New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2151 2025-08-25 07:45:18
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,037
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
It would appear that the AI could not distinguish between the Crew-10 launch of a Falcon-9 and the Flight-10 launch of a Starship/Superheavy. Why? Both had a "10" in the names.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
#2152 2025-08-25 09:47:33
- Oldfart1939
- Member
- Registered: 2016-11-26
- Posts: 2,484
Re: Starship is Go...
Ground systems Oxygen leak. Try again this late afternoon; same time window.
Offline
Like button can go here
#2153 2025-08-25 11:27:01
Re: Starship is Go...
More uncertainty on the viability of the Starship:
AUGUST 22, 2025
Can SpaceX Solve Its ‘Exploding Starships’ Problem?
After a string of fiery failures, SpaceX’s biggest rocket faces another test flight with sky-high stakes for U.S. space ambitions
BY ADAM ROGERS EDITED BY LEE BILLINGS
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … exploding/
SpaceX schedules 10th test flight for Starship, details recent setbacks
August 16, 2025 Will Robinson-Smith
https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/08/16/s … -setbacks/
Bob Clark
Old Space rule of acquisition (with a nod to Star Trek - the Next Generation):
“Anything worth doing is worth doing for a billion dollars.”
Offline
Like button can go here
#2154 2025-08-25 17:33:50
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 22,430
Re: Starship is Go...
At 19:30 New Hampshire time, the SpaceX live feed shows 28 minutes left in the countdown. They are playing video of previous successful flights for entertainment.
26:00 at post
Scrubbed again... this time for weather
***
Update: violation of "anvil" rule ... this dates back to Apollo 12 ... a cloud/storm that can produce lightning is the concern.
The rule (as reported by Google) is to keep 10 miles distance from a cloud or storm that might strike the rocket.
***
Per report by OldFart1939
Ground side liquid oxygen leak
What caused sunday starship 10 scrub
The scrub of the Starship Flight 10 test was caused by a ground side liquid oxygen leak that needed to be fixed. This leak involved liquid oxygen escaping from ground-side infrastructure, such as the propellant loading systems, pipes, and valves that help to supply LOX to the Starship vehicle during fueling. The leak was detected during the propellant loading for Starship and the Super Heavy booster. SpaceX's CEO, Elon Musk, confirmed the leak's significance and the need for its resolution to proceed with the launch.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
#2155 2025-08-26 17:58:35
- tahanson43206
- Moderator
- Registered: 2018-04-27
- Posts: 22,430
Re: Starship is Go...
Third time's the charm, apparently!
At 27 minutes into the flight, 8 Starlink satellites were deployed.
37 minutes from now will be the attempt for splash down.
At 55 minutes into the flight, the Indian Ocean is visible below ...
Altitude is 62 km and velocity is approaching 20000 km/h
At 58 minutes into the flight, the ship is standing almost vertically as it advances ...
There is some burn through on the fins at the base.
Test of flaps at 1 hour mark ...
G force is listed as 2.2
altitude is 37 km and velocity 4700 km/h at 1:01
G-force is down to 1.4
Heating is reduced ... the fins are no longer glowing
Attitude is inclining slighty top forward ...
1500 km/h and 25 km altutude at 1:03
Preparing for landing burn ...
Speed is subsonic and altitude under 15 im at 1:04
The fins have some ragged edges flapping in the breeze
The flip is predicted ... flip at .3 km
theee engines
fiew from buoyu at 1:06
Smooth landing - tip over and explosion ... cheers !!!
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
#2156 2025-08-26 23:40:54
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,037
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
I went to the SpaceX website and reviewed their recording of the live coverage. Overall, it looked pretty successful to me. They did all their objectives, right through to both splashdowns. Whatever was going wrong before, looks to be mostly fixed. I have to wonder whether the quieter tests I have heard have anything to do with that outcome. I don't get the 10 Hz house-shaking pressure oscillations any more. But, honestly, I do not know.
I saw tiles coming loose during the ascent before staging, in the camera view of the aft portside flap. They seemed to be coming from around the hinge line near the aft end of that flap. That and some other "bursts" of tiles or tile fragments in various views make me wonder if possibly these might be related to ice chunk impacts as it sheds the coating of ice that builds up before launch. I would have thought most of that should be shed before about max q. But maybe not all. Plus, I also think I saw some sheet metal damage to the aft end of one or more of the flaps. It was hard to tell which one was in each camera view. Ice impact might explain that, too. But I did not see any such ice impacts actually happen.
Update 8-28-2025: there is another possibility for both sheet-metal and tile-loss damage near the aft end of the aft flaps. There might be some sort of reflected engine-plume blast hitting them during hot staging, especially with some of the stage shield vent ports closed to enable the fast flip procedure for the booster.
The sudden damage to the engine bay skirt seemed to catch even SpaceX by surprise. I'm glad it did not seem to damage any engines. It certainly could have. Whether this had anything to do with any of the "missing tile" testing is unclear at best.
The vulnerability of the flap hinge lines to hot gases during reentry, particularly the aft flaps, seems similar to what we saw on the first 3 successful flights (4, 5, and 6?). They still have that issue to resolve, but that is tempered by the fact that in 4 successful reentries now, we have not seen the loss or incapacitation of any of the flaps (such loss would likely cause loss of the vehicle).
Update 8-28-2025: I went back and researched what flew and what happened on all 10 flights. Everything was lost on flights 1-3. The upper stage Starships for flights 4-6 all made splashdowns in the Indian Ocean. They were all Block 1. All the Starship upper stages on Flights 7-9 were lost, ostensibly for different reasons. They were all Block 2 design upgrades. Flight 10's Starship was the first Block 2 upgrade to survive all the way to splashdown. It suffered flap damages that included tile loss, sheet metal damage, and consequent entry heating damage, although not as much hinge line burn-through as the 3 Block 1's that survived showed.
I only saw one engine that shut down and failed to relight: one of the middle ring of 10 in the booster. Hopefully they have the data to figure out what went wrong with that one.
I'm wondering whether it's not time to start catching boosters again. They've now learned about how hard they can push that stage to higher-AOA, "draggier" entry, without actually crushing it by flying too broadside in the windstream pressures. If you actually have the post-flight hardware to look at, you can learn even more, a lot more, from the test. Losing it in the splashdowns does cost you that kind of data, but I understand that it's a tradeoff of what is more important to learn on any given flight.
It will be very interesting indeed if they can start recovering or catching or landing the upper stage Starships in some way, pretty soon. That will require going into full orbit. And they'll have to satisfy the FAA that they are ready to do that. Once they have post-flight hardware in hand for the upper stage Starship, fixing the damages and hot gas leaks in the flap hinge lines will proceed much faster.
Congrats to SpaceX indeed! Very successful test flight!
GW
Update Wed. 8-27-2025 -- this from the Wed 8-27 version of AIAA's "Daily Launch" email newsletter:
AEROSPACE AMERICA
Starship Flight 10 aces test objectives
A SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy rocket lifted off from South Texas at 6:30 p.m. Central on Tuesday, marking the design’s 10th integrated flight test. SpaceX has to review the flight data, but early indications point to the majority of the test objectives being accomplished, communications manager Dan Huot said at the conclusion of the livestream.
Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-08-28 13:24:51)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
#2157 2025-08-27 18:38:33
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 8,768
Re: Starship is Go...
I request tolerance that I can say a few things.
-I think that if Starship is going to shed materials, perhaps they should do the shedding in a suborbital mode and then go to orbit. Hopefully leaving the shed materials behind.
-I think it might be wise to try to land a Starship on the old peg legs. That way if they are successful, they might fully examine the ship. This then allows them to make improvements before they risk a tower catch mishap. It might be that if they can make a good enough landing pad on Mars some Cargo Ships could land on the peg legs, maybe improved peg legs.
At this stage in Starship development, they are probably making each Starship obsolete after one flight anyway.
And yes I would like to see them catch a newer Superheavy if it seems likely to be successful.
Ending Pending 
Last edited by Void (2025-08-27 18:43:39)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#2158 2025-08-30 08:57:08
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,037
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
Void:
What I was talking about is the ice that forms on any rocket using cryogenics, while it is sitting on the pad waiting to launch. The humidity in the air freezes to the very cold tank surface, and this can build up to an ice coating an inch or more thick. Most of this is shed in the seconds just after launch, due to the tank shell deflections under stress and the intense vibrations. However it is possible (however unlikely) that pieces here and there may get stuck on protuberances, and shed later in the ascent trajectory, presenting a very severe impact hazard. Ice like that should be long gone before ever reaching orbit, because of the vibrations and the acceleration forces.
After thinking about the ice impact scenario for flap damage, I realized that there is another scenario to worry about, due to the hot staging. Lighting the upper stage engines to blast away from the lower stage will always run the risk of engine plumes reflecting off the lower stage surfaces and striking the upper stage. There is likely some spreading angle off axial involved. This is the first rocket with aerosurfaces (the flaps) on the upper stage, to attempt such hot staging. I would think that both the aft flaps and the engine bay skirt wall itself might be at serious risk from this damage mechanism. (So would any engine bell not producing a thrust plume.)
What clued me in to this scenario was the evident sheet metal damage right at the trailing edges of the aft flaps near and adjacent to their hinge lines, and the persistence of heat shield tile shedding from those same locations. All the "birds" that showed aft flap damage, whether block 1 or block 2 versions, flew after the start of hot staging. The block 2's show less leakage of reentry plasma through the hinge lines, but they all showed some entry plasma leakage and they all showed tile losses during ascent, after staging from the aft hinge line regions. And the sheet metal damage seems to have finally showed up in the even-better camera coverage on Flight 10.
Just something else to worry about. Given the right beef-up and heat protection, any such reflected plume blast damage should be avoided. Or at least minimized.
It's hard to catch risks like this until you actually start recovering vehicles for detailed inspection of post flight damages. Quite understandable that it might get missed through multiple flights without vehicle recovery.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-08-30 09:05:02)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
#2159 2025-08-30 10:28:09
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 8,768
Re: Starship is Go...
I thought your post was a good one.
I am thinking of the idea that the "Horrible Grunt" to Sub-Orbital, might be followed by a diagnosis period in Sub-Orbital, where an engine running on Ullage gas would keep a low orbit until, the diagnosis indicates a healthy ship. So, if you have something like an engine skirt explosion, whatever that was, you do not produce long term space junk, in the orbits you want to use.
If you had a small engine, perhaps running on Ullage Gas, then you could proceed to orbit.
I consider it something to think about not a showstopper. We know that the enemies of SpaceX progress will eventually seize on this to try to get into the way, so I am suggesting getting in front of it ahead of time. Obviously over time the quality of the ships should increase, but the frequency of flights desired, may suggest that now and then there will be a clinker.
Ending Pending
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#2160 2025-08-30 14:36:04
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,037
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
Void:
If I understand you correctly, you are talking about a slightly suborbital transfer trajectory to final orbital altitude, followed by a circularization burn when you get there. That's pretty much how it works for just about any trip to LEO now.
The slightly-suborbital transfer trajectory is an ellipse with its apogee at LEO altitude, and its perigee at, below, or above the surface. You don't get onto this right at perigee, you fly a non-lifting but thrusted and dragged ballistic trajectory and get onto the transfer ellipse at about or just barely above the entry interface altitude. "Getting onto it" means you hit the right altitude at the right path angle above horizontal, and with just the right speed. You coast from there to apogee.
If you fail to make the circularization burn, you will re-enter when you come back down the transfer ellipse and hit the entry interface altitude. In point of fact, that is what all 7 Starship/Superheavy flights that made it into space at all have done, and it was intended for the other 3, they just didn't make it that far.
Typically, when I run a surface-grazing ellipse as representative of the transfer trajectory, with apogee at 300 km LEO, I get a circularization burn magnitude of just about 0.1 km/s, or 100 m/s. Almost any engine or thruster could be used for that, although you want that burn to last only for a minute or two at most, to avoid wasting energy in gravity losses. That's an easy thing to model with the spreadsheet I came up with and provided for the "orbits+" course and materials, posted on these forums for free use.
Ballistic missiles usually fly "suborbital trajectory" transfer ellipses with rather high apogee altitudes, and perigees well within the Earth. This has been standard practice since ICBM's and SLBM's first began appearing in the 1950's. The longer ranges are usually associated with higher apogees, but they do not have to be.
This sort of transfer trajectory does address inherently your space junk concern, for the entire coasting period between main engine cutoff getting onto it, and any circularization burn. That entire path is suborbital in the sense that it may apogee-put, but without a circularization burn, it will return back down the other side of the transfer ellipse. That applies to any junk lost, and the entire vehicle if it does not make the circularization burn.
The one SpaceX has been using apogees-out over the far South Atlantic or tip of Africa, and hits entry interface altitude way out across the Indian Ocean somewhere. It resembles a really long-range ICBM trajectory, except that the apogee altitude is lower. ICBM's use a bit lower dV, and need the higher apogee altitude to reach adequate range. Their exit and entry angles relative to local horizontal are generally steeper. Spacecraft generally come in much shallower (from lower altitudes) to decrease the gees and the peak heating.
GW
Update 9-1-2025: Here is a link to a image I created to help explain the "suborbital ascent trajectory".
http://40.75.112.55/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=6
Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-09-01 07:33:13)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
#2161 2025-08-30 17:58:24
- SpaceNut
- Administrator
- From: New Hampshire
- Registered: 2004-07-22
- Posts: 29,607
Re: Starship is Go...
From what I read it did do a single engine burn but not for long as it was testing reigniting the engine in a vaccumn before it did a deburn from orbit. From what is described the starship look fairly beat up as it neared the ocean showing lots of burning on its skin.
Offline
Like button can go here
#2162 2025-08-31 20:40:04
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,037
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
Void:
Here is a sketch I drew to illustrate what I was trying to explain in post 2160 above.
http://40.75.112.55/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=6
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-08-31 20:53:04)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
#2163 2025-08-31 20:52:43
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,037
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
Spacenut:
Looking at the video SpaceX has posted on the website, I would agree that the relight burn was short. They did say it raised the perigee of their orbit above the Earth's surface, though. I'm just guessing it was slightly below the surface and after about a 1 sec burn, it was slightly above the surface. Apogee was only about 200 km, though.
Their video did not show much regarding the Starship's condition as it hovered to touch down, but I've seen some other images from elsewhere that show it with considerable clarity. A great portion of the heat shield was some sort of orange color, and up near the stagnation point on the bottom of the nose, it was a weird white color. You could see the streaks indicating surface flow direction, especially in the white stuff. I have NO CLUE as to what either color represents.
There was some burn-through damage to the aft flaps. Not as much as was on that first one that came back. I saw sheet metal damage near the aft end of the flap right near the hinge line, plus lost tiles repeatedly coming from that same region, during the ascent after staging. Not sure what that really means, either, although I am beginning to wonder whether the Starship engine plumes bounced off the Superheavy and struck the rear of Starship. There was also some sort of sudden damage (resembling an explosion, actually) to the engine bay skirt, that happened as entry began. I have to wonder if that might not also have been caused by a bounced plume strike at staging.
But, I know nothing for certain.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
#2164 2025-09-01 14:35:29
- SpaceNut
- Administrator
- From: New Hampshire
- Registered: 2004-07-22
- Posts: 29,607
Re: Starship is Go...
AI Overview
SpaceX's Starship can carry a maximum of 100 metric tons of payload to the Moon, but this requires refueling the spacecraft in Earth's orbit. Without orbital refueling, Starship's cargo capacity for a lunar mission is significantly reduced.Orbital refueling for lunar missions
Because Starship is designed for full reusability, it expends most of its propellant getting into Earth orbit. To have enough fuel to travel to the Moon, land, and return, it must be refueled by multiple "tanker" Starships in low-Earth orbit (LEO).Mission architecture: This architecture involves launching a Starship lunar mission vehicle into LEO, followed by several tanker Starship launches to transfer propellant.
Payload capacity: With in-orbit refueling, the Starship Human Landing System (HLS) variant is designed to land up to 100 tons of payload on the lunar surface.
Number of refuels: The exact number of tanker flights required is still under development, with estimates ranging from 4 to over a dozen.
Payload for NASA's Artemis missions
For NASA's Artemis program, Starship will serve as the Human Landing System (HLS), which will ferry astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface. The HLS variant of Starship is specifically designed with modifications for lunar landing and operation.
Crew and cargo: The HLS includes features like an elevator to deploy crew and cargo to the lunar surface.Recent progress: As of late August 2025, a Starship test flight successfully deployed a test payload into Earth orbit, a crucial step towards demonstrating its payload capabilities. However, the much larger challenge of orbital refueling has yet to be demonstrated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
AI Overview
An on-orbit payload half-fueled for a lunar mission is a theoretical scenario that does not align with SpaceX's current plan for Starship. For crewed lunar missions, the Starship Human Landing System (HLS) variant is designed to be fully fueled in low Earth orbit (LEO) by multiple tanker flights before departing for the Moon.The main reason for this full refueling is the physics of orbital mechanics:
Massive fuel requirement: A Starship carrying a significant payload requires nearly its full fuel load to achieve a lunar trajectory and land on the surface. It must rendezvous with multiple tanker Starships in LEO to receive enough liquid oxygen and methane to top off its tanks.
Delta-V demand: The change in velocity (delta-V) required to leave LEO, travel to the Moon, and descend to the surface is very high. A fully fueled Starship with a payload is designed to use almost all of its propellant for this portion of the mission.
Lunar landing: Unlike returning to Earth where atmospheric drag can assist with deceleration, the Moon's lack of atmosphere means the Starship must perform a propulsive, or rocket-powered, landing. This requires a substantial amount of fuel.
The Artemis III mission profileAs an example, consider NASA's Artemis III mission, which will use a Starship HLS to land astronauts on the lunar surface. The planned mission profile highlights why a half-fueled payload is not feasible:
A Starship HLS launches with its payload into LEO.The HLS is met by 10 to 20 tanker Starships to transfer propellant.
Once fully fueled, the Starship HLS departs Earth orbit for the Moon.
After landing, the HLS uses its engines to lift off from the lunar surface and return to lunar orbit, where it is not required to return to Earth as part of the initial contract.While early estimates from SpaceX indicated that only half-refueling might be necessary for the lunar HLS mission due to lower gravity, the most recent information and assessments suggest a much higher number of refueling flights are needed to fill the tanks completely. This is also due to the possibility of "boil-off," the evaporation of cryogenic propellants in orbit, which reduces the amount of usable fue
AI Overview
While specific fuel amounts are subject to change during development, SpaceX's Starship Human Landing System (HLS) requires a full propellant load of roughly 1,200 tons to return from the lunar surface to lunar orbit. This is followed by a journey back to Earth and is made possible by extensive refueling in Earth orbit.The departure profile for an Artemis mission
The Starship HLS lunar departure is part of a larger, complex mission architecture designed in cooperation with NASA for the Artemis program.Astronaut transfer: After exploring the lunar surface, astronauts board the Starship HLS from the Moon's surface.
Lift-off from the Moon: Using its powerful Raptor engines, the Starship HLS launches vertically from the lunar surface. It will use a combination of vacuum-optimized Raptor engines for primary ascent and side-mounted cold-gas or RCS thrusters for final adjustments and to mitigate lunar dust kick-up near the surface.Rendezvous in lunar orbit: The Starship HLS will then rendezvous and dock with a waiting Orion spacecraft in a Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO).
Transfer and return: The crew will transfer from Starship back into the Orion capsule, which will then transport them back to Earth.Why Starship needs to refuel for the moon mission
Unlike the Apollo lunar module, which was much smaller and had a two-stage design with a disposable ascent stage, Starship is a fully reusable, single-stage-to-orbit-from-the-moon system. It requires a significant amount of fuel for every stage of its journey:
Leaving Earth orbit (Trans-Lunar Injection): The ship needs fuel to depart low Earth orbit (LEO) and head toward the Moon.Landing on the Moon: Maneuvering into lunar orbit and performing a soft landing requires a substantial amount of propellant.
Leaving the Moon: Taking off from the lunar surface to rendezvous with the Orion capsule in NRHO requires a very large amount of fuel.The role of orbital refueling
Due to Starship's mass and the fuel needed for the round trip, it is impossible for a single launch to carry all the necessary propellant.Tanker flights: Multiple Starship tanker vehicles will launch from Earth and refuel a Starship propellant depot in Earth orbit.
Depot rendezvous: The Starship HLS for the lunar mission will launch, dock with the depot, and take on its full load of fuel before departing for the Moon. SpaceX's orbital refueling system is currently still under developmen
Offline
Like button can go here
#2165 2025-09-01 14:58:08
- SpaceNut
- Administrator
- From: New Hampshire
- Registered: 2004-07-22
- Posts: 29,607
Re: Starship is Go...
Offline
Like button can go here
#2166 Yesterday 10:18:24
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,037
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
From AIAA’s “Daily Launch” email newsletter for Tuesday 3 September 2025, following a link to an Ars Tecnica article:
One of the more curious aspects of the 10th flight of SpaceX's Starship rocket on Tuesday was the striking orange discoloration of the second stage. This could be observed on video taken from a buoy near the landing site as the vehicle made a soft landing in the Indian Ocean.
This color—so different from the silvery skin and black tiles that cover Starship's upper stage—led to all sorts of speculation. Had heating damaged the stainless steel skin? Had the vehicle's tiles been shucked off, leaving behind some sort of orange adhesive material? Was this actually NASA's Space Launch System in disguise?
The answer to this question was rather important, as SpaceX founder Elon Musk had said before this flight that gathering data about the performance of this heat shield was the most important aspect of the mission.
We got some answers on Thursday. During the afternoon, the company posted some new high-resolution photos, taken by a drone in the vicinity of the landing location. They offered a clear view of the Starship vehicle with its heat shield intact, albeit with a rust-colored tint.
Musk provided some clarity on this discoloration on Thursday evening, writing on the social media site X, "Worth noting that the heat shield tiles almost entirely stayed attached, so the latest upgrades are looking good! The red color is from some metallic test tiles that oxidized and the white is from insulation of areas where we deliberately removed tiles."
The new images and information from Musk suggest that SpaceX is making progress on developing a heat shield for Starship. This really is the key technology to make an upper stage rapidly reusable—NASA's space shuttle orbiters were reusable but required a standing army to refurbish the vehicle between flights. To unlock Starship's potential, SpaceX wants to be able to refly Starships within 24 hours.
So what comes next?
Tuesday's test was largely successful. There appeared to be an issue with one of the Raptor engines in the upper stage later in the flight, which has not yet been detailed by the company. Damage to the engine bay and one of the vehicle's flaps can be seen clearly in the new photographs. This did not appear to impact what was a soft and precise landing in the Indian Ocean, but obviously it was not nominal.
So, with this new information, what does it mean for SpaceX's plans to test future Starship vehicles? What follows is a mixture of informed guesswork and reporting. It is also very notional because SpaceX is known to change its plans rapidly in response to new data. So take this information with a pinch of salt.
Flight Test 11: SpaceX has not revealed a profile for this flight test. It will almost certainly be the last Starship based on the version 2 design, which has been an interim step before the company moves to the larger V3 vehicle, with newer Raptor engines and design improvements. For this reason, it is likely that the 11th test remains suborbital, with the goal of demonstrating Raptor performance in space and testing additional changes to the heat shield. It may also fly a different or steeper reentry angle to further stress the heat shield. This test could occur in the October time frame.
Flight Test 12: This likely will be the first flight of the V3 Starship. Because of this, it will probably follow a suborbital trajectory. Why is SpaceX flying all of these suborbital missions? When Starship flies into orbit, the company wants to be sure it can control where and when it comes back to Earth. Starship is the largest human vehicle to ever return from space, and large chunks would survive an uncontrolled reentry. So SpaceX wants to be confident in its operation of Starship before orbiting the vehicle. Consequently, the first flight of V3 will probably be a standard suborbital test of the ship, booster, and heat shield. Expect this flight in early 2026.
Flight Test 13 and 14: These missions will likely continue to test Starship V3. Assuming flight test 12 goes well, we could probably see a booster catch attempt on flight 13 and probably the first orbital flight, complete with operational deployment of Starlink satellites in this range. This is clearly the most important interim goal the company is working toward, as these larger Starlinks should improve network speeds and performance and increase direct-to-device capabilities.
Flights 15 to 20: At some point, we'll stop calling them test flights. During this range of missions, we can expect to see SpaceX make its first attempt to catch a Starship upper stage (Musk said recently this could occur on flight 13 to 15, depending on how V3 flights go). Somewhere in here, SpaceX is also likely to launch two Starships to conduct an in-orbit refueling test, demonstrating the ability of two Starships to transfer propellant. This is a key step toward allowing Starships to go to the Moon (for NASA's Artemis Program) and Mars. At this point, I think it is safe to predict this test will occur no earlier than the second half of 2026.
ERIC BERGER SENIOR SPACE EDITOR
Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.
-----
My take on it:
According to Musk, their heat shield tiles are now in some way “metallic”. He says the orange color is rust from the hot tiles, so at least some of that “metal” is iron. There’s some sort of thermal insulation blanket and adhesive beneath them. Musk says the white deposits come from that.
Where the individual tiles were missing, there’s white streaks among the orange. But on the bottom of the nose, right where the stagnation zone is, is a huge area of whitish discoloration. That underlayer has to be volatilizing and coming out from in-between the tiles.
That big white area is the zone of highest heating, with the highest equilibrium surface temperatures. The tiles cannot have all come loose there, because the vehicle would have broken up during entry.
link to that photo follows.
http://40.75.112.55/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=10
Last edited by GW Johnson (Yesterday 10:20:40)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
#2167 Yesterday 15:32:55
- SpaceNut
- Administrator
- From: New Hampshire
- Registered: 2004-07-22
- Posts: 29,607
Re: Starship is Go...
Sure would be nice to see the other side as its hard to tell what side is being shown.
Sure has burn holes in multiple locations
Offline
Like button can go here
#2168 Today 05:23:33
- Calliban
- Member
- From: Northern England, UK
- Registered: 2019-08-18
- Posts: 4,167
Re: Starship is Go...
Tiles would appear to fail the design intent of a reusable heat shield. They are brittle, prone to cracking and suffer substantial abrasion every time they are used. Extensive refurbishment between flights would appear to be inevitable for any radiative or ablative heat shield. If Starship goes down the route of a tile based heat shield, it will be repeating one of the major design problems that ruined the economics of the shuttle.
Metal heat shields with transpirational cooling would appear to be the only option for meeting the design intent of a rapidly reusable craft. This will be very difficult to do, as each of the pores in the heat shield must eject coolant at the correct rate to cool the metal in its vicinity. Unexpected changes in atmospheric density could undermine it. The plumbing within such a shield is going to be complex and heavy. But if transpirational cooling isn't possible / practical, then a reusable Starship isn't practical. There isn't any other technology capable of meeting the design intent.
Producing a reusable heat shield, that can stand up to pressures of several bar, whilst exposed to plasma with temperature up to 10,000K, and do it repeatedly without heavy refurbishment, has got to be one of the most difficult problems in modern engineering.
Last edited by Calliban (Today 05:32:49)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here
#2169 Today 08:49:15
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 8,768
Re: Starship is Go...
The title on this is bogus, I feel, but it has interesting information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In2iNBa … =ALPHATECH Quote:
Elon Musk officially declared Starship Metal Heat Shield ''USELESS" after Flight 10 Reentry...
ALPHA TECH
I think that they are doing pretty good. But I do not expect a very rapid reuse any time soon.
Even if it takes a month, to redo a heat shield, the use of Robotics and perhaps other tricks, may make it worthwhile. After all, all it has to do is compete with other launch vendors.
For the Moon, I guess if you had a fleet of 10 of them, then you might send a launch to the Moon every month, if it took a month. Probably very expensive, but possible, I think. With Stainless Steel, underlayment, reasonable repairs should be more possible with greater certainty of function.
Ending Pending
A heat shield malfunction leading to a loss of a ship, would not likely kill astronauts, under the present Lunar concepts.
The refilling ships will not normally carry humans, nor would the Lunar Starship, bring people up or down though the atmosphere of Earth.
Ending Pending
I think the spec of 15 metric tons of water needed for an active cooling is rather favorable. If your cargo capacity is 100 tons to 150 tons, then that gives you 85-135 metric tons of cargo up and down. I am thinking of space manufacturing. It might pay.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Today 09:04:04)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#2170 Today 13:01:45
- Calliban
- Member
- From: Northern England, UK
- Registered: 2019-08-18
- Posts: 4,167
Re: Starship is Go...
The title is bogus, as it doesn't really reflect the content. It isn't clear how much mass loss the metallic tile suffered. The orange oxidation was highly visible, but could be a micron thick. Part of the problem likely stems from the use of water as the coolant. This would dissociate into H3O, OH and O when exposed to reentry plasma at temperatures exceeding 3000K. The oxygenated species will then attack the steel. Ammonia may be a better option for coolant. It has a greater heat of evaporation and will dissociate into N2, H2 and H. The free hydrogen will tend to mop up oxygen radicals and ions that would otherwise attack the heat shield. Methane may work even better and there is a ready supply of it in the propellant tanks.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here
#2171 Today 13:48:01
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 8,768
Re: Starship is Go...
Ammonia. That seems like a good idea! Methane has also been considered.
I have to wonder if tile with a metal base and Ceramic Surface may be good. The coolant then would be emitted from the bottom of the metal tile. The Metal would hook more securely to the ship than pure ceramics. If the ceramics chipped off, still the metal may offer enough protection as to not lose the ship.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Today 13:50:09)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#2172 Today 16:16:58
- SpaceNut
- Administrator
- From: New Hampshire
- Registered: 2004-07-22
- Posts: 29,607
Re: Starship is Go...
found the image comparison that I had wished to see.
Offline
Like button can go here