39 engines each costs something. Plus all those heat tiles on the upper stage.

The actual greater expense might be the political one, pressure to not have sand/ash raining down on people after each launch. That worries me more than the rocket cost.


The launch pad issues were entirely predictable and many predicted it prior to launch. SpaceX ignored decades of launch pad design experience in this area, plus their own experience with the suborbital flights damaging the launch pad. I think the hubris is on them.

In any case, the next launch will not use the same pad design. That's for sure.

Mike C.

The same amount as Branson and Bezos

No worries....in a minute he'll be explaining why Max Q is important.

Ouch!

Let's all calm down and take a deep breath, yeah?

We don't know what SpaceX had planned or why, and what they knew or didn't, but here's my take on the plan. I'm assuming that they do know what they're doing and have a good reason for it:

1. Full vehicle vs mass simulator: IF the vehicle makes it to space they get to test the heat tiles and gather thermal measurements as well as test its control algorithms on a full re-entry vs from ~10K feet. Starships are cheap, tossing one away isn't a big deal.
2. Raptor I vs II: Test the full stack's flight ability and in conjunction with #1, validate both vehicles' structural integrity through Max Q.
3. Getting all 33 engines started: They may or may not have been concerned about this. Since this is rev 1 maybe they only cared if they got enough to lift the rocket. Having engines offline would help to validate the gimbaling and attitude control system. Using rev 1 engines lets them use up the old engines on a launch that isn't expected to return them anyway.
4. Unsuitable launch platform: Yes. Everybody knew it, including SpaceX, and they didn't do anything about it. Why? Here's my thought: They intend to put in a flame diverter/trench and/or deluge system and wanted to gather baseline data on which, and how large it needed to be, all while beginning excavation at zero additional cost. (That's only light green)

They never stated their goals for this flight, but from the beginning Elon has been trying very hard to set expectations low. He has said that he was giving it a 50/50 chance of making it to orbit and that if it cleared the tower it would be an accomplishment. They learned more about how to protect the launch pad, they learned about gimbaling control, they learned about structural integrity, and undoubtedly more, and they launched the most powerful rocket ever made into space. I'd say that's not bad for a first swing. Success and failure are dependent on the conditions set for each. I do not set those conditions, SpaceX does. They were the ones cheering. I'm going to use that as my measure. Had there been a room full of sullen faces and disappointed monologues I would feel differently.

As to launching from KSC, they absolutely will, and sooner rather than later. No, not with the present launch pad design, but they will put in a flame trench and deluge system and that will be the end of it. All of the damage to infrastructure was theirs. We assume that they didn't expect it. I think that's unlikely. Hubris? No. Nonchalance more likely. Apart from a sandy rain, nobody but SpaceX lost anything except some camera crews' gear, and to paraphrase Super Chicken, "They knew the job was dangerous when they took it."

I don't expect the repairs to the launch mount to be quick, but I do expect the result to be a large improvement, and as soon as that's done I expect the next flight to take place right away. Elon says "a few months". I think that will likely be before October.

They guaranteed excitement. No refunds.

I wish JC were here to debate single vs 33...

Jason would use FlightAware to prove his point.

Jason would point out that having 33 engines multiplies your chance of having an engine failure by 33.

I would add that throwing huge chunks of concrete at them while lifting off doesn't help either.

It was 40K feet, but the point is taken, it wasn't reentry speed.

Still Starships are not "cheap" to throw away. They cost something, $100M each perhaps. Or if they don't cost much, then the booster doesn't cost much, either, so fix it first, then shoot Starships later.

They feel like they are quite far from reaching space and wasting Starships is just spending time and money uselessly until Super Heavy is closer to ready.


This seems like basic stuff, getting all the engines to start. You don't even need to launch anything. Indeed, the static fire showed they had a problem. Why not fix that until static fire results in reliable all engine starts?

If Boeing had allowed the very first 747 test flight to operate with only 3 engines on takeoff, that would have been equivalently improper to a rocket that can't start all its engines.


The destruction of the concrete pad didn't materially inform anyone as to the design requirements for a proper flame trench system. They know the speed and mass flow from the engines. This is relatively well understood stuff.


Yes, they did, to clear the tower. By that measure, they "succeeded".

But the cost was high, IMO. The rapid testing methodology doesn't work if the launches don't teach you enough and cause delays for repairs and political difficulties.


I expect NASA will not let Starship anywhere near the infrastructure that is the only means to supply and crew the space station from US soil. This is particularly true given the Russian situation, they are not a viable option as a backup any more. The amount of energy available to fling debris, even if contained at the launch site, is enormous, and poses a risk to other facilities nearby.

LC 39A, the ONLY pad used for SpaceX Crew Dragon flights, is just 300 meters from the Starship launch pad they are building at KSC. Heavy debris from this launch was clearly thrown at least that far (the now famous car getting hit was at least that far away). This is how close they are at KSC:

Rendering of the proposed site:

Now tell me with a straight face NASA will soon let a Starship that close to the only pad in the US that can launch manned missions.

And no flame trench is evident in the rendering or in the construction work done so far.


I seriously doubt that. Starship doesn't get anywhere near KSC until it has proven itself, far too much at risk.


I would be surprised if they launch again this year. It isn't entirely up to SpaceX. Musk has a blind spot when it comes to the non technical aspects of things and we can expect more delays from the FAA and court challenges to their operation in Texas. This flight will be exhibit A.

I am very much for Starship's success, but this launch is depressing to me, not because it "failed", but what it tells me about SpaceX, the company and their philosophy about trying to fly a vehicle and system with critical known faults. You are either forced to accept they flew with known unacceptable faults and risks, or they weren't competent to know they had such faults and risks. Not clear to me which is worse.

Mike C.

Prior to this flight they had estimates of environmental impact. Now they have real data, they rained sand and who knows what else on the u involved 5 miles away.

They violated their agreement to not close the beach past Friday afternoon....

Reevaluating the environmental impact with real data IMHO has real programmatic risk ..

God knows how many dead birds and fish in the immediate vicinity....I see no way to honor u.s. wetlands environmental law and to operate out of bolsa chica.

If some one made me king, I'd waive these rules for space development....but in the real world I'm not king.

Nice piece from Scott Manley (A freshly minted Private Pilot btw).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8q24QLXixo

I realize they have a history of troublesome engines. I can’t help but think that the failures of the ones on this flight are as likely to have been FOD events from the launch as technical issues with the engines. That’s in the data. The engine start issue will need to be resolved, but it doesn’t necessarily prevent them from gathering data on structural integrity, flight control, heat tile performance, booster landing parameters… These are old design engines. It may be that the startup problem has been resolved in rev 2 but they used these because they’d be thrown away anyway.


Yeah, I can’t argue that. I really don’t understand the determination to not build the suppression system. They had a lightweight version on the launch stand for this launch. I haven’t heard anyone comment on whether it was used or not.

No disagreement on this, had they done the obvious thing they would have likely had a much more successful flight.


I agree that they won’t let Starship launch from KSC until it first proves itself in Boca Chica for all of the reasons you mentioned, but barring any issues like Paul is concerned about they should be able to fix the pad at Starbase and fly their tests from there. I really don’t expect a launch from KSC until they’re out of the Design phase and into Production.

There was literally a guy on FB saying exactly this. His words "ALL multi-engine aircraft are more dangerous than single engine aircraft"

There was literally a guy on FB saying exactly this. His words "ALL multi-engine aircraft are more dangerous than single engine aircraft"

Especially shortly after takeoff!