Author Topic: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion  (Read 532243 times)

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 823
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #880 on: 01/28/2021 09:47 pm »
Its probably overstating things, but when the Challenger incident occurred, it was a result of weak oversight. Nobody wants anything like that (or not like that but still deadly and embarrassing) under their watch.

I think that goes without saying, but what relevance does it have on this?

No humans on board.
Area evacuated for miles.
Self destruct system on board.
Flight is vertical.
« Last Edit: 01/28/2021 09:48 pm by mlindner »
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 823
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #881 on: 01/28/2021 09:49 pm »
I wonder if there's a way SpaceX can get some visibility into today's test flight (or lack thereof) when Secretary-Designate Buttigieg is being confirmed by the Senate?

I'm sure SpaceX is fully aware why FAA is not allowing them to fly. What SpaceX are no doubt arguing is that whatever reason FAA thinks is a valid reason SpaceX/Elon thinks is not a valid reason.
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39286
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25281
  • Likes Given: 12125
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #882 on: 01/28/2021 10:02 pm »
Can someone give a precise rundown of exactly what happened today? A detailed timeline? (Put question marks by events that are not confirmed but could be inferred.)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7222
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2072
  • Likes Given: 1980
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #883 on: 01/28/2021 10:18 pm »
To be clear, no one can sensibly suggest that approval for today's test flight deserves attention from the Secretary of Transportation!
But it isn't like SpaceX sprung this test flight on the FAA in a surprise move. Sure, they're over-worked at FAA; is that underlying concern an issue for the incoming Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation? Who else could fix the "over-worked" problem? FAA Administrator Dickson apparently hasn't....
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Nevyn72

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Australia
  • Liked: 1039
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #884 on: 01/28/2021 10:28 pm »
Does anyone have a good indication of exactly where Tankzilla is parked?

I was wondering if there's enough room to lower to boom to ground level for storage during the test flight?
(like they have done previously with cranes during bad weather and for servicing)

I just find it a bit hard to believe they'll have enough time to mount it on SMPTs and drive it away tomorrow...

Lost a bit in all the noise but..... Called it!  :)

Offline Krossbolt

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Australia
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #885 on: 01/28/2021 10:43 pm »
.

The bigger picture is the FAA is understaffed with people who couldn't get the better-paying jobs in private industry, and they don't have much (any?) incentive to act quickly.

Their tweet today pretty much said "We'll be done with the approval process when we're done with the approval process," which tells you all you need to know about their sense of urgency.

That is an unwarranted and unfair comment. I worked in a Government section and there are some extremely experienced and qualified personnel in these types of jobs, who COME from private industry, particularly where safety assessment is involved.
Let them do their jobs diligently.
Safety is very unpopular but no doubt, you will be one of the first complaining that due process wasn't undertaken correctly if something serious did go wrong and people were hurt.   
« Last Edit: 01/28/2021 10:59 pm by Krossbolt »

Offline beelsebob

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 258
  • CA
  • Liked: 353
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #886 on: 01/28/2021 10:53 pm »
Its probably overstating things, but when the Challenger incident occurred, it was a result of weak oversight. Nobody wants anything like that (or not like that but still deadly and embarrassing) under their watch.

I think that goes without saying, but what relevance does it have on this?

No humans on board.
Area evacuated for miles.
Self destruct system on board.
Flight is vertical.
During recent testing a vehicle drove off the beach, and within a couple of hundred yards of a fully fueled starship.  That's got a pretty significant risk of death associated with it.  I imagine they're trying to figure out how to guarantee the beach is actually evacuated.

Offline cailes

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • PNW
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #887 on: 01/28/2021 11:01 pm »
Its probably overstating things, but when the Challenger incident occurred, it was a result of weak oversight. Nobody wants anything like that (or not like that but still deadly and embarrassing) under their watch.

I think that goes without saying, but what relevance does it have on this?

No humans on board.
Area evacuated for miles.
Self destruct system on board.
Flight is vertical.
During recent testing a vehicle drove off the beach, and within a couple of hundred yards of a fully fueled starship.  That's got a pretty significant risk of death associated with it.  I imagine they're trying to figure out how to guarantee the beach is actually evacuated.

As Krossbolt stated, safety is very unpopular. But if you look at the Challenger incident, it has everything to do with why FAA does what they do. They changed their entire approach to safety after the challenger incident because during interviews with personnel associated with the Challenger, it was noted that people DID note issues which could have lead to catastrophic failures, and people DID raise the issues but because NASA wanted their flight, they pushed ahead and well, we all know how that happened.

Today, safety is approached more broadly so that front line issues (such as a mechanic who noted an issue) has ways to alert those in the higher levels of management that there are risks occurring.

FAA isn't going to stake their reputation on an experimental rocket like Starship for the sake of a million amazing peoples (myself included) who all want to see this thing fly. They are going to make SpaceX go through the process the right way so that if something DID happen, it doesn't become another case study that gets demonstrated at every safety training session from now until 2050

Offline StevenOBrien

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Ireland
    • Steven O'Brien
  • Liked: 4416
  • Likes Given: 2707
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #888 on: 01/28/2021 11:34 pm »
I want SN9 to fly tomorrow as much as anyone else, but to be honest, the incident with the kayaker last week was ridiculous and SpaceX deserves to be scrutinized over it.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #889 on: 01/28/2021 11:41 pm »
Still no new TFR issued for the SN9 flight. Just the old 1.8562 and 1.8565 entries from January 28th that have altitude limit of 7200 ft MSL.

Seems likely there will be no test flight for SN9 Friday if the safety issues are not resolved by early Friday morning.

AIUI from the NSF SN9 launch webcast, the safety issues is with the vehicle itself.

Offline Aaron_Space

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #890 on: 01/28/2021 11:46 pm »
Still no new TFR issued for the SN9 flight. Just the old 1.8562 and 1.8565 entries from January 28th that have altitude limit of 7200 ft MSL.

1/7364 is still active for 1/29 from surface to unlimited. Of course it could be pulled just like today's was, but it's still listed* for now.

https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_7364.html

*Edit to clarify that as of the time I posted, 1/7364, issued 01/26/2021 is still listed here: https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html
« Last Edit: 01/29/2021 01:44 am by Aaron_Space »

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1109
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 1107
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #891 on: 01/28/2021 11:46 pm »
I find it interesting that the launch pad area still seems to be deserted. One would get the impression that SpaceX would be moving to flight first thing in the morning, but if they still don't have permission to launch, then what? This is all very confusing.

Sent from my Redmi Note 7 using Tapatalk


Offline quagmire

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #892 on: 01/28/2021 11:47 pm »
I want SN9 to fly tomorrow as much as anyone else, but to be honest, the incident with the kayaker last week was ridiculous and SpaceX deserves to be scrutinized over it.

Not sure how SpaceX deserves to be scrutinized for the counties job to ensure beach is clear, etc. The county closes the road and clears the beach, not SpaceX. SpaceX may help, but not their liability.

Offline TRS717

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Texas
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #893 on: 01/28/2021 11:53 pm »
I worked in a Government section and there are some extremely experienced and qualified personnel in these types of jobs, who COME from private industry, particularly where safety assessment is involved.
Let them do their jobs diligently.
Agreed, though I'd also not discount the possibility that Elon may not very used to hearing the word "no" these days, especially from a $90k/yr. GS-11, who him/herself might just like saying "no" when their back is up after hearing their agency getting trash-talked by the richest man in the world.
« Last Edit: 01/28/2021 11:54 pm by TRS717 »

Offline Herb Schaltegger

I want SN9 to fly tomorrow as much as anyone else, but to be honest, the incident with the kayaker last week was ridiculous and SpaceX deserves to be scrutinized over it.

Not sure how SpaceX deserves to be scrutinized for the counties job to ensure beach is clear, etc. The county closes the road and clears the beach, not SpaceX. SpaceX may help, but not their liability.

It most certainly is SpaceX's liability. The beach is a public state park and the road accessing it is a public thoroughfare. The State and County agree to allow SpaceX to close them periodically in exchange for other consideration (economic development and investment, etc) but the closures are for SpaceX's benefit. The liability for death, injury or property damage resulting from SpaceX operations is very much SpaceX's responsibility, to the tune of something like $125M (*) based on the size of the bond the FAA required SpaceX to post for their operating license for the site.

(*) I'm going from memory here - this could be wrong; if anything, it may be low as I recall some posts when the FAA increased the amount required.

But none of this - including this post - have anything to do specifically with the current Texas prototypes so this whole thing is off-topic for the thread.
« Last Edit: 01/28/2021 11:56 pm by Herb Schaltegger »
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Alvian@IDN

My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #896 on: 01/29/2021 12:08 am »
Christian Davenport's WAPO news article on the current situation with the SN9 test flight. It doesn't clear up what the hold up is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/28/elon-musk-spacex-starship-faa/

Offline Faerwald

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #897 on: 01/29/2021 12:13 am »
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.

Offline fatdeeman

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #898 on: 01/29/2021 12:26 am »
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.

I agree. I have to assume they were fairly confident of getting approval today and that something didn't go as expected. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done it.

Hopefully it happens tomorrow.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 823
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 16 : Discussion
« Reply #899 on: 01/29/2021 12:58 am »
Its probably overstating things, but when the Challenger incident occurred, it was a result of weak oversight. Nobody wants anything like that (or not like that but still deadly and embarrassing) under their watch.

I think that goes without saying, but what relevance does it have on this?

No humans on board.
Area evacuated for miles.
Self destruct system on board.
Flight is vertical.
During recent testing a vehicle drove off the beach, and within a couple of hundred yards of a fully fueled starship.  That's got a pretty significant risk of death associated with it.  I imagine they're trying to figure out how to guarantee the beach is actually evacuated.

I've seen reported several places that the reason isn't about the beach people, but about the vehicle. I believe they mentioned that on the NSF stream as well. The FAA delayed it because of a vehicle hardware safety issue.
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Tags:
 

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