https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-approves-starship-ift-5-test-flight-tomorrow/

SpaceX is supposed to launch tomorrow morning at 7 AM Central Time. But
there is a catch. Or at least we hope the "chopsticks" will work and
there will be one.

Alain Fournier

On 2024-10-12 8:34 p.m., Alain Fournier wrote:
>
> https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-approves-starship-ift-5-test-
> flight-tomorrow/
>
> SpaceX is supposed to launch tomorrow morning at 7 AM Central Time. But
> there is a catch. Or at least we hope the "chopsticks" will work and
> there will be one.

Wow, what a catch that was!

Alain Fournier

On 2024-10-13 8:33 a.m., Alain Fournier wrote:
> On 2024-10-12 8:34 p.m., Alain Fournier wrote:
>>
>> https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-approves-starship-ift-5-test-
>> flight-tomorrow/
>>
>> SpaceX is supposed to launch tomorrow morning at 7 AM Central Time.
>> But there is a catch. Or at least we hope the "chopsticks" will work
>> and there will be one.
>
>
> Wow, what a catch that was!

Nice splash down.

Alain Fournier

On 13/10/2024 02:34 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-approves-starship-ift-5-test-flight-tomorrow/
>
> SpaceX is supposed to launch tomorrow morning at 7 AM Central Time. But
> there is a catch. Or at least we hope the "chopsticks" will work and
> there will be one.
>
>
> Alain Fournier
>
> .

They reached some more milestones but they still aren't there yet.

The landing didn't seem to go entirely to plan and there was still some
burn-through on the flap hinges.

Again: I predict NASA will verbally reprimand them to speed things up once
they've had a successful flight.

On 2024-10-13 11:42 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
> On 13/10/2024 02:34 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-approves-starship-ift-5-test-flight-tomorrow/
>>
>> SpaceX is supposed to launch tomorrow morning at 7 AM Central Time. But
>> there is a catch. Or at least we hope the "chopsticks" will work and
>> there will be one.
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>>
>
> They reached some more milestones but they still aren't there yet.
>
> The landing didn't seem to go entirely to plan and there was still some
> burn-through on the flap hinges.
>
> Again: I predict NASA will verbally reprimand them to speed things up once
> they've had a successful flight.

I agree. But on the other hand, if this was an ordinary launch company
both stages would have been burnt up and completely destroyed and they
would have called it a success. So yes, they still have a lot of testing
to do, but I think that testing will soon be done while launching
satellites. It's easier to pay for a testing program when the money
comes from customers.

Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier explained :
> On 2024-10-13 11:42 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
>> On 13/10/2024 02:34 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-approves-starship-ift-5-test-flight-tomorrow/
>>>
>>> SpaceX is supposed to launch tomorrow morning at 7 AM Central Time. But
>>> there is a catch. Or at least we hope the "chopsticks" will work and
>>> there will be one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alain Fournier
>>>
>>
>> They reached some more milestones but they still aren't there yet.
>>
>> The landing didn't seem to go entirely to plan and there was still some
>> burn-through on the flap hinges.
>>
>> 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.

> I agree. But on the other hand, if this was an ordinary launch company both
> stages would have been burnt up and completely destroyed and they would have
> called it a success. So yes, they still have a lot of testing to do, but I
> think that testing will soon be done while launching satellites. It's easier
> to pay for a testing program when the money comes from customers.
>
>
> Alain Fournier

The launch priority is fuel transfer.

/dps

--
Courage is knowing it might hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same.
And that's why life is hard.
-- the World Wide Web

Snidely blurted out:
> Alain Fournier explained :
>> On 2024-10-13 11:42 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
>>> On 13/10/2024 02:34 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-approves-starship-ift-5-test-flight-tomorrow/
>>>>
>>>> SpaceX is supposed to launch tomorrow morning at 7 AM Central Time. But
>>>> there is a catch. Or at least we hope the "chopsticks" will work and
>>>> there will be one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alain Fournier
>>>>
>>>
>>> They reached some more milestones but they still aren't there yet.
>>>
>>> The landing didn't seem to go entirely to plan and there was still some
>>> burn-through on the flap hinges.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>> I agree. But on the other hand, if this was an ordinary launch company both
>> stages would have been burnt up and completely destroyed and they would
>> have called it a success. So yes, they still have a lot of testing to do,
>> but I think that testing will soon be done while launching satellites. It's
>> easier to pay for a testing program when the money comes from customers.
>>
>>
>> Alain Fournier
>
> The launch priority is fuel transfer.
>

Recovery of Starship will probably happen before HLS fueling, but
perfecting the transfer will be the priority, and recovery the
additional objective. Both will require the V2 Starship, but the V1
booster will be around for a bit.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

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?

/dps

--
We’ve learned way more than we wanted to know about the early history
of American professional basketball, like that you could have once
watched a game between teams named the Indianapolis Kautskys and the
Akron Firestone Non-Skids. -- fivethirtyeight.com

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

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.

/dps

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

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

On 16/10/2024 02:08 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
> 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
>
> .

<https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-upper-stage-chopstick-catch-elon-musk>

Elon now claims they will catch the Starship with the chopsticks too!! This wasn't
in any of their original plans, was it?

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

Remember when The Running Man bragged outrageously? That was
Wednesday:
> On 16/10/2024 02:08 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> .
>
> <https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-upper-stage-chopstick-catch-elon-musk>
>
> Elon now claims they will catch the Starship with the chopsticks too!! This
> wasn't in any of their original plans, was it?

Oh, yes, it has been around since 2020 or so. V1 ships are
uncatchable, because they have innies rather than outies, but we
haven't seen a V2 fab'd far enough to know what changes are occurring
there.

/dps

--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>

On 2024-10-17 10:10, Snidely wrote:
> Remember when The Running Man bragged outrageously?  That was Wednesday:

[ snip irrelevant ]

>> <https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-upper-stage-chopstick-catch-elon-musk>
>>
>> Elon now claims they will catch the Starship with the chopsticks too!!
>> This wasn't in any of their original plans, was it?
>
> Oh, yes, it has been around since 2020 or so.  V1 ships are uncatchable,
> because they have innies rather than outies, but we haven't seen a V2
> fab'd far enough to know what changes are occurring there.

Perhaps they will be innies for launch and reentry, and move to be
outies for catch and lift.

[ Glossary: "they" = lift/catch points/nubs ]

Thursday, Niklas Holsti quipped:
> On 2024-10-17 10:10, Snidely wrote:
>> Remember when The Running Man bragged outrageously?  That was Wednesday:
>
> [ snip irrelevant ]
>
>>> <https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-upper-stage-chopstick-catch-elon-musk>
>>>
>>> Elon now claims they will catch the Starship with the chopsticks too!!
>>> This wasn't in any of their original plans, was it?
>>
>> Oh, yes, it has been around since 2020 or so.  V1 ships are uncatchable,
>> because they have innies rather than outies, but we haven't seen a V2 fab'd
>> far enough to know what changes are occurring there.
>
>
> Perhaps they will be innies for launch and reentry, and move to be outies for
> catch and lift.
>
> [ Glossary: "they" = lift/catch points/nubs ]

Other observers have mentioned that. We cannot confirm or deny that
such a change will happen.

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

On 17/10/2024 09:10 Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
> Remember when The Running Man bragged outrageously? That was
> Wednesday:
>> On 16/10/2024 02:08 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> .
>>
>> <https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-upper-stage-chopstick-catch-elon-musk>
>>
>> Elon now claims they will catch the Starship with the chopsticks too!! This
>> wasn't in any of their original plans, was it?
>
> Oh, yes, it has been around since 2020 or so. V1 ships are
> uncatchable, because they have innies rather than outies, but we
> haven't seen a V2 fab'd far enough to know what changes are occurring
> there.
>

So how's this gonna work on Mars? Or do they have a seperate model with landing
legs in their inventory too?

On 2024-10-17 7:23 a.m., The Running Man wrote:
> On 17/10/2024 09:10 Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Remember when The Running Man bragged outrageously? That was
>> Wednesday:
>>> On 16/10/2024 02:08 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>
>>> <https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-upper-stage-chopstick-catch-elon-musk>
>>>
>>> Elon now claims they will catch the Starship with the chopsticks too!! This
>>> wasn't in any of their original plans, was it?
>>
>> Oh, yes, it has been around since 2020 or so. V1 ships are
>> uncatchable, because they have innies rather than outies, but we
>> haven't seen a V2 fab'd far enough to know what changes are occurring
>> there.
>>
>
> So how's this gonna work on Mars? Or do they have a seperate model with landing
> legs in their inventory too?
>

They will have a separate model for landing on the moon, the Starship
Human Landing System (yes, with legs). I think it will be yet another
version for Mars.

Alain Fournier

The Running Man submitted this idea :
> On 17/10/2024 09:10 Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Remember when The Running Man bragged outrageously? That was
>> Wednesday:
>>> On 16/10/2024 02:08 Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>
>>> <https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-upper-stage-chopstick-catch-elon-musk>
>>>
>>> Elon now claims they will catch the Starship with the chopsticks too!! This
>>> wasn't in any of their original plans, was it?
>>
>> Oh, yes, it has been around since 2020 or so. V1 ships are
>> uncatchable, because they have innies rather than outies, but we
>> haven't seen a V2 fab'd far enough to know what changes are occurring
>> there.
>>
>
> So how's this gonna work on Mars? Or do they have a seperate model with
> landing legs in their inventory too?

Yes, and for the moon. Those destinations aren't yet requiring
multiple flights a day for journeys to Terra's firma.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

Alain Fournier is guilty of <ven05l$1takn$1@dont-email.me> as of
10/15/2024 5:08:20 PM
> 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

Booster 13 has not only been rolled to the OLM, it has been placed on
the OLM ... 9 days after the last launch. It has now been cryo-tested.

/dps

--
"Maintaining a really good conspiracy requires far more intelligent
application, by a large number of people, than the world can readily
supply."

Sam Plusnet

On Thursday, Snidely exclaimed wildly:
> Alain Fournier is guilty of <ven05l$1takn$1@dont-email.me> as of 10/15/2024
> 5:08:20 PM
>> 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
>
> Booster 13 has not only been rolled to the OLM, it has been placed on the OLM
> ... 9 days after the last launch. It has now been cryo-tested.

And also static fired! 7:10 pm CDT, golden hour!

/dps

--
"It wasn't just a splash in the pan"
-- lectricbikes.com