The damage sections begins at 2:00 … significant.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/bm3ILLwhGSQ[/youtube]

It seems likely that having so many engines would result in a much wider spectrum without the peaks at the low end unless the pulsing of the engines somehow gets synchronized.

Under the circumstances if that was the intention I think they likely achieved the opposite. While it did clear the tower, it is clear that the current launch stand design is inadequate and dangerous. Leaving out the damage to the vehicle, they threw chunks of concrete far enough to hit the Falcon 9 launch tower a quarter mile away. No way NASA is going to sign off on that.

The vehicle itself appears to be extremely robust given how well it managed under the circumstances.

They will have to improve the effectiveness of the FTS, and presumably work on startup reliability of the Raptors.

The SLC 39A pad for Falcon 9 is EXTREMELY close to the Starship tower being built at KSC:

It is about 900 ft apart.

Large chunks, one big enough to create a splash 50 ft high, were thrown into the gulf up to 1/2 mile away.


Especially since LC 39A is the ONLY manned space flight pad they have and thus vital for crew flights to the ISS.

Mike C.

I’ll be at KSC next month for the Axiom launch. Pretty darned excited!

It seems like NASA and SpaceX need to have a talk, and in the meantime if I were the director of the Artemis program (heaven forbid) I'd be heading to congress to get funding for a second vendor for a lander unless they want to push Artemis 3 back to about 2027 or so. There are a couple of very viable candidates that could bridge the gap, and we should have a backup anyway.

There are no other HLS candidates that have advanced beyond the PowerPoint phase. If SpaceX were to bow out of that program, it would likely be a decade or more before one of the other contestants for the original contract could put a functional system with astronauts on the moon. Remember, the same companies that brought you SLS, Orion, and Starliner in years late and over budget were critical members of those teams.

I'm not talking about SpaceX bowing out, rather being delayed by several years due to the enormous amount of work still to be done in order to make Lunar Starship a reality. Having an interim alternative or even a new primary with Starship as a backup might prevent a delay of years.

Dynetics is well past the Powerpoint phase with Alpaca and have been working on it for some time. What they have looks fairly promising, with proper funding it could be a good system.

I certainly wouldn't put it in the hands of any of the "old guard" contractors. They're simply not capable of producing a modern, long term solution. I lump Blue Origin's lander with them because it's so un-reusable, and based on the time it takes for BO to produce a finished product, wouldn't really help.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/zJo2iV4IYyg[/youtube]

Hopefully they'll drop some B-roll soon. There must be good stuff.

I have a sneaking suspicion that NASA would love to have SpaceX be the excuse for canceling Artemis. I hope I'm wrong, and I very much hope SpaceX is able to make the lunar lander work.

Well, the thing is that NASA, to a greater or lesser degree, needs SpaceX. SpaceX does not really need NASA. Going to the moon is NASA’s thing. Starship is intended to go to Mars; the moon is a side trip for a paying customer. If Lunar Starship were to be cancelled, the focus would narrow to Mars and SpaceX would carry on with Falcon launches on a weekly basis, Dragon missions to the ISS and for private missions, and Starship would focus back on getting Elon to Mars.

How was the Crackle? Did it shake your clothes? Bright?
Those were my biggest impressions of the shuttle launch.
T

Musk has previously said that Starlink is not financially viable without Starship boosters.

There is a lot to choose from in the "Musk previously said..." category that has not come true.

Mike C.