Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 09-25-2023 02:27 PM
The FCC has issued SpaceX a license for an "experimental orbital demo and recovery test of the Starship test vehicle from Boca Chica, Texas" with a window opening on Jan. 27, 2024 and extending through July 27, 2024.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 10-31-2023 09:59 PM
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) statement
The FAA completed the safety review portion of the Space Starship-Super Heavy license evaluation on Oct. 31.
Background
A safety review is focused on issues that affect public health and safety of property. It consists of evaluating the applicant's safety organization, system safety processes, flight safety analysis, and quantitative risk criteria for launch, reentry, and vehicle disposal.
The FAA is continuing to work on the environmental review. As part of its environmental review, the FAA is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on an updated Biological Assessment under the Endangered Species Act. The FAA and the USFWS must complete this consultation before the environmental review portion of the license evaluation is completed.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-03-2023 04:04 PM
The second flight test of a fully integrated Starship could launch as soon as mid-November, pending regulatory approval.
A live webcast of the flight test will begin about 30 minutes before liftoff, which you can watch here and on X @SpaceX. As is the case with all developmental testing, the schedule is dynamic and likely to change, so be sure to stay tuned to our X account for updates.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-10-2023 08:36 PM
Per SpaceX], the second flight test of a fully integrated Starship could launch as soon as early as Friday, November 17, pending final regulatory approval.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-15-2023 04:27 PM
SpaceX is targeting Friday (Nov. 17) for the second integrated flight test of Starship from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas. The 120-minute test window opens at 7:00 a.m. CST (1300 GMT).
SpaceX will live webcast the launch, beginning about 30 minutes before liftoff.
Headshot Member
Posts: 1356 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 11-15-2023 05:49 PM
What is Friday's weather forecast?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-15-2023 06:50 PM
There is no formal weather service for launches from SpaceX's Starbase.
According to the National Weather Service, Friday's forecast for Boca Chica is sunny, with a high near 76. Light and variable wind becoming east northeast 5 to 10 mph in the morning.
GACspaceguy Member
Posts: 3129 From: Guyton, GA Registered: Jan 2006
posted 11-16-2023 10:27 AM
Any idea if there may be special TV coverage like from the Discovery Channel, Nat Geo..?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-16-2023 10:55 AM
None for this launch. SpaceX only received its FAA license yesterday and other than allowing for some remote camera setups, has chosen not to support press for this flight.
At least one of the big three networks will be there and with the window opening at 7 a.m. CST, I wouldn't be surprised to see the launch carried live on one or more of the morning shows.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-16-2023 01:26 PM
Launch has been postponed to no earlier than Saturday (Nov. 18). Work is getting underway to destack Starship from Super Heavy. From Elon Musk:
We need to replace a grid fin actuator, so launch is postponed to Saturday.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-18-2023 06:27 AM
A live webcast of the flight test is now starting, which you can watch here and on X @SpaceX.
Independent webcasts:
issman1 Member
Posts: 1144 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 11-18-2023 07:45 AM
Only a partial success means yet another test flight preceded by bureaucracy?
Meanwhile, the Starship Human Landing System looks highly unlikely to debut in 2025.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1953 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 11-18-2023 08:53 AM
There was no issue with bureaucracy. Just SpaceX and its fans wanting to be treated differently.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-18-2023 09:22 AM
quote:Originally posted by issman1: Only a partial success...
SpaceX achieved most its test objectives on this flight, but even had it been 100 percent successful, the company is planning numerous more test flights before flying NASA and other customers' missions (other than perhaps Starlink satellites).
As for bureaucracy, all commercial launches are subject FAA investigations in the of a mishap. Here is the FAA's statement after today's launch:
This information is preliminary and subject to change:
A mishap occurred during the SpaceX Starship OFT-2 launch from Boca Chica, Texas, on Saturday, Nov. 18. The anomaly resulted in a loss of the vehicle. No injuries or public property damage have been reported.
Background
A mishap investigation is designed to further enhance public safety, determine the root cause of the event, and identify corrective actions to avoid it from happening again.
The FAA will be involved in every step of the mishap investigation process and must approve the final mishap report, including the corrective actions.
A return to flight of the Starship Super Heavy vehicle is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3779 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 11-18-2023 10:46 AM
The launch made fascinating viewing. I heard no countdown on the launch-feed I was watching, so ignition and liftoff took me by surprise - I thought we had another minute or so to go.
A couple of points occur to me on watching a repeat of the launch:
Was the water deluge system a bit late switching on? I will be interested to see how well it protected the pad.
The explosion of Super Heavy took me (and I assume everyone else) completely by surprise. I'm assuming the stage was damaged during the hot-firing, but did damage cause the explosion, or was it the self-destruct mechanism?
Was there a normal explanation for the bright flare around Starship at about GET 7:06, or was that the start of a non-nominal process leading to the detonation?
I heard someone referring to "Houston loss of signal" at about GET 7:00, but was that a sudden loss of telemetry, or just Starship flying over Houston's horizon?
At GET 8:02, the six Starship engine-lights went out. Then at GET 8:07 there was a bright flare like an explosion. I will be interested to learn what was happening to Starship between the GET 7:06 flare and the apparent GET 8:07 explosion.
All in all, very exciting and intriguing. Subject to what we later learn, it looked like 33 clean Raptor firings and a clean first stage burn. 7/10?
SkyMan1958 Member
Posts: 1400 From: CA. Registered: Jan 2011
posted 11-18-2023 10:48 AM
For as revolutionary a ship as Super Heavy/Starship is, 2025 always seemed unrealistic. I’d be happy if it is fully operational, e.g. fueling in orbit and carrying passengers are both common, by 2028.
Congratulations to SpaceX on a successful test flight!
perineau Member
Posts: 408 From: FRANCE Registered: Jul 2007
posted 11-18-2023 10:55 AM
Let's call it a "successful failure"!
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-18-2023 12:08 PM
The only major test objectives not achieved were a soft landing by the Super Heavy and Starship reaching its full, near-orbital velocity. Reaching the water was not a test objective, but rather a disposal method.
With regards to two of Geoffrey's questions, early reports are that the pad suffered no damage.
SpaceX engineers said during their launch commentary that they knew "there was a chance that the booster would not survive" and "hot staging put a lot of load on the top of the booster." It seemed to perform the flip to prepare for the boost back burn, but then broke part given the dynamic stresses it was under.
After the first test flight destroyed the pad, I belonged to the camp that felt we would not see another launch attempt in 2023. Obviously, SpaceX proved that wrong today. So I wouldn't be so quick to write off (late) 2025 as still being doable for the company.
Personally, I feel Artemis III is more likely to launch in 2026 (for reasons beyond just Starship) and SpaceX still has a tremendous amount of challenges to still tackle, but this test went far better than I think many expected (myself included). I think it may be too early to use the two tests so far to judge the pace of work SpaceX can achieve going forward.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1953 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 11-18-2023 08:02 PM
quote:Originally posted by Blackarrow: ...or just Starship flying over Houston's horizon?
Horizon and it was not JSC.
Hart Sastrowardoyo Member
Posts: 3472 From: Toms River, NJ Registered: Aug 2000
posted 11-19-2023 10:42 AM
This may sound like rivet counting, but why do accounts say the mission failed after "reaching space," when it reached "only" 90 miles altitude, and space is usually defined as 100 miles / 62 km?
The reason I'm asking is because it seems acceptable to say this Starship reached space, yet people who reach 100 miles altitude suborbital aren't considered astronauts.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-19-2023 11:43 AM
Hart, you have it reversed. The current international standard, also known as the Kármán line, is at 62 miles (100 kilometers). (The U.S. government standard is 50 miles or 80 kilometers.)
So Starship reached space regardless of the standard used.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-19-2023 06:50 PM
quote:Originally posted by Blackarrow: I will be interested to see how well it protected the pad.
...the Super Heavy booster successfully completed its flip maneuver and initiated the boostback burn before it experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly.
SpaceX then goes on to describe what happened to Starship:
The team verified a safe command destruct was appropriately triggered based on available vehicle performance data.
So while no cause is cited, Super Heavy broke apart/exploded, while Starship's flight was terminated.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3779 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 11-21-2023 01:18 PM
It remains to be seen exactly why the onboard destruct systems on both stages were triggered. In the case of the Super Heavy, I have heard it suggested from several sources of variable credibility that the flip manoeuvre may have caused interruptions to the flow of fuel and/or oxidizer to the Raptors.
jklier Member
Posts: 91 From: Austin, Texas Registered: Aug 2007
posted 11-21-2023 02:06 PM
Scott Manley did a video on it. That was his conclusion as well.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3779 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 11-22-2023 06:00 PM
Here's another question which I personally haven't heard being asked, and to which I have seen no answer: Why was there no onboard video from Starship during the second launch?
SpaceX must surely have installed cameras to provide live coverage, so why (unlike the first launch) was there no onboard footage? Was any transmitted? I would certainly like to see internal and external views of the hot-staging.
Furthermore, if there was a live video-feed in the engine compartment of the Starship itself (as in the case of a Falcon 9 second stage) we probably wouldn't be left in the dark about why the vehicle exploded, and we would have a better idea about engine performance.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-22-2023 06:31 PM
SpaceX's launch commentators did say they had cameras installed on the ship and that they were planning to test Starlink to relay that feed to Earth once the vehicle was beyond the horizon of its launch site.
Maybe SpaceX will release more imagery once it completes its investigation into the mishap. (Of course, the company has no obligation to share anything with the public.)
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3779 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 11-23-2023 09:39 AM
Certainly they have no obligation to share their onboard imagery, but it seems odd that they transmitted on-board imagery from the first launch even as it was starting to spin round, yet didn't transmit on-board imagery of the on-target second flight, or the part everyone wanted to see, namely the hot-staging.
It would be sufficient at this stage if SpaceX could simply state whether they did receive on-board imagery, even if it is currently embargoed while they analyse the details of the whole flight.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 12-04-2023 12:04 PM
The third Starship flight test will include a propellant transfer demonstration, according to a slide shared by Lakeisha Hawkins, Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator for the Moon to Mars Program Office at NASA Headquarters.
Hawkins was speaking at a meeting of the Committee on NASA Mission Critical Workforce, Infrastructure and Technology of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 12-07-2023 04:35 PM
quote:Originally posted by Blackarrow: Why was there no onboard video from Starship during the second launch?
This highlight video released today by SpaceX includes some very brief clips from the onboard cameras.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3779 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 12-09-2023 12:14 PM
The operative words being "very brief." The onboard video we surely wanted to see was from inside and outside Starship, looking down past the engines during the hot-stage firing. The lack of such footage makes it tempting to conclude that the cameras (if any) were "fried."
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
Flight 3 vehicles on the pad at Starbase for testing ahead of Starship's next launch.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 12-21-2023 06:39 PM
On Dec. 20, 2023, SpaceX's Flight 3 Starship completed a full-duration static fire with all six of its Raptor engines.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 12-29-2023 07:42 PM
SpaceX today (Dec. 29) performed two static fire tests:
Ignition of a single Raptor engine on Flight 3 Starship demonstrating a flight-like startup for an in-space burn.
Static fire of Super Heavy's 33 Raptor engines ahead of Flight 3.
Tom Member
Posts: 1755 From: New York Registered: Nov 2000
posted 01-08-2024 07:20 PM
Is the flight profile for the third mission the same as the one planned for the second flight?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 01-08-2024 07:45 PM
SpaceX has not released any details about the third test as of yet. The only difference we know about comes from a NASA advisor, who said that a fuel transfer demo was going to be part of this flight.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 01-09-2024 01:39 PM
During a teleconference today (Jan. 9), Jessica Jensen, vice president of customer operations and integration at SpaceX, said that the fuel transfer demo on flight three would be a "tipping point" test, where propellant is transferred between the Starship's upper and lower tanks. A full fuel transfer demo between two ships will come later.
Jensen also said that SpaceX expects the FAA to issue a license and for flight test three to launch in February.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53629 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 09-25-2023 02:27 PM
advertisement