Space and Science BS Thread

https://twitter.com/airandspace/status/1687880535161319424?s=46

 

Not a lot to see between the firex and deluge. You could tell there was a very brief static fire but not how many engines. I hope Spacex provides an overhead view like they did for the ship 25 test but even that might not show much. I’ll guess it was also a very limited number of engines. There has to be a lot more data with each of these tests but I wonder if they’ll go through all of it before the next test or just bank it in case an anomaly crops up and they need to dive deep to explain it.

 

According to Spacex they were going for 33 but 4 shut down prematurely. If that’s the case then even the brief ignition seemed pretty well absorbed. So much so that the initial ignition was only briefly visible.

 

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1688294107721121792?s=46

It’s almost like they have flame trenches..

Also, according to NSF, they were going for 5 seconds but stopped at 3


Here’s the SpaceX presentation narrated by John Insbrucker:
https://www.youtube.com/live/PHxKhpFUOuo?feature=share
https://twitter.com/spacepadreisle/status/1688291613175336960?s=46

 

In any case it was a far cry from the dust and debris plumes of prior SF’s.

 

https://twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1688382662006689792?s=46

 

The F9 boosters always looks so small and skinny on the pad. Until you see them being pulled down the highway by a semi!

 

SMH…
https://twitter.com/byericmjohnson/status/1688528025334538241?s=46

 

Perhaps it's just my imagination, but it appears they lack any sense of urgency.

 

I’m surprised they haven’t scrapped the whole program at this point. Cut their losses. Unless, of course, they’re covertly getting their ‘losses’ covered.

 

https://twitter.com/nasa_gateway/status/1688573719218692096?s=46

 

Agree. They're hemorrhaging money on this and the competition is so far ahead that they've "lost". So either pull up until the plug is pulled or they're getting funding behind the scenes or artificially inflating the numbers in other DoD programs to cover the loses.

I feel for Barry Wilmore & Sunita Williams

 

Like Jack and the Giants broomstick.

 

It could also be the case that this contract was so fat they initially buried losses from other contracts in it inflating the initial costs of this one, who knows? Legal wrangling probably got dumped in. The opportunity cost of quitting at this point would be hard to estimate since awarding future contracts takes into account (or is supposed to) past performance. We know NASA doesn’t want them to fail but not what proportion of carrot and stick they are willing to use.

 

They’re taking and reporting regular charges against revenues for the costs associated with the Starliner program. Add to that the lost revenues and any penalties for failure to deliver services and you’ll end up with a ballpark figure…

 

If you trust their bookkeeping. And the more it looks like failing the less I trust it. This is their first go without cost plus funding. I don’t imagine that they’re used to operating in a new way.

 

Amateur historian here but I don’t recall reading about hardware delays during the Apollo Program.

They essentially had to start from scratch to land men on the moon within 7 years, 3 months and approximately 2 weeks from Kennedy’s speech.

Starting from scratch meant building everything needing to succeed. Knowledge, facilities, skills….

So with that intro, has any rocket been built & operational since then?
https://twitter.com/andrewparsonson/status/1688854977668616192?s=46
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1688948189225746432?s=46

 

SpX’s openness is remarkable:
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1688957168073281536?s=46

 

Any pictures of the pad, post firing?

 

Anyone have the skinny on the recent Starlink launches containing 22 then 15 satellites? I understand they’re v2s but why the difference? TIA


@Pixeltim , I haven’t seen any reports of Stage 0 condition after the static fire. I’ll post here if I do.