SpaceX's Starship gets all clear for Texas takeoff
- Reference: 1699967712
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/11/14/faa_grants_starship_license_to_fly/
- Source link:
It has taken some time, at least in terms of the rapid iterative approach adopted by the company for its other vehicles. Still, SpaceX is set for another attempt seven months after [1]April's effort .
Residing at the bottom of an [2]FAA advisory are three possible dates for flight two of the SpaceX Starship Super Heavy. The primary date is November 17, with backup dates on November 18 and 19.
[3]
The [4]FAA grounded SpaceX's Starship after the rocket demolished a chunk of its launchpad and scattered debris over the surrounding area. The launch was aborted a few minutes into flight, although there was a worrying delay between the red button being pushed and the tumbling rocket detonating.
[5]
[6]
Musk was bullish about Starship being ready to launch again within a couple of months, however, the FAA needed time to investigate what went wrong and give SpaceX guidance on what to do before another flight could be attempted.
The FAA demanded 63 corrective actions before allowing Musk's rocketeers to take another run at launching Starship. Even after completing the [7]safety review for the Starship-Super Heavy license evaluation, the agency kept the monster rocket firmly on the ground while the environmental portion of the license evaluation was completed.
[8]European Space Agency grits teeth, preps contracts for SpaceX Galileo launch
[9]Musk's broadband satellite kingdom Starlink now cash flow positive – or so he claims
[10]FAA is done with Starship's safety review, now it's over to the birds and turtles
[11]Tesla goons will buy anything – including these $150 beers
[12]Elon Musk's ambitions for Starship soar high while reality waits on launchpad
The FAA advisory also teases the possibility of three SpaceX launches in a single day - a pair of Falcon 9s carrying Starlink satellites from Florida and California respectively and the launch of the Starship-Super Heavy from Texas. All three launches have identical backup dates.
As with the first test flight, SpaceX does not plan to recover the Super Heavy or Starship portions of the launch system for reuse, although the company will be fervently hoping that the vehicle will at least make it as far as staging this time, and not tear up large chunks of its launch infrastructure.
[13]
[14]If all goes well , staging should occur at the 2-minute 41-second mark, with the booster splashing down into the Gulf of Mexico at around 6 minutes 30 seconds after launch. Starship will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere 1 hour 17 minutes and 21 seconds after launch before enjoying what SpaceX has called "An exciting landing!" in the Pacific just under 13 minutes later. ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/20/spacex_launch_fireball/
[2] https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_spt.jsp
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZVOntBOaUnSEMiDpr7xIzgAAAMY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/26/us_faa_starship/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZVOntBOaUnSEMiDpr7xIzgAAAMY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZVOntBOaUnSEMiDpr7xIzgAAAMY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/01/faa_starship_safety/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/08/esa_grits_teeth_readies_contracts/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/03/starlink_breakeven_claims/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/01/faa_starship_safety/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/16/tesla_beer/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/06/musk_starship_interview/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZVOntBOaUnSEMiDpr7xIzgAAAMY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Is it just me
Yes, it does sound like a lot, but it's not really a lot of changes to make in the months between two flights of an extremely experimental (at this stage) rocket.
Also, I believe SpaceX wrote the list of improvements and the FAA just approved it. SpaceX want it to fly safely too.
Re: Is it just me
Depends
As I understand it, SpaceX wrote the actions, it would have looked a bit unprofessional if they ran with just two that said fill in the BFHole that the BFRocket made and throw a bejus sprinkler in to regrow the wetlands and put out future fires. A whole team of professionals were likely engaged to turn a Directors single verbal requirement into (several) documents, a plan, budget, benefits analysis…. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Also, blowing shit up (or watching) is fun
Re: Is it just me
Also, blowing shit up (or watching) is fun
While true, I don't think you should put this in either your required actions list for the FAA or your environmental impact statement.
Thumbs up
for the neat references.. lol
Re: Is it just me
It would not surprise me if SpaceX had a triple digit list of improvements for the next Starship before the point where they attempted their first launch.
Also: the main goal with this launch was to gather data that would guide the future development. Even a non-hickup flight would probably have lead to long lists of changes.
Just compare the look of early hand-welded upper stages and the product on the launchpad today. The changes are huge.
Re: Is it just me
Many weren't that complicated and were things SpaceX had already identified and were either working on or had completed. The 57 required for this flight (the other six were longer term) were completed in September, see [1]this tweet from His Muskiness for the list .
[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339
Re: Is it just me
How is this helpful? Or is this just an excuse for government? Don't down vote just yet, think this through. This is a new, experimental, rocket & space vehicle design. It is going to have problems. NASA has had their share of problems throughout history too. NASA self-corrected and didn't need the FAA to make demands.
For the FAA to "demand 63 corrective actions" says one of two things:
1) We know better than you. Here are 63 things you need to do better. Sorry, we keep secrets and didn't want to tell you ahead of time.
2) We don't believe you are making the right efforts to solve your problems. We think your intention is to keep blowing up rockets, so here are 63 things we demand you do different.
However, I think the real answer is the third option... We are in danger of losing government control to private entities, here is a smack-down to re-assert our authority.
Re: Is it just me
However, I think the real answer is the third option... We are in danger of losing government control to private entities, here is a smack-down to re-assert our authority.
Thinks this says more about you than it does the FAA or SpaceX
Re: Is it just me
Looking at the history of, for instance, the Boeing 737 MAX, I suspect that the "losing government control to private entities" ship sailed quite a while ago.
Per Wikipedia "During the certification process, the FAA delegated many evaluations to Boeing, allowing the manufacturer to review their own product. It was widely reported that Boeing pushed to expedite approval of the 737 MAX to compete with the Airbus A320neo, which hit the market nine months ahead of Boeing's model."
How much such "self-certification" is going on at SpaceX is at this point probably anyone's guess.
There may be a point to ponder that while Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson have both flown in their rocket contraptions, Elon Musk hasn't flown in any of his.
Just sayin'.
Re: Is it just me
Yes, it's just you.
NASA did self correct. Since the 1960's, how many NASA rockets have blown up on the pad? Go and look it up.
While the occasional failure is the price of success, after a certain point you should have a design that is reasonably safe and has a good probability of getting off the launch pad before blowing up, and [1]here is a compilation of videos of Space X blowing the launch pad up with "Starship".
This latest version is SN25; the 25th version. At what point would you say it's reasonable for a regulator to start saying "uh, what are you doing?" when tossing huge quantities of explosive and toxic materials across the area?
[1] https://www.space.com/every-spacex-starship-explosion-lessons-learned
Aims for the flight ...
Apart from a few "tweaks" it was arguably a mostly "successful" initial test launch - basically it cleared the tower and that was Musk's declared aim.
Given that, I guess primary goal for this flight will be staging, preferably with everything pointing in the correct direction - that will mean that both the staging ring system and the firing of the starship engines works and max-q was survived.
Secondary goal will be the starship achieving the intended trajectory.
Thirdly splashdown of both stages in/on the correct patches of wobbly wet stuff.
If this ends without any part of the FTS firing it will be astounding!
Excitement guaranteed and I already need another pair of pants ... :-)
Re: Aims for the flight ...
Front or rear?
Re: Aims for the flight ...
could be trouserlegs...
Clearing stage zero is again the primary aim...
Not ripping up the pad would be good, although again the launch is going to be slower (and therefore more damaging) than a "regular" launch, so some damage might well be sustained.
Having the fire suppression system work better in the engine bay will almost certainly let them get to stage separation.
Everything after clearing the tower will be considered a bonus - getting through stage separation, and potentially to (just) sub orbital would be a major achievement.
If that thing survives re-entry then there will be more than one or two beers consumed I imagine.
Not proof of launch license
https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_spt.jsp is advice for air traffic controllers. The FAA think that a launch on Friday is sufficiently possible to warn some people. An actual launch license would show up elsewhere. ( [1]here ?)
[1] https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship
Is it just me
Or does 63 corrective actions sound like a lot?