This is a big one for SpaceX. They have had a couple of faillures on Starship on their previous launches.

jjcm 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

FWIW, it appears they're purposefully introducing multiple simulated failures into this test. It doesn't appear that they're trying to make this succeed at all costs. From the site:

> The primary test objectives for the booster will be focused on its landing burn and will use unique engine configurations. One of the three center engines used for the final phase of landing will be intentionally disabled to gather data on the ability for a backup engine from the middle ring to complete a landing burn. The booster will then transition to only two center engines for the end of the landing burn, entering a full hover while still above the ocean surface, followed by shutdown and drop into the Gulf of America.

...

> The flight test includes several experiments focused on enabling Starship’s upper stage to return to the launch site. A significant number of tiles have been removed from Starship to stress-test vulnerable areas across the vehicle during reentry. Multiple metallic tile options, including one with active cooling, will test alternative materials for protecting Starship during reentry. On the sides of the vehicle, functional catch fittings are installed and will test the fittings’ thermal and structural performance, along with a section of the tile line receiving a smoothed and tapered edge to address hot spots observed during reentry on Starship’s sixth flight test. Starship’s reentry profile is designed to intentionally stress the structural limits of the upper stage’s rear flaps while at the point of maximum entry dynamic pressure.

	▲	plqbfbv 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> FWIW, it appears they're purposefully introducing multiple simulated failures into this test. Not only this test IIRC, Starship 9 had reentry trajectories that would stress-test the hardware to its limits too. In general I think their current strategy is testing the hardware limits in real conditions and improving rapidly on it to reduce the chance of any small failure to become catastrophic.
	▲	sneak 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> followed by shutdown and drop into the Gulf of America. It’s funny that the social engineering of the administration that allows them to launch is just as important as the mechanical engineering of the vehicle in terms of achieving their macro goal. I think this sort of “solve all of the problems, in every domain, that stand in our way” explains a lot about their activities and strategic planning.

▲

moffkalast 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They're still planning on landing both in the ocean, doesn't seem like they've gotten any more confident given that.

	▲	ACCount37 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It'll be a while before they're comfortable landing Starship itself onto the launch tower, so an ocean splashdown is the best outcome possible. And the booster is going to be testing another one of those extra aggressive reentry trajectories. They broke the previous booster by overdoing it, so it remains to be seen whether they'll find the balance between "fuel efficient" and "doesn't cause catastrophic internal booster damage" this time around.
	▲	dzhiurgis 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They are new designs, not just some patches. Given they've demonstrated all core steps (near successful re-entry, near-orbit insertion, booster catch) I'd say they are like 95% there.