Starship is Go...

Void · 2024-10-22 18:56:26

Well, I only said what I had read.

I have to say that SpaceX has guts though. They gambled and won. I think that process was as good as they wanted it, but I think they were on the edge of survival. But getting it back mostly in one piece is really a big win. I am sure they will add things in that are needed to give it a better adaption to the needs.

Then later they can perhaps start taking dry mass out where it is not required.

I was doubtful about them then catching a Starship, but I have seen a video where it was hovering above the ocean surface with just one engine. I think that means then that they have 2 engines to spare if that one goes wonky on the way down.

Ending Pending

Oldfart1939 · 2024-10-22 22:36:49

Update: SpaceX recovered the hot staging ring from the Gulf of Mexico today!

tahanson43206 · 2024-10-23 06:06:46

For OF1939 re #1927

Thanks for that update! I wonder what condition the ring is in.

That's a hard landing, for a precision piece of hardware.

More savings if it can be re-used.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-10-23 08:53:33

Both the Starship and the Superheavy have vents for propellant boiloff gases. The less the cold gas thrusters are used, the more gases there are to vent. The vents for the oxygen are remote from the vents for methane, for obvious fire and explosion reasons. I do not know exactly where these are located on these vehicles.

The oxygen being vented will show as a white cloud of condensed atmospheric moisture, or not at all, but it doesn't "burn" with air. It can make other fires brighter and faster, or even to explode, and that's the danger of venting oxygen. That is why you site an oxygen vent remote from anything flammable.

The methane being vented is very easily ignited with the oxygen in the air, almost as easy as hydrogen. Where a plume of methane mixes into air, there is always a zone of flammable mixtures. Any little ignition source can ignite the plume boundary into flames. Venting methane can show up as a white cloud of condensed atmospheric moisture, or not at all, or as a bright burning plume.

I don't know if anybody else noticed, but as the Superheavy descended into rocket braking, the oncoming wind pressure erratically pushed incandescent rocket plume gases back up toward and sometimes alongside the bottom end of the booster. Incandescent gases are a definite ignition source. On the Superheavy, there would seem to be at least one methane vent on the side of the vehicle toward that bottom end. So the plume gases could easily ignite a methane-air fire on that venting plume boundary, moved erratically around by the turbulent wind up alongside the vehicle.

And that description is exactly what we saw, during and after the tower catch, so I think that was a plume of vented methane burning with air, which persisted after the catch until the methane was vented. They need a water spray on the tower to put out the burning of the vented methane plume, to avoid local overheat damage where that plume washes along the side of the vehicle. I rather doubt they had thought of that, but the odds seem high that water spray will be installed in the future.

Could that same thing have happened to Starship? Yes. It has to have methane and oxygen vents, too, and they must be located remote from each other. Could something else have been the source of the Starship fire at its ocean touchdown? Yes, of course. We won't know until they release that information, if they ever do. They are a bit close-mouthed when something either goes wrong, or if something they don't understand happened. Most outfits are.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-10-23 08:54:17)

Oldfart1939 · 2024-10-23 12:46:34

Link to recovery of hot staging ring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAHXdgn … WL&index=1

tahanson43206 · 2024-10-23 14:53:04

For OF1939... re #1930

Thank you for the link to the video on SpaceX ... multiple topics including the recovered ring.

Those who have time to watch the video will be rewarded with little crawlies at the top right, with hints about SpaceX plans/hopes.

One disappointing note for our NewMars members who are looking forward to seeing a landing on a drone ship ....

Elon (apparently) put the quash on that idea..... You'll have to wait for 2025 to see that.

On the ** other ** hand, those wanting to see less burn-trough at the flap hinges will (apparently) see progress with Flight 6.

There was no hint (that I caught) as to what solutions might be attempted.

One of the hints that scrolled in the upper right was about refueling tests, which are of great interest to NewMars members.

(th)

RGClark · 2024-10-24 00:42:38

A vignette:

A wealthy host is giving a wine tasting party. All the people present are wine aficionados and are very excited to try the expensive wines their wealthy patron will be presenting. Finally, the wines arrive in a steamer trunk. But when the trunk is opened the guests are startled to see a dead body in it along with the wines. The guests all discuss in an excited and confused manner the dead body in the trunk. The host says nothing, and none of the guests ask him why there is dead body in the trunk he delivered.

Finally, the host reaches over the dead body and pulls out one of the expensive wines and starts pouring it into the glasses of the guests. The guests all enjoy the expensive wine.

giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952aadcg8ard0w8jmx83ra7lqz7sn0jqko8y3ay8b8j&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

Robert Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2024-10-24 06:34:33)

GW Johnson · 2024-10-24 11:00:50

All I saw from the youtube link in post 1930 was ad after ad that I could not skip or get away from. I saw no video about recovery of the hot stage ring. What gives?

As for post 1932, what does a video of a baby elephant in somebody's house have to do with the tale of dead bodies and wine-tasting? And what does dead bodies and wine-tasting have to with anything on these forums?

Jut asking.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-10-24 12:00:25

for GW Johnson ... re #1933

The ring shows up at second #26 into that 10 minute video.

I am surprised by the behavior of the system you reported. I got only one ad and it let me skip after four seconds or so.

***

Regarding the "humor" by RGClark .... that was pretty sophisticated stuff, and I agree that it might have been a better fit in one of the Chat topics.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-10-24 12:37:33

I'm afraid my bad experience with that link is repeatable.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2024-10-24 13:11:21

For GW Johnson re #1935

Please try the other working computer if you can get permission.

The behavior you've described is not normal for YouTube.

Also, try other links to YouTube to see if the behavior you've reported continues.

Microsoft has been updating Edge quite a bit recently.

I stay as far away as I can from Microsoft products, so you may be seeing something that is uniquely Microsoft related.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-10-24 15:35:25

I do not use Microsoft Edge if I can help it. We both use Google Chrome. That is what I was using.

But, the all-ads behavior on youtube for Oldfart's link is quite repeatable! It persists even now! I do not know anything about any other links to that youtube video. It shows a text title indicating recovery of the staging ring. But all it actually shows me is ads that I cannot avoid in any way. One after another.

My personal opinion: Microsoft sold good software before Windows. Software since has not been worth a shit. Especially Windows itself. There has never been a stable version of Windows. DOS was stable!

My other personal opinion: youtube has decided to show ads instead of content. At least, that's what my experiences ALL DAY TODAY show me! Why should I not believe what my experiences today have told me, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS!

Money talks too loudly, in our politics, and even on the internet! This ALL-COMMERCIALS CRAP has to stop! Make it illegal, I say! Make it easy to prove, and make the penalty VERY severe! Like death penalty felony!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-10-24 15:47:31)

RGClark · 2024-10-24 19:44:42

GW Johnson wrote:

All I saw from the youtube link in post 1930 was ad after ad that I could not skip or get away from. I saw no video about recovery of the hot stage ring. What gives?
As for post 1932, what does a video of a baby elephant in somebody's house have to do with the tale of dead bodies and wine-tasting? And what does dead bodies and wine-tasting have to with anything on these forums?
Jut asking.
GW

The elephant in the room everybody is ignoring. A 25 meter, 80 foot, long plume of flame shooting up the side of a rocket is a pretty big thing to ignore.

Bob Clark

kbd512 · 2024-10-24 22:00:42

GW,

YouTube is a for-profit company owned by Google. YouTube is under no obligation to host videos other people have made and uploaded, all for free. They don't owe any services to anybody who isn't paying them. Nobody is entitled to what they provide. If you so choose, you can pay money to Google and then they will remove all the ads after you log into your account.

$14/month on an Android or Google device
$19/month on Apple devices
$23/month per family
$140/year for the annual subscription service

Whether you know it or not, you can also download pretty much any video and watch it locally from your own machine without any ads.

As far as imposing a death penalty for advertising, I thought we were still a capitalist country. Did that change recently?

If we don't have capitalism, then what do you propose we replace it with?

tahanson43206 · Yesterday 06:54:58

For kbd512 re #1939

Thanks for the pricing information for an ad-free YouTube service. I was not aware of the pricing structure and appreciate having it available.
SearchTerm:Google pricing structure for YouTube see #1939

However, there is a possibility that some of our members may not have noticed a change in how YouTube delivers ads. I suspect that GW Johnson may have run into this. Recently I've noticed that ads (not just YouTube) no longer have a skip option (in some cases). I assume the advertiser is paying Google a bit more to run no-skip ads. I've adjusted to the change, but it might catch someone by surprise if they haven't used YouTube for a while.

There is a third possibility, but I think the chances are low... there might be some "damage" in the software on GW's laptop, though why that would manifest as showing ads is a mystery.

My best guess is that GW has encountered no-skip ads, and his notoriously short fuse expired during one of them.

Update ... it just occurred to me that Google fine tunes ads to the customer. It is quite possible in even likely that GW is seeing different ads than I am seeing.

Let's bring this up at the next Google Meeting (speaking of Google).

(th)

tahanson43206 · Yesterday 07:52:04

Here is my report of observed ads when playing the Recovered Ring video...

Ads served by YouTube for Ring video
Link
Oat milk Skip
Video starts
22 seconds in the ring is shown

For GW Johnson... please run the exact same test and report what you see.

Please specifically report if you are served a no-skip ad.

(th)

GW Johnson · Yesterday 08:42:58

TH: I tried the link in post 1930 once again, this time from my same laptop, and got different results. I saw no ads, it went straight into the "Great SpaceX" video. I saw the ring recovery several seconds in, and unlike the commentator, would not call that an "intact" part. It had jet blast erosion, and was distorted dimensionally, probably from impact into the sea. Pretty much to be expected, considering its function and its disposition.

What I got before was all ads that could not be skipped, of length 3 to 6 minutes each, and no content at all (which is what I was complaining about, Kbd512). What I got this time was content with no ads! THAT was completely surprising! I watched it through, and was surprised and pleased to learn they might well try to fly Flight 6 sometime in November.

I suspect that youtube recognized me, and had kept count of how many ads I had seen in prior attempts, which was 4. Other than that possibility, yo no sabe.

As for Bob's strange baby elephant video, would that possibly be related to the phrase "elephant in the room"?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (Yesterday 08:46:45)

tahanson43206 · Yesterday 11:04:52

For GW Johnson re #1942

Thank you for your follow up ... part of the problem is simple communications...

The behavior you described sounded wrong to me, and your subsequent experience seems to confirm that.

For all: This is an opportunity to collect and report valuable data, if each of us can take the time to collect it.

GW's experience with that YouTube video was wildly different from everyone else's, and it was different from what he reported today, which is also unusual, because he saw no ads at all.

For kbd512 ... I still appreciate your post about the charges for ad-free service, even though GW reported more detail and now we can guess that something went wrong. However, the ** nature ** of the failure is by no means clear. Regrettably, we do not have detailed information from GW's front line report.

In consideration of the fact we are in the Starship topic, I'll create a new topic for Google Ads, in case this happens again.

***
For GW regarding the recovered ring....

Let me toss a ** real ** engineer's question your way.... if you were the engineer responsible for the ring, and Elon were your boss, I expect you'd be thinking about how to land that object so it does NOT deform upon impact with the water. Can you think of a way to prevent deformation of the ring, traveling at a km/s or so, and impacting the water?

I'll toss a suggestion your way.... how about spinning the ring so it is coming down like a winged seed?

(th)

GW Johnson · Yesterday 12:54:17

Put chute on it and let it hit as flat as you can manage.

But I do not see why that would be desirable. The ring is damaged by hot, high-speed gas erosion. That is both inherent and fatal for its function.

Of what use would it be to recover such a thing, other than experimental evaluation? They pulled it off the bottom of the Gulf to do the experimental evaluation.

GW

RGClark · Today 01:31:49

GW Johnson wrote:

…
As for Bob's strange baby elephant video, would that possibly be related to the phrase "elephant in the room"?
GW

If a Merlin exploded or a 25 meter, 80 foot, plume of flame shot up the side of Falcon 9 during the booster landings, people would asking SpaceX questions about the Merlin. But this happens on the Starship booster landings and no one asks SpaceX questions about the Raptor.

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow … sid=mosaic

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (Today 01:34:22)

tahanson43206 · Today 06:12:23

For all based on questions posed by RGClark in #1945

Given that Falcon 9 is able to land safely and repeatedly without extraneous flame activity:

1) How much methane is left in the tanks after landing?
2) How much oxygen is left in the tanks after landing?
3) What is done with them?

The quantities of both must be far greater in the Starship booster...

What is a reasonable procedure for either collecting leftover propellants or disposing of them, for the booster?

There is no "elephant" in the room. There is a mouse, or at most a gerbil.

(th)

RGClark · Today 07:18:14

tahanson43206 wrote:

…
There is no "elephant" in the room. There is a mouse, or at most a gerbil.
(th)

Commercial
Starship Super Heavy booster came within one second of aborting first “catch” landing.
Jeff Foust
October 25, 2024
https://spacenews.com/starship-super-he … h-landing/

This illuminates why I argue it’s likely SpaceX will ultimately decide to go with landing legs and landing on a landing pad anyway. Landing legs can be optimally designed to be lightweight to add only a small amount to the dry mass. Then it won’t be worth risking a launch tower worth hundreds of millions of dollars for such a small loss in payload.

Also it’s mentioned there wasn’t the expected amount of pressure in the Raptor. This could have been due to a fuel leak. Fuel leaks and the resulting fires have been a recurring problem with the Raptor:

What Happened to Starship SN11? | SpaceX Starship SN11 Test Flight & Explosion Cause Analysis.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxziHi2GsiVo … _ussOY9bhT

Then the giant plume of flame seen shooting up the side of the booster may in fact have been due to a fuel leak.

Additionally, its mentioned one of the chine covers blew off exposing valves that are sources of single-point failure if they had been damaged. Notably the landing video shows the cover blew off before the engine restart began. It was speculated it was due to atmospheric forces, but it may have been due to a fire within the engine compartment releasing pressurized gas.

Bob Clark

tahanson43206 · Today 07:51:08

Thanks for RGClark re #1947

The Jeff Foust story was detailed. The comments were generally supportive.

A detail that the headline could not provide was that the "one second" was a software parameter that the engineers had set as a best guess. Part of the discussion that Foust reported was about how difficult and time consuming it is to evaluate all the (?100+) parameters that have to be set ** just right ** to provide the needed safety margins.

One distinct advantage of the current flight plan is that the follow on flight is already approved by the FAA because it is so little different from 5. The engineers interviewed by Foust are reported to have said they appreciate the opportunity to take more time with those 100+ parameters.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1926 2024-10-22 18:56:26

Re: Starship is Go...

#1927 2024-10-22 22:36:49

Re: Starship is Go...

#1928 2024-10-23 06:06:46

Re: Starship is Go...

#1929 2024-10-23 08:53:33

Re: Starship is Go...

#1930 2024-10-23 12:46:34

Re: Starship is Go...

#1931 2024-10-23 14:53:04

Re: Starship is Go...

#1932 2024-10-24 00:42:38

Re: Starship is Go...

#1933 2024-10-24 11:00:50

Re: Starship is Go...

#1934 2024-10-24 12:00:25

Re: Starship is Go...

#1935 2024-10-24 12:37:33

Re: Starship is Go...

#1936 2024-10-24 13:11:21

Re: Starship is Go...

#1937 2024-10-24 15:35:25

Re: Starship is Go...

#1938 2024-10-24 19:44:42

Re: Starship is Go...

#1939 2024-10-24 22:00:42

Re: Starship is Go...

#1940 Yesterday 06:54:58

Re: Starship is Go...

#1941 Yesterday 07:52:04

Re: Starship is Go...

#1942 Yesterday 08:42:58

Re: Starship is Go...

#1943 Yesterday 11:04:52

Re: Starship is Go...

#1944 Yesterday 12:54:17

Re: Starship is Go...

#1945 Today 01:31:49

Re: Starship is Go...

#1946 Today 06:12:23

Re: Starship is Go...

#1947 Today 07:18:14

Re: Starship is Go...

#1948 Today 07:51:08

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer