For those who are interested in the SpaceX story, there's a new book out that's primarily about the early Falcon 1 days and how that affected the DNA of the company. It's almost like reading Smokey Yunick's memoir. I mean, crawling inside a collapsing rocket loaded inside a C-17 to open up a vent using tools found in said C-17, and then "stripping that thing like a Chevy" in a tent on an 8 acre island...it's nuts.
https://www.amazon.com/Liftoff-Desperate-Early-Launched-SpaceX/dp/0062979973
This is the article that spawned it: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/inside-the-eight-desperate-weeks-that-saved-spacex-from-ruin/
Blog about the Falcon 1 efforts at the time: http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/2005/11/kwajalein-and-rockets.html
SpaceX got a pretty good reference on 60 min Sunday. It was a segment about the SLS and going to the moon. The basic observation was that the SLS is now wildly over budget and way behind what SpaceX is doing.
I love the NASA administrator describing SLS's use of "proven technology" as a reason they are not doing what SpaceX is doing... while being behind schedule and wildly over budget...
SLS is "now" wildly over budget :) Just look up the SLS launch tower, then extrapolate that across the entire program. It's basically a job creation program. One of SLS's biggest supporters - Alabama senator Shelby, who coincidentally was the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee - will not be seeking reelection. Between that and the fact that SpaceX is visibly making rapid progress while the SLS struggles with a static fire, questions are finally starting to get asked.
Keith Tanner said:
It's basically a job creation program.
Yeah, supposedly the Space Shuttle had contractors in every single congressional district, and the primary goal of SLS is to keep them happy so that they keep donating campaign funds and employing constituents.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
Keith Tanner said:
It's basically a job creation program.
Yeah, supposedly the Space Shuttle had contractors in every single congressional district, and the primary goal of SLS is to keep them happy so that they keep donating campaign funds and employing constituents.
Pretty much.
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/ESDSuppliersMap/
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
Keith Tanner said:
It's basically a job creation program.
Yeah, supposedly the Space Shuttle had contractors in every single congressional district, and the primary goal of SLS is to keep them happy so that they keep donating campaign funds and employing constituents.
SLS is just a giant paper pork project. If it ever flies, it will only be once, and unmanned.
Javelin (Forum Supporter) said:
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
Keith Tanner said:
It's basically a job creation program.
Yeah, supposedly the Space Shuttle had contractors in every single congressional district, and the primary goal of SLS is to keep them happy so that they keep donating campaign funds and employing constituents.
SLS is just a giant paper pork project. If it ever flies, it will only be once, and unmanned.
I'll just leave this here...
The act of distributing development across the country in hundreds of little pieces also creates HUGE difficulties in rapid design changes. What SpaceX is doing with Starship would be wildly more difficult with the distributed (share the wealth) model.
In the 60 min segment they referred to the SLS nickname: Senate Launch System.
Yeah, and the fact that SpaceX is not beholden to anyone but SpaceX is a big plus. The SLS (and all associated/similar projects) are subject to all sorts of random whims and changes in political winds and funding changes and directive changes.
SLS may only fly once, but it's going to be awesome to watch. It is guaranteed not to stick the landing :)
Keith Tanner said:
Yeah, and the fact that SpaceX is not beholden to anyone but SpaceX is a big plus. The SLS (and all associated/similar projects) are subject to all sorts of random whims and changes in political winds and funding changes and directive changes.
SLS is itself a renamed version of the Ares V rocket in the Constellation program, the original post-Shuttle-pork-rocket that Bush (W) announced and Obama cancelled. Congress didn't like the cancellation so they brought it back from the dead and renamed it SLS.
Constellation did actually launch one rocket which was supposed to be a test vehicle for the "Ares-1", but was really just a dummy upper stage sitting on top of a Shuttle SRB (not even the stretched version they were supposed to make for Ares). Not very interesting, really.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
The static test was a spectacular failure. The system used to gimbal the main engines uses a different fuel than in the STS and it was one of the two main component failures in the green run test (engine 4 also had a major fault) and retired STS engineers are questioning that choice as the new fuel is highly volatile (hydrazine IIRC instead of helium). The major issue though is that the "core" is really just an STS fuel tank, which was not originally designed to have thrust acted upon it at this level, for this duration, or in this particular configuration (directly attached to the aft end) so the tank guys don't want to run too many ground tests because of fatigue.
I can tell you that divorcing the Europa Clipper from the SLS was pretty much a death knell. Constellation/SLS/Artemis is all job creation and that mission was the only actual existing one in production. Simply put, NASA doesn't have anything to actually launch on the SLS anymore, so what's the point of keeping up the charade?
SLS??
I thought you were talking about the Cadillac. 
Back to SpaceX: here's what happened to SN10 according to an Elon tweet.
SN10 engine was low on thrust due (probably) to partial helium ingestion from fuel header tank. Impact of 10m/s crushed legs & part of skirt. Multiple fixes in work for SN11.
I believe that helium was part of the fix for the SN8 fuel starvation during the flip so it was always a workaround at best. It was announced some time ago that SN15 would carry a number of changes and it will probably benefit from the lessons learned from 8-11. SN12-14 were scrapped, so this is the last vehicle before the new parts. I suspect a good percentage of those changes are related to fuel management during the flip.
Current status (as of a couple of days ago, it's hard to keep up). SN20 parts have been spotted so this is out of date.
How do they know which parts are for which ship? Because SpaceX labels them with sheets of paper stuck on with painter's tape :D
This one's fancy because it was actually printed instead of just being written in sharpie.
They just did a static test fire for SN11.
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1373997275593248769
Test flight maybe as early as tomorrow. Maybe less boom this time?
In reply to Keith Tanner :
So... it sounds like if SN11 does a little better than SN10 it'll be considered a win, even if it still blows up.
That's what progress looks like :) 10 did land, just hard.
Looks like Thursday for a flight at the earliest.
Maybe this afternoon?
https://youtu.be/JJXEq9IX1To
That appears to be the official NASA feed. If someone has another one of interest, let me know. I think on the previous test it may have cut off before the splody' part. I don't remember the one I watched last time, but it had some good (non-NASA) angles.
NASAspaceflight.com is not affiliated with NASA. It's an enthusiast site. They basically run a 24 hour stream of the shipyard, but that does not do the effort justice. There is no official NASA involvement in Starship and no feed.
The official SpaceX stream has the best quality video, but doesn't start until about T-3:00 and it cut off before the boom last time. NASAspaceflight was still rolling because they never stop :)
We are progressing nicely. They pulled, tweaked and replaced an engine yesterday and did a static fire first thing this morning. It's all looking good for flying silos this afternoon!
Roads have reopened, alas. All silos should stay on the ground today, please.
Keith Tanner said:
We are progressing nicely. They pulled, tweaked and replaced an engine yesterday and did a static fire first thing this morning. It's all looking good for flying silos this afternoon!
I may have caught this out of context, but does the "we" imply an affiliation with Space X? I was offered a mechanical tech contract a few years back, to work for Space X... but I think the head hunter company screwed the pooch; entire project got canned. We never got quit as far as pay discussions, but wife and I agreed that Space X (or any other company at Kennedy) could ge me cheaper than most anyone else!
None at all, just a very enthusiastic watcher. I missed the Apollo run, I'm not missing this one!
SpaceX is constantly hiring, though. If you want to work there, you can probably find a way in.
They mostly hire way above me (scientists) or entry level / admin type jobs, unfortunately. At the time, only CA was hiring technician. The pay would have been fine on the FL coast, but I could not have afforded the cut in par to CA prices, even if I had the desire! Moot point now, as I'll prolly be in this local job life circumstances put me in till I croak... Hey, on the bright side, I won't life forever, and then I can retire a couple years later. :-)
SpaceX was at it early this morning with SN11, unfortunately it was overcast so all of the non-SpaceX feeds couldn't really see anything. The flight seemed pretty normal, the landing was a smashing failure lol.
Yeah, something went very wrong. I don't think it got as far as the landing, there was debris raining from the sky. I've seen speculation that it was terminated on command because it was off course, the debris was a fair way from the pad and it certainly didn't get low enough to get into the final landing phase. Timing says it would have been about the time of the bellyflop. We'll find out more.
Zut alors, I was thinking this one would make it. It's like rocket science is hard.
