NASA & World Space Exploration...News, Views, Photos & videos
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Still demonstrated remarkable structural integrity and high level of control though.
Was quite impressive that it didn't disintegrate by itself... some engines have gone with quite a visible pow.
This is somewhat intended, since both Starship and F9 have baked in design features to accommodate the odd engine out scenario, including "exciting" turbo-pump failures. Depending on the time of failure, it is even possible for the vehicle to continue on its mission without issue.
Some of the measures include armored engine mounts and separators, fuel assembly design changes as well as active sensor instrumentation for controlling and cutting out each engine. Some of those measures were designed even before the F9 octaweb engine assembly came into being, back in the 1.0 tic-tac-toe days.
Case in point, back in 2012 one of the engines in CRS-1 "enthusiastically" gave out during flight...the whole thing soldiered on to orbit.
------
With regards to the Starship test flight, my educated guess is that the main reason for Raptor engine-outs was debris and acoustic damage during the actual launch. No flame trench/diverting and no water deluge system corroborates my assumption, and I am actually surprised that the GSE "looks" as undamaged as it is, given the specifics at hand.
I think that the folks at SpaceX wanted to get this out ASAP, and then work on the actual launch pad for the next flights. Since this test article was already obsolete in a number of ways (one of the major ones being the actual need for HPUs on the vehicle) and there are six more in various stages of construction, I guess that would be prudent.
I also think that SpaceX under-estimated the severity of the debris damage the launch created on both vehicle and pad, and I estimate they will have to spend at least the next four months rectifying that problem. We know that the water deluge system is under transit to Texas right now, but I think they will also need a proper flame diverter mechanism for the pad to work with the efficiency and rapid turn-around that SpaceX expects.
Given the location of the launch site and the water table below it, I see them going the Cape Canaveral way, and actually elevating the pad. I know they , but I think this test flight showed it is necessary.
This is going to take time. All said though, this was a pretty exciting Test Flight and I think SpaceX has a ton of data to crunch and iterate on. Onwards!
they built it out of welded stainless instead of going for a more expensive aerospace material like aluminum or carbon composite. basically they have little regard for weight control since it seems they're just adding engines to make up for the added weight.
Is the US media going to cover this for 2 weeks like they do when there are simple warnings about Chinese rocket debris?
In this case it could have actually killed someone. Hypocrites as usual.
Is it incompetence they didn't build a flame trench for the launch? This one is just basic maths.
Or was it they needed to rush a launch test on a wholly unsuited launch site? They'll need regulatory approvals to dredge one in a protected area.
Some baffling decisions, short of the usual ego one.
Or was it they needed to rush a launch test on a wholly unsuited launch site? They'll need regulatory approvals to dredge one in a protected area.
Some baffling decisions, short of the usual ego one.
Money was one and heat resistance was also important when you aim to reuse the thing.
1st stage separation does not take place anywhere near high enough to reach reentry speeds, it is still an aerodynamic process. this typically occurs ~100k meters. so the reentry for that being Al is fine. making it out of stainless means they haven't done optimization.
2nd stage reentry exceeds SS304 melting point anyhow, and will still require ceramic tiles anyhow.
if its about cost, yet they claim its reusable, if the lower mass saves fuel it will pay for itself. Aluminum isn't much more expensive than stainless.