Spaceception Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 36 minutes ago, tater said: They didn't swap any engines though, right? I don't believe so, which could mean that they concluded it was minor enough to go forward with flight. Do we know what they consider minor though? Superheavy can get by with 3 engines out, and they likely accept higher odds of something like that happening in early test flights, considering IFT-1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 6 minutes ago, magnemoe said: I think its weird they don't do more static fires while waiting. The risks are similar enough to liftoff that there is not much to gain. The fact that they don't suggests that whatever the early shutdowns were, they worked the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terwin Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 6 minutes ago, magnemoe said: I think its weird they don't do more static fires while waiting. Static fires also need warnings/permissions, so why bother if you do not expect any useful data? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 (edited) 18 minutes ago, magnemoe said: I think its weird they don't do more static fires while waiting. The logistics of moving water and fuel are fairly onerous. Lots of trucks and time and money. I can understand not doing them too whimsically ... And compliance paperwork. Can't forget that Edited September 6, 2023 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerwood Floyd Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Spaceception said: I don't believe so, which could mean that they concluded it was minor enough to go forward with flight. It could also (imo, probably does) mean that they concluded it was GSE related, not engine related. If they did work that they think will fix the GSE problems, we wouldn't necessarily know about it. Which is the point @tater was making when asking the question (again, imo). Edited September 6, 2023 by Kerwood Floyd a little more clarity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 2 hours ago, tater said: They didn't swap any engines though, right? A good sign, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 4 hours ago, tater said: And now I notice that was actually tweeted yesterday: SpaceX to FAA: I suppose they could still launch on (my birthday) Friday if the license came through today, but even that probably wouldn’t be enough time for warnings to go out… *sigh* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 4 hours ago, darthgently said: The logistics of moving water and fuel are fairly onerous. Lots of trucks and time and money. I can understand not doing them too whimsically ... And compliance paperwork. Can't forget that Yes, the logistic and stuff to get to do another makes sense if launch is near, as in a week, if it was two months because of FAA I would expect more static fires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 3 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Yes, the logistic and stuff to get to do another makes sense if launch is near, as in a week, if it was two months because of FAA I would expect more static fires. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 5 minutes ago, tater said: Why? Because if it was an long wait, simply do more static fires to be sure you solved the issues before launch, I also doubt they would stack SS on top to stand there for an month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 38 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Because if it was an long wait, simply do more static fires to be sure you solved the issues before launch, I also doubt they would stack SS on top to stand there for an month. They either got the data they needed, or they didn't. More static fires just to kill time is needless. Each one presents a nonzero RUD risk—as any WDR/static fire/launch does. The failure modes just short of actual launch are all there. So it's a balancing act of what useful data can they gather vs risk—even if the risk is low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted September 6, 2023 Share Posted September 6, 2023 3 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: SpaceX to FAA: FAA to SpaceX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 Oops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 "All the regulatory requirements": Possibly a reference to the environmental impact? Maybe something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 15 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: FAA to SpaceX: Disappointing but not unexpected (or unwarranted). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pthigrivi Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 12 hours ago, mikegarrison said: "All the regulatory requirements": Possibly a reference to the environmental impact? Maybe something else? They have the deluge/diverter now so hopefully there's less risk of dumping sand on everything for 6 miles. I recall reading there was another issue with the self-termination system, something like a 40 second delay between it being ordered and vessel unzippering. There may be additional concerns about that sequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 14 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said: They have the deluge/diverter now so hopefully there's less risk of dumping sand on everything for 6 miles. I recall reading there was another issue with the self-termination system, something like a 40 second delay between it being ordered and vessel unzippering. There may be additional concerns about that sequence. As I understand the FTS did not worked well, probably as it was designed for aluminum but steel is more resistant. I assume they fixed it using more explosives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 41 minutes ago, magnemoe said: more explosives There is a reason 'P' stands for 'Plenty' in the Demo Equation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 9 minutes ago, tater said: At work and can't play video... Explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pthigrivi Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 1 hour ago, magnemoe said: As I understand the FTS did not worked well, probably as it was designed for aluminum but steel is more resistant. I assume they fixed it using more explosives. I think this was a separate issue possibly related to communication. You surely wouldn't want something that big failing to reach orbit and also failing to terminate and coming down in Africa or wherever. Quote And then there’s that pesky flight termination system. Musk hasn’t said much about what went wrong, but the 40-second delay between the system’s activation and the destruction of the vehicle is a real issue. Mosdell says some of the things FAA officials would personally verify were the transmitters and antennas for the flight termination system, because of its close link to their primary mission of ensuring public safety. That suggests the agency will carefully scrutinize any changes that SpaceX makes to the current system. https://qz.com/spacex-convince-faa-launch-starship-rocket-in-texas-1850758869 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 55 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: At work and can't play video... Explain? Naked SS (no tiles/flaps) heading to launch site for testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 19 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: FAA to SpaceX: This isn't the first time the FAA have issued a nothing-burger statement like this as I recall. It's not news the next launch license needs to wait on the mishap investigation and this statement says nothing about timescale. It's just their standard "Stop hassling us. It'll be done when it's done," press release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted September 7, 2023 Share Posted September 7, 2023 Just now, RCgothic said: This isn't the first time the FAA have issued a nothing-burger statement like this as I recall. It's not news the next launch license needs to wait on the mishap investigation and this statement says nothing about timescale. It's just their standard "Stop hassling us. It'll be done when it's done," press release. Agreed -- that's how I read it. 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.