploration missions are going to use the SLS and Orion. The pencils have been put down and they're bending metal. And that's fine with me because I'm ready to go with what we got rather than wait for some other system that is as real as the star-ship Enterprise. Let's go. Let's go to the moon. Let's get this train moving. That's how I feel about it. 

This does make me think a human rated BFR will never actually be built. NASA has no interest in it. Like I said, they got the rocket they want and the BFR aint it. So who is it for? Colonist going to Mars? That's a pipe dream. Thirty minute flights to Asia? Can you get it to really work, safely? Do you have the money to build the massive infrastructure to service such a thing? Will the general public want to ride a rocket? Will they feel safe enough to get on it? I just asked a girl if she would and she said, "no way." But she feels safe enough to get on a plane for trips.  

Human rated Starship is being built partially because of NASA interest.

Quote

I too believe Supersonic retro-propulsion is what is going to allow us to land much heavier payloads on Mars. But from what I'm reading this is not all figured out, unless it's been in the last 5 months. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008725.pdf We are not ready to land giant space freighters on Mars just yet.

Even at the time SpaceX was doing supersonic retropropulsion fairly consistently. They've done it hundreds of times now, not on Mars, granted. IDK what the Mars landing velocity is, but at least on Earth, Starship (the upper stage) doesn't even need supersonic retropropulsion as it is subsonic at time of landing.

Quote

NASA shows off its RS-25 engines and pumps up the SLS and Orion. Take a good look. If anything is really going to the moon and Mars, this is it.

6 years later, Orion and Starship are both going to the Moon. Starship remains the only remotely serious Mars lander concept.

Quote

BFR as a colonial transporter to Mars? Not happening. BFR as a commercial flight service, city to city on Earth? Not happening. BFR as a to the moon transporter? Not happening. BFR as a space tourist spacecraft? Not happening. BFR as a satellite launch vehicle? Massive overkill that will not be profitable. It'll be cancelled in some years with something even dumber and bigger announced to replace it. Mark my words.

Colonial transporter: Remains to be seen. Earth to Earth: Remains to be seen. Moon transporter: Is happening. Space tourist spacecraft: In progress (Polaris 3 and Dennis Tito's mission are on the cards, though Polaris is kind of in a gray area between space tourism and a professional private space program, so despite what happened with DearMoon (RIP) they are still working towards it). Satellite launch vehicle: Immanent, and Starlink appears to be working reasonably well for them, revenue wise. It remains to be seen whether Starship will cost less than Falcon and be profitable. Cancellation and replacement with something bigger and dumber: Technically correct. Carbon fiber BFR was "cancelled" and replaced with the "dumber" stainless steel Starship, which is either now or will be slightly taller.

Quote

Why would that be dumb? And why such blind faith?  

After a few years Musk and SpaceX could easily be having serious development problems. They might scrap the whole thing for something more economically profitable with a new mission. You know these Falcon 9 fly-backs are still having the occasional failure. If you're landing people with supersonic retro-propulsion like the BFR wants to do, you don't have the luxury of those occasional failures. This thing has to work perfect every single time. And I can't see them getting the reliability to an acceptable level to carry John Q. Public commercially. And there goes the whole new opening of deep space because the BFR failed to come.    

I'm confident the SLS and Orion will work. That's why it's my bird.

Replacement with economically profitable: Arguably correct, but arguably just an iteration on what they had. Falcon 9 flyback reliability: We just saw Super Heavy land with an "occasional failure". Obviously reuse would be problematic currently, so it goes both ways.

Quote

I can read. In 2 languages. Good. Because the as it stands now the BFR is a pipe dream. SLS is safe. It's using proven technology. And a capsule and parachute is extremely safe for crews. Using supersonic retro-propulsion is NOT SAFE enough for people. Not even close. It might be in the future, but it has a long way to go. Any configuration you think viable from anyone, not just SpaceX, using this landing system for human missions is wishful thinking.

Largely remains to be seen, though Starship is here, in a primitive form. Supersonic retropropulsion has worked well over 200 times in a row by my count on Falcon. 1 in 200 is not good enough for humans. We're getting there, though. Human missions using this are on the books, though far away.

Quote

Vehicles that can land hundreds of tons of whatever to Mars do not exist and are not about to exist. A giant rocket that can launch satellites. Sure, that can be done. But it will not reliably land using supersonic retro-propulsion. And using a giant rocket to launch satellites is just dumb at all levels to begin with. An engine and a composite tank is not a functioning rocket. Especially one that plans on using cutting edge technology that hasn't been made reliable yet.

Those vehicles do not exist but are soon to exist. Assuming of course that they are serious about Mars. I have no reason to think they aren't. Starship will indeed not reliably land using supersonic retro-propulsion, as it uses subsonic retro-propulsion. One point to him. The booster remains to be seen, but a smaller booster does reliably (for unmanned standards at least) land using supersonic retropropulsion. It is so routine I don't even bother watching 95% of the time. An engine and a composite tank is indeed not a functioning rocket, and they did abandon that.

Quote

If an attempt is made to take people to Mars in the next 25 years, Orion is going to be part of that mission plan.

Remains to be seen.

Quote

I'm no one's rocket scientist and not eccentric enough to get into the nitty gritty details of the field. I do however listen to the experts in credible positions to skim the surface and get a good ideal of capabilities. I've yet to read or see a single expert in this field believe the BFR is anything but a joke. When talking about the BFR and SpaceX on forums the aerospace engineers crawl out of the woodwork singing its praises in blind faith. However, once again, I've yet to see or read anything about this magic rocket but things like ludicrous and bananas from those with certifiable, credible expertise.   

Starship is here, and was NASA's favorite Moon lander of the proposals.

Quote

I've said it on here many times before and I'll say it again. The BFR is as real as astroturf. You might as well go looking for leprechaun colonies in the craters on the dark side of the moon. No BFR is ever going to show up and it sure as hell ain't ever flying colonist (or anyone) to Mars.

It is here. Mars remains to be seen.

Quote

You would lose your money. The guy is a carnival barker looking for suckers. -$$- SLS and Orion will fly EM-2 before the BFR goes anywhere.

4 full up flight tests, I want to say at least 8-10 hops depending on how you count? I wanna say it is probably gonna be at least 10 more flights before Artemis 2.

Quote

People will fly to the moon on Pan Am space clippers using Moon Club tickets before anyone does in a  SpaceX, BFR. Mark my words. Bookmark this post. 

Words marked, post recorded. Remains to be seen but looking good.

Quote

The BFR will never become operational. Ever. There is no customer for this rocket. And despite Musk claiming to develop and build this rocket using his own money, rubbish. No customers, no investors, no rocket. Period. It's going to become a money pit and canceled. End of story.

And it could never be made safe enough for human spaceflight anyways. Retro-burning a giant rocket full of people Tintin style . Give me a break. How many times until that goes tragically wrong? :unsure:Think about it. 

NASA learned its lesson with the Space Shuttle. Something the Russians are keen about. Paramount in human spaceflight is safety.  Flight systems need to be simple and robust. That makes it safe. You get complicated and people get killed. 

That's the very reason Orion is a capsule and the BFR is a pipedream.  

BFR not operational yet, would take a tragedy for it to not become operational soon. Current customers: NASA, Jared, that one company that bought a satellite launch, that one company building gigantic satellite busses (no contract yet but working on it) (does Starlab have a contract yet?), maybe Dennis Tito, I'm probably forgetting stuff. Starship has been successfully funded thus far and has not been cancelled.

Retroburning with people remains to be seen. Falcon has proven that it is possible to do semi-reliably.

Today has proven that Starship is, at least to a certain extent, a fairly robust and fault tolerant design. Missing tiles, half of a flap melted off, two engine failures, and if people were riding and the landing had been on land, they probably would have survived (no info on exactly how hard the landing was but it appeared nominal).

Quote

It took 5 years and a national effort to develop and fly the first Saturn V. No expense spared. And you think little, itty bitty, SpaceX is going to have flying a bigger and much, much, more complicated BFR in a "couple years?"

There's going to be a whole lotta fanboy eating crow in a couple years.

Starship is here. Not much crow to be found.

Quote

Elon Musk and his BFR is all hat and no cattle. Prepare yourselves for more stories like this...

SpaceX Won't Launch Tourists Around the Moon This Year

SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk announced that the company aimed to fly two paying customers on a weeklong journey around the moon before the end of 2018...

SpaceX won't launch two space tourists on a mission around the moon in 2018 after all, according to media reports.

https://www.space.com/40805-spacex-delays-tourist-trip-around-moon.html

He's right. DearMoon was cancelled.

Quote

I'm comfortable being a minority saying the BFR will never fly people to Mars or the Moon. It doesn't bother me at all because I know I'm right and time will vindicate my position. 

Remains to be proven, but NASA thinks the Moon can happen.

Quote

Nov.29,2018

NASA Announces New Partnerships for Commercial Lunar Payload Delivery Services.

SpaceX is not on the list of companies.

SpaceX Starship is now part of CLPS as of November 2019.

Quote

I've said much of the same here a long time.

Elon Musk is a con man who swindles tax dollars with ridiculous promises no expert take seriously.

Elon Musk has said he will have BFR cargo missions flying to Mars in 2022. And he will have crewed cargo missions to Mars by 2024. I've said from day one this is absurd and will never happen. Artwork is cheap. Hardware is not. In fact, I've said from day one no BFR will ever fly to Mars. Not one. I still believe this. The BFR is a total scam that'll never make a single trip to Mars.

Yes, Elon and SpaceX cult members let me know they don't like me saying this. But it's not too far away until I'm proven right.

2022 and 2024: Absolutely not, again, not a surprise, as pretty much everyone said back then. Ever: Remains to be seen.

Quote

My guess is SpaceX is losing money. 

The reusable booster stunt hasn't been shown to save any money. To reuse a booster you must pay a lot of money in recovery and getting it back to flight. I think SpaceX has only reused boosters up to 3 times so that can't be enough to save money.

Elon Musk is wasting so much money on that dumb "Starship" rocket to nowhere that you know investors must be getting nervous. 

Even early this year SpaceX let go 10% of its workers so you know things can't be going great. I think SpaceX will have fewer launches this year too. 

Musk is probably driving SpaceX into a ditch of bankruptcy. Just like Tesla.

Booster reusability saving money: By the skeptical proof standard, remains to be seen. They could be lying and they could be doing it as a stunt. 300 times. Just to keep up the lie. I strongly have my doubts but we will likely never have 100% proof, just 99.99%. Booster reuse is now over 20 per booster for the life leaders. SpaceX did indeed fly significantly less in 2019 than in 2018, so he's right. SpaceX and Tesla are still around and not bankrupt.

Quote

Starlink needs to be cancelled. 5G is fast and cell towers are almost everywhere and soon to be worldwide. No one is going to be interested in laggy expensive internet. I don't like filling up the night's sky anymore with junk for my telescope anyways. This is another of Musk's money losers.

Like that silly Mars rocket he's building. It's nothing like a real spaceship and was constructed by a company that makes water towers. It's another of this charlatans PR stunts to hustle money out of investors. 

We do know Tesla is headed to bankruptcy as soon as investors get wise. It losing billions every year. And now with such bad management Musk is putting SpaceX in bankruptcy jeopardy too.

In five years, when the dust settles on Mar's rockets and Martian colonies we'll see what's left. Everything he touches loses money.     

Starlink is at nearly 3 million users (~4 billion a year in revenue), the US government is buying their own custom version for military use, airlines and ship operators are buying it for ocean connectivity, they at least were using it as a demo in Antarctica (unsure what became of that), travel trailers are using it, they are using it for direct to cell with T mobile, it would almost be faster to list who isn't interested in it. Reportedly they have had at least one profitable quarter, so yeah, it is still "one of Musk's money losers" for the time being, but that's kind of how infrastructure buildup works.

Tilting this as much in his favor as I can, Starhopper was nothing like a real spaceship and was constructed by a company that makes water towers. Starhopper was as much tech demo as it was PR stunt, as they made it look pretty by coating it with reflective sheets, and built a useless nose cone that they did up with logos and added fake engine bells for a photo op, deceiving investors into thinking they were going for a dual bell nozzle to combine vacuum and sea level into one engine. But it flew and they built 30 more of them, each a little better than the last.

Tesla and SpaceX are still here. It has been more than 5 years and if anything there's more dust.

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I just rewatched the landing of Booster.

They did it.  Very impressive - it 'landed' in the water and tilted over.

 

(start ~ 07:00 for the terminal phase).

One of the Raptors did not relight - and in fact seems to have eaten itself, given all the crap that flies off - but still, an impressive feat.

Frankly - that would be a recoverable ship!

 

EDIT - despite the name of the video - this does NOT show the full flight; it show's Booster's full flight, not Ship's.

 

Edited June 6 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Went back to EveryDay's feed.

Starship splashed down (controlled) as well!

 

(Start at 9:54ish for the very last bit including splashdown)

There's a point where you can see speed go to near zero - and then it jumps up, and you can see the ship settle (presumably in the water).

Some might contend that I can't prove it landed intact - but telemetry data and what little we can see, along with camera movement looks very good for Starship being recoverable.

Big question: did they blow it up in the water... or will there be an effort to recover it?

Edited June 6 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Minmus Taster]

3 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Went back to EveryDay's feed.

Starship splashed down (controlled) as well!

 

(Start at 9:54ish for the very last bit including splashdown)

There's a point where you can see speed go to near zero - and then it jumps up, and you can see the ship settle (presumably in the water).

Some might contend that I can't prove it landed intact - but telemetry data and what little we can see, along with camera movement looks very good for Starship being recoverable.

Big question: did they blow it up in the water... or will there be an effort to recover it?

They aren't attempting recovery for either stage. And it's probably sunk, even if the ships FTS wasn't rigged and it didn't split apart when it tipped over the ship isn't watertight, especially after what it went through. I'd also imagine the heat shock of landing in cool water would not to favours for the seams. But it did splashdown intact!

Does anyone know the exact coordinates? I want to know how deep it would be, probably a few kilometers.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

21 minutes ago, Minmus Taster said:

probably a few kilometers

Likely - I doubt that SX wants their prototypes falling into competitor's hands.  That said - they'd honestly have to make the FTS break up the ship to ensure sinking.

 Weird - I can't link to reddit now?  TIL Thousands of shipping containers are lost to the sea each year, and that if the containers cargo weight does not exceed 80% of the containers rated capacity, they will float.

TIL Thousands of shipping containers are lost to the sea each year, and that if the containers cargo weight does not exceed 80% of the containers rated capacity, they will float. : r/todayilearned (reddit.com)

(Super weird - I could not paste the link directly.  Had to drop it into a Word doc and then recopy from there to paste).

Point being; even if not completely water tight (the internal tanks are fluid tight) - any trapped air = buoyancy.

Meaning - if they don't blow the ships, someone will recover (or crash into) one.

VH-MXJ - Dassault Falcon 900EX [055] - Flightradar24

If interested - Reddit thinks this is relevant.

[Piscator]

Would the FTS even work while not in flight? I was under the impression that the aero forces do much of the actual destruction when it's triggered. (But then again, they might have installed a 'float termination system' as well ;).)

That said, I would assume they have to send out a crew anyway. If not to make a visual inspection of the hardware before scuttling it, then at least to check if the self destruct worked properly and it is indeed sunk.

 

[Flying dutchman]

Someone needs to find starship when the sun rises. (It might even wash ashore like a deceased whale)

[Minmus Taster]

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

The above from Max Fagin on Xitter 

Edited June 6 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[sevenperforce]

3 hours ago, MashAndBangers said:

Sonic booms in the air!
And the rocket's red glare!
Gave proof through the night!
That our flap was still there!

*bows*

Hahaha! Great minds think alike. This was my version I quipped during the actual entry.

Spoiler

"And the plasma's red glare
The tiles shredding in the air
Gave proof through the dark
That the ship was still there"

 

Given how well it did even with the obvious disintegration of a lot of that flap, I think the concerns about lost tiles may have been overblown.

Obviously it needs to keep its tiles for rapid reusability, but it's definitely not a lost cause.

While the flap was starting to come apart, I found myself thinking hard about Columbia. We got to see something that no one has ever seen...except the astronauts on Columbia, maybe.

Edited June 6 by sevenperforce
typo

[mikegarrison]

Since they said in the broadcast that they added more thrusters in order to avoid the loss of control that happened in the previous flight, I assume this puts to bed to theory that they wanted the flight three ship to be spinning wildly like that?

[Nuke]

the plasma seemed to be getting into the joint and eating the flap from the inside. figure thats what happened to colombia. reguardless none of the actuator components seem to be worse for wear. it didnt even seem to jam.

wonder if they are still going to move the flap root further up the shield line.  seems that would be the easy fix and they were planning on that anyway with future ships

[RCgothic]

I was in a work meeting and only caught the stream as the camera was getting coated in debris and just before the lens cracked. Saw the landing, came on here and started reading back. 

A fin melted. Wait. What?!

Only then went back and rewatched the stream. Can't believe it made it to a successful ocean landing with that!