This time around, SpaceX plans to use the flight test to gather data to inform the design of the next iteration of its lower-stage rocket booster, known as Super Heavy, while stress-testing the upper-stage vehicle’s heatshield. The company also detailed plans for the upper stage, simply known as Starship, to attempt mid-flight maneuvers that will be necessary for it to one day be capable of returning and landing back at the launch site.
I had same question. I guess the confidence is not there
with the new iteration of superheavy booster and don’t want to risk
taking out the chopsticks tower ? Only Elon knows.
the Super Heavy booster will feature three grid fins to help it land instead of four, which SpaceX said in a post on X will improve “vehicle control while enabling the booster to descend at higher angles of attack.” The fins are 50% larger and “higher strength” than previous versions, according to SpaceX.
This was a test of the heavy rocket engine and it literally blew the pad apart. One of the cameras was a “safe” distance away and got obliterated. Chunks of the site landed on cars. It’s quite a distance from the launch pads to the SpaceX parking and offices.
Not sure exactly if was one of the two
launch+catch towers or the “test stand” as reported here on the Jun 18th explosion.
The explosion occurred around 11 p.m. local time while Starship was on a test stand at its Brownsville, Texas Starbase while preparing for the tenth test flight, SpaceX said in a post on Musk’s social-media platform X
However we do know a successful starship launch was completed on August 26 from pad 1. So that tower was intact, but they choose not to attempt a catch with it either.
There is 1 functional launch tower with a second near complication
The test site where the explosion happened a few months back is just down the road at Massey Test Site
The damage Coach is talking about was from a launch on tower 1 years ago and was very quickly repaired and upgraded. SpaceX tests stuff, learns from what fails and improves on it.
So the reason they are not attempting catches is mostly unknown to us, or they
still evaluating the latest superheavy booster mods and don’t want to risk taking out the only operational tower, is my guess.
They fail quickly and reload. NASA would never have been given this
leeway as a public entity. They are now 2/5 in 2025.
I’m very curious how Starship version HLS will do a landing on the lunar
south pole. Being such a large and tall vehicle , and landing on an uneven
terrain, will be interesting and challenging.
Are you sure about that? You might want to read up on NASA before the moon flight. They had their share of failures. Heck even Neil Armstrong almost died during a test. But I get it, you absolutely want SpaceX/Musk to look as bad as possible. So I get your post. More power to you.
Just looking into SpaceX launch schedule and came across
this little gem on the Falcon 9 rocket. It’s showing that there have been
450 Falcon 9 launches with 421 booster return landings in last 15 years. This latest launch was with a 9 day booster rocket turnaround. That’s an average
of 30 launches per year over Falcon 9 life, and is probably much higher rate
now.
Really, don’t make the thread about the people that post here. Offer facts, and news, information, or analysis and not
your interpretation of what you think people are saying or wanting.
