Royalswissarmyknife Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 Hold Scrub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 (edited) "Hold due to probability of landing failure." #JustSpaceXProblems Edit: Scrub. I get it; it probably wouldn't look too good right now if their workhorse rocket crashed on re-entry. Edited April 26, 2023 by AckSed Update Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 Try again tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 Course we only have to wait 9 hours for another launch: Falcon Heavy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 This doesn't look great, though: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 Severe weather looks to be 4-5 pm local. Launch is after 7, so maybe it clears. Though 2" hail would not be awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 According to an ESA post - they kick off their water deluge system 6 seconds before launch. In this video - the SS Flight test - the system seems to kick on only about a second or two before launch In the Booster Test, the deluge system seems to have been active for quite a while before they kicked off ignition: But looking at the system itself - it just seems almost notional rather than measured against the expected energy of the rocket: Compare that to what NASA had planned and implemented for SLS: Water Deluge Test is a Success at Launch Pad 39B | NASA Not saying that a proper deluge system would have made a whole lot of difference - but it seems like the implementation SX chose was to just mitigate against unplanned fire, rather than actually absorb and dissipate energy - which NASA seems to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 Weather looks like it probably clears by launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve9728 Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: Compare that to what NASA had planned and implemented for SLS: Enthusiasts vs PRO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 25 minutes ago, steve9728 said: Enthusiasts vs PRO I don't think I would really put it that way. Part of the issue is SpaceX's "plan for success" mentality. Works great when it works. When it doesn't work, it can cause issues. Yes, you can learn a lot from failures, but most of what you learn is "don't do that again," which you might argue it would be better to have learned without the expensive failure. Meanwhile NASA and their contractors can't afford the public embarrassment factor of an expensive failure. But that's part of why SLS is so expensive and took so long to fly. But another difference is that NASA undoubtedly has all sorts of design standards (that they have learned from their own failures) that restrict their options on such things. These can get in the way of innovation, but can also help to make sure that previous lessons learned remain learned. Anyway, it's particularly an issue for SpaceX that not only are they heavily invested in their current launch architecture at Boca Chica, but they have already started building a duplicate in Florida. If they need a massive redesign, now they will need to redo two launch pads and not one. This is a definite hazard of moving so fast that you don't even wait to see if you break things before starting to duplicate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve9728 Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: I don't think I would really put it that way. Part of the issue is SpaceX's "plan for success" mentality. Works great when it works. When it doesn't work, it can cause issues. Yes, you can learn a lot from failures, but most of what you learn is "don't do that again," which you might argue it would be better to have learned without the expensive failure. Meanwhile NASA and their contractors can't afford the public embarrassment factor of an expensive failure. But that's part of why SLS is so expensive and took so long to fly. But another difference is that NASA undoubtedly has all sorts of design standards (that they have learned from their own failures) that restrict their options on such things. These can get in the way of innovation, but can also help to make sure that previous lessons learned remain learned. Anyway, it's particularly an issue for SpaceX that not only are they heavily invested in their current launch architecture at Boca Chica, but they have already started building a duplicate in Florida. If they need a massive redesign, now they will need to redo two launch pads and not one. This is a definite hazard of moving so fast that you don't even wait to see if you break things before starting to duplicate them. I know and agree with that, what I said just kidding hahaha But just in terms of visuals, that's the first comparison that popped into my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 26, 2023 Share Posted April 26, 2023 24 hour delay on FH So doubleheader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 Music Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 Norminal so far, booster heading home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 Nice fireball on depress there.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 Landed, nominal orbit insertion. Another routine trip to space (and back). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 1 hour ago, Geonovast said: Nice fireball on depress there.. It's done with work and so it's cosplaying Delta IV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 1 hour ago, Geonovast said: Nice fireball on depress there.. Wasn’t sooty enough… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 1 minute ago, StrandedonEarth said: Wasn’t sooty enough… A little rollin' coal victory dance there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 Press X to doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, RCgothic said: Press X to doubt. Actually, this make me more likely to believe them, not less likely. By all accounts SpaceX is very good about their NASA relationship WRT crew/cargo, and this relates to Artemis. "Nelson says SpaceX has told NASA that it can repair the pad and prepare the next Starship in about 2 months. Last week’s failure is “not a big downer”. My bold. Note that preparing the next vehicle does not mean launching in 2 months, it means they can put a booster on the OLM and start testing any repairs that were required to the GSE, etc. Work can continue under/around the pad as that happens. The actual quote from Nelson is better: Quote ...as of today SpaceX is still saying that they think it will take about at least two months to rebuild the launch pad and concurrently about two months to have their second vehicle ready to launch... More conditional. Which is reasonable. Edited April 27, 2023 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 22 hours ago, mikegarrison said: I don't think I would really put it that way. Part of the issue is SpaceX's "plan for success" mentality. Works great when it works. When it doesn't work, it can cause issues. Yes, you can learn a lot from failures, but most of what you learn is "don't do that again," which you might argue it would be better to have learned without the expensive failure. Meanwhile NASA and their contractors can't afford the public embarrassment factor of an expensive failure. But that's part of why SLS is so expensive and took so long to fly. But another difference is that NASA undoubtedly has all sorts of design standards (that they have learned from their own failures) that restrict their options on such things. These can get in the way of innovation, but can also help to make sure that previous lessons learned remain learned. Anyway, it's particularly an issue for SpaceX that not only are they heavily invested in their current launch architecture at Boca Chica, but they have already started building a duplicate in Florida. If they need a massive redesign, now they will need to redo two launch pads and not one. This is a definite hazard of moving so fast that you don't even wait to see if you break things before starting to duplicate them. Agree, but it depend on that you are doing. Starship landings, its a lot like falcon 9 first stage landing tests, try 20 times before it works. Launch of superheavy, and they bombed the pad, had things got worse as in N1, they had nuked it. Here fails are expensive, Dragon on the other hand was handled very well. I and I think most other thought that Boeing Starliner would be the first to bring crew to IIS. But scale of project is also an matter, build an aircraft carrier who can not operate aircraft and its an problem. This get way worse if you set up an much more expensive production line for cars with serious fails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 4 minutes ago, magnemoe said: But scale of project is also an matter, build an aircraft carrier who can not operate aircraft and its an problem. This get way worse if you set up an much more expensive production line for cars with serious fails. This vehicle doesn't cost that much. They've probably spent on Starship so far maybe what Boeing will get paid when they actually fulfill their crew contract. Starbase apparently employs ~1800 people (mentioned on stream I think). If the average is $100k/head, that's ~$200M/yr on payroll. Steel is cheap, engines are who knows right now... but well under $2M/ea by now I would expect, $1M? Less? So maybe they spend $1B/yr on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 27, 2023 Share Posted April 27, 2023 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.