1. 7 of the 31 engines failed, or failed to start. That is 22% of the main engines thrust. I don’t care what level the bar was set at, that is not a successful launch/flight criteria.
2. The first stage failed to separate from the upper stage, resulting in the total loss of both stages. That is not a successful flight criteria.
3. SpaceX had intended to fly-back the main stage and land it for inspection/testing/reuse. The main stage blew up. That is not a successful flight criteria.
Elon Musk is a smart guy. But he is gaslighting some of you on this test flight. He took the “bar” down and laid it on the ground before the flight. He must have known things were not going to go well.
Apparently, SpaceX has money to burn. The reaction by Musk and the viewing crowd was bizarre. They acted like this was a big fireworks show. They failed 3-4 MAJOR milestones of the flight plan on this launch.
The booster stage was going to soft land in the gulf of Mexico. That was always the plan for this test launch. No recovery of either stage was planned. As a result of the anomalous performance both stages were detonated using the FTS system by the safety officer.
I have to disagree with you there. On this test flight SpaceX never intended to return either the booster or the Starship back to a landing for inspection/testing/reuse. This launch they specifically planned for controlled landing into the water.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-first-orbital-launch-explainer
The test flight will launch from South Texas, head over the Gulf of Mexico and ultimately splash down near Hawaii.
-Excerpt.
From what I saw and read, 3 engines failed to start. During ascent, a 4th and then 5th flamed out. A 6th possibly flamed out but reignited. Despite this, the launch was not throttled to full so even with 6 engines out they could potentially get to orbit. 7 would be iffy.
3. SpaceX had intended to fly-back the main stage and land it for inspection/testing/reuse.
Nope, never intended to land the main stage. Both craft were not going to be landed or reused. The flight had a lot of success, and the intent was to reap data for iterative improvements in later flights.
There were 33 engines, not 31. Some of the failures may be attributable to launch pad debris, not engine design. The test article had enough speed and altitude to reach stage separation. The failure of stage separation was likely related to damage from the launch mount to the hydraulic system, likely again a failure of the pad, not the test article. SpaceX had NOT intended to fly the main stage back to land. The main stage did not ‘blow up’. It was blown up deliberately for flight safety. This is also not a failure of the design. There were far more design successes proven than failures on this flight, hence a successful test.
This was the very first orbital launch for a brand new spacecraft thats the most powerful ever built. There were no expectations other than to gather data. You don’t put together the first car in existence and expect it to go on an intercontinental trip the very first time you turn it on. The Starship launch reaching the stage it did instead of blowing up immediately was a success if it went further than that then great but that was never a requirement. SpaceX has always operated this way of iterating fast without the traditional excessive worry for prototype failure since they can learn from it. The Libtards are trying to cast this as a fiasco because they hate Musk politically.
7 to 8 engines failed during flight and possible blew out the apu. during flight you can see the engines fail.
remember there are 33 engines.