We are so use to success.....that this rocket stuff is hard. No one remembers the trials and failures years ago.

...and some of that knowledge is gone with that generation.

Is it just me, but I did not understand how everyone was still so happy after the explosion. Yea, I get it that a successful launch is great and that there was data acquired to help with learning. Hopefully they learn from this and make improvements.

This is fake.

The sky was clear, with no clouds, for a start. The rocket also only had a contrail for a brief period.

Space X knew that Booster7 was far from perfect in fact they have already made significant changes to the design both in the booster and Raptor engine. Booster 8 is powered by the RaptorII engine and uses electric thrust vectoring instead of hydraulic among several other changes.

The SpaceX team stated that if the launch did not destroy the launch site it would be a success. Anything else is just gravy. They almost destroyed the launch site but it is repairable.
Jay

Sure, but some of the issues experienced in this launch were clearly predictable such as difficulty in getting all engines started, lack of adequate launch pad design, and other things.

There's a difference between trying something unknown and doing something that is known to have faults already. I embrace the empirical "failure is an option" methodology for rapid improvement, but that's not the same as accepting failure before you even start.

The damage to the launch site is quite extensive, including to the tank farm, equipment, and much of it will have to be redesigned and replaced. The rocket may be reusable someday, but will the launchpad be?

Raining down debris and sand over neighbors will cost political capital as well. Regulatory hurdles will increase.

Flying Starship from KSC is highly unlikely in the near future, and maybe never, after this.

There seems to be a recurring problem getting Raptor engines started. The landing failures were mostly about the engines not restarting. The static fire test didn't have all lit. This launch didn't get all lit and lost them as it went. Looks like the Raptor program needs some serious rework to develop a reliable engine.

I doubt Starship flies again this year. The next test needs to go significantly better.

Overall, this launch makes me less enthusiastic about the Starship program than I was before. It makes me feel like the people running the program are not as smart as I would hope.

The other thought I have is that an ocean based floating launch pad would be a good idea. No sand or dirt to fling around, plenty of water for flame suppression, away from stuff that will be affected, can be positioned anywhere that is advantageous, safer for retrieval, not tied to political jurisdictions, potential payload increases (booster returns to downrange pad), etc. I know they had ideas like this in the past, but this launch makes me think it those ideas have more merit now.

Mike C.

It was a test, I think the information learned will cut years off of the journey... but I agree with Mike, lots of damage was done and they will probably pay a pretty steep price for the direct knowledge gained.

Musk doesn't seem to be a guy who accepts a "no" based on someone's worst case scenario warning.

Booster 7 also used Raptor 2. Booster 8 has already been scrapped, booster 9 is next in line for flight. Booster 10 is almost finished, and there are 3 ships ready to fly as well.

Booster 7 also used Raptor 2. Booster 8 has already been scrapped, booster 9 is next in line for flight. Booster 10 is almost finished, and there are 3 ships ready to fly as well.

If the next boosters are already built, how do lessons learned from this flight get incorporated into the next tests? It seems like some of those lessons won't yield ideas that can be retrofitted to an already built booster.

Maybe this test should have had a dead weight upper stage, and maybe the next few tests should do that, too. Save some money on building starships (second stage) with their engines, flaps, and heat shields. Weld up a proper shape out of mild steel wouldn't be expensive (relatively speaking) and fill it to get the desired weight.

Given the time since the upper stage suborbital flights and "landings", this effort was disappointingly immature.

Mike C.

The lessons that can easily be retrofitted get incorporated. Those that can't get incorporated into a couple of boosters down the line.

Boosters 9 and 10 already have many, many improvements learned from the construction of the previous ones. 8 was scrapped because it was obsolete before even being finished.

These are not expensive rockets, compared to the "old style". They don't lose much by going fast in this manner.

SpaceX are a decade or more ahead of competitors with their Falcon 9. I think to sit online and suggest that one knows better how they should be developing Starship reeks of hubris. These are exceptionally intelligent and successful teams who have already made massive progress. Just compare it to the disposable 80s throw-back that NASA have recently produced, largely due to political meddling.

https://youtu.be/1YNBnq7LJbY

My contribution to the corpus of launch video.

Weather was marginal and haze condensed while circling at 2500 ft waiting for the launch kbro went IFR and ended up vrf on top the layer. Had to go find a hole near KIPL and sit on the ground for awhile. Had about 5hrs of gas in loiter mode so was not too concerned.

I normally keep the breezy in socal with a common marine layer so I have a g5 Incase I get stuck on top, did not have to use that capability this time.

It's been a while since I've worked on a rocket program...but mass models are very common. Since they planned to land everything...so no mass models were needed for this mission.

It's not uncommon to write off the first couple launches as test flights....and not expect much. They were down playing this....and hopeful but not expecting a perfect mission.

More than likely the other boosters....although older designs...might actually fly once they get things figured out.

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.

Great video Paul.
Remarkable it got as far as it did.

Pad will need a little work, the next one will be pretty awesome too and eventually the catch attempt is going to be a SERIOUS nail-biter.

Exactly. Last year the US launched 87 rockets Space X launched 61 of them.

The next highest number of launches for a US platform was 9.