Perhaps the decision not to catch the booster is because it's the first re-flown unit...There may be 'uncertainties' about possible hidden structural issues that makes it prudent to drop the first one in the ocean until they see how it holds up to a second re-entry.
Now the question is what kind of fancy stuff SpaceX will do with B14 on this flight. Lots of optionsWhen SpaceX reused Falcon 9 boosters for the first time, the first four were recovered but beginning with the fifth booster reuse, they started expending the boosters to make way for the then-upcoming Block 5 iteration.To not just "waste" these boosters, SpaceX used them for reentry and landing experiments, giving them information that would be later used on Block 5. Sometimes they even survived those tests... (PS they didn't tow it, it was scuttled)So now the question is... will SpaceX do something with B14 like they did with these Falcon boosters?
Quote from: Exastro on 05/17/2025 11:41 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 05/17/2025 05:05 pmQuote from: sdsds on 05/17/2025 01:58 pmI'm working on the theory that despite the huge theoretical mass margin of the Starship system, for this flight mass is at a premium. (That could be because 'fixes' for whatever went wrong on prior flights involved adding structural mass.) If this theory were true, the decision to roll-back might be related to the determination that the booster won't attempt RTLS. Scrubbing mass from the first stage to get margin for the second stage may seem like a fool's errand, but if the margin is really tight ... ?Absolutely not. Probably related to repair or mitigation. It has plenty of performance to reach orbit. It’s a bloody two stage rocket with the highest performance engines ever made.Speculation: the grid fins are expensive, so they're taking advantage of the launch licensing delay to remove them, along with their batteries and actuators, before expending B14.Why not also forget the hot staging ring if the booster is going to be ditch, without the grid fins installed guidance below the atmosphere is not guaranteed so just let the booster go ballistic trajectory to the ocean?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/17/2025 05:05 pmQuote from: sdsds on 05/17/2025 01:58 pmI'm working on the theory that despite the huge theoretical mass margin of the Starship system, for this flight mass is at a premium. (That could be because 'fixes' for whatever went wrong on prior flights involved adding structural mass.) If this theory were true, the decision to roll-back might be related to the determination that the booster won't attempt RTLS. Scrubbing mass from the first stage to get margin for the second stage may seem like a fool's errand, but if the margin is really tight ... ?Absolutely not. Probably related to repair or mitigation. It has plenty of performance to reach orbit. It’s a bloody two stage rocket with the highest performance engines ever made.Speculation: the grid fins are expensive, so they're taking advantage of the launch licensing delay to remove them, along with their batteries and actuators, before expending B14.
Quote from: sdsds on 05/17/2025 01:58 pmI'm working on the theory that despite the huge theoretical mass margin of the Starship system, for this flight mass is at a premium. (That could be because 'fixes' for whatever went wrong on prior flights involved adding structural mass.) If this theory were true, the decision to roll-back might be related to the determination that the booster won't attempt RTLS. Scrubbing mass from the first stage to get margin for the second stage may seem like a fool's errand, but if the margin is really tight ... ?Absolutely not. Probably related to repair or mitigation. It has plenty of performance to reach orbit. It’s a bloody two stage rocket with the highest performance engines ever made.
I'm working on the theory that despite the huge theoretical mass margin of the Starship system, for this flight mass is at a premium. (That could be because 'fixes' for whatever went wrong on prior flights involved adding structural mass.) If this theory were true, the decision to roll-back might be related to the determination that the booster won't attempt RTLS. Scrubbing mass from the first stage to get margin for the second stage may seem like a fool's errand, but if the margin is really tight ... ?
Primary Launch Day 27 May 2330Z-0134Z Backup Launch Day (1) 28 May 2330Z-0134Z Backup Launch Day (2) 29 May 2330Z-0134Z Backup Launch Day (3) 30 May 2330Z-0134Z Backup Launch Day (4) 31 May 2330Z-0134Z Backup Launch Day (5) 01 June 2330Z-0134Z Backup Launch Day (6) 02 June 2330Z-0134Z
Issue Date UTC: 05/19/2025 1352Start Date UTC: 05/28/2025 0012End Date UTC: 06/03/2025 0305A0955/25 NOTAMN Q) FMMM/QWALW/IV/BO/W/000/999/2647S05151E316A) FMMM B) 2505280012 C) 2506030305D) 0012-0305E) DANGEROUS AREA FOR FALLING DEBRIS OF STARSHIP 'FLT-9' ROCKET WILL TAKE PLACE WI AREA DELIMITED BY: 2558S 04642E - 2542S 04642E - 2554S 05431E - 2559S 05617E - 2558S 05700E - 2752S 05700E - 2655S 05018E -2558S 04642E.F) SFC G) UNL
How sexy does S35 look with the new edge tiles???
If there is an explosive warning at Massey's presumably this means that FTS is installed.SO, does this also mean that the dummy Starlinks are loaded and it can go direct to launch site.I'm assuming that they might not want to have an FTS'ed starship at the production site for longer than necessary, eg to spend time manually loading the dummies...?
The FAA conducted a comprehensive safety review of the SpaceX Starship Flight 8 mishap and determined that the company has satisfactorily addressed the causes of the mishap, and therefore, the Starship vehicle can return to flight. The FAA will verify SpaceX implements all corrective actions.The FAA’s determination of when a vehicle involved in a mishap can resume operations is based on public safety. When making this determination, the FAA considers several factors, including but not limited to, the nature of the mishap, the performance of vehicles safety-critical systems, and the generation of unplanned debris. Prior to making a return to flight determination, the FAA must find that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety or any other aspect of the operator’s license. With the Starship vehicle return to flight determination, Starship Flight 9 is authorized for launch. The FAA finds SpaceX meets all of the rigorous safety, environmental and other licensing requirements. Additional Safety Information on Starship Flight 9 The FAA is in close contact and collaboration with the United Kingdom, Turks & Caicos Islands, Bahamas, Mexico, and Cuba as the agency continues to monitor SpaceX’s compliance with all public safety and other regulatory requirements. For Starship Flight 9, the FAA issued two comprehensive environmental assessments, one modifying the SpaceX license to allow up to 25 Starship/Super Heavy launches per year from Texas and one updating airspace closures. Both found no significant safety or environmental impacts. SpaceX is required to update its Flight Safety Analysis to account for all outcomes of previously flown flights including mishap events and to calculate and establish hazards areas. The flight safety analysis includes population exposure risk (regardless of where that population is located on the flight path), the probability of failure of the vehicle, and debris propagation and behavior, among other considerations. The FAA uses this and other data to determine and implement measures to mitigate public risk. The FAA is expanding the size of hazard areas both in the U.S. and other countries based on the updated flight safety analysis and because SpaceX intends to reuse a previously launched Super Heavy booster rocket for the first time. The Aircraft Hazard Area (AHA) for Flight 9 covers approximately 1,600 nautical miles and extends eastward from the Starbase, Texas, launch site through the Straits of Florida, including the Bahamas and Turks & Caicos Islands. For Flight 8, the AHA covered approximately 885 nautical miles. To minimize disruption to U.S. and international airspace users, the FAA required the launch window to be scheduled during non-peak transit periods. SpaceX is responsible for the operation of its vehicle, including in the event of a mishap. The FAA requires SpaceX to maintain liability insurance in the amount of $500 million to cover claims resulting from the launch and flight of the Starship Flight 9 mission.
Quote from: litton4 on 05/22/2025 01:57 pmIf there is an explosive warning at Massey's presumably this means that FTS is installed.SO, does this also mean that the dummy Starlinks are loaded and it can go direct to launch site.I'm assuming that they might not want to have an FTS'ed starship at the production site for longer than necessary, eg to spend time manually loading the dummies...?No, AFAIU they are not loaded.
Spacex website has been unavailable in several regions for last few hours, whatever is going on.It says "The request is blocked."Is it up in US?
Don't they load FTS at the launch site?
May 22, 20254K professional camera footage recorded on 5/21/25 at SpaceX Starbase Texas showing Starship 35 moving to Massey's test site for the third time for testing ahead of Starship test flight 9.
