mikegarrison Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/07/30/flight-test-dates-under-review/ "New leadership" seems to have put the crewed ISS missions into schedule limbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 26 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/07/30/flight-test-dates-under-review/ "New leadership" seems to have put the crewed ISS missions into schedule limbo. Well, the dates were already in flux after the SpaceX Super Draco issue (which they seem to have corrected by dumping that valve). SpaceX is NET December for the crew launch, emphasis on the NET ("No Earlier Than for those unaware reading this) part. They still have their MaxQ abort to do... have not seen it scheduled yet. In other news: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 In other news, Chris B on NSF has some info for us: Quote I'm told it's getting out there in public conversation, so from our end where we can cite our own info: L2 noted earlier in the week (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47107.msg1975408#msg1975408) that Hopper is set to be retired after the 200 meter hop. As a result it won't be moved back from the LZ - it'll be cannibalized for parts - as the pad will be prepared for Starship MkI. And that's where it gets really exciting. Hoppy will likely become a Grasshopper style display, but there's no confirmed plan on that part. So, 200 meter hop. That needs to go well. Tick off the Milestone for Dear Moon. Retire Hopper. Prepare for Starship at the launch pad. Three Raptor test flight. (Raptor production has really upped the pace). All will be outlined in the pre-200 meter hop article. Elon's overview comes later in the month. So we'll keep this Hopper thread going through to the 200 meter Hopper and whatever retirement plan they create for Hoppy. I'm sure they will "Grasshopper-style" display the shell as it's been a key element of the test program as Grasshopper was. We'll eventually, down the road, pin this thread Sticky, as I really do feel people will look back on this thread in 10+ years to see where it all started. The 200m hop will be Starhopper's last flight. I think this is most likely due to the Mk1 going faster than expected. Hopper was originally supposed to have 3 engines, but that's not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 I think it makes perfect sense on why they would retire Starhopper after its 200m hop. The orbital prototype is more vital to the development of Starship, because the orbital Starship will do the actually scary and important things like the whole skydiving thing. Starhopper just seems like a way to test the engine and maybe a few other bits as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, NSEP said: I think it makes perfect sense on why they would retire Starhopper after its 200m hop. The orbital prototype is more vital to the development of Starship, because the orbital Starship will do the actually scary and important things like the whole skydiving thing. Starhopper just seems like a way to test the engine and maybe a few other bits as well. The hopper is probably harder to work with since it's stubbier, too. There's way more leverage with RCS high up, like on the Starship, than closer to the CoM, like on the Hopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 I feel that it’s made sense for Starhopper to retire after the 200m hop ever since it lost its nosecone, because that limited it to low-velocity (and as such, low-altitude) flight testing. I assume that the Starship Mk1s that are currently being constructed have the necessary heat shielding to fly higher-altitude and suborbital test flights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 Things progressing faster than predicted in spaceflight? Not only is this almost unheard of in spaceflight, this is the most exciting current project for that to be happening on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 Only time will show, but I think Hoppy will deserve a place in the Smithsonian, eventually. Largely because there’s a pretty good chance of losing one or both of the Mk 1’s during testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 Starhopper retires some testing risk for the orbital prototype hops, doesn't help to fly it past that. Their dev path on this I think shows in the recent NASA cooperation (not money) on orbital refilling and large lunar lander surface interactions. Build it (or in this case, start building it), and they start to take you seriously. Musk flat out said it would be easier to just land it on the Moon than it would be to convince them of it ahead of time, and I think that is the path to any government involvement. It'll be real to them when they can't ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 42 minutes ago, tater said: It'll be real to them when they can't ignore it. Cue a gallery of senators with fingers in their ears chanting “lalalalalalalalalalalalalala...” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 53 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Cue a gallery of senators with fingers in their ears chanting “lalalalalalalalalalalalalala...” Raptor engines are loud. If 3 of them at once don't stop this, 7 might, and 31 definitely will. In all seriousness, though, while I have optimism in SpaceX, a backup plan never hurt anyone. SLS is fine IMO. But SLS and full, proper, crewed Starship really shouldn't overlap much... Edited August 7, 2019 by ThatGuyWithALongUsername Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 55 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Cue a gallery of senators with fingers in their ears chanting “lalalalalalalalalalalalalala...” Fingers in their pockets grasping wads of cash... >_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, tater said: Musk flat out said it would be easier to just land it on the Moon than it would be to convince them of it ahead of time, and I think that is the path to any government involvement. It'll be real to them when they can't ignore it. It is a very interesting question whether any governmental approval is necessary for a private entity to land on the moon. The existing Outer Space Treaties were not really written with the idea that private space flight might be a real thing. There is a US law that says any launches from the US or by any US citizen outside the US or re-entries over the US must have a license from the Department Of Transportation (ie. the FAA). There is a penalty of up to $100,000/day for violation of this law. Edited August 8, 2019 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 minute ago, mikegarrison said: It is a very interesting question whether any governmental approval is necessary for a private entity to land on the moon. The existing Outer Space Treaties were not really written with the idea that private space flight might be a real thing. Well, generally launches to orbit require permits, but once there spacecraft seem to be mostly free to go wherever they can. Landing on the Moon, especially with humans, would probably get NASA's Planetary Protection involved, but I think your point is the very reason why getting the government's permission would take so much longer than actually doing it: The laws haven't been written yet, and simply can't be well defined until people start doing things like that in space. There may not even be a lot of regulation until the population of the Moon begins to necessitate a governing body of its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title51/subtitle5/chapter509&edition=prelim The law does seem to be focused on launches and re-entries. I don't see anywhere that it talks about whether you can land on any celestial bodies. Edited August 8, 2019 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 33 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: It is a very interesting question whether any governmental approval is necessary for a private entity to land on the moon. As per international maritime law, approval of the lunar government would be necessary. And since there is no such government, no such approval is needed. 2 hours ago, tater said: It'll be real to them when they can't ignore it. And when they have to sign a treaty with the guy who grows the first potato, it'll be even funnier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 17 minutes ago, Nothalogh said: As per international maritime law, approval of the lunar government would be necessary. And since there is no such government, no such approval is needed. So, if the flight is under maritime law, and they steal the Apollo 15 LRV, would they legally, then, be space pirates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 55 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: It is a very interesting question whether any governmental approval is necessary for a private entity to land on the moon. The existing Outer Space Treaties were not really written with the idea that private space flight might be a real thing. There is a US law that says any launches from the US or by any US citizen outside the US or re-entries over the US must have a license from the Department Of Transportation (ie. the FAA). There is a penalty of up to $100,000/day for violation of this law. Certainly interesting... a topic for discussion with a buddy who is a space fan who is also an attorney. I was really thinking more in terms of government funding. Ie: build the capability, then sell said capability to the only likely current lunar customer---NASA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: would they legally, then, be space pirates? No, as the LRV constitutes an abandoned vessel. That would be salvage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Nothalogh said: No, as the LRV constitutes an abandoned vessel. That would be salvage. Aww. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: So, if the flight is under maritime law, and they steal the Apollo 15 LRV, would they legally, then, be space pirates? The Martian explained this very well, and I expect said answer to be "Yes". 4 minutes ago, Nothalogh said: No, as the LRV constitutes an abandoned vessel. That would be salvage. Oh yeah, I never thought about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, Xd the great said: Martian explained this very well The space piracy described by Weir was specifically the commandeering of a non-abandoned vehicle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 These are good problems to be having Multiplanetary problems @_@ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 14 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said: These are good problems to be having Multiplanetary problems @_@ n-body problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nothalogh Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 11 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: n-body problems. The first interplanetary lawsuit is gonna be lit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.