Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Commercial Space - Military Space
  [Discuss] SpaceX Starship and Super Heavy (Page 10)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 13 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   [Discuss] SpaceX Starship and Super Heavy
SkyMan1958
Member

Posts: 1363
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011

posted 04-21-2023 05:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SkyMan1958   Click Here to Email SkyMan1958     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I guess people see what they want to see. From the little clip we see of Elon, the first part of it shows him with a smile, before he gets more somber. This tells me he was basically happy, but realized that there is significantly more work to do.

With regards to the rocket, it appears that Stage 0 was one of the major contributing factors to the loss of engines. If you see some of the current pictures online, the reinforced concrete below the structure was turned into a crater. There are sections of it where the concrete was literally stripped away from the reinforcing steel bars.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a lot of debris was created by this, and that may well have knocked out the 3 engines that were shown to be inoperable just after launch. The debris could have further weakened the structural integrity at the base of the rocket leading to the other 3 engines going out while heading uphill.

I always was surprised there wasn't some sort of flame trench or larger water deluge system at the launch tower. It will be interesting to see what SpaceX does to fix this issue. I suspect that this will be the pacing item for the launch of the next Starship/Super Heavy.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-21-2023 05:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Elon Musk just addressed the Stage 0 design decisions on Twitter:
Three months ago, we started building a massive water-cooled, steel plate to go under the launch mount. Wasn't ready in time and we wrongly thought, based on static fire data, that Fondag would make it through one launch.

Looks like we can be ready to launch again in one to two months.

GACspaceguy
Member

Posts: 3045
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006

posted 04-21-2023 07:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for GACspaceguy   Click Here to Email GACspaceguy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a lot of debris was created by this, and that may well have knocked out the 3 engines that were shown to be inoperable just after launch.
Curious what would have caused the debris to be able go up towards the base of the vehicle against the mass of the exhaust that caused the material to break loose in the first place?

I am looking forward to the story the data tells. That is if SpaceX elects to share it. SpaceX is a private company with no obligation to report out to us the details. I am sure there will be a general reveal just to settle the public interest.

My opinion, and that is all it is, my opinion, it was a fantastic first test flight of a private rocket company. With three engines out, and assuming all engines contribute equally, the 13.5 million lbs of thrust was absolutely stunning. As far as the clapping and cheering at the end. Well, once they knew that the mission was certainly over, with no more "flying to come" I feel it was a release of the elation of an amazing first flight. Again, my thoughts only.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1897
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 04-23-2023 09:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
...before Range Safety intervened.
The onboard FTS initiated. There is no signal sent.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3704
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-24-2023 09:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And if the onboard FTS fails?

NukeGuy
Member

Posts: 118
From: Irvine, CA USA
Registered: May 2014

posted 04-24-2023 11:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NukeGuy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Murray and Cox’s “Apollo” described the two groups involved in Apollo and their reaction to the Apollo 1 fire. In one group were those that came from flight testing such as the mission controllers and of course, the astronauts themselves. In the other group were the system engineers such as Joe Shea. The flight test people were more accepting of the Apollo 1 fatalities. The system engineers had a much rougher time.

Maybe the “New Space” companies comprise an entirely new group with a mentality of software development engineers that are accustomed to testing early, testing often and failing often. Particularly those new space companies that are privately held.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1897
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 04-24-2023 01:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
And if the onboard FTS fails?
No different if a legacy system failed. The old track and transmit type of FTS was a lot more complex and had more more chances of failure than AFTS. AFTS has separate and redundant systems. They have redundant GPS receiver and gyros, so it knows where it is and going. The impact limit lines are coded in with the same rigor as was done for the displays for the safety officers. There is just a whole bunch of "middle men operations" eliminated.

For example to determine state of vehicle:

  • AFTS - Receive GPS signal and processes position

  • Legacy FTS - Range radar send out signal, transponder on rocket receives radar signal and responds with signal, Range radar receives transponder signal and processes position.
Falcon 9 is already been using AFTS for most of its launches. That allows them to do polar orbits from the Cape.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3704
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-24-2023 05:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's very helpful - thanks.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1300
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 04-26-2023 02:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Does anyone know what is the status of the Super Heavy launch facility at Cape Canaveral?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-26-2023 05:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I believe Elon Musk said they were still six to eight months to go before the mount inside the perimeter and off to the side of Kennedy Space Center's Pad 39A ready to support a vehicle (and that remark was made a couple of months ago).

NASA has said that it does not want SpaceX to use 39A for Starship launches until LC-40 on the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station side is capable of supporting Crew Dragon launches just in case 39A is damaged by Starship. I believe there was mention of some minor work having begun, but it, too, is still months (if not more) away from being complete.

Space Cadet Carl
Member

Posts: 305
From: Lake Orion, MI
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 04-26-2023 10:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Space Cadet Carl   Click Here to Email Space Cadet Carl     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A theory is being kicked around online that the bright flashes we saw 30 seconds after liftoff were the APUs exploding. This would cause Super Heavy to lose any ability to gimble it's engines and they would have to depend strictly on thrust vectoring to make trajectory corrections.

I kept thinking about the old Soviet N-1 problems and the tremendous interacting dynamic forces and pressures going on when you're trying to run 33 engines simultaneously in a huge cluster like that.

perineau
Member

Posts: 401
From: FRANCE
Registered: Jul 2007

posted 04-27-2023 03:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for perineau   Click Here to Email perineau     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I thought about the Soviet N-1 rocket as well - perhaps the technology is still too complex 54 years later...

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-29-2023 07:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Elon Musk held a subscriber-only Twitter Spaces discussion about the results of SpaceX's first Starship launch. Michael Sheetz with CNBC tweeted the points:
Musk: "The outcome was roughly in what I expected, and maybe slightly exceeding my expectations, but roughly what I expected, which is that we would get clear of the pad."

Musk: "I'm glad to report that the pad damage is actually quite small" and should "be repaired quickly."

Musk: "The vehicle's structural margins appear to be better than we expected, as we can tell from the vehicle actually doing somersaults towards the end and still staying intact."

Musk: From a "pad standpoint, we are probably ready to launch in 6 to 8 weeks."

"The longest item on that is probably requalification of the flight termination system ... it took way too long to rupture the tanks."

Musk: Time for AFTS [Autonomous Flight Termination System] to kick in "was pretty long," about "40 seconds-ish."

Musk: "There were three engines that we chose not to start," so that's why Super Heavy booster lifted off with 30 engines, "which is the minimum number of engines."

The three engines "didn't explode," but just were not "healthy enough to bring them to full thrust so they were shut down."

Musk: At T+27 seconds, SpaceX lost communications due to "some kind of energy event." And "some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, or 20."

Musk: "Rocket kept going through T+62 seconds" with the engines continuing to run. Lost thrust vector control at T+85 seconds.

Musk: Generated a "rock tornado" under Super Heavy during liftoff, but SpaceX does not "see evidence that the rock tornado actually damaged engines or heat shields in a material way." May have happened, but "we have not seen evidence of that."

Musk: "It was actually good to get this vehicle off the ground because we've made so many improvements" in Super Heavy Booster 9 "and beyond."

"Really just needed to fly this vehicle and then move on to the much improved booster."

Musk: After AFTS, "the ship did not attempt to save itself."

Musk: Big thing for next Starship launch is "insuring that we don't lose thrust vector control" with Booster 9."

Musk: "We're going to putting down a lot of steel" under the launch tower before the next Starship flight.

"Debris was really just basically sand and rock so it's not toxic at all ... it's just like a sandstorm, essentially ... but we don't want to do that again."

Musk: "We certainly didn't expect" to destroy the concrete under the launchpad.

Musk: Speculating, but "one of the more plausible explanations is that ... we may have compressed the sand underneath the concrete to such a degree that the concrete effectively bent and then cracked," which is "a leading theory."

Musk: Reason for going with a steel plate instead of a flame trench is that for payloads in the rocket, the worse acoustic environment doesn't matter to the payload since it's about 400 feet away.

Musk: Flight was "pretty close to what I expected."

Musk: "Got pretty close to stage separation ... if we had maintained thrust vector control and throttled up, which we should have ... then we would have made it to staging."

Musk: "Our goal for the next flight is to make it to staging and hopefully succeed."

Musk: "My expectation for the next flight would be to reach orbit." Next flight profile will be a "repeat."

Musk: "The goal of these missions is just information. Like, we don't have any payload or anything -- it's just to learning as much as possible."

Musk: "Definitely don't" expect lunar Starship (under the HLS project) to be the longest lead item for the Artemis III mission.

"We will be the first thing to really be" ready.

Musk: Probably an 80% probability of reaching orbit with Starship this year, and "I think close to 100% chance of reaching orbit within 12 months."

Musk: Slowed down Raptor engine production "because we've got more Raptors than we know what to do with."

Musk: Expect to spend ~$2 billion this year on Starship.

Musk: "We do not anticipate needing to raise funding ... we don't think we need to raise funding." Will do the "standard thing where we provide liquidity to employees."

"But to my knowledge we do not need to raise incremental funding for SpaceX."

Musk: For the next flight, "we're going to start the engines faster and get off the pad faster." From engine start to moving Starship "was around 5 seconds, which is a really long time to be blasting the pad." Going to try to cut that time in half.

Musk: Starship didn't get to what SpaceX thought was "a safe point to do stage separation."

Musk: "I thought the SpaceX team did amazing work."

"This is certainly a candidate for the hardest technical problem done by humans."

Musk, on environmental response: "The rocket uses non-toxic propellants and ... scattered a lot of dust, but to the best of our knowledge there has not been any meaningful damage to the environment that we're aware of."

Musk: SpaceX has yet to make a final decision on which Starship prototype and Super Heavy booster will fly the next launch.

Musk: "Going to be replacing a bunch of the tanks in the tank farm, but these are tanks that we wanted to replace anyway."

Musk: "Tower itself is in good shape. We see no meaningful damage to the tower even though they got hit with some pretty big chunks of concrete."

Musk: Starship sliding laterally off the launchpad was "because of the engine failures."

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1300
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 04-29-2023 09:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
These were excellent comments and observations by Elon Musk, free from the usually annoying bombastic verbiage. I heartily agree with his assessment of the AFTS. It took too damn long to terminate the flight.

Even though I don't always believe everything he says, I found his comment about the Starship HLS not being a pacing item for Artemis III to be oddly reassuring.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1897
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 05-01-2023 09:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by perineau:
...perhaps the technology is still too complex 54 years later.
No. It is not too complex. Most of the issues had nothing to do with the number of engines.

Thirty-three is only six more than the 27 that worked successfully on last night's Falcon Heavy launch.

quote:
Originally posted by Space Cadet Carl:
I kept thinking about the old Soviet N-1 problems
Let's stop the N1 analogies. N1 had QA and internal foreign object debris (FOD) problems and also money problems. These are not shared by Starship.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1300
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 05-01-2023 02:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
N-1 is a closer analogy to Super Heavy than Falcon Heavy.

Falcon Heavy is actually three separate boosters with nine engines each that are essentially lashed together. Has SpaceX ever stated that they would launch a Falcon Heavy with one, two or three engines out? I do not recall hearing so. But they are on record stating that they would go ahead with a Super Heavy launch with up to three non-working engines (although that may change).

Robert has already described the difference in steering between N-1 and Super Heavy. And that is a valid divergence.

What I am concerned about is the operational management of a single, large rocket with so many engines. The harmonics and vibrations of such a changing (as engines go out or come back on line) complex system have got to be formidable (as must be the plumbing) and, so far, the only historical corresponding data point is the N-1.

oly
Member

Posts: 1471
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015

posted 05-02-2023 01:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for oly   Click Here to Email oly     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Headshot:
so far, the only historical corresponding data point is the N-1.
Using this logic, A Boeing B-29 and a 747 are the same because they are both aircraft that have four engines.

SpaceX has demonstrated their design iterations along the way and there are numerous people documenting the development of the vehicles, infrastructure, and hardware.

The number of engines that Super Heavy has at the moment is a result of how much thrust each engine can develop and how much mass the system is designed to lift.

SpaceX has changed the number of engines and the layout many times during the design evolution and may not have yet settled on a final number.

Following the design evolution SpaceX has shown developing Super Heavy thus far, including the manufacturing techniques, materials, systems, and launch platform, indications are that the SpaceX design is unique.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1897
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 05-02-2023 08:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Headshot:
The harmonics and vibrations of such a changing (as engines go out or come back on line) complex system have got to be formidable (as must be the plumbing) and, so far, the only historical corresponding data point is the N-1.
They engines won't be coming back online and because there are 33, a few engines out doesn't change much.

The N1 is not relevant. It had QA and internal FOD issues. Its engines were a cycle that was susceptible to FOD. It had an engine control system that wasn't fully validated. It used a unique method of flight control.

The number of engines on Starship are dictated by:

  1. Using the same engine on the upper stage and booster
  2. The ability of the upper stage to deal with an engine out
  3. The ability of both stages to land. This meant six engines on the upper stage with three for landing and 33 engines on the booster with 13 for landing.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-18-2023 10:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From SpaceX (via Twitter):
Ship 25 moved to a suborbital pad at Starbase for an upcoming static fire of its six Raptor engines.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-28-2023 06:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
SpaceX on Saturday (May 27) posted this recap of its first Starship and Super Heavy fully-integrated test flight.
Starship gave us quite a show during the first flight test of a fully integrated Starship (S24) and Super Heavy rocket (B7) from Starbase in Texas.

On April 20, 2023 at 8:33 a.m. CT, Starship successfully lifted off from the orbital launch pad for the first time. The vehicle cleared the pad and beach as Starship climbed to an apogee of ~39 km over the Gulf of Mexico – the highest of any Starship to-date.

With a test like this, success comes from what we learn, and we learned a tremendous amount about the vehicle and ground systems today that will help us improve on future flights of Starship.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-27-2023 09:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Starship SN 25 completed a six-engine static fire test on Monday (June 26) at Starbase in Texas. From Elon Musk (via Twitter):
Key milestone completed for flight 2.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-20-2023 04:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From SpaceX (via Twitter):
Starship Super Heavy Booster 9 transported to the orbital launch pad at Starbase for testing ahead of flight.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-21-2023 04:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From SpaceX (via Twitter):
Booster 9 on the pad.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-28-2023 05:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
SpaceX tested its new pad sound suppression system today (July 28):
Full-pressure test of Starship flame deflector.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-04-2023 03:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From SpaceX (via Twitter):
Booster 9 completed a flight-like chill and spin of the Raptor engine pumps in advance of static fire.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-06-2023 02:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
SpaceX video
View of Starship Super Heavy Booster 9 static fire.

drs. j
New Member

Posts: 8
From: Austerlitz, Netherlands
Registered: Jul 2014

posted 08-07-2023 03:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for drs. j   Click Here to Email drs. j     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting footage. To me the water sound suppression system start quite early: way before ignition. Does anyone know how many engines were fired?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-07-2023 03:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All 33 engines were fired, but four shut down early as reported by SpaceX.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-18-2023 09:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From SpaceX (via X):
Vented interstage and heat shield installed atop Booster 9. Starship and Super Heavy are being upgraded to use a separation method called hot-staging, where Starship’s second stage engines will ignite to push the ship away from the booster.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-23-2023 02:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
SpaceX has filed a notice to mariners suggesting that the next Starship and Super Heavy test flight is being targeted for on our about Sept. 8.
On approximately September 8, 2023, mariners operating offshore in waters east of Brownsville, Texas, are advised of rocket launching activities and associated hazardous areas which may impact navigation interests.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-25-2023 01:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
SpaceX test fired its Super Heavy Booster 9 today (Aug. 25). According to Elon Musk, the test was a success.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-06-2023 11:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From SpaceX (via X):
Fully stacked Starship on the launch pad at Starbase.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-06-2023 07:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
With regards to when SpaceX will attempt its next Starship launch, the FAA released this statement today (Sept. 6):
The SpaceX Starship mishap investigation remains open. The FAA will not authorize another Starship launch until SpaceX implements the corrective actions identified during the mishap investigation and demonstrates compliance with all the regulatory requirements of the license modification process.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1300
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 09-07-2023 04:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Is the SpaceX Starship Mishap Report a matter of public record? If not, does the FAA have the authority to eventually release it into the public record after all the corrections have been made?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-08-2023 10:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In releasing this statement today, the FAA directed press with questions about the mishap report to contact SpaceX.
FAA Closes SpaceX Starship Mishap Investigation

The FAA has closed the SpaceX Starship Super Heavy mishap investigation. The final report cites multiple root causes of the April 20, 2023, mishap and 63 corrective actions SpaceX must take to prevent mishap reoccurrence. Corrective actions include redesigns of vehicle hardware to prevent leaks and fires, redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness, incorporation of additional reviews in the design process, additional analysis and testing of safety critical systems and components including the Autonomous Flight Safety System, and the application of additional change control practices.

The closure of the mishap investigation does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica. SpaceX must implement all corrective actions that impact public safety and apply for and receive a license modification from the FAA that addresses all safety, environmental and other applicable regulatory requirements prior to the next Starship launch.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3704
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-09-2023 08:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Is anyone saying how many of the 63 actions SpaceX has ALREADY taken?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-10-2023 01:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Elon Musk answered that question earlier today:
Congrats to SpaceX for completing and document[ing] the 57 items required by the FAA for Flight 2 of Starship!

Worth noting that 6 of the 63 items refer to later flights.

Headshot
Member

Posts: 1300
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 09-10-2023 02:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Does the FAA now have to verify these issues are now corrected, or do they just take SpaceX's word?

For the six Future Action issues, shouldn't SpaceX have indicated either a target date or a flight test number by when these issues will be complete?

Guess I am not clear on the process.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3704
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-11-2023 12:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I suspect nobody is clear on the process unless they are a party to the process, but I can't see the FAA "taking it on trust" that the 57 steps have been taken satisfactorily. Didn't someone once say, "Trust but verify?"

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 52203
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-15-2023 06:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Update from the FAA SpaceX Boca Chica Project Team:
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.

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


This topic is 13 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2024 collectSPACE. All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement