back to article SpaceX feels the pressure, scraps first orbital launch of Starship

Today's first orbital launch of SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy booster was canceled due to a pressurization valve malfunction in the first stage of the combined craft. The pressurization issue appeared at around T-17 minutes, and SpaceX made the decision at around T-5 minutes to transition the launch into a "wet dress" …

  1. Potemkine! Silver badge

    I wonder if Musk fan squad will make the same comments towards SpaceX it made towards NASA when Artemis had some valve issues...

    1. FIA Silver badge

      Which comments? That it's many years late? Cost's a billion+ dollars a flight? Has wasted lots of taxpayers money?

      Do they apply to this?

      1. Tom Chiverton 1

        Artemis' job is to keep people employed, not to be useful.

        1. FIA Silver badge

          Gotta love socialism. ;)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Isn't Starship quite literally receiving billions from NASA to bring people to fhe moon?

        Hopefully it's not wasted, but it's definitely taxpayers' money.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Yes but starship is actually intended to go to the moon

          SLS is intended to keep campaign funds flowing

        2. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

          It is, but it existed before that contract was awarded and would still exist today even without it.

        3. Binraider Silver badge

          Quite a bit of the bill of developing starship is out of SpaceX's profits.

          But yes, there is direct NASA funding for developing certain capability.

          Compared to chucking the cash at an ailing Boeing or the reliable but horrendously expensive ULA it is frankly, a no-brainer.

      3. Potemkine! Silver badge

        Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

        And this was 8 years ago.

        Since then:

        - SpaceX lands a $2.89 billion contract with NASA in April 2021

        - SpaceX signs a $653 million contract with the US Air Force in 2020

        - Tesla accepts "certain payroll benefits" from the federal government's $600 billion 2020 pandemic stimulus

        - New York State put $750 million toward a SolarCity plant in Buffalo in 2016

        - SolarCity receives $497.5 million in grants, in addition to tax credits, by 2015

        Not that bad for someone who claims that he doesn't want any help from the US government.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          This is disingenuous - you are totalling up three completely different types of value and claiming that that the big scary total is somehow significant:

          The first two items in your list literally say "contract" and actual goods or services were (or will be) delivered in fulfilment of those contracts - in both cases for considerably less cost than e.g. ULA, Boeing, Blue Origin or any of the others could have done. Are you suggesting that they should only do business with private companies? Or that the US Gov should spend even more money using the other companies?

          Many of the items in the article you link are "benefits or incentives" i.e. not actually real money. They are reductions on future possible tax costs and other charges that won't occur at all if the factory never gets built. No one has lost or paid that money to SpaceX (or Tesla) - if the factory doesn't get built, the state gets no tax money (or whatever it is) at all, if it does get built then they get a bit less than some imaginary number that can never actually happen. Sure SpaceX and Tesla (and every other company in the US) can play the various states and cities off against each other to get the best deal for them but that's how the US works - if you don't like it, vote for something different.

          Yes, there are some actual subsidies and grants in your list but, again, these are things that state and federal governments have chosen to provide. Don't like them doing that? Vote for something different.

        2. Mishak Silver badge

          The money SpaceX gets...

          Is for the provision of services via fixed-price contracts*, not for the supply of pork to fill the barrel.

          Sure, they also take advantage of available tax benefits, grants and awards, but these are insignificant when compared to the amount that Musk, the shareholders and other investors have put in over the year.

          * Some of which are for R&D, such as on-orbit refuelling - though I doubt the contract will cover the actual costs for this.

  2. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    Disappointing that it did not fly, but probably the best decision when something is reporting a fault.

    1. Mishak Silver badge

      Especially when something like this was planed for, and there is a backup window in a couple of days.

    2. AdamT

      I think perhaps we have all started to get used to SpaceX's amazing successes with their experimental vehicles (and, in the context of rovers - both wheeled and flying - NASA is doing pretty well too!) but they did seem to be trying to highlight on the commentary that there is a sliding scale of "success" on this one that even at 100% still ends up with the entirety of the two vehicles destroyed in the sea!

      Goal 1 - shuts down safely and doesn't vaporise the vehicles and the launch site

      Goal 2 - gets high enough before vaporising the vehicles to not vaporise the launch site

      Goal 3 - gets to separation and then vaporises both the vehicles

      Goal 4 - gets to separation and then only one vehicle vaporises ...

      ... etc., etc.

      In spite of the article author's disappointingly ill-informed snark, what SpaceX want most is information/telemetry and they don't always need to "stick the landing" to get what they need. Once they have what they need then they move onto the next thing.

      They didn't need any more starship landing tests because, at that point, they decided not to bother with legs any more - they are going to catch it.

      They haven't bothered trying to catch it yet because (a) they want to make sure the tiles and heat shielding work at re-entry speeds and (b) they know they can deliver a Falcon 9 to a ship with the necessary precision so they are assuming they can do the same with this (likewise with the booster)

      ... etc., etc.

      If anyone is actually interested in the SpaceX thought processes behind a lot of this then I really do thoroughly recommend the interviews with Musk (and the starbase tours) that Everyday Astronaut did and has on his YouTube channel.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Remember with Falcon Heavy, success was defined as "clears the launchpad without RUD"

        Having that happen with so much methane/LOX present would probably result in an opportunity to replace the tower with an entirely updated version before proceedng (if not the tank farm)

        1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
          Mushroom

          A fully fuelled SH+SS stack contains 4,600 tonnes of propellant, of which 21.5% is methane. At 55.7 MJ/kg, that 0.99 kilotonnes of methane contains as much chemical energy as 13.3 kilotonnes of TNT.

          So yeah, if it ever mixed thoroughly with the LOX before igniting, Starbase would be a write-off...

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So long as it actually gets off the ground then, whether it flies or farts, either way it should be one heck of a show.

    Popcorn at the ready

    1. PerlyKing
      Mushroom

      T-0

      As the official countdown says for T-0: excitement guaranteed!

    2. Mishak Silver badge

      Popcorn at the ready

      There's an idea - cover the pad in kernels and reap the reward after the launch.

  4. Eclectic Man Silver badge
    Happy

    SUCCESS!

    Nothing blew up, no extremely rapid disassembly, and the launch pad is intact. So that's a 'win' then?

    Before the launch was postponed, Mr Musk had appealed for everyone to temper their expectations. It's not uncommon for a rocket to experience some kind of failure on its initial outing.

    "It's the first launch of a very complicated, gigantic rocket, so it might not launch. We're going to be very careful, and if we see anything that gives us concern, we will postpone the launch," he had told a Twitter Spaces event.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65294084

  5. GBE

    It's always a valve...

    I thought we were guaranteed "excitement" this morning!

    Calling off a launch because of a valve malfunctioning during fueling seems pretty common (and dull).

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: It's always a valve...

      I'm surprised el'reg still calls them valves

      I thought for their new sceptic-friendly style they would be called 'tubes'

      1. stiine Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: It's always a valve...

        A 'series of tubes.'

  6. _Elvi_

    ... One again, Space is hard ..

    Whether your Soyuz leaks, your Valves hang on 1st try or your self driving, Penis Shaped toy "Fails to Launch" ...

  7. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Even the billions

    thrown at boeing (boing) could'nt stop them from getting sticky valve syndrome on their starliner.....

    Not to worry... I'm sure something with go wrong with Doctor Zarkov's shiny rocket once it leaves the ground

    1. Bebu Silver badge

      Re: Even the billions

      "...sticky valve syndrome ... Doctor Zarkov's shiny rocket"

      Thinking of this?

      https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/flashgordon/images/2/2f/101zarkovcontrols.jpg

      Described elsewhere as a bullet with fins - not that a bullet benefits from having fins any more than an enterprise from having a musk :) The ship itself was propelled by continuous backfiring so perhaps the exhaust valve was faulty :)

      I don't remember Zarkov in the 1930s serials being particularly mad doctorish although he would have been easily overshadowed by Ming. I would think that the emperor of Mongo would better suit Musk's ego.

  8. Tempest8008
    Stop

    Talk about disingenuous...

    This whole paragraph is so slanted it can't stand up straight:

    "Starship has been under development for years, and in a handful of test flights has failed to do much but flop over and/or explode. Its most recent test, in May 2021, was the first launch of a full-sized Starship craft that didn't end in an explosion. The May 2021 mission accomplished its goal of a suborbital flight and successful vertical landing, albeit with a small methane fire that burned for around 20 minutes after the craft landed. The craft has been grounded since then, with today's launch the first planned since the successful 2021 test."

    * Under development for years- yep, several years. not decades. Not bad in designing, building, and launching a brand new style of rocket.

    * Handful of test flights - more than other rocket companies have done with much less ambitious designs.

    * failed to do more than flop over and/or explode - that's just wrong. Data. They got data and if you followed the progress you SAW that they were getting better each time. More timely engine relighting, fixing issues with pre-burners, the belly flop, flip and landing maneuver timing, all of it informed by the previous launch and landing attempts. This is rapid, iterative testing in action. And it WORKS.

    * The May 2021 mission accomplished its goal of a suborbital flight and successful vertical landing - I'm not going to consider flying up to 10km, hovering there, and then dropping like a stone anything like 'suborbital'. Wrong term.

    * The craft has been grounded since then - that's pejorative and assumes there was some kind of regulatory or other limiting factor preventing further tests, that's not the case. SpaceX has been devoting much of the time since then to ground infrastructure construction and continuing to tweak the design of SuperHeavy and Starship. The current mating of B7 and S24 is already obsolete...it's why they have no need to land and reuse them. They want the launch and re-entry data, if they can get it.

    Man...you guys do NOT like Musk, do you? Can you at least temper the obvious hostility?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Talk about disingenuous...

      why he's a fucking twat

      1. Binraider Silver badge

        Re: Talk about disingenuous...

        Being a twat, if it gets the right results for the right price is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not gonna deny that he is an absolute arse on some subjects and treatment of workers at e.g. Tesla not exactly stellar.

        But on the engineering front his head is mostly screwed on and concentrating on the right issues.

        Boeing by comparison can't even get the clocks to run in sync on it's diddy little Starliner.

        1. _Elvi_

          Re: Talk about disingenuous...

          He does not hire the Engineers who build what he sells. (Who, are Ex Employees of the USA space industry ..)

          He's NOT an Engineer. He might have pointed at it and said "Paint it BLACK" ..

          He's NOT a good planner. He might have pointed to a company and said "Buy stuff from them" ..

          He's popular, because some people see him as a "Steve Jobs" and fall over themselves to do or buy what he Twits...

          He has their money..

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Talk about disingenuous...

            This is nonsense.

            Go and watch the youtube videos by Everyday Astronaut where he interviews Musk as they are walking around Starbase.

            It is perfectly clear that he knows his stuff.

            Look at the videos from SpaceX mission control and look at the ages of the staff in the background or who feature/present - the vast majority are just too young to have come from the rest of the space industry (especially from the era when they were actually designing stuff rather than just bolting Russian engines onto an existing rocket).

            1. _Elvi_

              Re: Talk about disingenuous...

              .. you don't have the ability to design the rocket, to sit in a chair and click the clicky-thing and smile at the camera ..

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    so which moderator is a musky fanboy then????

    HAHAHAHA

    Fuck musky twat

  10. _Elvi_

    .. 420? ..

    The new launch date is 420? What a snot move ... But any press is good press, even when its from the chief Twit ..

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like