-
#700
by
alphacentauri
on 11 Apr, 2023 19:58
-
If they were doing a recovery, then I'd agree, but there is no planned recovery for either booster or Starship, and an intact landing for either is very unlikely.
According to the materials SpaceX released today, they will not even attempt a vertical landing of Starship. The diagram shows it landing horizontally on the Pacific Ocean. Apparently, they will let it "float" horizontally until splashdown, with no landing burn.
-
#701
by
Alberto-Girardi
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:01
-
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Escreen-name%3ANASASpaceflight%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c1Things are starting to feel real!
The news from NSF Alex that there would not be a WDR is confirmed.
Also we have an official countdown. It feels a little bit strange, it is the end of us being totally blind and having to figure out everything, like it was done during the suborbital campaign ( i will never forget how beautiful it was that a few guys could figure out starship launch time precise to the second only watching other tests.). Not to say that we won't have anything to do, obviusly.
Interesting things I noted:
- raptor ignition sequence is going to start at t-8 s. It will be long, similar to the Saturn V or Shuttle one, compared to Falcon 9 or other rockets. I hope the commentator calls out "ignition sequence start"like in Apollo 11.
-what is "Fluid interfaces begin ventdown"? at t -40s? could be ship qd disconnect?
-
#702
by
Alberto-Girardi
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:11
-
also nice is that in the infographic below the landed booster and ship icons ther is drawn something that seems a landing pad, even if both will go into the sea.
-
#703
by
neoforce
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:15
-
-
#704
by
kevinof
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:16
-
-
#705
by
neoforce
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:18
-
-
#706
by
Malisk
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:19
-
So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and propulsively land?.
-
#707
by
TheRadicalModerate
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:23
-
If they were doing a recovery, then I'd agree, but there is no planned recovery for either booster or Starship, and an intact landing for either is very unlikely.
According to the materials SpaceX released today, they will not even attempt a vertical landing of Starship. The diagram shows it landing horizontally on the Pacific Ocean. Apparently, they will let it "float" horizontally until splashdown, with no landing burn.
I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't do the flip maneuver. There's no reason not to gather more landing data, especially since there have been so many changes since the SNxx series of tests. I suspect the graphics designer simply didn't want to make the chart too busy.
-
#708
by
Nomadd
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:31
-
So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and repulsively land?.
If it's a marine sanctuary, there could be a problem with firing engines into the water. But that shouldn't prevent them from igniting to go vertical. They might want to hit horizontal to insure breakup and sinking.
-
#709
by
Robotbeat
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:33
-
So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and repulsively land?.
Possibilities
1) graphic designer forgot
2) they decided they didn’t want to bother doing all the mods needed to enable a successful flip. Remember, this is probably the most challenging part of the whole mission for the suborbital tests, and it failed multiple times in multiple ways. They may have just deleted those mitigations on this vehicle since it was already tested on suborbital flights and this is an old design of Starship anyway.
3) they want to do sideways landing now. If they’re already potentially adding auxiliary thrusters for the Moon, they could just avoid flipping at all for Earth landings. This would be the first we’ve heard about it.
I’d say 2 is more likely than 1, and 3 is by far the least likely.
-
#710
by
chariotoffire
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:47
-
If they were doing a recovery, then I'd agree, but there is no planned recovery for either booster or Starship, and an intact landing for either is very unlikely.
According to the materials SpaceX released today, they will not even attempt a vertical landing of Starship. The diagram shows it landing horizontally on the Pacific Ocean. Apparently, they will let it "float" horizontally until splashdown, with no landing burn.
I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't do the flip maneuver. There's no reason not to gather more landing data, especially since there have been so many changes since the SNxx series of tests. I suspect the graphics designer simply didn't want to make the chart too busy.
The timeline shows a landing burn for the booster but not the ship. I don't think they're going to try the flip.
-
#711
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 11 Apr, 2023 20:48
-
-
#712
by
Alberto-Girardi
on 11 Apr, 2023 21:06
-
So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and repulsively land?.
Possibilities
1) graphic designer forgot
2) they decided they didn’t want to bother doing all the mods needed to enable a successful flip. Remember, this is probably the most challenging part of the whole mission for the suborbital tests, and it failed multiple times in multiple ways. They may have just deleted those mitigations on this vehicle since it was already tested on suborbital flights and this is an old design of Starship anyway.
3) they want to do sideways landing now. If they’re already potentially adding auxiliary thrusters for the Moon, they could just avoid flipping at all for Earth landings. This would be the first we’ve heard about it.
I’d say 2 is more likely than 1, and 3 is by far the least likely.
I think the most likey is 2. It is interesting what Nomadd metioned. Maybe due to the provisional payload bay design s24 can't handle a flip. Also I would mention that the flip maneuver WAS NOT tested completely successfully, in fact spacex said a few weeks ago that pressure was lost in a header tank. They still have to do it perfectly.
If 3 is true it is a little bit disappointg, the fun of Starship for me was also the challenge of the incredible flip maneuver, but we have already a lot of reason to think that they need a flip to have good efficiency on the landing.
-
#713
by
TheRadicalModerate
on 11 Apr, 2023 21:14
-
2) they decided they didn’t want to bother doing all the mods needed to enable a successful flip. Remember, this is probably the most challenging part of the whole mission for the suborbital tests, and it failed multiple times in multiple ways. They may have just deleted those mitigations on this vehicle since it was already tested on suborbital flights and this is an old design of Starship anyway.
S24 has the methane header tank in the nose, doesn't it? Why wouldn't they want to field-test its dynamics--especially since that's a known problem area with the flip maneuver?
-
#714
by
philw1776
on 11 Apr, 2023 21:23
-
So the ship is 'landing' horizontally? That's not really a landing and more like a belly flop, right? Is it known why it wouldn't attempt to move vertical and repulsively land?.
Possibilities
1) graphic designer forgot
2) they decided they didn’t want to bother doing all the mods needed to enable a successful flip. Remember, this is probably the most challenging part of the whole mission for the suborbital tests, and it failed multiple times in multiple ways. They may have just deleted those mitigations on this vehicle since it was already tested on suborbital flights and this is an old design of Starship anyway.
3) they want to do sideways landing now. If they’re already potentially adding auxiliary thrusters for the Moon, they could just avoid flipping at all for Earth landings. This would be the first we’ve heard about it.
I’d say 2 is more likely than 1, and 3 is by far the least likely.
Curse you for reviving that topic with option 3.
-
#715
by
Slothman
on 11 Apr, 2023 21:30
-
I see no reason why whey would not "test as you fly".. even if they have no payload, pretend you have.. even if you have no landing site.. pretend that you have. Just run everything as if it was an operational, recovered mission. Any deviation or concessions to the flight plan would mean a loss of information (should they get to that point in flight)
-
#716
by
alugobi
on 11 Apr, 2023 22:04
-
They might think that they've fixed the door for max-q stress, but aren't confident about torque on the frame during a flip.
-
#717
by
Herb Schaltegger
on 11 Apr, 2023 22:22
-
They might think that they've fixed the door for max-q stress, but aren't confident about torque on the frame during a flip.
There will be no "torque" on the frame (torsion). The only stresses on the airframe for the flip will be in tension and compression modes. Presuming a belly-entry, the door will be on the leeward side of the structure and thus should face predominantly compression forces from a flip. That door structure will face far more compression on launch than it will during the flip.
-
#718
by
JCopernicus
on 11 Apr, 2023 22:28
-
Maybe they want to recover it to inspect tiles, and not risk having it completely come apart.
-
#719
by
wolfi44
on 11 Apr, 2023 22:36
-
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1645875678657810439
Teams are focused on launch readiness ahead of Starship’s first integrated flight test as soon as next week, pending regulatory approval – no launch rehearsal this week spacex.com/launches/
Will they skip the WDR ?
