Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 223 224 [225] 226 227 ... 234

Author Topic: Space Thread  (Read 367620 times)

martinuzz

  • Bay Watcher
  • High dwarf
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3360 on: April 20, 2023, 11:21:33 am »

Musk should rename SpaceX to Kerboom Space Program
Logged
Friendly and polite reminder for optimists: Hope is a finite resource

We can ­disagree and still love each other, ­unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist - James Baldwin

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=73719.msg1830479#msg1830479

jipehog

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3361 on: April 20, 2023, 03:03:25 pm »

Indeed exciting. It is the tallest most powerful launch vehicle ever flown and it has so much promise

Well, it looks like the pad suffered very significant damage due to the power of all those engines lifting off. It left a huge crater below the pad.

link

There are videos circulating of cars parked quite far away from the launch site getting obliterated by flying debris, possibly from that crater.

link

It might well be that the root cause for those engine failures is due to damage because of debris bouncing up and destroying the rocket, so not a design flaw of the engines themselves. Nevertheless, more seemed to fail later in the flight. 
The rocket was much lower than it should be when separation should have occured, so the higher atmospheric density and different speed at that point may have been enough reason for that to fail.
It certainly was exciting to watch!

Good spot. They had this issue with launchpad dissolving in previous testing, clearly all the measures they used didn't help. I guess flame diverter is in the cards for next time.

Btw I now realized why the Starship designed for NASA to land on the Moon has none of the reusability features, because there is no way in hell it can launch again after landing on moon surface. I wouldn't be surprised if the landing create some sort of "shogun" effect. Any dream of reusability on Mars and Moon would require to build launch pad. 

Musk should rename SpaceX to Kerboom Space Program

You had skyscraper over 30 story's tall doing flipflops in the air! That why it is fun.

Unlike NASA fast iteration has been part of process for SpaceX, they aren't afraid to fail trying different things and adapting with each test. Btw the starship used was already outdated in many respects, they have another one ready to go, the launchpad would probably be a delay though.
Logged

Robsoie

  • Bay Watcher
  • Urist McAngry
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3362 on: April 20, 2023, 08:35:13 pm »

using some text generator (https://app.inferkit.com/demo) with for starting :
Quote
After the rocket exploded, Elon Musk
it explained the reason of the rocket problem :
Quote
After the rocket exploded, Elon Musk said the team behind SpaceX was not expecting to see such a shark in the ocean, but the clown is a joke that keeps on giving.

After a rocket exploded on a test launch in Florida on Saturday, Musk tweeted, "Just heard the news. Apparently, a shark jumped out of the water and chased the submarine, which then exploded. It's pretty weird, but I guess that's what the ninja shark has to do to be a ninja shark."

He then followed up with a tweet saying, "I have no clue if this is true or not, but I think it's pretty damn cool."

I have no clue if this is true or not, but I think it's pretty damn cool. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 29, 2018

According to the International Shark Attack File, there have been 72 shark attacks in the United States this year
Logged

Madman198237

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3363 on: April 20, 2023, 10:36:33 pm »

Good spot. They had this issue with launchpad dissolving in previous testing, clearly all the measures they used didn't help. I guess flame diverter is in the cards for next time.

Btw I now realized why the Starship designed for NASA to land on the Moon has none of the reusability features, because there is no way in hell it can launch again after landing on moon surface. I wouldn't be surprised if the landing create some sort of "shogun" effect. Any dream of reusability on Mars and Moon would require to build launch pad.

Everyone in the rocket space (no pun intended) who said that SpaceX should probably have a flame diverter was, surprise surprise, absolutely right. Although looks like this very first launch went and carved one out for them...

Starship has 6 engines, not 33 or whatever they're up to on Super Heavy. AND DOESN'T USE THEM ON THE MOON. It's going to use a set of additional engines (I don't understand the engineering decisions for Starship but oh well) near the top of the spacecraft so that it does not spray lunar regolith everywhere. It will be perfectly reusable and this is in the plans. The features it lacks are the Earth-recovery features: Heat shield, sea-level engines, grid fins, header tanks, etc. Lunar Starship lacks them because it doesn't need them, it will be reused in-orbit; flying back to Earth orbit and being refueled for another go out to the Moon, most likely.
Logged
We shall make the highest quality of quality quantities of soldiers with quantities of quality.

jipehog

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3364 on: April 21, 2023, 01:38:33 am »

deleted
Logged

jipehog

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3365 on: April 21, 2023, 02:28:33 am »

Everyone in the rocket space (no pun intended) who said that SpaceX should probably have a flame diverter was, surprise surprise, absolutely right. Although looks like this very first launch went and carved one out for them...

Any idea what shape it might take? There is a rumor that because the site is at seal level you can't dig a trench and local regulation prevent raising huge mound, which led SpaceX trying to play with various concrete types. Any idea of there is any truth to that?

Starship has 6 engines, not 33 or whatever they're up to on Super Heavy. AND DOESN'T USE THEM ON THE MOON. It's going to use a set of additional engines (I don't understand the engineering decisions for Starship but oh well) near the top of the spacecraft so that it does not spray lunar regolith everywhere. It will be perfectly reusable and this is in the plans. The features it lacks are the Earth-recovery features: Heat shield, sea-level engines, grid fins, header tanks, etc. Lunar Starship lacks them because it doesn't need them, it will be reused in-orbit; flying back to Earth orbit and being refueled for another go out to the Moon, most likely.

I definitely mixed these two, it was a poor thought late night realization. The upper thrusters is an interesting solution, both with its placement and as way to use gaseous propellants instead of dumping it overboard.

Btw I can't find the step by step explanation of how that mission would go. Will starship need another refuel before landing on earth? because I can't imagine that it will have any lox left after all that time.
Logged

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3366 on: April 21, 2023, 03:05:03 am »

The Moon-landing version of Starship will not be returning to Earth(-goundlevel). The various things mentioned above that aren't going to be on it are necessary (or at least very useful!) for atmospheric re-entry, but entirely superfluous for lunar-landing.

The upper-section landing thrusters (doing a "solid state sky-crane" job?) might well be the reverse (not really useful on Earth-re-entry, if not an awkward element), unless they are getting enough thrust from the usual top-end manoevering thusters to settle down in 1/6th G... Haven't looked at that much, myself, I'd have to check their latest plans more carefully.
Logged

King Zultan

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3367 on: April 21, 2023, 03:42:11 am »

Glad to see space launches are still as interesting as they used to be.
Logged
The Lawyer opens a briefcase. It's full of lemons, the justice fruit only lawyers may touch.
Make sure not to step on any errant blood stains before we find our LIFE EXTINGUSHER.
but anyway, if you'll excuse me, I need to commit sebbaku.
Quote from: Leodanny
Can I have the sword when you’re done?

Madman198237

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3368 on: April 21, 2023, 10:27:48 am »

SpaceX is building a new type of engine, running methalox, for the lunar landing engines on lunar Starship. They are not the same as the RCS thrusters used on-orbit on all Starship variants. They'll almost certainly be using the liquid component of the fuel and not the gaseous component since IIRC SpaceX is still going to use autogenous pressurization in Starship which would require them to not siphon off the gas components. That and it's just easier to pump the liquid propellants.


I hadn't heard that they weren't allowed to dig there; just that the wetlands made it a pain. Not sure what they'll do, maybe they'll give up and move to offshore launches lol. That or just dig themselves a lake.
Logged
We shall make the highest quality of quality quantities of soldiers with quantities of quality.

jipehog

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3369 on: April 21, 2023, 11:10:47 am »

Does anyone have a step by step overview of the current plan for land on the moon using starship HLS?
Logged

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3370 on: April 21, 2023, 03:11:22 pm »

Does anyone have a step by step overview of the current plan for land on the moon using starship HLS?
From memory:
1) Starships launch to Earth orbit, accumulating quantities of fuel. One designated as 'orbital fuel-station' (doesn't need to re-enter intact), the others may be the fins-and-all relanding/reusable versions.
2) Starship HLS (lunar-landing version) goes up, gets refuelled by the fuel-station one.
3) HLS transfers to lunar orbit, in time for...
4) Orion launches manned Artemis, sends that into lunar orbit, rendezvous with HLS
5) Crew transfer to HLS.
6) HLS deorbits, lands on Moon, the Next Small Step happens, relaunches, re-rendezvouses with Artemis (...all the most dangerous bits, I'd say, but forgive me if I lump this bit all into one section).
7) Artemis returns home, delivers astronauts back to the relative safety of Earth, general adulation, maybe a full on ticker-tape parade.
8) HLS sticks arond in lunar orbit (rectilinear whossisname), or not, depending on whether or how there will be further refuelling, ready for Artemis 4? Either along with or docked to the proposed Lunar Gateway. But there's probably still a lot of luminiferous æther to pass across LEO before that detail is nailed down...
Logged

jipehog

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3371 on: April 21, 2023, 05:09:41 pm »

...
Thanks!

SpaceX is building a new type of engine, running methalox, for the lunar landing engines on lunar Starship. They are not the same as the RCS thrusters used on-orbit on all Starship variants. They'll almost certainly be using the liquid component of the fuel and not the gaseous component since IIRC SpaceX is still going to use autogenous pressurization in Starship which would require them to not siphon off the gas components. That and it's just easier to pump the liquid propellants.

My thinking is that
* Starship is going to spend around 10days flying to the moon and then on its surface. Absent dedicated cooling system all its liquid oxygen should boil off.
* In the absence of ground infrastructure on the moon, Starship would have to rely on the thrusters for both landing and launch.
* I recall that Starship would be using hot thrusters, and think that using the boiled off propellent can be used to fuel the thrusters. If after reaching the moon you have no use for the regular engines and huge proponent tanks, why not dual use them for this purpose

I hadn't heard that they weren't allowed to dig there; just that the wetlands made it a pain. Not sure what they'll do, maybe they'll give up and move to offshore launches lol. That or just dig themselves a lake.

Not dig but raise a mound. But yeah it could be, even likely, a complete horseshit.

Even if they had offshore platform (they sold oil rigs iirrc) offshore launches at this stage of development would be a tremendous inconvenience. I believe that digging a 20m trench would be easier than raising/rebuilding the whole complex (you need to maintain steady elevation between the production and launch site) still it would be a big infrastructure project (they would also need to reinforce the tower foundations)

I am curios if something like this is an option: https://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Saturn-I-launch-mount-overview-NASA-1.gif
« Last Edit: April 21, 2023, 05:17:54 pm by jipehog »
Logged

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3372 on: April 21, 2023, 06:06:27 pm »

Reminds me a little bit of: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BZbRf-X5XfE  :P

Logged

Madman198237

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3373 on: April 21, 2023, 11:43:27 pm »

My thinking is that
* Starship is going to spend around 10days flying to the moon and then on its surface. Absent dedicated cooling system all its liquid oxygen should boil off.
* In the absence of ground infrastructure on the moon, Starship would have to rely on the thrusters for both landing and launch.
* I recall that Starship would be using hot thrusters, and think that using the boiled off propellent can be used to fuel the thrusters. If after reaching the moon you have no use for the regular engines and huge proponent tanks, why not dual use them for this purpose
To quote (from memory) the book Ignition!: "Space is a pretty good insulator, and when you have, in effect, a Dewar flask the size of the universe, you can store a low-boiling liquid a very long time". Yeah, they'll be able to keep more than enough LOX around for the purpose. Apollo was able to store liquid HYDROGEN of all things for the entire duration of every mission so storing the much-easier-to-store liquid methane/LOX shouldn't be an issue.

There are two kinds of gaseous propellant in a rocket: the kind you might want and the kind you don't. The kind you might want is what SpaceX is thinking of doing, pressurizing their tanks with some of the hot exhaust from their gas generators. i.e., a mixture of CO2 and H2O (the end products of the reaction that goes on in their engines) and unburnt methane (in the fuel tank, coming from the fuel preburner) OR excess O2 (in the oxidizer tank, coming from the oxidizer preburner). This is going to be there in Starship but can't be used for fueling the lunar landing thrusters A. because it's gaseous and you DON'T build a system that can only pump a gas when there's a liquid in the tank and B. because it's partly composed of things that aren't useful propellants anymore.

The kind you DON'T want is "ullage", where fuel or oxidizer evaporates to maintain vapor pressure over the propellant; for LOX boiling at the temperature of "very, very cold" this vapor pressure is fairly high and therefore a lot of the propellant tries to evaporate into the ullage. Methane is a bit better off but still has a high vapor pressure. This is why SpaceX wants to use autogenous pressurization; to keep pressure in their propellant tanks without having it all evaporate and be more difficult to handle.


The "regular engines" are still being used to change orbits, boost Starship into earth orbit after the first stage is exhausted, etc. They're not optional even if they're only necessary for the launch. The fuel tanks are carrying the propellants for every kind of thruster (attitude control, main propulsion, lunar landing) on the Starship, so they're not unnecessary. So Starship uses main propulsion to reach the Moon and then the specialized lunar landing thrusters to make the final descent and touchdown so as not to do exactly what Super Heavy just did to itself. But in all cases these thrusters are fueled by LIQUID propellants because pumps don't like to pump a mixture of gas and liquid propellant and liquids are denser, therefore you use liquid and actively try to avoid the gaseous propellants.


Sorry for the massive post but I like this stuff. And also I'm too tired to trim it down so have fun reading the disorganized thoughts of an exhausted madman :P
Logged
We shall make the highest quality of quality quantities of soldiers with quantities of quality.

jipehog

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Space Thread
« Reply #3374 on: April 22, 2023, 03:43:18 am »

Space is a pretty good insulator but starship is not, as evident by the condensation and ice patches forming immediately upon prop load, its tanks are the hull and a lot of heat is generated through radiation from the sun (on ISS sun side get up to 120c). So unless starship HLS tanks are designed with additional insulation and refrigeration equipment like for the planned orbital propellant depot (and I believe that Apollo had both with much smaller tanks inside) this 10 day journey would have a huge impact. Can't say more without seeing numbers.

How certain you are that co2 is pumped from exhaust? according to wikipidea Autogenous pressurization simply heats a small amount of propellant to maintain pressure.

Are we talking about these thrusters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines#Methox_thruster wouldn't these be strong enough to allow Starship landing/departure from the lunar surface and rendezvou with Orion ?

Sorry for the massive post but I like this stuff. And also I'm too tired to trim it down so have fun reading the disorganized thoughts of an exhausted madman :P

No need to, on the contrary I love these, and they are helping figure out stuff myself and I enjoy learning new things.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2023, 04:14:51 am by jipehog »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 223 224 [225] 226 227 ... 234