Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
11
Crosspost:

twitter.com/bccarcounters/status/1791600893151821827

Quote
Statement of FAA provided to @NASASpaceflight about SpaceX led investigation:

"If the FAA agrees no public safety issues were involved in the mishap, the operator may return to flight while the mishap investigation remains open, provided all other license requirements are met."

Quote
FAA Statement (May 17, 2024)

The FAA is responsible for and committed to protecting the public during commercial space transportation launch and reentry operations. Today, SpaceX requested that the FAA make a public safety determination as part of the ongoing investigation into the Starship OFT-3 mishap event. The FAA is reviewing the request and will be guided by data and safety at every step of the process.
Learn more about the FAA Mishap Response Program.

Background
When a public safety determination request is received, the FAA evaluates safety-critical systems, the nature and consequences of the mishap, the adequacy of existing flight safety analysis, safety organization performance, and environmental factors. If the FAA agrees no public safety issues were involved in the mishap, the operator may return to flight while the mishap investigation remains open, provided all other license requirements are met.

https://twitter.com/bccarcounters/status/1791611426991157438

Quote
NSF followed up with the question if this would mean that a positive outcome of this investigation would mean the launch license will be modified before the mishab is closed?

The FAA answered: "Yes, provided all other license requirements are met."
12
twitter.com/bccarcounters/status/1791600893151821827

Quote
Statement of FAA provided to @NASASpaceflight about SpaceX led investigation:

"If the FAA agrees no public safety issues were involved in the mishap, the operator may return to flight while the mishap investigation remains open, provided all other license requirements are met."

Quote
FAA Statement (May 17, 2024)

The FAA is responsible for and committed to protecting the public during commercial space transportation launch and reentry operations. Today, SpaceX requested that the FAA make a public safety determination as part of the ongoing investigation into the Starship OFT-3 mishap event. The FAA is reviewing the request and will be guided by data and safety at every step of the process.
Learn more about the FAA Mishap Response Program.

Background
When a public safety determination request is received, the FAA evaluates safety-critical systems, the nature and consequences of the mishap, the adequacy of existing flight safety analysis, safety organization performance, and environmental factors. If the FAA agrees no public safety issues were involved in the mishap, the operator may return to flight while the mishap investigation remains open, provided all other license requirements are met.

https://twitter.com/bccarcounters/status/1791611426991157438

Quote
NSF followed up with the question if this would mean that a positive outcome of this investigation would mean the launch license will be modified before the mishab is closed?

The FAA answered: "Yes, provided all other license requirements are met."
13
meekGee, I realise that you don't think an exponential model the right one. You've explained your reasoning repeatedly, in this and other threads.

Could you just accept that not everyone agrees with you, and ignore posts that refer to that model (or use that word)?

14
I'm arguing that more locations with less cargo at each is better.

This is exploration, not city building.
A permanent outpost that houses a handful of people at most in the foreseeable future is not exactly building a city. 
Look what it takes to maintain ISS.  Thats "a handful of people".

This certainly qualifies it as a city, in my opinion.  It has people, permanent facilities and infrastructure.

Going with common use definitions, that is ridiculous. What NASA is proposing for an "outpost" doesn't even reach to far lower standards of a town, village, or hamlet.

Especially when you take into account that as of today, EVERY human going to the Moon has to go using the Orion MPCV, which only carries four people max, and the SLS+Orion is only forecasted to launch once per year. That is far less occupancy of the Moon than what we have with the ISS today...  ::)

Quote
Quote
It also has the purpose of testing out equipment and facilities for use on Mars where they will most likely need a permanent outpost if a crew is to stay longer than the short duration option.
Shouldn't do that either.  At least, not until Mars as a planet is much better understood than it is now.  Need lots of sample return first.

Look, this thread is for discussing SPECIFICALLY the Starship HLS contract for the Artemis program, where SpaceX is just a service provider and NASA defines the tasks.

You seem to have a beef with NASA's Artemis goals in general, meaning you should take that part of the discussion and find a more appropriate thread...
15
Jim is right.  We don’t (or shouldn’t) test new technologies and capabilities by putting them in the critical path of important research and science, whether that’s another decade-ish of relatively healthy HST observations or samples from ISS microgravity experiments that still need to be analyzed.  We also shouldn’t put untested technologies/capabilities (or poorly understood technologies/capabilities in the case of STS) in the critical path of flying astronauts (civil or commercial).

You want to test out a new rendezvous and capture capability?  Great, do it on a defunct satellite or one near the end of its life (or a purpose-built test object).  You want to test out a new payload return capability?  Great, do it with some used equipment or astronaut underwear (or a purpose-built test payload).

Don’t put unique, rare, or high value research equipment or data (or human lives) in the path of unproven hardware and operations.

There will always be risks associated with space flight.  But we should avoid the obvious and dumb ones.
16
Attached is a map pic with a pin at the exact location of the permit.
17
Missions To The Moon (HSF) / Re: Artemis Accords
« Last post by yg1968 on 05/17/2024 11:17 pm »
18
Starship is going to be a poor bus for most science type mission because the dirty atmosphere around it.  It likely will be worse than the shuttle.  It is going to have water, CO2 and hydrocarbons around it as long as it uses Methane for thrusters and electrical power production.

So help me with this one.

Gas in a high vacuum is in the "molecular regime".  Unless they're charged, molecules go in a straight line.

So Starship will be a menace to anything it approaches or docks with, but if it's just in space and the instruments are in a bay that only sees space - why would they be contaminated?

Now if you're emitting charged particles, they'll travel in paths affected by electrical and magnetic fields, but:
- Gasses that just leak, and the exhaust of cold thrusters, are not ionized
- Exhausts of thermal thrusters are, but are largely too fast to capture
- Some materials can emit ions just from being weathered by the sun
- But - if you're in orbit around a planet, there's plenty of ambient molecules anyway.

So I'm not talking about JWST rn.  I'm talking about generic planetary/asteroid/comet probes, the kind that we want to send to every solar system destination.  We want long duration orbital reconnaissance, and multiple surface probes, dropped most likely some time after arrival.

Or, we want very large landers.

I think both can be done with SS even if it's not optimal.

I don't think what you're describing is a show stopper.
19
I'm arguing that more locations with less cargo at each is better.

This is exploration, not city building.
A permanent outpost that houses a handful of people at most in the foreseeable future is not exactly building a city. 

Look what it takes to maintain ISS.  Thats "a handful of people".

This certainly qualifies it as a city, in my opinion.  It has people, permanent facilities and infrastructure.

This is descending into semantics but, taking population out of the question, the label of ‘city’ strongly implies a location that is continuously inhabited. Short of that I think we’re back to ‘outpost’ territory.

Quote
Quote
It also has the purpose of testing out equipment and facilities for use on Mars where they will most likely need a permanent outpost if a crew is to stay longer than the short duration option.

Shouldn't do that either.  At least, not until Mars as a planet is much better understood than it is now.  Need lots of sample return first.

That’s quite an assertion. Can you share exactly what you a expect sample analysis, performed on Earth, will tell us about Mars that would significantly impact plans for a manned mission and its equipment?

We appear to possess more data about the Martian environment now than was had about Lunar environs in advance of Apollo.

And Apollo wasn't a permanent base.

I'd like to know where the water is, how much, the chemical composition of the surface down at least 5 meters, the mechanical properties of that surface material, in many places, and so on.
20
https://x.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1791576514594480579

William Harwood
@cbs_spacenews

A5/Starliner CFT: For background, pressurized helium is used to push propellants to the Starliner's many thrusters, including the four powerful launch abort engines at the base of the capsule that would be used in an abort to propel the ship away from a malfunctioning booster. Those engines require high-pressure helium during ascent, but once the ship is in orbit, pressure is reduced for normal thruster operation. The leak was traced to a flange at a single reaction control system jet in one of four "doghouse" assemblies mounted around the Starliner's drum-shaped service module. Each doghouse features four orbital maneuvering and attitude control -- OMAC -- thrusters and four small RCS jets. Engineers are analyzing test data to make sure the leak, which is currently stable and within acceptable limits, will not worsen in flight
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Next
Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0