Starship Flight 10's objectives and flight profile are similar to those attempted on the previous several launches.

Ship 36, slated originally to support this launch, exploded during static fire testing at SpaceX's Masseys, a location they primarily use to complete proof testing of Ships and Boosters, and static fire testing of Ships. According to SpaceX, initial analysis indicated the failure, below proof pressure, of a composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) containing gaseous nitrogen located within the Ship's nosecone area.

Following Ship 36's anomaly, which inflicted significant damage at Masseys, SpaceX modified the launch pad to support static fire testing of Ship 37 while repair work continued at Masseys.

Booster 16 will conduct several experiments before entering the ocean, including flipping in a controlled direction after stage separation, similar to that tested on Flight 9, and testing engine-out capability during the final landing burn.

SpaceX website (current, archive)

Ship objectives are more or less the same as for flights 7 through 9: Deployment of 8 Starlink simulators, an in-space Raptor relight, and testing of Ship version 2 heatshield and flap design on reentry.
"The primary test objectives for the booster will be focused on its landing burn and will use unique engine configurations. One of the three center engines used for the final phase of landing will be intentionally disabled to gather data on the ability for a backup engine from the middle ring to complete a landing burn. The booster will then transition to only two center engines for the end of the landing burn, entering a full hover while still above the ocean surface, followed by shutdown and drop into the Gulf"

Link to Starship Dev thread

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] silver_wings_of_morning@feddit.dk 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Read a blogpost once that said the starship in it's current design will never work. Something about the heat generated. Only reason why I am curious about this launch.

Is the outlook good on this one?

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

starship in it’s current design will never work. Something about the heat generated

We don't really know. No one has tried to build a rapidly reusable upper stage before.

Is the outlook good on this one?

Hopefully better than the previous three, but we shall see.

[–] Bimfred@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

People can write all manner of stuff, but until someone tries, no one has a definitive answer. That's why SpaceX is doing these launches, to figure out how to build a spacecraft that can actually handle that heat. The last three flights have been such a bummer cause none of them have given actual data on the redesigned forward flaps and the various heat shields.

I wouldn't count Starship out yet. People also wrote all manner of stuff about Falcon 9's first stage reusability and at this point, it's safe to say everyone who thought it wouldn't work has been proven wrong.

[–] silver_wings_of_morning@feddit.dk 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the point was that the current design can't work; not that no design can work. And no clever flaps or heat shielding will work. If that's the case, they have a pretty big setback and may be wasting time on the current design.

We'll see if this launch will work. I'll find the blog and read it again if it fails, and link it here for anyone that is interested.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

It landed on target this time but certainly not in reusable condition. There was a lot of burn through the flaps again. Looking like the front flaps they moved towards the leeward side survived quite well this time though, that may be the way to get it done.