About 10 minutes until the planned 33-engine static fire.

https://www.youtube.com/live/2kG4AbAcia0?feature=share

Reported as a successful full-duration test of all 33 engines.

That would make it the most rocket engines ever fired simultaneously, as well as the most powerful firing of a rocket, in history.

I am thrilled that it did not RUD.

Full duration? The feed I was listening to mentioned the run time lasting 2-10 secs, depending. By my crude measurement it as ~4 secs. Perhaps they achieved all their goals? Perhaps a parameter was out of spec and it was a precautionary shutdown- beats me.

Given how much work is done in the open, I am looking forward to WAI’s report and videos re: the rocket and facility.

SpaceX announced just after the test that it had achieved full planned duration. Two engines didn't fire, for various reasons, so it was a 31 engine firing in the end.

Unfortunately, that’s a Fail.

The test will certainly have been valuable, but we aren’t going to be seeing any launches until they can get them all to light reliably. Raptors are not the easiest rocket motors to get started, and I’ve always thought that trying to get 33 of them on line all at once was a tall order.

Unfortunately, that’s a Fail.

The test will certainly have been valuable, but we aren’t going to be seeing any launches until they can get them all to light reliably. Raptors are not the easiest rocket motors to get started, and I’ve always thought that trying to get 33 of them on line all at once was a tall order.

Wow.
https://twitter.com/RyanHansenSpace/sta ... M6hKKyNbbM

Indeed.

It seems that there is some redundancy built in. Musk states that 31 engines would still have been sufficient to boost the second stage to orbit, in a real launch.

I'm sure they'll have learned plenty about why those two didn't ignite (in fact they were commanded not to light, presumably due to suboptimal sensor readings).

Yes, for a first attempt at an orbital test flight with an unladen Starship, the 31 working motors would probably be fine, but operationally with a heavy payload, it most likely wouldn’t have been enough.

Elon has commented, and it has been observed that under optimal conditions, Raptor engines are tricky to light. Multiplied by 33 that’s even harder. I’m sure they’ll work it out, but for anything beyond an early test, they’ll need to.

Yes, for a first attempt at an orbital test flight with an unladen Starship, the 31 working motors would probably be fine, but operationally with a heavy payload, it most likely wouldn’t have been enough.

Elon has commented, and it has been observed that under optimal conditions, Raptor engines are tricky to light. Multiplied by 33 that’s even harder. I’m sure they’ll work it out, but for anything beyond an early test, they’ll need to.

Casting doubt on an orbital attempt in March, yes. They can't afford a major failure and while 31 out of 33 might get a satisfactory test result, what is there to suggest that it was more than luck that held the misfire count to two?

Yes, this is exactly what they need to be doing right now, and it will get them to where they need to be eventually. My observation is only that this test failed in the context of progressing to a flight test in late February or early March. If it proves to be otherwise I will be surprised and a little concerned. Maybe this is just a control or sensing issue and not an actual engine problem, but either way I expect that it will need to be resolved and another full fire test conducted successfully (all engines operating as designed) prior to any attempt at flight.

Consider also that the FAA has not yet signed off on this flight, so they may have a say in what constitutes a satisfactory test too.

Actually, they can. In fact, they have planned for it and assumed it will happen.

SpaceX clearly operates where failure is an option. They will probably fail on the OFT. Even if they succeed, the vehicle will be lost. They are building a slew of vehicles behind this one and might lose many of them, too.

It is a radically different philosophy than, say, NASA. The basic tradeoff is spending money on testing versus money on design verification.

The most precious outcome is the data from the flight. The longer it flies, the more they get and the more valuable it is, but every bit will help.

Mike C.

Yes, but they have a lot invested in the ground infrastructure now in the area. They don't want to lose mechazilla. They are being more conservative with this one. Hopefully the ship gets far enough away from the tower before the SHTF. Can't wait; this is the best thing to happen to space flight since the moon landing.

Also this test was just as much as about not destroying the launching pad as it was about the engines from what i've read.

Potential loss of the Texas pad is one of the reasons they are building a second launch facility at pad 39A at Kennedy Space Center.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/01/06/f ... -carriage/

They must believe in the "catch" method for this one to go ahead and build a seconds such setup. Even if the "catch" method doesn't work, the "chopsticks" are useful for stacking operations.

Mike C.