SpaceX making 'well over 1,000' changes to Starship ahead of next launch

May 18, 2020
6
3
4,515
Visit site
In the sub head and article claims stage separation failed.
The main failure here is space.com journalism.
The vehicle simply did not reach the stage separation altitude/speed so stage separation was not initiated.
This lack of understanding or care in research destroys any credibility this article or this web site may have had.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Toado and Brad
Apr 6, 2023
27
9
535
Visit site
In the sub head and article claims stage separation failed.
The main failure here is space.com journalism.
The vehicle simply did not reach the stage separation altitude/speed so stage separation was not initiated.
This lack of understanding or care in research destroys any credibility this article or this web site may have had.
You took the words right out of my mouth but the article also seems to suggest that SpaceX basically said the same thing:

"SpaceX sent that self-destruct command after Starship experienced a number of problems, including the failure of the vehicle's two stages to separate as planned. The company is taking pains to ensure that latter issue doesn't recur on Starship's next flight, Musk said."

Clearly it never came close to stage separation. It was barley supersonic, just around max Q, and had already lost too many engines to ever get near seperation.
 
May 7, 2022
8
5
515
Visit site
I wonder why the "flip maneuver stage separation" acrobatics was considered a good idea by the SpaceX team in the first place. Sometimes, they confuse innovation and whimsiness.
 
The flip is not intended to happen prior to stage separation. It normally is done by the booster stage, after separation, using nitrogen thrusters, to prepare for boostback burn. The flip we saw was simply due to rotational forces due to too many engines out on one side. It was not thought it would handle a rotation while still linked. They were surprised it did.
 
May 7, 2022
8
5
515
Visit site
The flip is not intended to happen prior to stage separation. It normally is done by the booster stage, after separation, using nitrogen thrusters, to prepare for boostback burn. The flip we saw was simply due to rotational forces due to too many engines out on one side. It was not thought it would handle a rotation while still linked. They were surprised it did.
That would be the case for a Falcon. rocket. For Starship, the idea was to initiate a rotation before separation, so that a collision between the 2 stages would be unlikely. Scott Manley has a good video about the maneuver:

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1651031623859843073
 
Apr 6, 2023
27
9
535
Visit site
The flip is not intended to happen prior to stage separation. It normally is done by the booster stage, after separation, using nitrogen thrusters, to prepare for boostback burn. The flip we saw was simply due to rotational forces due to too many engines out on one side. It was not thought it would handle a rotation while still linked. They were surprised it did.
No that's wrong. SpaceX envisioned this flip and separate maneuver. This has nothing to do with Falcon 9 boost back burns.
 
May 7, 2022
8
5
515
Visit site
It was their initial assessment of how to tackle stage separation on Starship. One attempt was apparently enough to convince them to go a different way. It speaks volumes in terms of how bad the data must have been to give up so quickly on this technique.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Aug 5, 2020
8
1
4,515
Visit site
You took the words right out of my mouth but the article also seems to suggest that SpaceX basically said the same thing:

"SpaceX sent that self-destruct command after Starship experienced a number of problems, including the failure of the vehicle's two stages to separate as planned. The company is taking pains to ensure that latter issue doesn't recur on Starship's next flight, Musk said."

Clearly it never came close to stage separation. It was barley supersonic, just around max Q, and had already lost too many engines to ever get near seperation.
Space X didn't say the same thing. Its just terrible, lazy reporting.