| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 51:03:44 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
17 files (14,550K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,037 |
SpaceX will probably launch Starship for the third time next month. The FAA has accepted SpaceX's analysis of the November launch. They have 17 corrective actions (compare that to 63 they had after the first launch) to perform before getting the go ahead from the FAA. Those 17 actions were identified by SpaceX itself, the FAA just approved the list from SpaceX. SpaceX seems to have already found corrections for many of those 17 actions.
See:
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/spacex-clears-faa-inquiry
Alain Fournier
Watch this space, where Alain Fournier advised that...
SpaceX will probably launch Starship for the third time next month. The FAA >> has accepted SpaceX's analysis of the November launch. They have 17
corrective actions (compare that to 63 they had after the first launch) to >> perform before getting the go ahead from the FAA. Those 17 actions were
identified by SpaceX itself, the FAA just approved the list from SpaceX.
SpaceX seems to have already found corrections for many of those 17
actions.
See:
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/spacex-clears-faa-inquiry
Alain Fournier
Yes, I saw that on NSF, too.
I remember that some of the 63 from IFT-1 were for vehicles after IFT-2; we already know that some are complete already (electric thrust vectoring on ship, frex), but I wonder how many are left and whether the 17 new ones have any conflict with what the planned corrections were for those holdovers.
/dps
Snidely suggested that ...
Watch this space, where Alain Fournier advised that...
SpaceX will probably launch Starship for the third time next month.
The FAA has accepted SpaceX's analysis of the November launch. They
have 17 corrective actions (compare that to 63 they had after the
first launch) to perform before getting the go ahead from the FAA.
Those 17 actions were identified by SpaceX itself, the FAA just
approved the list from SpaceX. SpaceX seems to have already found
corrections for many of those 17 actions.
See:
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/spacex-clears-faa-inquiry
Alain Fournier
Yes, I saw that on NSF, too.
I remember that some of the 63 from IFT-1 were for vehicles after
IFT-2; we already know that some are complete already (electric thrust
vectoring on ship, frex), but I wonder how many are left and whether
the 17 new ones have any conflict with what the planned corrections
were for those holdovers.
/dps
We're back to a full stack, for at least a while, with lift at 10:07 CST Friday morning.-a Looking for a complete WDR.-a At least 1 destack in the future, for the FTS installation.
Also, Ship 29 arrived at Suborbital Pad B in the wee hours.-a Static fire anticipated, since they can't do this at the Massey's test site yet.
Road closure scheduled for Mar 3 overnight.-a I wouldn't expect WDR or static fire then, since overpressure notices and evacuations would be happening in sleep hours, but we'll find out.
/dps
On 2024-03-01 3:22 p.m., Snidely wrote:
Snidely suggested that ...
Watch this space, where Alain Fournier advised that...
SpaceX will probably launch Starship for the third time next month. The >>>> FAA has accepted SpaceX's analysis of the November launch. They have 17 >>>> corrective actions (compare that to 63 they had after the first launch) >>>> to perform before getting the go ahead from the FAA. Those 17 actions >>>> were identified by SpaceX itself, the FAA just approved the list from >>>> SpaceX. SpaceX seems to have already found corrections for many of those >>>> 17 actions.
See:
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/spacex-clears-faa-inquiry
Alain Fournier
Yes, I saw that on NSF, too.
I remember that some of the 63 from IFT-1 were for vehicles after IFT-2; >>> we already know that some are complete already (electric thrust vectoring >>> on ship, frex), but I wonder how many are left and whether the 17 new ones >>> have any conflict with what the planned corrections were for those
holdovers.
/dps
We're back to a full stack, for at least a while, with lift at 10:07 CST
Friday morning.a Looking for a complete WDR.a At least 1 destack in the
future, for the FTS installation.
Also, Ship 29 arrived at Suborbital Pad B in the wee hours.a Static fire
anticipated, since they can't do this at the Massey's test site yet.
Road closure scheduled for Mar 3 overnight.a I wouldn't expect WDR or
static fire then, since overpressure notices and evacuations would be
happening in sleep hours, but we'll find out.
/dps
Elon Musk is hoping for a Starship IFT-3 launch on March 14 https://phys.org/news/2024-03-spacex-eyes-starship.html
Of course, we all know that Elon is optimistic for his time schedules. Still,
he usually is not an order of magnitude off, so 8 days ought to turn out to be less than 80 days. Some time in March is reasonable, before May is quite likely.
Alain Fournier
Lo, on the 3/6/2024, Alain Fournier did proclaim ...
Elon Musk is hoping for a Starship IFT-3 launch on March 14
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-spacex-eyes-starship.html
Of course, we all know that Elon is optimistic for his time schedules.
Still, he usually is not an order of magnitude off, so 8 days ought to
turn out to be less than 80 days. Some time in March is reasonable,
before May is quite likely.
Alain Fournier
Spring break may be a factor, given limitations on closures, but maybe college students are more easily restricted to South Padre.
Note that I was wrong about the WDR; #3 happened during the dinner hurs, with the village and production site evacuated.-a Seems to have been successful.
On 2024-03-07 12:15 a.m., Snidely wrote:
Lo, on the 3/6/2024, Alain Fournier did proclaim ...
[snip]
Elon Musk is hoping for a Starship IFT-3 launch on March 14
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-spacex-eyes-starship.html
Of course, we all know that Elon is optimistic for his time schedules.
Still, he usually is not an order of magnitude off, so 8 days ought to
turn out to be less than 80 days. Some time in March is reasonable, before >>> May is quite likely.
Alain Fournier
Spring break may be a factor, given limitations on closures, but maybe
college students are more easily restricted to South Padre.
Note that I was wrong about the WDR; #3 happened during the dinner hurs,
with the village and production site evacuated.a Seems to have been
successful.
According to nasaspaceflight.com, FAA approval could come tomorrow and launch
be Thursday. Of course this is somewhat speculative. The FAA hasn't approved yet, and that will not change until the FAA has approved ;-)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/03/launch-roundup-0312/
Alain Fournier
After serious thinking Alain Fournier wrote :
On 2024-03-07 12:15 a.m., Snidely wrote:
Lo, on the 3/6/2024, Alain Fournier did proclaim ...
[snip]
Elon Musk is hoping for a Starship IFT-3 launch on March 14
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-spacex-eyes-starship.html
Of course, we all know that Elon is optimistic for his time schedules. >>>> Still, he usually is not an order of magnitude off, so 8 days ought to >>>> turn out to be less than 80 days. Some time in March is reasonable,
before May is quite likely.
Alain Fournier
Spring break may be a factor, given limitations on closures, but maybe
college students are more easily restricted to South Padre.
Note that I was wrong about the WDR; #3 happened during the dinner hurs, >>> with the village and production site evacuated.a Seems to have been
successful.
According to nasaspaceflight.com, FAA approval could come tomorrow and
launch be Thursday. Of course this is somewhat speculative. The FAA hasn't >> approved yet, and that will not change until the FAA has approved ;-)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/03/launch-roundup-0312/
Alain Fournier
Yep!
License dropped before 3:30PM CST today, and launch window opens at 7 AM
CST tomorrow, subject to weather, and runs about 110 minutes.-a After fueling starts, there is a little hold capability ... about 15 minutes,
per SpaceX in previous launch streams.-a Fueling will be much faster this time, almost half the time of fueling IFT 2.
On 2024-03-13 5:04 p.m., Snidely wrote:
License dropped before 3:30PM CST today, and launch window opens at 7 AM
CST tomorrow, subject to weather, and runs about 110 minutes.? After
fueling starts, there is a little hold capability ... about 15 minutes,
per SpaceX in previous launch streams.? Fueling will be much faster this
time, almost half the time of fueling IFT 2.
Boats in the Keep Out zone are delaying lift off. It should still be in
this launch window.
Alain Fournier
NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar
landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs
to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it
wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry,
but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.
On 2024-03-14 18:52, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar
landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs
to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it
wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry,
but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.
If the tanker ships, for refuelling the Lunar Starship in Earth orbit,
can't reenter and be reused, it will be /quite/ expensive, right?
There have been various statements about the number of tanker launches
needed for one lunar mission, but there seems to be agreement that the
number is about 10 or more.
On 2024-03-14 1:59 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 2024-03-14 18:52, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar
landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs
to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it
wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry,
but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.
If the tanker ships, for refuelling the Lunar Starship in Earth orbit,
can't reenter and be reused, it will be /quite/ expensive, right?
There have been various statements about the number of tanker launches
needed for one lunar mission, but there seems to be agreement that the
number is about 10 or more.
Yes it would be quite expensive. But I think they will view that as development cost until the do achieve intact return.
On 2024-03-14 20:49, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 2024-03-14 1:59 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 2024-03-14 18:52, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar
landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs
to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it
wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry,
but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.
If the tanker ships, for refuelling the Lunar Starship in Earth orbit,
can't reenter and be reused, it will be /quite/ expensive, right?
There have been various statements about the number of tanker launches
needed for one lunar mission, but there seems to be agreement that the
number is about 10 or more.
Yes it would be quite expensive. But I think they will view that as
development cost until the do achieve intact return.
You may well be right. If they can get the boosters to return and be
reused, the cost of single-use tankers may be bearable for a while.
However, while SpaceX said that this flight tested the opening and
closing of the payload door, and the in-orbit propellant transfer, they
have not yet said whether those tests were successful.
For the payload door, after the SpaceX commentators said the door was closing, some of the video from inside the payload bay seemed to show
the door swinging loose and bending back and forth at the same time as a disting "clunk" sound was heard; that did not seem successful to me.
SpaceX admitted that the ship roll rate prevented the re-ignition test
of a Raptor engine; apparently the roll rate was uncontrolled and too
high. This may have messed up the propellant transfer test, and
certainly the ship's uncontrolled attitude seemed to be one factor that doomed the re-entry. At some points in the re-entry the ship had the lee side towards Earth, certainly not planned.
If the payload door was not well closed for re-entry, that may have contributed to the ship's re-entry failure.
On 2024-03-14 4:31 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 2024-03-14 20:49, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 2024-03-14 1:59 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
On 2024-03-14 18:52, Alain Fournier wrote:
On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar >>>>>> landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the >>>>> moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs >>>>> to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it >>>>> wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry, >>>>> but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.
If the tanker ships, for refuelling the Lunar Starship in Earth orbit, >>>> can't reenter and be reused, it will be /quite/ expensive, right?
There have been various statements about the number of tanker launches >>>> needed for one lunar mission, but there seems to be agreement that the >>>> number is about 10 or more.
Yes it would be quite expensive. But I think they will view that as
development cost until the do achieve intact return.
You may well be right. If they can get the boosters to return and be
reused, the cost of single-use tankers may be bearable for a while.
However, while SpaceX said that this flight tested the opening and closing >> of the payload door, and the in-orbit propellant transfer, they have not
yet said whether those tests were successful.
For the payload door, after the SpaceX commentators said the door was
closing, some of the video from inside the payload bay seemed to show the >> door swinging loose and bending back and forth at the same time as a
disting "clunk" sound was heard; that did not seem successful to me.
SpaceX admitted that the ship roll rate prevented the re-ignition test of a >> Raptor engine; apparently the roll rate was uncontrolled and too high. This >> may have messed up the propellant transfer test, and certainly the ship's >> uncontrolled attitude seemed to be one factor that doomed the re-entry. At >> some points in the re-entry the ship had the lee side towards Earth,
certainly not planned.
If the payload door was not well closed for re-entry, that may have
contributed to the ship's re-entry failure.
Actually, I think I prefer attitude control problems. If the destruction of the ship was due to insufficient thermal protection or something like that, it could signal a hard to solve problem. But I think that we will all agree that SpaceX will be able to solve attitude control. Not that it is necessarily very easy to solve, just that they did it for their Falcon rocket, so there is no reason to believe they can't do it for Starship.
Same goes for the booster. It hit the water hard. But we know that SpaceX can
get a booster to land smoothly.
Of course, it is possible that once they will have solved the ships attitude control problem, we will learn that it can't actually survive reentry heat.
Alain Fournier
Has anyone heard anything about the success or failure of the propellant transfer experiment?
It seems somewhat straightforward to do. But an in-orbit
refuelling of a rocket has never been done before. Things that seem easy to do before they have been done can turn out much more complicated once you actually try it. And this is a very important technology for the exciting things that we hope will be done by Starship. I don't care all that much about Starship being able to launch satellites in Earth orbit. I'm much more excited about what can be done with a refuelled Starship.
Alain Fournier
Actually, I think I prefer attitude control problems. If the destruction
of the ship was due to insufficient thermal protection or something like that, it could signal a hard to solve problem. But I think that we will
all agree that SpaceX will be able to solve attitude control. Not that
it is necessarily very easy to solve, just that they did it for their
Falcon rocket, so there is no reason to believe they can't do it for Starship.
On 2024-03-15 1:36, Alain Fournier wrote:
Actually, I think I prefer attitude control problems. If the
destruction of the ship was due to insufficient thermal protection or
something like that, it could signal a hard to solve problem. But I
think that we will all agree that SpaceX will be able to solve
attitude control. Not that it is necessarily very easy to solve, just
that they did it for their Falcon rocket, so there is no reason to
believe they can't do it for Starship.
There is an eX-Twitter video with a 3D reconstruction of the ship's
attitude (rather, attitudes) during the re-entry. This link was
originally posted on the Amateur Rocketry mailing list:
https://twitter.com/pockn_cg/status/1769057806022492396
On 2024-03-15 1:36, Alain Fournier wrote:
Actually, I think I prefer attitude control problems. If the destruction
of the ship was due to insufficient thermal protection or something like
that, it could signal a hard to solve problem. But I think that we will
all agree that SpaceX will be able to solve attitude control. Not that
it is necessarily very easy to solve, just that they did it for their
Falcon rocket, so there is no reason to believe they can't do it for
Starship.
There is an eX-Twitter video with a 3D reconstruction of the ship's
attitude (rather, attitudes) during the re-entry. This link was
originally posted on the Amateur Rocketry mailing list:
https://twitter.com/pockn_cg/status/1769057806022492396
On 17/03/2024 09:46 Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote:
There is an eX-Twitter video with a 3D reconstruction of the ship's
attitude (rather, attitudes) during the re-entry. This link was
originally posted on the Amateur Rocketry mailing list:
https://twitter.com/pockn_cg/status/1769057806022492396
Pretty cool. It's obvious that Starship has lost all attitude
control during reentry.
Does it have any substantial RCS thrusters or is it relying entirely
on those flaps and wings?