Landed on target in the Indian Ocean! Engines relit successfully and it touched down vertically (and then promptly exploded, which I guess was the plan :)
I thought it exploded after it landed?
That's the expected result for this test flight.
Starship's Tenth Flight Test
51–60 of 245 posts
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#52Just saw the splash down. I think this was 100% successful test.
Yes, although one booster engine failed at the start. Not a big deal. :)
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#53Looks like they hit all the objectives!
Splashdown right next to the buoy!
Awesome to see it all go right.
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#54Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#55Some kind of failure in the lower engine area. Figure it's going to burn up on entry? EDIT: made it. I suppose it was meant to blow up on landing in the ocean? It would have been nice to examine the burned components — but perhaps they had not intended to retrieve it that far away anyway.
The walls are 3mm thick steel, they're very likely to buckle and tear when it tips over, the residual methane vapor gets out and there are plenty of sources of heat to ignite it.
They don't claim to have any plans of recovering the wreckage, but they have previously fished up wreckage for study, so it's still possible they decide to do that.
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#56[flagged]
I think Scott Manley's position on the "still hasn't gotten to orbit" take is probably still the best and most accurate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8htMpR7mnaM&t=420s
What Scott is missing is that the only reason "it did not get to orbit" is of interest at all is that SpaceX keeps claiming they got to orbit with starship. I believe that the trajectories have all been suborbital by design, but it still pisses me off that they keep claiming they got to orbit.
The reason this matters is that if they get into an orbit in a short test, they need to exit that orbit with some sort of active system. So the statement "we got to orbit" implies a lot more technology development than the current flights actually show. I agree with Scott that Starship can easily enter LEO, but I am not so sure it can exit gracefully.
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it exploded after it landed?
Well, yes, it landed in the ocean by design and toppled over because that's what happens when you land a 50m tall spaceship vertically in water.
This sequence of events (even though expected!) reminds me a lot of the Monty Python and the Holy Grail speech:
> Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest castle in these islands.
(although I suppose this ship fell over, then burned down, and then sank into the ocean)
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#58Some kind of failure in the lower engine area. Figure it's going to burn up on entry? EDIT: made it. I suppose it was meant to blow up on landing in the ocean? It would have been nice to examine the burned components — but perhaps they had not intended to retrieve it that far away anyway.
Maybe just some part of the construction (possibly even just the strinngers or simply some nook or cranny that is fully eclosed) got presurized or was pressurized for the whole time by just air that could not escape.
That would be fine for the fligt so far - until it started to heat up from re-entry heating. The stainless steel would be still fine if heated to hundreads of degrees, but the expanding gass could maybe make the enclosed volume to rupture ?
Or a mix of methane and oxygen accumulating somwhere and exploding - but that seems less likely to me in a near vacuum environment during re-entry.
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#59Some kind of failure in the lower engine area. Figure it's going to burn up on entry? EDIT: made it. I suppose it was meant to blow up on landing in the ocean? It would have been nice to examine the burned components — but perhaps they had not intended to retrieve it that far away anyway.
[deleted]
Re: Starship's Tenth Flight Test
#60Some kind of failure in the lower engine area. Figure it's going to burn up on entry? EDIT: made it. I suppose it was meant to blow up on landing in the ocean? It would have been nice to examine the burned components — but perhaps they had not intended to retrieve it that far away anyway.
It's not meant to perform well after landing in water, is how I would phrase it.