Reply to thread

Message

1. Yes, it was fully fueled. Payload mass is a small fraction
2. Not relevant, it didn't collapse during ascent
3. Again, not relevant. You are backpedalling and changing the goalposts. Reuse was never part of the discussion. You were worried about this flight and not reuse.

Here are your words:

"SpaceX should use the delay to remove the vented interstage from Booster 9 and prepare booster and Starship for a launch without hot staging. First priority should be to get Starship into orbit and back. In the months until then they can make a new and better design for a vented interstage with sufficient diagonal bracing"

I don't expect many parts to be the same on the "final" reusable version of the Starship. That is what the test flights are for. Falcon 9 went through iterations before the design for reuse (the design for expendable was good early on) settled down. Hot staging for Starship could even go away. As far as the interstage, nobody was stating that was sufficient for reuse, only that it could handle launch.

You just have a problem with SpaceX and it is not based on engineering practices.

<blockquote data-quote="Byeman" data-source="post: 636243" data-attributes="member: 3968">1.&nbsp; Yes, it was fully fueled.&nbsp; Payload mass is a small fraction2.&nbsp; Not relevant, it didn't collapse during ascent3.&nbsp; Again, not relevant.&nbsp; You are backpedalling and changing the goalposts.&nbsp; Reuse was never part of the discussion.&nbsp; You were worried about this flight and not reuse.Here are your words:&quot;SpaceX should use the delay to remove the vented interstage from Booster 9 and prepare booster and Starship for a launch without hot staging. First priority should be to get Starship into orbit and back.&nbsp; In the months until then they can make a new and better design for a vented interstage with sufficient diagonal bracing&quot;I don't expect many parts to be the same on the &quot;final&quot; reusable version of the Starship.&nbsp; That is what the test flights are for.&nbsp; Falcon 9 went through iterations before the design for reuse (the design for expendable was good early on) settled down.&nbsp; Hot staging for Starship could even go away.&nbsp; As far as the interstage, nobody was stating that was sufficient for reuse, only that it could handle launch.You just have a problem with SpaceX and it is not based on engineering practices.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Byeman, post: 636243, member: 3968"] 1. Yes, it was fully fueled. Payload mass is a small fraction 2. Not relevant, it didn't collapse during ascent 3. Again, not relevant. You are backpedalling and changing the goalposts. Reuse was never part of the discussion. You were worried about this flight and not reuse. Here are your words: "SpaceX should use the delay to remove the vented interstage from Booster 9 and prepare booster and Starship for a launch without hot staging. First priority should be to get Starship into orbit and back. In the months until then they can make a new and better design for a vented interstage with sufficient diagonal bracing" I don't expect many parts to be the same on the "final" reusable version of the Starship. That is what the test flights are for. Falcon 9 went through iterations before the design for reuse (the design for expendable was good early on) settled down. Hot staging for Starship could even go away. As far as the interstage, nobody was stating that was sufficient for reuse, only that it could handle launch. You just have a problem with SpaceX and it is not based on engineering practices. [/QUOTE]

Verification