SPACE - random thread about space stuff

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:55 pm

jztemple2 wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:06 pm
8 am EDT is too early for me to get up but since I'm not taking a morning walk on Monday and we won't be leaving for lunch till about 10:30 am EDT, at least I can check in on the second half of the launch window.

Same. Monday's supposed to be chilly and wet here so no walk for me. I've walked on 8 of the past 9 days (and on the other day I cleaned the garage) so I'm overdue for a day off anyway. And Monday is Patriots Day, so no work to interfere.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Sat Apr 15, 2023 7:56 pm

Kraken wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:55 pm (paraphrased)
He walked for 8 days and on the 9th day he cleaned the garage.

I could get behind this religion.

Sudy · Post by **Sudy** » Sat Apr 15, 2023 8:03 pm

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Apr 15, 2023 9:59 pm

Unagi wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 7:56 pm
Kraken wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:55 pm (paraphrased)
He walked for 8 days and on the 9th day he cleaned the garage.
I could get behind this religion.

For lo, his feet were was weary and he wanted a motorcar.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Sun Apr 16, 2023 11:56 pm

https://twitter.com/jinsprucker/status/ ... sxHTw&s=19

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:02 am

Zaxxon wrote: Sun Apr 16, 2023 11:56 pm https://twitter.com/jinsprucker/status/ ... sxHTw&s=19

Funny how SpaceX and others keep trying to lower expectations of this first flight and remembering back, it was only a few short months ago that we had the first launch of a really large rocket... and that went exceedingly well

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:13 am

Updated info on tomorrow's launch attempt:

Known collectively as Starship, SpaceX’s super-heavy lift rocket is aiming to make its launch debut the morning of Monday, April 17, after receiving its launch license from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The company said its 150-minute launch window will begin at 7:00 am CT (8:00 am ET). However, that launch time was adjusted late Sunday night to now target launch at 8:00 am CT (9:00 am ET). Spectrum News asked if the launch window will be adjusted, but SpaceX didn’t respond before publication.

So maybe I'll get up a few minutes early

Meanwhile, a look at the launch site from a different angle:

Link to the whole article on Spectrum News: Launch license in hand, SpaceX’s planned Starship flight test gives glimpse into Space Coast future

Flight patch!
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/164 ... ast-future

And I figured there might be a problem with the winds:
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/16476 ... ast-future

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:41 am

jztemple2 wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:02 am
Zaxxon wrote: Sun Apr 16, 2023 11:56 pm https://twitter.com/jinsprucker/status/ ... sxHTw&s=19
Funny how SpaceX and others keep trying to lower expectations of this first flight and remembering back, it was only a few short months ago that we had the first launch of a really large rocket... and that went exceedingly well

This vehicle is expendable by design, and it won't take years to reach the next step. Artemis needs every launch to succeed. Unless this first effort turns up some nasty surprises, and if they don't blow up the launch pad, SpaceX can regroup and repeat this trial in a matter of months and for several billion dollars less than an Artemis launch. But you know that.

Which is not to say that the stakes aren't high.

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:44 am

Just woke up. I see from Spaceflightnow.com that there were issues with the first stage and so the launch attempt was scrubbed but they continued with the activities so as to give the vehicle a wet dress rehearsal. No doubt more later.

Kraken wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:41 am This vehicle is expendable by design, and it won't take years to reach the next step. Artemis needs every launch to succeed. Unless this first effort turns up some nasty surprises, and if they don't blow up the launch pad, SpaceX can regroup and repeat this trial in a matter of months and for several billion dollars less than an Artemis launch. But you know that.

Which is not to say that the stakes aren't high.

What you say is true, it just seems to me that SpaceX keeps trying to lower expectations for this vehicle. And while it won't take years for the next step, they still need to achieve some progress with Starship, since it is going to be the moon lander for Artemis.

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:16 am

SpaceX scrubs 1st space launch of giant Starship rocket due to fueling issue

We'll all have to wait a little longer to see the most powerful rocket ever built take flight for the first time.

SpaceX had planned to launch a fully stacked Starship vehicle for the first time ever today (April 17), sending the gigantic spacecraft skyward from its Starbase facility here on South Texas' Gulf Coast.

That didn't happen, however. With just under 9 minutes to go in the countdown, SpaceX announced an issue with the pressurization system on Starship's first stage. Mission controllers then decided to transition today's flight test to a wet dress rehearsal, allowing them to work through the vehicle's pre-flight procedures and learn more about the rocket and its systems.

"The point of the countdown is to allow the teams to progress that T-zero time in a coordinated fashion and really to unveil any issues prior to the ignition sequence. So the countdown did its job today," said SpaceX's Kate Tice during today's launch coverage.

Space X will now wait a minimum of 48 hours before attempting another launch. A new launch time has yet to be announced.

Prior to the announcement that today's attempt would be scrubbed, SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk stated via Twitter during the countdown that a "pressurant valve appears to be frozen, so unless it starts operating soon, no launch today."

So it would appear that Wednesday will be the next earliest attempt. Stay tuned!

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:25 am

jztemple2 wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:16 am SpaceX scrubs 1st space launch of giant Starship rocket due to fueling issue

I was looking at the video that was embedded in that story and it has me wondering... I could see that the booster was fully fueled, but was Starship itself fueled? There was no frost on the sunward side, but there might have been some on the shaded side. I know that the flight plan called for powered flight from the upper stage, so I was just wondering.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:39 am

jztemple2 wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:25 am
jztemple2 wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:16 am SpaceX scrubs 1st space launch of giant Starship rocket due to fueling issue
I was looking at the video that was embedded in that story and it has me wondering... I could see that the booster was fully fueled, but was Starship itself fueled? There was no frost on the sunward side, but there might have been some on the shaded side. I know that the flight plan called for powered flight from the upper stage, so I was just wondering.

Per the callouts during countdown, it was.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:02 pm

I find that my opinion of Musk has gotten to the point that I wouldn't feel bad if his rocket fell down and went boom.

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 2:30 pm

Max Peck wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:02 pm I find that my opinion of Musk has gotten to the point that I wouldn't feel bad if his rocket fell down and went boom.

And if you have looked at the pictures of the launch site, or the video below that SpaceX posted to their twitter feed this morning, if things do go boom there might be a lot of damage to their infrastructure there. Having worked on the LH2 system on Shuttle where our storage tank was 400 yards away from the pad surface, that much infrastructure that close to the vehicle makes me a bit apprehensive.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/16479 ... 00038?s=20

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:10 pm

Max Peck wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:02 pm I find that my opinion of Musk has gotten to the point that I wouldn't feel bad if his rocket fell down and went boom.

I find myself wanting Space X to succeed as much as I want Elon to fail hard. It's a bit of an internal conflict.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:35 pm

gbasden wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:10 pm
Max Peck wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:02 pm I find that my opinion of Musk has gotten to the point that I wouldn't feel bad if his rocket fell down and went boom.
I find myself wanting Space X to succeed as much as I want Elon to fail hard. It's a bit of an internal conflict.

Yeah, same. At least he seems to be largely distracted by Twitter while the reasonably-well-established-now SpaceX and Tesla keep at it.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 6:19 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:35 pm
gbasden wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:10 pm
Max Peck wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:02 pm I find that my opinion of Musk has gotten to the point that I wouldn't feel bad if his rocket fell down and went boom.
I find myself wanting Space X to succeed as much as I want Elon to fail hard. It's a bit of an internal conflict.
Yeah, same. At least he seems to be largely distracted by Twitter while the reasonably-well-established-now SpaceX and Tesla keep at it.

I will absolutely be gleeful if he bankrupts twitter and loses an ass-ton of money, though.

Hrdina · Post by **Hrdina** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 8:37 pm

jztemple2 wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:16 am So it would appear that Wednesday will be the next earliest attempt. Stay tuned!

The SpaceX youtube channel posted their "upcoming" Starship Flight Test video as scheduled for Thursday 4/20 at 8:45.

I'm sure no stoner twit pushed for that particular date...

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:33 pm

gbasden wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 6:19 pm
Zaxxon wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:35 pm
gbasden wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 4:10 pm
Max Peck wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 1:02 pm I find that my opinion of Musk has gotten to the point that I wouldn't feel bad if his rocket fell down and went boom.
I find myself wanting Space X to succeed as much as I want Elon to fail hard. It's a bit of an internal conflict.
Yeah, same. At least he seems to be largely distracted by Twitter while the reasonably-well-established-now SpaceX and Tesla keep at it.
I will absolutely be gleeful if he bankrupts twitter and loses an ass-ton of money, though.

Me, too, but that's just schadenfreude. Although I wish it would go away or fade into background noise, I don't use twitter. Musk has made himself personally poisonous and twitter is his megaphone, so I'd be pleased to see them both fail.

However, SpaceX has already revolutionized rocket technology and is on the verge of doing the same for spaceflight, just as Tesla made EVs mainstream at exactly the time that we need them. I wish both companies continued success in spite of Elon Musk.

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:45 pm

SpaceX targeting April 20 for next Starship launch attempt

SpaceX is targeting Thursday (April 20) for the second attempt to launch its giant Starship vehicle to space.

The 62-minute launch window opens Thursday at 9:28 a.m. EDT (1328 GMT), SpaceX wrote in an updated description of the highly anticipated test mission.

And the aforementioned updated description says:

SpaceX is targeting as soon as Thursday, April 20 for the first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy rocket from Starbase in Texas. The 62 minute launch window opens at 8:28 a.m. CT and closes at 9:30 a.m. CT.

Interesting that we went from a 150 minute window to a 62 minute one. And in case anybody, anybody, missed it, the new launch date is 4/20

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:26 pm

Kraken wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:33 pm However, SpaceX has already revolutionized rocket technology and is on the verge of doing the same for spaceflight, just as Tesla made EVs mainstream at exactly the time that we need them. I wish both companies continued success in spite of Elon Musk.

We still need Space X. Most other car makers are fully onboard with electric vehicles, so I will not cry if Tesla takes down another huge chunk of his wealth. I don't see it happening but it would not cause me angst.

Hrdina · Post by **Hrdina** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:33 pm

jztemple2 wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:45 pmInteresting that we went from a 150 minute window to a 62 minute one. And in case anybody, anybody, missed it, the new launch date is 4/20

Did they mention a reason for the shortened launch window?

Also someone might have mentioned the 4/20 thing a couple of posts before yours.

Total coincidence, I'm sure.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:44 pm

gbasden wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:26 pm
Kraken wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:33 pm However, SpaceX has already revolutionized rocket technology and is on the verge of doing the same for spaceflight, just as Tesla made EVs mainstream at exactly the time that we need them. I wish both companies continued success in spite of Elon Musk.
We still need Space X. Most other car makers are fully onboard with electric vehicles, so I will not cry if Tesla takes down another huge chunk of his wealth. I don't see it happening but it would not cause me angst.

I don't really follow EVs in general or Tesla in particular, so I don't have a dog in that fight. I still see Tesla as the innovator while the rest of the industry is scrambling to catch up.

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Tue Apr 18, 2023 12:21 am

Hrdina wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:33 pm Did they mention a reason for the shortened launch window?

No reason mentioned, but the forecast is once again showing the chance of some high winds.

Thursday
Partly sunny, with a high near 86. Breezy, with a southeast wind 14 to 21 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph.

So I was reading one of the many articles before the first launch attempt and I noticed that the landing zone for Starship is off Hawaii, but to be more specific, the landing zone's southern and closest limit to Kauai (the garden island) is only 62 miles (100 km). After traveling about 20,000 miles. That might be cutting it a little close for me. Now that have expanded the landing zone's northern to give them some more leeway, but with all the reservations about how this is such an experimental flight and things might go a bit wrong, if I was in charge of the launch, I'd tell them to aim to the very northern edge of the zone

Hrdina wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:33 pm
jztemple2 wrote: Mon Apr 17, 2023 10:45 pmInteresting that we went from a 150 minute window to a 62 minute one. And in case anybody, anybody, missed it, the new launch date is 4/20
Also someone might have mentioned the 4/20 thing a couple of posts before yours.

Yup, I was half asleep and missed your post

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:35 am

I assume that some of the prep is now baked-in....

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:24 am

It's happening... again. T-4 and a bit.

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:33 am

Holding at T-40s for some issues, some hope count will resume soon... counting NOW!

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:40 am

Well, partial success. Looked like good booster burn but a failure to separate Starship. It's weird that the crowd at Hawthorne was cheering the RUD of the vehicle. It's not a piece of fireworks. Young people are weird.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:55 am

That was looking good too. Hopefully they can work out that issue and get another flight up there soon.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:14 am

Yup, I don't feel bad.

SpaceX being SpaceX, I'm sure they'll learn from the failure and do better next time.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:24 am

I'm not cheering the RUD, but they were planning to move on from this iteration of the hardware anyway, so no big loss. I'm just happy they appear to have gotten the ignition sequence mostly right and that they cleared the pad without issue. Presumably tons of data that will retire a lot of risk for the next try.

The view of the engines from below as it ascended felt like something out of a sci-fi film.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:34 am

Well, that was exciting. The booster lingered on the pad for a couple of seconds longer than I expected to see so I was relieved when it finally started moving, and moving upward is always nice. The ascent looked smooth until the announcer said that the vehicle was maneuvering for stage separation. I told Wife "I don't think that maneuver is supposed to be a pinwheel." And then a few moments later, "Here comes the RUD," and I got it right on time. Watching that enormous vehicle corkscrew through the sky was a sight to behold.

So now I wonder whether the next mission profile will duplicate this one, and how long it will take them to try again. I don't think hardware is much of a constraint; they seem to have multiple vehicles in various stages of production. Probably more a matter of defining the fault and correcting it. I would guess a matter of months.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:39 am

Kraken wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:34 am Well, that was exciting. The booster lingered on the pad for a couple of seconds longer than I expected to see so I was relieved when it finally started moving, and moving upward is always nice.

I think this is normal, as unlike with Falcon, they ignite the engines in sequence rather than effectively all at once.

So now I wonder whether the next mission profile will duplicate this one, and how long it will take them to try again. I don't think hardware is much of a constraint; they seem to have multiple vehicles in various stages of production. Probably more a matter of defining the fault and correcting it. I would guess a matter of months.

I believe the target is 2-3 months based on prior comments, but I'm not sure whether the RUD will impact that.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:43 am

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:56 am

Kraken wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:34 am Well, that was exciting. The booster lingered on the pad for a couple of seconds longer than I expected to see so I was relieved when it finally started moving, and moving upward is always nice. The ascent looked smooth until the announcer said that the vehicle was maneuvering for stage separation. I told Wife "I don't think that maneuver is supposed to be a pinwheel." And then a few moments later, "Here comes the RUD," and I got it right on time. Watching that enormous vehicle corkscrew through the sky was a sight to behold.

I was just watching the altitude fall and thinking a big object spinning into heavier atmosphere...this thing is going to blow. And then cloud of vapor.

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 11:45 am

It looked like they had lost three engines by the time of tower clear and then another two before the planned separation. While it has been said repeatedly how the booster can achieve its goals even with a few engines out, you'll really want to know why. After all, what might be five engines this time might be 15 or 25 next time. Plus any engine not running is just dead weight that takes away from payload performance.

Also there was something odd about the angle between the plume on ascent and the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, like they hadn't gone up far enough to start their gravity turn; anyone who's spend a lot of time in Kerbal Space Program might recognize that

. It might have been planned to get the booster away from the coastline quicker.

And while if you are a billionaire you can make jokes about excitement guaranteed, Starship is still critical path to a moon landing and today was a bust regarding getting data for that upper stage.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 12:32 pm

Berger's take, which I sense jzt may amicably scoff at.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/ ... 69376?s=20

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:13 pm

which is a better outcome?

Ask the fish.

jztemple2 · Post by **jztemple2** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:30 pm

<scoff>

They can build 10 Super Heavy first stages in the time NASA builds a single SLS rocket. If the first five fail, but the next five succeed, which is a better outcome?

NASA has the better outcome, because there are no guarantees that the sixth one won't fail, or the seventh one, or the eighth one... Yes, the approach SpaceX is taking makes a lot of sense if SpaceX was just flying for SpaceX, but the American taxpayer is paying quite a bit for SpaceX to have a working lunar lander when Artemis III is ready to go. And remember that part of the plan of SpaceX is to use on-orbit refueling in a massive scale, something that has never been done.

But that's several years in the future and right now everyone is hooping and hollering because Elon put on a fireworks show for them

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Thu Apr 20, 2023 2:11 pm

jztemple2 wrote: Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:30 pm <scoff>
They can build 10 Super Heavy first stages in the time NASA builds a single SLS rocket. If the first five fail, but the next five succeed, which is a better outcome?
NASA has the better outcome, because there are no guarantees that the sixth one won't fail, or the seventh one, or the eighth one...

Since NASA's approach will never (for current rockets, at least, and therefore for the foreseeable future) yield a sufficient launch cadence to colonize anything, I disagree. If you're content with a launch per year, I can see how you'd disagree.