SpaceX is targeting Wednesday, April 19 at 8:27 a.m. ET for a Falcon 9 launch of 21 second-generation Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. If needed, there are additional launch opportunities the same day at 9:18, 10:08, 10:59, and 11:49 a.m. ET. Backup opportunities are also available Thursday.
The first stage booster supporting this mission previously launched SES-22, ispace’s HAKUTO-R Mission 1, Hispasat Amazonas Nexus, CRS-27, and three Starlink missions. Following stage separation, the first stage will land on the A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship, which will be stationed in the Atlantic Ocean.
A live webcast of this mission will begin about five minutes prior to liftoff HERE
The inaugural launch of the giant Starship that scrubbed on Monday is now tentatively set for Thursday at 8:28 am Central. The live webcast will begin about 45 minutes prior HERE
Once again, great launch, great landing and a good orbit.
It blows my mind that when I worked there, we could look forward to a launch maybe every six weeks to two months and now SpaceX has one just about every week.
It blows my mind that when I worked there, we could look forward to a launch maybe every six weeks to two months and now SpaceX has one just about every week.
SpaceX's stated goal is a 24 hour turnaround on a booster. I don't know where they are on that, or what the real demand is for launches, but that would be amazing. I think only Rocket Lab has recovered boosters but I don't think they've launched any again.
They recently posted that they had achieved something like a two-week turnaround for a given booster. A one-day turnaround sounds like one of Musk's more flamboyant statements given that even with a land pad touchdown, they still have to do inspections and second stage/payload mating. That would also eliminate the pre-launch static firing that they now perform.
RoketLab may indeed become the second company to refly an orbital-class booster. They recover them now from the ocean (having abandoned the helicopter catch scheme) but they are amazed that there is so little salt water damage observed.
RoketLab may indeed become the second company to refly an orbital-class booster. They recover them now from the ocean (having abandoned the helicopter catch scheme) but they are amazed that there is so little salt water damage observed.
When you worked at Cape Canaveral did anyone think that one day they'd refly the rockets?
I'm a carpenter but this stuff is fascinating. I wonder if a while back people envisioned reusable boosters but they had to wait until the tech came together to make it happen.
No, every engineer who voiced an opinion on it said that landing a booster and reusing it was impossible. Bear in mind, though, that this was 40 years ago. With the engineering knowledge they had at the time, it was not an unreasonable opinion. The "experts" once said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible, too. Then, that supersonic flight was impossible.
I am neither an engineer nor a scientist, but I'm going to stick with the "flying faster than light speed" thing, though.
No, every engineer who voiced an opinion on it said that landing a booster and reusing it was impossible.
Nice to know, thanks.
Even though we are 40 years away from that it is still an engineering marvel. I'd like to have been in the room when the first guy said "I think we can land one of these things....check out this plan."
I was in that room. The guy received raised eyebrows and sniggles.
The Shutttle had a Return To Launch Site abort mode that was a lot like the way SpaceX returns a booster to a land pad. But few thought it would work. It was never used so we'll never know.
Just watched a replay and agree that there may have been several engine issues, including at least one explosion on the way up. Lots of combustion changes, too.
They never tested these engines at full throttle during their static fire. Only about 50% throttle. Normally with a Falcon 9 the Static fire is full throttle. People on the forums on NASAspaceflight.com said the booster got the Starship within parameters but it didn't separate. The booster tried to boost back as it is supposed to but the Starship was still attached, thus the tumbling.
They will. On the separation, my thoughts are that it never got to the prescribed velocity and it was still trying to make up for the lost thrust. But, because the remaining thrust was assymetrical, it didn't have sufficient control.
They have not static fired the whole rocket at full thrust, but they have completed thousands of full thrust, full duration test firings of engines at their engine test facility. Including over-power tests to destruction. Intentional kabooms, in other words. That said, the dynamics of all those engines firing together creating harmonic vibrations and intense sound simply cannot be calculated.
A failed test flight is far better than a flawless one because now you know what needs to be fixed.
Read that because the vanes are mid ship (when stacked) they don't have much drag on the ship. If they are at the bottom then they need to be able to fold.
I was out in the Laguna Madre south of Port Mansfield and could hear the roar of the rocket during lift off from where we were. Couldn't see any of the lift off or subsequent explosion due to distance and cloud cover. We were approximately 25 miles away, hard to imagine how loud it must have been around the end of South Padre Island. Neat stuff that an individual could accomplish this.
Now looking at possible pad damage and fires. Not unexpected.
How much damage might be expected?
Despite the destruction in the air, there was also quite the show on the ground at Starbase. The launchpad was absolutely destroyed by Starship's powerful Super Heavy rocket. So much thrust was generated from the rocket's engines that the concrete pad was pretty much obliterated, sending chunks of rubble flying more than a quarter mile away and destroying a Dodge Caravan in the process.
In almost perfect synchrony, two major chunks of debris collide with the minivan. One particularly pesky rock contacts the hatch, caving in the D-Pillar. As soon as the impact happens, the minivan lurches forward due to the force of the collision. The rear-most windows are blown out, along with at least one of the taillights, and the liftgate is turned into nothing more than twisted metal.
A second less obvious chunk isn't seen impacting the van, but it is seen exiting through the front bumper along with an explosion of fluid (presumably coolant from the radiator). By the end of the video, a pool of liquid has amassed under the front of the car.
Several smaller pieces of debris make contact with the van during the launch. A few pieces even hit the expensive-looking gear mounted to the top of the van and nearby cameras set up to film the launch.
The Dodge was parked in a lot off of Boca Chica Boulevard, around 1,400 feet away from the launch pad. Despite being behind a wall and positioned more than a quarter mile away from the launch site, the van and other surrounding camera gear were clobbered by crumbled rock.
And that's not even the farthest that chucks of rock traveled. In another video posted by SpaceX, you can see chunks of concrete splashing far off into the waters of nearby Boca Chica beach. A quick check on Google Maps estimates that some of the debris was slung around 2,000 feet away from the launchpad.
Fortunately, as far as we can tell, the van was unoccupied. All people are required to evacuate the area when a launch occurs due to the possibility of danger—debris or otherwise. That means that all of the cameras peppered around the lot are controlled remotely, and rightfully so, considering the huge chunks of stone that were sent flying at who-knows-how-fast-speeds managed to damage the van so catastrophically.
The Super Heavy rocket is not only SpaceX's most powerful rocket, but it's also the tallest, most powerful rocket the world has ever seen. The 33 main engines collectively generated just under 17 million pounds of thrust, around twice the output of NASA's SLS rocket used with the Artemis program. It's no wonder that a bit of carnage was seen at liftoff, given its impressive specs.
As for the Orbital Launch Mount—well, it looks like Starship did some excavating underneath it. The launch site's concrete slab was turned into rubble by the force of the rocket's engines and dug a crater.
SpaceX Falcon Heavy launches classified Space Force satellites, nails landings video posted to YouTube on Nov 1, 2022 "A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket launched the USSF-44 mission for the US Space Force on Nov. 1, 2022. The rocket lifted off from Launch Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida."
SpaceX has three launches scheduled for this upcoming week: Two Falcon 9s and a Falcon Heavy. Plus both NASA and PRIVATE manned launches this year.
The Starship launch did extensive damage to the pad. Musk is saying they'll launch another one in "a month or two" but engineers are not nearly as sanguine. They have been quoted as needing a year to fix the pad and prevent future damage.
SpaceX has three launches scheduled for this upcoming week: Two Falcon 9s and a Falcon Heavy. Plus both NASA and PRIVATE manned launches this year.
The Starship launch did extensive damage to the pad. Musk is saying they'll launch another one in "a month or two" but engineers are not nearly as sanguine. They have been quoted as needing a year to fix the pad and prevent future damage.
I would surmise that ha the pad not crumbled under the massive pressure from those engines, that this flight could have achieved all its goals. I can guarantee that damage was done to those engines on liftoff due to debris, yet it sill managed to clear the tower. They lost vector control about 60 seconds in, but the spacecraft showed itself to be durable in the 10 seconds of hell at the launchpad. They'll need to build a fire diverter and go again.
News blurb said they can't reach bedrock for the pad or the water table is high or something like that. Showed pics of the pad area under engines. Concrete blown completely away , rebar looked like spaghetti. They did mention about the need for flame diverter stuff like others have said.
Almost like they need to drive some serious pilings under the reinforced concrete before they even pour it.
Like it had nothing but sand under it for a base?? And the pressure from lift off bulged it downward into a soft base then started the scouring effect concentrated in the bulge and then under the bottom of the concrete outward.
Lotta brownish color in that lift off footage. Sand????
Launch pad failure seems to have caused alot of problems..
News blurb said they can't reach bedrock for the pad or the water table is high or something like that. Showed pics of the pad area under engines. Concrete blown completely away , rebar looked like spaghetti. They did mention about the need for flame diverter stuff like others have said.
Almost like they need to drive some serious pilings under the reinforced concrete before they even pour it.
Like it had nothing but sand under it for a base?? And the pressure from lift off bulged it downward into a soft base then started the scouring effect concentrated in the bulge and then under the bottom of the concrete outward.
Lotta brownish color in that lift off footage. Sand????
Launch pad failure seems to have caused alot of problems..
Sort of like building racing engines- - - - -if we didn't blow one up on the dyno occasionally, we weren't pushing the envelope far enough. Watching a $15K small block Chevy hand grenade with zero laps on it wasn't fun, but it showed us the weak points to reinforce on the next one.
They could probably drive pilings 100 200 ft deep and never hit bedrock on a coastal sand island like that. Plenty of structures have been built on pilings when they can't get to bedrock.
They most def need to come up with a solution per the launch pad issues. Maybe the simple diverter stuff and more stand off distance from ground level for the engines???
They could probably drive pilings 100 200 ft deep and never hit bedrock on a coastal sand island like that. Plenty of structures have been built on pilings when they can't get to bedrock.
They most def need to come up with a solution per the launch pad issues. Maybe the simple diverter stuff and more stand off distance from ground level for the engines???
#notalaunchpadengineer🥴🥴🥴
I was going to do the carpeting in Ocean Tower but it never got that far. Building started sinking on one side. Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland (acting as Prime Demolition Contractor to the Property Owner, Ocean Tower, L.P. of Mission, Texas), performs the successful explosives felling of the 379 foot-9 inch tall, reinforced concrete Ocean Tower Condominium in South Padre Island, Texas at 9:00 AM on Sunday, December 13, 2009.
They could probably drive pilings 100 200 ft deep and never hit bedrock on a coastal sand island like that. Plenty of structures have been built on pilings when they can't get to bedrock.
They most def need to come up with a solution per the launch pad issues. Maybe the simple diverter stuff and more stand off distance from ground level for the engines???
#notalaunchpadengineer🥴🥴🥴
I was going to do the carpeting in Ocean Tower but it never got that far. Building started sinking on one side. Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland (acting as Prime Demolition Contractor to the Property Owner, Ocean Tower, L.P. of Mission, Texas), performs the successful explosives felling of the 379 foot-9 inch tall, reinforced concrete Ocean Tower Condominium in South Padre Island, Texas at 9:00 AM on Sunday, December 13, 2009.
Expensive engineering mistake/oversights... Leaning tower of South Padre... 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
SpaceX has three launches scheduled for this upcoming week: Two Falcon 9s and a Falcon Heavy. Plus both NASA and PRIVATE manned launches this year.
The Starship launch did extensive damage to the pad. Musk is saying they'll launch another one in "a month or two" but engineers are not nearly as sanguine. They have been quoted as needing a year to fix the pad and prevent future damage.
Originally Posted by Elon Musk
3 months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount.
Wasn’t ready in time & we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag would make it through 1 launch.
Looks like we can be ready to launch again in 1 to 2 months.
There was a LOT more damage than just under the launch mount. There are deep dents in the propellant storage tanks, and as-yet-undiscovered damage to lots of other infrastructure.
There was a LOT more damage than just under the launch mount. There are deep dents in the propellant storage tanks, and as-yet-undiscovered damage to lots of other infrastructure.
![[Linked Image from thedrive.com]](https://www.thedrive.com/uploads/2023/04/21/DodgeCaravanSpaceX1.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/YqDVR057/Boca-Chica-8.gif)
![[Linked Image from media.tenor.com]](https://media.tenor.com/pHOwBerB1sMAAAAM/elon-musk-tears.gif)
![[Linked Image from media.tenor.com]](https://media.tenor.com/JO2Ih5fvExAAAAAM/elon-musk.gif)