When previous launch? (IFT-2)? Booster 9 and Ship 25 launched on 2023-11-18.
What was the result? Successful lift off with minimal pad damage. Successful booster operation with all engines to successful hot stage separation. Booster destroyed by AFTS after attempted boost-back. Ship fired all engines to near orbital speed then destroyed by AFTS. No re-entry attempt.
Was IFT-2 a complete failure? No. As part of an iterative test programme, many milestones were achieved. Perfection is neither expected nor desired at this stage.
I'm really hoping for before '24 of course because of the yearly launch limit, but realistically I think January is possible and February is most likely. I'd be surprised if it isn't before March unless there's extenuating circumstances, e.g. FAA or lawsuits.
I think that a launch this year is still possible but I wouldn't want to give odds. I think that before the end of January is likely. It would be cool for it to happen on my birthday but I'd rather see it earlier.
It appears that Tower Pieces are being moved from Florida to Texas. The launch ring in Hangar M at the Cape might roll out onto a barge soon. There was a second tower under construction at 39A, and parts at Roberts Road were intended for a second Starship tower at KSC. SpaceX initially planned a second tower at Boca Chica but dropped the permit request. Now, it seems the tower segments at Roberts Road are destined for a second Starship tower in Boca Chica, possibly for launching and landing Tanker Starships in a rapid salvoing process. It seems like the limiting factor might be the tank farm's capacity to fill Tankers with methalox. The ultimate goal may be controlling multiple Ships in LEO for refilling missions. Tower segments are being transported to Starbase, with various activities observed throughout the day.
No observed changes to S26. Still connected to up to a crane in the rocket garden.
Work on the OLM continues
The SpaceX LR 11000 crane was rolled over to the launch tower. Later in the day, the crane was connected to the Ship Quick Disconnect arm. Looks like they're planning on lowering at least a portion of it. (Rover 2.0 Cam)
For the first time in several days, I didn't spot any lifts at S28. Perhaps this means it is ready for rollout tonight?
Ah yes, I found some video here and here. It seems like they didn't lower the flex pipes or work on them, correct? They just lifted them out of the way so they could access other components?
Starbase itself is a hotbed of construction activity these days, she said, with a second orbital launch pad on tap as well as a million-square-foot factory, additional employee housing and office space all coming online, she said. The second pad is necessary for SpaceX’s goal of a faster launch cadence, while much of the engine testing is now taking place at SpaceX’s Massey test site on a former gun range west of Starbase, Lueders said.
“That test site is very critical,” she said. “What it allows us to do is keep our test operations … away from the beach. We know that it’s a pain in the butt for everybody when we have to (be) close the beach. And so we’re moving more of our testing over there so that it doesn’t impact operations that are over near the beach.”
She also confirms that the AFTS was triggered on IFT-2:
Lueders said Starship’s anomaly investigation team was still looking into why the Nov. 18 flight’s Automated Flight Termination Systems were activated.
The LR11000 has moved into the space near gate D2 where they recently demolished the storage sheds. I think it's there to handle the last three horizontal tanks (unless it's just there to compact the new asphalt...)
Following the recent "GATEWAY TO MARS" sign, a "SPACEX" sign is installed over the new entrance to the launch complex. Letters arriving, partway through installation ("SP CE "), ("SPACE "), ("SPACEX"), (mostly) complete.
Some concrete under suborbital pad B is being cut up and removed. Unclear at this point whether this is minor maintenance or the start of a complete teardown with all ship testing moving to Massey's.
The red LR11000 is disassembled, following the completion of Megabay 2.
It's been asserted that they were used for water but I know of no evidence that they actually were.
Texas regulations require that the design for a methane storage system be done by a registered professional engineer certified to do methane storage systems in Texas and be submitted for approval before construction starts. Thus it's unlikely that they were "too close together". More likely they just didn't work right. Perhaps they had an excessive boiloff rate or too high a leakage rate.
Speculation: Perhaps they decided to build their own tanks because lead times for purchased tanks were too long. It worked out for LN2 and LOX.
I wonder why they have not recycled the suborbital tanks?
Possible road closure still listed for Jan 3rd from 08:00 to 18:00. They did use the primary date (Dec 29th) for the S28 and B10 static fires, so not sure if they'll use the alternate dates (Jan 3rd and 4th) for anything.
Now with an overpressure notice for tomorrow, I'm hopeful it's a good sign that even if something major happened, the booster did not take a serious hit.
Zack Golden seems to have guessed wrong! The vertical inner tank which was exposed yesterday is next to be removed. LR11000 is currently being hooked up to the tank.
LR11000's tank shell lifting jig swapped out for inner tank lifting jig. Zack Golden eats his words from yesterday. LR11000 is hooked up to remove the inner GSE tank which was exposed yesterday. Visible on NSF Starbase Live and LabPadre Rover 2.
As part of an iterative test programme, many milestones were achieved. Perfection is neither expected nor desired at this stage.
Sounds reasonable, except for the final bit. It's just ridiculous to claim that perfection was not desired. Sensors provide the same data, investors will be happier and invest more, clients will gain more trust and spend more. It feels like the excuse some kid would come up with, who is lacking self confidence to stand by their limited success and claimed it was all intentio... oh.
It’s just ridiculous to claim that perfection was not desired.
I think this refers to SpaceX's hardware-rich iterative development process. The quote "if you never fail, you're not pushing the boundaries enough" sums up the sentiment well.
If you never succeed you are pushing them too hard.
A test that goes to completion always returns more data than one that doesn't. For example there is a theory that the flaps on the ship are too large. IFT2 could have confirmed or falsified it.
I think you are reading too much into this. SpaceX has a rather aggressive test program, and the purpose of the tests is not (only) to verify the functionality of the system, but also to learn about the vehicle and involved technologies. At this stage they are pushing the boundaries of the systems capabilities intentionally up to the point where it might start to fail. So if things don’t fail, it only means that they could have pushed harder and squeezed out more performance.
That does not mean that anyone wants Starship to explode. But the objective is clearly not to do a perfect launch, because SpaceX knows that it’s more efficient to make mistakes a few times times and then succeed, instead of spending excessive amounts of time and money one single perfect test launch. This has been communicated very clearly from the very beginning.
Not really. It has been communicated very clearly that if there wasn't a successful starship launch every two weeks by 2022 (I believe that's the year Elon Musk used?), SpaceX runs the risk of bankruptcy. At this point what they are doing means, that he wasn't truthful when he said that, or that they are failing unintentionally and downplaying it, or that they are actually very far behind their plans and heading toward bankruptcy.