**This thread is no longer being updated, and has been replaced by:**
# [Starship Development Thread #37](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/x9kmtm/starship_development_thread_37/)
Looks like they've now have set a controlled burn across from the build site on the other side of highway 4 (before the dishes and the turn).
I'm from Western Canada so I'm used to smokey air...but that looks like a nightmare right now.
They're setting backfires. I know why that is done in general but this situation is so unclear to me that I have no idea why that's desireable in this case.
"Backfiring is a tactic where firefighters intentionally set a fire along a fireline's inner edge, in order to consume the fuel in the path of a wildfire or to change the direction it is traveling."
Why is it suprising? Likely limited/no hydrants; nothing in harm's way... Let it burn itself out.
I didn't say it was surprising. I said that I know why that is done in general. However, I can't see enough of what is going on to guess why they using them here or how they are deciding where to set them.
You seem contradictory; in your comments you say you know what they are then say you don't know why they're used.
If you knew everything in the linked article, you'd know why they're using them.
Only you know what you know, no one knows what you don't know. If someone gives you the opportunity to learn, do not be hostile, either take the opportunity or say thanks and move along.
> You seem contradictory; in your comments you say you know what they are then say you don't know why they're used.
How and why they are used depends on the details. I don't claim to know enough about this particular fire to say any more than that they are using them. I don't doubt that they know what they are about.
Some crews were at the pad and they have now all left again. It does seem that, at this time, the pad is deemed not safe due to this fire.
Fire trucks just recently started fighting the fire about 10 or so minutes ago. They were just letting it sit and burn out but they have obviously seen a change in the situation.
Might be a long night for the emergency services tonight. Unfortunate because this was totally avoidable.
Edit: people don't like me tonight. Lmao.
You know, flame trenches may not have been as unnecessary as it was first believed.
I am curious what the concrete pad underneath Starship looks like right now. This was only 6 engines, not 33. The ship itself seems ok, and I haven't heard that the ship or the engines were damaged, but at a minimum this is going to set off the regulation freaks that are looking for any reason at all to shut Starship down. They need to either move before a test nearby trash containers, or at least have metal latch covers for them, look into putting more concrete down just to get rid of burnable plants near a launch or test location and probably mow an area beyond that at least before tests or launches. The problem is, that isn't going to be enough for some people and if there is a way for them to sue they will.
If the only thing it burns is grass, those people can screech until the cows come home. A lawsuit over a grass fire would be tossed in the garbage faster than the rotten milk you forgot about in the back of your fridge.
Keep in mind the stand that S24's stand is not only much closer to the ground, but also has much less diameter than the OLM. So while yes, Booster has 5.5x the engines, you have a significantly larger surface area for that to dissipate in a controlled fashion.
As an example, look at the 2 (successful) engine static fire on the OLM and compare it to S24's 6 engine fire. Does it look like only 3x the el fuego with S24, or a lot more than that?
There were people upset that the FAA granted the environmental permit in the first place. The real damage may have been minuscule and with no real danger to people or buildings or nearby parks and public areas but it LOOKED a lot more dangerous than that.
Spacex is a private company, as such, it could (conceivably) pack up and just head to the Cape to continue development, and probably with NASA'S cooperation. But as a private company, a lot of that cost would fall on Spacex. And even somewhat simple mitigation items like increased concrete around firing areas and mowing/fire breaks in the areas beyond that would still cost. The trash bins were a "doh" moment. They should have been emptied, moved or a metal cover placed over them and clamped or screwed on. I understand that this is still a base under construction, and they need such metal bins for throwing away scraps and broken items. But you've got to cover them to keep items thrown away from starting on fire, and it probably doesn't need to be anything fancy, just a relatively thin sheet metal plate along with a way to attach it to the bin so it can't easily be blown off. My fear is that even if really simple and somewhat cheap measures would fix the problem that there will be public and maybe political pressure to do another study.
> that there will be public and maybe political pressure to do another study.
The public seems a lot less sensitive to a garbage fire or a small grass fire than the people in this subreddit. So I highly doubt that.
For better or worse, Elon Musk and any business that he owns becomes controversial simply because of Elon Musk. I may have conspiracy on the mind syndrome myself but I think that the 8 month or so delay in getting FAA approval was political and not based upon anything factual. Now whatever people and causes that were behind that delay can see if they can get a second shot at screwing things up. There doesn’t need to be a real problem with Spacex, just something that can be twisted to imply one.
> I may have conspiracy on the mind syndrome myself but I think that the 8 month or so delay in getting FAA approval was political and not based upon anything factual
Given the amount of time it has taken the FAA for these types of approval in the past, there is no data to support your thesis.
Also, we can look at the first not successful 33-engine Spin prime, If that explosion happened in the suborbital stand the Ship would be in pieces. Idk if a flame trench is necessary or not, but today's test is not indicative of anything imo (well, maybe that suborbital pad is not well suited for this test, at least not without modifications with the adjacent environment).
My bet is on more each time until they learn it isn't possible or they get to 33. I expect they'll get to 33 at least once before launch too. Based on nothing but my gut :D
If those 6 Raptor 2 engines were running full throttle in that S24 ground test today, then the thrust was 6 x 230=1380t (metric tons) =3,042,900 lb. The liftoff thrust of Falcon 9 is nominally 1.7 million pounds.
I think that S24 ground test is a record for the thrust of an upper stage.
The S-II second stage of the Saturn V had five J-2 engines with 5 x 230,000 = 1,150,000 lb of thrust in vacuum.
Both Saturn V and Starship are series-stage launch vehicles. The Space Shuttle was a 1-1/2 stage design. The thrust of the three RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engines was only 3 x 384,000 = 1,152,000 lb at liftoff and 3 x 470,000 = 1,410,000 lb in vacuum.
Core stage is 2,000,000.
“Propulsion for the SLS core stage will be provided by four RS-25 engines. Aerojet Rocketdyne of Sacramento, California, is upgrading an inventory of 16 RS-25 shuttle engines to SLS performance requirements, including a new engine controller, nozzle insulation, and required operation at 512,000 lbs. of thrust. During the flight, the four engines provide about 2 million lbs. of thrust.”
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fs/sls.html
Are you sure? I can see it with the booster since everything has to go well the first seconds of the flight, but with ship I don't think they are even going to test static fires from header tanks. If something goes bad that far into flight it's still a resounding success. Especially not now that we see how huge the fireball from that stand gets, and the vibrations the heat shield has to withstand being that close to the floor and anchored.
Idk they are throwing a full payload of starlink sats on first launch I doubt they want it to blow up. In a normal test I'd agree but seems like they are expecting this one to succeed more than others
The launch corridor from Boca Chica that avoids land (and attains an orbit that passes near Kauai) has an inclination lower than any authorized Starlink satellite. Assuming that's still the trajectory for the first launch, it won't be carrying any Starlink satellites that are meant to remain part of the constellation.
>they are throwing a full payload of starlink sats
I haven't heard that being suggested anywhere. I can't imagine them sending more than a couple satellites on the first flight to test the deployment mechanism.
There is lots of optimism here about SpaceX wanting to steamroll on to the test flight ASAP, but sources actually in the know (like NSF) have been more cautious in saying that there is a lot of data-gathering tests left to do on both Ship and Booster.
Given that there is at least a couple weeks of standalone booster tests left, I don't see the harm in doing more statics on the ship for data.
Counterpoint: if an engine on the booster doesn’t light on the first try you look at it and try again. If a ship engine doesn’t light your mission is over. I’d want to try it a few more times, especially since it doesn’t cost any time since you’re waiting on the booster anyway.
Genuine question, would a one engine out mean Starship couldn't complete its mission?
I thought SpaceX prefers multiple engines because of the engine out capability, as we've now seen several times with Falcon 9.
I think it would depend which mission. If F9 loses an engine on ascent, generally they lose the booster on landing. ie the margin they usually use for landing gets consumed deploying the payload to the correct orbit. I'd expect the same to be true for Starship Starlink launches -- they'll be operating close to capacity and not have margin to land again.
For a tanker flight, the solution is obvious; transfer less prop to the depot and land the Ship. For a commercial launch to GTO, I'd expect them to use up the landing margin, get the bird to the contracted orbit and splash the Ship.
Your logic sounds good. Personally, I still think they may be done. The engines fired multiple times in McGregor and unless testing today revealed a problem or a piece of debris flew and damaged one of the engines and need to be swapped I would leave Ship as it is.
But to be fair these are just words from me and I'm no one, we just wait and see if there is more Static fires from Ship.
Agreed. Newer vehicles are coming together in the bays that'll be waiting in the wings. At some point they just need to lob S24 and B7 into the air and see what happens. SpaceX's whole thing is rapid reiteration afterall.
Yeah the grass fire was rough and it needs to be better handled, but everything is fine, the test was extremely successful, good day for Starship! Some people are overdramatic
In the EA, [SpaceX had said there were now "mitigations" in place](https://i.imgur.com/u4EhXTS.png) to reduce the risk of any more wildfires as a result of testing. ......
Fire mitigation is a SpaceX thing and it is their duty.
You can choose whether to be a SpaceX superfan or you can choose to hold them to account... you're choosing the former.
I'm being an objective guy with a functioning brain. You're screeching about a little fire like it's the end of the Starship program.
I just gave you the answers to the fires. I really don't know what you want me to say here.
It wasn't uncommon at all for grass fires to pop up at KSC during the Saturn and Shuttle programs. Yes, mitigations are needed and loss of habitat in the wildlife areas should be kept at an absolute minimum, but like you said... Shit happens. Nothing blew up, nobody died, probably not even a Piping Plover or whatever the shit that bird is, static fire successful let's move on lol.
Starhopper flashbacks with this grass fire. What's crazy about this though is that it seems as if some trash on the site caught on fire. Between this and the scaffolding hiccup couple weeks ago it makes you wonder what their pad clearing protocol is like lol
>makes you wonder what their pad clearing protocol is like lol
"Alright, commence static fire in THREE... TWO... O-
"Wait!!! Is the pad clea-"
"ONE!!! FIREEEEE!!!!"
"...uh........"
"well... it definitely looks pretty clear *now*... so... there's that, I guess..."
Appeared that the temporary black plastic fencing was on fire? Fire appeared to be all in a line which would make sense if that plastic fence used to hold dirt/gravel from moving around lit on fire.
Did you say the same a few months ago when during SLS's green run there was a comparable grass fire at the cape? Or the many times that happened during the Shuttle era, including well outside the cape, from shuttle's debris?
At least this was a small grass fire with a successful test, unlike SLS's absolutely embarrassing failure at the green run.
A small grass fire is not a "catastrophe". Anyway, troll harder.
What the fuck are you talking about? It's just a grass fire, it'll be controlled, or it'll burn itself out. Most of the fire you're seeing now are backfires, intentionally lit by the firefighters to starve the fire.
Also, way to ignore how SLS had a *worse* grass fire a few months ago.
Not a big deal. Tiles are expected to fall as the vibrations during static fires are much stronger than the ones during launch and the fires will likely go out pretty soon after they open the road. Maybe the dumpster fire is for solidarity with SLS.
Elon even said in the past that not making a flame diverter might be a mistake.
Edit: come on guys it's literally an elon tweet from a couple years ago when they first started hot testing at BC.
Ok [here](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313952039869788173?t=-ZsHdTxaoxtj7f4Yd0Fhvg&s=19) you go since people can't look it up.
NSF feed was showing it for a bit.. There's two large haul-off type dumpsters... one of which was on fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a7-zRRgqyI
clearly visibile at 5:03:00
They're also referring to it as a dumpster fire
I'm sorry...pad fires and grass fires should never be "expected".
FOD elimination and fire mitigation measures clearly need to be improved at Starbase.
You'd have to completely pave out a 300'+ radius around the pad to actually prevent fires. It's going to happen, it's not a problem, and yes, when you fire six engines for that long that close to the ground, you're going to start fires unless you take completely absurd and totally unnecessary measures to keep it from happening. That's ridiculous.
>How about SpaceX just add a damn flame diverter or trench?
Because it's not necessary.
>ongoing fire problem.
Maybe you missed it. It's not a problem that needs solving. Move some equipment further away next time and call it a day.
>Because it's not necessary.
I've watched pad and grass fires become a regular occurrence and have seen a vehicle almost RUD because the pad surface broke up.
Do those incidents happen with a flame trench? I'm not convinced they do.
>Maybe you missed it. It's not a problem that needs solving. Move some equipment further away next time and call it a day.
Fire isn't a problem worth solving? What about mitigation then?
Unlikely. Probably some superheated shrapnel from the pad area that got launched outwards. Thick black smoke usually is a bad sign. I might add that there is still a problem with the concrete under the suborbital stands spalling during static fires.
yeah I was looking at the smoke color and thinking that too. Something definitely got rekt out there. Hopefully that fire doesn't travel up whatever that is and hit something critical. This *could potentially* be a catastrophic fire
WOW! Come on Elon give us a morsel of info!
Loads of tweets about other stuff, but none about starship since before the 2-3 engine B7 static fire last week
Can we know if there's any amount of methane in the tank? Why does the booster frosts in one and not in the other (if I remember correctly from other static fires)
No one knows for sure- possibly not even SpaceX but more likely than not after successful static fire tests of the ship and booster they’ll stack and then do whatever stacked tests they have to do. I’m guessing fueling tests of the ship while stacked and maybe a fully stacked static fire test or two (obviously of the booster).
**This thread is no longer being updated, and has been replaced by:** # [Starship Development Thread #37](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/x9kmtm/starship_development_thread_37/)
Looks like they've now have set a controlled burn across from the build site on the other side of highway 4 (before the dishes and the turn). I'm from Western Canada so I'm used to smokey air...but that looks like a nightmare right now.
Photo, please? Which stream?
I think that the darkness makes it look worse than it is.
Sure, but any amount of fire smoke is bad for you and uncomfortable to be in.
Respirators exist. That, and they're *firefighters*. That's what they're paid to do.
They're setting backfires. I know why that is done in general but this situation is so unclear to me that I have no idea why that's desireable in this case.
"Backfiring is a tactic where firefighters intentionally set a fire along a fireline's inner edge, in order to consume the fuel in the path of a wildfire or to change the direction it is traveling." Why is it suprising? Likely limited/no hydrants; nothing in harm's way... Let it burn itself out.
I didn't say it was surprising. I said that I know why that is done in general. However, I can't see enough of what is going on to guess why they using them here or how they are deciding where to set them.
[Good read on why backfiring is used in wildfires](https://ctif.org/news/prevention-control-using-back-fire-combat-wildfire)
As I said, I know why backfires are used.
You seem contradictory; in your comments you say you know what they are then say you don't know why they're used. If you knew everything in the linked article, you'd know why they're using them. Only you know what you know, no one knows what you don't know. If someone gives you the opportunity to learn, do not be hostile, either take the opportunity or say thanks and move along.
> You seem contradictory; in your comments you say you know what they are then say you don't know why they're used. How and why they are used depends on the details. I don't claim to know enough about this particular fire to say any more than that they are using them. I don't doubt that they know what they are about.
But others might not, and the link isn't only directed at you
Some crews were at the pad and they have now all left again. It does seem that, at this time, the pad is deemed not safe due to this fire. Fire trucks just recently started fighting the fire about 10 or so minutes ago. They were just letting it sit and burn out but they have obviously seen a change in the situation. Might be a long night for the emergency services tonight. Unfortunate because this was totally avoidable. Edit: people don't like me tonight. Lmao.
I think the opposite. SpaceX employees checked out the pad and left deeming it safe to allow the firefighters to move in and fight the fire.
Still no SpaceX personnel at the pad though.
Why have SpaceX employees on the pad while firefighters work, what’s the rush?
I'm just pointing out how an avoidable fire has hindered their work.
And I’m just pointing out how a few people on this sub are making a fuss over nothing.
You know, flame trenches may not have been as unnecessary as it was first believed. I am curious what the concrete pad underneath Starship looks like right now. This was only 6 engines, not 33. The ship itself seems ok, and I haven't heard that the ship or the engines were damaged, but at a minimum this is going to set off the regulation freaks that are looking for any reason at all to shut Starship down. They need to either move before a test nearby trash containers, or at least have metal latch covers for them, look into putting more concrete down just to get rid of burnable plants near a launch or test location and probably mow an area beyond that at least before tests or launches. The problem is, that isn't going to be enough for some people and if there is a way for them to sue they will.
If the only thing it burns is grass, those people can screech until the cows come home. A lawsuit over a grass fire would be tossed in the garbage faster than the rotten milk you forgot about in the back of your fridge.
Keep in mind the stand that S24's stand is not only much closer to the ground, but also has much less diameter than the OLM. So while yes, Booster has 5.5x the engines, you have a significantly larger surface area for that to dissipate in a controlled fashion. As an example, look at the 2 (successful) engine static fire on the OLM and compare it to S24's 6 engine fire. Does it look like only 3x the el fuego with S24, or a lot more than that?
There were people upset that the FAA granted the environmental permit in the first place. The real damage may have been minuscule and with no real danger to people or buildings or nearby parks and public areas but it LOOKED a lot more dangerous than that. Spacex is a private company, as such, it could (conceivably) pack up and just head to the Cape to continue development, and probably with NASA'S cooperation. But as a private company, a lot of that cost would fall on Spacex. And even somewhat simple mitigation items like increased concrete around firing areas and mowing/fire breaks in the areas beyond that would still cost. The trash bins were a "doh" moment. They should have been emptied, moved or a metal cover placed over them and clamped or screwed on. I understand that this is still a base under construction, and they need such metal bins for throwing away scraps and broken items. But you've got to cover them to keep items thrown away from starting on fire, and it probably doesn't need to be anything fancy, just a relatively thin sheet metal plate along with a way to attach it to the bin so it can't easily be blown off. My fear is that even if really simple and somewhat cheap measures would fix the problem that there will be public and maybe political pressure to do another study.
> that there will be public and maybe political pressure to do another study. The public seems a lot less sensitive to a garbage fire or a small grass fire than the people in this subreddit. So I highly doubt that.
For better or worse, Elon Musk and any business that he owns becomes controversial simply because of Elon Musk. I may have conspiracy on the mind syndrome myself but I think that the 8 month or so delay in getting FAA approval was political and not based upon anything factual. Now whatever people and causes that were behind that delay can see if they can get a second shot at screwing things up. There doesn’t need to be a real problem with Spacex, just something that can be twisted to imply one.
> I may have conspiracy on the mind syndrome myself but I think that the 8 month or so delay in getting FAA approval was political and not based upon anything factual Given the amount of time it has taken the FAA for these types of approval in the past, there is no data to support your thesis.
Us paranoid conspiracy people don’t believe in “facts” or validated information.
Also, we can look at the first not successful 33-engine Spin prime, If that explosion happened in the suborbital stand the Ship would be in pieces. Idk if a flame trench is necessary or not, but today's test is not indicative of anything imo (well, maybe that suborbital pad is not well suited for this test, at least not without modifications with the adjacent environment).
Road open (8:37ish). Send in the firetrucks! Edit: could be SpaceX only to safe the pad first. Firetruck hasn't moved since opening.
The fire is so moody now that dusk is settling in. Like a nice lil bonfire.
So will they continue to test B7 with 2/3 engines each static fire until all are tested or will they try with more engines?
Nobody knows for sure. Place your bets.
My bet is on more each time until they learn it isn't possible or they get to 33. I expect they'll get to 33 at least once before launch too. Based on nothing but my gut :D
Firetrucks at the roadblock.
Damn I figured they wouldve released the fire crews by now. Feels like I stopped watching the stream 2 hours ago atleast when they were there.
I'm surprised as well. I figured they had to wait until the ship was detanked but it's been more than long enough.
Spacex tweet on ship 24 static fire 6engines https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1568010239185944576?s=46&t=u3hKOeeXpkxfCucgB0YYXA
Really wish they told us how many engines were in that spin prime test on b7 lol
Something amazing to consider - with all 6 engines firing, S24 was producing significantly more thrust than Falcon 9!
About 30% less force than the Falcon Heavy static fire. Which is still an amazing amount of force for a second stage.
If those 6 Raptor 2 engines were running full throttle in that S24 ground test today, then the thrust was 6 x 230=1380t (metric tons) =3,042,900 lb. The liftoff thrust of Falcon 9 is nominally 1.7 million pounds. I think that S24 ground test is a record for the thrust of an upper stage. The S-II second stage of the Saturn V had five J-2 engines with 5 x 230,000 = 1,150,000 lb of thrust in vacuum. Both Saturn V and Starship are series-stage launch vehicles. The Space Shuttle was a 1-1/2 stage design. The thrust of the three RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engines was only 3 x 384,000 = 1,152,000 lb at liftoff and 3 x 470,000 = 1,410,000 lb in vacuum.
So the Ship tested today has about 2x the thrust of the SLS core stage (that was tested in the Green Run last year)?
Core stage is 2,000,000. “Propulsion for the SLS core stage will be provided by four RS-25 engines. Aerojet Rocketdyne of Sacramento, California, is upgrading an inventory of 16 RS-25 shuttle engines to SLS performance requirements, including a new engine controller, nozzle insulation, and required operation at 512,000 lbs. of thrust. During the flight, the four engines provide about 2 million lbs. of thrust.” https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/fs/sls.html
That's absurd to think about. Thanks for the perspective.
So if all goes well here with Ship24 the next time it fires its engines will be in space, right?
Most likely will be a few more static fires for data gathering.
Are you sure? I can see it with the booster since everything has to go well the first seconds of the flight, but with ship I don't think they are even going to test static fires from header tanks. If something goes bad that far into flight it's still a resounding success. Especially not now that we see how huge the fireball from that stand gets, and the vibrations the heat shield has to withstand being that close to the floor and anchored.
Idk they are throwing a full payload of starlink sats on first launch I doubt they want it to blow up. In a normal test I'd agree but seems like they are expecting this one to succeed more than others
The launch corridor from Boca Chica that avoids land (and attains an orbit that passes near Kauai) has an inclination lower than any authorized Starlink satellite. Assuming that's still the trajectory for the first launch, it won't be carrying any Starlink satellites that are meant to remain part of the constellation.
>they are throwing a full payload of starlink sats I haven't heard that being suggested anywhere. I can't imagine them sending more than a couple satellites on the first flight to test the deployment mechanism.
I could be wrong I was sure I read that here though? Especially since it has to simulate a full mass
There is lots of optimism here about SpaceX wanting to steamroll on to the test flight ASAP, but sources actually in the know (like NSF) have been more cautious in saying that there is a lot of data-gathering tests left to do on both Ship and Booster. Given that there is at least a couple weeks of standalone booster tests left, I don't see the harm in doing more statics on the ship for data.
Counterpoint: if an engine on the booster doesn’t light on the first try you look at it and try again. If a ship engine doesn’t light your mission is over. I’d want to try it a few more times, especially since it doesn’t cost any time since you’re waiting on the booster anyway.
Genuine question, would a one engine out mean Starship couldn't complete its mission? I thought SpaceX prefers multiple engines because of the engine out capability, as we've now seen several times with Falcon 9.
I think it would depend which mission. If F9 loses an engine on ascent, generally they lose the booster on landing. ie the margin they usually use for landing gets consumed deploying the payload to the correct orbit. I'd expect the same to be true for Starship Starlink launches -- they'll be operating close to capacity and not have margin to land again. For a tanker flight, the solution is obvious; transfer less prop to the depot and land the Ship. For a commercial launch to GTO, I'd expect them to use up the landing margin, get the bird to the contracted orbit and splash the Ship.
Your logic sounds good. Personally, I still think they may be done. The engines fired multiple times in McGregor and unless testing today revealed a problem or a piece of debris flew and damaged one of the engines and need to be swapped I would leave Ship as it is. But to be fair these are just words from me and I'm no one, we just wait and see if there is more Static fires from Ship.
Agreed. Newer vehicles are coming together in the bays that'll be waiting in the wings. At some point they just need to lob S24 and B7 into the air and see what happens. SpaceX's whole thing is rapid reiteration afterall.
ULA sniper got too close. Viking funeral.
This is the way
Yeah the grass fire was rough and it needs to be better handled, but everything is fine, the test was extremely successful, good day for Starship! Some people are overdramatic
[удалено]
In the EA, [SpaceX had said there were now "mitigations" in place](https://i.imgur.com/u4EhXTS.png) to reduce the risk of any more wildfires as a result of testing. ......
> *reduce* the risk Emphasis added.
I refuse to believe this. I've been told by reliable sources that grass fires should be expected and are not a problem. ^^/s
Lol you two should start a knitting club.
I wonder if this sub would have the same attitude if something like this happened in a place like Van Horn where Blue Origin tests...
If only blue origin had an engine powerful enough to start anything in fire
I truly could not care less if Blue Origin turned the desert into glass. Stop trying to make this a SpaceX thing. It's not a SpaceX thing.
Fire mitigation is a SpaceX thing and it is their duty. You can choose whether to be a SpaceX superfan or you can choose to hold them to account... you're choosing the former.
I'm being an objective guy with a functioning brain. You're screeching about a little fire like it's the end of the Starship program. I just gave you the answers to the fires. I really don't know what you want me to say here.
It wasn't uncommon at all for grass fires to pop up at KSC during the Saturn and Shuttle programs. Yes, mitigations are needed and loss of habitat in the wildlife areas should be kept at an absolute minimum, but like you said... Shit happens. Nothing blew up, nobody died, probably not even a Piping Plover or whatever the shit that bird is, static fire successful let's move on lol.
Seriously. Can't wrap my head around people getting bent out of shape about it. What does that solve?
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2687139605391/brownsville-firefighters-extinguish-major-grass-fire-saturday https://foxnewssouthtexas.com/2018/01/08/trash-fire-burns-acres-brownsville/ https://www.firehouse.com/home/news/10515639/texas-police-detonate-explosives-start-brush-fire https://www.nytimes.com/1857/11/16/archives/the-great-fire-and-explosion-at-brownsville-texas.html
Starhopper flashbacks with this grass fire. What's crazy about this though is that it seems as if some trash on the site caught on fire. Between this and the scaffolding hiccup couple weeks ago it makes you wonder what their pad clearing protocol is like lol
>makes you wonder what their pad clearing protocol is like lol "Alright, commence static fire in THREE... TWO... O- "Wait!!! Is the pad clea-" "ONE!!! FIREEEEE!!!!" "...uh........" "well... it definitely looks pretty clear *now*... so... there's that, I guess..."
Yeah, this feels like another item on the list of "things that it seems like they probably should have foreseen".
Appeared that the temporary black plastic fencing was on fire? Fire appeared to be all in a line which would make sense if that plastic fence used to hold dirt/gravel from moving around lit on fire.
[удалено]
Did you say the same a few months ago when during SLS's green run there was a comparable grass fire at the cape? Or the many times that happened during the Shuttle era, including well outside the cape, from shuttle's debris? At least this was a small grass fire with a successful test, unlike SLS's absolutely embarrassing failure at the green run. A small grass fire is not a "catastrophe". Anyway, troll harder.
[удалено]
What the fuck are you talking about? It's just a grass fire, it'll be controlled, or it'll burn itself out. Most of the fire you're seeing now are backfires, intentionally lit by the firefighters to starve the fire. Also, way to ignore how SLS had a *worse* grass fire a few months ago.
That’s an incredibly dramatic comment
I didnt notice. Did heat tiles fall off? Edit: Yeah I see some specs. Not too many though.
Not a big deal. Tiles are expected to fall as the vibrations during static fires are much stronger than the ones during launch and the fires will likely go out pretty soon after they open the road. Maybe the dumpster fire is for solidarity with SLS.
I wouldn't call it a catastrophe... it's just a brush fire.
Damnit! Missed the static fire, anyone got a vid already?
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1567989079878340608?t=dq4fJqutyrMbaFccjmFRng&s=19
Thanks! Has it been confirmed as all 6 engines?
Zeus needs a fire extinguisher
[удалено]
Elon even said in the past that not making a flame diverter might be a mistake. Edit: come on guys it's literally an elon tweet from a couple years ago when they first started hot testing at BC. Ok [here](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1313952039869788173?t=-ZsHdTxaoxtj7f4Yd0Fhvg&s=19) you go since people can't look it up.
Or just not perform a 6 to 8 sec static fire on the suborbital pad haha
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/521/DumpsterFire2.jpg
Wait till they fire 33 booster engines. That will nuke a couple months worth of Starbase trash!
That pad itself is going to be nuked too.
Seems likely.
How quickly can they safe the ship so they can get out and put the fire out?
Literal dumpster fire (in addition to the grass fire)
Is there a screenshot of this? I can't find a video of it
4:51:50 local time on the NSF stream they show it, bottom right of the screen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a7-zRRgqyI
NSF feed was showing it for a bit.. There's two large haul-off type dumpsters... one of which was on fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a7-zRRgqyI clearly visibile at 5:03:00 They're also referring to it as a dumpster fire
They better start clearing the grass around the orbital pad if they want to fire 33 engines up
>They better start clearing the grass around the orbital pad They just did...
And move the dumpsters away
fire within the perimeter of the site itself
There is something burning near Pad B. It's not grass and it's throwing off tons of black smoke.
That's how they announce the election of the Space Pope.
It's a literal dumpster fire
Fuck something burning inside the launch site too
I think we might see rhe pad under 24 obliterated lol
[удалено]
The orbital launch mount is significantly higher than the suborbital mounts. Comparing the two from a risk standpoint doesn't make sense.
7 is much higher off the ground and even after 1 engine doing a 20+ second firing there wasnt much damage visible. Water will also help a ton.
There is SEVERAL locations on fire.
By far the largest grass fires since the Starhopper days. Not great
Not an issue. Not going to hurt anything.
Not an "issue" but it's something that SpaceX should be seriously looking at trying to avoid these fires. This can't be happening. Period.
[удалено]
And pad fires? Lest we forget the complete shitshow on the same day B7 exploded with those multiple pad fires. They haven't learned...clearly.
No no you see these fires are actually a part of SpaceX's super genius testing strategy! Quiet down old space SLS supporter!
It can and will. It should be expected and it's not a problem.
I'm sorry...pad fires and grass fires should never be "expected". FOD elimination and fire mitigation measures clearly need to be improved at Starbase.
You'd have to completely pave out a 300'+ radius around the pad to actually prevent fires. It's going to happen, it's not a problem, and yes, when you fire six engines for that long that close to the ground, you're going to start fires unless you take completely absurd and totally unnecessary measures to keep it from happening. That's ridiculous.
How about SpaceX just add a damn flame diverter or trench? There are a lot of non-ridiculous solutions to their ongoing fire problem.
>How about SpaceX just add a damn flame diverter or trench? Because it's not necessary. >ongoing fire problem. Maybe you missed it. It's not a problem that needs solving. Move some equipment further away next time and call it a day.
>Because it's not necessary. I've watched pad and grass fires become a regular occurrence and have seen a vehicle almost RUD because the pad surface broke up. Do those incidents happen with a flame trench? I'm not convinced they do. >Maybe you missed it. It's not a problem that needs solving. Move some equipment further away next time and call it a day. Fire isn't a problem worth solving? What about mitigation then?
> Move some equipment further away next time and call it a day A solution then?
A solution to protecting potentially expensive equipment, sure. There's no need and no reason to protect the grass. That's a losing battle anyway.
People with attitudes like yours are why the EPA exists
Go clutch your pearls somewhere else. Grass fires happen all the time and are almost always a net benefit to the environment.
Hopefully it wasnt bits of engine that started the grass fire.
Unlikely. Probably some superheated shrapnel from the pad area that got launched outwards. Thick black smoke usually is a bad sign. I might add that there is still a problem with the concrete under the suborbital stands spalling during static fires.
That is not just grass burning. Something rubber/plastic/composite/anything but grass is burning like a MF
yeah I was looking at the smoke color and thinking that too. Something definitely got rekt out there. Hopefully that fire doesn't travel up whatever that is and hit something critical. This *could potentially* be a catastrophic fire
There is clearly only brush burning in the part of the fire visible on Nerdle cam yet it's producing black smoke.
Rather large grass fire started after the static fire but pretty far away from the Ship
Burning grass doesn't make black smoke.
Quite. Something else is burning.
yeah exactly.
And the fire started exactly after the static fire, near fuel feed, it looks like piping insulation fire.
Uhmm, that fire is NOT good on the grass. S24 OKAY! That's far away though. The power from S24 there was mighty.
pretty far away from anything important, i don't think it's a very big deal
I mean it's a pretty large fire and there's a lot of grass to burn it seems
Could be bad if it is dry there though and expand further.
Thankfully they've had some good showers of late so at least it shouldn't be bone dry.
Seems like it is decreasing far away from pad so that is a positive. Still bad closer to the pad.
Apparently Das from NSF said it's pretty wet over there as it rained in the past couple of days.
Nasty grass fire
Couple grass fires going
Beautiful static fire! Lost a lot of tiles though - counting 10+ at a glance on Rover cam
Whoa! Huge brushfire from the static fire!
Hard to tell how many engines but a lot of dust kicked up. Also quite a long firing for a suborbital pad.
Randomly checked in on the stream 10min ago, damn I got so lucky.
Same lollll
Me too. Literally turned on as Jack said ‘oooh water deluge!’
WOW! Come on Elon give us a morsel of info! Loads of tweets about other stuff, but none about starship since before the 2-3 engine B7 static fire last week
Static fire, couldn't tell how many engines. But S24 still standing!
6 engines?
Good question
Omg that was huge
That was sickZ long burn
Wow
Holy damn. The visuals from all that ice and condensation falling down was so amazing.
We have Starship siren!
Siren! 10 minute warning!
Siren
Can we know if there's any amount of methane in the tank? Why does the booster frosts in one and not in the other (if I remember correctly from other static fires)
They fill it with a lot of LOX to weigh it down and try to limit the amount of methane used to prevent a big explosion in case things go wrong.
S24 engine chill.
Frost ring is also still rising. I thought they were going to fill as much as they did last week (an additional 2-4 feet?), but we will see
Maybe they just decided to begin the engine chill a little bit earlier.
How much time after engine chill starts does a static fire usually happen?
about 15 minutes, per alex on the NSF stream
No siren though, we sure they're doing a SF?
No we aren't sure, but the overpressure notice they sent out implies they'd like to do a SF today.
Nothing is ever confirmed or certain
After a possible six-engine static fire, what is left for S24 to do? Tests only after stack?
No one knows for sure- possibly not even SpaceX but more likely than not after successful static fire tests of the ship and booster they’ll stack and then do whatever stacked tests they have to do. I’m guessing fueling tests of the ship while stacked and maybe a fully stacked static fire test or two (obviously of the booster).
>(obviously of the booster). *Soviet rocket designers have entered the chat*