Lots of engine failures. Doesn't exactly bode well for a company looking to go public immediately. One of the engine failures was not on the booster but Starship as you noted, and that is a bit unexpected. I don't think they have spoken about it being equal in capability with one engine out, right? Those engines don't move around to compensate IIRC.

▲

dylan604 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. The capabilities can overcome loss of engines. The fact it was successful with loss of engines shows it is working as designed.

▲

SilverElfin 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No, it just means the mission happened to be salvageable because of its parameters. The booster is designed to have engines out and can compensate because it has so many engines and many of them are on gimbals. On starship, the vacuum engines aren’t on a gimbal. I’m not sure how it could compensate for one of three engines being out.

▲

rdtsc 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some are on a gimbal and they specifically talked how others gimbaled out a bit to compensate. This is specifically something they designed in and not an accidental lucky save. In this flight they didn’t intend to test “one engine out” feature but it worked out that way.

▲

SilverElfin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

See my other comment. The vacuum engines are NOT on a gimbal. None of them. The sea level engines on starship and several of the engines on the booster are on a gimbal. But not the vacuum engines for space.

EDIT: I cannot reply further in this thread, but my understanding is that the non vacuum engines are not intended to stay lit throughout the orbital flight in a typical mission. If they are, they can gimbal and compensate.

▲

rdtsc 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> The vacuum engines are NOT on a gimbal. None of them

I said some raptor engines are on a gimbal, not vacuum engines.

To be precise, the three central engines can gimbal up to 15 degrees. That can control the thrust vectoring when an engine fails, and that’s what happens in the last flight.

Since the flight already happened and we know it didn’t spin out of control (unless you imply their diagnostic and telemetry was completely off and the engine was actually on) something must have compensated for the failure. It wasn’t magic, it was in fact the central 3 engines that did that.

You may be confused because those are called sea level engines, but that doesn’t mean they can’t work in vacuum.

▲

adgjlsfhk1 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I think previous comment means "on a gimbal" as in "angled at a non completely prograde direction" (presumably angled such that each engine points through center of mass so that none of the engines impart a torque)

	▲	labcomputer an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The person you’re replying to is trying to play rhetorical word games. The upper stage has six engines. The outer three engines are “vacuum engines” (optimized for operation in space). The inner three engines are “non vacuum engines” (optimized for operation in the atmosphere, at sea level). The outer three vacuum engines are not gimbaled, but the inner three sea level engines are. Thus, it is completely accurate to say that they gimbaled some of the engines to compensate for the engine failure.

▲

echoangle 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They explicitly said that they have engine out capability on the ship in the stream.

▲

SilverElfin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s for the booster (the big lower part) not for starship (the upper part that continues to space). They were surprised to have a vacuum engine out. In space there’s no atmosphere so you can’t use fins or wings to change direction. And if the engines can’t move around, you only have thrust and gravity and the tiny attitude adjusters to direct your ship.

	▲	cwillu 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're simply wrong. The non-vacuum-optimized engines on the upper stage are still functioning in a vacuum, and their ability to gimbal to offset the loss of one of the vacuum-optimized engines was planned for.