11

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Transporter-12 Rideshare : VSFB SLC-4E : NET January 2025

« Last post by StraumliBlight on 12/02/2024 11:08 pm »

NET June now from new FCC filing

FCC filings for Veery-0F haven't been updated since June, when it was moved from Bandwagon-2 to Transporter-12.

Are you referring to Veery-0G?

12

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 / Crew Dragon : Florida : Crew-10 : NET mid February 2025

« Last post by zubenelgenubi on 12/02/2024 10:52 pm »

Crew-10 launch NET mid-February 2025:

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/04-final-nac-ccp-status-sept-2024.pdf

CCP worked with SpaceX to replan the Crew-9 mission to launch two crew members in late September instead of four.
The CFT astronauts will join Expedition 71/72 and return to Earth aboard Crew-9 at the conclusion of the increment in late February 2025.

Crew-9 returns in late February; therefore, Crew-10 launches NET mid February.

pdf file attached to original post.

13

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Transporter-12 Rideshare : VSFB SLC-4E : NET January 2025

« Last post by gongora on 12/02/2024 10:35 pm »

Veery-0F's mission page has been updated with a January 15th, 2025 launch date.

NET June now from new FCC filing

14

Missions To Mars (HSF) / Re: Planetary protection issues Earth > Mars and Mars > Earth

« Last post by VSECOTSPE on 12/02/2024 10:21 pm »

The point is that the process could be contested in court if it is too burdensome or the executive branch could decide on its own to change its requirements.

Mountain out of a (non-existent) molehill.  The reality is that FAA’s PP info requests don’t even fill up one page and consist of only two or three actual info requests, depending on the destination.  If/when COSPAR and/or NASA address large Mars landers/human Mars landings, they’re just going to straightforwardly recommend that certain sites/regions of scientific interest/high contamination risk be placed off limits for those missions until we know more.  We know this from NRC studies on the problem.

The FAA is in the process of trying to revamp its commercial launch licensing process for a new era of more frequent launches.  Some more onerous paperwork and reviews are going to have to be consolidated and/or dealt with once instead of repeatedly.  (And the agency is going to have to be better funded.)  PP isn’t one of those things.  Frankly, given the extremely high and uncertain stakes for planetary research and for our home biosphere, I’d argue the FAA should be more explicit, rigorous, and demanding on PP.  I think I’m asked more questions about what animals and plants I’m bringing back from abroad on international flights than what the FAA is asking on PP.

Article XIII seems to be saying that if activities are carried through an international organization, issues could also be addressed through that organization but I don't think that is relevant here.

You’re right for a purely SX Starship landings on Mars.  But the reality is that NASA will probably have involvement with payloads, providing comms support, providing tracking support, lending expertise under SAAs, etc.  And ESA and/or the ISS partnership are involved in most NASA things — instruments, guest investigators, expanding the NASA comms/tracking footprint, etc. 

Precedence is usually not that important. Under domestic law, a precedent under case law (under common law systems) can be binding but we are not talking about a court case here.

Regulatory precedence, which can be important if headed to court, but has importance outside the courts regardless in terms of creating a stable and certain operating environment for the private sector.  You want regulatory systems to change when they are obviously providing little protection, are outdated, are too onerous, and/or too vague.  You don’t want regulatory systems to change every time there’s an election, every time some company or someone with a large checkbook writes a big enough check, or every time a random congressman or bureaucrat (or space cadet like us) thinks they have a bright idea.

There's no ironclad language anywhere that would actually bind an administration to a certain course of action.

It’s not laws, agreements, and norms themselves that bind action, but the consequences of not following laws, agreements, and norms that bind action.  When driving, I stop at an intersection even when I see no traffic, not because I’m a good guy (although hopefully I am) but because I don’t want a ticket from an unseen cop or camera and also because I don’t want the liability in the event my actions do cause an accident.  Same holds true for the USG writ large, SX, and anyone else headed to Mars.  They don’t want the blowback, liabilities, court cases, lost partnerships, lost business, etc. that would come from contaminating research sites at Mars or bringing extraterrestrial biology back to Earth.  They want experts to tell them how to the best of our current knowledge avoid those outcomes, gets that codified in reasonable rules that (most, there will always be foreign holdouts) everyone agrees to, and proceed from there.  The wrinkle here is that this has not been formally done with respect to large landed/human missions to Mars, which makes some of us space cadets nervous.  But we can see from NRC studies how the science community is going to address this, and it doesn’t conflict with doing those missions over large parts of Mars.

Little of lasting economic value or other utility gets done in a lawless, unregulated environment.  The risks are too high for most investors, and those that do take the risk end up losing because of the externalities of unregulated environments that have nothing to do with the actual task at hand.  This is why we have the Artemis Accords — to put in place some bare bones agreements about the use of lunar resources, non-interference, etc. at the Moon.  Without them or something like them, only governments will be able to take on the risks of that frontier over the long-term, something that has arguably held back lunar development since Apollo.  Similar rules of the road for the specific environment at Mars will be needed there.

15

SpaceX General Section / Re: SpaceX progress towards a 144 launch year in 2024

« Last post by Perchlorate on 12/02/2024 10:21 pm »

and the projection for 2024 is back at or over 144 launches.

Do you mean for 2025?

I believe that, if you look at his post fully, including the nice graphs, that his use of the word "projection" means the extrapolation of 2024's current trend out to December 31, 2024.

16

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Catching Starship's upper stage

« Last post by OTV Booster on 12/02/2024 10:11 pm »

Maybe some low pressure air bags on the chopstick arms that make first contact with the ship and rapidly deflate as the arms slow thereby cushioning the contact with the tiles ??

My opinion: This seems like the best solution proposed so far.  Air bags on the chop sticks may be able to get the ship aligned with the arms without damaging the TPS tiles.

Or better yet, low pressure air bag rollers to avoid scuffing. Gotta make sure there's no flame impingement.

17

Commercial Space Flight General / Re: SpinLaunch: General Company and Development Updates and Discussions

« Last post by StraumliBlight on 12/02/2024 10:08 pm »

https://twitter.com/spinlaunch/status/1859339554005917881

It was a privilege to host General Michael Guetlein, Vice Chief of Space Operations, United States Space Force at SpinLaunch HQ last week. His commitment to fostering stronger collaboration between government and industry was clear, as was his vision for accelerating the deployment of innovative technologies to strengthen national defense and space capabilities.

During the visit, we showcased SpinLaunch’s integrated tech stack of low-cost space services and explored how our solutions align with the mission to maintain U.S. defense and space superiority. We’re excited to continue working with our nation's defense agencies to drive innovation in support of these critical objectives.

18

SpaceX Falcon Missions Section / Re: SpaceX F9 : Transporter-12 Rideshare : VSFB SLC-4E : NET January 2025

« Last post by StraumliBlight on 12/02/2024 09:51 pm »

Veery-0F's mission page has been updated with a January 15th, 2025 launch date.

19

Space Policy Discussion / Re: What Will A Second Trump Term Mean for Space Policy?

« Last post by Coastal Ron on 12/02/2024 09:50 pm »

...
In terms of preference, I believe that the following should be favored for the human exploration of the Moon and Mars:

1- Commercial partnerships with non-NASA customers.
2- If not possible, public private partnerships without NASA customers.
3- Cost-plus programs would seem to be more adequate for R&D programs such as nuclear propulsion.

#1 & #2 are the same.

From a contracting perspective you either have a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, where the contractor takes on the risk (and reward), or you have some form of Cost Plus contract, where the contractor takes on little risk.

And until there is a PROVEN market for something, with real customers saying they will pay for products and/or services (i.e. a "market"), then calling anything "commercial" is just a misnomer. It's just PR for the masses, and just another way of putting lipstick on a pig... 

But we probably way out over our skis here, because so far Trump has only talked about new missions (i.e. Mars by 2028), not revamping NASA to help American aerospace.

20

SpaceX Starship Program / Re: Larger Starships

« Last post by xvel on 12/02/2024 09:49 pm »

200m high starship would need ~370t thrust raptors without increasing their size