0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The wind is currently 15mph. It would surely be more calm around 3 or 4. I can't believe that wind was an issue.
Elon Musk@elonmusk·1hUnlike its aircraft division, which is fine, the FAA space division has a fundamentally broken regulatory structure. Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.
Engine Chill.Launch can be any moment.
FAA is now saying SpaceX's license indicates IF there was an an anomaly either on the SN8 flight or the SN9 tip over it must be disclosed otherwise no Flying.
Detanking.
In a bizarre series of events, SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk spent the day visibly clashing with the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over Starship launch licensing delays.Just six weeks ago, Starship serial number 8 (SN8) nearly aced the SpaceX’s first FAA-approved high-altitude launch debut out of South Texas, demonstrating the rocket’s ability to safely launch to high altitudes and return back to earth. Though a pressurization issue ultimately caused SN8 to lose thrust and impact the ground before it could gently touch down, the Starship made it a full six and a half minutes into a roughly seven-minute test flight before anything went wrong – a degree of success far greater than almost anyone at SpaceX confidently expected.In the leadup to a bizarre last-minute abort of what may or may not have been Starship SN9’s first real launch attempt, Musk had some strong words for the FAA’s space division, deeming its regulatory structure “fundamentally broken†and a regime under which “humanity will never get to Mars.†Not long after that and in the midst of a great deal of uncertainty and mixed messages about the status of the rocket’s FAA launch license, SpaceX appeared to begin loading Starship SN9 with liquid oxygen and methane propellant.Because a launch flow is virtually indistinguishable – aside from paperwork – from the process of preparing a Starship for a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) or Raptor engine static fire, it’s impossible to know if SpaceX was attempting to hedge its bets or simply taking advantage of established readiness to perform additional ground tests.incredibly weird given that SN9 is a virtually identical copy of Starship SN8, which the FAA approved to fly an identical trajectory like six weeks ago. https://t.co/DQCxYdA5rV— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) January 28, 2021It was pretty clear they didn't have FAA authorization. My assumption is that SpaceX expected to obtain it at some point today.— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) January 28, 2021According to vague but official comments from the FAA provided to Washington Post reporter Christian Davenport, the licensing issue “is related to SN9,†which could imply a vehicle hardware or software issue but could just as easily be true for almost anything even tangentially related to the launch (range, ground systems, politics, semi-arbitrary risk analysis, etc). Ultimately, perhaps just a minute or less away from a possible static fire or launch, SpaceX aborted Starship SN9’s mysterious January 28th test and gradually detanked the rocket over the next few hours.
I think the FAA was trying to make some last minute hay over the "Ilene" incident....
I think it's because Musk criticized the tech stock darlings and this was payback.
