You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2301 2026-05-23 21:49:22
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,571
Re: Starship is Go...
And yet SpaceX makes money on Falcon 9 and Superheavy. Is it possible they do actually do int the right way in the long run?
I am going to accept (For now), that the majority of the problem was that the hot firing caused the booster to have a centrifugal force that fed gas bubbles into the raptors of the Superheavy. NASA will have to do what they do. Actually, at this point it might be good if they tilt to Blue Origin.
The big win on Starship is when it can deliver satellites to orbit. I do hope that they will do a Moonship, but punishing the children that build the dreams is not acceptable to me. It is about continuing even if you do fall off your bike and skin your knees.
The best part is no part, but if it doesn't work maybe, you put something back. Maybe they will. Or maybe they will get the hot staging better figured out and also clean up the Raptor 3.0's a bit.
I am pleased that the dreamers are dreaming and riding their bikes.
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
#2302 2026-05-24 09:42:11
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,571
Re: Starship is Go...
I hope I did not come off as too arrogant in my last post.
I am concerned, but knowing how SpaceX does things, I am hopeful. Remember how bad the first Starship launch was? It appears that this new launch pad did pretty well, so that is a win. Also, the heat shield of Starship seems to have done pretty well this time.
I do like that NASA is involved in the encouragement of things like orbital refilling, but of the important things, the PEZ dispenser of Satellites seems to me to be of most importance. Particularly if it can also do Data Center Satellites.
We need to avoid being hysterical like as happened after Sputnik.
There is a lot of hope, but yes, the raptors seem to have issues.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-05-24 09:44:04)
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
#2303 2026-05-24 10:43:33
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,571
Re: Starship is Go...
I am very encouraged about the RVac problem on Starship itself: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VAMGZC Quote:
Starship Flight 12 RVac Problem during Burning to Space revealed! Final Lading totally Mind-Blowing
YouTube
GREAT SPACEX
24.9K views
The video content indicates that the Hot Firing may have damaged on RVac engine and the skirt of the ship.
An encouraging way to make the RVac more robust without adding a lot of weight back in the form of shielding, is said to be to put a coating on the delectate upper portions of the engine. I presume this would be a sort of ablative coating which may dissipate some of the damaging heat from a Hot Fire gone wrong.
I do not believe that the video addresses the Booster problems though.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-05-24 10:47:26)
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
#2304 2026-05-25 08:12:33
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,235
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
I do not know, but I suspect there was some sort of hot staging problem that induced the skirt damage and the failure of 1 Raptor aboard the Starship second stage. I do not know, but I suspect that the hot staging problem ultimately induced the engine failures seen just after hot staging in the Superheavy booster. Those engine failures occurred somewhere just after it started the flip-around on some engines that were burning for the flip. The second stage rocket blast assists that thrust-vectoring flip-around.
One possibility is that propellants did not stay settled enough during the flip to feed only liquids to the engines. That staging looked "abnormal" to me in the sense that its flip plane was "horizontal" instead of the more "vertical" orientations seen before, measuring "vertical" by where the grid fin was missing.
I do know that they saw grid fin damage due to stage 2 Starship rocket blast in the version 2 hot-staging flights, and I would suppose that the stage 2 rocket blast was supposed to impact the new version 3 Superheavy along where the grid fin was deleted, and not along the "lateral" side where a grid fin actually was located.
The "smoke" around the inoperative vacuum Raptor, and the reddish glows on its bell edge and on the engine bay skirt, of stage 2 Starship, are strongly suggestive of ongoing quite-significant propellant leaks and a near-vacuum-pressure fire of some kind, in that bay. Oxygen might be reactive enough to support a fire like that, despite the near-vacuum conditions.
That last is just speculation on my part about ongoing leaks, but it is supported by their deletion of the restart-in-space experiment. They may not have had enough propellant left after reaching the trajectory, to support both the restart and the landing. It did take a longer burn to reach trajectory on 5 engines. And if my suspicion is correct about a significant ongoing leak, it was dumping propellants overboard all during that longer interval.
I'm unsure about the interaction between hot staging not going quite right, and whatever damage caused what looks like a propellant leak on the inoperative vacuum Raptor. But the transient mechanical shocks and heating may be a little too much. And I know they use a lot of 3-D-printed parts in that engine. That 3-D printed metals technology obviously gets the strength of forged parts, but as best I understand (which may not be up-to-date), still not quite the elongation-to-failure of forged parts. In other words, such 3-D printed parts are more brittle and thus more susceptible to mechanical shocks, than forged parts.
One thing that I am reasonably sure of, is that they need a a way to fully cut off propellant to an inoperative engine, one that failed because of leaking cracks in the feed lines upstream of the pumps. It does not look like Starship can yet do that.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2026-05-25 08:30:40)
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
#2305 2026-05-25 08:54:04
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,571
Re: Starship is Go...
I understand that I am your inferior in these matters, but I am thinking that if it as your post speculates then the key is to improve the Hot Staging.
If instead as the Pannikins try to say, one of 33 engines exploded and in cascade fashion, took out other engines, then they could put shielding back onto just the engines that are to be restarted in flight.
I think that might be 11 out of 33???
In that case they only add back 1/3 of the mass they removed by removing the shielding for the engines.
As I understand it, for Starlink, Starship only has to be cheaper than Falcon 9 or better than Blue Origin or others. Starship can host bigger Starlinks, I think I understand.
For Data Centers, I understand that a price less than or equal to $200.00 per kg is needed. So, adding back some of the dry mass of some of the engine shielding may not be a showstopper.
As for utility to the Moon, if refilling is not going to work then they might consider building a Mini-Starship and perhaps it would only need one or two refills. That might give them reach to the Moon.
But I think you would say that it is still early days and we cannot know the final results at this time.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-05-25 08:58:43)
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
#2306 2026-05-25 18:38:41
Re: Starship is Go...
Looking at the stage separation of flight 12 there was something definitely out of the ordinary. The booster appears to have been blasted on its side by the Starship engines near where the grid fin is. I don’t remember seeing that on the videos of the other stage separations. Usually the ship exhaust only impacts the top of the booster where, presumably, it is reinforced.
See it here in this Scott Manley video at about the 11:30 point in the video comparing flight 11 and flight 12:
I wonder if this could have caused a tank over pressure that could have damaged the booster engines.
Another possibility occurs to me. The view angle blocks the view of the booster around the time when the flame appears on the side of the booster near the grid fin, so you can’t quite tell where the flame originates from. But it actually looks like the flame may emanate from the booster. Slow the video down to see it more clearly. This would mean there is a methane leak from the booster tank. This would be a pretty serious failure if it is the case. But it would explain the flames seen dancing down along the sides of the booster.
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
#2307 2026-05-25 18:47:08
Re: Starship is Go...
Looking at the stage separation of flight 12 there was something definitely out of the ordinary. The booster appears to have been blasted on its side by the Starship engines near where the grid fin is. I don’t remember seeing that on the videos of the other stage separations. Usually the ship exhaust only impacts the top of the booster where, presumably, it is reinforced.
See it here in this Scott Manley video at about the 11:30 point in the video comparing flight 11 and flight 12:
https://youtu.be/2kxanBYTAaY?t=691&si=yynBCm5U-383E3B9
I wonder if this could have caused a tank over pressure that could have damaged the booster engines.
Another possibility occurs to me. The view angle blocks the view of the booster around the time when the flame appears on the side of the booster near the grid fin, so you can’t quite tell where the flame originates from. But it actually looks like the flame may emanate from the booster. Slow the video down to see it more clearly. This would mean there is a methane leak from the booster tank. This would be a pretty serious failure if it is the case. But it would explain the flames seen dancing down along the sides of the booster.
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
#2308 2026-05-26 06:37:25
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,571
Re: Starship is Go...
I looked more at what you described. It looked to me like the Starship was torching the booster from the grid fin all the way up to the engines. Perhaps that did generate a lot of gas bubbles, and they migrated to the engines. The booster in flight 10 has no flames impinging on it.
I wonder why the engines would fire at all when centrifugal forces and gravity would not force bubbles away from the engines.
In my mind it is possible that the Vacuum Raptor was the origin of the misplaced booster departure. But it did not look exploded, and at first the indicators said it was running.
I am sure they have all the data to identify the chicken and egg question. So they should be able to improve the process, I am only a spectator/speculator though.
I think it pays to remember how many flights they did before they could even make a Starship last long enough to re-enter the atmosphere.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (2026-05-26 06:39:57)
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
#2309 2026-05-27 13:31:52
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,235
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
I put my observations and speculations about Flight 12 into an article posted on "exrocketman", including a couple of illustrations that make what I am trying to say a lot clearer and easier to understand. The site is http://exrocketman.blogspot.com, and the title is "Kudos to SpaceX for Flight 12", dated today at 5-27-2026. It's top of the page right now, but later you can use search code 27052026, the archive tool with date and title, or the search keywords launch or space program.
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
#2310 2026-05-27 15:03:44
- SpaceNut
- Administrator
- From: New Hampshire
- Registered: 2004-07-22
- Posts: 30,780
Re: Starship is Go...
FAA grounds SpaceX's Starship V3 megarocket after Flight 12 'mishap'
This is expected to understand what is happening.
Not just change something and hope its fixed...
Offline
Like button can go here
#2311 2026-05-27 18:06:19
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,235
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
FAA grounds Starship/Superheavy V.3.
As well they should! This must be understood and dealt with. Notwithstanding Musk's impatience.
As close as they came on Flight 12, understanding and actually fixing what went wrong, will only make Flight 13 even better.
And most of SpaceX knows that, even if Musk does not.
Go Shotwell! Get it done!
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
#2312 2026-05-28 14:46:13
- Oldfart1939
- Member
- Registered: 2016-11-26
- Posts: 2,505
Re: Starship is Go...
Here's a link to a great video from Joe Tegtmeyer with a side by side comparison of Flight 12 to the earlier Flight 11 with performance data through the flights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syIC1NMGtfw
I think that GW will find this information very useful in his analysis of the V3 system.
Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2026-06-06 16:11:23)
Offline
Like button can go here
#2313 2026-05-28 15:22:50
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,235
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
Well, I got the grid fin missing alignment wrong in my "exrocketman" posting. I had the missing fin lined up with the belly mid-line. It was really lined up with the dorsal midline. I'll have to go fix that sketch. But Scott Manley and I agree that the booster flip was 90 degrees away from where it should have been.
My suspicion is that whatever caused that may be related to, or even caused, the engine failures. And THAT is what they are going to have to find out for the FAA.
Anyhow, the video Oldfart found does a really nice job explaining why you want liftoff T/W 1.5 or higher. And where the gravity loss comes from. Once you have the right flip-over gravity turn, higher liftoff T/W is your main influence on reducing gravity loss. There are limits: as you burn off propellant at the same thrust, acceleration rises, perhaps too high for what you are trying to accomplish, in terms of structural design and/or what your payload can endure.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2026-05-28 15:28:31)
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
#2314 2026-06-06 16:09:51
- Oldfart1939
- Member
- Registered: 2016-11-26
- Posts: 2,505
Re: Starship is Go...
Here's another take on things that seems to be well thought out:
Offline
Like button can go here
#2315 2026-06-06 16:28:47
- SpaceNut
- Administrator
- From: New Hampshire
- Registered: 2004-07-22
- Posts: 30,780
Re: Starship is Go...
The BFR is forced into a tumble that does not allow for fuel to get to the engines which means its not able to control the righting of the booster. No amount of fins will correct for the forced tumble by the hot staging of the starships firing. Adding tail fins similar to the starship's may be the answer.
Offline
Like button can go here
#2316 2026-06-08 09:14:05
Re: Starship is Go...
Angry Astronaut reviews Starship Flight 12 here:
NASA dumps New Glenn! PLUS SpaceX Starship Flight 12 went worse than we thought!
https://youtu.be/sZzzyxUPLpM
He refers to a Spacedaily.com article that regards an engine still exploding in flight particularly the Raptor 3 that was supposed to solve the reliability issues as a setback:
The Raptor 3 was supposed to be the engine that finally ended Starship's reliability problem — instead, on its first flight, several of them quit less than 20 seconds into the boostback burn, dropping the booster into the Gulf and grounding the whole program for a federal mishap review.
SpaceX's Raptor 3 engine — the powerplant the company has spent the better part of two years marketing as a simpler, more reliable replacement for the troubled Raptor 2 — failed multiple times in its maiden flight during exactly the kind of high-stress maneuver it was designed to handle.
By Space Daily Editorial Team · Editorial process
Published June 3, 2026
https://spacedaily.com/sd-the-raptor-3- … stback-bu/
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
#2317 2026-06-09 14:13:26
- GW Johnson
- Member
- From: McGregor, Texas USA
- Registered: 2011-12-04
- Posts: 6,235
- Website
Re: Starship is Go...
You have to remember that both Starship/Superheavy and New Glenn are still early in flight test. Which is where bad things inevitably happen. That has been true since well before WW1. Blue Glenn was 2 for 3 before this 4th attempt failed. Starship/Superheavy is essentially a new design, effectively about 0.5 for 1 so far.
The Raptor-3's on the booster (and 5 of the 6 on Starship afterward) worked well up to the hot-staging point. This is just an educated guess on my part, but something looked “wrong” about that hot-staging event. The plane of the booster flip was just about 90 degrees away from where I expected to see it. And the flip “looked too fast”.
I thought the hot stage grid fin damage they had seen previously, was to be avoided by going to 3 grid fins and letting the rocket blast on the booster take a path where the 4th fin was intentionally missing. That didn't happen!
And the flip looked too fast to my eyes. If it really was too fast, then centrifugal forces would unsettle the propellants in the forward tank, despite the booster being under thrust during the flip, and the booster engines then suck vapor instead of liquid. Turbopumps sucking vapor instead of liquid, come apart very rapidly, or even explode violently. Which causes destruction, even explosion, of the engine. Any engine whatsoever! All that has been well known since just after Goddard’s time.
So there was very likely something wrong with that hot-staging flip, and whatever it was, that led to the destruction of most of the booster engines, and possibly damaged one engine on the upper stage.
This flight had a new hot-stage shield built into the booster. I may be wrong, but it looks to me like that item and the interstage openings might not have done their jobs right! And if what I suspect is true, then that failure trickled-down to cause all the other catastrophic events.
If I worked for SpaceX, that is where I would start looking first. Which does not detract from them still needing to fix propellant leaks.
If I worked for Blue Origin, I'd be looking for propellant leaks and sources of ignition, initially with air, knowing that oxygen hitting an ongoing fuel fire leads almost instantaneously to violent explosion.
As for NASA, they had no business betting their schedule on vehicles still early in experimental flight test. In my own day, nobody would have been that stupid at any company. Although NASA did get away with that bet with the Grumman-built Apollo LM back in the late 1960's. That orbital checkout on Apollo-9 was its first flight test. Apollo-10 was its second flight test. And Apollo-11 its third. Etc. Turned out Grumman did a good job.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2026-06-09 14:22:55)
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
#2318 2026-06-11 11:09:27
- Oldfart1939
- Member
- Registered: 2016-11-26
- Posts: 2,505
Re: Starship is Go...
The story that's been "said out loud,'" about Blue Moon Mark One requiring a launcher is the basis of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odDa2BmfskA
It's really where NASA can cut through several big egos. Jared Isaacman seems to have figured things out--in addition to several online websites and commentators.
Offline
Like button can go here
#2319 Today 02:52:09
- Calliban
- Member
- From: Northern England, UK
- Registered: 2019-08-18
- Posts: 4,326
Re: Starship is Go...
SpaceX valuation hits $3 trillion!
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/space … market-cap
I have put this in the Starship thread, because Starship is likely to be the main beneficiary. SpaceX appear to be having a lot of trouble building a durable and rapidly reusable heat shield. Hopefully, with this kind of cash injection, the problem can be solved. If indeed it is technically solvable. Developing Starship into a rapidly reusable launch vehicle really is key to every other space ambition that Elon Musk has. Progress has been surprisingly slow.
Last edited by Calliban (Today 02:56:59)
"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
#2320 Today 08:36:06
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,571
Re: Starship is Go...
It appeared to me that on the last flight the Heat Shield did rather well.
Unlike the Space Shuttle, in the future I expect that it may be possible to patch a heat shield in LEO if necessary. I am developing revised opinions about these things. If Starship is to support Starlink, Skyfall, and orbital Data Centers, the atmospheric transit version of it will be so valuable that it will usually be undesirable to use it for anything else. Achieving success with full orbital though will be a bit hotter than from Sub-Orbital I believe. I hope that they can make that work.
As far as transits to the Moon though, I am not sure that Lunar Starship makes sense in the long run. It is very good for SpaceX to do it, to explore how a Mars Starship might be made, and NASA wants it, but I think that a more sensible path is to support the Blue Origin Lander, and to also make One-Time Starships that land on the Moon with large cargo and stay there. The biggest value of a Moon base now, in my opinion is the medical science of humans staying on the Moon. And then Science and Competition with China/Russia/Etc.
If it is true that water can be obtained from the Moon, then a well-protected propellant depot of H2 and LOX could be maintained to refill the Blue Origin Lander. Having Starships land on the surface of the Moon and stay there, will solve the problem of obtaining massive amounts of Methane fuel on the Moon.
Capsules seem like the best option to return small crews from the Moon.
The other machine that I currently dream of would be a Mini-Starship made of Falcon 9 2nd Stage Structure, using Merlin Engines and RP-1/LOX, and having a heat shield that can allow it to air brake to LEO or an eccentric orbit a bit above and at LEO. Such a machine may have perhaps one or two Merlins, and if they could be set up for easy change out, the coking problem could be lived with. You also could attach other Falcon 9 2nd Stage propellant tank assemblies to it, perhaps to increase propellant supply. This might be good for frequent trips from LEO (More or Less), to higher orbits and back again. Water and RP-1 seem to me to be suitable for long term storage with little boil off.
Water, could be split to produce LOX and to use H2 as a method of positioning a depot to a desired location.
Eventually if it was desired, Merlins might be made to be more efficient.
With the occasional use of a Lunar Starship, however, a Mars Starship might be over time developed.
That is how I see it just now, in time with new discovery, and inventions, perhaps other options would be chosen.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Today 08:53:01)
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