From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   Lo, on the 10/16/2024, Alain Fournier did proclaim ...   
   > On 2024-10-16 8:35 p.m., Snidely wrote:   
   >> On Tuesday or thereabouts, Alain Fournier asked ...   
   >>> On 2024-10-15 4:28 p.m., Snidely wrote:   
   >>>> Snidely suggested that ...   
   >>>>> Alain Fournier in between]   
   >>>>>> On 2024-10-13 11:42 a.m., The Running Man wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>> Again: I predict NASA will verbally reprimand them to speed things up   
   >>>>>>> once   
   >>>>>>> they've had a successful flight.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I don't think that's needed.  SpaceX is showing signs of being eager to   
   >>>>> meet the NASA milestones, which is part of why this launch had a catch   
   >>>>> and there was a lot of noise about the FAA holdup.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Flight 6 has a launch license; same end points, additional objectives   
   >>>> allowed.  Do you think it will fly in December or January?   
   >>>   
   >>> The analysis of IFT-5 will probably call for modifications to Starship for   
   >>> IFT-6. It is hard to tell how much time those modifications will take.   
   >>> SpaceX seems to have made modifications after IFT-4 quite fast, so we know   
   >>> they can do it fast. But it's still hard to know how long it will take to   
   >>> do modifications without knowing what those modifications are.   
   >>> Nonetheless, I think December or January is a plausible timeline.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Alain Fournier   
   >>   
   >> I agree.  I suspect that most of the changes will happen in connection with   
   >> the outer ring of RVac bells.  Will this be a shielding change, additional   
   >> CO2, or a procedural change?  Will an entry burn happen after all?  TBD,   
   >> but it will probably be a quick change.  We'll be well into V2 of the ship   
   >> before V2 boosters roll out;  V1 boosters might get re- used, but it   
   >> needn't be rapid yet ... and swapping engines might mean a mere couple   
   >> weeks before 2nd liftoff.   
   >   
   > I am not sure, but I think that there was still some burn through in the   
   > Ships thermal protection system. Not nearly as bad as for IFT-4 for sure. But   
   > I think there were some problems. That is the modification I would be most   
   > worried about.   
   >   
   >   
   > Alain Fournier   
      
   I wouldn't, because the most vulnerable places are the forward flaps,   
   which will be more on the lee side in V2.  Expect at most 1 more V1   
   ship to fly.   
      
   The upgraded tiles and the ablative reserve seem to have been a   
   successful upgrade, even at the forward flaps.   
      
   /dps   
      
   --   
    Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a   
   future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered   
   virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.   
     Bradley Wertheim,  theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)