Apparently B4/S20 are never going to fly. I was hoping they would beat SLS to orbit…
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
B4/S20 test flight from Texas to Hawaii isn't orbital.
Are they skipping suborbital?
I don't think the mission parameters have changed. They're just calling orbital velocity "Orbital" even though it's going to do less than one orbit.
Last I read the orbital/sub-orbital nature of the first scheduled test was debatable. It was never going to orbit, but I do think it was going to attain an orbital altitude and orbital speed, but then reenter shortly thereafter.
Ah. Yep. The TX-HI FCC filing and last year's articles all called it orbital test flight.
I’ve thought about that as well. But obviously I’m not a rocket scientist — and neither is Tim Dodd — and the SpaceXers know what they’re doing.
So B7 has been rolled out to the launch area but without engines or grid fins (in this photo, B7 is on the right, B4 on the left). Apparently it will be placed on the new “can crusher” thrust simulator test stand (moved to the launch area on March 22nd) and pressure tested. If it survives those tests I assume R2 engines and fins will be installed and that will have to be done in the High Bay. Though maybe not…
Very informative video on all the latest changes to Starship and Super Heavy. It’s amazing to see how much hardware SpaceX is building and discarding as the vehicle designs evolve.
https://youtu.be/G4ebfRG16nM
https://youtu.be/G4ebfRG16nM
That’s one way to look at it. Another way is that they just haven’t nailed down their plans yet.
Data to support something optional the company wants to do is not equivalent nor comparable to data for regulator oversight of existing operations.
SpaceX has no obligation to build phase 2, so there is no 'wrongness' in not providing the data to continue that process.
@Cosmacelf If SpaceX didn't know what they were going to do and were just wasting time, they should pull the permit request. It ties up the Corps for no reason and just creates ill will. Like blaming gigafactory delay on german govt when it turns out that tesla had not submitted paperwork for months and months and in fact were not interested in receiving permission to operate because...they had no chips or batteries which was the actual reason for delay. Instead they blamed regulators and the same regulators got pissed.
It's a pattern. SpaceX is indeed not ready for some reason. The Corps is expressing displeasure by making this public. At this point I'll be surprised if starship ever does anything more than a test launch from TX. It's not that there is any obligation, I don't even understand what you mean by that @mongo . SpaceX started a process. They failed, repeatedly, to deliver paperwork on an as needed basis. Now one review agency has suspended the permit process. It's just that if they had no plans to submit the paperwork they should have notified the Corps beforehand. There are resources allocated to that review process. They could have been doing other projects. Somewhere else in the USA something could have moved forward faster and at lower costs. It's a bad pattern that is developing. LIke ignoring FAA on a test flight and then having them crawl up and down your processes and cause more delay than if you had just waited for the slow beast to move as congress intended.
It's a pattern. SpaceX is indeed not ready for some reason. The Corps is expressing displeasure by making this public. At this point I'll be surprised if starship ever does anything more than a test launch from TX. It's not that there is any obligation, I don't even understand what you mean by that @mongo . SpaceX started a process. They failed, repeatedly, to deliver paperwork on an as needed basis. Now one review agency has suspended the permit process. It's just that if they had no plans to submit the paperwork they should have notified the Corps beforehand. There are resources allocated to that review process. They could have been doing other projects. Somewhere else in the USA something could have moved forward faster and at lower costs. It's a bad pattern that is developing. LIke ignoring FAA on a test flight and then having them crawl up and down your processes and cause more delay than if you had just waited for the slow beast to move as congress intended.
You appeared to made some allusion to ElonCo not giving regulators requested info "once again" which seemed to conflate externally and internally driven requirements.
Directly telling the Corp that phase 2 is back burnered is nice (more so if completely cancelled and Corp was actively working), but it's not like resources were tied up if they were merely waiting for SpaceX (unless their scheduling/ labor planning system is poor). Corp is supervising, not driving, the project.
Do step X
Request Data B
Pause activity on project while waiting for data
Do step Y
If the Corp had things they could be doing instead, they were.
Given phase 1 is not yet useable due to lack of FAA approval, it is completely sensible not to expend effort on getting phase 2 as far as possible. Further, the progression of Canveral could be seen as a posiible "No Action Plan" which increases the scrutiny of any plan impacting thr Boca wetlands. i.e. the need for phase 2 is reduced.
Army Corps of Engineers closes SpaceX Starbase permit application citing lack of information
SpaceX: Dec 2020: we're thinking of expanding into wetlands
Corp: May 2021: ok, here's feedback, please address mitigation and necessity
SpaceX: October 2021: here's some more info
SpaceX to public: February 2022: we're going to add second site in FL, will move there if Boca (phase 1 launch) not approved
Corp: March 2022: well that changes things (phase 2 potentially becomes optional), We need more info and are closing the application
Not inside the corps but have been inside regulators and a spacex review would be a good sized project and would tie up resources and you wouldn't have them dive into another project if they had to do this review. As part of my previous life setting up and designing corp legal teams and IG compliance systems I would say this is not how to manage a relationship with the regulator if you wanted to minimize disruptions. Just as with the FAA or Germany with Tesla, etc.
The corps asked for data almost a year ago and the all the data was not submitted. The Corps is not shutting things down because SpaceX tells the public something, that's conflating: what spacex has started as a process and what they communicate to the outside world. This, in fact, is the problem. They should have notified the Corps that plans had changed, its a formal notification process, it would not have resulted in that notification. That notification is a statement by the Corps to SpaceX that you wasted our time. Which, knowing people there, means that the next application will be handled accordingly ( they don't have great lives, the organization sucks, they can be very petty because there is not much they can do).
SpaceX: here is a permit application.
Corps- oh you've submitted a permit. How nice. We'll get right to work, quick question; do you plan to walk away from this one leaving our review team in limbo and not notify us or do you actually plan to work on it?
SpaceX: Oh it's critical
Corps: How nice, we have a new intern that will head this up...he's currently in Alaska reviewing a septic field expansion but will be back before the end of the year. Lets see if we can't schedule your initial review for say...14months out.
Yeah, pissing on your regulator is a great business idea. It worked great with the spacex & FAA. Who here thought the FAA was going to approve TX for starship launch's? I thought it a longshot after that unauthorized test.
On April 6:
April 7th just talked about the Corp shelving the permit for expansion. Claims that impacts phase 1.
Similar threads
- Article
