When is the Starship orbital launch?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Last edited:
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.
 
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. 😡
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.
 
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 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.

It may speak to poor workmanship and QC depending on the details of the leak mentioned above. There’s no excuse for that on an orbital class rocket.
 
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:

“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
 
similar situations. For example, I’d be surprised if there were any air corridors reserved that far away for the New Glenn flight.

There was an exclusion zone. Most of the debris fell outside it, perhaps due to the ship yawing before it lost thrust. As I understand it all US launches clear an air corridor under the flight path all the way to orbit.

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.
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
I don't trust SpaceX's PR department.

NSF journalist on the subject:

FAA's emergency NOTAM:

Edit to add the FAA emergency NOTAM
 
Last edited:
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.
Well, when you put it like that...
 
Interesting 24 hours -- Blue Origin lost their booster, SpaceX lost their upper stage.

On the upsides: BO finally made it to orbit after 25 years, SpaceX caught the booster flawlessly.
Downsides: BO needs a new booster as they can't re-use the old one, but they proved that they can launch a payload. SpaceX had a failure of their one "new" bit, the "Starship V2", which looks like it's up for a bit of a redesign.

Both companies need to go back to the drawing board and analyze what went wrong.
 
that debris field looks terrifying:eek:
I thought it looked kinda pretty. As long as nobody got killed.
But clearly they didn't follow Scott's advice and "fly safe".
I saw a 1:30 video on Youtube of a guy capturing the uncontrolled descent from a commercial airliner, which was pretty cool, but you could hear in the audio other people gasping as they looked out the windows....
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Sure, there would be debris. It also sounds like Starships's debris was managed better than initial reports said.

Still, there is much more reentry-survivable mass on Starship than on anything flown before, and IMO that level of risk should necessitate exceptionally rigorous development. It's concerning that three of the six free-flying ships have had fatal accidents long before reentry. (The one which was out of control didn't break up until reentry, of course.)
 
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.
 
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.
I thought you where talking about you altimeter until you sead starship... :headspinning:
 
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?
These are test articles. Think of them as the cars you build for crash tests. Oh, it crumbled in this area, we have to do a re-design.
The "final" version of starship won't be what we see here now. It will be overall considerably taller with a longer first and second stage, and using Raptor 3 Engines.
Otherwise, it won't be carrying 100tons to orbit.

Sure the booster is getting bogged down with all the extra weight. When these boosters were built, there was no V2 Starship and no Hot-Staging ring.
Future boosters will be taking these things into account. But first it seems, Musk wants to use up the supply of what he's got in the Rocket Garden.
 
I thought you where talking about you altimeter until you sead starship... :headspinning:
Would I be happy if one of my rockets was under performing by 5000 KM/H. :goodjob: I have yet to break Mach 2 with a HPR.

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.
 
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 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
 
Back
Top