Roscosmos confirmed that the observed leak is on Nauka’s backup radiator, which is mounted to the outside of the module. The radiator was delivered to the space station on the Rassvet module during space shuttle mission STS-132 in 2010. It was transferred to the Nauka during a Roscosmos spacewalk in April. The primary radiator on Nauka is working normally, providing full cooling to the module with no impacts to the crew or to space station operations.
Teams on the ground will continue to investigate the cause of the leak, and additional updates will be made as available.
I chose the title because I thought and hoped it's a reasonable inference.
As an example, the first time I booked my own air flight -- actually, every time -- I made sure it was a ticket for the days and places I want, and that I got to my home at the end.
Do you know more about this Varda licensing situation? Is it possible to get a re-entry licence before launch? If they could have, they're incompetent not to. If not, that seems like a ridiculous regulation, requiring someone to launch with no confidence that they can legally come back (and possibly still incompetence on Varda's part for not making sure all the conditions were going to be met).
A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party of the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.
Could Varda actually land the capsule? I presume so (the whole thing is a moot point if they can't). Would the FAA (and, for all I know, other agencies) land on them like a pile of bricks? I certainly hope so!
The FAA has repeated multiple times: there is no launch licence yet for a second launch. Since the FAA asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to look into the matter, I think it's highly unlikely that the FAA would issue the licence before FWS says it's O.K.
I don't know that there has been a definitive statement of the exact ending date. The Xeet summary provided included "The FWS has up to 135 days to submit the final biological opinion to the FAA (Started in August)." If it's 4 months including weekends and holidays, it could be up to December 1 to December 31ish. But it could be handled before then, or if the FAA agrees, the deadline could be extended, or maybe it's working days only. Also, the FAA would likely need time to digest it and issue its own ruling.
But there have been other reports that the FAA hopes to be done with it by October. So maybe they have inside knowledge.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're referring to. I think the new render is near the top, showing Starship and Super Heavy stacked. I didn't look at the page before, so I don't know what else might have changed.
Eric Berger quoted a tweet from the FAA here, but it was in the form of an image. A text transcript was kindly provided by World Spills @WorldSpills here:
SpaceX conducted a test flight of the Starship/Super Heavy at Boca Chica, TX on April 20, 2023. As a result of that launch, SpaceX completed a mishap investigation with FAA oversight; this investigation analyzed the launch, mishap events, and corrective actions. Before it is authorized to conduct a second Starship/ Super Heavy launch, SpaceX must obtain a modified license from the FAA that addresses all safety, environmental, and other regulatory requirements. As part of that license application determination process, the FAA will review new environmental information, including changes related to the launch pad, as well as other proposed vehicle and flight modifications. The FAA will complete a Written Reevaluation (WR) to the 2022 Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) evaluating the new environmental information, including Endangered Species Act consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If the FAA determines through the WR process that the contents of the PEA do not remain valid in light of the changes proposed for Flight 2, additional environmental review will be required. Accordingly, the FAA has not authorized SpaceX's proposed Flight 2.
It was followed by untranscribed
The FAA will provide updates with notification of any license determination or results of additional environmental review.
An easier way to reach the app in Android is the Google Play store. It's named Austin 311 from City of Austin. Some negative reviews, though, like (20 Jan 2023) "You can't report when your trash doesn't get picked up - easily 99% of the reason I ever call 311" and (9 June 2022) "App sucks. The categories are very limited and hard to locate. I should be able to search on a keyword and your app suggests appropriate categories. Where do i report a malfunctioning pedestrian cross signal, for example. Very disappointing!"
I just checked out the Web page. That has a search capability (I don't see one in the app), both built in via a Search text box, and the browser's own facility (except there are not many items per page). I think I prefer it, even on my phone.
But the Android app at least has a map of recent reports, which is a nice feature; I don't see it in the web page. It also has one central place to enter the reporter's info; it looks like the Web page has it on each request.
I got the impression from reading the few posts about it that it's going to start as a backup for the existing crew Dragon tower. Whether it could ever become Son of Mechazilla in the long run I don't know, and I doubt it. I suspect, though on no evidence other than prior practice and the 5-step algorithm, that SpaceX would rather debug the first model some before building a second.
I copied and pasted it here. Thanks to @threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works for pointing me back at the RES extension so I could get the source.
Each item is on its own line. C## is the ID#. If there's text before it on its line, that's its Observation / Description section name; if it's at the start of the line, the Observation / Description string is the next one above.
List of Actions:
Observation / Description
ID#
Corrective Action Description
Status
Tank sensing
C1
Replace certain fittings with welds inside tank
Complete
Aft end cavity environment failure
C2
Increase fire suppression capacity by 15x
Complete
C3
Replace certain manifolds with dedicated drain per corresponding valve
Complete
C4
Replace certain flanges with better seals and improve joint design
Complete
C5
Replace certain fittings with welds in specific location
Complete
Booster leak
C6
Replace accessible valves of a certain type with new design
Complete
mitigation
C7
Replace certain flange bolts with higher strength bolts and increase torque
Complete
C8
Disallow certain seal re-use, and add cameras to monitor all engines during ground operations
Complete
C9
Increased scrutiny on leak checks
Complete
C10
90+ cameras added to detect leakage during operations
Complete
C11
Add leak capture and drain hardware for valves of a certain type
Complete
C12
Add leak check and screen for porosity on igniter units
Complete
C13
Improved igniter seal design
Future Action
C14
Weld certain alignment bolt holes shut
Complete
Raptor leak
C15
Reassess k-factor and torque for engine hot joint #1, add leak capture and route overboard
Complete
mitigation
C16
Reassess k-factor and torque for engine hot joint #2
Complete
C17
Add safety cable to certain fluid lines on high risk locations
Complete
C18
Add one methane sensor per engine bay
Complete
C19
Ground test campaign to better characterize typical engine leakage
Complete
C20
Improve structural FEA/fatigue analysis for all medium to high criticality lines
Complete
C21
Add insulation to engine lines sensitive to thermally driven loads
Complete
Collateral
C22
Add insulation to avionic harnessing
Complete
damage from fire
C23
Add backup wire to specific harness
Complete
C24
Improve thermal protection of avionics tray
Complete
C25
Change routing to flight computers
Complete
C26
Replace sensor with more reliable units
Complete
C27
Coat gimbal assembly with lubricant
Complete
C28
Add pump pressure sensors to certain location
Complete
C29
Add pump temperature sensors to certain location
Complete
Booster reliability
C30
Replace certain bolts, and increase torque for certain flanges
Complete
improvement
C31
New seal design for certain areas of booster
Complete
C32
Add electric actuation system
Complete
C33
Better manage engine bay pressure by increasing fire suppression capacity by
Complete
C34
Change certain booster valve timing
Future Action
C35
Add final leak checks for critical joints
Complete
C36
Add support bracket for certain sensor
Complete
C37
Add support bracket for certain sensor
Complete
C38
Add check valves to certain areas of engine
Complete
C39
Improve oxygen valve design
Future Action
C40
Improve oxygen valve seal design
Future Action
Raptor reliability
C41
Improve design of hot manifold
Future Action
improvement
C42
Change nitrogen shutdown usage
Complete
C43
Change engine shutdown logic
Complete
C44
Increase capability for ground leakage mitigation
Complete
C45
Redesign fire suppression system
Complete
C46
Change conditions around bolts
Complete
C47
Change timing of specific valve actuation
Complete
Avionics reliability
C48
Eliminate certain type of connector
Complete
improvement
C49
Redesign network architecture
Future Action
Risk Process
C50
Improve risk tracking process
Complete
C51
Implement improvements to safety system
Complete
Safety System
C52
Verify flight safety system design improvements using additional type of test article
Complete
C53
Verify flight safety system design improvements via analysis
Complete
C54
Perform component testing
Complete
C55
Review and improve operations surrounding flight safety system
The licence has been approved, the NOTAM and marine warnings published, closure announced.
Fish and Wildlife's comments were published yesterday. I gather that the document was deleted from the original location, but as I recall, it was pretty much copied and pasted into the body of the final FAA determination WRITTEN RE-EVALUATION OF THE 2022 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SPACEX STARSHIP/SUPER HEAVY LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM AT THE BOCA CHICA LAUNCH SITE IN CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS. I remember the bit about "Per the table above, an average summertime thunderstorm at Boca Chica would deposit more water over the landscape than any single or all combined activations of the deluge system".
Update at https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2023/10/09/international-space-station-operations-update/
I chose the title because I thought and hoped it's a reasonable inference.
As an example, the first time I booked my own air flight -- actually, every time -- I made sure it was a ticket for the days and places I want, and that I got to my home at the end.
Do you know more about this Varda licensing situation? Is it possible to get a re-entry licence before launch? If they could have, they're incompetent not to. If not, that seems like a ridiculous regulation, requiring someone to launch with no confidence that they can legally come back (and possibly still incompetence on Varda's part for not making sure all the conditions were going to be met).
As You999 put it, "the laws of the country that the craft is registered still applies". I hadn't heard the term "the Chicago Convention". I've heard only "The Outer Space Treaty", or formally Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. Specifically Article VIII:
Could Varda actually land the capsule? I presume so (the whole thing is a moot point if they can't). Would the FAA (and, for all I know, other agencies) land on them like a pile of bricks? I certainly hope so!
Some are suggesting: lit all too well, like sparks and flames and kabooms and all.
The FAA has repeated multiple times: there is no launch licence yet for a second launch. Since the FAA asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to look into the matter, I think it's highly unlikely that the FAA would issue the licence before FWS says it's O.K.
I don't know that there has been a definitive statement of the exact ending date. The Xeet summary provided included "The FWS has up to 135 days to submit the final biological opinion to the FAA (Started in August)." If it's 4 months including weekends and holidays, it could be up to December 1 to December 31ish. But it could be handled before then, or if the FAA agrees, the deadline could be extended, or maybe it's working days only. Also, the FAA would likely need time to digest it and issue its own ruling.
But there have been other reports that the FAA hopes to be done with it by October. So maybe they have inside knowledge.
I posted here about the FWS environmental re-assessment due to the booster bidet.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you're referring to. I think the new render is near the top, showing Starship and Super Heavy stacked. I didn't look at the page before, so I don't know what else might have changed.
Just wanted to point out a glamor video of Starlink deployment.
Eric Berger quoted a tweet from the FAA here, but it was in the form of an image. A text transcript was kindly provided by World Spills @WorldSpills here:
It was followed by untranscribed
When the major problems from your first test can be illustrated by Heath Ledger in 2008 -- debris zoom but boom no boom -- it's not surprising.
An easier way to reach the app in Android is the Google Play store. It's named Austin 311 from City of Austin. Some negative reviews, though, like (20 Jan 2023) "You can't report when your trash doesn't get picked up - easily 99% of the reason I ever call 311" and (9 June 2022) "App sucks. The categories are very limited and hard to locate. I should be able to search on a keyword and your app suggests appropriate categories. Where do i report a malfunctioning pedestrian cross signal, for example. Very disappointing!"
I just checked out the Web page. That has a search capability (I don't see one in the app), both built in via a Search text box, and the browser's own facility (except there are not many items per page). I think I prefer it, even on my phone.
But the Android app at least has a map of recent reports, which is a nice feature; I don't see it in the web page. It also has one central place to enter the reporter's info; it looks like the Web page has it on each request.
I got the impression from reading the few posts about it that it's going to start as a backup for the existing crew Dragon tower. Whether it could ever become Son of Mechazilla in the long run I don't know, and I doubt it. I suspect, though on no evidence other than prior practice and the 5-step algorithm, that SpaceX would rather debug the first model some before building a second.
This is a link to my separate story post: "(Reuters) US could advance SpaceX license as soon as October after rocket exploded in April", including a bit of interpretation.
Thank you for the pointer. Fixed.
I copied and pasted it here. Thanks to @threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works for pointing me back at the RES extension so I could get the source.
Each item is on its own line. C## is the ID#. If there's text before it on its line, that's its Observation / Description section name; if it's at the start of the line, the Observation / Description string is the next one above.
List of Actions:
A readable text version of the 63-item list can be see on Reddit here and a reply.
Tesla Owners Silicon Valley @teslaownersSV Sep 9, 2023 · 12:17 AM UTC
Elon Musk @elonmusk / Replying to @teslaownersSV Sep 9, 2023 · 6:20 AM UTC
Musk noted Sep 9, 2023 · 12:20 AM UTC