Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

If this is the issue then they've run into an interesting problem. I'm not sure how they'd set up a debris shield given that the three SL Raptors are so close together and gimbal at such a high angle during the flip maneuver and landing burn.

I pointed this problem out a long time ago.

It's definitely a concern with any cluster of engines. Redundancy is illusory when a failure of one engine can take out the others.

2 hours ago, paul_c said:

Lost comms and can't see it due to fog, would easily be solved by not flying it in the fog. It seemed a weird move to go ahead in that weather.

100% agree.

Either they really didn't care what happened, or they were suffering from some major "go fever".

I suppose it's possible that they either needed to fly this thing or tear it apart, because they needed to move on to the next block of designs anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

If this is the issue then they've run into an interesting problem. I'm not sure how they'd set up a debris shield given that the three SL Raptors are so close together and gimbal at such a high angle during the flip maneuver and landing burn.

You want an shield for the turbo pumps not the engines themselves. The lox pump is very high up, the methane pump they might integrate the shield into the engine if needed, perhaps on the other side of the combustion  chamber as splinter has to pass trough the pretty thick walled combustion chamber first. 

10 minutes ago, Ethan13 said:

What happened? Why was the broadcast so bad? Why is the landing even worse than it was before? I hope no one got hurt? 
 

None was hurt, Everyday astronaut was worried about his deployed cameras however. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ethan13 said:

What happened? Why was the broadcast so bad? Why is the landing even worse than it was before? I hope no one got hurt? 
 

The fog in Boca Chica this morning reduced visibility a lot, so ground tracking and even pad cams couldn't pick up anything, and the only source of footage was from cameras in the aft skirt and on the nose.

As for the freeze after the first engine light, that could be explained by a loss of comms, or (more likely IMHO) some kind of Rapid Unplanned Destruction that destroyed that part of the vehicle.

The landing wasn't necessarily worse than before, the explosion just happened in the air so the debris spread out farther.

Nobody got hurt, we would have heard about it, and nobody is anywhere near the launch/landing site anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ethan13 said:

Apparently, I had a connection problem. I had half of the live broadcast with freezes. Thank you for your answers.  Your explanations helped me imagine what happened there.

You can go back and watch these:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Yes, it’s a successful test of the flight termination system.

Do we know that it's the FTS?

If it was, some of the chunks seem a bit larger than I would imagine, but I'm not a pyrotechnics expert or qualified to know what they should look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Do we know that it's the FTS?

If it was, some of the chunks seem a bit larger than I would imagine, but I'm not a pyrotechnics expert or qualified to know what they should look like.

All FTS does is open the tanks (with explosives).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

Do we know that it's the FTS?

If it was, some of the chunks seem a bit larger than I would imagine, but I'm not a pyrotechnics expert or qualified to know what they should look like.

Quote
From my contacts at KSC.
Two engines failed to relight for flip, vehicle was out of proper position for landing, Flight Termination System self activated.

My contacts at SpaceX are saying something very similar. AFTS terminated the vehicle due to vehicle moving out of the allowed corridor for relight and landing. AFTS triggered several hundreds of feet above ground level.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53270.msg2213559#msg2213559

Edited by sh1pman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a ship with a large amount of explosive fuel and oxidizer had a problem as it was plummeting to the earth and moved "out of the allowed corridor", so they exploded it in mid-air and pieces of steel rained down on the area.

Yeah, I guess I can see why everybody was right in saying that the FAA has nothing to be worried about regulating here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Yeah, I guess I can see why everybody was right in saying that the FAA has nothing to be worried about regulating here.

Presumably the danger area they have planned for (and the FAA has signed off on) includes what they would expect if they unzipped the vehicle at something like maximum altitude (or min alt and more propellants, not sure at what point the danger is maximized).

The "allowed corridor" doesn't mean it left protected airspace, it means that if it varies by some small amount off the the planned flight path, it terminates the flight—before it gets far enough away that areas outside the danger area are at risk, right?

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tater said:

Presumably the danger area they have planned for (and the FAA has signed off on) includes what they would expect if they unzipped the vehicle at something like maximum altitude (or min alt and more propellants, not sure at what point the danger is maximized).

This. The system worked. The rules worked. The existing regulations worked
 

However, just add a bit more mud...

 

now, “RUD” to me sounds like it wasn’t deliberately terminated...

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Tater - I'm on my phone... What's the image? 

grimes in a rather strange outfit standing before BN1 in the high bay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ExWtlyjWUAcJsw7?format=jpg

 

Exq306wXAAgddgj?format=jpg

I am wondering if this structure might be for moving that long distances...

Ie: say they mocked it up as the lunar version (flat nose), and wanted to ship it to Houston.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...