From: mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com   
      
   "JF Mezei"  wrote in message news:mL6TH.89293$xa.53368@fx47.iad...   
   >   
   >On 2021-02-04 17:07, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:   
   >   
   >> I'll also point out from other sources, SpaceX generally has been VERY   
   >> diligent with its FAA applications despite the issue here.   
   >   
   >The FAA disagrees which it why it got involved after SN8 because SpaceX   
   >had not properly documented risk of explosion and the "boom" generated   
   >and required SpaceX to change its prodecures and file with FAA, and   
   >SpaceX had not done that which is why SpaceX did NOT get FAA approval   
   >for a few days untl the paperwork was filed.   
      
   Really? FAA disagrees that SpaceX has been very diligent?   
   Then pray tell me why they've allowed well over 100 launches. If the FAA   
   didn't think SpaceX was diligent in its processes, you can guarantee that   
   every launch since SN9 would have been held up.   
      
   Yes, there was an issue with SN8s application. But apparently not so serious   
   that FAA has stopped SpaceX from its activities.   
      
   >   
   >> Yeah, SN9 has a RUD, it sucked. But... hey.. how many times has some test   
   >> version of Starship actually LEFT THE GROUND. Now compare to how many   
   >> versions of SLS have flown even an inch.  And compare the cost.   
   >   
   >NASA recently tested an integrated SLS and found a flaw, engines shut,   
   >no damage.  NASA can't afford to lose one (finite number of available   
   >shuttle engines and cost of building the SLS rocket itself due to pork).   
   >   
   >SpaceX can afford to spit out the glorified grain silos at high rate and   
   >test them in the air. The FAA has taken issue with this type of cowboy   
   >attitude because of the impact of explosions on neighbouring communities.   
      
   Right, which is why within what, 3 days of the initial no, SpaceX managed to   
   launch SN9.  Yeah, FAA must be having HUGE fits.   
      
   >   
   >SpaceX' iterative design means they are not yet at a stage where they   
   >think about backup when one engine fails during landing. That is for the   
   >future. But in the present, FAA is sending the message: if you want to   
   >test in the air, you have to be serious about preventing large explosion   
   >when it falls flat on the ground.   
   >   
   >So the iterative design principle is hitting a regulatory wall because   
   >at this stage  , Starship is too big to be destructively tested so often.   
   >   
      
   Ayup, HUGE wall. "Hey, you can't launch today, let's step back and review   
   and you can launch in a few days. OMG, that's a fucking showstopper!"   
      
      
   >As I said in an earlier post, this iterative design would work well in   
   >central australia. (where such testing was done in the early days of   
   >rockets (lookup woomera).  But in populated texas, blowing up rockets   
   >for fun as you slowly advance design is starting to be frowned upon by FAA.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> they'll never get it right. (cue the choir of folks who doubted they'd   
   >> ever   
   >> get Falcon 9 to land, let alone reliably. How many have they nailed now?   
   >> One   
   >> stage has flow I think 7 times?)   
   >   
   >And managed just under 1 month turnaround.  With every flight, Flacon9   
   >is proving its reliability and increasing the number of times a rocket   
   >can reliably be re-used. (I assume at one point SpaceX will notice the   
   >rocked starts to need too much work to turn around).   
   >   
   >However, Falcon9 is a proven design, and it lands generally at sea, so a   
   >failutre there doesn't bother FAA.  Falcon 9 is also a stable design.   
      
   Yes, and Falcon 9 has a lot of early booms and the FAA seemed ok with that.   
      
   >   
   >Starship is not Falcon 9. It is an incomplete design that constantly   
   >evolves. So how do you evaluate whether the next Starship is safe when   
   >you can'tc oompare it against the previous ?   
      
   Hmm I don't know. Let's see. Same basic engines, same basic structure.   
   Flight is fairly similar. Same fuel, similar fuel loads.   
      
   OMG, you're right again, there's NO way you could compare SN9 to SN8,   
   they're SO completely different!   
      
      
   --   
   Greg D. Moore                   http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/   
   CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net   
   IT Disaster Response -   
   https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)