Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

SpaceX Successfully Test Fires Starship Booster (cnbc.com) 98

Posted by BeauHD from the bringing-the-heat dept.
SpaceX on Thursday test fired 31 of the 33 engines in the towering rocket booster of its Starship prototype, as the company prepares to launch the rocket to orbit for the first time. CNBC reports: Called a "static fire," the milestone test is the final major hurdle before SpaceX tries to launch the nearly 400-foot-tall rocket to space. The company said in a tweet shortly after the test that the engines at the base of the Super Heavy booster fired for "full duration," meaning the expected length of the test. CEO Elon Musk said in a subsequent tweet that SpaceX turned off one engine before the test and another engine "stopped itself." "Still enough engines to reach orbit!" Musk said.

SpaceX has steadily been building up to the first flight test of its Starship rocket. President and COO Gwynne Shotwell on Wednesday stressed the first launch attempt would be experimental. The company will next analyze the result of Thursday's static fire test. Shotwell estimated that a successful static would see SpaceX ready to launch the first Starship orbital flight "within the next month or so." You can watch the static fire test here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Successfully Test Fires Starship Booster More

SpaceX Successfully Test Fires Starship Booster

Comments Filter:

  • What trips me out the most about Starship is how much it looks like 'Ye Classic Space Rocket of Olde' - like something out of Tom Swift.

    Cngrts, Elon!

    • It reminds me a ton of the ships in those cheaply made 50s and 60s serial sci-fi shows. All of them were basically tin or aluminum foil covered paper-towel holders with fins and one pointy end.

    • The ill fated N1 had 30 engines and the whole thing exploded spectacularly multiple times.

      • Well, the good news is that both metallurgy and computer science have progressed markedly since then. If anyone can do it, Elon can.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megane ( 129182 )
        The primary flaw of N1 was that it was impossible to test fire the engines before launch (like what SpaceX just did), made worse by how many of them there were to fail. There may have been other flaws, but it never got far enough for other flaws to matter.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BigFire ( 13822 )

      Elon Musk specifically ask his engineers that it should be pointier at the tip.

  • Rough economy (Score:4, Funny)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday February 09, 2023 @05:56PM (#63280269) Homepage

    In addition to all the recent tech layoffs, now we're finding out that Starship Booster has been fired as a test (presumably to see if future firings are warranted). Hopefully Starship Booster can find work elsewhere, and has some savings to fall back on.

  • I don't like Elon Musk (Score:5, Insightful)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Thursday February 09, 2023 @06:02PM (#63280279)
    But, godammit, he is the finest engineering manager of our generation, and he is leadng the world into the future.

    I just hope he's scratched his silly conspiracy itch and wants to be the good, non looney wokeist, non looney rightwing, leader we need.
    • Once someone goes down the far right-wing rabbit hole, they typically never come back to the surface.

      It’s ok for people like the Murdochs to go all crazy right-wing “screw civilization I gots mine”. All they need to do is throw random meat into media-space and people will click like zombies. It’s very different at a company like SpaceX which is relying on massive teams of educated engineers. Engineers aren’t the most liberal bunch in the world, but they’re light-year

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by wv5k ( 771543 )
        Mod points today would've been nice. Truer words have never been spoken. Particularly nice to see this from someone with an ID number as high as your's. Gives me a slight amount of hope for the future... ;-)

    • looney rightwing, leader we need.

      (Sorry, couldn't resist getting "creative" when cropping that quote.)

      Musk wasn't born in the USA, so his leadership potential does have a ceiling. We don't have to worry about a president Musk anytime soon.

      • Musk wasn't born in the USA, so his leadership potential does have a ceiling. We don't have to worry about a president Musk anytime soon.

        I seem to remember the Republicans floating the idea of changing the constitution to let Schwarzenegger run. They dropped it when the idea was floated of using the same amendment to removing term limits so Bill Clinton could run again.

        So it is at least possible. But Musk is too much of a loose cannon (like Trump) to set loose on international politics.

    • I don't like Elon Musk, but I'll definitely suck that guy's dick for free.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by leonbev ( 111395 )

      I'd think that Gwynne Shotwell is really the greatest engineering manager, Elon is more of the hype man.

  • when they launch the whole thing.

  • So 2 out of 33 engines don't make it through the test and the Musk quote: Still enough to make orbit!

    Yeah. I'm sure his math is right but what he doesn't seem to realize is that this kind of well-meaning cheerleading makes him sound like the Ed Wood of SpaceX. It might be able to "make orbit" but that is not really good enough to inspire confidence.

    A B747 can fly with two engines but you probably wouldn't board it if it was the expectation that the trip was going to be made with two engines because t

    • So 2 out of 33 engines don't make it through the test and the Musk quote: Still enough to make orbit!

      Yeah. I'm sure his math is right but what he doesn't seem to realize is that this kind of well-meaning cheerleading makes him sound like the Ed Wood of SpaceX. It might be able to "make orbit" but that is not really good enough to inspire confidence.

      A B747 can fly with two engines but you probably wouldn't board it if it was the expectation that the trip was going to be made with two engines because the other two "didn't make it."

      Make orbit with 33 out of 33 engines working. Then celebrate.

      Yes, that's why the flight is going to be called a "test" flight, and they're very definitely not going to put people on top of it for a very long time yet. So what exactly is your problem?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They shut one down by choice prior to the test. One shut down automatically. Zero exploded.

    • Oh, boy. I get moderated Troll and then a bunch of comments that don't get the point. So I have to reply to my own post in an (probably vain) attempt to make it clear.

      The point has nothing to do with SpaceX's performance, success, or failure. Speaking for myself I think they are doing a fantastic job and they got to this very important milestone on the Starship project.

      It would still be a significant achievement even if four engines were taken out of the test. Or even eight.

      The point was about El

      • Elon really needs either a muzzle, or a public relations class or five. Sadly, I doubt the class would stick with him long. He likes to spout without thinking, which often blows up in his face.

        I know there will be people that argue with you whether out of Elon worship or a complete inability to see things from a different perspective, but Elon's statement will be taken wrong by the press. He essentially gave the message that two engines failing isn't a failure of the overall ship. But the press will absolut

        • Elon really needs either a muzzle, or a public relations class or five. Sadly, I doubt the class would stick with him long. He likes to spout without thinking, which often blows up in his face.

          I know there will be people that argue with you whether out of Elon worship or a complete inability to see things from a different perspective, but Elon's statement will be taken wrong by the press. He essentially gave the message that two engines failing isn't a failure of the overall ship. But the press will absolutely run with the message, "Musk fine with failure!"

          We still have press folks, to this day, claiming SpaceX has never had a successful launch because of the way Musk babbles about Starship. Granted, that's also a failure of the press for not being able to google any combination of words that would lead them to Dragon Cargo and Crew, but it's not like we can expect the press to do any legwork these days beyond the point where they think they've got a snappy headline.

          And your conclusion is that there's a problem with Musk, not that there's a problem with the press?

          • There's definitely a problem with the press. I won't argue against that at all. But if you're trying to say that you think there's zero problem with Musk's communication skills? Well, I'd invite you to peruse his twitter posts sometime. Or listen to literally any interview he gives. Most people with his kind of money and power, not all, but most, learn how to filter themselves a little and not put the crazy on display. He filters nothing, and gives the frothing idiots of the press far more fodder than they

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by grogger ( 638944 )
        Social media will throw shade on anything Musk says no matter what and it makes zero difference. Nobody making decisions in the real world cares about social media. The thing would have made orbit with 31 engines. That is a fact. Would they launch it with an engine failure before ignition? No. But would they launch it with an unforeseen engine failure that occurs after takeoff? Since they could not foresee the engine failure, yes. Would it make it to orbit? Yes. That is redundancy. Anybody that is

    • So 2 out of 33 engines don't make it through the test and the Musk quote: Still enough to make orbit!

      Yeah. I'm sure his math is right but what he doesn't seem to realize is that this kind of well-meaning cheerleading makes him sound like the Ed Wood of SpaceX. It might be able to "make orbit" but that is not really good enough to inspire confidence.

      A B747 can fly with two engines but you probably wouldn't board it if it was the expectation that the trip was going to be made with two engines because the other two "didn't make it."

      31 engines at 230 tons thrust each = 7130 tons of thrust, rocket = about 5000 tons. Thrust to weight better than 1.4. It would lift off.

      Your 747 comparison isn't apt. It is more like "Our engines are working at 93.9% of nominal things will be fine. It isn't a "Scotty we need more power or we are going to die" issue.

      • I am surprised the platform appears to have no water cooling system. This test fire was more heat stress to Stage 0 than would be in a real flight.

  • Interesting how the safety/redundancy models out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Thursday February 09, 2023 @06:34PM (#63280385)
    If a failing engine (or the fuel lines to it etc) does not in general destroy the things around it, then 33 engines is way better than 1 to 5 big ones, since you can still complete the mission with e.g. 2/33 failed. However, if there is even a moderate possibility of an engine failure cascading to other vital system components, or blowing up the whole thing, then now we have 33x that probability of large-scale failure and RUD.

    • Re:Interesting how the safety/redundancy models ou (Score:4, Interesting)

      by blahabl ( 7651114 ) on Thursday February 09, 2023 @06:52PM (#63280457)

      If a failing engine (or the fuel lines to it etc) does not in general destroy the things around it, then 33 engines is way better than 1 to 5 big ones, since you can still complete the mission with e.g. 2/33 failed. However, if there is even a moderate possibility of an engine failure cascading to other vital system components, or blowing up the whole thing, then now we have 33x that probability of large-scale failure and RUD.

      Yes, that's why they're putting a TON of effort into isolating engines from each other, and all the crazy telemetry to be able to immediately shut an engine down at first, faintest whiff of trouble.

    • In some ways, having smart-systems in place bright enough to shut an engine off before it blows is a neat bit of engineering in and of itself. Now, whether that will work all the time is a real question that's not be tested hard enough yet, but it's still cool that they're attempting it at all.

    • On a related note, lots of rocket failures are pretty energetic. Smoking shrapnel flies everywhere. And yet it looks like this test stand is in the middle of a facility. If there was a RUD, I wonder how much nearby buildings, tanks, and whatnot would be damaged. Seems kind of bold to me.

      This being SpaceX, no doubt they'll 3-D print up a new set of fuel tanks the next week.

  • Meanwhile (Score:2, Informative)

    by quantaman ( 517394 )

    As Russia launches their big offensive Spacex is trying to disable Starlink tech in Ukrainian drones [cnn.com].

  • IMHO, Musk is a scumbag. It's wrong for the American taxpayers to pay for rockets with private logos on them.

    • Re:Won't Miss anything Musk Touched (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grogger ( 638944 ) on Friday February 10, 2023 @12:11PM (#63282153)
      Boy, you have no idea what you are talking about. Musk has pushed space development for 10 years. If it weren't for SpaceX the US would have no heavy lift capacity and way more expensive launch costs. Ukraine would have no internet at the front lines. NASA would have no affordable way of landing on the moon. NASA would not have a crew-rated ship to deliver astronauts to the IIS. Musk has done more for spaceflight than anybody since the 1970s.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close