Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

So the flaps got redesigned again? I wonder how much harder would it be to make them more like flush airbrakes than flappy wings.

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

So the flaps got redesigned again? I wonder how much harder would it be to make them more like flush airbrakes than flappy wings.

Where did you get that from? We don't know whether the flaps have been redesigned, only that SN4 won't get them.

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

21 more skipped?

***
"Spaceballs", the final countdown. (from memory)

"9... 8... 6..."
"Where's 7?!"
"Just joking. 5... 4..."

SN26 is a raptor engine, and they built SN 1-25.

For starships, still on SN4, then going to SN 5 and 6 in sequence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Where did you get that from? We don't know whether the flaps have been redesigned, only that SN4 won't get them.

 

Flaps being redesigned as of this week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know what raptor's minimum throttle is? Trying to work out the max flight duration.

Takeoff TWR probably has to be at least 1.2

TWR has to average 1.

At the end of the flight you'll be in trouble if minimum TWR is greater than 1 because you won't be able to decelerate down to the pad (no significant downward velocity to arrest with a high terminal TWR).

 

Should be able to ballpark the average throttle setting, and therefore flight time and max altitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RCgothic said:

At the end of the flight you'll be in trouble if minimum TWR is greater than 1 because you won't be able to decelerate down to the pad (no significant downward velocity to arrest with a high terminal TWR).

It seems like you are confusing the engine's TWR with the entire ship's TWR. Or maybe you are just confusing me.

Anyway, I thought Falcon9's landing TWR was greater than 1, which is why it doesn't hover like New Shepard does. You can have an arbitrarily high TWR and still go for a 0/0 landing, but the required precision gets harder and harder as the TWR goes up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It seems like you are confusing the engine's TWR with the entire ship's TWR. Or maybe you are just confusing me.

Anyway, I thought Falcon9's landing TWR was greater than 1, which is why it doesn't hover like New Shepard does. You can have an arbitrarily high TWR and still go for a 0/0 landing, but the required precision gets harder and harder as the TWR goes up.

The the TWR of the whole F9 booster is indeedn >1 at landing. Think they aim for zero velocity JUST above the pad (and it takes some small time for the thrust to spool down I think).

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It seems like you are confusing the engine's TWR with the entire ship's TWR. Or maybe you are just confusing me.

Anyway, I thought Falcon9's landing TWR was greater than 1, which is why it doesn't hover like New Shepard does. You can have an arbitrarily high TWR and still go for a 0/0 landing, but the required precision gets harder and harder as the TWR goes up.

I think we have a misunderstanding. A TWR of greater than 1 is required at landing or you go splat.

But you must also have negative velocity. If you are incapable of negative velocity because you can't throttle low enough you will not be landing today.

E.g: A notional craft has max TWR 1.4 at liftoff and 2 at burnout. But its minimum throttle setting gives a TWR of 1.2 at lowest. That craft is going up and up and up and not coming back down.

Starship without fins is incapable of controlled flight with engine off. It must burn continuously from take off to landing.

Edited by RCgothic
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

But you must also have negative velocity. If you are incapable of negative velocity because you can't throttle low enough you will not be landing today.

Well, I mean, you will, grabbity being what it is, just a bit later and, ironically, faster than you had planned... -_-

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

But its minimum throttle setting gives a TWR of 1.2 at lowest. That craft is going up and up and up and not coming back down.

Its minimum TWR ratio is 0, as long as the engines can be shut down.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

I think we have a misunderstanding. A TWR of greater than 1 is required at landing or you go splat.

But you must also have negative velocity. If you are incapable of negative velocity because you can't throttle low enough you will not be landing today.

E.g: A notional craft has max TWR 1.4 at liftoff and 2 at burnout. But its minimum throttle setting gives a TWR of 1.2 at lowest. That craft is going up and up and up and not coming back down.

Starship without fins is incapable of controlled flight with engine off. It must burn continuously from take off to landing.

F9 TWR is never below 1 at all, even on 1 engine, throttled down. Dry mass is something like 22 tonnes? very little prop left.

"Hoverslam" is basically aiming for zero velocity just before impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that lands usually has a positive sink rate (that is to, it is going down) (If it is climbing it could possibly land, but only if the ground is rising to meet it, like an airplane landing on an upsloped runway.)

Airplanes and helicopters typically aim for a target sink rate at touchdown, and the landing gear are designed to cushion that blow. Parachutes are also designed to provide a specific sink rate at touchdown.

New Shepard seems to be designed to decelerate to a hover just above the ground, and then the thrust is reduced and it settles down. At the actual moment of touchdown, its lift <= weight and it is sinking.

Falcon9 is unusual because its lift > weight as it approaches the pad. So it relies on having built up an excess sink rate that it is scrubbing off. (This is functionally equivalent to "the ground rising to meet it".) The goal is to achieve something right about zero velocity very near the moment of touchdown, and then to shut off the engines.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to post
Share on other sites

This "Chronicles of Riddick" landing style won't finish happily (not) once, like any streetracers' shenanigans.

If it doesn't stop in several meters, hover, then slowly get down, like a lawful chopper, it's good for logs but not for pax.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

This "Chronicles of Riddick" landing style won't finish happily (not) once, like any streetracers' shenanigans.

If it doesn't stop in several meters, hover, then slowly get down, like a lawful chopper, it's good for logs but not for pax.

Yes, we have already seen SpaceX divert Falcons to crash into the ocean when something wasn't nominal with the landing. That's not really an option with a crewed vehicle.

(Or rather, it is an option, just not a good one. It is occasionally done with airplanes.)

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Yes, we have already seen SpaceX divert Falcons to crash into the ocean when something wasn't nominal with the landing. That's not really an option with a crewed vehicle.

(Or rather, it is an option, just not a good one. It is occasionally done with airplanes.)

Definitely not a good option when the landing is happening on Mars, where there is no ocean to divert to...

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

F9 TWR is never below 1 at all, even on 1 engine, throttled down. Dry mass is something like 22 tonnes? very little prop left.

"Hoverslam" is basically aiming for zero velocity just before impact.

Yup, but Falcon 9 is coming in with substantial negative velocity that needs to be countered, and has fins for controlled flight before engine ignition.

Elon has said SN4 would be uncontrolled without the main engine(s) being constant on. So the TWR must be capable of going below 1 so that the craft can start to come back down again. 

Unless you're willing to do some serious cosine stunt flying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Yup, but Falcon 9 is coming in with substantial negative velocity that needs to be countered, and has fins for controlled flight before engine ignition.

Elon has said SN4 would be uncontrolled without the main engine(s) being constant on. So the TWR must be capable of going below 1 so that the craft can start to come back down again. 

Unless you're willing to do some serious cosine stunt flying.

Well maybe they are throttling the engine well below it's capacity for the test. the water tower was able to hover, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Yup, but Falcon 9 is coming in with substantial negative velocity that needs to be countered, and has fins for controlled flight before engine ignition.

Elon has said SN4 would be uncontrolled without the main engine(s) being constant on. So the TWR must be capable of going below 1 so that the craft can start to come back down again. 

Unless you're willing to do some serious cosine stunt flying.

We don't know what the mass is on SN4, but north of 100t, right? Raptor throttles down to somewhere above 40% (he tweeted that at 40% it gets chuggy). So if it's 100-something tons with props, and throttles to 40-something, there you go.

I thought we were talking about a real entry, engines off, then they light up right before landing. Final SS might well be able to hover on Earth.

Just now, Nightside said:

Well maybe they are throttling the engine well below it's capacity for the test. the water tower was able to hover, right?

Same thing, super heavy build, engine throttles pretty deep.

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

We don't know what the mass is on SN4, but north of 100t, right? Raptor throttles down to somewhere above 40% (he tweeted that at 40% it gets chuggy). So if it's 100-something tons with props, and throttles to 40-something, there you go.

I thought we were talking about a real entry, engines off, then they light up right before landing. Final SS might well be able to hover on Earth.

Water tower was able to hover because it had a single engine. SN4 and all the rest of its line have three engines in a triad configuration so there's no way to hover on just one central engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Elon has said SN4 would be uncontrolled without the main engine(s) being constant on. So the TWR must be capable of going below 1 so that the craft can start to come back down again. 

Unless you're willing to do some serious cosine stunt flying.

I think there is a wording issue here with "uncontrolled."  Elon doesn't mean that if the engine is off, Starship is "unstable," he means that you cannot pitch or yaw without the engine/gimbal. With this in mind, a test flight will likely be a powered ascent actively controlled by engine/gimbal, coast to apogee and unpowered descent, then late burn to make final corrections (due to wind, etc) and arrest descent rate. In this scenario, the nose will be pointed the same direction in all phases of flight, so in a perfect world with no wind, you could in theory, not control Starship's pitch or yaw at all if it starts exactly 90* to the horizon

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

Water tower was able to hover because it had a single engine. SN4 and all the rest of its line have three engines in a triad configuration so there's no way to hover on just one central engine.

I totally spaced that. You are right.

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...