SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

kbd512 · 2023-05-03 20:14:15

SpaceNut,

I just watched the video you linked to, from beginning to end. Nowhere in that video was a claim of sabotage made, from anyone in the video. Did Elon Musk make that claim in another video, perhaps?

RGClark · 2023-05-04 06:42:46

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
I just watched the video you linked to, from beginning to end. Nowhere in that video was a claim of sabotage made, from anyone in the video. Did Elon Musk make that claim in another video, perhaps?

This video appeared in my Youtube video feed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSkz-9RPN4Y

The description that appears overlaid on a still from the video prior to starting the video is, "It was sabotage!" That description is clickbait. The video itself says nothing of the sort.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2023-05-04 06:48:38)

GW Johnson · 2023-05-04 09:25:30

The more videos I see of the liftoff, the more chunks of launch pad concrete and other debris I see flying up alongside the rocket. The odds then favor debris strikes as causing at least some of engine outs. More engines went it as it climbed. Whether debris strikes caused these directly, or indirectly (there were some sorts of small explosions near the base of the vehicle, with debris shown shedding from them), remains to be seen.

There were also the laterally-directed jets of flame seen just before and during the tumble. That's sort of thing you might get if one side of an expansion bell has disappeared, or if the mounting collapsed, letting an engine twist over sideways to the vehicle axis. With all that base-burning methane-air flame that was going on (for whatever reason), having further engine or engine-mount damage is entirely unsurprising.

I would hate to see SpaceX go overboard with risk-aversion the way NASA has. Innovation pretty much ends when you do that. But being "not risk-averse" does not mean that you take every risk. To do it right, you mitigate the risks that you already know how to mitigate, while trying to control the consequences of the risks that you must take. Launch pad damage flinging debris too far, and probably damaging the vehicle, was a risk they already knew how to mitigate. Properly mitigating known risks with known mitigations should quite simply out-prioritize schedule or budget concerns (and not doing it right that way, cost NASA 2 dead shuttle crews).

Hindsight is 2020: they should have installed the flame diverter before launching this thing, learning from other people's prior efforts (even the original Atlas and Titan required flame diverters back in the 1950's). They violated their permit requirements for how far failure debris might get flung, which gets them back into trouble with the FAA, for whom their public safety impact statement was prepared. That was the basis for their license to fly.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-05-04 09:31:36)

tahanson43206 · 2023-05-04 10:19:01

In recent days we have seen a lot of interest in just one of at least 1,000,000 variables that were at play in the recent Starship Heavy launch.

I would like to see comparable energy and time invested in all the risks taken by the SpaceX team that did NOT fail!

The fact is that the failure that DID occur dinged some hardware, and it ruffled some feathers (human and otherwise), but no harm was done that a bit of elbow grease and a few parts can't fix.

We have a thorough review of the situation coming up on May 13th, and I sure hope that Dr. Stanley is gifted with inside information that will help to show the heavy burden of risks that the SpaceX team was carrying.

I do agree with the position taken by at least one forum member, to the effect that since the United States as an entity is now dependent upon SpaceX to achieve space goals, it would be perfectly reasonable for Congress to authorize a permanent bedrock mounted launch platform in the Gulf.

(th)

Void · 2023-05-04 11:10:06

That is a good question to ask (th). I am neutral on it though.

One thing that is certainly true is now that SpaceX has given evidence that such a large ship may be possible it is far more likely that other entities on the planet will seek to do it as well.

We have to give consideration to the possibility that Leftist and Rightest groups/individuals may be encouraged to try to scupper American efforts. An example of this is that in the past the USA had pioneered sophisticated electric trains. Then as I understand it, an individual was allowed to cannibalize the copper from it for some reason (Fossil Fuels), and then the technology went to Japan and Europe. I am not saying that Japan and Europe are stupid, rather, we can be very stupid. And all it takes is greed and/or malice on the part of entities internal to the USA, with encouragement from foreign powers.

We should not beat our child ideas to death, and we should be very wary of the motives of legal actions.

Be wary of evil step guardians.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-05-04 11:11:35)

RobertDyck · 2023-05-04 12:59:56

tahanson43206 wrote:

SpaceNut .... if you can find the time, please see if you can find a depth of water 20 miles off Boca Chica.

Sorry to interrupt, but according to Google Earth Pro, water depth there is 41 metres. That's 134 feet 6 inches, but round to the nearest metre, so 135 feet.

tahanson43206 · 2023-05-04 14:21:01

For RobertDyck re #106

Thanks for picking up the thread here! I thought of SpaceNut due to his proven search skills, but you're right behind him!

I'm right in the middle of something, so will simply toss out the next step in the investigation. How far down is the bedrock, below that 135 feet?

A parallel inquiry .... Given that New York skyscrapers have to be built upon bedrock that is far below the surface of the Earth there, what is the proven record for building on pilings driven to bedrock? There may be other locations on Earth besides New York.

The issue at hand is: Is it feasible to build a bedrock based launch platform for SpaceX Starships in this location?

I consider floating launch platforms to be beyond human capability at this time, although they are certainly "feasible".

What I'm challenging is any supposition that such a platform could hold a fully fueled Starship Heavy steady in wind and rain that can and most certainly will occur.

Let's try for a bedrock based design, and when we find it, let's propose it to our Congressional representatives.

Our members in Texas have a potential head start, if anyone has a communications pathway direct to the delegation.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2023-05-04 15:03:04

Most of the older oil platforms in the Gulf would be fixed towers embedded into the sea floor, supporting multiple decks with all sorts of superstructure on them. These would be in water depths of only up to around 300-3400 meters. Many of the older ones are much shallower. Something like that withstands hurricanes. It does not need bedrock to do that.

You would need to considerably modify the decks and superstructures. In the middle where the oil drill was, you need to clear stuff away and put your launch pad structure over a big hole through to the sea. The sea surface becomes its own flame deflector, but you would have to add water deluge to protect the adjacent decks, superstructures, and even the legs underneath. This stuff is only mild carbon steel after all.

If an old one cannot be modified without too much effort, then building a new jack-up rig, with the structures you want built from the start, might be the way to go, as long as the water isn't too deep. Under 200 m should be fine. These float, get towed to the site, then the legs are lowered to penetrate into the sea bed. They too can take hurricanes. Build nothing tall on it, until it is anchored into the sea bed. A temporary crane at one side could erect the launch tower at the other side, then be taken down. The launch tower needs to be close enough to its edge (or that edge indented to the base of the tower) so that it can pick up Starships and Superheavies from horizontal positions on barges tied-off to the launch platform.

Whether any of this is even close to the way SpaceX must eventually go will depend critically upon their first demonstrating that the launch tower really can catch returning Superheavies reliably. Not knowing those answers, and knowing that those answers are still a ways off, is probably why SpaceX got rid of the old oil platforms it acquired. The catch tower thing may not work at all. Some of us consider that quite the long-shot idea.

Landing on a concrete pad on-shore may be what they end up with, for both stages. And it needs to be a very large pad, to counter positional errors and crosswind effects during the landing. The first good Starship-only landing showed that, quite clearly, since it almost put one leg in the mud alongside the small pad it landed on. That pad was too small for landings to be reliable. Stick a leg in the mud, and over it topples. Then it blows up. Then any people on board get killed. Period!

Just thinking about how to manage risks they already know that they have to take.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-05-04 15:11:08)

RobertDyck · 2023-05-04 15:48:49

At 20 miles off-shore from Boca Chica, that's part of the Texas-Louisiana Shelf. Water depth there is 41 metres. It gets deeper if you move a mile farther off shore, and shallower if you move toward shore. Starship without SuperHeavy booster is 50 metres tall, so this is shallow water. Booster is 69 metres, total stack height is 120 metre. Again, shallow water. Could the flame cut a path all the way to the sea floor? I doubt it. It will move some water aside, but not 41 metres. It will be very turbulent. The flame will try to excavate a hole in the water all the way to the seabed, but water will impinge from the sides of that "hole". Will the turbulence be enough to dig a hole in the sediment beneath the platform? I don't know.

GW Johnson talks about a jack-up rig in water under 200 metres. Water here is 41 metres. Legs will have to be lowered to penetrate into the seabed, but if they can hold a rig in 200 metre water depth in hurricane winds, then depth those legs penetrate into sediment should be enough.

I'm hoping SpaceX can make it work from the existing Orbital Launch Mount. Yes, it will require a flame diverter. I thought landing would require a concrete pad, just as GW said. That would require a crane to pick up the landed rocket and move it back to the launch mount. Can the "chop sticks" do it? Depends on how close to the tower the ship lands. But Elon is hoping to land so close to the tower that the "chop sticks" can close around the booster or ship below the lift hard-points. Hovering above the concrete pad (not launch mount) close enough for the "chop sticks" to grab it. Then reduce engine thrust to gently lower so the hard-points touch the top of the "chop sticks". At that point, it's in the grip of the "chop stick" crane. Turn off and secure the engines. Once engines are secure, lift the booster, turn the "chop sticks" to move the booster over the launch mount, then gently lower onto the launch mount. There would have to be a way to slide the booster along the "chop sticks" either toward or away from the tower, to position correctly to be placed on the launch mount. All this requires high precision. Can they do it? We'll see.

tahanson43206 · 2023-05-04 17:34:59

For all engaged in this important topic ...

Thank you for support of the off-shore launch platform concept.

I would like to offer a counter-proposal to the idea of using an existing oil platform....

If the launch platform is purpose built, then the weaknesses and disadvantages of trying to re-use a structure designed for a completely different purpose can be avoided.

Is there anyone (stateside) who objects to the US taking this on as an investment for the Nation?

As I see it, the work would be done by contractors, but the facility would be a US property similar to any of the facilities at the Cape or in countless other locations around the country.

SpaceX could use the facility by paying a fee. I'm assuming something like that is in place at the Cape.

(th)

Calliban · 2023-05-04 17:36:31

Concrete is too vulnerable to thermal shock under the extreme heat fluxes imposed by rocket exhaust. If a pad is made from concrete, it must be protected by a steel flame diverter. Concrete structures have failed due to explosive spalling under heat fluxes and temperatures far less impressive than those experienced under rocket exhaust. Fibre reinforcement could hold the surface together, but it won't prevent cracking under those heat fluxes. This is something that needs to be thought about for design of a Mars pad as well.

RobertDyck · 2023-05-04 18:55:10

Tom,
Elon will prefer to launch from land. Because the rocket can be moved by wheeled transport from the manufacturing building to launch mount. Taking the rocket miles out to sea is more complex. The launch complex is where it is because it's beside a coast, as south as you can get within the US, and surrounded by swamp. Unfortunately some environmentalists obsess over wildlife in the swamp. No animals were injured in this launch, and the only things thrown about were sand ard chunks of concrete. Nothing toxic was released. A major storm does more damage. Elon could promise that if any animals are killed in future launches, they will be given to local indigenous people for dinner.

tahanson43206 · 2023-05-04 20:24:53

For RobertDyck re #112

Good points all, for the manufacturing site.

However, Elon's published plans/visions for overseas transportation seemed to show offshore landing and takeoff facilities to avoid proximity to major destination cities.

Something for you to consider .... The vehicles could fly themselves over to the water launch site. No need for barges or other 12th Century conveyance.

My guess is that since a flight authorization will be needed for ** every ** flight from any location, it will be a lot easier to obtain permission for a short 20 mile jump in a partially fueled vehicle than it will be for the full Hiroshima Bomb version.

If the US builds a launch platform in the Gulf for Elon to use, I'll bet he'd be tempted to take up the offer.

(th)

RGClark · 2023-05-05 06:35:41

The ‘Angry Astronaut’ gives an insightful analysis of the environmental lawsuit against the FAA and suggests it could delay another launch from Boca Chica for another two years. The reason is the extent of the spread of concrete debris is beyond the 700 acres implied in the FAA Environmental Assessment. This means a more detailed Environmental Impact report must be generated. This takes longer, thus suggesting the longer time for another launch license to be granted:

Environmentalist lawsuit could delay Starship for two years or longer!
https://youtu.be/zFZDeJOs19Y

Bob Clark

RobertDyck · 2023-05-05 07:55:57

Investigate where the environmentalists are getting their money. One reporter in Canada found a financial statement from the Rockefeller Foundation that admitted they provide millions of dollars per year to environmental groups. The Rockefeller corporation made their billions in oil, they aren't anti-oil. But they fund environmental groups in Canada that oppose oil pilelines to the coast or any means to sell oil to anywhere other than the US. The Rockefeller Foundation agenda is to ensure Canadian oil is sold exclusively to the US and at fire sale prices. Environmental groups are against all oil. The groups would be shocked if they discovered who is funding them.

One notable case was the Rockefeller Foundation supporting opposition to a natural gas pipeline through an indigenous reservation in BC, claiming people who live there oppose it. Despite the fact the chief supported it, all but one councillor supported it, and they held a referendum, 85% of voters in that reservation voted in favour of the pipeline. I could list benefits to the community that were negotiated to achieve that deal, but the point is the Rockefeller Foundation stirred up environmental groups and tried to make it sound as if locals opposed it. So who is behind the environmentalists in Boca Chica? I suspect Old Space.

RobertDyck · 2023-05-05 08:54:55

Tom (tahansen43206),
Please don't use the phrase "Heroshima bomb". As mentioned earlier, it can't explode with anywhere near that force. With fuel and oxidizer in separate tanks, catastrophic failure will never result in perfect mixing, the explosion will only be a tiny fraction of the theoretical yeald. Fuel and oxidizer combust, containing combustion products in a metal tank (aluminum alloy or in this case stainless steel) will allow pressure to build up until tank failure. That will result in what's called a low explosive, not a high explosive. Ammonium-perchlorate Fuel-Oil (AmFO) and gun powder are also low explosives, while C4 is a high explosive. Starship/SuperHeavy is nothing like the Heroshima bomb. What it is like is the Soviet N1 rocket.

Understand Elon's thinking. If getting the rocket to the off-shore site requires launching from land, why not just launch into orbit from land?

This is why Starship launches from Boca Chica. It's in the middle of a swamp. There's nothing but wasteland for miles around. Yes, there's the beach, but that's closed during launches. Servicing New York city or Tokyo is quite different. Those are big cities so the launch site must be miles away for safety.

I doubt the US government or any of its agencies (eg NASA) will build an off-shore launch platform. They want private enterprise to do it on their own. They want to pay for launch services the way you pay for a taxi.

RobertDyck · 2023-05-05 09:02:07

By the way, rockets have been launched from a converted oil drilling platform. SeaLaunch was owned by Boeing. They used a Zenit rocket built in east Ukraine. The converted oil platform was towed to an ocean site right on the equator for maximum centrifugal effect from Earth's rotation. Support services were from a converted cruise ship that accompanied it. The captain of the oil platform had to move to the ship for launch. In an interview he said he was the only captain who abandons his ship at sea. I would say he didn't really abandon it, he was on the cruise ship watching. Starship is a lot larger but my point is it has been done. And the launch platform for Zenit floated, it didn't extend legs to the sea floor. Obviously only launch during calm weather.

RGClark · 2023-05-05 09:10:25

Angry Astronaut on the off-shore launch idea for Starship. He notes it has been done before:

Starship and the Deimos Launch Pad- the PERFECT plan for SpaceX! Lessons from history prove it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQO_4RLBTk

Bob Clark

kbd512 · 2023-05-05 09:13:21

RGClark,

If SpaceX launches 20 miles offshore, it completely removes the requirement for FAA approval. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind. That's all this is. The FAA has no authority over the airspace 20 miles offshore, so SpaceX can launch whenever it pleases, regardless of what you or GW or the FAA or our eco-terrorists think about it.

GW Johnson · 2023-05-05 10:55:34

A bunch of you seem to have missed a major point I tried to make: it makes sense to launch from land until you know exactly what your launch infrastructure really will be. BECAUSE it is easier, faster, and cheaper to change that infrastructure on land, than it is to repeatedly tow something back into a drydock for changes.

SpaceX DOES NOT YET KNOW what that final launch infrastructure is going to be! What they currently have is their best guess, and they know the odds are they have guessed wrong about at least some of it. THAT is why they need the launch license to go from the land, they CANNOT AFFORD NOT TO! Simple as that.

I don't doubt the lawsuit filed against the FAA has at least some funding from old space. It has other sources, including the extremist environmentalist groups (that being said, Kbd512, know that NOT ALL environmentalists are extremists!!!!!). Its point is to delay issuing the next launch license for as long as possible, maybe even never.

I do not think that will happen, though. But I think it will be delayed until the mitigatable risks are properly mitigated, so that the impact statement correctly reflects the risks that are being taken. That DID NOT HAPPEN with launch #1! NO ONE in their right mind can argue otherwise, and THAT lack is the opening for the lawsuit.

Having gotten their noses rubbed in this so publicly, FAA is very likely going to take their own sweet time making sure the next license correctly reflects the risks being taken. That WILL cause a delay, and it was entirely unnecessary for FAA and SpaceX to have gone down this path, which is the direct consequence of bad risk-taking decision-making "somewhere" in SpaceX. And we all, including FAA, know where that "somewhere" was.

I suspect they will demand some sort of proof that Shotwell/staff engineers are now making the risk-taking decisions, not Elon himself by himself, as was the case for test #1. Bureaucrats are not fatally stupid, they do learn, even if belatedly. And this has been public enough that FAA does now indeed know who made the bad decision.

As for a steel water-cooled flame deflector, given the past experiences in the 1960's with Atlas and Titan, the 1960-1970's with the Saturns, and the obvious blast zone excavations done by horizontal (!!!!) SRB testing in Utah, why was such a deflector not a part of the Superheavy launch stand from the very beginning? Why was it "too late" to be used? Who drove that misprioritization, which dates back a ways now?

Why am I the ONLY one asking THAT question here?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2023-05-05 11:07:17)

RGClark · 2023-05-05 11:02:51

kbd512 wrote:

RGClark,
If SpaceX launches 20 miles offshore, it completely removes the requirement for FAA approval. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind. That's all this is. The FAA has no authority over the airspace 20 miles offshore, so SpaceX can launch whenever it pleases, regardless of what you or GW or the FAA or our eco-terrorists think about it.

Yes. That is the point of the video.

Bob Clark

RobertDyck · 2023-05-05 12:18:20

GW Johnson wrote:

Why am I the ONLY one asking THAT question here?

I think we all saw the need for a thrust diverter. I talked about it before the first suborbital test launch. But Elon isn't listening to us, and after a while you have to stop harping on the same issue. Let him succeed or fail on his own. He's now facing the consequences.

We have to hope this doesn't kill Starship. And ensure what we say doesn't cause that. Provide constructive criticism and suggestions, not contribute to those trying to kill it.

GW Johnson · 2023-05-05 17:14:31

Rob:

My question was not "why no thrust diverter?", it is "how come it still wasn't ready when they have known they need one for so long?"

GW

kbd512 · 2023-05-05 17:20:01

GW,

Kbd512, know that NOT ALL environmentalists are extremists!!!!!

The eco-terrorists said they were going to file a lawsuit regardless of outcome. SpaceX's rocket threw sand over a beach. When beaches are covered with sand that came from somewhere else on the same beach, what is the world coming to?

Who drove that misprioritization, which dates back a ways now?

A person with a strong desire to get things done, however imperfectly by the standards of people who have never caused a fully reusable super heavy lift launch vehicle to materialize, rather than making endless excuses for why he did not.

SpaceNut · 2023-05-05 19:40:06

The booster carries lithium batteries, thruster fuels that are Storables and possibly hydraulic fluids that become the pollutants when we destroy a ship during the launch profile.
Normally the 200-mile limits are for the US waters but at one time they were just 12 miles so the gulf may be a bit of a treaty for allowing all nations no issue to entry.
Aside from the launch you have the transportation of all parts and piece that can leak all sorts of fluids from shipping to the oil rigs which is the other topic.

edit:
Confusing a regulated process to one the was not in any form is an issue.

As for Hydraulic fluid is that what the engines are using to gimbal?

Methane is a greenhouse gas so if it stays in the air and does not burn it is no better than co2 had it done so.

Sorry for any confusion

second edit:
So normally I get science responses and this time I got something that was not even close to reasoning out the answers for the public to assure that they have nothing to fear from the sky is raining a blown-up rocket stuff.

So how wide was the 2 different debris field.

The first contained concrete dust that we do know will over long-term exposure cause problems of all sorts with the lungs.
To which Elon is taking steps to not have this same event take place ever again.

The lithium levels while it's not going up a huge amount there is how ever a clean-up process.
Seawater could provide nearly unlimited amounts of critical battery material

The world's oceans contain an estimated 180 billion tons of lithium. But it's dilute, present at roughly 0.2 parts per million.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2023-05-03 20:14:15

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#102 2023-05-04 06:42:46

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#103 2023-05-04 09:25:30

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#104 2023-05-04 10:19:01

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#105 2023-05-04 11:10:06

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#106 2023-05-04 12:59:56

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#107 2023-05-04 14:21:01

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#108 2023-05-04 15:03:04

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#109 2023-05-04 15:48:49

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#110 2023-05-04 17:34:59

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#111 2023-05-04 17:36:31

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#112 2023-05-04 18:55:10

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#113 2023-05-04 20:24:53

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#114 2023-05-05 06:35:41

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#115 2023-05-05 07:55:57

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#116 2023-05-05 08:54:55

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#117 2023-05-05 09:02:07

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#118 2023-05-05 09:10:25

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#119 2023-05-05 09:13:21

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#120 2023-05-05 10:55:34

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#121 2023-05-05 11:02:51

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#122 2023-05-05 12:18:20

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#123 2023-05-05 17:14:31

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#124 2023-05-05 17:20:01

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

#125 2023-05-05 19:40:06

Re: SuperHeavy+Starship have the thermal energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

Board footer