Space and Science BS Thread

They’ve hit a bit of a bad stretch with the Ship. I’m thinking it’s instant karma for EM being the biggest ______ in human history.

 

Some speculation that it's because they've identified the failure mode of the past two launches without a RUD.

 

Or maybe just a teeny one. It would sure beat another round of rerouted and delayed flights brought on by raining ship debris if they can figure it out on the ground but the only way we’ll know is when flight 9 happens. It’s not unlikely that those ship RUD’s were the consequence of successive failures.

 

Dear Interested Party:


The FAA is announcing the availability of the Final Tiered Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) for the SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle Increased Cadence at the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas (Final Tiered EA and Mitigated FONSI/ROD).


Under the Proposed Action addressed in the Final Tiered EA, the FAA would modify SpaceX’s existing vehicle operator license to authorize:

• Up to 25 annual Starship/Super Heavy orbital launches, including:
• Up to 25 annual landings of Starship (Second stage)
• Up to 25 annual landings of Super Heavy (First stage)

The Final Tiered EA also addressed vehicle upgrades.



The FAA previously released the Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment for the SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle Increased Cadence at the Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas (Draft EA) for public review and comment on July 29, 2024. The FAA released the Revised Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment for the SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle Increased Cadence at the Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas (Revised Draft EA) for public review and comment on November 20, 2024. The FAA held two in-person meetings on January 7, 2025, in Brownsville, Texas and one virtual meeting on January 13, 2025. All comments received on the Draft EA between July 29 and August 29, 2024, as well as the Revised Draft EA between November 20, 2024, and January 17, 2025, were given equal weight and taken into consideration.


The Final Tiered EA and Mitigated FONSI/ROD are available for public review and download at: https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship


For any media inquiries, please contact the FAA Press Office at pressoffice@faa.gov.


Thank you,

The FAA SpaceX Boca Chica Project Team

 

Saw this on Lego... Ironic.

https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/nasa-artemis-space-launch-system-10341

 

If it sold Elon would buy the company, cancel the toy and have them only make Spacex rockets and Martian diorama outposts.

 

https://youtube.com/shorts/64CtHNFp2rs

Looks like it should come back to earth either tomorrow or the next day.

 

Surprising they can’t get an accurate reentry time and location. It’s not sneaking up on anyone.

 

Would’ve been awesome if they built it to 1:110 scale….

 

Good stuff, thanks Weesa

John Young was quite the character. Many accomplishments including being the first, and maybe only astronaut, to smuggle a corned beef sandwich during a mission.

 

That sandwich went over with the brass in Houston and Canaveral about as well as Shepard's golf balls and 6 Iron tool head did!

 

I wonder if they could use some version of the LIFE module for orbital refueling along with a JWST like parasol or solar panels to shade it from solar radiation and minimize boil off. Both can be collapsed into small enough sizes to fit F9 fairings and instead of maneuvering 2 large vessels to dock the ship establishes a parking orbit under and in the shade of the depot while an ROV or Canada arm establishes the actual docking of the QD. The depot and ship could be aligned with the poles and slowly rotate to maintain the shade while in daylight. It would be the earth rotating under it but to us it would seem to rotate. Controlled heating would provide the ullage pressure to both inflate the fuel cells and pump the fuel back to a ship. Other cells could resupply other consumable gases by mounting them along a fuels rail extended as necessary along with shading & panels. Pumps could be added to stabilize flow on the night side or by using other stored gas pressure.

 

Somebody said fairings

 

Have you seen the 'refueling' demo on the ISS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hvv2AfIhM ; forward to 4:39 if you want to skip astronaut shenanigans and go straight to the refueling bits. No pumps needed, or bladders, just a touch of rotation and a fuel pickup at the bottom, plus small amounts of ullage pressure in the tank that's being emptied. Rotation settles the tank and the pressure plus a bottom fuel pickup is sufficient to transfer fluids.

...

Preliminary notices to airmen/mariners of possible Starship Test 9 NET May 21. Also reused super heavy on that launch.

 

Sure, they could do it with a ship and certainly will at first. I expect some form of shade would help even there.
I like bladders because they avoid having head space over the liquid so when it’s time to fuel the HLS there won’t be a need to spin at all. They can be sent up on any current medium lift rocket while easily expanding capacity so development/deployment doesn’t have to wait on a Starship with the appropriate cargo bay. With that expanded capacity inertia becomes more of an issue when your talking about refueling dozens or hundreds of ships and spinning becomes less attractive. Shade means your not venting so much for 1/2 of every orbit. Neat test but no heat lamp for the sun. Ullage is the means to move the fuel but spinning isn’t the only way to control slosh. Long term they’ll have to have something better for storing lots of fuels for long periods.

 

Bladders that can handle long periods at cryogenic temperatures and don't take up significant mass are not exactly COTS, compared to having a sump at the right spot. Now obviously there would be cooling between fuel transfers, possibly even a shade (or just pointing the vehicle the right way so that the tanks don't get hit with sun) And for a depot-ship, you're more likely to go with some sort of cryocooling than dumping overboard anyway. Oh, and 'depot-ship' could just be a ship with a bit of extra cladding all around, don't actually need much cargo (besides, say, the cryocooler, some deployable shades, and solar panels).

 

You’re no fun at all. A single ship can only fuel one outbound vessel. We’ll need something scalable that can handle many more so try again.

 

It seems they are more concerned with having both BQD’s as close to opposite the tower than the effect of one of them being centered on a flame trench since they both could have been on the gantry side at either end. I wonder if the more exposed QD will have any additional shielding or deluge nozzles below it. It makes sense to keep it as far from the direct exhaust that kept roasting the pad A BQD as it angles away to/from the tower but it introduces some other complications.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/16/science/space/ed-smylie-dead.html

He led the team that got the Apollo 13 crew to survive in the LM.