Post by Alain FournierIn this case, he is not denigrating SpaceX. The link he provided points
to a well balanced article that says that the starship launch is
obviously not a complete success (Starship did not reach Hawaii). But it
also says that several important partial successes have been reached.
I think SN15 was a greater success.
After a long pause is testing their iterative designs, what they tested
was either discontinued features or features that live on but which failed.
The OLM core design is a simple/cheap design with the 6 legs that are
closely spaced to each other. It is not clear to me that such a design
has long term future where the pad can be reused within 20 minutes of
taking off and landing. You might be able to protect the concrete base
from "rock tornado" with some steel plate, but the fact remains that the
thrust from these engines still needs to flow between those legs and
there is bound to be massive erosion. This decign will likely "iterate"
in a big way.
Raptor2 may be amazing engine when tested at McGregor, but they still
need to deal with the design of having 33 engines within a cylinder 9m
across. And Husk even mentioned that they need to work on ensuring
failure of an engine doesn't cause nearby engines to also fail.
So to all those who claim that there were no needs for real test firings
on the pad because of McGregor, this is why. System integration is far
more important than individual component testing.
The one succcess Husk mentioned is the pressursation of tanks during
flights. (he even mentioned that Helium is used for Falcon and confirmed
Helium is harder and harder to get now since it isa rare gas).
In an iterative design mentality, this was a very informative test to
point to what needs to change. Alas, many items that were tested in
this flight ate moot because they have already been changed for the next
flight (such as going from hydraulic pumps to electric for thrust
vectoring). So thrust vectoring tests start from scratch at the next
test since totally new system.
It is interesting that originally, it was mentioned a Starship should be
able to take off and reach LEO without payload. But with this test
flight, it was revealed that even at speed/altitude when Stage0 ceased
to accelerate, Starship didn't have enough fuel/power to reach the
semi-orbit to have it splash down at a beach resort in Hawaii. (so
doing premature stage separation to let Starship di its test was not
possible since its landing spot couldn't be properly controlled).
So now, what remains to be seen is just how much the architecture of
stage and 0 stage 1 change before next test flight, or whether next
flight will be like this one where they test only a portion of
improvements already being integrated into subsequent builds.
Will they retrofit booster 9 or just ditch it and use a more recently
built one that incorporates lessons learned from ths failed flight from
a week or two ago?