I wonder if IFT-6 will put Ship in orbit. That would change their mission profile

Sea Speed said:

---

You realize it is a joke, right?

---

Often it is difficult to know what is a joke nowadays

BuddysBud said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

You realize it is a joke, right?

---

Often it is difficult to know what is a joke nowadays

---

There has been a really hard run of late to corner the market on Poe's Law.

I had no idea that was sarcasm until it was pointed out deeper in the X comments.

I'd doubt they deviate from an already approved plan given what they had to do to get the approval. What does the flight plan say now?

The giveaway was the cheering of spending lots of money on anything other than abortions and needles for the homeless.

Wouldn't surprise me to see them scrap the vehicles originally scheduled for IFT-6, since they didn't have some of the hardware enhancements they made after IFT-4. I would bet one more launch of the same profile as IFT-5 and then they'll go for orbit and/or StarLink 2 deployment.

normaleagle05 said:

---

I'd doubt they deviate from an already approved plan given what they had to do to get the approval. What does the flight plan say now?

---

They had approval to do another IFT-4 style mission for flight 5, but they had a booster to catch. SpaceX isn't going to launch just to do the same thing again.

Musk said he wanted at least three accurately placed ship landings before they went to a recovery for ship. Seems the simplest path to achieving the next, and validating the heat shield/flap location success is to do another suborbital, then an orbital with no recovery and then recovery. Especially when IFT-5 was delayed by multiple months due to the change.

Now that they have two towers, I wonder if they might try to bring the upper stage back to the second tower for the first catch attempt on it. Depends how quickly they can be approved I think. The sub-orbital vs. orbital is really just a matter of playing it safe in case of a loss of control up there, but I doubt they think that will happen at this point, though the new flap design etc. might necessitate one more Indian Ocean splash down.

Demanding excellence and amazing execution and you’re at reusable rockets after a decade.

WOW … unbelievable pic.twitter.com/ifi5irZ91k

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) October 14, 2024

Apparently they will send some of these engines back to McGregor:

Hope some of those engines get sent to McGregor. Flight-proven Raptors put through their paces on the test stand will be amazing data points for future reusability.

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) October 14, 2024

As they move toward a more 'finalized' design (as opposed to test/developmental articles) I wonder when we will really see them crank up the production volume/rate:

The 1-million square foot Starfactory brings many parts of the manufacturing process under one roof for the first time, moving as much system integration work as possible earlier in the build process, with the goal of eventually producing 1,000 Ships a year pic.twitter.com/vz44XcTTN8

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 13, 2024

Oh btw, falcon heavy launch today, somewhere around 11am CST:

The spacecraft will help scientists determine if Europa’s salty ocean harbors the ingredients for life

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 13, 2024

Edit to add: this will be a fully expended FH, sadly. Very heavy interplanetary payload…

I still think they've got to get a starship back without erosion along the upper flap hinge. I think someone posted a page or so back that the Starship for IFT 6 was already built when 4 flew so unless they scrap that vehicle (they might) we need to wait for IFT 7 to see a starship with the forward flaps moved leeward.

They've also got to get Raptor relight in order to deorbit.

Now that they've got control of the vehicle and can fly it I think (and I'm a Geologist with too many nights in a Holiday Inn, not an aerospace guy) they do Raptor relight on the next flight (IFT 6 with burning flaps) but still plunk it down in the Indian Ocean on a suborbital trajectory. Then, once they know they can get that engine burn done they feel safe bringing it across Mexico (with the new flaps) splash one in the GoM, then catch on IFT 8. Get new flaps on IFT 6, then maybe go straight for catch on 7.

Anybody know why they land starship in the Indian ocean? Seems like that runs the risk of China or Russia recovering parts (like the Raptor engines). Why not have it do a full orbit and then land in the gulf of Mexico?

hph6203 said:

---

Musk said he wanted at least three accurately placed ship landings before they went to a recovery for ship. Seems the simplest path to achieving the next, and validating the heat shield/flap location success is to do another suborbital, then an orbital with no recovery and then recovery. Especially when IFT-5 was delayed by multiple months due to the change.

---

You could do a suborbital flight back to your point of origin, but I would have thought he'd want to get to orbit and/or do precision landings in the Gulf first.

I hate to bring politics to this thread but it is F16 and I found this funny:

people are justly amazed at this but it’s important to remember SpaceX isn’t our only space company and by many metrics not even our most successful.

Boeing, e.g., is light years ahead on both amount spent and workforce diversity, both of which are key drivers of success. https://t.co/vb1jgPh9eR

— blighter (@blightersort) October 13, 2024

FAA doesn't control pollution control in the Indian Ocean.

I'd personally bet, that is a big reason.

OnlyForNow said:

---

FAA doesn't control pollution control in the Indian Ocean.

I'd personally bet, that is a big reason.

---

If I'm Biden, I encourage a landing in the gulf and I have navy ships help salvage the parts. Those rockets are ITAR protected. It should be in all of our best interests to keep that out of the hands of the Chinese.

About 45 min. to Falcon Heavy launch

Watch as our largest planetary spacecraft takes flight!@EuropaClipper is targeted to launch at 12:06pm ET (1606 UTC) on a Falcon Heavy rocket from @NASAKennedy, beginning its journey to Jupiter’s ocean moon, Europa. https://t.co/ajxnh7LMhQ

— NASA (@NASA) October 14, 2024

TexAgs91 said:

---

normaleagle05 said:

---

I'd doubt they deviate from an already approved plan given what they had to do to get the approval. What does the flight plan say now?

---

They had approval to do another IFT-4 style mission for flight 5, but they had a booster to catch. SpaceX isn't going to launch just to do the same thing again.

---

You're suggesting that they turned in a Flight 6 mission profile they had no intention of flying?

Congratulations to @SpaceX, what an incredible feat of engineering! Mars, here we come.

At the same time, the coin has a second side: it shows and confirms that #Europe has completely lost touch. Can it still catch up? No chance. At least not the way things are going at the… pic.twitter.com/uW2lNbg6q9

— Rocket Factory Augsburg (@rfa_space) October 14, 2024

Tough statement really.

aTmAg said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

FAA doesn't control pollution control in the Indian Ocean.

I'd personally bet, that is a big reason.

---

If I'm Biden, I encourage a landing in the gulf and I have navy ships help salvage the parts. Those rockets are ITAR protected. It should be in all of our best interests to keep that out of the hands of the Chinese.

---

Depending on where they land them, they're probably unrecoverable. Basins in the Indian Ocean can be 3-4 miles deep. Even if you know precisely where the rocket landed, there's no telling where it actually ends up due to drift on the way down, so you need to go look for it. Think looking for something 1/4 the size of the Titanic that exploded into a bunch of smaller pieces. Even if you find it, pulling up something that big from that deep is a huge challenge. There's also going to be a lot of damage from corrosion, so you may not be able to get any insight from precision parts or electronics.

normaleagle05 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

normaleagle05 said:

---

I'd doubt they deviate from an already approved plan given what they had to do to get the approval. What does the flight plan say now?

---

They had approval to do another IFT-4 style mission for flight 5, but they had a booster to catch. SpaceX isn't going to launch just to do the same thing again.

---

You're suggesting that they turned in a Flight 6 mission profile they had no intention of flying?

---

I'm just going by what happened with IFT-4 and IFT-5. If IFT-4's booster didn't land where it was supposed to then they'd make some modifications to IFT-5 and IFT-5 would have flown IFT-4's mission again, and they would have used the same launch license from IFT-4. Since IFT-4 was a success, they didn't have to fly that same mission again and didn't use that launch license.

nortex97 said:

---

Congratulations to @SpaceX, what an incredible feat of engineering! Mars, here we come.

At the same time, the coin has a second side: it shows and confirms that #Europe has completely lost touch. Can it still catch up? No chance. At least not the way things are going at the… pic.twitter.com/uW2lNbg6q9

— Rocket Factory Augsburg (@rfa_space) October 14, 2024

Tough statement really.

---

Yeah, Starship is well on its way to being 2 full generations ahead of the rest of the world

aTmAg said:

---

Anybody know why they land starship in the Indian ocean? Seems like that runs the risk of China or Russia recovering parts (like the Raptor engines). Why not have it do a full orbit and then land in the gulf of Mexico?

---

Recall on IFT3 they lost control of Starship during the suborbital coast. Because of its targeted landing point when it did start reentering without control it broke up and landed harmlessly across a pre-designated keep out zone in the remote and very deep Indian Ocean.

Do that on a trajectory that returns it to the GoM and you risk raining the ship down somewhere across Mexico.

Edit to add... Not saying the Chicoms or the Rooskies couldn't go get one of those Raptors, but we sure haven't found MH370 yet and that was after well over a year of active searching. It's a VERY big swath of very deep ocean out there.

It looked like there was a planned RUD of starship right as it touched down in the water (based on the bouy cam)

OnlyForNow said:

---

It looked like there was a planned RUD of starship right as it touched down in the water (based on the bouy cam)

---

It blows up when it falls over.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

FAA doesn't control pollution control in the Indian Ocean.

I'd personally bet, that is a big reason.

---

If I'm Biden, I encourage a landing in the gulf and I have navy ships help salvage the parts. Those rockets are ITAR protected. It should be in all of our best interests to keep that out of the hands of the Chinese.

---

Depending on where they land them, they're probably unrecoverable. Basins in the Indian Ocean can be 3-4 miles deep. Even if you know precisely where the rocket landed, there's no telling where it actually ends up due to drift on the way down, so you need to go look for it. Think looking for something 1/4 the size of the Titanic that exploded into a bunch of smaller pieces. Even if you find it, pulling up something that big from that deep is a huge challenge. There's also going to be a lot of damage from corrosion, so you may not be able to get any insight from precision parts or electronics.

---

I can't remember if it was the SpaceX feed directly or Everyday Astronaut, but one of the two mentioned that Space X was going to try to recover some of Starship to analyze. If they can recover it, then I assume the Chinese or Russians could recover it in the same way.

aTmAg said:

---

Anybody know why they land starship in the Indian ocean? Seems like that runs the risk of China or Russia recovering parts (like the Raptor engines). Why not have it do a full orbit and then land in the gulf of Mexico?

---

Least risky right now while they work out the heat shield issues. The big problem landing a ship at Starbase is how many people it will fly over during the most critical parts of re-entry and approach.

The U.S. government knows exactly where Starship landed/dissaxploded and I imagine they'll be keeping an eye on any ships that show up in the region, as it's away from typical shipping channels.

OnlyForNow said:

---

It looked like there was a planned RUD of starship right as it touched down in the water (based on the bouy cam)

---

The vehicle was likely still very hot when it hit the water. Hot metal carrying residual pressurized rocket propellant and quenching water don't mix well.

We should all go back and watch and study...


I fully agree that hot metal doesn't react too well when hitting water - BUT - the return capsules have never exploded when landing in the ocean.

I think it's either 100% planned, or a by product of the ship tipping over and then boom - which would undoubtably be a known thing, since it flips from bellyflop anyways.

Kind of a fun hit piece from a UK rag on the state of Europe's space program.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/spacex-has-put-europe-to-shame/

Quote:

---

The flawless launch of SpaceX's 5,000-ton Starship and its Super Heavy Booster, and the precision recovery of the booster on its launch pad, has opened the way to a manned mission to the moon next year and perhaps to Mars as soon as 2030. One giant leap for Elon Musk's company on Sunday was one more reminder that Europe's space programme is a colossal failure.

Europe is currently unable to launch even its own weather satellites, and India, which managed a soft landing on the Moon last year, now has a more credible space program. Twenty years ago, before SpaceX had launched a single rocket, Richard Bowles, a sales director of the European Arianespace launch consortium, said SpaceX's ambition to launch, recover and reuse rockets, cutting the price of launches in half, was a dream.

'SpaceX primarily seems to be selling a dream. Which is good, we should all dream,' he said. 'I think reusability is a dream… How am I going to respond to a dream?… First of all you don't wake people up. They have to wake up on their own… They're not supermen. Whatever they can do, we can do.'

Elon's Musk's dream has become Europe's nightmare. France's Arianespace has this year managed to launch just one of the new Ariane 6 rockets made by its ArianeGroup umbrella company. It came four years late and hundreds of millions of euros over budget. SpaceX has already completed 96 launches this year, recovered and reused almost all of them, and expects to reach 148 launches by the end of December. Even if Arianespace can get the new rocket to work properly, it has planned to launch no more than nine missions a year, of which four will be institutional missions, such as reconnaissance satellites, and only five commercial missions.

European failure to embrace reusable rockets has made it completely uncompetitive. The estimated cost of a launch using the already obsolete Ariane 6, when it becomes operational, perhaps next year, is more than 83 million.
. . .
Access to space is the sine qua non of a credible space program. Without it, the scientific and commercial applications of space technology are impossible.

The Galileo global satellite system created by the European Union through the European Space Agency to compete with the Americans has so far launched 32 satellites and has failed to deliver a robust system.
. . .
OneWeb, the private European communications satellite project designed to compete with SpaceX's Starlink, has launched its own limited constellation using SpaceX and Indian rockets. Even the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) is now buying launches from SpaceX.

'This decision was driven by exceptional circumstances' said EUMETSAT's Director General Phil Evans. The exceptional circumstance being that Arianespace had no capability. SpaceX has meanwhile launched 7,000 Starlink communications satellites offering high-speed internet access and text messaging to mobile phones.

Europe's space agency (the UK remains a member) is an example of European hubris at its absolute worst, its failures a masterclass in how not to be globally competitive, while spending billions on institutional grandiosity. The European Space Agency, which presides over Europe's failed efforts, has a budget of 7.8 billion and a staff of around 2,500. ArianeGroup, which is subsidised by ESA, employs 8,300 people.
. . .
It's been a while since I was at the European launch base in Kourou, French Guiana, but I'm not missing much because nothing is happening there. The last launch of the small European Vega rocket was last month. Perhaps four launches of the new Vega C rocket might be attempted next year. Fewer missions in a year than SpaceX completes in a fortnight. Europe's space programme is all show and no-go.

---

aTmAg said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

OnlyForNow said:

---

FAA doesn't control pollution control in the Indian Ocean.

I'd personally bet, that is a big reason.

---

If I'm Biden, I encourage a landing in the gulf and I have navy ships help salvage the parts. Those rockets are ITAR protected. It should be in all of our best interests to keep that out of the hands of the Chinese.

---

Depending on where they land them, they're probably unrecoverable. Basins in the Indian Ocean can be 3-4 miles deep. Even if you know precisely where the rocket landed, there's no telling where it actually ends up due to drift on the way down, so you need to go look for it. Think looking for something 1/4 the size of the Titanic that exploded into a bunch of smaller pieces. Even if you find it, pulling up something that big from that deep is a huge challenge. There's also going to be a lot of damage from corrosion, so you may not be able to get any insight from precision parts or electronics.

---

I can't remember if it was the SpaceX feed directly or Everyday Astronaut, but one of the two mentioned that Space X was going to try to recover some of Starship to analyze. If they can recover it, then I assume the Chinese or Russians could recover it in the same way.

---

You're probably thinking of the booster from IFT 4.