lb3 said:

---

SpaceX has indicated they are going to try to optimize their refurbishment process and push the limits of these vehicles. Looks like they may have found one of those hard limits.

---

Watching the video it looked like the engine had some sort of anomaly/didn't look like it had a good clean relight with good flow.

It looked different on the relight from other landings

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I think you're conflating Starship launch licenses with F9 operations. I could be wrong.

---

Yes, I know they're different rockets. Please read it again.

---

I don't get it either. Pretty sure IFT-4 & 5 were related to Starhip and booster

I would assume Falcon has a different license and would guess there are some variances allowed with landings.

Not sure landing F9 would impact Falcon launches and the license but FAA would probably ask for guidance without pulling the license since there was no or limited danger to the public or payloads but I am only a civilian speculating on a govt agency. I would be interested in knowing

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

lb3 said:

---

SpaceX has indicated they are going to try to optimize their refurbishment process and push the limits of these vehicles. Looks like they may have found one of those hard limits.

---

Watching the video it looked like the engine had some sort of anomaly/didn't look like it had a good clean relight with good flow.

It looked different on the relight from other landings

---

Maybe they're trying to find the minimum amount of fuel needed to complete a boost back and landing burn?

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, I'll chime in. It was technically a mishap. Part of the flight plan included landing and recovery, so basically anytime there is a mishap there is an automatic suspension of further flights pending an investigation.

Not the right legalese/bureaucratic language I know, but this is just how it works, to my understanding. This one is likely to be over in a week or two, imho. They'll sort it out and move on:

Losing a booster is always sad. Each one of them has a unique history and character. Thankfully this doesn’t happen often, due to the robust design and vigilance of the team.

We are working as hard as we can to thoroughly understand root cause and get corrective actions in place…

— Jon Edwards (@edwards345) August 28, 2024

---

From the IFT-4 launch license I thought the launch licenses for Falcon 9 could be written in a way that said certain failures were acceptable as long as public safety isn't compromised with the understanding that it would be corrected, but that there would be no halt to future launches.

If IFT-5 wasn't going to include a booster catch, the FAA would have been fine repeating IFT-4 even though the booster came down with one engine on fire and ship came down 6 miles off course and a few rivets away from disintegration.

---

Still apples and oranges. Falcon 9 is not an experimental rocket, so any failure is an aberration that needs to be investigated. Starship and heavy booster are experimental, and the FAA looks at it from the perspective that some kind of failure is expected, but cannot be predicted.

Intuitive Machines Strengthens Lunar Service Capabilities with $116.9 million NASA Lunar Contract Award

Quote:

---

NASA has awarded Intuitive Machines, Inc. (Nasdaq: LUNR, LUNRW) ("Intuitive Machines") ("Company"), a leading space exploration, infrastructure, and services company, a $116.9 million contract to deliver six science and technology payloads, including one European Space Agency-led drill suite to the Moon's South Pole. This award will leverage Intuitive Machines' lunar delivery, data transmission, and autonomous operation capabilities to explore the region targeted for sustained human operations

---

For the Stock Market and SpaceX crossover crowd, this could mean a jump for LUNR. They're also based in Austin and have lots of Aggies working for them.

I just want to put my entire retirement account in to spacex

Malachi Constant said:

---

Intuitive Machines Strengthens Lunar Service Capabilities with $116.9 million NASA Lunar Contract Award

Quote:

---

NASA has awarded Intuitive Machines, Inc. (Nasdaq: LUNR, LUNRW) ("Intuitive Machines") ("Company"), a leading space exploration, infrastructure, and services company, a $116.9 million contract to deliver six science and technology payloads, including one European Space Agency-led drill suite to the Moon's South Pole. This award will leverage Intuitive Machines' lunar delivery, data transmission, and autonomous operation capabilities to explore the region targeted for sustained human operations

---

For the Stock Market and SpaceX crossover crowd, this could mean a jump for LUNR. They're also based in Austin and have lots of Aggies working for them.

---

After hours stock price up 16%

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, I'll chime in. It was technically a mishap. Part of the flight plan included landing and recovery, so basically anytime there is a mishap there is an automatic suspension of further flights pending an investigation.

Not the right legalese/bureaucratic language I know, but this is just how it works, to my understanding. This one is likely to be over in a week or two, imho. They'll sort it out and move on:

Losing a booster is always sad. Each one of them has a unique history and character. Thankfully this doesn’t happen often, due to the robust design and vigilance of the team.

We are working as hard as we can to thoroughly understand root cause and get corrective actions in place…

— Jon Edwards (@edwards345) August 28, 2024

---

From the IFT-4 launch license I thought the launch licenses for Falcon 9 could be written in a way that said certain failures were acceptable as long as public safety isn't compromised with the understanding that it would be corrected, but that there would be no halt to future launches.

If IFT-5 wasn't going to include a booster catch, the FAA would have been fine repeating IFT-4 even though the booster came down with one engine on fire and ship came down 6 miles off course and a few rivets away from disintegration.

---

Still apples and oranges. Falcon 9 is not an experimental rocket, so any failure is an aberration that needs to be investigated. Starship and heavy booster are experimental, and the FAA looks at it from the perspective that some kind of failure is expected, but cannot be predicted.

---

If a rocket comes down in the wrong place, who cares if it's experimental or not? Seems like there's more that could go wrong if an experimental rocket goes off course than a production rocket, but a variance is allowed with an experimental rocket, and not a production rocket?

TexAgs91 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, I'll chime in. It was technically a mishap. Part of the flight plan included landing and recovery, so basically anytime there is a mishap there is an automatic suspension of further flights pending an investigation.

Not the right legalese/bureaucratic language I know, but this is just how it works, to my understanding. This one is likely to be over in a week or two, imho. They'll sort it out and move on:

Losing a booster is always sad. Each one of them has a unique history and character. Thankfully this doesn’t happen often, due to the robust design and vigilance of the team.

We are working as hard as we can to thoroughly understand root cause and get corrective actions in place…

— Jon Edwards (@edwards345) August 28, 2024

---

From the IFT-4 launch license I thought the launch licenses for Falcon 9 could be written in a way that said certain failures were acceptable as long as public safety isn't compromised with the understanding that it would be corrected, but that there would be no halt to future launches.

If IFT-5 wasn't going to include a booster catch, the FAA would have been fine repeating IFT-4 even though the booster came down with one engine on fire and ship came down 6 miles off course and a few rivets away from disintegration.

---

Still apples and oranges. Falcon 9 is not an experimental rocket, so any failure is an aberration that needs to be investigated. Starship and heavy booster are experimental, and the FAA looks at it from the perspective that some kind of failure is expected, but cannot be predicted.

---

If a rocket comes down in the wrong place, who cares if it's experimental or not? Seems like there's more that could go wrong if an experimental rocket goes off course than a production rocket, but a variance is allowed with an experimental rocket, and not a production rocket?

---

The rockets didn't come down in the wrong place.

The rockets have flight termination that goes Boom! if they go off course.

During the first starship test flight the self termination failed. It was one of the updates needed for second flight. It's presumably been fixed so uncontrolled rocket will boom in the sky before posing a danger to anything outside of the flight envelope.

Watching Scott Manly's latest. He's redone the landing footage and put it as best he can side by side with another landing on nearly identical launch parameters.

Looks like it came in a bit fast and the engines looked to hit the deck. Only a maybe 10km/s variance.

bmks270 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, I'll chime in. It was technically a mishap. Part of the flight plan included landing and recovery, so basically anytime there is a mishap there is an automatic suspension of further flights pending an investigation.

Not the right legalese/bureaucratic language I know, but this is just how it works, to my understanding. This one is likely to be over in a week or two, imho. They'll sort it out and move on:

Losing a booster is always sad. Each one of them has a unique history and character. Thankfully this doesn’t happen often, due to the robust design and vigilance of the team.

We are working as hard as we can to thoroughly understand root cause and get corrective actions in place…

— Jon Edwards (@edwards345) August 28, 2024

---

From the IFT-4 launch license I thought the launch licenses for Falcon 9 could be written in a way that said certain failures were acceptable as long as public safety isn't compromised with the understanding that it would be corrected, but that there would be no halt to future launches.

If IFT-5 wasn't going to include a booster catch, the FAA would have been fine repeating IFT-4 even though the booster came down with one engine on fire and ship came down 6 miles off course and a few rivets away from disintegration.

---

Still apples and oranges. Falcon 9 is not an experimental rocket, so any failure is an aberration that needs to be investigated. Starship and heavy booster are experimental, and the FAA looks at it from the perspective that some kind of failure is expected, but cannot be predicted.

---

If a rocket comes down in the wrong place, who cares if it's experimental or not? Seems like there's more that could go wrong if an experimental rocket goes off course than a production rocket, but a variance is allowed with an experimental rocket, and not a production rocket?

---

The rockets didn't come down in the wrong place.

The rockets have flight termination that goes Boom! if they go off course.

During the first starship test flight the self termination failed. It was one of the updates needed for second flight. It's presumably been fixed so uncontrolled rocket will boom in the sky before posing a danger to anything outside of the flight envelope.

---

Thanks, but not really talking about specifics of the starship launches. I was talking about acceptable failure scenarios in experimental vs non-experimental launch licenses

TexAgs91 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, I'll chime in. It was technically a mishap. Part of the flight plan included landing and recovery, so basically anytime there is a mishap there is an automatic suspension of further flights pending an investigation.

Not the right legalese/bureaucratic language I know, but this is just how it works, to my understanding. This one is likely to be over in a week or two, imho. They'll sort it out and move on:

Losing a booster is always sad. Each one of them has a unique history and character. Thankfully this doesn’t happen often, due to the robust design and vigilance of the team.

We are working as hard as we can to thoroughly understand root cause and get corrective actions in place…

— Jon Edwards (@edwards345) August 28, 2024

---

From the IFT-4 launch license I thought the launch licenses for Falcon 9 could be written in a way that said certain failures were acceptable as long as public safety isn't compromised with the understanding that it would be corrected, but that there would be no halt to future launches.

If IFT-5 wasn't going to include a booster catch, the FAA would have been fine repeating IFT-4 even though the booster came down with one engine on fire and ship came down 6 miles off course and a few rivets away from disintegration.

---

Still apples and oranges. Falcon 9 is not an experimental rocket, so any failure is an aberration that needs to be investigated. Starship and heavy booster are experimental, and the FAA looks at it from the perspective that some kind of failure is expected, but cannot be predicted.

---

If a rocket comes down in the wrong place, who cares if it's experimental or not? Seems like there's more that could go wrong if an experimental rocket goes off course than a production rocket, but a variance is allowed with an experimental rocket, and not a production rocket?

---

The rockets didn't come down in the wrong place.

The rockets have flight termination that goes Boom! if they go off course.

During the first starship test flight the self termination failed. It was one of the updates needed for second flight. It's presumably been fixed so uncontrolled rocket will boom in the sky before posing a danger to anything outside of the flight envelope.

---

Thanks, but not really talking about specifics of the starship launches. I was talking about acceptable failure scenarios in experimental vs non-experimental launch licenses

---

Maybe you meant off course figuratively and not literally, but both experimental and production rockets have flight termination capabilities that are intended to prevent them from going off course. Neither is permitted to deviate from the planned flight envelope or fly without control.

When I say rockets, I am also including the falcon 9 booster that was lost recently. It did not go off course. It hit the drone ship.

Nobody has more incentive and qualification to diagnose what went wrong with that F9 than SpaceX. No humans were put in danger as the incident happened out at sea. FAA should have no role in this. They are nothing but an impediment to progress.

bmks270 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, I'll chime in. It was technically a mishap. Part of the flight plan included landing and recovery, so basically anytime there is a mishap there is an automatic suspension of further flights pending an investigation.

Not the right legalese/bureaucratic language I know, but this is just how it works, to my understanding. This one is likely to be over in a week or two, imho. They'll sort it out and move on:

Losing a booster is always sad. Each one of them has a unique history and character. Thankfully this doesn’t happen often, due to the robust design and vigilance of the team.

We are working as hard as we can to thoroughly understand root cause and get corrective actions in place…

— Jon Edwards (@edwards345) August 28, 2024

---

From the IFT-4 launch license I thought the launch licenses for Falcon 9 could be written in a way that said certain failures were acceptable as long as public safety isn't compromised with the understanding that it would be corrected, but that there would be no halt to future launches.

If IFT-5 wasn't going to include a booster catch, the FAA would have been fine repeating IFT-4 even though the booster came down with one engine on fire and ship came down 6 miles off course and a few rivets away from disintegration.

---

Still apples and oranges. Falcon 9 is not an experimental rocket, so any failure is an aberration that needs to be investigated. Starship and heavy booster are experimental, and the FAA looks at it from the perspective that some kind of failure is expected, but cannot be predicted.

---

If a rocket comes down in the wrong place, who cares if it's experimental or not? Seems like there's more that could go wrong if an experimental rocket goes off course than a production rocket, but a variance is allowed with an experimental rocket, and not a production rocket?

---

The rockets didn't come down in the wrong place.

The rockets have flight termination that goes Boom! if they go off course.

During the first starship test flight the self termination failed. It was one of the updates needed for second flight. It's presumably been fixed so uncontrolled rocket will boom in the sky before posing a danger to anything outside of the flight envelope.

---

Thanks, but not really talking about specifics of the starship launches. I was talking about acceptable failure scenarios in experimental vs non-experimental launch licenses

---

Maybe you meant off course figuratively and not literally, but both experimental and production rockets have flight termination capabilities that are intended to prevent them from going off course. Neither is permitted to deviate from the planned flight envelope or fly without control.

When I say rockets, I am also including the falcon 9 booster that was lost recently. It did not go off course. It hit the drone ship.

---

I was talking about acceptable failure scenarios in experimental vs non-experimental launch licenses

Eureka!

Scientists Stunned to Find Huge Reservoirs of Water Under Mars' Surface

Quote:

---

NASA's InSight Lander findings have shown evidence of water deep beneath Mars' surface. As per scientists' discoveries, the water source is likely trapped in small cracks and pores in the Martian crust. This water could cover Mars to a depth of about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) and fill the planet's oceans. The InSight Lander collected such data during 2018-2020 but the findings refurbished and stunned the scientists.

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Eureka!

Scientists Stunned to Find Huge Reservoirs of Water Under Mars' Surface

Quote:

---

NASA's InSight Lander findings have shown evidence of water deep beneath Mars' surface. As per scientists' discoveries, the water source is likely trapped in small cracks and pores in the Martian crust. This water could cover Mars to a depth of about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) and fill the planet's oceans. The InSight Lander collected such data during 2018-2020 but the findings refurbished and stunned the scientists.

---

---

I'm extremely skeptical of theses claims until I can read more about the evidence and logic they used to make such a claim.

I don't see how they make such a grand claim from some isolated readings from a rover.

They got that info from drilling two inches in to a rock with the rover, duh.

Sea Speed said:

---

They got that info from drilling two inches in to a rock with the rover, duh.

---

There is a reason I provided a link to the article.

Can you not recognize an obvious joke when you see one?

bmks270 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Eureka!

Scientists Stunned to Find Huge Reservoirs of Water Under Mars' Surface

Quote:

---

NASA's InSight Lander findings have shown evidence of water deep beneath Mars' surface. As per scientists' discoveries, the water source is likely trapped in small cracks and pores in the Martian crust. This water could cover Mars to a depth of about 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) and fill the planet's oceans. The InSight Lander collected such data during 2018-2020 but the findings refurbished and stunned the scientists.

---

---

I'm extremely skeptical of theses claims until I can read more about the evidence and logic they used to make such a claim.

I don't see how they make such a grand claim from some isolated readings from a rover.

---

Maybe you know... read the article I posted?

I read the scholarly article the story was based on. These studies are not definitive - they are educated guesses based on available data. Researchers DO, however, tend to bend their findings towards available funding sources. That's just the way the game is played.

duff el pud said:

---

I read the scholarly article the story was based on. These studies are not definitive - they are educated guesses based on available data. Researchers DO, however, tend to bend their findings towards available funding sources. That's just the way the game is played.

---

From what I read it looked like they used seismometers to analyze Mars quakes. The propagation rate of quakes through mars matched what they would expect if there was water in the rocks. Are the articles you read saying something else?

eta: I see your link now...

TexAgs91 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ok, I'll chime in. It was technically a mishap. Part of the flight plan included landing and recovery, so basically anytime there is a mishap there is an automatic suspension of further flights pending an investigation.

Not the right legalese/bureaucratic language I know, but this is just how it works, to my understanding. This one is likely to be over in a week or two, imho. They'll sort it out and move on:

Losing a booster is always sad. Each one of them has a unique history and character. Thankfully this doesn’t happen often, due to the robust design and vigilance of the team.

We are working as hard as we can to thoroughly understand root cause and get corrective actions in place…

— Jon Edwards (@edwards345) August 28, 2024

---

From the IFT-4 launch license I thought the launch licenses for Falcon 9 could be written in a way that said certain failures were acceptable as long as public safety isn't compromised with the understanding that it would be corrected, but that there would be no halt to future launches.

If IFT-5 wasn't going to include a booster catch, the FAA would have been fine repeating IFT-4 even though the booster came down with one engine on fire and ship came down 6 miles off course and a few rivets away from disintegration.

---

Still apples and oranges. Falcon 9 is not an experimental rocket, so any failure is an aberration that needs to be investigated. Starship and heavy booster are experimental, and the FAA looks at it from the perspective that some kind of failure is expected, but cannot be predicted.

---

If a rocket comes down in the wrong place, who cares if it's experimental or not? Seems like there's more that could go wrong if an experimental rocket goes off course than a production rocket, but a variance is allowed with an experimental rocket, and not a production rocket?

---

If something is working and then all of a sudden stops working, you stop using it to figure out why and if it's going to keep reoccurring. If you're developing something and know that it's not a finished product, you expect failures as a part of that development process and aren't going to stop developing it because it stopped working. That's the point of development.

Either way the FAA should stay out of it. Unless 3rd party humans are in danger (which they are not in this case).

Quote:

---

While that's good news for those tracking the fate of water on the planet after its oceans disappeared more than 3 billion years ago, the reservoir won't be of much use to anyone trying to tap into it to supply a future Mars colony. It's located in tiny cracks and pores in rock in the middle of the Martian crust, between 11.5 and 20 kilometers (7 to 13 miles) below the surface. Even on Earth, drilling that deep would be a challenge.

The finding does pinpoint another promising place to look for life on Mars, however, if the reservoir can be accessed. For the moment, it helps answer questions about the geological history of the planet.

---

I think I have my answer here

TexAgs91 said:

---

Do production rockets like the Falcon 9 have launch licenses? And if so, would the licenses specify certain failure modes that should be corrected, but would not require a halt in launches until it is fixed? For example if it fell over during landing but landed in the correct spot and didn't come close to harming anyone or anything?

---

"perplexity.ai" said:

---

Yes, production rockets like the Falcon 9 do have launch licenses issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). These licenses authorize companies like SpaceX to conduct launches under specific conditions and requirements.

Public Safety Considerations
The primary concern for the FAA is public safety. If a failure mode does not pose a risk to public safety, there may be more flexibility in allowing launches to continue.

Safety-Critical Systems
The FAA distinguishes between failures that affect safety-critical systems and those that don't. Issues that don't involve safety-critical systems are less likely to result in a complete halt of launches.

Public Safety Determination
In cases where an anomaly occurs but is deemed not to affect public safety, SpaceX can request a "public safety determination" from the FAA. If granted, this allows launches to proceed while the investigation into the anomaly continues.

Landing Failures vs. Launch Failures
In the specific case of a booster falling over during landing, as long as it landed in the correct spot and didn't endanger anyone or anything, it would likely be considered a recovery issue rather than a launch safety issue. This type of failure would be less likely to result in a complete halt of launches, especially if it can be demonstrated that the problem is isolated to the landing phase and does not affect the primary mission or public safety.

However, it's important to note that the FAA still requires an investigation into such incidents, and SpaceX may need to request and receive approval to modify its license to incorporate any corrective actions. The duration of any pause in launches would depend on the nature and severity of the failure, as well as how quickly the root cause can be identified and addressed.

---

The bolded parts answer my question. I guess the FAA is waiting to hear from SpaceX that this obviously doesn't endanger anyone.

And they're back in business. pic.twitter.com/tFeN2dAu6H

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) August 30, 2024

aTmAg said:

---

Either way the FAA should stay out of it. Unless 3rd party humans are in danger (which they are not in this case).

---

The problem is that not all landings are on the drone ships. Explosions at the landing pad 'could' impact people or property.

lb3 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Either way the FAA should stay out of it. Unless 3rd party humans are in danger (which they are not in this case).

---

The problem is that not all landings are on the drone ships. Explosions at the landing pad 'could' impact people or property.

---

People are cleared out to a 4 mile radius for launches. This is no concern.

The FAA unofficial motto says it all: We aren't happy until you aren't happy.

Great picture but goodness we don't need some massive OSHA wrongful death investigation here.

Timestamp on SBL is 6:32:49 AM CDT pic.twitter.com/IoPMcMyfW8

— ⚡BMCtv⚡ (@WX8BMC) August 31, 2024

I think this is pretty well covered at this point but give kudo's to Netflix for doing this as a documentary (their documentaries usually have excellent production value/are good):


Some updates on changes in ships coming up, and the tip over on landing for F9 is covered around 13:30:

I'm no lightningologist, but I think that worker is safer on the metal structure than standing on the ground next to it. When people usually "get struck by lightning", they don't actually get stuck themselves. It strikes the ground near them and then it shoots up one leg and down the other as humans are better conductors than the ground. So standing next to a tree is bad because lightning will hit the tree go down to the ground, and then up and down through you. That's why they say to stand low and with your feet together when out in a lightning storm.

aTmAg said:

---

I'm no lightningologist, but I think that worker is safer on the metal structure than standing on the ground next to it. When people usually "get struck by lightning", they don't actually get stuck themselves. It strikes the ground near them and then it shoots up one leg and down the other as humans are better conductors than the ground. So standing next to a tree is bad because lightning will hit the tree go down to the ground, and then up and down through you. That's why they say to stand low and with your feet together when out in a lightning storm.

---

Sure, welding on top of that thing in a thunder and lightning storm is safe.

It's insane. Lightning kills.

Recognizing further that most of the time welders are…well grounded, you still don't wanna be up there in a lightning storm, imho. It's just…a bad idea. The defense to me would be that it was (almost certainly) a zoom lens from miles away and the lightning mighta been maybe 5 or 10 miles away, but still.

Anyway, it's game day, gotta laugh.

Study Shows 9 Out Of 10 Astronauts Choose To Be Stranded In Space Rather Than Board Craft Built By Boeing https://t.co/Honfb7asuw pic.twitter.com/UEokx3s0LK

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) August 31, 2024

Starliner seems to be coming to life. Literally. It's making a pulsing sound over its speakers.

https://www.engadget.com/science/space/now-theres-a-creepy-sonar-like-sound-coming-through-one-of-starliners-speakers-184751210.html

Haven't watched the whole thing but great production value and content as usual;