SpaceX (general discussion)

Archibald said:
No markings whatsoever ? and that greyish livery... looks like the (clandestine) plane of a James Bond supervillain. LMAO.
Click to expand...
We first thought it was a cargo plane but once we looked up the N#, realized what we had caught...
With some of the previous tracking of Elon's private flights, I can see the reason for the subdued markings but like us,
all you have to do is look it up.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Last edited:
FAA Licence:


1. Changed paragraph 4(b)(iii) from “Pacific Ocean” to “Indian Ocean.”
2. Added “, excluding Starship entry contingency landing locations.” to paragraph 4(b)(iii)
3. Changed paragraph 4(b)(iv) from “Orbital Flight Test 2” to “Flight 3.”
4. Moved paragraph 6(a) to paragraph 6(b).
5. Added new paragraph 6(a) to “SpaceX must comply with the measures listed in the Conditions section in the April 14, 2023 Written Re evaluation of the 2022 Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle Program at the Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas.”
6. Added paragraph 6(c), “SpaceX must comply with the measures listed in the Conditions section of the Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision for the Tiered Environmental Assessment for SpaceX Starship Indian Ocean Landings, issued March 12, 2024.”
Click to expand...

FAA Statement on SpaceX Starship OFT-3 License Modification Approval (March 13, 2024)

The FAA is authorizing the Space Starship Super Heavy Orbital Flight Test 3 (OFT-3) launch. The FAA determined SpaceX met all safety, environmental, policy and financial responsibility requirements.

As part of the license modification evaluation, the FAA prepared a Tiered Environmental Assessment for SpaceX Starship Indian Ocean Landings and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision.

The license applies to all phases of the proposed OFT-3 operation. This includes preflight preparations and liftoff from Texas, the water landing of the Super Heavy booster in the Gulf of Mexico, and the water landing of the Starship vehicle in the Indian Ocean.

Read the environmental documents here.
The modified licensed can be found here.
Click to expand...
 
Looks like the booster had issues restarting. It was dropping at almost a km/s for the last 20s of flight and grid fins looked to be struggling with speed. I couldn’t read the engine indicator fast enough to get a sense of what engines fired but it was definitely too little too late. Still a lot progress on booster return.
 
Superheavy booster 10 made Job very good
Sadly it hit golf of Mexico with 1138km/h

Starship is heaviest in Orbit since Apollo S-IVB with LM & CSM.
and biggest in orbit (in one piece launched)

That music they play remember me of Apollo Area and Gerry Anderson TV Shows

their Animations show a return capsule landing soft in India ocean - Flight data recorders ?

Jesus it transmit data during beginn reentry
 
Unbelievable !! Made it to orbit and a little more. Worked like a charm except for reuse but - one success at a time ! Biggest rocket since, what, Energiya Buran ? Skylab ? Or even larger, actually.
 
Archibald said:
Unbelievable !! Made it to orbit and a little more. Worked like a charm except for reuse but - one success at a time ! Biggest rocket since, what, Energiya Buran ? Skylab ? Or even larger, actually.
Click to expand...

Much larger. Falcon Heavy is bested only by Energia and Saturn V, and not by a huge amount. Super heavy is a big step up from all three.
 
Dagger said:
1. That was in 1957, not in the 1960's.
Moreover that 4A launch was rushed under extreme schedule pressure and I never read anywhere that that launch was considered a success.

2. It was not intended as a test of an expandable vehicle.
In the week before launch SpaceX replaced 3 of the 4 grid fins on the booster and added new tiles on Starship to replace some that had fallen off while still on the launch pad, because Heavy Booster and Starship were both intended to make soft landings in water. That did not happen, so that is a failure.

3 & 4. They can do it any way they want, but that does not mean that others are not allowed to question what they are doing. Insufficient ground testing does not mean that therefore failure in flight is not a real failure.

5. SpaceX is not doing tests, they are doing trials.
Validation tests are not trials but merely intended to confirm that design calculations and manufacturing techniques are as required. They should be a formality, not a learning experience. Imagine aircraft manufacturers building wings and fuselages that fail again and again in validation tests. That would be the end of those companies.

Objectives of this second Starship launch were that:
- the Heavy Booster would make a controlled soft landing in the Gulf. That did not happen, so that is Failure #1,
- Starship would re-enter the atmosphere successfully. That did not happen, so that is Failure #2,
- Starship would make a controlled soft landing in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. That did not happen, Starship exploded and debris landed in the Atlantic near the Turk and Caicos Islands, north east of Cuba, less than 3000 km from Boca Chica, some 31000 km and more than an hour flight short of Hawaii. That is Failure #3.

Failure #1 + Failure #2 + Failure #3 = Total Failure.

The objective was not merely that all engines worked and stage separation worked, although that's the impression that SpaceX and their many fans want to give us. That is not revolutionary in 2023 but was already routine in the 1960's, including hot staging.
Click to expand...

I am amazed that what could be done in the 1960s cannot be done in 2024. It's as if we're not living in the future.

:)

I was there for Apollo in 1969.
 
Odd UK news coverage. Either ignoring it so far, or if it is covered a negative spin put on it such as headlining the loss on re-entry. News sites that were quick to report the failures of IFT1 & 2 haven’t even mentioned this one so far.
 
I wonder when SpaceX is going to talk whether the fuel transfer demo worked. It's the most important thing that happened on this mission because it's one of the milestones for HLS, there are hundreds of millions of dollars riding on whether it was successful.

I suspect something went wrong because after it, the ship appeared to be in an uncontrolled roll. As the RCS is based on fuel boiloff, something going wrong in the tank would make that not work.
 
siegecrossbow said:
Is this a record for orbital payload?
Click to expand...
Yes, used as an expendable LV, it has a LEO payload capacity of 250t. That's enough to throw a fully laden B-52 and an F-14 into orbit at the same time, or 3 M1A2s and a Bradley, or 120 Tesla Model Ss!

www.spacex.com

SpaceX

SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft.
www.spacex.com www.spacex.com

SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket – collectively referred to as Starship – represent a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond. Starship is the world’s most powerful launch vehicle ever developed, capable of carrying up to 150 metric tonnes fully reusable and 250 metric tonnes expendable.
Click to expand...
 
Incredible launch!

Iterative development at its finest! First they failed during Stage 1 ascent, fixed that, it worked perfectly, then they failed at S1 Boostback and S2 ascent, fixed that, worked perfectly, now they fail at the landing burn and S2 coast and reentry, they'll surely quickly fix that in the upcoming months.

Michel Van said:
Superheavy booster 10 made Job very good
Sadly it hit golf of Mexico with 1138km/h

Starship is heaviest in Orbit since Apollo S-IVB with LM & CSM.
and biggest in orbit (in one piece launched)

That music they play remember me of Apollo Area and Gerry Anderson TV Shows

their Animations show a return capsule landing soft in India ocean - Flight data recorders ?

Jesus it transmit data during beginn reentry
Click to expand...

it wasn't the heaviest to go on that trajectory

Starship did not quite go to orbit, 26400 kph, so you have to compare it with other near-orbital stacks.
Starship was quoted as 120t heavy, header tanks were filled and are reportedly big enough to hold 20 tons of fuel (you can guess it by their size in some official blueprint they've had to share for NASA/FAA), so probably 140t + residuals.

Artemis 1's SLS cut off its core stage at 28127 kph, at this point it had a mass of Orion+ICPS+Empty core of 26t + 33t + 88t = 147 tons + residuals. Considering it had additional propellant when it was at the same speed as starship - 26400 kph (rocket equation would give a bit over 15 tons of fuel) , it certainly was heavier.

So no, heaviest since Artemis 1

And if you go further back, STS-117 had the 122.7 t heavy Atlantis + 26.3t heavy SLW-ET = 149 tons, and Energia-Buran-37KB and Energia-Polyus would have been 152-153 tons heavy at MECO.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Who knows what will happen nowadays edwest4, with the technology that we have compared to the Apollo era anything is possible we just have to make it work. And make it good as well.
Click to expand...

Without attempting to argue, what's the hold-up? Computers. Computer-aided design and so on. In the 1960s, the U.S. was the "can do" country, with slide rules. Now, it's a few youtube videos, a podcast or two and I'm an expert. Seriously?

I had the opportunity to talk to a young aerospace engineer who had just gotten his security clearance. He outlined the difficulties involved in bringing a new aircraft into service. Blowing up two expensive rockets does not instill confidence. I suggest a far more rigorous screening process for new hires.

At my place of work, a sign: No Amateurs.
 
edwest4 said:
Without attempting to argue, what's the hold-up? Computers. Computer-aided design and so on. In the 1960s, the U.S. was the "can do" country, with slide rules. Now, it's a few youtube videos, a podcast or two and I'm an expert. Seriously?

I had the opportunity to talk to a young aerospace engineer who had just gotten his security clearance. He outlined the difficulties involved in bringing a new aircraft into service. Blowing up two expensive rockets does not instill confidence. I suggest a far more rigorous screening process for new hires.

At my place of work, a sign: No Amateurs.
Click to expand...

Problem is only going to get worse with proliferation of generative AI. People are too impatient to actually learn domain knowledge these days.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom