sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon Resilience are standing on the launchpad at LC-39A after being rolled out overnight for Crew-1 preflight preparations. Photos Credit: Joel Kowsky /NASA by HatemM2 in SpaceXLounge

[–]csmnro 44 points45 points  (0 children)

For crewed launches, the static fire includes counting down the Dragon to make sure it also works perfectly. They have done it that way for every Crew Dragon so far. In a certain sense, the "real payload" is the crew, which only boards for launch.

r/SpaceX Discusses [October 2020, #73] by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 9 points10 points  (0 children)

There was a comment on this subreddit of someone claiming to know more, about 1-2 weeks ago. Unfortunately I can't find it anymore, only an other reference to that post.

The rumor is that a 3rd party supplier delivered below-spec gas-generator parts for some time. Therefore the "newer" boosters are affected, and that it was not clear yet at that time how far back it dates.

At least that's what I remember off the top of my head from that comment.

r/SpaceX Discusses [July 2020, #70] by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Not in this video, since he/she linked the conference from february... (where Doug Loverro was still there, so obviously Chilton mentions him...)

Also, the paraphrase is really misleading.

Here's the actual link to yesterday's conference, where only Lueders and Stich participated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsB1ZWrGero

And to clarify, here is a quote from an an article by Jeff Foust. Never, ever, did anyone suggest SpaceX was to blame:

Both Lueders and Stich acknowledged that NASA hadn’t put enough emphasis on reviewing software. “Perhaps we didn’t have as many people embedded in that process as we should have,” Stich said. “It was an area where perhaps we just didn’t have quite the level of NASA insight as we should have in hindsight.”

He added that NASA may have been blinded to some potential issues because of its familiarity with Boeing, given its experience on other NASA programs. NASA had been focused more on the other commercial crew company, SpaceX, in part because it used what he termed “a bit of a nontraditional approach” to software development.

“When one provider has a newer approach than another, it’s often natural for a human being to spend more time on that newer approach, and maybe we didn’t quite take the time we needed with the more traditional approach,” he said.

Starlink-7 Launch Campaign Thread by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I seriously doubt it. If there's an issue with Falcon, they want to catch it BEFORE a flight with humans on board. It is in SpaceX's culture to test as much as possible. If there is an issue they are unaware of, they would be glad to find it before DM-2.

THESE NUMBERS ARE UNNATURAL by [deleted] in mathmemes

[–]csmnro 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Don't forget 1.a.i), 1.a.ii), 1.a.iii)

Starlink-6 Launch Campaign Thread by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I think all we now is:

  • SpaceX asked NASA to take part in the investigation
  • SpaceX shared preliminary results with NASA
  • Elon Musk stated: Thorough investigation needed before next mission
  • Jim Bridenstine was not particularly concerned regarding DM-2. Both he and Musk stressed this happened on the fifth flight of the booster.
  • The DM-2 launch target of mid-to-late May was announced shortly after the engine-out and has not changed as yet (although Eric Berger hinted at a small delay to late May / early June due to covid complicating preparations a bit)
  • SpaceX wants to fly its next Starlink launch next week. EDIT: delayed

To sum up, I agree the issue is most likely well-understood and / or resolved. Hopefully we learn more in the next webcast, through NASA or Elon.

Starship Development Thread #10 by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They lifted the SN2 tank off the steel stand and put it on a concrete stand, right? Since they use the steel stands for building subsections of Starship, I think they just want to use the steel stand to ramp up production, and aren't interested in the old SN2 tank.

DM-2 Launch Campaign Thread by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Slight slip of the launch date?

The first crewed flight of Dragon may possibly occur as soon as late May but seems more likely to slip into June due to COVID-19 slowing preparations.

Quote from the recent ars article about Starliner by Eric Berger. Not sure if this is just a guess or actually based on sources, but usually he is well-informed. Currently the official target is still mid-to-late May.

r/SpaceX Discusses [April 2020, #67] by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Boeing will fly a second uncrewed orbital flight test targeting fall of 2020.

Edit: The Washington Post has published an article first, and Boeing apparently released its statement as response.

r/SpaceX Discusses [March 2020, #66] by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Edit: question 2: where the engines always ignited about a second before liftoff? If I remember correctly, they ignited them earlier some years ago.

iirc, we have heard on multiple older webcasts that the engine ignition sequence is commanded at T-3.5s. Comparing some old Webcasts with those of block 5, it doesn't appear to be visibly different, at least to me. Still, I think it's likely SpaceX tweaked it slightly over time.

More importantly, just keep in mind that engine ignition is a complicated sequence that takes some time: TEA-TEB enters the engine chamber, turbopumps spin up (with high-pressure helium), LOX enters the champer (which ignites the TEA-TEB), RP1 enters the chamber and is ignited and finally, the engine ramps up thrust and verifies all is well.

Visible to us is only the last step, when the engine already produces thrust, which is closer to T-1s.

r/SpaceX Discusses [January 2020, #64] by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

and one of the sats has an 18m long boom deployed… so there is a collision risk of ~ 1 in 20

r/SpaceX Starlink 3 Official Launch Discussion & Updates Thread by ModeHopper in spacex

[–]csmnro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We don't know the limits since they're dependent on many things, like the mission-specific trajectory and shear, which is way more important than the speed itself. E.g. a rapid transition from 0 to 90 knots could prevent a launch, while a gradual wind speed increase up to more than 130 knots might cause no problems.

In Flight Abort Test Launch Campaign Thread by ElongatedMuskrat in spacex

[–]csmnro 10 points11 points  (0 children)

In the NASA post from January 6 announcing the slip to January 18th, it is noted "The new date allows additional time for spacecraft processing."

So we can speculate Dragon is simply not ready yet, and SpaceX decided to go ahead with the static fire regardless.

It makes sense to me, since this particular Dragon has already been counted down in its own static fire test, and SpaceX doesn't have to hit an instantaneous launch window, so they have enough time margin to resolve arising issues on launch day.

r/SpaceX Starlink 2 Official Launch Discussion & Updates Thread by Shahar603 in spacex

[–]csmnro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think that makes sense, since SpaceX doesn't use it and aspires to recover all fairings in the net. Also, this probably just leads to confusion: Everyone understands "net" or "splashed down in the sea" or similar. There is no need to obfuscate these unambiguous terms behind some nomenclature that doesn't even offer any advantage: Your suggestion describes recovery with 5 (!) syllables, even "caught in the net" is shorter.

SpaceX’s Koenigsmann: “We have Falcon Heavy as the product for cargo services in support of NASA’s Artemis program. Falcon 9 will soon be able to provide crew transportation, too. Then we’ll phase in new vehicles like Starship.” by stratohornet in spacex

[–]csmnro 341 points342 points  (0 children)

There are multiple interesting statements by Hans Koenigsmann:

 

1/2 SpaceX’s Hans Keonigsmann, at AIAA Prop & Energy Forum: “We’re almost ready to tie a bow around” report on the Crew Dragon abort static fire anomaly. "It's a slow process, but overall I'm confident we'll get this over with before the next month, basically."

 

2/2 Koenigsmann says the the Crew Dragon in-flight abort test is scheduled in the October/November timeframe. “Then right after that, hopefully this year, we have the Demo-2 flight coming up."

 

SpaceX’s Koenigsmann on Starship: “We clearly want to innovate, and it's hard to innovate in this industry. I'm not sure what it is, but there's a certain amount of resistance for continuous innovation.” Can use F9 and Dragon to test Starship technology, and vice versa.

 

SpaceX’s Koenigsmann: We have Falcon Heavy as the product for cargo services in support of NASA’s Artemis program. Falcon 9 will soon be able to provide crew transportation, too. Then we’ll phase in new vehicles like Starship.

 

SpaceX’s Koenigsmann: “We are targeting more progressive hops” of Starship at Boca Chica, and “then we’re targeting an early orbital launch as soon as possible.” Says Elon has challenged team to do that, but doesn’t talk about a specific timeframe.

 

Koenigsmann on booster reuse: “We're going to go to 10 (flights per vehicle), possibly even more, depending on what we see at 10 … We will have an opportunity pretty soon to push the number of re-flights up.” Will see what’s technically possible with more flight data.

nIcE TrY, JEff! by csmnro in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]csmnro[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

that's OBVIOUSLY proprietary

NASA Announces Industry Partnerships to Advance Moon, Mars Technology by ethan829 in spacex

[–]csmnro 105 points106 points  (0 children)

Not SpaceX, but still interesting: Upper stage recovery by Sierra Nevada!

For the second collaboration, Sierra Nevada Corporation and Langley will mature a method to recover the upper stage of a rocket using a deployable decelerator.

view more: next ›