tater Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Well, NFT, so stupid. I find it deeply uninteresting—and it really belongs with the CLPS stuff, since all SpaceX did was launch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 More on topic, Kimbal posted his view of the 2014 F9R Dev failure, gives a bit more context than the last few seconds of drone footage we had previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pthigrivi Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 12 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said: I think I'm missing something. Granted I'm not too great at looking at art much deeper than surface level right away, but could you explain what you find so objectionable? My understanding is: Each stainless steel model of the Moon is either a phase as seen from Earth, a phase as seen from somewhere in space, or an eclipse Each model is associated with an important person from history Each model has a larger version that's staying on Earth with a gemstone to mark the landing site Each model also has an NFT associated with it Perhaps I'm missing some context, but the last bullet point is the only one I have any particular objection to. I mean I've got my over the top art critic voice on. The NFT thing is just icing. Even in the world of contemporary art this kind of stands out as vain and cynical, kind of like Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God' but without the self-awareness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, tater said: Well that's one regulatory agency they're in talks with, but they won't be able to get licenses if they don't work out an updated environmental assessment with the other. So, this should mean that they're in the process, and we just have word from 1 side of that so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meecrob Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 7 hours ago, Spaceception said: Well that's one regulatory agency they're in talks with, but they won't be able to get licenses if they don't work out an updated environmental assessment with the other. So, this should mean that they're in the process, and we just have word from 1 side of that so far. I get where you are coming from; it is always best to consider all sides. However, I honestly do not think there any unworkable issues. I bet that the delay that will happen is because the agencies that do these assessments are severely understaffed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 20 minutes ago, Meecrob said: I get where you are coming from; it is always best to consider all sides. However, I honestly do not think there any unworkable issues. I bet that the delay that will happen is because the agencies that do these assessments are severely understaffed. Oh, there’ll be a lot of pushback from the environmental end. I think the original EPA license was for 4-6? launches per year, but having trouble finding that info… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) huh Edited February 23 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 And I missed another F9 launch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 4 hours ago, tater said: That is the statement on cost savings right there. Wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 That's about 1.5 hours from now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 Moved later in window, liftoff is now targeted for 8:59 p.m. ET Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 Moved to tomorrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 And I missed another launch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Only now is it settling in to the noggin that we have tri-weekly regular rocket launches with booster landings. (I'm a little slow like that.) Falcon 9 is a bona-fide space-truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 (edited) Teeet won’t embed. Musk says todays F9 was 17.5 t payload with reuse due to continued improvement Edited February 26 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 20 hours ago, AckSed said: Only now is it settling in to the noggin that we have tri-weekly regular rocket launches with booster landings. (I'm a little slow like that.) Falcon 9 is a bona-fide space-truck. yea but we want a bona-fide space-big-rig. we can talk about space trains later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Quote Booster RUD: The most likely root cause for the booster RUD was determined to be filter blockage where liquid oxygen is supplied to the engines, leading to a loss of inlet pressure in engine oxidizer turbopumps that eventually resulted in one engine failing in a way that resulted in loss of the vehicle. SpaceX has since implemented hardware changes inside future booster oxidizer tanks to improve propellant filtration capabilities and refined operations to increase reliability. Starship: A leak in the aft section of the spacecraft that developed when the liquid oxygen vent was initiated resulted in a combustion event and subsequent fires that led to a loss of communication between the spacecraft’s flight computers. This resulted in a commanded shut down of all six engines prior to completion of the ascent burn, followed by the Autonomous Flight Safety System detecting a mission rule violation and activating the flight termination system, leading to vehicle breakup. The flight test’s conclusion came when the spacecraft was as at an altitude of ~150 km and a velocity of ~24,000 km/h, becoming the first Starship to reach outer space. SpaceX has implemented hardware changes on upcoming Starship vehicles to improve leak reduction, fire protection, and refined operations associated with the propellant vent to increase reliability. The previously planned move from a hydraulic steering system for the vehicle’s Raptor engines to an entirely electric system also removes potential sources of flammability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Sigh. Ninjad again. But @tater I’ll see that & raise you: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 And another F9 launch from FL 10 hours later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 Hmm, filter clogging. If that engine failure cascade was as a result of one engine failure, then they must be far less isolated than I thought they would be. I guess I was wrong about it being one issue affecting multiple engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Update, after more closely reading the blog post it appears that a bunch of raptors shut down before one shut down explosively, so I retract my previous comment, although one engine RUD causing a booster RUD even not through an engine cascade is still alarming. People are discussing a few possible causes over on a Discord server. 1. They got "best part is no part" crazy and deleted the heat exchanger and are using pump exhaust directly as pressurant gas. This exhaust, which is partially water, froze and created ice. This wasn't a problem until the flip, which shook everything up and pinned a large chunk of ice against the LOX inlet. The new weld marks on the newest boosters are comically large filters. 2. Air bubbles in the propellant formed during the flip maneuver and caused chaos in the inlet. This isn't a blockage though. 3. Piece of baffle broke off during the flip and fluid hammer event and blocked the filter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Anyhoo, there is this... https://www.spacex.com/updates ...The most likely root cause for the booster RUD was determined to be filter blockage where liquid oxygen is supplied to the engines, leading to a loss of inlet pressure in engine oxidizer turbopumps that eventually resulted in one engine failing in a way that resulted in loss of the vehicle. SpaceX has since implemented hardware changes inside future booster oxidizer tanks to improve propellant filtration capabilities and refined operations to increase reliability... ...The water-cooled flame deflector and other pad upgrades made after Starship’s first flight test performed as expected, requiring minimal post-launch work to be ready for vehicle tests and the next integrated flight test... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomf Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 I like this new euphemism for exploded "one engine failed energetically" 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.