Wjolcz Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Since they got that SN1 nose cone finished maybe they can use it for SN2. So, maybe it will be built even quicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying dutchman Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Wel.. no one can say sn1 didn't fly... 33 minutes ago, Wjolcz said: Since they got that SN1 nose cone finished maybe they can use it for SN2. So, maybe it will be built even quicker. I'd rather have them take their time. I'm getting sick and tired of getting my hopes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 32 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said: Wel.. no one can say sn1 didn't fly... I'd rather have them take their time. I'm getting sick and tired of getting my hopes up. I’m just sick of not having a big fully assembled Starship to drool at. We need to have one at all times! \o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Flying dutchman said: Wel.. no one can say sn1 didn't fly... I'd rather have them take their time. I'm getting sick and tired of getting my hopes up. No worries, just treat it like kerbal rockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GearsNSuch Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 ... More of the front fell off, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 39 minutes ago, Xd the great said: No worries, just treat it like kerbal rockets. Exactly. Same design philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 They didn't install the 1.9.1 bugfix patch. Well, at least it didn't sink in ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 4 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: The upper tank was actually pretty strong, it took hitting the ground to finally cause it to rupture. I noticed this too. Technically encouraging, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) So now SpaceX is leaving parts for kerbals to find by the side of the road... Edited February 29, 2020 by StrandedonEarth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinimumSky5 Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 It also looked like there may have been some ground damage, given that the lights gave out as soon as the tank landed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 7 hours ago, Flying dutchman said: Wel.. no one can say sn1 didn't fly... I'd rather have them take their time. I'm getting sick and tired of getting my hopes up. This is how they learn. It’s happened before: ‘Member how many times it took them to get booster landing right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Remember, every Starship that explodes in development... ...is simply more content for Part 2: "How Not to Fly a Starship." Doesn't seem to phase SpaceX in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Regardless, this was an unintended event. Musk said in that AF video above that designing a rocket is easy, but building that design (so it works) is hard, and building the capability to produce them in numbers efficiently is harder still. He also said (he was referring to Tesla) that designing the production line at the same time as the final product was also good, since changes in both can happen (change the design to make mfg more efficient, and changing the production line to meet design changes in the vehicle). They're clearly messing with both at the same time. Still, a disappointing result. My guess is that they have to go to fully automated welding to get a useful product, and inside a partially controlled environment (largely away from any wind). Good welding for their use case requires bathing the weld area in inert gasses, and wind blows those away, resulting in oxidation. Dunno, I don;t see this crane-lifted sections thing working, certainly not outside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 The most uplifting thought is that, compared to Falcon 1, Musk and SpaceX have enough money to keep going even if they fail a couple of times. Falcon 1 had serious problems too. And they had limited number of rockets and funding to reach the orbit. Here, we might wait a couple more tries (and failures) but I'm 100% sure that sooner or later we will see that thing actually fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, tater said: designing a rocket is easy From my experience, designing a rocket is easy. Designing a rocket that does not blow up is hard. Edited March 1, 2020 by Xd the great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 (edited) This might not help for the internal tanks, but imagine if they had the machinery to create a roll of metal with a sheet width the same as the circumference of the rocket. Starship is 9m I think so let’s say 30m or so wide sheet coming off the roll, then you could just roll out the metal sheet to the desired length, cut the sheet off the roll and bring both sides up to meet for a single weld line the length of the rocket. not sure if it’s possible or if there is any machine in existence that could do that. But you cut out a lot of welds right there! Edited March 1, 2020 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 34 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said: This might not help for the internal tanks, but imagine if they had the machinery to create a roll of metal with a sheet width the same as the circumference of the rocket. Starship is 9m I think so let’s say 30m or so wide sheet coming off the roll, then you could just roll out the metal sheet to the desired length, cut the sheet off the roll and bring both sides up to meet for a single weld line the length of the rocket. not sure if it’s possible or if there is any machine in existence that could do that. But you cut out a lot of welds right there! You're talking about extrusion, and while it works great on some kinds of metal (like aluminum and copper), it doesn't work as well on many kinds of steel. I don't know if it's even a possible option for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 There are automated systems that build water/oil/whatever tanks. Rolls of metal stock no in one end, and the tube grows vertically with no human involvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 Just now, tater said: There are automated systems that build water/oil/whatever tanks. Rolls of metal stock no in one end, and the tube grows vertically with no human involvement. But as I just said, this is only suitable for some metals, not all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: You're talking about extrusion, and while it works great on some kinds of metal (like aluminum and copper), it doesn't work as well on many kinds of steel. I don't know if it's even a possible option for this. Well, it wouldn't be any different than making the current rolls they make now, just bigger. But I can imagine making a roll 30m (over 150' feet!) wide would require a whole new, huge smelter/foundry, which would probably cost in the billions, if not tens of billions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 Just now, StrandedonEarth said: Well, it wouldn't be any different than making the current rolls they make now, just bigger. But I can imagine making a roll 30m (over 150' feet!) wide would require a whole new, huge smelter/foundry, which would probably cost in the billions, if not tens of billions No. Tooling for large parts is expensive, but it's not *that* expensive. Putting a huge investment into tooling would be counter-productive for SpaceX at this point, because they keep changing the design. So they would need to keep changing the tooling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 18 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: You're talking about extrusion I was talking about a roll of metal the same as they have now only bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 15 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: But as I just said, this is only suitable for some metals, not all. The video I saw (think I posted way up thread) was for steel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 (edited) 21 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Putting a huge investment into tooling would be counter-productive for SpaceX at this point, because they keep changing the design. So they would need to keep changing the tooling. Yer but, if we are talking economy of scale and quality of end product being critical to hit pressure/ performance requirements. AND if Elon is going to pump out hundreds of these ships in an attempt to reduce Earth to Mars logistics bandwidth to enable a meaningful number of people and cargo to make the trip, with goals for Mars cities having populations in the hundreds of thousands even millions! Then a big upfront investment on the Starship factory might not be such a far fetched idea. And there is already a precedent in the Gigafactory. It’s his MO really @_@ but yer... Is 30m wide rolls of metal even possible XD it might not even be a benefit over rings anyway I duno. Edited March 1, 2020 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 18 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: No. Tooling for large parts is expensive, but it's not *that* expensive. Putting a huge investment into tooling would be counter-productive for SpaceX at this point, because they keep changing the design. So they would need to keep changing the tooling. Tooling, no, but if they had to build a new smelter/foundry to feed such large tooling, I would expect that to run 8-9 digits. And the basic 9m diameter, stainless steel barrel design hasn't changed since it changed to steel. Although by the time they want to make such wide rolls, they may as well run the steel straight from the rollers to the tube-former and skip the hassle of forming and transporting extremely long rolls of stainless steel sheet. It might make sense once they have a finalized design to start cranking out Starship and SH boosters, although the tooling to form tubes that large would also be an expensive challenge. Now, if they could build a press to start stamping out bulkheads and nose parts, that would be another use for extra-wide rolls. 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.