ADVERTISEMENT

PSA: Starship's 3rd Integrated Test Flight tentatively scheduled for Pi Day March 14th

Paging @GOHOX69 @Joes Place



“Watch carefully for dishonest critics of Starship moving the goalposts.

After IFT-1 they said that 30 engines couldn't be reliable. We have now had 2 back-to-back flights with zero failures on ascent.

After IFT-2 they said that the dynamics of the boostback were fatally flawed. This time the boostback burn started fine.

Now, they will presumably opine on heat shields, control issues - and insist that these things can't be fixed any time soon. Then IFT-4 will fly with these issues fixed, they will memory hole those criticisms, and invent new ones.
 
Paging @GOHOX69 @Joes Place



“Watch carefully for dishonest critics of Starship moving the goalposts.

After IFT-1 they said that 30 engines couldn't be reliable. We have now had 2 back-to-back flights with zero failures on ascent.

After IFT-2 they said that the dynamics of the boostback were fatally flawed. This time the boostback burn started fine.

Now, they will presumably opine on heat shields, control issues - and insist that these things can't be fixed any time soon. Then IFT-4 will fly with these issues fixed, they will memory hole those criticisms, and invent new ones.
And then it broke apart. Like Elon's pee pee.
 
Paging @GOHOX69 @Joes Place



“Watch carefully for dishonest critics of Starship moving the goalposts.

After IFT-1 they said that 30 engines couldn't be reliable. We have now had 2 back-to-back flights with zero failures on ascent.

After IFT-2 they said that the dynamics of the boostback were fatally flawed. This time the boostback burn started fine.

Now, they will presumably opine on heat shields, control issues - and insist that these things can't be fixed any time soon. Then IFT-4 will fly with these issues fixed, they will memory hole those criticisms, and invent new ones.
I don't recall making any such past statements.
 
After IFT-1 they said that 30 engines couldn't be reliable. We have now had 2 back-to-back flights with zero failures on ascent.

After IFT-2 they said that the dynamics of the boostback were fatally flawed. This time the boostback burn started fine.
Link to where I made either of those statements.
 
Still think 33 engines is dumb because the Russians tried it 40-50 years ago and it didn’t work back then?

Super smart reasoning.

“Someone else failed so it can’t work now.”…blah blah blah
No but your boy seems like he could use more shots of Ozempic. Looks worn and bloated. Do something.
 
kung fury explosion GIF
 
  • Love
Reactions: GOHOX69


“Rarely is a company more than a decade ahead of its competition.

For SpaceX, it is about to be 100x cheaper too.

Is this another first in human history?

Most of us will never be involved in a first-in-human-history event. Elon Musk and the teams he assembles have almost an uncountable string of firsts-in-human-history.

Ignore the noise, and follow the data:

From the AeroSpace journalist Eric Berger in Ars Technica:

But even with those caveats, Starship is already the most revolutionary rocket ever built. Because of a relentless focus on costs and cheap building materials, such as stainless steel, SpaceX can likely build and launch a fully expendable version of Starship for about $100 million. Most of that money is in the booster, with its 33 engines. So once Super Heavy becomes reusable, you can probably cut manufacturing costs down to about $30 million per launch.
This means that, within a year or so, SpaceX will have a rocket that costs about $30 million and lifts 100 to 150 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.

Bluntly, this is absurd.

For fun, we could compare that to some existing rockets. NASA's Space Launch System, for example, can lift up to 95 tons to low-Earth orbit. That's nearly as much as Starship. But it costs $2.2 billion per launch, plus additional ground systems fees. So it's almost a factor of 100 times more expensive for less throw weight. Also, the SLS rocket can fly once per year at most.

Then there's the European Space Agency's Vega rocket. Its costs are roughly on par with a Starship that has a reusable first stage. For $37 million, with Vega, you get about 1.5 metric tons to low-Earth orbit. Again, that's a factor of 100 times less payload than Starship.

Perhaps you're beginning to understand the revolution that's underway with the Starship vehicle?
But it's not just the cost or the payload. It's the cadence. SpaceX has four more Starships, essentially, ready to go. We have already seen SpaceX's proficiency with the Falcon 9 rocket. Does anyone doubt we'll see double-digit Starship launches in 2025 and many dozens per year during the second half of this decade? Access to space used to be a rare commodity. What happens to our species and its commerce in space when access is not rare or expensive?

This is the future into which we got a glimpse this week.

@SciGuySpace “
 

“MARCH 14, 2024
STARSHIP'S THIRD FLIGHT TEST

Starship returned to integrated flight testing with its third launch from Starbase in Texas. While it didn’t happen in a lab or on a test stand, it was absolutely a test. What we achieved on this flight will provide invaluable data to continue rapidly developing Starship.
On March 14, 2024, Starship successfully lifted off at 8:25 a.m. CT from Starbase in Texas and went on to accomplish several major milestones and firsts:

  • For the second time, all 33 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy Booster started up successfully and completed a full-duration burn during ascent.


  • Starship executed its second successful hot-stage separation, powering down all but three of Super Heavy’s Raptor engines and successfully igniting the six second stage Raptor engines before separating the vehicles.


  • Following separation, the Super Heavy booster successfully completed its flip maneuver and completed a full boostback burn to send it towards its splashdown point in the Gulf of Mexico.


  • Super Heavy successfully lit several engines for its first ever landing burn before the vehicle experienced a RUD (that’s SpaceX-speak for “rapid unscheduled disassembly”). The booster’s flight concluded at approximately 462 meters in altitude and just under seven minutes into the mission.


  • Starship's six second stage Raptor engines all started successfully and powered the vehicle to its expected orbit, becoming the first Starship to complete its full-duration ascent burn.


  • While coasting, Starship accomplished several of the flight test’s additional objectives, including the opening and closing of its payload door (aka the pez dispenser,) and initiating a propellant transfer demonstration. Starship did not attempt its planned on-orbit relight of a single Raptor engine due to vehicle roll rates during coast. Results from these demonstrations will come after postflight data review is complete.


  • Starship went on to experience its first ever entry from space, providing valuable data on heating and vehicle control during hypersonic reentry. Live views of entry were made possible by Starlink terminals operating on Starship.


  • The flight test’s conclusion came during entry, with the last telemetry signals received via Starlink from Starship at approximately 49 minutes into the mission.

While our team reviews the data collected from this flight, Starship and Super Heavy vehicles are preparing for upcoming flights as we seek to increase our launch cadence throughout the year.
This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable transportation system capable of carrying both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, help humanity return to the Moon, and ultimately travel to Mars and beyond.
Thank you to our customers, Cameron County, spaceflight fans, and the wider community for the continued support and encouragement. And congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on an exciting third flight test of Starship!”
 
It is crazy to think about just how far ahead Spacex is compared to all of the competition. Just this week Spacex landed a booster for the 284th time after sending a payload to orbit. This is something no other space company or government has done.
Then you see the Starship launch last week, and that booster made it to 400m from the ocean before an issue occurred on just its 3rd flight.

If you use the standards other space companies use as a measure of success, such as the booster lifting the second stage to orbit, the second stage sustaining orbital velocity, and the ability to deliver a payload to orbit. Starship hit all those milestones, the failure only occured on attempted recovery of both vehicles.
 
It is crazy to think about just how far ahead Spacex is compared to all of the competition. Just this week Spacex landed a booster for the 284th time after sending a payload to orbit. This is something no other space company or government has done.
Then you see the Starship launch last week, and that booster made it to 400m from the ocean before an issue occurred on just its 3rd flight.

If you use the standards other space companies use as a measure of success, such as the booster lifting the second stage to orbit, the second stage sustaining orbital velocity, and the ability to deliver a payload to orbit. Starship hit all those milestones, the failure only occured on attempted recovery of both vehicles.
If he started a ipo on spacex it’s market would be crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isufan21
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT