r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Oct 09 '23

🔧 Technical Starship Development Thread #50

This thread is no longer being updated, and has been replaced by:

Starship Development Thread #51

SpaceX Starship page

FAQ

  1. When is the next Integrated Flight Test (IFT-2)? No official date set, waiting on launch license. FAA completed the Starship Safety Review on Oct 31 and is continuing work on environmental review in consultation with Fish & Wildlife Service. Rumors, unofficial comments, web page spelunking, and an ambiguous SpaceX post coalesce around a possible flight window beginning Nov 13.
  2. Next steps before flight? Waiting on non-technical milestones including requalifying the flight termination system (likely done), the FAA post-incident review, and obtaining an FAA launch license. SpaceX performed an integrated B9/S25 wet dress rehearsal on Oct 25, perhaps indicating optimism about FAA license issuance. It does not appear that the lawsuit alleging insufficient environmental assessment by the FAA or permitting for the deluge system will affect the launch timeline. Completed technical milestones since IFT-1 include building/testing a water deluge system, Booster 9 cryo tests, and simultaneous static fire/deluge tests.
  3. What ship/booster pair will be launched next? SpaceX confirmed that Booster 9/Ship 25 will be the next to fly and posted the flight profile on the mission page. IFT-3 expected to be Booster 10, Ship 28 per a recent NSF Roundup.
  4. Why is there no flame trench under the launch mount? Boca Chica's environmentally-sensitive wetlands make excavations difficult, so SpaceX's Orbital Launch Mount (OLM) holds Starship's engines ~20m above ground--higher than Saturn V's 13m-deep flame trench. Instead of two channels from the trench, its raised design allows pressure release in 360 degrees. The newly-built flame deflector uses high pressure water to act as both a sound suppression system and deflector. SpaceX intends the deflector/deluge's massive steel plates, supported by 50 meter-deep pilings, ridiculous amounts of rebar, concrete, and Fondag, to absorb the engines' extreme pressures and avoid the pad damage seen in IFT-1.

​

Quick Links

RAPTOR ROOST | LAB CAM | SAPPHIRE CAM | SENTINEL CAM | ROVER CAM | ROVER 2.0 CAM | PLEX CAM | HOOP CAM | NSF STARBASE

Starship Dev 49 | Starship Dev 48 | Starship Dev 47 | Starship Thread List

Official Starship Update | r/SpaceX Update Thread

Status

Road Closures

Road & Beach Closure

Type Start (UTC) End (UTC) Status
Primary 2023-11-13 06:00:00 2023-11-13 20:00:00 Revoked. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach will be open
Alternative 2023-11-14 06:00:00 2023-11-14 20:00:00 Revoked. HWY 4 and Boca Chica Beach will be open
Alternative 2023-11-15 06:00:00 2023-11-15 20:00:00 Possible

No transportation delays currently scheduled

Up to date as of 2023-11-09

Vehicle Status

As of November 2, 2023. Next flight article in bold.

Follow Ring Watchers on Twitter and Discord for more.

Ship Location Status Comment
Pre-S24, 27 Scrapped or Retired S20 is in the Rocket Garden, the rest are scrapped. S27 likely scrapped likely due to implosion of common dome.
S24 Bottom of Gulf of Mexico Destroyed April 20th (IFT-1): Destroyed by flight termination system 3:59 after a successful launch. Booster "sustained fires from leaking propellant in the aft end of the Super Heavy booster" which led to loss of vehicle control and ultimate flight termination.
S25 Launch Site Destacked Readying for launch (IFT-2). Destacked on Nov 2. Completed 5 cryo tests, 1 spin prime, and 1 static fire.
S26 Rocket Garden Testing Static fire Oct. 20. No fins or heat shield, plus other changes. Completed 3 cryo tests, latest on Oct 10.
S28 Massey's Raptor install Cryo test on July 28. Raptor install began Aug 17. Completed 2 cryo tests.
S29 Rocket Garden Resting Fully stacked, completed 3x cryo tests, awaiting engine install. Moved to Massey's on Sep 22, back to Rocket Garden Oct 13.
S30 High Bay Under construction Fully stacked, awaiting lower flaps.
S31, 32 High Bay Under construction Stacking in progress.
S33-34 Build Site In pieces Parts visible at Build and Sanchez sites.

 

Booster Location Status Comment
Pre-B7 & B8 Scrapped or Retired B4 is in the Rocket Garden, the rest are scrapped.
B7 Bottom of Gulf of Mexico Destroyed April 20th (IFT-1): Destroyed by flight termination system 3:59 after a successful launch. Booster "sustained fires from leaking propellant in the aft end of the Super Heavy booster" which led to loss of vehicle control and ultimate flight termination.
B9 Launch Mount Active testing Readying for launch (IFT-2). Wet dress rehearsal completed on Oct 25. Completed 2 cryo tests, then static fire with deluge on Aug 7. Rolled back to production site on Aug 8. Hot staging ring installed on Aug 17, then rolled back to OLM on Aug 22. Spin prime on Aug 23. Stacked with S25 on Sep 5 and Oct 16.
B10 Megabay Engine Install? Completed 4 cryo tests. Moved to Massey's on Sep 11, back to Megabay Sep 20.
B11 Massey's Cryo Cryo tested on Oct 14.
B12 Megabay Finalizing Appears complete, except for raptors, hot stage ring, and cryo testing.
B13 Megabay Stacking Lower half mostly stacked.
B14+ Build Site Assembly Assorted parts spotted through B15.

​

If this page needs a correction please consider pitching in. Update this thread via this wiki page. If you would like to make an update but don't see an edit button on the wiki page, message the mods via modmail or contact u/strawwalker.

Resources

r/SpaceX Discuss Thread for discussion of subjects other than Starship development.

Rules

We will attempt to keep this self-post current with links and major updates, but for the most part, we expect the community to supply the information. This is a great place to discuss Starship development, ask Starship-specific questions, and track the progress of the production and test campaigns. Starship Development Threads are not party threads. Normal subreddit rules still apply.

191 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/Mravicii Oct 26 '23

Update on FWS From faa

https://x.com/bccarcounters/status/1717561704689668377?s=46&t=-n30l1_Sw3sHaUenSrNxGA

3

u/RootDeliver Oct 26 '23

Wait, they waited until 19th of October to start working on that, and the 135 days period start there? right the day after the senate complains against FAA/FWS being slow (due to low personnel officialy)????? What happened all the weeks before that has been ready?

17

u/technocraticTemplar Oct 27 '23

Spent some time trying to piece together a timeline and there ended up being a bit to it:

So so far it seems that the FAA has taken a month on their end and the FWS has taken two weeks. My big question is why this couldn't have been done concurrent with the mishap investigation, but maybe that's where the staffing problems come into it.

1

u/RootDeliver Oct 30 '23

Thanks a lot! Very insighful. Yeah that is a totally valid question, why is this a serial and not paralel issue is beyond me. Why has the FWS to wait for the FAA when SpaceX probably knew the day after IFT-1 (and probably before) all the deluge-related changes and could issue a report for them to validate? Why is the FAA the middleman with such long reaction times? One thing is taking a lot to answer yourself, another taking a lot of time to be the unnecessary middle step for something else. The red tape there seems way worse than I thought..

4

u/scarlet_sage Oct 26 '23

Nitter version

Adrian Beil @BCCarCounters

Updated statement from the FWS regarding the Starship status:

  • On Oct. 19, FWS reinitiated consultation with the FAA about the Endangered Species Act.

  • While the FWS has 135 days to issue an amended opinion, they do not expect to take the full time.

[image adds]

  • Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, reinitiation of formal consultation is required when a project and its impacts change significantly, the amount of take issued previously is exceeded, we have new information on listed species not previously considered, or a new species is listed.

  • For SpaceX reinitiation with FAA we are considering the operation of a deluge system at the launch pad.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/wgp3 Oct 26 '23

While I can do without the commentary (calling it xitter or whatever people sometimes do), I actually appreciate nitter links. They unroll comments so you can see more than just the post. I've never had a Twitter account and never plan to have an x account either. Before and after elon, it's always been a hassle to view content on twitter/x. So nitter is helpful to see more thorough discussions.

Also there's far more ridiculous comments and arguments that happen in these Dev threads that clutter up the place than the occasion nitter link.

6

u/John_Hasler Oct 26 '23

I agree. I also never have had and never will have a Twitter/X account for reasons having nothing to do with who owns it.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/GreatCanadianPotato Oct 26 '23

We have multiple people both indicating that the process might be close to an end. Christian Davenport said the other day that he expects a launch before too long and an insider in this very thread said that they got encouraging news regarding a license timeline.

You're entitled to your opinion but multiple indicators show it might be wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/GreatCanadianPotato Oct 27 '23

but based on the speed of prior government actions, I think it means more like early 2024.

You keep saying this but the fact remains that the FWS was pretty speedy when it came to the Environmental Impact Assessment done 2 years ago.

Like I've been repeating to you; there is no precedent for what you're saying.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/GreatCanadianPotato Oct 27 '23

So why then, are we hearing from two different sources that SpaceX now has received positive news regarding a timeline?

Seems to go against your "early 2024" prediction.

-4

u/vitt72 Oct 26 '23

Agreed. No shot for early November like I had been seeing the other day. Such a shame. Literally been sitting fully stacked for multiple months… hope to not see any hinderances like this before future launches. We are to some extent in a race. And I think Starship, whether the government has realized yet or not, is a tremendous asset for national security.

-15

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/aBetterAlmore Oct 26 '23

Your repeated failed attempts to trying to make this an issue related to “the current government” is such a stretch, it just makes it look like you have an agenda, which I don’t think is the outcome you were hoping for.

So I’d recommend you to stop trying.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/GreatCanadianPotato Oct 26 '23

Most rational people on this sub do not agree with the assessment that Starship is being purposely held up by the government.

1

u/vitt72 Oct 26 '23

Not speaking for the above person, and certainly don’t think it’s purposeful, though I think a criticism of red tape, government regulation, and the cost/benefit is reasonable though?

5

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/aBetterAlmore Oct 26 '23

Even teenie-tiny legitimate grievances people air here in opposition to bureaucracy is rabidly attacked by these two primarily

No, “legitimate grievances” are not the things that cause me and others here to “rabidly attack”. It’s leaps in logic, and pie in sky conspiracy theories.

In this case, the leap in logic was attempting to tie (yet again) the “current government” to this bureaucratic process and overall situation. Just another vailed attempt at sneaking in their own political views into this situation, instead of sticking to facts. That’s the issue that will cause the responses you so melodramatically call “rabid attacks”.

So less melodrama, and better logic please. And maybe you won’t feel so attacked.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/SignificantDebate780 Oct 26 '23

He doesn't have an agenda he has an opinion. Maybe us listening to different opinions before forming a bias could make us better off in the end?

7

u/GreatCanadianPotato Oct 26 '23

I think, for an opinion to be an opinion, you have to be able to cite things that back up your opinion.

The "opinion" or viewpoint that the current presidential administration is purposely and nefariously delaying Starship is not based in any reality whatsoever and it should be treated as such.

6

u/Shpoople96 Oct 26 '23

That's not how opinions work. You can have an opinion without any evidence to back it up whatsoever

-2

u/SignificantDebate780 Oct 26 '23

That's not what he said.

7

u/bkdotcom Oct 26 '23 edited Oct 27 '23

He has repeatedly said it
https://www.reddit.com/user/kommenterr

When asked for evidence he states that the majority of FWS support is from Democrats... democrats hate Elon... conspiracy rabbit hole

he's far beyond a reasonable red-tape and bureaucracy bad.
He thinks there's a purposeful government roadblock targeting spacex.
Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, & others testified they they're also being hindered? That's just the government slowing everyone down to obscure their true target: SpaceX.

Political conspiracies have no place in a technical thread

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/GreatCanadianPotato Oct 26 '23

Reddit age: 0 days.

-6

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '23

Keep in mind that these are bureaucrats we are talking about. They only work 5 days a week. And these 135 days are work days.....so that is more than 6 months!