Author Topic: SpaceX Starship IFT-3 DISCUSSION : Starbase TX : 14 March 2024  (Read 319575 times)

Offline Perchlorate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • 2 miles from the site of the first successful powered flight.
  • Liked: 989
  • Likes Given: 1373
It really isn't that difficult.

The FAA and SpaceX agree on a flight plan - SpaceX will fight to make it less detailed, the FAA will fight to make it more detailed, and they'll come to agreement.  They'll likely also come to agreement on what kinds of failures are to be expected, and shouldn't count as a "mishap".  For example, I'm sure they'll agree that if the booster gets to about the right altitude, with about the right velocity in about the right position, separates, and splashes down in the target area in a controlled fashion, that that's a success.  The booster won't be required to successfully relight it's engines and come to zero velocity at wave height, even though SpaceX may be planning to do that.  A similar analysis for the ship - if it separates successfully, gets into about the right flight path, starts re-entry in a controlled fashion in about the right place, and spreads it's debris field in the target zone, that will likely be considered a success - regardless of whether they relight the engine in space and regardless of whether the transfer any propellant, though those are goals of the mission. 

Even though there is a clear statement of "what is a mishap", there's always judgement around whether a particular event was a "malfunction of a safety-critical system" or "failure to complete a launch or re-entry as planned".  With a little diplomacy, a little discussion beforehand, expected failures may not be considered a "mishap" but instead the expected outcome of an experimental flight.  What understandings the FAA has, what agreements have been made, neither you nor I know.  But these are all intelligent people, these are all people who want SpaceX to succeed, these are all people who don't want anyone killed. 

Let's all hope for a Flight 3 that doesn't leave any doubt as to whether there's a mishap.  OK, that can be taken both ways, so let's hope it's successful enough that there's no doubt.

Very nice, well-reasoned, civil post.

(Pardon my pedantry.  Turns out that 2 wrongs DO make a right.)
« Last Edit: 03/08/2024 02:53 am by Perchlorate »
Pete B, a Civil Engineer, in an age of incivility.

Offline seb21051

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 244
Do we assume that IFT-3 10/28 will be using V.2 Raptors, and that V.3s will only be used with V.2 and later Starship/Boosters?
« Last Edit: 03/08/2024 03:05 am by seb21051 »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5706
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4465
  • Likes Given: 1866
...that will likely be considered a success - regardless of whether they relight the engine in space and regardless of whether the transfer any propellant, though those are goals of the mission.
As you say, SpaceX and FAA might choose to agree that failure to relight the engine is not a mishap for IFT-3. However, FAA (and probably SpaceX) will probably not proceed to an actual orbital flight for IFT-4 if the IFT-3 relight fails. That's because a safe orbital flight of a huge SS requires a controlled re-entry, and that probably requires a relight.

Offline Kspbutitscursed

...that will likely be considered a success - regardless of whether they relight the engine in space and regardless of whether the transfer any propellant, though those are goals of the mission.
As you say, SpaceX and FAA might choose to agree that failure to relight the engine is not a mishap for IFT-3. However, FAA (and probably SpaceX) will probably not proceed to an actual orbital flight for IFT-4 if the IFT-3 relight fails. That's because a safe orbital flight of a huge SS requires a controlled re-entry, and that probably requires a relight.
I reckon if IFT-3 goes wel we'll see Ship 29 do a soft landing
I attempt to fly in ksp
WEN OFT-4                 #Wen Booster 12/13 engines installation

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5461
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3163
  • Likes Given: 3921
...that will likely be considered a success - regardless of whether they relight the engine in space and regardless of whether the transfer any propellant, though those are goals of the mission.
As you say, SpaceX and FAA might choose to agree that failure to relight the engine is not a mishap for IFT-3. However, FAA (and probably SpaceX) will probably not proceed to an actual orbital flight for IFT-4 if the IFT-3 relight fails. That's because a safe orbital flight of a huge SS requires a controlled re-entry, and that probably requires a relight.
I reckon if IFT-3 goes wel we'll see Ship 29 do a soft landing

If IFT-3 checks every box, I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t take some starlinks up with them on IFT-4. 
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline Kspbutitscursed

...that will likely be considered a success - regardless of whether they relight the engine in space and regardless of whether the transfer any propellant, though those are goals of the mission.
As you say, SpaceX and FAA might choose to agree that failure to relight the engine is not a mishap for IFT-3. However, FAA (and probably SpaceX) will probably not proceed to an actual orbital flight for IFT-4 if the IFT-3 relight fails. That's because a safe orbital flight of a huge SS requires a controlled re-entry, and that probably requires a relight.
I reckon if IFT-3 goes wel we'll see Ship 29 do a soft landing

If IFT-3 checks every box, I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t take some starlinks up with them on IFT-4.
I agree 100%.
I attempt to fly in ksp
WEN OFT-4                 #Wen Booster 12/13 engines installation

Offline whitelancer64

Quote

Fun fact: SLS has no hold down clamps. There are large bolts that secure the SRBs to the MLP, the nuts for the bolts are there for stacking / transportation only and they are removed before launch day.

Is this true? Sure wasn't the case with Shuttle.
I belive they used Pyrotechnics during the shuttle days.

Correct. Shuttle used frangible nuts that broke in half. The nuts were needed due to the "twang" that occurred during engine ignition that rocked the shuttle back and forth due to off-axis thrust from the SSMEs.

The SLS doesn't have off-axis thrust, thus no twang, thus no need for the nuts.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline MDMoery

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 5
Quote

Fun fact: SLS has no hold down clamps. There are large bolts that secure the SRBs to the MLP, the nuts for the bolts are there for stacking / transportation only and they are removed before launch day.

Is this true? Sure wasn't the case with Shuttle.
I belive they used Pyrotechnics during the shuttle days.

Correct. Shuttle used frangible nuts that broke in half. The nuts were needed due to the "twang" that occurred during engine ignition that rocked the shuttle back and forth due to off-axis thrust from the SSMEs.

The SLS doesn't have off-axis thrust, thus no twang, thus no need for the nuts.

... and of course no hold-down clamps because nothin's gonna stop a large SRB once she's lit!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37647
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21726
  • Likes Given: 429
Quote

Fun fact: SLS has no hold down clamps. There are large bolts that secure the SRBs to the MLP, the nuts for the bolts are there for stacking / transportation only and they are removed before launch day.

Is this true? Sure wasn't the case with Shuttle.
I belive they used Pyrotechnics during the shuttle days.

Correct. Shuttle used frangible nuts that broke in half. The nuts were needed due to the "twang" that occurred during engine ignition that rocked the shuttle back and forth due to off-axis thrust from the SSMEs.

The SLS doesn't have off-axis thrust, thus no twang, thus no need for the nuts.

... and of course no hold-down clamps because nothin's gonna stop a large SRB once she's lit!

Titan III/IV with solids  and Delta I/II were the same way

Offline adron

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Charlotte, NC
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 81
I'm seeing discussion and video of SpaceX installing the FTS explosives.

I'm also seeing speculation about when the launch license will be granted.

My understanding from other posts on the forum is that installation of active FTS requires and is part of the launch license.

What have I got wrong? Thanks to everyone for all of the information gathered in this forum!

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5706
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4465
  • Likes Given: 1866
I'm seeing discussion and video of SpaceX installing the FTS explosives.

I'm also seeing speculation about when the launch license will be granted.

My understanding from other posts on the forum is that installation of active FTS requires and is part of the launch license.

What have I got wrong? Thanks to everyone for all of the information gathered in this forum!
I thought the video was about de-installing the dummy boxes and preparing to install the real ones, and not about actually installing them yet.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11974
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9611
  • Likes Given: 8211
I'm seeing discussion and video of SpaceX installing the FTS explosives.

I'm also seeing speculation about when the launch license will be granted.

My understanding from other posts on the forum is that installation of active FTS requires and is part of the launch license.

What have I got wrong? Thanks to everyone for all of the information gathered in this forum!
I thought the video was about de-installing the dummy boxes and preparing to install the real ones, and not about actually installing them yet.

adron,
For IFT-2, the FTS was installed before FAA license approval.  The arming is performed after the license is granted:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=59871.msg2540401#msg2540401
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline adron

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Charlotte, NC
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 81
Thanks! I understand the distinction now.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11974
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9611
  • Likes Given: 8211
Thanks! I understand the distinction now.

I just found it took some digging
FTS for IFT-2 was installed on 11/11/2023

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57219.msg2539266#msg2539266

and FAA license granted on  11/15/2023
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14325
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14188
  • Likes Given: 1397
I'm seeing discussion and video of SpaceX installing the FTS explosives.

I'm also seeing speculation about when the launch license will be granted.

My understanding from other posts on the forum is that installation of active FTS requires and is part of the launch license.

What have I got wrong? Thanks to everyone for all of the information gathered in this forum!
I think it's a self-propagating forum legend.

Someone said it and it became an oft-repeated "forum fact"...
« Last Edit: 03/09/2024 12:40 am by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49005
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82882
  • Likes Given: 37269

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49005
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82882
  • Likes Given: 37269
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1766555566275490137

Quote
Raptor Stand returns to the Production Site.

nsf.live/starbase

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7223
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2073
  • Likes Given: 1981
« Last Edit: 03/11/2024 02:23 pm by Chris Bergin »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —


Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11974
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 9611
  • Likes Given: 8211
This post contains a picture (access via a Twitter account required)

https://twitter.com/InfographicTony/status/1766799295557329392

Quote
Starship Flight Test-3 Version 1.0: My (unofficial) infographic - "Excitement guaranteed!" A huge thank you to Bill
@LunarCaveman for all his help putting this together. If any new details are released by @SpaceX, watch for an updated version
« Last Edit: 03/10/2024 04:00 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0