Welcome to the /c/SpaceX Integrated Flight Test 2 Official Launch Discussion & Updates Thread!

Scheduled for (UTC) 2023-11-18 13:00
Scheduled for (local) 2023-11-18 07:00 (CST)
Launch Window (UTC) 2023-11-18 13:00 to 2023-11-18 13:20 (20 minutes)
Weather Good
Launch site OLM-A, SpaceX Starbase, TX, USA.
Booster B9
Ship S25
Booster landing B9 to perform a soft water landing in the Gulf of Mexico
Ship landing S25 expected to impact Pacific Ocean near Hawaii

Webcasts

Stream Link
Everyday Astronaut (4k and low latency) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6na40SqzYnU
Spaceflight Now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-LFzFWaACo
LabPadre https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwhcSwQWOHk
NASASpaceflight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOI35G7cP7o
The Launch Pad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0K0uSDE6ks
Space Affairs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XbmBspvaHE
SpaceX https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1725852544587727145#m
The Space Devs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CREQ3e2Li34

Stats

☑️ 2nd Starship Full Stack launch

☑️ 299th SpaceX launch all time

☑️ 86th SpaceX launch this year

☑️ 2nd launch from OLM-A this year

☑️ 211 days, 23:27:00 turnaround for this pad

Stats include F1, F9 , FH and Starship

Mission Details 🚀

Link to Starship Dev thread

  • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Scott Manley has already chimed in with his thoughts: Why Starship’s Booster Failed After Staging

    It seems that several engines weren’t just shutting down during the boostback burn, but were violently disassembling themselves. Possible cause could include propellant sloshing during the flip leading to inconsistent pressure fed to the engines/plumbing.

  • clothes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Wow, my skepticism about the engines was silly. There were a few moments during first stage where it I couldn’t tell whether the exhaust was nominal, but may be nothing. (Edit: Nvm, I think it was just ice chunks)

    Looks like there’s some minor debris on the road near LabPadre’s camera, but certainly no concrete storm!

  • clothes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Prediction time!

    Stage Zero: Works with only minor damage.

    Booster Engine Failures: 5 :(

    Hot Staging: Works, looks cool.

    Upper Stage: Flies, with significant issues.

    FTS: Big boom, on time!

    End result: Booster re-enters in one piece, Ship in many.

    • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’d be surprised if they had that many booster engines fail. I suspect we’ll see only a couple of engines fail at most.

      I’m less confident about the success of hot staging, since they’ve never tested it before. Excitement guaranteed though!

      • clothes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Totally! I don’t have an engineering reason to think they’ll fail, I’m just suspicious after the static fires couldn’t maintain 33. A hot staging failure would be MUCH more exciting.

    • xvlc@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Hmm, I am a bit more confident in the ships abilities (at least for anything between hot staging and SECO).

      Anyways, if it gets to the point to initiate hot staging (regardless of the outcome) and the FTS works, it‘s a success. But we should also remember that SN9 landed (crashed) harder than SN8, and SN12 was way worse than the previous three tests. If stage zero is mostly unharmed, the FTS works, and the authorities are not too unhappy, SpaceX has already produced enough hardware for several tests to get it right within the next few months. A good test is a test where you learn a lot, and can try again soon.

    • wearling0600@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is a really hot take, but I reckon if it manages to make if to stage separation in one piece, and the hot staging works, the ship should fly trouble-free.

      It’s the one part of the system that they have done significant testing on, not that many engines etc. If they once again don’t make it past staging that would be very concerning for the Starship timeline, Artemis, and so on…

      It’ll be so cool to see the booster soft splash.

      Biggest hope is that they manage to get away without sandblasting Boca Chica so the FAA don’t ground them for 6 months again.

    • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, that was a bit unusual. Last time we got a bunch of different views (booster cam, ship cam, flap cam, etc), but none this time. There was also a communications blackout period just before scheduled SECO where it was unclear whether the FTS had triggered or not.

      Were there fewer ground stations along the flight path than for IFT-1?

  • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Fingers crossed the “not a deluge system cause I didn’t get a permit for one” works properly and the pad (and/or rocket) doesn’t get torn up again.

  • clothes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s hard to tell from ground cameras, but I’m wondering whether the booster flipped upsidedown after separation. Seems like it really rotated hard.