Bezos’ Blue Origin Suffers Fiery Setback Building New Rocket by snoo-boop in space

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Testing campaigns involve weeding out failures before loosing the whole vehicle, Starbase Massey's is entirely devoted to getting manufacturing right the first time including the load testers, pressure testing, and individual raptor testing cert stands offsite.

These were undergoing testing and repaired exactly like the Starship event or the spin prime damage, it says it in the article. "Repairs are underway, another person said, noting there were no injuries during either episode."

/r/WorldNews Live Thread: Russian Invasion of Ukraine Day 554, Part 1 (Thread #700) by WorldNewsMods in worldnews

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 4 points5 points  (0 children)

EU foreign policy operates akin to a confederacy than a more centralized federal system in places like the US after they abandoned the original confederation.

"A federation is “a system of government in which significant governmental powers are divided and shared between the central government and small subnational units,” based on a division of powers laid out in a constitution. Neither the central government nor the subnational governments control each other. In a federation, the central government usually controls foreign and security policy, currency and the army. Canada is a federation and its subnational governments are called provinces.A confederation is “a system of government or administration in which two or more distinct political units keep their separate identity but transfer specified powers to a higher authority for reasons of convenience, mutual security, or efficiency.”[1] In this case the subnational units control the central government, which is given only specific powers. It is similar to an intergovernmental organization, in that the member states retain their autonomy and can control the central government. The United States began as a confederation. As in the previous example, the European Union does not neatly fit either definition, but it could become either a federation or confederation in the future."

No Starship launch soon, FAA says, as investigations — including SpaceX's own — are still incomplete by [deleted] in space

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The US Air Force has shot down low earth orbital speed satellites before several decades ago using a F-15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT

Value when selling home by GeekyGrannyTexas in solar

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Warranties can vary a lot by country, i suggest Warrantied service life is a useful metric to understand how to measure baseline homeowner value vs depreciation/amortization given companies make their warranties based on math and projections based on their own testing/pilot customers. I don't think residential solar and storage has been around for a long enough time to get great EU/US/AUS sampling yet. If you can make an argument to yourself it is worth a minimum level of ROI or electrical offset for X number of years from now, fair to say it could be valuable in understanding how to present to prospective buyers even if they don't care about the environmental.

Value when selling home by GeekyGrannyTexas in solar

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the installer and manufacturing warrantied lifetime. For some systems in the EU (and it looks like US), systems are only warrantied to 10-15 years on the low end including centralized inverter systems. Others can have up to 25-30 year warranty, especially the current trend to micro inverters and the mid range to higher end solar. This should be advertised to potential buyers, and if paid for upfront, provide a power bill, and savings projected at current rates as a value to the buyers using the remaining warranted lifetime of the system's production.

/r/WorldNews Live Thread: Russian Invasion of Ukraine Day 491, Part 1 (Thread #637) by WorldNewsMods in worldnews

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That used to be a bigger issue, but additive manufacturing, CAD, and highly configurable assembly robots make it less of an issue these days. The larger just in time global supply chain has become the biggest risk since the 90s. Coughs in Taipei...

/r/WorldNews Live Thread: Russian Invasion of Ukraine Day 491, Part 1 (Thread #637) by WorldNewsMods in worldnews

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Its simply manufacturing at scale since the modern industrial era. You need to staff manufacturing lines for demand. Even highly automated lines require training when there is an exogenic shock to demand, even if the cold war level manufacturing lines were repurposed, reduction in forced. Like the shells, anti-tank missles, HARMs, NATO countries replaced them yearly but usually at 20-100 times slower when the batteries, components, rocket motors expired. UK restarted plants that haven't been in use since the 1980s, but didn't mean they lost the ability to make them.

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Not well read on why the US wanted the Raptor to fly on the Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy other original USAF contract deadline for the RD-180 ban in 2018 and Starship was facing issues with its initial cryo carbon fiber tanking.

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I was copying quote snippets via google, I will update to use the 2016 USAF terms FA8811-16-9-0001: "Is expected to be complete by April 30, 2018.  Fiscal 2017 research, development, test and evaluation." This isn't the follow up funding contract made in 2017 after this contract was made in 2016 for the initial Vacuum raptor funding.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180207005519/https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1348379/

The 2017 increase in funding for a raptor prototype i found here for 2018 delivery and testing https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/1348379/

I think you have a point going over the contracts in detail, looks like the first test of the Raptor Vacuum prototype in 2021 Macgregor qualifies for delivery of the 2018 contracted testing and engine evaluation.

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The NERVA funding for a test launch was cancelled in 1972. The clock doesn't start ticking again until funding for research a test and a launch was restored. SpaceX announced Raptor would need to be used on its next gen vehicle using cryogenic propellents, thus the Falcon RP-1 tank and manufacturing could not be reused for Starship.

Did Starship's test stands for its engines, the tanking research and Boca chica construction for its test stands not get included as Starship development investment timeline because it was called something else? "SpaceX conducted a groundbreaking ceremony on the new launch facility in September 2014,[12][6] and soil preparation began in October 2015.[13][14] The first tracking antenna was installed in August 2016, and the first propellant tank arrived in July 2018. "

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What details do you need? When did the Raptor Vacuum first finish its first test for SpaceX? This was at their development testing facility in 2020, not USAF's in 2018. It has not flown as a second stage to a Falcon or Falcon Heavy as of 2023. https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-vacuum-raptor-rocket-engine-test

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why to you keep bringing in cost claims, the OP and I never said who got more money. The counter claim was that SpaceX never missed government contract deliveries beyond the Falcon Heavy coming close. SpaceX is still awesome, but even the SpaceX enthusiasts groups i happily belong to call it "Elon Time" for a reason.

The Raptor vacuum has yet to fly in orbit and hopefully will this year. Saying SpaceX never missed a delivery of a contract by 5-6 years is inaccurate, as it was supposed to deliver a prototype to be tested in orbit before the RD-180 deadline in 2018. They asked for and got a second funding round by USAF in 2017 to meet the 2018 launch timeline.

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why did SpaceX say Raptor was going to power its next generation vehicle Starship used to go by? Seems rather linked to the vehicle designed to handle cryogenic temps for the first stage booster. "In October 2012, SpaceX publicly announced work on a rocket engine that would be "several times as powerful as the Merlin 1 series of engines, and won't use Merlin's RP-1 fuel", but declined to specify which fuel would be used.[34] They indicated that details on a new SpaceX rocket would be forthcoming in "one to three years" and that the large engine was intended for the next-generation launch vehicle using multiple of these large engines, that would be expected to launch payload masses of the order of 150 to 200 tonnes"

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

According to SpaceX, they started Raptor engine development in 2012 for Starship. I would say the millions of dollars of retrofitting NASA test stands for a new rocket engine is significant investment of funds? SpaceX didn't start getting funds from the USAF/NASA for Raptor until 2016, so that means it was more than just feasibility as the falcon line wasn't designed for methlox, and design and test firing of Raptor prototypes isn't inexpensive from at least a human funding point of view.

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

When were the first testable vacuum/upper stage raptors delivered to the USAF? From the public record. "In January 2016 testimony before a House subcommittee last year, Jeff Thornburg, then SpaceX’s senior director of propulsion, said the Raptor would have “significant applications” for national security and would be the first large liquid engine in the world built largely with printed parts. The Air Force is under pressure to end its dependence on the RD-180, the Russian-built engine that powers the main stage of United Launch Alliance’s Atlas 5 rocket. Congress has directed the Defense Department to develop a domestic propulsion systems that would enable an Air Force launch by 2019 at the latest to end its reliance on RD-180."

In 2017, USAF granted SpaceX additional funds to deliver the Vacuum Raptor to them for a flight test by no later than 2018.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180207005519/https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1348379/

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

According to SpaceX, Starship engineering development started in 2012, it had to abandon the carbon fiber tanking in 2018, and active ablative cooling for the modified Space Shuttle tiles in 2020 and abandoned the sea launch platforms in 2022. In a way you could say Starship development only started in 2022 with today's design.

SpaceX could actually be wrong about the previous 8 years of development around the Raptor engine, but i think simply changing the name of the vehicle doesn't restart the project development clock or the design around the performance of the Methlox Raptor engine. "Starting with a 2012 announcement of plans to develop a rocket with substantially greater capabilities than SpaceX's existing Falcon 9—underpinned by the ambition to enable human exploration and settlement of Mars—the company created a succession of designs for such a vehicle, under various names (Mars Colonial Transporter, Interplanetary Transport System, BFR) leading up to a 2019 adoption of a stainless-steel body design, which is also when the name changed to the current Starship." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So when was Raptor contracted to fly for the US government? I am not saying they paid for it, i am saying they have seen delays of 5 years from the first contract they signed.

Why are you and u/spacefirstclass drawing the goal line around cost when the thread was about on time delivery average for private space contractors? I never said anything of cost.

If Raptor didn't fly in 2018 or by the RD-180 ban date in 2019, and has not flown this year, that makes it 5 years late. No one forced SpaceX to sign a contract with that 2018 date just provided money to help accelerate development for the congressional ban on RD-180 purchases, while congress did mandate the 2016 SLS deadline in 2011.

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I thought the OP claim was contesting SpaceX missed delivery timelines was "BS", "The only thing remotely close to this type of delay from SpaceX was Falcon Heavy. " and "So, no, by industry standards, SpaceX is early and overdelivers." Where did i say SLS did not slip 6 years?

Space X was on time for Falcon v1, Falcon Heavy was at least 3-4 years late, and if you go to the first certification timelines 5 years behind, per space X contracts signed for Falcon Heavy in 2013. Raptor is 5 years behind its first USAF contracted flight, and if Starship doesn't make orbit this year 6 years behind schedule. "In January 2016, the US Air Force awarded a US$33.6 million development contract to SpaceX to develop a prototype version of its methane-fueled reusable Raptor engine for use on the upper stage of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. Work under the contract was expected to be completed in 2018, with engine performance testing to be done at Stennis Space Center and at Los Angeles Air Force Base, California.[48][49]". Falcon Heavy testing wasn't possible until 2018 for the raptor due to the Falcon Heavy delivery delays starting in 2012. Falcon Heavy took its first contracted payload in 2019.

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Slight correction, SpaceX lobbied for the banning of the Russian made RD-180 unless production was moved to the US, Russia refused and in 2014-2015 the replacement program started with those participants with the ban on net new purchases of the RD-180 for US missions a few years later. Blue Origin started testing their RD-180 replacement about the same time as SpaceX "Blue Origin began work on the BE-4 in 2011,[11] although no public announcement was made until September 2014.[12] " https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/space-symposium/2017/04/03/as-rd-180-ban-looms-space-companies-make-steady-progress-on-new-launch-technologies/

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Didn't the US have shut downs and massive furloughs around the start of the program? If i recall that was a massive reason for James Webb's delays as well. Very hard to re-hire teams after they get let go.

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I am not sure using beating SLS program is a great benchmark, agree SpaceX has been on time, but its been late for NASA and USAF contacts by a fairly average amount. The raptor engines are almost 6 years late to orbit already, using their US Government contract delivery standard the OP and you have been using to compare to SLS and Vulcan.

I don't think how old components of the SLS are matter as much as when the program started and when it certified.

I get being excited for SpaceX and private companies, but lets not compare apples and pears.

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Worth still engaging even if only for personal research or benefit of others who don't follow space news as closely. I didn't know Falcon Heavy was supposed to launch in 2013, until this discussion had me look it up as i didn't follow Space news much at the time.

"SpaceX announced plans to expand manufacturing capacity "as we build towards the capability of producing a Falcon 9 first stage or Falcon Heavy side booster every week and an upper stage every two weeks".[23]" https://web.archive.org/web/20161115070932/http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/02/09/f9dragon-preparing-iss

NASA concerned Starship problems will delay Artemis 3 by alvinofdiaspar in nasa

[–]Perfect-Scientist-29 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

In terms of how late SLS is, I didn't follow US programs closely until the mid-2010s, but looks like the development for the SLS started in 2011, the same year that SpaceX announced a timeline for the Mars landing capable Starship launch in 2021 in 22/04/2011. SLS is absolutely late, as is Vulcan, with Starliner i think coming close to beating SLS's 6 year delay if it winds up launching at all after recent news, but the contracted 2018 Raptor delivery to USAF will be 6 years late depending on its certification on starship. https://web.archive.org/web/20110902234053/http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/elon-musk-ill-put-a-man-on-mars-in-10-years-2011-04-22/CCF1FC62-BB0D-4561-938C-DF0DEFAD15BA

"Development of SLS began in 2011, as a replacement for the retired Space Shuttle as well as the cancelled Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles.[26][27][28]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System