CBase

Actually the claim is only that booster reliability decreases when you add engines until it rises once you gain redundancy. The magic number of 9 comes from the fact that falcon 9 has proven single engine redundancy (~ 8:00), which actually depends on T/W, spare fuel etc.. Expendable rockets have different math as they don't carry extra fuel for landing. And for higher counts it would be unlikely that all failures happen right after lift off. But by time of flight you gain redundancy as loss of thrust can be compensated by longer burn duration. His reliabilty curves for 15+ clusters will hardly reflect SpaceX risk estimations.

Anyone knows how big payload mass simulator for flight 5 was ? Or did they not fully load it with fuel ?

Why not ? They are using some kind of control loop. If the control force is working at all and there is not too much oscillation, you get very high precision. These either fail miserable or hit the nail. This sounds like a academic discussion. Probably they report the difference of above control loop coordinates, so it is the difference between the desired location and internal determed location. Maybe the buoys for the water landing did not provide mm precise real world coordinates (as they moved), the one near landing tower will. Probably more that the empty SH can handle tension way better than compression. And a rocket standing is meta stable, while hanging is stable.

Or if you misuse de facto monopol to prevent competition to access supplied markets. Like Windows and online access, business suites, server systems, etc. some years ago. Or launch capabilites for space based business. So as long SpaceX is offering fair launch prices even to Starlink competitors, I don't see a misuse.

Elon might already regret it . I assume they did not forsee the current bureaucratic hassle and had it weigh up with any technical problems. However I suprised that they did not learn from all trouble in the past year and recruit more legal experts to plan ahead. I am pretty sure you are allowed to apply for a launch license and then decide not to use it. If the law mandates a public hearing phase of 60 days this should be on the critical path for a fast moving company like SpaceX.

Nominal orbital insertion Unfortunately there is no official mission timeline to reference here. Someone wrote on wikipedia something, but the link to a twitter press conference is not working anymore, so take it with care: ~ in 1 h: raise to 190 x 1400 km orbit on day 2: lower orbit to 190 x 750 km

Congrats. I miss the g-meter indication from my kerbals for human missions. Would be cool addition to the overlay.

According to https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/rocket-report-when-will-starship-launch-again-blue-origin-flies-six-to-space/ the FAA approval is on hold until the environmental problem with water disposal is cleared. Basically all FAA approvals base on the environmental assessment and if doubt of the facts rise it blocks further approvals. Unfortunately for SpaceX this probably affects not only booster catch but any launch license. Thats why they extend catch tests. It is the best they can do while solving the water disposal problem.

Maybe because private entrepreneurs like Elon and Isaac are more ambitious than NASA ? They keep pushing, but the steps are not that big and bold like Artemis. But easy to test previously on the ground, so it is likely something they are already comfortable with. I can not provide a source right now, but I remember to have read that the suits are only intermediate upgrades to IVA suits. They are not rated for extended durations, so might leak a bit more air than full EVA suits. Probably same for cooling, radiation, .... . Less challenging requirements make it faster to iterate from precessor and decrease risks during first mission.

You had a favorite Booster ?

however payload is fine but SpaceX is surprised as well and is investigating

Anyone knows why FAA Approval of Flight 5 is taking so long ? Is landing boosters not covered in general admissions of the launch site ?

Elon gives end of august or early september estimate in an video interview during teslaowner meeting: https://youtu.be/tEkRY8TG2BU?t=62

In the same interview he explained that they integrated a lot of pipes inside the walls of main parts, so complexitiy is there, just tightly integrated. This looks ready for mass production. I was once part of embedded device development and it looked much like this: First version has lots of standard parts even with wires around some connections and each iteration got much cleaner look until the final device had only few ICs (some custom) on a multilayer PCB. Creating these is a lot of effort, but drives manufactoring costs down by magnitudes.

Although starship is the most cost effective rocket ever build, any launch transport will be considerably more expensive than a sea transport. Unless they consider the worth of a maiden flight and therefore flight proven booster/ship higher, we will unfortunately not see air deliveries like from plane factories.

Suprising the part survived so long in a "best part is no part" company

SpaceX seems to expect to return this week to Falcon 9 launches: https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/07/16/spacex-requests-public-safety-determination-for-return-to-flight-for-its-falcon-9-rocket/

Scott Manley has a nice recap of the APU failure and why it was successful to show orbital capabilities while failing short on one important selling point

Live broadcast today of Ariane 6 launch : https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/ESA_Web_TV Stream starts at 19:30 CEST (1:30pm EDT), launch window is 20:00-24:00 CEST

Is this reddit or a KSP forum ? Discussing graveyard orbits is okay, but if a safe destruction costs ~$1bn should we really consider recovering anything ? I mean we probably all watched IFT-3 tumbling and explode that was designed to reenter

Nice detail from https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/nasa-will-pay-spacex-nearly-1-billion-to-deorbit-the-international-space-station/: SpaceX did not bid while part of the contract was "cost plus", but severly undercut the NASA estimation once it was allowed fixed price offer Sounds like someone is not keen to discuss internal costs and work allocation.

Sounds like that. But actually clogging the autogenous pressure inlet (which is usually smaller) will happen faster than filtering (and potentially clogging) the outlet or tank bottom. Hint to anyone not familiar with filters: Filters operate by collecting the unwanted stuff and eventually get clogged until flow of filtrate is harmed. You can increase lifetime by increasing the surface area (which increases mass and costs), but ultimately you either need to have a recycling mode or service intervals to renew them. Unfortunately so far there is no indictation how starship deals with the ice inside tanks as both options do not align well with rapid reuse.

I just got enough time to watch EverydayAstronaut's video: @12min (https://youtu.be/aFqjoCbZ4ik?t=753) Elon gives some great insight what to expect from next IFTs: They had a plan to seal the hinge area other than moving the flaps leeward, however we all know that it barely failed late enough for the flaps to stay functional. So improvements might be possible even with ship 30. He also makes clear that the pez dispenser and delivering payload is less a priority than design issues on reusability for this year. @18min there is a interesting moment when Elon responds why they gave up other cooling solutions, which is a decission about 4 years old. In a very engineering style he rolls up all changes since then and it seems like he is surprised that mass reasoning does not apply anymore. However after discussing return from Mars he is clear that these conditions are too tough for other solutions.