Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)
« Last post by Nemesis on March 20, 2024, 05:53:30 pm »
IFT4 now showing as April 2024 (no day of the month).  Lets see if the FAA will issue another license that quick.

Now showing as May 2024.  Either they expect delays due to needed modifications to address the issues revealed or more time for the FAA to be satisfied (maybe both).

I'm prone to be extremely critical of Musk, but I suppose "eventually" is key to that claim.  Saturn's LEO payload for the Apollo lunar missions was 140 tons for CM, LEM and fuel fifty years ago, so 200 tons seems doable.... eventually.

Don't forget that you lose a significant amount of payload by going for reusable.  Also potentially lowering cost/kg significantly. 

Musk might be well advised to keep the current size for rockets that need to be fully refueled in orbit and the larger size for orbital cargo and fuel deliveries.  200+ tons of fuel delivered by a V3 to a V2 configuration could refuel it in 6 missions (1200 tons fuel if dry).
2
Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)
« Last post by TAnimaL on March 20, 2024, 10:07:35 am »
I'm prone to be extremely critical of Musk, but I suppose "eventually" is key to that claim.  Saturn's LEO payload for the Apollo lunar missions was 140 tons for CM, LEM and fuel fifty years ago, so 200 tons seems doable.... eventually.
3
Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)
« Last post by Nemesis on March 16, 2024, 01:43:00 pm »
Musk gave a talk where he claims that Starship will (eventually) be able to deliver 200+ tons to LEO with full re-usability.  Is this Musk hyperbole or real?  How much with expending the second stage?  How much with expending both stages?

4
Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)
« Last post by Nemesis on March 15, 2024, 12:08:17 pm »
Relight did not occur.  It is unclear at this point whether that was a computer decision or a failure of the engines to relight.

The roll (not explained) caused the computer to not relight the engines.  It was not an engine failure but the roll itself is not explained.  It burned up during re-entry.

The booster not relighting properly seems to have it exploding at 460+ meters in altitude (not a flight termination as the explosives had been "safed"). 

Funny watching the naysayers ignore that their predicted failures didn't occur and target the goals not accomplished instead and predicting that this is the best that could happen in the future (just like they did after the 1st two flights). 

IFT4 now showing as April 2024 (no day of the month).  Lets see if the FAA will issue another license that quick.
5
General Starfleet Command Forum / Re: Happy BDay KF
« Last post by Bernard Guignard on March 15, 2024, 07:11:33 am »
Belated happy Birthday  ;D
6
Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)
« Last post by Nemesis on March 14, 2024, 09:35:41 am »
Launch occurred

33 engines for full duration

Successful hot staging separation

Booster did the initial relight after separation for boost back burn.

The relight for the "ocean landing" seems to have been at best partial.

Starship burn reached coast phase.

Pez doors did open.

Relight did not occur.  It is unclear at this point whether that was a computer decision or a failure of the engines to relight.

Re-entry seemed to be a tumble that could not be controlled.  Why is unclear.  Were all the flaps working correctly or not? 

During re-entry there was continued video through the Starlink system even with the tumble through the plasma that normally blocks transmissions. It is believed that the loss of transmission was due to it breaking up.  The video during plasma showed debris which might have been detaching heat tiles, ice or something else.

So a big leap ahead but not full success. 

On to IFT4.  How much it will be delayed is unclear. 

Still over all a big success. 

7
General Starfleet Command Forum / Re: Happy BDay KF
« Last post by Starfox1701 on March 13, 2024, 03:12:40 pm »
happy birthday
8
General Starfleet Command Forum / Happy BDay KF
« Last post by Captain Adam on March 13, 2024, 11:49:36 am »
Happy birthday bro, I hope you are doing well, healthy and wish you the best. May you have many many more!

Adam
9
Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)
« Last post by Nemesis on March 07, 2024, 12:58:22 pm »
Just seeing that IFT 3 is now listed as next Thursday morning.

They have done a wet dress rehearsal.  Fueling was done in something like 49 minutes and they think the upgrades that they have done will get that down to 42 minutes.  That is for BOTH stages at the same time. 
10
Engineering / Re: Interesting stuff about SpaceX Starship (hate the name)
« Last post by Nemesis on March 02, 2024, 01:31:09 pm »
Info on IFT2.  The booster explosion was due to a Raptor exploding as a result of insufficient oxygen flow through a filter.

The O2 dump from the Starship caused multiple explosions that seem to have severed sensor connections resulting in the engine shutdown. 

The recent lander on the moon that fell over landed off target on a 12 degree slope which probably contributed to it falling. 

The JAXA lunar lander that also landed badly but which had some solar power allowing it to complete some missions survived the lunar night (it wasn't designed to) and is back in communication and continuing to function. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10