Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

Like this:

kzWS_Lr_NjwsaBze9hZgkW8B9Z8iYFQ25pQyAMbZ5jN1WlsFTvxBxJUnzoyEU34kOSF_wVjQPj1G61HwWJixJNZNBbNlP4rqAETdN8Yt1-IZI9WzJXPldE90luu0_sT0WcTrU-fn

The bold part of the line is the side with the tiles, and the blue circle is the fuel tank. They can move the tanks to offset the weight of the tiles.

How does that help with full/empty different CoM, etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that they're planning to land on 1-2 engines anyway (i.e. center of thrust is offset), plus the gimbal range, I'm not particularly concerned about the small shift in CoM due to the tiles.  Besides, if you double-hull the windward side, that would shift the fuel leeward, but you'd be adding a whole second layer of stainless steel on the windward side, too, therefore adding more weight where you don't want it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiles are not terribly heavy, they can probably easily ballast the windward side if desirable since any such ballast will be outside a tank radius, whereas the CM of the tiles is inside the tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

Move it to the point where the two CoM are close as possible.

You'll have to elaborate there - a full tank weighs much more than an empty tank. Thus, putting the tank anywhere other than centre, is not "as close as possible".

Putting something else - it could be anything, so long as its staying attached for the landing - would work fine though. I imagine there is a lot of plumbing, electrical wiring, computer modules, other rocketry stuff inside the fuselage, so it will be very easy to rebalance the CoM to the middle even with one side tiled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about legs, it occurs to me that we don't necessarily have to consider "external" legs (within a bulge, etc) as being under the heat shield, or perforating it.

Ie: a bulge is covered with tiles, and if the gear pop out, they must not break the tiles, or have a gap. Even a Shuttle like gear door is trouble in this reading of things.

What if the hull is in fact a perfect cylinder, covered with TPS. The legs are then outside the TPS, and themselves covered with TPS (or the gear cover made of something that functions as such)? Yes, twice the mass of TPS in those regions.

Imagine a F9 type leg where the aeroshell over it is reinforced carbon-carbon (like shuttle leading edges). This is mounted on top of a complete tile pattern. Perhaps there could be some vertical, leveling feet inside the skirt as the gear are now as well. The F9 style function as outriggers for rough ground (with crush cores), the vertical ones more like jacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

how much more weight will SS have with all the tiles on it?

(also - if they're only on one side, doesn't that make landing a bit more... fraught?)

I've always assumed that it'd be a little like 'ye olde' Shuttle with thermal insulation on the other, non-heatshield side...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tater said:

Thinking about legs, it occurs to me that we don't necessarily have to consider "external" legs (within a bulge, etc) as being under the heat shield, or perforating it.

Ie: a bulge is covered with tiles, and if the gear pop out, they must not break the tiles, or have a gap. Even a Shuttle like gear door is trouble in this reading of things.

What if the hull is in fact a perfect cylinder, covered with TPS. The legs are then outside the TPS, and themselves covered with TPS (or the gear cover made of something that functions as such)? Yes, twice the mass of TPS in those regions.

Imagine a F9 type leg where the aeroshell over it is reinforced carbon-carbon (like shuttle leading edges). This is mounted on top of a complete tile pattern. Perhaps there could be some vertical, leveling feet inside the skirt as the gear are now as well. The F9 style function as outriggers for rough ground (with crush cores), the vertical ones more like jacks.

The mounting points for the leg (for the F9 style, the telescoping cylinder) would have to pass through the interior heat shield. 

You would need a flush fit during re-entry or you would have re-entry plume recirculation between the carbon-carbon aeroshell and the inner tile pattern, in precisely the place where the machinery of the legs is stored.

If you have a flush fit, you don't need the underlying tile pattern.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much of a gap is a problem?  Can't the bulges (that hinge outward to release the gear) be fit tight enough to the body to prevent gas entry? Perhaps if you pressurize the inside of the bulges? (Pressurize with what? Methane? They were thinking of using methane to cool the skin earlier. But it would make a disconcerting exciting fire ball upon deployment. Maybe pressurize the bulges with methane/LOX compunction products...have a small APU burner to make the gas?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, YNM said:

I've always assumed that it'd be a little like 'ye olde' Shuttle with thermal insulation on the other, non-heatshield side...

I am pretty sure I remember Elon specifically saying that going with stainless steel means you need no leeward shielding or insulation at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brotoro said:

How much of a gap is a problem?  Can't the bulges (that hinge outward to release the gear) be fit tight enough to the body to prevent gas entry?

If they fit tight enough to prevent gas entry then you don't need any heat shield underneath.

I mean, I suppose that's the brute force solution. Use F9 legs covered in reinforced carbon-carbon instead of just the ablative black paint on the current F9 legs. They close flush to the stainless steel skin all the way around and you simply cut the tiles to wrap around them. Simple enough. You don't even need to bother with a bulge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sevenperforce said:

I am pretty sure I remember Elon specifically saying that going with stainless steel means you need no leeward shielding or insulation at all.

What, they don't need to roll the tanks ? Or is it going to be stainless side to the Sun, heat shield side away all through interplanetary transit ? Honestly I don't think the tiles are that heavy, even if it is they can just run all the pipes etc. on the other side.

Also at the very least you need insulation up in the crew compartment, although this would cover all sides equally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, YNM said:

What, they don't need to roll the tanks ? Or is it going to be stainless side to the Sun, heat shield side away all through interplanetary transit ? Honestly I don't think the tiles are that heavy, even if it is they can just run all the pipes etc. on the other side.

This was back when they were exploring transpiration cooling rather than the heat shield tiles, but the same principle applies for the leeward side.

He's talking about re-entry, though. Not interplanetary transit.

I don't think the weight offset from the tiles is significant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

He's talking about re-entry, though. Not interplanetary transit.

Well, they need to start thinking about that... Pretty sure Shuttle's insulation pads weren't designed with re-entry in mind really, but rather for keeping the craft warm or something. Apollo needs the roll program because of the stainless I suppose... Orion capsule is covered with Nomex on the non-heatshield side.

Edited by YNM
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brotoro said:

Maybe the offset center of mass with the tiles installed sits over one of the Raptors. Not as much tilt needed during landing.

Starship needs to be able to come down on any of the three Raptors; that's the whole engine-out idea (and the reason they went from the 2017 IAC design with 2 SL Raptors to the present design with 3).

Also, the offset center of mass with the tiles installed sits opposite the single dorsal engine, between the two ventral engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The mounting points for the leg (for the F9 style, the telescoping cylinder) would have to pass through the interior heat shield. 

You would need a flush fit during re-entry or you would have re-entry plume recirculation between the carbon-carbon aeroshell and the inner tile pattern, in precisely the place where the machinery of the legs is stored.

If you have a flush fit, you don't need the underlying tile pattern.

Yes, the struts, etc do join to the steel, with TPS all around them—that region would then be covered by TPS on the actual gear. Take an F9 type leg, with the outer part when folded against the tank being TPS. Underneath it, not steel—but tiles. Yeah, there's a missing tile where the struct attaches, but that is covered by the gear itself (TPS).

Edited by tater
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tater said:

Yes, the struts, etc do join to the steel, with TPS all around them—that region would then be covered by TPS on the actual gear. Take an F9 type leg, with the outer part when folded against the tank being TPS. Underneath it, not steel—but tiles. Yeah, there's a missing tile where the struct attaches, but that is covered by the gear itself (TPS).

But why would you need the tiles underneath? If the outer part can be folded flush against the tank then it provides all the TPS for that region.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

But why would you need the tiles underneath? If the outer part can be folded flush against the tank then it provides all the TPS for that region.

There seems to be 2 elements to the TPS system. A blanket, that is delicate, and a tile system above. Run the blanket over the entire windward side. Tile it, and wher ethe gear fold against the outside, the concern is infiltration. You could either have the gear (I'm thinking F9 for simplicity and proof of concept, it could be different in shape/size) mount in flush (cutting the tiles so the gear folds into the gap), but that is a series of long gaps for infiltration. Instead, run the tiles UNDER the place where the TPS covered leg touches, so any infiltration hits tile, or tile gaps that change direction (hexes). If mass is that much of a concern, past the 1 partial tile the gear overlaps, just cover the TPS blanket with a sheet of something to protect it (it's cloth).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tater said:

You could either have the gear (I'm thinking F9 for simplicity and proof of concept, it could be different in shape/size) mount in flush (cutting the tiles so the gear folds into the gap), but that is a series of long gaps for infiltration. Instead, run the tiles UNDER the place where the TPS covered leg touches, so any infiltration hits tile, or tile gaps that change direction (hexes). If mass is that much of a concern, past the 1 partial tile the gear overlaps, just cover the TPS blanket with a sheet of something to protect it (it's cloth).

Ah,  yes, I didn't think about the long gas flow path. 

But yeah if you do it that way you don't even have to cut the tiles. Just have them extend inward.

You would simply omit tiles that were completely shrouded by the leg.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

You would simply omit tiles that were completely shrouded by the leg.

You could, but seriously, compared to 100t of steel, how much mass is that? Sure, it all comes out of payload mass, but this is not a smallsat launcher.

It's a few square meters. Still you could throw a RCC sheet over the gear shaped hole (with hex edges to match the hexes) just to protect the blanket. Course maybe that mass is not hugely different than the tile mass.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

Given that they're planning to land on 1-2 engines anyway (i.e. center of thrust is offset), plus the gimbal range, I'm not particularly concerned about the small shift in CoM due to the tiles.  Besides, if you double-hull the windward side, that would shift the fuel leeward, but you'd be adding a whole second layer of stainless steel on the windward side, too, therefore adding more weight where you don't want it.

This, you only have fuel in the header tank then landing. Now you could offset the header tank but this would change CoM more sideways during landing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, magnemoe said:

This, you only have fuel in the header tank then landing. Now you could offset the header tank but this would change CoM more sideways during landing. 

And the LOX header tank in the nose shifts the CoM higher, away from the engines, making the gimballing even more effective

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...