Comments on: May 1, 2025 Quick space links

By: Jeff Wright

Jeff Wright — Sun, 04 May 2025 03:15:12 +0000

I am worried about Starship

SuperHeavy static tests seem fine—perhaps having many engines so close acts as reinforcements.

A smaller number of engines more widely spaced allows damaging harmonics?

By: Jeff Wright

Jeff Wright — Sun, 04 May 2025 02:42:06 +0000

New book coming about for-profit spaceflight
https://link.springer.com/book/9783031894138

By one of the regulars at the Secret Projects Forum

In other news—a polymer that is self healing on a large scale is proffered:

https://phys.org/news/2025-05-polymer-quality-scale.html

By: Edward

Edward — Sat, 03 May 2025 16:40:51 +0000

David Eastman wrote: "Shuttle routinely ran at 108%. The orbiter came in heavier than designed, but the engines had the margin." The Shuttle would run higher than "rated" thrust. NASA is big on derating its hardware, so 108% was not necessarily higher than the tested thrust. And, yes, running the engines that high did seem to create a higher maintenance cost.

By: James Street

James Street — Fri, 02 May 2025 14:58:55 +0000

The Wall Street Journal @WSJ
“Frustrated by Boeing’s massive delays in delivering a new Air Force One, President Trump has commissioned a smaller defense contractor to ready an interim presidential plane by year’s end”
From wsj.com
6:33 PM · May 1, 2025
https://x.com/WSJ/status/1918116561480466763

More info
“President Trump Tired of Waiting, Air Force One Revamp”
https://100percentfedup.com/president-trump-tired-waiting-air-force-one-revamp/

By: Richard M

Richard M — Fri, 02 May 2025 09:21:14 +0000

Ain’t no sunk cost fallacies at SpaceX.

By: David Eastman

David Eastman — Fri, 02 May 2025 03:52:59 +0000

Shuttle routinely ran at 108%. The orbiter came in heavier than designed, but the engines had the margin. It just meant that they needed to be worked over after every flight. Often “100%” is just the design target, and has very little to do with what the engine is actually capable of. A lot of military airplanes, they had settings for “max power”, and “max military power”, which was basically “yeah, this is fine, but you better have a reason for it, because your crew chief is going to be very mad at you when you land.”

By: Ronaldus Magnus

Ronaldus Magnus — Fri, 02 May 2025 02:36:40 +0000

Static fire tests of two of its engines, both running above 100%!!!!!!!!

I believe there are, about, oh, I don’t know, a million books, movies, and shows that stress “it is not advisable to run engines above 100%.”

Oh, shoot. I just remembered. Sometimes they test to failure.

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Fri, 02 May 2025 02:11:09 +0000

Re-think and redesign have been, and will continue to be, everyday activities on the Starship project.

By: David Eastman

David Eastman — Fri, 02 May 2025 01:48:05 +0000

Second week of May is the current expected date for the next test. There are a lot of fixes and improvements in this one, but it’s by no means a major redesign. Part of the problem with the last flight is that they didn’t, because this is still V2 and they didn’t want to redesign ahead of the next version, which will indeed be extensively revised based on what they’re learning.

It’s been rumored that unnamed “higher ups” were not amused that ITF 8 failed the same way 7 did, and were quite clear that 9 better not so do so.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Fri, 02 May 2025 00:40:01 +0000

In reply to Philbert Desenex. Philbert Desenex: See this March report for a pessimistic update. More recent updates (which I can't locate at the moment) say the test flight is targeting the end of this month.

By: Philbert Desenex

Philbert Desenex — Thu, 01 May 2025 23:46:07 +0000

Has anyone read anything about Starship and what must be an extensive rethink/ redesign effort?