SpaceX will probably launch Starship for the third time next month. The
FAA has accepted SpaceX's analysis of the November launch. They have 17
corrective actions (compare that to 63 they had after the first launch)
to perform before getting the go ahead from the FAA. Those 17 actions
were identified by SpaceX itself, the FAA just approved the list from
SpaceX. SpaceX seems to have already found corrections for many of those
17 actions.

See:
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/spacex-clears-faa-inquiry

Alain Fournier

Watch this space, where Alain Fournier advised that...
> SpaceX will probably launch Starship for the third time next month. The FAA
> has accepted SpaceX's analysis of the November launch. They have 17
> corrective actions (compare that to 63 they had after the first launch) to
> perform before getting the go ahead from the FAA. Those 17 actions were
> identified by SpaceX itself, the FAA just approved the list from SpaceX.
> SpaceX seems to have already found corrections for many of those 17 actions.
>
> See:
> https://interestingengineering.com/culture/spacex-clears-faa-inquiry
>
>
> Alain Fournier

Yes, I saw that on NSF, too.

I remember that some of the 63 from IFT-1 were for vehicles after
IFT-2; we already know that some are complete already (electric thrust
vectoring on ship, frex), but I wonder how many are left and whether
the 17 new ones have any conflict with what the planned corrections
were for those holdovers.

/dps

--
Courage is knowing it might hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same.
And that's why life is hard.
-- the World Wide Web

Snidely suggested that ...
> Watch this space, where Alain Fournier advised that...
>> SpaceX will probably launch Starship for the third time next month. The FAA
>> has accepted SpaceX's analysis of the November launch. They have 17
>> corrective actions (compare that to 63 they had after the first launch) to
>> perform before getting the go ahead from the FAA. Those 17 actions were
>> identified by SpaceX itself, the FAA just approved the list from SpaceX.
>> SpaceX seems to have already found corrections for many of those 17
>> actions.
>>
>> See:
>> https://interestingengineering.com/culture/spacex-clears-faa-inquiry
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>
> Yes, I saw that on NSF, too.
>
> I remember that some of the 63 from IFT-1 were for vehicles after IFT-2; we
> already know that some are complete already (electric thrust vectoring on
> ship, frex), but I wonder how many are left and whether the 17 new ones have
> any conflict with what the planned corrections were for those holdovers.
>
> /dps

We're back to a full stack, for at least a while, with lift at 10:07
CST Friday morning. Looking for a complete WDR. At least 1 destack in
the future, for the FTS installation.

Also, Ship 29 arrived at Suborbital Pad B in the wee hours. Static
fire anticipated, since they can't do this at the Massey's test site
yet.

Road closure scheduled for Mar 3 overnight. I wouldn't expect WDR or
static fire then, since overpressure notices and evacuations would be
happening in sleep hours, but we'll find out.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

On 2024-03-01 3:22 p.m., Snidely wrote:
> Snidely suggested that ...
>> Watch this space, where Alain Fournier advised that...
>>> SpaceX will probably launch Starship for the third time next month.
>>> The FAA has accepted SpaceX's analysis of the November launch. They
>>> have 17 corrective actions (compare that to 63 they had after the
>>> first launch) to perform before getting the go ahead from the FAA.
>>> Those 17 actions were identified by SpaceX itself, the FAA just
>>> approved the list from SpaceX. SpaceX seems to have already found
>>> corrections for many of those 17 actions.
>>>
>>> See:
>>> https://interestingengineering.com/culture/spacex-clears-faa-inquiry
>>>
>>>
>>> Alain Fournier
>>
>> Yes, I saw that on NSF, too.
>>
>> I remember that some of the 63 from IFT-1 were for vehicles after
>> IFT-2; we already know that some are complete already (electric thrust
>> vectoring on ship, frex), but I wonder how many are left and whether
>> the 17 new ones have any conflict with what the planned corrections
>> were for those holdovers.
>>
>> /dps
>
> We're back to a full stack, for at least a while, with lift at 10:07 CST
> Friday morning.  Looking for a complete WDR.  At least 1 destack in the
> future, for the FTS installation.
>
> Also, Ship 29 arrived at Suborbital Pad B in the wee hours.  Static fire
> anticipated, since they can't do this at the Massey's test site yet.
>
> Road closure scheduled for Mar 3 overnight.  I wouldn't expect WDR or
> static fire then, since overpressure notices and evacuations would be
> happening in sleep hours, but we'll find out.
>
> /dps

Elon Musk is hoping for a Starship IFT-3 launch on March 14
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-spacex-eyes-starship.html
Of course, we all know that Elon is optimistic for his time schedules.
Still, he usually is not an order of magnitude off, so 8 days ought to
turn out to be less than 80 days. Some time in March is reasonable,
before May is quite likely.

Alain Fournier

Lo, on the 3/6/2024, Alain Fournier did proclaim ...
> On 2024-03-01 3:22 p.m., Snidely wrote:
>> Snidely suggested that ...
>>> Watch this space, where Alain Fournier advised that...
>>>> SpaceX will probably launch Starship for the third time next month. The
>>>> FAA has accepted SpaceX's analysis of the November launch. They have 17
>>>> corrective actions (compare that to 63 they had after the first launch)
>>>> to perform before getting the go ahead from the FAA. Those 17 actions
>>>> were identified by SpaceX itself, the FAA just approved the list from
>>>> SpaceX. SpaceX seems to have already found corrections for many of those
>>>> 17 actions.
>>>>
>>>> See:
>>>> https://interestingengineering.com/culture/spacex-clears-faa-inquiry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alain Fournier
>>>
>>> Yes, I saw that on NSF, too.
>>>
>>> I remember that some of the 63 from IFT-1 were for vehicles after IFT-2;
>>> we already know that some are complete already (electric thrust vectoring
>>> on ship, frex), but I wonder how many are left and whether the 17 new ones
>>> have any conflict with what the planned corrections were for those
>>> holdovers.
>>>
>>> /dps
>>
>> We're back to a full stack, for at least a while, with lift at 10:07 CST
>> Friday morning.  Looking for a complete WDR.  At least 1 destack in the
>> future, for the FTS installation.
>>
>> Also, Ship 29 arrived at Suborbital Pad B in the wee hours.  Static fire
>> anticipated, since they can't do this at the Massey's test site yet.
>>
>> Road closure scheduled for Mar 3 overnight.  I wouldn't expect WDR or
>> static fire then, since overpressure notices and evacuations would be
>> happening in sleep hours, but we'll find out.
>>
>> /dps
>
>
> Elon Musk is hoping for a Starship IFT-3 launch on March 14
> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-spacex-eyes-starship.html
> Of course, we all know that Elon is optimistic for his time schedules. Still,
> he usually is not an order of magnitude off, so 8 days ought to turn out to
> be less than 80 days. Some time in March is reasonable, before May is quite
> likely.
>
>
> Alain Fournier

Spring break may be a factor, given limitations on closures, but maybe
college students are more easily restricted to South Padre.

Note that I was wrong about the WDR; #3 happened during the dinner
hurs, with the village and production site evacuated. Seems to have
been successful.

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

On 2024-03-07 12:15 a.m., Snidely wrote:
> Lo, on the 3/6/2024, Alain Fournier did proclaim ...

[snip]

>> Elon Musk is hoping for a Starship IFT-3 launch on March 14
>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-spacex-eyes-starship.html
>> Of course, we all know that Elon is optimistic for his time schedules.
>> Still, he usually is not an order of magnitude off, so 8 days ought to
>> turn out to be less than 80 days. Some time in March is reasonable,
>> before May is quite likely.
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>
> Spring break may be a factor, given limitations on closures, but maybe
> college students are more easily restricted to South Padre.
>
> Note that I was wrong about the WDR; #3 happened during the dinner hurs,
> with the village and production site evacuated.  Seems to have been
> successful.

According to nasaspaceflight.com, FAA approval could come tomorrow and
launch be Thursday. Of course this is somewhat speculative. The FAA
hasn't approved yet, and that will not change until the FAA has approved ;-)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/03/launch-roundup-0312/

Alain Fournier

After serious thinking Alain Fournier wrote :
> On 2024-03-07 12:15 a.m., Snidely wrote:
>> Lo, on the 3/6/2024, Alain Fournier did proclaim ...
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Elon Musk is hoping for a Starship IFT-3 launch on March 14
>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-spacex-eyes-starship.html
>>> Of course, we all know that Elon is optimistic for his time schedules.
>>> Still, he usually is not an order of magnitude off, so 8 days ought to
>>> turn out to be less than 80 days. Some time in March is reasonable, before
>>> May is quite likely.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alain Fournier
>>
>> Spring break may be a factor, given limitations on closures, but maybe
>> college students are more easily restricted to South Padre.
>>
>> Note that I was wrong about the WDR; #3 happened during the dinner hurs,
>> with the village and production site evacuated.  Seems to have been
>> successful.
>
> According to nasaspaceflight.com, FAA approval could come tomorrow and launch
> be Thursday. Of course this is somewhat speculative. The FAA hasn't approved
> yet, and that will not change until the FAA has approved ;-)
>
> https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/03/launch-roundup-0312/
>
>
> Alain Fournier

Yep!

-d

--
Let's celebrate Macaronesia

Snidely was thinking very hard :
> After serious thinking Alain Fournier wrote :
>> On 2024-03-07 12:15 a.m., Snidely wrote:
>>> Lo, on the 3/6/2024, Alain Fournier did proclaim ...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Elon Musk is hoping for a Starship IFT-3 launch on March 14
>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-spacex-eyes-starship.html
>>>> Of course, we all know that Elon is optimistic for his time schedules.
>>>> Still, he usually is not an order of magnitude off, so 8 days ought to
>>>> turn out to be less than 80 days. Some time in March is reasonable,
>>>> before May is quite likely.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alain Fournier
>>>
>>> Spring break may be a factor, given limitations on closures, but maybe
>>> college students are more easily restricted to South Padre.
>>>
>>> Note that I was wrong about the WDR; #3 happened during the dinner hurs,
>>> with the village and production site evacuated.  Seems to have been
>>> successful.
>>
>> According to nasaspaceflight.com, FAA approval could come tomorrow and
>> launch be Thursday. Of course this is somewhat speculative. The FAA hasn't
>> approved yet, and that will not change until the FAA has approved ;-)
>>
>> https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/03/launch-roundup-0312/
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>
> Yep!
>

License dropped before 3:30PM CST today, and launch window opens at 7
AM CST tomorrow, subject to weather, and runs about 110 minutes. After
fueling starts, there is a little hold capability ... about 15 minutes,
per SpaceX in previous launch streams. Fueling will be much faster
this time, almost half the time of fueling IFT 2.

/dps

--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>

On 2024-03-13 5:04 p.m., Snidely wrote:

> License dropped before 3:30PM CST today, and launch window opens at 7 AM
> CST tomorrow, subject to weather, and runs about 110 minutes.  After
> fueling starts, there is a little hold capability ... about 15 minutes,
> per SpaceX in previous launch streams.  Fueling will be much faster this
> time, almost half the time of fueling IFT 2.

Boats in the Keep Out zone are delaying lift off. It should still be in
this launch window.

Alain Fournier

On 14/03/2024 08:37 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 2024-03-13 5:04 p.m., Snidely wrote:
>
>> License dropped before 3:30PM CST today, and launch window opens at 7 AM
>> CST tomorrow, subject to weather, and runs about 110 minutes.? After
>> fueling starts, there is a little hold capability ... about 15 minutes,
>> per SpaceX in previous launch streams.? Fueling will be much faster this
>> time, almost half the time of fueling IFT 2.
>
> Boats in the Keep Out zone are delaying lift off. It should still be in
> this launch window.
>
>
> Alain Fournier
>
>

They got a lot further but both the Super Heavy landing and Starship reentry ended in failure. Super Heavy seemed to lose control during the descent and we don't currently know what happened to Starship but I assume it burned up.

NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.

On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:

> NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.

I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me that
the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs to be to
reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it wasn't
trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry, but there
is no reentry involved in the moon mission. SpaceX has already proven
its ability to land the ship in the hops they were doing before
integrating the booster.

I don't know if the fuel transfer experiment was a success or not. If
SpaceX can't master that, it would be a show stopper. But it isn't
necessary to succeed on the first try. As for re-igniting the engines in
space, that was a failure. But SpaceX has a lot of experience in
re-igniting engines is space. They will get it right quite soon.

This is not to say that the flight was a success. It wasn't, regardless
of what SpaceX says. But the problems they had concerned mainly reusing
the stages. That is not needed to reach the moon. It would only make
reaching the moon cheaper. But NASA does not have to make SpaceX
profitable, they only pay the price they negotiated with SpaceX. If Elon
loses some money, frankly he can afford it.

Alain Fournier

On 2024-03-14 18:52, Alain Fournier wrote:
> On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
>
>> NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar
>> landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
>
> I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
> moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
> that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs
> to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it
> wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry,
> but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.

If the tanker ships, for refuelling the Lunar Starship in Earth orbit,
can't reenter and be reused, it will be /quite/ expensive, right?

There have been various statements about the number of tanker launches
needed for one lunar mission, but there seems to be agreement that the
number is about 10 or more.

On 2024-03-14 1:59 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2024-03-14 18:52, Alain Fournier wrote:
>> On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
>>
>>> NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar
>>> landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
>>
>> I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
>> moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
>> that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs
>> to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it
>> wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry,
>> but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.
>
>
> If the tanker ships, for refuelling the Lunar Starship in Earth orbit,
> can't reenter and be reused, it will be /quite/ expensive, right?
>
> There have been various statements about the number of tanker launches
> needed for one lunar mission, but there seems to be agreement that the
> number is about 10 or more.

Yes it would be quite expensive. But I think they will view that as
development cost until the do achieve intact return.

Alain Fournier

On 2024-03-14 20:49, Alain Fournier wrote:
> On 2024-03-14 1:59 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
>> On 2024-03-14 18:52, Alain Fournier wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar
>>>> landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
>>> moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
>>> that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs
>>> to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it
>>> wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry,
>>> but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.
>>
>>
>> If the tanker ships, for refuelling the Lunar Starship in Earth orbit,
>> can't reenter and be reused, it will be /quite/ expensive, right?
>>
>> There have been various statements about the number of tanker launches
>> needed for one lunar mission, but there seems to be agreement that the
>> number is about 10 or more.
>
> Yes it would be quite expensive. But I think they will view that as
> development cost until the do achieve intact return.

You may well be right. If they can get the boosters to return and be
reused, the cost of single-use tankers may be bearable for a while.

However, while SpaceX said that this flight tested the opening and
closing of the payload door, and the in-orbit propellant transfer, they
have not yet said whether those tests were successful.

For the payload door, after the SpaceX commentators said the door was
closing, some of the video from inside the payload bay seemed to show
the door swinging loose and bending back and forth at the same time as a
disting "clunk" sound was heard; that did not seem successful to me.

SpaceX admitted that the ship roll rate prevented the re-ignition test
of a Raptor engine; apparently the roll rate was uncontrolled and too
high. This may have messed up the propellant transfer test, and
certainly the ship's uncontrolled attitude seemed to be one factor that
doomed the re-entry. At some points in the re-entry the ship had the lee
side towards Earth, certainly not planned.

If the payload door was not well closed for re-entry, that may have
contributed to the ship's re-entry failure.

On 2024-03-14 4:31 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2024-03-14 20:49, Alain Fournier wrote:
>> On 2024-03-14 1:59 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-14 18:52, Alain Fournier wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar
>>>>> landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
>>>> moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
>>>> that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs
>>>> to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it
>>>> wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry,
>>>> but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the tanker ships, for refuelling the Lunar Starship in Earth orbit,
>>> can't reenter and be reused, it will be /quite/ expensive, right?
>>>
>>> There have been various statements about the number of tanker launches
>>> needed for one lunar mission, but there seems to be agreement that the
>>> number is about 10 or more.
>>
>> Yes it would be quite expensive. But I think they will view that as
>> development cost until the do achieve intact return.
>
>
> You may well be right. If they can get the boosters to return and be
> reused, the cost of single-use tankers may be bearable for a while.
>
> However, while SpaceX said that this flight tested the opening and
> closing of the payload door, and the in-orbit propellant transfer, they
> have not yet said whether those tests were successful.
>
> For the payload door, after the SpaceX commentators said the door was
> closing, some of the video from inside the payload bay seemed to show
> the door swinging loose and bending back and forth at the same time as a
> disting "clunk" sound was heard; that did not seem successful to me.
>
> SpaceX admitted that the ship roll rate prevented the re-ignition test
> of a Raptor engine; apparently the roll rate was uncontrolled and too
> high. This may have messed up the propellant transfer test, and
> certainly the ship's uncontrolled attitude seemed to be one factor that
> doomed the re-entry. At some points in the re-entry the ship had the lee
> side towards Earth, certainly not planned.
>
> If the payload door was not well closed for re-entry, that may have
> contributed to the ship's re-entry failure.

Actually, I think I prefer attitude control problems. If the destruction
of the ship was due to insufficient thermal protection or something like
that, it could signal a hard to solve problem. But I think that we will
all agree that SpaceX will be able to solve attitude control. Not that
it is necessarily very easy to solve, just that they did it for their
Falcon rocket, so there is no reason to believe they can't do it for
Starship.

Same goes for the booster. It hit the water hard. But we know that
SpaceX can get a booster to land smoothly.

Of course, it is possible that once they will have solved the ships
attitude control problem, we will learn that it can't actually survive
reentry heat.

Alain Fournier

Thursday, Alain Fournier murmurred ...
> On 2024-03-14 4:31 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
>> On 2024-03-14 20:49, Alain Fournier wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-14 1:59 p.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-14 18:52, Alain Fournier wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-14 10:53 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NASA won't be too happy with this since it will make a 2025 Lunar
>>>>>> landing all but impossible. Even 2026 is dubious.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't say that. Reusing the stages isn't required to reach the
>>>>> moon. That only allows SpaceX to make big profits. It seems to me
>>>>> that the booster showed today that it can put the ship were it needs
>>>>> to be to reach orbit. The ship did not reach orbit simply because it
>>>>> wasn't trying to reach orbit. The ship didn't succeed in its reentry,
>>>>> but there is no reentry involved in the moon mission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the tanker ships, for refuelling the Lunar Starship in Earth orbit,
>>>> can't reenter and be reused, it will be /quite/ expensive, right?
>>>>
>>>> There have been various statements about the number of tanker launches
>>>> needed for one lunar mission, but there seems to be agreement that the
>>>> number is about 10 or more.
>>>
>>> Yes it would be quite expensive. But I think they will view that as
>>> development cost until the do achieve intact return.
>>
>>
>> You may well be right. If they can get the boosters to return and be
>> reused, the cost of single-use tankers may be bearable for a while.
>>
>> However, while SpaceX said that this flight tested the opening and closing
>> of the payload door, and the in-orbit propellant transfer, they have not
>> yet said whether those tests were successful.
>>
>> For the payload door, after the SpaceX commentators said the door was
>> closing, some of the video from inside the payload bay seemed to show the
>> door swinging loose and bending back and forth at the same time as a
>> disting "clunk" sound was heard; that did not seem successful to me.
>>
>> SpaceX admitted that the ship roll rate prevented the re-ignition test of a
>> Raptor engine; apparently the roll rate was uncontrolled and too high. This
>> may have messed up the propellant transfer test, and certainly the ship's
>> uncontrolled attitude seemed to be one factor that doomed the re-entry. At
>> some points in the re-entry the ship had the lee side towards Earth,
>> certainly not planned.
>>
>> If the payload door was not well closed for re-entry, that may have
>> contributed to the ship's re-entry failure.
>
> Actually, I think I prefer attitude control problems. If the destruction of
> the ship was due to insufficient thermal protection or something like that,
> it could signal a hard to solve problem. But I think that we will all agree
> that SpaceX will be able to solve attitude control. Not that it is
> necessarily very easy to solve, just that they did it for their Falcon
> rocket, so there is no reason to believe they can't do it for Starship.
>
> Same goes for the booster. It hit the water hard. But we know that SpaceX can
> get a booster to land smoothly.
>
> Of course, it is possible that once they will have solved the ships attitude
> control problem, we will learn that it can't actually survive reentry heat.
>
>
> Alain Fournier

I think the tiles looked good during the plasma portion of the video.
Attitude was indeed an issue.

Scott Manley has made his first review of the SpaceX footage, and the
cargo door coverage is at
<URL:https://youtu.be/8htMpR7mnaM?t=492>
and the rolling return at about t=706.

I had 3 laptops and a phone tuned in. The phone, following Ellie In
Space's stream, stayed pretty close to realtime. The old laptop,
following the NSF member's multiview, was a bit mor than 5 minutes
lagged at launch, and 10 minutes by the end. The newer laptops were
following NSF's main stream and Everday Astronaut's stream. They were
lagged by at least 40 minutes by launch time.

Ellie had Joe Tegtmeyer on her stream, and he's always great. (He's
done GigaFactory drone shots with Ellie before, and on his own
channgel. And he now has a CyberTruck.).

/dps

--
And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

Has anyone heard anything about the success or failure of the propellant
transfer experiment? It seems somewhat straightforward to do. But an
in-orbit refuelling of a rocket has never been done before. Things that
seem easy to do before they have been done can turn out much more
complicated once you actually try it. And this is a very important
technology for the exciting things that we hope will be done by
Starship. I don't care all that much about Starship being able to launch
satellites in Earth orbit. I'm much more excited about what can be done
with a refuelled Starship.

Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier suggested that ...

> Has anyone heard anything about the success or failure of the propellant
> transfer experiment?

So far, my sources have only reported that SpaceX had begun the test.

The roll issue that prevented Raptor relight may have affected the
transfer as well, but I'm speculating. It is even possible that the
transfer may have been a causative factor in the roll.

> It seems somewhat straightforward to do. But an in-orbit
> refuelling of a rocket has never been done before. Things that seem easy to
> do before they have been done can turn out much more complicated once you
> actually try it. And this is a very important technology for the exciting
> things that we hope will be done by Starship. I don't care all that much
> about Starship being able to launch satellites in Earth orbit. I'm much more
> excited about what can be done with a refuelled Starship.
>
>
> Alain Fournier

I'm excited by the cost reduction Starship is leading to. Won't show
up in 2025, but it will come. Pushing more exploration out scouting
the solar system is Grand Adventure, but even your refueling goal
depends on the cost reduction to be something more than a special
event, and infrastructe-in-orbit is what will really change the game.

/dps

--
Yes, I have had a cucumber soda. Why do you ask?

On 2024-03-15 1:36, Alain Fournier wrote:

> Actually, I think I prefer attitude control problems. If the destruction
> of the ship was due to insufficient thermal protection or something like
> that, it could signal a hard to solve problem. But I think that we will
> all agree that SpaceX will be able to solve attitude control. Not that
> it is necessarily very easy to solve, just that they did it for their
> Falcon rocket, so there is no reason to believe they can't do it for
> Starship.

There is an eX-Twitter video with a 3D reconstruction of the ship's
attitude (rather, attitudes) during the re-entry. This link was
originally posted on the Amateur Rocketry mailing list:

https://twitter.com/pockn_cg/status/1769057806022492396

On 2024-03-17 3:46 a.m., Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2024-03-15 1:36, Alain Fournier wrote:
>
>> Actually, I think I prefer attitude control problems. If the
>> destruction of the ship was due to insufficient thermal protection or
>> something like that, it could signal a hard to solve problem. But I
>> think that we will all agree that SpaceX will be able to solve
>> attitude control. Not that it is necessarily very easy to solve, just
>> that they did it for their Falcon rocket, so there is no reason to
>> believe they can't do it for Starship.
>
>
> There is an eX-Twitter video with a 3D reconstruction of the ship's
> attitude (rather, attitudes) during the re-entry. This link was
> originally posted on the Amateur Rocketry mailing list:
>
> https://twitter.com/pockn_cg/status/1769057806022492396

Clearly an attitude control problem. I think we can say the same about
the booster. If they were software problems, SpaceX might be launching
IFT-4 quite soon. If they are hardware problems, it would probably be
just a little longer. Of course SpaceX will want to analyse lots of
data, so they are not going to launch tomorrow. But it could be
something like the end of April.

Alain Fournier

On 17/03/2024 09:46 Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote:
> On 2024-03-15 1:36, Alain Fournier wrote:
>
>> Actually, I think I prefer attitude control problems. If the destruction
>> of the ship was due to insufficient thermal protection or something like
>> that, it could signal a hard to solve problem. But I think that we will
>> all agree that SpaceX will be able to solve attitude control. Not that
>> it is necessarily very easy to solve, just that they did it for their
>> Falcon rocket, so there is no reason to believe they can't do it for
>> Starship.
>
>
> There is an eX-Twitter video with a 3D reconstruction of the ship's
> attitude (rather, attitudes) during the re-entry. This link was
> originally posted on the Amateur Rocketry mailing list:
>
> https://twitter.com/pockn_cg/status/1769057806022492396
>
>

Pretty cool. It's obvious that Starship has lost all attitude control during reentry.

Does it have any substantial RCS thrusters or is it relying entirely on those flaps and wings?

On 2024-03-17 14:51, The Running Man wrote:
> On 17/03/2024 09:46 Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote:

>> There is an eX-Twitter video with a 3D reconstruction of the ship's
>> attitude (rather, attitudes) during the re-entry. This link was
>> originally posted on the Amateur Rocketry mailing list:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/pockn_cg/status/1769057806022492396
>>
>>
>
> Pretty cool. It's obvious that Starship has lost all attitude
> control during reentry.

Roll control was lost much earlier, and SpaceX said that the (no doubt
too high) roll rate was the reason for skipping the Raptor
restart-in-space test.

It does seem that the attitude problem became worse at reentry.

> Does it have any substantial RCS thrusters or is it relying entirely
> on those flaps and wings?

AIUI, at present the Starship does not have dedicated RCS thruster
engines, and instead is meant to use cold gas (O2, CH4) from the
propellant tanks, vented through directional nozzles.

There were earlier plans for powerful RCS rocket thrusters, back when
SpaceX had not yet succeeded with the flip-to-land maneuver for
Starship. It seems Musk's "the best part is no part" motto led to their
removal in favour of venting propellants. The flip-to-land is done by
starting the Raptors while still belly-down, and vectoring them to turn
the Starship vertical for landing.

Why the propellant-venting RCS did not work on IFT-3 has not been
explained. Possibly the propellant tanks lost pressure for some reason.