April 21, 2023 Quick space links
Courtesy of BtB’s stringer Jay.
- Cygnus departs ISS
This was the Cygnus that had a solar panel deployment issue in November.
- Astra gets a tentative Space Force launch contract for its Rocket-4
The Space Force program is designed to encourage new companies. Astra still has to demonstrate its new Rocket-4 will fly to get full payment.
- China touts its proposed Long March 9 copy of Superheavy/Starship
As Jay says, “Wow! Wait that looks familiar….. 30 Raptor…err…YF-79 engines?”
Next, a whole bunch of post-flight items relating to the Starship/Superheavy test launch:
- Picture of launchpad damage
- Another picture of launchpad damage
- Update from Musk about launchpad damage
- Someone shows off a Starship tile that he found washed up on the beach
- Someone else shows off a Starship tile that she found washed up on the beach
- NEXTRAD weather radar data showing the flight
- FAA grounds SpaceX’s Starship rockets after explosion minutes into launch
The last story from Politico suggests first that the Biden administration and the federal bureaucracy fully intends to treat SpaceX and Starship/Superheavy differently than all other rocket startups, and second Politico is all-in on that effort.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Courtesy of BtB’s stringer Jay.
- Cygnus departs ISS
This was the Cygnus that had a solar panel deployment issue in November.
- Astra gets a tentative Space Force launch contract for its Rocket-4
The Space Force program is designed to encourage new companies. Astra still has to demonstrate its new Rocket-4 will fly to get full payment.
- China touts its proposed Long March 9 copy of Superheavy/Starship
As Jay says, “Wow! Wait that looks familiar….. 30 Raptor…err…YF-79 engines?”
Next, a whole bunch of post-flight items relating to the Starship/Superheavy test launch:
- Picture of launchpad damage
- Another picture of launchpad damage
- Update from Musk about launchpad damage
- Someone shows off a Starship tile that he found washed up on the beach
- Someone else shows off a Starship tile that she found washed up on the beach
- NEXTRAD weather radar data showing the flight
- FAA grounds SpaceX’s Starship rockets after explosion minutes into launch
The last story from Politico suggests first that the Biden administration and the federal bureaucracy fully intends to treat SpaceX and Starship/Superheavy differently than all other rocket startups, and second Politico is all-in on that effort.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Rockets are routinely grounded after failures. Investigations are done by the launch provider with FAA oversight. Blue Origin is completing that process with New Shepard. Once investigations are completed, rockets can launch again.
The old NASA administrator was interviewed today on Buck and…(the old Rush Limbaugh show)
He was very political in his answers, but I got the feeling that he believed that all space companies exist to serve NASA. (I was busy and wasn’t listening closely enough for a better description)
The Starship/SH stuff. This is getting interesting.
I viewed a YouTube by Scott Manley that discussed the damage to the “zero stage”, and the debris. He speculated that some debris may have damaged SH and let to the engine outages/loss of control.
Which brings up some interesting questions. SpaceX did some brief static fires and did see impact to the pad. Did they make a mistake and miscalculate what a full launch would do? Or did a few Raptors fail to ignite or fail shortly thereafter, resulting in a slow liftoff that exposed the pad for a longer than anticipated time?
Why would SpaceX launch if there were these easily anticipated failure(s)?
In any traditionally run program this would be a scandal. But I think it illuminates the difference in the way Musk/SpaceX operates.
Launching with so many points of possible failure not only nets a slew of data but I suspect Must was willing to push the launch for human reasons as well. Seeing the rocket go up then fail generates excitement and motivation. The things that didn’t work were probably anticipated but the things that did work were unknown until the button was pushed.
Wouldn’t surprise me if it turned out that the engine outages were related to the pressurization issues they had before launch and Musk decided to go for it anyway.
Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8q24QLXixo
Mitch S: SpaceX and Musk also recognized that these prototypes were old ones and needed to go just to get them out of the way for better versions ready to go. Fly them even with the known flaws, and use the data to make even later versions even better.
Comment and Question. Question first.
The link to NEXTRAD weather radar. Is that showing returns from engine exhaust, dust & small debris thrown up or just the weather off Boca Chica Beach out to the Gulf? Or something else?
Regarding FAA grounding SpaceX Starship. I’ve long believed that development of space launch capability (SpaceX: Falcon 9, Starship; Relativity: Terran 1, Terran R; Rocket Lab: Electron, Neutron; Blue Origin: New Glenn; etc) as opposed to pure or near pure tourist approach Virgin Galactic, BO: New Shepard needs to be given to space launch sites run by USAF / USSF / NASA / Army (Kennedy, Vandenburg, Wallops, Kwaj and maybe White Sands ). We have developed space launch capability using these launch sites for 60 to 80 years with established procedures and safety precautions. Why FAA now?
For SpaceX that has been one of my nagging concerns that development of Starship capability at Boca Chica Starbase allows a new set of bureaucrats to intrude. Musk gets more flexibility with his own Starbase but has to put up with unneeded drama. These national launch sites have developed vehicles since the late 40’s and recognize the pain of development. Nobody “grounded” the Atlas missile during 1950 development, it flew when iterations were ready and launch site teams felt that emergent issues from the last test had been addresses satisfactorily.
Doubting Thomas,
Yes, that is from the exhaust from the rocket off of Boca Chica. Remember the combustion of methane yields water and carbon dioxide.
Jay – Thanks
Doubting Thomas correctly noted: “Nobody ‘grounded’ the Atlas missile during 1950 development, it flew when iterations were ready and launch site teams felt that emergent issues from the last test had been addresses satisfactorily.”
This is correct, because development tests are different than tests of operational hardware or operational flights of hardware, because the development hardware is not expected to be the final design. In fact, it may not be close to the final design but intended to test out concepts rather than actual designs. It is important to know the differences between what SpaceX is doing now and what SLS did during its first flight. SLS is an operational design. As Robert noted, Super Heavy 7 and Starship 24 were already obsolete, but flying them showed where problems exist and can inform the engineers as to how and where to improve for the next development test. This is what development test activities are for. During development, failure is not only an option, it is expected. By the time the final design is ready for qualification tests we expect routine successful testing.
SLS had a few development tests. They pressure tested a first stage (without engines) to failure. This failure was expected, was part of the test, and did not cause any kind of stand-down.
If operational hardware fails, then it is important to find out why and how to prevent it in the future so that future missions are not lost. Corrective actions need to be taken in order to prevent future losses of payloads or of future debris fields, which are not desirable, even during development testing. As with the occasional (and getting rare) operational failures, debris fields are not desirable, but they are accepted as part of the development test regime. Making these failures safer is why we have flight termination systems.
One of the reasons for using explosives to terminate a flight is to prevent hazardous fuels or chemicals from reaching the ground or ocean. Burning them or dispersing them high in the atmosphere is preferred.
If China is going to build copies of US launchers, how about we let them test their copies first, for a change?
WRT the pad damage and the debate over a flame trench it occurs to me that another option may be to simply add another 2 or 3 sections to the launch tower and raise the orbital launch mount by the same amount, perhaps with some deflector structure as well. This. would be faster and cheaper and less environmentally intrusive I expect, and the biggest challenge I foresee would be the pressure needed to pump the fuel up this additional height.
For what it’s worth.
This is so sad. I knew this was going to happen. The damage is even worse than I imagined.
I can’t be alone in this opinion. Three times the thrust of the Saturn and they held it on the pad for so long.
Elon for all his foresight was blind to this issue and now he’s really screwed himself, his vision and his company.
I’m afraid it will be years before another launch. Flame trenches don’t grow on trees.
Maybe an old pad at Vandy? Naw, this thing is a beast.
A flame trench at Boca Chica would be difficult, because of the high water table, and the fact that they are surrounded by protected wetlands. Diverting flame in all directions is a more viable option, but a flat concrete pad isn’t the best way to do that.
Based on data from the last static fire test (31 engines), they thought they could get away with one launch before a better flame dispersal system (under construction) could be in place. Obviously, they underestimated the intensity of launch. (That static fire was at 50% power.)
I think Elon’s estimate of “1 to 2 months” before being ready to launch again is optimistic, perhaps even by Elon standards. I don’t believe anyone had gotten close enough to inspect damage when he said that.
FoxNews video of concrete (and other?) debris being shot out from launch
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6325526857112
A brief wrap-up
This is the HLLV made by pros
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6rUDI0MVXI
And
This is the HLLV made by bros
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N-kdweeqFs
Pros before Bros
The pad damage looks bad, but in terms of total expense can’t be that big a deal. The F-35 needs to vtol off a steel plate to avoid runway damage so you figure a rocket that big is going to leave a quite a mark. It will be interesting to see the combination of material and configuration on the next launch.
I think Diane answered my question about the site. My first thought was to dig a big pit like the one over at the
Baikonur Pad, but it would probably turn into Lake Elon with the water table. Worse, I bet since they are on a beach it would be salt water which is another set of problems.
Build the tower taller to be further away from the ground, using steel plates as deflectors as George wrote, and a larger deluge system?
Jeff W wrote: “Pros before Bros”
My understanding of a “Pro” is a professional who earns their income from what they do.
My understanding of a “Bro” is an enthusiast/hobbyist who uses outside funds to finance what they do.
Starship/SH is funded through the money SpaceX makes providing space services – including money NASA pays them to launch astronauts.
SLS is funded by US taxpayers.
You were supposed to say “Our bros know more than your pros” or something:)
Now…is Stennis’ overbuilt battleship stands close enough to the coast to let SuperHeavy launch from there maybe?
If the SLS was such a success why didn’t they let it try for a real orbit instead of a pogo launch like BO does?
Were they afraid of actually doing a full launch? Which by NASA standards would have meant a full cargo and real mission for the launch.
And they do not have anything ready yet?
And why is it not flying again? Its been more than long enough.