Author Topic: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion  (Read 531682 times)

Offline Faerwald

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #940 on: 01/29/2021 01:54 pm »
I hope the evacuation notice Mary got was not given without certainty on getting FAA approval. Having to evacuate day after day will get annoying real quick if it's done without having these issues resolved.

So yeah no certainty at all. What a waste :(

Online deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1831
  • USA
  • Liked: 1496
  • Likes Given: 2593
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #941 on: 01/29/2021 01:54 pm »
Just a thought.

Maybe spaceX shouldn't be prepping for a launch when they don't have a launch license yet. Everyone is getting frustrated, but we do not know what the FAA is objecting to. They are actually being respectful to spaceX by not publicizing the problems. They are dealing with spaceX directly.

Also, I LOVE that we have the FAA. Imagine being in a third world country where your chance of dying in a plane crash are not that low. The fact that the government can tell airliners to prioritize saftey is WONDERFUL. Do screwups happen [deleted] yup.  Does that mean the system is evil and bad? [Not necessarily.]

edit zubenelgenubi
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 03:33 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2318
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #942 on: 01/29/2021 01:58 pm »
Are they rolling SN10 to the pad today?  Good, they need to start the FAA paperwork on SN10 now, if they haven't already.


Maybe spaceX shouldn't be prepping for a launch when they don't have a launch license yet. Everyone is getting frustrated, but we do not know what the FAA is objecting to. They are actually being respectful to spaceX by not publicizing the problems. They are dealing with spaceX directly.

Only if these delays were expected and announced in advance.  Not much evidence for that.
Personally I would prefer full transparency.  So far we've heard "swapping an engine creates a whole new rocket", which is nonsense.  We need more visibility.

And it still makes no sense that SN8 was approved but not SN9.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 02:01 pm by Norm38 »

Offline capoman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
  • Ontario Canada
  • Liked: 1441
  • Likes Given: 1330
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #943 on: 01/29/2021 01:59 pm »
Just a thought.

Maybe spaceX shouldn't be prepping for a launch when they don't have a launch license yet. Everyone is getting frustrated, but we do not know what the FAA is objecting to. They are actually being respectful to spaceX by not publicizing the problems. They are dealing with spaceX directly.

Also, I LOVE that we have the FAA. Imagine being in a third world country where your chance of dying in a plane crash are not that low. The fact that the government can tell airliners to prioritize saftey is WONDERFUL. Do screwups happen (cough 737)  yup.  Does that mean the system is evil and bad? Only if you never got past 2nd grade.

I suspect that the approval is more dynamic than pre approving a flight. They may be involved in go-no go decision right up until launch.

Offline r8ix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #944 on: 01/29/2021 02:26 pm »
Yes, but it was missing for a least some of yesterday. It's been resurrected...
Correction: it was never missing, this TFR has been consistently listed since being filed.  1/7364 was posted on the 26th and hasn't budged since.

Source: I'm @SpaceTFRs on Twitter and my script monitors TFRs and alerts when they disappear as it did for 1/7363.

There was an extended period yesterday when it was not visible on this list:
https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.jsp?p=list&cns_l_id=ZHU&type=all&sort=d&up=Y

Make of it what you will...

Online Herb Schaltegger

Rookie Question...Is this how I post to the comments thread?  Also, do I have to join the L2 to comment?  And, how do I comment without replying to someone else's comments?...lol  Sorry for the rookie questions.

Um, no. You commented in the Updates thread. If you have comments to add, post them in the relevant Discussion thread for the topic. Or create a new topic if you can’t find a better thread (unlikely but possible).

No, you don’t need to join L2 to comment. Just use a Discussion thread for non-updates.

As for replying without quoting, either edit the reply before posting to remove the quote(s), or just go to the bottom of the page and start typing in the Quick Reply window and then post from there.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 02:29 pm by Herb Schaltegger »
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Thunderscreech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
  • Liked: 950
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #946 on: 01/29/2021 02:33 pm »
There was an extended period yesterday when it was not visible on this list:
https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.jsp?p=list&cns_l_id=ZHU&type=all&sort=d&up=Y

Make of it what you will...
With the utmost respect, it's possible you may have mixed up the disappearance of 1/7363 with this one because whenever a space TFR disappears from the /tfr2/ list, it generates an alert within a minute.  It's easy to mix these up because there was another BROWNSVILLE, TX one in the list at the time (the 7,200ft) for today that some folks confused with today's flight TFR, but if it had disappeared, a few thousand people would have gotten a notice.

Anyhow, onwards and upwards.  Per Delayum Ad Hop (my deepest apologies to anyone who speaks latin)
Ben Hallert - @BocaRoad, @FCCSpace, @Spacecareers, @NASAProcurement, and @SpaceTFRs on Twitter

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14067
  • UK
  • Liked: 3998
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #947 on: 01/29/2021 02:33 pm »
From the WP article posted above.

Quote
The person said the FAA, rather, was “pedaling very fast” and “doing everything to speed things up to become more efficient and more effective and agile while still maintaining public safety.”
The person said that the agency expected to have the approval ready soon and that it was already working on the license for the test flight after that.
As for Musk’s tweet, the person said: “I don’t find it helpful.”

Offline r8ix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #948 on: 01/29/2021 02:52 pm »
There was an extended period yesterday when it was not visible on this list:
https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.jsp?p=list&cns_l_id=ZHU&type=all&sort=d&up=Y

Make of it what you will...
With the utmost respect, it's possible you may have mixed up the disappearance of 1/7363 with this one because whenever a space TFR disappears from the /tfr2/ list, it generates an alert within a minute.  It's easy to mix these up because there was another BROWNSVILLE, TX one in the list at the time (the 7,200ft) for today that some folks confused with today's flight TFR, but if it had disappeared, a few thousand people would have gotten a notice.

Anyhow, onwards and upwards.  Per Delayum Ad Hop (my deepest apologies to anyone who speaks latin)

No, here:
Is this a new TFR for today?

https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html?fbclid=IwAR2ybhrnT4X0UhXo-MLsUKtldECqxY1NyxAc1ydgMQbGmfq0s9j0uan4sCM

The TFRs currently showing as posted today (including that one), and effective today through tomorrow, and tomorrow through Saturday, respectively, are both limited to 7200 feet, so not compatible with a hop.

I went through every TFR, and it wasn't there at that time...

Online Chris Bergin

Keep it calm. We try and let things be an open discussion, but we won't just "let it run" like most other discussion sites.

zubenelgenubi: More thread trimming.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 03:36 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Giggleplex7

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Canada
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 865
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #950 on: 01/29/2021 03:18 pm »
Is it a good idea to move SN10 to the pad before SN9 has flown? It would be bad to lose 2 starships if SN9 RUDs nearby. *knocks on wood*

Offline buildstarted

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #951 on: 01/29/2021 03:22 pm »
Is it a good idea to move SN10 to the pad before SN9 has flown? It would be bad to lose 2 starships if SN9 RUDs nearby. *knocks on wood*

If it launches and all is well they can launch again shortly after. If it RUDs and takes out SN10 then they have SN11 and 15 almost ready to go. since SN15 is quite the upgrade they probably won't be missing much except the time/energy/money to build SN10.
For those interested in old apollo drawings https://apollopreliminarydrawings.com/

Online Vettedrmr

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
  • Hot Springs, AR
  • Liked: 2110
  • Likes Given: 3246
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #952 on: 01/29/2021 03:26 pm »
In my aviation career, every time the FAA slowed down the registration/certification of my homebuilt aircraft, it made me grit my teeth, and the associated whining and moaning.  And, after the fact, grudgingly admitted that I had a better aircraft for it.

Drivers like Elon don't like roadblocks, regardless of their validity.  And occasionally that frustration comes out.  I'm sure there are kernals of truth in his tweet, and those kernals would be acknowledged by those in the FAA.  But change is tough for a government agency, even one that is wanting to change.  The process, literally, is made to slow things down to provide opportunity for thorough reviews.

I don't like it, nor enjoy it, but I do respect it.
Aviation/space enthusiast, retired control system SW engineer, doesn't know anything!

Offline MTom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • EU / Hungary
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 993
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #953 on: 01/29/2021 03:27 pm »
SN9 is waiting for a while for this test, not a surprise to approve.
Why can nobody say, what is the issue?
Is it ITAR, or why is it such a mystery? All of the statements have zero information.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 03:29 pm by MTom »

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6287
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9612
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #954 on: 01/29/2021 03:28 pm »
Is it a good idea to move SN10 to the pad before SN9 has flown? It would be bad to lose 2 starships if SN9 RUDs nearby. *knocks on wood*
Assumption: SN10 has a few tweaks from SN9, but the two were constructed close enough together that there are no major changes that cannot be applied without changes in assembly (e.g. once the header is installed and tanks mated, there's no real way to fiddle with the baffle geometry).

Possibility 1: SN9 sticks the landing, no danger to SN10
Possibility 2: SN9 experiences the same failure as SN8
Possibility 3: SN9 experiences a brand new and exiting failure mode.

If 2 or 3 occur, then whatever caused the issue would need to be identified and fixed before flying again. That would at the very least mean tearing SN10 apart, but more likely it would mean scrapping it like SN12 and skipping ahead in the queue to a later version that already had a change that is hoped would fix the issue, or is at an early enough stage that a fix can be applied nondestructively. If 1 occurs as is hoped, SN10 is ready to go and claws back some of the schedule slip from SN9.

Offline bstrong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 454
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #955 on: 01/29/2021 03:31 pm »
Elon has tweaked enough government agencies to know what he was in for in the short term. He's playing a long game to get attention at the right levels of government to get regulations modernized, funding increased, better tools in place, etc. so that the FAA stops being the gating factor for Mars.

And I doubt the folks working the permit are rubes about this. Even in the middle of flexing their muscle to show that they aren't going to be unduly influenced on SN9, they're probably secretly grateful that Elon is basically advocating for increased funding and staffing for their office (while simultaneously cursing him under their breath).
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 03:38 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8853
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60520
  • Likes Given: 1316
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #956 on: 01/29/2021 03:47 pm »
 There's not some guy named FAA doing all this. It's a bunch of people and they don't all speak with the same voice. Anthropomorphizing an entire agency might be easy and fun, but it's not really helping to understand what's going on.

 Right now, they need to get the line moving. I failed to get an answer regarding SN10 clearing the way for SN11 so SN15 can progress, clearing the bay for crane installation or something else. Having found 200 pound pieces of SN8 that landed almost a thousand feet from the pad, I have to wonder about launching 9 with 10 on the other stand.
But the launch stand is quite a ways from the landing pad, so I guess the odds aren't that bad. I'd probably worry more about concrete/martyte shrapnel. There have been some pretty good chunks up to 500 feet from the stand.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 03:48 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
  • Liked: 2930
  • Likes Given: 510
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #957 on: 01/29/2021 03:48 pm »
Well, when an asteroid wipes us out 10 years before we have a self sustaining off world colony, at least we will be able to say the FAA made sure things didn’t progress unnecessarily quickly.

Offline drjones

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Mojave Desert, CA
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #958 on: 01/29/2021 03:51 pm »
I actually have worked flight test and may or may not have insight.

First I love what SpaceX is doing, and who they are.  They work hard and long, by the seat of their pants. Dynamic.
It is part of what makes them great.  But it has drawbacks, and flight test is one of them.

From my experience doing flight test, it is a fairly rigid process.
Before an event we would conduct an FRR (Flight or Firing Readiness Review) a minimum of two weeks before the event.
We wouldn't even THINK of doing that FRR if ALL the approvals were not in place, T crossed and I's dotted.

We didn't usually need a TFR from the FAA because we dealt with closed airspace.
But once in awhile we did, and in those cases we filed for the TFR and NOTAMs about 6 months ahead. 
SIX MONTHS ahead. 

I've seen a few comments suggesting the FAA seems to have no urgency.
But why would they?  As much as we want to see the test, it is not urgent. 
Delays will not impact cargo, moving people around in the air, or most importantly safety. 
So I imagine the FAA will follow their standard process, however long it takes. 

SpaceX can continue to try to flight test dynamically but it is going to lead to issues like this. 
If they are willing to accept that risk, then that's fine.  We couldn't. 

Just my 2 cents. 
 


Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 1053
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #959 on: 01/29/2021 03:54 pm »
Since nobody but SpaceX and the FAA know what's going on, all this shouting at the FAA is ridiculous. It's beneath this forum. Musk has shown blatant disregard for sensible safety regs before (in Covid context), so I wouldn't assume it must be the FAA holding things up for no reason.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1