|
I'm surprised they still had that much fuel in the tanks...
Still one step ahead |
Quite incredible images from LabPadre. It definately bounced on touchdown.
Hell of an achievement though. Just need to get some decent undercarriage. Mars won't be flat. |
|
"Well, I'm glad they got that out of the way..."
|
Elon had already stated the legs were rubbish...
|
Trajectory:
|
Most fascinating how they can manipulate their rockets. Even with an explosion here and there their progress is breathtaking. Seems to prove what even small companies with some bright minds and a lot of raw computing power can do these days - if they get the funding.
However it is a bit concerning to think about what this might mean for nuclear programs at other places? |
I don't get why the fixation on the legs. It seems obvious from the views that the fuel leak and fire existed before landing and that it sat percolating until it blew.
Our local news played it as a rounding success as it sat there with fire licking up its side as if it was meant to land that way. I did wonder how they would go bout fighting such a fire on-the-ground but I had visions that they might be busy calculating how much time they had left before the fuel was exhausted and it cooled down .... good move. I've been in situations where it seemed a good idea to go out for a beer and come back hours later to see if the building was still standing |
By way of context...Little things can have small beginnings..or to paraphrase for rocket science- very successful rocket programs frequently have explosive beginnings...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(rocket_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...7%E2%80%931959) https://www.vice.com/en/article/gvvm...xploding-glory |
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
(Post 11001808)
I don't get why the fixation on the legs. It seems obvious from the views that the fuel leak and fire existed before landing and that it sat percolating until it blew.
.... As a general comment, of course they do progress from one flight to another. But calling it great success appears too optimistic. Progress is obvious in the area of flight control, i.e. after some failures they put the "tube" on the pad accurately and softly. But at the expense of the whole machine itself. In "good old days" such costs would not be accepted, but as correctly mentioned above - if they have nearly endless funding, the rules of the game differ. Nevertheless, if this craft is supposed to launch many crew members and even "passengers", all those explosions raise quite some concern. If they transported only cargo and fuel, every second one could be lost if they can produce them so quickly. But the first explosion with humans will bury the programme along with its name. |
Hard to accept this as a failure. What is the current mission? I'd say the mission is to develop the technology. At this stage you learn more from a failure than a success. And each flight has had a different failure to learn from, along with some outstanding success.
|
Scott Manley has now done one of his excellent post flight videos.
|
Good analysis by Scott, as usual.
Another more critical take on it from the Angry Astronaut..... |
I haven't looked at the above videos but just seen this one with some excellent slow motion footage of the explosion!
|
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
(Post 11001808)
I don't get why the fixation on the legs. It seems obvious from the views that the fuel leak and fire existed before landing and that it sat percolating until it blew.
Our local news played it as a rounding success as it sat there with fire licking up its side as if it was meant to land that way. I did wonder how they would go bout fighting such a fire on-the-ground but I had visions that they might be busy calculating how much time they had left before the fuel was exhausted and it cooled down .... good move. I've been in situations where it seemed a good idea to go out for a beer and come back hours later to see if the building was still standing It was normal... The lack of at least two legs caused the leaks once the engine bay had been disrupted on shutdown... |
You can see it has 2 landing legs failed, specifically the one that should have touched first. Plus it was still descending far too fast. So a proper heavy landing. Cracks and damage expected. One more early model prototype to come. It will be interesting how SN15's legs are designed.
|
I can’t help thinking vertical landing is always going to have a high failure rate. Purely because the craft is descending into the exhaust heat, the rocket nozzles are cooled with liquid hydrogen the stresses must be colossal, controlling it all precisely for a gentle landing is asking a lot, very different to take off control.
|
The seem to have managed highly successfully for the Falcon 9.....
|
You beat me to it Orac. :ok:
|
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-sta...s-fan-renders/
SpaceX Starship landing leg upgrades imagined in new fan renders After new official Starship renders appeared to include the first view of an upgraded landing leg design, a SpaceX fan and digital artist took it upon themselves to sketch out what those new rocket legs might look like. For almost a full year, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has been talking about a need for upgraded Starship landing legs and the challenges posed by that seemingly straightforward goal. Now, after Starship SN10 narrowly became the first prototype to land in one piece, and do so in spite of malfunctioning legs, a new design capable of significantly improving reliability, stability, and toughness has likely become a front-and-center priority..... Notably, during SN10’s spectacular landing, at least two or three of the Starship’s six flip-out landing legs failed to properly deploy, leaving just a half to two thirds of the legs needed to fully withstand the momentum of a Starship landing. Starship SN10 didn’t make it easy on those remaining legs, either, and was still traveling at least 15-20 mph (6-8 m/s) at touchdown. As a result, Starship crushed those legs into oblivion, leaving the rocket more or less resting on its skirt with no more than a few inches of ground clearance, if anything. About eight minutes later, the prototype violently depressurized, producing a massive fireball as any remaining propellant flashed into gas and ignited. It’s unclear if that post-landing explosion was caused – in part or full – by SN10’s landing leg failures or if the rocket was more or less doomed before touchdown by some other technical bug. Regardless the flight test was still a spectacular and historic success for SpaceX, while simultaneously shedding light on shortcomings that can be addressed with Starship SN11 and beyond..... As it turns out, mere hours prior to Starship SN10’s successful launch, landing, and self-destruction, a series of new, official SpaceX renders released as part of an update for a private Starship launch around the Moon may have revealed the latest glimpse of an updated landing leg design. |
Originally Posted by Deltasierra010
(Post 11002434)
the rocket nozzles are cooled with liquid hydrogen the stresses must be colossal,
|
SN11 now on the launch pad. Cryo proof testing underway. Three Raptor engines already installed. They don;t mess about do they?
April 1st for next launch attempt? |
Fire at the construction site. No idea of any details yet.
|
Static fire Monday and flight test Wednesday or Thursday, lets hope for the best!
|
Successful static fire yesterday. About 6 mins into this vid.
|
SpaceX has cancelled two potential launch dates for its Starship SN11 spacecraft.
The next prototype of its Mars-bound craft is already on the launchpad at SpaceX’s Boca Chica facility in Texas, with road closures in the surrounding area originally scheduled for every day this week. Cameron County updated its public notice listings of temporary closures relating to SpaceX on Wednesday, cancelling closures for both Wednesday 24 March and Thursday 25 March, and removing the closure listed for Friday. Starship testing does not take place on weekends, meaning if Friday’s closure is also cancelled then the earliest launch will be Monday 29 March. SpaceX is yet to give a reason for the cancellations and typically does not announce Starship tests until less than an hour before they take place, when they post a live stream of the launchpad to Twitter and YouTube. A static fire test was completed on Monday, however there are a variety of factors that need to line up before a launch can take place. This includes regulatory approval from the FAA, favourable weather conditions, hardware preparations, as well as the local road closures. Depending on the success of the SN11 test, SpaceX is aiming to conduct the first ever orbital flight of the rocket before 1 July.... |
Possible launch today, Static Fire first.
NSF has just gone live on YouTube
https://youtu.be/JJXEq9IX1To |
SpaceX confirmation. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship/index.html
Static Fire was completed successfully 8:09 CDT 13:09 UTC today. Village residents evacuated by 12:00 CDT for a possible launch. |
Today's launch scrubbed due to Wx: fog and visibility.
- Ed |
Elon tweeted
Standing down SN11 until probably Monday. Additional checkouts are needed. Doing our best to land & fully recover. |
Is this just weather related or did something go wrong at the static fire?
|
|
Its been scrubbed for today as the relevant FAA official who was supposed to be on site couldn't get their in time. I would imagine that Musk is pretty angry about that.
|
Launch was a success but SN11 either exploded, or was destroyed using the destruct mechanism, during engine restart at the end of the belly flop manoeuvre.
Everyday Astronaut seem to have lost most of their camera equipment as large chunks fell on and around them... |
|
Some better views here. Debris field is quite widespread, must have been pretty high when it blew.
|
Very interesting.
Maybe a need for a redesign ? |
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021...aptor-testing/
Starship SN15 prepares to rollout as Raptor testing ups a gear Just days after Starship SN11 conducted a fog-cloaked test flight that ended in an explosive finale, SN15 is already in final preparations for a rollout down Highway 4 at SpaceX Starbase (Boca Chica). SN15 will sport numerous modifications that SpaceX hopes will result in improved performance ahead of shooting for orbit along with smoother touchdowns for its prototype rocket. One of the mostly unspecified modifications involves the engines, which are being aided by an increased test cadence at SpaceX’s McGregor test site. The center is currently constructing two additional vertical Raptor test stands to increase throughput. SN11 was the most dramatic ending to a Starship prototype flight to date, albeit without any cameras catching the explosion due to thick fog in the region. When SpaceX’s onboard feed froze, SN11 was moving toward the flip and landing burn of its three Raptors. NASASpaceflight.com’s Livestream audio caught the sound engine relight, quickly followed by the explosive boom and pieces of SN11 raining down on the launch site. Every other stage of flight, including the ascent and the bellyflop return, matched the successes of SN8 through SN10. While it was later noted that one engine struggled during the ascent, the vehicle achieved its test objectives heading toward the landing burn. While online rumors have ranged from issues relating to the Flight Termination System’s triggering (FTS) through to the CH4 (Liquid Methane) Header Tank exploding, it was understood the likely cause was an explosive engine failure during the re-light process that destroyed the vehicle. Nothing could be confirmed until Elon Musk or SpaceX release the official cause of the vehicle returning to the launch site in pieces, conclusions that were expected per Elon’s surprising and refreshing transparency with the test program. That came on Monday when Elon tweeted: “Ascent phase, transition to horizontal & control during free fall were good. A (relatively) small CH4 leak led to fire on engine 2 & fried part of avionics, causing hard start attempting landing burn in CH4 turbopump. This is getting fixed 6 ways to Sunday.”...... SN15 SN15 rolled from the Mid Bay to the High Bay during the week, ahead of receiving its Nosecone, which has since been mated to the stack. It will make the trip down Highway 4 as early as Monday, once the impressive Liebherr LR1600/2 Crawler Crane (dubbed “Tankzilla”) has made the trip for the task of raising SN15 on the launch mount. This vehicle marks the second phase of testing for the full-stack Starship prototypes ahead of pushing on to the orbital vehicles, which is expected to open with the SN20 vehicle – as previously reported by NASASpaceFlight.com. “Next major technology rev is at SN20. Those ships will be orbit-capable with heat shield & stage separation system. Ascent success probability is high. However, SN20+ vehicles will probably need many flight attempts to survive Mach 25 entry heating & land intact.”...... BN1-3 Although Elon confirmed the orbital attempt would be as reported, with SN20 and Super Heavy BN3, the claimed target date of “by July” was always highly ambitious. The likelihood BN3 will be the Super Heavy to conduct the flight is also subject to change. This ever-evolving plan was confirmed when Elon noted BN1 won’t even undergo testing at the suborbital site and will be scrapped. Currently stacked in the High Bay, BN1 was never going to hop. However, it was expected to be proof tested – and at one point was potentially Static Fired with a couple of Raptors. While SpaceX may take the opportunity to test how to roll such a tall booster down Highway 4, it appears likely the pathfinder will likely be scrapped at the Production Site. “BN1 is a manufacturing pathfinder, so will be scrapped. We learned a lot, but have already changed design to BN2,” Elon noted, with the design change likely to be related to the position of the LOX and CH4 tanks in the stack. Amazingly, Elon added that SpaceX aims to complete the stacking of the BN2 Super Heavy booster – which is currently in sections outside the High Bay, in time to rollout and lifted on to the yet-to-be-completed Orbital Launch Site mount in a matter of weeks. “Goal is to get BN2 with engines on orbital pad before end of April. It might even be orbit-capable if we are lucky,” Elon added, with “orbit-capable” a highly surprising statement given his initial note about the first test of a Super Heavy originally being a 150-meter hop. However, whenever there is doubt in ambitious Starship schedule goals, the Production Site is on hand to add some realism via its incredible cadence. Even BN3 sections have already been spotted by Mary (@bocachicagal)..... |
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-sta...storage-tanks/
SpaceX is building launch pad tanks out of Starship parts and that’s a big deal SpaceX has begun installing the first of numerous propellant storage tanks at its first orbital South Texas launch facilities – a mostly ordinary and expected step made extraordinary by the fact that those tanks will be built out of Starship parts. Labeled “GSE” for Ground Support Equipment, the first signs of those self-built storage tanks began appearing at SpaceX’s Boca Chica Starship factory less than two months ago in mid-February. A matter of weeks later, the first of those SpaceX-brand cryogenic storage tanks is off to the launch site for installation (and insulation) while at least two more tanks are well on their way to completion. While a few ground starge tanks may look like a distraction in the scope of a program tasked with building the world’s largest (and fully reusable) rocket, the existence of those tanks is far more significant than it might initially appear. Simply put, rocket propellant storage – even for extremely cold cryogenic liquids like those that SpaceX uses – is a thoroughly solved problem. Numerous commercial vendors exist and industrial demand for practically identical tanks is far higher, further lowering commercial tank costs even for those with niche use-cases thanks to economies of scale. For SpaceX’s purposes, major discounts could like be secured given that the company would need to purchase around three to four-dozen commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 100,000 gallon tanks to supply a launch pad with enough commodities for two back-to-back launches of Starship and Super Heavy. That initial launch capability – which SpaceX appears to be working towards – would likely allow the company to start orbital refueling test flights (and Starlink launches, perhaps) immediately after completion. However, that initial capability wouldn’t suffice for ambitious missions to Mars, the Moon, or higher Earth orbits; where one Starship would need to be rapidly refueled with 3-10+ tanker launches. A launch facility capable of supporting 5-10 back-to-back launches (optimally just a few hours apart) would require many times more propellant storage. The point is that for the initial target of two (or so) launches between commodity resupply, SpaceX could likely acquire the few dozen new storage tanks it would need for a few million dollars apiece for a total cost likely between $50M and $100M. Instead, SpaceX has decided to design and build its own propellant storage tanks. Even more significantly, the GSE tanks SpaceX has already begun building appear to be virtually identical to Starships. In other words, SpaceX is effectively taking identical rocket parts, slightly tweaking a handful of those parts, and turning what could have been a rocket into a propellant storage tank. This is significant because relative to all other rockets in history, even including SpaceX’s own Falcon 9 and Heavy, building storage tanks with unchanged rocket parts on a rocket assembly line would be roughly akin to hiring Vincent van Gogh to paint lane lines. Ever since Elon Musk made the radical decision to switch from composite structures to stainless steel, Starship has always aimed to be radicallydifferent than any large rocket before it. Crucially, by using commodity steel, the CEO imagined SpaceX would be able to build Starships fairly easily and for pennies on the dollar next to even SpaceX’s exceptionally affordable Falcon 9. In the last 18 months, it’s become apparent that SpaceX has built a factory capable of churning out one or two massive steel rockets per month and is willing to consign at least four or five of those Starship prototypes to all-but-guaranteed failures for the sake of data-gathering and iterative improvement. Technically, the most logical conclusion would be that Musk was right and that SpaceX has quickly developed the ability to build steel rockets larger than any other launch vehicle on Earth for perhaps just $5M or less apiece. However, SpaceX is also raising on the order of $1-2B in venture capital annually, so they could technically afford to shoulder the cost of extremely expensive Starship prototypes if the company was confident that there was a path to cut those costs and reach the targets needed for the rocket to make economical sense. Now, the existence of self-built propellant storage tanks virtually identical to flightworthy Starship airframes all but guarantees that SpaceX is already building Starships for a few million dollars each – and possibly much less. More than a year ago, Musk said that SpaceX was already building the Raptor engines that will power Starship and Super Heavy for less than $1M apiece and was working to mass-produce a simpler variant for less than $250,000. Beyond engines and primary structures, Starship hardware is fairly simple and ranges from Tesla-derived motors, basic flaps, and landing legs to off-the-shelf pressure vessels (COPVs) and wiring. SpaceX has managed that extraordinary cost-efficiency despite the fact that Boca Chica is still nowhere close to the level of volume production Musk is aiming for, meaning that there are still far more efficiencies waiting to be realized...... |
Thanks for the update Orac. I watched that tank being stacked and secured on site. I did wonder why they were building their own.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:20. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.