SpaceX (general discussion)

Josh_TN said:
MihoshiK said:
Josh_TN said:
Apparently the header tank wasn't providing enough pressure which starved the engines during landing. But that's a relatively minor thing; the belly flop and aerodynamic control during freefall was amazing, along with the pull up and relight. They are like 90% of the way there in terms of controlling the re-entry and landing. Also the ship seemed to just hover with a bit of down range slide in a completely stable vertical maneuver under the power of a single engine for like a minute before the turn over. Their ability to make that ship move through complicated shifts in alignment is awesome; it really is a step above the Phalcon 9 re-entries.
Click to expand...
Also looks like the landing legs never deployed, and those also take up a lot of the landing shock. Oh well, for most of it's flight it was frankly amazing. That bellyflop tho, that happened right quickly. Wonder how that would feel to a crew.
Click to expand...

In an actually re-entry from space I don't think it would use that maneuver; I think it will set it's angle on a glide slope not unlike the space shuttle. I think that maneuver was necessary for the test to demonstrate the aerodynamics of the aero breaking maneuver and the transition to full vertical for the retro landing.
Click to expand...
Nope. That’s the manoeuvre they’ll be using when it comes back from space.
 
I think what could happend
After Shutdown of frist Raptor were was a fire in Engine bay
Then SN8 start emit white smoke, were i recall is feed line imput for Propellant
Can it be that reason for pressure drop in LCH4 tanks
since last raptor had LOX for "engine rich combustion"

best Video on SN08
Our Scott Lowther has diabolical fun on SN8 test flight
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFDOzfMUtA&feature=emb_logo
 
Last edited:
Michel Van said:
I think what could happend
After Shutdown of frist Raptor were was a fire in Engine bay
Then SN8 start emit white smoke, were i recall is feed line imput for Propellant
Can it be that reason that pressure drop in header tanks ?

best Video on SN08
Our Scott Lowther has diabolical fun on SN8 test flight
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFDOzfMUtA&feature=emb_logo
Click to expand...
Elon has been extremely clear that the Raptors performed nominally. The crash was not caused by them purely it seems by a drop in pressure in the header thank.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1336990982923927553
View: https://twitter.com/infographictony/status/1336990982923927553


Congratulations Elon and TeamSpaceX on the successful historic launch of Starship SN8. Here is my step-by-step infographic of how the events play out. Bring on SN9. For larger free version go to http://www.tonybela.com/
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1336991392711598083
View: https://twitter.com/infographictony/status/1336991392711598083


Alternative non-retro colored version.
Click to expand...
 
French newsreels are hardly better - two days ago when the scrubb happened, I saw a "SpaceX giant rocket fails its flight" headline.
 
Sending a message I believe.

The timing of all this is good for SpaceX. This month, SpaceX—along with teams led by Blue Origin and Dynetics—is submitting proposals to develop a Human Landing System for NASA's Artemis Program to land humans on the Moon. The space agency will select one, or at most two, companies to proceed with a development contract worth billions of dollars.
Click to expand...

arstechnica.com

So, it turns out SpaceX is pretty good at rocketing

“Congrats SpaceX team hell yeah!!”
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
 
Flyaway said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1337417530898604035
View: https://twitter.com/austinbarnard45/status/1337417530898604035


Seems like the stand SN9 was on COLLAPSED and the only thing that saved StarShip from falling over was the highbay, hopefully no one was hurt or injured!
(Video credit: @LabPadre)
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1337417678743629825
View: https://twitter.com/spacepadreisle/status/1337417678743629825
Click to expand...

I wonder what caused the stand to collapse that SN9 was sitting on? It will be interesting to see what Elon Musk has to say about this after occurring only days after the explosion of SN8 while attempting to land.
 
Josh_TN said:
Any word on damage?
Click to expand...
Official word? No. SpaceX watchers have noted damage to the skirt and both fins on one side, plus a dent or two on the nose. There is not yet evidence of anything like serious structural buckling or cracking.

Updated with a correction about fin damage.
 
Last edited:
Eo6bPRVWEAAoXWp


You maniacs ! You blew it up ! Ah, damn you ! God damn you all to hell !

(sorry, couldn't resist)
 
Flyaway said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1338204207153893379
View: https://twitter.com/spxadrian/status/1338204207153893379


SN9 appears to have taken some damage from the tilt but she is back up right and still attached to Tankzilla
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1338205469798768641
View: https://twitter.com/spxadrian/status/1338205469798768641


The rest of SN9 seems to be ok but still not confirmed, hopefully she only got a couple scrapes and bruises
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I would be pleasantly surprised if the skirt (where the base of the vehicle interfaces with the stand) didn't get wrinkled. The asymmetric compression and sheer at the base put the stringers and other structural elements to the test! Any word on how things in the engine-bay held up? Were the Raptors in place when things got silly?
 
Very surprising to see such complex system just tilting without any particular reason ..
 
FighterJock said:
Flyaway said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1337417530898604035
View: https://twitter.com/austinbarnard45/status/1337417530898604035


Seems like the stand SN9 was on COLLAPSED and the only thing that saved StarShip from falling over was the highbay, hopefully no one was hurt or injured!
(Video credit: @LabPadre)
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1337417678743629825
View: https://twitter.com/spacepadreisle/status/1337417678743629825
Click to expand...

I wonder what caused the stand to collapse that SN9 was sitting on? It will be interesting to see what Elon Musk has to say about this after occurring only days after the explosion of SN8 while attempting to land.
Click to expand...
Why would one have anything to do with the other? And the "explosion" was almost a non-issue when weighed against their expectations for that flight. While I'm sure, given the choice, he'd have rather they stuck the landing but, all things considered, I doubt he's losing any sleep over it. SN9 on the other hand. Someone needs a visit to the woodshed over that.
 
DSC_1730 (2).JPG

SN9 appears to be in decent condition other than the obvious damage to the flaps; there's some minor warping ('dents') on the tanks, but those don't appear all that worse than what we've already seen on previous prototypes and they should disappear once the vehicle is pressurised.

The bigger concern in my mind is the flap mounting points; the forward flap attachment points and 2/3 attachment points for the rear flaps (including where the actuator attaches) are welded into non-pressurised sections, so they can go nuts with welding reinforcement plates or whatever if any steel has cracked / torn, but the lower flaps do have their upper attachment point welded onto the LOX tank, so that'll need careful inspection. The actuators (specifically their mounts and gearboxes) could possibly also need repairs, though they are required to resist meganewton-metre class torques, so perhaps they'll still be okay here.
 
merriman said:
Flyaway said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1338204207153893379
View: https://twitter.com/spxadrian/status/1338204207153893379


SN9 appears to have taken some damage from the tilt but she is back up right and still attached to Tankzilla
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1338205469798768641
View: https://twitter.com/spxadrian/status/1338205469798768641


The rest of SN9 seems to be ok but still not confirmed, hopefully she only got a couple scrapes and bruises
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I would be pleasantly surprised if the skirt (where the base of the vehicle interfaces with the stand) didn't get wrinkled. The asymmetric compression and sheer at the base put the stringers and other structural elements to the test! Any word on how things in the engine-bay held up? Were the Raptors in place when things got silly?
Click to expand...
The Raptors had been installed when it had its incident.
 
SN9 looks like it might be off to the launch pad later in the week if for no other reason than to move it out of the way of the Starships behind it.
 
I wonder if they can't just pull the flaps off one of the other ones in building to effect repairs more quickly?
 
Josh_TN said:
I wonder if they can't just pull the flaps off one of the other ones in building to effect repairs more quickly?
Click to expand...
I imagine that's the plan, or at least pull them from the flaps destined for a future SN, unless their iterative build program has somehow made the SN10+ flaps incompatible.
 
Josh_TN said:
I wonder if they can't just pull the flaps off one of the other ones in building to effect repairs more quickly?
Click to expand...
If they can weld an entire nose cone onto the rocket on the launch pad, they should be able swap two bent fins.
 
Also the outter fin shape isn't of that much importance for the low speed flight. I underdtand that it was specified here that the attachement mechanism is the point of concern but an empty Starship tip over with moderate angle should not overload such part (think at the dynamics pressure involved during the flight).

Also a beautiful video mix of all previous footage:

Watch SpaceX's Starship SN8 do a wild landing flip and then explode in this awesome video | Space

www-space-com.cdn.ampproject.org www-space-com.cdn.ampproject.org
 
With the changes in road closure dates it now appears that SN9 will not now be rolling out to the launch pad this week but rather after Christmas instead. I suspect that means we will not see it launch until January.
 
​
Starship launch

SpaceX’s Starship SN8 vehicle lifts off from the company’s South Texas test site December 9. (credit: SpaceX)

Starship contradictions​

by Jeff Foust
Monday, December 14, 2020​

Comments (35)
Bookmark and Share

Can a launch that ends in a spectacular explosion be considered a success? Can a company be hailed for being open when it is also far from transparent about its work? Can a development program be described as proceeding at breakneck speed while also being well behind schedule?
Click to expand...
 
The framing of this article sounds like it's trying to generate controversy where there is none:

"SpaceX has kept many details about Starship testing close to the vest. While many reports stated that the vehicle flew to an altitude of 12.5 kilometers on last week’s flight, that was simply the planned altitude for the test. SpaceX hasn’t disclosed exactly high it flew. It also didn’t release a flight profile, as it does with Falcon 9 launches, thus we can’t compare the flight we saw with what the company planned. For example, did the Raptor engines shut down during the vehicle’s ascent according to plan, or for other reasons? The company’s webcast appears to show a brief fire in the engine bay after the first engine shut down, which, at the very least, seems undesirable."

1. SpaceX has no obligation to publicize anything. 2. It's perfectly obvious they intended to shut engines down to keep the speed down. They've even said as much. 3. The "brief fire in the engine bay" was methane remnants burning after planned engine shut down. I would have expected more from a dedicated space site. Alas.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom