RCgothic Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 Dragon relocating to a different port on the ISS ahead of the Starliner OFT-2 flight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 15 hours ago, sevenperforce said: 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. Any reason for them not using deluge? One of the huge tanks on the tank farm is for water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 I'm pretty sure there will be a deluge, given the water tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deddly Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 42 minutes ago, magnemoe said: Any reason for them not using deluge? One of the huge tanks on the tank farm is for water. The only reason I can think of is that Elon wants to remove as many elements and potential points of failure as possible because "the best part is no part". It's a valid line of reasoning, but there will inevitably be some components that he/they thought they might be able to do without but were mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 Not having watched the whole video, why did they want to use that particular port for the Starliner? Is it deemed lowest risk for a first attempted docking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 37 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Not having watched the whole video, why did they want to use that particular port for the Starliner? Is it deemed lowest risk for a first attempted docking? Looking at the ISS diagram, I would assume that is correct. Looks a little less cluttered from the forward port vs zenith where Dragon just moved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 Booster catcher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, tater said: Booster catcher? The structural parts were speculated by the daily 3d models guy to be part of a stabilization system, i.e. placed vertically on the tower and Starship connects to that before stacking for precision, but who knows! Edited July 21, 2021 by Beccab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 I am sooo skeptical about the 'catch a rocket' thing. (yeah - it's just an engineering challenge... Buuuuhuut....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 5 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I am sooo skeptical about the 'catch a rocket' thing. (yeah - it's just an engineering challenge... Buuuuhuut....) Intuitively, yes. But from an engineering perspective, it is EXACTLY the same problem as landing Falcon 9 at zero meters, zero velocity on deployable legs. You have a load-bearing mechanical system that has to reach its full deployment at the exact same time as your rocket reaches a predetermined point. You have to have a way to damp contact. The only difference is that putting the “legs” on the tower is that you have more mass budget for the mechanical system. 8 hours ago, RCgothic said: I'm pretty sure there will be a deluge, given the water tank. I believe there was an Elon tweet saying they would try to go without it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 1 minute ago, sevenperforce said: I believe there was an Elon tweet saying they would try to go without it. Wasn't that talking about a flame diverter? They may just make up for the lack of a flame diverter with a massive water deluge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silavite Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Intuitively, yes. But from an engineering perspective, it is EXACTLY the same problem as landing Falcon 9 at zero meters, zero velocity on deployable legs. You have a load-bearing mechanical system that has to reach its full deployment at the exact same time as your rocket reaches a predetermined point. You have to have a way to damp contact. The only difference is that putting the “legs” on the tower is that you have more mass budget for the mechanical system. 12 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I am sooo skeptical about the 'catch a rocket' thing. (yeah - it's just an engineering challenge... Buuuuhuut....) I am cautiously optimistic about the catching idea since Superheavy will be able to hover. If they were doing a hoverslam (like F9), then I'd be much more doubtful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 22 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Intuitively, yes. But from an engineering perspective, it is EXACTLY the same problem as landing Falcon 9 at zero meters, zero velocity on deployable legs. No it's not. We've sometimes seen boosters land right in the middle of that landing circle, but sometimes they hand out toward the edge. When they have their own landing legs, that doesn't matter so much. I think they are likely going to need more precision to land in a catching mechanism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 26 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: No it's not. We've sometimes seen boosters land right in the middle of that landing circle, but sometimes they hand out toward the edge. When they have their own landing legs, that doesn't matter so much. I think they are likely going to need more precision to land in a catching mechanism. Yeah, I think more precision is probably needed. One plus is that with so many engines, and so much mass, there is a non-zero chance SH will be capable of hovering, which could presumably reduce landing forces and deliver more precision than the "hoverslam" F9 uses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 26 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: No it's not. We've sometimes seen boosters land right in the middle of that landing circle, but sometimes they hand out toward the edge. When they have their own landing legs, that doesn't matter so much. I think they are likely going to need more precision to land in a catching mechanism. They will, now it can hover and it will have hot gas thrusters making it easier. My main concern is fails , with an falcon 9 on an drone ship if it miss its no danger and even an bad fail tend to require some repair to the deck. With superheavy any fail to catch and it will hit the support tower and the launch pad, you don't even have the option to abort and ditch in the last 5 seconds as the area around the pad is pretty cramped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Silavite said: am cautiously optimistic about the catching idea since Superheavy will be able to hover. If they were doing a hoverslam (like F9), then I'd be much more doubtful The hoverslam allows for the rocket to be off center a bit. Tower will require a lot more precision. 1 hour ago, sevenperforce said: ut from an engineering perspective, it is EXACTLY the same problem as landing Falcon 9 at zero meters, zero velocity on deployable legs I get that it's close... But there is also a lot of "Hole mah beer an watch dis' going on Mind you - I'm excited for them to succeed - I just fear this may be one innovation too far - given that we know legs work. ...and I wonder if the FAA / EPA will allow another crash that doesn't look purely accidental Edited July 21, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 Which direction of the flaps does he mean with narrower? As a non native speaker its not clear for me which dimension gets reduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 4 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: ERMAGERD FLAPS Just now, tater said: Whoaaaaa, seeing the outline where the aft flap is going to be really puts it in perspective. Just now, Elthy said: Which direction of the flaps does he mean with narrower? As a non native speaker its not clear for me which dimension gets reduced. The flaps have less extension away from the centerline of the booster. The new aft flaps have less lateral extension. Evidently the flight test data was really really good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: The new aft flaps have less lateral extension. Evidently the flight test data was really really good. The image of the flaps on the stand above a bit in the RGV tweet... that tweet thread has the widths marked, and it was observed there they thinner laterally (he drew colored boxes around them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Elthy said: Which direction of the flaps does he mean with narrower? As a non native speaker its not clear for me which dimension gets reduced. Hope this helps 29 minutes ago, Elthy said: Which direction of the flaps does he mean with narrower? As a non native speaker its not clear for me which dimension gets reduced. Hope this helps 29 minutes ago, Elthy said: Which direction of the flaps does he mean with narrower? As a non native speaker its not clear for me which dimension gets reduced. Hope this helps. Edit: I don't know how that happened. I thought it wasn't posting. >.< Edited July 22, 2021 by RCgothic 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.