Ground system issue scrubs first launch of SpaceX’s Starship V3 rocket

Engineers could make another attempt to launch Starship as soon as Friday evening.

See full article...

 

[uhuznaa]

I’m not really sure why this is spun as a positive thing for SpaceX. If something goes wrong on this flight and it’s a hardware issue then they have to go back and retrofit it on the already built hardware. As opposed to having the fix designed and built right the first time.

If something goes wrong on this flight and it's a hardware issue it's highly probable to be just a rather small thing (like a hydraulic pin not retracting, lol). Also the sheer size of Starship as well as its construction methods should make fixes to existing hardware much more easy than with other launchers.

Them having to scrap what they've already build and start over from scratch is a very remote possibility I'd guess. I also think that after 11 test flights and in the third iteration they should know their vehicle and the flight environment well enough now to design for it.

Although I have to say that the plumber's nightmare of propellant manifolds and pipes especially in the booster is something that is very hard to realistically test on the ground with all the vibrations, acceleration and propellant loads. So the actual launch will be the very first fully integrated test of all this.

 

[Malmesbury]

Incidentally, where is the meme that SpaceX somehow copied the Russian space program coming from? I've see this a few times recently. Doesn't make much sense, isn't factual and seems to be spread via social media.

Just because the N-1 had a bunch of engines doesn't make Superheavy related.

In the case of Superheavy, it is of interest that Raptor is now on 2,750,000N thrust (Sea Level) and the RS-25 is 1,860,000N (Sea Level). This isn't a flock of small engines.

 

[The Lurker Beneath]

Unfortunately we've entered an epoch were derangement is becoming more and more common.

Hari Seldon would be having a field day.

Indeed, this example is exceptional only in degree.

 

[Quixotic999]

I’m not really sure why this is spun as a positive thing for SpaceX. If something goes wrong on this flight and it’s a hardware issue then they have to go back and retrofit it on the already built hardware. As opposed to having the fix designed and built right the first time.

A large committment to pre-production is risky. The impact of the change may be far reaching, retrofit and re-test as opposed to a more ground up re-design may not be the optimum so more risks have to be taken. A consequence of overlapping development phases to get there earlier but in the process you leave issues for the future less able to fully tackle.

 

[YetAnotherBoris]

Is SS man rated ?
NO not even. close.

No, and it doesn't need to be any time soon.

Has SS launched and placed a tank of Methane or any other gas into space ? NO

Yes, if you count near-orbital trajectories. It even managed to transfer approximately 10 tonnes of cryogenic propellant from one tank to another, in microgravity.

The facts are today SpaceX is no nearer to the Moon or Mars than it was 5+ years.

5+ years ago, there was no Starship. Starship has only been engaging in full stack test flights for a little over 3 years. Over the last 5 years, Starship has advanced from short hops of crude test tanks riding on top of janky Raptor 1 engines, to the near mission-ready, refined v3 design that's about to have its first flight.

So oh yes indeed, SpaceX is now much nearer to the Moon or Mars than it was 5+ years ago.

In the SAME TIME, Apollo in far fewer launches actually orbited the moon with a man and then landed Neil and Buzz.

Thats success.

Apollo was evolved from preceding designs and programs (Mercury, Gemini), rather than trying to create something (a fully reusable rocket, running on methalox cryopropellants, using FFSC engines) that's never been done before - and moreover, on a scale that's unprecedented, as well (Super Heavy v3 has more than twice the liftoff thrust of the Saturn V).

Furthermore, Apollo involved a national mobilization with participation of hundreds of thousands of people all across the country, and at funding levels that at the peak reached multiple percent of the total federal spending. By contrast, Starship is being developed by a single company, which so far to date has spent about a total of about $15 Billion on it.

And yet, SpaceX is just a couple of years away now from completely eclipsing the capabilities of not only Apollo-era hardware, but even that of the "modern" super-heavy alternative - the SLS.

 

[BrangdonJ]

A lot of complex stuff happens in the ground system.

It is dealing with a massive amount of propellants that have to be delivered rapidly and safely to the craft… propellants that are cryogenic and generally hard to handle and maintain at the needed temperatures / densities.

Additionally a range of inert gases have to be used to chill and purge all of the complex plumbing on the ground and on the craft. It needs to keep the propellants pure as possible in the process (prevent unwanted gases mixing in, etc).

It also has to support the craft during all of this, detach from the craft at the correct times using complex mating ports that have to deal with electrical, hydrologic fluids, cryogenic inert gases, and cryogenic propellants, etc.

You also have the deluge system that requires a massive amount of water driven at very high pressures, etc. (actually gas generators built from a set of Raptor derived power heads, rocket engine pressuring the deluge system).

Then in the case of SpaceX the ground systems also have to deal with recovering the craft stages.

Anyway the ground system is often the most complex aspect of a launch system or at least one par with the craft itself.

In the case Artemis they are dealing with low cadence of launches with long gaps in ground system use which impacts repeatable reliability. Also hydrogen fuel sucks to deal with.

In the case of this launch they are dealing with a brand new ground system and tower. It will have teething pains for the first few flights.

…a lot of values, a lot of actuators, a lot of plumbing, a lot of monitoring systems, storage tanks, etc

Also the ground system will be bathed in rocket exhaust during each launch. That's a pretty hostile environment to keep anything working in. A lot of heat, a lot of vibration.

 

[BrangdonJ]

Question
I've read (from people that are SpaceX critics Ithink) that the flights so far have carried "payloads" that are below the specs required for effective launches. Is that correct? Does it matter (e.g. that is not what they are trying to accomplish and when it is they will get close to the design requirements)?
[...]

They're carrying 22 fake satellites instead of 60 real ones. Presumably their individual mass is about the same, at around 1,900kg. The total would be around 42 tonnes (excluding dispenser, door etc), which is less than the 100 tonnes promised, but still useful. (It's comparable to 45 tonnes of New Glenn 7x2.)

They only had 8 for ITF-11, so the number has increased, which makes me think that they'd include more if they could. That this launch has more because V3 is more capable than V2.

I don't know, but I imagine they are low-balling it to provide more margins for partial failures. Getting to the point of being able to test re-entry, descent and landing of the second stage is more important than having a fuller test of the payload deployment. So I'm not worried about it yet.

 

[Malmesbury]

They're carrying 22 fake satellites instead of 60 real ones. Presumably their individual mass is about the same, at around 1,900kg. The total would be around 42 tonnes (excluding dispenser, door etc), which is less than the 100 tonnes promised, but still useful. (It's comparable to 45 tonnes of New Glenn 7x2.)

They only had 8 for ITF-11, so the number has increased, which makes me think that they'd include more if they could. That this launch has more because V3 is more capable than V2.

I don't know, but I imagine they are low-balling it to provide more margins for partial failures. Getting to the point of being able to test re-entry, descent and landing of the second stage is more important than having a fuller test of the payload deployment. So I'm not worried about it yet.

Blue is working on similar payload issues with NG

 

[andygates]

Apparently, jinxed by Nicki Minaj coming onto the official SpaceX broadcast to wax poetic about what a towering paragon of virtue Elon is...

Science deniers anger the Machine Spirits!

 

[Malmesbury]

A large committment to pre-production is risky. The impact of the change may be far reaching, retrofit and re-test as opposed to a more ground up re-design may not be the optimum so more risks have to be taken. A consequence of overlapping development phases to get there earlier but in the process you leave issues for the future less able to fully tackle.

The flip side is that sequential development is a very. very lengthy process. And you end up hardware poor as well, since you don't want to risk building lots until you know what the correct design is for the entire thing.

And that, in turn, means that your test vehicles are hand built, because you don't want to commit to production. Which means the production vehicles need extensive re-testing...

And round and round the argument goes.

The answer is almost certainly "it depends..."

 

[dio82]

-4 years right?
View attachment 135534

Incredible there are still Starship believers here. Especially in a non-Eric Berger safe space article.

The Starship programme under Spacex is not going to go under in the short term. So spacex will just continue hacking away at the problem and sometime in the future they will have all of their ducks in a row. In addition, they are merely in a race with themselves. There are no competitors in that space.

 

[Statistical]

It sounds like all of the holds in those final seconds were due to problems with the launch structure and ground systems, not the rocket. It was the same thing with the scrub of Artemis II. I don't understand why ground systems seem to be the source of more scrubs than the rockets, which I would assume are much more complex?

Ground service equipment is just as complicated as a rocket just less exciting. Lots of parts, lots of things to go wrong.

 

[Jeff2Space]

Apollo was evolved from preceding designs and programs (Mercury, Gemini), rather than trying to create something (a fully reusable rocket, running on methalox cryopropellants, using FFSC engines) that's never been done before - and moreover, on a scale that's unprecedented, as well (Super Heavy v3 has more than twice the liftoff thrust of the Saturn V).

Furthermore, Apollo involved a national mobilization with participation of hundreds of thousands of people all across the country, and at funding levels that at the peak reached multiple percent of the total federal spending. By contrast, Starship is being developed by a single company, which so far to date has spent about a total of about $15 Billion on it.

And yet, SpaceX is just a couple of years away now from completely eclipsing the capabilities of not only Apollo-era hardware, but even that of the "modern" super-heavy alternative - the SLS.

I just Googled this:

Developing the Saturn V rocket cost approximately $6.4 billion in 1960s and 1970s dollars. When adjusted for modern inflation, this translates to roughly $50 to $60 billion today.

So, SpaceX isn't spending nearly as much money as was spent developing Saturn V. Part of this I would attribute to their iterative design process. Saturn V had to work right the first time, so much more money was spent making sure that it did just that (or nearly so).

 

[formerprodigy]

I was guaranteed excitement. Who do I talk to about getting a refund?

 

[1TWO4]

Beware Everyone!!! /s

 

[EllPeaTea]

I was guaranteed excitement. Who do I talk to about getting a refund?

I was on the edge of my seat waiting to see if they could get past T-30 seconds..... ;-)

 

[NotThatCDC]

A little off topic, but it was cringy seeing Niki Minaj on the broadcast praising Elon. I try very hard to separate the achievements of the engineers at SpaceX from the shitty politics of its owner. During the first Trump admin, watching SpaceX’s achievements was one of my reprieves from the awfulness of the time, and gave me some pride in what we can accomplish as a country and species. Obviously that’s gone now. I skipped watching several of the launches last year as a result, but slowly came back to it out of respect for the engineers and what a successful Starship would do for humanity. Minaj’s appearance just rubbed the shit in my face all over again; it was like Freddy Krueger popping up in a previously nice dream. Damnit Musk, why couldn’t you have just stuck to the rockets and cars?

 

[NotThatCDC]

I was guaranteed excitement. Who do I talk to about getting a refund?

Maybe the Justice Department? I heard they have a fund for that sort of thing now. I think you just need to claim it was a Democrat’s fault.

 

[YetAnotherBoris]

I was guaranteed excitement. Who do I talk to about getting a refund?

Excitement is guaranteed only upon liftoff. Prior to liftoff, excitement is merely anticipated.

 

[YetAnotherBoris]

-4 years right?
View attachment 135534

Incredible there are still Starship believers here. Especially in a non-Eric Berger safe space article.

Here's the thing: unlike Full Self Driving, Neuralink, Hyperloop, or Optimus, Starship doesn't really require "belief". Most of Starship's systems are already not only proven, but now several generations into design optimization. The only major unresolved matters remaining, are the longevity and endurance of the TPS, and Ship landing on chopsticks. Even if both of these prove impractical (though both are far from implausible), Starship is already more than viable as a partially reusable rocket (in essence, a mega-Falcon, of sorts.)

So, try to separate Musk's bullshit from actual activity and performance by SpaceX. Judge them by their deeds, not their words.

 

[FlyoverLand]

I thought those series of holds were a bit exciting. Anticipation. Here is to a successful flight tonight if they can get their ducks in a row.

 

[EllPeaTea]

SpaceX departure board now has a running clock for the Starship launch tonight. Earlier it was just showing "TBD".

 

[Malmesbury]

Here's the thing: unlike Full Self Driving, Neuralink, Hyperloop, or Optimus, Starship doesn't really require "belief". Most of Starship's systems are already not only proven, but now several generations into design optimization. The only major unresolved matters remaining, are the longevity and endurance of the TPS, and Ship landing on chopsticks. Even if both of these prove impractical (though both are far from implausible), Starship is already more than viable as a partially reusable rocket (in essence, a mega-Falcon, of sorts.)

So, try to separate Musk's bullshit from actual activity and performance by SpaceX. Judge them by their deeds, not their words.

Yeah

Believing in 2 stage Meth/Lox rockets is pretty easy. Believing in FFSC engines is easy now that multiple companies have demonstrated them, and SpaceX has mass produced them. Believing in the tower catch was a bit harder - until it was demonstrated. The return of the second stage has been demonstrated as well.

So the rational believer (evidence based) is that they can build a two stage Meth/LOX rocket, launch it and get the stages back. The remaining questions are

• The cost/time of stage refurbishment for both stages
• The payload to orbit

 

[Statistical]

I just Googled this:

Developing the Saturn V rocket cost approximately $6.4 billion in 1960s and 1970s dollars. When adjusted for modern inflation, this translates to roughly $50 to $60 billion today.

So, SpaceX isn't spending nearly as much money as was spent developing Saturn V. Part of this I would attribute to their iterative design process. Saturn V had to work right the first time, so much more money was spent making sure that it did just that (or nearly so).

Well there is also the fact that it had never been done and was created using tools that today are laughably primitive. Everything cost more because it hadn't been done before, nobody really knew for sure how to do a lot of the things, and they were essentially doing it by hand.

Saturn V didn't really HAVE to work the first time. It did (kinda) mostly because we blew up a ton of F1 engines on the test stands. The test stands is the unsung hero that allowed us to beat the Soviets. Insanely impressive when you consider the precursors for Saturn IB/V didn't really exist until Atlas-Centaur (1962) and Titan II GLV (1964). Saturn IB flew 2 years later and Saturn V just a year after that.

 

[vanzandtj]

They're carrying 22 fake satellites instead of 60 real ones. Presumably their individual mass is about the same, at around 1,900kg. The total would be around 42 tonnes (excluding dispenser, door etc), which is less than the 100 tonnes promised, but still useful. (It's comparable to 45 tonnes of New Glenn 7x2.)

They only had 8 for ITF-11, so the number has increased, which makes me think that they'd include more if they could. That this launch has more because V3 is more capable than V2.

I don't know, but I imagine they are low-balling it to provide more margins for partial failures. Getting to the point of being able to test re-entry, descent and landing of the second stage is more important than having a fuller test of the payload deployment. So I'm not worried about it yet.

And they're dispensing them more quickly. Maybe this sub-orbital trajectory gives them time to dispense 22, but not many more. And 22 will be enough to judge the dependability of their dispenser. Once in orbit they will have plenty of time.

 

[TacoBuster]

Here's the thing: unlike Full Self Driving, Neuralink, Hyperloop, or Optimus, Starship doesn't really require "belief". Most of Starship's systems are already not only proven, but now several generations into design optimization. The only major unresolved matters remaining, are the longevity and endurance of the TPS, and Ship landing on chopsticks. Even if both of these prove impractical (though both are far from implausible), Starship is already more than viable as a partially reusable rocket (in essence, a mega-Falcon, of sorts.)

So, try to separate Musk's bullshit from actual activity and performance by SpaceX. Judge them by their deeds, not their words.

The economics of starship do heavily depend on how much labor and materials it will take to take a landed and recovered starship and get it back to launching again. If they have to do a full tear down and reapplication of the tiles, or the fins need to be replaced, or anything else critical needs to be reworked, reusing a starship may not pencil out. And they still have to figure out how to make a bigger door if they ever want to do payloads that don't fit the pez dispenser, which can have a big impact on the rest of the structural design.

And maybe they can eventually iterate the design to get the economics to pencil out, but with a vehicle as large as starship/super heavy is, that iteration is inherently slower then what they were able to pull off with falcon.

 

[Kadoro]

Apparently, jinxed by Nicki Minaj coming onto the official SpaceX broadcast to wax poetic about what a towering paragon of virtue Elon is...

Is she angling to be the next "Elon baby mom"?

 

[Eng_wkzm]

Didnt Musk promise we would be on the moon and Mars nearly 10 years ago ?

No, he didn’t. He chattered something about his goal being to be on Mars in 10 years. That’s definitely not a promise. As ab educated adult ( forgive me for assuming you are) you should have the competence to distinguish the two.

 

[Eng_wkzm]

I was guaranteed excitement. Who do I talk to about getting a refund?

The one you paid your money to

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

I just Googled this:

Developing the Saturn V rocket cost approximately $6.4 billion in 1960s and 1970s dollars. When adjusted for modern inflation, this translates to roughly $50 to $60 billion today.

So, SpaceX isn't spending nearly as much money as was spent developing Saturn V. Part of this I would attribute to their iterative design process. Saturn V had to work right the first time, so much more money was spent making sure that it did just that (or nearly so).

I would absolutely not credit Starship with being cheaper until it's actually, you know, working as designed.

 

[Darrellkh]

I sometimes wonder whether SpaceX actually gets more done, at this point in their evolution, without Elon's interference. He still doesn't grasp the fundamentals of sociology, government or civics, but he continues to interfere nonetheless.