Starship is Go...

Void · 2024-06-22 11:41:27

I have to believe that some will enjoy this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFqjoCbZ4ik
Quote:

First Look Inside SpaceX's Starfactory w/ Elon Musk
Everyday Astronaut
1.59M subscribers

I think it suite me at least, to learn a bit.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-06-22 11:42:49)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-22 16:54:07

Thanks, Void, that was a very good video. Unless I am mistaken, it was made right before flight test 4 of Starship/Superheavy.

GW

RGClark · 2024-06-25 06:37:18

In that video about 27 minutes in he talks about the autogenous pressurization system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFqjoCbZ4ik

This is a system that instead of using helium to pressurize the propellant tanks, heats a portion of the propellant to provide the pressurization. But surprisingly rather than using heat exchangers to heat the propellant, the exhaust directly from the pre-burners is used to warm the propellants. Tim Dodd was surprised it was done this way because other times it was done, heat exchangers were used.

This appears to be the cause of the recurring problems of clogging of the propellant intakes to the engines they’ve been seeing due to ice developing, since the combustion products include water or CO2 which freeze when contacting the cryogenic propellants.

I say again SpaceX is desperately in need of a true Chief Engineer, not someone who dabbles in the field. Can you imagine for example an AI company having as its Chief Technology officer someone who just dabbles in the field of artificial intelligence? Remember, this is not the CEO position here, who might be just a competent manager, this is the person who needs to have a firm understanding and knowledge of all the interconnected technology going on at the company.

A true Chief Engineer with decades of experience in the SpaceX industry who have known beforehand that using directly the exhaust products fed into the propellant tanks is a bad idea.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-06-25 06:38:24)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-25 09:03:07

Bob:

I pretty much agree.

I think it may be more due to young, inexperienced engineers not knowing about the mistakes made by others elsewhere in the industry. Some ideas-to-try can be dismissed early-on, before cutting steel, if you have somebody on the team old enough and experienced enough to know about the mistakes of others. SpaceX hires no one older than 45.

You can still use tapped combustion gases, but by means of a heat exchanger, not direct injection. Although making it big enough to actually work may be too heavy. Which may well be why helium is still so popular.

GW

Void · 2024-06-25 09:30:57

Here is part #2 from The Everyday Astronaut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJOlT6WdHc
Quote:

See Starship and the Orbital Launch Pad w/ Elon Musk
Everyday Astronaut
1.6M

(Post 1876 has part #1).

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-06-25 09:32:56)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-25 13:07:39

Nice video Void, again. Thanks.

It was good to find out only the one flap had the entry heating damage. I'm just guessing it was the luck of the draw that the camera was looking at that one.

GW

GW Johnson · 2024-07-04 23:04:39

Looks like Beryl is going to come ashore somewhere close to Brownsville/Matamoros. That means SpaceX is going to see the winds, storm surge, and rain. If I were them, I'd pull my flight hardware inside until this passes.

GW

RGClark · 2024-07-08 09:16:57

Controversy coming from someone on Twitter posting an image claiming to show the IFT-4 booster exploding after water landing:

BOCA'S?BRAIN @BocasBrain
Here comes a 12 hour ban from X
Sorry, you don't get the footage.
See you tomorrow after the scolding :
GRw_chWaEAEQNbG?format=jpg&name=medium
https://x.com/BocasBrain/status/1809390911782367455

Bob Clark

GW Johnson · 2024-07-08 14:15:35

Two points:

1. Dare trust nothing off an internet unpoliced for truth. Twitter (among very many) has long been notorious, and now as X, it is even worse.

2. Booster probably fell over sideways onto the sea after touching down, with a bit of propellant still aboard. Not being designed for that, it probably broke apart upon smacking the water sideways. An explosion would be expected.

Meanwhile: the hurricane came ashore closer to Houston than Brownsville. SpaceX seems to have dodged that bullet. I did see one comment somewhere on somebody's news feed: Musk wants to fly in 4 weeks. But as I said in point 1, I'll believe it when I really see it.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-07-08 14:17:41)

JoshNH4H · 2024-07-09 11:32:23

For what it's worth (nothing), extrapolating the time trend from the first four flights gives you July 26th for the fifth. Looks like that has decidedly slipped.

GW Johnson · 2024-07-11 09:49:15

I see in the news reports the next booster is being sent to the launch pad.

GW

JoshNH4H · 2024-07-14 11:24:21

Something I've been wondering about lately: Besides SpaceX itself, what companies or organizations are best-positioned to take advantage of the capabilities starship will provide?

Void · 2024-07-15 06:38:08

I waited, no one else responded.

I think it comes down to Capacity and Competition. I am presuming now that Starship may have an initial payload lift of 50 tones as it moves beyond the main development phase. I am thinking that eventually they may get it up to 200 tones. This my well involve expanding the size of the launch system.

This could be a bit like refrigerators. Before them existing, it might be that someone might say, we have ice boxes, if you build a factory, is there going to be a market for refrigerators? Of course, we know that a market will appear in many cases if a new product appears. I think that space stations and the products they can create will be a large part of that market. Space manufacturing, and also some tourism, and also some research on now products in microgravity.

We cannot tell who all the competition will be. It may be that the "West" and associates will adopt one set of methods and it may be that the non-west to some extent will have a similar attempt(s). The USA having been tilted away from its natural neutral character towards Euroafrica and away from Eurasia, by tight association with Club Med, then causes a mirror reality to come into existence, a non-unity. This may change if Nato and/or the EU break up.

More internally a competitor to SpaceX seems to be shaping up. Rumors have Blue Origin buying ULA. So, they might have more than one scheme for a 1st Stage. Both Stoke Space and Blue Origin seem to be tilted towards a Hydra Lox and active cooled 2nd stage. Probably Dream Chaser, ends up more in this camp, but the Europeans and Japan may get a 1st stage for Dream Chaser. I believe that the Blue Origin 2nd stage is called "Jarvis" as in the iron Man movies.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index … =54391.440
Quote:

Quote from: Robotbeat on 01/23/2024 02:37 am
I estimate that long term, New Glenn could probably evolve to about a 75-80 ton fully reusable launcher with thrust growth from BE-4, improved Isp on both stages, and a down-range droneship landing. At least, if they took an aggressive iteration approach like SpaceX took with Falcon 9.

So, Starship may have a fairing size advantage.

The recent Falcon 9 failure may just be a reuse issue, but it also could be a sabotage thing. There are some powers that want things like space and war to be a repeated Christmas for them. So, my paranoid side has that as a potential reality of low probability. But if it were true, we might fear some action against Starship next. This process of piping tax money to the rich started in the North during the Civil War. So, we cannot assume that the recipient classes for that would not think it is their privilege to expect things to work that way.

But I think it is more likely that it was a natural occurrence per the Falcon 9.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-07-15 09:29:18)

GW Johnson · 2024-07-15 09:44:08

edit update 7-24-2024: this posting is about the Falcon-9 second-stage failure trying to orbit several Starlink satellites:

I saw one small, obscure item that talked about an oxygen leak. A cryo liquid spewing into the engine bay in significant quantities from a plumbing leak would cause freezing of the high coastal humidity into lots of ice, accumulated into the engine compartment. Falling chunks of ice can do serious damage, as it did to Shuttle Columbia's wing. Such falling chunks of ice were seen in the video coverage.

The engine explosion (or whatever it was) could have been either damage from being struck by falling chunks of ice, or something to do with leaking oxygen in the presence of almost-inevitable leaking methane, or both. Hopefully, there enough of a data record to figure this out fairly quickly, for the FAA investigation.

GW

Edit update 7-27-2024: they seem to be cleared to fly Falcons again. Although, I have seen nothing about what the failure turned out to be.

Edit update 7-28-2024: saw one report saying it was some sort of sensing line that cracked in fatigue because its supporting bracket was busted somehow. That broken line let a bunch of liquid oxygen out. The report said NOT ONE WORD about the big falling ice chunks, but instead had some not-very-understandable words about the cold slowing part of the propellant flow, making the engine inoperable. Accordingly, I think (1) we are not being told the truth about the actual problem the oxygen leak caused, and (2) whatever that truth really is, they apparently fixed it, and successfully flew 3 Falcons in one day. The news article said they simply removed the sensor line from the engine design as no longer needed (which then begs the question of why it was still there).

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-07-28 11:12:41)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-06 16:08:13

Has anyone seen a date for the next Starship/Superheavy test flight?

GW

SpaceNut · 2024-09-07 08:25:42

Scientists Say SpaceX Starship Explosion Tore a Hole in the Atmosphere

SpaceX Rocket Launch Schedule: Today & Upcoming

Starship is ready for its 5th test flight, SpaceX says (photos)

"Flight 5 Starship and Super Heavy are ready to fly, pending regulatory approval," the company said via X on Thursday afternoon (Aug. 8). "Additional booster catch testing and Flight 6 vehicle testing is planned while waiting for clearance to fly."

so no word as to whats stopping the flight...

SpaceNut · 2024-09-11 19:38:16

looking like November for Musk to complete the paperwork to take care of the issues for the FAA.

SpaceNut · 2024-09-12 17:47:20

SpaceX's Starship won't be licensed to fly again until late November, FAA says

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-12 18:28:31

For SpaceNut re #1893

Thanks for linking the story about the FAA delay.

I read the article carefully, and came away somewhat sympathetic to the hapless government employees who have to try to manage Elon Musk. The present delay is happening because SpaceX chose not to operate under the terms of their previous license.

As i understand the license, they were authorized to fly as many times as they wanted to, as long as they did not change hardware or the mission profile. Understandably, they did both, but the FAA has every right to be afraid that Elon will drop the booster on the town next to the launch facility. The Falcon 9 has a proven track record so I am guessing the flight approval process goes pretty smoothly these days. That most certainly is NOT the case with Starship.

We have members of this forum who express concern that Elon may say things that cause discomfort at the FAA, but I am guessing that pressure on Elon from his associates may be strong enough to avoid that. The statement from SpaceX quoted in the piece seems reasonable to me, and not offensive. I hope the FAA agrees that the tone was just about right.

The FAA has to approve a test flight that includes the booster meandering back over land where it has to make a precision landing. The number of things that could go wrong must total up the the millions, and just about ** all ** of those failure points must pass without incident for the flight to be a success.

I don't see how a rational human being could take this risk, but somehow the FAA team is going to steel themselves and hope for the best.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-09-13 16:46:59

SpaceX’s next Starship flight delayed by months

SpaceX says it’s been ready to launch the mighty Starship rocket on its fifth test flight since early August, and had been expecting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to give it the green light for the flight to take place in mid-September. But it’s now emerged that the FAA is unlikely to grant a launch license until late November at the earliest.
This delay was not based on a new safety concern, but instead driven by superfluous environmental analysis.”

RGClark · 2024-09-19 11:11:49

Elon has made news by stating Starship can make unscrewed flights to Mars in 2 years and crewed flights in 4 years:

SpaceX will start launching Starships to Mars in 2026, Elon Musk says
News
By Mike Wall published September 8, 2024
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-m … -elon-musk

But just stripping off the reusability systems the Starship would have a 200 to 250 ton payload capability and could do single launch flights to Mars now, no refueling flights required.

https://youtu.be/UutHG8Y2UuQ

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-09-19 16:39:15)

GW Johnson · 2024-09-20 08:34:19

By now, everybody on these forums (and anywhere else) should know better than to believe an Elon Musk schedule prediction. Those are what he wants, not what SpaceX can do.

Most of the delays getting launch licenses have to do with SpaceX violating the terms of their launch licenses (usually at Elon's bidding), or by wanting to do a test outside what was previously approved (as with the next test flight, because of the attempt to catch the returning booster).

Elon's disdain of regulations is quite clear and no surprise to anyone anymore. And yet those regulations are quite necessary. If that returning booster goes off course and cannot be destroyed, it represents a rather severe crash risk for the city of Brownville, only 5 miles away from SpaceX's site, a risk comparable to a large bomber with its bomb load still aboard.

Yeah, that issue needs to be addressed thoroughly, and the FAA is quite right to consult with other agencies, as this is a bit unique. Not like the usual big aircraft crash risk. Even only a few tons of remaining propellant is still a rather large bomb waiting to go off on impact.

GW

Void · 2024-10-12 14:30:19

I just watched this: "Utube, Ryan Hansen Space, How SpaceX Will Catch Super Heavy | Explained"
Some of you might like to watch it: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=WRVORC
Quote:

How SpaceX Will Catch Super Heavy | Explained
YouTube
Ryan Hansen Space
62K views
1 day ago

I guess we might find out soon.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-10-12 14:31:21)

GW Johnson · 2024-10-13 11:50:44

Starship/Superheavy Flight Test 5, 13 October 2024

I found out after the fact that the test took place this morning. I watched the SpaceX videos to find out what happened. While not perfect, the test was a resounding success!

The launch was normal with all 33 Raptors working in the Superheavy booster stage. Hot staging was successful, and they seemed to keep control of the propellant ullage problem by running 3 booster engines all during the staging event and the flip-around. The Starship upper stage pulled away on all 6 of its Raptor engines successfully. Staging took place at approximately 67 km altitude and 5200 km/hr (1.44 km/s) speed (which is actually a bit less speed than I expected to see).

The booster successfully flew back to the South Texas “Starbase” facility, and successfully made the landing burns (initially 13 engines, finally 3 engines) and the tower catch, which was utterly amazing to see! I did see the methane plume from one vent burning with air along one side of the stage near its base. That vented material continued to burn for some time after the landing. (They might consider adding a water spray on the tower to put such fires out.)

The Starship upper stage successfully made the same kind of almost-an-orbit suborbital trajectory, to come down in the ocean on the other side of the world. There is no need for a deorbit burn on this trajectory: entry is automatic. The video was astonishingly good. I saw no visible plasma effects at the nominal entry interface altitude 140 km. Speed was somewhere around 27,000 km/hr (7.5 km/s) at this point, although I did not recover the speed data on the screen.

I saw a visible plasma glow under the tail and portside aft flap, starting at about 102 km altitude and at a speed of about 26,727 km/hr (7.43 km/s). The announcer said the flaps were in control of vehicle attitude at about 85 km altitude and 26,720 km/hr (7.42 km/s). I started to see the speed readout begin dropping at a noticeable rate (indicating significant deceleration beginning) at about 75 km altitude and 26,350 km/hr (7.32 km/s). The vehicle is generating lift at about 60 degrees angle of attack, which shallows the descent angle and makes the entry process longer in time.

When the announcer said peak heating occurred, the ship was at about 70 km altitude, and about 25,500 km/hr (7.08 km/s) speed. This always occurs before the “max dynamic pressure” (or max deceleration gees) point. I never heard the announcer say where max dynamic pressure occurred. But I saw one of the flaps develop a hinge line burn-through! I’m not sure which one, there were 4 views of 4 flaps, the other 3 were unlabeled as to which they were. That was at roughly 45 km altitude and 9500 km/hr (2.64 km/s), probably substantially after the max dynamic pressure point. There is still very significant heating going on, just not the maximum amount.

According to the announcer, the ship was down to about Mach 2, which I read off the screen as about 25 km altitude and 1400 km/hr (0.39 km/s) speed. He indicated the ship was in the subsonic “belly-flop”, for which I read the screen as 3 km altitude and 400 km/hr (0.11 km/s) speed.

The ship fired up its 3 sea level Raptors successfully, and flipped tail first rather quickly, at very low altitude (apparently per plan), and touched down on the ocean in the proper attitude (nose high). It hit the target zone, and a camera on one of the target zone buoys recorded a huge steam cloud obscuring everything, then a fiery explosion. Apparently the ship broke up and exploded when it tipped over onto the water. There was burning cylindrical wreckage visible, sticking up out of the water at about a 45 degree angle. The last recorded speed, which I took to be speed at touchdown, was 8 km/hr (2.2 m/s).

All in all, this was an astonishingly successful test flight. Kudos to SpaceX, they did good, really good! And, they are doing things no one has done before, and accomplishing them faster than anyone has a right to expect. Well done!

The heat shielding at the flap hinge lines obviously still needs some improvement. I do believe it is time to try landing and recovering the Starship on land, and it is time to try doing Raptor restart burns in space. Solve those issues, and they are ready to attempt propellant transfer tests “for real”.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-10-13 12:36:47)

kbd512 · 2024-10-13 12:46:45

I watched the video. It clearly worked. We have a functional 2 stage fully reusable Saturn V class rocket that can take off and land under its own power. It was a long time coming, but better late than never. Now we need to do this about a hundred more times, prove that propellant transfer on-orbit works reliably, and then I do believe we're off to parts unknown. We still have to iterate closed-loop life support and space suit tech to the point that those lynchpin technologies are equally thoroughly proven to work. However, nailing down the required propulsion tech was a major milestone. We're doing this, and it's going to work, because we're going to make it work.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1876 2024-06-22 11:41:27

Re: Starship is Go...

#1877 2024-06-22 16:54:07

Re: Starship is Go...

#1878 2024-06-25 06:37:18

Re: Starship is Go...

#1879 2024-06-25 09:03:07

Re: Starship is Go...

#1880 2024-06-25 09:30:57

Re: Starship is Go...

#1881 2024-06-25 13:07:39

Re: Starship is Go...

#1882 2024-07-04 23:04:39

Re: Starship is Go...

#1883 2024-07-08 09:16:57

Re: Starship is Go...

#1884 2024-07-08 14:15:35

Re: Starship is Go...

#1885 2024-07-09 11:32:23

Re: Starship is Go...

#1886 2024-07-11 09:49:15

Re: Starship is Go...

#1887 2024-07-14 11:24:21

Re: Starship is Go...

#1888 2024-07-15 06:38:08

Re: Starship is Go...

#1889 2024-07-15 09:44:08

Re: Starship is Go...

#1890 2024-09-06 16:08:13

Re: Starship is Go...

#1891 2024-09-07 08:25:42

Re: Starship is Go...

#1892 2024-09-11 19:38:16

Re: Starship is Go...

#1893 2024-09-12 17:47:20

Re: Starship is Go...

#1894 2024-09-12 18:28:31

Re: Starship is Go...

#1895 2024-09-13 16:46:59

Re: Starship is Go...

#1896 2024-09-19 11:11:49

Re: Starship is Go...

#1897 2024-09-20 08:34:19

Re: Starship is Go...

#1898 2024-10-12 14:30:19

Re: Starship is Go...

#1899 2024-10-13 11:50:44

Re: Starship is Go...

#1900 2024-10-13 12:46:45

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer