SpaceX Starship missions 3

[thebard3]

Starting a dedicated thread here. After a pretty smooth flight test today, assuming no big anomalies occurred with the ground systems, it looks like SpaceX is back on track with testing and development. We should see more flights in the near future.
Both vehicles were lost before completing their full mission but a huge step forward today to see both executing the primary flight goals.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

 

[TugboatEng]

If you're comparing the get into orbit stages (not a rocket scientist here), yes Saturn was impeccable. However, they did have their issues with their cargo stages, twice.

 

[WKTaylor]

If you're comparing the get into orbit stages (not a rocket scientist here), yes Saturn was impeccable. However, they did have their issues with their cargo stages, twice.

Their cargo stages ??? OK...

As I recall, S-IC & S-II BOTH lost 1 engine during their burn phases, different missions... but extending burn time for the remaining engines achieved the staging goals. S-IVB performed almost flawlessly. NO SATURN V FLIGHT was ever compromised by any element of the Saturn V launch vehicle... which was the intent of 1st & 2nd stage redundancy design.

Also, a side note... the Russians eventually asked NASA "why the Saturn V did not become the heavy lifter for NASA, due to it's impressive flight record"?? NASA responded, simply, "S-V's congressionally funded mission was completed... and the reusable Space Shuttle... it's replacement... was already in preliminary design". Cough.

 

[thebard3]

I don't know of any occasion where an F1 engine on the S1C failed in flight. S-IV started flying a few years earlier than either the S-1C or S-II so was fully proven by the time they were stacked on the S-5. On Apollo 6, an S-II engine failed, and the instrument unit connections to it were swapped so shut down an adjacent engine that was running healthy. This was thought to be an unrecoverable scenario but the rocket almost made it to it's intended orbit anyway, and the S-IV had to make up the difference. This would have been an abort scenario for a moon mission as this would not have allowed enough remaining fuel for TLI. Despite these issues, this was the last unmanned mission for the Saturn V.
Back to Starship, I hope SpaceX obtained a lot of useful data to help get everything working right. Apparently the booster broke apart on the different re-entry profile, so more work to do there as well.

 

[WKTaylor]

I don't know of any occasion where an F1 engine on the S1C failed in flight. S-IV started flying a few years earlier than either the S-1C or S-II so was fully proven by the time they were stacked on the S-5. On Apollo 6, an S-II engine failed, and the instrument unit connections to it were swapped so shut down an adjacent engine that was running healthy. This was thought to be an unrecoverable scenario but the rocket almost made it to it's intended orbit anyway, and the S-IV had to make up the difference. This would have been an abort scenario for a moon mission as this would not have allowed enough remaining fuel for TLI.
Back to Starship, I hope SpaceX obtained a lot of useful data to help get everything working right. Apparently the booster broke apart on the different re-entry profile, so more work to do there as well.

One thing to remember... the fundamental Saturn V design from start to finish retained ESSENTIALLY ONE CONFIGURATION.... which evolved to a very stable configuration for the duration.

Constantly changing vehicle configurations every flight has the consequence of design instability. Get a functioning vehicle configuration 'stable'... especially such a unique vehicle as the Starship... and then evolve. The Booster appears 'stable'... but certainly NOT the 'Ship' [upper-stage].

/NOTE/ SpaceX Used this rigorous 'design stability concept' for Falcon 9... since NASA demanded it... and the successes just keep piling-on. Under this umbrella... Re-arranging/changing engines, mods to grid fins, etc... are deliberate and incremental.

 

[btrueblood]

Rocketdyne struggled for years to get the F1 design to run stably throughout the launch. In the end, they traded engine efficiency for stability, but it worked. Later redesigns (F1A, F1B) would have brought back a lot of efficiency, but - big engines are hard to design, and there was little political will to build more spacecraft.

It looks like Starship is struggling as well, though it looks as if Starship's woes were due not to engine failures, but to some kind of venting, or tankage or plumbing leaks causing a long-axis tumble, which made it impossible to control the attitude or to conduct a de-orbit burn. The booster appeared to work ok, but they cutoff early (or loaded excess fuel that then needed to be dumped?). Still, nothing blew up and the engines were relit twice and operated to a successul "landing", so kudos. I tend to agree with Wil, that there is a lot of changes from flight to flight, and it's not clear how well vetted are the combined effects of those changes.

 

[thebard3]

With no hardware left to examine, there's probably more than a little guesswork to figure out what went wrong. I'm not sure they got the fix right between flights 7 and 8, they seemed very similar in a lot of ways.

 

[WKTaylor]

Rocketdyne struggled for years to get the F1 design to run stably throughout the launch. In the end, they traded engine efficiency for stability, but it worked. Later redesigns (F1A, F1B) would have brought back a lot of efficiency, but - big engines are hard to design, and there was little political will to build more spacecraft.

It looks like Starship is struggling as well, though it looks as if Starship's woes were due not to engine failures, but to some kind of venting, or tankage or plumbing leaks causing a long-axis tumble, which made it impossible to control the attitude or to conduct a de-orbit burn. The booster appeared to work ok, but they cutoff early (or loaded excess fuel that then needed to be dumped?). Still, nothing blew up and the engines were relit twice and operated to a successul "landing", so kudos. I tend to agree with Wil, that there is a lot of changes from flight to flight, and it's not clear how well vetted are the combined effects of those changes.

Like I mentioned... after Saturn V came the $$multibillion 'reusable' Space Shuttle [STS] program... which was curiously not mentioned in RoarkS's Post #71...
I still remember exactly where I was when the STS-1 lifted-off [1981]... the Challenger blew-up... and Columbia disintegrated. Killing astronaut crews has a way of sobering-up common people. I suppose Musk would simply say... 'shit happens on the way to the Moon and Mars'

 

[thebard3]

Like I mentioned... after Saturn V came the $$multibillion 'reusable' Space Shuttle [STS] program... which was curiously not mentioned in RoarkS's Post #71...
I still remember exactly where I was when the STS-1 lifted-off [1981]... the Challenger blew-up... and Columbia disintegrated. Killing astronaut crews has a way of sobering-up common people. I suppose Musk would simply say... 'shit happens on the way to the Moon and Mars'

Perhaps that is hyperbole? Pretty sure Musk wouldn't want anyone to die on one of his ships.

 

[TugboatEng]

Not on the ship but I do believe Musk wants to die on Mars. Not suicidally or anything, he'll be pretty old by the time he can get there.

 

[WKTaylor]

Perhaps that is hyperbole? Pretty sure Musk wouldn't want anyone to die on one of his ships.

Musk companies tend to have a very high rate of injuries/100... safety doesn't tend to be a strict priority.

Exclusive: Injury rates for Musk's SpaceX exceed industry average for second year​

https://www.reuters.com/technology/...ceed-industry-average-second-year-2024-04-22/

Criticism of Tesla, Inc.​

Criticism of Tesla, Inc. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just Saying... astronauts will put their lives on the line when trust has been earned... Like Falcon9 man-rated/qualified to fly for NASA under rigid fight rules.

 

[thebard3]

Having worked in industry for many decades, OSHA reportable injuries are not subjective and failure to report is illegal. No indication of that, other than the claim "The company's high injury rate last year was the subject of a Reuters investigation that found at least 600 previously unreported worker injuries at the rocket and satellite company. Those injuries, Reuters found, led to crushed limbs, amputations, serious head injuries and one death".- Hard to decipher what this means. Perhaps it's just bad writing/editing.
What does "industry standard" mean, when you launch 100+ rockets a year and NASA launches 0. No other contributors to the statistics are even identified in the article.
"SpaceX didn't respond to requests from Reuters seeking comment on the latest figures".
"A NASA spokesperson didn't respond to a request for comment".
"OSHA didn't respond to questions about SpaceX's injury rate".
So, an article written by Reuters, using an investigation conducted by Reuters, without presenting any relevant data seems pretty dubious to me.

 

[WKTaylor]

OK, brad... never forget on NASA and USAF turf... they are bound to fairly rigid recording and reporting and flight rules... explicitly for ALL Falcon9 launches.

In the 'off-limits/secretive' Musk factories and S-TX launch site... it appears to be more wild-west.

To Musk 'rules' is likely a dirty stinking word.
To a society, 'rules' are the guard-rails of civil behavior and interactions.

"Play by the rules, but be ferocious." --Phil Knight, Nike founder
"Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.” --Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama

 

[thebard3]

Injury reporting requirements are not different between locations. If you have evidence that SpaceX/ Musk are in violation you should report it. Unsubstantiated allegations don't do it. The narrative continues -when SpaceX has success, Musk has nothing to do with it. When they fail though, different story.

 

[WKTaylor]

Injury reporting requirements are not different between locations. If you have evidence that SpaceX/ Musk are in violation you should report it. Unsubstantiated allegations don't do it. The narrative continues -when SpaceX has success, Musk has nothing to do with it. When they fail though, different story.

Huh?????????????????????????

 

[thebard3]

To Musk 'rules' is likely a dirty stinking word.
Huh?

 

[TugboatEng]

The big unions are very good at suppressing injury and discipline statistics. At a union site, a worker can die on the job due to intoxication and the death will not be publicly reported and there will be no investigation into the cause. I've seen many workers taking shots prior to going to work and smoking pot on the job.

 

[WKTaylor]

Bard, Tug... I think we have entered an endless loop discussion.

I hope we can mostly agree...

Falcon9 is a stable-robust-inexpensive-reliable launch launch vehicle [likewise Falcon Heavy]... and Cargo/Crew Dragon are are likewise respected. Both of these have a solid track record of development and reliability... under NASA.

SpaceX Super-Heavy Booster is on-it's way to being a stable-inexpensive-reliable first-stage launch of a launch vehicle. I say this cautiously, since a solid history of flight success... return/soft landing/re-launch... has not yet been validated... lacking a compatible/stable/defined upper-stage.

The inter-stage and Starship [SHIP, upper-stages] configuration have been 'evolving'... in some cases dramatically... flight-to-flight. With the exception of one of the earliest SHIP configurations... which I recall landed ~upright in the Indian Ocean as intended... these SHIPs have had differing/evolving/mutating failure modes.

I forecast that the crew-ready SLS/Orion vehicle... now stacked... will be launched to the moon... possibly this year... presuming that arrogant GOPMAGA politics do not interfere. OH, and THIS I guarantee... the designated crew is ready-willing-able-committed to this NASA moon mission... eyes wide open.

So... With this I bid You adieu. I'm taking a break from this thread. I think my 'ocean-floor opinion' of the MusktheSouthAfrikanerCanadianAmerican man is depressing.

 

[TugboatEng]

I forecast that the crew-ready SLS/Orion vehicle... now stacked... will be launched to the moon... possibly this year... presuming that arrogant GOPMAGA politics do not interfere. OH, and THIS I guarantee... the designated crew is ready-willing-able-committed to this NASA moon mission... eyes wide open.

That's lame that you make this projection and then bail out. We all know who the party of fines and obstruction is.

 

[WKTaylor]

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in [a] mud [puddle]: at some point you will realize they both enjoy it [too much to quit]!” --Unknown

 

[thebard3]

I'm not sure I'd be too comfortable flying on Orion after the heat shield problems identified on the SLS1 mission. NASA says it's okay as is, using a different entry profile, but since it didn't perform to expectations before, it may not again. Another test flight should be in order. I doubt it will fly again though. SpaceX should have several more opportunities at improving Starship design and performance before SLS2 is ready to fly again, currently scheduled for April 2026 but very doubtful it will make that date. If so, then SLS could be rendered obsolete before the second flight, regardless of political priorities. If a second test flight is ordered, then I think that will kill the program.