Author Topic: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12  (Read 660467 times)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33540
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 58938
  • Likes Given: 26339
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1460 on: 12/07/2022 01:25 pm »

Offline Tangilinear Interjar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • California
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1461 on: 12/07/2022 03:08 pm »
I wonder if the concrete that they are pulling up is old stuff that they didn't replace before. It would make sense to only replace some of the damaged concrete with Fondag and then test it to make sure it does the job adequately before replacing everything.

Also the color of what they are removing seems very brown but the data sheet on Fondag says it's a very dark grey.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 1196
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1462 on: 12/07/2022 05:18 pm »
On the Stage 0 churn at BC, I've always found it to be unsurprising, given the long term objective of being able to have Starships (but not Boosters) land at, and perhaps take off again from, relatively austere off-world sites.

So in addition to "best part is no part",
there might also have been a bias for doing without:
- a Grand Canyon class flame trench,
- a tsunami-class deluge system, and
- Maginot Line-class GSE protection.

Yes, 110%.

Turns out the physics never required a flame trench for all the history of rocketry, because flow redirection can be done using the characteristics of the flow itself impinging on a perpendicular surface, which is a senior level college problem in fluid dynamics classes in mech. engineering and physics.  Odd, that that it took a company that is an expert in CFD to finally utilize the effect.

A bonus part about "best part is no part" is the trench and deluge system would have had a pretty significant environmental impact, the trench being below water table line and dumping of huge amounts of fresh water into a semi-saline environment.

I think the non-Maginot-line class GSE optimism has to await an actual launch to see if it works ;)
Flow redirection isn't the only (or even the main) purpose of flame trenches (or water suppression, for that matter). And plenty of orbital launches have occurred from pads without them. Saturn IB even got two kicks at that can: the first being an elevated pad with a diverter sat underneath, and the second being the infamous 'milkstool' sat far above LC-39A.

One of the main purposes of flame trenches and water suppression is to prevent blast and debris hitting the spacecraft.

If the latest slow-mo video doesn't persuade you that problem is solved with the OLM, or the video on the math of how that works, then not much will.

The biggest barrier to "best part is no part" are those who insist without evidence that the part is needed, and use FUD to try and keep the part, or use everyone's prior mistakes to try and keep the part.   I've seen this dozens of times in my career.

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4948
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 7177
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1463 on: 12/07/2022 06:24 pm »
On the Stage 0 churn at BC, I've always found it to be unsurprising, given the long term objective of being able to have Starships (but not Boosters) land at, and perhaps take off again from, relatively austere off-world sites.

So in addition to "best part is no part",
there might also have been a bias for doing without:
- a Grand Canyon class flame trench,
- a tsunami-class deluge system, and
- Maginot Line-class GSE protection.

Yes, 110%.

Turns out the physics never required a flame trench for all the history of rocketry, because flow redirection can be done using the characteristics of the flow itself impinging on a perpendicular surface, which is a senior level college problem in fluid dynamics classes in mech. engineering and physics.  Odd, that that it took a company that is an expert in CFD to finally utilize the effect.

A bonus part about "best part is no part" is the trench and deluge system would have had a pretty significant environmental impact, the trench being below water table line and dumping of huge amounts of fresh water into a semi-saline environment.

I think the non-Maginot-line class GSE optimism has to await an actual launch to see if it works ;)
Flow redirection isn't the only (or even the main) purpose of flame trenches (or water suppression, for that matter). And plenty of orbital launches have occurred from pads without them. Saturn IB even got two kicks at that can: the first being an elevated pad with a diverter sat underneath, and the second being the infamous 'milkstool' sat far above LC-39A.

One of the main purposes of flame trenches and water suppression is to prevent blast and debris hitting the spacecraft.

If the latest slow-mo video doesn't persuade you that problem is solved with the OLM, or the video on the math of how that works, then not much will.
Sub-scale static fire != launch.

In addition to the more than double the amount of engines firing (and possibly greater than double thrust, as we do not know definitively if the 11 engine static fire was all engines at 100%, or if individual engines started at 100% then throttled down to some lower throttle range for the rest of the test), a launch also involves the vehicle lifting off of the pad. That means the nice spherical-cow flow pattern is disrupted by having a varying path length, varying thrust angle as engine vectoring has its biggest challenge of stabilising the stack at near 0 velocity and maximum mass, and a honking great steel donut impinging into the flow path shortly after liftoff.

Everyone hopes it'll work, but all three previous super-heavy-lift vehicles to fly from LC-39 (Saturn V, STS, and now SLS) started out with "bah, you're overegging it, it'll be fine, the numbers all work out!" for the first launch, followed by having to beef up suppression systems (and repair damage) for all subsequent launches.
History is not on the side of underestimating the launch environment.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1464 on: 12/07/2022 07:19 pm »
Alternative #3: "wait and see what happens".

Offline tgr9898

  • Member
  • Posts: 93
  • Philly
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 211
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1465 on: 12/07/2022 08:35 pm »
Alternative #3: "wait and see what happens".

Have you met The Internet before?

;)

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1466 on: 12/07/2022 08:36 pm »
Lab and NSF cam are showing a concrete pumper filling the form atop the berm.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1467 on: 12/07/2022 08:37 pm »
Alternative #3: "wait and see what happens".

Have you met The Internet before?

;)
Is that the thing where somebody is wrong so I can't go to bed yet?

Edit:  I knew I had that somewhere.

« Last Edit: 12/07/2022 10:51 pm by alugobi »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 1196
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1468 on: 12/08/2022 06:33 am »
Everyone hopes it'll work, but all three previous super-heavy-lift vehicles to fly from LC-39 (Saturn V, STS, and now SLS) started out with "bah, you're overegging it, it'll be fine, the numbers all work out!" for the first launch, followed by having to beef up suppression systems (and repair damage) for all subsequent launches.
History is not on the side of underestimating the launch environment.

Wait, you are suggestion SpaceX might have to iterate on Stage 0?

I'm pretty sure that's their plan.

Given some very highly planned, over-specified, the-more-parts-the-better launch systems have failed, the best method is to go faster and see what fails.   Go with as few parts as possible as the first goal, add parts later.

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
  • Liked: 1078
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1469 on: 12/08/2022 06:58 am »
Everyone hopes it'll work, but all three previous super-heavy-lift vehicles to fly from LC-39 (Saturn V, STS, and now SLS) started out with "bah, you're overegging it, it'll be fine, the numbers all work out!" for the first launch, followed by having to beef up suppression systems (and repair damage) for all subsequent launches.
History is not on the side of underestimating the launch environment.

Wait, you are suggestion SpaceX might have to iterate on Stage 0?

I'm pretty sure that's their plan.

Given some very highly planned, over-specified, the-more-parts-the-better launch systems have failed, the best method is to go faster and see what fails.   Go with as few parts as possible as the first goal, add parts later.

At the rate SpaceX is going I wonder how long it would take them to spend a similar amount to what was spent for LC-39B + ML and how many pads would they have to build? The cost of the various approaches is interesting.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33540
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 58938
  • Likes Given: 26339
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1470 on: 12/08/2022 02:24 pm »
https://twitter.com/csi_starbase/status/1600723036646170624

Quote
The reason the OLM has to get repainted after every Static Fire attempt, is because the paint is designed to be ablated away. This protects the underlying steel from the thermal energy.

Protection against salt water is a distant secondary function....far from a primary reason.

twitter.com/calengray/status/1600723287331307520

Quote
How will this work long term with rapid reusability?

https://twitter.com/csi_starbase/status/1600723593821765632

Quote
I don't believe rapid reusability is possible at Starbase. It might be at Pad39 though.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 1196
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1471 on: 12/08/2022 05:02 pm »
https://twitter.com/csi_starbase/status/1600723036646170624

Quote
The reason the OLM has to get repainted after every Static Fire attempt, is because the paint is designed to be ablated away. This protects the underlying steel from the thermal energy.

Protection against salt water is a distant secondary function....far from a primary reason.

twitter.com/calengray/status/1600723287331307520

Quote
How will this work long term with rapid reusability?

https://twitter.com/csi_starbase/status/1600723593821765632

Quote
I don't believe rapid reusability is possible at Starbase. It might be at Pad39 though.

How much ablation can a thin layer of paint provide?   The mass can't be more than a few hundred kg spread over 10s of square meters.   That isn't very many joules dissipated, whether kinetic or thermal

I don't get the physics on that assertion.

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4948
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 7177
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1472 on: 12/08/2022 05:52 pm »
https://twitter.com/csi_starbase/status/1600723036646170624

Quote
The reason the OLM has to get repainted after every Static Fire attempt, is because the paint is designed to be ablated away. This protects the underlying steel from the thermal energy.

Protection against salt water is a distant secondary function....far from a primary reason.

twitter.com/calengray/status/1600723287331307520

Quote
How will this work long term with rapid reusability?

https://twitter.com/csi_starbase/status/1600723593821765632

Quote
I don't believe rapid reusability is possible at Starbase. It might be at Pad39 though.

How much ablation can a thin layer of paint provide?   The mass can't be more than a few hundred kg spread over 10s of square meters.   That isn't very many joules dissipated, whether kinetic or thermal

I don't get the physics on that assertion.
Intumescent paints have been used for fire protection for almost a century. There is a wealth of information available on how they work, and they do indeed work.

Offline baking

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
  • Boston
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1473 on: 12/08/2022 11:15 pm »
Intumescent paints have been used for fire protection for almost a century. There is a wealth of information available on how they work, and they do indeed work.
But there is no way intumescent paint would be used in this application.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33540
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 58938
  • Likes Given: 26339
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1474 on: 12/09/2022 09:13 am »
https://twitter.com/vickicocks15/status/1600768547315077120

Quote
What an absolute rat's nest! I hope #SpaceX find a way of simplifying this on future versions of the #OLM. This one at #Starbase is a mess! And they keep adding more! Crazy complicated!
@LabPadre  #Rover2Cam

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 1196
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1475 on: 12/09/2022 04:49 pm »
https://twitter.com/vickicocks15/status/1600768547315077120

Quote
What an absolute rat's nest! I hope #SpaceX find a way of simplifying this on future versions of the #OLM. This one at #Starbase is a mess! And they keep adding more! Crazy complicated!
@LabPadre  #Rover2Cam

there are three lines of high pressure startup gases going up the OLM (LOX, CH4, N2, perhaps helium).  Each of those feeds ~11 engines one at a time.  That's 11*3 = 33 high pressure on/off switches per cabinet or set of cabinets.

In theory.

Now, to find a hi-res picture and count how many are actually there.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2022 05:16 pm by InterestedEngineer »

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8577
  • Highway Whatever
  • Liked: 58439
  • Likes Given: 1143
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1476 on: 12/09/2022 04:52 pm »
 I made a good living cleaning up rats nests and was impressed with how neatly everything is laid out on the mount. Complex doesn't have to equal sloppy.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 1196
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1477 on: 12/09/2022 05:17 pm »
I made a good living cleaning up rats nests and was impressed with how neatly everything is laid out on the mount. Complex doesn't have to equal sloppy.

And none of that complexity flies either.   (we hope)

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1478 on: 12/09/2022 10:29 pm »
Not screwing around on the berm.  Forms removed from the first pour, and going up on the wet end.

This is going to chop off some of the view of the launch mount from Rover Cam 2.


Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33540
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 58938
  • Likes Given: 26339
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 12
« Reply #1479 on: 12/10/2022 05:47 am »
https://twitter.com/rgvaerialphotos/status/1601429556501811201

Quote
SpaceX must have seen @CSI_Starbase tweet

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1