totm nov 2023 SpaceX Discussion Thread

[tater]

https://plus.nasa.gov/scheduled-video/nasas-spacex-crew-9-rendezvous-and-docking/

docking. There are rebroadcasts on YT, some reason not on NASA channel for me

 

[tater]

This has a shot of Dragon right now I think:

 

Soft capture

[Cracktacular]

On 9/23/2024 at 6:52 PM, Pthigrivi said:

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. 

What are you talking about? Billions of dollars of equipment? You must be referring to the Artemis program, lol. SpaceX has cheap rockets, [snip]

Months of delays? That's the FAA.

It's fine you don't like the idea, but you can't just say things that are blatantly false.

Jokingly, I hope they fail the catch attempt just to prove to all of you that it's not gonna be some disaster. It seems that the detractors think it will be some sort of atomic blast if it fails. it really makes me laugh that a bunch of armchair engineers in a vidja game forum think they know better than the total of the collective intelligence of all SpaceX employees.

[snip], tell us how they could do it better.

Edited Tuesday at 12:09 AM by Vanamonde
Back off the temper, please.

[tater]

 

[zolotiyeruki]

Well, so much for the "b-b-b-b-but they didn't do a full-duration static test fire!" nonsense.

[Ultimate Steve]

5 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

Well, so much for the "b-b-b-b-but they didn't do a full-duration static test fire!" nonsense.

That complaint was specifically referring to the entire stage for the entire duration.

[tater]

1 minute ago, Ultimate Steve said:

That complaint was specifically referring to the entire stage for the entire duration.

Which is a useless test for organizations that can actually fly tests.

[Ultimate Steve]

Just now, tater said:

Which is a useless test for organizations that can actually fly tests.

Yeah I don't think it is a complaint that holds very much weight, but it is important to debate against the correct complaint.

[darthgently]

A very long test fire of a Raptor.  Brimming over with elapsed time and veritably chock full of duration.  The test ran for its full duration for a very, very long time

 

Timelapse of full burn:

 

Edited Monday at 10:05 PM by darthgently

[Vanamonde]

Some cranky comments removed. 

[Cracktacular]

7 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

Well, so much for the "b-b-b-b-but they didn't do a full-duration static test fire!" nonsense.

It's almost like Elon Musk reads Exoscientist's posts and wants to prove him wrong

[darthgently]

5 hours ago, Cracktacular said:

It's almost like Elon Musk reads Exoscientist's posts and wants to prove him wrong

More likely they simply want to stress test the engine to extract predicted total run time over life span of the reusable engine by examining how much wear of what components occurred during that 15 minutes.  There is no current obvious realistic scenario for a burn that long; not translunar injection, not getting to Mars.  
I suppose, if using fewer engines, or if payload mass has been increased dramatically post launch (docking additional payload modules?), one could imagine such a long burn as being a solution.

Or maybe it has something to do with playing with an ISS deorbit solution using a single mass produced engine?  Seems like overkill, but might make sense cost-wise.   More questions than answers.

On a completely unrelated note, putting ISS, sans leaky Zvezda, into lunar orbit would be fun 

[darthgently]

The recovery ship has been at the B11 site for 2 days and not a peep!  Maybe they want all the pieces?

Grok synopsis:

 

Spoiler

Hos ridgewind has been at the B11 site for two days. Has there been any news about it I the last 48 hours or so?

Answer

Based on the information available up to October 1, 2024, there has been activity involving the HOS Ridgewind at the B11 site, primarily related to the salvage operations of SpaceX's Starship Booster 11. Here's a summary:

 

• Salvage Operations: The HOS Ridgewind was spotted at the splashdown site of Booster 11, indicating ongoing efforts to retrieve parts of the booster from the ocean. This activity was noted as still in progress, with the vessel positioned in the same location as previously for salvage operations.
• Public Interest and Observation: There's clear public interest in these operations, with observers tracking the HOS Ridgewind's movements via platforms like Marine Traffic, suggesting that the vessel has been consistently at or near the B11 site, likely engaged in searching for or retrieving more parts of Booster 11.
• No Specific Updates on Findings: While there's confirmation of the ongoing salvage operation, there hasn't been detailed public information regarding specific findings or progress in terms of what parts have been retrieved or the condition of those parts over the last 48 hours.
• Operational Details: Discussions around these operations highlight the complexity of retrieving such a booster, including challenges like depth, marine life, and the physical condition of the booster parts post-recovery.

 

From the posts on X, there's a mix of speculation, updates on the Ridgewind's location, and general interest in the salvage operation, but no definitive, detailed news on major breakthroughs or specific parts recovered within the last 48 hours. The sentiment from X posts indicates ongoing activity with no conclusive end or major updates to report as of the latest information available.

 

Edited Tuesday at 03:00 PM by darthgently

[Lukaszenko]

On 9/30/2024 at 2:02 PM, Cracktacular said:

What are you talking about? Billions of dollars of equipment? You must be referring to the Artemis program, lol. SpaceX has cheap rockets, [snip]

Months of delays? That's the FAA.

It's fine you don't like the idea, but you can't just say things that are blatantly false.

Jokingly, I hope they fail the catch attempt just to prove to all of you that it's not gonna be some disaster. It seems that the detractors think it will be some sort of atomic blast if it fails. it really makes me laugh that a bunch of armchair engineers in a vidja game forum think they know better than the total of the collective intelligence of all SpaceX employees.

[snip], tell us how they could do it better.

They did have a few failures on the droneship already. I indeed don't recall any catastrophic failure of the ship. Granted, this example is of a smaller rocket and a more resilient landing pad, but it's still some sort of indicator. 

[Pthigrivi]

On 9/30/2024 at 8:02 AM, Cracktacular said:

What are you talking about? Billions of dollars of equipment? You must be referring to the Artemis program, lol. SpaceX has cheap rockets, [snip]

Months of delays? That's the FAA.

It's fine you don't like the idea, but you can't just say things that are blatantly false.

Jokingly, I hope they fail the catch attempt just to prove to all of you that it's not gonna be some disaster. It seems that the detractors think it will be some sort of atomic blast if it fails. it really makes me laugh that a bunch of armchair engineers in a vidja game forum think they know better than the total of the collective intelligence of all SpaceX employees.

[snip], tell us how they could do it better.

Im talking about the tower and OLM. Given the time and energy that went into stage zero a billion dollars is probably pretty conservative.  On one of the walkthroughs (Tim Dodd I think?) Elon said it was far and away the most complicated and expensive part of the project. Again it's not the explosion, it's the inertia of a 200 ton rocket hitting the tower or the OLM because of a major engine failure during the landing burn. It's kind of like hitting it with the statue of liberty going 100mph. None of the SH landings so far have been nominal and its widely speculated this is because of ice contamination in the fuel during re-lights. They seem to have been working very hard to resolve this and hopefully they have, but maybe not. One of the engines failed to re-light on IFT4 and in the footage from the water you can see that there are flames pouring out of the side. It's not hard to imagine a fire like that compromising adjacent engines just a few hundred meters over the tower. Obviously like any of us Im just a casual observer armchair quarterbacking. It just seems to me like the risk/reward here doesn't make a lot of sense vs doing one nominal over-water hover to be reasonably sure they have things nailed. It feels similar to IFT1 when they blew a crater below the OLM showering the area with debris because they didn't want to take the time to install the deluge system. It's risking a lot of unnecessary damage and delay for very little gain. 

[Deddly]

27 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

not hard to imagine a fire like that compromising adjacent engines just a few hundred meters over the tower

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they said somewhere that they will be aiming to the side of the tower rather than right at it? SH is able to hover and translate horizontally without changing its altitude. I had thought they would be making use of that capability, especially in early testing. 

[Pthigrivi]

5 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they said somewhere that they will be aiming to the side of the tower rather than right at it? SH is able to hover and translate horizontally without changing its altitude. I had thought they would be making use of that capability, especially in early testing. 

Oh for sure, but its gonna be close and again the risk here is a non-nominal, multiple engine-out scenario or FTS a few hundred meters above the tower.  Obviously SX is fine with the risk and its still worth it even with the FAA delays that entails. Im just wondering if thats actually wise given we haven't seen a nominal simulated landing yet. 

[darthgently]

7 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Oh for sure, but its gonna be close and again the risk here is a non-nominal, multiple engine-out scenario or FTS a few hundred meters above the tower.  Obviously SX is fine with the risk and its still worth it even with the FAA delays that entails. Im just wondering if thats actually wise given we haven't seen a nominal simulated landing yet. 

You are in the audience, not a director or producer.   Eat your popcorn and enjoy the show

I'm excited about IFT-5, but 6 is going to be moar special because SS31 and B13 are prime numbers again!  

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

You are in the audience, not a director or producer.   Eat your popcorn and enjoy the show

I'm excited about IFT-5, but 6 is going to be moar special because SS31 and B13 are prime numbers again!  

Hey I thought unqualified and barely informed speculation was what this thread is all about!  

[Exoscientist]

11 hours ago, Cracktacular said:

It's almost like Elon Musk reads Exoscientist's posts and wants to prove him wrong

 

 What would be even better is a test fire with three burns each at the full length of an actual reusability burn and at the actual wait times in flight between restarts.

 Scott Manley does not believe Raptor reusability has been proven:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxY0chim5r54_TVXenspfEUN1b7VqiuxNC?si=MpWfWi2GyEUZU-23

 

  Bob Clark

Edited Tuesday at 04:28 PM by Exoscientist

[tater]

1. The total cost of Starbase I think is on the order of a billion a year (it was mentioned by Shotwell in a recent interview—it might have been $2B). Regardless, the tower cost some fraction of 1 year's work, so I'd wager no where near a billion on it, perhaps not on all 3 combined. Much of the expense on the factory, etc.

2. The first launch mount might in fact be deprecated anyway, we'll have to see what the complete second pad/tower looks like.

That said I was genuinely surprised when they actually pushed for a catch for IFT-5, so I assume that they must know something we don't. The idea that they don't test things and just "Blow it up, it's just like KSP!" is astoundingly dumb. They clearly think the risk/reward is in their favor here, they're not gonna Super Heavy punch the pad just for the lulz.

 

Edited Tuesday at 07:36 PM by tater

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

7 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

Scott Manley does not believe

Scott Manley does not say that in the clip you provide.  He's reacting to the idea of catching with ITF-5.  Do you have a better clip that supports your contention? 

Edited yesterday at 12:08 AM by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Ultimate Steve]

Perhaps he meant to clip 37:30?

Fraser Cain: "Personally I'm not convinced they have demonstrated full reusability."

Scott Manley: "No" (in agreement)

Fraser Cain: proceeds to talk about Starship reusability

Fraser Cain: "And that's fine"

Scott: Talks about the flap for a bit

Fraser Cain: "They've proven that it can be solved, now it is a matter of solving it, but that could take years"

And then more discussion about the new 2 layer heat shield.

 

I don't think I heard a single thing about Raptor in the general timeframe of that clip, I watched until the 41 minute mark or so. And yeah, they have not demonstrated full reusability, they won't have done so until they refly a Starship. It is bonkers to say that they've demonstrated operational full reusability, I'm not aware of anyone who is claiming that.

[darthgently]

7 hours ago, Exoscientist said:

 What would be even better is a test fire with three burns each at the full length of an actual reusability burn and at the actual wait times in flight between restarts.

And would they also build a test stand that simulated the clustering of all the engines, ascent altitude changes, aero and acceleration forces, and fuel supply dynamics?

“Gee whiz, Wally, they might as well just send it up and see what happens with all those rocket engines!”

“Ya know, Beav, I think you might be smarter than you look with that goofy face “

[ Leave it to Beaver closing credits roll and outre theme music plays]

[Pthigrivi]

57 minutes ago, darthgently said:

And would they also build a test stand that simulated the clustering of all the engines, ascent altitude changes, aero and acceleration forces, and fuel supply dynamics?

Exactly. The last bit has been the clearest challenge so far (well that and the TPS system). Certainly they’ve made progress but only full test runs help solve the big hurdles now. 
 

This also probably figures into the risk/reward of a catch attempt, actually having a chance to inspect SH intact post flight if by miracle all goes to plan. It’ll be fun to watch either way.

Edited yesterday at 01:24 AM by Pthigrivi