Since a number of cool things are happening in space exploration these days, we'll widen the scope of this thread a smidge. Conversation about all things space exploration are welcome, whether it be from NASA, SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, or anyone else. Chances are most of the discussion will still be about SpaceX since they love to make things public and fun, but nothing's off limits. I'll eventually get around to modifying the OP to include resources for other companies too, but in the meantime, feel free to post any cool stuff you run across.
Tim Dodd (Everyday Astronaut) - A "random dude" who got really into space (particularly SpaceX). He's a great resource for simple explanations of this stuff, as well as live hosting launches.
USLaunchReport - Lost of videos of the more mundane stuff (e.g., booster recovery operations). Not a ton of commentary.
NASASpaceFlight - Live hosting of most launches including a ton of video of Starlink operations.
Glossary
Spoiler!
Space discussions tend to get a little bogged down in jargon, so here's a list of terms you might encounter. (Others, please let me know of others that should be added.)
ASDS - Autonomous Spaceport Droneship - The "barges" that they sometimes land rockets on.
Dragon - The cone-shaped capsule that sits at the top of the rocket for ISS-bound launches that holds the cargo (or, in the future, humans).
F9 - Falcon 9, the name of the rocket itself.
FH - Falcon Heavy, the three-booster version.
GTO - Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit, a type of orbit that will eventually result in the satellite orbiting the earth as it turns so that it seems to be in the same spot from the ground (such as DirecTV or Dish satellites). These types of launches are particularly challenging because they require a lot of power to get them into the right orbit, leaving very little fuel left for landing.
HIF - Horizontal Integration Facility - the building near the launch pad where they put all of the pieces of the rocket together before rolling it out to the pad.
ISS - The International Space Station
JRTI - Just Read The Instructions, the name of the "barge" that they land on for west-coast launches.
LEO - Low Earth Orbit, a fairly low orbit shared by many satellites and ISS. These launches usually require less power to achieve the proper orbit, so the first stage can often be landed back on land rather than on a drone ship.
LZ1 - Landing Zone 1, basically a big open slab of concrete at Cape Canaveral where the first stage will attempt to land (for some launches).
NET - No Earlier Than, basically the date they're hoping to launch, but rocket launches have a tendency of getting delayed.
OCISLY - Of Course I Still Love You, the name of the "barge" that they land on for east-coast launches.
RTLS - Return to Landing Site, a mission where the first stage comes back and lands at LZ1.
Starship - SpaceX's next-generation rocket (and spacecraft) that will hopefully one day take us to Mars. Starship is the "second stage" that will carry cargo or people, but also refers to the whole system. (It's confusing, but think of it like the Space Shuttle, which was both the shuttle itself and the entire launch system.)
Super Heavy - The giant booster that will carry Starship to space.
At this point I expect the FAA to fuck the Starship development program. SpaceX likely already knows the problem and could probably launch SN10 this week. Instead, I'm guessing launch operations will be halted for 6 months. Sounds to me like the FAA did expect SpaceX to guarantee a safe landing and that is how they "exceeded" they're launch parameters prior. Ugh.
Originally Posted by :
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will take over the investigation into an explosion that destroyed a SpaceX rocket during a test flight on Tuesday, the agency said.
CNN reported that an FAA spokesperson confirmed the investigation and said it would identify the "root cause" of what caused the craft to explode upon landing in Texas.
"The FAA's top priority in regulating commercial space transportation is ensuring that operations are safe, even if there is an anomaly," the agency spokesperson said, according to CNN.
"The FAA will oversee the investigation of today's landing mishap involving the SpaceX Starship SN9 prototype in Boca Chica, Texas. Although this was an uncrewed test flight, the investigation will identify the root cause of today's mishap and possible opportunities to further enhance safety as the program develops," the spokesperson added.
Representatives for SpaceX and the FAA did not immediately return a request for comment. The company has not commented publicly on the explosion but said in a tweet that it was planning future launches.
Now targeting two Falcon 9 launches of Starlink satellites on Thursday, February 4, pending range acceptance and recovery weather conditions. First Falcon 9 launch at 1:19 a.m. EST from SLC-40, followed by another Falcon 9 launch ~4 hours later at 5:36 a.m. EST from LC-39A
SpaceX owner Elon Musk announced a Twitter break on Tuesday following the crash, and has not commented publicly on the incident.
Last month, he made headlines when he publicly accused competitor Amazon of using federal regulations to hamstring SpaceX in the interest of pursuing its own satellite program.
Originally Posted by unlurking:
At this point I expect the FAA to fuck the Starship development program. SpaceX likely already knows the problem and could probably launch SN10 this week. Instead, I'm guessing launch operations will be halted for 6 months. Sounds to me like the FAA did expect SpaceX to guarantee a safe landing and that is how they "exceeded" they're launch parameters prior. Ugh.
This is a slow motion view tracking the skirt, and you can see after the first piece of debris comes off, the second is bouncing around inside the skirt. pic.twitter.com/1clOe9j9p1
Originally Posted by unlurking:
At this point I expect the FAA to fuck the Starship development program. SpaceX likely already knows the problem and could probably launch SN10 this week. Instead, I'm guessing launch operations will be halted for 6 months. Sounds to me like the FAA did expect SpaceX to guarantee a safe landing and that is how they "exceeded" they're launch parameters prior. Ugh.
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
Was the FAA this involved with Falcon development? It seems to me that failures should be expected when developing and testing new technology.
I was wondering that, too. You'd think the answer would be "yes," but maybe they didn't fly as high? Or maybe they didn't care as much since the F9 testing site was much more remote?
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
Was the FAA this involved with Falcon development? It seems to me that failures should be expected when developing and testing new technology.
Was the Falcon every designed to carry people? That could be a big difference from the FAA perspective.
This could be a good training opportunity for the FAA inspectors. There will come a day that a spaceship crashes with passengers on board and they will need to investigate. Think of this as a training exercise to better understand this new type of vehicle. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MagicHef:
Was the FAA this involved with Falcon development? It seems to me that failures should be expected when developing and testing new technology.
I remember that the FAA investigated when a Falcon 9 exploded on the pad in Florida (Iridium?), but they ended up accepting SpaceX's explanation for the bang.
No idea about early testing though. Wasn't that carried out in McGregor, Texas? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hydrae:
Was the Falcon every designed to carry people? That could be a big difference from the FAA perspective.
This could be a good training opportunity for the FAA inspectors. There will come a day that a spaceship crashes with passengers on board and they will need to investigate. Think of this as a training exercise to better understand this new type of vehicle.
Yes, it was designed to carry people. In fact, it already has. [Reply]
I believe (but this is many years ago so my memory may be faulty) that they never had land based crashes. Grasshopper had abort explosions mid-air, but never actually crashed. Falcon 9 never actually crashed over land, but crashed many times into the ocean or on a barge.
I'm assuming they would have deferred to NASA in those instances, and NASA probably said "dev program".
I thought NASA led the investigation into the Falcon 9 pre-launch pad explosion? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
I remember that the FAA investigated when a Falcon 9 exploded on the pad in Florida (Iridium?), but they ended up accepting SpaceX's explanation for the bang.
No idea about early testing though. Wasn't that carried out in McGregor, Texas?
Yes, it was. It looks like the McGregor-Oglesby area is much more populated than Boca Chica. [Reply]
Everything went as planned for Falcon 9 Starlink launch #1. Launch 2 is roughly 24 hrs from now.
As for the FAA sticking their nose into the Starship tests, it sounds like they just want to remind people, "hey we're still here." It's not like this is the equivalent of making tweaks to a car engine and throwing the ignition to test fixes. [Reply]
I have no problem with FAA being involved (and actually believe they're insight and recommendations would be valuable input to SpaceX), as long they don't start forcing unreasonable new requirements or introducing overly long delays. :fingerscrossed: [Reply]
Originally Posted by unlurking:
I have no problem with FAA being involved (and actually believe they're insight and recommendations would be valuable input to SpaceX), as long they don't start forcing unreasonable new requirements or introducing overly long delays. :fingerscrossed:
Just curious, what FAA recommendations and insight do you think could be valuable on a completely unique prototype spacecraft design? [Reply]
