| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:59:35 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,681 |
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for testing activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for
testing activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
On 21/05/2024 20:35 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for
testing activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
I'm still waiting for the incident report of the last flight. I'm very interested in how SpaceX's resolving the issues of Starship's uncontrolled tumbling. I'm also curious why Super Heavy failed to relight all of its engines during the landing burn, since SpaceX is doing this almost on a weekly basis with Falcon 9.
Alain Fournier explained :
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for
testing activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
Launch is NET "after Memorial Day", from the usual sources, with S29
just having rolled back from the Wet Dress Rehersal to complete tile work.
SpaceX has ask the FAA to approve a launch license while the IFT3 mishap investigation still open, arguing that the failures were each in a
flight portion that did not represent a safety hazard.
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for testing activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
Alain Fournier explained :
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for testing >> activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
Elon has just (as in May 23rd sometime around the launch of Starlink 6-63) twixxed that "Flight 4 in about 10 days", so expect Jun 01 or 02.
On 2024-05-22 10:07 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
On 21/05/2024 20:35 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for
testing activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
I'm still waiting for the incident report of the last flight. I'm very interested in how SpaceX's resolving the issues of Starship's uncontrolled tumbling. I'm also curious why Super Heavy failed to relight all of its engines during the landing burn, since SpaceX is doing this almost on a weekly basis with Falcon 9.
In my opinion, both Starship's and the booster's erratic behaviour can
be corrected by a software update. The software used for Falcon 9 can't
be used for Starship and its booster, so even though SpaceX has much experience on controlling spacecrafts, they still need to write new code
and glitches happen in new code. I'm not much concerned about the IFT-3 problems.
Alain Fournier
On 22/05/2024 15:33 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
On 2024-05-22 10:07 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
On 21/05/2024 20:35 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for
testing activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
I'm still waiting for the incident report of the last flight. I'm very interested in how SpaceX's resolving the issues of Starship's uncontrolled tumbling. I'm also curious why Super Heavy failed to relight all of its engines during the landing burn, since SpaceX is doing this almost on a weekly basis with Falcon 9.
In my opinion, both Starship's and the booster's erratic behaviour can
be corrected by a software update. The software used for Falcon 9 can't
be used for Starship and its booster, so even though SpaceX has much
experience on controlling spacecrafts, they still need to write new code
and glitches happen in new code. I'm not much concerned about the IFT-3
problems.
Alain Fournier
<https://www.spacex.com/updates/#flight-3-report>
According to this update both the boostback burn and the roll-control loss were due to filter blockages.
On 22/05/2024 15:33 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
On 2024-05-22 10:07 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
On 21/05/2024 20:35 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for
testing activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
I'm still waiting for the incident report of the last flight. I'm very interested in how SpaceX's resolving the issues of Starship's uncontrolled tumbling. I'm also curious why Super Heavy failed to relight all of its engines during the landing burn, since SpaceX is doing this almost on a weekly basis with Falcon 9.
In my opinion, both Starship's and the booster's erratic behaviour can
be corrected by a software update. The software used for Falcon 9 can't
be used for Starship and its booster, so even though SpaceX has much
experience on controlling spacecrafts, they still need to write new code
and glitches happen in new code. I'm not much concerned about the IFT-3
problems.
Alain Fournier
<https://www.spacex.com/updates/#flight-3-report>
According to this update both the boostback burn and the roll-control loss were due to filter blockages.
On 2024-05-25 7:54, The Running Man wrote:
On 22/05/2024 15:33 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
On 2024-05-22 10:07 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
On 21/05/2024 20:35 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for
testing activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests. >>>>>
Alain Fournier
I'm still waiting for the incident report of the last flight. I'm
very interested in how SpaceX's resolving the issues of Starship's
uncontrolled tumbling. I'm also curious why Super Heavy failed to
relight all of its engines during-a the landing burn, since SpaceX is >>>> doing this almost on a weekly basis with Falcon 9.
In my opinion, both Starship's and the booster's erratic behaviour can
be corrected by a software update. The software used for Falcon 9 can't
be used for Starship and its booster, so even though SpaceX has much
experience on controlling spacecrafts, they still need to write new code >>> and glitches happen in new code. I'm not much concerned about the IFT-3
problems.
Alain Fournier
<https://www.spacex.com/updates/#flight-3-report>
According to this update both the boostback burn and the roll-control
loss were due to filter blockages.
But they don't say what kind of stuff was blocking the filters. Hm.
For IFT-4, they say that there are "operational changes including the jettison of the Super HeavyrCOs hot-stage adapter following boostback to reduce booster mass for the final phase of flight." What, so that part
will fall into the ocean and not be reused? This is a surprising
departure from earlier principles. Perhaps it is only a temporary work-around.
Alain Fournier explained :
They are ordering some road closures for SpaceX a week from now for testing >> activities.
https://www.cameroncountytx.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/05.28.2024-Press-Release-on-Order-of-Closure-Related-to-SpaceX-Flight.pdf
I've been told launches typically occur a few days after these tests.
Alain Fournier
Launch is NET "after Memorial Day", from the usual sources, with S29 just having rolled back from the Wet Dress Rehersal to complete tile work.
SpaceX has ask the FAA to approve a launch license while the IFT3 mishap investigation still open, arguing that the failures were each in a flight portion that did not represent a safety hazard.--
/dps
On 2024-05-25 5:06 a.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
For IFT-4, they say that there are "operational changes including the
jettison of the Super HeavyrCOs hot-stage adapter following boostback to
reduce booster mass for the final phase of flight." What, so that part
will fall into the ocean and not be reused? This is a surprising
departure from earlier principles. Perhaps it is only a temporary
work-around.
Indeed, it is a surprising departure from earlier principles. I don't
think that would be only a temporary work-around if they do so to reduce mass. IFT-4 having no payload, they don't really need to reduce mass, so they don't need to do it at all now. Perhaps this piece of hardware gets severely damaged during flight (during hot-staging) and it is easier to build a new one for each flight than to redesign it to survive intact.
On 2024-05-25 16:23, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 2024-05-25 5:06 a.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
-a-a [ snip ]
For IFT-4, they say that there are "operational changes including the
jettison of the Super HeavyrCOs hot-stage adapter following boostback
to reduce booster mass for the final phase of flight." What, so that
part will fall into the ocean and not be reused? This is a surprising
departure from earlier principles. Perhaps it is only a temporary
work-around.
Indeed, it is a surprising departure from earlier principles. I don't
think that would be only a temporary work-around if they do so to
reduce mass. IFT-4 having no payload, they don't really need to reduce
mass, so they don't need to do it at all now. Perhaps this piece of
hardware gets severely damaged during flight (during hot-staging) and
it is easier to build a new one for each flight than to redesign it to
survive intact.
There is some good discussion by "CSI Starbase" in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytl1efG1sBw
The main suggestion is that fixing other issues by additions to the
booster HW increased booster mass so much that the LOX header tank
capacity became insufficient for booster recovery. The header tanks are already built for the next few boosters and cannot easily be made
larger. Discarding the hot-stage adapter, to reduce mass, may thus be a work-around for this header-tank issue, and may not be needed for future boosters with larger LOX header tanks.
The video also presents evidence that the hot-stage adapter actually
tore itself loose during the last minutes of IFT-3 booster flight. This
may have been a factor in the booster's attitude-control problems during
its return.
On 2024-06-04 5:51 a.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 2024-05-25 16:23, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 2024-05-25 5:06 a.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
-a-a [ snip ]
For IFT-4, they say that there are "operational changes including the >>>> jettison of the Super HeavyrCOs hot-stage adapter following boostback to >>>> reduce booster mass for the final phase of flight." What, so that part >>>> will fall into the ocean and not be reused? This is a surprising
departure from earlier principles. Perhaps it is only a temporary
work-around.
Indeed, it is a surprising departure from earlier principles. I don't
think that would be only a temporary work-around if they do so to reduce >>> mass. IFT-4 having no payload, they don't really need to reduce mass, so >>> they don't need to do it at all now. Perhaps this piece of hardware gets >>> severely damaged during flight (during hot-staging) and it is easier to >>> build a new one for each flight than to redesign it to survive intact.
There is some good discussion by "CSI Starbase" in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytl1efG1sBw
The main suggestion is that fixing other issues by additions to the booster >> HW increased booster mass so much that the LOX header tank capacity became >> insufficient for booster recovery. The header tanks are already built for >> the next few boosters and cannot easily be made larger. Discarding the
hot-stage adapter, to reduce mass, may thus be a work-around for this
header-tank issue, and may not be needed for future boosters with larger
LOX header tanks.
The video also presents evidence that the hot-stage adapter actually tore >> itself loose during the last minutes of IFT-3 booster flight. This may have >> been a factor in the booster's attitude-control problems during its return.
Thank you. The "CSI Starbase" video is cool.
Alain Fournier