totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[tater]

8 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It's been that way for me for some time, at least on mobile. Things others post show up, but the tweets I link don't embed.

They load for me, but it takes a long time.

[CBase]

Quote

FAA wraps up safety evaluation of Starship. The second test flight of SpaceX's Starship super heavy lift rocket is one step closer to liftoff from South Texas after the Federal Aviation Administration announced the conclusion of its safety review on Tuesday. The agency issued a brief statement noting that this assessment portion wrapped up on October 31. A safety review of the rocket and launch site is focused on issues that affect public health and the safety of property, Spaceflight Now reports.

But wait, there's still the environmental review ... The biggest outstanding piece of the puzzle before the second integrated flight test is the environmental review, done in partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The agency has up to 135 days to complete its review process, and the clock just started on October 19. However, the agency said it does not expect to take that much time. Ars has heard the current no-earlier-than launch date is November 13.

From https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/rocket-report-chinese-firm-lands-rocket-vertically-vulcan-delays-cost-ula/

So we have a checkmark on FTS already.

[tater]

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2

SpaceX page for flight 2 is up.

 

[darthgently]

 

[RCgothic]

Note to self - Super Heavy is two words not one.

[Pthigrivi]

Looks like even with a wild success they wouldn't try an SS soft water landing?

[StrandedonEarth]

3 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Looks like even with a wild success they wouldn't try an SS soft water landing?

At this point they just want to get through reentry in one piece, although I don’t see why they wouldn’t try to soft splash it if it got that far. But they have their reasons, I guess. Too focused on looking at all the other data, compared to the part of the flight that has already been tested?

[StrandedonEarth]

Bob and Doug's shiny worm booster is set for a record 18th launch, on the way to 20 and beyond!

A historic Falcon 9 is about to make a little more history tonight | Ars Technica

[mikegarrison]

4 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

compared to the part of the flight that has already been tested?

Perhaps it is worth pointing out that Starship has:

1) never been tested landing from actual re-entry, and

2) only landed non-catastrophically one time.

But they probably have their reasons. Maybe they didn't include all the hardware or software it would take to attempt a soft landing.

[Piscator]

Or maybe they're afraid of succeeding. A starship drifting out in the ocean might be more trouble than its worth. After all you would have to scuttle it manually somehow. The thing seems to be quite resilient.

[Ultimate Steve]

39 minutes ago, Piscator said:

Or maybe they're afraid of succeeding. A starship drifting out in the ocean might be more trouble than its worth. After all you would have to scuttle it manually somehow. The thing seems to be quite resilient.

Yeah, I'm recalling what a headache it seemed to be when that happened with Falcon once.

[StrandedonEarth]

12 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Perhaps it is worth pointing out that Starship has:

1) never been tested landing from actual re-entry, and

2) only landed non-catastrophically one time.

But they probably have their reasons. Maybe they didn't include all the hardware or software it would take to attempt a soft landing.

Those reasons are why one would think they'd test it, definitely.

Light bulb moment:

Q: The flip testing didn't include the heat shield, so again, why not test it?  A: Because the heat shield changes the handling of the vehicle, making a successful flip less likely. Therefore, collect handling data if re-entry is successful, to make the first full flip attempt (on a later launch) more likely to succeed. The bonus is not  having to explain why the flip on the first re-entry attempt failed, as well as, as @Piscatorsaid, not having to deal with a floating Starship, yet.

They are also already busy testing SH powered water landing. They'll also want to make sure they can drop SS on target.

[darthgently]

20 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

At this point they just want to get through reentry in one piece, although I don’t see why they wouldn’t try to soft splash it if it got that far. But they have their reasons, I guess. Too focused on looking at all the other data, compared to the part of the flight that has already been tested?

I'm thinking that with all the successful F9 landings under their belt they are far more concerned with reentry at this time.  But, yeah, I hope they try a vertical water landing if they get that far

[magnemoe]

16 hours ago, Piscator said:

Or maybe they're afraid of succeeding. A starship drifting out in the ocean might be more trouble than its worth. After all you would have to scuttle it manually somehow. The thing seems to be quite resilient.

They have the flight termination system, and they could easy add couple of detonate in 10 seconds delay independent detonators activated on flip attempt. 
Now it could simply be that water landing is in the book but not public as failing it would be seen as an failure if announced while its more like an mission extension. 

[tater]

Nice visualization:

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

On 11/3/2023 at 10:39 PM, Piscator said:

Or maybe they're afraid of succeeding. A starship drifting out in the ocean might be more trouble than its worth. After all you would have to scuttle it manually somehow. The thing seems to be quite resilient.

And if there’s even a chance of that, they’d have to have some kind of recovery/scuttling  power on standby, far from their usual areas of operations.  That’s a pretty significant expense for nothing if Starship never even gets that far, which is still extremely likely. 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

And if there’s even a chance of that, they’d have to have some kind of recovery/scuttling  power on standby, far from their usual areas of operations.  That’s a pretty significant expense for nothing if Starship never even gets that far, which is still extremely likely. 

They could let the US Navy use interdicting and destroying it as an exercise.  They do it all the time to decommissioned ships.  If it is too far away for that give the USAF and USSF a chance to practice on it.   It would surely be more effective, and entertaining, than a few hundred meters of detcord

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

They could let the US Navy use interdicting and destroying it as an exercise.  They do it all the time to decommissioned ships.  If it is too far away for that give the USAF and USSF a chance to practice on it.   It would surely be more effective, and entertaining, than a few hundred meters of detcord

Yes, but sinking ships is much more challenging and relevant. Starship would blow up if you strafed it with an 20 mm gun on an plane not to talk about any naval gun as it would be filled with methane and oxygen gas. 
On the other hand the military has interest in starship, primarily for much larger and cheaper satellites so they would be helpful. 

[PakledHostage]

4 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

And if there’s even a chance of that, they’d have to have some kind of recovery/scuttling  power on standby, far from their usual areas of operations.  That’s a pretty significant expense for nothing if Starship never even gets that far, which is still extremely likely. 

There's the Barking Sands missile test range on Kauai that's near where they seem (from the animation above) to be planning to bring Starship down. Maybe the eventual plan is to try and test soft landings from that facility?

[tater]

18 flights, and back to port:

 

[AckSed]

I like the thought of it accumulating ESA, NASA and other mission markings like one of those old suitcases. It's a world-traveller!

[magnemoe]

18 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

There's the Barking Sands missile test range on Kauai that's near where they seem (from the animation above) to be planning to bring Starship down. Maybe the eventual plan is to try and test soft landings from that facility?

Thought the same for later missions, soft landing looking over the ship after landing. 

[darthgently]

5 hours ago, AckSed said:

I like the thought of it accumulating ESA, NASA and other mission markings like one of those old suitcases. It's a world-traveller!

Well, ESA is reportedly opening up the euro market to competition to small launch providers.  Not sure if F9 qualifies as "small" though

[tater]

 

[tater]