Author Topic: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread  (Read 20841 times)

Offline gin455res

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 554
  • bristol, uk
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #20 on: 10/18/2024 08:24 pm »
Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

Maybe also delete the aft flaps and the heat tiles, and send it to lunar impact trajectory. For science of course.





In the chapter about flaps EM talks to EA about a scenario where you might be able to delete the forward flaps. It's at 37:21.


It's from 2022..

Offline BitterJim

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 776
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #21 on: 10/18/2024 08:41 pm »
Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

Are there any V1 Starships where that's a trivial change? It seems like the amount of time/work to remove the flaps, re-work the area around the flap roots, and redo the heat shield around that area would be better spent just getting V2 ready to fly

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15370
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13303
  • Likes Given: 10157
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #22 on: 10/18/2024 08:49 pm »
Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.

Are there any V1 Starships where that's a trivial change? It seems like the amount of time/work to remove the flaps, re-work the area around the flap roots, and redo the heat shield around that area would be better spent just getting V2 ready to fly

There are two sitting out in the Rocket Garden. (Yeah, I know. They're old but don't have forward flaps—cannibalize the top of one and put tiles on it.)
« Last Edit: 10/18/2024 08:52 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1737
  • UK
  • Liked: 2869
  • Likes Given: 393
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #23 on: 10/18/2024 09:45 pm »
There's a road closure on October 21 between the factory and the launch pad.

Could it be for a Booster 13 static fire (seeing as Ship 31 has already been tested)?

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15370
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13303
  • Likes Given: 10157
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #24 on: 10/18/2024 09:56 pm »
There's a road closure on October 21 between the factory and the launch pad.

Could it be for a Booster 13 static fire (seeing as Ship 31 has already been tested)?

That would be the fastest OLM turnaround between flights,  but I guess all they need to have ready is enough refurbishment to allow a static fire.  In the past, all (or most all) of the hold-down clamps had to be R&R.
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2270
  • Likes Given: 3721
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #25 on: 10/19/2024 02:38 am »
Flight 5 came in at sub orbital speed. Future flights might come in with double the kinetic energy. 

wut.  They were about 100-200 m/sec short of orbital velocity.  That's 0.36% more energy.

Their entry interface speed was about 7.6km/sec.  To double that energy would require 1.4x the velocity, or 10.7km/sec.  That's almost re-entry speed from a lunar return trajectory.

They won't see "Double the kinetic energy" until they return from the Moon or Mars.  GTO might get 1.6-1.7x.  It's going to be quite a while till they are re-entering from GTO orbits, they gotta learn how to refuel first, plus they need customers who need 100t to GTO, which don't exist yet.

Offline Eka

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Land between two rivers.
  • Liked: 490
  • Likes Given: 981
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #26 on: 10/19/2024 05:13 am »
For IFT-6 I think the most important thing is they could test is more flap sealing methods.

A short in space in flight engine restart would also be good to do, but was it in the IFT-5 flight options? The relight in atmosphere during reentry with the atmosphere pushing hard into the exhaust come is very different. In space there is no back pressure. Can they built proper pressure?

SpaceX should be sending in IFT-7 and IFT-8 flight plans ASAP, if they haven't sent them in already, for future updates to the license.
We talk about creating a Star Trek future, but will end up with The Expanse if radical change doesn't happen.

Online ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Liked: 1592
  • Likes Given: 3975
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #27 on: 10/19/2024 07:18 am »
For IFT-6 I think the most important thing is they could test is more flap sealing methods.

A short in space in flight engine restart would also be good to do, but was it in the IFT-5 flight options? The relight in atmosphere during reentry with the atmosphere pushing hard into the exhaust come is very different. In space there is no back pressure. Can they built proper pressure?

SpaceX should be sending in IFT-7 and IFT-8 flight plans ASAP, if they haven't sent them in already, for future updates to the license.

Aft flap joints seem to be performing well. This will be the last flight with the V1 forward flaps before they move to the more leeward placement on Ship 33. They might try a few changes with the gap filler but I suspect they will consider these good enough for Flight 6 objectives.

Flight 6 objectives will be focused on two areas:

1) preparing for orbital operations;
2) demonstrating another precision ship landing to build confidence for the first ship catch.

Offline rfdesigner

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Radio Electronics R&D Engineer
  • insignificant little blue green planet, small unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable western spiral arm. ZZ9 PluralZ Alpha
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #28 on: 10/19/2024 07:43 am »
Flight 5 came in at sub orbital speed. Future flights might come in with double the kinetic energy. 

wut.  They were about 100-200 m/sec short of orbital velocity.  That's 0.36% more energy.

Their entry interface speed was about 7.6km/sec.  To double that energy would require 1.4x the velocity, or 10.7km/sec.  That's almost re-entry speed from a lunar return trajectory.

They won't see "Double the kinetic energy" until they return from the Moon or Mars.  GTO might get 1.6-1.7x.  It's going to be quite a while till they are re-entering from GTO orbits, they gotta learn how to refuel first, plus they need customers who need 100t to GTO, which don't exist yet.

If arriving at earth with greater velocities the easiest solution is to "double dip".  Make a first pass that removes half the energy at very high altitude, keeping temperatures well under control, the ship exits the atmosphere and cools off before making a final reentry at something closer to orbital velocity.

That's not even novel.
Please Don't Swear:  Easy, Only, Just and Free are all 4 letter words, best not to use them.  😉

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 2110
  • Likes Given: 1082
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #29 on: 10/19/2024 07:53 am »
If arriving at earth with greater velocities the easiest solution is to "double dip".  Make a first pass that removes half the energy at very high altitude, keeping temperatures well under control, the ship exits the atmosphere and cools off before making a final reentry at something closer to orbital velocity.

That's not even novel.

But it requires both time and accuracy. Mess up and it's Danger, Will Robinson. Danger! It's even more dicey if it's a manned mission, not just the technical energy management risk, but time in the Van Allen belts.

Offline StarshipTrooper

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #30 on: 10/19/2024 03:12 pm »
It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.



“I'm very confident that success is within the set of possible outcomes.”  Elon Musk

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7504
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6101
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #31 on: 10/19/2024 03:19 pm »
It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.
SpaceX must prove that Starship can relight when it is in orbital conditions, i.e., in microgravity for more than a few seconds. This capabiltiy is needed to accurately de-orbit, which is needed for safe controlled de-orbiting of a 100-ton steel spacecraft.

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Liked: 1294
  • Likes Given: 3678
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #32 on: 10/19/2024 03:35 pm »
It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.
SpaceX must prove that Starship can relight when it is in orbital conditions, i.e., in microgravity for more than a few seconds. This capabiltiy is needed to accurately de-orbit, which is needed for safe controlled de-orbiting of a 100-ton steel spacecraft.

This seems likely to be solved by implementing techniques to settle the propellent, allowing engine restart.   Seems directly related to functionality needed for propellent transfer.   

Perhaps a likely mission objectives for flight 6

Offline aporigine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #33 on: 10/19/2024 04:09 pm »
Imo a V1 flight makes sense to test the next iteration of TPS. Flap hinge issues remain unsolved.

Online InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2270
  • Likes Given: 3721
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #34 on: 10/19/2024 04:09 pm »
It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.
SpaceX must prove that Starship can relight when it is in orbital conditions, i.e., in microgravity for more than a few seconds. This capabiltiy is needed to accurately de-orbit, which is needed for safe controlled de-orbiting of a 100-ton steel spacecraft.

A recent mishap de-orbiting with Falcon-9 upper stage that went off target caused a paused in flights for a week or two, and the architecture of Starship practically demand a reliability test before allowing full orbit.

(architecture being comparatively weak thrusters, first time lighting a new methalox engine in zero G, a tank design not tested in zero G, much more likely for larger parts to survive re-entry and hit the ground, and probably others)

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7504
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 6101
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #35 on: 10/19/2024 04:30 pm »
It seems to me there is very little to be learned in following the exact same flight plan. The next launch should go to orbit, deliver Starlink satellites. Then they can call the Starship a fully functional launch system, with many improvements to come, of course.

What is the benefit of a test to relight the Raptor engines in orbit? Nobody has ever considered this even being an issue on any other rocket. Superheavy has relit individual Raptor engines in space dozens of times. The Starship has relit its engines in performing the flip maneuver during the last two flights.
SpaceX must prove that Starship can relight when it is in orbital conditions, i.e., in microgravity for more than a few seconds. This capabiltiy is needed to accurately de-orbit, which is needed for safe controlled de-orbiting of a 100-ton steel spacecraft.

This seems likely to be solved by implementing techniques to settle the propellent, allowing engine restart.   Seems directly related to functionality needed for propellent transfer.   

Perhaps a likely mission objectives for flight 6
I'm not a rocket scientist. I think there are probably a bunch of straightforward ways to do this and I'm sure SpaceX has implemented one or more of them for Starship. I was not commenting on implementation. I was trying to explain for StarshipTrooper's benefit why a 0 g relight demonstration is needed prior to the first full orbital flight. The demonstration would be needed even if SpaceX is 99.99% sure that it will succeed. An uncontrolled de-orbit of a 100-tons chunk of stainless steel would be really bad from a PR perspective even though the actual probability it hitting anything important is quite small.

Offline StarshipTrooper

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #36 on: 10/19/2024 04:36 pm »
... the architecture of Starship practically demand a reliability test before allowing full orbit.
This could be done as part of an orbital mission.

You could have a initial burn that places you in a (sub)orbit like flight 5, coast for a short period, relight the engines briefly to elongate the orbit while still remaining within a safe reentry point, if the adjustment is nominal, only then relight the engines to adjust the course to the desired orbit.
“I'm very confident that success is within the set of possible outcomes.”  Elon Musk

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7709
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2292
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #37 on: 10/19/2024 06:46 pm »
An in-space engine relight demonstration is key to confirming controlled de-orbit capability before going orbital. Orbital mechanics isn't always intuitive; many of us 'have a feel' for what prograde and retrograde burns do at perigee and apogee and less clarity on what effect e.g. a radially outward burn at apogee would have. If it were sized properly on flight 6, it could retain the negative perigee height and simply change the point of impact with the Earth's surface.

Cleverly done it might steer the instantaneous impact point trace from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along a path that avoids land masses. Or so my (perhaps faulty) intuition asserts. Since this would be way cool, it's at least part of my way-too-early prediction for flight 6.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2024 08:00 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3192
  • Liked: 4615
  • Likes Given: 3083
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #38 on: 10/19/2024 07:23 pm »
It used to be necessary to cram a multitude of tests into just one or two test flights, but SpaceX has changed that paradigm with their focus on the machine that builds the spaceships. They now have a veritable production line spitting out spaceships, they learn and improve from each flight and can arrange and schedule their test objectives in the way that makes the most sense in the development program.
« Last Edit: 10/20/2024 08:15 am by Oersted »

Offline litton4

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: The Way Too Early IFT-6 Predictions Thread
« Reply #39 on: 10/21/2024 02:01 pm »
An in-space engine relight demonstration is key to confirming controlled de-orbit capability before going orbital. Orbital mechanics isn't always intuitive; many of us 'have a feel' for what prograde and retrograde burns do at perigee and apogee and less clarity on what effect e.g. a radially outward burn at apogee would have. If it were sized properly on flight 6, it could retain the negative perigee height and simply change the point of impact with the Earth's surface.

Cleverly done it might steer the instantaneous impact point trace from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along a path that avoids land masses. Or so my (perhaps faulty) intuition asserts. Since this would be way cool, it's at least part of my way-too-early prediction for flight 6.

This was on the schdule for IFT-3 iirc.

The IIP for starship was somewhere in the Pacific (North of Australia?) and the burn would have extended this out in the general direction of Hawaii .
It was skipped, since SS wasn't under full control and rotating to an extent that thrusters couldn't nullify.
« Last Edit: 10/21/2024 02:02 pm by litton4 »
Dave Condliffe

Tags: Starship ift6 SpaceX 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0