SpaceX (Vol. 2)
Discussion
CraigyMc said:
I think people aren't clear on how many of these things they've been constructing.
Here's the ship and booster build pipeline as of 48 hours ago:
(Click for bigger)
Well apart from booster nines position is the Gulf of Mexico and ship 25 is the Atlantic Ocean that's an impressive line upHere's the ship and booster build pipeline as of 48 hours ago:
(Click for bigger)
Here’s a very interesting new one - very long range s
ts of Starship.
Looks to be corkscrewing…
https://youtu.be/CTcSMh4VYow?si=MqFKKgjIIameS6z5
ts of Starship. Looks to be corkscrewing…
https://youtu.be/CTcSMh4VYow?si=MqFKKgjIIameS6z5
louiechevy said:
CraigyMc said:
Well apart from booster nines position is the Gulf of Mexico and ship 25 is the Atlantic Ocean that's an impressive line upHere's a zoomed in shot of that (for those who didn't click for bigger).
Dog Star said:
Here’s a very interesting new one - very long range sts of Starship.
Looks to be corkscrewing…
https://youtu.be/CTcSMh4VYow?si=MqFKKgjIIameS6z5
Maybe O2 leaking, from the base.ts of Starship. Looks to be corkscrewing…
https://youtu.be/CTcSMh4VYow?si=MqFKKgjIIameS6z5
If it was, the gimballing system will have been having a hell of a workout fighting to cancel out the roll to keep it on course.
Dog Star said:
Here’s a very interesting new one - very long range sts of Starship.
Looks to be corkscrewing…
https://youtu.be/CTcSMh4VYow?si=MqFKKgjIIameS6z5
Amazing footage.ts of Starship. Looks to be corkscrewing…
https://youtu.be/CTcSMh4VYow?si=MqFKKgjIIameS6z5
Is this the entire top stage or the remains of top stage after it broke up?
Some of these youtube channels are doing amazing analysis work. Seem the booster failed after separation due to cascading engine failures until just one was left and the flight termination system took action and destroyed the booster scattering it's debris over the Gulf of Mexico.
As said above, the ship itself continued on with engines working perfectly until T+8 mins where a large plume of something appeared followed by all engines failing and again flight termination system destroying the ship.
The forces involved must be huge, to get this far on just the second flight is to me, extremely impressive.
Video footage show the nose assembly of the ship stayed intact and returned to Earth in one piece splashing down near Puerto Rico. I'd still be interested to see if SpaceX attempt recovery of any large pieces for analysis longer term.
As said above, the ship itself continued on with engines working perfectly until T+8 mins where a large plume of something appeared followed by all engines failing and again flight termination system destroying the ship.
The forces involved must be huge, to get this far on just the second flight is to me, extremely impressive.
Video footage show the nose assembly of the ship stayed intact and returned to Earth in one piece splashing down near Puerto Rico. I'd still be interested to see if SpaceX attempt recovery of any large pieces for analysis longer term.
LivLL said:
Some of these youtube channels are doing amazing analysis work. Seem the booster failed after separation due to cascading engine failures until just one was left and the flight termination system took action and destroyed the booster scattering it's debris over the Gulf of Mexico.
As said above, the ship itself continued on with engines working perfectly until T+8 mins where a large plume of something appeared followed by all engines failing and again flight termination system destroying the ship.
The forces involved must be huge, to get this far on just the second flight is to me, extremely impressive.
Video footage show the nose assembly of the ship stayed intact and returned to Earth in one piece splashing down near Puerto Rico. I'd still be interested to see if SpaceX attempt recovery of any large pieces for analysis longer term.
Can't believe SpaceX will attempt recovery of anything, timescales will be way too long and their telemetry is probably amazing anyway - on the telemetry question, from 4 years ago so must be very outdated info, but just for an idea:As said above, the ship itself continued on with engines working perfectly until T+8 mins where a large plume of something appeared followed by all engines failing and again flight termination system destroying the ship.
The forces involved must be huge, to get this far on just the second flight is to me, extremely impressive.
Video footage show the nose assembly of the ship stayed intact and returned to Earth in one piece splashing down near Puerto Rico. I'd still be interested to see if SpaceX attempt recovery of any large pieces for analysis longer term.
"Here's one of the referenced S-band antennas, which will be attached to the vehicle:
https://www.antennas.us/store/p/387-UL-235A-498-11...
The request also lists the intended frequencies:
2211.0 MHz
2232.5 MHz
2255.5 MHz
2272.5 MHz
2090.0 MHz
The first 4 are driven by a transmitter with 20W output, at 4.167 Mbps. The last one is 0.6W at 600 kbps."
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=...
Can anyone translate this into the amount of data being streamed? Can they use Starlink for some of it? Does the above include video feeds?
They were using Starlink this time for the video and telemetry feed but I'd assume they had other links as well.
I'd agree it's unlikely they'll try to recover the nose section but you never know. These youtubers are getting outrageous with their production and income, maybe they'll club together and grab a souvenir
I'd agree it's unlikely they'll try to recover the nose section but you never know. These youtubers are getting outrageous with their production and income, maybe they'll club together and grab a souvenir
Eric Mc said:
Although Shuttle did lose tiles from time to time it was actually raining tiles off Starship. You could see the gaps left as each batch separated and fell away.
I think the flex, vibration and shock wave environment experienced by the Starship stack must be the most violent ever experienced by a booster.
I’ve read that on this particular Starship, the tiles were stuck on by and old method 1 and not tested thereafter. I think it launched with a few already missing and many more subsequently fell off during launch. For the next Starship (and onwards) the tiles have been stuck on with an improved method and then individually tested with some sort of device to ensure they’re adhered properly.I think the flex, vibration and shock wave environment experienced by the Starship stack must be the most violent ever experienced by a booster.
I believe SpaceX knew that this starship would likely shed more tiles (as they’ve already made an improvement to the manufacturing process) but went ahead with IFT2 anyway as a) there was a good chance the Starship wouldn’t make it to re-entry anyway, b) if it did, they probably would have learnt something interesting on failure modes if some tiles were missing for the re-entry process, and c) it would have added a long delay to the launch to re-affix those tiles for limited benefit.
CraigyMc said:
Agreed, though tempering that with "shuttles often came in with bits of the heat shield missing".
It'd be interesting to know how starship's stainless skin would fare, as compared with the shuttle's bare structure, given that the shuttle re-entered with bits missing more often than not.
I recall one of the shuttle tile-loss problems happened exactly where a structural spar was and that's the only reason it made it to Earth in one piece; this was on STS 27.
Wow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-27#Tile_damageIt'd be interesting to know how starship's stainless skin would fare, as compared with the shuttle's bare structure, given that the shuttle re-entered with bits missing more often than not.
I recall one of the shuttle tile-loss problems happened exactly where a structural spar was and that's the only reason it made it to Earth in one piece; this was on STS 27.
timbob said:
I’ve read that on this particular Starship, the tiles were stuck on by and old method 1 and not tested thereafter. I think it launched with a few already missing and many more subsequently fell off during launch. For the next Starship (and onwards) the tiles have been stuck on with an improved method and then individually tested with some sort of device to ensure they’re adhered properly.
I believe SpaceX knew that this starship would likely shed more tiles (as they’ve already made an improvement to the manufacturing process) but went ahead with IFT2 anyway as a) there was a good chance the Starship wouldn’t make it to re-entry anyway, b) if it did, they probably would have learnt something interesting on failure modes if some tiles were missing for the re-entry process, and c) it would have added a long delay to the launch to re-affix those tiles for limited benefit.
That makes sense.I believe SpaceX knew that this starship would likely shed more tiles (as they’ve already made an improvement to the manufacturing process) but went ahead with IFT2 anyway as a) there was a good chance the Starship wouldn’t make it to re-entry anyway, b) if it did, they probably would have learnt something interesting on failure modes if some tiles were missing for the re-entry process, and c) it would have added a long delay to the launch to re-affix those tiles for limited benefit.
Both the methane and oxygen need to be vented at launch I think, as they boil off?
How's this going to work for the tankers and long range starships that go to the moon and mars?
In a vacuum we have a higher pressure differential, and the moment the starship is in sunlight - isn't it going to just boil all the propellant and oxygen off over time?
How's this going to work for the tankers and long range starships that go to the moon and mars?
In a vacuum we have a higher pressure differential, and the moment the starship is in sunlight - isn't it going to just boil all the propellant and oxygen off over time?
Arnold Cunningham said:
Both the methane and oxygen need to be vented at launch I think, as they boil off?
How's this going to work for the tankers and long range starships that go to the moon and mars?
In a vacuum we have a higher pressure differential, and the moment the starship is in sunlight - isn't it going to just boil all the propellant and oxygen off over time?
It seems like this ^^^^^ is the reason for the wildly varying estimates of the number of tankers required for the moon mission, NASA saying high teens, Elon saying ?6 How's this going to work for the tankers and long range starships that go to the moon and mars?
In a vacuum we have a higher pressure differential, and the moment the starship is in sunlight - isn't it going to just boil all the propellant and oxygen off over time?
It becomes an interesting logistics question, with a lot of variables, but one of the main ones being launch cadence. If they can launch Starships every day then the boil off will be less than if they can only manage every week. Also I'm not clear what the tanker design is, but I assume there will be a lot of sun insulation on one side at least, whether that's different to the heat tiles no idea.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff