Thursday, the twice postponed Starlink Group 9-3 launch went up from
Vandenberg at the beginning of the window (no jellyfish for SoCal on
this one), and the booster (B1063 on its 19th flight) worked and was
recovered.

But the second stage could be seen in the downlink to be shedding more
ice than usual from the insulated "bag" above the nozzle, and fell way
short of 200 km (152 km than down to 139 km after "stage 2 in terminal
guidance" was announced). SpaceX terminated the feed after "MVac
shutdown" was called out, about 38 min into the youtube relay by
Spaceflight Now.

SpaceX's web site says "the second stage engine did not complete its
second burn .... satellites were deployed into a lower than intended
orbit. SpaceX has made contact with five of the satellites so far and
is attmpting to have them raise orbit using their ion thrusters."

/dps

--
Let's celebrate Macaronesia

On 2024-07-12 3:36 a.m., Snidely wrote:
> Thursday, the twice postponed Starlink Group 9-3 launch went up from
> Vandenberg at the beginning of the window (no jellyfish for SoCal on
> this one), and the booster (B1063 on its 19th flight) worked and was
> recovered.

"Its 19th flight", and B1062 has flown 20 times. I think that is great.
I wonder how much work needs to be done on those boosters for this. I
know SpaceX says they don't need to be refurbished between flights. But
an ICE car needs an oil change after something like 5000 km. I assume
Falcon boosters have some kind of maintenance schedule of their own.

Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier submitted this idea :
> On 2024-07-12 3:36 a.m., Snidely wrote:
>> Thursday, the twice postponed Starlink Group 9-3 launch went up from
>> Vandenberg at the beginning of the window (no jellyfish for SoCal on this
>> one), and the booster (B1063 on its 19th flight) worked and was recovered.
>
> "Its 19th flight", and B1062 has flown 20 times. I think that is great. I
> wonder how much work needs to be done on those boosters for this. I know
> SpaceX says they don't need to be refurbished between flights. But an ICE car
> needs an oil change after something like 5000 km. I assume Falcon boosters
> have some kind of maintenance schedule of their own.
>
>
> Alain Fournier

There are occasional engine swaps. B1063 took 58 days for it's
turnaround. That much we know.

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

On Friday, Snidely pointed out that ...
> Thursday, the twice postponed Starlink Group 9-3 launch went up from
> Vandenberg at the beginning of the window (no jellyfish for SoCal on this
> one), and the booster (B1063 on its 19th flight) worked and was recovered.
>
> But the second stage could be seen in the downlink to be shedding more ice
> than usual from the insulated "bag" above the nozzle, and fell way short of
> 200 km (152 km than down to 139 km after "stage 2 in terminal guidance" was
> announced). SpaceX terminated the feed after "MVac shutdown" was called out,
> about 38 min into the youtube relay by Spaceflight Now.
>
> SpaceX's web site says "the second stage engine did not complete its second
> burn .... satellites were deployed into a lower than intended orbit. SpaceX
> has made contact with five of the satellites so far and is attmpting to have
> them raise orbit using their ion thrusters."
>
> /dps

NSF (in today's /This Week In Space/) and Scott Manley report on this,
noting that the FAA has announced that it is requiring an
investigation. Also, it seems Elon has x'd that the rocket motor had a
RUD, evidently on relight.

The altitude issues I noticed may be normal ellipitical orbit
insertion. And looking at Starlink 8-8 (a month ago), similar numbers
do show up before the coast phase. The relight would be the
circularization burn at apogee.

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

Snidely used thar keyboard to writen:
> Thursday, the twice postponed Starlink Group 9-3 launch went up from
> Vandenberg at the beginning of the window (no jellyfish for SoCal on this
> one), and the booster (B1063 on its 19th flight) worked and was recovered.
>
> But the second stage could be seen in the downlink to be shedding more ice
> than usual from the insulated "bag" above the nozzle, and fell way short of
> 200 km (152 km than down to 139 km after "stage 2 in terminal guidance" was
> announced). SpaceX terminated the feed after "MVac shutdown" was called out,
> about 38 min into the youtube relay by Spaceflight Now.
>
> SpaceX's web site says "the second stage engine did not complete its second
> burn .... satellites were deployed into a lower than intended orbit. SpaceX
> has made contact with five of the satellites so far and is attmpting to have
> them raise orbit using their ion thrusters."
>
> /dps

Broken sense line. Return to flight successful on July 27, lift off at
1:45 EDT (Florida local time) from KSC, satellite deployment normal.

Two more Starlink launches this weekend, using the other two F9 launch
sites: CCSFS and Vandenberg.

/dps

--
"That’s where I end with this kind of conversation: Language is
crucial, and yet not the answer."
Jonathan Rosa, sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist,
Stanford.,2020

Snidely explained :
> Snidely used thar keyboard to writen:
>> Thursday, the twice postponed Starlink Group 9-3 launch went up from
>> Vandenberg at the beginning of the window (no jellyfish for SoCal on this
>> one), and the booster (B1063 on its 19th flight) worked and was recovered.
>>
>> But the second stage could be seen in the downlink to be shedding more ice
>> than usual from the insulated "bag" above the nozzle, and fell way short of
>> 200 km (152 km than down to 139 km after "stage 2 in terminal guidance"
>> was announced). SpaceX terminated the feed after "MVac shutdown" was
>> called out, about 38 min into the youtube relay by Spaceflight Now.
>>
>> SpaceX's web site says "the second stage engine did not complete its second
>> burn .... satellites were deployed into a lower than intended orbit.
>> SpaceX has made contact with five of the satellites so far and is attmpting
>> to have them raise orbit using their ion thrusters."
>>
>> /dps
>
> Broken sense line. Return to flight successful on July 27, lift off at 1:45
> EDT (Florida local time) from KSC, satellite deployment normal.
>
> Two more Starlink launches this weekend, using the other two F9 launch sites:
> CCSFS and Vandenberg.

A link to Eric Berger's article:
<URL:https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-roars-back-to-orbit-barely-two-weeks-after-in-flight-anomaly/>

/dps

--
https://xkcd.com/2704

On 27/07/2024 20:42 Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
> Snidely explained :
>> Snidely used thar keyboard to writen:
>>> Thursday, the twice postponed Starlink Group 9-3 launch went up from
>>> Vandenberg at the beginning of the window (no jellyfish for SoCal on this
>>> one), and the booster (B1063 on its 19th flight) worked and was recovered.
>>>
>>> But the second stage could be seen in the downlink to be shedding more ice
>>> than usual from the insulated "bag" above the nozzle, and fell way short of
>>> 200 km (152 km than down to 139 km after "stage 2 in terminal guidance"
>>> was announced). SpaceX terminated the feed after "MVac shutdown" was
>>> called out, about 38 min into the youtube relay by Spaceflight Now.
>>>
>>> SpaceX's web site says "the second stage engine did not complete its second
>>> burn .... satellites were deployed into a lower than intended orbit.
>>> SpaceX has made contact with five of the satellites so far and is attmpting
>>> to have them raise orbit using their ion thrusters."
>>>
>>> /dps
>>
>> Broken sense line. Return to flight successful on July 27, lift off at 1:45
>> EDT (Florida local time) from KSC, satellite deployment normal.
>>
>> Two more Starlink launches this weekend, using the other two F9 launch sites:
>> CCSFS and Vandenberg.
>
> A link to Eric Berger's article:
> <URL:https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-roars-back-to-orbit-barely-two-weeks-after-in-flight-anomaly/>
>
> /dps
>
> --
> https://xkcd.com/2704

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4829/1

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-just-stomped-the-competition-for-a-new-contract-thats-not-great/

These articles are even more interesting, although I don't like the suggestion that it somehow SpaceX's fault
that other launch providers are faltering. Their competitors simply aren't able to perform and are therefore losing
more and more NASA contracts.

Yes, it's a bad thing that NASA is becoming a mono-culture, but it's not SpaceX who's to blame.

On Saturday, The Running Man exclaimed wildly:
> On 27/07/2024 20:42 Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Snidely explained :
>>> Snidely used thar keyboard to writen:
>>>> Thursday, the twice postponed Starlink Group 9-3 launch went up from
>>>> Vandenberg at the beginning of the window (no jellyfish for SoCal on this
>>>> one), and the booster (B1063 on its 19th flight) worked and was recovered.
>>>>
>>>> But the second stage could be seen in the downlink to be shedding more ice
>>>> than usual from the insulated "bag" above the nozzle, and fell way short
>>>> of 200 km (152 km than down to 139 km after "stage 2 in terminal
>>>> guidance" was announced). SpaceX terminated the feed after "MVac
>>>> shutdown" was called out, about 38 min into the youtube relay by
>>>> Spaceflight Now.
>>>>
>>>> SpaceX's web site says "the second stage engine did not complete its
>>>> second burn .... satellites were deployed into a lower than intended
>>>> orbit. SpaceX has made contact with five of the satellites so far and is
>>>> attmpting to have them raise orbit using their ion thrusters."
>>>>
>>>> /dps
>>>
>>> Broken sense line. Return to flight successful on July 27, lift off at
>>> 1:45 EDT (Florida local time) from KSC, satellite deployment normal.
>>>
>>> Two more Starlink launches this weekend, using the other two F9 launch
>>> sites: CCSFS and Vandenberg.
>>
>> A link to Eric Berger's article:
>> <URL:https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-roars-back-to-orbit-barely-two-weeks-after-in-flight-anomaly/>
>>
>> /dps
>>
>> --
>> https://xkcd.com/2704
>
> https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4829/1
>
> https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-just-stomped-the-competition-for-a-new-contract-thats-not-great/
>
> These articles are even more interesting,

Although a different topic rather than a reply about Return To Flight
or the diagnosis of the issue of July 11.

> although I don't like the
> suggestion that it somehow SpaceX's fault that other launch providers are
> faltering. Their competitors simply aren't able to perform and are therefore
> losing more and more NASA contracts.

Is this a stable situation? Over the short term, maybe, but I see
Rocket Lab and Blue Origin being able to challenge it down the line.
Of course, that's being optimistic about two unflown vehicles, but Beck
has shown an ability to perform, and Blue Origin has resources it is
willing to put forth (viz 2nd manned lunar lander).

Northrup Grumman might be able to take advantage of the nimbleness of
Firefly, but until we see Cygnus fly without a Falcon, that is
speculative.

> Yes, it's a bad thing that NASA is becoming a mono-culture, but it's not
> SpaceX who's to blame.

We'll eventually find out what the long term looks like. Will SpaceX
lose its agility, will a newcomer fly past them, or will Old Space
finally wake up?

/dps

--
https://xkcd.com/2704