Skylon

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

The bocachicagal pics on NSF this morning (she just took them) look fine, lol.

 

 

Share this post


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

The bocachicagal pics on NSF this morning (she just took them) look fine, lol.

 

Some parts of that thing are supposed to withstand reentry heating so I'd guess most of the hopper is OK.

Don't know about the engine though. If it was some sort of leak it wouldn't be flying any time soon even if there was no fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Im pretty sure Starhopper was pretty cold because it was storing cryogenic fluids during the fire, so i think that might have helped protected it from the heat.

Edited by NSEP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, NSEP said:

Im pretty sure Starhopper was pretty cold because it was storing cryogenic fluids during the fire, so i think that might have helped protected it from the heat.

But then there's thermal expansion/stretching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Off-nominal. Off-nominal indeed, this ain't good: 

 

:(

They definitely need some time to investigate and do some fixing so it won't happen again, so it makes sense why would withdraw all the testing this week. If there is little damage i don't expect it take more than a month, but we will see.

 

Share this post


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

They definitely need some time to investigate and do some fixing so it won't happen again, so it makes sense why would withdraw all the testing this week. If there is little damage i don't expect it take more than a month, but we will see.

Just S-uming here, but I would think damage would be light, if anything, also assuming nothing, ahem, catastrophically failed. <_< The whole thing is stainless steel, so pretty flame-resistant, and there's presumably a fair amount of thermal shielding on any wiring, since even during a not-off-nominal event, it gets pretty flamey around the StarHopper's posterior. That, and the fire was short lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Just S-uming here, but I would think damage would be light, if anything, also assuming nothing, ahem, catastrophically failed. <_< The whole thing is stainless steel, so pretty flame-resistant, and there's presumably a fair amount of thermal shielding on any wiring, since even during a not-off-nominal event, it gets pretty flamey around the StarHopper's posterior. That, and the fire was short lived.

Maybe there is a slight chance that these kind of fires would become a signature of Starship, rather than a problem, kind of like the Delta-IV. 

Imagine a monolithic monstrous gigantic humongous shining metallic rocket that graciously emerges from a colossal fireball, that would be an epic sight, i would happily fly over to the US just to see that. (if its safe and doesn't destory the rocket or toast the people inside, obviously)

EDIT: Screw it, i just so happen to be working on a Sci-Fi comic, and my rockets are going to have this effect. Its just sounds so darned epic.

Edited by NSEP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was after the static fire, so maybe GSE related (pretty rigged up pad, after all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, tater said:

Was after the static fire, so maybe GSE related (pretty rigged up pad, after all).

Very likely. I think that some Methane may have leaked out when the hopper popped of the umbilical cord connector, kind of like when you open a bottle of soda that is pressurised, but instead of soda, its evaporating liquid methane.

Edited by NSEP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

missed this last night:

 

Share this post


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

Some parts of that thing are supposed to withstand reentry heating so I'd guess most of the hopper is OK.

I would be very surprised if any part of that test article was intended to survive re-entry heating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

I would be very surprised if any part of that test article was intended to survive re-entry heating.

Well, my phrasing wasn't exactly what I was trying to convey. And then I rethought what I wrote. What I was trying to say is that the materials and/or the main frame should be fine (because they are similar enough to the orbital prototype) after a fire like that. But then I remembered about heat expansion. Also, I don't know what kind of temperatures might have been involved but if I had to guess they definitely were much lower than reentry heating (not to mention the pressures involved).

I kind of want to see that thing hover at least.

Edited by Wjolcz

Share this post


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

I would be very surprised if any part of that test article was intended to survive re-entry heating.

Yeah, that's not a thing. It is designed to withstand a rocket engine, however, and apparently did, twice now, and the subsequent fire around it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NSEP said:

Very likely. I think that some Methane may have leaked out when the hopper popped of the umbilical cord connector, kind of like when you open a bottle of soda that is pressurised, but instead of soda, its evaporating liquid methane.

Yes, it could also be one of the engines not shutting down methane flow fast enough. 
To me it looked like it was an fire on the top part to before the fireball?

2 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

Well, my phrasing wasn't exactly what I was trying to convey. And then I rethought what I wrote. What I was trying to say is that the materials and/or the main frame should be fine (because they are similar enough to the orbital prototype) after a fire like that. But then I remembered about heat expansion. Also, I don't know what kind of temperatures might have been involved but if I had to guess they definitely were much lower than reentry heating (not to mention the pressures involved).

I kind of want to see that thing hover at least.


And that fireball would probably damage stuff, yes hull is steel and the engine body is also metal, but not all the electronic and hydraulic systems. 
Your car is mostly steel so can I dump a liter of glassiness on it and lit it :)
Well for starship I would add an floor at or below the narrow par of the surface engines, this will protect the vulnerable upper part of engines, multiple ways to protect the gap because of gimbal. 
This would help against environment, fire also stuff like hot staging during an abort, landings and accidents. 
Yes it would make leaks in the engines more of an issue. 
But it would make servicing easier, just make sure you can enter with an spacesuit :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, tater said:

 

So I compared that to the figures I get based on the assumptions I used in https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/159887-spacex-discussion-thread/&do=findComment&comment=3600985 and https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/159887-spacex-discussion-thread/&do=findComment&comment=3601019

Using the same assumptions, (dry mass 75 tons, payload 100 tons, fully fueled mass 1100 tons, ISP 380) I get a dV of 6850m/s.  If I bump the fully fueled mass up to 1115 then I get 6900m/s.  (Of course Elon only specified 2 significant figures, and 6850m/s would round to 6.9km/s).  But this agrees well enough with my calculated figures that the assumptions in those two posts look reasonable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

Elon would have had a busy night, he was doing this as well...

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vbh3t7WVI&app=desktop

It don’t start till somewhere the middle of the vid. 

Super interesting though! I don’t know if I would be able to let a robot sewing machine sew my brain D:

but looks interesting!!!

 

It’s no problem, he’s multithreaded now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there has just been a new static fire w.o. the fireball. Saw it on a yt video from lapadre. Or i could be wrong.

 

Let's see what the experts have to say :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said:

I believe there has just been a new static fire w.o. the fireball. Saw it on a yt video from lapadre. Or i could be wrong.

 

Let's see what the experts have to say :)

I popped on the YT starship watcher cameras and there are scissor lifts next to Hopper, no way they fired it. Also, I thought they pulled the road closures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Flying dutchman said:

I believe there has just been a new static fire w.o. the fireball. Saw it on a yt video from lapadre. Or i could be wrong.

 

Let's see what the experts have to say :)

The video Labpadre posted was just an upload of one of the tests. I think i read somewhere that there were 2 static fires on July 16th, but im not sure about that.

Share this post


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.