The first civilian in space and the X-15 program

Very cool video! The way people like that used to talk (at least on video) is mesmerizing compared to our modern styles of speaking.

I like his points too - Science has not answered the major questions, indeed it has only raised more about the purpose and genesis of life and the human soul. His logic regarding the soul is interesting: if the human soul exists, and according to science nothing disappears without a trace, then surely the soul will exist after death. He also talk about ethics and how they need to be ordered correctly in order to use the technology we have to be good and not evil. Even if not religious this is critical - WHY are we going to Mars? WHY are we pushing the SLS? WHY are we pushing DEI in STEM? What is the good purpose (or not) in each? Explains a great deal (if not all) about why we are where we are both in space tech and otherwise.

I like this thread because it's not just technical analysis and we can bring in connected ideas, so thanks for posting this video. Wonder how many other long lost videos like this are out there.

Is there a chance Artemis Flys today? See a listing to watch live on my channel guide.

Pretty sure it's pushed to Oct iirc

Thanks! That is what I was thinking as well. Was surprised to see it on the guide

Yet another week of various 'spin tests' I guess.

Quote:

---

Regardless, eight weeks after the start of engine testing, Booster 7 has only performed three static fires (two with one engine, one with a max of three or four engines), and Ship 24 has only completed one static fire with two engines. Before either vehicle can be considered ready for flight, a day that could easily never come, each will likely need to conduct multiple successful static fires with all of their Raptor engines (6 on S24 and 33 on B7).

If the pace of Booster 7 testing doesn't change, the vehicle could be months away from a full 33-engine static fire attempt perhaps the single most important and uncertain test standing between SpaceX and Starship's first orbital launch attempt. Ship 24's path to flight readiness should be simpler, but it appears to be struggling almost as much.

According to CEO Elon Musk, "an intense effort is underway" to ensure that Super Heavy B7's Raptor engines are well contained during anomalies, so that one engine violently failing won't damage or destroy the booster, other engines, or the launch pad. That could certainly complicate the process of testing Booster 7, and it's likely that SpaceX is taking some of the same actions to protect Ship 24.

---

Would be nice to see them light some/all of these again.

FWIW, the nasaspaceflight.com guys seem/sound much more optimistic, if perhaps their timeline/estimates are not really different. I can't see/guesstimate a starship launch attempt before mid November, in any case at this point.

After Second Failed Launch, NASA Decides To Scrap Artemis Program And Just Fake Another Moon Landing

Quote:

---

CAPE CANAVERAL, FL After yet another delay, NASA is halting immediate plans to pursue an Artemis I launch and will scrap the program altogether and fake another moon landing instead.
Future launch periods began to look uncertain, so the team decided that faking another moon landing is superior to continuing to plan and then postpone launches.

"This is just cheaper," said Jim Free, associate administrator for NASA's vaunted Exploration Systems division. "No one will be able to tell the difference anyway. The tech has gotten much better since the last time we faked a moon landing. It's not even close."
Free said the new plan will give his team a much-needed break. "With CGI and other technological leaps we've made since 1969, we basically don't have to do anything. This is much easier, and I've been saying we should do it this way for months."
NASA administrator Bill Nelson added that the team has gotten lots of practice at faking things ever since Biden came into office. "Those speeches where he sounds coherent and not senile?" said Nelson. "One thousand percent us. And let me tell you, those are a lot harder to fake than any moon landing. This is off the record, right?"
The fake landing is scheduled for November 14th in Burbank, California.

---

https://babylonbee.com/news/after-second-failed-launch-nasa-decides-to-scrap-artemis-program-and-just-fake-another-moon-landing

nortex97 said:

---

They're hoping to launch a SH from BC within 30-45 days, for goodness sakes, so this disruptive process is now targeted by the moneyed US (and international) interests/political entities.

---

That was from July 2021. Given how much work they've done in BC over the last year, and with Elon saying it could still be a month to a year for an orbital launch, how in the world could he have been that far off a year ago?

I think the lengthy environmental comment period allowed the SpaceX team to make a lot of progress, which also slowed them down severely, as weird as it sounds.

I think Elon likely would've yeeted a booster and ship with Raptor 1 engines if he would've been able. Constructing the launch tower, the orbital launch mount, and then debuting the Raptor 2 during the environmental assessment means that those projects need to be more complete before they're flight ready.

I think the total amount of time would've been the same regardless, but the environmental assessment just prevented us from seeing some flamey footage (for better or worse) from the Raptor 1s before they were decommissioned.

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

They're hoping to launch a SH from BC within 30-45 days, for goodness sakes, so this disruptive process is now targeted by the moneyed US (and international) interests/political entities.

---

That was from July 2021. Given how much work they've done in BC over the last year, and with Elon saying it could still be a month to a year for an orbital launch, how in the world could he have been that far off a year ago?

---

They concentrated on stage 0 instead. Originally they were going to launch without the tower at all.

It is weird/frustrating from my chair, but at least I'm not losing money on the deal.

The oddest thing about this vs. other aerospace projects to me is that they basically just ramped up the production system, and have made serial changes to the design (many of which are quite significant) in some secrecy the whole time (engine count? Raptor 2? Header tanks? Thrusters? TPS? Stretched starship as expendable? CPV's/shrouds? Etc).

Now, most (expensive/big) rocket projects and really aerospace as well (think; Boeing/787 or F-35 etc), work really hard on the design details before cutting anything (maybe F-35/JSF is a bad example). The goal is that the first one will be representative/very similar to later ones. Not really the case with starship at all; they are just blasting away iteratively almost with a primary goal on production efficiency/knowledge than cost/final spec's etc.

That's really just a restatement of various posts I guess on this forum, but the timeline/what each prototype is 'supposed/hoped for' to do, when, is definitely a very moving target. The ignition process/sequence for these Raptor 2's (full flow cycle etc.) I guess is a bit finicky so they are working to make sure they get it right/reliable before firing them all up maybe.

Also, keep in mind the tank farms weren't even ready at all until the past 30 days for a full load/launch. Some of what Elon says is…for public consumption/attention because he likes that, clearly.

While I have been pondering how F-35 would have been different if it had been developed with a Space-X model (iterate quickly, crash them a lot, etc.), I'm not sure it would have helped much. In reality, for the F-35, the mechanical/aeronautical work was done pretty quickly. The development contract was signed Nov 1996 and first flight was Oct 2000. That's less than 4 years.

It's the software and ramping up production that has taken a very long time. The on-board F-35 software alone is many orders of magnitudes larger than the entire Space X code base company wide (from what I hear).

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Thanks! That is what I was thinking as well. Was surprised to see it on the guide

---

It's like a rerun of sip vs Kansas

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Thanks! That is what I was thinking as well. Was surprised to see it on the guide

---

It's like a rerun of sip vs Kansas

---

Except that is fun to watch.

NM

Yeah... I'm also thinking back to the surge that SpaceX had last summer where they were flying workers in on Elon's jet to get some milestone done by August '21. It seemed like they were really pushing for a launch ASAP. But like you guys are saying, looks like he used the FAA delays to build out Stage Zero rather than to just blast off with a minimal Stage Zero.

The other angle is the political pressure. No, not the gov't holding starship approval back, but the reality that blowing up the first 10-20 super heavies and starship launches might have been a bigger black eye/financing/PR problem to them now than they'd planned/considered previously.

They caught some of it even with just the upper stage/starship suborbital launches/crashes on landing which, clearly based on the rudimentary legs they threw on it, they really didn't care about. Investor/equity sentiment, and a political push to 'close Boca Chica due to fear/danger/environmental worries after latest explosion' might have been enough to consider…not going too fast. Throw in Elon's twitter fight, desire not to spin off starlink yet, or sell more spacex shares, and desire to pick up more commercial crew/lunar nasa contracts…it's probably a rational decision.

I apologize as I'm on my work computer so I can't find the link at the moment, but I saw on my newsfeed (Space.com, I think) this morning that the plan for Artemis I is to replace the soft seal of the quick disconnect that was leaking on the pad, not the VAB. Supposedly this is so they can cryo-test the seal to ensure that it works (they lack this ability in the VAB). They may still have to roll back to the VAB due to the FTS time limit imposed by Space Force, but NASA may request a waiver. To be honest, though, I think we're still going to see a roll back. Even if they applied for the waiver I don't think Space Force would give it due to the size of the rocket.

Yeah I think the rollback is all about the FTS waiver from the USSF.

I really thought at first they'd have to roll back just because replacing a cryo-seal like that in the field is tricky due to the fact that you have GOT to keep it clean or it will just leak again, and it's not a very robust design to begin with. They're going to set up some kind of enclosure around it to try reduce the risk of contamination, but I think the biggest thing is they want the ability to cryo-test it.

But yeah, at this point the FTS is going to still require it. Just thought it an interesting thing.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/bastrop-county/spacex-files-to-build-520k-square-foot-facility-in-bastrop-county/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=socialflow

SpaceX building a 500,000 sqft facility in Bastrop County. Article doesn't say what they plan for the facility.

But I did get a chuckle about the size of the building. Square feet, and by God anything but the metric system!

Quote:

---

The company wants to construct a 521,521-square-foot "shell building," according to an Aug. 31 filing with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. An estimated project cost of $43 million was given, along with an expected completion date of July 2023.

To put the size into perspective, it would be larger than the footprint of half-a-dozen typical H-E-B grocery stores.

---

Listening to update teleconference. Work has started on changing out QD seal. Still no update on whether or not they'll get a waiver from USSF regarding FTS battery check. They are also revising the fueling procedure to try and reduce the stress on the QD joint during the loading process.

Pending a fix to SLS's hydrogen leak, and if the range grants a waiver to NASA allowing the rocket to stay on the pad without another rollback, the agency is eyeing Sept. 23 and 27th for the soonest possible launch dates for Artemis 1, Jim Free says. A whole lotta "ifs" tho

— Joey Roulette (@joroulette) September 8, 2022

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/bastrop-county/spacex-files-to-build-520k-square-foot-facility-in-bastrop-county/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=socialflow

SpaceX building a 500,000 sqft facility in Bastrop County. Article doesn't say what they plan for the facility.

But I did get a chuckle about the size of the building. Square feet, and by God anything but the metric system!

Quote:

---

The company wants to construct a 521,521-square-foot "shell building," according to an Aug. 31 filing with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. An estimated project cost of $43 million was given, along with an expected completion date of July 2023.

To put the size into perspective, it would be larger than the footprint of half-a-dozen typical H-E-B grocery stores.

---

---

or almost exactly 12 acres.

Waiting for the siren

TexAgs91 said:

---

Waiting for the siren

---

Pardon my ignorance, but what does the siren mean?

After completing a multi-engine spin prime test on Booster 7 engine chill is now underway on Ship 24 as SpaceX prepares for a potential 6 engine static fire with the vehicle!

📸@LabPadre
🔴https://t.co/h17OovWTEG#SpaceX @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/dvIkEnWRYa

— TankWatchers (@WatchersTank) September 8, 2022

SwigAg11 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Waiting for the siren

---

Pardon my ignorance, but what does the siren mean?

---

The siren usually means a test fire within 10 minutes

There's the siren. Should be a test fire at 4:29-4:30ish (unfortunately not at 420)

Niiiiice

Oops

Something tells me they were not planning for that to happen.

Private PoopyPants said:

---

Something tells me they were not planning for that to happen.

---

They've had this happen before. Usually doesn't last