And they still wouldn't have had a deflector/trench for this test. I don't know how many times it's already been said but, apparently, it needs to be said again: THEY ALREADY HAD A WATER COOLED BLAST PLATE IN PRODUCTION. Their 31-engine test results indicated the pad was probably good for one launch as-is. It has sweet fuck all to do with Elon purchasing Twitter.
my error, in my time zone it for 27 April around one o'clock in the morning....
spacenews.com
www.bloomberg.com
Bezos doesn't even need the one they have at the Cape.
Would be interesting if they started launching Starships out of SLC-6 though.
Makes sense. Energia did something very similar in the past, courtesy of N1 experience.View: https://twitter.com/CNSAWatcher/status/1651451872966762497
宇航学报·预出版 | SpaceX公司超重-星舰组合体首飞异常情况初步分析
本篇稿件将在《宇航学报》2023年第5期正式出版，版权由原作者与《宇航学报》编辑部共同所有，未经许可不得转载。mp.weixin.qq.com
Yeah, there is nothing new here.Makes sense. Energia did something very similar in the past, courtesy of N1 experience.View: https://twitter.com/CNSAWatcher/status/1651451872966762497
宇航学报·预出版 | SpaceX公司超重-星舰组合体首飞异常情况初步分析
本篇稿件将在《宇航学报》2023年第5期正式出版，版权由原作者与《宇航学报》编辑部共同所有，未经许可不得转载。
Source?
aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org
aviationsourcenews.com
www.americaspace.com
environmental hazards and concerns from what I'm hearing.
"pending a standard investigation" is a HELL of a lot different than "grounded indefinitely" (your claim). Most of us paying attention knew the FAA was doing an investigation- like they do with every other aerospace mishap. And Starship/Super Heavy didn't "break up". It was destroyed by the FTS- which is what the FTS is supposed to do. The rocket wasn't just tooling along and then mysteriously came apart like you implied.U.S. federal agencies to scrutinize Starship operations
Reports of debris reportedly strewn over large area prompt Musk to give update about flame diverter constructionHome
AviationSource News is one of the fastest growing Aviation outlets in the world serving over 3 Million readers each month on our siteFAA Starship Investigation May Take Months - AmericaSpace
The FAA’s mishap investigation following Starship’s first launch may take several months to complete, following SpaceX’s first orbital launch attempt flight test of the giant moon rocket prototype on April 20. Such an investigation is standard procedure following such accidents, and for now any...
and many more.
i do not "fabricate" lies or misinformation.
however if i have made a mistake feel free to tell me.
and yes. it exploded/broke up/incinerated itself/got detroyed/etc
call it what you want quite frankly. it was the term chosen at the time
Plus I doubt Space X are that bothered as they’ll need the time to repair the OLM."pending a standard investigation" is a HELL of a lot different than "grounded indefinitely" (your claim). Most of us paying attention knew the FAA was doing an investigation- like they do with every other aerospace mishap. And Starship/Super Heavy didn't "break up". It was destroyed by the FTS- which is what the FTS is supposed to do. The rocket wasn't just tooling along and then mysteriously came apart like you implied.U.S. federal agencies to scrutinize Starship operations
Reports of debris reportedly strewn over large area prompt Musk to give update about flame diverter constructionHome
AviationSource News is one of the fastest growing Aviation outlets in the world serving over 3 Million readers each month on our siteFAA Starship Investigation May Take Months - AmericaSpace
The FAA’s mishap investigation following Starship’s first launch may take several months to complete, following SpaceX’s first orbital launch attempt flight test of the giant moon rocket prototype on April 20. Such an investigation is standard procedure following such accidents, and for now any...
and many more.
i do not "fabricate" lies or misinformation.
however if i have made a mistake feel free to tell me.
and yes. it exploded/broke up/incinerated itself/got detroyed/etc
call it what you want quite frankly. it was the term chosen at the time
I agree that 'grounded indefinitely' sounds salacious. It seems technically accurate until they are finished with their report. You know bureaucrats won't give due dates.
You must have listened to a different Spaces than I did. Certainly your characterization of what was said is about as hysterical as can be. At no point was any Texan or Mexican town in danger of "being nuked".
I'm certainly not going to buy access to that space, and I was indeed basing myself on a wrong transcript that said that communications had been lost at t+27 with the whole vehicle, instead of just an engine, had it been the case then yes, what I said would have been accurate.You must have listened to a different Spaces than I did. Certainly your characterization of what was said is about as hysterical as can be. At no point was any Texan or Mexican town in danger of "being nuked".
"If I hadn't been wrong, then yes, I would have been correct." Amazing.I'm certainly not going to buy access to that space, and I was indeed basing myself on a wrong transcript that said that communications had been lost at t+27 with the whole vehicle, instead of just an engine, had it been the case then yes, what I said would have been accurate.You must have listened to a different Spaces than I did. Certainly your characterization of what was said is about as hysterical as can be. At no point was any Texan or Mexican town in danger of "being nuked".
spacenews.com
Artemis III was never going to fly in 2025 anyway... Artemis II is likely to be 2025 in the first place.Musk predicts next Starship launch in a “couple months”
SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk said the first integrated test flight of his company’s Starship vehicle met his expectations despite a cascading series of engine failures and other malfuncti…
40 seconds longer then anticipated to activate self destruction, unclear cause of engine failure but ruling out debris. I don’t think it’s likely this rocket will fly soon. It may be in need of major redesign and certainly an extensive investigation into the cause of failure. To say nothing of the qualification process. I can’t see this meeting the 2025 date for Artemis III and I can’t predict how much it will cost to get it working right.
