Starship Flight 5 license issued by FAA
drs.faa.gov
drs.faa.gov
The real landing will be incredible. I'm also very excited to see Starship make it all the way through reentry fully intact. We got some amazing video last time.
Anyone know if they plan to relight Starship's engines in space this time? I think the capability for a deorbit burn is the last thing they need to demonstrate before they can do orbital missions and deploy satellites. Looks like it's not on the mission timeline though.
No. I don't know why, but their plan for second stage is the same as before, go suborbital, reenter, soft splashdown into the Indian Ocean. Hopefully now without flaps burned through.
It's not a problem for the landing as that sources from a separate clean tank.
Is that what you see?
Also using Firefox (131.0.2, 64-bit) on Linux (Debian Bookworm).
The JS console is showing a bunch of likely relevant messages:
21:21:11.333 WEBGL_debug_renderer_info is deprecated in Firefox and will be removed. Please use RENDERER. u.loader.js:1:8342
21:21:14.067 Initialize engine version: 6000.0.11f1 (fa01dd6b76d5) u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.067 Creating WebGL 2.0 context. u.loader.js:1:1294
21:21:14.071 Renderer: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, or similar u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.219 The referenced script on this Behaviour (Game Object 'Prefab Indexer') is missing! u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36032
21:21:14.233 ERROR: Shader u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.233 Hidden/PostProcessing/MultiScaleVO shader is not supported on this GPU (none of subshaders/fallbacks are suitable) u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.234 ERROR: Shader u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.234 Hidden/PostProcessing/Debug/Vectorscope shader is not supported on this GPU (none of subshaders/fallbacks are suitable) u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.234 ERROR: Shader u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.234 Hidden/PostProcessing/Debug/Histogram shader is not supported on this GPU (none of subshaders/fallbacks are suitable) u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.234 ERROR: Shader u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.234 Hidden/PostProcessing/Debug/Waveform shader is not supported on this GPU (none of subshaders/fallbacks are suitable) u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.269 ERROR: Shader u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.269 Hidden/PostProcessing/Debug/LightMeter shader is not supported on this GPU (none of subshaders/fallbacks are suitable) u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.270 ERROR: Shader u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.270 Hidden/PostProcessing/ScreenSpaceReflections shader is not supported on this GPU (none of subshaders/fallbacks are suitable) u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.311 UnloadTime: 0.000000 ms u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.343 Unity Ready. main.e426c3cb719a53b4bcdc.js:2:73856
21:21:14.514 0(94) : error C7532: global function uintBitsToFloat requires "#version 330" or later
0(94) : error C0000: ... or #extension GL_ARB_shader_bit_encoding : enable
0(94) : error C0000: ... or #extension GL_ARB_gpu_shader5 : enable u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
21:21:14.514 Note: Creation of internal variant of shader 'Hidden/PostProcessing/Lut2DBaker' failed. u_wgl.framework.js.br:9:36071
What gpu/drivers do you have?
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-...
Edit: that's 12p.m. UTC, I think.
As someone who has been following these developments for a while, I can 100% detect Elon's fingerprints all over this post. They are basically completely dismissing government oversight as "unnecessary obstacles to progress". Keep in mind, the area where SpaceX operates Starship is a wildlife sanctuary and was only chosen because it is one of the few undeveloped, southernmost points of the US, which matters because the closer you are to the equator, the more advantage you can take of the Earth's rotational velocity.
The site was chosen because it was it could launch East over water. The rotation of the earth gives a boost to easterly launches. Boca Chica isn't a great launch location because there's a fairly narrow window of directions it can launch in without overflying land, requiring expensive dog legs to hit different inclinations. They might have been better off with a piece of coastline in Maine, but try and find a piece of Eastern coastline in the US without any development in a 4 mile radius around the site...
They're slow and unsurprising. You don't launch in a hurricane.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/10/european-mission-depar...
"Marooned" m.imdb.com/title/tt0064639/
Would note that ULA's Vulcan 4 October launch test at Cape Canaveral sprayed debris and presumably propellant around the same area [1]. Vulcan's GEM SRB burns a perchlorate fuel [2]. Perchlorates are toxic [3].
SpaceX isn't taking any crazy risks, particularly relative to the technology risk and potential pay-off, with its IFTs.
[1] https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/10/04/ula-launches-second-vu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite-Epoxy_Motor
[3] https://wwwn.cdc.gov/tsp/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=8...
The main reason that area was a wildlife sanctuary was that nobody wanted it for anything else, so it was a cheap political move to make it "protected."
A launch site needs more than latitude. It needs possible launch trajectories that star by going over water to avoid possible debis falling in people or property.
Launch sites at higher altitude are better than those at lower altitude.
P.S.: I wish SpaceX succeeds in bringing down the cost of access to space.
The FAA did their normal review like they’ve done for every other starship and falcon launch in a timely manner.
My notes:
- SpaceX requested to amend its existing "Programmatic Environmental Assesment" of 2022 to support jettisoning the interstage heat shield and (importantly) using an updating sonic boom model based on flight data. In my opinion, this is the critical point of this assessment.
- The impact on endangered wildlife is reassessed based on a report submitted by SpaceX.
- There are other points like concerns about waterway closures, and the water discharged by the deluge system. I know there was some controversy about the deluge system and the cleanliness of that water, but according to this report, it's all good.
The new evaluation of the sonic boom using flight data shows that SpaceX's original assessment was way off and the intensity and area affected by these sonic booms is much larger in reality. The FAA then goes through a significant amount of rationalizations (with sources, to be fair) to justify that the predictions of the new sonic boom model are still acceptable.
The biological resources section also shows that SpaceX underestimated the effects of their launch operations on local wildlife, but some research and monitoring measures are proposed to counteract this.
All in all, my opinion is that the FAA is doing everything it can to not be an obstacle. But they do have to analyze this stuff much more rigorously than SpaceX does. That is quite literally their job after all.
SpaceX works quite well with the government and doesn't mind oversight with regards to safety at all. What they don't care for is frivolous oversight/bureaucratic rubber stamping without looking at the intention behind the rules. They also don't like being surprised last minute. All of which happened in the prelude to that update post you referenced. I know a lot of people on this site are from Europe or have European sentiments, but the two places really function quite differently normally. The job of regulators isn't to be obstructionist for the sake of it. It's to create rules that actually improve safety and overall move society forward.
But there should be some oversight. You cannot just let a private company do whatever industrial processes wherever they want in the name of progress.
We don't.
The question was why the FAA was enforcing rules that have nothing to do with its remit. There is protocol of regulatory agencies having each others' backs. But it was silly in this situation—it probably calls for reviewing the regime.
Then we're in agreement as is SpaceX and even Elon Musk. He's previously stated he's in favor of regulations in general. He just is against an overwhelming overbearing quantity of them that just exist because they've always been there.
It seems to me that fishing expeditions pose a significant threat to the welfare of fish.
How could you possibly know this? There's no way an outsider can be privy to all of the details of this situation to make an objective call.
Looking at it from the outside it's obvious to me that one party has a financial interest while the other doesn't, and the party that has a financial interest is run by a person who is more than willing to misrepresent situations to his financial benefit.
SpaceX could be right in this situation but you and I will never know.
I can also go with what Elon Musk has previously said about him being fine with regulations. His companies operate in some of the most highly regulated industries in the world and he doesn't complain about the vast majority of those regulations. People love to jump to the assumption that because Elon Musk complains about _one_ regulation in question he wants to remove them entirely.
Flight 4 was licensed on June 4th, was originally scheduled to launch on June 5th, and actually launched on the 6th.
Flight 3 received its license on March 13th and launched on March 14th.
Flight 2 received its license on November 15th 2023, and launched on November 18th.
Flight 1 received its license on April 14th; it launched on April 20th.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-five-late-novem...
This might be a case where the FAA's PR department should link to a press release instead of repeatig it contemporaneously.
The FAA forwarded the requests to the related agencies and had to wait (for example, what happens to the polluted water).
According to 50 CFR § 402.13, the other agencies have 60 days to give back their answers to the FAA.
15 August + 60 days = now.
The FAA mentioned they positively collaborate with SpaceX despite "upper stage failure in July and unsuccessful landing in August".
Quite exciting to see!
Close enough. Sixty days is October 14. Today is the twelfth. Tomorrow, 13 October, is the launch.
I wonder if the people in these agencies treat it like school projects where you use deadlines as a framework for how long you can screw around before it's absolutely necessary to get started. Where it's not treated as a worst case upper maximum.
Officially, yes. Practically, I was hearing earlier this week that this was coming, as obviously was SpaceX given they're ready to attempt.
It's using the wrong time zone for my location anyway, and therefore the gives the wrong local time.
The "timeanddate" meeting planner is my go-to these days for figuring out cross tz stuff:
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html
Not always super intuitive, but I have yet (heh!) seen it give wrong time info. :)
People freaked out and said the same thing after IFT-1 dug up the concrete underneath the launch mount, and yet the investigation was closed within 6 months and SpaceX conducted IFT-2 2 months later.
The unreasonable delay you might be thinking of, was between the FAA's closing of the investigation in early September, to the IFT-2 launch in November. That was under pretty similar circumstances to now, Fish and Wildlife Services was taking forever to do its part of the job, SpaceX went to Congress, the resulting pressure forced them to get things done faster.
Don’t have to believe everything Musk says during an election year
Because the rocket goes back to launch sites, lots of people will have really good cameras set up, lots of views. We will see this catch attempt with a lot of detail.
If they never get the second stage working with reusability they could strip the design down to a simple S2
Second stage reentry is necessary for this thing to ever carry people, ostensibly the mission the ship was designed for. It is a hard requirement.
Newer versions of the ship have smaller flaps, hinging from points offcenter, so that they are protected by the body of the ship.
Images probably demonstrate this better than words.
Current: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;...
New: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=slu4rTF-Bz0
I reported it hours ago, but YouTube doesn't seem to be very good at preventing scams.
Also the AI clone of Musk is eerily good, you can tell today (not just because the brazenly scammy script), but will you able to a year from now? Especially if the guys running the scams get a bit more subtle?
Either you'll see one of the most impressive technical achievements in human history, or a very cool explosion.
I think there is a reasonable possibility that something goes wrong enough at some point for the booster to go in the drink. But if that happens, maybe it'll be close enough to the shore that we'll get some nice video of it?
The "mechazilla" launch tower has two "chopstick" arms which are used to pick up and stack both stages and which are intended to be able to catch the returning booster and maybe also the returning Starship upper stage.
Of course, it can't tip over unless something fails or the rocket ends up in the wrong spot (and fails to get caught) and the previous tip-overs also had to involve failures (of the landing strut, in the latest loss) or landing in some way that isn't perfectly aligned.
Do you mean this literally? As in something like Mr. Miyagi catching a fly with chopsticks in the orig Karate Kid?
I guess I don't really understand what you are asking. There's a tower with some huge metal arms that is meant to catch the rocket. They call them chopsticks in a joking manner. Obviously, I would have thought.
in ordinary English there are many degrees of "literally".
You missed the quoted part about > which are intended to be able to catch
Which would be the unique thing to clarify. As in "something like" the "chopsticks" moving to > catch < the thing -- Like Mr. Miyagi moving the chopsticks to > catch < the thing
What I wonder about is why they never tested catching boosters with the ones they've been using all along. They know these boosters inside out, so it would be a good platform to gain experience with.
The Falcon 9 is incapable of hovering, because given the number of Merlins and their limited ability to throttle it cannot achieve a thrust/weight ratio (TWR) of 1 even on a single engine throttled to the lowest it can go. Rockets are almost entirely fuel by weight at launch, when empty they are very light. Since it has a TWR >1 when near-empty, lighting up an engine means F9 will want to go up again. So with F9 SpaceX must do a "hoverslam" to land, wherein the computer lights the engine at just the right point such that it hits relative velocity of zero right at the altitude of the landing pad (be it on ship or on land). That won't do for catching one however.
With Starship all of this was considered from the start. Raptor has better throttling capability (itself an amazing technical achievement), and of course on Super Heavy there are lots of them which is another advantage of the "many, smaller engines" approach. It means that they can effectively throttle it to just 1/33*min-throttle of max thrust. And SH is also just plain heavier construction, for good reason in an economics designed big rocket but also helpful here. Combined it is actually capable of hovering when near empty.
So I'd say they definitely have carried over some important lessons from Falcon 9.
The actual catching part might perhaps not have been very transferable, given how Falcon 9 can't roll using it's single engine unlike Starship booster, and the large difference in mass.
- 10% chance of an "FTS triggering event" on ascent.
- 70% chance of an ocean landing, no catch attempted.
- 5% chance of a successful catch (with leeway for after-catch problems).
- 15% chance of a catch attempt resulting in all the
windows on South Padre Island needing to be replaced.
The discussion on r/spacex for the curious: https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/1g24daz/faa_grants_...
I appreciate anything that helps reignite wonder and hope in all of us, and a rocket launch and recapture is just more visceral (not better) than others.
Good luck to the team, I’ll be watching with bated breath.
For Starship on orbit... photo/inspection cubesats are hard, but perhaps an externally-mounted 360 wifi camera ejector pack?
> SpaceX provided information about the flight profile and its impact only in mid-August to FAA. [...]
> According to 50 CFR § 402.13, the other agencies have 60 days to give back their answers to the FAA.
> 15 August + 60 days = now.
You don't send a rocket without some sort of due diligence in terms of impact. Nobody likes bureaucracy, but I don't see how we're going to make the world a better place for everyone by letting billionaires basically do whatever they want with their toys without checks.
"California officials cite Elon Musk’s politics in rejecting SpaceX launches" (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m...)
Whether you like Elon Musk or his politics... or not I hope you can see that these actions demonstrate the danger of an overly powerful regulatory body. California Costal Commission members acting in their regulatory capacity while citing Musk's politics is out of line, abusive of their power, and not consistent with guarantees of freedom of expression or the democratic process. You don't win against MAGA or Trump by becoming them... and if you try to beat Trump at his own game... you aren't any damn better.
2. The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate
3. They actually okay'd 36 just not the full 50 - still an increase.
4. There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate.
> The federal land is aimed at launches for national defense. It's not clear how commercial Starlink missions to mostly server commercial interests fits into this mandate
"'I do believe that the Space Force has failed to establish that SpaceX is a part of the federal government, part of our defense,' said Commissioner Dayna Bochco."
OK, sure let's accept that assertion... but that's besides the point: should the commissioners be deciding these matters on the basis of their legally appointed areas of regulatory oversight or on their broader political sensitivities? If we're really saying its OK for regulatory bodies with a specific area of protection/oversight to express the agendas of constituencies outside of that concern, or allow commissioners to simply make enforcement actions based broadly on their own personal preferences rather than interpretation of laws and establish regulations, such as labor relations, "bad antics", and presidential elections... what have we really become and what is the point of the regulatory body?
In the end, I think the commissioner quoted above is simply making a shallow rationalization.
Moreover, why would a federal agency seek a state commission approval if it's not actually required? Doing so would just be asking for a political firestorm: there are incentives for the state to show they aren't beholden to the feds and the feds would simply be inviting controversy in cases where the state told them "no" and they went ahead anyway. You can see this in the article where the commission says Space Force disrespected them. Why opt into that kind of low-win scenario if you don't have to?
> There's a fit a proper test to run a company - at some point Musk is gonna get called on this at the current rate.
How is this in the purview of a commission that is ostensibly created to protect the coastal environment and things like public access to beaches?
This is why I am deeply suspicious of government: I'm given reason to be based on their actions and motivations. Who knows, maybe someday we'll normalize this deviance of regulatory purpose and our laws so much that maybe I'll be denied my next driver's license renewal for having said these things.
There is legal recourse to get people to pay for real damages — civil penalties. This is used all the time. Perhaps too often, but that's a different conversation.
SpaceX would be perfectly happy to pay penalties proportionate to the real damage the FWS is worrying about — literally, the rocket landing on a whale, which has approximately a 0% probability. But they aren't allowed to take that (nonexistent) risk and then pay for anything that went wrong.
Musk has the money to take any case to the Supreme Court, the court is controlled by Trump who is friends with Elon now. Any case against Elon will probably get thrown out or ruled in Elon's favour.
Money goes less far than you think.
It should be a short 5 business day window where other agencies can quickly check to see if they might care and file to expand to 60 if they think it needs a review. Default hold open of 60 days just in case is purely anti progress reactionary conservatism.
The cumulative effect of these delays will undoubtedlu outweigh the incremental safety benefits they provide. Each 30 days delayed sets back progress that will help address global challenges or catalyze economic growth through new industries and technologies.
And really, there is almost no downside to weigh faster approvals against. The checks you mention are already there, in the form of the deterrent effect of the threat of fines and lawsuits if they screw up. The checks should not come from centralized gatekeepers holding up progress by massively slowing the rate of iteration/experimentation.
Billionaires played a major part in the expansion of railroads, factories and the telegraph network in the 19th century. They played a major role in the expansion of private automobiles, the passenger plane fleet, and telecommunication networks, and the explosion of everyday consumer products, in the 20th century.
It is absolutely no surprise that they're now playing a leading role in pushing rocket technology forward, and the fact that they are shouldn't be used an excuse for obviously excessive restrictions on this enormously promising technology.
The point of starship is to reduce the cost of kg to orbit, by being a fully, and rapidly reusable launch system.
The other long term and loftier) goal is to enable Mars colonization, a mission who's current main blocker is cost of kg to orbit.
By reducing the cost of putting things to orbit, you can do a whole lot more. Starlink is a good example, but if starship works it will be a paradigm shift that will result in a whole new space economy.
(For the passenger angle)
I don’t think the limiter to mars is cost to orbit: - Having a vessel where people can live for a couple of years - finding someone willing to take the (most likely) one-way ticket to mars - all the challenges of having a mars habitat. Radiation, dust, etc
Reducing the cost: sure, starship has only been launched with no payload so far so the numbers are yet to be determined… and it’s only impressive (theoretical) numbers are to LEO.
Early variants of starship will not be human rated. That will only happen once Starship has a proven track record. The is also no reason a human rated starship variant could not be built using the same safety systems seen with the dragon capsule.
It sounds like you are having trouble seeing merit in starship. Falcon 9, whilst great, is not going to the end of launch system development. SpaceX believes Starship will bring significant improvements/benefits. This process is no different to how Automobiles and aircraft have seen improvements to their capabilities over the years.
Will there be any simulated load or is it empty again?
No. "Starship will fly a similar trajectory as the previous flight test" [1]. IFT-4 was a suborbital flight test [2].
[1] https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-...
If it’s successful it will likely be in the history books, so maybe billions of martians will one day watch.
https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX/streams = most popular live stream has 33M views
https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX/videos = most popular video has 29M views
I'm pretty sure this also includes embedded views from news articles that embed the videos.
So to answer the question: In the short term, unlikely it seems. Over the span of hundreds of years? Likely so.
Maybe a Mars landing would, but non-techie people just don't seem very interested in space.
--
We need an administration that will greenlight Starship flights immediately, so that the pace of its development can increase. The FAA is currently far too conservative in approving launches, by overindexing on the local risks posed by launches relative to the global risks of delaying space expansion.
--
I'll also add that the US could potentially massively benefit if regulatory agencies like the FAA switched from pre-market approval to post-market surveillance. This article explains the difference and singles out the FAA and how we could have had actual "flying cars" by now had its regulatory approach been like the Department of Transportation's (DOT):
https://open.substack.com/pub/maximumprogress/p/how-the-faa-...
Title: SpaceX wants to go to Mars. To get there, environmentalists say it’s trashing Texas
For instance, it mentions "high levels of potentially toxic chemicals like Zinc and hexavalent Chromium", but doesn't say what that means. What is "high"?
E.g. the quoted Prof says he "wouldn't recommend drinking it", but would he recommend drinking regular rainwater discharge from this (industrial) area (or even regular city rainwater?) and would he say its worse than that? How many grams/tons of these materials are in the discharge? What is the likely concentration by the time it gets to any animals, how much would actually get inside them and how does that compare with the known levels that would be damaging to health? How does it compare with the concentrations from rain runoff?
A good journalist should find an appropriate expert and ask these sorts of questions so they can include them in the article and give the reader context, otherwise the reader will often come away feeling informed when in fact they know nothing of substance because there is nothing to anchor these unquantified facts to.
The whole point of the story would get lost if at every step the author is embedding irrelevant minutiae e.g. how many parts per million of Zinc versus the baseline, what constitutes normal etc. Information that an ordinary reader would not be able to make use of.
You need to make the story engaging, interesting and succinct whilst being factual.
Yes, that is the job of a journalist. I.e. it’s why they get paid.
> whilst being factual.
IIUC, there is no such requirement. Approximately nobody cares if what is written is strictly true or not. There are no negative consequences if something untrue is written. (Except for libel and other special cases.)
This was a particularly funny quote:
> Musk “seems to care a lot more about 100,000 years from now than now here on Earth.”
I mean.. I think Musk is an arsehole and his plan to colonise Mars is insane, but this does not feel like a criticism! This environmentalist seems to care a lot more about short term issues than the long term viability of life on Earth.
> “At least one egg in every nest was either damaged or not there,” LeClaire says.
Ok let's assume that they are keeping count of the number of eggs in every nest... One egg? If these birds are going to die out because one egg in each nest breaks they aren't going to survive anyway.
I'm not saying the environment is unimportant, but I think you have to weight it against the importance of the thing you're stopping in the name of the environment.
It's like all the solar farm projects that get stopped in the UK because people think sticking some poles in a field is going to kill all the newts. Like, what do you think is going to happen to the newts when it's 40C in the summer?
I think this is another good example of the lack of context I complain about above. These are the closest nests, how far away is the average nest and what's the damage there? What is the normal rate of egg damage or disappearance? How many eggs do these birds lay?
There was a disagreement between the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the US EPA about the specific type of permit that SpaceX needed from TCEQ for the deluge system but that was a paperwork/documentation issue only.
see:
No damage was significant done to the wildlife near the launch pad in any previous launch, at least no more than is done to the wildlife during any launch that happens anywhere in the world.
They only destroyed the pad on the very first launch. The pad has taken no notable damage during any of the subsequent three launches between that one and this one (this is the 5th launch).
The combustion products of Methane and Oxygen are Water and Carbon Dioxide so there is nothing to damage the nearby areas.
Care to share what are they?