tater Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 13 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Tower gets its final level. That tweet suggests another on top of that? Is a section 9 under construction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, tater said: That tweet suggests another on top of that? Is a section 9 under construction? No, it means there are two orbital launch sites planned at Boca! Although I do actually think there's a good chance of a Hammerhead crane stacking on top of level 8. Edited July 18, 2021 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 16 minutes ago, tater said: That tweet suggests another on top of that? Is a section 9 under construction? Section 8 is split into two parts, this one (8A) that is 2/3 as high as a normal section and soon 8B which is 1/3 we high as a normal section Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 Any new word on the Environmental Review? I know SX wants to say ' don't look at that tower over there' but I'm not sure the Fed is willing to ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 Gotta love tilt-shift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 On 7/17/2021 at 12:44 PM, wumpus said: Note that this largely applies to resusable vehicles. Most early rockets (including Sputnik) were 1.5. 2.5 makes a lot more sense, but still requires an additional engine, controls, etc and lighting the engine in vacuum. The safety concerns (for crew, etc.) apply primarily to reusable vehicles, yes. But 1.5 is still a bad idea even for expendables because you are taking so much dry mass to orbit. Look at Long March 5 and its whole out-of-control stage debacle. 2.5 stages is much more efficient. Atlas V, almost all Semyorka-derived rockets, the Delta IV Medium family...it's just an all-around good design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 3 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: The safety concerns (for crew, etc.) apply primarily to reusable vehicles, yes. But 1.5 is still a bad idea even for expendables because you are taking so much dry mass to orbit. Look at Long March 5 and its whole out-of-control stage debacle. 2.5 stages is much more efficient. Atlas V, almost all Semyorka-derived rockets, the Delta IV Medium family...it's just an all-around good design. Efficient, yes. But igniting those rocket engines is tricky. Moreso in flight and after flight through a freezing atmosphere. You only go to 2.5 if and only if you can absolutely light that upper candle or are using hypergolics. (Most of my anti-hypergolic rants are for lower stages, not the top. The poison is meaningless without considering the dosage), but I think hypergolics were developed at around the same time effective upper stage lighting became a thing. Are there safety concerns if your 1.5 stages put you where you are firing your engines horizontally? I'd assume (mostly thanks to KSP, no experience with the reality) that you could jettison your spacecraft if the upper stage failed to ignite and come down more or less as planned (either in the Atlantic or Siberia), and hopefully somebody bothered to put a ship/helicopter nearby. Yes, the Chinese should be embarrassed for still using it. But I wouldn't blame a microrocket startup for using this scheme, and I think it was where we ended in the great "KSP forum designed paper orbital rocket" thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 5 minutes ago, wumpus said: Are there safety concerns if your 1.5 stages put you where you are firing your engines horizontally? I'd assume (mostly thanks to KSP, no experience with the reality) that you could jettison your spacecraft if the upper stage failed to ignite and come down more or less as planned (either in the Atlantic or Siberia), and hopefully somebody bothered to put a ship/helicopter nearby. The biggest safety concern, I think, is black zones for ballistic-trajectory aborts. That's why they had to put two engines on the Centaur for Starliner; the usual lofted trajectory used by Atlas V would result in too violent a re-entry if they had to abort near or after the end of the core burn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 18, 2021 Share Posted July 18, 2021 Alert notice posted for tomorrow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dfthu Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 So this static fire mostly verifies the thrust puck/fuel feeds unique to Superheavy? Otherwise, there's not a lot different from a similar Starship static fire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Gotta love that Boca Chica rumble, no matter how short! Another step forward… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Now imagine 10 times this much fire and fury in the same space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 (edited) Will they do a full static fire of all 29-33 engines? I thought there was concern about pad damage.,., Regardless, whenever they do fire them all up, I think they should be playing this song. Heck, Musk should be in this getup, lol Spoiler Edited July 20, 2021 by StrandedonEarth spoilerized Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 18 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Will they do a full static fire of all 29-33 engines? I thought there was concern about pad damage.,., Probably like FH, they'll want to make sure their firing order is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said: Will they do a full static fire of all 29-33 engines? I thought there was concern about pad damage.,., Regardless, whenever they do fire them all up, I think they should be playing this song. Heck, Musk should be in this getup, lol Reveal hidden contents I prefer: Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 4 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: Will they do a full static fire of all 29-33 engines? I thought there was concern about pad damage.,., Hide contents I'd be surprised if they did 9 on a suborbital pad, but who knows. Orbital launch pad will be able to take the full 33. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 52 minutes ago, RCgothic said: I'd be surprised if they did 9 on a suborbital pad, but who knows. Well, if (at that point) both the pad and booster are technically expendable… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 More bits for the OLIT, probably part of a roof section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 11 minutes ago, RCgothic said: More bits for the OLIT, probably part of a roof section. More tower segments? I thought they were done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Just now, Minmus Taster said: More tower segments? I thought they were done! This bit is probably just going to be topping off the tower, probably with a roof and lightning rod. The tower's structure is close to complete, but there's still a lot to add for it to actually function as a launch tower. Arms for fuelling the vehicle (and catching the booster in the future) and wiring still need to be installed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 54 minutes ago, RCgothic said: More bits for the OLIT, probably part of a roof section. Gotta love a vehicle where the driver is in the back and can't see where he's going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Cool shot. Evidently they're laying electrical lines, etc. Reminds me a little of the Saturn IB milkstool. It was high enough up that IIRC it didn't need any water deluge at all to avoid damaging sound reflection off the ground, although it did use a flame diverter. Of course, the Saturn IB was about 9% the thrust of Superheavy. Hard to imagine how Superheavy will be able to NOT get ripped apart by sound waves without a deluge. 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.