darthgently Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 31 minutes ago, tomf said: I like this new euphemism for exploded "one engine failed energetically" See exploded diagram for details Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Perhaps only tangentially related at this point but dang this is an enlightening article: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 (edited) 40 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Perhaps only tangentially related at this point but dang this is an enlightening article: Wow. Impressive, but also very kerbal. Still, at ⅕ the cost had NASA done it non-commercially there is some slack to be given. Too bad about the surface plume experiment and data though. That was critical for better understanding fluid dynamics in a vacuum and safely landing larger craft. This should probably be in the CLPS thread, btw Edited February 27 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 3 minutes ago, darthgently said: This should probably be in the CLPS thread, btw Agree, but more on topic than the last page+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Here is a string of Twi/X posts by Dr. Phil Metzger about why the plume experiment is so important. I got the thread unrolled at this link for easier reading. I hadn't realized CFD had this Achilles heel, but yeah, no pressure, no viscosity. No viscosity, no Navier-Stokes https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1761726379115045095.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Ben Cooper pic. Noice. It's just barely March 1, it's at 12:04 Eastern—so tomorrow night, the 29th for most in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 A large amount of content has been removed, due to: politics off-topic content arguing about arguing telling people what to do or not to do (a.k.a. "backseat moderating") responding to any posts that do any of the above. When we remove a thing, we gotta remove everything that responds to it, lest we create "dangling responses". Folks, please don't post politics, surely this reminder shouldn't be necessary. A few bits of advice: "Here's what government should do" or "here's what public policy should be" tends to be political, so if you see yourself writing that kind of thing, treat that as a warning signal and reconsider posting it. Responding to someone else who posted politics, is politics. Even if you say "not political, but". Discussion of environmental issues per se isn't really about SpaceX, so it's off topic. "SpaceX is having difficulty with a launch permit because of environmental issue" is fine... but extending that to "what our environmental policy should be" or the importance of such issues is off-topic. (And almost invariably political.) Please don't tell anyone what to do or what not to do, even as a "suggestion". You're not a moderator, it's not your place to give orders. If you think something's a problem, just report it and don't respond. That engages the moderators, whose job it is to deal with that sort of thing. It's what we're for. When you know that someone else's stuff is off-topic, please don't try the maneuver of responding to them in the same vein, and then inserting a token "obligatory SpaceX" remark, in order to somehow make your post "OK". It just makes things worse. When we remove the other thing, it means we have to remove your stuff, too. Please don't respond to anything political or otherwise problematic with the rules, even if your own post tries to steer clear of those problems. Because we can't have "dangling responses". Thank you for your understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AckSed Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Here's the blog version: https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/nasa-spacex-test-starship-lunar-lander-docking-system/ It's a big, impressive boi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBase Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Quote Since being selected as the lander to return humans to the surface of the Moon for the first time since Apollo, SpaceX has completed more than 30 HLS specific milestones by defining and testing hardware needed for power generation, communications, guidance and navigation, propulsion, life support, and space environments protection. From https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/nasa-spacex-test-starship-lunar-lander-docking-system/, emphasis by me. Nice progress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Liftoff. MECO, sep, SES-1, fairing Landed. SECO Nominal orbit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 3rd times the charm for a WDR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/26/faa-closes-starship-investigation-spacex-seeks-next-launch-license.html IFT-2 investigation has been closed. Edit: Sorry, Monday's news. May have missed this being shared earlier. Only 17 corrective actions is a marked improvement on IFT-1 which required 63. Edited March 1 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 Weather scrub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 Why has there been little discussion of using Starship for planetary probes? Wouldn't access to a cheap, super heavy launch vehicle allow missions like Dragonfly and the Uranus Orbiter to be much quicker by allowing direct routes instead of needing multiple gravity assists? I know Starship isn't an operational vehicle yet, but if NASA is willing to use it for as its plan for Artemis in just 2.5 years, why don't any missions slated for 5+ years in the future, when even pessimistically Starship will be available, plan to use it? A faster mission profile also reduces the plutonium requirements. 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.