This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Starhopper Does A Big Hop

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 27, 2019
Filed under

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

52 responses to “Starhopper Does A Big Hop”

  1. james w barnard says:
    0
    0

    Looked great…once it cleared the dust and smoke cloud, and after the cloud at the landing site settled out! Exhaust shock diamonds appeared sharp, indicating good combustion, as far as could be seen from the video image. Congratulations, SpaceX!

  2. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    Beautiful! This is a real advance and future flights of the Starship as soon as later this year is even more exciting. Contrast with the SLS.

  3. SpaceHoosier says:
    0
    0

    Congratulations, SpaceX!
    Not everyday you can fly a water tower with such precision!

  4. Jack says:
    0
    0

    That one engine was louder than I expected. I can’t imagine what the first stage with 37 engines is going to be like.

    Did you notice how high up that thing was when it start kicking up dust before it landed?

    All in all that was a neat show this afternoon and it’s going to be fun watching them develop this thing.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, NASA may need to move back the visitor and press facilities at Pad39a so Super Heavy doesn’t shake them apart. With 2-3 times the thrust of a Saturn V the sonic pressure waves should be intense.

      • chuckc192000 says:
        0
        0

        Well, the VAB and several office buildings are roughly the same distance as the Press Center.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Hopefully they are reinforced. When they fire it up It should get interesting…

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Something just occurred to me. Aren’t LC-39A and B are closer to each other than to the VAB? Could a Super Heavy launch when a SLS is on the other pad? Or would there be a weeks or month long moratorium on Super Heavy launches?

    • ProfSWhiplash says:
      0
      0

      Such loudness (and all the sonic ill-effects it carried) was also a big concern back in the day, with the Saturn V. The water deluge system was clever and efficient.. Without that in use during the launches, the sound vibration and shockwaves from those five huge F-1 engines would have heavily damaged the pad and flame deflectors, not to mention potentially damaging the vehicle itself with any sonic waves reflected back up on it (even so, that sucker was seriously loud for miles). This system came in really handy when the Shuttle with its SRMs inherited the pad (I think NASA may have even upgraded it).

      Thinking about this for Starship, SpaceX may want to consider supersizing this system.

      • Jack says:
        0
        0

        I saw a Saturn V launch, Apollo 15, and I remember the noise well.

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        According to the LC-39A EIS for Starship upgrades they’ll launch from a 60-100 foot stool and use an actively cooled diverter and huge deluge. They use actively cooled diverters at LC-40 and McGregor, so old news for them.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Thinking about the resistance to SST and the associated sonic boom (which comparatively would be quite small), I wonder if there will be resistance when this critter finally lights all of those motors.

      • Jack says:
        0
        0

        You could also say the same thing about the returning stages and their sonic boom. I think the issue with the SST back in the day is that it would be a daily occurrence and you would be hearing them all the time. These rocket launches are rare in comparison.

  5. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    It looked like something out of a steampunk movie. Bet Hollywood will want to rent it. ?

    Congratulations SoaceX, you are starting to make folks believe in the future again!

    Next up to bat, the Starship MK1 prototype and given the issues with Boca Chics that will probably be at the Cape to make FAA approval easier.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      If I understand correctly the next test flight will be the newer prototype in Boca Chica. Not sure if they will be allowed to go any higher, but it will still enable them to test the newer design.

  6. space1999 says:
    0
    0

    50s era Sci Fi come to life… cool! Morpheus on steroids… heh.

  7. MarcNBarrett says:
    0
    0

    Why did the color of the exhaust flame change color when the Hopper neared the ground again?

    • Jack says:
      0
      0

      I think the engine was throttled down to a lower setting. At least that’s my guess.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Dust being recirculated and being heated up and glowing yellow/orange?

      • MarcNBarrett says:
        0
        0

        But the yellowing of the exhaust starts right up inside the engine, so it couldn’t have been dust. Other people noticed this, too. Something apparently went seriously wrong with the raptor engine during thtottle-down. A nitrogen COPV was ejected from the vehicle, not a good thing.

        https://youtu.be/T29ybqjv8-

        • Jack says:
          0
          0

          It’s a bit premature to say it’s a serious problem.

          It all depends on what they were testing and what exactly went wrong. It may not have anything to do with the Raptor but with some equipment that supports the items that are the subject of the test i.e. the test apparatus. If that’s the case then nothing would need to be fixed at all. Since it landed under control and without incident I suspect it’s not a big deal.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          Only SpaceX knows at the moment if any of this is a major concern, considering that this initial prototype was intended mainly to practice the manufacturing techniques and demonstrate control. The COPV tank for example may not have been attached the same way that they will on the subsequent versions. Of course we have no idea what caused the COPV tank to be ejected.

          Reminds me of the first Dream Chaser test flight that used a nose gear from another aircraft, not the one that would be on the actual production models or even the second prototype. The nose gear collapsed after an otherwise picture perfect landing and much was made of that but from Sierra Nevada’s point of view the flight was a success.

          Whether SpaceX considers yesterday’s test flight a success, a partial success, or a setback we won’t know until or unless we get some comments from Musk about it, which we likely will after they complete the analysis.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I guess I missed something. Why do you say a COPV was ejected? Given how they’re build, I’m not sure how that could happen without a catastrophic failure. Are we talking about a statement from SpaceX, or someone squinting at low resolution video and making guesses? I’m not sure if the video is good enough to identify debris, let alone tell what the part used to be.

        • Jack says:
          0
          0

          https://uploads.disquscdn.c… No it doesn’t. It begins at the landing pad then progresses up the exhaust very rapidly. Start watching at 3:22 and you will see what I’m describing.

    • james w barnard says:
      0
      0

      Probably because they were throttling down and the mixture ratio probably changes at the lower thrust levels.

    • Jason Clemons says:
      0
      0

      Stolen from the DC-X Wiki:

      The yellow exhaust is due to the low throttle settings, which burns at lower temperatures and is generally “dirty” as a result.

      Link

  8. Shaw_Bob says:
    0
    0

    Great work, guys! Can’t wait to see Starship itself fly now!

  9. J L says:
    0
    0

    Only took 25 years to repeat what was already done multiple times by the DC-X team.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      DC-X was tiny by comparison. But, if you want to go there, the original Falcon based Grasshopper did this in 2012 and 2013. But a Raptor isn’t a Merlin and a Starship/Super Booster isn’t a Falcon, so a new Hopper is the way to test a step on the path to Starship/Super Booster.

      • J L says:
        0
        0

        DC-X was designed to discover and learn the inital lessons of turning around and operating a fully reusable system as well as prove out vertical landing. The team knew the issues of getting to space having just brought back Delta and turning it into Delta II.

        The DC-X met and exceeded all design and testing goals.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          DC-X absolutely exceeded all expectations. I remember everything that the nay-sayers said before DC-X proved them all wrong.

          Unfortunately, NASA didn’t pursue reusable VTVL with X-33, negating much of what DC-X proved was possible.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      It’s not as black and white as you paint it. DC-X’s highest flight was to 10,300 feet. SpaceX has now brought 44 Falcon 9 boosters safely back from space, which necessarily means that those Falcon 9 boosters have flown in regimes the DC-X never encountered. I don’t know what sort of algorithm controlled DC-X’s flight, but from what I’ve read the convex optimization algorithm that the Falcon 9 uses to control fight back to the landing pad is a thing of mathematical genius and beauty.

      I’ve no doubt that DC-X inspired Musk and his engineers and scientists, and what NASA did with DC-X was amazing. I think however that you are selling SpaceX short on the work they’ve done to make returning a booster from space seem routine.

      • J L says:
        0
        0

        Let’s be clear, the SpaceX team has made some very impressive progress and learned quite a few lessons in development their system. They should be given kudos for what they have accomplished. However, what has been demonstrated is a partially refurbishable launch system. Neither system, Hopper or Falcon, have dealt with the all the issues of returning from orbital space (Mach 25 is quite different than Mach 5).

        DC-X (sponsored by SDIO then BMDO and later DC-XA when NASA became involved) was not designed to come back from space, but to start the understanding of launch, landing, turnaround operations and the associated environments for vehicle subsystems. However, the DC-X shape was created with orbital return in mind… and subsystems like body flaps were incorporated, not for subsonic flight, but because they would need to go through launch and landing environments on the larger, operational system.

        And the landing accuracy of the DC-X (first flights with IMU, later flights proving out the then “new” GPS), was such that they had to start targeting off the landing pad center because it kept chewing up the same concrete.

    • Skinny_Lu says:
      0
      0

      Not the same by a long shot. This is a Methane Rocket, the DC-X was “old-school” Hydrogen…. how many modern rockets are using Hydrogen as fuel? None…. sans SLS, but it doesn’t count) PLUS, SpaceX is developing the control logic and software themselves, using more COTS components, adding redundancy and innovation, fail safe systems. I’d say more like 180 deg out from the norm.
      CORRECTION: I was confusing DC-X with X-33…. I had to look it up. Did not know DC-X used RL-10s. Anyway, SpaceX is 21st Century.

      • J L says:
        0
        0

        The issue isn’t Methane vs. Hydrogen… it’s what is the right technology to achieve performance goals. (and by the way, Vulcan, OmegA and Blue Origin are all using Hydrogen for their upper stages in next Gen vehicles).

        Old isn’t necessarily wrong and new isn’t necessarily right (and vice versa). And just so you know, both SpaceX and New Glenn received several gigs of project data from the DC-X Project Manager… so they both are building upon that which came before… which is a good way to go.

  10. Sam S says:
    0
    0

    This is a fantastic achievement, but it also has me thinking about the “what-ifs” along the way, specifically the DC-X.

    M-D and NASA had almost this exact technology, way back in 1993, and successfully performed several test flights with almost this same profile, and their estimates were that it would be cheaper than any other launch option available. So of course they killed it.

    That’s almost 30 years that the government has held us back, for no good reason except … I don’t know, did it not satisfy some key constituency? I’m sure they could have built reusable rockets in Alabama if they had just funded the thing.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, it just upset too many apple carts so the clever NASA bureaucrats just put out an RFP, (X-33) funded the one least likely to succeed (Lockheed’s) and buried it. NASA wouldn’t even allow a museum in NM to have the remains of the DC-X least someone remember it. I know because I was working them them trying to get them. NASA said they were scrapped.

      Now the FAA is throwing road blocks in the way of SpaceX. The FAA limited the flight to 150 meters instead of the 200 meters SpaceX asked for. They also required SpaceX to increase its insurance coverage to $100 million instead of the $30 million it was. I have been to Boca Chica and nothing they couldn’t possibly be anything worth even $30 million if damaged. The most valuable assets are the SpaceX facility. The rest of the area consists of around a dozen vacation homes and a Border Patril Check Point. Given that behavior I wonder if SpaceX will even to get fly the Starship prototype. So it looks like someone still has a reason to hold back the future.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        I too am concerned about the future of the SpaceX Boca Chica site. If SpaceX can’t get approval to fly a Hopper with a single Raptor engine to a mere 200 meters, that casts serious doubt on its future prospects as even a suborbital launch site for Starship prototype testing.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          I always believed that the site was too small, and too close to the South Padre Island resorts. What SpaceX needed to do was take over the abandoned Matagorda AFB on Matagorda Island. Plenty of room right on the island, room on the nearby mainland to build any type of factory they want, and in Port Lavaca you could buy all the fuel you need a short barge ride away. And did I mention it is far enough out on the Texas Coastal Bend you could do high inclination as well as equatorial launches?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            A polar launch from Matagorda would have some constraints on staging. Dropping the first stage on Mexico could cause all sorts of legal problems.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Since the 1st stage will just return to the launch site that wouldn’t be an issue. They could also cut a deal to land it on their recovery ship nearby.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I forgot about that. With a reusable first stage, you aren’t dropping hardware and residual, potentially toxic fuels on downrange location. That’s a world of difference to what Russia does to Uzbekistan or what China does to their own country. I guess I’m still getting my head around that difference, and I suspect that the regulatory agencies will need even more time to do so.

        • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
          0
          0

          it is puzzling if the FAA is going to limit Hops to sub 200 m then what will they allow long term for launches from Boca Chica. could a Falcon 9 starlink mission flying due east get cleared to fly from there since it is quickly moving away from the south padre resort. what was the original vision for Boca Chica? and did Elon get baited and switched in terms of how functional the FAA is going to let the site be?

  11. MAGA_Ken says:
    0
    0

    I wonder why the FAA limited to 150m?

  12. Paul Gillett says:
    0
    0

    Win, Lose or Draw…Elon Musk has pushed the envelope and has gone and stayed where no government agency has been willing to. His ventures are out there in the public domain for all to see (and criticize when unsuccessful).

    Having grown up with Gemini and Apollo; I thank him for getting me excited again about space operations!

  13. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    While everyone talks of Mars, I’d like to see Elon use his rocket to land someone on the moon and return them safely to the earth. Might not be sustainable routine system but at least provide many opportunity to watch such an event on TV.