• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Should the FAA oversee the SpaceX program?

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,407
8,144
✟358,196.00
Faith
Atheist
It would seem to me that SpaceX should be overseen by NASA...
SpaceX and NASA have very different development philosophies - roughly, SpaceX learn from crashing complete assemblies, and NASA exhaustively ground tests all components in ever bigger combinations so they should (theoretically) almost never crash.

SpaceX's philosophy is much quicker and cheaper, despite the losses, and they learn more from real mission failures. As I understand it, NASA is considering being a little less anal & bureaucratic in their approach... ;)
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

rockytopva

Love to pray! :)
Site Supporter
Mar 6, 2011
20,850
8,085
.
Visit site
✟1,327,743.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Thankfully the SN10 was not damaged by the failures of her SN8 and SN9 sisters. It looks like the motors, I believe called raptors, help guide the spacecraft back to the landing pad. The wind seems to be a factor that is hard to deal with using only the raptors and flaps. NASA used parachutes (Apollo) or wings (shuttle) to guide the spacecraft back to earth. Do they need additional elevons? The video refers to these elevons as flaps and it seems an important part of guidance. It is always an amazing thing to see SpaceX land a booster using only engines, especially on boats!

Starship SN10's Raptors installed ahead of testing and refined landing attempt - NASASpaceFlight.com

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,816
6,375
Erewhon
Visit site
✟1,206,839.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0

rockytopva

Love to pray! :)
Site Supporter
Mar 6, 2011
20,850
8,085
.
Visit site
✟1,327,743.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
SpaceX lands three boosters. One at sea on their “Of course I still love you” landing barge.

Autonomous spaceport drone ship - Wikipedia


It looks like landing these spacecraft for reuse without parachutes can be a tough challenge and the safety of such operations is a concern for the FAA. Can they land the boosters safely every time?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,559
17,989
56
USA
✟464,946.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,407
8,144
✟358,196.00
Faith
Atheist
In looking over the videos of SN9 they simply came in too fast and they could have taken out SN10 in the process. I am wondering if a little downtime is not good as they need some re-engineering here.
One of the two Raptor engines failed to ignite properly (possible turbopump failure), so it lacked the thrust to prevent SN9 performing an unscheduled terrain-mediated disassembly...

Next time, they'll probably light all three Raptors so that they have redundancy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rockytopva
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,559
17,989
56
USA
✟464,946.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
One of the two Raptor engines failed to ignite properly (possible turbopump failure), so it lacked the thrust to prevent SN9 performing an unscheduled terrain-mediated disassembly...

Next time, they'll probably light all three Raptors so that they have redundancy.

I had the same thought. I don't know how things would work if they lit three and shut down one as unnecessary if all three lit. Of course they'd probably have to rework the landing software significantly to do that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rockytopva
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,407
8,144
✟358,196.00
Faith
Atheist
I had the same thought. I don't know how things would work if they lit three and shut down one as unnecessary if all three lit. Of course they'd probably have to rework the landing software significantly to do that...
Yes - when Elon Musk was asked why they didn't do that, he said: "We were too dumb". I think he was being serious rather than sarcastic.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,559
17,989
56
USA
✟464,946.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes - when Elon Musk was asked why they didn't do that, he said: "We were too dumb". I think he was being serious rather than sarcastic.

It seems like Elon Musk is trying to attract the attention of another federal 3-letter agency: the SEC. He keeps doing things that look like market manipulation. (Just recently with one cryptocurrency "Doge" and then yesterday announces, or rather admits as he must in a SEC filing, that Tesla has $1B in bitcoin.)

I used to think comic book supervillains and Bond villains were just fantasy, but it seems like Musk (and Bezos) are trying to persuade me otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,504
10,372
✟302,925.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yes - when Elon Musk was asked why they didn't do that, he said: "We were too dumb". I think he was being serious rather than sarcastic.
He has subsequently indicated that he was serious. The current intent is that all three rockets would be fired up, then - if all are functioning normally - one would be shut down. My understanding is that keeping all three firing would require they be throttled back so much that they would be in serious danger of flameout.
@Hans Blaster I don't think this would require a huge software update. They already have subroutines for switching individual motors on and off, such actions being determined by timing and sensed Staship "environment". I'm not saying it's an overnight alteration, but equally I doubt it would take weeks and months.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,504
10,372
✟302,925.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I used to think comic book supervillains and Bond villains were just fantasy, but it seems like Musk (and Bezos) are trying to persuade me otherwise.
But he does have a sense of humour. Until today I was unaware of his tunneling company, which he named the Boring Company.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,559
17,989
56
USA
✟464,946.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
But he does have a sense of humour. Until today I was unaware of his tunneling company, which he named the Boring Company.

Yeah, that's amusing. But...

Given that the HyperLoop is utter nonsense it makes me think... is he *really* trying to flood the San Andreas fault? (I'm just saying.)
 
Upvote 0