SpaceX (general discussion)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1813598368150470984
View: https://twitter.com/polarisprogram/status/1813598368150470984


As our Polaris Dawn crew prepares to conduct the first commercial spacewalk, we had the unique opportunity to meet and discuss EVA spacesuit development and operations with Apollo 16 legend and moonwalker Charlie Duke. Thank you for taking the time to visit the Polaris and SpaceX teams in California!
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1813926194510786670
View: https://twitter.com/polarisprogram/status/1813926194510786670


JULY 18, 2024
Polaris Dawn crew completes final series of EVA spacesuit testing


The Polaris Dawn crew recently completed a series of spacesuit acceptance tests in preparation for the mission’s extravehicular activity, or spacewalk, marking the final significant developmental and test milestone for SpaceX’s newly-developed EVA spacesuit →
Click to expand...

polarisprogram.com

Polaris Dawn crew completes final series of EVA spacesuit testing - Polaris Program

The Polaris Dawn crew recently completed a series of spacesuit acceptance tests in preparation for the mission’s extravehicular activity, or spacewalk, marking the final significant developmental and test milestone for SpaceX’s newly-developed EVA spacesuit. Completing the first commercial...
polarisprogram.com polarisprogram.com
 
20 july 2024
Starship 30 Heat shield is ready
for moment at Massey to static fire test with new Raptor engine for IFT-5
GS-pTL8X0AAoTAk
 
NASASpaceflight has put out a new video concerning the construction of the second launch tower at Boca Chica:


Module Two and Three have been stacked on the second Starbase launch tower. The new chopsticks were also seen being delivered to the launch site in preparation for stacking.
Click to expand...
Video from Jack Beyer (@TheJackBeyer), Sean Doherty (@SeanKD_Photos), and Starbase Live.
✂️ Edited by Thomas Hayden
Click to expand...
#starship #spacex #starbase
Click to expand...
0:00 Module Two Stacked
0:13 Booster 12 Lifted off the OLM
0:32 Explosives Container
0:39 Chopstick Stabilizers
0:46 The Orbital Launch Mount
0:52 The BQD Cover
1:04 Booster 12 Leaves the Chopsticks
1:11 Work on Orbital Pad B
1:39 Booster 12 Rollback
2:54 Ship 30’s Heatshield
3:16 Work on the New Office Building
3:29 Tower Module Three Rolled Outhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7jn6d9VarI&t=221s
3:41 Orbital Pad A
3:59 Module Three Hooked to Crane
4:21 Work on the Tower Modules
4:34 Pad B Chopstick Arriving
4:47 Tower Section Three Lifted
6:09 Cable Spool Delivered
6:25 Work Outside the Launch Site
6:32 Orbital Pad A
6:48 Orbital Pad B
6:57 Chopstick Carriage Moved
7:14 Test Tank Moved to Massey’s
7:30 Elevator Shaft Installed
7:46 The Starlink Loader
8:19 New Starlink Pez Dispenser
8:32 Four Point Lifter
9:23 Scaffolding Removed From Ship 3
09:30 Test Tank Lifted Into Test Stand
Click to expand...
 
Chris Bergin - NSF @NASASpaceflight
And we have a NASA response for context:
"The study is not related to Starliner. NASA continuously explores a wide range of contingency options with our partners to ensure crew safety aboard the International Space Station. Over the past couple of years, the agency has worked with its commercial partner SpaceX to provide additional return capability on the Dragon spacecraft in the event of a contingency."
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1813993588730053032
View: http://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1813993588730053032
 
No more Falcon Heavy Launches for 2024 ?

Europa Clipper face major technical problem as NASA discover
That some electronics Parts are fail on far lower radiation level as design for Jupiter radiation belt !
it could delay EC launch at least 2 years until Planets are arrange for fly-by to Jupiter.

Griffin Mission 1 lost it payload VIPER do "High Cost" despite the $450 Mio. Rover is finish, to save $84 Mio. on NASA Budget...
while the Griffin lander is delay to 2025 and will land concrete mass simulator, yes NASA launch Concrete to Moon.

Next FH launch would be in 2025 for first elements of Lunar gateway station

Source:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2qW-sJiz3s
 
FALCON 9 RETURNS TO FLIGHT
SpaceX submitted its mishap report to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding Falcon 9’s launch anomaly on July 11, 2024. SpaceX’s investigation team, with oversight from the FAA, was able to identify the most probable cause of the mishap and associated corrective actions to ensure the success of future missions.

Post-flight data reviews confirmed Falcon 9’s first stage booster performed nominally through ascent, stage separation, and a successful droneship landing. During the first burn of Falcon 9’s second stage engine, a liquid oxygen leak developed within the insulation around the upper stage engine. The cause of the leak was identified as a crack in a sense line for a pressure sensor attached to the vehicle’s oxygen system. This line cracked due to fatigue caused by high loading from engine vibration and looseness in the clamp that normally constrains the line. Despite the leak, the second stage engine continued to operate through the duration of its first burn, and completed its engine shutdown, where it entered the coast phase of the mission in the intended elliptical parking orbit.

A second burn of the upper stage engine was planned to circularize the orbit ahead of satellite deployment. However, the liquid oxygen leak on the upper stage led to the excessive cooling of engine components, most importantly those associated with delivery of ignition fluid to the engine. As a result, the engine experienced a hard start rather than a controlled burn, which damaged the engine hardware and caused the upper stage to subsequently lose attitude control. Even so, the second stage continued to operate as designed, deploying the Starlink satellites and successfully completing stage passivation, a process of venting down stored energy on the stage, which occurs at the conclusion of every Falcon mission.

Following deployment, the Starlink team made contact with 10 of the satellites to send early burn commands in an attempt to raise their altitude. Unfortunately, the satellites were in an enormously high-drag environment with a very low perigee of only 135 km above the Earth. As a result, all 20 Starlink satellites from this launch re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere. By design, Starlink satellites fully demise upon reentry, posing no threat to public safety. To-date, no debris has been reported after the successful deorbit of Starlink satellites.

SpaceX engineering teams have performed a comprehensive and thorough review of all SpaceX vehicles and ground systems to ensure we are putting our best foot forward as we return to flight. For near term Falcon launches, the failed sense line and sensor on the second stage engine will be removed. The sensor is not used by the flight safety system and can be covered by alternate sensors already present on the engine. The design change has been tested at SpaceX’s rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas, with enhanced qualification analysis and oversight by the FAA and involvement from the SpaceX investigation team. An additional qualification review, inspection, and scrub of all sense lines and clamps on the active booster fleet led to a proactive replacement in select locations.

Safety and reliability are at the core of SpaceX’s operations. It would not have been possible to achieve our current cadence without this focus, and thanks to the pace we’ve been able to launch, we’re able to gather unprecedented levels of flight data and are poised to rapidly return to flight, safely and with increased reliability. Our missions are of critical importance – safely carrying astronauts, customer payloads, and thousands of Starlink satellites to orbit – and they rely on the Falcon family of rockets being one of the most reliable in the world. We thank the FAA and our customers for their ongoing work and support.
Click to expand...

www.spacex.com

SpaceX

SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft.
www.spacex.com www.spacex.com
 
FAA put out a statement today:

After a comprehensive review, the FAA determined no public safety issues were involved in the anomaly that occurred during the SpaceX Starlink Group 9-3 launch on July 11. This public safety determination means the Falcon 9 vehicle may return to flight operations while the overall investigation remains open, provided all other license requirements are met.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting that they have an unforeseen/Unwanted redundancy. It would suggest that their models, analytical and Digital, are not up to date with their latest configuration, what would then rank this failure as a quality issue.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Interesting that they have an unforeseen/Unwanted redundancy. It would suggest that their models, analytical and Digital, are not up to date with their latest configuration, what would then rank this failure as a quality issue.
Click to expand...
Or that every is up to date which nearly a decade of no issues point to, but no one felt the redundant sensor will cause an issue.

And well.

Why removing a potentially flight saving sensor?

Is a question you need to ask with this stuff.

Then you have to factor in all the paperwork likely needed to pull a back up sensor that has no know issues.

Doesn't weight enough to warrent a weight saving pull, and does add a nice safety factor for NASA and FAA to like.

Basically until it was shown to be a possibility launch failing issue there was more reasons to keep it in all likelihood.
 
I'm posting this Scott Manley video here as this seems to be the appropriate thread for it (But do please move it if there's a better thread):


The Space Shuttle and Starship are designed to be reusable, which means using a passive thermal protection system, and while these spacecraft are decades apart in technological development the basic principles of how you make a passive, reusable thermal protection system have not changed and there's broadly similar material, structural and technological features seen on both spacecraft.
Click to expand...
 
NASASpaceflight has just put out a video about the stacking of tower module 4 at Boca Chica:


Tower 2 Module 4 was lifted and stacked, Raptor engines were moved to Mega Bay 2 for installation on Ship 31, and Ship 30 conducted its second static fire test.
Click to expand...
L2 Boca Chica (more clips and photos) from BC's very early days to today.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...ght.com/index.php?topic=47107.0&v=88MiFAxNM00
(Join L2 and support NSF here: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)
Click to expand...
Timestamps:
0:00 Raptor Transporters Moving
0:36 Raptor Number 386
0:52 Module 4 Hooked to Crane
1:18 Work in Mega Bay 2
1:43 Concrete Installed on Pad B
2:06 The Production Site
2:15 Ship 33 in the High Bay
3:38 Ship 33 Moved to Mega Bay 2
4:29 Test Tank 16 Tested
4:42 Module 4 Lifted
5:34 Booster 15 Stacking Continues
5:43 Tower Module 5 Rolled Out
7:06 Ship 31 Moved to the High Bay
7:22 Ship 30 Static Fire
7:51 Slow Motion Replay
8:41 Ship 33 Forward Section
Click to expand...
 
What would be the advantage of bringing Starship down off Australia? Lack of any population anywhere nearby? Could not Starship simply complete an orbit and recover in or around Texas/Florida (though it would reenter over populated areas)?
 
Josh_TN said:
What would be the advantage of bringing Starship down off Australia?
Click to expand...
Thats the big questions:
Wen SpaceX goes for Mars and Moon flight with Starship, those orbits goes regular over Australia,
Either they use as landing site for tanker or returning Lunar/Mars Starship landing on Land.

But what happen to Starship after landing in Australia?
One way is to build launch site there and launch the Starship on local Superheavy into Space.

I would not be surprised If SpaceX build Starships in Texas and launch them to destinations like
Kennedy Space Center, Vandenberg Space Force Base or Australia site...
it match Musk idea for Starship ballistic intercontinental transport
 
That or SpaceX considers it a better divert point then California like the shuttle could.

That could be do to anything from taxes, safety/NIMBY considerations, or orbital mechanics. Hell the Government may even be paying him to bring experience there as well.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom