[HN Gopher] Starship Flight 5 license issued by FAA
___________________________________________________________________
Starship Flight 5 license issued by FAA
Author : LorenDB
Score : 178 points
Date : 2024-10-12 17:23 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (drs.faa.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (drs.faa.gov)
| _Microft wrote:
| "Starship's fifth flight test is targeted to launch on Sunday,
| October 13. The 30-minute launch window opens at 7 a.m. CT.",
|
| https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-...
|
| Edit: that's 12p.m. UTC, I think.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| Tomorrow? It was issued only one day in advance?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| SpaceX has claimed they'd been ready to fly since August.
| It's not a surprise they'll launch very quickly after
| receiving the license.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| Take that with a BIG grain of salt. When SpaceX says they
| are ready and the FAA is holding them up, it is actually
| Elon saying they are ready. For example, take a look at the
| "Starships are meant to fly" post from September:
| https://www.spacex.com/updates/
|
| As someone who has been following these developments for a
| while, I can 100% detect Elon's fingerprints all over this
| post. They are basically completely dismissing government
| oversight as "unnecessary obstacles to progress". Keep in
| mind, the area where SpaceX operates Starship is a wildlife
| sanctuary and was only chosen because it is one of the few
| undeveloped, southernmost points of the US, which matters
| because the closer you are to the equator, the more
| advantage you can take of the Earth's rotational velocity.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Every launch pad in the US is a de jure or de facto
| wildlife sanctuary. Launch pads need a large human keep-
| out zone. Keeping out humans is great for wildlife.
|
| The site was chosen because it was it could launch East
| over water. The rotation of the earth gives a boost to
| easterly launches. Boca Chica isn't a great launch
| location because there's a fairly narrow window of
| directions it can launch in without overflying land,
| requiring expensive dog legs to hit different
| inclinations. They might have been better off with a
| piece of coastline in Maine, but try and find a piece of
| Eastern coastline in the US without any development in a
| 4 mile radius around the site...
| panick21_ wrote:
| Being so far South is quite nice, gives you quite the
| performance boost, do you have any analysis on what the
| dog legs cost compared to more Northern launch sites?
| Would be interesting to consider. Clearly Florida was the
| right place to do this for the US in the 1960s.
| eastbound wrote:
| Noob question: How comes hurricanes aren't a problem?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _How comes hurricanes aren't a problem?_
|
| They're slow and unsurprising. You don't launch in a
| hurricane.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You just launch the day before...
|
| https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/10/european-mission-
| depar...
| euroderf wrote:
| You launch in the eye of the hurricane:
|
| "Marooned" m.imdb.com/title/tt0064639/
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Every launch pad in the US is a de jure or de facto
| wildlife sanctuary. Launch pads need a large human keep-
| out zone. Keeping out humans is great for wildlife._
|
| Would note that ULA's Vulcan 4 October launch test at
| Cape Canaveral sprayed debris and presumably propellant
| around the same area [1]. Vulcan's GEM SRB burns a
| perchlorate fuel [2]. Perchlorates are toxic [3].
|
| SpaceX isn't taking any crazy risks, particularly
| relative to the technology risk and potential pay-off,
| with its IFTs.
|
| [1] https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/10/04/ula-launches-
| second-vu...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite-Epoxy_Motor
|
| [3] https://wwwn.cdc.gov/tsp/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?
| faqid=8...
| RecycledEle wrote:
| Boca Chica is not the Southernmost point in the US. One
| if the Florida Keys is.
|
| The main reason that area was a wildlife sanctuary was
| that nobody wanted it for anything else, so it was a
| cheap political move to make it "protected."
|
| A launch site needs more than latitude. It needs possible
| launch trajectories that star by going over water to
| avoid possible debis falling in people or property.
|
| Launch sites at higher altitude are better than those at
| lower altitude.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| True. Updated my comment.
| 7952 wrote:
| Regardless of how it was preserved it is still a valuable
| habitat for some vulnerable species. And a recreational
| amenity for people. Nor would the absence of a sanctuary
| make it automatically ok to kill wildlife or cause
| pollution.
| chgs wrote:
| Honolulu is like 100 miles further south than the Florida
| keys
| ahazred8ta wrote:
| Boca Chica at 25deg59'49''N is within 50 N/S miles of
| Cape Sable, Florida 25deg7'6''N the southernmost point on
| the U.S. mainland. It's just about the southernmost place
| not near a town. -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_
| of_extreme_points_of_th...
| modeless wrote:
| As recently as last week FAA was saying no launch license
| before late November, and even if you don't believe
| SpaceX was ready in August they are clearly ready today.
| That's what SpaceX complained about, and it got fixed.
| What more proof do you need that the FAA was the holdup
| here? https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1fup
| kny/the_f...
| jdiez17 wrote:
| I would guess SpaceX decided to provide everything the
| FAA/other agencies were asking for and thus their launch
| license was issued.
| modeless wrote:
| SpaceX already provided all the required information. FAA
| was not waiting for anything from SpaceX. They had
| inexplicably decided a new environmental review was
| required for trivial changes to the launch license, and
| today they reversed that decision in a "written re-
| evaluation" which as far as I can tell is not based on
| any new information.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| So in your opinion, as soon as SpaceX uploads a PDF, the
| launch license should be issued immediately?
|
| P.S.: I wish SpaceX succeeds in bringing down the cost of
| access to space.
| kortilla wrote:
| Stop willfully misinterpreting it. The new 60 day window
| was something newly added this time just to give other
| agencies time to complain if they wanted.
|
| The FAA did their normal review like they've done for
| every other starship and falcon launch in a timely
| manner.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| Okay, I read the FAA's written reevaluation (source:
| https://www.faa.gov/media/85696).
|
| My notes:
|
| - SpaceX requested to amend its existing "Programmatic
| Environmental Assesment" of 2022 to support jettisoning
| the interstage heat shield and (importantly) using an
| updating sonic boom model based on flight data. In my
| opinion, this is the critical point of this assessment.
|
| - The impact on endangered wildlife is reassessed based
| on a report submitted by SpaceX.
|
| - There are other points like concerns about waterway
| closures, and the water discharged by the deluge system.
| I know there was some controversy about the deluge system
| and the cleanliness of that water, but according to this
| report, it's all good.
|
| The new evaluation of the sonic boom using flight data
| shows that SpaceX's original assessment was way off and
| the intensity and area affected by these sonic booms is
| much larger in reality. The FAA then goes through a
| significant amount of rationalizations (with sources, to
| be fair) to justify that the predictions of the new sonic
| boom model are still acceptable.
|
| The biological resources section also shows that SpaceX
| underestimated the effects of their launch operations on
| local wildlife, but some research and monitoring measures
| are proposed to counteract this.
|
| All in all, my opinion is that the FAA is doing
| everything it can to not be an obstacle. But they do have
| to analyze this stuff much more rigorously than SpaceX
| does. That is quite literally their job after all.
| mlindner wrote:
| > They are basically completely dismissing government
| oversight as "unnecessary obstacles to progress".
|
| SpaceX works quite well with the government and doesn't
| mind oversight with regards to safety at all. What they
| don't care for is frivolous oversight/bureaucratic rubber
| stamping without looking at the intention behind the
| rules. They also don't like being surprised last minute.
| All of which happened in the prelude to that update post
| you referenced. I know a lot of people on this site are
| from Europe or have European sentiments, but the two
| places really function quite differently normally. The
| job of regulators isn't to be obstructionist for the sake
| of it. It's to create rules that actually improve safety
| and overall move society forward.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| I understand the US and Europe work differently. Although
| I am European, I also have a strong dislike of
| bureaucracy and am sympathetic to advancing society
| through technological progress.
|
| But there should be some oversight. You cannot just let a
| private company do whatever industrial processes wherever
| they want in the name of progress.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _cannot just let a private company do whatever
| industrial processes wherever they want in the name of
| progress_
|
| We don't.
|
| The question was why the FAA was enforcing rules that
| have nothing to do with its remit. There is protocol of
| regulatory agencies having each others' backs. But it was
| silly in this situation--it probably calls for reviewing
| the regime.
| mlindner wrote:
| > But there should be some oversight. You cannot just let
| a private company do whatever industrial processes
| wherever they want in the name of progress.
|
| Then we're in agreement as is SpaceX and even Elon Musk.
| He's previously stated he's in favor of regulations in
| general. He just is against an overwhelming overbearing
| quantity of them that just exist because they've always
| been there.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Have you been to that "wildlife sanctuary." I have.
| People are driving cars up and down that beach all day.
| Best thing that could happen to the wildlife is if it
| were shut down permanently for rocket launches.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| I have. Really enjoyed my time there. But obviously,
| there are no roads to the places where the endangered
| species live.
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| In August, they said the rocket was ready to fly .. but
| they were quite visibly still doing significant work to the
| catch mechanism on the launch tower.
| dylan604 wrote:
| being ready to launch is one thing, being ready to
| catch/land is another. so technically, they weren't wrong
| rpmisms wrote:
| The perfect is the enemy of the good, and SpaceX lives by
| this. If they have time to spare, why not spend it
| improving nice-to-haves?
| kortilla wrote:
| SpaceX operates on a rapid iterative cycle where they
| will knowingly test with deficiencies to improve later.
| If they get delayed for a massive chunk of time, they are
| definitely going to use it to make all of the known
| improvements they can.
| hughes wrote:
| Flight 3 license was also issued only one day in advance.
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| Not much different from the prior flights.
|
| Flight 4 was licensed on June 4th, was originally scheduled
| to launch on June 5th, and actually launched on the 6th.
|
| Flight 3 received its license on March 13th and launched on
| March 14th.
|
| Flight 2 received its license on November 15th 2023, and
| launched on November 18th.
|
| Flight 1 received its license on April 14th; it launched on
| April 20th.
| LorenDB wrote:
| The main difference here is that up until just a few days
| ago, the FAA was saying that they didn't plan to issue a
| license until late November.
|
| https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-five-late-
| novem...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _up until just a few days ago, the FAA was saying that
| they didn 't plan to issue a license until late November_
|
| This might be a case where the FAA's PR department should
| link to a press release instead of repeatig it
| contemporaneously.
| mlindner wrote:
| Should also be noted that Flight 1 was originally attempted
| to launch on April 17th.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I think it's more that they launch as soon as they get the
| permit.
| rvnx wrote:
| SpaceX provided information about the flight profile and its
| impact only in mid-August to FAA.
|
| The FAA forwarded the requests to the related agencies and
| had to wait (for example, what happens to the polluted
| water).
|
| According to 50 CFR SS 402.13, the other agencies have 60
| days to give back their answers to the FAA.
|
| 15 August + 60 days = now.
|
| The FAA mentioned they positively collaborate with SpaceX
| despite "upper stage failure in July and unsuccessful landing
| in August".
|
| Quite exciting to see!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _15 August + 60 days = now_
|
| Close enough. Sixty days is October 14. Today is the
| twelfth. Tomorrow, 13 October, is the launch.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| "End of day" shenanigans?
| dmix wrote:
| Interesting how it took exactly the maximum limit they are
| alloted.
|
| I wonder if the people in these agencies treat it like
| school projects where you use deadlines as a framework for
| how long you can screw around before it's absolutely
| necessary to get started. Where it's not treated as a worst
| case upper maximum.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| Alternatively, one or more agency may not have responded
| at all and so the FAA was obligated to wait the 60 days.
| Just speculation.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Sounds like a great way to get politicians to give the
| agency 3 days next time, under the guise of optimization
| but with the actual intent and effect to completely
| neuter the agency...
| jdiez17 wrote:
| Sounds like a great way to make sure we don't learn the
| lessons from the FAA's lax oversight of Boeing.
| fallingknife wrote:
| They absolutely do. It's a bureaucracy. Budget is on a
| use it or lose it basis. FAA is requesting a 36% budget
| increase next year. Wouldn't be able to justify that if
| they stopped wasting resources nitpicking every piece of
| the launch plan.
| spidersenses wrote:
| Conspiracy thinking: Musk may have made some personal
| enemies by stealing Twitter from the left and siding with
| Trump's camp in the upcoming US presidential election.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It was issued only one day in advance?_
|
| Officially, yes. Practically, I was hearing earlier this week
| that this was coming, as obviously was SpaceX given they're
| ready to attempt.
| zizee wrote:
| As I write this comment, it is Oct 12, 3:30 pm Central time. So
| the launch window starts in 15 and a half hours.
|
| https://mytime.io/7am/CT
| DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
| Excitement guaranteed!
| FL33TW00D wrote:
| First attempt at catching the 230ft tall booster!
| genidoi wrote:
| This might be the first launch that tops the jaw-dropping
| excitement of the Falcon 9 LZ-1 landing way back in 2015.
| Godspeed starship and best of luck to all the SpaceX team.
| grecy wrote:
| ... and the dual landings from the first Falcon Heavy flight.
| Even today that footage looks like cgi
| vmasto wrote:
| The dual landings for me were far superior. It was straight
| out of science fiction.
| glitchcrab wrote:
| I only got to see the tail end of the shuttle launches (too
| young) but I imagine watching the first launch/landing felt
| something like I experienced watching those two boosters
| land together.
| blowsand wrote:
| Can confirm.
| lucianbr wrote:
| The live view of a Starship fin being attacked by plasma
| during reentry was pretty close too.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the dual landings from the first Falcon Heavy flight_
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyO-h59RO5g
| allenrb wrote:
| Short of the moon landings that I never got to experience,
| the dual landing (especially that first one!) is the coolest
| thing I've ever seen in space flight. Could watch again and
| again.
| ilkkao wrote:
| I like how SpaceX is willing to take risks. Their second launch
| tower is still months away from being finished, and now they're
| trying to catch the booster using the first one.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| If they blow up the first tower, it will be 3+++ months to get
| FAA flight clearance again, so no great loss.
| dmix wrote:
| FAA is doing the testing, SpaceX is sitting around watching
| FAA
| YuccaGloriosa wrote:
| It's going to be one helluva show. Which ever way it goes. Best
| of luck to SpaceX
| bun_terminator wrote:
| I don't follow these things often: How is this different than
| the four before?
| sjm-lbm wrote:
| This is the first time they are going to attempt to catch the
| booster using their launchpad.
|
| Either you'll see one of the most impressive technical
| achievements in human history, or a very cool explosion.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Their launch license requires them to initially aim at the
| water, and only shift to aiming at their tower if both the
| booster internally judges it's in perfect health, and they
| send the signal from their control system.
|
| I think there is a reasonable possibility that something
| goes wrong enough at some point for the booster to go in
| the drink. But if that happens, maybe it'll be close enough
| to the shore that we'll get some nice video of it?
| jimrandomh wrote:
| This is also standard procedure for Falcon 9 landings.
| They would do it this way even if the launch license
| didn't require it, because they know the probability of
| some sort of failure of the booster is high, and they
| don't want to destroy the launch tower if they can help
| it.
| ttrei wrote:
| At the moment of landing burn ignition the booster will
| already target the beach near the tower.
| allenrb wrote:
| Elon has pissed me off beyond all reason these last few
| years but when he says "excitement guaranteed", it's the
| truth.
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| First attempt to catch the booster back at the launch site.
|
| The "mechazilla" launch tower has two "chopstick" arms which
| are used to pick up and stack both stages and which are
| intended to be able to catch the returning booster and maybe
| also the returning Starship upper stage.
| bloopernova wrote:
| What benefit does catching the booster provide? (Or, what's
| a good written guide to that system?)
| admax88qqq wrote:
| Don't need landing legs/gear on the ship. Saves weight
| thrance wrote:
| It allows removing the landing gears on the booster,
| which saves wheight, which saves fuel, which increases
| efficiency and reduces costs. It also avoid having to
| fetch the booster from wherever it would have landed.
| exitb wrote:
| What others said is true, but I think the endgame is also
| to literally land on the launchpad, allowing for a quick
| turnaround.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Given that a lot of the landing failures we've seen
| started with a near perfect landing followed by the
| rocket tipping over, I suspect one benefit is that the
| contact point is now above the center of gravity and thus
| it can't really tip over.
|
| Of course, it can't tip over _unless something fails or
| the rocket ends up in the wrong spot (and fails to get
| caught)_ and the previous tip-overs also had to involve
| failures (of the landing strut, in the latest loss) or
| landing in some way that isn 't perfectly aligned.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > has two "chopstick" arms ... which are intended to be
| able to catch the returning booster
|
| Do you mean this literally? As in something like Mr. Miyagi
| catching a fly with chopsticks in the orig Karate Kid?
| lucianbr wrote:
| How could it possibly be meant literally? Do you consider
| it possible for a rocket to be caught by a literal person
| with literal wooden sticks?
|
| I guess I don't really understand what you are asking.
| There's a tower with some huge metal arms that is meant
| to catch the rocket. They call them chopsticks in a
| joking manner. Obviously, I would have thought.
| _dain_ wrote:
| _> How could it possibly be meant literally? Do you
| consider it possible for a rocket to be caught by a
| literal person with literal wooden sticks?_
|
| in ordinary English there are many degrees of
| "literally".
| 1659447091 wrote:
| Yeah I totally envisioned a person holding wooden
| chopsticks trying to catch a booster /s
|
| You missed the quoted part about > which are intended to
| be able to catch
|
| Which would be the unique thing to clarify. As in
| "something like" the "chopsticks" moving to > catch < the
| thing -- Like Mr. Miyagi moving the chopsticks to > catch
| < the thing
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| Main difference (besides scale) is that the booster is
| cooperating with the chopsticks, navigating to hover at a
| point between the arms.
| mlindner wrote:
| Yes, literally, but the arms are massive and not directly
| controlled by humans.
| nycdotnet wrote:
| Yes. The booster has two pins that stick out at the top
| that are designed to hold the weight of the entire
| booster when empty. The plan is for the booster to return
| to the launch tower, position itself between the arms
| which will close on it and then the pins will "land" on
| the arms, completing the catch.
| philwelch wrote:
| I'd say the main difference, then, is that the booster
| will be supported by those pins resting on top of the
| arms. Chopsticks use friction to hold up their load.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| Thanks for the explanation! That makes it much more
| interesting than simply another launch
| ben_w wrote:
| They're going to try to catch the first stage on part of its
| own launch tower.
| amichail wrote:
| Do you think more than a billion people will watch the catch
| attempt, either live or later, in this Starship flight test?
| 7thpower wrote:
| If we're talking about the near future? No, most people do not
| care.
|
| If it's successful it will likely be in the history books, so
| maybe billions of martians will one day watch.
| edm0nd wrote:
| Over how long of a time span are we giving this? I don't think
| so.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX/streams = most popular live
| stream has 33M views
|
| https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX/videos = most popular video has
| 29M views
|
| I'm pretty sure this also includes embedded views from news
| articles that embed the videos.
|
| So to answer the question: In the short term, unlikely it
| seems. Over the span of hundreds of years? Likely so.
| whyenot wrote:
| No, I don't think one in every eight people on earth is going
| to see the catch attempt or even care about it. The launch and
| catch attempt is exciting but I don't think it's something that
| most of the planet is following. Even in the US, I doubt many
| people will watch it. It's not the next moon landing.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| probably not live, i imagine that many people will hear news
| about it though
| bloopernova wrote:
| Honestly I don't even see a future Moon landing garnering that
| many people.
|
| Maybe a Mars landing would, but non-techie people just don't
| seem very interested in space.
| bberenberg wrote:
| Watching us push forward in hard problems like this is important
| not only for the direct benefits, but the general belief in a
| better future it affords.
|
| I appreciate anything that helps reignite wonder and hope in all
| of us, and a rocket launch and recapture is just more visceral
| (not better) than others.
|
| Good luck to the team, I'll be watching with bated breath.
| modeless wrote:
| Someone made a game where you manually land the Super Heavy
| booster. It's fun! https://mechazilla.io/
|
| The real landing will be incredible. I'm also very excited to see
| Starship make it all the way through reentry fully intact. We got
| some amazing video last time.
|
| Anyone know if they plan to relight Starship's engines in space
| this time? I think the capability for a deorbit burn is the last
| thing they need to demonstrate before they can do orbital
| missions and deploy satellites. Looks like it's not on the
| mission timeline though.
| LorenDB wrote:
| See also SpaceX's own official Starship game:
| https://starshipthegame.spacex.com
| khaki54 wrote:
| Does it always just say pending regulatory approval and get
| stuck that way? Is that the joke?
| philwelch wrote:
| Mine finished loading, but it's a good joke.
| ordu wrote:
| _> Anyone know if they plan to relight Starship 's engines in
| space this time?_
|
| No. I don't know why, but their plan for second stage is the
| same as before, go suborbital, reenter, soft splashdown into
| the Indian Ocean. Hopefully now without flaps burned through.
| russdill wrote:
| The autogen pressurization system for the liquid oxygen tank
| pollutes the tank with carbon dioxide and water ice. The same
| thing happens on the booster, but they have systems to manage
| the issue in place. Presumably they don't want to bother with
| this step for v1 ships or don't have the mass margin to do
| so.
|
| It's not a problem for the landing as that sources from a
| separate clean tank.
| cryptonector wrote:
| CSI Starbase seems to think that Raptor v3 might stop using
| oxygen pre-burner gas for oxygen tank autogenous
| pressurization and use oxygen gas generated by using liquid
| oxygen as a coolant, like is already done on the methane
| side. That would reduce a lot of weight for filtering that
| they have had to add to prevent dry ice clogging of engine
| oxygen intakes.
| verzali wrote:
| I would guess they still need to learn more about the
| behaviour during reentry. Relighting the engines or opening
| the payload door could mean they lose proper attitude control
| like in the 3rd flight, so they get less info from reentry.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That's a beatiful game. Mechanically it's simple enough, but
| the author seems to have put _a lot_ of the work into failure
| effects. There are many different ways you can break the
| catcher, the booster, or both.
| qwertox wrote:
| This will be so exciting to watch, maybe as much as the first
| booster landing, or even more than it, if it succeeds.
|
| What I wonder about is why they never tested catching boosters
| with the ones they've been using all along. They know these
| boosters inside out, so it would be a good platform to gain
| experience with.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| as for why they haven't done it yet i imagine its because you
| can easily over optimize for something out of order, they had
| bigger priorities with making the launch work in 100 other ways
| so until those hurdles were cleared even attempting to worry
| about catching wasn't worth their time and manpower yet
| melodyogonna wrote:
| They've been trying to launch and land the rocket at a precise
| point without explosion
| xoa wrote:
| > _What I wonder about is why they never tested catching
| boosters with the ones they 've been using all along. They know
| these boosters inside out, so it would be a good platform to
| gain experience with._
|
| The Falcon 9 is incapable of hovering, because given the number
| of Merlins and their limited ability to throttle it cannot
| achieve a thrust/weight ratio (TWR) of 1 even on a single
| engine throttled to the lowest it can go. Rockets are almost
| entirely fuel by weight at launch, when empty they are very
| light. Since it has a TWR >1 when near-empty, lighting up an
| engine means F9 will want to go up again. So with F9 SpaceX
| must do a "hoverslam" to land, wherein the computer lights the
| engine at just the right point such that it hits relative
| velocity of zero right at the altitude of the landing pad (be
| it on ship or on land). That won't do for catching one however.
|
| With Starship all of this was considered from the start. Raptor
| has better throttling capability (itself an amazing technical
| achievement), and of course on Super Heavy there are lots of
| them which is another advantage of the "many, smaller engines"
| approach. It means that they can effectively throttle it to
| just 1/33*min-throttle of max thrust. And SH is also just plain
| heavier construction, for good reason in an economics designed
| big rocket but also helpful here. Combined it is actually
| capable of hovering when near empty.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The tower catch will be a highlight but technically just as
| important will be the second full reentry of the upper stage.
| Last time we had the amazing 'little flap that could' that was
| basically ripped apart put just valiantly continued to do its
| job. Musk said they had solutions for this in place, will be
| interesting to see how the hinge holds up. This could be a came
| changing flight test.
|
| Because the rocket goes back to launch sites, lots of people will
| have really good cameras set up, lots of views. We will see this
| catch attempt with a lot of detail.
| electronbeam wrote:
| 1st stage reusability matters more so they can reach a cost
| model similar to F9, second stage is really just bonus.
|
| If they never get the second stage working with reusability
| they could strip the design down to a simple S2
| jjk166 wrote:
| If they struggle with first stage re-usability for a while,
| that merely adds cost. Further they probably want to iterate
| and scale anyways, so in the short term they're gonna be
| building a lot of first stages anyways.
|
| Second stage reentry is necessary for this thing to ever
| carry people, ostensibly the mission the ship was designed
| for. It is a hard requirement.
| zizee wrote:
| I don't think the ship being launched has all of the planned
| improvements to the fins/hinge. This launch is S30, with the
| big improvements coming with S33.
|
| Newer versions of the ship have smaller flaps, hinging from
| points offcenter, so that they are protected by the body of the
| ship.
|
| Images probably demonstrate this better than words.
|
| Current:
| https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;...
|
| New:
| https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;...
| whyenot wrote:
| I hope it is more successful than their previous launch. I also
| hope that it does less damage to the wildlife sanctuary near the
| launch pad than the previous attempt. They are going to spray
| huge amounts of water to try and avoid destroying the launch pad.
| There is some concern that the water may become contaminated with
| harmful combustion products from the launch and flow into
| protected areas nearby. They will be doing some testing after the
| launch to better understand how big a problem this might be.
| bewaretheirs wrote:
| The water deluge system has been in operation for all launches
| save the first and has been functioning well, protecting the
| pad from damage. It uses drinking-quality water and outflow has
| been sampled after each launch, with negligible traces of
| contaminants detected.
|
| There was a disagreement between the Texas Commission on
| Environmental Quality and the US EPA about the specific type of
| permit that SpaceX needed from TCEQ for the deluge system but
| that was a paperwork/documentation issue only.
|
| see:
|
| https://www.spacex.com/updates/#starships-fly
| georgeburdell wrote:
| The byproducts of this rocket's combustion are CO2 and H2O
| mlindner wrote:
| The previous launch was completely successful.
|
| No damage was significant done to the wildlife near the launch
| pad in any previous launch, at least no more than is done to
| the wildlife during any launch that happens anywhere in the
| world.
|
| They only destroyed the pad on the very first launch. The pad
| has taken no notable damage during any of the subsequent three
| launches between that one and this one (this is the 5th
| launch).
|
| The combustion products of Methane and Oxygen are Water and
| Carbon Dioxide so there is nothing to damage the nearby areas.
| larkinrichards wrote:
| Based on the Oct 12 change log, "changed flight 4 to "starship
| super heavy" -- this reads that they can perform multiple flights
| with the same mission profile. So they can do a few quick test
| catches and avoid relicensing?
| madaxe_again wrote:
| As I understand it, only if the test article is identical. Any
| modification, new permit required.
| slwvx wrote:
| The previous license also allowed multiple launches, so this
| license allowing multiple launches would be consistent.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I love that SpaceX has these amazing broadcasts that connect us
| to what's happening. I'm surprised that the older rocket
| companies have no video or low res pixelated video.
| mncharity wrote:
| And looking ahead, Deep Blue Aerospace does aerobatic chase
| drones.[1] Perhaps if someone in that space offered their
| services to SpaceX?
|
| For Starship on orbit... photo/inspection cubesats are hard,
| but perhaps an externally-mounted 360 wifi camera ejector pack?
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-g26Zt15lo
| EcommerceFlow wrote:
| Note that this launch has been ready to go for weeks and the FAA
| were stalling SpaceX. Elon joked that it's easier to build self
| landing rockets than push papers through the FAA. I really hope
| if Trump wins he guts that regulatory body.
| Renaud wrote:
| To quote user rvnx:
|
| > SpaceX provided information about the flight profile and its
| impact only in mid-August to FAA. [...]
|
| > According to 50 CFR SS 402.13, the other agencies have 60
| days to give back their answers to the FAA.
|
| > 15 August + 60 days = now.
|
| You don't send a rocket without some sort of due diligence in
| terms of impact. Nobody likes bureaucracy, but I don't see how
| we're going to make the world a better place for everyone by
| letting billionaires basically do whatever they want with their
| toys without checks.
| sbuttgereit wrote:
| Sure, but its just not "billionaires" that need to be
| checked. Sometimes the checkers need some checking as well...
|
| "California officials cite Elon Musk's politics in rejecting
| SpaceX launches"
| (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-
| reject-m...)
|
| Whether you like Elon Musk or his politics... or not I hope
| you can see that these actions demonstrate the danger of an
| overly powerful regulatory body. California Costal Commission
| members acting in their regulatory capacity while citing
| Musk's politics is out of line, abusive of their power, and
| not consistent with guarantees of freedom of expression or
| the democratic process. You don't win against MAGA or Trump
| by becoming them... and if you try to beat Trump at his own
| game... you aren't any damn better.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| 1. It's not clear the California Costal Commission actually
| have veto over federal land. Federal land ultimately is not
| within the power of the state to regulate. So they might be
| powerless.
|
| 2. The federal land is aimed at launches for national
| defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to
| mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate
|
| 3. They actually okay'd 36 just not the full 50 - still an
| increase.
|
| 4. There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some
| point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate.
| sbuttgereit wrote:
| > It's not clear the California Costal Commission
| actually have veto over federal land. Federal land
| ultimately is not within the power of the state to
| regulate. So they might be powerless.
|
| > The federal land is aimed at launches for national
| defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions
| to mostly server commercial interests fits into this
| mandate
|
| "'I do believe that the Space Force has failed to
| establish that SpaceX is a part of the federal
| government, part of our defense,' said Commissioner Dayna
| Bochco."
|
| OK, sure let's accept that assertion... but that's
| besides the point: should the commissioners be deciding
| these matters on the basis of their legally appointed
| areas of regulatory oversight or on their broader
| political sensitivities? If we're really saying its OK
| for regulatory bodies with a specific area of
| protection/oversight to express the agendas of
| constituencies outside of that concern, or allow
| commissioners to simply make enforcement actions based
| broadly on their own personal preferences rather than
| interpretation of laws and establish regulations, such as
| labor relations, "bad antics", and presidential
| elections... what have we really become and what is the
| point of the regulatory body?
|
| In the end, I think the commissioner quoted above is
| simply making a shallow rationalization.
|
| Moreover, why would a federal agency seek a state
| commission approval if it's not actually required? Doing
| so would just be asking for a political firestorm: there
| are incentives for the state to show they aren't beholden
| to the feds and the feds would simply be inviting
| controversy in cases where the state told them "no" and
| they went ahead anyway. You can see this in the article
| where the commission says Space Force disrespected them.
| Why opt into that kind of low-win scenario if you don't
| have to?
|
| > There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some
| point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current
| rate.
|
| How is this in the purview of a commission that is
| ostensibly created to protect the coastal environment and
| things like public access to beaches?
|
| This is why I am deeply suspicious of government: I'm
| given reason to be based on their actions and
| motivations. Who knows, maybe someday we'll normalize
| this deviance of regulatory purpose and our laws so much
| that maybe I'll be denied my next driver's license
| renewal for having said these things.
| kiba wrote:
| Based on this comment alone, Elon Musk's politics should
| have nothing to do with their rejection of SpaceX launches.
| concordDance wrote:
| 60 days per change is really pretty slow when you want to
| iterate quickly. It's probably worthwhile to figure out if we
| can speed that up. Perhaps by letting SpaceX pay a expedite
| fee (say, 2x the salary costs of the beurocracy employees who
| would look at it) to get it looked at faster?
| bpodgursky wrote:
| > t I don't see how we're going to make the world a better
| place for everyone by letting billionaires basically do
| whatever they want with their toys without checks
|
| There is legal recourse to get people to pay for _real_
| damages -- civil penalties. This is used all the time.
| Perhaps too often, but that 's a different conversation.
|
| SpaceX would be perfectly happy to pay penalties
| proportionate to the real damage the FWS is worrying about --
| literally, the rocket landing on a whale, which has
| approximately a 0% probability. But they aren't allowed to
| take that (nonexistent) risk and then pay for anything that
| went wrong.
| kortilla wrote:
| 60 days is already sheer stupidity but the FAA was also
| quoting November before, well past the 60 day time.
|
| It should be a short 5 business day window where other
| agencies can quickly check to see if they might care and file
| to expand to 60 if they think it needs a review. Default hold
| open of 60 days just in case is purely anti progress
| reactionary conservatism.
| notfried wrote:
| This video explains how they plan to catch the booster with
| Mechazilla [1]. The team at SpaceX has some serious guts to be
| doing this!
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/ub6HdADut50
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Will it finally make it to orbit?
|
| Will there be any simulated load or is it empty again?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Will it finally make it to orbit?_
|
| No. "Starship will fly a similar trajectory as the previous
| flight test" [1]. IFT-4 was a suborbital flight test [2].
|
| [1]
| https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_flight_test_4
| kortilla wrote:
| The previous one could have made it to orbit as well. They are
| intentionally not going there to derisk failed re-entry
| ignition since the focus of these tests is entirely behavior in
| atmosphere.
| chairmansteve wrote:
| They should call it Spruce Goose II.
| mandeepj wrote:
| Worth a read https://www.npr.org/2024/10/10/nx-s1-5145776/spacex-
| texas-we...
|
| Title: SpaceX wants to go to Mars. To get there,
| environmentalists say it's trashing Texas
| concordDance wrote:
| Doesn't seem like a very good article... a good journalist puts
| statements in the appropriate context and that seems to be
| lacking here.
|
| For instance, it mentions "high levels of potentially toxic
| chemicals like Zinc and hexavalent Chromium", but doesn't say
| what that means. What is "high"?
|
| E.g. the quoted Prof says he "wouldn't recommend drinking it",
| but would he recommend drinking regular rainwater discharge
| from this (industrial) area (or even regular city rainwater?)
| and would he say its worse than that? How many grams/tons of
| these materials are in the discharge? What is the likely
| concentration by the time it gets to any animals, how much
| would actually get inside them and how does that compare with
| the known levels that would be damaging to health? How does it
| compare with the concentrations from rain runoff?
|
| A good journalist should find an appropriate expert and ask
| these sorts of questions so they can include them in the
| article and give the reader context, otherwise the reader will
| often come away feeling informed when in fact they know nothing
| of substance because there is nothing to anchor these
| unquantified facts to.
| IshKebab wrote:
| I read it. Wasn't worth a read.
|
| This was a particularly funny quote:
|
| > Musk "seems to care a lot more about 100,000 years from now
| than now here on Earth."
|
| I mean.. I think Musk is an arsehole and his plan to colonise
| Mars is insane, but this does not feel like a criticism! This
| environmentalist seems to care a lot more about short term
| issues than the long term viability of life on Earth.
|
| > "At least one egg in every nest was either damaged or not
| there," LeClaire says.
|
| Ok let's assume that they _are_ keeping count of the number of
| eggs in every nest... One egg? If these birds are going to die
| out because one egg in each nest breaks they aren 't going to
| survive anyway.
|
| I'm not saying the environment is unimportant, but I think you
| have to weight it against the importance of the thing you're
| stopping in the name of the environment.
|
| It's like all the solar farm projects that get stopped in the
| UK because people think sticking some poles in a field is going
| to kill all the newts. Like, what do you think is going to
| happen to the newts when it's 40C in the summer?
| concordDance wrote:
| > "At least one egg in every nest was either damaged or not
| there," LeClaire says.
|
| I think this is another good example of the lack of context I
| complain about above. These are the closest nests, how far
| away is the average nest and what's the damage there? What is
| the normal rate of egg damage or disappearance? How many eggs
| do these birds lay?
| jodleif wrote:
| Can anyone explain what the point of starship is? It won't be
| human rated - are they just keeping launching them for keeping
| the funding rounds going?
| zizee wrote:
| Falcon 9 (spacex's other rocket) wasn't human rated at first
| either.
|
| The point of starship is to reduce the cost of kg to orbit, by
| being a fully, and rapidly reusable launch system.
|
| The other long term and loftier) goal is to enable Mars
| colonization, a mission who's current main blocker is cost of
| kg to orbit.
|
| By reducing the cost of putting things to orbit, you can do a
| whole lot more. Starlink is a good example, but if starship
| works it will be a paradigm shift that will result in a whole
| new space economy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-12 23:01 UTC)