SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship updates

[snowy owl]

On 22/01/2025 at 10:38, bguy_1986 said:

Then I'm sure it will show up in a FAA report or SpaceX's report. 

What did they do when the shuttle exploded across the states?  They attempted to fix it and continued on, which is what they will do with Starship whether debris landed where it was supposed to or wasn't supposed to.

I fully agree with your statements.

On 22/01/2025 at 10:38, bguy_1986 said:

For the Government shut Musk/SpaceX down?

Of course not, launches must continue, but only on condition that the cause of the explosion is clearly identified and corrected. In fact, I think I read that the cause has already been identified, now it's just a matter of applying the corrective measures.

I may not like Elon Musk, but I'm not against the SpaceX program.

[DocM]

On 22/01/2025 at 07:33, snowy owl said:

This is perfectly normal since it's part of every rocket launch 🤪!

Included because you didn't sound like you knew about it.

 

On 22/01/2025 at 07:33, snowy owl said:

I have consulted several media of different sizes, and they are unanimous on the results, and falling debris area from this explosion.

But of course, stay in front of your TV and watch Fox News! Which is nothing but disinformation!

 

Don't watch Fox News, but go ahead and have your fantasy. You clearly don't follow the space forums and sites very well.

 

On 22/01/2025 at 07:33, snowy owl said:

Even if the launches are interrupted for the duration of the investigation, there's nothing to stop them being ready for the next launch 🤷🏻‍♂️!

Just to finish painting the clear picture, FAA also ordering an investigation of the New Glenn  flight because of the landing failure.

NG-1 (New Glenn) concerns me much more as it appears not to have the structural margins to survive reentry. Starship's problem appears to be much simpler.

[DocM]

On 22/01/2025 at 11:02, snowy owl said:

Of course not, launches must continue, but only on condition that the cause of the explosion is clearly identified and corrected. In fact, I think I read that the cause has already been identified, now it's just a matter of applying the corrective measures.

The explosion is easy to explain, the flight termination system did its job and disintegrated the Ship.

The why is also easy;

as the on-screen telemetry showed, engines started shutting down until Ship could no longer control its flight path. The FTS automatically triggers under these conditions.

Engine shutdowns usually occur because of trouble in the propellant system, which SpaceX and Musk X posts have clarified. 

 

On 22/01/2025 at 11:02, snowy owl said:

I may not like Elon Musk, but I'm not against the SpaceX program.

Then why don't you just keep your snark out of it? Your posts ooze it.

[snowy owl]

So I must be an Elon Musk fan to come to this thread and comment. That's how you see it, sorry to disappoint you because to me SpaceX's various programs are far more important than being in Elon Musk's fan club.

What prompted my first comment was Elon Musk's attitude following the explosion, and I quote: "Success is uncertain, but entertainment is guaranteed!". Such comments show his immaturity, and that for him space adventure is just one big playground, no matter what the consequences of his experiments. That's what's so irritating!

Space adventure is a very serious thing, and I've followed it all my life. When I was a teenager, the Apollo missions were still active. Skylab was orbiting above our heads, then came the space shuttles, and so on. No NASA executive or mission manager would ever have said such stupid things, as Musk did.

It's interesting that you bring facts that are relevant, and I appreciate that, but your last line showing pettiness was unnecessary! @bguy_1986 and I, we had a cordial exchange, and despite our political differences came to a common agreement concerning the SpaceX program, whereas yours is that I don't have to comment because I'm not a fan of Elon Musk... congratulations!

[+Warwagon MVC]

Not long ago, I sent a PM to someone saying how nice it was that this thread hadn't yet been infested. It was nice while it lasted.

[snowy owl]

On 23/01/2025 at 12:12, Warwagon said:

Not long ago, I sent a PM to someone saying how nice it was that this thread hadn't yet been infested. It was nice while it lasted.

Someone on another thread said you were braindead... I guess he wasn't so wrong!

Learn to read a little, and you'll see that I was mentioning facts, my personal opinion of Musk is very clear, as is the fact that SpaceX programs are a priority in my books!

Such a snowflake!

[Astra.Xtreme]

On 23/01/2025 at 13:07, snowy owl said:

Someone on another thread said you were braindead... I guess he wasn't so wrong!

Learn to read a little, and you'll see that I was mentioning facts, my personal opinion of Musk is very clear, as is the fact that SpaceX programs are a priority in my books!

Such a snowflake!

Didn't take you long to lose all credibility...  You started out fine with civil conversation and now you've let your true deranged colors show...  Nice job.
Whining about sarcastic X posts not meeting your professional approval is rather humorous.  It doesn't take much these days to upset you guys, does it?  Clearly you've forgotten that previous space programs were littered with blown up rockets and human deaths...  Modern rocketry and the inherent failure investigations are significantly better and less dangerous compared to back then. Try those facts...

[snowy owl]

On 23/01/2025 at 14:56, Astra.Xtreme said:

Clearly you've forgotten that previous space programs were littered with blown up rockets and human deaths...  Modern rocketry and the inherent failure investigations are significantly better and less dangerous compared to back then.

I've forgotten nothing about those terrible accidents, and I agree with you that today's investigations are much more efficient. And there's plenty of space junk still in orbit, posing a constant threat to the various satellites in orbit. And I mentioned very well in a previous post that I was very impressed with what SpaceX had accomplished so far. But for someone to give me a hard time because I said I didn't like Elon Musk is another matter entirely, especially when I say again that SpaceX's various programs are more important to me than the owner.

 

On 23/01/2025 at 14:56, Astra.Xtreme said:

Whining about sarcastic X posts not meeting your professional approval is rather humorous

As I've said before, these launches are serious business in my eyes, so if I didn't find his post on X amusing, that's my perception, that's all!

As you can see for yourself, I'm perfectly capable of replying to you with civility, despite the spikes you've sent me. And what's more, I don't take offense at your political stance.

What interests me here is the progression of these missions!

[SALSN]

On 23/01/2025 at 18:12, Warwagon said:

Not long ago, I sent a PM to someone saying how nice it was that this thread hadn't yet been infested. It was nice while it lasted.

Lol yes that was me, I thought I'd just ignore the drama this round... Oh well, here we go:
It's amazingly strange to celebrate every mistake SpaceX makes.

I'm not the biggest fan of Elon Musk these days, but that doesn't really matter. SpaceX is doing amazing work, and the hiccups are part of the process. If you try to make everything perfect for the first launch you have to go at the pace of NASA or at least Blue Origin, ending up with a product that is longer in coming and worse in execution.

Everyone is scrambling to catch up with the Falcon 9, and SpaceX will end up deprecating that rocket before anyone is even ready to compete.
Fan of the hardware rich development methodology or not, you must admit that it is currently the strategy that is winning, and it's not even close.

As for tax payer money, SpaceX is probably the best place to put space money. Who would you choose that could do the missions cheaper? SLS? BO?

 

With regard to Elon Musk, I'm willing to cut him a lot of slack for dragging society into the future, that was otherwise canceled after the Apollo program ended. He can eat a baby every once in a while if that is needed to keep the process going, and he can pretend to be a pro gamer if that makes him happy.
 

@+Warwagon sorry for never answering your message 😅, but lets hope for this drama to blow over again soon, so we can get back to just enjoying the amazing progress in space travel.

Rambling over... for now.

[+Warwagon MVC]

On 24/01/2025 at 03:47, SALSN said:

@+Warwagon sorry for never answering your message 😅, but lets hope for this drama to blow over again soon, so we can get back to just enjoying the amazing progress in space travel.

Rambling over... for now.

Oh, then I guess I sent it to more than one person 🤣

[DocM]

Falcon 9 won't be going anywhere, even if Starship succeeds. They just built a brand new Crew Dragon, increasing the fleet to 5. Given the number of times they can be refurbished that's enough for over 70 crew missions and Crew 10 is coming up. ALSO, they are planning on almost 190 Falcon 9 flights next year. 

[TrevorLahey]

Seen reports that Starship 8 is set to launch Feb 26th... or just testing:

 

 

[Xenon]

Does anyone know how much taxpayer money is used per explosion?  Block 2 so far is a lemon. 

[+primortal Subscriber²]

Debris reaching Philadelphia, PHILADELPHIA!

 

[+thexfile Subscriber²]

The self-destruct didn't activate again.  That's one of the things FAA griped about.

According to Elon Musk, he's supposed to fire all the SpaceX people. 

[FloatingFatMan]

On 07/03/2025 at 03:15, primortal said:

Debris reaching Philadelphia, PHILADELPHIA!

 

Oh no. What a pity. Such a shame... /deadpan

So, Musk fans, are you starting to get it yet?  

[Som]

This is what happens when, instead of hiring the best people, you hire the people who will say yes to you.

[FloatingFatMan]

On 07/03/2025 at 08:16, Som said:

This is what happens when, instead of hiring the best people, you hire the people who will say yes to you.

If it were NASA doing this, they'd be losing their minds and throwing all kinds of accusations of incompetence at them, but because it's Musk, it's fine.  Bunch of anti-science hypocrites IMO.

[wakjak]

On 10/02/2025 at 00:39, DocM said:

even if Starship succeeds.

OOPS.

On 21/02/2025 at 17:08, bguy_1986 said:

Seen reports that Starship 8 is set to launch Feb 26th... or just testing:

That went well!

[+primortal Subscriber²]

 

[FloatingFatMan]

Kinda funny that the usual voices are silent, eh?  

[+rdlenk Subscriber²]

On 07/03/2025 at 14:10, FloatingFatMan said:

Kinda funny that the usual voices are silent, eh?  

Honestly, I can understand why and likely shouldn't even engage myself. Nothing anyone says at this point will change anyone's mind here.

It's pretty sad that it is ok to celebrate the failure of and throw shade at a large group of talented and dedicated people trying to make a huge technological leap because you don't like or agree with the person at the top. I am not a fan of Jeff Bezos but was certainly cheering on Blue Origin during their New Glenn launch. I don't really have an opinion on Richard Branson but was very sad to see Virgin Orbit not make it. I don't really think SLS is on the right track anymore but still absolutely applaud the achievements it has accomplished to date and watched Artimis I launch with absolute glee. I don't even know (or care) who is running Firefly but getting up a 2am to watch Blue Ghost land on the moon and cheering them on the whole time was great. Peter Beck, on the other hand, is just awesome as is Rocket Lab. 😀

I, like most of my coworkers, watched and cheered as Ship 34 did cartwheels with some amazing back-lighting. Would we have much preferred that not have happened? Of course! Does it really suck that similar failures happened twice in a row? You bet. Is this a massive setback the spells the doom and incompetence of SpaceX? No, not really. The iterative approach we are trying with Starship will have many failures, we learn from them and move forward while ensuring that everyone stays safe.

My personal speculation right now is around hot staging. Ship 34 and its engines went through a pretty robust ATP at Massy's and had no issues. it is great that we now have the capability to run the full duration burns on the ground like we do for Falcon at McGregor so get a lot of runtime on the engines in their flight configuration. Only a few keys things can't be tested easily on the ground though. The two big ones are operating in a vacuum and hot staging. Perhaps the overpressure of hot staging is causing a leak to form that in an area that Ship v2 or Raptor v3 design introduced a regression to? Clarifying once again that this is just my speculation based solely on the publicly available video (which is honestly not much different than the internal video since someone in the control room had it full frame on their console monitor in view of the webcast 😆). I am just an IT guy and not a rocket scientist.

Also, the booster catch was awesome and the improvements we made to the tower after the failed catch on flight 6 (which I was directly involved with) worked well which is really exciting to see.

 

Sorry for the wall of text. I share a lot of the same misgivings and frustration with the current political situation, but I felt the need to hop on this thread to reiterate what should already be obvious: the Starship program is very unlike many previous rocket development programs. If taking cheap shots at it to "stick it to the man" who's name is all over it, then ok, I guess.

[FloatingFatMan]

On 08/03/2025 at 01:29, rdlenk said:

Sorry for the wall of text. I share a lot of the same misgivings and frustration with the current political situation, but I felt the need to hop on this thread to reiterate what should already be obvious: the Starship program is very unlike many previous rocket development programs. If taking cheap shots at it to "stick it to the man" who's name is all over it, then ok, I guess.

As much as I dislike Musk, he's not the whole reason for my viewpoint on SpaceX, it's the methodology they use for their ship development.  It used to be they were careful in their development, but lately it seems they're just sloppy and are only iterating changes through failure instead of careful design and simulation, and the really dumb way the SpaceX fans burst into applause even when here's a catastrophic failure.  It's just stupid, and it's not safe.

There's also the problem of Musk's constant ridiculous over-exaggeration and outright lies of SpaceX's capabilities and that people just lap it up without even trying to engage their brains for even a tiny bit of critical thinking. Starship's very design makes the claims about it completely impossible  It will NEVER be able to haul the loads Musk claims it can, it will never hold the amount of passengers Musk claims it can, it will never be a viable transit vehicle to Mars, and we will not be building an outpost on Mars within the next couple of decades (which I note, Musk said we'd have one 5 years ago...)

Perhaps we should focus on having more than 1 flimsy station in low Earth orbit first, then maybe a base on the moon; those targets are difficult enough as it is, before we try something that will merely waste money and probably, lives.

 

[SALSN]

I have to say since the new administration has taken over in the USA, my view of Musk has turned upside down, what happened to him?

For now I'm still rooting for SpaceX, their approach has worked so far, two failures in a row is disappointing, but not necessarily a problem. They have a (very) hardware rich development approach, and they have never claimed otherwise.

Regarding Musk, I hope they can somehow get rid of him, he has clearly lost his mind, I hope SpaceX has the momentum to carry on!

[snowy owl]

Hey @SALSN, don't make the mistake of talking against Elon Musk! Because you're going to get scolded by the as####es in this thread, just like I did.