This is beyond a "risk", this is deliberately dong something you know will very likely fail. So likely, in fact, that you are already building a replacement for the thing that will fail (the launch stand deflector), and you've never actually gotten all the engines to start at once.

My analogy is Boeing's very first 747 test flight and they decide to use only 3 engines because the 4th one won't start. No one here would call that an acceptable risk.


Instead, SpaceX might get paralyzed by political and regulatory oversight because they have lost people's trust that they are acting with sufficient care.

Risk is not just technical, but political. Musk has a big blind spot to that.


It shows a breakdown of culture and process inside SpaceX that challenges the previous notion that they are doing the right thing to push the boundaries. This test makes them look like amateurs.


The loss of the rocket is not an issue, that's fine. This isn't about the rocket itself, it is more about the way SpaceX is making decisions.


If the use case was that trivial, why do it at all? It now means the next launch will be months delayed due to both technical and political reasons.

Sometimes to go fast you have to go slow.

Mike C.

He can't move the operation outside the USA for ITAR and NASA reasons.

Mike C.

That is missing the political damage this launch caused.

This has nothing to do with saving the equipment.

Example:

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/faa-grou ... e-31578176

"SpaceX and Musk initially told the Federal Aviation Administration that in the event of an "anomaly," the debris field of the launch would be limited to a 700-acre area surrounding the site, according to CNBC.

However, following the explosion, residents 6 miles from the launch site in Port Isabel reported shaking and broken windows on homes and businesses, the cable network reports. Texas Public Radio reporter Pablo De La Rosa tweeted that unidentified matter rained down on the South Texas beach town."

Mike C.

I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to predict political outcomes, but this tweet was a pretty good sign in Musk’s favor:

Shaking, sand, and a few broken windows. They forgot noise and a bright light. I just can't do a whole lot of hand wringing over that. Sorry.

This is beyond a "risk", this is deliberately dong something you know will very likely fail. So likely, in fact, that you are already building a replacement for the thing that will fail (the launch stand deflector), and you've never actually gotten all the engines to start at once.

NASA picked Starship for the moon lander, so they have a vested interest in Starship not failing so it isn't surprising to see them put a happy face on the outcome.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/as-a ... ns-on-moon

The proposed concept is rather complex, something Blue Origin made clear in this graphic:

Not clear the graphic is true, but if so, seems like a lot has to go right just to get a lander vehicle into space. Feels like SpaceX is trying to make the Starship (second stage) be a moon lander when it really isn't well suited to that role, too big, too heavy. But their bid fits the SpaceX trajectory towards landing on Mars.

I don't really understand how Starship can become human rated. What is the launch escape mechanism? That's clearly defined for Falcon Dragon, SuperDraco thrusters power the Dragon capsule away from the rocket. I don't think NASA will ever accept a launch system without a proper launch escape system, they learned that lesson from the Space Shuttle the hard way.

Mike C.

They learned nothing from either shuttle loss, but that’s beside the point. The STS never had a viable escape system if the orbiter was compromised, nor a system to protect the orbiter if something catastrophic happened to some other part of the rocket.

That said, STS is a fair analogy for where SpaceX is going with Starship. It will not have a launch escape system. It’s been discussed already. To date no three(?) lives have been saved by a rocket launch escape system, lives are saved by having a reliable rocket and spacecraft. That’s what they’re working toward. It’s sort of the CAPS argument except that there have been zero “saves” has been only one “save” with the rocket version, long ago in Russia.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/v6lPMFgZU5Q[/youtube]

That Soyuz failure was a Launch Escape Save wasn’t it?
Valid point though, it’s probably more for us than them.

Tj

They learned nothing from either shuttle loss, but that’s beside the point. The STS never had a viable escape system if the orbiter was compromised, nor a system to protect the orbiter if something catastrophic happened to some other part of the rocket.

That said, STS is a fair analogy for where SpaceX is going with Starship. It will not have a launch escape system. It’s been discussed already. To date no lives have been saved by a rocket launch escape system, lives are saved by having a reliable rocket and spacecraft. That’s what they’re working toward. It’s sort of the CAPS argument except that there have been zero “saves” with the rocket version.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/v6lPMFgZU5Q[/youtube]

Yes, I wrote from memory and was thinking about the US program.

The first four Shuttle flights has ejection seats for the crew.

That’s the Kittenger system. It works!

The first 4 flights only had two crew. Ejections seats were certainly viable for those flights.
You may not consider that "viable" but the crew and designers certainly did.

Meh…it will be more reliable and most importantly provide low cost access to space. Something nasa or the shuttle never provided at +$1B per launch with less than 98% reliability. 135 missions with two catastrophic events.
NASA picked Starship for the moon lander, so they have a vested interest in Starship not failing so it isn't surprising to see them put a happy face on the outcome.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/as-a ... ns-on-moon

The proposed concept is rather complex, something Blue Origin made clear in this graphic:

Not clear the graphic is true, but if so, seems like a lot has to go right just to get a lander vehicle into space. Feels like SpaceX is trying to make the Starship (second stage) be a moon lander when it really isn't well suited to that role, too big, too heavy. But their bid fits the SpaceX trajectory towards landing on Mars.

I don't really understand how Starship can become human rated. What is the launch escape mechanism? That's clearly defined for Falcon Dragon, SuperDraco thrusters power the Dragon capsule away from the rocket. I don't think NASA will ever accept a launch system without a proper launch escape system, they learned that lesson from the Space Shuttle the hard way.

Mike C.