Wjolcz Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 A static fire would make sense though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Wjolcz said: A static fire would make sense though... yes SpaceX does static fires before the launch. They might drop them with superheavy once they get experience, engine out on that one will make engine out on an B52 with 8 engines look critical. F16 pilots tend to be sarcastic if you request an emergency landing because of engine out on an B52 Starship will also have extremely good abort modes for an cargo missions as in far better than the shuttle who had them because it was manned. And you can refuel in orbit and use an 3rd stage to give you say 14 km/s with an 100 ton payload=Tilt^3. Stuff like Europa sea bed sample return become an option. Tilt^3, SpaceX is probably another Myspace, its just rocket science after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Guysguysguysguysguys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 You beat me to the post by about 2mins! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Wait, so they are going to static fire it without the stuff attached? AWESOME!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said: Wait, so they are going to static fire it without the stuff attached? AWESOME!!! It’s sounding like SN1 is no longer a flight candidate: like @RCgothic posted, probably SN2 now. Which following SpaceX tradition will be called Block 3 by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Maybe that dent they popped out disqualified it from flight, but it’s still a useful test article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 (edited) I kinda had the feeling this would happen... seemed a bit fishy when Musk was talking about the precision required for orbit and how SN2 was better... SpaceX is always very quick to abandon old ways if something might be better. Remember how short-lived the Falcon 1 was once F9 development got going. The good news is, of course, that they really are building these things ridiculously fast! They spent quite a bit of time working out problems with the fuel tanks on SN1, so SN2 construction could potentially go *even* faster Even without SN1, we could still be only a couple months away from having a fully flight-flight-ready vehicle. Also... what about SN1's nosecone? What's gonna happen to that? Edited February 26, 2020 by ThatGuyWithALongUsername Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketSimplicity Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: Also... what about SN1's nosecone? What's gonna happen to that? Maybe they were planning from the start for that to be SN2's nosecone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, RocketSimplicity said: Maybe they were planning from the start for that to be SN2's nosecone? Not from the start but its look like SN1 failed the pressurization test and its no reason not to use the cone on SN2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 29 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Not from the start but its look like SN1 failed the pressurization test and its no reason not to use the cone on SN2. Okay you made me panic for a minute, you meant mk1 and I thought that SN1 had blown up too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, magnemoe said: Not from the start but its look like SN1 failed the pressurization test and its no reason not to use the cone on SN2. ? I'm reiterating what @Ultimate Steve just said for clarity. As far as I know, they have done no pressure tests at all on SN1 yet, it only went to the pad this morning. after all, and no road closures yet. SpaceX has lousy naming schemes (like I should complain, you should see my KSP craft files, ugh). Hopper was a thing. Mark 1 was a thing, they put it all together for the photo op, then took the nose off, and tested the tank—which popped. Then they built SN1. The tank at the launch site right now is SN1, untested. Parts for SN2 are already being constructed, too. Edited February 26, 2020 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Speculation over at NSF and the wording of those tweets suggest that SN1 will not fly. It would explain why they decided to stick all of the equipment on the outside of the stage and why they left the header tanks out... If this is true... Ouch. That's twice now they have built a flight vehicle only to realize it's not good enough for flight. I wonder how many more they will have to build to actually get to the flight stage. On the plus side, I guess, they can make full tanks in ~2 months now. Might still be acceptably close to SN2s testing. AAAAAAAA I'm going to be an adult by the time something flies. Someone help, where did the time go? I'm not ready to be an adult yet. I'm not ready for the big wide world of taxes, politics, finances, insurance, bills, and five figure college debt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 It's not fully ruled out? SN1 could fly on a single raptor. You don't need as much fuel for low altitude hops which means you don't need as much thrust. You guys are probably right though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said: AAAAAAAA I'm going to be an adult by the time something flies. Someone help, where did the time go? I'm not ready to be an adult yet. I'm not ready for the big wide world of taxes, politics, finances, insurance, bills, and five figure college debt! I used to be with it, but then they changed what 'it' was, and now what I'm with isn't it. And what's 'it' seems weird and scary to me... ...and... Spoiler <ebil, slightly senile laughter> er.. anyways... 49 minutes ago, RCgothic said: It's not fully ruled out? SN1 could fly on a single raptor. You don't need as much fuel for low altitude hops which means you don't need as much thrust. You guys are probably right though. could it, tho? And would there be much data to be gleaned? What they really need/want to test is the whole skydiver thing, I don’t think a single-engined SN could get high enough for that. I suppose that’s the downside of rapid iteration and rejection of sunk cost fallacy, lots of rocket parts left lying by the side of the road... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 2 hours ago, tater said: ? I'm reiterating what @Ultimate Steve just said for clarity. As far as I know, they have done no pressure tests at all on SN1 yet, it only went to the pad this morning. after all, and no road closures yet. SpaceX has lousy naming schemes (like I should complain, you should see my KSP craft files, ugh). Hopper was a thing. Mark 1 was a thing, they put it all together for the photo op, then took the nose off, and tested the tank—which popped. Then they built SN1. The tank at the launch site right now is SN1, untested. Parts for SN2 are already being constructed, too. . I thought it had been tested and failed based on the tweet. Luckily for SpaceX I was wrong Plausible they will fly SN1 with just one engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 I'm actually kind of happy they have decided not to fly SN1. It means that they have decided not rush things and are focusing on making sure this thing doesn't pop again. Sure, its a little disappointing, but before you know it SN2 is already on the pad awaiting launch. Just ignore the clock and it will seem to happen in no-time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Remember when I said it's going to fly in late spring? I was about to say I was wrong and retract it but nah. Late spring it is then! It's a shame DelayX strikes again. But then if they were to lose raptors (because it would crash or pop) it's probably for the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 They are waiting for KSP-2 to test in both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 (edited) Does anyone know if Starhopper flew at full flight tank pressure? Also new road closures times: Also some detail on fins: Edited February 26, 2020 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, RCgothic said: Does anyone know if Starhopper flew at full flight tank pressure? Highly likely, turbopump cavity and RUDs occur when the tank pressure is too low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 (edited) There may be some margin between "too low" and "full design pressure". I just find it odd that they're struggling with MK1 and SN1 which were both plainly better construction than Starhopper. Edited February 26, 2020 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 SpaceX has been approved to build their facility at the LA harbor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 U C ?! Once KSP-2 has moved KSC to the West, with plains instead of the sea to the East, SpaceX is going to do the same. Isn't it the best proof how they design their rockets? But... Are they going to land the stages on a wheeled desert barge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.