SpaceX Starship Blasts Off In Ninth Test Flight (space.com)
- Reference: 0177819775
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/05/28/024205/spacex-starship-blasts-off-in-ninth-test-flight
- Source link: https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/spacex-launches-starship-flight-9-to-space-in-historic-reuse-of-giant-megarocket-video
> The mission lifted off from Starbase today at 7:37 p.m. EDT (2337 GMT; 6:37 p.m. local Texas time), sending the 40-story-tall rocket into the Texas sky atop a pillar of flame. It was a milestone launch, marking the first-ever reuse of a Super Heavy booster; this one earned its wings on Flight 7 in January. (SpaceX swapped out just four of its Raptors after that mission, meaning that 29 of the engines that flew today were flight-proven.) "Lessons learned from the first booster refurbishment and subsequent performance in flight will enable faster turnarounds of future reflights as progress is made towards vehicles requiring no hands-on maintenance between launches," the company wrote in a Flight 9 mission preview.
>
> The Super Heavy had a somewhat different job to do today; it conducted a variety of experiments on its way back down to Earth. For example, the booster performed a controlled rather than randomized return flip and hit the atmosphere at a different angle. "By increasing the amount of atmospheric drag on the vehicle, a higher angle of attack can result in a lower descent speed, which in turn requires less propellant for the initial landing burn," SpaceX wrote in the mission preview. "Getting real-world data on how the booster is able to control its flight at this higher angle of attack will contribute to improved performance on future vehicles, including the next generation of Super Heavy." These experiments complicated Super Heavy's flight profile compared to previous missions, making another "chopsticks" catch at Starbase a tougher proposition. So, rather than risk damaging the launch tower and other infrastructure, SpaceX decided to bring the booster back for a "hard splashdown" in the Gulf of Mexico on Flight 9. That was the plan, anyway; Super Heavy didn't quite make it that far. The booster broke apart about 6 minutes and 20 seconds into today's flight, just after beginning its landing burn. "Confirmation that the booster did demise," [Dan Huot, of SpaceX's communications team] said during the Flight 9 webcast. Super Heavy's flight ended "before it was able to get through landing burn," he added.
>
> Ship, by contrast, improved its performance a bit this time around. It reached space today on a suborbital trajectory that took it eastward over the Atlantic Ocean -- the same basic path the vehicle took on the truncated Flight 7 and Flight 8. But Flight 9 got choppy for Ship after that. The vehicle was supposed to deploy eight dummy versions of SpaceX's Starlink satellites about 18.5 minutes after liftoff, which would have been a landmark first for the Starship program. That didn't happen, however; the payload door couldn't open fully, so SpaceX abandoned the deployment try. Then, about 30 minutes after launch, Ship started to tumble, which was the result of a leak in Ship's fuel-tank systems, according to Huot. "A lot of those [tanks] are used for your attitude control," he said. "And so, at this point, we've essentially lost our attitude control with Starship." As a result, SpaceX nixed a plan to relight one of Ship's Raptor engines in space, a test that was supposed to happen about 38 minutes after launch. And the company gave up hope of a soft splashdown for the vehicle, instead becoming resigned to a breakup over the Indian Ocean during Ship's reentry.
>
> The company therefore will not get all the data it wanted about Flight 9. And there was quite a bit to get; for example, SpaceX removed some of Ship's heat-shield tiles to stress-test vulnerable areas, and it also tried out several different tile materials, including one with an active cooling system. But the company plans to bounce back and try again soon, just as it did after Flight 7 and Flight 8.
You can watch a recording of the launch [2]on YouTube .
[1] https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/spacex-launches-starship-flight-9-to-space-in-historic-reuse-of-giant-megarocket-video
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okOzxHN9NOA
I want to be excited about this (Score:2, Insightful)
I really do. But I'm finding it increasingly difficult. I suspect that I'm not alone in this. I'm starting to wonder what's it all for.
Despite the cold war and the politics of the space race ("Vintage Space" did a great documentary on that recently) space exploration used to feel very much like a human-unifying, human-benefiting endeavor. And I felt like this about SpaceX until the events of the last few months. The honest truth is everything has been colored (tainted even) by a couple of humans who ha
Re: (Score:2)
> I really do. But I'm finding it increasingly difficult. I suspect that I'm not alone in this. I'm starting to wonder what's it all for.
> Despite the cold war and the politics of the space race ("Vintage Space" did a great documentary on that recently) space exploration used to feel very much like a human-unifying, human-benefiting endeavor.
Oh come on, that was just the veneer. It was always politics. You are shocked by Musk? The guy who made the Saturn V happen was [1]an actual literal Nazi. [wikipedia.org] JFK was a womaniser who escalated the Vietnam war.
> (the guys doing the actual work while Must gets all the praise) on their good work.
By all means call out the grievous faults, but when you try to diminish the genuine achievements because you (justifiably) don't like someone, it sounds petty and spiteful.
Nobody is perfect. Can we not acknowledge both their faults and achievements, without having to make some "naughty
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
There seems to be a pattern here... (Score:2)
...and I don't just mean "rocket go boom".
SpaceX seems to largely have Booster working. Yes, they lost this one, intentionally pushing some limits on the reentry.
With Ship, Flights 4, 5, and 6 all managed controlled splashdowns. With Flight 7, SpaceX moved to Block2 Ship. Flight 7 was lost due to an internal fuel leak, Flight 8 due to Ship engine failure, and now Flight 9 has been lost with an apparent internal fuel leak, again. For whatever reason, Block 2 doesn't appear to be up to the challenge.
"Successfully launched and reached space" (Score:1, Troll)
"both rocket stages were ultimately lost mid-mission due to a "rapid unscheduled disassembly."
What world do these people live in?
Re: (Score:1)
" What world do these people live in?"
Well they don't seem to be likely to reach another one (isn't Starship eventually supposed to be going to Mars?)
Re: (Score:2)
> Aren't prosecuted by the SEC if you're rich enough...
SpaceX is a private company. The SEC has limited authority over them. Unless, of course, the SEC determines that the public company Tesla is involved in various financial entanglements with SpaceX which might be looked at as improper between a public/private company effectively controlled by the common individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
The world of always finding the sunny side up!
Re: (Score:2)
It was a cute joke when Falcon 9 was still figuring out how to land but yeah feels a bit hollow here, I don't imagine they got to test much of the things they were looking to here.
We are also one year out from Artemis II where astronauts are supposed to walk onto the moon from the HLS Starship based lander. Bit embarrassing if Lockheed and Boeing are ready but SpaceX isn't. That will get delayed no doubt but as I have read the SLS rocket is on track and so is the capsule.
Re: (Score:2)
Artemis II is not a landing, it's a manned flight to Lunar orbit (similar to Apollo 10). Artemis III is the mission for landing, assuming it still happens.
The Artemis II rocket is being stacked now for testing.
Re: (Score:1)
To be honest, anytime spacex is mentioned the comment section devolves into a political argument. /. isn't the place for this.
Re: (Score:2)
> To be honest, anytime spacex is mentioned the comment section devolves into a political argument. /. isn't the place for this.
As demonstrated by the post you directly responded to. Among others.
Re: (Score:2)
Launched successfully: Yep, got off the ground. That's a launch
Reached space: Yep, 100km, above the Kármán Line. That's where space is.
Returned from space: Ehhhh.....
Re: (Score:2)
> Reached space: Yep, 100km, above the Kármán Line. That's where space is.
That part is easy. The real challenge is getting to orbital velocity. The SpaceX video feed showed Starship reaching only about 26,500km/h, well short of the 28,000 needed for orbit. But that does not include the speed boost it got from the Earth's rotation, which is nearly 1500km/h from Boca Chica.
So yes, Starship had "nominal insertion" and was only a whisker away (for obvious reasons) from sufficient velocity to return to Texas. Just one more second or so from those six raptors, and Mexico would have h
Re: "Successfully launched and reached space" (Score:1)
It certainly had a very quick return.
Re: "Successfully launched and reached space" (Score:1)
They live in a very fast moving world.