SpaceX (general discussion)

Well it looks like the US Fish&Wildlife department might be holding up the next launch till next year reviewing the changes SpaceX has made to Starship, from TheSpaceBucket:


For the past few weeks we have been keeping up with the FAA as approval is the only thing standing between Starship and a second launch attempt. While it sounded like a launch in October was likely, new information suggests the launch could still be months away. Specifically, a new statement reveals the FAA has given the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) 135 days to review changes that SpaceX made to determine if they are acceptable.
Click to expand...
This is not very good news especially considering the Fish & Wildlife Service was not happy with the results of the first Starship launch. Assuming they use all the time allotted to them, the earliest Starship could launch would be in the middle of December. With SpaceX and the Starship test article, in particular, ready to launch in a few weeks or even days, this will push back the company’s plans.
Click to expand...
SpaceX requires a license from the FAA and won’t launch until that agency and other parties such as the FWS are satisfied with all the changes made. Here I will go more in-depth into the new statement, the likelihood of the FWS using all 135 days, what exactly they need to review, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/why-starsh...
Click to expand...
 
FWS doesn't have abundant people for this sort of review, I wouldn't expect them to produce it in much less than 135 days unless they intend to rubber-stamp it.
 
Fish&Wildlife Service against Department of Defence ?
Good luck FWS, you needed it, also for it new director afterwards...

news:
Starlink 6-17 the 67th launch this year
of total 257th launches with Falcon 9, with 227th landings.

Booster 1060 launch and return for 17th time - seventeen time !
 
SpaceX should use the delay to remove the vented interstage from Booster 9 and prepare booster and Starship for a launch without hot staging.
First priority should be to get Starship into orbit and back.
In the months until then they can make a new and better design for a vented interstage with sufficient diagonal bracing.

If SpaceX does not remove that lousy interstage then maybe the FAA will soon force them to do so as they are not likely to accept additional, and moreover unnecessary, risks for the next launch.

I'll provide them some additional food for thought in case SpaceX does not act by themselves:

Here is a photo of the vented interstage test article:

vented interstage test article (StarshipGazer 30July2023).jpg

And here is the earlier posted photo of the final design as it is now on top of Booster 9:

vented interstage booster 9.jpg

Note the differences with the test article:
1. About a third of the number of stringers (red arrows) now have an additional vertical profile welded on to their front to improve buckling resistance. The test article did not have them.
2. Triangular supports are now added below the upper ring and welded to the back of the stringers (orange envelope). If those triangles are intended to carry a considerable load then they should best have been extended down to the ring in the middle to avoid excessive stress on the stringers at the bottom of the triangle. The test article did not have these triangular supports.

Apparently the original design calculations that were the basis for the test article were too optimistic and the engineers got cold feet as a result of the tests. The 120 or so metal pieces they added may improve longitudinal strength somewhat but add nothing to improve lateral stability.

A photo of the interstage on top of Booster 9 while being transported to the launch pad a month ago for the engine test firing which has since taken place:

Booster 9 rollout to launch pad 22Aug2023.jpg

This point of view gives a good impression of the insignificance of the few rigid sections in relation to the whole circumference of the interstage.
Don't be confused by the black grid fin visible through the slots at the upper right. That black is not part of the interstage.

This rendering (not a photo) is from a similar point of view:

Vented Interstage rendering (ChameleonCircuit).jpg

Note again the insignificance of the few rigid sections, and the difference in width of the three with a clamp on top (Red arrows) and the other three without a clamp (Yellow arrows). Making the three Yellows much narrower than the three Reds to save a few kilograms of weight could be the worst penny wise pound foolish decision in the history of SpaceX.

It's still not too late for Elon to wake up by himself before the FAA does.
 
NeilChapman said:
Starship is a national security asset imo. The idea that fws would hold it up is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Is it? There are no DoD payloads manifested on Starship, to my knowledge. F9 and F9H (plus Atlas V and eventually Vulcan) seem to be handling DoD's needs.
 
TomS said:
Is it? There are no DoD payloads manifested on Starship, to my knowledge. F9 and F9H (plus Atlas V and eventually Vulcan) seem to be handling DoD's needs.
Click to expand...
Bet there will be though. Particle beams and lasers are what's needed to stave off the next war before it happens, and they will be heavy. Then there's also the Mars program.
 
Current starship is not an operational system nor are there any DoD specific plans for it. It is not yet a national security asset, at least any more than any space launch system is. Because of its unique size, there may be future applications unique to the platform. But if you're going to put your launchpad next to federal wildlife land, guess what? You don't get throw hundred pound concrete slabs several miles. The Boca Chica location always struck me as odd, though I never looked up the history of why SpaceX got started specifically there.

EDIT: also Musk's lax attitude towards attenuating the exhaust was a pretty clear corner cutting measure that probably doesn't encourage any government organization to give him much benefit of the doubt. This was probably an avoidable situation.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Bet there will be though. Particle beams and lasers are what's needed to stave off the next war before it happens, and they will be heavy. Then there's also the Mars program.
Click to expand...

"Might be" does not make Starship a national security program. And even national security programs have to follow appropriate environmental regulations.
 
Dagger said:
It's still not too late for Elon to wake up by himself before the FAA does.
Click to expand...

Lol. The reason they are not worrying about lateral forces is because the lateral forces on the rocket are just not that large, which has been pointed out to you several times in this very thread. If this design fails in some way, it will not do so because insufficient lateral strength.
 
Dagger said:
If SpaceX does not remove that lousy interstage then maybe the FAA will soon force them to do so as they are not likely to accept additional, and moreover unnecessary, risks for the next launch.
Click to expand...
the FAA does not care about mission success risks
 
NeilChapman said:
Starship is a national security asset imo. The idea that fws would hold it up is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
SpaceX is a national security asset, Starship is a developmental system which is undergoing a test program and is years away from a (still theoretical) role in National Security missions. 135 days waiting for a report isn't going to threaten the status of either as regards national defense, nor threaten the long-term health of either. So other than being impatient to see it fly, as I certainly am, there's no reason to lose one's cool over this. A healthy ecology is also a national security asset, after all.
 
Tuna said:
Lol. The reason they are not worrying about lateral forces is because the lateral forces on the rocket are just not that large, which has been pointed out to you several times in this very thread. If this design fails in some way, it will not do so because insufficient lateral strength.
Click to expand...
It's a well-known principle on the Internet that if you repeat nonsense often enough and loud enough without deviation, the laws of physics will change to accomodate you. Possibly it's something to do with Heisenberg - observer effects and all that.
 
NMaude said:
That is highly debatable as the Delta IV production has ended, the Atlas Centaur V is on its way out and the Vulcan Centaur has yet to have its first flight, so, yes, the US would be effected.
Click to expand...
Not really. . See Challenger accident. Constellations are healthy and many missions have been delaying themselves and not waiting on Vulcan. Also, Vulcan could have flown if needed to. And production is moving along.
 
Byeman said:
Not really. . See Challenger accident. Constellations are healthy and many missions have been delaying themselves and not waiting on Vulcan. Also, Vulcan could have flown if needed to. And production is moving along.
Click to expand...
SpaceX has performed almost 70 launches, including several taking astronauts to the ISS so far this year. That goes away you aren't getting that kind of cadence, let alone manned, next year, or the year after that, or the year after that...
 
sferrin said:
SpaceX has performed almost 70 launches, including several taking astronauts to the ISS so far this year. That goes away you aren't getting that kind of cadence, let alone manned, next year, or the year after that, or the year after that...
Click to expand...

I think the majority of those missions were probably starlink. But it is certainly the case that the Space Force has very ambitious schedules involving literally hundreds of satellites for the proliferated transport and tracking layers that cannot be met with any other platform than the Falcon 9.

Starship on the other hand is Elon's thing. Space Force no doubt will take a serious look at it when/if he gets it working, but I doubt they aren't planning around it yet.
 
For moment, they remove the interstage from Booster 9.
Test tank 26.1 pop during testing, i hope inside the parameter
 
Josh_TN said:
I think the majority of those missions were probably starlink. But it is certainly the case that the Space Force has very ambitious schedules involving literally hundreds of satellites for the proliferated transport and tracking layers that cannot be met with any other platform than the Falcon 9.
Click to expand...
they have very few of those on contract
 
sferrin said:
SpaceX has performed almost 70 launches, including several taking astronauts to the ISS so far this year. That goes away you aren't getting that kind of cadence, let alone manned, next year, or the year after that, or the year after that...
Click to expand...
they have only launched two national security missions so far this year.
 
Byeman said:
they have only launched two national security missions so far this year.
Click to expand...
And three astronaut flights. And the DoD doesn't want to be reduced to a single launch source. Take SpaceX out and all you have left is ULA. . .if they ever get Vulcan flying. (BO is even further behind. I'll be shocked if they don't slip to 2025.)
 
sferrin said:
And three astronaut flights. And the DoD doesn't want to be reduced to a single launch source. Take SpaceX out and all you have left is ULA. . .if they ever get Vulcan flying. (BO is even further behind. I'll be shocked if they don't slip to 2025.)
Click to expand...
astronaut flights are not national security. There would have been a different transition posture to Vulcan if SpaceX wasn't around. Vulcan isn't that far behind.
 
Here's an interesting video from TheSpaceBucket concerning the Starship and Artemis III:


Earlier this month SpaceX released a few new videos of Lunar Starship Raptor testing. This included a descent burn test along with a chilled raptor ignition simulating the journey through space. Besides these examples, there have been a few other instances of progress on the lunar Starship. This makes sense as the company needs to have a working lunar variant ready by Artemis III where they plan to land humans on the surface.
Click to expand...
At least that was the plan, however, new timelines and work within NASA mean Artemis III might not land humans on the surface at all. This would practically negate the lunar Starship for that specific mission as its main purpose is transporting humans from lunar orbit to the surface and back. This comes in addition to possible delays as the 2025 mission date becomes more ambitious by the day.
Click to expand...
Recent comments also highlight that some NASA officials are worried about the progress of SpaceX’s lunar lander. A system that still has quite a bit of work left before being ready for a Moon landing. Here I will go more in-depth into the progress on a lunar Starship, NASA’s concerns, possible Artemis III changes, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/why-starsh...
Click to expand...
 
Byeman said:
astronaut flights are not national security. There would have been a different transition posture to Vulcan if SpaceX wasn't around. Vulcan isn't that far behind.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? Putting people in space implies that you can move a certain amount of mass into low earth orbit and land it where you want to. Any country would consider that a national security asset.

Vulcan is that far behind. As unfortunate as it is for the citizens of the US, ULA has never done anything new other than proposals without a certified US Government check.

SpaceX has supplied US dominance in world lift capability to low earth orbit by decimating costs through reusability and launch cadence.
SpaceX has supplied commercial crew capability to low earth orbit.
SpaceX has supplied Starlink with its numerous capabilities both white and black.

Re post 6334 - The fact that "Starship is a developmental system which is undergoing a test program and is years away from a (still theoretical) role in National Security missions" makes it a national security asset. The fact that SpaceX is doing this development largely on their own dime makes them a national treasure.

To suggest that the effort towards heavy lift with a payload >20' in diameter to the moon and beyond is not a not a national security asset is not a well considered argument imo. Consider it is not only the sum of the parts that is an asset.


sferrin said:
SpaceX has performed almost 70 launches, including several taking astronauts to the ISS so far this year. That goes away you aren't getting that kind of cadence, let alone manned, next year, or the year after that, or the year after that...
Click to expand...

Yeppers
 
NeilChapman said:
1. Wait, what? Putting people in space implies that you can move a certain amount of mass into low earth orbit and land it where you want to. Any country would consider that a national security asset.

2.Vulcan is that far behind. As unfortunate as it is for the citizens of the US, ULA has never done anything new other than proposals without a certified US Government check.

3.SpaceX has supplied US dominance in world lift capability to low earth orbit by decimating costs through reusability and launch cadence.
SpaceX has supplied commercial crew capability to low earth orbit.
SpaceX has supplied Starlink with its numerous capabilities both white and black.

4.Re post 6334 - The fact that "Starship is a developmental system which is undergoing a test program and is years away from a (still theoretical) role in National Security missions" makes it a national security asset. The fact that SpaceX is doing this development largely on their own dime makes them a national treasure.

5.To suggest that the effort towards heavy lift with a payload >20' in diameter to the moon and beyond is not a not a national security asset is not a well considered argument imo. Consider it is not only the sum of the parts that is an asset.
Click to expand...
wrong.
1. we have had that capability without flying people
2. wrong again. Delta IV. Atlas V and Vulcan were most developed with company monies
3. meaningless as far as national Security
4. just fanboy hype.
5. National security organizations don't think that.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom