Cross-post:Quote from: realnouns on 02/22/2023 07:31 pm0421-EX-ST-2023 Starship Orbital Test FlightOperation Start Date (NET) March 15
0421-EX-ST-2023 Starship Orbital Test FlightOperation Start Date (NET) March 15
Quote from: Comga on 02/22/2023 07:35 pmCross-post:Quote from: realnouns on 02/22/2023 07:31 pm0421-EX-ST-2023 Starship Orbital Test FlightOperation Start Date (NET) March 15Is this just another extension of that FCC licence they've had for a few years now, or is this something else?
Elon Musk at a Morgan Stanley conference says again that Starship's first full-stack test launch from Texas will happen "hopefully in the next month or so, we'll have our first attempt." Adds "80 percent chance of reaching orbit this year"
So translated from Elon time, to normal time, does that mean NET June?
Quote from: pb2000 on 03/07/2023 07:36 pmSo translated from Elon time, to normal time, does that mean NET June?We’re still at NET March. NET.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/07/2023 07:41 pmQuote from: pb2000 on 03/07/2023 07:36 pmSo translated from Elon time, to normal time, does that mean NET June?We’re still at NET March. NET. "hopefully in the next month or so" implies that March is already out, even without taking into account the 'Elon Time' multiplier (which varies from 1.1x to infinity).
No, it implies uncertainty in the outcome with a March launch not yet being ruled out. He did not say "hopefully next month..." or "hopefully in a month...".
Quote from: eriblo on 03/07/2023 10:51 pmNo, it implies uncertainty in the outcome with a March launch not yet being ruled out. He did not say "hopefully next month..." or "hopefully in a month...".English can be pretty ambiguous at times, but that phrasing generally means a minimum of 30 days.
Quote from: pb2000 on 03/07/2023 11:18 pmQuote from: eriblo on 03/07/2023 10:51 pmNo, it implies uncertainty in the outcome with a March launch not yet being ruled out. He did not say "hopefully next month..." or "hopefully in a month...".English can be pretty ambiguous at times, but that phrasing generally means a minimum of 30 days.Right, so Elon was effectively saying "hopefully in the next 30 days or so", which includes the rest of March.
The need for a water deluge has been pretty evident for a long time now. While they may have data that encourages them one might not be needed, they have never fired 33 engines for an extended period of time at close to full thrust - not even close: closest has been around half of that, and heat fluxes/dissipation/plume collimation effects do not necessarily allow for a simple extrapolation from existing data.
Could be a case of: We're launching without deluge. It won't destroy the launch site, like a RUD would. If NASA wasn't also saying it, just Elon, I would be more skeptical.And: We're building deluge, because it will accelerate future turnaround times, so we don't need to make as many repairs.....I'm currently reading Liftoff, and SpaceX has always moved with haste. No reason both of the above can't be true.
It's a very vague phrase that I don't think much can be read into, except that Elon isn't certain/confident of March. "In the next month" would mean *within* the next ~30 days (so definitely not ruling out March: "in *a* month" = 'a month from now' provably would) but "or so" makes it vague enough that precise parsing is likely not relevant.IMO late March is still the 'plan of record' but there is doubt about meeting it (there is still no launch license...)
I think the quote means, "we're planning a first attempt in the next 30 days but don't know how it will go or how many attempts it will take to get to release of the hold down clamps."
Musk is setting low expectations for a successful SS/SH first launch:https://www.independent.co.uk/space/spacex-starship-launch-date-elon-musk-b2297482.htmlI'm glad he's stating this because he said something similar prior to the first FH launch in 2018.
This refers to application, File No. 0421-EX-ST-2023, for an experimental authorization.You are advised that the Commission is unable to grant your application for the facilities requested. NTIA objected due to harmful interference anticipated to federal space systems as a result of the increased ERP.