Author Topic: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion  (Read 497520 times)

Online eriblo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1334
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1637
  • Likes Given: 268
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1160 on: 11/26/2023 08:35 pm »
How far apart were the two when the booster blew up?
I would guess a couple kilometers at least.
Quick and dirty integration of velocities in the previously posted telemetry graphs gives 8-9 km along the velocity vector.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1481
  • Liked: 1543
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1161 on: 11/26/2023 08:56 pm »
How far apart were the two when the booster blew up?
I would guess a couple kilometers at least.
Quick and dirty integration of velocities in the previously posted telemetry graphs gives 8-9 km along the velocity vector.
That's a long way for a shrapnel bit to go to catch up and hit the ship, and even with the rarefied atmosphere and low resistance at that altitude, it would have to be moving at quite a clip to cause any damage, I'm guessing.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10791
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8163
  • Likes Given: 7440
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1162 on: 11/26/2023 09:40 pm »
How far apart were the two when the booster blew up?
I would guess a couple kilometers at least.
Quick and dirty integration of velocities in the previously posted telemetry graphs gives 8-9 km along the velocity vector.
That's a long way for a shrapnel bit to go to catch up and hit the ship, and even with the rarefied atmosphere and low resistance at that altitude, it would have to be moving at quite a clip to cause any damage, I'm guessing.

Any energetic shrapnel if it hit the Starship would likely cause immediate damage and be noticeable. For instance, in recent events, the first stage of the North Korean launch exploded after staging, while the second stage continued its trajectory. Similarly, during the launch abort demo for SpaceX, the energy released with the intentional first-stage explosion was comparable to that of the SuperHeavy first-stage explosion (although lower altitude, denser air), and the Dragon capsule traveling ahead was much closer, despite traveling at maximum speed with the Draco firing and survived. 

Seems, we could discount this and continue on?
« Last Edit: 11/26/2023 09:43 pm by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1481
  • Liked: 1543
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1163 on: 11/26/2023 10:42 pm »

Any energetic shrapnel if it hit the Starship would likely cause immediate damage and be noticeable.

We don't know that.  How energetic, how big, where did it hit...

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8560
  • Liked: 3578
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1164 on: 11/26/2023 11:30 pm »

Any energetic shrapnel if it hit the Starship would likely cause immediate damage and be noticeable.

We don't know that.  How energetic, how big, where did it hit...
No way anything hit.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10791
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8163
  • Likes Given: 7440
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1165 on: 11/26/2023 11:37 pm »

Any energetic shrapnel if it hit the Starship would likely cause immediate damage and be noticeable.

We don't know that.  How energetic, how big, where did it hit...
No way anything hit.

I didn't say that it did or happened, and that's the whole point I'm trying to make for ending this line of conversation.  Thansk for agreeing with me.  Let's get back to the booster.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2023 11:39 pm by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline MichaelBlackbourn

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1166 on: 11/26/2023 11:48 pm »
Any booster shrapnel would also have to push through the expanded exhaust from the starship raptors. Really donít think this is a thing that happened.

Online testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1167 on: 11/28/2023 12:03 am »
Any booster shrapnel would also have to push through the expanded exhaust from the starship raptors. Really donít think this is a thing that happened.
[/quote

If this has been discussed before, please ignore this post. It seems to me that SX may want to add landing legs for any Starship that carries a crew and will be returning to Earth.   I believe anyone would want some additional method of a successful landing beyond being snagged by the launch tower.   Iíll bet many of you can come up all kinds of things that can cause Starship to miss the tower or even miss the state.

If legs will be added later. why not do it now? Sure it will decrease payload capacity but you can still practice being snagged by the launch tower.  Again, landing legs for manned missions.

Offline Brigantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • NZ
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1168 on: 11/28/2023 12:31 am »
Starship that carries a crew and will be returning to Earth
Far distant future - Not remotely a priority.

It's something they can think about after Starship is a revenue positive operational launch vehicle.
Let's see the moon landing legs, though!

Online Tangilinear Interjar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • California
  • Liked: 880
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1169 on: 11/28/2023 03:18 pm »
If legs will be added later. why not do it now? Sure it will decrease payload capacity but you can still practice being snagged by the launch tower.  Again, landing legs for manned missions.
Engineering resources and complexity!

There's always going to be a limit on how much manpower you have available to design, build and test; it would be a waste of valuable resources, that are just trying to get the thing to fly and not blow up, on some system that won't be needed until some unknown point in the future.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2023 03:19 pm by Tangilinear Interjar »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1817
  • Germany
  • Liked: 3867
  • Likes Given: 2698
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1170 on: 12/02/2023 02:42 pm »
That being said, they will design landing legs for the HLS starship, which you might want to test in a landing on earth first.

After that, you have the design, tested and qualified, laying around...
« Last Edit: 12/02/2023 02:46 pm by CorvusCorax »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5379
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3085
  • Likes Given: 3818
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1171 on: 12/02/2023 04:26 pm »
If legs will be added later. why not do it now? Sure it will decrease payload capacity but you can still practice being snagged by the launch tower.  Again, landing legs for manned missions.
Engineering resources and complexity!

There's always going to be a limit on how much manpower you have available to design, build and test; it would be a waste of valuable resources, that are just trying to get the thing to fly and not blow up, on some system that won't be needed until some unknown point in the future.

Agreed, they clearly have their hands full just getting the vehicle operational at a fundamental level, as well as building out facilities at the build and luanch site.

They'll get to it.

That said, I suspect they have been going through several HLS landing leg designs.  They can easily test them on earth, Apollo developed multiple ways to test equipment made for 1/6th G on Earth.

The landing legs are not my biggest concern for HLS. 
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Kspbutitscursed

Are we going into another round of whether an earth intersecting trajectory with orbital energy is considered sub or not?

Sweet mercy, no, please not another round of that.

Let's hope IFT-2 works perfectly so we can move onto other topics in IFT-3
And if it isn't, we hunker down for the back and forth as to whether it was a "failure".
welp
I attempt to fly in ksp
WEN OFT-3                 #Wen Booster 11/12 engines installation

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47532
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80438
  • Likes Given: 36393
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1173 on: 12/15/2023 08:24 pm »
https://twitter.com/ringwatchers/status/1735766244278575468

Quote
𝗪𝗲𝗶𝗿𝗱 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗧𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝟮𝟲
-----

Earlier today, crews began approaching Ship 26 at the Rocket Garden after being mostly hands-off of the vehicle since it rolled back following its single-engine static fire.

An Aerial Work Platform approached the Ship with large steel pieces and began adding them to the stack weld connecting the Payload Bay and the Forward Dome section together.

-> Photo courtesy of @LabPadre

Throughout the day, more plates were welded to the Ship near this weld line, seemingly reinforcing the area. This is very odd, seeing as we have yet to see this on the other Ships.

-> Photo courtesy of @LabPadre

-----
𝗠𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝗲𝗹𝗼𝘄

Just days before Starship Flight 2, SpaceX conducted a structural test of the S24.2 test article at Massey's, an article designed to verify the structural integrity of the Payload Bay.

While we were never able to confirm if this was an intentional test to failure, we did note that a large buckle formed on what is essentially the same weld that was reinforced on Ship 26, in addition to some deformation on the PEZ door, and thus, one theory has been that this test indicated some of the welds needed to be reinforced.

Somewhat notably, this weld was done by hand on S24.2 instead of with a robot, but that could be irrelevant.

-> Photo courtesy of @CosmicalChief for @LabPadre

We've seen similar events happen in the past, notably with a test article for the Ship aft section over a year ago, which never had a serial number confirmed but is believed to have been S24.1. This test article buckled during a test and subsequently required every flightworthy Ship to be modified.

If this is the case with S24.2, we may see some additions to the other Ships, some changes to the Payload Doors, or maybe this idea isn't correct after all. If anything, we hope that there aren't any more sealed doors.

-----
𝗔 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗮
Another thing that some have speculated is that Ship 26 is simply being used as a pathfinder for these additions on different Ships, unrelated to any previous structural testing. From this point, it's mostly guessing though.

-----
𝗠𝗮𝘆𝗯𝗲 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗮

It's possible that if Ship 26 is a flight candidate for some reason, it's being reinforced due to an existing lack of reinforcements in its Payload Bay.

When Ship 26 was developed as an expendable prototype without a PEZ Dispenser, numerous hoop stiffeners were not included. Maybe it's been determined that the Ship isn't strong enough to do what it needs to do.

-> Photo courtesy of @LabPadre

-----
𝗧𝗼 𝗥𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲...

The above is speculation, and shouldn't be taken as much more than that. However, your ideas would be interesting to hear as well. This is a bit more of an informal post, but hopefully, it's thought-provoking if anything.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5359
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1694
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1174 on: 12/15/2023 09:51 pm »
Quote
𝗪𝗲𝗶𝗿𝗱 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗧𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝟮𝟲
-----

Throughout the day, more plates were welded to the Ship near this weld line, seemingly reinforcing the area. This is very odd, seeing as we have yet to see this on the other Ships.
-----
An even stranger 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗮
S26 will be used for the cryo transfer demo. This strengthening converts the payload bay into the target tank for the transfer.


Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3025
  • Liked: 3838
  • Likes Given: 5199
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1175 on: 12/16/2023 03:12 pm »
A failure near the end of the burn would likely have the maximum G force on the ship structure as propellent load is minimal.  Throttle-down happens to maintain a maximum G load, but perhaps SpaceX has come to believe that weld failed under the load at that point in flight where it would have been at its peak.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5060
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3518
  • Likes Given: 5939
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1176 on: 12/16/2023 08:50 pm »
That falling nosecone we saw after IFT2 SS exploded. Any chance this weld we're talking about is where it severed?
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 Slothman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 549
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1177 on: 12/17/2023 10:27 am »
That falling nosecone we saw after IFT2 SS exploded. Any chance this weld we're talking about is where it severed?

Wouldn't strengthening the weld make the next nosecone piece... Bigger, by moving the failure point further down the ship?

Offline Brigantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • NZ
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1178 on: 12/17/2023 10:44 am »
That falling nosecone we saw after IFT2 SS exploded. Any chance this weld we're talking about is where it severed?

Wouldn't strengthening the weld make the next nosecone piece... Bigger, by moving the failure point further down the ship?
Once you get to the forward dome of the Methane tank, the tank pressure can actually carry the weight, even at high acceleration. Even 63m≤ x 3 bar = 19 MN i.e. 1900 tf - more than the thrust of the whole ship. The tank walls would be  in tension holding the pressure back.

Unless the tank blows up first
« Last Edit: 12/17/2023 10:47 am by Brigantine »

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5060
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3518
  • Likes Given: 5939
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 25 : Discussion
« Reply #1179 on: 12/17/2023 05:17 pm »
That falling nosecone we saw after IFT2 SS exploded. Any chance this weld we're talking about is where it severed?

Wouldn't strengthening the weld make the next nosecone piece... Bigger, by moving the failure point further down the ship?
Once you get to the forward dome of the Methane tank, the tank pressure can actually carry the weight, even at high acceleration. Even 63m≤ x 3 bar = 19 MN i.e. 1900 tf - more than the thrust of the whole ship. The tank walls would be  in tension holding the pressure back.

Unless the tank blows up first
Or maybe the breakup would tear the top dome off once the tank depressed a bit? Not sure there would be any advantage and the common dome would still be a strong point. Just noodling.
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.

Tags: Super-heavy 
 

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