When you need to light 33 up, a lot has to go right.

With that many shutting down 'essentially' immediately I just assume there was an issue with a fuel/oxidizer feed. Probably not as dramatic an 'omen' as maybe some broadcasters might favor for viewership. A pump/contaminant/single point of failure would be much easier to 'solve' than a complex issue involving a bunch of engines that have been tested pretty thoroughly previously, or the new deluge system etc.

Any word on what percent throttle they were at?

It's one of the hardest things ever attempted in rocketry, that they've gotten 29-30 engines to fire consecutively is remarkable in itself.

Replay of the static test with multiple angles

Starlink Mission Launch

https://www.youtube.com/live/1sGWUunA2mM

Isn't the overhead 3-4 engines out on the pad and they're still good to launch? While it's an issue that needs to be solved, getting most lit and flowing properly is the main point. Think the point of this test worked well, the deluge system seemed to work properly

munch96 said:

---

Starlink Mission Launch

https://www.youtube.com/live/1sGWUunA2mM

---

Pretty cool stuff …

Bregxit said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

With that many shutting down 'essentially' immediately I just assume there was an issue with a fuel/oxidizer feed. Probably not as dramatic an 'omen' as maybe some broadcasters might favor for viewership. A pump/contaminant/single point of failure would be much easier to 'solve' than a complex issue involving a bunch of engines that have been tested pretty thoroughly previously, or the new deluge system etc.

---

I'm just saying between the test launch and this static fire it needs to get figured out.

---

The test launch was a huge success.

flakrat said:

---

Replay of the static test with multiple angles

---

Still rearranging some items near the pad I see. Probably going to be more concrete poured in the coming months. Those fence panels didn't stand much of a chance!

Flat earthers are not falling for that crap.

This is funny too, in a different way:

[url=https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1688589482826563584?s=61&t=_kupzxtr0zazslneBuCB2w][/url]

Quote:

---

Amazon originally intended to use its nine Atlas V missions to deploy operational Kuiper satellites, with several dozen flying on each rocket. Now Amazon will use one of those Atlas Vs to launch just the first two Kuiper test platforms. All of ULA's remaining Atlas V rockets are already sold to customers, so there's no opportunity to build more.

The first two Kuiper test satellites were originally contracted to fly on a new rocket from the startup launch company ABL Space Systems. Last year, Amazon moved the satellites off of ABL's rocket and onto the first Vulcan launch with ULA.

Amazon has not revealed much about the design of its Kuiper satellites other than that they are three-dimensional in shape, not flat-packed for launch like SpaceX's Starlink broadband satellites. Each Kuiper spacecraft likely weighs a few hundred kilograms at launch, so a dedicated Atlas V launch into low-Earth orbit for just two of Amazon's satellites is a bit of overkill.

---

Whoah. Buying a whole Atlas V rocket to launch two fairly small satellites.https://t.co/TzjVyOIYZ2

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) August 7, 2023

Hint: they won't get half of their sat's into orbit by the end of 2026, and the production design will have problems:

Quote:

---

But Amazon apparently thought it was worth expending one of the Atlas V rockets it has under contract, allowing the company to get its satellites into orbit sooner to verify their performance before proceeding into full-scale production of Kuiper spacecraft. Amazon needs to deploy half of its 3,236 satellites by July 2026, a deadline to maintain network authorization from the FCC. That would require at least two launches per month beginning next yearand perhaps morefrom Amazon's stable of launch service providers.

---

Static fire covered 10 minutes in.

lb3 said:

---

NEWS 🚨: NASA's James Webb telescope has spotted a giant 'question mark' object in deep space pic.twitter.com/fU5K5nKeil

— Latest in space (@latestinspace) August 7, 2023

---

Looks like that's where humanity need to go to start it's first interstellar quest.

Looks like the "Booster Bidet" name is sticking


I love all the terms associated with Starship:
Chopsticks
Mechazilla
Teapot
Dog house
Rock tornado
BFR

Booster bidet? Ummm

TexAgs91 said:

---

Looks like the "Booster Bidet" name is sticking


I love all the terms associated with Starship:
Chopsticks
Mechazilla
Teapot
Dog house
Rock tornado
BFR

---

Dance floor

Recent views from NASA's Mars helicopter 🚁 pic.twitter.com/3E3tVtlF6N

— Latest in space (@latestinspace) August 8, 2023

Another Starlink Mission? Wow, that was fast...

Before I left Vandenberg, they were launching on avg 2-3 a month.

More bad news for Boeing Starliner.

Quote:

---

The manager for the company's Commercial Crew Program, Mark Nappi, said the spacecraft should be ready for flight by early March, or seven months from now. However, Nappi said that date is conditional on availability of an Atlas V rocket, provided by United Launch Alliance, and an opening in NASA's visiting vehicles schedule.
...

Perhaps the more significant issue, from a schedule standpoint, are changes to Starliner's parachutes. At issue were "soft link" joints in the canopy of the parachutes that were found to not have a high enough safety factor. Nappi said the parachute's manufacturer, Airborne, is fabricating a new version of the parachute joints using a stronger Kevlar material. Boeing plans to conduct a drop test of this new parachute in mid- to late-November, which would leave time for analysis ahead of a launch next spring.
...

In addition to the hardware work, Boeing must also comply with three separate investigations. According to Stich, there is an "independent team" at Boeing reviewing the company's actions. In addition, NASA's chief engineer, Joseph Pellicciotti, has interviewed every one of Starliner's subsystem managers to ensure there are no other potential surprises looming. Finally, Pellicciotti, his deputy, and the NASA Engineering & Safety Center have been conducting their own independent review of Starliner's soundness.

---

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/starliner-undergoing-three-independent-investigations-as-flight-slips-to-2024/

Nasa and Boeing should, in a sane world, figure out a way to just give up on that debacle and write off future payments/launches/investigations.

if the sky could dream
it would dream of falconspic.twitter.com/SJvQFzZSWk

— Oukham (@OPhommachanh) August 8, 2023

nortex97 said:

---

Nasa and Boeing should, in a sane world, figure out a way to just give up on that debacle and write off future payments/launches/investigations.

---

I would say there is a very good chance of that happening. SpaceX as well perhaps.

At the rate they're going, they'll end up running the contracted launches out with test flights. Im still not convinced the last test flight actually constituted a succes..... just because the backup to the backup manages to work, does not make the system "successful". We saw what happened when "well the backup is working" lit of in Jan of 86. I hope NASA is smart enough to have a dragon launch on stand by as a rescue mission before the first manned flight.

I think they might fly the contracted flights out, but honestly it's pretty clear at this point, given how few flights nasa has even bought, they're pretty much done.

I can't remember and I'm too lazy to look it up, but isn't Starliner a fixed price contract? If so, then why would NASA want to cancel it? They've already forked over the cash, and if further costs are coming out of Boeing's pocket then it makes sense to me that NASA might as well force them to keep going to see if maybe they get lucky and end up with a second spacecraft. If nothing else it would punish Boeing, which I'm all for.

But if this is actually a cost+ contract, then yeah I think NASA will eventually pull the plug.

It's a fixed-cost contract.

NASA needs Starliner, generally. If something happens with Crew Dragon (God forbid), the USA needs another proven vehicle to continue reliable service to (and ensure safe evacuation of) the ISS.

Then they need to pull the plug on starliner, as it will never be a truly dependable and safe spacecraft alternative.

They would do far better back Sierra Nevada at this point, and kicking enough capital into that program to get the crew version that can launch on a falcon* flying.

Risking lives on the dumpster fire that is starliner is not the solution to anything but sunk cost guilt...

It's fixed cost, but the MIC will protect Boeing from going to far in the hole on it.

Quick overview video showcasing a major CLPS payload on our Nova-C IM-2 vehicle.

Virgin's first tourist mission at 10:00 this morning

https://www.youtube.com/live/h7D8kPNU7eo?feature=share