SpaceX (general discussion)

siegecrossbow said:
For an actual habitat why not be more ambitious and go with cylinder?

View attachment 741314
Click to expand...
To obtain 1G per rotation, a habitat of at least 100 m in diameter is necessary to avoid too fast rotation and the unpleasant effects of Coriolis. A wheel 100 meters in diameter may have a habitable ring six meters in diameter, but a cylinder a hundred meters in diameter should be at least one kilometer in length.

Too much weight and inertia if an emergency manoeuvre is necessary.
 
Well the Angry Astronaut has his two-cents worth to say about the SpaceX/FAA standoff:


More Elon Musk outrage! More FAA regulation! More lawyers collecting HUGE salaries!In other words, same story...different day.
#space #SpaceX #faa
Click to expand...

The lawyers on both sides are probably rubbing their hands at the thought of making mega-bucks. I think we'll find out who's in the wrong when the lawsuit enters the discovery phase.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
The lawyers on both sides are probably rubbing their hands at the thought of making mega-bucks. I think we'll find out who's in the wrong when the lawsuit enters the discovery phase.
Click to expand...

In many federal civil lawsuits discovery is not allowed. It's at the discretion of the court wether it is allowed at all, and if so, how much. And federal courts give the federal agencies an undue level of discretion with regards to "expertise", affidavits, etc.. even when those are contradictory to established fact or even previous statements by the same agency.

In a recent and ongoing federal civil case the Department of Justice provided affidavits that supported a policy-based set of decisions, from the person who was most involved in the creation and execution of that policy. Then turned around and in a subsequent set of affidavits basically said "Oh wait, we changed the policy to the new policy before that, and the new policy violates the law less" --- and the court accepted it. The agency says it did not even know what it's own policy was, and this was coming from someone intimately involved with the creation and execution of that policy.

You can't make this stuff up.
 
quellish said:
In many federal civil lawsuits discovery is not allowed. It's at the discretion of the court wether it is allowed at all, and if so, how much. And federal courts give the federal agencies an undue level of discretion with regards to "expertise", affidavits, etc.. even when those are contradictory to established fact or even previous statements by the same agency.

In a recent and ongoing federal civil case the Department of Justice provided affidavits that supported a policy-based set of decisions, from the person who was most involved in the creation and execution of that policy. Then turned around and in a subsequent set of affidavits basically said "Oh wait, we changed the policy to the new policy before that, and the new policy violates the law less" --- and the court accepted it. The agency says it did not even know what it's own policy was, and this was coming from someone intimately involved with the creation and execution of that policy.

You can't make this stuff up.
Click to expand...
I loath bureaucrats.
 
sferrin said:
I loath bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

Back in 2011 in a different case involving the same agency, the same individual provided declarations in support of the agency position.
And lied under oath.
The court caught the lie, and the agency (and individual) admitted to lying to the court. The court was clearly livid, which is shown by their ruling and opinion - but the agency (and individual) faced no consequences. No contempt, no jail time, no investigation.

In federal civil cases the courts show federal agencies an extreme - and almost blind - level of "deference". They assume that everything the agency says is the truth, and that the agency is the subject matter expert in whatever issue is before the court. Showings of "bad faith" on the part of an agency almost always go nowhere, like the 2011 case above.

So taking a federal agency to court frequently does not result in a happy, just ending for the plaintiff. SpaceX taking the FAA to court would probably not turn out well, however the act of suing them and offering them settlement options etc. outside of court may be effective, and that may be their plan.
 
quellish said:
Back in 2011 in a different case involving the same agency, the same individual provided declarations in support of the agency position.
And lied under oath.
The court caught the lie, and the agency (and individual) admitted to lying to the court. The court was clearly livid, which is shown by their ruling and opinion - but the agency (and individual) faced no consequences. No contempt, no jail time, no investigation.

In federal civil cases the courts show federal agencies an extreme - and almost blind - level of "deference". They assume that everything the agency says is the truth, and that the agency is the subject matter expert in whatever issue is before the court. Showings of "bad faith" on the part of an agency almost always go nowhere, like the 2011 case above.

So taking a federal agency to court frequently does not result in a happy, just ending for the plaintiff. SpaceX taking the FAA to court would probably not turn out well, however the act of suing them and offering them settlement options etc. outside of court may be effective, and that may be their plan.
Click to expand...
I know it would probably bite them in the end but it would be interesting if SpaceX said, "we're going to ground Dragon for year to review our design for improved safety". (Or increase NASA's price by the amount of the fine.)
 
I think a lot of previous posts are being overly dramatic about the effects of delays measured in weeks. It is fair to say that the FAA cannot move as fast as SpaceX wants it to because of entrenched bureaucracy. But are delays of a couple weeks or months really stifling SpaceX from doing what it wants to do? And also has not SpaceX explicitly not done due diligence at least once before by destroying its own starship launch site and spitting concrete for miles? I think that particular incident has given all their subsequent plans a lot more scrutiny, and (unpopular opinion) perhaps justifiedly so since throwing hundred pound pieces of concrete into the air seems like something Elon is fine with but the local population has issues with. Perhaps if the first starship booster launch had been better mitigated, Spacex would not have to wait an extra month for its clearance.

But it is also problematic that the FAA seems to lack the resources to make these determinations - there are a huge number of rocket companies that are going to need this oversight soon, and the FAA needs to scale.
 
NMaude said:
The lawyers on both sides are probably rubbing their hands at the thought of making mega-bucks. I think we'll find out who's in the wrong when the lawsuit enters the discovery phase.
Click to expand...
there is no money to be made by any suits
 
they salvage Booster 11

GYH8OxxXkAAuK6J
 
It does not loog good for Booster 11 Michel Van, I wonder if they could salvage any parts from it or they might declare Booster 11 a write off.
 
It was the IFT-3 Super Heavy ? So it has been underwater since last April, six months. Who is salvaging it, incidentally ? SpaceX ?
 
I assume the salvage is for museum pieces or just to keep those parts out of competition hands. I cannot imagine there is any of value or any technical information to learn for SpaceX.
 
Archibald said:
It was the IFT-3 Super Heavy ? So it has been underwater since last April, six months. Who is salvaging it, incidentally ? SpaceX ?
Click to expand...
its Booster 11 from IFT-4
it was recover by company on order of SpaceX
Seems SpaceX want more data on Superheavy

For moment does SpaceX a wet dress rehearsal on Booster 12 and Ship 30.
 
Josh_TN said:
I assume the salvage is for museum pieces or just to keep those parts out of competition hands. I cannot imagine there is any of value or any technical information to learn for SpaceX.
Click to expand...
There is almost always something useful to glean picking through the wreckage. Doubt it holds much other than scrap value as far as materials, but you get a good look at what bent/broke where and what you might expect if you ever put it down in the water.
Plus, a bell makes a great lobby piece anywhere they have offices.
 
martinbayer said:
It'll buff right out...
Click to expand...

Heh! I'm sure it could be cleaned up to make a nice abstract sculpture, I wonder what it would be called when on display?

Josh_TN said:
I assume the salvage is for museum pieces or just to keep those parts out of competition hands.
Click to expand...

I'd say both. SpaceX would no doubt want to display it or donate it to an aerospace museum now as for the competition well I suspect the PRC would love to get its' grubby collective miss on it for a detailed examination.

Josh_TN said:
I cannot imagine there is any of value or any technical information to learn for SpaceX.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure that something useful could be obtained and then there are competitors that SpaceX would want to keep from examining the wreckage.

_Del_ said:
There is almost always something useful to glean picking through the wreckage.
Click to expand...

Definitely and no doubt the PRC's space institutes would love to do a forensic examination of the wreckage.
 
SpaceX vs FAA is a poisoned chalice. Got myself kicked for a week of NASAspaceflight after calling an asshole libertarian poo-poo-ing government "a complete idiot" (and he is one heck of a dickhead, arrogance included).
 
i wonder is Elon Musk pulling of a Launch on original planed date of end September ?
because there is loophole in FAA licence for Starship, FAA defined the launch as testing commercial rocket.
However if USSF or NASA put "Payload" into Starship 30, its not more commercial, but government order flight...

...just train of thoughts of me
 
I cannot imagine either federal organization wanting to be seen as interfering with the normal process, especially if we are talking about a delay measured in weeks or months.
 
FighterJock said:
So why the delay? That is what I want to know.
Click to expand...

Probably some FAA deskjockies flexing their bureaucratic muscles trying to show SpaceX who's the boss.

Edit: Scott Manley has just posted a new video and it includes the news concerning SpaceX salvaging the wreckage of the Booster used in IFT-4 in the Gulf of Mexico:


Sorry for the delay, I've been on vacation, which means we have a lot to catch up with for this episode of deep space updates.We had a record number of humans in orbit, a new record for total spaceflight time, a new space station commander. Lots of launches by rockets in US, China, Russia and New Zealand. Some vertical landing rocket tests in china and a bunch of space startups.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
That reminds me a bit of Proton...the engines there were half-under the side tanks and and half under the core.
Click to expand...
No, not even close. Starship enginers are on a structural ring. Proton engines were all separate.
publiusr said:
Any designs for slide out center core tankage or second stage?
Click to expand...
For what purpose? the whole body is tankage, what would slide out? That is just basic design. Saturn V was similar.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom