Something positive since this thread has a case of the Mondays.

There are a few major differences between test flights of the upper stage and the fully integrated rocket. The test flights of the upper stage and single engine test articles launched with ~180 tons to ~540 tons of thrust. The integrated flight test this last April saw around 7000 tons of thrust coming off the pad.

A fully loaded upper stage could hold 1200 tons of propellants but likely flew previously with a fraction of that for the 10Km test flights. A fully integrated rocket holds 4600 tons of propellants.

I am not sure exactly how the environment is affected in every way but there are some key differences that require some diligence to make sure they can say that they have considered all implications.

Although, I think much of this regulatory action is eye-rolling and I can't stand this administration, this may just pave the way for fast launch cadences by crossing their T's.

I hope I am not wrong.

While @FAANews did not confirm to NSF if SpaceX already submitted the application for the launch license, it confirmed that the agency targets "before the end of October“ to wrap up the safety review.

The FAA also confirmed to NSF that a draft update to the biological… pic.twitter.com/JKfBQQBCQw

— Adrian Beil (@BCCarCounters) September 18, 2023

NASAg03 said:

---

Something positive since this thread has a case of the Mondays.

---

That's awesome. Love the slo-mo guys

Confirmations of the FWS in a statement to @NASASpaceflight :

- The FWS is considering the operation of a water deluge system in Starbase and its environmental effects.

- The FWS has up to 135 days to submit the final biological opinion to the FAA (Started in August). pic.twitter.com/2ptYap0wvr

— Adrian Beil (@BCCarCounters) September 18, 2023

Gonna be early October.

Good to hear.

Oh noes, water impact on the environment, must be devastating.

Premium said:

---

Oh noes, water impact on the environment, must be devastating.

---

https://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html

I don't think FWS is out of bounds too review if excessive amounts of fresh water will be running off the pad into the saltwater marsh. Especially if/ when they ramp up cadence.

That said look at it but let the low pace test launched proceed.

Yeah cause rain doesn't happen in the marsh, and the don't flop to different salinity levels all the time.

That's why I prefaced that with by the time they ramp up their cadence. If they're going to be running 3,4,5+ supply and refueling launches a day with 2500 gallons running off into the marsh each time it's an issue.

If the runoff is only 50 gallons per launch then it's not an issue.

I'm well aware that it rains on the coast.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Yeah cause rain doesn't happen in the marsh, and the don't flop to different salinity levels all the time.

---

I'm sure they're checking for any potential chemical or pollutant runoff as well. There's nothing wrong with them looking and making sure everything is good.

Womp womp.

FAILURE. Staged, but the second stage appeared to have an issue at ignition. Anomaly has been called. https://t.co/0PtPLY5ArX pic.twitter.com/iLmdzCgNyG

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) September 19, 2023

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Yeah cause rain doesn't happen in the marsh, and the don't flop to different salinity levels all the time.

---

I'm sure they're checking for any potential chemical or pollutant runoff as well. There's nothing wrong with them looking and making sure everything is good.

---

What chemical could be involved that would create run off?

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

I don't think FWS is out of bounds too review if excessive amounts of fresh water will be running off the pad into the saltwater marsh. Especially if/ when they ramp up cadence.

That said look at it but let the low pace test launched proceed.

---

Running the booster bidet from those 4 tanks of water for 5-8 seconds is not going to change the salinity of the ocean/marsh there.

Good grief.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Yeah cause rain doesn't happen in the marsh, and the don't flop to different salinity levels all the time.

---

I'm sure they're checking for any potential chemical or pollutant runoff as well. There's nothing wrong with them looking and making sure everything is good.

---

What chemical could be involved that would create run off?

---

I think he means potential chemical deposited that may be commonly used around the launch site that could run off when it rains or deluge system is activated. Probably not a major issue.

I think the main concern is the chemicals present in the deluge water itself. City water has chlorine and chloramines present in the water to disinfect it. If I am remembering correctly, Starbase gets its deluge water trucked in from Brownsville hydrants. I am not sure the exact chemical concentrations there, but anyone who has ever had a salt water aquarium knows that you can't use City water without dechlorinating it first.

Perhaps this is the concern. I think you can solve this with running your water in a maturation pond to let the chlorine off-gas. Or just getting the deluge water from a reverse osmosis source. Though that last one adds a lot of cost. Another solution would be a drainage system or catch basin for the deluge water to prevent it from entering the marsh lands. Then it wouldn't matter what was in the deluge water. That also could save the cost to transport most of the water from municipal supplies.

Quote:

---

drainage system or catch basin

---

Have you looked at the topography of the site? the reason they didn't build a flame diverter is the same reason there's no way to build a catch basin without enormous cost. The water table is too high.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

drainage system or catch basin

---

Have you looked at the topography of the site? the reason they didn't build a flame diverter is the same reason there's no way to build a catch basin without enormous cost. The water table is too high.

---

I am very familiar with the site. They did not want to include a flame trench because in order for it to be effective, it would need to be at a depth that the Army Corps of Engineers need be involved. Also it would multiply the construction cost and that does not bode well for future starship pad installations.

A water catch basin at the volume they would need wouldn't need to be at a depth to involve such regulations. They already have a basin of considerable size excavated south of the pad for sending liquid oxygen used during during engine chill cycles to dissipate at a safe distance from the pad.

A catch basin would need to be larger in area but the depth would be the same as the engine chill LOX basin.

This may or may not be an issue at all. But playing devil's advocate, chlorine and chloramines may be the main area of concern.

Edited to add speculation:

If this were the direction SpaceX goes, it would require a few months of additional construction. But it would NOT likely need to be satisfied prior to the FAA granting SpaceX its launch license for IFT2. It would likely be a requirement for SpaceX to resolve this prior to regularly scheduled commercial launches or within 3 IFTs. That's is, unless the federal government wants to stymie SpaceX's progress for the sake of politics.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Yeah cause rain doesn't happen in the marsh, and the don't flop to different salinity levels all the time.

---

I'm sure they're checking for any potential chemical or pollutant runoff as well. There's nothing wrong with them looking and making sure everything is good.

---

What chemical could be involved that would create run off?

---

I'm not sure, but we are talking about rocket science here. I assume there are some nasty chemicals involved with the manufacturing, launching, and operating the most powerful rocket in history. Again it doesn't hurt to make sure there are no unintended consequences of launching. No point in trashing the launch site just to get off the ground.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Yeah cause rain doesn't happen in the marsh, and the don't flop to different salinity levels all the time.

---

I'm sure they're checking for any potential chemical or pollutant runoff as well. There's nothing wrong with them looking and making sure everything is good.

---

What chemical could be involved that would create run off?

---

I'm not sure, but we are talking about rocket science here. I assume there are some nasty chemicals involved with the manufacturing, launching, and operating the most powerful rocket in history. Again it doesn't hurt to make sure there are no unintended consequences of launching. No point in trashing the launch site just to get off the ground.

---

The 'nasty chemicals' are usually the hypergolics used for thrusters, but spacex decided not to use those for starship hoping to make it all simply methane and oxygen.

There's shockingly little toxic about the starship, in short, from a contamination perspective, certainly nothing that's going to linger about for years poisoning fish/turtles.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Yeah cause rain doesn't happen in the marsh, and the don't flop to different salinity levels all the time.

---

Rain over land is fresh water. Rain over seas/oceans is saltwater.

Duh...

Under the guise of the ESA, it is out of scope.

There aren't any salt dependent species that may be affected by additional freshwater.

But that's not under the ESA.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/permission-denied-for-reentry-of-vardas-orbiting-experiment-capsule/

Interesting that the FAA let this payload launch without re-entry approval. So now it orbits indefinitely with this company having to monitor it until the FAA decides they can re-enter. Note that there are many different landing sites around the world, and they don't have to land at UTTR.

The UTTR is an issue we also face as they recently decided they are only going to support government-based programs. We are planning on bringing back lunar samples in the future with a similar passive craft, but are having to look at other countries since the FAA is very restrictive for re-entry.

Unless you're China and you can de-orbit any garbage you want, whenever, wherever.

Hot staging ring removed from Booster 9. An interesting turn of events.https://t.co/e3xbqPnwZ5 pic.twitter.com/xXwyhzp9UG

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) September 21, 2023

📢Breaking space news!

🧬The NASA/ESA/CSA James #Webb Space Telescope has detected carbon dioxide on the surface of Jupiter's icy moon Europa.

🌊 Analysis indicates that this carbon likely originated in Europa’s subsurface ocean and was not delivered by other external sources. pic.twitter.com/PlYXj8pCqD

— ESA (@esa) September 21, 2023

Quote:

---

Planet Earth is about to receive a special delivery the biggest sample yet from an asteroid.
A NASA spacecraft will fly by Earth on Sunday and drop off what is expected to be at least a cupful of rubble it grabbed from the asteroid Bennu, closing out a seven-year quest.
The sample capsule will parachute into the Utah desert as its mothership, the Osiris-Rex spacecraft, zooms off for an encounter with another asteroid.

Scientists anticipate getting about a half pound (250 grams) of pebbles and dust, much more than the teaspoon or so brought back by Japan from two other asteroids. No other country has fetched pieces of asteroids, preserved time capsules from the dawn of our solar system that can help explain how Earth and life came to be.

Sunday's landing concludes a 4 billion-mile (6.2-billion-kilometer) journey highlighted by the rendezvous with the carbon-rich Bennu, a unique pogo stick-style touchdown and sample grab, a jammed lid that sent some of the stash spilling into space, and now the return of NASA's first asteroid samples.

---

https://apnews.com/article/nasa-asteroid-sample-return-utah-6f601c00773ccf8b89706b0fcf64d172

Wonder what gravity is like on Europa…

Google says estimated at 13% of earth's

I'm not an astrophysicist but I woulda figured Jupiter would add hella gravity to a small moon.

OnlyForNow said:

---

I'm not an astrophysicist but I woulda figured Jupiter would add hella gravity to a small moon.

---

Depends on the time of "day"

Based on it's orbit, I guess? Elliptical - ?

OnlyForNow said:

---

I'm not an astrophysicist but I woulda figured Jupiter would add hella gravity to a small moon.

---

Europa is fun because there are several objects exerting gravity on the moon in an ever changing system. The result is the icy surface gets pressured and cracked from the variable forces. 95 total moons around Jupiter, with the 4 gallilean moons being the most substantial. Jupiter and the 3 other gallilean moons are always pushing and pulling the surface in different directions, causing the fissures.

Those cracks are how scientists first realized there was likely an ocean under the ice and why scientists started looking for life on Europa to start.

For a while now, Europa and Enceladus (around Saturn) have been targets of interest for having large liquid oceans and at least under their icy surfaces, show the potential conditions for life.

OnlyForNow said:

---

Based on it's orbit, I guess? Elliptical - ?

---

Like the tidal forces on earth. If you're standing on the equator and Jupiter is overhead, your weight on Europa will be less. If Jupiter is on the other side of Europa your weight would be more.

Overviewing a number of the upgrades that will fly with the next flight of Starship.

Overview by Ryan Weber (@rweb11742)https://t.co/aqr6Ub8U2k

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) September 22, 2023