SpaceX (general discussion)

Have you heard that Elon Musk had hinted about sea launch platforms for Starship?
NSF's Michael Baylor (nextspaceflight) discovered twin sea platforms have been bought by "Lone Star Mineral Development LLC," which is either a SpaceX subsidiary or a leasing company. Price: $3.5 million each.
 
Thank you @bearnard97 : this was however already discussed some pages ago.

I know the discussion here unfold rapidly and can be sometime hard to follow (we have been discussing things in all directions when at least it was remotely related to the topic - even Musk's alleged sleepers were part of the discussion (blame me - and I still dream to see @AkelaFreedom renders of this), so much that it's normal to be confused or outpaced by how quickly news can be discussed here (hey, that's part of the SP secret sauce).
At the end, my meaning is that it's always good to check back the last couple of pages of a thread before posting anything and, if you are especially interested by the topic, follow the discussion to be notified of every changes.
 
Looking the footage again
I suspect there issue is with Raptors
That they can't not cope with gas in turbo pumps...
 
Last edited:
@Michel Van : Not air... Well, you're right but air resulting from "cavitation" during the flip manoeuvre.
IMOHO, they need to blow compressed inert gases in those few critical seconds
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
Michel Van said:
Flyaway said:
Has anyone noticed that SN11 is the last of this model of prototypes. They then skip to the revised SN15 model.
Click to expand...
i think that SN10-11 will have simlear fait like SN8-9 a everlasting impact on landing pad

on SN15 it's build from the new Steel alloy but build 4 mm sheet thickness
while future models feature 3 mm sheet and modifications in Steel alloy
and i think that raptors get major revision and modifications also.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this RUF is a Raptor or Starship issue this time.
Click to expand...
RUD
Click to expand...
Yes I know it was a typo.
 
It has to be hard to manage liquid propellent flow with that quick change in geometry.
 
Pull-up means that they will have a forward speed component, hence a larger footprint on the ground.
 
Starship SN7.2 R.I.P. More a leak than pop which I suppose is quite good performance.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1357422924966334472
View: https://twitter.com/ajtourville/status/1357422924966334472


Wouldn't it be safer to light 3, and throttle 3 for landing just in case there's 1 engine failure?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1357425717500407816
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1357425717500407816


Yes, but engines have a min throttle point where there is flameout risk, so landing on 3 engines means high thrust/weight (further away from hover point), which is also risky
Click to expand...
 
Further details on the FAA investigation into what happened with SN8's license violation:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1357680707364077568
View: https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1357680707364077568

https://twitter.com/x/status/1357681385893412868
View: https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1357681385893412868


Also today we saw Raptor SN50 delivered to the launch site for SN10. In the next week we should expect to see either SN7.2 fixed and tested to (more catastrophic) destruction, and/or SN10 perform pressure / cryo testing (but without the hydraulic thrust-simulator, so like SN9). I think we're over a week away from a static fire on SN10, but they're supposedly aiming to fly SN10 before the end of February. It's an optimistic goal, but it does suggest that if they don't need to replace any Raptors we could see fairly streamlined testing.
 
That's interesting. When that engine failed to start I was thinking the same thing - why didn't they try and start all three? I'm sure Elon and a room full of engineers had the exact same thought at exactly the same time. Of course, when you're dealing with the FAA just to launch it probably diverts some of your attention ahead of time.

Frankly, I'm surprised they are attempting to land so close to their tank farm. There's a great deal of infrastructure at risk. They must have been extremely confident in their modeling.
 
NeilChapman said:
That's interesting. When that engine failed to start I was thinking the same thing - why didn't they try and start all three? I'm sure Elon and a room full of engineers had the exact same thought at exactly the same time. Of course, when you're dealing with the FAA just to launch it probably diverts some of your attention ahead of time.

Frankly, I'm surprised they are attempting to land so close to their tank farm. There's a great deal of infrastructure at risk. They must have been extremely confident in their modeling.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they'd considered it at one point and discarded it. In fact I would be surprised if they hadn't. Might not have made sense at the time, having never have flown yet.
 
Given the way the flip manoeuvre back to vertical occurred way too late, I am pretty sure that they felt secure enough with the power and risk mitigation procedures of a two engine landing phase.

Now something might have gone horribly wrong that they overestimated the free fall time that way.
 
I could see them going to three temporarily, until they get relight reliability up.
 
sferrin said:
NeilChapman said:
That's interesting. When that engine failed to start I was thinking the same thing - why didn't they try and start all three? I'm sure Elon and a room full of engineers had the exact same thought at exactly the same time. Of course, when you're dealing with the FAA just to launch it probably diverts some of your attention ahead of time.

Frankly, I'm surprised they are attempting to land so close to their tank farm. There's a great deal of infrastructure at risk. They must have been extremely confident in their modeling.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they'd considered it at one point and discarded it. In fact I would be surprised if they hadn't. Might not have made sense at the time, having never have flown yet.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that as well. Then after SN8 they had a problem to solve, which they seemed to have done. Then SN9 provided this new 'opportunity'.

As an engineer, you hate to introduce too many design changes at once - until you look back and hindsight becomes 20/20 and the decision feels 'foolish'. I like the fact Elon takes these on the chin. I'm sure it's a morale booster for his team to get on with the next one. Sounds like a good boss.
 
I think it explains in Elon’s tweets above why they initially didn’t go with three engines on landing as this brings its own set of issues.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1360585425010651140
View: https://twitter.com/marcushousegame/status/1360585425010651140


So SpaceX is attempting another flight NET this coming week with SN10! Can they master the flip and stick the landing!? That is the big question. What do you think?
(full video explaining more detail at youtu.be/uiT4brKuQGg)
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1360774866023112704
View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1360774866023112704


Success on landing probability is ~60% this time
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom