ptfrd

Watched some of the official coverage: https://www.youtube.com/live/5CRB3FHV9Dw

Things that were new to me:

• 1:40:50 Drone footage of the capsule lift
• 34:42 Jones explains that the same set of 12 hooks secures Dragon to either its nosecone or to the ISS. Makes perfect sense; I'd just never thought about it before.
• 1:35:57 "There are multiple options so if Dragon were to splash down in a different orientation they could egress from the top hatch as well."
  • Would this be a last resort after they'd tried & failed to correct the orientation?
  • Would it only be used when Dragon was still in the sea or would they ever lift Dragon onto the boat in an orientation that necessitated top hatch egress?

And all this talk of Dragon orientation, combined with the extensive weather delays in Crew-8's departure, got me wondering ... How would Dragon fare if it was left in very rough seas for an extended period? (Imagine the recovery vessel broke down a minute after splash-down and then a big multi-day storm blew in, or something.)

Plausible. It's not how I imagine them engaging with their defence contractors but I don't actually have a clue how it works. One supporting point might be if there were any other companies treated similarly, like if Lockheed Martin was ordered to immediately ramp up production of relevant types of military hardware, and told that the details (contracts / payment / etc.) would be sorted out later.

An opposing point would be the fact that the US and its allies knew an invasion was likely well in advance. Yet the initial Starlink 'roll out' seemed pretty ad hoc, with SpaceX organizing its own logistics. But then maybe the allies didn't expect Russia to be so effective in disrupting the existing military comms infrastructure.

that the engines relight multiple times in orbit

Should they do an orbital test next? Or continue with the previously used 'almost orbit' trajectory that ensures the second stage re-enters safely with no need for a relight?

The SpaceX officials in the audio said they were “trying to focus on booster risk reduction versus ship envelope expansion” for the next flight.

For the "ship envelope expansion", do you think they will/should do an in-space engine relight test? Or are the seemingly successful flip-landing maneuvers on flights 4 and 5 sufficient? (Has this been covered elsewhere?)

Interesting! They're talking about unnecessary aborts, and how they want to do as much analysis as possible of the abort criteria, to prevent them.

This will remain an issue for Flight 6 which, it seems, will happen the moment SpaceX decides it's sufficiently ready. Unlike previous flights ...

"Given this is the first launch in a long time ... well really ever ... that we've not been FAA driven ..."

This would be a nuclear option and, in reality, probably would do more harm than good to SpaceX,

It would probably set back their more ambitious targets by decades. But even Starship is now far enough along to no longer really need Musk's stewardship, and the US government would be happy enough just with control of the Falcon programme. They don't care much / at all about Making Life Multi-Planetary.

So I consider a move like this pretty plausible.

If so, why would SpaceX have so rapidly & aggressively moved to restore Ukraine's communications capabilities in the early days and weeks of the current war, and maintained them ever since?

I find the defendant not guilty! I think the NSF guy's idea involved replacing the woman & her arms and the daughter with the tower & "chopstick" arms, and a Super Heavy rocket booster (which is in the process of being caught by the arms). Something like that?

The closest I've seen is this. Not great!

So I tried getting Chat GPT to do a better one for me. This did not go well 😂 But surely someone with experience should be able to cajole a suitable generative AI tool to do a good job of it?

One of my favourite videos of the catch, because of what happens when the sonic booms arrive!: https://youtu.be/749dRxbSkVU (They're at 6:51.) Also it's a different angle from most of the others, because it's from Mexico.

And a playlist: Starship IFT5 booster catch, original footage only

You heard it on Lemmy first!: https://sh.itjust.works/post/25840892 (very soon after Stich first mentioned it)

Link currently doesn't WFM.

I believe when you create a clip from an ongoing YouTube live stream, it will (at best) only work as long as the footage you selected is still available on the stream. And I believe YouTube only keeps the most recent 12 hours of footage.

(What they should do is create a permanent copy of the relevant footage, assuming the channel owner permits it.)

The fairing looks spotless. I guess they're using a new one, at least partly for reasons of cleanliness? (Planetary protection and all that.)

With boosters we're at the point where "flight proven" is no longer just a euphemism for "second hand". I've felt that way myself for a few years. And NASA basically confirmed they agree a couple of months ago, when the brand new booster intended for Crew-9 was given a Starlink mission first, increasing confidence in it after a minor problem during transport. (IIRC)

But I'm not sure if we're at that point with fairings. Or even if we'll ever be.