Author Topic: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion  (Read 553318 times)

Online Chris Bergin

New thread (24) for discussion of the Starship (and Booster) prototypes being built in Starbase, Boca Chica, Texas.  Previous posts on these prototypes can be found in these threads (thousands of posts, over 100 million views):

Discussion 1

Discussion 2

Discussion 3

Discussion 4

Discussion 5

Discussion 6

Discussion 7

Discussion 8

Discussion 9

Discussion 10

Discussion 11

Discussion 12

Discussion 13

Discussion 14

Discussion 15

Discussion 16

Discussion 17

Discussion 18

Discussion 19

Discussion 20

Discussion 21

Discussion 22

Discussion 23

Thread 24 - you're in it!

UPDATES:

SpaceX Boca Chica - Production Updates - MASTER Thread (5)

Also standalone threads for key vehicles and missions.

---

Follow NSF Twitter:
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight

---

NSF Youtube Channel with hundreds of original Starship videos:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSUu1lih2RifWkKtDOJdsBA

Supporting NSF and the team

Members of Red Team or higher get early clips pre-edit and more. Capcom and higher get access to our team Discord. All photos dumps from Mary and Nic go into L2 and Member Discord.

Memberships:
https://www.youtube.com/c/NASASpaceflightVideos/join

Subscribe and hit notifications for instant alerts of new videos as that'll be the first you'll see for a new video going live.

--

L2 Boca Chica (intense level updates - Master Thread from Day 1 to today)
Now with advanced clips from Mary's videos and unique content.

*Also now with standalone L2 threads for Starships and Boosters, etc*

---

Store, with Boca Chica merch:

https://shop.nasaspaceflight.com/

---

RULES

There are 10s of millions of views on these Starship threads, so remember when you post your post is being viewed by a lot of people. Make sure you're posting something interesting:

Stay on topic (don't wander, use new or other threads). This is ONLY about discussing the prototypes
Make sure your post is useful and adding something. Failure to do so will see your post removed.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2022 10:51 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49098
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82980
  • Likes Given: 37286
https://twitter.com/cosmicalchief/status/1559607854281146368

Quote
New status/warning indicators for the rocket garden.
#Starbase #Starship #SpaceX
📸 Me for WAI Media @FelixSchlang

Offline Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Liked: 723
  • Likes Given: 6836

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9101
  • Likes Given: 885
https://twitter.com/RingWatchers/status/1559567871902113794

Quote
Usually we have an idea about what’s going on, but this is definitely strange. It seems SpaceX crews have begun de-tiling S26’s nosecone. Quite odd… let’s take a look at this nose. (1/7)



On August 2nd, @CosmicalChief caught a photo of S26’s nosecone with an assortment of TPS tiles and what we can only assume was an entire body of TPS insulation. Also note that the tip was nicely tiled. (2/7)



An update from @BocaChicaGal on August 8th showed that the installed TPS insulation now appears to be showing some gaps in it… strange. (3/7)



Yesterday’s photo from @NicAnsuini really shows what’s happening though. The TPS insulation is very visibly cut back and a large number of tiles have been smashed out (note the outlines on the insulation and dust on nearby tiles). The tip tiles are also getting some “love”. (4/7)



While the immediate conclusion from many may be that S26 is being scrapped, many things suggest otherwise. The fwd section was sleeved about 8 days ago and sections such as the common dome are still receiving work. (5/7)



One thing to note is that after S26’s common dome was sleeved, we usually observe sections moving to Tent 3 to have TPS pins welded on. But the common dome has moved right to the ring yard, going right past all of the TPS stuff. Once again, quite odd. (6/7)



While we are still unsure exactly what this means, something seems to be weird with Ship 26, and we’re definitely keeping an eye on it. If anybody has any guesses as to why these weird production deviations are occurring, please do leave a comment and some input below! (7/7)



Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5720
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4488
  • Likes Given: 1873

While we are still unsure exactly what this means, something seems to be weird with Ship 26, and we’re definitely keeping an eye on it. If anybody has any guesses as to why these weird production deviations are occurring, please do leave a comment and some input below! (7/7)
OK, you are asking for speculation, so here: The need for Starlink V.2.x is now so urgent that they are going to use expendable Starships, and S26 is too early in the design cycle to use for EDL testing, so may as well strip off the TPS.

Offline marsbase

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 433
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 482
  • Likes Given: 88

While we are still unsure exactly what this means, something seems to be weird with Ship 26, and we’re definitely keeping an eye on it. If anybody has any guesses as to why these weird production deviations are occurring, please do leave a comment and some input below! (7/7)
OK, you are asking for speculation, so here: The need for Starlink V.2.x is now so urgent that they are going to use expendable Starships, and S26 is too early in the design cycle to use for EDL testing, so may as well strip off the TPS.
If the number of Starlink V2 sats on a Starship is limited by volume rather than by weight, how does removing tiles get more sats into orbit?

Offline tyrred

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 756
  • Likes Given: 21208

While we are still unsure exactly what this means, something seems to be weird with Ship 26, and we’re definitely keeping an eye on it. If anybody has any guesses as to why these weird production deviations are occurring, please do leave a comment and some input below! (7/7)
OK, you are asking for speculation, so here: The need for Starlink V.2.x is now so urgent that they are going to use expendable Starships, and S26 is too early in the design cycle to use for EDL testing, so may as well strip off the TPS.
If the number of Starlink V2 sats on a Starship is limited by volume rather than by weight, how does removing tiles get more sats into orbit?

Removing tiles to make an expendable vehicle may not matter in terms of payload to orbit, but may sidestep the optics of "why didn't they try to reuse this one,  what did they do wrong this time? “

Pure speculation,  of course.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9101
  • Likes Given: 885

While we are still unsure exactly what this means, something seems to be weird with Ship 26, and we’re definitely keeping an eye on it. If anybody has any guesses as to why these weird production deviations are occurring, please do leave a comment and some input below! (7/7)
OK, you are asking for speculation, so here: The need for Starlink V.2.x is now so urgent that they are going to use expendable Starships, and S26 is too early in the design cycle to use for EDL testing, so may as well strip off the TPS.
If the number of Starlink V2 sats on a Starship is limited by volume rather than by weight, how does removing tiles get more sats into orbit?

If they don't install TPS, fins, header tanks, they can build the ships faster and launch them sooner, that might be the reason for expendable Starlink launchers.

Offline jackvancouver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • Video Tech expert
  • Vancouver, Canada
    • Vimeo channel
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 56


Guys, go give Zack Golden some love. He personally goes down to Starbase to verify what he sees from RGV's photos (especially about the water tower) and does 3D modelling to understand the mechanics. He's pouring his heart into this project so I think we can respect the amount of work that goes into episodes like this.

Honestly that was the most in-depth video on the Raptor 2 Quick Disconnects I've seen so far. If the QDs do get future upgrades to vents outside the mount, that's a far better visible data point for Adrian too.

TL;DW: Raptor vents could have caused the issues during the B7 spin prime, and seems work is already happening to deal with the vents on Raptor.

There are also indications (unconfirmed) the upward vent we see during ship testing is coming from Gaseous Nitrogen from the mount, not that there's an extra vent causing the downward facing vent to suddenly also have a upwards vent.
« Last Edit: 08/17/2022 06:14 am by jackvancouver »

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1552
  • Liked: 1843
  • Likes Given: 8916
Of the Zack videos I've watched so far, this is the best. You really learn to appreciate just what Elon meant with his "Stage 0" commets.
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline tegla

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #10 on: 08/17/2022 08:17 am »

Removing tiles to make an expendable vehicle may not matter in terms of payload to orbit, but may sidestep the optics of "why didn't they try to reuse this one,  what did they do wrong this time? “

Pure speculation,  of course.

Dunno. If they are volume constrained, then the weight of the tiles won't matter, but enables them to do "simulate landing on the ocean, gathering data". Piggybacking landing tests on paying launches was exactly what they did when developing F9 boosters.

Offline DIDAHO

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #11 on: 08/17/2022 10:42 am »
How about the possibility that they've evolved the installation method and would gain little from the test (with the downside of optics)?
« Last Edit: 08/17/2022 10:46 am by DIDAHO »

Offline sebk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Europe
  • Liked: 969
  • Likes Given: 27121
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #12 on: 08/17/2022 12:45 pm »

While we are still unsure exactly what this means, something seems to be weird with Ship 26, and we’re definitely keeping an eye on it. If anybody has any guesses as to why these weird production deviations are occurring, please do leave a comment and some input below! (7/7)
OK, you are asking for speculation, so here: The need for Starlink V.2.x is now so urgent that they are going to use expendable Starships, and S26 is too early in the design cycle to use for EDL testing, so may as well strip off the TPS.
If the number of Starlink V2 sats on a Starship is limited by volume rather than by weight, how does removing tiles get more sats into orbit?

My guess (assuming this is what's happening) would be that the heat shield on S26 is not finished and finishing it up would take more time than removing what's already done. And they don't want to fly with an unfinished heatshield because it's have potential to shed debris and that in turn could complicate flight licensing: Shedding tiles is not part of normal ops so that would mean that'd be an anomaly with following anomaly investigation and fixes coming out of it. So it's likely better to avoid the whole drama and just remove the part which is not needed.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9662
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #13 on: 08/17/2022 02:41 pm »
Tearing off the tiles does not make sense unless they would be intending to replace the tiles with something (i.e. improved tiles).
If the tiles were just not going to be used for entry, leaving them in place saves you money and time spent on removing them. You cannot use the removed tiles, the studs will remain welded to the tank skin, and several workers are wasting their time (and their salaries) generating waste you need to dispose of and holding up further vehicle assembly. Tiles being present do not 'hurt' an expendable launch: the mass margin is there, and isolated tile patches will not tear off any more than an isolated tile will (or the raw tile edges facing the stream flow on the dorsal side would not exist).

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5148
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3589
  • Likes Given: 6074
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #14 on: 08/17/2022 06:32 pm »
Tearing off the tiles does not make sense unless they would be intending to replace the tiles with something (i.e. improved tiles).
If the tiles were just not going to be used for entry, leaving them in place saves you money and time spent on removing them. You cannot use the removed tiles, the studs will remain welded to the tank skin, and several workers are wasting their time (and their salaries) generating waste you need to dispose of and holding up further vehicle assembly. Tiles being present do not 'hurt' an expendable launch: the mass margin is there, and isolated tile patches will not tear off any more than an isolated tile will (or the raw tile edges facing the stream flow on the dorsal side would not exist).
What stream flow on the dorsal side? Any stream the dorsal side does see would be minor compared to the worst of the ventral side. It would be would be flowing off the edge of the shield, not trying to work under it.


Or am I missing something?
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4084
  • Likes Given: 2778
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #15 on: 08/17/2022 10:19 pm »
Could this S26 work be HLS related? There is a number of ship types not designed to reenter. Could be an early moonshot or an early depot pathfinder?

Offline Ben Baley

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 284
  • Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #16 on: 08/17/2022 10:49 pm »
Tearing off the tiles does not make sense unless they would be intending to replace the tiles with something (i.e. improved tiles).
If the tiles were just not going to be used for entry, leaving them in place saves you money and time spent on removing them. You cannot use the removed tiles, the studs will remain welded to the tank skin, and several workers are wasting their time (and their salaries) generating waste you need to dispose of and holding up further vehicle assembly. Tiles being present do not 'hurt' an expendable launch: the mass margin is there, and isolated tile patches will not tear off any more than an isolated tile will (or the raw tile edges facing the stream flow on the dorsal side would not exist).
What stream flow on the dorsal side? Any stream the dorsal side does see would be minor compared to the worst of the ventral side. It would be would be flowing off the edge of the shield, not trying to work under it.


Or am I missing something?

If it's expendable you're only worried about airflow during launch, so no difference between dorsal and ventral sides.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5307
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5009
  • Likes Given: 1474
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #17 on: 08/17/2022 10:58 pm »
There is an alternate reason for not spending extra on the two SS to finish them out is that after the first 2 flights SpaceX should have gathered enough info to then make design changes and these 2 vehicles still allows for SpaceX to keep launching while they have time to incorporate the upgrades on the vehicles following. The other case is they were unable to gather the data they needed from the first 2 flights and go ahead and fully finish out one or both of the vehicles to do EDL and keep flying to gather more data.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6325
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9662
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #18 on: 08/18/2022 11:13 am »
Tearing off the tiles does not make sense unless they would be intending to replace the tiles with something (i.e. improved tiles).
If the tiles were just not going to be used for entry, leaving them in place saves you money and time spent on removing them. You cannot use the removed tiles, the studs will remain welded to the tank skin, and several workers are wasting their time (and their salaries) generating waste you need to dispose of and holding up further vehicle assembly. Tiles being present do not 'hurt' an expendable launch: the mass margin is there, and isolated tile patches will not tear off any more than an isolated tile will (or the raw tile edges facing the stream flow on the dorsal side would not exist).
What stream flow on the dorsal side? Any stream the dorsal side does see would be minor compared to the worst of the ventral side. It would be would be flowing off the edge of the shield, not trying to work under it.


Or am I missing something?
Airflow during ascent.

There is an alternate reason for not spending extra on the two SS to finish them out is that after the first 2 flights SpaceX should have gathered enough info to then make design changes and these 2 vehicles still allows for SpaceX to keep launching while they have time to incorporate the upgrades on the vehicles following. The other case is they were unable to gather the data they needed from the first 2 flights and go ahead and fully finish out one or both of the vehicles to do EDL and keep flying to gather more data.
Not finishing out the tile coverage would save time and money. But stripping already fitted tiles is a time and money sink.

Offline ThatOldJanxSpirit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 946
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 3558
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 24 : Discussion
« Reply #19 on: 08/18/2022 11:55 am »
Not finishing out the tile coverage would save time and money. But stripping already fitted tiles is a time and money sink.
Not that much effort. It does reduce any potential hazard from tile stripping damaging the booster.

More significantly a clean Starship may also give useful mass, aerodynamic, thermal and acoustic data points for expendable and HLS versions.

« Last Edit: 08/18/2022 12:12 pm by ThatOldJanxSpirit »

 

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