←back to thread

Starship's Tenth Flight Test

(www.spacex.com)
364 points metalman | 3 comments | 26 Aug 25 23:22 UTC | HN request time: 0.725s | source
Show context
JKCalhoun ◴[27 Aug 25 00:22 UTC] No.45033993[source]▶
Some kind of failure in the lower engine area.

Figure it's going to burn up on entry?

EDIT: made it. I suppose it was meant to blow up on landing in the ocean? It would have been nice to examine the burned components — but perhaps they had not intended to retrieve it that far away anyway.

replies(7): >>45034003 #>>45034105 #>>45034149 #>>45034163 #>>45034165 #>>45034170 #>>45034977 #
pixl97 ◴[27 Aug 25 00:39 UTC] No.45034105[source]▶
It made it, but there was some toastyness on the bottom of the lower flaps. This said, it is less bad than we've seen on the other 2 landings.
replies(1): >>45036572 #
1. mrandish ◴[27 Aug 25 07:37 UTC] No.45036572[source]▶
They announced before the flight that they intentionally removed tiles from some areas around the lower flaps specifically to get data on what happens when tiles fail, such as how much burn occurs, how quickly and what type. It appears it was successful in showing varying amounts of burn through and damage in the areas that were intentionally left under-protected.
replies(1): >>45037353 #
2. rubzah ◴[27 Aug 25 09:42 UTC] No.45037353[source]▶
The part that burned was damaged from early on, likely at, or right after, separation. So the integrity of that flap was already very compromised. I actually thought the flap would disintegrate on re-entry with that kind of damage. But no, they even put full stress on it, unfolding it while supersonic through the atmosphere, like a champ.
replies(1): >>45078274 #
3. dotancohen ◴[30 Aug 25 21:47 UTC] No.45078274[source]▶
At what T+ do you see the damage occurring? Thank you.