I thought he was joking with the guy on twitter when he first said it.bthotugigem05 said:
I think the biggest compliment paid to Elon is that nobody immediately called him an idiot for saying they wanted to catch it, they instead just said they were excited to see how he'd pull it off.
Quote:
With Starship SN8's test flight still fresh in the memory, SN9 is set to complete an accelerated pad flow with a Static Fire test and launch this coming week. A triple Raptor Static Fire test is tracking Wednesday. Pending acceptable test results, the launch of SN9 could take place just a few days later, on Friday.
Meanwhile, Starship SN10 is now an integrated stack inside the High Bay, ready to roll to the launch site as soon as SN9 departs. SN11 and SN12 are undergoing their own buildup operations inside the Mid Bay, with the former only lacking a nosecone.
I'm reminded of some of the pressure (from a comment at the link) as to the starship (and super heavy booster) timeline; the Mars 2022 window opens in a mere 600 days. It only opens every two years (roughly).Quote:
Relatively late into a test window that opened at 8 am CST (UTC-6) but was later pushed to noon, SpaceX's first Starship SN9 static fire attempt began in earnest around 3:15 pm CST. Signified by venting activity at the propellant farm tasked with preparing and loading liquid oxygen and methane on Starships, slight tweaks in the test flow were observed but the static fire occurred more or less when expected at 4:07 pm.
SN9 ignited all three of its Raptors in quick succession and shut the engines down over the course of 1.5-2 seconds extremely short relative to all previous nominal Starhopper or Starship-mounted Raptor static fires. Long-time followers immediately noted that small discrepancy, speculating that it could either have been a post-ignition abort or intentionally shortened to avoid damaging the pad's concrete surface (an incident that's occurred several times during recent tests).
It's unclear what the actual goal of the second attempt was and it's more or less impossible to know for sure with(out) confirmation from CEO Elon Musk. It's possible if unlikely that the first static fire went exactly as planned and the follow-up test was meant to be a simple data-gathering wet dress rehearsal (WDR). Either way, after a surprise downpour briefly engulfed Starship SN9 minutes prior, the second test appeared to abort about 30 minutes into propellant conditioning and loading, precluding both a complete WDR and/or static fire.
On January 5th, SpaceX received a trio of Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) from the FAA that will allow the company to restrict access to nearby airspace for high-altitude Starship launch attempts on January 8th, 9th, and 10th. Lacking an unequivocally successful static fire, it's highly unlikely but not impossible that Starship will be ready for a launch attempt during any of those three windows. Still, it's safe to say that SN9 is probably less than a week away from its first flight expected to be a carbon copy of SN8's 12.5 km (7.8 mi) launch and landing attempt if SpaceX can complete a full-duration static fire in the next day or two.
Sorry if I've missed it, but has Elon or SpaceX talked at all about actual development activities toward an initial system that might be sent in any particular Mars launch window, never mind one opening in 600 days? Seems odd that it isn't plastered everywhere if Elon really believed it was happening.nortex97 said:
A lot of speculation/oddities around the static fires (2) yesterday. Maybe deliberate, maybe not, hand delivered notices to folks nearby, not clear if they will do another static fire today or not. Also, Falcon 9 launch number 1 of 2021 is for today (60 percent chance).
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-sn9-triple-raptor-static-fire/
It could, if the static fires work/worked, still fly Fri-Sat-Sunday, but it sounds iffy.I'm reminded of some of the pressure (from a comment at the link) as to the starship (and super heavy booster) timeline; the Mars 2022 window opens in a mere 600 days. It only opens every two years (roughly).Quote:
Relatively late into a test window that opened at 8 am CST (UTC-6) but was later pushed to noon, SpaceX's first Starship SN9 static fire attempt began in earnest around 3:15 pm CST. Signified by venting activity at the propellant farm tasked with preparing and loading liquid oxygen and methane on Starships, slight tweaks in the test flow were observed but the static fire occurred more or less when expected at 4:07 pm.
SN9 ignited all three of its Raptors in quick succession and shut the engines down over the course of 1.5-2 seconds extremely short relative to all previous nominal Starhopper or Starship-mounted Raptor static fires. Long-time followers immediately noted that small discrepancy, speculating that it could either have been a post-ignition abort or intentionally shortened to avoid damaging the pad's concrete surface (an incident that's occurred several times during recent tests).
It's unclear what the actual goal of the second attempt was and it's more or less impossible to know for sure with(out) confirmation from CEO Elon Musk. It's possible if unlikely that the first static fire went exactly as planned and the follow-up test was meant to be a simple data-gathering wet dress rehearsal (WDR). Either way, after a surprise downpour briefly engulfed Starship SN9 minutes prior, the second test appeared to abort about 30 minutes into propellant conditioning and loading, precluding both a complete WDR and/or static fire.
On January 5th, SpaceX received a trio of Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) from the FAA that will allow the company to restrict access to nearby airspace for high-altitude Starship launch attempts on January 8th, 9th, and 10th. Lacking an unequivocally successful static fire, it's highly unlikely but not impossible that Starship will be ready for a launch attempt during any of those three windows. Still, it's safe to say that SN9 is probably less than a week away from its first flight expected to be a carbon copy of SN8's 12.5 km (7.8 mi) launch and landing attempt if SpaceX can complete a full-duration static fire in the next day or two.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/07/08/mars-alert-why-three-spacecraft-must-leave-for-the-red-planet-within-days-or-miss-their-chance/?sh=10608f375f93
Malachi Constant said:
SpaceX trying to be subtle in a not-so-subtle business...
The unscrewed vehicle would probably be a basic starship without any life support systems onboard at all (possibly just to orbit and return). Even the latter would require it to be refueled (by another starship) in orbit around the earth first, which would be a pretty big deal/milestone.Quote:
I think...I feel fairly confident about six years from now. So every...the Mars...Earth-Mars synchronization occurs roughly every 26 months. So we had one this year, this summer and that means in roughly like about two years will be another one, and then two years after that. So I think, I'd say if you say six years from now I'd think highly confident, if we get lucky maybe four years. And then we want to try to send an uncrewed vehicle there in two years.
Ag_of_08 said:Malachi Constant said:
SpaceX trying to be subtle in a not-so-subtle business...
Yep, they're doing a good job at it. I wish Sierra Nevada would take a page out of his book, tell ULA to get ****ed, and start advertising better.... They're going to find that getting out of Boeing's grip will help them.
nortex97 said:
SNC chose the ULA Vulcan for the dream chaser launch vehicle, and also their (Dynetics) moon lander design/program. Frankly, even Blue Origin might have made better sense as a paper 'partner.'
I assume that's what he's referencing.
TriAg2010 said:nortex97 said:
SNC chose the ULA Vulcan for the dream chaser launch vehicle, and also their (Dynetics) moon lander design/program. Frankly, even Blue Origin might have made better sense as a paper 'partner.'
I assume that's what he's referencing.
I'm aware of that. Boeing doesn't operate ULA. They have an ownership stake and ULA operates independently. I'd like to see Ag_of_08 clarify how that puts SN "under Boeing's thumb" and how their selection of ULA as a launch services provider has caused them an iota of hardship.
Ag_of_08 said:TriAg2010 said:nortex97 said:
SNC chose the ULA Vulcan for the dream chaser launch vehicle, and also their (Dynetics) moon lander design/program. Frankly, even Blue Origin might have made better sense as a paper 'partner.'
I assume that's what he's referencing.
I'm aware of that. Boeing doesn't operate ULA. They have an ownership stake and ULA operates independently. I'd like to see Ag_of_08 clarify how that puts SN "under Boeing's thumb" and how their selection of ULA as a launch services provider has caused them an iota of hardship.
Sierra Nevada's ability to launch is tied to their competitors at this point. You actually think Boeing and ULA wouldn't intentionally try to slow them down in launch cadence if they suddenly became publicly critical of them? That's living in a fantasy world.
Just like Orion will now no longer launch on a different company's rockets since the AJ/RD merger.... all about the money, and who controls what interests and assets. ULA, and Boeing specifically, is not going to allow themselves to be passed by a competitor on their own rockets. Even with ULA's alleged independence, Boeing and Lockheed are the big dogs in that company..
It hasn't caused them grief yet. My point was them becoming more open in competition with Boeing.
TriAg2010 said:Ag_of_08 said:TriAg2010 said:nortex97 said:
SNC chose the ULA Vulcan for the dream chaser launch vehicle, and also their (Dynetics) moon lander design/program. Frankly, even Blue Origin might have made better sense as a paper 'partner.'
I assume that's what he's referencing.
I'm aware of that. Boeing doesn't operate ULA. They have an ownership stake and ULA operates independently. I'd like to see Ag_of_08 clarify how that puts SN "under Boeing's thumb" and how their selection of ULA as a launch services provider has caused them an iota of hardship.
Sierra Nevada's ability to launch is tied to their competitors at this point. You actually think Boeing and ULA wouldn't intentionally try to slow them down in launch cadence if they suddenly became publicly critical of them? That's living in a fantasy world.
Just like Orion will now no longer launch on a different company's rockets since the AJ/RD merger.... all about the money, and who controls what interests and assets. ULA, and Boeing specifically, is not going to allow themselves to be passed by a competitor on their own rockets. Even with ULA's alleged independence, Boeing and Lockheed are the big dogs in that company..
It hasn't caused them grief yet. My point was them becoming more open in competition with Boeing.
So you're just speculating that ULA would engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior to favor one of their partial owners despite all available observation that ULA operates as an independent and agnostic launch services provider.
The irony here is that ULA is the only launch services provider that doesn't have competing operations with SNC. SpaceX competes with SNC for cargo delivery. Northrop competes for cargo delivery. You suggest SNC get out from "under Boeing's thumb" and run to a firm with... more conflicts of interest.
The further irony is that ULA launched cargo resupply Cygnus vehicles for Orbital ATK (now Northrop) who *was* a direct competitor for launch services. There were no allegations of evidence of funny business there.
We get that you don't like Boeing. But unless you've got some actual news or facts to share, I suggest you not derail the thread about news or facts about SpaceX.
