Starship Update! May flight unlikely due to SpaceX FAA Mishap Report!
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2024
- Things are ramping up at Starbase, but according to the FAA, an extremely important step has still not happenEd, and that puts a May launch in serious jeopardy!
#space #spacex #nasa
Dear generous supporters,
For the last several months, you've heard me talk about getting to 1% of my subscribers being Patreon members.
I'll be able to really take this channel to the next level if we get there.
Since then, we've reached about 45% of that goal, but I don't see us crossing the finish line unless I have A LOT to offer in return.
So here's my proposal:
If we can reach 90% of that goal, REVENUE WISE, I'll start a channel EXCLUSIVELY for Patreon supporters. That means one recorded video and one Livestream per week, just for you! No one else will have access to this content.
Ever.
We can reach this goal, WITH YOUR HELP!
What does this mean for CZcams Members?
If my current CZcams Members join Patreon at the $3 level, and if my existing Patreon supporters bump up their support by ONE LEVEL, we can reach this goal this month!!
In addition, I will take video topic suggestions from you guys every week, and pick a video topic for the week.
That means you guys choose the content!
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL CURRENT BENEFITS FOR CZcams MEMBERS WILL NOT CHANGE, WHETHER WE REACH THE GOAL OR NOT!
What do you think?
If this sounds like a fair deal, here's my Patreon link:
/ angryastronaut - Zábava
Just a word of caution regarding shutting yourself off by producing "patron only" content to funnel viewers to becoming Patreon members. Forcing viewership to effectively "paywall" content will severely limit your viewers and supporters. It doesn't work on other platforms such as "X" and it won't work here. Stick with just producing good content and an "occasional" request for assistance and you'll be doing well. 🤔 Good content brings it's own rewards.
Thats a great response but i dont think its patrion only mostly for me its what you tube takes which i think is 40% via patreon its less, paypal as a more direct method for "occasional" requests is even better as there are less deductions taken from the Contributions. Discord members as you know get live access to the 'studio' when we are live, and Discord Community while sizable still has room for growth. You Tube is fantastic for general content, I like the Added Discord option via Patreon as i know more goes towards Jordans cause
Some people, like me, also refuse to use Patreon.
@@comp20B there's always PayPal, venmo Zelle, GoFundMe, or other even one-time ways to help support the channel directly or indirectly. It is somewhat overwhelming, even annoying of the # of $$ apps out there 🤔
@@NAKEDGARDENER you're right, YT does take ~40% of donation support which, imo, is downright criminal. We still have patreon, PayPal, venmo, GoFundMe, Zelle, etc (if Jordan subscribes to any of them). There's always options. 😎
💯💯💯
Thank God for the FAA.
Not at all surprised.
Sooo, how is Boeing still flying planes exactly?…..
Military industrial complex . SpaceX isn't in that clique yet
Without Wings
That consulting job to Hunter Biden has wonderful results. It's amazing what an investment of $1,000,000 did.
@@Easy-Eight you still believe all those lies, eh? Four years of the Republicans trying to make him look bad never once turned up a crime, but there you go believing it. The people telling you they had proof were lying. That's all they do, is lie to you.
Only by luck, it won't be long till they all fall out the sky.
Given the report is presumably shared in draft form and iterated until the FAA is satisfied with all the problems listed and their mitigations, it doesn't have to be long between submission and approval. For IFT2 and IFT3, what were the dates of submittal and approval?
Well that's pretty strange.. can't imagine SpaceX would forget to do that... makes ya wonder what the heck is going on down there
Are you kidding me? These things take time.
@@tomhoskins4913 takes even longer if SpaceX doesn't submit the required information to the FAA for proper review, genius. not sure why you're so sassy about this lol
@@sergeant_salty The required information for proper review, was 10% for the big guy.
@@sergeant_salty LOL, The super heavy has flown 3 times in a year. 2 more times then the Artemis, You just do not submit a report. With that report comes an extensive analysis of copious amounts of data and corrective measures. That takes time.
@@tomhoskins4913 I'm now fully convinced you have no idea what's going on here😂 I love it
Saying we need FAA is begging the question.
Not a huge surprise. I never believed the May launch projection; that was pretty obviously Elon Time again (even though Shotwell parroted it too). June, at the earliest; July at the latest IMHO.
It seems the pad will be ready by mid-May or so - but the Ship and Booster are and were always going to be the gating items, since they need to incorporate whatever rework and enhancements necessary to address the issues that arose during the third flight. That requires careful analysis of flight 3 data, engineering design - including any applicable simulation studies - of corrective actions, manufacturing and installation of hardware and/or software upgrades along with changes to design documentation and drawings, and whatever applicable preflight testing of those upgrades. Then, documentation of all the above, and submission to FAA for review/approval. It was never going to be all completed by even the end of May, never mind mid- or beginning- of May as so many people naively assumed...
You have no idea what it takes. 🤦♂️
You ALWAYS have the best!!
Well, crap. Here I am cooling my heels in South Padre for the past week.
Try the fishing; it's GREAT!
Tell them to hurry up, we want to see another attempt. At what % do you think the 4th flight will succeed?
Water landing is not gonna happen but based on the progress of flight 1 to flight 2 and then flight 3 it seems like starship will get to orbit and then reenter mostly fine. The landings can't possibly go right in my opinion on this attempt but I'd be pleasantly surprised if it does.
Short and sweat.
Just give them one more month until June they will be ready!
Oh, that is interesting. FAA is getting in the way again. I think SpaceX did submit it.
Unfortunately, they haven't submitted it. Just got an email from the FAA on the subject.
@TheAngryAstronaut As big as the FAA is, it could very well be there, but I will ask Elon.
@@TheAngryAstronaut Why would SpaceX submit the report before they corrected the problems?
Isn't it more logical for them to fix the problems and then submit the report, so they don't have to re-submit each time?
Stewpid is ... as Stumpy Does !
Yes, hide that ufo hoodoo behind paywall
What mishap ??
Money money money
🎶must be funny🎶
🎶in the rich man's world🎶
The patreon only channel is not a good idea. I may move onto other creators
More paperwork
considering that were are almost half way through may there will be no may launch for starship or june or july most likely. and good luck with your channel for patrion supporters but you would not need to create a new channel as patrion already offeres that service and youtube has a join button. so you may have looked at the wrong type of idea or maybe worded that wrong just to point out that a channel on youtube would be one that cannot be restricted to patrion supporters as you cannot supply free memberships to certain people and not accept paid join memberships from non patrion supporters. so unless you mean you will be posting content that is only on patrion for your supporters i am not certain what you are doing in terms of that but unless it is a patrion release only there then you cannot create a channel for just patrion suppoters on youtube.
Elon has been awfully quiet lately. 🤷♂️
Elon’s massive starship reduced to the size of his chopper…no surprise
Whats a 'chopper' Back in the my day it was a Raleigh Bicycle 😝
@@NAKEDGARDENER Then you can use your imagination…😂😂😂I had a Grifter.
Good luck with the Patreon paywall idea. As someone who is not wealthy, I have to be very careful accumulating recurring payment content sources. I just finished thinning out the 20 or so subscriptions I had accumulated. Just for your information, I will not be adding another subscription for this type of content.... even for $3/month or whatever. They add up quickly and eat my wallet.
Thanks for your input. Free content is always valuable. As is sending our reporter to cover Launch events, space conferences etc. I have deeper pockets than some thats true, and its not for others who cant afford to sub to something they get for free. The appeal for me is having ability to focus my funds in where it counts and my recreational budget also got lighter so as i say, continue to enjoy the content.
How much revenue does a content creator get when premium 'commrrcial free' subscribets view content?
SpaceX hasn’t delivered their mishap report. My guess: not generally known is 13 engines should have relit for the landing burn, but only 3 even tried to light with result being an engine explosion caused vehicle RUD. SpaceX doesn’t want to acknowledge the Raptor is still having the same problem on relights as during their Starship landing tests of causing RUD’s.
Maybe you failed to notice, but 10 of those 13 engines relit quite flawlessly during the boost-back burn (after stage separation; the other 3 didn't need to relight since they never shut down.)
Though you may be partially right: the reignition failures for the landing burn could've been caused by the same issue as previous failures during prototype Ship landings. That being, excessive propellant slosh causing gas ingestion or unstable propellant pressure on engine intakes (which can cause cavitation, or unbalanced turbopumps ripping themselves to pieces). Ship prototypes eventually solved the issue by incorporating dedicated header tanks for landing (culminating in the successful landing of SN15.)
There's one other possibility: maybe there wasn't enough propellant left for the landing burn. Booster 10 was only loaded to ~85% of capacity for the third launch. If there was a slightly higher than expected burn- or boil-off loss rate in either LOX or LCH4, or SpaceX slightly miscalculated or miscalibrated their launch profile timings, then the Booster might've been running on nothing but vapors by the time it attempted to "land".
One last possibility comes to mind: maybe the engines were still too hot after reentry, and weren't adequately chilled down before attempting to relight. The thermal shock might have been enough to burst the piping when cryogenic propellants flowed through it, leading to a RUD when leaking propellants mixed and finally ignited. If so, this could be resolved by modifying engine chill timings through reentry and descent.
@@Spherical_Cow Thanks for the detailed reply. For reusability the Raptor has to make 3 firings reliably. If the boostback burn works but the landing burns fail then reusability fails. To put this in stark terms, imagine a scenario where the boostback works for the Merlins on the Falcon 9 booster, but during the landing burn a Merlin always failed causing vehicle RUD, in front of spectators watching at the landing site and numerous video cameras. Saying, “Well the boostback worked”, would provide poor consolation.
Note, also there is evidence there were anomalous firings during the boostback as well on IFT-3. There seemed to be large amount of venting from the booster after the boostback burn. This may be indicative of the leaks known to occur on the Raptor after relights. Also, the booster landing spot was supposed to be 30 km downrange but the booster went 90 km downrange. This might be indicating early shutdown of the Raptors or insufficient thrust provided by the Raptors.
@@robertclark1734 what the successful relight of 10 out of 10 engines for boostback demonstrates, is that there is no inherent "problem on relights" with the Raptors: when their thermals are properly managed, and propellant is adequately supplied, the Raptors relight just fine. Therefore, the subsequent failure of 13 out of 13 to relight for landing had to be caused by some other factor, external to the engines and globally affecting all of them at once.
The venting post-boostback was likely normal; the same thing occurs after engine shutdown following every static fire test on the ground, and was similarly seen on the Ship after it completed its "orbital insertion" burn. It is likely intended to flush out residual combustion products and heat in the pre-burners and the combustion chamber, as well as the turbopumps and all the piping and nozzles downstream.
I have no idea where you got your Booster landing coordinates from, as there hasn't been any such data released, to my knowledge...
The static fire looked perfect to me. I must have missed the "mishap."
They were referring to the flight 3 mishap report.
@@Subatomic_Vulcan Thanks. Flight 3 made it to orbit, or as close to orbit as it was intended to go, and I don't believe there were any criteria for how the pieces landed in the ocean, so I guess there must have been enough damage to the pad to qualify as a "mishap".
@@knarFkcalB From what I gathered, the ship lost attitude control. Had no way to control the roll to face the heat shield in the right orientation for re-entry.
@@knarFkcalBFlight 3 failed to achieve several key planned milestones. Ship engine relight for simulated deorbit burn failed due to loss of attitude control. Ship reentry failed due to same, and Ship lost too many TPS tiles heading into reentry. Booster landing burn initiation failed, probably because Booster lost attitude control during descent - and Booster had an unexpected RUD about 500 m above the ocean.
Bet your butt tattoo on whether Boeing or SpaceX lanches first.
Starship will never leave earth orbit. And it definitely will never get to Mars. His so called starships are like his cars. Cheaply made garbage.
These are development prototypes. You bet they're cheaply made - as minimalistic, and as cheap, as possible. It would make no sense to invest excessively into, or over-design/over-build throwaway test articles; that's not how skunkworks R&D is done.
Meanwhile, Falcon 9 and Heavy, as well as Cargo and Crew Dragon, and Starlink, are all also every bit as much "his", as Starship. Perhaps you've heard of them...
Spacex next launch date doesn't concern me nor does the FAA and the mishap report. It takes how long it takes. Spacex probably has good reasons why they have not filed a report or you may just not know whether they have or not. Your source may not have tbat information.
As far a a paywall is concerned, I can get free content from all over the place. I have exactly zero subscriptions or patreon subcriptions. I don't even have cable or satelite tv service and I have tons of free tv options. But if you want to hide your content behind a payme wall that's your business.
Well SpaceX is likely already working with the FAA. Just like last time where the "correct actions" came out and SpaceX had already pretty much finished them all and FAA just rubber stamped it.
Could be a similar case here, SpaceX is working on the report and corrective actions just is waiting until they have completed most before submitting and if the FAA inspector is in on the loop it won't take them long to essentially approve it [since they probably already have the preliminary ones]
Space𝕏 may be mismanaged. 😄
???
SpaceX-Florida and SpaceX-Elon Musk Boca Chica seem like two different companies, but we know that can't be true.
Rush to failure. This crap trap hasn’t even reached orbit. We gave him billions, where’s the lunar lander? Do you really think this thing will colonize Mars?…. 😂😂😂
Good idea, put all of your Musk hating behind a pay wall.
Why are you so toxic and negative?
Does anybody wonder why the FAA needs to sign off on every single launch and make comments on every single little thing that happens during those launches. Does anybody wonder why the environmental agency has to investigate every single launch that happens. For an example the Florida Everglades (or whatever the name of the place is where they launch rockets)has seen thousands of rockets explode destroyed crash fuel leaking but yet the Florida Everglades is one of the most pristine places on the planet. It's beautiful there. So why does the environmental agency have to investigate every single tiny little rocket mishap spending probably 100 million + a year to do so. Every single type of accident has already happened at least once so we already have a report on it. Why do we need more. Why are these people the Arbiters of what companies do. I don't get it
What are you even talking about? SpaceX conducted 3 full stack launches from Boca Chica within 1 year; each of those launches ended in a mishap, which the FAA by law had to review for potential safety risks to the public. And, environmental review (by Texas' branch of FWS) was done only once, and concerned major modifications to the launch pad that added a deluge system, following ejection of pad debris up to a mile around into the surrounding federal Wildlife Refuge and public beach, and particulate debris fallout over South Padre Island resorts, from the first launch. That environmental impact analysis took only about 3 months.