totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[RCgothic]

Even if unsuccessful! >.<

[Minmus Taster]

3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

ItsHappening.gif

 

 

 

I sense an impending disaster but hey I guess the moment had to come sooner or later  

[tater]

1 hour ago, Minmus Taster said:

I sense an impending disaster but hey I guess the moment had to come sooner or later  

It's the next step. Needs to happen.

[CatastrophicFailure]

Good write up of Ms. Shotwell’s comments from the thing today:

https://spacenews.com/shotwell-says-spacex-ready-for-starship-static-fire-test/

 

 

Also, confirmation of what needs no confirming, Gwynne is, in fact, the Queen. 
 

 

 

[sevenperforce]

34 minutes ago, tater said:

It's the next step. Needs to happen.

When Superheavy lights up all 33 engines tomorrow, it will briefly increase the world's power consumption by 1.4%.

Let that sink in.

[Nuke]

2 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

I sense an impending disaster but hey I guess the moment had to come sooner or later  

i had that sense when sls launched, but no boom. 

[StrandedonEarth]

41 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Good write up of Ms. Shotwell’s comments from the thing today:

https://spacenews.com/shotwell-says-spacex-ready-for-starship-static-fire-test/

Thanks for the article. At the end, she states what the real goal is:

Quote

“The real goal is to not blow up the launch pad. That is success.”

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

‘Tis official. 
 

 

Also also:

 

[magnemoe]

11 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

When Superheavy lights up all 33 engines tomorrow, it will briefly increase the world's power consumption by 1.4%.

Let that sink in.

Now that is mind blowing, on the other hand I assume Apollo 11 had an higher fraction as the world 50 years ago was much poorer. 
On the gripping hand Musk want an auto loader for starship ( again a bad name, its simply an fully reusable heavy lift orbital launcher, who is almost as cool) 

 

[tater]

Don't get a lot of motie references. Nice.

https://spacenews.com/shotwell-says-spacex-ready-for-starship-static-fire-test/

 

[magnemoe]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Don't get a lot of motie references. Nice.

https://spacenews.com/shotwell-says-spacex-ready-for-starship-static-fire-test/

 

Thanks, now if you only have two hands, grab your tail.

[sevenperforce]

44 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Now that is mind blowing, on the other hand I assume Apollo 11 had an higher fraction as the world 50 years ago was much poorer. 

I calculated Superheavy’s power consumption using its vacuum thrust and specific impulse (because that’s the actual energy consumption even if the thrust and Isp are effectively lower at sea level) in comparison to the world’s total power consumption as of 2019, 1.91e13 W. World energy consumption fell by 6% in 2020 but rose to 100.5% of 2019 levels by 2021, which is the last year for which we have complete data. Extrapolating from 2019 and skipping 2020 for obvious reasons, today’s power consumption is high enough that Superheavy will technically only be increasing the world’s energy consumption by 1.39%. Not a big difference. 

In 1980 (which is the first year that the EIA lists data from), world energy consumption was 49% of what it was in 2021. So if Saturn V had launched in 1980 (its last launch was actually 1973), its vacuum power consumption of 115.9 gigawatts would have been 1.2%.

I haven’t dug up all the historical energy consumption statistics yet, but it’s probably safe to say that the Saturn five rocket consumed more than 1.39% of the world’s total power consumption when it first launched, but less when it last launched. 

[tater]

This ^^^ is the feed without annoying patter.

[Beccab]

They're wasting no time today - the ground systems are starting to spool up right now, and the road closure lasts another 11 hours. I'd expect a spin prime first, then recycling for a static fire attempt later today

[sevenperforce]

I had an absolutely awful dream that they initiated the startup sequence and 20 of the engines blew up in sequence within a split second, like balloons popping. 

I even remember thinking "is this a dream" so I came to this thread and nope, it wasn't a dream -- all of y'all were on here lamenting it. @tater and @Beccab were generally dour, @CatastrophicFailure expressed hope that the GSE weren't too badly fragged, and @kerbiloid was, well, @kerbiloid.

[Geonovast]

43 minutes ago, tater said:

This ^^^ is the feed without annoying patter.

I wouldn't mind the patter if they talked about the hardware instead of spending 75% of their time acknowledging chat donations.

[Beccab]

Just now, Geonovast said:

I wouldn't mind the patter if they talked about the hardware instead of spending 75% of their time acknowledging chat donations.

To be fair, they need to fill something like 5-6 hours with nothing but watching LOX condensate for the first 99% of the stream

[sevenperforce]

21 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

I wouldn't mind the patter if they talked about the hardware instead of spending 75% of their time acknowledging chat donations.

To their credit they are currently talking mostly about hardware.

[tater]

They'd have to pay ME to listen to the patter, and I doubt they have the kind of money I would demand to listen to it.

 

[sevenperforce]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

They'd have to pay ME to listen to the patter, and I doubt they have the kind of money I would demand to listen to it.

 

Always surprises me how aggressively they turn the fins.

On the annoying stream, they were asking what the TNT equivalent would be if the Superheavy was fully filled with propellant. They said "we don't know, someone do the math" so of course I did, and it's 8.6 kilotonnes TNT equivalent, or approximately half the energy of the Fat Man nuclear fission bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Of course, that would assume complete mixing of the fuel and oxidizer with total detonation.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Always surprises me how aggressively they turn the fins.

On the annoying stream, they were asking what the TNT equivalent would be if the Superheavy was fully filled with propellant. They said "we don't know, someone do the math" so of course I did, and it's 8.6 kilotonnes TNT equivalent, or approximately half the energy of the Fat Man nuclear fission bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Of course, that would assume complete mixing of the fuel and oxidizer with total detonation.

Also assuming full tanks, I assume. No idea what the requirements are for the test (ie: what the hold-downs can deal with).

[Beccab]

Just now, tater said:

Also assuming full tanks, I assume. No idea what the requirements are for the test (ie: what the hold-downs can deal with).

Should be maximum LOX load and min CH4 load, just enough for the 5 or so seconds they're planning to do

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

I had an absolutely awful dream that they initiated the startup sequence and 20 of the engines blew up in sequence within a split second, like balloons popping. 

The Marco Polo game will be modified.

The facility team hides in a pool. The Chief Rocketeer cries: "Boca!" and turns the launch key, they cry "Chica!" and quickly dive.

The one who dives the last and survives, wins.

Edited February 9, 2023 by kerbiloid

[sevenperforce]

15 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Now that is mind blowing, on the other hand I assume Apollo 11 had an higher fraction as the world 50 years ago was much poorer. 

I went in and did the detailed math, correcting all of the data and going much more precise. Some corrections. Got about the results I expected:

Unsurprisingly, N1 wins out by far, at nearly 2.5% of world power consumption during its first launch. Saturn V's first and sixth launch beat out Superheavy, but its last launch did not. The first launch of the Shuttle and the first launch of Energia both got over 1.2%.

At the current annual increase of annual energy use, it's very unlikely that we will ever see N1's record beaten. 

[Beccab]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I went in and did the detailed math, correcting all of the data and going much more precise. Some corrections. Got about the results I expected:

Unsurprisingly, N1 wins out by far, at nearly 2.5% of world power consumption during its first launch. Saturn V's first and sixth launch beat out Superheavy, but its last launch did not. The first launch of the Shuttle and the first launch of Energia both got over 1.2%.

At the current annual increase of annual energy use, it's very unlikely that we will ever see N1's record beaten. 

It's weird to think that the R7 that launched Sputnik was considerably more powerful than the rocket which put Glenn into orbit