magnemoe Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 On 6/29/2024 at 12:09 AM, StrandedonEarth said: Well, depends how many Superdracos, at what throttle setting. A low throttle for the majority of the burn, with a final full-blast kick at the end (when it's in the re-entry corridor) to break it up, since that is the general idea... Superdraco has low ISP because its small nozzle, they are designed for trust not isp. Also the dragon has the main thrusters in front under the airlock aerodynamic cover. My guess is that they gut an old cargo dragon. Add more hydrazine tanks inside the cabin and / or in the trunk, then add some drako thrusters at the rear of the trunk for the deorbit burn. Not very complex however does they have an docking port dragon can use during the center of mass? Yes shuttle used to boost it but this was later done by cargo Soyuz so not sure if this old port is still present? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 Well this is an unexpected treat. Spoiler, F9 wins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 1 hour ago, darthgently said: Well this is an unexpected treat. Spoiler, F9 wins It is the fourth of July, so there's a lot of competition, but this is easily the most American thing I've seen all day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 (edited) Edited July 5 by PakledHostage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) By my count Raptor is coming up on half as many launch and in flight ignitions as Rocketlab's Rutherford by the way. I think Raptor is on 224 counting all of those that started and burned for more than a second from Starhopper through IFT4. Rutherford is on about 490 I think? Edited July 6 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 The validity of this clip has not been confirmed: http://x.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1809452742290583619 Bob Clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuky Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuessingEveryDay Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, Exoscientist said: The validity of this clip has not been confirmed: http://x.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1809452742290583619 Bob Clark For those who don't want to venture upon Xitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 If enough fuel was left in it I could see them triggering the FTS to burn it off and avoid an EPA spill issue. Or it just exploded when it tipped over or they hit it with a "ballistic backup FTS" when the FTS failed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 At least 3 reasonable explanations spring to mind: 1. Intentional FTS activation to reduce methane emissions and avoid another "oops the booster survived, how do we sink it?" situation 2. Natural consequence of something that tall tipping over 3. Something broke on splashdown, went boom. Not designed to or required to take those forces anyway so no big deal. Of course it could also be some in flight failure that manifested itself later on. I don't doubt that some parties will be quick to note that it could have been that Raptor explosion on the way down poking a hole in the tank and causing it to go boom moments after splashdown. I doubt it though when there are so many simpler things that could explain it. Update, disregard possibility 1, I have been told that the FTS is safed during descent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camacju Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: At least 3 reasonable explanations spring to mind: A fourth reasonable explanation is bad photoshop. Why else would they refuse to provide the actual footage? (Also, where would they even get it in the first place? If there were really a coverup, that footage wouldn't be released anyway.) Edited July 6 by camacju Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 49 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: At least 3 reasonable explanations spring to mind: 1. Intentional FTS activation to reduce methane emissions and avoid another "oops the booster survived, how do we sink it?" situation 2. Natural consequence of something that tall tipping over 3. Something broke on splashdown, went boom. Not designed to or required to take those forces anyway so no big deal. Of course it could also be some in flight failure that manifested itself later on. I don't doubt that some parties will be quick to note that it could have been that Raptor explosion on the way down poking a hole in the tank and causing it to go boom moments after splashdown. I doubt it though when there are so many simpler things that could explain it. Update, disregard possibility 1, I have been told that the FTS is safed during descent. Since SN10 also exploded after landing when it had caught on fire prior to the landing, its likely the same thing happened here: Bob Clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 22 minutes ago, camacju said: A fourth reasonable explanation is bad photoshop. Why else would they refuse to provide the actual footage? (Also, where would they even get it in the first place? If there were really a coverup, that footage wouldn't be released anyway.) Good point. And upon closer inspection, the account that posted the image doesn't seem like the most reliable source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomf Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 3 hours ago, Exoscientist said: The validity of this clip has not been confirmed: http://x.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1809452742290583619 Bob Clark Why is whatever the object in the foreground on the left being illuminated orange on the near side, away from the "fireball". Is it perhaps that the photoshopping is a bit amateurish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) 6 minutes ago, tomf said: Why is whatever the object in the foreground on the left being illuminated orange on the near side, away from the "fireball". Is it perhaps that the photoshopping is a bit amateurish? Could be reflected light off something behind the camera. Of course, I'm not sure it's real either. I wish we could see it tipping over. Honestly, even if it's not real, we all know that's pretty much what it looked like. Edited July 6 by cubinator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 2 hours ago, GuessingEveryDay said: For those who don't want to venture upon Xitter. IDK about this, to me it looks like the blast was just shopped on. Not that I think it's important even if it's real, we already know the booster was destroyed post landing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 Booster explodes in landing conditions it's not designed for shocker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) 2 hours ago, tomf said: Why is whatever the object in the foreground on the left being illuminated orange on the near side, away from the "fireball". Is it perhaps that the photoshopping is a bit amateurish? That is the translucent lens of a light on a buoy. Check out below thread. It is probably a real image and at the same time not as newsworthy as many are making it out to be. I would like to see the video though, no doubt about that Edited July 6 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, darthgently said: I would like to see the video though, no doubt about that So say we all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exoscientist Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 (edited) 10 hours ago, darthgently said: That is the translucent lens of a light on a buoy. Check out below thread. It is probably a real image and at the same time not as newsworthy as many are making it out to be. I would like to see the video though, no doubt about that The fact the explosion was large enough to create a mushroom cloud of that size is disturbing. That is not something SpaceX would want to reveal for a landing attempt of the Superheavy on land. Bob Clark Edited July 7 by Exoscientist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 3 hours ago, Exoscientist said: The fact the explosion was large enough to create a mushroom cloud of that size is disturbing. That is not something SpaceX would want to reveal for a landing attempt of the Superheavy on land. Bob Clark Were you expecting a smaller explosion when the rocket fell over into the water and broke apart completely nominally as per the test plan? Remember, they are undoubtedly still tuning the landing control systems for this new vehicle as they test, and they're probably leaving the tanks fuller than they need to be so as to have extra margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 Didnt at least one Falcon 9 explode after a "soft" landing because it tipped over due to failing landing legs? I would honestly be suprised if Superheavy didnt explode after tipping over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 (edited) Apparently the downcomers in any rocket of this design are very sensitive to hard landings which results in fuel and oxidizer mixing. The starship in the bellyflop tests that landed hard on legs, then went RUD after a pause was downcomer failure. The booster tipping over onto the water would have put a big strain on the even longer downcomer Edited July 7 by darthgently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deddly Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 6 hours ago, Exoscientist said: The fact the explosion was large enough to create a mushroom cloud of that size is disturbing What about that disturbs you? I am trying to work out what difference the size of the explosion makes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted July 7 Share Posted July 7 9 hours ago, Exoscientist said: large enough to create a mushroom cloud of that size is disturbing One gallon of gasoline +oil kicked off by a quarter stick of TNT makes an impressive mushroom cloud. ...don't ask how I know this. 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.