totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[Beccab]

NSF has a new 24/7 stream - this time at McGregor! And even better, if you go back an MVac static fire just happened!

Edit: another static fire, this one from the vertical test stand!

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Beccab

[mikegarrison]

I kind of don't get why they were allowed to call themselves NASA Spaceflight in the first place, since they aren't associated with NASA.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

I kind of don't get why they were allowed to call themselves NASA Spaceflight in the first place, since they aren't associated with NASA.

Also as I understand NASA has an special protection as an brand. 
NASA probably don't care they bring more interest but for many people they might think this is official NASA stuff. 
On the other hand it does not make sense for NASA to try to make up skirt images of boosters, they simply ask for progress reports as in they have invested in starship. 

[mikegarrison]

7 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Also as I understand NASA has an special protection as an brand. 
NASA probably don't care they bring more interest but for many people they might think this is official NASA stuff. 
On the other hand it does not make sense for NASA to try to make up skirt images of boosters, they simply ask for progress reports as in they have invested in starship. 

Well, laws are complicated. I know there is a sports car racing club called NASA that stands for National Auto Sports Association. There "were discussions" about whether they would be allowed to use that name, according to this article: https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/history-nasa-national-auto-sport-association/

I believe in general that trademarks are only protected to the extent that there is no reasonable possibility of confusion, but certainly "NASA Spaceflight" would not be able to claim that defense. Maybe NASA the space agency never actually trademarked "NASA"? That seems unlikely.

Anyway, it sure seems like NASA Spaceflight spends most of their time covering news about SpaceX rather than NASA.

* and this ignores that they use the abbreviation "NSF", which of course is the same as a different governmental org, the National Science Foundation. One might even start to suspect that they chose these names and initials to be intentionally confusing.

Edited April 28, 2022 by mikegarrison

[tater]

Tomorrow about this time.

[Beccab]

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Anyway, it sure seems like NASA Spaceflight spends most of their time covering news about SpaceX rather than NASA.

They cover what launches or does things that can be covered. For most of their history they only covered the Space Shuttle, and in fact disliked spacex quite a bit for a good while. As far as articles go SpaceX doesn't even get any more reporting than the others, it's only because taking pictures of stuff NASA is developing is very nearly impossible for bureaucratic reasons. Trying hard to keep everyone away from your stuff, which NASA has been doing with SLS production, and then complaining you don't get much coverage is a bit like Nelson complaining about China's lack of cooperation with the Wolf Amendment active.

They also have by far the most detailed articles on SLS on internet, like this one from four days ago

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/04/artemis-1-vab-nasa-discusses-what-next/

7 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

One might even start to suspect that they chose these names and initials to be intentionally confusing.

...

Edited April 29, 2022 by Beccab

[Beccab]

As expected

[RealKerbal3x]

1 minute ago, Beccab said:

As expected

The wording is interesting, though:

Quote

The FAA is finalizing the review of the final PEA, including responding to comments and ensuring consistency with SpaceX's licensing application. The FAA is also completing consultation and confirming mitigations for the proposed SpaceX operations.

Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but this seems to suggest that the PEA is largely complete, and a mitigated FONSI is the expected outcome. I don't think "mitigations" would be explicitly mentioned in this manner if the outcome was still unsure, or the FAA expected to grant SpaceX a regular (non-mitigated) FONSI or an EIS.

[Beccab]

 

[darthgently]

Just a quick detour in the thread:  Remember when Musk purged the Raptor crew and his critics were predicting doom because the Raptor 2 was clearly in grave danger and probably too complex to really sort out and the goals were to lofty?  Yeah, when SpaceX blows past that kind of negativity and trucks full of Raptor 2s show up very close to on schedule no one really notices because that is what even the critics have unconsciously come to expect from SpaceX. 

For comparison with BE4 check this other topic please.  I'd like to see some SpaceX followers thoughts on the BE-4 issues

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by darthgently

[Deddly]

Sorry @darthgently, this thread is well-known for going off on off-topic tangents, and we're trying to avoid that. So please feel free to post your question over in the relevant thread rather than here.

[darthgently]

19 minutes ago, Deddly said:

this thread is well-known for going off on off-topic tangents

Wait, so discussion of Raptor 2 doesn't belong here and general discussion of full flow design issues can't be here? 

Here is topic for SpaceX fan opinions on BE-4 issues

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by darthgently

[Deddly]

11 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Wait, so discussion of Raptor 2 doesn't belong here and general discussion of full flow design issues can't be here?  Something tells me I shouldn't have used the words "off topic" and things would have been simpler

And I already know what thoughts I'd get on the BE-4 vid over on BO topic because I posted it there and got crickets a few weeks back

Raptor 2 is SpaceX, sure!

General discussion of full-flow staged combustion is... debatable. SpaceX seem to be at the forefront of that right now, but others have worked on it too. I'd hate to make a hard and fast rule on exactly what is relevant to SpaceX.

BE-4 is definitely Blue origin unless I'm getting my rockets in a twist.

 

Please feel free to drop me a PM if you have any other questions

[darthgently]

2 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Raptor 2 is SpaceX, sure!

General discussion of full-flow staged combustion is... debatable. SpaceX seem to be at the forefront of that right now, but others have worked on it too. I'd hate to make a hard and fast rule on exactly what is relevant to SpaceX.

BE-4 is definitely Blue origin unless I'm getting my rockets in a twist.

 

Please feel free to drop me a PM if you have any other questions

I'm good.  I edited other posts to include link to new Non-BO/Non-SpaceX topic on BE-4

[Beccab]

4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

The wording is interesting, though:

Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but this seems to suggest that the PEA is largely complete, and a mitigated FONSI is the expected outcome. I don't think "mitigations" would be explicitly mentioned in this manner if the outcome was still unsure, or the FAA expected to grant SpaceX a regular (non-mitigated) FONSI or an EIS.

That does seem to be the case: the Endangered Species Act consultation with the FWS (which I personally considered the hardest obstacle to overcome) was completed this week, and the section 106 review was only pushed to 7 days from now instead of to the end of the month
Hopefully this is the last delay the EA sees

[StrandedonEarth]

Probably already posted upstream at the last delay, but I dug back around 40 pages (beginning of Feb!) and didn't spot it (doesn't mean it's not there, as I focused around month's end...

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

Live

 

[tater]

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by tater

[mikegarrison]

The fastest space shuttle orbiter turnaround was 54 days. Now the orbiter was far more complex than a booster or even a Dragon, but still, 21 days is a nice rate.

It's still not the under-an-hour turn rate for commercial airplanes, but it's definitely progress toward SpaceX's ultimate goals.

[StrandedonEarth]

26 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

The fastest space shuttle orbiter turnaround was 54 days. Now the orbiter was far more complex than a booster or even a Dragon, but still, 21 days is a nice rate.

It's still not the under-an-hour turn rate for commercial airplanes, but it's definitely progress toward SpaceX's ultimate goals.

And that was a droneship landing IIRC, although the booster was lifted as soon as it docked, also IIRC. So they can probably shave another 2? days with an RTLS?

[Beccab]

Great progress overall yesterday

6 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

And that was a droneship landing IIRC, although the booster was lifted as soon as it docked, also IIRC. So they can probably shave another 2? days with an RTLS?

The refurbishment itself took 9 days as per the SpaceX stream, so the rest was transport and mating to the launch tower and S2. Let's see how much more they can reduce those times, I thought last year's 27 days turnaround was going to be hard to beat already

[Beccab]

 

[tater]

 

 

[Beccab]

From the data, I'd say they are doing:

- ~5 sec firings for Rvac (the engine at Northeast was one of them)

- ~30 sec firings, for SL raptors, possibly to simulate the boostback burn (the engine is the same as the full duration one, so I'd call this likely)

- ~50 sec firings for SL Raptors for some medium duration burns

- one ~90 sec firing, either a failed full duration burn or just long duration

- ~150 sec full duration burns (reduced from the 170 sec of the original SH design thanks to more engines and more thrust)

 

Looks like the Raptor at the North test stand simulated a full flight

Edited May 4, 2022 by Beccab