pigeonberry

joined 1 year ago
sorted by: new top controversial old
Starship launch attempt Friday! in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The licence has been approved, the NOTAM and marine warnings published, closure announced.

FAA have issued the launch license for IFT-2! in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Fish and Wildlife's comments were published yesterday. I gather that the document was deleted from the original location, but as I recall, it was pretty much copied and pasted into the body of the final FAA determination WRITTEN RE-EVALUATION OF THE 2022 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SPACEX STARSHIP/SUPER HEAVY LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM AT THE BOCA CHICA LAUNCH SITE IN CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS. I remember the bit about "Per the table above, an average summertime thunderstorm at Boca Chica would deposit more water over the landscape than any single or all combined activations of the deluge system".

13
(SpaceNews) SpaceX slams FAA report on falling space debris danger (spacenews.com)
 

In an Oct. 9 letter to the FAA and Congress seen by SpaceNews, SpaceX principal engineer David Goldstein said the report relied on “deeply flawed analysis” based on assumptions, guesswork, and outdated studies.

The article contains details.

In 2021, the FAA commissioned the Aerospace Corp., a federally funded nonprofit focused on space, to provide a technical assessment of the rise of LEO constellations and the risks posed to aviation and people on the ground by unplanned and controlled reentries of these satellites and the upper stages that launch them.

Someone from Aerospace mentioned the difficulties in such an estimate, and Goldstein's letter points out more problems.

17
(ArsTechnica) World’s largest space conference succeeds in making a Starship update boring (arstechnica.com)
 

Good analysis, from all I've heard.

Anyone who keeps track of Elon Musk knows the world's richest man has a penchant for setting aspirational schedules for his companies....So, if you have an opportunity to interview him, why spend time asking Musk to prognosticate when one of his companies will do something years in the future?

and

SpaceX's brilliant engineers certainly have creative ideas and novel plans to get Starship to the Red Planet, so why not ask Musk about them when you have him for a rare hourlong one-on-one conversation? It's the how that is most interesting now, not the when or why, especially for an audience interested enough to tune in at the IAC.

and

But Mowry's questions missed the mark at a time when the Starship program is at a critical point, and he didn't probe with follow-up questions to tease out more insightful answers.

The whole article is worth a read, really.

0
Starlink ... connecting 2M+ active customers (nitter.net)
 

Starlink @starlink Sep 23, 2023 · 9:29 PM UTC:

Starlink is available on all 7 continents, in over 60 countries and many more markets, connecting 2M+ active customers and counting with high-speed internet!

Thank you to all of our customers around the world 🛰️🌎❤️ → stories.starlink.com

The significance is as u/Obvious_Parsley3238 pointed out: "250k last march, 1 mil last december, 1.5 mil in may, 2 mil now".

9
(Jerry Pike, video) Drone view of B1058 coming back into port after 17 launches (nitter.net)
 

I love this video.

FWS considering the water deluge system at Starbase; has up to 135 days to submit the final biological opinion to the FAA in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The FAA has repeated multiple times: there is no launch licence yet for a second launch. Since the FAA asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to look into the matter, I think it's highly unlikely that the FAA would issue the licence before FWS says it's O.K.

I don't know that there has been a definitive statement of the exact ending date. The Xeet summary provided included "The FWS has up to 135 days to submit the final biological opinion to the FAA (Started in August)." If it's 4 months including weekends and holidays, it could be up to December 1 to December 31ish. But it could be handled before then, or if the FAA agrees, the deadline could be extended, or maybe it's working days only. Also, the FAA would likely need time to digest it and issue its own ruling.

But there have been other reports that the FAA hopes to be done with it by October. So maybe they have inside knowledge.

Starship Development Thread #49 in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I posted here about the FWS environmental re-assessment due to the booster bidet.

12
FWS considering the water deluge system at Starbase; has up to 135 days to submit the final biological opinion to the FAA (nitter.net)
 

I don't have a transcription to hand and shouldn't take the time to do it myself. The image alone:

https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FF6VfGnVWYAAB5tv.jpg

The FAA asked the Fish and Wildlife Service for "re-initiation of Endangered Species Act consultation" due to the booster bidet. FWS has 135 days to give a final biological opinion.

(SpaceX) New Starship render and pictures in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're referring to. I think the new render is near the top, showing Starship and Super Heavy stacked. I didn't look at the page before, so I don't know what else might have changed.

8
(SpaceX) New Starship render and pictures (www.spacex.com)
2023 September General Discussion and Starlink Launch Thread in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Just wanted to point out a glamor video of Starlink deployment.

16
(SpaceX) Video of Starlink deployment (nitter.net)
 

SpaceX's social media people are really outdoing themselves lately. This video is, I think, the second one showing recent Starlink deployment. The mirrored surface reflected the second stage so well is stunning.

(Reuters) US could advance SpaceX license as soon as October after rocket exploded in April in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Eric Berger quoted a tweet from the FAA here, but it was in the form of an image. A text transcript was kindly provided by World Spills @WorldSpills here:

SpaceX conducted a test flight of the Starship/Super Heavy at Boca Chica, TX on April 20, 2023. As a result of that launch, SpaceX completed a mishap investigation with FAA oversight; this investigation analyzed the launch, mishap events, and corrective actions. Before it is authorized to conduct a second Starship/ Super Heavy launch, SpaceX must obtain a modified license from the FAA that addresses all safety, environmental, and other regulatory requirements. As part of that license application determination process, the FAA will review new environmental information, including changes related to the launch pad, as well as other proposed vehicle and flight modifications. The FAA will complete a Written Reevaluation (WR) to the 2022 Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) evaluating the new environmental information, including Endangered Species Act consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If the FAA determines through the WR process that the contents of the PEA do not remain valid in light of the changes proposed for Flight 2, additional environmental review will be required. Accordingly, the FAA has not authorized SpaceX's proposed Flight 2.

It was followed by untranscribed

The FAA will provide updates with notification of any license determination or results of additional environmental review.

6
WRITTEN RE‐EVALUATION OF THE 2022 FINAL PEA ... (www.faa.gov)
 

I saw this somewhere on Xitter or The Other Place. I hadn't heard that there had been any sort of re-evaluation or more documents. The first document is dated 14 April 2023, so just before the first test, IFT-1:

WRITTEN RE‐EVALUATION OF THE 2022 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SPACEX STARSHIP/SUPER HEAVY LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM AT THE BOCA CHICA LAUNCH SITE IN CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle Ocean Landings and Launch Pad Detonation Suppression System

and following letters and documents are below it, dated as early as October 2022. 122 pages, oy vey, but a lot of repetition. I don't know enough to know whether there was anything significant, unless the FAA saying (paraphrasing) "these are some changes and considerations, but they don't have significant impact". There were changes expanding the landing zones, and more biological details, and lots more math about sound effects.

9
(SpaceX) Amazing glamor shots of a stacked ship (nitter.net)
 

The first image, of Super Heavy + Starship at night reflecting the launch tower -- is astonishing. Image 1

Image 2: stack against a partly cloudy sky near sunrise

Image 3: towards the top of the stack near sunset

Starship Development Thread #49 in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

When the major problems from your first test can be illustrated by Heath Ledger in 2008 -- debris zoom but boom no boom -- it's not surprising.

17
(ArsTechnica) What would it take to build a self-sustaining astronaut ecosystem on Mars? (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
1 comments fedilink
 

Article by Jacek Krywko, 13 September 2023. No intro here, but a much older article says "a science and technology writer based in Warsaw, Poland. He covers space exploration and artificial intelligence research, and he has previously written for Ars about facial-recognition screening, teaching AI-assistants new languages, and AI in space.".

WOW! I have no knowledge of the field, but it looks informative. As articles go, it's fairly long.

It's about efforts to get "bioregenerative life-support systems", living life-support systems as needed for long space journeys and bases over yonder.

The first efforts its lists were plant-based, BIOS (Soviet) and CELSS (US).

BIOS-3 experiments showed how much labor it took to operate this system. Results were bleak. Astronauts basically worked like full-time farmers just to keep it going.... There was very little control over what exactly the biological component was doing.

Then MELiSSA was proposed and implemented. It is bacteria-based. The great advantage is that each bacteria species does about one thing, and responds immediately to conditions, so humans can have much much more control. But it was a huge project:

The project quickly grew into a gargantuan effort backed by 14 countries and over 50 institutes, universities, and companies.

Then

In 2017, NASA founded the Center for Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), a conglomerate of federal agencies, industry, and academia, with the goal of building a demonstration biosystem for a future Mars colony....

While MELiSSA was focused on fine-tuning the hardware and software and left biology intact, CUBES involves engineering all three to make them work seamlessly together.

So bacteria-based, but now with genetic engineering. Also looking at producing more, like plastics or papers or more.

It talks about one drawback of that approach: "The problem is that life, when pushed, sometimes fights back." The changes for more productions of nitrites or fatty acids or whatever are not adaptive for the organism, so it has an incentive to mutate back towards its original if that can breed faster.

There's also discussion of multiple stages with more and more capability.

And also discussion of funding. MELiSSA has continuing funding and is looking for a human prototype. CUBES has had some design work, "with, like, $15 million USD in five years".

Anyway, well worth considering, and the comments are more valuable than in many comment sections. I did see fuzzyfuzzyfungus noting his own lay experience in existing bioreactors (amplifying a point above), specifically "the occasions when very, very unhappy science types announce that we'll be shutting down production because some undesired strain that's a lot less useful but a lot better at survival than the desired strain had snuck in and it was time to bleach out the tanks and sterilize everything to hell and back were just a thing that happened on occasion".

Edit: other items mentioned in the comments:

A City on Mars: Can we settle space, should we settle space, and have we really thought this through?: upcoming book from the Weinersmiths.

Thriving in Space: Ensuring the Future of Biological and Physical Sciences Research: A Decadal Survey for 2023-2032

Curiosity Finds Fairly Benign Radiation Environment on Mars

Covid on Mars: SF essay by Charlie Stross

6
Wall Street Journal article about Starlink, with a little more financial data (lemmy.world)
 

This is related to @[email protected]'s post about SpaceX no longer taking losses to produce Starlink satellite antennas. The article below refers to that one.

ArsTechnica, in "SpaceX projected 20 million Starlink users by 2022—it ended up with 1 million".

It's based on a Wall Street Journal article, which seems like a bit of a hit piece. The headline claim is absurd, as some comments pointed out: the projection was in 2015! It also points out that skeptics had always said that Starlink would not do well in cities, which would be a more valid criticism if Musk and Starlink didn't point it out first.

But there was this reported number:

Actual Starlink revenue for 2022 was $1.4 billion, up from $222 million in 2021, according to the report. The documents apparently didn't specify whether Starlink is profitable.

It mentions numbers that Shotwell had previous provided and that may have been reported here. I'll add them to have more data in one place:

SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell said in February that Starlink is expected to turn a profit this year. While Starlink's specific profit or loss is unknown, the WSJ previously reported that SpaceX overall "eke[d] out a small profit in the first three months of [2023] after two annual losses." SpaceX's Q1 2023 numbers reportedly included a $55 million profit on $1.5 billion in revenue.

The CNBC article had this, partially quoted in this ArsTechnica article,

The company last provided an update on its global Starlink user base in May, when it said it had about 1.5 million customers. Hofeller did not specify what that total is now but said Starlink is "well over" that 1.5 million mark. The figure includes both consumer and enterprise customers around the world ...

New launch tower segments moving to SLC-40 at Cape Canaveral in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I got the impression from reading the few posts about it that it's going to start as a backup for the existing crew Dragon tower. Whether it could ever become Son of Mechazilla in the long run I don't know, and I doubt it. I suspect, though on no evidence other than prior practice and the 5-step algorithm, that SpaceX would rather debug the first model some before building a second.

Starship Development Thread #49 in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

This is a link to my separate story post: "(Reuters) US could advance SpaceX license as soon as October after rocket exploded in April", including a bit of interpretation.

19
(Reuters) US could advance SpaceX license as soon as October after rocket exploded in April (www.reuters.com)
 

WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration said on Wednesday the agency could advance a launch license as early as next month for the SpaceX Starship rocket after a prior one exploded following a test launch in April.

"We're working well with them and have been in good discussions. Teams are working together and I think we're optimistic sometime next month," acting FAA Administrator Polly Trottenberg told reporters on the sidelines of a conference.

SpaceX would still need a separate environmental approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before a launch. Trottenberg did not say how long that might take.

It has been noted that the last paragraph doesn't say that Trottenberg said that. It might have been the reporter's inference that it is needed, and Trottenberg may not have addressed it at all. Also, for the PEA, the FAA handled all of it, including interfacing with the U.S. FWS and all other governmental entities.

Starship Development Thread #49 in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you for the pointer. Fixed.

Starship Development Thread #49 in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I copied and pasted it here. Thanks to @[email protected] for pointing me back at the RES extension so I could get the source.

Each item is on its own line. C## is the ID#. If there's text before it on its line, that's its Observation / Description section name; if it's at the start of the line, the Observation / Description string is the next one above.

List of Actions:

| Observation / Description | ID# | Corrective Action Description | Status | | ---------------------------------- |

| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | | Tank sensing | C1 | Replace certain fittings with welds inside tank | Complete | | Aft end cavity environment failure | C2 | Increase fire suppression capacity by 15x | Complete | | | C3 | Replace certain manifolds with dedicated drain per corresponding valve | Complete | | | C4 | Replace certain flanges with better seals and improve joint design | Complete | | | C5 | Replace certain fittings with welds in specific location | Complete | | Booster leak | C6 | Replace accessible valves of a certain type with new design | Complete | | mitigation | C7 | Replace certain flange bolts with higher strength bolts and increase torque | Complete | | | C8 | Disallow certain seal re-use, and add cameras to monitor all engines during ground operations | Complete | | | C9 | Increased scrutiny on leak checks | Complete | | | C10 | 90+ cameras added to detect leakage during operations | Complete | | | C11 | Add leak capture and drain hardware for valves of a certain type | Complete | | | C12 | Add leak check and screen for porosity on igniter units | Complete | | | C13 | Improved igniter seal design | Future Action | | | C14 | Weld certain alignment bolt holes shut | Complete | | Raptor leak | C15 | Reassess k-factor and torque for engine hot joint #1, add leak capture and route overboard | Complete | | mitigation | C16 | Reassess k-factor and torque for engine hot joint #2 | Complete | | | C17 | Add safety cable to certain fluid lines on high risk locations | Complete | | | C18 | Add one methane sensor per engine bay | Complete | | | C19 | Ground test campaign to better characterize typical engine leakage | Complete | | | C20 | Improve structural FEA/fatigue analysis for all medium to high criticality lines | Complete | | | C21 | Add insulation to engine lines sensitive to thermally driven loads | Complete | | Collateral | C22 | Add insulation to avionic harnessing | Complete | | damage from fire | C23 | Add backup wire to specific harness | Complete | | | C24 | Improve thermal protection of avionics tray | Complete | | | C25 | Change routing to flight computers | Complete | | | C26 | Replace sensor with more reliable units | Complete | | | C27 | Coat gimbal assembly with lubricant | Complete | | | C28 | Add pump pressure sensors to certain location | Complete | | | C29 | Add pump temperature sensors to certain location | Complete | | Booster reliability | C30 | Replace certain bolts, and increase torque for certain flanges | Complete | | improvement | C31 | New seal design for certain areas of booster | Complete | | | C32 | Add electric actuation system | Complete | | | C33 | Better manage engine bay pressure by increasing fire suppression capacity by | Complete | | | C34 | Change certain booster valve timing | Future Action | | | C35 | Add final leak checks for critical joints | Complete | | | C36 | Add support bracket for certain sensor | Complete | | | C37 | Add support bracket for certain sensor | Complete | | | C38 | Add check valves to certain areas of engine | Complete | | | C39 | Improve oxygen valve design | Future Action | | | C40 | Improve oxygen valve seal design | Future Action | | Raptor reliability | C41 | Improve design of hot manifold | Future Action | | improvement | C42 | Change nitrogen shutdown usage | Complete | | | C43 | Change engine shutdown logic | Complete | | | C44 | Increase capability for ground leakage mitigation | Complete | | | C45 | Redesign fire suppression system | Complete | | | C46 | Change conditions around bolts | Complete | | | C47 | Change timing of specific valve actuation | Complete | | Avionics reliability | C48 | Eliminate certain type of connector | Complete | | improvement | C49 | Redesign network architecture | Future Action | | Risk Process | C50 | Improve risk tracking process | Complete | | | C51 | Implement improvements to safety system | Complete | | Safety System | C52 | Verify flight safety system design improvements using additional type of test article | Complete | | | C53 | Verify flight safety system design improvements via analysis | Complete | | | C54 | Perform component testing | Complete | | | C55 | Review and improve operations surrounding flight safety system | Complete | | | C56 | Improve CAD controls | Complete | | Control | C57 | Add engineering walkdown | Complete | | Change | C58 | Improve use of change management system | Complete | | | C59 | Redesign of launch pad deck | Complete | | Pad Design | C60 | Improve assumptions for new pad deck design | Complete | | | C61 | Add water cooled pad deck | Complete | | Pad Design Process | C62 | Improve pad deck design documentation | Complete | | | C63 | Improve pad design process | Complete |

view more: next ›