totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[StrandedonEarth]

49 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im still pretty surprised they’re going for the catch on this one. The last one was very on fire when it hit the deck. They really want to risk the olm and tower? Seems like one nominal hover should be the minimum. 

Well, the second OLM/tower is going up nicely. They’ve had enough hi-energy events on the first OLM to have an idea of what is vulnerable. And in the worst case, they’ll gain more data on what needs hardening. I think the chance of an actual explosion is pretty low, just a rapid combustion of the remaining propellants. 

[darthgently]

58 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im still pretty surprised they’re going for the catch on this one. The last one was very on fire when it hit the deck. They really want to risk the olm and tower? Seems like one nominal hover should be the minimum. 

I wonder if they aren’t going to have fire suppression equipment out the yin yang at the OLM especially near the engine “hang” zone post catch?  I wonder if they might not cycle the deluge during the catch?  
 

As for the ocean landing, there is about zero chance that a big tube full of explosive vapors dropping and tipping onto the ocean surface isn’t going to involve fire.  Especially if they triggered the FTS to prevent hazards to nav etc.   Someday the detailed story will be told.  Until then, we speculate

Edited Sunday at 04:47 PM by darthgently

[Nuke]

so when fireworks?

[darthgently]

I wish Musk would get an IMAX crew down there to record whatever happens properly.  Big drones with IMAX cameras.

[CatastrophicFailure]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

so when fireworks?

Live view from the FAA:

Spoiler

 

[zolotiyeruki]

Keep in mind that when Superheavy (or Starship, for that matter) are being caught, there's not a whole lot of fuel left  for any explosion. Sure, if the arms miss the catch, there'll still be quite a mess to clean up, but we're not talking Russian-ammo-dump levels of kaboom here.

[darthgently]

 

 

Edited Monday at 12:49 AM by darthgently

[darthgently]

 

Edited Monday at 01:53 AM by darthgently
Original post was deleted, then reposted. Probably to use better pic

[Nuke]

some of those engines look like you can hammer out the dents and refly them.

[CatastrophicFailure]

38 minutes ago, Nuke said:

some of those engines look like you can hammer out the dents and refly them.

A tenner says they do. 

Ok, KSP-educated crash analysts, what’s your analysis?

Interesting that it’s the outer ring of engines. Are there panels missing on the very outer edge for each engine or were they always exposed like that?

Also:

All Things Serve the Beam. 

[AckSed]

Is this a case of, "Anything Bezos can do, I can do better"?

[Superpluto126]

13 hours ago, darthgently said:

 

Welcome home, Booster 11. Hope she finds a Home  or gets put on Display like Hoppy.

and not scrapped like SN15....

[kerbiloid]

https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/spacex-to-send-five-uncrewed-starship-to-mars-by-2026-elon-musk-kamala-harris-regimes-threat-to-choke-america-to-11727058044185.html

Caution! Politix!

So, now almost everyone in this thread is responsible for proper choice for the Martian flights, lol!

The pro-Mars party has some trumps in their deck of cards, lol₂.

Of course, the doubts are understandable, but five marsships is five marsships.

[Pthigrivi]

Lets not, please.

[Nuke]

save it for the inevitable inauguration day riots, no matter who wins.

[CatastrophicFailure]

16 minutes ago, Nuke said:

save it for the inevitable inauguration day riots, no matter who wins.

Spoiler

 

[GuessingEveryDay]

13 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

  Hide contents

 

I wouldn't mind if if the Kraken Trilogy became real. At least we'd have a chance of getting off this planet.

[Cracktacular]

23 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

Keep in mind that when Superheavy (or Starship, for that matter) are being caught, there's not a whole lot of fuel left  for any explosion. Sure, if the arms miss the catch, there'll still be quite a mess to clean up, but we're not talking Russian-ammo-dump levels of kaboom here.

Not to mention the tower is made of solid steel and re-enforced concrete. Additionally, we already saw what happens when Starship flubs a landing, and when there is a fuel-air explosion on the pad.

I have not run the numbers, but I think that due to the fact that the tower is supported by the entire Earth, they are not mass restricted like they would be when constructing a vehicle that has to be light enough to accelerate straight upwards fighting gravity.

Even if I am incorrect in my above statement, I think that it would be downright silly to assume that SpaceX did not do the math on how big a boom the residual fuel would cause, and designed the tower with that in mind.

[PakledHostage]

3 hours ago, Cracktacular said:

I think that it would be downright silly to assume that SpaceX did not do the math on how big a boom the residual fuel would cause, and designed the tower with that in mind.

Possibly, but something the size of a skyscraper falling at the speed of sound (and containing the unburned fuel that was supposed to have slowed said skyscraper to a stop) would pack quite a punch when it crashed after the engines failed to relight... There are only so many contingencies they can realistically design for.

[tater]

7 minutes ago, PakledHostage said:

Possibly, but something the size of a skyscraper falling at the speed of sound (and containing the unburned fuel that was supposed to have slowed said skyscraper to a stop) would pack quite a punch when it crashed after the engines failed to relight... There are only so many contingencies they can realistically design for.

The downward component of the velocity on a normal return trajectory will be offshore, but with a substantial horizontal component towards the pad (land). Lighting the engines (pointed mostly down) will slow the descent rate, so the trajectory will then move ashore as the vertical component is reduced more than the horizontal. The balance of this is adjusted on the fly, obviously. By the time it's headed ashore, it's already very much slower than at the start of the burn, and if there is no relight, it goes in the water. Failure after enough burn time to have the trajectory shaped ashore—it's not going very fast any more.

Edited Tuesday at 12:55 AM by tater

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, Cracktacular said:

Not to mention the tower is made of solid steel and re-enforced concrete. Additionally, we already saw what happens when Starship flubs a landing, and when there is a fuel-air explosion on the pad.

I have not run the numbers, but I think that due to the fact that the tower is supported by the entire Earth, they are not mass restricted like they would be when constructing a vehicle that has to be light enough to accelerate straight upwards fighting gravity.

Even if I am incorrect in my above statement, I think that it would be downright silly to assume that SpaceX did not do the math on how big a boom the residual fuel would cause, and designed the tower with that in mind.

Its not that, its the potential for multiple engine failure and impact on the tower and/or orbital launch mount at speed.  Again it seems like a nominal hover with a sh thats not guttering flame out of the side seems prudent before risking months of delays and a billion dollars worth of equipment. I know we’re going for rapid reusability but there is a point where these decisions veer into outright stupidity. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:59 AM by Pthigrivi

[Nuke]

im fine with stupid if it gets us off this rock.

[PakledHostage]

10 hours ago, tater said:

The downward component of the velocity on a normal return trajectory will be offshore, but with a substantial horizontal component towards the pad (land). Lighting the engines (pointed mostly down) will slow the descent rate, so the trajectory will then move ashore as the vertical component is reduced more than the horizontal. The balance of this is adjusted on the fly, obviously. By the time it's headed ashore, it's already very much slower than at the start of the burn, and if there is no relight, it goes in the water. Failure after enough burn time to have the trajectory shaped ashore—it's not going very fast any more.

This is interesting and it makes sense, but where did you read this? Is that also how they currently recover boosters? From the footage,  it always looks like more of a pure suicide burn?

[Pthigrivi]

8 hours ago, Nuke said:

im fine with stupid if it gets us off this rock.

Look, we may send people there in the next 10-15 years, maybe do some good science. But a self-sustaining colony is still 100 years out. You’ll have a few foolhardy goofs who don’t mind dying of cancer in their 50s, but living on Mars, most likely underground, is about 100 times less pleasant than living on Antarctica. The year round population of Antarctica is 1000 people. 1000 people can’t form a colony thats fully self sufficient and independent of earth. You probably need 100 million which wont happen for a very long time. There’s also no money in it, so the business model is senseless. Dont get me wrong spaceX is cool but colonizing mars is at best a goofy marketing pitch for the musk bros. 

The idea that our salvation lies in colonization of another planet is not just an escapist fantasy, it actively ignores the glaring reality that we actually have no choice but to save the planet we already have. Elon and his ilk have no actual interest in solving the real problem. He is interested entirely in propping up his own ego and increasingly deranged outlook no matter who gets hurt in the process.

Elon is very, very good at getting the Saudi’s to dump billions of dollars on him, and like many people will billions of dollars and no grounded sense of reality he believes that makes him good at everything else. The truth is, however, he’s just another wealthy, megalomaniacal moron when it comes to most other things. I think one need look no further than cybertruck or hyperloop for evidence of that. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:38 AM by Pthigrivi

[darthgently]

7 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Elon and his ilk have no actual interest in solving the real problem

There is so much glaring evidence to the contrary to this statement I’m astounded.  Unfathomable