SpaceX feels the pressure, scraps first orbital launch of Starship
- Reference: 1681739989
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/04/17/spacex_scraps_first_starship_launch/
- Source link:
The pressurization issue appeared at around T-17 minutes, and SpaceX made the decision at around T-5 minutes to transition the launch into a "wet dress" rehearsal, which involves fully fueling and prepping Starship for launch before ending the countdown just prior to ignition.
The launch would have been the first combined operation of Starship and a Super Heavy booster.
[1]
SpaceX said in a stream before the event that there were launch windows 24 and 48 hours from today's planned launch, but after canceling the launch the company said it would take at least 48 hours for the tanks to be depressurized and engineers to troubleshoot the issue.
[2]
[3]
The [4]planned scenario for today's test was an orbital launch, with the Super Heavy booster engine landing in the Gulf of Mexico, followed by a victory lap around Earth scheduled to take a bit more than an hour. SpaceX's plans indicate a water landing in the Pacific Ocean, and a vertical landing isn't on the cards:
"The team will not attempt a vertical landing of Starship or a catch of the Super Heavy booster," SpaceX said.
[5]
During the livestream, SpaceX said it would have been the first time the Super Heavy booster and Starship had been launched together, and so the goal was to get as much information on the combined operation of the two vehicles as possible, with a successful landing not important for the scope of the mission.
Not a bad move for a craft with a history of failing to stick the landing.
[6]Goddard Space Flight Center's new boss swears in on holy Pale Blue Dot
[7]SpaceX calendar marked with big red circle for 'first Starship launch' this month
[8]NASA names astronauts picked for next Artemis Moon test flight
[9]Earth is running out of places for stargazers to do dark deeds in the name of science
Starship has been under development for years, and in a handful of test flights has [10]failed to do much but [11]flop over and/or [12]explode . Its most recent test, in [13]May 2021 , was the first launch of a full-sized Starship craft that didn't end in an explosion. The May 2021 mission accomplished its goal of a suborbital flight and successful vertical landing, albeit with a small methane fire that burned for around 20 minutes after the craft landed. The craft has been grounded since then, with today's launch the first planned since the successful 2021 test.
SpaceX's eventual goal for its Starship craft is to land humans [14]back on the Moon as part of NASA's Artemis program. SpaceX was most recently awarded a [15]second contract option from NASA worth $1.5 billion (£1.2 billion) to deliver humans to the lunar surface in 2027 with Artemis IV, giving the Musk-owned space firm just an additional four years from today's launch to a successful Moon landing.
The first crewed launch of Starship is scheduled to occur as part of the privately funded [16]Polaris Program , but a date hasn't been set. ®
Get our [17]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZD1tIJVCaxI5@L0IWG3R1AAAAdI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZD1tIJVCaxI5@L0IWG3R1AAAAdI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZD1tIJVCaxI5@L0IWG3R1AAAAdI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-test
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZD1tIJVCaxI5@L0IWG3R1AAAAdI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/12/goddard_space_flight_centers_new/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/11/spacex_starship_launch_april/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/03/nasa_artemis_ii_crew/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/20/earth_light_pollution/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/spacex_starship_launch_fiery_end/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/02/spacex_starship_explodes/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/30/spacex_starship_sn11/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/06/spacex_starship_lands_without_exploding/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/16/nasa_spacex_moon/
[15] https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-spacex-second-contract-option-for-artemis-moon-landing-0
[16] https://polarisprogram.com/
[17] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Which comments? That it's many years late? Cost's a billion+ dollars a flight? Has wasted lots of taxpayers money?
Do they apply to this?
Artemis' job is to keep people employed, not to be useful.
Disappointing that it did not fly, but probably the best decision when something is reporting a fault.
Especially when something like this was planed for, and there is a backup window in a couple of days.
I think perhaps we have all started to get used to SpaceX's amazing successes with their experimental vehicles (and, in the context of rovers - both wheeled and flying - NASA is doing pretty well too!) but they did seem to be trying to highlight on the commentary that there is a sliding scale of "success" on this one that even at 100% still ends up with the entirety of the two vehicles destroyed in the sea!
Goal 1 - shuts down safely and doesn't vaporise the vehicles and the launch site
Goal 2 - gets high enough before vaporising the vehicles to not vaporise the launch site
Goal 3 - gets to separation and then vaporises both the vehicles
Goal 4 - gets to separation and then only one vehicle vaporises ...
... etc., etc.
In spite of the article author's disappointingly ill-informed snark, what SpaceX want most is information/telemetry and they don't always need to "stick the landing" to get what they need. Once they have what they need then they move onto the next thing.
They didn't need any more starship landing tests because, at that point, they decided not to bother with legs any more - they are going to catch it.
They haven't bothered trying to catch it yet because (a) they want to make sure the tiles and heat shielding work at re-entry speeds and (b) they know they can deliver a Falcon 9 to a ship with the necessary precision so they are assuming they can do the same with this (likewise with the booster)
... etc., etc.
If anyone is actually interested in the SpaceX thought processes behind a lot of this then I really do thoroughly recommend the interviews with Musk (and the starbase tours) that Everyday Astronaut did and has on his YouTube channel.
I wonder if Musk fan squad will make the same comments towards SpaceX it made towards NASA when Artemis had some valve issues...