Resolves YES if the next (3rd) Starship space flight test activates (or attempts to activate) the Flight Termination System on either the upper or lower stage or both. Otherwise NO.
This question is about the next (3rd) Starship mission with a planned trajectory that reaches space (100km altitude) - any low altitude test does not count for example.
The close date is not a deadline and will be extended as necessary until the test occurs.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ627 | |
| 2 | Ṁ558 | |
| 3 | Ṁ277 | |
| 4 | Ṁ262 | |
| 5 | Ṁ149 |
Still no specific info about FTS I can see - let me know if you find anything. Summary of the flight test outcome: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3
Super Heavy successfully lit several engines for its first ever landing burn before the vehicle experienced a RUD (that’s SpaceX-speak for “rapid unscheduled disassembly”). The booster’s flight concluded at approximately 462 meters in altitude and just under seven minutes into the mission.
The flight test’s conclusion came during entry, with the last telemetry signals received via Starlink from Starship at approximately 49 minutes into the mission.
@jack There was telemetry all the way to "0 km", while going 1100 km/hr. There wasn't enough time for FTS to go off.
@jack FTS looks almost exclusively at whether booster is heading out of the prearranged debris areas. If it wasn't heading out of those areas at 3 or 4000m then I very much doubt it was heading out at 500m. I also think we would have heard about it if it was out or very nearly out of those areas.
If it was in the pre=arranged areas, I would think SpaceX would want every last second of data they can get even if it meant a larger impact explosion with fuel, but I would suggest it would be preferable to have explosion at sea level rather than 450m or so up as it would be a smaller affected area and volume.
Probably fairly similar for ship re collecting more data if it isn't heading out of designated areas.
I am not disagreeing with waiting for more info, just suggesting a yes resolution looks fairly unlikely at the moment.
If there is no info in a couple of weeks, will you wait for details coming from mishap investigation or will the lack of any mention in couple of weeks be enough to say it seems like they were RUDs rather than FTS?
@ChristopherRandles thanks, I was waiting for info in general including for someone to comment with something like this.
I will not necessarily wait until official news is out if there's a consensus among knowledgeable folks. Of course if contradictory new info comes out later then I would resolve to the actual answer.
@jack https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-third-test-flight-faa-investigation
"The company aimed to bring both of Starship's elements — its first-stage Super Heavy booster and its Starship upper stage — down to Earth for ocean landings, but both vehicles ended up breaking apart in the atmosphere.
The test flight therefore qualifies as a mishap, and the FAA wants to know what happened. The agency announced this morning (March 15) that it will oversee a SpaceX-led investigation into Thursday's events.
...
The Starship upper stage reached orbital velocity and hit its proper "coast" trajectory, on its way to a planned splashdown in the Indian Ocean. The vehicle was rolling a bit as it reentered Earth's atmosphere, however, and broke apart about 50 minutes after launch."
Seems to be indicating broke apart in atmosphere rather than fts.
Perhaps article is also suggesting that breakup is the cause of a mishap investigation. If it was FTS then I think the reason for the mishap investigation would be around reasons why FTS activation was necessary or why it activated if it wasn't necessary/ideal to do so at that time. Instead of that they are saying it hit its proper coast trajectory.
Comments I am seeing seem like:
Telemetry link plays no role in AFTS. The “A” stands for “Autonomous.” It is fully self-contained and only fires if there is some criteria that exceeds or is trending unstoppably past some specified limit. The most significant criteria involved is risk of debris falling outside the specificed launch or re-entry corridor. In this case, Ship was following a completely ballistic trajectory with no risk of any debris falling outside that re-entry corridor. Thus there is no reason to suspect the FTS would have fired.
As for the Super Heavy, I don’t believe the FTS fired either. SpaceX’s public statement after the launch stated that the booster suffered a RUD, not that the FTS fired. Further, during F9 landings, the callout “FTS is safed” is generally heard after the entry burn but before the landing burn, once it’s clear that booster is going to land or impact in the designated landing area. I don’t recall hearing such a callout for Super Heavy last week, but I suspect SpaceX is following the same general safety logic here: once the vehicle is verified as heading toward its landing zone, FTS would be safed.
and
At T+6:22 there is a call-out that sure sounds like "Booster AFTS has safed". Hard to hear over both the commentator and cheering though.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60479.msg2578301