cubinator 8,497 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 8 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: I doubt they'll reuse any Starships until they've stopped rapidly iterating on it. By the time a prototype flies, it's already been made obsolete by the next one. Seeing SN10 do a 100km flight would be awesome though. Since when did "obsolete" have anything to do with "fun to watch soaring into the sky"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clamp-o-Tron 941 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) 13 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: I doubt they'll reuse any Starships until they've stopped rapidly iterating on it. By the time a prototype flies, it's already been made obsolete by the next one. Seeing SN10 do a 100km flight would be awesome though. You can still learn a lot from obsolete prototypes, especially aerodynamics, as there probably aren't a lot of changes to the tried-and-true (at least once!) control scheme. A 100km flight would be tremendously useful in determining the flight characteristics in thin atmosphere and long-term Raptor firings, even if it wouldn't replicate orbital reentry velocities. Worst-case scenario they lose a landing pad, which as we see with SN-8 wasn't much of a big deal. Edited January 5 by Clamp-o-Tron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RealKerbal3x 5,508 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 2 minutes ago, cubinator said: Since when did "obsolete" have anything to do with "fun to watch soaring into the sky"? Obviously watching SN9 fly to 100km would be mind-bogglingly awesome. I just don't think it would make sense to reuse it with an improved prototype almost ready to go. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
magnemoe 2,630 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Yeah, I got ahead of myself. Think once you reach 10 km attitude they make it unlimited as this is the attitude of commercial and private jets. Air traffic control don't regulate attitudes above 60 K feet as its just a few military and research planes so high. SR71: QQ requesting clearance to flight level 600 ATC: QQ, climb and maintain flight level 600... if you can get there. SR71: Roger, descending to flight level 600 from 850. 4 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said: You can still learn a lot from obsolete prototypes, especially aerodynamics, as there probably aren't a lot of changes to the tried-and-true (at least once!) control scheme. A 100km flight would be tremendously useful in determining the flight characteristics in thin atmosphere and long-term Raptor firings, even if it wouldn't replicate orbital reentry velocities. Worst-case scenario they lose a landing pad, which as we see with SN-8 wasn't much of a big deal. This, you can also take risks with an obsolete prototype you would not with the top line unit, stuff like engine out during landing burn tests as an example. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
StrandedonEarth 7,158 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 A reflight would also be good for durability testing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RCgothic 2,001 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Static fire alert for tomorrow: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kerbiloid 10,805 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 "At a minimum, you must exit your home or structure and be outside of any building..." ... laying on ground with face down and feet to the flash. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scotius 3,002 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Time to dig bunkers in backyards! Or at the very least foxholes Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kerbiloid 10,805 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Scotius said: Time to dig bunkers in backyards! Or at the very least foxholes Spoiler P.S. How to recognize the Long Island villagers these days? They are walking with opened mouths to protect ears from sudden barotrauma. Edited January 6 by kerbiloid Quote Link to post Share on other sites
magnemoe 2,630 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 1 hour ago, RealKerbal3x said: How do they know who part is to who version, yes some parts are named but guess not all. Like SN13 being just an header tank and 14+15 would make almost an rocket if combined. On the other hand they probably has an pipeline. They probably will add 3 more engines. This so they can do higher jumps and they need piping for this. Surface engines there the vacuum engines will be placed so they need some extensions to not burn the skirt. Now for orbital burns how will Starship land? Landing back at launch site require overflying the US. On the other hand the shuttle did and starliner does to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli 475 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) 23 hours ago, RCgothic said: Static fire alert for tomorrow: [snip] Edited January 7 by Vanamonde Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zolotiyeruki 466 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 1 hour ago, Scotius said: Time to dig bunkers in backyards! Or at the very least foxholes Down there, you'd probably be lucky to dig a foxhole without hitting the water table... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
StrandedonEarth 7,158 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 2 hours ago, kerbiloid said: "At a minimum, you must exit your home or structure and be outside of any building..." ... laying on ground with face down and feet to the flash. Put your head between your knees so you’re ready in case you need to kiss your S goodbye. Jokes aside, it’s a delight to see the astounding production pace at Boca Chica Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deddly 5,022 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) OK guys, being critical of a space agency is one thing, but openly mocking them is going a bit too far because it is a matter of national pride for a lot of our international community, so let's please not take it any further than that (apart from the fact that CNSA is off topic for this thread). (Not saying anyone in particular was openly mocking, but it looked like it was heading that way) Edited January 6 by Deddly Small clarification Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flavio hc16 339 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 1 hour ago, magnemoe said: How do they know who part is to who version, yes some parts are named but guess not all. Like SN13 being just an header tank and 14+15 would make almost an rocket if combined. On the other hand they probably has an pipeline. They probably will add 3 more engines. This so they can do higher jumps and they need piping for this. Surface engines there the vacuum engines will be placed so they need some extensions to not burn the skirt. Now for orbital burns how will Starship land? Landing back at launch site require overflying the US. On the other hand the shuttle did and starliner does to. Imho they are building sn13-14 as backup for the 11-12 for the hypersonic flight. It is highly speculative, but Elon wants imho sn15 to be the first orbital one Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RealKerbal3x 5,508 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Road is closed! We may be seeing a static fire today! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RealKerbal3x 5,508 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 There might be another test tank coming soon: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceception 3,602 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) It looks like the vehicles are leaving now. EDIT Scratch that, venting! Edited January 6 by Spaceception Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RealKerbal3x 5,508 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 NSF is live! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RCgothic 2,001 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Static fire! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scotius 3,002 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 That was quite short. Is it a good sign, or a bad sign? At least there were no flying bits Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cubinator 8,497 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 20 minutes ago, Scotius said: That was quite short. Is it a good sign, or a bad sign? At least there were no flying bits I think it's fine. They probably just want to see that the engine lights up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CatastrophicFailure 16,717 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 22 minutes ago, Scotius said: That was quite short. Is it a good sign, or a bad sign? At least there were no flying bits I think that may be why it was so short, longer burns have tended to run a little, well, pad-rich. Everything about SN9 has been quite short, seems like only yesterday they brought it to the pad, no extended cryo-test campaign, could maybe fly as soon as Friday. That speaks to just how confident and comfortable they’re becoming with both the design and flight procedures. I expect SN10 is already on the pad, but the photons involved were caught off guard and are still milling about the build site, feeling very confused. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RCgothic 2,001 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Don't know. Could be they wanted a short one, or could be an early abort. We won't really know until they press on to flight. In other news: SN6 has had its mass simulator removed, paving the way for it to be mated to the lunar mockup. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
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.