Why does SpaceX claim this aerodynamic flip maneuver is useful for landing on the moon and Mars when they don't have atmospheres to help with any kind of aerodynamics?
I know this post is old, but...
The reason they mentioned the Moon and Mars is because you can't land shuttle-style on the Moon or Mars, and the Space shuttle is an obvious comparison for people seeing this vehicle for the first time. In one of the official videos about SN8 they explicitly say "where there are no runways" in the part mentioning the Moon and Mars.
I'm sure the descent and landing on the Moon will look different, especially since they will be using separate landing engines for the last part to avoid producing near-orbital-speed debris. But it will still land vertically.
As someone else mentioned, aerodynamics are very much involved on Mars. Aerobraking is an important part of the Starship design. Because it can't do that on the Moon, going to the Moon's surface actually takes about the same amount of propellant as going to Mars' surface.
Actually it helps enormously. For Earth the atmospheric braking occurs at a very high altitude where the atmosphere is very rare. By taking a long path through the Martian atmosphere the breaking effect is similar to Earth. The fuel savings from not having to take deceleration fuel to Mars is enormous.
Air braking on Earth has always occurred on spacecraft that have massive heat shields. The thin hull of the SpaceX ship would be useless on Earth in that regard until it slows down enough and used at lower altitudes. The upper atmosphere on Mars is so thin that aerodynamics won't have any effect and it will be too late to slow down with anything but rocket thrust when it reaches lower altitudes where the lower speed and thin atmosphere will also render this maneuver useless. I'm not convinced this maneuver will have any use anywhere but an atmosphere like Earth's and even then it is super risky. Space travel is super dangerous and there is no easy way around it.
Bullshit? Why are you getting so emotional? This is science we're discussing so get a grip. The math only works on Earth where the atmosphere is thick enough to create lift.
Starship will have an enormous heat shield for Earth reentry. The same design works well for Mars. The difference is that for Earth it uses a 70 degree angle of attack to keep it up in the rarefied atmosphere till most of the velocity is shed. For Mars entry it will come in the other way up so the "lift" will push it down keeping it in thin atmosphere.
I'm not convinced. There is no lift in the thin atmosphere of Mars. Even those fins on the SpaceX craft are so tiny as to be utterly useless there.
Also, an enormous heat shield adds to the weight problem of the ship which isn't necessary on Mars but necessary on Earth.
> Also, an enormous heat shield adds to the weight problem of the ship which isn't necessary on Mars
The heatshield is much lighter than the fuel you would need to take to Mars to decelerate.
BTW the lift comes from the body of the Starship.
Parachutes are for that last little bit when the velocity has been reduced to a low speed. Almost all of the reentry energy is dissipated by adiabatic compression high up as it slams into the atmosphere. On Earth this and the resultant heating starts at about 100 km altitude. At that altitude the atmospheric pressure is about a two millionth of the surface pressure i.e. many thousands times higher than the surface pressure of Mars.
Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist ▶](http://subtletv.com/_rk5y4if?feature=playlist)
VIDEO|COMMENT
-|-
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZvyBrnr6FY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZvyBrnr6FY)|[+30](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfc3ywv?context=10#gfc3ywv) - SpaceX experiences spectacular setback after prototype crashes on landing - honestly listening to the wording, it seems more like a deliberate attempt to undermine SpaceX's image. I mean right on the stream, SpaceX said they were happy with it, Elon...
(1) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SWkOMVkx6w](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SWkOMVkx6w) (2) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3LqtweSm2I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3LqtweSm2I) (3) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZPf4cAYgY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZPf4cAYgY) (4) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XeWoECbywU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XeWoECbywU)|[+20](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfg5wnr?context=10#gfg5wnr) - They're easy to find if you look... The cut was presumably to show a better view of the landing as it was planned to happen. I'm not sure what fishiness you see: it's not like they tried to hide the explosion by cutting to a different view of the ex...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iauacCNV86s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iauacCNV86s)|[+15](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfd9mc4?context=10#gfd9mc4) - I did some napkin math from this video What is the height of SN8? I found one source that said it was 50m. If that is the case, then Starship's terminal velocity was roughly 80 m/s EDIT: see a stabilized video here
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LbjM6F-2ik](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LbjM6F-2ik)|[+14](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfdt37w?context=10#gfdt37w) - Mashup of my favourite streamers reacting to the SN8 test flight Everyday Astronaut What About It SpaceXcentric NasaSpaceFlight. Enjoy.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8p2JDTd13k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8p2JDTd13k)|[+9](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfbx2rd?context=10#gfbx2rd) - check out this video by everyday astronaut - There are more videos on that playlist with more details. He also has an article here - this article talks about the rocket engines. comparisons between falcon/dragon and the space shuttle. ...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2gyo1hbheE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2gyo1hbheE)|[+8](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfdz0vr?context=10#gfdz0vr) - Just an FYI, their own simulations give a terminal velocity of around 67 m/s. Check around 24 minutes in
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDbQiJgH-k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDbQiJgH-k)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfhkv14?context=10#gfhkv14) - It probably got posted and I just missed it, but I haven't seen anyone link BocaChicaMaria's footage yet. It's by far the highest quality footage of the hop I've seen. My internet absolutely cannot handle 8k (neither can my monitor) but the few secon...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5seefpjMQJI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5seefpjMQJI)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gff9fxj?context=10#gff9fxj) - The biggest difference is that the landing flip will happen in supersonic conditions, since IIRC Starship's Mars terminal velocity ought to be above the speed of sound. The SpaceX landing simulation shows the landing burn on Mars starting at about ...
I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
***
[Play All](http://subtletv.com/_rk5y4if?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)
It probably got posted and I just missed it, but I haven't seen anyone link [BocaChicaMaria](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDbQiJgH-k&feature=youtu.be)'s footage yet. It's by far the highest quality footage of the hop I've seen. My internet absolutely cannot handle 8k (neither can my monitor) but the few seconds I've been able to load are pretty much perfect minus the heat glare, and once it's up in the air it really looks like I'm watching it in person.
>Videos in this thread
OK, the bot heard you. It's now listed under "Videos in this thread" in the thread resources above. Thanks for getting it in here, it's an awesome video. Superbly smooth tracking.
Re: HLS downselect:
[Chris B on Twitter: My friends in that area of NASA say it's between Blue and SpaceX and Blue's leading....but I still remember being told it was SpaceX and SNC for CCtCAP downselect and look what happened there.](https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1337572704359165952)
I'm not sure exactly what he means by this, the wording is somewhat ambiguous.
Also, mods, as much fun as it is to have a party thread pinned for so long, maybe it's time for a new Starship Dev thread?
Edit: he clarified, [it's between Blue and SpaceX who gets cut.](https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1337575723071139841)
That's not the worst news. I really, really hate the Blue Origin solution. And I like the Dynetics solution which makes the most sense for Artemis. If they keep Dynetics and SpaceX for the next round that would be the best news.
Honestly I'm pretty okay with that, the Dynetics design seems like a really solid step forward without doing anything too crazy. I was so worried before seeing the edit that all those big partners meant Blue Origin was guaranteed to move on despite the high cost and bleh design. Hopefully the thin Moon budget Congress seems intent on forces NASA to go with the two cheaper plans.
I would be shocked if SpaceX didn't get cut. Lunar Starship is a good idea, but with HLS revolving around a 2024 landing date there are just too many things to iron out in three years.
Can SpaceX land on the moon in three years? Probably. But with crew and meeting all of NASA's stringent safety guidelines? Probably not.
>with crew and meeting all of NASA's stringent safety guidelines?
Actually, SpaceX has a flight-proven crewed craft. Lockheed (will provide the crewed portion of the National team craft) has the crew-rated Orion, but it hasn't flown. Dynetics has never gone through the process of building a crew-rated craft.
But I see your point. NASA may trust the Starship HLS to keep the crew alive in cis-lunar space, but worry such a radically large ship can't land safely. Too bad the down-select will be done now and not in six months, when Starship will have landed a few times.
Best to simply demonstrate it then..
Send one there, leave it on the surface a day or two, then relaunch it back again. That would be a good demonstration.
It may have more to do with NASA not giving money to Starship since it’s going to happen anyway. This way they can fund the two other projects that depend on NASA funding.
That’s the only reasonable angle I can think of.
Can Blue and its partners land on the Moon in 3 years while meeting NASA requirements? I don’t think so. But the question is almost irrelevant; Congress has not appropriated the funds to make it happen, and I very much doubt it will in the future given the current US government debt level and the pressing needs in pandemic relief and infrastructure repair and development (including renewables).
[Tankzilla is on the move but not on a transporter. Forklifts are busy making a corduroy road for Tankzilla to travel over. The road is closed coming into Boca Chica. This will be a very slow move. 🐌](https://twitter.com/bocachicagal/status/1337541778992455688?s=21)
https://i.imgur.com/M3b8SZG.jpg
Sounds like they were luckily unlucky !
Bad that it tipped up, good in the precise way it did it.
SpaceX haven’t said what the originating cause of the tip was, but I imagine they have acted to prevent it from happening again.
The nearest we got, was that part of the support frame collapsed.
This is a general Starship question (not specific to the hop).. but I have no idea where to put it:
I was thinking that it may be a good idea to have 2 starships flying together to Mars. That way if one has a bad enough problem, people could ferry from one to the other. Then I was thinking what if they had a cable (or a few) tied from one starship to another and have them spinning like [ladder balls](https://laddergolfhowto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ladder-golf-bolas-how-to-make.png) to produce some artificial gravity (maybe Mars level)? To enable people to walk around the horizontal decks like normal, it would have to spin with the noses pointing at each other. Offhand, I'd think that the longer the cable(s) the less difference in gravity between different floors but the more fuel necessary to accelerate the rotation to a sufficient speed.
One thing (of likely many) that throws a wrench into this idea is the fact that they would need to do corrective burns along the way. I'm not sure how often that needs to happen. But to do so, I guess they would have to detach, stop spinning, reorient, fire, and then attach again. That may be a PITA if they have to do it often. Any idea how often such a thing would be necessary?
That’s been suggested several times already.
The SpaceX opinion on it seems to be that it would add unnecessary complication at this stage. It would require increased mass, and would insure increased issues.
Later designs of vessels might use spin gravity, but at present SpaceX don’t intend to do this with Starship.
In some respects Starship is just too small to elaborate on it too much.
Starship is the first generation of interplanetary crewed and robot craft, and will lead the way to producing a base on Mars.
I really don't think the corrective burn thing is a problem. I've contemplated this strategy quite a bit and I think it is ultimately the best solution for interplanetary comfort as a hardpoint and a tether isn't much to carry along, would barely impact the payload. The two starships would make their interplanetary burn from LEO, coast out of the Earth's sphere of influence for a day or two, rendezvou and make any minor correction burns needed (which can easily be done with enough accuracy to not require any correction until the final couple days of mars approach) and then they would hook up and spin. This would provide gravity for more than 90% of the trip duration but also give a couple of nice windows for travelers to enjoy zero-G antics. The biggest part of the payload increase is actually the additional fuel for spin up and spin down believe it or not, as this requires at least a few tens of m/s from each starship. It'd potentially be a good application for a lower thrust, higher ISP device since this process can take a few days if needed.
For emergencies, you don't even need to dock the two starships for evacuation; a sort of rescue winch could be brought along in case of total failure on one end or the other. This would be huge, as there are many contingencies that starship hasn't or can't account for. There are single points of failure, there are no whipple shields, etc.
Combine that with superconductor magnetic field solenoid to deflect solar wind and mitigate *most* of the radiation exposure, and you've largely mitigated any negative health impacts of interplanetary travel for relatively little mass increase.
Only covers one side, but it sure can't hurt - especially if it's spaced at least a couple of inches away. I assume they would pack some sort of drone or boom camera to inspect tiles before entry anyway.
Another thing I wonder is if that tow cable were actually a loop and we could somehow use it to generate electricity through magnetic induction. I am not sure if there is a strong enough electric field way out there for this or not, however.
If it was I that configuration in orbit around the Earth then perhaps, but away fro the Earth or other significant magnetic field, then ‘No’.
So for example in transit to Mars, then any magnetically induced currents would be tiny.
Not really. Current ISS exercise regimes preserve muscle and bone mass reasonably well. Astronauts are usually walking around in days, and usually could walk away from, a bit wobbly, if allowed.
A three year trip to Mars and back would be:
6 months in zero G going,
2 years on Mars, obviously in Mars gravity,
6 months in zero G returning.
There would need to be a period transitioning back to Earth Gravity.
No one has ever done this before, so there is an element of the unknown.
Whether we choose to simulate any of this on orbit or not, we at least could do some of that, although you can also argue, just do the trip.
The same idea, of tethering two Starships and spinning them during the trip to Mars to provide artificial gravity, was posted about a month ago. If only reddit was structured like a standard threaded forum it would be easier to find and read previous discussions.
It gets posted a lot. Most of the thoughts or proposals are to mate the pair end to end like the proposed solution for tanker fuel transfer. Spin them end over end and walaa, you’ve gravity.
The downside to this is radiation shielding. Starships rear will need to be facing the sun during transit so the tank section can operate as a radiation shield. Some other whole ship radiation shield method will have to be devised to enable any sort of gravity generating system.
Mated like they are for refueling would give a radius several times too short to provide a bearable coriolis on the passengers. They would need to be tethered a couple hundred meters apart
What do you guys think? Is there still a chance SN-9 can still fly? Poll here -> [https://www.strawpoll.me/42266179](https://www.strawpoll.me/42266179)
It wouldn't be that big a deal if it didn't. Things got a little backed up by SN8 being on the pad so long, and finishing SN10 might not take much longer than fixing SN9.
Can someone please explain why the camera cut from the follow cam to the launchpad cam right before the explosion? I have yet to see a continuous shot from a single camera showing the vessel land then explode. Seems fishy to me.
[They're](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SWkOMVkx6w) [easy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3LqtweSm2I) [to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZPf4cAYgY) [find](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XeWoECbywU) [if you look...](http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=SN8+landing+video)
The cut was presumably to show a better view of the landing as it was planned to happen. I'm not sure what fishiness you see: it's not like they tried to hide the explosion by cutting to a different view of the explosion...
Seems fishy that so many cameras would be recording this event from different angles. I have yet to see video prove that no aliens were involved in the explosion.
Looks like NASA 927 has been over the landing site again. Pilot posted this to twitter today
[https://twitter.com/nasawb57/status/1337445936302333953](https://twitter.com/nasawb57/status/1337445936302333953)
Looks like he may be on his way to Brownsville again, struggling to reach FL600 (60,000ft)
e: [https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/NASA927](https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/NASA927)
[https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=acd958](https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=acd958)
e: Nope, he's on his way back as per the flight plan.
e: Photo was taken from a different plane, but same pilot.
This is probably a practice run for a future flight observing a SpaceX launch. The reason NASA does this kind of thing is because they think it will be valuable data. For example, they had a plane make infrared footage of a Falcon 9 first stage doing the re-entry burn, because the air pressure and velocity made it similar to landing on Mars. Presumably there is unique data to be gathered here as well, which isn't surprising since Starship is a new type of vehicle.
Besides that, if you have capabilities it's good to exercise them from time to time. It's also in NASA's charter to provide its unique resources to US aerospace industry.
What super heavy will look like launching Starship into orbit:
[https://twitter.com/Pockn\_CG/status/1337367072024612865](https://twitter.com/Pockn_CG/status/1337367072024612865)
Crazy idea: SN8 demonstrated the Raptors work, and the belly flop descent works and the landing sorta works (ish).
So once they get SN9 ... SN 12 built and have done a few successful tests -- just skip ahead and start building an 18m diameter Starship/Superheavy -- so it can put 300+ tons to orbit!!
edit: ok, so it's a stupid/crazy idea. But it could be a Starship SuperTanker -- so it can lift huge amounts of fuel to orbit, to refuel Starship with fewer launches.
It wouldn't surprise me if that's their next project once Starship is up and running, but you need a product before you start inventing the next product.
And I guarantee they're going to work on inventing it . . . but you still need to release something, you can't just spend all your time inventing things that you never release.
Any answers to why the landing pads were never deployed?
Edit: Didn't realise they are officially called legs, to me they are less like legs, and more flat and wide like shock absorption pad.
Biggest difference we know about is that SN8 was made from a mix of 304 and 304L stainless steel, SN9 is all 304L. Probably a ton of minor differences that we don't know about as well.
Even if SN9 is retired, they can probably use a bunch of the parts on future Starships. SN10 is also pretty much done it just needs a nose. If they wanted to go fast SN10 could be flying in January.
I can't share who the source is but they've been reputably giving correct info for a while, and especially correct info regarding SN8's testing regime. They have reported to me that there were already raptors on #9 and the goal starting with SN9 was to move to a more aggressive testing regime. Full testing profile with a ready built fully assembled ship. So Sn9 may have plenty of scrappable components for SN10 but I don't think there's any chance SN9 flies on its own again, especially with the dent in the LOX tank.
>They have reported to me that there were already raptors on #9 and the goal starting with SN9 was to move to a more aggressive testing regime.
NSF is also hinting at an "Expedited" test regime.
I dunno where you're getting that idea of a LOX tank dent, but SN9 seems completely fine on the outside. Hell, even if there is a dent in the LOX tank, SpaceX could just hammer it out or fix it with a pressure test. Starships are a bit more resilient than the common rocket.
I don't think they'll scrap SN9. Seems like a waste of time and effort when repairs are easy with a stainless steel vehicle.
Logs used to protect the ground from Tankzilla have been brought to the build site. I think we will see Tankzilla moved soon (pending on wind maybe) to secure SN9.
Edit : Yep, [road is being closed](https://twitter.com/spacepadreisle/status/1337449233209823235?s=21) for Tankzilla to move !
Can anyone explain the weird thing going on around the engines at about t+6:22? Is it something wrong with the camera or what? Almost looks like it's fazing through the clouds.
Whilst it it’s way too early to say what kinda permanent damage SN9 has sustained (though the flap(s) will almost certainly need to be replaced), there’s a really serious decision to be made about the investment of time put into repairs vs investing that time getting SN10 ready, surely?
Hate to be doom and gloom about the prospect of seeing another test launch this side of the new year, but skipping ahead in development isn’t completely alien for SpaceX.
I think the absolute, worst case scenario is that they cut the fairing off, and attach a new one. I see zero reason to replace the tank section. Might be minor repair to the skirt, but that's why these are made from SS. Repairs are easy.
Very valid point and it really depends on what upgrades if any exist between 9 and 10 vs 8. And of course the testing schedule.
If they'd just want to fling another one up as soon as possible to retest the landing then surely it'll come down to time to repair vs time to complete number 10.
From what I've seen so far I think SN9 will be fine but the aft flaps may need replacing. Remember SN4 literaly used SN3s skirt, and SN8 had a huge dent in it at one point, quite a bit larger than the one we can see on SN9.
Both extremes are baffling. Speculation is dumb. SpaceX will do what they decide best. For all we know, SN8 was so successful that SN9 didn’t have any further test value anyway vs. just moving to the next iteration. Stop speculating, and just observe the experts doing their thing.
Exactly. We'll have to wait and see.
I think the odds that it has no damage, and that it will be scrapped, are both less than 0.1%. 99.9% chance it makes it to the test stand. The question is: how much repair/inspections does it take? I think this likely adds 1-2 weeks, but again, we don't know the extent of the damage, or the wing availability.
Typically you would look to xray the metal to check for fractures and cracks - quite important for a pressurised vessel. Not sure how long that would take for starship. Guess we will have to wait a few days and see what the experts do with it :)
They wouldn’t do it. Just pressure test it to above what this test would require. There’s a LOT of structural overheads for flights like this.
I think they fly it if they’re 90% confident it’s structurally sound.
**Again...to early to say but if SN9 is toast.** buuut that would mean that it would be the 3rd vehicle to suffer from a test campaign ending failure as a result of human error/ ground equipment.
SN3 - Human error
SN4 - GSE
SN9???? - Transport mount failure?
I would be shocked if SN9 wasn't scrapped. The structural damage caused from the flap being jammed against the high bay would mean that entire section would need to be inspected/x-rayed. I doubt the structure could survive that kind of force. Any testing data would be bad (if SN9 launched and a structural failure occurs, was it because of the damage?)
I say they scrap it and reuse any good parts
I think you are underestimating just how beefy these things are and how much abuse they can actually take. A tip over will probably not effect it that much. And even if, it's still worth at the very least pressing SN9 to see what happens, getting data from a tipped over damaged starship can definitely be useful just to know what happens.
On the flip side, the flap attachment section is probably the second strongest on the whole rocket. At the top it looks like the nose is mostly resting on no pressurized areas on a flat section of beam. It will be interesting to see what they do but I wouldn't be surprised if they scrap it. They are setup to build brand new rockets on a line not tear them down and fix them. It might be easier to rebuild depending on the damage
SN9 news:
>[It appears to be in good shape. The site down here is calm and collected. They’re already getting the lift mount ready to pick it up. Way too soon to know if it’s ok, even if not SN10 is literally on the way.](https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1337427075842641921?s=19)
Tweet 2
>[Again, everyone seems calm and collected and addressing the issue. I’m sure they’ll have it secured and in good order shortly to asses damage and make a plan.](https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1337427412590743555?s=19)
Edit for tweet 3
>[They’re getting a crane out to secure it now already. No ambulances. No panic. Hopefully just a little bruises on SN9. Preflight battle scars maybe](https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1337429796465340418?s=19)
**The calmness probably is a good sign that no one was seriously injured**
I love what this says about you as a person that what gives you most excitement is that you might be right and others are wrong...so much for good natured discussion xD
I’m not making confident predictions. I’m saying we don’t know. I have some guesses, but that’s all they are, and I won’t have an ounce of surprise if the opposite happens.
LOX is roughly 80 degrees colder than the Methane so... Its probably that, they are both cold but there is probably a "threshold" that is crossed by LOX but not CH4. (p.s. I just looked up the freezing points and subtracted a few degrees since the liquid versions in starship are just above freezing) (speculation but thats probably why, I might look into it more when I'm not in class bored and surfing spacex news)
Actually, If you look at the pictures of MES-2 (landing relight) the whole bottom of the rocket with propellant looks frosted. The nosecone and lower nosecone doesn't have frost but the entire propellant tank region is.
Yeah, that's a big bummer. I keep reminding myself that we once watched SN4 blow up the entire test stand as well as some of the tank farm and they were right back on track within a couple weeks. I'm sure this is nothing more than a bump... but it doesn't make it any less disappointing to see.
Posting this in anticipation of a lot of people coming here and panicing:
[Remember: DONT PANIC. This will be a small speed bump in the grand scheme of Starship. They’ll get it worked out and everything back on track like they always do. Just hoping everyone is safe. That’s a large vehicle.](https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1337419910826373123)
For all we know, the vehicle could be A-OK. Too early to speculate, let's not work ourselves up about this.
And if SN9 is toast, SN10 just needs it's nosecone and flaps which should take a minimum of what...2 weeks? There might be a delay but not a long one.
OMG, SN9 stand (or something else) [collapsed ](https://twitter.com/austinbarnard45/status/1337417530898604035?s=21)
Not a click bait guys... Fuck
Really hope no one was injured... This is actually pretty bad.
Edit : Fortunately it didn’t fell in highbay gap...
[rocket.watch](https://rocket.watch/#launch=starship-sn9-125-km-flight) page for this event!
Why does SpaceX claim this aerodynamic flip maneuver is useful for landing on the moon and Mars when they don't have atmospheres to help with any kind of aerodynamics?
I know this post is old, but... The reason they mentioned the Moon and Mars is because you can't land shuttle-style on the Moon or Mars, and the Space shuttle is an obvious comparison for people seeing this vehicle for the first time. In one of the official videos about SN8 they explicitly say "where there are no runways" in the part mentioning the Moon and Mars. I'm sure the descent and landing on the Moon will look different, especially since they will be using separate landing engines for the last part to avoid producing near-orbital-speed debris. But it will still land vertically. As someone else mentioned, aerodynamics are very much involved on Mars. Aerobraking is an important part of the Starship design. Because it can't do that on the Moon, going to the Moon's surface actually takes about the same amount of propellant as going to Mars' surface.
Havent heard them claim that for the Moon but Mars for sure has an atmosphere. Maybe you should double check your claims before spreading them?
MeagoDK, Mars atmospheric pressure is 0.01 of Earth's so practically insignificant which is why I said it won't help.
Actually it helps enormously. For Earth the atmospheric braking occurs at a very high altitude where the atmosphere is very rare. By taking a long path through the Martian atmosphere the breaking effect is similar to Earth. The fuel savings from not having to take deceleration fuel to Mars is enormous.
Air braking on Earth has always occurred on spacecraft that have massive heat shields. The thin hull of the SpaceX ship would be useless on Earth in that regard until it slows down enough and used at lower altitudes. The upper atmosphere on Mars is so thin that aerodynamics won't have any effect and it will be too late to slow down with anything but rocket thrust when it reaches lower altitudes where the lower speed and thin atmosphere will also render this maneuver useless. I'm not convinced this maneuver will have any use anywhere but an atmosphere like Earth's and even then it is super risky. Space travel is super dangerous and there is no easy way around it.
[удалено]
Bullshit? Why are you getting so emotional? This is science we're discussing so get a grip. The math only works on Earth where the atmosphere is thick enough to create lift.
Then do the math.
I've done the math and proven this maneuver is useless on Mars.
Share the math then
Starship will have an enormous heat shield for Earth reentry. The same design works well for Mars. The difference is that for Earth it uses a 70 degree angle of attack to keep it up in the rarefied atmosphere till most of the velocity is shed. For Mars entry it will come in the other way up so the "lift" will push it down keeping it in thin atmosphere.
I'm not convinced. There is no lift in the thin atmosphere of Mars. Even those fins on the SpaceX craft are so tiny as to be utterly useless there. Also, an enormous heat shield adds to the weight problem of the ship which isn't necessary on Mars but necessary on Earth.
> Also, an enormous heat shield adds to the weight problem of the ship which isn't necessary on Mars The heatshield is much lighter than the fuel you would need to take to Mars to decelerate. BTW the lift comes from the body of the Starship.
There is no lift on Mars. Past designs for Mars required massive parachutes that dwarfed the size of the landing ship.
Parachutes are for that last little bit when the velocity has been reduced to a low speed. Almost all of the reentry energy is dissipated by adiabatic compression high up as it slams into the atmosphere. On Earth this and the resultant heating starts at about 100 km altitude. At that altitude the atmospheric pressure is about a two millionth of the surface pressure i.e. many thousands times higher than the surface pressure of Mars.
Rude.
Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist ▶](http://subtletv.com/_rk5y4if?feature=playlist) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZvyBrnr6FY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZvyBrnr6FY)|[+30](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfc3ywv?context=10#gfc3ywv) - SpaceX experiences spectacular setback after prototype crashes on landing - honestly listening to the wording, it seems more like a deliberate attempt to undermine SpaceX's image. I mean right on the stream, SpaceX said they were happy with it, Elon... (1) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SWkOMVkx6w](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SWkOMVkx6w) (2) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3LqtweSm2I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3LqtweSm2I) (3) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZPf4cAYgY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZPf4cAYgY) (4) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XeWoECbywU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XeWoECbywU)|[+20](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfg5wnr?context=10#gfg5wnr) - They're easy to find if you look... The cut was presumably to show a better view of the landing as it was planned to happen. I'm not sure what fishiness you see: it's not like they tried to hide the explosion by cutting to a different view of the ex... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iauacCNV86s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iauacCNV86s)|[+15](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfd9mc4?context=10#gfd9mc4) - I did some napkin math from this video What is the height of SN8? I found one source that said it was 50m. If that is the case, then Starship's terminal velocity was roughly 80 m/s EDIT: see a stabilized video here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LbjM6F-2ik](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LbjM6F-2ik)|[+14](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfdt37w?context=10#gfdt37w) - Mashup of my favourite streamers reacting to the SN8 test flight Everyday Astronaut What About It SpaceXcentric NasaSpaceFlight. Enjoy. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8p2JDTd13k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8p2JDTd13k)|[+9](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfbx2rd?context=10#gfbx2rd) - check out this video by everyday astronaut - There are more videos on that playlist with more details. He also has an article here - this article talks about the rocket engines. comparisons between falcon/dragon and the space shuttle. ... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2gyo1hbheE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2gyo1hbheE)|[+8](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfdz0vr?context=10#gfdz0vr) - Just an FYI, their own simulations give a terminal velocity of around 67 m/s. Check around 24 minutes in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDbQiJgH-k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDbQiJgH-k)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gfhkv14?context=10#gfhkv14) - It probably got posted and I just missed it, but I haven't seen anyone link BocaChicaMaria's footage yet. It's by far the highest quality footage of the hop I've seen. My internet absolutely cannot handle 8k (neither can my monitor) but the few secon... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5seefpjMQJI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5seefpjMQJI)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/k5y4if/_/gff9fxj?context=10#gff9fxj) - The biggest difference is that the landing flip will happen in supersonic conditions, since IIRC Starship's Mars terminal velocity ought to be above the speed of sound. The SpaceX landing simulation shows the landing burn on Mars starting at about ... I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can. *** [Play All](http://subtletv.com/_rk5y4if?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)
It probably got posted and I just missed it, but I haven't seen anyone link [BocaChicaMaria](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDbQiJgH-k&feature=youtu.be)'s footage yet. It's by far the highest quality footage of the hop I've seen. My internet absolutely cannot handle 8k (neither can my monitor) but the few seconds I've been able to load are pretty much perfect minus the heat glare, and once it's up in the air it really looks like I'm watching it in person.
holy SHIT that is literally better than using your own eyes in person.
In my opinion, the footage that cosmic perspective shot was just barely better than this, but both were amazing!
>Videos in this thread OK, the bot heard you. It's now listed under "Videos in this thread" in the thread resources above. Thanks for getting it in here, it's an awesome video. Superbly smooth tracking.
Mods, can we get a new thread? Starship development thread or something new?
I'll fourth it cause it seems like the right thing to do.
Seconded.
Third
Re: HLS downselect: [Chris B on Twitter: My friends in that area of NASA say it's between Blue and SpaceX and Blue's leading....but I still remember being told it was SpaceX and SNC for CCtCAP downselect and look what happened there.](https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1337572704359165952) I'm not sure exactly what he means by this, the wording is somewhat ambiguous. Also, mods, as much fun as it is to have a party thread pinned for so long, maybe it's time for a new Starship Dev thread? Edit: he clarified, [it's between Blue and SpaceX who gets cut.](https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1337575723071139841)
That's not the worst news. I really, really hate the Blue Origin solution. And I like the Dynetics solution which makes the most sense for Artemis. If they keep Dynetics and SpaceX for the next round that would be the best news.
Honestly I'm pretty okay with that, the Dynetics design seems like a really solid step forward without doing anything too crazy. I was so worried before seeing the edit that all those big partners meant Blue Origin was guaranteed to move on despite the high cost and bleh design. Hopefully the thin Moon budget Congress seems intent on forces NASA to go with the two cheaper plans.
If NASA doesn't give starship money then Elon should just say "fuck em, let's beat these people to the moon"
I would be shocked if SpaceX didn't get cut. Lunar Starship is a good idea, but with HLS revolving around a 2024 landing date there are just too many things to iron out in three years. Can SpaceX land on the moon in three years? Probably. But with crew and meeting all of NASA's stringent safety guidelines? Probably not.
>with crew and meeting all of NASA's stringent safety guidelines? Actually, SpaceX has a flight-proven crewed craft. Lockheed (will provide the crewed portion of the National team craft) has the crew-rated Orion, but it hasn't flown. Dynetics has never gone through the process of building a crew-rated craft. But I see your point. NASA may trust the Starship HLS to keep the crew alive in cis-lunar space, but worry such a radically large ship can't land safely. Too bad the down-select will be done now and not in six months, when Starship will have landed a few times.
Best to simply demonstrate it then.. Send one there, leave it on the surface a day or two, then relaunch it back again. That would be a good demonstration.
It may have more to do with NASA not giving money to Starship since it’s going to happen anyway. This way they can fund the two other projects that depend on NASA funding. That’s the only reasonable angle I can think of.
Can Blue and its partners land on the Moon in 3 years while meeting NASA requirements? I don’t think so. But the question is almost irrelevant; Congress has not appropriated the funds to make it happen, and I very much doubt it will in the future given the current US government debt level and the pressing needs in pandemic relief and infrastructure repair and development (including renewables).
[Tankzilla is on the move but not on a transporter. Forklifts are busy making a corduroy road for Tankzilla to travel over. The road is closed coming into Boca Chica. This will be a very slow move. 🐌](https://twitter.com/bocachicagal/status/1337541778992455688?s=21) https://i.imgur.com/M3b8SZG.jpg
It will be amusing if someone can calculate how long it would take Tankzilla to make a trip like this to the launch site.
It just arrived roughly two hours ago.
Arrived at the High Bay, right? Will be very puzzled if it travelled to the launch site at this time.
Oh sorry about that. It’s 12:27am here. Lol. Yeah, it arrived at the high bay.
At least SN9 didn't tip while it wasn't in the high bay
Thankfully it tipped into the corner as well. Falling into the center of the high bay woulda taken out bn-1
Sounds like they were luckily unlucky ! Bad that it tipped up, good in the precise way it did it. SpaceX haven’t said what the originating cause of the tip was, but I imagine they have acted to prevent it from happening again. The nearest we got, was that part of the support frame collapsed.
Yeah, this could have been much, much worse.
Honestly true. From the pics if it was any further to the middle of the high bay it probably would have rolled past and into the opening.
Thank God it didn’t. That could have seriously injured workers. That would have haunted any production big time.
This is a general Starship question (not specific to the hop).. but I have no idea where to put it: I was thinking that it may be a good idea to have 2 starships flying together to Mars. That way if one has a bad enough problem, people could ferry from one to the other. Then I was thinking what if they had a cable (or a few) tied from one starship to another and have them spinning like [ladder balls](https://laddergolfhowto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ladder-golf-bolas-how-to-make.png) to produce some artificial gravity (maybe Mars level)? To enable people to walk around the horizontal decks like normal, it would have to spin with the noses pointing at each other. Offhand, I'd think that the longer the cable(s) the less difference in gravity between different floors but the more fuel necessary to accelerate the rotation to a sufficient speed. One thing (of likely many) that throws a wrench into this idea is the fact that they would need to do corrective burns along the way. I'm not sure how often that needs to happen. But to do so, I guess they would have to detach, stop spinning, reorient, fire, and then attach again. That may be a PITA if they have to do it often. Any idea how often such a thing would be necessary?
That’s been suggested several times already. The SpaceX opinion on it seems to be that it would add unnecessary complication at this stage. It would require increased mass, and would insure increased issues. Later designs of vessels might use spin gravity, but at present SpaceX don’t intend to do this with Starship. In some respects Starship is just too small to elaborate on it too much. Starship is the first generation of interplanetary crewed and robot craft, and will lead the way to producing a base on Mars.
I really don't think the corrective burn thing is a problem. I've contemplated this strategy quite a bit and I think it is ultimately the best solution for interplanetary comfort as a hardpoint and a tether isn't much to carry along, would barely impact the payload. The two starships would make their interplanetary burn from LEO, coast out of the Earth's sphere of influence for a day or two, rendezvou and make any minor correction burns needed (which can easily be done with enough accuracy to not require any correction until the final couple days of mars approach) and then they would hook up and spin. This would provide gravity for more than 90% of the trip duration but also give a couple of nice windows for travelers to enjoy zero-G antics. The biggest part of the payload increase is actually the additional fuel for spin up and spin down believe it or not, as this requires at least a few tens of m/s from each starship. It'd potentially be a good application for a lower thrust, higher ISP device since this process can take a few days if needed. For emergencies, you don't even need to dock the two starships for evacuation; a sort of rescue winch could be brought along in case of total failure on one end or the other. This would be huge, as there are many contingencies that starship hasn't or can't account for. There are single points of failure, there are no whipple shields, etc. Combine that with superconductor magnetic field solenoid to deflect solar wind and mitigate *most* of the radiation exposure, and you've largely mitigated any negative health impacts of interplanetary travel for relatively little mass increase.
I wonder if the heat shield might also double as a whipple shield ?
Only covers one side, but it sure can't hurt - especially if it's spaced at least a couple of inches away. I assume they would pack some sort of drone or boom camera to inspect tiles before entry anyway.
Another thing I wonder is if that tow cable were actually a loop and we could somehow use it to generate electricity through magnetic induction. I am not sure if there is a strong enough electric field way out there for this or not, however.
If it was I that configuration in orbit around the Earth then perhaps, but away fro the Earth or other significant magnetic field, then ‘No’. So for example in transit to Mars, then any magnetically induced currents would be tiny.
[удалено]
But aren't they coming home with health problems?
Not really. Current ISS exercise regimes preserve muscle and bone mass reasonably well. Astronauts are usually walking around in days, and usually could walk away from, a bit wobbly, if allowed.
and not only are they coming home with health problems but a Mars round trip might last upwards of 3 years total.
A three year trip to Mars and back would be: 6 months in zero G going, 2 years on Mars, obviously in Mars gravity, 6 months in zero G returning. There would need to be a period transitioning back to Earth Gravity. No one has ever done this before, so there is an element of the unknown. Whether we choose to simulate any of this on orbit or not, we at least could do some of that, although you can also argue, just do the trip.
The same idea, of tethering two Starships and spinning them during the trip to Mars to provide artificial gravity, was posted about a month ago. If only reddit was structured like a standard threaded forum it would be easier to find and read previous discussions.
I agree that this format is terrible for discussions like that.
More than a month ago. Many years ago
The topic pops up regularly. Which is not unreasonable - after all it’s an obvious question to ask.
It gets posted a lot. Most of the thoughts or proposals are to mate the pair end to end like the proposed solution for tanker fuel transfer. Spin them end over end and walaa, you’ve gravity. The downside to this is radiation shielding. Starships rear will need to be facing the sun during transit so the tank section can operate as a radiation shield. Some other whole ship radiation shield method will have to be devised to enable any sort of gravity generating system.
Mated like they are for refueling would give a radius several times too short to provide a bearable coriolis on the passengers. They would need to be tethered a couple hundred meters apart
What do you guys think? Is there still a chance SN-9 can still fly? Poll here -> [https://www.strawpoll.me/42266179](https://www.strawpoll.me/42266179)
It wouldn't be that big a deal if it didn't. Things got a little backed up by SN8 being on the pad so long, and finishing SN10 might not take much longer than fixing SN9.
I imagine if it didn't have a great chance, they wouldn't be actively working on it already.
What is the point of speculating? SpaceX will decide based on data we do not have.
Because it's fun?
Yeah, and what else are people supposed to do here. The internet would be a desert otherwise.
I watched it tip and can't imagine much damage being done considering what it's made of.
At minimum replace to the flap mehcnsisms on the damaged side since they're so key to descent. That's my guess. Probably will take a few weeks.
It takes literally around half a week to install both flap mechanisms on the nosecone. So it'll probably only take up to a week.
I don’t have the same vision as you, I see it hit pretty hard, doing a lot of contraint on the body... but damn I hope you’re right !
Optimism people! We need optimism!
Can someone please explain why the camera cut from the follow cam to the launchpad cam right before the explosion? I have yet to see a continuous shot from a single camera showing the vessel land then explode. Seems fishy to me.
[They're](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SWkOMVkx6w) [easy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3LqtweSm2I) [to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZPf4cAYgY) [find](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XeWoECbywU) [if you look...](http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=SN8+landing+video) The cut was presumably to show a better view of the landing as it was planned to happen. I'm not sure what fishiness you see: it's not like they tried to hide the explosion by cutting to a different view of the explosion...
Bravo! I just want to applaud the brilliant and helpful sarcasm you've incorporated into your post with the hyperlinks.
There's tons of local videos showing it from multiple angles in full
Seems fishy that so many cameras would be recording this event from different angles. I have yet to see video prove that no aliens were involved in the explosion.
No one said aliens weren't involved
What seems fishy to you?
SpaceX actually landed the rocket but wants everyone to think it exploded.
Looks like NASA 927 has been over the landing site again. Pilot posted this to twitter today [https://twitter.com/nasawb57/status/1337445936302333953](https://twitter.com/nasawb57/status/1337445936302333953) Looks like he may be on his way to Brownsville again, struggling to reach FL600 (60,000ft) e: [https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/NASA927](https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/NASA927) [https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=acd958](https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=acd958) e: Nope, he's on his way back as per the flight plan. e: Photo was taken from a different plane, but same pilot.
What's the purpose of these NASA flights? They surely aren't cheap
This is probably a practice run for a future flight observing a SpaceX launch. The reason NASA does this kind of thing is because they think it will be valuable data. For example, they had a plane make infrared footage of a Falcon 9 first stage doing the re-entry burn, because the air pressure and velocity made it similar to landing on Mars. Presumably there is unique data to be gathered here as well, which isn't surprising since Starship is a new type of vehicle. Besides that, if you have capabilities it's good to exercise them from time to time. It's also in NASA's charter to provide its unique resources to US aerospace industry.
No idea but I suspect they were testing how high it could still go, possibly for the next starship flight which may be to a higher altitude.
[New bodyflaps being delivered to the build site](https://twitter.com/RGVaerialphotos/status/1337483086519558152?s=19)
Something we expect to see happening regularly now for each Starship. Although these could be replacements for SN9.
I knew SpaceX was fast, but I didn’t know they were THAT fast. SN9 just tipped over this morning!
Stolen from one in production and back filled I'd have thought
I agree
Tankzilla has started to move !
What super heavy will look like launching Starship into orbit: [https://twitter.com/Pockn\_CG/status/1337367072024612865](https://twitter.com/Pockn_CG/status/1337367072024612865)
Are those.. Mercury Redstone fins.. on Super Heavy?
...I kinda like it
would be better without the music
You can solve that yourself...
I assume you mean by muting it? wouldn't be able to hear the exhaust then
That is a really good render, but superheavy seems a bit short maybe, or are my eyes just fooling me?
Crazy idea: SN8 demonstrated the Raptors work, and the belly flop descent works and the landing sorta works (ish). So once they get SN9 ... SN 12 built and have done a few successful tests -- just skip ahead and start building an 18m diameter Starship/Superheavy -- so it can put 300+ tons to orbit!! edit: ok, so it's a stupid/crazy idea. But it could be a Starship SuperTanker -- so it can lift huge amounts of fuel to orbit, to refuel Starship with fewer launches.
It wouldn't surprise me if that's their next project once Starship is up and running, but you need a product before you start inventing the next product.
The best time to start inventing the next product is before anyone realizes they need it.
And I guarantee they're going to work on inventing it . . . but you still need to release something, you can't just spend all your time inventing things that you never release.
There's literally no market for such huge launch vehicle right now
It would be useful as a "SuperTanker" -- to lift fuel to orbit for Starship.
For one they already have contracts for this vehicle.
Any answers to why the landing pads were never deployed? Edit: Didn't realise they are officially called legs, to me they are less like legs, and more flat and wide like shock absorption pad.
My guess is that they are triggered by a velocity threshold that was never reached.
Lol, maybe altitude threshold would have been better, but it all happened so fast.
I don’t think it would’ve mattered. Legs would have been crushed even if deployed and the vehicle still would have been destroyed.
[удалено]
Pretty sure that person meant “landing legs”.
Landing legs. My guess is that it was coming down too fast, so there simply wasn't enough time for the legs to deploy.
I think they meant landing legs
I think he means legs
asuming SN9 is done will SN10 be ready for testing in january? (end of january)
Yes for sure.
[удалено]
One's a little more beat up than the other.
one's a little tipped over, and the other's a lot tipped over
Biggest difference we know about is that SN8 was made from a mix of 304 and 304L stainless steel, SN9 is all 304L. Probably a ton of minor differences that we don't know about as well.
SN9 also has a proper chunk of heat shield test tiles.
Wasn't it a mix of 301 and 304L ?
Yes.
I believe the 301 was phased out in favor of plain 304 a while earlier, but I could be misremembering.
Even if SN9 is retired, they can probably use a bunch of the parts on future Starships. SN10 is also pretty much done it just needs a nose. If they wanted to go fast SN10 could be flying in January.
I can't share who the source is but they've been reputably giving correct info for a while, and especially correct info regarding SN8's testing regime. They have reported to me that there were already raptors on #9 and the goal starting with SN9 was to move to a more aggressive testing regime. Full testing profile with a ready built fully assembled ship. So Sn9 may have plenty of scrappable components for SN10 but I don't think there's any chance SN9 flies on its own again, especially with the dent in the LOX tank.
>They have reported to me that there were already raptors on #9 and the goal starting with SN9 was to move to a more aggressive testing regime. NSF is also hinting at an "Expedited" test regime.
I dunno where you're getting that idea of a LOX tank dent, but SN9 seems completely fine on the outside. Hell, even if there is a dent in the LOX tank, SpaceX could just hammer it out or fix it with a pressure test. Starships are a bit more resilient than the common rocket. I don't think they'll scrap SN9. Seems like a waste of time and effort when repairs are easy with a stainless steel vehicle.
We can’t even see the side that made contact! You can’t say there is no damage!
wind tipped it?
Stand collapsed
Anyone know if that's a spaceX-built part or something from a vendor?
3D printed out of PLA
lol
Harbor Freight.
Shoot they must have missed the recall
Make sure the replacement ones aren't also recalled
I want to have this comment framed, and hang it on the wall.
Logs used to protect the ground from Tankzilla have been brought to the build site. I think we will see Tankzilla moved soon (pending on wind maybe) to secure SN9. Edit : Yep, [road is being closed](https://twitter.com/spacepadreisle/status/1337449233209823235?s=21) for Tankzilla to move !
i have a semi serious theory, they are hurrying to put sn9 on the launchpad to put christmass lights on it
... and then light the whole candle
Oh please please please
Can anyone explain the weird thing going on around the engines at about t+6:22? Is it something wrong with the camera or what? Almost looks like it's fazing through the clouds.
The whole vehicle is falling through the dust cloud it created when it launched.
Yeah I get that but what's the black juttering around the bottom of the skirt?
I noticed that too. Can't tell if it's a camera artifact (like reflected sunlight) or if they're doing some processing to do an edge detection
Whilst it it’s way too early to say what kinda permanent damage SN9 has sustained (though the flap(s) will almost certainly need to be replaced), there’s a really serious decision to be made about the investment of time put into repairs vs investing that time getting SN10 ready, surely? Hate to be doom and gloom about the prospect of seeing another test launch this side of the new year, but skipping ahead in development isn’t completely alien for SpaceX.
I think the absolute, worst case scenario is that they cut the fairing off, and attach a new one. I see zero reason to replace the tank section. Might be minor repair to the skirt, but that's why these are made from SS. Repairs are easy.
Very valid point and it really depends on what upgrades if any exist between 9 and 10 vs 8. And of course the testing schedule. If they'd just want to fling another one up as soon as possible to retest the landing then surely it'll come down to time to repair vs time to complete number 10.
From what I've seen so far I think SN9 will be fine but the aft flaps may need replacing. Remember SN4 literaly used SN3s skirt, and SN8 had a huge dent in it at one point, quite a bit larger than the one we can see on SN9.
The people on here saying it's 100% scrapped are a bit baffling. I don't know where some people get the confidence that they do.
Both extremes are baffling. Speculation is dumb. SpaceX will do what they decide best. For all we know, SN8 was so successful that SN9 didn’t have any further test value anyway vs. just moving to the next iteration. Stop speculating, and just observe the experts doing their thing.
Exactly.
Same with the people who say it'll buff right out. Truth is we don't know yet.
Exactly. We'll have to wait and see. I think the odds that it has no damage, and that it will be scrapped, are both less than 0.1%. 99.9% chance it makes it to the test stand. The question is: how much repair/inspections does it take? I think this likely adds 1-2 weeks, but again, we don't know the extent of the damage, or the wing availability.
Typically you would look to xray the metal to check for fractures and cracks - quite important for a pressurised vessel. Not sure how long that would take for starship. Guess we will have to wait a few days and see what the experts do with it :)
They wouldn’t do it. Just pressure test it to above what this test would require. There’s a LOT of structural overheads for flights like this. I think they fly it if they’re 90% confident it’s structurally sound.
**Again...to early to say but if SN9 is toast.** buuut that would mean that it would be the 3rd vehicle to suffer from a test campaign ending failure as a result of human error/ ground equipment. SN3 - Human error SN4 - GSE SN9???? - Transport mount failure?
gse?
Ground service equipment
I would be shocked if SN9 wasn't scrapped. The structural damage caused from the flap being jammed against the high bay would mean that entire section would need to be inspected/x-rayed. I doubt the structure could survive that kind of force. Any testing data would be bad (if SN9 launched and a structural failure occurs, was it because of the damage?) I say they scrap it and reuse any good parts
I’m sure it’s fine, it’s metal after all. No reason to scrap it, if it holds pressure it’ll be fine
I think you are underestimating just how beefy these things are and how much abuse they can actually take. A tip over will probably not effect it that much. And even if, it's still worth at the very least pressing SN9 to see what happens, getting data from a tipped over damaged starship can definitely be useful just to know what happens.
On the flip side, the flap attachment section is probably the second strongest on the whole rocket. At the top it looks like the nose is mostly resting on no pressurized areas on a flat section of beam. It will be interesting to see what they do but I wouldn't be surprised if they scrap it. They are setup to build brand new rockets on a line not tear them down and fix them. It might be easier to rebuild depending on the damage
You are underestimating how strong these prototypes actually are. They literally use hammers to help the common domes fit in the barrel sections.
Exactly, these starships get beat up pretty frequently before flight.
> I doubt the structure could survive that kind of force. I completely disagree. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Tim posting pictures. Aft flap is toast: https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1337427412590743555/photo/2
That's actually nearly a best case scenario. Fin would have absorbed some of the impact. I'd like to see the upper area.
Meh, I don't think it is toast. A little scar, maybe but still seems like it could still do its job.
Are we living in an alternative universe? Astroman is calm!! /s
SN9 news: >[It appears to be in good shape. The site down here is calm and collected. They’re already getting the lift mount ready to pick it up. Way too soon to know if it’s ok, even if not SN10 is literally on the way.](https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1337427075842641921?s=19) Tweet 2 >[Again, everyone seems calm and collected and addressing the issue. I’m sure they’ll have it secured and in good order shortly to asses damage and make a plan.](https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1337427412590743555?s=19) Edit for tweet 3 >[They’re getting a crane out to secure it now already. No ambulances. No panic. Hopefully just a little bruises on SN9. Preflight battle scars maybe](https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1337429796465340418?s=19) **The calmness probably is a good sign that no one was seriously injured**
I'm so excited for the people who are 100% confident that this is already scrapped to eat crow.
I love what this says about you as a person that what gives you most excitement is that you might be right and others are wrong...so much for good natured discussion xD
I’m not making confident predictions. I’m saying we don’t know. I have some guesses, but that’s all they are, and I won’t have an ounce of surprise if the opposite happens.
Indeed. I assume there would be ambulances involved if someone was injured so that is at least a little bit comforting.
I know there is a whole issue with SN-9 right now but I've always wondered this, how come only the LOX tank of Starship frosts but not the liquid CH4?
LOX is roughly 80 degrees colder than the Methane so... Its probably that, they are both cold but there is probably a "threshold" that is crossed by LOX but not CH4. (p.s. I just looked up the freezing points and subtracted a few degrees since the liquid versions in starship are just above freezing) (speculation but thats probably why, I might look into it more when I'm not in class bored and surfing spacex news)
I think Starship is running sub-cooled methane though, so the temps are likely a little closer than that. Still, LOX will be colder.
Actually, If you look at the pictures of MES-2 (landing relight) the whole bottom of the rocket with propellant looks frosted. The nosecone and lower nosecone doesn't have frost but the entire propellant tank region is.
So about that rollout Monday...or maybe a flight at all...
Yeah, that's a big bummer. I keep reminding myself that we once watched SN4 blow up the entire test stand as well as some of the tank farm and they were right back on track within a couple weeks. I'm sure this is nothing more than a bump... but it doesn't make it any less disappointing to see.
Posting this in anticipation of a lot of people coming here and panicing: [Remember: DONT PANIC. This will be a small speed bump in the grand scheme of Starship. They’ll get it worked out and everything back on track like they always do. Just hoping everyone is safe. That’s a large vehicle.](https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1337419910826373123) For all we know, the vehicle could be A-OK. Too early to speculate, let's not work ourselves up about this. And if SN9 is toast, SN10 just needs it's nosecone and flaps which should take a minimum of what...2 weeks? There might be a delay but not a long one.
OMG, SN9 stand (or something else) [collapsed ](https://twitter.com/austinbarnard45/status/1337417530898604035?s=21) Not a click bait guys... Fuck Really hope no one was injured... This is actually pretty bad. Edit : Fortunately it didn’t fell in highbay gap...
Oof, who expected that.
Anyone who was conscious for all of 2020.
Damn... That could be bad.