back to article SpaceX resets ‘Days Since Starship Exploded’ counter to zero

SpaceX has again lost a Starship, after the seventh test flight of the spacecraft ended with a “rapid unscheduled disassembly”, but is nonetheless celebrating the mission as it ended with the second successful catch of its Super Heavy booster. The private space company’s plan for this mission called for Super Heavy to send …

  1. TheMaskedMan Silver badge

    "So while the Starship ended this flight streaking across the sky in pieces, it’s hard to consider the mission a failure."

    It wasn't a failure, any more than Blue Origin failed earlier in the day. Both comprise of stunning achievements and an opportunity to gather data to make the next test flights better.

    Catching those boosters out of thin air is the most ridiculously impressive thing I've ever seen - a company that can do that should have no difficulty in finding and fixing whatever caused the ship to RUD.

    Congratulations and beers all round to the SpaceX and Blue Origin teams!

    1. Andy 68

      caused the ship to RUD

      Please, no, "To RUD" is not a verb.... please?

      1. Sam not the Viking Silver badge

        Re: caused the ship to RUD

        To dis-assemble something implies it can be re-assembled, probably to working order.

        A genius way of being disingenuous.

        1. Andy The Hat Silver badge

          Re: caused the ship to RUD

          Apparently I managed to disassemble my dad's favourite radio when I was a little kid ... no way was that being reassembled!

          1. Montreal Sean

            Re: caused the ship to RUD

            I look at it more as I used my expertise in disassembly so that someone else could show off their expertise in reassembly.

      2. KittenHuffer Silver badge

        Re: caused the ship to RUD

        To RUD, or not to RUD, that is the explosion!

        Whether it is better in the sky to lose

        The bits and piece to explosive disassembly

        For them to land in a sea ocean of troubles

        ......

        I forget the rest!

      3. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: caused the ship to RUD

        ""To RUD" is not a verb.... please?"

        Ok, how about "blowed up good"?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "crashed and burned" isn't traditionally a term of success but if Liz Truss can hail her premiership as a success, why not SpaceX.

      1. Adair Silver badge

        Liz Truss wasn't testing, nor engaged in an iterative development process.

        1. keithpeter Silver badge
          Flame

          "...engaged in an iterative development process"

          Alas, I rather suspect that Ms Truss thinks that she is in such a process.

    3. werdsmith Silver badge

      Is there any word on the fire at the bottom of the booster after it was successfully caught? Seemed to burn for a minute or so, then stop for a few minutes and then re-ignited and burned for a few more minutes?

      Maybe it was just some venting gas ignited by motor cone heat and completely external.

      1. Vulch

        There's still propellant on board (and quite a bit this time judging from the frost lines on the dangling booster) and the booster is quite warm so some of it is boiling off. They vent to stop it going pop through the engines and through the QD plate. It's the QD plate was doing dragon impressions this time although it's not clear what was igniting it. It has dedicated vent lines for use during fuelling so once they are able to put the booster straight back on the launch mount they will be able to use those rather than venting to atmosphere.

        1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

          Not sure but I think it was ignited to stop the accumulation of methane gas which would be potentially quite explosive.

          1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
            Mushroom

            All Starships Great & Small

            https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5d022aa82500006813e37326.jpeg?ops=scalefit_500_noupscale&format=webp

            I was looking for the exploding cow from All Creatures Great & Small.

    4. ChrisC Silver badge

      "It wasn't a failure, any more than Blue Origin failed earlier in the day. Both comprise of stunning achievements and an opportunity to gather data to make the next test flights better."

      Quite. To anyone outside the world of engineering, this might indeed be seen as a public and embarrasing failure. To those within that world, it's merely business as usual when you're still very much in the development stages of a project, and it's often only by having failures that you truly learn how to make your designs a success.

      e.g. I'd be *far* more concerned about, say, taking a flight on a new aircraft if it'd never suffered *any* sorts of failures, no matter how trivial they might have been, during its development, because it's an absolute certainty that anything designed by a human WILL have errors, so the more of those you catch before you release it for general use, the less likely you are to later on have a genuinely embarrassing failure with potentially far more catastrophic consequences.

      So as you say, every flight made by Falcon SH and Starship, regardless of the outcomes, is a golden opportunity to gather more real world data, and engineers will rarely, if ever, say no to having such an opportunity. And yes, seeing just how serenely the booster docked with the tower, bearing in mind how few previous examples of this we've seen so far, was just another thing to add to the list of genuinely impressive outcomes SpaceX have given us - I thought seeing a single Falcon landing safely was impressive, then they trumped that with the near simultaneous landings of a pair of Falcons, and now this...

  2. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

    Wow, a surprisingly accurate report.

    Good launch, hot staging, did lose an engine on retro burn bit there was redundancy for that, hot ring separation amd nailed the catch with failed engine re-lighting. So plenty of things gone as planned.

    Shame about the ship, so many changes it could have been considered a new design. Spectacular fireworks display. Did notice on Spacex feed that a plate or something had failed near the camera and was starting to peel off.

    So while the hardware for the next flight is almost ready it looks like FAA wants to investigate so IFT-8 might be a while though no risk to human life and all debris fell within the designated exclusion zone. However several flights had to be diverted afterwards which wouldn't help SpaceX case.

    Overall a great day for rocket fans. Hopefully won't impact timing for HLS too much.

    https://x.com/realcamtem/status/1880026604472266800?t=gnh5Z8gp8jwPm44utiZ0Dw&s=19

    https://x.com/Fernando91RO/status/1880029801270096129?t=VZoz2v2_LZI3eSmgCaCYIg&s=19

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      That looked like the non structural boilerplate version of the "catch arm rest plate" to protect the heatshield tiles when a catch attempt is made.

      IFT8 might be a while indeed - Scott Manley made a good point that they might want to look at whether FTS was used and or whether it's sensible to use it at that point in flight rather than having the ship bellyflop into the sea in one big bit rather than closing the debris corridor for an extended time whilst the last of the light debris falls...

      1. imanidiot Silver badge
        Boffin

        I doubt there was going to be any chance of the ship surviving to belly flop. For one it would have still been over 3/4 of the way full with oxygen and methane (so over 2500 tons of the stuff) so compared to normal re-entry it would have come down like 3000 tons of bricks instead of comparatively floating like a feather. Add to that when engines where shutting down, the ship seems to have lost the center engines first. That is important because the outer vacuum engines don't gimbal to provide control, only the center 3 sea-level raptor engines have any gimbal authority. It's very likely that with that much propellant the outer vacuum engines are not thrusting through the center of mass of the vehicle, meaning that if control authority on the gimballing engines is lost because they are no longer firing, having just one vacuum engine operational is VERY quickly going to have the ship do a "cobra maneuvre" and it's simply not made to survive that. Even if the FTS didn't fire, I doubt it would have been in 1 piece.

        1. John Robson Silver badge

          Lots of propellant, but also less velocity...

          Of course we don't know for certain if the FTS was triggered, so it might not be a question at all anyway.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            "Of course we don't know for certain if the FTS was triggered, so it might not be a question at all anyway."'

            It isn't a bad guess that the FTS did trigger. With asymmetric thrust from engines going out, it would go off course with no way to correct which would trigger such a system if it wasn't stood down at that point in the flight.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Agreed, blowing it up while it's still more or less on trajectory means most if not all of the debris will remain close to that trajectory. One off centre engine being allowed to continue firing would likely push it wildly of trajectory and either the whole thing or whatever bits it breaks or explodes into later will very likely be well outside the "safe" zone.

              1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

                The engines do gimble plus it has aero flaps and I am sure flight software would have tried to.keep it on course. Reports of debris landing on land which I can believe but so far only pictures of debris washed up on shore which certainly will be happening for some time.

                1. John Robson Silver badge

                  Flaps are no use on ascent.

                  And they'd lost more engines than they could possibly gimbal to correct.

                  But we've not heard that the FTS was triggered... and that might be because the loss of telemetry was fractionally before the FTS, or it might be that it didn't trigger... I'd have expected an FTS callout on the stream, rather than uncertainty.

        2. Spherical Cow Silver badge

          "For one it would have still been over 3/4 of the way full with oxygen and methane (so over 2500 tons of the stuff)"

          Looking at the tank indicators on the feed it had only around 15% oxygen remaining, and in the short time before telemetry was lost the methane level quickly reduced from around 15% to around 5%.

          So, we know the leak was methane, and we know it was not "over 3/4 of the way full" but actually mostly empty.

      2. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

        I am thinking that if SpaceX are saying RUD then it won't have been FTS.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          "unscheduled" means what it means. Whether that was a button pusher in launch control or the automated systems or something randomly exploding, it was still unscheduled :-)

        2. MachDiamond Silver badge

          One doesn't "plan" for the FTS to be used.

          1. John Robson Silver badge

            Well - you plan for it, and hope it never happens.

            Like you don't plan for your house to burn down, but you still have offsite backups and insurance.

  3. Martin J Hooper

    "The Starship used on this trip included many redesigned elements, including smaller forward flap, 2 percent increase in propellant volume, all-new avionics, and new heat shield tiles that include a backup layer. The upgrade also saw 30 cameras installed to help engineers understand the vehicle’s performance."

    Probably the reason for the RUD - We shall have to wait and see what they tell us!

    1. Phones Sheridan Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Schrodingers Starship

      I wonder if the 30 cameras had anything to do with the RUD. Had the ship not been under such close observation, the state of the ship would have remained in quantum flux for the duration of the flight, and all would have gone well.

      Just need that icon to be adjusted to cover both eyes!

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Schrodingers Starship

        "the state of the ship would have remained in quantum flux for the duration of the flight, and all would have gone well."

        You'd have to have a cat onboard and that would be mighty cruel.

        1. Phones Sheridan Silver badge

          Re: Schrodingers Starship

          Then to solve that problem, we don't observe the cat either" :p

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Schrodingers Starship

            "Then to solve that problem, we don't observe the cat either" :p"

            They we don't need the cat to be there, as such. So if we can just take it as read that the cat was there, the two of us can nip off down to the pub.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Sounds like more tests on the ground would have been a good idea.

      1. TheWeetabix Bronze badge

        Believe it or not

        Sometimes the only way to test something in action is to, err, test it in action. Pretty hard to test the whole thing at hypersonic increasing-Q conditions on the ground…

  4. 42656e4d203239 Silver badge

    And still....

    "So while the Starship ended this flight streaking across the sky in pieces, it’s hard to consider the mission a failure."

    Hmm... I suspect people who find it hard to separate Musk from SpaceX will be screaming "another FAILURE1!1!111!"

    It's a real shame Starship treated us to a firework display but it was, after all, an integration flight test; I guess I will need extra popcorn supplies as the usual suspects forget about the word "test".

    1. bumpbumpbump

      Re: And still....

      Space X still haven't delivered those contractual NASA flights, and appear that they are unlikely to occur any time soon.

      NASA should sue Space X for breach of contract.

      1. Gordon 10 Silver badge

        Re: And still....

        Which particular contract is this and what was the due date and penalties?

        AFAIK can see all SpaceX has to do is be better than Boewing which aint hard.

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: And still....

        "NASA should sue Space X for breach of contract."

        It would be nice to know how nice of a contract Kathy Leuders wrote for SpaceX. Perhaps she 'forgot' to include time constraints so as long as SpaceX continues to work on it, they are in conformance.

  5. An_Old_Dog Silver badge
    Holmes

    Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

    First, I'm not knocking SpaceX here. They did a lot of hard work, and learned a lot of things.

    But looking to the future -- the far future of FTL travel and space colonies -- we're going to have to find and work in a mode of ultra-conservative, get-it-right-the-first-time spacecraft/spacestation development, 180° opposed to the current general-software and automobile-software development mode of "We'll just patch it and ship an OTA update." The reasons being:

    * Interstellar spacecraft will be huge capital investments, FTL craft even more so. Time is money, and the craft owners won't want to lose money while their expensive ships are tied up at dockside, getting yet more refits and upgrades. The owners will want those ships serviced and back out in space, carrying goods, passengers, and information.

    * You don't want docking failures because some local-space shithead politicked and got computer interface protocol, or docking collar design (which his large contributor builds) used in his local-space vicinity "upgraded" from spec V1.1 to V2.3. The ship(s) can't just be upgraded (even if they wanted to) to V2.3, because then they could no longer dock with stations running V1.1. Yes, you can EVA your passengers from ship to station, but EVAing cargo modules will be slow and costly, even were it possible. More money lost there. Eventually the word would get out among the ship crews, and those ships will no longer stop at Space Station Y, which would then feel economic damage from the lack of ship traffic.

    * Backward-compatibility and adaptors might-possibly be used, but they add complexity and reduce reliability.

    * Interstellar space comms are slow and unreliable; they're not what a wise and moral person would want to use to update human-safety-critical systems.

    1. Geoff Campbell Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Huh?

      One step at a time, man!

      We're only just now working out how to do reusable flights to Earth orbits. Let's worry about the reliability of FTL and space colonies next decade, eh?

      GJC

      1. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

        Re: Huh?

        I'm thinking (well, not *thinking* -- the idea just jumped into my mind) about it now because human-culture inertia can take a very long time to change. Example: how long have various ethnic minorities been repressed?

    2. KittenHuffer Silver badge

      Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

      You do know that FTL is not a thing (yet)?!?

      Our current best guess at how the Universe works (GR) says that it is not a thing, and none of our observations of the Universe have given the slightest hint that it is a thing.

      Technical note: Matter has been observed travelling FTL when compared to most of the Universe. But this matter was very close to a black hole and was the result of some pretty serious frame dragging by the black hole.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Yes, you're right. Scientifically, Einstein has never been proven wrong.

        But that doesn't mean that we won't find a way.

        I definitely hope that we find a way.

        1. KittenHuffer Silver badge

          We need to find the idspispopd code for the Universe!

          1. frankvw

            While idspispopd for the universe is great, there have been quite a few days lately when I'll settle for idkfa...

    3. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

      So you're going build a cruise liner before you test whether a canoe can float?

      Tests don't have to be full scale - FTL drives will be tested before we building mega expensive space colonies driven by them.

      1. An_Old_Dog Silver badge

        Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

        I never wrote about building a space cruise liner before testing whether a canoe floats. Don't try putting words in my mouth.

        1. that one in the corner Silver badge

          Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

          >> So you're going build a cruise liner before you test whether a canoe can float?

          > I never wrote about building a space cruise liner before testing whether a canoe floats.

          (Cough) notice the extra word that has been inserted in front of "cruise"?

          > Don't try putting words in my mouth.

          !!!

          Analogy RUD in progress...

      2. herman Silver badge

        Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

        Noah did that - his cruise liner worked out fine.

        1. NickHolland
          Joke

          Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

          Noah's family were the only surviving witnesses.

          He left out his test and failures from the official reports.

    4. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

      Looking into the past: there was a big difference between SpaceX learning how to land Falcon 9 boosters and Crew Dragon demo flights.

      For landing boosters the payload was already a long way away propelled by the upper stage. SpaceX moved fast and broke things to find the most cost effective solution to a problem that was on the boundary of what technology could acheive. Landing attempts that ended with extreme lithobraking did not put any people at risk.

      Relatively speaking, Crew Dragon was boring. Still difficult rocket science but an extension of what Cargo Dragon could already do. SpaceX did not take any risks when peoples' lives were at stake.

      SpaceX is capable of breaking things and being careful depending on the project. Starship is currently extending the limits of technology, with some spectacular results. Eventually when there are people onboard the flights will be as boring as Crew Dragon.

      Tesla is a very different company. Deaths are dealt with by their outstanding* team of lawyers.

      (* I mean that in the worst possible way.)

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

        "Still difficult rocket science but an extension of what Cargo Dragon could already do. SpaceX did not take any risks when peoples' lives were at stake."

        Blue Origin did the same thing with New Sheppard. Jeff even took his brother on the first crewed flight which, I think, shows how confident he was in the system.

        I don't see how Starship is extending the limits of technology. Scale, certainly. Nothing is particularly new and the engineering goes back to the 1960's. Stop by and you can go through my library and find the info yourself.*

        *you need to know who I am and make an appointment. Bringing a nice bottle of scotch wouldn't go amiss.

        1. alisonken1

          Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

          I don't see how Starship is extending the limits of technology.

          You don't think returning something the size of a house from orbital velocity is not extending the limits of technology?

          Scale, certainly

          Actually, scale does mean you're working at the limits - especially when considering the "... something the size of a house from orbital velocities ..." occurs.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

            It's not exactly orbital velocity, and I'd say more the size of small tower block rather than a house :-)

            But still hugely impressive to watch. I can't wait to see BO stick their first landing, or at least get close enough we can see it try on camera :-)

          2. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

            "You don't think returning something the size of a house from orbital velocity is not extending the limits of technology?"

            In a nutshell, no. The physics don't change with the size so if you do the engineering correctly, it will work.

            1. TheWeetabix Bronze badge

              Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

              Yeeeeees, and the impressive engineering is the whole point here. Your understanding of physics doesn’t mean piss in a pot if all you have is wood and rope to build the recovery gantry from. (Although the way things have been going lately I wouldn’t put that past the Japanese.)

              1. MachDiamond Silver badge

                Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

                "our understanding of physics doesn’t mean piss in a pot if all you have is wood and rope to build the recovery gantry from."

                If all you have is rope, wood and a knowledge of physics and engineering, you'd know it wouldn't work. You could see that you need some sort sort of material that's stronger, more ductile and less flammable than wood.

              2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

                ...or the Chinese. One of their planned recoverable boosters will (hopefully) be caught steel ropes strung from gantries in a square arrangement. I assume the ropes will be on some sort of movable device so they can close in on the 1st stage. Looks a lot cheaper than a sea-going mechazilla. See here (link to the specific moment, but the whole video is worth a look. Most Youtube channels are mostly cheerleading SpaceX (and now BO) with, usually at best, a nod to the latest Chinese and other launches. Few ever seem to look at what is being developed there.)

    5. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

      > we're going to have to find and work in a mode of ultra-conservative, get-it-right-the-first-time spacecraft/spacestation development

      That's actually how NASA works, because it's being micromanaged by Congress who couldn't tell a turbopump from a doughnut, and penalize NASA financially every time they have the slightest difficulty, and even if they don't.

      And thus you get SLS, which *IS* in a mode of ultra-conservative, get-it-right-the-first-time spacecraft development, is costing billions, is way behind schedule, over budget and technologically a Model T compared even to ULA's Vulcan.

      1. Andy 73 Silver badge

        Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

        NASA isn't necessarily an argument against "Get it right the first time" - it's an argument against government procurement and bureaucratic creep. The same could be said of Boeing.

        You could look at some of the other 'new entrants', that are having to iterate less and get it right earlier, to see that move fast and break things doesn't have to be the only option.

        Indeed, New Glen may still be the first in the race for Artemis...

        1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

          Re: Looking to the Future -- The Limits of "Move Fast and Break Things"

          100% agree on SLS being a poster child for congress.

          Lets take a look at some of the other new entrants:

          Ariane V had some upgrades planned that were pushed to Ariane VI to make it a (slightly) different rocket. Like SLS, demonstrates what governments can achieve when delays and cost over-runs are considered a bonus.

          Vulcan: The example of "get it right first time" working.

          India's PSLV worked second time and has gone through some upgrades with very few failures. An example of government funding done right. A successful compromise between hardware rich and poor development - until SpaceX transporter missions ate their lunch.

          BONG: Massively late and over budget. Used to have a "we will stick the landing first time" attitude. They are currently making progress because of a switch towards hardware rich (or at least less poor) development. The first rocket does not meet the intended payload mass goals but I am sure they will get there with some iteration.

          RocketLab: Started with the Ātea sounding rocket. Their first Electron launch ("It's a test") died from a software error. Attempt 2 ("Still testing") reached orbit. Booster recovery was an afterthought forced on them because they could not source manufacturing equipment fast enough. It has gone through considerable iterative changes and has got as far as reflying some components. They would have made faster progress being more hardware rich but need booster re-use to become hardware rich.

          Firefly Alpha Worked on the third attempt and the fifth of five so far. Currently transitioning to a bigger rocket.

          Astra: Rocket 3.3 reached orbit. Their unique selling point was 99% success is much cheaper than 99.9%. The actual success rate so far is 2 out of 9. Iteration alone does not guaranty success. Currently transitioning to a bigger rocket.

          Starship: Hardware rich to the extreme. They scrap more rockets than they launch. As a rocket development project it is very expensive for the progress made. The goal is a factory capable of mass production. Prototype rockets are a by-product of factory development. The target is one upper stage per day and two boosters per month. The expense make much more sense when viewed as a factory project rather than a launch project.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Send the next one to Moscow

    see if his friend there can spot the issue

  7. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    Starship: Now with extra fireworks

    Mastadon video of Starship fragments crossing the sky.

    1. GNU Enjoyer
      Angel

      Re: Starship: Now with extra fireworks

      Direct link that works without JavaScript or an account on the fediverse; https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/113/840/547/880/480/586/original/e47917121520b38e.mp4

      Unwatchable as it's recorded vertically really.

  8. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    Interesting pair of failures

    Yes I know both were test flights and in that view were both successful as they will have produced useful data.

    Both BONE and Starship failed to complete their entire missions but which was least bad?

    BONE booster failed but got payload to space - good for customers but bad for the company bottom line. Is that seen as a success?

    Starship failed but the booster landed - good for the company costs but bad for the customer ... does that make it a fail?

    I wonder how the company investors and potential customers see it? Perhaps "just a test, we don't care."? Traditionally nobody worried about the booster after stage sep and that was costed into the flight but now that margins are squeezing, customers save loads of money but that introduces financial risk for the launch company as multiple scenarios now have to play out to make any mission a financial winner ...

    1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

      Re: good for the company costs but bad for the customer

      With regard to SpaceX, what "customer" is that? SpaceX wasn't launching for anyone except themselves.

    2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Interesting pair of failures

      New Glenn has a backlog of customers waiting. The original plan was it would launch 8 times per year and would launch on schedule if any of the ride shares was ready. The booster RUD impacts the schedule for the original plan because it did not include building a new booster for each launch. I am sure the plan has been revised to get Kuiper launched within the schedule of the license. I am sure the customers understand there are lies, damned lies and rocket launch schedules. The only investor is Jeff Bezos. It is possible schedule slip will force some customers to switch launch provider. Others will grin and bear it because they value diversity in the market. Jeff has shown he will accept losses for years to gain a commanding grip on a market. Getting to orbit is the big deal. Schedule slip from not getting the booster back matters but is small in comparison.

      Lunch time, I will be back for Starship.

      1. Gene Cash Silver badge

        Re: Interesting pair of failures

        > The booster RUD impacts the schedule for the original plan

        Actually no, it doesn't. The booster was not planned to come back. They plan that the next half dozen probably will not come back either. Bezos is realistic.

        They have an assembly line of boosters.

        1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

          Re: plan on booster coming back

          I said "original plan" for a reason. Blue has been around for a long time with some of us listening carefully for any hint of progress from this formerly very secretive company. Back in 2020 Jeff christened the first Blue Origin landing ship "Jacklyn". It was a rather expensive ship with active stabilisation. At the time people asked about the consequences of crashing a big booster onto that ship. I remember the quote as "... stick the landing on the first attempt". I cannot remember if the quote was from Jeff or Bob Smith. Smith was having to justify his complete lack of progress on New Glenn so was often (by Blue standards) talking up the advantages of analysis over experiment.

          I am sorry I could not find the quote. There are other famous people called Bob Smith. The timing approximately coincides with the first Falcon Heavy landing and some New Shepard landings. I almost got there from wackypedia's link to the wayback machine but the resulting page no longer includes what the article was referring to.

          The original publicly stated plan was to get everything right on the first attempt. I am well aware that the plan changed some time after Smith was replaced by Limp.

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Interesting pair of failures

        "The booster RUD impacts the schedule for the original plan because it did not include building a new booster for each launch."

        It didn't sound like this booster going into the drink changes anything on Blue's schedule from the pre-game show talk talk. I don't recall if there was any mention of how many attempts they've factored in to getting the system debugged. At least two or three, I'd imagine.

        I'll agree with Scott Manley that chances are good this first iteration was overbuilt and they'll be able to asses where they can pull some mass out and how much more they can eek out of the engines. Getting the booster back will be key to that. SpaceX seems to have an opposite approach of starting with as aggressive as they can and then bulking up the points of failure.

        1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

          Re: Interesting pair of failures

          In Tim Dodd tour several months ago, booster 2 was about half way though build and they had started.on booster 3. Not sure what there schedule is but I imagine 3 to 4 launches in total this year should be achievable.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Interesting pair of failures

            "booster 2 was about half way though build and they had started.on booster 3."

            With a good test under their belts, they might step up the pace knowing it works. Hopefully, the telemetry has suggested some improvements.

    3. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: Interesting pair of failures

      It's not BONE, it's BONG - Blue Origin New Glenn... When the pad deluge started, Scott Manley called it BONG water.

      And Blue Origin did NOT fail. The primary mission was "get to orbit" which they did, and landing was considering icing on the cake that wasn't going to actually happen.

      Starship failed IMHO because they didn't get as far as they did last time. None of the new design changes got tested.

      > multiple scenarios now have to play out to make any mission a financial winner

      You don't give a damn about individual missions. It's the overall year you care about. You are realistic and price things so that one or two booster failures don't cut into the bottom line. It's called accounting for shrinkage, which everyone does.

      Falcon 9 had 134 launches... more than the entire rest of the world. China was second with 68 spread over nearly a dozen companies.

    4. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Interesting pair of failures

      "BONE booster failed but got payload to space - good for customers but bad for the company bottom line. Is that seen as a success?"

      Blue Origin was very emphatic that nailing the landing was a 'nice to have'. They were going to try, but it was not a requisite for calling it a successful mission. Just clearing the tower and exploding would have been a failure and so would not getting the payload to its proper orbit.

      I don't think not landing on the barge affects the certification for National Security contracts unless it's found out the the 1st held together just long enough and Blue was very very lucky.

    5. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Interesting pair of failures

      The Starship side:

      Getting the booster back provides a huge amount of data SpaceX can use to improve the design of future boosters. We do not know if it got back in good enough condition to fly again. SpaceX build boosters faster than they can launch them with the current license (5/year) and upgrades to the factory are expected to take them to building 24 per year. An upgrade to the license is going through public consultation and could give SpaceX 25 orbital launches per year from Boca Chica. SpaceX do not have a shortage of boosters so getting one back to re-launch is that valuable this time.

      The big deal for this launch the ship was to test Starlink V3 deployment and the heat shield through re-entry. Both goals were not tested. What this flight did prove is that Rapter 2 engines still leak, the ship either needs better fire suppression for Raptor 2s or to upgrade to Raptor 3 which is (hopefully) less leaky.

      Starship is booked up with Starlinks and Artemis. Other customers do not need it because they can use Falcon. They would like a cost reduction made possible by Starship's low target price but were not expecting it any time soon. If there is a price reduction it would be because of competition and would be independent on Starship progress. The SLS half of NASA might make some public statements about slow Starship progress but inwardly are happy about anything that provides cover for SLS/Orion schedule slip. Starship is needed to give Starlink a boost in capacity. In some regions, Starlink is effectively sold out until the fleet includes a significant proportion of V3 satellites.

      After getting kicked out of Paypal Musk made sure the same thing would not happen again at SpaceX. Although there are other investors the only one with power is Musk. We have some information about how investors feel from last month. This was a secondary sale: SpaceX did not issue new stock. Investors sold to other investors and SpaceX. The increased price boosted SpaceX's market capitalisation by about $100B over the previous month. SpaceX was one of the buyers and bought $500M of shares. This shows they are not short of money and would actually benefit financially from bad publicity (they would be able to buy back shares at a lower price).

      1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

        Re: Interesting pair of failures

        Just to clarify, I believe the leak wasn't in Raptor engines but in fuelling system which was a new design. And yes they mention they will add fire suppression system.and better venting.

        Starship does have some customers lined up that can't launch on Falcon. Thing is payload lead times are so long that they won't be ready for years either.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Interesting pair of failures

          " I believe the leak wasn't in Raptor engines but in fuelling system which was a new design. And yes they mention they will add fire suppression system.and better venting."

          Better venting? In space? Where there's no atmosphere to provide oxygen.

          If they are leaking a fuel, a source of oxygen and there's a source of ignition, a fire suppression system isn't going to work well. If a fire is detected and extinguished, if the conditions don't change, it will reignite.

          Somehow, they've sprung multiple leaks inside the frame and they need to find out how that could happen. Time to build the world's largest shaker table to see if any plumbing is flapping in the vacuum of if there isn't enough margin for movement and connections are being yanked.

          1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

            Re: Interesting pair of failures

            I don't know what was leaking or how bad, I assume SpaceX do. Elon has proposed some remedial actions and they believe that it will manage the issue.

            As for testing, they have stress test stand (can crusher) as Massey test site which they can simulate launch forces and I know that they tested the ship on there and I assume it passed and they did static fire after that test. The ship had already passed max q and pretty much in escaped atmospheric drag so should have been experiencing fewer forces. It could be the gases had been building up for a couple of minutes and it took that long to become critical which is why they talked about venting so a leak might not be enough to cause a mission failure if it is vented during ascent. These are just guessing and I am sure more detail will all be in the report they provide to FAA.

            1. MachDiamond Silver badge

              Re: Interesting pair of failures

              "The ship had already passed max q and pretty much in escaped atmospheric drag so should have been experiencing fewer forces."

              What I see is pipework being vibrated until it cracks or breaks completely rather than stress on the entire structure. It could also be a combination of vibration and thermal expansion/contraction. The more pipes and fittings there are, the more points there are for things to go amiss.

              1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

                Re: Interesting pair of failures

                One of the harder jobs is to recreate the error on the test stands. They have done a lot of cryo testing and stress testing but there is only so much they can do on the ground or in software. At the end of the day the real test is to fly the thing.

  9. frankvw

    There are other limits as well

    Apart from demonstrating once again that rocket science is hard, if anything the latest flight has shown that the work of air traffic controllers is quickly becoming more difficult. Flights have been delayed or diverted on the basis of the planned re-entry, and now there's been a shedload of falling debris as well. If Musk, Bezos and the others don't get it right, there's going to be a lot more debris and re-entries in unexpected places, and ATCs the world over will have a job minimizing the impact on air traffic. If they get it right, there's going to be a lot more launches, and ATCs the world over will have a job minimizing the impact on air traffic. Either way, we need to re-think air traffic control before too long.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: There are other limits as well

      "Apart from demonstrating once again that rocket science is hard"

      Rocket 'science' is very straight forward. Rocket 'engineering' is much more difficult. The turbopump impeller for the Shuttle was machined out of a solid block of Titanium. Before they started, they subjected the metal to every test they could to see if there were any flaws. If some were discovered later, that could be two weeks of continuous machining down the loo. It's not that difficult to so simulations on a perfect block of metal in the computer. The same goes for electronics. I nearly always start a new design with ideal transistors, capacitors, inductors, etc. The work really gets messy when I have to figure out if there are real world components that are good enough. I like tube amp circuits as there's usually lots of wiggle room. I have an old Fender Bassman with resistors that have a tolerance of 20%. All of the capacitors have been replaced and are much better than original which were also very sloppy, but the amp worked when it left the factory. The avionics I designed had 1% tolerance resistor as a minimum and many of the capacitors were hand selected in analog filter circuits. The cost wasn't a big deal and really wasn't that expensive for building 1-3 of something. it also meant not having to build in lots of calibration options to dial things in.

    2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

      Re: There are other limits as well

      No the real problem is there are too many planes in the air, just like there are too many cars driving around.

      1. David Hicklin Silver badge

        Re: There are other limits as well

        > No the real problem is there are too many planes in the air,

        You can ride in one in the vicinity of the next rocket launch then

        1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

          Re: There are other limits as well

          Planes are for losers who accept their life being wasted in a prison even if it flies.

  10. Andy 73 Silver badge

    Fans will gush, haters will hate...

    How you interpret this outcome is going to depend heavily on your enthusiasm for SpaceX and what you feel about Musk.

    From an engineering perspective, yes you could call it a "not failure", but this begs two questions that are (like it or not) closely tied to Musk's approach to project management.

    1). If we're still at the stage of significant redesigns between test flights, how close are we to a final design? 3 flights? 23 flights? This really matters.

    2). Do we have a more accurate view than "it landed" v's "it blew up" for reliability - because even six successful landings in a row doesn't count for **** if each one was one loose component/litres of fuel away from disaster. Iteration is not the same as proving reliability at this stage of a product's design cycle.

    Both of these speak to Musk's approach of rapid, public iteration, and very poor grasp of safe delivery. On his cars, Autopilot is now on it's 13'th major iteration and after ten years of "nearly there" is still not generally safe for autonomous control, with Tesla actively obscuring safety statistics. You can very fairly argue that SpaceX is not Tesla - but just as with Tesla, the rocket company has gone from a not especially controversial first design created by industry leaders who've since left the company, to a revolutionary new design that is testing quite a few engineering limits.

    As with Autopilot, enthusiasts for engineering process and visionary ideas will be delighted to see the show - and will dismiss any criticism as "haters". The more cynical will be asking whether (having clearly missed the 2026 NASA Artemis schedule) SpaceX is realistically going to be providing commercial service this decade with Starship.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fans will gush, haters will hate...

      Fans will gush, haters will hate...

      And Musk will blame it on DEI

    2. Philo T Farnsworth Silver badge

      Re: Fans will gush, haters will hate...

      Cf. Boeing.

    3. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Fans will gush, haters will hate...

      "Both of these speak to Musk's approach of rapid, public iteration, and very poor grasp of safe delivery. "

      I love to blow things up, but not usually at full scale. The small rocket company I worked for still had a good chunk of cost to justify when we went off to the test site. The propellants where the least of the costs, but having most of the engineering staff fiddling about trying to get something to work for a day wasn't cheap and we all had several things on the go at any given time. At least my objective was to go out to the testing site, verify what we expected to happen and only rarely discover a bunch of assumptions we didn't know we were making. Some days we'd spend time doing throttle setting calibrations to map out valve positions. We expected the engine to work, but we only had a wide estimate of where the valves needed to be set. Before any of that, we'd dry run a vehicle or engine test cell since that only took a couple of people and doing it in the shop made fixes fast.

      1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

        Re: Fans will gush, haters will hate...

        "The small rocket company I worked for still had a good chunk of cost to justify when we went off to the test site."

        And there in lies your.complete failure to understand starship. SpaceX are willing to write off development costs as long as they learn something and move towards their end goal. Be interesting to see how much IFT-7 cost and how much they got of it.theee was many things that went right, some objectives meet (there where a lot of internal changes) which we don't know and some they didn't get a chance to test.

        Don't get me wrong, they believe in cutting costs for something that will end up in production, a production part cost will be needed x 1000 but development costs are a one off.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Fans will gush, haters will hate...

          "SpaceX are willing to write off development costs as long as they learn something and move towards their end goal."

          SpaceX has more money to fling at things than we did, but money is never an endless commodity. The point that went whizzing by was that there isn't a point to going to test without a high expectation of the hardware meeting goals. When we tested an engine, we were at a point where confidence was high the it was going to work. The first test let us map out the throttle valves and further tests would let us make runs to thermal equilibrium. (The throttle tests were very brief. ) We expected there to be a thermal equilibrium at max thrust. Since modeling turbulent flow is problematic, we did have to iterate the cooling and expected that we would. Again, what we were confident about is the engine would work before we started the testing. With the engine well characterized, we knew the vehicle would take off and be able to land so we didn't worry some much about that as how well the control loops reacted to a big vibrating mass and real world throttle responses, RCS, etc.

          I'm not getting a good vibe that SpaceX is getting all of the preliminaries done.

    4. mevets

      Re: Fans will gush, haters will hate...

      How much can you make by sucking Elons dick?

      I am not particularly thrilled with my retirement prospects, so could be willing to become a spaceX *enthusiast*.

    5. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Fans will gush, haters will hate...

      "whether SpaceX is realistically going to be providing commercial service this decade with Starship."

      As there doesn't seem to be any other satellite builders with flat pack busses, commercial service would only be launching Starlink satellites until SpaceX has a vehicle with a more common fairing that can be jettisoned so commonly available satellite platforms can be fitted. Satellite makers are wary about building anything that can only be launched on one rocket. There's a rumor that Gwynne Shotwell had to talk Elon down from cancelling the F9H as they had signed contracts for launches and backing out would be very bad PR in addition to being quite expensive. The F9H doesn't fly very often so it means there is a "carrying cost" to keep it in inventory.

  11. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

    Elon posted the following indicating SpaceX has already pin pointed the cause and has a fix for the issue.

    Some, including myself would say it highly optimistic to think that IFT-8 is happening in Feb. Obviously I have not insider information, maybe the FAA has said they are happy to continue launching while SpaceX finishes the investigation. Its something that happened with the F9 issues from last year but to me was very different situation of a launcher with hundreds of successful launches with a minor issue that didn't almost cause a major issue.

    "Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity. Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month. "

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.

      That's not a "leak".

      And yeah, this was a failure. It didn't do what is has been able to do before, and should have had no trouble doing. Almost none of the publicly stated objectives for the Starship flight were done because it blew up early.

      An explosion and a failure. Let's shift back to using english.

      1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

        Successful launch, separation, ring separation, booster catch, new avionics, engine reuse, internal structure upgrades, max q, plus a whole lot of data.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Failure is success

    Ridiculously named Starship will be lucky to even get to the moon. And yet worlds most bored racist billionare calls it starship...

    Maybe he was onboard for live link to trumps intallation on monday. That would be something to howl about forever.

    I fail to take any project seriously when every launch has wooping and a hollering soundtrack. No serious brains involved.

    1. Grunchy Silver badge

      Re: Failure is success

      Funny thing, Space X launched their actual moon mission 3 days ago (Jan 15/2025). Another 6 weeks until we find out whether it makes it or not.

      https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/14/science/nasa-launch-firefly-ispace-moon-landing/index.html

      This bogus "starship" project, which already spent the entire budget of two complete moon trips, would have definitely failed in bankruptcy except Trump inexplicably got elected.

      So probably more money is going to get funneled to Space X to continue this farce.

      (Musk is a gigantic Ponzi scam so you never know just precisely when he'll be arrested. Could be any day now, could be delayed until 2028 or beyond...)

      1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        Re: Failure is success

        Its amazing how Starship keeps changing this or that, but the reality is the end goal is no where near any closer and people are blind to this basiv fact.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It’s magic!

    Watch me turn these billions of dollars into………..pretty fireworks.

  14. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    Said it before and will say it again, Starship will never get to the moon or mars ,because elon is to busy changing and restarting the mission, making major changes every other mission.

    This is the 7th launch and they still havent tried carrying humans unlike Apollo which had already landed Armstrong and Buzz before their 7th.

    Musk needs to freeze the design and actually try getting too the moon.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "This is the 7th launch and they still havent tried carrying humans"

      Starship HLS won't carry people from Earth. It will only ferry astronauts between lunar orbit and the surface of the moon. To get to the moon will take 20 something launches, though. A fuel depot, a bunch of tanker flights and finally HLS that will refuel and go from Earth orbit to lunar orbit.

      1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

        You forgot Orion on SLS on your list of launches.

        As for HLS, we don't know how many launches for refueling or even if they will use a depot.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          "As for HLS, we don't know how many launches for refueling or even if they will use a depot."

          Unless they make huge changes again to the mission architecture, they've already published that there will be a depot. They need one to refuel HLS so it can get to the moon. It will be dry once it reaches orbit. It's simple enough to look up how many tons of propellant that takes and it's far in excess of one additional tanker flight so either there will be a depot to stock up on propellants and shade them so they don't all boil off too quickly, or they will need a way to launch and interconnect a mess of tankers to do the job. That's a lot of engineering that is all brand new.

          1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

            Seeing as they haven't finalised the design and there is a new booster and new ship confirmed along with new engines plus we don't know what payload mass will be, boil off rates, transfer efficiency, tanker capacity (Elon was talking about 250 tons with block 3). I assume it will be more than one transfer required, it could be somewhere between 5 and 10 but it could be more. Its rather hard to confirm anything at the moment. They haven't revealed a huge amount of information since they won the contract but I am sure they are further along design then they have revealed.

            Elon did mention ages ago about no depot and they will refuel the ship directly which may be possible as there isn't any crew and HLS could hang in LEO but does it make sense especially if docking and transfer takes day or more and you have to think about orbits, its no good launch 5 tankers in a day even if transfer takes minutes, the depot or ship will be in the wrong orbit. Looks at ISS, they have one or two window per day.

            The last I heard is the want to test propellant transfer this year but no details on what that means, they have already done an internal tank transfer test so surely it means vehicle to vehicle ? And how does IFT-7 setback delay everything ? It could be weeks, it could be months. Are SpaceX confident enough to try a ship catch still on IFT-8, I can't see how with the latest set back. And how long a delay, weeks, months ? FAA are certainly quicker then they used to be, F9 investigation didn't take long and I am sure that redesign is going to take longer then FAA approval. What happens if they start booster reuse and ship reuse, they could be launching every couple of weeks ?

            Just have to keep watching the tank watchers and keep an eye on X news feed.

            1. MachDiamond Silver badge

              "Are SpaceX confident enough to try a ship catch still on IFT-8"

              If by ship catch you mean a catch of the Starship upper stage, they'll need to get all the way around the Earth and back to Boca Chica. That will mean flying over populated land and a much higher regulatory bar to clear. As far as I have heard, they have a somewhat open license for the same trajectory that will let them splash a few more in the Indian Ocean. De-orbiting over the US or Mexico will take some convincing which would be helped by a few flights not having big problems.

              1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

                AFAIK, they can get orbital without flying over populated areas. As you mention the issue is descent is going to have to go over US or Mexico and turn around over the gulf as the catch arms are pointing out over the gulf facing East and the Ship will be approaching from the West.

      2. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        I never said SS was carrying humans. In fact the word "human" or "oboard" or similar words do not appear in my comment.

        Can you read ?

        I simply pointed out that the entire big goal of the project is no where nearer to accomplishing its end goal.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > Musk needs to freeze the design and actually try getting too the moon.

      The business of Starship is probably launching Starlinks.

      Looking a decade or more out, Starlink might be able to eat the lunch of a lot of terrestrial comms companies, and that is a vast amount of money.

      Catch is, you will need a huge power, and unprecedented beamforming antenna arrays for cellular competitive direct to orbit (rather than just infill service), i.e really hefty satellites.

      Swallowing the worlds telecom business is big enough to make the whole Starship undertaking make financial sense.

      Going to the Moon and Mars on the taxpayers dime, is not covering it. I personally rate it as a side show at best. With Bezos getting to orbit, the race is on for a comms hegemoney and monopoly.

      (And if you are planning a global comms monopoly, throwing up a "crazy mars landing guy" smoke screen to keep regulators and comptetitors looking the other way as long as possible, can only be good)

    3. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

      Of course they are making changes, its still in development and there will be more changes before HLS is ready. Making changes and testing is what development is.

      As for Apollo, aside from benefitting from $200bn price tag, it can directly trace development back 20 years to Mercury program. Not saying that Starship is a clean sheet design but there are many new developments on it. Plus a fraction of the budget and magnitude greater planned capability. Apollo was 2 astronauts for 3 days with 3 tons of science vs 4 astronauts for 2 weeks with 45 tons of science though Artimes 4 is limited in scope by orion.

      1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

        How many football pitches is 3T of science ?

        Is that 1 or 2 ant farms too see if ants run upside down in space ?

  15. mevets

    Do they?

    I don't really think successive approximation is the right model for this.

    I mean, when your tinkering with toys and prototypes, its all very well.

    If I understood it, they will soon kill people with this lacklustre concern for what they are doing.

    Tesla has more than a wee bit of history in hiding these sorts of failures.

    1. PerlyKing

      Re: Do they?

      1. It seems to be working so far

      2. These are prototypes

      3. You didn't understand it

      4. Tesla != SpaceX

    2. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

      Re: Do they?

      "If I understood it, they will soon kill people with this lacklustre concern for what they are doing."

      Where is your understanding coming from ?

  16. This post has been deleted by its author

  17. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    Starship + Musk is the modern day spae example of Americans in driving Trucks just to pick up an hamburger a ttheir local Macdonalds.

    Musk has stretchd and overweighted the Apollo desidn to deliver the same thing as Apollo did 60 years ago.

    1. Oneman2Many Bronze badge

      You keep saying this but its nowhere near the case,

      Apollo - 2 people for up to 3 days with 3 tons of science for $200bn

      HLS - 4 people for up to 14 days with 45 tons of science for a fraction of the Apollo cost.

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