The haze was bad this is what I got of the actual launch tower/,starship

Anyone going to be in the Brownsville area with an aviation handheld willing to give countdown updates on 123.45 or ???

I would have liked to see it in daylight on both ends too. I’m not sure why it’s not. As to the benefits of seeing the terminal descent visually I don’t think that’s a big deal to them. They are not going to adopt the landing attitude with Starship. If it makes it that far it’s just going to fall into the ocean at terminal velocity. Any benefits will come from telemetry and will probably center on temperature readings at various points on the vehicle, if it lives that long. As usual I’d expect cameras to be placed in strategic locations, but apart from the plasma trail I don’t think there’s much to see.

They are not placing high expectations on this flight (think low altitude Starship tests). If they make it past Max Q they are going to be pretty happy. Personally I think the biggest “risk” on the first attempt will be getting all 33 Raptors lit and ready. If there’s a scrub that’s likely to be the cause. The chances of either vehicle completing all test elements is slim, which is OK, that’s SpaceX’s way of doing it.

The worst possible failure would be a RUD a thousand feet in the air. That would send a shock wave out that would blow out windows miles away. I don’t think it’s likely, but the chances are not zero.

At low altitude, you probably can have cell coverage. Say under 2000 ft.

Mike C.

Seems bizarre to me.


Also bizarre. If it makes it that far, why not program it to try? Maybe there's some problem with keeping the cryogenic fuel during reentry they have not solved?


The fuel is not mixed with oxygen, separate tanks, so it won't be a bomb with a shockwave like that. It will take time to "explode". So I don't think there is a big risk of a shockwave taking out windows miles from the pad.

The worst outcome is a RUD on the pad and destroy the pad and tower. That will set them back quite a lot. They would much rather lose the vehicle than the pad.

Mike C.

There has naturally been some speculation about the lack of a soft landing attempt. I’ve yet to hear a good one. The best in my mind is that they don’t want to deal with cleanup and just want it to destroy itself on impact and sink. That seems pretty thin to me, but SpaceX are the only ones who know.

The risk of an explosion would come in the event of a catastrophic structural failure that had the propellant and oxidizer spraying around. I’m not a chemist but that seems like an opportunity for something more energetic than a fireball. What is the difference between Starship’s methylox system and the Kerosene/LOX system on N1? Yeah, different fuels, but if you can atomize kerosene and LOX and break windows at 35 Km, how does that differ from Methylox that would keep that from happening?

No matter what, if it gets past T0 it’s going to be quite an event.

I’d be worried that cell coverage might be a bit “saturated” in that area at that time. It’s going to be a zoo….

I’m bummed about the flipless Ship finale also and on the FB curated page there were some good reasons and probably just getting it to the bottom of the ocean in as many pieces as possible very quickly is desirable.

Remember they did that one test in IMC and they’ve done zero-zero Falcon 9 flights from Vandy so I guess they just don’t like to watch. Or maybe the timing has some tricky constraint.

Oh well, at least we know it’s not a matter of IF, but WHERE the RUD is.

Sadly my handheld is in Australia, or I'd have been happy to.

That's easy enough, once flipped and upright and slowed to zero speed above the water, activate FTS (flight termination system).

Spacex has done "soft" water landings before to test things on the Falcon 9. They are planning to "soft" land the Super Heavy.

The flip maneuver of the Starship is one of the few things they have actually tested, so it is weird not to include it. This suggests to me there is some problem yet to be solved with fuel or ignition after 90 minutes in orbit.


I didn't see any reference to breaking windows at that distance. Only 35 km reference was to say the fireball was "visible" for the second failure. Windows were damage at the launch complex.

Mike C.

It’s not a RUD if it’s planned.

I guess that would make it an RSD?

Mike C.

It’s not a RUD if it’s planned.

So this may end with a RPD? Where/when in the launch/recovery do you think that event is "planned" to occur?

Starship is bigger than the Soviet N1. When N1 exploded, only ~15% of the fuel was consumed by the KABOOM …

- The inferno completely leveled the launchpad
- Rocket debris was hurtled as far as ten kilometers from the blast epicenter
- Windows of the surrounding communities were shattered as far as 40 kilometers distant.

Took a look today.