That was my recollection

Decay said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Will be curious if any changes for a revised booster bidet system for OLT2 @ BC vs. the first one.

---

I'm guessing nothing major... Did we get anything from OLT-2 in terms of damage to launch site? Wasn't it practically flawless?

---

I think the issue is the deluge system was basically designed around what was built already after the near-disaster that was OFT1. Plausibly, if starting all new they could work the piping/support/design a bit differently.

Decay said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Will be curious if any changes for a revised booster bidet system for OLT2 @ BC vs. the first one.

---

I'm guessing nothing major... Did we get anything from OLT-2 in terms of damage to launch site? Wasn't it practically flawless?

---

It was.

nortex97 said:

---

Decay said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Will be curious if any changes for a revised booster bidet system for OLT2 @ BC vs. the first one.

---

I'm guessing nothing major... Did we get anything from OLT-2 in terms of damage to launch site? Wasn't it practically flawless?

---

I think the issue is the deluge system was basically designed around what was built already after the near-disaster that was OFT1. Plausibly, if starting all new they could work the piping/support/design a bit differently.

---

Yeah while there's probably plenty to improve, it doesn't make sense to tear up the site to do so. Next tower, next tower, etc.

For now I assume they'll fire them off until they break something again.

Flight 3 vehicles on the pad at Starbase for testing ahead of Starship's next launch pic.twitter.com/caIuyE6kCj

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) December 18, 2023

That's what I mean. They are building a second tower now, but in place of the suborbital one.

I may have missed this...

The Starlink launch scheduled for Dec 28th will include 6 of the V2-mini versions with the direct to cell hardware.

They do need Starship to really get teh Starlink V2 satellites up in meaningful numbers due to their increased size, but the Direct to Cell is going to be huge. I believe T-Mobile is the first network to sign on, but apparently ANY LTE capable phone will be able to access the constellation if the carrier allows.

Is it this? An email I got:

Quote:

---

You're Invited!
Enjoy an opportunity to experience the next generation Starlink!

The next generation Starlink is slimmer and more portable, with a more elegant design than its predecessor. This Starlink Kit also includes our Gen 3 router with improved range and speeds.

The cost of the Starlink Standard kit is $599 + Tax and Shipping.
EARLY ACCESS SPECIAL OFFER:
Enjoy your first month of service on us!*

---

New Sheppard is launching in 6 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/live/QSzi1lHaqlQ?si=1PTXPlT-nArTjkyw

Success

Is it me or did the capsule land a little hard. The announcer lady mentioned retro thrusters at last second to land at 1-5 MPH but it seemed to hit at 15 MPH with no thrusters.

Right before impact you see the vertical speed drop to 1 MPH. Agree it looked rough though. Likely the thrusters throwing up dust.

V8Aggie said:

---

Right before impact you see the vertical speed drop to 1 MPH. Agree it looked rough though. Likely the thrusters throwing up dust.

---

Yep it usually looks rough.

Soyuz is similar.

lb3 said:

---

Soyuz is similar.

---

Unless it fails... You'll live, but going from no gravity to getting tossed around in a Soviet-era aluminum can will not feel great

Decay said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

Right before impact you see the vertical speed drop to 1 MPH. Agree it looked rough though. Likely the thrusters throwing up dust.

---

Yep it usually looks rough.

---

Yes it does. Seems like the ground would accomplish the same thing if the thrusters never fired.

Decay said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Soyuz is similar.

---

Unless it fails... You'll live, but going from no gravity to getting tossed around in a Soviet-era aluminum can will not feel great

---

I'm aware of several ballistic entries, a stuck service module, and an abort that roughed up some astronauts but have they ever had a retro rocket fail?

Soyuz 1 maybe?

GCRanger said:

---

Is it me or did the capsule land a little hard. The announcer lady mentioned retro thrusters at last second to land at 1-5 MPH but it seemed to hit at 15 MPH with no thrusters.

---

It always looks like it slams into the ground. It looked really hard when Shatner went up. But all that dust is the rockets firing at the last second giving it a soft landing.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Soyuz 1 maybe?

---

Soyuz 1 was parachute failure.

Didn't they just have one where the retro failed? Maybe I'm m misremembering.

The had one that had an issue after it had jettisoned it's Orbital module, but I can't remember the mission number. I swear Scott Manley talked about it at one point.

If I remember correctly they changed the order of operations after that, and now jettison the orbital module after the retro burn and separation, so if something goes wrong they could potentially make an emergency return to the ISS if retro fire fails( in you ditch the OM, it loses some of its rcs ability, and has no docking port)

That's always been an issue with soviet capsules as well. Vostok actually ejected, Voskhod couldn't because it was a2-3 man crew so they added inline breaking motors on the parachute lines. Soyuz has to fire retro rockets right before bump down( blue origin is also doing it that way).

I think the Nasa position has long term been that water landings are safer for that sort of reason for capsules. It's also why they had crew dragon shift to water landings too.

FH meanwhile won't be able to try again until the 28th:

Quote:

---

At this time the revised launch date for this mission carrying the X-37B is Dec. 28 7:00 PM EST (00:00 UTC on Dec. 29) giving us, once again, the prospect of a double header launch with a Falcon 9 also lifting off two hours later from the West coast.

This will be the fifth and final Falcon Heavy launch of the year, and the first time it has flown this secret spaceplane. It's the fourth flight for the X-37B Vehicle 2 itself, which previously flew on the OTV-2, OTV-4, and OTV-5 missions.

Its sibling Vehicle 1 is the craft that spent the record 908 days in orbit on OTV-6 but Vehicle 2 spent an impressive 779 days on OTV-5 and, to date, every mission has exceeded the length of its predecessor.
While details of its target destination are classified, we can surmise from the lack of a grey thermal protection stripe on the second stage that the mission is will not be inserting its payload into a geosynchronous orbit (which would require extra flight time and this stripe to help maintain propellant temperature), nor is it heading due east. One possibility is that it could be destined for a highly inclined, highly elliptical orbit.

Side boosters B1064-5 and B1065-5 will be supporting this mission and will both return for a landing at LZ-1 and LZ-2, while the center core B1084 will be expended. These side boosters are due to be expended on its next Falcon Heavy mission, Europa Clipper, next October.

---

SpaceX will also just miss their 100-launch goal for the year, shooting for 144 next year.

SpaceX is NOT messing around with this launch flow for the third flight. This is some test pace! https://t.co/n0v1EuishI

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) December 20, 2023

Haha they might be stacked and waiting on feds before the end of the year. I'm sure that's the goal.

Guys on LabPadre just mentioned they heard the static fire should be expected around noon central.

Prop loading. pic.twitter.com/5VhrFn7MeA

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) December 20, 2023

That sounded REALLY good

STATIC FIRE! Ship 28 conducts its Static Fire test at Starbase ahead of flight three of Starship.https://t.co/s7AWNe6LkA pic.twitter.com/gahRmP3cQw

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) December 20, 2023

I like this guy's optimism (no, I don't agree, I think early Feb is more likely).

December 28th 2023

— . (@Republican4USA) December 20, 2023

Ag_of_08 said:

---

The had one that had an issue after it had jettisoned it's Orbital module, but I can't remember the mission number. I swear Scott Manley talked about it at one point.

If I remember correctly they changed the order of operations after that, and now jettison the orbital module after the retro burn and separation, so if something goes wrong they could potentially make an emergency return to the ISS if retro fire fails( in you ditch the OM, it loses some of its rcs ability, and has no docking port)

---

I think we're talking different retros.

I thought we were discussing the one that is triggered by a whip or rod contacting the ground a meter or so before touchdown.

No one should be making launch date predictions until SpaceX has its customary tangle with the FAA first.

TexAgs91 said:

---

No one should be making launch date predictions until SpaceX has its customary tangle with the FAA first.

---

Debbie downer