totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[RCgothic]

Several Moonship pieces spotted.

 

[Brotoro]

AX-2  go on weather.

[Minmus Taster]

AX-2 is go for launch

Liftoff!

[Brotoro]

Liftoff

[tater]

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by tater

[Brotoro]

First stage landed

Nominal orbit. Good job.

[Superluminal Gremlin]

I missed it by 9 minutes

i came on just as second stage cut off

gg to ax-2 tho

 

[tater]

 

 

 

[tater]

 

 

 

[Exoscientist]

There needs to be an overall independent review of the safety of the SuperHeavy/Starship launch. That independent review needs to include the lax standards the FAA applied to the SH/SS launch. SpaceX and the FAA dodged a bullet in the last launch.

Agencies studying safety issues of LOX/methane launch vehicles.  
Jeff Foust. 
May 20, 2023  
WASHINGTON — Three U.S. government agencies are undertaking studies to examine the safety issues associated with a new generation of launch vehicles that use liquid oxygen and methane propellants.
At a May 15 meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Group (COMSTAC), FAA officials described efforts that are underway to understand the explosive effects of that propellant combination in the event of a launch accident.https://spacenews.com/agencies-studying-safety-issues-of-lox-methane-launch-vehicles/

Bob Clark

 

[tater]

3 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

There needs to be an overall independent review of the safety of the SuperHeavy/Starship launch.

Nonsense.

Independent of what? The government?

[Codraroll]

20 minutes ago, tater said:

Nonsense.

Independent of what? The government?

Not just nonsense, but the same nonsense that was already discussed in detail previously, even without any changes.

[Exoscientist]

7 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Not just nonsense, but the same nonsense that was already discussed in detail previously, even without any changes.

 Just because it was discussed doesn’t mean it was disproven. The FAA safety review failed in two separate key aspects: it failed to recognize launching without a flame diverter was unsafe, and it failed to recognize the FTS used was insufficient to cause immediate vehicle destruction.

 Either one of those could have led to catastrophic results. SpaceX, and the FAA, dodged a bullet on the last launch.

  Robert Clark

[tater]

Independent of what? The government?

[steve9728]

I suddenly realised that we could be witnessing a new record in a week or two next Tuesday: 17 people in orbit at same time

Edited May 24, 2023 by steve9728

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, Exoscientist said:

The FAA safety review . . . failed to recognize launching without a flame diverter was unsafe, and it failed to recognize the FTS used was insufficient to cause immediate vehicle destruction.

 Either one of those could have led to catastrophic results.

How was launching without a flame diverter "unsafe"? The FAA safety review included as one possible outcome a complete pad RUD and had assured safety measures in place for that eventuality. What part of launching without a flame diverter made the test launch more unsafe or could have led to more catastrophic results than a complete pad RUD?

Let's assume, without concluding, that the AFTS delay (caused by greater-than-anticipated structural margins) represents a failure by the FAA safety review.

What sort of review failure is this, and what sort of independent analysis would be required in order to mitigate the second-order impact of such a failure? 

If you're proposing some sort of solution, then it's not enough to say "X failed, therefore Y." You need to properly characterize the nature of the review process failure and explain what sort of corrections to the review process are necessary to prevent not only this specific failure but any other known or unknown unknowns. 

[tater]

 

[Lukaszenko]

On 5/20/2023 at 6:01 PM, Jacke said:

If the performance of the larger nozzle isn't needed, a 1-for-1 exchange with payload mass for the reduced engine mass, as it's on the final stage.

I would think that reduced performance due to the smaller nozzle means that you can carry (much) less payload mass. 

I mean, what's "performance" in the context of rockets if not payload mass and/ or how far you can throw it? 

[tater]

26 minutes ago, Lukaszenko said:

I would think that reduced performance due to the smaller nozzle means that you can carry (much) less payload mass. 

I mean, what's "performance" in the context of rockets if not payload mass and/ or how far you can throw it? 

Most payloads are not mass constrained. S2 is thrown away regardless. As long as the payload mass is below some threshold, anything that reduces the cost of S2 is money in their pockets.

[tater]

(25% go is pretty lousy though)

 

[SOXBLOX]

7 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

There needs to be an overall independent review of the safety of the SuperHeavy/Starship launch. That independent review needs to include the lax standards the FAA applied to the SH/SS launch. SpaceX and the FAA dodged a bullet in the last launch.

Agencies studying safety issues of LOX/methane launch vehicles.  
Jeff Foust. 
May 20, 2023  
WASHINGTON — Three U.S. government agencies are undertaking studies to examine the safety issues associated with a new generation of launch vehicles that use liquid oxygen and methane propellants.
At a May 15 meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Group (COMSTAC), FAA officials described efforts that are underway to understand the explosive effects of that propellant combination in the event of a launch accident.https://spacenews.com/agencies-studying-safety-issues-of-lox-methane-launch-vehicles/

Bob Clark

 

The FAA never applies lax standards. Just sayin'.

Just because they're making sure they know what they need to know about modern propellants doesn't mean we need an "independent study," whatever that is. 

[tater]

22 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

doesn't mean we need an "independent study," whatever that is. 

Functionally it would mean a multi-year pause would be my bet.

[zolotiyeruki]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Functionally it would mean a multi-year pause would be my bet.

And THAT, I suspect,  is the real goal, not some illusory risk.

[Terwin]

7 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

If you're proposing some sort of solution, then it's not enough to say "X failed, therefore Y." You need to properly characterize the nature of the review process failure and explain what sort of corrections to the review process are necessary to prevent not only this specific failure but any other known or unknown unknowns. 

Are you suggesting that yelling 'do better' on the internet after an experimental vehicle launch with no crew or payload experienced anomalies that did not injure any of the many many bystanders is an insufficient argument to tear-down and rebuild from scratch every involved agency and organization?!?!??!

Clearly every technical failure requires that we abandon all faulty technologies and start over with wood and bone tools!

 

[tater]

Just now, Terwin said:

Clearly every technical failure requires that we abandon all faulty technologies and start over with wood and bone tools!

Happily between sips, else keyboard would need a wash.