magnemoe Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 hour ago, jadebenn said: I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than it just suddenly popping a seam. On one hand, it would mean that their tanks weren't crap. On the other hand, it would suggest they had no alternative safe-guards and therefore had a single point of failure. This depend on uses. If fail in one direction is much worse than others you make that stronger. On an manned falcon 9 you want the upper stage not to blow the upper bulkhead, better that the side wall fails so you make the upper bulkhead a bit stronger. An real life example, on M1 tanks the ammunition for the gun is stored in the back of the turret. who has an long back unlike WW 2 tanks or designs like T-72 with an round turret. Benefit of this is that if something penetrates here and sets fire to the gunpowder the roof of the ammunisjon compartment is designed to pop out. Turret popping as the gunpowder burns is an known issue and you have probably seen tanks with blown off turrets in images from wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: If they say that they’re going straight for Mk3, what will happen with Mk2? Will it still fly? No idea how the first FL vehicle differs. They did seem to slow down on Mk2, and it almost looks taller to me. Maybe it incorporates some of the changes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 They’ve said the decision was already made that this wasn’t going to fly, and Mk 3 will be radically different... I wonder if perhaps this was a deliberate test-to-failure, to see exactly how it failed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: I wonder if perhaps this was a deliberate test-to-failure, to see exactly how it failed? Not a chance. Otherwise they would have said so, precisely to avoid everybody saying "OMG, look it blew up!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: They’ve said the decision was already made that this wasn’t going to fly, and Mk 3 will be radically different... I wonder if perhaps this was a deliberate test-to-failure, to see exactly how it failed? Doubt it, as MK3 is using larger steel panels it make no sense testing its tank strength for MK3. Now testing tank strength early makes lots of sense. That is before you add all sort of stuff like flaps and landing legs to it. You also want another test after you added it. 1 minute ago, mikegarrison said: Not a chance. Otherwise they would have said so, precisely to avoid everybody saying "OMG, look it blew up!" And its the other obvious reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said: I blame Musk And in related news, water spotted flowing downhill. 2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said: since his excessively tight scheduling regime leaves little room for error, meaning every test, every inspection, every review has to be perfect. Humans aren’t. Though we don’t know the cause yet- it often is rooted in human error- and if it’s mechanical- that’s even more reason to panic as that’s a sign of ineptitude or an engineer’s design ignorance. Either way, this does not paint Musk in a good light. Absolute cobblers. We have two competing Starship teams building separate prototypes. We have the mark Mk2 and Mk3 prototypes under construction before the Mk1 has even flown. This whole program is based on rapid iteration and the failure of one prototype tells you very little about the rest of the development schedule. Unless you have the ear of a SpaceX project manager or two and are privy to information that the rest of us don't have. In which case, please do share. With all that said, is this a setback? Yes. It means that whatever other tests they were going to run with Mk1 will probably need to be run on Mk2 or later. Does this need to be investigated? Absolutely. There's no point doing rapid iteration if all of your rapidly iterated designs pop their tops before getting to the launchpad. Is this a reason to panic or cast shade about ineptitude or design ignorance? No it is not. Does this paint Musk in a good light? That depends if you like Musk to begin with, I'd say. Edited November 21, 2019 by KSK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 They forgot to attach this to their steam boiler, like all people do. Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 39 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: They forgot to attach this to their steam boiler, like all people do. Hide contents That would not help you with over pressure in an boiler. The governor only regulates speed. That you need is an safety valve. Something starship has because of bleed off of methane and LOX. However as this probably was an overpressure test it would not been used Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micha Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, magnemoe said: However as this probably was an overpressure test it would not been used I don't see a credible source stating it was an "over"pressure test. SpaceX put out an official statement that the systems would be pressurised to the max. Ok, I guess one could read that as "max possible", I read that as "max spec". (Pressure vessels are generally rated slightly above spec to give some leeway). Regardless, you'd think they'd Reconfigure the safety valve to the target test pressure, not just disable it. Have alternative additional safety systems (burst discs etc) to prevent a RUD in the event that there was a problem with the pressure test itself (ie, the test delivered more pressure than planned) Have slowly ramped up pressure-tests until they were reasonably confident an over-pressure test would not compromise the integrity It all points to the tank itself having either been damaged/stressed during building/moving of the prototype, or not having been fully tested to spec prior to installation meaning there was no way to know whether it was actually built to the spec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, micha said: I don't see a credible source stating it was an "over"pressure test. SpaceX put out an official statement that the systems would be pressurised to the max. Ok, I guess one could read that as "max possible", I read that as "max spec". (Pressure vessels are generally rated slightly above spec to give some leeway). Regardless, you'd think they'd Reconfigure the safety valve to the target test pressure, not just disable it. Have alternative additional safety systems (burst discs etc) to prevent a RUD in the event that there was a problem with the pressure test itself (ie, the test delivered more pressure than planned) Have slowly ramped up pressure-tests until they were reasonably confident an over-pressure test would not compromise the integrity It all points to the tank itself having either been damaged/stressed during building/moving of the prototype, or not having been fully tested to spec prior to installation meaning there was no way to know whether it was actually built to the spec. Either reconfigured or disabled, they knew the pressure anyway and it would be easy to vent. Its no other ways to test the strength of the tank, yes you inspect the welds but they needed an pressure test and pressurizing it to standard pressure of 3 bar don't give any information other than it can handle 3 bar an short time sitting still. For one thing load would be higher during acceleration As they was pumping inn nitrogen it would ramp up pressure that way. They clearly did not expected it to have any chance for fail since they did not test this at once they had the tanks ready but added the fins first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, magnemoe said: That would not help you with over pressure in an boiler. That would help to not overpressure. 21 minutes ago, magnemoe said: They clearly did not expected it to have any chance for fail since they did not test this at once they had the tanks ready but added the fins first. It's very wise to attach equipment before trying the hull itself. P.S. Happily, not a Martian ISRU. Edited November 21, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said: That would help to not overpressure. It's very wise to attach equipment before trying the hull itself. P.S. Happily, not a Martian ISRU. An governor like the one you shows only keep the RPM constant. if pressure is higher you would need less steam so it will close more. And yes you would pressure test the finished system too. For one you have welded on it you also want to test the piping you have added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, magnemoe said: An governor like the one you shows only keep the RPM constant. if pressure is higher you would need less steam so it will close more. It just provides a simplest mechanical negative loopback, so it also can be attached to any flow control. Say, to a fuel or gas pipe, to decrease the flow on pressure growth. Edited November 21, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 22 hours ago, tater said: Cool to see the engine covers popping off!!! 16 hours ago, tater said: They did something different with the tank dome in FL, actually. It's too bad, the whole thing smoothed out under pressure, looked much cleaner before it blew. I noticed that! 9 hours ago, jadebenn said: No offense, but that's like excusing a boiler explosion by saying it was under a lot of pressure. This is not cutting edge materials science. We know how to make pressure vessels that don't blow up when in use. I'm not so sure. We do not know exactly how to make reusable, lightweight pressure vessels that can go to orbit and come back and don't blow up when in use. 8 hours ago, tater said: Definitely an issue to be addressed, BTW---whatever the failure was, GSE, welds, failed pressure release valve (does it have one?). Best "silver lining" would be if it was indeed accidentally overpressured beyond 3X, and they got good data. I agree. I have done a significant amount of work in the past with steel pipeline pressurization and there is NOTHING that gives you as much good data as a burst test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinimumSky5 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Pivoting back to B1048... I've been wondering why the legs were removed, and I've just had a thought: Is this the booster for the in flight abort test? Given that one of the big changes recently in the first stages was mods to make retraction of the legs easier, and there aren't that many solidly scheduled launches coming up, I can't see why they'd rush to get the legs off, unless the next flight doesn't need them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 2 hours ago, MinimumSky5 said: Pivoting back to B1048... I've been wondering why the legs were removed, and I've just had a thought: Is this the booster for the in flight abort test? Given that one of the big changes recently in the first stages was mods to make retraction of the legs easier, and there aren't that many solidly scheduled launches coming up, I can't see why they'd rush to get the legs off, unless the next flight doesn't need them. Could be, or the legs took some damage or they want to inspect them anyway. However metric might be that this stage is more reliable so they use it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Could be, or the legs took some damage or they want to inspect them anyway. However metric might be that this stage is more reliable so they use it They had been pulling legs off normally. OTOH, this is the first 4th landing, maybe the 1st time they land 4th they pull, then the first 5th landing, etc, to characterize wear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 Before the failed Mk1 test, SpaceX started scrapping the single weld rings in FL. Wonder if the steel outfit can make them custom rings... Seems like the best weld is no weld, and short of that, the best welded system is the one with fewest welds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 (edited) Welp, we’ve gleaned one tiny detail on the “vastly different design” of the upcoming Mks... they’ll be made from a super-hard cold-rolled type of stainless (not what we’ve seen so far), the same as they’re using in this... thing... Spoiler Edited November 22, 2019 by CatastrophicFailure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 17 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: the same as they’re using in this... thing... I like it. I might actually buy one. I was thinking of a 3 or a Y, and this has 6 seats, is a PU, and same price more or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, tater said: I like it. I might actually buy one. I was thinking of a 3 or a Y, and this has 6 seats, is a PU, and same price more or less. Ooh, what if they build them with scrap from the starship prototypes! (Although they will have some serious flattening to do.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 No air on the Moon. So, why make new teslas rounded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 1 hour ago, tater said: I like it. I might actually buy one. I was thinking of a 3 or a Y, and this has 6 seats, is a PU, and same price more or less. Eh, I'm trying to like it. Definitely looks like it belongs on Mars. Think I'll keep daydreaming about that lightly-used Model X tho... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Ben Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Welp, we’ve gleaned one tiny detail on the “vastly different design” of the upcoming Mks... they’ll be made from a super-hard cold-rolled type of stainless (not what we’ve seen so far), the same as they’re using in this... thing... Hide contents I would assume that is just built on the same chassis to match the in game Cyberpunk as some sort of in game advertising? The design, not "real life". Though might give away the structural design for the truck. No wait... did I wake up in the wrong universe again? Or is this one the one where Elon does go insane and makes Tesla trucks with Sharks with lasers on their heads for taking over the world? Oh well, 24h till I get another chance to jump back to the "good" universe, where KSP was never made in Unity in the first place... Edited November 22, 2019 by Technical Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 (edited) If the skin on that truck is actually steel then it only adds to my suspicion that he's bascially prototyping the whole martian infrastructure and trying to make money off of it. You could literally cut out a part of the Starship hull and use it to fix the truck. Edited November 22, 2019 by Wjolcz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.