SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship updates

[DocM]

FAA backup dates and times

https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_spt.jsp

SPACE-X STARSHIP OFT-3, BOCA CHICA, TX PRIMARY:

03/14/24 1200Z-1431Z 

BACKUP:

03/15/24 1200Z-1431Z 

03/16-17 1200Z-1301Z 

03/18/24 1200Z-1431Z

 

 

[DocM]

Testing ship 29 today for Flight 4. Already loading propellant for a spin prime.

 

[DocM]

Ship 29 spin prime complete. Looks good.

[DocM]

Starship Flight 3: end of week, weather permitting

 

[DocM]

Game On

FTS is ready, and BocaChicaGal (NSF photographer) got her evacuation notice.

Winds may be a problem, time will tell.

Local sunrise is 38 minutes after the window opening, so it may be Starship's first night launch.

[+Warwagon MVC]

On 13/03/2024 at 13:29, DocM said:

Game On

FTS is ready, and BocaChicaGal (NSF photographer) got her evacuation notice.

Winds may be a problem, time will tell.

Local sunrise is 38 minutes after the window opening, so it may be Starship's first night launch.

evacuation notice for when?

[Astra.Xtreme]

On 13/03/2024 at 13:46, Warwagon said:

evacuation notice for when?

It appears to be for tomorrow (Thursday) morning.  The FAA just released their impact assessment for the landing zone in the Indian Ocean, so the official launch license should be approved any time now.
I'm a little surprised that they'd go from license approval to full-send within less than a day, but I guess the rocket is on the pad and ready to launch as we speak.  Let's light this candle!

[Xenon]

license approved. launch is go. 

[DocM]

Starship Flight 3 stream

Launch window opens at 0800 Eastern, webcast starts at 0730. 

Got this in my email

[DocM]

The main constraint is now weather.

FAA Statement on SpaceX Starship OFT-3 License Modification Approval (March 13, 2024)

The FAA is authorizing the Space Starship Super Heavy Orbital Flight Test 3 (OFT-3) launch. The FAA determined SpaceX met all safety, environmental, policy and financial responsibility requirements.

As part of the license modification evaluation, the FAA prepared a Tiered Environmental Assessment for SpaceX Starship Indian Ocean Landings and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision.

The license applies to all phases of the proposed OFT-3 operation. This includes preflight preparations and liftoff from Texas, the water landing of the Super Heavy booster in the Gulf of Mexico, and the water landing of the Starship vehicle in the Indian Ocean.
 

 

[DocM]

New T-0

0902 Eastern

The concern is upper level winds

[Steven P. Administrators]

On 14/03/2024 at 12:54, DocM said:

New T-0

0902 Eastern

The concern is upper level winds

Squeaky bum time (10 mins left of launch window and still 70% go for weather).

[Xenon]

Not a bad flight. Seeing the plasma on the beginning of reentry was very cool. It did a lot more than I thought it would. 

 

[Xenon]

If anyone heard a giant kaplunk it was the booster hitting the gulf. It looks like it hit the water at around 1111 km/h, or about 690 mph. 

[Steven P. Administrators]

On 14/03/2024 at 15:45, Xenon said:

If anyone heard a giant kaplunk it was the booster hitting the gulf. It looks like it hit the water at around 1111 km/h, or about 690 mph. 

That's 0.899 the speed of sound or just under Mach 1 (1234,8 km/h)

[TrevorLahey]

From my extremely amateur space flight eyes, it seems like Starship was a little out of control on it's way down.  Maybe the same thing with the booster?

I'm also curious why they didn't attempt a relight in space and if the fuel on both is supposed to be so empty? (I'm assuming it just looks a lot emptier than it actually is in their video.  Very possible it had plenty to land).  Did the camera also show some debris in one of Starships tanks?

 

On 14/03/2024 at 10:45, Xenon said:

If anyone heard a giant kaplunk it was the booster hitting the gulf. It looks like it hit the water at around 1111 km/h, or about 690 mph. 

Where did you see that?

[DocM]

On 14/03/2024 at 10:50, bguy_1986 said:

From my extremely amateur space flight eyes, it seems like Starship was a little out of control on it's way down.  Maybe the same thing with the booster?

 

During entry ship uses the  fins to do rolls, so seeing it go side to side is expected. By varying all four fins in different directions it can do roll, pitch, and yaw with just four non-wing surfaces.

 

On 14/03/2024 at 10:50, bguy_1986 said:

I'm also curious why they didn't attempt a relight in space and if the fuel on both is supposed to be so empty? (I'm assuming it just looks a lot emptier than it actually is in their video.  Very possible it had plenty to land).  Did the camera also show some debris in one of Starships tanks?

 

Starting up the Raptor would have added velocity, and they were running out of Landing zone. They didn't want it to land or debris to fall outside of that zone. During the webcast they said this was pre-programmed.

 

On 14/03/2024 at 10:50, bguy_1986 said:

Where did you see that?

 

When booster tried to do the landing burn it looked like there were some very severe grid fin rotations, indicating they didn't have enough control authority. They can fix that. File under "why we test"

The resultant dreideling probably sloshed propellants away from the intakes, which could be the cause of some engines not starting.

On the other hand

The pez dispenser door opened and closed

Propellant transfer was initiated, and at some point the computer signaled a completion of the test. Data will tell if the propellant volume transferred was sufficient.

All in all, a pretty successful test flight.

As mentioned earlier, the Flight 4 booster and vehicle are already built and in testing flow. 

SpaceX and FAA are talking as many as 10 total flights this year, depending on how they go. Five with belly flop, 5 would try to do soft landings on the water.

 

Edited March 14, 2024 by DocM

[DocM]

NASA administrator Bill Nelson

And SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell

 

Edited March 14, 2024 by DocM

[DocM]

Director of the European Space Agency weighs in

 

[DocM]

Pad after the launch

 

[TrevorLahey]

On 14/03/2024 at 11:07, DocM said:

 

When booster tried to do the landing burn it looked like there were some very severe grid fin rotations, indicating they didn't have enough control authority. They can fix that. File under "why we test"

 

I have a hard time reading sometimes.  I thought @Xenon was talking about Starship yet. 

FTS wouldn't have blown the ship up after engines didn't relight?  (I have no idea how close it is to earth when it needs to relight).

[DocM]

On 14/03/2024 at 14:11, bguy_1986 said:

I have a hard time reading sometimes.  I thought @Xenon FTS wouldn't have blown the ship up after engines didn't relight?  (I have no idea how close it is to earth when it needs to relight).

They usually safe the FTS during landings. Don't want to blow up the landing structures more than just a fuel  conflagration. Both ship and booster have two quite large charges.

I think the loss of control authority by the grid fins is why the booster looked like it was driedeling down to the Landing zone. That kind of eccentric roll usually takes propellant away from the engine intake manifold.

Edited March 14, 2024 by DocM

[IsItPluggedIn]

The ship looked to be tumbling the whole time after it left the booster. Even coming through the atmosphere it looked to roll onto the not shielded side. Im guessing some work on the ship control will result it a much better return to earth.

[DocM]

On 14/03/2024 at 21:53, IsItPluggedIn said:

The ship looked to be tumbling the whole time after it left the booster. Even coming through the atmosphere it looked to roll onto the not shielded side. Im guessing some work on the ship control will result it a much better return to earth.

They've been experimenting with using ullage gas, evaporated propellant used to pressurize the tanks, expelled through nozzles for a reaction control system. It would save a ton of weight, but they may have to go back to either high pressure cold gas (used on Falcon 9) or hot pressure fed thrusters.

They have them in the inventory, and most of their thrusters are 3D printed.

[DocM]

Starship v3 will be a #&\>#]# beast

 

Let's just think about this for a minute,

Max payload of Starship V1 in expendable mode (like the other rockets) is ~200 tons.
|
V3 is expected to be ~200 tons with full reusability and ~400 tons expendable. Length will grow by 20 to 30 meters and thrust to ~10k tons.

v2 should be in production this year, v3 a bit later.

v1 Starship was said to be able to carry cargo 10,000 km without using a booster. Clearly, v3 will exceed this by having nine engines instead of six and more propellant.

Starship is one of the vehicles being looked at by Space Force for their point-to-point delivery program (P2PD); military supplies when needed fast, or  emergency supplies in disaster zones. 

Also of interest, Sierra Space (Dream Chaser spaceplane) has announced Ghost, a small cargo delivery vehicle which could be dropped from orbit and land with precision. 

A dropship.

Load a mess of Ghosts into a Starship and spit them out over the zone where they are needed.

Robert A. Heinlein would love this.