totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[cubinator]

Can't wait for the aerial shots of this.

[cubinator]

Do you think we'll see any iridescent color on the steel after the spaceship reenters the atmosphere as the plasma sort of 'anodizes' the metal or as dust interacts with it? What will reused Starships look like?

[RealKerbal3x]

 

[Silavite]

41 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

 

Spoiler

I'm sorry, I simply couldn't resist.

 

[RCgothic]

1 hour ago, cubinator said:

Do you think we'll see any iridescent color on the steel after the spaceship reenters the atmosphere as the plasma sort of 'anodizes' the metal or as dust interacts with it? What will reused Starships look like?

Yes, I expect it will look even worse than F9.

[tater]

[tater]

 

[.50calBMG]

Well, that's a new background... It will last until Mary posts the sunrise version.

Edited January 30, 2021 by .50calBMG

[tater]

Now THAT is a spaceport starting to form.

[RyanRising]

9 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

 

Looks like they've got a lot of bird poop under that heatshield, I wonder how that'll affect the steel underneath if at all.

Joking aside, what is that stuff? Adhesive running down the sides? I though they were mechanically attaching the tiles,  not gluing them.

[RCgothic]

There's a pretty hostile article in TheVerge which suggests part of the holdup for SN9 is SN8 violating the launch licence, requiring a subsequent review.

Not sure how much of this to take seriously, as they're also pretty negative about the landing explosion when it wasn't even expected that the rocket would get that far.

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-violation-explosive-starship-faa-investigation-elon-musk

 

[RealKerbal3x]

 

26 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

There's a pretty hostile article in TheVerge which suggests part of the holdup for SN9 is SN8 violating the launch licence, requiring a subsequent review.

Not sure how much of this to take seriously, as they're also pretty negative about the landing explosion when it wasn't even expected that the rocket would get that far.

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-violation-explosive-starship-faa-investigation-elon-musk

 

It seems like the FAA has released some official statements on this, but I'm not sure just how seriously to take these either.

 

[YNM]

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

Not sure how much of this to take seriously, as they're also pretty negative about the landing explosion when it wasn't even expected that the rocket would get that far.

I do have to ask, previously most destructive (or potentially destructive) mid-air testing has to be carried out in certain restricted areas. Perhaps this wasn't in the list that the FAA can actually license ? Or maybe their requested bound limits were actually not large enough for that ? Like apart from the military-industrial complex mid-air destructive testing hasn't really been a thing, and Boca Chica is only mere tens of miles away from neighboring countries. FAA might've had a call to their offices from the authorities next door ?

Edited January 30, 2021 by YNM

[RCgothic]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

I do have to ask, previously most destructive (or potentially destructive) mid-air testing has to be carried out in certain restricted areas. Perhaps this wasn't in the list that the FAA can actually license ? Or maybe their requested bound limits were actually not large enough for that ? Like apart from the military-industrial complex mid-air destructive testing hasn't really been a thing, and Boca Chica is only mere tens of miles away from neighboring countries. FAA might've had a call to their offices from the authorities next door ?

I genuinely don't know. We could certainly do with a lot more transparency over launch licenses.

[YNM]

32 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

We could certainly do with a lot more transparency over launch licenses.

I mean I didn't even knew that FAA was the one with this jurisdiction, thought it was the DoD or Armed Forces or something.

Edited January 30, 2021 by YNM

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Well - one certain way to kill innovation is to regulate it to death. 

[Brotoro]

Well, I certainly feel protected.

[tater]

That verge article is garbage (probably because the verge is garbage). Literally the only reason to read it would be to read how SpaceX violated their launch license. Which of course is not in the clickbait article.

 

 

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

The problem, perhaps is that the space program built out from the military - and probably still has 'range safety' requirements designed such that the likely impact and buffer zones for flying bombs is greater than the footprint allowed by Boca Chica complex. 

 

Pure guess work - but absent some exclusion letter... All someone has to do is quote an obscure regulation to throw a wrench in the whole thing.  Army and Airforce SNCOs were masters of this back in the day 

[tater]

I suppose I should note that Musk didn't complain about regulation in his tweet, he complained that the FAA regulations  WRT rockets was designed around a small number of launches by government contractors on government facilities.

The important thing in that verge article is that it was from SN8.

Previous posts (NSF? twitter?) have suggested that it was related to an engine swap perhaps resulting in the vehicle technically being a "new vehicle."

[RealKerbal3x]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

Previous posts (NSF? twitter?) have suggested that it was related to an engine swap perhaps resulting in the vehicle technically being a "new vehicle."

This is the part that confused me. SN8 had engine swaps and the FAA didn't start denying launch permissions. I wonder why they're raising a fuss about it now.

[tater]

1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

This is the part that confused me. SN8 had engine swaps and the FAA didn't start denying launch permissions. I wonder why they're raising a fuss about it now.

The claim is that they violated the SN8 launch license. So it was necessarily something with SN8.

[RealKerbal3x]

1 minute ago, tater said:

The claim is that they violated the SN8 launch license. So it was necessarily something with SN8.

Yeah. I've seen tons of speculation everywhere. Some say that it was something about the flight profile, others think that SN8 used more propellant than was permitted to be loaded during ascent, and some people speculate that the crash landing somehow violated part of the license. 

I don't really know, but it's interesting how this stuff is suddenly coming to the forefront just as SpaceX prepares to launch their next prototype.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Yeah. I've seen tons of speculation everywhere. Some say that it was something about the flight profile, others think that SN8 used more propellant than was permitted to be loaded during ascent, and some people speculate that the crash landing somehow violated part of the license. 

I don't really know, but it's interesting how this stuff is suddenly coming to the forefront just as SpaceX prepares to launch their next prototype.

Well, it's the tool the FAA has, they can mess with upcoming flights.

 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Yeah. I've seen tons of speculation everywhere. Some say that it was something about the flight profile, others think that SN8 used more propellant than was permitted to be loaded during ascent, and some people speculate that the crash landing somehow violated part of the license. 

I don't really know, but it's interesting how this stuff is suddenly coming to the forefront just as SpaceX prepares to launch their next prototype.

If you watched the NSF stream the other day, while Starship was testing, a car was driving on the highway that came from the shore while they where testing for static fire. Maybe thats why.