SpaceX Super Heavy rocket gets supersonic wind tunnel test for NASA's Artemis moon missions (photos)

They just tested the booster, in re-entry flight regime? Meh.

I wonder if SpaceX had some 'quietly serious concerns' RE Booster return aero stability/drag/retro/controllability that may have driven this testing. It sounds to me [interpolates] that this testing may lead to important changes in their control regimen.

Also it looks like the 'tower/chop-sticks' landing system may have some serious issues... related to rapid movement of the massive catch-arms... inducing tower vibration/dynamics issues.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

I'm sure their CFD/Loads analysis covers every phase of flight. Maybe this reentry phase is more critical and so they did a scale test ? I wonder how you scale the airloads ??

I do wish they didn't have the grid-fins fixed in their deployed position ... it may be efficient, but it looks ugly !

"Wir hoffen, dass dieses Mal alles gut gehen wird!"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

I'm not sure how you would get reliable information (scaling?) on the grid fin performance (re stability/control), as rb suggests.

FAA plans to fine SpaceX $630,000 for alleged launch violations

Musk's response is sue the FAA for over-reach... and a loud 'get-out-of-our-way'.

Trump is proposing Elon Musk be placed in charge of commercial launches in a Trump 2025 administration. Wow.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

"sue the FAA for over-reach"

Sigh. I get it, the whole "move fast and break things" methodology preached by the new tech barons. Problem arises when the things broken are (or could be) human beings. Those Texas gulf coast launches have to thread a narrow launch window to not overfly populated areas.

Putting Elon in charge of commercial launches? Hmm...not sure how that would fly with the people writing checks for those launches, but ok, whatever. I live well upwind (up-trajectory?) of SpaceX launch facilities from either the Cape or Texas, so I can say "meh".

I hope we're not decrying "follow the process" ? The FAA has a process, the fact that Musk doesn't like it doesn't matter. It may be no value added in this specific case, but the process has value. Musk may say "we've considered the environment" but (to quote Shania Twain) "that don't impress me much". In a choice between speedy launches and careful assessment on obscure environment interactions, I know which side Musk's chose will be !

"Wir hoffen, dass dieses Mal alles gut gehen wird!"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

rb... from what I can tell about Starship booster and upper stage... SpaceX changes design [configuration] elements 'so fast', between flights, that understanding/analyzing these sweeping changes... in preparation for the upcoming flights... leaves a LOT of big-blank-spots that are not easy to understand... both for SpaceX "hey that didn't work so well... lets try this..."; and the FAA... regulatory agency... trying to justify another flight with a 'radically different vehicle'.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

To call the midair explosions, or at-best barely controlled crash landings, "flights" is a bit of hubris in and of itself. They are missile tests at this point, not flights.

In the late 1950s, my dad was a USAF officer... combat veteran, command pilot and weather/electronics qualified... a very unusual combination.

In 1956 he was selected to command an Air Training Command Detachment for RAF personnel on all aspects of the Thor IRBMs that were to nuclear capable... by early 1959.

Our first stop as a family was Santa Barbara CA... where every day he would go Vandenberg AFB to for 6-months intensive training... on the missiles that yet to be reliable enough for combat alert. Every week... as young kids playing outdoors, sis and I saw rockets launched out of Vandenberg that did crazy stuff about 1/2-the time. Douglas built them and tested-tested-tested with USAF... a million dollars a missile. Many years later, my dad later admitted to what we were seeing... lots of launch failures with few successes... early-on. Then we went to Britain with Dad and his training detachment.

Apparently after a few years of intense development/testing... of this first USAF IRBM... the Thor became extremely reliable for duty... so Thor missiles and warheads were shipped overseas to surround the USSR... including where we had been stationed [RAF Hemswell, 3-separate launch sites in the countryside, near us]. Eventually these missiles on 'combat alert' became obsolete and were removed from service. The British sold the missiles back to the US/NASA and returned the warheads to the USAF. Well, the design was so rock-solid after many painful years... the Thor's found new life as NASA core launch vehicles... first as 'Thor-Delta'... then simply 'Delta'... then they became almost unrecognizable with all the many modern variations. All occuring on the solid foundations o prior developments/successes/failures.

The point of all these words is that these early Thor developments emphasized consistent instrumentation and testing procedures, carefully/deliberately evolving booster configurations... carefully building for maximum quality... etc... which provided the early rigorous roadmap for future Launcher successes. I cannot understand how SpaceX Texas could be so prone to 'wild west' development/testing... changes-on-changes-over-changes... this in direct violation of all prior rules and paths to success. Especially with the monster they are testing... over the heads of everybody in the Gulf-of Mexico flightpath.

Especially when they are planning/building larger variants as we speak... long before the base-design has any 'stability'. I guess I am too old to understand this approach. Damn.

Somehow SpaceX was far more disciplined with Facon9 development... but then it seemed to conform more closely with known development protocols. Success IS a terrible teacher. This in one time I 'feel the pain' of the FAA commercial spaceflight authorities.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

Everything is cool...until they drop a rocket on somebody's head.

SpaceX/MUSK is pressuring congressional contacts to act in their favor... So I guess 'SpaceX don't need no stinking FAA licenses to fly any of their superior and gorgeous rockets'...

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov