You are not logged in.
Starship Space X SN 11 Static Fire
Some nice shots of the static fire test:
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Yup will launch, fly up, glide down, do the flip and try to land but if there is still fire around in the engine well it's most likely going to blow up once more. You might as well land it in the gulf to retrieve it so as to see what might be the problem.
Offline
For SpaceNut re Starship landing .... somewhere back in this topic I (vaguely) recall discussion of SpaceX shutting off one of the inputs to the rockets before the other ... My (vague) recollection is that oxygen was shut off before the fuel ... Perhaps that is a losing proposition, since the ship is landing in air, which has ** lots ** of oxygen.
I'd appreciate someone explaining why it would not be better to shut off the methane first, and flush the base of the rocket with oxygen, to exhaust any methane that might be lingering in the area.
(th)
Offline
I would hazard the guess that they shut off oxygen first because the methane is the coolant in the regenerative cooling scheme. If there are no fuel leaks, any methane fire in the bay at shutdown is a very brief flash.
Their problem on SN-9 and SN-10 looked to me like it was persistent methane leaks leading to continuous fires in the engine bay. SN-8 was different: low methane feed pressure to the turbopump suction inlet. This led to low thrust (an inability to decelerate) on SN-8 and SN-9.
They lit 3 engines early enough on SN-10 to have sufficient thrust to set down. Then the inadequate landing leg design became apparent. SN-11 still uses that same leg design, so we'll see what happens when it flies. The history so far is they have to get smacked in the face twice by something before making a serious change.
GW
PS follow-up to what I said in post 996: Spacenut, I have that third tanker study now posted on "exrocketman". That is the one that finally identified the practical way to do that job with those tinkertoys.
PPS (update): I will say this, Spacex sees the data, we do not. There's a whole lot going on in every one of these tests, that much I do know. Sometimes it is very hard to tell which of all those things is really the one or two items trying to slap you in the face. So it is not surprising to need more than one test to figure all that mess out.
Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-03-24 12:16:07)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Thanks G.W now off to the posting as this one is not where to get the answer in.
Offline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-fL6HA0WT0
Quite a good video from TheSpaceXFans...
The voiceover's a bit amateurish but full of interesting details including evidence of NASA-Space X co-operation.
Unlike some other Space X focussed videos, they also have some focus on the colonisation goal that is, after all, at the centre of all this activity.
Musk confirms he envisages Alpha Base being established before 2030. Alpha Base, I would take to mean a settlement that can house humans on a permanent and continuing basis - which would probably be from 2028 (based on a human landing in 2026).
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
The Angry Astronaut had a pretty good program about the consequences of possible failure of a fully stacked and fueled Super Heavy plus Starship at Boca Chica. He wasn't being alarmist about this but very analytical. He's skeptical of Elon's plans to reach orbit in July of this year--regardless of the consequences. He really points out that these launches should be done from the offshore converted oil rigs to minimize the collateral damage of a possible explosion disaster. He makes some comparisons to the earlier failures of the Soviet rocket program.
Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-03-25 12:15:47)
Offline
"Plan and prepare for every possibility and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are accomplished by embracing great dangers" - Admiral Sauvitaire (addressing a class at the Martian Naval Academy).
It is an excellent quote, but the history of engineering has shown it to be foolhardy. Whilst caution and meticulous analysis of risks may be expensive, and adventurous men may grow impatient at delay, an accident is often catastrophic. It is wiser to proceed with caution and arrive a little later, than to stumble into a catastrophe that may end the programme.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
I think we are all a bit sceptical about the July orbital target. I view Elon's targets as optimised timelines - how soon you can do something if everything goes exactly as you would like it to go. July is probably absurdly optimistic but "by year's end" is not and would still be an incredible achievement.
There's a lot that can go wrong with a rocket. I recalling reading that on each Apollo launch there would be something like 4.000 errors recorded. The things still flew but nothing ever goes absolutely perfectly.
The Angry Astronaut had a pretty good program about the consequences of possible failure of a fully stacked and fueled Super Heavy plus Starship at Boca Chica. He wasn't being alarmist about this but very analytical. He's skeptical of Elon's plans to reach orbit in July of this year--regardless of the consequences. He really points out that these launches should be done from the offshore converted oil rigs to minimize the collateral damage of a possible explosion disaster. He makes some comparisons to the earlier failures of the Soviet rocket program.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Musk knows he is in a race against time. I won't go into the politics of it here, since this isn't a political thread, but with every month that passes, the likelihood of bureaucratic intervention to stop the Mars mission increases. I really don't think he's got a choice. If he goes at a slower pace we might never see a Starship reach Mars.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are accomplished by embracing great dangers" - Admiral Sauvitaire (addressing a class at the Martian Naval Academy).
It is an excellent quote, but the history of engineering has shown it to be foolhardy. Whilst caution and meticulous analysis of risks may be expensive, and adventurous men may grow impatient at delay, an accident is often catastrophic. It is wiser to proceed with caution and arrive a little later, than to stumble into a catastrophe that may end the programme.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
"Plan and prepare for every possibility and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are accomplished by embracing great dangers" - Admiral Sauvitaire (addressing a class at the Martian Naval Academy).
NASA developed technology incrementally, and tested everything in stages. They didn't go straight to the Moon with Apollo 1. They had tested rocket stages individually before putting them together. Apollo 4 was an all-up test of Saturn V because they felt they didn't have time. However, every stage had already been extensively tested in static test stands. And before that, every rocket engine was tested. So the all-up test of Apollo 4 wasn't really all that radical.
The quote from the fictional character Admiral Sauvitaire from the TV show "The Expanse". A translation of a statement made by the Persian Emperor Xerxes, talking to his uncle Artabanus before an attack on Greece. The statements comes from the seventh book of "The Histories" written by Herodotus. The quote is believed by scholars to be fictional, concocted by Herodotus. Also realize, Xerxes lost that battle.
Offline
Currently watching Felix on What About It; working towards a flight of SN-11.
Offline
The flight was cancelled - is that right?
Currently watching Felix on What About It; working towards a flight of SN-11.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
The flight was cancelled - is that right?
Yup. I watched for a couple hours. Until Felix read the Boca Chica website that said the beach and road were not longer closed, the flight was cancelled.
Offline
Thanks for the confirmation, Robert.
louis wrote:The flight was cancelled - is that right?
Yup. I watched for a couple hours. Until Felix read the Boca Chica website that said the beach and road were not longer closed, the flight was cancelled.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
My understanding is the weather played a role in the cancellation. Rescheduled for Monday.
Offline
Thanks for that. Will keep an eye out for the launch!
My understanding is the weather played a role in the cancellation. Rescheduled for Monday.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Offline
Today, Monday: SN-11 test flight scrubbed.
Reason stated: No FAA inspector on-site to oversee the safety precautions followed. "he couldn't make it on time."
Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-03-29 10:42:59)
Offline
Hmmm...is that a sign of what I've been warning about? Couldn't make it on time!!!
Today, Monday: SN-11 test flight scrubbed.
Reason stated: No FAA inspector on-site to oversee the safety precautions followed. "he couldn't make it on time."
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Hmmm...is that a sign of what I've been warning about? Couldn't make it on time!!!
Oldfart1939 wrote:Today, Monday: SN-11 test flight scrubbed.
Reason stated: No FAA inspector on-site to oversee the safety precautions followed. "he couldn't make it on time."
I do appreciate that politics has gone batshit crazy these days. But why would the FAA or US government wish to deliberately sabotage SpaceX? Is it because Musk is making SLS look like a pork barrel? Are Boeing and Lockheed Martin lobbying congress to ruin the guy? Or is it for more partisan reasons?
Last edited by Calliban (2021-03-29 16:10:42)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Reportedly Obama is doing a lot of the directing of this presidency - constantly on the phone to Biden and Harris - and certainly the Far Left influence is gaining ground. Obama was a leftist Chicago street activist. The Chicago Left were always one of the strongest voices against the original Apollo programme, arguing that poverty at home should be addressed first, rather than exploration of the Moon (a perfectly arguable policy position, I hasten to add). Once Biden abdicates the presidency (which I have predicted will be around September this year), the Far Left influence will grow even more strongly.
Of course, this could just be a coincidence but equally it could be a straw in the wind. It might be the FAA's way of telling Space X who's the boss, and there's no point in Space X complaining to the White House because the White House is hostile to a private enterprise Mars Mission.
louis wrote:Hmmm...is that a sign of what I've been warning about? Couldn't make it on time!!!
Oldfart1939 wrote:Today, Monday: SN-11 test flight scrubbed.
Reason stated: No FAA inspector on-site to oversee the safety precautions followed. "he couldn't make it on time."
I do appreciate that politics has gone batshit crazy these days. But why would the FAA or US government wish to deliberately sabotage SpaceX? Is it because Musk is making SLS look like a pork barrel? Are Boeing and Lockheed Martin lobbying congress to ruin the guy? Or is it for more partisan reasons?
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
In the general theme of US government support for private enterprise, which I think is a "good idea", I like the idea of allocating sufficient human resources to the SpaceX operation so there are no delays. On the other hand, it seems to me we (forum members) have no idea what the responsibilities of the FAA may be, what the staffing level may be, or what the competing demands for specialist time may be.
What those of us who are US Citizens ** can ** do is to contact our local representatives to investigate to see if additional funding is needed, or if there might be other reasons why the supply of specialist services does not seem to be meeting the demand.
(th)
Offline
Here's a bit more about the inspector issue ...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u-ho … 38087.html
The FAA said on Monday it revised SpaceX's license effective March 12 to require an FAA inspector be present for every SpaceX flight. As a "result of FAA’s continuing oversight of SpaceX to ensure compliance with federal regulations to protect public safety... SpaceX must provide adequate notice of its launch schedule to allow for a FAA safety inspector to travel to Boca Chica."
David Shepardson
Mon, March 29, 2021, 5:20 PM
By David ShepardsonWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee said on Monday it is investigating a SpaceX commercial space launch that regulators determined violated U.S. safety requirements and its test license.
The Federal Aviation Administration said in February that SpaceX's December launch of Starship SN8 proceeded without the company demonstrating that the public risk from "far field blast overpressure" was within regulatory criteria.
It appears Congress may have decided to step in.
There are a lot of constituents who live within range of SpaceX vehicles.
(th)
Offline
I'd say this is just more evidence that my warning was not alarmist.
With something like a rocket launch you are always going to be able to find something at fault which you can either big up or turn a blind eye to.
There's now a pattern here. The FAA is being obstructive.
Here's a bit more about the inspector issue ...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/u-ho … 38087.html
The FAA said on Monday it revised SpaceX's license effective March 12 to require an FAA inspector be present for every SpaceX flight. As a "result of FAA’s continuing oversight of SpaceX to ensure compliance with federal regulations to protect public safety... SpaceX must provide adequate notice of its launch schedule to allow for a FAA safety inspector to travel to Boca Chica."
David Shepardson
Mon, March 29, 2021, 5:20 PM
By David ShepardsonWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee said on Monday it is investigating a SpaceX commercial space launch that regulators determined violated U.S. safety requirements and its test license.
The Federal Aviation Administration said in February that SpaceX's December launch of Starship SN8 proceeded without the company demonstrating that the public risk from "far field blast overpressure" was within regulatory criteria.
It appears Congress may have decided to step in.
There are a lot of constituents who live within range of SpaceX vehicles.
(th)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline