SpaceX's Starship SN5 Testbed Successfully Makes 150m Controlled Flight (arstechnica.com) 58
Zitchas writes: On Tuesday evening, SpaceX launched a testbed system which flew 150m into the air, hovered, and made a controlled landing. This testbed is noteworthy for being made out of stainless steel, as well as for being powered by a single off-center raptor engine. It demonstrates that the propulsion system can successfully compensate for the off-balanced propulsion via vectored thrust, as well as handle the stresses involved with landing and take-off. You can watch the testbed system launch here.
Important note: The vehicle that was launched was not the entirety of Starship, the large spacecraft that will be launched into orbit atop a Super Heavy rocket. "This prototype lacked key structural elements, including a large nose cone, flaps, an interstage, and more. But critically, this vehicle contained Starship's propulsion system," reports Ars Technica. "Among the key aspects of Tuesday's test was demonstrating that Starship's stainless-steel structure could withstand the harsh environment of a launch and landing."
Important note: The vehicle that was launched was not the entirety of Starship, the large spacecraft that will be launched into orbit atop a Super Heavy rocket. "This prototype lacked key structural elements, including a large nose cone, flaps, an interstage, and more. But critically, this vehicle contained Starship's propulsion system," reports Ars Technica. "Among the key aspects of Tuesday's test was demonstrating that Starship's stainless-steel structure could withstand the harsh environment of a launch and landing."
Evolution! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Evolution! (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly what it looks like to me!
Ironically, this half-finished Starship is harder to fly than a fully-finished one would be. It only has one SL raptor, but the thrust puck is designed for three, so it's offset, and has to compensate for the offset thrust for the whole flight. One somewhat subtle (but impossible to miss it once you see it) thing is that the offset raptor ended up blasting the test stand white-hot and destroying some unknown minor piece of GSE on takeoff.
There's going to be a couple more hop tests in this config to refine the procedure. Then they'll go to full-up 20km flight tests with three raptors, fins, and full tanks. There's a couple more Starship models in various stages of development, each more evolved than the last, so it's not clear which model will do what. SpaceX is at the very least clearly going to want to test to higher pressures, with increasingly lightly-built tanks, which will surely mean blowing up a few more rockets and test stands. And I fully expect them to test SN5 to destruction in some way or another, sooner or later.
(Also, SpaceX seems to have built up quite a nosecone collection on-site ;) )
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I saw that small explosion in the bottom right of the frame after you mentioned it.
They had another close call in that the engine was basically on-fire up around the top of the combustion chamber (maybe the side?), but it got put out during the landing.
Re:Evolution! (Score:4, Interesting)
Scott Manley suggested that may have been some cleaning solution or excess lubricant left on the outside of the engine. Not the first time, apparently. Probably not a major issue, but certainly a process that should be examined.
Re: (Score:3)
>Ironically, this half-finished Starship is harder to fly than a fully-finished one would be.
I don't think so, at least when landing. I'm pretty sure even the completed Starship will land on a single engine. The problem is that an empty Starship will mass around 120 tons, while a single Raptor engine can throttle between about 100-200 tons. Three engines throttled down as far as they can would still produce far too much thrust for it to hover, requiring a Falcon-9 style hover-slam landing, rather than
Re: (Score:3)
"Ironically, this half-finished Starship is harder to fly than a fully-finished one would be. It only has one SL raptor, but the thrust puck is designed for three, so it's offset, and has to compensate for the offset thrust for the whole flight."
It had 25 tons of ballast on top, without it, even at the lowest thrust settings it would have gone way too fast and too far up.
Re:Evolution! (Score:4, Funny)
I thought it looked more like a grain silo exploding. I think SpaceX could had a bit more fun on these tests. Buy an old farm that is visible to the public. Dress up the rocket to look really like a silo. Then have it launch up, and the neighbors will go, Well Farmer Musk didn't properly fill his new silo. Then watch it safely land back onto the next pad.
Re: Evolution! (Score:2)
Did anyone else see a flying 21650?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone on Twitter cracked a joke about how during the Cold War, rockets were launched from silos, but now that the Cold War has ended, apparently they're now launching the silos. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to look at that tin can (Score:5)
Re: (Score:1)
Even when he was giving his timeline of things?
Don't get me wrong, the guy does some wonders. But don't believe his timing predictions. At all.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. He could be just off his rocker this time.
Actually justl like he's been before with hyperloop and self driving and solar roofs and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
solar roofs are here, and full self driving is nearly here. doubt it at your own peril.
Re: (Score:1)
Drive on the road with it at your own peril, you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever ride with a 16 year-old driver? Waymo's system is safer than they were. Tesla's isn't that good, but it's coming along.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I am both afraid of this tech., and watching with baited breath...
I've somewhat recently been diagnosed with PTSD. Driving is a not-insignificant trigger for me.
For me, not having to drive myself is a plus, but trusting the one driving is also a plus.
It's funny in a way you mention a 16 y/o driver. I worry a lot about any human driver being on the road with autonomous vehicles, I also worry that if every vehicle were autonomous that it might be hack-able. But if the tech. means I can get myself
Re: (Score:1)
Solar roofs are here at enormous cost. The 1500 ft^2 (140 m^2) house I grew up in would, according to Tesla's own site, be about $25,000 for a solar roof. The house I live in now would be $60,000. It is very much a premium product, whereas the Tesla Model 3 carries a premium for the higher end but isn't totally out of reach for all but a tiny segment of the population.
Re:It's hard to look at that tin can (Score:4, Insightful)
That's only about 2 1/2 times the price for a standard asphalt shingle roof, which has an average lifetime of about 75% of the solar roof. If I didn't live in the middle of 30 meter tall Douglas firs and maples I would certainly consider installing one.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar roofs are here at enormous cost. The 1500 ft^2 (140 m^2) house I grew up in would, according to Tesla's own site, be about $25,000 for a solar roof. The house I live in now would be $60,000. It is very much a premium product
Which is exactly what Musk always said. He said it would be cost-competitive with high-end roofs, e.g. tile. If you compare to a premium roof, the solar roof cost is very similar, but pays for itself with electricity. If you compare the price of a solar roof to asphalt shingles plus solar panels, you'll find that the solar roof comes at about a 25% cost premium -- but it looks a lot nicer.
whereas the Tesla Model 3 carries a premium for the higher end but isn't totally out of reach for all but a tiny segment of the population.
The Model 3's premium is very close to zero when you look at total cost of ownership. In areas with cheap electricit
Re:It's hard to look at that tin can (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I put a lot more faith in the fact that Gwynne Shotwell is running the show over at SpaceX. Sure, Elon is heavily involved and directing the company's progress, but Gwynne is responsible for day-to-day operations, and very capably at that.
Re:It's hard to look at that tin can (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be pretty to work. This is literally a fuel tank with a big chunk of ballast screwed onto the top, and an engine on the bottom with some landing legs, and a bunch of sensors and a few attitude control thrusters.
And it appeared to work pretty well for what it was supposed to do.
Re:It's hard to look at that tin can (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is mainly because we are so use to CEO's scamming us.
Most companies CEO's are more interested in the profits then the products they release.
Apple even when Jobs was at the helm, wasn't so interested in their product but the revenue they created. Sure Jobs may be picky on the devices styles and cared that it was at his quality standard. but I doubt he really cared much if it was a Tower, Laptop, Music Player, Phone just as long as it was bringing in the money. The iPhone back in 2007 was really the last big innovation Apple released, which had set back phone makers about 2 years. However there wasn't anything groundbreaking about the iPhone technology, other than the multi-touch display (which Microsoft was playing with for a few years, as the Original Microsoft Surface, was meant to be a tabletop computer. Which you had a large multi-touch display like you see on TNG that is the whole table) But the processing was standard, the phone and data was standard, the price was premium. Its success was mostly due to people actually liking the design, and it could had flopped. In that case, Jobs would had dropped the phone (like the Newton, and the Pipen) and moved onto something else.
Musk on the other hand seems interested in making the product. He wants Spaceships, Electric Cars, and high speed underground tunnels. If an idea or product fails, he doesn't drop it, he will just go back and redesign it over again.
When we saw the Cybertruck we laughed at it and called it ugly. However they are 700k preorders for it. So there seems to be demand. However if they were a lot less interest in it. (As Musk had pointed out) Tesla would design a more traditional looking electric truck. Other companies if they see poor demand, they just toss the project out the window.
I don't see Musk as a Perfect Human, he is often a jerk who puts his foot in his mouth. While a good businessman he doesn't do anything that anyone else would do. The big difference is that he is in business to sell the products and make money off of that. Vs most CEO's who are in the business of making money and using the products to sell as part of its means.
Re: (Score:1)
The Cybertruck reminds me of those original iMacs with the CRTs. Highly impractical, numerous design flaws and overpriced... But sexy and surrounded by a reality distortion field.
Re: (Score:3)
The original iMac was actually a really good and practical design. It was targeted towards college students. In which they will be moving every year to a new dorm, as well back and forth during breaks. This was a time before Laptops were common and they were rather underpowered and overpriced. So the iMac allowed the person to move the computer whenever they needed, and hook it up later.
The iMac was the first step towards saving Apple. Its older Macs, which were like PC's had put Apple near bankruptcy
Re: (Score:2)
When we saw the Cybertruck we laughed at it and called it ugly. However they are 700k preorders for it. So there seems to be demand. However if they were a lot less interest in it. (As Musk had pointed out) Tesla would design a more traditional looking electric truck.
The Cybertruck looks the way it does because that the result of the manufacturing process they invented to build it. It is mostly folded sheet-metal. No stamping. No paint. The result is a far smaller shop footprint and lower manufacturing cost.
Folding results in straight lines only and flat surfaces. They chose their folds to get the best combination of function, aerodynamics, and appearance (likely in that order) as they could. The dramatic new look was a cultivated side effect, not the initi
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem is, every time I've doubted him I've been proven wrong.
You never doubted any of his time estimates?
Re: (Score:2)
He's been wrong a lot about many things, especially Tesla.
I have to admit (Score:4)
Watching this flight reminds me of 1950's Science Fiction movie rocket technology.
Still interesting to watch.
Re: (Score:3)
Burce Perens posted on Twitter "Engine appeared to be on fire"
https://twitter.com/BrucePeren... [twitter.com]
I'm sure it's fine.
Re:I have to admit (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with Scott Manley's commentary: it's too small, and actually decreases with time rather than increasing (possibly even being extinguished before landing), to be suggestive of a propellant leak, and looks more like a surface fire. Given that these engines are designed to withstand thermal extremes, it's not surprising that it didn't seem to bother the engine. But of course I'm sure it'll be investigated and fixed, whatever it was.
Re: (Score:2)
And it appears to have blown itself out in the final frames. I imagine, though, that you are right: they'll probably want to have that fixed by the time they install 30-40 engines in the compartment.
Re:I have to admit (Score:4, Insightful)
I also expect a good isolation system between engines (like Falcon 9 has). N1's inability to prevent failures from one engine from cascading to others is one of the many things that doomed the Soviet lunar programme. Already important when you have 9 engines on a stage, but when you have 35...
Re: (Score:1)
A totally ridiculous mode of transport. All kudos to SpaceX but it feels like Douglas Adams came up with it while trolling his readers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The comments like this are mystifying from the supposedly tech-educated Slashdot audience.
It's a fuel tank with an engine on one end. That's what *all* rockets are. Is your complaint that it's not painted white with some logos on the side? Perhaps there was hilarity from the unwashed masses when NASA stopped painting the shuttle external tank as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern Sci-Fi is often so effects driven that what you see there has little overall reflection of reality.
That off kilter rocket needed to keep the rocket vertical wouldn't pass in a movie, as it would make it look nonuniform and less grand. We want to see perfect teardrop shaped flames.
Re: (Score:3)
Once it has three engines attached to it, it will look a lot more like something out of a sci-fi movie. Once it has the nose cone and the fins, it will look like something out of a 1950s sci-fi movie. :)
Re: (Score:2)
>We want to see perfect teardrop shaped flames.
Then you'll *know* it's CGI - real rocket engines worth half a damn produce long pillars of flame with mach diamonds.
Think of the scale of this thing.. (Score:5)
..with one Raptor engine and then think how Super Heavy is going to have 35 of them: https://www.extremetech.com/ex... [extremetech.com] .
It's going to be insane!
Re:Think of the scale of this thing.. (Score:4)
Yeah, that's difficult to even conceive of. N1's first stage only had 30.
I do love how clean methalox burns, though - it's more like watching a hydrolox engine than a kerolox one, like a beaded laser beam rather than a pillar of fire. Beautiful mach diamonds. Wonder if the mach diamonds will disappear under the glare of 35 separate engines burning at once....
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's difficult to even conceive of. N1's first stage only had 30.
And of course, the Raptor engines are more powerful than the NK-15. BFR is supposed to be an insane 72 mega-Newtons (7000 tons), vs 45MN for the N1, and only 35MN for the Saturn V.
All dwarfed by the 350MN Sea Dragon. People thought big in those days! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://youtu.be/SRMDcC0QvFQ?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if they tune the engines so the mach diamonds are in phase, and if they're able to use that for more thrust. The whole is more than the parts type of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or more...
During his daily Twitter ramblings, Musk revealed that the Starship launch platform is now up to a total of 41 Raptor engines. Although, he jokes that the design is begging for just one more.
wow (Score:1)
Re:wow (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, this would be the upper stage of a rocket planned to launch in 2022 or 2024 to Mars.
Example of what the final upper stage will look like :
https://i.insider.com/5d90460a2e22af1501311904?width=1100&format=jpeg&auto=webp/ [insider.com]
[ Non-working demo built last year. Little rocket on right is the Falcon-1 ]
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
To reiterate your point to the GP: upper stage. Sitting atop an even larger lower stage :)
The part that flew in the above video is only the tankage section of the upper stage, too - about 2/3rds the height of the full stage.
The full stack is going to be amazing to see. [blogspot.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Praise for the SpaceX test (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Praise for the SpaceX test (Score:5, Informative)
Was talking to a friend that works with some of the space missions, and is involved with the planning of some future missions and she remarked that despite Republicans harping on cutting spending and shrinking NASA budgets, interplanetary missions get more and more consistent funding during Republican administrations than Democrat, despite the Democrats being more friendly and open towards NASA. Perhaps this is because of all aerospace companies in Republican districts.
budget [Re:Praise for the SpaceX test] (Score:2)
Was talking to a friend that works with some of the space missions, and is involved with the planning of some future missions and she remarked that despite Republicans harping on cutting spending and shrinking NASA budgets, interplanetary missions get more and more consistent funding during Republican administrations than Democrat....
I can't see this effect when I look at the NASA planetary science budget. It does rise and fall, but not in cycle with the administration.
The big effect is that when a huge program goes over budget (or when a major and expensive new initiative is announced with no associated budget), smaller programs get postponements or have to reduce their scope. I love MSL, but when it went over schedule and budget, it took the budget for what should have been two Discovery missions (and also delayed the following Disc
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican Party proudly brandishes the title of "conservative". You do know what 'conservative' means, right? Maintenance of the status quo. The profit motive is a much better explanation.
Can't fool me (Score:1)
That's just a can of raid without the paint and plastic. Knocked the top of and saved some of the pictures from a high speed cam recording the action.
I mean damn, they did a better job of faking space exploration back when they did the moon landings for fsck sake. At least you had to watch it a few times before you noticed the flag rippled. Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a troll, it's funny damnit!