Has SpaceX shared plans on where Starship goes from here? Other than the minor hiccups (a couple of engine misfires; a damaged flap), this looked like a wildly successful test. I'm especially curious to know when they'll start successfully recovering the booster and Starship.
The engine failure was minor, true. That's the design point: if engines have a firm ceiling to reliability it's better to design so that one or two can fail than to put all the eggs in a basket. And indeed, the 32/33 engine set was enough to hit the trajectory targets, so that worked great.
But I don't think you can characterize a burned-through flap as minor. Once there's a hole in something like that, the fact that it remains aerodynamically usable is just dumb luck. Clearly the heat shielding failed. If this were a production craft you'd probably have to scrap it even if you recovered it successfully, defeating the whole point to having it be reusable in the first place. The shielding folks have work to do.
But at the same time, the telemetry and control folks are popping champagne. Their stuff worked magically. We literally had live video (albeit through a cracked lens from all the flap debris) all the way through reentry to spashdown, and the landing maneuver looks to have worked perfectly.
Def super successful. Crazy how the flaps held given how they seemed to disintegrate on re entry. They said they’d try and catch the booster for flight 5 if the booster splashed down successfully this time and it did so fingers crossed. That’ll be a pretty wild thing to see. Could happen soon too. Next flight might be within about a month.
It seems like a lot of people are making too much out of the fact that the ship survived re-entry. On a test flight, the difference between “the heat shield failed around the flap causing severe structural damage, but it held together enough to make it through re-entry” and “the heat shield failed around the flap ultimately resulting in a RUD” is not particularly significant. The implication for both is that there are major engineering challenges yet to be solved for managing re-entry. Don’t get me wrong, this was a successful (and wildly entertaining) test flight and I think SpaceX will get re-entry sorted out.
The reason for this is they first need to prove to the FAA they can actually control these vehicles and land them when, where and how they said they would before they will be approved to try the maneuver over land.
The entire mission profile at this stage is just about proving out that it works and it will be safe to try put it down on land without risking hitting a building with a skyscraper sized stainless steel rocket.
Telemetry was as intended throughout the flight so it presumably landed where intended. They trigger an abort after splashdown, so the rocket explodes then sinks. And yes the remains, which is mostly just steel, then sinks into the ocean.
indoordin0saur|1 year ago
aejm|1 year ago
MaximilianEmel|1 year ago
mjamil|1 year ago
ajross|1 year ago
But I don't think you can characterize a burned-through flap as minor. Once there's a hole in something like that, the fact that it remains aerodynamically usable is just dumb luck. Clearly the heat shielding failed. If this were a production craft you'd probably have to scrap it even if you recovered it successfully, defeating the whole point to having it be reusable in the first place. The shielding folks have work to do.
But at the same time, the telemetry and control folks are popping champagne. Their stuff worked magically. We literally had live video (albeit through a cracked lens from all the flap debris) all the way through reentry to spashdown, and the landing maneuver looks to have worked perfectly.
awrence|1 year ago
thelittleone|1 year ago
Raydovsky|1 year ago
marmakoide|1 year ago
baq|1 year ago
my X is full of leaking flaps.
bandyaboot|1 year ago
gnabgib|1 year ago
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40596883
ChrisArchitect|1 year ago
wasting our time if not
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
gandalfian|1 year ago
jpgvm|1 year ago
The reason for this is they first need to prove to the FAA they can actually control these vehicles and land them when, where and how they said they would before they will be approved to try the maneuver over land.
The entire mission profile at this stage is just about proving out that it works and it will be safe to try put it down on land without risking hitting a building with a skyscraper sized stainless steel rocket.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
93po|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]