Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Exoscientist said:

Two separate, independent methods suggest SpaceX throttled down the booster engines < 75%, while the Starship engines fired at ~90% thrust:

Did SpaceX throttle down the booster engines on the IFT-2 test launch to prevent engine failures?
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2023/12/did-spacex-throttle-down-booster.html

 This is important to know because if the engines need to operate at < 75% to be reliable, then I estimate the reusable payload would be lowered from 150 tons to ~100 tons. Then instead of needing perhaps 16 refueling flights for the Artemis landing missions there would need to be perhaps 24.

  Robert Clark

I think it's time to press the 'panic' button for artemis and perhaps even starship. The entire thing is crumbling as we speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Imagining two multi-tonne shapeless cryogenic blobs in the tanks of SH, peacefully floating in zero-g after separation, and suddenly ramming the spaghetti strainer with 30 holes,splashing 30 fountains over 30 whirlpools. Then 30 sources of heat and vibration suddenly ignite, and one of them starts coughing, because it has choked on the evaporating super-cool liquid. And while it's trying to cough it up, 30-1 neighbors are vibrating and kicking his white-hot body from aside, in the the lightless tightness and stuffiness of the motor section. Poor engine tries to cough once again, then bends and vomits fire onto his close neighbors, making them spread around. "Jingle, bells!" is the last what he can hear, before his bell rams the next bell in the ring...)

30 = 60, as 2 tanks.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems obvious to me that landing is still the biggest risk item for Starship/SH, but of course landing is optional (for now).

But the risk item that has bothered me from the start that still seems like it my be plaguing them is the large number of engines. More engines = more redundant *unless* their failure modes are not independent. And it has always concerned me that so many engines, so close, without heavy (and space-consuming) armor between them, is a huge risk for fratricidal cascading engine failures. That means more engines = less reliability, rather than more reliability.

We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

I think it's time to press the 'panic' button for artemis and perhaps even starship. The entire thing is crumbling as we speak.

What? You realize that rockets are hard right? If you could just slap them together like in KSP, my former high school would have its own space program!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kerwood Floyd said:

I read Minmus Taster's post as sarcasm. YMMV

Lol, thanks for the heads up, and my apologies @Minmus Taster. Its hard to tell these days with so many people seriously calling for the cancellation of an experimental program because it didn't work perfectly on the first try with a straight face. You got me good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

What? You realize that rockets are hard right? If you could just slap them together like in KSP, my former high school would have its own space program!

Rockets are hard and always will be, but money is harder. 24 or even 16 Starship flights for a single lunar mission is never going to be economic unless starship can launch and land at full throttle and be reused in a matter of days without any repairs. And since starship needs to be economical in order to operate in the scale it needs to I just don't think the vehicle has the capability to preform all of this. And that's before even touching on what happens when there's inevitably a failure of some kind and the program is grounded to investigate.  I like starship and I think it will work as a heavy lift vehicle, but anything more is stretching way too far. And sadly since NASA is already almost at max capacity at this point monetarily it needs to put all it's eggs in one basket. All of this for a single trip to the moon. That's what I meant when I said artemis was "crumbling", it just cannot be sustained with so many different components that all need to be paid for and then work perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deddly said:

@mikegarrison I remember there was at least one early F9 flight with an engine failure that still completed its mission. Does F9 have armour between the engines?

It all depends on what *kind* of engine failure. There are many failure modes where one engine failing does not particularly risk a cascade, but there are others where it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would something like KORD help SH? So if an engine in the innermost ring fails, the engine on the opposite side of the ring can be shut down to avoid uneven thrust, and the rocket can keep flying?

KORD was the engine control computer on the N1 responsible for automatically shutting down engines in the event of failure, in case you don’t know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's already even smarter than that. If an engine goes out it'll first gimbal the centre engines to maintain thrust through the centre of mass, and only down-throttle opposite engines if doing so is necessary to maintain sufficient margin of control authority. Actually turning opposite engines off would be a last resort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Would something like KORD help SH? So if an engine in the innermost ring fails, the engine on the opposite side of the ring can be shut down to avoid uneven thrust, and the rocket can keep flying?

KORD was the engine control computer on the N1 responsible for automatically shutting down engines in the event of failure, in case you don’t know.

I think it has something like that already but it throttles down engines instead of shutting them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Would something like KORD help SH? So if an engine in the innermost ring fails, the engine on the opposite side of the ring can be shut down to avoid uneven thrust, and the rocket can keep flying?

KORD was the engine control computer on the N1 responsible for automatically shutting down engines in the event of failure, in case you don’t know.

That's not the issue. I mean, rockets now have real-time computer control that allows them to land! Dealing with the thrust imbalance is not the difficulty.

The concern is something like a fire or an uncontained turbo-machinery failure that sends shrapnel into the neighboring engines. We've seen in both launches now that engines start dropping out after the engines next to them drop out, which is extremely concerning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Minmus Taster said:

Rockets are hard and always will be, but money is harder. 24 or even 16 Starship flights for a single lunar mission is never going to be economic unless starship can launch and land at full throttle ...

Isn't it already more economical to launch 24 Falcon 9s for a single lunar mission than one SLS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...