I'm not sure it's scrubbed just yet. They look like they are still chilling the turbos.

The main gain and header are icicles right now.

Friggin' moron. Each firing probably costs something like $3 million in methelox and people etc. (they keep bringing it all in on trucks @ BC, for now.)

Oh well, gratuitous partisan comment; America did get dumber today, as expected.

You mean like driving a boat through the middle of an active manned spaceflight recovery site so you can fly your candidates flags and get on TV, while risking getting blown up or your lungs vaporized by hydrazine?

People are dumb, it happens regardless of the party in power.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Elon has tweeted about both in the last 3 months actually. They're very seriously discussing hopping them out to the platforms, and launch there.

If the catch and load concept can actually happen, they may be talking about 3 launches on the same booster, same day. The could hop three starahip.uppers out, for a single super heavy, and launch/land them like that.

---

If Elon pulls that off...

He's just showing off!

I've learned a couple things with Elon.

Never claim they can't do some crazy shat he says, cause they'll end up making it happen

Elon time and real time are two very different concepts...accept it and move on

B-1 83 said:

---

Their McGregor test site is less than 10 miles from the ranch. Walls rattle when they test. The night sky lights up.

---

That is cool! I have driven through McGregor when they are testing and could hear it.

Oh no doubt there! But without a doubt he's an innovator. I'm sure many of his plans won't come to fruition, and he'll have plenty of failures, but he's certainly not afraid to just ignore the envelope.

Some comparison as between SLS and FH is probably logical at this point given our discussion above.

This is outdated but I do think that if, somehow, SLS loses a couple of their first vehicles in ascent stages, the FH derivative/concept as man rated might warrant being revisited (as Starship won't be human rated to NASA standards anyway within 5 years).

https://thespacereview.com/article/2737/1



Regardless, nasa has been steadfast in not wanting FH rockets.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/nasa-chief-explains-why-agency-wont-buy-a-bunch-of-falcon-heavy-rockets/

I apologize but we probably need to recognize that Orion could, per Birdenstine, be launched on FH.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-nasa-orion-launch/

Quote:

---

As it currently stands, a median target of November 2021 for the SLS launch debut guarantees that there is almost certainly no chance of the rocket launching at any point in 2020, even if NASA took the extraordinary step of completely cutting a full-length static fire of the entirely unproven rocket prior to its debut. Known as the "Green Run", the ~8-minute long static fire test is planned to occur at NASA's Stennis Space Center on the B2 test stand, which NASA despite continuous criticism from OIG before and after the decision has spent more than $350M to refurbish. Stennis B2's refurbishment was effectively completed just two months ago after the better part of seven years of work.

MAJOR CHALLENGES REMAIN

On one hand, the task of successfully launching NASA's Orion spacecraft around the Moon with Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy rockets has a lot going for it, regardless of which rockets launch Orion to LEO or launch the fueled upper stage to boost it around the Moon. In 2014, NASA and ULA successfully launched a partial-fidelity Orion spacecraft to an altitude of 3700 miles (~6000 km), testing some of Orion's avionics, general spacefaring capabilities, and the craft's heat shield, although Lockheed Martin has since significantly changed the shield's design and method of production/installation. Regardless, the EFT-1 test flight means that a solution already more or less exists to mate Orion and its service module (ESM) to a commercial rocket and launch the duo into orbit.

If ULA is unable to essentially produce a Delta IV Heavy from scratch in less than 12-18 months, Falcon Heavy would be next in line to launch Orion/ESM, a use-case that might actually be less absurd than it seems. Thanks to the fact that SpaceX's payload fairing is actually wider than the large Orion spacecraft (5.2 m (17 ft) vs. 5 m (16.5 ft) in diameter), any major risks of radical aerodynamic problems can be largely retired, although that would still need to be verified with models and/or wind-tunnel testing. The only major change that would need to be certified is ensuring that the Falcon second stage is capable of supporting the Orion/ESM payload, weighing at least ~26 metric tons (~57,000 lb) at launch. The heaviest payloads SpaceX has launched thus far were likely its Iridium NEXT missions, weighing around 9600 kg (21,100 lb).

---

So, imho, Nasa says it's possible to move to FH, that Orion could be made to fit, and a manned mission to the moon would still be an achievable goal via distributed lift.

Further, if Sen. Shelby loses sway (as one would expect) in a Dem senate, regarding the Senate Launch System, the dynamics are interesting, though again I am dubious that Kendra Horn would make a dramatic move in the next 11 months. The greater fear is that more money is (functionally) reprogrammed/wasted on climate propaganda vs. space exploration.

From my limited reading, FH could only get Orion into GTO. The extra delta v for TLI would then have to come from Orion and that might not leave enough fuel on board for lunar orbital operations.

That comment sums up so much of how government spending (no matter the party in power) works

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

From my limited reading, FH could only get Orion into GTO. The extra delta v for TLI would then have to come from Orion and that might not leave enough fuel on board for lunar orbital operations.

---

That's not what Birdenstine thought when he asked for the report below in 2019; again it would be a 2 launch strategy, but it's conceivable.

Quote:

---

"There are opportunities to utilize commercial capabilities to put the Orion crew capsule and the European service module in orbit around the moon by June of 2020, which was our originally stated objective," he said. "I have tasked the agency to look into how we might accomplish that objective."

Bridenstine, upon further questioning by Wicker, said that no commercial launch vehicle available today could carry out the EM-1 mission. Instead, he said, the mission would require two launches: one to place the Orion into orbit the Earth, and a second carrying an upper stage. The two would then dock and the upper stage ignited to send Orion to the moon.

One challenge, he said, would be carrying out that docking. "We do not have, right now, an ability to dock the Orion crew capsule with anything in orbit," he said. "So between now and June of 2020, we would have to make that a reality."

"This is 2019," Wicker noted.

"We have amazing capabilities that exist right now that we can use off the shelf in order to accomplish this objective," he said, such as the Delta 4 Heavy that launched Orion on the earlier test flight. "We can use off-the-shelf capabilities, sir, to accomplish this objective for EM-1 but not change the direction of the SLS for EM-2."

After the hearing, Bridenstine said he had not talked with United Launch Alliance or SpaceX about the use of their vehicles for this alternative approach to EM-1. He said he's asking NASA's Launch Services Program to see "what would be in the realm of possibilities" and provide a report to him on the various options.

---

These aren't insurmountable challenges for the later EM-2 (maneuvering flight) contractually/technically;

Quote:

---

However, Bridenstine then laid out one scenario that has huge implications, not for a 2020 launch, but one later on. Until now, it was thought that only NASA's Space Launch System could directly inject the Orion spacecraft into a lunar orbit, which made it the preferred option for getting astronauts to the Moon for any potential landing by 2024. However, Bridenstine said there was another option: a Falcon Heavy rocket with an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage built by United Launch Alliance. "Talk about strange bedfellows," he mused about the two rocket rivals.

This plan has the ability to put humans on the Moon by 2024, Bridenstine said. He then emphasizedtwicethat NASA's chief of human spaceflight, William Gerstenmaier, has yet to bless this approach due to a number of technical details. His reservations include the challenge of integrating the Falcon Heavy rocket in a horizontal position and then loading Orion with fuel in a vertical configuration on the launchpad. The Falcon Heavy would also require a larger payload fairing than it normally flies with. This would place uncertain stress on the rocket's side-mounted boosters.

---

They're still trying to get a static fire in.

Checked Elon's tweets to see if he had an update on the static fire and of course this is his first tweet since the test:

There's no way that Lockheed is going to agree to the Falcon Heavy launch of Orion. It would mean that AJ/RD would lose the RS-25 contract for SLS, and They're going to fight that tooth and toenail.

Bregxit said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Some comparison as between SLS and FH is probably logical at this point given our discussion above.

This is outdated but I do think that if, somehow, SLS loses a couple of their first vehicles in ascent stages, the FH derivative/concept as man rated might warrant being revisited (as Starship won't be human rated to NASA standards anyway within 5 years).

https://thespacereview.com/article/2737/1



Regardless, nasa has been steadfast in not wanting FH rockets.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/nasa-chief-explains-why-agency-wont-buy-a-bunch-of-falcon-heavy-rockets/

---

Great comment on the Ars article...

Quote:

---

"The SLS is required in order to build the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway, because the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway was designed to require SLS. Also it hasn't been designed yet, but when it is it will require SLS. Funding for designing it hasn't been allocated yet, but if and when it is, it will be on the basis that it require SLS. As you can see, SLS is clearly required by SLS requirements and Falcon Heavy is not SLS and so therefore does not meet the requirements of being SLS."

---

---

It is a funny comment.

But, the lunar gateway was made 'optional' or non-critical since that time, partially for it's own development delays but also likely so that SLS doesn't wind up killing the whole manned moon mission. Everything critical can be done without it now. Lockheed may not like it (nor Boeing), but if that's the way the political winds blow...they'll adapt/seek funding/contracts where they can get them.

Let's all take a guess at how many more aborted static fires SN9 will have before it launches; I'm going with 3.

Early morning static fire about 10 minutes ago looked good

Looking for a Monday launch at earliest with Tuesday and Wednesday also possible.

Possible Starship landing next week!

These guys are literally moving at Apollo program speeds... and faster in many ways. Unbelievable.

Let's hope Eileen flies better than she tests.

This may explain why they're not in a big hurry on SN9 and are using it more for rehearsals.



In thinking we may see serious structural and design iteration before sn15 now, probably to accommodate changes to the pressurization system.

They installed the C-4 yesterday, looking like Monday to me...

Making their own methane on site soon is great. Going from 4 to 3mm is also a big deal design wise. I can't keep up with which SN has what speculated improvements/changes, but it's all happening pretty quickly.

Illustration/discussion at around 7:30 about fuel at the time of the belly flop/flip is interesting.

scottimus said:

---

They installed the C-4 yesterday, looking like Monday to me...

---

Where do they install it?

bthotugigem05 said:

---

scottimus said:

---

They installed the C-4 yesterday, looking like Monday to me...

---

Where do they install it?

---

Where on SN9?

nortex97 said:

---

Making their own methane on site soon is great. Going from 4 to 3mm is also a big deal design wise. I can't keep up with which SN has what speculated improvements/changes, but it's all happening pretty quickly.

Illustration/discussion at around 7:30 about fuel at the time of the belly flop/flip is interesting.

---

I think the little test tank is 3mm, then they planned to make serious changes at 15. With them disassembling the thrust puck and scrapping it, looks like we may see it before that.


All those plans had been based on not having to use helium tanks to pressurize the headers, so we may seen them tap the brakes and change directions to solve that issue first.... the weight saving and rapid reflight of the landing system is integral to the function if the system

Found it

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Found it

---

Hehehe "boom boxes "...

...I'll show myself out

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Found it

---

What is that?

I believe it's the flight termination system.

Strange that it's wired on the outside like that.

Reddit is saying something different but a buddy I trust more said those were the C4 packs