A tale of two missions: Starliner and Starship both achieve milestones
- Reference: 1717758907
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/06/07/starliner_starship_thursday_success/
- Source link:
However, it was not plain sailing for either company.
Starship's Fourth Flight Test
SpaceX's Starship yesterday lifted off atop a Super Heavy booster from the company's facility in Boca Chica, Texas. According to SpaceX, "the payload for this mission was the data," but having the booster make a controlled splashdown and the Starship survive re-entry were obvious goals.
The launch itself went well, despite one of the 33 Raptor engines in the Super Heavy booster failing to ignite. Launch was followed by a successful hot-stage separation, in which all but three of the booster's Raptor engines were shut down, and the six second-stage engines lit to send Starship into space on its suborbital trajectory.
In a demonstration of progress from the [1]last test , when the booster experienced a loss of control, the Super Heavy fared better this time and made a "landing" in the Gulf of Mexico, before toppling over into the ocean.
[2]
The company's boss, Elon Musk, was delighted with the result and [3]said : "I think we should try to catch the booster with the mechazilla arms next flight!"
[4]
[5]
SpaceX plans to reuse the Super Heavy booster in future missions by having it return to the launch site and be captured by mechanical arms dubbed "Mechazilla."
As for Starship, it continued on its suborbital trajectory as planned. Surviving reentry was the next goal, and, for the most part, the vehicle made it to the ocean intact and under sufficient control to perform a flip maneuver prior to splashing down.
[6]
We say "for the most part" because viewers of video streamed from the vehicle during re-entry were treated to what appeared to be hot gases burning through a flap. The gases seemed to enter through the flap's hinge and ate through the material beneath.
Despite the damage, the Starship remained under control during entry. It was able to relight its three center Raptor engines and perform the first flip maneuver of the company's suborbital test campaign. Sixty-six minutes after launch, it made a soft splashdown in the Indian Ocean.
Musk congratulated the SpaceX team and [7]said : "Despite loss of many tiles and a damaged flap, Starship made it all the way to a soft landing in the ocean!"
[8]
The boss also [9]noted that future versions of Starship would shift the forward flaps leeward in an effort to improve reliability.
NASA administrator Bill Nelson [10]offered his congratulations to SpaceX on the achievement. As well he might – NASA is depending on Starship to work as advertised as part of its plans to return astronauts to the Moon. The landing mission, Artemis III, is currently [11]officially scheduled for "no earlier than September 2026" with Starship providing the Human Landing System (HLS).
A [12]report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) late last year reckoned that NASA's schedule was ambitious and the Moon mission could slip into 2027.
Boeing's Starliner arrives at the International Space Station
While SpaceX was having another go at launching Starship, Boeing's Starliner achieved its first crewed docking with the ISS.
The spacecraft continues to suffer small issues. The helium leak that caused such [13]consternation on the ground has been joined by several new ones. During a [14]briefing , Steve Stich, manager for NASA's Commercial Crew Program, said that "we had way more margin than we needed" for the short demonstration mission to proceed, although the leaks will need to be addressed for longer stays.
However, helium leaks weren't the only problem as the spacecraft approached the ISS. Starliner also began having issues with its thrusters. Stich said: "We ended up losing a total of five thrusters," which resulted in controllers calling off the rendezvous until the issue was better understood.
[15]Boeing's Starliner makes it into orbit at long last – with human crew aboard
[16]NASA, Boeing opt to fly leaky thruster as-is for first crewed Starliner CST-100 mission
[17]SpaceX set to literally rock Florida with more and bigger Starship launches
[18]Clock is ticking for NASA to fix bucket of issues before next Artemis mission
The thruster problem appears to be software-related, and controllers were able to recover four of the five. Stich noted that the issues were similar to those experienced during the last uncrewed orbital flight test. "We don't quite understand why they're happening," he said.
The result was that docking was delayed after the team missed the first opportunity due to the thruster issues.
Following the successful docking, another helium leak was reported, but Stich described it as "a relatively tiny leak compared to the others."
The mission is classed as a test, and while the problems encountered so far are minor, all will need to be resolved or mitigated before Starliner's first operational mission in 2025. ®
Get our [19]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/14/spacex_starship_launch/
[2] 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=2ZmMupzOIvytDemTeTcAHJgAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1798718549307109867
[4] 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=44ZmMupzOIvytDemTeTcAHJgAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] 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=33ZmMupzOIvytDemTeTcAHJgAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] 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=44ZmMupzOIvytDemTeTcAHJgAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1798718549307109867
[8] 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=33ZmMupzOIvytDemTeTcAHJgAAAJY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1798718549307109867
[10] https://x.com/SenBillNelson/status/1798719358816186391
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/10/nasa_artemis_delays/
[12] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106256
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/20/starliner_launch_delayed_again/
[14] https://www.youtube.com/live/9G8lryfgXlw?si=bNAnUjAKvjmQntx4
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/05/boeing_starliner_launch_success/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/28/boeing_padstayer_to_become_padleaver/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/10/spacex_starship_florida/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/03/nasa_artemis_oig/
[19] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Think that 33rd engine did light
And I would be very, very, surprised if the other flaps weren't equally damaged... hopefully the rear did better, but we don't yet have evidence of that.
Most impressive part for me was just how long the camera lasted, as well as the flap. It presumably retained enough control to do some attitude adjustment on it's way down. But lots of sparks and debris came off it, so curious how much damage it ended up taking.
Re: Think that 33rd engine did light
>> It presumably retained enough control to do some attitude adjustment on it's way down.
Some attitude adjustment? The burning flap didn't look like it broke anythng as far as the mission was concerned (aside from the camera lens) - Starship didn't tumble at all during descent, it flipped itself from horizontal(ish) to vertical and then fell in the sea as planned, with, potentially all flaps severely heat fatigued!
The amount of control authority retained by the machine, in spite of the damage, was IMHO incredible.
Re: Think that 33rd engine did light
The amount of control authority retained by the machine, in spite of the damage, was IMHO incredible.
Yep. It's why I think the other flaps must have survived to maintain control. The post mortem will be interesting though. It's still early days, but despite the damage we saw, it still managed a pretty gentle landing. Curious how what is learned will afftect the design or redesign though.
Re: Think that 33rd engine did light
I'm assuming much of the control is from thrust gimbaling, but I'm sure the flaps play some significant role coming out of the belly flop.
The software must have been compensating for the screwed up aerodynamic control surfaces.
Re: Think that 33rd engine did light
Camera was in the lee of the ship, though it did seem to have quite a bit of molten steel deposited on it's lens.
Re: Think that 33rd engine did light
That hinge mechanism seems to be amazingly robust. I was sure that flap was going to tear off. I was very surprised to see it still actuating right before splash down.
Flight control software must be very good as well, to compensate for those missing chunks, being able to pull off the flip despite screwed up aerodynamics from the holes.
Glad to see that Starliner did manage to dock. I know a crew capsule isn't trivial, but Starship-level difficult it is not.
"before toppling over into the ocean"
Well then it was a failure. Yet another one.
But hey, it's not called rocket science for nothing.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
No, that was the plan. Hovered for several seconds above the surface of the water, then was ditched.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
The same thing was done when developing the Falcon 9 reuse capability. See attempts two and three on the famous blooper reel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32E0OtRm2To
If you can come to a controlled stop just above the water, you can have reasonable confidence you'll do it with a barge underneath, or back on dry land, or in to the chopsticks on the launch tower.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
Unlike Falcon 9 boosters, there was no sea platform or barge involved here. SpaceX's plan was to have the upright Starship come to zero velocity at zero altitude on a patch of naked ocean - which it succeeded in doing. They used the term 'virtual landing pad' which was just that, virtual. There was never to be any scenario in which it would not then topple over once the engines shut off.
The Reg use of the term 'splashdown' might be a bit misleading, as we associate it with parachuting capsules using the water to cushion the final bit of deceleration. This isn't what happened here. Starship actually hovered with zero velocity relative to the ocean. Objective met, the engines then shut off.
Had there been a structure in place, it wouldn't have toppled over.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
>>Well then it was a failure. Yet another one.
What? How the actual foxtrot was it a failure?
Ok one of the Raptors flamed out, but did not affect the booster mission, nor the Starship mission.
In terms of flight profile, the super heavy booster did exactly what SpaceX wanted it to. It re-entered the atmosphere (sort of, you could argue it never really left it), descended to the Gulf of Mexico exectly where it was meant to, slowed it's descent to 0km/h at sea level then fell over because, well have you ever tried walking on water?
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
Hey guys, let be charitable to Pascal, he was probably getting mixed up with SpaceX's early attempts to land Falcon 9 boosters on floating platforms. That almost seems like it only happened yesterday, such has the rate of progress been, so a casual observer could be forgiven for confusing the two.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
"It re-entered the atmosphere (sort of, you could argue it never really left it)"
Pretty tenuous argument... (pun intended).
The booster had an apogee in excess of 109km, which is well over the karman line, though well below the ~160km of the lowest long lived satellites.
The reason the reentry is less spectacular (and I'm sure you already know this, but for other readers) isn't that it's not hitting the atmosphere, but it's doing ~1000 km/h when it does so (subsequently acceneration to ~4,500 before the atmosphere really puts the brakes on), not the ~25k which results from reentry from orbital velocity, or the ~40k from lunar return.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
Missed my edit window - 160 is a little optimistic... 200 is more reasonable for lowest bird.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
Only the most cynical could call IFT4 a failure. If anything it's out-done expectations. Maintaining control despite massive damage?
Apollo 13 was called the successful failure, and, similarly had a failure of an engine in the boost stages of the mission. Albeit overshadowed by other glitches.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
Apparently you need to pay more attention.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
Even IF there had been a platform AND Starship had toppled over, SpaceX would still have considered the flight a success. Why?
Because they already know they can land rockets on their tails with Falcon 9 booster, and are confident they can make it work with both Spaceship and it its booster. What they are really concerned about, because they haven't had the data before, is the heat shielding during re-entry.
Elon Musk, in reply to Cmdr Chris Hadfield:
“Thanks Chris! A fully and immediately reusable orbital heat shield, which (as you know) has never been made before, is the single toughest problem remaining. Being able to iterate with many ideas on many ships is key to solving this.”
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
Some people, in front of an obvious failure, attempt to redefine the goals so they can claim success.
You, apparently, are doing the opposite. How interesting.
Re: "before toppling over into the ocean"
You're misunderstanding what this was. They set the booster down in the water at around 2 or 3 km/hr, in a vertical position -- which is exactly what they were trying to do.
It was a test flight. They intended to expend the booster. Eventually (apparently in the near term) they are going to attempt to set the booster down on arms extending from the launch tower. Whether that's attempted on the next test flight probably has a lot to do with just how much booster descent control they had, and how accurately they placed the water landing.
By the way, every single other US rocket manufacturer dumps their booster in the ocean -- IIRC, Rocket Lab may have recovered and refurbished one. Everyone else throws them away.
Boeing's software woes.
The docking of Boeing's Starliner nearly failed due to a problem that "appeared to be software-related".
Recently a "serious software glitch" meant that a 737-800 plane taking off from Bristol Airport barely cleared the runway when the auto-throttle disengaged when taking off (scary). Boeing are apparently "aware" of the problem but are seemingly unable to reproduce it.
Maybe Boeing should stop kidding itself that it can write software.
Re: Boeing's software woes.
As with a lot of other incidents, let's wait and see what the investigation actually shows. With these sorts of accidents it's not entirely unknown for the outcome to be "Ooops, someone pressed the wrong button" or "Ooops, someone made a mistake in setting takeoff limits". That's then an error in training or procedure that but that is not necessarily down to Boeing design/engineering problems.
Re: Boeing's software woes.
Interesting that all the posts but this one are congratulating Starship. You can see who does space travel better these days. As for Starliner, it could be niggles that will get sorted next time, but you do wonder if there are more fundamental issues. I know NASA are Congress-bound to support Boeing and ULA but I guess there are quite a few in NASA who wish they could just go all-in with SpaceX and forget the others.
Grats!
Kudos to the SpaceX team for building both the largest space launch vehicle, and a vehicle which maintained control and orientation all the way to a powered soft landing, while having its control surfaces vaporized. The doubters will doubtless have retreated further under their rocks.
Re: Grats!
> The doubters will doubtless have retreated further under their rocks.
This flight for Starship went well.
But for many of your "doubters", the issue has always been the overpromising - and no matter how well *this* flight did, compared to all the promises and the still to be demonstrated capabilities (in-orbit docking, re-fueling, space walks and working airlocks would be neat additions) there are good reasons to doubt that a Moon mission will occur anywhere near the current schedule. Or even that the thing will actually lift all the Starlink birds in time to be useful.
Re: overpromising
The strange thing is that the people disappointed by overpromising must actually consider Musk Tweets to be a source of factual information. For reasonable people, that ship's automated flight termination system activated [1]years ago .
There are lies, damned lies and rocket launch schedules.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-10/elon-musk-tweets-tesla
So....
Starship powers back through the atmosphere, does a backflip and then floats in the air (probably letting off fireworks and singing "hail to the chief") before going plop into the water.
Starliner goes old school and crashes into the ground 1960's Russian (or Bulgarian airbag) stylee.
I might choose Starship as a ride.
Re: So....
Looking at it another way. Starliner uses technology that's been well proven for over half a century. Starship is doing something brand new and unproven.
I'd rather fly with the airbags for a couple of years and let them sort out the teething troubles in the new tech. After that though it's like choosing to cross the USA in a train or plane. Both perfectly safe, but unless you have days to kill, you just wouldn't bother with the train anymore.
Think that 33rd engine did light
it just flamed out within seconds of take off.
And I would be very, very, surprised if the other flaps weren't equally damaged... hopefully the rear did better, but we don't yet have evidence of that.