-
#200
by
Star One
on 06 Aug, 2019 15:07
-
This thunderstorm tangent is mind-numbingly valueless.
Let's take a lesson that totally unnecessary nitpicking/quips like the following don't add anything at all and lead to such tangents.
I hardly think you have thunderstorms 365 days a year.
I could add being lectured at by another poster over such a trivial point certainly doesn’t add anything to the thread.
Over here in the U.K. every time a military plane is forced to go supersonic on an intercept of our airspace you can guarantee that the papers the following day will have coverage of people besieging social media wondering what the noise was, and in a number of cases who they can complain to about the noise.
On a more serious point I’ve certainly read that for example that farmers in this country take the issue of sonic booms very seriously if it disturbs their livestock. As well in other cases of property damage that has led to pay outs in compensation by the DOD.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ministry-defence-hit-compensation-claims-8134690
-
#201
by
rakaydos
on 06 Aug, 2019 15:54
-
I believe one of the main complaints about sonic booms is that they come out of the blue. thunderstorms are usually obvious and predictable.
Someone in another thread mentioned the reaction to the starlink visibility and SpaceX's reponse. At least in that case some old lady didn't have a hummel figurine shaken off a shelf in her curio cabinet. So whatever you might think is a non-issue, there are plenty of other people out there that will loudly complain.
This clip was linked to me recently for different reasons, but I think it applies:
-
#202
by
Jim
on 06 Aug, 2019 16:09
-
"After the vehicle is in a safe state, a mobile hydraulic lift would raise Starship onto a
transporter, similar to the current transporter used for Falcon"
What about the BS about the Starship doing everything vertically?
-
#203
by
Jim
on 06 Aug, 2019 16:12
-
"The rocket would be integrated vertically on the pad at LC-39A using a mobile crane. This would involve
the booster being mated to the launch mount followed by Starship being mated to the booster. Initial
flights would use a temporary or mobile crane, with a permanent crane tower constructed later. The
height of the permanent crane tower would be approximately 120 to 180 m"
Like old school pads. That is what MST's did.
-
#204
by
Jim
on 06 Aug, 2019 16:13
-
The Super Heavy booster would be delivered by barge from the landing site utilizing the KSC Turn Basin wharf as a delivery point and transported the remaining distance to the launch complex over the Crawlerway. A downrange landing would be a contingency landing location for Starship and transport would be similar to the Super Heavy booster."
Is anyone familiar with what access is like at the Turn Basin? AFAIK, only NASA employees and accredited members of the press (during events) would be in a position to take photos of returns.
Still has to go through the port to get there
-
#205
by
woods170
on 06 Aug, 2019 17:06
-
"The rocket would be integrated vertically on the pad at LC-39A using a mobile crane. This would involve
the booster being mated to the launch mount followed by Starship being mated to the booster. Initial
flights would use a temporary or mobile crane, with a permanent crane tower constructed later. The
height of the permanent crane tower would be approximately 120 to 180 m"
Like old school pads. That is what MST's did.
No. It's only part of what MSTs did.
-
#206
by
envy887
on 06 Aug, 2019 17:07
-
"After the vehicle is in a safe state, a mobile hydraulic lift would raise Starship onto a
transporter, similar to the current transporter used for Falcon"
What about the BS about the Starship doing everything vertically?
Musk answered "no" to a question about whether Starship would go horizontal during the build sequence.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1158592581862752256He previously said that Starship would get from Cocoa to 39A horizontally:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131625395118268416There's no inconsistency there, because build is separate from operations.
-
#207
by
jpo234
on 06 Aug, 2019 17:13
-
"The rocket would be integrated vertically on the pad at LC-39A using a mobile crane. This would involve
the booster being mated to the launch mount followed by Starship being mated to the booster. Initial
flights would use a temporary or mobile crane, with a permanent crane tower constructed later. The
height of the permanent crane tower would be approximately 120 to 180 m"
Like old school pads. That is what MST's did.
In case you were wondering like me:
MST = Mobile Service Tower
-
#208
by
ArbitraryConstant
on 06 Aug, 2019 17:16
-
I believe one of the main complaints about sonic booms is that they come out of the blue. thunderstorms are usually obvious and predictable.
A spaceship landing ought to be predictable. It'll be on the morning traffic report.
-
#209
by
ArbitraryConstant
on 06 Aug, 2019 17:26
-
On another note, I saw posts on another thread about potential measures to mitigate the severity of sonic shock exposed to land. I wonder whether SpaceX will make an effort to test some possible mitigations as part of the Starship mark 1 & 2 test regime?
From what I've read these methods usually involve messing with the shape of the aircraft, often by making it longer and pointier so it can create a series of very closely spaced shocks since we perceive those very differently from something like the traditional double boom of eg the shuttle. For a vehicle doing reentry I think that would be very difficult.
-
#210
by
Cheapchips
on 06 Aug, 2019 18:01
-
"After the vehicle is in a safe state, a mobile hydraulic lift would raise Starship onto a
transporter, similar to the current transporter used for Falcon"
What about the BS about the Starship doing everything vertically?
Musk answered "no" to a question about whether Starship would go horizontal during the build sequence.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1158592581862752256
He previously said that Starship would get from Cocoa to 39A horizontally:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131625395118268416
There's no inconsistency there, because build is separate from operations.
For the sake of accuracy, that tweet is in reference to SH transport, not Starship. Not that I necessarily think it doesn't apply to SS too.
-
#211
by
Dave G
on 06 Aug, 2019 18:28
-
There's no inconsistency there, because build is separate from operations.
For the sake of accuracy, that tweet is in reference to SH transport, not Starship...
Note: The Draft EA has Super Heavy landing at sea. Later, they'll probably ask for permission to land SH right back on the launch pad, but until then, SH will have to go horizontal to get from the sea port to the launch site.
It's possible that Starship going horizontal may be more difficult due to the fins.
Maybe that's why they're asking for permission to land SS at the launch site first.
-
#212
by
DistantTemple
on 06 Aug, 2019 18:50
-
The route for land transport for landed SH's is by sea to Port Canaveral, then by road. (through CCAFS etc. and on the rodad past all the launch pads) Are there any overhead obstructions that would stop it being moved vertically? Obviously it would have to go slowly. I assume most of the road is private with very little traffic. The mass is not a problem. It would mean another tall crane at the harbour, but a hired one would do, or one like the Port of Brownsville's new mobile harbour crane could be purchased. As others have said current drone ships are too wide to pass through the harbour and get to the turning basin (near NASA's VAB).
-
#213
by
spacenut
on 06 Aug, 2019 19:50
-
Superheavy was going to have fin landings legs also wasn't it? Unless they go back to fold up legs like on F9 Booster for transport.
-
#214
by
speedevil
on 06 Aug, 2019 20:34
-
On another note, I saw posts on another thread about potential measures to mitigate the severity of sonic shock exposed to land. I wonder whether SpaceX will make an effort to test some possible mitigations as part of the Starship mark 1 & 2 test regime?
From what I've read these methods usually involve messing with the shape of the aircraft, often by making it longer and pointier so it can create a series of very closely spaced shocks since we perceive those very differently from something like the traditional double boom of eg the shuttle. For a vehicle doing reentry I think that would be very difficult.
I believe that may have been responding to a comment of mine.
The nominal trajectory is for example vertical below 10km.
If you tilt the SS at 30 degrees, you can get several km back along the track without requiring extra propulsion.
A modest extra amount of propellant (20% less payload) could give you more than 10 miles.
If you add thrust, or modulate the lift at various times, you can minimise shocks over specific locations - to a degree, without hardware modifications.
Hardware modifications - jet engines, additional aerosurfaces, ... are of course possible eventually, but you can do quite a lot with another ten tons of propellant.
-
#215
by
Dave G
on 06 Aug, 2019 21:03
-
Superheavy was going to have fin landings legs also wasn't it? Unless they go back to fold up legs like on F9 Booster for transport.
Very small fins. Much smaller than Starship.
As I understand it, these small fins on SH are to help guide it into place when landing back onto the launch pad.
Here's a picture from page 8 of the
Draft EA.
-
#216
by
docmordrid
on 06 Aug, 2019 21:08
-
-
#217
by
intelati
on 06 Aug, 2019 21:10
-
Elon Musk ✓ @ElonMusk
Will probably make booster legs/flaps same as ship, instead of like F9
This is a bad time to be having this debate. Let's just wait two weeks (August 24th) and continue on then.
-
#218
by
Lar
on 06 Aug, 2019 21:49
-
Elon Musk ✓ @ElonMusk
Will probably make booster legs/flaps same as ship, instead of like F9
This is a bad time to be having this debate. Let's just wait two weeks (August 24th) and continue on then.
It's also a bit off topic. So is sniping at people about thunderstorms.
-
#219
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 09 Aug, 2019 02:59
-