nortex97 said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

aggie2812-2 said:

---

What was the mishap previously the FAA is implying?

---

How does the FAA even know a remote bit about what SpaceX is really doing or how to do it or what should be fixed? SpaceX is the leader and are doing things better than NASA or any other business/government could even imagine.

---

SpaceX and the FAA have two meetings per day. None of any of this is a surprise to either entity.

---

Well then I'd like to think SpaceX could make some sort of pronouncement publicly about what they've communicated regarding the FTS' protracted failure on flight zero. That really is one of the 'simpler' systems in 'rocket science' involved on the starship, imho.

They can stream 4K images from inside their rockets regularly nowadays, so they should be able to get a signal to it to blow itself up quickly, even though that's not a system the F9's have to use…often.

---

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

The former FTS system was an inward-firing point charge placed on the fuselage near common domes that separate the liquid oxygen and methane tanks. The thought was that this would open both propellant tanks and cause an ignition or allow the sudden drop in pressure to cause the rocket to weaken and disintegrate since the rockets structural integrity is based on having pressurized tanks.

What seemed to happen is that the tanks popped open but the loss in pressure was gradual. If you watch the launch, there is a point where you can see two distinct vapor trails start coming from the booster and ship at the same moment. It continues to tumble for another 30 or so seconds before the depressurization causes the booster to fail and then the ship follows the same fate.

I am not sure what the FAA could think is unaddressed about this issue since they have switched to linear det cord type charges along the length of the tanks which should "unzip" the rocket right away.

The FAA's gripe can't be with the launch pad's destruction as they have retrofitted an elaborate water cooled flame diverter system and proofed the system.

It may be some of the debris needs to be cleaned up in marshes around the site from the last launch. But when they previously tried to get a crew to remove the debris back in late April or May, the government told SpaceX that they couldn't intrude on public lands to do so.

This seems more like political flexing and it's disgusting.

---

Naked Ship 26 rolling to Pad B. 🤩🚀🔥@NASASpaceflight pic.twitter.com/jpzkjlRZNL

— Mary (@BocaChicaGal) September 7, 2023

TexAgs91 said:

---

This odd one is headed for Pad B

Naked Ship 26 rolling to Pad B. 🤩🚀🔥@NASASpaceflight pic.twitter.com/jpzkjlRZNL

— Mary (@BocaChicaGal) September 7, 2023

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

aggie2812-2 said:

---

What was the mishap previously the FAA is implying?

---

How does the FAA even know a remote bit about what SpaceX is really doing or how to do it or what should be fixed? SpaceX is the leader and are doing things better than NASA or any other business/government could even imagine.

---

SpaceX and the FAA have two meetings per day. None of any of this is a surprise to either entity.

---

Well then I'd like to think SpaceX could make some sort of pronouncement publicly about what they've communicated regarding the FTS' protracted failure on flight zero. That really is one of the 'simpler' systems in 'rocket science' involved on the starship, imho.

They can stream 4K images from inside their rockets regularly nowadays, so they should be able to get a signal to it to blow itself up quickly, even though that's not a system the F9's have to use…often.

---

They had no problem getting the signal there to blow it up. The explosives went off as planned. They just didn't destroy the rocket as quickly as designed. You can see the streams of fuel coming off both the booster and starship for some time after the charges were set off. They've had to redesign the TFS so that the fuel tanks are ripped apart more completely and ending the flight immediately. Making sure that works as designed is probably what's hanging up the FFA.

---

This morning, everyone's favorite naked Starship - S26 arrived at the Launch Complex for Static Fire testing.

📽️: @LabPadre
✂️: @DeffGeff pic.twitter.com/gqCX6bnwdT

— Zack Golden (@CSI_Starbase) September 7, 2023

TexAgs91 said:

---

I can't wait to see the gun they load this into



9000 caliber bullet

---

"Senior agency officials have told us that at current cost levels the SLS program is unsustainable and exceeds what NASA officials believe will be available for its Artemis missions."https://t.co/cXwb2zYrFv

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) September 7, 2023

Quote:

---

Can NASA really control costs?

While NASA certainly deserves credit for talking about the excessive cost of the SLS rocketa fact that has been pointed out by critics for more than a decade but largely ignored by NASA officials and congressional leadersit is not at all clear that they will be able to control costs. For example, NASA recently said that it is working with the primary contractor of the SLS rocket's main engines, Aerojet, to reduce the cost of each engine by 30 percent, down to $70.5 million by the end of this decade.

However, NASA's inspector general, Paul Martin, said this claim was dubious. According to Martin, when calculating the projected cost savings of the new RS-25 engines, NASA and Aerojet only included material, engineering support, and touch labor, while project management and overhead costs are excluded.
And even at $70.5 million, these engines are very, very far from being affordable compared to the existing US commercial market for powerful rocket engines. Blue Origin manufactures an engine of comparable power and size, the BE-4, for less than $20 million. And SpaceX is seeking to push the similarly powerful Raptor rocket engine costs even lower, to less than $1 million per engine.

---

How do we know that's what is going on? On the way to Starbase the other night, we got stuck behind a wide load that went to Starship Mission Control. I took some photos of the items that were delivered. Labels indicated that they were from Icon, a company that does 3D printed… pic.twitter.com/N92AJaPRfB

— Jack Beyer (@thejackbeyer) September 7, 2023

FAA closes Starship mishap investigation from Booster 7/Ship 24's test flight. Following was emailed out by the FAA:

"The FAA has closed the SpaceX Starship Super Heavy mishap investigation.

"The final report cites multiple root causes of the April 20, 2023, mishap and 63…

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) September 8, 2023

Additional background on the release:

The FAA oversaw the SpaceX-led investigation to ensure the company complied with its FAA-approved mishap plan and other regulatory requirements.

The FAA was involved in every step of the mishap investigation and granted NASA and the…

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) September 8, 2023

Recursive improvement is essential as we work to build a fully reusable launch system capable of carrying satellites, payloads, crew, and cargo to a variety of orbits and Earth, lunar, or Martian landing sites pic.twitter.com/3fQEEoY8Zc

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 8, 2023

I'm not sure if this is the first time we've seen confirmation that it wasn't a loss of power in hydraulic system that lead to loss of control, but the failure of the link between the guidance system and the engines.

— Scott Manley (@DJSnM) September 8, 2023

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

NASA and partner contractors working on projects like SLS are free to start streamlining operations whenever they want to.

As it stands now, there are far too many patrons involved at the administrative level and too many greased palms in the political arena serving constituents as it concerns endeavors like this. The amount of approval cycles and excessive red tape has stagnated this storied agency in both budget and schedule.

It's supposed to be the cutting edge of human capabilities but we are in a situation where the tech is ancient by the time it rolls to the pad. Not to mention the purpose of the development gets lapped by the private sector. The time scale is so expanded that it's impossible to stay ahead of the blossoming commercial efforts much less maintain continuity of vision.

At this rate, Artemis may finally land a crew on Mars after three other launch providers have established a self sustaining base on Mars in 15 or so years.

My opinion is that if the private sector can optimize efficiency in development, so can NASA. Perhaps I am wrong?

---

JobSecurity said:

---

Is there a chance that any of the 60+ requirements aren't met by this booster/ship combo?

I'd like to think SpaceX and the FAA had agreed upon those fixes well in advance and they've all been implemented but govt agency ineptitude and incompetence knows no bounds

---

I've seen dozens of "Twitter experts" misunderstand this (often time by adding "Breaking..." to their post for extra clicks) so let me reiterate and further explain what Chris details below.

SpaceX LEADS the investigation. SpaceX issues the corrective actions. They pre-write a… https://t.co/wUE7jmB7MK

— Abhi Tripathi (@SpaceAbhi) September 8, 2023

Quote:

---

I've seen dozens of "Twitter experts" misunderstand this (often time by adding "Breaking..." to their post for extra clicks) so let me reiterate and further explain what Chris details below.

SpaceX LEADS the investigation. SpaceX issues the corrective actions. They pre-write a mishap investigation plan before they even launch. Then they execute their plan if they have an actual mishap. The FAA formally reviews the plan and also the investigation results and SpaceX-recommended corrective actions (but...informally they already know what's coming because of close coordination). The FAA provides feedback, and could recommend adding something if warranted. Their main job is to verify and enforce that SpaceX does what SpaceX said it will do once they approve the final report. In reality, 90% or more of corrective actions may be finished before the report is even formally submitted. Just depends on how well the root cause(s) are understood and easy to fix.

The general public often believes the FAA writes all the corrective actions and has a large team of people conducting the investigation with a heavy hand (e.g. "the big bad government"). No way. I doubt that will ever be the case for any mishap or anomaly. That is simply not how the government is staffed.

The FAA (and their NASA colleagues who have the relevant technical expertise) are typically in super close contact with the SpaceX team through the head of SpaceX Flight Reliability (where the chief engineers reside).

The statements released by the government are usually kept vague but factual, often to the great dismay of social and traditional media (as well as "stans") who want a juicy bite, ideally brimming with conflict. It is in a government agency's best interest to maintain flexibility and work with who they are overseeing...while keeping the politicians and click-bait journalists and influencers away. Inflammatory statements could rally politicians to one side or the other, and then SpaceX and the FAA's job could become charged and harder. Many people want to see that happen for many reasons.

If the final approval stalls, often times it is over a corrective action that was too open to interpretation. As an example of what I mean, if a corrective action is worded as such:
"Redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness."
Ooh boy. So you want to break that down into discrete actions defining what "robustness" means.

---

Sea Speed said:

---

Kceovaisnt- said:

---

NASA and partner contractors working on projects like SLS are free to start streamlining operations whenever they want to.

As it stands now, there are far too many patrons involved at the administrative level and too many greased palms in the political arena serving constituents as it concerns endeavors like this. The amount of approval cycles and excessive red tape has stagnated this storied agency in both budget and schedule.

It's supposed to be the cutting edge of human capabilities but we are in a situation where the tech is ancient by the time it rolls to the pad. Not to mention the purpose of the development gets lapped by the private sector. The time scale is so expanded that it's impossible to stay ahead of the blossoming commercial efforts much less maintain continuity of vision.

At this rate, Artemis may finally land a crew on Mars after three other launch providers have established a self sustaining base on Mars in 15 or so years.

My opinion is that if the private sector can optimize efficiency in development, so can NASA. Perhaps I am wrong?

---

I worked for the govt for 7 years up to GS-15 level and you will never convince me they will ever do anything efficiently. Good lord it was enough to drive a sane man crazy dealing with the nonsense.

---