Starship is Go...

GW Johnson · 2024-10-30 10:40:42

Bob:

I think you may be right. That sure looked like a fire to me.

I noticed the white "vapor" of some kind being vented from the engine compartment, in the thin air several seconds ahead of the first sign of the fire. It's not possible to say whether that is an unintended propellant leak or an intended flowing of cold propellant to pre-cool the engines to operating temperature.

Whatever it was, the gases in the engine bay did seem to catch fire as the booster descended into thicker air. There is a pressure below which fuel-air ignition is not possible. That fire started nearer leeward in the bay, but quickly extended all across it, around the center 13 engines. I did not see any fire around the outside ring of 20 engines, and I do not understand that at all, not yet, anyway.

I am glad there was no apparent oxygen leak into this fire. That would have precipitated an immediate (and fatally destructive) explosion.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-10-30 10:41:29)

Oldfart1939 · 2024-10-30 11:37:23

For GW: I use the $14/month no ads service and am very sorry that you experienced the advertising avalance you described!

Rodger

Oldfart1939 · 2024-10-30 11:39:55

Back to the business at hand: the date being bandied about for IFT6 is still 11 November. Nothing has been stated regarding mission profile, however.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2024-10-30 12:22:36)

GW Johnson · 2024-10-30 14:39:32

I suspect it (the mission profile) will be similar to flight 5, except that they may attempt to circularize outside the atmosphere, to test the in-space restart capability. If they do, then the Starship might proceed around multiple orbits, instead of a fractional orbit, then do a second restart to do the deorbit burn. They might even attempt more simulated propellant transfer by venting pumped liquid to space.

They might bring this one down in the Pacific off California, or in the Gulf off of Florida. I doubt they would attempt a drone ship landing, because this thing is way too big for the drone ships they have. I doubt they would try to land on a pad in Florida, because overflying inhabited land to get there is a major launch license change. But I REALLY doubt they would attempt a catch landing at Boca Chica, for 2 reasons: (1) bringing it down over the US land mass is a major change to the launch license, and (2) they won't have had time to clear the tower of the attempted booster recovery. They only have the one tower so far.

Just my opinions, I have no facts.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-10-30 14:40:48)

tahanson43206 · 2024-10-30 17:30:52

For Gw Johnson...

One of the Videos about Startship that members have linked recently included s speculation that an attempt to fly two Starships at once is in the queue for early 2011. That one would test propellant transfer. A second Chopsticks tower is needed.

(th)

kbd512 · 2024-10-30 20:17:18

I'd first concern myself with fixing or preventing the nozzle bell damage (thankfully this wasn't catastrophic- a testament to the strength of the components), engine bay fires if such a thing actually happened (because that is deadly serious), grid fin damage (these were definitely more "well done" than usual), and any heat shield damage near the fins on Starship (the damage at the hinge line has been catastrophic or near-catastrophic during all flights). None of that is acceptable if rapid and complete reusability is one of their program goals. After those basic safety of flight issues have been resolved, there's plenty of time to run through different flight profiles to expand the flight envelope, attempt propellant transfers, as well as any other missions that strike their fancy.

SpaceX needs at least one completely clean test flight where nothing gets damaged or destroyed. Their achievement is truly historic, just to be clear, but barely surviving the flight is not good enough.

Oldfart1939 · 2024-10-30 21:24:48

I suspect the next IFT will essentially be a near repeat of the last one. The FAA license approved both IFT 5 and IFT 6, but if there are significant changes, they will necessitate a new one.

tahanson43206 · 2024-11-02 17:46:22

This is a follow up on #1955

Title: SpaceX wants to test refueling Starships in space early next year

https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/01/space … next-year/

SpaceX will attempt to transfer propellant from one orbiting Starship to another as early as next March, a technical milestone that will pave the way for an uncrewed landing demonstration of a Starship on the moon, a NASA official said this week.
Much has been made of Starship’s potential to transform the commercial space industry, but NASA is also hanging its hopes that the vehicle will return humans to the moon under the Artemis program. The space agency awarded the company a $4.05 billion contract for two human-rated Starship vehicles, with the upper stage (also called Starship) landing astronauts on the surface of the moon for the first time since the Apollo era. The crewed landing is currently scheduled for September 2026.
Kent Chojnacki, deputy manager of NASA’s Human Landing System (HLS) program, provided more detail on exactly how the agency is working with the space company as it looks toward that critical mission in an interview with Spaceflight Now. It will come as no surprise that NASA is paying close attention to Starship’s test campaign, which has notched five launches so far.
SpaceX made history during the most recent test on October 13 when it caught the Super Heavy rocket booster mid-air using “chopsticks” attached to the launch tower for the first time.
“We learn a lot each time [a launch] happens,” Chojnacki said.
Chojnacki’s work history includes numerous roles in the Space Launch System (SLS) program, which oversees the development of a massive rocket of the same name that is being built by a handful of traditional aerospace primes. The first SLS rocket launched the Artemis I mission in December 2023, and future rockets will launch the subsequent missions under the Artemis program. No part of the rocket is reusable, however, so NASA is spending upwards of $2 billion on each launch vehicle.
The first contracts for the SLS program were awarded over a decade ago under what’s known as a “cost-plus” model, which means that NASA pays a base amount plus expenses. (This type of contract has been stringently criticized for incentivizing long development timelines and high expenses.) In contrast, HLS contracts are “fixed-price” — so SpaceX receives a one-time $2.99 billion payment provided it meets certain milestones.
Chojnacki said NASA has taken very different approaches to the HLS versus SLS program, even beyond the contracting model.
“SLS was a very traditional NASA program. NASA laid out a very strict set of requirements and dictated propellant inventory, dictated all the things to the various elements. They flowed down. They were cost-plus programs where the aerospace companies would respond, and we would work in a very traditional manner,” he said. “Moving to HLS, we’re doing a lot of moving parts at one time. On SpaceX’s contract right now, for their initial landing, there are 27 system requirements. Twenty-seven, and we kept it as loose as possible.”
Under SpaceX’s contract, they must meet mandatory design reviews, but SpaceX can also propose additional milestones for payment. One requirement that SpaceX requested is the ship-to-ship propellant transfer demonstration. Those tests are set to begin around March 2025, with testing concluding in the summer, Chojnacki said.
“That would be the first time that’s demonstrated on this scale, so that is a big building block. And once you’ve done that, you’ve really cracked open the opportunity to move massive amounts of payload and cargo outside of the Earth’s sphere. If you can have a Starship with propellant aggregation, that’s going to be the next step to doing an uncrewed demonstration.”
In addition to the testing, the next major review of Starship will be the Critical Design Review (CDR) in Summer 2025, which is when NASA certifies that the company met all 27 of those system requirements. Chojnacki said NASA astronauts also meet with SpaceX once a month to provide input on Starship’s interior. The company is building mockups of the crew cabin, including the sleeping quarters and laboratory, at Boca Chica. NASA anticipates getting a design update this month before looking at it during the CDR next year.
That isn’t the only place where NASA has offered its input: It also offered input on some aspects of the rocket design, like the vehicle’s cryogenic components, as well as conducting some testing on the thermal tiles that help keep the cryogenic fuels cold.
If all goes to plan, SpaceX will land astronauts on the moon in September 2026.
“That is definitively the date we’re working towards. We don’t have any known road blocks. We do have some first-time things that have to be demonstrated, and we have a plan in place to go demonstrate those.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1951 2024-10-30 10:40:42

Re: Starship is Go...

#1952 2024-10-30 11:37:23

Re: Starship is Go...

#1953 2024-10-30 11:39:55

Re: Starship is Go...

#1954 2024-10-30 14:39:32

Re: Starship is Go...

#1955 2024-10-30 17:30:52

Re: Starship is Go...

#1956 2024-10-30 20:17:18

Re: Starship is Go...

#1957 2024-10-30 21:24:48

Re: Starship is Go...

#1958 2024-11-02 17:46:22

Re: Starship is Go...

Board footer