Depends on the FAA. If they want to rethink the license, then yeah, SpaceX will as usual find other things to do during the wait. But if they get the license out in under a month, I can definitely see SpaceX taking advantage of the opportunity. The FAA will, as always, let SpaceX know about their schedule ahead of time so that the licenses continue to "miraculously" arrive just a day or two before launch.
Not really. I mean, eventually yes, but not for the next flight test. No doubt there is a long laundry list of other things they want to test and the earlier the better. They can test those things when the test hardware is ready, it’s not like they are short on launches.
I doubt it. SpaceX requested the license pretty much at the last minute with flight 4, so it wasn't FAA holding them up. They'll be ready when the whole stack is ready and tested. Might be quicker as they learn more but it's still very early days. I would be impressed if they made it work in 2 months, especially if they're want to catch the booster
If SpaceX decides to try and catch the booster, the FAA will most likely go over detail by detail over the flight plan and ask some very hard questions. This is because it is one thing to land in the gulf and quite another thing to land at stage 0 because it will land much closer to people. I can assure you that the FAA will not rush this and the process could easily take two or more months to approve. SpaceX needs to try to catch the booster not on the next flight but on the following flight to give the FAA plenty of time to review the catch request and use the next flight to do the next step towards launching Starlink satellites.
@@bluesteel8376 I agree. That is why I said "do the next step towards launching Starlink satellites." There are tests that could be done to improve the satellite delivery system. Of course, there are other tests that could be done such as engine relight in space so that they can go forward with a full orbital flight.
I agree. I just don't see the rush to do a booster catch on IFT-5 when there is so much that can still be done with the ship such as on-orbit Raptor relight, another go at re-entry, more payload door tests .... and more. And if I was the FAA I would be looking very carefully at a request for a catch on IFT-5 when it looks as if the test landing of the IFT-4 booster involved an explosive Raptor failure and looking at those flames going up the side possibly leaking methane for the rest of the way down. I'd be much more comfortable to see a perfect at-sea touchdown, or ideally 2 perfect ones in a row before risking the launch facility.
If the under-tile ablative shielding is a felt made of silicone, re-usability and protection of the ship could be balanced by making the layer from hexagons the size of 7 of the smaller ones so that if you got a tile missing and the under-shield is damaged you would only have to remove 6 or so more tiles instead of many as would be the case if it were a continuous sheet.
I'm betting the ablative layer will be simple rectangular sheets that they will simply cut single hexagons out of whenever a section needs replacing. At least until tiles falling off reaches a point where it's rare. And, you know, especially for Ship 30 and any other Block 1 prototypes they may have sitting around, since they're not going to try recovering any of those.
@@stetytielemans Right? I remember when he said the key goal of IFT4 was to survive the hottest part of reentry. I thought that was a ridiculous goal and that it would be the first time an IFT key goal wouldn't be met.
If Elon said they need to move the flaps leeward to avoid melting the hinges off, it seems like this should take priority, over doubling the amount tiles to avoid melting the hinges off.
The flaps cannot be moved in the current iteration of starship which is why they will be taking various steps with the next few starships. As I understand it the flaps won't set further to the leeward side of the ship until the Version 2 of starship beginning with S36.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 If the FAA decides they need to undertake a new review for the capture, and at their characteristically lethargic pace, SpaceX may decide to just go ahead and remodel the fins on Ship 30. What else would they do with all that free time? Though I agree with what somebody else said: They should just tell the FAA what they intend to do for *IFT6* and not waste an opportunity to get Ship 30 up in a literal month.
This might sound like a silly question but what happened to the Booster and Starship after landing in the water? Sure, they probably sank but is that right or were they recoverable?
@@Oldman5261 Yes. We actually have no way of knowing they didn't tow Ship 29 already. It was nighttime and there was no camera footage after the ship tipped over.
@@lanzer22 Starship's FTS, even the new one, is only powerful enough to blow a hole in the side. Starship's FTS is effectively on the "top" of the vehicle, maybe obviously, since the tiles are face-down in the water and it wouldn't make sense to install it there. It's a near certainty that the FTS would do nothing whatsoever to help sink the vehicle.
I am a non American but I also thought this. Do Americans get their National day off.If they do a launch probably isn’t a great idea. In my country it’s not a legal requirement but most places give employees at least a half day off. Bizarrely though no one does anyone for it
@@Twisted_Throttle77 oh my bad. Dunno why my brain grabbed it as 600km. Because that would be hugely inaccurate. Yeah 6km isn't that bad for now, though question still stands, how inaccurate can it be before it can't land?
@@somedudesstuff801 That would entirely depend on how much fuel the Starship has in it. I would assume they carry as little fuel as they think they can get away with. I am guessing the distance it can be off and still land successfully will be rather small.
There have only been 4 flights so far and starship did make it all the way to touch down at sea in the last flight. Several iterations of the TPS may be needed to get it right.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 whilst it did make it back it was only just and it was more by luck than by design. also, you cant have something covered in tiles be rapidly reusable. justt looking at the space shuttle should be enough to stop people from using tiles.
Tiles by themselves, no. The shuttle got lucky that none of the tiles it randomly lost ever covered a critical spot. But I like the idea of tiles plus ablative. Fast forward to a time when SpaceX only loses tiles about as often as shuttle did. The ablative skin will save their bacon and they can do whatever refurbishment they need to after the ship is down. And while it's true that the entire shield will need to be checked, you're thinking in terms of there being only a handful of ships in service. There will be dozens, because instead of costing over $5 billion a pop like the shuttle, they cost about $40 million including the shield and everything else.
I'd be surprised if they take the time to install that on Ship 30. However, what they absolutely could do is test the in-orbit relight, so IFT6 can go into a proper orbit. The fins are going to melt off either way, though.
@@Asterra2 There's a chance that fin melted because of missing tiles that won't fall off of sn30. Either way, might as well expend it. It's built, and they need more data and engine testing. A relight would be good, but any orbital test will likely need an expansive exclusion area approval.
@@riparianlife97701 The fin issue is something they knew about for three years, per a tweet made back then where they illustrated the need to move the fins backwards and shrink them a bit. In true SpaceX fashion, they decided to let the current design ride so they could concretely establish whether the changes were needed. Same thing for heat tiles and the second layer. Anyway, I really don't see them bothering to retrofit the flaps so I fully expect the same thing to happen again when it reenters. I do hope they'll have more cameras, and maybe some external lighting since it will still be nighttime.
