Letting targets slip by two months because “why not play it safe?” is basically the difference between SpaceX and traditional aerospace.
I’m not suggesting management by aphorism. Move fast and break things is just as stupid as play it safe. You find that out as soon as you break something that isn’t easy to fix. Trying to save a couple of months when it could cost you the destruction of the launch facility and a much longer delay seems bad. Maybe they get lucky this time, idk. What I do know is I’ve seen this movie before.
ESA did a livestream from Mars today, kinda neat.
This probably won’t get the attention it deserves. It’s a huge achievement for India. Space is hard, as the Russians are rediscovering.
The animation was a little cheesy. I guess you gotta save money where you can, lol.
2 Likes
Space is hard, as the Russians are rediscovering.
And unforgiving.
What is untrue about Starship being stacked and on the launchpad ready for launch? It needs permission to actually launch which could take a while depending on the FAA report but that doesn’t make the sentence untrue.
Same dude saying it’s ready says there’s work to do.
Why would the notice to mariners be cancelled if they’re ready?
Surely they wouldn’t launch (again) without a working deluge?
We know Elon will launch without an ok from the FAA because he’s done it before but unless you uncritically accept what he says, it is not true that they’re ready for launch.
I think calling Starship ready to launch pending FAA approval is fine. I mean, it isn’t READY to launch, there’s no propellant in there or anything. But yeah, when approval is given, it’ll launch pretty shortly thereafter.
The headline is that the rocket is ready to launch which seems to be true. You sure the bias is not yours and coming from Musk being an idiot.
Ready to launch has always been used for rockets without fuel and without official permission or dates yet and that is no different here.
I quoted SpaceX fanboys saying they’re not ready. Propellant is loaded less than two hours before launch. If you guys really think that’s the same as two weeks then 1-2 months is the same as five and all of Elon’s BS projections (6? since 4/20) are fine too. That’s bias.
I’ve worked on many static tests of analog rockets and a few production rockets. If I told my boss we were ready to go, that might mean we would hold off while he drove up to the site to watch before we locked the gates. He would be justifiably pissed if I told him we were ready then he found out I meant tomorrow or maybe the next day.
I’ll be somewhat confident they’re really ready when Elon starts crying that the FAA is holding them up (though ofc that won’t come up if the FAA is in the tank for him).
None of the things you quoted is about the rocket being ready or not which is what the headline is about. The rocket past all its tests, it is stacked and ready to launch. This is true as far as I can tell especially because you wouldn’t put a rocket on the launching pad if it is not true. That is all there is in the headline you say is untrue. That they are not ready to actually launch is well know unless they ignore the FAA which I doubt even Musk will do for a rocket this size.
You’re really stretching to see something here. Starship hit an important pre-launch milestone, so he wrote an article about it. Then FAA released a kind of bearish statement about the launch approval, so he reported on that as well.
Berger is a pretty reliable source on space news. Not really sure why you’re casting aspersions on his reporting to defend SLS of all things. (I mean, if your problem with Starship is schedule delays, make sure you’re sitting down when you read about SLS.) The piece that was linked is basically a straight write-up of a government report.
FAA closes SpaceX Starship mishap investigation
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 corrective actions SpaceX must take to prevent mishap reoccurrence. Corrective actions include redesigns of vehicle hardware to prevent leaks and fires, redesign of the launch pad to increase its robustness, incorporation of additional reviews in the design process, additional analysis and testing of safety critical systems and components including the Autonomous Flight Safety System, and the application of additional change control practices.
The closure of the mishap investigation does not signal an immediate resumption of Starship launches at Boca Chica. SpaceX must implement all corrective actions that impact public safety and apply for and receive a license modification from the FAA that addresses all safety, environmental and other applicable regulatory requirements prior to the next Starship launch.
2 Likes
If on 4/21/23 SpaceX had plopped down a booster + Starship in the crater they carved out the day before and an ARS headline announced “Starship is stacked and ready to make its second launch attempt”, that would have been accurate? The fact that months of work remained to be done wouldn’t matter? No reservations at all? Come on.
The rocket past all its tests, it is stacked and ready to launch.
Except for what Elon said, you have no way of knowing this. The FAA statement today (see otatop’s post) with the rocket on the pad and ready to go, according to Elon and the ARS headline, implies there could be more to do than just saying LGTM before approving a launch. If SpaceX had already implemented “all corrective actions that impact public safety”, wouldn’t they have let the FAA know this?
This is true as far as I can tell especially because you wouldn’t put a rocket on the launching pad if it is not true.
That’s an assumption. Even if you insist on considering just the rocket, just being on the pad doesn’t necessarily make it ready to fuel and go. One question people had was about the flight termination system. They didn’t think it had been placed and de-stacking might be required to install and arm it. Is that true? I don’t know.
It’s not a stretch to say Berger is biased. He’s had years of access to SpaceX/Musk that you don’t get if you’re not flattering Elon.
The piece that was linked is basically a straight write-up of a government report.
I don’t think “$L$” was in the GAO report. SLS costs are what they are because of history and politics. Its affordability is ultimately up to Congress. If they choose to cancel it, that’s fine by me. Conveniently enough for Elon, it would leave just one alternative. My problem, our problem, is Elon.
But like, that didn’t happen. Instead, they fixed the crater, implemented and installed a new deluge system and flame diverter (and fixed a bunch of other Stage 0 stuff), performed a bunch of ground support tests, performed spin prime and static fire tests, etc. Now, it’s stacked and pretty much ready to go pending the FAA approval. Not even sure what we’re squabbling about tbh.
Elon sucks, Elon lies, Elon is a danger to humanity, but Starship is ready to fly again in the near future.
It’s a dumb semantic thing.
pretty much ready to go
If the headline said “pretty much” that would be one thing, but it doesn’t. What it does say is evidently untrue imo. If you poll SpaceX engineers and techs who regularly get their hands dirty as to whether Starship is “ready to make its second launch attempt”, I think they take my side.