SpaceX loses Starship upper stage again, but catches giant Super Heavy booster during Flight 8 launch (video)

[Admin]

SpaceX managed to catch the Super Heavy booster on Starship's eighth test flight today (March 6), but the vehicle's upper stage was lost about nine minutes after liftoff.

SpaceX loses Starship upper stage again, but catches giant Super Heavy booster during Flight 8 launch (video) : Read more

 

[msunderl]

This is still a test program, and will be for a few years. To quote Elon Musk, "If you're not breaking things, you are not trying hard enough."

 

[Unclear Engineer]

It is odd that the last 2 flights resulted in Ship failing at almost exactly the same point in its fight program, after several previous flights went well past that part of the program and landed essentially intact in the Indian Ocean.

Did the version of Raptor rocket motor change for these last 2 flight tests?

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

People marveled at the success of the Apollo program landing humans on the Moon. I think it's high time we marveled at the Space Shuttle program as well. Every Space Shuttle was unique but had a successful first flight .. into orbit .. completing a mission with a runway landing and recovery. Every first flight also had Astronauts on board! Truly amazing engineering.

SpaceX is flailing with Starship, not one of them has been a complete success. While they managed to soft land in the ocean, the damage they incurred from their heat-shield probably would have made any normal landing and recovery difficult at best and a complete failure at worst.

Starship is not maturing to become a more reliable and reusable Space Shuttle ... It's a mess.

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

This is still a test program, and will be for a few years. To quote Elon Musk, "If you're not breaking things, you are not trying hard enough."

Yea.. that wasn't the motto of the Apollo program... So cope harder!

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The Space Shuttle also killed 14 astronauts, many more than any other program - mainly due to issues that were "calculated away" that really did not physically go away.

And we lost 3 astronauts to a cabin fire while in a capsule being tested on the ground before any Apollo mission ever launched. And Apollo 13 came very close to killing 3 more astronauts.

Testing has its purposes.

And Apollo did some testing of components in LEO, including the LEM, before embarking on the first lunar mission, which did not land on the Moon.

So, please don't try to claim that other development programs went off without a hitch.

The SpaceX StarShip program is in development phase, not even operational testing of a design that is expected to succeed on all parameters. Things are being pushed specifically to see where and how they fail. No astronauts are being risked.

All that said, it still bothers me, and I expect that it bothers the SpaceX engineers, that the last 2 flight of StarShip failed in much the same way, far earlier in the flight than previous missions. Hopefully, the extra cameras and sensors on flight 8 will reveal what is going wrong that did not go wrong before.

 

[FatBear]

The version 2 ship was designed to fly on a version 2 booster and to be propelled by Raptor3 engines. They have been using "adapted" Raptor2 engines because Raptor3 is not ready yet. That probably means they are a bit of a kludge. And their adaptations have certainly not been put through the grueling testing that the original Rapter2 engines were put through. Also, I would imagine that there is probably some different connection mechanism between booster and ship, so the HSR is probably also functioning as a temporary adapter - essentially another kludge. The gyrations they went through with the HSR on this flight suggests they are struggling with that very thing. Kludges aren't necessarily bad in a prototyping environment, but they are by their nature likely to introduce additional failure modes and increase the probability of what we've seen during these first two flights of the V2 ship. I doubt that you'll see significant improvement in V2 reliability until it is mated to the engines and booster that it was designed for. In the mean time, I'm sure they are learning and improving with every flight, even though it looks bad from out here in the audience.

 

[DanaBspaced]

This is still a test program, and will be for a few years. To quote Elon Musk, "If you're not breaking things, you are not trying hard enough."

Beginning with the previous flight I am beginning to lose a bit of patience and respect for the Starship team. Harmonic effects as a possible cause of the previous failure probably should have been modeled, and maybe they were, incorrectly.
To turn right around and lose another Starship under similar circumstances is kinda unacceptable.

Good thing Elon has his thumb on the FAA. Heck, they probably won't even investigate this failure... if they want a job.

 

[DanaBspaced]

The Space Shuttle also killed 14 astronauts, many more than any other program - mainly due to issues that were "calculated away" that really did not physically go away.

And we lost 3 astronauts to a cabin fire while in a capsule being tested on the ground before any Apollo mission ever launched. And Apollo 13 came very close to killing 3 more astronauts.

Testing has its purposes.

And Apollo did some testing of components in LEO, including the LEM, before embarking on the first lunar mission, which did not land on the Moon.

So, please don't try to claim that other development programs went off without a hitch.

The SpaceX StarShip program is in development phase, not even operational testing of a design that is expected to succeed on all parameters. Things are being pushed specifically to see where and how they fail. No astronauts are being risked.

All that said, it still bothers me, and I expect that it bothers the SpaceX engineers, that the last 2 flight of StarShip failed in much the same way, far earlier in the flight than previous missions. Hopefully, the extra cameras and sensors on flight 8 will reveal what is going wrong that did not go wrong before.

It bothers me. Their thinking feels to me as if they are too accepting of failure, and not trying hard enough to succeed.
Is it cheaper to build another Starship, and blow it up, rather than do more thorough testing and modeling?

 

[VladOk]

if von Braun instead of making Apollos had been actively doing something else then people would have flown to the Moon very soon.
I'm afraid we won't fly to Mars very soon
Our only hope is ULA. Hello, Moon!

 

[Tercius]

This is still a test program, and will be for a few years. To quote Elon Musk, "If you're not breaking things, you are not trying hard enough."

This is not a test program, it's just a waste of money with off-the-shelf technology. Any program in the past with 8 failures would have been discarded.

 

[Tercius]

The Space Shuttle also killed 14 astronauts, many more than any other program - mainly due to issues that were "calculated away" that really did not physically go away.

And we lost 3 astronauts to a cabin fire while in a capsule being tested on the ground before any Apollo mission ever launched. And Apollo 13 came very close to killing 3 more astronauts.

Testing has its purposes.

And Apollo did some testing of components in LEO, including the LEM, before embarking on the first lunar mission, which did not land on the Moon.

So, please don't try to claim that other development programs went off without a hitch.

The SpaceX StarShip program is in development phase, not even operational testing of a design that is expected to succeed on all parameters. Things are being pushed specifically to see where and how they fail. No astronauts are being risked.

All that said, it still bothers me, and I expect that it bothers the SpaceX engineers, that the last 2 flight of StarShip failed in much the same way, far earlier in the flight than previous missions. Hopefully, the extra cameras and sensors on flight 8 will reveal what is going wrong that did not go wrong before.

The space shuttle was a next step concept and had 2 failures on 135 flights. Do you really want to compare the figures ?

 

[Spacelizard]

The Space Shuttle also killed 14 astronauts, many more than any other program - mainly due to issues that were "calculated away" that really did not physically go away.

And we lost 3 astronauts to a cabin fire while in a capsule being tested on the ground before any Apollo mission ever launched. And Apollo 13 came very close to killing 3 more astronauts.

Testing has its purposes.

And Apollo did some testing of components in LEO, including the LEM, before embarking on the first lunar mission, which did not land on the Moon.

So, please don't try to claim that other development programs went off without a hitch.

The SpaceX StarShip program is in development phase, not even operational testing of a design that is expected to succeed on all parameters. Things are being pushed specifically to see where and how they fail. No astronauts are being risked.

All that said, it still bothers me, and I expect that it bothers the SpaceX engineers, that the last 2 flight of StarShip failed in much the same way, far earlier in the flight than previous missions. Hopefully, the extra cameras and sensors on flight 8 will reveal what is going wrong that did not go wrong before.

Point is that full reusability is hard and without LES Starship needs 1000s flights without failure to qualify for human spaceflight.

SpaceX didn't really need a 100t to LEO launch vehicle. They needed something with the LEO and GTO payload of Shuttle or Ariane V. Even for Mars missions. And for larger payloads they could still use expendable second stage with twice the payload (like New Glenn).

Smaller launch vehicle could be designed for much higher safety and become operational + achieve human rating much sooner. Now it looks like New Glenn will be operational before Starship.

All development progress should be gradual. Only after SpaceX mastered 25t to LEO and 10t to GTO Starship they should have try the bigger versions.

 

[Brad]

"Booster Survives, Passenger Die Again!

There fixed the headline.

 

[Brad]

Maybe we shouldn't let the offender investigate their own crashes? Of course now that Elon bought the FAA that might be impossible.

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

.... Things are being pushed specifically to see where and how they fail. No astronauts are being risked.

Except, that's not really the case here. These early Starship Test Flights don't even have a full mass payload yet. Also, they are missing many systems that we know must be added (i.e. for docking, fuel transfer, payload access - you know ... doors.). all of which will require significant design changes yet to seen - let alone tested in flight.

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

Point is that full reusability is hard and without LES Starship needs 1000s flights without failure to qualify for human spaceflight.

SpaceX didn't really need a 100t to LEO launch vehicle. They needed something with the LEO and GTO payload of Shuttle or Ariane V. Even for Mars missions. And for larger payloads they could still use expendable second stage with twice the payload (like New Glenn).

Smaller launch vehicle could be designed for much higher safety and become operational + achieve human rating much sooner. Now it looks like New Glenn will be operational before Starship.

All development progress should be gradual. Only after SpaceX mastered 25t to LEO and 10t to GTO Starship they should have try the bigger versions.

The problem of being too-big reminds me of the Space Shuttle program. Where the need to deploy large military satellites ditched the fully reusable two-stage design for the partially reusable (expendable tank) design we ended up with. Not that it was the only concern.. the first stage booster would have been a monumental challenge (and expensive) to develop - basically a Super Heavy Booster with wings and jet engines to fly back to the Cape.

Elon wanted Starship big to build a colony on Mars. Which is likely never going to happen now. Especially with Elon Musk telling us that we cannot afford Food Stamps and health care for our children. We also cannot afford to protect the environment and have national education standards. We can't afford social security for our seniors. How the hell can we afford a Mars Colony???

Go ahead and delete this post Space.com.. I know you will.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Teamswitch, your reply to your quote of my post is a non sequitur. Everything I posted definitely is "the case". Doing developmental testing on configurations that are not the same as the intended final version is both normal and cost-effective.

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

Teamswitch, your reply to your quote of my post is a non sequitur. Everything I posted definitely is "the case". Doing developmental testing on configurations that are not the same as the intended final version is both normal and cost-effective.

You said.. "Things are being pushed specifically to see where and how they fail." That is not true..

They were not pushing the engines beyond their rated thrust. They were not carrying a large payload simulator - only some dummy Starlink satellites. They were conducting a normal ascent to orbit, something that was done successfully on previous the V1 design.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The rocket motors used where not the final version. And, if Fatbear's post above is correct, they were using that version of motor in an craft designed for the next version, in order to test other things while waiting for the next version to become available.

So, yes, there seems to be a problem with the last 2 configurations of StarShip. But, that/those version/s are not the intended final version - they are interim designs used for development program test vehicles. Not to be compared to the operational versions of the Space Shuttle.

Your own posts admit to that where you say:
"These early Starship Test Flights don't even have a full mass payload yet. Also, they are missing many systems that we know must be added (i.e. for docking, fuel transfer, payload access - you know ... doors.). all of which will require significant design changes yet to seen - let alone tested in flight."

 

[Spacelizard]

The rocket motors used where not the final version. And, if Fatbear's post above is correct, they were using that version of motor in an craft designed for the next version, in order to test other things while waiting for the next version to become available.

So, yes, there seems to be a problem with the last 2 configurations of StarShip. But, that/those version/s are not the intended final version - they are interim designs used for development program test vehicles. Not to be compared to the operational versions of the Space Shuttle.

Your own posts admit to that where you say:
"These early Starship Test Flights don't even have a full mass payload yet. Also, they are missing many systems that we know must be added (i.e. for docking, fuel transfer, payload access - you know ... doors.). all of which will require significant design changes yet to seen - let alone tested in flight."

How many fully successful test flights in a row must Starship achieve before the FAA and NASA approve it for manned spaceflight ?

With their launch cadence of barely one 1 test flight per month SpaceX will need very soon to increase their test campaign launch cadence or it will take them decade.

 

[Spacelizard]

Not that it was the only concern.. the first stage booster would have been a monumental challenge (and expensive) to develop - basically a Super Heavy Booster with wings and jet engines to fly back to the Cape.

Why not Shuttle Orbiter like glider landing on the Bahamas, Azores or the Canary Islands ?

Adding jet engines and flying back to the Cape sounds very overkill.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There are many parameters required for rating spacecraft for crewed fights. It is not clear how StarShip would get permission to fly humans from launch to orbit without some sort of abort system to save the crew in the event of a second stage failure. But, we saw how well that worked (didn't) for Space Shuttle Challenger (killed all 7 crew members). And the StarShip that lands on the Moon would not have an abort system that could deal with stage failure, either.

It will probably boil down to a quantitative risk analysis, based on the failure rates of systems and components for the mission. Which does worry me a bit as a risk analyst, because risk models are never complete, and it is often the "unknown unknowns" that really dominate the risk.

That is why testing is so important. These days, robotic/automated testing provides a much better basis for checking out systems before committing humans to the craft. An example is the Boeing StarLiner, which first did its flight robotically. But, it was not repeated without crew after the problems found were "fixed", so Boeing got into a messy situation when it became apparent that they were not fixed during a crewed flight.

 

[Wolfshadw]

How many fully successful test flights in a row must Starship achieve before the FAA and NASA approve it for manned spaceflight ?

According to Wiki, there were 20 un-crewed test flights before the Mercury missions included human astronauts.

One would think that NASA and the FAA have a safety checklist and each item on that checklist needs to be checked, tested and retested, before being checked off. Whether it take 20 missions or 200, no one flies before our engineers deem it safe.

-Wolf sends