
"This particular booster, numbered Booster 15, launched in March and was caught by the launch tower at Starbase after returning from the edge of space. SpaceX said 24 of the 33 methane-fueled Raptor engines launching on the booster next month are "flight-proven." Similar to the last Starship flight, the Super Heavy booster will guide itself to a splashdown off the coast of South Texas instead of returning to Starbase. "Its primary test objective will be demonstrating a unique landing burn engine configuration planned to be used on the next-generation Super Heavy," SpaceX said."
"The new booster landing sequence will initially use 13 of the rocket's 33 engines, then downshift to five engines before running just the three center engines for the final portion of the burn. The booster previously went directly from 13 engines to three engines. Using five engines for part of the landing sequence provides "additional redundancy for spontaneous engine shutdowns," according to SpaceX."
"After Flight 11, SpaceX will focus on the next-generation Starship design: Starship V3. This upgraded configuration will be the version that will actually fly to orbit, allowing SpaceX to begin deploying its new fleet of larger, more powerful Starlink Internet satellites. Starship V3 will also be used to test orbital refueling, something never before attempted between two spacecraft with cryogenic propellants."
Booster 15 launched in March and was caught by the launch tower at Starbase after returning from the edge of space. Twenty-four of the booster’s 33 methane-fueled Raptor engines are flight-proven for the upcoming mission. The Super Heavy booster will splash down off the coast of South Texas instead of returning to Starbase. The flight will demonstrate a new landing burn sequence that uses 13 engines, then downshifts to five, then to three center engines to increase redundancy and evaluate transitions. After Flight 11, focus will shift to Starship V3 to fly to orbit and test orbital cryogenic refueling for deep-space missions.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]