Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

SpaceX Test-Fires Booster For Second Starship Launch (spacenews.com) 65

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
SpaceX says it successfully test-fired the booster for its next Starship launch, although that liftoff may still be weeks away. SpaceNews reports: SpaceX fired the Raptor engines in the Super Heavy booster designated Booster 9 in a static-fire test at its Starbase test site in Boca Chica, Texas, at approximately 1:35 p.m. Eastern Aug. 25. SpaceX said it conducted a "full duration" firing, which appeared to last about five to six seconds. SpaceX later stated that all 33 engines successfully ignited, although two shut down prematurely. "Congratulations to the SpaceX team on this exciting milestone!"

The company did not state if that performance was sufficient for it to proceed with a launch attempt, but it was better than an earlier test of the same booster Aug. 6. That test ended early, after the engines fired for less than three seconds, with four of the Raptors shutting down prematurely. If SpaceX is satisfied with the outcome of the test, it is likely one of the final technical milestones before it is ready for a second integrated Starship/Super Heavy launch. The first, April 20, failed four minutes after liftoff when several Raptor engines in the Super Heavy booster shut down and vehicle later lost control and tumbled.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Test-Fires Booster For Second Starship Launch More

SpaceX Test-Fires Booster For Second Starship Launch

Comments Filter:

  • Launch Starship and Cancel SLS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Saturday August 26, 2023 @04:17AM (#63798120)
    Once Starship launches, SLS is obsolete and MUST be cancelled.

    $4 billion per launch - and throwing away reusable Shuttle engines - is an abomination.

    The Old Space, throwaway dinosaurs must die, and sooner not later.

    • Must, but is unlikely before at least two more launches, maybe four.

      • Itâ(TM)s unlikely in general. SLS is a jobs program, not a rocket. Congresspeople care only that it generates employment in their state, not that itâ(TM)s horribly inefficient 1980s technology.

        • Here's a good article from The Planetary Society [planetary.org] on the SLS. It helped put all the bellyaching and whining from armchair nobodies into perspective for me.
          • Did you read the article you linked to?

            It pointed out (a year ago) that SLS only continues BECAUSE it generates employment in the states of the congressmen who support it.
            It points out that THAT is its raison d'etre.

            So it backs up my comment and the comment you replied to.
            And does nothing to actually justify the money wasted on SLS.

            Now go back to your armchair.
      • Nope. Once Spacex show they can get the Starship second stage to orbit, SLS is redundant - Spacex don't even need to land either stage to be better and WAAAAY cheaper than SLS!

        And NASA should RIGHT NOW be making contingency plans for that cancellation to happen.
        Anything else is gross financial mismanagement by them. Again.

        (*) It is annoying that Spacex have decided that "Starship" means both the Starship first+second stage AND just the second stage.
        I guess they never use the term "Starship" in engineering m

        • Re:Launch Starship and Cancel SLS (Score:4, Interesting)

          by christoban ( 3028573 ) on Saturday August 26, 2023 @09:06AM (#63798592)

          Redundant or not, we need these extremely highly trained people and their rockets to exist in much larger numbers than just a few private space companies can provide. Even though the price is inflated. This is a "jobs program" that is crucial to our economic and national security IMO.

          • Hopefully we can use these rockets to launch millions of satellites into an orbit that would keep those satellites positioned between the Earth and the Sun to start blocking a couple of percentage points of the sun light hitting the planet to offset the 3000 tons of CO2 that each such test or launch produces in 3 minutes of operation, which is 3 billion grams of CO2, which is what 1 billion people produces in 3 minutes by breathing.

            • I wish we'd been moving on this a few years ago. People are irrationally afraid of this kind of thing. IT's not polluting the atmosphere or anything invasive, and we could easily modulate it!

            • Starship uses methane. Methane is better burned than released. You can take a clean energy source and convert CO2 in the air into methane and burn in your rocket it for a carbon neutral, albeit inefficient, energy cycle.

              • You didn't miss a bit. Methane doesn't have to be extracted and thousands of tons of it doesn't have to be burnt in seconds to stroke someone's ego. If it is done anyway, may as well use it for something useful.

        • >Spacex don't even need to land either stage to be better and WAAAAY cheaper than SLS!

          You're telling me they can build, launch, and throw away several Starship plus SuperHeavy combos for way less than one SLS? That seems a little optimistic this early on.

          Because as incredible as even a disposable Starship will be for getting stuff to low orbit just as soon as it can do so reliably, it'll need at least a couple tankers worth of orbital refueling to get significantly higher.

          Last estimate I heard out of Sp

          • "Last estimate I heard out of SpaceX was a about a quarter billion to build just Starship, and Superheavy was notably more expensive."

            That quarter billion is to design and develop and build a prototype Starship, not to build another copy of the final, designed-to-be-easy-to-manufacture model.

            "even one failed attempt could do serious damage to the launch tower"

            They will practice at sea first, and only when they know they can do it quite safely will they risk the OLIT tower.

            • You sure about that? I remember that being an estimate for the per-unit production cost a year or two ago.

              Sure, once they really finalize and streamline things it'll likely be considerably cheaper, maybe even 90% cheaper as Musk is hoping, but how close to that goal are they today? Are you really prepared to say they'll get there *before* at least a few Starships are flying regularly? At present they're still scrapping a lot more ships that they're flying.

              Because once Starship flies regularly, SLS is out

              • Even if they cancelled SLS today, NASA will not be not looking for Starship flights "today", but in a year or two.

                If a Starship costs more than $250 million per unit then ( 16 times cheaper than an SLS launch ), I will eat one.

    • But what about all the jobs across America that will be lost if SLS is permanently shutdown?

      That's how the government legislative sponsors of SLS think about it.

      • It's not the "jobs," it's the skillsets. We cannot afford for all these people to go to work for McDonalds.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by schwit1 ( 797399 )

          They can sell their skills in other industries

          Reminds me of the scene from Margin Call.

          Sarah Robertson: What's your background?
          Peter Sullivan: My background?
          Sarah Robertson: Your CV.
          Peter Sullivan: I've been with the firm for two and a half years, working with Eric that whole time. But I hold a doctorate in engineering, specialty in propulsion, from MIT with a bachelor's from Penn.
          Jared Cohen: What is a specialty in propulsion, exactly?
          Peter Sullivan: My thesis was studying the ways that friction ratios aff

          • Other industries are not the same industry. The rockets and all their parts and technologies usually do not continue to exist, and new people are not being churned in.

            No matter how you slice it, you cannot just rebuild a national rocket program once it's ended.

    • There is some argument for keeping both until starship has a few successful launches. SLS is planned for manned launches where high reliability is needed. If SLS is canceled then Starship has another launch failure it would delay Artemis.
      • "If SLS is canceled then Starship has another launch failure it would delay Artemis."

        Spacex delays vs Old Space delays.

        Hmm.
    • Some congressmen rely on SLS to get elected. We *can't* cancel that program. It's vitally important to our national security. Do you want the Russians to win?

      • But their argument is 100% correct. I support SpaceX's program, but those other rocket scientists are gonna be needed in the near future. And if war does come, the very first thing China or Russia is gonna do is start killing rocket scientists.

        • We have plenty of rocket scientists. Why do we need a rocket that can reach the moon to defeat China or Russia?

          • Do you listen to your own questions?

            Because that the high ground, they're China and Russia!

            What happens when there's war and China and Russia are able to lob asteroids at us and we've not prepared?

            • I hope this is sarcasm. If it's not, I worry about the science education in this country.

              • I worry about your own science education if this is not something you understand.

              • I just went back and re-read your comment and _I_ think _YOU_ thought I was saying China and Russia are geographically north of us, and therefore have the high ground. :D

                It that's it, then thank you for the laugh. That was funny, though you maybe should have added an "LOL" something!

                If that's not what your original "high school" snark was about, I am gonna need you to explain it cuz I'm not fucking getting it (and I'm pretty decent at these subjects).

                • It's not high-school snark. SLS is a jobs program for some congressmen's home state. Why are we building reusable rocket engines so that we can dump them in the ocean? I am not the only adult to question this. Why are we converting a reusable design into a non-reusable design, which, given the way that we certify aerospace equipment, means that they are practically the same rocket engine, unless you want to re-test everything? https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com] https://www.extremetech.com/ex... [extremetech.com] I am afraid

                  • There are tons of options to attack from outer space, if we were to cede it. Many are not immediately viable, but that doesn't mean they won't be. And you don't need to lob "asteroids." One could put up a small asteroid containing and deorbit it at different points aimed at something large, or our own space facilities.

                    At the very least, we would let China take out all out satellites, or just gain a surveillance advantage.

            • Voting my above comment "Troll" is probably a lot closer to trolling.

    • I believe there is a very good reason to keep it around, at a much reduced cost: redundancy! It takes several decades to (re-)train up and develop a rocket program, so when those people leave or stuff is thrown out, it's an enormous loss.

      We will always need a government space program, and soon I think all those extra rocket scientists are gonna come in extremely handy!

      • Why would we always need a government space program? As long as there are multiple space companies there is no need for rockets being build by g

        • The government program is large, lots more people, not subject to market forces, and far harder for an enemy to destroy during war. Same reasons it's so expensive. ;)

          • How is it harder for an enemy to destroy during war?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jwhyche ( 6192 )

            and far harder for an enemy to destroy during war.

            If you are at war with a enemy capable of destroying your space program, then having a space program is the least of your problems.

            • OK the point is to make sure they CAN'T destroy you space program. Private companies go bust, governments do not.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hawk ( 1151 )

        >I believe there is a very good reason to keep it around, at a much reduced cost: redundancy!

        I *suppose* that SLS at a greatly reduced price might produce, say, those water rockets from when we were kids . . .

        But I see no reason to think it could get to space on half of what it's currently wasting, let alone at a mere order of magnitude more than Starship.

    • Once Starship launches, SLS is obsolete and MUST be cancelled.

      It has no LES and an as-yet unproven, risky reentry method. It will be many, many flights before people fly on Starship. And the engines are still unreliable.

      "Don't count your eggs..."

      • But SLS hasn't proven itself too, as each rocket is a new rocket, so anything can go wrong either way. Looking at the falcon rockets, they are very reliable, so I'll bet the booster and Starship will be just as reliable. Yep accidents will happen, and lives will be lost, that's a certainty, but that shouldn't hold us back. These rockets/capsules are getting safer with each new incarnation. And as far as I know SLS isn't certified either (yet) for flying people.
      • "It has no LES and an as-yet unproven, risky reentry method. It will be many, many flights before people fly on Starship. And the engines are still unreliable."

        Agreed. "Many, many" is not an exaggeration.
        That´s why we would use the well/tested Falcon 9+Dragon to bring people to orbit and back.
    • Yep, that would make common sense, but the SLS is a political piece, not about cost reduction, but all about how much money a specific state can get from it. It's all about keeping some people in a job, even though financially it doesn't make any sense, they're better off just giving the money directly to those people.

  • Still needs work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by monkeyxpress ( 4016725 ) on Saturday August 26, 2023 @05:31AM (#63798192)

    The progress they're making is amazing, but 2 engines shutdown during the test means they still have Raptor gremlins to sort out. Hopefully the shutdowns were precautionary and not due to actual faults. I doubt they will fly the booster until they can static fire without any shutdowns, otherwise they're just eating into their operating margin.

    Can't wait to see that thing get to orbit. It's going to unleash an insane amount of space development once it's flying.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by greytree ( 7124971 )
      "It's going to unleash an insane amount of space development once it's flying."

      Are there projects preparing for this?
      I think in two years we will have super-cheap access to space and things like massive space telescopes, fairly cheap space stations, etc etc will all be possible.
      But two years isn't that long in terms of building hardware and I haven't seen any announcements of actual test hardware.

      Are they all there but working in stealth mode?

      • Re:Still needs work (Score:5, Insightful)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday August 26, 2023 @10:01AM (#63798716)
        I hate to even mention his name since it stirs up so much crap, but is you-know-who still working towards a settlement on mars?

        • I hate to even mention his name since it stirs up so much crap, but is you-know-who still working towards a settlement on mars?

          If you mean Leon? Perhaps he is...between whiny posts on X.

          As for this Booster test...well that's Leon just blowing out his backend again!

          /sarcasm in there somewhere.

      • Re:Still needs work (Score:4, Interesting)

        by grogger ( 638944 ) on Saturday August 26, 2023 @10:09AM (#63798726)
        This is not wrong but I think the reason people are holding out is they don't yet know it will work or when. They think it will but don't know. Space is hard and failure is the norm. Once StarShip is deemed ready and reliable (maybe 2 years) then they will begin. Lucky thing is the size of the thing makes engineering easier than the origami workarounds and weight-saving bleeding edge tech used by current space project. So they should be up and running faster than previous projects.

        • Your point on not needing to save as much weight making designing stuff to go up on starship considerably easier and probably faster is good.

          When launch costs $58k/kg [inverse.com] for SLS [universetoday.com], VS $10 [benzinga.com]-100 [nytimes.com] per kg for starship.

          Note: I wouldn't trust these numbers as anything more than order of magnitude estimates.

          Still, it would place SLS at around TWO orders of magnitude more expensive per kg than Starship.

          Given that historically launch costs were often equal or more than the cost of the satellite, extreme weight saving meas

      • Anything set to launch on another platform can be adapted to launch on Starship I imagine.

        That said it likely isn't until it looks like Starship is ready to launch the first HLS mission that specific missions for the platform will get funded, and that's with good reason. There are always theoretical and proposed mission concepts, I am sure the engineers have the platform in mind but it's be kind a reckless to fund and engineer something that can only launch on a platform that hasn't reached orbit yet and e

    • Imagine you're a freshly minted 'Starship' captain... and they tell you that they're pretty sure only 2 of your engines are likely to fail in a 6-second period under ideal conditions.

      Are you going to get on that ride?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hawk ( 1151 )

        sure.

        Scottie will *surel*y fix it before we all get turned to space dust.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BranMan ( 29917 )

        To be clear, that is 2 engines out of 33. So even assuming you CAN'T throttle up any of the other engines to compensate - so you are a freshly minted 'Starship' captain, and you are told you may lose 6% of engine thrust (so be down to 94% max) at some point.

        My reply would be "Meh". I'll get on that ride.

        • Two engines shut down out of 33... in a six second test firing. The booster is supposed to fire almost 180s in a launch.

    • Previous flight had multiple shutdowns before going, and on actual flight it also had multiple shutdowns. I'll bet they will just ho ahead as I think the thing is build with redundancy in mind, so it probably wouldn't matter if a few engines shut down. But ofcourse it's better if all engines keep running reliably, so they can dial down the redundancy and build the starship/booster combo even more cheaply.

    • It's going to unleash an insane amount of space development once it's flying.

      Let us hope that includes a significant amount of orbital clean up efforts. If not then this will end poorly.

  • Hopefully they won't kill anybody when this one blows up too.

Slashdot Top Deals

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Close