18 thoughts on “Another Starship Flight This Month?”
Click-baity headline but maybe so. I’d bet early to mid-March. My understanding is fire suppression will consist of filling the engine bay with CO2. I’m guessing that will be done last, after final leak checks on the pad. Does it have to persist for the entire mission, or just during ascent? Elon must know, me not so much!
I’m more concerned about the need for fire suppression in the first place. You’re treating the symptom not the cause. The root cause may be in the new fuel lines they are using in Block 2. Haven’t heard anything about that (yet). But to be honest I have been busy lately and haven’t looked very hard to find out. If you lose pressure in the methane feed, you run the risk of lean over-temp on the engine feed turbines and poof as well, CO2 or no.
Installation of fire suppression would not make me willing to fly in it.
I had similar thoughts. I am hoping the fire suppression is a stopgap measure to allow test flights to continue while a more permanent “leak proofing” solution is worked out.
I’m not an engineer but what you say sounds logical, however, maybe the fix is one part technical and three parts audience. Like there is a technical aspect to it but also assurance to the screaming monkey on his back.
I suspect it is a temporary solution – they’ll be changing engines to Raptor-3 soon which, by design, are probably far less likely to leak etc.
A significant leak (of a flammable mixture) would overwhelm any possible fire suppression system.
A large liquid CO2 fire suppression system (commercially available) would deal with any conceivable CH4 “leak.” I’m not sure it’d be needed for a simple O2 leak. What you’re talking about… well if the fuel and oxidizer lines have ruptured, you’d need an “explosion suppression system.” I think Musk just thinks there was a CH4 fire in the engine bay that burned through the oxidizer lines and blammo.
I guess I should have clarified .. “any practical fire suppression system” … What would be the point of sacrificing payload other than for a stopgap to continue testing?
One alternate approach would be to eliminate empty space where gases could accumulate by packing it with an inert, lightweight material. Fire retardant blankets, incombustible foams in metal or ceramic shells, etc. Some areas must remain open for engine gimballing, but that’s a lot less volume to worry about.
If there is a bang, the inert material could help absorb the energy slowly instead of letting the pressure wave directly impact the airframe.
And they should perhaps rework all their cryogenic seals, perhaps with an eye to impeding the outflow in the event the primary seal component fails, similar to how gas turbine engines use a variety of methods like baffles to limit the seepage rate along the high speed shafts without forming an actual seal, so that even though everything leaks, they are slow leaks.
The space we’re talking about is between the dance floor and the thrust frame assembly and contains the plumbing for the engines, so it has to remain human-accessible. This is supposed to be a reusable vehicle.
What about a way to shut off a leaking line upstream near the tank?
Do we know how big the pipe / valve was that leaked? Shutting off the line would likely starve the engines. Solution needs to be fail-safe, i.e. prevent failure of launch.
Starting at ~3:00 in, this guy thinks the issue was a leak springing in the transfer tube between the methane downcomer (is that via a manifold?) and engine E1, one of the steerable SL Raptors. Possibly due to a manufacturing defect. When the fuel pressure in E1 reduced below a critical level it induced cavitation in the feed turbine which likely caused catastrophic engine failure. Which also induced further problems in the engine bay. The leak worsened with time, there is video showing fire through one of the flap hinges. (at 8:18. He audibly describes the flap but I couldn’t quite make out what he was saying).
No further comment. You can view the video for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
Your guess is as good as his, but I think the engine controller software would have shut down the engine before that. And maybe it did. There is, in fact, not one but several manifolds in there. Musk does seem to suggest that fire suppression would have averted catastrophic failure, suggesting the leak was only on the CH4 feed to one engine, and the rest of the failures came from the fire. Eventually, the tank pressure dome would fail, resulting in smithereens.
Ars Technica… did you read this by Eric Berger?
Actually I’m not sure Eric hasn’t been replaced by an NPR staffer, because this piece checks ALL the boxes.
I complained in the comments. Haven’t bothered to check the downvotes or death threats.
At the same time, Musk’s activities may make it challenging for Starlink in the long term in countries that seek to punish him and his companies. For example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported Monday that Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford will rip up Ontario’s nearly $100 million contract with Starlink in the wake of US tariffs on virtually all Canadian goods.
Care to enlighten me as to what is a “Progressive Conservative”? Is that similar to a “Regressive Gene”?
Click-baity headline but maybe so. I’d bet early to mid-March. My understanding is fire suppression will consist of filling the engine bay with CO2. I’m guessing that will be done last, after final leak checks on the pad. Does it have to persist for the entire mission, or just during ascent? Elon must know, me not so much!
I’m more concerned about the need for fire suppression in the first place. You’re treating the symptom not the cause. The root cause may be in the new fuel lines they are using in Block 2. Haven’t heard anything about that (yet). But to be honest I have been busy lately and haven’t looked very hard to find out. If you lose pressure in the methane feed, you run the risk of lean over-temp on the engine feed turbines and poof as well, CO2 or no.
Installation of fire suppression would not make me willing to fly in it.
I had similar thoughts. I am hoping the fire suppression is a stopgap measure to allow test flights to continue while a more permanent “leak proofing” solution is worked out.
I’m not an engineer but what you say sounds logical, however, maybe the fix is one part technical and three parts audience. Like there is a technical aspect to it but also assurance to the screaming monkey on his back.
I suspect it is a temporary solution – they’ll be changing engines to Raptor-3 soon which, by design, are probably far less likely to leak etc.
A significant leak (of a flammable mixture) would overwhelm any possible fire suppression system.
A large liquid CO2 fire suppression system (commercially available) would deal with any conceivable CH4 “leak.” I’m not sure it’d be needed for a simple O2 leak. What you’re talking about… well if the fuel and oxidizer lines have ruptured, you’d need an “explosion suppression system.” I think Musk just thinks there was a CH4 fire in the engine bay that burned through the oxidizer lines and blammo.
I guess I should have clarified .. “any practical fire suppression system” … What would be the point of sacrificing payload other than for a stopgap to continue testing?
One alternate approach would be to eliminate empty space where gases could accumulate by packing it with an inert, lightweight material. Fire retardant blankets, incombustible foams in metal or ceramic shells, etc. Some areas must remain open for engine gimballing, but that’s a lot less volume to worry about.
If there is a bang, the inert material could help absorb the energy slowly instead of letting the pressure wave directly impact the airframe.
And they should perhaps rework all their cryogenic seals, perhaps with an eye to impeding the outflow in the event the primary seal component fails, similar to how gas turbine engines use a variety of methods like baffles to limit the seepage rate along the high speed shafts without forming an actual seal, so that even though everything leaks, they are slow leaks.
The space we’re talking about is between the dance floor and the thrust frame assembly and contains the plumbing for the engines, so it has to remain human-accessible. This is supposed to be a reusable vehicle.
What about a way to shut off a leaking line upstream near the tank?
Do we know how big the pipe / valve was that leaked? Shutting off the line would likely starve the engines. Solution needs to be fail-safe, i.e. prevent failure of launch.
Viewed this analysis today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWrrKJrZ2ro
Starting at ~3:00 in, this guy thinks the issue was a leak springing in the transfer tube between the methane downcomer (is that via a manifold?) and engine E1, one of the steerable SL Raptors. Possibly due to a manufacturing defect. When the fuel pressure in E1 reduced below a critical level it induced cavitation in the feed turbine which likely caused catastrophic engine failure. Which also induced further problems in the engine bay. The leak worsened with time, there is video showing fire through one of the flap hinges. (at 8:18. He audibly describes the flap but I couldn’t quite make out what he was saying).
No further comment. You can view the video for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
Your guess is as good as his, but I think the engine controller software would have shut down the engine before that. And maybe it did. There is, in fact, not one but several manifolds in there. Musk does seem to suggest that fire suppression would have averted catastrophic failure, suggesting the leak was only on the CH4 feed to one engine, and the rest of the failures came from the fire. Eventually, the tank pressure dome would fail, resulting in smithereens.
Ars Technica… did you read this by Eric Berger?
Actually I’m not sure Eric hasn’t been replaced by an NPR staffer, because this piece checks ALL the boxes.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/starlink-profit-growing-rapidly-as-it-faces-a-moment-of-promise-and-peril/
I complained in the comments. Haven’t bothered to check the downvotes or death threats.
At the same time, Musk’s activities may make it challenging for Starlink in the long term in countries that seek to punish him and his companies. For example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported Monday that Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford will rip up Ontario’s nearly $100 million contract with Starlink in the wake of US tariffs on virtually all Canadian goods.
Care to enlighten me as to what is a “Progressive Conservative”? Is that similar to a “Regressive Gene”?
Repressive.
I read Ars Holica with sorrow.