Quote from: gin455res on 10/18/2024 10:59 amMaybe 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.
Maybe delete the forward flaps and do an early test of this configuration.
Quote from: gin455res on 10/18/2024 10:59 amMaybe 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'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)?
Flight 5 came in at sub orbital speed. Future flights might come in with double the kinetic energy.
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.
Quote from: alexterrell on 10/18/2024 03:13 pmFlight 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.
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.
Quote from: StarshipTrooper on 10/19/2024 03:12 pmIt 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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 10/19/2024 03:19 pmQuote from: StarshipTrooper on 10/19/2024 03:12 pmIt 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
... the architecture of Starship practically demand a reliability test before allowing full orbit.
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.