That raises more questions than it answers. Like how big a leak? How often do they have leaks, and would more testing help? Was it both fuel and oxygen (yikes!)?
Major snafu. They should have used Eggtimer telemetry!They lost telemetry on Starship at about t+8:30, 146 km altitude and 21,000 kmh... a little short of orbital velocity. Wondering if maybe their attitude wasn't up to snuff, that would be a guidance issue.
The catch had been done before. The "boom bit" dropped debris far outside the exclusion zone forcing widespread diversion of air traffic and allegedly at least one emergency landing due to low fuel when diverting. The emphasis of the news coverage is entirely appropriate IMO. The public were probably largely unaware that 100 tons of relatively reentry-survivable stainless steel chunks could be randomly dropped outside of the planned flight path by a craft which is seemingly woefully underdeveloped yet routinely making test flights over a densely populated corridor at the east end of the Gulf.Surprised that FOX would focus on the failure part instead of the success part. Even the picture is the good stuff, but all the new agencies are dwelling on the boom bit.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/starship-upper-stage-lost-seventh-test-flight-debris-seen-spewing-sky
No mention of the successful catch.![]()
I agree with you about the newsworthiness bit, especially if planes had to do emergency diverts. I disagree that Starship is woefully underdeveloped. This is Flight 7 and I think the first one with a bad up part. Other orbital class rockets do first flights in similar situations. For example, I’d be surprised if there were any air corridors reserved that far away for the New Glenn flight.The catch had been done before. The "boom bit" dropped debris far outside the exclusion zone forcing widespread diversion of air traffic and allegedly at least one emergency landing due to low fuel when diverting. The emphasis of the news coverage is entirely appropriate IMO. The public were probably largely unaware that 100 tons of relatively reentry-survivable stainless steel chunks could be randomly dropped outside of the planned flight path by a craft which is seemingly woefully underdeveloped yet routinely making test flights over a densely populated corridor at the east end of the Gulf.
I don’t know what your source is for all that, but here is what SpaceX says:The catch had been done before. The "boom bit" dropped debris far outside the exclusion zone forcing widespread diversion of air traffic and allegedly at least one emergency landing due to low fuel when diverting. The emphasis of the news coverage is entirely appropriate IMO. The public were probably largely unaware that 100 tons of relatively reentry-survivable stainless steel chunks could be randomly dropped outside of the planned flight path by a craft which is seemingly woefully underdeveloped yet routinely making test flights over a densely populated corridor at the east end of the Gulf.
similar situations. For example, I’d be surprised if there were any air corridors reserved that far away for the New Glenn flight.
I don't trust SpaceX's PR department.I don’t know what your source is for all that, but here is what SpaceX says:
“Initial data indicates a fire developed in the aft section of the ship, leading to a rapid unscheduled disassembly with debris falling into the Atlantic Ocean within the predefined hazard areas.”
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-7
Well, when you put it like that...The catch had been done before. The "boom bit" dropped debris far outside the exclusion zone forcing widespread diversion of air traffic and allegedly at least one emergency landing due to low fuel when diverting. The emphasis of the news coverage is entirely appropriate IMO. The public were probably largely unaware that 100 tons of relatively reentry-survivable stainless steel chunks could be randomly dropped outside of the planned flight path by a craft which is seemingly woefully underdeveloped yet routinely making test flights over a densely populated corridor at the east end of the Gulf.
I thought it looked kinda pretty. As long as nobody got killed.that debris field looks terrifying![]()
Good explanation. Thank you. My previous understanding of the incident was probably mistaken. Still, I'd consider it very newsworthy.Here is a good explanation of the airspace management:
https://x.com/_SFTahoe/status/1880109176116113464
The Eye of Aldhani.
While I don't disagree with the overall premise, if New Glenn had gone pear-shaped at the same stage of flight, it would have caused similar disruptions. The engines may well have survived into airspace occupied by commercial airliners. Even if they hadn't, small bits of aluminum would have, and those are no bueno for airliner engines. Planes would still have had to divert around the debris fall zone, even if the zone was a different shape and size.My evaluation of its sate of development is relative to how hazardous it is. All other super-massive objects sent to orbital velocity in the past have been of aluminum structure, which has a very hard time making it to ground level in large pieces. Starship's stainless steel construction is a much greater debris hazard. That in six separated flights it's caught on fire twice and gone out of control once (fortunately after SECO) does not indicate to me that it's sufficiently developed to be making the flights that it is.
Sure, there would be debris. It also sounds like Starships's debris was managed better than initial reports said.While I don't disagree with the overall premise, if New Glenn had gone pear-shaped at the same stage of flight, it would have caused similar disruptions. The engines may well have survived into airspace occupied by commercial airliners. Even if they hadn't, small bits of aluminum would have, and those are no bueno for airliner engines. Planes would still have had to divert around the debris fall zone, even if the zone was a different shape and size.
Scott Manley:
I thought you where talking about you altimeter until you sead starship...Reviewing the flight data available on the video feed, the velocity of the Starship at separation was ~1000 KM/H slower than flight 6. The Starship's velocity at 7:40, when the first engine shutdown, was ~5000 KM/H slower than flight 6. I understand that the Starship for flight 7 is longer and heavier than the Starship used in flight 6. This data indicates that the Starship performance was not nominal. Events early in the flight doomed the vehicle.
We don't know that it was "not nominal".... nominal for what? A rocket that hasn't been fully designed yet?Reviewing the flight data available on the video feed, the velocity of the Starship at separation was ~1000 KM/H slower than flight 6. The Starship's velocity at 7:40, when the first engine shutdown, was ~5000 KM/H slower than flight 6. I understand that the Starship for flight 7 is longer and heavier than the Starship used in flight 6. This data indicates that the Starship performance was not nominal. Events early in the flight doomed the vehicle.
Would I be happy if one of my rockets was under performing by 5000 KM/H.I thought you where talking about you altimeter until you sead starship...![]()
Nothing says done until we see a Scott Manley flight evaluation video.
I love it !One of my close colleagues informed me that he achieved a 2KHz IMU sampling rate with an ESP32-C3. My 1KHz flight computer may not fly long. I've already pushed my current software to 1250Hz. At 2KHz, we're talking Space X level data rates to achieve soft landings and captures.
I already use 16 & 32GB Flash chips.I love it !
But a 2 KHz sample rate will require twice as much 'disk space' as your existing 1 KHz sample rate
Do you have space on your board for the flash chip (![]()
![]()
) ?
-- kjh
1TB time!I already use 16 & 32GB Flash chips.