InvariantCapitalist Ars Centurion
1y
985
Subscriptor

gsgrego said:
People keep praising Elon for stuff.

Name 2 things he has personally done besides fund SpaceX and then hire competent people who don't do what he suggests?

Tom Meuller, the greatest living rocket engine designer, says that Elon led every key engineering decision at SpaceX while he was there, and just tweeted yesterday about the meeting he was in where Elon told the lead engineers that he was going to optimize SuperHeavy by removing the mass of landing legs and catch it with the tower to greatly accelerate launch turnaround times. Their jaws dropped.

Now he probably got the idea from someone else, but the important thing is that he recognized a great idea and made it a priority. Just as he did when he pushed Tom for changes to make Merlin more easily reusable (in 2007!!!), demanded they attempt hypersonic flybacks and landings of F9 boosters when parachutes failed, switched to stainless steel Starship design from carbon fiber ITS design for their next generation launch system.

He's not just a checkbook, he believes fully in first principles thinking and reducing complexity to an almost religious level and clearly signs off on every major engineering decision at all his companies. You can see this across SpaceX and Tesla, for example the Tesla Cybercab without physical controls, back seats or charging connector is so Elon. It remains to be seen how long it will take to actually ship (Elon Time) and whether those compromises will turn out to be brilliant or CyberTruck level mistakes. //

InvariantCapitalist Ars Centurion
1y
985
Subscriptor

fancysunrise said:
It is possible and my position even on Musk is not black and white. But in general, he is not one of those people. And it isn't juwst about his bad behavior. It's because he's a clown.

And yes, I've read Berger's book. Actually just made a comment on that the other day in different discussion... With all due respect to the author, I don't really agree with it from what I can discern from it and other sources and my own connections to SpaceX. To your bullets: He started the company - read:funded - but is not responsible for its engineering. He was introduced to a guy who had ideas and lacked money. Money guy meets (and manipulates, often) idea guy is not exactly a novel trope in fiction or real life.

Basically you toss out any citations that conflict with your previous opinion on musk. Sure he's an internet troll. But there are also a long list of prestigious space engineers from SpaceX to NASA to others including Jim Cantrell, Robert Zubrin, Tom Meuller, and Michael Griffin who say Elon has studied rocket engineering intensely, understands it deeply and signs off or leads all major engineering decisions at SpaceX.

fancysunrise said:
The desire to build a reusable system - including one that looks like the present effort - is not his and not new. The funding push to get it done is, but even that is not exclusive to SpaceX. They're just the best funded. Where he has inserted himself into decision making, it's turned out poorly -- e.g. Berger's own example to somehow illustrate the contrary with guides in the Falcon hull to prevent slosh resulting in RUD. Musk is not a scientist or engineer. He wants attention. If he can get it by pushing for something positive, that's fine. If he has to be destructive to get it, that's also fine, whether with the aerospace industry, his workers, investors, laws and the environment or anyone and anything else. Either way, he's always dishonest. We don't need to look at antics around submarines in southeast Asia or the war in Ukraine or "X" or investment fraud or disowning his own child out of spite or awkward jumping on stage and fawning of fascists to get more money and power or any of the rest of it to comment on his role in the space industry. Same way we aren't forbidden from discussing Von Braun's historic role in space just because he was a fascist (or "merely" complicit, if we are overly generous to some disingenuous apologists, who are very wrong) -- we can talk about his engineering chops and decisions and the consequences for better or worse (and it goes both ways with him as well) before and after the war. But Musk is not like Von Braun, because again, Musk is not the "idea guy". Musk is a rich clown who wants attention, and it shows.

Again just because you hate him for his abundant personal sins doesn't change the facts, Elon is rich because he's an idea guy first and has pursued first principles thinking in everything he's done, and has never shied away from gambling his entire net worth on his ideas. It would be as crazy as claiming Von Braun wasn't a brilliant rocket engineer because of his Nazi and SS memberships.

SpaceX: "Small-but-meaningful updates" can boost speed from about 100Mbps to 1Gbps.

Americans started their Sunday morning this week celebrating the fantastic accomplishment of the SpaceX team’s fifth Starship test launch, as the spacecraft’s 232-foot Falcon Super Heavy booster rocket returned to the launchpad and was “caught” by a pair of enormous mechanical arms nicknamed “Mechazilla.” //

John LeFevre @JohnLeFevre
·
The SpaceX Starship team that sent a skyscraper into space, and then caught it with giant chopsticks.

Meanwhile, Boeing's space program has 50,000 employees and stranded 2 astronauts in space.

But, at least they received a 100% DEI rating and the designation of “2022 Best… Show more
3:48 PM · Oct 13, 2024 //

This catch was one short moment for SpaceX and one critical moment for Americans. //

Unfortunately for SpaceX, part of its operations involves contending with innovation-killing bureaucrats, this time at the California Coastal Commission.

Apparently, they have denied permits to the company because commission members are unhappy with CEO Elon Musk’s comments on “X.”

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
Incredibly inappropriate. What I post on this platform has nothing to do with a “coastal commission” in California!

Filing suit against them on Monday for violating the First Amendment.

The Rabbit Hole @TheRabbitHole84
This is Political Discrimination
"California officials cite Elon Musk's politics in rejecting SpaceX launches"
1:52 AM · Oct 13, 2024. //

TargaGTS in reply to Sanddog. | October 13, 2024 at 8:41 pm
It’s at moments like this – pure Marxism on display in Kalifornia – to remind people that before Reagan signed the 1986 Amnesty Act, California was a reasonably reliable RED state, only voting for the Democrat presidential nominee a handful of times in the 20th century. They had 13 GOP governors and only THREE DNC governors in the 86-years of the 20th century, prior to passing that act. Then, in 1992 – the first year those who received amnesty were becoming eligible to vote – California only voted for DNC president & senators and eventually governors. Now, it’s tone off the most reliably blue state in the Union.

Illegal immigration is the Kryptonite to limited-government.

I'm over the left pretending like it cares about the human race when it consistently exhibits a disdain and sometimes hostile attitude toward it. All the venerated minds that the left holds in high regard, seem to think that humanity is killing the planet, chiding and lecturing us about our use of fossil fuels and claiming we've stolen the hopes and dreams of future generations. //

As Susie Moore reported on Sunday, Elon Musk and SpaceX are making huge advancements all the time, bringing humanity closer and closer to being a space-faring species. In an incredible display of technological advancement, SpaceX was able to catch a Super Heavy booster with "Mechazilla" arms. An engineering feat that will go down in history as one of the greatest achievements in space travel. //

Of course, there are people out there who are so shortsighted, they see these advancements as negatives. They see it as billionaires wasting money that could be used for other things like feeding the hungry, saying that if the world does end, then the only people who will be able to leave are the billionaires building these rockets.

Dr. Grouf @DGrouf
·
Government efficiency to billionaires it means taking from the poor and enriching the wealthy and their servants, which is what this sob is going to do, people keep getting poorer while these b@stards keep building their net worths and wasting societal wealth on flying rockets.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
I hope I am able to serve the people in this regard. It is sorely needed.
10:37 AM · Oct 14, 2024 //

Sci-fi author Devon Erikson put it beautifully in his post on X:

Devon Eriksen @DevonEriksen
·
This is what will matter 1000 years from now.

Not your politics. Not your stupid tantrums about who platformed who on some website. Not your incomprehensible desire to send NASA's entire budget to the third world.

This guy reignited the Space Age.

He spent his own money,… Show more

Instead of fighting over little patches of land, we will have an infinite 3d volume. Enclose it in steel, pump it full of air, spin it, and it's a habitat. Instead of scratching tiny scraps of metal out of the crust of one planet, we will break down entire asteroids and smelt them. Instead of drilling for hydrocarbons and turning water wheels, we will harness entire suns, split the atom, and eventually draw our fuel from the substance that makes up 99% of the entire universe. None of your local, temporal Earth politics matter compared to this. This is more important than pride parades and abortions, more important than tribal conflicts in eastern Europe and southwest Asia, more important than tensions with Russia and China. //

If the left truly cares about people like they say, or pretend they do, then with every successful advancement, every launched rocket, every person sent to space by a private company, they would whoop and cheer... but they aren't. It should make the left's ideological foundations morally suspect.

The FCC’s war on Musk may have contributed to Helene’s death toll, which is already at 138 Americans across six states, with many hundreds still missing. //

Among the serious problems facing rural victims is an inability to communicate with potential rescuers as roads are washed out, telecommunications are down, electricity is out, and people are facing fatal flooding.

It didn’t have to be this way.

In 2020, the Federal Communications Commission awarded Musk’s Starlink an $885.5 million award to help get broadband access to 642,000 rural homes and businesses in 35 states. A subsidiary of SpaceX, Starlink is a satellite internet system delivering high-speed internet to anyone on the planet. The plan would work out to less than $1,400 per linkup, same-day delivery of the necessary hardware, and only a few hours to get up and running.

Some 19,552 households and businesses in North Carolina would have had access to Starlink if they desired. Of the 21 worst-hit counties in North Carolina, the FCC-funded Starlink program would have served all or part of 17 of them, according to multiple officials. The FCC suddenly canceled that grant in 2022, a few months before Joe Biden suggested that the federal government find ways to go after Musk, a former Democrat who began criticizing some of the Democrat Party’s support of censorship of and lawfare against political opponents. After a challenge from SpaceX, the FCC reaffirmed its decision to cancel the award in 2023. //

The National Labor Relations Board went after Tesla over its dress code. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are also investigating Musk and his companies. //

Joe Biden named Kamala Harris the Broadband Czar in April 2021 and placed her in charge of a $100 billion slush fund for broadband projects. At the Commerce Department, a $42.5 billion subset of that program was launched in 2021, with guidance written to limit the ability of Starlink to compete for contracts. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program was supposed to fund programs in all 50 states. It has been a complete failure.

More than three years later, not a single rural American family or business has been connected to broadband through the program. At best the groundwork will begin four years after the launch and won’t finish until 2030 at the earliest. For that much taxpayer money, Starlink could be provided to 140 million people, and without the wait, observers noted.

The FCC’s anti-Musk efforts come at the same time that the Democrat-run agency fast-tracked a shocking application by a group backed by the Democrat Soros family to purchase more than 200 radio stations across the country.

The space suits worn during SpaceX’s Polaris Dawn mission are a sci-fi reimagining of NASA’s classic marshmallow suits. There’s a good reason why they look so different.

SpaceX allegedly used an “unapproved launch control room” and “did not conduct the required T-2 hour poll” for the June 2023 Falcon 9 flight for the PSN SATRA Mission, which involved launching an Indonesian communication satellite. In July, SpaceX then allegedly used an unapproved, newly constructed “rocket propellant farm,” or a specialized facility to fuel the EchoStar XXIV/Jupiter mission. SpaceX now has 30 days to respond to the civil penalty.

The proposed fine is raising speculation that the FAA wants to get tough with SpaceX, which is also facing allegations that it violated environmental regulations with Starship rocket launches. Last month, a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket also failed to stick its landing, resulting in a fiery explosion. It's unclear what caused the malfunction, but the FAA has cleared the company to continue Falcon 9 flights in the interim. //

Last week, SpaceX also blasted US government regulations for pushing back the next launch of Starship to possibly late November when the vehicle is ready to fly for its next test. “The narrative that we operate free of, or in defiance of, environmental regulation is demonstrably false,” the company said at the time.

In response, the FAA told PCMag it's conducting a more in-depth review of the next Starship flight due to changes made by SpaceX. "In addition, SpaceX submitted new information in mid-August detailing how the environmental impact of Flight 5 will cover a larger area than previously reviewed. This requires the FAA to consult with other agencies," the agency said.

In February 2023, the FAA also fined SpaceX $175,000 for failing to submit pre-launch data to the agency for an earlier Starlink mission. SpaceX later paid the fine in October 2023.

In mid-November 2023, a disastrous SpaceX launch, which saw the explosion of not one but two rockets, offered a rare opportunity to study the effects of such phenomena on the ionosphere.
A study by Russian scientists revealed how this explosion temporarily blew open a hole in the ionosphere stretching from the Yucatan to the southeastern U.S.
Although far from the first rocket-induced disturbance in the ionosphere, this is one of the first explosive events in the ionosphere to be extensively studied. //

November 18, 2023, wasn’t a great day for the commercial spaceflight company SpaceX. While testing its stainless steel-clad Starship, designed to be the company’s chariot to Mars, the spacecraft exploded four minutes after liftoff over the skies of Boca Chica, Texas. //

This new study confirms that the ionosphere experienced a “large-amplitude total electron content depletion,” likely reinforced by a fuel exhaust impact of the Super Heavy rocket engine, which also exploded a little more than a minute earlier at lower altitude once it separated from the Starship. The research team collected this data from 2,500 ground stations scattered across North America and the Caribbean and found that the hole extended largely from Mexico’s Yucatán peninsula and the southeastern U.S., though the exact size of the hole is unknown. //

scientists report that this Starship-induced ion hole caused by “catastrophic phenomena” closed up after 30 or 40 minutes. But these kinds of interactions are still poorly understood, and that’s concerning considering how central the ionosphere is to global technologies—not to mention human health.

It's unlikely Boeing can fly all six of its Starliner missions before retirement of the ISS in 2030. //

Ten years ago next month, NASA announced that Boeing, one of the agency's most experienced contractors, won the lion's share of government money available to end the agency's sole reliance on Russia to ferry its astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit.

At the time, Boeing won $4.2 billion from NASA to complete the development of the Starliner spacecraft and fly a minimum of two, and potentially up to six, operational crew flights to rotate crews between Earth and the International Space Station (ISS). SpaceX won a $2.6 billion contract for essentially the same scope of work.

A decade later, the Starliner program finds itself at a crossroads after Boeing learned it will not complete the spacecraft's first Crew Flight Test with astronauts onboard. NASA formally decided Saturday that Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, who launched on the Starliner capsule on June 5, will instead return to Earth in a SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft. Put simply, NASA isn't confident enough in Boeing's spacecraft after it suffered multiple thruster failures and helium leaks on the way to the ISS. //

On Saturday, senior NASA leaders decided it wasn't worth the risk. The two astronauts, who originally planned for an eight-day stay at the station, will now spend eight months on the orbiting research lab until they come back to Earth with SpaceX. //

So why did NASA and Boeing engineers reach different conclusions? "I think we’re looking at the data, and we view the data and the uncertainty that’s there differently than Boeing does," said Jim Free, NASA's associate administrator and the agency's most senior civil servant. "It’s not a matter of trust. It’s our technical expertise and our experience that we have to balance. We balance risk across everything, not just Starliner."

The people at the top of NASA's decision-making tree have either flown in space before or had front-row seats to the calamitous decision NASA made in 2003 to not seek more data on the condition of Space Shuttle Columbia's left wing after the impact of a block of foam from the shuttle's fuel tank during launch. //

Now, it seems that culture may truly have changed. With SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft available to give Wilmore and Williams a ride home, the decision was relatively straightforward. Ken Bowersox, head of NASA's space operations mission directorate, said the managers polled for their opinion all supported bringing the Starliner spacecraft back to Earth without anyone onboard.

However, NASA and Boeing need to answer for how the Starliner program got to this point. //

SpaceX, which NASA has tapped to rescue the Starliner crew, has now launched eight operational long-duration crew missions to the International Space Station to date, plus an initial piloted test flight of the Dragon spacecraft in 2020 and several more fully private human spaceflight missions. SpaceX has finished all of its work in its initial commercial crew contract with NASA and is now working off of an extended contract to carry the program through 2030, the planned retirement date for the ISS. //

Right now, the prime route is through SpaceX. NASA continues to fly one astronaut on each Russian Soyuz spacecraft in exchange for a seat for a Russian cosmonaut on each SpaceX crew mission. //

Assuming the investigation doesn't uncover any additional problems and NASA and Boeing return Starliner to flight with astronauts in 2026, there will not be enough time left in the space station's remaining life—as it stands today—for Starliner to fly all six of its contracted missions at a rate of one per year. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where NASA elects to fly astronauts to the space station exclusively on Starliner, given SpaceX's track record of success and the fact that NASA is already paying SpaceX for crew missions through the end of this decade.

Notably, NASA has only given Boeing the "Authority To Proceed" for three of the six potential operational Starliner missions. This milestone, known as ATP, is a decision point in contracting lingo where the customer—in this case, NASA—places a firm order for a deliverable. NASA has previously said it awards these task orders about two to three years prior to a mission's launch.

The commercial crew contracts are structured as Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreements, where NASA can order individual missions from SpaceX and Boeing as needed. If SpaceX keeps performing well and the space station is actually decommissioned in 2030, it may turn out that NASA officials decide they just don't need more than three operational flights of Starliner. //

Lone Striker Smack-Fu Master, in training
7y
62

accdc said:
Thank you Stephen, and Eric, for your fantastic coverage of this issue.

Here’s what I (as a layman with little technical expertise) don’t get:

How does SpaceX make it look so easy, and Boeing make it look so, well, ridiculous?

SpaceX designs, manufactures and integrates most components themselves. In Boeing's case, the thruster manufacturer is Aerojet. In order to make changes or redesign the components, there is a huge bureaucratic barrier in place. They have to jump through extraordinary hoops, not only engineers but also procurement, legal, and any number of departments. In SpaceX's case, it's a walk down the corridor to talk to engineers to discuss the problem and design the fix.

Boeing is also in the dark ages in terms of software development (my field.) SpaceX has a more Silicon Valley/Agile software design methodology where you make many, faster, smaller changes and test them extensively with small unit tests all the way through to hardware-in-the-middle testing to ensure things work as intended. Every tiny change gets rigorously tested to ensure there are no defects or regressions. Boeing's ancient software development process was one of the primary factors in their first Orbital Flight Test failure where they nearly lost the vehicle twice due to software bugs with the mission clock and reentry procedures.

Boeing relies partially on paperwork to validate their spacecraft (whether it's contracts with sub-contractors or studies in place of actual testing) and they've lost the engineers and the engineering culture from the early spaceflight era. //

HiWayne! Smack-Fu Master, in training
1y
50
Ten years they’ve been tinkering with Starliner. That’s crazy. The first crewed Mercury flight and Apollo 15 spanned ten years.
Yeah I know, I know. NASA had an insane budget back then, but damn. Boeing had the benefit of half a century of spaceflight experience and they’re struggling this much to get to LEO. //

Dachshund Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
4y
110

accdc said:
Thank you Stephen, and Eric, for your fantastic coverage of this issue.

Here’s what I (as a layman with little technical expertise) don’t get:

How does SpaceX make it look so easy, and Boeing make it look so, well, ridiculous?

Having worked for or with these companies as an engineer, the most concise explanation I have is culture.

Boeings culture is not technically focused, nor mission focused. Boeings culture is Boeing focused with a particular emphasis on shareholders. The overwhelming majority of managers I’ve worked with at Boeing view engineers as a plug and play commodity and are woefully ignorant of the general subject matter they manage. Many I know at Boeing have an exceptionally difficult time taking responsibility for mistakes that Boeing makes. Whether it’s commercial planes or crew capsules, it’s somebody else’s fault and Boeing knew best. Hubris is rampant across Boeing. What’s fascinating there is that there isn’t a damn thing worth being proud of in recent years, but the cognitive dissonance remains strong.

SpaceX culture is mission focused. Their managers tend to understand what it is they are managing. Their workforce is rather young, however, they test things and are willing to publicly fail in a way that Boeing and others will not stomach. When SpaceX does fail, they tend to take full responsibility, learn from the issue and solve the problem.

SpaceX is more or less doing what NACA and subsequently NASA did in their infancy. It’s nothing new, but it’s a major difference as compared to what NASA and its ecosystem have evolved to since those early years. //

Malmesbury Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
3m
341

TLStetler said:
A big part of the problem is Boeing put too many thrusters in too small a space and operated them at a duty cycle which caused everything to overheat. Said overheating caused vapor lock in the propellant lines, and Teflon seals to soften and swell.

On the other hand, if you've seen images of Dragon with the aeroshell off the thrusters are distributed spatially, not crowded together. Plumbing and control lines are not near the throats of said thrusters.

This is not even rocket science, any decent Hot Rodder knows not to place propellant/fuel lines etc. in a "hot box."

The problems are inherent in the development methods and company structures.

SpaceX insources - mostly because of cost, but also control. There are, deliberately, few barriers between the engineers working on various parts of the system.

The Boeing/Aerojet relationship is a key counter example - because of a arguments over money they started treating each other as the enemy.

Boeing is attempting to design to perfection, then test. If anything goes wrong at the test stage, they are actually in interactive hardware development. Without the hardware, or low cost basis to do the large number of physical tests required. SpaceX assumed they are in iterative development from the start.

During the initial hours of the spaceflight, the crew will seek to fly in a highly elliptical orbit, reaching an altitude as high as 1,400 km (870 miles) above the planet's surface. This will be the highest Earth-orbit mission ever flown by humans and the farthest any person has flown from Earth since the Apollo Moon landings more than half a century ago. This will expose the crew to a not insignificant amount of radiation, and they will collect biological data to assess harms. //

Isaacman's interest in performing the first private spacewalk accelerated, by years, SpaceX's development of these spacesuits. This really is just the first generation of the suit, and SpaceX is likely to continue iterating toward a spacesuit that has its own portable life support system (PLSS). This is the "backpack" on a traditional spacesuit that allows NASA astronauts to perform spacewalks untethered to the International Space Station.

The general idea is that, as the Starship vehicle makes the surface of the Moon and eventually Mars more accessible to more people, future generations of these lower-cost spacesuits will enable exploration and settlement. That journey, in some sense, begins with this mission's brief spacewalks, with Isaacman and Gillis tethered to the Dragon vehicle for life support. //

This is the first of three "Polaris" missions that Isaacman is scheduled to fly with SpaceX. The plan for the second Polaris mission, also to fly on a Dragon spacecraft, has yet to be determined. But it may well employ a second-generation spacesuit based on learnings from this spaceflight. The third flight, unlikely to occur before at least 2030, will be an orbital launch aboard the company's Starship vehicle—making Isaacman and his crew the first to fly on that rocket.

ridley
So to be able to use their spacesuits they need to fit a square peg into a round hole?

Best give Mr Lovell a call. //

Avoiding standard docking and space suit adapters seems like a good way of wasting money and time
The thing that most surprises me about this whole mess is why NASA would ever consider that having a different design of docking adapter and space suit for each type of American vehicle that is to dock with the ISS was a good idea..

That the Soviet G2S vehicles would use different docking adapters and space suit connectors is expected: the two parts of the original ISS design were always intended to use differing docking ports and space suit connectors from the get-go.

However, it beggars belief that NASA would not have specfied a common set of docking adapters for all American spacecraft as well as common space suit interface(s), if only to save costs and re-implementation effort by basing these interfaces on than the well-tested Shuttle docking and space suit connectors. AFAIK those never caused problems throughout their useful life. //

Re: Avoiding standard space suit adapters seems like a good way of wasting money and time

No, giving money to SpaceX was seen as a good way of wasting money and time.

REMEMBER: when this all started, Boeing was the shoo-in, and that goofy SpaceX startup was the complete waste of time and money.

Nobody expected SpaceX to actually ever reach Station.

It never entered anyone's mind that SpaceX would eventually have to rescue a Boeing crew.

The American docking adapters ARE standard.

https://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/

https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/meet-the-international-docking-adapter/

American spacecraft, INCLUDING Shuttle, either dock to this, or are berthed by the robot arm to a standard pressure door, which allows larger cargo. //

Re: other good ways of wasting money and time
To ensure SLS block 1 would launch by 2016 congress decided to use an upper stage (Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage) based on Centaur which has been flying since the 60s. The wimpy ICPS massively restricts SLS capabilities so a new Exploration Upper Stage was ordered for SLS block 1B. SLS is assembled on a mobile launch platform in the vertical assembly building and the rocket and platform are carried out together to the launch site by the crawler/transporter. The MLP includes a tower to fill the core stage and upper stage with propellants. The solid rocket boosters have grown an extra segment each since the space shuttle so the combined mass of SLS and MLP are now sufficient damage the crawler transporter's tracks and they path the travel to the launch site. EUS is longer than ICPS so the propellant connections are at a different height. A whole new MLP is required otherwise SLS block 1B would be delayed because modifications to MLP1 would not be able to start until after Artemis III.

Clearly this situation is untenable. What if MLP2 was completed before EUS? Boeing would look bad for delaying Artemis IV. The solution was simple: do not decide what height the propellant connections will be at until the last possible minute. Bechtel cannot start design of MLP2 without that. Moving the connections also moves the fans that blow hydrogen leaks away before the concentration gets big enough for an explosion. Designing the MLP for a choice of connection heights is also tricky. The platform must be optimized for mass so it does not go much further over the limits of the crawler transporter.

If Boeing and SpaceX had to agree on a flight suit connector US astronauts would now have a choice of rides to the ISS: Soyuz or Shenzou.

Believe it or not there is a worse solution. NASA could decide the shape of the flight suit connectors. Congress would then have an opportunity to help like they did with SLS. Giving Boeing and SpaceX the freedom to work independently of congress (and each other) saves a huge amount of time and money. It also means a flight suit design issue does not ground both crew transport systems at the same time.

The space agency also confirmed key elements exclusively reported by Ars over the last week, chiefly that NASA has quietly been working for weeks with SpaceX on a potential rescue mission for Wilmore and Williams, that the Crew-9 mission launch has been delayed to September 24 to account for this possibility, and that Starliner is unable to undock autonomously with the current software configuration on the vehicle. //

FabioLx Seniorius Lurkius
6y
10
Subscriptor++
Makes you think that maybe, just maybe, they found issues in the autonomous software back in 2022, but didn't tell anyone because they weren't visible if you couldn't get access to detailed data, and they were banking on not needing it anymore. //

Ajax81611 Smack-Fu Master, in training
3y
50
Subscriptor
NASA's rules for human space flight require less than a 1 in 270 chance of LOM, LOC, or serious injury to the crew. I wish someone had asked, "What is the current risk level assessment? One in what number?" //

Ajax81611 Smack-Fu Master, in training
3y
50
Subscriptor
Why on Earth (pun?) would you on a TEST flight not leave in BOTH options, manual or automated return? I can't fathom that. If the answer is, "this spacecraft isn't capable of that," then I have a bunch of other questions. ///

Quite probably the hardware is different and they would need to test that integration before having confidence in the autonomous mode

Like Starlink, China's Qianfan satellites have an easy-to-pack flat-panel design.

BadSuperblock Ars Praefectus
15y
3,125

rbtr4bp said:
I think there is an argument that SpaceX, as a new and agile company with something to prove, is going to do things better. People who are willing to accept more risk are attracted to the new "startup" and willing to work harder for the same or less money because of the adventure and excitement.
...

No, it doesn’t necessarily follow that this incompetence was a consequence of "maturing." It is not a foregone conclusion. For one thing, what is your definition of "mature"? We think of technology companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Intel to be "mature" because they are now going on 40 years old. Well, since Boeing was founded in 1916, by the time they were 50 years old in 1966, Boeing was taking some of the biggest, most rewarding, and most admired engineering risks and innovations of their entire history: Projects like components for the Apollo moon program, and the absolutely revolutionary and widely loved 747 airliner. This company, half a century old, was creating these exciting, "startup" quality projects. At that time, they were more "mature" than the companies we now call mature, but they had not lost their innovative spirit, engineering discipline, and quality control.

It is generally agreed that the root cause of the Boeing malaise was not the age of the company, but the decision of one CEO and board to allow McDonnell Douglas management to take over Boeing, instituting the changes that poisoned the company. In other words, it was not a rot from within, but a culture change imposed by outsiders.

"Risk remains that we may record additional losses in future periods." //

Boeing announced another financial charge Wednesday for its troubled Starliner commercial crew program, bringing the company's total losses on Starliner to $1.6 billion. //

These losses have generally been caused by schedule delays and additional work to solve problems on Starliner. When NASA awarded Boeing a $4.2 billion contract to complete development of the Starliner spacecraft a decade ago, the aerospace contractor projected the capsule would be ready to fly astronauts by the end of 2017.

It turns out the Crew Flight Test didn't launch until June 5, 2024. //

When NASA selected Boeing and SpaceX to develop the Starliner and Crew Dragon spacecraft for astronaut missions, the agency signed fixed-price agreements with each contractor. These fixed-price contracts mean the contractors, not the government, are responsible for paying for cost overruns. //

It's instructive to compare these costs with those of SpaceX's Crew Dragon program, which started flying astronauts in 2020. All of NASA's contracts with SpaceX for a similar scope of work on the Crew Dragon program totaled more than $3.1 billion, but any expenses paid by SpaceX are unknown because it is a privately held company.

SpaceX has completed all six of its original crew flights for NASA, while Boeing is at least a year away from starting operational service with Starliner. In light of Boeing's delays, NASA extended SpaceX's commercial crew contract to cover eight additional round-trip flights to the space station through the end of the 2020s. //

cyberfunk Ars Scholae Palatinae
12y
824
Blaming fixed price contracts is rich. They're basically admitting incompetence by blaming the cost structure they agreed to.. either because they agreed to it, or because they can't properly estimate cost and deliver quality product on budget. Either way they look like idiots. I'm glad they're holding the bag this time and not the taxpayer. //

BigFire Ars Scholae Palatinae
3y
985
SpaceX will not bid on Cost Plus contracts because the company isn't setup with the kind of extra layers of auditing to justifying everything that will trigger the cost overrun payments. Frankly Boeing Space isn't setup to do anything other than Cost Plus (witness ISS and SLS center core). Nevermind the same ballpark, they're not even playing the same sports, quoting Jules Winnfield from Pulp fiction. //

Dachshund Smack-Fu Master, in training
4y
99
You could see this shift happening within Boeing a little over two decades ago. I had the privilege of learning from some of the last grey beards whose work had given Boeing their stellar reputation before they retired. Those grey beards were worn thin and got zero respect from the hot shot, tassel loafer MBAs hustling them to do things “better, faster, cheaper”.

Internally we knew it was all going to hell, we just weren’t sure when the public would see it for themselves. I thank the space exploration Gods for SpaceX - if it weren’t for them Boeing and every other crook company could keep playing the “space is hard” card and the cost plus buffet open. //

Transmission Integrity Seniorius Lurkius
5y
8
Subscriptor

RickVS said:
The bean counters deserve this. If instead of shareholder value they had focused on top-notch engineering, they probably would have already flown crew to the ISS at least a couple of times.

And as a result it would probably have been cheaper/profitable. //

wagnerrp Ars Legatus Legionis
14y
26,508
Subscriptor

SpaceHamster said:
Seems like a lot of animosity toward the NIMBY-ites, but after thinking about it while reading this article and comments, I don't blame them at all; I'd do the same if SpaceX (or anyone else) tried to build a giant launch facility in my backyard.

You're speaking of two different things, NIMBYism and Boca Chica Village. The latter never really existed. A developer bought up a bunch of land and tried to make it something, but then a hurricane destroyed it all. Power was restored, but no water. When SpaceX started buying up land, there were only six permanent residents. By the time they decided to shift Starship operations there, it was down to four permanent residents.

There was no town, and sure it sucks if someone decides they're going to set up a rocket manufacturing facility right next to your retirement home, but they did it exactly there because there was no one left there. The biggest problem was that the "very generous offers" were based off the tax assessed value of the land, which was next to nothing.

The next closest population is 8km away, and it's doubtful that's even where much of the NIMBYism is coming from.
.

As a part of this multi-year process, the Federal Aviation Administration completed a Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment in June 2022. Following that review, SpaceX received approval to conduct up to five Starship launches from South Texas annually. //

SpaceX has asked the FAA for permission for up to 25 flights a year from South Texas, as well as the capability to land both the Starship upper stage and Super Heavy booster stage back at the launch site. On Monday, the FAA signaled that it is inclined to grant permission for this. //

SpaceX also is developing more powerful variants of its rocket, and the launch of these vehicles would also be permitted. Under the environmental assessment completed in 2022, SpaceX's plans called for a 50-meter-tall Starship and a 71-meter-tall Super Heavy booster stage. Its upgraded Starship would be 70 meters tall, atop an 80-meter boost stage, for a total stack height of 150 meters.

The company is contemplating a far greater thrust for each of the vehicles, more than doubling Starship's thrust. A bigger, more powerful launch system will require more than 1,500 tons of liquid oxygen and methane propellant. //

After the public comment period, the FAA will prepare a final environmental assessment and render a decision on the request.

SpaceX returned its first 21 Dragon cargo missions to splashdowns in the Pacific Ocean southwest of Los Angeles. When an upgraded human-rated version of Dragon started flying in 2019, SpaceX moved splashdowns to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico to be closer to the company's refurbishment and launch facilities at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The benefits of landing near Florida included a faster handover of astronauts and time-sensitive cargo back to NASA and shorter turnaround times between missions.

The old version of Dragon, known as Dragon 1, separated its trunk after the deorbit burn, allowing the trunk to fall into the Pacific. With the new version of Dragon, called Dragon 2, SpaceX changed the reentry profile to jettison the trunk before the deorbit burn. This meant that the trunk remained in orbit after each Dragon mission, while the capsule reentered the atmosphere on a guided trajectory. The trunk, which is made of composite materials and lacks a propulsion system, usually takes a few weeks or a few months to fall back into the atmosphere and doesn't have control of where or when it reenters. //

In May, a 90-pound chunk of a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft that departed the International Space Station fell on the property of a "glamping" resort in North Carolina. At the same time, a homeowner in a nearby town found a smaller piece of material that also appeared to be from the same Dragon mission.

These events followed the discovery in April of another nearly 90-pound piece of debris from a Dragon capsule on a farm in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. SpaceX and NASA later determined the debris fell from orbit in February, and earlier this month, SpaceX employees came to the farm to retrieve the wreckage, according to CBC. //

This means SpaceX can no longer splash down off the coast of Florida because the trajectory would bring debris from the trunk down over populated areas in the United States or Mexico.

When recoveries shift to the West Coast, the Dragon capsule will fire its Draco thrusters to slow down, and then once on course for reentry, release the trunk to burn up in the atmosphere on a similar trajectory. Any debris from the trunk that doesn't burn up will impact the Pacific Ocean while the capsule deploys parachutes for a slow-speed splashdown. //

“One benefit of the move to the West Coast is much better weather," Walker said. "We have a number of sites in Florida, that we feel like we’re sometimes threading hurricanes a lot. When we look at the flight rules for wind, rain, wave height, all of the criteria that determine our flight rules for return, we actually saw that the West Coast sites that we’re looking at have much better weather, which allows us to have much better return availability.”

The Falcon 9 is grounded pending an investigation, possibly delaying upcoming crew flights. //

"Upper stage restart to raise perigee resulted in an engine RUD for reasons currently unknown," Musk wrote in an update two hours after the launch. RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) is a term of art in rocketry that usually signifies a catastrophic or explosive failure. //

Going into Thursday's mission, the current version of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, known as the Falcon 9 Block 5, was indisputably the most reliable launch vehicle in history. Since debuting in May 2018, the Falcon 9 Block 5, which NASA has certified for astronaut flights, never had a mission failure in all of its 297 launches before the ill-fated Starlink 9-3 mission. //

The Falcon 9's only total in-flight launch failure occurred on its 19th flight on June 28, 2015, when the upper stage's liquid oxygen tank burst a couple of minutes after launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. The rocket disintegrated in the upper atmosphere, dooming a Dragon cargo capsule en route to the space station.

SpaceX resumed Falcon 9 launches six months later in December 2015. On that flight, SpaceX landed the Falcon 9's first stage booster back at Cape Canaveral for the first time, a historic achievement and a harbinger of the company's later success in reusing rockets. //

SpaceX's Falcon family of rockets, which counted 335 consecutive successful launches since the on-pad explosion in 2016, or 344 flights since an in-flight failure. Both numbers are all-time industry records.

A booster landing would be a calculated risk to SpaceX's launch tower infrastructure. //

In a short video released Thursday, possibly to celebrate the US Fourth of July holiday with the biggest rocket's red glare of them all, SpaceX provided new footage of the most recent test of its Starship launch vehicle.

This test, the fourth of the experimental rocket that NASA is counting on to land its astronauts on the Moon, and which one day may launch humans to Mars, took place on June 6. During the flight, the first stage of the rocket performed well during ascent and, after separating from the upper stage, made a controlled reentry into the Gulf of Mexico. The Starship upper stage appeared to make a nominal flight through space before making a controlled—if fiery—landing in the Indian Ocean.

The new video focuses mostly on the "Super Heavy" booster stage and its entry into the Gulf. There is new footage from a camera on top of the 71-meter-tall first stage as well as a nearby buoy at water level. The video from the buoy, in particular, shows the first stage making an upright landing into the ocean.

SpaceX teases an image of Starship's large launch tower in South Texas at the Starbase facility. Prominently featured are the two "chopsticks," large arms intended to catch the first stage booster as it slowly descends back toward its launch pad.

Then, in simulated footage, the video shows Starship's first stage descending back toward the launch tower with the title "Flight 5." And then it fades out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2BdNDTlWbo