Hard to overstate how amazing the footage we've seen today is.

I'm still in awe, what a beauty, I love seeing the reflections of the earth, clouds and reentry flames on the Starship's steel, one of those last shots where we see the moving flaps deflecting the reentry plasma. Incredible.

No amount of money spent on Practical effects of CGI come close.

In a year it'll be a monthly sight, then a weekly one will be needed to support Artemis, eventually a daily one for Mars. Not the best for the environment, or orbital pollution... But the pandora's box of megaconstellation+RLVs has already been opened, Bezos and the Chinese are following anyway.
 
Hard to overstate how amazing the footage we've seen today is.

I'm still in awe, what a beauty, I love seeing the reflections of the earth, clouds and reentry flames on the Starship's steel, one of those last shots where we see the moving flaps deflecting the reentry plasma. Incredible.

No amount of money spent on Practical effects of CGI come close.

In a year it'll be a monthly sight, then a weekly one will be needed to support Artemis, eventually a daily one for Mars. Not the best for the environment, or orbital pollution... But the pandora's box of megaconstellation+RLVs has already been opened, Bezos and the Chinese are following anyway.

Still better for the environment than nuclear pulse propulsion.
 
Without attempting to argue, what's the hold-up? Computers. Computer-aided design and so on. In the 1960s, the U.S. was the "can do" country, with slide rules. Now, it's a few youtube videos, a podcast or two and I'm an expert. Seriously?

I had the opportunity to talk to a young aerospace engineer who had just gotten his security clearance. He outlined the difficulties involved in bringing a new aircraft into service. Blowing up two expensive rockets does not instill confidence. I suggest a far more rigorous screening process for new hires.

At my place of work, a sign: No Amateurs.
Regarding your first question, regulations too - FAA is not their friend and likely, on a steep learning curve too....
 
Last edited:
View: https://twitter.com/marco_langbroek/status/1768343531163160896


1/3
So, where did #Starship FT3 #reenter and disintegrate?
I used my pre-launch TLE estimate and calibrated it against the webcast, and from that reconstruct these two approximate positions for the start of plasma formation, and loss of telemetry:

2/3
At Mission Elapsed Time (MET) 00:44:09, Lake Anony on Madagascar (25.14 S 46.48 E) can briefly be seen. The suggested Starship position matches well with my trajectory but puts it there 27 seconds earlier than my elset does.

View: https://twitter.com/marco_langbroek/status/1768343538385780762


3/3
That allows to correct my trajectory estimate, leading to these two points, the first one representing the start of plasma formation (at MET 00:46:17) and the second one loss of telemetry (at MET 00:49:40):

@cosmos4u @planet4589
(so Jonathan, you were right about controlled reentry aiming for the western part of the hazard zone from HYDROPAC 833/24)
 
View: https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1768341601049575460


Congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on today's successful Starship flight test!


STARSHIP'S THIRD FLIGHT TEST
Starship returned to integrated flight testing with its third launch from Starbase in Texas. While it didn’t happen in a lab or on a test stand, it was absolutely a test. What we achieved on this flight will provide invaluable data to continue rapidly developing Starship.

On March 14, 2024, Starship successfully lifted off at 8:25 a.m. CT from Starbase in Texas and went on to accomplish several major milestones and firsts:

For the second time, all 33 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy Booster started up successfully and completed a full-duration burn during ascent.

Starship executed its second successful hot-stage separation, powering down all but three of Super Heavy’s Raptor engines and successfully igniting the six second stage Raptor engines before separating the vehicles.

Following separation, the Super Heavy booster successfully completed its flip maneuver and completed a full boostback burn to send it towards its splashdown point in the Gulf of Mexico.

Super Heavy successfully lit several engines for its first ever landing burn before the vehicle experienced a RUD (that’s SpaceX-speak for “rapid unscheduled disassembly.”) The booster’s flight concluded at approximately 462 meters in altitude and just under seven minutes into the mission.

Starship's six second stage Raptor engines all started successfully and powered the vehicle to its expected orbit, becoming the first Starship to complete its full-duration ascent burn.

While coasting, Starship accomplished several of the flight test’s additional objectives, including the opening and closing of its payload door (aka the pez dispenser,) and initiating a propellant transfer demonstration. Starship did not attempt its planned on-orbit relight of a single Raptor engine due to vehicle roll rates during coast. Results from these demonstrations will come after postflight data review is complete.

Starship went on to experience its first ever entry from space, providing valuable data on heating and vehicle control during hypersonic reentry. Live views of entry were made possible by Starlink terminals operating on Starship.

The flight test’s conclusion came during entry, with the last telemetry signals received via Starlink from Starship at approximately 49 minutes into the mission.

While our team reviews the data collected from this flight, Starship and Super Heavy vehicles are preparing for upcoming flights as we seek to increase our launch cadence throughout the year.

This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable transportation system capable of carrying both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, help humanity return to the Moon, and ultimately travel to Mars and beyond.

Thank you to our customers, Cameron County, spaceflight fans, and the wider community for the continued support and encouragement. And congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on an exciting third flight test of Starship!
 
News from Next Week.

The following did NOT happen.

Elon Musk Sacked over Space Program


In remarks made today, Wernher von Braun, who has been raised from the dead, described his review of SpaceX. "The lack of attention to detail regarding the fuel lines and related issues has been solved. I had to relieve 20% of the staff from duty. I have also recommended changes in relation to structural materials, primarily as it concerns unacceptable vibrations in the current design."

Elon Musk stated that he will be taking a vacation at his retreat in the Bahamas. "The pina colada is flowing and I need to take a break from the day to day."
 

Starship returned to integrated flight testing with its third launch from Starbase in Texas. While it didn’t happen in a lab or on a test stand, it was absolutely a test. What we achieved on this flight will provide invaluable data to continue rapidly developing Starship.

On March 14, 2024, Starship successfully lifted off at 8:25 a.m. CT from Starbase in Texas and went on to accomplish several major milestones and firsts:

• For the second time, all 33 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy Booster started up successfully and completed a full-duration burn during ascent.

• Starship executed its second successful hot-stage separation, powering down all but three of Super Heavy’s Raptor engines and successfully igniting the six second stage Raptor engines before separating the vehicles.

• Following separation, the Super Heavy booster successfully completed its flip maneuver and completed a full boostback burn to send it towards its splashdown point in the Gulf of Mexico.

• Super Heavy successfully lit several engines for its first ever landing burn before the vehicle experienced a RUD (that’s SpaceX-speak for “rapid unscheduled disassembly”). The booster’s flight concluded at approximately 462 meters in altitude and just under seven minutes into the mission.

• Starship's six second stage Raptor engines all started successfully and powered the vehicle to its expected orbit, becoming the first Starship to complete its full-duration ascent burn.

• While coasting, Starship accomplished several of the flight test’s additional objectives, including the opening and closing of its payload door (aka the pez dispenser,) and initiating a propellant transfer demonstration. Starship did not attempt its planned on-orbit relight of a single Raptor engine due to vehicle roll rates during coast. Results from these demonstrations will come after postflight data review is complete.

• Starship went on to experience its first ever entry from space, providing valuable data on heating and vehicle control during hypersonic reentry. Live views of entry were made possible by Starlink terminals operating on Starship.

• The flight test’s conclusion came during entry, with the last telemetry signals received via Starlink from Starship at approximately 49 minutes into the mission.

While our team reviews the data collected from this flight, Starship and Super Heavy vehicles are preparing for upcoming flights as we seek to increase our launch cadence throughout the year.

This rapid iterative development approach has been the basis for all of SpaceX’s major innovative advancements, including Falcon, Dragon, and Starlink. Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable transportation system capable of carrying both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, help humanity return to the Moon, and ultimately travel to Mars and beyond.

Thank you to our customers, Cameron County, spaceflight fans, and the wider community for the continued support and encouragement. And congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on an exciting third flight test of Starship!
 
Odd UK news coverage. Either ignoring it so far, or if it is covered a negative spin put on it such as headlining the loss on re-entry. News sites that were quick to report the failures of IFT1 & 2 haven’t even mentioned this one so far.
I was thinking that as well as I listened to it today. Odd
 
I am amazed that what could be done in the 1960s cannot be done in 2024. It's as if we're not living in the future.

:)

I was there for Apollo in 1969.
nobody was trying to design and fly a reusable launch vehicle without ground tests in the 60's.
Being there in 1969 doesn't add any credibility to your post.
 
Last edited:
Upon reflection, if this had been a traditional single use rocket system, would this not have been a resounding success? In fact, is it not likely they could have achieved orbit had they wished?

The video provided me the most surreal and captivating moments in many years. I was transfixed.
 
Upon reflection, if this had been a traditional single use rocket system, would this not have been a resounding success? In fact, is it not likely they could have achieved orbit had they wished?

The video provided me the most surreal and captivating moments in many years. I was transfixed.
The video and their post launch report implies they lost some attitude control once in their cruise trajectory, this may have precluded a success of an expendable launch vehicle.

But yes, I’d probably expect actual starlink payloads on starship within the end of the year
 
Without attempting to argue, what's the hold-up? Computers. Computer-aided design and so on. In the 1960s, the U.S. was the "can do" country, with slide rules. Now, it's a few youtube videos, a podcast or two and I'm an expert. Seriously?

I had the opportunity to talk to a young aerospace engineer who had just gotten his security clearance. He outlined the difficulties involved in bringing a new aircraft into service. Blowing up two expensive rockets does not instill confidence. I suggest a far more rigorous screening process for new hires.

At my place of work, a sign: No Amateurs.
Could you provide the rigorously-sourced evidence for anything you've said here, or is it armchair quarterbacking based off an amateur-level understanding of the 1960s vs. now?

There's legitimate criticism to be made, but you aren't making it.
 
Without attempting to argue, what's the hold-up? Computers. Computer-aided design and so on. In the 1960s, the U.S. was the "can do" country, with slide rules. Now, it's a few youtube videos, a podcast or two and I'm an expert. Seriously?

I had the opportunity to talk to a young aerospace engineer who had just gotten his security clearance. He outlined the difficulties involved in bringing a new aircraft into service. Blowing up two expensive rockets does not instill confidence. I suggest a far more rigorous screening process for new hires.

At my place of work, a sign: No Amateurs.
That should apply here too. No amateur comments.

The rocket made it to orbit successfully. The issue for the first two launches trying to do reusability at the same time. Getting to orbit is easily; reusability and 100% at that, is the milestone.
 
That should apply here too. No amateur comments.

The rocket made it to orbit successfully. The issue for the first two launches trying to do reusability at the same time. Getting to orbit is easily; reusability and 100% at that, is the milestone.
And honestly so long as they can Put 150 tons of stuff into orbit reliably?

SpaceX can afford to do what they did with the Falcon 9.

Launch the payload, make money, and crash the stage til they get it right while still being in the black.

Only way this doesn't work if the second stage has a playload thats needs to come back, like a human one.

As is that bit is planned for well later so you can honestly still do the Refine over multiple attempts set up.
 
"Space is hard" ..... and SpaceX makes it routine .....

Did they make use of Starlink to send back the videos? I would have thought that with all the plasma effects, telemetry down to ground based stations would have been impossible .....
 
Wow again ... or still wow!

View attachment 722315
Indeed @Deino, my 8-year-old son, who got up at 5 am with me to watch the launch didn't understand why his dad got so excited about that visual, "You're watching hypersonic flow visualized, live, in HD, on a spacecraft re-entering Earth's atmosphere half the planet away!!!"
 
i try a overview on IFT-3
launch went well stage Separation was good
Boost back of B10 went as planed, the planed landing not, (boost back, falling and ignited engine just bevor to landing.)

Starship orbital part hat some issue:
Dit door test worked ?
Raptor ignition not happen (mention in video stream)
Dit happen refueling test ? no info
Starship reenter still on spin, not stable orientation with heat shield pointing earth wards.
what happen to the data flight recorder ? no info

i guess those modifications will happen until ITF-4:
Booster 11 will use Falcon 9 landing profile as alternative. (boost back, brake burn, landing burn)
S29 will get more powerful RCS or flywheels to stabilise the craft in space.
A modified payload door
 
will use Falcon 9 landing profile as alternative. (boost back, brake burn, landing burn)

The Starship was not actually going faster at terminal speed around 20-30 km (the highest speed during descent, after the reentry burn) compared to a RTLS F9, just comparing with a launch.

At 27 km, F9 reached max speed of 4587 kph
At 26 km, Superheavy reaches max speed of 4339 kph

I’m not sure a reentry burn is needed, maybe an earlier landing burn.
 
ehh about that Flight Data Recorder in Animation...
GIqqSKvWkAA0zgL


...is homage to this:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCsfHVM5x_I
 
Much larger. Falcon Heavy is bested only by Energia and Saturn V, and not by a huge amount. Super heavy is a big step up from all three.
Falcon heavy is only rated at 63.8t expended. Energia was 100t, Saturn V was 141.1t. Starship is 250t expended.

 
Flywheels?! Or do you mean rollerons?

(flywheels would be mass for nothing)

I would guess he means reaction wheels or maybe a CMG. Which is probably not going to be practical because of the size and shape (kgm^2) of Starship.
But they may take another look at using RCS at least in the short-term.
 
I had thought Energia had more lift than Saturn V. Thanks.
Energia was a weird case since it wasn’t supposed to bring its payload to orbit, merely a near-orbital trajectory similar to this starship’s, the payload would have had to give the last push (of about ~100 m/s), and none of the proposed Energia upper-side stage were every sanctionned and built. As far as I know the heaviest payload it was supposed to boost would have been a full-load buran at 105t, in theory a few to several tons of additional performances could be gained by removing the reuse equipment from the boosters (parachutes, landing legs, retrorockets and landing fuel), which weighted 60 tons total.

Actually got me thinking that so far there has never been a super heavy launch vehicle (>50 tons payload) capable of lifting a reference 50 tons payload to orbit in the same way smaller launchers do:

-Saturn V was designed to launch the LM-CSM duo, Skylab was a dry workshop, INT-21 never happened
-N1 was maybe the closest, it had a working fairing, but none of those built were designed to launch anything else than the L3 lunar complex, and none worked
-shuttle couldn’t launch more than 24-27 tons depending on orbiters, shuttle C never happened
-Energia lacked a fairing, adapter or orbital insertion stage, Buran could lift 30t max, none of the proposed side-fairing+stages happened
-Falcon heavy’s current second stage has important structural limits and cannot lift 50 tons, much less its 63t target
-Current SLS can only launch Orion, And IB Will only launch small co-manifested payloads. cargo SLS doesn’t look like it’s happening
-current starship is only designed to launch Starlinks and has its tiny door for that, the Starlinks it will launch are volume limited To ~40 per launch and their mass are unknown, but it can’t launch anything else, larger cargo bays and payload adapters will probably eventually happen since they have contracts for it, but certainly aren’t a priority compared to tanker, depot, starlink and HLS starship

-New Glenn will probably be the closest, with a conventional fairing and payload adapter and a 45t reusable payload that could surpass the treshold if used expendable... but they’ve never expressed their desires to do so, and there may be structural limits
-Long March 10 will be a potential candidate, but like Saturn V, will at first only be used for lunar launches.

It’s funny that this isn’t something that has ever been possible and probably won’t until several years at least, of course it’s normal, there has never been a market for 50 tons commercial satellites, or even a variety of such payloads to launch and each SHLV were made for specific reasons, but it’s funny to think about, a multi purpose SHLV doesn’t exist yet.
 
Last edited:
Energia was a weird case since it wasn’t supposed to bring its payload to orbit, merely a near-orbital trajectory similar to this starship’s, the payload would have had to give the last push (of about ~100 m/s), and none of the proposed Energia upper-side stage were every sanctionned and built. As far as I know the heaviest payload it was supposed to boost would have been a full-load buran at 105t, in theory a few to several tons of additional performances could be gained by removing the reuse equipment from the boosters (parachutes, landing legs, retrorockets and landing fuel), which weighted 60 tons total.

Actually got me thinking that so far there has never been a super heavy launch vehicle (>50 tons payload) capable of lifting a reference 50 tons payload to orbit in the same way smaller launchers do:

-Saturn V was designed to launch the LM-CSM duo, Skylab was a dry workshop, INT-21 never happened
-N1 was maybe the closest, it had a working fairing, but none of those built were designed to launch anything else than the L3 lunar complex, and none worked
-shuttle couldn’t launch more than 24-27 tons depending on orbiters, shuttle C never happened
-Energia lacked a fairing, adapter or orbital insertion stage, Buran could lift 30t max, none of the proposed side-fairing+stages happened
-Falcon heavy’s current second stage has important structural limits and cannot lift 50 tons, much less its
-Current SLS can only launch Orion, And IB Will only launch small co-manifested payloads. cargo SLS doesn’t look like it’s happening
-current starship is only designed to launch Starlinks and has its tiny door for that, the Starlinks it will launch are volume limited To ~40 per launch and their mass are unknown, but it can’t launch anything else, larger cargo bays and payload adapters will probably eventually happen since they have contracts for it, but certainly aren’t a priority compared to tanker, depot, starlink and HLS starship

-New Glenn will probably be the closest, with a conventional fairing and payload adapter and a 45t reusable payload that could surpass the treshold if used expendable... but they’ve never expressed their desires to do so, and there may be structural limits
-Long March 10 will be a potential candidate, but like Saturn V, will at first only be used for lunar launches.

It’s funny that this isn’t something that has ever been possible and probably won’t until several years at least, of course it’s normal, there has never been a market for 50 tons commercial satellites, or even a variety of such payloads to launch and each SHLV were made for specific reasons, but it’s funny to think about, a multi purpose SHLV doesn’t exist yet.
The one-off Barbarian, that was never built, was probably the closest.

 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom