SpaceX (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Leithen said:
Ok, daft question, very early in the morning etc, but;
How will they protect the hearing of those brave enough to be sitting in Starship on top of this when it lights up?
Moulded ear plugs (Like you see F1 drivers have in their ears). Its amasing just how effective a small simple solution like them is. How will they protect the hearing of those brave enough to be sitting in Starship on top of this when it lights up?
LivLL said:
That is great - thanks for the link.Another question: does anyone know at what % of full rated thrust SpaceX can start a Raptor?
Wikipedia (I know) lists a throttle range from 40% to 100%.
Was this potentially a 50% (figure plucked from nowhere) of full thrust static fire test of 31 engines?
skwdenyer said:
ColinGreaves said:
I guess there is a tradeoff between complexity and redundancy, SpaceX seems to prefer going to complexity, if you take complexity to be the number of components used.
Is Falcon heavy the rocket with the second largest number of engines? I am not well versed on the multitude of chinese designs.
Complexity (in the sense of making it hard to build a reliable rocket) isn't number of parts; it is number of unique parts.Is Falcon heavy the rocket with the second largest number of engines? I am not well versed on the multitude of chinese designs.
Lots of common engines, with masses of type flight experience, and then a control system to herd them, isn't complex by rocket standards (or, indeed, by any standards). Yes, each additional component adds a potential point of failure; set against that, Raptor is now a mature, well-understood, well-developed engine.
SpaceX really are doing something different; they're planning to churn out >500 Raptors pa, at <$250k each.
SLS' RS-25 are ~$40m a pop. So $120m for SLS vs <$9m for Super Heavy, in engines alone, and SpaceX get to re-use theirs.
Although brief the test firing was rather mouth watering on what is to come. It is a shame they are not taking it more slowly and doing a full 33 engine test for the full time they would fire in normal operation with cameras feeding live next to the nozzles. The SLS Stennis 8 minute test was amazing to watch, 33 engines doing similar would be pretty gobsmacking.
The SLS Stennis run in my opinion is still one of the best bit of video of the power of rocket motors that has been shown, easy to get blase about the amount of force and engineering to control it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEItmSRB44g
Edited by ColinGreaves on Friday 10th February 09:49
ColinGreaves said:
Good point, I was thinking more of the points of failure when I said that. After this test the redundancy wins as the 2 non firing engines would not have meant failure into orbit it seems.
Although brief the test firing was rather mouth watering on what is to come. It is a shame they are not taking it more slowly and doing a full 33 engine test for the full time they would fire in normal operation with cameras feeding live next to the nozzles. The SLS Stennis 8 minute test was amazing to watch, 33 engines doing similar would be pretty gobsmacking.
The SLS Stennis run in my opinion is still one of the best bit of video of the power of rocket motors that has been shown, easy to get blase about the amount of force and engineering to control it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEItmSRB44g
The SLS test wasn't on the launch pad, it was a test stand designed for continuous running. And cost billions and took years. Although brief the test firing was rather mouth watering on what is to come. It is a shame they are not taking it more slowly and doing a full 33 engine test for the full time they would fire in normal operation with cameras feeding live next to the nozzles. The SLS Stennis 8 minute test was amazing to watch, 33 engines doing similar would be pretty gobsmacking.
The SLS Stennis run in my opinion is still one of the best bit of video of the power of rocket motors that has been shown, easy to get blase about the amount of force and engineering to control it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEItmSRB44g
Edited by ColinGreaves on Friday 10th February 09:49
In any case the six second static fire yesterday was surely more than enough to prove out the launch table for the time taken to release the clamps and launch and we will see what damage has been caused to the concrete shortly - it seems conceivable from the video so far that there was less damage than from the 14 engine static fire and maybe they won't dig everything up for the water deluge system?
Edited by Hammersia on Friday 10th February 09:55
Hammersia said:
ColinGreaves said:
Good point, I was thinking more of the points of failure when I said that. After this test the redundancy wins as the 2 non firing engines would not have meant failure into orbit it seems.
Although brief the test firing was rather mouth watering on what is to come. It is a shame they are not taking it more slowly and doing a full 33 engine test for the full time they would fire in normal operation with cameras feeding live next to the nozzles. The SLS Stennis 8 minute test was amazing to watch, 33 engines doing similar would be pretty gobsmacking.
The SLS Stennis run in my opinion is still one of the best bit of video of the power of rocket motors that has been shown, easy to get blase about the amount of force and engineering to control it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEItmSRB44g
The SLS test wasn't on the launch pad, it was a test stand designed for continuous running. And cost billions and took years. Although brief the test firing was rather mouth watering on what is to come. It is a shame they are not taking it more slowly and doing a full 33 engine test for the full time they would fire in normal operation with cameras feeding live next to the nozzles. The SLS Stennis 8 minute test was amazing to watch, 33 engines doing similar would be pretty gobsmacking.
The SLS Stennis run in my opinion is still one of the best bit of video of the power of rocket motors that has been shown, easy to get blase about the amount of force and engineering to control it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEItmSRB44g
Edited by ColinGreaves on Friday 10th February 09:49
In any case the six second static fire yesterday was surely more than enough to prove out the launch table for the time taken to release the clamps and launch and we will see what damage has been caused to the concrete shortly - it seems conceivable from the video so far that there was less damage than from the 14 engine static fire and maybe they won't dig everything up for the water deluge system?
Edited by Hammersia on Friday 10th February 09:55
Going to be fascinating how it pans out. This is just getting into orbit, the return is the tricky bit for a new technique.
According to SpaceX, that static fire produced 7.9 million lbf of thrust (~3,600 metric tonnes).
That's less than half of its capability.
But still slightly more than the Saturn V's first stage at full thrust (7,750,000 lbf).
Now Witness the Firepower of this fully Armed and Operational Battle Station.
That's less than half of its capability.
But still slightly more than the Saturn V's first stage at full thrust (7,750,000 lbf).
Now Witness the Firepower of this fully Armed and Operational Battle Station.
Edited by Beati Dogu on Saturday 11th February 19:37
Change of plans: Phobos and Deimos, the two ex-oil rigs SpaceX bought a while back for Starship operations have now been sold off.
They've been sat in Pascagoula, Mississippi for the last year or so.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/162529226183...
They've been sat in Pascagoula, Mississippi for the last year or so.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/162529226183...
From SpaceNews….
However, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell told reporters after a presentation at the Federal Aviation Administration Commercial Space Transportation Conference Feb. 8 that the company had sold the rigs after concluding they were not suited to serving as launch platforms.
However, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell told reporters after a presentation at the Federal Aviation Administration Commercial Space Transportation Conference Feb. 8 that the company had sold the rigs after concluding they were not suited to serving as launch platforms.
An expendable Starship has been rolled out to the pad for pressure testing:
That’s ship 26, which is a basic one with no tiles, fins or cargo doors even.
No one outside SpaceX seems to know what its purpose is. If it’s for NASA’s orbital fuel transfer requirement, they can do that with a regular version. Just pumping internally between the main and header tanks is good enough it seems.
They are going to need inter-ship transfer though, so maybe it’s for that.
That’s ship 26, which is a basic one with no tiles, fins or cargo doors even.
No one outside SpaceX seems to know what its purpose is. If it’s for NASA’s orbital fuel transfer requirement, they can do that with a regular version. Just pumping internally between the main and header tanks is good enough it seems.
They are going to need inter-ship transfer though, so maybe it’s for that.
Beati Dogu said:
An expendable Starship has been rolled out to the pad for pressure testing:
That’s ship 26, which is a basic one with no tiles, fins or cargo doors even.
No one outside SpaceX seems to know what its purpose is. If it’s for NASA’s orbital fuel transfer requirement, they can do that with a regular version. Just pumping internally between the main and header tanks is good enough it seems.
They are going to need inter-ship transfer though, so maybe it’s for that.
If they’ve changed the tanks I imagine they need to do a new pressure test - those have failed before. If so would make sense to use the cheapest test article possible?That’s ship 26, which is a basic one with no tiles, fins or cargo doors even.
No one outside SpaceX seems to know what its purpose is. If it’s for NASA’s orbital fuel transfer requirement, they can do that with a regular version. Just pumping internally between the main and header tanks is good enough it seems.
They are going to need inter-ship transfer though, so maybe it’s for that.
loudlashadjuster said:
Maybe they can launch the whole idea of that dreadful Cybertruck into space?
Orbiting a stainless steel car on a huge stainless steel rocket would be quite a product “launch”, let’s face it. I’m not a fan of its looks either. It won’t be this ship though. It doesn’t have any cargo doors. It may be a test article for new tank changes before they commit to the full design.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff