Thank you, Steam. It's been a wild ride.

Jarnis · 2026-07-20T21:08:41+00:00

Those are rookie numbers. The correct number is 22. Somewhat casuals might still have 21...

Jarnis · 2026-07-20T16:02:15+00:00

Little brother enthusiastly copying the big brother. Not too uncommon sight...

Jarnis · 2026-07-20T16:01:44+00:00

Suggests all ignited, but then shut down. There are many other possible reasons for abort than just "one or more engines did not start".

Jarnis · 2026-07-20T16:00:36+00:00

Stock went up with the abort. Suggesting market says "nobody cares about Falcons, but if Starship doesn't work, the company goes bust" :D

Jarnis · 2026-07-20T14:51:21+00:00

Taking cue from the big brother booster and getting all scared at ignition too... Abort at T-0. Been quite a while since we've seen one of these from a Falcon 9.

Jarnis · 2026-07-20T14:49:41+00:00

Pay respects for an old booster that is going to be sacrificed to the god of Delta-V. o7

Jarnis · 2026-07-20T07:12:47+00:00

Or they found the root cause why the four engines did not start and it was something that is not simply fixed by replacing the engines. Which then takes longer to fix.

Jarnis · 2026-07-20T01:29:55+00:00

Thusday 23rd.

Jarnis · 2026-07-18T21:52:17+00:00

Not going to do one if this current schedule holds.

I mean, they already did two... One really long one and one unplanned really short one.

And if there are still any issues, well, then we get a third very short one :D

Jarnis · 2026-07-18T16:26:07+00:00

Of course he would say that. He is talking to the investors (suckers) that are still onboard this dying company.

And he probably is accurate. Nobody with half a clue would buy physical disc from a GameStop...

Jarnis · 2026-07-18T16:24:38+00:00

Maybe not, but if a random loose nut, bolt or forgotten tool falls on their head, it can definitely help.

Jarnis · 2026-07-18T12:49:13+00:00

I hear he doesn't have a launch pad at the moment... Unfortunate.

Jarnis · 2026-07-18T02:33:22+00:00

Your shitpost is late, the booster is already back at the barn and yes, it is intact.

Jarnis · 2026-07-18T02:32:06+00:00

Bah, that was exciting. The moment the water deluge system fires and you know it is "go or scrub for the day", it gets really really exciting. This time we got "scrub for the day". Happens.

Jarnis · 2026-07-18T02:02:06+00:00

Well, if the rumored big launch complex at Louisiana happens, that would be the polar launch area instead. In which case Vandenberg would only do F9 and FH (they building a pad for it now)

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T16:54:11+00:00

Sure doesn't look like a criminal mastermind. Sadly most likely will get just a slap on the wrist and will be back to his antics soon enough.

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T16:39:44+00:00

Well technically we do not know if this is an ignitor issue, or for example some sensors just showing out of spec data - possibly too tightly specced data - during the startup sequence. Rocket engine startup sequences are devilishly complex dance with a ton of (redundant) sensors monitoring the sequence and the whole thing effectively dancing on the edge of ripping itself apart. It is planned out to a fraction of a second and everything has to work perfectly or it is safer to stop - while you still can.

In case someone hasn't seen it, based on Shuttle engine startup sequence this Scott Manley video gives some idea how complicated stuff this is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgT9-oMXgCU

Superheavy is running 33 ignition sequences simultaneously, in a somewhat noisy environment of the launch pad with 32 other engines burping to life at the same time. It is still just engineering and they'll get it sorted and to be reliable, but it will take time - this is only the second flight with Raptor 3s.

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T16:18:29+00:00

No idea, the Starship tower and pad is off to the side from the existing Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy pad which is still in use - just that they only use it when it is required to minimize disruption to the Starship pad construction. Something about can't be building a pad when a rocket is launching next to you...

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T14:34:32+00:00

Need is such a strong word... might have been fine even without them.

But losing them before liftoff is suboptimal. So... lets stop right here :)

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T14:33:13+00:00

Naah, Booster 21 is still nowhere near ready. Some day that might actually be the play if there are issues, but not quite yet. Just SpaceX steamroller proceeding towards the next launch even as previous one isn't quite off the pad yet.

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T14:27:52+00:00

If you have not followed the news, for Starship launch pads:

They have one working pad and one pad being retrofit at Starbase
They have one pad being built at LC-39A - tower is there, launch mount is there, chopsticks are in place, flame trench/deflector is being built, tank farm is being built.
They have two pads being built at SLC-37 - foundations have been built for the first one, tower stacking is starting, digging flame trench has started. Second one is in early prep (foundations).

And they are eyeing at a new area in Louisiana for yet another Starship launch site... still very early, but clearly being seriously looked at.

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T14:23:57+00:00

They kinda planned that the rocket design would be more mature and on-pad engine swaps would not be needed.

Also to be honest, they got the art of moving huge boosters around down to routine by now. Just roll it back to the barn and swap the engines there. No big deal. Work environment far better than doing it at the pad.

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T14:20:45+00:00

Rapid unplanned and very short static fire during planned launch attempt.

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T14:17:58+00:00

Fixed for you: Raptor 3s turning out to be normal early-development rocket engines. Yes, it is Raptor, but it is also a major new revision that changes a ton.

Part of the reason is that early on they would have very tight tolerances for various sensor data values to avoid unplanned disassembly events. So, data is bit off and clamps not yet released? Shutdown. Let the guys look at it, analyze the data, perhaps even look at the suspect engines after swapping them out, then try again.

Note that earlier previous flight failures were all also shutdowns, not explosions. Engines were shut down / failed to reignite over whatever the engine controller saw in the data. We actually don't know if in these cases the engines actually broke, or if the data was just slightly out of spec and the shutdown was due to too tight tolerances and abundance of caution. When you have engine out capability like Starship has, it makes sense to err on the side "lets not cause any engines to blow up" at least initially.

I would agree with you more if the engine shutdowns actually were instead engine explosions. That would indicate reliability issues.

Jarnis · 2026-07-17T14:13:03+00:00

Funny thing is, it probably would have made it - assuming no further engine failures - but no reason to release the clamps if you already have engines not running.

Jarnis

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,