Jump to content

Kartoffelkuchen

Members
  • Posts

    1,641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,330 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    likes potatocakes

Recent Profile Visitors

28,965 profile views
  1. Funny that you say that. Because in the paragraph above your quoted text, it clearly says they conducted a successful boostback burn, and they did so with all engines igniting and running perfectly fine when looking at the webcast. Looking at the final seconds of the booster, with these high roll rates, it is no wonder the engines didn't light succesfully. It's not hard to imagine that when it's rolling like that and fuel sloshing around inside the tanks, that fuel ports won't be able to draw any fuel reliably. And to emphasize again, that is not a Raptor related issue, but more of a fuel systems and a 'how to prevent fuel sloshing' issue. So I'd like to call your "Raptors can't relight successfully" argument fully debunked now with that successful boostback burn, until we a re proven otherwise by SpaceX.
  2. I loosely follow this thread and their updates, but the speed they're moving at sure is looking impressive. Getting the powerhead of such an engine to work probably has to be the most difficult task. I'm stoked for what's to come!
  3. Apparently some airlines did a voluntary inspection of the plugs and found loose and damaged bolts, leading to that FAA notice.
  4. Hey guys, my blocker for *individual persons* does not have the effect it should when all of you pick up on *the persons* arguments again and again. I am by no means a moderator, but I think that literally all of the counterarguments have at least been made twice now. Perhaps just let the person post their statements into the void, until something with a bit more substance to it comes up?
  5. We might need to go even bigger to make Starship truly reliable... Kerbal OG's might remember
  6. You are absolutely right, it almost certainly is an engine explosion we see here. The question we've been discussing all this time is why it did happen, and the #1 source is likely not that it happened because of faulty engines, but because the engines didn't receive any more fuel. See when that turbopump, spinning at dozens of thousands of RPM, is not filled by fuel any more which protects it from runaway, it will spin up even faster and disintegrate, making the engine fail. SN8 and SN10 as mentioned above had a similar failure cascade: no fuel / bubbles in fuel, leading to the engine failure.
  7. Not again. If your cars fuel pump breaks down and the engine stops working, would you say that the engine is unreliable? - Yeah, an amateur who doesn't know about the subsystems required to run your engine perhaps would say that. We still don't know with certainty what happened, so let's not start this discussion again, until we get a little more insight.
  8. Probably a greater internal volume to use, and perhaps lower reentry thermal loading in the forward section due to the stubbier shape?
  9. Can the engines gimbal? From the way they are integrated into the heatshield I'd assume they can't. So they'd have to resolve to shutting of the engine on the other side in case of a failure to balance the thrust. Let's hope they have their engine reliability in check then! I'm >stoked to see this fly
  10. We've had this exact discussion like two pages ago, what's the point about in discussing this again? We know the engine is not as reliable as one could hope for with another flight test coming up soon. Some like the approach, others don't. Apparently SpaceX has the money to give their vehicle a go anyway and see what happens.
  11. I think the point he's critizicing is that SpaceX choose to go ahead with the first orbital flight test, while they knew their engines still were pretty unreliable and the vehicle had a high chance of multiple engine failures / loss of control because of that. No one blames them for exploding engines when they are still in development and are properly tested on the ground. However, knowingly sending your rocket up with engines which are likely to fail on ascent is a bit "meh". Obviously we don't have the full picture though. It could be that they were done simulating everything they can, and just had to know if their launch vehicle design worked as their simulations shown to progress their work. At some point you have to make that jump. Still, I agree with him here that perhaps the test feels a bit rushed, and if they had spent a couple more months proving their engines work halfway reliable it would have greatly increased the chance of a successful first test flight.
  12. Very lovely to see such a big interest in my work here. I've stepped aside from modding for quite a while, but I'll see if I can cook something up for you guys once my time schedule eases up a bit in the next weeks.
  13. Could you please elaborate on your mystical answer? In how far would adding a second Vulcain to the Ariane V or 6 be of any help in making it a more competitive launch vehicle, because I don't get what you are trying to imply.
  14. Yeah, it's pretty nuts to think about. However, not as crazy from an aerodynamic perspective with air density and thus dynamic pressure being very, very low at that altitude and, compared to reentry velocities, low speed at stage seperation. I was much more worried about the aerodynamic stability during ascend leading up to Max-Q, since with the flaps being deployed, that will quickly generate a huge momentum if you deviate even just a little from your velocity vector. When we're talking about the actual stage seperation mechanism, I'm not really sure what the benefits to doing it this flippy way would be, except for a lower structural mass. But I'm sure they have their reasons, or we will very quickly let them see switching their strategy. Rapid iteration in aerospace is always exciting to watch
  15. Like the thing just doing barrel rolls in 35km altitude? Soooo incredibly Kerbal, yeah. Not enough gimbal authority and too much lift in the front obviously, we all know it. /s
×
×
  • Create New...