SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship updates

[anthdci]

On 20/04/2023 at 14:52, DocM said:

 

Yep, one what they can and apply it to the next flight vehicles, which are already upgraded vehicles with many changes. 

do you think the fact 6 engines went out, 5 of which were off to one side, was the reason it wasn't following the right path, it looked like it leaned over right at launch. 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

That launch was like Kerbal Space in real life.  The structural integrity while it tumbled was pretty amazing.

[Slugsie]

On 20/04/2023 at 14:38, bguy_1986 said:

lol

 

Was the whole stack supposed to flip?  I was a little confused with the stream about that.

Yes ... ish. It was supposed to flip 180degrees, separate, then the top bit was supposed to flip back and continue to space and the bottom bit slowing down and returning to a hard splash down.

*Edit*

 🤪I'm wrong, no the whole stack wasn't supposed to flip. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Slugsie

[Jim K Global Moderator]

On 20/04/2023 at 09:04, Slugsie said:

Yes ... ish. It was supposed to flip 180degrees, separate, then the top bit was supposed to flip back and continue to space and the bottom bit slowing down and returning to a hard splash down.

Uh, nope.  Separation would be like any other rocket...first stage cuts, separation, second stage lights.  This sequence of "flip to 180 degrees, separate, etc" isn't correct.

The flight path was obviously wrong starting ~ +2 min (almost a minute before main engine cutoff at 2:49 and sep at 2:52).

Still a pretty cool launch...

[DocM]

Musk says the next test flight will be in a few months. Probably just enough time to modify the (already upgraded) follow-on vehicles.

 

 

[hagjohn]

Whats left of it will fall into the Gulf of Mexico.

Edited April 20, 2023 by hagjohn

[DocM]

On 20/04/2023 at 10:04, Slugsie said:

Yes ... ish. It was supposed to flip 180degrees, separate, then the top bit was supposed to flip back and continue to space and the bottom bit slowing down and returning to a hard splash down.

The flight plan was to have the first stage separate and almost simultaneously flip 180°, not the entire stack. Almost as soon as they physically clear Starship lights its engines.

[Slugsie]

On 20/04/2023 at 15:22, Jim K said:

Uh, nope.  Separation would be like any other rocket...first stage cuts, separation, second stage lights.  This sequence of "flip to 180 degrees, separate, etc" isn't correct.

The flight path was obviously wrong starting ~ +2 min (almost a minute before main engine cutoff at 2:49 and sep at 2:52).

Still a pretty cool launch...

Yeah, um, sorry. Ignore what I said, I wasn't paying attention when I typed that out.

[DocM]

On 20/04/2023 at 10:00, anthdci said:

do you think the fact 6 engines went out, 5 of which were off to one side, was the reason it wasn't following the right path, it looked like it leaned over right at launch. 

 

It lost one center cluster engine and two adjacent engines in the outer ring at liftoff, 

Losing more in the same area of the outer ring would cause a large thrust imbalance so yeah, it may well have something to do with it. More so if the others lost were in the center cluster, which does the steering. The outer ring engines don't gimbal.

Let's see what they come up with.

[anthdci]

That’s a big hole

 

[anthdci]

On 20/04/2023 at 15:59, DocM said:

 

It lost one center cluster engine and two adjacent engines in the outer ring at liftoff, 

Losing more in the same area of the outer ring would cause a large thrust imbalance so yeah, it may well have something to do with it. More so if the others lost were in the center cluster, which does the steering. The outer ring engines don't gimbal.

Let's see what they come up with.

I’m surprised they let it go when they had a centre one out from the pad.

[DocM]

On 20/04/2023 at 11:34, anthdci said:

I’m surprised they let it go when they had a centre one out from the pad.

There are 13 engines in that center cluster and only one was out when they left the pad. You can make up that   loss by throttling up the others and still have reserve  power.

Washington Post space reporter,

 

[DocM]

 

 

[anthdci]

tank farm took a few big hits

 

 

[TrevorLahey]

More questions for anybody that knows.  Seemed like it sat on the pad before lifting off more than I assume it should.  ~+7 seconds.  Was that normal?  I assume that could have caused some engine problems with all the vibrations and flying debris.  I think there were also multiple versions of the engines in this Starship.  Like very early versions to much later versions, so that could have had something to do with engine failure too.  Anybody know what the spread was on that?

Did they have a deluge system for this test?  I was thinking they were moving stuff getting ready to install one but am probably wrong.

[Slugsie]

On 20/04/2023 at 19:29, bguy_1986 said:

More questions for anybody that knows.  Seemed like it sat on the pad before lifting off more than I assume it should.  ~+7 seconds.  Was that normal?  I assume that could have caused some engine problems with all the vibrations and flying debris.  I think there were also multiple versions of the engines in this Starship.  Like very early versions to much later versions, so that could have had something to do with engine failure too.  Anybody know what the spread was on that?

Did they have a deluge system for this test?  I was thinking they were moving stuff getting ready to install one but am probably wrong.

Yeah, I noticed that. I thought they said before the lift off that the engines would start firing up around t-6s in 3 stages with them all being lit at t0. It looked like they didn't really start up until t0 in which case t+7s would be about as expected.

[DocM]

On 20/04/2023 at 14:29, bguy_1986 said:

More questions for anybody that knows.  Seemed like it sat on the pad before lifting off more than I assume it should.  ~+7 seconds.  Was that normal?  I assume that could have caused some engine problems with all the vibrations and flying debris.  I think there were also multiple versions of the engines in this Starship.  Like very early versions to much later versions, so that could have had something to do with engine failure too.  Anybody know what the spread was on that?

Standard startup in clusters, mainly to reduce instantaneous and vibration loads.

 

On 20/04/2023 at 14:29, bguy_1986 said:

Did they have a deluge system for this test?  I was thinking they were moving stuff getting ready to install one but am probably wrong.

 

They have a new deluge system that will be going in. It was barged in from Florida.

[DocM]

Starship pad update

It turns out SpaceX has built a water cooled plume diverter for the Starship OLM. It wasn't ready in time so they tried to do the first launch without it. The pad should be ready in 1 to 2 months.

Twitter thread

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1649521809279025153

Screencap

[Xenon]

[wakjak]

On 22/04/2023 at 13:03, Xenon said:

"smashing success!" -Elon cucks.

[DocM]

On 22/04/2023 at 12:03, Xenon said:

 

The SpaceX launch license is for 5 years, and NASA posted before the flight that missions 1-3 would be expendable tests to find issues.

Mission accomplished;

• the concrete under the pad couldn't take the loads and they have a cooled steel diverter already built. 

• Booster 7 was a one-off test article. Follow-on boosters are of a higher fidelity design.

The accident procedure isn't that FAA does the investigation. SpaceX does the investigation and FAA signs off on the report. 

[DocM]

On 22/04/2023 at 12:31, wakjak said:

"smashing success!" -Elon cucks.

 

Random guy on the internet clucks & ridicules, engineers in the industry know better.

From before the test (Space.com),

https://www.space.com/spaceflight-failure-necessity-sls-spacex

 

Quote

When it comes to space, failure isn't just an option — it's a requirement

By Rick Tumlinson

 published 29 days ago

The difference between a winner and a loser is that the winner gets back up, learns from what they did wrong and does it again.

Anyone familiar with space movies, or who has visited a NASA gift shop, knows the phrase "Failure is not an option." Actually, it is. In truth, if one is to win at anything, failure is a requirement. We only learn by what we learn from making mistakes. That is if — and this is an important "if" — we accept the learning we gain from the failure and apply it to our future endeavors.

The exploration and development of space are no exceptions. Or rather, they highlight the rule.

>

>

 

[wakjak]

On 22/04/2023 at 15:22, DocM said:

 

Random guy on the internet clucks & ridicules, engineers in the industry know better.

From before the test (Space.com),

https://www.space.com/spaceflight-failure-necessity-sls-spacex

 

 

Point proven, thanks.

[Xenon]

On 22/04/2023 at 14:05, DocM said:

 

The SpaceX launch license is for 5 years, and NASA posted before the flight that missions 1-3 would be expendable tests to find issues.

Mission accomplished;

• the concrete under the pad couldn't take the loads and they have a cooled steel diverter already built. 

• Booster 7 was a one-off test article. Follow-on boosters are of a higher fidelity design.

The accident procedure isn't that FAA does the investigation. SpaceX does the investigation and FAA signs off on the report. 

You forgot about the damage to the tank farm, the tower and the road. Also the clean up of debris around the launch site. Real professional there. 

 

 

They go over ALL the damage that was known at the time. 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Xenon

[DocM]

On 22/04/2023 at 15:13, Xenon said:

You forgot about the damage to the tank farm, the tower and the road. Also the clean up of debris around the launch site. Real professional there. 

 

First lets be clear, the usual suspects turning this into a sub of the "We hate Elon!" thread is silly. Gwynne Shotwell has been running Starbase for several months as they transition to operational. 

This was the most powerful booster ever built how do you quantify enough structure? Unknown unknowns. They had mid-term upgrades in the works for when the engines would launch at full power but took a chance at launching at lower power (no payload) and it bit them, so give up? No, learn and continue.

One tank was unused, another sustained damage to the outer tank shell not the vessel. Make the berm higher.

A steel shed attached to the tower and some panels covering the lower tower took hits. Needs more examination. Replace, fix, etc.

Concrete work under the pad, adding the deluge system & water cooled deflection panels seem to be the long pole. Cleaning roads isn't. 

 

On 22/04/2023 at 15:13, Xenon said:

They go over ALL the damage that was known at the time. 

 

They speculate from a distance quite a bit, but the engineers & padrats on the open & private forums are having quite a discussion - largely shooting down arm-wavers.