SpaceX edges closer to Starship spaceflight after SN10 prototype makes a soft touchdown......

[Humza]

What just happened? Starship SN10, SpaceX's third prototype subjected to a high-altitude test flight following two failed attempts with the SN8 and SN9, became its first rocket to make it back to the ground in one piece. However, a fire broke out upon touchdown, and around eight minutes later, the rocket exploded on the landing pad.

Boca Chica, Texas, and the world (via live stream) saw the launch of SpaceX's SN10 (Serial No 10) prototype on Wednesday as it went up 10km into the sky with the powerful thrust of its three Raptor engines.

Unlike the SN8 and SN9 rockets that exploded on impact during their landing phase, SN10's flight appeared much more controlled and even managed to make it back in one piece. However, the dust settling around the rocket revealed a slightly tilted Starship with a small fire at its base, indicating some damage had been done during touchdown.

Skip to the 5:40 mark to see the launch and 11:40 for Starship's incredible landing flip maneuver.

It wasn't until eight minutes later that the 50m-tall stainless steel SN10 rocket exploded and burst into flames, reportedly after a leak had developed in its propellant tank. The footage was captured by NASASpaceflight cameras, with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk calling it an "honorable discharge."

Oof. SN10 has decided to join SN8 and SN9.

Still a great advancement with the landing.

➡️https://t.co/bOsEo1u0u0 pic.twitter.com/RiXV6e3u04

— Chris B - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) March 3, 2021

"The key point of today’s test flight was to gather the data on controlling the vehicle while re-entering," said SpaceX engineer John Insprucker. The launch was originally aborted at the very last second, which Elon Musk said was to make adjustments to the rocket's "slightly conservative" thrust limit.

With the SN10 now resting in pieces and SpaceX gaining invaluable insight from these tests, things are likely to go much more smoothly - from start to finish - for the eight tourists that'll join Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa for the first-ever civilian lunar mission expected in 2023.

Image Credit: SpaceX/Flickr

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/88815-spacex-edges-closer-starship-spaceflight-after-sn10-prototype.html

 

[QuantumPhysics]

That's not reassuring at all.

 

[stewi0001]

SN10: "Hey guys, you want to see me do another trick?" XD

 

[R00sT3R]

You've just successfully landed on Mars, Planting the flag for the World's TV cameras, whilst in the background, your ride home explodes.

..Embarrassing.

 

[hahahanoobs]

You've just successfully landed on Mars, Planting the flag for the World's TV cameras, whilst in the background, your ride home explodes.

..Embarrassing.

Testing a new landing method shouldn't fail, you're right.

 

[sreams]

That's not reassuring at all.

Testing of a brand new rocket system isn't intended to reassure you. Go back and watch SpaceX's "How Not To Land an Orbital Rocket Booster" video to see how many times the Falcon 9 booster failed before becoming super reliable. In comparison, this is only the 3rd landing attempt with these prototypes.

 

[netman]

Three is the charm...!

 

[wiyosaya]

Given that SpaceX has royalty-free access to NASA patents and technology, one would think that things would go better than this. This is, afterall, yet another "Starship" failure. Not a successful Starship test yet. Gathering Data. Yep.

But, what they hey, Musk probably thinks he knows better than NASA. It would not, in the least, surprise me if Musk made some alterations in the tech/patents he gets from NASA.

Perhaps Musk should rename this "Crashship"; to me, it seems a more apt name. Though you really cannot tell actual velocity from the video, this "ship" looks like it moves about as fast as a slug crawling through molasses.

I am glad to see my tax dollars are being put to such good use.

EDIT: I just love the announcer's "spin".

 

[sreams]

Given that SpaceX has royalty-free access to NASA patents and technology, one would think that things would go better than this. This is, afterall, yet another "Starship" failure. Not a successful Starship test yet. Gathering Data. Yep.

But, what they hey, Musk probably thinks he knows better than NASA. It would not, in the least, surprise me if Musk made some alterations in the tech/patents he gets from NASA.

Perhaps Musk should rename this "Crashship"; to me, it seems a more apt name. Though you really cannot tell actual velocity from the video, this "ship" looks like it moves about as fast as a slug crawling through molasses.

I am glad to see my tax dollars are being put to such good use.

EDIT: I just love the announcer's "spin".

NASA has never implemented the testing regimen SpaceX does, and nobody has ever tried to land a rocket like this. As I mentioned in a previous post... take a look at how many failed landings SpaceX's Falcon rockets suffered early on. How did that turn out?

Let's check back in in a few years and see how much of a failure all of this testing results in then. If the result is anything like Falcon 9 (which did *not* land after only 3 attempts), this thing will *also* dominate the space industry, and in a much bigger way than Falcon 9 has.

If your tax dollars are going to rocket research at all, a successful Starship is exactly what you want, because it will be the most capable *and* the least expensive. How much does each SLS rocket cost again? And how long does one last again?

 

[Markoni35]

Did they hire people who were previously developing nuclear missiles?

 

[Markoni35]

Is it just me, or there's a recurring pattern here:

2019-11-20, Starship explodes during pressurization test:

2020-12-10, Starship SN8 successfully takes off:

...but explodes during landing:

2021-02-03, Starship SN9 successfully takes off... but explodes during landing:

2021-03-05, Starship SN10, takes off and lands successfully. Explodes 5 minutes later:

Maybe they should consider a large parachute instead?

 

[wiyosaya]

NASA has never implemented the testing regimen SpaceX does

And just how do you think NASA got anything to fly?

Maybe you should pitch your spiel to Musk - he just might hire you.

nobody has ever tried to land a rocket like this.

You think SpaceX and Musk are on the cutting edge of this stuff? Think again. https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/technology/space_exploration_vehicle/index.html

As I mentioned in a previous post... take a look at how many failed landings SpaceX's Falcon rockets suffered early on. How did that turn out?

Let's check back in in a few years and see how much of a failure all of this testing results in then. If the result is anything like Falcon 9 (which did *not* land after only 3 attempts), this thing will *also* dominate the space industry, and in a much bigger way than Falcon 9 has.

Blah, blah, blah See the previous link in this post.

If your tax dollars are going to rocket research at all, a successful Starship is exactly what you want, because it will be the most capable *and* the least expensive. How much does each SLS rocket cost again? And how long does one last again?

Yep, Musk and SpaceX are far better than NASA ever was or ever will be. Again, see the previous link in this post. I think it plainly shows that your assertions are a bit off.

Like I said prior, SpaceX and Musk have a royalty free arrangement to use NASA patents and technology. Without those, SpaceX would be nothing more than a twinkle in Musk's eye.

EDIT: Maybe you should also familiarize yourself with this - https://www.wired.com/story/nasas-space-shuttle-rises-from-the-dead-to-power-new-vehicles/

 

[sreams]

Interesting how you completely sidestepped the topic of SLS. Cost? Reusability?

And just how do you think NASA got anything to fly?

Maybe you should pitch your spiel to Musk - he just might hire you.


You think SpaceX and Musk are on the cutting edge of this stuff? Think again. https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/technology/space_exploration_vehicle/index.html


Blah, blah, blah See the previous link in this post.


Yep, Musk and SpaceX are far better than NASA ever was or ever will be. Again, see the previous link in this post. I think it plainly shows that your assertions are a bit off.

Like I said prior, SpaceX and Musk have a royalty free arrangement to use NASA patents and technology. Without those, SpaceX would be nothing more than a twinkle in Musk's eye.

EDIT: Maybe you should also familiarize yourself with this - https://www.wired.com/story/nasas-space-shuttle-rises-from-the-dead-to-power-new-vehicles/

 

[sreams]

Is it just me, or there's a recurring pattern here:

2019-11-20, Starship explodes during pressurization test:

2020-12-10, Starship SN8 successfully takes off:

...but explodes during landing:

2021-02-03, Starship SN9 successfully takes off... but explodes during landing:

2021-03-05, Starship SN10, takes off and lands successfully. Explodes 5 minutes later:

Maybe they should consider a large parachute instead?

It's just you. If you want to show actual patterns, show examples of every SpaceX rocket flight attempt that has ever occurred. Only that will show what the actual trends/patterns are.

 

[Reehahs]

It's just you. If you want to show actual patterns, show examples of every SpaceX rocket flight attempt that has ever occurred. Only that will show what the actual trends/patterns are.

Makes sense, I would rather see explosions in testing phase then after it.

 

[DubiousFishHook]

Maybe they can run away directly after coming back from mars.

 

[wiyosaya]

Interesting how you completely sidestepped the topic of SLS. Cost? Reusability?

Interesting how you and others did not even read the article I linked to. You would have notice something WRT that.

Did you seriously expect me to read it to you?

 

[sreams]

Interesting how you and others did not even read the article I linked to. You would have notice something WRT that.

Did you seriously expect me to read it to you?

I asked for your opinion. Not somebody else's. I want to hear *you* sing the praises of SLS.

 

[Markoni35]

It's just you. If you want to show actual patterns, show examples of every SpaceX rocket flight attempt that has ever occurred. Only that will show what the actual trends/patterns are.

Well, it's interesting that mainstream media always show when a SpaceX experiment ends well, but try to hide when the spaceship explodes. That's totally opposite of the common misconception that mass media are chasing sensations. On the contrary, they are trying to hide the sensations.

For that reason, I've shown the parts that mainstream media have omitted. If you want to see the successful attempts, just turn on your TV. They only show those.

 

[sreams]

Well, it's interesting that mainstream media always show when a SpaceX experiment ends well, but try to hide when the spaceship explodes. That's totally opposite of the common misconception that mass media are chasing sensations. On the contrary, they are trying to hide the sensations.

For that reason, I've shown the parts that mainstream media have omitted. If you want to see the successful attempts, just turn on your TV. They only show those.

You must be kidding. After SN10's flight, CNN's front page showed a looping video snippet of it exploding (no frames of it landing). The Fox News headline was "3rd time not the charm for SpaceX".

Back when SN8 flew, the CNN headline was something long the lines of "SpaceX rocket explodes... thankfully no one was aboard".

Try this: Open Google, choose News, and then type "SpaceX explodes" into the search field. Pretty poor job of "hiding" this information.

 

[Markoni35]

You must be kidding. After SN10's flight, CNN's front page showed a looping video snippet of it exploding (no frames of it landing). The Fox News headline was "3rd time not the charm for SpaceX".

Yeah, but that's not world media. That's US media. In the rest of the world, which is around 220 countries, that explosion was not present in majority of top TV news channels. I'm not counting newspapers (which many people don't read, as they aren't free) or internet portals (which aren't considered as credible as TV). I'm talking about the most popular source of "credible" news for an average voter: evening TV news.

None of those 4 SpaceX explosions appeared on the national TV news channels in most countries in the world. At least not in countries which are in good relationship with the US. As if there's some kind of "friendly recommendation" from the US. It also applies to big accidents, such as train wrecks that happen in the US, which are often omitted, or mentioned just once. But it's quite the opposite with positive news, for example news about SpaceX. Those are immediately aired in all media. Also, racial protests in the US, immediately aired and then repeated 20 times a week.

Of course that BBC, RT and Al Jazeera will publish anything they tag as sensation, but they are an exception to the rule.

 

[sreams]

Yeah, but that's not world media. That's US media. In the rest of the world, which is around 220 countries, that explosion was not present in majority of top TV news channels. I'm not counting newspapers (which many people don't read, as they aren't free) or internet portals (which aren't considered as credible as TV). I'm talking about the most popular source of "credible" news for an average voter: evening TV news.

None of those 4 SpaceX explosions appeared on the national TV news channels in most countries in the world. At least not in countries which are in good relationship with the US. As if there's some kind of "friendly recommendation" from the US. It also applies to big accidents, such as train wrecks that happen in the US, which are often omitted, or mentioned just once. But it's quite the opposite with positive news, for example news about SpaceX. Those are immediately aired in all media. Also, racial protests in the US, immediately aired and then repeated 20 times a week.

Of course that BBC, RT and Al Jazeera will publish anything they tag as sensation, but they are an exception to the rule.

You post suggests that these media sources simply aren't reporting rocketry events in general. No data to support an imbalance of positive vs negative.

 

[Markoni35]

You post suggests that these media sources simply aren't reporting rocketry events in general. No data to support an imbalance of positive vs negative.

Nope, that's not true either. When a rocket test fails in Russia or North Korea, they report it immediately. They just avoid reporting US failures. I also mentioned train accidents, so it's not just about rockets.

 

[sreams]

Nope, that's not true either. When a rocket test fails in Russia or North Korea, they report it immediately. They just avoid reporting US failures. I also mentioned train accidents, so it's not just about rockets.

Or they just avoid reporting US rocketry events.

Need data to show the trend you are suggesting.

 

[Markoni35]

Or they just avoid reporting US rocketry events.

Need data to show the trend you are suggesting.

Nope. It's got nothing to do with rocketry. A sensation is a sensation. I mean, look at the ordinary stupid events they talk about, are people really interested in that? Nope. But media can convert any crap into a sensation, if they repeat it enough times. However, here where they have a real sensation, they avoid it.

But they don't avoid successful tests. Hows that for "avoiding rocketry".